Death of Classical Muisc, etc. etc.
Phil Cope
[snip]
> >>In article <5jiadb$b...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
> Doctor Gonzo <see.emai...@bottom.of.this.message> wrote:
> >Blame the labels... they think "crossover" will save Classical music.
> >I say it's having the opposite effect.
> >>
> Andrys Basten responded:
> >Well, it's nice to blame someone, isn't it! :) Do you know people
> >driven from a love of classical music due to crossover records being
> >made?
It is not necassary to drive people away from classical music in
order to kill it off. Any kind of music will die if no-one listens to
it. That could happen with interest declining to zero over the
generations, without anyone "being driven away".
I do wonder whether the labels "think that <anything> will save
classical music". Most if not all surely just sell what sells.
[snip]
Phil Cope
--
All opinions expressed in this message are purely personal and do not
reflect the opinions or policies of Smallworldwide
DPBMSS
INTENTIONALLY MIXING 2 THREADS:
I have been contributing to this newsgroup for about a month now. I
have received some disdain and worse for my comments. A lot of
"very knowledgeable people" have jumped to a lot of conclusions. I
guess I have it coming because I have a lot of axes to grind. None of
them concern religion or ethnic issues, although some of them
concern philosophy and all of them concern classical music, especially
the current state of the art. Some of you have been kind enough to
"catch my drift" and have written very kind e-mail and to these I want
to express my deepest thanks. Now to the business at hand:
>>In article <5jiadb$b...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
Doctor Gonzo <see.emai...@bottom.of.this.message> wrote:
>Blame the labels... they think "crossover" will save Classical music.
>I say it's having the opposite effect.
>>
Andrys Basten responded:
>Well, it's nice to blame someone, isn't it! :) Do you know people
>driven from a love of classical music due to crossover records being
>made?
No I don't. Doctor Gonzo and others are clearly mistaken.
>They're being made [crossovers] because the regular fare hasn't
>been selling in sufficient quantities to make someone enough money.
Get your _____s out of the clouds all you "ivory tower" types who
suppose music, any music, can sound without being paid. Even
Wagner knew this!
>But then there's dumb me who loves Terfel's crossover Rodgers and
>Hammerstein or at least most of it.
Ah yes, Rodgers and Hammerstein. I'll bet they make the partisans of
likes of Charlie Ives, Arnie Schoenberg and Johnny Cage cringe with
envy! How can a simpleton like Rick Rodgers have made more
money than they did? I'd still pay to hear a first rate performance of
Victory At Sea and so would most of those new to classical music.
>There's no way that introducing people to classical music in a more
>popularized fashion won't be bringing in a few more listeners, as
>exemplified by more than a few testimonials here in the last few
>months from people interested at first by a taste from of the music
>heard in this movie or that one.
You bet! One wonders if the same kind of people that like music that
plays "head games" are the same kinds most women complain about
when they talk about men playing "head games"?
>I get a sense that 'level' of interest is extra-important to some in
>this newsgroup,
Yeah, like we're all supposed to be some kind of "culture snobs"
instead of just preferring something that's "better" than what passes
for entertainment in other genres of music...
>...so that beginning interests attract a good level of
>disdain here, which to me is sad.
I agree...
>I wonder if people bold enough to
>ask 'dumb' questions in a group like this aren't discouraged from
>learning more after the heap of scorn that can settle on someone
>who voices a 'wrong' choice of piece enjoyed or performer etc...
Like it or not, the only "wrong" choices are the ones that never sell.
Don't jump to conclusions, I didn't say sell a little now and then, I said
NEVER sell, which includes most 12 tone stuff. Isn't it interesting that
a lot of composers who used to compose this stuff have turned tonal?
I guess they have come to their senses.
>I don't care if people are looking to hear "The Shine Concerto" as
>long as they really liked the little they heard and want to hear more
>like it. It's not important they start with what anyone considers "the
>best" recordings of it (as there is so much disagreement about even
>top choices for some).
Oh, but there is, unfortunately, as if this does anything to boost sales
or more importantly interest. All it does is to try to boost someone's
prescious ego at the expesnse of the art, which I may remind this
group is essentially for entertainment, maybe at some vaunted "higher
level" but entertainment nonetheless.
>But if they ask about it and people laugh about it because they heard
>it in 'that' movie you're not going to see >people eager for that kind of
>response; some may find this is not the >kind of world for them.
>Corny?
Not at all, quite true. I'm getting more than tired of derision passed
off
as critical thinking.
>People can be very sensitive about things
>they're interested in but don't know too much about yet.
Indeed, and do they want to scare off more of the potential patrons for
their art by doing so? I think they must have a secret death wish.
>Take, for example, Lebrecht's example of "XXX for Dummies" books.
>They're not popular because people want to be dummies. In our
>personal computer age (the books started out for computer-training),
>people - and very smart people at that - have often felt "like
>dummies" when faced with the computer.
I don't know whether people, the proverbial and non-existent "masses"
really "want to be dummies". I do know that some "very smart people"
can often make very poor choices, seeming to lack "common sense"
or "street smarts".
>In my work, the hardest people to train are some of the smarter ones,
>the ones who own and/or run companies, the ones who are
>successful doctors or lawyers... they are forever apologizing for what
>they don't know or can't do. And I've seen things take longer for
>them because they're used to being in control and they are like
>newborns when first facing a new computer. It's harder for them to
>face NOT knowing how to handle something, not being in charge of
>their environment. They feel...dumb.
Well, maybe mixing apples and oranges, computers are tools we can
learn to use. Music, again, is basically entertainment. Mozart said
that music should delight. I suggest he even meant it when the
emotions provoked were fear or anger as well as passion or love, at
least one "felt" something...
>The books gave them permission to feel that way - they weren't
>alone. They weren't the only dummies around :) They could laugh at
>their predicament and see that their problems were understood. So
>it isn't that the books are for dumb people but for people who don't
>want to stay at what others consider a dumb level. To me, that's a
>plus.
Sure, but for music it shouldn't be required. Using the computer
metaphor, how much easier is it to use a modern PC for the average
"dumb" computer user than it used to be back in the days when you
had to use a manual to find just the right command? Do we suppose
that concert goers presented with music which is practically
unplayable and unlistenable should be provided with a manual?
Ridiculous!
>So, it's no surprise to me, after seeing the reaction here to some
>people's newbie questions, that the 'dummy' books will appeal when
>it comes to classical music or jazz or whatever it is one doesn't
>understand in even basic ways. For me, the desire to undumb
>oneself is a positive. I think Lebrecht chose a poor example there to
>make his case.
People should be allowed to make mistakes, ask "dumb" questions,
etc. without fear of ridicule. The guy who made the honest mistake of
mistaking e minor for a minor in the question about why piano music
couldn't be in just two keys was an example. If people who know
nothing about music, classical or otherwise, come to us with technical
questions and get something wrong, how dare we laugh! Did all of us
spring forth like Mozart from the head of Zeus? No we didn't. We
were all "green" at some time, even those of us who were prodigies.
>Off-subject, but if you want to learn more about American "dumbing",
>track down E. D. Hirsch, Jr.'s "The Schools We Need and Why We
>Don't Have Them" and Paul Fussell's satiric but on-target "BAD: The
>Dumbing of America."
Haven't read them, but I have so much to read already.
>I can imagine. There is some serious dumbing done in this country,
>and the biggest prob for us is the lack of value given education and
>those who would provide it.
...and not a few, especially in higher education, value themselves too
highly and the rest of us dummies have gotten damn sick of it...
>The emphasis on accumulating material goods ("We're the richest
>country; therefore we're best") is one factor,
it certainly is, to the exclusion of the value placed on non-material
goods.
>and there are very few people who value scientific knowledge,
...actually there are too many who do, especially the scientists
themselves who often think that they are the only ones doing valuable
work. Some of the rest of us dummies out here are getting damn sick
of their attitudes too...
>classical music, an awareness of global history, etc. etc. etc. So, I'm
>glad when anyone is attracted to music which has qualities of what
>we call classical music, as opposed to the mounds of drek out there.
>I say, encourage them, rather than laugh at the source of their
>interest.
>- A (who just mixed 3 threads here, I think)
Thank-you very much Andrys for your comments. I applaud you!
Regards,
David Burton
"If the Truth be known..." used by me often in conversation. Not so much interested inThe Truth, but the gathering together of truth, often hidden, for the purpose of obtaining wisdom.
Eric Schissel
Actually, DPMBSS is right, most works by composers who write 12-tone music
don't sell much. The problem with going from here to the notion that Del
Tredici, etc. have "come to their senses" is that most works by composers
who don't write 12-tone music don't sell much, either. Indeed, the
proportion of works that sell well to good works of music, let alone to
all works of music, is almost vanishingly small, whether or not the
red herring of "12-tone" flops about like a fish out of water.
-Eric Schissel
John Grabowski
In <19970508154...@ladder01.news.aol.com> dpb...@aol.com
(DPBMSS) writes:
>>>In article <5jiadb$b...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
>Doctor Gonzo <see.emai...@bottom.of.this.message> wrote:
>>Blame the labels... they think "crossover" will save Classical music.
>>I say it's having the opposite effect.
>>>
>Andrys Basten responded:
>>Well, it's nice to blame someone, isn't it! :) Do you know people
>>driven from a love of classical music due to crossover records being
>>made?
>
>No I don't. Doctor Gonzo and others are clearly mistaken.
Why? Because you don't know of anyone? How many people do you know?
I don't know anyone who thinks The English Patient was a good movie.
Therefore, no one thinks it is. Right...
>>They're being made [crossovers] because the regular fare hasn't
>>been selling in sufficient quantities to make someone enough money.
>
>Get your _____s out of the clouds all you "ivory tower" types who
>suppose music, any music, can sound without being paid. Even
>Wagner knew this!
Did he say "paid" or "enough money."
How much have you investigated the business takeovers, mergers, and
deals in the industry before saying that?
>>But then there's dumb me who loves Terfel's crossover Rodgers and
>>Hammerstein or at least most of it.
>
>Ah yes, Rodgers and Hammerstein. I'll bet they make the partisans of
>likes of Charlie Ives, Arnie Schoenberg and Johnny Cage cringe with
>envy! How can a simpleton like Rick Rodgers have made more
>money than they did? I'd still pay to hear a first rate performance
of
>Victory At Sea and so would most of those new to classical music.
How do you know that? Do you know most people who are new to classical
music? Where do you meet them?
>You bet! One wonders if the same kind of people that like music that
>plays "head games" are the same kinds most women complain about
>when they talk about men playing "head games"?
I won't even touch that one.
>>I get a sense that 'level' of interest is extra-important to some in
>>this newsgroup,
>
>Yeah, like we're all supposed to be some kind of "culture snobs"
>instead of just preferring something that's "better" than what passes
>for entertainment in other genres of music...
But then you're being a snob...you're passing judgment that some things
are "better" than what passes for entertainment. Mozart was
entertainment in his day. So was Haydn. So was...
>Like it or not, the only "wrong" choices are the ones that never sell.
>Don't jump to conclusions, I didn't say sell a little now and then, I
said
>NEVER sell, which includes most 12 tone stuff.
Really? Twelve-tone recordshardly ever sell? Not a single copy most
of the time? Can you prove that? How'd I obtain the many I have in my
collection?
>Isn't it interesting that
>a lot of composers who used to compose this stuff have turned tonal?
>I guess they have come to their senses.
Name, let's say, thirty, and then tell me what percentage of total
twelve-tone composers that constitutes. If it's over, say, 30%, I'd
consider that "a lot."
>>I don't care if people are looking to hear "The Shine Concerto" as
>>long as they really liked the little they heard and want to hear more
>>like it. It's not important they start with what anyone considers
"the
>>best" recordings of it (as there is so much disagreement about even
>>top choices for some).
>
>Oh, but there is, unfortunately, as if this does anything to boost
sales
>or more importantly interest. All it does is to try to boost
someone's
>prescious ego at the expesnse of the art, which I may remind this
>group is essentially for entertainment,
Says who? Who decided what it's for, and when was this decision made,
and how come I didn't get a ballot?
> maybe at some vaunted "higher
>level" but entertainment nonetheless.
So we DO have different tiers of entertainment, that's okay? Gee,
you're a mass of contradictions.
>>But if they ask about it and people laugh about it because they heard
>>it in 'that' movie you're not going to see >people eager for that
kind of
>>response; some may find this is not the >kind of world for them.
>>Corny?
>
>Not at all, quite true. I'm getting more than tired of derision
passed
>off
>as critical thinking.
Would you know critical thinking if it ran over you in a UPS truck?
>Indeed, and do they want to scare off more of the potential patrons
for
>their art by doing so?
Wait, wait, I thought a minute ago it was entertainment. And when did
entertainment need "patrons"? Does Courtney Love worry about scaring
off "patrons"?
>I don't know whether people, the proverbial and non-existent "masses"
>really "want to be dummies". I do know that some "very smart people"
>can often make very poor choices, seeming to lack "common sense"
>or "street smarts".
Thank god we have you there to give us your special brand of chaotic,
contradictory statements.
>>In my work, the hardest people to train are some of the smarter ones,
>>the ones who own and/or run companies, the ones who are
>>successful doctors or lawyers... they are forever apologizing for
what
>>they don't know or can't do.
Often it's the smartest who realize just how much they DON'T know, and
the ignorant who are filled with self-confidence.
>>And I've seen things take longer for
>>them because they're used to being in control and they are like
>>newborns when first facing a new computer. It's harder for them to
>>face NOT knowing how to handle something, not being in charge of
>>their environment. They feel...dumb.
It takes a certain measure of intelligence to know when you are "dumb."
>Well, maybe mixing apples and oranges, computers are tools we can
>learn to use. Music, again, is basically entertainment.
I thought ia minute ago it was art in need of patrons. I'm gettin'
dizzy here...
>Mozart said
>that music should delight. I suggest he even meant it when the
>emotions provoked were fear or anger as well as passion or love, at
>least one "felt" something...
And Mahler said it should embrace the universe, and Sibelius said it
should be concise. And some grunge dude on Entertainment Tonight said
it should get you "rockin'"...
>Sure, but for music it shouldn't be required. Using the computer
>metaphor, how much easier is it to use a modern PC for the average
>"dumb" computer user than it used to be back in the days when you
>had to use a manual to find just the right command? Do we suppose
>that concert goers presented with music which is practically
>unplayable and unlistenable should be provided with a manual?
>Ridiculous!
Unlistenable to whom? I know many people who find ALL classical music
unlistenable, and I know some who think the "difficult" modern music is
the most interesting and stimulating.
As for providing them with a manual, if you mean an understanding of
the life and times of the composer and the world he lived in, that
helps for any kind of music...Bach, Wagner, Tchaikowski, Berg, the
Beatles...
>People should be allowed to make mistakes, ask "dumb" questions,
>etc. without fear of ridicule. The guy who made the honest mistake of
>mistaking e minor for a minor in the question about why piano music
>couldn't be in just two keys was an example. If people who know
>nothing about music, classical or otherwise, come to us with technical
>questions and get something wrong, how dare we laugh! Did all of us
>spring forth like Mozart from the head of Zeus? No we didn't.
Neither did he.
>We
>were all "green" at some time, even those of us who were prodigies.
...As you just indicated again with another statement that contradicts
something you just said a second ago.
There's nothing wrong with not knowing something or asking a "dumb"
question. However, many here (and elsewhere) can't see the difference
between thinking and wanting to believe something because it seems true
to them, i.e., announcing as fact that 12-tone music is a failure
because almost none of the recordings sell ANY copies, without posting
sales data that confirms that fact. That's not thinking and that's not
arguing, that's just saying something from a "gut" feeling, akin to
"man can never fly," or "traveling fastern than 12 miles per hour is
impossible, because the air would move past too quickly to breathe it
and man would suffocate," both views seriously presented as "scientific
fact" at one time.
>>I can imagine. There is some serious dumbing done in this country,
>>and the biggest prob for us is the lack of value given education and
>>those who would provide it.
>
>...and not a few, especially in higher education, value themselves too
>highly and the rest of us dummies have gotten damn sick of it...
>
>>The emphasis on accumulating material goods ("We're the richest
>>country; therefore we're best") is one factor,
Could you show us the link between materialism and higher education?
>it certainly is, to the exclusion of the value placed on non-material
>goods.
Like what? Isn't health a non-material good? Isn't it probably one of
the most valued things in our current health-crazed culture?
>>and there are very few people who value scientific knowledge,
>
>...actually there are too many who do, especially the scientists
>themselves who often think that they are the only ones doing valuable
>work.
Could I have some testimony or examples of this? If you did a little
reading of things like newspapers and magazines and say the state of
scientific research and funding in many areas today (research for
well-known diseases aside), you'd see this is not the case.
>Some of the rest of us dummies out here are getting damn sick
>of their attitudes too...
Can you give an example of a scientist who had an "attitude" toward
you? I'm curious...
>>classical music, an awareness of global history, etc. etc. etc. So,
I'm
>>glad when anyone is attracted to music which has qualities of what
>>we call classical music, as opposed to the mounds of drek out there.
>>I say, encourage them, rather than laugh at the source of their
>>interest.
>
>>- A (who just mixed 3 threads here, I think)
>
>Thank-you very much Andrys for your comments. I applaud you!
>Regards,
>David Burton
>"If the Truth be known..." used by me often in conversation. Not so
much interested inThe Truth, but the gathering together of truth, often
hidden, for the purpose of obtaining wisdom.
You have a long way to go, Grasshopper........
John
John Grabowski
In <5ku5ju$r...@light.lightlink.com> schi...@light.lightlink.com (Eric
Well, that's just another way of making my point. He has no data that
they're specifically not selling because they're 12-tone. The unstated
assumption by "not selling" would be that we're talking about not
selling in relation to other classical or "serious" works...after all,
you can't expect most if any classical music to sell like Madonna. And
of course 12-tone works generally don't sell like the Eroica Symphony
or the Four Seasons--but most other classical works don't, either. But
his statement that most 12-tone recordings don't sell at all is
ridiculous. I go to the likes of Virgin Megastore or Tower in Berkeley
and see a healthy selection...that's enough to convince me they're
doing at least okay.
If you want them to sell better, have Vanessa-Mae play them in a wet
T-shirt....Except that even her sexy CDs have fared far worse than her
marketers expected. There's hope for classical music! :-)
John
Roger L. Lustig
Larry Solomon wrote:
>
> I Hate Spam wrote:
> >audiences still feel a great discomfort around this sort of music.
> >It was not always the case that there was such a disconnect between
> >composers and audiences. Many composers were wildly popular in their
> >time. Can you name a composer of serial or avant-garde music that
> >can make a similar claim?
> Yes: Schoenberg. Schoenberg is more "popular" now (i.e., has a wider
> following) than was Haydn in his time. Haydn was a court composer and
> wrote for his Prince, a distinct minority. Haydn was more elitist than
> even Schoenberg.
Not so. Haydn, while composing for his patron, was also selling
his published music (not written for his patron) all over Europe,
where he was the most popular composer of his time.
> The desirability of popularity itself is one that is unique to the
> 20th
> century. No composer of the 18th century or earlier would have written
> music to be popular.
Don't be ridiculous. Most composers did just that.
> Bach's music was not popular. He wrote for the
> glory of God, as did most Renaissance composers before him. The
> thought
> vulgarizing his art to be popular would never have occurred to Bach.
And Bach was 'most composers'????? On the contrary: Bach was
drastically
out of step with the compositional esthetics of his day, and knew it.
>
> >In other words, if people can't sing it (or dance to it), they're not
> going to
> >like it.
> This is a preposterous generalization.
Perhaps, but you really ought to watch out for them yourself.
Roger
Eric Schissel
I have to wonder, actually. "I Hate Spam", you're actually comparing
Schoenberg's almost-tonal piano concerto and Pierrot Lunaire to the
"avant-garde" (which they weren't when they were written) and to squealing
and squawking?
Go fig. No, it's not what you say, but you certainly are lumping a lot in
one loaf.
-Eric Schissel
I Hate Spam
>Well, that's just another way of making my point. He has no data that
>they're specifically not selling because they're 12-tone. The unstated
>assumption by "not selling" would be that we're talking about not
>selling in relation to other classical or "serious" works...after all,
>you can't expect most if any classical music to sell like Madonna. And
>of course 12-tone works generally don't sell like the Eroica Symphony
>or the Four Seasons--but most other classical works don't, either. But
>his statement that most 12-tone recordings don't sell at all is
>ridiculous. I go to the likes of Virgin Megastore or Tower in Berkeley
>and see a healthy selection...that's enough to convince me they're
>doing at least okay.
I've always found this to be an interesting topic. Sorry for barging
in on the thread. While the record stores you're referring to may have
some serialist composers, most record stores that carry classical music
have little, if any, music by modern composers. There are some exceptions
to this. In particular, John Adams and other minimalists still seem to
do quite well. It's interesting, if you go read some of Shoenberg's
essays, you'll find that he placed a lot of blame for the lack of his
acceptance on conductors, many of whom at the time viewed serialism
with antipathy. Now, after 40 years or so, the picture hasn't changed
much at all. Similarly, Stravinsky lamented the fact that the Firebird
sold fantastically, but that his later works were ignored outside
academia. Can we still blame the conductors, or it simply be that fighting
against tonality is like fighting against gravity?
There are some serious issues involved with more avant-garde music.
Many musicians who have striven all their life to produce a beautiful,
singing tone quality, resent being asked to make the sorts of scratchy,
squacky, snarly sounds that often appear later scores. "I spent
all these years developing my sound and now you want me to go back
to first grade???"
>If you want them to sell better, have Vanessa-Mae play them in a wet
>T-shirt....Except that even her sexy CDs have fared far worse than her
>marketers expected. There's hope for classical music! :-)
>John
--
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
This account devoted specifally to spam prevention. E-mail currently
is not working.
Ryan Hare
I Hate Spam (nos...@i.hate.spam) wrote:
: I've always found this to be an interesting topic. Sorry for barging
: in on the thread. While the record stores you're referring to may have
: some serialist composers, most record stores that carry classical music
: have little, if any, music by modern composers. There are some exceptions
: to this. In particular, John Adams and other minimalists still seem to
: do quite well. It's interesting, if you go read some of Shoenberg's
: essays, you'll find that he placed a lot of blame for the lack of his
: acceptance on conductors, many of whom at the time viewed serialism
: with antipathy. Now, after 40 years or so, the picture hasn't changed
: much at all.
This is actually not true at all. There are more conductors who support
new music around heading orchestras than ever before, and more and more
performances and recordings of (for example) Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern,
just as recordings of Mahler's works started to really pick up in the 60s.
The picture *has* changed significantly, and some of this is due to
conductors such as Pierre Boulez and Claudio Abbado, who have achieved
major careers and who champion music of this century, including serial
works.
I think something else in the favor of modernist music is that orchestras
can play this music *far* better than they could even 20 years ago. This
is a simplification, but is true in general. Audiences are being treated
to superb performances of this music, and guess what--it turns out that it
is far more accepted. Familiarity and commitment to quality are the things
20th century music needs the most from performers. Boulez himself has
demonstrated what a huge difference this can make in terms of audience
appreciation.
It should go without saying, by the way, the no serious art music,
especially not contemporary art music, will ever be able to compete
commercially with popular music. As far as I'm concerned, that's just
fine. It annoys me that people seem so obsessed with maximum profitability
and maximum commercial exposure. There's a big difference between
commericalism and art, and I don't understand how anybody who thinks
carefully on these issue could conflate them, or expect others to.
In other words, what really is so wrong with having a relatively small
audience? The size of the audience is in general a very poor and often
misleading reflection on the actual quality. This whole situation with
David Helfgott is the perfect example.
: Similarly, Stravinsky lamented the fact that the Firebird
: sold fantastically, but that his later works were ignored outside
: academia.
