# The Classical Music Hoaxes



## Serge

Considering the unprecedented ambitiousness of the project, there just have got to be some, hardly a doubt about it.

I mean: John Cage’s 4’33”, Stockhausen’s Kontakte, Messiaen’s Turangalila-Symphonie?.. (Symphonie?) C’mon, people!

What others can you think of? Don’t be shy folks, we are just fighting back.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Lol, these are fighting words for a few in the community. I hope you are ready.


----------



## Glaliraha

I don't understand why you consider those pieces to be hoaxes. What do you mean when you call a piece a hoax?


----------



## Pieck

Philip Glass, and Minimalism in general


----------



## Manxfeeder

Maybe Rosemary Brown's Unfinished Symphonies would qualify for a hoax. Although I think she was serious about channeling long-dead composers.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Get ready to defend why you think four minutes of silence isn't genuine artistic expression. Through the looking glass.


----------



## Pieck

Xenakis, He didnt really paid attention to what notes he's writing


----------



## Vaneyes

I don't think anything matches the breadth of the Joyce Hatto hoax.

http://www.pristineclassical.com/HattoHoax.html

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


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Serge said:


> Considering the unprecedented ambitiousness of the project, there just have got to be some, hardly a doubt about it.


Yes. There are _absolutely_ some- and we don't even have to blatantly court controversy to discuss them.

Two words: "Joyce" "Hatto." 
(pre-edit: I see 'Van' brought this up seconds before me...:tiphat

There's another pretty famous one- the Fritz Kreisler "musical forgeries" that he attributed to (most notably) Vivaldi and Tartini.

Those should suffice, for openers.


----------



## clavichorder

Romantic Geek said:


> Lol, these are fighting words for a few in the community. I hope you are ready.


We can indeed be a quarrelsome lot. Often nothing ever comes out of it. Them's fightin' words!

And here we go with it: I'm interpreting this post as a step further on music you think is stupid or horrible, though legitimate points have been made about actual hoaxes. I have to laugh when I think of Messiaen's Baby Jesus Glances. I still look back with pain on the experience I had with his so called orchestral bird calls at the symphony. Messiaen is my most hated composer, he is my scapegoat.

Back to feigning maturity and open mindedness now, very poorly.


----------



## Serge

Glaliraha said:


> I don't understand why you consider those pieces to be hoaxes. What do you mean when you call a piece a hoax?


Have you heard them? Well, one of those cannot even be heard, but the other two can. That doesn't help much though, since the feeling that I get is still as if someone was pulling my leg.


----------



## Serge

regressivetransphobe said:


> Get ready to defend why you think four minutes of silence isn't genuine artistic expression. Through the looking glass.


An artistic expression that may be, but what art is this? Definitely not music, in my book. And neither is the silence itself nor the sounds and noises that I imagine can conventionally be heard during performances of this piece of art.

And for listening experience through the looking glass I'll take Scelsi over this any day.


----------



## Polednice

Bach.

I don't need to explain myself, I just need to meet the character limit.


----------



## violadude

I don't understand what's hoaxy about Messiaen's Turangalila-Symphony, I think that's a great piece of music.


----------



## Manxfeeder

I don't think John Cage was necessarily pulling a prank with Water Walk, but I think he was having fun.


----------



## crmoorhead

John Cage's 4’33” isnt really music, but a philosphical idea. I quite like the motivation behind it. It is an indication of how you feel about life, IMHO.

The Water Walk was a laugh.  I can listen to a lot of odd stuff like that on Frank Zappa albums. Once you are familar with the sound patterns, I think it 'becomes' music. It is interesting, but I don't know if I would spend a great amount of time listening to it.


----------



## Serge

Polednice said:


> Bach.
> 
> I don't need to explain myself, I just need to meet the character limit.


Ouch!

Now this is getting ugly. (And I'm also just saying that to fulfill the character limit requirement.)


----------



## Vazgen

Serge said:


> Considering the unprecedented ambitiousness of the project, there just have got to be some, hardly a doubt about it.
> 
> I mean: John Cage's 4'33", Stockhausen's Kontakte, Messiaen's Turangalila-Symphonie?.. (Symphonie?) C'mon, people!
> 
> What others can you think of? Don't be shy folks, we are just fighting back.


Wow. Serge sure is fearless and edgy.

Take _that_, dead composers.

-Vaz


----------



## Serge

violadude said:


> I don't understand what's hoaxy about Messiaen's Turangalila-Symphony, I think that's a great piece of music.


I know, many people do and that's what opinions are for. Meanwhile, I was listening to this piece earlier today right after The Rite of Spring (Perhaps you should try that sometime.) and thinking: what's the possible excuse for this thing's existence? And I couldn't find any. (That is not to mention that I don't appreciate someone whistling down my ear with that much velocity, even for fun.)


----------



## crmoorhead

He OBVIOUSLY meant the infamous PDQ Bach. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDQ_Bach
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_by_P._D._Q._Bach

There are some great videos of his works on YouTube.


----------



## Kopachris

crmoorhead said:


> He OBVIOUSLY meant the infamous PDQ Bach.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDQ_Bach
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_by_P._D._Q._Bach
> 
> There are some great videos of his works on YouTube.


Beat me to it.


----------



## Serge

Vazgen said:


> Wow. Serge sure is fearless and edgy.
> 
> Take _that_, dead composers.
> 
> -Vaz


They are all mostly dead. How is this my fault? Besides, why not have a little fun while we are still alive; these three certainly did. (At my expense too, mind you.)


----------



## Vazgen

That Piotr Zak guy just sounded like he was trying too hard.

-Vaz


----------



## Weston

Beethoven - Wellington's Victory. It _has_ to be a joke. Someone reassure me this was a joke.

Mozart - A Musical Joke. Well, it is a joke, but I think it is also not a joke, so the joke's on people who think it is. So to speak.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Oh! I just remembered one:

A Grand _Grand _Overture, by Malcolm Arnold.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Pieck said:


> Philip Glass, and Minimalism in general


OK now...I have a reputation on this board...but even I like minimalism. What minimalist works have you listened to? Maybe you're just listening to the wrong ones


----------



## clavichorder

Can't stand minimalism either. Suffered through Phillip Glass Violin concerto live. Apparently I'm not completely done with this thread. I find Part irritating.


----------



## violadude

I guess I have to be the one to say it, sorry but I think this thread is kind of immature. I mean pieces that are meant to be gags such as Hindemith's "minimax" I can understand, but pieces like 4'33", Turangalila Symphony, Minimalism? It's perfectly ok if you don't like this music but it obviously meant something to the people composing it. Calling someone else's self expression a "hoax" is not cool IMHO.


----------



## Pieck

Romantic Geek said:


> OK now...I have a reputation on this board...but even I like minimalism. What minimalist works have you listened to? Maybe you're just listening to the wrong ones


Glass SQs, something by Nono, dont want to get back there again.
Out of curiosity, what are the right ones?


----------



## Vazgen

Pieck said:


> Glass SQs, something by Nono, dont want to get back there again.


I've never heard Nono described as a minimalist.

Maybe what you heard was a hoax!

