Call To Arms: The New Romantics
Tony Sienzant
likes of Arvo Part, Peteris Vasks, Kevin Volans, Robert Moran & others, I am
inclined to
call these composers the New Romantics & to envision their music as a New
Romanticism looking out onto the next Millenium from the threshold of the
21st Century.
Volans calls his sensibility a Post-Modern one, whereby systems procedures
(think dodecaphony, serialism, stochastic music & so forth) is set aside for
a much simpler human aesthetic: following any given note with the next right
note. For his part, Part has declared that the best contemporary music is
happening far from the concert halls of academia.
Post-Modern & the New Romanticism are nice tags to counter the idea put
forth & embraced over the last century of a so-called 'musical progress or
in Hindemith's words "the evolutionist's theory of music's increasing
development toward higher goals," a theory which Hindemith himself found
untenable. For musical progress means supplanting the old rules with new
rules, replacing established systems with newer systems & the old order with
something intellectually deemed better. In the name of progress, the world
of music has seen constant upheaval in the last century. The critical
climate was such that it called for a constant supplanting of the
established order (even before the new could establish itself in the concert
halls of the world) & continual replacement of rules as the rules
continually seemed to ever more quickly become obsolete.
Antoine Golea, speaking of Boulez & his associates in his essay "French
Music Since 1945," put their intentions this way: "The total dismantling of
music & its total reconstruction under new laws, that & nothing else is what
contemporary serialists are undertaking." (Copyrighted 1965 for the 50th
Anniversary January issue of "The Musical Quarterly.")
It may be argued that the dominance of serialist tendencies of those years
led to a backlash in the form of Philip Glass, John Adams, Steve Reich &
Terry Riley. Their embrace of a minimalist aesthetic, while making music
once again more easily accessible to the audience, nonetheless appeared as a
conceptual critical advance of a systems aesthetic. Subscribing to the
‘musical progress' theory, one might add that Part, Vasks & Volans has
stripped away the rigors of the minimalist system, with its sometimes cold &
unforgiving repetitions, turning it emotive, beautiful & sublime. It's as
if the human soul has pushed aside the calculating machine.
Instead of the concept of ‘musical progress' wherein current intellectual
concerns & conceptual formulations succeed each other in an orderly logical
fashion (making for a music so complex & novel that audience & critic is
silenced with the thought that, "This is for the good of music. What is not
understood today will be marked ‘genius' in a hundred years time.") there is
the Post-Modern arena where many divergent practices & tendencies exist all
at once (& often within the same piece) with the idea that this broad range
of musical styles is the express result of individual idiosyncratic
personalities.
Under the Post-Modern banner, the New Romantics believe in human-to-human
communication with no need for an intervening system theory. They compose
their music placing a high premium on individual human choice as opposed to
relegating that choice to the "calculus of probability" or some other
systems procedure aesthetic. Such music empowers the public once again to
participate in the process of determining which music lives on & which
fades, for despite the composer/critic alliance in the last century, that
verdict has always been in the public's hands (or ears).
In sum, it is the re-emergence of the value of a fully human consciousness
in these composers that marks them as New Romantics. From their small
beginnings will a New Romantic Age emerge?
It will if their aesthetic shift is not only recognized (as I am recognizing
it here) by the music world. It will if audiences, concert masters,
musicians, critics & the vast undifferentiated public - - you & I - - deem
it valuable.
To my mind, the New Romantic Age has already begun.
:-) Tony (artist, writer, musician)
canticle
concert series by the New York Philharmonic. This was in about 1989-90. It
was a fantastic survey of musical trends. I would love to see the NY Phil
release these live performances which included compositions by Druckman,
Rzewski and John Adams. Most were world premieres or very nearly so.
"Tony Sienzant" <geoz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040101144500...@mb-m28.aol.com...
Jerry Kohl
> Judging by the music that has come out over the last two decades by the
> likes of Arvo Part, Peteris Vasks, Kevin Volans, Robert Moran & others, I am
> inclined to
> call these composers the New Romantics & to envision their music as a New
> Romanticism looking out onto the next Millenium from the threshold of the
> 21st Century.
An interesting clutch of composers you are lumping together under one banner
there. I would not have thought to put the composers of "White Man Sleeps"
and "L'Apres-midi du Dracoula" in the same pigeon hole, let alone consider
either of those pieces as remotely to do with romanticism!! (Though in fairness,
neither of these pieces was composed after 1984.)
> Volans calls his sensibility a Post-Modern one, whereby systems procedures
> (think dodecaphony, serialism, stochastic music & so forth) is set aside for
> a much simpler human aesthetic: following any given note with the next right
> note. For his part, Part has declared that the best contemporary music is
> happening far from the concert halls of academia.
>
> Post-Modern
I think you mean "Post-Modernism", which represents an aesthetic stance.
"Post Modern" is an historical period which, according to the historians
who argue such a thing exists, began in 1848 and continues to the present.
You may well be quoting Volans accurately, on the other hand, to be saying
"Post-Modern" sensibility, since we have all grown up in such a milieu (as
our grandparents and great-grandparents did before us), but this context
embraces also the late Romanticism of Wagner, the post-Romanticism of
Busoni, the Impressionism of Debussy, etc.
> & the New Romanticism are nice tags to counter the idea put
> forth & embraced over the last century of a so-called 'musical progress or
> in Hindemith's words "the evolutionist's theory of music's increasing
> development toward higher goals," a theory which Hindemith himself found
> untenable.
I find the expression "New Romanticism" quite unsuited to such a
description, for several reasons. First of all, Romanticism itself was the
product of an age which believed in such evolutionary progress (not just
in the arts), which was "put forth" much earlier than you are supposing.
In fact, this is precisely the attitude that is generally associated with the
"Age of Reason" or "Enlightenment" of the late-17th and early 18th
centuries, and which has been so savagely attacked by Postmodernist
authors such as John Ralston Saul ("Voltaire's Bastards" is probably
his best-known book). Hence, Neoromanticism and the New Romanticism
(if they are different from each other) are the revivals of and upholders of
just such a belief, as against a "destroy the past" attitude often ascribed
to "modernism" (an impulse which, BTW, is in no way contradictory to
a condition of being Postmodern, or even necessarily out of line with a
concept of Postmodernism--depending a bit on whose definition of the
latter you choose to adopt).
Secondly, you may be surprised to learn that both of these terms have
been applied in music history before: first to certain members of the
generation that grew up in the early decades of the 20th century (composers
such as Howard Hanson, Samuel Barber, Arnold Bax and William
Walton are commonly grouped under this banner), then to composers
from progressively younger generations (Ned Rorem, David del Tredici,
and of course George Rochberg after he abandoned 12-tone writing in
the late 1960s).
It is certainly true that these particular composers stood (and stand) against
the aesthetic positions of other artists, but it neither makes them a new
phenomenon in the 1980s, nor opponents of the idea of evolutionary progress.
> For musical progress means supplanting the old rules with new
> rules, replacing established systems with newer systems & the old order with
> something intellectually deemed better.
This is a thorny business. "Progress" as I have just outlined it means that
such changes, when and if they occur, are natural products of a gradual
evolutionary process, but has nothing whatever to do with "intellectually
deeming" anything as "better"--it simply happens, just as the eruption of
a volcano changes the landscape forever.
Supplanting old rules with intellectually devised new ones may be merely
an experiment, to see whether the new ones might be better (in this sense,
it is the experimental attitude of Cartesian Doubt); it may on the other
hand be a revolutionary design intended to destroy old patterns regarded
as corrupt or even evil (as, for example, Communism is an artificially
constructed societal system intended to supplant Capitalism).
> In the name of progress, the world
> of music has seen constant upheaval in the last century.
And in the two centuries or so before, and also in the name of "return to
older values", "maintaining traditions" and so on, which have arguably
caused more disruption and human suffering than any notions of moving
"forward" (I will just say two words: "Entartete Kunst".)
> The critical
> climate was such that it called for a constant supplanting of the
> established order (even before the new could establish itself in the concert
> halls of the world) & continual replacement of rules as the rules
> continually seemed to ever more quickly become obsolete.
A curious opinion, which I hear often stated, but never once supported
by actual evidence. What "rules" are you talking about? Composers don't
generally make music with "rules"; they make music, full stop. The "rules"
are usually deduced (often none too accurately) by critics and analysts
who come along later.
> Antoine Golea, speaking of Boulez & his associates in his essay "French
> Music Since 1945," put their intentions this way: "The total dismantling of
> music & its total reconstruction under new laws, that & nothing else is what
> contemporary serialists are undertaking." (Copyrighted 1965 for the 50th
> Anniversary January issue of "The Musical Quarterly.")
Yes. This is most plausibly read as a belief that "progress so far" had gone
badly wrong, and needed to be stopped. The most radical composer in this
regard that I know of was Harry Partch, who contended that music had taken
a wrong turn at about the time of Plato, and an even more disastrous turn
with the introduction of polyphony in about the 10th century. His own
reconstitution of music was based on language and "natural" music of
so-called primitive societies. Somehow, I don't think Partch is quite who
you have in mind, but such a revolutionary "ultraconservatism" is only
conceivable in the context of stylistic plurality that characterizes
Postmodernity (that is, since 1848 or so).
> It may be argued that the dominance of serialist tendencies of those years
I presume by "those years" you mean the postwar period of about 1945-65.
However, I might question your use of the word "dominance": what
exactly was "dominated" by "serialist tendencies", and how does this
follow from the generally "revolutionist" attitude that you quote in Golea's
words, which apply equally well to many non-serialist or even "antiserialist"
composers of those years (e.g., John Cage, Iannis Xenakis, Elliott Carter,
Giacinto Scelsi, Mauricio Kagel, Dieter Schnebel, Sylvano Bussotti)?
>
> led to a backlash in the form of Philip Glass,
Certainly Glass has specifically cited his own repudiation of Boulez's aesthetic
...
> John Adams, Steve Reich &
> Terry Riley. Their embrace of a minimalist aesthetic, while making music
> once again more easily accessible to the audience, nonetheless appeared as a
> conceptual critical advance of a systems aesthetic.
Yes, I agree. The minimalism of some of these composers in the late 1960s and
1970s is far more "nechanical", "constructivist", and "inhuman" than anything
Boulez ever created, including the notorious Structures 1a.
> Subscribing to the
> ‘musical progress' theory, one might add that Part, Vasks & Volans has
> stripped away the rigors of the minimalist system, with its sometimes cold &
> unforgiving repetitions, turning it emotive, beautiful & sublime. It's as
> if the human soul has pushed aside the calculating machine.
I find this difficult to accept in the case of Pärt, whose music (that is, after
his
hiatus in the late-sixties and early 1970s) strikes me as extremely cool and
detached, even when it is also beautiful and even sublime. As for "human souls
pushing aside the calculating machine", I think you might try to find a less
trite way of expressing yourself.
> Under the Post-Modern
read: "Postmodernist"
> banner, the New Romantics believe in human-to-human
> communication with no need for an intervening system theory.
Perhaps, but I should want to ask them first before believing this.
> They compose
and have composed for over a century now ...
>
> their music placing a high premium on individual human choice as opposed to
> relegating that choice to the "calculus of probability" or some other
> systems procedure aesthetic.
Now, I believe you really are caught on the horns of a dilemma. You have
now invoked "calculus of probability", which is most often associated with
Iannis Xenakis, the implacable foe of serialism, which at the same time you
seem to be including in the same catch-all category. Would you also wish
to include John Cage's less mathematical "chance" procedures, which were
certainly designed to remove the personality of the composer from the
resulting musical object? If so, where do you position Morton Feldman,
whose "cool, impersonal" style was predicated entirely on "individual
human choice", but was about as far removed from the Neoromantic and
New Romantic composers as you could possibly get?
> Such music empowers the public once again to
> participate in the process of determining which music lives on & which
> fades, for despite the composer/critic alliance in the last century, that
> verdict has always been in the public's hands (or ears).
This is possibly the most ridiculous rubbish I have ever heard in my life.
All manner of musical styles have been coexisting for at least 150 years.
Are you trying to say that some conspiracy of composers and critics has
been conspiring to make sure that only the music of, say, Copland,
Stravinsky, Hanson, Schoenberg, Bartok, Bernstein, Shostakovich,
Martinu, Webern, Boulez, Rorem, Arnold, Gerhard, Glass, Adams,
Prokofiev, Stockhausen, Nyman, Pärt, Lutoslawski, Scelsi, Saariaho
and Rutter will be heard and remembered, as opposed to ... who, exactly?
Heiß, Bax, Apostel, Anderson, Biebl, Ketelby, Crawford, Hauer, Souster,
Schroeder, Brian, Goeb, Sowerby, Schieri, Cardew? Or on the other
hand which "public" is it that *excludes* composers and critics? This
soundw very much to me like the "commodification" principle of art,
that divides the world into producers, marketers and consumers.
> In sum, it is the re-emergence of the value of a fully human consciousness
> in these composers that marks them as New Romantics. From their small
> beginnings will a New Romantic Age emerge?
In sum, this is an impulse that has been around for at least a century,
and a dialectical struggle that has been in place for at least 300 years.
Has anything emerged from it so far? Of course. Has everything been
of equal value? Hardly.
> It will if their aesthetic shift is not only recognized (as I am recognizing
> it here) by the music world.
The music world, unfortunately for your thesis, is no longer (if it ever was)
the homogeneous body that you are positing, and which was posited by
those philosophers and critics who wished to find a "covering law" such
as would be necessary for the view of an "aesthetic shift" which you are
putting forward. What you are in effect saying is that the increasing
diversity seen throughout the first century-and-a-half of the Postmodern
Era will be reversed, and collapse back into a uniformity (possibly through
the same forces that are supposedly forcing "globalization" on resistant
diverse cultures around the world) such as was believed by thinkers like
Descartes and Kant to exist, but has been doubted on very solid grounds
by other thinkers since at least Nietzsche.
> It will if audiences, concert masters,
> musicians, critics & the vast undifferentiated public - - you & I - - deem
> it valuable.
Leave me out of it, please.
> To my mind, the New Romantic Age has already begun.
Trite statement, my friend. New Romanticism is Old Hat.
--
Jerry Kohl <jerom...@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
w. johnson
[polemic snipped]
> In sum, it is the re-emergence of the value of a fully human consciousness
> in these composers that marks them as New Romantics. From their small
> beginnings will a New Romantic Age emerge?
>
> It will if their aesthetic shift is not only recognized (as I am recognizing
> it here) by the music world. It will if audiences, concert masters,
> musicians, critics & the vast undifferentiated public - - you & I - - deem
> it valuable.
>
> To my mind, the New Romantic Age has already begun.
Good for you! Now go write some good music.
best,
evan
Ian Pace
"Jerry Kohl" <jerom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3FF495ED...@comcast.net...
those who decry some mythical Stalinist era where only 'total serialism' was
permitted, which works they would put in that category? In any true sense
of the term, it only accounts for a handful of works - in the case of
Boulez, accounts for one sixth of a two piano work.
Best,
Ian
Jerry Kohl
> Incidentally, it would be interesting to hear, from
> those who decry some mythical Stalinist era where only 'total serialism' was
> permitted, which works they would put in that category? In any true sense
> of the term, it only accounts for a handful of works - in the case of
> Boulez, accounts for one sixth of a two piano work.
Depending on your definition, even Structures 1a (I presume this is what you
mean by "once sixth of a two piano work") may be excluded, on grounds
that there is no serialism of the parameter of timbre.
It may be of interest to note that the expression "total serialism" is used
by Stockhausen exactly once, in all his published writings from the 1950s.
I cannot recall that Boulez ever used the term at all, except retrospectively,
in response to questions put by others. Perhaps the case is different with
the American serial school (Babbitt, Wuorinen, Martino, etc.).
As in so many cases, there is an overwhelming tendency to conflate
and oversimplify conceptions related to serialism which, as a technique
(it is no more a "style" than is 12-tone technique, free atonality, or
functional harmony), accounts for an extremely wide variety of musics.
The usual textbook definition runs something like "music composed
with series in the four parameters of pitch, duration, dynamics and
timbres", but one unstated assumption is that 12-tone rows form the
basis, and the other parameters (in order to be "total") have to be
accommodated to this twelveness. I doubt whether there has ever been
an actual composition that has done this, and if there is one, it certainly
isn't among the well-known and admired works usually categorized
under the term.
Ian Pace
term applied without total rigour (Boulez Structures 1a, Stockhausen
Kreuzspiel, Goeyvaerts Sonata for 2 Pianos, a few things from the American
serial school), it would be hard to deny that many other works that came
subsequently (e.g. Gruppen, Carre) would have been the same were it not for
these 'discoveries'.
Best,
Ian
Jerry Kohl
> "Jerry Kohl" <jerom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3FF4AE1C...@comcast.net...
> > As in so many cases, there is an overwhelming tendency to conflate
> > and oversimplify conceptions related to serialism which, as a technique
> > (it is no more a "style" than is 12-tone technique, free atonality, or
> > functional harmony), accounts for an extremely wide variety of musics.
> > The usual textbook definition runs something like "music composed
> > with series in the four parameters of pitch, duration, dynamics and
> > timbres", but one unstated assumption is that 12-tone rows form the
> > basis, and the other parameters (in order to be "total") have to be
> > accommodated to this twelveness. I doubt whether there has ever been
> > an actual composition that has done this, and if there is one, it
> certainly
> > isn't among the well-known and admired works usually categorized
> > under the term.
> >
> Indeed, and even if one does allow a few pieces to be categorized by this
> term applied without total rigour (Boulez Structures 1a, Stockhausen
> Kreuzspiel, Goeyvaerts Sonata for 2 Pianos, a few things from the American
> serial school), it would be hard to deny that many other works that came
> subsequently (e.g. Gruppen, Carre) would have been the same were it not for
> these 'discoveries'.
