# Is Schnittke Too Advanced for Mankind?



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Schnittke literally presents a progression in music; a forward momentum. I have tried to introduce him to several people, they quickly dismiss his music. I believe the problem is a lack of ability when it comes to discerning complex sound, literally most people are not musically mature enough to appreciate him. (This is not to say there is not a class of people who do understand him but simply don't like him).*** I think many rejections are simply based on a lack of musical comprehension-- _and I am not simply referring to theory_--). Thing about Schnittke, is that he actually had something to say, his music is not just theory!

***_Understanding a composer's voice and rejecting it is one thing, dismissing it without understanding it is another. _


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Klassic said:


> Thing about Schnittke, is that he actually had something to say, his music is not just theory!


Well, someone is going to say it, so it might as well be me.

As opposed to...?

No, I don't think Schnittke is too advanaced for mankind. I'm not good at judging these things, but I don't hear him as being one of the single most complex composers. And he is kinda, sorta popular as far as these things go.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

It´s primarily due to the emotional content of the music, when people dislike such composers, I think. There are lots of Schnittke works that aren´t particularly complicated, as a start.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

He certainly had something to say. Unfortunately, that's all of what he said...


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Klassic said:


> Thing about Schnittke, is that he actually had something to say, his music is not just theory!


his music does sound like he wants to say something though it had already been said by someone else.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I've always found Schnittke's music to be rather accessible and I liked it right from the start. I'm not academically in a position to dissect it in musical terms but I've certainly never had a problem listening to it and I've never heard his work described as complex. Perhaps it's the bleakness found in much of his later work which puts some people off like it does with Shostakovich, or maybe it's the bombardment of clusters battling against what sounds like Bruckner in works like the Concerto for Piano and Strings, or the parody/grotesquerie (such as incongruously striking up with what sounds like 'La Cucaracha' in the first violin sonata). Maybe it's a combination of all this and more - I have no idea.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

To be honest, the histrionism in his music ruins the darkness for me, doesn't feel genuine. Give me Ligeti's Requiem any day.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Honesty, I find Boris Tishchenko harder to grasp than Schnittke. That said, I'm not really into Soviet/Russian music post Shostakovich (with exceptions to Boris Tchaikovsky, Eshpai, Weinberg). Certain composers I do get post 1980: Lloyd, Arnold, Rorem, plus the other three whom I've mentioned.

So, is Schnittke too advanced for mankind? Somewhat accessible, yes, but no more or perhaps no less so than, say, Silvestrov, Ustvolskaya, Gubaidulina, Philip Glass or Boulez (the latter two who pushed the envelope further than Schnittke I feel).


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Are there two composers named Schnittke?

Because the one I love sounds nothing like what the OP is describing (or is the OP a deliberate joke, using a randomly picked composer to highlight the nonsense in the standard unthinking Schoenberg / Boulez / etc accusations?)


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

aleazk said:


> He certainly had something to say. Unfortunately, that's all of what he said...


This is a typical criticism someone would use if they haven't listened to much of the music. To such listeners all Bach sounds the same, all Mozart - all Baroque etc


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Well considering the status quo of music these days, I'd say most of the stuff we listen to is a little too advanced for mankind...at least until they open their ears.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

I feel Schnittke isn't at all this kind of composer, really he's very direct and emotional right? On a smaller scale such as the Piano Quintet I'm sure it would resonate with many people -- think of the finally of that, no outlandish dissonances &c. 

I wonder if he's too advanced for man he's a bit boring and mundane to dolphins?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

So you have attributed lack of discernment, inability to grasp complex music, immaturity, lack of comprehension and failure to understand meaning or content to those who have responded less than favorably when you introduced them to Schnittke? Have you considered the possibility that it might have something to do with your delivery?  And the expression "something to say" is, shall we say, problematic? It always makes me want to ask: "What?," as in, "What did he say?"

But never fear! I'm sure a civil, intelligent dialogue about Schnittke's music will follow …


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> So you have attributed lack of discernment, inability to grasp complex music, immaturity, lack of comprehension and failure to understand meaning or content to those who have responded less than favorably when you introduced them to Schnittke? Have you considered the possibility that it might have something to do with your delivery?  And the expression "something to say" is, shall we say, problematic? It always makes me want to ask: "What?," as in, "What did he say?"
> 
> But never fear! I'm sure a civil, intelligent dialogue about Schnittke's music will follow in the rest of the thread.


As I said: '(This is not to say there is not a class of people who do understand him but simply don't like him).'


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2016)

Klassic said:


> Schnittke literally presents a progression in music; a forward momentum. I have tried to introduce him to several people, they quickly dismiss his music. I believe the problem is a lack of ability when it comes to discerning complex sound, literally most people are not musically mature enough to appreciate him. (This is not to say there is not a class of people who do understand him but simply don't like him).*** I think many rejections are simply based on a lack of musical comprehension-- _and I am not simply referring to theory_--). Thing about Schnittke, is that he actually had something to say, his music is not just theory!
> 
> ***_Understanding a composer's voice and rejecting it is one thing, dismissing it without understanding it is another. _


Given your stance on Boulez, Stockhausen, etc... this post is what we might refer to as "irony".


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

nathanb said:


> Given your stance on Boulez, Stockhausen, etc... this post is what we might refer to as "irony".


