# Rant on horrible music and composers



## pileofsticks

Ok, I really have to get this out.

We were in music history class today, and we talked about composers from 1870ish-1930ish. I have a huge list of composers that I honestly can't stand. And it's big.

I have to start off by saying that most of the avant-grade composers are just horrible. Horrible, horrible, horrible.

---

I'm the new principal bassoonist (promotion! ) of a youth symphony orchestra... but I have to say that Stravinsky is a crazy a$$ b1***. Let's start off with the Rite of Spring. Why the heck is it so high? Weirdest rhythms ever! Atonality! Never really follows the key signature! 

Next up has to be Ives. I honestly think that his main purpose was to **** off the people who were forced to play his pieces by making them subdivide triplets within triplets within triplets... with notes that don't even match.

My biggest pet peeve has to be Schoenberg. Atonality is honestly the worst thing that has happened to the world of music. I'm guessing that he got bored and splattered ink on a piece of paper, added flats and sharps, and VOILA, YOU HAVE "MUSIC".

Anything minimalistic/expressionist is horrible too. If I ever go to a performance of John Cage's 4'33", I'll honestly spark a riot. Philip Glass's music is ear torture.

If people are gonna make new music, then why not make it sound good?


----------



## Cosmos

I can't tell if this is a joke or not


----------



## julianoq

I am glad that you is currently on a *youth* symphony orchestra. I hope that a few more years will give you at least some politeness so you can better express your discontentment!


----------



## Morimur

pileofsticks said:


> Ok, I really have to get this out.
> 
> We were in music history class today, and we talked about composers from 1870ish-1930ish. I have a huge list of composers that I honestly can't stand. And it's big.
> 
> I have to start off by saying that most of the avant-grade composers are just horrible. Horrible, horrible, horrible.
> 
> ---
> 
> I'm the new principal bassoonist (promotion! ) of a youth symphony orchestra... but I have to say that Stravinsky is a crazy a$$ b1***. Let's start off with the Rite of Spring. Why the heck is it so high? Weirdest rhythms ever! Atonality! Never really follows the key signature!
> 
> Next up has to be Ives. I honestly think that his main purpose was to **** off the people who were forced to play his pieces by making them subdivide triplets within triplets within triplets... with notes that don't even match.
> 
> My biggest pet peeve has to be Schoenberg. Atonality is honestly the worst thing that has happened to the world of music. I'm guessing that he got bored and splattered ink on a piece of paper, added flats and sharps, and VOILA, YOU HAVE "MUSIC".
> 
> Anything minimalistic/expressionist is horrible too. If I ever go to a performance of John Cage's 4'33", I'll honestly spark a riot. Philip Glass's music is ear torture.
> 
> If people are gonna make new music, then why not make it sound good?


What do you like?


----------



## pileofsticks

I'm a really huge fan of Romantic and Classical. Up the melodies and themes and the climaxes call really get to me; they're the reason that I'm a huge fan of classical music. When I was like 10 I thought that classical music was rubbish and that trashy hip-hop was the way to go, and I only realized how pretty everything was and how genius the composers were by pouring their feelings into music like Russia's triumph in the 1812 Overture. It's all pretty to me.


----------



## pileofsticks

When I learned of the avant-garde ways of the "new" composers, it made me very angry. I felt like they were spoiling what music was. I mean, it still fits the definition of "sound organized in time", but I honestly thought it was folly and was made fun of real music like "It's Gon Rain" (a loop of a pastor screaming about armageddon).


----------



## Morimur

pileofsticks said:


> I'm a really huge fan of Romantic and Classical. Up the melodies and themes and the climaxes call really get to me; they're the reason that I'm a huge fan of classical music. When I was like 10 I thought that classical music was rubbish and that trashy hip-hop was the way to go, and I only realized how pretty everything was and how genius the composers were by pouring their feelings into music like Russia's triumph in the 1812 Overture. It's all pretty to me.


Your taste in Classical is quite conservative and there's nothing wrong with that. That you gave up on 'trashy hip-hop' is a victory in of itself considering how young you probably are.


----------



## aleazk

pileofsticks said:


> When I learned of the avant-garde ways of the "new" composers, it made me very angry. I felt like they were spoiling what music was. I mean, it still fits the definition of "sound organized in time", but I honestly thought it was folly and was made fun of real music like "It's Gon Rain" (a loop of a pastor screaming about armageddon).


From the same composer:

-New York Counterpoint

-Variations for Vibes, Pianos & Strings

I would rather listen to those pieces instead of the 1812 Overture to be honest.


----------



## PetrB

So, read any good books lately? See any good movies? Any of that made after 1890?

Ha, haaaa, haaaaaa, haaaaaaaaa.


----------



## Brad

I'm seventeen and don't really understand much twentieth century music. I think it just takes time to find the meaning. But I do agree that it can be very frustrating listening to music that I can't connect with in any way. I would say never expect to understand a piece of music until you've listened to it at least ten times.


----------



## mmsbls

I never reacted quite the way you do to modern music, but there was a time when I did not like any Stravinsky, I thought Ives was a bit scary, and Schoenberg sounded like random pitches. I generally liked some of Glass's works even from the beginning. 

Now I truly love some of Stravinsky's works (The Rite, Violin Concerto, Dumbarton Oaks Concerto, Symphony of Psalms...), think Ives has some great works (symphonies, Central park in the Dark), and love several of Schoenberg's works (Verklarte Nacht, Chamber Symphony 1 and 2, Quartets 1 and 3). 

You may never like any of those composers, but many people were in a very similar place to where you are now. Some of them have just listened to a lot of new music and eventually found that they came to appreciate it.


----------



## Katie

You're in for a lifetime of torment if every punch that falls well short of the end of your nose is going to cause such indignation...and I say ******** to your assessment of Le Sacre du Printemps; not only was it a remarkably courageous, visionary, and profound challenge to staid convention, but it's avant-garde construction of dissonance, metre, tonality, and rhythm create an inimitable portrait of - or better yet, journey through - Spring's cyclical power of growth, rebirth, renewal, and redemption, yet also the inevitable sacrifice and decay that texture our glorious, short-lived corporeal existence. /kat


----------



## neoshredder

pileofsticks said:


> I'm a really huge fan of Romantic and Classical. Up the melodies and themes and the climaxes call really get to me; they're the reason that I'm a huge fan of classical music. When I was like 10 I thought that classical music was rubbish and that trashy hip-hop was the way to go, and I only realized how pretty everything was and how genius the composers were by pouring their feelings into music like Russia's triumph in the 1812 Overture. It's all pretty to me.


Don't forget Baroque.


----------



## SimonNZ

How provocative and upsetting this OP is... *yawn*

seriously now: this is the same person logging in under four or five usernames, isn't it?


----------



## arpeggio

*One Bassoonist to Another*

As a sixty-seven year old bassoonist I can tell you I did not get atonal music until I was in my fifties.

As far as the _Right of Spring_ is concerned, with your attitude if you want to be a pro forget it. The Stadio contains most of the standard bassoon excerpts that all bassoonist must know, including _The Right_. It is missing a few like the _Sorcerer's Apprentice_. All bassoonists in every symphony orchestra is expected to know how to play _The Right of Spring_. If you have aspirations of being a pro, get use to having to play what you hate. I have lost track of all of the garbage I have had to play in my life.


----------



## Guest

pileofsticks said:


> Ok, I really have to get this out.


No, really. You did not.

What do you hope to accomplish with this screed?

Will music of over a hundred years old suddenly go away because you have vented about it?

Will people who love this music feel better after reading your rant?

Do you even feel better? Nothing's going to change as a result, so I'm guessing the answer to this question is "no."

Your disliking something does not make it horrible, just by the way.


----------



## arpeggio

*Christmas Gigs*

I think pileofsticks (neat moniker for a bassoonist) needs to hear a story about my youngest son.

He is a music teacher and a freelance bass player in Los Angeles. He has a jazz quartet that plays in the various clubs around LA. During the Christmas season their agent books them to play Christmas Music in the various malls around LA. At one of their gigs their regular tenor sax player could not make it. The agent hired a substitute.

The substitute sax player shows up while they are setting up and asks my son what they were going to be playing.

My son responded the usual Christmas stuff: "Jingle Bells, "Silent Night", "Deck them Halls", _etc._. The sax player responded, "Man I don't want to play that stuff."

My son responded, "We are getting paid $2,000 to play this gig. We can split the money four ways or three. It is up to you."

So the sax player took our his horn and played "Jingle Bells, "Silent Night", "Deck them Halls", _etc._.


----------



## KenOC

A possible quote for this thread? "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." --Abraham Lincoln


----------



## hpowders

Lope de Aguirre said:


> What do you like?


Pabst Blue Ribbon.


----------



## hpowders

Bassoon players that have the talent to play Le Sacre du Printemps or Ives 4th Symphony do just that. They have no reason to be frustrated and displace their hostility onto the composers. :lol:


----------



## PetrB

Poor lamb, having managed to escape all the evils of the ugly art, music, and literature and all other inventions of the last one hundred and twenty-four years from intruding upon an ever so peaceful, harmonious and melodic life, then only to have that all thrust upon him at once as a bassoonist in a youth orchestra.

Oh, _the humanity!_


----------



## aleazk

pileofsticks said:


> but I have to say that Stravinsky is a crazy a$$ b1***. Let's start off with the Rite of Spring. Why the heck is it so high? Weirdest rhythms ever! Atonality! Never really follows the key signature!


I can only feel pity for someone incapable of getting one of the most trascendental pieces of art music ever composed. It's only _their_ loss after all...


----------



## neoshredder

The best thing to do is just appreciate the music you like and not dwell on the stuff you don't.


----------



## Neo Romanza

The only thing a person should keep in mind here is that this member is young and new to classical music. Like the seasons of the year, tastes change. Give it time and one, two, three years from now this member will be wondering what possessed them to even create this thread.


----------



## PetrB

Cosmos said:


> I can't tell if this is a joke or not


I think it is earnest, but then it is a sort of inadvertent joke, the butt of which is better not named


----------



## science

I can understand the OP's feelings because that's how I feel about most new country. But I can't understand feeling that way about Stravinsky. Poor guy! But love what you love without disparaging what other people love. If you insist on insulting the music that other people love, all you accomplish is to reinforce the mutual scornfest that cluster-ruins the whole classical music scene.

Do be above that.


----------



## BurningDesire

pileofsticks said:


> When I learned of the avant-garde ways of the "new" composers, it made me very angry. I felt like they were spoiling what music was. I mean, it still fits the definition of "sound organized in time", but I honestly thought it was folly and was made fun of real music like "It's Gon Rain" (a loop of a pastor screaming about armageddon).


Cause you know, how dare artists do interesting or new things! Don't they understand they're supposed to make music that people like to listen to already? Freakin stupid artists.


----------



## arpeggio

*Musicians Obligations*

As a performing musician the point has nothing to do with whether or not the young man likes _The Rite of Spring_. This work is part of the orchestral repertoire and all musicians have know how to play it whether they like it or not.

When you play in an orchestra you have an obligation to play whatever is in the music folder irregardless if it is Leroy Anderson, Beethoven or Berg. If you have to play music you despise, you do not have the option to change the radio station or turn off the stereo. One has to play the music and do the best job they can. For every Mahler one has to play a Mancini. If he wants to be a successful member of an orchestra this is a lesson he has to learn. I know I had to learn it.

I played with a volunteer orchestra where we had a bassoonist who was one of the biggest snobs I have ever met. He was a nice guy, but if the music was not Beethoven like it was manure. Well we occasionally play pops concerts. When we did he complained about how horrible the music was. Finally the director had had enough. He told the man that we play all sorts of music. Since he can not handle the pop stuff he would have to leave.

One day pileofsticks may have to play _The Rite_. If he does not like it and does a poor job of performing it, he will be out of a job. He is competing with too many bassoonists who like _The Rite_ and know how to play it.


----------



## PetrB

pileofsticks said:


> ... but I have to say that Stravinsky is a crazy a$$ b1***. Let's start off with the Rite of Spring. Why the heck is it so high? Weirdest rhythms ever! Atonality! Never really follows the key signature!


Stravinsky, in most textbooks, music history books and music encyclopedias, is considered "The Bach of the 20th Century."

You might have to learn to just deal with it


----------



## trazom

KenOC said:


> A possible quote for this thread? "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." --Abraham Lincoln


I thought that quote was from Mark Twain


----------



## KenOC

Most sources seem to attribute it to Lincoln, a few to Clemens. None cite a source.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> A possible quote for this thread? "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." --Abraham Lincoln





trazom said:


> I thought that quote was from Mark Twain


Probably neither.

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/17/remain-silent/


----------



## BurningDesire

PetrB said:


> Stravinsky, in most textbooks, music history books and music encyclopedias, is considered "The Bach of the 20th Century."
> 
> You might have to learn to just deal with it


I prefer to think of Bach as the Stravinsky of the 1700s :3


----------



## PetrB

BurningDesire said:


> I prefer to think of Bach as the Stravinsky of the 1700s :3


If time "ran backwards," Guillaume de Machaut could be the Stravinsky of the 1300's.


----------



## BurningDesire

PetrB said:


> If time "ran backwards," Guillaume de Machaut could be the Stravinsky of the 1300's.


:3 and Mozart was the Justin Beiber of the 1700s


----------



## violadude

BurningDesire said:


> :3 and Mozart was the Justin Beiber of the 1700s











:angel: ..................


----------



## PetrB

The trouble with internet postings, and their very long shelf-life, is that what one says as a young and relatively green performer can years later come back at them in the middle of a later successful career.

Just imagine twenty years from now, the OP confronted with this text written here, with, "But, here, you said...." :lol:...:lol:...:lol:...


----------



## PetrB

Check out _this_ Stravinsky piece, in his Neoclassical style: 
*Octet for wind instruments* (flute; clarinet in B♭ and A; *two bassoons*; trumpet in C; trumpet in A; tenor trombone; bass trombone)

_Great bassoon parts!_


----------



## Taggart

pileofsticks said:


> Ok, I really have to get this out.
> 
> We were in music history class today, and we talked about composers from 1870ish-1930ish. I have a huge list of composers that I honestly can't stand. And it's big.
> 
> <snip>


Well, if you will listen to music after 1750, what can you expect? Simplest thing is to find a nice Baroque group and a proper bassoon and play some proper music:










Either that or accept that if you want to be a professional musician, you have to play what's on the desk.


----------



## PetrB

Taggart said:


> Well, if you will listen to music after 1750, what can you expect? Simplest thing is to find a nice Baroque group and a proper bassoon and play some proper music:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either that or accept that if you want to be a professional musician, you have to play what's on the desk.


Of course if you go for broke and become a Baroque repertoire specialist, you don't get hired to play the part in all the later classical and romantic repertoire, either!

At some point, preferably sooner than later, every musician in training should begin to accommodate the principle that _they exist to serve music, and not the other way around, period,_ That idea of playing "only what you like" or "only what you want" is for the hobbyist working on their own... not for a musician who in training, or later, is expected and required to play all sorts of music. In training, you are constantly confronted with those 'next pieces' which are a reach and climb up the musical and technical ladder.

That part about on your own and as you like it does not work for many professional instrumentalists other than pianists and organists; even then, you are shooting yourself in the foot if you are avoiding repertoire which pulls in the audiences, and Stravinsky (astonishing to think of for some, it seems) does pull in the audiences


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Taggart said:


>


Wow, Taggart - I imagined that you were a touch older than that :lol:


----------



## BurningDesire

PetrB said:


> Of course if you go for broke and become a Baroque repertoire specialist, you don't get hired to play the part in all the later classical and romantic repertoire, either!
> 
> At some point, preferably sooner than later, every musician in training should begin to accommodate the principle that _they exist to serve music, and not the other way around, period,_ That idea of playing "only what you like" or "only what you want" is for the hobbyist working on their own... not for a musician who in training, or later, is expected and required to play all sorts of music. In training, you are constantly confronted with those 'next pieces' which are a reach and climb up the musical and technical ladder.
> 
> That part about on your own and as you like it does not work for many professional instrumentalists other than pianists and organists; even then, you are shooting yourself in the foot if you are avoiding repertoire which pulls in the audiences, and Stravinsky (astonishing to think of for some, it seems) does pull in the audiences


or you can learn to be a rock or jazz musician, we get to play what we want :3 but you also better be prepared to compose cause thats another thing we do~


----------



## PetrB

BurningDesire said:


> or you can learn to be a rock or jazz musician, we get to play what we want :3 but you also better be prepared to compose cause thats another thing we do~


Well, he'd better be more than good and brilliantly inventive to get a career going in either rock or jazz with the bassoon as his axe!


----------



## hpowders

If you wish to starve, I can't think of a better profession than avant-garde jazz bassoonist.


----------



## jtbell

pileofsticks said:


> Next up has to be Ives. I honestly think that his main purpose was to **** off the people who were forced to play his pieces by making them subdivide triplets within triplets within triplets... with notes that don't even match.


Ives had some choice quotes on this subject:

http://www.humanitiesweb.org/spa/ccq/ID/98


----------



## Vasks

When I was about 14, I bought the Stravinsky led Columbia LP of the "Rite" without ever hearing the piece prior. I did so because my very first LP had the Firebird Suite on it and I liked that. Well, the first play through was a shock. It was like "WTF?" But I decided to listen again and again to it and before too long I came around to discovering its real worth.


----------



## hpowders

Ives was quite a character!

Give him 5 minutes, you would own a $200,000 Whole Life Policy.

Give him 42 minutes, you would be taking home a CD of the Concord Piano Sonata.


----------



## Guest

Rant, rant, Xenakis, Greek madman ... rant, rant .... Boulez, French poseur, ... rant, rant, ... Cage ..... charlatan ... rant, rant Schubert with his radical undermining of allegro-sonata form .... rant, rant, .... etc etc, rant, rant .....


----------



## Sofronitsky

I think that the resulting circle jerk of mature 'adults' beating this young bassoonist into the ground is a bit more silly than the rant itself. 

Of COURSE he/she will grow to accept this music as his/her life goes on. Surely everyone can recognize this as just the initial reaction of fear and disgust when faced with complex music of real value? 

I remember having the exact same reaction just a few years ago, and then the alluring powers of Shostakovich, Copland, Liebermann, and Suk gently dragged me further into the warm ocean of rewards that is 20-21st century music... Shh.......


----------



## science

Sofronitsky said:


> I think that the resulting circle jerk of mature 'adults' beating this young bassoonist into the ground is a bit more silly than the rant itself.
> 
> Of COURSE he/she will grow to accept this music as his/her life goes on. Surely everyone can recognize this as just the initial reaction of fear and disgust when faced with complex music of real value?
> 
> I remember having the exact same reaction just a few years ago, and then the alluring powers of Shostakovich, Copland, Liebermann, and Suk gently dragged me further into the warm ocean of rewards that is 20-21st century music... Shh.......


I don't know, man. He stepped out of line. We've got to pound him into submission. If he gets away with this, le déluge.


----------



## Sofronitsky

science said:


> I don't know, man. He stepped out of line. We've got to pound him into submission. If he gets away with this, le déluge.


Hahahahaha okay I get it I get it. It's like a 'If you don't respect Stravinsky, we will make you. With our fists' type of thing. I could get behind that.


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong

Sofronitsky said:


> Of COURSE he/she will grow to accept this music as his/her life goes on. Surely everyone can recognize this as just the initial reaction of fear and disgust when faced with complex music of real value?


Not necessarily. I am in my mid-60s, and I still loathe Schoenberg. And I am certain that I shall go to my grave thinking that Cage is a joke, and not a very clever one at that. But then, I consider that neither of them have put out "complex music of real value".


----------



## Blake

It's a wonder that the garbage threads get some of the most attention. I guess we do have a lot in common with rodents.


----------



## science

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> Not necessarily. I am in my mid-60s, and I still loathe Schoenberg. And I am certain that I shall go to my grave thinking that Cage is a joke, and not a very clever one at that. But then, I consider that neither of them have put out "complex music of real value".


It looks to me like "of real value" is meant to be an objective judgement.

I understand there is no arguing with taste, and I really want people to have the freedom to like or not like anything they happen to like or not like, and the freedom to express their likes and dislikes honestly.

But I personally wouldn't reify my taste this way. Even if I didn't find any value in Schoenberg and Cage, a lot of really brilliant people have. I guess I feel a sort of humility in the face of all those people. Imagine, me feeling humility! I'm surprised I have enough sincerity in my psyche to muster up an ability to feel something like that. But it seems I feel something like that anyway. So when I come across music that I don't enjoy or appreciate, I usually try to express my taste in explicitly subjective terms. I even do that with some pretty low-class stuff.


----------



## PetrB

Sofronitsky said:


> Hahahahaha okay I get it I get it. It's like a 'If you don't respect Stravinsky, we will make you. With our fists' type of thing. I could get behind that.


If any of us, when young and aflame with our uninformed sharp opinions on this or that had not been called up on the carpet -- in all modes of expression from gentle correction to wildy sardonic comments... making the point that what was said was certainly unfounded, if not downright silly, then maybe no awareness of being so blank might have crossed our minds. While I'm not one for pubic humiliation, even within the home, sometimes a roomful of people who are laughing at you with a bit (it is to be hoped) of good-humored kindness behind it is about as rightly informative as it gets....

I consider the total of the general comments in this thread (at least those in direct reaction to the OP) to be _just another one of those spontaneous adjustments as administered by one's peers_ -- just like those most anyone has at one time or another had, and that ain't a bad thing.

I seriously doubt if the OP is somehow now scarred for life because of the content of this thread


----------



## PetrB

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> Not necessarily. I am in my mid-60s, and I still loathe Schoenberg. And I am certain that I shall go to my grave thinking that Cage is a joke, and not a very clever one at that. But then, I consider that neither of them have put out "complex music of real value".


Did I miss the part where Sofronitsky said, "they will like absolutely every bit of it by all composers?"


----------



## IBMchicago

BurningDesire said:


> :3 and Mozart was the Justin Beiber of the 1700s


Justin Beiber is a child prodigy who speaks multiple languages, learns advanced mathematics at a rapid rate, sight-reads complex music on the fly, variates original works on the spot, composes large scale works of critical acclaim in a few days (even while sick or bed-ridden), consistently ranks as the top 3 composers in his genre, will be remembered and performed 300 years later, and does pretty much what people with IQs > 200 can do??? Wow! I honestly had no idea!


----------



## PetrB

TalkingHead said:


> Rant, rant, Xenakis, Greek madman ... rant, rant .... Boulez, French poseur, ... rant, rant, ... Cage ..... charlatan ... rant, rant Schubert with his radical undermining of allegro-sonata form .... rant, rant, .... etc etc, rant, rant .....


And _damn_ Bach and Vivaldi for doing away with perfectly good modal harmony, nasty dissonant tonal music, what a joke!


----------



## bassClef

I'd find a new career if I were you. Or just join a baroque ensemble.


----------



## PetrB

bassClef said:


> I'd find a new career if I were you. Or just join a baroque ensemble.


Yeah... kinda like your private music instructor one day saying, "it was nice knowing you."


----------



## SimonNZ

science said:


> Even if I didn't find any value in Schoenberg and Cage, a lot of really brilliant people have. I guess I feel a sort of humility in the face of all those people.


Perfect. The argument I keep wanting to make at times like these, but tie myself up over-elaborating, you nail in two short sentences.


----------



## Jobis

why lump Schoenberg in with Cage? It doesn't follow any kind of logic imo


----------



## PetrB

Jobis said:


> why lump Schoenberg in with Cage? It doesn't follow any kind of logic imo


Associates in crime tied in by a loose time-line only -- go figure.


----------



## hpowders

Like caged criminals for G_D's sake!!!


----------



## Mahlerian

Jobis said:


> why lump Schoenberg in with Cage? It doesn't follow any kind of logic imo


Well...Schoenberg taught Cage, right? Obviously they're practically the same.

Just like Schoenberg and Lou Harrison.


----------



## hpowders

hpowders said:


> Like caged criminals for G_D's sake!!!


And somebody here should finally put a stop to it.


----------



## hpowders

Haydn taught Beethoven. When the shoe fits.....


----------



## PetrB

Mahlerian said:


> Well...Schoenberg taught Cage, right? Obviously they're practically the same.
> 
> Just like Schoenberg and Lou Harrison.


Ravel and pupil Vaughan Williams / Darius Milhaud and pupils Steve Reich & Burt Bacharach / 
and I just love this one, snicker-giggle -- Luciano Berio and pupil Ludovico Einaudi 

Add: another Mutt 'n' Jeff teacher-student pairing -- Milton Babbit and pupil Stephen Sondheim.


----------



## BurningDesire

Jobis said:


> why lump Schoenberg in with Cage? It doesn't follow any kind of logic imo


They were both revolutionary composers who created great music, and were extremely controversial because of the new ideas they brought forth.


----------



## Sid James

arpeggio said:


> As a sixty-seven year old bassoonist I can tell you I did not get atonal music until I was in my fifties.
> 
> As far as the _Right of Spring_ is concerned, with your attitude if you want to be a pro forget it. The Stadio contains most of the standard bassoon excerpts that all bassoonist must know, including _The Right_. It is missing a few like the _Sorcerer's Apprentice_. All bassoonists in every symphony orchestra is expected to know how to play _The Right of Spring_. If you have aspirations of being a pro, get use to having to play what you hate. I have lost track of all of the garbage I have had to play in my life.


I am no bassoonist but that makes sense in terms of what I've read about the piece. When Stravinsky composed it, The Rite of Spring was very difficult to play for even the finest orchestras, and the bassoon solo at the beginning was seen to be hell by the players. I read an article about this last year, during the hundredth anniversary of the piece. Stravinsky's revision made the piece easier to play (if my memory serves me correctly?) but most orchestras today play the original version. Simon Rattle said in the article that all orchestras that are world class have to be able to cut their teeth on that work, otherwise they just don't cut the mustard.

In a broader sense, yes Modern era and contemporary music can be extremely difficult to play. This is perhaps why even the finest scores of the post-1945 period - such as by Elliott Carter - are rarely played by the world's symphony orchestras. These tend to chew up too much rehearsal time, basically. Even Carter acknowledged this in an interview, and said that was the partly the reason he was so highly prolific in chamber music. Chamber groups had lower budgets due to less personnel, basically. So they could play his pieces with less overheads than orchestras. With living and recently departed composers, payment of royalties can also be prohibitive, but that's another issue not related to this thread.

So I can see how these scores can be extremely daunting to players, not only beginners but pros. Of course not only 20th century music is complex, but in some respects in the 20th century you had composers out-doing eachother in complexity, constantly raising the bar of what was playable. This is a good reason why electronic music came in, to play music that couldn't be played by humans. Once composers can push boundaries beyond certain limits, they'll keep pushing. Question is whether it is necessary or feasible. Another question is are they doing it to impress eachother? Sometimes I wonder.

I suppose there is no set answer to those types of questions, but even composers have a hard time conducting their own work of this sort. Peter Maxwell Davies was premiering a piece for clarinet and orchestra of his in the 1960's, Gervaise de Peyer was the soloist. De Peyer had played it with the wrong type of clarinet, but the composer himself didn't realise this and thought the premiere went well until de Peyer broke him the news. The rhythms in the piece where considered innovative for the time, Arthur Bliss had passed on the job of conducting it to the composer, saying it was beyond his ability.

So even pros can have a hard time with new music. Its why I think I can understand what the OP is getting at, in some respects. But that's a thing that goes with the territory.


----------



## Whistler Fred

Sid James said:


> I am no bassoonist but that makes sense in terms of what I've read about the piece. When Stravinsky composed it, The Rite of Spring was very difficult to play for even the finest orchestras, and the bassoon solo at the beginning was seen to be hell by the players.


"I...wish I was an English Horn..."


----------



## hpowders

Haydn wrote wonderfully for the integrated orchestral bassoon. A terrific musical fart joke occurs near the end of the Largo cantabile movement in Haydn's Symphony #93. The bassoon has the honor.


----------



## GreenMamba

Interesting post, Sid. The Classical Music App (can't remember if that's it's official name) has an audio track with commentary of several of the performers. During the Lutoslawski piece, one of them gripes about how a lot of composers pay no attention to whether a composition is playable or not. They just throw any idea down on paper. He makes this comment in praise of Lutoslawski, however, who he sees as one of the good ones.


----------



## Morimur

GreenMamba said:


> Interesting post, Sid. The Classical Music App (can't remember if that's it's official name) has an audio track with commentary of several of the performers. During the Lutoslawski piece, one of them gripes about how a lot of composers pay no attention to whether a composition is playable or not. They just throw any idea down on paper. He makes this comment in praise of Lutoslawski, however, who he sees as one of the good ones.


I find it puzzling that Lutosławski is so overlooked. He should be as lauded as Ligeti and Stravinsky.


----------



## Guest

Lope, let me introduce you to Lachenmann.

I'm sure you two will hit it off just fine!!


----------



## Morimur

some guy said:


> Lope, let me introduce you to Lachenmann.
> 
> I'm sure you two will hit it off just fine!!


Lachenmann is certainly a favorite of mine!


----------



## Sid James

Just to add to what I said above, the Maxwell Davies work I talked about was the _St Michael Sonata _(from the late 1950's not '60's as I rememberd, but anyway). It's on youtube here, see what you think:






The other aspect to what I said is playability, sometimes the soloist - the expert at the instrument - can also get it wrong. He or she might have the limitations of the instrument in mind too much, and the composer might be on the right track in terms of thinking to extend them in ways that are possible, but its initially looks like the opposite is true. I did a thread on this ages ago:

http://www.talkclassical.com/20486-unplayable-works-where-actually.html

I am of course not commenting on the rant by the OP, just adding to this issue, I don't want to go into commenting on matters of taste. I am focusing on technique with these posts. But I still hope its of use to the OP.


----------



## PetrB

The fact of the matter is, the technical demands expected of a young training professional are more and more as time goes on.

One may have the 'misfortune' to be born after a date when the bassoon solo which opens Stravinsky's _Le Sacre du Printemps_ is in about every orchestral excerpts anthology ever compiled for bassoonists, but there it is... a stock in trade expectation of "what you should be able to play" by the time, at least, you are in middle undergraduate level.

It is not like any of that has been kept a secret and then sprung on the student just a few days before their final exams 

Elliott Carter commented, in the late 1970's, that conservatory students were then routinely playing his _Sonata for piano and 'cello_, written in 1948, far better than the professionals who premiered the work.

Pierre Boulez commented upon the Vibraphone and Xylorimba parts in his _Le marteau sans maître_that when he composed it (1955), players were using only one mallet per hand, and since then, it became standard technique, again 'mere' conservatory level, for players to routinely use two mallets per hand.

Complaining about what is now required technique for what has now become a lot of commonplace repertoire is an almost certain daily whine for a few music students, and no one in that academic / pedagogic environment bothers to listen to it at all, being a complaint of no 'legitimacy,' or one that is only meant to elicit some sort of sympathy where none is due


----------



## DavidA

I watched a series of programmes on modern composers recently. I must confess that a lot of the more recent stuff isn't for me. People like Maxwell Davies and Benjamin appear to me like an assault on the senses. Horrible!
Even the more 'accessible' composers like the minimalists I find just plain boring after the first minute or so.
A lot of good music was written in the 20th century but today's crop seem to have run out of musical ideas.


----------



## violadude

DavidA said:


> I watched a series of programmes on modern composers recently. I must confess that a lot of the more recent stuff isn't for me. People like Maxwell Davies and Benjamin appear to me like an assault on the senses. Horrible!
> Even the more 'accessible' composers like the minimalists I find just plain boring after the first minute or so.
> A lot of good music was written in the 20th century but today's crop seem to have run out of musical ideas.


Run out of ideas? No

Run out of ideas that satisfy you? Apparently so.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

DavidA said:


> Maxwell Davies and Benjamin


I find the first one mediocre and the second one first class second rate. Also, beware all those British 'music tv programs' for many of them are filled with bias.


----------



## DavidA

violadude said:


> Run out of ideas? No
> 
> Run out of ideas that satisfy you? Apparently so.


Yes, of course. I also said 'musical' ideas. There seems (to me) to be very few musical ideas which give pleasure.

Of course, as you say, this is my own subjective view. Others may think very differently.


----------



## DavidA

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I find the first one mediocre and the second one first class second rate. Also, beware all those British 'music tv programs' for many of them are filled with bias.


It wasn't actually. It was told from the composers' point of view with interviews. I just didn't like the music.


----------



## Guest

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Also, beware all those British 'music tv programs' for many of them are filled with bias.


That's TV for you. I can't think of any TV programmes anywhere that purport to be factual that wouldn't be eligible for such an accusation. Beware of the _potential _for bias in any such programme. Frankly, any programme that didn't advance potentially arguable opinions probably isn't worth watching.


----------



## PetrB

DavidA said:


> People like Maxwell Davies and Benjamin appear to me like an assault on the senses.


All classical music is supposed to be "an assault on the senses." At least you understood that much


----------



## DavidA

PetrB said:


> All classical music is supposed to be "an assault on the senses." At least you understood that much


Some of us like to be a bit more subtle with our senses!


----------



## PetrB

DavidA said:


> Some of us like to be a bit more subtle with our senses!


It is not even that... it is what kind of beating do you want to sign up for. You've made it plain many times that much outside the realms of a certain type of melodic / harmonic is just not your cuppa -- calling that irritating grating noise or some such. If I recall correctly, Bartok is about your outer limit.

But it is all a matter of personal taste, and to some degree, how far your ear goes and what, I suppose, you go to classical music for.


----------



## Mahlerian

DavidA said:


> Some of us like to be a bit more subtle with our senses!


Indeed, I myself appreciate subtle music, like that of Webern, Boulez, and Takemitsu.


----------



## Guest

I would expect to see Maxwell Davies and Benjamin both on someone's 'accessible' list.

