"On 20th-century music..." (Part II)
KL
After such revelations, I gradually understand why people don? get used
to 20th-century music, (However, I must claim that it is only my very
personal point of view ....) as people don? get properly "tuned" when
listening to this kind of music...
20th-century music is only a very "general" label, which covered
numerous composers and compositions of our time. We can find
late-Romantic music, compositions by members of Second Viennese School,
Neo-classical, aleatory, total serial, electronic, "intuitive",
spiritual, stocastic, textural, minimalistic, neo-Romantic, ... musics,
and even blues, jazz, Rock n Roll, R&B, underground, goldies or latest
Canto pops in this historical period. (As this discussion is generally
based on the trends of development of, and the history of classical
music, the latter kinds will be ignored hereafter.) Actually there are
numerous beautiful and easy-to-listen compositions, as well as extremely
sophisticated, complicated, or calculated music in the range, thus it
forms a very wide musical space under a title of “20th-century music”.
However, when people hear the term "20th-century music", they simply
ignore them as some of them may have some unpleasant experiences due to
improper / unprepared intuitions on this kind of music. I'm not claiming
that there are something wrong here, but I may regard that these people
would lose quite a deal of beautiful pearls within this large beach of
sand.
People nowadays only set themselves with ONE single "tuning" when
reading literary works, viewing paintings, art photos, attending dance
or theatre performances and listening to music. In such extent, people
would reject the things which they looks strange, unpleasant, disordered
upon their first experience. They do not ask themselves why the
performers or artist make such kind of works, they just ignore their
rationale behind. They only rely on the feeling on themselves, without
trying to simulate the physical and psychological conditions when the
creators are doing with their work. They just find that when the things
are nonsense to them, they get away with it...
As mentioned in the first part, listening to music, or experiencing
other arts, must set oneself with different "tunings": adapting their
language and aesthetics within, and equipped with new listening
perspectives (at least, leave from the out-of-date field of melodies),
penetrate your mind with new ideas beforehand, no matter you really
accept or not... then you listen to these music once again, and again,
until you can feel the atmosphere of the piece, understand more about
the piece. At this point, you can make your decisions on these music,
whether you really like it or not... in response to your inner mind...
Some people are too bounded to the traditional sound of Classical and
Romantic music, and don't have their "tunings" changed when they listen
to 20th-century music. Music, like languages, changes with time. I think
no one will communicate with 15th-century English, or wen-yin Chinese
now. They will sometimes appear in contemporary literary works, but it
comes out as a kind of mockery, or planned-imitation, or even
admiration. Modern composers do so for their pieces, they use a totally
"up-to-date" musical language, (advanced chromaticism, atonality,
serialism, aleatory, minimalism, ...) as well as adopting old musical
styles as a kind of mockery (such as Henze's "Telemanniana"), imitation
(Villa-Lobos' "Bachianas Brasileiras"), admiration (P?t's choral pieces)
and even creating illusions to the audience (Schnittke? Concerto
grossi).
Some people will find it too difficult to understand 20th-century music
due to the lack of melodic moments, and the complexity of sound
structures (dense polyphonic or micropolyphonic musics). However, many
modern composers has shifted their approach of composition from the
traditional melody, harmony and clear-cut structures to creating more
rhythmic, colourful (sonically-textual) moments or nearly-to-be-chaotic
structures. Music, in a certain extent, could reflect the ideas and the
way of thinking of the people at that time. We found the Medieval music
heavily influenced by Church, Classical music influenced by the idea of
"Sturm und Drang", under the Age of Reason and the Age of Sensibility,
Romantic music influenced from the national Revolutions at that time,
and the 20th-century ones are much influenced by individualism,
skepticism, wars, advancement of technology, resistance of formalism,
etc. And actually, I think some extremely polyphonic, nearly chaotic
music reflect the chaotic and much divided scene of our living time.
Many 20th-century composition has not gone through the mechanism of
historical judgement. Now we can hear only a very limited amount of
Classical and Romantic pieces now. We mostly hear people playing Mozart,
Haydn and Beethoven symphonies and operas, those written by Stamitz,
Gluck, and the members of the Mannheim schools are seldom played now.
But we can hear all kinds of 20th-century pieces now, no matter they are
actually good or poor in quality. So we have too much to listen, and I
think we, as a people of 20th-century, has the right (or
responsibility?) to express our opinion on these pieces, or they will
all fade out with time. For instance, there are already frequent
discussions on the music scenes during the 1930s to 1960s recently, and
some musicologists has going on their research on this field. I think
people will get a more comprehensive information of the music scene at
that time, and thus they could understand more about the music then.
A proper guidance leading the people towards the vast world of
20th-century is desperately needed at this moment. However, Hong Kong
did not provide a suitable environment for such penetration of this kind
of music, even for those who really want to explore them... as it only
belongs to the minorities...
aldous
>Some people will find it too difficult to understand 20th-century music
>due to the lack of melodic moments, and the complexity of sound
>structures (dense polyphonic or micropolyphonic musics). However, many
>modern composers has shifted their approach of composition from the
>traditional melody, harmony and clear-cut structures to creating more
>rhythmic, colourful (sonically-textual) moments or nearly-to-be-chaotic
>structures. Music, in a certain extent, could reflect the ideas and the
>way of thinking of the people at that time. We found the Medieval music
>heavily influenced by Church, Classical music influenced by the idea of
>"Sturm und Drang", under the Age of Reason and the Age of Sensibility,
>Romantic music influenced from the national Revolutions at that time,
>and the 20th-century ones are much influenced by individualism,
>skepticism, wars, advancement of technology, resistance of formalism,
>etc. And actually, I think some extremely polyphonic, nearly chaotic
>music reflect the chaotic and much divided scene of our living time.
Most causal listners simply doesn't care the cultural-historical
background of the Classical and Romantic music which they enjoy so
much. One thing you have to admit these music are less dependent on a
background for enjoyment. In contrast, comtemporary music are mostly
unintelligible without proper "education".
The problem is:
Do we really need to read a lot before we can say we are enjoying the
music? It depends on which level of enjoyment you want. For causal
listners, it may be too much for them. Time is an important
limitation.
>A proper guidance leading the people towards the vast world of
>20th-century is desperately needed at this moment. However, Hong Kong
>did not provide a suitable environment for such penetration of this kind
>of music, even for those who really want to explore them... as it only
>belongs to the minorities...
I think it is doomed to be the acquried taste of minorities.
I even doubt we have a proper environment for cultivating common
interests in serious music, Western or not.
May be it is not only a local problem, because i frequently notice
lament of the decline of music education in foreign dicussions group.
doctorjohn
A few more points to address KL:
I have also tried to listen to a lot of "new" music, and I must say there are
some that I like. But most of them I don't. Isolated instances that I like:
-A lot of Arvo Part. And occasionally Part clones, like Taverner's use of
handbells.
-Early Steve Reich. And some of Glass' earlier music. Even a later piece like
"1,000 airplanes on the roof" is stunning in the theater, but does NOTHING as
music alone. Andriessen occasionally.
-Glenn Branca is sort of intersting, if you can stand being bombarded by a
brass symphony.
-Berio, if that's new music, is sometimes very entertaining. The sinfonia.
-I personally like Schnittke LIVE. On disc not as successful as oftenm but
the concerto with Kremer and Kridenko is a masterpiece.
-I think Chou Wen Chung is nice. The only Chinese "modern" composer I like.
Just a brief list. I have listened to quite a bit and have to conclude
negatively for my taste (just examples):
-Aside from the prepared pinao maybe, Cage is the most bullshit thing I have
come across. Emperor's new clothes. No respect. So what if I know the
background. I have seem his contemporaries too, like Cunningham, so what. I
saw his expensive production "Euro-opera". Yeah, garbage.
-Hong Kong composers are lousy. Please, RTHK, stop playing so much of that
Chan Wing Wah or whatever garbage. I cannot agree with KL that HK does not do
enough for their own new music. HK does as much as say New York. NY Phil does
not play more new music than HK Phil, and certainly the radio does not play
as much new composer. Chan Wing Wah and the likes are already very lucky, AND
they DON'T deserve it.
The problem with "serious" modern music is precisely that. Why the pretense?
Did Mozart lament that he is serious and the others like Salieri is not?
Maybe he thinks the others are inferior, but serious? I would not use that
word. I am serious about music, whether I am listening to pop or classical.
In this respect modern "opera" and "vocal" music are terribly pretentious.
Wedded to excellent theater artists like Wilson etc the result can be great,
but by themselves they fall apart. Tortured vocal lines? We already have the
great Wozzeck! Leave the vocal stuff to our pop singers. I think people like
Bob Marley in Reggae etc are much greater than most of our "serious"
composers. Why? He is sincere. He reaches out. Like Bartok etc he takes the
folk music to a different plateau. And he is a great melodist as well as
lyricist. Just one example.
I agree knowing more of the historical and cultural context helps in
enjoyment. Personally I love the second Viennese school and the arts of their
times, so I read up on it. But we don't do that for everything. We are in HK.
And if HK people love Beethoven and Brahms that already says a lot. Somehow
these composers speak to others not in their own culture. Chan Wing Wah has
the same chance, but obviously he's not successful. Blame who?
I only cite Chan because he's one of the most "successful" (politically), but
he does nothing for me. I love Chinese opera and even found Tan Dun's Marco
Polo musically superior to the production and that awful choreographer
(Martha Clarke I think), but well, there's a limit to tolerance.
I will listen to Marley, Bob Dylan, good rap, and a lot of others, and
that's my context, not Chan Wing Wah. Respect has to be earned.
Finally, even "pop" music is in decline. Almost no more good lyrics now. This
is the age of AV. Let's hope we have some "serious" AV.
aldous wrote:
> Most causal listners simply doesn't care the cultural-historical
> background of the Classical and Romantic music which they enjoy so
> much. One thing you have to admit these music are less dependent on a
> background for enjoyment. In contrast, comtemporary music are mostly
> unintelligible without proper "education".
> The problem is:
> Do we really need to read a lot before we can say we are enjoying the
> music? It depends on which level of enjoyment you want. For causal
> listners, it may be too much for them. Time is an important
> limitation.I think it is doomed to be the acquried taste of minorities.
Vincent Lau
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Those who are attuned to modern
music may indeed derive lots of enjoyment and fulfillment from it. To
them, such music may be pearls. But for others who cannot enjoy it
howsoever hard they try, they would definitely not consider it pearls.
The type of music is simply not for them. It's a fact that all composers
need to face throughout the ages.
