modern "classical" music
Jon Bell
bob puharic <wf...@enter.net> wrote:
>what the hell is up with contemporary "classical" music. by this i
>mean the atonal material like schoenberg, ives, etc.
Uh... Schoenberg and Ives have been dead for over fifty years. They're
hardly "contemporary", by my definition. :-)
For "contemporary", try Henryk Gorecki, Arvo Part, John Adams, etc. (in a
"minimalist" vein); or Robert Simpson, Vagn Holmboe, David Diamond, etc.
(in a non-minimalist, more or less traditional vein). There are also
non-minimalist, non-traditionalists like Boulez, Carter, Messiaen, etc.,
but I'm guessing that you wouldn't be interested in them.
(Ok, I cheated a bit because Holmboe died a couple of months ago... but
he was working almost up until the end.)
>I truly like
>abstract expressionism, and pop art, but this music leaves me
>absolutely cold.
That's OK. Different people have different tastes, and look for different
things in music. For any piece of music, some people respond to it,
others don't. I've heard a lot of stuff that I don't particularly care
for, but I can accept the fact that some other people *do* find something
in it.
>So, what's happening? Is this music bad? (how's that for a loaded
>question)?
Define your standards of "good music". I'm sure others will come up with
different standards.
>Will it surivive?
As long as at least some people are interested in it, probably yes. Along
with all the other different kinds of music that at least some people are
interested in.
>why do people write it?
Why ask why? People write the kind of music they do because they feel they
have to.
>why do people enjoy it? Do they enjoy it in the same way the enjoy "real"
>classical music?
Define "real" classical music. :-) Different people get different things
out of the same piece of music. The same person can like different pieces
of music for different reasons. Sometimes I like a piece because of its
vigor and sense of "forward motion" (Beethoven, Nielsen). Sometimes I
like a piece for its serenity and complete lack of "motion" (Gorecki,
Part). Sometimes I like a piece for its tunefulness and melodiousness
(Mozart). Sometimes I like a piece for its colorful, exotic, and yes,
even dissonant sounds (Bartok, Messiaen, Ligeti).
>does it have the same meaning?
Define "meaning." What are the semantics of music?
--
Jon Bell <jtb...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
--
"Never you mind what the ladies' committee says; my feeling is that God
must get tired of hearing the same thing over and over." (the Rev. Dr.
Griggs of Centre Church, New Haven, to his young organist, Charles Ives)
mvs...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
wf...@enter.net (bob puharic) writes:
: Ok let me confess, I'm not a musician, nor do I have any formal
: musical training. (scientists have opinions too).
I'll confess to the same.
: Having said the mea culpa's, let me ask this group which has done much
: to help me appreciate music this question:
:
: what the hell is up with contemporary "classical" music. by this i
: mean the atonal material like schoenberg, ives, etc. I truly like
: abstract expressionism, and pop art, but this music leaves me
: absolutely cold. it has no correspondence with the human experience
: and seems to be devoid of meaning. while this may be part of its
: charm, i feel that in 100 yrs, it will be completely forgotten. It is
: a form of nominalism in that just because it's possible to write music
: like this, so it should be done. kind of like the old platonic
: argument for the existence of god...we can connect the words "perfect"
: and 'beauty' so "perfect beauty" must exist (after all, existence is
: the first aspect of perfection)...which is god. neither concept has
: validity.
It's very helpful that you like abstract expressionism. You have a reference
point. Now imagine someone who can't find any "meaning" in abstract
expressionism (e.g., me) saying the same words about it. See how silly this
tired argument sounds to someone who loves a lot of modern classical music?
How can being devoid of meaning be a part of any music's charm? What does
correspondence between music and human experience mean? Why do you want
to convice me that I don't like Schoenberg's music?
: So, what's happening? Is this music bad?
Some of it is bad. Some of it is boring. Some of it is really fun to listen
to. Some of it is the most moving music I've ever heard.
: (how's that for a loaded question)?
Not bad. :-)
: Will it surivive?
Even better... Music by Schoenberg and Ives survivied so far, didn't it?
: why do people write it?
Because it is beautiful.
: why do people enjoy it?
Ditto.
: Do they enjoy it in the same way the enjoy "real" classical
: music?
Yes and no. Do I enjoy music by Bach, Beethoven, and Schoenberg in the
same way? No. Do I find music by all of them to be deeply moving? Yes.
: does it have the same meaning?
Hmm... What exactly *is* meaning in music? Does music by Bach have the same
meaning as music by Brahms?
: will the yankees win the 1997 world series?
No idea, but I can try to construct a philosophical proof as to why baseball
sucks. ;-)
: Ive run out of questions. waddya got to say?
Try Schoenberg's 2nd string quartet.
Michael
Fred Goldrich
In article <56ni9g$2...@news.enter.net>, bob puharic <wf...@enter.net> wrote:
>Ok let me confess, I'm not a musician, nor do I have any formal
>musical training. (scientists have opinions too).
>
>to help me appreciate music this question:
>
>what the hell is up with contemporary "classical" music. by this i
>mean the atonal material like schoenberg, ives, etc.
>So, what's happening? Is this music bad? (how's that for a loaded
>question)? Will it surivive? why do people write it? why do people
>enjoy it? Do they enjoy it in the same way the enjoy "real" classical
>music? does it have the same meaning?
Tough questions. I don't know.
> will the yankees win the 1997
>world series?
Yes.
-- Fred "Damn, I had tickets for the 7th game" Goldrich
--
Fred Goldrich
gold...@panix.com
Roger L. Lustig
bob puharic wrote:
> jtb...@presby.edu (Jon Bell) wrote:
> >Uh... Schoenberg and Ives have been dead for over fifty years. They're
> >hardly "contemporary", by my definition. :-)
[Actually, 45 and 42 years, respectively.]
> >For "contemporary", try Henryk Gorecki, Arvo Part, John Adams, etc. (in a
> >"minimalist" vein); or Robert Simpson, Vagn Holmboe, David Diamond, etc.
> >(in a non-minimalist, more or less traditional vein). There are also
> >non-minimalist, non-traditionalists like Boulez, Carter, Messiaen, etc.,
> >but I'm guessing that you wouldn't be interested in them.
> isnt messiaen dead as well?
Yes.
> >(Ok, I cheated a bit because Holmboe died a couple of months ago... but
> >he was working almost up until the end.)
> >>I truly like
> >>abstract expressionism, and pop art, but this music leaves me
> >>absolutely cold.
> >That's OK. Different people have different tastes, and look for different
> >things in music. For any piece of music, some people respond to it,
> >others don't. I've heard a lot of stuff that I don't particularly care
> >for, but I can accept the fact that some other people *do* find something
> >in it.
> >>So, what's happening? Is this music bad? (how's that for a loaded
> >>question)?
> >Define your standards of "good music". I'm sure others will come up with
> >different standards.
> >>Will it surivive?
> >As long as at least some people are interested in it, probably yes. Along
> >with all the other different kinds of music that at least some people are
> >interested in.
> >>why do people write it?
> I was in San francisco recently and heard a comment on the local NPR
> station that at the time of mozart the divorce between "classical" and
> "pop" music had not yet taken place.
That's not so. The "divorce" never took place, because there have
*always* been such divisions. Art music may have taken different
forms and have had different significance over the centuries,
but it's always been differentiated from popular music.
In the 19thC, popular music came to be thought of as *bad*. That's
the big difference.
> as i indicated in my original
> post, it seems as if many artists are writing just for other artists.
Schoenberg and Ives, on the other hand, are not among those artists.
There are quite a few non-composers who like their music.
On yet another hand, remember that it's only in this century that
we have a great number of music lovers who themselves do *not* make
music! Thanks to recordings and broadcasts, we don't learn our
classics at the piano any more (let alone four-hands).
> seems like some folks who have posted are objecting to the idea of
> "meaning" in music.
No, I think they're objecting to the use of that term in an
undefined fashion.
> but nobody listens to classical nowadays.
Oh? How come the CD industry is booming? New labels, tons
of recordings, reissues...more opera and concert performances
in this country than ever before.
> the
> "economist" mag recently had a several page spread on how the major
> labels keep classics around even though they are money losers, and
> even among the classics, the major purchases are those of dead white
> males, so to speak.
That was true 50 and 75 years ago, too. Your point?
> thus, for whatever reason, people today do not find this music
> relevant.
Which people?
> they dont find it meaningful.
Again, which people? Do people find jazz meaningful? It sells
less than classical.
> whether or not you think ives
> or schoenberg were good composers, the fact is that people dont listen
> to them.
Again, which people? How do you explain packed concert halls
for performances of their works? (I went to an all-Schoenberg
concert this summer, and got 2 of the last 10 tickets.)
Now, if you're saying that Schoenberg isn't Madonna, that's
certainly true--but that leads to another set of questions
about musical meaning, value, purpose, and prospects for
centuries of listening.
> a recent book i read on the history of art pointed out that, though
> schoenberg and kandinsky were great friends, there is no necessary
> relationship between the visual and musical arts.
That sentence is a non-sequitur.
> obviously the
> context, content, and form of a visual piece can be related to a
> musical piece, saying (as i did previously) that one likes abstract
> expressionism does n ot necessarily mean that one has a reference
> point for contemporary music.
One does, on the other hand, have the chance to understand the
esthetic of one by considering some key concepts of the other.
Roger
Roger L. Lustig
bob puharic wrote:
>
> Ok let me confess, I'm not a musician, nor do I have any formal
> musical training. (scientists have opinions too).
> Having said the mea culpa's, let me ask this group which has done much
> to help me appreciate music this question:
> what the hell is up with contemporary "classical" music. by this i
> abstract expressionism, and pop art, but this music leaves me
> and seems to be devoid of meaning.
Which "human experience" might that be? Yours? Mine? Someone
else's? What does Beethoven's music have to do with the experience
of the people of, say, Fiji?
> while this may be part of its
> charm, i feel that in 100 yrs, it will be completely forgotten.
Some of Schoenberg's atonal music is already over 85 years old, and
in no danger of being forgotten. I was over at Best Buy today, and
saw six different recordings of Pierrot lunaire on *their* classical
shelf.
Of course, there's also the question of why you care whether music
will be listened to in 100 years. Me, I'm listening to music *now*.
> It is
> a form of nominalism in that just because it's possible to write music
> like this, so it should be done.
Huh? Like what? Schoenberg and Ives wrote two utterly different
kinds of music. Nor did either one write music because it was
"possible" to do so. They did so because they wanted to. Because
they had serious musical reasons for doing so.
> kind of like the old platonic
> argument for the existence of god...we can connect the words "perfect"
> and 'beauty' so "perfect beauty" must exist (after all, existence is
> the first aspect of perfection)...which is god. neither concept has
> validity.
No. Your *analogy* has no validity, especially since it's based
on your imputation of a motive for composers' writing music
you don't happen to like.
> reading about it doesnt help much...
Your posting shows little evidence that you've done so.
> many authors feel that this art
> form, like so many others today (especially poetry), is simply that of
> artists talking to other artists, and that's there's been a disconnect
> between art and life.
What authors are those? And do you really think that Josquin
or Rossini was talking to *you*?
> some feel that, in a sense, if you have to ask
> the price, you can't afford it.
Uh, which sense is that?
> when i was in college a friend of mine
> (a professional musician) said he loved it. and some, of the school of
> bill bennett and the philistines of the xtian right, decry the effect
> this "relativism" is having on our youth. this is, of course, swill
> for pandering to the anti-NPR fundamentalists.
Well, OK. We agree on this bit--that complaints about "relativism"
are generally masks for frustration that the complainer is not being
allowed to choose the absolutes.
> So, what's happening? Is this music bad? (how's that for a loaded
> question)?
Dreadful. What's bad music? How can we tell?
> Will it surivive?
It's done pretty well so far. Think of all the music from 1800
that didn't last until 1900.
> why do people write it?
For the same reasons as other composers write what they do.
> why do people enjoy it?
About the same...because it gives them a musical experience:
something to feel and think about.
> Do they enjoy it in the same way the enjoy "real" classical
> music?
It *is* real. What do *you* consider "real"?
> does it have the same meaning?
Depends. What do you think the other stuff means?
> will the yankees win the 1997
> world series? Ive run out of questions. waddya got to say?
You need better questions.
Roger
bob puharic
Ok let me confess, I'm not a musician, nor do I have any formal
musical training. (scientists have opinions too).
Having said the mea culpa's, let me ask this group which has done much
to help me appreciate music this question:
what the hell is up with contemporary "classical" music. by this i
mean the atonal material like schoenberg, ives, etc. I truly like
abstract expressionism, and pop art, but this music leaves me
absolutely cold. it has no correspondence with the human experience
and seems to be devoid of meaning. while this may be part of its
charm, i feel that in 100 yrs, it will be completely forgotten. It is
a form of nominalism in that just because it's possible to write music
like this, so it should be done. kind of like the old platonic
argument for the existence of god...we can connect the words "perfect"
and 'beauty' so "perfect beauty" must exist (after all, existence is
the first aspect of perfection)...which is god. neither concept has
validity.
reading about it doesnt help much... many authors feel that this art
form, like so many others today (especially poetry), is simply that of
artists talking to other artists, and that's there's been a disconnect
between art and life. some feel that, in a sense, if you have to ask
the price, you can't afford it. when i was in college a friend of mine
(a professional musician) said he loved it. and some, of the school of
bill bennett and the philistines of the xtian right, decry the effect
this "relativism" is having on our youth. this is, of course, swill
for pandering to the anti-NPR fundamentalists.
So, what's happening? Is this music bad? (how's that for a loaded
question)? Will it surivive? why do people write it? why do people
enjoy it? Do they enjoy it in the same way the enjoy "real" classical
music? does it have the same meaning? will the yankees win the 1997
bob puharic
mvs...@vms.cis.pitt.edu wrote:
>It's very helpful that you like abstract expressionism. You have a reference
>point. Now imagine someone who can't find any "meaning" in abstract
>expressionism (e.g., me) saying the same words about it. See how silly this
>tired argument sounds to someone who loves a lot of modern classical music?
>How can being devoid of meaning be a part of any music's charm? What does
>correspondence between music and human experience mean? Why do you want
>to convice me that I don't like Schoenberg's music?
>
well those of us who attended pitt ARE a breed apart :). the real
point is that there are some styles of art, like minimalism, or some
philosophies like nihilism which attempt to say that the only meaning
in art or anything else for that matter, is that there is no meaning.
i dont make this stuff up! as to the correspondence between meaning
and music, there is an excellent book entitled "the interpretation of
music- philosophical essays" by krausz (think hes at u of penn) which
goes into the relationship of meaning and experience more fully than i
ever could.
>: does it have the same meaning?
>Hmm... What exactly *is* meaning in music? Does music by Bach have the same
>meaning as music by Brahms?
see above
bob puharic
gold...@panix.com (Fred Goldrich) wrote:
>>So, what's happening? Is this music bad? (how's that for a loaded
>>question)? Will it surivive? why do people write it? why do people
>>enjoy it? Do they enjoy it in the same way the enjoy "real" classical
>>music? does it have the same meaning?
> Tough questions. I don't know.
>> will the yankees win the 1997
>>world series?
> Yes.
well at least someone knows the answer to something! thanks fred.
bob puharic
jtb...@presby.edu (Jon Bell) wrote:
>Uh... Schoenberg and Ives have been dead for over fifty years. They're
>hardly "contemporary", by my definition. :-)
>For "contemporary", try Henryk Gorecki, Arvo Part, John Adams, etc. (in a
>"minimalist" vein); or Robert Simpson, Vagn Holmboe, David Diamond, etc.
>(in a non-minimalist, more or less traditional vein). There are also
>non-minimalist, non-traditionalists like Boulez, Carter, Messiaen, etc.,
>but I'm guessing that you wouldn't be interested in them.
isnt messiaen dead as well?
>(Ok, I cheated a bit because Holmboe died a couple of months ago... but
>he was working almost up until the end.)
>>I truly like
>>abstract expressionism, and pop art, but this music leaves me
>>absolutely cold.
>That's OK. Different people have different tastes, and look for different
>things in music. For any piece of music, some people respond to it,
>others don't. I've heard a lot of stuff that I don't particularly care
>for, but I can accept the fact that some other people *do* find something
>in it.
>>So, what's happening? Is this music bad? (how's that for a loaded
>>question)?
>Define your standards of "good music". I'm sure others will come up with
>different standards.
>>Will it surivive?
>As long as at least some people are interested in it, probably yes. Along
>with all the other different kinds of music that at least some people are
>interested in.
>>why do people write it?
I was in San francisco recently and heard a comment on the local NPR
station that at the time of mozart the divorce between "classical" and
"pop" music had not yet taken place. as i indicated in my original
post, it seems as if many artists are writing just for other artists.
seems like some folks who have posted are objecting to the idea of
"meaning" in music. but nobody listens to classical nowadays. the
"economist" mag recently had a several page spread on how the major
labels keep classics around even though they are money losers, and
even among the classics, the major purchases are those of dead white
males, so to speak.
thus, for whatever reason, people today do not find this music
relevant. they dont find it meaningful. whether or not you think ives
or schoenberg were good composers, the fact is that people dont listen
to them.
a recent book i read on the history of art pointed out that, though
schoenberg and kandinsky were great friends, there is no necessary
relationship between the visual and musical arts. obviously the
Jon Bell
Yup. I had a momentary brain cramp. (Thanks to Henry Fogel or whoever it
was who introduced me to that phrase a few seconds ago. :-)) Also I
apparently can't do arithmetic in my head anymore and should have said
that Ives and Schoenberg have been dead for more than forty years, not
fifty...