Fact is, it does no one any good, really, to hear about what someone finds incomprehensible or boring or noisy or whatever.

Someone's going to enjoy what you dislike, inevitably. Someone's going to dislike what you enjoy, inevitably. 

Saying positive things about what you enjoy might encourage others to listen to it, too.

Saying negative things about what you dislike...? It might encourage people who dislike the same things as you. Otherwise, I can't see that it has any utility at all. It certainly doesn't make you feel better. After you have dumped on modern composers A or B, you will still need (need?) to dump on composers X and Y. It never ends. Why not spend all your time talking about what you enjoy? Much more useful.


----------



## hpowders

DavidA said:


> Some of us like to be a bit more subtle with our senses!


Yes indeed! To quote JM Barrie's Peter Pan's Mr. Darling: "A little less noise, please!!!"


----------



## Chordalrock

What I find problematic about some composers who compose "ugly" music is that these composers don't intend to compose music that is ugly -- they want to expand our ability to perceive beauty but in so doing they're actually limiting the potential of music to express different things. 

When Chopin wrote the fourth movement of his second piano sonata, he didn't want to express beauty, he wanted to express something unsettling. Come 20th century and someone who thinks he knows better will come along and tell us there is no unsettling music and should be no unsettling music, only beauty of different sorts. And that's a shame. If you want to compose violent music for some reason, then do so -- Wagner did in Parsifal when it suited his story, horror movie composers do it when it fits the film -- but if you want to compose violent or ugly music while calling it peaceful or beautiful, well, you may be wanting something that doesn't make sense, and you should expect to be mostly ignored.


----------



## Mahlerian

Equivocation is a powerful thing.

I frequently find Mozart's music unsettling; it's full of sudden unpredictable shifts and nervous chromaticism, uneasy juxtapositions of distant tonalities and uneven phrasing. But art is not meant to be comfortable. We are not moved by something that is comfortable, we simply accept it and use it for some other purpose. Something that is uncomfortable is something that demands that we confront it.

But of course, Mozart's music is also beautiful, even as it is disturbing.

Is something like this unsettling?





Yes, of course. It's a dark movement, culminating in a Beethoven-esque trill and disintegrating into nothingness.

But it is also beautiful. All of the little details are fascinating: here the melody comes in before the bass ostinato, there the searching chords are augmented in rhythmic value, and here we appear to reach a repeat before launching into a new impassioned development. Despite the occasional brief violent outbursts, it has a certain stoicism and poise to it.

Something that is unsettling and dark can also be beautiful.

But why does everything chromatic have to be considered dark? There's also quite a bit of room for playfulness:





Does 20th century modernist music have the same kinds of expression as the romantic and classical periods? No, but _why should it?_

It expresses things that those other styles can't, and our musical life today is all the richer for it.


----------



## Chordalrock

I may have used overly vague language, but do you really want to compare Mozart with that Chopin movement or some more violent 20th century music? There's a reason you only find that sort of music in horror movies or Hitchcock type thrillers.

I see contemporary tendencies in composition as analogous with contemporary tendencies in painting and sculpture, where the audience is often expected to find beauty in things like this:










I don't think what happened to music is a unique cultural phenomenon. In painting, what destroyed the realistic style was photography. In music, perhaps what began to destroy functional harmony was a similar pressure, a pressure from the past, a desire not to compete directly with the masters of the past, a lack of certain naivete, a naivete that may actually be essential to all great art. Perhaps if you are too self-conscious about your music, you end up producing pieces that have mostly academic interest and interest to people whose lives consist of little else than spending time expanding their aesthetic mind, so to speak.

This is what it looks like to an outsider, at any rate.

I think with enough effort it's possible to desensitise yourself to anything, including the horrors of war, but this doesn't mean that people should listen to Stockhausen until they see no difference between Mozart and serialists. It only means that a small minority of people will end up enjoying anything you can imagine as long as it has a sufficient amount of sophistication or craftmanship. The pity here is that too many great talents who could better use their time by composing in more popular idioms, are instead railroaded into writing esoteric stuff only few people will ever care about. Take, for example, that set of preludes posted in the Today's Composers subforum -- these preludes weren't in an acceptably dissonant idiom, "not what is expected of serious composers today," if you are to believe PetrB. This is just to illustrate the social pressure there seems to be for people among the classical composer community to waste away their talents by composing for a diminishingly small elite when they'd have potential for something more.


----------



## Morimur

Chordalrock said:


> I may have used overly vague language, but do you really want to compare Mozart with that Chopin movement or some more violent 20th century music? There's a reason you only find that sort of music in horror movies or Hitchcock type thrillers.
> 
> I see contemporary tendencies in composition as analogous with contemporary tendencies in painting and sculpture, where the audience is often expected to find beauty in things like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think what happened to music is a unique cultural phenomenon. In painting, what destroyed the realistic style was photography. In music, perhaps what began to destroy functional harmony was a similar pressure, a pressure from the past, a desire not to compete directly with the masters of the past, a lack of certain naivete, a naivete that may actually be essential to all great art. Perhaps if you are too self-conscious about your music, you end up producing pieces that have mostly academic interest and interest to people whose lives consist of little else than spending time expanding their aesthetic mind, so to speak.
> 
> This is what it looks like to an outsider, at any rate.
> 
> I think with enough effort it's possible to desensitise yourself to anything, including the horrors of war, but this doesn't mean that people should listen to Stockhausen until they see no difference between Mozart and serialists. It only means that a small minority of people will end up enjoying anything you can imagine as long as it has a sufficient amount of sophistication or craftmanship. The pity here is that too many great talents who could better use their time by composing in more popular idioms, are instead railroaded into writing esoteric stuff only few people will ever care about. Take, for example, that set of preludes posted in the Today's Composers subforum -- these preludes weren't in an acceptably dissonant idiom, "not what is expected of serious composers today," if you are to believe PetrB. This is just to illustrate the social pressure there seems to be for people among the classical composer community to waste away their talents by composing for a diminishingly small elite when they'd have potential for something more.


Your tirade against contemporary art music is simplistic, narrow minded and long winded. To summarize: you don't like contemporary music because you've trained your brain to recognize only a limited combination of sounds. Give yourself a pat on the back.


----------



## PetrB

DavidA said:


> Some of us like to be a bit more subtle with our senses!





hpowders said:


> Yes indeed! To quote JM Barrie's Peter Pan's Mr. Darling: "A little less noise, please!!!"


Well, so much for Beethoven, then


----------



## mmsbls

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Your tirade against contemporary art music is simplistic, narrow minded and long winded. To summarize: you don't like contemporary music because you've trained your brain to recognize only a limited combination of sounds. Give yourself a pat on the back.


Maybe I'm not really understanding what you're saying here, but wouldn't more people who like contemporary music say, "you don't like contemporary music because you _have not_ trained your brain to recognize and enjoy an expanded combination of sounds"?


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Well, so much for Beethoven, then


Or to quote John Ruskin: "Beethoven always sounds like the upsetting of bags - with here and there a dropped hammer."

Beethoven did write some music that sounds, on first acquaintance, quite ugly - but which is highly valued nonetheless.


----------



## PetrB

Chordalrock said:


> I may have used overly vague language, but do you really want to compare Mozart with that Chopin movement or some more violent 20th century music? There's a reason you only find that sort of music in horror movies or Hitchcock type thrillers.


The reason so much 20th century modernist vocabulary is used in soundtracks where suspense or horror are part of the tenor of the film _is exactly because most people in the audience are wholly unfamiliar with that sort of music,_ so in those contexts, it disorients, and surprises.

Imagine something equally as tension-laden from classical repertoire, say Beethoven, Verdi, used in the same places, and even those in the audience who are not familiar with that music are quite generally familiar with its harmonic vocabulary -- ergo it would not disorient or surprise, and would lose all its intended effect as underscoring.

The use of 20th century style music in soundtracks is based upon the fact most people are entirely ignorant of it, ergo it creates in them disorientation (misdirection) and suspense. If one is wholly familiar with the modern and contemporary harmonic vocabularies, those, when used in films, not only lose their effect, but become inadvertently funny 

Now, with that usage as a now established and traditional standard for use in suspense and horror films, people who first heard that kind of music in those types of films will associate most 20th century modern with horror or suspense films, as it seem you do 

Use enough Beethoven in a similar instance in film scores, and regularly over time, and it would not be long before a lot of the public began to associate Beethoven with horror and suspense.

You've quite sufficiently announced you have a middling tolerance for both dissonance and atonality, not much for the latter, and that is your taste and that is just fine. Loudly saying it again and again is not going to change the criterion used by others as to what is or is not beautiful or harmonious.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> The reason so much 20th century modernist vocabulary is used in soundtracks where suspense or horror are part of the tenor of the film _is exactly because most people in the audience are wholly unfamiliar with that sort of music._


I find this argument totally unconvincing. Would Gamelan or Indian music have the same effect? Chinese opera? Central Asian Buddhist chants? No, I think not...


----------



## PetrB

Chordalrock said:


> I think with enough effort it's possible to desensitise yourself to anything, including the horrors of war, but this doesn't mean that people should listen to Stockhausen until they see no difference between Mozart and serialists.


Man oh man, your slant on this is incredible -- as if it truly were some draconian plot to eliminate you or your friends from writing tonal music, the public hearing it, accepting it, or such. I can only believe you are so fixated in this anti-dissonance anti-atonality mode that you truly think the people who do like _the modern and contemporary music which you do not_ can not discern between Mozart and Stockhausen or the late serialists. The fault there, where your whole rant breaks down, is those who do like the modern 'get' the older stuff, often love it as well and as much as the newer stuff, and are more than quick to distinguish one from the other. If your ear does not go there, it does not. But do not, please, based upon a highly personal limitation, project that limitation on the rest of the world just because some things make you uncomfortable -- that is, well, a titch tyrannical in its expectations.



Chordalrock said:


> The pity here is that too many great talents who could better use their time by composing in more popular idioms are instead railroaded into writing esoteric stuff only few people will ever care about. Take, for example, that set of preludes posted in the Today's Composers subforum -- these preludes *weren't in an acceptably dissonant idiom*,[_as per PetrB._]


I did not write that, or anything near -- there, dude, let us use the polite phrase for it, _you are just making things up._

Those pieces were just fine, to me in a semi-new genre which is 'semi-classical' or a more sophisticated vein of contemporary pop piano music. Nowhere there did I say the young composer _should_ be writing differently, should hang it up, or write instead another kind of music. I only mentioned it because his music is in a nebulous and relatively new genre niche as far as marketing goes, and he should consider what his aims are.

Touting the banner 'the other way contemporary classical composers could / should better write' as per your seemingly constrained parameters and listening habits, maybe, is not what is going to get any sort of composer's work into the pro marketplace.

Complaining about what already is, and offering a solution which is not a dismantling but instead a building of something else more in accord with what you believe should be is also a complete waste of energy and everybody's time. If there is, as they say, a window in the market, it can be readily filled by a canny supplier. So, not too yucky dissonance, older forms, not avant garde (list of negative adjectives) music, and it seems from the telling, hosts of completely capable and talented composers to produce it?

Get on with it, put those works that meet your set of criteria up, and see what listeners think.


----------



## Chordalrock

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Your tirade against contemporary art music is simplistic, narrow minded and long winded. To summarize: you don't like contemporary music because you've trained your brain to recognize only a limited combination of sounds. Give yourself a pat on the back.


I'm not sure I know why you would feel the urge to climb down from your ivory tower to educate vulgar rabble like myself. The classical music world is already filled with the kind of composers you like a lot. Why not chill out, lay back in your sofa and listen to some music? 

Alas, the world is not filled with pieces of music I like a lot, so obviously I'd like to do my humble best to change things so that I would have more to listen to.


----------



## neoshredder

Chordalrock said:


> I'm not sure I know why you would feel the urge to climb down from your ivory tower to educate vulgar rabble like myself. The classical music world is already filled with the kind of composers you like a lot. Why not chill out, lay back in your sofa and listen to some music?
> 
> Alas, the world is not filled with pieces of music I like a lot, so obviously I'd like to do my humble best to change things so that I would have more to listen to.


Well the good news is there is a ton of music out there in the Romantic, Classical, and Baroque Era to explore. Let the Contemporary Classical do their thing and I'll just listen to the earlier stuff.


----------



## PetrB

Chordalrock said:


> I'm not sure I know why you would feel the urge to climb down from your ivory tower to educate vulgar rabble like myself. The classical music world is already filled with the kind of composers you like a lot. Why not chill out, lay back in your sofa and listen to some music?
> 
> Alas, the world is not filled with pieces of music I like a lot, so obviously I'd like to do my humble best to change things so that I would have more to listen to.


There are legions of listeners who share, to a degree, your preference for tonal music 'not too dissonant.' That most of them are quite happy with a lot of great classical modern from the first half of the 20th century, and a good deal of newer repertoire written thereafter, some of that being the likes of John Adams, Arvo Part, etc. _which are in the majority of the newer music which is performed and recorded,_ the cry for music more akin to another Vaughan-Williams symphony has you pretty much in a minority, and minorities do not, generally, rule.

You seem to have created another sort of ivory tower mentality of the offended 19th century living in the 21st century. Don't expect either much help or capitulation, especially if you are not advocating what you desire in more completely positive terms.

The "culture of complaint" is a commonplace mode now, but it is not a very winning tack to sail.


----------



## science

Chordalrock said:


> I'm not sure I know why you would feel the urge to climb down from your ivory tower to educate vulgar rabble like myself. The classical music world is already filled with the kind of composers you like a lot. Why not chill out, lay back in your sofa and listen to some music?
> 
> Alas, *the world is not filled with pieces of music I like a lot*, so obviously I'd like to do my humble best to change things so that I would have more to listen to.


I'd bet the world is full of them, only perhaps they don't get the respect with the elite that you'd like.

Or, perhaps they're decades and even centuries old by now. In fact, if you like, say, Telemann or C. P. E. Bach or even J. S. Bach or Grieg, there's _loads_ more of that sort of music recorded today than there was 50 years. And if you like the likes of Josquin or Rore or Willaert or Gombert, it's incomparable.

And that's ok too, so you can take your own advice: Why not chill out, lay back in your sofa and listen to some music.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> I find this argument totally unconvincing. Would Gamelan or Indian music have the same effect? Chinese opera? Central Asian Buddhist chants? No, I think not...


Because they are outside of Western musical conventions, and whether known or not, would I'm certain be instantly identified as 'oriental' where the modern and contemporary classical _is_ still recognizably in the western musical tradition and conventions, if nothing else, by the timbres of its orchestrations. The others you cited, I agree, are too 'foreign' vs. within a set of expectations yet alien.

An Asian wood flute is going to sound 'oriental;' by comparison, a pair of western flutes playing minor seconds in fluttertongue will sound 'ooo -- eeee -- ooo' strange to many.


----------



## Chordalrock

science said:


> I'd bet the world is full of them, only perhaps they don't get the respect with the elite that you'd like.
> 
> Or, perhaps they're decades and even centuries old by now. In fact, if you like, say, Telemann or C. P. E. Bach or even J. S. Bach or Grieg, there's _loads_ more of that sort of music recorded today than there was 50 years. And if you like the likes of Josquin or Rore or Willaert or Gombert, it's incomparable.
> 
> And that's ok too, so you can take your own advice: Why not chill out, lay back in your sofa and listen to some music.


I used the term "like a lot" instead of "like" because I foresaw this sort of counter-comment. Honestly, most music from the past, even from the masters, doesn't appeal to me all that much. I can listen to it and kind of enjoy it or in some cases like it enough to re-listen to it now and then, but it has to be something special, something original or very characterful for me to go all wow over it. And those pieces are rare. They tend to be the popular ones, so I'm not alone in seeing something special in certain pieces and being left to want more, I'd say I'm in the vast majority.

Now I think there's much more talent in today's world than back then -- so more potential for special pieces to be composed -- and I also think I'd prefer styles that are more, um, advanced than Mozart or Bach or Josquin.

I'm fascinated by the idea of harmony that is used to affect the character of the top note or melody or music -- never simply used as mere counterpoint or tonal support or harmonic movement or to create tension. We need 20th or 21st century composers for this. The older masters mostly didn't compose in this fashion when they composed in this fashion at all. I'd say almost nothing before Chopin is anything like this.

Here's an example of what I mean. I don't think it's a coincidence that this piece sounds so special -- it's partly that the harmony is used entirely to make it have a certain character rather than to provide tonality or harmonic motion or counterpoint.


----------



## PetrB

Chordalrock said:


> I used the term "like a lot" instead of "like" because I foresaw this sort of counter-comment. Honestly, most music from the past, even from the masters, doesn't appeal to me all that much. I can listen to it and kind of enjoy it or in some cases like it enough to re-listen to it now and then, but it has to be something special, something original or very characterful for me to go all wow over it. And those pieces are rare. They tend to be the popular ones, so I'm not alone in seeing something special in certain pieces and being left to want more, I'd say I'm in the vast majority.
> 
> Now I think there's much more talent in today's world than back then -- so more potential for special pieces to be composed -- and I also think I'd prefer styles that are more, um, advanced than Mozart or Bach or Josquin.
> 
> I'm fascinated by the idea of harmony that is used to affect the character of the top note or melody or music -- never simply used as mere counterpoint or tonal support or harmonic movement or to create tension. We need 20th or 21st century composers for this. The older masters mostly didn't compose in this fashion when they composed in this fashion at all. I'd say almost nothing before Chopin is anything like this.
> 
> Here's an example of what I mean. I don't think it's a coincidence that this piece sounds so special -- it's partly that the harmony is used entirely to make it have a certain character rather than to provide tonality or harmonic motion or counterpoint.


Love it, barely conversant with music in general and volubly near to howling that no one today is writing anything for you.

You have no idea what a memorable example you have just made, i.e. basically saying that but a few pieces of the really great old stuff -- and only a few of the most widely popular pieces of that -- is what is accessible to you, and because that is what you think is great, urgently advocating that is the way modern composers should write. Melody and Chords, like fundamental pop music.

It is a classic in the making. and now we have your admission, "Honestly, most music from the past, even from the masters, doesn't appeal to me all that much." we have the perfect guideline for evaluating all your posts on that subject.


----------



## violadude

Chordalrock said:


>


What score is this, btw?


----------



## Chordalrock

PetrB, I'm sorry if I'm ignoring you on this topic, but your misreadings, straw man arguments, and penchant for seeing caricatures where none exist are something I'm not interested in dealing with.

Violadude, that's from the intro to Chrono Trigger.

The beginning of Liszt's 2nd ballade is another obvious example.


----------



## violadude

Chordalrock said:


> PetrB, I'm sorry if I'm ignoring you on this topic, but your misreadings, straw men arguments, and penchant for seeing caricatures where none exist are something I'm not interested in dealing with.
> 
> Violadude, that's from the intro to Chrono Trigger.


So, are you mostly interested in video game music then?


----------



## violadude

Chordalrock said:


> PetrB, I'm sorry if I'm ignoring you on this topic, but your misreadings, straw man arguments, and penchant for seeing caricatures where none exist are something I'm not interested in dealing with.
> 
> Violadude, that's from the intro to Chrono Trigger.
> 
> The beginning of Liszt's 2nd ballade is another obvious example.


I'm sorry, can you explain a little bit further what harmonic technique you think these examples demonstrate. I'm not quite understanding what you are saying about them.


----------



## Chordalrock

violadude said:


> So, are you mostly interested in video game music then?


I'm interested in anything that is characterful and special without being too dissonant. I don't care if it's classical or 8-bit Nintendo beeping.

What I spend the most time listening to is classical, although in the ideal world I'd probably spend most, not all, of my listening-time enjoying occasionally polyphonic x-jazz improvisations that sound like Dufay, Chopin, and Super Mario all had a baby together. Something like that.

EDIT: Re your question, not so much a technique as simply giving primacy to character as opposed to contrapuntal fluidity or whatever. I'm not saying something like Mozart never has character, but it does sound rather samey if you listen to all his piano concertos and sonatas and so on. You'll find that there are several stand outs but ultimately he repeats himself a lot because his primary concern isn't to write characterful, special music. It's to write joyful music with tonal tension and episodes of darker hues, so most of his stuff ends up sounding samey.


----------



## violadude

Chordalrock said:


> EDIT: Re your question, not so much a technique as simply giving primacy to character as opposed to contrapuntal fluidity or whatever. I'm not saying something like Mozart never has character, but it does sound rather samey if you listen to all his piano concertos and sonatas and so on. You'll find that there are several stand outs but ultimately he repeats himself a lot because his primary concern isn't to write characterful, special music. It's to write joyful music with tonal tension and episodes of darker hues, so most of his stuff ends up sounding samey.


Hm, well I'm not sure to what degree any of the great composers placed "character" first in their compositional priorities. To my ears, most composers start to sound samey after a while, whether it be Mozart, Chopin, Liszt, Chrono Trigger music and so on and so forth.


----------



## Nereffid

Chordalrock said:


> I may have used overly vague language, but do you really want to compare Mozart with that Chopin movement or some more violent 20th century music? There's a reason you only find that sort of music in horror movies or Hitchcock type thrillers.
> 
> I see contemporary tendencies in composition as analogous with contemporary tendencies in painting and sculpture, where the audience is often expected to find beauty in things like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think what happened to music is a unique cultural phenomenon. In painting, what destroyed the realistic style was photography. In music, perhaps what began to destroy functional harmony was a similar pressure, a pressure from the past, a desire not to compete directly with the masters of the past, a lack of certain naivete, a naivete that may actually be essential to all great art. Perhaps if you are too self-conscious about your music, you end up producing pieces that have mostly academic interest and interest to people whose lives consist of little else than spending time expanding their aesthetic mind, so to speak.
> 
> This is what it looks like to an outsider, at any rate.


It's interesting that you use a splatter painting as an example of "things like this" (why a stock picture, by the way, and not a well-known work?) because it immediately brings to my mind the woodwind quintet "Autumn Rhythm" by the American composer Kenneth Fuchs, who I think we can all agree isn't among the avant-garde of today's music. He said of this work:


> Autumn Rhythm is inspired by Jackson Pollock's monumental canvas of the same title that hangs in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. Pollock's pioneering work - along with the creations of other Abstract Expressionists - made a big impression on me during my formative creative years in New York. I wanted to capture in this woodwind quintet the mystery as well as the loose dancing energy of Pollock's famous "drip" painting.










While you're looking at that, listen to part of the quintet on Fuchs's web site.


----------



## Mahlerian

Chordalrock said:


> I may have used overly vague language, but do you really want to compare Mozart with that Chopin movement or some more violent 20th century music? There's a reason you only find that sort of music in horror movies or Hitchcock type thrillers.


If you want to be so superficial, then if "20th century music=horror movie stuff", "18th century music=high class drawing room stuff" and "19th century music=beautiful nostalgic stuff". Honestly, the general public doesn't care about either of the latter two any more than the first, and both are used in order to evoke an extremely limited range of possible emotions.

Schoenberg's (or Stravinsky's, or Boulez's) influence isn't really found much in horror movie scores anyway. You usually hear sub-Penderecki tone clusters and string glissandi instead, which have absolutely nothing to do with the way Schoenberg wrote music. Bernard Herrmann and Leonard Rosenmann, among others, were inspired by Schoenberg's style.

And why does Pollock (or Pollock-like spatter paintings, rather) always get brought into these discussions? Why not Munch, whose style in painting was like Schoenberg's, or Kandinsky, who saw Schoenberg as an artistic peer? Pollock's drip paintings make me think of Cage more than serialism: they purport to relinquish the control of the artist over his end product, but nonetheless end up expressing his own personality.


----------



## Mahlerian

Chordalrock said:


> Now I think there's much more talent in today's world than back then -- so more potential for special pieces to be composed -- and *I also think I'd prefer styles that are more, um, advanced than Mozart or Bach or Josquin.*


I don't know what you mean by this. Is the example you give supposed to be "more advanced" than Mozart, Bach, or Josquin? It uses harmony in a different way, sure, but the technique is much simpler (all of the chords moving in block, for example, which is more akin to pop or jazz voicing than classical).

I also am confused by the fact that you lumped three different composers from three very different styles and eras together, as if they represented some singular entity.



Chordalrock said:


> not so much a technique as simply giving primacy to character as opposed to contrapuntal fluidity or whatever. I'm not saying something like Mozart never has character, but it does sound rather samey if you listen to all his piano concertos and sonatas and so on. You'll find that there are several stand outs but ultimately he repeats himself a lot because his primary concern isn't to write characterful, special music. It's to write joyful music with tonal tension and episodes of darker hues, so most of his stuff ends up sounding samey.


Once again, I'm not exactly sure what you mean here by "character".

However, your description of Mozart is as superficial as your descriptions of "modern music". Is there a certain sameness of technique and a use of stock phrases and so forth in Mozart's music? Yes, as there is in all of the composers of the era. But not nearly so much as to make one piece functionally equivalent to another. I suggest that such blanket characterizations indicate a lack of familiarity with the way the musical language of that time actually works. You can hear the surface and understand it well enough, but you miss the implications of it.

I have long believed that a relationship with a style or genre proceeds in cycles:
First, because of one's lack of experience with something, one picks up on surface characteristics alone, and most things sound similar to each other (among people who don't listen to Classical music much at all, the difference between Bach's Air and Barber's Adagio is minimal).
Next, one gains a deeper familiarity, and the surface characteristics seem less important as the details become more apparent.
Then, having understood the principles behind the differences in detail, one makes connections between pieces once more.

I believe that the latter two steps keep going the more experience one gains.


----------



## nightscape

pileofsticks said:


> If people are gonna make new music, then why not make it sound good?


There's a new piece out called "Mary Had a Little Lamb" which I've heard nothing but good things about.


----------



## PetrB

nightscape said:


> There's a new piece out called "Mary Had a Little Lamb" which I've heard nothing but good things about.


That piece you mentioned has been loudly lauded, wildly applauded and officially approved of by 
the League of Terribly Important Patrons of the Arts (LOTIPOTA), whose motto is, 
*~ I don't know art music but I do know what I like! ~*


----------



## dgee

Mahlerian said:


> "18th century music=high class drawing room stuff" ... used in order to evoke an extremely limited range of possible emotions.


YES! It's the "classical music that sounds like classical music" thing. And it's off-putting for lots of everyday people. This is the stuff piped out of the tinny speakers to get teenagers to stop congregating. It also makes me think of all the "slobs vs snobs" 80s comedies and how classical music was used in them - does anyone else remember the movie where the uptight establishment figure demonstrates how truly snooty and ridiculous he is by sitting in his leather and wood panelled drawing-room conducting along to a record of Beethoven 5? I thought it was "Back to School" but I checked and it's not :-(

Anyway, that's my image of a "fine-music lover"

Probably totally irrelevant to the discussion but this was definitely a point I would have liked to make myself


----------



## PetrB

dgee said:


> YES! It's the "classical music that sounds like classical music" thing. And it's off-putting for lots of everyday people. This is the stuff piped out of the tinny speakers to get teenagers to stop congregating. It also makes me think of all the "slobs vs snobs" 80s comedies and how classical music was used in them - does anyone else remember the movie where the uptight establishment figure demonstrates how truly snooty and ridiculous he is by sitting in his leather and wood panelled drawing-room conducting along to a record of Beethoven 5? I thought it was "Back to School" but I checked and it's not :-(
> 
> Anyway, that's my image of a "fine-music lover"
> 
> Probably totally irrelevant to the discussion but this was definitely a point I would have liked to make myself


Ahhh, that advertising pitched to those with serious pretentions of upward social mobility, i.e. if you like classical music, you're somehow automatically moved up a notch or two! _Silly<g>_

The same people with those pretenses held dear would be horrified by Beethoven's behavior and physical presentation if he showed up for a visit, and ditto for Mozart the moment he starting cracking some of his scatilogical jokes. Then it would be, so much for classical music and bye-bye as far as classical music = any kind of social ranking


----------



## Chordalrock

Mahlerian said:


> However, your description of Mozart is as superficial as your descriptions of "modern music".


I didn't mean to write a thesis on Mozart. If you thought my casual one-line generalisation wasn't acceptably descriptive of the nature of his music, you should have said what was wrong with it and given a better casual one-line generalisation, instead of making vague accusations of musical incomprehension.

When I think most of Mozart sounds samey, I'm being superficial, but when someone else like Violadude thinks the same, he's being someone with deep understanding of the music? Sorry, I think you're missing the point here: everybody thinks most of Mozart sounds samey, so it probably is then.

I went through a period when I was very interested in the nuances of performance, and enjoyed stuff like Cortot, Horowitz, and other pianists who played in interesting or exciting ways. I grew out of this phase and these days I'd say if music doesn't sound great as a computer generated midi file then it probably isn't all that great, and people are focusing on the wrong aspects of music if they think performance and rendering are very important -- which every classical snob of course does. (Rendering is very important only if it concerns the actual notes played, as in early Renaissance music, or if there is huge controversy over tempo. Obviously it makes a fundamental difference whether you play something half as fast or slow as it should be played.)

Anyway, this was just to illustrate how a supposedly sophisticated approach to listening to music adopted at some point in one's life can actually alienate one from the true nature of music and the popular taste, making one a dead-end elitist, often for life.


----------



## Mahlerian

Chordalrock said:


> I didn't mean to write a thesis on Mozart. If you thought my casual one-line generalisation wasn't acceptably descriptive of the nature of his music, you should have said what was wrong with it and given a better casual one-line generalisation, instead of making vague accusations of musical incomprehension.
> 
> When I think most of Mozart sounds samey, I'm being superficial, but when someone else like Violadude thinks the same, he's being someone with deep understanding of the music? Sorry, I think you're missing the point here: everybody thinks most of Mozart sounds samey, so it probably is then.


Violadude wasn't saying that Mozart sounds particularly samey as compared to other composers, just that any composer's works can begin to sound samey if you listen to enough of them. He also didn't make any absurd generalizations.

Also, "Everybody" thinking something doesn't give it weight unless their reasons for doing so are valid. "Everybody" once thought that ether was the medium through which light passed, but that turned out to be inaccurate.



Chordalrock said:


> I went through a period when I was very interested in the nuances of performance, and enjoyed stuff like Cortot, Horowitz, and other pianists who played in interesting or exciting ways. I grew out of this phase and these days I'd say if music doesn't sound great as a computer generated midi file then it probably isn't all that great, and people are focusing on the wrong aspects of music if they think performance and rendering are very important -- which every classical snob of course does. (Rendering is very important only if it concerns the actual notes played, as in early Renaissance music, or if there is huge controversy over tempo. Obviously it makes a fundamental difference whether you play something half as fast or slow as it should be played.)
> 
> Anyway, this was just to illustrate how a supposedly sophisticated approach to listening to music adopted at some point in one's life can actually alienate one from the true nature of music and the popular taste, making one a dead-end elitist, often for life.


I'm not sure what any of this has to do with what I said, but I agree that music has to have pretty significant merits to survive a MIDI rendition...

I disagree though that performance is not part of the true nature of music. If anything, it is part and parcel of the true nature of music to have interpretation. It's why rock fans have their favorite live renditions of songs, and without it, where would jazz be?


----------



## mamascarlatti

This conversation started veering off topic into ad-homs. Please keep it civil. Some posts have been edited and others removed.


----------



## thenewlyricist

Your instincts are basically right - something went seriously wrong with western classical music when Schoenberg invented 'twelve tone' composition, and we are still struggling with the aftermath! However - don't let that make you think that ALL new styles and methods of the 20th century are worthless and meaningless - this is not so; it's just that some of them take a while to get the hang of, and you need to have a bit of patience. People like Stravinsky, Bartok, Debussy, Holst and others 'pushed forward' the boundaries of tonality without abandoning it. Actually, I felt the same as you, but at the age of about 15 I was converted to modern music by the 'Rite of Spring' itself! It was on the radio, and for some reason I listened to a bit of it, and then it suddenly started making sense, and I realised it's actually a great work. Believe it or not, it is actually a very *melodic* piece, based on traditional Russian folk melodies, and also the rhythms relate to Russian folk dances - it is not nearly as weird and experimental as it at first seems - it's just rather dissonant. The point about the very high bassoon writing at the beginning is that Stravinsky wanted to create a strange, eerie atmosphere of a pagan ritual - it's *meant* to sound strange; if played really well by an expert player, the effect is actually quite haunting. Don't give up on ALL modern music just because some of it is terrible - just find the good stuff! 
The New Lyricist
http://thenewlyricist.wordpress.com/


----------



## Mahlerian

thenewlyricist said:


> Your instincts are basically right - something went seriously wrong with western classical music when Schoenberg invented 'twelve tone' composition, and we are still struggling with the aftermath!


No, that instinct is wrong. I also doubt that you yourself point to Schoenberg's op. 25 as some sort of turning point for the downfall of musical civilization. Don't you hate Pierrot lunaire just as much, if not more?



thenewlyricist said:


> However - don't let that make you think that ALL new styles and methods of the 20th century are worthless and meaningless - this is not so; it's just that some of them take a while to get the hang of, and you need to have a bit of patience. People like Stravinsky, Bartok, Debussy, Holst and others 'pushed forward' the boundaries of tonality without abandoning it. Actually, I felt the same as you, but at the age of about 15 I was converted to modern music by the 'Rite of Spring' itself! It was on the radio, and for some reason I listened to a bit of it, and then it suddenly started making sense, and I realised it's actually a great work. Believe it or not, it is actually a very *melodic* piece, based on traditional Russian folk melodies, and also the rhythms relate to Russian folk dances - it is not nearly as weird and experimental as it at first seems - it's just rather dissonant. The point about the very high bassoon writing at the beginning is that Stravinsky wanted to create a strange, eerie atmosphere of a pagan ritual - it's *meant* to sound strange; if played really well by an expert player, the effect is actually quite haunting. Don't give up on ALL modern music just because some of it is terrible - just find the good stuff!