You said that modern listeners often "rely on the feeling on themselves,
without trying to simulate the physical and psychological conditions
when the creators are doing with their work". Well, putting aside the
constraints of time, we can of course learn everything about the
background of a piece of work. Yet, in my view, what is basic in music
appreciation is a sincere and genuine identification with the
emotional/spiritual/intellectual contexts of the piece. You talk about
"simulation" but that in itself is already by definition artificial. If
there's no resonance on a personal and emotional level, whatever
knowledge and simulation will fail to move one's soul and one will never
be able to take such music to one's heart.
You talk about the adaptation of language and aesthetics and equipping
oneself with new listening perspectives etc. Well, it's all very
laudable and we should indeed seek to do that, if only to widen our own
musical horizons. But, I can't help thinking that the process involved
is too tortuous and time-consuming (for the average music lover). In my
opinion, in the majority of cases, music should appeal directly to one's
heart and soul without the listener having to try that hard. If one has
indeed to try so very hard, isn't it itself evidence that the composer
and the listener are talking at cross-purposes and that a wall does
exist between the music and the listener, a wall which is standing in
the way of a communication between different souls? And that may not be
the fault of the listener! Of course, music may also present an
intellectual challenge to listeners and music appreciation does in many
cases involve an effort on the part of the listener. However, if such
challenge is too great and obscure, it will become a liability instead,
which is not conducive to it being understood by most people. Of course,
if you consider music a mathematical formulae (and some of them are),
then there's no problem for you. But I'm afraid that the majority will
think otherwise.
You say that "music... could reflect the ideas and the way of thinking
of the people at that time". But have you considered whether the musical
language that many modern composers use is actually consistent with the
way of thinking of modern people? I don't think they all are. Instead I
got the impression that some composers are experimenting with their own
sound worlds which are far removed from the basic way of thinking and
emotional response of the modern man. Furthermore, I just don't see that
those modern concepts of "individualism, skepticism, wars, advancement
of technology, resistance of formalism etc." are not already explored in
older compositions. And even if modern music are influenced by these
concepts, have you considered the possibility that the compositional
style used by many modern composers is so elusive and inconsistent with
the consitutional or inborn aesthetics of our senses that, whatever
messages their works embody, these works are bound to be misrepresented,
misunderstood or under-appreciated?
In short, as listeners, we should indeed try to appreciate different
types of music. However, if composers ignore the basic contraints of the
human constitution and turn out works that the average music lover can't
readily identify with (perhaps after spending a bit effort), their works
are unlikely to have any life outside the music museum.
And perhaps it's because of this that some composers have now reverted
to tonal music and a more traditional approach in composition. Perhaps
they've realised that their experiments have gone too far...
I do agree with some of the views expressed by Aldous and Doctor John
and I won't repeat it here.
Vincent
Vincent Lau
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that the musical
taste in New York can be quite conservative. Just look at the repertoire
of the MET, and compare it with the European houses.
Opera is written to be seen AND heard, and a visual element can in many
cases enhance the impact of these musico-dramatic works. This principle
is not confined to modern opera.
Modern opera and vocal music are pretentious? Well, the vocal line of
some of them are indeed weird and baffling. However, the vocal line of
many modern works is actually no further removed from normal speech than
an aria by Mozart. Viewed from a certain angle, the jarring and tortuous
vocal line may be as unnatural as a diminuendo high C sung by Aida when
reminiscing her motherland, or the cascades of fiery roulades which
Norma greets her unfaithful lover. And in certain cases, the speech-song
of modern opera may in fact be closer to normal speech, and thus
reality.
But one of the major reasons why modern opera seems to be so alienating
is that the music is often perceived to be unrelated to the dramatic
situation as well as the emotions of the protagonists. Instead, the
music often appears to be mere sound effects which actually intrudes
upon the drama and/or music flow. One can't help feeling that the
(egocentric?) composer is deliberating aiming at confounding the
audience. The audience just can't make out what the emotions of the
characters are at the relevant time by listening to the music and
without referring to the text. Actually, if one doesn't read the text,
I'm afraid that most modern vocal works would mean very little to most
people.
On the other hand, in more classical operas, the vocal line, howsoever
unnatural it may be, is often able to convey a mood by itself through
purely musical means, and therefore integrating it into the drama and
thereby producing a musico-dramatic unity. That by itself can already
draw people in. So, when Aida sings her high C in the Nile Aria, the
listener can feel the sense of longing, melancholy and resignation and
the effect is further enhanced by the evocative orchestration by Verdi.
And when Norma denounces Pollione in a florid polonaise, we can feel the
anger and the pent up emotion being released through such brilliant
vocalism. I'm afraid that many modern opera composers simply fail to
realise these basic matters (which are, in my view, crucial to any
musico-dramatic work) and as a result, their works "fall apart" if they
are to be judged from the side of music alone. And this drawback would
also greatly diminishes the chances of these works being made known and
promoted through the medium of recordings as many most of them do sound
very limp when heard through the speakers.
However, I hope you wouldn't tar all modern operas with the same brush.
There are indeed some good works which, judging from the amount of
revivals and the reception by the audience, may stand a good chance of
surviving. Who knows if they won't become classics 50 years down the
road. And I must say that even without the images in front of me, I can
still enjoy some of these operas quite a bit.
Vincent
aldous
"blow-water" remarks only ^^
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 11:52:22 +0800, Vincent Lau
<vinc...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>Just a few points :
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that the musical
>taste in New York can be quite conservative. Just look at the repertoire
>of the MET, and compare it with the European houses.
Europeans generally have a superior cultural self-conciousness when
comparing themselves with Americans...snobbism?
>Opera is written to be seen AND heard, and a visual element can in many
>cases enhance the impact of these musico-dramatic works. This principle
>is not confined to modern opera.
That may be why i can't still "get" into the world of opera!
>
>Modern opera and vocal music are pretentious? Well, the vocal line of
>some of them are indeed weird and baffling. However, the vocal line of
>many modern works is actually no further removed from normal speech than
>an aria by Mozart. Viewed from a certain angle, the jarring and tortuous
>vocal line may be as unnatural as a diminuendo high C sung by Aida when
>reminiscing her motherland, or the cascades of fiery roulades which
>Norma greets her unfaithful lover. And in certain cases, the speech-song
>of modern opera may in fact be closer to normal speech, and thus
>reality.
..the old debates between the primacy of words and music? Then, does
it mean that to enjoy the music, we really need to have some basic
understanding of the particular language in question. e.g. Janacek
Opera
>But one of the major reasons why modern opera seems to be so alienating
>is that the music is often perceived to be unrelated to the dramatic
>situation as well as the emotions of the protagonists. Instead, the
>music often appears to be mere sound effects which actually intrudes
>upon the drama and/or music flow. One can't help feeling that the
>(egocentric?) composer is deliberating aiming at confounding the
>audience. The audience just can't make out what the emotions of the
>characters are at the relevant time by listening to the music and
>without referring to the text. Actually, if one doesn't read the text,
>I'm afraid that most modern vocal works would mean very little to most
>people.
That's the main problem indeed. I always can't help to think/feel that
the first things attracting me are the sound effects only. And a only
a few exceptions really move me emotionally at the first time, e.g.
Arvo Part.
>On the other hand, in more classical operas, the vocal line, howsoever
>unnatural it may be, is often able to convey a mood by itself through
>purely musical means, and therefore integrating it into the drama and
>thereby producing a musico-dramatic unity. That by itself can already
>draw people in. So, when Aida sings her high C in the Nile Aria, the
>listener can feel the sense of longing, melancholy and resignation and
>the effect is further enhanced by the evocative orchestration by Verdi.
>And when Norma denounces Pollione in a florid polonaise, we can feel the
>anger and the pent up emotion being released through such brilliant
>vocalism. I'm afraid that many modern opera composers simply fail to
>realise these basic matters (which are, in my view, crucial to any
>musico-dramatic work) and as a result, their works "fall apart" if they
>are to be judged from the side of music alone. And this drawback would
>also greatly diminishes the chances of these works being made known and
>promoted through the medium of recordings as many most of them do sound
>very limp when heard through the speakers.
Some of them are even not for two speakers stereo reproduction (at
least it needs special technology to simulate the original effect)
>
>However, I hope you wouldn't tar all modern operas with the same brush.
>There are indeed some good works which, judging from the amount of
>revivals and the reception by the audience, may stand a good chance of
>surviving. Who knows if they won't become classics 50 years down the
>road. And I must say that even without the images in front of me, I can
>still enjoy some of these operas quite a bit.
Can you give us some examples of which you think will definitely
become a classics later. It will be a good guide for someone who want
to try.
KL
aldous wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 17:19:35 +0800, KL <kun...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >Music, in a certain extent, could reflect the ideas and the way of
> thinking of the people at that time.
> In contrast, comtemporary music are mostly unintelligible without proper
> "education".
> The problem is:
> Do we really need to read a lot before we can say we are enjoying the
> music? It depends on which level of enjoyment you want. For causal
> listners, it may be too much for them. Time is an important limitation.
You're right at this point. But as you've said also, the language of the
contemporary music do draw away many concet audiences. Some composers will
give up and change their styles drastically in order to get the audiences
back, such as Penderecki, Gorecki, Part, etc. But some composers will believe
in Futurist's view: More people in the future will understand their music
than the people at present. They relied on structures, complicated
calculations, or off-the-earth fantasies and imagination. Indeed, the
language is even more diverse these days and it seems the former types of
composers are successful to attain the attention of ordinary listeners.
However, if the people heard the word 'modern music' and get away with them,
they'll miss these good pieces and that's regretful for exploring one's
listening experiences.
> I even doubt we have a proper environment for cultivating common interests
> in serious music, Western or not.
I don't have much idea about culture to say here. But that's obvious that
Hong Kong leaves no space for the people to get into more serious and deeper
things. All things changes with time, trend, taste, etc. and most people
simply follow. Some things could go in different ways or methods, but the
environment forbids us to develop independence...
KL
KL
doctorjohn wrote:
> -A lot of Arvo Part. And occasionally Part clones, like Taverner's use of
> handbells.
I think you may add Gorecki, Schnittke .... in your list.
> -Berio, if that's new music, is sometimes very entertaining. The sinfonia.
There are many of his pieces which sounds interesting, like his recent "Sequenza"
release.
> -I personally like Schnittke LIVE. On disc not as successful as oftenm but the
> concerto with Kremer and Kridenko is a masterpiece.
Sorry. The 1st Concerto grosso performed in this year's Arts festival is much
worse then in the DG recording.
> -I think Chou Wen Chung is nice. The only Chinese "modern" composer I like.
I also agree. But he had too few recordings. Much of his pieces, like his famous
"For the Fallen Patals" for orchestra could only appear on LP.