Very true. But since you mention Goeyvaerts's Sonata, it is a cardinal example
of the piece that fails to satisfy almost any criterion of so-called "total
serialism",
and yet is a quintessentially serial composition. It is of course the work that
introduced Stockhausen (and Darmstadt generally) to this idea, and is supposed
also to have heralded the era of Post-Webernian style. Yet it owes far more
(in its treatment of pitch, at least) to Hauer than to either Webern or
Schoenberg.
There is no use in it of anything that could be identified as a 12-tone row,
for
example.
Stockhausen's Kreuzspiel, also (unlike the Boulez--and we might as well
include 1b and 1c, for this purpose), is not based on *a* 12-tone row (the
mythical "unifying series"), either, though, like the Boulez and Goeyvaerts
pieces, it does attempt to compose with 12-sets of durations, dynamics and
attack-types, which are manipulated in ways that are analogous to the
permutational treatment of the pitches.
It really must also be remembered that Kreuzspiel, along with many other
large pieces that Stockhausen composed in 1951 and 1952, was withdrawn
by the composer after its 1952 Darmstadt première, and so did not figure
in the repertoire of serial compositions until it was finally published in the
early 1970s.
R. Huelsenbeck
it seems extremely doubtful that the names you cite will ever be
awarded the stature of Beethoven or Schubert. Part and Vasks churn out
what could well be regarded as contemporary 'wallpaper music', and one
of the reasons they get away with it is the 'Eastern European' novelty
card (Estonian and Latvian respectively), as supposed ambassadors for
emerging nations.
Morton Feldman, in one of his perceptive rants ('Conversations without
Stravinsky'?) talked of the importance of historical context as an
impetus for the work of great composers. He asserts that there could
have been no Byrd without Catholicism, no Bach without Lutheran
Protestantism. What makes the current run of so-called 'Holy
Minimalism' so risible is that Christianity is now little more than a
worn out husk of a religion (the American pockets of fundamentalism
notwithstanding). Creating any music based upon Christian ritual
(unless ironically) in the 21st century seems to me fairly absurd, and
certainly anachronistic. Part therefore plays into the hands of a lazy
audience, presenting 'soothing', 'spiritual' confections in an age of
consumerist dissemination. Likewise, I attended a concert of Vasks's
music at which he was present, and it struck me as dull and derivative
(although the audience of principally Latvian nationals wolf-whistled
with delight).
Obviously there were many important philosophical influences on 20th
century music. Romanticism has traditionally been seen to incorporate
the glorification of the individual and the sublime, and 'The
Composer' as titanic genius. There have been many reactions against
such ideas, and the destabilising uncertainty found in the writings of
men like Adorno has had its effect on composers. Much of the language
of Western music as it evolved from the eighteenth century onwards was
based upon bourgeois 'certainties' which no longer seem tenable in the
eyes of many important artists. Adorno's proclamation that art can
scarcely be possible after Auschwitz seems overblown, but just as
warfare is no longer a hearty business of 'for King and country', so
music is no longer (if it ever was) an effortlessly comfortable
entertainment. In terms of aesthetic forces, the Late Romantic
orchestra is an emblem of assuredness and opulence, the ego of a
Wagner or Mahler. Just as the fixed rules of classicism were
undermined by the French Revolution, so the wars, revolutions and
fluctuating (if not decaying) hierarchy structures of the past century
must inevitably affect the music created in it (not to mention
globalisation, the advent of recording and the development of media
and technology). Therefore the tag 'New Romanticism' is arguably
little more than contrived, nostalgic, reactionary nonsense.
Even if the many systems (both practical and theoretical) of music
creation devised in the 20th century do not stand the test of time, it
is extremely unlikely, if not impossible, that the old compositional
forms - the concerti, symphonies, sonatas, etc - will proceed
untouched. Traditions have always been rejected, reconstructed or
reassimilated. Personally, I cannot stomach the slick platitudes of
Part in comparison to a real example of music of its time. This
afternoon I listened in rapt concentration to Helmut Lachenmann's
extremely powerful work 'Mouvement (- vor der Erstarrung)' (the ECM
recording by Ensemble Modern), which struggles with the full weight of
tradition, history, and the nature of art/creation. Regardless of how
the current cotton wool mass audiences may react, I think that
Lachenmann is living proof that the likes of Part are in a sense
obsolete.
The masses determine nothing other than 'popular taste'. The
development of classical music had little to do with 'the public'
before the 18th century; rather, it was supported by the patronage of
the aristocracy. The great Renaissance composers, many in
ecclesiastical sinecures, had a great deal of freedom to create music
as they wished. Fast-forwarding to the Romantic era it is also
important to note that much of the unblemished 'rosiness' with which
its music is painted is merely the creation of later audiences
(witness, for example, the current 'archaeological' efforts to perform
Early Romantic music in a way informed by period research, rather than
swamped by the Late Romantic aesthetic). As for the 'popular ear'
being the moving force of musical history, one only need observe the
current elevated status of Stravinsky and Schoenberg in the history
books in relation to some of their initial public receptions to refute
such an argument.
TomD
> I thought that the "New Romanticism" was suggested by Jacob Druckman's fine
> concert series by the New York Philharmonic. This was in about 1989-90.
Maybe a few years earlier (see reference below).
> It was a fantastic survey of musical trends. I would love to see the NY Phil
> release these live performances which included compositions by Druckman,
> Rzewski and John Adams. Most were world premieres or very nearly so.
I'd also like to hear these. However, I read a Rzewski interview which
touched on one of the performances:
http://www.newmusicbox.org/page.nmbx?id=43fp06
Apparently not regarded as a success, from either the composer's (his
view of orchestras is far from rosy) or audience's point of view.
Mark Steven Brooks
> in these composers that marks them as New Romantics>>
What exactly is a 'fully human consciousness'.
elat...@aol.com (Mark Steven Brooks/Elaterium Music)
Spawn of Satan
[snip]
>To my mind, the New Romantic Age has already begun.
As music styles are so diverse, labelling contemporary music serves no
purpose.
Spawn of Satan
Jerry Kohl
> <<> In sum, it is the re-emergence of the value of a fully human consciousness
> > in these composers that marks them as New Romantics>>
>
> What exactly is a 'fully human consciousness'.
One supposes it is a rhetorical backhanded slap at the composers
(unnamed, apart for Boulez) to which the writer is attempting to
contrast the uneasy alliance of Pärt/Vasks/Moran/Volans. Evidently,
the writer believes that Boulez & cie. are inhuman, or at least not
fully conscious of being so. Why don't we ask him to confirm this
as his view?
Samuel Vriezen
> To my mind, the New Romantic Age has already begun.
Actually, I think we've had things called Neoromanticism surge again and
again, sometimes here sometimes there, for many decades already.
--
samuel
concerten.free.fr
Samuel Vriezen
> Ian Pace wrote:
>
>
>>Incidentally, it would be interesting to hear, from
>>those who decry some mythical Stalinist era where only 'total serialism' was
>>permitted, which works they would put in that category? In any true sense
>>of the term, it only accounts for a handful of works - in the case of
>>Boulez, accounts for one sixth of a two piano work.
>
>
> Depending on your definition, even Structures 1a (I presume this is what you
> mean by "once sixth of a two piano work") may be excluded, on grounds
> that there is no serialism of the parameter of timbre.
He's using what I call, in my technical vocabulary, a 'one-element row'
(mathematically defined as an ordered set of one element)
--
samuel
concerten.free.fr
Jerry Kohl
I see! Yes, very ingenious of him! I had never considered things from that
perspective before but, now that you've pointed this out, the scales fall from
my eyes and I see clearly that Structures 1a also serialises the parameters
of space, gravity, ambient air-pressure and collective audience IQ. Brilliant!
Jerry Kohl
> Tony Sienzant wrote:
>
> > To my mind, the New Romantic Age has already begun.
>
> Actually, I think we've had things called Neoromanticism surge again and
> again, sometimes here sometimes there, for many decades already.
In point of fact, I think what Tony is actually referring to is the
oscillation between the Apollonian and the Dionysian, which goes
back a whole lot further than that. Of course, his position that
such a swing in the general temperament begins about 1984 is
a completely separate matter, especially as it is predicated on a
very small sample of only four composers, of controversial degrees
of importance.
Samuel Vriezen
>>>Depending on your definition, even Structures 1a (I presume this is what you
>>>mean by "once sixth of a two piano work") may be excluded, on grounds
>>>that there is no serialism of the parameter of timbre.
>>
>>He's using what I call, in my technical vocabulary, a 'one-element row'
>>(mathematically defined as an ordered set of one element)
>
>
> I see! Yes, very ingenious of him! I had never considered things from that
> perspective before but, now that you've pointed this out, the scales fall from
> my eyes and I see clearly that Structures 1a also serialises the parameters
> of space, gravity, ambient air-pressure and collective audience IQ. Brilliant!
Indeed. And in fact, retroactively we can see that Beethoven was a total
serialist, too. He used only one-element rows that he would invert,
retrograde and transpose all the time in ways that, I must say, are very
clever.
--
samuel
concerten.free.fr
Jerry Kohl
Why pick on that second-rate hack, whose use of serialism is pathetic
when compared to his predecessors over the centuries? We ought to
be admiring the composer who originated one-element serialism, Gggh,
the Neanderthal composer who also invented rock music. ;-)
Jerry Kohl
Samuel Vriezen
>
> Why pick on that second-rate hack, whose use of serialism is pathetic
> when compared to his predecessors over the centuries? We ought to
> be admiring the composer who originated one-element serialism, Gggh,
> the Neanderthal composer who also invented rock music. ;-)
>
He was a ggghenius.
--
samuel
concerten.free.fr
Jerry Kohl
*GGGHROAN* (You are far too fast for me today, Samuel!)
W Bergengruen
> likes of Arvo Part, Peteris Vasks, Kevin Volans, Robert Moran & others, I am
> inclined to
> call these composers the New Romantics & to envision their music as a New
> Romanticism looking out onto the next Millenium from the threshold of the
> 21st Century.
>
> Volans calls his sensibility a Post-Modern one, whereby systems procedures
> (think dodecaphony, serialism, stochastic music & so forth) is set aside for
> a much simpler human aesthetic: following any given note with the next right
> note. For his part, Part has declared that the best contemporary music is
> happening far from the concert halls of academia.
the result of uninspired inhuman machine-like systems procedures, are
they? (Since dodecaphony is mentioned Webern must surely be included
in this.) Oh dear, but can't you hear how very beautiful and inspired
this music is? Please try again. Listen and learn to appreciate its
unique and wonderful qualities - and how this music is so full of
humanity.
Also, have you listened to "Sur Incises"? I heard the first
performance of this piece in Edinburgh. Beautiful music: complex,
original, exciting, arresting, brimful of imagination. The product of
a composer of the highest class, the product of a brilliant musician.
Please don't insult these men and try to make them seem inhuman
almost. You're just so wrong!
It all comes down to taste again. I think you simply don't like these
composers' work, can make nothing of their music, get nothing out of
it, and are trying to justify (to yourself and to the world) your
unsatisfactory musical experience and consequent rejection of what
they have written possibly because the music you like to hear and
write has a much simpler style and aesthetic.
It's fine if you want to write simple unsophisticated music 'from
the heart', expressing your feelings in the most straightforward way
possible and think this is the best way for you to compose. But you
must realise and accept that this particular ideal isn't for everyone!
Volans' music - what I've heard of it - is rather tiresome and
unattractive to me. For sheer beauty of sound he cannot even begin to
compare with Webern or Boulez. As for Part, it's a novelty and
engaging at first, but I quickly grow tired and bored with his narrow
and limited sound-world. I think I prefer his earlier music before he
adopted his minimalist style.
Don't try to propose that your individual tastes in music are the
'right' direction that music should go from now onwards. That's only
true for you alone and people who think like you.
And as for 'following any given note with the next right note', well,
that is preposterous to me. 'Simplicity' gone right over the top.
Compositional situations are normally much more complex than that.
There is often a whole range of immediate possibilities or even longer
term paths open to the composer at any given juncture, or at least at
many, in a complex piece (and I personally find complexity far more
interesting and engaging than simple unadulterated outpourings of the
heart), depending on how one composes, of course. Several courses of
action could well be equally 'right' in that they could serve as
equally valid and possibly fruitful continuations. One is often spoilt
for choice. There is no single one and only 'right' note. It's just
not like that.
Tony Sienzant
consciousness... that's... fully human?
seriously, i would say it is an awareness of one's materials at any given time
such that their emotive effects on the human psyche is given a high premium in
the creation of a work, as high as the work's critical theoretical side. just
remembering that there's a human there at the end of it all & attempting to
communicate with that human & elicit a response such that *communication* of
something human takes place, that isn't so rarefied or technical as to leave
listeners cold.
i question whether the critical theorizing that accompanied most modern art,
music included, was an entirely good thing. it keeps artists in an ivory tower
& leads to scenarios where younger artists feel they need a new critical theory
to espouse in order to validate their work. sometimes, such work is ALL
theory, with no relative object created from it. i actually feel that's a
better, honest, more truthful approach somehow: like the rigors of the
intellectual mind has obliterated the need for a created thing for one's sense
pleasure, a created thing that is that exists apart from words or its ideal
conceptualization.
anyway, i question when the blame for non-understanding a work is placed too
heavily on the so-called underdevelopment or ignorance of the receiver. oh if
he were only smarter, better read, then he'd appreciate it. sometimes, i think
we should recognize it may be the artist's fault in that his methods & goals
don't really have an audience's appreciation in mind. rather, it may be that
such artists have succumbed to the idea of art's evolutionary advancement,
making it their duty to push its conceptual aspects further at the expense of
the sensual aspects.
it's their right to do so. only i am beginning to think it's wrong. art
should spring from some sort of personal, human necessity apart from concerrns
of historical or future historical significance in terms of advancing the
practice. things advance naturally & at their own rate according to everything
else that is happening socially. intentionally pushing it along conceptually
is *forced* evolution & may be argued not evolutionary or truly progressive at
all.
in "The Agony Of Modern Music," Henry Pleasants makes a compelling argument
that the true, historically significant & *alive* music in terms of the
evolutionary advancement theory in the first half of the 20th century, was not
the 12-tone systems of Schoenberg, Webern & Berg, not the atonal procedures &
aleatory experiments of following composers, but Jazz. he says that the role
of the critic had changed (willingly) & that they then not only were uncritical
of modern works, but that they were espousing the *wrong* modern works: the
essentially dead European proposition while ignoring the vibrant real music
growing up all around them.
it may be that academia & modern history books give prominent position to these
composers at the end of a failing European tradition. but at the same time,
musical genius has been bestowed upon composers of mainly popular tastes. Duke
Ellington springs to mind. 400 years from now, who will people remember,
Ellington or Schoenberg? it is my belief that Beethoven is rated so highly
after his death because of his popularity when he was alive. in the same
fashion, the scores of the Beatles will be subject to critical analysis 200
years now, as Beethoven is now. it's already happening & has been happening
for some time.
question: how many composers at the turn of the century, who believed they were
working in a form that was going to last for centuries as the main musical
language, envisioned electric instruments? very few. but electric instruments
has transformed music in the last half of the century into something radically
different from what these composers would have ever conceived.
all this goes to say, that musical evolution takes care of itself. composers
need only express themselves. the best ones at that (not the ones good at
pushing critical theories) will be remembered.
Samuel Vriezen
> i question whether the critical theorizing that accompanied most modern art,
> music included, was an entirely good thing.
It's an interesting question. Often, though, the theorizing is done by a
different individual than the artist. In the visual arts, these days you
hear more and more complaints about how the curators of museums and
exhibitions, critics and theorists, have made themselves more central to
art than the artists, who sometimes seem to figure as pet illustrations
of the curator's artistic views.
A very theorized artist was Marcel Duchamp. But his art of the
ready-made, that has been discussed so much, was very untheoretical by
itself. People often forget that the urinal really was, in a great part,
the irritating clever rude joke it seems to be at first sight.
In contemporary music, a few composers did theorize explicitly about
their works. It's part of the experimental approach: you set up the
experiment, the technical part, out of a curiosity about what will come
out. But the vast majority of composers has remained quite silent about
how they got their works made. I think it's unwise to overestimate the
role of theorizing in recent composition. I have a feeling it doesn't
play a much different role than in the times of Machaut or Bach.
> in "The Agony Of Modern Music," Henry Pleasants makes a compelling argument
> that the true, historically significant & *alive* music in terms of the
> evolutionary advancement theory in the first half of the 20th century, was not
> the 12-tone systems of Schoenberg, Webern & Berg, not the atonal procedures &
> aleatory experiments of following composers, but Jazz.
And now it's music for TV commercials?
Isn't this a crap argument from the start? How could you ever say that
Schoenberg's music was not 'alive'? He was pretty passionate about it,
you know.
> 400 years from now, who will people remember,
> Ellington or Schoenberg?
We're already 50 years after Schoenberg's death and about 100 years
after the first claims that his music wouldn't last and as for the next
400 years, I'm fully confident that the people then will be much more
interested in their own problems than in ours.
> question: how many composers at the turn of the century, who believed they were
> working in a form that was going to last for centuries as the main musical
> language, envisioned electric instruments? very few.
Busoni and Varese, at least.
> all this goes to say, that musical evolution takes care of itself. composers
> need only express themselves. the best ones at that (not the ones good at
> pushing critical theories) will be remembered.
It's not his compositions we think of when we think of Aristoxenos!
--
samuel
concerten.free.fr
Jerry Kohl
> > question: how many composers at the turn of the century, who believed they were
> > working in a form that was going to last for centuries as the main musical
> > language, envisioned electric instruments? very few.
>
> Busoni and Varese, at least.
And of course the same rhetorical question could be asked concerning composers
at the turn of the 13th/14th centuries, with a zero return, but so what?
> > all this goes to say, that musical evolution takes care of itself. composers
> > need only express themselves. the best ones at that (not the ones good at
> > pushing critical theories) will be remembered.
>
> It's not his compositions we think of when we think of Aristoxenos!