> [...] but nobody listens to classical nowadays. the
>"economist" mag recently had a several page spread on how the major
>labels keep classics around even though they are money losers,
I don't think the "classics" have *ever* been real money-makers for the
major labels. The majors have done classical music as much as they have,
partly because of the "prestige factor." Also, in the past certain key
executives have been influential in pushing their companies to take on
"unpopular" projects because of their own personal interest in classical
music. Think of Goddard Lieberson at Columbia in the 60s. (I hope I got
his name right...)
Right now we're going through a "crisis" in which recording contracts are
being canceled, etc. What many people overlook is that in the past
several years there has been a huge expansion in the classical music
retail business (in the U.S. at least). Here in South Carolina I now have
had access to retail stocks that were unheard of when I first moved here
eleven years ago. A major metropolitan area like Atlanta is almost
swamped with classical stock now, compared to seven years ago. What
we're seeing now is the bursting of a speculative bubble, not a long-term
trend.
David M. Cook
On Mon, 18 Nov 1996 01:33:34 GMT, bob puharic <wf...@enter.net> wrote:
>what the hell is up with contemporary "classical" music. by this i
>mean the atonal material like schoenberg,
As Mr. Bell has pointed out, these composers are hardly conemporary
(Schoenberg wrote some of his more famous pieces before WWI, for
gawdsake.) That said, I often suspect that people who express opinions
like yours have not really heard much of the music they denigrate. If I'm
wrong, please mention some of the works you dislike, and I'll shut up.
Dave Cook
bob puharic
"Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> seems like some folks who have posted are objecting to the idea of
>> "meaning" in music.
a
>No, I think they're objecting to the use of that term in an
>undefined fashion.
well thats the whole POINT!!!! what does it MEAN? it was a QUESTION
not a statement!
>> but nobody listens to classical nowadays.
>Oh? How come the CD industry is booming? New labels, tons
>of recordings, reissues...more opera and concert performances
>in this country than ever before.
'taint. as i said in one of my posts, the recent 'economist' article
pointed out that classical music is a money LOSER for most
labels...they keep it around to ensure completeness of their market.
please read my posts more carefully.
>> the
>> "economist" mag recently had a several page spread on how the major
>> labels keep classics around even though they are money losers, and
>> even among the classics, the major purchases are those of dead white
>> males, so to speak.
>That was true 50 and 75 years ago, too. Your point?
uh, the article i read was in last weeks economist. thats not 75 years
ago...mebbe 75 minutes ago, however.
>> thus, for whatever reason, people today do not find this music
>> relevant.
>Which people?
anybody. how many classical stations in a market like NYC or philly?
several million people...1 or 2 stations.
>> they dont find it meaningful.
>Again, which people? Do people find jazz meaningful? It sells
>less than classical.
you find alot of jazz places in NYC. i was in montreal last year. a
million people showed up at the montreal jazz festival. dont know of a
similar classical festival.
>> whether or not you think ives
>> or schoenberg were good composers, the fact is that people dont listen
>> to them.
>Again, which people? How do you explain packed concert halls
>for performances of their works? (I went to an all-Schoenberg
>concert this summer, and got 2 of the last 10 tickets.)
>Now, if you're saying that Schoenberg isn't Madonna, that's
>certainly true--but that leads to another set of questions
>about musical meaning, value, purpose, and prospects for
>centuries of listening.
>> a recent book i read on the history of art pointed out that, though
>> schoenberg and kandinsky were great friends, there is no necessary
>> relationship between the visual and musical arts.
>That sentence is a non-sequitur.
no, it was in response to a post pointing out that i mentioned that i
liked abstract expressionism but found atonality difficult to
appreciate. please, if you have something to offer, read the posts.
otherwise, im afraid you're getting lost in irrelevancy and false
ideas. ive quoted my sources, pointed out the train of my thought. if
you disagree, fine. but please keep track of what's being said.
bob puharic
"Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Which "human experience" might that be? Yours? Mine? Someone
>else's? What does Beethoven's music have to do with the experience
>of the people of, say, Fiji?
seems that beethoven is more popular than schoenberg in japan.
>Huh? Like what? Schoenberg and Ives wrote two utterly different
>kinds of music. Nor did either one write music because it was
>"possible" to do so. They did so because they wanted to. Because
>they had serious musical reasons for doing so.
so? like i said, it's artists talking to other artists.
>> kind of like the old platonic
>> argument for the existence of god...we can connect the words "perfect"
>> and 'beauty' so "perfect beauty" must exist (after all, existence is
>> the first aspect of perfection)...which is god. neither concept has
>> validity.
>No. Your *analogy* has no validity, especially since it's based
>on your imputation of a motive for composers' writing music
>you don't happen to like.
sheesh i wish you would seriously read the posts. i DONT KNOW what the
artists motives are. thats EXACTLY what im asking!!! dont you get it
by now?
>> reading about it doesnt help much...
>Your posting shows little evidence that you've done so.
you cant even read this thread so what do you have to contribute!
>> many authors feel that this art
>> form, like so many others today (especially poetry), is simply that of
>> artists talking to other artists, and that's there's been a disconnect
>> between art and life.
>What authors are those? And do you really think that Josquin
>or Rossini was talking to *you*?
no, again, if you would take the time to read the books and articles
ive cited you would be in a position to contribute instead of showing
an ignorance of the general topic. if this is all you have to say
perhaps an etch a sketch is more your speed.
>> some feel that, in a sense, if you have to ask
>> the price, you can't afford it.
>Uh, which sense is that?
let me explain so someone like you can understand.
1. there is art
2. some people like to do things in art
3. why do they do them
now if your kindergarten teacher can read you this post, please come
back. otherwise you're just being elitist and tedious. im asking
questions, not trolling.
>Dreadful. What's bad music? How can we tell?
heifetz once said that atonality sounded like a garbage truck backing
into a bunch of empty cans.
>Roger
and you need better answers.
Fred Goldrich
In article <56q1ie$f...@news.enter.net>, bob puharic <wf...@enter.net> wrote:
>
>As to "contemporary" I think we've gotten into an overly narrow view
>of what this means. Atonal music is still being written. Thus it is
>contemporary. Schoenberg's influenced these folks, thus his influence
>is contemporary. Just because he's dead doesnt mean he's not
>contemporary.
Considering how many controversial things you've been
saying, let me suggest that you hold on to the ones that are
defensible and back off from this one.
Obviously there are composers from all eras whose in-
fluences can be seen in the music being written today, and it
serves no purpose to change the meaning of the word 'contem-
porary' to include them.
It may be that you don't like atonal music (whatever
that is); it may be that you don't like contemporary music
(whatever that is). But Schoenberg (1874-1951) is not, by
any reasonable definition, a contemporary composer 45 years
after his death, any more than Beethoven (1770-1827) was a
contemporary composer in 1872, regardless of his enormous
and enduring influence.
Go Yankees.
-- Fred Goldrich
--
Fred Goldrich
gold...@panix.com
Justin Sulik
wf...@enter.net (bob puharic) wrote:
>Ok let me confess, I'm not a musician, nor do I have any formal
>musical training. (scientists have opinions too).
>
>Having said the mea culpa's, let me ask this group which has done much
>to help me appreciate music this question:
>
>abstract expressionism, and pop art, but this music leaves me
>absolutely cold.
Um.
Schoenberg was an abstract expressionist. He founded the second Viennese
school (which included Berg and Webern) which was a musical representation
of the expressionist art of those such as Munch. I have no idea what you
mean.
>it has no correspondence with the human experience
The works of the Italian avant-garde (Nono and Berio) are mostly political
statements, as well as comments on society
>and seems to be devoid of meaning.
The Italian avant-garde is founded on the principal of meaning in music,
linked with psychological, linguistic and dramatic ideals.
>while this may be part of its
>charm, i feel that in 100 yrs, it will be completely forgotten.
Sez you! Music is developing constantly, and it is my oppinion that it's
going to get even wierder, following the unification of language and music
by Berio.
It is
>a form of nominalism in that just because it's possible to write music
>like this, so it should be done.
Wrong again. People write this music because they get bored with 500 years
of tonality.
kind of like the old platonic
>argument for the existence of god...we can connect the words "perfect"
>and 'beauty' so "perfect beauty" must exist (after all, existence is
>the first aspect of perfection)...which is god. neither concept has
>validity.
>
>reading about it doesnt help much... many authors feel that this art
>form, like so many others today (especially poetry), is simply that of
>artists talking to other artists,
I'm a 16 year old, not an artist, and I like the stuff. It isn't just
artists talking to artists. It's artists trying to talk to the world,
which unfortunately isn't listening
>and that's there's been a disconnect
>between art and life.
Oh really? Did I miss something, somewhere? Art has become even more
involved with life, but most people don't even bother to make the effort
to see it.
> some feel that, in a sense, if you have to ask
>the price, you can't afford it. when i was in college a friend of mine
>(a professional musician) said he loved it.
Hurrah!
and some, of the school of
>bill bennett and the philistines of the xtian right, decry the effect
>this "relativism" is having on our youth. this is, of course, swill
>for pandering to the anti-NPR fundamentalists.
>
>So, what's happening?
A miracle
>Is this music bad? (how's that for a loaded
>question)?
No
>Will it surivive?
yes
>why do people write it?
Because it is the culmination of 500 years of development
> why do people
>enjoy it?
Because it is fantastic
>Do they enjoy it in the same way the enjoy "real" classical
>music?
Even more
>does it have the same meaning?
No, previous music was for the passionate side of us, this stuff is for
our minds.
>will the yankees win the 1997
>world series? Ive run out of questions. waddya got to say?
>
Try Berio's sinfonia (Chailly, I think)
>
Jeff Wilson
Let me stick my two cents into this contentious thread by saying
that for me music pretty much died with Haydn and was reborn with
Schoenberg, Bartok, Ives and Stravinsky. In the whole 19th century
only Schubert, Chopin, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms and Dvorak hold
much appeal for me. I have 8 or 9 times as many CD's from the first
half of the 20th century as for the whole of the 19th.
On 18 Nov 1996 13:29:26 GMT, dc...@mozart.cts.com (David M. Cook)
wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Nov 1996 01:33:34 GMT, bob puharic <wf...@enter.net> wrote:
>
>>what the hell is up with contemporary "classical" music. by this i
>>mean the atonal material like schoenberg,
>
Eric Schissel
>
> >Huh? Like what? Schoenberg and Ives wrote two utterly different
> >kinds of music. Nor did either one write music because it was
> >"possible" to do so. They did so because they wanted to. Because
> >they had serious musical reasons for doing so.
>
> so? like i said, it's artists talking to other artists.
They write, on the whole, what they want to hear. Or what they feel their
soul is telling them to say. They need to have an audience, but to quote
Malcolm MacDonald (the music writer, not the novelist), "you'd be
surprised" how small an audience a composer can have and still feel heard.
For some composers it's a way of saying things that can only be said in
music, and saying them to people enough like oneself to share an attitude,
or important experiences. Other composers, have other reasons.
For neither Schoenberg nor Ives was the purpose to show off (well, I dunno
about Ives...), to speak as arcanely as possible (Schoenberg is .quite.
comprehensible), or to do anything else but express.
I like to think of Schoenberg's music as being situated on a continuum,
with some of the simpler-to-hear composers on one end and those who really
did delight in complexity (though still retaining musicality), such as
Sorabji, near the other. (Some composers, who like late Boulez really do
say nothing to me, seeming to be so caught up in the busyness of their
passagework that nothing melodic gets said- unlike most Schoenberg,
Sessions, etc.- are off the spectrum entirely.) Schoenberg's middle works
(3rd quartet, say) are perhaps a bit past the more difficult parts of the
first movement of Mahler's 10th symphony on such a spectrum, it seems to
me, in memorization difficulty.
Sorry I'm not being clearer.
With best wishes
--
Eric Schissel
es...@cornell.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/1489
Eric Schissel
>
> As to "contemporary" I think we've gotten into an overly narrow view
> of what this means. Atonal music is still being written. Thus it is
> contemporary. Schoenberg's influenced these folks, thus his influence
> is contemporary. Just because he's dead doesnt mean he's not
> contemporary.
Very romantic-sounding and very classical-sounding music is still being
written; is Mozart therefore contemporary?
mvs...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
wf...@enter.net (bob puharic) writes:
> well those of us who attended pitt ARE a breed apart :). the real
> point is that there are some styles of art, like minimalism,
Isn't the point of minimalism in logic of arrangement of simple/similar
objects?
> or some
> philosophies like nihilism which attempt to say that the only meaning
> in art or anything else for that matter, is that there is no meaning.
Unless the two terms are defined differently, this is a contradiction.
> i dont make this stuff up! as to the correspondence between meaning
> and music, there is an excellent book entitled "the interpretation of
> music- philosophical essays" by krausz (think hes at u of penn) which
> goes into the relationship of meaning and experience more fully than i
> ever could.
But see, so *much* has been said about music that terms such as "meaning"
and "experience" have been used with many different definitions. Unless
I can find this book, I have no chance of guessing the specifics of your
vocabulary. What do you mean by saying that the music has no correspondence
with human experience? Is this a historical statement? Is this a sociological
statement? Psychoacoustics? Mysticism? See what I mean?
Michael
mvs...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
es...@cornell.edu (Eric Schissel) writes:
> (Some composers, who like late Boulez really do
> say nothing to me, seeming to be so caught up in the busyness of their
> passagework that nothing melodic gets said- unlike most Schoenberg,
> Sessions, etc.- are off the spectrum entirely.)
Not sure why you single out recent Boulez works. (He is still with us, right?)
I wouldn't apply the word "melody" to a lot of 20C music (Webern, Carter,
Scelsi, Xenakis, etc.) in general, and some early hardcore Boulez, like
Structures, is too finely detailed (you need a microscope to differentiate
gestalts) to contain anything resembling a melody. To me, the fact that so
much music is crammed into each second certainly is a part of its appeal.
OTOH, later works, like ...explosante-fixe..., seem to be moving to
a much more melodically oriented approach. Am I missing something?
Michael
Christopher Norman
bob puharic wrote:
>
> dc...@mozart.cts.com (David M. Cook) wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 18 Nov 1996 01:33:34 GMT, bob puharic <wf...@enter.net> wrote:
>
> >>what the hell is up with contemporary "classical" music. by this i
> >>mean the atonal material like schoenberg,
>
> >As Mr. Bell has pointed out, these composers are hardly conemporary
> >(Schoenberg wrote some of his more famous pieces before WWI, for
> >gawdsake.) That said, I often suspect that people who express opinions
> >like yours have not really heard much of the music they denigrate. If I'm
> >wrong, please mention some of the works you dislike, and I'll shut up.
>
> >Dave Cook
>
> attended over the years, heard on radio, etc. I contrast this with the
> excellent CD of Bulgarian folk music which came out a number of years
> ago which I liked on first hearing.
>
> I think what you're probably saying is that this music is an acquired
> taste...perhaps, but I have heard it enough to know that it just
> doesnt do anything for me. Some music I've definitely grown into, but
> this I havent. And I think I'm not alone.
>
> As to "contemporary" I think we've gotten into an overly narrow view
> of what this means. Atonal music is still being written. Thus it is
> contemporary. Schoenberg's influenced these folks, thus his influence
> is contemporary. Just because he's dead doesnt mean he's not
> contemporary.
Tonal music is still being written. Thus it is contemporary.
Mozart has influenced these folks, thus his influence is
contemporary.
Do you see how silly this assertion looks?
Using your logic, every composer who has ever influenced any
other composer is "contemporary". I think you're getting into
sophistry and ignoring the point, which is that the techniques
of modern music have gone far beyond those of Schoenberg.
It's become obvious to most serious listeners that Schoenberg
is not much harder to understand than, say, Richard Strauss.
Christopher Norman
David M. Zajic
bob puharic wrote:
> So, what's happening? Is this music bad? (how's that for a loaded
> question)? Will it surivive? why do people write it? why do people
> enjoy it? Do they enjoy it in the same way the enjoy "real" classical
> music? does it have the same meaning? will the yankees win the 1997
> world series? Ive run out of questions. waddya got to say?
In this thread, you've stressed the question why do people write
music of this type? I don't think the reasons have changed over
the years, but let me suggest a few, from a composer's point of
view (in no real order)
I write the music that I would care to listen to, that I
would care to perform.
I write music to serve a certain function, e.g. to cover
a scene change in a play, or as an exercize for a
student.
I write music to show off my or another's skills as a performer.
I write music to get paid.
I write music to experiment, to try something new and
see what happens.
I write music to express an emotion or tell a story, or in
some other way communicate with an audience.
I write music which is technically interesting.
I write music which is a puzzle for others to figure out.
[ Please feel free to add to the list.]
It seems to me that any of these motivations could result in music
that some people won't like. When I hear new music (or old music)
I don't care for, I try to remember that *someone* must think
it has some merit, or it would not have been performed. I try
to figure out what that merit might be. If I really can't find
the value, I move on to stuff that I do like, and at least I've
learned something.
