{ new } versus { old }
Calvin French
> funny, calvin, I think the Grosse Fuge speaks very clearly and intimately.
> It's just not for everybody. Some folks "get" it via spirituality.
> Some via intellectuality. I'm already humming strettos from it in
> my head just typing this.
I personally do not find it to be clear at all, but perhaps that is an
indication of my musical ability at the present. It is hard for me to
listen to that and understand it. Perhaps we are talking different pieces
here though. You do mean, Grosse Fugue for piano 4 hands, Op. 134? It
almosts sounds as though you are talking about the one from the last
string quartets (which I admittedly don't know as well). If there is no
miscommunication then I suppose I will have to say that I can only agree
with you in that it is not for everyone, but that I personally don't
think that it is clear (initmate? yes of course but I myself am not able
to understand it in a manner which I would describe as "clear")
- Calvin French - (fre...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca)
Calvin French
> In defense of the more angular modern composers, Beethoven was not
> understood in his day, either. Probably sounded loud and somewhat
> dissonant.
But the real question is: can we fairly draw a parallel between
Beethoven's alledged dissonance and that of modern composers? Some
modern, "dissonant" music can certainly be seen to mirror how Beethoven
might have been seen, for instance many works by Stravinsky. But what I'm
interested in is whether there are contemporary composers who's music
has lost it's musical content and cannot be paralled in the least to other
works by, well let's say Beethoven. In other words, should it be called
"advancing music" or "abandoning music"?
- Calvin -
Matthew H. Fields
Hmmm, my sources give No.133 for GroSse Fuge, for string quartet.
Calvin French
>
> Hmmm, my sources give No.133 for GroSse Fuge, for string quartet.
>
Right. I'm not talking about the late string quartets. I'm talking Op 134
(note that *four* on the end), not Op 133, which is where we have been
miscommunicating. Op 133 is the Grosse Fugue for strings, Op 134 is a
completely different work for Piano 4 hands. It's hard to find, much
harder than Op 133, but I suggest looking into it and listening hard, if
you haven't. You'll understand what I mean when I say that it hardly
communicates a direct message. Certainly there is a horrid turmoil
underneath it all, far worse than any other work by LvB that I've yet to
hear, but because the harmony is so terribly extreme it's hard to
understand. On first hearing it hears like a 20th century composer, maybe
even late Schoenberg...
Rick
>
> Funny thing is, Rick, how many folks really dig especially the more dissonant
> stuff in Carter, Babbitt, etc.
>
> Perhaps, again, some of it speaks with a nonchalance that you don't hear
> in other more expressive works...for instance, Babbitt always sounds to me
> full of that same simple joy of sound-making and pattern-making that I pointed
> out in Haydn.
I don't often disagree with you, Matt, but here I do. I find the
aforementioned to be completely boring. I remember when I first
heard Carter's Piano Concerto, I taped it off the radio...that was
with a reel-to-reel tape deck with the mike up close to the AM radio
speaker while Lateiner hacked away at it with the Boston Symphony
behind him. (I've since heard it on hi-fi). I was so amazed at how
awful it was that I listened to it again, becuase I couldn't believe
my ears and feelings. Nothing could be that bad. But it was. And it's
not just a matter of Carter being atonal. I can't help but laugh at
that quartet for harpsichord and oboe and what-all, and the same
goes for the cello sonata and solo piano sonata. I laugh at them
(not with, but at) because they sound so contrived . Babbitt gives
me sour stomach. Philomela, All Set, Partitions...I can do without
them all. The dissonances sound completely arbitrary and unconvincing
to me.
I guess some people do like that stuff, though I can't see why.
Personally, the dissonant stuff I like has more sparkle, like
Stockhausen's Zeitmasse, or Schoenberg's Serenade. Somehow, the
pitches sound better, and they have that nice flow and ease of
pattern-making, as you call it. Webern I like most of. But most atonal
music doesn't make it for me. It is really hard to make atonality
sound both interesting and beautiful, IMO, and I think that a lot
of attempts just don't work. I don't accept or reject it just
because it's atonal, of course. Just like I don't like every doggone
work of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Rick
Rick
>
> On 16 Jun 1995, Mark Garvin wrote:
>
> > In defense of the more angular modern composers, Beethoven was not
> > understood in his day, either. Probably sounded loud and somewhat
> > dissonant.
