Contemporary music... it's awful!
Manuel Marino
i really can't understand why people think contemporary music is
awesome... i think it's awful...
only a tech study with no heart...
any contemporary music composers here?
i would really love to know what they think about my... feeelings!
_________________________________
Manuel "Vanethian" Marino
--> http://www.mp3.com/Vanethian
_________________________________________________
Best electronic, space, horror and fantasy music:
Fright Night Horror Radio Station
--> http://www.mp3.com/stations/fright_night
Galaxy Channel 7 Radio Station
--> http://www.mp3.com/stations/galaxy_channel_7
Galaxy Channel 8 Radio Station
--> http://www.mp3.com/stations/galaxy_channel_8
Galaxy Channel 9 Radio Station
--> http://www.mp3.com/stations/galaxy_channel_9
----------------------------------------------------
Join *The New Music Frontier* Free Email Group!
http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/TheNewMusicFrontier
----------------------------------------------------
Simon Smith
Manuel Marino <vane...@tin.it> wrote:
> Hello!!!
>
> i really can't understand why people think contemporary music is awesome...
> i think it's awful...
>
> only a tech study with no heart...
>
> any contemporary music composers here?
>
> i would really love to know what they think about my... feeelings!
Umm.... I *really* think you've been listening to the wrong stuff.
Simon
Piece of the moment: Penderecki - Fluorescences
--
Website: http://www.symphonicdances.co.uk/
E-mail me: simon...@lineone.net ICQ UIN: 17019720
>total.net
wrote:
>i really can't understand why people think contemporary music is
>awesome... i think it's awful...
>
>only a tech study with no heart...
>
>any contemporary music composers here?
>
>i would really love to know what they think about my... feeelings!
I'm not a composer, but I do listen to a great deal of contemporary
music.
What do I think of your "feelings?" Well, they're naive and ignorant,
for one thing. "Contemporary" describes a period more than a style,
and that period -- often, but not always taken to refer to the last
fifty years, or so -- encompasses a great number of styles. Those
styles range from the aleatory experiments of Cage and Stockhausen in
the 1960s, to the operas and choral music of Britten, to the tonality
[I'd say conservatism] of Gorecki and Part. There's a WHOLE lot of
music there, and if you honestly think that Britten's War Requiem, for
example, is "only a tech study with no heart," then I suggest you
don't know much about heart or study.
If the thing you object to is atonal contemporary music -- and many
people do -- then there's little to say. Atonal music is a lot like
non-representational modern art. It's challenging and difficult, and
you have to know HOW to listen to it, just as you have to have an
understanding of the artist's intentions to understand abstract art.
There are a lot of people out there who want a painting of a house to
look like a house, and who are frustrated, angered and offended by
abstraction. It's very much the same for people who want their music
to be wholly melodic and harmonious in a traditional way.
What you have to do is be open to new KINDS of harmony and melody. Not
everyone is able to do this, and consequently, not everyone is able to
appreciate the drama in Ligeti's second quartet, or the depth of
emotion in Penderecki's Threnody.
MF
JHenry1975
>i would really love to know what they think about my... feeelings!
I don't care. I like it. I don't need you to like it.
Joseph Henry
Paul Dormer
(Manuel Marino) wrote:
> Hello!!!
>
> i really can't understand why people think contemporary music is
> awesome... i think it's awful...
>
> only a tech study with no heart...
>
> any contemporary music composers here?
>
> i would really love to know what they think about my... feeelings!
I know what you mean. I have exactly the same feelings about Mozart and
Bach.
Abram Plum
Manuel Marino wrote:
>
> Hello!!!
>
> i really can't understand why people think contemporary music is
> awesome... i think it's awful...
>
> only a tech study with no heart...
>
> any contemporary music composers here?
>
> i would really love to know what they think about my... feeelings!
>
They aren't too different from the feelings of many listeners to then
contemporary music in the past. I would suggest that you try to find a
copy of the "Lexicon of Musical Invective" by Nicolas Slonimsky.
Abram Plum
guit...@pacbell.net
>Hello!!!
>
>i really can't understand why people think contemporary music is
>awesome... i think it's awful...
>
>only a tech study with no heart...
>
>any contemporary music composers here?
>
>i would really love to know what they think about my... feeelings!
>
Trust me, no one gives a shit.
Evelyn Vogt Gamble (Divamanque)
Manuel Marino wrote:
> Hello!!!
>
> i really can't understand why people think contemporary music is
> awesome... i think it's awful...
>
> only a tech study with no heart...
>
> any contemporary music composers here?
>
> i would really love to know what they think about my... feeelings!
>
Evelyn Vogt Gamble (Divamanque)
term of disapproval!
David Horne
> Hello!!!
>
> i really can't understand why people think contemporary music is
> awesome... i think it's awful...
>
> only a tech study with no heart...
>
> any contemporary music composers here?
>
> i would really love to know what they think about my... feeelings!
Nothing. HTH.
David
--
David Horne
Composer in Association- RLPO
http://www.davidhorne.co.uk/
David M. Cook
>i really can't understand why people think contemporary music is
>awesome... i think it's awful...
Everything from Malcom Arnold to Iannis Xenakis? That's a pretty broad
condemnation.
Dave Cook
Peter T. Daniels
Don't you mean Aaboe to Zwilich?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Ian Lowery
>On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 14:46:56 +0200, Manuel Marino <vane...@tin.it>
>wrote:
>>i really can't understand why people think contemporary music is
>>awesome... i think it's awful...
>>any contemporary music composers here?
>>i would really love to know what they think about my... feeelings!
>Trust me, no one gives a shit.
You do, you replied.
Ian Lowery
------------------------------------------------
To reply, remove "nospam" from my e-mail address.
kfarad
unusual form sometimes doesn't make sense to the ear when you hear it the
first time. But for most "modern" type works (some contemporary works-
written this decade even- sound Baroque or Classical) I usually have to
listen several times before I understand it completely and find the beauty
in it. It takes time to come to love it, unlike Mozart or Bach.
Or are you talking about the other kind of contemporary music- pop music? If
so, I would tend to agree...
If you speak so negatively without backing up your answer though, you may
get some harsh responses in this NG, as you did.
-Beeri
Manuel Marino <vane...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:5b3iqskrp4irotq5f...@4ax.com...
> Hello!!!
>
> i really can't understand why people think contemporary music is
> awesome... i think it's awful...
>
> only a tech study with no heart...
>
> any contemporary music composers here?
>
> i would really love to know what they think about my... feeelings!
>
>
>
Roberto Maria Avanzi Mocenigo
>
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 14:46:56 +0200, Manuel Marino <vane...@tin.it>
> wrote:
>
> >awesome... i think it's awful...
> >
> >only a tech study with no heart...
> >
> >any contemporary music composers here?
> >
> >i would really love to know what they think about my... feeelings!
>
> people do -- then there's little to say. Atonal music is a lot like
> non-representational modern art. It's challenging and difficult, and
> you have to know HOW to listen to it,
One has just to listen to the music. Not say "ok, this music has
to be how I _already_ know i like it"
> What you have to do is be open to new KINDS of harmony and melody. Not
> everyone is able to do this, and consequently, not everyone is able to
> appreciate the drama in Ligeti's second quartet, or the depth of
> emotion in Penderecki's Threnody.
Precisely. Or the gorgeous orchestral colour washes in some of
George Benjamin's works... the emotional depth of Nono's Prometeo...
Roberto
--
/_/ Roberto Maria Avanzi Mocenigo <><
_/ Institut für Experimentelle Mathematik / Universität Essen
/ "Bezaubernd ist sie heute wieder."
Dan
interesting and in doing so they sacrifice everything that music is supposed
to be based on including melody, harmony and turn it into a complete waste
of time that's usually not worth a second hearing. I'm sorry if perhaps my
opinion is strong but there are some that consider rap music and in my book
there is no distinguishing between the two. My advice to those types of
composers is get some talent and schooling then start to write!
Of course in a way I do contradict myself and say that not ALL modern music
is bad, and that there are a lot of interesting (if nothing more) pieces out
there, most of them perhaps meant to shock, but nevertheless impressive
through their ideas and innovations. Still, as in modern art, throwing paint
on a canvas randomly in my book requires no talent at all, and no schooling,
so then comes one of the hardest questions ever and that is what is art?
It's up to anyone to decide that... so in a way nobody's personal or even
professional opinion does matter.
Dan
"Manuel Marino" <vane...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:5b3iqskrp4irotq5f...@4ax.com...
> Hello!!!
>
> i really can't understand why people think contemporary music is
> awesome... i think it's awful...
>
> only a tech study with no heart...
>
> any contemporary music composers here?
>
> i would really love to know what they think about my... feeelings!
>
>
>
Roger Lustig
Dan wrote:
>
> TOTALLY agree! Modern composers do nothing but try to sound new and
> interesting and in doing so they sacrifice everything that music is supposed
> to be based on including melody, harmony and turn it into a complete waste
> of time that's usually not worth a second hearing.
Which composers have you even given a first hearing? Which pieces by
those
composers?
> I'm sorry if perhaps my opinion is strong
Strong opinions are fine. Unsupported opinions that don't even make
reference
to anything in particular are pretty silly, though.
> but there are some that consider rap music and in my book
> there is no distinguishing between the two.
Which two? You lost me here.
> My advice to those types of
> composers is get some talent and schooling then start to write!
Write what? What would it sound like if they met your standards?
> Of course in a way I do contradict myself and say that not ALL modern music
> is bad, and that there are a lot of interesting (if nothing more) pieces out
> there, most of them perhaps meant to shock,
Name a few, just so we know which ones you're talking about. There
are thousands upon thousands of "modern" composers.
> but nevertheless impressive
> through their ideas and innovations. Still, as in modern art, throwing paint
> on a canvas randomly in my book requires no talent at all,
Good thing that hardly anyone ever did that. Of course, if you tried to
make a painting like, say, one by Jackson Pollock, you'd discover how
hard it really was...
> and no schooling,
Now it's time for you to name some names. Who are these artists?
> so then comes one of the hardest questions ever and that is what is art?
> It's up to anyone to decide that... so in a way nobody's personal or even
> professional opinion does matter.
Heck of a time to remember that!
Now tell us what you mean by:
"modern music"
music primarily meant to shock, but nonetheless impressive
ideas and innovations
talent
etc.
And then tell us how you know what music is supposed to be...
Roger
Kastchei
I certainly cannot condemn atonal music. There is some that is really
incredibly music, very originally thought, always with an ear towards the
finished product. Of course there is some I dislike as well, just like
tonality.
My problem with much atonal music being written is that there seems to be
too much emphasis on procedure and nuance than the actual sound of the
music. I've seen and studied numerous pieces that are very creatively
conceived and a joy to study. However, the effect is less than
desirable. I think many composers need to step back and really listen to
the music they are creating and not just let the mechanics determine the
pitches.
That's one of the problems I have with some pieces of aleatory. With so
much left to chance, there really could not be all that much thought as
to what the finished product would sound like. It comes down more to a
"well, let's wait and see" mentality which somtimes works and other times
fails miserably.
With many young composers, i think there is a tendency to take the easy
way out, by writing atonally. It certainly is easier to write an atonal
music. There is so much freedom in the music that almost anything can be
written down, say, linking two ideas in the composition. Many of my
collegues have confessed to disliking or downright hating music that they
have completed no more than a year or so ago. I think this stems from not
looking at the big picture. While the technique they are employing is
fascinating while working with it, they never take the time to step back
and ask: "Do I like what I am hearing?" "although i'm working with a
'new' technique, does the effect really warrant its use?" "Is this
something to which I would want to really listen?"
Ironically, I think atonal music is expressively more restrictive than
tonality. We are from birth so programmed to understand tonal links to
emotions that trying to get such a range from atonality is quite the feat.
Because this is the case, I tend to think that for many people, myself
included, that such a range of emotion is not possible through atonality.
Yet it represents somethings that tonality cannot achieve either.
I really like the course of modern music over the last 20 years. There is
an ecclecticism which I think is finally pointing in the right direction.
No one method of composing is the end all, be all of composition. Rather,
all techniques should be held in the composer's palatte and employed where
appropriate. I do not feel the atonality is appropriate for an entire
composition. It should be spared for those moments which really call for
its qualities.
The same goes with new and experimental sounds. Electronic music can be
wonderful, but it needs to be employed with caution. Banging on a pot
could be an effective sound at some moment of a composition, but I really
doubt if it should be the basis of a composition.
Similarly, minimalism can be very interesting, for a while. But minutes
of the same material, microscopically changed becomes incredibly
tedious. The same goes for heavy chromaticism. It can be very
effective, but only if it is ofset by something else.
In conclusion, no one technique can sustain interest for very long. A
combinations of techniques must be employed in order to achieve a
fulfilling composition.
Feel free to flame away :)
Michael
(btw, i do not consider tonality to be one technique. I think there are
multiple facets which can be used and reused. I think Mahler is a prime
example of someone who fully utilized the tonal palatte. I do not
consider atonality in the same plurality, although it certainly has more
than one facet.)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * "You're actually more likely to be bit *
* Michael Lee Cooney * by another human if you go to New York *
* * than you are to be bit by a shark in *
* ml...@acpub.duke.edu * the water." *
* * Jay Bradley, marine biologist *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Colin Rosenthal
Roger Lustig <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>Dan wrote:
>>
>> TOTALLY agree! Modern composers do nothing but try to sound new and
>> interesting and in doing so they sacrifice everything that music is supposed
>> to be based on including melody, harmony and turn it into a complete waste
>> of time that's usually not worth a second hearing.
>
>Which composers have you even given a first hearing? Which pieces by
>those
>composers?
I'd ask him to name at least one piece he's listened to attentively a
minimum of three times.
--
Colin Rosenthal
Astrophysics Institute
University of Oslo
Peter T. Daniels
>
> TOTALLY agree! Modern composers do nothing but try to sound new and
> interesting and in doing so they sacrifice everything that music is supposed
> to be based on including melody, harmony and turn it into a complete waste
> of time that's usually not worth a second hearing.
"Supposed to be"? Who sez?
How do you know it's not worth a second hearing, if you don't give it
one?
> I'm sorry if perhaps my
> opinion is strong but there are some that consider rap music and in my book
> there is no distinguishing between the two. My advice to those types of
> composers is get some talent and schooling then start to write!
> Of course in a way I do contradict myself and say that not ALL modern music
> is bad, and that there are a lot of interesting (if nothing more) pieces out
> there, most of them perhaps meant to shock, but nevertheless impressive
> through their ideas and innovations. Still, as in modern art, throwing paint
> on a canvas randomly in my book requires no talent at all, and no schooling,
Presumably you refer to Jackson Pollock. His action-painting was
anything but random, and if you'd ever looked at his work before he
turned to action-painting, you'd see plenty of talent.
> so then comes one of the hardest questions ever and that is what is art?
> It's up to anyone to decide that... so in a way nobody's personal or even
> professional opinion does matter.
Oh, my, don't let Schulie hear that!
Roger Lustig
Kastchei wrote:
>
> Just put in my two cents. (Preface all below with IMHO)
>
> I certainly cannot condemn atonal music. There is some that is really
> incredibly music, very originally thought, always with an ear towards the
> finished product. Of course there is some I dislike as well, just like
> tonality.
Welcome to the club! "The only bad music is boring music." --Rossini
> My problem with much atonal music being written is that there seems to be
> too much emphasis on procedure and nuance than the actual sound of the
> music.
Two questions here: Who's writing it nowadays, and how is nuance not
a part of the actual sound?
> I've seen and studied numerous pieces that are very creatively
> conceived and a joy to study. However, the effect is less than
> desirable.
More rehearsal time can make a huge difference. So can hearing
several performances before judging--though that's much easier if
the performances are good ones.
> I think many composers need to step back and really listen to
> the music they are creating and not just let the mechanics determine the
> pitches.
Sounds like you're referring to music of 50 years ago. Boulez has
since said what you're saying, about his own Structures 1a: tried to
control everything, and as a result controlled nothing.
> That's one of the problems I have with some pieces of aleatory. With so
> much left to chance, there really could not be all that much thought as
> to what the finished product would sound like. It comes down more to a
> "well, let's wait and see" mentality which somtimes works and other times
> fails miserably.
Yup--the performance is *everything* there.
> With many young composers, i think there is a tendency to take the easy
> way out, by writing atonally. It certainly is easier to write an atonal
> music.
Have you asked any? I've heard tonal music by composers who don't write
much of it, and believe me, they can produce it. Writing an atonal
piece
is very, very difficult.
> There is so much freedom in the music that almost anything can be
> written down, say, linking two ideas in the composition.
Now you've lost me. Controlling dissonance and consonance is just as
hard in atonal music as in tonal music.
Could you give us a few examples of the music you have in mind? We
now have a whole century of music that can be called atonal.
> Many of my
> collegues have confessed to disliking or downright hating music that they
> have completed no more than a year or so ago. I think this stems from not
> looking at the big picture. While the technique they are employing is
> fascinating while working with it, they never take the time to step back
> and ask: "Do I like what I am hearing?" "although i'm working with a
> 'new' technique, does the effect really warrant its use?" "Is this
> something to which I would want to really listen?"
Did you ask them about that? Or do they hate it for some other reason,
such as that they've developed their technique since then?
> Ironically, I think atonal music is expressively more restrictive than
> tonality. We are from birth so programmed to understand tonal links to
> emotions that trying to get such a range from atonality is quite the feat.
I don't yet know how programmed we are, and whether birth has much to
do with it. Do you find Carnatic music particularly expressive?
> Because this is the case,
We're from birth programmed to do a variety of things, and not to do or
like others. Yet we acquire the most diverse tastes as we go.
Among other things, we seem to be programmed to blame all manner of
things
on the accidents of our birth...8-)
> I tend to think that for many people, myself
> included, that such a range of emotion is not possible through atonality.
"Not possible"? Or you haven't acquired the tastes?
> Yet it represents somethings that tonality cannot achieve either.
> I really like the course of modern music over the last 20 years. There is
> an ecclecticism which I think is finally pointing in the right direction.
> No one method of composing is the end all, be all of composition. Rather,
> all techniques should be held in the composer's palatte and employed where
> appropriate. I do not feel the atonality is appropriate for an entire
> composition. It should be spared for those moments which really call for
> its qualities.
Now I think we need to go back and get those examples and definitions of
what you mean by the words "atonal" and "atonality", because I may be
misunderstanding you.
> The same goes with new and experimental sounds. Electronic music can be
> wonderful, but it needs to be employed with caution. Banging on a pot
> could be an effective sound at some moment of a composition, but I really
> doubt if it should be the basis of a composition.
Check out "Table's clear" by Paul Lansky. It's on one of his Bridge
CDs.
> Similarly, minimalism can be very interesting, for a while. But minutes
> of the same material, microscopically changed becomes incredibly
> tedious.
Evidently not to its fans!
> The same goes for heavy chromaticism. It can be very
> effective, but only if it is ofset by something else.
Kept'n, the dilithium crystals canna make it wi'out more examples!
I need examples here or she's gonna blow!
> In conclusion, no one technique can sustain interest for very long. A
> combinations of techniques must be employed in order to achieve a
> fulfilling composition.
Thank heaven that a good atonal piece requires mastery of dozens of
techniques.
> Feel free to flame away :)
>
> Michael
>
> (btw, i do not consider tonality to be one technique. I think there are
> multiple facets which can be used and reused. I think Mahler is a prime
> example of someone who fully utilized the tonal palatte. I do not
> consider atonality in the same plurality, although it certainly has more
> than one facet.)
Then you need to listen to more, or tell us how you're restricting the
category of "atonal".
Best,
Roger Lustig
Stevevasta
>>those
>>composers?
