What Can We Do to Save Classical Music?
Sealy
but in other forms of media. Instead of lamenting about the death of
classical music..because, um..folks, it may be dying, but it sure as ain't
dead yet..perhaps people need to be coming up with ways to make sure it
lives on.
I feel that the classical music industry (wether it be symphonies,
musicians, record companies..whatever..) need to get out there and sell
their product a hell of a lot better. In this day and age, if you want to
get people hooked onto something, you have to present it to them in a
stylish and fashionable package. You need to generate hype. You need
performers who can generate some sort of sex appeal because that is the way
people are conditioned into buying things now, based on the attractiveness
on the performers. God knows what the media hype machines can do for other
products..the most recent case being the absolutely talentless Britney
Spears (who is awful..compared to the other female teen talents out there in
the pop music scene..but she has the biggest hype of them all from the
record company..hence the fact that she's the unanimous Teen Queen..) and
the Harry Potter series. You also have to make classical music
affordable...and please..don't start on the NAXOS label. What they do is
well and good but there are a lot of people who wouldn't even consider
buying NAXOS simply because they equate the cheap price with a crappy
performance. As for live concerts.. I can cite for example, here in
Kitchener/Waterloo..the symphony plays all sorts of concerts on the UW
campus at a fairly reasonable price. Too bad they don't advertise for these
concerts on campus whatsoever. The lecture hall was full of people
attending the concert, but they were all old people and symphony
subscribers..not UW students..and this is their way of trying to reach out
to students at the University? This is their way of reaching out to a
younger audience? Whatever. No wonder the KW Symphony is in serious
trouble financially. They have NO CLUE as to how to market their
product..and their old, long time patrons are dying off.
Classical music could never be as disposable as pop music, but those who
market classical music really need to take a good hard look as to why pop
music does so well..and perhaps start marketing their product in the same
vein.
trevor
jbay...@my-deja.com
"Sealy" <se...@regis.net> wrote:
<snip>
> I feel that the classical music industry (wether it be symphonies,
> musicians, record companies..whatever..) need to get out there and sell
> their product a hell of a lot better. In this day and age, if you want to
> get people hooked onto something, you have to present it to them in a
> stylish and fashionable package. You need to generate hype. You need
> performers who can generate some sort of sex appeal because that is the way
> people are conditioned into buying things now,
This is precisely the wrong way to promote classical music, and it's
been tried with talentless talent -- from Ofra Horny to Vanessa Mae.
People who will be attracted to classical music because it is promoted
like rock music are the wrong audience for classical music.
<snip>
> You also have to make classical music
> affordable...and please..don't start on the NAXOS label. What they do is
> well and good but there are a lot of people who wouldn't even consider
> buying NAXOS simply because they equate the cheap price with a crappy
> performance.
I believe NAXOS is the number one classical label, in terms of sales,
in the world.
> As for live concerts.. I can cite for example, here in
> Kitchener/Waterloo..the symphony plays all sorts of concerts on the UW
> campus at a fairly reasonable price. Too bad they don't advertise for these
> concerts on campus whatsoever. The lecture hall was full of people
> attending the concert, but they were all old people and symphony
> subscribers..not UW students..and this is their way of trying to reach out
> to students at the University? This is their way of reaching out to a
> younger audience? Whatever. No wonder the KW Symphony is in serious
> trouble financially. They have NO CLUE as to how to market their
> product..and their old, long time patrons are dying off.
You might be surprised what a subculture of interest there is among
university students in 20th century avant garde music. Stockhausen
and Berio can be seen in CD collections alongside Sonic Youth and
"Throbbing Gristle". Kronos' "Black Angles" CD was a best seller
in the mid-90s, and the reason for that "hit" was because of its
appeal to just this sort of crowd.
Symphony orchestras should institute 20th century series (2 or 3
concerts a year of the great music of the 20th c.) and promote them
to the hilt on college campuses. One of the reason you don't see
college students in the concert hall is precisely because they see
a sea of grey heads and think "this is not for me". I can guarantee
that if an orchestra played a program of Nono, Berio and Stockhausen,
there wouldn't be a grey head in the place, but, if marketed, right,
they could fill the hall with youth with died black hair, nose rings
and tattoos.
<snip>
John
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sealy
Hey..now I wrote..
> > I feel that the classical music industry (wether it be symphonies,
> > musicians, record companies..whatever..) need to get out there and sell
> > their product a hell of a lot better. In this day and age, if you want
to
> > get people hooked onto something, you have to present it to them in a
> > stylish and fashionable package. You need to generate hype. You need
> > performers who can generate some sort of sex appeal because that is the
way
> > people are conditioned into buying things now,
and this was said..
> This is precisely the wrong way to promote classical music, and it's
> been tried with talentless talent -- from Ofra Horny to Vanessa Mae.
>
> People who will be attracted to classical music because it is promoted
> like rock music are the wrong audience for classical music.
In the specific example of Vanessa Mae..her disco arrangements of classical
hits was what was wrong with her records. They were awful. Liona Boyd
tried the same thing and met the same amount of success. Ofra Harnoy..well
sheesh. I'm not talking about doing anything different with the music..I'm
talking about promoting the artist as a personality..as something that is
above the music. At least you saw Vanessa Mae on the talk show circuit. At
least Charlotte Church does the talk show circuit. Does anybody else? At
least the labels have pushed these artists into the public spotlight as
something instead of not promoting them and letting the same old classical
music crowd buy the same old music, sight unseen..Pop music is promoted and
the more you promote it the more people buy it. Andrea Boccelli was crap
but people bought it because it was promoted. Charlotte Church is crap but
people buy it because its promoted too. Why can't other classical music
artists be promoted..and ones who are deserving of being promoted? The
general public do not know who these artists are otherwise!
you also said..
> I believe NAXOS is the number one classical label, in terms of sales,
> in the world.
Yeah god bless NAXOS for at least trying to affordably price their records.
Too bad a fine quality lable like Harmoni Mundi couldn't do the same. As
long as elite classical music is only available in an elite price range,
only the elite will be priviliged to hear the elite performances. NAXOS is
a company that promotes itself in commercials on the radio as something
along the lines of "Just because we are cheap, we still got mentions in the
Penguin Guide to the Best Classical Albums.."..Great. What about the rest
of the works that made that chart..the bulk of whom are on elite, expensive
labels that are very hard to track down? How do I get to hear those amazing
performances if the only record store I have to buy from is Sam the Record
Man in Pembroke Ontario?
In regards to 20th century composers alongside the modern rock
artists..there was a remix album of Reich songs that featured artists like
Coldcut doing their impressions of his stuff. It was good, and yes, there
is a small group of the college disenfranchised that care about that kind of
thing. I am not one of them, but hey..more power to them. I'm talking
about the general public at large who are looking for hooks and melody, not
challenges.. and I am talking about people who would like to know a bit more
about classical music, but don't know anything about it. If I had a dollar
bill for the amount of times I have interviewed celebrities about their
favourite composers and what not and they tell me honestly..I like classical
music and I like to listen to it ..it helps me to think but I honestly don't
know any composers or any specific works..I would be able to retire from
radio. People are interested but in this day and age..they aren't willing
to do that much digging to learn. They want to have things presented to
them. If the classical music industry was smart, they would do this..they
would do lots of promotion and sell themselves to the public at large, and
they would be in a much better place than they are right now.
thanks john!
trev
John Brower
jbay...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> This is precisely the wrong way to promote classical music, and it's
> been tried with talentless talent -- from Ofra Horny to Vanessa Mae.
>
> People who will be attracted to classical music because it is promoted
> like rock music are the wrong audience for classical music.
Agreed.
All this has done for "popular" music is lead to the rise of people
being given recording contracts for the way they look.
> You might be surprised what a subculture of interest there is among
> university students in 20th century avant garde music. Stockhausen
> and Berio can be seen in CD collections alongside Sonic Youth and
> "Throbbing Gristle". Kronos' "Black Angles" CD was a best seller
> in the mid-90s, and the reason for that "hit" was because of its
> appeal to just this sort of crowd.
>
> Symphony orchestras should institute 20th century series (2 or 3
> concerts a year of the great music of the 20th c.) and promote them
> to the hilt on college campuses. One of the reason you don't see
> college students in the concert hall is precisely because they see
> a sea of grey heads and think "this is not for me". I can guarantee
> that if an orchestra played a program of Nono, Berio and Stockhausen,
> there wouldn't be a grey head in the place, but, if marketed, right,
> they could fill the hall with youth with died black hair, nose rings
> and tattoos.
Also agreed.
Though this might also have something to do with the fact that most
modern classical music is ignored by the regular patrons, so it doesn't
have the same snob appeal and museum quality in its presentation.
It all goes back to education.
If you don't create hierarchies of "good music", students are free to
embrace everything they find contains quality and passion.
John B.
-------------------------------------------------------------~
"You'll never make it. Give up now. Quit squirming. You idiot. Who
cares? Surrender. It won't work. Aha! Told you so." -- Matt Groening,
LIFE IN HELL (1982)
Willie S
I do not think it is in any real danger. Pop music comes and
goes, and some of it eventually becomes classic. Bear in mind
that Johan Strauss Jnr was yesterday's version of a music factory
and his parties were the raves of today.
Such a coincidence - I am busy looking at the Naxos list of classical
music used in the movies - a list of about 360 modern movies.
(e.g. Entrapment featured Bach's Prelude from The Well-Tempered Clavier,
Face/Off featured Allegri's Miserere)
I think the movies are probably one of the greatest contributors to the
continued
popularity of classical music - as long as they use it, people will listen
and go out
and buy soundtracks and explore other equally beautiful classical music.
William the Listener
Dr.Matt
Willie S <knotw...@knotmweb.knotco.knotza> wrote:
>Why do we have to "save" classical music?
So you can turn in the completed booklet at the end of the week
for a free hoagie.
--
For spammers: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/uce.htm
More for spammers: http://www.goldinc.com/cgi-bin/harvest_this.cgi
My CD "Kabala": http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/cd.html
Matt Fields DMA http://listen.to/mattaj TwelveToneToyBox http://start.at/tttb
F.B.
<knotw...@knotmweb.knotco.knotza> writes:
>
>Why do we have to "save" classical music?
>
A form of music that does not add anything new will eventually become
obselete. The single most contributing factor toward the diminishing
stature of classical music is that almost nothing of any lasting
popularity has been written in the last 50 years. There are lots of
reasons for it -- marketing, the nature of new music of the last 50
years, relatively few performances, etc.
But in an age when people have more disposable income than ever to
spend on CDs and platinum albums are a dime a dozen in other genres,
the shrinkage of interest in classical is indeed a bad omen for its
future.