>
> But the real question is: can we fairly draw a parallel between
> Beethoven's alledged dissonance and that of modern composers?
In some cases, yes...in other cases, no.
> Some
> modern, "dissonant" music can certainly be seen to mirror how Beethoven
> might have been seen, for instance many works by Stravinsky.
Including, incredibly, "Agon,' which has 12-tone writing in it.
> But what I'm
> interested in is whether there are contemporary composers who's music
> has lost it's musical content and cannot be paralled in the least to other
> works by, well let's say Beethoven. In other words, should it be called
> "advancing music" or "abandoning music"?
This is very important. Somewhere around the end of World War II,
when Europe was all blasted to rubble, a group of young composers in
a state of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder from the war got together
and formed an avant-garde school. This happened in all the other
arts as well. Everyone was really freaked out and lost. It wasn't
nearly as bad in the US because the war never came to America. So
when the European music got weird, the American's imitated it in order
to keep abreast of what was modern. Case in point, Elliott Carter, who
began as a dyed-in-the-wool neoclassicist. Everyone else followed suit,
though not with the same degree of insanity as the Europeans like
Boulez, Stockhausen, Berio, Haubenstock-Ramati, Penderecki,
Lygeti, and Xenakis. The Americans were always a bit boring by
comparison, as with Babbitt. Radical, but boring. That is, I believe,
because they never went through the trauma that the Europeans did.
Somehow, seizing upon Schoenberg and Webern's atonalism seemed appropriate
for the European avant-garde, because it expressed their own social
and emotional turmoil. But it didn't go far enough. So they went
completely overboard and did all sorts of weird things in and to
music, some very innovative and exciting and others quite boring.
I don't think it was 'abandoning' music, but it was definitely
intended to use music to make a political statement, and 'pour epater
le bourgeoisie.' Composers wanted their music to express the total
turmoil and extreme pain in their lives. They succeeded capitally.
But the mistake was made of looking at their music as the new
way in music. It became academicized by Perspectives in New Music
and a number of biographical/autobiographical works about these new
composers. The 'con game' was trying to hoodwink critics into
seeing the new music as 'the way music will be from now on,' as if
it were a legitimate sea-change like Beethoven, or Monteverdi, or
Dufay. No way. And anyone who tried to keep up a brave 'neoclassical'
front as a composer was shouted down and belittled as old-fashioned.
It was really ruthless. Stockhausen was the worst of the ridiculers.
I once read where he said, "Some composers today still speak of
'scoring' a composition." Ah, how backward of them to be doing what
composers have done for a thousand years! But somehow this kind of
tradition-bashing was vogue at that time. Cage did his share as well,
if disguised as inscrutable Zen mysticism.
So, to bring this back to the topic, I think that some 20th century
music is legitimately comparable to the radicals in earlier periods
of music. For example, Bartok. He made a virtue of cacaphony, and
his music has survived and thrives in performances half a century
after his death. That is quite an achievement. The same goes for Prokofiev,
Stravinsky, Copland, Shostakovich, Hovhanness and Ives. They were all
radicals, yet they had an inner conscience to write music that can be
essentially understood and appreciated once prejudice against it are
removed. But avant-gardists expect the same treatment that these composers
legitimately earned. They don't deserve it, but they expect some
sort of politically correct affirmative action from the performing
community, as if they had earned a rightful place in it. They haven't.
They have turned the social and political outcry of the 40's and
early '50s avant-garde into a sterile conformism and one-upsmanship
with each other and have hoodwinked critics and bewildered audiences
into going along with this charade. No, a dissonance in Babbitt is
not going to be comparable to a dissonance in Beethoven. If it
sounds ugly, it is ugly. People weren't used to Beethoven at first,
but in time they were, and they liked it. After 50 years, people
*still* don't like to listen to Stockhausen, Babbitt and Carter, and
they probably never will. End of my rant. BTW, I used to write stuff
like Stockhausen and Boulez, so I know a little of what I speak.
