# New Music



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

Which composers do you think have the future mapped out? who will prove to be the most influential of the current generation? 

Talk about your favourite pieces of new music here. 

If anyone brings up Einaudi or pop music in connection with this thread I'm going to set fire to my house.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Xenakis was the Beethoven of the C20 in my opinion. His concepts of scientific theories and exploration of musical parameters makes for interesting listening, however I hear real soul in this music in its relentlessness and anger. Read up on his life, it's really interesting, it's also a wonder he survived to write what he did. He also pioneered in electronic music which I think is a major advancement in new music.

On the British scene I think Birtwistle and MacMillan have new music nicely covered. It's also good to actually see real contemporary composers getting standing ovations at premieres and relatively successful public appreciation. 

So many contemporary composers take the public's bullet in the name of music just as Beethoven and Stravinsky did. The trend that artists are only truly appreciated after they die still applies in many circumstances today sadly.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Some of my favourite still-living composers:

Carter, Dutilleux, Boulez, Goehr, Birtwistle, Ferneyhough, Holloway, Finnissy, Murail, Dillon, Knussen, Saariaho, Saxton, Lindberg, Benjamin, Anderson, Adès.

Mention also must be made of Takemitsu, Grisey, Berio and Ligeti, all of whom recently passed away.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Herzeleide said:


> Mention also must be made of Takemitsu, Grisey, Berio and Ligeti, all of whom recently passed away.


And possibly Stockhausen if I'm feeling generous.


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2009)

Herzeleide said:


> Some of my favourite still-living composers:
> 
> Carter, Dutilleux, Boulez, Goehr, Birtwistle, Ferneyhough, Holloway, Finnissy, Murail, Dillon, Knussen, Saariaho, Saxton, Lindberg, Benjamin, Anderson, Adès.
> 
> Mention also must be made of Takemitsu, Grisey, Berio and Ligeti, all of whom recently passed away.


How about Tavener and Part?


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Andante said:


> How about Tavener and Part?


Sorry, I don't do minimalism of any kind.

Especially not that puerile, insipid stuff Tavener produces.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Minimalism is the antidote to proper contemporary music. How does hearing the same phrase over and over again make for interesting listening? It must do to some!

As for Tavener, along with Jenkins and Rutter, hugely overrated. Giving religious connatations to his music he automatically gives himself a huge fan base of brainless creationists. Good idea, but the dustbin of history awaits! Bye bye!


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> Minimalism is the antidote to proper contemporary music. How does hearing the same phrase over and over again make for interesting listening? It must do to some!


For the most I agree, however I love Koyannisquatsi, and some Pärt. I hate Einstein on the Beach however, it can't be a coincidence that Glass let people come and go whenever they please throughout the opera...


----------



## Rachovsky (Jan 5, 2008)

> For the most I agree, however I love Koyannisquatsi, and some Pärt.


Welcome -- I agree; I love Koyaanisqatsi as well, but only if it is paired with the movie. Einstein on the Beach is ridiculous and, to me, incomprehensible.


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2009)

I don't want to see this thread turn into a debate on the merits of minimalism, but then neither do I want to see all minimalists trashed just because some unlikeable ones are, well, unlikeable.

There's a lot more (irony) to minimalism than Pärt and Tavener on the one hand or Glass on the other. There's even more to it than Reich and Andriessen.

And there's more to it than repeating the same phrase over and over again. (There's more even to Glass than that!)

Surely you guys know LaMonte Young and Tony Conrad? (The co-originators, as it were.) Or Tom Johnson (who probably coined the term, and is one of the few people who calls himself a minimalist). Or Eliane Radigue or Bronius Kutavičius or ....

Indeed, one hardy strand of new music (and here's where I put in my two cents worth on the topic as Bach introduced it) is the one called "noise" which while maximal in volume is often minimal in other ways. 

Other hardy strands would be live electronics--circuitry, laptop music, objects, instrument and movement-controlled electronics--acousmatic, and soundscape, and all the various varieties of those.

Theatre seems to be doing pretty well, too. I noticed long ago when I was first getting hooked by new music (1972) that much contemporary music has a theatrical element to it, even pieces not formally theatre music, which means it should be being well served by video technology. There is some service, not nearly enough.

Traditional fixed media electroacoustic music I'm not so sure about. It's only sixty years old, and it seems that more and more people are taking it up. (There are electronic music studios in practically every large city and practically every university in the world.) But the live electronics seem so much more various and vigorous. That's probably just me and my own personal tastes, though.

Instrumental music seems to be sticking around, too, and not just instruments hooked up to electronic devices, either. And people do seem more and more willing to play the entire instrument and not just the bits that the original manufacturers deemed fitting.

Otherwise, just generally, humans make art. That's just one of the things we do. As to what it will be in the future, who knows? That there will be something seems inevitable.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

Lowell Liebermann is a great composer and can capture many moods (Gargoyles, op. 29, Flute concerto), but my all-time favorite by him is his nocturnes. Possibly some of the most beautiful pieces of music for the solo piano. Gargoyles is another favorite of mine: the Presto Feroce is just crazy. Not quite sure he'll qualify for "influential" though.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Some composers quietly experimenting with microtonal music or 24 tone scales - Wendy Carlos, Paul Dresher, or Prent Rogers. There are probably many others more artsy or more pretentious I don't know about.