A simplification, but in any case this is definitely changing. There has
been a sigficiant and increasing interest in Stravinsky's other, later
works. Oliver Knussen's magnificent cd of late Stravinsky is a testament
to this.
: Can we still blame the conductors, or it simply be that fighting
: against tonality is like fighting against gravity?
As far as I'm concerned, this is a dead issue. There's no reason for
atonality to be controversial anymore. Heck, there are even popular rock
bands experimenting with it now!
: There are some serious issues involved with more avant-garde music.
: Many musicians who have striven all their life to produce a beautiful,
: singing tone quality, resent being asked to make the sorts of scratchy,
: squacky, snarly sounds that often appear later scores. "I spent
: all these years developing my sound and now you want me to go back
: to first grade???"
Name a piece that does this.
Ryan Hare
rh...@u.washington.edu
I Hate Spam
>I Hate Spam (nos...@i.hate.spam) wrote:
>: I've always found this to be an interesting topic. Sorry for barging
>: in on the thread. While the record stores you're referring to may have
>: some serialist composers, most record stores that carry classical music
>: have little, if any, music by modern composers. There are some exceptions
>: to this. In particular, John Adams and other minimalists still seem to
>: do quite well. It's interesting, if you go read some of Shoenberg's
>: essays, you'll find that he placed a lot of blame for the lack of his
>: acceptance on conductors, many of whom at the time viewed serialism
>: with antipathy. Now, after 40 years or so, the picture hasn't changed
>: much at all.
>This is actually not true at all. There are more conductors who support
>new music around heading orchestras than ever before, and more and more
>performances and recordings of (for example) Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern,
>just as recordings of Mahler's works started to really pick up in the 60s.
>The picture *has* changed significantly, and some of this is due to
>conductors such as Pierre Boulez and Claudio Abbado, who have achieved
>major careers and who champion music of this century, including serial
>works.
Hi,
You make many excellent points.
I guess my original statement was poorly worded. I agree that there are
conductors and performers who champion contemporary music, more so now
than in the past. I would argue that they have had little impact upon
the average listener, however. I base this upon some relatively
anecdotal evidence, admittedly: Orchestra programming, in my personal
experience, is quite conservative. Our local classical station plays
atonal works extremely rarely. And opinions of other classical listeners
I know is still highly negative regarding atonal/modern compositions.
Now, I know this is anecdotal, and as such cannot be trusted. A more
objective guage might be CD sales. Anyone have any figures?
>I think something else in the favor of modernist music is that orchestras
>can play this music *far* better than they could even 20 years ago. This
>is a simplification, but is true in general. Audiences are being treated
>to superb performances of this music, and guess what--it turns out that it
>is far more accepted. Familiarity and commitment to quality are the things
>20th century music needs the most from performers. Boulez himself has
>demonstrated what a huge difference this can make in terms of audience
>appreciation.
I agree with you somewhat. However, perhaps I am cynical, but I notice
a certain 'token modern work' syndrome at work in concerts I've attended.
A modern work, sandwitched between the standard romantic fare, is
performed well, applauded politely if unenthusiastically, and then
forgotten. So I agree that _some_ progress has been made, but given
that atonal music is, what, 80 years old or so, don't you sense a
sort of disconnect between popular (classical) tastes and modern
compositions? Ie, why was music of the other eras generally
accepted at the time, while modern music is suffering an 80 year lag?
Why must Emmanual Ax give a prolog to Shoenberg's piano concerto in
order to explain his affection for the piece? My answer is that
audiences still feel a great discomfort around this sort of music.
It was not always the case that there was such a disconnect between
composers and audiences. Many composers were wildly popular in their
time. Can you name a composer of serial or avant-garde music that
can make a similar claim?
>It should go without saying, by the way, the no serious art music,
>especially not contemporary art music, will ever be able to compete
>commercially with popular music. As far as I'm concerned, that's just
>fine. It annoys me that people seem so obsessed with maximum profitability
>and maximum commercial exposure. There's a big difference between
>commericalism and art, and I don't understand how anybody who thinks
>carefully on these issue could conflate them, or expect others to.
Agreed.
>In other words, what really is so wrong with having a relatively small
>audience? The size of the audience is in general a very poor and often
>misleading reflection on the actual quality. This whole situation with
>David Helfgott is the perfect example.
Yes, I agree with you. In effect, I make no argument regarding the
aesthetic quality of atonal/modern music. I'm interested in what people
think about such music and why.
>: Similarly, Stravinsky lamented the fact that the Firebird
>: sold fantastically, but that his later works were ignored outside
>: academia.
>A simplification, but in any case this is definitely changing. There has
>been a sigficiant and increasing interest in Stravinsky's other, later
>works. Oliver Knussen's magnificent cd of late Stravinsky is a testament
>to this.
>: Can we still blame the conductors, or it simply be that fighting
>: against tonality is like fighting against gravity?
>As far as I'm concerned, this is a dead issue. There's no reason for
>atonality to be controversial anymore. Heck, there are even popular rock
>bands experimenting with it now!
Hm... I'm curious which band that would be? I agree that there is no
reason for atonality to be controversial, but I would argue that it
is still largely as unpopular as ever. Why? My answer rests on
perception. In college, my room-mate and I once decided to listen
no nothing but Peirrot Lunare for a week. We played the peice on
a tape loop, and had it going 24 hours a day in our dorm room. It
was an interesting experience, but I noticed somewhat later that I
had a difficult time recalling anything I had listened to. While
I can sing many tonal peices from front to back, I can barely
quote a handful of themes from Peirrot. This led to an insight,
which is that atonal music is not so much unpopular because it is
dissonant (a common claim.) It's unpopular because it is too
complex for most ears. One might make the same argument vis a vis,
say, Beethoven vrs. Country music. In other words, if people can't
sing it (or dance to it), they're not going to like it. Perhaps
that is an obvious enough idea, I dunno... I would think that such a
hypothesis should be easy enough to test, in theory.
>: There are some serious issues involved with more avant-garde music.
>: Many musicians who have striven all their life to produce a beautiful,
>: singing tone quality, resent being asked to make the sorts of scratchy,
>: squacky, snarly sounds that often appear later scores. "I spent
>: all these years developing my sound and now you want me to go back
>: to first grade???"
>Name a piece that does this.
Hmm... Well, I dunno, but I played a bunch in college. Typical example,
slap the keys of your instrument to make a slapping/popping sound
(something I was trained not to do.) I didn't mind such things; many
others around me did. In another peice, the double reeds had to play
without their instruments (ie, just the reed, a la PDQ Bach). Some
musicians resent this sort of thing, that's all I would assert. I
remember reading John Cage's description of how much antipathy
orchestra members would sometimes show towards his music. Things have
gotten somewhat better since then, but how substantively?
>Ryan Hare
>rh...@u.washington.edu
Larry Solomon
I Hate Spam wrote:
>audiences still feel a great discomfort around this sort of music.
>It was not always the case that there was such a disconnect between
>composers and audiences. Many composers were wildly popular in their
>time. Can you name a composer of serial or avant-garde music that
>can make a similar claim?
Yes: Schoenberg. Schoenberg is more "popular" now (i.e., has a wider
following) than was Haydn in his time. Haydn was a court composer and
wrote for his Prince, a distinct minority. Haydn was more elitist than
even Schoenberg.
The desirability of popularity itself is one that is unique to the 20th
century. No composer of the 18th century or earlier would have written
music to be popular. Bach's music was not popular. He wrote for the
glory of God, as did most Renaissance composers before him. The thought
vulgarizing his art to be popular would never have occurred to Bach.
>why was music of the other eras generally
>accepted at the time, while modern music is suffering an 80 year lag?
This is not as true as you make it to be. Beethoven received much
negative criticism in his time. His 9th symphony was blamed on his
deafness and called "noise". Many Romantic composers got the same
treatment. See Slonimsky's *Lexicon of Musical Invective* for many true
accounts.
>Can we still blame the conductors, or it simply be that fighting
>against tonality is like fighting against gravity?
Duh! Huh?! This is a valid analogy???
>atonal music is not so much unpopular because it is
>dissonant (a common claim.) It's unpopular because it is too
>complex for most ears.
I actually agree with this, except that ear and brain go together. So,
you really should say that its too complex for most brains, and
especially for those who are not interested in using their brain, and
just want music to feel good -- Yeah, man.
>In other words, if people can't sing it (or dance to it), they're not going to
>like it.
This is a preposterous generalization.
>: Many musicians who have striven all their life to produce a beautiful,
>: singing tone quality, resent being asked to make the sorts of scratchy,
>: squacky, snarly sounds that often appear later scores. "I spent
>: all these years developing my sound and now you want me to go back
>: to first grade???"
No, they will just remain in the first grade.
--
Best!
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Larry Solomon
The Center for the Arts http://www.AzStarNet.com/~solo
Tucson, AZ
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
DPBMSS
Hi folks, lots of great discussion on this thread lately, a few more
points;
1) Willie Nelson was hauled up by the IRS for owing an estimated $32
million. Any classical stars ever made anything like that kind of money?
Any of them jealous? Is there any real good reason why great art can't be
commercially successful? I think the notion that great artists are
supposed to be poor starving and misunderstood is ridiculous. Then why
aren't more classical stars fantastically rich?
Incidently in the past, relative to their times, many classical greats
did fairly well, Haydn, Mozart actually died in poverty because the
Emperor died, the early 1790's was a terrible economic depression, and his
wife was a spendthrift but during his prime he was earning respectable
sums, Wagner finished in pretty good shape, many others did fairly well.
They didn't only have royal patronage, they had popular support the likes
of which some of the really avant garde composers could only dream of. If
it weren't for academic posts, many of them would have to do something
else: Alicia de la Rocha's comment about Tibor Serley, "he spent all that
time writing those etudes? he sould have been a plumber!"
2) Atonality in music has been around....probably forever. Added to a
composition which is basically "tonal" makes it more interesting than some
of the "square" sounding harmonies we learn about in a first year
conservatory harmony course, like adding spice to a dish. But what
happens when the dish is all spice and no substance? I think there was
something to "I hate spam's" little experiemnt with Pierot Lunaire. I've
heard Pierot many many times and can't remember how it goes. I have no
trouble with Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, all four movements. Why do people
attend concerts of pieces they already know anyway? Is it because they
remember the piece?
3) Performances of "modern" music have indeed improved. But guess
what, take some music by Eliott Carter I heard in an all 20th century
concert down in New York some years ago, it sounded "profound" rather than
"what is it?" but I was struck by how it was achieved, almost by playing
it romantically.
4) If I make a statement that is absolutely wrong, not too likely,
that's one thing, but when I say that modern classical music doesn't sell,
nobody requires proof to know that this is true. Of course classical
music doesn't sell as well as other genres, like country and western which
is the biggest market these days, but people will buy more Mozart than
Schoenberg anyway and there can't be much dispute about this.
5) The time lag between composers and audiences is an interesting point
whether one wishes to split hairs about how popular with the contemporary
critics some famous piece was at the time. Critics in all eras have been
wrong. I don't claim to be in their number because unlike Haydn,
Beethoven,. Liszt, Wagner, Verdi, Gershwin, Richard Rodgers or John
Williams, people like Schoenberg and Cage still don't have a large
following. Some of us would like to shrink this lag and I think that Del
Tredici, Adams, Moran and others are interested too, for their own
survival if for no other reason. The notion that one can be "avant garde"
by running so far ahead of the crowd that nobody can ever follow
"remember" is.....absurd. Why bother composing music that nobody can
follow? It cannot be assumed that just because only a handful of people
can follow some obscure piece, that makes it great. It does not. It
cannot be assumed that something everybody likes is great either, but the
more a piece of music is admired by more people, then it is safe to say
that that piece has communicated something to more people and perhaps is
of greater value than a piece which communicates to a small number of
people.
Eric Schissel
Mozart died because his wife was a spendthrift and the Emperor died??? Has
evidence turned up to contradict Einstein's account of Mozart's own
spending habits that I'm not aware of?
-Eric Schissel
I Hate Spam
In <337513...@AzStarNet.com> Larry Solomon <So...@AzStarNet.com> writes:
>I Hate Spam wrote:
>>audiences still feel a great discomfort around this sort of music.
>>It was not always the case that there was such a disconnect between
>>composers and audiences. Many composers were wildly popular in their
>>time. Can you name a composer of serial or avant-garde music that
>>can make a similar claim?
>Yes: Schoenberg. Schoenberg is more "popular" now (i.e., has a wider
>following) than was Haydn in his time. Haydn was a court composer and
>wrote for his Prince, a distinct minority. Haydn was more elitist than
>even Schoenberg.
>The desirability of popularity itself is one that is unique to the 20th
>century. No composer of the 18th century or earlier would have written
>music to be popular. Bach's music was not popular. He wrote for the
>glory of God, as did most Renaissance composers before him. The thought
>vulgarizing his art to be popular would never have occurred to Bach.
While this may have some truth to it, my point would be that many
composers of the past did not have a difficult time having their music
accepted. The 19th century provides lots of examples of composers
who were as popular then as now. One can go back further, but as you
note, the cultural role of music changes somewhat. In general, I
think you'll find that composers of the 19th and 18th centuries found
more acceptance with audiences at large than do modern composers.
>>why was music of the other eras generally
>>accepted at the time, while modern music is suffering an 80 year lag?
>This is not as true as you make it to be. Beethoven received much
>negative criticism in his time. His 9th symphony was blamed on his
>deafness and called "noise". Many Romantic composers got the same
>treatment. See Slonimsky's *Lexicon of Musical Invective* for many true
>accounts.
Yes, it's quite a generalization, I agree. But can we agree that
while not every work of every romantic composer was well received,
their works were by and large successful, and that the reverse is
true for modern composers?
>>Can we still blame the conductors, or it simply be that fighting
>>against tonality is like fighting against gravity?
>Duh! Huh?! This is a valid analogy???
Well, I think I explain it well enough below. The analogy would be
that tonality has a natural enough pull on our psyches such that it's
difficult to fight against.
>>atonal music is not so much unpopular because it is
>>dissonant (a common claim.) It's unpopular because it is too
>>complex for most ears.
>I actually agree with this, except that ear and brain go together. So,
>you really should say that its too complex for most brains, and
>especially for those who are not interested in using their brain, and
>just want music to feel good -- Yeah, man.
>>In other words, if people can't sing it (or dance to it), they're not going to
>>like it.
>This is a preposterous generalization.
Well, it's certainly a broad generalization, I'll admit that. But to
show that it's preposterous, you would need to provide some
counterexamples. So, name some really popular atonal/arythmic pieces?
>>: Many musicians who have striven all their life to produce a beautiful,
>>: singing tone quality, resent being asked to make the sorts of scratchy,
>>: squacky, snarly sounds that often appear later scores. "I spent
>>: all these years developing my sound and now you want me to go back
>>: to first grade???"
>No, they will just remain in the first grade.
>--
>Best!
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>Larry Solomon
>The Center for the Arts http://www.AzStarNet.com/~solo
>Tucson, AZ
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I Hate Spam
In <3375D6...@AzStarNet.com> Larry Solomon <So...@AzStarNet.com> writes:
>I would also add that Cage now has a wider following than did Haydn in
>his time, by far. Mark Swed of the Schwann Opus, last year reported that
>there were more new recordings of Cage's music in 1996 than any other
>composer, including Mozart!
That's an interesting point. What were the sales figures?
Jeremy Berman
In <3375D6...@AzStarNet.com> Larry Solomon <So...@AzStarNet.com>
writes:
>
>>Not so. Haydn, while composing for his patron, was also selling
>>his published music (not written for his patron) all over Europe,
>>where he was the most popular composer of his time.
>
his Prince. His
>music may have sold throughout Europe, but Schoenberg's now sells
>throughout the world. I maintain that Schoenberg is now more "popular"
>than was Haydn in his time.
>
now. You're comparing two different worlds, two hundred years apart.
>Larry wrote: I would also add that Cage now has a wider following than
did Haydn in
>his time, by far. Mark Swed of the Schwann Opus, last year reported
that
>there were more new recordings of Cage's music in 1996 than any other
>composer, including Mozart!
>
I write: There may have been more new recordings (though I doubt those
numbers), but what were the number of CD's SOLD of each composer.
Somehow I figure Cage doesn't enter the same ballpark as Mozart or
Haydn.
>>>Others including Larry wrote: No composer of the 18th century or
earlier would have written
>>>music to be popular.
>>Don't be ridiculous. Most composers did just that.
>
>Their music can hardly be called "popular" in the modern sense. Folk
>music was the popular music of that time, which was the music of the
>peasant class. Mozart and Haydn were not "popular". They were court
>composers.
I write: Larry, I think you're playing with words here. There's a
difference between popular music and music written to be popular. At no
stretch of the imagination did Haydn think he was writing popular
music, nor was Roger saying that (not that he needs my help in this).
He meant that Haydn and Mozart wanted their music to be popular. And
for the latter part of his life, Mozart was not a court composer, in
the same sense that Haydn was, in that Franz Joseph was a life-long
employee of the Prince of Esterhazy, where Mozart got commissions from
royalty (such as King Frederick William of Prussia). Mozart wrote
dozens of marches, dances and contredanses, not to mention many
divertimentos and serenades. All of which were meant to be for popular
entertainment (for the upper classes, admittedly, but popular
nevertheless).
>
Jeremy
Michael Subotin
DPBMSS wrote:
: Like it or not, the only "wrong" choices are the ones that never sell.
: Don't jump to conclusions, I didn't say sell a little now and then, I
said
: NEVER sell, which includes most 12 tone stuff.
As well as most of any other stuff...
: Isn't it interesting that
: a lot of composers who used to compose this stuff have turned tonal?
: I guess they have come to their senses.
Many others went the other way around. What conclusions do you draw
from these cases?
Michael
--
Email: mvs...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Halvard Johnson
> While this may have some truth to it, my point would be that many
> composers of the past did not have a difficult time having their music
> accepted. The 19th century provides lots of examples of composers
> who were as popular then as now. One can go back further, but as you
> note, the cultural role of music changes somewhat. In general, I
> think you'll find that composers of the 19th and 18th centuries found
> more acceptance with audiences at large than do modern composers.
Just a couple questions here about numbers: My guess is that Beethoven's
Sym 9 will probably have more performances this year in Japan than it ever
had during B's lifetime. How many performances of any Beethoven symphony
would there have been, say, during a twenty-year period? How many people
would have heard it? How many would have heard it more than once?
Popularity in the past was based on private performances of songs, chamber
music, etc. at least as much as on public orchestral performances.
With music today available on radio, TV and disk to an extent that
19th C composers couldn't possibly have imagined, doesn't "popularity"
in these two periods mean very different things? Mahler's "popularity"
had to wait for the LP.
Hal "Don't just do something. Sit there!"
--Zen quip
Halvard Johnson <hjoh...@umbc2.umbc.edu>
Michael Subotin
I Hate Spam wrote:
> Ie, why was music of the other eras generally
> accepted at the time, while modern music is suffering an 80 year lag?
It is a very interesting question and one that I think doesn't have
a simple answer. I think we have to accept that the face of concert
music has changed drastically in our century and cannot be explained
by the trends that were in effect during previous centuries.
One factor that I believe to be responsible is the seemingly accelerated
rate of change in music. These things, of course, are impossible to
quantify, but, intuitively, had there been a composer before whose
musical language changed as drastically as Schoenberg's did between
the early songs songs and the string trio? Not to my ears. Beethoven
is the closest example I can think of, but didn't his late string
quartets also enjoy a next-to 80-year appreciation lag?
> >As far as I'm concerned, this is a dead issue. There's no reason for
> >atonality to be controversial anymore. Heck, there are even popular rock
> >bands experimenting with it now!
>
> Hm... I'm curious which band that would be?
Countless progressive rock bands, which can hardly be called "popular".
Sonic Youth is one band who come from an entirely different
background - punk rock - and who experiment with a lot of these
things. Heck, I think they even recorded a version of Stockhausen's
"Kontakte" (?). There are several others.
> I agree that there is no
> reason for atonality to be controversial, but I would argue that it
> is still largely as unpopular as ever. Why? My answer rests on
> perception. In college, my room-mate and I once decided to listen
> no nothing but Peirrot Lunare for a week. We played the peice on
> a tape loop, and had it going 24 hours a day in our dorm room. It
> was an interesting experience, but I noticed somewhat later that I
> had a difficult time recalling anything I had listened to.
Funny. I've got no formal musical education, but bits from Pierrot used
to haunt me for days. At times I could almost taste it. I think it's
extremely catchy, even though singing it may be more diffucult than
Haydn... but Haydn's music never did that to me. Is it a matter of
taste, perhaps?
> While
> I can sing many tonal peices from front to back, I can barely
> quote a handful of themes from Peirrot. This led to an insight,
> which is that atonal music is not so much unpopular because it is
> dissonant (a common claim.) It's unpopular because it is too
> complex for most ears.
There's complexity and then there's complexity. If there's a trend
it may be that modern music requires concentration on microstucture,
small details, while, e.g., traditional symphonies require a firmer
grasp of macrostructure, large scale development. I'm not so sure
that the latter is easier to attain.
> One might make the same argument vis a vis,
> say, Beethoven vrs. Country music. In other words, if people can't
> sing it (or dance to it), they're not going to like it. Perhaps
> that is an obvious enough idea, I dunno... I would think that such a
> hypothesis should be easy enough to test, in theory.
I think you're mixing two things. For most people music will never
be important enough to warrant intense, attentive listening. Because
of that both Beethoven and Schoenberg will always lose to music which
does it's thing well as a background and is good for dancing. However,
it is also true that no Schoenberg piece (well, besides early stuff)
can, in addition to being music that rewards repeated listening and
study, feature on a "Most Romantic Music You Don't Really Need To
Listen To" compilation and be effective in *that* role. A lot of
older classical music can work both ways. Could that be a factor
influencing its overall popularity?
Michael
--
Email: mvs...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
I. Neill Reid
In article <337513...@AzStarNet.com>, So...@AzStarNet.com writes...
>I Hate Spam wrote:
>>audiences still feel a great discomfort around this sort of music.
>>It was not always the case that there was such a disconnect between
>>composers and audiences. Many composers were wildly popular in their
>>time. Can you name a composer of serial or avant-garde music that
>>can make a similar claim?
>
>Yes: Schoenberg. Schoenberg is more "popular" now (i.e., has a wider
>following) than was Haydn in his time. Haydn was a court composer and
>wrote for his Prince, a distinct minority. Haydn was more elitist than
>even Schoenberg.
Point of information - Haydn's music was, in fact, extremely popular
during the latter stages of his career at Esterhazy. Yes, his primary
purpose was writing music for local consumption, but his music
was also published, in approved and pirated copies, and played
widely by not only the nobility, but also the growing middle
classes throughout Europe. That reputation was established more
through his chamber music than through his orchestral music (Patrick
O'Brien's early Maturin/Aubrey novels provide interesting insight into
the musical cultures of the time). And, of course, his last 20 or so
symphonies were all commissioned by symphonic societies - either
in Paris or London.
>
>The desirability of popularity itself is one that is unique to the 20th
>century. No composer of the 18th century or earlier would have written
>music to be popular. Bach's music was not popular. He wrote for the
>glory of God, as did most Renaissance composers before him. The thought
>vulgarizing his art to be popular would never have occurred to Bach.
I'm not certain that this is a valid argument - after all, many composer
wrote music to entertain (Lully's ballets and masques for the French
court, the Medici Intermedii, Delalande's or Teleman's supper music,
Handel's Fireworks music). They certainly did not write that music
without having some consideration for the reception that it would
receive. They did not, on the other hand, write their music with an
eye to their future reputations. I don't think that there is much
evidence of revivals of old (more than 20 years) compositions
before the later 18th century - save at the Paris opera, where they
did recycle older material. (One could argue that the various
collections of Renaissance polyphony, such as the Eton choirbook, also
represent collections of older music, but the purpose in performance was
very different. So those collections were to establish a repertoire for
particular religious occasions, rather than to preserve the works of
a particular composer for posterity.)