> -Aside from the prepared pinao maybe, Cage is the most bullshit thing I have
> come across. Emperor's new clothes. No respect. So what if I know the
> background. I have seem his contemporaries too, like Cunningham, so what. I saw
> his expensive production "Euro-opera". Yeah, garbage.
Then, it's unfortunate for you to see "Europera" (actually, which part? 1? 2/3?
4? 5?). I didn't get on with contemporary music for very long time, and could
just experience lively very recently. Take out the theories away and try to
listen again to his early and late works. I have to admir that some of his middle
pieces often sounds odd, uncontrolled and random to the audience (such as his
"Variations") But his early and late pieces should reserved their places on CD
shelves of modern music lovers. Music, at last, should depend on the listening
experience it gave to the listeners.
> -Hong Kong composers are lousy. Please, RTHK, stop playing so much of that Chan
> Wing Wah or whatever garbage. I cannot agree with KL that HK does not do enough
> for their own new music. HK does as much as say New York. NY Phil does not play
> more new music than HK Phil, and certainly the radio does not play as much new
> composer. Chan Wing Wah and the likes are already very lucky, AND they DON'T
> deserve it.
Please read my article again and you'll see that I've **NO** intention on this
point. I sometimes think that HK composers have too much chance now and some
compositions are so poorly written that the performers should reserve their
rights to perform that. But, if theree are no bad pieces, how to judge out those
better ones? I've said that most of the pieces now has not go through historical
judgement. So, it's up to you to have yours.
> The problem with "serious" modern music is precisely that. Why the pretense?
You've a very personal opinion on that.
- Some composers invent new systems, sense of melody/harmony, methods of
expression, tone colours, etc. simply because they find the old one no longer
expressive enough.
- Classification of musics only exist from this century, not only different
musical styles (pop, jazz, new age, etc.) but also different musics composers in
different historical times (Baroque, ancient Chinese, etc.)
=> All the thing is the matter of expression. No one pretend to be another one.
In this century, different people have the right to do different things. We
should respect their rights. Also, copyright and trademarks already forbid those
"copycats" to copy the things directly without permission. On the other hand,
stylistic imitations, as I've said in the article, are all purposedly done these
days. But some of them I do have some reservations. For example, those composers
who still write Symphonies. Some symphony composers really makes good product.
(e.g. Lutoslawski's Symphony No.1-- really good work but many people simply
ignored it.) However, some composers want to have works entitled "Symphony" and
do not have much creativity on it. I really don't like such works like these.
KL
Vincent Lau
>
> I have nothing to offer, the followings are some irresponsible
> "blow-water" remarks only ^^
Oh, Aldous, don't be so humble! Your comments have always been
well-considered, to-the-point and illuminating! ^_^
>
> On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 11:52:22 +0800, Vincent Lau
> <vinc...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>
> >Just a few points :
> >
> >Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that the musical
> >taste in New York can be quite conservative. Just look at the repertoire
> >of the MET, and compare it with the European houses.
>
> Europeans generally have a superior cultural self-conciousness when
> comparing themselves with Americans...snobbism?
I'll leave the answer to this question to those who've lived in or
travelled extensively throughout the US and/or Europe. But I believe the
differences in historical background between the two do have
considerable effect in these things.
>
> >Opera is written to be seen AND heard, and a visual element can in many
> >cases enhance the impact of these musico-dramatic works. This principle
> >is not confined to modern opera.
>
> That may be why i can't still "get" into the world of opera!
I can appreciate the fact that many keen lovers of classical music just
cannot warm to opera. So, I'm afraid I'll always be in the minority!
But then, even if the absence of a visual element may decrease the
appeal of opera, many operas still contain sufficient of sublime music
(and possesses sufficient dramatic tension) to be appreciated through
the speakers.
>
> >
> >Modern opera and vocal music are pretentious? Well, the vocal line of
> >some of them are indeed weird and baffling. However, the vocal line of
> >many modern works is actually no further removed from normal speech than
> >an aria by Mozart. Viewed from a certain angle, the jarring and tortuous
> >vocal line may be as unnatural as a diminuendo high C sung by Aida when
> >reminiscing her motherland, or the cascades of fiery roulades which
> >Norma greets her unfaithful lover. And in certain cases, the speech-song
> >of modern opera may in fact be closer to normal speech, and thus
> >reality.
>
> ..the old debates between the primacy of words and music? Then, does
> it mean that to enjoy the music, we really need to have some basic
> understanding of the particular language in question. e.g. Janacek
> Opera
A good opera composer will no doubt take into account the
characteristics of the language when composing the notes (that's why
they have to work so closely with the librettists), and a great singing
actor would be able to infuse the texts with meaning by highlighting
certain syllables and the utilisation of a wide palette of tone colours
(but without significantly compromising the melodic flow). Thus, if we
have some basic knowledge of the language, we may be able to enjoy these
subtler aspects of the art form.
Nevertheless, even though, with the exception of English, I don't know
anything about any other foreign language, I can still derive
considerable enjoyment through operatic music alone. Of course, I'll
need to do a bit of homework (not much though) beforehand e.g. reading
the background of the work, the synopsis and perhaps following the
libretto when I'm listening to the CD, especially for the first few
times. After all, opera is purported to be a symbiosis of drama, words
and music and it's only appropriate that we have some basic
understanding of each of these aspects before we can appreciate the
thing as a whole.
But at the end of the day, it depends on what level of enjoyment you
wish to get out of the work. In many cases, once you've familiarised
yourself with the plot and the scenes (of perhaps a few of the major
utterances of the principal roles), the music will have sufficient power
by itself to pull you in (and get you hooked). If, however, you wish to
admire the work (as well as the interpretation of the singers) in more
detail, unless you know the language, you may indeed need the libretto
with you so that you can follow each and every phrase and see what
sublime (or bad) things a composer or singer has done. Thus, I have to
admit that listening to operas, especially ones which I'm not familiar
with, can be much more tiring than listening to a new piece of non-vocal
music.
Besides this, different types of operas may poses different challenges
to the listener. In most 19th century Italian opera, the emphasis is on
the music and the traditional aria/duet/chorus structure makes it easy
to appreciate them from a purely musical perspective. (After all, in
many Italian operas, the words don't really matter and many of the
stories are actually ridiculous!) But certain operas, and you rightly
mentioned Janacek's works as an example, are much more difficult to
appreciate and you may need to pay more attention to the words. (And
perhaps that is why performances of Janacek's operas can sometimes still
attract only a half-empty house in the West despite the presence of a
good cast.)
>
> >But one of the major reasons why modern opera seems to be so alienating
> >is that the music is often perceived to be unrelated to the dramatic
> >situation as well as the emotions of the protagonists. Instead, the
> >music often appears to be mere sound effects which actually intrudes
> >upon the drama and/or music flow. One can't help feeling that the
> >(egocentric?) composer is deliberating aiming at confounding the
> >audience. The audience just can't make out what the emotions of the
> >characters are at the relevant time by listening to the music and
> >without referring to the text. Actually, if one doesn't read the text,
> >I'm afraid that most modern vocal works would mean very little to most
> >people.
>
> That's the main problem indeed. I always can't help to think/feel that
> the first things attracting me are the sound effects only. And a only
> a few exceptions really move me emotionally at the first time, e.g.
> Arvo Part.
>
> >On the other hand, in more classical operas, the vocal line, howsoever
> >unnatural it may be, is often able to convey a mood by itself through
> >purely musical means, and therefore integrating it into the drama and
> >thereby producing a musico-dramatic unity. That by itself can already
> >draw people in. So, when Aida sings her high C in the Nile Aria, the
> >listener can feel the sense of longing, melancholy and resignation and
> >the effect is further enhanced by the evocative orchestration by Verdi.
> >And when Norma denounces Pollione in a florid polonaise, we can feel the
> >anger and the pent up emotion being released through such brilliant
> >vocalism. I'm afraid that many modern opera composers simply fail to
> >realise these basic matters (which are, in my view, crucial to any
> >musico-dramatic work) and as a result, their works "fall apart" if they
> >are to be judged from the side of music alone. And this drawback would
> >also greatly diminishes the chances of these works being made known and
> >promoted through the medium of recordings as many most of them do sound
> >very limp when heard through the speakers.
>
> Some of them are even not for two speakers stereo reproduction (at
> least it needs special technology to simulate the original effect)
>
> >
> >However, I hope you wouldn't tar all modern operas with the same brush.
> >There are indeed some good works which, judging from the amount of
> >revivals and the reception by the audience, may stand a good chance of
> >surviving. Who knows if they won't become classics 50 years down the
> >road. And I must say that even without the images in front of me, I can
> >still enjoy some of these operas quite a bit.
>
> Can you give us some examples of which you think will definitely
> become a classics later. It will be a good guide for someone who want
> to try.
Erh... I dare not give prophecies of any sort! Some of the works which
many people may consider "modern" have already established a strong
foothold in the repertoire. Some may already have become "classics".
Examples of these include some of the operas by Berg, Britten,
Shostakovich, Stravinsky and Prokofiev. Others even more "modern" ones
which are surviving include Schoenberg's "Moses und Aron" and certain
operas by Philip Glass. I've not yet had the opportunity to listen to
the operas of Birtwistle, Tippett, Corigliano and Turnage but some of
their works have continued to receive a healthy number of revivals since
their premiere. Ligeti's "Le Grand Macabre" belongs to the group which
is better appreciated in the opera house while I find Ades's "Powder Her
Face" to be rather delightful even on record.
No, I don't think opera as a music genre is already dead. It just
depends on whether the work is a successful fusion of drama, words and
music which can strike a chord in the heart of the audience. And some
modern operas can still succeed in this.
Vincent
¤ý¬¥»«
最差一等的是毫無動人之處的，不少香港流行曲都屬於此等，
幾乎全沒有感人或有趣味的地方，絕少創新，經常抄襲，
不過一般人最易接受。
最上一等的是能感動人，使人下淚的音樂。
它表現的是人類共有的憂鬱、激動、哀傷、痛苦等內心深處的情感，
初聽時可能聽不懂，但聽懂了以後就會感到悲慟，
馬勒、老柴、布拉姆斯的交響曲都是這類。
第二等的是有趣味有創新的，大部份二十世紀所謂嚴肅音樂都屬此類。
不過很多時這些作曲家作曲時忘了感動人才是最大目的，
一味追求創新，他們的創作恐怕只是為了孤芳自賞，以示自己不肖於
流行曲當行的洪流。過份想駭人耳目，結果手段變成了目的，
反而忘了本來的目的，結果這類音樂最難聽懂，
恐怕有些作曲家只是想著聽不聽懂只是聽眾的問題，自己卻不反思一下。
始終只有寫感動人的音樂才是永恆的。君不見拉赫曼尼諾夫、理查史特勞斯、
在其他人在寫些無厘頭的十二音列時，他們卻照寫浪漫派的音樂不誤，
一樣寫出了自己的風格。現在人們崇敬他們，卻那有人真心由衷喜愛荀白克!