Matt P
Zero the Hero
> Symphony orchestras should institute 20th century series (2 or 3
> concerts a year of the great music of the 20th c.) and promote them
> to the hilt on college campuses. One of the reason you don't see
> college students in the concert hall is precisely because they see
> a sea of grey heads and think "this is not for me". I can guarantee
> that if an orchestra played a program of Nono, Berio and Stockhausen,
> there wouldn't be a grey head in the place, but, if marketed, right,
> they could fill the hall with youth with died black hair, nose rings
> and tattoos.
This is killing me, because I agree with him.
Jason
--
Listen to DREAMS WIDE AWAKE Listen to MUSIC OF THE SPHERES
Progressive rock radio show Classical music radio show
http://www.unf.edu/~jeller/dreams.html (web page pending)
Friday nights from 6 to 9 PM Wednesdays from 1 to 3 PM
Osprey Radio WOSP - http://www.unf.edu/groups/wosp/
Oisk17
their annual trips to Carnegie Hall. They always sell out. Great classical
music does not need to be saved; there will always be an audience for it. Bad
classical music doesn't deserve to be saved.
Regards,
Paul
Josh Kortbein
: jbay...@my-deja.com spluttered:
: > Symphony orchestras should institute 20th century series (2 or 3
: > concerts a year of the great music of the 20th c.) and promote them
: > to the hilt on college campuses. One of the reason you don't see
: > college students in the concert hall is precisely because they see
: > a sea of grey heads and think "this is not for me". I can guarantee
: > that if an orchestra played a program of Nono, Berio and Stockhausen,
: > there wouldn't be a grey head in the place, but, if marketed, right,
: > they could fill the hall with youth with died black hair, nose rings
: > and tattoos.
: This is killing me, because I agree with him.
It's a nice idea but I doubt the youth market would replace the
geezer one.
Josh
NP: Lamb, _Fear of Fours_
--
josh blog: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kortbein/blog/
tdr: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kortbein/tdr/
keith edgerley
> In <39774...@news1.mweb.co.za> "Willie S"
> <knotw...@knotmweb.knotco.knotza> writes:
> >
> >Why do we have to "save" classical music?
> >
> >I do not think it is in any real danger.
>
> A form of music that does not add anything new will eventually become
> obselete. The single most contributing factor toward the diminishing
> stature of classical music is that almost nothing of any lasting
> popularity has been written in the last 50 years.
Is it perhaps too early to tell? Bach's music was scarcely played for 80
years after his death. I can remember Mahler and Sibelius being eclipsed
and then coming back into favour. Until the middle of last century,
Mozart was known mainly as an opera composer. It has always been the case
that only a small proportion of music composed continues to be played
after the occasions for which it was written. Go into any large music
library. The second half of the 20th century is no different.
> There are lots of
> reasons for it -- marketing, the nature of new music of the last 50
> years, relatively few performances, etc.
> But in an age when people have more disposable income than ever to
> spend on CDs and platinum albums are a dime a dozen in other genres,
> the shrinkage of interest in classical is indeed a bad omen for its
> future.
There are two questionable concepts here:
a) marketing will make people like something they wouldn't like
otherwise. Especially as marketing in the case of "classical music" means
distortion and compromise, so that even if people are persuaded to like
what is being marketed, they are still not liking classical music.
b) the record industry is as important to classical music as it is to
pop.
I agree with Willie S.; I don't think classical music is in any real
danger.
Nor do I think there is any real shrinkage. Au contraire.
The only thing that has happened is that, in the period 1900 to 1950, the
continuous spectrum that ranged from light music - which would include
salon music, drawing-room ballads, and waltzes by Strauss - to
Beethoven's late quartets was truncated at the lower end and replaced
with something perceived to be so different as to be incompatible and
even antagonistic (I'm not saying I agree with this) and - which is weird
to me - something that is also felt to define one's position in society,
social or sociopolitical beliefs, and attitude in general.
This can mean that, if a kind of music is thought to define a
personality, a young person conditioned to this mindset will look at an
audience including "grey heads" and assume that this music is not for
him. But even then, I am not sure this is a general reaction.
--
Keith
owe war sint verswunden
alliu miniu jar
Dr.Matt
Josh Kortbein <kort...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>Zero the Hero (jel...@osprey.unf.edu) wrote:
>: jbay...@my-deja.com spluttered:
>: > Symphony orchestras should institute 20th century series (2 or 3
>: > concerts a year of the great music of the 20th c.) and promote them
>: > to the hilt on college campuses. One of the reason you don't see
>: > college students in the concert hall is precisely because they see
>: > a sea of grey heads and think "this is not for me". I can guarantee
>: > that if an orchestra played a program of Nono, Berio and Stockhausen,
>: > there wouldn't be a grey head in the place, but, if marketed, right,
>: > they could fill the hall with youth with died black hair, nose rings
>: > and tattoos.
>
>: This is killing me, because I agree with him.
>
>It's a nice idea but I doubt the youth market would replace the
>geezer one.
>
The youth market _always_ _becomes_ the geezer one.
Josh Kortbein
: In article <8l8o26$e3h$1...@news.iastate.edu>,
: Josh Kortbein <kort...@iastate.edu> wrote:
: >Zero the Hero (jel...@osprey.unf.edu) wrote:
: >: jbay...@my-deja.com spluttered:
: >: > Symphony orchestras should institute 20th century series (2 or 3
: >: > concerts a year of the great music of the 20th c.) and promote them
: >: > to the hilt on college campuses. One of the reason you don't see
: >: > college students in the concert hall is precisely because they see
: >: > a sea of grey heads and think "this is not for me". I can guarantee
: >: > that if an orchestra played a program of Nono, Berio and Stockhausen,
: >: > there wouldn't be a grey head in the place, but, if marketed, right,
: >: > they could fill the hall with youth with died black hair, nose rings
: >: > and tattoos.
: >
: >: This is killing me, because I agree with him.
: >
: >It's a nice idea but I doubt the youth market would replace the
: >geezer one.
: >
: The youth market _always_ _becomes_ the geezer one.
They age but they don't listen to the geezers' music.
At least, necessarily.
Josh
NP: Autechre, _Incunabula_
jbay...@my-deja.com
Tastes change as people age. Most of those grey heads in the
concert hall were tapping their toes to Glenn Miller in their youths,
I'll wager. The trick is to accelerate the learning process. ;-)
John
Zero the Hero
> It's a nice idea but I doubt the youth market would replace the
> geezer one.
Yeah, I gave it some more thought after I posted that. I think instead of
a room full of blue hair, we'd have an empty room.
(Well, *I'd* be there at least.)
HY
>This topic of conversation has been done to death not only in this
newsgroup
>but in other forms of media. Instead of lamenting about the death of
>classical music..because, um..folks, it may be dying, but it sure as ain't
>dead yet..perhaps people need to be coming up with ways to make sure it
>lives on.
>
Could it be that the concert atmosphere is too formal? Can
only the most educated, sophisticated, and cultured appreciate
the music, or are there ways for others to be let in?
What about the concert setting must be maintained and what is
open to change? Certainly silence must be maintained, and
good acoustics as well. Can the suits, ties, and seating be
rethought (I wouldn't mind swinging on a hammock myself)?
Can the mannerisms and stage presentation of the performers
be rethought?
To lighten this point, here's something by Richard Sherrif from
his Belfast review of the Raphael Ensemble.
------
AS ANYBODY will tell you, the closest I usually get to culture is each
morning as I dodge the revolting black gubbins which is slowly consuming my
shower curtain. No-one was more surprised than I, therefore, to find myself
sitting in the Elmwood Hall on Saturday evening listening to a recital of
chamber music by The Raphael Ensemble; one of the more esoteric offerings of
the Belfast Festival. Classical music is something with which I'm usually on
nodding terms only, but what the hell I thought, it's festival time and
classical music, like vegetables, is something everyone should endure once
in a while.
The first thing to realise is that going to a recital is a Very Serious
Business. Having eight pints beforehand as a warm-up to the main event, for
example, would not be seen as entirely acceptable but, naturally sensitive
to these subtle nuances, I made sure I limited myself to two bottles of the
finest red wine I could get for under two quid. Anyhow, true to form the
artistes duly arrived on stage looking suitably serious and without a word
sat down. After arranging hair, long and straight for the ladies and tails,
long and straight for the men, they started playing. No "Hello Belfast it's
great to be here." No "Hope you like this one it's off the latest album."
Not even "Good evening ladies and gentlemen." Not a word the whole night.
Just a lot of bowing and faintly superior grins.
But the music was gorgeous. I have never heard of Anton Bruckner who died
100 years ago and I am equally knowledgeable about Schubert. thanks to the
programme (b.l797; d. 1828.) From the first few notes of each piece,
Quintets in F and C Major respectively, however, it was obvious that this
was powerful stuff. Just to sit 15 feet away from five people playing in
such perfect pitch and harmony was a completely new experience and I can
honestly say it was fantastic, right up until the during the Adagio where I
nodded off. I know it's a cliche. but the piece was so damn relaxing it was
unavoidable, though I had a stern word with myself during the interval.
There were obviously also complaints from the audience that second violinist
Catherine Manson's hair wasn't long and straight enough as, for the second
piece, she was substituted for Michael Stirling. It was, of course, because
the Schubert piece called for two cellos and only one violin, as we later
worked out, but finally we get to the point. This is good stuff, you get a
warm seat and, in the case of the Raphael Ensemble apparently, one of the
best chamber orchestras on the go. But it's overly polite, it's stiff and it
isn't reaching half the audience it could be. It's absolutely irrelevant
that the "structural arch" of the Bruckner piece was "rounded off even more
convincingly and established a quasi-symphonic unity" Apart from massaging a
few intellectual egos it achieves nothing except to keep classical music
impenetrable and put people off exploring a wonderful live experience.
Josh Kortbein
: > It's a nice idea but I doubt the youth market would replace the
: > geezer one.
: Yeah, I gave it some more thought after I posted that. I think instead of
: a room full of blue hair, we'd have an empty room.
: (Well, *I'd* be there at least.)
Yeah, does this mean I could put my feet up on the vacant seat in front of
me? :)
Josh Kortbein
: Could it be that the concert atmosphere is too formal? Can
: only the most educated, sophisticated, and cultured appreciate
: the music, or are there ways for others to be let in?
: What about the concert setting must be maintained and what is
: open to change? Certainly silence must be maintained, and
: good acoustics as well. Can the suits, ties, and seating be
: rethought (I wouldn't mind swinging on a hammock myself)?
: Can the mannerisms and stage presentation of the performers
: be rethought?
Definitely. How does dressing up help me appreciate music better?
And how do musicians connect with listeners when they act like
robots?
Josh
Dr.Matt
Josh Kortbein <kort...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>HY (y...@frii.com) wrote:
>: Could it be that the concert atmosphere is too formal? Can
>: only the most educated, sophisticated, and cultured appreciate
>: the music, or are there ways for others to be let in?