No, but it is also true that we still value and listen to Rameau's compositions
because they are good compositions, not because he also happened to be a
brilliant theorist with some admittedly crackpot ideas, as another famous
theorist of his time was quick to point out. Now, what was that theorist's name
agaim? Oh, yes: J. S. Bach.
Samuel Vriezen
> Samuel Vriezen wrote:
>
>
>>>question: how many composers at the turn of the century, who believed they were
>>>working in a form that was going to last for centuries as the main musical
>>>language, envisioned electric instruments? very few.
>>
>>Busoni and Varese, at least.
>
>
> And of course the same rhetorical question could be asked concerning composers
> at the turn of the 13th/14th centuries, with a zero return, but so what?
Somewhat early, but was Hildegard von Bingen not supposed to be a seer?
She would have known about it.
--
samuel
concerten.free.fr
Jerry Kohl
Yes, probably. The only trouble was, how were her scribes to know that people in
the 17th-19th centuries would be foolishly coining new words based on an obsolete
language like Greek, instead of the more up-to-date Latin (not to mention associating
the energy with amber = élektron)? They probably mis-interpreted her words
and distorted the meaning as being Latin "illectus" (allurement), and, as a result,
suppressed the entire prophecy and thereby condemned humanity to an extra
millenium or so without the blessings of television. Hmm. Maybe they were right,
after all ...
W Bergengruen
>
> seriously, i would say it is an awareness of one's materials at any given time
> such that their emotive effects on the human psyche is given a high premium in
> the creation of a work, as high as the work's critical theoretical side.
You're always very much aware of the materials you have chosen to use
and fully alert to its possibilities. It happens automatically. I
can't imagine composing in a distracted dream. You certainly don't sit
and think of 'their emotive effects on the human psyche' and that you
must give this 'a high premium'. Let's use plain language instead of
purple prose. At any given time you just like your ideas and use them
or else reject them and discard them or leave them for possible use at
a later point.
just
> remembering that there's a human there at the end of it all
You don't even think for a nanosecond of another human being at the
receiving end. You write solely to please and express yourself and
yourself alone (commissions etc. excepted).
& attempting to
> communicate with that human & elicit a response such that *communication* of
> something human takes place, that isn't so rarefied or technical as to leave
> listeners cold.
The only human being you are concerned to communicate with is
yourself. You are writing music to please, satsfy and express yourself
alone. This cannot be emphasised enough. Other people can take it or
leave it. Their reactions and opinions just don't matter at this stage
when you are writing a new work. You do not have it as your goal to
'elicit' a particular response. You have absolutely no intention of
making compromises of any sort for possible future audiences. If you
want to write something brimful of technical devices and schemes, full
of ingenious and complicated methods (borrowed or invented), if this
gives YOU pleasure and satisfaction and is meaningful and worthwhile
for you to do, if this expresses your inner self... you just go
straight ahead and do it. Don't say: "What will people think if they
discover how I composed this?" Don't be ashamed of how you compose.
'Other people' don't even exist as you compose. They mean nothing to
you (unless you're writing for a particular instrumentalist, singer
etc.).
>
> i question whether the critical theorizing that accompanied most modern art,
> music included, was an entirely good thing. it keeps artists in an ivory tower
Ivory towers are wonderful.
>
> anyway, i question when the blame for non-understanding a work is placed too
> heavily on the so-called underdevelopment or ignorance of the receiver. oh if
> he were only smarter, better read, then he'd appreciate it.
Well, if someone wants to give himself any chance at all of making
anything of some contemporary and 20th century music he obviously
needs to have built up a background of a variety of listening
experiences. Doing some reading is interesting and helpful for him as
well. Some homework is no bad thing.
sometimes, i think
> we should recognize it may be the artist's fault in that his methods & goals
> don't really have an audience's appreciation in mind.
Nor should they. He is writing solely to please himself. Composition
is an utterly selfish activity just as writing poetry or painting is.
'To hell with other people' should be your motto.
rather, it may be that
> such artists have succumbed to the idea of art's evolutionary advancement,
> making it their duty to push its conceptual aspects further at the expense of
> the sensual aspects.
Who are these people?
>
>. art
> should spring from some sort of personal, human necessity
> Correct.
>
> in "The Agony Of Modern Music," Henry Pleasants makes a compelling argument
> that the true, historically significant & *alive* music in terms of the
> evolutionary advancement theory in the first half of the 20th century, was not
> the 12-tone systems of Schoenberg, Webern & Berg, not the atonal procedures &
> aleatory experiments of following composers, but Jazz.
> growing up all around them.
What a loaded title! The agony of Henry Pleasants consisted in
listening to, for example, Schoenberg's 'Orchestral Variations',
Berg's 'Lyric Suite', Webern's String Quartet op. 28 etc. - It is
patently obvious that this man simply hated the stuff! He just
couldn't stand it. Just like me with jazz. I can enjoy it in small
doses depending, of course, on what it is.. then I'm liable to start
getting utterly sick of the endless, meaningless, pointless doodling..
dry, barren, depressing stuff it can be sometimes. But I won't bother
to write a book entitled "The Agony of Jazz".
it may be that academia & modern history books give prominent position
to these
> composers at the end of a failing European tradition. but at the same time,
> musical genius has been bestowed upon composers of mainly popular tastes.
What's this about 'popular tastes'? They mean absolutely nothing to
me.
Popular tastes usually give me depression.
> Ellington springs to mind. 400 years from now, who will people remember,
> Ellington or Schoenberg?
I get bored with Ellington after a while, just doesn't sustain my
interest. Never the case with Schoenberg. And I feel so much more on
his wavelength and enjoy his soundworld and the atmosphere he creates
so much more. He 'communicates' with me though he never tried.
Ellington doesn't.
.
>
> all this goes to say, that musical evolution takes care of itself. composers
> need only express themselves. the best ones at that (not the ones good at
> pushing critical theories -but who are they? - I don't know them.) will be remembered.
Write for yourself alone. Stop worrying about communicating. If a
piece of yours gets performed, communication will happen naturally,
which simply means that some people - maybe more and more - will enjoy
and appreciate your work. 'Communication' will have taken place
without your having to think or consider other people when you were
composing. No compromising in a vain attempt to 'please' others. It's
the wrong way to go about things and probably doomed to failure
anyway.
>
>
Samuel Vriezen
Ian Pace
"W Bergengruen" <WBerge...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:561611d2.04010...@posting.google.com...<snip of lots of interesting stuff>
> >
>
> Write for yourself alone. Stop worrying about communicating. If a
> piece of yours gets performed, communication will happen naturally,
> which simply means that some people - maybe more and more - will enjoy
> and appreciate your work. 'Communication' will have taken place
> without your having to think or consider other people when you were
> composing. No compromising in a vain attempt to 'please' others. It's
> the wrong way to go about things and probably doomed to failure
> anyway.
> >
and produce the sort of work that they themselves would like to hear as a
listener. Audiences of all types can respond when that sense of conviction
is present.
Best,
Ian
w. johnson
> Probably the best thing any composer or performer can do is simply to try
> and produce the sort of work that they themselves would like to hear as a
> listener. Audiences of all types can respond when that sense of conviction
> is present.
>
> Best,
> Ian
Bingo, from a man who should know. in my old age (ok, ok, i'm 23) it
is becoming increasingly clear to me that the distinction between
interesting and uninteresting new music is simply whether the composer
has some sort of internal musical (as opposed to sociological)
conviction about what they are doing.
evan
Jeffrey Quick
Samuel Vriezen <sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> wrote:
> Tony Sienzant wrote:
>
>
> > To my mind, the New Romantic Age has already begun.
>
>
> Actually, I think we've had things called Neoromanticism surge again and
> again, sometimes here sometimes there, for many decades already.
Only some of it is Neoromanticism. The rest is Necromanticism.
Lewis B
like penderecki brought it into the main stream. romantism appeals to
the public because it's "easy listening."
Lewis B
listening, i either like or dislike. ives is the true iconclast. but
after ives we have copland and an assortment of lesser known composers
which are overlooked. i will continue further.
lwb
Tony Sienzant
>doses depending, of course, on what it is.. then I'm liable to start
>getting utterly sick of the endless, meaningless, pointless doodling..
>I get bored with Ellington after a while, just doesn't sustain my
>interest.
>Never the case with Schoenberg. And I feel so much more on
>his wavelength and enjoy his soundworld and the atmosphere he creates
>so much more. He 'communicates' with me though he never tried.
>Ellington doesn't.
but don't you see? you should READ more about Ellington & what's behind his
music... THEN you'd appreciate it more. you'll get what yr now missing! i
mean, listen to those horns, the textures... he does stuff no other (insert
famous Euro-white-male here) ever did with horns.
just because i made the best stab at describing "fully human consciousness"
doesn't mean i was proposing that Ellington composed his music intentionally to
or for popular tastes. he just composed. & yes, he composed what he wanted to
hear. the fact is, more people responded to that music, making it wildly
popular across the globe, than a hundred years of critical theorizing along the
lines of '12-tone' ever did. it's a fact. (& hey, i LIKE Schoenberg too, but
let's face it, that wasn't the future. it's become just another technique, a
style at a certain kind of sound, not where music was *meant* to go.)
& don't tell me all composers wouldn't like their work to be more well known,
more heard throughout the world. recognition is a good thing, making a living
from it can be good too. see, most composers (in the Euro-tradition) nowadays
have to subscribe to that *ivory tower damn the audience* attitude. because
that's the way it is socially. they go into it knowing that the audience isn't
really there. it's not like Haydn's time, when such music was popular &
composers expected a connection with their audience & were grateful when they
got it.
the fact remains, in terms of musical evolution advancement theory, jazz was
the revolution that went round the world & affected all societies. it even
reached into the hallowed halls of the Euro-concert hall with many classically
trained musicians & composers trying their hand at it (usually with dubious
results). jazz was the so-called evolutionary advancement, not dodecaphony.
you cannot impose your will toward evolution (insert critical theory here - -
12 tone, atonal, serialism, stochastic, aleatory, chance) & think it will
stick. something other comes along & knocks yr beautiful theories at what the
new music should be outta the water... like electric instruments.
(which is not to say i don't like what Boulez has done with "Repons" & the
electronic manipulations.)
the truth is that the audience for modern music is not great. the fact is
modern music isn't really thriving. most programs still rely on the masters of
the classical & romantic traditions, thru Beethoven & Wagner say, then on
purely modern works. why? there seems to be a built in audience for it, for
some *unknown* reason. why?
could it be because modern composers went with critical theory, utterly
changing the language of music & musical form (which isn't a bad thing, per se)
but which was like *forcing musical evolution* than with a more natural, more
gradual approach? they left their audience behind, relying on the myth that
great composers weren't heard or valued in their day, but in some future like
40 years hence.
science, math, the machine, all were being hailed as advancements on the future
around 1910. from Freud to Einstein, critical rational thought was replacing
the romantic view. it seems to me that many artists were attracted to the
utopian visions of a machine age society & their art became more *head*
oriented. i think, judging by all the *new age* stuff going on, that the world
is shifting back to a more romantic leaning. despite what you say & how one
composes, music doesn't exist in a social vacuum & neither does the composer.
there is something to be said for the theory that masses are swept along by
social tides in response to having parts of human nature ignored for a period
of years.
maybe Schoenberg & his disciples were swept along in the same manner, just
being influenced by the general social mood around them which valued scientific
critical thought. but was it good for music? i can't see how losing an
audience can be.
i didn't even make the connection before, of these artists in what i've called
the New Romanticism (or maybe we should call it New New New NEW Romanticism to
satisfy Kohl) some have their roots in sacred music. religion (which i am NOT
advocating, being an agnostic). but there is something to the spiritual side
(*purple prose* notwithstanding) that seems to connect to some deeper part of
humanity. maybe that's why i love Messiaen, too. possibly the greatest
composer (in the Euro tradition) of the last century.
Jerry Kohl
> the truth is that the audience for modern music is not great. the fact is
> modern music isn't really thriving. most programs still rely on the masters of
> the classical & romantic traditions, thru Beethoven & Wagner say, then on
> purely modern works. why? there seems to be a built in audience for it, for
> some *unknown* reason. why?
Yes. About 3% of the music market in the US; between 8% and 10% in Europe
(highest in the Netherlands and Gemany, lowest in Spain and Italy, according
to recording industry figures). Whee-hoo! That's a really big slice of society.
(And those figures, I hasten to add, include Broadway musicals and--in Germany
nd Austria, where such things matter a lot more than in the US--operettas and
Strauss waltzes.) A tiny slice of this 3-10% market is what we call "modern
art-music". However, as several others have pointed out on this forum (though not
on this thread), it is doubtful whether it is legitimate to segregate "new music"
in this way, when it has so much in common with large segments of the popular
music quarter (which has, globally, the other 90-97% or the market).
Which just goes to show how silly it is to think in terms of "market share", as
soon as you drop below the level of a single recording artist who accounts for
less than about 5% of it all on his lonesome. (And we are not of course talking
composers here, at all--not even your John Williamses or Burt Bacharachs.)
> i didn't even make the connection before, of these artists in what i've called
> the New Romanticism (or maybe we should call it New New New NEW Romanticism to
> satisfy Kohl)
No, sorry, that will not satisfy me at all. I'd like you to get back to your
characterization of Bob Moran and Kevin Volans as stylistically allied
musicians, though--and then hear your thoughts on the difference between
an Apollonian/Dionysian dichotomy and a Romantic/(what?) one.
L Michener
>
> the fact remains, in terms of musical evolution advancement theory, jazz
> was the revolution that went round the world & affected all societies. it
> even reached into the hallowed halls of the Euro-concert hall with many
> classically trained musicians & composers trying their hand at it (usually
> with dubious results). jazz was the so-called evolutionary advancement,
> not dodecaphony. you cannot impose your will toward evolution (insert
> critical theory here - - 12 tone, atonal, serialism, stochastic, aleatory,
> chance) & think it will stick. something other comes along & knocks yr
> beautiful theories at what the new music should be outta the water... like
> electric instruments.
As Jazz evolved it also developed atonality.
>
> the truth is that the audience for modern music is not great.
Neither is the audience for Jazz. Using numbers to measure quality is
surely flawed, on this argument Ellington is of lesser stature than the
Spice girls.
> could it be because modern composers went with critical theory, utterly
> changing the language of music & musical form (which isn't a bad thing,
> cper se)
What forms were changed? Do you mean how Bach Beethoven Liszt Debussy
and Wagner invented new formal structures? There never was a traditional
"form" of music.
> but which was like *forcing musical evolution* than with a more natural,
> more gradual approach?
Who forced it in Jazz? Look at how free improvising naturally evolved
from bebop. John Coltrane is a good example of this. The move to
atonality in western music (although historically unprecendented and
rapid) was gradual,and not sudden, Liszt for example wrote atonal works
in the 1880's. Shoenberg was not the only composer writing atonal work
in the early 20c, Charles Ives for example also came to similar results
in relative isolation.
> science, math, the machine, all were being hailed as advancements on the
> future around 1910.
You don't think they were advancements?
> from Freud to Einstein, critical rational thought was replacing the
>romantic view. it seems to me that many artists were attracted to the
>utopian visions of a machine age society & their art became more *head*
>oriented.
Surely this happened before in the 'age of enlightment'? In 1920 this is
more the futurist view, not Shoenberg's, Berg's or Ives's.
Music and mathematics have been inextricably linked since Pythagoras.
> i didn't even make the connection before, of these artists in what i've
> called the New Romanticism (or maybe we should call it New New New NEW
>Romanticism to satisfy Kohl) some have their roots in sacred music.
> religion (which i am NOT advocating, being an agnostic). but there is
> something to the spiritual side (*purple prose* notwithstanding) that
> seems to connect to some deeper part of humanity.
You of course know Shoenberg was deeply religious.
>maybe that's why i love Messiaen, too. possibly the greatest >
>composer (in the Euro tradition) of the last century. >
..whose 'Mode de Valeurs et d'intensities' for piano was the
first work of total serialism......
leon m
Samuel Vriezen
> (& hey, i LIKE Schoenberg too, but
> let's face it, that wasn't the future. it's become just another technique, a
> style at a certain kind of sound, not where music was *meant* to go.)
For Schoenberg and the people of his time, place, and environment, it
was; music goes where it means to go which is different in every time,
place and environment and never rules the entire future. It's all
"another technique, another style" after a while but that makes it no
less necessary.
> & don't tell me all composers wouldn't like their work to be more well known,
> more heard throughout the world. recognition is a good thing, making a living
> from it can be good too. see, most composers (in the Euro-tradition) nowadays
> have to subscribe to that *ivory tower damn the audience* attitude.
Every serious composer wants his music to be heard, I agree. Therefore,
what you say about "most composers" is plain BS. There simply is no
audience for music for which there is no audience.
Can you name even one of those 'most composers' who damn the audience?
> (which is not to say i don't like what Boulez has done with "Repons" & the
> electronic manipulations.)
>
> the truth is that the audience for modern music is not great. the fact is
> modern music isn't really thriving.
Are you yourself not, given what you say about Boulez, living proof of
the fact that it is?
> most programs still rely on the masters of
> the classical & romantic traditions, thru Beethoven & Wagner say, then on
> purely modern works.
Or jazz.
--
samuel
concerten.free.fr
Samuel Vriezen
> science, math, the machine, all were being hailed as advancements on the future
> around 1910. from Freud to Einstein, critical rational thought was replacing
> the romantic view. it seems to me that many artists were attracted to the
> utopian visions of a machine age society & their art became more *head*
> oriented. i think, judging by all the *new age* stuff going on, that the world
> is shifting back to a more romantic leaning.
There are few things in the world as Romantic as the avantgarde was.
As for newness in music, well, do you recall what the period of Vitry
and Machaut is usually called?
--
samuel
concerten.free.fr
Samuel Vriezen
> There never was a traditional
> "form" of music.
Right. Not in actual composing, that is - tradition is a textbook fiction.