當然有不少二十世紀音樂家的音樂還是感人的，
我很喜歡Nielson、Bartok、Messiaen這幾個作曲家。
但是感人的二十世紀音樂實在太少了，結果使人望而卻步。
這不止是香港的問題，根本全世界喜歡這些嚴肅音樂的人就不多，
我覺得所有作曲家都要反思一下自己作曲的目的是想寫感人的音樂
還是想演野、或是創造理論。
文盲
一段:
<趨勢>
第三, 爭取更多的聽眾
失去了廣大聽眾, 是廿世紀世界"新音樂"的最大弊端. 喪失了聽眾和演奏家, 使當
代許多鼎鼎大名的現代派作曲家處於孤獨冷清的境地. 美國作曲家M. Babbitt
1958年發表的<誰在乎你聽不聽>一文中說: 現代作曲家花大量時間,精力和財力創
作出來的作品卻不被人理解, 公眾無共趣,演唱/奏家也不願演它价. 這種狀況反映
了現代音樂的艱難遭遇. 這正是廿世紀"新音樂"的悲哀.我們不能重蹈複轍. 美國
作曲家R. Harris 說: "假如無人買玉米和白面的話, 說明這玉米和白面並不好.
音樂與此無多大分別." 這證明現代作曲家也希望他的音樂成為人們生活的必需品.
我們的作曲家應將爭取盡多的聽眾作一項崇高目標, 以從世界範圍內解決嚴肅音樂
不景氣的狀況. 嚴肅音樂應向通俗音樂借鑒學習, 縮短作品與聽眾心靈的脫離.
將有更多作曲家同時致力於實驗音樂及通俗音樂的創作. 通俗器樂音樂將得到更快
發展.
=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A4=FD=AC=A5=BB=AB?= 寫道：
>
> 請恕狂妄，在下以為音樂可分為三等：
>
> 最差一等的是毫無動人之處的，不少香港流行曲都屬於此等，
> 幾乎全沒有感人或有趣味的地方，絕少創新，經常抄襲，
> 不過一般人最易接受。
>
> 最上一等的是能感動人，使人下淚的音樂。
> 它表現的是人類共有的憂鬱、激動、哀傷、痛苦等內心深處的情感，
> 初聽時可能聽不懂，但聽懂了以後就會感到悲慟，
> 馬勒、老柴、布拉姆斯的交響曲都是這類。
>
> 第二等的是有趣味有創新的，大部份二十世紀所謂嚴肅音樂都屬此類。
> 不過很多時這些作曲家作曲時忘了感動人才是最大目的，
> 一味追求創新，他們的創作恐怕只是為了孤芳自賞，以示自己不肖於
> 流行曲當行的洪流。過份想駭人耳目，結果手段變成了目的，
> 反而忘了本來的目的，結果這類音樂最難聽懂，
> 恐怕有些作曲家只是想著聽不聽懂只是聽眾的問題，自己卻不反思一下。
>
> 始終只有寫感動人的音樂才是永恆的。君不見拉赫曼尼諾夫、理查史特勞斯、
> 在其他人在寫些無厘頭的十二音列時，他們卻照寫浪漫派的音樂不誤，
> 一樣寫出了自己的風格。現在人們崇敬他們，卻那有人真心由衷喜愛荀白克!
>
> 當然有不少二十世紀絳眳a的音樂還是感人的，
KL
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Those who are attuned to modern music
> may indeed derive lots of enjoyment and fulfillment from it. To them, such
> music may be pearls. But for others who cannot enjoy it howsoever hard they
> try, they would definitely not consider it pearls. The type of music is
> simply not for them. [...]
Yeah, 'pearl' is my adjective to some really good, enjoyable pieces. In this
context, I would also like to draw my interest to those "more accessible"
pieces, as those by Part, Gorecki, recent Penderecki pieces, etc. I think
these works are 'generally acceptable'. If those 'restricted' listeners limit
themselves too much, I think these are really the 'pearls' they'll even miss.
> You said that modern listeners often "rely on the feeling on themselves,
> without trying to simulate the physical and psychological conditions when
> the creators are doing with their work". [...] Yet, in my view, what is
> basic in music appreciation is a sincere and genuine identification with the
> emotional/spiritual/intellectual contexts of the piece. [...] If there's no
> resonance on a personal and emotional level, whatever knowledge and
> simulation will fail to move one's soul and one will never be able to take
> such music to one's heart.
I think yours is a better interpretation of my ideas, indeed I'm talking about
the same point as you, but using a bad expression to convey this.
You've talked about "resonance". It's true that it's immediate, but can one be
nurtured and developed one's inner "tunings" by explorations, if one can be
away from the tradition sense?
(... to be continued...)
Falcon S. L. Poon
music: the breakdown of tonality. I wonder why tonal/modal music,
which had served every civilisation in the world for hundreds if not
thousands of years, should suddenly became a vice, something to be
banished at all costs. Granted, there are always composers not
contented with what is currently available to them, and it is only
natural that they set out to find a new form of expression; yet when
all of a sudden almost everyone in the academic circle thinks that
tonality is inadequate, and went on to criticize colleges who are
perfectly happy with tonal/modal compositions, then the situation is
highly unusual and requires an explanation, especially when everyone
*outside* the ivory tower -- pop singers, folk and jazz musicians, and
their audiences -- find no problems with tonal/modal music.
It is perhaps an irony that the academic exercise of atonality (and
related iconoclastic movements), set out to "free" composers from the
*supposed* limitations of tonal music, had in the end defeated its own
purpose -- as the "new-form" became an obligation, an academic
composer is no longer "free" to compose music in the "old-form"
without suffering from criticism. While it is true that the academic
climate had become more sympathetic in the last 10 years or so, I
suspect, for some composer at least, the only way to freedom is to
publish their works outside the academic circle -- and by doing so
their work will lose all the glory of being "serious music".
I'm not sure whether it is a great price to pay, perhaps academics
really like their works to be called "serious music"; but the call of
freedom must be a fairly strong one, because some teaching professors
of music did follow it, and became respected figures in new age (Paul
Sauvanet in France, and our 朝瓣キ), ambient (Robert Scott Thompson in
Canada), and folk (Micheal O'Suilleabhain in Ireland) music.
Back to the academic circle. Many have already commented that it is
not solely the listener's responsibility for not being able to "grasp"
the more demanding compositions. I'd like to add that this is the
composer's responsibility to explain the works to the audience,
preferably in simple, non-technical terms, because no one understands
the work better than the composer himself. Academic composers are
never very keen on making their intent clear. When told that people
are unable to appreciate their music, their usual reaction are "My
music by its very own nature is difficult to understand, as it written
for the future generation", or " You do need to brush up your maths
before approaching my works. Please come back after course MT9957864c:
Deformations in Galois Representations"
Composers of academic music must be aware that his/her potential
audience are not 18-century Viennese noblemen who can spend all his
waking hours appreciating music -- we have our jobs, our family and
other obligations. We can only give so much of our time and efforts.
On the other hand modern academic compositions, compared to old
classical works like Mozart, demands far more mental efforts on the
listener's part. You can see the conflict here: composers demands
greater and greater attention from the audience, while their audience
can afford less and less.
Another characteristic of academic music is that it almost never serve
useful social functions. Can you have candle-light dinner as someone
plays Schoenberg in the background? Can you imagine Stockhausen in a
wedding, or an aleatoric John Cage in a funeral? Academics insist
that their compositions are meant to be appreciated on their own
terms, but I'm sure most common people still prefer music that has
something to do with their lives.
Finally, two more things I'd like to raise. The first is the common
supposition that the deluge of nerve-racking, ear-torturing academic
music (sometimes complete with performers running amok on stage) is a
reflection of the chaos, uncertainty and stress of modern life. I
find it hard to accept. Certainly folk singers, without the shelter
from the ivory tower, is expected to face more harsh realities in life
than academics, but I've yet to see a folk singer running berserk on
stage (rockers admittedly do). One of the duty of an artist is to
transcend what he/she encounters in daily life, together with his/her
thoughts and emotions, into an art-form. They are not supposed to
merely duplicate or emulate the reality that they found so
undesirable, and then to call it art. The 20th century is not the
first "chaotic" period in humanity, and it's certainly not the last.
The second thing is: It amazes me that so many academic composers,
accessible to all imaginable sounds and composition techniques,
complain about "having nothing to write", while a humble folk musician
with only her acoustic guitar, a simple jazzman with nothing but his
horns, continues to create fresh and enlightening music, like water
bubbling from a clear fountain. May be I'm cynical, but I guess this
has something to do with the cut-throat nature of the academia: you
must out-do everyone in your specialty, or you'll lose your job -- so
everyone churns out compositions that are more bizarre than those in
the past, eventually resulting in some musical monstrosities that
cannot be out-bizarred -- then they complained that there is nothing
else to do.
I hope no one find my comments too offensive, and please correct me if
I'm mistaken.
F. S. L. Poon
-------------------------------------
And it's funny the way he kept talking about you,
He called for you at the end.
O Why don't you think about coming to visit,
We all love to see you again...
-- "Kilkelly", an Irish folk song
-------------------------------------
Criticism is a cheap substitute for Analysis
-------------------------------------
Falcon S. L. Poon
<docto...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>The problem with "serious" modern music is precisely that. Why the pretense?
>Did Mozart lament that he is serious and the others like Salieri is not?
>Maybe he thinks the others are inferior, but serious? I would not use that
>word. I am serious about music, whether I am listening to pop or classical.
Serious music. Isn't it amazing that so few are able to see the
problem with this term? The term "serious music" is judgemental: by
calling something "serious music" you imply that other musical pieces
are "not serious" -- but who is to judge? what are the criteria? and
why? Is it fair at all to call some music "not serious"?
If every musical piece resulting from a genuine attempt for artistic
expression deserves to be taken seriously, then I cannot see why I
shouldn't call a well-written Canto-pop song, an Irish folk song, a
movie soundtrack, a sensual jazz piece, a Chinese drum performance, an
ambient soundscape... "serious music". That's why, in my other
article, I refer to what's usually called "serious music" as "academic
music", which is a descriptive (rather than judgemental) term -- and
this is much fairer to everybody.
F. S. L. Poon
-------------------------------------
Can a man hope to last
Not knowing his past?
If he chooses to stay
Will the world fade away?