----------



## xJuanx (Feb 24, 2009)

Has anyboy heard Schnittke ? I've never liked it, as a matter of fact I hate it. Gidon Kremer has recorded a lot of his works.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

xJuanx said:


> Has anyboy heard Schnittke ? I've never liked it, as a matter of fact I hate it. Gidon Kremer has recorded a lot of his works.


Heard his first symphony. Excruciating rubbish.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

Edward Elgar said:


> Minimalism is the antidote to proper contemporary music. How does hearing the same phrase over and over again make for interesting listening? It must do to some!


As you can probably tell from my screen name I am one of these "anything to do with minimamlism" types that was mentioned by Herzeleide.

I think you must reconsider the statement above. The objection should be to hearing the same phrase _repeated identically_ over and over. If it was just a case of hearing the same phrase then the same objection could be leveled at the 1st Mvt. of Beethoven's 5th Symphony. I, too, object to mechanical repetition but consider repetition and development to be the most enchanting technique at the composer's disposal. All the greats knew it and used it but when development is removed from the process (which is where the minimalists experimented) enchantment becomes hypnotism, which is derived from the Greek Υπνωση meaning 'to put to sleep'! I and others like me are trying to put back development into music without losing whatever positive lessons are to be learned from the minimalists (few though they may seem). As you say what 'makes for interesting listening' is not at all easy to pin down.
FC


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> I love Koyaanisqatsi as well, but only if it is paired with the movie.


I actually think the music is good enough to stand on it's own.

In relation to this topic posts.. erm.. topic!, I think Bernstein hit the nail on the head when he said that in about 1970(?), composers stopped looking towards the great contemporaries (alive while they are alive - Schoenberg and Stravinsky for the last ≈60 at this date) for inspiration; they looked to themselves - and coincidentally found a way to include and interpret the innateness of tonality in to the far avant-garde. He doesn't mean this in a literal exactness (this is directed at you Herzeliede), he obviously expects and knows people will draw influence from countless people; but you won't nesiserilly look there for the beacon.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

Oh, and my personal bets for who'll be around as a household name (if they still have houses then) are John Williams, Peteris Vasks, Gorecki, Jimmy MacMillan, Anthony Turnage, Phillip Glass, Aaron Kernis, Michael Nyman, Django Bates and Arvo Part.
I don't nescesarily like them I just think they have shown a kind of potential staying power.
FC


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> If it was just a case of hearing the same phrase then the same objection could be leveled at the 1st Mvt. of Beethoven's 5th Symphony.


Not at all. This reminds me of an article by Schoenberg, where he complains about people who only hear the subject in a fugue constantly returning, rather than the different harmonic, formal and contextual places in which these repetitions occur.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> John Williams


Regardless of what you think of his music: he aint going away any time soon.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> Oh, and my personal bets for who'll be around as a household name (if they still have houses then) are John Williams, Peteris Vasks, Gorecki, Jimmy MacMillan, Anthony Turnage, Phillip Glass, Aaron Kernis, Michael Nyman, Django Bates and Arvo Part.
> I don't nescesarily like them I just think they have shown a kind of potential staying power.
> FC


Well they're popular, but a few of them are trashy. Needless to say, a list of the most popular composers _of their times_ throughout history, would be very much at odds with the canon of greats that we think of today.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

Herzeleide said:


> Not at all. This reminds me of an article by Schoenberg, where he complains about people who only hear the subject in a fugue constantly returning, rather than the different harmonic, formal and contextual places in which these repetitions occur.


My point exactly, sorry if I didn't make that clear.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> My point exactly, sorry if I didn't make that clear.


Well... what are these lessons that you feel the need to have learnt from the minimalists? Also you state that you're trying to 'put back development into music'. Must I point out that there has always been music in the twentieth century that does not eschew development?


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

Herzeleide said:


> Well they're popular, but a few of them are trashy. Needless to say, a list of the most popular composers _of their times_ throughout history, would be very much at odds with the canon of greats that we think of today.


But not entirely. Liszt could be cited as a good example of this anomaly. His popularity during his life time was not a 'flash in the pan' and I suggest that Williams, Bates, Nyman are probably in the same catagory (not as musicians but as survivors!)


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> But not entirely. Liszt could be cited as a good example of this anomaly. His popularity during his life time was not a 'flash in the pan' and I suggest that Williams, Bates, Nyman are probably in the same catagory (not as musicians but as survivors!)


I wasn't claiming that _all_ the greats were not popular!

From my list I would think Thomas Adès is both reasonably popular, with the concomitant and very necessary high standard of artistic quality to not be forgotten...


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

Herzeleide said:


> Well... what are these lessons that you feel the need to have learnt from the minimalists? Also you state that you're trying to 'put back development into music'. Must I point out that there has always been music in the twentieth century that does not eschew development?


Have you listened to any of my music or any other 'post minimalist' musc? Sorry to put it quite like this but I would not assume to discuss Wagner and romaticism without having heard any.