>
>I'd ask him to name at least one piece he's listened to attentively a
>minimum of three times.
Brahms and Beethoven are not necessarily understandable on first hearing, but
at least they don't assault your ears the way some composers nowadays seem
determined to.
If a piece doesn't give you an aesthetic reason to listen to it in the first
place - if it is not only difficult, but unattractive to the ear as well - why
on earth would you go back a second or a third time? I'm not a masochist,
myself.
Steve
David Cleary
: Brahms and Beethoven are not necessarily understandable on first
: hearing, but at least they don't assault your ears the way some
: composers nowadays seem determined to.
Like who? I'd prefer to have you name names, preferably with piece
titles.
: If a piece doesn't give you an aesthetic reason to listen to it in
: the first place - if it is not only difficult, but unattractive to the
: ear as well - why on earth would you go back a second or a third time?
: I'm not a masochist, myself.
I've heard pieces written during the 20th century in many different
styles that I didn't like. But I'm not convinced that "good" and
"bad" are necessarily hitched to any particular style or process of
20th century classical music. That's a personal taste issue.
Dave
Roger Lustig
Stevevasta wrote:
>
> >>Which composers have you even given a first hearing? Which pieces by
> >>those
> >>composers?
> >
> >I'd ask him to name at least one piece he's listened to attentively a
> >minimum of three times.
>
> Brahms and Beethoven are not necessarily understandable on first hearing, but
> at least they don't assault your ears the way some composers nowadays seem
> determined to.
Both composers were accused of doing that very thing in their own times.
> If a piece doesn't give you an aesthetic reason to listen to it in the first
> place - if it is not only difficult, but unattractive to the ear as well - why
> on earth would you go back a second or a third time? I'm not a masochist,
> myself.
And what of all the people who *do* go back? Are *they* masochists?
Roger
Kastchei
> Two questions here: Who's writing it [atonal music] nowadays, and how is
> nuance not a part of the actual sound?
These days many composers are writing atonal music. Perhaps not wholly
atonal, or perhaps so. Like I said, an ecclecticism has become part of
the modern musical sound. this certainly doesn't exclude atonality. If
you are looking for atonal music written in the past year or something,
I wouldn't be able to provide you with a list. i can't say I'm always
on the cutting edge of new music. As to the second question, the nuance
is part of the sound to be sure. but my point is that the concern is not
about the sound but rather that it is simply new. thus a chord, etc.,
gets overused or misused.
> Have you asked any? I've heard tonal music by composers who don't write
> much of it, and believe me, they can produce it. Writing an atonal
> piece is very, very difficult.
with regards to atonal composers writing tonal music, I've had the exact
opposite experience. but i certainly can't claim to have heard a large
sampling. Nevertheless, I would agree that writing a *good* atonal piece
is really difficult. But it has been my experience, that writing an
academically acceptable or even praiseworthy atonal piece is not. I have
done it myself. (as you can see, i am fairly disenchanted with modern
musical academia, which overwhelmingly favors quantity and nuance over
quality).
> Now you've lost me. Controlling dissonance and consonance is just as
> hard in atonal music as in tonal music.
i would really disagree with that. but then that could be a very
personal opinion. it definitely is possible that i could find handling
atonal music easy while you find it difficult and vice versa.
> Could you give us a few examples of the music you have in mind? We
> now have a whole century of music that can be called atonal.
hmm, a few examples of atonal music. i don't think you really need a
list, but i imagine it is my test to see if i've actually listened to
anything.
Examples of good atonality (IMO) Examples of bad atonality
Schoenberg Five pieces or orchestra Pierot Lunaire
Berio Sinfonia (excluding 3 mvt) the sequenzas (sequenzi?)
Varese Density 21.5 Poeme elec.
do i need to go on? :)
> Did you ask them about that? Or do they hate it for some other reason,
> such as that they've developed their technique since then?
i know people will take exception to this, but i do not believe that a
composer will actively hate a composition of theirs that they honestly
liked at its conception. while there are compositions i've written in the
past that are immature and certainly not all that noteworthy, there is
nothing i've penned that i imagine i would ever hate. that is a very
strong sentiment.
> > tonality. We are from birth so programmed to understand tonal links to
> > emotions that trying to get such a range from atonality is quite the feat.
> I don't yet know how programmed we are, and whether birth has much to
> do with it. Do you find Carnatic music particularly expressive?
i think you missed my point. I used "from" in a time sense, not as in
causation. I'm not saying that birth causes a tonal connection. that's
absurd i agree! i'm saying that society instills in us these tonal
connections from the minute we are born to this very day. we're bombarded
with them in nursery rhymes, cartoons, movies, etc. and they become second
nature. not so with atonal music, which at best gets a spooky, eery rap
from films like psycho and what not.
> > I tend to think that for many people, myself
> > included, that such a range of emotion is not possible through atonality.
> "Not possible"? Or you haven't acquired the tastes?
that is what i mean, perhaps. i'm not saying yes definitely that, but i'm
not saying no it isn't that. however, personal tastes are usually
cemented by 13 i believe (and no i can't cite a source, this is pure
hearsay). i'm saying that at this point atonality has been classically
associated with certain emotional responses, and that for me and others,
it isn't possible to sever those ties so easily as by simply listening to
something closer (and i certainly never condone someone acquiring tastes
for things: eg. coffee, beer, etc... ;)
> what you mean by the words "atonal" and "atonality", because I may be
> misunderstanding you.
i've never really had so much debate on these terms, or any terms for that
matter, as on this newsgroup! but since we all seem to be obsessed with
semantics...
atonality is music that is composed without a clear sense of pitch
hierarchy. obviously Mozart employs a very regimented system of ranking
pitches and determining what is cadential, developmental, etc. Messiaen
(sp?) also employed tonality when he would play around with altered
scales. Indeed even Stravinsky's music (save his serial phase) is based
on classifying pitches. Atonal music relies on other techniques to keeps
things moving. a serialist dosn't have a V leading to I, but does have a
row leading most definitely to a pitch. they rely on nonharmonic
concerns to produce the motion. hope this is acceptable. ;)
> Check out "Table's clear" by Paul Lansky. It's on one of his Bridge
i have, multiple times. i got the chance to meet him about 4 years ago.
his whole process of composition is fascinating, but just leaves a lot to
be desired. (did he actually listen to his pieces, or was he just
content to play around with his electronic devices... i know, i know he
probably did like what he composed).
> Kept'n, the dilithium crystals canna make it wi'out more examples!
> I need examples here or she's gonna blow!
Some portions of Wagner's music gets a little tedious. It wanders here
and there so much that I'm hopelessly lost. Not all, for a really love
his operas. But every now and then he gets carried away.
A good example of my frustration with some contemporary music is with
Steve Reich. (Does anyone actually listen to Piano or Violin Phase?)
His ideas of combining speach and music are really admirable, but the
result simply isn't enjoyable. It certainly required a lot of time and
patience to work in all the quotes for "Different Trains". But the
result is a 20+ min piece that is practically unbearable. There is only
so much of hearing violins pretend to be a train that one can take!
<reminder of IMO> Like i've said, it is an interesting idea, but not one
that should have been exploited for so long.
> Then you need to listen to more, or tell us how you're restricting the
> category of "atonal".
first, i don't *need* to listen to more. i've listened and do listen to a
lot, certainly more than the average music lover. whether it compares to
your experience, i have no clue. but i don't think my problems with
*some* atonal music comes from lack of exposure. as to the restrictions,
see my clumsy definition above.
later,
michael
Colin Rosenthal
Stevevasta <steve...@aol.com> wrote:
>Brahms and Beethoven are not necessarily understandable on first hearing, but
>at least they don't assault your ears the way some composers nowadays seem
>determined to.
>
>If a piece doesn't give you an aesthetic reason to listen to it in the first
>place - if it is not only difficult, but unattractive to the ear as well - why
>on earth would you go back a second or a third time? I'm not a masochist,
>myself.
Because you might learn to like it on repeated listening, of course. I
see no reason why appreciating music should be. I love Bartok's String
Quartet's (for example) but I had to _work_ on them. In fact, as someone
who came to classical music quite late I've had to work on almost
everything I now like.
As for whether Beethoven "assaults your ears" on first listening, I suppose
that depends on a) whether or not you start off with the Grosse Fuge and b)
whether or not your name is Dan Koren.
Bill Pearce
...
- if it is not only difficult, but unattractive to the ear as well - why
> on earth would you go back a second or a third time? I'm not a
masochist,
> myself.
>
>
>
Well, I would disagree with your approach. I wouldn't say going
back for a second, or third, or further hearing marks you as a
masochist. It is just that the very first exposure may not be enough
to crack the nut, so to speak. Maybe one's first exposure was at a bad
time (your were tired, just had a fight with the kids, etc., Jupiter
was not rising in the house of Mars, or whatever).
I've certainly had quite a few instances myself where music on the
first hearing didn't move me, or maybe even repeled me, but I gave it
another chance and completely reversed my original impression. Berg's
opera Lulu comes to mind; I had heard some excerpts and did not care
for the music, but decided that minor exposure was hardly a proper
basis to judge, so I went to see a production of Lulu at the Met in New
York a few years ago and was absolutely blown away; it is wonderful
music, very moving and powerful. It's not Puccini but who cares - it's
great music and I love it.
Another example for me was Messaien; the fist few times I heard
some of his music I thought it's not for me, but I listened some more
and found some things I like very much, and the same with Lutoslawski,
etc. It doesn't diminish my love for Bach, Mozart, Palestrina,
Schumann et al., but there is a lot of enjoyable newer music out there
too. And I am not just trying to appear liberal and artsy, or
whatever; in the visual arts I am a little more conservative and
haven't found a lot to like in modern visual art (after Kandinsky, Klee
and a few others, who aren't really modern any more)
Bill Pearce
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Stevevasta
>first
>> place - if it is not only difficult, but unattractive to the ear as well -
>why
>> on earth would you go back a second or a third time? I'm not a masochist,
>> myself.
>
>And what of all the people who *do* go back? Are *they* masochists?
Now, now, you know you're not going to draw me into a flame war...
Let me ask instead - if the people who _do_ go back are not masochists - then
why on earth do they go back? Do they _like_ having their ears assaulted? I
don't. (And not just by noisy music by the likes of Carter, Weisgall, Ligeti,
et al. - I don't like having my ears assaulted by raucous, fifth-rate
performances of standard rep either!)
Steve
Stevevasta
>see no reason why appreciating music should be. I love Bartok's String
>Quartet's (for example) but I had to _work_ on them
You're not wrong, Colin. While I had no trouble with the Bartok Quartets when I
first heard them, it was some years after I began listening to music - and at
the start my ears didn't digest Bartok easily at all. Obviously it took time
for my ears to get used to his idiom.
HOWEVER...I didn't force the issue at the start. When I didn't like Bartok, I
didn't ram it down my throat in the hopes it would make sense then and there. I
went to many other composers, whose music I did like, and listened to them
instead. Later, I was able to go back and appreciate Bartok. (Some - not all of
Bartok. As a listener, I still frankly have no use for the Mikrokosmos, though
as a pianist I find some aspects of them intriguing.)
Meanwhile, nothing would have been gained by forcing myself to listen to
something that, at the time, made no sense, and didn't please my ears (or
brain!).
Steve
Stevevasta
>first hearing didn't move me, or maybe even repeled me,
Oranges and apples. A piece of music that doesn't _move_ me is always worth
another shot. A piece of music that _repels_ me, frankly, is not. I don't have
unlimited time on this earth - neither do any of the rest of us - and I'm not
going to spend a lot of time trying to curl up with something that _repels_ me.
There is simply too much music around that I find aesthetically satisfying!
>Berg's
>opera Lulu comes to mind; I had heard some excerpts and did not care
>for the music, but decided that minor exposure was hardly a proper
>basis to judge, so I went to see a production of Lulu at the Met in New
>York a few years ago and was absolutely blown away; it is wonderful
>music, very moving and powerful.
But there, no doubt, the stage production and the dramatic action contributed
to your favorable response. When I'm listening to music, without benefit of a
stage picture, I'm reacting to what's in _just_ the music. (And I'm not _that_
fond of Puccini myself, anyhow <G>).
Since you mention Messaien, I should point out that he and Varese are the two
major "modern"-sounding composers whose work I really like. No, I don't know
why - probably something to do with the colors and the sonorities of their
works.
Steve
David Cleary
: Let me ask instead - if the people who _do_ go back are not masochists
: - then why on earth do they go back?
There may be any number of reasons, including the following:
1. they may have in fact liked the piece and are going back for more.
I've heard pieces by all three composers you mentioned below that I
enjoyed on first hearing. And then I went back for more because I wanted
to enjoy the piece on different levels. In other words, if you're
implying that no one could possibly be other than repulsed by music
by Carter, Ligeti, and Weisgall, you're not accurate.
2. some folks may be humble enough to realize that a single hearing
of a piece may not be sufficient in some cases. Had I been otherwise,
I would have missed out on what I now consider to be some pretty fine
music. Or as one friend of mine said, "There are some pieces of music
sitting out there waiting for me to grow up and appreciate them." And
please note that in my case at least, some of these pieces were written
by standard lit composers of triadic music.
: Do they _like_ having their ears assaulted? I don't.
This assumes that anyone who listenes to works by Carter, Ligeti, and
Weisgall is experiencing the sensation of having their ears assaulted.
I for one do not.
: (And not just by noisy music by the likes of Carter, Weisgall, Ligeti,
: et al. - I don't like having my ears assaulted by raucous, fifth-rate
: performances of standard rep either!)
I fail to see how the two relate to each other other than the fact
you don't happen to like them.
Dave
David Cleary
: You're not wrong, Colin. While I had no trouble with the Bartok Quartets when I
: first heard them, it was some years after I began listening to music - and at
: the start my ears didn't digest Bartok easily at all. Obviously it took time
: for my ears to get used to his idiom.
The obvious question to ask is this: how do you know this can't happen with
Ligeti, Carter, or Weisgall? Some of Ligeti's earlier works show a strong
Bartokian influence (2nd string quartet is one of these, if memory serves).
And Carter's work comes out of an Americana basis (check out some of his
early choral works, for example). Diving into Carter's Third String Quartet
without hearing anything else of his is like diving into the deep end of
the pool without knowing how to swim. One might think that sneaking into
this work by starting early and moving later in the oeuvre may help.
[snip]
Dave
David Cleary
[snip]
: Since you mention Messaien, I should point out that he and Varese are the two
: major "modern"-sounding composers whose work I really like. No, I don't know
: why - probably something to do with the colors and the sonorities of their
: works.
Interestingly enough, I know some listeners who are repelled by the music
of these two composers. Which might suggest this is more of a personal
taste issue than anything else.
Dave
jbay...@my-deja.com
steve...@aol.com (Stevevasta) wrote:
<snip>
> Let me ask instead - if the people who _do_ go back are not masochists
- then
> why on earth do they go back? Do they _like_ having their ears
assaulted? I
> don't. (And not just by noisy music by the likes of Carter, Weisgall,
Ligeti,
> et al. - I don't like having my ears assaulted by raucous, fifth-rate
> performances of standard rep either!)
If I perceive that my ears are assaulted, I don't go back, but
I do often go back and listen to things even when the music is
unappealing to me on first hearing, becuase I've found that,
given a music of a certain complexity or subtlety, I learn more
and I hear more with each audition and sometimes grow to love the
work in question, and that is certainly worth the effort, even
in music that at first doesn't appeal to me.
One example that comes to mind is my early exposure to Schoenberg's
Moses und Aron. When I first heard the opening scene I could
scarcely believe that anyone could derive pleasure from such sounds.
After subsequent hearings the music actually strikes me as rather
tame and quite comprehensible.
BTW, I respect your opinion of contemporary music; I'm just trying
to answer your question.
John
JHenry1975
>These days many composers are writing atonal music.
Most are not, though.
>Nevertheless, I would agree that writing a *good* atonal piece
>is really difficult.
No more so than writing a good tonal piece. Bad tonal pieces, however, are
just as easy as bad atonal pieces.
>But it has been my experience, that writing an
>academically acceptable or even praiseworthy atonal piece is not. I have
>done it myself.
Praise is relative to its surroundings. Even mediocrities deserve *some*
praise within the right context. Professors aren't exactly saving their As for
the next Mozart, nor should they. And in a contest among mediocrities, a
mediocrity always wins.
>hmm, a few examples of atonal music. i don't think you really need a
>list, but i imagine it is my test to see if i've actually listened to
>anything.
>
>Examples of good atonality (IMO) Examples of bad atonality
>Schoenberg Five pieces or orchestra Pierot Lunaire
>Berio Sinfonia (excluding 3 mvt) the sequenzas (sequenzi?)
>Varese Density 21.5 Poeme elec.
>
>do i need to go on? :)
There must be something wrong with my server: only the "good" ones came out.
;-)
Just out of curiosity: do you by any chance think your own music is *better*
than Berio's Sequenzas? (The Italian plural is "Sequenze.")
>i'm saying that society instills in us these tonal
>connections from the minute we are born to this very day. we're bombarded
>with them in nursery rhymes, cartoons, movies, etc. and they become second
>nature. not so with atonal music, which at best gets a spooky, eery rap
>from films like psycho and what not.
This comment was a followup to your earlier assertion that atonal music is
"more expressively restrictive" than tonal music. Yet your explanation goes to
external factors that affect only the reception of the music and not its
inherent qualities.
And even within the context of reception, your explanation has its limitations.
Atonality spans a wide spectrum of otherwise very different musics that have
but one feature in common: they all avoid a central key. The spectrum used in
horror films, however, is much more narrow. If the only tonal music you heard
growing up was in a minor key, I don't think it would necessarily affect your
reception of music in a major key simply because it too is "tonal." Whatever
does Boulez' "Répons" have to do with "Psycho"?
Joseph Henry
Peter T. Daniels
>
> In article <20000830131939...@ng-ft1.aol.com>,>
> ...
> - if it is not only difficult, but unattractive to the ear as well - why
> > on earth would you go back a second or a third time? I'm not a masochist,
> > myself.
> I've certainly had quite a few instances myself where music on the
> first hearing didn't move me, or maybe even repeled me, but I gave it
> another chance and completely reversed my original impression. Berg's
> opera Lulu comes to mind; I had heard some excerpts and did not care
> for the music, but decided that minor exposure was hardly a proper
> basis to judge, so I went to see a production of Lulu at the Met in New
> York a few years ago and was absolutely blown away; it is wonderful
> music, very moving and powerful. It's not Puccini but who cares - it's
> great music and I love it.
Here's an excerpt from a concert listing in this week's New Yorker:
"This year's subject is Milton Babbitt, who will participate in the
convocation ...Babbitt has been an imposing presence for decades,
arguing through his writings and his compositions for a pure, often
mathematical approach to music. The demands on listeners are stringent,
but those who persevere have often found much in it to admire and
eventually even enjoy."
Roger Lustig
Stevevasta wrote:
>
> >> If a piece doesn't give you an aesthetic reason to listen to it in the
> >first
> >> place - if it is not only difficult, but unattractive to the ear as well -
> >why
> >> on earth would you go back a second or a third time? I'm not a masochist,
> >> myself.
> >
> >And what of all the people who *do* go back? Are *they* masochists?
>
> Now, now, you know you're not going to draw me into a flame war...
>
> Let me ask instead - if the people who _do_ go back are not masochists - then
> why on earth do they go back? Do they _like_ having their ears assaulted?
What makes you think their ears were assaulted. Their ears are not your
ears.
> I don't. (And not just by noisy music by the likes of Carter, Weisgall, Ligeti,
> et al. - I don't like having my ears assaulted by raucous, fifth-rate
> performances of standard rep either!)