Rick
> - Calvin -
>
Matthew H. Fields
Craig Weston
>aforementioned to be completely boring. I remember when I first
>heard Carter's Piano Concerto, I taped it off the radio...that was
>with a reel-to-reel tape deck with the mike up close to the AM radio
>speaker while Lateiner hacked away at it with the Boston Symphony
>behind him. (I've since heard it on hi-fi). I was so amazed at how
>awful it was that I listened to it again, becuase I couldn't believe
>my ears and feelings. Nothing could be that bad. But it was. And it's
>not just a matter of Carter being atonal. I can't help but laugh at
>that quartet for harpsichord and oboe and what-all, and the same
>goes for the cello sonata and solo piano sonata. I laugh at them
>(not with, but at) because they sound so contrived .
To each his own, of course. But IMHO, you've just rattled of the list
that precisely matches Carter's *least* interesting music. I'd hate it
too, if those were the pieces I knew. Try the song cycles, the Symphony
of Three Orchestras, or the recent concerti (oboe, violin). Better yet,
try the tasty little recent pieces, like Changes (guitar), Enchanted
Preludes, or the solo flute piece with the French title I can't
remember. And if you still hate it, fine, but I think you'll find those
pieces much more interesting.
__________________________________________________________________
|Craig Weston--Assistant Professor of Music Theory, Composition, |
| & Electronic/Computer Music, Iowa State University|
| |
|e-mail: cwe...@iastate.edu |
|WWW: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~cweston/homepage.html |
|________________________________________________________________|
David Cleary
: I don't often disagree with you, Matt, but here I do. I find the
: aforementioned to be completely boring. I remember when I first
: heard Carter's Piano Concerto, I taped it off the radio...that was
: with a reel-to-reel tape deck with the mike up close to the AM radio
: speaker while Lateiner hacked away at it with the Boston Symphony
: behind him. (I've since heard it on hi-fi). I was so amazed at how
: awful it was that I listened to it again, becuase I couldn't believe
: my ears and feelings. Nothing could be that bad. But it was. And it's
: not just a matter of Carter being atonal. I can't help but laugh at
: that quartet for harpsichord and oboe and what-all, and the same
: goes for the cello sonata and solo piano sonata. I laugh at them
: me sour stomach. Philomela, All Set, Partitions...I can do without
: them all. The dissonances sound completely arbitrary and unconvincing
: to me.
Jeez. Along with the "Variations for Orchestra" and First String Quartet,
all the Carter pieces you listed are among my favorites. And the three
Babbitt pieces you listed are my favorites. I find them to be memorable
and visceral, especially from a gestural, almost dramatic point of view.
There are other pieces by these composers I don't like, so I'm not being a
slavish "academe" here by any means (not a big fan of the 3rd String
Quartet by the former or "The Head of the Bed" by the latter, for
example).
Which only goes to show how subjective musical taste can get, eh?
Dave
Rick
[my complaining snipped]
> To each his own, of course. But IMHO, you've just rattled of the list
> that precisely matches Carter's *least* interesting music. I'd hate it
> too, if those were the pieces I knew. Try the song cycles, the Symphony
> of Three Orchestras, or the recent concerti (oboe, violin). Better yet,
> try the tasty little recent pieces, like Changes (guitar), Enchanted
> Preludes, or the solo flute piece with the French title I can't
> remember. And if you still hate it, fine, but I think you'll find those
> pieces much more interesting.
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> |Craig Weston--Assistant Professor of Music Theory, Composition, |
> | & Electronic/Computer Music, Iowa State University|
> | |
> |e-mail: cwe...@iastate.edu |
> |WWW: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~cweston/homepage.html |
> |________________________________________________________________|
Craig,
Re Elliott Carter...
It's hard to bestir myself to run out and get more music by this,
shall I say, composer who is not at or near the top of my 'fave' list.