-Vaz


----------



## Kopachris

Elgar's Enigma Variations: the hoax being that there is no enigma.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

The "Adelaide" Concerto (K. Anh. 294a), supposedly written by Mozart at the age of ten, turned out to be a hoax:

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adélaïde_Concerto*

Whoever posted this YouTube video didn't seem to know that, but it's mentioned in the comments:

*



*


----------



## Manxfeeder

crmoorhead said:


> I can listen to a lot of odd stuff like that on Frank Zappa albums.


That reminds me of "In Memoriam, Edgard Varese" off Zappa's Freak Out album, where he turns Varese's Ionization into rock and roll he-ing and she-ing. Maybe not a hoax, more of a reinterpretation.


----------



## Serge

violadude said:


> I guess I have to be the one to say it, sorry but I think this thread is kind of immature. I mean pieces that are meant to be gags such as Hindemith's "minimax" I can understand, but pieces like 4'33", Turangalila Symphony, Minimalism? It's perfectly ok if you don't like this music but it obviously meant something to the people composing it. Calling someone else's self expression a "hoax" is not cool IMHO.


Yes, immature is a very good word. But it is writing pieces like these and passing them for classical music that's immature though, not pointing them out. There I am, trying to enjoy some fine art in good faith and what do I get instead? I mean, how do I know that the author's intent was not to have a laugh at my expense in the first place? Well, that's how pieces like these feel to me, anyway. Or maybe I should rather be mad with the fans of these pieces for blowing their perceived value way out of proportion to where they are brought to attention of the poor unsuspecting audience like myself? Immature, indeed! 

I happen to dig minimalism btw; and it's "Simphon*ie*", not Symphony. Could that be the clue from the composer?


----------



## Iforgotmypassword

Pieck said:


> Philip Glass, and Minimalism in general


I can understand your dislike for Phillip Glass, but don't put down all of Minimalism, there are some great things to come out of it. Arvo Part's Tabula Rasa is a great example: 



as well as his De Profundis:


----------



## Vazgen

violadude said:


> I guess I have to be the one to say it, sorry but I think this thread is kind of immature. I mean pieces that are meant to be gags such as Hindemith's "minimax" I can understand, but pieces like 4'33", Turangalila Symphony, Minimalism? It's perfectly ok if you don't like this music but it obviously meant something to the people composing it. Calling someone else's self expression a "hoax" is not cool IMHO.


You're absolutely right. Dismissing a legitimate work as a "hoax" is a defense mechanism for listeners who don't have the maturity to relate to certain pieces in the spirit in which they were intended.

But back to the topic. The Music of Neglected English Composers project was a hoax perpetrated by Roger Eno, who is in turn a hoax perpetrated by Brian Eno.

-Vaz


----------



## Pieck

Vazgen said:


> I've never heard Nono described as a minimalist.
> 
> Maybe what you heard was a hoax!
> 
> -Vaz


Well there was a lot of silence and sudden single notes, so I got bored


----------



## Vazgen

Pieck said:


> Well there was a lot of silence and sudden single notes, so I got bored


You should so write liner notes.

-Vaz


----------



## Pieck

Vazgen said:


> You should so write liner notes.
> 
> -Vaz


What? 10 char

Edit:
Nono SQ

So boring, why did he need 4 instruments to play that? A borken violin could handle that score.


----------



## Pieck

Iforgotmypassword said:


> I can understand your dislike for Phillip Glass, but don't put down all of Minimalism, there are some great things to come out of it. Arvo Part's Tabula Rasa is a great example:
> 
> 
> 
> as well as his De Profundis:


I love Part, but I think he's not minimalist.


----------



## hemidemisemiquaver

Vazgen said:


> But back to the topic. The Music of Neglected English Composers project was a hoax perpetrated by Roger Eno, who is in turn a hoax perpetrated by Brian Eno.
> 
> -Vaz


Haha, Brian Eno is the man! How did I never heard about this album? Kudos for informing!


----------



## Art Rock

Roger Eno is not a hoax, but Brian Eno's older brother.


----------



## Vazgen

Art Rock said:


> Roger Eno is not a hoax, but Brian Eno's older brother.


I think you've got him confused with Roger Fripp.

-Vaz


----------



## Argus

Pieck said:


> Glass SQs, something by Nono, dont want to get back there again.
> Out of curiosity, what are the right ones?


So you're basing you're opinion of an entire style on one composers SQs and a piece by a composer who wasn't a minimalist? Just checking.

'right ones' - LOL

CTP mentioned the only proper hoax I can think of, Joyce Hatto.


----------



## SuperTonic

I'm suprised no one has mentioned the Albinoni Adagio in G Minor yet, which was actually written by a musicologist named Remo Giazotto in the 20th century. He claims to have found a small manuscript fragment that was attributed to Albinoni and the Adagio was his realization of that fragment, but there is little evidence that the fragment he mentioned even exists. 
This is probably the piece of music for which Albinoni is best known for, and he didn't even write it.

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


----------



## Argus

Pieck said:


> I love Part, but I think he's not minimalist.


Oh, sorry I didn't realise you were _the_ authority on who's minimalist and who's not. So Nono = minimalist, Part = ?. How could I have been so misguided? I used to say I was a big fan of minimalism but I don't like Nono at all.


----------



## Vazgen

Just having some fun with the Roger Eno - Brian Eno - Robert Fripp stuff. As far as I know, the only musical hoax Brian Eno has perpetrated was the Portsmouth Sinfonia, the orchestra made up of untrained musicians.

The Sinfonia's brilliant rendition of this Strauss classic never fails to make me giggle.

-Vaz


----------



## Romantic Geek

Pieck said:


> Xenakis, He didnt really paid attention to what notes he's writing


Not sure how I missed this the first time around - but there's a group of music theorists that would love to tell you that's not the case. But I have to admit what they talk about in Xenakis's music is way above most people's heads. It's VERY mathematical.


----------



## Argus

Vazgen said:


> Just having some fun with the Roger Eno - Brian Eno - Robert Fripp stuff. As far as I know, the only musical hoax Brian Eno has perpetrated was the Portsmouth Sinfonia, the orchestra made up of untrained musicians.
> 
> The Sinfonia's brilliant rendition of this Strauss classic never fails to make me giggle.
> 
> -Vaz


Some of the Portsmouth Sinfonia were proper musicians. It's just that they performed on instruments they couldn't play.


----------



## Pieck

Argus said:


> So you're basing you're opinion of an entire style on one composers SQs and a piece by a composer who wasn't a minimalist? Just checking.


Apparently yes, how deeper are you expecting me to dig in a genre I dont enjoy?


----------



## Romantic Geek

Pieck said:


> Glass SQs, something by Nono, dont want to get back there again.
> Out of curiosity, what are the right ones?


They're aren't right ones - just ones that work better for people. I think Adams's work is much more accessible. I really like his operas, like Dr. Atomic, I Was Looking at the Ceiling and then I Saw the Sky, Nixon in China. Harmonium is also a very cool piece - and the album which also has Rachmaninoff's The Bells was nominated (maybe won...I forget) a Grammy.

Part is definitely minimalism - I'm not sure how you get much more minimalist than Part, lol.

I'm not a huge of Phil Glass, but that's just cause I think his music isn't too interesting. I also think Steve Reich is pretty cool, and it's especially interesting since his degree isn't in music, but in philosophy!