I've listened to a lot of Ligeti and Carter, and some by Weisgall too.
Even
the noisy bits of their music--and they sure know how to write marvelous
music that's quiet, too--has never been an assault on my ears.
Which are not *your* ears.
Roger
Kalman Dee
Kal
Roger Lustig
Kastchei wrote:
>
> again, all IMO.
>
> > Two questions here: Who's writing it [atonal music] nowadays, and how is
> > nuance not a part of the actual sound?
>
> These days many composers are writing atonal music. Perhaps not wholly
> atonal, or perhaps so.
What makes a piece "wholly atonal"? Is the Berg violin concerto wholly
atonal? The chamber concerto?
> Like I said, an ecclecticism has become part of the modern musical sound.
Stop the presses! This happened, oh, 80 years ago.
> this certainly doesn't exclude atonality. If
> you are looking for atonal music written in the past year or something,
> I wouldn't be able to provide you with a list. i can't say I'm always
> on the cutting edge of new music.
Trailing edge is fine too. But what's "new" these days?
> As to the second question, the nuance
> is part of the sound to be sure. but my point is that the concern is not
> about the sound but rather that it is simply new. thus a chord, etc.,
> gets overused or misused.
By whom? Give an example.
> > Have you asked any? I've heard tonal music by composers who don't write
> > much of it, and believe me, they can produce it. Writing an atonal
> > piece is very, very difficult.
> with regards to atonal composers writing tonal music, I've had the exact
> opposite experience. but i certainly can't claim to have heard a large
> sampling. Nevertheless, I would agree that writing a *good* atonal piece
> is really difficult. But it has been my experience, that writing an
> academically acceptable or even praiseworthy atonal piece is not. I have
> done it myself. (as you can see, i am fairly disenchanted with modern
> musical academia, which overwhelmingly favors quantity and nuance over
> quality).
Nuance is something that contrasts with quality???????
> > Now you've lost me. Controlling dissonance and consonance is just as
> > hard in atonal music as in tonal music.
> i would really disagree with that. but then that could be a very
> personal opinion. it definitely is possible that i could find handling
> atonal music easy while you find it difficult and vice versa.
"handling atonal music" is not the same as controlling dissonance, etc.
> > Could you give us a few examples of the music you have in mind? We
> > now have a whole century of music that can be called atonal.
> hmm, a few examples of atonal music. i don't think you really need a
> list, but i imagine it is my test to see if i've actually listened to
> anything.
No, it's simply a request that we get away from the vagueness of general
terms that describe zillions of pieces.
> Examples of good atonality (IMO) Examples of bad atonality
> Schoenberg Five pieces or orchestra Pierot Lunaire
> Berio Sinfonia (excluding 3 mvt) the sequenzas (sequenzi?)
> Varese Density 21.5 Poeme elec.
> do i need to go on? :)
No, you've succeeded in boggling my mind completely.
I'll defend your right to your opinion as long as I'm breathing, but--
*PIERROT*? Please, please, *please* tell me what you find so bad
about it. (I've done a lot of work on the piece over the years,
and find it endlessly fascinating--not to mention eclectic.)
I'm serious.
> > Did you ask them about that? Or do they hate it for some other reason,
> > such as that they've developed their technique since then?
> i know people will take exception to this, but i do not believe that a
> composer will actively hate a composition of theirs that they honestly
> liked at its conception.
You're speaking for a great many people here!
> while there are compositions i've written in the
> past that are immature and certainly not all that noteworthy, there is
> nothing i've penned that i imagine i would ever hate.
That's you. Brahms put dozens of early pieces in the fire.
> that is a very strong sentiment.
And who is stronger, or more sentimental (ok--that came out wrong, but
I meant it anyway) than a composer?
> > > tonality. We are from birth so programmed to understand tonal links to
> > > emotions that trying to get such a range from atonality is quite the feat.
> > I don't yet know how programmed we are, and whether birth has much to
> > do with it. Do you find Carnatic music particularly expressive?
> i think you missed my point. I used "from" in a time sense, not as in
> causation. I'm not saying that birth causes a tonal connection. that's
> absurd i agree! i'm saying that society instills in us these tonal
> connections from the minute we are born to this very day. we're bombarded
> with them in nursery rhymes, cartoons, movies, etc. and they become second
> nature. not so with atonal music, which at best gets a spooky, eery rap
> from films like psycho and what not.
Yet Varese and Schoenberg grew up in a world where music had to be
sought
out rather more. Sure, there were nursery rhymes and street songs--but
otherwise, if one wanted music one went to a concert or one made it
oneself.
> > > I tend to think that for many people, myself
> > > included, that such a range of emotion is not possible through atonality.
> > "Not possible"? Or you haven't acquired the tastes?
> that is what i mean, perhaps. i'm not saying yes definitely that, but i'm
> not saying no it isn't that. however, personal tastes are usually
> cemented by 13 i believe (and no i can't cite a source, this is pure
> hearsay).
I can assure you that in music, this is not the case. I have a friend
who teaches music theory, and who was actively repulsed by the 5 Pieces
for Orchestra. Until his teacher showed him what it was all about, and
he fell in love. He was 19 or 20 at the time.
> i'm saying that at this point atonality has been classically
> associated with certain emotional responses, and that for me and others,
> it isn't possible to sever those ties so easily as by simply listening to
> something closer (and i certainly never condone someone acquiring tastes
> for things: eg. coffee, beer, etc... ;)
I don't condemn it.
Like, how many 13-year-olds really like olives? Or Scotch?
> > what you mean by the words "atonal" and "atonality", because I may be
> > misunderstanding you.
> i've never really had so much debate on these terms, or any terms for that
> matter, as on this newsgroup! but since we all seem to be obsessed with
> semantics...
> atonality is music that is composed without a clear sense of pitch
> hierarchy. obviously Mozart employs a very regimented system of ranking
> pitches and determining what is cadential, developmental, etc. Messiaen
> (sp?) also employed tonality when he would play around with altered
> scales. Indeed even Stravinsky's music (save his serial phase) is based
> on classifying pitches. Atonal music relies on other techniques to keeps
> things moving. a serialist dosn't have a V leading to I, but does have a
> row leading most definitely to a pitch. they rely on nonharmonic
> concerns to produce the motion. hope this is acceptable. ;)
What's not to accept? It's just not a very good description of the
music
you've been discussing. Serialists most certainly *can* employ harmonic
considerations, and often do.
> > Check out "Table's clear" by Paul Lansky. It's on one of his Bridge
> i have, multiple times. i got the chance to meet him about 4 years ago.
> his whole process of composition is fascinating, but just leaves a lot to
> be desired. (did he actually listen to his pieces, or was he just
> content to play around with his electronic devices... i know, i know he
> probably did like what he composed).
Still does. By the way, he was the teacher who turned my friend on to
Op. 16. He was also my 2nd-year-theory teacher. I remember classes
being
cancelled because one of the future percussionists in "Table's clear"
had just been born.
No, Paul Lansky is anything but content to play around with electronic
devices. He composes like any other composer, and he teaches
composition
like any other really good teacher.
What does his compositional process leave to be desired? Just curious.
> > Kept'n, the dilithium crystals canna make it wi'out more examples!
> > I need examples here or she's gonna blow!
> Some portions of Wagner's music gets a little tedious. It wanders here
> and there so much that I'm hopelessly lost. Not all, for a really love
> his operas. But every now and then he gets carried away.
Where? I'm seriously interested.
> A good example of my frustration with some contemporary music is with
> Steve Reich. (Does anyone actually listen to Piano or Violin Phase?)
> His ideas of combining speach and music are really admirable, but the
> result simply isn't enjoyable. It certainly required a lot of time and
> patience to work in all the quotes for "Different Trains". But the
> result is a 20+ min piece that is practically unbearable. There is only
> so much of hearing violins pretend to be a train that one can take!
> <reminder of IMO>
you can avoid all those reminders simply by rephrasing things in terms
of "I don't find it enjoyable, there's only so much I can take", etc.
[stuff deleted]
Roger
Howell
> i would really love to know what they think about my... feeelings!
Why?
--
Franklin
A friend of mine gave me a Philip Glass record. I listened to it for
five hours before I realized it had a scratch on it.
-- Emo Phillips
Kastchei
> just as easy as bad atonal pieces.
i think there are several levels. just to give a peek into my thoughts,
I think writing a good atonal piece of music is easier that a good tonal
piece. However, i think writing an exceptional piece of atonal music is
harder, because the restrictions i see. not that i can really explain
further. this is all pretty much subjective.
> Praise is relative to its surroundings. Even mediocrities deserve *some*
> praise within the right context. Professors aren't exactly saving their As for
> the next Mozart, nor should they. And in a contest among mediocrities, a
> mediocrity always wins.
very good point, and one that i should keep in mind.
Examples of bad atonality
Pierot Lunaire
the sequenzas (sequenzi?)
Poeme elec.
ah, i guess they wrapped. i tried to think of a good one and a bad one
from the same composer.
> Just out of curiosity: do you by any chance think your own music is *better*
> than Berio's Sequenzas? (The Italian plural is "Sequenze.")
at the risk of sounding vain, yes. if i didn't think my music was better
than music i don't like, i'd think i was certainly on the wrong track!
but just so a objective/subjective debate doesn't ensue, i mean better as
in "i like more" not as in "everyone must agree". and i'm certainly not
saying that they have no place in the repertoire. i certainly respect
his work, while i don't necessarily think he was sucessful.
> This comment was a followup to your earlier assertion that atonal music is
> "more expressively restrictive" than tonal music. Yet your explanation goes to
> external factors that affect only the reception of the music and not its
> inherent qualities.
i think that is because i do not believe music has some intrinsic,
inherent qualities. at least not ones that we can adequately discuss in
terms of emotions. i believe most of our reactions to music is due to
the world we grow up in. does this mean that it we had had a 400+ year
tradition of atonality that things would be reversed? i think possibly.
> but one feature in common: they all avoid a central key. The spectrum used in
> horror films, however, is much more narrow. If the only tonal music you heard
> growing up was in a minor key, I don't think it would necessarily affect your
> reception of music in a major key simply because it too is "tonal." Whatever
> does Boulez' "Répons" have to do with "Psycho"?
I think having never heard a major key before, it would affect your
reception. Just as beethovens music seems vulgar to many people of his
time, I'd image there would be similar complaints about major/minor. i
think how we perceive music has much more to do with our upbringing
rather than genes or some intrinsic quality in music, which helps
explains why most people have a soft spot for the music (thining pop)
that came out when they were young.
Kastchei
> convocation ...Babbitt has been an imposing presence for decades,
> arguing through his writings and his compositions for a pure, often
> mathematical approach to music. The demands on listeners are stringent,
> but those who persevere have often found much in it to admire and
> eventually even enjoy."
I doubt that implies that perseverence will lead to enjoyment. The
statement is pretty clearly biased in that the vast majority of people
who, having persevered, wouldn't enjoy it, don't persevere. So the people
who do persevere are either charged to do so (academically) or have an
inkling that they will like it or find something in there to like.
flor...@my-deja.com
Of course, if you expect any style of music to match "your" feelings...
Well, I wonder if Bach, Mozart, Mahler or Schönberg knew they had to
compose music for you...
More seriously now : it is obvious that many contemporary composers
wrote music that is difficult to understand. But if you take some time
to listen to it carefully, without any prejudices in mind, I'm sure
that you can understand it. Start from Schönberg's Five Pieces, op. 16,
for instance, which I found to be a great introducing work. Also try
works by Lutoslawski, Penderecki, Ligeti and Dutilleux. Boulez,
Stockhausen and some others are the next step.
By the way, Shostakovich and Britten are "contemporary" composers
too... So beware of the words you use.
Bill Pearce
about most modern novels that I pick up in the bookstore and browse in
for five minutes or so: Why should I buy this piece of junk and waste
some hours with it when I haven't finished Thomas Mann's Dr. Faustus or
all of the Dickens novels yet (which I enjoy very much).
Whatever the reason may be, however, I do feel differently about
music. Granted I wouldn't stay with works that I continue to find
boring, repellant, etc., but I do think that it is worth the attempt to
get past a first unfavorable reaction on the basis of the rewards I have
gained in a number of cases by doing so. On the basis of my enjoyment
of Lulu, I bought a recording of it and also a recording of Wozzeck
(which I have never seen on stage but which I also enjoy). Schoenberg
is another one that I reacted to quite unfavorably some years ago and
now find much that I enjoy in his music. Of course, there is such a
range in this music (from things like the very Romantic sounding
Gurrelieder, which I like very much,to some of the later works that do
not in fact appeal to me so much) that one can't really characterize it
by any single stylistic description. And there are some I may give up
on - Webern, for example, just doesn't seem to do anything for me, for
the most part.
One's tastes, of course, seem to change (I was going to say
"mature," but opted for the neutral "change")with the passage of time.
ou mention Puccini. I remember years ago, in my heady and arrogant
youth, telling someone,who seemed rather schocked, that I wouldn't cross
the street to see a performance of La Boheme or Madama Butterfly. I
certainly would so do today, depending on who is singing the leads I
suppose, but it's still true that I would rather see a Mozart or Verdi
opera most days. (My wife, on the other hand, would rather go to the
Puccini opera, I think.)
Bill Pearce
flor...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
>
> By the way, Shostakovich and Britten are "contemporary" composers
> too... So beware of the words you use.
>
>
>
and it would have been a much poorer musical century without them.
Bill Pearce
David Cleary
: i think there are several levels. just to give a peek into my thoughts,
: I think writing a good atonal piece of music is easier that a good tonal
: piece. However, i think writing an exceptional piece of atonal music is
: harder, because the restrictions i see. not that i can really explain
: further. this is all pretty much subjective.
Agreed on the subjective part. I'm a composer and can say I find it
hard work to write good music regardless of the style.
Dave
David Cleary
[snips]
: A good example of my frustration with some contemporary music is with
: Steve Reich. (Does anyone actually listen to Piano or Violin Phase?)
I do, though there are other pieces by Reich I prefer.
: His ideas of combining speach and music are really admirable, but the
: result simply isn't enjoyable. It certainly required a lot of time and
: patience to work in all the quotes for "Different Trains". But the
: result is a 20+ min piece that is practically unbearable. There is only
: so much of hearing violins pretend to be a train that one can take!
: <reminder of IMO> Like i've said, it is an interesting idea, but not one
: that should have been exploited for so long.
Personally, I found "Different Trains" less enjoyable than "Music for
18 Musicians," "Four Organs," or "Tellehim."
And even Beethoven wrote a "Wellington's Victory." I'd say everyone's
entitled to write a few klunkers. :) Or at least *I* think WV's
a klunker, anyway.....
Dave
JHenry1975
>Examples of bad atonality
>Pierot Lunaire
>the sequenzas (sequenzi?)
>Poeme elec.
>
>ah, i guess they wrapped. i tried to think of a good one and a bad one=20
>from the same composer.
I guess you didn't get my point. As far as I'm concerned, all the works you
listed were "good."
>> Just out of curiosity: do you by any chance think your own music is *bet=
>ter*
>> than Berio's Sequenzas? (The Italian plural is "Sequenze.")
>
>at the risk of sounding vain, yes.
I see...well, good luck entering the repertory.
Joseph Henry
D.G. Porter
>
> Kastchei wrote:
> >
> > Examples of good atonality (IMO) Examples of bad atonality
> > Schoenberg Five pieces or orchestra Pierot Lunaire
> > Berio Sinfonia (excluding 3 mvt) the sequenzas (sequenzi?)
> > Varese Density 21.5 Poeme elec.
>
> > do i need to go on? :)
>
> No, you've succeeded in boggling my mind completely.
>
> I'll defend your right to your opinion as long as I'm breathing, but--
> *PIERROT*? Please, please, *please* tell me what you find so bad
> about it. (I've done a lot of work on the piece over the years,
> and find it endlessly fascinating--not to mention eclectic.)
>
> I'm serious.
I had this very bad recording of Pierrot on Everest that I kind of liked
because it was so damn horrible. I think I gave it away. I have
another one on Candide that (I think) is much better. But "Loony Bozo"
is still a weird piece, in a good sort of way.
One of the funniest LPs I've ever seen is the old Arnie Schoenberg
Conducts Pierrot on that "Meet the Composer" series. Arnie's picture on
the front alone is worth a laugh!
And Poem Electronique kicks serious booty. I'm not sure about Deserts.
The original tape interludes are more to my liking than the 2nd set.
> Like, how many 13-year-olds really like olives? Or Scotch?
Or Bourbon or Gin, those are pretty disgusting drinks. But then I like
room-temp Guinness.
jbay...@my-deja.com
I'm not really a composer, but I dabble. The hardest thing is to
write a really convincing, uncliched and tonal melody.
Writing a 12 tone melody by comparison is realatively simple. But
good art is not precisely dependent on how hard it is to create.
And perhaps if I were a real composer the two tasks would be
equally difficult or easy.
John
Simon Smith
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> And Poem Electronique kicks serious booty. I'm not sure about Deserts.
> The original tape interludes are more to my liking than the 2nd set.
I agree :)
>> Like, how many 13-year-olds really like olives? Or Scotch?
> Or Bourbon or Gin, those are pretty disgusting drinks. But then I like
> room-temp Guinness.
*scream*!
ROOM TEMPERATURE!? (faints)
Simon
--
Website: http://www.symphonicdances.co.uk/
E-mail me: simon...@lineone.net ICQ UIN: 17019720
D.G. Porter
>
> In message <39AFF1...@pacbell.net>
> "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > And Poem Electronique kicks serious booty. I'm not sure about Deserts.
> > The original tape interludes are more to my liking than the 2nd set.
>
> I agree :)
>
> >> Like, how many 13-year-olds really like olives? Or Scotch?
> > Or Bourbon or Gin, those are pretty disgusting drinks. But then I like
> > room-temp Guinness.
>
> *scream*!
>
> ROOM TEMPERATURE!? (faints)
??? Didn't you know it's served room temp in England??
I like it chilled too but a Guinness is stil a Guinness!
Simon Smith
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Yes, I live there :)
> I like it chilled too but a Guinness is stil a Guinness!
True... but I do dwell on these minor details!
Simon
Piece of the moment: Shostakovich - Symphony No. 11
D.G. Porter
>
> OK here goes...
>
> > Dan wrote:
> > >
> > > TOTALLY agree! Modern composers do nothing but try to sound new and
> > > interesting and in doing so they sacrifice everything that music is
> supposed
> > > to be based on including melody, harmony and turn it into a complete
> waste
> > > of time that's usually not worth a second hearing.
> >
> > Which composers have you even given a first hearing? Which pieces by
> > those
> > composers?
>
> Let's use Messiaen's Quatour pour la fin du temps for example... I couldn't
> stand listening to a complete movement.
So you fell over? Like the guy lying on the floor in the animated intro
to PBS's "Mystery" no doubt!
"Man! Every time I try to read this one book I fall right on my face!"
> > > I'm sorry if perhaps my opinion is strong
That's OK 'cause your ears are weak.
> > Strong opinions are fine. Unsupported opinions that don't even make
> > reference
> > to anything in particular are pretty silly, though.
>
> It was a general comment, and of course I can't name too many names because
> then of course the comments that would come right back would be... "you
> can't categorize music by that piece" etc
>
> >
> > > but there are some that consider rap music and in my book
> > > there is no distinguishing between the two.
> >
> > Which two? You lost me here.
>
> Rap and atonal, arhythmical, a-anything "music", same thing in my book: not
> music
RAP ARHYTHMICAL???? Oh Jeez ...
I may get banned but I still like butts.
BABY GOT BACK.
Insane in the membrane.
WEBERN ARHYTHMICAL?????