-- "All You Can Know"
by Steve McDonald
Vincent Lau
As always, you've given us a marvellously written, well-argued and
insightful article, Falcon! I'm afraid Kuno will be having a hard time
to refute any of your arguments! :p
Vincent
doctorjohn
from a Beijing opera childhood, it was not difficult to get to appreciate Puccini,
Verdi etc. As you have pointed out, they have that requisite human quality, the
preparation, the teasing, the delivery of the big moment. And they let the singers,
who do the delivery, to really indulge a bit.
And most of the modern stuff? Born with the problems of using politics and words
and analysis to argue the "intellectual" case. No showmanship.
I always believe we need stars in operas, but modern opera composers refuse to let
any singer become the star. I think Broadway musicals are very much opera as I know
it, more so than much "serious" work. But even B'way is in decline. No good vocal
lines anymore!!!!!!!!
Perhaps I should say I think singing with lyrics is half-dead, and may go out with
the 21st century. We will just get more animal sound for sheer vocalism.
Actually I don't mind exploring new theater, but "classical" opera is not among
them. In case of misunderstanding, I regard "Wozzeck" and "Bluebeard" etc as
classics. Adams, Glass, no thanks. Now, "The death of Klinghoffer", would anyone
want to hear that opera?
doctorjohn
hardly "modern"!
KL wrote:
> ...For example, those composers
Michael Lee
> As always, you've given us a marvellously written, well-argued and
> insightful article, Falcon! I'm afraid Kuno will be having a hard time
> to refute any of your arguments! :p
Yes indeed! Falcon's article is excellent. I was going to write something
similar but there is no need now!
Here I would like to add my two cents. In addition to their bias against
tonality, I think contemporary composers use their brains more than their
hearts when they compose. In the past, Beethoven talked about writing music
from the heart, Mahler talked about the symphony embracing the world,
Schumann encrypted love messages in his music, etc. Nowadays many composers
write music based on highly logical and/or mathematical methodologies. They
seem to be more interested in the means rather than the end of composing.
They are more like linguists inventing new languages rather than poets
creating literature from existing languages.
Contemporary music stuns us with complexity (sometimes extreme simplicity),
new sonority, innovative ideas, etc. It stimulates our mind. On the other
hand, "traditional" music moves us with something indescribable (e.g. we
love some beautiful melodies, but why?). It touches our soul. Depending on
what one looks for in music, one might like or dislike contemporary music.
I am a person who values feelings above practicalities, and naturally I
prefer music that speaks to my heart.
Michael Lee
_____________________________________________
Yahoo! Gustav Mahler Club
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/gustavmahlerclub
KL
"Falcon S. L. Poon" wrote:
> I've always been puzzled by one particular thing about modern academic
> music: the breakdown of tonality. I wonder why tonal/modal music, which
> had served every civilisation in the world for hundreds if not thousands
> of years, should suddenly became a vice, something to be banished at all
> costs.
You point is very doubtful, and far away from the truth!!!
First, the dodecaphonic system of temperament is a very recent invention
and, as far as I know, only Chinese (from Ming dynasty) and Europeans,
from the time of early Baroque period (e.g. J.S.Bach), had adopted
this12-tone temperament! From many researches of world music, it's obvious
that many traditional music in, for instance, India and Eastern Europe,
did not have themselves a system of 12-tone tunings or temperament. They
may have irregular tunings, and which are strictly forbidden in the
Western world from the Baroque time until the latter half of the
20th-century. Many 20th-century composers tries to have their pieces
performed on microtonic instruments, or have microtonic tunings on
traditional instruments (e.g. strings) as they've known only very recently
about the unequal, or more sophisticated subdivisions of the pitches
within an octave, which is already a custom for many world music.
On the other hand, Schoenberg's idea of atonality, or serial music is
actually based on the 12-tone temperament, without any intention to invent
other pitches. So, serial music is just only another kind of treatment of
12-tone temperament, the other way round from the established harmonic
system from the time of J.S.Bach. Indeed, Schoenberg's idea avoids the
audience to sense the central note between all the 12 pitches, as
Schoenberg thought that putting them in a row, with careful rational
treatment, will avoid that. I don't want to argue for the validity of his
method, but he had just put another suggestion of 12-tone treatment only.
Only when these two methods are combined, your statement could be valid.
Try Boulez's "Le visage nuptial" (written in serial style but for
instruments in quartertonic tunings, 1946) and try to get your idea for
it.
> [...] yet when all of a sudden almost everyone in the academic circle
> thinks that tonality is inadequate, and went on to criticize colleges
> who are perfectly happy with tonal/modal compositions, then the
> situation is highly unusual and requires an explanation, especially when
> everyone *outside* the ivory tower -- pop singers, folk and jazz
> musicians, and their audiences -- find no problems with tonal/modal
> music.
Let me use a historic example to illustrate this point.
Hans Werner Henze, although his music is no longer tonal, his style is
much inherited from the traditional forms in Western music, such as
symphonies, concertos, sonatas, operas, etc. Much of his music, for the
audiences now, will found much lyrical from those serial compositions at
the same time. However, during the hot years of the Darmstadt movement
(1950s), Henze's musics was often criticized by those Darmstadt heads like
Nono, Stockhausen, Boulez, etc. For example, after the starting 3 minutes
of the first performance of Henze's ballet "Undine" (now recorded on CD),
they went away and critized the too-formal treatment of the music.
So, the situation is even more serious that, once, even the composers
believe in different ideology will be heavily critized by the other bands.
Fortunately, this situation does not exist at this moment. ...
> It is perhaps an irony that the academic exercise of atonality (and
> related iconoclastic movements), set out to "free" composers from the
> *supposed* limitations of tonal music, had in the end defeated its own
> purpose -- as the "new-form" became an obligation, an academic composer
> is no longer "free" to compose music in the "old-form" without suffering
> from criticism.
I'm not familiar with the academic circle of composers. However, from the
illustrations used and methods adopted by the present composer-teachers,
it seems that they often tries to avoid students to compose in too-tonal
ways. In contrast, those works written by more famous composers seems to
go more tonal.
> While it is true that the academic climate had become more sympathetic
> in the last 10 years or so, I suspect, for some composer at least, the
> only way to freedom is to publish their works outside the academic
> circle -- and by doing so
> their work will lose all the glory of being "serious music".
I think that's not very true. Many experimentalists in the 1950s, like the
music by Bussolti, still can't have his musics published, while those
composers wrote their music in between the pioneers and traditional will
be published. I don't think the publishers will consider very much about
the composer's ideology for sounds. They only consider about the
composer's reputations, importance and popularity. And I don't think the
publishers will drive the composers away if they've changed their styles.
If the pieces go even more popular after such changes, the publishers are
even more willing to publish their scores. That's why Universal Edition
will publish the works by Arvo Part, Steve Reich, etc. as they can bring a
lot of money to the publisher!
> [...] the call of freedom must be a fairly strong one, because some
> teaching professors of music did follow it, and became respected figures
> in new age (Paul Sauvanet in France, and our 朝瓣キ), ambient (Robert
> Scott Thompson in Canada), and folk (Micheal O'Suilleabhain in Ireland)
> music.
Indeed, Mr. John Chen, as you've mentioned his Chinese name here, is
recently moving out of the modern music circle in Hong Kong. Few of his
works premiered recently, and from his recent CD release of New Age music,
we could detect his change which attempts to get out of the academic
circle.
> [...] Back to the academic circle. Many have already commented that it
> is not solely the listener's responsibility for not being able to
> "grasp" the more demanding compositions. I'd like to add that this is
> the composer's responsibility to explain the works to the audience,
> preferably in simple, non-technical terms, because no one understands
> the work better than the composer himself. Academic composers are never
> very keen on making their intent clear. When told that people are
> unable to appreciate their music, their usual reaction are "My music by
> its very own nature is difficult to understand, as it written for the
> future generation", or " You do need to brush up your maths before
> approaching my works. Please come back after course MT9957864c:
> Deformations in Galois Representations"
I'll illustrate in other replies that this situation is caused by the
two-fold situation by the audiences and composers.
> [...] You can see the conflict here: composers demands greater and
> greater attention from the audience, while their audience can afford
> less and less.
That's why popular music goes more popular and those "academic" music gets
fewer audiences now.
> Another characteristic of academic music is that it almost never serve
> useful social functions. Can you have candle-light dinner as someone
> plays Schoenberg in the background? Can you imagine Stockhausen in a
> wedding, or an aleatoric John Cage in a funeral? Academics insist that
> their compositions are meant to be appreciated on their own terms, but
> I'm sure most common people still prefer music that has something to do
> with their lives.
First, why music have to be served for social functions? The choice of
Mendelssohn and Wagner's music for weddings is only a result of the
propagenda by the medias. You can choose other musics from Haydn, Mozart
or even Chan Wing Wah's music whatsoever in your weddings, that's up to
personal tastes.
While fewer music are socially-served, there are numerous "occasional"
compositions which could never be performed again once the occasion is
over, even the music may exist in recordings or scores. For example,
Varese's "Poeme electronique" is specially written for the 300
loudspeakers in the Philips Pavilion in the 1930s.
Even some of these "occasional" works bared with strong political
connotations. In 1st June 1953, 10 English composers premiered a setting
of a cappella choral works for the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II.
That's the result of "A Garland for the Queen", which is modeled on the
similiar collection of works for Queen Elizabeth I 352 years ago. Tippett
also wrote a piece for the birth of Prince Charles. Even in Hong Kong,
there are numerous compositions written by local and "inland" composers
especially for the reunification in 1997. Tan Dun and Chan Wing Wah is
just only a few examples.
> [...] One of the duty of an artist is to transcend what he/she
> encounters in daily life, together with his/her thoughts and emotions,
> into an art-form. They are not supposed to merely duplicate or emulate
> the reality that they found so undesirable, and then to call it art.
> The 20th century is not the first "chaotic" period in humanity, and it's
> certainly not the last.
The very last sentence above is quite right, since similar situation also
appear in the Renaissance period, after the liberation from strong
imposition of religious thoughts. Many audience will think that the
chaotic sound is a mere duplication of the chaotic situation of the modern
thoughts, and the composers think that tonality will only cause their
memory of their suffocating war years. That exists a dilemma. Fortunately,
the younger generation of composers begin to liberate themselves from the
thoughts that "serial is a must" and begin their own music. Perhaps their
styles will become unified in the 21st century, but these're just out of
my guess.
> [...] May be I'm cynical, but I guess this has something to do with the
> cut-throat nature of the academia: you must out-do everyone in your
> specialty, or you'll lose your job -- so everyone churns out
> compositions that are more bizarre than those in the past, eventually
> resulting in some musical monstrosities that cannot be out-bizarred --
> then they complained that there is nothing else to do.