>
>: What about the concert setting must be maintained and what is
>: open to change? Certainly silence must be maintained, and
>: good acoustics as well. Can the suits, ties, and seating be
>: rethought (I wouldn't mind swinging on a hammock myself)?
>: Can the mannerisms and stage presentation of the performers
>: be rethought?
>
>Definitely. How does dressing up help me appreciate music better?
When the performers do it, it says "hey, kids, we're pros." Rock
musicians dress up too.
I've not yet been to a concert of any sort that had a stuffy dress
code for the audience. But I have been to concerts of all sorts where
some of the audience was dressed up fancy, and some was dressed down.
Generally, basic cleanliness (you're going to be in a room with lots
of other people) is the norm, and around that, the rest of the
manner of dress usually has to do with who is your date, or whose
affections you are trying to attract.
HY
>I've not yet been to a concert of any sort that had a stuffy dress
>code for the audience.
Some places have outdoor concerts where people can lounge
around and picnic. I like the idea, but the problem is that the
acoustics and the mosquitos suck, both for the audience and
the players. I wonder if covered or indoor venues with gardens,
sofas, or whatever might be more fun? Perhaps people don't
have to sit: maybe they can stand, lie down, perhaps even
move around if they don't distract the players.
Should players say more? Should players rely strictly on
program notes to help people appreciate what's going on
better? Some players do make brief comments about a
piece: perhaps stuff like what the player likes about the
music, what sort of things were hard/easy or what they're
trying to bring out in it, or what sort of things to listen for
(rather than strict dates and titles)?
Knudsen
> obselete.
I don't agree. I believe that what is great in music trancends stylistic
and technical boundries. When I listen to a Beethoven symphony, the power of
the inspiration is what moves me, not some devices belonging to such and such
an era. It sounds just as fresh to me as if it were written yesterday, and I am
not a geezer. New generations discover great music over and over. I firmly
believe that people who really appreciate these things don't belong in the "you
hate what your parents like then you get old and your kids hate what you like"
category. To me, that cliche is associated with mainstream music. Besides, even
if classical music were more well known, that doesn't mean many more people
will relate to it, as it does take a certain kind of person who digs deeper
than the average wank.
Visit the redesigned KNUDWEB
Now with more PRO RECORDING and TMBG power than ever before
http://knudweb.ipfox.com
Knudsen
>robots?
Sorry, but the intensity of a performance is not dependent on silly
gymnastics. A shallow idiot might need theatrics to be convinced that someone
is into it. For me, some of my most psychotically intense listening experiences
have so smashed my mind that I ended up utterly still and silent completely
enveloped by the infinite psychosis.
A lame guy jumping on a stage might look impressive, but that has nothing
to do with true intensity.
However, I would like the option of standing. When listening to recordings
I often stand, especially during the Rite Of Spring where I need to stand up
just to keep from exploding!
Knudsen
>program notes to help people appreciate what's going on
>better? Some players do make brief comments about a
>piece: perhaps stuff like what the player likes about the
>music, what sort of things were hard/easy or what they're
>trying to bring out in it, or what sort of things to listen for
>(rather than strict dates and titles)?
I wouldn't mind it if the conductor went off about the virtues of a piece
once in awhile. If I were conducting, I wouldnt be able to help saying
something like "get ready... this opening is intense!"
Dr.Matt
>>
>>I've not yet been to a concert of any sort that had a stuffy dress
>>code for the audience.
>
>Some places have outdoor concerts where people can lounge
>around and picnic. I like the idea, but the problem is that the
>acoustics and the mosquitos suck, both for the audience and
>the players. I wonder if covered or indoor venues with gardens,
>sofas, or whatever might be more fun? Perhaps people don't
>have to sit: maybe they can stand, lie down, perhaps even
>move around if they don't distract the players.
Whatever works.
>Should players say more? Should players rely strictly on
>program notes to help people appreciate what's going on
>better?
Players are in show business. Those with the charisma to say
more gnerally do.
> Some players do make brief comments about a
>piece: perhaps stuff like what the player likes about the
>music, what sort of things were hard/easy or what they're
>trying to bring out in it, or what sort of things to listen for
>(rather than strict dates and titles)?
Every concert I've been to where somebody spoke, I found myself
fidgeting through the lecture and waiting for the music.
Dr.Matt
Knudsen <knuds...@aol.comERASEMME> wrote:
>I often stand, especially during the Rite Of Spring where I need to stand up
>just to keep from exploding!
Have you signed your organ donor card?
Josh Kortbein
: >Definitely. How does dressing up help me appreciate music better?
: >And how do musicians connect with listeners when they act like
: >robots?
: Sorry, but the intensity of a performance is not dependent on silly
: gymnastics. A shallow idiot might need theatrics to be convinced that someone
:is into it. For me, some of my most psychotically intense listening experiences
: have so smashed my mind that I ended up utterly still and silent completely
: enveloped by the infinite psychosis.
: A lame guy jumping on a stage might look impressive, but that has nothing
: to do with true intensity.
You're reading too much into my comment. Who said anything about
jumping around? I'm talking about musicians being personable and
relating with the audience, whether it's talking to them (about
the music or nothing in particular), or maybe just appearing to
have a little fun.
Knudsen
I took your comment more as a spring board to further babbling (by me). I
didn't really find a problem with what you said. Sometimes a post just gets me
thinking in a certain direction. Isn't that nice?
>I'm talking about musicians being personable and
>relating with the audience, whether it's talking to them (about
>the music or nothing in particular),
>or maybe just appearing to
>have a little fun.
Would this entail wearing a shit-eating grin during the closing bars of
Tchaikovsky's 6th? j/k
Margaret Mikulska
Malcolm Bilson often gives a short introduction to the works he is about
to play. Indeed, he has the required charisma and incredible wit. I
doubt you would fidget through his talk (although it's hardly a
"lecture" - it's a rather short introduction).
-Margaret
"Dr.Matt" wrote:
[somebody else:]
> >Should players say more? Should players rely strictly on
> >program notes to help people appreciate what's going on
> >better?
>
> Players are in show business. Those with the charisma to say
> more gnerally do.
>
> > Some players do make brief comments about a
> >piece: perhaps stuff like what the player likes about the
> >music, what sort of things were hard/easy or what they're
> >trying to bring out in it, or what sort of things to listen for
> >(rather than strict dates and titles)?
>
> Every concert I've been to where somebody spoke, I found myself
> fidgeting through the lecture and waiting for the music.
>
keith edgerley
> In article <1Kre5.142$7o3.17...@news.frii.net>, HY <y...@frii.com> wrote:
>
> >Should players say more? Should players rely strictly on
> >program notes to help people appreciate what's going on
> >better?
>
> Players are in show business. Those with the charisma to say
> more generally do.
>
> >[snip]
>
> Every concert I've been to where somebody spoke, I found myself
> fidgeting through the lecture and waiting for the music.
The worst experience I had of this was when we took some friends to a wind
quintet recital in the South of France and were subjected to over 25 minutes of
presentation and explanation in French, a language which our guests did not
understand. On the whole, I think program notes are preferable.
One of the problems with presenting classical music is that microphones are not
required for the music, so a mike has to be specially organized, unless the hall
is fairly small or the speaker has a good public-speaking voice. And then if a
mike IS organized the temptation is to justiify its use.
Steven Van Impe
HY wrote in message <1Kre5.142$7o3.17...@news.frii.net>...
>Should players say more? Should players rely strictly on
>program notes to help people appreciate what's going on
>better? Some players do make brief comments about a
>piece: perhaps stuff like what the player likes about the
>music, what sort of things were hard/easy or what they're
>trying to bring out in it, or what sort of things to listen for
>(rather than strict dates and titles)?
Perhaps the audience should also interfere more. I just re-read Berlioz'
memoirs (great book!) and the stories he tells remind me more of a rock
concert than of opera -- calling, shouting disapproval with a change the
director made, and even a heavy fight because a violin solo had been
suppressed. Now that's atmosphere!
Of course, that is not the way we could ever want it to be. But it would be
very nice to see the audience respond a little more to what happens on
stage, not just by applauding (and certainly not by tapping ones neighbour
on the shoulder and telling him the names of the various soloists, or other
such nuisances) but in a more general way during pauses, or during the
performers introduction to a piece.
Steven
Dr.Matt
Margaret Mikulska <miku...@silvertone.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>Malcolm Bilson often gives a short introduction to the works he is about
>to play. Indeed, he has the required charisma and incredible wit. I
>doubt you would fidget through his talk (although it's hardly a
>"lecture" - it's a rather short introduction).
I fidgeted through Lutoslawski's introduction of Chain 3.
>-Margaret
>
>"Dr.Matt" wrote:
>
>[somebody else:]
>
>> >Should players say more? Should players rely strictly on
>> >program notes to help people appreciate what's going on
>> >better?
>>
>> Players are in show business. Those with the charisma to say
>> more gnerally do.
>>
>> > Some players do make brief comments about a
>> >piece: perhaps stuff like what the player likes about the
>> >music, what sort of things were hard/easy or what they're
>> >trying to bring out in it, or what sort of things to listen for
>> >(rather than strict dates and titles)?
>>
>> Every concert I've been to where somebody spoke, I found myself
>> fidgeting through the lecture and waiting for the music.
>>
jbay...@my-deja.com
kort...@iastate.edu (Josh Kortbein) wrote:
> Knudsen (knuds...@aol.comERASEMME) wrote:
> : >Definitely. How does dressing up help me appreciate music better?
> : >And how do musicians connect with listeners when they act like
> : >robots?
>
> : Sorry, but the intensity of a performance is not dependent on silly
> : gymnastics. A shallow idiot might need theatrics to be convinced that someone
> :is into it. For me, some of my most psychotically intense listening experiences
> : have so smashed my mind that I ended up utterly still and silent completely
> : enveloped by the infinite psychosis.
>
> : A lame guy jumping on a stage might look impressive, but that has nothing
> : to do with true intensity.
>
> You're reading too much into my comment. Who said anything about
> relating with the audience, whether it's talking to them (about
> the music or nothing in particular), or maybe just appearing to
> have a little fun.
I agree with your comment about musicians dressing up. Black tie
should be banned from concert halls as we enter the 21st century,
and orchestras should take the lead of the corporate world and allow
their musicians to wear decent casual dress.
As to showing more emotion while playing: anyone who's seen the Eroica
Trio in concert will know how annoying that sort of thing can be.
Musicians don't intentionally put on a robotic demeanor while playing,
so anything beyond their present behavior would be just putting on a
show of emotion, and who wants that?