Schoenberg's music is very melodic, too.

Don't get me wrong. The Rite of Spring _is_ a great work. Stravinsky is, in my opinion, the best composer of the 20th century, with a consistently high quality of work throughout his career (including his own 12-tone works). I love Bartok and Debussy as well.

But Schoenberg was also a great composer. His music is melodic, contrapuntally complex, and richly lyrical. The 12-tone method was, for him, a way of helping to organize the new chromatic musical space that his earlier works had opened up, a space that is only inaccurately called "atonal".


----------



## Wood

thenewlyricist said:


> Your instincts are basically right - something went seriously wrong with western classical music when Schoenberg invented 'twelve tone' composition, and we are still struggling with the aftermath!


Wonderful! I can see the storm clouds gathering.


----------



## Morimur

*Regression = Irrelevance*

I am utterly amazed that people complain about the evolution of music. Art MUST push forward to remain relevant. Stagnation equals death, as we should all know. I hardly think that Bach, were he alive today, would be composing in a tonal language. He was an innovator and visionary above all else, and would not suffer the public's desire for regression in music.


----------



## hpowders

Given Beethoven's Hammerklavier Sonata, he was practically already there. Unheard of dissonance. What would have been the next step?


----------



## Blancrocher

Lope de Aguirre said:


> I hardly think that Bach, were he alive today, would be composing in a tonal language. He was an innovator and visionary above all else, and would not suffer the public's desire for regression in music.


It's not hard for me to imagine Bach composing in a tonal language--of his own design, of course. He was fairly eclectic in his absorption of musical predecessors' ideas in his actual life. He could be a sort of higher-order Hindemith, maybe. Of course, it also wouldn't surprise me if the "new complexity" movement may have caught his fancy--though I shudder at the thought :lol:

There's really no telling.


----------



## lupinix

Chordalrock said:


> I'm interested in anything that is characterful and special without being too dissonant. I don't care if it's classical or 8-bit Nintendo beeping.
> 
> What I spend the most time listening to is classical, although in the ideal world I'd probably spend most, not all, of my listening-time enjoying occasionally polyphonic x-jazz improvisations that sound like Dufay, Chopin, and Super Mario all had a baby together. Something like that.
> 
> EDIT: Re your question, not so much a technique as simply giving primacy to character as opposed to contrapuntal fluidity or whatever. I'm not saying something like Mozart never has character, but it does sound rather samey if you listen to all his piano concertos and sonatas and so on. You'll find that there are several stand outs but ultimately he repeats himself a lot because his primary concern isn't to write characterful, special music. It's to write joyful music with tonal tension and episodes of darker hues, so most of his stuff ends up sounding samey.


Why don't you start composing yourself?
Instead complaining about very specific things that others didn't do for you...


----------



## KenOC

Lope de Aguirre said:


> I hardly think that Bach, were he alive today, would be composing in a tonal language. He was an innovator and visionary above all else, and would not suffer the public's desire for regression in music.


If Bach were around today, he might do as he did in his first life -- compose to meet the expectations of his employers. He did get some static for making his chorale arrangements too complex, too difficult for the congregation to follow. I can see it now: "Look John, you like this job? Want to keep it? Then make it simple! Go listen to that Bieber person to see what we mean. No, that's B-I-E..."


----------



## julianoq

Mahlerian said:


> Schoenberg's music is very melodic, too.
> 
> ...
> 
> But Schoenberg was also a great composer. His music is melodic, contrapuntally complex, and richly lyrical. The 12-tone method was, for him, a way of helping to organize the new chromatic musical space that his earlier works had opened up, a space that is only inaccurately called "atonal".


I remember, several months ago, to read your similar posts about the "atonal" composers and thinking "oh my God, we live on a different world or our brains are made of different material". But as I usually do, I never give up on any composer, I just wait for the right time to give another chance and see how it goes. And since I like your posts coherence and musical knowledge, I trusted that my opinion would change one day.

Now today I read this post and noticed that I totally agree with you! At this moment I listen to the same composers and enjoy it a lot, and I am able to notice the melody and lyricism in pieces that I would classify as "horror movie music" before. I am quite happy that I have so much great modern music to explore yet.


----------



## mmsbls

julianoq said:


> I remember, several months ago, to read your similar posts about the "atonal" composers and thinking "oh my God, we live on a different world or our brains are made of different material". But as I usually do, I never give up on any composer, I just wait for the right time to give another chance and see how it goes. And since I like your posts coherence and musical knowledge, I trusted that my opinion would change one day.
> 
> Now today I read this post and noticed that I totally agree with you! At this moment I listen to the same composers and enjoy it a lot, and I am able to notice the melody and lyricism in pieces that I would classify as "horror movie music" before. I am quite happy that I have so much great modern music to explore yet.


I think your post pretty much exactly sums up my experience with modern music. My original position was that I had explored so much pre-1900 music and found so much beautiful music, but later music was somehow inaccessible to me. I felt that if I could learn to appreciate the past 100 years or so there would be so much more wonderful music to explore and love. I remembered how I felt about first hearing works that I just adored, and I wanted that experience again.

I realize that, for some of us, appreciating modern music takes significant effort, but I wish there were a good way to convince others who are presently in the position we were once in that there really is a path to the beauty and joy of modern music appreciation. Maybe not all modern music, but enough so it's well worth the effort.


----------



## Mahlerian

julianoq said:


> I remember, several months ago, to read your similar posts about the "atonal" composers and thinking "oh my God, we live on a different world or our brains are made of different material". But as I usually do, I never give up on any composer, I just wait for the right time to give another chance and see how it goes. And since I like your posts coherence and musical knowledge, I trusted that my opinion would change one day.
> 
> Now today I read this post and noticed that I totally agree with you! At this moment I listen to the same composers and enjoy it a lot, and I am able to notice the melody and lyricism in pieces that I would classify as "horror movie music" before. I am quite happy that I have so much great modern music to explore yet.


I'm glad to hear it!

I understand that not everything is for everyone, but I think that great art has the power to communicate with all kinds of people, no matter what their experiences. That's why the insistence that something is only for this or that group (and this can go for "populist" composers as well) bothers me so much, and I try not to assume that someone will or will not end up enjoying something.


----------



## PetrB

hpowders said:


> Given Beethoven's Hammerklavier Sonata, he was practically already there. Unheard of dissonance. What would have been the next step?


Uh, Wagner, unbuttoning the pinning of common practice chord function, a huge step toward (and major influence) which led to a very natural continuation into the high chromaticism of the later romantics and Schoenberg, which are but extensions of that direction -- all of that still highly lyric, and very much involved with 'romantic' expressiveness in music.

Many a listener, due to their preconceptions based on music earlier than Wagner's or by way of their mere personal preference, have a 'cut off line' somewhere along the points of the line from the later developments of Wagner and those who came after. It is the mistaken reference to ones personal preferences as a universal which sounds false, and that sort of pronouncment should never be taken as anything but one person's personal preference or set of limits.

Almost all comments we hear like "something went seriously wrong with western music when... composer X began to write in style Y," are statements coming from that platform of one person's taste, their personal limits, or a lack of understanding; statements like that are not a universal truth about music or all its listeners


----------



## PetrB

lupinix said:


> Why don't you start composing yourself?
> Instead complaining about very specific things that others didn't do for you...


It is like complaining that your servants are not behaving according to your wishes, except for the little fact they are not your servants, lol.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> If Bach were around today, he might do as he did in his first life -- compose to meet the expectations of his employers. He did get some static for making his chorale arrangements too complex, too difficult for the congregation to follow. I can see it now: "Look John, you like this job? Want to keep it? Then make it simple! Go listen to that Bieber person to see what we mean. No, that's B-I-E..."


Sigh, always the fairly reductive black and whitewash....

Somehow, he toed the line just enough while, all the way through, there were complaints his music was too dissonant, too disturbing, etc. Stubborn and willful employee, that J.S. Bach boy.


----------



## Vaneyes

Damn, ten pages on this.


----------



## arpeggio

*Giancarlo Guerrero, THE RITE OF SPRING & the U. S. Marine Corps Band*

Since the OP addressed _The Rite of Spring_, I thought I would mention an explosive concert I heard last night. Giancarlo Guerrero was the guest conductor with the United States Marine Corps Band. The signature piece on the program was an outstanding transcription of _The Rite of Spring_ by the arranger Merlin Patterson. The leathernecks literally blew the notes off the pages of music. It was a spectacular performance.

Also on the program was:

The _Bells for Stokowski_ by Michael Daugherty. I got to meet Dr. Daugherty and had him autograph a CD of the work. One can not autograph an I-Tune. Cool guy. He was also blown away by the performance of _The Rite_.

Kurt Weill's _Concerto for Violin and Winds_ featuring Marine Band violinist Staff Sgt. Sheng-Tsung Wang.

After the concert I met with some of the band. They stated Guerrero was one of the most exciting conductors they ever performed for. Their enthusiasm was intense.

There is a recording of the transcription with the University of Houston Band that is quite good: http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/Drilldown?name_id1=11684&name_role1=1&label_id=11440&bcorder=61&comp_id=2942

Patterson is an outstanding arranger. I have several recording of some of his transcription. Link to his web page: http://www.merlinpatterson.com/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/


----------



## PetrB

Vaneyes said:


> Damn, ten pages on this.


Why TC's ToS even allows an OP which announces a rant and then goes on to prove it is --well, rather beyond understanding!


----------



## neoshredder

As said before, there is no horrible music. Only music some people can't adapt to. Thus, it is the eye of the beholder. With that said, I still like to express what I don't like or can't adapt to. lol


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Why TC's ToS even allows an OP which announces a rant and then goes on to prove it is --well, rather beyond understanding!


Is this a prelude to a rant about rants?


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Is this a prelude to a rant about rants?


That might have far more potential for fun than just about any actual rants, but... no


----------



## neoshredder

KenOC said:


> Is this a prelude to a rant about rants?


What would be a good key for that piece?


----------



## hpowders

KenOC said:


> Is this a prelude to a rant about rants?


Where's the other half of the Smith Brothers?


----------



## Mahlerian

neoshredder said:


> What would be a good key for that piece?


E major, because it's the dominant of _A minor_, and ranting can make one seem like a child...


----------



## PetrB

Mahlerian said:


> E major, because it's the dominant of _A minor_, and ranting can make one seem like a child...


Or _a minor_, C major -- but on one of its more regressive behavior bad days.


----------



## Blake

PetrB said:


> Why TC's ToS even allows an OP which announces a rant and then goes on to prove it is --well, rather beyond understanding!


I wouldn't mind taking control, and chop them at first site. No other moderation duties… just thread chopping.


----------



## SimonNZ

Could you also be persuaded to take on the "There's already a thread for that" duties?


----------



## KenOC

SimonNZ said:


> Could you also be persuaded to take on the "There's already a thread for that" duties?


We need multiple repeating threads. That way we can at least pretend we're saying something that hasn't been said a hundred times before.


----------



## arpeggio

*Futility*

The debate between the modernists and the anti-modernists is beginning to remind me of the argument between the masochist and the sadist.

"Beat me! Beat me!"

"No." :devil:


----------



## Blancrocher

arpeggio said:


> The debate between the modernists and the anti-modernists is beginning to remind me of the argument between the masochist and the sadist.
> 
> "Beat me! Beat me!"
> 
> "No." :devil:


What we all need to do is to see the good points on both sides of the issue. Then, if everything goes as well as I imagine, TC will be populated entirely by sadomasochists.


----------



## Chordalrock

I don't see it as complaining. I think that secretly every composer wants to be popular. I'm trying to provide a perspective from which it would be easy to take that step and move on from an esoteric style to a more natural and popular style. And again, there are tons of people like me, so this isn't just for me.

And I do compose as a hobby. However, due to a childhood without music I'm not musical enough for it to be easy and I struggle to create music that I'm fond of, let alone music that more sophisticated listeners would be fond of. Here are the threads for two of those pieces:

http://www.talkclassical.com/30277-fugue-two-violins-cello.html

http://www.talkclassical.com/30371-adagio-violin-piano.html

I have several other pieces that I haven't uploaded that I like. I may upload and post a few of them later but I think I should revise them first, since I've learned a lot from posting my pieces here.


----------



## violadude

Chordalrock said:


> I don't see it as complaining. I think that secretly every composer wants to be popular. I'm trying to provide a perspective from which it would be easy to take that step and move on from an esoteric style to a more natural and popular style. And again, there are tons of people like me, so this isn't just for me.


Most great composers do want people to enjoy their music...

But most great composers also aren't going to sacrifice their language, style and musical values just for the sake of "popularity" (thank God).


----------



## Chordalrock

violadude said:


> Most great composers do want people to enjoy their music...
> 
> But most great composers also aren't going to sacrifice their language, style and musical values just for the sake of "popularity" (thank God).


Except "their language and musical values" are partly socially formed and subject to revision and rebirth. In other words, composers are always following one sort of expectation or another even if only subconsciously, and who's to say they shouldn't occasionally re-examine their values?


----------



## violadude

Chordalrock said:


> Except "their language and musical values" are partly socially formed and subject to revision and rebirth. In other words, composers are always following one sort of expectation or another even if only subconsciously, and who's to say they shouldn't occasionally re-examine their values?


Sure, and composers re-evaluate themselves and change their language all the time. My point wasn't that they don't, my point was that they wont do that simply to become more popular.


----------



## Chordalrock

violadude said:


> Sure, and composers re-evaluate themselves and change their language all the time. My point wasn't that they don't, my point was that they wont do that simply to become more popular.


Didn't Arvo Pärt change his style to become more popular? How do we know why great composers sometimes change their styles so that the end result is that their music is much more approachable?

It seems to me that you're prescribing, not describing. You don't want great composers to modify their style in order to become more popular, and you confuse this desire with some sort of universal law that every great composer by definition has to follow.

In my opinion, of course, it would be a good thing if great composers occasionally wrote pieces in a more popular style. Couldn't hurt them. It's not as if you're duty bound to never write something potentially popular. I think Shostakovich did this with his symphonies anyway, because Stalin's regime had banned music that was too dissonant and modernistic. You can hear Shostakovich's preferred style in his string quartets, which are tons more esoteric than his symphonies. But who would want to be without his symphonies? You, apparently.


----------



## PetrB

violadude said:


> Most great composers do want people to enjoy their music...
> 
> But most great composers also aren't going to sacrifice their language, style and musical values just for the sake of "popularity" (thank God).


I agree, and think that _most_ composers, whether they are 'populist' and popular or more esoteric and not as well or widely appreciated, are sincerely writing 'what they can,' and letting the chips fall where they may.

I think you will find, and some may find this rather surprising, that many a classical composer can write convincingly in just about one and a half manners, that half still derivative of the first. This means there is very little modification of the way a composer writes which can be expected, if such a request for modifying how they compose is even considered at all by the composer.

The "chameleon" composers, jacks of all genres and styles, are often the film and video game composers, who knowing their knack, hire out in situations where they are ready to hear and supply the demands, "I want this style, this way," and those composers are always ready and first to ask, "how do you want it?" -- part of their everyday working situation. (Their works also often lacks that individual stamp of musical personality which so marks the classical composer's works.)

The popular / populist composer has not 'sacrificed' writing in a more complex or esoterically remote style in order to be popular or to become more popular, but, like the composer writing the more complex or esoteric music, is writing in a way which is pretty directly in a manner which they think is worthwhile, and is 'how they can write.'


----------



## violadude

Chordalrock said:


> Didn't Arvo Pärt change his style to become more popular? How do we know why great composers sometimes change their styles so that the end result is that their music is much more approachable?
> 
> It seems to me that you're prescribing, not describing. You don't want great composers to modify their style in order to become more popular, and you confuse this desire with some sort of universal law that every great composer by definition has to follow.
> 
> In my opinion, of course, it would be a good thing if great composers occasionally wrote pieces in a more popular style. Couldn't hurt them. It's not as if you're duty bound to never write something potentially popular. I think Shostakovich did this with his symphonies anyway, because Stalin's regime had banned music that was too dissonant and modernistic. You can hear Shostakovich's preferred style in his string quartets, which are tons more esoteric than his symphonies. But who would want to be without his symphonies? You, apparently.


Sorry, the mods can delete this if they want, but I'm just going to leave this here because I think it's relevant in a weird sort of way.


----------



## Chordalrock

So how about those Shostakovich symphonies, dudes, written to please Stalin's aesthetic guidelines? Shouldn't he have written them because, after all, his true preference was for esoteric modernist stuff, which you can hear in his string quartets that he had to hide from publishers?

How can you be a fan of the Shostakovich symphonies and at the same time argue that composers shouldn't "sacrifice" in order to write in popular styles? Cognitive dissonance, much?


----------



## violadude

Chordalrock said:


> So how about those Shostakovich symphonies, dudes, written to please Stalin's aesthetic guidelines? Shouldn't he have written them because, after all, his true preference was for esoteric modernist stuff, which you can hear in his string quartets that he had to hide from publishers?
> 
> How can you be a fan of the Shostakovich symphonies and at the same time argue that composers shouldn't "sacrifice" in order to write in popular styles? Cognitive dissonance, much?


Except that wasn't a decision to write in a more popular style to gain popularity, it was possibly (probably) to save his life...


----------



## Chordalrock

violadude said:


> Except that wasn't a decision to write in a more popular style to gain popularity, it was possibly (probably) to save his life...


Which should make his symphonies even more fake and fabricated in your opinion. So why do you still listen to them? Again, cognitive dissonance, much?


----------



## PetrB

Chordalrock said:


> Didn't Arvo Pärt change his style to become more popular? How do we know why great composers sometimes change their styles so that the end result is that their music is much more approachable?


Let me propose something for anyone to ponder. People who think composer X set out to be popular, or changed styles to become popular or more popular, are either thinking of practical income from the result, or are daydream fantasizing vaguely about some romanticized notion of "glamorous fame," and in their imagination are putting those in the forefront as the artist's motivations. This is, by most changes of style on record as done by composers, and by what composers know of themselves and other artists, about as in reverse from the real reason as could be.

Some of the minimalists returned to simple triadic harmony because of the undeniable sonorous power of a simple triad. Those Slavic 'spiritual minimalists' were experiencing a blast of fresh air after decades of suppression of both religion, things mystical and having to adhere to something more literal and supportive of a Stalinist notion of 'what the proletariat need and can relate to.' That Spiritual Minimalist label could as readily be called neomedieval, and the switch to it a direct return to the freedom of expressing things spiritual or religious. A number of them jumped to return to what is literally associated with early Christian music, old modes and modal / tonal harmony.

The only contemporary classical composer I would dare name as having converted from a very advance musical vocabulary (while studying under Luciano Berio) to something wholly simple, harmonically retro and accessible for sheer gain in both popularity and monetary return is Ludovico Einaudi.

The rest of them are following what for them are very natural inclinations, and I can almost guarantee you they were not first directly thinking of 'popularity' and only a little, if much at all, thinking of 'accessiblity' or 'communicating with more people.'

I think you project this other angle on these situations because you seem very concerned with composers writing something which is easily accessible for you, and readily within your comfort zones re: 'not too dissonant.'

Most people really compose "what they can."

It is in the as the employer wants it / made to order arena of the more / most commercial musics -- music for films, video games, pop music, music for advertisements -- where composers calculatedly 'write to' audiences and are highly conscious about writing something which is instantly accessible to the world at large.


----------



## violadude

Chordalrock said:


> Which should make his symphonies even more fake and fabricated in your opinion. So why do you still listen to them? Again, cognitive dissonance, much?


Ok dude, I never said I couldn't enjoy more popular styles of music, first of all. Second of all, I never said to what degree I liked Shostakovich's symphonies. Try and stick to the real arguments instead of trying to pull a "gotcha question" on me.


----------



## KenOC

Chordalrock said:


> So how about those Shostakovich symphonies, dudes, written to please Stalin's aesthetic guidelines? Shouldn't he have written them because, after all, his true preference was for esoteric modernist stuff, which you can hear in his string quartets that he had to hide from publishers?


This is silly. Shostakovich hid his quartets from publishers? Odd, given that he had them published! Several of his symphonies were certainly written "to order" since that was, after all, his job as a kapellmeister to the government (who employed him). In this he was no different from many composers through Haydn. In fact, several of his "to order" works are very fine indeed. Why shouldn't they be?


----------



## Chordalrock

KenOC said:


> This is silly. Shostakovich hid his quartets from publishers? Odd, given that he had them published!


I can't find information on when he published them. Obviously, he lived a long life so could have published them at some point. Whatever, I was simply paraphrasing (perhaps incorrectly) something I read in a CD whats-it-called. It said he composed them for himself.



KenOC said:


> Several of his symphonies were certainly written "to order" since that was, after all, his job as a kapellmeister to the government (who employed him). In this he was no different from many composers through Haydn. In fact, several of his "to order" works are very fine indeed. Why shouldn't they be?


Composing "to order" and changing your style to compose "to order" are completely different things. I don't think Haydn drastically changed his style to please his patrons, but if he did, then you're simply arguing for my case rather than against it.


----------



## KenOC

Chordalrock said:


> I can't find information on when he published them. Obviously, he lived a long life so could have published them at some point.


Shostakovich's opus numbers were assigned roughly in order of composition and publishing. see:

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

His quartets were eagerly awaited by their audiences and performed immediately, hardly a "secret" from anybody. The only works I know of that were kept "secret" were a few written after 1948, written "for the drawer" so to speak. These include his first violin concerto, certainly a notable work.


----------



## PetrB

Chordalrock said:


> Which should make his symphonies even more fake and fabricated in your opinion. So why do you still listen to them? Again, cognitive dissonance, much?


I have yet, through all your posts, to hear any good argument why your particular taste and sense of what music should be ought to be humored and accommodated (especially when there is more than enough of what you like to satisfy and sate for decades to come, with more very much in line with that being regularly produced and coming along daily) -- while any who have a variant taste for music which is outside your personal parameters of what is musically acceptable are, it seems, to be systematically denied.

That is not _discussion_ by any known definition of the word.


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> E major, because it's the dominant of _A minor_, and ranting can make one seem like a child...


Groan ! haha.


----------



## Guest

Chordalrock said:


> I think that secretly every composer wants to be popular.


Insert the word 'almost', between 'secretly' and 'every' and I'll agree with you. I'm sure someone here would be able to offer the name of a composer who _didn't_ want a favourable response from the audience he wrote for (or who wrote only for himself and not for public consumption at all) but most wrote for an audience and I would say that they would be happy for the size of that audience to grow.

[Sorry, having trouble with my tenses - this is true of dead composers as well as the living.)

However, that doesn't mean that composers simply want to satisfy popular demands.

BTW, I listen to music because I like it, not because it has been composed by someone with a particular attitude to popularity.


----------



## DavidA

PetrB said:


> I have yet, through all your posts, to hear any good argument why your particular taste and sense of what music should be ought to be humored and accommodated (especially when there is more than enough of what you like to satisfy and sate for decades to come, with more very much in line with that being regularly produced and coming along daily) -- while any who have a variant taste for music which is outside your personal parameters of what is musically acceptable are, it seems, to be systematically denied.
> 
> That is not _discussion_ by any known definition of the word.


I agree with this. I have hundreds of CDs of music that satisfies me. When I went into a shop the other day and bought 42 CDs of Perahia which were being sold at less than 50p each the girl behind the counter said, "When are you going to listen to them?"
Point taken! I have enough good music to last me a lifetime. This is music I enjoy.
Hence modern composers, if they like, can go ahead and compose music which consists of banging, scrapings and general dissonance and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Let them go ahead and compose it if people enjoy it. The only objection I have is when people suggest I should listen to music that I find unpleasant, go to concerts where it is played, buy recordings of it, or finance it in some way.
If people want music like this let them finance it. It is their choice. But please don't make it mine!


----------



## Chordalrock

It's true that game music is composed with the popular taste in mind. For me and many others however, it is mostly unsatisfyingly simple and/or small-scale. For whatever reason, the pieces often last no more than half a minute or minute, and then are looped in the game. For example, while I really like that excerpt I posted, it's just a short section from an already short piece. And here's another example, a cool fugue, but it lasts only 50 seconds and I'd expect a great composer to do a lot more with that sort of material.

Movie music similarly has issues, at least in contemporary films that I'm familiar with. It's mostly composed as background music with typically only fleeting moments of musical interest. Sometimes its issues are the exact same as those of game music: too small scale, too much repetition. It's not even meant to be listened to on its own.


----------



## thenewlyricist

Mahlerian said:


> No, that instinct is wrong. I also doubt that you yourself point to Schoenberg's op. 25 as some sort of turning point for the downfall of musical civilization. Don't you hate Pierrot lunaire just as much, if not more?
> 
> Schoenberg's music is very melodic, too.
> 
> Sorry - but I have to disagree with you. Yes - I do find 'Pierrot Lunaire' painful to listen to; there was a time when I persuaded myself otherwise, and even composed some 'atonal' and serial music myself! However - my argument is that Schoenberg was already experimenting with music 'without a tonal centre' well before he instituted the 12-tone system, but that it was the institution of that system that really sealed the major problem with so much 20th century music - it's being based on an *abstract* intellectual process that has no genuine relationship with how music works in practice for the vast majority of music lovers. Highly intellectual listeners (like yourself, perhaps?) may indeed get pleasure from the contemplation of mathematical formulae presented in sound, but for most people this is not the case. I'm fairly sure you won't agree with me, and I've had this argument repeatedly, but I believe that the 'meaning' of music derives fundamentally from the hierarchy of the harmonic series - when you ignore that, the results are musically unsatisfactory -however *intellectually* satisfying. Also I agree Schoenberg was a great melodist - *in his tonal music* - but in my opinion, however you may try, a 'melody' consisting of all 12 notes of the chromatic scale in succession is a complete non-starter; unless you do what Berg did and incorporate tonal elements in the series in the first place (which is why his serial music is more listenable than others.) For me the main reason why Stravinsky was the greatest composer of the 20th century, apart from his intrinsic musical talent, is that he found a way to write 'new' music which did not try to dispense with tonality (apart from in his late serial works, which for me are a failure, however ingenious they may be).


----------



## thenewlyricist

'Most great composers do want people to enjoy their music...

But most great composers also aren't going to sacrifice their language, style and musical values just for the sake of "popularity" (thank God).'

I agree with this, but it does raise the question of why composers compose at all! If they are composing just for themselves and their own amusement, then their style is entirely their own business. If on the other hand music is a 'language' (which of course it is), then surely language is for communicating with other people; then the question arises - if the language you choose to compose in actually *doesn't* communicate very well to most other music-lovers, then should you not consider changing it? This is not the same thing as pursuing popularity for its own sake (and the money, of course!) - but it is about what you think the purpose of music is!

The New Lyricist
http://thenewlyricist.wordpress.com/


----------



## aleazk

thenewlyricist said:


> (apart from in his late serial works, which for me are a failure, however ingenious they may be).


So, they are ingenious, but a failure nonetheless just because they are serial. Give me a break...

All your rant in a nutshell: "I don't like serial music...". Ok, point taken... NEXT!.


----------



## aleazk

thenewlyricist said:


> 'Most great composers do want people to enjoy their music...
> 
> But most great composers also aren't going to sacrifice their language, style and musical values just for the sake of "popularity" (thank God).'
> 
> I agree with this, but it does raise the question of why composers compose at all! If they are composing just for themselves and their own amusement, then their style is entirely their own business. If on the other hand music is a 'language' (which of course it is), then surely language is for communicating with other people; then the question arises - if the language you choose to compose in actually *doesn't* communicate very well to most other music-lovers, then should you not consider changing it? This is not the same thing as pursuing popularity for its own sake (and the money, of course!) - but it is about what you think the purpose of music is!
> 
> The New Lyricist
> http://thenewlyricist.wordpress.com/


No, it's not a language for communicating to other people. Why it should be?, for that we already have.. well, languages!.


----------



## Chordalrock

aleazk said:


> All your rant in a nutshell: "I don't like serial music...". Ok, point taken... NEXT!.


It seems that at some point, composers no longer wanted to hear about natural limits & tendencies inherent to certain types of sound and how they interacted with the human physiology. Of course, when you stop acknowledging reality, everything seems to boil down to pure opinion. This doesn't mean reality ceases to exist, and typically marginalisation results even for the greatest artist (e.g. Stravinsky's serialist stuff).

There is a fetish for everything a bit twisted, and there is also a fetish for types of music that are a bit twisted and that normal people would never care for. Being into this sort of thing doesn't make you open minded and better than other music lovers, it just means you like something that the vast majority of people will never understand the appeal of at all, period. If you plan to be a composer, you may want to think about this fact before wasting thirty years composing stuff you'll later regret wasting time on.


----------



## aleazk

thenewlyricist said:


> ... it's being based on an *abstract* intellectual process that has no genuine relationship with how music works in practice for the vast majority of music lovers... mathematical formulae presented in sound... a 'melody' consisting of all 12 notes of the chromatic scale in succession is a complete non-starter...


Evidently, you have very little idea about 12-tone composition...

First, once you establish the row, all the music is composed using the exact same criteria that are used for composing any music: gestures and counter-gestures, motivic development, etc., and it's completely up to the composer, there's no abstract intellectual method, just the old fashioned "inner ear" of the composer.

Second, mathematical formulae?, where?... a permutation, an inversion?... then almost every composer that used even basic counterpoint was using "mathematical formulae"...

Third, nobody uses the tone row as a melody... in fact, in most serial pieces you don't even hear the row, it's used in the background as a structural device for the music. What you actually hear are small motifs, which compose just a section of the row. A typical example is Webern, who selected his rows based on the properties they had regarding the inner motifs in them.


----------



## aleazk

Chordalrock said:


> It seems that at some point, composers no longer wanted to hear about natural limits & tendencies inherent to certain types of sound and how they interacted with the human physiology. Of course, when you stop acknowledging reality, everything seems to boil down to pure opinion. This doesn't mean reality ceases to exist, and typically marginalisation results even for the greatest artist (e.g. Stravinsky's serialist stuff).


Please, explain to me these natural limits posed by physiology... I'm all ears...



Chordalrock said:


> There is a fetish for everything a bit twisted, and there is also a fetish for types of music that are a bit twisted and that normal people would never care for. Being into this sort of thing doesn't make you open minded and better than other music lovers, it just means you like something that the vast majority of people will never understand the appeal of at all, period. If you plan to be a composer, you may want to think about this fact before wasting thirty years composing stuff you'll later regret wasting time on.


No, I don't plan to become a professional composer, I already have a career in another field.

Also, I'm neither an expert in 12-composition nor I use it in my own compositions. My harmonic language is chromatic.


----------



## Chordalrock

aleazk said:


> Please, explain to me these natural limits posed by physiology... I'm all ears...


Like physics, I'm not an expert, but I know there are laws.

My impression is that there are a very limited number of ways in which you can perceive harmony and melody: as color, as color + dissonance / consonance (jazz), as functional + dissonance / consonance (CPP), and as color + functional + dissonance / consonance.

I can't think of any other way to perceive harmony, and some of those ways you have to be careful exactly what kinds of sounds you are producing or you end up producing dissonance when you mean simply to add color. And of course when you produce too much unresolved dissonance when you're meaning to produce colour, you're failing badly at what you're doing.

I also suppose if you listen to very dissonant stuff a lot, you may become desensitised to its dissonant quality and begin to perceive it more as color, which is a problem if this isn't how the vast majority of people perceive it.

Also, if you mean to write functional harmony, but you use harmony too much as color, you're going to fail. And if you want to use jazz harmony but the melody note isn't far enough from the chord or different enough in timbre, and you want it to be in a dissonant relationship, it will just fuse itself to the chord and become color. I'm sure there are other considerations that I'm not able to think of right now.


----------



## Kieran

pileofsticks said:


> I have to say that Stravinsky is a crazy a$$ b1***. Let's start off with the Rite of Spring. Why the heck is it so high?


Dunno. Maybe cos you were listening to it upstairs? Try it on the ground floor or basement and see what you think... :tiphat:


----------



## aleazk

Chordalrock said:


> Like physics, I'm not an expert, but I know there are laws.
> 
> My impression is that there are a very limited number of ways in which you can perceive harmony and melody: as color, as color + dissonance / consonance (jazz), as functional + dissonance / consonance (CPP), and as color + functional + dissonance / consonance.
> 
> I can't think of any other way to perceive harmony, and some of those ways you have to be careful exactly what kinds of sounds you are producing or you end up producing dissonance when you mean simply to add color. And of course when you produce too much unresolved dissonance when you're meaning to produce colour, you're failing badly at what you're doing.
> 
> I also suppose if you listen to very dissonant stuff a lot, you may become desensitised to its dissonant quality and begin to perceive it more as color, which is a problem if this isn't how the vast majority of people perceive it.
> 
> Also, if you mean to write functional harmony or play with consonance / dissonance, but you use harmony too much as color, you're going to fail.


Ah, very nice. But as I said, I would like to see the claimed scientific basis for these assertions. You said all that was dictated by intrinsic, physiological processes. If that's so obvious, then I'm sure there are thousand of scientific papers about it. I would like to see those papers, please.

And no, music is not physics. Acoustics is physics. Music is much more than mere acoustics.


----------



## violadude

thenewlyricist said:


> 'Most great composers do want people to enjoy their music...
> 
> But most great composers also aren't going to sacrifice their language, style and musical values just for the sake of "popularity" (thank God).'
> 
> I agree with this, but it does raise the question of why composers compose at all! If they are composing just for themselves and their own amusement, then their style is entirely their own business. If on the other hand music is a 'language' (which of course it is), then surely language is for communicating with other people; then the question arises - if the language you choose to compose in actually *doesn't* communicate very well to most other music-lovers, then should you not consider changing it? This is not the same thing as pursuing popularity for its own sake (and the money, of course!) - but it is about what you think the purpose of music is!
> 
> The New Lyricist
> http://thenewlyricist.wordpress.com/


Ok, if you're going to make the language analogy, which I think is flawed but we'll go with it anyway, then what you're saying is like asking people in Turkey "Why do you speak Uyghur? Why not speak English? More people will understand you then."