----------



## Pieck

If Part's minimalist Im taking my words back and live Glass alone in my original sentence.
Still dont see what's not minimalist in Nono' SQ
BTW Part's 4th symphony sucks and minimalist as hell (I dont think of this piece when talking about Part)


----------



## Pieck

Argus said:


> Oh, sorry I didn't realise you were _the_ authority on who's minimalist and who's not. So Nono = minimalist, Part = ?. How could I have been so misguided? I used to say I was a big fan of minimalism but I don't like Nono at all.


I didnt say Im the authority and I didnt say Part was minimalist I said I thought... there's a difference


----------



## Argus

Pieck said:


> Apparently yes, how deeper are you expecting me to dig in a genre I dont enjoy?


How do you know you don't enjoy it when you don't even know what most of it sounds like?

Did you try haddock, found it unpallatable and from then on remained of the opinion that you didn't like fish? Because you don't like haddock, that means salmon and mackerel are off the menu too? Because you don't like Glass, that means Monk, Riley, Adams, Andriessen and Nyman are not for you either? And more than that, that they are somehow musical hoaxes.

That's okay, listen to what you want, stick to Schubert or whoever, just don't presume listening to a tiny selection of a musical style and judging the entirety of it based on that makes you appear anything other than close minded.


----------



## Argus

Pieck said:


> I didnt say Im the authority and I didnt say Part was minimalist I said I thought... there's a difference


You thought wrong.


----------



## Delicious Manager

Vazgen said:


> I think you've got him confused with Roger Fripp.
> 
> -Vaz


That would be ROBERT Fripp. And Roger Eno IS a real person.


----------



## Guest

Serge said:


> Yes, immature is a very good word. But it is writing pieces like these and passing them for classical music that's immature though, not pointing them out. There I am, trying to enjoy some fine art in good faith and what do I get instead? I mean, how do I know that the author's intent was not to have a laugh at my expense in the first place? Well, that's how pieces like these feel to me, anyway. Or maybe I should rather be mad with the fans of these pieces for blowing their perceived value way out of proportion to where they are brought to attention of the poor unsuspecting audience like myself? Immature, indeed!


It's interesting to me how often (always) people play the victim card as if it were trump. So let's ask Mr. Serge when and where he was forced to listen to _4'33", Kontakte,_ and _Turangalila_ live (that is, in a context where it would be difficult to leave)? And it had better be real force, too, not just some wimpy peer pressure.

That's the central question, but there are a few others I would ask that might also reveal some interesting things. The first couple are about intention. How likely is it that several composers, with vastly differing aesthetics and from different generations and countries, and with long careers and the respect of their peers, should suddenly decide that it would be a good idea to fool people with fake pieces? That they should suddenly decide to have a good laugh at their auditors' expense? This can be seen as even more absurd if you consider that none of these people ever knew Serge and so could not have predicted what his response would be.

In any case, how is it that Serge can know what anyone but Serge intends? How is it that Serge's reading of Cage's, Stockhausen's, and Messiaen's intentions is the only valid one?

No, I'm afraid that "there I am, trying to enjoy some fine art in good faith" is itself a statement of bad faith. Or maybe I'm being too harsh. Maybe it is just as violadude said. Serge wanted his nice Gerber's mashed peas and milk and got a delicious lasagne and wine instead. Yes. That _would_ be upsetting.


----------



## Delicious Manager

I saw the title of this thread and thought I'd find something interesting. Instead I see an ignorant, reactionary rhetoric that immediately made my heart sink deep into my boots. How anyone who has actually LISTENED to Messiaen's _Turangalîla-Symphonie_ could not appreciate the work's merits (even if it wasn't to the listener's taste) fills me with a certain amount of despair. So, I have decided to ignore that particular aspect of the thread and to name another musical hoax which is along the same lines as the aforementioned 'Albinoni' _Adagio_.

The now-quite-famous _Ave Maria_ was not written by Caccini. It is obvious after about one measure (bar) that we are not listening to 17th-century music. This piece was actually written in 1970 by a Russian music historian and sometime composer Vladimir Vavilov (1925-73).


----------



## Vazgen

Delicious Manager said:


> That would be ROBERT Fripp. And Roger Eno IS a real person.


Wow. You take this stuff seriously, huh?

-Vaz


----------



## Delicious Manager

Vazgen said:


> Wow. You take this stuff seriously, huh?
> 
> -Vaz


Oh, yes, I'm a very serious person :tiphat:


----------



## Pieck

Argus said:


> How do you know you don't enjoy it when you don't even know what most of it sounds like?
> 
> Did you try haddock, found it unpallatable and from then on remained of the opinion that you didn't like fish? Because you don't like haddock, that means salmon and mackerel are off the menu too? Because you don't like Glass, that means Monk, Riley, Adams, Andriessen and Nyman are not for you either? And more than that, that they are somehow musical hoaxes.
> 
> That's okay, listen to what you want, stick to Schubert or whoever, just don't presume listening to a tiny selection of a musical style and judging the entirety of it based on that makes you appear anything other than close minded.


Next time please read all of my posts before commenting on specific one.
And I'm not close minded at all, I like a lot of modern compsers and listen to a lot new ones (to me) every day. And even composers I didnt get at first I kept listening to them until I found the beauty in them.


----------



## Philip

Serge said:


> I mean: John Cage's 4'33")


Often when i work at home i make a long playlist that goes on for hours.. sometimes i reach the end of it and little do i know silence is heard usually for a long time before i even notice that the music has stopped.

Would i pay to see this live? heck no. there is such a thing as an artistic hoax, and most of the time the hoax is on the artist just as well as the audience. although that in itself could be considered a form of art


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

You know the story of the Emperor with the New Clothes? How some con-artists tricked him into thinking he was wearing fine clothing when actually it's nothing at all? And when he parades through the town, who does it take to recognize the truth about the Emperor? A _child _laughing at him! All the _adults _think it's real, because they're deceived themselves, but the child who hasn't dulled his conscience yet senses the difference between the real and the absurd.

That's what I think of when I recall 4'33". If you brought a child to see it in concert, I bet the kid would sit around a minute, and then call out innocently, "Where's the music?"

My two cents.


----------



## Iforgotmypassword

Pieck said:


> I love Part, but I think he's not minimalist.


Well he may not stick strictly to the exact specifications for minimalistic music (whatever they may be) but I am pretty sure that he has been described many a time as such and is noted for sort of coining his own twist on minimalism.


----------



## Vazgen

Huilunsoittaja said:


> You know the story of the Emperor with the New Clothes? How some con-artists tricked him into thinking he was wearing fine clothing when actually it's nothing at all? And when he parades through the town, who does it take to recognize the truth about the Emperor? A _child _laughing at him! All the _adults _think it's real, because they're deceived themselves, but the child who hasn't dulled his conscience yet senses the difference between the real and the absurd.
> 
> That's what I think of when I recall 4'33". If you brought a child to see it in concert, I bet the kid would sit around a minute, and then call out, "Where's the music?"
> 
> My two cents.


By my count, this is the millionth time that the tale "The Emperor's New Clothes" has been used as a clever analogy to demonstrate that anyone who claims to enjoy contemporary or experimental music is actually a gullible cretin being deceived by no-talent hucksters.

Thanks again!