It's not until Beethoven that one encounters the composer as a
self-supporting artist - writing music for his own purposes primarily,
although clearly still dependent on external commissions. And sometimes those
external commissions (and the composers circumstances) demanded
potboilers - like Wellington's Victory. Following Beethoven, I suspect
that many composers were supported by commissions from music
publishers - and a music publisher isn't going to hand over money for a
work that nobody will buy. But he may well publish, say, a less accessible
string quartet if it is accompanied by a dozen easier piano pieces.
>
>>why was music of the other eras generally
>>accepted at the time, while modern music is suffering an 80 year lag?
Modern music like Pierrot Lunaire (1912) as compared with modern music
like Rachmaninov's Symphonic Dances (1943) or Gorecki's 3rd symphony (1976)?
I think this adjective "modern" is not appropriate.
What the original poster is actually doing, of course, is equating "modern"
music with "music which sounds dissonant and which I don't like" and,
as is usually the case with such arguments, is ignoring entirely the
existence of non-12-tone, or serialist music, composed during the same
period.
Will Schoenberg still be regarded as "modern" in 3 years????
>
>This is not as true as you make it to be. Beethoven received much
>negative criticism in his time. His 9th symphony was blamed on his
>deafness and called "noise". Many Romantic composers got the same
>treatment. See Slonimsky's *Lexicon of Musical Invective* for many true
>accounts.
True. Whether it's more difficult to appreciate, say, Messiaen's
Turangalila Symphony or Gavin Bryar's string quartets now than it
was to appreciate Beethoven's last quartets in the 1820s is not
an easy question to answer. However, I suspect that a larger
fraction of the better-off actually played music for themselves
last century, and that may have led to a larger and more tolerant
audience (proportionately, if not in actual numbers).
Neill Reid - i...@dowland.caltech.edu
I. Neill Reid
In article <3375F5...@AzStarNet.com>, So...@AzStarNet.com writes...
>No, I'm not playing with words, I'm using words in order to explain
>something.
>
>If you mean by "popular" that it was popular with the aristocracy, then
>that is a very peculiar definition.
Not just the aristocracy - most of the concert societies in the
later 18th century were run by the middle class. And you don't think
that it was solely the French aristocracy who were patrons of
the Paris opera in the time of Rameau and Lully? Access to 'art' was not
restricted to the nobility even then. Indeed, in
Elizabethan times, I'd bet that most of the buyers of Dowland's
lute music and songbooks were drawn from the merchant classes
rather than Eizabeth's court. I suspect that Clement Jannequin's
songs were substantially more popular amongst general Parisians
than you would give credit.
>I would define "popular" as having
>the support of the majority of the population, i.e., the masses,
>although the word could also be used in a comparative sense.
That is a very restrictive definition of 'popular' - how would you describe
music which is liked by 48 % of the current population? unpopular? elitist?
'Popular' is a relative term on a sliding scale - and music can be
'popular' which appeals to only a small fraction of the _total_
population, but to a moderate to large fraction of the segment of
the population which listens to that music.
>The majority of the population in Haydn's time were not aristocrats; they
>were peasants, and their music was folk music, not string quartets.
I don't think that that is the case - I suspect that the largest
single section of the population in most countries was the urban
poor, at least by the second half of the 18th century. I really don't
know what their 'inherent' music might be - but I'd guess some
amalgamation of folk tunes and popular songs, which might even
include bits and pieces from the opera.
>H&M were not trying to reach the masses, hence they were not trying to be
>popular.
Your original statement, as far as I remember, was that it was
only in the twentieth century that composers started writing music
with the aim of becoming popular.
Yet, by your definition, I don't believe that _any_ classical music
composer can be regarded as having succeeded in becoming popular -
at any time. It is clear that the appeal of classical music has
always been restricted to a small segment of the population. If they've
had any audience in mind, classical composers have always written
for that audience. And in terms of the fraction of the population, I'd say
that the fraction is lower now than it was in the late 18th century,
while Haydn was visiting London.
>
>As far as the statistical statements I made, I meant what I said, and
>that's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to say, for example, that Cage
>currently outsells Mozart. Please read more carefully.
>
>>Schoenberg sells throughout the world because there's a world economy
>>now. You're comparing two different worlds, two hundred years apart.
>
>I agree with this, but that doesn't invalidate what I wrote.
It's not quite clear to me what your point is.
Are you arguing that a larger fraction of today's composers rely on
popular sales, revenue from music publishers and recordings to
support their existence than in previous centuries? If so, I think
you are minimising the importance of those sources of funding to
composers in at least the 19th century.
And it would be interesting to see statistics on exactly how
many composers are completely free-lance currently, as opposed
to being associated with, for example, universities (probably
a small fraction).
Neill Reid - i...@dowland.caltech.edu
Roger L. Lustig
Larry Solomon wrote:
> Roger Lustig wrote:
> >Not so. Haydn, while composing for his patron, was also selling
> >his published music (not written for his patron) all over Europe,
> >where he was the most popular composer of his time.
> Once more, Haydn was an elitist composer. He wrote for his Prince.
I see that "elitist" no longer means what it used to, then. Now
it seems to mean "employee" or something. Where I grew up, it meant
"disdainful of the common people" or something like that.
Now: when Haydn ceased to write for his "Prince", did he cease to
be elitist? Was he elitist in London?
> His
> music may have sold throughout Europe,
....especially the stuff that he wrote for sale, and *not* for
his "Prince".
> but Schoenberg's now sells
> throughout the world.
Right, and there are now more people on earth, and Western culture
has spread.
Doesn't change the fact: within the cultural world Haydn inhabited,
which was Europe, he was vastly popular, and a national hero toward
the end of his life.
> I maintain that Schoenberg is now more "popular" than was Haydn in his time.
By what definition of "popular"? How many people know a tune by
Schoenberg? How many in Haydn's day knew ten or twelve by Haydn?
> I would also add that Cage now has a wider following than did Haydn in
> his time, by far. Mark Swed of the Schwann Opus, last year reported
> that
> there were more new recordings of Cage's music in 1996 than any other
> composer, including Mozart!
....which sold how many copies, compared to Mozart's music?
You're nuts. How many people in the world can name a single
piece by Schoenberg or Cage? How many would buy a record or
go to a concert? What percentage felt that way about Haydn in
his day?
> >>No composer of the 18th century or earlier would have written
> >>music to be popular.
> >Don't be ridiculous. Most composers did just that.
> Their music can hardly be called "popular" in the modern sense. Folk
> music was the popular music of that time, which was the music of the
> peasant class.
No, popular music was the popular music of the peasant class. There
was popular music back then, too.
> Mozart and Haydn were not "popular". They were court composers.
Mozart was only nominally a court composer. He was a free-lance
in Vienna. Haydn was the same after Esterhazy died.
But then, can't one be a court composer *and* popular? I think
one can.
> >And Bach was 'most composers'?????
> I didn't say that. Bach was uniquely Bach, obviously.
Right, and Bach's attitude was uniquely his, too. He was
resolutely unpopular, and went against the grain and the
musical trends of his time. To use him as an example of
composers' attitudes toward popularity in his day is
preposterous.
Roger Lustig
Mean Mr. Mustardseed
dpb...@aol.com (DPBMSS) wrote:
>>>In article <5jiadb$b...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
>Doctor Gonzo <see.emai...@bottom.of.this.message> wrote:
>>Blame the labels... they think "crossover" will save Classical music.
>>I say it's having the opposite effect.
>>>
>Andrys Basten responded:
>>Well, it's nice to blame someone, isn't it! :) Do you know people
>>driven from a love of classical music due to crossover records being
>>made?
>
>No I don't. Doctor Gonzo and others are clearly mistaken.
>
>>They're being made [crossovers] because the regular fare hasn't
>>been selling in sufficient quantities to make someone enough money.
>
>Get your _____s out of the clouds all you "ivory tower" types who
>suppose music, any music, can sound without being paid. Even
>Wagner knew this!
classical music until they embrace pop culture, but I really feel that we could
save all this messy buisness if the 2 weren't distinguished between. Way too
many stereotypes have been built up about classical music and pop music alike.
Many people have a ridiculously small window on the musical world.. I know some
classical pieces by some of the most reknown and respected composers that would
definetly turn me off of the genre if I thought all classical music was like
it.. Many people think classical music is boring, stuffy, concieted, and
academic. Many people think pop music is overly-simplistic, unimaginitive, and
stricly an amateurist art form. I have heard plenty of music which fits none of
the above negative descriptions, but I tend to find more of it in lesser known
music that no one cares about either because it is passe or in a medium that
doesn't get the respect it deserves, like selected video game music (By composer
Nobuo Uematsu for one example), older progressive classical-influenced pop
(Klaatu, the Moody Blues), and many more.
>>I get a sense that 'level' of interest is extra-important to some in
>>this newsgroup,
>
>Yeah, like we're all supposed to be some kind of "culture snobs"
>instead of just preferring something that's "better" than what passes
>for entertainment in other genres of music...
I always laugh when peopole acuse me of being close-minded and out of touch with
the musical world for favouring the Beatles, Holst, and Elfman, over Bush and
Oasis. When they think Beatles they think of 'dumb' love songs from their early
days but probably never heard Helter Skelter.. Yet they lik ethe beatle
wannabes Oasis..
>>People can be very sensitive about things
>>they're interested in but don't know too much about yet.
>
>Indeed, and do they want to scare off more of the potential patrons for
>their art by doing so? I think they must have a secret death wish.
>
>>Take, for example, Lebrecht's example of "XXX for Dummies" books.
>>They're not popular because people want to be dummies. In our
>>personal computer age (the books started out for computer-training),
>>people - and very smart people at that - have often felt "like
>>dummies" when faced with the computer.
>
>I don't know whether people, the proverbial and non-existent "masses"
>really "want to be dummies". I do know that some "very smart people"
>can often make very poor choices, seeming to lack "common sense"
>or "street smarts".
another classic example of the confusion between knowledge, intelligence,
ability, and experience. 4 very different things..
>>In my work, the hardest people to train are some of the smarter ones,
>>the ones who own and/or run companies, the ones who are
>>successful doctors or lawyers... they are forever apologizing for what
>>they don't know or can't do. And I've seen things take longer for
>>them because they're used to being in control and they are like
>>newborns when first facing a new computer. It's harder for them to
>>face NOT knowing how to handle something, not being in charge of
>>their environment. They feel...dumb.
>
>Well, maybe mixing apples and oranges, computers are tools we can
>learn to use. Music, again, is basically entertainment. Mozart said
>that music should delight. I suggest he even meant it when the
>emotions provoked were fear or anger as well as passion or love, at
>least one "felt" something...
Well I think all music invokes some emotion to some weak or strong degree, and
musical taste is a matter of what emotions you like experiencing..
Hmm, I think you've got Mozart and Athena confused .. ;)
Mean Mr. Mustardseed gol...@bconnex.net
Roger L. Lustig
Tons. Einstein's work is badly out of date, esp. his mucking
about with Koechel, but also much of his biography. See
Braunbehrens, Brauneis, Edge, Moore, and other recent scholars.
Much has been discovered about Mozart's income.
Roger
Roger L. Lustig
Larry Solomon wrote:
>
> No, I'm not playing with words, I'm using words in order to explain
> something.
No, you're playing with words.
> If you mean by "popular" that it was popular with the aristocracy,
> then
> that is a very peculiar definition.
He didn't mean that. Haydn was popular with the aristocracy,
the bourgeoisie (which was growing like wildfire at the time),
and the trade classes, too.
> I would define "popular" as having
> the support of the majority of the population, i.e., the masses,
How nice. That's not what the word means in this context. Why
didn't you say so before?
> although the word could also be used in a comparative sense. The
Indeed it could. Now: who wrote the Austrian national anthem?
Who was the only composer before Verdi to be a bonafide national
hero?
> majority of the population in Haydn's time were not aristocrats; they
> were peasants, and their music was folk music, not string quartets.
It was also popular music, songs from operas and Singspiele, dances,
and a variety of other things. Where did you learn this?
> H&M
> were not trying to reach the masses, hence they were not trying to be
> popular.
Only by your silly definition. Why did people in the street sing
and play tunes from Mozart operas? Why did they fill the suburban
theatre where _Magic Flute_ was a great hit?
> As far as the statistical statements I made, I meant what I said, and
> that's all I'm saying.
Bummer. That means you're not interested in actually making a
legitimate argument, only in blowing smoke. Carefully selected
factoids do not substitute for reasoning.
> I'm not trying to say, for example, that Cage
> currently outsells Mozart. Please read more carefully.
So why did you bother to mention this? I read quite carefully:
you said that Cage was more popular than Mozart, and you used
an entirely different standard, namely the number of records
issued. (So much for the "masses," eh?)
You managed to delete that bit, but some of us still have it
saved. You're not going to fool anyone.
> >Schoenberg sells throughout the world because there's a world economy
> >now. You're comparing two different worlds, two hundred years apart.
> I agree with this, but that doesn't invalidate what I wrote.
It invalidates the point about "popularity", which you seem to
redefine whenever you need to.
Roger Lustig
Roger L. Lustig
Larry Solomon wrote:
>
> I Hate Spam wrote:
> difficult time
> >having their music accepted.
>
> themselves, which is the best measure of their support and acceptance.
> Many were hungry or could not afford medical help.
Gee, I thought it was the number of records produced. No, wait--
it was whether the peasants liked them. Could you clear this up?
> >The 19th century provides lots of examples of composers
> >who were as popular then as now.
> No currently famous composers who lived in the 19th century were as
> popular then as they are now. Their music sells and is performed much
> more now than then.
With the world population having quintupled in this century, do you
think you're actually making a point or something?
> They are performed all over the world -- not just in
> Europe, and their music has a much larger following in sheer numbers.
Ah, so Mozart wasn't popular because he wasn't played in 18thC
China. Thanks for clearing that up.
> >composers of the 19th and 18th centuries found
> >more acceptance with audiences at large than do modern composers.
> This statement is too complex to be given a truth value.
Your statements often can be given such a value, and the value
is zero. Your mode of argument can only aspire to that level.
> What
> constitutes "acceptance", when, where, and with whom? Who are these
> "audiences at large"? Stravinsky is a modern composer who enjoys a
> much larger following (hence is more popular)
Definition du jour! A moment ago, it was "appeals to the masses."
Does Stravinsky do that?
> than did many classical
> (probably most or all) composers in their time.
OK, we get the point. The world population has increased, and
Western culture has spread. Could we now get back to talking
about composers and their popularity?
> Both Stravinsky and Cage
> were better off financially in their later years than were most
> composers of the past.
OOOH! Another definition! So copyright laws are the measure of
popularity now. Stravinsky made his money off the sale of his
compositions. Mozart's music sold like hotcakes (see the many
reprints all over Europe of, say, the Piano Quartet, K.478); but
he never got a penny.
I can hardly wait for the next definition...
> >In other words, if people can't sing it (or dance to it), they're not
> going to
> >like it. Well, it's certainly a broad generalization, I'll admit
> that. But to
> >show that it's preposterous, you would need to provide some
> >counterexamples. So, name some really popular atonal/arythmic
> pieces?
> No. I don't need to name popular pieces to counter your statement,
> because your statement only refers to a "liking", not popularity.
OK: so popularity means everything *except* being popular.
Thanks! You didn't disappoint me.
> All I
> have to do is provide one example that I like, and I like many.
You also seem to like many definitions of "popular." Which one were
you using when you said that Schoenberg was more popular than
Mozart?
Roger
Jeremy Berman
In <3375F5...@AzStarNet.com> Larry Solomon <So...@AzStarNet.com>
writes:
>the support of the majority of the population, i.e., the masses,
>were peasants, and their music was folk music, not string quartets.
But you can't include the peasant class in the mix for those times,
because the revolutions against the aristocrats hadn't occurred yet,
and the peasants didn't have the type of access to classical music that
people of all classes do today. (Of course, even today, with
sky-rocketing concert ticket prices, poor people have a hard time
getting inside Carnegie Hall and the like)
But
H&M
>were not trying to reach the masses, hence they were not trying to be
>popular.
The people Haydn and Mozart were trying to reach at first was the
aristocratic class. But by 1780, the middle classes in France & England
in particular were becoming a force in the classical music world. In
the 1780's Haydn wrote six symphonies for a concert series in France
and of course, the next decade brought him for two visits to England.
The peasant class wasn't even in the picture, so you can't use the
definition you're using for popular music.
>
>As far as the statistical statements I made, I meant what I said, and
>that's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to say, for example, that Cage
>currently outsells Mozart. Please read more carefully.
I read quite well, thank you. And you wrote that Cage garnered more new
recordings than Mozart. And you were using this as proof that Cage is
more popular now than Haydn was in his time. And that's wrong. The
music publishing business was quite an earnest one during Haydn's time
(even though not all of them could be trusted) and much of his work was
available outside the Prince's lodgings. This is one reason Salomon was
so eager to have Haydn come to London in the '90's.
>
>>Schoenberg sells throughout the world because there's a world economy
>>now. You're comparing two different worlds, two hundred years apart.
>
>I agree with this, but that doesn't invalidate what I wrote.
Oh, but I think it does. As I wrote at the outset. Haydn and Mozart's
classical music world wasn't as inclusive as today's is. They were
writing for different people, and it is those people they hoped it
would be popular with. You're using it against them that they weren't
popular among the peasant class, forgetting they weren't writing with
them in mind to begin with.
Roger L. Lustig
DPBMSS wrote:
>
> Hi folks, lots of great discussion on this thread lately, a few more
> points;
> 1) Willie Nelson was hauled up by the IRS for owing an estimated
> $32
> million. Any classical stars ever made anything like that kind of
> money?
Yes.
> Any of them jealous?
Who cares?
> Is there any real good reason why great art can't be
> commercially successful?
Some of it is. Some isn't.
> I think the notion that great artists are
> supposed to be poor starving and misunderstood is ridiculous.
Too bad nobody bothers with that old straw man anymore.
> Then why aren't more classical stars fantastically rich?
Einstein wasn't particularly rich either. Does that mean
that his physics wasn't any good?
> Incidently in the past, relative to their times, many classical
> greats
> did fairly well, Haydn, Mozart actually died in poverty because the
> Emperor died, the early 1790's was a terrible economic depression, and
> his
> wife was a spendthrift
Evidence of this, please?
>but during his prime he was earning respectable sums,
His *prime*? You mean, there was a time when he wasn't composing
good music?
> Wagner finished in pretty good shape, many others did fairly
> well.
Wagner had to stiff literally hundreds of creditors to get
into that "good shape". Patronage helped too.
> They didn't only have royal patronage, they had popular support the
> likes
> of which some of the really avant garde composers could only dream of.
Ah, so it's suddenly the "really avant garde" and not composers in
general, eh?
Could it be that avant-garde is a conscious choice, one that involves
renouncing big bucks? Could it be that some people would prefer to
do the things they like to big bucks?
> If
> it weren't for academic posts, many of them would have to do something
> else: Alicia de la Rocha's comment about Tibor Serley, "he spent all
> that time writing those etudes? he sould have been a plumber!"
So she's a jerk. Any other point? Serly also did some pretty good
work elsewhere, like completing the Bartok Viola Concerto.
> 2) Atonality in music has been around....probably forever.
Meaning what?
> Added to a
> composition which is basically "tonal" makes it more interesting than
> some of the "square" sounding harmonies we learn about in a first year
> conservatory harmony course, like adding spice to a dish. But what
> happens when the dish is all spice and no substance? I think there
> was > something to "I hate spam's" little experiemnt with Pierot Lunaire.
I think people complained about Mozart in precisely those terms. See
Mozart-Dokumente, esp. around 1785-1788 -- Mozart's "prime".
> I've
> heard Pierot many many times and can't remember how it goes.
Not my problem. Nor Pierrot's: plenty of people seek it out, and
plenty of performers want to perform it.
> I have no trouble with Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, all four movements.
Neither do I. So what? I love both.
> Why do
> people attend concerts of pieces they already know anyway? Is it because
> they remember the piece?
No, it's because they *like* it. Or because they want to remember
it *better*. Why is there a new recording of Pierrot every year?
> 3) Performances of "modern" music have indeed improved. But guess
> what, take some music by Eliott Carter I heard in an all 20th century
> concert down in New York some years ago, it sounded "profound" rather
> than > "what is it?" but I was struck by how it was achieved, almost by
> playing it romantically.
There's a point in there, right?
> 4) If I make a statement that is absolutely wrong, not too likely,
> that's one thing, but when I say that modern classical music doesn't
> sell, nobody requires proof to know that this is true.
In other words: you'd prefer not to argue using facts or anything.
Funny how I keep getting work from the record companies...if it
didn't sell, why would they keep putting out product?
> Of course classical
> music doesn't sell as well as other genres, like country and western
> which
> is the biggest market these days,
Source?
> but people will buy more Mozart than
> Schoenberg anyway and there can't be much dispute about this.
Did Schoenberg *want* to sell more than Mozart? Hint: no.
> 5) The time lag between composers and audiences is an interesting
> point
> whether one wishes to split hairs about how popular with the
> contemporary
> critics some famous piece was at the time. Critics in all eras have
> been
> wrong. I don't claim to be in their number because unlike Haydn,
> Beethoven,. Liszt, Wagner, Verdi, Gershwin, Richard Rodgers or John
> Williams, people like Schoenberg and Cage still don't have a large
> following.
Too bad: you're still wrong, on facts alone. (Still waiting to hear
about all those movies Schoenberg allegedly scored. Care to name one?)
> Some of us would like to shrink this lag and I think that Del
> Tredici, Adams, Moran and others are interested too, for their own
> survival if for no other reason.
You think so? When did they ever say that?
> The notion that one can be "avant garde"
> by running so far ahead of the crowd that nobody can ever follow
> "remember" is.....absurd.
No, it's *definition*. It's also irrelevant to any supposed
point of yours.
> Why bother composing music that nobody can
> follow?
You're confusing yourself with "nobody."
> It cannot be assumed that just because only a handful of people
> can follow some obscure piece, that makes it great. It does not.
Who claims otherwise?
> It
> cannot be assumed that something everybody likes is great either, but
> the
> more a piece of music is admired by more people, then it is safe to
> say
> that that piece has communicated something to more people and perhaps
> is
> of greater value than a piece which communicates to a small number of
> people.
Or perhaps not. "Hound Dog" communicates to more people than Eine
kleine Nachtmusik.
> Regards,
> David Burton
> "If the Truth be known..." used by me often in conversation. Not so
> much interested inThe Truth, but the gathering together of truth,
> often hidden, for the purpose of obtaining wisdom.
"Hidden" in the sense of "complete nonsense," I'm sure.
Now tell us why it's "well known" that Schoenberg wrote film scores.
Roger
I Hate Spam
In <3374F3...@shalt.not.spam> Michael Subotin <th...@shalt.not.spam> writes:
>I Hate Spam wrote:
>> Ie, why was music of the other eras generally
>> accepted at the time, while modern music is suffering an 80 year lag?
>It is a very interesting question and one that I think doesn't have
>a simple answer. I think we have to accept that the face of concert
>music has changed drastically in our century and cannot be explained
>by the trends that were in effect during previous centuries.
>One factor that I believe to be responsible is the seemingly accelerated
>rate of change in music. These things, of course, are impossible to
>quantify, but, intuitively, had there been a composer before whose
>musical language changed as drastically as Schoenberg's did between
>the early songs songs and the string trio? Not to my ears. Beethoven
>is the closest example I can think of, but didn't his late string
>quartets also enjoy a next-to 80-year appreciation lag?