> > > My advice to those types of
> > > composers is get some talent and schooling then start to write!
My advice to you is to put up or shut up.
> > Write what? What would it sound like if they met your standards?
>
> Write poetry... no, obviously music! What kind of a question is that? It
> would sound like something you can live through without feeling like you
> want to make it stop any second. Also, it would sound melodious, to the
> point
To the one-syllable boy, words in "two-syllables" is meaningless. Give
him only stories with words of one-syllable, and please not too many of
them.
> that it can be reproduced through humming/singing for example, not all
> of it, I mean I can appreciate music that is a bit more abstract but not to
> the point where the composer starts using sounds for no other reason than to
> annoy, shock and disturb.
Darn that Richy Wagner!!!
> > > Of course in a way I do contradict myself and say that not ALL modern
> music
> > > is bad, and that there are a lot of interesting (if nothing more) pieces
> out
> > > there, most of them perhaps meant to shock,
Yeah, Sammy Barber, Wally Piston, Gian Carlo Menotonni, David del
Tredici, all challenging the vanguard edge of human listening... I
think I'm gona be board.
> > Name a few, just so we know which ones you're talking about. There
> > are thousands upon thousands of "modern" composers.
>
> Thousands upon thousands eh? Well then that's self explanatory of how bad
> they are. There are only a handful of classical and romantic composers.
Have you ever heard of a man named Grout? You might want to check him
out sometime...
> Quality not quantity btw! And I'm talking about a lot of people whose names
> I've heard once and I've never heard again because the music was so awful it
> didn't interest me at all. Let's just use my Messiaen example (because I was
> stupid enough to buy a CD) or Shoenberg, or any composer that writes just
> for the fact that modern critics won't accept anything that's not
> "new-sounding"
BWAH HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh my sides!!!
> > > but nevertheless impressive
> > > through their ideas and innovations. Still, as in modern art, throwing
> paint
> > > on a canvas randomly in my book requires no talent at all,
This shows how Ignint McMuffin you are NOT ONLY of new music, but of
visual arts!!! HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm sorry but now you're beginning to sound like those Limbaugh
dittoeheads who blame "bad hair day" on Clinton messing with the wather
satelites!
If you think Pollack is "random" then you are truly ungifted in the
talent of appreciating anything other than Polariods.
> > Good thing that hardly anyone ever did that. Of course, if you tried to
> > make a painting like, say, one by Jackson Pollock, you'd discover how
> > hard it really was...
>
> Yeah I'm sure it was very hard, hard to carry the paint can around and throw
> specks all over the floor. And what about those people who paint three lines
> that sell for millions of dollars. 5-year-olds can do the same thing.
Hey fellers, we're gots a real live one here!!!
Limited, unimaginative AND Ignint McMuffin! The whole combo plate!
DROP THE CHALUPA!!!!
> > > and no schooling,
> >
> > Now it's time for you to name some names. Who are these artists?
>
> Perhaps you didn't read my post properly, because this is another
> out-of-context question. I said that painting lines or random spots doesn't
> require talent or schooling as one can see any little child do the same
> thing without having either the talent or an art school backing him up.
>
> >
> > > so then comes one of the hardest questions ever and that is what is art?
> > > It's up to anyone to decide that... so in a way nobody's personal or
> even
> > > professional opinion does matter.
> >
> > Heck of a time to remember that!
> >
> > Now tell us what you mean by:
> >
> > "modern music"
> >
> Anything that tries to sound different from music previously made. And that
> includes pieces that have no rhythm, harmony, are hard to listen to because
> they sound like scratching on a blackboard.
This sounds like a line from Albright's "Beulahland Rag"! "And hiccups,
and hiccups, and hiccups..."
> They also include anything like
> rock, pop, rap, etc because I mean that's sometimes very hard to listen to
> and take seriously.
Now that you have thoroughly made a dope of yourself, how do you feel?
Don't you get embarrassed pissing your pants in public this way??
> > music primarily meant to shock, but nonetheless impressive
>
> Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, or any other pieces
> Bartok
> and these aren't by any means modern but they are from this century.
>
> >
> > ideas and innovations
>
> Try to use a dictionary!
> >
> > talent
> >
> Same as above
>
> > etc.
> >
> It's a latin abbreviation for "and so on" if you didn't know.
>
> > And then tell us how you know what music is supposed to be...
>
> I think you can figure it out from what I wrote already.
Yeah, nice little easy sugar plum sounds for the soft ears velvet satin
pocket books. Nice pretty Dachy perfume sounds for the dress circle
opera boxes cushion chain ears. Nice sweety silk bonnet melodies! Nice
sweet jellycake harmonies! RINKY DINKY RINKY DINKY RHYMIC FLEAS! OVER
AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER
AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN!!!!!
AGAIN!!!!! AGAIN!!!!! AGAIN!!!!! AGAIN!!!!! AGAIN!!!!! AGAIN!!!!!
AGAIN!!!!! AGAIN!!!!! AGAIN!!!!! AGAIN!!!!! AGAIN!!!!! AGAIN!!!!!
AGAIN!!!!! AGAIN!!!!! AGAIN!!!!! AGAIN!!!!! AGAIN!!!!! AGAIN!!!!!
AGAIN!!!!! AGAIN!!!!! AGAIN!!!!! AGAIN!!!!! AGAIN!!!!!
Dan
> Dan wrote:
> >
> > TOTALLY agree! Modern composers do nothing but try to sound new and
> > interesting and in doing so they sacrifice everything that music is
supposed
> > to be based on including melody, harmony and turn it into a complete
waste
> > of time that's usually not worth a second hearing.
>
> Which composers have you even given a first hearing? Which pieces by
> those
> composers?
Let's use Messiaen's Quatour pour la fin du temps for example... I couldn't
stand listening to a complete movement.
>
> > I'm sorry if perhaps my opinion is strong
>
> Strong opinions are fine. Unsupported opinions that don't even make
> reference
> to anything in particular are pretty silly, though.
It was a general comment, and of course I can't name too many names because
then of course the comments that would come right back would be... "you
can't categorize music by that piece" etc
>
> > but there are some that consider rap music and in my book
> > there is no distinguishing between the two.
>
> Which two? You lost me here.
Rap and atonal, arhythmical, a-anything "music", same thing in my book: not
music
>
> > My advice to those types of
> > composers is get some talent and schooling then start to write!
>
> Write what? What would it sound like if they met your standards?
Write poetry... no, obviously music! What kind of a question is that? It
would sound like something you can live through without feeling like you
want to make it stop any second. Also, it would sound melodious, to the
point that it can be reproduced through humming/singing for example, not all
of it, I mean I can appreciate music that is a bit more abstract but not to
the point where the composer starts using sounds for no other reason than to
annoy, shock and disturb.
>
> > Of course in a way I do contradict myself and say that not ALL modern
music
> > is bad, and that there are a lot of interesting (if nothing more) pieces
out
> > there, most of them perhaps meant to shock,
>
> Name a few, just so we know which ones you're talking about. There
> are thousands upon thousands of "modern" composers.
Thousands upon thousands eh? Well then that's self explanatory of how bad
they are. There are only a handful of classical and romantic composers.
Quality not quantity btw! And I'm talking about a lot of people whose names
I've heard once and I've never heard again because the music was so awful it
didn't interest me at all. Let's just use my Messiaen example (because I was
stupid enough to buy a CD) or Shoenberg, or any composer that writes just
for the fact that modern critics won't accept anything that's not
"new-sounding"
>
> > but nevertheless impressive
> > through their ideas and innovations. Still, as in modern art, throwing
paint
> > on a canvas randomly in my book requires no talent at all,
>
> Good thing that hardly anyone ever did that. Of course, if you tried to
> make a painting like, say, one by Jackson Pollock, you'd discover how
> hard it really was...
Yeah I'm sure it was very hard, hard to carry the paint can around and throw
specks all over the floor. And what about those people who paint three lines
that sell for millions of dollars. 5-year-olds can do the same thing.
>
> > and no schooling,
>
> Now it's time for you to name some names. Who are these artists?
Perhaps you didn't read my post properly, because this is another
out-of-context question. I said that painting lines or random spots doesn't
require talent or schooling as one can see any little child do the same
thing without having either the talent or an art school backing him up.
>
> > so then comes one of the hardest questions ever and that is what is art?
> > It's up to anyone to decide that... so in a way nobody's personal or
even
> > professional opinion does matter.
>
> Heck of a time to remember that!
>
> Now tell us what you mean by:
>
> "modern music"
>
Anything that tries to sound different from music previously made. And that
includes pieces that have no rhythm, harmony, are hard to listen to because
they sound like scratching on a blackboard. They also include anything like
rock, pop, rap, etc because I mean that's sometimes very hard to listen to
and take seriously.
> music primarily meant to shock, but nonetheless impressive
Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, or any other pieces
Bartok
and these aren't by any means modern but they are from this century.
>
> ideas and innovations
Try to use a dictionary!
>
> talent
>
Same as above
> etc.
>
It's a latin abbreviation for "and so on" if you didn't know.
> And then tell us how you know what music is supposed to be...
I think you can figure it out from what I wrote already.
> Roger
DTohir
>> are thousands upon thousands of "modern" composers.
>
>Thousands upon thousands eh? Well then that's self explanatory of how bad
>they are. There are only a handful of classical and romantic composers.
You may want to do a little research. Perhaps if you understood just how much
mediocre to bad music was written by classical & romantic composers who history
has pretty much erased from the concert halls, you'd realize that the 20th
century stacks up pretty well.
Roger Lustig
Dan wrote:
>
> OK here goes...
>
> > Dan wrote:
> > >
> > > TOTALLY agree! Modern composers do nothing but try to sound new and
> > > interesting and in doing so they sacrifice everything that music is
> supposed
> > > to be based on including melody, harmony and turn it into a complete
> waste
> > > of time that's usually not worth a second hearing.
> >
> > Which composers have you even given a first hearing? Which pieces by
> > those
> > composers?
> Let's use Messiaen's Quatour pour la fin du temps for example... I couldn't
> stand listening to a complete movement.
Welcome to the club. I didn't get it at all when I first heard it, at
a Phillips Gallery concert when I was 14 or so. Didn't go near it for
years.
It changed.
> > > I'm sorry if perhaps my opinion is strong
> > Strong opinions are fine. Unsupported opinions that don't even make
> > reference to anything in particular are pretty silly, though.
> It was a general comment, and of course I can't name too many names because
> then of course the comments that would come right back would be... "you
> can't categorize music by that piece" etc
Name all you want. Make an argument about a group of pieces, or a
genre,
or whatever you want. I'll hold up my end of the argument just fine--
don't worry about me.
> > > but there are some that consider rap music and in my book
> > > there is no distinguishing between the two.
> > Which two? You lost me here.
> Rap and atonal, arhythmical, a-anything "music", same thing in my book: not
> music
So what's music that *is* music? Or is "music" the same as "music I
like"?
> > > My advice to those types of
> > > composers is get some talent and schooling then start to write!
> > Write what? What would it sound like if they met your standards?
> Write poetry... no, obviously music! What kind of a question is that?
A question asked of one who's putting out some pretty strong advice,
with no evidence that he's qualified to give it, or that he even knows
it applies to the unnamed people he's directing it to.
>It
> would sound like something you can live through without feeling like you
> want to make it stop any second.
All of a sudden, you've switched from "I" to "you". I think you mean
"it would sound like something I can live through..."
> Also, it would sound melodious, to the
> point that it can be reproduced through humming/singing for example, not all
> of it, I mean I can appreciate music that is a bit more abstract but not to
> the point where the composer starts using sounds for no other reason than to
> annoy, shock and disturb.
How do you know the composer's reasoning, or thoughts, or intentions?
Are
you sure those aren't your fantasies instead?
As for music that sounds melodious, remember that critics have said just
what you're saying--get some talent, some schooling, and write some good
tunes instead of all that dry show-off stuff--about Bach, Beethoven,
Wagner,
Mahler, and all the rest.
> > > Of course in a way I do contradict myself and say that not ALL modern
> music
> > > is bad, and that there are a lot of interesting (if nothing more) pieces
> out
> > > there, most of them perhaps meant to shock,
> > Name a few, just so we know which ones you're talking about. There
> > are thousands upon thousands of "modern" composers.
> Thousands upon thousands eh? Well then that's self explanatory of how bad
> they are. There are only a handful of classical and romantic composers.
OK--we've established that you don't know quite what you're talking
about.
If there's only a handful, how could Diabelli get over two dozen
Viennese
composers alone to write variations on his waltz?
There were thousands of composers in the 18thC, and thousands more in
the
19thC.
> Quality not quantity btw! And I'm talking about a lot of people whose names
> I've heard once and I've never heard again because the music was so awful it
> didn't interest me at all.
Aha! So if *you* don't like it, it's bad. And if you haven't heard of
many composers from centuries past, that must mean there weren't many.
> Let's just use my Messiaen example (because I was
> stupid enough to buy a CD) or Shoenberg, or any composer that writes just
> for the fact that modern critics won't accept anything that's not
> "new-sounding"
Stop putting thoughts in other people's heads.
For that matter, have you heard any of the *tonal* music that Schoenberg
wrote in the early 1900's? Or any of the tonal music he wrote in the
1930's? Or any of the tonal music he wrote in the 1940's? I challenge
you to get to know that music and then say that he should have gone and
studied and gotten some talent.
(Then read his textbooks. Want to get some musical education--classical
harmony, structure, counterpoint? Schoenberg's a fine place to start.)
> > > but nevertheless impressive
> > > through their ideas and innovations. Still, as in modern art, throwing
> paint
> > > on a canvas randomly in my book requires no talent at all,
> > Good thing that hardly anyone ever did that. Of course, if you tried to
> > make a painting like, say, one by Jackson Pollock, you'd discover how
> > hard it really was...
> Yeah I'm sure it was very hard, hard to carry the paint can around and throw
> specks all over the floor.
Is that what he did? What makes you think so? Let's see you produce a
painting anything like one of his.
> And what about those people who paint three lines
> that sell for millions of dollars. 5-year-olds can do the same thing.
Really? Let's see you try--though I'm sure you're older than that.
> > and no schooling,
> > Now it's time for you to name some names. Who are these artists?
> Perhaps you didn't read my post properly, because this is another
> out-of-context question. I said that painting lines or random spots doesn't
> require talent or schooling as one can see any little child do the same
> thing without having either the talent or an art school backing him up.
And I asked you to name some names of people who had done that, because
you were setting up a straw man and arguing against fact.
> > > so then comes one of the hardest questions ever and that is what is art?
> > > It's up to anyone to decide that... so in a way nobody's personal or
> even
> > > professional opinion does matter.
> > Heck of a time to remember that!
> > Now tell us what you mean by:
> > "modern music"
> Anything that tries to sound different from music previously made.
In other words: all music.
> And that
> includes pieces that have no rhythm, harmony, are hard to listen to because
> they sound like scratching on a blackboard. They also include anything like
> rock, pop, rap, etc because I mean that's sometimes very hard to listen to
> and take seriously.
It also includes Beethoven, by the definition you just gave. Was the
Eroica
intended to sound like music that had preceded it?
> > music primarily meant to shock, but nonetheless impressive
> Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, or any other pieces
_Jeu de cartes_? _Le Baiser de la fee_?
I don't think you know much Stravinsky if you can refer to "any other
pieces"
as "primarily meant to shock". Either that, or your mind-reading act
has
resources we don't know about.
How and whom did Stravinsky hope to shock with the _Dumbarton Oaks_
concerto?
> Bartok
> and these aren't by any means modern but they are from this century.
You mean they wrote music that was primarily meant to shock, and was
meant to
sound unlike anything that had been written before, but they're not
modern?
So much for definition #1.
> > ideas and innovations
> Try to use a dictionary!
What good would that do when you're out there telling us what words
mean,
what people thought, why composers composed, how most of them didn't
even
exist, etc.
> > talent
> Same as above
Never mind. You're just saying that music you don't like is poopoocaca.
I get the point.
> > etc.
> It's a latin abbreviation for "and so on" if you didn't know.
First (almost) accurate thing you've said. (It actually means "and
others/other things".)
> > And then tell us how you know what music is supposed to be...
> I think you can figure it out from what I wrote already.
No, from what you wrote I can say that you *don't* know what music
is supposed to be.
Roger
Oisk17
(snip)>> Rap and atonal, arhythmical, a-anything "music", same thing in my
book: not
>> music
>
>RAP ARHYTHMICAL???? Oh Jeez ...
>I may get banned but I still like butts.
>BABY GOT BACK.
>Insane in the membrane.
Cheap shot here, Mr. Porter. The man was listing categories...rap, atonal,
arhtymical. He was not suggesting that rap is arhythmical.
You slammed him effectively for his Jackson Pollack comment. I don't like
Pollack's work either, but am certainly unqualified, as is Dan, to comment on
his competence.
>Now that you have thoroughly made a dope of yourself, how do you feel?
>Don't you get embarrassed pissing your pants in public this way??
Cruel and gratuitous, Mr. Porter.
>
>Yeah, nice little easy sugar plum sounds for the soft ears velvet satin
>pocket books. Nice pretty Dachy perfume sounds for the dress circle
>opera boxes cushion chain ears. Nice sweety silk bonnet melodies! Nice
Now here is where you lose me. Anyone familiar with this group would know that
any post which begins "-----------music...it's awful" is going to take a
beating. Deservedly so. However, you then feel compelled to slam some other
genre. I prefer a Strauss waltz to anything I have heard by Webern. I prefer
a Puccini opera to a Richard Strauss opera. I like Tchaikovsky, and not
Schoenberg. I like what is romantic, tuneful, stirring. I dislike atonal music,
rap, and most rock. I prefer Renoir to Pollack, and Byron to Whitman.
These are not matters of ignorance, but of taste. A little more tolerance on
both sides of the argument might be nice...
Regards,
Paul
Kastchei
> atonal? The chamber concerto?
hmm, i think you are missing my point. i'm talking about pieces like
Rochberg's string quartets which have portions that are tonally written
and portions that are atonally written.
> > Like I said, an ecclecticism has become part of the modern musical sound.
>
> Stop the presses! This happened, oh, 80 years ago.
check your history again. back in 1920, shoenberg was still
developing/writing serialism, stravinsky was heading into his
neo-classicism phase, etc. most composers still wrote in one style.
What I have talked about is the combination of multiple styles, like in
the Rochberg quartets, Zwilich's Concerto Grosso 1985, various works by
Andriessen, etc. These have occured primarily in the past 20 or so years.
> Trailing edge is fine too. But what's "new" these days?
well, i don't have my programs of the last year handy, but i do remember a
couple performances i saw. one premeired Stephen Jaffe's Violin Concerto
(a tonal work) back in March and the other was a concert of all new music
back in may. on the program were works by Jennifer Fitzgerald (Songs of
Fear and Repose, free atonal), Mikhail Krysthal (Quintet, aleatory), and a
few others I can't remember. One piece was neo-romantic/free atonal,
another had a combination of aleatory and tonaltiy. I can't remember the
pieces off hand, but if I can dig up the program (it's out of state atm)
I'd be happy to give you the names.
> > gets overused or misused.
>
> By whom? Give an example.
I did give an example in my last post. "Different Trains" is a prime
example of too much (*way* too much) of a good thing.
> > musical academia, which overwhelmingly favors quantity and nuance over
> > quality).
>
> Nuance is something that contrasts with quality???????
eeks. i'm afraid i've been horribly abusing the word nuance! perhaps we
are right to argue over words! i don't know how in the world i've made
it this far without realizing the proper definition of nuance. i was
equating nuance with new, which is rather silly now that i think about
it, assuming two words mean the same because they start with the same
sound. anyway, nuance certainly has a lot to do with quality :) what i
mean is newness (doesn't sound as nice as nuance, but at least it has the
right meaning!).
so my point is actually, that i like new if good, and i don't like new if
bad. yet, i don't see academia making this distinction.
