# The Joy of Modernism



## Mahlerian

The 20th century was an explosion of great and renewed creativity in the arts, and music was not an exception. Far more than any other era, the 20th century gave the world first-rank composers and music that never for one year lacked for quality or quantity.

In rhythm, melody, harmony, and form, the legacy of the 20th century lies entirely in an expansion of possibilities and increased richness of musical art. This is why any worthwhile composer of the era engaged at least some aspects of the modernist aesthetic and the best, all of them; the alternative was a hermetic art that sought to seal off music from all supposedly contaminating influences.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Why do I feel this thread is missing a poll?


----------



## Nereffid

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Why do I feel this thread is missing a poll?


Or at the very least a graph, demonstrating the relationship between a composer's worth and the number of aspects of modernism he or she embraced.


----------



## Morimur

What?! How are we going to quarrel over this subject?


----------



## mmsbls

It's only been a few years since I feel that I have opened up or learned to enjoy much modern music. Without question my most favorite music is not modern music. Instead it's Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Wagner, Mahler, etc.. But there's something remarkably compelling about modern music. I find myself listening to modern music vastly more than any other era. Part of that desire comes from the fact that I have heard less modern music than music from the other eras. But I think there's something else, related but somehow different, that drives my listening.

Modern music is stunningly diverse. One can listen to many composers and still have little feel for many others. That does not feel true to me about any other era. There are so many new musical worlds that I still have to explore. Part of that exploration is learning the new language of a composer or composers that strikes me as wierd/bizarre/ugly/etc.. After learning the language, I may not enjoy the music enough to continue listening, but sometimes I'm stunned by how much I like something that until somewhat recently I disliked.

There are older composers who I enjoy but have not explored a lot. Joachim Raff, Giuseppe Tartini, and Gregorio Allegri are all composers I quite enjoy, but have not explored as much as I might. I would rather explore new modern composers because I feel as though I already know Raff, Tartini, and Allegri. I know I will like whatever new works of theirs I sample, but I doubt I will find something that stuns me, that makes me stop and feel I need to hear this more and more. Of course, I could find some wonderful gems that I adore, but modern music seems to hold more promise.

Modern music for me holds more promise in finding _new_ works that I will treasure. I absolutely love listening to Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach and always will, but modern music is where the unexpected surprises will come from.


----------



## GreenMamba

Morimur said:


> What?! How are we going to quarrel over this subject?


Patience, Morimur. The rebuttal is likely coming soon.


----------



## Dim7

Morimur said:


> What?! How are we going to quarrel over this subject?


Definitely. .


----------



## Mandryka

Mahlerian said:


> The 20th century was an explosion of great and renewed creativity in the arts, and music was not an exception. Far more than any other era, the 20th century gave the world first-rank composers and music that never for one year lacked for quality or quantity.
> 
> In rhythm, melody, harmony, and form, the legacy of the 20th century lies entirely in an expansion of possibilities and increased richness of musical art. This is why any worthwhile composer of the era engaged at least some aspects of the modernist aesthetic and the best, all of them; the alternative was a hermetic art that sought to seal off music from all supposedly contaminating influences.


Maybe you could say a bit more about what the modernist aesthetic is.


----------



## Mahlerian

Mandryka said:


> Maybe you could say a bit more about what the modernist aesthetic is.


Freedom of form from formula, liberation of harmony from function, rhythm that is not (or not always) forced into square patterns, conception of the orchestra and the ensemble as a play of multiple timbres.

The expansion of tradition, in other words.


----------



## Dim7

Mahlerian said:


> Freedom of form from formula, liberation of harmony from function, rhythm that is not (or not always) forced into square patterns, conception of the orchestra and the ensemble as a play of multiple timbres.
> 
> The expansion of tradition, in other words.


Sounds pretty much identical to Romanticism, except for the liberation of harmon from function maybe. Modernism doesn't exist.


----------



## sharik

Mahlerian said:


> the legacy of the 20th century lies entirely in an expansion of possibilities and increased richness of musical art.


not even close to that of the 19th century.


----------



## Dim7

sharik said:


> not even close to that of the 19th century.


Not even close? 20th century encompasses late Romanticism, Minimalism, 2nd Viennese School, total serialism, impressionism, neoclassicism, aleatorism, spectralism, various forms of electronic music, various idiosyncratic modernists etc. You simply can't find that radically different kinds of music in the 19th century.


----------



## Mahlerian

Dim7 said:


> Sounds pretty much identical to Romanticism, except for the liberation of harmon from function maybe. Modernism doesn't exist.


Romantic music in general was more square rhythmically than classical era music. The orchestra was not used in anything approaching a modern fashion, either; before Debussy and Mahler, there was still a preference for a generalized tutti sound that subsumed distinctions of individual timbre except at certain moments. This is reversed in modernist music.


----------



## Weston

Some have argued in the past that there are no more innovations in the 20th century than in any other century, and this is used as a kind of apologetic for its more adventurous music, but I tend to agree the music of 100 years ago upped the ante by a huge margin. It is at least as large a change as was the _style galante_ and the trend away from obvious counterpoint 200 or more years ago.

But either way, I say innovation and creativity are a good thing. Change we must.


----------



## Mandryka

Dim7 said:


> Sounds pretty much identical to Romanticism, except for the liberation of harmon from function maybe.


Yes, that was my thought exactly when I read what Mahlerian wrote. I have a feeling we haven't got to the heart of C20 modernism yet.


----------



## Dim7

Mahlerian said:


> Romantic music in general was more square rhythmically than classical era music.


What............ the........................ fach........?!


----------



## Dim7

sharik said:


> already seen before. 20th century did not add anything to arts except for movies.


Shostakovich? Debussy? Mahler? Sibelius? Vaughan-Williams? Stravinsky? Rachmaninoff?


----------



## sharik

Dim7 said:


> You simply can't find that radically different kinds of music in the 19th century.


really?.. classical music in symphony and opera forms as of the 19th century is way more radical than anything heard before.


----------



## Mandryka

Mahlerian said:


> Romantic music in general was more square rhythmically than classical era music. The orchestra was not used in anything approaching a modern fashion, either; before Debussy and Mahler, there was still a preference for a generalized tutti sound that subsumed distinctions of individual timbre except at certain moments. This is reversed in modernist music.


The problem I have with this is that it doesn't seem to account for the enormous bold creative leap of imagination in the 20th century, especially away from orchestral music.


----------



## sharik

Dim7 said:


> Shostakovich?


we already had Mahler.



Dim7 said:


> Debussy?


good composer, but that's it.



Dim7 said:


> Mahler?


belongs to 19th century.



Dim7 said:


> Sibelius?


his music is 19th century's.



Dim7 said:


> Vaughan-Williams?


???



Dim7 said:


> Stravinsky?


we already had Rimsky-Korsakov.



Dim7 said:


> Rachmaninoff?


wrote brilliant music, did not come up with new ideas.


----------



## Xaltotun

I am cautiously supportive of the idea of modernism. Progress building on the old, the refinement of the old, the deepened understanding of tradition from a new perspective, the search for truth and unity... the whole Hegelian shebang. I'm for it. I like Picasso, Kandinsky, Mondrian; le Corbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright, Alvar Aalto; Kafka, Eliot, Pound, Joyce; Mahler, Schoenberg, Webern. 

The problem is, after WWI and especially after WWII artists started focusing too much on human irrationality (or, on the other hand, pure and abstract rationality without tradition!), freedom from tradition instead expanding on tradition, diversity instead of unity, points of view instead of truth. Or, I say again, if focusing on truth, making it too abstract and devoid of tradition - there is no truth outside of the continuously unfolding history of understanding truth, i.e. tradition. 

When post-modernism hits the scene, I'm out. 

The history of ideas includes, and it must include, periods of searching for the truth outside of conventions. This is how it must be. But it's very difficult, and it presents almost unfair difficulties for artists and thinkers. One of the first poets who experimented with free verse - maybe it was Apollinaire or someone like that, I don't remember - said that free verse is supremely difficult to do properly, and that there is absolutely no point in indulging in free verse unless you can do it properly. And if you can't, you should stick to metric verse. I think it's like that in all the arts. Break conventions, sure, if you're a genius. If you're not, stick to the classic rules.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

^^^^
-to Sharik .... different sense of reality, perhaps?


----------



## Morimur

Kurtág, Ligeti, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Nono, Partch et al. Modernism has yielded countless treasures. As far as I am concerned there is no downside.


----------



## sharik

the very idea of 'modern' or 'dated' pertains to ideology, not arts.


----------



## Mandryka

Xaltotun said:


> . . . , after WWI . . . artists started focusing . . . on human irrationality . . . diversity instead of unity, points of view instead of truth.


I've cut all the conservative stuff. I found this bit of your post interesting and, if you can, would you develop it.

Just thinking of music, who focused on irrationality? diversity? points of view? abstraction? It would be nice to have examples which weren't text based. The reason I'm pushing you is that I suspect you're touching on something Mahlerian's more musical, less philosophical, definition passed over.

But the topic is difficult.


----------



## Xaltotun

Mandryka said:


> I've cut all the conservative stuff. I found this bit of your post interesting and, if you can, would you develop it.
> 
> Just thinking of music, who focused on irrationality? diversity? points of view? abstraction? It would be nice to have examples which weren't text based. The reason I'm pushing you is that I suspect you're touching on something Mahlerian's more musical, less philosophical, definition passed over.
> 
> But the topic is difficult.


I'm not sure I can give you examples if I have to stick to just music; I tend to think in terms of the general zeitgeist. Also, with respect to music, these things are hard to prove... they exist on a rather subjective level (in the other arts, it's easier to make objective allusions to ideas outside the purview of the art in question). I could say something about composers X, Y and Z and I would be attacked by experts who may know a lot more than me about X, Y and Z.

I just think that all the arts and areas of thinking are linked, none of them work in isolation... Wittgenstein says something about language and representation and also music is affected. Maybe Picasso influenced Wittgenstein. Maybe Mies van der Rohe influenced Xenakis. The spirit of the early 20th century was sceptical about representation but it still chased after the truth that may not have been possible to represent; and afterwards, this struggle seemed futile to some, who then thought that a labyrinth of short-circuiting signposts may be enough to depict the human experience.


----------



## sharik

Morimur said:


> Kurtág, Ligeti, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Nono, Partch et al. Modernism has yielded countless treasures. As far as I am concerned there is no downside.


there's one, the fact that the above mentioned can't stand comparison with 19th century composers.


----------



## KenOC

Weston said:


> But either way, I say innovation and creativity are a good thing. Change we must.


Sez who? A famous toast in the late 1700s British navy: "Let no new thing arise!" And the Brits, of course, ruled the waves for a good long time.


----------



## ArtMusic

Mahlerian said:


> The 20th century was an explosion of great and renewed creativity in the arts, and music was not an exception. Far more than any other era, the 20th century gave the world first-rank composers and music that never for one year lacked for quality or quantity.
> 
> In rhythm, melody, harmony, and form, the legacy of the 20th century lies entirely in an expansion of possibilities and increased richness of musical art. This is why any worthwhile composer of the era engaged at least some aspects of the modernist aesthetic and the best, all of them; the alternative was a hermetic art that sought to seal off music from all supposedly contaminating influences.


I agree. The 20th century showed an explosion of styles and had by far the most variable in styles, from late Romanticism (say the popularly accepted operas of Puccini) to the more avant-garde developments. We are quite fortunate to be able to choose.


----------



## isorhythm

I agree that the 20th century is one of the most creatively fruitful periods in history, but describing it exclusively in terms of "joy" or "liberation" strikes me as not entirely adequate.

In an important sense Modernism began as a reaction to the rapid industrialization of Europe, the collapse of the old European aristocracy and ultimately the total failure of Enlightenment rationalism in the form of two world wars and the largest genocide in history.

(Freud is very important here, btw.)

A bit later in the 20th century we saw art grappling with mechanical reproduction and the rise of mass consumer culture.

While there was sometimes joy and liberation, there was also anxiety and even despair as artists found themselves unable to trust any of the old values.

So, fruitful, but hardly always joyful.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

KenOC said:


> Sez who? A famous toast in the late 1700s British navy: "Let no new thing arise!" And the Brits, of course, ruled the waves for a good long time.


Well, yes, perhaps the RN resisted change in the late C18 (and onwards, intermittently) but we no longer sail around in sail-powered wooden ships with muzzle-loading guns and signalling based on flags with crews used to rum, sodomy and the lash - change we had to!


----------



## Mahlerian

isorhythm said:


> I agree that the 20th century is one of the most creatively fruitful periods in history, but describing it exclusively in terms of "joy" or "liberation" strikes me as not entirely adequate.
> 
> In an important sense Modernism began as a reaction to the rapid industrialization of Europe, the collapse of the old European aristocracy and ultimately the total failure of Enlightenment rationalism in the form of two world wars and the largest genocide in history.
> 
> (Freud is very important here, btw.)
> 
> A bit later in the 20th century we saw art grappling with mechanical reproduction and the rise of mass consumer culture.
> 
> While there was sometimes joy and liberation, there was also anxiety and even despair as artists found themselves unable to trust any of the old values.
> 
> So, fruitful, but hardly always joyful.


I didn't mean to imply that the music consistently expresses joy. No doubt the intensification of emotional expression has lent itself to a reflection of the many and to some degree unprecedented horrors of the century, but modernism was in full swing before either of the World Wars.

Let us not forget that previous centuries have had to deal with wars and plagues and repression and slavery and all kinds of other terrifying examples of what humans can suffer at the hands of nature or other humans.

The joy I am speaking of is the joy of those who can experience the artistic reaction to these times, no matter how troubled they may have been.


----------



## DavidA

Morimur said:


> Kurtág, Ligeti, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Nono, Partch et al. Modernism has yielded countless treasures. As far as I am concerned there is no downside.


As far as I'm concerned these treasures are better off hidden away!


----------



## Cosmos

sharik said:


> there's one, the fact that the above mentioned can't stand comparison with 19th century composers.


Yeah? Well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.


----------



## Cosmos

I think Modernism was one of the greatest turning points in Western thought.

If we're talking about the art movement just after the turn of the century, that music is phenomenal!


----------



## Morimur

sharik said:


> there's one, the fact that the above mentioned can't stand comparison with 19th century composers.


That's some crazy putinesque logic.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

My story about modern music:

When I was a lot younger I found a bunch of music textbooks on shelves around the house and I found them all and put them all in my room so I could refer to them and read them whenever I wanted. I was probably about 7 or 8 years old at the time when I read a chapter about 20th century music, especially things more experimental. I remember some examples of scores by George Crumb, an outline of Varèse's Poème Electronique, and example of aleatoric music, 12-note music etc. I became intrigued by this stuff because I could only ever imagine what it sounded like because it was never played on the radio and I didn't have any CDs of the stuff, and YouTube was barely a year old and I didn't know anything about YouTube at the time. 

Until one day when the classical music radio I was listening to was playing another episode of that show where Emanual Ax and some other guy talks about piano concertos. This one was the Schoenberg piano concerto! I sat down and listened to it from start to finish and it completely took over my senses, I was hooked on the music like I had been with nothing else. It was music like I've never heard before. 

My next encounter with modern music was when a fantastic primary school music teacher decided he would do something a little bit different and spend a few lessons on 20th/21st century music (I was 11 at the time I think). We listened to Penderecki's famous Threnody, some examples of minimalist music among other things. The diversity of this music struck a chord with me and made me feel like I had just glimpsed into another whole universe much more diverse than I had heard before. 

Not long after this I discovered a show that used to play on that classical radio station I listened to: 'New Music Up Late' which played from 10:30pm to 12:30am every Saturday (but I didn't often listen to all of it) and I remember some interesting interviews about slide whistles in orchestras, electroacoustic music etc. and all this stuff was so new to me. It was my desire to learn that made this music my primary interest from then on. 'This is what classical music is today,' I thought to myself, 'this stuff is pure magic, so strange and diverse, it's like there is something here for everyone!'

A couple of years after that, I joined TC and learnt a whole lot more!


----------



## sharik

Morimur said:


> That's some crazy putinesque logic.


not any more than yours.