If I should have opportunity or mishap to hear these works, I'll try
to keep an open mind. I will concede that "Mirror on Which to Dwell"
was kind of nice, and Third String Quartet was a kind of pretty
neo-impressionism, though looking at the score I really take pity
on the people that have to perform it. The Double Concerto for
Piano and Harpsichord, however, is one of the biggest unintentional
"Musical Jokes" of all time, IMNSHO.
Rick
Rick
snip
> Jeez. Along with the "Variations for Orchestra" and First String Quartet,
> all the Carter pieces you listed are among my favorites. And the three
> Babbitt pieces you listed are my favorites. I find them to be memorable
> and visceral, especially from a gestural, almost dramatic point of view.
> There are other pieces by these composers I don't like, so I'm not being a
> slavish "academe" here by any means (not a big fan of the 3rd String
> Quartet by the former or "The Head of the Bed" by the latter, for
> example).
> Which only goes to show how subjective musical taste can get, eh?
> Dave
I guess you really are a Truly Modern Composer. Guess I was born in
the wrong century. Alas. I seem to like 'kinder and gentler' (not
Mantovani) music, Mysterious Mountain by Hovhaness, Orpheus by
Stravinsky, and Bartok's 3rd Piano Concerto as a few examples.
Well, the 'majority' is in your favor for the moment. Enjoy. :)
(Sorry about the sarcasm...not personally aimed at you)
Rick
David Cleary
: dcl...@fas.harvard.edu (David Cleary) wrote:
: > Jeez. Along with the "Variations for Orchestra" and First String Quartet,
: Rick
Actually, I like "Orpheus" and Bartok's 3rd Piano Concerto a lot. Both
fine works indeed. Also really like much of Copland's and Barber's music a
lot. Never been a big Hovhanness fan however. My music, interestingly
enough, is more like these composers that like Carter. My boat's a pretty
large one when it comes to musical taste--and I'll only be in big trouble
IMHO when I start throwing pieces overboard.
No offense taken with your post BTW. Too little humor in this world, I'm
sorry to say. Which reminds me--it's time I saw the Marx Bros. "Duck
Soup" again...... :)
Dave
Simon Gray
<an23...@anon.penet.fi> writes:
| but in time they were, and they liked it. After 50 years, people
| *still* don't like to listen to Stockhausen, Babbitt and Carter, and
| they probably never will. End of my rant. BTW, I used to write stuff
| like Stockhausen and Boulez, so I know a little of what I speak.
When you talk about Stockhausen, which period are you referring to ? I agree
that the earlier works don't really do anything for me (Kontra-Punkte, Gesang de
Junglinge etc), but I find his post late 60s stuff (Stimmung, Sirius,
Sternklang, Licht etc) to be amongst the most fascinating & exciting music I've
heard.
--
Simon Gray, Musician, in Birmingham, England, UK, European Union.
<a href="http://metro.turnpike.net/M/mahayana/index.htm">W3 Page</a>,
Last updated 14 June 1995. It was the Dawn of the Second Age of Mankind.
The year that the Great uk.* Reorganisation came upon us All...
Rick
>
> In article: <3teqnm$k...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Rick
> <an23...@anon.penet.fi> writes:
> | but in time they were, and they liked it. After 50 years, people
> | *still* don't like to listen to Stockhausen, Babbitt and Carter, and
> | they probably never will. End of my rant. BTW, I used to write stuff
> | like Stockhausen and Boulez, so I know a little of what I speak.
> When you talk about Stockhausen, which period are you referring to ? I agree
> that the earlier works don't really do anything for me (Kontra-Punkte, Gesang de
> Junglinge etc), but I find his post late 60s stuff (Stimmung, Sirius,
> Sternklang, Licht etc) to be amongst the most fascinating & exciting music I've
> heard.
Dear Simon,
Stockhausen is a kind of bete-noire for me. I have alternately
worshipped and reviled him. Mantra once seemed to me the be-all and
the end-all, now it doesn't. I used to worship the Klavierstuecken,
now I can't stand them. I still like Zeitmasse, but not with a passion.
I always thought Momente was a dumb joke. That electronicized tam-tam
piece (Microphonie) is pure, unadulterated pain. So is Telemusik.