I partially agree with your statement. Confinment of composer's ideology
really makes compositions getting more difficult. Some living composers
whose names became famous in 1950s or 60s still writes, but you may find
less excitment from their works comparing with their products in 1950s.
But obviously they're not having their ideas dry, even some composers will
create larger projects which would never be realized in the time of 1950s.
For instance, Berio and Stockhausen are now concentrating in composition
of theatical/operatic works.
KL
Vincent Lau
which relies heavily (but not exclusively) on gorgeous tunes and star
appeal. That some modern works have still managed to become classics
(like Wozzeck and Bluebeard that you mentioned as well as some others
than I may venture to add) is due to the fact that, howsoever angular or
elusive the vocal line, and whether the voice is subordinated to the
orchestra or vice versa, the whole thing can still gel into a coherent
and dramatic whole as a piece of music/lyric drama which makes sense to
most listeners (with or without the assistance of stage images).
Instead of vitiating the efforts of each other, the music and drama
should form a close relationship (better still a genuine symbiosis, even
though few operas can achieve this) so as the enhance the effect of each
of these elements during a performance. That is actually what I consider
to be the basic criteria in determining whether a piece of
musico-dramatic work can be regarded as successful.
Unfortunately, many modern music-dramas, irrespective of the musical
idiom that is employed, just fail to accomplish that.
Btw, I have never heard the works of Adams although I do possess a
recording of Glass's "Akhnaten", which I feel more like an unending
series of variations on matra-chanting than an opera! But I have to
confess that I'm not too put off by this work and I do find it quite
amusing, provided that you only hear it once in a while. It's definitely
not for everyday consumption, though!
Vincent
doctorjohn wrote:
>
> Basically I agree with your analysis of the modern vs traditional opera. Coming
> from a Beijing opera childhood, it was not difficult to get to appreciate Puccini,
> Verdi etc. As you have pointed out, they have that requisite human quality, the
> preparation, the teasing, the delivery of the big moment. And they let the singers,
> who do the delivery, to really indulge a bit.
>
> And most of the modern stuff? Born with the problems of using politics and words
> and analysis to argue the "intellectual" case. No showmanship.
>
> I always believe we need stars in operas, but modern opera composers refuse to let
> any singer become the star. I think Broadway musicals are very much opera as I know
> it, more so than much "serious" work. But even B'way is in decline. No good vocal
> lines anymore!!!!!!!!
>
> Perhaps I should say I think singing with lyrics is half-dead, and may go out with
> the 21st century. We will just get more animal sound for sheer vocalism.
>
> Actually I don't mind exploring new theater, but "classical" opera is not among
> them. In case of misunderstanding, I regard "Wozzeck" and "Bluebeard" etc as
> classics. Adams, Glass, no thanks. Now, "The death of Klinghoffer", would anyone
> want to hear that opera?
>
> Vincent Lau wrote:
>
Falcon S. L. Poon
>> I've always been puzzled by one particular thing about modern academic
>> music: the breakdown of tonality. I wonder why tonal/modal music, which
>> had served every civilisation in the world for hundreds if not thousands
>> of years, should suddenly became a vice, something to be banished at all
>> costs.
KL <kun...@email.com> wrote:
>You point is very doubtful, and far away from the truth!!!
>
>First, the dodecaphonic system of temperament is a very recent invention
>and, as far as I know, only Chinese (from Ming dynasty) and Europeans,
>from the time of early Baroque period (e.g. J.S.Bach), had adopted
>this12-tone temperament! From many researches of world music, it's obvious
>that many traditional music in, for instance, India and Eastern Europe,
>did not have themselves a system of 12-tone tunings or temperament. They
>may have irregular tunings, and which are strictly forbidden in the
>Western world
I apologise for not making myself clear enough. By "tonality" I did
not mean, exclusively, the Western 12-tone (equal temperment) system.
There is no reason why other cultures should develop tonal systems
that are identical to the Western one -- yet regardless of how much
they differ, how many microtones they recognise, as far as I'm aware
of, there is always some kind of tonal centre, to serve as reference
points around which the music develops.
The example of Indian music is actually a good illustration of this.
In their "raga" systems, each "raga" consists of 5-7 major tones
(which may be set "sharp" or "flat"). The composer then set out to
explore the designated tones from different angles, so as to bring out
the "rasa" or "colour" of the selected raga system. There is copious
use of microtones (of which there are 22) for embellishment, but it is
the designed major tone that form the reference points the musician
turn back to, and the audience expect.
Microtonality is still tonality. How an octave is divided differs
from culture to culture, but tonal gravitation appears to be a
universial phenomenon. I'm certainly not aware of the very modern
kind of "use-each-note-once-and-only-once-then-repeat-all-over-again"
composition in ethnic music.
> from the Baroque time until the latter half of the
>20th-century. Many 20th-century composers tries to have their pieces
>performed on microtonic instruments, or have microtonic tunings on
>traditional instruments (e.g. strings) as they've known only very recently
>about the unequal, or more sophisticated subdivisions of the pitches
>within an octave, which is already a custom for many world music.
Actually I'm very happy that there is a growing interest in
non-Western tuning systems in modern composers, perheps it has to do
with the advent of electronics, which enables sounds of any frequency
to be conveniently created. There are people who believe that just
intonation, by asigning notes whose frequencies relate to each other
by whole number ratios, can result in "sweeter harmonies" than are
possible under equal temperment. Whether such claims is true, I'm not
sure; but such alternative tunings doubtless increases the possibility
of artistic expression.
>On the other hand, Schoenberg's idea of atonality, or serial music is
>actually based on the 12-tone temperament, without any intention to invent
>other pitches. So, serial music is just only another kind of treatment of
>12-tone temperament, the other way round from the established harmonic
>system from the time of J.S.Bach.[...]
>Try Boulez's "Le visage nuptial" (written in serial style but for
>instruments in quartertonic tunings, 1946) and try to get your idea for
>it.
Well, I for one do not champion equal temperment, or condemn
atonality. In expert hands, atonality certainly can result in
awe-inspiring music. What I wish to know is: why did atonal music
become the convention, the dogma, amongst academic composers, to the
point that tonal composers are being criticized? If one believe in
freedom of creation, then why can't one choose to compose in a
traditional form?
Could you point me to recommended recordings of "Le visage nuptial"?
* My previous essay continued...
>> [...] yet when all of a sudden almost everyone in the academic circle
>> thinks that tonality is inadequate, and went on to criticize colleges
>> who are perfectly happy with tonal/modal compositions, then the
>> situation is highly unusual and requires an explanation, especially when
>> everyone *outside* the ivory tower -- pop singers, folk and jazz
>> musicians, and their audiences -- find no problems with tonal/modal
>> music.
... And your response...
>Let me use a historic example to illustrate this point.
>
>Hans Werner Henze, although his music is no longer tonal, his style is
>much inherited from the traditional forms in Western music, such as
>symphonies, concertos, sonatas, operas, etc. Much of his music, for the
>audiences now, will found much lyrical from those serial compositions at
>the same time. However, during the hot years of the Darmstadt movement
>(1950s), Henze's musics was often criticized by those Darmstadt heads like
>Nono, Stockhausen, Boulez, etc. For example, after the starting 3 minutes
>of the first performance of Henze's ballet "Undine" (now recorded on CD),
>they went away and critized the too-formal treatment of the music.
>
>So, the situation is even more serious that, once, even the composers
>believe in different ideology will be heavily critized by the other bands.
>Fortunately, this situation does not exist at this moment. ...
That is very very good news. Ideological differences had already
resulted in more conflicts than was necessary...
* My essay went on...
>> While it is true that the academic climate had become more sympathetic
>> in the last 10 years or so, I suspect, for some composer at least, the
>> only way to freedom is to publish their works outside the academic
>> circle -- and by doing so
>> their work will lose all the glory of being "serious music".
...And KL's view:
>I think that's not very true. Many experimentalists in the 1950s, like the
>music by Bussolti, still can't have his musics published, while those
>composers wrote their music in between the pioneers and traditional will
>be published. I don't think the publishers will consider very much about
>the composer's ideology for sounds. They only consider about the
>composer's reputations, importance and popularity. And I don't think the
>publishers will drive the composers away if they've changed their styles.
>If the pieces go even more popular after such changes, the publishers are
>even more willing to publish their scores. That's why Universal Edition
>will publish the works by Arvo Part, Steve Reich, etc. as they can bring a
>lot of money to the publisher!
There are doubtless academic composers whose works have immense appeal
to the general audience, while at the same time contain enough
theoretical substance to keep other academics engrossed. These are
indeed "the lucky few" that get the best of both worlds -- being
highly respected by their peers, whilst having a long list of
best-sellers. Some other composers, however, would like to write
pieces that are simple in form and conservative in outlook. These
works will be ignored, if not criticized, by the academic circle --
but the general public my like them!
* Let's move a bit forward... and here is another part of my article:
>> Another characteristic of academic music is that it almost never serve
>> useful social functions. Can you have candle-light dinner as someone
>> plays Schoenberg in the background? Can you imagine Stockhausen in a
>> wedding, or an aleatoric John Cage in a funeral? Academics insist that
>> their compositions are meant to be appreciated on their own terms, but
>> I'm sure most common people still prefer music that has something to do
>> with their lives.
... and here KL raised some queries.
>First, why music have to be served for social functions? The choice of
>Mendelssohn and Wagner's music for weddings is only a result of the
>propagenda by the medias. You can choose other musics from Haydn, Mozart
>or even Chan Wing Wah's music whatsoever in your weddings, that's up to
>personal tastes.
No, I haven't said that music have to serve social functions. But as
we are discussing why some academic compositions are ignored *by the
public*, I'd suggest one of the reason is: the general public cannot
relate themselves to such pieces. They cannot "weave" the music to
their daily life -- the way they are able to with pop, folk, or old
classical works.
On the other hand, I definately disagree that the choice of music for
each social situitation is an arbitary event: even if our choice had
been influenced by the media, we still have to explain why the media
have chosen certain works in favor of others. Perheps sociological
and psychological researches will reveal more about the role of music
in our social life.
* Some more comments from KL:
>While fewer music are socially-served, there are numerous "occasional"
>compositions which could never be performed again once the occasion is
>over [...] Even in Hong Kong, there are numerous compositions written by local and "inland" composers
>especially for the reunification in 1997.
The function of such "occasional compositions" does not end once the
events finished. One of the beauty of art is that it keeps the memory
of historical events alive -- and this is actually a very important
social function. When a lover of contemporary music thinks about the
handover, the music of Tan Tun, for better or for worse, will
immediately spring to mind. The great need for reminiscence is
demonstrate by the fact that people are actually very keen on writing
music about the past -- I've just received 3 more new sets of music
about the Irish exodus to America, cirra 1850.