Yes, musical language has changed rapidly in the 20th century (as has
everything else, I'd guess). I honestly don't know about the acceptance
of Beethoven's string quartets, but as a whole, can we agree that
in general, selialism has met with much more popular resistance than
preceding musical styles? Or let me put it this way: why was it,
in the 19th century, concerts consisted of primarily 19th century music,
while in the 20th century, concerts do _not_ generally consist of 20th
century music? (They still consist of 19th century music...)
>
>> >As far as I'm concerned, this is a dead issue. There's no reason for
>> >atonality to be controversial anymore. Heck, there are even popular rock
>> >bands experimenting with it now!
>>
>> Hm... I'm curious which band that would be?
>Countless progressive rock bands, which can hardly be called "popular".
>Sonic Youth is one band who come from an entirely different
>background - punk rock - and who experiment with a lot of these
>things. Heck, I think they even recorded a version of Stockhausen's
>"Kontakte" (?). There are several others.
The sonic youth I've heard is not atonal, but... I haven't listened
to much of it. It's safe to say that atonality/serialism is not
making its way into pop music, unless you count some guitar solos. ;-)
Here's an interesting aside: where does atonality tend to show up most
often in popular culture? Answer: horror movies. Take "The Shining."
There's this really great scene with Jack Nickolson telling his son that
he loves him and that he'd never hurt him, while in the background, there's
this really intense atonal string stuff going on. It's truly scary. But
this is a typical example. Whenever a movie wants to convey creepiness,
weirdness, horror, fear, etc... the music goes atonal. Atonality offers new
expressive capabilities, but as a music history teacher of mine once asked
rhetorically, are these limited to the dark underbelly of the human psyche?
Can you imagine a love scene accompianied by, say, Varese?
>> I agree that there is no
>> reason for atonality to be controversial, but I would argue that it
>> is still largely as unpopular as ever. Why? My answer rests on
>> perception. In college, my room-mate and I once decided to listen
>> no nothing but Peirrot Lunare for a week. We played the peice on
>> a tape loop, and had it going 24 hours a day in our dorm room. It
>> was an interesting experience, but I noticed somewhat later that I
>> had a difficult time recalling anything I had listened to.
>Funny. I've got no formal musical education, but bits from Pierrot used
>to haunt me for days. At times I could almost taste it. I think it's
>extremely catchy, even though singing it may be more diffucult than
>Haydn... but Haydn's music never did that to me. Is it a matter of
>taste, perhaps?
Well, it should be easy enough to test experimentally... Listen to
a randomly selected atonal work, then a randomly selected tonal work
of equal length (both of which have never been heard), and then
write down everything you can remember. I'm willing to bet money
that recollection of the tonal work will be higher. My theory
for this -- beyond the simple fact that there is generally less
going on harmonically -- is that tonality provides a cognitive framework
which provides many reference points. I think we lack a good
framework with which to understand atonal music.
>> While
>> I can sing many tonal peices from front to back, I can barely
>> quote a handful of themes from Peirrot. This led to an insight,
>> which is that atonal music is not so much unpopular because it is
>> dissonant (a common claim.) It's unpopular because it is too
>> complex for most ears.
>There's complexity and then there's complexity. If there's a trend
>it may be that modern music requires concentration on microstucture,
>small details, while, e.g., traditional symphonies require a firmer
>grasp of macrostructure, large scale development. I'm not so sure
>that the latter is easier to attain.
I don't exactly know what you're saying here. I think that in modern
works, the 'macrostructure' is simply not audible. For example,
no one can be expected to recognize the various permutations of a
12 tone row, nor is this necessarily intended. However, once you
have a pretty good understanding of form and harmony, it's pretty
easy to follow tonal music on formal level.
>> One might make the same argument vis a vis,
>> say, Beethoven vrs. Country music. In other words, if people can't
>> sing it (or dance to it), they're not going to like it. Perhaps
>> that is an obvious enough idea, I dunno... I would think that such a
>> hypothesis should be easy enough to test, in theory.
>I think you're mixing two things. For most people music will never
>be important enough to warrant intense, attentive listening. Because
>of that both Beethoven and Schoenberg will always lose to music which
>does it's thing well as a background and is good for dancing. However,
>it is also true that no Schoenberg piece (well, besides early stuff)
>can, in addition to being music that rewards repeated listening and
>study, feature on a "Most Romantic Music You Don't Really Need To
>Listen To" compilation and be effective in *that* role. A lot of
>older classical music can work both ways. Could that be a factor
>influencing its overall popularity?
I disagree with the first part. Beethoven makes great background
music. I listen to the symphonies while programming all the time.
I agree, much 20th century music places higher demands upon the
listener. Part of this, as I asserted earlier, is due to its
complexity. Part of it is probably related to dissonance. I
find the notion that people simply need to become accustomed to
the sound of atonal/serial music unconvincing. We've had
almost a century for that, with little success.
>Michael
>--
>Email: mvs...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
I Hate Spam
In <10MAY199...@deimos.caltech.edu> i...@deimos.caltech.edu (I. Neill Reid) writes:
[snip]
>>
>>>why was music of the other eras generally
>>>accepted at the time, while modern music is suffering an 80 year lag?
> Modern music like Pierrot Lunaire (1912) as compared with modern music
>like Rachmaninov's Symphonic Dances (1943) or Gorecki's 3rd symphony (1976)?
>I think this adjective "modern" is not appropriate.
>What the original poster is actually doing, of course, is equating "modern"
>music with "music which sounds dissonant and which I don't like" and,
>as is usually the case with such arguments, is ignoring entirely the
>existence of non-12-tone, or serialist music, composed during the same
>period.
> Will Schoenberg still be regarded as "modern" in 3 years????
By modern here, I suppose I meant modernist, which still isn't very
accurate. Perhaps I should have specified atonal, or serialist. BTW,
one shouldn't jump to the conclusion that I don't like serialism,
or other types of 20th century music due to the sort of argument
I'm making--I do, in fact.
But this raises a great point. Contrast the Stravinsky's 'The Firebird'
(1911 or 1912 or so?) with Shoenberg's Pierrot Lunare (1912). The
contrast between the two in terms of popularity is striking. They
rely on different musical languages, and one school of thought as to
why the Firebird is immensely more popular than Pierrot is that people
simply aren't used to the musical language of atonality, while the
tonal language of Firebird is much more familiar. My question is:
we've had 85 years since Pierrot. Why have we not grown accustomed
to its musical language? Why is there such a gap between academia,
which regards the Viennese school as immensely important, and
audiences? So in reference to your point, the non-12 tone composers
to whom you refer tend to be much more popular than serialist or
avant-garde composers.
So I think we have generally two answers to this problem. One says
that people still need to learn the language of Viennese school, and
that by enough exposure to atonality and serialism audiences will
come to accept such music. The second says that there are some
fundamental problems with serialist/atonal compositions which make them
difficult for audiences. Note, one needn't think such music is 'bad'
to find this argument convincing, merely difficult. My argument is that
as time passes, the second answer begins to gather steam.
Larry Solomon
Roger Lustig wrote:
>Not so. Haydn, while composing for his patron, was also selling
>his published music (not written for his patron) all over Europe,
>where he was the most popular composer of his time.
Once more, Haydn was an elitist composer. He wrote for his Prince. His
music may have sold throughout Europe, but Schoenberg's now sells
throughout the world. I maintain that Schoenberg is now more "popular"
than was Haydn in his time.
I would also add that Cage now has a wider following than did Haydn in
his time, by far. Mark Swed of the Schwann Opus, last year reported that
there were more new recordings of Cage's music in 1996 than any other
composer, including Mozart!
>>No composer of the 18th century or earlier would have written
>>music to be popular.
>Don't be ridiculous. Most composers did just that.
Their music can hardly be called "popular" in the modern sense. Folk
music was the popular music of that time, which was the music of the
peasant class. Mozart and Haydn were not "popular". They were court
composers.
>And Bach was 'most composers'?????
I didn't say that. Bach was uniquely Bach, obviously.
>Perhaps, but you really ought to watch out for them yourself.
Yes, and so should you!
--
Larry Solomon
I Hate Spam wrote:
>my point would be that many composers of the past did not have a difficult time
>having their music accepted.
Many composers in the past DID have a difficult time sustaining
themselves, which is the best measure of their support and acceptance.
Many were hungry or could not afford medical help.
>The 19th century provides lots of examples of composers
>who were as popular then as now.
No currently famous composers who lived in the 19th century were as
popular then as they are now. Their music sells and is performed much
more now than then. They are performed all over the world -- not just in
Europe, and their music has a much larger following in sheer numbers.
>composers of the 19th and 18th centuries found
>more acceptance with audiences at large than do modern composers.
This statement is too complex to be given a truth value. What
constitutes "acceptance", when, where, and with whom? Who are these
"audiences at large"? Stravinsky is a modern composer who enjoys a much
larger following (hence is more popular) than did many classical
(probably most or all) composers in their time. Both Stravinsky and Cage
were better off financially in their later years than were most
composers of the past.
>In other words, if people can't sing it (or dance to it), they're not going to
>like it. Well, it's certainly a broad generalization, I'll admit that. But to
>show that it's preposterous, you would need to provide some
>counterexamples. So, name some really popular atonal/arythmic pieces?
No. I don't need to name popular pieces to counter your statement,
because your statement only refers to a "liking", not popularity. All I
have to do is provide one example that I like, and I like many.
Larry Solomon
>That's an interesting point. What were the sales figures?
Check Vol 7/1 (1996) of the Schwann Opus.
Larry Solomon
No, I'm not playing with words, I'm using words in order to explain
something.
If you mean by "popular" that it was popular with the aristocracy, then
that is a very peculiar definition. I would define "popular" as having
the support of the majority of the population, i.e., the masses,
although the word could also be used in a comparative sense. The
majority of the population in Haydn's time were not aristocrats; they
were peasants, and their music was folk music, not string quartets. H&M
were not trying to reach the masses, hence they were not trying to be
popular.
As far as the statistical statements I made, I meant what I said, and
that's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to say, for example, that Cage
currently outsells Mozart. Please read more carefully.
>Schoenberg sells throughout the world because there's a world economy
>now. You're comparing two different worlds, two hundred years apart.
I agree with this, but that doesn't invalidate what I wrote.
Eric Schissel
Fair enough. Of course, this is entirely separate from agreeing with
DPMBSS' curious subscription to the Constanze's-fault-theory, so to speak,
but we both seem to agree that doesn't hold water.
-Eric Schissel
In article <337525AE...@ix.netcom.com>,
Don Drewecki
What the discussion all boils down to is this:
Do composers write for the public, or simply for each other? I think
serial music, for the most part, really is little more than the latter
-- composers trying to impress each other. But then you get the more
important point: How do you develop a wide, intelligent, critical
audience for classical music? That takes time, money, planning --
things that are not going to happen anymore in the United States, where
classical music has always been a "tough sell". I will add, once again,
one thing that could be done but isn't:
For every billion we heap onto the Pentagon (the largest welfare program
ever created in human history), we could use instead to fully fund our
major orchestras so that they could give their concerts FOR FREE.
Remember this discussion months ago? We found that just one billion
dollars could totally fund the top 20 orchestras for one year, and they
could give their concerts for free, That would help create a massive
new audience. But again, this is the United States, the where so-called
free market reigns -- except at the Department of Defense.
Talking about the future of classical music necessarily involves
political discussion. You can't avoid it. Composers who have something
interesting and immediately attractive to say to an audience will help,
but it's not the whole answer. Resetting governmental priorities helps
a great deal more.
By the way, didn't Sir Thomas Beecham conduct a WPA orchestra in the
1940s?
Don Drewecki
<dre...@rpi.edu>
MPerry1998
......
>>For every billion we heap onto the Pentagon (the largest welfare program
>>ever created in human history), we could use instead to fully fund our
>>major orchestras so that they could give their concerts FOR FREE.
>>Remember this discussion months ago? We found that just one billion
>>dollars could totally fund the top 20 orchestras for one year, and they
>>could give their concerts for free, That would help create a massive
>>new audience. But again, this is the United States, the where so-called
>>free market reigns -- except at the Department of Defense.
>>Talking about the future of classical music necessarily involves
>>political discussion. You can't avoid it. Composers who have something
>>interesting and immediately attractive to say to an audience will help,
>>but it's not the whole answer. Resetting governmental priorities helps
>>a great deal more.
>>By the way, didn't Sir Thomas Beecham conduct a WPA orchestra in the
>>1940s?
>>Don Drewecki
>><dre...@rpi.edu>
Looks like this guy has some sort of grudge against the US Government's
way of using money for defense. Sounds like a liberal agenda to me. You
guys can always find a scape-goat in defense. (I wonder why he is not
suggesting we cut welfare, and use THAT money to pay for these
performances?) How in the world the argument concerning Classical music
"boils down" to the Pentagon is beyond me. But I would pose one question:
If we didn't have a denfense, and let's say China or North Korea decided
to lob some nuclear weapons our way, I wonder if the survivors of the
nuclear holocaust would still come to see your so called "free
orchestras".
-Mark
<mperr...@aol.com>
PS. The WPA was the biggest failure of big government in history, and not
until the WAR, did the economy improve. Sorry FDR, looks like the Dept. of
defense saved us once again.
John Grabowski
In <5l23ob$8...@cheeez.rsn.hp.com> nos...@i.hate.spam (I Hate Spam)
writes:
>In <337513...@AzStarNet.com> Larry Solomon <So...@AzStarNet.com>
>
>>I Hate Spam wrote:
>>>It was not always the case that there was such a disconnect between
>>>composers and audiences. Many composers were wildly popular in
their
>>>time. Can you name a composer of serial or avant-garde music that
>>>can make a similar claim?
>
>>Yes: Schoenberg. Schoenberg is more "popular" now (i.e., has a wider
>>following) than was Haydn in his time. Haydn was a court composer and
>>wrote for his Prince, a distinct minority. Haydn was more elitist
than
>>even Schoenberg.
>
20th
written
>>music to be popular. Bach's music was not popular. He wrote for the
>>glory of God, as did most Renaissance composers before him. The
thought
>>vulgarizing his art to be popular would never have occurred to Bach.
>
>who were as popular then as now.
True.
Or false. Mahler. Late Beethoven. Both took >50 years to really
catch on. Even Bartok...
>>This is a preposterous generalization.
This whole thread is full of proposterous generalizations. How can we
compare "popularity" in 1790 with "popularity" in 1997? Would Haydn
have been more "popular" if he'd had radio? Music videos? If he could
have said "screw the employer system" and freelanced, or gotten a tour
bus and taken his act on the road? It's impossible to answer the
question of whether the music was more popular, or became popular more
quickly, back then vs. now, simply impossible.
As in the "Who's the Greatest..." or "What would Mozart have been if
he'd been born today..." threads, there's simply no cut-and-dry answer,
because there's no way to achieve cut-and-dry definitions of terms for
the argument.
John
John Grabowski
In <3375D6...@AzStarNet.com> Larry Solomon <So...@AzStarNet.com>
writes:
>
>>Not so. Haydn, while composing for his patron, was also selling
>>his published music (not written for his patron) all over Europe,
>>where he was the most popular composer of his time.
>
>Once more, Haydn was an elitist composer. He wrote for his Prince. His
>music may have sold throughout Europe, but Schoenberg's now sells
>throughout the world. I maintain that Schoenberg is now more "popular"
This bullshit about who is and was more popular is just that--bullshit.
How can you argue sensibly when comparing two eras is like mixing
apples and oranges? How popular would Haydn have become were
recordings and radio in existence then, or were the population as
exponentially expanded as it is now, or were education levels
different? It's like asking who would have won the War of Independence
if both sides had airplanes....
John
John Grabowski
In article <3375F5...@AzStarNet.com>, So...@AzStarNet.com writes...
>I would define "popular" as having
>the support of the majority of the population, i.e., the masses,
>although the word could also be used in a comparative sense.
"Majority of the population" equals > 50%....Guess that rules out
Madonna...I'm sure if you knocked on the doors of every person on earth
you wouldn't even find > 50% who've *heard* of her, much less likes
her.
Michael Jackson's Thriller Album, one of the biggest selling albums in
history, was still purchased by less than 15% of all Americans.
John
John Grabowski
In <5l23rh$8...@cheeez.rsn.hp.com> nos...@i.hate.spam (I Hate Spam)
writes:
>
>In <3375D6...@AzStarNet.com> Larry Solomon <So...@AzStarNet.com>
writes:
>
>
in
>>his time, by far. Mark Swed of the Schwann Opus, last year reported
that
>>there were more new recordings of Cage's music in 1996 than any other
>>composer, including Mozart!
>
Conclusions not based on evidence presented. There were more
recordings. As Larry says, how did they *sell,* but also maybe there
were more Cage because Haydn is *so* popular he's already been recorded
to death and now they wanted to do neglected Cage.
Or maybe not. But from the data above it's *impossible* to draw any
conclusions. It's like saying, "Nuclear bombs make mushroom clouds. I
saw a mushroom cloud. It must have been caused by a nuclear bomb
then." Nope.
John
Michael Subotin
I Hate Spam wrote:
>
> Yes, musical language has changed rapidly in the 20th century (as has
> everything else, I'd guess). I honestly don't know about the acceptance
> of Beethoven's string quartets, but as a whole, can we agree that
> in general, selialism has met with much more popular resistance than
> preceding musical styles? Or let me put it this way: why was it,
> in the 19th century, concerts consisted of primarily 19th century music,
> while in the 20th century, concerts do _not_ generally consist of 20th
> century music? (They still consist of 19th century music...)
As I said, I think this question is too complex for a simple "because".
There are many factors at work here. I believe the accelerated rate
of change to be one of them. Another is the emergence of the
very concept of classical music which began in the 19th century with
the Bach revival, became established with canonization of Beethoven's
symphonies and altered the nature of concert music more and more
as the time went on. Then, of course, there's the great divide between
popular and concert music. Different as 19th century salon music or
music theatre were from Brahms, musically, the difference is miniscule
compared to that between Babbitt and Metallica. Virtually every aspect
of music and its place in society has undergone dramatic changes.
So, to your question, my best answer is "why not?" Everything's
different!
We have to accept that we're living in the times of "minority" musics.
This is not limited to classical. The last records of John Coltrane,
despite now influencing the third generation of musicians will never
be popular or played in a coffee house.
> >> >As far as I'm concerned, this is a dead issue. There's no reason for
> >> >atonality to be controversial anymore. Heck, there are even popular rock
> >> >bands experimenting with it now!
> >>
> >> Hm... I'm curious which band that would be?
>
> >Countless progressive rock bands, which can hardly be called "popular".
> >Sonic Youth is one band who come from an entirely different
> >background - punk rock - and who experiment with a lot of these
> >things. Heck, I think they even recorded a version of Stockhausen's
> >"Kontakte" (?). There are several others.
>
> The sonic youth I've heard is not atonal, but...
The music is not atonal in the sense that a central pitch is always
established due to repetition, but the parts to many songs are in
different keys, not to mention their trademark non-tempered guitar
work and constant use of "dissonance". Much of it certainly sounds
a lot closer to some of todays concert music than to anything written
before 20th century.
>I haven't listened
> to much of it. It's safe to say that atonality/serialism is not
> making its way into pop music, unless you count some guitar solos. ;-)
While integral serialism may not be hitting Las Vegas anytime soon,
modern classical is surely leaking through into other genres!
> Here's an interesting aside: where does atonality tend to show up most
> often in popular culture? Answer: horror movies. Take "The Shining."
> There's this really great scene with Jack Nickolson telling his son that
> he loves him and that he'd never hurt him, while in the background, there's
> this really intense atonal string stuff going on. It's truly scary. But
> this is a typical example. Whenever a movie wants to convey creepiness,
> weirdness, horror, fear, etc... the music goes atonal.
Well, a lot of it is probably context conditioned. *Most* modern
music won't work in a movie at all because in a soundtrack only the
very surface of music comes through to the listener. It would
just be a distraction and nothing else.
> Atonality offers new
> expressive capabilities, but as a music history teacher of mine once asked
> rhetorically, are these limited to the dark underbelly of the human psyche?
> Can you imagine a love scene accompianied by, say, Varese?
No, but a lot of Messiaen *feels* like a love scene. I can't
see how anyone marginally familiar with the incredible diversity
of 20th century music can make such generalizations.
> Well, it should be easy enough to test experimentally... Listen to
> a randomly selected atonal work, then a randomly selected tonal work
> of equal length (both of which have never been heard), and then
> write down everything you can remember. I'm willing to bet money
> that recollection of the tonal work will be higher.
But for the experiment to work we'll have to control for other things
besides tonality/atonality.
> My theory
> for this -- beyond the simple fact that there is generally less
> going on harmonically -- is that tonality provides a cognitive framework
> which provides many reference points.
If by tonality you mean pitch-centricity I disagree. I think the reason
is in the greater amount of conventions in pre-20th century music
(which is paraphrasing what you've said if by "tonality" you mean
the collection of conventions present in classical and early romantic
music).
> I think we lack a good framework with which to understand atonal music.
I'm afraid you've lost me here. Who are "we"?
> >> While
> >> I can sing many tonal peices from front to back, I can barely
> >> quote a handful of themes from Peirrot. This led to an insight,
> >> which is that atonal music is not so much unpopular because it is
> >> dissonant (a common claim.) It's unpopular because it is too
> >> complex for most ears.
>
> >There's complexity and then there's complexity. If there's a trend
> >it may be that modern music requires concentration on microstucture,
> >small details, while, e.g., traditional symphonies require a firmer
> >grasp of macrostructure, large scale development. I'm not so sure
> >that the latter is easier to attain.
>
> I don't exactly know what you're saying here. I think that in modern
> works, the 'macrostructure' is simply not audible. For example,
> no one can be expected to recognize the various permutations of a
> 12 tone row, nor is this necessarily intended.
Noone would want to! By macrostructure I mean thematic development and
global dramatic structure. You can still hear these clearly in
the more classically conceived 12tone pieces by Schoenberg, for
instance, and they are essential to the music's effectiveness.
> However, once you
> have a pretty good understanding of form and harmony, it's pretty
> easy to follow tonal music on formal level.
Formal level? I think you've misunderstood my point. Many people
comfortable with traditional classical music may feel bewildered by
the constant stream of little details in something like a Carter
piece, but someone accustomed to moment-to-moment listening can
feel equally lost in the middle of a Bruckner symphony, where not much
is happening microstructurally and it is necessary to relate musical
events to the "big picture".
> >I think you're mixing two things. For most people music will never
> >be important enough to warrant intense, attentive listening. Because
> >of that both Beethoven and Schoenberg will always lose to music which
> >does it's thing well as a background and is good for dancing. However,
> >it is also true that no Schoenberg piece (well, besides early stuff)
> >can, in addition to being music that rewards repeated listening and
> >study, feature on a "Most Romantic Music You Don't Really Need To
> >Listen To" compilation and be effective in *that* role. A lot of
> >older classical music can work both ways. Could that be a factor
> >influencing its overall popularity?
>
> I disagree with the first part. Beethoven makes great background
> music. I listen to the symphonies while programming all the time.
> I agree, much 20th century music places higher demands upon the
> listener. <...>
The point I was making was more about the approachability of older
music. I think an average Bach fugue places higher demands on the
listener than most 20th century music. However, it can also
be appreciated without actually following what is taking
place in the counterpoint. It may even work as background music
because it "sounds nice". That can allow some listeners to get into
the music step by step. A lot of 20th century music is an either\or
proposition: one either follows the twists and turns of the piece
or else it sounds like an annoying mess.
Michael
--
Email: mvs...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Jeremy Berman
In <19970511184...@ladder02.news.aol.com> mperr...@aol.com
(MPerry1998) writes:
>
>
>
>
>Looks like this guy has some sort of grudge against the US
Government's
>way of using money for defense. Sounds like a liberal agenda to me.