-Vaz


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Vazgen said:


> By my count, this is the millionth time that the tale "The Emperor's New Clothes" has been used as a clever analogy to demonstrate that anyone who claims to enjoy contemporary or experimental music is actually a gullible cretin being deceived by no-talent hucksters.
> 
> Thanks again!
> 
> -Vaz


My pleasure, Mr.Adult. :tiphat:


----------



## Vazgen

Huilunsoittaja said:


> My pleasure, Mr.Adult. :tiphat:


Oh, no, the pleasure is all mine. It never gets old being accused of stupidity and elitism just because I happen to enjoy the music of Cage, Xenakis, Stockhausen, and all those other worthless cynics. It's just icing on the cake that you get to pretend you're actually being sincere by expressing your narrow-mindedness.

Out of the mouths of babes, etc.

-Vaz


----------



## Argus

Pieck said:


> Next time please read all of my posts before commenting on specific one.
> And I'm not close minded at all, I like a lot of modern compsers and listen to a lot new ones (to me) every day. And even composers I didnt get at first I kept listening to them until I found the beauty in them.


I did read all your posts.

Okay, you say you listen to and like lots of modern composers. Name some of them then, because I don't think I've seen you reference them in any of your posts.

Even if you do like lots of modern composers, how does that change the fact that you judged all minimalism off a listening of Glass' quartets?


----------



## Serge

Oh yeah, calling a piece of “music” that can’t even be heard (as if that fact in itself wasn’t a dead giveaway) a hoax… how inappropriate! So let’s turn the tables around and blame the messenger? Nice try, “progressive” folks!


----------



## Vazgen

*Speaking truth to anonymity*

I'd hate to be in John Cage's shoes, now that Serge has his number. All those "progressive" folks better sleep with one eye open tonight, too.

-Vaz


----------



## Meaghan

Iforgotmypassword said:


> Well he may not stick strictly to the exact specifications for minimalistic music (whatever they may be) but I am pretty sure that he has been described many a time as such and is noted for sort of coining his own twist on minimalism.


"Holy minimalism" (which he didn't coin, though he is considered one of the pioneers of it. He did coin the term "tintinnabuli.")


----------



## daspianist

Serge said:


> Oh yeah, calling a piece of "music" that can't even be heard (as if that fact in itself wasn't a dead giveaway) a hoax… how inappropriate! So let's turn the table around and blame the messenger? Nice try, "progressive" folks!


Actually, one'd hear a lot of things at a performance of 4'33''. In context of the music, audience noises, page turns, _eyelash battings_ are all part of the sounds that make up a performance.

The strong reaction that Cage has managed to elicit from you is exactly to what he has envisioned for 4'33''. So in other words, you are playing directly into Cage's "hoax".

Last point - no composer sits down at the piano and decides to write, then publish silence for a piece of music. It takes a lot of thought, and 3 balls.


----------



## Pieck

Argus said:


> I did read all your posts.
> 
> Okay, you say you listen to and like lots of modern composers. Name some of them then, because I don't think I've seen you reference them in any of your posts.
> 
> Even if you do like lots of modern composers, how does that change the fact that you judged all minimalism off a listening of Glass' quartets?





Pieck said:


> If Part's minimalist Im taking my words back and leave Glass alone in my original sentence.





Pieck said:


> Doesnt Nobody want Bartok Dance Suite?





Pieck said:


> Debussy Cello Sonata, I forgot how much I love that piece - Rostropovich, Britten





Pieck said:


> Bumping it from the archives.
> Share your knowledge TC fellows.
> Schnittke - Where should I begin?
> Hindemith - the 4th SQ is nice


From current listening:


Pieck said:


> Alban Berg SQ - Berg SQ Op. 3





Pieck said:


> Listening to Durosoir (1878 - 1955) SQs- quite interesting.





Pieck said:


> The Firebird - Boulez





Pieck said:


> Xenakis - Eonta for piano, 2 trumpets and 3 trombones. The piano part is nice, the brass not so much





Pieck said:


> I listened today to Glass' SQs. Well it wasnt unpleasant, but why does he have to say everything so many times? I got sick of it eventually, and not going to listen to it in the near future





Pieck said:


> Janacek SQs. I like the interpretation, very different from Emerson though.


I'd post more but I have to go, you can search in my posts on my profile if you want


----------



## Argus

Pieck said:


> I'd post more but I have to go, you can search in my posts on my profile if you want


Most of those are neither modern nor Modernist (Debussy, Janacek, Berg and Bartok were all dead before the end of WW2). The Firebird is over a hundred years old. Is that what constitutes modern? Louis Armstrong and his Hot Seven must be modern jazz and Eddie Cochran brand spanking new rock and roll.

I've got nothing more to say. It's obvious you have very peculiar definitions of what is modern and what is minimalist.


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> I guess I have to be the one to say it, sorry but I think this thread is kind of immature. I mean pieces that are meant to be gags such as Hindemith's "minimax" I can understand, but pieces like 4'33", Turangalila Symphony, Minimalism? It's perfectly ok if you don't like this music but it obviously meant something to the people composing it. Calling someone else's self expression a "hoax" is not cool IMHO.


How sickening, how vile, how blatantly inappropriate it is for otherwise respectable members of this forum - people who claim to have some artistic integrity by listening to classical music no less! - to enter a thread about musical hoaxes and dare so openly to _make a joke_. It's utterly despicable "IMHO". I am so, so glad that I can unquestionably consider myself superior to anyone with such a tasteless, demeaning, frankly offensive sense of humour. This is serious stuff, people; be ashamed.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I did not enjoy reading this thread.


----------



## Aramis




----------



## daspianist

Polednice said:


> How sickening, how vile, how blatantly inappropriate it is for otherwise respectable members of this forum - people who claim to have some artistic integrity by listening to classical music no less! - to enter a thread about musical hoaxes and dare so openly to _make a joke_. It's utterly despicable "IMHO". I am so, so glad that I can unquestionably consider myself superior to anyone with such a tasteless, demeaning, frankly offensive sense of humour. This is serious stuff, people; be ashamed.


I read the above post with an English accent. feelsgoodman.jpg

I understand some of you took "offense" to Cage's 4'33" - as I noted earlier, it takes incredible thought and courage to sit at the piano and decide to write 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence, then _send it off to the publisher to be published under your own name_. As an established composer, it could have been a career suicide. And just imagine how he had to persuade the publisher to publish silence?

On the flip of the coin, people are entitled to their own opinions. If one thought of Cage's composition rubbish, they have the right to express their opinions. One can disagree with them, or even attempt to educate them, and I think that is what thread is becoming. There is no need to be ashamed of expressing opinions, *IMAO*.


----------



## Aksel

What Aramis said.


----------



## Pieck

Then what are they if not modern, Baroque?