--
samuel
concerten.free.fr
Jerry Kohl
[a lot of perfectly sensible stuff snipped here]
> >maybe that's why i love Messiaen, too. possibly the greatest >
> >composer (in the Euro tradition) of the last century. >
>
> ..whose 'Mode de Valeurs et d'intensities' for piano was the
> first work of total serialism......
No, sorry, I can't let this go. Mode de valeurs (1949) is *not* a serial
piece. What it *did* do was set up modal scales in the realms of duration,
dynamics and attack analogous to a modal scale used in the same piece
for pitch.
This idea appears to have actually been taken from some speculations
by John Cage, and under the influence of Pierre Boulez's criticism of
Messiaen's excessively chordal style (exemplified in the Turangalîla
Symphony). Since Cage was living and working in New York at the
time, it seems likely he would have been aware of Milton Babbitt, whose
Composition for Piano (1947) had already done something similar, but
the stemma does not begin there, either, if all you are tracing is building
analogous structures in pitch, rhythm and possibly other dimensions,
since these can be found in Cowell and Schillinger, at least, and probably
in Charles Seeger's speculative writings and in compositions by his second
wife, Ruth Crawford, since they were all acquainted at the time. They in turn
derived many of these concepts from ideas traceable back to the Bauhaus
and pre-Revolutionary Russia.
There is no need to stop there, either. As early as 1496, Franchinus
Gaffurius (in his Practica Musica, book 4, chapters 1, 14 and 15)
points out that the same proportions governing consonant intervals are
found in rhythmic relations, and gives examples in two-voiced counterpoint
illustrating these relations. In practical composition, however, he seems
to have shied away from using the rhythmic proportions coresponding
to the imperfect consonances, with the exception of one Mass setting
(in Librone 2 of the Milan partbooks). Interestingly enough, Gaffurius
also presents one two-voiced example (1496, book 4, chapter 1) of
"incommensurable" rhythms, distantly akin to the sort of thing found
in some passages of Stockhausen's music, though it is intended by
Gaffurius as an example of what should *not* be done.
Jerry Kohl
> Tony Sienzant wrote:
>
> > science, math, the machine, all were being hailed as advancements on the future
> > around 1910. from Freud to Einstein, critical rational thought was replacing
> > the romantic view. it seems to me that many artists were attracted to the
> > utopian visions of a machine age society & their art became more *head*
> > oriented. i think, judging by all the *new age* stuff going on, that the world
> > is shifting back to a more romantic leaning.
>
> There are few things in the world as Romantic as the avantgarde was.
Now, that is a very good point. In the framework of Wöllflin's Apollonian/Dionysian
split, the (European) avant-garde impulse (that is, speaking of the composers who
first came to prominence after the Second World War) was in large part a rebellion
against the Neoclassicism widely perceived in the music of Stravinsky and Hindemith
(amongst others), but also in Schoenberg. (This is one reason for the elevation of
Webern oin their eyes, though in fact Webern, too, had his neoclassical side, though
it
was less obvious, perhaps, than Schoenberg's.) However, earlier in the century, it
was
Schoenberg (ironically) who had raised the Dionysian banner against neoclassicism.
So we see sometimes in the work of one composer both sides of the dichotomy--perhaps
at different points in time. Also in the case of Boulez, whose reaction against the
lush
excesses of Messiaen's Turangalîla Symphony led him to the extreme constructivism
of Structures 1a in 1951, but this after the luxurience of his own compositions of
the late
1940s (Le Soleil des eaux, Le Visage nuptial, Piano Sonata No. 2), and before the
very
different luxurience of Le Marteau sans maître and Pli selon pli (not to mention
works
from much later, like Répons).
And as long as "science" has been raised, it must be remembered that it, too, has
its
Dionysian representatives, as well as its Apollonians.
Catison Helt
<sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> wrote:
>Tony Sienzant wrote:
>
>
>Can you name even one of those 'most composers' who damn the audience?
If anyone even mentions Babbitt, I am going to shoot myself.
- Catison
Alex Temple
> (& hey, i LIKE Schoenberg too, but
> let's face it, that wasn't the future. it's become just another technique, a
> style at a certain kind of sound, not where music was *meant* to go.)
First of all, do you think that jazz /is/ the future?
Secondly, why do you think that music was "meant" to go anywhere?
> the truth is that the audience for modern music is not great. the fact is
> modern music isn't really thriving. most programs still rely on the masters of
> the classical & romantic traditions, thru Beethoven & Wagner say, then on
> purely modern works. why? there seems to be a built in audience for it, for
> some *unknown* reason. why?
The audience for jazz is almost as small as that for modern composition. Most
people listen to rock and pop.
> could it be because modern composers went with critical theory, utterly
> changing the language of music & musical form (which isn't a bad thing, per se)
> but which was like *forcing musical evolution* than with a more natural, more
> gradual approach?
Schoenberg /did/ take a gradual approach. If you listen to the works between
Verklärte Nacht and the Five Orchestral Pieces, every piece goes one step further
into chromaticism and tonal non-functionality than the last.
> i think, judging by all the *new age* stuff going on, that the world
> is shifting back to a more romantic leaning.
"New Age stuff" is a minority interest, just like twelve-tone music and jazz.
Arvo Pärt, too.
> maybe Schoenberg & his disciples were swept along in the same manner, just
> being influenced by the general social mood around them which valued scientific
> critical thought. but was it good for music? i can't see how losing an
> audience can be.
If it produces excellent music, it's good for music. Audience size doesn't
matter. James Joyce's audience isn't too big -- would you say that his literary
innovations were bad for fiction?
> maybe that's why i love Messiaen, too. possibly the greatest
> composer (in the Euro tradition) of the last century.
And also the one responsible for total serialism (albeit indirectly)!
--
Alex Temple
fiber_optiq NO [at] SPAM yahoo PLEASE [dot] com
http://www.isomerica.net/~electricwalrus
"Memes don't exist. Tell your friends."
Jerry Kohl
> Tony Sienzant wrote:
> > i think, judging by all the *new age* stuff going on, that the world
> > is shifting back to a more romantic leaning.
>
> "New Age stuff" is a minority interest, just like twelve-tone music and jazz.
> Arvo Pärt, too.
In a sense, *every* category of music is a minority interest, but some
minorities are larger than others. Don't underestimate New Age--it is
a very large, as minority interests go. However, Tony is dead wrong,
IMHO, to link New Age with Romanticism, since the latter is associated
with big, passionate gestures, while New Age is often reviled as "air music"
because of its conspicuously passive nature.
> > maybe that's why i love Messiaen, too. possibly the greatest
> > composer (in the Euro tradition) of the last century.
>
> And also the one responsible for total serialism (albeit indirectly)!
Here we go again! In what way was Messiaen "responsible for total
serialism"? (You make it sound like a crime!)
W Bergengruen
> Samuel Vriezen wrote:
>
> >
> > There are few things in the world as Romantic as the avantgarde was.
>
> Now, that is a very good point. In the framework of Wöllflin's Apollonian/Dionysian
> split, the (European) avant-garde impulse (that is, speaking of the composers who
> first came to prominence after the Second World War) was in large part a rebellion
> against the Neoclassicism widely perceived in the music of Stravinsky and Hindemith
> (amongst others), but also in Schoenberg.
Is it not true though that there were also extra-musical reasons for
the birth of the avant-garde in Darmstadt at that historical moment in
time? Germany had recently been in ruins and was only very slowly
recovering to some semblance of civilized life again. Many young
composers and others working in the arts were probably utterly ashamed
of their fathers' generation and of what they had allowed to happen,
the brutalisation of the population of Germany, the total lack of
action of millions of people who knew what what going on to stop the
evil and horror of it all, (evil which was being perpetrated by
themselves and their own sons and daughters in the army ...)
Many highly educated Germans in the arts world had simply continued
with their activities throughout this dark period without making a
concerted effort, as would be expected of the supreme upholders of
cultural and civilized values, to protest en masse, to make their
voices be heard loud and clear, to publically speak out and reject
Hitler, Nazism and anti-semitism and its outrageous manifestations,
evidence of which they must have seen on a daily basis. Instead, they
behaved like fearful cowards and kept their opinions to themselves
while continuing to work as normal under the Nazi regime. This
amounted to a tacit acceptance. (Needless to say, there would have
been exceptions - but only a small minority.)
How could young German musicians feel anything but contempt for the
older generation of composers? How could they possibly simply continue
the tradition from where these discredited men had left off, so to
speak? Everything had to be destroyed in the flames of their wrath at
how their elders had behaved when put to the test: German musical
traditions, values, attitudes - all of this had to be destroyed. They
felt the necessity to wash their hands of the older generation - to
reject it utterly.
A completely fresh start had to be made. Totally new ways of making
music had to be found. At that point in time this was a historical
necessity for these young German composers and musicians.
Surely the above social and cultural situation in Germany had some
significance for the birth of the avant-garde there.
Babbitt in America, with his 'Three Compositions for piano' was a
completely isolated figure, as far as I know.
Jerry Kohl
> Jerry Kohl <jerom...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<3FFC4DE9...@comcast.net>...
> > Samuel Vriezen wrote:
> >
>
> > >
> > > There are few things in the world as Romantic as the avantgarde was.
> >
> > Now, that is a very good point. In the framework of Wöllflin's Apollonian/Dionysian
> > split, the (European) avant-garde impulse (that is, speaking of the composers who
> > first came to prominence after the Second World War) was in large part a rebellion
> > against the Neoclassicism widely perceived in the music of Stravinsky and Hindemith
> > (amongst others), but also in Schoenberg.
>
> Is it not true though that there were also extra-musical reasons for
> the birth of the avant-garde in Darmstadt at that historical moment in
> time? Germany had recently been in ruins and was only very slowly
> recovering to some semblance of civilized life again.
[much perfectly true material snipped for brevity's sake]
>
> A completely fresh start had to be made. Totally new ways of making
> music had to be found. At that point in time this was a historical
> necessity for these young German composers and musicians.
> Surely the above social and cultural situation in Germany had some
> significance for the birth of the avant-garde there.
Yes, this is the received view, and it is true as far as it goes. This does,
however, assume (and not implausibly so) a central role for Germany,
which overlooks the importance of (amongst other places) Paris in
this postwar movement.
Even within the German context, however, it does not wholly explain
why many expatriate composers who had fled the Nazi regime (e.g.,
Schoenberg and Hindemith), as well as politically dissident composers
who remained (under virtual house arrest) in Germany, like Hartmann,
were not embraced as heroes by this young generation. The great figure
for the so-called Darmstadt School was of course Webern who,
despite castigation by the Nazi authorities not only remained in Austria,
but even appears to have been at least complacent if not enthusiastic
about the Hitler regime.
The rejection of Hindemith (and, eventually, Schoenberg) as models
by the younger generation was not or course immediate--and this is
the curious thing, because the so-called Nullstunde (zero-hour) was
really over by 1949, and yet up to this point Hindemith (and his
followers) really *were* the heroes of the rebirth of musical
composition in Germany. (And Schoenberg might well have become
so, if ill-health had not prevented him from accepting an invitation to
appear at Darmstadt.) The rallying-cry for Webern seems to have
come initially from France and Belgium, with young composers like
Boulez and Goeyvaerts, under the influence of René Leibowitz,
leading the trend. The young Stockhausen, swept up in the enthusiasm
in the summer of 1951, left Germany for Paris at the beginning of
1952 to further his education as a composer (he had only seriously
taken up composition late in 1950).
In Paris, the battle-lines were drawn between Nadia Boulanger on the
one hand, who staunchly defended Stravinskyan neoclassicism, and
René Leibowitz and the circle of Messiaen's "flêches" on the other
(including Boulez and Barraqué). Goeyvaerts changed sides at just
about this same time, after winning an important prize adjudicated by
Boulanger for a neoclassical composition, and composed his Sonata
for Two Pianos, which was the piece that (together with Messiaen's
Mode de valeurs et d'intensités) convinced Stockhausen that Paris
was the vital centre at that time.
Neoclassicism, naturally, is characterized by Apollonian restraint, and
it was the taint of neoclassicism that caused Boulez to reject
Schoenberg, in his notorious article "Schoenberg Is Dead". On the
other hand, there was also a strain of constructivism inherent in many
composers' attitudes at that time, sometimes manifested as "purism"
(the case of Goeyvaerts and Stockhausen is strong with this, up to
about 1952 or 1953), but also in the criticism of luxuriant excess
(Boulez's rejection of Messiaen's harmonic palette, for example).
However, in the best works of this period, any strict puristic or
constructivistic attitudes (such as were held by Josef Matthias Hauer,
for example, whose influence on Goeyvaerts and Stockhausen, at
least, is an overlooked but important factor in their musical technique,
if not in their attitudes.)
A true picture of this period of music history must surely reveal a
complexity far beyond such notions as the Apollonian/Dionysian
divide, or the issue of serialism/antiserialism (I am thinking of
another of Messiaen's pupil's here, Iannis Xenakis). And even the
issue of what actually constitutes "serialism" in the works of the
more important composers who practised it (Goeyvaerts, Fano,
Barraqué, Boulez, Stockhausen, Maderna, Berio, Nono, etc.) is
surprisingly underinvestigated.
Samuel Vriezen
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 14:51:36 +0100, Samuel Vriezen
> <sqv.do.not.spam@xs4all> wrote:
>
>
>>Tony Sienzant wrote:
>>
>>
>>Can you name even one of those 'most composers' who damn the audience?
>
>
> If anyone even mentions Babbitt, I am going to shoot myself.
Indeed, that music is so 'heard' in its writing. Lovely music.
--
samuel
concerten.free.fr
Alex Temple
> > > maybe that's why i love Messiaen, too. possibly the greatest
> > > composer (in the Euro tradition) of the last century.
> >
> > And also the one responsible for total serialism (albeit indirectly)!
>
> Here we go again! In what way was Messiaen "responsible for total
> serialism"? (You make it sound like a crime!)
In that "Modes de valeurs et d'intensités" inspired Boulez to serialize parameters
other than pitch.
(And no, I have no objection to total serialism, though I'm glad it's not the only
compositional technique in existence.)
Jerry Kohl
> Jerry Kohl wrote:
>
> > > > maybe that's why i love Messiaen, too. possibly the greatest
> > > > composer (in the Euro tradition) of the last century.
> > >
> > > And also the one responsible for total serialism (albeit indirectly)!
> >
> > Here we go again! In what way was Messiaen "responsible for total
> > serialism"? (You make it sound like a crime!)
>
> In that "Modes de valeurs et d'intensités" inspired Boulez to serialize parameters
> other than pitch.
> (And no, I have no objection to total serialism, though I'm glad it's not the only
> compositional technique in existence.)
Interestingly, it seems that Boulez (who was not at Darmstadt in 1951, where
Goléa played the private recording that so impressed Goeyvaerts and
Stockhausen) did not first make the acquaintance of Mode de valeurs until
1952, by which time he had already composed Book 1 of Structures, which
*does* serialize durations, dynamics and attack characters. While it is true
that Mode was composed earlier, there is no evidence that Messiaen had
shown it to Boulez earlier, and some clear indication of Boulez's surprise
upon encountering it in 1952. If Boulez did in fact not learn of it until
after he had composed Structures book 1, then the question naturally
arises: where might the common source be?
Alex Temple
> Alex Temple wrote:
>
> > Jerry Kohl wrote:
> >
> > > Here we go again! In what way was Messiaen "responsible for total
> > > serialism"? (You make it sound like a crime!)
> >
> > In that "Modes de valeurs et d'intensités" inspired Boulez to serialize parameters
> > other than pitch.
> > (And no, I have no objection to total serialism, though I'm glad it's not the only
> > compositional technique in existence.)
>
> Interestingly, it seems that Boulez (who was not at Darmstadt in 1951, where
> Goléa played the private recording that so impressed Goeyvaerts and
> Stockhausen) did not first make the acquaintance of Mode de valeurs until
> 1952, by which time he had already composed Book 1 of Structures, which
> *does* serialize durations, dynamics and attack characters. While it is true
> that Mode was composed earlier, there is no evidence that Messiaen had
> shown it to Boulez earlier, and some clear indication of Boulez's surprise
> upon encountering it in 1952.
Huh. That is interesting! Shows what I get for paying attention to music history
textbooks.
> If Boulez did in fact not learn of it until
> after he had composed Structures book 1, then the question naturally
> arises: where might the common source be?
I know Boulez studied with Messiaen, but I don't know the dates. Is it possible that
he and Messiaen had discussed some ideas that led both of them independently to the
idea of systematizing (albeit serializing only in Boulez's case) parameters other than
pitch?
Jerry Kohl
> Jerry Kohl wrote:
>
> > Alex Temple wrote:
> >
> > > Jerry Kohl wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here we go again! In what way was Messiaen "responsible for total
> > > > serialism"? (You make it sound like a crime!)
> > >
> > > In that "Modes de valeurs et d'intensités" inspired Boulez to serialize parameters
> > > other than pitch.
> > > (And no, I have no objection to total serialism, though I'm glad it's not the only
> > > compositional technique in existence.)
> >
> > Interestingly, it seems that Boulez (who was not at Darmstadt in 1951, where
> > Goléa played the private recording that so impressed Goeyvaerts and
> > Stockhausen) did not first make the acquaintance of Mode de valeurs until
> > 1952, by which time he had already composed Book 1 of Structures, which
> > *does* serialize durations, dynamics and attack characters. While it is true
> > that Mode was composed earlier, there is no evidence that Messiaen had
> > shown it to Boulez earlier, and some clear indication of Boulez's surprise
> > upon encountering it in 1952.
>
> Huh. That is interesting! Shows what I get for paying attention to music history
> textbooks.
Well, textbooks have got a lot to answer for.
> > If Boulez did in fact not learn of it until
> > after he had composed Structures book 1, then the question naturally
> > arises: where might the common source be?
>
> I know Boulez studied with Messiaen, but I don't know the dates.
He began studies with Messiaen in 1947.
> Is it possible that
> he and Messiaen had discussed some ideas that led both of them independently to the
> idea of systematizing (albeit serializing only in Boulez's case) parameters other than
> pitch?