----------



## Chordalrock

aleazk said:


> Ah, very nice. But as I said, I would like to see the claimed scientific basis for these assertions. You said all that was dictated by intrinsic, physiological processes. If that's so obvious, then I'm sure there are thousand of scientific papers about it. I would like to see those papers, please.


I'd like to see those papers too, but until universities stop hiding their cr*p behind pay-walls, I don't think it's reasonable to expect to. And until then, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.


----------



## violadude

Chordalrock said:


> It seems that at some point, composers no longer wanted to hear about natural limits & tendencies inherent to certain types of sound and how they interacted with the human physiology. Of course, when you stop acknowledging reality, everything seems to boil down to pure opinion. This doesn't mean reality ceases to exist, and *typically marginalisation results even for the greatest artist (e.g. Stravinsky's serialist stuff).
> *
> There is a fetish for everything a bit twisted, and there is also a fetish for types of music that are a bit twisted and that normal people would never care for. Being into this sort of thing doesn't make you open minded and better than other music lovers, it just means you like something that the vast majority of people will never understand the appeal of at all, period. If you plan to be a composer, you may want to think about this fact before wasting thirty years composing stuff you'll later regret wasting time on.


So what? Music that only appeals to a relatively small number of people isn't inherently bad because of it. Stravinsky's serialist stuff is just as brilliant as the other stuff he wrote.

I guess some people just can't get it through their heads that a composer is not a personal servant that should write music specifically for you. They write music that they like, that's true to themselves, the music they feel they must right and whatever style that may be, it will inevitably end of resonating with a number of people. It doesn't really matter how big or small that number of people are because to the people that enjoy the music it's enjoyable music and that's the end of the story.

In fact, the kind of music you like (the popular video game type music) is a music style much more in demand right now, that brings in much more money. So why are you complaining? It seems to me supremely selfish, when you already have plenty of your own kind of music to listen to, to want to urge other composers who don't write that kind of music to give up their own styles (styles which myself and others do enjoy as well) just so you can have more of your kind of music and we will have much less of our kind.

So why is it wrong? Why was it wrong for Schoenberg to write for people who enjoy Schoenberg? Why is it wrong for Ferneyhough to write for people who enjoy Ferneyhough? And why is it wrong for Jenkins (a composer whose music I can't stand) to write for people who enjoy Jenkins?

Answer: It's not

Get over it.


----------



## arpeggio

*Here We Go Again*



DavidA said:


> The only objection I have is when people suggest I should listen to music that I find unpleasant, go to concerts where it is played, buy recordings of it, or finance it in some way. If people want music like this let them finance it. It is their choice. But please don't make it mine!


I am really getting tired of reading this.

I have never agreed with this nonsense. I am a weak writer and if I said anything that would imply this I would be the first one to take it back.

I know people like this exist but I have personally met only one professor in college who felt this way. To my knowledge all of my modernist friends here at TC believe no one should be forced to listen to music they dislike. I also do not believe that others should stop listening to music I dislike.

This is what I meant at trying to be 'reasonable' in another post that generated some critical responses.

I also have no problems with the government financing music that I personally have no taste for. I know the government has financed all sorts of music that most would find very appealing. This frequently occurs in the band world when military bands use their budgets to commission new music. Morton Gould and Darius Milhaud received commissions from the United States Army to celebrate the sesquicentennial of West Point. Sousa composed most of his early marches when he was an employee and member of the United States Marine Corps Band. All of the service bands have staff members who are composers and arrangers who write music for them.

I just thought of another. Robert Jager's march _Esprit de Corps_. See: http://andypease.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/esprit-de-corps-by-robert-jager/

I could go on with many more examples.

Based on my experiences, most composers are really motivated by economics. If a composer thinks he can make money composing a concerto for garbage can lids he will do so.

What I also find frustrating is that the above may result in someone accusing me of being an elitist snob or calling the kettle black again. It is a cheap shot that I really do not know how to respond to.


----------



## violadude

Chordalrock said:


> I'd like to see those papers too, but until universities stop hiding their cr*p behind pay-walls, I don't think it's reasonable to expect to. And until then, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.


True, but on the other hand there's no real reason to believe what you are saying if you can't provide evidence.


----------



## aleazk

Chordalrock said:


> I'd like to see those papers too, but until universities stop hiding their cr*p behind pay-walls, I don't think it's reasonable to expect to.


I see. An answer not relying in world wide conspiracies would be more desirable next time...


----------



## lupinix

Chordalrock said:


> I don't see it as complaining. I think that secretly every composer wants to be popular. I'm trying to provide a perspective from which it would be easy to take that step and move on from an esoteric style to a more natural and popular style. And again, there are tons of people like me, so this isn't just for me.
> 
> And I do compose as a hobby. However, due to a childhood without music I'm not musical enough for it to be easy and I struggle to create music that I'm fond of, let alone music that more sophisticated listeners would be fond of. Here are the threads for two of those pieces:
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/30277-fugue-two-violins-cello.html
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/30371-adagio-violin-piano.html
> 
> I have several other pieces that I haven't uploaded that I like. I may upload and post a few of them later but I think I should revise them first, since I've learned a lot from posting my pieces here.


At least to me it seemed a bit like complaining. I too compose, but I really don't care about popularity, if that was the case I would make typical top40 music, and lots of it. I do like it though, if someone, like a friend, really enjoyes and feels my music for what it is.

Be careful though with the word "natural", a lot of unnatural things may seem natural because your ears are simply used to it, while other natural things may seem unnatural for similar reasons.

I don't think there are ton's of people like you, because there aren't tons of people like me either. Everyone is different. And sometimes it is hard to find the music that is _totally you_, that completely speaks to your heart, and I personally think that that is the main reason for at least a lot of composers to start composing.

That's why I gave the advice, and I think its great that you have already started composing. That its hard is also a good sign I guess, it would get easier when you have more experience. Its great too, that you have learned a lot, get on with it 

and perhaps even in a few years you might find that you are more open to certain "less accessible" once you have found your own way in using them, which _is natural to you_

who knows


----------



## Blancrocher

Chordalrock said:


> I'd like to see those papers too, but until universities stop hiding their cr*p behind pay-walls, I don't think it's reasonable to expect to.


It is rather unfortunate that publicly funded universities don't make their research freely available to the public, now that you mention it.


----------



## Chordalrock

violadude said:


> True, but on the other hand there's no real reason to believe what you are saying if you can't provide evidence.


I was actually wrong about not finding evidence due to paywalls -- I think the abstracts are available to search engines, even if not to google. With enough effort I might be able to find something.

From what I just skimmed through tho, the research seems kind of pathetic and is mostly in its infancy.

What I claimed wasn't based on scientific research, nor does it need to be so based. It was based on experience and reasoning, and if you fail to see anything wrong with what I said, then perhaps there's nothing wrong with what I said. The weight of evidence isn't any more on my side than it is on yours, but I at least have provided a description of musical perception that others can try to tear apart or improve. So far, it doesn't seem that anyone is able to improve on it or fault it.


----------



## Morimur

Chordalrock said:


> I was actually wrong about not finding evidence due to paywalls -- I think the abstracts are available to search engines, even if not to google. With enough effort I might be able to find something.
> 
> From what I just skimmed through tho, the research seems kind of pathetic and is mostly in its infancy.
> 
> What I claimed wasn't based on scientific research, nor does it need to be so based. It was based on experience and reasoning, and if you fail to see anything wrong with what I said, then perhaps there's nothing wrong with what I said. The weight of evidence isn't any more on my side than it is on yours, but I at least have provided a description of musical perception that others can try to tear apart or improve. So far, it doesn't seem that anyone is able to improve on it or fault it.


I bet you're a fan of traditional Japanese music.


----------



## Resurrexit

I think Rite of Spring is very exciting!!! But a friend once said I should listen to Pierrot Lunaire...I told him that was the scariest thing I ever heard and that he was crazy and that he should burn that cd. :lol:


----------



## Morimur

Resurrexit said:


> I think Rite of Spring is very exciting!!! But a friend once said I should listen to Pierrot Lunaire...I told him that was the scariest thing I ever heard and that he was crazy and that he should burn that cd. :lol:


Funny, I had a similar reaction when a friend played some of Rihanna's 'music' for me. Damn near killed me.


----------



## Chordalrock

Lope de Aguirre said:


> I bet you're a fan of traditional Japanese music.


Actually I'm not, and I'm even less a fan of vague mysterious allusions to an argument used in place of actual arguments.


----------



## Morimur

Chordalrock said:


> Actually I'm not, and I'm even less a fan of vague mysterious allusions to an argument used in place of actual arguments.


I thought it was obvious.


----------



## Chordalrock

Lope de Aguirre said:


> I thought it was obvious.


Well, I think everything I've ever written has been obvious, but I suspect this may be humility.


----------



## Guest

Chordalrock said:


> What I claimed wasn't based on scientific research, nor does it need to be so based. It was based on experience and reasoning... So far, it doesn't seem that anyone is able to improve on it or fault it.


Based on experience and reasoning, I would like to point out that a little purple unicorn is currently cantering across the solar system. I last spotted him on the outskirts of the asteroid belt. So far, it doesn't seem that anyone is able to improve on or fault my reports of this little guy.


----------



## aleazk

Blancrocher said:


> It is rather unfortunate that publicly funded universities don't make their research freely available to the public, now that you mention it.


That was just a very lame excuse. There are many ways to access to some of the information. Concerning the papers, you can read at least the abstracts, that's for sure. Also, wikipedia articles, blogs, etc. You can find in wikipedia comments on the most recent developments in science (the quality of those comments is subject of another discussion). So, the point is that it's unlikely to find absolutely nothing about it... unless, of course, you think there's some kind of conspiracy...


----------



## Blancrocher

aleazk said:


> That was just a very lame excuse. There are many ways to access to some of the information. Concerning the papers, you can read at least the abstracts, that's for sure. Also, wikipedia articles, blogs, etc. You can find in wikipedia comments on the most recent developments in science (the quality of those comments is subject for another discussion). So, the point is that it's unlikely to find absolutely nothing about it... unless, of course, you think there's some kind of conspiracy...


Perhaps--there comes a time, though, that Wikipedia and blogs fail to satisfy and one wishes to go straight to the published research (regardless of whether any of us have reached that point on the particular issue being discussed--which is what again? :lol


----------



## Chordalrock

arcaneholocaust said:


> Based on experience and reasoning, I would like to point out that a little purple unicorn is currently cantering across the solar system. I last spotted him on the outskirts of the asteroid belt. So far, it doesn't seem that anyone is able to improve on or fault my reports of this little guy.


So you don't agree that experience and reasoning are the best means of gaining understanding of many subjects that are too complicated or elusive for the scientific method or that scientists haven't yet, for whatever reason, adequately researched? If so, pray tell, which method do you suggest be used?

Or are you merely questioning my ability to experience and reason? If so, it should have been easy for you to provide a saner explanation of perception of harmony.


----------



## Guest

It is less the first part that precipitated my response, but more the eye-roll inducing "I'm right because no one has proved me wrong" bit.


----------



## Chordalrock

arcaneholocaust said:


> It is less the first part that precipitated my response, but more the eye-roll inducing "I'm right because no one has proved me wrong" bit.


Isn't that the attitude of pretty much everyone on this thread?


----------



## Chordalrock

Blancrocher said:


> Perhaps--there comes a time, though, that Wikipedia and blogs fail to satisfy and one wishes to go straight to the published research (regardless of whether any of us have reached that point on the particular issue being discussed--which is what again? :lol


The topic is perception of harmony. I'll copy-paste my message about it here, so it doesn't get flooded under all this rather spammy spat. Hopefully someone cares / dares to address it properly:

My impression is that there are a very limited number of ways in which you can perceive harmony and melody: as color, as color + dissonance / consonance (jazz), as functional + dissonance / consonance (CPP), and as color + functional + dissonance / consonance.

I can't think of any other way to perceive harmony, and some of those ways you have to be careful exactly what kinds of sounds you are producing or you end up producing dissonance when you mean simply to add color. And of course when you produce too much unresolved dissonance when you're meaning to produce colour, you're failing badly at what you're doing.

I also suppose if you listen to very dissonant stuff a lot, you may become desensitised to its dissonant quality and begin to perceive it more as color, which is a problem if this isn't how the vast majority of people perceive it.

Also, if you mean to write functional harmony, but you use harmony too much as color, you're going to fail. And if you want to use jazz harmony but the melody note isn't far enough from the chord or different enough in timbre, and you want it to be in a dissonant relationship, it will just fuse itself to the chord and become color. I'm sure there are other considerations that I'm not able to think of right now.


----------



## Guest

Chordalrock said:


> Isn't that the attitude of pretty much everyone on this thread?


I suppose, but maybe that eye-roller can be a little more acceptable 'round these parts when it doesn't follow up a belligerent and seemingly narrow-minded series of opinions.

It's all context. Say you're a racist or something...keep your trap shut in the hood, nevertheless.


----------



## Sudonim

"So true is it that unnatural generally means only uncustomary, and that everything which is usual appears natural." - John Stuart Mill


----------



## aleazk

Blancrocher said:


> Perhaps--there comes a time, though, that Wikipedia and blogs fail to satisfy and one wishes to go straight to the published research (regardless of whether any of us have reached that point on the particular issue being discussed--which is what again? :lol


If somebody is saying that his claims are scientific and then fails to provide even a wikipedia article, I will have my doubts.

As you said: on the particular issue being discussed--_which is what again?_...

I will tell you: hot air...


----------



## aleazk

Chordalrock said:


> It was based on experience and reasoning, and if you fail to see anything wrong with what I said, then perhaps there's nothing wrong with what I said. The weight of evidence isn't any more on my side than it is on yours, but I at least have provided a description of musical perception that others can try to tear apart or improve. So far, it doesn't seem that anyone is able to improve on it or fault it.


Euphemism for: it was completely fabricated by my imagination and I don't have any kind of arguments for defending it...

Keep trying... NEXT!.


----------



## Chordalrock

aleazk said:


> If somebody is saying that his claims are scientific and then fails to provide even a wikipedia article, I will have my doubts.
> 
> As you said: on the particular issue being discussed--_which is what again?_...
> 
> I will tell you: hot air...


I'm sorry, you're the one who brought science into this. I was just discussing facts as I understood them. It's not as if humans aren't able to learn about reality without using the scientific method.

This is what provoked your demands for science articles:

"It seems that at some point, composers no longer wanted to hear about natural limits & tendencies inherent to certain types of sound and how they interacted with the human physiology. Of course, when you stop acknowledging reality, everything seems to boil down to pure opinion."

Note how I'm not claiming any basis in science at all. The fact that I'm using words like natural, physiology, and reality, doesn't mean I'm referring scientific articles, it just means my vocabulary is on the adult level.


----------



## Blancrocher

Sudonim said:


> "So true is it that unnatural generally means only uncustomary, and that everything which is usual appears natural." - John Stuart Mill


JSM is also the source of this favorite quote: "In all intellectual debates, both sides tend to be correct in what they affirm, and wrong in what they deny."

Let's be nice, everybody :lol:


----------



## Resurrexit

Chordalrock said:


> I don't see it as complaining. I think that secretly every composer wants to be popular. I'm trying to provide a perspective from which it would be easy to take that step and move on from an esoteric style to a more natural and popular style. And again, there are tons of people like me, so this isn't just for me.


Maybe sir, maybe. But also do not underestimate the artistic impulse of great artists!!! Composers who could have written in the popular style but instead were driven by an inner demon to create works true to their instincts. I am reminded of Berlioz when he was writing his masterpiece Les Troyens and did not know if it would be performed. He said "It matters little what happens to the work, whether it is ever performed or not. My musical and Virgillian passion will have been satisfied."


----------



## aleazk

Chordalrock said:


> I'm sorry, you're the one who brought science into this. I was just discussing facts as I understood them. It's not as if humans aren't able to learn about reality without using the scientific method.
> 
> This is what provoked your demands for science articles:
> 
> "It seems that at some point, composers no longer wanted to hear about natural limits & tendencies inherent to certain types of sound and how they interacted with the human physiology. Of course, when you stop acknowledging reality, everything seems to boil down to pure opinion."
> 
> Note how I'm not claiming any basis in science at all. The fact that I'm using words like natural, physiology, and reality, doesn't mean I'm referring scientific articles, it just means my vocabulary is on the adult level.


Oh, please... by using words like "physiology" and "natural limits" you are trying to give an objective and quasi-scientific realm to your claims.


----------



## Chordalrock

aleazk said:


> Euphemism for: it was completely fabricated by my imagination and I don't have any kind of arguments for defending it...
> 
> Keep trying... NEXT!.


You're defending aesthetic subjectivism. Where's your evidence that what you're defending is scientific? Where are your scientific articles? See, two can play this game.


----------



## violadude

Chordalrock said:


> I'm sorry, you're the one who brought science into this. I was just discussing facts as I understood them. It's not as if humans aren't able to learn about reality without using the scientific method.
> 
> This is what provoked your demands for science articles:
> 
> "It seems that at some point, composers no longer wanted to hear about natural limits & tendencies inherent to certain types of sound and how they interacted with the human physiology. Of course, when you stop acknowledging reality, everything seems to boil down to pure opinion."
> 
> Note how I'm not claiming any basis in science at all. The fact that I'm using words like natural, physiology, and reality, doesn't mean I'm referring scientific articles, it just means my vocabulary is on the adult level.


Uh no. Fact is, when you bring in topics like "natural limits of human physiology" you bring science to the table, whether you like it or not. Of course the scientific method is not the only way of finding things out, but it's the best way to make sure your claims are accurate and it's starting to feel like you don't really care whether or not your claims are accurate.


----------



## Chordalrock

aleazk said:


> Oh, please... by using words like "physiology" and "natural limits" you are trying to give an objective and quasi-scientific realm to your claims.


There's a difference between defending some variety of objectivism and having to rely on the scientific method. Philosophers have defended various forms of objectivism for thousands of years before the scientific method was even invented.


----------



## Blancrocher

Resurrexit said:


> I think Rite of Spring is very exciting!!! But a friend once said I should listen to Pierrot Lunaire...I told him that was the scariest thing I ever heard and that he was crazy and that he should burn that cd. :lol:


Stravinsky himself was a great fan of Pierrot Lunaire, by the way. Anyways, if you think that's scary, wait till you hear Erwartung...


----------



## aleazk

Chordalrock said:


> There's a difference between defending some variety of objectivism and having to rely on the scientific method. Philosophers have defended various forms of objectivism for thousands of years before the scientific method was even invented.


Physiology is a quite scientific term. In fact, it's the name of a science!, sub-discipline of biology. You said that your claims had their foundations in physiology. Sorry, but that sounds like you were trying to give scientific meaning to your claims. You brought science into the thing by using that term, not me.

Did you know that there's even a Nobel Prize in Physiology?.


----------



## Chordalrock

aleazk said:


> Physiology is a quite scientific term. In fact, it's the name of a science!, sub-discipline of biology. You said that your claims had their foundations in physiology. Sorry, but that sounds like you were trying to give scientific meaning to your claims. You brought science into the thing by using that term, not me.
> 
> Did you know that there's even a Nobel Prize in Physiology?.


Human is also a scientific term. There's even a field of science that has the term in its name: anthropology. I guess I must stop talking about humans too!


----------



## violadude

Chordalrock said:


> Human is also a scientific term. There's even a field of science that has the term: anthropology. I guess I must stop talking about humans too!


No...human is the layman term for Homo Sapiens (or of the Homo genus if you want to apply it more broadly, but it usually isn't).

Physiology, on the other hand, is a specific branch of scientific research.


----------



## aleazk

Chordalrock said:


> Human is also a scientific term. There's even a field of science that has the term: anthropology. I guess I must stop talking about humans too!


lol... that's all you got?... jeez... no, you should not use the word anthropology for things that have nothing to do with it... and no, human is a different word with a different meaning...

Physiology and Anthropology refer to sciences, here and in China...


----------



## Mahlerian

thenewlyricist said:


> Sorry - but I have to disagree with you. Yes - I do find 'Pierrot Lunaire' painful to listen to; there was a time when I persuaded myself otherwise, and even composed some 'atonal' and serial music myself! However - my argument is that Schoenberg was already experimenting with music 'without a tonal centre'


Schoenberg hated the term atonal, as do I. All music has harmonic pull towards one or more centers, based on voicing if nothing else. Schoenberg's music has powerful latent tonality at all times, no matter how much this is obscured by the chromatic density or the lack of diatonic functionality. Papers have been written about it, but I'd rather not have to get into theory and simply keep this discussion intelligible to everyone.



thenewlyricist said:


> well before he instituted the 12-tone system


No such thing. There is no "12-tone system". A system, one would assume, is something that produces the same result given the same input, but the 12-tone method does no such thing. Given the same tone row, two different composers will produce pieces that bear no resemblance to each other and, in fact, express their own individual personalities above all else. Are there specific ways in which the 12-tone method has been used in the past (many wide intervals, distribution of a melody line among multiple voices, contrapuntal density)? Yes, but these are stylistic factors, not related to the idea of the method itself.



thenewlyricist said:


> but that it was the institution of that system that really sealed the major problem with so much 20th century music - it's being based on an *abstract* intellectual process that has no genuine relationship with how music works in practice for the vast majority of music lovers. Highly intellectual listeners (like yourself, perhaps?) may indeed get pleasure from the contemplation of mathematical formulae presented in sound, but for most people this is not the case.


I'm sure I couldn't recognize any such thing. I don't listen for tone rows, and think "oh, here's the tone row presented in retrograde inversion, transposed up a minor third". In fact (though this was already answered above), most composers went out of their way to _not_ make the tone row present in the foreground, and in fact disguised it very cleverly.

Nope, I listen to the _exact same things_ in "atonal" and "12-tone" music that you do in the music you like: melody, harmony, timbre, form, and so forth. I am always surprised when anyone contests this.



thenewlyricist said:


> I'm fairly sure you won't agree with me, and I've had this argument repeatedly, but I believe that the 'meaning' of music derives fundamentally from the hierarchy of the harmonic series - when you ignore that, the results are musically unsatisfactory -however *intellectually* satisfying.


There's a great book that discusses the primacy of the overtone series in the understanding of music. You can find it here.

Hierarchy doesn't come into it, though. After all, where would that leave all of the non-hierarchical "tonalities" that you've held up as "good" 20th century music, such as those of Bartok, Debussy, and Stravinsky?



thenewlyricist said:


> Also I agree Schoenberg was a great melodist - *in his tonal music* - but in my opinion, however you may try, a 'melody' consisting of all 12 notes of the chromatic scale in succession is a complete non-starter; unless you do what Berg did and incorporate tonal elements in the series in the first place (which is why his serial music is more listenable than others.)


Berg's music is really no more tonal than Schoenberg's, it just uses triads and sevenths more frequently. But a triad does not tonality make.



thenewlyricist said:


> For me the main reason why Stravinsky was the greatest composer of the 20th century, apart from his intrinsic musical talent, is that he found a way to write 'new' music which did not try to dispense with tonality (apart from in his late serial works, which for me are a failure, however ingenious they may be).


Stravinsky's late works are excellent. Threni is a favorite of mine.

But I think that Stravinsky is the greatest composer of the 20th century simply because of his compositions. Everything else is rather secondary. Schoenberg comes in second (maybe third, if we include Debussy), in my book, once again simply for the quality of the compositions he gave us.


----------



## Chordalrock

You must be kidding me. 

Look, I could easily replace "physiology" in my paragraph with "human brain":

"It seems that at some point, composers no longer wanted to hear about natural limits & tendencies inherent to certain types of sound and how they interacted with the human brain."

Wow. It's now suddenly about neuroscience I guess? Or is brain acceptably low-brow for you?

Why don't you try saying something about the perception of harmony and we'll see how that goes.


----------



## Blake

This thread has primarily been Chordalrock vs ~10 other users, haha.


----------



## aleazk

Chordalrock said:


> You must be kidding me.
> 
> Look, I could easily replace "physiology" in my paragraph with "human brain":
> 
> "It seems that at some point, composers no longer wanted to hear about natural limits & tendencies inherent to certain types of sound and how they interacted with the human brain."
> 
> Wow. It's now suddenly about neuroscience I guess? Or is brain acceptably low-brow for you?
> 
> Why don't you try saying something about the perception of harmony and we'll see how that goes.


You could have used other words, yes... but you didn't... you used the word physiology in a pathetic attempt to give your rant a scientific foundation. Again, it all goes back to you.


----------



## Sudonim

Chordalrock said:


> You must be kidding me.
> 
> Look, I could easily replace "physiology" in my paragraph with "human brain":
> 
> "It seems that at some point, composers no longer wanted to hear about natural limits & tendencies inherent to certain types of sound and how they interacted with the human brain."
> 
> Wow. It's now suddenly about neuroscience I guess? Or is brain acceptably low-brow for you?
> 
> Why don't you try saying something about the perception of harmony and we'll see how that goes.


The issue, chordalrock, is your claim that there are "natural limits & tendencies ... of sound." What are these "limits"? How did you arrive at the conclusion that they are "natural"? You've been asked to provide evidence beyond your own "perception," because that has no significance in itself - your perception may be flawed and can in no way be taken as objective truth.


----------



## violadude

Alright, I have a couple questions for those who are "against" (as opposed to merely dislike) atonal/serial whatever music.

1. I often see these people refer to atonal music as a "problem", like one or more of the users in this very thread have. But why is it a problem? People like it. Is it because not enough people like it? If so, exactly how many people have to like something before it's officially considered unproblematic? And why does the formula "number of people liking something = the greatness of the music" suddenly break down when you start talking about non-classical music? Shouldn't classical music itself be problematic relative to pop music, if this was the case?

2. I hear the term "mathematical formula" thrown around a lot by people when talking about this music, like those of us who listen to it can only appreciate the mathematical formulas in the music.

But...what mathematical formulas are you talking about?...certainly the original Second Viennese School didn't use any explicit mathematical formulas to write their music. Maybe Stockhausen wrote his music based on a few mathematic ideas, maybe Xenakis? I really don't know. But I think when people say "mathematical formula" to describe the method used by a certain composer, it's more often than not a misconception, at least in so far as saying that Schoenberg's music has anything more to do with mathematics than Beethoven's music.


----------



## PetrB

Chordalrock said:


> I'd like to see those papers too, but until universities stop hiding their cr*p behind pay-walls, I don't think it's reasonable to expect to. And until then, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.


Conspiracy theories are tremendously convenient for those who do not want to face facts, and / or who are lazy of mind.


----------



## Blancrocher

*Original post has been deleted*

It occurs to me that I was too quick to dismiss the connection between popularity and quality.


----------



## mmsbls

Please keep your comments focused on the thread topic and not on other members. Some comments have been removed from certain posts. If the inappropriate comments continue, we will close the thread.


----------



## aleazk

Blancrocher said:


> 2. I agree with you that Schoenberg probably isn't more "mathematical" than Beethoven. But my impression is that anti-atonalists are concerned that the mathematics is necessary for appreciating Schoenberg and not for Beethoven--that Schoenberg looks good on paper to those who know how to read him, but doesn't _sound_ good. Part of this is the consequence of the perceived divide between "academic" and "regular" listeners mentioned above.


Curiously enough, I'm in a mathematics related career but my liking for those composers has nothing to do with mathematics. In fact, I don't care a cr*p about mathematics in music. I just like the sound of it. The gestures and counter-gestures; the motives and their development; the polyphony made with them; the timbral, rhythmic and register nuances; and a big etc. All of that is purely musical. And it's visceral. I never read scores when I'm listening music for entertainment, only for study. I don't care about methods, systems, etc.

That's why I really can't dig their arguments. Supposedly, I'm then precisely the right person for appreciating this music in the way they say, but what they say does not correlate with my personal experience at all.


----------



## Morimur

*Terrible composers*

Ludovico Einaudi: Terrible, unimaginative composer. He trained under Berio and was quite a precocious talent in his youth. Nowadays he composes unimaginative drivel for pop music lovers.

Philip Glass: Need I say more? Need I say more? Need I say more? Need I say more? Need I say more? Need I say more? Need I say more? Need I say more? Need I say more?... Thanks, Phillip Glass.

Michael Nyman: Pop. Poop.

Peter Maxwell Davis: Has-been.


----------



## Guest

Chordalrock said:


> There is a fetish for everything a bit twisted, and there is also a fetish for types of music that are a bit twisted and that normal people would never care for.


Normal? What's normal?



Chordalrock said:


> of course when you produce too much unresolved dissonance when you're meaning to produce colour, you're failing badly at what you're doing.


Unless what you want to produce is a lot of unresolved dissonance!



Chordalrock said:


> I also suppose if you listen to very dissonant stuff a lot, you may become desensitised to its dissonant quality and begin to perceive it more as color, which is a problem if this isn't how the vast majority of people perceive it.


Why is it a problem?

Your arguments seem to focus on assumptions that any composer who isn't composing what 'normal' people want to hear will have a 'problem' and be a failure? Have I got that right?


----------



## shangoyal

Most of the times I am overwhelmed by how much great music there is to be liked and enjoyed. I used to think about how modern composers expect listeners to enjoy their compositions but I don't anymore. I worry about whether my whole life is enough to appreciate the whole ouevre of just Mozart and Beethoven.


----------



## lupinix

violadude said:


> Alright, I have a couple questions for those who are "against" (as opposed to merely dislike) atonal/serial whatever music.
> 
> 1. I often see these people refer to atonal music as a "problem", like one or more of the users in this very thread have. But why is it a problem? People like it. Is it because not enough people like it? If so, exactly how many people have to like something before it's officially considered unproblematic? And why does the formula "number of people liking something = the greatness of the music" suddenly break down when you start talking about non-classical music? Shouldn't classical music itself be problematic relative to pop music, if this was the case?
> 
> 2. I hear the term "mathematical formula" thrown around a lot by people when talking about this music, like those of us who listen to it can only appreciate the mathematical formulas in the music.
> 
> But...what mathematical formulas are you talking about?...certainly the original Second Viennese School didn't use any explicit mathematical formulas to write their music. Maybe Stockhausen wrote his music based on a few mathematic ideas, maybe Xenakis? I really don't know. But I think when people say "mathematical formula" to describe the method used by a certain composer, it's more often than not a misconception, at least in so far as saying that Schoenberg's music has anything more to do with mathematics than Beethoven's music.


As far as I know, Xenakis indeed used at least maths and Stockhausen at least physics (macrorhythm/microrhythm), of course this doesn't necessarily mean it is totally based on these science and there's no inspiration present at all, and also doesn't necessarily mean that their music doesn't have a deeper personal purpose (of course it might be the case, like with many more composers, but not necessarily)

Schoenberg however, has indeed nothing to do with any of these kind of things


----------



## lupinix

shangoyal said:


> Most of the times I am overwhelmed by how much great music there is to be liked and enjoyed. I used to think about how modern composers expect listeners to enjoy their compositions but I don't anymore. I worry about whether my whole life is enough to appreciate the whole ouevre of just Mozart and Beethoven.


I mostly try to expect nothing from anyone or anything, mostly because I don't like it much either when I'm expected to do/feel/know/say/think/like anything 

that also means that I don't do something unless I'm sure it is worth to do it even if it doesn't have any results, which might be a bit weird, but for me it works

also on Mozart and Beethoven, if just listening to them is enough for you, do so ^^ enjoy, I'm always happy if someone is enthousiastic about his interests
for me it never was though (in fact I unfortunately have never really liked Beethoven much and also a lot of works by Mozart), not even to some Russian romantic and modern composers or other styles, so I keep looking and write music so that if once there will be people a bit like me, they won't have to feel so lonely as I sometimes do


----------



## GGluek

What bothers me about parts of this, and all other "music died with Schoenberg" arguments is the evident presumption that Twentieth Century music in general universally adopted 12-note music -- when anyone here can name upwards of two dozen popular, great, and well liked 20th c composers whose music had little to nothing to do with 12-note composition. If you don't like Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, or the Princeton or Darmstadt schools, don't listen to them. But there's plenty of other music that you will have a decent chance of liking. It's like acting as if John Cage only wrote 4'33" and condemning his entire output because of it.


----------



## dgee

GGluek said:


> It's like acting as if John Cage only wrote 4'33" and condemning his entire output because of it.


Goodness no! That never happens!


----------



## Mahlerian

GGluek said:


> What bothers me about parts of this, and all other "music died with Schoenberg" arguments is the evident presumption that Twentieth Century music in general universally adopted 12-note music -- when anyone here can name upwards of two dozen popular, great, and well liked 20th c composers whose music had little to nothing to do with 12-note composition. If you don't like Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, or the Princeton or Darmstadt schools, don't listen to them. But there's plenty of other music that you will have a decent chance of liking. It's like acting as if John Cage only wrote 4'33" and condemning his entire output because of it.


That's true, but it also bothers me that very, very few of these people can actually identify a whether or not a composition is in fact 12-tone by listening to it...and then proceed to say those who advocate such music are the ones who care more about theory than the actual sounds the music makes...