Cheers,
David Zajic (dmz...@cs.umd.edu)
Roger L. Lustig
bob puharic wrote:
> "Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Which "human experience" might that be? Yours? Mine? Someone
> >else's? What does Beethoven's music have to do with the experience
> >of the people of, say, Fiji?
> seems that beethoven is more popular than schoenberg in japan.
And? Beethoven is also more popular than Josquin and Mendelssohn
and a variety of other musicians.
> >Huh? Like what? Schoenberg and Ives wrote two utterly different
> >kinds of music. Nor did either one write music because it was
> >"possible" to do so. They did so because they wanted to. Because
> >they had serious musical reasons for doing so.
> so? like i said, it's artists talking to other artists.
No, it's not. Go to some concerts. Is the audience only artists?
> >> kind of like the old platonic
> >> argument for the existence of god...we can connect the words "perfect"
> >> and 'beauty' so "perfect beauty" must exist (after all, existence is
> >> the first aspect of perfection)...which is god. neither concept has
> >> validity.
> >No. Your *analogy* has no validity, especially since it's based
> >on your imputation of a motive for composers' writing music
> >you don't happen to like.
> sheesh i wish you would seriously read the posts. i DONT KNOW what the
> artists motives are. thats EXACTLY what im asking!!! dont you get it
> by now?
No, I don't. A moment ago you knew that it was artists talking to
other artists. Before that....well, before that we don't know,
because you deleted your own words.
> >> reading about it doesnt help much...
> >Your posting shows little evidence that you've done so.
> you cant even read this thread so what do you have to contribute!
A reading list. Start with Charles Rosen's _Arnold Schoenberg_.
> >> many authors feel that this art
> >> form, like so many others today (especially poetry), is simply that of
> >> artists talking to other artists, and that's there's been a disconnect
> >> between art and life.
> >What authors are those? And do you really think that Josquin
> >or Rossini was talking to *you*?
> no, again, if you would take the time to read the books and articles
> ive cited
I've read them, and a fair amount of other writing about music. For
that matter, you've probably read some of *mine*.
> you would be in a position to contribute instead of showing
> an ignorance of the general topic.
Oh, *my*. What a withering critique. Tell me: is an Economist
article really the place to learn about music history?
Try some books by Robert Morgan, Jim Sampson, Arnold Whitall,
etc.
> if this is all you have to say
> perhaps an etch a sketch is more your speed.
Such wit! Now, if the relative popularity of Beethoven
and Schoenberg is all you have to adduce as evidence,
perhaps you could tell us again what your argument *is*.
> >> some feel that, in a sense, if you have to ask
> >> the price, you can't afford it.
> >Uh, which sense is that?
> let me explain so someone like you can understand.
> 1. there is art
> 2. some people like to do things in art
> 3. why do they do them
> now if your kindergarten teacher can read you this post, please come
> back. otherwise you're just being elitist and tedious. im asking
> questions, not trolling.
Ah, so I'm an elitist with a kindergarten teacher. Interesting.
If you're asking questions, GO AND STUDY. There's *plenty*
written on 20thC music, about what happened at the beginning
of the century, about the changes in audience behavior, etc.
If you could refrain from ignorant invective for just a little
while, you might just learn something.
> >Dreadful. What's bad music? How can we tell?
> heifetz once said that atonality sounded like a garbage truck backing
> into a bunch of empty cans.
He was wrong. But then, to you that would seem to be evidence
of something. What do Heifetz's words *mean* to you? Is he
right? Does the _Lyric Suite_ sound that way?
> and you need better answers.
You wouldn't know them if you saw them.
Roger Lustig
Roger L. Lustig
Justin Sulik wrote:
> wf...@enter.net (bob puharic) wrote:
> >Ok let me confess, I'm not a musician, nor do I have any formal
> >musical training. (scientists have opinions too).
> >Having said the mea culpa's, let me ask this group which has done much
> >to help me appreciate music this question:
> >what the hell is up with contemporary "classical" music. by this i
> >mean the atonal material like schoenberg, ives, etc. I truly like
> >abstract expressionism, and pop art, but this music leaves me
> >absolutely cold.
> Um.
> Schoenberg was an abstract expressionist.
No. He's aligned with *expressionism*, but "Abstract Expressionism"
didn't even exist until Schoenberg was very old.
> He founded the second Viennese
> school (which included Berg and Webern) which was a musical representation
> of the expressionist art of those such as Munch.
Their music was in no way a musical representation of art of that
kind.
> I have no idea what you mean.
It's mutual.
> >it has no correspondence with the human experience
> The works of the Italian avant-garde (Nono and Berio) are mostly political
> statements, as well as comments on society
Actually, very little of Berio's work qualifies in that sense.
Roger
Roger L. Lustig
> >> "meaning" in music.
> >undefined fashion.
> well thats the whole POINT!!!! what does it MEAN? it was a QUESTION
> not a statement!
Oh. Sorry. When I write a question I use one of those question-mark
things. It's hard to tell otherwise.
> >> but nobody listens to classical nowadays.
> >Oh? How come the CD industry is booming? New labels, tons
> >of recordings, reissues...more opera and concert performances
> >in this country than ever before.
> 'taint. as i said in one of my posts, the recent 'economist' article
> pointed out that classical music is a money LOSER for most
> labels...they keep it around to ensure completeness of their market.
> please read my posts more carefully.
OK: where's the evidence that "nobody listens"? Seems to me that
lots of people are listening. Why would all those stores *stock*
the records if they didn't sell?
> >> the
> >> "economist" mag recently had a several page spread on how the major
> >> labels keep classics around even though they are money losers, and
> >> even among the classics, the major purchases are those of dead white
> >> males, so to speak.
> >That was true 50 and 75 years ago, too. Your point?
> uh, the article i read was in last weeks economist. thats not 75 years
> ago...mebbe 75 minutes ago, however.
Great. Now tell me how much money classical music made for the record
companies 50 and 75 years ago.
Please read your own postings more carefully, and consider their
implications.
> >> thus, for whatever reason, people today do not find this music
> >> relevant.
> >Which people?
> anybody. how many classical stations in a market like NYC or philly?
Who cares? Radio stations aren't the ideal medium for classical
music. (For the record, I have the choice of 3 or 4 on my car
radio here in New Jersey; five in the AM, counting the local
college station.) Classical radio was a 1950's-60's phenomenon
in this country. Note that record sales are *way* up.
> several million people...1 or 2 stations.
So? There are many better ways to listen to classical music.
The dearth of radio stations simply points to the fact that
it's hard to *advertise* in a classical format.
> >> they dont find it meaningful.
> >Again, which people? Do people find jazz meaningful? It sells
> >less than classical.
> you find alot of jazz places in NYC.
And a hell of a lot of classical concerts too! You *do* have
a point here, don't you?
> i was in montreal last year. a
> million people showed up at the montreal jazz festival. dont know of a
> similar classical festival.
Know of any sold-out jazz seasons like the Met, the Philharmonic,
Carnegie Hall recitals, the Y recitals, Alice Tully Hall, the
New York City Opera, the Brooklyn Phil, the various BAM series,
Town Hall, Wien Recital Hall, etc., etc., etc.?
> >> whether or not you think ives
> >> or schoenberg were good composers, the fact is that people dont listen
> >> to them.
> >Again, which people? How do you explain packed concert halls
> >for performances of their works? (I went to an all-Schoenberg
> >concert this summer, and got 2 of the last 10 tickets.)
> >Now, if you're saying that Schoenberg isn't Madonna, that's
> >certainly true--but that leads to another set of questions
> >about musical meaning, value, purpose, and prospects for
> >centuries of listening.
> >> a recent book i read on the history of art pointed out that, though
> >> schoenberg and kandinsky were great friends, there is no necessary
> >> relationship between the visual and musical arts.
> >That sentence is a non-sequitur.
> no, it was in response to a post pointing out that i mentioned that i
> liked abstract expressionism but found atonality difficult to
> appreciate. please, if you have something to offer, read the posts.
I did. It's a non-sequitur. If you were making reference to
another posting, you were hiding it well.
> otherwise, im afraid you're getting lost in irrelevancy and false
> ideas.
Really? Point out some false ideas here.
> ive quoted my sources, pointed out the train of my thought.
It derailed long ago. You're quoting selectively, not bothering
to get the whole picture, pasting factoids together, and adding
large dollops of fantasy and sheer nonsense.
> if you disagree, fine. but please keep track of what's being said.
After you. And please keep track of the musical scene, too.
Roger Lustig
Benjamin E. Buck
> >else's? What does Beethoven's music have to do with the experience
> >of the people of, say, Fiji?
>
> seems that beethoven is more popular than schoenberg in japan.
So has the study of classical music boiled down to a cheap popularity
contest? Everyone is entitled to their particular taste, but the
measure of a composer's greatness is not necessarily alone based on how
many CD's of his/her music sells in the stores. You have to consider
other things like how close that composer comes to topping the top 10
lists of his/her adherents and how many other composers write better as
a result of that composer's music.
> >Huh? Like what? Schoenberg and Ives wrote two utterly different
> >kinds of music. Nor did either one write music because it was
> >"possible" to do so. They did so because they wanted to. Because
> >they had serious musical reasons for doing so.
>
> so? like i said, it's artists talking to other artists.
Actually, artists talk because they have something to say. Many artists
say what they want to and if you listen that's your problem. Schoenberg
and Ives, if they really were audience haters, were far from the first.
> >> kind of like the old platonic
> >> argument for the existence of god...we can connect the words "perfect"
> >> and 'beauty' so "perfect beauty" must exist (after all, existence is
> >> the first aspect of perfection)...which is god. neither concept has
> >> validity.
>
> >No. Your *analogy* has no validity, especially since it's based
> >on your imputation of a motive for composers' writing music
> >you don't happen to like.
>
> sheesh i wish you would seriously read the posts. i DONT KNOW what the
> artists motives are. thats EXACTLY what im asking!!! dont you get it
> by now?
Artists are motivated to create for the same reason we are all motivated
to create. Hasn't your Kindergarden teacher ever given you finger
paints? Did you enjoy making a painting, or did you refuse it as a
futile exercise? Artists enjoy creating and sometimes receive the added
bonus of being able to make a living off of it.
> >> reading about it doesnt help much...
>
> >Your posting shows little evidence that you've done so.
>
> you cant even read this thread so what do you have to contribute!
>
> >> many authors feel that this art
> >> form, like so many others today (especially poetry), is simply that of
> >> artists talking to other artists, and that's there's been a disconnect
> >> between art and life.
>
> >What authors are those? And do you really think that Josquin
> >or Rossini was talking to *you*?
>
> no, again, if you would take the time to read the books and articles
> ive cited you would be in a position to contribute instead of showing
> an ignorance of the general topic. if this is all you have to say
> perhaps an etch a sketch is more your speed.
Some artists feel that they have an obligation to reflect life; others
don't. I'm not as sure as you are that Schoenberg and Ives belong in
the don't category. Just because it doesn't look like a vase of lilies
to you doesn't mean it isn't!
> >> some feel that, in a sense, if you have to ask
> >> the price, you can't afford it.
>
> >Uh, which sense is that?
>
> let me explain so someone like you can understand.
>
> 1. there is art
> 2. some people like to do things in art
> 3. why do they do them
>
> now if your kindergarten teacher can read you this post, please come
> back. otherwise you're just being elitist and tedious. im asking
> questions, not trolling.
People 'do them' because there is something inside saying "CREATE!" If
you enjoy what they have created, them they are pleased. If not, they
hope they can make a living. Since Schoenberg and Ives are still
performed and recorded, someone must still appreciate their creations.
> >Dreadful. What's bad music? How can we tell?
>
> heifetz once said that atonality sounded like a garbage truck backing
> into a bunch of empty cans.
>
> >Roger
>
> and you need better answers.
There is no such thing as 'bad music' as long as SOMEBODY likes it.
Your music is my sonic mush and vice-versa. By the way, I'm no fan of
either of these composers, but I can't stand to see music of any kind
dissed in such a manner. People after all are entitled to their own
musical tastes and it is not your place to tell them that they are wrong
for liking who they like.
Phil Cope
bob puharic wrote:
> So, what's happening? Is this music bad? (how's that for a loaded
> question)?
> Will it surivive?
Who knows? Since you're a scientist, you may of heard of Thomas Kuhn
(The structure of scientific revolutions). Kuhn suggests that the
apparently absurd theories of the past are perfectly rational when
considered in the cultural environment in which they were proposed,
(the "paradigm").
Music (including that of the past) is continually judged against
todays standards(a paradigm). If the paradigm changes, music that
fits that paradigm will be considered "great".
What you are seeing is a tussle between an audience who sits there
and says "we know what we like" and an establishment that is tired
of the standard and tries to introduce new ideas. You could consider
an analogy with the Neo-Darwin interpretation of Natural Selection.
> why do people write it?
Why should people compose anything other than what they want to ?
Money - of course, and composers probably make a deal of money out
of didatic works and music for TV/Cinema. The latter includes a
fair deal of atonal music, during the "shower scenes", its another
"tool" in the composers tool box.
But for their monuments for posterity, why should they do anything
but write what they want ? Of course posterity may not oblige, eg.
Faure - who referred quite slightingly to the work that he is, today,
most famous for - the Pavan Op.50.
> why do people enjoy it?
Because it moves them.
> Do they enjoy it in the same way the enjoy "real" classical
> music?
I do
> does it have the same meaning?
I respond differently to the same piece music depending on the
context and mood I'm in when I hear it. Thats the only way I can
answer that question.
> will the yankees win the 1997 world series?
Of course, because only Yankees are invited to this so called "World
Series". Why were the Americans so confused about the 1994 Football
world cup ? - because it had other nations in it.
Phil Cope
--
All opinions expressed in this message are purely personal and do not
reflect the opinions or policies of Smallworldwide
bob puharic
dc...@mozart.cts.com (David M. Cook) wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Nov 1996 01:33:34 GMT, bob puharic <wf...@enter.net> wrote:
>>what the hell is up with contemporary "classical" music. by this i
>>mean the atonal material like schoenberg,
>As Mr. Bell has pointed out, these composers are hardly conemporary
Deryk Barker
Benjamin E. Buck (b...@po.cwru.edu) wrote:
: bob puharic wrote:
: >
: > "Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: >
: > >Which "human experience" might that be? Yours? Mine? Someone
: > >else's? What does Beethoven's music have to do with the experience
: > >of the people of, say, Fiji?
: >
: > seems that beethoven is more popular than schoenberg in japan.
: So has the study of classical music boiled down to a cheap popularity
: contest?
Unfortunately, under a "Free Market" economy that's *exactly what it
boils down to.
So we can probably say with some authority now that the world's
greatest singers are the Three Stoo...Tenors, and the greatest piece
of music ever written is Vivaldi's Four Seasons.
--
Deryk.
===========================================================================
|Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept. | Across the pale parabola of Joy |
|Camosun College, Victoria, BC, Canada | |
|email: dba...@camosun.bc.ca | Ralston McTodd |
|phone: +1 604 370 4452 | (Songs of Squalor). |
===========================================================================
Justin Sulik
>
>> wf...@enter.net (bob puharic) wrote:
>> >Ok let me confess, I'm not a musician, nor do I have any formal
>> >musical training. (scientists have opinions too).
>
>> >Having said the mea culpa's, let me ask this group which has done much
>> >to help me appreciate music this question:
>
>> >abstract expressionism, and pop art, but this music leaves me
>> >absolutely cold.
>
>> Um.
>> Schoenberg was an abstract expressionist.
>
>No. He's aligned with *expressionism*, but "Abstract Expressionism"
>didn't even exist until Schoenberg was very old.
>
Granted
>> He founded the second Viennese
>> school (which included Berg and Webern) which was a musical representation
>> of the expressionist art of those such as Munch.
>
>Their music was in no way a musical representation of art of that
>kind.
I quote from Dr. Roger Kamien "Music: an appreciation" pg 482
"The jagged melodies, novel instrumental and extreme contrasts of dynamics
and register in Schoenberg's music are like the distorted figures and
shocking colors in expressionist paintings."
Again, on page 478, Dr. Kamien says, concerning "The scream" by the
Norwegian expressionist Edvard Munch: "Expressionist painters reacted
against French impressionism; they often used jarring colors and
grotesquely distorted shapes to explore the subconscious."
i.e. expressionist music is linked to expressionist art.
Defence exibit 3:
Schoenberg himself was an expressionist painter, highlighting the link
between expressionist art and expressionist music.
Any questions?
>
>> I have no idea what you mean.
>
>It's mutual.
I hope I have made things a little clearer.
>
>> >it has no correspondence with the human experience
>
>> The works of the Italian avant-garde (Nono and Berio) are mostly political
>> statements, as well as comments on society
>
>Actually, very little of Berio's work qualifies in that sense.
Salzman, E. "twentieth century music: an introduction."
pg 181 "Berio's work is notable for ... its important development of
social content."
('nuff said)
"'Passagio', commisioned by La Scala, and 'Opera', written for Santa Fe
are anti-opera operas dealing with the very funtion of art ... in our
culture." i.e. comments on our society
I also seem to remember that 'Laborintus II', too, dealt with social
issues.
>
>Roger
>
>
Ryan M. Hare
Roger L. Lustig (juli...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Justin Sulik wrote:
: > Schoenberg was an abstract expressionist.
: No. He's aligned with *expressionism*, but "Abstract Expressionism"
: didn't even exist until Schoenberg was very old.