Greg Skinner
Sealy <se...@regis.net> wrote:
>In regards to 20th century composers alongside the modern rock
>artists..there was a remix album of Reich songs that featured artists like
>Coldcut doing their impressions of his stuff. It was good, and yes, there
>is a small group of the college disenfranchised that care about that kind of
>thing. I am not one of them, but hey..more power to them. I'm talking
>about the general public at large who are looking for hooks and melody, not
>challenges.. and I am talking about people who would like to know a bit more
>about classical music, but don't know anything about it. If I had a dollar
>bill for the amount of times I have interviewed celebrities about their
>favourite composers and what not and they tell me honestly..I like classical
>music and I like to listen to it ..it helps me to think but I honestly don't
>know any composers or any specific works..I would be able to retire from
>radio. People are interested but in this day and age..they aren't willing
>to do that much digging to learn. They want to have things presented to
>them. If the classical music industry was smart, they would do this..they
>would do lots of promotion and sell themselves to the public at large, and
>they would be in a much better place than they are right now.
Increased promotion either increases the cost of recordings and concerts
to the public, or decreases the amount of money the performers get.
As far as classical radio goes, it seems to me that we had lots more
classical radio programming because the people who built (or bought)
stations fairly early out in the history of FM radio had a strong
interest in classical music and wanted to put it on the air. (The
same could be said for jazz and a few other genres.) I don't perceive
any less desire in broadcasters (who have commented in these forums)
to program classical music; I do perceive less of a willingness to do
so, because the price of FM stations has skyrocketed to the point
where either one has to do a very dumbed-down classical format or
abandon classical altogether for something more financially viable.
Possibly the best thing to do for music education is to start with the
young. Whenever there is a public vote on money to be allocated for
schools, vote to have some portion of it allocated for music
education, including classical. (I imagine most of you are doing this
anyway.)
--gregbo
gds at best.com
HY
jbay...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8lf3v8$16l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>As to showing more emotion while playing: anyone who's seen the Eroica
>Trio in concert will know how annoying that sort of thing can be.
>Musicians don't intentionally put on a robotic demeanor while playing,
>so anything beyond their present behavior would be just putting on a
>show of emotion, and who wants that?
That reminds me... I *hate* seeing pictures of myself while playing: it's
like someone taking pictures of me while I'm sleeping. I'm concentrating
so hard I have NO idea what my body language is doing... for audiences,
it's like listening to a speaker who keeps fiddling with their pen or
something. I suppose it might actually be worthwhile for me to practice
eliminating that nervous twitch stuff and limit my facial hijinks to stuff
that
actually communicates something about the music, not about how hard
it is to play!
HY
Steven Van Impe wrote in message <397ae574$0$11...@bru5-newsr1.be.uu.net>...
>Perhaps the audience should also interfere more.
Ugh.. I'm not sure my ego could handle what the audience
would have to say about my performances.
Hey, I hear some Italian opera performances can get
pretty raucous....
HY
Dr.Matt wrote in message ...
>
>Every concert I've been to where somebody spoke, I found myself
>fidgeting through the lecture and waiting for the music.
>
I hate listening to speeches to.... in stuffy atmospheres.
I wonder, if the atmosphere was more informal, and it
was more like a chat rather than a lecture, perhaps even
interactive (fielding questions, etc) if it would be easier?
(taking cover from the inevitable flames that will pound
this view...)
Steven Van Impe
HY wrote in message ...
>
>>Perhaps the audience should also interfere more.
>Ugh.. I'm not sure my ego could handle what the audience
>would have to say about my performances.
Now, that's the point where it would get *really* interesting :-)
Perhaps being confronted with an unhappy audience could even improve your
playing ? Especially in those hard-to-manage pieces where frustration and
anger are necessary to make it a good performance?
>Hey, I hear some Italian opera performances can get
>pretty raucous....
Yes, but that's because they're Italian.
Steven
D.G. Porter
Having done this both ways, I can say for sure tha the audience prefers
the latter.
Doug McDonald
>
>
> You might be surprised what a subculture of interest there is among
> university students in 20th century avant garde music.
The comments I hear at concerts when sitting next to young people
are a strong support for this thesis. Stong snickers for people
like Schubert or Tschaikovsky, and lots of interest in Bartok,
the German atonalists, and post-1960 composers. And, I might add,
when the approval does come for the 19th century, it is for
things like the late Beethoven quartets.
And this is NOT just from music students. The performing arts
center here is across the street from the Music, Chemistry,
Biochemistry, and Biology departments. One hears these
comments just as much from people I recognize as chemists
and biochemists as from people who are presumably from Music.
Doug McDonald
Dr.Matt
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Dr.Matt wrote in message ...
> >
> >Every concert I've been to where somebody spoke, I found myself
> >fidgeting through the lecture and waiting for the music.
> >
>
> I hate listening to speeches to.... in stuffy atmospheres.
> I wonder, if the atmosphere was more informal, and it
> was more like a chat rather than a lecture, perhaps even
> interactive (fielding questions, etc) if it would be easier?
John Eliot Gardiner did an excellent job (with assists from the four
horners and from Robert Levin) -- in the first of his four Schumann
concerts last year. The others would have been improved if they'd also
had talks! It all seemed quite informal, but clearly had been
meticulously prepared, since he used musical examples done by the
orchestra. (No questions, though -- wouldn't have been practical in a
well-filled Alice Tully Hall. There was plenty of time for questions at
the Schumann symposia hosted by Daverio during the week.)
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
D.G. Porter
>
> In article <397B56FD...@scs.uiuc.edu>,
> Doug McDonald <mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >jbay...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> You might be surprised what a subculture of interest there is among
> >> university students in 20th century avant garde music.
> >
> >The comments I hear at concerts when sitting next to young people
> >are a strong support for this thesis. Stong snickers for people
> >like Schubert or Tschaikovsky, and lots of interest in Bartok,
> >the German atonalists, and post-1960 composers. And, I might add,
> >when the approval does come for the 19th century, it is for
> >things like the late Beethoven quartets.
> >
> >
> >And this is NOT just from music students. The performing arts
> >center here is across the street from the Music, Chemistry,
> >Biochemistry, and Biology departments. One hears these
> >comments just as much from people I recognize as chemists
> >and biochemists as from people who are presumably from Music.
>
> This may just reflect their tastes and preferences.
One of my fellow Ivesians (probably one of the best SCORE engravers
around) was in Cleveland for the Emerson Concerto premiere. He met some
college students (probably Case Western) at the intermission. They told
him they'd only come for the Ives, they were going home and skipping the
Beethoven. Maybe a matter of taste...
Andrys D Basten
>I hate listening to speeches to.... in stuffy atmospheres.
>I wonder, if the atmosphere was more informal, and it
>was more like a chat rather than a lecture, perhaps even
>interactive (fielding questions, etc) if it would be easier?
>
>(taking cover from the inevitable flames that will pound
>this view...)
Jeff Kahane, Director of the Los Angeles Chamber Players, and
of the Santa Rosa Symphony here, as well as a conductor in
various festivals and a wonderful pianist who even finds time to
take concerto engagements while doing the Goldberg Variations in
L.A., is another one whose brief talks a number of us really
appreciate.
I like the more informal (and informative) ones, the ones that
at least emulate humans talking to one another, and about music
at that. I have always found it odd, the ultra-formality and
the reverential quality from start to finish, though I like it
as quiet as can be during the playing of the music itself.
- A
--
Andrys Basten, CNE http://www.andrys.com/ PC Network Support
http://www.andrys.com/indox.html - Machu Picchu PhotoDiary w/Canon Elph
http://www.andrys.com/books.html -
Search VIDEOS, SHEET MUSIC, CDs, Gramophone reviews
http://www.andrys.com/freddyk.html - Freddy Kempf on CD
http://www.andrys.com/argerich.html - available Argerich recordings
Andrys D Basten
Andrys D Basten <and...@netcom.com> wrote:
> Jeff Kahane, Director of the Los Angeles Chamber Players, and
That's probably Director of the Los Angeles Chamber Orchestra, whatever
Iona Brown's group was... I always get this one mixed up, it's that split
California thing...
- Andrys
--
[null string]
F.B.
writes:
>
>HY (y...@frii.com) wrote:
>: Could it be that the concert atmosphere is too formal? Can
>: only the most educated, sophisticated, and cultured appreciate
>: the music, or are there ways for others to be let in?
>
>: What about the concert setting must be maintained and what is
>: open to change? Certainly silence must be maintained, and
>: good acoustics as well. Can the suits, ties, and seating be
>: rethought (I wouldn't mind swinging on a hammock myself)?
>: Can the mannerisms and stage presentation of the performers
>: be rethought?
>
>Definitely. How does dressing up help me appreciate music better?
>And how do musicians connect with listeners when they act like
>robots?
>
>
>
>
This is really only a 20th-century phenomena. In earlier centuries,
classical music was the day's popular music to a far greater exent than
it is now, and there was a far greater connection between the musicians
and the audience. Which goes to show you that although there *are*
some octegenarians bumbling about in here (and those of the mental
equivalent), they aren't old enough to know how it once really was.
Matt P
F.B.
This is the kind of idealizing of classical music that is killing it.
There is nothing inherent about classical music that makes it
"timeless." It is as tied to its own eras as music of any other style,
and of any other time. Beethoven's symphonies were strongly tied to
the ideals and events of his time. Some music of all genres can have
staying power, based on its cultural reinforcement, but it will
eventually die out when people and times change enough. New
compositions of classical music are far more important to the future of
the genre than making people listen to Mozart and Beethoven.
Matt P
F.B.
knuds...@aol.comERASEMME (Knudsen) writes:
>
>>Definitely. How does dressing up help me appreciate music better?
>>And how do musicians connect with listeners when they act like
>>robots?
>
silly
>gymnastics. A shallow idiot might need theatrics to be convinced that
someone
>is into it. For me, some of my most psychotically intense listening
experiences
>have so smashed my mind that I ended up utterly still and silent
completely
>enveloped by the infinite psychosis.
>
> A lame guy jumping on a stage might look impressive, but that has
nothing
>to do with true intensity.
>
recordings
stand up
>just to keep from exploding!
>
Theatrics can provide an important link between band and audience. The
current nature of the classical music performance is one of the aspects
of it that is killing it.
Matt P
David Cleary
: In <8ld2ag$s9e$1...@news.iastate.edu> kort...@iastate.edu (Josh Kortbein)
: writes:
:>Definitely. How does dressing up help me appreciate music better?
:>And how do musicians connect with listeners when they act like
:>robots?
: This is really only a 20th-century phenomena. In earlier centuries,
: classical music was the day's popular music to a far greater exent than
: it is now, and there was a far greater connection between the musicians
: and the audience.
That's more true of the Romantic and late Classical eras (and some
opera from the Baroque) than of earlier genres. A good bit of music
in the Baroque and earlier times was written for smaller, specialized
courtly or religious audiences, not large general audiences.