----------



## Morimur

isorhythm said:


> I agree that the 20th century is one of the most creatively fruitful periods in history, but describing it exclusively in terms of "joy" or "liberation" strikes me as not entirely adequate.
> 
> In an important sense Modernism began as a reaction to the rapid industrialization of Europe, the collapse of the old European aristocracy and ultimately the total failure of Enlightenment rationalism in the form of two world wars and the largest genocide in history.
> 
> (Freud is very important here, btw.)
> 
> A bit later in the 20th century we saw art grappling with mechanical reproduction and the rise of mass consumer culture.
> 
> While there was sometimes joy and liberation, there was also anxiety and even despair as artists found themselves unable to trust any of the old values.
> 
> So, fruitful, but hardly always joyful.


Art, if it's to be relevant, should reflect the world around us and if the sound of modernism is that of a billion souls screaming in agony, it's because we live in a fallen world.


----------



## KenOC

Headphone Hermit said:


> Well, yes, perhaps the RN resisted change in the late C18 (and onwards, intermittently) but we no longer sail around in sail-powered wooden ships with muzzle-loading guns and signalling based on flags with crews used to rum, sodomy and the lash - change we had to!


Nonsense. Those wooden ships had tiny radar images and were thus true "stealth warships." As always, the Brits were very advanced for their time.


----------



## sharik

Morimur said:


> Art, if it's to be relevant, should reflect the world around us


totally wrong... art should *create* the world we live in.


----------



## LHB

Modern music is a disgusting, cacophonic pile of trash that is worth less than the paper it is written on. I personally hate anything that has too much counterpoint, dissonance, angularity or atonality. I just don't understand it. I'm never capable of grasping what the composer is trying to do, because I've had no musical training whatsoever, nor do I wish to put for any effort at all to try to understand it because I would much prefer to never leave the soothing, watered-down idiom of complete tonality. Although my personal views may be somewhat slanted, because I have given modern music hardly any listening to at all, besides a few pieces that people have posted links to here. I think that Ravel and Debussy are not as good composers as most people think they are. I mean, why write a piece that is not based on harmony or melody? Dutilleux is even worse! That 'Tout und mond lotion' or something like that, full of its meaningless sonorities and chromaticism makes me sick to listen to, even in the hands of the great Rostropovich; I'll stick to his Bach Cello Suites, thank you (preferably the ones in major keys because they're much lighter; Prelude No. 1 from Suite No. 5 is ughhh; too much thinking involved when listening to that piece). I like some of Scriabin's music, but not his late stuff. It's so weird. I mean, someone says "synthetic chord" to me and I think they just had some kind of operation! It all sounds so random to me; it's sorta pretty sometimes but it just isn't music like a Mozart Sonata is. Don't even get me started on those serialist composers either. Berg's Violin Concerto was written for his dead wife; she probably committed suicide from having to listen to his other stuff lol! There's no passion in that piece; it's the only serialist piece I've heard and I refuse to listen to any other serialist works, although I do have to say I like Boulez's conducting in Stravinsky's Pulchinella Suite (anything else by Stravinsky I tend to stay away from- too randomly crashy and bangy). I think the worst are these... oh what are they called... "New Complexity" and "Stochastic" composers. LOL has anyone here heard Michael Finnissy's "English Country Tunes"? My cats can do better than that! I mean, it's obviously just TOTALLY random and completely pointless, or at least I don't see one. I'll stick to my Purcell.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Sharik, if this thread is about the Joy of Modernism, why on earth are you posting what you're posting? It's known as thread derailment and...also...the T word.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

LHB said:


> Modern music is a disgusting, cacophonic pile of trash that is worth less than the paper it is written on. I personally hate anything that has too much counterpoint, dissonance, angularity or atonality. I just don't understand it. I'm never capable of grasping what the composer is trying to do, because I've had no musical training whatsoever, nor do I wish to put for any effort at all to try to understand it because I would much prefer to never leave the soothing, watered-down idiom of complete tonality. Although my personal views may be somewhat slanted, because I have given modern music hardly any listening to at all, besides a few pieces that people have posted links to here. I think that Ravel and Debussy are not as good composers as most people think they are. I mean, why write a piece that is not based on harmony or melody? Dutilleux is even worse! That 'Tout und mond lotion' or something like that, full of its meaningless sonorities and chromaticism makes me sick to listen to, even in the hands of the great Rostropovich; I'll stick to his Bach Cello Suites, thank you (preferably the ones in major keys because they're much lighter; Prelude No. 1 from Suite No. 5 is ughhh; too much thinking involved when listening to that piece). I like some of Scriabin's music, but not his late stuff. It's so weird. I mean, someone says "synthetic chord" to me and I think they just had some kind of operation! It all sounds so random to me; it's sorta pretty sometimes but it just isn't music like a Mozart Sonata is. Don't even get me started on those serialist composers either. Berg's Violin Concerto was written for his dead wife; she probably committed suicide from having to listen to his other stuff lol! There's no passion in that piece; it's the only serialist piece I've heard and I refuse to listen to any other serialist works, although I do have to say I like Boulez's conducting in Stravinsky's Pulchinella Suite (anything else by Stravinsky I tend to stay away from- too randomly crashy and bangy). I think the worst are these... oh what are they called... "New Complexity" and "Stochastic" composers. LOL has anyone here heard Michael Finnissy's "English Country Tunes"? My cats can do better than that! I mean, it's obviously just TOTALLY random and completely pointless, or at least I don't see one. I'll stick to my Purcell.


Side splitting stuff!!! :lol:


----------



## Grizzled Ghost

Not sure that classical music would have had much to show for itself in the 20th century if it weren't for Villa-Lobos!!









But seriously, I wonder how the popular and academic conceptions of the "highlights" of 20th century classical will change over the next few centuries. I suspect they will change quite a lot.


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> The 20th century was an explosion of great and renewed creativity in the arts, and music was not an exception. Far more than any other era, the 20th century gave the world first-rank composers and music that never for one year lacked for quality or quantity.
> 
> In rhythm, melody, harmony, and form, the legacy of the 20th century lies entirely in an expansion of possibilities and increased richness of musical art. This is why any worthwhile composer of the era engaged at least some aspects of the modernist aesthetic and the best, all of them; t*he alternative was a hermetic art that sought to seal off music from all supposedly contaminating influences.*


I agree with everything up to the last. I'm not sure what that means..?


----------



## Gouldanian

Mahlerian said:


> The 20th century was an explosion of great and renewed creativity in the arts, and music was not an exception. Far more than any other era, the 20th century gave the world first-rank composers and music that never for one year lacked for quality or quantity.
> 
> In rhythm, melody, harmony, and form, the legacy of the 20th century lies entirely in an expansion of possibilities and increased richness of musical art. This is why any worthwhile composer of the era engaged at least some aspects of the modernist aesthetic and the best, all of them; the alternative was a hermetic art that sought to seal off music from all supposedly contaminating influences.


Dear Mahlerian, yours is a very generalized statement that tends to give the impression that you believe it to be an indisputable matter of fact that music as a whole stirred in a lovely direction at the turn of the century. If this is indeed your submission, then I respectfully disagree. Although many agreeable innovations occurred during the 20th century, they were not unaccompanied by a considerable amount of_ faux pas_.

What are those agreeable innovations and _faux pas_, this becomes a value judgment and so I will withhold my opinion for fear of taking two in the back and two more in the front. I will only submit that we classical music fans agree much more on the pre-20th century eras than on the modern one. There must be a reason for that.


----------



## Mahlerian

Glenn Gould said:


> Dear Mahlerian, yours is a very generalized statement that tends to give the impression that you believe it to be an indisputable matter of fact that music as a whole stirred in a lovely direction at the turn of the century. If this is indeed your submission, then I respectfully disagree. Although many agreeable innovations occurred during the 20th century, they were not unaccompanied by a considerable amount of_ faux pas_.
> 
> What are those agreeable innovations and _faux pas_, this becomes a value judgment and so I will withhold my opinion for fear of taking two in the back and two more in the front. I will only submit that we classical music fans agree much more on the pre-20th century eras than on the modern one. There must be a reason for that.


Certainly I don't like everything in 20th century modernism, just as I don't like everything in the high Baroque or the late Classical eras. I don't think that we should look at all of these trends as separate, as all of the composers were listening to and responding to each other.


----------



## TxllxT

Every time I listen to Monteverdi's Orfeo (Gardiner conducting) I'm struck by the fact how 'modern' this music is. Really, all music that has earned the epiphet 'Classical' shows this quality in the present and pertains to the present. I never listen to music of the past; when the music makes me *listen* all is happening in the present.


----------



## Guest

Glenn Gould said:


> I will only submit that we classical music fans agree much more on the pre-20th century eras than on the modern one. There must be a reason for that.


Yes. Older things have been around longer. OK.

Next?


----------



## Gouldanian

some guy said:


> Yes. Older things have been around longer. OK.
> 
> Next?


Do I understand you correctly, that we automatically like older things, whatever they may be, just because they've been around longer?

the 56k Internet connection was invented before the high-speed one we have today. I prefer the latter...

I will spare you the million other examples I can find to contradict your argument because I'm sure you had a stronger one in mind. It can't be...


----------



## Gouldanian

Mahlerian said:


> Certainly I don't like everything in 20th century modernism, just as I don't like everything in the high Baroque or the late Classical eras. I don't think that we should look at all of these trends as separate, as all of the composers were listening to and responding to each other.


If by responding to each other you mean they were, for some, agreeing with the predecessors and, for others, dissenting, than I agree because one can only assume that they at least listened to their predecessors. But listening doesn't mean concurring, that's why I see it as an emancipation of the fed up teenager.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I think that people generally agree more on older music because it's been around long enough for a small percentage of it to form the standard repertoire. And those pieces have become famous enough for many to easily have opinions on them, and they are usually positive because they get more play time, so people are more used to them.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Why do I feel this thread is missing a poll?


why do i feel like the thread title is an oxymoron 

I get bored to tears listening to the immortalized classical masters, so I thought I would come to like the 20th century avante-garde..........didn't really turn out that way.


----------



## Guest

Glenn Gould said:


> Do I understand you correctly, that we automatically like older things, whatever they may be, just because they've been around longer?
> 
> the 56k Internet connection was invented before the high-speed one we have today. I prefer the latter...
> 
> I will spare you the million other examples I can find to contradict your argument because I'm sure you had a stronger one in mind. It can't be...


"We automatically like" is not the same as "we classical music fans agree much more" which is what you actually said.
It seems to me perfectly reasonable to observe that there is greater likelihood that people come to agree on things that have been around longer and are well-established than those that are much more recent.


----------



## Rapide

Mahlerian said:


> The 20th century was an explosion of great and renewed creativity in the arts, and music was not an exception. Far more than any other era, the 20th century gave the world first-rank composers and music that never for one year lacked for quality or quantity.
> 
> In rhythm, melody, harmony, and form, the legacy of the 20th century lies entirely in an expansion of possibilities and increased richness of musical art. This is why any worthwhile composer of the era engaged at least some aspects of the modernist aesthetic and the best, all of them; the alternative was a hermetic art that sought to seal off music from all supposedly contaminating influences.


What is modernism? Early Schoenberg's works are over one century old. Stochastic music by Xenakis is at least half a century old. By analogy we saw much contrast between say 1700 and 1800, 1850 and 1900. But we don't all lump 1700 - 1800 music as one period etc. do we?


----------



## Gouldanian

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I think that people generally agree more on older music because it's been around long enough for a small percentage of it to form the standard repertoire. And those pieces have become famous enough for many to easily have opinions on them, and they are usually positive because they get more play time, so people are more used to them.


This argument is better shaped, but I still disagree. Techno music took the world by storm and didn't require centuries of continuous playing time on the radio to achieve that. People's taste for it forced radio stations and the music industry to move towards it (techno started kind of underground). In a short period of time, even rappers and pop singers started mixing their music with techno just to get a piece of the action and not get left out.

Post-romantic classical music has been around for a whole century and is yet to sink in with many (I won't say most) classical music fans.


----------



## Gouldanian

MacLeod said:


> "We automatically like" is not the same as "we classical music fans agree much more" which is what you actually said.
> It seems to me perfectly reasonable to observe that there is greater likelihood that people come to agree on things that have been around longer and are well-established than those that are much more recent.


I see the nuance, thanks for pointing it out.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Glenn Gould said:


> This argument is better shaped, but I still disagree. Techno music took the world by storm and didn't require centuries of continuous playing time on the radio to achieve that. People's taste for it forced radio stations and the music industry to move towards it (techno started kind of underground). In a short period of time, even rappers and pop singers started mixing their music with techno just to get a piece of the action and not get left out.
> 
> Post-romantic classical music has been around for a whole century and is yet to sink in with many (I won't say most) classical music fans.


There's also the money aspect too, especially record companies when 20th century popular music came along.


----------



## TxllxT

I've discovered Monteverdi's Orfeo later than Mahler's First Symphony. For me Monteverdi is newer. The whole idea of 'older' is based on quicksand, so is the idea of modernism. Very dogmatic to claim 'newer' for oneself.


----------



## violadude

TxllxT said:


> I've discovered Monteverdi's Orfeo later than Mahler's First Symphony. For me Monteverdi is newer. The whole idea of 'older' is based on quicksand, so is the idea of modernism. Very dogmatic to claim 'newer' for oneself.


To claim that older and newer music means nothing in terms of historical context is also quite useless.


----------



## TxllxT

violadude said:


> To claim that older and newer music means nothing in terms of historical context is also quite useless.


historical doesn't mean anything when one *listens* to music.


----------



## violadude

TxllxT said:


> historical doesn't mean anything when one *listens* to music.


To you, maybe it doesn't.


----------



## sharik

some guy said:


> Yes. Older things have been around longer. OK. Next?


next?.. nothing; modernism has failed completely to knock down the old stuff or get near it.


----------



## TxllxT

violadude said:


> To claim that older and newer music means nothing in terms of historical context is also quite useless.


Arvo Pärt's historical context is so wide, that it explodes 'modernism'.


----------



## sharik

PS:
someone mentioned Stravinsky and Shostakovitch here, but they aren't modernists, count them out.


----------



## violadude

TxllxT said:


> Arvo Pärt's historical context is so wide, that it explodes 'modernism'.


What do you mean by that?


----------



## Dim7

sharik said:


> PS:
> someone mentioned Stravinsky and Shostakovitch here, but they aren't modernists, count them out.


No true Scotsmann, eh?


----------



## TxllxT

sharik said:


> PS:
> someone mentioned Stravinsky and Shostakovitch here, but they aren't modernists, count them out.


Yeah, Shostakovich composed Preludes and Fugues, he pays tribute to Johann Sebastian Bach...


----------



## TxllxT

violadude said:


> What do you mean by that?


Wikipedia: His music is in part inspired by Gregorian chant.


----------



## Mahlerian

sharik said:


> PS:
> someone mentioned Stravinsky and Shostakovitch here, but they aren't modernists, count them out.


Yes they are. Any definition of modernism which excludes Stravinsky and Shostakovich is useless and most likely biased.


----------



## sharik

Dim7 said:


> No true Scotsmann, eh?


by your logic, any 20th century composer is modernist just because he composed during that period.

Khatchaturan and Sviridov - modernists, huh?


----------



## Dim7

Shostakovich may be debatable, but definitely not Stravinsky. Except if we argue that modernism doesn't exist.


----------



## violadude

TxllxT said:


> Wikipedia: His music is in part inspired by Gregorian chant.


Yes, but it's not Gregorian Chant. And people who wrote Gregorian Chant in the 10th and 11th century probably would not recognize it as such.

I think some people are a little confused. Modernism doesn't mean "completely separate from any older influences". No music is completely separate from its predecessors.


----------



## Dim7

sharik said:


> by your logic, any 20th century composer is modernist just because he composed during that period.
> 
> Khatchaturan and Sviridov - modernists, huh?


The Rite Of Spring is definitely modern. Those crazy rhythms, octatonicism, polytonality etc. Rachmaninoff's 2nd symphony on the other hand, probably not.


----------



## TxllxT

If Classical Music is heaven, 'Modernism' is the purgatory, limbo. Some 'modernists' may enter heaven, others burn or are burned out...


----------



## Gouldanian

TxllxT said:


> If Classical Music is heaven, 'Modernism' is the purgatory, limbo. Some 'modernists' may enter heaven, others burn or are burned out...


Funniest comment of the day...