Now, the lessons that can be learned from mimimalists are:
1. Too much repetition is boring.
2. A certain amount of repetition can be soothing or relaxing.
3. Development does not have to be a fast process. 
4. Certain chord patterns can have emotional impact only when repeated.
5. Isorhythmically sequencing notes can produce very intersting accompaniments.
6. Rediscovery of the 'singing allegro'.
7. Electro-acoustic instrumental groups can handle certain things like isorhythmic paterns much better than traditional groups.
8. Structural functionality is not required.

Admitedly you could learn some of these from the study of other kinds of music but all of these are part and parcel of minimalism. Sould you chose to adhere to their use in minimalism or to rebel against them is up to you.

I know you are a composer and you musit know that you go by a gut feeling much more often than any set of rules so I could sit and try to figure out which of the aspects of minimalism result in this gut reaction but you will forgive me if I do not since analysing ones insticts is a sure way to destroy them.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> Have you listened to any of my music or any other 'post minimalist' musc?


I have indeed. Sorry to say this, but it just sounds like an inferior kind of wishy-washy modal/tonal music, whose notion of tonality is totally untenable. It seems only to work if seen in the light of postmodernism, with a dilution of content to fit the needs of the culture of a society which has been polluted by the totalitarian force of pop music and the pop media in general. This is why pop musicians have claimed to be influenced by Michael Nyman and why he's been much more successful than many a finer contemporary composer.


----------



## hdk132 (Mar 18, 2009)

Has anyone heard of Ross Edwards? I don't know too much about him (his music is mostly played in Australia so it's hard to find in America), but I heard his violin concerto live and it was incrediable. 2nd movement was gorgeous--made me cry in the middle of the concert hall.


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2009)

*some guy and post-minimalist* at last we have the start to what could be an interesting and educative thread on what I will term contemporary music, as you know from my posts on this subject there is not much that I enjoy in this genre but I would appreciate being taken through the intricacies with some audio examples to back up your explanations, you have a good way of explaining things post-m....... is Parts work not considered good?? I really enjoy him particularly 'Alina' and his choral works 'Beatus and Berliner mass.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

Herzeleide said:


> I have indeed. Sorry to say this, but it just sounds like an inferior kind of wishy-washy modal/tonal music, whose notion of tonality is totally untenable. It seems only to work if seen in the light of postmodernism, with a dilution of content to fit the needs of the culture of a society which has been polluted by the totalitarian force of pop music and the pop media in general.


I am intrigued by your use of the word 'tonal' as derogatory. I accept wishy-washy, but 'an infirior kind'? Come on! it's not elevator music. My notion of tonality is the same notion that has held Western art music together for 400 years. It worked for Corelli, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Bartok and Copland. It might not have been Schoenberg's or Stockhausen's cup of tea but they too had the same 'notion' of tonality. Please dont confuse postmodernism with anything else, PLEASE! Postmodernism is a pseudo-hyper-intellectualization of art and philosophy. Nothing to do with post-minimalism. I do consider myself to have some pop influences but then so do Turnage and MacMillan (don't knock our Jimmy BTW). It is not a bad thing to have an open mind when absorbing your aural environment.

@ Andante

_At last we have the start to what could be an interesting and educative thread on what I will term contemporary music._

That's a good idea but I'll warn you now there will be a lot of fur flying on that one!

_
As you know from my posts on this subject there is not much that I enjoy in this genre but I would appreciate being taken through the intricacies with some audio examples to back up your explanations._

I will try to put together some audio examples in a single post which might be a few days away and will be a new thread so look out for that.

_
You have a good way of explaining things post-m....... _

Thank you

_Is Parts work not considered good?? I really enjoy him particularly 'Alina' and his choral works 'Beatus and Berliner mass._

Arvo Part has avid fans and avid detractors. I personally think he had a good idea and ran with it. His In Memoriam for Benjamin Britten has become standard repertoire in string orchestras (I have played in several performances all of which were enthusiastically received). He is one of the icons of minimalism but his involvement with ECM records which is recognised as a jazz (albeit intelectual) label has caused him to be seen as something of a cross over but this is fallacy since his music seems to be pure and he has not, as far as I know, succumbed to any dilution of his style for commercial gain.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> I do consider myself to have some pop influences but then so do Turnage and MacMillan (don't knock our Jimmy BTW). It is not a bad thing to have an open mind when absorbing your aural environment.


Indeed it's not. I'm well aware that composers have been influenced by vernacular genres of music from time immemorial. My point, rather, was that pop musicians have been influenced by post-minimalist, as well as minimalist music. Another point I made was that rather than creatively absorbing popular music into their vocabulary, like jazz in Ravel, Stravinsky, Adès; and in the case of the latter, also techno/dance music - but nonetheless retaining a high degree of compositional technique and artistry, some of this post-minimalist music, rather than incorporating this music into a highly sophisticated compositional technique, actually try to copy the technique of pop music, which often results in nothing more than pop music being played on 'classical' instruments. So one finds empty, arpeggio based stuff of great harmonic blandness, or a Madonna song played by an orchestra... etc.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

Herzeleide said:


> So one finds empty, arpeggio based stuff of great harmonic blandness[...] played by an orchestra... etc.