Yes, it certainly is likely. According to a recent PhD dissertation (John-Philipp
Gather, "The Origins of Synthetic Timbre Serialism and the Parisian Confluence,
1949?52", SUNY Buffalo, 2003), what (or rather, "who") it was that led them
both to this idea was John Cage. Hence the connection to Cowell, Seeger,
Schillinger, et al.
L Michener
throwing that in. It is after all "MODE de valeurs.."
I agree this work is not serial in that the notes are defined not by
the 12 note series order (which is freely quoted) but by their pre fixed
duration, dynamics and attack.
I used it in this instance to make the point that Messiaen followed
predefined compositional theories and hypothesis.
It occurred to me as you mention Cowell (his Rhythmicon machine
built by leo theremin) that the early builders of electronic instruments
worked on these "analogous pitch rhythm intensity relationships" However
i can only think of machines from the early 50's that work this way,
none from the 40's. It is an interesting idea that the path followed
in building synthesizers in the 50's s is similar to and may have
been influenced by total serialism.
Jerry Kohl <jerom...@comcast.net> wrote:
> L Michener wrote:
> [a lot of perfectly sensible stuff snipped here]
> > ..whose 'Mode de Valeurs et d'intensities' for piano was the
W Bergengruen
this period is far superior to mine. Your information about Goeyvarts
changing sides is surprising. I can't help wondering - why do we never
hear his music, and what happened to him?
(On a more irrelevant note, I sometimes also wonder - whatever
happened to the Belgian, Henri Pousseur? I used to often hear
performances of his music on air. He was quite a prominent figure at
that time (even contributing to "Die Reihe"), was he not? And, did
Hanns Jelinek, presumably a very minor figure at that time, work
quietly in Germany during the Nazi regime? And, on a very flippant
note, I also wonder - how many others besides myself - in the whole
world! - have all five volumes (series 1 - for piano) of his
Zwoelftonwerk op.15; - or all the piano music of Leopold Spinner? -
surely unwanted, neglected rarities now.)
> > Jerry Kohl <jerom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > Is it not true though that there were also extra-musical reasons for
> > the birth of the avant-garde in Darmstadt at that historical moment in
> > time? Germany had recently been in ruins and was only very slowly
> > recovering to some semblance of civilized life again.
> > A completely fresh start had to be made. Totally new ways of making
Samuel Vriezen
> What you wrote (-'way below) was very interesting. Your knowledge of
> this period is far superior to mine. Your information about Goeyvarts
> changing sides is surprising. I can't help wondering - why do we never
> hear his music, and what happened to him?
There is a complete Goeyvaerts edition, which I'd like to get my hands
on sometime. His later music is minimal-like, but from what I remember
hearing closer to, say, Feldman than to Glass.
--
samuel
concerten.free.fr
W Bergengruen
> >Just like me with jazz. I can enjoy it in small
> >doses depending, of course, on what it is.. then I'm liable to start
> >getting utterly sick of the endless, meaningless, pointless doodling..
>
> >I get bored with Ellington after a while, just doesn't sustain my
> >interest.
>
> >Never the case with Schoenberg. And I feel so much more on
> >his wavelength and enjoy his soundworld and the atmosphere he creates
> >so much more. He 'communicates' with me though he never tried.
> >Ellington doesn't.
>
> but don't you see? you should READ more about Ellington & what's behind his
> music... THEN you'd appreciate it more. you'll get what yr now missing! i
> mean, listen to those horns, the textures... he does stuff no other (insert
> famous Euro-white-male here) ever did with horns.
Well, I'm quite willing to try! I'll find out more about him and buy
a cd or two since you have praised him so lavishly. But I doubt if
I'll ever find anything as magical as, for instance, 3/5ths of the way
through "Verkärte Nacht", the unexpected F# major rising scale in
thirds leading to a sublime passage which pours calm and peace on the
troubled waters...for me, one of the most beautiful moments in all
music. Or the white hot intensity of "Erwartung" (Neither works are
serial, as we all know, but no matter.) Maybe Ellington hasn't got
what I sometimes want to get from music -this is not a criticism of
him at all.
> & don't tell me all composers wouldn't like their work to be more well known,
> more heard throughout the world. recognition is a good thing, making a living
> from it can be good too. see, most composers (in the Euro-tradition) nowadays
> have to subscribe to that *ivory tower damn the audience* attitude. because
> that's the way it is socially. they go into it knowing that the audience isn't
> really there.
(There are many people I have come across who would actually make me
feel quite upset if they told me they enjoyed listening to what I
write. I'd think there was something far wrong - flippant, sorry!)
> the truth is that the audience for modern music is not great. the fact is
> modern music isn't really thriving. most programs still rely on the masters of
> the classical & romantic traditions, thru Beethoven & Wagner say, then on
> purely modern works. why? there seems to be a built in audience for it, for
> some *unknown* reason. why?
The audience for classical music in general isn't all that great! And
many of those who do go to hear Beethoven etc. are incapable of
listening properly...they start fiddling with their programmme notes
after three or four minutes of music, their concentration span already
used up. They decide to start reading the notes while the music's
going on, they get restless, uncross their legs, give their partner an
affectionate little hug, look sideways, then their programme slips on
the floor...
> maybe Schoenberg & his disciples were swept along in the same manner, just
> being influenced by the general social mood around them which valued scientific
> critical thought. but was it good for music? i can't see how losing an
> audience can be.
You should read Ethan Haimo's "Schoenberg's Serial Odyssey" which
traces the development of his serial ideas from their most rudimentary
form. He was never "swept along", not that type of man at all, and he
was unremittingly self-critical.
Since there are millions upon millions who get real enjoyment from
music and who'd hate to do without it in their lives - but NEVER
classical- ancient or modern!, or even jazz - old or new; maybe we
could benefit from asking:
What positive qualities does the music of the millions have such that
it gives so very much pleasure to so many people, far outweighing in
sheer quantity any pleasure that poor old classical music of any kind,
could ever hope to give? I'm thinking of popular music of all kinds -
pop, hip-hop, ballads, blue-grass, rock, reggae, techno... you name
it... One thing's for sure - each number lasts only about 4 minutes.
No need to sit for half an hour fiddling with your programme and
hoping it will finish soon so that you can go for a drink at the bar.
Also, there's often a lovely big strong regular beat booming away
throughout to keep you awake. Finally, no weird ancient Greek, Latin
or Sanskrit titles. Who wants that when you can have e.g. "Hold me in
your arms tonight" (and only for 4 minutes!).
Hao-yang Wang
>
> Interestingly, it seems that Boulez (who was not at Darmstadt in 1951,
where
> Goléa played the private recording that so impressed Goeyvaerts and
> Stockhausen) did not first make the acquaintance of Mode de valeurs until
> 1952, by which time he had already composed Book 1 of Structures, which
> *does* serialize durations, dynamics and attack characters. While it is
true
> that Mode was composed earlier, there is no evidence that Messiaen had
> shown it to Boulez earlier, and some clear indication of Boulez's surprise
> upon encountering it in 1952. If Boulez did in fact not learn of it until
> after he had composed Structures book 1, then the question naturally
> arises: where might the common source be?
Dominique Jameux states in his <<Pierre Boulez>> that "Boulez chose as his
basic series [of Structure 1a] a row taken from Messiaen's Mode de valeurs
et d'intensites, by way of confirming that the rift between the two
composers had healed."
Cheers,
Hao-yang Wang
Hao-yang Wang
news:btk6si$90j$1...@news.apple.com...
I mean: Maybe Boulez got his inspiration for Structure 1a from somebody
else, but he certainly had to have already known about Mode de valeurs in
order to borrow material from it.
Cheers,
Hao-yang Wang
Jerry Kohl
> Thanks for pointing that out and correcting me. I was over casual
> throwing that in. It is after all "MODE de valeurs.."
>
> I agree this work is not serial in that the notes are defined not by
> the 12 note series order (which is freely quoted) but by their pre fixed
> duration, dynamics and attack.
> I used it in this instance to make the point that Messiaen followed
> predefined compositional theories and hypothesis.
Yes, a good point, but Mode is scarcely the only piece by Messiaen
that does this. In fact, I think you would be hard-pressed to find a piece
by him that does *not* follow predefined theories. I think of the
"nnretrogradable rhythms" nd "noninvertible chords" that saturate
the Quatuor pour le fin du temps, for example, or the "rhythmic neumes"
that figure even in the title of one of the other Quatre études de rythme
(of which Mode is the second).
> It occurred to me as you mention Cowell (his Rhythmicon machine
> built by leo theremin) that the early builders of electronic instruments
> worked on these "analogous pitch rhythm intensity relationships" However
> i can only think of machines from the early 50's that work this way,
> none from the 40's.
I'm a little confused here. The rhythmicon (which, by the way, is also
described by Schillinger--hardly surprising, since he was at the New
School at the same time as Cowell and Seeger) is such a machine, yes?
And it was built in the 1930s.
> It is an interesting idea that the path followed
> in building synthesizers in the 50's s is similar to and may have
> been influenced by total serialism.
Also consider the tremendous impact that earlier electronic instruments
had on the Paris group in the late 1940s. Electronics was what made
treating timbre as a separate parameter possible, nd Boulez was not
merely acquainted with the ondes Martenot--he was a famous virtuoso
performer on that instrument.
Jerry Kohl
> What you wrote (-'way below) was very interesting. Your knowledge of
> this period is far superior to mine. Your information about Goeyvarts
> changing sides is surprising. I can't help wondering - why do we never
> hear his music, and what happened to him?
He died in the late 1990s. There is a CD of his early serial works, and
one quick listen to it will answer your question--none of it is even
remotely as interesting *as music* to anything contemporary by
Stockhausen, Boulez, Berio, Nono or Barraqué. After the 1950s, he
returned to his neoclassical manner and, though he has his champions,
this music does not really command attention, either (at least, not to
judge from his decidedly sub-Stravinsky magnum opus, the opera
Aquarius, which sounds like watered-down Louis Andriessen).
>
> (On a more irrelevant note, I sometimes also wonder - whatever
> happened to the Belgian, Henri Pousseur? I used to often hear
> performances of his music on air. He was quite a prominent figure at
> that time (even contributing to "Die Reihe"), was he not?
Pousseur is still active as a composer, and has produced much stunningly
beautiful music. There are actually quite a few CDs floating around out
there, though they are not always easy to find. I am especially fond of
his Aquarius-memorial series (on Cypres CD 4608), and the closely
related Les Ephemerides d'Icare 2, once on LP but not currently in print.
Couleurs Croissées is also an amazing work.
> And, did
> Hanns Jelinek, presumably a very minor figure at that time, work
> quietly in Germany during the Nazi regime?
More likely in Austria, since he was of that nationality. A now mostly
forgotten composer, he was quite prominent in musical life in the
late 1940s and early 1950s.
> And, on a very flippant
> note, I also wonder - how many others besides myself - in the whole
> world! - have all five volumes (series 1 - for piano) of his
> Zwoelftonwerk op.15; - or all the piano music of Leopold Spinner? -
> surely unwanted, neglected rarities now.)
Not to mention the Zwölftonwerke of Hauer, only a few of which (out
of some 300) have ever been recorded.
Jerry Kohl
Which is a pretty tall order, since Mode de valeurs has no row!! It is
possible,
I suppose, that Boulez could have taken a particular 12-note sequence that
happens to occur in that piece, but I would have to check the score of Mode
to be certain. If this is the case, then it certainly tears a big whole in
Gather's
assertion that Boulez did not know about Mode until after he had already
composed Structures 1a.
W Bergengruen
In 'Pierre Boulez: conversations with Celestin Deliege'(1975):-
PB (in answer to a question)"I wanted to use the potential of a given
material... I borrowed material from Messiaen's 'Mode de...'; thus I
had material that I had not invented and for whose invention I
deliberately rejected all responsibility..."
In Joan Peyser's 'Boulez - composer, conductor, enigma' (1976):-
"(Peyser) 'Mode de...' was organized in this way: a melodic series of
36 notes, a rhythmic series of 24 durations,..."
["Boulez ascribes the break (with Messiaen in 1948) to 'the
inevitable disenchantment that comes after one has made a tour of
someone'."]
".. the younger composer borrowed the row the older one had used for
the 'Mode de...'- a deferential act."
Acc. to Peyser, Boulez said: "It was a test with borrowed material."
"In 1952 B. and M. collaborated in a performance of 'Structures' in
Paris."
In 'Modern Music and After' by Paul Griffiths (1995):-
"In the summer of 1951 he had quickly written the first chapter of
'Structures' using the 'first division' of Messiaen's 3-part mode as a
12-note series, combined with a 12-duration series in demisemiquavers,
again as in the Messiaen model."
(As you'll know, the piece was later analysed by Ligeti in Die Reihe,
4 (1958))
W Bergengruen
Many thanks for all your information. I feel glad that Pousseur is still alive.
TomD
> What you wrote (-'way below) was very interesting. Your knowledge of
> this period is far superior to mine. Your information about Goeyvarts
> changing sides is surprising. I can't help wondering - why do we never
> hear his music, and what happened to him?
> (On a more irrelevant note, I sometimes also wonder - whatever
> happened to the Belgian, Henri Pousseur? I used to often hear
> performances of his music on air.
There are a number of Pousseur recordings around, some of electronic
music (eg on Sub Rosa label), and some of non-electronic music (eg on
Cypres label).
Interestingly, in 2000 I heard Frederic Rzewski play a piano piece by
Pousseur that was dedicated to Goeyvarts. I can't recall the title,
however.
Jerry Kohl
That would be the Litanies d'Icare, which forms part of a larger cycle of
works dedicated to Goeyvaerts's memory, collectively titled "Aquarius-
memorial". It is recoreded on Cyprčs CYP 4608.
Jerry Kohl
Yes. I've just re-checked Gather's dissertation, and what he actually says
differs from my recollection. It appears that Boulez only became aware
of Mode after it was first published, on 27 November 1950, and composed
Structures 1a almost immediately:
"When one of Boulez’s friends brought the score of Mode to his
attention, Boulez immediately went out to purchase his own copy of
the score and, in a single night of excitement about ‘it’, composed
Structures Ia: 'As soon as I saw it, I jumped at it.'"
(Gather 2003, 181; the brief quotation at the end is from Peter Heyworth,
"The First Fifty Years" in Pierre Boulez: A Symposium, ed. William
Glock, 1986)
I think that Gather's point, which I misremembered, was that Boulez had
been estranged from Messiaen, and so was unaware of his composition
of Mode in 1949--only learning of it through a friend after its publication.
Peyser (never the most reliable of sources) distorts the facts slightly,
however, by saying Boulez "borrowed the row" from Messiaen;
Griffiths is more accurate, though out of context it is not clear that
the "first division" pitches are a "pitch-in-pitch" or scale arrangement,
which Boulez reinterpreted as a row, and separated out the durations,
attacks, and so on as independent series.
Catison Helt
wrote:
>Which is a pretty tall order, since Mode de valeurs has no row!! It is
>possible,
>I suppose, that Boulez could have taken a particular 12-note sequence that
>happens to occur in that piece, but I would have to check the score of Mode
>to be certain. If this is the case, then it certainly tears a big whole in
>Gather's
>assertion that Boulez did not know about Mode until after he had already
>composed Structures 1a.
LOL, with Boulez still being alive, you'd think that someone could
just ask the guy...
- Catison
Catison Helt
wrote:
>
> Since there are millions upon millions who get real enjoyment from
>music and who'd hate to do without it in their lives - but NEVER
>classical- ancient or modern!, or even jazz - old or new; maybe we
>could benefit from asking:
> What positive qualities does the music of the millions have such that
>it gives so very much pleasure to so many people, far outweighing in
>sheer quantity any pleasure that poor old classical music of any kind,
>could ever hope to give? I'm thinking of popular music of all kinds -
>pop, hip-hop, ballads, blue-grass, rock, reggae, techno... you name
>it... One thing's for sure - each number lasts only about 4 minutes.
>No need to sit for half an hour fiddling with your programme and
>hoping it will finish soon so that you can go for a drink at the bar.
>Also, there's often a lovely big strong regular beat booming away
>throughout to keep you awake. Finally, no weird ancient Greek, Latin
>or Sanskrit titles. Who wants that when you can have e.g. "Hold me in
>your arms tonight" (and only for 4 minutes!).
Well, it is all very simple: its all very simple. Popular music is
passive music. You don't actively listen to it, and this is the music
we all grow up with. We are not trained to hear what is required of
us when listening to classical music. Most people just want a strong
beat and loud music; hence, your fiddling around during concerts.
Most people don't think of "listening to music" as an activity; it's
something to do while you are doing something else. This leads to the
popularity of minimalist music, which can be enjoyed on one level by
passively listening. However, I find much more enjoyment and interest
is given by actively envolving myself in minimalist music. In fact,
it is one of my favorite things to do.
I think the major difference between classical and pop music is
development. It is that very development which keeps the masses away.
- Catison
L Michener
an atonal serial machine like the RCA or Hugh lecaine Raymond Scott
synths. But by basing the pitch rhythms on the harmonic series the
Rhythmicon is an example of using a predefined mathematical strategy.
Jerry Kohl
Yes, I see your point, thanks for the clarification. And of course Cowell's
whole approach was based on the harmonic series, so in the sense of "serial"
that we usually understand, and just about any sense of "atonal" that I can
think of, the rhythmicon would be all but useless for projecting pitch
relations
into the realm of durations.
W Bergengruen
".. the younger composer borrowed the row the older one had used for
> > the 'Mode de...'- a deferential act."
> > Acc. to Peyser, Boulez said: "It was a test with borrowed material."
> > "In 1952 B. and M. collaborated in a performance of 'Structures' in
> > Paris."
> >
> > In 'Modern Music and After' by Paul Griffiths (1995):-
> > "In the summer of 1951 he had quickly written the first chapter of
> > 'Structures' using the 'first division' of Messiaen's 3-part mode as a
> > 12-note series, combined with a 12-duration series in demisemiquavers,
> > again as in the Messiaen model."