: > He founded the second Viennese
: > school (which included Berg and Webern) which was a musical representation
: > of the expressionist art of those such as Munch.
: Their music was in no way a musical representation of art of that
: kind.
While it is true that perhaps one cannot say that Schoenberg's music is a
"musical representation of" expressionism, it is nevertheless clear that
expression plays a large role in much of Schoenberg's pre-12 tone music.
This is probably what Justin meant. Pieces such as _Erwartung_, _Die
Glueckliche Hand_, and of course _Pierrot Lunaire_ have much in common
with expressionist painting. Schoenberg was himself a painter influenced
by expressionism, and he certainly shared ideas with a number of painters
usually described as expressionist. Many scenes in Berg's Wozzeck could
also be described as having elements in common with expressionism (in
particular the scene in which Wozzeck drowns himself). Perhaps some of
Webern's early works could also be thought of as similarly influenced,
especially (for example) the op. 6 pieces.
There are ideas about the expression of inner, often tormented feelings
and the means of expressing such that link much expressionist art with at
least some of Schoenberg's, Berg's, and Webern's music.
Ryan Hare
rh...@u.washington.edu
Chris Koenigsberg
wf...@enter.net (bob puharic) writes:
>I truly like
> abstract expressionism, and pop art, but this music leaves me
> and seems to be devoid of meaning. while this may be part of its
> charm, i feel that in 100 yrs, it will be completely forgotten.
Coincidentally, in preparation to attend the Princeton performance
tonight of Xenakis's "Kraanerg", I was playing the CD and reading the
liner notes last night. There's an essay in the booklet, by Milan
Kundera, which is relevant to your point -- Kundera is claiming that
Xenakis's appeal for him ("Kraanerg" was written the year after the
Prague Spring, after the subsequent invasion and brutal repression by
the Soviet tanks) has to do with the supreme "indifference" and lack
of emotion or ego, in Xenakis's music.
Kundera contrasts this indifference of Xenakis's (actually he derives
it from a quote about James Joyce's "Ulysses", which is similarly
"indifferent") with sentimentality, which is often merely a
"superstructure over brutality", and the emotionalism and the
expression of the individual ego that is the main point of most
Western concert music before Xenakis. Instead of the individual ego's
expression, Xenakis in his music gives us stuff like titanic,
primordial struggles between Olympian godlike figures and gargantuan
creatures, and other things which are more like the sonic world around
us.
Or something like that, I did an awful job of paraphrasing the English
translation in the "Kraanerg" CD booklet, of Kundera's original essay
in Czech.... read it yourself.
Now for me, I like both the emotionalism/individual ego expressionism,
AND the indifference/egoless purity.
--------------------
Chris Koenigsberg: c...@pobox.com
<URL: http://www.pobox.com/~ckk>
Boycott Internet Spam! <http://www.vix.com/spam/>
Chris Koenigsberg
es...@cornell.edu (Eric Schissel) writes:
>(Some composers, who like late Boulez really do
> say nothing to me, seeming to be so caught up in the busyness of their
> passagework that nothing melodic gets said
In fact you point out an explicit feature of EARLY Boulez, I dunno
about LATE Boulez :-) in the 1950's, in the days of "pointillism", the
"integral serialist" theorists, all students of Messiaen, who
fervently wrote about their music, like Boulez & Stockhausen, in their
adoration of Webern and their scorn for Stravinsky, were deliberately
trying to avoid all sense of "melody", and "themes" and "thematic
development", if at all possible.
OK, I'll dig out some relevant quotes I used in my paper "Karlheinz
Stockhausen's New Morphology of Musical Time"
<http://www.pobox.com/~ckk/smmt/>
Gyorgi Ligeti, who escaped from the Soviet invasion of Hungary (1957?)
and arrived on Stockhausen's doorstep, described some of the
"pointillist" or "integral serialist" music like this:
"Integral-serial composition was born under the sign of the totally
static; there are few pieces in which this application is so
extensively executed as in the Sonata for two pianos by Goeyvaerts --
the earliest example of total-serial music -- or in Boulez's Structure
1a for example...'Rigidity' and `static' are not meant as negative
categories at all. Complete stillness may seem strange to one who is
exclusively conditioned by our Western tradition, but this can form no
basis for a value-judgment....This music is like hanging carpets of
mighty oriental quietness, because the forces that drive on the flow
of the form have been de-activated." (Ligeti, Gyorgi, "Metamorphoses
of Musical Form", Die Reihe #7 English translation by Cornelius Cardew
1965, p. 16)
Herbert Eimert (director of West German Cologne Radio electronic
studio) discussed Webern's music:
"Just as in dry climes the sculptural qualities of plants emerge, so
does the interval-object win, in the brittle, hardened
material-atmosphere of Webern, so high a degree of plasticity that its
qualities are transformed into new music, perhaps the most important
between the emancipation of the dissonance and musicians' discovery of
the sinus-tone. With Webern's liquidation of the form-breeding,
form-inflating ego-experience, music could again be grasped at its
central point -- form: palpable, 'animated' form, such as Webern
described, on a historical level, in the balanced, measured hovering
of the voices in Ysaak's chant-settings." (Eimert, Herbert, "A Change
of Focus", Die Reihe #2, Berlin:Universal Editions 1955, English
trans. Leo Black 1958, Bryn Mawr:Theodore Presser Co p. 31)
Stockhausen, in a conversation with Jonathon Cott, also wrote:
"...All the early twelve-tone composers treated the series as a
*theme* to be developed. They transposed it, added sounds, showed it
in mirror form, but they always had a thematic concept. And composers
like Boulez, Pousseur, and myself criticized this when we were young,
pointing out that though the serial concept might have given birth to
a completely new musical technique -- by getting rid of thematic
composition -- composers like Schoenberg and Berg still couldn't get
away from it. " (Jonathan Cott, Stockhausen; Conversations with the
Composer, New York: Simon & Schuste,p. 225)
He continues:
"What I said then was that in traditional music you always see the
same object -- the theme or the motive -- in a different light,
whereas in the new music there are always new objects in the *same*
light. Do you understand? By the 'same light' I meant a set of
proportions -- no matter what appeared in these proportions: the
relationships became more important than what was being related. In
this way you could constantly create new configurations by working
with a series of proportions and, as we've said the other day, the
proportions could be applied once to time, once to space. This created
completely different musical figures, allowing us to move away from
the thematic concept...."([Cott],p. 225)
Boulez later sort of criticized his own strictness of this
"pointillist" period:
"...one organizes rhythm, timbre, dynamics; everything is fodder for
that monstrous polyvalent organization... What has led to this
'punctual' [i.e. pointillist] style? The justified rejection of
thematicism. This was, however, to give a slightly naive solution to
the problem of composition itself -- charging a simple hierarchy with
substituting in the role formerly played by thematic relations. The
structural plans renew themselves in parallel fashion identically; at
each new pitch, a new duration affected by a new intensity. The
perceptual variation -- on the surface -- has engendered a total
absence of variation on a more general level." ( Boulez, Pierre, Notes
of an Apprenticeship, English trans. Herbert Weinstock, New
York:Albert A. Knopf, Inc.p. 49, quoted in unpublished paper on
Serialism by Jason Gibbs, p. 6)
David Cleary
bob puharic (wf...@enter.net) wrote:
[snip for space]
: So, what's happening? Is this music bad? (how's that for a loaded
: question)? Will it surivive? why do people write it? why do people
: enjoy it? Do they enjoy it in the same way the enjoy "real" classical
: music? does it have the same meaning? will the yankees win the 1997
: world series? Ive run out of questions. waddya got to say?
I think you're trolling.
Dave
David Cleary
bob puharic (wf...@enter.net) wrote:
: actually the pieces Ive heard have been at various concerts Ive
: attended over the years, heard on radio, etc.
Which pieces? Which composers? I'm always very suspicious of folks who
dislike something and don't seem to be able to discuss examples of what
they don't like or why.
: I contrast this with the
: excellent CD of Bulgarian folk music which came out a number of years
: ago which I liked on first hearing.
So it's gotta be liked on first hearing or it's no go? I'd have missed out
on some great Webern if I'd taken that tack. I also didn't like brussels
sprouts or spinach the first time I tried them, either. Not everything
great in life can be gotten on the first go round.
: I think what you're probably saying is that this music is an acquired
: taste...perhaps, but I have heard it enough to know that it just
: doesnt do anything for me. Some music I've definitely grown into, but
: this I havent. And I think I'm not alone.
You're entitled to your opinion. But IMHO that statement you just made
suggests that you feel your opinion should apply more universally than
just to yourself. Otherwise, why would you feel the need to think you're
not alone here? Just because you and your friends don't like non-tonal
music doesn't mean it's bad. And just because lots of people think
something is true, that doesn't mean it is indeed true. A large number of
early 19th century Americans thought slavery was a great thing, after
all......
I'm still wondering how much of this music you have heard, and which
pieces. Not all atonal (or tonal music, for that matter) is good, but some
of it is.
: As to "contemporary" I think we've gotten into an overly narrow view
: of what this means. Atonal music is still being written. Thus it is
: contemporary.
So is tonal music. Note recent pieces by Rochberg, Glass, Penderecki, and
Gorecki, to name four examples.
: Schoenberg's influenced these folks, thus his influence
: is contemporary.
Other composers (like Rochberg) are writing music that sounds like Brahms.
Does that make Brahms "contemporary?" Maxwell Davies has written music
that uses Medieval and Renaissance compositional techniques. Does that
make Machaut and De Vitry "contemporary?"
: Just because he's dead doesnt mean he's not
: contemporary.
How about defining "contemporary?"
Dave
Tom McEvoy
>[snip] blah
> Go Yankees.
The only sanity I've seen on this thread so far :)
--
Tom :)
bup...@ix.netcom.com
Jeff Wilson
Visit the Schoenberg website at http://www.schoenberg.org/ for
reproductions of some of his paintings, among other stuff.
<snip>
>While it is true that perhaps one cannot say that Schoenberg's music is a
>"musical representation of" expressionism, it is nevertheless clear that
>expression plays a large role in much of Schoenberg's pre-12 tone music.
>This is probably what Justin meant. Pieces such as _Erwartung_, _Die
>Glueckliche Hand_, and of course _Pierrot Lunaire_ have much in common
>with expressionist painting. Schoenberg was himself a painter influenced
>by expressionism, and he certainly shared ideas with a number of painters
>usually described as expressionist.
<snip>
Jeff Bernhard
I doubt that I can add anything of value here other than my own observations.
My formal musical training is limited and is not used or required to enjoy
music, tonal or other. I don't think any music could be popular if popularity
depended on such formal education.
What is it about 'atonal' music that I find enjoyable? How about freedom?
The progression of sound is different, the sonorities are different ...
and just because it is different doesn't mean it doesn't sound beautiful.
The Berg violin concerto is very 'tonal', in a sense, and moving and
beautiful. Perhaps the major requirement to enjoying different styles of
music is simply surrendering all conceptions of what the music *should* do,
and listening for any trace of beauty therein. I think most composers,
once they feel comfortable with their techniques and idioms, want to affect
their listeners as they themselves are affected (I'm guessing). Poor perfor-
mances or recordings may make it very difficult for me to enjoy a piece, but
that's true with all music. Even 'atonal' works require some sensitivity
in the performers (and the listeners).
When I first heard Schoenberg's string quartets, or Stravinsky's Movements
for Piano and Orchestra, or any number of other 20th century works, I felt
nothing the first few times, except perhaps bemusement. ("What were these
guys thinking when the wrote this stuff?!") Now they are old friends that
continue to provide pleasure just like Mozart and Beethoven still do. I'm
grateful for the variety ...
--
Jeffrey Bernhard Concurrent Computer Corp.
Jeff.B...@mail.hcsc.com Voice: (954) 973-5496 Fax: (954) 977-5580
*** The opinions expressed herein are mine, not those of my employer! ***
James C.S. Liu
On Wed, 20 Nov 1996 07:21:49 GMT, bup...@ix.netcom.com (Tom McEvoy)
wrote:
>>[snip] blah
>
>> Go Yankees.
>
>The only sanity I've seen on this thread so far :)
Too bad the season ended a few weeks ago (I guess this ties into
calling Schoenberg a "contemporary" composer).
Go Knicks. =8^)
--
/James C.S. Liu "Make it idiot-proof and someone
jame...@yale.edu will make a better idiot."
New Haven, Connecticut -- Anonymous
My opinions have nothing to do with my employer!
Chris Koenigsberg
wf...@enter.net (bob puharic) writes:
> ... it was in response to a post pointing out that i mentioned that i
> liked abstract expressionism but found atonality difficult to
> appreciate.
How about modern dance? How about, modern dance with weird music? Can
you dig the sound any better if you're watching dancers in tights
cavorting onstage at the same time? :-)
i.e. the Rite of Spring for an old example.
Or, Cage/Tudor/Kosugi's many collaborations with Merce Cunningham?
Xenakis' painfully exquisitely gorgeous, awesomely grotesque,
monumental 74-minute long piece "Kraanerg" for chamber orchestra and
4-channel tape (excellent performance last night by the ST/X Ensemble
and DJ Spooky, in Princeton NJ, by the way) is listed on the concert
program as a "Ballet Score", and was performed along with a ballet
dance sometime in the past (dunno if it premiered originally, in 1968,
with the ballet or by itself?). Must have been a totally wild scene.
...although Xenakis said, in his lecture appearance yesterday
afternoon, that he doesn't like writing music for dance because it
usually requires some kind of regular pulse (though Kraanerg has no
pulse to speak of, except for the conductor's silent baton ;-)
Chris Koenigsberg
wf...@enter.net (bob puharic) writes:
> heifetz once said that atonality sounded like a garbage truck backing
> into a bunch of empty cans.
So who was it who said "A dancer talking about music is like a critic
of atonality driving a garbage truck around architecture"?
Now THERE'S an idea for a performance piece..... set the cans up along
with the umbrellas in the piano wrapped in aluminum foil in the desert
:-) and put the clarinet player inside one of the cans, the one who
supposedly played a whole Schoenberg piece on the wrong clarinet :-)
along with those "Meow" cascade nuts trying to overrun some newsgroups
lately.
Actually, seriously, the sounds made by large machinery like garbage
trucks, and resonant objects like empty cans in an alleyway, are quite
fertile source material for electroacoustic composition....
Frank Eggleston
> c...@pobox.com (Chris Koenigsberg) writes:
> wf...@enter.net (bob puharic) writes:
> > ... it was in response to a post pointing out that i mentioned that i
> > liked abstract expressionism but found atonality difficult to
> > appreciate.
>
> How about modern dance? How about, modern dance with weird music? Can
> you dig the sound any better if you're watching dancers in tights
> cavorting onstage at the same time? :-)
>
> i.e. the Rite of Spring for an old example.
>
> Or, Cage/Tudor/Kosugi's many collaborations with Merce Cunningham?
>
>
> Chris Koenigsberg: c...@pobox.com
> <URL: http://www.pobox.com/~ckk>
>
> Boycott Internet Spam! <http://www.vix.com/spam/>
>
>>>>
choreography constitutes "collaboration", since I understand that
Cunningham doesn't correograph to the music. Any comments?
Frank Eggleston
Irina Bondarenko
Chris Koenigsberg wrote:
>
> Coincidentally, in preparation to attend the Princeton performance
> tonight of Xenakis's "Kraanerg", I was playing the CD and reading the
> liner notes last night.
What did you think of the concert?
--
-Irina.
Jonathan Addleman
"Such composers, in my opinion have nothing but smoke in their heads
if they are so impressed with themselves as to think they can corrupt,
abolish, and ruin at will the good old rules handed down from days of
old by so many theorists and excellent musiciansm who are the very
ones from whom these modern musicians have learned awkwardly to put a
few notes together."
A quote by Giavanni Maria Artusi about Monteverdi's music at about the
turn of the 17th century. See any parallels?
zi...@interport.net
wf...@enter.net (bob puharic) wrote:
>Ok let me confess, I'm not a musician, nor do I have any formal
>musical training. (scientists have opinions too).
>Having said the mea culpa's, let me ask this group which has done much
>to help me appreciate music this question:
>what the hell is up with contemporary "classical" music. by this i
>mean the atonal material like schoenberg, ives, etc. I truly like
>abstract expressionism, and pop art, but this music leaves me
>absolutely cold. it has no correspondence with the human experience
>and seems to be devoid of meaning. while this may be part of its
>charm, i feel that in 100 yrs, it will be completely forgotten. It is
>a form of nominalism in that just because it's possible to write music
>like this, so it should be done. kind of like the old platonic
>argument for the existence of god...we can connect the words "perfect"
>and 'beauty' so "perfect beauty" must exist (after all, existence is
>the first aspect of perfection)...which is god. neither concept has
>validity.
>reading about it doesnt help much... many authors feel that this art
>form, like so many others today (especially poetry), is simply that of
>artists talking to other artists, and that's there's been a disconnect
>between art and life. some feel that, in a sense, if you have to ask
>the price, you can't afford it. when i was in college a friend of mine
>(a professional musician) said he loved it. and some, of the school of
>bill bennett and the philistines of the xtian right, decry the effect
>this "relativism" is having on our youth. this is, of course, swill
>for pandering to the anti-NPR fundamentalists.
>So, what's happening? Is this music bad? (how's that for a loaded
>question)? Will it surivive? why do people write it? why do people
>enjoy it? Do they enjoy it in the same way the enjoy "real" classical
>music? does it have the same meaning? will the yankees win the 1997
>world series? Ive run out of questions. waddya got to say?