> > personal opinion. it definitely is possible that i could find handling
> > atonal music easy while you find it difficult and vice versa.
>
> "handling atonal music" is not the same as controlling dissonance, etc.
you know what i mean. it definitely is possible that i could find
"controlling dissonance, etc." in atonal music easy while you find it
difficult and vice versa.
> No, it's simply a request that we get away from the vagueness of general
> terms that describe zillions of pieces.
actually, i am purposely trying to stay in that vagueness. Too often I've
seen examples posted and they are either ignored, or shot down. Then the
whole argument becomes, "your examples are wrong/right." I don't think
disproving (if you can even use that term with regard to music) one
example, discredits the whole opinion/theory. besides with this being so
subjective, what i might find boringly repetitive, you might find not
enough repetitive.
> *PIERROT*? Please, please, *please* tell me what you find so bad
> about it. (I've done a lot of work on the piece over the years,
> and find it endlessly fascinating--not to mention eclectic.)
well, personally see it as being very one dimensional. Every piece
sounds very similar. I realize there are many differences in intention,
but i don't think they work. i can listen to any one and have the exact
same response unfortunately. i find the text painting inappropriate at
many time (but then again, i find much of schubert's text painting ill
timed). in general, i don't get nearly the same emotional range or depth
as i do with his 5 pieces.
> > i know people will take exception to this, but i do not believe that a
> > composer will actively hate a composition of theirs that they honestly
> > liked at its conception.
>
> You're speaking for a great many people here!
i realize that. but isn't that what all philosophy, or psychology for
that matter, is? it's my hypothesis that thos who hate their old work
never really liked it in the first place, although they may have
convinced themselves that they did.
> That's you. Brahms put dozens of early pieces in the fire.
and my hypothesis would be that he never really liked those pieces. even
while composing them!
> > that is a very strong sentiment.
>
> And who is stronger, or more sentimental (ok--that came out wrong, but
> I meant it anyway) than a composer?
who isn't? i certainly can't say that any composer is more sentimental
than a painter or a poet, or the sheltered engineer who breaks down while
listening to puccini. a composer's gift is his ability to musically
express his emotions, not that he has them stronger.
> Yet Varese and Schoenberg grew up in a world where music had to be sought
> out rather more. Sure, there were nursery rhymes and street songs--but
but schoenberg and varese were certainly learned in tonality first. and
schoenberg certainly grew up with tonality, not atonality. can't say i
can necessarily say the same for varese. anywho, all of us these days are
raised with tonal music everywhere. perhaps that is a bad influence; it
certainly wasn't present so much 80 years ago. maybe people today are
less receptive to atonality than then.
> > cemented by 13 i believe (and no i can't cite a source, this is pure
> > hearsay).
>
> I can assure you that in music, this is not the case. I have a friend
<snip story of friend no liking, then liking the 5 pieces>
i don't doubt your story. my experience with the 5 pieces is pretty much
the same actually. i'm not saying that you can't ever enjoy atonality if
you aren't exposed to it young, but i'm saying it's a lot more difficult,
and there are societal cues to overcome in order to enjoy it. That's why
i imagine it took your friend and me some instruction in order to enjoy
it.
> > something closer (and i certainly never condone someone acquiring tastes
> > for things: eg. coffee, beer, etc... ;)
>
> I don't condemn it.
> Like, how many 13-year-olds really like olives? Or Scotch?
well, i've always loved olives :) but seriously, why would anyone waste
their time trying to learn to enjoy scotch when there are so many
different drinks that one might enjoy instead. I do not think that Scotch
and anything more enjoyable than another drink, objectively. So while one
is enjoying their scotch the other should be enjoying his vodka, not
gagging on the scotch trying to force himself to like it.
now if there was something you could get out of scotch that you couldn't
get elsewhere (other than the taste, of course) then it maybe worth it to
suffer for a while, if with the extra something was really that much better
than without it.
> What's not to accept? It's just not a very good description of the music
> you've been discussing. Serialists most certainly *can* employ harmonic
> considerations, and often do.
we've gotten so far away from the original post that i can't remember
exactly which comment this all was in regard to. but that was my def. of
atonal, while we may have been discussing a small portion of it at the
time. and good serialists do have harmonic considerations, but that is
not what drives the piece and there are no bad ways of resolving those
harmonies, or even a need to resolve anything for that matter.
> cancelled because one of the future percussionists in "Table's clear"
> had just been born.
hehe. i sure he never imagined the implication at the time :)
> What does his compositional process leave to be desired? Just curious.
i can't say for certain. just that i don't like it :) i think he is a
little too rhythm oriented (that may just be because of the few pieces
i've heard; his other works may be very different). that's nice, but
only half of music.
> > Some portions of Wagner's music gets a little tedious. It wanders here
> Where? I'm seriously interested.
one part that really jumps to my mind is the third act of Die Walkurie,
after the ride, and before Wotan's farewell (which i think is simply
amazing). i also don't care for the prelude to tristan too much.
although it is pretty ingenious.
Kastchei
> stand listening to a complete movement.
such a wonderful name had to be taken up by a horrible piece. i agree.
> Rap and atonal, arhythmical, a-anything "music", same thing in my book: not
> music
there is some i think is really good. but for the most part i think it is
the atonal music that has a very strong or lyrical melodic line (which is
why i will always perfer webern or muczynski over webern or boulez).
> for the fact that modern critics won't accept anything that's not
> "new-sounding"
i agree that academia has adopted this dispicable practice. i heard a
wonderful new "romantic" piece laughed at while attending a new music
concert.
Roger Lustig
Kastchei wrote:
>
> > What makes a piece "wholly atonal"? Is the Berg violin concerto wholly
> > atonal? The chamber concerto?
>
> hmm, i think you are missing my point. i'm talking about pieces like
> Rochberg's string quartets which have portions that are tonally written
> and portions that are atonally written.
In that case, I think you're missing the Berg violin concerto!!!
> > > Like I said, an ecclecticism has become part of the modern musical sound.
> > Stop the presses! This happened, oh, 80 years ago.
> check your history again. back in 1920, shoenberg was still
> developing/writing serialism, stravinsky was heading into his
> neo-classicism phase, etc.
And what, pray tell, was Stravinsky's neo-classicism if not eclectic???
For that matter, where would you put Ives?
> most composers still wrote in one style.
Not the two you just mentioned!
> What I have talked about is the combination of multiple styles, like in
> the Rochberg quartets, Zwilich's Concerto Grosso 1985, various works by
> Andriessen, etc. These have occured primarily in the past 20 or so years.
The Rochberg quartets (and Rochberg's often=tonal style) go back to
1970.
Sessions' solo sonata, where the 12-tone-ness fades in and out, is from
1957. And tye Berg concerto is from 1935.
(For that matter, one could argue for Mahler's multi-styled-ness. His
textures vary so greatly, and are intercut with one another so
drastically,
that it's often like hearing multiple pieces at once. Think of the
7th...)
"Novelty" works fine, though it may make some people think of Ray
Parker,
Jr. or joy buzzers.
> so my point is actually, that i like new if good, and i don't like new if
> bad. yet, i don't see academia making this distinction.
I've spent plenty of time there. Plenty of "academic" composers who
concentrate on quality or on both. (Try *studying* with Lansky.
Software
will get you nowhere. Gotta write a good piece. Ditto Babbitt (not
that I took classes with him). And when I was at Chicago, the staff
was Shapey, Ran, and Blackwood. There was no sneaking a new piece by
any of them--it had to be good.
> > > personal opinion. it definitely is possible that i could find handling
> > > atonal music easy while you find it difficult and vice versa.
> > "handling atonal music" is not the same as controlling dissonance, etc.
> you know what i mean. it definitely is possible that i could find
> "controlling dissonance, etc." in atonal music easy while you find it
> difficult and vice versa.
Could be. I haven't heard of that happening, though, from any composer
whose music I've also encountered.
> > No, it's simply a request that we get away from the vagueness of general
> > terms that describe zillions of pieces.
> actually, i am purposely trying to stay in that vagueness. Too often I've
> seen examples posted and they are either ignored, or shot down. Then the
> whole argument becomes, "your examples are wrong/right." I don't think
> disproving (if you can even use that term with regard to music) one
> example, discredits the whole opinion/theory. besides with this being so
> subjective, what i might find boringly repetitive, you might find not
> enough repetitive.
> > *PIERROT*? Please, please, *please* tell me what you find so bad
> > about it. (I've done a lot of work on the piece over the years,
> > and find it endlessly fascinating--not to mention eclectic.)
> well, personally see it as being very one dimensional. Every piece
> sounds very similar. I realize there are many differences in intention,
> but i don't think they work. i can listen to any one and have the exact
> same response unfortunately. i find the text painting inappropriate at
> many time (but then again, i find much of schubert's text painting ill
> timed). in general, i don't get nearly the same emotional range or depth
> as i do with his 5 pieces.
The "depth" thing is a good point. As far as I can tell, the composer
actually wanted that. These are grotesques and satires, which the
entire
oeuvre of 1908-1911 had clearly not been. Some of the text-painting is
*clearly* inappropriate, none more obvious than #19--where it's only
piano
and cello, the latter *arco* at the critical points. That's the point,
no?
At the beginning, you get a pretty clear announcement of what's going
to happen: two measures of accompaniment that are highly evocative of
the "Moondrunk" idea, and then that voice comes in and ruins any
expectations one might have built up from reading the text and hearing
the band.
At the end, though, hear what happens, first when Pierrot goes home,
then when the vocalist addresses the Muse, or Art, or Myth, or whatever
that 'alter Duft' might be. That Schoenberg's response to the text
is *new* can't be denied. That it's new and wonderful and astonishing
and utterly unexpected in the context of the 20 poems that went before--
that's why some of us love and study and even write about _Pierrot_.
There's all manner of novelty here, not least the invention of the
"portable"
voice-and-instrument ensemble, and for that matter, the 20thC chamber
song.
Stravinsky was blown away by the piece at an early performance, and went
and composed his first set of voice-and-ensemble songs. He told Ravel
about Pierrot, too, and that description alone--no score, no hearing--
led Ravel to write *his* ensemble songs. (Needless to say, the three
composers'
works are quite different from one another, and we are richer for all of
them.)
> > > i know people will take exception to this, but i do not believe that a
> > > composer will actively hate a composition of theirs that they honestly
> > > liked at its conception.
> > You're speaking for a great many people here!
> i realize that. but isn't that what all philosophy, or psychology for
> that matter, is?
No. Anything but. Psychology (with notable exceptions that I
personally
despise) is not about reading minds. And philosophy, while it seeks
answers as general as possible to questions as large and difficult as
possible, doesn't generally address the past internal processes of
individuals.
> it's my hypothesis that thos who hate their old work
> never really liked it in the first place, although they may have
> convinced themselves that they did.
That's unfortunately a tautology the way you phrase it, or at least
you have an escape clause from ever being wrong. Since neither you
nor your subject can produce documentation about how they "really"
felt, you can always make that claim.
Unfortunately for you, it's just as easy, and just as unproveable,
to make the opposite claim--that composers who hate their old
stuff *did* really like it, and have found the need to dislike it
now, for whatever the reason.
> > That's you. Brahms put dozens of early pieces in the fire.
> and my hypothesis would be that he never really liked those pieces. even
> while composing them!
It's not a hypothesis, though. If anything, it's a creed. But it's
probably nothing at all, certainly to me, who's highly skeptical
of mind-reading, especially when practiced on the dead and with
no basis except possibly introspection.
Now let's go over some imaginary scenarios. Why should a young
composer not make a discovery--say, learn something, or learn how
to do something--that changes their entire approach to composition?
And let's further assume that this young composer had a great deal
of ego invested in the music composed to date. Suddenly the composer's
entire project, entire goal as a composer has changed. How do those
old pieces fit in? If the composer has made a personal breakthrough
in technique, the old pieces simply don't measure up.
> > > that is a very strong sentiment.
> > And who is stronger, or more sentimental (ok--that came out wrong, but
> > I meant it anyway) than a composer?
> who isn't? i certainly can't say that any composer is more sentimental
> than a painter or a poet, or the sheltered engineer who breaks down while
> listening to puccini. a composer's gift is his ability to musically
> express his emotions, not that he has them stronger.
Don't they have to be pretty strong before the composer wants to *be*
a person who "musically express[es] his emotions"? Who but one with
powerful emotions would bother to do that?
> > Yet Varese and Schoenberg grew up in a world where music had to be sought
> > out rather more. Sure, there were nursery rhymes and street songs--but
> but schoenberg and varese were certainly learned in tonality first. and
> schoenberg certainly grew up with tonality, not atonality. can't say i
> can necessarily say the same for varese. anywho, all of us these days are
> raised with tonal music everywhere. perhaps that is a bad influence; it
> certainly wasn't present so much 80 years ago. maybe people today are
> less receptive to atonality than then.
Oh, I think it's just the opposite! We've learned that things that
weren't
considered to be music most certainly are. (For that matter, undergrad
ensembles now do _Pierrot_, and often fairly well, with no terrible
problem;
it took what, 40 rehearsals to get the piece off the ground in 1912?
The
evolution of musical technique has had a lot to do with acceptance of
newer
music. Remember, for a piece to succeed, it needs *performers* who will
stand up for it repeatedly. And in a world populated by Pollini, Rosen,
Abbado, Solti (think of his _Moses und Aron_!!!), etc. even a
non-psychologizer
like me has to assume *something* about those guys' interest in the
music,
new and old, that they play and play so well.
> > > cemented by 13 i believe (and no i can't cite a source, this is pure
> > > hearsay).
> > I can assure you that in music, this is not the case. I have a friend
> <snip story of friend no liking, then liking the 5 pieces>
> i don't doubt your story. my experience with the 5 pieces is pretty much
> the same actually. i'm not saying that you can't ever enjoy atonality if
> you aren't exposed to it young, but i'm saying it's a lot more difficult,
> and there are societal cues to overcome in order to enjoy it. That's why
> i imagine it took your friend and me some instruction in order to enjoy it.
Yup. But then he got into a great many other composers, and without
instruction.
> > > something closer (and i certainly never condone someone acquiring tastes
> > > for things: eg. coffee, beer, etc... ;)
> > I don't condemn it.
> > Like, how many 13-year-olds really like olives? Or Scotch?
> well, i've always loved olives :) but seriously, why would anyone waste
> their time trying to learn to enjoy scotch when there are so many
> different drinks that one might enjoy instead. I do not think that Scotch
> and anything more enjoyable than another drink, objectively. So while one
> is enjoying their scotch the other should be enjoying his vodka, not
> gagging on the scotch trying to force himself to like it.
True enough. But one would likewise write off anything that person
*said*
about scotch, especially when it turned out that their opinion had been
forged as a result of an unfortunate encounter with a bottle of
5-year-old
Glen Fusel when they themselves were hardly older.
(I used Glen Fusel here because it's objectively bad, or would be if it
existed.
But a similar point could be made by substituting 10-year-old Laphroaig
into
that sentence.)
> now if there was something you could get out of scotch that you couldn't
> get elsewhere (other than the taste, of course) then it maybe worth it to
> suffer for a while, if with the extra something was really that much better
> than without it.
> > What's not to accept? It's just not a very good description of the music
> > you've been discussing. Serialists most certainly *can* employ harmonic
> > considerations, and often do.
> we've gotten so far away from the original post that i can't remember
> exactly which comment this all was in regard to. but that was my def. of
> atonal, while we may have been discussing a small portion of it at the
> time. and good serialists do have harmonic considerations, but that is
> not what drives the piece and there are no bad ways of resolving those
> harmonies, or even a need to resolve anything for that matter.
Resolution isn't all of harmony!! And within the context of a serial
piece,
there most certainly *can* be a "wrong" harmony. That's why serial
composition
is at least as much work as any other kind.
> > cancelled because one of the future percussionists in "Table's clear"
> > had just been born.
> hehe. i sure he never imagined the implication at the time :)
I think he would have reconsidered *everything* if you told him he'd
just fathered a percussionist. 8-)
> > What does his compositional process leave to be desired? Just curious.
> i can't say for certain. just that i don't like it :) i think he is a
> little too rhythm oriented (that may just be because of the few pieces
> i've heard; his other works may be very different). that's nice, but
> only half of music.
"Actually, I think that rhythm is the most important part of music."
--Mozart in a letter to his father
Just threw that in to annoy. On the other hand, there are quite a
few highly-pitch-oriented works on Lansky's CDs, including some that
use--gasp--triads!
> > > Some portions of Wagner's music gets a little tedious. It wanders here
> > Where? I'm seriously interested.
> one part that really jumps to my mind is the third act of Die Walkurie,
> after the ride, and before Wotan's farewell (which i think is simply
> amazing).
Gee, with all that intensity on either side, some of us *appreciate*
a lesser passage that advances the drama, nay, makes the rest happen:
Brunnhilde protects Sieglinde, defying Wotan and the Valkyries--and
Wotan discovers yet again that he's not running things to the extent
he thought.
> i also don't care for the prelude to tristan too much.
> although it is pretty ingenious.
There's a round-and-round-and-no-escape aspect to it, sure. Check out
Robert Morgan's article on it from about 10 years ago!
Hojotoho, & lookidat! lookidat!
Roger
Roger Lustig
Kastchei wrote:
>
> > Let's use Messiaen's Quatour pour la fin du temps for example... I couldn't
> > stand listening to a complete movement.
>
> such a wonderful name had to be taken up by a horrible piece. i agree.
>
> > Rap and atonal, arhythmical, a-anything "music", same thing in my book: not
> > music
>
> there is some i think is really good. but for the most part i think it is
> the atonal music that has a very strong or lyrical melodic line (which is
> why i will always perfer webern or muczynski over webern or boulez).
Whoa! Preference among pairs of alternatives! Haven't seen this since
college days & philosophy class with Dick Jeffrey.
I'm guessing that Webern #1 there is actually someone else. On the
other hand, check out the recording of ...explosante/fixe... that
came out about 5 years ago. Not the kind of melodic line you may
be used to, but, oh my, you can get completely lost in its lyricism.
> > for the fact that modern critics won't accept anything that's not
> > "new-sounding"
> i agree that academia has adopted this dispicable practice. i heard a
> wonderful new "romantic" piece laughed at while attending a new music
> concert.
I disagree, and I live within walking distance of one of the loci
classici
of this alleged attitude. (Have done for almost all of the last 25
years.)
I've heard far more laughter directed at inept avant-garde attempts.
Who *are* these modern critics? Can't be the New York Times--they still
have to drive a stake through Schoenberg's heart at least twice a year.
Roger
D.G. Porter
>
> Kastchei wrote:
> >
> > > What makes a piece "wholly atonal"? Is the Berg violin concerto wholly
> > > atonal? The chamber concerto?
> >
> > hmm, i think you are missing my point. i'm talking about pieces like
> > Rochberg's string quartets which have portions that are tonally written
> > and portions that are atonally written.
>
> In that case, I think you're missing the Berg violin concerto!!!
>
> > > > Like I said, an ecclecticism has become part of the modern musical sound.
>
> > > Stop the presses! This happened, oh, 80 years ago.
More like 101 years ago when Ives composed "Yale-Princeton Football
Game" (and sent his now-lost score to his friend Hunt Mason). Or how
about 98 years ago when he got a theater orchestra to play one of his
early ragtime dances, which was also played at the Danbury fair?
> > check your history again. back in 1920, shoenberg was still
> > developing/writing serialism, stravinsky was heading into his
> > neo-classicism phase, etc.