> > (As you'll know, the piece was later analysed by Ligeti in Die Reihe,
> > 4 (1958))
>
> Yes. I've just re-checked Gather's dissertation, and what he actually says
> differs from my recollection. It appears that Boulez only became aware
> of Mode after it was first published, on 27 November 1950, and composed
> Structures 1a almost immediately:
>
> "When one of Boulez?s friends brought the score of Mode to his
> attention, Boulez immediately went out to purchase his own copy of
> the score and, in a single night of excitement about ?it?, composed
> Structures Ia: 'As soon as I saw it, I jumped at it.'"
> (Gather 2003, 181; the brief quotation at the end is from Peter Heyworth,
> "The First Fifty Years" in Pierre Boulez: A Symposium, ed. William
> Glock, 1986)
>
> I think that Gather's point, which I misremembered, was that Boulez had
> been estranged from Messiaen, and so was unaware of his composition
> of Mode in 1949--only learning of it through a friend after its publication.
>
> Peyser (never the most reliable of sources) distorts the facts slightly,
> however, by saying Boulez "borrowed the row" from Messiaen;
> Griffiths is more accurate, though out of context it is not clear that
> the "first division" pitches are a "pitch-in-pitch" or scale arrangement,
> which Boulez reinterpreted as a row, and separated out the durations,
> attacks, and so on as independent series.
As a matter of interest (and only that!), in "The New Music" -by
Reginald Smith Brindle (1975), a composer I never hear of now and who
wrote a useful book on serial music, Brindle says that "though written
in 1949, Messiaen's 'Mode de..' can be seen as the fruit of years of
development, certain aspects of the work's organisation appearing as
early as 1940 in his 'Liturgie de Cristal' from the 'Quatuor pour..'
and later in his 'Technique de mon..' of 1942."
He stresses that the 12 notes of each of the 3 'divisions' of the
'mode' used for the piece can be freely ordered. The 1st (highest)
division uses demisemiquavers - 1 to 12, in order. The 2nd -
semiquavers, and the 3rd, dotted quavers.
In the actual piece the 1st 4 notes only of the highest (1st) div.
are used in order, then changes in ordering start to occur. The lowest
(3rd) div. as used in the piece, actually begins with the 9th, then
the 5th.
Boulez uses the 12 pcs of the first div. exactly as presented in the
'mode' - (not the piece, of course.) numbering them 1 to 12 - 1-Eb,
2-D, 3-A, 4-Ab, 5-G, 6-F,# 7-E, 8-C# etc.; but then, in his
'inversion' matrix, i.e. Eb E A... ending with C# G - he numbers these
as 1-Eb, 7-E, 3-A,...8-C#, 5-G (the numbers they had in the 'O'
version).
"Throughout 'Structure 1a'(says Brindle) there is a basic time unit
of a demisemiquaver multiplied by the numbers in each row of the O and
I matrices," (or the R and RI)... "For instance, the piece begins by
Piano 1 playing note durations of the series RI(5)"
(The last row of the I matrix begins: 5 4 8 ...ending with 10 9 11
12, so pno 1, playing the original pc version of the series, has:
Eb-(12 demis long - a dotted crotchet), D-(11 demis), A-(9 demis),
Ab-(10 demis)...etc.)
Peyser says:"Despite the imposition of such mathematical formulas.."
(a melodic, rhythmic, dynamic and intensity series set into a 3 pt.
canon) " the 'Mode de..' is full, expressive, extroverted music.(says
Peyser) M. used his formulas in a free and romantic way....It was left
to B. to remove the trimmings, to make music 'from scratch', to go, in
a sense, bone dry. "This was the zero point of writing" he says, "What
I was after was the most impersonal material. Personality had to be
involved, of course, in bringing the mechanism into action, but then
it could disappear after that. To have the personality not at all
involved was a necessity for a while."
"In 'Structures' even the smallest aspect of each musical event
undergoes a perpetual transformation. Thus each pitch never recurs
with the same duration, the same intensity, or the same attack. A
staggering multiplicity of combinations occurs. Recently (i.e.1970s)
Boulez has said: 'Messiaen dealt with modes which were static.
Everything was held together from beginning to end. When I took his
material, I untied the various characteristics and made them work
independently.' "
Jerry Kohl
> Jerry Kohl <jerom...@comcast.net> wrote in message > >
>
> > Yes. I've just re-checked Gather's dissertation, and what he actually says
> > differs from my recollection. It appears that Boulez only became aware
> > of Mode after it was first published, on 27 November 1950, and composed
> > Structures 1a almost immediately:
> >
> > "When one of Boulez?s friends brought the score of Mode to his
> > attention, Boulez immediately went out to purchase his own copy of
> > the score and, in a single night of excitement about ?it?, composed
> > Structures Ia: 'As soon as I saw it, I jumped at it.'"
> > (Gather 2003, 181; the brief quotation at the end is from Peter Heyworth,
> > "The First Fifty Years" in Pierre Boulez: A Symposium, ed. William
> > Glock, 1986)
> >
> > I think that Gather's point, which I misremembered, was that Boulez had
> > been estranged from Messiaen, and so was unaware of his composition
> > of Mode in 1949--only learning of it through a friend after its publication.
> >
> > Peyser (never the most reliable of sources) distorts the facts slightly,
> > however, by saying Boulez "borrowed the row" from Messiaen;
> > Griffiths is more accurate, though out of context it is not clear that
> > the "first division" pitches are a "pitch-in-pitch" or scale arrangement,
> > which Boulez reinterpreted as a row, and separated out the durations,
> > attacks, and so on as independent series.
>
> As a matter of interest (and only that!), in "The New Music" -by
> Reginald Smith Brindle (1975), a composer I never hear of now and who
> wrote a useful book on serial music,
Yes, sadly, his book overshadows his compositions, though he is not
quite completely forgotten. I remember that his 1956 composition
Polifemo de Oro was the first piece I ever heard that convinced me
that good music could be written for guitar that did not degenerate
into Flamenco clichés or figuration derived from time-worn popular
guitar "licks". More recently, there was a 1999 recording made of
his solo-percussion composition Orion M42 (1967).
> Brindle says that
[perfectly correct and usefel stuff snipped]
> Peyser says:"Despite the imposition of such mathematical formulas.."
> (a melodic, rhythmic, dynamic and intensity series set into a 3 pt.
> canon) " the 'Mode de..' is full, expressive, extroverted music.(says
> Peyser) M. used his formulas in a free and romantic way....It was left
> to B. to remove the trimmings, to make music 'from scratch', to go, in
> a sense, bone dry. "This was the zero point of writing" he says, "What
> I was after was the most impersonal material.
Yes. Elsewhere Boulez says that one objective in borrowing the pitches
of the "triplum" of Mode, as well as the duration, dynamic and attack-
character sets from Messiaen was to wash his hands of any responsibility
for the makeup of the material!
> Personality had to be
> involved, of course, in bringing the mechanism into action, but then
> it could disappear after that. To have the personality not at all
> involved was a necessity for a while."
Gather (p. 171) interprets this across the three "chapters" of the first book:
The three parts of Structures I represent varying degrees of personal
involvement in the composition process. In Structure Ia the composer’s
input is minimal. It grows in Structure Ic and reaches a maximum in
Structure Ib.
Which was, of course, the last of the three to be composed. Gather continues:
This abstract theme of Structures relates to a general aesthetic
skepticism in regard to ‘subjective’ decisions, which led Cage,
for example, to seek more support in chance procedures to determine
the note-by-note progression in some works. Confusion arises
when merging this abstract theme of a specific composition with
serial composition theory in general.
Samuel Vriezen
> Gather (p. 171) interprets this across the three "chapters" of the first book:
>
> The three parts of Structures I represent varying degrees of personal
> involvement in the composition process. In Structure Ia the composer’s
> input is minimal. It grows in Structure Ic and reaches a maximum in
> Structure Ib.
That's funny, with Cage's breakthrough-piece to chance based
objectivity, the Concerto for prepared piano and orchestra, he's
supposed to have walked the opposite path: beginning with the subjective
improvisational writing in the first movement ending with the chance
charts of the third movement.
--
samuel
concerten.free.fr
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm
Tony Sienzant
>composers
>> need only express themselves. the best ones at that (not the ones good at
>> pushing critical theories) will be remembered.
>
>It's not his compositions we think of when we think of Aristoxenos!
>
okay, a phrase i left out at the end was "for their music." i thought that was
understood. "the best ones at that will be remembered for their music."
but mentioning Aristoxenos in rebuttal to my position is a strange choice.
rather, he is a perfect example of my position for two reasons:
ONE -
if his scientific / philosophical writings on music theory are what interest us
today (his "Principles and Elements of Harmonics" survives) & not any music he
may have written, that only buttresses my argument that
a) musical theorists shouldn't try to compose
b) composers needn't compose according to any set music theory
c) composers needn't feel compelled, in the name of *advancement* or
*progress* or by the so-called *musical evolutionary concept*, to originate an
entirely new critical theory of music in order to compose
d) composers shouldn't justify their music by using science or math or any
other critical argument, especially one that admits a preoccupation with
theories of music rather than music itself (that is, a preoccupation with a
process of composing according to one's *ideas* about sound rather than *sound*
itself - - analogy: not the *menu* but the actual *food* one serves up to be
eaten).
TWO -
Aristoxenos, after exhaustive study of music as a branch of maths & harmonics
as a theory of scales, REJECTED the role of maths in music & argued that *the
ear alone was the only criterion for distinguishing tone & pitch.*
whose ear?
by extension:
in the final analysis, whose ear decides? whose ear decides what is great
music, what is worth listening to, what is worth studying, or which music lives
on & which doesn't?
I believe it is the public's ear, not the composer's. certainly, some music
didn't have much of an audience during its time but the public caught up with
the composer. but that is the exception, not the rule. most times, the
composers we hold in high esteem (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven) & their music
enjoyed an audience that made them quite popular in their time.
that popularity was because of the sounds they conjured up in their
compositions, not the ideas they espoused.
in the 20th century, the modern composer & the audience relationship changed.
composers, more & more, creating a music so melodically pulverized, so
metrically fragmented & so vaporized in sonorous texture, found themselves
losing their audience. so they formed societies & found other ways to survive.
theories to justify their compositions, critics to educate the public,
academic programs, teaching, government grants, and so on.
it is largely the situation that modern abstract composers, especially those
who feel a historical connection to the trappings of the European tradition
(concert halls, symphony orchestras, prestigious conductors), find themselves
in today. lack of an audience. works that need a thesis behind them before
they can be understood, if not enjoyed.
something is not right with this picture. it is a strange, sad situation.
but more & more, I am discovering artists who recognize the modern scenario,
who do not subscribe to the social status quo or navigate outside the
established parameters of accepted thinking. just yesterday, I found a
contemporary German composer who successfully runs his own recording label.
his name is Bernhard Günter.
check out his statement:
"I still think that creating art means taking a material (be it sound, color,
stone, words, your body) and shaping it into an adequate and significant form
(adequate to both the material and the significance; to be more specific - let
a sound take its time, a color take its space, use words to transcend
themselves - poetry - ...and let the form make the state and the way of
functioning of your mind apparent...). I might just add that for this reason,
serial and chance procedures (in musical composition) are only worth to be used
to create some basic materials; nothing will spare us to make our own choice,
take our own decision, and the responsibility for the work."
I find his last sentence to resonate with a different attitude. it's one that
seems to be in agreement with a compositional sensibility that I've tried to
distinguish (without much success it seems, judging by my antagonists here)
with buzzwords such as *romantic* or *postmodern(ist)* or *fully-human
consciousness.*
his viewpoint certainly coincides with statements I've made about dodecaphony
procedures or serialist processes being merely tools, not the prime reason, for
music creation. but it seems that music theorists will always place great
weight on just those processes, structures & conceptual issues in discussing &
describing music they feel is important. as if a great theory equals great
music.
note too, in regards to artists exercising personal choice, Günter's eerie
resemblance with words by composer Kevin Volans:
"Underlying the notion of a concept-led piece (be it serial, minimalist or
whatever) is the hope that a consistent method will guarantee that the right
choices will be made. A problem with this is that it ignores time. Good
compositional technique lies in choosing the right note for the right
instrument at the right time. If you choose the wrong notes at the wrong
moment, you're wasting (y)our time."
that sounds right to me.
:-) Tony (artist, writer, musician)
Alex Temple
> a) musical theorists shouldn't try to compose
That seems awfully simplistic. Maybe some theorists should try to compose and
others shouldn't.
> b) composers needn't compose according to any set music theory
Few people anywhere would claim that composers /need/ to compose according to a
"set music theory" (by which I assume you mean a precompositional technical
device).
> c) composers needn't feel compelled, in the name of *advancement* or
> *progress* or by the so-called *musical evolutionary concept*, to originate an
> entirely new critical theory of music in order to compose
Again, very few people have ever claimed otherwise. Wuorninen, Boulez (who
probably changed his mind), maybe a few other 50s/60s serialists, and that's about
it. Even Schoenberg came up with dodecaphony to solve his personal compositional
problems, not "in the name of progress."
Also, what do you mean by "critical theory"?
>
> in the final analysis, whose ear decides? whose ear decides what is great
> music, what is worth listening to, what is worth studying, or which music lives
> on & which doesn't?
>
> I believe it is the public's ear, not the composer's.
I believe this dichotomy is silly. Every individual has different taste, and
deserves access to art that fulfills it. This includes people who like total
serialism.
Note also that if we went by "the public's taste," 99% of both classical music and
jazz would be completely forgotten.
> certainly, some music
> didn't have much of an audience during its time but the public caught up with
> the composer. but that is the exception, not the rule. most times, the
> composers we hold in high esteem (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven) & their music
> enjoyed an audience that made them quite popular in their time.
>
> that popularity was because of the sounds they conjured up in their
> compositions, not the ideas they espoused.
Yes, and when I listen to Boulez's /Structures I/, I enjoy it for the sounds he
conjured up in his compositions.
> works that need a thesis behind them before
> they can be understood, if not enjoyed.
Name one.
Or better yet, name one that's been written since 1970. I think you're
consistently describing early 60s high modernism, not the present.
Samuel Vriezen
> in the final analysis, whose ear decides? whose ear decides what is great
> music, what is worth listening to, what is worth studying, or which music lives
> on & which doesn't?
>
> I believe it is the public's ear, not the composer's.
I know the public. I'm in it all the time, you see.
> but more & more, I am discovering artists who recognize the modern scenario,
> who do not subscribe to the social status quo or navigate outside the
> established parameters of accepted thinking.
Like Schoenberg in 1908 and Stockhausen in 1951.
> just yesterday, I found a
> contemporary German composer who successfully runs his own recording label.
> his name is Bernhard Günter.
>
> check out his statement:
>
> "I still think that creating art means taking a material (be it sound, color,
> stone, words, your body) and shaping it into an adequate and significant form
> (adequate to both the material and the significance; to be more specific - let
> a sound take its time, a color take its space, use words to transcend
> themselves - poetry - ...and let the form make the state and the way of
> functioning of your mind apparent...). I might just add that for this reason,
> serial and chance procedures (in musical composition) are only worth to be used
> to create some basic materials; nothing will spare us to make our own choice,
> take our own decision, and the responsibility for the work."
>
> I find his last sentence to resonate with a different attitude. it's one that
> seems to be in agreement with a compositional sensibility that I've tried to
> distinguish (without much success it seems, judging by my antagonists here)
> with buzzwords such as *romantic* or *postmodern(ist)* or *fully-human
> consciousness.*
I've heard some of Gunther's work. He creates large-scale electronic
soundscapes that are in every way heavily influenced by avantgarde
traditions, if only for the sheer fact of their being electronic; if I
recall correctly, he acknowledges the influence of (a.o.) Feldman, who
was also quite anti-academic (he eventually became a professor at
Buffalo). I'm not so sure Gunther's work has a much bigger audience
than, say, the work of a university composer such as Tristan Murail.
What I mean to suggest is that the pictures you draw of The Horrible
Modern Composer and The Romantic Underdog is simplistic.
> note too, in regards to artists exercising personal choice, Günter's eerie
> resemblance with words by composer Kevin Volans:
>
> "Underlying the notion of a concept-led piece (be it serial, minimalist or
> whatever) is the hope that a consistent method will guarantee that the right
> choices will be made. A problem with this is that it ignores time. Good
> compositional technique lies in choosing the right note for the right
> instrument at the right time. If you choose the wrong notes at the wrong
> moment, you're wasting (y)our time."
>
> that sounds right to me.
Opposing 'the right note at the right time' (which very obvious as a
definition of good composing) with 'concept-led' composing seems too
simplistic. When is the note right? What if the right note is the one
that makes the idea of the piece clear? I certainly don't think that a
right note is one that makes the idea of the piece unclear.
OTOH, suppose you write a piece by not planning anything at all, but
setting yourself the simple rule to compose note by note, going linearly
through a piece, choosing whatever note seems right at that time. Is
that less conceptual? A consequence might be that you end up writing
pointilistic music, perhaps because you aren't allowing yourself to
perceive the music in terms of larger-scale structures. Now this is
perfectly alright, of course, but is it by definition unconceptual?
Also you have to have an idea of what makes a note 'right'. Even if it's
just "It feels right" - you'll want to keep this Sixth Sense for
rightness of notes somehow consistent throughout the piece. It's highly
likely, furthermore, that the rightness of the notes is related to its
theoretically describable characteristics, such as, say, the intervallic
relation with the other notes. What will be your unconceptual position
on this?