----------



## Guest

Morimur said:


> Art, if it's to be relevant, should reflect the world.


Exactly. Art cannot challenge or shine a light if it is not reflecting some aspect of the world at the time it is created. This has and always will be the case, I believe.

Because of this there is a unique difference (for me, as a person born in the twentieth century) between music of the twentieth (and twenty-first) century and music prior to that. Modern music has been created in the same world that I am living in. And so it has some, perhaps indefinable, relevance to me (assuming we're not talking about music written recently but actually as an ode to a former stylistic era). It is authentic to me in some way, that older music cannot be. In the same way, music written in 1800 was relevant and authentic to a person alive in 1800.


----------



## Mahlerian

Dim7 said:


> Shostakovich may be debatable, but definitely not Stravinsky. Except if we argue that modernism doesn't exist.


In what way is Shostakovich debatable? There's absolutely no way his music could have been composed without the influence of Stravinsky, Berg, Hindemith, Schoenberg, and so forth. Harmonically it's impossible to categorize as Romantic.


----------



## violadude

Mahlerian said:


> In what way is Shostakovich debatable? There's absolutely no way his music could have been composed without the influence of Stravinsky, Berg, Hindemith, Schoenberg, and so forth. Harmonically it's impossible to categorize as Romantic.


Shostakovich can't be modernist cause his music makes me feel the feels. And modernism is all about intellectual maths and stuff.

Right?


----------



## Rapide

"Modernism" is the most cherry-picked term maybe because it is difficult to define unlike earlier periods. Perhaps it is more useful and more importantly, more honest to simply say "music composed during the 20th and 21st centuries" and delete the term "modernism" altogether. All too often ideology are confused with it more than any other periods previously.


----------



## sharik

Dim7 said:


> The Rite Of Spring is definitely modern. Those crazy rhythms, octatonicism, polytonality etc.


its modern in terms of the 19th century, as The Mighty Five would see it, and pertains there. Mussorgsky and Rimsky-Korsakov had explored that music form before Stravinsky, it derives from Russian folk music; so much for modernism.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Rapide said:


> "Modernism" is the most cherry-picked term maybe because it is difficult to define unlike earlier periods. Perhaps it is more useful and more importantly, more honest to simply say "music composed during the 20th and 21st centuries" and delete the term "modernism" altogether. All too often ideology are confused with it more than any other periods previously.


It's difficult to define because, in an ethnomusicological perspective, the 20th century was when all the corners of the world were easier to access via telecommunications or travel. More immediate influences from a more visible, more easily accessed diversity of cultures and ideas. This is why a huge expansion of different and diverse styles occurred in classical music during the 20th century and continues to this day.


----------



## Dim7

Mahlerian said:


> In what way is Shostakovich debatable? There's absolutely no way his music could have been composed without the influence of Stravinsky, Berg, Hindemith, Schoenberg, and so forth. Harmonically it's impossible to categorize as Romantic.


I don't want to get into this debate, I just said that I know for sure that Stravinsky is modernist while not making an argument on Shostakovich.


----------



## Grizzled Ghost

It's déjà vu all over again!

By the way, I have 99 unread notifications at the top of the screen. I just need one more to get to 100, after which I'm gonna reward myself by buying that British Works for Cello and Piano Vol. 3.

Please someone hit "like" and I'll go spend some money on this music we all love (to argue about). 

Edit (6.22 PM): Nobody? Really?

Edit (6.30 PM): Thank you Dogen!! :cheers:


----------



## Guest

Grizzled Ghost said:


> It's déjà vu all over again!


That's the Joy of Déjà Vu.


----------



## Dim7

That's the Joy of Déjà Vu.


----------



## Guest

Are we trapped now?


----------



## mmsbls

For fun let me suggest that posters discuss "The Joy of Modernism" as they feel it. What about modern works gives you pleasure? What do you look forward to when first listening to a new modern work? Do you _enjoy_ modern works in a different way than how you enjoy older works?


----------



## TurnaboutVox

The arguments being advanced against modernist music here are mostly of the "I don't like it, therefore it isn't good, therefore it's bad" variety. 

Perhaps the problem is that 'modernist' 20th century music does not tend to have the same emotional impact as some of the music that went before it. Instead of notions of 'beauty' or 'truth' in music or in art more generally, and here I'm thinking more of the listener rather than the composer, the impact of some art music of the modernist period may be horror, bleakness, excitement, despair, coldness, alienation etc. Of course, this does not correspond with some people's ideas of what art music 'should' induce in the listener. Notions of 'truth' or beauty in art may be idealised.

As Isorhythm has pointed out, the culturally destabilising and de-centering work of Freud (and Darwin, Einstein etc.) were important influences on late 19th and early 20th century thought and belief, and there was a new exploration of what it meant to be human, including a renewed interest in subjective states of mind and emotions, including unpleasant ones.

Many people (as has sometimes been acknowledged in posts on this forum) do not care to be challenged in this way by art or music - but many others do, believing it to be important in understanding their own experiences in and of the world, and resonating with it.

There seems to me to be a continuum on which people may sit, as to whether they care to be affected or 'moved' in that way. I think that the reasons why some do and some do not, lie deep in the psyche. Wherever people sit on that continuum is a valid position to take up for the individual - but it will help to understand other people's positions to realise that we do not all have the same valency for emotional experience.

If, of course, we are motivated to understand the other's experience.


----------



## Guest

Modern and contemporary classical music brings me much joy.

Some people are not comfortable with this idea.

Some people really need to grow up.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

mmsbls said:


> For fun let me suggest that posters discuss "The Joy of Modernism" as they feel it. What about modern works gives you pleasure? What do you look forward to when first listening to a new modern work? Do you _enjoy_ modern works in a different way than how you enjoy older works?


For me, I enjoy every single piece ever written in a different way to each other. My favourite composition is probably _Repons_ partly because of the philosophy behind its composition: the relationship and the distance between the individual and the community, both within the group of soloists, the soloists and the ensemble, and the transformation of the musical material.


----------



## Dim7

mmsbls said:


> For fun let me suggest that posters discuss "The Joy of Modernism" as they feel it. What about modern works gives you pleasure? What do you look forward to when first listening to a new modern work? Do you _enjoy_ modern works in a different way than how you enjoy older works?


Such a decandent hedonist approach.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

TurnaboutVox said:


> Perhaps the problem is that 'modernist' 20th century music does not tend to have the same emotional impact as some of the music that went before it. Instead of notions of 'beauty' or 'truth' in music or in art more generally, and here I'm thinking more of the listener rather than the composer, the impact of some art music of the modernist period may be *horror, bleakness, excitement, despair, coldness, alienation* etc. Of course, this does not correspond with some people's ideas of what art music 'should' induce in the listener. Notions of 'truth' or beauty in art may be idealised.


Sort of reminds me of Brian, the artist, from the show Spaced


----------



## sharik

nathanb said:


> Modern and contemporary classical music brings me much joy.


which one modern and which one contemporary, please specify, is it one as prescribed by today's ideology or just music?


----------



## Guest

sharik said:


> which one modern and which one contemporary, please specify, is it one as prescribed by today's ideology or just music?


My post clearly referred to music.


----------



## Cosmos

Still working through Schoenberg's music. Every time I listen to the Piano Concerto I hear something new


----------



## Sonata

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> My story about modern music:
> 
> When I was a lot younger I found a bunch of music textbooks on shelves around the house and I found them all and put them all in my room so I could refer to them and read them whenever I wanted. I was probably about 7 or 8 years old at the time when I read a chapter about 20th century music, especially things more experimental. I remember some examples of scores by George Crumb, an outline of Varèse's Poème Electronique, and example of aleatoric music, 12-note music etc. I became intrigued by this stuff because I could only ever imagine what it sounded like because it was never played on the radio and I didn't have any CDs of the stuff, and YouTube was barely a year old and I didn't know anything about YouTube at the time.
> 
> Until one day when the classical music radio I was listening to was playing another episode of that show where Emanual Ax and some other guy talks about piano concertos. This one was the Schoenberg piano concerto! I sat down and listened to it from start to finish and it completely took over my senses, I was hooked on the music like I had been with nothing else. It was music like I've never heard before.
> 
> My next encounter with modern music was when a fantastic primary school music teacher decided he would do something a little bit different and spend a few lessons on 20th/21st century music (I was 11 at the time I think). We listened to Penderecki's famous Threnody, some examples of minimalist music among other things. The diversity of this music struck a chord with me and made me feel like I had just glimpsed into another whole universe much more diverse than I had heard before.
> 
> Not long after this I discovered a show that used to play on that classical radio station I listened to: 'New Music Up Late' which played from 10:30pm to 12:30am every Saturday (but I didn't often listen to all of it) and I remember some interesting interviews about slide whistles in orchestras, electroacoustic music etc. and all this stuff was so new to me. It was my desire to learn that made this music my primary interest from then on. 'This is what classical music is today,' I thought to myself, 'this stuff is pure magic, so strange and diverse, it's like there is something here for everyone!'
> 
> A couple of years after that, I joined TC and learnt a whole lot more!


That's awesome CoAG, I love reading stories about people's experiences like that.Thanks for sharing


----------



## isorhythm

Wild idea, if you see a thread called "The Joy of Modernism" and you hate modern music, maybe it's just not the thread for you! Lots of others to choose from here.


----------



## Weston

mmsbls said:


> For fun let me suggest that posters discuss "The Joy of Modernism" as they feel it. What about modern works gives you pleasure? What do you look forward to when first listening to a new modern work? Do you _enjoy_ modern works in a different way than how you enjoy older works?


_What about modern works gives you pleasure?_
Rhythmic ambiguity. Motivic development. It's the same things that give me pleasure in older music, but sometimes with harmonic relationships just a bit beyond my grasp.

_What do you look forward to when first listening to a new modern work? _
Ideally I look forward to an abstract emotion I cannot put into words. It has to be something more than merely startling me or trying to make me cringe with ugly sounds screaming "see how edgy I am?" The best works may do these things but have an indefinable something extra. The call of the outré.

_Do you enjoy modern works in a different way than how you enjoy older works?_
Yes and no. Yes in as much as they _are_ different. No in that I enjoy a lot of the same qualities in both. I enjoy for instance being surprised by music, both older and modern, but whereas older music may surprise me with an unexpected modulation, modern music can surprise me with new timbres or textures, or motivic acrobatics, or unexpected quotes, or . . . .


----------



## KenOC

isorhythm said:


> Wild idea, if you see a thread called "The Joy of Modernism" and you hate modern music, maybe it's just not the thread for you! Lots of others to choose from here.


Depends on how you interpret the thread title! Maybe you think, "That's the thread for me! Such joy I feel when I see the scores piled up and set alight, and such paroxysms of ecstasy when the composers are thrown on top!"

I speak absolutely hypothetically, of course. :angel: Have some coleslaw.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Depends on how you interpret the thread title! Maybe you think, "That's the thread for me! Such joy I feel when I see the scores piled up and set alight, and such paroxysms of ecstasy when the composers are thrown on top!"
> 
> I speak absolutely hypothetically, of course. :angel: Have some coleslaw.


Might I ask what you gain with such attitudes, KenOC?


----------



## science

As a historical phenomena that gave us great art (including music), I'm a big fan of modernism. 

As an ongoing attitude about the arts, I fervently prefer postmodernism.


----------



## science

Here is another thread that was on this topic and it went very well, mostly: In Praise of 20th Century Music.


----------



## KenOC

nathanb said:


> Might I ask what you gain with such attitudes, KenOC?


What attitudes? It was a hypothetical, of course! As stated. Do you really think I would rejoice at the roasting of contemporary composers?* Nay, never would I leave their loving mates and children without a provider, for that would be too, too cruel!

*Added: I live in an air quality non-attainment area, and a permit for roasting humans would certainly be required. I doubt that one would be issued.


----------



## starthrower

Glenn Gould said:


> Post-romantic classical music has been around for a whole century and is yet to sink in with many (I won't say most) classical music fans.


Putting aside the fact that this statement is nothing more than your assumption, and says nothing about the the music itself, even the more conservative classical listeners that I know, or have encountered here, enjoy Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Hindemith, etc. Many of their compositions have become standard repertoire. That said, there are a number of members that have expressed a distaste for serial music. I don't have a problem with personal taste, but I do have a problem with distasteful, derogatory remarks concerning modern composers. And I've already read at least one in this thread from David A.


----------



## Woodduck

Mahlerian said:


> Romantic music in general was more square rhythmically than classical era music. The orchestra was not used in anything approaching a modern fashion, either; before Debussy and Mahler, there was still a preference for a generalized tutti sound that subsumed distinctions of individual timbre except at certain moments. This is reversed in modernist music.


Romantic music more square than Classical? I don't think so. As far as orchestration goes, there's tremendous variation between composers in the 19th century. The obvious mentions: Berlioz, and later Rimsky-Korsakov. Plenty of play with individual timbres. But Wagner's orchestration too shows immense variety, exploiting the colors of different choirs and solo instruments as well as rich and subtle blends. Tchaikovsky also comes to mind; his ballets in particular are full of tangy timbres and magical effects. How about Bizet's _Carmen?_ Granted the trend toward using solo timbres increased over time, much of "modernist" aesthetics is already at work in the Romantic era.


----------



## KenOC

The majority of my listening is (easily) 20th century, but to think that "modern" has some virtue in itself is, it seems to me, a sadly deluded viewpoint. It's music, folks. Bach and the others lack nothing by not being "modern," a term more fitted to advertising than art.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> to think that "modern" has some virtue in itself is,


 thread drift, since we're not talking about 'modern'.


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> thread drift, since we're not talking about 'modern'.


Uh, the thread title is "The Joy of Modernism". Now I'm really confused!


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Uh, the thread title is "The Joy of Modernism". Now I'm really confused!


You can soothe your confusion by at least looking the term up in Wiki, Ken. Whatever fault may be found with the accuracy of its definitions, it will at least make clear that the term is not a synonym for 'modern'.


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> You can soothe your confusion by at least looking the term up in Wiki, Ken. Whatever fault may be found with the accuracy of its definitions, it will at least make clear that the term is not a synonym for 'modern'.


 Thanks for clarifying the "modernism" has nothing to do with "modern". Uh...wait a moment...my head is spinning...


----------



## Woodduck

I would probably agree that the 20th century brought more diversity and novelty to music than any previous time, even the innovation-filled 19th century. An important factor in bringing that about was the breakdown of national and cultural insularity and the dilution of local traditions, resulting from increasing ease of transportation and communication. This broadening of cultural, hence musical, awareness did not suddenly begin in the 20th century; it was a continuation of a process that had begun with the growth of international trade under capitalism, the increasing ease and popularity of travel brought about by the railroad and the steamship, and the fascination of Romantic composers with the music of other countries and distant lands, increasingly including non-European cultures, newly available for them to experience first hand. Think Mendelssohn and Berlioz in Scotland and Italy, Saint-Saens in Africa, Bizet who never actually visited Spain(!), and Debussy who was fascinated by gamelan music from Java. But concurrent with this increasing exposure of cultures to each other was the solidification of European nation-states in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with composers inspired to study their own indigenous musical traditions, resulting in a proliferation of national styles and a tremendous enrichment of music's vocabulary of sounds. Think Smetana, Dvorak, Janacek, the Russian Five, Sibelius, Vaughan Williams, Bartok, Stravinsky, Ives, Copland. Thus a growing nationalism and growing international influence acted simultaneously to expand and diversify classical music even before anything called "Modernism" was talked about.

For a composer, this widening field of radically different musical styles, available for creative use and highly suggestive to the creative mind, is both an opportunity and a danger. If he has a powerful enough vision and concentration of mind, he can forge a synthesis of influences both original and compelling. Otherwise he may produce the merely novel - and novelty, difference for the sake of difference, is not an artistic virtue. But novelty is an idea implicit in the very notion of the "modern," and "Modernism," as an ideology or mindset, was and is often characterized by a fascination with the "new," the "revolutionary," and the "futuristic," and by a determination to challenge or abolish traditional values and expectations, even fundamental conceptions of what art should be and do. This Modernist premise or attitude is not extinct in the so-called "postmodern" era, and the result is that the post-Romantic era is full of brilliance but also full of pretense and absurdity - and full of uncertainty and debate as to which is which. Just observe the differences of opinion inspired by this thread!