You
>guys can always find a scape-goat in defense. (I wonder why he is not
>suggesting we cut welfare, and use THAT money to pay for these
>performances?)
I'm not saying the welfare system shouldn't have been changed, or might
need further changes. HOWEVER, corporate and military welfare takes up
a larger chunk out of the yearly US budget than welfare does. And
there's lots of waste, especially in the military budget. Thinking this
isn't out of some liberal agenda, but simply reality.
The priorities of this country, visa vis the arts, should be challenged
by those of us who enjoy them. And when so much goes the way of the
military (helped by the military's constant pressuring of the Congress)
and so little to the arts, we need to ask questions. One of which is,
if we'd cut the military budget, mostly from cutting waste, but some
out of realizing the cold war is over, and hand some of that over to
our orchestras, which are a national treasure, wouldn't that help our
nation in the long run? I think it would.
How in the world the argument concerning Classical music
>"boils down" to the Pentagon is beyond me. But I would pose one
question:
>If we didn't have a denfense, and let's say China or North Korea
decided
>to lob some nuclear weapons our way, I wonder if the survivors of the
>nuclear holocaust would still come to see your so called "free
>orchestras".
>
I guess you adhere to Reagan's lunacy that there's such a thing as a
winnable nuclear war. Sorry, but once the first atomic bomb is dropped
we're all history.
>
>PS. The WPA was the biggest failure of big government in history, and
not
>until the WAR, did the economy improve.
The economy didn't fully recover until the war. However during the WPA,
many bridges, tunnels and other local projects were built. It got many
people working, where otherwise there might've been close to riotous
situations in some cities do to the widespread lack of jobs. In those
ways, it did alot of positive things.
D.G. Porter
MPerry1998 wrote:
>
> ......
> >>For every billion we heap onto the Pentagon (the largest welfare program
> >>ever created in human history), we could use instead to fully fund our
> >>major orchestras so that they could give their concerts FOR FREE.
> >>Remember this discussion months ago? We found that just one billion
> >>dollars could totally fund the top 20 orchestras for one year, and they
> >>could give their concerts for free, That would help create a massive
> >>new audience. But again, this is the United States, the where so-called
> >>free market reigns -- except at the Department of Defense.
>
> >>Talking about the future of classical music necessarily involves
> >>political discussion. You can't avoid it. Composers who have something
> >>interesting and immediately attractive to say to an audience will help,
> >>but it's not the whole answer. Resetting governmental priorities helps
> >>a great deal more.
>
> >>By the way, didn't Sir Thomas Beecham conduct a WPA orchestra in the
> >>1940s?
>
> >>Don Drewecki
> >><dre...@rpi.edu>
>
> way of using money for defense.
A lot of us do, and for good reason. Look at the way we've used the
military since WWII: Setting up colonies in Korea & Vietnam,
overthrowing elected, legal governments in Guatemala & Iran, wars in
Central & South America (using "communistic influence" as the
doublespoken excuse), etc. We don't trust the way our government
works. But a lot of us want to fix it, not blow it up.
> Sounds like a liberal agenda to me.
WHOA NELLIE! Loaded-word alert!
> You guys can always find a scape-goat in defense.
It isn't "defense," it's pro-US business military aggression. Invasions
of Central & South America & Asian nations (Turkestan to the Pacific)
have always been about business (US business at that). Stop saying
"defense" when you mean "the Military." Or are we really in fact
talking about "defense of the US business machinery"?
> (I wonder why he is not
> suggesting we cut welfare, and use THAT money to pay for these
> performances?)
What about welfare to businesses like General Dynamics, Hughes,
Rockwell, Douglass, etc.? Since my father-in-law worked for one of
them, I can tell you as a fact that most of the military spending is
nothing more than welfare for this one sect of the American workforce.
Why do we as a nation seem to have this love affair with corporations
and this hate of our own people? Sure, some people are losers and
dumbasses, but everyone??? The logic seems to be, "Corporations make
things, people just use things." OK, why don't we just start burning
all the books that don't teach us how to build an H-bomb?
If we cut welfare to people who depend on governmental assistance, a lot
of them will end up homeless, and some of them might just sober up, get
organized, and come over to YOUR house and loot it and beat the crap out
of you! And I doubt the National Guard will be there in time.
> How in the world the argument concerning Classical music
> "boils down" to the Pentagon is beyond me.
AH! That seems to be the problem! It is outside your reality! You
can't recognize what you have never seen before.
> But I would pose one question:
> If we didn't have a denfense, and let's say China or North Korea decided
> to lob some nuclear weapons our way, I wonder if the survivors of the
> nuclear holocaust would still come to see your so called "free
> orchestras".
And be sure to look under your bed for the bogeyman who might be lurking
there, waiting for the lights to go out. (That there would be no
survivors I won't even bring up.) This sounds like, "NYAHH NYAHH NYAHH!
Ya can't change the brutishness of the world, so we have to sink to
their level!" Sorry, just because there are a of of people in my town
with ADD does not obligate me to make myself into ione of them.
We spend so much on the Military NOT because we need it, but because it
is the ONE jobs program that "conservatives" (whatever that means
anymore) won't fight tooth-and-nail with the fury of a holy war.
> -Mark
> <mperr...@aol.com>
>
> PS. The WPA was the biggest failure of big government in history, and not
> until the WAR, did the economy improve. Sorry FDR, looks like the Dept. of
> defense saved us once again.
This is not true. I was told why once, but I didn't tape it. But there
is lots of evidence that the economy was turning around before the war.
That it was so slow has to do with the USA vs. a global economy in a
funk, not that one President's efforts were a failure. To quote
someone, "Sounds like a conservative [pro-military, anti-everyone else]
agenda to me!" But it is a convenient thing to say, and sounds
unimpeachable, which seems to be the favorite way of shutting off any
discussion that questions the status quo of the pat 50 years...
DGP
D.G. Porter
Readers:
This is a very intelligent response to the original question. Please
read it and consider what he is saying. Yes, life is political, art is
political, and people should be political in at least a casual or
generic sense. It's a lot healthier to be in a public place where
people discuss, say, the funding of the Pentagon vs. many orchestras as
opposed to where you dare not say anything for fear of offending some
guy with a (bigger) gun who considers what you say "subversive" and
accuses you of aiding and comforting an enemy. (Some of the worst
enemies are ideas.) Consider also that we spend five times on military
bands the amount we spend on the rest of the arts.
The discussion he refes to from "a few months ago" stirred up a lot
of anger from those who did not agree with this view, who still find uis
threatened from enemies domestic and foreign, and who forget that a lot
of our American military (not "derfense") budget goes to defending
Western European countries that many in the USA label as "socialist,"
and who spend a great deal on the arts. One of the big idfferences
between those countries and ours is that they value education, and we do
not (unless the education is geared solely towards getting one a
big-paying job in the private sector -- liberal education, in the
classical meaning, and education with public service as the goal [unless
it's for the military] are sneered at). Let's face up to one fact: The
level of education in the US is a median of the 6th Grade. You don't
learn to think at that level, you learn to follow directions. You don't
need to listen critically to "popular" music (a commercial exercise),
but you do to appreciate "art" music (an intellectual exercise). Most
people today are not equipped to listen with their minds. And
education in the arts is considered a fiscally wasteful frill in the
schools.
The "free market" is only free to those with the price of admission.
And it pains me to hear those with little money championing the cause of
those who have a great deal of money, since the later can hire lobbyists
to do that for a fee, when the former get no remuneration for their
effort.
--DG ["We do have 'class warfare' in Ameica -- it's just not considered
polite to admit to it"] Porter
Don Drewecki wrote:
>
> What the discussion all boils down to is this:
>
> Do composers write for the public, or simply for each other? I think
> serial music, for the most part, really is little more than the latter
> -- composers trying to impress each other. But then you get the more
> important point: How do you develop a wide, intelligent, critical
> audience for classical music? That takes time, money, planning --
> things that are not going to happen anymore in the United States, where
> classical music has always been a "tough sell". I will add, once again,
> one thing that could be done but isn't:
>
MPerry1998
The 1980's "Cold War" with the Soviet Union is over yes.... (and that
leaves a lot to be desired). But take into account these lunatic Asian
countries like N. Korea who has not only Nuclear weapons, but a grudge
against capitalism all over the world. My opinon: YES the defense budget
is mostly pork-barrel.. but so is every other budget that the US
government spews out. The US government should not be in the business of
supporting orchestras ANYWHERE. That is not in the interest of the general
public... only a select few, who take interest in the fine arts. I say it
should be handled at the local level, where the money can be managed more
efficiently.
--Mark
<mperr...@aol.com>
Roger L. Lustig
MPerry1998 wrote:
>
> ......
> >>For every billion we heap onto the Pentagon (the largest welfare
> program
> >>ever created in human history), we could use instead to fully fund
> our
> >>major orchestras so that they could give their concerts FOR FREE.
> >>Remember this discussion months ago? We found that just one billion
> >>dollars could totally fund the top 20 orchestras for one year, and
> they
> >>could give their concerts for free, That would help create a
> massive
> >>new audience. But again, this is the United States, the where
> so-called
> >>free market reigns -- except at the Department of Defense.
>
> >>Talking about the future of classical music necessarily involves
> >>political discussion. You can't avoid it. Composers who have
> something
> >>interesting and immediately attractive to say to an audience will
> help,
> >>but it's not the whole answer. Resetting governmental priorities
> helps
> >>a great deal more.
>
> >>By the way, didn't Sir Thomas Beecham conduct a WPA orchestra in the
> >>1940s?
> way of using money for defense.
Where does it look like that? He says we spend *too much*
on defense, which is fairly easy to argue.
> Sounds like a liberal agenda to me.
Oh, well, *that* settles everything.
> You
> guys can always find a scape-goat in defense.
Which guys?
> (I wonder why he is not
> suggesting we cut welfare, and use THAT money to pay for these
> performances?)
Welfare doesn't cost as much, and never did, even before it
was recently cut to the bone. Read a paper recently?
> How in the world the argument concerning Classical music
> "boils down" to the Pentagon is beyond me.
When you hear people complaining about, say, the NEA, and
calling it "wasteful government spending," and then you notice
that the *margin of error* in estimates of Pentagon waste is
larger than the total budget of the NEA ever has been, you
might well come to such a conclusion.
> But I would pose one question:
> If we didn't have a denfense, and let's say China or North Korea
> decided
> to lob some nuclear weapons our way, I wonder if the survivors of the
> nuclear holocaust would still come to see your so called "free
> orchestras".
If that's your only question, you're not doing so well. After
all, where did anyone argue against having any defense?
Now, tell us: if those bombs came flying over (as though North
Korea has rockets or anything), would the Army Band or the
Marine Corps Strolling Strings do much good? The budget for
military *bands* is several times the size of the entire
NEA budget.
> PS. The WPA was the biggest failure of big government in history, and
> not until the WAR, did the economy improve.
Horseshit. The economy took a hit in the mid-30's because of the
Dust Bowl, but employment was substantially improved before the
war from what it had been in 1933. Suppose there *hadn't* been
a New Deal?
> Sorry FDR, looks like the Dept. of defense saved us once again.
You might as well argue that Hitler saved us.
And what's this with FDR? It's not as though he tried to
keep us out of the war...
Roger
Roger L. Lustig
MPerry1998 wrote:
>
> The 1980's "Cold War" with the Soviet Union is over yes.... (and that
> leaves a lot to be desired). But take into account these lunatic
> Asian
> countries like N. Korea who has not only Nuclear weapons, but a grudge
> against capitalism all over the world. My opinon: YES the defense
> budget
> is mostly pork-barrel.. but so is every other budget that the US
> government spews out.
Evidence for this?
>The US government should not be in the business of
> supporting orchestras ANYWHERE. That is not in the interest of the
> general
> public... only a select few, who take interest in the fine arts. I say
> it should be handled at the local level, where the money can be managed
> more efficiently.
So: what *is* in the interest of the general public? Tobacco subsidies?
Oh, and perhaps you could explain to us why having hundreds of
bureaucracies
is more efficient...
Roger
CONSTANTIN MARCOU
Eric Schissel wrote:
>
> Mozart died because his wife was a spendthrift and the Emperor died??? Has
> evidence turned up to contradict Einstein's account of Mozart's own
> spending habits that I'm not aware of?
>
What does Einstein say? I've only read Marcia Davenport and Mozart's
own letters, from which I gathered that Mozart's own profligacy was
exacerbated by Constanze's medical expenses due to repeated miscarriages
and her "cures" at spas. Add to this his gullibility to the
blandishments of sharpies like Stadler. As I recall, Mozart's income
was not considered that insubstantial by the standards of the time.
Regards,
Con
Robert Davidson
I find your argument style exceedingly annoying.
Robert Davidson
I Hate Spam wrote:
> Yes, musical language has changed rapidly in the 20th century (as has
> everything else, I'd guess). I honestly don't know about the acceptance
> of Beethoven's string quartets, but as a whole, can we agree that
> in general, selialism has met with much more popular resistance than
> preceding musical styles? Or let me put it this way: why was it,
> in the 19th century, concerts consisted of primarily 19th century music,
> while in the 20th century, concerts do _not_ generally consist of 20th
> century music? (They still consist of 19th century music...)
Well, in that funny little marginal world of classical music this is
true. But overwhelmingly the music people listen to in concert is of the
last ten years. This artificial roping off of all non-classical music is
becoming increasingly artificial. The classical world is so obviously a
museum in general, and I don't see too much wrong with that. There's
plenty of vital, intellectual, stimulating art music being composed with
a huge audience - it's just played on samplers, electric guitars etc so
doesn't make it into classical concerts.
Robert Davidson
Alain DAGHER
DPBMSS (dpb...@aol.com) wrote:
: 1) Willie Nelson was hauled up by the IRS for owing an estimated $32
: million. Any classical stars ever made anything like that kind of money?
First, what's your point? A journeyman baseball player probably makes
more money than the inventor of the polio vaccine. So what? Besides,
the top classical performers do make a ton of money. The star
conductors easily make 5 milion a year.
: Any of them jealous? Is there any real good reason why great art can't be
: commercially successful?
Well, yes actually. Great Art is usually (but not invariably)
challenging or revolutionary.
: I think the notion that great artists are
: supposed to be poor starving and misunderstood is ridiculous.
It is. But the notion that one can judge the value of Art by the
Artist's tax returns is vulgar.
: I've
: heard Pierot many many times and can't remember how it goes. I have no
: trouble with Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, all four movements.
Again: so what? I can't get the jingle I heard on the radio this
afternoon out of my head. Does that make it great? I don't remember
how "Prisoner of Warsaw" goes, but I remember being incredibly moved
when I heard it in concert.
: Of course classical
: music doesn't sell as well as other genres, like country and western which
: is the biggest market these days, but people will buy more Mozart than
: Schoenberg anyway and there can't be much dispute about this.
And more copies of "Evita" than any Mozart disk.
--
Regards,
"De la musique avant toute chose"
Alain Dagher, M.D.
Montreal Neurological Institute -Paul Verlaine
Michael Laderman
Good job, D.G.! Give 'em hell!
M.L.
P.S. We don't need to look across the Atlantic to find a civilized
country which health care has been provided for all and the local
artists are generously supported in order to advance their national
culture(s). There's a large country slightly to our north, though we
insular U.S. citizens often ignore it. It's called Canada, and they
would do just fine if they could only resolve their differences over
language. I, for one, wish them well.
Michael Laderman
M.L.
insular U.S. citizens often ignore it. It's called Canada.
Phil Cope
I Hate Spam wrote:
[snip]
> I agree with you somewhat. However, perhaps I am cynical, but I notice
> a certain 'token modern work' syndrome at work in concerts I've attended.
> A modern work, sandwitched between the standard romantic fare, is
> performed well, applauded politely if unenthusiastically, and then
> forgotten.
How do you know that these works are forgotten ? What happens if
10% of the audience enjoys it ? This seems to me an admirable
programming policy, with a mix the familiar and the unknown,
whether it is cynical or not.
Phil Cope
--
All opinions expressed in this message are purely personal and do not
reflect the opinions or policies of Smallworldwide
Halvard Johnson
On 11 May 1997, MPerry1998 wrote:
> The 1980's "Cold War" with the Soviet Union is over yes.... (and that
> leaves a lot to be desired). But take into account these lunatic Asian
> countries like N. Korea who has not only Nuclear weapons, but a grudge
> against capitalism all over the world. My opinon: YES the defense budget
> is mostly pork-barrel.. but so is every other budget that the US
> government spews out. The US government should not be in the business of
> supporting orchestras ANYWHERE. That is not in the interest of the general
> public... only a select few, who take interest in the fine arts. I say it
> should be handled at the local level, where the money can be managed more
> efficiently.
> --Mark
> <mperr...@aol.com>
>
Right! Let's start by defunding all the orchestras, bands, and
choruses in the military itself.
Another thread down the tubes, seems like.
Hal "Don't just do something. Sit there!"
--Zen quip
Halvard Johnson <hjoh...@umbc2.umbc.edu>
Eric Schissel
Actually, as a favorite author of mine quipped, Canada is part of Europe.
back to you.
-Eric Schissel
Alain DAGHER
Alain DAGHER (al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca) wrote:
: DPBMSS (dpb...@aol.com) wrote:
: Again: so what? I can't get the jingle I heard on the radio this
: afternoon out of my head. Does that make it great? I don't remember
: how "Prisoner of Warsaw" goes,
You don't even remember the name of the piece. But otherwise I agree.
Sandra Damron
Diving head-first into the fray:
a: We spend a MUCH smaller portion of the GNP on defense than on
entitlement programs. No, I don't have the exact numbers.
b: That said, I don't automatically assume a "liberal agenda" for those
who think the Pentagon is a hotbed of waste, fraud, and abuse. I
actually think the entire Federal government is a hotbed of waste, fraud,
and abuse, so why do we want them butting into the arts?
c: Why only the top 20 orchestras? Not everyone lives in New York,
California, or Chicago. The cultural institutions in most need of help
are the smaller ones in the smaller cities. If money is to go anywhere,
it should go there.
d: I'm still not convinced that the Federal government should be
involved in the arts, but will cheerfully admit that this is my problem.
My opinion changes on a daily basis.
e: Allowing coporations and individuals to keep what they earn, and not
send huge chunks of money to the government in the form of taxation is
not welfare.
f: Liberals are not evil; conservatives are not evil. Everybody should
chill and realize that intelligent people can disagree, and should be
able to do so civilly.
Sandra
John Grabowski
In <337724...@student.uq.edu.au> Robert Davidson
<s03...@student.uq.edu.au> writes:
>
>I Hate Spam wrote:
>
>> Yes, musical language has changed rapidly in the 20th century (as has
>> everything else, I'd guess). I honestly don't know about the acceptance
>> of Beethoven's string quartets, but as a whole, can we agree that
>> in general, selialism has met with much more popular resistance than
>> preceding musical styles? Or let me put it this way: why was it,
>> in the 19th century, concerts consisted of primarily 19th century music,
>> while in the 20th century, concerts do _not_ generally consist of
20th
>> century music? (They still consist of 19th century music...)
>
>Well, in that funny little marginal world of classical music this is
>true. But overwhelmingly the music people listen to in concert is of
the
>last ten years.
"Marginal world"? Hardly.
And this isn't to knock the evolution of good new music, electronic or
non, but I wonder how much of this stuff will be listened to in 20
years.
I'm not trying to say classical is inherently "superior," but it's
hardly "marginal" either in terms of audience size or artistic impact
on the world. If a tenth of that modern electronic music has the same
impact in 100 years, we'll have been in good shape in this late 20th
century.
John
Dan Szymborski
Sandra Damron <FLT...@prodigy.com> wrote in article
<5l87ht$1e...@newssvr01-int.news.prodigy.com>...
> Diving head-first into the fray:
>
> a: We spend a MUCH smaller portion of the GNP on defense than on
> entitlement programs. No, I don't have the exact numbers.
This is blatantly erroneous. The last time more was spent on defense than
on entitlements were the early 1970s. Even Reagan only increased the % of
GDP spent on defense from 5.1% to 6.2% at the peak. The current budget
allocates 16% for defense, 51% for entitlements.
>
> b: That said, I don't automatically assume a "liberal agenda" for those
> who think the Pentagon is a hotbed of waste, fraud, and abuse. I
> actually think the entire Federal government is a hotbed of waste, fraud,
> and abuse, so why do we want them butting into the arts?
We certainly don't.
> c: Why only the top 20 orchestras? Not everyone lives in New York,
> California, or Chicago. The cultural institutions in most need of help
> are the smaller ones in the smaller cities. If money is to go anywhere,
> it should go there.
>
> d: I'm still not convinced that the Federal government should be
> involved in the arts, but will cheerfully admit that this is my problem.
> My opinion changes on a daily basis.
>
> e: Allowing coporations and individuals to keep what they earn, and not
> send huge chunks of money to the government in the form of taxation is
> not welfare.
>
> f: Liberals are not evil; conservatives are not evil. Everybody should
> chill and realize that intelligent people can disagree, and should be
> able to do so civilly.
>
> Sandra
One problem with the government spending is the "fairness" that people will
whine about. In Europe, countries generally have a long history and large
segments of the population will be of the same culture (at least to a
certain extent). In the US, with many different ethnic groups constantly
battling each other, if we denote money to say, the Portland Symphony, then
we'll have complaining from everyone else that has learned to leech off of
government. Art is part of culture and it's the people's responsibility to
advance their own culture. Having government-subsidized culture turns my
stomach.
Dan
I Hate Spam
Throughout this thread I've been essentially maintaining 2 things:
1. Atonal and serial (and more 'avant-garde') classical music is
unpopular (with classical music audiences) and
2. This is due to several factors, but is at least partly an inherent
problem of the music. That is, all of the blame cannot be placed
entirely on conductors, audiences, or performers.
Now, nothing you state above directly contradicts these points, and
I am aware of many of the factors at work, but to provide a complete
explanation, you need to also include some analysis of the music itself.
>> >> >As far as I'm concerned, this is a dead issue. There's no reason for
>> >> >atonality to be controversial anymore. Heck, there are even popular rock
>> >> >bands experimenting with it now!
>> >>
>> >> Hm... I'm curious which band that would be?
>>
>> >Countless progressive rock bands, which can hardly be called "popular".
>> >Sonic Youth is one band who come from an entirely different
>> >background - punk rock - and who experiment with a lot of these
>> >things. Heck, I think they even recorded a version of Stockhausen's
>> >"Kontakte" (?). There are several others.
>>
>> The sonic youth I've heard is not atonal, but...
>The music is not atonal in the sense that a central pitch is always
>established due to repetition, but the parts to many songs are in
>different keys, not to mention their trademark non-tempered guitar
>work and constant use of "dissonance". Much of it certainly sounds
>a lot closer to some of todays concert music than to anything written
>before 20th century.
Ok, well, what does this indicate, exactly? It doesn't seem to suggest
that atonality is becoming accepted in any general sense.
>>I haven't listened
>> to much of it. It's safe to say that atonality/serialism is not
>> making its way into pop music, unless you count some guitar solos. ;-)
>While integral serialism may not be hitting Las Vegas anytime soon,
>modern classical is surely leaking through into other genres!
>
>> Here's an interesting aside: where does atonality tend to show up most
>> often in popular culture? Answer: horror movies. Take "The Shining."
>> There's this really great scene with Jack Nickolson telling his son that
>> he loves him and that he'd never hurt him, while in the background, there's
>> this really intense atonal string stuff going on. It's truly scary. But
>> this is a typical example. Whenever a movie wants to convey creepiness,
>> weirdness, horror, fear, etc... the music goes atonal.