>
> And what, pray tell, was Stravinsky's neo-classicism if not eclectic???
> For that matter, where would you put Ives?
"You know," opined Donal Michalsky one day in class, "The problem with
'modern music' all bean with Charles Ives."
I can't remember the last time anyone played Michalsky's music.
> > most composers still wrote in one style.
>
> Not the two you just mentioned!
[snip]
D.G. Porter
>
> > Let's use Messiaen's Quatour pour la fin du temps for example... I couldn't
> > stand listening to a complete movement.
>
> such a wonderful name had to be taken up by a horrible piece. i agree.
Two stupid opinions expressed.
And people think my not liking dragged-out snail's-pace performances of
Beethoven's Eroica to be mindless...
The Messiaen is not the end-all of 20th-Century music but it is GOOD.
D.G. Porter
>
> >From: "D.G. Porter"
>
> (snip)>> Rap and atonal, arhythmical, a-anything "music", same thing in my
> book: not
> >> music
> >
> >RAP ARHYTHMICAL???? Oh Jeez ...
> >I may get banned but I still like butts.
> >BABY GOT BACK.
> >Insane in the membrane.
>
> Cheap shot here, Mr. Porter. The man was listing categories...rap, atonal,
> arhtymical. He was not suggesting that rap is arhythmical.
He just made some very stupid comments is all. I followed this thread
for a while until it became too plain he's just not too deep. The plain
unvarnished truth is that he's a "softy-ears" and incapable of enjoying
anything that he finds to be a challenge. It's like people who only
like French's yellow mustard because they grew up on it, and trying even
a mild brown mustard is beyond them. Or people who can only eat
burgers-n-fries and eschew a good pasta dish with mushrooms, basil and
garlic (exceptions for allergies to some foods noted). People who won't
try escargot because they're snails are like this.
> You slammed him effectively for his Jackson Pollack comment. I don't like
> Pollack's work either, but am certainly unqualified, as is Dan, to comment on
> his competence.
I have seen documentaries on Pollack and also have seen at least one of
his works. To describe them as "random" is just stupid and ignorant.
I'm damned tired of this kind of ignorant crap fobbed off as "my
opinion." I don't care if i's Bernie Holland or Joe Schnapps on the
street. Even a Cage score with graphics is not "random." Random is
when a cyclist gets hit by a car (which just happened here an hour ago).
> >Now that you have thoroughly made a dope of yourself, how do you feel?
> >Don't you get embarrassed pissing your pants in public this way??
>
> Cruel and gratuitous, Mr. Porter.
Well, there just comes a time when sheer idiocy takes a toll on one's
tolerance for it. I have to deal with mindless idiocy on a daily basis
and I have finally learned that the only thing that makes any difference
it to confront them in their faes and say what you really are thinking.
[BTW, I'd rather be addressed as "Porter" than "Mr." anything.]
> >Yeah, nice little easy sugar plum sounds for the soft ears velvet satin
> >pocket books. Nice pretty Dachy perfume sounds for the dress circle
> >opera boxes cushion chain ears. Nice sweety silk bonnet melodies! Nice
>
> Now here is where you lose me.
This is the text of Ives's "The Work of Art," a take-off on Haydn's
Surprise Symphony. He wrote it after hearing a whole evening of Lite
music and realizing that msot people are severely limited in the ear
department and have to have their poor ears massaged by Lite stuff all
the time of they get put out. See above regarding mustard types.
By the way, now I remember reading that Vincent Price would spit out any
food that disgusted him. He didn't like the crap food that most people
seem to require at every meal or they get upset.
> Anyone familiar with this group would know that
> any post which begins "-----------music...it's awful" is going to take a
> beating. Deservedly so. However, you then feel compelled to slam some other
> genre. I prefer a Strauss waltz to anything I have heard by Webern.
Well, I like both. But Strauss waltzes are "pop music." Webern's
Quartet is just as danceable and less predictable. (Try Peter Serkin's
recording if you can find it.)
> I prefer
> a Puccini opera to a Richard Strauss opera. I like Tchaikovsky, and not
> Schoenberg. I like what is romantic, tuneful, stirring. I dislike atonal music,
> rap, and most rock. I prefer Renoir to Pollack, and Byron to Whitman.
>
> These are not matters of ignorance, but of taste. A little more tolerance on
> both sides of the argument might be nice...
No, it's not taste when it's backed up by ignorance and assumption.
It's the usual American brand of stupidity and chauvenism.
JHenry1975
DAMN GOOD. And anyone who says otherwise is a DAMN FOOL (including Boulez!).
Joseph Henry
Roger Lustig
"D.G. Porter" wrote:
>
> Oisk17 wrote:
> >
> > >From: "D.G. Porter"
> >
> > (snip)>> Rap and atonal, arhythmical, a-anything "music", same thing in my
> > book: not
> > >> music
> > >
> > >RAP ARHYTHMICAL???? Oh Jeez ...
> > >I may get banned but I still like butts.
> > >BABY GOT BACK.
> > >Insane in the membrane.
> >
> > Cheap shot here, Mr. Porter. The man was listing categories...rap, atonal,
> > arhtymical. He was not suggesting that rap is arhythmical.
> He just made some very stupid comments is all. I followed this thread
> for a while until it became too plain he's just not too deep. The plain
> unvarnished truth is that he's a "softy-ears" and incapable of enjoying
> anything that he finds to be a challenge. It's like people who only
> like French's yellow mustard because they grew up on it, and trying even
> a mild brown mustard is beyond them. Or people who can only eat
> burgers-n-fries and eschew a good pasta dish with mushrooms, basil and
> garlic (exceptions for allergies to some foods noted). People who won't
> try escargot because they're snails are like this.
Did you come up with the last bit yourself, or were you listening to
tonight's Garrison Keillor rerun? 8-)
> > You slammed him effectively for his Jackson Pollack comment. I don't like
> > Pollack's work either, but am certainly unqualified, as is Dan, to comment on
> > his competence.
> I have seen documentaries on Pollack and also have seen at least one of
> his works. To describe them as "random" is just stupid and ignorant.
To describe them as Pollacks isn't so cool either. His name was
Pollock.
(Note that I tend to flame the spelling only of those I agree with...)
> I'm damned tired of this kind of ignorant crap fobbed off as "my
> opinion." I don't care if i's Bernie Holland or Joe Schnapps on the
> street. Even a Cage score with graphics is not "random." Random is
> when a cyclist gets hit by a car (which just happened here an hour ago).
Usually not random, that. The presence of a drunk driver tends to raise
the odds a great deal.
> > >Now that you have thoroughly made a dope of yourself, how do you feel?
> > >Don't you get embarrassed pissing your pants in public this way??
> > Cruel and gratuitous, Mr. Porter.
> Well, there just comes a time when sheer idiocy takes a toll on one's
> tolerance for it. I have to deal with mindless idiocy on a daily basis
> and I have finally learned that the only thing that makes any difference
> it to confront them in their faes and say what you really are thinking.
How Gandhian. But even Gandhi eventually realized that one's opponent
would
have to have a certain intelligence and a certain conscience in order to
be moved (and changed) by the confrontation.
> [BTW, I'd rather be addressed as "Porter" than "Mr." anything.]
"Stout", on the other hand, is right out.
> > >Yeah, nice little easy sugar plum sounds for the soft ears velvet satin
> > >pocket books. Nice pretty Dachy perfume sounds for the dress circle
> > >opera boxes cushion chain ears. Nice sweety silk bonnet melodies! Nice
> > Now here is where you lose me.
> This is the text of Ives's "The Work of Art," a take-off on Haydn's
> Surprise Symphony. He wrote it after hearing a whole evening of Lite
> music and realizing that msot people are severely limited in the ear
> department and have to have their poor ears massaged by Lite stuff all
> the time of they get put out. See above regarding mustard types.
I poupon this entire topic. Just maille in the rest, OK?
> By the way, now I remember reading that Vincent Price would spit out any
> food that disgusted him. He didn't like the crap food that most people
> seem to require at every meal or they get upset.
I remember his riff on English breakfasts and the nasty stuff that
American
tourists demanded instead. (We're talking _Mystery_ intros here, where
he
finally rose/sank to his level.) Trouble is, he went too far, and
sneered
at OJ (which I, alas, can no longer drink). The English have figured
that
one out too. (My sister's ex-boyfriend, after his first stay in the US,
decided that the two best things about the country were all-night
groceries
and Tropicana.)
> > Anyone familiar with this group would know that
> > any post which begins "-----------music...it's awful" is going to take a
> > beating. Deservedly so. However, you then feel compelled to slam some other
> > genre. I prefer a Strauss waltz to anything I have heard by Webern.
> Well, I like both. But Strauss waltzes are "pop music." Webern's
> Quartet is just as danceable and less predictable. (Try Peter Serkin's
> recording if you can find it.)
Um, now you've lost *me*. Try dancing to Op. 28, then to Webern's
arrangement
of the "Schatzwalzer". There's dancing, and then there's dancing.
> > I prefer
> > a Puccini opera to a Richard Strauss opera. I like Tchaikovsky, and not
> > Schoenberg. I like what is romantic, tuneful, stirring. I dislike atonal music,
> > rap, and most rock. I prefer Renoir to Pollack, and Byron to Whitman.
> > These are not matters of ignorance, but of taste. A little more tolerance on
> > both sides of the argument might be nice...
> No, it's not taste when it's backed up by ignorance and assumption.
*sigh* You give too much credit to taste. Taste itself went out of
style 210
years ago or so. The unintentionally wonderful passage on taste by
Roger Scruton
that someone posted here recently makes it clear that taste as a
criterion is
gone except as a stick to beat others with.
Taste is taste, and I don't worry about those who express their tastes
as such.
Let 'em. I'm not selling anything, so I don't concern myself with what
they buy.
Besides, I have plenty of ignorance to deal with, and make far more
assumptions
than I should. I struggle against these things, but I know I'll never
be conscious
of the end of that struggle.
Roger
Peter T. Daniels
> will get you nowhere. Gotta write a good piece. Ditto Babbitt (not
> that I took classes with him). And when I was at Chicago, the staff
> was Shapey, Ran, and Blackwood. There was no sneaking a new piece by
> any of them--it had to be good.
That was my era. Were you there when I had a classical review in GCJ
almost every week? (That was the year a leftist cabal controlled the
Maroon ... which was soon to be taken over by the execrable John
Podhoretz, who is now the editorial page editor of the New York Post ...
he participated in a William Cullen Bryant poetry reading last summer in
Bryant Park, and I was delighted to see that though he's about 10 years
younger than me, he looks at least 10 years older ...)
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Roger Lustig
"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>
> Roger Lustig wrote:
>
> > will get you nowhere. Gotta write a good piece. Ditto Babbitt (not
> > that I took classes with him). And when I was at Chicago, the staff
> > was Shapey, Ran, and Blackwood. There was no sneaking a new piece by
> > any of them--it had to be good.
>
> That was my era. Were you there when I had a classical review in GCJ
> almost every week?
Possibly. 80-84. (If I knew what GCJ was, I've forgotten.)
> (That was the year a leftist cabal controlled the
> Maroon ... which was soon to be taken over by the execrable John
> Podhoretz, who is now the editorial page editor of the New York Post ...
Verily, he hath his reward...
Roger
David M. Cook
>??? Didn't you know it's served room temp in England??
But isn't room temparature in England about 50° F?
Dave Cook
Kastchei
> > Rochberg's string quartets which have portions that are tonally written
> > and portions that are atonally written.
>
> In that case, I think you're missing the Berg violin concerto!!!
it is a good piece isn't it :) you are right, but that is a piece that
was a little ahead of its time, forshadowing, if you will, what would
become routine in the late 20th century.
> And what, pray tell, was Stravinsky's neo-classicism if not eclectic???
it is not eclectic in the sense that i am talking about. his
neo-classical works are whole neo-classical; he doesn't slip back into his
russian phase or into a serial phase within the same composition. Thus
while the entire ouvre of Stravinsky is eclectic, a single piece is not.
the eclecticism i'm talking about which has occured primarily recently
(with notable exceptions, conceded) in contained in one piece of music.
> > Andriessen, etc. These have occured primarily in the past 20 or so years.
>
> The Rochberg quartets (and Rochberg's often=tonal style) go back to
> 1970.
if you will allow, "20 or so years" could very conceivably include works
a little earlier, say around 1970.
> Sessions' solo sonata, where the 12-tone-ness fades in and out, is from
> 1957. And tye Berg concerto is from 1935.
they are very isolated examples though. i'm talking about a large scale
trend. thos pieces you mention were fairly unique for their time. today
there are more and more composers writing with that eclecticism.
> (For that matter, one could argue for Mahler's multi-styled-ness. His
> textures vary so greatly, and are intercut with one another so
> drastically, that it's often like hearing multiple pieces at once. Think
> of the 7th...)
mahler certainly was a genius :) this quality you mention is something i
really appreciate in his works. but by no means do i think that it was
typical of the age. but all this is besides the point. it doesn't
really matter when or where this eclecticism (in a single piece) first
occured, or whether it is a new or old trend. my point is that i like
the trend and think that many composers today profit greatly from such a
wide variety of styles.
> "Novelty" works fine, though it may make some people think of Ray
> Parker,
> Jr. or joy buzzers.
ah, thanks. i appreciate your restraint from flaming me over this
mistake too. many others would not be so kind.
> > you know what i mean. it definitely is possible that i could find
> > "controlling dissonance, etc." in atonal music easy while you find it
> > difficult and vice versa.
>
> Could be. I haven't heard of that happening, though, from any composer
> whose music I've also encountered.
hmm, do you really think that all composers find writing in both styles
equally challenging? i'd imagine they would have some opinion.
> The "depth" thing is a good point. As far as I can tell, the composer
> actually wanted that. These are grotesques and satires, which the entire
> oeuvre of 1908-1911 had clearly not been. Some of the text-painting is
> *clearly* inappropriate, none more obvious than #19--where it's only piano
> and cello, the latter *arco* at the critical points. That's the point,
> no? [with regard to Pierrot]
very possibly. but even if that is the point, i still don't like it :)
> > it's my hypothesis that thos who hate their old work
> > never really liked it in the first place, although they may have
> > convinced themselves that they did.
>
> That's unfortunately a tautology the way you phrase it, or at least
> you have an escape clause from ever being wrong. Since neither you
i see that that is true. but that's still my hypothesis. i may never be
able to prove it, but i've learned to live with a great many things that
i can't ever prove (although the mathematician in me gets a little bitter
sometimes).
> nor your subject can produce documentation about how they "really"
> felt, you can always make that claim.
well, just because we can't doesn't mean we shouldn't think about it. if
we only talked about things in which we are experts and of which we have
proof, i don't think many of us would be able to hold a conversation any
deeper than small talk.
> > and my hypothesis would be that he never really liked those pieces. even
> > while composing them!
>
> It's not a hypothesis, though. If anything, it's a creed. But it's
that's just semantics.
> probably nothing at all, certainly to me, who's highly skeptical
> of mind-reading, especially when practiced on the dead and with
> no basis except possibly introspection.
like i said above, just because it is a skeptical practice, doesn't mean
it shouldn't be thought about. certainly you have your own opinion on
these matters. i've expressed mine, what's yours?
> old pieces fit in? If the composer has made a personal breakthrough
> in technique, the old pieces simply don't measure up.
yes, but the composer certainly wouldn't hate them! i prefer baroque
music over classical, but supposing i wrote in each style, i wouldn't hate
the classical piece because it doesn't measure up to the baroque.
you used mahler above, so i'l turn to him now. we certainly had a break
through in his style while composing his 5th, 6th, and 7th symphonies.
but do you think that he began to loathe his first simply because is
didn't measure up to his new standards?
> Don't they have to be pretty strong before the composer wants to *be*
> a person who "musically express[es] his emotions"? Who but one with
> powerful emotions would bother to do that?
talk to those composers who, following Hanslick's philosophy, think that
music should be intellectual, and not emotional. talk to someone who
composes as if music were completely mathematical.
> Resolution isn't all of harmony!! And within the context of a serial
piece, > there most certainly *can* be a "wrong" harmony. That's why
serial composition > is at least as much work as any other kind.
i simply disagree.
> few highly-pitch-oriented works on Lansky's CDs, including some that
> use--gasp--triads!
no! not triads! back! back, fell beasts!
> There's a round-and-round-and-no-escape aspect to it, sure. Check out
> Robert Morgan's article on it from about 10 years ago!
will try to. where was it published?
Kastchei
>
> Whoa! Preference among pairs of alternatives! Haven't seen this since
> college days & philosophy class with Dick Jeffrey.
> I'm guessing that Webern #1 there is actually someone else. On the
yep. i knew it was getting late, but i didn't catch that until i reread
it today. it should be berg over webern.
Kastchei
> > > stand listening to a complete movement.
> >
> > such a wonderful name had to be taken up by a horrible piece. i agree.
>
> Two stupid opinions expressed.
Mr. Porter,
Sorry to see you find my opinion stupid. Do you find everyone who
doesn't like Quatour... to be stupid?
> The Messiaen is not the end-all of 20th-Century music but it is GOOD.
First, just to clear my name, I never said that he was the "end-all",
while the original poster may have. I like many Messiaen pieces, but just
not this one; and that preference does not preclude me liking other 20th
century composers.
Next, this is why I hate to post examples to this newsgroup (not that i
posted this one). People seem to think that an example houses everything
that the poster knows about or is talking about. They complain that they
need to listen to more and that they are too narrowminded, yet they are
frequently the ones who asked for examples! If you ask for one, you are
going to get one. that doesn't mean that there are not many more that
simply are not mentioned. and calling down one example doesn't not
indicate some kind of victory of your preference over theirs.
Kastchei
> food that disgusted him. He didn't like the crap food that most people
> seem to require at every meal or they get upset.
that is a horrible breech of etiquette. there are reasons why children
are taught to swallow their food rather than spit it out, regardless if
they hate it. those reasons have to do with courtesy towards the host and
hostess. i'm not sure if this example was supposed to give your argument
more authoirty by name dropping, but it only succeeded in making me think
less of Mr. Price.
Kastchei
>
> DAMN GOOD. And anyone who says otherwise is a DAMN FOOL (including Boulez!).
Mr. Henry,
Do I call you a fool because or your dislikes? No. I would appreciate
the same respect from you as well.
Michael
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> >
> > Roger Lustig wrote:
> >
> > > will get you nowhere. Gotta write a good piece. Ditto Babbitt (not
> > > that I took classes with him). And when I was at Chicago, the staff
> > > was Shapey, Ran, and Blackwood. There was no sneaking a new piece by
> > > any of them--it had to be good.
> >
> > That was my era. Were you there when I had a classical review in GCJ
> > almost every week?
>
> Possibly. 80-84. (If I knew what GCJ was, I've forgotten.)
Grey City Journal (the cultural supplement, Fridays). I think it was
81-82; my first piece was an interview with Elly Ameling -- were you
there for the Year of the Song, or whatever it was called? It also
included Pears/Ellis, Prey/?, Morris/Bolcom, and Barbara Hendricks (who
wasn't yet a star).
(It was called that long before the Hanna Gray regime; City White was
the World's Columbian Exposition across the street, City Grey was the
first few buildings of the University in 1892.)
> > (That was the year a leftist cabal controlled the
> > Maroon ... which was soon to be taken over by the execrable John
> > Podhoretz, who is now the editorial page editor of the New York Post ...
>
> Verily, he hath his reward...
jbay...@my-deja.com
ois...@aol.com (Oisk17) wrote:
> >From: "D.G. Porter"
>
> (snip)>> Rap and atonal, arhythmical, a-anything "music", same thing in my
> book: not
> >> music
> >
> >RAP ARHYTHMICAL???? Oh Jeez ...