And even then, some music from the common practice period appears to
have been written for small groups of cognocenti. Beethoven's late
string quartets could be considered an example.
Dave
Knudsen
>current nature of the classical music performance is one of the aspects
>of it that is killing it.
>Matt P
Killing it for who exactly? The youth culture at large? I really don't mind
it when performers wear their "game faces". I'll argue that it's a greater mark
of concentration and intensity than any theatrics. If you want theatrics, go
watch a play. Really guy, try listening to some music for once instead of
obsessing over appearences. Sounds to me like you are more concerned with image
than the meat, in which case you really ought to look into other types of music
than "classical".
Knudsen
>stylistic
>>and technical boundries. When I listen to a Beethoven symphony, the
>power of
>>the inspiration is what moves me, not some devices belonging to such
>and such
>>an era. It sounds just as fresh to me as if it were written yesterday,
>and I am
>>not a geezer. New generations discover great music over and over. I
>firmly
>>believe that people who really appreciate these things don't belong in
>the "you
>>hate what your parents like then you get old and your kids hate what
>you like"
>>category. To me, that cliche is associated with mainstream music.
>Besides, even
>>if classical music were more well known, that doesn't mean many more
>people
>>will relate to it, as it does take a certain kind of person who digs
>deeper
>>than the average wank.
>
>This is the kind of idealizing of classical music that is killing it.
Actually, your brand of negativity is what is killing it. If you hate
"classical" so much and want it to die so badly, why are you even on this NG?
>There is nothing inherent about classical >music that makes it
>"timeless."
You're right. A "style" means squat. Of course, some of us listen to the
music instead of obsessing over the style. You might try it sometime, music is
very powerful in the right hands.
> It is as tied to its own eras as music of >any other style,
>and of any other time. Beethoven's >symphonies were strongly tied to
>the ideals and events of his time.
Alright... explain to me why we are still playing it and appreciating it
then? Why do I know many young people who love this music, despite it's age?
There are people who appreciate the finer things by nature, and to those
people, when something was made is not a factor of any consequence. I'm sorry
it's such an important factor to you! You are missing out on some wonderful
stuff.
> Some music of all genres can have
>staying power, based on its cultural reinforcement, but it will
>eventually die out when people and times change enough. New
>compositions of classical music are far more important to the future of
>the genre than making people listen to >Mozart and Beethoven.
I certainly agree that new compositions are important. However, thowing
out Beethoven pieces isn't going to accomplish anything.
People who argue that there isn't enough room for new pieces are full of
beans. I mean, there is enough room for the bazillions of hours of artificial
pop trash , bazillions of hours of worthless television dramas, crappy movies
and shitty magazines. Certainly there is plenty of room for more masterpieces.
The only difference now is that, the standards are higher for new pieces. I get
bored fast of people who waste their time doing technical tricks and calling it
"composing". I'd rather they push the inspiration and originality envelope than
play games and call it "originality".
Once a composer I had a conversation with argued that the field of
orchestral music is glutted with pieces. In my opinion, our pool of truly
mind-bendingly great works if pitifully small. This defeatist attitude of many
composers I know is getting "serious" music nowhere. Also, most all composers I
know share a common failing- they are overly influenced. They don't listen to
their "inner composer" and let the music come out in it's true form. Instead
they try to do this and that technique and sound like this and that thing. It's
nuts. Especially now that all the experimentalist tricks are losing their
novelty, you have to let inspiration be your guide. It's all we really have
nowadays, since all the stylistic barriers have been shattered. Now that we've
won that little battle, it's time to get back to work and produce pieces that
bend reality and shatter the brain.
And hey, if there is room for Beethoven's 4th, there is certainly room
for something else that is actually good! (::braces for attacks::)
F.B.
I love classical music and want it to flourish. I simply don't love it
to the exclusion of other music, like certain eggheads and
know-nothings in this group.
>
>>There is nothing inherent about classical >music that makes it
>>"timeless."
>
>> It is as tied to its own eras as music of >any other style,
>>and of any other time. Beethoven's >symphonies were strongly tied to
>>the ideals and events of his time.
>
> Alright... explain to me why we are still playing it and
appreciating it
>then? Why do I know many young people who love this music, despite
it's age?
>There are people who appreciate the finer things by nature, and to
those
>people, when something was made is not a factor of any consequence.
I'm sorry
>it's such an important factor to you! You are missing out on some
wonderful
>stuff.
Why do you say that? I own hundreds of classical recordings. I'm
talking about the big picture. At SOME point, it will become obsolete,
unless something new is done with it. It could take a long time, but
it stagnant art forms do die off.
>> Some music of all genres can have
>>staying power, based on its cultural reinforcement, but it will
>>eventually die out when people and times change enough. New
>>compositions of classical music are far more important to the future
of
>>the genre than making people listen to >Mozart and Beethoven.
>
> I certainly agree that new compositions are important. However,
thowing
>out Beethoven pieces isn't going to accomplish anything.
I'm not suggesting that we do throw them out; just that they will be
thrown out as a matter of consequence if classical music doesn't
thrive.
>
> People who argue that there isn't enough room for new pieces are
full of
>beans. I mean, there is enough room for the bazillions of hours of
artificial
>pop trash ,
I suppose all pop music is "trash?" It would be a huge error to assume
so.
bazillions of hours of worthless television dramas, crappy movies
>and shitty magazines. Certainly there is plenty of room for more
masterpieces.
>The only difference now is that, the standards are higher for new
pieces. I get
>bored fast of people who waste their time doing technical tricks and
calling it
>"composing". I'd rather they push the inspiration and originality
envelope than
>play games and call it "originality".
Me too. I don't think that music has to be technically dazzling to be
good at all.
>
> Once a composer I had a conversation with argued that the field
of
>orchestral music is glutted with pieces. In my opinion, our pool of
truly
>mind-bendingly great works if pitifully small. This defeatist attitude
of many
>composers I know is getting "serious" music nowhere. Also, most all
composers I
>know share a common failing- they are overly influenced. They don't
listen to
>their "inner composer" and let the music come out in it's true form.
Instead
>they try to do this and that technique and sound like this and that
thing. It's
>nuts. Especially now that all the experimentalist tricks are losing
their
>novelty, you have to let inspiration be your guide. It's all we really
have
>nowadays, since all the stylistic barriers have been shattered. Now
that we've
>won that little battle, it's time to get back to work and produce
pieces that
>bend reality and shatter the brain.
I agree. But, this may be a symptom that there is nothing much left to
do with classical music (not my own idea, but one that I've read from
learned sources at various times). If so, then it really is a dying
genre.
Matt P
HY
>John Eliot Gardiner did an excellent job (with assists from the four
>horners and from Robert Levin) -- in the first of his four Schumann
>concerts last year. The others would have been improved if they'd also
>had talks! It all seemed quite informal, but clearly had been
>meticulously prepared, since he used musical examples done by the
>orchestra.
Hey, how do you guys feel about that? Is it obnoxious or condescending
to play musical samples for the audience while you chat? Music is kinda
abstract; I really think a little sample communicates better than trying to
describe a motif or dotted rhythm that only musicians would understand.
On the other hand, I bet a hopelessly chatty player would really be
irritating.
Not everyone is gifted in that way, I suppose, but I wish the atmosphere
was more inviting to that sort of thing. Nowdays, it seems almost like it's
adversarial ("they're out there counting my mistakes!") and I'd feel out of
place to step up and say something. It's as if every performance was a
competition or audition: perhaps a distinctly different atmosphere could
be set up for sessions that are more about communication.
So, whaddya think? One atmosphere that's about rating the player, where
it's more formal and perhaps even a little tense, and a distinctly different
atmosphere that's more about sharing music, informal and cooperative?
Knudsen
>to the exclusion of other music, like certain eggheads and
>know-nothings in this group.
I hope you don't include me in that group. I've never been a believer in
the "genre" concept.
>At SOME point, it will become obsolete,
Well yeah, at some point a meteorite might hit the earth and blow
everything to hell, and at some point the sun will explode.
>room for the bazillions of hours of
>artificial
>>pop trash ,
>
>I suppose all pop music is "trash?" It would be a huge error to assume
>so.
Of course, when I said pop trash, I meant pop that IS trash, as opposed to
good pop. I could run off a list of all the "rock" music I have if you'd like.
I was just making a point that people have time for the endless glut of numbing
mush of all types that is produced like a never-ending shit farm. Therefor,
it's reasonable to say that there is plenty of room for new "serious" music of
any style. The word "serious" is inadequate for what I mean but you get the
idea.
>I agree. But, this may be a symptom that there is nothing much left to
>do with classical music (not my own idea, but one that I've read from
>learned sources at various times)
"learned" sources are famous for being full of shit. Take some guy who
can't compose anyhing good or original. Alright, it must not be his fault
right? It must be because there is no music of explosive caliber left to be
made. Gimme a break! What we've heard so far is just the tip of the iceberg. If
someone wants to take the defeatist attitude that nothing more can be done with
music, they need to get a life. Even from a mathematical standpoint, the
musical possibilities remaining are incomprehensibly vast.
It's my opinion that many composers today use these ideas as an excuse to
not get anything worthwhile done. It's easy to blame history when you suck.
Fact is, they are just too chickenshit to take on the giants of the past and
become the new giants.
Remember that even as Beethoven worked, there were lesser composers
turning out countles mediocre scores. It's the same way now. Most of it is
pleasantly average, much of it sucks, and some is good, and a tiny percentage
is extroidinary. Just because most of it is worthless doesn't mean that music
is dead.
I say "music" because the concept of "classical" is certainly outmoded. You're
right about that. But regardless of genres and forms, the underlying
compositional power that fueled the best works in these forms is still intact
in certain people. It's an undefinable reaching for something greater, more
sublime, more potent, more transcendental. This is not idealizing, these are
real experiences that arise from the music.
F.B.
knuds...@aol.comERASEMME (Knudsen) writes:
>
>>I simply don't love it
>>to the exclusion of other music, like certain eggheads and
>>know-nothings in this group.
>
believer in
>the "genre" concept.
I didn't know either way. Now I know. :)
>
>>At SOME point, it will become obsolete,
>
> Well yeah, at some point a meteorite might hit the earth and blow
>everything to hell, and at some point the sun will explode.
I've read some interesting things about cultural artifacts and how they
sustain or lose their significance. It may take another hundred or two
hundred years (or hundreds more) but if society changes enough, the
artifacts of past societies will have less and less impact on the
current ones.
>>room for the bazillions of hours of
>>artificial
>>>pop trash ,
>>
>>I suppose all pop music is "trash?" It would be a huge error to
assume
>>so.