Tony Sienzant
>definition of good composing) with 'concept-led' composing seems too
>simplistic.
it is simplistic cuz it's simple:
suppose your following the *rules* of dodecaphony & you've used 11 notes in the
octave & the last one left is E. but yr ear is telling you that Eb is the
*better note for the piece* at this time.
do you trust yr *personal subjective gut-instinct intuition* (whatever you
wanna call it) & use the Eb or do you trust the *concept* of the process &
*stay within the parameters of 12-tone technique* & use the E?
do you trust yr *intellect* or yr *feeling* ?
anyone who strictly adheres to a system they've set out for themselves apriori
constructing their piece note by note i believe is sacrificing *music* for an
*idea*. just looking up the word apriori gives one what i'm talking about:
"based on hypothesis or theory rather than on experiment or experience."
seems to me, that experimentation (that can be rejected or upheld afterwards)
or experience is the better tool at communicating musical values, not a theory
that's supposed to answer every need at every time, needs & times that i must
say are *unique* to each individual composition. Schoenberg musta been some
kinda genius to come up with a theory that answered every conceivable
compositional problem ever. i don't think anyone in his right mind believes
that.
>When is the note right? What if the right note is the one
>that makes the idea of the piece clear? I certainly don't think that a
>right note is one that makes the idea of the piece unclear.
that may be the right note if the music is all about an idea. great works of
art aren't *about ideas* tho... *ideas* are in them, but if they didn't move us
on some level besides intellectually, i don't think anyone would consider them
great works of art.
which brings up another thing i've been thinking about...
one may appreciate highly-intellectual works that operate on (insert yr
favorite theory here... how about paralysis of negation & substitution
formula?), but it seems difficult to *love* those works. the works we *love*
are ones that do something other than give us logical, tight structures to
admire. & if we do love them, it's in spite of their intellectual rigors, not
because of them. it's like paraphrasing a poem. the paraphrase (or
explanation) is no substitute for the poem itself.
so then, why do we (or some of us) get all salivating at the mouth when music
is discussed in terms that are highly intellectual, scientifically or
mathematically based, as if that justifies the music? i mean, come on. it's
music. it's sound. it's not a treatise on logarithms. or maybe it is, so
much the worse for us.
but
going back to my initial point about *the right note* (see above).
suppose these theories or systems of composing came about because artists felt
that the tradition they were working in was somehow used up & dead. then,
dodecaphony (serialism & so forth) was a means of breaking free from the
boundaries of the past that seemed antiquated & unable to communicate whatever
it was that the present world offered to a composer. i'm not getting it
exactly in my language here, but you know what i'm talking about (i'm tired,
it's late).
anyway, after a time working with the new system & adhering strictly to the
formulae one presupposed before composition, an entirely new sound emerged,
rightfully called "ugly" by those too immersed in the past & not familiar with
it. but with time, those sonorities become more comprehensible to the ear,
having gotten used to them, one finds they deliver a certain kinda quality or
characteristic, a flavor one cannot get any other way. they begin to have some
sort of indefinable taste all their own.
okay, so suppose those systems did their job in utterly freeing the composer to
do anything he wished, combining any conceivable tones as he wished, even
microtones, noise, static from music stations, the traffic sounds... now what?
after awhile it looks to the composer that any combination of tones may be just
as good as any other. that is, his freedom & his acceptance of what these
theories have wrought musically, becomes his obstacle.
he finds himself facing the question of composing a music that's absolutely
essential for him to compose. him & no one else. him & not some system he
inherited by those clamoring for more freedom. he cannot hide behind the
system any longer & expect to believe he is doing anything of necessity after
it's been established that all the rules have been broken & anything can be
done. you see, there's some other thing that cannot even be put into words
that he's really working with, something about inspiration, inner-necessity
driven creation, the yearning to communicate something human to other fellow
human beings, what his true purpose is as a composer.
if what i've been describing as systems-driven composing really reached their
peak in the early 1960's & from the 1970's onward it's been losing ground, then
thank god. it's every man for himself now. the last 30 years then, have
composers been facing the predicament that utter freedom gave them? have they
been self-inspecting their role, the purpose of their musics?
i believe they have. i believe the better ones have established for themselves
a way of working that is totally inner-directed & as simple as the *right note
at the right time* for lack of a better term. they are back to expressing
something fundamental about human existence, things that aren't mere shadowplay
of numbers or kidgame parlor ploys for the bored mind, the same mind that must
decompose the material it's working with & call it significant. the Romantic
viewpoint (for lack of a better term) is swinging to the forefront again but in
an utterly different guise from the overblown Romanticism of Wagner, Mahler,
Beethoven.
it has something to do with respecting one's materials, respecting one's
audience, respecting one's own ears.
Steve Layton
news:20040111234220...@mb-m18.aol.com...
> >Opposing 'the right note at the right time' (which very obvious as a
>
in the
> octave & the last one left is E. but yr ear is telling you that Eb is the
> *better note for the piece* at this time.
>
> do you trust yr *personal subjective gut-instinct intuition* (whatever you
> wanna call it) & use the Eb or do you trust the *concept* of the process &
> *stay within the parameters of 12-tone technique* & use the E?
You either start another version of the row that will provide the E, or you
just say "what the hell" and write the E instead of the Eb. Either way,
you're completely within the "concept", just as much as Bach sticking some
parallel 5ths in someplace. You're confusing the "spirit" with the "letter"
of the law. Twelve-tone composition isn't about being an automaton, get it?
You can follow,bend or break a rule, or create a wholly new one.
> anyone who strictly adheres to a system they've set out for themselves
apriori
> constructing their piece note by note i believe is sacrificing *music* for
an
> *idea*. just looking up the word apriori gives one what i'm talking
about:
> "based on hypothesis or theory rather than on experiment or experience."
Music without an "idea" can't happen (or shall we say, two ideas, since
there's both the generative idea that creates the music, and the generated
idea that the music creates). The rules chosen to constrain that creation
can be very strict, or very free; either way says nothing "a priori" about
the greatness or crappiness of the music produced in the end. (Though you
yourself seem to be making a lot of "a priori" assumptions about the
composers and pieces that sit outside your preferences.) And the implication
that some group of composers don't empirically experience, test and
experiment with their ideas just doesn't have much basis in actuality.
>
> seems to me, that experimentation (that can be rejected or upheld
afterwards)
> or experience is the better tool at communicating musical values, not a
theory
> that's supposed to answer every need at every time, needs & times that i
must
> say are *unique* to each individual composition. Schoenberg musta been
some
> kinda genius to come up with a theory that answered every conceivable
> compositional problem ever. i don't think anyone in his right mind
believes
> that.
No one ever said such a thing, least of all Schoenberg himself. If you want
"theories and hypotheses", look no further than these hermetic conceptions
of people, their motivations and practices that you create out of thin air.
> one may appreciate highly-intellectual works that operate on (insert yr
> favorite theory here... how about paralysis of negation & substitution
> formula?), but it seems difficult to *love* those works. the works we
*love*
> are ones that do something other than give us logical, tight structures to
> admire. & if we do love them, it's in spite of their intellectual rigors,
not
> because of them. it's like paraphrasing a poem. the paraphrase (or
> explanation) is no substitute for the poem itself.
Glad to know finally how "we" work, Tony! Here all along I'd been thinking
that it was precisely that logical, tight structure in certain works that I
loved; but since you've told me that what I feeling isn't possible, why, I
must not be feeling it after all!
[...]
> okay, so suppose those systems did their job in utterly freeing the
composer to
> do anything he wished, combining any conceivable tones as he wished, even
> microtones, noise, static from music stations, the traffic sounds... now
what?
Well, I guess he wakes up in 2001 -- just as you might want to think about
doing -- and then gets busy using whatever of those means appeals to him.
> after awhile it looks to the composer that any combination of tones may be
just
> as good as any other. that is, his freedom & his acceptance of what these
> theories have wrought musically, becomes his obstacle.
You see what you're doing, Tony? How in the world does your last sentence
follow from the preceding one? What makes you automatically assume (and not
just for you, but for any and all composers) an "obstacle"? You've built a
really imposing edifice here; the only problem is that it's made with one of
the worst cases of tunnel-vision I've ever encountered. Pick your few
"bright points", take the broadest brush to the rest, and voila! Your
fortress is completely unassailable!
--
Steve Layton
http://www.ampcast.com/stevelayton
For the sounds of music being made worldwide *today*
pay a visit to "NetNewMusic": www.netnewmusic.net
W Bergengruen
> suppose your following the *rules* of dodecaphony & you've used 11 notes in the
> octave & the last one left is E. but yr ear is telling you that Eb is the
> *better note for the piece* at this time.
>
> do you trust yr *personal subjective gut-instinct intuition* (whatever you
> wanna call it) & use the Eb or do you trust the *concept* of the process &
> *stay within the parameters of 12-tone technique* & use the E?
>
> do you trust yr *intellect* or yr *feeling* ?
To understand how dodecaphony and serialism in general was put into
practice involves a great deal of careful study of the scores
themselves. Your remarks betray a 'primitive' conception of it all,
the sort of misguided idea one gets if one has only read a short
introduction to it. Professional composers had these tools fully at
their command, and wrote (expressed themselves) in very different
styles. Compare these: Schoenberg's 'Orchestral Variations,
Stravinsky's 'Threni', and Berg's Violin Concerto.
I do not believe they felt constrained at all. A very common and
routine practice was serial manipulation. Although not a strict
dodecaphonic work, Webern's '6 Bagatelles' written using serial
principles is a simple example. At the start of the 1st movt. he has
used 11 notes of the chromatic scale, he can't possibly use the
remaining G - (Why not?) So what does he do? Check it out.
"Certain restrictions may be mentioned as regards semiminim leaps
into or out of white-note values. Leaps to semiminums occur only after
a minimim. In the case of a single semiminim following a dotted
minimim, the motion is always downward, with a subsequent change of
direction. After a leap into a white note, the semiminim(s) is always
left by contrary motion.
Regarding leaps within semiminim passages, downward leaps generally
take place from the beat to the off-beat, while upward leaps take
place from the off-beat to the beat. Direction is always changed to
balance the leap..."
A bit constrained that -to put it mildly - don't you think? Don't
fancy all these restrictions, do you? Who could write decent music
with all that stuff preventing you from expressing yourself properly?
Part of the common practice of Lassus, Palestrina and Victoria etc.
- end result: gorgeous, heavenly music!
Of the Second Viennese school, I wonder what your favourite works
are.
You must know that serialism and dodecaphony have been old hat for
years now. Hardly anyone writes that way any more, no more than they
shake dice or use the I-Ching.
Samuel Vriezen
>>Opposing 'the right note at the right time' (which very obvious as a
>>definition of good composing) with 'concept-led' composing seems too
>>simplistic.
>
> it is simplistic cuz it's simple:
>
> suppose your following the *rules* of dodecaphony & you've used 11 notes in the
> octave & the last one left is E. but yr ear is telling you that Eb is the
> *better note for the piece* at this time.
If the ear is right, then the rule is wrong (at least on that particular
spot). I guess Schoenberg would just write the E flat in your example.
That doesn't mean you can't have "rules" that are right. Simple example:
the Rule of Avoiding Paralel Fifths was very right for lots of
composers. The Rule and the Right Note as not by definition opposed.
BTW, to follow the ear is a rule, too, as far as I'm concerned.
For me, rules come into existence because I want to hear something very
specific in my piece. It generally takes me a long time to find out what
that is and when I know, I'm certainly not going to break the change
that out of a misplaced sense of freedom.
>>When is the note right? What if the right note is the one
>>that makes the idea of the piece clear? I certainly don't think that a
>>right note is one that makes the idea of the piece unclear.
>
> that may be the right note if the music is all about an idea. great works of
> art aren't *about ideas* tho... *ideas* are in them, but if they didn't move us
> on some level besides intellectually, i don't think anyone would consider them
> great works of art.
What you're saying makes little sense to me. It simply never happens
that a piece 'moves me only on an intellectual level'. I have no idea
what that would mean.
What I do know is that for every piece, I want to know, or sense, the
'why' of it. That's what I call the idea of the piece.
> which brings up another thing i've been thinking about...
>
> one may appreciate highly-intellectual works that operate on (insert yr
> favorite theory here... how about paralysis of negation & substitution
> formula?), but it seems difficult to *love* those works. the works we *love*
> are ones that do something other than give us logical, tight structures to
> admire.
It depends. The work of Tom Johnson, which I tend to find very moving,
can show us what a deeply human pleasure it is to count, and playing
with simple structures. Listen to the Counting Duets; better, perform
them. You may discover that these pieces are Fun. The extremely rigid
logic of those pieces is certainly part of what I love about them.
> the last 30 years then, have
> composers been facing the predicament that utter freedom gave them? have they
> been self-inspecting their role, the purpose of their musics?
To the best of my knowledge, yes, this is exactly what composers have
been doing, certainly what I see in composers I admire, not just the
last 30 years but since the beginning of composed music.
> the Romantic
> viewpoint (for lack of a better term) is swinging to the forefront again but in
> an utterly different guise from the overblown Romanticism of Wagner, Mahler,
> Beethoven.
I think your "for lack of a better term" says it all.
Samuel Vriezen
> Hardly anyone writes that way any more, no more than they
> shake dice or use the I-Ching.
Indeed. For Krise, I played cards. ;-)
Samuel Vriezen
>>Opposing 'the right note at the right time' (which very obvious as a
>>definition of good composing) with 'concept-led' composing seems too
>>simplistic.
>
> it is simplistic cuz it's simple:
>
> suppose your following the *rules* of dodecaphony & you've used 11 notes in the
> octave & the last one left is E. but yr ear is telling you that Eb is the
> *better note for the piece* at this time.
If the ear is right, then the rule is wrong (at least on that particular
spot). I guess Schoenberg would just write the E flat in your example.
That doesn't mean you can't have "rules" that are right. Simple example:
the Rule of Avoiding Paralel Fifths was very right for lots of
composers. The Rule and the Right Note as not by definition opposed.
BTW, to follow the ear is a rule, too, as far as I'm concerned.
For me, rules come into existence because I want to hear something very
specific in my piece. It generally takes me a long time to find out what
that is and when I know, I'm certainly not going to change that out of a
misplaced sense of freedom.
>>When is the note right? What if the right note is the one
>>that makes the idea of the piece clear? I certainly don't think that a
>>right note is one that makes the idea of the piece unclear.
>
> that may be the right note if the music is all about an idea. great works of
> art aren't *about ideas* tho... *ideas* are in them, but if they didn't move us
> on some level besides intellectually, i don't think anyone would consider them
> great works of art.
What you're saying makes little sense to me. It simply never happens
that a piece 'moves me only on an intellectual level'. I have no idea
what that would mean.
What I do know is that for every piece, I want to know, or sense, the
'why' of it. That's what I call the idea of the piece.
> which brings up another thing i've been thinking about...
>
> one may appreciate highly-intellectual works that operate on (insert yr
> favorite theory here... how about paralysis of negation & substitution
> formula?), but it seems difficult to *love* those works. the works we *love*
> are ones that do something other than give us logical, tight structures to
> admire.
It depends. The work of Tom Johnson, which I tend to find very moving,
can show us what a deeply human pleasure it is to count, and playing
with simple structures. Listen to the Counting Duets; better, perform
them. You may discover that these pieces are Fun. The extremely rigid
logic of those pieces is certainly part of what I love about them.
> the last 30 years then, have
> composers been facing the predicament that utter freedom gave them? have they
> been self-inspecting their role, the purpose of their musics?
To the best of my knowledge, yes, this is exactly what composers have
been doing, certainly what I see in composers I admire, not just the
last 30 years but since the beginning of composed music.
> the Romantic
> viewpoint (for lack of a better term) is swinging to the forefront again but in
> an utterly different guise from the overblown Romanticism of Wagner, Mahler,
> Beethoven.
I think your "for lack of a better term" says it all.
Tony Sienzant
>just
>> as good as any other. that is, his freedom & his acceptance of what these
>> theories have wrought musically, becomes his obstacle.
>
>You see what you're doing, Tony? How in the world does your last sentence
>follow from the preceding one? What makes you automatically assume (and not
>just for you, but for any and all composers) an "obstacle"?
i am putting forth the position that when *anything can be done* usually
*nothing much of significance* is done. that is, if *anything can be done*
then how does one judge for oneself what is good for the piece or what isn't?
after all, if it is just as good to combine Eb2 with E5 with G7 as it is to
combine Eb2 with E5 with G#7 then on what basis can one choose one over the
other? Schoenberg & others thru thr systems procedures broke open tonality to
give this freedom to the composer, but now, what does the composer DO with it?
is there any objective criteria in compositional theory that would *assist* the
composer in this brave new world of 'total' freedom?
i don't believe there is. in reality, there is only the composer's choice (&
in the case of the above, it is a choice between truly subtle shadings. & by
extension, if compositional theory is of no assistance, then why do we put so
much faith in this critical undertaking, analyzing structures - - as if they
were the *cause* of the great music we love - - or talking about logarithms &
using them to compose *works that were never finished anyway.* doesn't anyone
beside me & a few others see what a blind alley this is?)
it seems to me that that is what the role of these a priori systems were, to
confine the parameters to certain choices by elimination as one progresses
(Schoenberg) or (as in the case John Cage) to eliminate the composer's choice
completely (regardless of whether Cage actually succeeds in doing this, it was
his *intention* to do so).
in either case, the system takes the place of specific choice for the composer
in some or all instances.
i think the composers of that time were drawn to creating systems cuz they had
intuited that after Wagner the end was near for music as they had known it.
but another wrinkle in all of this, is this idea: whatever system one creates
in order to address whatever compositional problem one foresees (in
Schoenberg's case it was tonality as it had been conceived up to that point,
right? ... & whether they did this with the knowledge or intention of
*progressing or advancing the state of music* or not doesn't matter because it
had the *effect* of doing so by challenging other composers to *subscribe* to
the *new* or to *reject* it) it becomes a moot point & will fail.
the system will fail. any system.
because music will advance at its own rate according its own evolution in
connection with whatever else is happening in the world socially (for example,
the electronic revolution - - ironic that Schoenberg was trying to address
compositional problems of tonality in his 12-tone approach, when the future of
music is something so other than the Euro-tradition that he couldn't even have
conceived of it - - "very few" it was said conceived of it: Varese & Busoni at
least. & i don't believe that Schoenberg or any other artist of that time who
was proselytizing the future of art - - the Constructivists, the Dadaists, the
Futurists - - would have been satisfied with the thought that their grand
theories would reduce to a *style*. but that's all these *isms* are now:
styles. styles of sound, styles of looks. they do not hold any of that
*utopian* aura they once did. Schoenberg is a style. serialism is a style.
any theory, it becomes a style. they hold no answers.)
speaking of musical evolutuion...
how about an as yet scenario: nuclear warfare changes our global structure of
societies so that music evolves along a wholly other route, like small separate
villages of music just trying to stay alive, no worldwide net, no global
promotion, no big record companies, no Carnegie Hall, you get the idea... just
people here & there making the music they can make with whatever they can get
their hands on. communal. folk. not academia. not status.
under such a scenario, i doubt we would be having this debate at all. all the
theorizing would be *beside the point*.