A bit like Vivaldi....
or Phillip Glass?

But seriously I think you've still got minimalism on the turn-table. Post minimalism really has very little to do with minimalism as such.

I have to say that I feel a bit under attack (although I'm not) here. Your descriptions are quite loaded and since I don't write minimalist music but aknowledge the relationship (either concurrency with or reactionary to) with it, I find this slightly strange.

As a result I will attach an exerpt from my music which I consider to have been the result of rethinking the minimalist manifesto. I hope that the other influences are observable too.
FC


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

I'm only under attack because I chose to defend something which was already under attack so it's not personal. Let's not have the moderators jumping in please.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Quite agree ... it's a great discussion ... carry on


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

To carry on then...
In every period of musical history there have been two kinds of composers (no, not good and bad)
Innovators and Perfectionists. Either you go with the current style and keep perfecting it or you react against it bringing something new, no matter how unrefined, to the stage. Most historians paint with a very broad brush when they put names to artistic movements but they do try to give some kind of continuity to the History as a whole. For example, impressionism and post impressionism have little to do with each other, the word 'post' signifying a reaction against a then current trend. Impressionism tries to evoke, throught the use sading tone colure and texture, the sensation of a particular event or object whereas post impressionists depict graphically their subject. This is not an organic development but a reactionary movement. (Think fish chosing between swinming better or evolving into walking on land.)

The composers who have stood the test of time have very often been labeled as the 'innovator of his (read as 'his or hers') time' or the 'pinnacle of his era' depending on which type he was. It is in these two areas that we usually find 'Great Composers'. Nobody remembers the 'run of the mill' sloggers like Vanhal but Stamitz who played a mojor role in the development of early classical style is upheld but historians as an important figure. 

It should not be surprising that innovators and perfectionists figure highly on our lists of contemporary composers we think might stand the test of time. I give Part and Williams as an example of each.
Part is an innovator. His music has caused much debate in serious classical cirlces who can't decide if it's another case of the Emperor's new Clothes or not. John Williams has spent a life time perfecting the art of cinematic music. No one could say that he invented the genre but his contribution to it is akin to Beethoven's contribution to the genre of the symphony. 

Who is to say, though, that these composers are at the pinnacle of an on going era? What if cinematic music takes another 50 years to develop and Williams is seen by the future historians as a Vanhal and not a Beethoven? We are all captives of the limitations of our temporal short sightedness are we not?
FC


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> A bit like Vivaldi....
> or Phillip Glass?


You're comparing Vivaldi with Glass? 
I'm not particularly bothered about Vivaldi's music but this judgement is rather harsh.
I was referring to some of Nyman's music.



post-minimalist said:


> But seriously I think you've still got minimalism on the turn-table. Post minimalism really has very little to do with minimalism as such.


I was referring to post-minimalism.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> John Williams has spent a life time perfecting the art of cinematic music. No one could say that he invented the genre but his contribution to it is akin to Beethoven's contribution to the genre of the symphony.


Cinema music is ahistorical - it's detatched from the Western tradition, because the artistic criteria Williams must meet are at odds with the contemporary classical music situation. So to compare his achievement with that of Beethoven's is tendentious in the extreme - film music as a genre is no where near similar to the position the symphony held at the turn of the 19th century!

Williams is quite rightly ignored in current histories of late twentieth-century music.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> Turnage and MacMillan


I am, incidentally, aware of the work of these two composers, though neither of them could be called 'post-minimalist'.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

post-minimalist said:


> As a result I will attach an exerpt from my music which I consider to have been the result of rethinking the minimalist manifesto.


Bootiful! If Sibelius had lived in the baroque/classical era I imagine he would have written something like this. The echoes of minimalism are in the rhythms but that is what Bach did all the time in his preludes.

Minimalism can be found in most works really, because for music to appear coherent, one parameter of that music must remain constant. I'm not saying that must be the case in all music, but you can pick out constant themes or ideas in a lot of classical music.

Minimalism forces all musical parameters to become ridgid and slavish to the hypnotic mood it tries to create. For this reason, I'm out! (A little "Dragon's Den" joke there!)


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Edward Elgar said:


> Minimalism can be found in most works really, because for music to appear coherent, one parameter of that music must remain constant. I'm not saying that must be the case in all music, but you can pick out constant themes or ideas in a lot of classical music.


That's not really minimalism though, is it? I think it's bad that if anyone now uses a bit of repetition in their music, all of a sudden it's the influence of minimalism.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

I suppose it's a useless term unless describing composers such as Glass. Repetition, like silence has been around since the dawn of music and and I'm not saying minimalist composers influenced that at all.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

Edward Elgar said:


> Bootiful! If Sibelius had lived in the baroque/classical era I imagine he would have written something like this.


Thank you, but is it realy an inferior kind of wishy washy elevator music? I guess you think not.

The point of being influenced by something is that you come after it, so Bach is not influenced by minimalism but I might be (as might other composers who may even deny it).

I beg to differ regarding John Williams. His out put is enormous and, to an incredible extent, consistantly of a very high quality. Functionality does not exclude a piece of music from being included in the canon of 'serious' compositions. I know it's not quite the same but one could say, by the same token, that most of Wagner's output should not be considered serious music since it was written to support his 'Music Dramas' (his own expression for his operas). I think this would rile even the most conservative music lover.