>
> Of course, when I said pop trash, I meant pop that IS trash, as
opposed to
>good pop. I could run off a list of all the "rock" music I have if
you'd like.
>I was just making a point that people have time for the endless glut
of numbing
>mush of all types that is produced like a never-ending shit farm.
Therefor,
>it's reasonable to say that there is plenty of room for new "serious"
music of
>any style. The word "serious" is inadequate for what I mean but you
get the
>idea.
Now I do, yes.
>
>>I agree. But, this may be a symptom that there is nothing much left
to
>>do with classical music (not my own idea, but one that I've read from
>>learned sources at various times)
>
> "learned" sources are famous for being full of shit.
Of course they are. But since I didn't want the idea to come out like
I made it up this morning over breakfast, I figured I'd at least point
out that other people who think about this stuff a lot more than me
have made the same observation.
Take some guy who
>can't compose anyhing good or original. Alright, it must not be his
fault
>right? It must be because there is no music of explosive caliber left
to be
>made. Gimme a break! What we've heard so far is just the tip of the
iceberg. If
>someone wants to take the defeatist attitude that nothing more can be
done with
>music, they need to get a life.
I'm not taking that view at all; I'm just saying that the state of
classical music today is at least evidence of the possibility of it.
Similar things have happened in other forms of music subsequent to
classical, in fairly similar ways. Jazz went from being structured and
melodic to being more free-form and atonal. Progressive rock, the
strain of rock music that most significantly appropriated classical
music forms and aesthetics, quickly moved from more "classical" forms
and textures and melodies, and moved into dissonance and atonality and
minimalism (from Yes and Genesis to latter King Crimson and Henry Cow
to Brian Eno).
It seems as if the final creative stage of these broad music forms were
roughly similar. Currently in Jazz, there are numerous bands that
hybridize different established styles and come up with something new
in the mix (Medeski Martin and Wood), and others that try to find
something new to say with old ideas (Dirty Dozen Brass Band), much more
so than there are jazz bands trying to do something new.
Little new in rock music, arguably, has happened since about 1985,
except in the fringe genres of techno, dance, and electronic music,
which I don't really consider "rock" anyway.
Often, the principal difference in many rock bands isn't *whether* they
rip off the past, but in their execution of it: less creative bands
slavishly cop other bands' styles and sound but try to pass it off as
their own (Oasis, Matchbox 20), but the more creative find new
inspiration within the skeletal structures of the old (Wilco,
Pavement). In any event, Wilco owes just as much of a debt to the past
as Oasis, despite the fact that I think that they are light-years ahead
in creativity.
As far as classical music, I would certainly agree with your suggestion
that new composers pay less attention to making a stylistic signature
of technique simply because they feel they *have* to do so (like the
PhD writing endless reams of BS simply because you have to take a
position not previously taken to get published), although if classical
music is to continue to "progress" some people will have to apply their
talents in this area.
Even from a mathematical standpoint, the
>musical possibilities remaining are incomprehensibly vast.
>
> It's my opinion that many composers today use these ideas as an
excuse to
>not get anything worthwhile done. It's easy to blame history when you
suck.
I imagine that right now is as difficult a time as any to separate the
good stuff from the mediocre.
>Fact is, they are just too chickenshit to take on the giants of the
past and
>become the new giants.
>
> Remember that even as Beethoven worked, there were lesser
composers
>turning out countles mediocre scores. It's the same way now.
I'd be interested in hearing a lot of the little-known contemporaries
to Beethoven. It is entirely possible that they wrote some fine stuff,
but it got lost in the shuffle when the people in the ivory towers made
their canon.
Matt P
Peter T. Daniels
Well: it was a bit of a special occasion. It was billed slightly
differently from the other three concerts (so the audience knew what it
was getting), and the featured works (besides the Konzertstück) were the
first version of the Piano Concerto and the last version of the 4th
Symphony (that's the one with two versions, isn't it?); the differences
between the versions was the point of the concert. (It was especially
remarkable that Levin played both concerts -- and all the examples --
from memory. Considering that the differences can be fairly subtle, how
could he be sure of not accidentally slipping into the wrong one?)
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
What we need is a line of Classical Music Breakfast Cereals, e.g.
Berli-O's (or Fideli-O's)
Corn Golds
And so on. They could offer classical CDs for anyone who sends in enough
Bax tops.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"What I do object to is uninformed malicious pandering to low level
uncouthness, even if it comes from the holiest of lands, Israel!"
-- Kenneth Lane, Wagnerian Romantischer Heldenspammer
F.B.
>
>
>What we need is a line of Classical Music Breakfast Cereals, e.g.
>
>Berli-O's (or Fideli-O's)
>Corn Golds
>
>And so on. They could offer classical CDs for anyone who sends in
enough
>Bax tops.
I'll nominate Apple Bachs.
Matt P
Dr.Matt
The 20th century was a good one for cereal music.
Dr.Matt
Dr.Matt <fie...@login.itd.umich.edu> wrote:
>In article <8llsnr$56j$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>,
>F.B. <ltri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In <8llrk2$7vc$5...@news.huji.ac.il> <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>What we need is a line of Classical Music Breakfast Cereals, e.g.
>>>
>>>Berli-O's (or Fideli-O's)
>>>Corn Golds
>>>
>>>And so on. They could offer classical CDs for anyone who sends in
>>enough
>>>Bax tops.
>>
>>I'll nominate Apple Bachs.
>>
>>Matt P
>
>The 20th century was a good one for cereal music.
We'll all go chopin for them when you've assembled the Chopin Liszt.
Abelard2
>I say "music" because the concept of "classical" is certainly outmoded.
>You're
>right about that. But regardless of genres and forms, the underlying
>compositional power that fueled the best works in these forms is still intact
>in certain people. It's an undefinable reaching for something greater, more
>sublime, more potent, more transcendental. This is not idealizing, these are
>real experiences that arise from the music.
The concept of "classical" is not outmoded, merely lost, as it was in Europe
between the time of the destruction of Classical Grecian culture, and the
re-introduction of those ideas to Europe, via the Islamic world, through Spain.
Whenever they are re-discovered, and improved upon, there are rapid advances,
not only in the arts and sciences, but in the standards of living, and the
degree of political freedom, for all concerned.
It is difficult to discern whether "the underlying compositional power that
fueled the best works in these forms is still intact
in certain people," since the surrounding culture stifles its development.
Talented performers like Yo-Yo Ma wind up capitulating to the general crap, by
doing MTV-style erotic videos of Bach performances, or playing jazz.
You will know that classical ideas are returning, when the " reaching for
something greater, more sublime, more potent, more transcendental," is no
longer "undefinable."
abelard2
the Davidsbündler site
http://members.aol.com/abelard2/dave.htm
brgg
food factory stopped making Tonic and started making Cereal?
-Bruce
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Dr.Matt
brgg <bruce.reca...@gsa.gov.invalid> wrote:
>fie...@login.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote:
>>The 20th century was a good one for cereal music.
>Wasn't it Doug Hofstadter (GEB) who asserted that the Schonberg
>food factory stopped making Tonic and started making Cereal?
>-Bruce
Part of this complete breakfast!
Knudsen
>fueled the best works in these forms is still intact
>in certain people," since the surrounding culture stifles its development.
The culture does stifle it's development at every turn. Howver, the
UNDERLYING power is still there is certain pople, and it isn't difficult to
discern if you know someone who has it or ARE someone who has it.
ralphg...@my-deja.com
abel...@aol.comspamless (Abelard2) wrote:
> Talented performers like Yo-Yo Ma wind up capitulating to the general
crap, by
> doing MTV-style erotic videos of Bach performances, or playing jazz.
My generic formula for popular or romantic music: "I have a good/bad
feeling about a girl/a guy/myself/something I saw on TV." Add an
element of the grotesque, and you could be a Romantic Wagnerian
Heldentenor.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
jbay...@my-deja.com
ltri...@ix.netcom.com(F.B.) wrote:
> In <20000725231409...@ng-fd1.aol.com>
> knuds...@aol.comERASEMME (Knudsen) writes:
> >>room for the bazillions of hours of
> >>artificial
> >>>pop trash ,
> >>
> >>I suppose all pop music is "trash?" It would be a huge error to
> assume
> >>so.
Just so ya know, taste = "a huge error".
> >
> > Of course, when I said pop trash, I meant pop that IS trash, as
> opposed to
> >good pop. I could run off a list of all the "rock" music I have if
> you'd like.
Don't.
> >I was just making a point that people have time for the endless glut
> of numbing
> >mush of all types that is produced like a never-ending shit farm.
LOL. Yep.
> Therefor,
> >it's reasonable to say that there is plenty of room for new "serious"
> music of
> >any style. The word "serious" is inadequate for what I mean but you
> get the
> >idea.
>
> Now I do, yes.
Well, that makes one of us.
There's been plenty of "serious" crap.
J
jbay...@my-deja.com
fie...@login.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote:
> In article <05349558...@usw-ex0105-040.remarq.com>,
> brgg <bruce.reca...@gsa.gov.invalid> wrote:
> >fie...@login.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote:
> >>The 20th century was a good one for cereal music.
> >Wasn't it Doug Hofstadter (GEB) who asserted that the Schonberg
> >food factory stopped making Tonic and started making Cereal?
> >-Bruce
>
> Part of this complete breakfast!
Hey! Let's give it to Matty. He likes everything. ;-/
John
Dr.Matt
>In article <eLFf5.795$ks4....@news.itd.umich.edu>,
> fie...@login.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote:
>> In article <05349558...@usw-ex0105-040.remarq.com>,
>> brgg <bruce.reca...@gsa.gov.invalid> wrote:
>> >fie...@login.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote:
>> >>The 20th century was a good one for cereal music.
>> >Wasn't it Doug Hofstadter (GEB) who asserted that the Schonberg
>> >food factory stopped making Tonic and started making Cereal?
>> >-Bruce
>>
>> Part of this complete breakfast!
>
>Hey! Let's give it to Matty. He likes everything. ;-/
Whereas John Harrington can't start the day without a gin and tonic.
F.B.
>
>In article <eLFf5.795$ks4....@news.itd.umich.edu>,
> fie...@login.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote:
>> In article <05349558...@usw-ex0105-040.remarq.com>,
>> brgg <bruce.reca...@gsa.gov.invalid> wrote:
>> >fie...@login.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote:
>> >>The 20th century was a good one for cereal music.
>> >Wasn't it Doug Hofstadter (GEB) who asserted that the Schonberg
>> >food factory stopped making Tonic and started making Cereal?
>> >-Bruce
>>
>> Part of this complete breakfast!
>
>Hey! Let's give it to Matty. He likes everything. ;-/
>
I'm very discriminating. I only have time for the best.