* Some more comments from KL:
> Many audience will think that the
>chaotic sound is a mere duplication of the chaotic situation of the modern
>thoughts, and the composers think that tonality will only cause their
>memory of their suffocating war years.
I'd like to know why should it be so. Why shouldn't tonality remind
them of happier times, like the halcyon days of 18th century Vienna?
(I apologise for having to remove a large part of our respective
essays. My news server prohibits any message that contain more
quotations than new text. If there is anything anyone would like to
raise, please feel free to do so.)
F. S. L. Poon
-------------------------------------
Can a man hope to last
Not knowing his past?
If he chooses to stay
Will the world fade away?
-- "All You Can Know"
by Steve McDonald
doctorjohn
KL
Vincent Lau wrote:
> [...] But, I can't help thinking that the process involved is too tortuous
> and time-consuming (for the average music lover). [...]
The process is actually very similar for one to understand the musics of
Wagner or Mahler, just for some examples. New classical music listeners are
not encouraged to hear these pieces because of the complexity of these music.
That's quite a common phenomenon.
> [...] In my opinion, in the majority of cases, music should appeal directly
> to one's heart and soul without the listener having to try that hard.[...]
... but apart from those works written during Classical and early to middle
Romantic period, which I think, in most cases, had the intention to please the
audience, not many works that could have direct appeal to the listeners. Both
the personal experience of the listener and musical experience of him/her will
affect one's appreciation of the music, thus, I think it should not be
"direct" ones.
> [...] If one has indeed to try so very hard, isn't it itself evidence that
> the composer and the listener are talking at cross-purposes and that a wall
> does exist between the music and the listener, a wall which is standing in
> the way of a communication between different souls? And that may not be the
> fault of the listener! [...]
For mature composers/artists, I think they will be more senitive and
imaginative to their daily-life experiences than ordinary people. That's why
artists/composers have to put their ideas, emotions, etc. into different
artworks, e.g. music. Composers' or artists' explaination may help, e.g.
title, but I think that will restrict the audience too much. Some composers
even won't give any title or commentary to their worksor let the audiences'
imagination goes. If an audience could not get into the imagination, that may
be because: 1) The artist's imagination goes too far away from the ordinary
people; 2) the audience's imagination does not run parallel with the artist.
Indeed, for the former case, it's the problem of the artist, but the second
case really belongs to the problem of the audience. The present situation is
caused by both sides: The audience tends to obtain only immediate satisfaction
of the music, without thinking. That's why cantos is so popular now (that's
also why they're called "popular music"). On the other side, the composers'
imagination already go offland and thus the content of their work could hardly
to understood by ordinary listeners at the first glance. Works from 1980s has
attempted to obtain the balance back while only a few of them would go even
further.
> [...] Of course, music may also present an intellectual challenge to
> listeners and music appreciation does in many cases involve an effort on the
> part of the listener. However, if such challenge is too great and obscure,
> it will become a liability instead, which is not conducive to it being
> understood by most people. Of course, if you consider music a mathematical
> formulae (and some of them are), then there's no problem for you. But I'm
> afraid that the majority will think otherwise.
Of course, music is music, it can't be other things. No matter what kind of
composition methods the composer has adopted, the audience will only
experience the music as a whole. Concerning musical construction verses
subjective listening experience, I've asked, in the reply of the last part of
article, how do one appreciate a sonata or symphony while one don't have the
knowledge of the sonata form? One may experience the contrast within it, but
maybe in other ways other than others who knows the two-pole contrast of a
sonata structure. While one is better, or more imaginative/inspiring? That's
hard to make a definite decision.
> You say that "music... could reflect the ideas and the way of thinking of
> the people at that time". But have you considered whether the musical
> language that many modern composers use is actually consistent with the way
> of thinking of modern people? I don't think they all are. [...]
I think that's not concerning with only the music language itself, but with
their ideology. Post-war composers, especially during 1950s to 1960s, were
most reluctant to adapt traditional form and always attempts to build up new
construction, methods in their music (e.g. those of the Darmstadt School.),
that mostly because they wanted to get away from the music composed before the
world wars. To their mind, old music could only remind their impression of
pre-war colutre, order and social situations and they wanted to get away with
that. That's why the Darmstadt school did their most exciting experiments
during this particular historial period.
Perhaps this is only a very particular case, if people could distinguish two
groups of composers who'd grown up during/just after the two world wars and
those grown up at least 20 years after the world wars (e.g. those born after
1950s) will discover that the former group of composers often wrote their
works in a "more-modern" language while the latter group is milder and is more
willing to adopt tonal languages. It seems that the former group is mostly
influenced by impression of war period. Nevertheless, that's only a very rough
division and musical styles are still subject to individuals. Still, I do
believe that social experience will affect their thoughts on music and their
compositions.
> [...] Furthermore, I just don't see that those modern concepts of
> "individualism, skepticism, wars, advancement of technology, resistance of
> formalism etc." are not already explored in older compositions. [...]
You're right. But as I've said that, they've influenced by the ideology
they've adopted thus they invent new languages to express these things rather
than old ones. More importantly, adcancement of technology intiated the
composers to write music for/with electronic means!...
> And even if modern music are influenced by these concepts, have you
> considered the possibility that the compositional style used by many modern
> composers is so elusive and inconsistent with the consitutional or inborn
> aesthetics of our senses that, whatever messages their works embody, these
> works are bound to be misrepresented, misunderstood or under-appreciated?
That's the problem of the extremely diverse style of modern music now. As I've
said the my original article, modern music did not go through the historical
judgement so that we can hear different aspects of composition at present.
Similar situation may appear in all periods in musical history, and the works
we now hear most are those our ancestors had judged them as 'better' works at
that time.Widespread-coverage of record releases and score publication even
make the situation even more complicated, as more people can experience the
music without hearing it live. So, honestly-speaking, there are too many music
existing now. Beethoven and Mozart, perhaps, are the best during the Classical
period, after 200 years of judgement. But we can't judge which stream of
composition styles is the best. No one can tell about the situation of the
future.
> In short, as listeners, we should indeed try to appreciate different types
> of music. However, if composers ignore the basic contraints of the human
> constitution and turn out works that the average music lover can't readily
> identify with (perhaps after spending a bit effort), their works are
> unlikely to have any life outside the music museum.
... and also music textbooks!!!!
> And perhaps it's because of this that some composers have now reverted to
> tonal music and a more traditional approach in composition. Perhaps they've
> realised that their experiments have gone too far...
Compare the works from "Threnody for the Victims of Hisoshima" (1960) to
"Violin Concerto No.2" (1992-1995) or "Credo" (1997) by Krzysztof Penderecki.
You can detect his stylistic changes from completely atonal to nearly tonal
styles.
KL
Vincent Lau
>
> Yeah, 'pearl' is my adjective to some really good, enjoyable pieces. In this
> context, I would also like to draw my interest to those "more accessible"
> pieces, as those by Part, Gorecki, recent Penderecki pieces, etc. I think
> these works are 'generally acceptable'. If those 'restricted' listeners limit
> themselves too much, I think these are really the 'pearls' they'll even miss.
>
Point taken. If you read my posting in reply to Doctor John's article,
you'll note that I won't tar all modern music with the same brush. (For
example, I would disagree with Doctor John's assessment of Schnittke's
music, at least in relation to the few pieces that I've heard.) Indeed,
I do find quite a number of them to be rather enjoyable.
But then, most of the pieces (or parts thereof) that I enjoy most are
usually written in a comparatively traditional idiom. Even if they're
not actually tonal, they will often possess a good musical (or even
melodic) flow and/or sure sense of rhythm and with the emotional
contents taking precedence over pure sound effects, which cannot be said
of many other modern compositions.
And even you yourself have quoted pieces that are composed in a more
traditional mode as examples of music that is "generally acceptable"!
The music of Part and Gorecki etc. can hardly be termed "modern". (If
they had been composed during the heyday of the Darmstadt school, they
would have been roundly criticised as being retrogressive!)
That necessarily implies that there are types of music which even you
are willing to concede as being "generally unacceptable". If that is the
case, how can a composer realistically hope that such kinds of works can
have a long shelf-life outside the music museum?
>
> You've talked about "resonance". It's true that it's immediate, but can one be
> nurtured and developed one's inner "tunings" by explorations, if one can be
> away from the tradition sense?
>
Of course, one can be "taught" to appreciate music in an objective sense
(but then, too much "teaching" will seem to contradict your argument in
the Part I thread that music can be (should be?) appreciated without one
having to spend too much effort in order to understand its background
and compositional methods etc.) but, in my view, "resonance" can only
happen spontaneously. If not, it's an "acquired habit" rather than a
genuine emotional response. A person can of course tune to a certain
piece of music, but whether his heart can respond to it is an emotive
matter that is beyond one's conscious control.
If you're a left-hander, you may actually learn to write with your right
hand. Yet, the hand-writing may often be ugly and the process slow and
frustrating. Sure it can be achieved but the result is unnatural (to the
person). If therefore a person is a left-hander by nature, even though
he may be able to change his habit through learning and discipline and
carry on with his life, the effect is still artificial. He may
grudgingly adjust to this acquired habit without being genuinely
converted to it both in his mind and in respect of his constitution. If
he has the choice, chances are that he'll switch back to his left hand.
Of course, listening to music involves a question of choice.
It is my view that there are certain limitation (whether aesthetic,
intellectual, emotional or otherwise) in most human beings that cannot
be substantially transcended, and it appears that those music which can
induce a resonance in most people are those which the whole work, or at
least a substantial part thereof, is composed in a style that remains
within such limits such that spontaneous resonance in the heart and mind
of the listener can occur naturally.
A more extreme analogy can be drawn with human hearing. As we all know,
we can only hear sounds within a certain frequency range. If music is
composed outside such range, no one will be able to hear or appreciate
it. And if the notes fluctuate inside and outside such range, an
ordinary person may never understand the piece to the full no matter how
hard he may try, as what he catches will only appear to be incoherent
mumbo-jumbo.
The range of hearing may be a physical limitation, but it is my belief
that there may be subtler types of limitation in our constitutional
make-up which delineate and restrict the scope of the type of music
which we can find appealing. Perhaps there is some scientific basis in
such matters (please refer to my reply to Falcon in the "Tonality"
thread).
Human beings are emotional creatures. If a piece of art cannot illicit a
spontaneous emotional response, it will never capture the imagination of
the public and will consequently fail to have any long-lasting appeal.