----------



## StevenOBrien

pileofsticks said:


> Ok, I really have to get this out.
> 
> We were in music history class today, and we talked about composers from 1870ish-1930ish. I have a huge list of composers that I honestly can't stand. And it's big.
> 
> I have to start off by saying that most of the avant-grade composers are just horrible. Horrible, horrible, horrible.
> 
> ---
> 
> I'm the new principal bassoonist (promotion! ) of a youth symphony orchestra... but I have to say that Stravinsky is a crazy a$$ b1***. Let's start off with the Rite of Spring. Why the heck is it so high? Weirdest rhythms ever! Atonality! Never really follows the key signature!
> 
> Next up has to be Ives. I honestly think that his main purpose was to **** off the people who were forced to play his pieces by making them subdivide triplets within triplets within triplets... with notes that don't even match.
> 
> My biggest pet peeve has to be Schoenberg. Atonality is honestly the worst thing that has happened to the world of music. I'm guessing that he got bored and splattered ink on a piece of paper, added flats and sharps, and VOILA, YOU HAVE "MUSIC".
> 
> Anything minimalistic/expressionist is horrible too. If I ever go to a performance of John Cage's 4'33", I'll honestly spark a riot. Philip Glass's music is ear torture.
> 
> If people are gonna make new music, then why not make it sound good?


Nobody's forcing you to listen to any of that. (hopefully...)

None of the composers you mentioned are bad by any stretch of the imagination, they're just different. You're missing out if you approach a Schoenberg work expecting a melody, or a Philip Glass work expecting more traditional development. Try to appreciate their work for what it is and you might find that you actually like it! If not, that's fine too, but there's no need to go around disrespecting the tastes of others.

It's like going on a skiing holiday and complaining for the entire week about how it's too cold to sunbathe.


----------



## rrudolph

aleazk said:


> I just like the sound of it.


Aleazk wins the thread. The rest of you can stop now.


----------



## Celloman

If people are gonna make new music, then why not make it sound good?

Whoever said that music had to sound good? We live in a world that is sometimes very ugly. Music has a way of reflecting these uncomfortable realities.


----------



## Blancrocher

Celloman said:


> If people are gonna make new music, then why not make it sound good?
> 
> Whoever said that music had to sound good? We live in a world that is sometimes very ugly. Music has a way of reflecting these uncomfortable realities.


Alex Ross has a number of quotes in The Rest is Noise that make the point, though I wish he'd included some of the expletive-laced comments of (for example) the Ives circle along these lines--the rhetoric can get hilariously nasty on both sides. The idea that art should reflect reality isn't intuitively obvious, of course, and many will differ on the issue. Leaving music aside, there are many films--such as Gaspar Noe's "Irreversible"--that are too realistically brutal for me.


----------



## KenOC

StevenOBrien said:


> It's like going on a skiing holiday and complaining for the entire week about how it's too cold to sunbathe.


Well said! In the end, we all vote with our ears. Still, moaning and whining is a basic human activity, so it's not likely to stop!


----------



## Mahlerian

StevenOBrien said:


> *You're missing out if you approach a Schoenberg work expecting a melody*


Sigh.

You're missing out if you don't hear the melody that proliferates throughout every Schoenberg work.


----------



## Sudonim

Celloman said:


> If people are gonna make new music, then why not make it sound good?
> 
> Whoever said that music had to sound good? We live in a world that is sometimes very ugly. Music has a way of reflecting these uncomfortable realities.


I'd go a little further and submit that "sounding good" and "sounding ugly" are not necessarily antithetical terms. Sometimes music can be both at once.


----------



## rrudolph

Sudonim said:


> I'd go a little further and submit that "sounding good" and "sounding ugly" are not necessarily antithetical terms. Sometimes music can be both at once.


Cough cough*xenakis*cough cough


----------



## southwood

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Ludovico Einaudi: Terrible, unimaginative composer. He trained under Berio and was quite a precocious talent in his youth. Nowadays he composes unimaginative drivel for pop music lovers.
> 
> Philip Glass: Need I say more? Need I say more? Need I say more? Need I say more? Need I say more? Need I say more? Need I say more? Need I say more? Need I say more?... Thanks, Phillip Glass.
> 
> Michael Nyman: Pop. Poop.
> 
> Peter Maxwell Davis: Has-been.


You're right about Einaudi. Maxwell Davis ? Only know one piece by him and I don't like it. Nyman ? The Piano was ok, like a better version of Einaudi. Glass can be ok. What about James MacMillan ? Puleeeeze !


----------



## SimonNZ

This thread is comedy gold.


----------



## PetrB

SimonNZ said:


> This thread is comedy gold.


A-Yep! The foundation of comedy is -- wait for it and Ta-Daaah! --
Misunderstanding.


----------



## StevenOBrien

Mahlerian said:


> Sigh.
> 
> You're missing out if you don't hear the melody that proliferates throughout every Schoenberg work.


Is it really necessary for you to be so pedantic? The vast majority of people (which clearly includes the OP, who I was talking to) would define a melody as something that is easily hummable and memorable to the lay listener. I think it's widely agreed that this definition doesn't apply in the case of the majority of Schoenberg's output.

It's attitudes like yours that turn people off from his music, and it's why people walk away from it laughing about how it sounds like "a cat walking on a keyboard". It's different music, and all I'm saying in my post is that you shouldn't approach it with any preconceived expectations of what music _should_ be.

I find it difficult to believe that you didn't know what I meant. If you think I'm disparaging Schoenberg in any way, you clearly didn't read my post properly...


----------



## PetrB

Sudonim said:


> I'd go a little further and submit that "sounding good" and "sounding ugly" are not necessarily antithetical terms. Sometimes music can be both at once.





rrudolph said:


> Cough cough*xenakis*cough cough


Cough cough*Beethoven Grose Fuga & Hammerklavier Sonata*cough cough


----------



## PetrB

StevenOBrien said:


> Is it really necessary for you to be so pedantic? The vast majority of people (which clearly includes the OP, who I was talking to) would define a melody as something that is easily hummable and memorable to the lay listener. I think it's widely agreed that this definition doesn't apply in the case of the majority of Schoenberg's output. It's attitudes like yours that turn people off from his music.
> 
> I find it difficult to believe that you didn't know what I meant. If you think I'm disparaging Schoenberg in any way, you clearly didn't read my post properly...


Its that attitude that something has to be as readily and easily reproduced by the listener as are _Mary had a little Lamb_ or a four note motif from Beethoven to be the only things worthy of or considered Melody that kind of turn me off.

I mean come on, does the world expect classical music to be about _tunes?_ We've got Paul McCartney and hosts of others for that sort of thing.


----------



## shangoyal

PetrB said:


> Its that attitude that something has to be as readily and easily produced as Mary had a little Lamb or a four note motif from Beethoven to be the only things worthy of or considered Melody that kind of turn me off.
> 
> I mean come on, does the world expect classical music to be about _tunes?_ We've got Paul McCartney and hosts of others for that sort of thing.


For the beginner with little or no technical knowledge, believe it or not, most of the times, a melody means something closer to what Steven is saying - hummable, etc. I think appreciating Schoenberg is still more difficult for the average listener than say, appreciating Haydn. It takes time for somebody to really get there, in most cases. This is a little conservative, but it might be true.


----------



## StevenOBrien

PetrB said:


> Its that attitude that something has to be as readily and easily produced as Mary had a little Lamb or a four note motif from Beethoven to be the only things worthy of or considered Melody that kind of turn me off.
> 
> I mean come on, does the world expect classical music to be about _tunes?_ We've got Paul McCartney and hosts of others for that sort of thing.


Alright, I apologize for being too ambiguous with my wording. I'll remember to type "Just don't come to Schoenberg expecting *your preconceived notion of what a melody is, meaning something that is probably tonal, somewhat catchy and somewhat memorable in nature to you personally*." the next time. 

I do agree with you though. Words often fail us when discussing music, as is the nature of things. Bernstein didn't consider the very memorable theme of the second movement of Beethoven's 7th symphony to be a melody, for instance.


----------



## aleazk

StevenOBrien said:


> It's attitudes like yours that turn people off from his music, and it's why people walk away from it laughing about how it sounds like "a cat walking on a keyboard".


Jeez... can we relax please... we are just discussing melody, not the war on middle east...


----------



## aleazk

The motifs in this have a mozartian grace and the phrasing is quite traditional. In fact, if you make that piece tonal you would end with a Mozart or Brahms piece :tiphat:


----------



## StevenOBrien

aleazk said:


> Jeez... can we relax please... we are just discussing melody, not the war on middle east...


... What?


----------



## PetrB

StevenOBrien said:


> Alright, I apologize for being too ambiguous with my wording. I'll remember to type "Just don't come to Schoenberg expecting *your preconceived notion of what a melody is, meaning something that is probably tonal, somewhat catchy and somewhat memorable in nature to you personally*." the next time.
> 
> I do agree with you though. Words often fail us when discussing music, as is the nature of things. Bernstein didn't consider the very memorable theme of the second movement of Beethoven's 7th symphony to be a melody, for instance.


Right. Someone sent me a link of that scene from the latest remake of (yet another) retake version of _1984,_ where the police state controller has stumbled upon a sealed room filled with the cultural / art artifacts which are banned by the state. He puts an LP on a record player, the music starts and plays for a bit, and he breaks down into tears. The music was something by Beethoven.

I wrote back, "It is _always_ Beethoven, isn't it?"

Likewise, with the whole "where is the melody" schtick, _it is always Schoenberg, isn't it?_ 

And yes, one too pat cliché response, I thought, deserved another, so I'm glad neither of us left it there.

But since you compose, you already know that some of your piano pieces are made up of anything but what one would call a melody or tune and they may not even have a discernible hummable theme or motif.

Ergo, you and I well know what the rest of those complaints of "no tune" are about. They are from people who have not stretched their ears much past the late romantic vocabulary (if that, Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff ~ Si! / Mahler and R. Strauss ~ No!)

They are living in a habituated realm with the sort of music the _likes of which, anyway,_ they have had around them 'in the air' since early childhood. They come to something requiring a stretch, and instead of thinking they might have to accommodate the music, start complaining that the music does not accommodate them, and then get bent out of shape because they think they 'are missing something' compared to those who do follow the later repertoire with ease (they are missing something, lol, more good music); they are also a little miffed that perhaps for the first time _they may have to work a little and give some repeated listening time if they want in._

Until that juncture, it had all came easily. (This is somewhat like many students who breeze through high school with good marks who later find out, and bewail the fact, that college is going to be much more hard work than they thought. (I.e. some of what this is all about is: _It is simply time to grow up._)

All their semiotic familiarity has them deaf to how much earlier classical was often as much a stretch for its contemporaries when that music was new, even if now in retrospect and ready familiarity none of it sounds radical to us.

In one aspect, that cry of "no melody?" is similar to those who are coming to classical and are shocked there is no obvious 'beat' as regularly tapped or hammered out in so much pop music. If it were the first time I'd heard the "No melody" or "Too Dissonant" cries or comments, it might make me smile about the insular naiveté that person lived in until they bumped into the music which elicits from them that comment, but after a lifetime in general, and still hearing it near daily, sometimes as in an OP which is an announced rant, well, it gets more than tiresome


----------



## aleazk

StevenOBrien said:


> ... What?


We don't need to start making accusations like the one you did and things like that, we are just discussing the concept of melody.

In your original post ("You're missing out if you approach a Schoenberg work expecting a melody"), I also understood, like Mahlerian, that you were reserving the term melody to tonal music only. And I would have given an answer similar the one given by Mahlerian. He was not trying to say that you are a loser if you don't get Schoenberg's melodies (I guess you made that interpretation since you called him a pedant), he only said that Schoenberg indeed has melodies and that melodies are not reserved only to tonal music.

In any case, I agree with your rewording. Nothing good will come up if you approach new music with expectations that are more related to old music and instead of listening what the music has to offer by itself.


----------



## PetrB

StevenOBrien said:


> It's attitudes like yours that turn people off from his music, and it's why people walk away from it laughing about how it sounds like "a cat walking on a keyboard".


Domenico Scarlatti (1685 - 1757) ~ Cat Fugue (the theme allegedly taken from the notes pressed by his cat walking over the keyboard -- i.e. music derived from "a cat walking on a keyboard.")


----------



## Nereffid

PetrB said:


> Its that attitude that something has to be as readily and easily reproduced by the listener as are _Mary had a little Lamb_ or a four note motif from Beethoven to be the only things worthy of or considered Melody that kind of turn me off.
> 
> I mean come on, does the world expect classical music to be about _tunes?_ We've got Paul McCartney and hosts of others for that sort of thing.


Not "the world", but a large number of people who are less familiar than you are with the great variety that exists in classical music do expect a tune or some such "hook", yes. You might not like it, but there it is.

(Actually, come to think of it, "You might not like it, but there it is" is how I respond to the OP, too.)

(ETA: Probably wouldn't have posted this if I'd read PetrB's subsequent lengthier comment up above. Still, the point stands)


----------



## PetrB

Nereffid said:


> Not "the world", but a large number of people who are less familiar than you are with the great variety that exists in classical music do expect a tune or some such "hook", yes. You might not like it, but there it is.
> 
> (Actually, come to think of it, "You might not like it, but there it is" is how I respond to the OP, too.)
> 
> (ETA: Probably wouldn't have posted this if I'd read PetrB's subsequent lengthier comment up above. Still, the point stands)


Turn it around.

The tune accustomed and expectant coming to later romantic chromaticism ala Mahler and R. Strauss ( but not the tuneful Tchaikovsky or Rachmaninoff) and finding it 'problematical' because of lack of trackable melody, and their subsequent greater difficulties with later music -- that group could also be summarily addressed, "You may not like it, but there it is... like an ocean of it."

Kinda works both ways, no?


----------



## Nereffid

PetrB said:


> Turn it around.
> 
> The tune accustomed and expectant coming to later romantic chromaticism ala Mahler and R. Strauss ( but not the tuneful Tchaikovsky or Rachmaninoff) and finding it 'problematical' because of lack of trackable melody, and their subsequent greater difficulties with later music -- that group could also be summarily addressed, "You may not like it, but there it is... like an ocean of it."
> 
> Kinda works both ways, no?


Well, yes, that's why I said I'd say the same to the OP.


----------



## Mahlerian

PetrB said:


> Turn it around.
> 
> The tune accustomed and expectant coming to later romantic chromaticism ala Mahler and R. Strauss ( but not the tuneful Tchaikovsky or Rachmaninoff) and finding it 'problematical' because of lack of trackable melody, and their subsequent greater difficulties with later music -- that group could also be summarily addressed, "You may not like it, but there it is... like an ocean of it."
> 
> Kinda works both ways, no?


This review on Amazon comes to mind...

"after many listenings, I could not get a melody out of this. Nothing made sense. It just wanders, never giving a communicating melody (and I do love some Debussy and Poulenc - and almost every note of Beethoven)."

This was Das Lied von der Erde, for crying out loud!

And Steven, I know that you weren't trying to malign Schoenberg, necessarily, but it's still problematical specifically because of the idea that Schoenberg's music is actually devoid of any melody whatsoever, rather than simply lacking the same kinds of melodies that people know elsewhere (though of course what a melody is already differs greatly from period to period). If a BBC program can say with a straight face that Schoenberg deliberately set out to write "tuneless" music, and people _believe_ it, then yes, the idea should be corrected.


----------



## BaronScarpia

Terry Riley. In C. Nothing more needs to be said.


----------



## PetrB

BaronScarpia said:


> Terry Riley. In C. Nothing more needs to be said.


A work _made up entirely of motifs_... on that front, how radical, how like Mozart, how like Beethoven, how like....


----------



## mmsbls

I'd like to ask a question that has been touched on in other threads, but I don't have a sense that I truly understand the answer. We all know that audiences for quite some time have struggled with new music. At one time some of Mozart was "difficult", and Beethoven pushed people's listening further. As Romantic music evolved, music continued to push the boundaries causing many people to struggle a bit (or more) with the new sounds. So the issue of contemporary music being considered unpleasant is certainly not new.

But music of the 1940s, 50s, and 60s is no longer new. Further, the 2nd Viennese School produced music that is 100 years old. Before our time, has there ever been a period when music that is 50 years old and even 100 years old was considered unpleasant and difficult for a significant portion of the classical music listening audience? That would be equivalent to audiences in 1900 hating Schubert, Mendelssohn, and Schumann.

So, yes, audiences have been behind the curve of modern music for quite awhile. But it seems to me that this fact does not fully explain the difficulty present audiences have with much of the music of the past century. I certainly do not believe that composers have changed the way they approach composition. Composers have pushed the envelop and explored new ideas for the past several hundred years, and they will continue to do so. The only obvious difference I see with audiences is that they have the capability to hear vastly more music easily than ever before. It ought to be easier for present audiences to become acquainted with the new musical languages.

So what has changed? Why is music composed 50 to 100 years ago still considered unlistenable by so many classical music lovers? Of course, saying that modern music is bad doesn't answer the question. Saying it is unmelodic, non-tonal, or different in some other way _by itself_ also does not answer the question.


----------



## ArtMusic

pileofsticks said:


> When I learned of the avant-garde ways of the "new" composers, it made me very angry. I felt like they were spoiling what music was. I mean, it still fits the definition of "sound organized in time", but I honestly thought it was folly and was made fun of real music like "It's Gon Rain" (a loop of a pastor screaming about armageddon).


Do you like Baroque?


----------



## shangoyal

I like Terry Riley's in C.


----------



## PetrB

mmsbls said:


> But music of the 1940s, 50s, and 60s is no longer new. Further, the 2nd Viennese School produced music that is 100 years old. Before our time, has there ever been a period when music that is 50 years old and even 100 years old was considered unpleasant and difficult for a significant portion of the classical music listening audience? That would be equivalent to audiences in 1900 hating Schubert, Mendelssohn, and Schumann.
> 
> So what has changed? Why is music composed 50 to 100 years ago still considered unlistenable by so many classical music lovers? Of course, saying that modern music is bad doesn't answer the question. Saying it is unmelodic, non-tonal, or different in some other way _by itself_ also does not answer the question.


I put this hypothesis forward _someplace else_ on forum, but.

Really, the new was pretty readily consumed, along with the old, until just about the time -- and I don't think it a coincidence at all -- of that little stop social and cultural everything called World War I. The interregnum period, which of course did not have that name until after WWII, still had some modern works vigorously embraced, and then we get the other little stop everything speedbump of WW II.

The complete undoing of life as people knew it, and subsequent reconstruction followed by another wave of mass destruction had many a person on the planet no longer wanting anything out of music other than the old, the familiar, and modern _only if it was more folksy, pastoral_ -- basically, one notion or the other of 'comfort food,' but applied to what one consumed in the arts.

Post WWII, a lot of people wanted nothing more than to at least pretend to get back to normal as quickly as possible, and they were _not_ at all interested in confronting new ideas in music or art. There was a smaller segment who, in post war times wanted everything new, that possibly out of reaction to thinking that every part of the past was possible for the insanity which led to the two wars, and was therefore symbolic of the craziness, evil, or decadence -- this is where you found your very vocal and arch pro-modernist, quite willing to throw all the gold out along with the old bathwater.

The public have been decisively divided ever since, with the majority favoring the older and more familiar. The longer the retreat to old and familiar comforts was accommodated by concert organizations, recording companies, and radio stations, the further removed from the present that audience became.

This is all a gross simplification, but I think the essence of it is quite on the money.

And here we are.


----------



## Chordalrock

mmsbls said:


> So what has changed? Why is music composed 50 to 100 years ago still considered unlistenable by so many classical music lovers? Of course, saying that modern music is bad doesn't answer the question. Saying it is unmelodic, non-tonal, or different in some other way _by itself_ also does not answer the question.


Modernist music is generally speaking more of an acquired taste, that much is clear. I'd say it's more of an acquired taste because it's more artificial. If you think about what kind of music you'd think of to, or would want to, compose on the piano, in a world with no musical tradition and no competing composers or music -- i.e. a world where anything you'd compose would be new -- I think you'd find that you'd soon prefer to compose simple music based on triads and mostly diatonic scales (diatonic, because they're the most tonally stable and the best at preserving the mood of the mode).

Modernist music is the direct result of a lack of any naivete at all. It's artificial through and through, and composed as a reaction rather than as the result of inspiration.


----------



## PetrB

Chordalrock said:


> Modernist music is generally speaking more of an acquired taste, that much is clear. I'd say it's more of an acquired taste because it's more artificial. If you think about what kind of music you'd think of to, or would want to, compose on the piano, in a world with no musical tradition and no competing composers or music -- i.e. a world where anything you'd compose would be new -- I think you'd find that you'd soon prefer to compose simple music based on triads and mostly diatonic scales (diatonic, because they're the most tonally stable and the best at preserving the mood of the mode).
> 
> Modernist music is the direct result of a lack of any naivete at all. It's artificial through and through, and composed as a reaction rather than as the result of inspiration.


And _Renaissance, Baroque, Classical and Romantic classical music *are not some of the most highly artificial constructs ever known to the world of art?*_

:lol:...:lol:...:lol:...

*Puhleeeeeze*.

The notion that earlier composers were blessed with a naivite is also codswollop. Bach was living in the most modern of times anyone knew, dealt with the difficulty of finding and keeping employment, nasty bosses, stupid bosses, the deaths of a number of his children, the death of one wife, _his death was due to complications from the surgery he underwent to remove or relieve his cataracts,_ and all the while his modern world raged on. Ditto for the later era 'earlier' composers. Only the uninformed, or extremely and naively unaware, could think otherwise.


----------



## Chordalrock

PetrB said:


> And _Renaissance, Baroque, Classical and Romantic classical music *are not some of the most highly artificial constructs ever known to the world of art?*_
> 
> :lol:...:lol:...:lol:...
> 
> *Puhleeeeeze*.


Complex compositions are always artificial to some extent. But then, everything is relative.


----------



## PetrB

Chordalrock said:


> Complex compositions are always artificial to some extent. But then, everything is relative.


Major waffle, that. Might want some butter and syrup, too; it goes down easier that way.


----------



## Chordalrock

PetrB said:


> Major waffle, that. Might want some butter and syrup, too; it goes down easier that way.


I didn't mean to be ambiguous: the archetypal modernists -- the serialists -- wrote music based on highly artificial systems, whereas the common practice period and Renaissance music were always based on obvious and natural things like the overtone series and its relation to how humans perceive harmony and melody.

I could also add that your own argument about why modernist music is still considered to be unpleasant is obviously not convincing at all. This isn't the aftermath of WW2 anymore, so your explanation is unfortunately past its use-by date by about 50 years. It doesn't make any sense anymore and haven't for decades.

A good scientific theory makes predictions, so here's a prediction: modernist music will still be a niche interest in 50 years. I say 50 years because I want to be able to verify my own prediction.

Now what was the prediction your theory made? I think it was something about modernist music becoming pleasant and cool to classical music buffs at around 1970. Sorry, we're long past that date now. Fail.


----------



## SimonNZ

PetrB - your WW2 post has got me turning over a few tangential ideas in my mind: specifically regarding the propaganda of "degenerate art", and the question I have forming of to what extent propaganda outlives the propagandists once it is made part of common discourse and seemingly respectable, and, yes, to what extent certain contemporary polemical attitudes have their origins, unknowingly perhaps, in the post-Weimar period.


----------



## PetrB

SimonNZ said:


> PetrB - your WW2 post has got me turning over a few tangential ideas in my mind: specifically regarding the propaganda of "degenerate art", and the question I have forming of to what extent propaganda outlives the propagandists once it is made part of common discourse and seemingly respectable, and, yes, to what extent certain contemporary polemical attitudes have their origins, unknowingly perhaps, in the post-Weimar period.


We are all still living in a world very much formed and colored in reaction to the _wholly unprecedented_ political and social shifts which were catalyzed by WWII. Previous revolutions or social upheavals are child's play in comparison as to overall global effect.

In a way, it is our most recent and relevant past, all dates prior belonging to 'another world of sensibilities.'


----------



## SimonNZ

PetrB said:


> We are all still living in a world very much formed and colored in reaction to the _wholly unprecedented_ political and social shifts which were catalyzed by WWII. Previous revolutions or social upheavals are child's play in comparison as to overall global effect.
> 
> In a way, it is our most recent and relevant past, all dates prior belonging to 'another world of sensibilities.'


Oh certainly, but have you seen, say, a chapter in any book charting the afterlife of "degenerate art" propaganda? That's what I want to go looking for now, to see if there arent recurring identical leaps of logic or loaded phrases and imagery.


----------



## Guest

The old world wars do get blamed for an awful lot.

Fact remains that the anti-modernist sentiment, qua sentiment, dates from around 1800. Sure, there are isolated instances of this or that piece by pre-Beethoven composers as being ugly or incomprehensible or whatever. But concerts before 1800 consisted of largely new music. And concert-goers went to concerts in order to hear new music. Or at least went to concerts expecting to hear new music.

That began to change around the turn of that century. You can see the ratios change in the printed programs from 90% new music to 90% and even 100% old music by 1870. You can read about concert venues in the 1840s discouraging performers from playing, for example, Beethoven sonatas because to do so would alienate the subscribing audience members. That is the attitude, the general, social attitude towards new music that we are still dealing with today. It seems to have nothing, logically, to do with what the actual music is. What was being done in the 1860s, for instance, to justify concerts with no new music at all? Nothing. And what happened in 1900 to justify the sharp spike in anti-modernist sentiment that happened then? Nothing. Nothing musical or political. And all quite a ways prior to the hideous twentieth century avant garde compositions by Schoenberg and Stravinsky that are supposedly responsible for the anti-modernist sentiment. All quite a ways prior to either world war, too.

The best I can do to answer mmsbls's question is to say that the sentiment, which has been around quite a long time, but not really forever, is a self-feeding system. If you look at the most extreme, the most indefatigable, the most angry of the anti-modernist rants, they are all from people who report as not knowing very much about contemporary music. The angriest comments I have heard recently by concert-goers have been about Janacek, Britten, and Liebermann. Liebermann is at least still alive, but his music is quite mild. And the most aggressive repudiation of any single piece that I have seen online is of Birtwistle's _Night's Black Bird,_ which is a very pretty and voluptuous piece.

That is, if you can get people to actually name names, to point to particular pieces that they have heard--and hated--you get results like this more often than not. The rant that started this thread named four composers, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Cage, and Glass. The latter was called "ear torture." But Glass is widely known as a sell-out for making music that is pretty in a pop music kind of way. Hardly "ear torture." Unless you don't like "pretty" pop tunes, that is. And Chordalrock has not ever reported as being that way. Cage does not appear to be a composer that Chordalrock has ever heard, just that if he ever did go to a concert of Cage's most famous work, he would react negatively. If.

The avant garde music that he most objects to is just a skosh over one hundred years old. A lot has happened in that hundred years. The avant part of garde has moved way past Schoenberg and Stravinsky already.

There is a huge disconnect between actual knowledge and actual experience and what people--classical music listeners generally--report as being hateful and unlistenable. It is a strange phenomenon. The music is not known. There is little or no opportunity to hear anything new if your listening is primarily via radio or symphony concerts. And yet, with hardly any exposure to it, the music is reported as being so awful that it must be complained about incessantly. If it's not, it will overwhelm us. If it's not, it will take over the airwaves and the concert halls. It's Armageddon!!


----------



## PetrB

SimonNZ said:


> Oh certainly, but have you seen, say, a chapter in any book charting the afterlife of "degenerate art" propaganda? That's what I want to go looking for now, to see if there arent recurring identical leaps of logic or loaded phrases and imagery.


I am more than ignorant when it comes to current non-fiction, but imagine one could cull any number of articles about a US senator, for example, demanding that the nude statue of liberty in the hall just outside of his new office be covered with drapery, or find that congressional stirred pot howl over the National Endowments for the Arts funding an artist who made a piece which was a crucifix sitting in a glass jar filled with urine (one piece of hundreds by an artist with one of those endowments, lol) -- or that you could find similar fare in the news from your own neck of the woods, or elsewhere.

I think for every poseur confrontational bad artist, whether they have nabbed a grant or not, there are hundreds of good ones, and in ratio to those numbers, there are hundreds of thousands more non-artist citizens ready to howl and cry about a few cent's funding out of their pockets gone to the arts, where those citizens should be far more concerned about the integrity of their national or local news, or what is fed to them daily on commercial and / or network T.V.

I just read on this forum an argument that earlier era composers were 'naive' and therefore more genuinely expressive and inventive, and that too because they wrote within the 'right' parameters of the tonal scale observing the laws of harmonics, blah blah blah -- all in service of the argument that modern and contemporary composers were -- fill in the blank...

That may as well be poppycock similar to that made-up propaganda about Jews having differently shaped blood cells -- i.e. either one is a form of calling something implicitly 'degenerate.'

I would add a smiley to the above, but the mentality, whether about people or the arts, I find too chilling to treat with any levity.


----------



## SimonNZ

some guy said:


> The old world wars do get blamed for an awful lot.


I shouldn't keep on about an idea that is only something passing that I'd like to run up the flagpole - but it was really the specific rhetoric that I was curious about, rather than the more common allegation and criticism.


----------



## lupinix

PetrB said:


> I put this hypothesis forward _someplace else_ on forum, but.
> 
> Really, the new was pretty readily consumed, along with the old, until just about the time -- and I don't think it a coincidence at all -- of that little stop social and cultural everything called World War I. The interregnum period, which of course did not have that name until after WWII, still had some modern works vigorously embraced, and then we get the other little stop everything speedbump of WW II.
> 
> The complete undoing of life as people knew it, and subsequent reconstruction followed by another wave of mass destruction had many a person on the planet no longer wanting anything out of music other than the old, the familiar, and modern _only if it was more folksy, pastoral_ -- basically, one notion or the other of 'comfort food,' but applied to what one consumed in the arts.
> 
> Post WWII, a lot of people wanted nothing more than to at least pretend to get back to normal as quickly as possible, and they were _not_ at all interested in confronting new ideas in music or art. There was a smaller segment who, in post war times wanted everything new, that possibly out of reaction to thinking that every part of the past was possible for the insanity which led to the two wars, and was therefore symbolic of the craziness, evil, or decadence -- this is where you found your very vocal and arch pro-modernist, quite willing to throw all the gold out along with the old bathwater.
> 
> The public have been decisively divided ever since, with the majority favoring the older and more familiar. The longer the retreat to old and familiar comforts was accommodated by concert organizations, recording companies, and radio stations, the further removed from the present that audience became.
> 
> This is all a gross simplification, but I think the essence of it is quite on the money.
> 
> And here we are.


Interesting, I had never thought of this, but I feel that there is indeed a lot of truth in it. Also I think that it has something to do with the modern media. For instance Baroque people that listened to classical music had (mostly) only Baroque music of the same generation or maybe one before. So they just had to adjust their ears to the new made innovations. But I think it has other affects as well which might have lead to the fact that modern classical music is (considered) less inaccessible for most peoples ears.


----------



## Mahlerian

mmsbls said:


> I'd like to ask a question that has been touched on in other threads, but I don't have a sense that I truly understand the answer. We all know that audiences for quite some time have struggled with new music. At one time some of Mozart was "difficult", and Beethoven pushed people's listening further. As Romantic music evolved, music continued to push the boundaries causing many people to struggle a bit (or more) with the new sounds. So the issue of contemporary music being considered unpleasant is certainly not new.
> 
> But music of the 1940s, 50s, and 60s is no longer new. Further, the 2nd Viennese School produced music that is 100 years old. Before our time, has there ever been a period when music that is 50 years old and even 100 years old was considered unpleasant and difficult for a significant portion of the classical music listening audience? That would be equivalent to audiences in 1900 hating Schubert, Mendelssohn, and Schumann.


Well, there were a number of critics in that era in more conservative areas for whom Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique was still beyond their comfort zone, and that was 70 years after the piece had been written. As has been brought up before, it wasn't until the 20th century that the late works of Beethoven were fully appreciated.



mmsbls said:


> So, yes, audiences have been behind the curve of modern music for quite awhile. But it seems to me that this fact does not fully explain the difficulty present audiences have with much of the music of the past century. I certainly do not believe that composers have changed the way they approach composition. Composers have pushed the envelop and explored new ideas for the past several hundred years, and they will continue to do so. The only obvious difference I see with audiences is that they have the capability to hear vastly more music easily than ever before. It ought to be easier for present audiences to become acquainted with the new musical languages.
> 
> So what has changed? Why is music composed 50 to 100 years ago still considered unlistenable by so many classical music lovers? Of course, saying that modern music is bad doesn't answer the question. Saying it is unmelodic, non-tonal, or different in some other way _by itself_ also does not answer the question.


First, I think that inroads are being made. Audiences are gradually finding their way into the works that until quite recently were thought to be anathema to any concertgoers save specialists. Some guy mentions Britten above as provoking a strong reaction, but Britten is no longer thought of as being a noisy modernist as he was when he entered the extremely conservative UK music scene in the 40s. In fact, last year he was one of the most frequently performed composers of all. Shostakovich and Prokofiev have also gained significantly in popularity. Bartok and Stravinsky are no longer considered insurmountably difficult.

But what is more, Berg's operas have become part of the repertoire. His Violin Concerto is on its way to becoming a warhorse. Varese's music always makes a splash whenever Ameriques or Ionisation is played. Ives, even the more difficult Ives, is gaining traction. Messiaen's music is finding its way to audiences. Even Webern and Schoenberg are played quite regularly these days, covering their entire oeuvres, not just the beginning of them.

Based on the above, it's probably too early to make predictions about what will happen to the post WWII avant-garde. Stockhausen's music is a huge event whenever his massive conceptions are realized, but such events are still relatively rare. Nono's audacious works are kept in circulation, as are those of Boulez. Berio has made some impact, and his Sequenzas show up on recital programs of all kinds. Cage is tenacious in discovering his own audiences, something which has continued after his death.

You are probably right that the process has slowed, but it certainly hasn't stopped.


----------



## Mahlerian

Chordalrock said:


> Modernist music is the direct result of a lack of any naivete at all. It's artificial through and through, and composed as a reaction rather than as the result of inspiration.


Perhaps you were thinking of this work?

"It is mathematical music evolved from an unimaginative brain...This noisy, ungraceful, confusing and unattractive example of dry pedantry before the masterpieces of Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Gade, or even of the reckless and over-fluent Raff! Absurd!....It is possible that as we grow more familiar with this symphony it may become clearer to us, but we might pore over a difficult problem in mathematics until the same result was reached without arriving at the conclusion that it is a poetic inspiration."