Matt P
Howell
Matt,
You might want to keep in mind that critics have made that claim throughout
different eschatological periods in Western musical history. It’s
something of a tired old cliché. Such was particularly noteworthy during
Beethoven’s career precisely because of what he, Rossini, Cherubini, and
some others were doing. A lot of people thought that their works were
proof of music gasping on its last breath.
It certainly seems clear that we are indeed in some sort of changing mode
or turning period in music, but an actual end of musical ideas is another
matter, in my opinion. I think we have a few composers demonstrating quite
clearly that no such issue is before us.
--
Franklin Howell
Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
-- Emo Phillips
No Name
>> A form of music that does not add anything new will eventually become
>> obselete.
>
>and technical boundries. When I listen to a Beethoven symphony, the power of
>the inspiration is what moves me, not some devices belonging to such and such
>an era. It sounds just as fresh to me as if it were written yesterday, and I am
>not a geezer. New generations discover great music over and over. I firmly
>believe that people who really appreciate these things don't belong in the "you
>hate what your parents like then you get old and your kids hate what you like"
>category. To me, that cliche is associated with mainstream music. Besides, even
>if classical music were more well known, that doesn't mean many more people
>will relate to it, as it does take a certain kind of person who digs deeper
>than the average wank.
Do you think Beethoven was the only composer of his time? Obviously no. But
most of the composers of his time have been all but forgotten. So that music
will (or is already) lost. Does it hurt? No, IMHO.
You can apply this to any historic time.
Now, in 2000 years, most probably people will have to decide what music do they
prefer from around the years 1800-2000, and Beethoven, Wagner, Stravinsky,
Shostakovich and Britten will all be in the same bag: some of them will be
forgotten (the insight of time telling people who is most
valuable to the human experience) and some of them will still be remembered.
For ever? Of course not, "ever" is a word used very simplisticaly. Eventualy
in lets say 20000 years maybe only one or two of todays revered somposers
will be still remembered.
No Name
>Sealy wrote in message ...
>>This topic of conversation has been done to death not only in this
>newsgroup
>>but in other forms of media. Instead of lamenting about the death of
>>classical music..because, um..folks, it may be dying, but it sure as ain't
>>dead yet..perhaps people need to be coming up with ways to make sure it
>>lives on.
>>
>
>Could it be that the concert atmosphere is too formal? Can
>only the most educated, sophisticated, and cultured appreciate
>the music, or are there ways for others to be let in?
Classical music implies the willingnes to learn at least the
basics, and the more you learn the more you enjoy, without
this one only touches the surface of the art.
>
>What about the concert setting must be maintained and what is
>open to change? Certainly silence must be maintained, and
>good acoustics as well. Can the suits, ties, and seating be
>rethought (I wouldn't mind swinging on a hammock myself)?
>Can the mannerisms and stage presentation of the performers
>be rethought?
I have never been in a place were formal dressing is required, in
many places it is just the false expectations of concerts goers
but nothing or anybody forces them to dress this or that way.
Of course something can be done about it anyway, The Proms in
London is a great example. The organizers make a point out of
stressing that the atmosphere is informal and thus it is not
unusal to see backpackers, back pack included, in the concerts,
which are all sell outs usually.
>
>To lighten this point, here's something by Richard Sherrif from
>his Belfast review of the Raphael Ensemble.
>
>------
>
>
>AS ANYBODY will tell you, the closest I usually get to culture is each
>morning as I dodge the revolting black gubbins which is slowly consuming my
>shower curtain. No-one was more surprised than I, therefore, to find myself
>sitting in the Elmwood Hall on Saturday evening listening to a recital of
>chamber music by The Raphael Ensemble; one of the more esoteric offerings of
>the Belfast Festival. Classical music is something with which I'm usually on
>nodding terms only, but what the hell I thought, it's festival time and
>classical music, like vegetables, is something everyone should endure once
>in a while.
>
>The first thing to realise is that going to a recital is a Very Serious
>Business. Having eight pints beforehand as a warm-up to the main event, for
>example, would not be seen as entirely acceptable but, naturally sensitive
>to these subtle nuances, I made sure I limited myself to two bottles of the
>finest red wine I could get for under two quid. Anyhow, true to form the
>artistes duly arrived on stage looking suitably serious and without a word
>sat down. After arranging hair, long and straight for the ladies and tails,
>long and straight for the men, they started playing. No "Hello Belfast it's
>great to be here." No "Hope you like this one it's off the latest album."
>Not even "Good evening ladies and gentlemen." Not a word the whole night.
>Just a lot of bowing and faintly superior grins.
>
>But the music was gorgeous. I have never heard of Anton Bruckner who died
>100 years ago and I am equally knowledgeable about Schubert. thanks to the
>programme (b.l797; d. 1828.) From the first few notes of each piece,
>Quintets in F and C Major respectively, however, it was obvious that this
>was powerful stuff. Just to sit 15 feet away from five people playing in
>such perfect pitch and harmony was a completely new experience and I can
>honestly say it was fantastic, right up until the during the Adagio where I
>nodded off. I know it's a cliche. but the piece was so damn relaxing it was
>unavoidable, though I had a stern word with myself during the interval.
>
>There were obviously also complaints from the audience that second violinist
>Catherine Manson's hair wasn't long and straight enough as, for the second
>piece, she was substituted for Michael Stirling. It was, of course, because
>the Schubert piece called for two cellos and only one violin, as we later
>worked out, but finally we get to the point. This is good stuff, you get a
>warm seat and, in the case of the Raphael Ensemble apparently, one of the
>best chamber orchestras on the go. But it's overly polite, it's stiff and it
>isn't reaching half the audience it could be. It's absolutely irrelevant
>that the "structural arch" of the Bruckner piece was "rounded off even more
>convincingly and established a quasi-symphonic unity" Apart from massaging a
>few intellectual egos it achieves nothing except to keep classical music
>impenetrable and put people off exploring a wonderful live experience.
>
>
>
>
>
And what does he want? That they come jumping and making acrobatics with
their instruments?
No Name
>> I don't agree. I believe that what is great in music trancends
>>stylistic
>>>and technical boundries. When I listen to a Beethoven symphony, the
>>power of
>>>the inspiration is what moves me, not some devices belonging to such
>>and such
>>>an era. It sounds just as fresh to me as if it were written yesterday,
>>and I am
>>>not a geezer. New generations discover great music over and over. I
>>firmly
>>>believe that people who really appreciate these things don't belong in
>>the "you
>>>hate what your parents like then you get old and your kids hate what
>>you like"
>>>category. To me, that cliche is associated with mainstream music.
>>Besides, even
>>>if classical music were more well known, that doesn't mean many more
>>people
>>>will relate to it, as it does take a certain kind of person who digs
>>deeper
>>>than the average wank.
>>
>
> Actually, your brand of negativity is what is killing it. If you hate
>"classical" so much and want it to die so badly, why are you even on this NG?
Even some of Beethoven's or Mozart's music is not played anymore. Music
is not a museum thing, it is a live, fluid experience, and as anything
fluid in time it changes with it.
>
>>There is nothing inherent about classical >music that makes it
>>"timeless."
>
> You're right. A "style" means squat. Of course, some of us listen to the
>music instead of obsessing over the style. You might try it sometime, music is
>very powerful in the right hands.
>
>> It is as tied to its own eras as music of >any other style,
>>and of any other time. Beethoven's >symphonies were strongly tied to
>>the ideals and events of his time.
>
> Alright... explain to me why we are still playing it and appreciating it
>then?
For each composer still played today there are 100 that
nobody cares to listen to.
And that will continue to happen. There could be a time when Mozart,
Beethoven or Stravinsky don't mean anything to anybody anymore
in as much as some very old music or music from other cultures, does not
say anything to a westerner.
TIme makes culture differ as distance once did, and for many
a Gamelang or classical Indian ensemble is already incomprehensible,
so what can 2000 years more could do to the standing of Mozart or
Beethoven? Who knows, but to pressume that they will talk to
those people as warmly as they talk to us know is absoulutely
ludicrous.
> Why do I know many young people who love this music, despite it's age?
Because it is music still reltively close to our daily experience,
we can still relate to it.
>There are people who appreciate the finer things by nature, and to those
>people, when something was made is not a factor of any consequence. I'm sorry
>it's such an important factor to you! You are missing out on some wonderful
>stuff.
Oh yes, I am sure a caveman could say the same about his music to us.
No, music serves a time and a purpose, and some music is so
good that it does so for longer, but surely not for ever.
>
>> Some music of all genres can have
>>staying power, based on its cultural reinforcement, but it will
>>eventually die out when people and times change enough. New
>>compositions of classical music are far more important to the future of
>>the genre than making people listen to >Mozart and Beethoven.
>
> I certainly agree that new compositions are important. However, thowing
>out Beethoven pieces isn't going to accomplish anything.
>
> People who argue that there isn't enough room for new pieces are full of
>beans. I mean, there is enough room for the bazillions of hours of artificial
>pop trash , bazillions of hours of worthless television dramas, crappy movies
>and shitty magazines. Certainly there is plenty of room for more masterpieces.
>The only difference now is that, the standards are higher for new pieces. I get
>bored fast of people who waste their time doing technical tricks and calling it
>"composing". I'd rather they push the inspiration and originality envelope than
>play games and call it "originality".
>
> Once a composer I had a conversation with argued that the field of
>orchestral music is glutted with pieces. In my opinion, our pool of truly
>mind-bendingly great works if pitifully small. This defeatist attitude of many
>composers I know is getting "serious" music nowhere. Also, most all composers I
>know share a common failing- they are overly influenced. They don't listen to
>their "inner composer" and let the music come out in it's true form. Instead
Perhaps the form known to the Western world has been taken to the limits!
Perhaps there is nothing truly original in western clasical style left
to be compossed.
Perhaps music needs to be reinivented (and I think all the people
experimenting out there is what they are trying to do: reinvent
music, to find the new language that will speak to us and the future
generations as Beethoven or Mozart has been speaking to many people
for 200 years, but to some that language sound tired and well and
good, we can't speak Mozart and Beethoven forever!).
>they try to do this and that technique and sound like this and that thing. It's
>nuts. Especially now that all the experimentalist tricks are losing their
>novelty, you have to let inspiration be your guide. It's all we really have
Inspiration to write what? A new tune in th style of the 1800's, 1900's?
Nobody will listen because it will not satisfy our musical needs.
We need music for our spiritual sustenance, most people take junk food,
some others take exquisite banquets, the same all the time. Some other
are busy in the kitchen making a mes out of it, but that is the only
way they will surprise our musical tastes with the new great
recipe we will adore for the years to come.
>nowadays, since all the stylistic barriers have been shattered. Now that we've
>won that little battle, it's time to get back to work and produce pieces that
>bend reality and shatter the brain.
In which style? WIth which techniques?