I would love to hear you (Herzeleide) describe post minimalism in musical-historical terms since I am still not convinced that we're talking about the same thing. (you don't have to, I'm just saying...)
FC


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> I think this would rile even the most conservative music lover.


That's because, as you say, 'it's not quite the same'. Another way of putting would be: 90% of the point of opera and music drama is the music, whereas it's possible to have cinema with absolutely no music! In other words, music holds a greatly lowered position in film: that of functionality.

Post-minimalism, it would appear, like you, wish to learn whatever lessons they can from the minimalists, without the great deal of repetition. From what I've gathered this involves an untenable and naive kind of tonal writing, greatly inferior to when tonality was the natural language for Western composers. (Post-) minimalism ignores modernism, to its peril.
I'm talking about people like Michael Nyman and Michael Torke.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

Once again Nyman ia a Minimalist, relying on strict repetition for much of his effect. Torke is a (not too good) light music composer who likes to think of himself as something more serious than he is (I believe he calls himself post-classical), Indeed his music is rather naive and insubstantial. You need to find Robert Wechter, Max Richter, Jeff Beal and Duowe Eisinga at least to haer the core of this movement. I too play my own small part in this.

BTW I don't think you'd like an Indiana Jones film without the music (that's if you like it _with_ the music!).

The thread concerns those composers whom we think might survive a nuclear holocaust to be house hold names in 300 years time. I might postulate that there might not be too many of us around then to listen to them!


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> You need to find Robert Wechter, Max Richter, Jeff Beal and Duowe Eisinga at least to haer the core of this movement. I too play my own small part in this.


What's not very helpful, but rather telling, is that I could find no Grove articles on these composers.

BTW both Nyman and Torke are classed as Postminimalist composers here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-minimalism



post-minimalist said:


> BTW I don't think you'd like an Indiana Jones film without the music (that's if you like it _with_ the music!).


Opera without music = theatre. Film without music = film. Says it all. Opera is ontologically contingent upon music.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

Groves is printed so it is, by nature, hopelessly out of date! (Appologies to Stan Sadie)

Max is on the list of composers mentioned on the Wiki reference. I had a long chat with Max (who is an old friend - we were at Edinburgh Uni together in the 80s) and he really didn't like the term 'post minimalism' since it tends to give the idea that the music is a continuation of minimalism. He prefered the term 'post classical'. There are a few oddities on the 'post minimalist' entry which I will look into since I contribute to Wiki. It seems that we have reached an impasse,

Here's a part of Max's interview on Greek radio.

_Reporter:
Max, διάβασα ότι κάποτε περιέγραφες τις πρώτες σου συνθέσεις με την εντυπωσιακή πράγματι ταμπέλα "Hard Core Modernism". Αν στο ζητήσω και εγώ να περιέγραφες την μουσική που δημιουργείς τώρα τι θα μου έλεγες;

Translation

Q.
Max, I read that sometimes you describe your early compositions with the impressively label: 'Hard Core Modernism' If I ask you to describe the music you write now, what would you label it?

Max:
Α, πάει αυτό! Όχι αυτή την περίοδο, δεν θα έλεγα «Hard Core Modernism». Χμμμ... δύσκολο να πω... Ας πούμε ότι τώρα θα έλεγα κάτι σαν «Post-Classical»! Αστειευόμενος βέβαια., αλλά ως ένα βαθμό κρύβει μία πραγματικότητα.

Translation

A.
Oh that's gone now! Now I wouldn't say 'Hard Core Modernism'. Hmm... It's hard to say, Let's say that now I would say something like 'Post-Classical'. Joking of course, But to an extent it is the truth. _

As I mentioned above, it is always hard to label artistic movements in such a way that they truely reflect the content of the works in question.

I like the term post minimalism but it seems that it might have been hijacked since I adopted it.
May be it's time to rethink my own label since being lumped together with Torkey boy is not good!

One final thought: Opera without music = operetta!


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Herzeleide said:


> It's possible to have cinema with absolutely no music! In other words, music holds a greatly lowered position in film: that of functionality.


Can you give me an example of a feature length film that does not contain music? I predict not because music plays a vital role in film. Hitchcock said himself that Psycho would be nothing without the music, and what about Jaws? What's so scary about giant mechanical shark? Now give it a threatening musical motif and suddenly you have a film! Music plays as much part in a film as the actors and because it is a combination of sight and sound, minimalism can be applied to a film score without the audience getting bored off their asses!


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> Groves is printed so it is, by nature, hopelessly out of date! (Appologies to Stan Sadie)


I used Grove online, which is actually updated.



post-minimalist said:


> One final thought: Opera without music = operetta!


From the New Grove:

'Operetta
(It.: diminutive of 'opera'; Fr. opérette; Ger. Operette; Sp. opereta).

A light opera with spoken dialogue, *songs* and dances. Emphasizing *music* rich in melody and based on 19th-century operatic styles, the form flourished during the second half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th. During the 20th century it evolved into and was largely superseded by the Musical comedy. The term 'operetta' was originally applied in a more general way to describe works that were short, or otherwise less ambitious, derivatives of opera.'