First of all, I fear your information is out of date. I'm not sure
what's happening in the music world where you are, but here in New
York City atonal music (and especially 12-tone) is NOT appreciated by
the critics, and more's the pity, if you ask me. What they do like is
minimalism, as well as a lot of boring, reactionary tonal music. Don't
get me wrong, my favorite composers are tonal, but I DO enjoy
Schonberg and the other now-much-maligned classical modernists of the
first half of the 20th century in much the same way that I enjoy other
great composers. However, in a way that's not true, because I
understand Schonberg's Expressionist music differently from Bach's
Baroque music and Machaut's Medieval music. A musical education is
certainly useful in providing information, but the only real way to
enjoy music you may not find pleasing at first is to train your ear.
The only way to train your ear is to continue listening to lots of
music - and not being so judgmental toward work that you don't
understand. You may be a brilliant scientist, but since you are
avowedly uneducated in music, you should afford yourself the gift of a
little humility toward complex music which doesn't offer your ear
effortless pleasure. Of course, you don't have to listen to any
modernist music written in the last 100 years, but I sense that this
might bother you, since your question, polemical though it is,
suggests to me that you consider it important to understand and take
part in your culture.
Might I suggest that you do a kind of historical survey of music? Try
starting with late Romantic or early Modernist music you may find
somewhat easy to listen to. I would go in 2 directions, first of all:
1. Wagner (Tristan), followed up with Strauss' opera Salome, Mahler's
symphonies/song cycles, and Schonberg's early - and tonal - Gurre
Lieder and Verklarte Nacht. If you're still enjoying yourself, try
listening to Schonberg's early atonal pieces, such as the short piano
pieces, Op. 19 (I think), the Alban Berg Violin Concerto and Lyric
Suite, some Webern (his works are very short but extremely pithy and
require careful listening).
2. Radical late-Romantic Russian: Pictures at an Exhibition and the
opera Boris Godunov by Mussorgsky. Impressionism: Debussy, Ravel.
Follow this up with Stravinsky: Firebird, Petrouchka, Rite of Spring.
Also try listening to works by Bartok. The Romanian Dances would be
one of the most accessible, and there's also a nice suite, For
Children, for solo piano. The Concerto for Orchestra is also rather
accessible. After that, you can try listening to pieces such as the
string quartets.
I hope this helps, and I don't think I'll volunteer opinions about
science to you!
Sincerely,
Michael A. Laderman
Adjunct Asst. Prof. of Music, Bronx Community College/CUNY
Len Fehskens
On 20 Nov 1996 00:01:36 GMT, David Cleary at dcl...@fas2.fas.harvard.edu
wrote
>Which pieces? Which composers? I'm always very suspicious of folks who
>dislike something and don't seem to be able to discuss examples of what
>they don't like or why.
Come on. Do you really expect people to put a lot of effort into exploring
things they don't like? It's usually a matter of something like "Tried it
once, didn't like it, didn't try it again." Also, there's enough "likely to
be liked" stuff out there that people also don't tend to pursue things that
are likely to be like the thing they didn't like (forgive me); e.g., other
works by a composer whose first experience was unenjoyable.
len.
David Cleary
Len Fehskens (fehs...@pcbuoa.enet.dec.com) wrote:
: On 20 Nov 1996 00:01:36 GMT, David Cleary at dcl...@fas2.fas.harvard.edu
: wrote
Sorry, but I believe people who flap their yaps like this guy did should
have some ammo to back up their assertions. Usually such folks, as you've
suggested, haven't given it much of a try--like the three-year-old who
says "Yuck!" the first time something other than hamburgers or hot dogs
are put on his plate. Some good things in life need more than half a taste
or a half-awake listen before the excellence is understood. I'd like to
see folks like this person make more of an effort. And who knows? With a
little more listening, maybe this guy will actually get a handle on what's
going in the music he doesn't seem to like. IMHO it's worth a try, at
least.
Dave
Roger L. Lustig
Nathan Eberhardt wrote:
>
> In article <328FCC...@ix.netcom.com>, "Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> says:
> >
> >bob puharic wrote:
> >
> >> jtb...@presby.edu (Jon Bell) wrote:
> >
[much deleted]
> >> seems like some folks who have posted are objecting to the idea of
> >> "meaning" in music.
> >
> >No, I think they're objecting to the use of that term in an
> >undefined fashion.
> >
> >> but nobody listens to classical nowadays.
> >
> >Oh? How come the CD industry is booming? New labels, tons
> >of recordings, reissues...more opera and concert performances
> >in this country than ever before.
> Reportedly, the cd industry is not booming, atleast for classical
> music. There was comment on CNN that classical music sales are
> slumping...only opera interest going up. Symphony orchestras barely
> surviving, lack of funds, lack of young people buying tickets
> for classical concerts.
Perhaps in the last year or two--but it's pretty odd to blame
Schoenberg and Ives *now*, don't you think?
Roger Lustig
zi...@interport.net
wf...@enter.net (bob puharic) wrote:
EVERYONE: SORRY IF YOU'RE BORED WITH THIS SUBJECT. I SENT THE
FOLLOWING MESSAGE LAST NIGHT AT 12:29 AM, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE
BEEN POSTED. SINCE I WORKED HARD ON THIS, I THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE
POSTED. READ ON IF YOU'RE INTERESTED
First of all, I fear your information is out of date. I'm not sure
what's happening in the music world where you are, but here in New
York City atonal music (and especially 12-tone) is NOT appreciated by
the critics, and more's the pity, if you ask me. What they do like is
minimalism, as well as a lot of boring, reactionary tonal music. Don't
get me wrong, my favorite composers are tonal, but I DO enjoy
Schonberg and the other now-much-maligned classic modernists of the
Alan Bird
In article <56qn95$d...@osprey.global.co.za>, Justin Sulik
<jwbs...@global.co.za> writes (and answers Bob Puharic)
>> why do people
>>enjoy it?
>
>
>>Do they enjoy it in the same way the enjoy "real" classical
>>music?
>
>
>>does it have the same meaning?
>
>our minds.
>
I have a lot sympathy with the fellow who started this thread (Bob
Puharic) although I'm not so sure about the position he has argued
himself into. Even so, I am another one who cannot bear to listen to
virtually anything written after Mahler. Now, this newsgroup has
convinced of something I never truly believed before: that there are
people who actually love the stuff. (To some extent they've caused me to
re-appraise my convictions: I'm currently nerving myself to go out and
buy Bartok's string quartets, but based on my experience, I suspect I'll
never come to like them.)
Nonetheless, although I don't like C20 music, I adore and have an
encyclopaedic knowledge of not only the the mainstream C17-C19
repertoire, but a hell of a lot of the more obscure byways which music
wandered down during that period. The exploration of Bach's cantatas,
Schubert's Lieder and the Ring cycle will occupy me until I die, but in
addition I know there are years of pleasure and delight to be found in
the Moravian, Swedish, Polish and Russian schools of the C18, the
Dresden and Madrid courts of the C17 and the now forgotten
contemporaries of Brahms - as well as other schools I don't even know of
yet.
So I object to anybody saying that C20 music is necessarily better than
that which went before because it is somehow more relevant to us,
especially when such claims are made without knowing the richness of the
full range of music produced over those two hundred years.
And I particularly object to the likes of Mr Sulik, who informs me
(without any proper basis) that he likes his music more than I do mine,
and who manages to sneer at my tastes while doing so.
And his final comment, which seems to imply that Bach (for example) does
not appeal to the intellect, is, frankly, risible. Still, he says C20
music is fantastic, so while I'm not prepared to listen to Berio or Nono
again, I might (as I said) give the Bartok string 4tets a go.
If it works, I'll let you know.
--
Alan Bird Inventor & Sole Consumer of After-8 Mince
Jon Bell
Alan Bird <alan...@jsbach.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I have a lot sympathy with the fellow who started this thread (Bob
>Puharic) although I'm not so sure about the position he has argued
>himself into. Even so, I am another one who cannot bear to listen to
>virtually anything written after Mahler.
*Anything*? I find that hard to believe. The defining characteristic of
20th century music is its sheer variety. If you're thinking of the
"important" composers that every music-history textbook mentions
(Schoenberg, Berg, Boulez, Carter, Messiaen et al.), then perhaps you
should try a wider sample. Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Sibelius, Nielsen,
Larsson, Copland, Hanson, Barber, Piston... How about George Lloyd? Some
would argue, "well, he's not really 20th century", he's so conservative,
but he's still alive and keeping pretty busy, as far as I can tell.
>So I object to anybody saying that C20 music is necessarily better than
>that which went before because it is somehow more relevant to us,
>especially when such claims are made without knowing the richness of the
>full range of music produced over those two hundred years.
Well, I don't think that any particular type of music is "better" than any
other type. Different styles are just that: different. They appeal to
people for different reasons. My philosophy is that if I can accustom
myself to "new" styles, then that opens more paths to musical enjoyment
for me. Some composers I still don't "get", for example Webern, Wuorinen
and Henze; but someday maybe I'll give them another chance, and then who
knows? I've changed my mind about composers before.
--
Jon Bell <jtb...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
Roger L. Lustig
bob puharic wrote:
> Christopher Norman <cano...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >Do you see how silly this assertion looks?
> >Using your logic, every composer who has ever influenced any
> >other composer is "contemporary". I think you're getting into
> >sophistry and ignoring the point, which is that the techniques
> >of modern music have gone far beyond those of Schoenberg.
> >It's become obvious to most serious listeners that Schoenberg
> >is not much harder to understand than, say, Richard Strauss.
> no, not quite. in physics, newton is a contemporary, thought he has
> been superceded by event. he was a founder (perhaps THE founder) of
> physics...
I think Galileo, Kepler, Archimedes, and others might take
exception to that "perhaps THE founder".
> schoenberg's efforts are still being developed. i dont think
> that the techniques used by atonal composers have gone beyond
> schoenberg.
You mean, Berg, Webern, Boulez, Stravinsky, Perle, Shapey,
and others haven't gone beyond Schoenberg's techniques?
That's a pretty bold statement. Care to tell us about
those composers' techniques?
> some, like steve reich, reject them, however.
In what way do they reject them? Personally? Globally?
Roger Lustig
Roger L. Lustig
bob puharic wrote:
> "Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >No, I don't. A moment ago you knew that it was artists talking to
> >other artists. Before that....well, before that we don't know,
> >because you deleted your own words.
> nah, you're just too lazy to go back and read them.
Sorry, pal, but that's not how USENET works. You want to refer
to a posting--you REFER to it. Cite it yourself.
> >A reading list. Start with Charles Rosen's _Arnold Schoenberg_.
> now, that wasnt difficult was it...a little help, a few ideas....
You, too, could have gone to the library. Tell me, what do you
think of the book?
> >I've read them, and a fair amount of other writing about music. For
> >that matter, you've probably read some of *mine*.
> good HEAVENS!!! how did i miss it!
That's not my problem.
> >Oh, *my*. What a withering critique. Tell me: is an Economist
> >article really the place to learn about music history?
> well i know to an idiot savant divorced from the world like you are,
> this doesnt appeal to you...doesnt appeal to most elitists.
Divorced from the world, eh? Tell me, are you *in* the music
business? I am.
Have you studied the history of music? I have.
Do you even bother to do any research before posting? I do.
> >Such wit! Now, if the relative popularity of Beethoven
> >and Schoenberg is all you have to adduce as evidence,
> >perhaps you could tell us again what your argument *is*.
> not the point. the point is, what does the artist have to say?
Composers don't say. They compose. What was Beethoven "saying"?
How do you know?
> >Ah, so I'm an elitist with a kindergarten teacher. Interesting.
> is there any other kind?
Yes.
> >If you're asking questions, GO AND STUDY. There's *plenty*
> >written on 20thC music, about what happened at the beginning
> >of the century, about the changes in audience behavior, etc.
> >If you could refrain from ignorant invective for just a little
> >while, you might just learn something.
> im busy learning it from you.
Some student you are. How do you expect to learn if you're
so busy acting like a jerk?
> >> >Dreadful. What's bad music? How can we tell?
> >> heifetz once said that atonality sounded like a garbage truck backing
> >> into a bunch of empty cans.
> >He was wrong. But then, to you that would seem to be evidence
> >of something. What do Heifetz's words *mean* to you? Is he
> >right? Does the _Lyric Suite_ sound that way?
> >> and you need better answers.
> >You wouldn't know them if you saw them.
> not true...i'd just be surprised if they came from you...astonished,
> actually.
How would you know?
Roger Lustig
Roger L. Lustig
bob puharic wrote:
> "Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Great. Now tell me how much money classical music made for the record
> >companies 50 and 75 years ago.
> alot more, apparently, than they do today.
Why apparent? Care to show some numbers?
> >> anybody. how many classical stations in a market like NYC or philly?
> >Who cares? Radio stations aren't the ideal medium for classical
> >music. (For the record, I have the choice of 3 or 4 on my car
> >radio here in New Jersey; five in the AM, counting the local
> >college station.) Classical radio was a 1950's-60's phenomenon
> >in this country. Note that record sales are *way* up.
> >> several million people...1 or 2 stations.
> >So? There are many better ways to listen to classical music.
> >The dearth of radio stations simply points to the fact that
> >it's hard to *advertise* in a classical format.
> well if you cut out classical radio stations, and classical cd's, as i
> pointed out above, that just about covers all the media, doesnt it?
You didn't point anything out about classical CDs, aside from an
unsupported allegation. Come back with some facts. Speaking as
a member of NARAS, I sure don't see any evidence that classical
records aren't an economically viable item.
> >> >> a recent book i read on the history of art pointed out that, though
> >> >> schoenberg and kandinsky were great friends, there is no necessary
> >> >> relationship between the visual and musical arts.
> >> >That sentence is a non-sequitur.
> >> no, it was in response to a post pointing out that i mentioned that i
> >> liked abstract expressionism but found atonality difficult to
> >> appreciate. please, if you have something to offer, read the posts.
> >I did. It's a non-sequitur. If you were making reference to
> >another posting, you were hiding it well.
> no, you just read poorly.
So let's see the reference to the other posting.
> >> otherwise, im afraid you're getting lost in irrelevancy and false
> >> ideas.
> >Really? Point out some false ideas here.
> your assertion that classical music is booming, for one.
You were the one claiming that it wasn't. You haven't presented
any evidence. Why are there more orchestras than 20 or 30 years
ago? Why are there more records being issued? Why are there more
students, more concerts? The numbers are there for all to see.
> >> ive quoted my sources, pointed out the train of my thought.
> >It derailed long ago. You're quoting selectively, not bothering
> >to get the whole picture, pasting factoids together, and adding
> >large dollops of fantasy and sheer nonsense.
> coming from the amtrak of ideas, you're hardly in a position to offer
> criticism.
Actually, I'm in no position to criticize because you've given
so little that even warrants it. Back up your original assertions
and we can talk.
> >> if you disagree, fine. but please keep track of what's being said.
> >After you. And please keep track of the musical scene, too.
> do you know what a "music scene" is?
Yes. I earn money there.
Roger Lustig
Roger L. Lustig
bob puharic wrote:
> dcl...@fas2.fas.harvard.edu (David Cleary) wrote:
> >bob puharic (wf...@enter.net) wrote:
> >: actually the pieces Ive heard have been at various concerts Ive
> >: attended over the years, heard on radio, etc.
> >Which pieces? Which composers? I'm always very suspicious of folks who
> >dislike something and don't seem to be able to discuss examples of what
> >they don't like or why.
> mainly because im not a professional musician and usually dont pay
> attention to the specific names of pieces of music i dont like. so,
> suspect away...though im not sure what youre gonna suspect.
Nothing to suspect. You've just told us you're full of it. If you
can take the time to post about a certain kind of music, surely you
can take the time to find out what it's called.
> >: I contrast this with the
> >: excellent CD of Bulgarian folk music which came out a number of years
> >: ago which I liked on first hearing.
> >So it's gotta be liked on first hearing or it's no go? I'd have missed out
> >on some great Webern if I'd taken that tack. I also didn't like brussels
> >sprouts or spinach the first time I tried them, either. Not everything
> >great in life can be gotten on the first go round.
> nope, not true. some composers must be revisited to be appreciated. i
> dont have to listen to atonal music for hours and hours to say that i
> dont like it.
Perhaps you have to listen to it for hours to say that you *do*.
> >You're entitled to your opinion. But IMHO that statement you just made
> >suggests that you feel your opinion should apply more universally than
> >just to yourself. Otherwise, why would you feel the need to think you're
> >not alone here? Just because you and your friends don't like non-tonal
> >music doesn't mean it's bad. And just because lots of people think
> >something is true, that doesn't mean it is indeed true. A large number of
> >early 19th century Americans thought slavery was a great thing, after
> >all......
> didnt say it was bad...i just dont like it. slavery was immoral, and
> evil, as well as bad...no comparison. the point in this case is that
> art may be losing its ability to be understood.
By whom? Who understood it in the past? Beethoven, Berlioz, Mahler,
etc. all complained about being misunderstood. What would it have
been like if they'd been understood?
> >Other composers (like Rochberg) are writing music that sounds like Brahms.
> >Does that make Brahms "contemporary?" Maxwell Davies has written music
> >that uses Medieval and Renaissance compositional techniques. Does that
> >make Machaut and De Vitry "contemporary?"