Brahms's First Symphony, of course!


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> Perhaps you were thinking of this work? "It is mathematical music evolved from an unimaginative brain...!


Was this the review that referred to the same work as a "satchel full of dry philosophic treatises"? I can kind of see the point...


----------



## rrudolph

Chordalrock said:


> If you think about what kind of music you'd think of to, or would want to, compose on the piano, in a world with no musical tradition and no competing composers or music -- i.e. a world where anything you'd compose would be new -- I think you'd find that you'd soon prefer to compose simple music based on triads and mostly diatonic scales (diatonic, because they're the most tonally stable and the best at preserving the mood of the mode).


I believe you are putting the cart before the horse here. The piano (and all instruments with a similar keyboard layout) was designed to serve the tonal system, not the other way around. Of course if you wanted to compose on the piano tonal factors would emerge; the instrument is made to facilitate that. To put it differently, if I gave you a bunch of baking supplies and told you to invent a new food, you would most likely come up with some sort of bread or cake rather than vindaloo or sushi. A more relevant thought experiment might be to imagine yourself presented with all the possible sounds and combinations of sounds in this world and being asked to make music with them. This is in fact what has happened to humans and the result has been a wide variety of great musical traditions, some (most?) of which have very little if anything to do with our Western European based system of tonal relationships.


----------



## Chordalrock

rrudolph said:


> I believe you are putting the cart before the horse here. The piano (and all instruments with a similar keyboard layout) was designed to serve the tonal system, not the other way around. Of course if you wanted to compose on the piano tonal factors would emerge; the instrument is made to facilitate that. To put it differently, if I gave you a bunch of baking supplies and told you to invent a new food, you would most likely come up with some sort of bread or cake rather than vindaloo or sushi. A more relevant thought experiment might be to imagine yourself presented with all the possible sounds and combinations of sounds in this world and being asked to make music with them. This is in fact what has happened to humans and the result has been a wide variety of great musical traditions, some (most?) of which have very little if anything to do with our Western European based system of tonal relationships.


Yet it's the Western European tradition that is the most musically significant, by far the deepest and richest. I think there's something to the scales and harmonies derived from the overtone series.

Also, I wasn't putting the cart before the horse, for the simple reason that serialism bases itself on this same system. The problem with the different types of serialism is that they are happy to take the twelve notes derived from this system and use them as the basis of their music, but then they disregard the other practices that are the direct result of the overtone series just as well as are the notes themselves.


----------



## rrudolph

Chordalrock said:


> Yet it's the Western European tradition that is the most musically significant, by far the deepest and richest. I think there's something to the scales and harmonies derived from the overtone series.


I respect that opinion but I must point out that it is just that, an opinion, and that there are millions (literally, this is not an exaggeration for effect) of people on this planet who do not share it.



Chordalrock said:


> Also, I wasn't putting the cart before the horse, for the simple reason that serialism bases itself on this same system. The problem with the different types of serialism is that they are happy to take the twelve notes derived from this system and use them as the basis of their music, but then they disregard the other practices that are the direct result of the overtone series just as well as are the notes themselves.


Well, the simple fact is that the serialist and post serialist compositional methods that some folks find so unpalatable are in fact a natural outgrowth and extension of the tonal system you love. We're not talking about two opposing systems here, merely the inclusion of new musical materials that were not used previously. In the case of those working in the medium of traditional equal tempered pitch, this means pitch relationships that may have been heretofore unused; in the case of composers like John Cage it can mean the inclusion of non-pitched sounds or noise. All this is is an expansive, additive process whose inevitability has been long acknowledged. Although many composers took a polemical stance in the last century, their respect for, knowledge of and love of the musics of the past has always been in evidence. The use of the twelve-pitch equal tempered system by these composers is not an act of unjustifiable appropriation but of inevitable development by the addition of new materials.


----------



## mmsbls

PetrB said:


> Really, the new was pretty readily consumed, along with the old, until just about the time -- and I don't think it a coincidence at all -- of that little stop social and cultural everything called World War I. The interregnum period, which of course did not have that name until after WWII, still had some modern works vigorously embraced, and then we get the other little stop everything speedbump of WW II.
> 
> The complete undoing of life as people knew it, and subsequent reconstruction followed by another wave of mass destruction had many a person on the planet no longer wanting anything out of music other than the old, the familiar, and modern _only if it was more folksy, pastoral_ -- basically, one notion or the other of 'comfort food,' but applied to what one consumed in the arts.


The two massive wars certainly must have had a large effect on the general public. Although it was before my time, I know that many movies after WWII were simplistic fantasies meant as diversions from life. It could very well be part of the answer that people wanted to listen to the known, comfortable music to bring them back to a time when things were more settled and less frightening. In the 60s and 70s movies started changing to reflect more of the stark realities of life, but I think movies are more driven by younger people who are likely more open to change. The classical concert is attended by older generations and they still had vivid memories of the war so the desire for conservative repertoire would have been harder to displace.


----------



## mmsbls

some guy said:


> The best I can do to answer mmsbls's question is to say that the sentiment, which has been around quite a long time, but not really forever, is a self-feeding system. If you look at the most extreme, the most indefatigable, the most angry of the anti-modernist rants, they are all from people who report as not knowing very much about contemporary music. The angriest comments I have heard recently by concert-goers have been about Janacek, Britten, and Liebermann. Liebermann is at least still alive, but his music is quite mild. And the most aggressive repudiation of any single piece that I have seen online is of Birtwistle's _Night's Black Bird,_ which is a very pretty and voluptuous piece.


I agree with this, but I assume that back around 1900 and earlier there were still many people who knew relatively little about contemporary music. Maybe the phenomenon was less pronounced then. I really don't know.

I guess I could have asked the question differently. What enabled concert audiences around 1900 to be able to enjoy Schubert, Mendelssohn, and Schumann, but audiences in 2000 struggle with the 2nd Viennese School?

NOTE: I'm assuming that there really is a significant difference between acceptance of 50-100 year old music in 1900 and similar acceptance in 2000. Given Mahlerian's post above there may be some disagreement on just how different the acceptance truly is.


----------



## mmsbls

Mahlerian said:


> Well, there were a number of critics in that era in more conservative areas for whom Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique was still beyond their comfort zone, and that was 70 years after the piece had been written. As has been brought up before, it wasn't until the 20th century that the late works of Beethoven were fully appreciated.
> 
> ...
> 
> You are probably right that the process has slowed, but it certainly hasn't stopped.


I agree that certain works of the 1800s were not appreciated for quite awhile. So the phenomenon of lagging acceptance is probably not as definitive as I earlier suggested. I still think there seems to be a significant difference, but it's more a matter of degree than kind (i.e. as you say the process has slowed but still exists as it did before).


----------



## Chordalrock

rrudolph said:


> Well, the simple fact is that the serialist and post serialist compositional methods that some folks find so unpalatable are in fact a natural outgrowth and extension of the tonal system you love.


Certain notes and harmonies are naturally dissonant due to the overtone series, and even without any tradition the ear would expect them to be treated in certain ways, again due to the overtone series.

This is the level where modernism goes haywire.

I wouldn't call something an extension when it bulldozes all natural expectations of tension and release in order to create music that sounds new.


----------



## Mahlerian

Chordalrock said:


> Certain notes and harmonies are naturally dissonant due to the overtone series, and even without any tradition the ear would expect them to be treated in certain ways, again due to the overtone series.
> 
> This is the level where modernism goes haywire.
> 
> I wouldn't call something an extension when it bulldozes all natural expectations of tension and release in order to create music that sounds new.


Except that these assertions are based entirely upon a particular cultural context. 1000 and more years of musical history has taught us that things that are expected in one era are completely against the conventions of another. Furthermore, other musical traditions do not make use of these relations in the same way, implying that they are not (or at least not the only) natural outgrowths of the harmonic series.

Modernism may defy common practice conventions of tension and release, but it creates its own, which are equally valid.


----------



## Nereffid

Some questions (possibly unanswerable) that stop me from considering generalisations.
Is it reasonable to make comparisons between audiences from different eras? Are the concert-going publics of today and 100, 200, 300 years ago similar enough in demographic terms that we can talk about "the audience" as a single thing? Where do the members of the audience (at a given time, in a given place) come from, socially, intellectually, philosophically? Are they part of the audience because they want to be entertained, because they are connoisseurs, because it's the social norm in their peer group? Have these things changed over the centuries? What have been the impacts of social change, or radio, or recordings on audience composition and expectations?


----------



## Chordalrock

Mahlerian said:


> Except that these assertions are based entirely upon a particular cultural context. 1000 and more years of musical history has taught us that things that are expected in one era are completely against the conventions of another. Furthermore, other musical traditions do not make use of these relations in the same way, implying that they are not (or at least not the only) natural outgrowths of the harmonic series.
> 
> Modernism may defy common practice conventions of tension and release, but it creates its own, which are equally valid.


You know, never mind. I think I've been reading too much Charles Rosen. Thinking about it more and testing it on the keyboard, I think you can establish pitch centers pretty freely regardless of what other pitches you use. I think it's more about what the listener decides to remember as the center than anything else.

Tonal centers may partly be illusion in any lengthy complex work that releases tension by almost cadencing on various notes other than the tonic. Tonal centers could be something that exist in these works only in your mind when you remember to expect return.

Of the tension & release conventions, the one that seems the best candidate for transcending culture is the perspective that dissonance is a note that isn't part of the chord and that can be released by moving it to a chord-tone.


----------



## Morimur

To those opposed to Modernism: Classical music will continue to push forward and evolve with or without you.


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> Some questions (possibly unanswerable) that stop me from considering generalisations.
> Is it reasonable to make comparisons between audiences from different eras?


Yes.



Nereffid said:


> Are the concert-going publics of today and 100, 200, 300 years ago similar enough in demographic terms that we can talk about "the audience" as a single thing?


No.

And that conclusion derives from the comparing thing from the previous question.



Nereffid said:


> Where do the members of the audience (at a given time, in a given place) come from, socially, intellectually, philosophically?


From wherever. Just like any other groups of people. At any other time. And even if members of an audience ("an" not "the") are all from the same social class, they probably divide quite nicely into at least four different groups--people who hate what they're hearing, who are ecstatic over what they're hearing, who are bored by what they're hearing, and who think yeah it's OK.



Nereffid said:


> Are they part of the audience because they want to be entertained, because they are connoisseurs, because it's the social norm in their peer group?


Well, all of the above.



Nereffid said:


> Have these things changed over the centuries?


Yes and no. No, the variety of individuals has probably not changed. Yes, the general expectations have certainly changed. (The central debate about music in the 19th century was probably over which is better, old or new. The then newly emerging idea that old is better eventually won out. But it's always had it's detractors, Gott sei dank.)



Nereffid said:


> What have been the impacts of social change, or radio, or recordings on audience composition and expectations?


Well, certainly the ability to play whatever you want in your home has created a sense of entitlement. That is, you do see people who think they should be able to take the reality of the private realm, where the individual is in control, into the public realm, a place where there are many individuals, some of whom may very well want to listen to the very things you have been able to avoid in the privacy of your home on your own sound system.

Fortunately, every single type of recording and reproductive technology has been used to make new music.

http://www.frequency.com/video/beatriz-ferreyr/68287124







__
https://soundcloud.com/franciscomeirino%2Ffrancisco-meirino-michael


----------



## PetrB

Chordalrock;638084If you think about what kind of music you'd think of to said:


> Personal taste and personal preferences for a limited use of tonality and chromaticism, all consistently put forth with pseudo-scientific arguments meant to support that personal taste and set of preferences. (repeat ad infinitum)
> 
> ... endlessly repeated in this thread from the OP and afterwards.
> 
> Saying so a thousand times will not make it so.
> 
> Not at all interesting, and even less fun.
> 
> You are welcome to your opinion, but for the rest?
> :lol::lol:
> Have a nice day, unless of course you have made other plans:tiphat:


----------



## peterb

Chordalrock said:


> Certain notes and harmonies are naturally dissonant due to the overtone series, and even without any tradition the ear would expect them to be treated in certain ways, again due to the overtone series.


I'm skeptical of any reference to biology and physics in these conversations, because thousands of years of different musical traditions and anthropology tells us that _how consonance and dissonance are perceived_ is, fundamentally, culturally constructed.

There are people who will swear up and down and left and right that major chords and scales intrinsically "sound happy" and minor chords and scales intrinsically "sound sad", but this has only been a feature of western music for around 400 years - or, in other words, for _hardly any time at all._

Disclaimer: I am NOT PetrB. Although I like the cut of his jib.


----------



## PetrB

peterb said:


> I'm skeptical of any reference to biology and physics in these conversations, because thousands of years of different musical traditions and anthropology tells us that _how consonance and dissonance are perceived_ is, fundamentally, culturally constructed.
> 
> There are people who will swear up and down and left and right that major chords and scales intrinsically "sound happy" and minor chords and scales intrinsically "sound sad", but this has only been a feature of western music for around 400 years - or, in other words, for _hardly any time at all._
> 
> Disclaimer: I am NOT PetrB. Although I like the cut of his jib.


Gosh, you got allotted more vowels in your name than I did


----------



## peterb

So, catching up on this thread.

First off, there's an awfully wide spread of music being put into this bucket we're sort of slapdashedly labeling as "modern" - Schoenberg and Stravinsky and Stockhousen and Cage and Boulez and Glass - and much of that music is very, very different from others of that music. Heck, one of the reasons I like Philip Glass is because his works, many of which are aggressively, dogmatically tonal, are pretty much clearly (in my opinion) a big "f you" to the post-war Euro-centric school of "atonality at all costs" music. (When Terry Riley's "In C" was played in Darnstadt in 1969, it just about caused conniption fits among the Boulezians, who were horrified that someone would do something different from what they were doing.)

This biggest problem with what I sort of mentally (and perhaps erroneously) group as the "Boulez through Stockhausen" school of music for me is not whether it is "pretty" or not, but that by eschewing actual interaction with the culture at large as distasteful it's basically become half of a conversation that no one is listening to. In just a few short years, hip-hop has done more to advance the language and idiom of modern music - classical and otherwise - than has Boulez. Does that mean Boulez is "wrong" because his music isn't popular? No. It just means he's sort of beside the point. The problem isn't that these composers were "saying the wrong things," or "writing the wrong sort of music", it's just that they weren't saying them to anyone who mattered.(Footnote 1)

(As always in these sorts of discussions, feel free to mentally prepend "In my opinion..." before each and every sentence.)

Footnote 1: You can only answer the question "Well, who mattered?" after the fact, of course. It turns out that in the latter part of the 20th century, who mattered was the Sugar Hill Gang.


----------



## Bulldog

peterb said:


> So, catching up on this thread.
> 
> First off, there's an awfully wide spread of music being put into this bucket we're sort of slapdashedly labeling as "modern" - Schoenberg and Stravinsky and Stockhousen and Cage and Boulez and Glass - and much of that music is very, very different from others of that music. Heck, one of the reasons I like Philip Glass is because his works, many of which are aggressively, dogmatically tonal, are pretty much clearly (in my opinion) a big "f you" to the post-war Euro-centric school of "atonality at all costs" music. (When Terry Riley's "In C" was played in Darnstadt in 1969, it just about caused conniption fits among the Boulezians, who were horrified that someone would do something different from what they were doing.)
> 
> This biggest problem with what I sort of mentally (and perhaps erroneously) group as the "Boulez through Stockhausen" school of music for me is not whether it is "pretty" or not, but that by eschewing actual interaction with the culture at large as distasteful it's basically become half of a conversation that no one is listening to. In just a few short years, hip-hop has done more to advance the language and idiom of modern music - classical and otherwise - than has Boulez. Does that mean Boulez is "wrong" because his music isn't popular? No. It just means he's sort of beside the point. The problem isn't that these composers were "saying the wrong things," or "writing the wrong sort of music", it's just that they weren't saying them to anyone who mattered.(Footnote 1)
> 
> (As always in these sorts of discussions, feel free to mentally prepend "In my opinion..." before each and every sentence.)
> 
> Footnote 1: You can only answer the question "Well, who mattered?" after the fact, of course. It turns out that in the latter part of the 20th century, who mattered was the Sugar Hill Gang.


Never heard of the Sugar Hill Gang. So after reading your post, I went to Youtube and listened to their 1979 "Rapper's Delight" which I assume put them on the map. Fine song, although rather long for the instrumental content.

Could you explain for me the importance of this group and its connection to advancing classical music?


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Troll thread of the year.


----------



## PetrB

Bulldog said:


> Never heard of the Sugar Hill Gang. So after reading your post, I went to Youtube and listened to their 1979 "Rapper's Delight" which I assume put them on the map. Fine song, although rather long for the instrumental content.
> 
> *Could you explain for me the importance of this group and its connection to advancing classical music?*


:lol:...:lol:...:lol:...

Me, I'm awaiting the elucidation of how Hip Hop _has advanced the classical music scene_


----------



## dgee

Sugar Hill Gang? Please! 

Try Kool Herc and Afrika Bambaata


----------



## arpeggio

*Phonographs and Radio and Internet Oh My*



mmsbls said:


> I'd like to ask a question that has been touched on in other threads, but I don't have a sense that I truly understand the answer. We all know that audiences for quite some time have struggled with new music. At one time some of Mozart was "difficult", and Beethoven pushed people's listening further. As Romantic music evolved, music continued to push the boundaries causing many people to struggle a bit (or more) with the new sounds. So the issue of contemporary music being considered unpleasant is certainly not new.
> 
> But music of the 1940s, 50s, and 60s is no longer new. Further, the 2nd Viennese School produced music that is 100 years old. Before our time, has there ever been a period when music that is 50 years old and even 100 years old was considered unpleasant and difficult for a significant portion of the classical music listening audience? That would be equivalent to audiences in 1900 hating Schubert, Mendelssohn, and Schumann.
> 
> So, yes, audiences have been behind the curve of modern music for quite awhile. But it seems to me that this fact does not fully explain the difficulty present audiences have with much of the music of the past century. I certainly do not believe that composers have changed the way they approach composition. Composers have pushed the envelop and explored new ideas for the past several hundred years, and they will continue to do so. The only obvious difference I see with audiences is that they have the capability to hear vastly more music easily than ever before. It ought to be easier for present audiences to become acquainted with the new musical languages.
> 
> So what has changed? Why is music composed 50 to 100 years ago still considered unlistenable by so many classical music lovers? Of course, saying that modern music is bad doesn't answer the question. Saying it is unmelodic, non-tonal, or different in some other way _by itself_ also does not answer the question.


Interesting question that I have also been puzzling about as well. I really do not know the answer. As Nereffid implied it may be unanswerable. This discussion reminds me of the saying that every complicated question has a simple answer that is wrong.

I have been following this conversation and to be frank I have had trouble following everything. It seems that there are probably many factors that have contributed to this phenomenon. I am surprised that there are two that may have influenced the situation that no one has mentioned. The phonograph and the radio.

Back in 1900 the phonograph was in its infancy. In order to hear any kind of music one had to go to a concert hall. I remember reading in another thread were a member was bragging that he had over fifty sets of the complete symphonies of Beethoven in his collection. If you mentioned that to a music lover back in 1900 they would think you were nuts.

Is it possible that because of the electronic media we can listen to the established repertoire over and over again so it is so firmly embedded in our psyche that is makes it very difficult for us to accept something new? This is a complete SWAG on my part.


----------



## PetrB

arpeggio said:


> Interesting question that I have also been puzzling about as well. I really do not know the answer. As Nereffid implied it may be unanswerable. This discussion reminds me of the saying that every complicated question has a simple answer that is wrong.
> 
> I have been following this conversation and to be frank I have had trouble following everything. It seems that there are probably many factors that have contributed to this phenomenon. I am surprised that there are two that may have influenced the situation that no one has mentioned. The phonograph and the radio.
> 
> Back in 1900 the phonograph was in its infancy. In order to hear any kind of music one had to go to a concert hall. I remember reading in another thread were a member was bragging that he had over fifty sets of the complete symphonies of Beethoven in his collection. If you mentioned that to a music lover back in 1900 they would think you were nuts.
> 
> Is it possible that because of the electronic media we can listen to the established repertoire over and over again so it is so firmly embedded in our psyche that is makes it very difficult for us to accept something new? This is a complete SWAG on my part.


Do ya think? When you can, and people do, listen repeatedly to the common era repertoire more than it was ever performed or heard within more than one (or two) of the composer's lifetimes, that might just have a little bit to do with a heavier conditioning to expect later music to be 'more like that.' LOL.


----------



## Dustin

I don't have anything relevant to say about horrible composers but is that a PetrB impersonator up above? PeterB, PetrB


----------



## mmsbls

arpeggio said:


> Interesting question that I have also been puzzling about as well. I really do not know the answer. As Nereffid implied it may be unanswerable. This discussion reminds me of the saying that every complicated question has a simple answer that is wrong.
> 
> I have been following this conversation and to be frank I have had trouble following everything. It seems that there are probably many factors that have contributed to this phenomenon. I am surprised that there are two that may have influenced the situation that no one has mentioned. The phonograph and the radio.
> 
> Back in 1900 the phonograph was in its infancy. In order to hear any kind of music one had to go to a concert hall. I remember reading in another thread were a member was bragging that he had over fifty sets of the complete symphonies of Beethoven in his collection. If you mentioned that to a music lover back in 1900 they would think you were nuts.
> 
> Is it possible that because of the electronic media we can listen to the established repertoire over and over again so it is so firmly embedded in our psyche that is makes it very difficult for us to accept something new? This is a complete SWAG on my part.


I think the invention of the phonograph, radio, and other electronic devices that allow us to easily listen to a wide range of music at almost anytime could have had several effects. One would be the possibility that the established repertoire could become embedded in our minds as you say.

On the other hand many people here have stated that there are two obstacles to appreciating modern music - an open mind and repeated exposure to the new languages of these composers. Before 1900 it was rather difficult to hear works often (or at all) because one had to attend a concert where they were performed. Now one can hear essentially any music at anytime. In theory that would make it easier to have the opportunity to acquire the new languages of modern composers and ultimately learn to appreciate them.


----------



## arpeggio

^^^^
Like I said. It was a SWAG on one possible reason. Even I thought of some exceptions while I was preparing my post.


----------



## PetrB

Dustin said:


> I don't have anything relevant to say about horrible composers but is that a PetrB impersonator up above? PeterB, PetrB


Two entities: peterb / PetrB
Do you know how many guys in the world are named Bob or John? Lol.

If we get too confused in people's minds, I'll happily take another name. 
The site allows that, the software still attaches all your old posts _to you._


----------



## julianoq

arpeggio said:


> Is it possible that because of the electronic media we can listen to the established repertoire over and over again so it is so firmly embedded in our psyche that is makes it very difficult for us to accept something new? This is a complete SWAG on my part.


But in the other hand, doesn't the electronic media allow us to easily listen to not established repertoire also? I mean, centuries ago if some new music wasn't accepted quickly in the repertoire it would probably be forgotten forever (with some exceptions of music that experienced a revival centuries after being composed). Nowadays we have access to stuff that would be already forgotten without the recording technology.


----------



## hpowders

Sudonim said:


> I'd go a little further and submit that "sounding good" and "sounding ugly" are not necessarily antithetical terms. Sometimes music can be both at once.


As in Beethoven's Hammerklavier sonata and Grosse Fuge.


----------



## Dustin

PetrB said:


> Two entities: peterb / PetrB
> Do you know how many guys in the world are named Bob or John? Lol.
> 
> If we get too confused in people's minds, I'll happily take another name.
> The site allows that, the software still attaches all your old posts _to you._


Haha I know just messing around. The B on the end is what makes it surprising. Anyway, someone may be able to imitate your name, but good luck imitating your knowledge bank lol.

Plus, I mostly identify people by their pictures anyway. That KenOC is a shifty figure...


----------



## Nereffid

arpeggio said:


> Is it possible that because of the electronic media *we* can listen to the established repertoire over and over again so it is so firmly embedded in our psyche that is makes it very difficult for us to accept something new? This is a complete SWAG on my part.





julianoq said:


> But in the other hand, doesn't the electronic media allow *us* to easily listen to not established repertoire also? I mean, centuries ago if some new music wasn't accepted quickly in the repertoire it would probably be forgotten forever (with some exceptions of music that experienced a revival centuries after being composed). Nowadays we have access to stuff that would be already forgotten without the recording technology.


Both things are possible, if arpeggio's "we" and julianoq's "us" are not exactly the same people!


----------



## arpeggio

*S. W. A. G.*

Hmm. Maybe everybody does not know that SWAG means Scientific Wild-*** Guess. :devil:


----------



## Petwhac

mmsbls said:


> I think the invention of the phonograph, radio, and other electronic devices that allow us to easily listen to a wide range of music at almost anytime could have had several effects. One would be the possibility that the established repertoire could become embedded in our minds as you say.
> 
> On the other hand many people here have stated that there are two obstacles to appreciating modern music - an open mind and repeated exposure to the new languages of these composers. Before 1900 it was rather difficult to hear works often (or at all) because one had to attend a concert where they were performed. Now one can hear essentially any music at anytime. In theory that would make it easier to have the opportunity to acquire the new languages of modern composers and ultimately learn to appreciate them.


I believe I know the answer to this, though many hear don't accept my view. It is this.

Since early polyphony through all the eras up until the breakdown/abandonment of triadic harmony by some composers, there has always been a common meeting point in the language of music.
A Mass by Palestrina, a Cantata by Bach, a quartet by Haydn, a symphony by Berlioz, an Opera by Wagner and even most preludes by Debussy, are built from the same harmonic materials as all the folk and popular music through the centuries up to and including mainstream Jazz, Blues , Pop and Broadway music of today. All the music I mentioned is based on triadic harmony, meaning, there are major and minor chords present. The same chords are in Bach and Wagner as are in Robert Johnson, The Beatles and Richard Rogers. 
Of course the chromaticism found in Wagner is much greater than in popular music but Wagner never strays for long from straight major/minor chords.
Those composers of the 20th century who have retained _some_ association with major/minor chords are the ones who tend to be more popular.

WARNING!

I am not including film music in this because that is not relevant. People have no trouble accepting any music that serves it's purpose of supporting pictures.

Please be careful not to confuse what I'm saying with an attack or defence of any kind of music.


----------



## Guest

The thing about accepting this view or not is that it simply doesn't jibe with the historical record.

It sounds good, to the unwary, but this notion that "everything was all the same until..." is only what it looks like looking back on it. At any given time along that timeline, you can find people who are sure that music has reached an end, that there's nothing left but incomprehensible noise. "If this is the music of the future, count me out" was said about someone like Bizet or Brahms as I recall. Maybe someone with a copy of Slonimsky's book can look that up. ("That" being only a paraphrase, not a quote.)

Truly, looking at the past through the eyes of the present will produce all sorts of strange things that look OK but are actually absurd. Look at the past, as best as you can, through the eyes of people for whom it was present.


----------



## peterb

PetrB said:


> :lol:...:lol:...:lol:...
> 
> Me, I'm awaiting the elucidation of how Hip Hop _has advanced the classical music scene_


Well, first off I think I said "modern and classical", not simply classical. And, of course, I'm using the expansive definition of "classical" rather than the narrow "music from the classical period of 1730-1820," but I assume you're using that definition also. (side note: the term "classical music", as Alex Ross has observed, is completely awful in every way. He prefers just calling it "the music", and I concur.)

Anyway, just look around you. Here are the first google hits for me on "classical music and hip-hop":

http://www.berklee.edu/news/hip-hop-meets-classical
http://www.bu.edu/today/2014/mozart-meets-hip-hop/
http://www.reporterherald.com/ci_22373842/hip-hop-meets-classical-music-black-violin
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfranci...et-in-death-love-and-life/Content?oid=2336679

So young musicians are taking what they've learned from hip-hop and bringing it back into the music. And vice-versa, of course. Modern classical, via minimalism, has been using repetition and sampling for years. But it's taken hip-hop to really introduce the vocabulary to most listeners, and that vocabulary has echoed back into the (so-called) "serious" music world.

On another topic, I'm surprised to see the line you drew at classical music somehow requiring "unamplified" instrumentation only (if I understood you correctly; if I misread, my apologies). That doesn't match actual performance practice (most trivially, any recording you've ever listened to is amplified, but even beyond that there are plenty of modern works that explicitly use electronic instruments). I don't disagree that most of what we'd consider "the repertory" happens to be unamplified, but calling that a _requirement_ for the music seems like a completely arbitrary line to me.


----------



## hpowders

Oh no! He's got 2 tags; arguing with himself.


----------



## peterb

As I said earlier - I'm not PetrB and am not pretending to be. Since he's been here forever and I haven't, I'm happy to change my forum name if it bothers people.


----------



## hpowders

peterb said:


> As I said earlier - I'm not PetrB and am not pretending to be. Since he's been here forever and I haven't, I'm happy to change my forum name if it bothers people.


Just having some fun. I know it's 2 different posters.


----------



## science

An interesting thing is that even in the realm of technology the old things hang on for longer than most of us would expect. 

In the 1990s I worked in an old-fashioned hardware store that specialized in selling the old stuff to old people who still wanted it. People would come in and buy washboards and oil lamps and fuse boxes for Edison-base fuses. Washboards and oil lamps should've gone out in the 1920s, unless you were really rural, and then by the 1950s, unless you were off the grid. But some people didn't want to use washing machines and electric lights all the time. Fuses have no advantages over circuit breakers, but the heart wants what the heart wants. People would get tired of having their dryers fixed and decide to string up some old clotheslines, and come in to buy bags of clothespins. I can promise you that at this moment someone somewhere in North America is wishing they could roll down a car window with a crank handle instead of just pushing a button, and dozens have just given away e-book readers because they want to feel the paper in their hands. Someone is shopping for 8-track cassette players on e-bay, and someone else has just decided to get out the typewriter because word processors suck. And I still buy CDs. 

And on the other side are the early adopters, who take pride in having paid $900 for a buggy blu-ray player eight years ago. 

It takes all kinds, I guess. 

So in a realm that is purely subjective, or at least much less objective, we probably shouldn't expect a nice linear story to be valid.


----------



## Taggart

science said:


> Fuses have no advantages over circuit breakers, but the heart wants what the heart wants.
> 
> It takes all kinds, I guess.


Circuit breakers will trip when a light bulb blows putting *all* your lights off which can be a pesky nuisance.

Clothespins are also ideal for tying up bags e.g of bread or vegetables that you want to keep fresh.

So it does take all kinds.


----------



## PetrB

hpowders said:


> Oh no! He's got 2 tags; arguing with himself.


Too much time on TC has made them schizophrenic.


----------



## PetrB

peterb said:


> Well, first off I think I said "modern and classical", not simply classical. And, of course, I'm using the expansive definition of "classical" rather than the narrow "music from the classical period of 1730-1820," but I assume you're using that definition also. (side note: the term "classical music", as Alex Ross has observed, is completely awful in every way. He prefers just calling it "the music", and I concur.)
> 
> Anyway, just look around you. Here are the first google hits for me on "classical music and hip-hop":
> 
> http://www.berklee.edu/news/hip-hop-meets-classical
> http://www.bu.edu/today/2014/mozart-meets-hip-hop/
> http://www.reporterherald.com/ci_22373842/hip-hop-meets-classical-music-black-violin
> http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfranci...et-in-death-love-and-life/Content?oid=2336679
> 
> So young musicians are taking what they've learned from hip-hop and bringing it back into the music. And vice-versa, of course. Modern classical, via minimalism, has been using repetition and sampling for years. But it's taken hip-hop to really introduce the vocabulary to most listeners, and that vocabulary has echoed back into the (so-called) "serious" music world.
> 
> On another topic, I'm surprised to see the line you drew at classical music somehow requiring "unamplified" instrumentation only (if I understood you correctly; if I misread, my apologies). That doesn't match actual performance practice (most trivially, any recording you've ever listened to is amplified, but even beyond that there are plenty of modern works that explicitly use electronic instruments). I don't disagree that most of what we'd consider "the repertory" happens to be unamplified, but calling that a _requirement_ for the music seems like a completely arbitrary line to me.


That amplification thingie. Sure, amplified piano and voices in Berio's Sinfonia, pickup microphones and amplification of instruments in a Steve Reich band (with a mixer in overall control in concert -- carefully balanced as per the composer's wishes) -- _but_ all to the purpose of a particular timbrel quality... i.e. the amplification is not 'just' to make it loud, or to make up for a deficient or otherwise acoustically inferior performing space. There is still some difference between that and automatically expected / used amplification.

The "classical influence" may or may not be influence; it could also be on of those ideas whose time has come and was just floating about in the general ether.

Every instance you mention of Hip-Hop meeting some classical element is, historically, the classical element first 
So, what showed up in Hip-Hop maybe brought similar aesthetics (differently applied) to the popular audience. It is quite often a similar time-line scenario. It is also both. Composers looking to Jazz, the Jazz musicians at the same time looking to those contemporary composers.

If you come more from one matrix or t'other, I think your idea of whether it was the chicken or the egg first will fall on one side or the other, without either being much of a point of any importance.


----------



## Petwhac

some guy said:


> The thing about accepting this view or not is that it simply doesn't jibe with the historical record.
> 
> It sounds good, to the unwary, but this notion that "everything was all the same until..." is only what it looks like looking back on it. At any given time along that timeline, you can find people who are sure that music has reached an end, that there's nothing left but incomprehensible noise. "If this is the music of the future, count me out" was said about someone like Bizet or Brahms as I recall. Maybe someone with a copy of Slonimsky's book can look that up. ("That" being only a paraphrase, not a quote.)
> 
> Truly, looking at the past through the eyes of the present will produce all sorts of strange things that look OK but are actually absurd. Look at the past, as best as you can, through the eyes of people for whom it was present.


mmsbis raised a very good question, which is the one I was addressing.

