Unfortunately not OT, although some will consider it so
I returned from a concert given at the Morgan Library of the JACK Quartet performing the four quartets of Iannis Xenakis, written between 1983 and 1994. The JACK, which specializes in 'modern' music, played brilliantly to a virtually sold-out house, packed with young people but also some more typical 'concert goers'. I will let you decide which group I was in.
My exposure to Xenakis has been the odd piece here and there, and of course, everyone's Xenakis, A Space Odyssey. Without reviewing the performances in detail, let me only say that the works are brilliant, coruscating, and utterly involving. Depending on the work, Xenakis moves from music that is chordal if not tonal to some amazing and outrageous effects, but there's not a single piece that doesn't hang together, or make you feel antsy on hearing it.
The artist who comes to mind immediately with Xenakis is actually Jackson Pollock, of the so-called 'drip paintings'. Pollock was acutally a very great painter, imho, and although he used a specific technique for many of his canvases, it is no more accurate to call him a 'drip painter' or an 'abstract painter' than to call Rembrandt a "brush painter" or a "realist painter". All of Pollock's great canvases really cohere; even if he seemed to use aleatoric means to create the canvases, this was really not the issue. He gave up 'perspective', but there's not a canvas that doesn't hold together visually, with a clear center and structure.
This is also true of Xenakis. His means may involve unique sound worlds, and have nothing recognizable to do with any system of tonality, but the STRUCTURE is as compelling, and as immediately apparent to the listener, as if we were talking the first Viennese School. One may not always know where one is, or what is coming, in terms of sound, but you sure have the sense that you are 'somewhere' and within a structure that will take you somewhere else.
Xenakis himself was apparently much taken with Brahms (in a preconcert lecture, the quartet discussed that around the time of the first quartet's composition, someone was trying to talk about 'his' music to Xenakis, and all Xenakis wanted to talk about was Brahms. The last piece played, Tetras (from 1983), though full of amazing sound effects, put me in mind more of Schubert's 'quartettsatz' than anything else. Whether I would have been able to find my way into the music for a first time without the presence of performers is a separate question - it would have taken some concentrated listening - but having experienced the music first hand now, I am eager to hear it all again.
None of this, though, is the point. The point is really that 'this' is where music is, and should be, in the present. We all spend so much time dealing with museum pieces, one way or another (and for good reason), but it is the past, and this is the present. There were more young people in this concert than I have seen at the MET, for example, a house of 3,600 seats, except for Adams' and Glass' works.
A friend was kind enough, a while back, to send me some of the earlier Boulez interviews, where he suggested that opera houses be blown up (Boulez apparently has a fan in Placido Domingo <evil grin>), and some other related interviews where Boulez talks about really wanting to do something 'new in opera that changes the rules and expectations of the form.
We all, I think, bemoan the slow death of classical music - the musical museums are getting emptier, even with the blockbuster shows - but I think there is pretty clearly some audience out there for forms and types of music which simply don't fit in our museums, or for that matter in conventional recital programs, and there are evenings, such as today, when I wonder just where the problem may lie.
The answer may not be putting the 'token' modern piece on the conventional program - you won't get new audiences for that, I don't think - but maybe we really are too set in our ways, and in our attachment, however understandable, to the past.
> Unfortunately not OT, although some will consider it so
> I returned from a concert given at the Morgan Library of the JACK > Quartet performing the four quartets of Iannis Xenakis, written > between 1983 and 1994. The JACK, which specializes in 'modern' music, > played brilliantly to a virtually sold-out house, packed with young > people but also some more typical 'concert goers'. I will let you > decide which group I was in.
> My exposure to Xenakis has been the odd piece here and there, and of > course, everyone's Xenakis, A Space Odyssey. Without reviewing the > performances in detail, let me only say that the works are brilliant, > coruscating, and utterly involving. Depending on the work, Xenakis > moves from music that is chordal if not tonal to some amazing and > outrageous effects, but there's not a single piece that doesn't hang > together, or make you feel antsy on hearing it.
> The artist who comes to mind immediately with Xenakis is actually > Jackson Pollock, of the so-called 'drip paintings'. Pollock was > acutally a very great painter, imho, and although he used a specific > technique for many of his canvases, it is no more accurate to call him > a 'drip painter' or an 'abstract painter' than to call Rembrandt a > "brush painter" or a "realist painter". All of Pollock's great > canvases really cohere; even if he seemed to use aleatoric means to > create the canvases, this was really not the issue. He gave up > 'perspective', but there's not a canvas that doesn't hold together > visually, with a clear center and structure.
> This is also true of Xenakis. His means may involve unique sound > worlds, and have nothing recognizable to do with any system of > tonality, but the STRUCTURE is as compelling, and as immediately > apparent to the listener, as if we were talking the first Viennese > School. One may not always know where one is, or what is coming, in > terms of sound, but you sure have the sense that you are 'somewhere' > and within a structure that will take you somewhere else.
> Xenakis himself was apparently much taken with Brahms (in a preconcert > lecture, the quartet discussed that around the time of the first > quartet's composition, someone was trying to talk about 'his' music to > Xenakis, and all Xenakis wanted to talk about was Brahms. The last > piece played, Tetras (from 1983), though full of amazing sound > effects, put me in mind more of Schubert's 'quartettsatz' than > anything else. Whether I would have been able to find my way into the > music for a first time without the presence of performers is a > separate question - it would have taken some concentrated listening - > but having experienced the music first hand now, I am eager to hear it > all again.