> well my understanding is that schoenberg had quite a bit to do with
> atonal music....
That's pathetic. Besides, Brahms had a lot to do with tonal music.
Roger
mvs...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
wf...@enter.net (bob puharic) writes:
>
> yep, thats absolutely right. and thats kind of the point im referring
> to. i was reading an article in the LA times recently about steve
> reich. the person writing the interview said that reich specifically
> mentioned atonality as something he rebelled against. why would
> someone rebel against something unless he rejected the message it
> carried? reich is hardly an unknown in the music world.
I don't know Reich's motivation, but I can make a fairly confident guess:
because he didn't like the music or didn't want to compose that kind of music,
but the music was dominating the music scene at the time. There are no
subliminal messages in this stuff! I think you're confusing it with Led
Zeppelin. ;-)
I'm guessing here, but I suspect that your expectations may be shaped by
modern art, which seemingly has largely become dependent on verbal explanations
of its content for it to function. Is that what you refer to as "meaning"?
With rare exceptions you won't find this in 20C classical. Theorists
often have much to say about the content of a musical work, but it is
analysis of the *music*, not one of extramusical meanings. The only
question relevant to music appreciation is "why did the composer put
those notes together in that particular way?", and it is a question to
be asked separately for each piece of music. Unfortunately, the only way to
answer that question is through attentive and sometimes repeated listening.
I'm afraid I'm waiting in vain for you to define your terms, so here are
a few ideas pertaining to what *might* be meaning of your critique and
questions.
Regarding the music having no correspondence with human experience...
A lot of 20C classical is based on musical relationships other than those
predominant in public domain music. Take tonal cadences. You hear a piece
by Beethoven, you come across a I/IV, your brain says "hey, I've heard
this before"; then comes the dominant and your brain says "yup, I've
definitely heard this one before and I think I know where it's going";
we resolve to the tonic and the brain exclaims "I *knew* it! It all makes
*sense*!". When you hear some contemporary piece, your brain keeps looking
for patterns that can be immediately related to your previous aural
experiences, but, if you haven't had much exposure to that sort of music
before, it can't find them. The brain says "huh? this doesn't make sense
at all!"
Some people have this reaction when they hear Palestrina's music for
the first time, since it is also devoid of tonal cadences.
Good news is, both Palestrina's music and most of 20C classical music offer
inner coherence, or, as they sometimes say, inner logic. The objective
is to grasp the patterns present in music. Luckily, the human brain is
naturally equipped for the task. All it takes is listening.
As an example, I spent about two months with Webern's music trying to
make sense out of it. It took me hours of repeated listening to stuff
that sounded like a disjointed mess of sound. But, at some point, a few notes
would fall into a pattern that made sense; the next time a few notes around
them would organize themselves into a coherent thought with a logical
relationship to the ones before and after them. It was exactly as if
a picture was coming into focus. What more, the music was turning out
to be almost painfully beatiful. Since then I came to count Webern among my
all time favorite composers.
Why do so few people like 20C classical music? I believe the main reason is
that few are willing to engage in this sort of listening activity.
Are we to hold this against the music?
Michael
Michelle Dulak and Geo. Thomson
bob puharic writes:
> i was reading an article in the LA times recently about steve
> reich. the person writing the interview said that reich specifically
> mentioned atonality as something he rebelled against. why would
> someone rebel against something unless he rejected the message it
> carried?
Ummm.... perhaps he doesn't like the way it sounds? Why need
"meanings" come into it?
Michelle Dulak
bob puharic
mvs...@vms.cis.pitt.edu wrote:
>wf...@enter.net (bob puharic) writes:
>> well those of us who attended pitt ARE a breed apart :). the real
>> point is that there are some styles of art, like minimalism,
>Isn't the point of minimalism in logic of arrangement of simple/similar
>objects?
>> or some
>> philosophies like nihilism which attempt to say that the only meaning
>> in art or anything else for that matter, is that there is no meaning.
>Unless the two terms are defined differently, this is a contradiction.
well, nihilism, like dadaism, relishes contradictions.
>> i dont make this stuff up! as to the correspondence between meaning
>> and music, there is an excellent book entitled "the interpretation of
>> music- philosophical essays" by krausz (think hes at u of penn) which
>> goes into the relationship of meaning and experience more fully than i
>> ever could.
>But see, so *much* has been said about music that terms such as "meaning"
>and "experience" have been used with many different definitions.
yep, thats absolutely right. and thats kind of the point im referring
to. i was reading an article in the LA times recently about steve
reich. the person writing the interview said that reich specifically
mentioned atonality as something he rebelled against. why would
someone rebel against something unless he rejected the message it
bob puharic
"Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Great. Now tell me how much money classical music made for the record
>companies 50 and 75 years ago.
alot more, apparently, than they do today.
>
>> anybody. how many classical stations in a market like NYC or philly?
>Who cares? Radio stations aren't the ideal medium for classical
>music. (For the record, I have the choice of 3 or 4 on my car
>radio here in New Jersey; five in the AM, counting the local
>college station.) Classical radio was a 1950's-60's phenomenon
>in this country. Note that record sales are *way* up.
>> several million people...1 or 2 stations.
>So? There are many better ways to listen to classical music.
>The dearth of radio stations simply points to the fact that
>it's hard to *advertise* in a classical format.
well if you cut out classical radio stations, and classical cd's, as i
pointed out above, that just about covers all the media, doesnt it?
>
>
>> >> a recent book i read on the history of art pointed out that, though
>> >> schoenberg and kandinsky were great friends, there is no necessary
>> >> relationship between the visual and musical arts.
>
>> >That sentence is a non-sequitur.
>
>> no, it was in response to a post pointing out that i mentioned that i
>> liked abstract expressionism but found atonality difficult to
>> appreciate. please, if you have something to offer, read the posts.
>I did. It's a non-sequitur. If you were making reference to
>another posting, you were hiding it well.
no, you just read poorly.
>> otherwise, im afraid you're getting lost in irrelevancy and false
>> ideas.
>Really? Point out some false ideas here.
your assertion that classical music is booming, for one.
>> ive quoted my sources, pointed out the train of my thought.
>It derailed long ago. You're quoting selectively, not bothering
>to get the whole picture, pasting factoids together, and adding
>large dollops of fantasy and sheer nonsense.
coming from the amtrak of ideas, you're hardly in a position to offer
criticism.
>> if you disagree, fine. but please keep track of what's being said.
>After you. And please keep track of the musical scene, too.
>Roger Lustig
bob puharic
"Benjamin E. Buck" <b...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
People after all are entitled to their own
>musical tastes and it is not your place to tell them that they are wrong
>for liking who they like.
someone put a burr in your saddle? i never said anyone was wrong for
liking any kind of music. i hate rap, and country music, for example.
some people like these. you should not impute motives to people with
whom you disagree.
bob puharic
"Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>No, I don't. A moment ago you knew that it was artists talking to
>other artists. Before that....well, before that we don't know,
>because you deleted your own words.
nah, you're just too lazy to go back and read them.
>A reading list. Start with Charles Rosen's _Arnold Schoenberg_.
now, that wasnt difficult was it...a little help, a few ideas....
>I've read them, and a fair amount of other writing about music. For
>that matter, you've probably read some of *mine*.
good HEAVENS!!! how did i miss it!
>Oh, *my*. What a withering critique. Tell me: is an Economist
>article really the place to learn about music history?
well i know to an idiot savant divorced from the world like you are,
this doesnt appeal to you...doesnt appeal to most elitists.
>
>Such wit! Now, if the relative popularity of Beethoven
>and Schoenberg is all you have to adduce as evidence,
>perhaps you could tell us again what your argument *is*.
not the point. the point is, what does the artist have to say?
>Ah, so I'm an elitist with a kindergarten teacher. Interesting.
is there any other kind?
>If you're asking questions, GO AND STUDY. There's *plenty*
>written on 20thC music, about what happened at the beginning
>of the century, about the changes in audience behavior, etc.
>If you could refrain from ignorant invective for just a little
>while, you might just learn something.
im busy learning it from you.
>> >Dreadful. What's bad music? How can we tell?
bob puharic
Christopher Norman <cano...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>Do you see how silly this assertion looks?
>Using your logic, every composer who has ever influenced any
>other composer is "contemporary". I think you're getting into
>sophistry and ignoring the point, which is that the techniques
>of modern music have gone far beyond those of Schoenberg.
>It's become obvious to most serious listeners that Schoenberg
>is not much harder to understand than, say, Richard Strauss.
>Christopher Norman
no, not quite. in physics, newton is a contemporary, thought he has
been superceded by event. he was a founder (perhaps THE founder) of
physics...schoenberg's efforts are still being developed. i dont think
that the techniques used by atonal composers have gone beyond
schoenberg. some, like steve reich, reject them, however.
bob puharic
dcl...@fas2.fas.harvard.edu (David Cleary) wrote:
>bob puharic (wf...@enter.net) wrote:
>: actually the pieces Ive heard have been at various concerts Ive
>: attended over the years, heard on radio, etc.
>Which pieces? Which composers? I'm always very suspicious of folks who
>dislike something and don't seem to be able to discuss examples of what
>they don't like or why.
mainly because im not a professional musician and usually dont pay
attention to the specific names of pieces of music i dont like. so,
suspect away...though im not sure what youre gonna suspect.
>: I contrast this with the
>: excellent CD of Bulgarian folk music which came out a number of years
>: ago which I liked on first hearing.
>So it's gotta be liked on first hearing or it's no go? I'd have missed out
>on some great Webern if I'd taken that tack. I also didn't like brussels
>sprouts or spinach the first time I tried them, either. Not everything
>great in life can be gotten on the first go round.
nope, not true. some composers must be revisited to be appreciated. i
dont have to listen to atonal music for hours and hours to say that i
dont like it.
>You're entitled to your opinion. But IMHO that statement you just made
>suggests that you feel your opinion should apply more universally than
>just to yourself. Otherwise, why would you feel the need to think you're
>not alone here? Just because you and your friends don't like non-tonal
>music doesn't mean it's bad. And just because lots of people think
>something is true, that doesn't mean it is indeed true. A large number of
>early 19th century Americans thought slavery was a great thing, after
>all......
didnt say it was bad...i just dont like it. slavery was immoral, and
evil, as well as bad...no comparison. the point in this case is that
art may be losing its ability to be understood.
>Other composers (like Rochberg) are writing music that sounds like Brahms.
bob puharic
Phil Cope <Phil...@smallworld.co.uk> wrote:
>Music (including that of the past) is continually judged against
>todays standards(a paradigm). If the paradigm changes, music that
>fits that paradigm will be considered "great".
>What you are seeing is a tussle between an audience who sits there
>and says "we know what we like" and an establishment that is tired
>of the standard and tries to introduce new ideas. You could consider
>an analogy with the Neo-Darwin interpretation of Natural Selection.
tis true...and ive given that some thought...with the analogy that
most mutations eventually go extinct! i dont fault the artist for
trying. i think we have an obligation, even if we dont like what's
being said, to try to understand it.
bob puharic
dcl...@fas2.fas.harvard.edu (David Cleary) wrote:
>Len Fehskens (fehs...@pcbuoa.enet.dec.com) wrote:
>: On 20 Nov 1996 00:01:36 GMT, David Cleary at dcl...@fas2.fas.harvard.edu
>: wrote
>: >Which pieces? Which composers? I'm always very suspicious of folks who
>: >dislike something and don't seem to be able to discuss examples of what
>: >they don't like or why.
>: Come on. Do you really expect people to put a lot of effort into exploring
>: things they don't like? It's usually a matter of something like "Tried it
>: once, didn't like it, didn't try it again." Also, there's enough "likely to
>: be liked" stuff out there that people also don't tend to pursue things that
>: are likely to be like the thing they didn't like (forgive me); e.g., other
>: works by a composer whose first experience was unenjoyable.
>Sorry, but I believe people who flap their yaps like this guy did should
>have some ammo to back up their assertions. Usually such folks, as you've
>suggested, haven't given it much of a try--like the three-year-old who
>says "Yuck!" the first time something other than hamburgers or hot dogs
>are put on his plate. Some good things in life need more than half a taste
>or a half-awake listen before the excellence is understood. I'd like to
>see folks like this person make more of an effort. And who knows? With a
>little more listening, maybe this guy will actually get a handle on what's
>going in the music he doesn't seem to like. IMHO it's worth a try, at
>least.
nice of you to understand so well. guess you like ALL contemporary
art, ALL pop art, etc etc.....with a little more effort...nah, dont
bother. people who flap their yaps like you do probably cant handle
the challenge.
bob puharic
Justin Sulik <jwbs...@global.co.za> wrote:
>Um.
>Schoenberg was an abstract expressionist. He founded the second Viennese
>school (which included Berg and Webern) which was a musical representation
>of the expressionist art of those such as Munch. I have no idea what you
>mean.
well, not quite true. as i pointed out in a previous post, kandinsky
was a friend of schoenberg, but held very different views than he did.
there is no necessary connection between visual, and musical art.
>The Italian avant-garde is founded on the principal of meaning in music,
>linked with psychological, linguistic and dramatic ideals.
>>while this may be part of its
>>charm, i feel that in 100 yrs, it will be completely forgotten.
>Sez you! Music is developing constantly, and it is my oppinion that it's
>going to get even wierder, following the unification of language and music
> by Berio.
yep, sez me. i could be wrong...could be right. lets stick around and
see! actually, you make some interesting points. not sure if language
and music will merge because there are too many influences on both.
>Oh really? Did I miss something, somewhere? Art has become even more
>involved with life, but most people don't even bother to make the effort
>to see it.
perhaps they dont make the effort because they feel it has nothing to
offer! kind of like blaming the victim.
> and some, of the school of
>>bill bennett and the philistines of the xtian right, decry the effect
>>this "relativism" is having on our youth. this is, of course, swill
>>for pandering to the anti-NPR fundamentalists.
>>
>>So, what's happening?
the jesse helms and the bill bennetts are trying to destroy the arts,
quite simply.
>A miracle
>>
>>Do they enjoy it in the same way the enjoy "real" classical
>>music?
>Even more
>>does it have the same meaning?
>No, previous music was for the passionate side of us, this stuff is for
>our minds.
interesting point...
>>will the yankees win the 1997
>>world series? Ive run out of questions. waddya got to say?
>>
>Try Berio's sinfonia (Chailly, I think)
>>
bob puharic
rh...@saul5.u.washington.edu (Ryan M. Hare) wrote:
>While it is true that perhaps one cannot say that Schoenberg's music is a
>"musical representation of" expressionism, it is nevertheless clear that
>expression plays a large role in much of Schoenberg's pre-12 tone music.
see, we CAN have intelligent discussions here!
bob puharic
zi...@interport.net wrote:
>First of all, I fear your information is out of date. I'm not sure
>what's happening in the music world where you are, but here in New
>York City atonal music (and especially 12-tone) is NOT appreciated by
>the critics, and more's the pity, if you ask me.
interesting...as ive said many times during this thread. im not
passing judgement on the critics if, as you say, they dont like the
atonal stuff either. I dont know enough about their arguments to take
a position.
What they do like is
>minimalism, as well as a lot of boring, reactionary tonal music.
well, i like the minimalism more than the atonal (but minimalism is
dead in painting so music's time will come as well). but much of
minimalism is, as you say, boring. atonality may not appeal to me, but
it's not boring.
You may be a brilliant scientist, but since you are
>avowedly uneducated in music, you should afford yourself the gift of a
>little humility toward complex music which doesn't offer your ear
>effortless pleasure.
damning with faint praise, huh? :) im an average scientist, actually
(whatever that means)
Of course, you don't have to listen to any
>modernist music written in the last 100 years, but I sense that this
>might bother you, since your question, polemical though it is,
>suggests to me that you consider it important to understand and take
>part in your culture.
yep, thats why i asked it...and even asked it in the way i
did...polemical, but not necessarily confrontational. i stated what I
liked, and asked for comments. many, like yours, have been
instructional, and appreciate the efforts made by the "great unwashed"
to understand what's going on. some have been degrading and
insulting...but i aint no shrinking violet when these comments are
made. im not shy.
>Might I suggest that you do a kind of historical survey of music? Try
>starting with late Romantic or early Modernist music you may find
>somewhat easy to listen to. I would go in 2 directions, first of all:
>1. Wagner (Tristan), followed up with Strauss' opera Salome, Mahler's
>symphonies/song cycles, and Schonberg's early - and tonal - Gurre
>Lieder and Verklarte Nacht. If you're still enjoying yourself, try
>listening to Schonberg's early atonal pieces, such as the short piano
>pieces, Op. 19 (I think), the Alban Berg Violin Concerto and Lyric
>Suite, some Webern (his works are very short but extremely pithy and
>require careful listening).
>2. Radical late-Romantic Russian: Pictures at an Exhibition and the
>opera Boris Godunov by Mussorgsky. Impressionism: Debussy, Ravel.
>Follow this up with Stravinsky: Firebird, Petrouchka, Rite of Spring.
>Also try listening to works by Bartok. The Romanian Dances would be
>one of the most accessible, and there's also a nice suite, For
>Children, for solo piano. The Concerto for Orchestra is also rather
>accessible. After that, you can try listening to pieces such as the
>string quartets.
Im familiar with most of the pieces in 2 you mention
above....stravinsky i'll have to look at. and i'll try the pieces by
schoenberg. thanks for the help.
>I hope this helps, and I don't think I'll volunteer opinions about
>science to you!
well there are plenty of creationists and other ill informed folks
waiting to do just that!
>Sincerely,
>Michael A. Laderman
>Adjunct Asst. Prof. of Music, Bronx Community College/CUNY
besides, where else could one get FREE advice (without the cost of
tuition) from a professor of music!
bob puharic
es...@cornell.edu (Eric Schissel) wrote:
>They write, on the whole, what they want to hear. Or what they feel their
>soul is telling them to say.
>For some composers it's a way of saying things that can only be said in
>music, and saying them to people enough like oneself to share an attitude,
>or important experiences. Other composers, have other reasons.
>For neither Schoenberg nor Ives was the purpose to show off (well, I dunno
>about Ives...), to speak as arcanely as possible (Schoenberg is .quite.
>comprehensible), or to do anything else but express.
>
>Sorry I'm not being clearer.
>With best wishes
>--
>Eric Schissel
>es...@cornell.edu
no, actually, eric, this is a very good post, and I'm glad to read
your comments. this stuff aint easy!
bob puharic
jeffb@amber (Jeff Bernhard) wrote:
>I doubt that I can add anything of value here other than my own observations.
>My formal musical training is limited and is not used or required to enjoy
>music, tonal or other. I don't think any music could be popular if popularity
>depended on such formal education.
now THIS is an interesting post...that's a fascinating
aspect...freedom captured in music. certainly does bear thinking
about...thanks jeff.
Tom McEvoy
Yeah!!! Yap flapper!!!! (Sorry, I don't want to get involved in this
vicious flaming, just couldn't resist :)
--
Tom :)
bup...@ix.netcom.com
bob puharic
"Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>bob puharic wrote:
>
>> mainly because im not a professional musician and usually dont pay
>> attention to the specific names of pieces of music i dont like. so,
>> suspect away...though im not sure what youre gonna suspect.
>Nothing to suspect. You've just told us you're full of it. If you
>can take the time to post about a certain kind of music, surely you
>can take the time to find out what it's called.
nope, im just not a sneering elitist. i like to ask questions and
reject the attempted intimidation by effete impudent snobs (to quote
spiro agnew, of all people).
>
>
>> well my understanding is that schoenberg had quite a bit to do with
>> atonal music....
>That's pathetic. Besides, Brahms had a lot to do with tonal music.
almost as pathetic as your attempts at self aggrandizement. you're a
professional musician? BFD. some of the professionals in this thread
have taken the time to explain to a neophyte like me what they see in
this music. that's discussion.
>Roger
bob puharic
"Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Sorry, pal, but that's not how USENET works. You want to refer
>to a posting--you REFER to it. Cite it yourself.
in other words, i should take up bandwidth to cite posts which are
readily available in this thread to save you the trouble of doing
so...
>Divorced from the world, eh? Tell me, are you *in* the music
>business? I am.
>Have you studied the history of music? I have.
>Do you even bother to do any research before posting? I do.
i work for a living. unlike you, i am not a professional elitist who
spends his time sneering at those who dont have the time to debate how
many angels dance on the head of a pin.
>Composers don't say. They compose. What was Beethoven "saying"?
>How do you know?
well, that's kind of the point, isnt it. it's a matter of
interpretation.
bob puharic
"Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>bob puharic wrote:
>
>> no, not quite. in physics, newton is a contemporary, thought he has
>> been superceded by event. he was a founder (perhaps THE founder) of
>> physics...
>I think Galileo, Kepler, Archimedes, and others might take
>exception to that "perhaps THE founder"
obviously know as much about physics as you do about music.
>> some, like steve reich, reject them, however.
>In what way do they reject them? Personally? Globally?
check into www.sfbayguardian.com and read the article for yourself.
was in last weeks "sf bay guardian magazine"
>Roger Lustig
bob puharic
"Roger L. Lustig" <juli...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
cal CDs, aside from an
>unsupported allegation. Come back with some facts. Speaking as
>a member of NARAS, I sure don't see any evidence that classical
>records aren't an economically viable item.
geez some people just dont get it. i cited the info on classical music
as a business, quoted a business magazine as the reference....
>> do you know what a "music scene" is?
>Yes. I earn money there.
evidently a charity case...
>Roger Lustig
David Cleary
bob puharic (wf...@enter.net) wrote:
: dcl...@fas2.fas.harvard.edu (David Cleary) wrote:
: >Len Fehskens (fehs...@pcbuoa.enet.dec.com) wrote:
: >: On 20 Nov 1996 00:01:36 GMT, David Cleary at dcl...@fas2.fas.harvard.edu
: >: wrote
: >: >Which pieces? Which composers? I'm always very suspicious of folks who
: >: >dislike something and don't seem to be able to discuss examples of what
: >: >they don't like or why.
: >: Come on. Do you really expect people to put a lot of effort into exploring
: >: things they don't like? It's usually a matter of something like "Tried it
: >: once, didn't like it, didn't try it again." Also, there's enough "likely to
: >: be liked" stuff out there that people also don't tend to pursue things that
: >: are likely to be like the thing they didn't like (forgive me); e.g., other
: >: works by a composer whose first experience was unenjoyable.
: >Sorry, but I believe people who flap their yaps like this guy did should
: >have some ammo to back up their assertions. Usually such folks, as you've
: >suggested, haven't given it much of a try--like the three-year-old who
: >says "Yuck!" the first time something other than hamburgers or hot dogs
: >are put on his plate. Some good things in life need more than half a taste
: >or a half-awake listen before the excellence is understood. I'd like to
: >see folks like this person make more of an effort. And who knows? With a
: >little more listening, maybe this guy will actually get a handle on what's
: >going in the music he doesn't seem to like. IMHO it's worth a try, at
: >least.
: nice of you to understand so well.
I think I understand you perfectly. You're a troll.
: guess you like ALL contemporary
: art, ALL pop art, etc etc.....
No. But at least I know *why* I do and do not like the 20th century art
and music I do, and know a decent bit about the subject. Which is
apparently more than you can say. And why on earth would you make the
generalization you made above from what I posted?
: with a little more effort...nah, dont
: bother. people who flap their yaps like you do probably cant handle
: the challenge.
You're the only one on this thread who can't seem to handle the challenge
of 20th century music and is smug about it to boot.
Puh-leeze. You're not even trying to discuss the issues, only toss
insults.
Dave
bob puharic
dcl...@fas2.fas.harvard.edu (David Cleary) wrote:
>: nice of you to understand so well.
>I think I understand you perfectly. You're a troll.
well coming from you, being called a troll is a compliment. you're
very tiresome.
>:
I do and do not like the 20th century art
>and music I do, and know a decent bit about the subject. Which is
>apparently more than you can say.
another self aggrandizing elitist. perhaps you and the other self
appointed expert here on this thread can get together for a love fest.
>You're the only one on this thread who can't seem to handle the challenge
>of 20th century music and is smug about it to boot.
now, if i knew so much about it, why would i ask questions...the
concept seems to be lost on you. obviously, someone of your mental
stature finds it difficult to associate with the hoi polloi. please go
back to your polo club and your canapes. perhaps jeeves can call you
when there is something here worth disturbing the fervid mental
activities you're involved in.
>Puh-leeze. You're not even trying to discuss the issues, only toss
>insults.
i dont think you have the integrity to toss salads or cookies, let
alone insults.
>
Phil Cope
bob puharic wrote:
>
> Phil Cope <Phil...@smallworld.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Music (including that of the past) is continually judged against
> >todays standards(a paradigm). If the paradigm changes, music that
> >fits that paradigm will be considered "great".
> >What you are seeing is a tussle between an audience who sits there
> >and says "we know what we like" and an establishment that is tired
> >of the standard and tries to introduce new ideas. You could consider
> >an analogy with the Neo-Darwin interpretation of Natural Selection.
>
> tis true...and ive given that some thought...with the analogy that
> most mutations eventually go extinct!
That may just mean my analogy is not good ! The point I was making was
that there are many varied forms of life, each of which survive in a
conducive(sp) environment. The same is true of music. Whether you
personally consider one "form" of music to be more survivable or not
is entirely up to you, and may have no connection with what you
personally like ! And unless you you have a crystal ball, you can't
*know* what qualities of a piece of music will be desired in 100 years
time.
> i dont fault the artist for
> trying. i think we have an obligation, even if we dont like what's
> being said, to try to understand it.
Hmm, I wondered about your motivation, an obligation - maybe, but you
shouldn't feel afraid to simply accept that you don't like it. I would
substitute "appreciate" for "understand" in your last clause.
Incidentally during my 6 years study as a chemistry student, Schrodinger
was never refered to as "contemporary", and I can't imagine Newton
being so refered to either. But if you do insist then why isn't
J.S.Bach contemporary ? Afterall he helped develop a compositional
style (counterpoint/fugues) that are still being used today ?
Phil Cope
--
All opinions expressed in this message are purely personal and do not
reflect the opinions or policies of Smallworldwide
John Grabowski
In <57ap8c$b...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.net (bob puharic) writes:
>
>Phil Cope <Phil...@smallworld.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Music (including that of the past) is continually judged against
>>todays standards(a paradigm). If the paradigm changes, music that
>>fits that paradigm will be considered "great".
>>What you are seeing is a tussle between an audience who sits there
>>and says "we know what we like" and an establishment that is tired
>>of the standard and tries to introduce new ideas. You could consider
>>an analogy with the Neo-Darwin interpretation of Natural Selection.
>
>tis true...and ive given that some thought...with the analogy that
>most mutations eventually go extinct!
That wasn't true of music in the past? Or weren't there "mutations"
then?
J
Fred Goldrich
In article <57aooa$b...@news.enter.net>, bob puharic <wf...@enter.net> wrote:
>Christopher Norman <cano...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>>Do you see how silly this assertion looks?
>
>>Using your logic, every composer who has ever influenced any
>>other composer is "contemporary". I think you're getting into
>>sophistry and ignoring the point, which is that the techniques
>>of modern music have gone far beyond those of Schoenberg.
>>It's become obvious to most serious listeners that Schoenberg
>>is not much harder to understand than, say, Richard Strauss.
>
>been superceded by event. he was a founder (perhaps THE founder) of
>that the techniques used by atonal composers have gone beyond
Well, I would be happy to agree that Schoenberg is
a contemporary composer in precisely the same sense in which
Newton is a contemporary physicist.
However, as a professional conductor who also has a
Ph.D. in Physics, I must say that I find both usages prepos-
terous, and not at all in accord with the way people in either
field ordinarily use the word.
-- Fred Goldrich
--
Fred Goldrich
gold...@panix.com
David Cleary
bob puharic (wf...@enter.net) wrote:
: dcl...@fas2.fas.harvard.edu (David Cleary) wrote:
: >: nice of you to understand so well.
: >I think I understand you perfectly. You're a troll.
: well coming from you, being called a troll is a compliment.
Being a troll is not a complimentary thing to be. I wouldn't be so proud
if I were you.
: you're
: very tiresome.
So are you. You start a snarlingly negative thread in a classical music
newsgroup about 20th century atonal music and expect people to be friendly
to you? That's purely and simply trolling behavior, and many people here
and elsewhere in usenet don't take kindly to it. If you're not trolling
then you might consider how your initial post to this thread and your
followups came across.
: I do and do not like the 20th century art
: >and music I do, and know a decent bit about the subject. Which is
: >apparently more than you can say.
: another self aggrandizing elitist. perhaps you and the other self
: appointed expert here on this thread can get together for a love fest.
Indeed. You're a scientist, am I correct? How would you like for some
dumbbell creationist to start a snarling thread about the stupidity of
evolution in a life-sciences newsgroup? Then when you give them a critical
answer, they call you a self-aggrandizing elitist and act abusive.
Everyone has their field of expertise. You're in mine and are showing your
ignorance and intolerance. Don't be surprised if you get called on it.
And I suppose you shun experts on a regular basis? Fixing your broken down
oil heater by yourself these days? Digging your own septic tanks? Fixing
your own TV? What's wrong with having knowledge in the arts, anyway? Your
post suggests that you think it's a evil crime or something.
Yes, I have a good measure of expertise in the field. I have three degrees
in music including a doctorate in composition. I have a busy, visible, and
very poorly paid freelance music composer's career which includes
published articles, grants, contests, performances, and CD recordings.
: >You're the only one on this thread who can't seem to handle the challenge
: >of 20th century music and is smug about it to boot.
: now, if i knew so much about it, why would i ask questions...the
: concept seems to be lost on you.
No. The concept is quite clear to me. If you honestly wanted serious
answers and help on how to listen to unfamiliar contemporary music, why
were your initial post and series of followups so confrontational? I would
have been happy to help you if you hadn't come across like a know-it-all
troll.
: obviously, someone of your mental
: stature finds it difficult to associate with the hoi polloi.
Why is this obvious? In fact, this is not true. Get your facts straight
before you accuse. Or perhaps you're trolling yet again?
: please go
: back to your polo club and your canapes.
I can barely scratch together a living as a library assistant here at
Harvard; the college teaching market has been oversaturated for years.
Unless you're a student, you may well make more money than I do. More
baseless assumptions? Or more insults?
: perhaps jeeves can call you
: when there is something here worth disturbing the fervid mental
: activities you're involved in.
Which will be plenty more than the lack of fervid mental anything you've
brought to this argument, from all appearances.
: >Puh-leeze. You're not even trying to discuss the issues, only toss
: >insults.
: i dont think you have the integrity to toss salads or cookies, let
: alone insults.
In what way? Where is my lack of integrity? Do you in fact know what this
word even means? Earlier in this post, you accused me of being an elitist
intellectual, remember? You're not even tossing insults with integrity.
Now, if you prefer to start over and get off the bad behavior, I'd be
happy to discuss the matter with you like a human being, either publicly
or via private email. But that's your choice. I can get as nasty with you
as you get with me. And if you insist on backing me into a corner, I'll
continue in this manner.
The next move is yours.
Dave
Christopher Norman
bob puharic wrote:
>
> Christopher Norman <cano...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> >Do you see how silly this assertion looks?
>
> >Using your logic, every composer who has ever influenced any
> >other composer is "contemporary". I think you're getting into
> >sophistry and ignoring the point, which is that the techniques
> >of modern music have gone far beyond those of Schoenberg.
> >It's become obvious to most serious listeners that Schoenberg
> >is not much harder to understand than, say, Richard Strauss.
>
>
> no, not quite. in physics, newton is a contemporary, thought he has
> been superceded by event.
Yeah, okay, whatever, if you want to impute to the word
"contemporary" a meaning entirely different from its
actual meaning, be my guest.
he was a founder (perhaps THE founder) of
> physics...schoenberg's efforts are still being developed.
Schoenberg's efforts, both in his earlier atonal period and
in the various sections of his 12-tone period, have been
mined pretty heavily. In technical terms, he was already
being superseded in his own lifetime by Webern's serialism,
and hundreds of composers since then have added their
own complications and developments.
i dont think
> that the techniques used by atonal composers have gone beyond
> schoenberg.
Well, it doesn't matter what you think about it, because that's
incorrect. Ever heard of Roger Sessions? Milton Babbitt?
Pierre Boulez? Edgar Varese? Etc, etc.? Regardless of whether their
music is any good, all of these composers used techniques
that were much more complex and varied than Schoenberg's.
Christopher Norman
Christopher Norman
bob puharic wrote:
>
> dcl...@fas2.fas.harvard.edu (David Cleary) wrote:
>
> >: nice of you to understand so well.
>
> >I think I understand you perfectly. You're a troll.
>
> very tiresome.
>
> >:
> I do and do not like the 20th century art
> >and music I do, and know a decent bit about the subject. Which is
> >apparently more than you can say.
>
> another self aggrandizing elitist. perhaps you and the other self
> appointed expert here on this thread can get together for a love fest.
I get it. Anyone who disagrees with you, or knows anything
about 20th century music, is an "elitist". Gee, I wonder
how long you can keep believing that? How many non-
specialists have to disagree with you before it occurs
to you that maybe some people have just taken the time
to find out "what the hell is up" with Ives and Schoenberg,
and have discovered what's good about it? I don't
study music. I'm not even at a university. I just happen
to enjoy a lot of modern music. Does that make me an
elitist?
(BTW, Roger Lustig wrote some pretty good programme notes
for the Tokyo Quartet's CD set of Beethoven's last six
quartets, and thus is worth listening to.)
> >You're the only one on this thread who can't seem to handle the challenge
> >of 20th century music and is smug about it to boot.
>
> now, if i knew so much about it, why would i ask questions...the
> concept seems to be lost on you. obviously, someone of your mental
> stature finds it difficult to associate with the hoi polloi. please go
> back to your polo club and your canapes. perhaps jeeves can call you
> when there is something here worth disturbing the fervid mental
> activities you're involved in.
Whatever, here's a cookie, go play in the traffic.
Christopher Norman
Christopher Norman
> >about 20th century music, is an "elitist". Gee, I wonder
> >how long you can keep believing that?
>
> little pilpul drillers who argue about how many angels dance on the
> head of a pin get tiresome.
In the two years I've been reading rec.music.classical, I
have never seen a discussion about angels dancing on
heads of pins, and I'd be interested to know just what on
earth you're talking about.
there have been some real contributors to
> this discussion. some have recognized the fact that i am attempting to
> understand and have had the patience to work with me. some have not.