The 'historical record' (we'll come to that later) shows that some works were at first considered too novel, too ugly, too 'difficult' for general acceptance by mainstream audiences. It also shows that these same works eventually did become accepted and enjoyed by mainstream audiences and some entered the standard repertoire.
mmsbis wonders (if I understand correctly) why what was true for works by Mozart, Beethoven, Debussy and others, where acceptance came within a few years or even a decades, has not held true for some music from the 1930s. In other words, over seven decades later some music is still not enjoyed/accepted by the mainstream.

Your argument states that what was true for Bizet or Brahms must also hold true for Webern and Stockhausen. Unfortunately the 'historical record' shows this to be, by and large, untrue and your circular argument falls down.
I have looked at the actual music itself and not the mass of writings, quotes, anecdotes and reports which constitute the 'historical record' to find an answer whereas you have just ignored the question.

I think you will find it hard to refute my argument unless you can show me a number of relatively popular or mainstream works that are not made to a large part from major/minor triads.

Let's go back to the 'historical record'. The Rite of Spring is said to have caused quite a hoohah at it's premiere. However it appears that that may have been down to the choreography as well as the music. There were many factors involved including rival 'factions' among the audience who were antipathetic towards each other before the curtain rose. The thing about history is that it is an _interpretation_ of recorded events. 
When I look at the music itself, I am not interpreting, I am observing first hand. Either major/minor triadic harmony is present (to a greater or lesser extent), or it isn't. I think you'll find in general the greater the extent, the more widely popular the music. (see NOTE)

Here are a few facts about the Rite. 
It was very original for the time. It was well received at numerous performances within a few years of it's premiere. It contains much music based on triadic harmony.

You have also created a straw man in implying that I said "everything was the same until.....".
I did not. I said there was a _common element_. *And there is.* It may not 'jibe' with your interpretation of history but I cannot help that.

You say it is a mistake to look at the past through the eyes of the present and though it is hard not to do so, you are right. But you make the greater mistake of looking at the present through the eyes of the past. You completely ignore the actual material we are debating (music) and put forward a fallacious argument that if something led from A to B in the 19th Century it must lead from A to B in the 20th/21st Century. mmsbis asked why that appears not to have happened and I have put forward one hypothesis. I believe your position is that, given the right circumstances, it will happen because it happened before. Whereas my position is that it probably never will.

NOTE. I have been ignoring the element of pulse which plays a strong role in making accessible, to wider audiences music which relies less on harmony. Modern dance music for example.


----------



## Guest

Well, everyone has to believe something. I believe I'll have another drink.

But I digress. My "position" is really neither here nor there. You stated that the presence or absence of triadic harmony was the important factor in whether music gets enjoyed or accepted. But it's not the presence or absence of anything that matters; it's how people respond. And people at different times respond differently to things. People in the same time respond differently to things. That's all.

Things that seem difficult or impossible today do not necessarily continue to seem difficult or impossible tomorrow. The things don't change, but people's perceptions of them do. 

Now, you point to a body of work which you claim has not stopped seeming difficult or impossible, and you claim further that it will never stop seeming difficult or impossible. "...over seven decades later some music is still not enjoyed/accepted by the mainstream." A nice, sweeping assertion. And who, I would ask, gave the chimerical "mainstream" such validity? Over seven decades later the music of Schoenberg and Varese, as well as by Schwitters and Cage, is enjoyed and accepted by some people. Indeed, there is music from only seven or eight weeks ago that is enjoyed and accepted by some people. Or is this a "majority rules" kind of thing? or some kind of popularity contest?

There's plenty of music that has no kind of triadic reality about it at all that is perfectly well enjoyed and accepted. By some people. There's even a music store in Paris, Souffle continu, that consists largely of CDs and LPs of music with no sort of triadic reality about it. I was just there, and it's amazing. I was so happy. But, of course, I'm not in some fanciful "mainstream," so my happiness counts for nothing. The masses. Thou shalt have no other God before thee. 

Nope.

As for mmsbls's question, I think you will find that I have already answered that. (Post #279.) So no, I did not have to answer that question again in my response to your post. If there's been any ignoring, it's you ignoring post #279. So go ahead. Read it. The nub of it is that the anti-modernist sentiment is a self-feeding system. Occasionally individuals, like mmsbls himself, manage to break out of the system and find that contemporary, non-triadic music is perfectly comprehensible and enjoyable. And they wonder, from their new perspective, why more people don't share their delight.

It's because it's hard to break out of a self-feeding system, not because the music is or is not triadic. In the nineteenth century, there was enough of the old way of thinking (i.e., that new is best) still around to keep the system from taking over entirely. But by 1900, and even more, by the time recording technology was perfected--allowing for unlimited Vivaldi in your own home as well as encouraging the sense of entitlement that even outside your home you are owed more Vivaldi--the self-feeding system was very strong indeed. 

Strong, but not necessarily invincible. People used to think that slavery was fine. People used to think that universal suffrage was bad. People in the U.S. used to think that growing hemp was patriotic. And then they didn't. And now, maybe back to the earlier idea. Ideas do change. And perhaps the idea that modern music is bad will change, too. In some people's minds it has already changed. And why not? The music, as those of us who enjoy know perfectly well, is perfectly fine. Roll on that day.


----------



## mirepoix

Taggart said:


> Clothespins are also ideal for tying up bags e.g of bread or vegetables that you want to keep fresh.


Indeed.
And momentarily continuing off topic, they're often used for quickly ensuring the required fit of a model's clothing during a shoot; sew her (or him) in, take up any remaining slack with a couple of clothespins - and you instantly have an unfeasibly tiny waist.

As for the thread topic, I'm enjoying the thoughts and informative discussion it has brought up - even if the original post turns out to have been a visit from Professor Trollheim of Underbridge University.


----------



## science

View attachment 38968


I suspect that we aren't all talking about the same things!


----------



## Wood

science said:


> View attachment 38968
> 
> 
> I suspect that we aren't all talking about the same things!


Where I'm from they're called clothes pegs, and as we speak my laundry is hanging up on the clothes line outside fluttering in the wind. When they're dry, they'll be fresher and softer than anything dried in a drier, not to mention the high electricity cost of those things.

Edit: b#gger, its just started raining...


----------



## mirepoix

science said:


> View attachment 38968


^^^that's the very thing.


----------



## Petwhac

some guy said:


> Well, everyone has to believe something. I believe I'll have another drink.
> 
> But I digress. My "position" is really neither here nor there. You stated that the presence or absence of triadic harmony was the important factor in whether music gets enjoyed or accepted. But it's not the presence or absence of anything that matters; it's how people respond. And people at different times respond differently to things. People in the same time respond differently to things. That's all.


Hmm. What was in that drink? You seem to be very good at misunderstanding my point. I did not state anywhere that the presence or or not of triadic harmony was the important factor in whether or not music is enjoyed or accepted. I said that it affects how _widely_ it is enjoyed or how quickly it may become accepted into the mainstream standard repertoire.



some guy said:


> Things that seem difficult or impossible today do not necessarily continue to seem difficult or impossible tomorrow. The things don't change, but people's perceptions of them do.


As the question by mmsbis points to. Peoples' perception seems to have changed less in nearly a century when it comes to some music but for other music it changed in a matter of years. Since people are people, and have been for some time, perhaps there are other factors at play.



some guy said:


> Now, you point to a body of work which you claim has not stopped seeming difficult or impossible, and you claim further that it will never stop seeming difficult or impossible. "...over seven decades later some music is still not enjoyed/accepted by the mainstream." A nice, sweeping assertion. And who, I would ask, gave the chimerical "mainstream" such validity? Over seven decades later the music of Schoenberg and Varese, as well as by Schwitters and Cage, is enjoyed and accepted by some people. Indeed, there is music from only seven or eight weeks ago that is enjoyed and accepted by some people. Or is this a "majority rules" kind of thing? or some kind of popularity contest?


Who mentioned validity? Not I. Who said _no-one_ likes certain music? Not I. When we are discussing mainstream standard repertoire and popularity then, um..., yeah it is a popularity contest. Millions more people like pop music than do classical music. Why do you think that is? Is that down to people's perception or is it anything to do with the music itself? Does that make classical music less valid? Is anyone asserting that?



some guy said:


> There's plenty of music that has no kind of triadic reality about it at all that is perfectly well enjoyed and accepted. By some people.


Y'don't say!!



some guy said:


> There's even a music store in Paris, Souffle continu, that consists largely of CDs and LPs of music with no sort of triadic reality about it. I was just there, and it's amazing. I was so happy. But, of course, I'm not in some fanciful "mainstream," so my happiness counts for nothing. The masses. Thou shalt have no other God before thee.


....yawn yawn...Who is attacking anyone's preferences. I too like plenty of music that is not mainstream or widely popular. So what? That has absolutely nothing to do with what I thought we were discussing.
But feeling like a persecuted minority gives one such a sense of righteousness eh?



some guy said:


> People used to think that slavery was fine. People used to think that universal suffrage was bad. People in the U.S. used to think that growing hemp was patriotic. And then they didn't. And now, maybe back to the earlier idea. Ideas do change. And perhaps the idea that modern music is bad will change, too. In some people's minds it has already changed. And why not? The music, as those of us who enjoy know perfectly well, is perfectly fine. Roll on that day.


By that token, some people like to have electricity passed through their genitals. That hardly means it must one day become a popular pastime in suburbia. Or maybe it will. Or maybe unbeknownst to me it already is! Who knows.


----------



## Nereffid

Petwhac said:


> By that token, some people like to have electricity passed through their genitals. That hardly means it must one day become a popular pastime in suburbia. Or maybe it will. Or maybe unbeknownst to me it already is! Who knows.


I can't wait for the poll on that one.


----------



## hpowders

Anything to break up the monotony.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Your taste in Classical is quite conservative and there's nothing wrong with that. That you gave up on 'trashy hip-hop' is a victory in of itself considering how young you probably are.


I'm young but neva eva liked hip-hop even down the chip shop :lol:

I neva give up on anything easily tho and still like a lot of the stuff I listened2 whilst rebelling against my parents love of classical stuff.

However I'm now developing my own classical music interest and do borrow from my dad's extensive library when at home.

Sure, some stuff is a harder listen but that harder listen makes the end experience more pleasing when 1 gets2grips with woteva.


----------



## mirepoix

hpowders said:


> Anything to break up the monotony.


And get the blood flowing.


----------



## hpowders

mirepoix said:


> And get the blood flowing.


Shocking what may be going on in suburbia behind closed bedroom doors!


----------



## Petwhac

hpowders said:


> Shocking what may be going on in suburbia behind closed bedroom doors!


Bedroom? How conventional!


----------



## mmsbls

Petwhac said:


> Since early polyphony through all the eras up until the breakdown/abandonment of triadic harmony by some composers, there has always been a common meeting point in the language of music.
> A Mass by Palestrina, a Cantata by Bach, a quartet by Haydn, a symphony by Berlioz, an Opera by Wagner and even most preludes by Debussy, are built from the same harmonic materials as all the folk and popular music through the centuries up to and including mainstream Jazz, Blues , Pop and Broadway music of today. All the music I mentioned is based on triadic harmony, meaning, there are major and minor chords present. The same chords are in Bach and Wagner as are in Robert Johnson, The Beatles and Richard Rogers.
> Of course the chromaticism found in Wagner is much greater than in popular music but Wagner never strays for long from straight major/minor chords.
> Those composers of the 20th century who have retained _some_ association with major/minor chords are the ones who tend to be more popular.


The question is rather complex and presumably has to do with the interaction between the music, people's brains, and societal factors. The one thing that has changed the least is the human brain. So I have always assumed the answer has to do with changes in the music and in societal factors. I'm really not sure how big a role each of those factors plays. I do think many of the answers in this thread are interesting possibilities.


----------



## hpowders

Petwhac said:


> Bedroom? How conventional!


I consider myself conservative. One of my many human failings.


----------



## Guest

Not sure that "brains" is quite the right concept to invoke here.

Certainly any brain is a complex machine. And any brain has similarities to every other brain. But beyond that. And with music I think we are talking about a situation that is very much beyond that.

I don't really think that the situation is very complex. In the 18th century, printed programs show that concerts were made up of all sorts of different things, and that the bulk (90%) of those things was music by living composers. In the 19th century, you can see that change. In printed programs, concerts became increasingly made up of music by dead composers. In the 20th century, after a sharp anti-modernist spike around the turn of the century, the ratio stabilized somewhere between 80 and 90% dead composers. Which is about where it is today, in symphony hall, anyway. In other venues, just as in the 19th century, there were new music concerts made up of 90% living composers. 90% or more.

The anti-modernist sentiment has never had anything much to do with actual music. This has been especially true in the past 100 years or so, in which opportunities to hear actual new music have been very few and far between. Recording technology has made new music more available, true, but you have to go looking for it. You have to know where to look. It doesn't intrude. It doesn't just drop in your lap. No, the anti-modernist sentiment is irrational, like every other prejudice. How many of the white people in the U.S. in the fifties who were frightened and suspicious of black people had ever actually had very much, if any, direct contact with a black person? Precious few.

And like every other irrational belief, anti-modernism is extremely powerful. You do not need any logical basis for a belief to be strong. In fact, a logical basis is probably the last thing you want. For real, genuine strength in a belief, irrational is your only man. Now as to why _that_ should be so, perhaps that is a complex question.

You can find people who struggled with Beethoven 40 or 50 years after his death. (You can find a thread on this very board as ever it is where people report as struggling with _Grosse Fuge._) You can find people who struggle with Schoenberg 50 or 60 years after his death. Perhaps more for Schoenberg than for Beethoven, but that's not terribly mysterious, either. Beethoven was early enough in the process to be soundly hated by some, but never really demonized. Schoenberg came along just at the right time to be quite successfully demonized. Boy howdy.


----------



## Blancrocher

Different strokes (or electric shocks) for different folks, I say.


----------



## mmsbls

Petwhac said:


> I think you will find it hard to refute my argument unless you can show me a number of relatively popular or mainstream works that are not made to a large part from major/minor triads.





some guy said:


> You stated that the presence or absence of triadic harmony was the important factor in whether music gets enjoyed or accepted. But it's not the presence or absence of anything that matters; it's how people respond. And people at different times respond differently to things. People in the same time respond differently to things. That's all.


In some sense I believe you are both correct (or potentially correct). We know that the music changed (it always does) and we know that societal conditions changed as well. Both of these potentially affect people's reaction.

The question remains why when music moves from major/minor triads to non-tonal works coupled with changes in people's environment (technological and societal), do people's musical tastes (i.e. appreciation of 70 year old music) change. If the music had changed but society and technology were essentially the same, would the result be similar? If the music had stayed much more similar, but technological and societal change were as large, would the result be similar? I'm not sure about either situation.


----------



## Petwhac

some guy said:


> Not sure that "brains" is quite the right concept to invoke here.
> 
> Certainly any brain is a complex machine. And any brain has similarities to every other brain. But beyond that. And with music I think we are talking about a situation that is very much beyond that.
> 
> I don't really think that the situation is very complex. In the 18th century, printed programs show that concerts were made up of all sorts of different things, and that the bulk (90%) of those things was music by living composers. In the 19th century, you can see that change. In printed programs, concerts became increasingly made up of music by dead composers. In the 20th century, after a sharp anti-modernist spike around the turn of the century, the ratio stabilized somewhere between 80 and 90% dead composers. Which is about where it is today, in symphony hall, anyway. In other venues, just as in the 19th century, there were new music concerts made up of 90% living composers. 90% or more.
> 
> The anti-modernist sentiment has never had anything much to do with actual music. This has been especially true in the past 100 years or so, in which opportunities to hear actual new music have been very few and far between. Recording technology has made new music more available, true, but you have to go looking for it. You have to know where to look. It doesn't intrude. It doesn't just drop in your lap. No, the anti-modernist sentiment is irrational, like every other prejudice. How many of the white people in the U.S. in the fifties who were frightened and suspicious of black people had ever actually had very much, if any, direct contact with a black person? Precious few.
> 
> And like every other irrational belief, anti-modernism is extremely powerful. You do not need any logical basis for a belief to be strong. In fact, a logical basis is probably the last thing you want. For real, genuine strength in a belief, irrational is your only man. Now as to why _that_ should be so, perhaps that is a complex question.
> 
> You can find people who struggled with Beethoven 40 or 50 years after his death. (You can find a thread on this very board as ever it is where people report as struggling with _Grosse Fuge._) You can find people who struggle with Schoenberg 50 or 60 years after his death. Perhaps more for Schoenberg than for Beethoven, but that's not terribly mysterious, either. Beethoven was early enough in the process to be soundly hated by some, but never really demonized. Schoenberg came along just at the right time to be quite successfully demonized. Boy howdy.


Not only is your reasoning flawed but it is cleverly aligning anyone who expresses dislike for music you like with a racist. Actually there's nothing very clever about it. It's creepy. It is the attitude "if you're not with us, you're against us". 
It's as if a peanut farmer, when told that someone doesn't care for peanuts, tells them they are anti-peanut and display and irrational anti-peanut sentiment.
It is not your so called anti-modernism that has nothing to do with music. Really it isn't. It is you who are doing the demonising, make no mistake.

Forgive me for being somewhat irate but that's twice you've mentioned racism. It's a tactic I don't like.


----------



## cellogrl

I think modern music can take a bit getting used to. After all, it's new ideas that we're not used to so we're going to be put off by it at first. I think it's totally fine and even good to learn what you like and dislike in music. Just because it's classical doesn't mean it's good or that you have to like it. Lots of my friends can't understand why I love religious music or folk music. I find it more human and soulful. So find what you like, but be open to different kinds of music too


----------



## mmsbls

some guy said:


> Not sure that "brains" is quite the right concept to invoke here.
> 
> Certainly any brain is a complex machine. And any brain has similarities to every other brain. But beyond that. And with music I think we are talking about a situation that is very much beyond that.
> 
> I don't really think that the situation is very complex.


I include brains because that is where all the processing occurs, and without that processing there is no "I love this music", "I hate this music", or "modern music sucks". Also brain functioning is always complex - we actually don't know anything more complex. But if I understand you, you think the answer has more to do with changes in the classical music environment.



some guy said:


> In the 18th century, printed programs show that concerts were made up of all sorts of different things, and that the bulk (90%) of those things was music by living composers. In the 19th century, you can see that change. In printed programs, concerts became increasingly made up of music by dead composers. In the 20th century, after a sharp anti-modernist spike around the turn of the century, the ratio stabilized somewhere between 80 and 90% dead composers.


I thought that the percentage of contemporary music played in concerts in 1900 was basically the same as the percentage in 2000 - very low. Do you think that's true? If so, this aspect of society has not changed over the past 100 years and would not be a partial explanation for the effect.



some guy said:


> The anti-modernist sentiment has never had anything much to do with actual music.


Relevant to my question, I'm not sure if there's a difference between anti-modernism is the sense of "Modern music sucks and it's destroying music" and "I don't enjoy modern music anywhere near as much as earlier music". I'm talking about the latter rather than the aggressive former sentiment.

I guess I'd also like to be a bit more explicit. Looking at the statement*:

In year x roughly y percent of classical music concert goers dislike music composed 70 years ago.

What is y when x is 1900 and 2000, and does y vary significantly between 1900 and 2000? if y varies only a modest amount, then my question is not so interesting. I think most people here do believe y has increased significantly. Are there some who think that's not true?

*Yes, I know there's uncertainty in y and it depends on exactly what the 70 year old music is.


----------



## arpeggio

*Experiences With Anti-Modernists*

I freely admit that I have some biases with anti-modernists because of some of my real life experiences.

I have serve on several boards of community groups in my time. The musicians in all of these groups were unpaid amateurs. Some of the members would be retired professionals or music teachers.

In all of the groups on occasions there would be some board members who were non-musicians who believed all modern music was unnatural and contradicted human nature. They fought against programming any modern music in our concerts. Their justification was that such music drove away audiences.

One of my favorite experience was with a group about thirty years ago. The board was controlled by non-musicians who hated 90% of the music composed in the 20th century. They felt that excluding such music from the programing would help our attendance. To make a long story short, they drove out our music director. The musicians, with the exception of four players, got angry and quit. We went and formed our own orchestra which still exists. The old orchestra hired a new conductor who had sterling credentials and his wife was a local celebrity with a local classical music station, that no longer exists. She then assumed the role of the announcer for the orchestra concerts. For several years they were quite successful playing the more traditional repertoire. Then a disaster occurred. The director and the announcer wife got divorced and she left the orchestra. The attendance collapsed. It turns our their success had nothing to do with the programming or the conductor. People came to hear and meet Ms. Johnson (The name has been changed to protect the innocent). The board then fired the director who was suppose to be their savior and they have been struggling ever since.

My experiences with real life anti-modernists is that they really want to suppress music they dislike. In every situation I have been in where they have succeeded in imposing their agenda, the results have been a failure.

I know of another volunteer group in the area where this is currently happening. Based on pressure from conservative non-musicians who think they know what they are doing, the group has dumbed down its programming. In spite of this, the attendance has not improved. The performance level has slowly deteriorated because some of the best musicians have left and moved on to other groups.

I have discovered that the better musicians tend to have more adventurous tastes in music. If they are getting paid they will play whatever is in the folder. When a musician is a volunteer, one may have to program some adventurous music to keep them happy. If not, they will just quit and move on. It is not the weaker musicians that leave, it is always the better ones.

I actually had a discussion once with a non-musician board member in that other orchestra who said to me by playing better (meaning less modern) music we will actually attract better musicians as well as audiences. I can imagine his shock when the most of the orchestra, including most of the best musicians, quit on them.

The only good musicians that remained with them were two trumpet players who for some reason hated our director. The four players who stayed behind only played with the new orchestra for a few seasons. I do not know why they eventually left.

I will be the first to admit that the experiences of talented listeners should be invalidated because they never had the opportunity to play violin in a symphony orchestra, professional or amateur. By the same token the experiences of musicians who have had experiences performing and working with music organizations should be invalidated because we enjoy playing music that anti-modernists do not approve of.

Too many times the opinions of non-musicians clash with our experiences.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> In year x roughly y percent of classical music concert goers dislike music composed 70 years ago.
> 
> What is y when x is 1900 and 2000, and does y vary significantly between 1900 and 2000? if y varies only a modest amount, then my question is not so interesting. I think most people here do believe y has increased significantly. Are there some who think that's not true?


I don't think the dislike has anything to do with music at all. At the very most, it has to do with expectations. You expect something to be bad, and heigh presto it's bad. No surprise there. And the dozens of reports I've seen or heard of people who are captivated by something they expected to be bad. "X piece was surprisingly good!" Hmmm. Wouldn't have surprised me.

Anyway, yeah. I think that probably there is less anti-modernist sentiment in 2000 than in 1900. That is, the percentage is probably less. The sense of entitlement, though, I think is greater. That sense that the music one can successfully avoid at home simply because at home is in private should be banned in public as well. I've heard it in the lobbies of more than one concert recently. Not, "I dislike this music," but "this music should not be performed, for anyone, because I dislike it." So while the percentage is probably less, because the sentiment is more loudly and more aggressively pronounced, Y - 20 % can seem much larger than Y %.

I think that may be what is going on. Fewer people are put off by contemporary music, but the ones who are are more vocal than a hundred years ago. After all, when you have the interwebs and you dislike something, you can immediately post it for everyone to see. In 1900, it took a bit more effort to complain. Not much, but a bit.


----------



## arpeggio

some guy said:


> I've heard it in the lobbies of more than one concert recently. Not, "I dislike this music," but "this music should not be performed, for anyone, because I dislike it."


This is exactly the type of experience I have been referring to. I have tried to mention this in other threads and have been shot down. One time I was accused of being paranoid.


----------



## mmsbls

arpeggio said:


> I will be the first to admit that the experiences of talented listeners should be invalidated because they never had the opportunity to play violin in a symphony orchestra, professional or amateur. By the same token the experiences of musicians who have had experiences performing and working with music organizations should be invalidated because we enjoy playing music that anti-modernists do not approve of.
> 
> Too many times the opinions of non-musicians clash with our experiences.


You speak mostly of the non-musician board members rather than of the non-musician audience. Do you have any idea of how those audiences received modern music?

When you say "Too many times the opinions of non-musicians clash with (musicians') experiences", how should that clash be resolved?

My wife recently joined a community orchestra. I'd like to talk with the conductor about his views and the board's views of modern/contemporary music. They played Stravinsky (Firebird) and Piazzolla this year, but neither is particularly out there. Next year they have a couple of things potentially programmed that are more "modern".


----------



## mmsbls

some guy said:


> I've heard it in the lobbies of more than one concert recently. Not, "I dislike this music," but "this music should not be performed, for anyone, because I dislike it."


Most of us feel that this attitude is wrong, but don't you think they really mean, "this music should not be performed because I dislike it so most of us must dislike it."

Yes, we would say that there are good reasons to be exposed to newer music, and there are many, if a minority, who will enjoy the experience so it could be scheduled for them. I think most people who do not like modern music assume that the vast majority of other listeners also dislike it. That's not completely unreasonable.


----------



## arpeggio

*Unknown*



mmsbls said:


> You speak mostly of the non-musician board members rather than of the non-musician audience. Do you have any idea of how those audiences received modern music?


Mixed. Sometimes most of the audience likes the music. Sometimes they do not. It has been many years since I have been to a performances where the audience boo'ed. No matter what we played, there were always a significant portion that liked the music. Sometimes we received a standing ovation.



mmsbls said:


> When you say "Too many times the opinions of non-musicians clash with (musicians') experiences", how should that clash be resolved?


I do not know. I wish I knew the answer to this one. If I did maybe we could have averted the disaster that tore apart my orchestra back in the mid-1980's.

I have some ideas but they would be SWAG's and I have no documentation to support them. Any observations that I would make would be at best anecdotal.


----------



## peterb

Petwhac said:


> Since early polyphony through all the eras up until the breakdown/abandonment of triadic harmony by some composers, there has always been a common meeting point in the language of music.
> A Mass by Palestrina, a Cantata by Bach, a quartet by Haydn, a symphony by Berlioz, an Opera by Wagner and even most preludes by Debussy, are built from the same harmonic materials as all the folk and popular music through the centuries up to and including mainstream Jazz, Blues , Pop and Broadway music of today. All the music I mentioned is based on triadic harmony, meaning, there are major and minor chords present. The same chords are in Bach and Wagner as are in Robert Johnson, The Beatles and Richard Rogers.


Is this one of those things where we're able to use phrases like "all music" and "always" by forgetting that China exists? Chinese music (and asian music generally) historically didn't use the triadic harmonies dominant in Western music. I'd also presume (although I haven't checked) that native American music didn't use them either.

For that matter, Western music didn't use the triadic harmonies you're referring to until around 1000, if I recall correctly. (I'm thinking of the move from plainsong to Gregorian chant. I might be off by a few hundred years. Either way, that's a rounding era when we're slinging around terms like "always.")

My basic point is that when speaking of music, you're saying "Bach and Robert Johnston and The Beatles" as if those things are very different from each other, when in fact they come from _more or less_ the same musical and cultural tradition. They are far closer to each other than they are to, say, traditional Balinese gamelan music. I think that sort of lets the air out of your argument.


----------



## Petwhac

peterb said:


> Is this one of those things where we're able to use phrases like "all music" and "always" by forgetting that China exists? Chinese music (and asian music generally) historically didn't use the triadic harmonies dominant in Western music. I'd also presume (although I haven't checked) that native American music didn't use them either.
> 
> For that matter, Western music didn't use the triadic harmonies you're referring to until around 1000, if I recall correctly. (I'm thinking of the move from plainsong to Gregorian chant. I might be off by a few hundred years. Either way, that's a rounding era when we're slinging around terms like "always.")
> 
> My basic point is that when speaking of music, you're saying "Bach and Robert Johnston and The Beatles" as if those things are very different from each other, when in fact they come from _more or less_ the same musical and cultural tradition. They are far closer to each other than they are to, say, traditional Balinese gamelan music. I think that sort of lets the air out of your argument.


If you'd care to read what I said again you'll see that it has no bearing on my argument at all.
Non triadic music including that from other cultures is not as popular in Western civilisation as is triadic music. Simple.
Nowhere have I said that that is a good or a bad thing. It is just a fact.
While we're on the subject though, it is interesting to note that the pop music of many cultures has adopted the chordal structure of western tonality. African and Taiwanese stars alike are singing over the same triads as American and Russian.


----------



## peterb

But you weren't talking about "Western culture," or at least, if you were, you didn't make that clear. You were using unconditional words like "all" and "always", and I took you at face value and assumed that you actually meant them.

I agree with you to the extent that you're making the somewhat trivial statement "lots of tonal music is popular, here, and now." I just disagree with your implication that (a) it's been this way for a particularly long time (it hasn't) and (b) it's been this way everywhere (it hasn't). If you're acknowledging that, in many other places and times, music other than the forms that happen to be popular now in the place where you live were plenty popular, then I guess I'm glad that you agree with me.

The reason the distinction is important is that some people like to argue that because tonal music happens to be popular, it's proof that it somehow is a Universal Human Preference, which is simply poppycock.


----------



## BurningDesire

mmsbls said:


> You speak mostly of the non-musician board members rather than of the non-musician audience. Do you have any idea of how those audiences received modern music?
> 
> When you say "Too many times the opinions of non-musicians clash with (musicians') experiences", how should that clash be resolved?
> 
> My wife recently joined a community orchestra. I'd like to talk with the conductor about his views and the board's views of modern/contemporary music. They played Stravinsky (Firebird) and Piazzolla this year, but neither is particularly out there. Next year they have a couple of things potentially programmed that are more "modern".


Your community orchestra should just commission me :3 I'll give them something new, and something incredible~


----------



## PetrB

Petwhac said:


> I believe I know the answer to this, though many hear don't accept my view. It is this.
> 
> Since early polyphony through all the eras up until the breakdown/abandonment of triadic harmony by some composers, there has always been a common meeting point in the language of music.
> A Mass by Palestrina, a Cantata by Bach, a quartet by Haydn, a symphony by Berlioz, an Opera by Wagner and even most preludes by Debussy, are built from the same harmonic materials as all the folk and popular music through the centuries up to and including mainstream Jazz, Blues , Pop and Broadway music of today. All the music I mentioned is based on triadic harmony, meaning, there are major and minor chords present. The same chords are in Bach and Wagner as are in Robert Johnson, The Beatles and Richard Rogers.
> Of course the chromaticism found in Wagner is much greater than in popular music but Wagner never strays for long from straight major/minor chords.
> Those composers of the 20th century who have retained _some_ association with major/minor chords are the ones who tend to be more popular.
> 
> WARNING!
> 
> I am not including film music in this because that is not relevant. People have no trouble accepting any music that serves it's purpose of supporting pictures.
> 
> Please be careful not to confuse what I'm saying with an attack or defence of any kind of music.


About the marked preference for music which still uses triads, I'm pretty certain you are right.
But isn't that also 'admitting' that a whole bunch of music listeners are happy with one-quarter of the full alphabet, for example, and then complain about or dis stories which use the full alphabet? 

I hate to think you're right, because that means many a music listener who 'does not go beyond the triad' who thinks they have a grip on classical, along with perhaps thinking they have sophisticated musical minds and ears, are instead actually stuck in a virtual musical kindergarten.


----------



## dgee

PetrB said:


> About the marked preference for music which still uses triads, I'm pretty certain you are right.
> But isn't that also 'admitting' that a whole bunch of music listeners are happy with one-quarter of the full alphabet, for example, and then complain about or dis stories which use the full alphabet?


And yet I sense these constrained listeners would probably ill-disposed towards the following books/writing:

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

Although possibly not the book featured in this wonderful factoid I just discovered: _Theodor Geisel, also known as Dr. Seuss, wrote the well-known children's book Green Eggs and Ham using only 50 different words on a 50 dollar bet with Bennet Cerf._

LOLZ


----------



## Petwhac

peterb said:


> But you weren't talking about "Western culture," or at least, if you were, you didn't make that clear. You were using unconditional words like "all" and "always", and I took you at face value and assumed that you actually meant them.
> 
> I agree with you to the extent that you're making the somewhat trivial statement "lots of tonal music is popular, here, and now." I just disagree with your implication that (a) it's been this way for a particularly long time (it hasn't) and (b) it's been this way everywhere (it hasn't). If you're acknowledging that, in many other places and times, music other than the forms that happen to be popular now in the place where you live were plenty popular, then I guess I'm glad that you agree with me.
> 
> The reason the distinction is important is that some people like to argue that because tonal music happens to be popular, it's proof that it somehow is a Universal Human Preference, which is simply poppycock.


I see where there could be confusion but I was addressing a particular point regarding concert audiences and repetoire. Why some music from the 20th century has had a harder time being programmed, accepted or loved by mainstream concert audiences. 
I have looked at the music which is popular standard repetoire and music that is popular non classical, and have found that without exception, both use major/minor triadic harmony. I was limiting my discussion to exclude music outside of the here and now, or at least the here-ish and now-ish.
It's not as if I said nobody likes anything else or that some music is more valid than other. I am making a statement of fact based on observation. There is something that ties together 'Fly Me To The Moon' to Bach's Magnificat to an old sea shanty to Pink Floyd to Parsifal at a very fundamental level.


----------



## Nereffid

PetrB said:


> About the marked preference for music which still uses triads, I'm pretty certain you are right.
> But isn't that also 'admitting' that a whole bunch of music listeners are happy with one-quarter of the full alphabet, for example, and then complain about or dis stories which use the full alphabet?
> 
> I hate to think you're right, because that means many a music listener who 'does not go beyond the triad' who thinks they have a grip on classical, along with perhaps thinking they have sophisticated musical minds and ears, are instead actually stuck in a virtual musical kindergarten.