----------



## Pieck

Taken from DDD, greatest composers by era, Modern:


> 1. Stravinsky (1882 - 1971)
> 2. Debussy (1862 - 1918)
> 3. Prokofiev (1891 - 1953)
> 4. Shostakovich (1906 - 1975)
> 5. Bartòk (1881 - 1945)
> 6. Ravel (1875 - 1937)
> 7. R.V. Williams (1872 - 1958)
> 8. Schonberg (1874 - 1951)
> 9. C. Ives (1874 - 1954)
> 10. Hindemith (1895 - 1963)
> 11. Messiaen (1908 - 1992)
> 12. Copland (1900 - 1990)
> 13. Satie (1866 - 1925)
> 14. Britten (1913 - 1976)
> 15. Webern (1883 - 1945)
> 16. Gershwin (1898 - 1937)
> 17. Janáek (1854-1928)
> 18. Berg (1885 - 1935)
> 19. Poulenc (1899 - 1963)
> 20. Cage (1912 - 1992)
> 21. Nielsen (1865 - 1931)
> 22. Walton (1902 - 1983)
> 23. Milhaud (1892 - 1974)
> 24. Barber (1910 - 1981)
> 25. Falla (1876 - 1946)
> 26. Honegger (1892 - 1955)
> 27. Tippett (1905 - 1998)
> 28. Kodály (1882 - 1967)
> 29. Martinu (1890 - 1959)
> 30. Varèse (1883 - 1965)
> 31. Szymanowski (1882 - 1937)
> 32. Orff (1895 - 1982)
> 33. Bernstein (1918 - 1990)
> 34. Bax (1883 - 1953)
> 35. Khachaturian (1903 - 1978)
> 36. Villa-Lobos (1887 - 1959)
> 37. Weill (1900 - 1950)
> 38. Maxwell Davies (1934 -
> 39. Lutoslawski (1913 - 1994)
> 40. Roussel (1869 - 1937)
> 41. Henze (1926 -
> 42. Bliss (1891 - 1975)
> 43. Rodrigo (1901 - 1999)
> 44. Pärt (1935 -
> 45. Adams (1947 -
> 46. Kabalevsky (1904 - 1987)
> 47. Dallapiccola (1904 - 1975)
> 48. Enescu (1881 - 1955)
> 49. Bloch (1880 - 1959)
> 50. Duruflé (1902 - 1986)


Apparently Im not the only one who call them modern. And I read a lot of times people on this forum (THIS [email protected]) call these composers modern. And basically everyone I know who is a classical listener call them modern too (including music teachers).


----------



## Iforgotmypassword

Meaghan said:


> "Holy minimalism" (which he didn't coin, though he is considered one of the pioneers of it. He did coin the term "tintinnabuli.")


Yeah, the "tintinnabuli" is what i was refering to. I may be wrong but I thought that it was his take on minimalism... along with the "Holy Minimalistm" pieces that he has.


----------



## Serge

Coincidentally, has anyone seen the Banksy “Exit Through The Gift Shop” movie? It’s right on the money, highly philosophical, and deals with exactly the same subject matter (for those willing to think about it), albeit in entirely different form of art, of course. I can’t recommend it enough.


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> How sickening, how vile, how blatantly inappropriate it is for otherwise respectable members of this forum - people who claim to have some artistic integrity by listening to classical music no less! - to enter a thread about musical hoaxes and dare so openly to _make a joke_. It's utterly despicable "IMHO". I am so, so glad that I can unquestionably consider myself superior to anyone with such a tasteless, demeaning, frankly offensive sense of humour. This is serious stuff, people; be ashamed.


Look, you misunderstood my point. Don't like a piece of music? fine. It doesn't resonate with you? Fine, you don't "get it", so to speak? Fine, but calling a piece of art that the creator put his heart and conviction into, that has touched millions of people, basically a joke is something else entirely and as a composer myself it's something I take offense to. If that makes me an elitist snob, so be it.


----------



## Meaghan

emiellucifuge said:


> I did not enjoy reading this thread.


People _are_ being a little less than entirely civil to one another...


----------



## Couchie

Schoenberg.

IT'S A TRAP!


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> Look, you misunderstood my point. Don't like a piece of music? fine. It doesn't resonate with you? Fine, you don't "get it", so to speak? Fine, but calling a piece of art that the creator put his heart and conviction into, that has touched millions of people, basically a joke is something else entirely and as a composer myself it's something I take offense to. If that makes me an elitist snob, so be it.


Actually, I did understand. And I'd call myself a composer too - more specifically, a composer with a sense of humour. I stand by my joke that Bach is a hoax, and by everyone else's heartfelt or tongue-in-cheek declarations of other composers/works as such. So my parody stands! If that makes me an ****, so be it; that's much better than being melodramatic.


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> Actually, I did understand. And I'd call myself a composer too - more specifically, a composer with a sense of humour. I stand by my joke that Bach is a hoax, and by everyone else's heartfelt or tongue-in-cheek declarations of other composers/works as such. So my parody stands! If that makes me an ****, so be it; that's much better than being melodramatic.


Well I guess it's been a misunderstanding, however, I don't think some other members of the forum were being quite as tounge in cheek as you were.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Serge said:


> Coincidentally, has anyone seen the Banksy "Exit Through The Gift Shop" movie? It's right on the money, highly philosophical, and deals with exactly the same subject matter (for those willing to think about it), albeit in entirely different form of art, of course. I can't recommend it enough.


Banksy? Speaking of overrated intellectual shams...


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

I think the ability to joke about music we love shows a confidence we have in its ability to withstand criticism. We can make fun of the things we love, and there's no offense to it. It only gets offensive when actual lies are said. And people who are avid enough fans of certain pieces of music or composers won't care when people criticize it because of confidence.


----------



## Vazgen

Couchie said:


> Schoenberg.
> 
> IT'S A TRAP!


Polednice,

Are we supposed to assume that a response such as this is a witty lark from someone who (deep down) appreciates the work of Schoenberg? This poster just wants to parody either the high seriousness that accompanies his name in musical academia, or the public's readiness to dismiss his work as unlistenable?

Just wanted to sort this out.

-Vaz


----------



## Romantic Geek

Couchie said:


> Schoenberg.
> 
> IT'S A TRAP!


Oh boy, here goes that can of worms...


----------



## Romantic Geek

violadude said:


> Well I guess it's been a misunderstanding, however, I don't think some other members of the forum were being quite as tounge in cheek as you were.


If you have been around the forums longer, you'd note that a lot of Polenice's posts are tongue-in-cheek...and that's why we like him!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

daspianist said:


> Last point - no composer sits down at the piano and decides to write, then publish silence for a piece of music. It takes a lot of thought, and 3 balls.


Big freaking deal. It takes way, way more thought, creative process, compositional skill and political and economic decisions to mount an opera, for example, in any time period since Monteverdi, than be a compositional whimp about silence. Go to a local library and you can attend free concerts of _4'33"_.


----------



## Couchie

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Big freaking deal. It takes way, way more thought, creative process, compositional skill and political and economic decisions to mount an opera, for example, in any time period since Monteverdi, than be a compositional whimp about silence. Go to a local library and you can attend free concerts of _4'33"_.


_YEAH!_ Also, he totally should have put a forte-fortissimo orchestra hit at the 4'30" mark.


----------



## hemidemisemiquaver

Argus said:


> CTP mentioned the only proper hoax I can think of, Joyce Hatto.


The most stunning thing about Joyce Hatto is that Marc-Andre Hamelin complimented her playing while listening to... his own recording!! I can't believe that people can't recognize their own stuff, especially with Hamelin's level. If I had something of that sort to happen to me, I would be ashamed to the breaking point.


----------



## Vazgen

Romantic Geek said:


> Oh boy, here goes that can of worms...