>
> >(BTW, Roger Lustig wrote some pretty good programme notes
> >for the Tokyo Quartet's CD set of Beethoven's last six
> >quartets, and thus is worth listening to.)
>
> golly gee, im sooooooooooo impressed.
What a mature answer. Yes, you really are "trying to understand".
Christopher Norman
mvs...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Christopher Norman <cano...@bc.sympatico.ca> writes:
:
: It depends entirely on the ingenuity and/or inspiration of
: the composer. Some atonal composers I find deathly boring
: (like Elliot Carter). Some minimalists are really
: interesting (like John Adams). I find that whether a
: piece of music is enjoyable or not is not dependent
: so much on the language used, but more on whether
: the composer has anything to "say" with it.
Well, it also depends on whether composer's ideas communicate to
the listener and on listener's personal tastes. To me, calling Carter's
music boring is incomprehensible. He had more to say in his 3rd string
quartet alone than many composers manage to say in their entire output! :-)
Michael
Leroy Curtis
In article <57b4bh$f...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, mvs...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
writes
>Regarding the music having no correspondence with human experience...
>A lot of 20C classical is based on musical relationships other than those
>predominant in public domain music. Take tonal cadences. Why do so few people like 20C classical music? I believe the main reason is
>that few are willing to engage in this sort of listening activity.
>
Loads of good stuff snipped to save BW
>Are we to hold this against the music?
>
Thank you for this thought-provoking and interesting post. As one who
has struggled to hear anything other than disjointed noise in a great
deal of 20th century music, but who feels he must be missing something,
I shall try your approach. I recall, I did not particularly like Brahms
on first acquaintance, but persevered and now number his works among my
all-time favourites.
Regards
--
Leroy Curtis
Christopher Norman
Of course; whether a composer is "saying" anything or not
depends almost entirely on the individual listener, and
I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. As for Carter, I
hope I haven't hurt anyone's feelings, but I've tried
for years to listen to his quartets and his other major
works, and I've spent some time reading about his music,
but I still don't get anything out of it. I persevere,
however, because of the fact that so many intelligent
people appear to like Carter. I want to hear what they
hear. I think that all Mr. Puharic, who started this
thread, needs to do is try and do the same sort of
thing...try and get into other peoples' "headspace",
to hear what they hear.
Christopher Norman
Christopher Norman
bob puharic wrote:
>
> zi...@interport.net wrote:
>
> >First of all, I fear your information is out of date. I'm not sure
> >what's happening in the music world where you are, but here in New
> >York City atonal music (and especially 12-tone) is NOT appreciated by
> >the critics, and more's the pity, if you ask me.
>
> interesting...as ive said many times during this thread. im not
> passing judgement on the critics if, as you say, they dont like the
> atonal stuff either. I dont know enough about their arguments to take
> a position.
>
> What they do like is
> >minimalism, as well as a lot of boring, reactionary tonal music.
>
> well, i like the minimalism more than the atonal (but minimalism is
> dead in painting so music's time will come as well). but much of
> minimalism is, as you say, boring. atonality may not appeal to me, but
> it's not boring.
It depends entirely on the ingenuity and/or inspiration of
the composer. Some atonal composers I find deathly boring
(like Elliot Carter). Some minimalists are really
interesting (like John Adams). I find that whether a
piece of music is enjoyable or not is not dependent
so much on the language used, but more on whether
the composer has anything to "say" with it.
Christopher Norman
Michelle Dulak and Geo. Thomson
Nathan Eberhardt writes:
[quoting David Cleary:]
>>No. The concept is quite clear to me. If you honestly wanted
>>serious answers and help on how to listen to unfamiliar contemporary
>>music, why were your initial post and series of followups so
>>confrontational?
>As far as I could see, he wasn't nasty until a group of insecure
>and insensitive sciolists started berating him.
Not quite true. Mr. Puharic argued that Schoenberg and other (ahem)
"contemporary" composers were interested only in speaking to other
artists, even while ostensibly asking what motivated them. Why ask
the question if you're already persuaded of the answer?
[...snippage...]
>The only one that's being backed into the corner is the one you
>are insulting. No one is forcing "you" to act the way you're acting.
>As far as I see it, he's posting so many replies because he's
>being forced into a position where:
>1) Self-proclaimed "experts"(although at the same time
> being 'un'professionals) are leaving him no other choice
> but to continue to post to challenges or allow them to intimidate
> him and demean his intelligence into oblivion.
I'm not sure what is meant by "expertise" here. If all you mean
is that people are asking Mr. Puharic to define the thing that
he's attacking, I can only say that it seems a reasonable request.
>Also:
>2) He doesn't like being berated by a bunch of elitist snobs.
You mean, like the sort of snob that would tell someone his
opinions about pianists aren't worth a pile of sh*t (or some such
phrase), or proclaim that a certain highly-popular piano concerto
"stinks"?
>3) He's adamant about posting his opinions without interference.
Who is "interfering"? Mr. Puharic is free to post whatever he likes.
As far as I can tell, none of his posts have been cancelled or
otherwise interfered with.
Nonetheless, I think the following must be said:
Mr. Puharic wants to think of Schoenberg and Ives as "contemporary"
composers, on the grounds that people today still compose
"atonal" music. On exactly the same grounds (as half a dozen
people have pointed out), Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms are also
"contemporary"; their influences and techniques persist today.
Mr. Puharic argues that "atonality" is responsible for the fact
that most of the revenue of record companies comes from "dead
composers"; yet, as Roger and others have pointed out, this has
been true since the dawn of recorded music. Likewise, "classical"
music has been a net money-losing proposition for record companies
essentially since recording's beginnings. Schoenberg and Ives
have absolutely nothing to do with it.
There is an enormous quantity of 20th-c. music that doesn't
use tonal procedures, but still employs things like, say,
triads; or uses tonal procedures in some places but not
others; or, without being "tonal," is still organized around
a pitch and/or an interval structure such that a listener can
follow the argument. (Examples: The Berg Lyric suite; the
Nielsen clarinet concerto; Bartok's Music for strings, percussion,
& celeste.) I do not know what Mr. Puharic thinks of such cases,
or whether he's even encountered them. Why don't we start discussing
this music? What does Mr. Puharic think of Bartok? Or
Stravinsky? (Does he like, say, _Pulcinella_? What about
_L'Histoire du soldat_? The Rite of Spring?) And where he
draws the line, can he say what it is that turns him off?
Michelle Dulak
Michelle Dulak and Geo. Thomson
Nathan Eberhardt writes:
[quoting Roger Lustig:]
> >> >I've read them, and a fair amount of other writing about
> >> >music. For that matter, you've probably read some of *mine*.
> Well, I thought maybe you were starting to be less mean, I guess
> not.
> You say that as though your writings are so well-known and
> distributed that everyone in the music world should have read
> something of yours by now. The fact is, I have come across
> something by a Roger Lustig, a "translation" of a book by Carl
> Dahlhaus--I hope a translation doesn't qualify.
[snippage]
> I just did a power search of one of the largest
> and most well-connected libraries in the U.S and found much
> of nothing.
I think Roger is probably alluding to the fact that he has
written program notes for a large number of recordings
in the last decade or so. These would not be indexed under
his name in an ordinary library database, hence the negative
results of your "power search."
FWIW, it wouldn't kill you to read _The Idea of Absolute
Music_, either.
Michelle Dulak
Michelle Dulak and Geo. Thomson
bob puharic writes:
> well i think im gonna make a pre-emptive strike and call it quits. i
> went back and read my original post. what i said was:
>
> 1. i dont like atonal music
> 2. i specified why i didnt like it
> 3. i asked questions about why people like it.
>
> no trolling...no flame bait.
>
> what i did get was the beau brummel perfumed hankey in the wrist crowd
> completely miffed that their sacred ground was being trod upon. a mere
> LAYMAN entering the sanctum sanctorum seems to have set them all
> aquiver.
Umm... Bob, where did you get this class stuff? Whence the
"sacred ground," the perfumed hankey, etc.? All I saw was
folks wanting to know (a) what you meant by "atonal"; and
(b) how you presumed to know that Schoenberg, Ives, and
their supposed contemporary followers wanted only to communicate
with "other artists."
> Theyve taken great pains to let me know how many books they've
> written or read. how many degrees they have. how they starve at
> the hahvahd library just to pursue their artistic goals. as I
> stated earlier, this is pilpul. meaningless drivel. go back and
> read the original post. it's unfortunate that the eremitic
> atmosphere these folks perpetuate has done nothing for their
> understanding.
Pleased to meet you, Bob! I have written no (zero) books; I
have never so much as seen the "Hahvahd" library. Can I speak now?
I think it would be really neat if you elaborated just a bit
on what you mean by "atonal" music. Is it just Ives and Schoenberg
you dislike? There's lots of music that sometimes refers to tonality
without exactly belonging to it. Have you heard any Bartok or
Stravinsky? What do you think?
> anyhow, i have to work for a living; i have no time to be a social
> parasite. the derivative mindset of those who perpetually talk to
> themselves or to other intellectually inbred individuals is
> stullifying and not particularly gratifying. i have no time for the
> neoscholastic sanies that passes for discussion from people who feel
> that the very act of asking a question is a mortal offense against the
> philosopher king.
>
> what i can say is this: you deserve each other.
>
> you've worn out my patience, and proved yourself not even worth the
> marginal amount of time it takes to read your posts.
>
> im outta here.
Well, gee, Bob. I'll think of you in sympathy on the way to *my*
just-above-minimum-wage job in the morning.
Michelle "we elitists have to work for a living too" Dulak
bob puharic
dcl...@fas.harvard.edu (David Cleary) wrote:
>bob puharic (wf...@enter.net) wrote:
>: dcl...@fas2.fas.harvard.edu (David Cleary) wrote:
>: you're
>: very tiresome.
>So are you. You start a snarlingly negative thread in a classical music
>newsgroup about 20th century atonal music and expect people to be friendly
>to you?
gee whiz, so anyone who asks a question is trolling..you must be a joy
to your students.
>Indeed. You're a scientist, am I correct? How would you like for some
>dumbbell creationist to start a snarling thread about the stupidity of
>evolution in a life-sciences newsgroup? Then when you give them a critical
>answer, they call you a self-aggrandizing elitist and act abusive.
>Everyone has their field of expertise. You're in mine and are showing your
>ignorance and intolerance. Don't be surprised if you get called on it.
creationists dont ask questions, because they know everything. if you
read my original post, it was filled with questions. you are another
sneering snob who objects to anyone knowing less than you do.
>
What's wrong with having knowledge in the arts, anyway? Your
>post suggests that you think it's a evil crime or something.
gee whiz, again, a little reading is good for the soul. i have
complimented those who have taken the time to explain to a neophyte
like me what their perception of music is. i hardly need some sniping
thumbs-in-the-lapel academic lecturing me on how smart he is. i simply
dont care how smart you think you are.
>Yes, I have a good measure of expertise in the field. I have three degrees
>in music including a doctorate in composition. I have a busy, visible, and
>very poorly paid freelance music composer's career which includes
>published articles, grants, contests, performances, and CD recordings.
>: >You're the only one on this thread who can't seem to handle the challenge
>: >of 20th century music and is smug about it to boot.
since when is asking questions "smug". your objections to my questions
simply proves your own arrogance. "yes i have a good measure of
expertise in the field". BFD. talk about trolling.
>No. The concept is quite clear to me. If you honestly wanted serious
>answers and help on how to listen to unfamiliar contemporary music, why
>were your initial post and series of followups so confrontational? I would
>have been happy to help you if you hadn't come across like a know-it-all
>troll.
mebbe you should read some of the posts of your learned colleagues.
>I can barely scratch together a living as a library assistant here at
>Harvard; the college teaching market has been oversaturated for years.
>Unless you're a student, you may well make more money than I do. More
>baseless assumptions? Or more insults?
yawn. so what.
>: perhaps jeeves can call you
>: when there is something here worth disturbing the fervid mental
>: activities you're involved in.
>Which will be plenty more than the lack of fervid mental anything you've
>brought to this argument, from all appearances.
yeah i know...anyone who doesnt summer on nantucket just doesnt
measure up, do they buffy....golly, how's zelda doing nowadays...just
boffo, i hope.
>
bob puharic
Phil Cope <Phil...@smallworld.co.uk> wrote:
>Incidentally during my 6 years study as a chemistry student, Schrodinger
>was never refered to as "contemporary", and I can't imagine Newton
>being so refered to either.
again, you raise a number of points well worth consideration...by way
of explanation...schrodinger's concepts are contemporary because they
are still in use. aristotle's are not.
bob puharic
Christopher Norman <cano...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>I get it. Anyone who disagrees with you, or knows anything
>about 20th century music, is an "elitist". Gee, I wonder
>how long you can keep believing that?
all you have to do is look at the posts. the sneering, sniveling
little pilpul drillers who argue about how many angels dance on the
head of a pin get tiresome. there have been some real contributors to
bob puharic
Phil Cope <Phil...@smallworld.co.uk> wrote:
>Incidentally during my 6 years study as a chemistry student, Schrodinger
>was never refered to as "contemporary", and I can't imagine Newton
>being so refered to either. But if you do insist then why isn't
>J.S.Bach contemporary ? Afterall he helped develop a compositional
>style (counterpoint/fugues) that are still being used today ?
from the american heritage dictionary, second college edition, 1982:
contemporary: (3) current; modern
i have in front of me halliday and resnick's "physics" most of which
deals with newtonian physics and also discusses the schrodinger
equation. this is a current, modern textbook dealing with current
ideas in physics.
bob puharic
"Michelle Dulak and Geo. Thomson" <mal...@best.com> wrote:
>bob puharic writes:
>> i was reading an article in the LA times recently about steve
>> reich. the person writing the interview said that reich specifically
>> mentioned atonality as something he rebelled against. why would
>> someone rebel against something unless he rejected the message it
>> carried?
>Ummm.... perhaps he doesn't like the way it sounds? Why need
>"meanings" come into it?
>Michelle Dulak
isnt that a meaning of music--liking the way it sounds?
John Grabowski
In <57d42n$6...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.net (bob puharic) writes:
>
>Phil Cope <Phil...@smallworld.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>Incidentally during my 6 years study as a chemistry student,
Schrodinger
>>was never refered to as "contemporary", and I can't imagine Newton
>>being so refered to either.
>
>of explanation...schrodinger's concepts are contemporary because they
>are still in use. aristotle's are not.
So Henry Ford is a "contemporary," then? (His concept of a car is
still in use.)
Aristotle's concepts are not in use? At all? None of them?
John
John Grabowski
In <329A30...@bc.sympatico.ca> Christopher Norman
<cano...@bc.sympatico.ca> writes:
>bob puharic wrote:
>>
>> Christopher Norman <cano...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >I get it. Anyone who disagrees with you, or knows anything
>> >about 20th century music, is an "elitist". Gee, I wonder
>> >how long you can keep believing that?
>>
>> all you have to do is look at the posts. the sneering, sniveling
>> little pilpul drillers who argue about how many angels dance on the
>> head of a pin get tiresome.
>
>have never seen a discussion about angels dancing on
>heads of pins, and I'd be interested to know just what on
>earth you're talking about.
>
>> this discussion. some have recognized the fact that i am attempting
to
>> understand and have had the patience to work with me. some have not.
>
>
>
>>
>> >(BTW, Roger Lustig wrote some pretty good programme notes
>> >for the Tokyo Quartet's CD set of Beethoven's last six
>> >quartets, and thus is worth listening to.)
>>
>> golly gee, im sooooooooooo impressed.
>
>
>Christopher Norman
Why do you keep answering him??? (I know, I know...I answered once
too. Now I'm just trying to figure out how he was able to get his
parents' laptop into his crib. Long extension cord?)
J
John Grabowski
In <57dcof$2...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.net (bob puharic) writes:
>
>Phil Cope <Phil...@smallworld.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Incidentally during my 6 years study as a chemistry student,
Schrodinger
>>was never refered to as "contemporary", and I can't imagine Newton
>>being so refered to either. But if you do insist then why isn't
>>J.S.Bach contemporary ? Afterall he helped develop a compositional
>>style (counterpoint/fugues) that are still being used today ?
>
>
>from the american heritage dictionary, second college edition, 1982:
>
>contemporary: (3) current; modern
...As distinguished from still in use, which may not be the same thing.
(Grammophones, 8-Track tapes, and Vista-Vision are still around, but
I'd not call them "current" or "modern."
But you don't seem to be too good with *shades* of meanings, just
simplistic black and white pronouncements.
J
bob puharic
Christopher Norman <cano...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> >(BTW, Roger Lustig wrote some pretty good programme notes
>> >for the Tokyo Quartet's CD set of Beethoven's last six
>> >quartets, and thus is worth listening to.)
>>
>> golly gee, im sooooooooooo impressed.
>What a mature answer. Yes, you really are "trying to understand".
>Christopher Norman
as i pointed out, some of the professionals here are merely indulging
in self aggrandizement, firm believers in credentialism. i dont care
that lustig wrote programme notes. i do care that he, like you, thinks
a well aimed sneer substitutes for an attempt at dialog, merely
because you have academic credentials. i am not impressed. was i
supposed to roll over and flagelate myself when you threw this
irrelevancy up? he's already established himself in this thread as
someone who is impressed by his own importance. fine...let him be so.
i am not.