>> suppose your following the *rules* of dodecaphony & you've used 11 notes
>in the
>> octave & the last one left is E. but yr ear is telling you that Eb is the
>> *better note for the piece* at this time.
>>
>> do you trust yr *personal subjective gut-instinct intuition* (whatever you
>> wanna call it) & use the Eb or do you trust the *concept* of the process &
>> *stay within the parameters of 12-tone technique* & use the E?
>
>You either start another version of the row that will provide the E,
oh, i see, it's just a parlor game to make composing more difficult than it
already is. or, but what if, you really really really LIKE that row that
you've got going up to that point, you should abandon it for some OTHER row
simply because you NEED to end on that E? even when the FIRST row (up to the
*wrong* E note) is what your ear tells you is more MUSICAL?
>or you
>just say "what the hell" and write the E instead of the Eb. Either way,
>you're completely within the "concept",
oh, so you abandon what your own ear tells you *sounds better musically* &
stick with the *system*... but then, you expect to call it *musical* & then
expect an audience to hear it as *music* & then *blame the audience* (they
don't understand) when they don't hear it as *musical* when remember, you
*didn't* either...
yeah, i'm glad you finally corroborated what i've been saying all along!
>Twelve-tone composition isn't about being an automaton, get it?
>You can follow,bend or break a rule, or create a wholly new one.
>
but that's not what you're saying above. you said to ALTER the row to supply
the *a priori systems procedure* E or else, forget what sounds better
*musically* & use the E & "either way, you're completely within the concept."
yes, even if it's bad for you.
if you really believed that 12-tone isn't about being an automaton why didn't
you posit using the Eb, if that sounds better musically? that would prove you
weren't an automaton. but then...
*that wouldn't make it 12-tone any longer.*
it would be 11-tone.
& if 11-tone is *allowed* in 12-tone technique, than WHY CALL IT 12-TONE? why
name it a technique at all, if it really doesn't work musically? if one has to
finagle with it to get something musical? i always said that 12-tone was just
a tool, not an end in itself, but now yr making me believe it's a tool that
doesn't even work right!
Steve Layton
> >> after awhile it looks to the composer that any combination of tones may
be
> >just
> >> as good as any other. that is, his freedom & his acceptance of what
these
> >> theories have wrought musically, becomes his obstacle.
> >
> >You see what you're doing, Tony? How in the world does your last sentence
> >follow from the preceding one? What makes you automatically assume (and
not
> >just for you, but for any and all composers) an "obstacle"?
>
>
> i am putting forth the position that when *anything can be done* usually
> *nothing much of significance* is done. that is, if *anything can be
done*
> then how does one judge for oneself what is good for the piece or what
isn't?
Because it's all about "anything *can* be done", not anything *must* be
done. Paraphrasing James Tenney, style is at least as much about what a
composer does NOT do, as it is what he does do. Those selections create the
references, and those references are what lets the composer (and listener)
"judge" the work. That applies whether style is pentatonic, tonal,
twelve-tone, or "everything and the kitchen sink".
> after all, if it is just as good to combine Eb2 with E5 with G7 as it is
to
> combine Eb2 with E5 with G#7 then on what basis can one choose one over
the
> other? Schoenberg & others thru thr systems procedures broke open tonality
to
> give this freedom to the composer, but now, what does the composer DO with
it?
> is there any objective criteria in compositional theory that would
*assist* the
> composer in this brave new world of 'total' freedom?
What they "do with it" is write music, pure and simple. There's no objective
criteria that can assist, because there's virtually no "objective criteria",
period. There *are* preferences, often becoming strong enough to turn into
convictions, and later maybe even into conventions. But though there's
almost nothing "objective" there, there *is "criteria", that can both guide
a composer's work as well reveal potential questions, reactions and
challenges. There isn't a composer (you and I included) who doesn't labor
with, through, or against this cloud of conditions we live in and drag
around.
>
> i don't believe there is. in reality, there is only the composer's choice
(&
> in the case of the above, it is a choice between truly subtle shadings. &
by
> extension, if compositional theory is of no assistance, then why do we put
so
> much faith in this critical undertaking, analyzing structures - - as if
they
> were the *cause* of the great music we love - - or talking about
logarithms &
> using them to compose *works that were never finished anyway.* doesn't
anyone
> beside me & a few others see what a blind alley this is?)
Hello, Mr. Fugue, say hello to Mr. Sonata!... And what about the tyranny of
the cadence? Where is this "blind alley"? Or should I ask which style
*doesn't* have one? The simple fact that many are moved by and love works
utilizing your "blind alleys", and that there are dismal failures in the
music of whatever period and style, tells me that the "blind alleys" come
from much more than what theory tells us about any of them.
> it seems to me that that is what the role of these a priori systems were,
to
> confine the parameters to certain choices by elimination as one progresses
> (Schoenberg) or (as in the case John Cage) to eliminate the composer's
choice
> completely (regardless of whether Cage actually succeeds in doing this, it
was
> his *intention* to do so).
Talk about what you know, Tony. Right now you can say the music of
Schoenberg & etc. doesn't appeal to you, but when you characterize his
compositional process as some simple counting-off game it tells me you don't
have much idea at all what that process is really about. Your whole house of
argument ends up with tissue paper and drinking straws where the walls and
beams should be. Likewise Cage's "intention"; any familiarity with his work
shows that it's much more complicated, abivalent, and elegant than simply
"eliminating the composer's choice completely".
> in either case, the system takes the place of specific choice for the
composer
> in some or all instances.
>
> i think the composers of that time were drawn to creating systems cuz they
had
> intuited that after Wagner the end was near for music as they had known
it.
We've been making "systems" from waaaay before Wagner.
>
> but another wrinkle in all of this, is this idea: whatever system one
creates
> in order to address whatever compositional problem one foresees (in
> Schoenberg's case it was tonality as it had been conceived up to that
point,
> right? ... & whether they did this with the knowledge or intention of
> *progressing or advancing the state of music* or not doesn't matter
because it
> had the *effect* of doing so by challenging other composers to *subscribe*
to
> the *new* or to *reject* it) it becomes a moot point & will fail.
Is that any different from the Baroque or Romantic period? Broadway
showtunes or Punk?
>
> the system will fail. any system.
Every "system" fails. And every can succeed. And they can even coexist.
>
> because music will advance at its own rate according its own evolution in
> connection with whatever else is happening in the world socially (for
example,
> the electronic revolution - - ironic that Schoenberg was trying to address
> compositional problems of tonality in his 12-tone approach, when the
future of
> music is something so other than the Euro-tradition that he couldn't even
have
> conceived of it - - "very few" it was said conceived of it: Varese &
Busoni at
> least. & i don't believe that Schoenberg or any other artist of that time
who
> was proselytizing the future of art - - the Constructivists, the Dadaists,
the
> Futurists - - would have been satisfied with the thought that their grand
> theories would reduce to a *style*. but that's all these *isms* are now:
> styles. styles of sound, styles of looks. they do not hold any of that
> *utopian* aura they once did. Schoenberg is a style. serialism is a
style.
> any theory, it becomes a style. they hold no answers.)
Sheesh! The *style* is the theory, the *theory* feeds back into the style.
It's a bendy, shifty loop, doesn't much matter where on the circumference
you start.
>
> speaking of musical evolutuion...
> how about an as yet scenario: nuclear warfare changes our global structure
of
> societies so that music evolves along a wholly other route, like small
separate
> villages of music just trying to stay alive, no worldwide net, no global
> promotion, no big record companies, no Carnegie Hall, you get the idea...
just
> people here & there making the music they can make with whatever they can
get
> their hands on. communal. folk. not academia. not status.
We've been there, done that. Read a little global music history.
> under such a scenario, i doubt we would be having this debate at all. all
the
> theorizing would be *beside the point*.
We'd still be fighting over modes, what made good polyphony, and whether we
were ever going to allow that pesky third in as a consonance, while the
Chinese had already long ago codified all the ways of "touching" the qin.
They'd still be playing intricate rythmic patterns in Africa, Noh in Japan,
selecting from 24 to 31 different tones to the octave in a wide swath of
land from the Mediterranean eastwards, etc. etc.
> >> suppose your following the *rules* of dodecaphony & you've used 11
notes
> >in the
> >> octave & the last one left is E. but yr ear is telling you that Eb is
the
> >> *better note for the piece* at this time.
> >
> >You either start another version of the row that will provide the E,
>
> oh, i see, it's just a parlor game to make composing more difficult than
it
> already is. or, but what if, you really really really LIKE that row that
> you've got going up to that point, you should abandon it for some OTHER
row
> simply because you NEED to end on that E? even when the FIRST row (up to
the
> *wrong* E note) is what your ear tells you is more MUSICAL?
How do you do it if you're Machaut? Purcell? Beethoven? Ravel? What in the
world makes this compositional dillema any different just because it's
Schoenberg? You solve it in any number of ways, within the limits you
accept. In the case of twelve-tone, the question might not even arise simply
because the whole point isn't that specific note, but rather the intervallic
relationship that the row can't help but contain, in all of its
"perfection", as an integral part of the fundamental array that knits
everything together.
> >or you
> >just say "what the hell" and write the E instead of the Eb. Either way,
> >you're completely within the "concept",
>
> oh, so you abandon what your own ear tells you *sounds better musically* &
> stick with the *system*... but then, you expect to call it *musical* &
then
> expect an audience to hear it as *music* & then *blame the audience* (they
> don't understand) when they don't hear it as *musical* when remember, you
> *didn't* either...
Nobody "blames" the audience. They either "get it" now, or they don't. And
maybe they "get it" later, or they don't. The music was and is always there;
you heard it, chances are good that somebody else has heard or will hear it,
too.
>
> yeah, i'm glad you finally corroborated what i've been saying all along!
>
>
> >Twelve-tone composition isn't about being an automaton, get it?
> >You can follow,bend or break a rule, or create a wholly new one.
> >
>
> but that's not what you're saying above. you said to ALTER the row to
supply
> the *a priori systems procedure* E or else, forget what sounds better
> *musically* & use the E & "either way, you're completely within the
concept."
>
> yes, even if it's bad for you.
>
> if you really believed that 12-tone isn't about being an automaton why
didn't
> you posit using the Eb, if that sounds better musically? that would prove
you
> weren't an automaton. but then...
That might just prove you were a different kind of automaton, one
constrained by some other bits of your culture.
> *that wouldn't make it 12-tone any longer.*
>
> it would be 11-tone.
>
> & if 11-tone is *allowed* in 12-tone technique, than WHY CALL IT 12-TONE?
why
> name it a technique at all, if it really doesn't work musically? if one
has to
> finagle with it to get something musical? i always said that 12-tone was
just
> a tool, not an end in itself, but now yr making me believe it's a tool
that
> doesn't even work right!
It's called 12-tone because its goal is to regulate the twelve chromatic
steps in a coherent way. You can make an 11-tone piece just fine, or 9, or
6, or 16... that's *serialism*. And all kinds of things can happen within
the guiding "spirit" of the method. Or for "method" shall we say this small
part of a grand continuum of musical styles, all of which we play within and
against.
Samuel Vriezen
> i am putting forth the position that when *anything can be done* usually
> *nothing much of significance* is done. that is, if *anything can be done*
> then how does one judge for oneself what is good for the piece or what isn't?
The situation never was much different in this respect. Mozart could do
anything he wanted, too. His 'space of musical desire' was different
from ours, though. Not smaller; different. I'd never 'want' to write
what Mozart could want to write, just as Mozart could never want to
write what I want to write.
And even today, if you just do what you want, that doesn't mean it's
going to work.
> after all, if it is just as good to combine Eb2 with E5 with G7 as it is to
> combine Eb2 with E5 with G#7 then on what basis can one choose one over the
> other?
Compositional reasons? Whatever they are.
> & by
> extension, if compositional theory is of no assistance, then why do we put so
> much faith in this critical undertaking, analyzing structures - - as if they
> were the *cause* of the great music we love -
They are, but the formal cause, not a temporal cause. Because the
composition *is* its structure and can not be something other than its
structure, no matter what *method*, or heuristic, lies behind that
structure.
You are your structure, too. Or do you think it wouldn't change much if
you had fifteen legs?
> the system will fail. any system.
Speak for your own systems!
> & i don't believe that Schoenberg or any other artist of that time who
> was proselytizing the future of art - - the Constructivists, the Dadaists, the
> Futurists - - would have been satisfied with the thought that their grand
> theories would reduce to a *style*. but that's all these *isms* are now:
> styles. styles of sound, styles of looks. they do not hold any of that
> *utopian* aura they once did. Schoenberg is a style. serialism is a style.
We can speak of Schoenberg's style, or styles, because we have his
works. To speak of the serial 'style' is problematic, given that so many
utterly different composers have used techniques related to serialism.
For the Dadaists and the Futurists, I'm beginning to believe that they
were quite conscious about fashion. I was reading Marinetti's futurist
cookbook the other day, and the inflated tone of the manifestoes
(futurism brings us the first truly human cuisine, etc) strikes me as
deeply ironic. This fashion-consciousness is a major difference with the
expressionism of the 2nd viennesse school, which seems closer in spirit
to the romantic idea of art as truth.
> oh, i see, it's just a parlor game to make composing more difficult than it
> already is. or, but what if, you really really really LIKE that row that
> you've got going up to that point, you should abandon it for some OTHER row
> simply because you NEED to end on that E? even when the FIRST row (up to the
> *wrong* E note) is what your ear tells you is more MUSICAL?
Why are you assuming the composer in your example to be a bad composer?
Jerry Kohl
> Schoenberg is a style.
Schoenberg wasw a composer, not a style. Over the course of his career,
his music evolved several distinct (even if related) styles.
> serialism is a style.
Serialism is not a style. In the past I have said it is a "technique", but
I'm beginning to think it isn't even that, unless by "serialism" you really
mean "12-tine technique". Tonly, what I would suggest is that you get
your nose out of the theory books and start looking at some scores, and
(more importantly) listening to some music. To get you started, I suggest
you compare the following works, all of which are usually characterized
as "serial": (1) Webern's String Quartet, (2) Berg's Violin Concerto,
(3) Milton Babbitt's Philomel, (4) Pousseur's Trois visages de Liège,
Donald Martino's Notturno.
Then I suggest you listen to another group of works, which are not
usually thought of as serial, or have even been described as examples
of their composers' "rejection of serialism": (1) Berio's Sequenza VII
for oboe, (2) Nono's Onde sofferte serene, (3) Stockhausen's Hymnen,
(4) Xenakis's Tetras, (5) Cage's Roaratorio.
When you have heard all of these pieces, sort them out into style categories,
then think about what influenced you to group them as you did. I believe
that you will find you are dealing with at least five (perhaps more) distinct
styles, and that some of the (pronounced) "serial" works have more in
common stylistically with the "nonserial" ones than with each other.
> any theory, it becomes a style.
Yes, but only a style of theory. Theory *describes* music; when theory
precedes composition, it is called "prescriptive theory", and in almost all
cases turns out to be only an initial hypothesis, which is massively altered,
enriched, or subverted in the course of composition. A "system" like
tonality is no different.
> they hold no answers.
You are correct there. Theories may, however, hold inspiration for some
(perhaps all) composers. So might a summer afternoon's lazy float
down a river, or a squad of police machine-gunning a rioting crowd of
protestors. How these things get turned into music--good, bad or
indifferent--is a separate question.
Steve Layton
> Tony, what I would suggest is that you get
> your nose out of the theory books and start looking at some scores, and
> (more importantly) listening to some music. To get you started, I suggest
> you compare the following works, all of which are usually characterized
> as "serial": (1) Webern's String Quartet, (2) Berg's Violin Concerto,
> (3) Milton Babbitt's Philomel, (4) Pousseur's Trois visages de Liège,
> Donald Martino's Notturno.
>
> Then I suggest you listen to another group of works, which are not
> usually thought of as serial, or have even been described as examples
> of their composers' "rejection of serialism": (1) Berio's Sequenza VII
> for oboe, (2) Nono's Onde sofferte serene, (3) Stockhausen's Hymnen,
> (4) Xenakis's Tetras, (5) Cage's Roaratorio.
I was thinking about tossing out a list as well, Jerry; you saved me some
typing. But actually, I think what Tony really needs is to *wake up*
somewhere nearer the here and now. It's like he's still somewhere back about
forty or fifty years ago, jousting the same bugaboos. It's a bit like
someone today in painting still furiously arguing like Analytical Cubism was
the only enemy!
SO MUCH has happened in the last fifty years! The dominant trends in
contemporary music have barely included 12-tone serialism for quite some
time now, though that has nothing truly to do with it's being "wrong". I
personally don't compose with it, but that certainly didn't stop me from
enjoying the Babbitt Piano Concerto today on the ol' CD player.
Of course more of these current trends have very little to do with some
imagined return to "Romanticism", functional harmony (or even tonality),
traditional forms or even notation. That isn't going to help Tony's case
much, I imagine. But getting some proper *perspective* from where and when
he's living might help Tony himself, or at least let him joust with demons
that are more recently deceased... or maybe even still alive!
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz
>
> unless by "serialism" you really
> mean "12-tine technique".
Music box serialism!
Dennis
Jerry Kohl
Oh, fork!