Isn't it a fact that truly timeless pieces of art are those which can
produce a strong and spontaneous resonance in the hearts of many
irrespective of the time, background and knowledge of the recipient?
But many modern pieces are evidently unable to produce such an effect.
Vincent
Vincent Lau
>
> (... continue from my last part...)
>
> Vincent Lau wrote:
>
> > [...] But, I can't help thinking that the process involved is too tortuous
> > and time-consuming (for the average music lover). [...]
>
> The process is actually very similar for one to understand the musics of
> Wagner or Mahler, just for some examples. New classical music listeners are
> not encouraged to hear these pieces because of the complexity of these music.
> That's quite a common phenomenon.
I think you already got some idea of why I consider people having
difficulty with modern pieces from my reply to the previous threads. In
my view, it's a matter of lack of spontaneous resonance and the
utilisation of a compositional style which is not conducive to
communication. And if, as you said, modern music is complex, even if one
does listen to it attentively, one may still be unable to understand it,
let alone warm to it. (See my views in Part I and IIa.)
>
> > [...] In my opinion, in the majority of cases, music should appeal directly
> > to one's heart and soul without the listener having to try that hard.[...]
>
> ... but apart from those works written during Classical and early to middle
> Romantic period, which I think, in most cases, had the intention to please the
> audience, not many works that could have direct appeal to the listeners. Both
> the personal experience of the listener and musical experience of him/her will
> affect one's appreciation of the music, thus, I think it should not be
> "direct" ones.
Whether the composer sets out to "please" an audience is merely a matter
of personal motive. Whether the audience can appreciate it is another
matter, which is independent of the intention of the composer. One may
try very hard to please but, if one's compositional skills is bad, or
that no one can identify with his work in any manner, the audience may
still not like it howsoever a composer strives to pander to his
audience. And the same applies vice versa.
You're right that personal and musical experience may affect one's
appreciation of music. (I would perhaps add the "resonance" factor as
discussed in Part IIa.) But you must understand how these experiences
operate in our psyche. Personal experiences affect our emotions and
become "internalised" as part of our personal make-up as such
experiences (e.g. love, death, ecstasy) are emotive rather than
objective matters which appeal directly to our heart and soul. What
is important is the emotional aspects generated by such experience
(rather than the event itself), and this will form part of our
mentality. And our mentality, being a part of our psyche, would respond
in a direct manner outside our conscious control.
>
> For mature composers/artists, I think they will be more senitive and
> imaginative to their daily-life experiences than ordinary people. That's why
> artists/composers have to put their ideas, emotions, etc. into different
> artworks, e.g. music. Composers' or artists' explaination may help, e.g.
> title, but I think that will restrict the audience too much. Some composers
> even won't give any title or commentary to their worksor let the audiences'
> imagination goes. If an audience could not get into the imagination, that may
> be because: 1) The artist's imagination goes too far away from the ordinary
> people; 2) the audience's imagination does not run parallel with the artist.
> Indeed, for the former case, it's the problem of the artist, but the second
> case really belongs to the problem of the audience. The present situation is
> caused by both sides: The audience tends to obtain only immediate satisfaction
> of the music, without thinking. That's why cantos is so popular now (that's
> also why they're called "popular music"). On the other side, the composers'
> imagination already go offland and thus the content of their work could hardly
> to understood by ordinary listeners at the first glance. Works from 1980s has
> attempted to obtain the balance back while only a few of them would go even
> further.
Of course, both sides should make an effort. But, the fact is that,
people who have encountered these modern works still find them
unpalatable. I don't think the blame should be on the audience if they
have already tried, then. And how do you determine whether it's the
composer's imagination which has gone too far or whether it's the
audience imagination which is too restricted? This problem can always be
looked at from such opposing angles (depending on whether you are the
egocentric composer or the lazy listener). And who then should be the
final arbiter?
Even if the audience cannot appreciate the intention of the composer due
to their own limitations, that still doesn't mean the the audience is at
fault. If there's no resonance, there's no resonance. It's a fact which,
like it or not, a composer has to face. After all, only the devil would
know what is in the mind of any person. I'm of the view that if the
audience cannot resonate the the music, the composer should consider
whether his work is couched in a style which makes understanding too
difficult rather than blaming the audience for not trying hard enough.
There's actually a further contradiction in your view. You seem to
suggest that knowing too much of the background of a piece of music may
restrict the audience in the appreciation of the work. Yet, you then
appears to imply the the audience is to blame if their imagination
doesn't run parallel that of the composer. However, if you don't explain
things clearly, without any clues, and given that many modern pieces can
be complex (as you yourself agree), how can you realistically hope
that the audience's imagination can be directed to a route which
can overlap with that of the composer? That's quite impossible!
So, should the audience make an effort to understand more about the
background or not? If they should, then, as you said, it's too
restrictive and, as others said, such effort can be too time-consuming
and intellectually challenging for everyday life. If they shouldn't,
then it's not realistic to hope that the audience can tune to such music
given the complexity and their being composed in an idiom that is alien
to most people.
This is the point which I'd like to illustrate: It just won't succeed
either way!
>
> Of course, music is music, it can't be other things. No matter what kind of
> composition methods the composer has adopted, the audience will only
> experience the music as a whole. Concerning musical construction verses
> subjective listening experience, I've asked, in the reply of the last part of
> article, how do one appreciate a sonata or symphony while one don't have the
> knowledge of the sonata form? One may experience the contrast within it, but
> maybe in other ways other than others who knows the two-pole contrast of a
> sonata structure. While one is better, or more imaginative/inspiring? That's
> hard to make a definite decision.
As regards the relevance of structure, I've dealt with this aspect in my
reply to Part I.
>
> I think that's not concerning with only the music language itself, but with
> their ideology. Post-war composers, especially during 1950s to 1960s, were
> most reluctant to adapt traditional form and always attempts to build up new
> construction, methods in their music (e.g. those of the Darmstadt School.),
> that mostly because they wanted to get away from the music composed before the
> world wars. To their mind, old music could only remind their impression of
> pre-war colutre, order and social situations and they wanted to get away with
> that. That's why the Darmstadt school did their most exciting experiments
> during this particular historial period.
I believe that this part has been more exhaustively dealt with by
Falcon. I'll be following with interest what arguments in that
sub-thread.
>
> Perhaps this is only a very particular case, if people could distinguish two
> groups of composers who'd grown up during/just after the two world wars and
> those grown up at least 20 years after the world wars (e.g. those born after
> 1950s) will discover that the former group of composers often wrote their
> works in a "more-modern" language while the latter group is milder and is more
> willing to adopt tonal languages. It seems that the former group is mostly
> influenced by impression of war period. Nevertheless, that's only a very rough
> division and musical styles are still subject to individuals. Still, I do
> believe that social experience will affect their thoughts on music and their
> compositions.
That's no doubt a correct view from a historical perspective (in respect
of music composition). Yet, audience appreciation is a totally different
matter. Whatever style a composer is using, if it goes beyond the
acceptance threshold of general music lovers so that they are unable to
tune to it, no matter what the background as to the genesis of the works
is, it can still be termed a failure as far as the communication with
audience is concerned.
And one question: why should social experiences of post WWII need to be
expressed in such atonal (or complex) music? What is the inadequacy of
the more traditional music idiom in conveying such emotions and
thoughts? Actually, if the music is done in a more traditional style
which is more readily acceptable to the ear, the audience may actually
understand more about the thoughts of the composer than when they're
required to grapple with notes and tones which appear to be meaningless
to them and will only lead to bafflement and misunderstanding.
>
> > [...] Furthermore, I just don't see that those modern concepts of
> > "individualism, skepticism, wars, advancement of technology, resistance of
> > formalism etc." are not already explored in older compositions. [...]
>
> You're right. But as I've said that, they've influenced by the ideology
> they've adopted thus they invent new languages to express these things rather
> than old ones. More importantly, adcancement of technology intiated the
> composers to write music for/with electronic means!...
As I queried above, why can't a traditional idiom be used in the
conveyance of such thoughts? As regards "electronic music" and other
types of modern musical instruments, please see my reply to Part I. In
short, it's the compositional style which matters, rather than the type
of instruments used.
>
> > And even if modern music are influenced by these concepts, have you
> > considered the possibility that the compositional style used by many modern
> > composers is so elusive and inconsistent with the consitutional or inborn
> > aesthetics of our senses that, whatever messages their works embody, these
> > works are bound to be misrepresented, misunderstood or under-appreciated?
>
> That's the problem of the extremely diverse style of modern music now. As I've
> said the my original article, modern music did not go through the historical
> judgement so that we can hear different aspects of composition at present.
> Similar situation may appear in all periods in musical history, and the works
> we now hear most are those our ancestors had judged them as 'better' works at
> that time.Widespread-coverage of record releases and score publication even
> make the situation even more complicated, as more people can experience the
> music without hearing it live. So, honestly-speaking, there are too many music
> existing now. Beethoven and Mozart, perhaps, are the best during the Classical
> period, after 200 years of judgement. But we can't judge which stream of
> composition styles is the best. No one can tell about the situation of the
> future.
So, time will tell. Nevertheless, for a discusiion of the perpetuating
of musical works from a historical perspective, please refer to my
reply to Part I (on Bach and baroque music).
>
> > In short, as listeners, we should indeed try to appreciate different types
> > of music. However, if composers ignore the basic contraints of the human
> > constitution and turn out works that the average music lover can't readily
> > identify with (perhaps after spending a bit effort), their works are
> > unlikely to have any life outside the music museum.
>
> ... and also music textbooks!!!!
Yes. Please refer to my reply to Part III.
>
> > And perhaps it's because of this that some composers have now reverted to
> > tonal music and a more traditional approach in composition. Perhaps they've
> > realised that their experiments have gone too far...
>
> Compare the works from "Threnody for the Victims of Hisoshima" (1960) to
> "Violin Concerto No.2" (1992-1995) or "Credo" (1997) by Krzysztof Penderecki.
> You can detect his stylistic changes from completely atonal to nearly tonal
> styles.
>
> KL
So, perhaps some composers have learnt their lesson after all! So, isn't
this further evidence that even composers themselves are finding that
the problem is lying more on their side than that of the audience?
Vincent
doctorjohn
> (For
> example, I would disagree with Doctor John's assessment of Schnittke's
> music, at least in relation to the few pieces that I've heard.) Indeed,
> I do find quite a number of them to be rather enjoyable.
Maybe I have'nt made myself clear. I really like Schnittke and buy many of the
Russian interpretations (can't stand the others) but LIVE is really something else.
I heard Rostropovich live in Carnegie doing Schnittke and it has been unforgettable.
The kaleidoscopic color is breathtaking. He's definitely a favorite.