> >I may get banned but I still like butts.
> >BABY GOT BACK.
> >Insane in the membrane.
>
> Cheap shot here, Mr. Porter. The man was listing categories...rap, atonal,
> arhtymical. He was not suggesting that rap is arhythmical.
Well, I am (in a poetic sense). Rap has no idea of scansion, no
idea of feet or meter, and hardly even rhyme. If a line is too long,
it's
syllables are merely spoken more quickly to get them all in.
> >Yeah, nice little easy sugar plum sounds
DG parroting Ives.
John
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Roger Lustig
Kastchei wrote:
>
> > > hmm, i think you are missing my point. i'm talking about pieces like
> > > Rochberg's string quartets which have portions that are tonally written
> > > and portions that are atonally written.
> > In that case, I think you're missing the Berg violin concerto!!!
> it is a good piece isn't it :) you are right, but that is a piece that
> was a little ahead of its time, forshadowing, if you will, what would
> become routine in the late 20th century.
Even without Ives in the picture, it's part of a larger trend that
perhaps
led to eclectic styles: the tendency to refer to older music more and
more
directly. In fact, much of the eclectic stuff is making reference to
older styles as much as employing them directly; one might invoke the
dread term "irony" here.
> > And what, pray tell, was Stravinsky's neo-classicism if not eclectic???
> it is not eclectic in the sense that i am talking about. his
> neo-classical works are whole neo-classical; he doesn't slip back into his
> russian phase or into a serial phase within the same composition.
*Highly* arguable. Even within one work such as Pulcinella, one gets
different levels of quotation, reworking, or (sorry--Ives is the
elephant
in the room, can't ignore him) "derangement".
> Thus
> while the entire ouvre of Stravinsky is eclectic, a single piece is not.
> the eclecticism i'm talking about which has occured primarily recently
> (with notable exceptions, conceded) in contained in one piece of music.
I'll concede that there are increases of degree! But the ability to,
and need to, use different styles was there the moment there was
awareness
of the simultaneous existence of those styles. (For that matter, most
of
Berg's music has this quality. Lyric Suite, Der Wein, Wozzeck...)
> > > Andriessen, etc. These have occured primarily in the past 20 or so years.
> > The Rochberg quartets (and Rochberg's often=tonal style) go back to
> > 1970.
> if you will allow, "20 or so years" could very conceivably include works
> a little earlier, say around 1970.
Under those circumstances I'd probably say "30 or so years", but that's
just me.
> > Sessions' solo sonata, where the 12-tone-ness fades in and out, is from
> > 1957. And tye Berg concerto is from 1935.
> they are very isolated examples though. i'm talking about a large scale
> trend. thos pieces you mention were fairly unique for their time.
No, they weren't. There's a lot more of that happening a lot earlier
than you might think.
> today there are more and more composers writing with that eclecticism.
Granted. But it's hardly a new thing.
> > (For that matter, one could argue for Mahler's multi-styled-ness. His
> > textures vary so greatly, and are intercut with one another so
> > drastically, that it's often like hearing multiple pieces at once. Think
> > of the 7th...)
> mahler certainly was a genius :) this quality you mention is something i
> really appreciate in his works. but by no means do i think that it was
> typical of the age.
How many examples would it take? 8-)
> but all this is besides the point. it doesn't
> really matter when or where this eclecticism (in a single piece) first
> occured, or whether it is a new or old trend. my point is that i like
> the trend and think that many composers today profit greatly from such a
> wide variety of styles.
Right, so it's a good thing we *have* all those styles.
> > "Novelty" works fine, though it may make some people think of Ray
> > Parker,
> > Jr. or joy buzzers.
> ah, thanks. i appreciate your restraint from flaming me over this
> mistake too. many others would not be so kind.
And thank *you* for not hosing me down for writing Ray Parker, Jr.
when I meant Ray Stevens.
> > > you know what i mean. it definitely is possible that i could find
> > > "controlling dissonance, etc." in atonal music easy while you find it
> > > difficult and vice versa.
> > Could be. I haven't heard of that happening, though, from any composer
> > whose music I've also encountered.
> hmm, do you really think that all composers find writing in both styles
> equally challenging? i'd imagine they would have some opinion.
I'd imagine that most of them would be far more concerned with doing the
work they wanted to do than with that sort of comparison! Life is
short.
> > The "depth" thing is a good point. As far as I can tell, the composer
> > actually wanted that. These are grotesques and satires, which the entire
> > oeuvre of 1908-1911 had clearly not been. Some of the text-painting is
> > *clearly* inappropriate, none more obvious than #19--where it's only piano
> > and cello, the latter *arco* at the critical points. That's the point,
> > no? [with regard to Pierrot]
> very possibly. but even if that is the point, i still don't like it :)
Jeez...Schoenberg's first opportunity to go seriously eclectic, and look
who complains...
> > > it's my hypothesis that thos who hate their old work
> > > never really liked it in the first place, although they may have
> > > convinced themselves that they did.
> > That's unfortunately a tautology the way you phrase it, or at least
> > you have an escape clause from ever being wrong. Since neither you
> i see that that is true. but that's still my hypothesis. i may never be
> able to prove it, but i've learned to live with a great many things that
> i can't ever prove (although the mathematician in me gets a little bitter
> sometimes).
Trouble is, it's as likely as its exact opposite, in terms of the
evidence
we have.
> > nor your subject can produce documentation about how they "really"
> > felt, you can always make that claim.
> well, just because we can't doesn't mean we shouldn't think about it.
> if we only talked about things in which we are experts and of which we have
> proof, i don't think many of us would be able to hold a conversation any
> deeper than small talk.
And the world would be a far better place, on balance. All the Freudian
and everybodyelsian mindreading is ultimately pernicious, in my humble
opinion.
Or, to put it another way, that sort of "science" is ultimately the
smallest talk we have. (And not just idle chatter, either--right,
Paul?)
It's not a matter of expertise and proof. It's a matter of things
that *can* be known, and (on the other hand) things we *pretend* to
know or to be able to know, and base far too many conclusions on.
> > > and my hypothesis would be that he never really liked those pieces. even
> > > while composing them!
> > It's not a hypothesis, though. If anything, it's a creed. But it's
> that's just semantics.
Um, no. When you say "hypothesis", you imply that you can go further
as you accumulate evidence. Evidence is quite irrelevant to a creed.
> > probably nothing at all, certainly to me, who's highly skeptical
> > of mind-reading, especially when practiced on the dead and with
> > no basis except possibly introspection.
> like i said above, just because it is a skeptical practice, doesn't mean
> it shouldn't be thought about. certainly you have your own opinion on
> these matters. i've expressed mine, what's yours?
Mine is that people do what they do, and say what they say. We can
observe the former and the latter, and note that people often do not
mean what they say. As to what they think, we have no way of knowing
this in the general case, or in all but a very few specific cases.
And introspection is a really lousy way to draw conclusions about
the things and the ways that other people think.
> > old pieces fit in? If the composer has made a personal breakthrough
> > in technique, the old pieces simply don't measure up.
> yes, but the composer certainly wouldn't hate them!
So what makes you so fucking certain???
Pardon the expletive, but that is anything *but* certain. People love
and hate the darndest things. Start with *that* premise and see if
you can reach your conclusion.
> i prefer baroque
> music over classical, but supposing i wrote in each style, i wouldn't hate
> the classical piece because it doesn't measure up to the baroque.
OK: that's you. Now show me that everyone else--nay, *anyone* else--
has the same attitude and the same emotional underpinnings toward their
work.
> you used mahler above, so i'l turn to him now. we certainly had a break
> through in his style while composing his 5th, 6th, and 7th symphonies.
> but do you think that he began to loathe his first simply because is
> didn't measure up to his new standards?
I have no clue. Not a one. I do not know whether it measured up to his
new standards, or whether he thought his changes in style *were* a new
standard, or whether he even gave the First much thought in those days.
How the hell should I know that sort of thing? Even if he had said
something about it, I know from experience that people don't always
say what they mean--sometimes not even if they're trying--and since
Mahler is long dead and can't tell us, I'm not going to be foolish
and pompous and presumptious and so self-centered to assume that
Mahler thought what I would have thought if I had been Mahler in
that situation.
Especially because I haven't the foggiest idea what that situation
actually was to one like Mahler.
> > Don't they have to be pretty strong before the composer wants to *be*
> > a person who "musically express[es] his emotions"? Who but one with
> > powerful emotions would bother to do that?
> talk to those composers who, following Hanslick's philosophy, think that
> music should be intellectual, and not emotional.
Hanslick never said that. And who, pray tell, are the composers who
a) think that or b) followed Hanslick's philosophy?
> talk to someone who composes as if music were completely mathematical.
Never met anyone like that.
> > Resolution isn't all of harmony!! And within the context of a serial
> piece, > there most certainly *can* be a "wrong" harmony. That's why
> serial composition > is at least as much work as any other kind.
> i simply disagree.
About what? that it's a lot of work? That there can be a "wrong"
harmony
in a serial work? Try changing a note here and there in any page of
_Lulu_.
> > few highly-pitch-oriented works on Lansky's CDs, including some that
> > use--gasp--triads!
> no! not triads! back! back, fell beasts!
> > There's a round-and-round-and-no-escape aspect to it, sure. Check out
> > Robert Morgan's article on it from about 10 years ago!
> will try to. where was it published?
Gable? Are you there? Help!
(I think it's recapped in his 19thC textbook.)
Roger (who ya gonna call?)
Roger Lustig
Kastchei wrote:
>
> > By the way, now I remember reading that Vincent Price would spit out any
> > food that disgusted him. He didn't like the crap food that most people
> > seem to require at every meal or they get upset.
>
> that is a horrible breech of etiquette. there are reasons why children
> are taught to swallow their food rather than spit it out, regardless if
> they hate it. those reasons have to do with courtesy towards the host and
> hostess. i'm not sure if this example was supposed to give your argument
> more authoirty by name dropping, but it only succeeded in making me think
> less of Mr. Price.
Just because someone remembers reading something? I tend to reserve
judgment
about people for just a wee bit longer.
Besides, you don't know what "host and hostess" were involved, if any.
You're
realizing a great deal of speculation from a very small investment of
fact,
to paraphrase Mark Twain.
Roger
Roger Lustig
"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>
> Roger Lustig wrote:
> >
> > "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> > >
> > > Roger Lustig wrote:
> > >
> > > > will get you nowhere. Gotta write a good piece. Ditto Babbitt (not
> > > > that I took classes with him). And when I was at Chicago, the staff
> > > > was Shapey, Ran, and Blackwood. There was no sneaking a new piece by
> > > > any of them--it had to be good.
> > >
> > > That was my era. Were you there when I had a classical review in GCJ
> > > almost every week?
> >
> > Possibly. 80-84. (If I knew what GCJ was, I've forgotten.)
>
> Grey City Journal (the cultural supplement, Fridays). I think it was
> 81-82; my first piece was an interview with Elly Ameling -- were you
> there for the Year of the Song, or whatever it was called?
There? I took tickets. (I was the stage-manager for the Mandel
concerts
for a couple of years, and a supernumerary before that, being in the
music department and all.)
> It also
> included Pears/Ellis, Prey/?, Morris/Bolcom, and Barbara Hendricks (who
> wasn't yet a star).
Also Rosen. Played an awesome concert of Clara Variations, C Major
Fantasy, and Carnaval--right around the time he was recording them.
That was during the series with two Ameling concerts, one on the first
night of Passover.
(Were all of those names you mention at U of C that year?)
Roger
Roger Lustig
jbay...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <20000902004340...@ng-fk1.aol.com>,
> ois...@aol.com (Oisk17) wrote:
> > >From: "D.G. Porter"
> >
> > (snip)>> Rap and atonal, arhythmical, a-anything "music", same thing in my
> > book: not
> > >> music
> > >
> > >RAP ARHYTHMICAL???? Oh Jeez ...
> > >I may get banned but I still like butts.
> > >BABY GOT BACK.
> > >Insane in the membrane.
> >
> > Cheap shot here, Mr. Porter. The man was listing categories...rap, atonal,
> > arhtymical. He was not suggesting that rap is arhythmical.
>
> Well, I am (in a poetic sense). Rap has no idea of scansion, no
> idea of feet or meter, and hardly even rhyme. If a line is too long,
> it's syllables are merely spoken more quickly to get them all in.
Rap most certainly has notions of scansion and meter--rather
developed ones. The irregularity of the verse length is a
hallmark of rap style, and if you try to imitate rap sometime
you'll find that you succeed when you restrict yourself drastically
in the ways you "merely [speak] more quickly".
Besides, if you liked it, you'd be referring to Hopkins and
sprung rhythm.
As for the claim that rap hardly has rhyme, well, that speaks
volumes about you, sir.
> it's syllables are merely spoken more quickly to get them all in.
^
There's an entire newsgroup devoted to this phenomenon...not a
good move if you're going to talk poetics...
> > >Yeah, nice little easy sugar plum sounds
> DG parroting Ives.
There are worse people to parrot.
Roger Lustig
Oisk17
(snipped respectfully)>
>Well, I like both. But Strauss waltzes are "pop music." Webern's
>Quartet is just as danceable and less predictable. (Try Peter Serkin's
>recording if you can find it.)
>
Thanks for the recommendation, and I will try to listen. I have never heard
anything by Webern that I found listenable, but I will try it. Your comment
that Strauss's waltzes are "pop music" is interesting. It could cause us to
once again get bogged down in discussions of "what is classical." Are you
suggesting, for example, that a Von Suppe overture is "pop", while a Rossini
overture is "classical?" I find the word "pop" here a bit of a put-down, which
does not contribute much to our discussion...
>> These are not matters of ignorance, but of taste. A little more tolerance
>on
>> both sides of the argument might be nice...
>
>No, it's not taste when it's backed up by ignorance and assumption.
>It's the usual American brand of stupidity and chauvenism.
>
I hope you were not referring to me with your American brand of stupidity
remark. In fact, in my original post, I preferred a French artist to an
American, and an English poet to an American. Also, I do not find that the
American brand of stupidity and chauvenism is distinct from the foreign
product...
Best regards,
Paul
Peter T. Daniels
Eh? You mean those singers? Those are the ones I reviewed (except Pears;
he may have been the first in the sequence). I wouldn't have been aware
of Rosen at the time; I don't know when I came upon *The Classical
Style*. Certainly it was long before his rather sham appointment to the
U of C faculty (three weeks a year doesn't make a professor).
Ameling coughed during a song, and Baldwin suspended the accompaniment
ever so elegantly. I made the mistake of not seeking an interview with
him! (The Ameling one was the result of P.R. -- the concert producer was
in the Adult Education division, whatever it was called, whose dean's
wife was my co-worker at the Assyrian Dictionary, and she suggested me
to give them a nice writeup. And then the GCJ editor asked for reviews
the rest of the year, and not all the reviews were complimentary to that
producer's concerts ...)
Do you remember someone banging on the door of Mandel Hall during the
third or so song of Prey's Winterreise? I suppose it might have been you
that let them in ...
Roger Lustig
I clearly missed some of them, what with that horrid winter (exacerbated
by
my SO applying to grad schools with me doing the word-processing) and
then
Generals at the end of spring term.
> I wouldn't have been aware
> of Rosen at the time; I don't know when I came upon *The Classical
> Style*.
Pity. A superb accompanist, too! (Great Crimes of Recording History
#373:
the second volume of Boulez' CBS Webern set from the late 70's was never
released. Dozens of early songs with Heather Harper and CR in the can,
all ready to go. I doubt the masters even exist any more.)
> Certainly it was long before his rather sham appointment to the
> U of C faculty (three weeks a year doesn't make a professor).
Between you and me and the squash court, being on the Committee on
Social Thought doesn't make one a professor.
> Ameling coughed during a song, and Baldwin suspended the accompaniment
> ever so elegantly.
*That* I remember.
> I made the mistake of not seeking an interview with
> him! (The Ameling one was the result of P.R. -- the concert producer was
> in the Adult Education division, whatever it was called, whose dean's
> wife was my co-worker at the Assyrian Dictionary, and she suggested me
> to give them a nice writeup. And then the GCJ editor asked for reviews
> the rest of the year, and not all the reviews were complimentary to that
> producer's concerts ...)
That's how I got involved. I taught at CCE (Center for Continuing Ed)
in the spring, and got involved with the Ameling and Rosen concerts.
> Do you remember someone banging on the door of Mandel Hall during the
> third or so song of Prey's Winterreise? I suppose it might have been you
> that let them in ...
No. *Definitely* not.
Roger
D.G. Porter
>
> >From: "D.G. Porter"
>
> (snipped respectfully)>
> >Well, I like both. But Strauss waltzes are "pop music." Webern's
> >Quartet is just as danceable and less predictable. (Try Peter Serkin's
> >recording if you can find it.)
> >
>
> Thanks for the recommendation, and I will try to listen. I have never heard
> anything by Webern that I found listenable, but I will try it. Your comment
> that Strauss's waltzes are "pop music" is interesting. It could cause us to
> once again get bogged down in discussions of "what is classical." Are you
> suggesting, for example, that a Von Suppe overture is "pop", while a Rossini
> overture is "classical?" I find the word "pop" here a bit of a put-down, which
> does not contribute much to our discussion...
Well, it may be "classical" but it's also "pop."
I find "La Gazza Ladra" to be quite "pop" in its sound, but classical in
its technique of material manipulation. I see "classical" as a
technique, not the material. (But then I compose a little as well as
edit.)
Is a Sousa march pop or classical or both?
The Serkin recording (it was on RCA) made the Webern Quartet sound
jazzy.
> >> These are not matters of ignorance, but of taste. A little more tolerance
> >on
> >> both sides of the argument might be nice...
>
> >
> >No, it's not taste when it's backed up by ignorance and assumption.
> >It's the usual American brand of stupidity and chauvenism.
> >
>
> I hope you were not referring to me with your American brand of stupidity
> remark. In fact, in my original post, I preferred a French artist to an
> American, and an English poet to an American. Also, I do not find that the
> American brand of stupidity and chauvenism is distinct from the foreign
> product...
I mean tha prevalent attitude tha "no new music is good music 'cuz it
don't sound like Mozart or Rossini."
D.G. Porter
>
> jbay...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <20000902004340...@ng-fk1.aol.com>,
> > ois...@aol.com (Oisk17) wrote:
> > > >From: "D.G. Porter"
> > >
>
> > DG parroting Ives.
>
> There are worse people to parrot.
SQUAWK!!!!!!
<miniature feathered dinosaur bites button off shirt>
It's hard to take bayer seriously...
D.G. Porter
>
> > > > Let's use Messiaen's Quatour pour la fin du temps for example... I couldn't
> > > > stand listening to a complete movement.
> > >
> > > such a wonderful name had to be taken up by a horrible piece. i agree.
> >
> > Two stupid opinions expressed.
>
> Mr. Porter,
> Sorry to see you find my opinion stupid. Do you find everyone who
> doesn't like Quatour... to be stupid?
>
> > The Messiaen is not the end-all of 20th-Century music but it is GOOD.
>
> First, just to clear my name, I never said that he was the "end-all",
> while the original poster may have. I like many Messiaen pieces, but just
> not this one; and that preference does not preclude me liking other 20th
> century composers.
Well, you should qualify your opinion then, by saying that you do like
Messiaen's other works. Otherwise you come off sounding like someone
who can't handle EASY pieces like the Quartet. Seriously! That piece
is SO ACCESSIBLE! I myself find the long cello aria a bit long-winded
but the first movement and the rhythmically-active unison movement I
like quite a bit. (OTOH I find some of the organ works boring, esp.
when Messiaen plays them! He's so damn slow!!!) But when you cite this
piece as one you find as a representation of "awful contemporary music"
and stop there, you sound like some idiot who stopped with Brahms and
can't even listen to Wagner or Mahler or Bartok!