I don't want to debate definitions here, but it's clear to me that what "Modernism" definitely is not is a kind of music, regardless of certain tendencies to which the term tends to be assigned. "Isms" are cultural movements, philosophies, ideologies. Modernism, being the product of a bewilderingly diverse and confused time, is even less a kind of music than is Classicism or Romanticism, which grew up in better-defined cultures and have no implication in their names of being reactions to anything, or trying to supersede anything. Thus, despite the pleasure I find in a lot of 20th-century music, I consider meaningless the idea of finding joy in "Modernism," or modernity as such. I find joy only in this music or that - and this music and that music may have nothing in common.


----------



## Nereffid

Woodduck said:


> This Modernist premise or attitude is not extinct in the so-called "postmodern" era, and the result is that the post-Romantic era is full of brilliance but also full of pretense and absurdity - and full of uncertainty and debate as to which is which. Just observe the differences of opinion inspired by this thread!


Yes, as I've remarked previously on TC, the past century has produced much of the music I like the most, and pretty much _all_ of the music I like the least.
I try to be empathetic to others' tastes in music, but to be honest the sheer diversity of music these days makes me a little suspicious when someone says they dislike all of it.


----------



## TxllxT

1922:









2015:
Modernism, postmodernism, hypermodernism, metamodernism, post-postmodernism (source: Wikipedia)


----------



## Adam Weber

Have I accidentally wandered into the Talk Semantics forum? 

I mean, really...

I'm sure everyone knows what Mahlerian meant when he wrote "Modernism." 

Can't you guys stop being contrarians for, like, two seconds? Would that kill you?


----------



## Guest

Adam Weber said:


> Have I accidentally wandered into the Talk Semantics forum?
> 
> I mean, really...
> 
> I'm sure everyone knows what Mahlerian meant when he wrote "Modernism."
> 
> Can't you guys stop being contrarians for, like, two seconds? Would that kill you?


For some people, anything to avoid praising modern music, lol.


----------



## science

One thing that has surprised me about my time at TC is how old-fashioned our attitudes appear to be. An awful lot of people seem to be stuck in the era of modernism (1890ish to 1968ish), ranting against the new art, using exactly the same words that people were using a century ago.

Many others seem to be stuck at the same time, ranting against the philistines who don't appreciate the new art, using exactly the same words that people were using a century ago.

One thing that I've argued over and over and over, and will probably have to do so again: these attitudes (against or in favor of modernism) are out of date, not just because fashions change but because they no longer actually work so well as social strategies. I'm trying to do y'all a favor: it's time for you to embrace a postmodern attitude to the arts. It will work better for you. You will have richer friends, younger lovers, older wines, warmer sunshines, wetter rains, and better experiences as _consumers_ of the artistic _commodities_ through which you _choose_ - consciously or not - to construct your identities.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Mahlerian, am I correct in assuming you mean Modernism as simply: music in the Modern era (Debussy, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Bartok, etc.). If I'm correct, what's the issue people are having? It would be the same as someone creating a thread entitled "The Joy of Romanticism/Baroque/Classical Era/Renaissance".


----------



## Stavrogin

science said:


> One thing that has surprised me about my time at TC is how old-fashioned our attitudes appear to be. An awful lot of people seem to be stuck in the era of modernism (1890ish to 1968ish), ranting against the new art, using exactly the same words that people were using a century ago.
> 
> Many others seem to be stuck at the same time, ranting against the philistines who don't appreciate the new art, using exactly the same words that people were using a century ago.
> 
> One thing that I've argued over and over and over, and will probably have to do so again: these attitudes (against or in favor of modernism) are out of date, not just because fashions change but because they no longer actually work so well as social strategies. I'm trying to do y'all a favor: it's time for you to embrace a postmodern attitude to the arts. It will work better for you. You will have richer friends, younger lovers, older wines, warmer sunshines, wetter rains, and better experiences as _consumers_ of the artistic _commodities_ through which you _choose_ - consciously or not - to construct your identities.


Sounds intriguing.
What do we need to do to embrace such postmodern attitude?


----------



## Mahlerian

DiesIraeCX said:


> Mahlerian, am I correct in assuming you mean Modernism as simply: music in the Modern era (Debussy, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Bartok, etc.). If I'm correct, what's the issue people are having? It would be the same as someone creating a thread entitled "The Joy of Romanticism/Baroque/Classical Era/Renaissance".


Yes. That is what I mean, although I'm happy to include contemporary/postmodern music as well for the sake of this thread. Anything that goes past the Romantic era style fits here, so Prokofiev and Vaughan Williams are fine as well.

As for the issue people have? Some believe modernism was an evil disruptive trend which destroyed classical music.


----------



## Guest

Modernism is truly a joy, but I don't indulge that often. I reckon well over 90% of my listening for the last several months has been to post-1950 works.


----------



## Guest

DiesIraeCX said:


> Mahlerian, am I correct in assuming you mean Modernism as simply: music in the Modern era (Debussy, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Bartok, etc.). If I'm correct, what's the issue people are having? It would be the same as someone creating a thread entitled "The Joy of Romanticism/Baroque/Classical Era/Renaissance".


You're leaving out time.

The eras you mentioned have all been around long enough to be well-established. Anyone who quibbled about the choices people made in the classical era would be seen simply as a nut. People of the time could do so without appearing nutty or not at the time. They seem nutty now, of course. A lot of modern music has been pretty well established, but the idea of modernism is still up for debate, that is, there's a perception that quibbling about the choices people have made in the past hundred years is not going to look so nutty.

About music before WWII, that's probably no longer true. About music afterwards, maybe. The critical, intellectual, and populist votes are not yet all in, never mind that any individual person can listen to any individual piece from any time in the last couple of months and experience pleasure.

Never mind that in the arts, it only takes one person liking something to validate that thing. It is not equally true that one person not liking something invalidates that thing, however, which is how it has seemed many times on this thread. That's simply because love and hate are not equivalent concepts. They are in principle and philosophically quite different.


----------



## mmsbls

Some imflammatory posts were removed. In addition some posts that quoed those imflammatory posts have been removed as well.


----------



## Grizzled Ghost

Deleted by the author. 

Let's see: thread tools > Unsubscribe from this Thread.

Bye bye.


----------



## Grizzled Ghost

Also deleted by the author. Regards....


----------



## TresPicos

Woodduck said:


> For a composer, this widening field of radically different musical styles, available for creative use and highly suggestive to the creative mind, is both an opportunity and a danger. If he has a powerful enough vision and concentration of mind, he can forge a synthesis of influences both original and compelling. Otherwise he may produce the merely novel - and novelty, difference for the sake of difference, is not an artistic virtue.


I disagree.

In the creative arts, the freedom of creativity must be one of the most important artistic virtues, _including_ - but of course not restricted to - creating things only for the sake of novelty. The mere fact that something has not been done before is enough reason for someone to do it now. Difference in itself - for whatever reason - must be an artistic virtue.

I don't see the danger...


----------



## Woodduck

TresPicos said:


> I disagree.
> 
> In the creative arts, the freedom of creativity must be one of the most important artistic virtues, _including_ - but of course not restricted to - creating things only for the sake of novelty. The mere fact that something has not been done before is enough reason for someone to do it now. Difference in itself - for whatever reason - must be an artistic virtue.
> 
> I don't see the danger...


You're saying two different things here, but thinking they're the same thing.

No one argues against the freedom of the artist to innovate. Few would argue that innovation - the creative imagination at work, doing what it needs do - is not a value in art. We prize the artists who saw things never seen before, enlarged our sense of the possible and the beautiful, and touched places within us that had never before found artistic expression.

But innovation is not novelty as such, novelty for its own sake. Those last phrases - "enlarged our sense of the possible and the beautiful, and touched places within us that had never before found artistic expression" - are the key. Anybody who's determined to do it can do something novel, something odd, something that looks or sounds in some way unlike anything we've seen or heard. That is no assurance that the thing they come up with will have anything to say or be of any interest or value.

Yeah, I know: there's got to be somebody out there who wants to hear a symphony for broken refrigerator motor and contrabass comb with waxed paper, and all it takes is one person who is moved to tears by it, and - voila! It's a great artistic achievement, right up there with the Eroica and the Sistine chapel.

And that's where the conversation must end.

:tiphat:


----------



## quack

Novelty vs. innovation a completely empty distinction into things I don't like vs. things I like.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Woodduck said:


> You're saying two different things here, but thinking they're the same thing.
> 
> No one argues against the freedom of the artist to innovate. Few would argue that innovation - the creative imagination at work, doing what it needs do - is not a value in art. We prize the artists who saw things never seen before, enlarged our sense of the possible and the beautiful, and touched places within us that had never before found artistic expression.
> 
> But innovation is not novelty as such, novelty for its own sake. Those last phrases - "enlarged our sense of the possible and the beautiful, and touched places within us that had never before found artistic expression" - are the key. Anybody who's determined to do it can do something novel, something odd, something that looks or sounds in some way unlike anything we've seen or heard. That is no assurance that the thing they come up with will have anything to say or be of any interest or value.
> 
> Yeah, I know: there's got to be somebody out there who wants to hear a symphony for broken refrigerator motor and contrabass comb with waxed paper, and all it takes is one person who is moved to tears by it, and - voila! It's a great artistic achievement, right up there with the Eroica and the Sistine chapel.
> 
> And that's where the conversation must end.
> 
> :tiphat:


Didn't you criticize one of _my_ recent posts for using outlandish hyperbole?


----------



## Woodduck

SeptimalTritone said:


> Didn't you criticize one of _my_ recent posts for using outlandish hyperbole?


I don't know. Did I?

But is contrabass comb with waxed paper more outlandish than helicopter blades, or radio static, or a giant Campbell's soup can, or an empty canvas? (Oops! That's not an empty canvas. That's a thin, evenly applied layer of white paint, exemplifying the metaphysical principle of Flatness.)


----------



## Morimur

Adam Weber said:


> Can't you guys stop being contrarians for, like, two seconds? Would that kill you?


Do you realize how old most of these people are? Of course it would kill them!

So darned insensitive.


----------



## JosefinaHW

Deleted. I didn't use "reply with quote".


----------



## JosefinaHW

TxllxT said:


> 1922:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2015:
> Modernism, postmodernism, hypermodernism, metamodernism, post-postmodernism (source: Wikipedia)


Please explain what you mean by this comparison. TYVM


----------



## KenOC

nathanb said:


> For some people, anything to avoid praising modern music, lol.


Not sure what this means. Do people really "praise" 19th-century or classical-era music? Of course not, though they might praise many the works that survive from those eras. Then as now, most music written was at best disposable and at worst garbage.

So to say we should "praise modern music" is really demanding an absurd lack of discrimination.


----------



## Sloe

KenOC said:


> Not sure what this means. Do people "praise" 19th-century or classical-era music? Of course not, though they might praise many the works that survive from those eras. Then as now, most music written was at best disposable and at worst garbage.


I think probably all 19th-century and classical-era music is acceptable I can agree that some of the music is a bit boring. With modern music it is more diverse some is the best music there is and some is the worst music.


----------



## KenOC

I'm now listening to Howard Shore's "Lord of the Rings Symphony," certainly a "modern" work, 21st century in fact. Come, let us praise it together!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Praise praise praise praise praise


----------



## isorhythm

KenOC said:


> I'm now listening to Howard Shore's "Lord of the Rings Symphony," certainly a "modern" work, 21st century in fact. Come, let us praise it together!


Total Vaughan Williams ripoff, that whole score.


----------



## Woodduck

Sloe said:


> I think probably all 19th-century and classical-era music is acceptable I can agree that some of the music is a bit boring. With modern music it is more diverse some is the best music there is and some is the worst music.


Is this another way of saying that inferior music in earlier eras was probably inferior because it was trite or uninspired, while inferior music in the modern era might also be inferior because it is merely bizarre? Or is that just me putting words in your mouth? Anyway, it's a thought that occurs to me.

An 18th-century composer aspired to meet certain standards of craftsmanship, as established by the aesthetic of his time, whether or not he had anything interesting to say, and we can say of much music of that time that it's well-composed and not "bad" but of no great interest except to the scholar or specialist. In the Modernist era the fragmentation and heterogeneity of art ultimately reaches the point at which there may be no consensus as to what constitutes craftsmanship, or even whether the concept is relevant.


----------



## Sloe

Woodduck said:


> Is this another way of saying that inferior music in earlier eras was probably inferior because it was trite or uninspired, while inferior music in the modern era might also be inferior because it is merely bizarre? Or is that just me putting words in your mouth? Anyway, it's a thought that occurs to me.
> 
> An 18th-century composer aspired to meet certain standards of craftsmanship, as established by the aesthetic of his time, whether or not he had anything interesting to say, and we can say of much music of that time that it's well-composed and not "bad" but of no great interest except to the scholar or specialist. In the Modernist era the fragmentation and heterogeneity of art ultimately reaches the point at which there may be no consensus as to what constitutes craftsmanship, or even whether the concept is relevant.


Something like that. It is not so much about sounding bizzare as in just sounding really ugly then there is a lot of modern music I just think sounds just boring. I also think the same of early modern music as I do of 19th century and earlier music.


----------



## KenOC

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Praise praise praise praise praise


Thank you. You have earned five redemption points, which have been added to your account. You may view your account balance at any time in your Amazon profile, under "Redemption."


----------



## TxllxT

JosefinaHW said:


> Please explain what you mean by this comparison. TYVM


Descent: Modernism
...........................postmodernism
................................................post-postmodernism
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.....................
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.........................


----------



## TxllxT

Joy of modernism: when I listen to Prokofiev I sometimes get the feeling I don't need more than: listening to Prokofiev. That's very satisfying!


----------



## TresPicos

Woodduck said:


> You're saying [...]
> 
> No one [...] innovation [...] needs [...] the artists who saw things [...] and touched places [...] for its own sake [...] Those last [...] touched places [...] determined [...] something odd [...] or sounds [...] that the thing [...] to say [...] to be somebody [...] to [...] comb [...] one person [...] to tears [...] by [...] the Sistine chapel.
> 
> And that's where the conversation must end.
> 
> :tiphat:


Well, I still disagree, but if the conversation must end, then it must end. We were going OT anyhow, I guess.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

TxllxT said:


> Joy of modernism: when I listen to Prokofiev I sometimes get the feeling I don't need more than: listening to Prokofiev. That's very satisfying!


Which is fine. But it's no more than a statement that you like what you like and you'll stick with it. You know that others feel differently, and I hope that you can respect that difference.

What never fails to astonish me is that some seem to feel that the existence of music they don't like somehow threatens the existence of the music they do like, especially if someone else happens to classify them together under a common heading.


----------



## Woodduck

TresPicos said:


> "You're saying [...]
> 
> No one [...] innovation [...] needs [...] the artists who saw things [...] and touched places [...] for its own sake [...] Those last [...] touched places [...] determined [...] something odd [...] or sounds [...] that the thing [...] to say [...] to be somebody [...] to [...] comb [...] one person [...] to tears [...] by [...] the Sistine chapel."
> 
> Well, I still disagree, but if the conversation must end, then it must end. We were going OT anyhow, I guess.


Now I know how I'd write if I were Gertrude cummings - er, I mean, e. e. Stein!


----------



## JosefinaHW

TxllxT said:


> Descent: Modernism
> ...........................postmodernism
> ................................................post-postmodernism
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.....................
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.........................


That was a "senior moment". I got it; thank you. And I like the post.


----------



## arpeggio

Wow. I am working on a post in support of the OP. Need to do some research in order to get my facts straight.

I hope this thread does not get closed down before I complete my research.


----------



## TresPicos

It's strange... I consider myself a pro-modernist. I love modernist music. But I dislike 90% of it. So, I'm practically an anti-modernist, since I'm only 10% away from not liking any of it.

I _was _once an anti-modernist, and I was all like "why listen to ugly music" and "emperor's new clothes" and "pretentious artsy crap", but then I discovered Bartok and Shostakovich and suddenly I got it. Or I was just ready. I learned to listen to modern music in a different way, and those 10% I have either acquired the taste for or, in many cases, loved from the very first exposure.

To me, there is definitely a "joy of modernism" that is simply not achieved by "pre-modern" means.