>
> And hey, if there is room for Beethoven's 4th, there is certainly room
>for something else that is actually good! (::braces for attacks::)
A lot of LvB music is forgotten for good. The more time it passes, the more
will be forgotten, until only the absolutley necessary is left, for a
while, until LvB no longer speaks to the humans then alive.
Knudsen
>is not a museum thing, it is a live, fluid experience,
Which is my point exactly
>and as anything
>fluid in time it changes with it.
Actually, I think you are wrong. I think it changes radically each and
every time we listen to it.
>For each composer still played today there are 100 that
>nobody cares to listen to.
So what? Not everyone can be good.
>There could be a time when Mozart,
>Beethoven or Stravinsky don't mean >anything to anybody anymore
Yes, but you doom-types always say it's going to happen tommorow.
>in as much as some very old music or music from other cultures, does not
>say anything to a westerner.
Perhaps not to you. I find music from the present and from the dim past
valid. You see, I listen and experience music as music, as opposed to some kind
of cultural nonsense. I realize that some people are too stuffy and acedemic to
"feel" music.
>TIme makes culture differ as distance once did, and for many
>a Gamelang or classical Indian ensemble is already incomprehensible,
Bud, to the majority of people in the world anything beyond a basic tune is
incomprehensible.
>so what can 2000 years more could do to the standing of Mozart or
>Beethoven? Who knows, but to pressume that they will talk to
>those people as warmly as they talk to us know is absoulutely
>ludicrous.
And you know the future?
I was raised with zero exposure to music other than garbage metal and
such. I discovered "classical" pieces on my own, with no knowledge of how old
they were. In fact early on I thought they were considerably older than they
actually were. Point is, it doesn't matter if you like the music. If nobody
likes anything from today in 2000 years, that's fine, but it is quite possible
that someone will, given access to it.
>Because it is music still reltively close to our daily experience,
>we can still relate to it.
To me, the greatest music is so far removed from daily experience that this
comment strikes me as superficial. If I want "daily experience" I'll listen to
"working for a living" or something ridiculous.
>Oh yes, I am sure a caveman could say >the same about his music to us.
It's true enough that we might evolve into something completely different
and more advanced.
However... I would be keenly interested to hear our earliest music
composed by our ancenstors. To me, it would be a highly valid experience,
considering that for all our evolution, at the core we are still alot closer to
animals than we like to admit.
>No, music serves a time and a purpose,
Some music. Other music is just music for the sake of music. If you really
want ultilitarian music, try the soundtrack groups where you may find things
that are better suited to your personal experience of music.
>and some music is so
>good that it does so for longer, but surely not for ever.
Since nothing is forever, you doom guys don't bother me. I know full well
that the world might be destroyed tommorow. But I still don't agree that
"classical" music is anywhere close to "dying".
>Perhaps the form known to the Western >world has been taken to the limits!
Perhaps you know jack shit about composition and inspiration. Sorry, there
is plenty more to be done besides "Ode To Joy"
>Perhaps there is nothing truly original in >western clasical style left
>to be compossed.
This is silly, because two works that we label as "classical" can actually
be two totally different styles. It's just a label, man. I can't believe you'd
be so superficial as to take a label seriously. I'm talking about "serious"
music in a broader sense. I don't give a rats ass about the "genre" it
supposedly belongs too.
If you take your comment further, you might as well say that nothing truly
original can be composed at all, since we only use a handful of notes as our
raw materials. In fact, I suppose nothing truly original has ever been
composed. Simply because it uses notes it must be part of a tired and worn out
style. In fact, music itself is dying, and in a few thousand years we won't
even know what music is.
>Perhaps music needs to be reinivented
Actually, music needs to be inspired and good. The reinvention comes about
naturally if you listen to your inner composer. Trying to reinvent for the sake
of reinventing is a good way to produce alot of worthless phony music.
>reinvent
>music, to find the new language that will speak to us and the future
>generations
It doesn't really matter, because future generations are going to have
their equivalent to todays trash radio, and the majority isn't going to give a
crap about things that go someplace special.
>but to some that language sound tired and well and
>good, we can't speak Mozart and Beethoven forever!).
That's why we have music from composers before Mozart and Beethoven, as
well as music from composers after Mozart and Beethoven, right up until this
very instant. Great music transcends stylistic and historic boundries, EVEN IF
NO ONE APPRECIATES THEM. Because someone wants it to die so badly doesn't
lessen the inherent power. You see, as a composer, I believe (I KNOW) that a
piece of music has an inherent power in itself, that it is it's own world, and
that this world exists independent of petty opinions.
Knudsen
>Nobody will listen because it will not satisfy our musical needs.
I never suggested writing a tune in the style of the 1800's. I suggest
writing music containing whatever stylistic traits it wants to have. We are in
a great position to do that these days, since the experimentalists trashed so
much of the rigid stylistic rules. Now we can let music come out in a purer and
greater form.
>mes out of it, but that is the only
>way they will surprise our musical tastes with the new great
>recipe we will adore for the years to come.
But that's not how I think, and I think it's realistic to suppose that
there are others like me who love music on a truly direct level and don't let
mass opinions and fashion trends dictate out listening habits.
>it's time to get back to work and produce pieces that
>>bend reality and shatter the brain.
>In which style? WIth which techniques?
You are really obsessed with technique aren't you? The answer is that the
style and technique should be a natural outgrowth of the musical material,
rather than having the music dictated by the technique.
Seriously, you're missing the point. The superficial aspects of music
aren't especially important. It's the meat that counts. Are you really going to
argue that the meat is of secondary importance? Of course, even if you are a
technical sort who doesn't care about the meat, "classical" music is still a
good thing, since it gives you lots of technical ear candy. So even if you
can't feel music, it's still good to listen to this stuff because it gives the
analytical mind much more to bite into.
Knudsen
>valuable to the human experience) and some of them will still be remembered.
>For ever? Of course not, "ever" is a word used very simplisticaly. Eventualy
>in lets say 20000 years maybe only one or two of todays revered somposers
>will be still remembered.
Finally someone makes sense. It's not a question of "IF". I mean, everything
disintegrates evetually, even planets, suns, hell maybe even the universe. But
for practical purposes, alot of great music is going to thrive for quite a long
time. There are always people who value things that go the extra mile and
deliver the inspirational 1-2 punch.
Knudsen
>or turning period in music, but an actual end of musical ideas is another
>matter, in my opinion. I think we have a few composers demonstrating quite
>clearly that no such issue is before us.
You're right Frank. The issue is one created by people who seem to get a
negative idea and then spend days convincing themselves that it's true. There
is no evidence that all composers of today are somehow inferior. All we've seen
is what we've always seen: There are alot of mediocre composers, and a few
really special ones.
People who claim there is no music being produced today that is of an
equal or greater caliber than that composed in the recent past simply haven't
been exposed to any great contemporary composers.
HY
No Name wrote in message <8lsgse$cj1$1...@news.ml.com>...
>>Could it be that the concert atmosphere is too formal? Can
>>only the most educated, sophisticated, and cultured appreciate
>>the music, or are there ways for others to be let in?
>
>Classical music implies the willingnes to learn at least the
>basics, and the more you learn the more you enjoy, without
>this one only touches the surface of the art.
>
Ah yes, I don't think anyone will debate that the more you know,
the more you'll be able to get out of the music. But where do you
start? What motivates you to that first lesson? How many who
have the capacity to love the genre never take that first step? Is
it possible to enjoy music at different levels, or is understanding
of major, minor, motifs, etc a prerequisite for enjoying classical?
If you can't enjoy classical music without understanding these
things, what would motivate you to study them?
>
>I have never been in a place were formal dressing is required, in
>many places it is just the false expectations of concerts goers
>but nothing or anybody forces them to dress this or that way.
>
It is true this is rarely required, but it remains the overall
impression that many take back from the concert hall: a
place where, in their youth, their parents made them sit
still for a very long time for something that seemed very
stuffy and boring. My memories were somewhat
different: sitting in my room, quietly playing with puzzles
and other things, while my father's quartet flooded the
house with gorgeous music.
>
>And what does he want? That they come jumping and making acrobatics with
>their instruments?
I don't recall that his recommendations being that radical,
but that piece was just included for a bit of humor.
Abelard2
> People who claim there is no music being produced today that is of an
>equal or greater caliber than that composed in the recent past simply haven't
>been exposed to any great contemporary composers.
If, by "recent past," you mean the last century or so, then that's nothing to
write home about. Richard Strauss' oboe concerto, written in 1945, isn't so
bad; but I haven't heard any music, of equal or greater caliber, produced
today.
And needless to say, it is quite possible that people who make the
aforementioned claims, haven't been exposed to any great contemporary
composers. I certainly haven't been exposed to any.
Dr.Matt
Quitcher Bitchin and write it yourself.
Or look around at what folks are calling "great" and develop your own
opinion.
Abelard2
writes:
>Quitcher Bitchin and write it yourself.
>Or look around at what folks are calling "great" and develop your own
>opinion.
Actually, I do write. But, I have no illusions that I am the next Beethoven.
Even the great Brahms had no such illusions. I have heard what "folks are
calling 'great'," in the comtemporary field, and I am not impressed. That is
my opinion, in its current state of development. If you want to listen to a
composition of mine, it can be found as a .wav file at
http://members.aol.com/abelard2/song.htm
But as far as I am concerned, the question of What Can We Do to Save Classical
Music? is still a vital topic of discussion.
Dr.Matt
Abelard2 <abel...@aol.comspamless> wrote:
> fie...@login.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt), in an uncharacteristic outburst,
>writes:
>
>>Quitcher Bitchin and write it yourself.
>>Or look around at what folks are calling "great" and develop your own
>>opinion.
>
>Actually, I do write. But, I have no illusions that I am the next Beethoven.
>Even the great Brahms had no such illusions. I have heard what "folks are
>calling 'great'," in the comtemporary field, and I am not impressed. That is
>my opinion, in its current state of development. If you want to listen to a
>composition of mine, it can be found as a .wav file at
>http://members.aol.com/abelard2/song.htm
Cute...
>But as far as I am concerned, the question of What Can We Do to Save Classical
>Music? is still a vital topic of discussion.
Make classical music. Enjoy it. The enjoyment will be infectious.
Nu?
A tiny bit of my music may be heard in mp3 at
http://www.umich.edu/~fields/audio/s18.mp3 (text is Shakespeare's 18th
sonnet, file is about 2.7 Mb); a larger bit is in MIDI at
http://www.umich.edu/~fields/sages/Sages_I.mid (chamber orchestra piece
called "Sages of Chelm I: Khutzpah", file is about 600 Kb).
Anyhow, I've heard lots of truely great stuff in the "contemporary
field", and the neat thing about it is that there's so many different
kinds of it.