Andrew Lamb. "Operetta." Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. 21 Mar. 2009 <http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/20386>.

Bold font mine.

Oh and since you and other post-minimalist/post-classical whatever seem to have totally disregarded twentieth-century modernism, I can't help but feel that it must, thereby, be labelled post-modern.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Edward Elgar said:


> Can you give me an example of a feature length film that does not contain music? I predict not because music plays a vital role in film. Hitchcock said himself that Psycho would be nothing without the music, and what about Jaws? What's so scary about giant mechanical shark? Now give it a threatening musical motif and suddenly you have a film! Music plays as much part in a film as the actors and because it is a combination of sight and sound, minimalism can be applied to a film score without the audience getting bored off their asses!


I'm afraid I can't name any films off the top of my head, but there are plenty of independent films with no music.

You're missing the point anyway. Whether a film has music or not, this does not affect its status as a film, whereas (as I have pointed out) opera by its very definition exists because of the presense of music.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

@H.

OK, so you didn't get my operetta joke....

I have not disregarded 20thCentury modernism, for doing so I may run into it by accident. I know exactly where it lives and avoid it dilligently, lest I am tainted by it's stench.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2009)

Odd how minimalism and repetition have become so inextricably connected as to be synonymous, even to people who listen to music and should know that repetition is a characteristic of only _one_ type of minimalism.

It can't be that difficult to get our heads around "minimalism" as containing other things besides repetition, can it?


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> I have not disregarded 20thCentury modernism, for doing so I may run into it by accident. I know exactly where it lives and avoid it dilligently, lest I am tainted by it's stench.


Hmm yes. Which is where you fail.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

Fail in what sense? 

I am writing a concerto for the Principle bass of the Royal Amsterdam Concertgebouw. What are you doing?


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> Fail in what sense?
> 
> I am writing a concerto for the Principle bass of the Royal Amsterdam Concertgebouw. What are you doing?


And U2 are selling-out stadiums world wide.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

Yeah man! And Obama's inauguration! Did you see Herbie Hancock there too? How out of place was that piano accomniment?
Seriouly though comerical success and good music are over lapping sets. They are not mtually exclusive or entirely contained one within the other. At the moment you are trying to tell me that what you like is aesthetically more valuable than what I like. that's not grounds for sensible argument. 

I agree that if someone seriously strives for a deeper understanding of music he will write more valuable music. How deep do you have to go to realise you've gone too far up a dead end? As far as Fernyhough, as far as Xenakis? 

I think you were a bit strong in your use of the word 'fail'. It's a bit absolute for my liking. Try 'miss out on the rich bounty of musical experience offered by 20C modernism..' 

OK so I miss out but I am not ignorrant of it. I've been there and seen what it can do (years of it!).
Cambridge New Music Group concerts in 1990 being the high light of my 'squeeky gate night mare'.

I've had run ins with Theodore Antoniou, Professor at Boston University, about this stuff and if he can't convince me of my folly, I doubt you can.

But you can try!
FC


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> I agree that if someone seriously strives for a deeper understanding of music he will write more valuable music. How deep do you have to go to realise you've gone too far up a dead end? As far as Fernyhough, as far as Xenakis?


I like both of those composers. But it need not be a question of taking things further. The music of people like Robert Saxton, George Benjamin, Oliver Knussen, Julian Anderson, Magnus Lindberg etc. is still demonstrative of an interaction with modernism without 'taking things further', whatever that means. Their music is still technically very interesting and capable of great richness and dissonance, without sacrificing arguably more traditional or 'accessible' (though this means very little in today's society and culture) aspects. They have realised that producing cheap, soft-centred diatonic music is a cop out from the challenges made by modernism.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

I almost find myself agreeing with this sentiment. Indeed it might be a cop out to write cheap, soft-centred music, but a cop out from what? The challenges of modernism?

Does that mean all composers are going to need a PhD in Math and Astrophysics before they can actually write something that might be considered worthwhile? It is only a cop out if you want the same results as you would get from writing incomprehensibly complex music by writing simple diatonic music.

Well I expect much much more! I couldn't give a damn about the acceptance of some Ivory tower dwelling professor if my music touches the hearts of audiences and record buyers around the world. This is my 'much, much more'. It interesting that in mathematics the words 'elegant solution' is such a highly praised description. Why should todays composers attain to the exact opposite? Simplicity is such a beautiful thing and arcane complexity so ugly. Is it really _worth_ more for a composition to be complex or to have required a doctorate in advanced string theory to create it?

I'm not defending minimalism but I am questioning the relative value of 'the New Complexity' of Ferneyhough etc. and the way you set about evaluating it.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> Does that mean all composers are going to need a PhD in Math and Astrophysics before they can actually write something that might be considered worthwhile?


I don't generally answer rhetorical questions, especially when they transparently misrepresent an opponent's argument by invoking something redundant which, what's more, the opponent never even hinted at, let alone asserted. This sentence of yours is of exiguous worth.



post-minimalist said:


> It interesting that in mathematics the words 'elegant solution' is such a highly praised description. Why should todays composers attain to the exact opposite? Simplicity is such a beautiful thing and arcane complexity so ugly.