>Well, a lot of it is probably context conditioned. *Most* modern
>music won't work in a movie at all because in a soundtrack only the
>very surface of music comes through to the listener. It would
>just be a distraction and nothing else.
I don't agree with this explanation. What exactly does 'context conditioned'
mean? In any case, I think I could provide more examples of the above
phenomenon, if pressed.
>> Atonality offers new
>> expressive capabilities, but as a music history teacher of mine once asked
>> rhetorically, are these limited to the dark underbelly of the human psyche?
>> Can you imagine a love scene accompianied by, say, Varese?
>No, but a lot of Messiaen *feels* like a love scene. I can't
>see how anyone marginally familiar with the incredible diversity
>of 20th century music can make such generalizations.
No need for Ad Hominems. I think we can always find a 20th century
work that specifically violates any generalization one would wish to
make. Does that make all generalizations invalid? Not necessarily.
For the purposes of this discussion, at least, I have been making
an effort to restrict the topic to atonal/serial music in particular.
I think my point remains: atonal/serial music is used by the film
industry to express certain things, and these things are typically
emotions such as fear/horror/etc... It's no accident that the
Viennese school is associated with expressionism, and the angst
associated with it.
>> Well, it should be easy enough to test experimentally... Listen to
>> a randomly selected atonal work, then a randomly selected tonal work
>> of equal length (both of which have never been heard), and then
>> write down everything you can remember. I'm willing to bet money
>> that recollection of the tonal work will be higher.
>But for the experiment to work we'll have to control for other things
>besides tonality/atonality.
OK, sure.
>> My theory
>> for this -- beyond the simple fact that there is generally less
>> going on harmonically -- is that tonality provides a cognitive framework
>> which provides many reference points.
>If by tonality you mean pitch-centricity I disagree. I think the reason
>is in the greater amount of conventions in pre-20th century music
>(which is paraphrasing what you've said if by "tonality" you mean
>the collection of conventions present in classical and early romantic
>music).
Once again, I have to disagree. It's not the mere use of conventions
which make tonal music 'memorizable'. After all, Shoenberg, Berg, and
the like maintained a great many of these conventions. In fact, they
percieved atonality as a logical extension of the already strained tonality
of the late 19th century (as in Strass' 'Electra', 'Solome' etc...)
But though tonality was abandoned, most else was not.
I submit that atonality is not a linear step in complexity over
tonality, however, but is a more radical leap in complexity. This,
I submit also, is what leaves most audiences behind. Structures
such as 'scale' and 'dominant-tonic cadence' are not conventions,
but are radically simplifying features of tonal music.
I'll admit that I'm arguing somewhat intuitively here, having read
just enough information theory to get myself into hot water. I'm
really curious if anyone else out there shares the same viewpoint?
>> I think we lack a good framework with which to understand atonal music.
>I'm afraid you've lost me here. Who are "we"?
I don't know. Who are we? ;-)
>> >> While
>> >> I can sing many tonal peices from front to back, I can barely
>> >> quote a handful of themes from Peirrot. This led to an insight,
>> >> which is that atonal music is not so much unpopular because it is
>> >> dissonant (a common claim.) It's unpopular because it is too
>> >> complex for most ears.
>>
>> >There's complexity and then there's complexity. If there's a trend
>> >it may be that modern music requires concentration on microstucture,
>> >small details, while, e.g., traditional symphonies require a firmer
>> >grasp of macrostructure, large scale development. I'm not so sure
>> >that the latter is easier to attain.
>>
>> I don't exactly know what you're saying here. I think that in modern
>> works, the 'macrostructure' is simply not audible. For example,
>> no one can be expected to recognize the various permutations of a
>> 12 tone row, nor is this necessarily intended.
>Noone would want to! By macrostructure I mean thematic development and
>global dramatic structure. You can still hear these clearly in
>the more classically conceived 12tone pieces by Schoenberg, for
>instance, and they are essential to the music's effectiveness.
Are you saying that you can't hear them in tonal music?
>> However, once you
>> have a pretty good understanding of form and harmony, it's pretty
>> easy to follow tonal music on formal level.
>Formal level? I think you've misunderstood my point. Many people
>comfortable with traditional classical music may feel bewildered by
>the constant stream of little details in something like a Carter
>piece, but someone accustomed to moment-to-moment listening can
>feel equally lost in the middle of a Bruckner symphony, where not much
>is happening microstructurally and it is necessary to relate musical
>events to the "big picture".
>
It's hard to evaluate this sort of argument, since it's hard for
me to look in anyone elses head. All I can say is that I do not
share your perception.
>> >I think you're mixing two things. For most people music will never
>> >be important enough to warrant intense, attentive listening. Because
>> >of that both Beethoven and Schoenberg will always lose to music which
>> >does it's thing well as a background and is good for dancing. However,
>> >it is also true that no Schoenberg piece (well, besides early stuff)
>> >can, in addition to being music that rewards repeated listening and
>> >study, feature on a "Most Romantic Music You Don't Really Need To
>> >Listen To" compilation and be effective in *that* role. A lot of
>> >older classical music can work both ways. Could that be a factor
>> >influencing its overall popularity?
>>
>> I disagree with the first part. Beethoven makes great background
>> music. I listen to the symphonies while programming all the time.
>> I agree, much 20th century music places higher demands upon the
>> listener. <...>
>The point I was making was more about the approachability of older
>music. I think an average Bach fugue places higher demands on the
>listener than most 20th century music.
Once again, a perception that I do not share. Aside from attempting
empirical measurements (a poll, perhaps?) how can one argue
such a statement?
>However, it can also
>be appreciated without actually following what is taking
>place in the counterpoint. It may even work as background music
>because it "sounds nice". That can allow some listeners to get into
>the music step by step. A lot of 20th century music is an either\or
>proposition: one either follows the twists and turns of the piece
>or else it sounds like an annoying mess.
Hmm... this borders on agreeing with some of my main points, but the
same sort of comment as above.... ;-)
Let me restate in this thread that, although many things have been
asserted, I am not arguing that atonality or serialism is 'bad' music.
What I am arguing is that the unpopularity of atonality/serialism
cannot be explained entirely by cultural or extra-musical factors.
>Michael
>--
>Email: mvs...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
--
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
This account devoted specifally to spam prevention. E-mail currently
is not working.
I Hate Spam
>I Hate Spam wrote:
>[snip]
>> I agree with you somewhat. However, perhaps I am cynical, but I notice
>> a certain 'token modern work' syndrome at work in concerts I've attended.
>> A modern work, sandwitched between the standard romantic fare, is
>> performed well, applauded politely if unenthusiastically, and then
>> forgotten.
>How do you know that these works are forgotten ?
Because they do not become a standard part of the repertoire.
What happens if
>10% of the audience enjoys it ? This seems to me an admirable
>programming policy, with a mix the familiar and the unknown,
>whether it is cynical or not.
Agreed.
>Phil Cope
>--
>All opinions expressed in this message are purely personal and do not
>reflect the opinions or policies of Smallworldwide
Brian G. Mueller
The inherent problem with defining classical music as living or dying
is how we measure its vital signs. If we insist on defining the life
expectancy of a genre based on total sales, then classical music never
made it out of the womb. Serious art music is not market driven, it is
quality driven. Music that is timeless tends to last. Now, this is a
sweeping generalization. Admittedly, there are some pieces of music that
fall in a gray area, but timeless serious art music tends to have
quality.
And, frankly, I haven't heard of many orchestras going under in the US
due to lack of interest. Too often I hear the cry that fewer young people
are attending classical concerts. This very well may be true. However,
classical music is a mature taste, so it would only follow that a mature
audience would tend to appreciate it more. I have attended concerts since
the age of eleven, but my most obvious gateway to classical music was tha
CD player in my room. Now that I'm 27, I have a deeper appreciation for
live performance and attend more concerts. Bot it took the knowledge of
and exposure to classical music in the first place that helped me reach
this level of committment. (Let's face it, a concert is as much a
committment for the audience as the performers)
Also, art music does not play to the "lowest common denominator "
mentality that runs rampant in American society. There may be no catchy
hook to capture the ear. There certainly is not the marketing mindset to
give classical music the sexy sheen of pop music! However, I also don't
think that all popular music plays to that mentality. There are
well-crafted pop tunes just as surely as there are pieces of serious music
that are less than wonderful.
Music educators are now beginning to focus more on the subtleties of
musical knowledge rather than simply rote teaching music to reach a
performance level. In other words, they are bringing the fundamental
knowledge to the students to help them achieve a higher level of musical
understanding (which is a life-long endeavor) instead of "dumbing down"
the process by focusing on some kind of "quick-fix" like Mozart for
Dummies or Cliff's Notes for the Barber of Seville! By teaching students
to recognize the differences between a three-chord popular song and a
harmonically complex opera score and by showing those same students that
both forms are valid modes of expression, we can engender a deeper respect
for and understanding of music and insure that music, in all of its forms,
will not die.
And I step off the soapbox...
Thanks for listening.
Yours musically,
Brian G. Mueller
MPerry1998
I can live with that.
--Mark
<mperr...@aol.com>
Manoa Friedson
In article <5l7d88$n...@light.lightlink.com>, schi...@light.lightlink.com
(Eric Schissel) writes:
>
> Msg-ID: <5l7d88$n...@light.lightlink.com>
> References: <3376a755...@news.interport.net>
> Posted: 12 May 1997 11:33:28 -0400
>
> Org. : I SPEAK ONLY FOR MYSELF
>
> Actually, as a favorite author of mine quipped, Canada is part of Europe.
>
> back to you.
> -Eric Schissel
>
Hey! "I resemble that remark!"
But seriously, now.. Canada has many cultural similarities with both Europe
AND the United States of America. It is rather inaccurate to equate us with
either.
--
There is a great force working to make humanity radical and creative. Use
this force to your advantage. Beware of conformity, of great big walls of
concrete, of barbed wire fences, of people who try to sell you strange
substances in the airport, of axe fiends in the subway (unless they are
intriguing) and other things. May your life bristle with intrigue
Dan Stevenson
manoa@mindlink.
Michael Subotin
I Hate Spam wrote:
: Throughout this thread I've been essentially maintaining 2 things:
: 1. Atonal and serial (and more 'avant-garde') classical music is
: unpopular (with classical music audiences) and
: 2. This is due to several factors, but is at least partly an inherent
: problem of the music. That is, all of the blame cannot be placed
: entirely on conductors, audiences, or performers.
:
: Now, nothing you state above directly contradicts these points, and
: I am aware of many of the factors at work, but to provide a complete
: explanation, you need to also include some analysis of the music
itself.
Why do we have to blame *anyone*? Does the unpopularity of Mozart
with the members of the rave scene necessarily point to a presence
of "problems" in his music? Indeed, what you are saying about
atonal/serial music can also be said to a certain extent about early
music. The audiences for "mainstream" and "contemporary" music are not
the same, although they partially overlap. I've met several people
who enjoy 20th century music, but could care less for music of the
Classical and Romantic periods. I used to belong to this group
myself. Now, the audience for contemporary music may be the smaller
of the two, but, aside from shared resources the difficulties that
unpopularity of any genre presents to its fans, why is that a problem?
: >> The sonic youth I've heard is not atonal, but...
:
: >The music is not atonal in the sense that a central pitch is always
: >established due to repetition, but the parts to many songs are in
: >different keys, not to mention their trademark non-tempered guitar
: >work and constant use of "dissonance". Much of it certainly sounds
: >a lot closer to some of todays concert music than to anything written
: >before 20th century.
:
: Ok, well, what does this indicate, exactly? It doesn't seem to suggest
: that atonality is becoming accepted in any general sense.
I don't think anyone said that it was. Elements of it, however, are
being effectively used in jazz, rock, and even rap without the
controversy and recurrent debates that seem to follow it in
the world of classical music.
: >> Here's an interesting aside: where does atonality tend to show up
most
: >> often in popular culture? Answer: horror movies. Take "The
Shining."
: >> There's this really great scene with Jack Nickolson telling his son
that
: >> he loves him and that he'd never hurt him, while in the background,
there's
: >> this really intense atonal string stuff going on. It's truly scary.
But
: >> this is a typical example. Whenever a movie wants to convey
creepiness,
: >> weirdness, horror, fear, etc... the music goes atonal.
:
: >Well, a lot of it is probably context conditioned. *Most* modern
: >music won't work in a movie at all because in a soundtrack only the
: >very surface of music comes through to the listener. It would
: >just be a distraction and nothing else.
:
: I don't agree with this explanation. What exactly does 'context
conditioned'
: mean? In any case, I think I could provide more examples of the above
: phenomenon, if pressed.
By context-based conditioning I mean that when someone is exposed to
enough slasher scenes accompanied by atonal music, if this is the primary
context where they encounter such music, any music with a vaguely
similar surface will produce slasher scene associations.
: >> Atonality offers new
: >> expressive capabilities, but as a music history teacher of mine
once asked
: >> rhetorically, are these limited to the dark underbelly of the human
psyche?
: >> Can you imagine a love scene accompianied by, say, Varese?
:
: >No, but a lot of Messiaen *feels* like a love scene. I can't
: >see how anyone marginally familiar with the incredible diversity
: >of 20th century music can make such generalizations.
:
: No need for Ad Hominems.
It wasn't an ad hominem. I didn't mean to question your teacher's
competence but rather express my bewilderment at his statement.
: I think we can always find a 20th century
: work that specifically violates any generalization one would wish to
: make. Does that make all generalizations invalid?
Not, not at all. However, this particular *type* of generalization
would require just one counterexample to refute it.
: Not necessarily.
: For the purposes of this discussion, at least, I have been making
: an effort to restrict the topic to atonal/serial music in particular.
: I think my point remains: atonal/serial music is used by the film
: industry to express certain things, and these things are typically
: emotions such as fear/horror/etc... It's no accident that the
: Viennese school is associated with expressionism, and the angst
: associated with it.
I never disagreed that some of this music can be used to express
these emotions. Emotional states reminiscent of angst are indeed
an important aspect of 20th century music (likewise, literature
and visual arts). However, from this observation you seemed to
extrapolate that these are the only emotional states atonal/serial
music is capable of expressing. *Most* such music I've heard, to my
ears, has nothing to do with expression of horror, fear, or creepiness.
: >> My theory
: >> for this -- beyond the simple fact that there is generally less
: >> going on harmonically -- is that tonality provides a cognitive
framework
: >> which provides many reference points.
:
: >If by tonality you mean pitch-centricity I disagree. I think the
reason
: >is in the greater amount of conventions in pre-20th century music
: >(which is paraphrasing what you've said if by "tonality" you mean
: >the collection of conventions present in classical and early romantic
: >music).
:
: Once again, I have to disagree. It's not the mere use of conventions
: which make tonal music 'memorizable'. After all, Shoenberg, Berg, and
: the like maintained a great many of these conventions. In fact, they
: percieved atonality as a logical extension of the already strained
tonality
: of the late 19th century (as in Strass' 'Electra', 'Solome' etc...)
: But though tonality was abandoned, most else was not.
:
: I submit that atonality is not a linear step in complexity over
: tonality, however, but is a more radical leap in complexity. This,
: I submit also, is what leaves most audiences behind. Structures
: such as 'scale' and 'dominant-tonic cadence' are not conventions,
: but are radically simplifying features of tonal music.
Well, if they are not conventions, why do many non-western musics
have little use for them? They are, in fact, simplifying features,
as are all conventions. The human brain simplifies sensory information
by generalizing (my argument is also intuitive) and conventional
features in music increase its predictability to someone
familiar with these features and thus facilitate generalization.
Although it is not perferctly clear from your response, I take it you
are using the term "tonality" in the more general sense, i.e.,
pitch-centricity. There are many examples of complex pitch-centric
music (we need to go no further than Bach fugues) which are extremely
difficult to memorize, while choruses of rap songs that use atonal
(and non-tempered!) pitch-patterns only vaguely corresponding to patterns
of conversational speech are easily reproduced by countless people with
no music education.
I hope that is it clear that I'm not arguing against the general
tendency towards increased microstructural complexity in atonal/serial
music. However, I believe you exagerate the role of tonality itself here.
: I'll admit that I'm arguing somewhat intuitively here, having read
: just enough information theory to get myself into hot water. I'm
: really curious if anyone else out there shares the same viewpoint?
:
: >> I think we lack a good framework with which to understand atonal
music.
:
: >I'm afraid you've lost me here. Who are "we"?
:
:> I don't know. Who are we? ;-)
That would depend on who "we" are. :-) Good music always provides
an intrinsic framework for its understanding.
: >> >There's complexity and then there's complexity. If there's a trend
: >> >it may be that modern music requires concentration on
microstucture,
: >> >small details, while, e.g., traditional symphonies require a firmer
: >> >grasp of macrostructure, large scale development. I'm not so sure
: >> >that the latter is easier to attain.
: >>
: >> I don't exactly know what you're saying here. I think that in
modern
: >> works, the 'macrostructure' is simply not audible. For example,
: >> no one can be expected to recognize the various permutations of a
: >> 12 tone row, nor is this necessarily intended.
:
: >Noone would want to! By macrostructure I mean thematic development and
: >global dramatic structure. You can still hear these clearly in
: >the more classically conceived 12tone pieces by Schoenberg, for
: >instance, and they are essential to the music's effectiveness.
:
: Are you saying that you can't hear them in tonal music?
On the contrary! I was responding to your statement that in modern
works macrostucure is not audible. My point was that, *in general*,
in modern music microstructure is more important than macrostucture
(although it is present in every work, and is conspicuous in many),
while in traditional music the relationship is generally reversed,
which is one of the problems listeners accustomed to older music
experience with regard to newer pieces.
: >Formal level? I think you've misunderstood my point. Many people
: >comfortable with traditional classical music may feel bewildered by
: >the constant stream of little details in something like a Carter
: >piece, but someone accustomed to moment-to-moment listening can
: >feel equally lost in the middle of a Bruckner symphony, where not much
: >is happening microstructurally and it is necessary to relate musical
: >events to the "big picture".
: >
:
: It's hard to evaluate this sort of argument, since it's hard for
: me to look in anyone elses head. All I can say is that I do not
: share your perception.
Fair enough. I, nevertheless, maintain that there are aspects of
traditional music, the grasp of which listeners exposed to the music
from an early age take for granted, capable of presenting formidable
comprehension problems to someone unfamiliar with the genre.
Michael
--
Email: mvs...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Tom Brennan
On 13 May 1997 12:52:33 -0500, nos...@i.hate.spam (I Hate Spam) wrote:
My 2 cents: though there may be a token modern work syndrome at work
in many of today's orchestras, I'm wondering how else we would get to
hear these works performed. It seems to me that hearing a piece, even
as a token, is better than not to hear it at all.
sea...@aol.com
In article <5l7jhm$2...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
> >> everything else, I'd guess). I honestly don't know about the acceptance
> >> of Beethoven's string quartets, but as a whole, can we agree that
> >> in general, selialism has met with much more popular resistance than
> >> preceding musical styles? Or let me put it this way: why was it,
> >> in the 19th century, concerts consisted of primarily 19th century music,
> >> while in the 20th century, concerts do _not_ generally consist of
> 20th
> >> century music? (They still consist of 19th century music...)
> >
> >true. But overwhelmingly the music people listen to in concert is of
> the
> >last ten years.
>
> "Marginal world"? Hardly.
>
> And this isn't to knock the evolution of good new music, electronic or
> non, but I wonder how much of this stuff will be listened to in 20
> years.
>
> I'm not trying to say classical is inherently "superior," but it's
> hardly "marginal" either in terms of audience size or artistic impact
> on the world. If a tenth of that modern electronic music has the same
> impact in 100 years, we'll have been in good shape in this late 20th
> century.
>
> John
I'll have to agree with your comment about modern electronic music's
'staying power' over the haul, John, but a very good point was made--in
the 1800's, contemporary classical music was by and large a FAR more
'popular' occupation for the musically curious masses. This was the case
in part, I believe, by the EVENT of the concert hall experience, as
public events were the prime source of entertainment. The development
and honing of Marketing(tm) has really codified the experience today, and
marginalized it to the exception rather than the rule.
The communications era has fomented a new form of music based on
retro-reference and irony. I suppose it's a gag reflex to the
impermanence of the culture as it stands now? But I really believe that
'popular' music today has the same cultivation for musical ideas as did
the last century's academic music.
There seem to me to be some electronic 'groups' alive and well today that
are truly intellectually exciting, and although their following is small,
will sound as fresh in 20 or 50 years as they do now. Although I
hesitate to use them as an argument, listen now to the FIRST minimalist
recordings (many electronically based) by Young, Glass, Reich & Riley and
most of them absolutely HUM with contemporary energy. Where that whole
movement worked its way to is moot...that early stuff is 30 years old
now! With some of the new guard of electronic musicians who have finally
abandoned NOSTALGIA, I think there's hope yet.
Now, have I butted in someone else's conversation? Pardon the intrusion.
Keith
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
John Grabowski
>I Hate Spam wrote:
>: >> Whenever a movie wants to convey creepiness,
>: >> weirdness, horror, fear, etc... the music goes atonal.
>:
>: >Well, a lot of it is probably context conditioned. *Most* modern
>: >music won't work in a movie at all because in a soundtrack only the
>: >very surface of music comes through to the listener. It would
>: >just be a distraction and nothing else.
>:
>: I don't agree with this explanation. What exactly does 'context
>conditioned'
>: mean? In any case, I think I could provide more examples of the
above
>: phenomenon, if pressed.
I love this: he says he doesn't know what "context conditioned" means
(just look the two words up in a dictionary and put the definitions
together), but also says he doesn't agree with the explanation.
"You're wrong! My illness is *not* psychological! ... Err, and by the
way, what's 'psychological' mean?" ;-)
Kinda like people who say, "The BEST recording of X is such-and-such.
That's the only recording I've ever heard, but it's the *best*!"
John
I Hate Spam
No argument with that.
I Hate Spam
>>I Hate Spam wrote:
>>: >> Whenever a movie wants to convey creepiness,
>>: >> weirdness, horror, fear, etc... the music goes atonal.
>>:
>>: >Well, a lot of it is probably context conditioned. *Most* modern
>>: >music won't work in a movie at all because in a soundtrack only the
>>: >very surface of music comes through to the listener. It would
>>: >just be a distraction and nothing else.
>>:
>>: I don't agree with this explanation. What exactly does 'context
>>conditioned'
>>: mean? In any case, I think I could provide more examples of the
>above
>>: phenomenon, if pressed.
>I love this: he says he doesn't know what "context conditioned" means
>(just look the two words up in a dictionary and put the definitions
>together), but also says he doesn't agree with the explanation.
Although I worded this rather poorly, I disagreed with the second part
of his paragraph, and did not understand the first part.
>John
I Hate Spam
In <337908...@shalt.not.spam> Michael Subotin <th...@shalt.not.spam> writes:
>I Hate Spam wrote:
>: Throughout this thread I've been essentially maintaining 2 things:
>: 1. Atonal and serial (and more 'avant-garde') classical music is
>: unpopular (with classical music audiences) and
>: 2. This is due to several factors, but is at least partly an inherent
>: problem of the music. That is, all of the blame cannot be placed
>: entirely on conductors, audiences, or performers.
>:
>: Now, nothing you state above directly contradicts these points, and
>: I am aware of many of the factors at work, but to provide a complete
>: explanation, you need to also include some analysis of the music
>itself.
>Why do we have to blame *anyone*?
Blame is not a wholly innapropriate word to use here, as Shoenberg
himself tended to heap it upon conductors & critics... However,
to be more accurate and less inflammitory, I should say that I am
observing a phenomenon that poses an interesting puzzle, and am
trying to find an explanation for it. So, I should rephrase point
#2 as:
2. This cannot be explained _exclusively_ by extra-musical factors.
That is, atonality/serialism has inherent qualities which make it
problematic for the average classical music listener.