----------



## TxllxT

TurnaboutVox said:


> Which is fine. But it's no more than a statement that you like what you like and you'll stick with it. You know that others feel differently, and I hope that you can respect that difference.
> 
> What never fails to astonish me is that some seem to feel that the existence of music they don't like somehow threatens the existence of the music they do like, especially if someone else happens to classify them together under a common heading.


I for my part am astonished that some seem to feel the existence of music they *do* like (say, Richard W) is threatened, especially when W is classified under a common heading.


----------



## TxllxT

TresPicos said:


> It's strange... I consider myself a pro-modernist. I love modernist music. But I dislike 90% of it. So, I'm practically an anti-modernist, since I'm only 10% away from not liking any of it.
> 
> I _was _once an anti-modernist, and I was all like "why listen to ugly music" and "emperor's new clothes" and "pretentious artsy crap", but then I discovered Bartok and Shostakovich and suddenly I got it. Or I was just ready. I learned to listen to modern music in a different way, and those 10% I have either acquired the taste for or, in many cases, loved from the very first exposure.
> 
> To me, there is definitely a "joy of modernism" that is simply not achieved by "pre-modern" means.


But when Bartok and Shostakovich somehow become outstanding composers (standing out from the collecting container of 'modernism'), they are on the way to become classical, aren't they?


----------



## Guest

Picasso put it best.

I was sitting in the middle of Rambla de Catalunya, near Diagonal, awhile back, feeling a bit down because of a thread much like this one, and a guy walked by with a T-shirt from the Picasso museum here which helped even out my keel a bit. I'm going to quote it here again for the same purpose. I hope it helps some others who are equally tired of the same old, same old.

"El principal enemigo de la creatividad es el buen gusto."

Yep. I feel better already. I put that one simple sentence up against all the often long and oft repeated remarks about quality that bedevil these discussions. It's probably not true, and it is certainly not at all important even if it were true, that 90% of all art in all ages is garbage. What's important is the creative drive itself and the quality of any individual's individual experience with each individual artifact, not some factitious and impertinent designation of quality that supposedly holds true for all auditors. Really? Show of hands: you like or dislike on the basis of the judgements of other people, most of them long dead. I'm guessing not. Even the 90% is crap contingent--that is, even each individual person making up that contingent probably disagrees pretty vehemently on what's in the 10% and what's in the 90%. Pretty simple to make the glib assertion. Pretty predictable that the lists will differ, particularly among the more dedicated listeners. 

My ten percent, for instance, would include zero Wagner. Nada. Someone else's might include Wagner but exclude Xenakis. Whose list gets to be normative? Or does nobody's list get to be anything more than that person's list, meanless to anyone but that one person. Besides, who's expressing "good taste" in my example, the person excluding Wagner or the person excluding Xenakis? 

N.B., not a real question. It's an absurd question, intended solely to invalid the idea of good taste.


----------



## sharik

some guy said:


> "El principal enemigo de la creatividad es el buen gusto."


creativity isn't a goal in itself... only *what* you create does matter.


----------



## Woodduck

TresPicos said:


> It's strange... I consider myself a pro-modernist. I love modernist music. But I dislike 90% of it. So, I'm practically an anti-modernist, since I'm only 10% away from not liking any of it.
> 
> I _was _once an anti-modernist, and I was all like "why listen to ugly music" and "emperor's new clothes" and "pretentious artsy crap", but then I discovered Bartok and Shostakovich and suddenly I got it. Or I was just ready. *I learned to listen to modern music in a different way*, and those 10% I have either acquired the taste for or, in many cases, loved from the very first exposure.
> 
> To me, there is definitely a "joy of modernism" that is *simply not achieved by "pre-modern" means.*


The parts of your statement I've put in bold seem to express an idea I don't understand.

When I listen to Bartok or Shostakovich, I'm not aware of listening differently from the way I listen to Bach or Schubert. The music makes different sounds, assembles them into different forms, and communicates different feelings to me in each case, but the listening skills employed in the process of hearing the way the music is put together and the way it flows and adds up in the end seem identical.

What are these "modern" and "pre-modern" means?


----------



## Rapide

KenOC said:


> Not sure what this means. Do people really "praise" 19th-century or classical-era music? Of course not, though they might praise many the works that survive from those eras. Then as now, most music written was at best disposable and at worst garbage.
> 
> So to say we should "praise modern music" is really demanding an absurd lack of discrimination.


Listeners will praise whatever music they like and reject those they don't. We can celebrate the existence of "modern music" (as per this thread) but praising it a different thing altogether. I do not see "modernism" praised to the extent as earlier periods.


----------



## Adam Weber

sharik said:


> creativity isn't a goal in itself... only *what* you create does matter.


The simple action of creativity can be very fulfilling. If not for others, then for oneself.


----------



## science

Stavrogin said:


> Sounds intriguing.
> What do we need to do to embrace such postmodern attitude?


Just enjoy what you enjoy and let other people enjoy what they enjoy and don't take any of this stuff so seriously since you realize it's all a game anyway so none of us have any basis for looking down on anyone else - EXCEPT that when you see someone taking it seriously, see through that and look down on them, although pity is usually more appropriate than scorn.

And since we're just having good times playing games, it's ok if we do it with "noise" or with "period" "instruments," "acoustically" or "electronically," "intending" "fidelity" to a "particular" "cultural" "tradition" or "intending" some kind of "innovation," for "sale" or for "free," as "art" or as "entertainment," or any other sort of thing and any sort of potentially opposed thing. (The scare quotes are not entirely jokes: part of the postmodern condition is realizing that all terms are inevitably problematic; you have to use them to communicate, but you have to appreciate the problems they imply, taking neither the terms nor the problems too seriously.)

Do it with Campbell's Soup labels or pink flamingos or reproductions of Leonardo's "The Last Supper" on velvet, or even with urinals or corporate art that is actually intended as corporate art, or the Sistine Chapel its own overwhelming self, but do it with irony and joy, and let others do the same because none of us have any authority over anyone else. The days of authority are over.

Finally, realize that we define ourselves by what we consume - that is a big part of the postmodern condition - and the only relatively effective thing we can do about it is to be ironically self-aware as we do it. You are free, and everyone else is free, free to consume, and really all you can do now is enjoy it: if you would protest, fine; but even your protest will be defined by its consumption.

Of course this is all only one (set of) option(s); the other options are still around too, though they are now only options, no longer carrying the weight of authority, because there is no authority; all authority is a myth, all everything is a myth, all we have are myths about myths; somewhat ironically, this post is a myth.

And when you realize it, it's all ok.

Good luck and have fun.

But don't do this because I said to. I don't have any authority, even if I somehow happen for once to know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> Picasso put it best.
> 
> "El principal enemigo de la creatividad es el buen gusto."





sharik said:


> creativity isn't a goal in itself... only *what* you create does matter.


I don't know that Picasso was suggesting that creativity _is _a goal in itself, was he? Do we know what he _was _suggesting? The quote is open to interpretation.


----------



## sharik

Adam Weber said:


> The simple action of creativity can be very fulfilling. If not for others, then for oneself.


and should be kept to oneself in most cases.


----------



## TradeMark

mmsbls said:


> For fun let me suggest that posters discuss "The Joy of Modernism" as they feel it. What about modern works gives you pleasure? What do you look forward to when first listening to a new modern work? Do you _enjoy_ modern works in a different way than how you enjoy older works?


I was always enamored with the idea of what music could be, even before getting into classical music. I loved hearing different styles of music and hearing the different harmonic colors they expressed. When I started to try to get into classical music, I listened to various pieces across the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras, many of which I enjoyed. It wasn't, however, until I listened to Stravinsky's "The Rite of Spring" that I became deeply interested in classical music and had a true desire to explore more of it. The Rite's exotic harmonies and rhythms gave it a degree of dramatic intensity that the Romantic composers could never reach. Never before was I so profoundly and emotionally moved by a piece of music. At that point I had a desire to explore further into classical music and never look back.

To answer the questions in your post more specifically, I find the colorful harmony, rhythm and orchestration be very pleasurable. I look forward to hearing fresh and inspired music when listening to a new modern work. I enjoy every single piece of music in a different way, so there is nothing inherently different about the way I enjoy modern music as opposed to older music.


----------



## sharik

science said:


> Just enjoy what you enjoy and let other people enjoy what they enjoy


if you do, then you risk that someday you end up in a world totally alien to you.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Just enjoy what you enjoy and let other people enjoy what they enjoy





sharik said:


> if you do, then you risk that someday you end up in a world totally alien to you.


So, if you don't want to end up in a world totally alien to you, you should not take science's advice. That is, you should neither just enjoy what you enjoy, nor should you let others enjoy what they enjoy.

So what should you do? Tell others what they must enjoy? Take no enjoyment yourself?


----------



## sharik

MacLeod said:


> So, if you don't want to end up in a world totally alien to you, you should not take science's advice. That is, you should neither just enjoy what you enjoy, nor should you let others enjoy what they enjoy. So what should you do? Tell others what they must enjoy? Take no enjoyment yourself?


take no enjoyment yourself without others participation.


----------



## Guest

sharik said:


> take no enjoyment yourself without others participation.


My living room might become a little crowded.
I presume that the orchestra playing what I'm listening to is getting some enjoyment out of it (though I know not _all _members of an orchestra like what they have to play).
And last time I went to a concert, it was full of other people.

I'm safe in my enjoyment then.


----------



## sharik

MacLeod said:


> My living room might become a little crowded.


by the way, that is how should we live - rooms crowded with friends and family.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Why ?


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Just enjoy what you enjoy and let other people enjoy what they enjoy and don't take any of this stuff so seriously since you realize it's all a game anyway so none of us have any basis for looking down on anyone else - EXCEPT that when you see someone taking it seriously, see through that and look down on them, although pity is usually more appropriate than scorn.
> 
> And since we're just having good times playing games, it's ok if we do it with "noise" or with "period" "instruments," "acoustically" or "electronically," "intending" "fidelity" to a "particular" "cultural" "tradition" or "intending" some kind of "innovation," for "sale" or for "free," as "art" or as "entertainment," or any other sort of thing and any sort of potentially opposed thing. (The scare quotes are not entirely jokes: part of the postmodern condition is realizing that all terms are inevitably problematic; you have to use them to communicate, but you have to appreciate the problems they imply, taking neither the terms nor the problems too seriously.)
> 
> Do it with Campbell's Soup labels or pink flamingos or reproductions of Leonardo's "The Last Supper" on velvet, or even with urinals or corporate art that is actually intended as corporate art, or the Sistine Chapel its own overwhelming self, but do it with irony and joy, and let others do the same because none of us have any authority over anyone else. The days of authority are over.
> 
> Finally, realize that we define ourselves by what we consume - that is a big part of the postmodern condition - and the only relatively effective thing we can do about it is to be ironically self-aware as we do it. You are free, and everyone else is free, free to consume, and really all you can do now is enjoy it: if you would protest, fine; but even your protest will be defined by its consumption.
> 
> Of course this is all only one (set of) option(s); the other options are still around too, though they are now only options, no longer carrying the weight of authority, because there is no authority; all authority is a myth, all everything is a myth, all we have are myths about myths; somewhat ironically, this post is a myth.
> 
> And when you realize it, it's all ok.
> 
> Good luck and have fun.
> 
> But don't do this because I said to. I don't have any authority, even if I somehow happen for once to know what I'm talking about.


I'm taking much joy from this post. But, without me being ironically ironic, how does "irony" fit into this? (Me being slightly thick, slightly only slightly). Maybe it's around irony being a synonym of sarcasm? The rest I'm good with.


----------



## science

sharik said:


> if you do, then you risk that someday you end up in a world totally alien to you.


You already are; that is not a risk but a certainty.


----------



## sharik

science said:


> You already are; that is not a risk but a certainty.


you see what my liberal practice has brought me to.


----------



## science

dogen said:


> I'm taking much joy from this post. But, without me being ironically ironic, how does "irony" fit into this? (Me being slightly thick, slightly only slightly). Maybe it's around irony being a synonym of sarcasm? The rest I'm good with.


"Sarcasm" might be as good as "irony." I'm not sure what the words mean to you. I mean "irony" sort of like, it's funny that someone naive would do this seriously, so I will do it self-consciously to be funny. You can do it with any art.

I'm not sure I'm serious about this, though. That's ironic, right? But I can't be serious. That's ironic too, right? So as far as I can tell, as soon as you seriously give up seriousness, you have irony all the time.

But if you can do it without irony, that is probably ok!


----------



## science

sharik said:


> you see what my liberal practice has brought me to.


You are not alone; we're all in this together.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> Romantic music in general was more square rhythmically than classical era music. The orchestra was not used in anything approaching a modern fashion, either; before Debussy and Mahler, there was still a preference for a generalized tutti sound that subsumed distinctions of individual timbre except at certain moments. This is reversed in modernist music.


Guess you haven't heard much Tchaikovsky or Rimsky-K.


----------



## EdwardBast

Rapide said:


> What is modernism? Early Schoenberg's works are over one century old. Stochastic music by Xenakis is at least half a century old. By analogy we saw much contrast between say 1700 and 1800, 1850 and 1900. But we don't all lump 1700 - 1800 music as one period etc. do we?


This is like complaining that music from the Ars Nova sounds really old. "Modernism" just describes the general characteristics and principles of an historical period. It doesn't mean it is supposed to be currently modern.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> "Sarcasm" might be as good as "irony." I'm not sure what the words mean to you. I mean "irony" sort of like, it's funny that someone naive would do this seriously, so I will do it self-consciously to be funny. You can do it with any art.
> 
> I'm not sure I'm serious about this, though. That's ironic, right? But I can't be serious. That's ironic too, right? So as far as I can tell, as soon as you seriously give up seriousness, you have irony all the time.
> 
> But if you can do it without irony, that is probably ok!


OK nice try! I get how irony can be (say) a part of comedy, the self-knowing of the performance. But I'm still somewhat struggling with the music.

Ah well. I'll let my subconscious mull it over.


----------



## science

dogen said:


> OK nice try! I get how irony can be (say) a part of comedy, the self-knowing of the performance. But I'm still somewhat struggling with the music.
> 
> Ah well. I'll let my subconscious mull it over.


Anyway, the heart of the matter is that the modern listener, whether pro-modernism or anti-modernism, had an implicit program according to which he judged other listeners, while the postmodern listener sees a multiplicity of possible values, neither embracing or rejecting any of them without self-consciousness of the arbitrariness of her choices.

(Edit: Substitute "listener" for "viewer" or "artist" or whatever and we can include all the arts.)


----------



## clavichorder

Smoke some weed and lots of modernism becomes really trippy as long as you don't start thinking scary things, then it's just frightening. Try listening to Nielsen's 6th symphony while blazed and you'll see what I mean! Or something like the Elliot Carter Double concerto which initially felt chaotic becomes a fascinating sound experience in which your perceptions get re written and a new kind of a shape unfolds that you were hitherto blinded from.

If you don't like drugs(I really don't like the concept, just reveled in the effects out of curiosity with unexpected results), then know that this state of mind is very possible, and probably can be approached and reached while not on any substance by a practice of relaxation while listening to music.


----------



## Guest

I've told clavichord this story already--it was on Belmont, right?--so he should stop reading this post now. Right now.

OK.

A friend of mine who was very interested in putting weed and music together wanted to know how my experience changed while high. After several tries and no change, he disgustedly, but accurately I think, said, "you were probably already there before you started smoking."

It's true, but both activities are still fun, each on their own.


----------



## isorhythm

some guy said:


> I've told clavichord this story already--it was on Belmont, right?--so he should stop reading this post now. Right now.
> 
> OK.
> 
> A friend of mine who was very interested in putting weed and music together wanted to know how my experience changed while high. After several tries and no change, he disgustedly, but accurately I think, said, "you were probably already there before you started smoking."
> 
> It's true, but both activities are still fun, each on their own.


You probably were.

I had difficulty with a lot of post-1950 music at first. I still remember a time when I was listening to Stockhausen's _Kontakte_ under the influence of multiple mind-altering substances and completely "got" it for the first time - I mean that all of my preconceptions and expectations were wiped away so the music didn't sound "weird," I felt like I was hearing _everything_ in the music, and I was not distracted by thoughts.

A little later it occurred to me - some people must hear music that way _all the time_!