No need to worry, he was just kidding.

Or maybe not.

Where's your sense of humor?

-Vaz


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I think the ability to joke about music we love shows a confidence we have in its ability to withstand criticism.


I would say that the ease and confidence with which this sentiment can be expressed is approximately proportional to the extent to which one is on the _delivery_ end of the jokes.


----------



## Aramis

I was wondering if any of you people would like perhaps to see a monkey emperor?

Here you go:










no problem, you're welcome


----------



## Argus

Pieck said:


> Apparently Im not the only one who call them modern. And I read a lot of times people on this forum (THIS [email protected]) call these composers modern. And basically everyone I know who is a classical listener call them modern too (including music teachers).


I don't think Debussy, Janacek or Berg can be called modern by any common sense definition of the term. The only people who refer to pre-WW2 composers as modern are people who don't listen to proper modern music or people who mean Modern as a style i.e. Modernism with a capital M. But forget about that, we're getting sidetracked.

The point is you called minimalism a hoax. The only two composers you have thus far mentioned you have listened to who are actually minimalist are Glass and Part. How does listening to and/or liking Hindemith, Schnittke, Bartok etc have any relevance to the subject at hand. Schnittke was the only one you listed who was even a contemporary of the composers you mentioned (Glass and Nono), and he wasn't minimalist.

All I'm pointing out is that you don't have anywhere near enough knowledge in the area of minimalism to go around calling it a hoax. You can say you don't like minimalism, or that it sucks or words to that effect, and that would just be an opinion based on limited research, but calling it a hoax is just disrespectful to all of its proponents.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Oh yeah?


----------



## Aramis

He has no dignity and majesty in his look, he's no match for the real emperor.


----------



## Polednice

Romantic Geek said:


> If you have been around the forums longer, you'd note that a lot of Polenice's posts are tongue-in-cheek...and that's why we like him!


I shall take this as license to say whatever I like from now on! 

I'm not sure about this thread any more! Maybe I was giving people too much credit by suggesting that they were joking. But then anyone who would say the wilder things on this thread seriously just isn't worth talking to... so damn you all!


----------



## Pieck

Argus said:


> I don't think Debussy, Janacek or Berg can be called modern by any common sense definition of the term. The only people who refer to pre-WW2 composers as modern are people who don't listen to proper modern music or people who mean Modern as a style i.e. Modernism with a capital M. But forget about that, we're getting sidetracked.
> 
> The point is you called minimalism a hoax. The only two composers you have thus far mentioned you have listened to who are actually minimalist are Glass and Part. How does listening to and/or liking Hindemith, Schnittke, Bartok etc have any relevance to the subject at hand. Schnittke was the only one you listed who was even a contemporary of the composers you mentioned (Glass and Nono), and he wasn't minimalist.
> 
> All I'm pointing out is that you don't have anywhere near enough knowledge in the area of minimalism to go around calling it a hoax. You can say you don't like minimalism, or that it sucks or words to that effect, and that would just be an opinion based on limited research, but calling it a hoax is just disrespectful to all of its proponents.


But I said that Im taking my words back - meaning I dont call minimalism a hoax.
And of course I meant modern as a group of styles that came after the end of Romanticism, not as modern = new


----------



## emiellucifuge

Well yours looks puny and pampered. He shows no power, anyone could come along and seize the throne.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Vazgen said:


> Polednice,
> 
> Are we supposed to assume that a response such as this is a witty lark from someone who (deep down) appreciates the work of Schoenberg? This poster just wants to parody either the high seriousness that accompanies his name in musical academia, or the public's readiness to dismiss his work as unlistenable?
> 
> Just wanted to sort this out.
> 
> -Vaz


Personally, I would take that as a joke... I think I can sense bitterness in tone when I see it, and that post didn't really have it.

Sorry, if the question wasn't meant for me, but I would like to comment anyway.


----------



## Polednice

I also wanted to add something in response to Vazgen's question: "Are we supposed to assume that a response such as this is a witty lark from someone who (deep down) appreciates the work of Schoenberg?"

I don't think you have to appreciate the works of a composer to be allowed to make them a butt of a joke. If someone doesn't like Schoenberg, for example, they can call him a hoax, but that doesn't necessarily make it a sincere and arrogant remark; it's just a joke because of the deliberate hyperbole in their assessment.


----------



## Vazgen

Polednice said:


> I don't think you have to appreciate the works of a composer to be allowed to make them a butt of a joke. If someone doesn't like Schoenberg, for example, they can call him a hoax, but that doesn't necessarily make it a sincere and arrogant remark; it's just a joke because of the deliberate hyperbole in their assessment.


I think people should be allowed to make whatever comments they want. It's just that I'm wondering if we're allowed to take the comments themselves at face value.

At least some of the posters here seem serious about calling a hated composer's work a "hoax." Aren't they serious about their disdain for Cage's performance-art masterpiece? But then if we assume they mean what they say when they dismiss a composer's work, we're missing some delicious satire that they supposedly intended.

But if you find humor in it, have a ball.

-Vaz


----------



## jaimsilva

"_The essential characteristic of a hoax is that it convey information that is, although false, at least somewhat credible. The subjective intent of hoax perpetrators varies, with the intent determining the content the perpetrator chooses and/or the content affecting the perpetrator's intent regarding whom to deceive: A person seeking to deceive the public as a whole may propagate a hoax consisting entirely of objectively credible claims, often bolstering it by including claims that are true or have a basis in fact. A person seeking to deceive only a specific person or set of persons (as by means of a practical joke) will likely select a premise that is subjectively plausible in the eyes of the victim(s), treating whether others will fall for the hoax as a secondary concern. Treated as such, the intended outcome of a hoax or intersubjective plausibility or implausibility can cut both ways: On one hand, a person may construct a hoax out of only credible information in order to prevent sympathetic outsiders from "catching on" and informing the victim in advance; on the other, he or she may include implausible information in order to heighten the victim's eventual embarrassment at having "fallen for" the hoax (along with the enjoyment observers feel when watching the victim being deceived).
Some sets of claims popularly labeled hoaxes are better categorized as allegory, fable, satire, or parody: If a person describes a situation or event with the intent to illustrate a principle but without the desire that his audience believe his assertions' literal meaning to be true, the assertions likely form an allegory or a fable. (Note that these claims may eventually develop into an apocryphal hoax or an urban legend if their literal meaning gains belief as they are passed from person to person.) If a person makes statements that have some basis in fact but are in some respects patently absurd, with the intent that the audience notice the similarity between the patent absurdities in the statements and absurdities latent in statements widely accepted in the real world, the person engages in satire. Parody does not require any basis in fact or the intent that any part of it be accepted; rather, its essence is the partial but not total imitation of the thing parodied, along with the elicitation of humor from the simultaneous occurrence of similarities and differences between the parody and its subject._"