I have not yet drawn my verdict on Boulez. I am still listening precisely because I think his music may very well be evading me, _due to the immaturity of my ear_. As for Stockhausen, what can I say, most certainly not my cup of tea, he is more philosophical than musical to me... I would certainly not deny his influence.


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2016)

Klassic said:


> I have not yet drawn my verdict on Boulez. I am still listening precisely because I think his *music may very well be evading me*, _due to the immaturity of my ear_. As for Stockhausen, what can I say, most certainly not *my cup of tea*, he is more philosophical than musical *to me*... I would certainly not deny his influence.


Just keep including the truthful element in your posts and you'll have no problems with me.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Klassic said:


> Schnittke literally presents a progression in music; a forward momentum. I have tried to introduce him to several people, they quickly dismiss his music. I believe the problem is a lack of ability when it comes to discerning complex sound, literally most people are not musically mature enough to appreciate him. (This is not to say there is not a class of people who do understand him but simply don't like him).*** I think many rejections are simply based on a lack of musical comprehension-- _and I am not simply referring to theory_--). Thing about Schnittke, is that he actually had something to say, his music is not just theory!
> 
> ***_Understanding a composer's voice and rejecting it is one thing, dismissing it without understanding it is another. _


I think his symphonies were very avant-garde for their times and coming out of Russia.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I have to agree with those above who have reported finding Schnittke's music accessible, direct and expressive. This is perhaps not so surprising when one considers that Russian music from the late 19thc through the 20thc exhibits a great deal of stylistic continuity, with most of the major composers happily carrying on and advancing an unbroken tradition. Composers of each generation tended to revere the composers of the last and to build organically on their language and structural principals. So, if one knows well ones Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Myaskovsky, et alia, Schnittke is unlikely to be a mystery. Like his predecessors, he was a always playing a long game structurally speaking, with systematic thematic processes unifying entire cycles. He also shared the tradition of strongly characterizing his thematic elements in cogent oppositions, artfully varying his material so that the same motive might embody, at different times and in different contexts, the most wildly contrasting expressive qualities. If one is trying to explain his accessibility, this kind of variety in unity, along with his unfailing sense of direction — his mastery of long-range formal processes — is probably a good place to start.


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

I never had any trouble with Schnittke. 

Maybe I'm just more advanced than everyone else?


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Schnittke — Meh.

To my ears a lot of his work sounds derivative and inconsistent in quality. He's a good composer but not great — in a few decades no one will care.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

I agree with you about the quality, but would hesitate to make predictions about the longevity. After all, people still care about Shostakovich.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Schnittke literally presents a progression in music; a forward momentum. I have tried to introduce him to several people, they quickly dismiss his music. I believe the problem is a lack of ability when it comes to discerning complex sound, literally most people are not musically mature enough to appreciate him.

These are the sort of comments that turn many people away from Modern/Contemporary music. Is it not possible that one simply dislikes something without presuming that this must be due to something like immaturity or a lack of ability to appreciate complex sound? I'm not overly fond of Schnittke but I quite like Dufay's Isorhythmic Motets, J.S. Bach's Well Tempered Clavier and many other works that really are no less complex than anything by Schnittke.


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2016)

Morimur said:


> Schnittke - Meh.
> 
> To my ears a lot of his work sounds derivative and inconsistent in quality. He's a good composer but not great - in a few decades no one will care much.


It's easy to get confused when discussing Schnittke. Basically you have to discuss Symphony No. 1, maybe Concerto Grosso No. 1, and so on separately from most of his stuff. Symphony No. 1 is a monolith, for sure, but in regards to his general style, I'm inclined to agree with Ed n' Luke.

Note: Agreement with regards to how I see Schnittke as pretty accessible. No comment on tastes. I really love some Schnittke and enjoy most Schnittke to some extent.


----------



## musicrom (Dec 29, 2013)

Klassic said:


> Schnittke literally presents a progression in music; a forward momentum. I have tried to introduce him to several people, they quickly dismiss his music. I believe the problem is a lack of ability when it comes to discerning complex sound, literally most people are not musically mature enough to appreciate him. (This is not to say there is not a class of people who do understand him but simply don't like him).*** I think many rejections are simply based on a lack of musical comprehension-- _and I am not simply referring to theory_--). Thing about Schnittke, is that he actually had something to say, his music is not just theory!
> 
> ***_Understanding a composer's voice and rejecting it is one thing, dismissing it without understanding it is another. _


I agree that Schnittke's music is really special, and he definitely had something to say in his music.

However, I've had a different experience in regards to introducing his music to others. I showed my friend, who thinks classical music is O.K., I guess, some of Schnittke's music and he seemed to like it quite a bit, and listened to the entire 37 minutes of _Nagasaki_ and even listened to some more of his music afterwards.

Also, I think that Schnittke can be more immediately "accessible" to the general audience than other composers of his time period, maybe in part due to his polystylic tendencies which can give the inexperienced listener some sort of sense of familiarity. This is not necessarily good or bad, but rather just a comment on how I think people react to his music for the first time.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

aleazk said:


> He certainly had something to say. Unfortunately, that's all of what he said...


Words straight from my heart:tiphat:


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

aleazk said:


> He certainly had something to say. Unfortunately, that's all of what he said...





Pugg said:


> Words straight from my heart:tiphat:


Can you tell me then what Schnittke was saying in his 1st symphony?

How about the 4th Symphony?

Can you (or aleazk) discuss the similarities you find in these two works?


----------