That's not me, but I'm much closer than I once was.


----------



## JosefinaHW

isorhythm said:


> You probably were.
> 
> I had difficulty with a lot of post-1950 music at first. I still remember a time when I was listening to Stockhausen's _Kontakte_ under the influence of multiple mind-altering substances and completely "got" it for the first time - I mean that all of my preconceptions and expectations were wiped away so the music didn't sound "weird," I felt like I was hearing _everything_ in the music, and I was not distracted by thoughts.
> 
> A little later it occurred to me - some people must hear music that way _all the time_!
> 
> That's not me, but I'm much closer than I once was.


Greetings Everyone,

I am a new member and I am a person who does respect seniority, traditional etiquette and individuals who are more knowledgeable than me, particularly in the case of "classical" music. And I would have liked to introduce myself in a different way. Even the hint of a suggestion to use hallucinogenic drugs is where I would feel terribly guilty for not jumping in here.

These drugs do alter brain chemistry and the have damaged minds. Unfortunately I have met many people who now feel crippled mentally and emotionally. Their brains (nervous and endocrine systems) are so damaged they that are no longer able to enjoy life and many have lost all sense of reality and have to be institutionalized.

Isn't baroque, classical, romantic and pre-baroque Western music beautiful and exciting enough without dangerously altering are brains?


----------



## Strange Magic

Music is my drug of choice.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Is it true they've legalised marijuana for recreational use in the US? If so..._why?????????_ In Australia we prefer to legalise things like this for medicinal purposes rather than recreation.


----------



## EdwardBast

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Is it true they've legalised marijuana for recreational use in the US? If so..._why?????????_ In Australia we prefer to legalise things like this for medicinal purposes rather than recreation.


Not quite. Only in a few states so far. But the reasons why are easy:

1. If it is illegal, violent criminal organizations profit by it, if it is legal, local farmers and reputable business people do.
2. Why is illegality the default condition for an essentially harmless substance? One does not need reasons for making something legal, one needs reasons for making (or keeping) something illegal. There are no such compelling reasons in the case of marijuana.
3. Obviously, if a substance is legal for recreational use, it is available for anyone needing it medicinally. So your dichotomy is specious.
4. And, of course, because several people above like to listen to music under the influence.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

EdwardBast said:


> 1. If it is illegal, violent criminal organizations profit by it, if it is legal, local farmers and reputable business people do.
> 2. Why is illegality the default condition for an essentially harmless substance? One does not need reasons for making something legal, one needs reasons for making (or keeping) something illegal. There are no such compelling reasons in the case of marijuana.
> 3. Obviously, if a substance is legal for recreational use, it is available for anyone needing it medicinally. So your dichotomy is specious.


Well the best things to do are to legalise and tax these things I suspect. Not all forms of the drug are harmless, but it's much better to have something that has stricter regulations in safe production than have it illegally produced!


----------



## Mahlerian

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Is it true they've legalised marijuana for recreational use in the US? If so..._why?????????_ In Australia we prefer to legalise things like this for medicinal purposes rather than recreation.


The laws are confusing, because at the state level in some states it's decriminalized or legalized for one purpose or another, while at the federal level it's illegal. This contradiction has not yet been resolved.


----------



## Guest

So it's OK as long as you don't inhale?!


----------



## isorhythm

To be clear I don't actually condone hallucinogenic drug use and _definitely_ not for anyone under 21. I was only reporting an experience I had.


----------



## Bulldog

dogen said:


> So it's OK as long as you don't inhale?!


Sure, but it would be a big waste of money; pot isn't cheap.


----------



## quack

Bulldog said:


> Sure, but it would be a big waste of money; pot isn't cheap.


It is a cheap way to appear cool and relaxed while maintaining a politically safe distance from illegality. The quote is a famous bit of lying from Bil Clinton trying to balance as much of the electorate as possible whilst he was trying to attain high (yes I know) office.

What does this have to do with modernism? This is exactly why modernism is such a bad thing, it causes thread drift, continental drift and global warming.


----------



## ArtMusic

I think it would be fascinating for contemporary composers to write some music based on these very current issues like global warming, maybe a choral symphony about these global issues (like Mahler did about humanity in general with some of his symphonies). That would take modernism to the next step.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

ArtMusic said:


> I think it would be fascinating for contemporary composers to write some music based on these very current issues like global warming, maybe a choral symphony about these global issues (like Mahler did about humanity in general with some of his symphonies). That would take modernism to the next step.


Australian composer Brett Dean has composed music for issues such as these. 'Pastoral Symphony' (climate change), 'Fire Music' (after a disastrous bush fire), the clarinet concerto 'Ariel's Music' (in commemoration of a mother and daughter who died of AIDS and was written to raise awareness and concern of things like these) and there are a couple of other pieces worth reading about: 'Game Over' and 'Vexations and Devotions' which I can't remember what exactly they are commenting on, but something or other about society today more generally.


----------



## isorhythm

ArtMusic said:


> I think it would be fascinating for contemporary composers to write some music based on these very current issues like global warming, maybe a choral symphony about these global issues (like Mahler did about humanity in general with some of his symphonies). That would take modernism to the next step.


John Luther Adams' _Become Ocean_ was inspired in part by his concern about global warming, though I'm not sure that this is represented in the music.


----------



## KenOC

I would conclude that JL Adams found global warming quite a tedious and boring subject.


----------



## quack

The other Adams wrote an oratorio about the weather phenomenon _El Niño_ which is tangentially to do with global warming and John Corigliano's first Symphony dealt with the subject of AIDS.


----------



## JosefinaHW

Robert Greenberg's "Invasive Species" ... effects of invasive animals and plants on native species

http://www.robertgreenbergmusic.com/2015/08/25/invasive-species-premiere-performance/


----------



## Guest

I suppose it is a tribute to the essential mysteriousness of music that there is such a strong and persistent effort to talk about anything but musical things, musical things being, by definition, ineffable.

Yeah, that's how to react, with contentment, with satisfaction. Still, talking about music that supposedly conveys abstract, philosophical ideas--something clearly impossible for frequencies and duration to do--does still seem off, somehow. 

I defy anyone one not already primed by the program notes to get anywhere near the putative subject of Greenberg's "Invasive Species" by listening to the music. For one, that's not what music does. Hence the program notes. If music could really do what it is often supposed to be able to do, then there would be no need for program notes, eh?

As a matter of fact, I defy anyone who has read the program notes to seriously and with a straight face hear any of that in the music.

I've heard Corigliano's first symphony many times. I have never once thought about AIDs while doing so, even when encouraged, practically commanded, to do so. As for the Adams, that is an opera/oratorio, so already supplied with words. Only thing is, the words are about the nativity of Jesus, not about a type of weather condition.


----------



## Sloe

some guy said:


> I've heard Corigliano's first symphony many times. I have never once thought about AIDs while doing so, even when encouraged, practically commanded, to do so. As for the Adams, that is an opera/oratorio, so already supplied with words. Only thing is, the words are about the nativity of Jesus, not about a type of weather condition.


The first time I heard Eine Alpensinfonie I had no idea it was about the Alps.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> That would take modernism to the next step.


Would it? I don't understand what you mean by "next step".


----------



## EdwardBast

quack said:


> It is a cheap way to appear cool and relaxed while maintaining a politically safe distance from illegality. The quote is a famous bit of lying from Bil Clinton trying to balance as much of the electorate as possible whilst he was trying to attain high (yes I know) office.


That is one benign interpretation of Clinton's behavior. I suspect he was telling the truth, however, which is far worse. This would mean he was pretending to get high because it was socially acceptable to do so, just as politicians in America pretend to believe in God because it is impossible to get elected if they don't. It would mean he was a vile political weasel even in his youth.


----------



## isorhythm

EdwardBast said:


> That is one benign interpretation of Clinton's behavior. I suspect he was telling the truth, however, which is far worse. This would mean he was pretending to get high because it was socially acceptable to do so, just as politicians in America pretend to believe in God because it is impossible to get elected if they don't. It would mean he was a vile political weasel even in his youth.


Doesn't really matter if he inhaled - the hypocrisy of telling that story while supporting the horrific "war on drugs" is equally repulsive either way.

Responding to some guy's post, I also don't find myself thinking about "extramusical" stuff while actually listening to music most of the time, even if it's program music, but sometimes I may after hearing it.


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> I suppose it is a tribute to the essential mysteriousness of music that there is such a strong and persistent effort to talk about anything but musical things, musical things being, by definition, ineffable.
> 
> Yeah, that's how to react, with contentment, with satisfaction. Still, talking about music that supposedly conveys abstract, philosophical ideas--something clearly impossible for frequencies and duration to do--does still seem off, somehow.
> 
> I defy anyone one not already primed by the program notes to get anywhere near the putative subject of Greenberg's "Invasive Species" by listening to the music. For one, that's not what music does. Hence the program notes. If music could really do what it is often supposed to be able to do, then there would be no need for program notes, eh?
> 
> As a matter of fact, I defy anyone who has read the program notes to seriously and with a straight face hear any of that in the music.
> 
> I've heard Corigliano's first symphony many times. I have never once thought about AIDs while doing so, even when encouraged, practically commanded, to do so. As for the Adams, that is an opera/oratorio, so already supplied with words. Only thing is, the words are about the nativity of Jesus, not about a type of weather condition.


...and yet despite all this, composers have throughout the ages composed music "about" all kinds of things, and their listeners have heard all kinds of things (as prompted, or despite the promptings of their creators) in their music. Just because _you _didn't think "about AIDS" when listening to the Corigliano doesn't invalidate the claim that it was music written in response to the composer's experiences of friends who contracted the condition. Quack's shorthand "dealt with the subject of AIDS" seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable description - a quick response to point out to ArtMusic that modern composers do "deal with issues".


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> ...and yet despite all this, *composers have throughout the ages composed music "about" all kinds of things, and their listeners have heard all kinds of things (as prompted, or despite the promptings of their creators) in their music.* Just because _you _didn't think "about AIDS" when listening to the Corigliano doesn't invalidate the claim that *it was music written in response to the composer's experiences of friends who contracted the condition.* Quack's shorthand "dealt with the subject of AIDS" seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable description - a quick response to point out to ArtMusic that modern composers do "deal with issues".


Yes. Mankind has persisted in the notion that music has the power to evoke, and sometimes almost to articulate, feelings, sensations, impressions, memories, and ideas ranging from the vague and ineffable to the surprisingly definite. Composers have often chosen to direct that power in specific ways by offering words - via titles, commentaries, and programs - in conjunction with sounds. Rarely are such verbal clues meant to constrain any listener from hearing anything he wishes (or nothing at all) in the music to which they're attached. In most cases they simply tell us what the composer's source of inspiration was, and leave the rest to us. That information may, among other things, bring us closer to the composer as a person, telling us what interests and excites him about the sound of horns against strings and why he employs that sound as he does in this particular work. We can participate in sensing what that sound means to him, or have our own feelings about it, or talk with others about what it means to them, as some of us do on this forum. The difficulty of conveying what music evokes for us needn't discourage such talk. For me it only makes the attempt more fascinating and makes the mysterious powers of music more impressive.

Whether we concur with anyone's - including a composer's - impressions of what a piece of music means, the notion that music has the power to mean things seems nearly universal and ineradicable. Why fight it?


----------



## Strange Magic

In the summer of 1903, the 41-year-old Debussy took a cottage in the French wine country, where he set to work on a new orchestral piece inspired by his feelings about the sea. To André Messager he wrote, "I expect you will say that the hills of Burgundy aren't washed by the sea and that what I'm doing is like painting a landscape in a studio, but my memories are endless and are in my opinion worth more than the real thing which tends to pull down one's ideas too much."
That last phrase is a key to this music. While each of its three movements has a descriptive heading, La mer is not an attempt to describe the ocean in sound. Had Richard Strauss written La mer (he would have called it Das Meer), he would have made us hear the thump of waves along the shoreline, the cries of wheeling sea-birds, the hiss of foam across the sand. Debussy's aims were far different. He was interested not in musical scene-painting but in writing music that makes us feel the way we feel in the presence of the ocean; what mattered for Debussy was not the thing itself but his idea of that thing. At the premiere in 1905 the critic Pierre Lalo, misunderstanding Debussy's intentions in this music, complained: "I neither hear, nor see, nor feel the sea." La mer sets out not to make us see white-caps but to awaken in us our own sense of the sea's elemental power and beauty.....

Above taken from a concert program.

I've always loved Pierre Lalo's response, steadfastly failing to find anything evocative of the sea in the music. That remark alone has guaranteed him his own place in musical history. I shudder to think of his reaction to _Nightride and Sunrise._. Let others imagine their own favorites.

Actually I do hear the cry of gulls in La Mer......


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> ...and yet despite all this, composers have throughout the ages composed music "about" all kinds of things


Yes, the scare quotes are key, aren't they? I don't know why this is so difficult. Must be simply that an irrational idea has taken hold, meaning that rationality doesn't stand a chance.

But hey! It's all I've got. Composers are humans, and humans are inspired by all sorts of things and often do all sorts of other things in response. It's not just music. But being inspired by and even labelling one's object with the name of the inspiration is not quite the same as writing music about things. It's kinda like that "dancing to architecture" thing. Which is, I guess what we're doing here. Makes it sound kinda cool, no?



MacLeod said:


> listeners have heard all kinds of things (as prompted, or despite the promptings of their creators) in their music.


Yeah, and I'm about to take this up with another poster. (Wait for it...!)



MacLeod said:


> Just because _you _didn't think "about AIDS" when listening to the Corigliano doesn't invalidate the claim that it was music written in response to the composer's experiences of friends who contracted the condition.


And no one has claimed that it does, least of all me. You've just put two things together that have no logical connection, making me out to have claimed a causal connection that I never made. Of course it was music written in response to the composer's experiences.



MacLeod said:


> Quack's shorthand "dealt with the subject of AIDS" seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable description.


And I've explained why I disagree.



Woodduck said:


> Yes. Mankind has persisted in the notion that music has the power to evoke, and sometimes almost to articulate, feelings, sensations, impressions, memories, and ideas ranging from the vague and ineffable to the surprisingly definite.


Indeed. And clouds have this same power, as do inkblots and the moon (everyone can see a face there effortlessly) and other rocks as well.



Woodduck said:


> Composers have often chosen to direct that power in specific ways by offering words - via titles, commentaries, and programs - in conjunction with sounds. Rarely are such verbal clues meant to constrain any listener from hearing anything he wishes (or nothing at all) in the music to which they're attached. In most cases they simply tell us what the composer's source of inspiration was, and leave the rest to us.


Something about sweeping generalizations makes them quite literally breathtaking. But I agree that words tell us little more than what the source of inspiration was--a quite remarkably different kind of thing from music depicting things. Strauss was simply wrong about his ability to describe with pitches and rhythms.



Woodduck said:


> That information may, among other things, bring us closer to the composer as a person


Perhaps its having a number of composers as friends, but I find that what brings me closer to a composer as a person is knocking back a few in the bar or holding the new baby for awhile while mom takes a nap or washing dishes together while the game is on the telly.



Woodduck said:


> telling us what interests and excites him about the sound of horns against strings and why he employs that sound as he does in this parrticular work.


For example? I cannot for the life of me think of any titles or programs which give anything like this kind of information. The piece will give that, all on its own.



Woodduck said:


> We can participate in sensing what that sound means to him, or have our own feelings about it, or talk with others about what it means to them, as some of us do on this forum. The difficulty of conveying what music evokes for us needn't discourage such talk. For me it only makes the attempt more fascinating and makes the mysterious powers of music more impressive.


Ah, so we are agreed. Our disagreements are a normal part of engaging in conversation.



Woodduck said:


> Whether we concur with anyone's - including a composer's - impressions of what a piece of music means, the notion that music has the power to mean things seems nearly universal and ineradicable. Why fight it?


Racism seems nearly universal and ineradicable, too. Still worth fighting though.

In any case, it's not so much "music doesn't mean anything" as it is "music's meaning are not verbal meanings but musical ones." But we've gone over that bit of ground before, and nothing's changed. The seduction is complete: we understand meaning as it is conveyed by words. We can describe non-verbal things with words. And "hey presto," suddenly non-verbal things are expressing meaning just like words do.

But they don't. If they did, it would be redundant. Like I said just a few posts back, if music could convey meanings as well as words, then why the programs to explain what the music "means"? It's because music does not do that that engenders the desire, the need, to use words to explain something that's not explainable except by being performed. I think Heine was correct in saying the where words leave off, music begins, but damned if we don't expend an unconscionable amount of effort in pulling music back down to where the words haven't left off, yet.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> In the summer of 1903, the 41-year-old Debussy took a cottage in the French wine country, where he set to work on a new orchestral piece inspired by his feelings about the sea. To André Messager he wrote, "I expect you will say that the hills of Burgundy aren't washed by the sea and that what I'm doing is like painting a landscape in a studio, but my memories are endless and are in my opinion worth more than the real thing which tends to pull down one's ideas too much."
> That last phrase is a key to this music. While each of its three movements has a descriptive heading, La mer is not an attempt to describe the ocean in sound. Had Richard Strauss written La mer (he would have called it Das Meer), he would have made us hear the thump of waves along the shoreline, the cries of wheeling sea-birds, the hiss of foam across the sand. Debussy's aims were far different. He was interested not in musical scene-painting but in writing music that makes us feel the way we feel in the presence of the ocean; what mattered for Debussy was not the thing itself but his idea of that thing. At the premiere in 1905 the critic Pierre Lalo, misunderstanding Debussy's intentions in this music, complained: "I neither hear, nor see, nor feel the sea." La mer sets out not to make us see white-caps but to awaken in us our own sense of the sea's elemental power and beauty.....
> 
> Above taken from a concert program.
> 
> I've always loved Pierre Lalo's response, steadfastly failing to find anything evocative of the sea in the music. That remark alone has guaranteed him his own place in musical history. I shudder to think of his reaction to _Nightride and Sunrise._. Let others imagine their own favorites.
> 
> Actually I do hear the cry of gulls in La Mer......


And the shimmer of sunlight on the water, and...


----------



## violadude

Wow, this thread doesn't have much joy or modernism in it.

The last piece I listened to that could probably be considered modernism was the opera Salome by Richard Strauss. It was my first time listening to it and I really liked it, although I think I may still like Elektra better but I'm more familiar with the latter. Something like a Strauss opera needs more than a couple listens to really sink in. The most joy I got from listening to it was in the final half an hour or so. Salome's gradual descent into madness is crushingly intense. 

I was also really surprised that such a dark and psychological opera actually got a good hearty laugh out of me. The part where Herod's advisers are all simultaneously bickering about what their idea of God and the supernatural is was quite a funny moment and very true to real life, imo.


----------



## Woodduck

_Some guy writes:_

Being inspired by and even labelling one's object with the name of the inspiration is not quite the same as writing music about things.

No, but it doesn't rule it out. Why do composers bother to tell us what inspired them? Why isn't _La Mer_ just called "Symphony #1"? Why isn't _The Isle of the Dead_ just called "Fantasia in One Movement"? (Oops! "Fantasia" might be kind of "about" something too!)

Clouds have this same power, as do inkblots and the moon (everyone can see a face there effortlessly) and other rocks as well.

But music, like painting and dance but unlike clouds and rocks, is the product of purposeful human activity and embodies all sorts of human intentions. What might that purpose and those intentions entail? Simply amusing our brains with interesting patterns, like clouds drifting by? Or something more? Something, perhaps, of importance to the composer, and something that may move listeners profoundly, something that taps into things - emotions, feelings, sensations, memories, and ideas - things to which it is uniquely the province of the arts to give perceptible form?

I agree that words tell us little more than what the source of inspiration was--a quite remarkably different kind of thing from music depicting things. Strauss was simply wrong about his ability to describe with pitches and rhythms.

No one has said that music actually "depicts" things. Meaning is not synonymous with "depiction," or even verbal expression. We use words and pictures - and music - to _express_ what we mean, but some meaning must be there first. To say that music can "mean" or be "about" something does not imply that music and words, or music and pictures, are interchangeable. I don't think anyone holds that to be true - not even Strauss. But neither are music's means of expression wholly non-representational. The question is: what can music, the "abstract" forms of music, represent - _re_-_present_, present in symbolic form - and how does it convey what it represents to us?

In any case, it's not so much "music doesn't mean anything" as it is "music's meaning are not verbal meanings but musical ones."

What are "musical meanings"? If they exist, they must be more than structural relationships between sounds. That is merely pattern, not meaning. "Meaning" is a useless concept unless it represents a relationship between things and things unlike themselves: something that has meaning points to something else of a different kind. What does music point to? What is it "about"? Why do people all over the world feel that it's about something? Is this a mere idle fancy, like seeing a face in the moon? Or is music experienced as something arranged purposefully under the prompting of some meaning felt or intended by the composer, and is a performance of music experienced as an act of expression - a conveyance of meaning - by a pianist or conductor?

If music could convey meanings as well as words, then why the programs to explain what the music "means"? It's because music does not do that that engenders the desire, the need, to use words to explain something that's not explainable except by being performed.

Certainly music can't convey a great many things words can, but it isn't its primary job to do so. There's a vast area of phenomena, both psychological and physical, to which both music and words can point - words purely by convention, music by structural analogue and the perceived qualities of sounds themselves. I don't think this capacity of music - its capacity to mirror, and then to evoke, elements of our psychological and physical experience of living by presenting to our brains forms analogous to those elements, should be underestimated. The title "Eroica" isn't the only thing heroic about Beethoven's 3rd, nor the title "Missa Solemnis" the only thing solemn about his mass.

Of course Beethoven knew that his symphony had expressive qualities far more complex than "heroism" (not that heroism is simple!), and the mass qualities far more complex than "solemnity." The titles aren't there to limit our perception or to compel us to hear anything we don't want to hear in these works. They merely tell us something that was significant to Beethoven in his own thinking about them. But there are real reasons why they are fitting titles. There are real things in the music that justify them. Those works are not clouds or rocks at which we stare and daydream. The fascinating question, the question to answer, is: why aren't they?

(Another fascinating question: how did we get off on this subject? Well, at least it's more relevant than marijuana laws.)


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> And no one has claimed that it does, least of all me. You've just put two things together that have no logical connection, making me out to have claimed a causal connection that I never made. Of course it was music written in response to the composer's experiences.


You might do more than point out that I've misunderstood and explain what you meant by - and the implications of



> I've heard Corigliano's first symphony many times. I have never once thought about AIDs while doing so, even when encouraged, practically commanded, to do so.


----------



## Nereffid

MacLeod said:


> You might do more than point out that I've misunderstood and explain what you meant by - and the implications of
> 
> I've heard Corigliano's first symphony many times. I have never once thought about AIDs while doing so, even when encouraged, practically commanded, to do so.


Perhaps composers could, _as part of the score for their work_, include a brief spoken introduction in which a performer instructs the audience what nonmusical things they should be thinking about during the performance. The diligent listener might then feel obliged!


----------



## isorhythm

some guy,

I think one of the basic disagreements between you and many others here, including me, in various threads, is that you want music to be totally separate from its social context.

For you, when we listen to music, we switch into "music-listening mode," which is wholly "ineffable," and when the music stops we switch back and go about our lives.

This doesn't make sense to me.

Corigliano's music can't make the listener think about AIDS. Much program music can't really evoke particular thoughts in the listener (though maybe some of it can, sometimes). But that's not the point. The music exists in a social context. We know who Corigliano is and to whom he dedicated the symphony. We live in a society in which we care about other people. We are socially, culturally and politically aware. We have friends and family and talk about things with them.

Enter music: we go to a concert or put on a record. There is indeed something ineffable about the experience. But at the same time we don't stop being ourselves. We talk about the music after we've heard it. It leaves some kind of emotional impression on us and we think about that. If we know the composer has dedicated his piece to victims of AIDS, that informs our thoughts and feelings.

The idea that music is only ineffable, totally divorced from the rest of life, was rejected especially strongly by the Modernists (pre-WWII) who are the ostensible subject of this thread. Just read Adorno on music, for example.

Religious music is a whole other field that I think undermines your position pretty seriously - what was Bach doing writing on well-known hymn tunes all the time? - but I won't go into it here.


----------



## Guest

isorhythm said:


> I think one of the basic disagreements between you and many others here, including me, in various threads, is that you want music to be totally separate from its social context.


A common error. Nothing is totally separate from anything else. Everything is connected. Indeed, I just wrote a post saying that obviously Corigliano wrote his first symphony as a response to AIDs.

It's maybe easier to contradict my ideas by making up things that look similar but are quite different, but I prefer that you contradict what I've actually said rather than things that don't even come close to what I actually think.



isorhythm said:


> For you, when we listen to music, we switch into "music-listening mode," which is wholly "ineffable," and when the music stops we switch back and go about our lives.
> 
> This doesn't make sense to me.


To me, either. Are you sure you're not thinking of someone else? I never switch, probably because I'm always in music-listening mode. I just don't need something composed by another person to trigger that mode.



isorhythm said:


> The music exists in a social context. We know who Corigliano is and to whom he dedicated the symphony. We live in a society in which we care about other people. We are socially, culturally and politically aware. We have friends and family and talk about things with them.


Well, _we_ exist in a social context, and part of that context is music.



isorhythm said:


> The idea that music is only ineffable, totally divorced from the rest of life, was rejected especially strongly by the Modernists (pre-WWII) who are the ostensible subject of this thread. Just read Adorno on music, for example.


I was using "ineffable" in that previous post just a smidge sarcastically, but in all seriousness, the word means that it's difficult if not impossible to talk about the thing, to describe it with words.



isorhythm said:


> Religious music is a whole other field that I think undermines your position pretty seriously - what was Bach doing writing on well-known hymn tunes all the time? - but I won't go into it here.


I have no confidence at the moment that you understand what my position is. But a composer of music using other pieces of music is pretty ordinary and certainly has little or nothing to do with anything else going on in this thread. "I'm writing music and in the process using music that someone else has written" doesn't seem to take us away from music at all.


----------



## isorhythm

You're right - I don't understand your position. Can music be "about" anything or not? If not, what is the relevance of its social context? Is it not relevant at all? If it is relevant, how?

Earlier you suggested that the idea that music could mean anything was worth fighting to eradicate, like racism, so I'm puzzled.


----------



## arpeggio

It is discouraging when people accuse me of believing in something I do not believe in.

I am guilty of being a weak writer and I do a poor job of expressing myself.

It seems to me that some of the conflicts that I have had with other members is that based on my experiences that I have yet to find an objective definition of what constitutes great music. I have searched for one. Whenever I think I have found one I discover many exceptions. I remember one which determined that _Carmina Burana_ was a piece of junk. Since this one of my favorites, that theory went into the waste basket. As a result I am skeptical of most discussions concerning why this work or recording is great and these other ones are not.

There are some members who believe that the greatest music was composed in the 18th and 19th centuries. If they want to concentrate their time following the music from this period that is their right. In spite of our diverse tastes for many of us our favorite composers come from these centuries. We frequently run into members who love Beethoven and hate Schoenberg. If one takes the time to follow these discussions one rarely runs into someone who loves Schoenberg and hates Beethoven. (Note: there are a few out there.)

The problems arise when a person thinks that his aesthetics are definitive and everyone else's is wrong.


----------



## Guest

isorythm, you'll very sweetly not be expecting me to go over the same ground again, will you?

I'll just say this, whatever we say when we say that a text means something, music's meanings are quite different. Not that music does not have meaning. It most definitely does. But its meaning are musical ones, not linguistic ones. No one makes this fundamental error with dance or with sculpture or with painting, though non-representational painting does come in for a fair share of the "that looks like a house" and "that looks like a dolphin" kinda thing. And, as with music, non-representational painting is not some kind of parlor game for guessing what it "means," with that meaning expressible in words.

Again (damn, I AM going over the same ground again, aren't I?), if anything in a piece of music or in a work of the plastic arts could be expressed with words, then why do the painting or the music? It's because whatever music is "expressing" (and I'm pretty sure that's the wrong word), it's not something that can be translated into words, and any attempt to try to do so is drawing attention away from the music and what the music is.

Nothing about whether or not music is a part of society. Of course it is.

Nor is that to say that evocative titles or detailed program notes are completely useless and misguided, though it's tempting to say so, I must say.:lol:


----------



## Strange Magic

some guy said:


> Nor is that to say that evocative titles or detailed program notes are completely useless and misguided, though it's tempting to say so, I must say.:lol:


What are we to make of composers alleging that they have a "program" or suchlike for some particular work? Are we to say "Yeah, Sure" as we crumple up their testimony to that effect, and throw it into the wastebasket? What was Vivaldi about with those Seasons notes? Tchaikovsky and the 4th? I remember reading about Rachmaninoff being slightly puzzled that Respighi failed to take Rach's offer to tell him of the inner program of the Etudes-Tableaux that Respighi had been commissioned to orchestrate. Just asking......


----------



## Woodduck

If the only question raised by this discussion is the question of whether it's the function of music to describe the world in a concrete, literal way and to make assertions about it such as words do, then the obvious answer is: "No, that isn't what music does." But has anyone even suggested that it is? And if no one has, then what, exactly, are we arguing about?

We strayed into talking about what music can mean as a result of a few people suggesting that modern composers might "deal with" certain subjects, or pointing out ones who already have. That seems reasonable, doesn't it? Composers have considered themselves as dealing with all sorts of subjects, presumably, since music was first thought of as an art. That fact doesn't, by itself, raise the difficult questions of whether and how music can express or convey "meaning," and what kinds of meaning it might convey. These questions have come up before on TC, and the discussion has gone on for much longer than it probably will this time around. Yet here we are again. 

Not that I'm complaining. I don't think that "here" is a bad place to be. Actually I love this subject. And whether we get anywhere in particular with it, I think it's safe to say that we've barely scratched the surface of it. Leonard B. Meyer certainly thought it was worth trying to get beneath the surface in 1956 when he wrote his classic "Emotion and Meaning in Music," which I read back in the 1980s, and which made a powerful impression on me, getting me thinking in more defined ways about the ineffable art of music. If music was effable enough (sorry!) for Meyer to write such a brilliant and still relevant book about how music does for us what it does, talking about it here may not be a waste, even if we're bumping around in the dark a good deal of the time. I plan to read Meyer's book again - I've just ordered a copy (used, cheap on Amazon) and I recommend it highly.

Tangential as this subject may be to the thread topic of Modernism, I did think this morning of a connection between the issue of meaning in music and an observation often made here by people learning to enjoy contemporary music (or for that matter any music they've previously not appreciated). People say that, at a certain point in their listening, they "get" a piece or style of music - that it somehow now makes sense to them - and sometimes even that they now love what they previously disliked. "Getting" something can mean more than one thing; it might just mean that they see how a piece is made and that it no longer seems incoherent, or it might mean that after enough exposure it no longer sounds strange or ugly to them. But beyond these things there is a level of "getting" which might be expressed as "getting at": they feel they know what the composer is "getting at," or saying to them. They sense a meaning in what before seemed meaningless, or at best cryptic. There is the presumption here that music can carry certain meanings to us, whether or not we can find any equivalence to those meanings in words. 

Music may not be language, but it seems able to tap into things within us that can also find some expression in language. And should we be surprised that the various means we have for expressing our inner experience should overlap? Or that the different arts, coming to us through different sensory pathways and faculties of the mind, should find places within us where they meet and affirm the same truths?


----------



## Strange Magic

Three cheers for Leonard Meyer; maybe four! Music lovers with the fortitude to wade through some particularly dense argument will find much within his works to nourish them. As before, I can especially recommend Meyer's _Music, the Arts, and Ideas_, wherein one will find a briefer exposition of Meyer's original work on our response to music as a function of expectations thwarted and fulfilled, and also can indulge themselves in Meyer's exposition of contemporary cultural stasis. It's a twofer.

I am hoping that some guy will favor us with his explanation of why the aforementioned composers, and so many others, did go on so about "programs" and such.


----------



## Mahlerian

arpeggio said:


> In spite of our diverse tastes for many of us our favorite composers come from these centuries. We frequently run into members who love Beethoven and hate Schoenberg. If one takes the time to follow these discussions one rarely runs into someone who loves Schoenberg and hates Beethoven. (Note: there are a few out there.)