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax

*then maybe going on seeking the meaning of art (if there is any):*

"_Making judgments of value requires a basis for criticism. At the simplest level, a way to determine whether the impact of the object on the senses meets the criteria to be considered art is whether it is perceived to be attractive or repulsive. Though perception is always colored by experience, and is necessarily subjective, it is commonly understood that what is not somehow aesthetically satisfying cannot be art. However, "good" art is not always or even regularly aesthetically appealing to a majority of viewers. In other words, an artist's prime motivation need not be the pursuit of the aesthetic. Also, art often depicts terrible images made for social, moral, or thought-provoking reasons. For example, Francisco Goya's painting depicting the Spanish shootings of 3rd of May 1808 is a graphic depiction of a firing squad executing several pleading civilians. Yet at the same time, the horrific imagery demonstrates Goya's keen artistic ability in composition and execution and produces fitting social and political outrage. Thus, the debate continues as to what mode of aesthetic satisfaction, if any, is required to define 'art'.
The assumption of new values or the rebellion against accepted notions of what is aesthetically superior need not occur concurrently with a complete abandonment of the pursuit of what is aesthetically appealing. Indeed, the reverse is often true, that the revision of what is popularly conceived of as being aesthetically appealing allows for a re-invigoration of aesthetic sensibility, and a new appreciation for the standards of art itself. Countless schools have proposed their own ways to define quality, yet they all seem to agree in at least one point: once their aesthetic choices are accepted, the value of the work of art is determined by its capacity to transcend the limits of its chosen medium to strike some universal chord by the rarity of the skill of the artist or in its accurate reflection in what is termed the zeitgeist.
Art is often intended to appeal to and connect with human emotion. It can arouse aesthetic or moral feelings, and can be understood as a way of communicating these feelings. Artists express something so that their audience is aroused to some extent, but they do not have to do so consciously. Art may be considered an exploration of the human condition; that is, what it is to be human._"

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art


----------



## Chris

Sometimes I'm not sure if a composer is being serious or not...

Like Britten with his Miller of Dee arrangement...






or this...


----------



## Romantic Geek

Vazgen said:


> I think people should be allowed to make whatever comments they want. It's just that I'm wondering if we're allowed to take the comments themselves at face value.


O RLY? (This statement does not exceed the posting limit.)


----------



## Meaghan

Chris said:


> Sometimes I'm not sure if a composer is being serious or not...
> 
> Like Britten with his Miller of Dee arrangement...


----------



## Polednice

Vazgen said:


> It seems safer to assume they're just crybabies. But if you find humor in it, have a ball.
> 
> -Vaz


If somebody on this forum - particularly if it's someone I've come to know through their posts - says something outrageous, stupid, or otherwise unjustifiable, then I think it seems safer to assume that they're having a joke. That way, I am by default giving them a little intellectual respect, and won't appear to be completely stuck up. If I'm proved wrong by further probing, then I'll be disappointed, but at least I'll know I never took seriously comments meant in jest because of a superiority complex.


----------



## Vazgen

Polednice said:


> If somebody on this forum - particularly if it's someone I've come to know through their posts - says something outrageous, stupid, or otherwise unjustifiable, then I think it seems safer to assume that they're having a joke. That way, I am by default giving them a little intellectual respect, and won't appear to be completely stuck up. If I'm proved wrong by further probing, then I'll be disappointed, but at least I'll know I never took seriously comments meant in jest because of a superiority complex.


Cool.

To me, giving intellectual respect is a two-way street. Our cohort Couchie didn't bother to explain himself, but I'd wager that lots of the people here that accused legitimate composers of being hoaxers (and, by extension, their audiences of being dupes) weren't poking fun at favorite artists for their lovable foibles. I think it's more likely they really think these composers are _scam artists._

Wanna make a bet?

-Vaz


----------



## Romantic Geek

Vaz, I'll just say this. You have a very condescending way of writing replies. That is all.


----------



## hemidemisemiquaver

Wikipedia said:


> Beyond that, Parisotti also included some of his own pieces for public performance and for publication in the Arie antiche collection, but always passing them off as rediscovered masterpieces of the ancient composers. In his collection 'Se tu m'ami' was attributed to Giovanni Pergolesi where in fact it seems Parisotti composed it himself. Another misattribution is the recitative and aria 'Il mio bel foco ... Quella fiamma' which was attributed to Alessandro Marcello, and often still is, but was in fact composed by Francesco Bartolomeo Conti. *These fake masterpieces of the baroque call the integrity of the so-called Neo-Classicism* in Igor Stravinsky's ballet Pulcinella into question when considering that Stravinsky had studied them to familiarise himself with baroque style and that he even re-used the music of Se tu m'ami in the ballet.


(Source)

Oh, darling!.. Can't help but love the line about integrity of the so-called Neo-Classicism.


----------



## Vazgen

hemidemisemiquaver said:


> (Source)
> 
> Oh, darling!.. Can't help but love the line about integrity of the so-called Neo-Classicism.


:lol:

You can't blame Stravinsky for doing sloppy research. Come on, he had parties to go to.

-Vaz


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Vazgen said:


> :lol:
> 
> You can't blame Stravinsky for doing sloppy research. Come on, he had parties to go to.
> 
> -Vaz


I smile in glee... He can't get all the glory...


----------



## Argus

List of hoax composers from Wikipedia:

Prokofiev
Mahler
MacDowell
All Polish composers
Brahms
Mozart
Mussorgsky
Wagner
Handel


----------



## Serge

Someone has suggested recently that my Goethe quote might be a hoax.

(I still stand by my "John Cage" quote though.)


----------



## Polednice

Vazgen said:


> I think it's more likely they really think these composers are _scam artists._
> 
> Wanna make a bet?
> 
> -Vaz


Absolutely 

If you try to engage some people in discussion, then no matter how scathing their opinions may be of certain composers, I'm _certain_ that no one will try to justify the assertion that John Cage or whoever else was nothing more than a con man.


----------



## Vazgen

Polednice said:


> I'm _certain_ that no one will try to justify the assertion that John Cage or whoever else was nothing more than a con man.


You're on.

Serge, how about it? Is Cage a con artist, yes or no?

-Vaz


----------



## Polednice

Argus said:


> List of hoax composers from Wikipedia:
> 
> Prokofiev
> Mahler
> MacDowell
> All Polish composers
> Brahms
> Mozart
> Mussorgsky
> Wagner
> Handel


Brahms was probably the biggest hoax in history! I mean, really, an other-worldly God trying to pass himself of as a mere genius composer? Oh please...


----------



## Serge

Vazgen said:


> Serge, how about it? Is Cage a con artist, yes or no?


To me, he's more like a banker who robbed his own bank. But what do I care if he is a con artist, I am not one of his victims anyway.


----------



## Vazgen

See, Polednice? That explains it.

We both lose.

-Vaz


----------



## Guest

Vaz,

How unusual. I disagree with what you just said.

The only loser here is Serge. Truly. (Think about it!)

Michael

(I was amused by his comment that he's not one of Cage's victims, since the whole premise of this thread was that Serge was being victimized by Cage (and Stockhausen and Messiaen). Maybe for people who don't read (or have short memories), Serge's desire to have it both ways will pass for current. For the rest of us, however, BUSTED!!)


----------



## Romantic Geek

Argus said:


> List of hoax composers from Wikipedia:
> 
> Prokofiev
> Mahler
> MacDowell
> All Polish composers
> Brahms
> Mozart
> Mussorgsky
> Wagner
> Handel


Who is MacDowell? I've never heard of him before...


----------



## Pieck

some guy said:


> The only loser here is Serge. Truly. (Think about it!)