>Does the unpopularity of Mozart
>with the members of the rave scene necessarily point to a presence
>of "problems" in his music?
No, because I am specifically referring to the unpopularity of classical
atonal/serial music within the world of classical music. As a side
topic, one can alse assert that atonality/serialism is unpopular with
all audiences, but I'm most concerned with the average concert-going
classical music listener.
>Indeed, what you are saying about
>atonal/serial music can also be said to a certain extent about early
>music. The audiences for "mainstream" and "contemporary" music are not
>the same, although they partially overlap. I've met several people
>who enjoy 20th century music, but could care less for music of the
>Classical and Romantic periods. I used to belong to this group
>myself. Now, the audience for contemporary music may be the smaller
>of the two, but, aside from shared resources the difficulties that
>unpopularity of any genre presents to its fans, why is that a problem?
I don't percieve it as a problem, per se. I do see a disconnect between
academia and the classical world at large, which might be construed as
a problem. Anyway, are you saying here that you agree with my assertion
#1, that atonality is unpopular with classical music audiences? (By
atonality--just to be sure that we're on the same footing--I mean music
lacking a tonal center, such as Pierrot Lunare (as the archtypical example).
This does not include modal music, which does have a tonal center.
So much jazz/rock/pop/folk/non-western music is modal, but not atonal).
>: >> The sonic youth I've heard is not atonal, but...
>:
>: >The music is not atonal in the sense that a central pitch is always
>: >established due to repetition, but the parts to many songs are in
>: >different keys, not to mention their trademark non-tempered guitar
>: >work and constant use of "dissonance". Much of it certainly sounds
>: >a lot closer to some of todays concert music than to anything written
>: >before 20th century.
>:
>: Ok, well, what does this indicate, exactly? It doesn't seem to suggest
>: that atonality is becoming accepted in any general sense.
>I don't think anyone said that it was. Elements of it, however, are
>being effectively used in jazz, rock, and even rap without the
>controversy and recurrent debates that seem to follow it in
>the world of classical music.
>
Hm... Now I listen to a lot a rap, and I've never heard anything atonal.
A-melodic, perhaps, but the bass line insures a certain modality at
the very least. By 'lack of controversy', that's an interesting
idea. Could it be that being controversial is actually a goal amongst
some pop musicians, or that oddness is sought out by the recording
industry as a selling feature? In any case, this extends somewhat
beyond my thesis. I'm willing to contend (if you force me) that
atonality has not made significant inroads into popular culture,
but I'm primarily interested in the realm of classical music.
>By context-based conditioning I mean that when someone is exposed to
>enough slasher scenes accompanied by atonal music, if this is the primary
>context where they encounter such music, any music with a vaguely
>similar surface will produce slasher scene associations.
>
Ok, I see what your saying. ;-) I wasn't really arguing that atonality
evokes slasher imagery, merely hinting (via guilt by association) towards
the point regarding the emotional language of atonality. In any case, your
argument puts the cart before the horse to some extent.
Why did film producers have chosen such music in the first place? If
such a conditioning response is a valid phenomenon, we should be able
to use, say, 'Afternoon of a Faun' for those slasher scenes. Somehow
I find such an idea unconvincing.
>: >> Atonality offers new
>: >> expressive capabilities, but as a music history teacher of mine
>once asked
>: >> rhetorically, are these limited to the dark underbelly of the human
>psyche?
>: >> Can you imagine a love scene accompianied by, say, Varese?
>:
>: >No, but a lot of Messiaen *feels* like a love scene. I can't
>: >see how anyone marginally familiar with the incredible diversity
>: >of 20th century music can make such generalizations.
>:
>: No need for Ad Hominems.
>It wasn't an ad hominem. I didn't mean to question your teacher's
>competence but rather express my bewilderment at his statement.
>: I think we can always find a 20th century
>: work that specifically violates any generalization one would wish to
>: make. Does that make all generalizations invalid?
>Not, not at all. However, this particular *type* of generalization
>would require just one counterexample to refute it.
Well, as a counterexample to this particular point, please provide
a (non ironic) love scene in a movie accompianied by something atonal.
>: Not necessarily.
>: For the purposes of this discussion, at least, I have been making
>: an effort to restrict the topic to atonal/serial music in particular.
>: I think my point remains: atonal/serial music is used by the film
>: industry to express certain things, and these things are typically
>: emotions such as fear/horror/etc... It's no accident that the
>: Viennese school is associated with expressionism, and the angst
>: associated with it.
>I never disagreed that some of this music can be used to express
>these emotions. Emotional states reminiscent of angst are indeed
>an important aspect of 20th century music (likewise, literature
>and visual arts). However, from this observation you seemed to
>extrapolate that these are the only emotional states atonal/serial
>music is capable of expressing. *Most* such music I've heard, to my
>ears, has nothing to do with expression of horror, fear, or creepiness.
I wouldn't say that the *only* emotions available to a serialism
are the negative ones, only that such music seems particularly effective
at expressing such emotions, so much so that the film industry has adopted
this sort of music for such purposes. Your last statement is again
a subjective response which is probably not shared by everyone.
>:
>: I submit that atonality is not a linear step in complexity over
>: tonality, however, but is a more radical leap in complexity. This,
>: I submit also, is what leaves most audiences behind. Structures
>: such as 'scale' and 'dominant-tonic cadence' are not conventions,
>: but are radically simplifying features of tonal music.
>Well, if they are not conventions, why do many non-western musics
>have little use for them? They are, in fact, simplifying features,
>as are all conventions. The human brain simplifies sensory information
>by generalizing (my argument is also intuitive) and conventional
>features in music increase its predictability to someone
>familiar with these features and thus facilitate generalization.
OK, I think we may be merely using different terminology and thus
disagreeing when we shouldn't be. You can call tonality a convention.
That's fine with me. By conventions, I was referring to things like,
oh idunno, Sonata-Allegro form, archlike phrase structure, certain
aspects of rhythm, motivic use, etc... But in saying that
tonality is a convention and also that conventions are simplifications
(because they increase predictability) then we don't disagree.
We might disagree that these conventions must be known by the listener.
I would argue that they are present in the sense of information
theory. That is, most atonality or serialism contains more information
per time unit that tonality. One can also argue that tonality,
because it rests on the natural overtone series, is somehow more
'natural', although I really don't know enough about the specifics
to make this sort of argument. I think, though, that one should
not exclude the possibility that the human mind might be somehow
naturally receptive to certain sounds--that our tastes are not
infinitely malleable.
>Although it is not perferctly clear from your response, I take it you
>are using the term "tonality" in the more general sense, i.e.,
>pitch-centricity.
By tonality I mean music that adheres to a tonal center, uses
(primarily) the major/minor scales as the basis of both its melody and
triadic harmony.
(One can quibble about this. Ie, since some Mahler works end
end in a different key than they began, are they 'atonal' because
they've strayed from the tonal center? My answer here is that they're
still tonal, but are stretching the language of tonality. What about
Debussy & early Stravinksy? My answer is that they are either
modal, and/or an extended tonality (and my argument applies to modality
as well)). Modality (a la non western music (Indian ragas), or
medieval western music, or some late 19th early 20th century music) also
provides a similar sort of cognitive structure that tonality does.
>There are many examples of complex pitch-centric
>music (we need to go no further than Bach fugues) which are extremely
>difficult to memorize, while choruses of rap songs that use atonal
>(and non-tempered!) pitch-patterns only vaguely corresponding to patterns
>of conversational speech are easily reproduced by countless people with
>no music education.
>I hope that is it clear that I'm not arguing against the general
>tendency towards increased microstructural complexity in atonal/serial
>music. However, I believe you exagerate the role of tonality itself here.
Ok, well, that's why we disagree. I think you under-exagerate the role
of tonality. ;-) Perhaps I seem to exaggerate it because it's an
explanation that one seldom hears. I have heard many times that 'if
people are just exposed to atonality long enough, they'll come to like
it.' That sort of explanation seems common enough.
>: >> works, the 'macrostructure' is simply not audible. For example,
>: >> no one can be expected to recognize the various permutations of a
>: >> 12 tone row, nor is this necessarily intended.
>:
>: >Noone would want to! By macrostructure I mean thematic development and
>: >global dramatic structure. You can still hear these clearly in
>: >the more classically conceived 12tone pieces by Schoenberg, for
>: >instance, and they are essential to the music's effectiveness.
>:
>: Are you saying that you can't hear them in tonal music?
>On the contrary! I was responding to your statement that in modern
>works macrostucure is not audible. My point was that, *in general*,
>in modern music microstructure is more important than macrostucture
>(although it is present in every work, and is conspicuous in many),
>while in traditional music the relationship is generally reversed,
>which is one of the problems listeners accustomed to older music
>experience with regard to newer pieces.
I guess my problem here is that it is very unclear to me exactly
what problems listeners encounter when they hear certain works, since
I can't look into people's minds. Nor am I entirely sure what you
mean by micro and macro structures. Is 'macro-structure' the form,
as in Sonata-Allegro, Rondo, Binary, ternary, etc...? What is
micro-structure? I assume you mean foreground level of detail here,
but does that inlude theme, phrase, motive?
>: >Formal level? I think you've misunderstood my point. Many people
>: >comfortable with traditional classical music may feel bewildered by
>: >the constant stream of little details in something like a Carter
>: >piece, but someone accustomed to moment-to-moment listening can
>: >feel equally lost in the middle of a Bruckner symphony, where not much
>: >is happening microstructurally and it is necessary to relate musical
>: >events to the "big picture".
>: >
>:
>: It's hard to evaluate this sort of argument, since it's hard for
>: me to look in anyone elses head. All I can say is that I do not
>: share your perception.
>Fair enough. I, nevertheless, maintain that there are aspects of
>traditional music, the grasp of which listeners exposed to the music
>from an early age take for granted, capable of presenting formidable
>comprehension problems to someone unfamiliar with the genre.
Ok, now that's an interesting point, as it provides a counter-explanation
to the problem at hand. Ie, atonal/serial music is unpopular with
classical music audiences because children haven't been sufficiently
exposed to it. As an argument, it has the dual advantage of being
testable (and thus interesting) and yet difficult to test (and thus
hard to disprove). ;-) Given that tonal music utterly dominates our
culture, it seems reasonable enough on the surfuce. But...
This idea seems to point between a non-linear increase in complexity when
moving from tonality to atonality, however. In other words, if we accept
this as a premise, if there was a sort of smooth gradient from tonality to
atonality, one should be able to imagine a certain amount of atonality
creeping into the classical music mainstream, and that this change should
occur at a near linear rate. As I've argued in point #1, this does not
appear to be the case. However, if we agree that atonality creates a leap
in complexity and information content, then your argument can still hold,
as can my points #1 and #2.
Edgerley Keith
Oh dear!Oh dear!Oh dear!
You know, in one way or another, a large part of humanity's lasting
artistic achievements beyond the very unsophisticated level of ephemeral
folk art or popular manifestations of artistic exprssion may be said to
have been government-subsidized if for "government" we substitute what
has been the equivalent in previous centuries, i.e. the monarch, prince,
chief priest or whoever else is running society.
All the great cathedrals that are the glory of Europe were built on
money collected, even extorted, from the general population by the
church and state and then rechannelled into something that has been
appreciated over hundreds of years.
Opera is unthinkable without the patronage of, originally, the
aristocracy - a hereditary form of government.
The prime example of state subsidy of this form is Richard Wagner.
And even if composers weren't always subsidized directly, the orchestras
to play their works and the halls to play them in have been.
Some things are not economically viable; the great thing about
government support is that people who could not otherwise afford to
appreciate art are enabled to.
--
Keith Edgerley
jim mcnamara
Let's try to make a discussion about music by invoking
some points of view more to the outside of music & music
theory. Me? - not a musician - more a mathematician.
Start with some assumptions -
1. Let's assume that human brains are wired by DNA to
perceive some sound sequences as music, others not.
If this is an offensive assumption look at this site:
http://www.webster.sk.ca/greenwich/fl-compl.htm
then come back and argue. In other words, we have
music recognition hard-wired into our brains.
2. Humans tend to find whatever they grew up with as
more agreeable, music included.
As a species, we've been making music for a long time.
And the music seems to have been formulated by rules
which are innate to the way we perceive sound, rather than
by some arbitrary set of rules.
Atonal music came about at the same the other fine arts were
"breaking all the rules"; it was a venue to pursue from at
least a philosphical point - go where no one has gone before.
A kind of Dada-music, I guess. An arbitrary change of rules.
Most people agree that atonal music has not gotten universal
acceptance.
My point of view- it never will. Why?
It breaks some rules that violate basic programming in
human brains. Generally, most humans have to "learn" to like it.
(There have to be some folks who like it inherently. )
Which, by itself, gives it appeal to folks who want
to be intellectual and want to have to work hard to get there.
For people who are more intellectually indolent,
(or whatever term you want) facing hours of listening to something
that has no initial appeal is not going to happen. I submit that
these are the majority of people who buy tickets to concerts.
Example:
To my knowledge, the Albuquerque Symphony schedule contained no
atonal pieces this year. Ditto last year. Attendance is up,
after lagging for a while.
--random noise --
Plus, and this is purely anecdotal, once I played what I thought
was a joke on a professional classical musician friend'o'mine.
Wrote a brown noise generator, then fed the output with filtering
into a midi sequence. Then got another musician to key in a short
atonal sequence he chose-- from a Shoenberg piece, I think (No, I don't
remember which one). My atonal music lover friend said that he liked
the brown noise sequence better. Never told him what it was.
Think he would have gotten angry.... either that or we could have
composed an awful lot of great music REALLY fast.
--end random noise --
I think part of what is involved in music is template (pattern)
recognition. When pattern cannot be perceived our brains don't
intuitively process data as well.
Clouds obviously do not have faces - they are not human - but you
still see faces up there. Why? Our brains impose pattern
whether it's there or not. If we randomize the input to
the extent that we can't do pattern processing or impose pattern,
I submit that we lose both interest and our inherent ability to
interpret incoming data - and, IMHO, several atonal pieces
I have sat thru (note the verb choice) qualify
admirably as devoid of pattern. Lose ability to interpret =
lose interest.
For this reason, atonal music isn't commonly offered,
it also isn't commonly heard. Therefore people don't develop
the extra processing ability required to enjoy it. (Assumption #2)
Therefore, because some atonal sequences screw up input processing,
they are not offered, then they are not heard, therefore they will
not become widely accepted - ever. I believe that atonal
music will always have a small place in music, maybe like
art song. (I know, I know, art song is your favort-issimo)
Now go ahead - get angry, revert (note choice of verb)
to purely aesthetic or musicological arguments if you want.
If I can ever find those midi sequences I'll inflict 'em on ya.
jim mcnamara (stepping into a flameproof suit to protect his
Hovanis albums...)
Michael Laderman
On Wed, 14 May 1997 11:09:54 -0600, jim mcnamara
<csi_...@coopserv.com> wrote:
[snip]
>As a species, we've been making music for a long time.
>And the music seems to have been formulated by rules
>which are innate to the way we perceive sound, rather than
>by some arbitrary set of rules.
[snip]
And which rules are common to music from all world traditions? Care to
enumerate a few? Drawing a blank?...
M.L.
Jeff Winslow
Here's some things to think about...
I can take a stab at this by hypothesizing: The point of entertainment is to
engage your attention. The point of art is to engage your emotions. (Many
other things also do one or the other, that's beside the point.)
It's hard to engage your emotions without getting your attention. Anything
which absorbs your attention may set off whatever process leads to emotion.
Any definitive attempt to separate entertainment and art thus seems doomed
to fail.
How many people around you do you see paying money to be entertained?
Now, how many people around you do you see paying money to have a profound
emotional experience?
Somewhere in here I get the idea that how much money somebody makes has nothing
to do with that indefinable thing we call "quality" of the music they create.
It's not opposite to it, it's just orthogonal to it.
The reason "quality" is indefinable is that it's wildly context dependent.
"Good music." The question is, good for what?
Put all this together and what do you get?
An argument for diversity at the very least...
Eric Schissel
If you look into the history of atonal music, you'll see that those most
associated with its beginnings had no desire to "break all the rules".
Nor does it.
-Eric Schissel
Colin Rosenthal
Repetitive rhythm, perhaps? Also the use of discrete notes and scales (even
if the scales themselves are different).
--
Colin Rosenthal
High Altitude Observatory
Boulder, Colorado
rose...@hao.ucar.edu
Halvard Johnson
And also some very good reasons for swearing off
logic for a while.
Halvard Johnson
On Wed, 14 May 1997, jim mcnamara wrote:
> Let's try to make a discussion about music by invoking
> some points of view more to the outside of music & music
> theory. Me? - not a musician - more a mathematician.
>
> Start with some assumptions -
> 1. Let's assume that human brains are wired by DNA to
> perceive some sound sequences as music, others not.
> If this is an offensive assumption look at this site:
>
> http://www.webster.sk.ca/greenwich/fl-compl.htm
>
> then come back and argue. In other words, we have
> music recognition hard-wired into our brains.
>
> 2. Humans tend to find whatever they grew up with as
> more agreeable, music included.
>
> As a species, we've been making music for a long time.
> And the music seems to have been formulated by rules
> which are innate to the way we perceive sound, rather than
> by some arbitrary set of rules.
>
Feeling whoozy, Jim? Better stay out of
the sun for a while.
Mark Starr
To all readers of rec.music.classical:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is my sad duty to inform you all that Classical
Music died early this morning at 5:41 a.m.
After a long and debilitating illness that left its
hearing impaired and destroyed its voice, Classical
died peacefully while sleeping. The funeral, which
will take place this evening at CAMI Hall, will
conclude with eulogies by House Speaker Newt Gingrich
and Sen. Jesse Helms. It will be covered live by
"Hard Copy", and emceed by Beavis and Butthead.
A Heavy Metal Mass will be sung by The Three Tenors at
Carnegie Hall tomorrow, and broadcast countless times
on PBS pledge-breaks throughout the year.
No flowers, please.
Regards,
Mark Starr
Mark Starr
Eric Schissel wrote:
>
> Mozart died because his wife was a spendthrift and the Emperor died??? Has
> evidence turned up to contradict Einstein's account of Mozart's own
> spending habits that I'm not aware of?
>
> -Eric Schissel
Yes. H. C. Robbins Landon's book "1789".
Regards,
Mark Starr
schi...@lightlink.com
From: Eric Schissel <schi...@lightlink.com>
There are several sites with more accurate information on defense
spending. One is, i believe, http://www.natprior.org/.
-Eric Schissel
Michael Laderman
On 14 May 1997 19:36:42 GMT, rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin
Rosenthal) wrote:
[snip]
>Repetitive rhythm, perhaps?
[snip]
Perhaps, but you probably don't know because you probably haven't done
a complete global study of it. That's the problem with global theories
based on a lack of complete studies, and that was my critique of the
previous post. If we're "hard-wired" for musical rules, those rules
had better be cross-cultural and universal. I think it's all nonsense,
but if it isn't, real proof is needed.
> Also the use of discrete notes and scales (even
>if the scales themselves are different).
Not in drumming!
Colin Rosenthal
On Wed, 14 May 1997 22:07:50 GMT, Michael Laderman <pi...@interport.net> wrote:
>On 14 May 1997 19:36:42 GMT, rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin
>Rosenthal) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>Repetitive rhythm, perhaps?
>[snip]
>
>Perhaps, but you probably don't know because you probably haven't done
>a complete global study of it.
I admit I haven't :-). The most interesting parallel to employ here
would be that of language. Now it is a feature of human society that
every society that is known has language, and that language has certain
common features. Does music also follow this pattern - I don't know,
but it seems to be the case that all cultures have _something_ we can
recognise as "music" so does this represent a universal feature of human
society, or are we just shoehorning some totally alien aspect of some
other culture into our word "music" in order to reflect our pre-conceived
idea that music is universal.
That's the problem with global theories
>based on a lack of complete studies, and that was my critique of the
>previous post. If we're "hard-wired" for musical rules, those rules
>had better be cross-cultural and universal. I think it's all nonsense,
>but if it isn't, real proof is needed.
>
>> Also the use of discrete notes and scales (even
>>if the scales themselves are different).
>
>Not in drumming!
Well the notes in drumming are discrete, (even if they are not part of
a scale) and I would imagine that most cultures who use drumming also have
some type of melodic music as well - e.g. singing. The question, as you
correctly point out, is whether "most" should be replaced by "all".
Michael Laderman
On 14 May 1997 23:15:35 GMT, rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin
Rosenthal) wrote:
>On Wed, 14 May 1997 22:07:50 GMT, Michael Laderman <pi...@interport.net> wrote:
>>On 14 May 1997 19:36:42 GMT, rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin
>>Rosenthal) wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>>Repetitive rhythm, perhaps?
>>[snip]
>>
>>Perhaps, but you probably don't know because you probably haven't done
>>a complete global study of it.
>
>I admit I haven't :-). The most interesting parallel to employ here
>would be that of language. Now it is a feature of human society that
>every society that is known has language, and that language has certain
>common features. Does music also follow this pattern - I don't know,
>but it seems to be the case that all cultures have _something_ we can
>recognise as "music" so does this represent a universal feature of human
>society, or are we just shoehorning some totally alien aspect of some
>other culture into our word "music" in order to reflect our pre-conceived
>idea that music is universal.
[snip]
I think your parallel between a non-universal concept of different
musics and the concept of different languages is right on the mark.
Linguists have found certain basic elements common to all, or at least
virtually all languages, as I understand, but I have yet to read a
convincing enumeration of concepts common to all musics (though more
than one ethnomusicologist has grappled with the idea). Perhaps there
is such a list. Anyone know of one?
M.L.
Mike Coldewey
bruce thompson wrote:
>
> A composer who hopes to take his audience in tow on a musical journey
> through unfamiliar waters had better provide some reassurance along the
> way. Otherwise, the audience will cut the hawser and make for the home
> port.
>
> Nautically...
>
> --
> bruce
I think that the concept that hasn't been mentioned in this thread, but
is touched on by Bruce, is that of expectations. In my opinion, the way
much of the music we discuss on this NG works (and I won't be so bold as
to extrapolate this to all music, but it may well be true) is that it
sets up expectations in the listener. It does this through whatever
subset of the language and elements it uses, and then works to satisfy
or delay satisfaction of those expectations. This may be on a lot of
levels: it can occur within the relationship of two phrases, within a
sonata movement, or within a multi-movement work such as a symphony or a
sonata. This is why, for me anyway, the experience of listening to a
piece of music for the first time is so different than for the hundredth
time (the first time I heard the Prokoviev Toccata my hair stood up; now
it's kind of "been there, heard that"). In addition, the performance
itself can satisfy or frustrate expectations, which can account for a
lot of discussions like "no-Bach-on-piano", and "Brendel-is-dull", etc.
This doesn't just apply to art music of the 17th - 19th centuries; most
conventional rock and jazz does this as well. Movie music doesn't have
to do this because the expectations should have been set up by the
action in the movie, although there can be some sort of leitmotif action
going on if the composer wants to.
It seems that music listeners like this. I, personally, like to be able
to hear a Haydn symphony for the first time and appreciate it because of
intra- and extra-musical elements that I already know about (form,
perfor. Admittedly, that reflects a real "classical-music school"
orientation, but, hey, this is a "classical music" newsgroup.