Perhaps you should actually listen to the composers who I mention in my last post. None of them fit your description.

Simplicity *can* be beautiful. If I write down one semiquaver and call it a composition: that's simple, but it's not beautiful.

Assuming you mean Ferneyhough, apropos your 'ugly' gibe: I would rather have something of intricate, ravishing detail with a sense of force and intellectual depth behind it (please, no more vulgar comments about doctorates and astrophysics: I mean musical intellect, i.e. that of J.S. Bach, Brahms and Schoenberg) rather than a sloppy, flaccid piece, reduced to the level of amiable banality with the aim of satisfying the needs of today's society.



post-minimalist said:


> Is it really _worth_ more for a composition to be complex or to have required a doctorate in advanced string theory to create it?


See above. No members of the so-called 'New Complexity' have such degrees. Ferneyhough never went to university, Dillon studied various things at various times but never actually got a degree, and the same applies to any other member of this so-called school of composition.

Anyway, you're changing the topic. Just to remind you of my post:



> I like both of those composers. But it need not be a question of taking things further. The music of people like Robert Saxton, George Benjamin, Oliver Knussen, Julian Anderson, Magnus Lindberg etc. is still demonstrative of an interaction with modernism without 'taking things further', whatever that means. Their music is still technically very interesting and capable of great richness and dissonance, without sacrificing arguably more traditional or 'accessible' (though this means very little in today's society and culture) aspects. They have realised that producing cheap, soft-centred diatonic music is a cop out from the challenges made by modernism.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

OK, what are the 'challenges of modernism' then?
This is what I assumed you meant, sorry if I misunderstood.
Please don't rant. Tell me where I am not getting this.
Again sorry if my metaphorical style is not to your taste.
Let's try again...


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> OK, what are the 'challenges of modernism' then?


The 'challenges' are those of interaction; fruitful criticism of modernism, absorption of partial elements of it into one's own compositional language, rather than total disregard of it.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

Herzeleide said:


> The 'challenges' are those of interaction; fruitful criticism of modernism, absorption of partial elements of it into one's own compositional language, rather than total disregard of it.


These are the challemges of any era or style. Of course total disregard in my case comes after careful and exhustive study and the realisation that, for me at least, there is nothing of value to absorb into my own language.

Are there any challenges particular to Modernism?

The challenges of 16thC counterpoint are mastering a strict but fluid modal counterpoint, those of the romatic era might be the orchestrational problems in volved in large Symphonic ensembles and handling an advanced chromatic harmonic language.

The challenges of minimalism is stopping it from being boring.

F


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> Are there any challenges particular to Modernism?


The challenge manifests itself in many respects, which befits such a fruitful and variegated movement as modernism. Primarily it revolves around how post-tonal material can be organised into something coherent. Ancillary to this is rhythm which, as it had done in motets of the Ars Nova, becomes a large-scale structural factor in some practices of modernism.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

That's more like it! This does sound like strict serialism a la Varese, Percicetti and Ligetti to me. The main rhythmic innovation in Ars Nova was (correct me if I'm wrong - it's been a long time since I did this stuff) the isorhythmic motet, where essentially a repeated sequence of notes is superimposed onto a rhythmic pattern and thus forced to go through all the permutations of the combinations. This is starting to sound like minimalism. I considered the excessive use of dectuplets against 13upluet with every note being in another register an all etremes of dynamic at rediculous tempos to be another, probably more representative challenge of the 'New Complexity' of Finnessy and Dillon's music. (Not worth the bother in my humble opinion.)


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> That's more like it! This does sound like strict serialism a la Varese, Percicetti and Ligetti. Rhythmic innovation in Ars Nova was (correct me iff I'm wrong - it's been a long time since I did this stuff) isorythmic motets, where essentially a repeated sequence of notes is superimposed onto a rhythmic pattern and thus forced to go through all the permutations of the combinations. This is starting to souns like minimalism. I considered the excessive use of dectuplets against 13upluet with every note being in another register at rediculous tempos to be another challenge of Finnessy and Dillon's music. (Not worth the bother in my opinion.)


For someone whose total disregard for modernism has come 'after careful and exhustive(sic) study', you aren't half ignorant. Neither Ligeti nor Varese embraced serialism; in fact, the former outright rejected it in an essay!

The systematic way in which rhythm is approached is akin to the systematic way of serialism. It's akin to the rhythmic language of Messiaen and Elliott Carter (both of whom Richard Taruskin has compared with the isorhythm of de Vitry etc.)
The music of the Ars Nova and Ars Subtillior (both very avant-garde for their time and even today, since the rhythm gets that complicated) is nothing like minimalism: it thrives on the unexpected, dissonant clashes and a kind of free counterpoint, before counterpoint became prisoner to the triad in Renaissance music. The tonal language is very difficult to account for in any systematic analysis, and a fruitful comparison would be with the free atonal pieces of the Second Viennese school (but as we know, and somewhat similarly to late Medieval music, Schoenberg's music of this period still makes use of such devices as canon).


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

I can live without this:


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

You seem to think I have completely written off the 20th Century. Not the case. 

Post tonal material can be organised into something coherent. I just don't think it's worth the trouble.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> I just don't think it's worth the trouble.


Don't think it's worth the trouble? So we can attribute this bugaboo of yours -twentieth-century modernism- to your laziness?

Anyway. This is still where you fail. We're going round in circles, and you have a preternatural ability to ignore what I write. Instead of obsessing over Ferneyhough etc. try *reading my post*:



Herzeleide said:


> I like both of those composers. But it need not be a question of taking things further. The music of people like Robert Saxton, George Benjamin, Oliver Knussen, Julian Anderson, Magnus Lindberg etc. is still demonstrative of an interaction with modernism without 'taking things further', whatever that means. Their music is still technically very interesting and capable of great richness and dissonance, without sacrificing arguably more traditional or 'accessible' (though this means very little in today's society and culture) aspects. They have realised that producing cheap, soft-centred diatonic music is a cop out from the challenges made by modernism.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

In this tread I have been called ignorrant, lazy, a failure and my music described as an inferior version of cheap, wishy-washy tonality. 

OK so Let's read your post... again... 

A. But it need not be a question of taking things further.

Well my whole point was directed at off shoots into unexplored regions of non tonal music.. so Yes it is a question of how far does a composer go before he realises he's barking up the wrong tree.



B. The music of people like Robert Saxton, George Benjamin, Oliver Knussen, Julian Anderson, Magnus Lindberg etc. is still demonstrative of an interaction with modernism without 'taking things further', whatever that means.

Bully for them! I suppose you consider them conservative and derivetive, though, since they went no further than their influences. As you say by any means



C. Their music is still technically very interesting

Intersting to a technician? Or do you mean they don't sound interesting but really they are (honest guv!)


D. and capable of great richness and dissonance,

As is most good music


E. without sacrificing arguably more traditional or 'accessible' (though this means very little in today's society and culture) aspects.

I suggest that they would fail to justify the above description otherwise.


F. They have realised that producing cheap, soft-centred diatonic music is a cop out from the challenges made by modernism.

Producing cheap, soft-centred diatonic music is a cop out full stop.
But the bugbear here is not 'diatonic', it's 'cheap and soft-centred.

My menace with Finnisey, etc is that they got labeled as 'the way to go' when I was at Uni. There was a strong reaction against this by Bennet Zon, Max Richter, myself, Malcolm Warness (who was writing spectral music back in the 80s), the late Christopher James and several others. We did study these guys but 30 years is a long time to remember dates and places.

I wonder if I chose to ignore minimalism and drew my influences from serialism what might have happened. The post serialist school is going strong but I like a good tune and a big climax so I guess I went far enough, luckily for me in the right direction (for me).


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> In this tread I have been called ignorrant, lazy, a failure and my music described as an inferior version of cheap, wishy-washy tonality.


I assumed that someone with the pride to boast about his commission and pointlessly demonstrate his knowledge of Greek would be impervious to criticism, or at least capable of taking some.



post-minimalist said:


> OK so Let's read your post... again...
> 
> A. But it need not be a question of taking things further.
> 
> Well my whole point was directed at off shoots into unexplored regions of non tonal music.. so Yes it is a question of how far does a composer go before he realises he's barking up the wrong tree.


You've missed my point. My point was that 'taking things further' is not a prerequisite to a successful piece of music.



post-minimalist said:


> B. The music of people like Robert Saxton, George Benjamin, Oliver Knussen, Julian Anderson, Magnus Lindberg etc. is still demonstrative of an interaction with modernism without 'taking things further', whatever that means.
> 
> Bully for them! I suppose you consider them conservative and derivetive, though, since they went no further than their influences. As you say by any means


Again, you're misrepresenting me, and the way that you cut this section off of my post so you could accuse me of disliking their music is a predictably old technique to launch an attack.

Nothing could be further from the truth, as anyone who had read my posts would know.



post-minimalist said:


> C. Their music is still technically very interesting
> 
> Intersting to a technician? Or do you mean they don't sound interesting but really they are (honest guv!)


I mean they sound interesting and thus are interesting to study.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

I am rightfully proud of this particular commission. But I mentioned it here to show that there is general respect for what I write despite your personal opinion of it.

The Intevew is linked in Wikipedia in Greek and _I_ went to the trouble of translating it. It is not uncommon practice to give the original text beside a translation as you should know from you studies.

Yes I can take criticism, (leave some on my the thread of my composition for Dominic) but this is just not just criticism.

The rest is piffle and you know it, so excuse me if I stop here.
F


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> The Intevew is linked in Wikipedia in Greek and _I_ went to the trouble of translating it. It is not uncommon practice to give the original text beside a translation as you should know from you studies.


Yes, _you_ went to the trouble of translating it. And are clearly proud of this fact, since you pointlessly have to point it out and prove it. I know that presenting the original language beside the translation is standard academic practice. Clearly, on a forum we do not need to footnote etc. 



post-minimalist said:


> The rest is piffle and you know it, so excuse me if I stop here.
> F


I believe fervently in every word I utter. Please tell why everything else I wrote was 'piffle'.


----------