Oh come on, you can say 4'33 is genius and innovative, interesting and bold, but saying that he's losing by not listening to it is a bit over the edge I think, I mean the silence itself can be heard even without the title 4'33, so the idea itself is what matters.


----------



## Vaneyes

Romantic Geek said:


> Who is MacDowell? I've never heard of him before...


American composer, late 1800's. I've heard his PCs and Woodland Sketches. That was more than enough.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Vaneyes said:


> American composer, late 1800's. I've heard his PCs and Woodland Sketches. That was more than enough.


You do realise its Macdowell in RG's avatar?


----------



## Stasou

I read somewhere, I think on a saxophone forum, about a said "new complexity" people were coming up with. Supposedly it uses a lot of stuff like 10s in the time signature denominator, etc.


----------



## Vaneyes

emiellucifuge said:


> You do realise its Macdowell in RG's avatar?


Thanks for asking. No, avatars are not shown.


----------



## Guest

Pieck said:


> Oh come on, you can say 4'33 is genius and innovative, interesting and bold, but saying that he's losing by not listening to it is a bit over the edge I think, I mean the silence itself can be heard even without the title 4'33, so the idea itself is what matters.


Well, as I didn't say that, I guess I'm safe from falling over the edge!

Interesting notion, though, that the silence itself can be heard even without the title 4'33". Can be _heard,_ but how often is it really _listened to_ unless someone (Cage, Ferrari, Oliveros, Lockwood, Lopez, Schafer) calls our attention to it? As for ideas and music, what sort of difference do you think it would make to listen to a certain piece by Penderecki under its original title, 8'37", as opposed to listening to it under its published title, _Tren ofiarom Hiroszimy_ or _Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima_?

Our ears are not as innocent as your post would suggest. Everyone's ears, after all, are hooked up to a brain, a brain with memories and ideas and prejudices.

We forget that to our peril, I think.


----------



## Serge

OH, NO! Did I say “The Classical Music Hoaxes”? I meant “The Greatest Classical Music Hoaxes”...


----------



## PhillipPark

If this hasn't been posted before, Satie's "Vexations".


----------



## mmsbls

I just read through this thread today. Most of us here believe Cage's 4'33" was not meant as a joke, but you couldn't really fault someone who thought it was a joke especially if they did not know Cage. In researching 4' 33" I came across something rather interesting. Alphonse Allais wrote a very similar work - _Funeral March for the Last Rites of a Deaf Man_. Details can be found at the site, http://solomonsmusic.net/4min33se.htm. The work consists of 24 measures of a blank music manuscript. The music even has a tempo mark of "Lento rigolando". Allais was a humorist and was clearly joking.

Apparently Cage's original manuscript is missing, but I would have loved to know that he put various dynamic markings throughout the work. You'd have to love someone who could put some inside humor into a serious work.

I'm sure every physicist who has ever heard of Cage's 4'33" immediately thought the title was referring to what is known as "absolute zero" in the temperature scale. 4'33" is 273 seconds, and absolute zero is -273 degrees Celsius. The 273 seems too specific to be a randomly chosen number, and the reference certainly makes sense - "absolute nothing". The problem is that in all the descriptions of the work I found online only a few pointed to this fact, and some specifically referred to this as a legend. I find it almost impossible to believe the two are not related. Anyone know if Cage chose 4'33" with "absolute zero" in mind?


----------



## haydnfan

Your theory is in direction with the intent of 4'33. The composition is not of absolute silence, the music is the ambient sound that fills the room. It's not about "absolute nothing", it's about listening intently to the sounds that we usually ignore.


----------



## Guest

Inspired by this discussion, I listened to a short extract of Stockhausen’s Kontakte, and now I'm listening to Messiaen’s Turangalila-Symphonie in full (which I'm a bit embarrassed to say I own). Man, this is unpleasant stuff! Is it art? Is it meaningful? Is it sincere expression? Who knows. I suppose that depends on who gets to define those terms. 

I think the "hoax" element comes in when these artists and works are presented to the hapless public as carriers of the tradition of classical music, the 20th century's answer to Bach, Beethoven, etc. In most cases, these guys aren't worthy of the comparison, and will be forgotten none too soon. While "hoax" is maybe not the best word, arguably I was tricked into buying some stuff which in retrospect seems pretty silly.

Ok, as I'm writing, the Messiaen is becoming slightly more bearable. Oops, off it goes again. Blech. Taste is malleable - I suppose if I listened to this stuff with an open mind 20 or 30 times I could reprogram my brain to enjoy it. But why bother? Not all art is worthy of attention.

Some people here may love this kind of adventurous musical expression, and find more traditional forms too boring and predictable. Fair enough, to each his own, live and let live, etc. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. But I feel a little sorry for the next sucker.


----------



## mmsbls

haydnfan said:


> Your theory is in direction with the intent of 4'33. The composition is not of absolute silence, the music is the ambient sound that fills the room. It's not about "absolute nothing", it's about listening intently to the sounds that we usually ignore.


Yes, I understand that. In fact that makes the correspondence even more compelling because in physics there is no such thing as "nothing". The classical theory of absolute zero suggests no energy, but in quantum theory there are random fluctuations in all matter that give rise to higher energy states. The "random" coughs, foot movements, and other sounds during 4'33" that occur here and there would correspond well with the random "blips" of energy in a gas molecule, crystal solid, or other matter.

It may be too much to expect that Cage knew about that, but again the 273 seems rather specific. Maybe it is just a coincident.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

That would make an eerie amount of sense. I always wondered if the amount of time was totally arbitrary or not.


----------



## haydnfan

Not only do quantum fluctuations break away from a state of absolute zero, but it is dependent on frame of reference! Anyway I think that 273 is coincidence, but liked your clever, astute reply.


----------



## GoneBaroque

BPS said:


> Inspired by this discussion, I listened to a short extract of Stockhausen's Kontakte, and now I'm listening to Messiaen's Turangalila-Symphonie in full (which I'm a bit embarrassed to say I own). Man, this is unpleasant stuff! Is it art? Is it meaningful? Is it sincere expression? Who knows. I suppose that depends on who gets to define those terms.
> 
> I think the "hoax" element comes in when these artists and works are presented to the hapless public as carriers of the tradition of classical music, the 20th century's answer to Bach, Beethoven, etc. In most cases, these guys aren't worthy of the comparison, and will be forgotten none too soon. While "hoax" is maybe not the best word, arguably I was tricked into buying some stuff which in retrospect seems pretty silly.
> 
> Ok, as I'm writing, the Messiaen is becoming slightly more bearable. Oops, off it goes again. Blech. Taste is malleable - I suppose if I listened to this stuff with an open mind 20 or 30 times I could reprogram my brain to enjoy it. But why bother? Not all art is worthy of attention.
> 
> Some people here may love this kind of adventurous musical expression, and find more traditional forms too boring and predictable. Fair enough, to each his own, live and let live, etc. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. But I feel a little sorry for the next sucker.


What is the "tradition of classical music? While the basic principles are unchanged, music itself has changed with succeeding generations. You are correct that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but to call the sincere efforts of any composer who brings pleasure to others a hoax or fraud is unfair. You have the right to dislike Stockhausen or Messiaen just as others have the right to admire. Remember that in their day Bach and Beethoven were disliked by many.

Rob


----------