I wouldn't use the alphabet analogy myself: the reason for the existence of the full alphabet is not like the reason for the existence of the full range of classical music, and you can have a happy lifetime of listening to just one-quarter of all classical music, whereas using one-quarter of the alphabet puts you at an immediate disadvantage because you've missed the point of what the alphabet is for.

I'd see it as more like being a sports fan. There are a lot of people who watch sports, but how many of them have an interest in all sports, or even more than a handful? I could probably stretch that analogy a bit to fit in popular vs not-so-popular sports, too, and how fans of one sport feel about other sports.


----------



## Petwhac

PetrB said:


> About the marked preference for music which still uses triads, I'm pretty certain you are right.
> But isn't that also 'admitting' that a whole bunch of music listeners are happy with one-quarter of the full alphabet, for example, and then complain about or dis stories which use the full alphabet?
> 
> I hate to think you're right, because that means many a music listener who 'does not go beyond the triad' who thinks they have a grip on classical, along with perhaps thinking they have sophisticated musical minds and ears, are instead actually stuck in a virtual musical kindergarten.


I'm not interested in ranking people according to their musical sophistication.

A native English speaker is unlikely to read Tolstoy in the original Russian or Mann in German or Dante in Italian. What depth and subtlety and nuance must be lost in translation. There is so much literature written in English, modern English even, that the avid reader and book lover may be kept happy and fulfilled without having read those authors even in translation.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Petwhac said:


> A native English speaker is unlikely to read Tolstoy in the original Russian or Mann in German or Dante in Italian. What depth and subtlety and nuance must be lost in translation. There is so much literature written in English, modern English even, that the avid reader and book lover may be kept happy and fulfilled without having read those authors even in translation.


_I say, Old chap! Spot on!!! There's no need to read the jabberrings of Johnny Foreigner is there? Oh no, if those speakers of Double Dutch wish to communicate to us in the language of King James, then let them learn our lingo!_

sorry, Petwhac, but I simply do not subscribe to your final sentence. Of course I know that I am reading an interpretation of an author's work when I read a translation and that it would be far better fo me to read in the original language, but my life would have been so much impoverished without Dostoyevsky, Turgenev, Dante, Boccaccio, Moliere, Juvenal, Homer, Virgil, Goethe, Strindberg, Zola, Hugo, Dumas, Goncharov ........ and literally dozens more authors


----------



## dgee

Or Borges, Calvino, Perec, Kafka, Lem, Simenon. Murakami and literally dozens of others (even Marquez and Kundera, if you must) for those with a more modern bent ;-)

These analogies are getting us nowhere!


----------



## Petwhac

Headphone Hermit said:


> _I say, Old chap! Spot on!!! There's no need to read the jabberrings of Johnny Foreigner is there? Oh no, if those speakers of Double Dutch wish to communicate to us in the language of King James, then let them learn our lingo!_
> 
> sorry, Petwhac, but I simply do not subscribe to your final sentence. Of course I know that I am reading an interpretation of an author's work when I read a translation and that it would be far better fo me to read in the original language, but my life would have been so much impoverished without Dostoyevsky, Turgenev, Dante, Boccaccio, Moliere, Juvenal, Homer, Virgil, Goethe, Strindberg, Zola, Hugo, Dumas, Goncharov ........ and literally dozens more authors


Hence my last sentence contained the word 'may' and not 'will' or 'should' or 'is'.
If you are such an avid reader perhaps you should be a more careful one too.
Why must people confuse a description OF the world with a prescription FOR the world.
I don't know, the limitation of language or my use of it I suppose.


----------



## PetrB

Petwhac said:


> I see where there could be confusion but I was addressing a particular point regarding concert audiences and repertoire. I am making a statement of fact based on observation. There is something that ties together 'Fly Me To The Moon' to Bach's Magnificat to an old sea shanty to Pink Floyd to Parsifal at a very fundamental level.


Point given and taken, and I agree with what you've said.

I was leaning on that fundamental as being the most basic, not "the foundation from which only the listenable composers build upon." LOL. Yes, this does mean many a listener is not going to even think they should, or should need to, adjust their listening habits, and that is one very unpopular / non-populist statement to which I still adhere.

If any do not gloss over all the resistance Bach had to his music _in his own lifetime,_ employers and parishioners, audiences finding it _disturbing, dissonant, wild, ugly, etc._ they would then realize it has taken first seventy years after his death and then several additional generations thereafter before he was generally pronounced and widely accepted as not only a great, but an important composer.

The same lag-time between general listeners and the modern and contemporary music exists now. This means there is no telling at the moment which of this later repertoire or composers will be listened to by future general audiences _both with ease and pleasure_: it also means that the general listener is still on average about seventy years behind the times, and those listeners are still quick to think it is the music, and not them, which is the problem


----------



## Petwhac

PetrB said:


> Point given and taken, and I agree with what you've said.
> 
> I was leaning on that fundamental as being the most basic, not "the foundation from which only the listenable composers build upon." LOL. Yes, this does mean many a listener is not going to even think they should, or should need to, adjust their listening habits, and that is one very unpopular / non-populist statement to which I still adhere.
> 
> If any do not gloss over all the resistance Bach had to his music _in his own lifetime,_ employers and parishioners, audiences finding it _disturbing, dissonant, wild, ugly, etc._ they would then realize it has taken first seventy years after his death and then several additional generations thereafter before he was generally pronounced and widely accepted as not only a great, but an important composer.
> 
> The same lag-time between general listeners and the modern and contemporary music exists now. This means there is no telling at the moment which of this later repertoire or composers will be listened to by future general audiences _both with ease and pleasure_: it also means that the general listener is still on average about seventy years behind the times, and those listeners are still quick to think it is the music, and not them, which is the problem


I think you may be exaggerating in the case of Bach and also not taking into account the way High Baroque was simply out of fashion. 
You also ignore the countless composers who were appreciated and understood in their lifetime and ever since. It is impossible for any of us to know what future generations will enjoy but given the all pervasive dominance of tonal music now, and the way music is disseminated and taught, I see no reason to believe it will change much soon.


----------



## PetrB

Nereffid said:


> I wouldn't use the alphabet analogy myself: the reason for the existence of the full alphabet is not like the reason for the existence of the full range of classical music, and you can have a happy lifetime of listening to just one-quarter of all classical music, whereas using one-quarter of the alphabet puts you at an immediate disadvantage because you've missed the point of what the alphabet is for.
> 
> I'd see it as more like being a sports fan. There are a lot of people who watch sports, but how many of them have an interest in all sports, or even more than a handful? I could probably stretch that analogy a bit to fit in popular vs not-so-popular sports, too, and how fans of one sport feel about other sports.


The history of western harmonic usage goes right up the ladder of the harmonic series, from unison to octaves, to fifths, fourths, additional intervals until we had full triadic three and four part harmony, and the expansion after that through to all twelve tones. The alphabet analogy is way more than apt.

Music is not a sport.


----------



## Nereffid

PetrB said:


> The history of western harmonic usage goes right up the ladder of the harmonic series, from unison to octaves, to fifths, fourths, additional intervals until we had full triadic three and four part harmony, and the expansion after that through to all twelve tones. The alphabet analogy is way more than apt.
> 
> Music is not a sport.


I think we might be somewhat at cross-purposes here. The reason I don't think the "one-quarter of the full alphabet" analogy doesn't work is that, while I agree with you that classical music _now_ has what you might call a "full alphabet", the culture of music today means that the listener doesn't _need_ this full alphabet to get value from music generally - the listener who dislikes the full alphabet can get by happily on music with a "reduced" alphabet - the music of earlier times. Whereas real alphabets don't show the continued expansion we've seen in music, and a quarter-alphabet is essentially useless.
Substantively I more or less agree with you, I guess I'm just taking issue with what I see as an overly negative view of the "one-quarter of the full alphabet" listener.


----------



## PetrB

Petwhac said:


> I'm not interested in ranking people according to their musical sophistication.
> 
> A native English speaker is unlikely to read Tolstoy in the original Russian or Mann in German or Dante in Italian. What depth and subtlety and nuance must be lost in translation. There is so much literature written in English, modern English even, that the avid reader and book lover may be kept happy and fulfilled without having read those authors even in translation.


Since when does absolute music, without text or even a suggestive title, _need any "translation?"_ Your analogy for use as comparison has no points of connection whatsoever.


----------



## Nereffid

It seems the argument has now moved on to the "measuring the size of each other's allegories" stage.


----------



## PetrB

Nereffid said:


> I think we might be somewhat at cross-purposes here. The reason I don't think the "one-quarter of the full alphabet" analogy doesn't work is that, while I agree with you that classical music _now_ has what you might call a "full alphabet", the culture of music today means that the listener doesn't _need_ this full alphabet to get value from music generally - the listener who dislikes the full alphabet can get by happily on music with a "reduced" alphabet - the music of earlier times. Whereas real alphabets don't show the continued expansion we've seen in music, and a quarter-alphabet is essentially useless.
> Substantively I more or less agree with you, I guess I'm just taking issue with what I see as an overly negative view of the "one-quarter of the full alphabet" listener.


Hypothetical Q: What would you think of the avid reader and self-proclaimed lover of literature who had not read anything written post 1890, or had tried it and then pronounced it 'senseless junk?'


----------



## dgee

Probably not many would say that about literature, but you can draw some sort of line in the sand on visual art where people who like it start in on the "my 5yo could have done that" schtick. They didn't tho, did they


----------



## Petwhac

PetrB said:


> Since when does absolute music, without text or even a suggestive title, _need any "translation?"_ Your analogy for use as comparison has no points of connection whatsoever.


That was not my point at all. I was simply stating that there is a large body of music with which to keep the unadventurous perfectly happy.

As for your hypothetical questions, here's one for you.

Q. Do you think it is likely that Finnegan's Wake would appear on the Best Seller list?

Masterpiece though it may be, the mainstream literary public find it rather hard going and I think you'd find that experimental literature does not have a wide following. Many avid readers will have failed to finish the book or at any rate, not gone on to seek out more and more such obscure styles of writing.


----------



## mmsbls

PetrB said:


> Hypothetical Q: What would you think of the avid reader and self-proclaimed lover of literature who had not read anything written post 1890, or had tried it and then pronounced it 'senseless junk?'


If I can change the first part to "had read very little written post 1890", I know someone who fits that description extremely well. In fact he almost received a Ph.D. in a literature related field. He loves reading English literature from roughly 1500-1900. He seems very happy with the books he reads. I think he would be less happy reading 20th century novels although it's possible he would find things he likes from that period. If asked why he doesn't read 20th century literature, I think he would simply say that he prefers earlier works. I think it would be hard to argue with him.


----------



## Petwhac

mmsbls said:


> If I can change the first part to "had read very little written post 1890", I know someone who fits that description extremely well. In fact he almost received a Ph.D. in a literature related field. He loves reading English literature from roughly 1500-1900. He seems very happy with the books he reads. I think he would be less happy reading 20th century novels although it's possible he would find things he likes from that period. If asked why he doesn't read 20th century literature, I think he would simply say that he prefers earlier works. I think it would be hard to argue with him.


Just deleted my post as I was confused who said what.

Sorry.


----------



## Nereffid

PetrB said:


> Hypothetical Q: What would you think of the avid reader and self-proclaimed lover of literature who had not read anything written post 1890, or had tried it and then pronounced it 'senseless junk?'


Hmm, a lot of my answer would be predicated on the fact that today's classical music culture/industry is very different from today's literature culture/industry, but I appreciate the point you're making, so i'll leave that to one side.

So my first reaction to this hypothetical reader is that they're needlessly conservative, close-minded, and eccentric in their tastes to the point of bizarreness and irrationality.
And my second reaction is "ah well, to each their own".
I'm not going to ask this person their opinion or advice on whether I should read such-and-such new novel, and if they offer their opinion unsolicited, I see no reason to pay it any attention (and if they repeatedly offer their opinion even when it's clear that others are fed up with hearing it, that's a problem). But otherwise, I say good luck to them, they've chosen to engage with literature in a particular way, and if they're happy the way they are, let them be. Do I think they're missing out on a lot of literature that they'd probably enjoy? Sure, and if they want to dip a toe in the waters I'll encourage them, but if they don't then I don't have sufficient enthusiasm to criticise them for it. I have little patience with others telling me what I "should" read, myself.


----------



## PetrB

Petwhac said:


> That was not my point at all. I was simply stating that there is a large body of music with which to keep the unadventurous perfectly happy.


Amen to that. The 'wonder' for me is that so many, with all of the earlier repertoire to keep them happy (and likely most of those have not gone into all of the sonatas, symphonies, chamber works, etc. by their beloved older composers), somehow _do_ go on and on about how no one past date is writing anything 'for them.'



Petwhac said:


> As for your hypothetical questions, here's one for you.
> 
> Q. Do you think it is likely that Finnegan's Wake would appear on the Best Seller list?


You're probably right there... Le Sacre du Printemps has, I think, many more fans who have 'made it through' and repeat listen to that work


----------



## PetrB

mmsbls said:


> If I can change the first part to "had read very little written post 1890", I know someone who fits that description extremely well. In fact he almost received a Ph.D. in a literature related field. He loves reading English literature from roughly 1500-1900. He seems very happy with the books he reads. I think he would be less happy reading 20th century novels although it's possible he would find things he likes from that period. If asked why he doesn't read 20th century literature, I think he would simply say that he prefers earlier works. I think it would be hard to argue with him.


I am fine with anyone who knows their tastes, even if there is an envelope or period they much prefer, and stay within it.

But for the petulant who say anything much newer than is crap, and then seems to have an attitude that current writers _ought to write more in a way to fit that person's taste?_ Really unfathomable without coming up with some very disparaging terms to describe that sort of attitude


----------



## Petwhac

PetrB said:


> Hypothetical Q: What would you think of the avid reader and self-proclaimed lover of literature who had not read anything written post 1890, or had tried it and then pronounced it 'senseless junk?'


The point I have been making is to do with the nature of the music and not the period it comes from.
There are many works from well after 1890 that have found their way into the hearts of the general mainstream concert going public.

Works by:

Janecek
Mahler
R. Strauss
Sibelius
Satie
Vaughn Williams
Holst
Ravel
Villa Lobos
Kodaly
Prokofiev
Milhaud
Orff
Gershwin
Poulenc
Copeland
Weill
Khachaturian
Barber
Tippett
Bernstein
Glass
Adams
Tavener
Pärt 
Gorecki

What these 20thC composers have in common is the use of triadic harmony (to a greater or lesser extent). 
To all those names you can add popular music and Jazz from the 20th century. With jazz too, the popularity shrinks in proportion to amount that triadic harmony does.
You can see that there is no shortage of music to keep many people busy and content.

I am not saying that people shouldn't be encouraged to listen to all kinds of music including that from other cultures. One is only missing out on something which_ may _provide pleasure. However, many people have tasted things, not found it to their liking, and gone on to avoid them.

Just as some people will have heard some HipHop and thought, "This isn't for me".

I am simply identifying a property of music that _is _ broadly popular with the general music listening public. And showing that it has little to do with when it was written, more to do with what was written.

You seem to imply there is a standard which must be reached in order for someone to be allowed to proclaim themselves a music lover. There isn't.


----------



## Petwhac

PetrB said:


> Amen to that. The 'wonder' for me is that so many, with all of the earlier repertoire to keep them happy (and likely most of those have not gone into all of the sonatas, symphonies, chamber works, etc. by their beloved older composers), somehow _do_ go on and on about how no one past date is writing anything 'for them.'
> 
> You're probably right there... Le Sacre du Printemps has, I think, many more fans who have 'made it through' and repeat listen to that work


As I said before. The Rite has many passages of triadic harmony, simple melody and pulse.


----------



## Guest

Petwhac said:


> The point I have been making is to do with the nature of the music....


No, truly it is not. It is about perception. You have found, or you think you have found, a point of commonality--triadic harmony--but language like this "(to a greater or lesser extent)" betrays perhaps an uncertainty in the universal applicability of this point, and an observation like this "The Rite has many passages of triadic harmony, simple melody and pulse" simply ignores all the other realities of this piece, which do not fit into your simple "things with triads are more popular than things without" formula.

Otherwise, many people are perfectly capable of reacting with horror and dismay, still, in 2014, at many of the people on your list. I have already mentioned before (too many times) the extreme negative reactions to the Oregon Symphony having the temerity to play Janacek and Britten.



Petwhac said:


> Janecek
> Mahler
> R. Strauss
> Sibelius
> Satie
> Vaughn Williams
> Holst
> Ravel
> Villa Lobos
> Kodaly
> Prokofiev
> Milhaud
> Orff
> Gershwin
> Poulenc
> Copeland
> Weill
> Khachaturian
> Barber
> Tippett
> Bernstein
> Glass
> Adams
> Tavener
> Pärt
> Gorecki
> 
> What these 20thC composers have in common is the use of triadic harmony


Wow. That is, I must say, an extraordinary claim to make. What they have in common, eh? In common with Monteverdi and Chopin as well, I suppose. Wow. You have just collapsed hundreds of years of music and several different genre into one common pot. The popularity pot!! Miley Cyrus and Palestrina in the same pot. It boggleth the mind, indeed it do.

Plus, I think you may have left out some triadic twentieth century composers. You got somethin' against Walter Piston, eh? Well, do ya? (I'm gonna have to ask you to step outside.) And Hanson! Wow. The American poster boy for conservative music.

Not to mention all the hundreds--thousands--of triadic composers (sounds silly put that way, eh?) who are not and have never been and probably never will be popular.

But, you will hasten to point out, you never claimed that using triads guarantees popularity.



Petwhac said:


> ...there is no shortage of music to keep many people busy and content.


So that's the purpose of music. I see that our disagreements go deep, very deep indeed.

By the way, just a trivial note(!): Copeland is a Canadian electroacoustic composer. A favorite of mine. Not noticably triadic, though. But then, I'm not in that chimerical "general music listening public" category, either. Nor is anyone else, I'd venture to guess. Do people in this "general music listening public" category listen to Bieber and Couperin with equal pleasure? Do they also like Thelonius Monk just as much? I think that perhaps "people" are not quite as lumpable as you have made them out to be. The audience for which Cyrus is popular is not the same as the audience for which Copland (no e) is popular. You have gotten your effects simply by bunching together several different audiences who have little or nothing in common with each other, triads or not.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Whatever happened to "live and let live" folks 

Each and everyone of us will likely think that some stuff is horrible or that some composers or recording artistes "turn out" rubbish and that's the beauty of opinions.

Sure, some stuff is generally considered rubbish but if any such stuff managed to get recorded even on a minor label then someone must have thought it had some merit and so it probably has or had.

I know what I like in my wardrobe but that doesn't make anyone else's taste wrong.

I think that the time sent on a rant rubbishing anyone past or present would be better spent exploring that which we find difficult and assessing whether the difficulty is insurmountable or not as there may just be some pleasant surprises out there if we are open-minded and persistent :tiphat:

Let's try and make any discord harmonious without a chorus of disapproval :angel:


----------



## Mahlerian

Petwhac said:


> The point I have been making is to do with the nature of the music and not the period it comes from.
> There are many works from well after 1890 that have found their way into the hearts of the general mainstream concert going public.
> 
> Works by:
> 
> Janecek
> Mahler
> R. Strauss
> Sibelius
> Satie
> Vaughn Williams
> Holst
> Ravel
> Villa Lobos
> Kodaly
> Prokofiev
> Milhaud
> Orff
> Gershwin
> Poulenc
> Copeland
> Weill
> Khachaturian
> Barber
> Tippett
> Bernstein
> Glass
> Adams
> Tavener
> Pärt
> Gorecki


A good number of these composers are programmed less often than Schoenberg (just speaking of Schoenberg's post-Gurrelieder works, even) for the next few months among groups that have submitted their programs to Bachtrack.com.

Ergo, they are less popular?


----------



## Blancrocher

Haut Parleur said:


> Whatever happened to "live and let live" folks


They tried that that for a few weeks last year--there were 4 posts in total, outside of the opera subforum which went along as usual. Everyone decided it was for the best to keep arguing about atonal music and attacking Lang Lang.


----------



## peterb

Mahlerian said:


> A good number of these composers are programmed less often than Schoenberg (just speaking of Schoenberg's post-Gurrelieder works, even) for the next few months among groups that have submitted their programs to Bachtrack.com.
> 
> Ergo, they are less popular?


Well, I think one of Schoenberg's pieces accidentally contained a major triad about 20 minutes in, so really it's just more proof of the thesis that triadic harmony REIGNS SUPREME.


----------



## Celloman

peterb said:


> Well, I think one of Schoenberg's pieces accidentally contained a major triad about 20 minutes in, so really it's just more proof of the thesis that triadic harmony REIGNS SUPREME.


How is that proof? If one monkey in a thousand is born with an extra toe, does that make it superior to all the other monkeys?
(Ok, it was a stupid example, but you get the point.)


----------



## neoshredder

Quite an interesting thread on that other forum. lol "Ligeti admits post-WW2 avant-garde music is ugly, blames Schoenberg"


----------



## PetrB

Petwhac said:


> The point I have been making is to do with the nature of the music and not the period it comes from.
> There are many works from well after 1890 that have found their way into the hearts of the general mainstream concert going public.
> 
> Works by:
> 
> Janecek / Mahler / R. Strauss / Sibelius / Satie / Vaughn Williams / Holst / Ravel / Villa Lobos / Kodaly / Prokofiev / Milhaud / Orff / Gershwin / Poulenc / Copeland / Weill / Khachaturian / Barber / Tippett / Bernstein / Glass / Adams / Tavener / Pärt / Gorecki
> 
> What these 20thC composers have in common is the use of triadic harmony (to a greater or lesser extent).
> You can see that there is no shortage of music to keep many people busy and content.
> 
> I am not saying that people shouldn't be encouraged to listen to all kinds of music including that from other cultures. One is only missing out on something which _may_ provide pleasure. However, many people have tasted things, not found it to their liking, and gone on to avoid them.
> 
> Just as some people will have heard some HipHop and thought, "This isn't for me".
> 
> I am simply identifying a property of music that _is_ broadly popular with the general music listening public. And showing that it has little to do with when it was written, more to do with what was written.
> 
> You seem to imply there is a standard which must be reached in order for someone to be allowed to proclaim themselves a music lover. There isn't.


Messiaen could resoundingly go on that triadic composer list, then without the stack of the two interval triad, we have the likes of Elliott Carter, and to some extent, Berio, still very much 'talking with a lot of thirds.' But that, as some guy has already addressed, is not the key, is a gross simplified reduction, and does not explain the attraction, or repulsion, to Le Sacre du Printemps or a piece by Messiaen or Carter.

If anyone implies degrees awarded only after required formal studies are needed before someone can claim to love (anything) they are certifiably insane, out of touch with an obvious reality... while at the same time I do think those who love the music they love -- while turning in an OP or a comment on the unworthiness of all that "terrible" music which they happen to not care for is -- do not deserve much attention or comment. Their infantile / narcissist egocentricity, that glaring lack of awareness that it isn't all about them... and that they cannot get that infantile mind around the fact that there will be music they don't like, and as you say, there is still plenty for them to like and love.... well


----------



## PetrB

peterb said:


> Well, I think one of Schoenberg's pieces accidentally contained a major triad about 20 minutes in, so really it's just more proof of the thesis that triadic harmony REIGNS SUPREME.


That is completely false. What has proven out is that really fine writing "reigns supreme." That the criteria of qualifications to call some music fine writing is not automatically inclusive of its using thirds or triads seems rather obvious.

P.s. 
If you think there is one note in any of Schoenberg (pre or post his serial style) that is 'an accident' or 'oversight,' you know next to nothing about the composer.


----------



## PetrB

Haut Parleur said:


> Whatever happened to "live and let live" folks....


Most people are fine with the differences in music, and with differences of personal taste.

But yours is certainly a question which should be pointed directly at any who share a similar attitude / chip on the shoulder as seen in the generic sort of post which is the OP!


----------



## PetrB

Petwhac said:


> As I said before. The Rite has many passages of triadic harmony, simple melody and pulse.


At least you got that much about it


----------



## Blake

This is a funny catch 22. In our efforts to dissolve this ignorance, we are actually keeping it alive.


----------



## PetrB

Vesuvius said:


> This is a funny catch 22. In our efforts to dissolve this ignorance, we are actually keeping it alive.


I don't think many, after several of the first pages, are thinking at all of the OP, or what was said there. Thank goodness


----------



## Blake

Post in a similar vein are still popping up all over. The ambience hasn't changed much.


----------



## Guest

I wouldn't worry too much about our effect on the conversation.

Ignorance is a self-perpetuatin' kind of thing. It would do it's perpetuatin' no matter what.


----------



## Blake

Of course, plus we've been fueling it up as well. So it's plenty fed.


----------



## PetrB

Vesuvius said:


> Of course, plus we've been fueling it up as well. So it's plenty fed.


I somehow think that a dozen pages of refutation is not the equivalent of 'fuel.' But, as some guy said, many an ignorant, especially the disingenuous sort who pretend to want to be informed so they can expand their mind (they have no such intent -- it is a mere posture) are not going to walk away any different then when they walked in this door. My hunch is the OP of this thread is long gone and hasn't been looking at any of the responses much after their last post 

But, those threads with OP's the likes of the one which started this thread -- _*since there is nothing in the ToS about initially bashing and trashing any music or composers, why not have an OP which is a rant against all the horrible music and composers like Tchaikovsky, Borodin, Medtner, Bruckner, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Glazunov, Verdi, Puccini, Scriabin, Brahms, Rachmaninov, Ravel, Bernstein, etc. etc. etc. and see what reactions that dredges up from the muck?*_


----------



## Blake

PetrB said:


> I somehow think that a dozen pages of refutation is not the equivalent of 'fuel.' But, as some guy said, many an ignorant, especially the disingenuous sort who pretend to want to be informed so they can expand their mind (they have no such intent -- it is a mere posture) are not going to walk away any different then when they walked in this door. My hunch is the OP of this thread is long gone and hasn't been looking at any of the responses much after their last post
> 
> But, those threads with OP's the likes of the one which started this thread -- _*since there is nothing in the ToS about initially bashing and trashing any music or composers, why not have an OP which is a rant against all the horrible music and composers like Tchaikovsky, Borodin, Medtner, Bruckner, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Glazunov, Verdi, Puccini, Scriabin, Brahms, Rachmaninov, Ravel, Bernstein, etc. etc. etc. and see what reactions that dredges up from the muck?*_


It might just be a mental-dullness that won't wake up until it's tired of suffering. The type whom the simplest reasoning seems to bounce right off of them... like playing wall-ball. I think it's best to just ignore threads as such. Because if logic won't work, then it is simply fuel for their dull mind to get off to conflicting energies.

But I guess sometimes mental dueling gets the best of us. It can be entertaining sometimes, but maybe that's a sign of mental-dullness on my part….


----------



## Petwhac

some guy said:


> No, truly it is not. It is about perception. You have found, or you think you have found, a point of commonality--triadic harmony--but language like this "(to a greater or lesser extent)" betrays perhaps an uncertainty in the universal applicability of this point, and an observation like this "The Rite has many passages of triadic harmony, simple melody and pulse" simply ignores all the other realities of this piece, which do not fit into your simple "things with triads are more popular than things without" formula.


I _have_ found a point of commonality, I have pointed it out and it is clearly demonstrable. If you wish to refute it perhaps you can put forward an example of a piece of music which is popular with the general mainstream concert going audience and and which is not made mostly of major/minor triadic harmony.
Please show me how the sentence "The Rite has many passages of triadic harmony, simple melody and pulse" can be logically taken to mean that The Rite has no other properties? Or that no other properties matter? The exact same chord sequence from 'Fly Me To The Moon' can be found in countless works of Bach or Vivaldi ( it's called the Circle Of Fifths). IT IS A POINT OF COMMONALITY!. It does not describe the differences between the Bart Howard song and passages by those Baroque composers. 
Now, I hear you say what about the points of commonality between say, Boulez's Le Marteau and Loxodrome by Steps Ahead? Well, they both make use of the vibraphone for one, they both use the note C sharp quite often, for two. However, some elements are more FUNDAMENTAL to the nature of the music and how it is perceived than others.



some guy said:


> Otherwise, many people are perfectly capable of reacting with horror and dismay, still, in 2014, at many of the people on your list. I have already mentioned before (too many times) the extreme negative reactions to the Oregon Symphony having the temerity to play Janacek and Britten.


Many people react with horror and dismay to an evening of dub-step or Chas and Dave. Oh, and Britten wasn't on the list although some Britten, like some Janacek is not ALL Britten or ALL Janacek.
I've noticed my own extreme negative reactions to the music of Einaudi and that music is awash with major/ minor triads. As we already know there are many people who love the music of Stockhausen or Grisey. None of that has anything to do with my original proposition.



some guy said:


> Wow. That is, I must say, an extraordinary claim to make. What they have in common, eh? In common with Monteverdi and Chopin as well, I suppose. Wow. You have just collapsed hundreds of years of music and several different genre into one common pot. The popularity pot!! Miley Cyrus and Palestrina in the same pot. It boggleth the mind, indeed it do.


I do believe the penny has finally dropped for you. Yes Monteverdi and Chopin and Miley Cyrus and Palestrina all share something rather fundamental. I'm not going to say it again because you know what that thing is. If your mind is boggled by it there's really little I can say to unboggle it. It is evident to anyone but the most stubborn ideologue or pedant.



some guy said:


> Plus, I think you may have left out some triadic twentieth century composers. You got somethin' against Walter Piston, eh? Well, do ya? (I'm gonna have to ask you to step outside.) And Hanson! Wow. The American poster boy for conservative music.


Nothing against any composer. Simply too many to list them all. But of course you know that.



some guy said:


> Not to mention all the hundreds--thousands--of triadic composers (sounds silly put that way, eh?) who are not and have never been and probably never will be popular.


I never used the term triadic composer, nor would I. The silliness is not coming from me.
Once again your logic is entirely flawed. Never should it be taken that because "most tables have four legs" then "most things with four legs are tables"



some guy said:


> But, you will hasten to point out, you never claimed that using triads guarantees popularity.


 Indeed, spot on.



some guy said:


> So that's the purpose of music. I see that our disagreements go deep, very deep indeed.


 I believe the purpose of listening to, writing and playing music is for the pleasure it creates. You gotta a better purpose? Please tell.



some guy said:


> By the way, just a trivial note(!): Copeland is a Canadian electroacoustic composer. A favorite of mine. Not noticably triadic, though. But then, I'm not in that chimerical "general music listening public" category, either. Nor is anyone else, I'd venture to guess. Do people in this "general music listening public" category listen to Bieber and Couperin with equal pleasure? Do they also like Thelonius Monk just as much? I think that perhaps "people" are not quite as lumpable as you have made them out to be. The audience for which Cyrus is popular is not the same as the audience for which Copland (no e) is popular. You have gotten your effects simply by bunching together several different audiences who have little or nothing in common with each other, triads or not.


 A person might not listen with equal pleasure to two passages from the same movement of the same sonata by the same composer. 
I think many people can enjoy Monk, Couperin and even a bubble-gum pop record. Again, nothing to do with my proposition.

Phew, I'm going to lie down now!


----------



## Petwhac

PetrB said:


> That the criteria of qualifications to call some music fine writing is not automatically inclusive of its using thirds or triads seems rather obvious.


Yes indeed. 


PetrB said:


> P.s.
> If you think there is one note in any of Schoenberg (pre or post his serial style) that is 'an accident' or 'oversight,' you know next to nothing about the composer.


You are certainly right there. If I remember correctly Schoenberg advised that when writing dodecaphonic music the composer needs to be wary of the occurrence of major/minor triads and that such a vertical consequence of the polyphonic working out of the row needed to be carefully prepared and quitted. In this he consciously parodies the practices of Bach-style harmonisation where a dissonance must be "approached and quitted" by step.


----------



## Petwhac

PetrB said:


> , why not have an OP which is a rant against all the horrible music and composers like Tchaikovsky, Borodin, Medtner, Bruckner, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Glazunov, Verdi, Puccini, Scriabin, Brahms, Rachmaninov, Ravel, Bernstein, etc. etc. etc. and see what reactions that dredges up from the muck?


That's a fine idea. You start!
Seriously though, why do you think a forum such as TC doesn't have more such negative discussions of 'standard repetoire' composers. A good friend of mind can't stand Mendelssohn and never tires of telling me. Of course he must make an exception for the Octet!


----------



## Mahlerian

Petwhac said:


> You are certainly right there. If I remember correctly Schoenberg advised that when writing dodecaphonic music the composer needs to be wary of the occurrence of major/minor triads and that such a vertical consequence of the polyphonic working out of the row needed to be carefully prepared and quitted. In this he consciously parodies the practices of Bach-style harmonisation where a dissonance must be "approached and quitted" by step.


For him this was not a rule (indeed, triads and sevenths crop up all over his later music), but at one point early on in the development of the 12-tone method he considered that hearing any triad at all might imply a functional basis that the rest of the harmony would not provide or follow through on (this was the thing he hated about the non-functional tonality of the Neoclassisists). He later explicitly retracted this position.


----------



## peterb

PetrB said:


> That is completely false. What has proven out is that really fine writing "reigns supreme." That the criteria of qualifications to call some music fine writing is not automatically inclusive of its using thirds or triads seems rather obvious.
> 
> P.s.
> If you think there is one note in any of Schoenberg (pre or post his serial style) that is 'an accident' or 'oversight,' you know next to nothing about the composer.


Yes, PetrB, I agree with you. It was a joke.


----------



## Albert7

I know that there are no horrible composers, only horrible dictators.


----------



## hpowders

Morimur said:


> What do you like?


Pabst Blue Ribbon.


----------