Despite the differences of period style, there's a lot for a fan of one in the music of the other. Personally, I find it far easier to understand someone loving Varese or loving Ravel and hating Beethoven.


----------



## Blancrocher

Incidentally, I'd add that there are also some of us--like me--who often enjoy music for the wrong reasons. Sometimes I'll develop an extra-musical association with a piece of music and indulge it. For example, I've recently taken to listening to various, longish "avant-garde" pieces that remind me of the Tarkovsky/Solaris soundtrack, and I zone in and out of them daydreaming about space (just like I'll sometimes zone in and out of Tarkovsky movies thinking about other things than what's happening on the screen). It's not these composers' fault that their music reminds me of sci fi films, I'm sure. It's neither dignified nor defensible, but I like it. 

If this is the kind of crap some guy is attacking, I can't say I blame him! :lol:


----------



## Dim7

Since this is supposed to be a SFW website I won't go into details what I imagine when listening to Mozart.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> What attitudes? It was a hypothetical, of course! As stated. Do you really think I would rejoice at the roasting of contemporary composers?* Nay, never would I leave their loving mates and children without a provider, for that would be too, too cruel!
> 
> *Added: I live in an air quality non-attainment area, and a permit for roasting humans would certainly be required. I doubt that one would be issued.


It reminds me of other "barbeques."

~


----------



## violadude

isorhythm said:


> some guy,
> 
> I think one of the basic disagreements between you and many others here, including me, in various threads, is that you want music to be totally separate from its social context.
> 
> For you, when we listen to music, we switch into "music-listening mode," which is wholly "ineffable," and when the music stops we switch back and go about our lives.
> 
> This doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> Corigliano's music can't make the listener think about AIDS. Much program music can't really evoke particular thoughts in the listener (though maybe some of it can, sometimes). But that's not the point. The music exists in a social context. We know who Corigliano is and to whom he dedicated the symphony. We live in a society in which we care about other people. We are socially, culturally and politically aware. We have friends and family and talk about things with them.
> 
> Enter music: we go to a concert or put on a record. There is indeed something ineffable about the experience. But at the same time we don't stop being ourselves. We talk about the music after we've heard it. It leaves some kind of emotional impression on us and we think about that. If we know the composer has dedicated his piece to victims of AIDS, that informs our thoughts and feelings.
> 
> The idea that music is only ineffable, totally divorced from the rest of life, was rejected especially strongly by the Modernists (pre-WWII) who are the ostensible subject of this thread. Just read Adorno on music, for example.
> 
> Religious music is a whole other field that I think undermines your position pretty seriously - what was Bach doing writing on well-known hymn tunes all the time? - but I won't go into it here.


I don't disagree with this. But personally, I usually choose to ignore those kind of extra-musical associations because for me they are just distracting most of the time. When I learn that some music is supposed to be a piece "about" WWII (for example), my brain spends way too much time trying to "decode" all the extra-musical meanings (does this part represent the bombs? is this part supposed to be gun shots? etc.). I find it more beneficial for me, and I get more out of the music, when I divorce it from extra-musical associations. For that reason, I usually listen to tone poems as if they are absolute music too.

I don't find myself caring about extra-musical associations much either. Maybe they inform my opinion subconciously, but on the surface my opinion about a piece doesn't seem to be very much informed by them. I don't make up my own extra-musical associations either (I.e. This Beethoven piece reminds me of the first time I kissed a girl). I tend to think of music in fairly abstract terms and actually find myself a little uncomfortable trying to apply anything more specific to it. I don't know why that is. Just the way my brain works I guess.


----------



## millionrainbows

TxllxT said:


> 1922:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2015:
> Modernism, postmodernism, hypermodernism, metamodernism, post-postmodernism (source: Wikipedia)


Actually, this is not that laughably archaic, since all art embodies its empowering ideology. Thus, "Tonality is God," and the slow departure from tonality embodies the more rational, scientific, relative, view of secular thinking. 
Messiaen is key to modernism not only in that way, but in the fact that he "de-Westernizes" music's syntax, all the while clothing it in the garb of Catholic Mysticism. A wolf in sheep's clothing, no doubt, which Boulez and his gang embraced in their quest to "de-Europeanize" or "de-Westernize" the musical paradigm.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> Actually, this is not that laughably archaic, since all art embodies its empowering ideology. Thus, "Tonality is God," and the slow departure from tonality embodies the more rational, scientific, relative, view of secular thinking.
> Messiaen is key to modernism not only in that way, but in the fact that he "de-Westernizes" music's syntax, all the while clothing it in the garb of Catholic Mysticism. A wolf in sheep's clothing, no doubt, which Boulez and his gang embraced in their quest to "de-Europeanize" or "de-Westernize" the musical paradigm.


I don't think the person drawing the cartoon was thinking of musical modernism.


----------



## Sloe

violadude said:


> When I learn that some music is supposed to be a piece "about" WWII (for example), my brain spends way too much time trying to "decode" all the extra-musical meanings (does this part represent the bombs? is this part supposed to be gun shots? etc.).


Those parts would at least be easy to decode.
A symphony about AIDS would be impossible to decode.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> One thing that has surprised me about my time at TC is how old-fashioned our attitudes appear to be. An awful lot of people seem to be stuck in the era of modernism (1890ish to 1968ish), ranting against the new art, using exactly the same words that people were using a century ago.
> 
> Many others seem to be stuck at the same time, ranting against the philistines who don't appreciate the new art, using exactly the same words that people were using a century ago.
> 
> One thing that I've argued over and over and over, and will probably have to do so again: these attitudes (against or in favor of modernism) are out of date, not just because fashions change but because they no longer actually work so well as social strategies. I'm trying to do y'all a favor: it's time for you to embrace a postmodern attitude to the arts. It will work better for you. You will have richer friends, younger lovers, older wines, warmer sunshines, wetter rains, and better experiences as _consumers_ of the artistic _commodities_ through which you _choose_ - consciously or not - to construct your identities.


This can be confusing, since many traditional listeners seem to view classical music as a museum, which is stuck in time. This seems to me to be where the largest part of the blame lies, not in an outdated dialectic of tradition vs. modernism. One is static, stuck in the past, while the other is at least open to progress and the new.

In other words, don't lump me in with those who are stuck in the past. It should be obvious by now that one is static, and the other is flexible.

With minimalism, we are confronted with a new kind of post-modernism which is very tone-centered and simple, which is at odds with what we used to think of as "modernism" or serial; in fact, Steve Reich has voiced his opposition to that kind of "creepy" music called serialism.

Yet, I like minimalism and its music and composers as a "modernist," and am amused by the traditionalist criticism it regularly receives. This proves a point: that "traditionalism" and "Modernism" are both convenient abstractions, which do not concern the actual music itself, but the ideologies represented by each faction. What we have here is not a "battle of musics," but a battle of ideologies which music embodies.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> The majority of my listening is (easily) 20th century, but to think that "modern" has some virtue in itself is, it seems to me, a sadly deluded viewpoint. It's music, folks. Bach and the others lack nothing by not being "modern," a term more fitted to advertising than art.


Yes, and I see a lot of "advertising" of ideologies going on. Have fun playing with that.


----------



## Woodduck

violadude said:


> I don't disagree with this. But personally, I usually choose to ignore those kind of extra-musical associations because for me they are just distracting most of the time. When I learn that some music is supposed to be a piece "about" WWII (for example), my brain spends way too much time trying to "decode" all the extra-musical meanings (does this part represent the bombs? is this part supposed to be gun shots? etc.). I find it more beneficial for me, and I get more out of the music, when I divorce it from extra-musical associations. For that reason, I usually listen to tone poems as if they are absolute music too.
> 
> I don't find myself caring about extra-musical associations much either. Maybe they inform my opinion subconciously, but on the surface my opinion about a piece doesn't seem to be very much informed by them. I don't make up my own extra-musical associations either (I.e. This Beethoven piece reminds me of the first time I kissed a girl). I tend to think of music in fairly abstract terms and actually find myself a little uncomfortable trying to apply anything more specific to it. I don't know why that is. Just the way my brain works I guess.


There are many facets to the mental processes involved in listening to music. I suspect that musicians, especially composers, may have little interest in extramusical associations when listening, because they're more aware of the qualities and nuances of sound and structure and find those things so fascinating in themselves that they just find other stuff distracting, as you say. Being a musician myself, I tend to listen more "abstractly" too. On the other hand, as a visual artist, that part of my brain is quite easily activated, and I perceive significant connections, even specific correlations, between the aesthetic qualities of aural and visual phenomena. This dual nature may account for my early and powerful attraction to certain composers, e.g. Sibelius and Wagner, whose music is not only interestingly made but highly evocative, at times almost multi-sensory in its effect. I think this quality in their music is very widely perceived by people, and represents in their cases a striking artistic achievement intended to be heard and enjoyed as such.

I don't believe that in most cases composers who do specify certain extramusical associations for certain works actually want us to be thinking at a conscious level about, say, spring or war or whatever while listening. They may plant a certain concept in our minds which was in theirs at some point in the conception or creation of the piece, but they do want us to appreciate what they're doing musically and are happy to leave to us how we deal with the title or program. Maybe Strauss and his bleating sheep in _Don Quixote_ are an exception, but then there isn't much else there for the sheep to distract us from. It would be nice to know what breed of sheep they are.


----------



## violadude

Woodduck said:


> It would be nice to know what breed of sheep they are.


Demon sheep. That's what breed.


----------



## isorhythm

some guy said:


> I'll just say this, whatever we say when we say that a text means something, music's meanings are quite different. Not that music does not have meaning. It most definitely does. But its meaning are musical ones, not linguistic ones.


I don't accept this sharp qualitative distinction between musical and linguistic meanings. All meaning is unstable and contingent. All signifiers refer to all other signifiers. That's the root of the disagreement.

What do you make of the relationship between music and text in vocal music?


----------



## Woodduck

violadude said:


> Demon sheep. That's what breed.


You're scaring me.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

. .


----------



## isorhythm

Let us pause to reflect on the fact that the woman behind this classic "demon sheep" ad is now a candidate for U.S. president:


----------



## violadude

isorhythm said:


> Let us pause to reflect on the fact that the woman behind this classic "demon sheep" ad is now a candidate for U.S. president:


Hey, that's nothing considering the people leading that party are a brain-dead brain-surgeon and a guy that may be, quite literally, a fascist.

Oh, sorry...not the place for politics. My bad.


----------



## Woodduck

violadude said:


> Hey, that's nothing considering the people leading that party are a brain-dead brain-surgeon and a guy that may be, quite literally, a fascist.
> 
> Oh, sorry...not the place for politics. My bad.


Perhaps, instead of talking about political sheep, you could write a joyful modernist cantata about them.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> People say that, at a certain point in their listening, they "get" a piece or style of music - that it somehow now makes sense to them - and sometimes even that they now love what they previously disliked. "Getting" something can mean more than one thing; it might just mean that they see how a piece is made and that it no longer seems incoherent, or it might mean that after enough exposure it no longer sounds strange or ugly to them. But beyond these things there is a level of "getting" which might be expressed as "getting at": they feel they know what the composer is "getting at," or saying to them.


Exactly so - all three, in fact, in my case. The only thing that undermines the idea that I might have "got it" is that the shape of the music (the shape that I perceive, that is - I don't mean to imply the shape that everyone must see once they've got it) continues to change over time. The Sibelius Symphony No 7 I listened to last night (after shifting the living room furniture and moving my Tannoy Speakers to a less than ideal position) was not the same symphony I listened to in the summer when I thought I'd 'got it'.



Woodduck said:


> Music may not be language, but it seems able to tap into things within us that can also find some expression in language. And should we be surprised that the various means we have for expressing our inner experience should overlap? Or that the different arts, coming to us through different sensory pathways and faculties of the mind, should find places within us where they meet and affirm the same truths?


Music may not be language - but I find many similarities with language and it seems to me that some composers have used it as if it is. Not that this is relevant to whether music is 'ineffable', (assuming I'm taking the meaning of this word correctly, of course.)


----------



## science

The comparison of music to language is really interesting despite its limitations; but even thinking about this kind of thing is an example of modernism (which postmodernism didn't discard) - and the joy of this thought is part of the joy of modernism.

Personally, I suspect that we generally underestimate the complexity of language and misunderstand the nature of communication so much that they usually can't make very enlightening metaphors to music. For example, when we think of language we usually don't intend to include nonverbal communication (a category that ordinarily excludes "sign language"), let alone subconscious nonverbal communication - oversights that compromise our understanding of language, and any analogy between language and music or anything else. Nor do we usually consider that much and maybe most of human "communication" appears to be grooming or social posturing rather than transmitting information. 

But maybe we want to consider the possibility that the sort of "language" that music might be has more in common with nonverbal communication than with the sort of language that has vocabulary, grammar, and syntax. I don't know how that would go....


----------



## EdwardBast

Strange Magic said:


> I remember reading about Rachmaninoff being slightly puzzled that Respighi failed to take Rach's offer to tell him of the inner program of the Etudes-Tableaux that Respighi had been commissioned to orchestrate. Just asking......


I wonder if that is why those orchestrations are so bad?  And I think Rachmaninoff complained that the score was full of wrong notes when the orchestrations were published.


----------



## Dim7

Tristan und Isolde is modern.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Große Fuge is modern.


----------



## isorhythm

Didn't a number of Romantic composers have "secret programs" for their works?

It seems like this could be a way for the composer to ensure that the work is dramatically and psychologically coherent, without ever sharing it with the audience.


----------



## Strange Magic

The aforementioned Rachmaninoff asserted that he had secret programs for the Etudes-Tableaux; whether he had them for other works, I know not. One can assume that he did, I think.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Does the "postmodern" attitude to art include sacrificing the artist to the pyre of competition for our nonartists' pleasure? Maybe throw in a few bolts into their rise of self-actualization, because you know how it works. The more pain inflicted on the artist outside their will, the better the art.


----------



## EdwardBast

Strange Magic said:


> The aforementioned Rachmaninoff asserted that he had secret programs for the Etudes-Tableaux; whether he had them for other works, I know not. One can assume that he did, I think.


His First Symphony is prefaced by the epigram from Tolstoy's Anna Karenina: "Vengeance is mine, thus sayeth the Lord." (Not sure if that is the exact wording.) It is likely, therefore, that the symphony is based loosely, that is, in the same sense that Tchaikovsky's Romeo and Juliet is based on Shakespeare, on Tolstoy's novel. (Rachmaninoff actually met the author, whom he revered, as a teen.) The opening turn figure is the vengeance motive, the second theme of the first movement is Anna's theme, and Lord knows what the first theme is supposed to be. This interpretation of the Anna theme makes sense because it uses the traditional "gypsy" scale, with two augmented seconds, and Rachmaninoff had had an unhappy affair with a (married?) woman of that ethnicity shortly before the symphony's composition. So I'd guess he conflated this floozy with Tolstoy's Anna and took revenge on both of them, with Tolstoy's help, in the symphony. This is probably why in the coda of the finale, the Anna theme is dragged down into the depths (of hell :devil and blasted by the brass reiterating the vengeance motive.

His other symphonies don't really require a literal program since they employ the same "narrative design" as Tchaikvoksy's Fourth and Fifth, along with numerous other romantic symphonies, roughly, dark to light, struggle to triumph, whatever. Like Tchaikovsky (see his "programs" for his 4, 5, and 6, R&J, Francesaca da Rimini, and so on) the second themes of Rachmaninoff's opening movements seem to represent an unattainable ideal --except that in four of his best multimovement works (Symphonies 2 and 3, the Third Piano Concerto, and the Second Piano Sonata, he builds the triumphant themes of his finales from these first movement themes, thus perfecting Tchaikovsky's multimovement formal strategies by more fully carrying through the implications of the first movements. What Tchaikovsky had generally left unfulfilled, Rachmaninoff brought to fruition in his finales.

Oh yeah, I forgot, his First Piano Sonata is supposedly based on Goethe's Faust, with each of three movements devoted to a major character (Faust, Gretchen, and Mephistopheles).


----------



## science

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Does the "postmodern" attitude to art include sacrificing the artist to the pyre of competition for our nonartists' pleasure? Maybe throw in a few bolts into their rise of self-actualization, because you know how it works. The more pain inflicted on the artist outside their will, the better the art.


That sounds romantic or modernist to me.


----------