BELEIVE ME, I have had debates with "critics" like this and their
stupidity really has gotten intolerable! They can't write a note but
they feel qualfied to judge something (an for money too).
D.G. Porter
>
> "D.G. Porter" wrote:
> >
> > Oisk17 wrote:
> > >
> > > >From: "D.G. Porter"
> > >
> > > (snip)>> Rap and atonal, arhythmical, a-anything "music", same thing in my
> > > book: not
> > > >> music
> > > >
> > > >RAP ARHYTHMICAL???? Oh Jeez ...
> > > >I may get banned but I still like butts.
> > > >BABY GOT BACK.
> > > >Insane in the membrane.
> > >
> > > Cheap shot here, Mr. Porter. The man was listing categories...rap, atonal,
> > > arhtymical. He was not suggesting that rap is arhythmical.
>
> > He just made some very stupid comments is all. I followed this thread
> > for a while until it became too plain he's just not too deep. The plain
> > unvarnished truth is that he's a "softy-ears" and incapable of enjoying
> > anything that he finds to be a challenge. It's like people who only
> > like French's yellow mustard because they grew up on it, and trying even
> > a mild brown mustard is beyond them. Or people who can only eat
> > burgers-n-fries and eschew a good pasta dish with mushrooms, basil and
> > garlic (exceptions for allergies to some foods noted). People who won't
> > try escargot because they're snails are like this.
>
> Did you come up with the last bit yourself, or were you listening to
> tonight's Garrison Keillor rerun? 8-)
Ah, "Watching Paint Dry"! Heh, no I didn't catch it, but I love
escargot and know someone who can't even try any kind of mustard but
French's yellow (I like Morehouse w/horseradish myself).
The kind of music you like tends to reflect the kinds of food you like,
I find. A diverse palate is more rewarding than a limited one.
> > > You slammed him effectively for his Jackson Pollack comment. I don't like
> > > Pollack's work either, but am certainly unqualified, as is Dan, to comment on
> > > his competence.
>
> > I have seen documentaries on Pollack and also have seen at least one of
> > his works. To describe them as "random" is just stupid and ignorant.
>
> To describe them as Pollacks isn't so cool either. His name was
> Pollock.
Well, I know someone whose name is "Pollack," so it weren't intended a a
slam.
> (Note that I tend to flame the spelling only of those I agree with...)
>
> > I'm damned tired of this kind of ignorant crap fobbed off as "my
> > opinion." I don't care if i's Bernie Holland or Joe Schnapps on the
> > street. Even a Cage score with graphics is not "random." Random is
> > when a cyclist gets hit by a car (which just happened here an hour ago).
>
> Usually not random, that. The presence of a drunk driver tends to raise
> the odds a great deal.
Really, what I surmised was that: 18-year old chickie with brand new car
from Daddy ignored stop sign going onto major highway from side street,
and just turned to make a right w/o looking, and hit cyclist using
sidewalk, who wasn't wearing a helmet either.
[just to let you know I did read down this far]
Peter T. Daniels
>
> >From: "Peter T. Daniels"
>
> >How often are they performed in Grand Opera houses? (Is G&S "serious"?)
>
> Fledermaus is often performed in Grand Opera Houses. The Met performed Merry
> Widow . Tales of Hoffman is often performed in Grand Opera Houses. NYCO has
> done several G&S operettas.
Merry Widow for the first time ever, this season; the thread started
with the question about Hoffmann vs. the rest of Offenbach. I haven't
seen any City Opera G&S, but since they require a considerably different
approach from "grand opera" (not least, the enunciation must be
absolutely perfect!!), I wouldn't expect too much. (Britten's *Paul
Bunyan* was done, quite rightly -- and quite necessarily -- at City
Opera with supertitles.)
Note that Lyric Opera of Chicago for several seasons presented a light
opera _hors de saison_, including a Peter Sellars Mikado and a Merry
Widow.
> In most of the record stores I have visited, G&S, as well as Lehar, J.Strauss,
> and Kalman are found in the classical section, in the opera bins..
> .>Umm, have you ever visited a record store? Do you think you'd be able to
> >find the Humperdinck you wanted, in among all the other fellow's albums?
>
> They are listed alphabetically by composer. No problem at all!
I suppose you don't realize that there is/was a pop singer who took the
name "Engelbert Humperdinck" (no relation), and there must be many more
millions of his albums in print than there are of *Hansel & Gretel* and
*Königskinder*.
Roger Lustig
"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>
> Oisk17 wrote:
> >
> > >From: "Peter T. Daniels"
> >
> > >How often are they performed in Grand Opera houses? (Is G&S "serious"?)
> >
> > Fledermaus is often performed in Grand Opera Houses. The Met performed Merry
> > Widow . Tales of Hoffman is often performed in Grand Opera Houses. NYCO has
> > done several G&S operettas.
>
> Merry Widow for the first time ever, this season; the thread started
> with the question about Hoffmann vs. the rest of Offenbach. I haven't
> seen any City Opera G&S, but since they require a considerably different
> approach from "grand opera" (not least, the enunciation must be
> absolutely perfect!!), I wouldn't expect too much. (Britten's *Paul
> Bunyan* was done, quite rightly -- and quite necessarily -- at City
> Opera with supertitles.)
Offenbach is hell on a pair of genres. What's _Orpheus_ when you get
right down to it? Classical ballet it sure ain't, from the shoes up.
Of course, even a satirical _Orfeo_ is nothing precisely new in the
musical theatre. That tradition goes back at least to 1680. But I'm
not aware of anyone before Offenbach who such a thorough job of
satirizing
the content and culture of the "high art" musical theatre of his day.
Am I missing someone here?
Now, insofar as that's true, we have yet another problem: 125-year-old
satire. G&S survive because of the general high spirits and silliness
and words and their settings; but they're not so much going after the
musical-theatrical world and its genres.
> Note that Lyric Opera of Chicago for several seasons presented a light
> opera _hors de saison_, including a Peter Sellars Mikado and a Merry
> Widow.
And where do you suppose they got the Peter Sellars Mikado? 8-) (OK-
this may be his second production of it. Did the overture involve
flight attendants?)
> > In most of the record stores I have visited, G&S, as well as Lehar, J.Strauss,
> > and Kalman are found in the classical section, in the opera bins..
> > .>Umm, have you ever visited a record store? Do you think you'd be able to
> > >find the Humperdinck you wanted, in among all the other fellow's albums?
> > They are listed alphabetically by composer. No problem at all!
> I suppose you don't realize that there is/was a pop singer who took the
> name "Engelbert Humperdinck" (no relation), and there must be many more
> millions of his albums in print than there are of *Hansel & Gretel* and
> *Königskinder*.
But does he *compose* the songs? There's a difference between the
genres:
very little pop is marketed by composer, most "classical" is. Sure, you
have singing and instrumental star soloists and groups on one side, and
composer/performers on the other; but who can even name the composers on
most pop albums? Over in jazz, which has become a classical music in
many
of its subdivisions, you have Ella Sings Ellington, etc.; but even with
Sketches of Spain or Porgy and Bess, the news is Miles Davis and Gil
Evans,
neither of whom is the composer. Unless of course that particular
distinction is no longer quite appropriate for jazz, which is more or
less
the case. In jazz, on a good day, everybody's the composer at one point
or another. (Example: Sing, Sing, Sing--ever see the lead sheet? Not
much
there. "The piece" as most of us think of it is the arrangement, and
Gene Krupa, and the horns swinging hard.)
Roger
BHeneg8560
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>I suppose you don't realize that there is/was a pop singer who took the
>name "Engelbert Humperdinck" (no relation), and there must be many more
>millions of his albums in print than there are of *Hansel & Gretel* and
>*Königskinder*.
And he's recently released his first new album for years and years. Exciting
times.
I have a feeling his sideburns were bigger than the original Humperdinck's, but
this isn't really my field.
best wishes
Ben Heneghan
Peter T. Daniels
> Offenbach is hell on a pair of genres. What's _Orpheus_ when you get
> right down to it? Classical ballet it sure ain't, from the shoes up.
Ca. 1975 the then stage director of the U of Chicago G&S Society mounted
a version of *La Belle Hélène* called "Helen Goes to Troy" -- it was
very funny indeed, and even seems to have had an afterlife: there was a
production in NYC a few years later of a work with that title that
presumably was the same version.
> > Note that Lyric Opera of Chicago for several seasons presented a light
> > opera _hors de saison_, including a Peter Sellars Mikado and a Merry
> > Widow.
>
> And where do you suppose they got the Peter Sellars Mikado? 8-) (OK-
> this may be his second production of it. Did the overture involve
> flight attendants?)
I dunno, where? I didn't see it (too expensive), but I wished I had when
the descriptions came out (loved his Tannhäuser some years later); the
last scene was a transformation to a Sony-type boardroom and a new car.
> > > They are listed alphabetically by composer. No problem at all!
>
> > I suppose you don't realize that there is/was a pop singer who took the
> > name "Engelbert Humperdinck" (no relation), and there must be many more
> > millions of his albums in print than there are of *Hansel & Gretel* and
> > *Königskinder*.
>
> But does he *compose* the songs? There's a difference between the
> genres:
> very little pop is marketed by composer, most "classical" is. Sure, you
> have singing and instrumental star soloists and groups on one side, and
> composer/performers on the other; but who can even name the composers on
> most pop albums? Over in jazz, which has become a classical music in many
> of its subdivisions, you have Ella Sings Ellington, etc.; but even with
> Sketches of Spain or Porgy and Bess, the news is Miles Davis and Gil Evans,
> neither of whom is the composer. Unless of course that particular
> distinction is no longer quite appropriate for jazz, which is more or less
> the case. In jazz, on a good day, everybody's the composer at one point
> or another. (Example: Sing, Sing, Sing--ever see the lead sheet? Not much
> there. "The piece" as most of us think of it is the arrangement, and
> Gene Krupa, and the horns swinging hard.)
So you can't organize the entire record store by composer after all!
Oisk17
> The Met performed Merry
>> Widow .
(snip)>Merry Widow for the first time ever, this season;
My expert friends in RMO have stated that this is NOT the first time ever. The
Met has also staged "Land des Laechelns."
You were right; I did not pick up the reference to the pop singer Engelbert.
You are also quite correct in using as a distinction (between grand opera and
"light"opera) the houses in which they are generally performed. "Merry Widow"
opened in the Theater an der Wien, which is much smaller than the Vienna Opera
House. Several years ago, the Wiener Volksoper brought three operattas to the
Met; the performances were quite good, if one was seated close enough to the
stage, but were lost in the enormous Opera House.
Regards,
Paul
Peter T. Daniels
>
> >From: "Peter T. Daniels"
>
> > The Met performed Merry
> >> Widow .
>
> (snip)>Merry Widow for the first time ever, this season;
>
> My expert friends in RMO have stated that this is NOT the first time ever. The
> Met has also staged "Land des Laechelns."
I'm sorry to hear that (but are you suggesting that "Land des Laechelns"
and "Lustige Witwe" are the same thing?); but they used to do lots of
extremely forgettable "contemporary" American works -- at least, works
that had just been written -- by the likes of Deems Taylor. (I know
"Land of Smiles" only as something Richard Tauber did numbers from. And
I think Wunderlich. Howcome I like that sort of Schlag and can't stand
zarzuela?)
But then the lack of success of "Antony and Cleopatra" (due to
Zeffirelli, not Barber) put them off new works for a very long time --
until "Ghosts of Versailles."
> You were right; I did not pick up the reference to the pop singer Engelbert.
>
> You are also quite correct in using as a distinction (between grand opera and
> "light"opera) the houses in which they are generally performed. "Merry Widow"
> opened in the Theater an der Wien, which is much smaller than the Vienna Opera
> House. Several years ago, the Wiener Volksoper brought three operattas to the
> Met; the performances were quite good, if one was seated close enough to the
> stage, but were lost in the enormous Opera House.
And just a few years ago, Lyric Opera destroyed the beautiful Civic
Theatre to get more backstage space for the Lyric Opera House (formerly
the Civic Opera House) -- their stages abutted. I saw brilliant *Turn of
the Screw* and *Rape of Lucretia* there.
Kastchei
this is probably where we are getting hung up: degree.
> > hmm, do you really think that all composers find writing in both styles
> > equally challenging? i'd imagine they would have some opinion.
>
> I'd imagine that most of them would be far more concerned with doing the
> work they wanted to do than with that sort of comparison! Life is
> short.
but surely they've thought about it. that's something that can be
thought about on the subway to work. not like they have to stop
composing in order to make time to form an opimion.
> > very possibly. but even if that is the point, i still don't like it :)
>
> Jeez...Schoenberg's first opportunity to go seriously eclectic, and look
> who complains...
so the point of having inappropriate text painting makes it eclectic? i
don't see your point. and i think we are just using the term differently.
> It's not a matter of expertise and proof. It's a matter of things
> that *can* be known, and (on the other hand) things we *pretend* to
> know or to be able to know, and base far too many conclusions on.
i think that is what makes things interesting!
> > > It's not a hypothesis, though. If anything, it's a creed. But it's
>
> > that's just semantics.
>
> Um, no. When you say "hypothesis", you imply that you can go further
> as you accumulate evidence. Evidence is quite irrelevant to a creed.
true, but i imagine that you knew what i was talking about.
> Pardon the expletive, but that is anything *but* certain. People love
> and hate the darndest things. Start with *that* premise and see if
> you can reach your conclusion.
but that isn't the premise i start with. i start witha premise that says
tastes change for a reason, not just by a whim. and i believe tastes
change a lot less frequently than people say.
> OK: that's you. Now show me that everyone else--nay, *anyone* else--
> has the same attitude and the same emotional underpinnings toward their
> work.
well you do have a point. i could be incredibly wrong; there's always
that possibility in everything. i just don't think so ;) it's nothing
more than a gut feeling i've gathered through my expereiences with other
musicians and composers.
> something about it, I know from experience that people don't always
> say what they mean--sometimes not even if they're trying--and since
now after his long diatribe you've gone through about how we can never
know about someone elses thoughts, how in the world can you make that
assumption? and if you think the "from experience" clause exempts you
from your own logic, then what in the world do you think i've been basing
my whole argument on?!
> Mahler is long dead and can't tell us, I'm not going to be foolish
> and pompous and presumptious and so self-centered to assume that
> Mahler thought what I would have thought if I had been Mahler in
> that situation.
well, tell me what you do think? i realize that you honestly do not
know. and as you have pointed out, neither do i, but that doesn't stop
me from speculating. but then you have an aversion from speculation that
is rooted in just the same amount of evidence as my speculations are!
> Hanslick never said that. And who, pray tell, are the composers who
> a) think that or b) followed Hanslick's philosophy?
> > talk to someone who composes as if music were completely mathematical.
> Never met anyone like that.
the answer to the first can be answered by my comment in between. and
it's nice to know you've "never met anyone like that." fortunately,
neither have i.
> > i simply disagree.
>
> About what? that it's a lot of work? That there can be a "wrong"
> harmony
> in a serial work? Try changing a note here and there in any page of
> _Lulu_.
that's just the thing. you can. it quite frequently it doesn't make a
bit of difference (the effect is till the same and you don't wrench your
ear away thinking someone played a wrong note).
michael
Kastchei
> > > food that disgusted him. He didn't like the crap food that most people
> > > seem to require at every meal or they get upset.
> >
> > more authoirty by name dropping, but it only succeeded in making me think
> > less of Mr. Price.
>
> Just because someone remembers reading something? I tend to reserve
would it help if i added in the phrase "if this is true"?
> Besides, you don't know what "host and hostess" were involved, if any.
i imagine that saying "any" would imply that this occured when a host
served him food not to his taste. unless of course he only ate in the
privacy of his own home eating food that was prepared by no one else than
himself. even still, if there are other people around, even his kin, it
is improper.
> You're
> realizing a great deal of speculation from a very small investment of
> fact,
> to paraphrase Mark Twain.
but then you'd have nothing to talk about!
D.G. Porter
>
> In article <39B4E7...@worldnet.att.net>, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >I suppose you don't realize that there is/was a pop singer who took the
> >name "Engelbert Humperdinck" (no relation), and there must be many more
> >millions of his albums in print than there are of *Hansel & Gretel* and
> >*Königskinder*.
>
> And he's recently released his first new album for years and years. Exciting
> times.
He also sang the closing song to "Beavis and Butt-head Do America"
featuring Bruce Willis and Demi Moore.
Oisk17
NOT the first time ever.
>The
>> Met has also staged "Land des Laechelns."
>
Porter responded>I'm sorry to hear that (but are you suggesting that "Land des
Laechelns"
>and "Lustige Witwe" are the same thing?);
You are sorry to hear that the Met performed Merry Widow previously? I do not
understand that...
Where did you get the idea that I am suggesting that Merry Widow and Land des
Laechelns are the same thing? They are two different operettas, both by Lehar.
Land des Laechelns is a marvellous piece, by the way; there is a complete
recording with Gedda and Rothenberger on EMI which I strongly recommend.
Regards,
Paul
Peter T. Daniels
>
> I wrote (about Merry Widow)>> My expert friends in RMO have stated that this is
> NOT the first time ever.
> >The
> >> Met has also staged "Land des Laechelns."
> >
>
> Porter responded>I'm sorry to hear that (but are you suggesting that "Land des
> Laechelns" and "Lustige Witwe" are the same thing?);
I'm not Porter.
> You are sorry to hear that the Met performed Merry Widow previously? I do not
> understand that...
I'm sorry to hear that either "expert friends in RMO" or the
Metropolitan Opera management are mistaken; the Met insists on sending
me advertising, and they proudly proclaimed that the recent production
of *Merry Widow* (it was last season, no?) was the first time they've
ever given it.
> Where did you get the idea that I am suggesting that Merry Widow and Land des
> Laechelns are the same thing? They are two different operettas, both by Lehar.
> Land des Laechelns is a marvellous piece, by the way; there is a complete
> recording with Gedda and Rothenberger on EMI which I strongly recommend.
Because you respond to my statement that the Met has never done Merry
Widow with the statement that they did Land of Smiles, as if it were a
refutation of my statement!
And I _am_ sorry that it's entered their repertoire, for the reasons
given over the last few days why light opera isn't suited to a theater
like the Met's!
Oisk17
>I'm not Porter.
Sincere apologies!!!>I'm sorry to hear that either "expert friends in RMO" or
the
>Metropolitan Opera management are mistaken; the Met insists on sending
>me advertising, and they proudly proclaimed that the recent production
>of *Merry Widow* (it was last season, no?) was the first time they've
>ever given it.
Looks like I was wrong!! I will check again, but I believe you.
>> Where did you get the idea that I am suggesting that Merry Widow and Land
>des
>> Laechelns are the same thing? They are two different operettas, both by
>Lehar.
>Because you respond to my statement that the Met has never done Merry
>Widow with the statement that they did Land of Smiles, as if it were a
>refutation of my statement!
>
I think if you reread my post, you will see that Land of Smiles was mentioned
as another example of an operetta performed at the Met. I don't see how you
could have interpreted it as a refutation. However, the writer always thinks
that he has expressed himself clearly; the fault may be mine
.>And I _am_ sorry that it's entered their repertoire, for the reasons
>given over the last few days why light opera isn't suited to a theater
>like the Met's!
We agree on this completely! However, since I love operetta, I would like to
see it performed somewhere in NY. A few years ago I went to Munich just
because they were performing Zigeunerbaron!
Best regards,
Paul