And both of them (as well as Carre) are interminable as
well. Gruppen is extremely violent and obnoxious.
I still *sort of* like Gesang der Junglinge, but it is so
psychelic that I don't feel quite comfortable with it. I admire its
imagination and textures. I never like Stimmung, and I don't know
*all* the more recent stuff. The point is that it is mostly
anti-audience music. Stockhausen has such a commanding presence that
one doesn't feel like arguing with him. So did Wagner, but Wagner's
music has a lot more to recommend it that Stockhausen's, IMHO.
In general, KH's music makes me neither laugh nor dance nor sing.
I doubt for it's future except in music textbooks. If someone
asks me for an example of interesting mid-20th-century avant garde
music, I will of course recommend Stockhausen, out of respect if
nothing else. But if they listen to it and come back to
me and say, "I hated it," I will most likely agree. I like Boulez
a lot better, but that isn't a ringing endorsement. There.
Rick
Rick
Dave wrote:
> Actually, I like "Orpheus" and Bartok's 3rd Piano Concerto a lot. Both
> fine works indeed. Also really like much of Copland's and Barber's music a
> lot. Never been a big Hovhanness fan however. My music, interestingly
> enough, is more like these composers that like Carter. My boat's a pretty
> large one when it comes to musical taste--and I'll only be in big trouble
> IMHO when I start throwing pieces overboard.
> No offense taken with your post BTW. Too little humor in this world, I'm
> sorry to say. Which reminds me--it's time I saw the Marx Bros. "Duck
> Soup" again...... :)
> Dave
Most Hovhaness I don't think much of, and haven't heard. (Who could
claim to having heard all 600 pieces anyway?). Mysterious Mountain
is fantastic. I'd like to hear your music someday. It's really
interesting that you can passionately enjoy music that is so
different from your own. I can't. I get into music that is on the
same soul-length, so to speak. Other stuff is like so much gray
noise, white noise, static.
Yeah, the more humor the better I say. I was a bit titillated by
some of the ice cream responses on the "Scream" thread I initiated,
even though I initiated it seriously :)
I prefer "Night at the Opera" myself...
Rick
David Cleary
: dcl...@fas.harvard.edu (David Cleary) wrote:
: Dave wrote:
: > No offense taken with your post BTW. Too little humor in this world, I'm
: > sorry to say. Which reminds me--it's time I saw the Marx Bros. "Duck
: > Soup" again...... :)
: Rick wrote:
: I prefer "Night at the Opera" myself...
Hilarious movie when the Marxes are to the fore, especially in the ship
stateroom sketch and the final on-stage opera savaging. Too bad you have
to suffer through Alan Jones and Kitty Carlysle singing away at each other
in between. "A Day at the Races" suffers from the same thing--but again,
classic Marx Bros. routines there, too. Thank heavens for fast forward
buttons on VCR's..... :)
Dave
Rick
>
> Rick (an23...@anon.penet.fi) wrote:
> : dcl...@fas.harvard.edu (David Cleary) wrote:
> : Rick wrote:
> : I prefer "Night at the Opera" myself...
> Hilarious movie when the Marxes are to the fore, especially in the ship
> stateroom sketch
my favoritest!!!
> and the final on-stage opera savaging.
Spielberg couldn't have done better, IMO.
> Too bad you have to suffer through Alan Jones and Kitty Carlysle
> singing away at each other in between. "A Day at the Races" suffers
> from the same thing--but again, classic Marx Bros. routines there,
> too. Thank heavens for fast forward buttons on VCR's..... :)
> Dave
Knowing Kitty Carlisle only through 'What's My Line' is pretty paltry
(or was it 'Price is Right'? I forget). Nice to see her in her
youth, IMO, moony songs notwithstanding. :)
These 'movies' started out as burlesques in the old vaudeville days
and evolved into films. They carry a lot of the wacky 'talent show'
quality of vaudeville into them. Nice to have a glimpse back into
those times, since movies of vaudeville, the real thing, are to my
knowledge scarce as hens' teeth. And 'seconded' on the vote for
FF VCR buttons!
Rick