What does this have to with the point of atonal music and a lot of other
things mentioned in this thread? Just that the features that govern
atonal (and I'll (possibly inappropriately) throw serial music in here
too) music principles seem to act in opposition to any ability of the
composer and the listener to set up any convention of expectations. By
avoiding using that emotional/psychological context of music described
above, a potential (and in my opinion, vital) area of communication
between the two has been eliminated. Now, this may be what is wanted by
the composer; if the desire is just to appreciate music abstractly as
sound, there well may be an intention to remove distractions such as
recognizable or repeated melodies, a sense of cadence, a sense of form,
or any such conventional and traditional musical elements. But is may be
at the root of the discussion of why some people don't get anything out
of atonal or serial music, because they want (because they have been led
to expect from prior musical listening experiences in the past) a clue
or set of clues from the composer as to what he or she is doing. Or, as
Bruce might say, they swim for shore and get back on the SS J.S.Bach.
Michael Laderman
On Thu, 15 May 1997 09:24:11 -0500, Mike Coldewey
<mcol...@asset-intertech.com> wrote:
[snip]
>What does this have to with the point of atonal music and a lot of other
>things mentioned in this thread? Just that the features that govern
>atonal (and I'll (possibly inappropriately) throw serial music in here
>too) music principles seem to act in opposition to any ability of the
>composer and the listener to set up any convention of expectations. By
>avoiding using that emotional/psychological context of music described
>above, a potential (and in my opinion, vital) area of communication
>between the two has been eliminated. Now, this may be what is wanted by
>the composer; if the desire is just to appreciate music abstractly as
>sound, there well may be an intention to remove distractions such as
>recognizable or repeated melodies, a sense of cadence, a sense of form,
>or any such conventional and traditional musical elements.
Later pedants may have used serialism to write "abstract" music, but
this has little if anything to do with the Expressionist music of
Schoenberg, Berg and Webern. In works like the operas "Wozzeck" and
"Lulu" by Berg, "Pierrot Lunaire" (which is not serial) the "5 Pieces
for Orchestra" (which may be non-serial, I forget), "Erwartung" and so
forth by Schoenberg, and various works by Webern, the 3 giants of
serial composition sought to express the dark, secret and violent
parts of the subconscious. They used sounds which were then - and are
still today in many cases - considered ugly in order to express
extreme emotion.
Now how you get from there to the idea of abstract music is
interesting, but it doesn't make it true. Even Webern's most seemingly
"abstract" music uses a type of harmony which was developed for the
setting of Expressionist texts, so it's not "value-neutral" - it
wasn't then, and it isn't now.
And if you think that atonal music lacks form, just what do you mean
by "form"? If "form" to you means "tonal form" exclusively, you've
made a meaningless statement: "atonal music lacks tonal form".
You have an absolute right to dislike all atonal music, but how you
can assert that all of it lacks form and - especially in dealing with
serialism - produces no expectations is hard for me to understand.
Why can't you just say: "I dislike atonal music and find that I can't
understand it"? That's what your argument seems to amount to, and
there's no shame in stating it that way.
Regards,
Michael Laderman
Chris Koenigsberg
I've changed the Subject line to "patterns" to defuse the
confrontational nature with which this thread actually began.
Jim McNamara has mentioned a few interesting phenomena, although he is
apparently ignorant of the surrounding context, at least it seems that
way from the literally "ignorant" tone of his remarks, ignoring
(either deliberately or through genuine innocence) a lot that has been
said and written about these subjects already. Ignorance can be easily
remedied though, by information :-) or, at least, suggestions and
pointers for finding more information.
"Brown noise sequences" AKA "Brownian melodies", for example
(sometimes referred to by the more accurate term "1/f noise" where
there is a correlation between the size of the most recent melodic
interval, and the possible size of the interval to the next note
produced), have been used in lots of music, studied by
experimentalists, theoreticians, and scholars, and written extensively
about, in refereed journals, for a number of years by now.
I recall reading an article about 1/f melodies in one of the early
issues of the Computer Music Journal during the 1970's; probably it is
still available now, as reprinted in one of Curtis Road's several
books compiled from those early CMJ issues.
The thrust of the article, if I recall correctly, was that experiments
with listener's reactions to the output of a number of different sorts
of automated melody-generating algorithms (beginning with Markov
chains of length 1) seemed to show that listeners liked the 1/f
sequences the best, just as Jim McNamara's friend did.
It was around the same time that another famous article appeared, "A
Panoply of Stochastic Cannons", discussing various kinds of
pseudo-random number generation algorithms (the term "stochastic
cannon" was coined by Iannis Xenakis, in the 1950's, in his book
"Musique Formelles", which is available in English as "Formalized
Music" from Pendragon Press).
Another interesting thing which Jim McNamara brings up, but which I
will take into a totally different context, is the notion of "novelty"
and "surprise", of "establishment of expectation" vs "violation" of
those previously established expectations.
Your "brown noise sequences" are one tool in a composer's palette,
along with many others, including the use of establishing expectations
and then fulfilling them e.g. in a diatonic/grammatical (cf Lerdahl &
Jackendoff), or even Schenkerian sense.
In the 1950's, after the initial round of "Pointillism", composers
like Boulez and Stockhausen were beginning to realize that if they
tried as hard as they could to avoid establishing any kind of
expectation at all, in their carefully pre-planned integral serialism,
the result was often indistinguishable from music that John Cage
produced through "chance" operations as in his work "Music of Changes"
which David Tudor performed for them over at the Darmstadt festival in
the late 50's. This was a very powerful realization, at the time, and
should always be kept in mind by composers.
Many words have been written about all this. One thing I'd like to
finally point out is that hearing something for the first time is
very, very different than hearing something which you are growing
familiar with.
Jim McNamara might try, sometime, getting familiar with one of those
"atonal" pieces he seems to hate so much, where his brain can't
"recognize any patterns". After a few repeated listens, he might be
amazed to find that he IS starting to "recognize the patterns", and he
might even start to LIKE the piece... it happens!!
Chris Koenigsberg, c...@ckk.com, <http://www.ckk.com>
Chris Koenigsberg
I've changed the Subject line to "why patterns" to defuse the
confrontational nature with which this thread actually began. (and
also to make a pun on the piece by Morton Feldman)
Len Fehskens
On Wed, 14 May 1997 20:41:20 -0700, Mark Starr at st...@inow.com wrote
Which may be easier to locate by its subtitle, "Mozart's Last Year".
len.
Michael Laderman
On Thu, 15 May 1997 18:35:53 GMT, c...@ckk.com (Chris Koenigsberg)
wrote:
[snip]
>The thrust of the article, if I recall correctly, was that experiments
>with listener's reactions to the output of a number of different sorts
>of automated melody-generating algorithms (beginning with Markov
>chains of length 1) seemed to show that listeners liked the 1/f
>sequences the best, just as Jim McNamara's friend did.
[snip]
This was a nice post, but I snipped this part because I'm skeptical
about the usefulness of this experiment. Where did they get their
sample of listeners from? Surely they didn't do this experiment in all
continents and have people from cities, villages and nomads in the
deserts and jungles listen, did they? If the experiment wasn't
rigorously cross-cultural, the results have no demonstrable
application beyond the sampled population group(s).
M.L.
Phil Cope
jim mcnamara wrote:
>
> Let's try to make a discussion about music by invoking
> some points of view more to the outside of music & music
> theory. Me? - not a musician - more a mathematician.
>
> Start with some assumptions -
> 1. Let's assume that human brains are wired by DNA to
> perceive some sound sequences as music, others not.
> If this is an offensive assumption look at this site:
>
> http://www.webster.sk.ca/greenwich/fl-compl.htm
Er, this site deals with a Neanderthal, from whom, if
the latest theories of human evolution are correct,
modern man did NOT evolve (I believe :-) ).
But this also represents an attempt to draw a false
conclusion, i.e. that just because humans did things
in the past they must somehow be inate. According to this
we should all go and live in caves because that where we
started out millions of years ago, right.
> 2. Humans tend to find whatever they grew up with as
> more agreeable, music included.
Yeah, I remember sex when I was 2 years old too :-).
[snip]
>
> Atonal music came about at the same the other fine arts were
> "breaking all the rules"; it was a venue to pursue from at
> least a philosphical point - go where no one has gone before.
> A kind of Dada-music, I guess. An arbitrary change of rules.
>
Er, I've news for you, composers have been "breaking rules" since
the 16th century at least.
> Most people agree that atonal music has not gotten universal
> acceptance.
Most people agree that classical music has not gotten universal
acceptance, in fact _no_ music is probably universally accepted
>
> My point of view- it never will. Why?
>
> It breaks some rules that violate basic programming in
> human brains. Generally, most humans have to "learn" to like it.
> (There have to be some folks who like it inherently. )
Hmm, how do you know that the ordinary diatonic scales are
not learnt by us (and Neanderthals) in infancy ?
[big snip]
In summary, I would agree that atonal music requires familiarity
to be appreciated, I think that you argument for some intrinsic
superiority in the tonal scales is wowfully inadequate. The idea
of a universally accepted type of music is laughable.
Phil Cope
--
All opinions expressed in this message are purely personal and do not
reflect the opinions or policies of Smallworldwide
Michael Subotin
I Hate Spam wrote:
>
> In <337908...@shalt.not.spam> Michael Subotin <th...@shalt.not.spam> writes:
>
> >I Hate Spam wrote:
>
> >: Throughout this thread I've been essentially maintaining 2 things:
> >: 1. Atonal and serial (and more 'avant-garde') classical music is
> >: unpopular (with classical music audiences) and
> >: 2. This is due to several factors, but is at least partly an inherent
> >: problem of the music. That is, all of the blame cannot be placed
> >: entirely on conductors, audiences, or performers.
>
>
> Blame is not a wholly innapropriate word to use here, as Shoenberg
> himself tended to heap it upon conductors & critics...
I believe Schoenberg had things to blame them for...
> However,
> to be more accurate and less inflammitory, I should say that I am
> observing a phenomenon that poses an interesting puzzle, and am
> trying to find an explanation for it. So, I should rephrase point
> #2 as:
>
> 2. This cannot be explained _exclusively_ by extra-musical factors.
> That is, atonality/serialism has inherent qualities which make it
> problematic for the average classical music listener.
Now, with *this* wording it's hard to imagine why someone would want to
contest it.
> Anyway, are you saying here that you agree with my assertion
> #1, that atonality is unpopular with classical music audiences?
I'm taking your word for it, since I don't have much contact with
the concert-going public at large. I know that of the few people
with a genuine interest in classical music whom I've met personally
none appeared to have a problem with it. The even-fewer conversations
I've had with folks who were interested in classical music only
on a casual "dinner classics" level indicated that atonality doesn't
go well with dinner. I *could* make these data the basis for a
sweeping generalization, but I won't because I know better. ;-)
> >: Ok, well, what does this indicate, exactly? It doesn't seem to suggest
> >: that atonality is becoming accepted in any general sense.
>
> >I don't think anyone said that it was. Elements of it, however, are
> >being effectively used in jazz, rock, and even rap without the
> >controversy and recurrent debates that seem to follow it in
> >the world of classical music.
>
> Hm... Now I listen to a lot a rap, and I've never heard anything atonal.
> A-melodic, perhaps, but the bass line insures a certain modality at
> the very least.
At the moment I can think of only one example: "Grave Digga" by Lords
of the Underground. IIRC, the bass line alternates between two
pitches a semitone apart. Neither of them has an obvious tonal
relationship with the upper layers of the sample. Nor do the upper
layers follow the transition from one tone to the other. In addition,
the sample is partially microtonal. I think to call it modal would be
a big stretch. I'm not as well versed in rap as you are, and I won't be
able to recall any names, but the sound of this number seems to
be rather common in rap, and I think Lords of the Underground had
a fair deal of MTV airplay.
> By 'lack of controversy', that's an interesting
> idea. Could it be that being controversial is actually a goal amongst
> some pop musicians, or that oddness is sought out by the recording
> industry as a selling feature?
I believe using atonal samples is among the *least* effective ways for
a rap artist to cause controversy. But, that's the point. Atonality
is not controversial outside the classical world. It is being used
quietly and effectively and the kids are lovin' it. :-)
> In any case, this extends somewhat
> beyond my thesis. I'm willing to contend (if you force me) that
> atonality has not made significant inroads into popular culture,
> but I'm primarily interested in the realm of classical music.
It would be pointless to argue over the "significance" of these inroads,
but I hear a constant influx of microtonality, polytonality, and
tonal ambiguity in popular music. There's much more of it than
10 years ago.
> >By context-based conditioning I mean that when someone is exposed to
> >enough slasher scenes accompanied by atonal music, if this is the primary
> >context where they encounter such music, any music with a vaguely
> >similar surface will produce slasher scene associations.
> >
>
> Ok, I see what your saying. ;-) I wasn't really arguing that atonality
> evokes slasher imagery, merely hinting (via guilt by association) towards
> the point regarding the emotional language of atonality. In any case, your
> argument puts the cart before the horse to some extent.
> Why did film producers have chosen such music in the first place? If
> such a conditioning response is a valid phenomenon, we should be able
> to use, say, 'Afternoon of a Faun' for those slasher scenes. Somehow
> I find such an idea unconvincing.
Obviously, the music in horror movies was chosen due to its
effecitivness. My point was that the conditioned response is in effect
when people encounter music that should *not* be effective in that
role but associate it with horror movies. As for the phenomenon
itself, why else do some people think of helicopters when they hear
"Ride of the Valkyries" or are reminded of dinosaurs by Sacre?
> >: I think we can always find a 20th century
> >: work that specifically violates any generalization one would wish to
> >: make. Does that make all generalizations invalid?
>
> >Not, not at all. However, this particular *type* of generalization
> >would require just one counterexample to refute it.
>
> Well, as a counterexample to this particular point, please provide
> a (non ironic) love scene in a movie accompianied by something atonal.
Unfortunately, I don't know movie music well at all. I see no reason
why it shouldn't be. Can someone help me here? Takemitsu?
I believe that some of the music accompanying certain "encounter"
scenes in sci fi, the kind used to express amazement without fear,
may be atonal. In any case, why do you insist on examples from
soundtracks?
> >I never disagreed that some of this music can be used to express
> >these emotions. Emotional states reminiscent of angst are indeed
> >an important aspect of 20th century music (likewise, literature
> >and visual arts). However, from this observation you seemed to
> >extrapolate that these are the only emotional states atonal/serial
> >music is capable of expressing. *Most* such music I've heard, to my
> >ears, has nothing to do with expression of horror, fear, or creepiness.
>
> I wouldn't say that the *only* emotions available to a serialism
> are the negative ones, only that such music seems particularly effective
> at expressing such emotions, so much so that the film industry has adopted
> this sort of music for such purposes.
Sure, some atonal music is effective for that purpose. Can you make
any conclusions about atonality as a whole based on this fact?
I want to say again that movie music is designed to work as
a background, as it is, uh, hoped that the action on the screen
would be what attracts viewer's attention. In background listening,
only the surface - sonoristic and gestural qualitites - are percieved
by the listener. These qualities are not dependent on whether the
music is pitch-centric or not! Astringent tonal music would suit
slasher imagery far better and love scenes far worse than suave atonal
music.
> Your last statement is again
> a subjective response which is probably not shared by everyone.
Well, music is a subjective affair. I would rather invest in responses
that are at risk of not being shared by everyone than those certain
to not be shared by me. ;-)
> >On the contrary! I was responding to your statement that in modern
> >works macrostucure is not audible. My point was that, *in general*,
> >in modern music microstructure is more important than macrostucture
> >(although it is present in every work, and is conspicuous in many),
> >while in traditional music the relationship is generally reversed,
> >which is one of the problems listeners accustomed to older music
> >experience with regard to newer pieces.
>
> I guess my problem here is that it is very unclear to me exactly
> what problems listeners encounter when they hear certain works, since
> I can't look into people's minds. Nor am I entirely sure what you
> mean by micro and macro structures. Is 'macro-structure' the form,
> as in Sonata-Allegro, Rondo, Binary, ternary, etc...?
Yes, all of these. Plus, the way musical phrases combine to form
"paragraphs", the dramatic plot of the piece (e.g., preparation of
climaxes), the ballance between sections of a movement and ballance
of movements with respect to each other, thematic development, etc.
> What is
> micro-structure? I assume you mean foreground level of detail here,
> but does that inlude theme, phrase, motive?
Theme and motive are concepts that presuppose macrostuctural view.
The best definition I can come up with is that of microstructure
as the relationship between consecutive or simultaneous musical events
and macrostucture as the relationship between musical events remote in
time.
> This idea seems to point between a non-linear increase in complexity when
> moving from tonality to atonality, however. In other words, if we accept
> this as a premise, if there was a sort of smooth gradient from tonality to
> atonality, one should be able to imagine a certain amount of atonality
> creeping into the classical music mainstream, and that this change should
> occur at a near linear rate. As I've argued in point #1, this does not
> appear to be the case. However, if we agree that atonality creates a leap
> in complexity and information content, then your argument can still hold,
> as can my points #1 and #2.
This argument is very hard to follow as you seem to use words somewhat
uncarefully. If tonality and atonality are discreet states, there
can be no "non-linear functions" to speak of. I have no idea what you
mean by "gradient", a concept which seems to be inapplicable here,
and am completely perplexed by the statement about "linear rate".
As for "leap in complexity", my main objection was and still is that
the idea of "total complexity" encompasses too many factors to be
applied to music constructively. Information theory will not work
here because we are talking about perceived and not actual information
content. (For instance, I could bet that many numbers by Billie Holiday
and B.B.King or rap songs, when transcribed accurately, will look on
paper like a "new complexity" piece, with nested rhythms and all.)
Finally, I do not disagree that much 20th century music is problematic
for a listener familiar mainly with traditional classical music, and
I've offered several guesses as to why it is so. We'll have to
agree to disagree on the improtance of pitch-centricity in that
regard since both our arguments are ultimately based on subjective
perception. I believe that there are several independent trends
in 20th century concert music which create more significant
problems for the "average" classical music listener in terms of
comprehension and enjoyment of such music.
Michael
--
Email: mvs...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
BHeneg8560
>You know, in one way or another, a large part of humanity's lasting
>artistic achievements beyond the very unsophisticated level of ephemeral
>folk art or popular manifestations of artistic exprssion may be said to
>have been government-subsidized if for "government" we substitute what
>has been the equivalent in previous centuries, i.e. the monarch, prince,
>chief priest or whoever else is running society.
>
>All the great cathedrals that are the glory of Europe were built on
>money collected, even extorted, from the general population by the
>church and state and then rechannelled into something that has been
>appreciated over hundreds of years.
>
>Opera is unthinkable without the patronage of, originally, the
>aristocracy - a hereditary form of government.
>
(whatever you call him/it) would usually decide how to spend the money
without worrying about what anyone else might think - that's not quite the
same as today's western governments administering public money
supposedly for the public's good, following advice from "experts" (whose
status usually derives from other "experts", and so on back to the Ark).
best wishes
Ben Heneghan
Jonathan L. Ellis
>Actually, as a favorite author of mine quipped, Canada is part of Europe.
It was once said that Canada could have had English government, American
know-how and French culture. Instead it ended up with French government,
English know-how and American culture....
Jonathan L. Ellis
In article <cluster.5...@mcc.ac.uk> clu...@mcc.ac.uk (Jonathan L. Ellis) writes:
>From: clu...@mcc.ac.uk (Jonathan L. Ellis)
>Subject: Re: Death of Classical Music, etc.
>Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 16:51:51 GMT
I would like to point out that in no way is the opinion expressed above
actually my own: it was just a pithy quote.
Jonathan Ellis.
Don Drewecki
Apropos my statements about defense spending, governmental priorities
and the future of classical music:
If you subtract Social Security from the GNP -- which most Republicrats
love to factor in -- what you find is that defense spending is the
largest single governmental spending program around. Social Security is
NOT an entitlement; it is an income-transferring trust fund. So,
subtract the $400 billion the U. S. government takes in, and the $440
billion it pays out, and you have an SSI deficit of roughly $40 billion.
Remember, subtract $800 billion of the Social Security program, OK?
What do we have left? A $40 billion shortfall, which I will call
government spending. Factor $40 billion into the GNP, not $800 billion.
That's right, just $40 billion -- which, as it turns out, is about what
we spend on the two main programs that consitutute welfare, Food Stamps
and AFDC. $40 billion is roughly one-sixth of what we spend on the
Pentagon, at $260 billion/year. Not counting NASA, at $20 billion, and
the CIA and DIA, at roughly $8 billion. So, the Cold War faction gets a
cool $288 billion per year. The NEA gets one ten-thousandth of that???
Seymour Melman once pointed out that enlarging "killing power" does not
necessarily increase our national secuity. You can kill a person only
once. Melman and others have also pointed out that the U. S. can be
adequately defended for a Pentagon budget of roughly $135 billion/year.
America no longer has the money for both guns and butter. The
Republicrats who own and run the U. S. have decided on guns, and let
everything else to go hell. I don't agree, and neither do millions of
other Americans. When I said that $1 billion would fully subsidize the
top 20 orchestras in this country, I meant no implication that the
smaller orchestras were unworthy of such subsidies. Thus, if we went
from $1 billion to $2 billion, we'd probably find that we could enable
the top 50 orchestras in the U. S. to give free concerts year-round.
That would be a major step forward in cultivating a musical audience.
I maintain that the performing arts -- like education, roads and housing
-- all contribute to national security. And, spending tax dollars in
these ways is far more efficient than military spending, because DOD
contractors don't operate under the same cost-reduction imperatives of
the so-called free market. And if we had our taxes channeled away from
the DOD and into "life-affirming" things like music and education, we'd
be a lot better off. Look at the rich: They've lived off the
government gravy train for years, and aren't ready to give up their
lavish lifestyles for the sake of the country. Talk about addiction!
Isn't greed an addiction too? Isn't greed a Biblical sin?
As for my mention that Beecham conducted a WPA orchestra, my main
point is that during the Roosevelt years, we actually had government
spending to put unemployed musicians to work. We should have the same
thing today.
I will frame the choice "da capo", with feeling:
You can have bombers, guidance systems, warheads, satellite espionage,
and other high-tech toys (none of which have any free-market value, by
the way). Or, you can have schools, medical care, symphony
orchestras, museums, and affordable housing. That's the choice. We can
either wake up and face it, or let other nations make our music and
music-lovers for us, while we restrict our discussions to questions of
serialism versus accessibility. Sorry, but I don't accept the
notion that because Arnold Schoenberg created serialism means we must
automatically transfer our tax dollars to Lockheed-Martin.
"You can't have everything." That's right, you can't. Just try telling
that to the people who own and run the United States.
Don Drewecki
<dre...@rpi.edu>
Roger L. Lustig
Timothy Kelly wrote:
>
> Hi All,
> Classical Music was and is one of the most popular musics
> worldwide.
It accounts for maybe 3% of worldwide recording sales.
> May really be one of the few music style ones finds everywhere.
Rather less so than rock and roll. Your point?
For that matter, what music do you include in the "classical
music style"? Renaissance Masses? Almost-atonal music from
around 90 years ago?
> People perform and listen to classical music everywhere.
How many people? In most places, the vast majority do no such thing.
> Atonal music was and is the least popular worldwide.
Bosh. Utter and complete bosh.
For one thing, "Atonal music" covers a lot of ground.
For another, many atonal pieces are considered to be part of
"classical." That's certainly the shelf they're filed on.
> Easily the only style disliked everywhere.
More nonsense. I bet you can't find me a place where there
aren't a lot of people who hate "classical music," rock,
jazz, or any other type of music.
> And atonal music has throughout recorded
> history always been disliked by the masses.
Recorded history? Interesting. For about 98% of
recorded history, there *was* no "atonal music."
For most of that time, there wasn't any classical music
either.
Tell me, do you have any reason for saying the things you do?
Or do you just make them up?
> So this thread should really be called the Death of Atonal Music,
> which died centuries ago.
I see. What atonal music was there centuries ago? Name a piece.
> There has never been a style of music as unpopular as atonal music.
It's not a style. Get a clue.
> There never will be.
Ah, you're clairvoyant, too. Tell me about next Friday's Dow.
Roger Lustig