> None of this, though, is the point. The point is really that 'this' is > where music is, and should be, in the present. We all spend so much > time dealing with museum pieces, one way or another (and for good > reason), but it is the past, and this is the present. There were more > young people in this concert than I have seen at the MET, for example, > a house of 3,600 seats, except for Adams' and Glass' works.
> A friend was kind enough, a while back, to send me some of the earlier > Boulez interviews, where he suggested that opera houses be blown up > (Boulez apparently has a fan in Placido Domingo <evil grin>), and some > other related interviews where Boulez talks about really wanting to do > something 'new in opera that changes the rules and expectations of the > form.
> We all, I think, bemoan the slow death of classical music - the > musical museums are getting emptier, even with the blockbuster shows - > but I think there is pretty clearly some audience out there for forms > and types of music which simply don't fit in our museums, or for that > matter in conventional recital programs, and there are evenings, such > as today, when I wonder just where the problem may lie.
> The answer may not be putting the 'token' modern piece on the > conventional program - you won't get new audiences for that, I don't > think - but maybe we really are too set in our ways, and in our > attachment, however understandable, to the past.
I went through a Xenakis phase a couple of decades ago. Unfortunately, unlike Beethoven's quartets or Schubert's, etc., his work doesn't keep increasing in interest after many repeat listenings:
I'm gonna tell you how it's gonna be, you're gonna give your love to me, I will love you night and day, know our love not fade away
My love is bigger than a Cadillac, I try to show you but you drive me back, Your love for me has got to be real, your gonna know just how I feel. Love is real not fade away Know our love not fade away
Not fade away, not fade away not fade away, not fade away Know our love not fade away
not fade away, not fade away not fade away, not fade away Know our love not fade away
On Feb 6, 2:24 am, Dorme Riposa <davidj.meln...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 8:04 pm, "richer...@hotnail.com" <richer...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > Unfortunately not OT, although some will consider it so
> > I returned from a concert given at the Morgan Library of the JACK > > Quartet performing the four quartets of Iannis Xenakis, written > > between 1983 and 1994. The JACK, which specializes in 'modern' music, > > played brilliantly to a virtually sold-out house, packed with young > > people but also some more typical 'concert goers'. I will let you > > decide which group I was in.
> > My exposure to Xenakis has been the odd piece here and there, and of > > course, everyone's Xenakis, A Space Odyssey. Without reviewing the > > performances in detail, let me only say that the works are brilliant, > > coruscating, and utterly involving. Depending on the work, Xenakis > > moves from music that is chordal if not tonal to some amazing and > > outrageous effects, but there's not a single piece that doesn't hang > > together, or make you feel antsy on hearing it.
> > The artist who comes to mind immediately with Xenakis is actually > > Jackson Pollock, of the so-called 'drip paintings'. Pollock was > > acutally a very great painter, imho, and although he used a specific > > technique for many of his canvases, it is no more accurate to call him > > a 'drip painter' or an 'abstract painter' than to call Rembrandt a > > "brush painter" or a "realist painter". All of Pollock's great > > canvases really cohere; even if he seemed to use aleatoric means to > > create the canvases, this was really not the issue. He gave up > > 'perspective', but there's not a canvas that doesn't hold together > > visually, with a clear center and structure.
> > This is also true of Xenakis. His means may involve unique sound > > worlds, and have nothing recognizable to do with any system of > > tonality, but the STRUCTURE is as compelling, and as immediately > > apparent to the listener, as if we were talking the first Viennese > > School. One may not always know where one is, or what is coming, in > > terms of sound, but you sure have the sense that you are 'somewhere' > > and within a structure that will take you somewhere else.
> > Xenakis himself was apparently much taken with Brahms (in a preconcert > > lecture, the quartet discussed that around the time of the first > > quartet's composition, someone was trying to talk about 'his' music to > > Xenakis, and all Xenakis wanted to talk about was Brahms. The last > > piece played, Tetras (from 1983), though full of amazing sound > > effects, put me in mind more of Schubert's 'quartettsatz' than > > anything else. Whether I would have been able to find my way into the > > music for a first time without the presence of performers is a > > separate question - it would have taken some concentrated listening - > > but having experienced the music first hand now, I am eager to hear it > > all again.
> > None of this, though, is the point. The point is really that 'this' is > > where music is, and should be, in the present. We all spend so much > > time dealing with museum pieces, one way or another (and for good > > reason), but it is the past, and this is the present. There were more > > young people in this concert than I have seen at the MET, for example, > > a house of 3,600 seats, except for Adams' and Glass' works.
> > A friend was kind enough, a while back, to send me some of the earlier > > Boulez interviews, where he suggested that opera houses be blown up > > (Boulez apparently has a fan in Placido Domingo <evil grin>), and some > > other related interviews where Boulez talks about really wanting to do > > something 'new in opera that changes the rules and expectations of the > > form.
> > We all, I think, bemoan the slow death of classical music - the > > musical museums are getting emptier, even with the blockbuster shows - > > but I think there is pretty clearly some audience out there for forms > > and types of music which simply don't fit in our museums, or for that > > matter in conventional recital programs, and there are evenings, such > > as today, when I wonder just where the problem may lie.
> > The answer may not be putting the 'token' modern piece on the > > conventional program - you won't get new audiences for that, I don't > > think - but maybe we really are too set in our ways, and in our > > attachment, however understandable, to the past.
> I went through a Xenakis phase a couple of decades ago. Unfortunately, > unlike Beethoven's quartets or Schubert's, etc., his work doesn't keep > increasing in interest after many repeat listenings:
