Music is Life
MaestroDJS
sent me e-mail with some interesting questions. Permit me to quote
approximately [with my English translations]. Below are some of my responses.
Then again, I may not know what I'm talking about. Sage whiz-dumb at its
finest. Any comments?
Dave Stybr, Chicago, Illinois, USA
Question: ¿Porque tantos "compositores" hoy día -- que evidentemente conocen
todo sobre la técnica de componer -- carecen de la habilidad de crear melodías?
Preocupo mucho la posibilidad de que la segunda mitad del siglo XX sea
recordada como el período mas árido y triste de la historía de la música de
concierto. [Why do so many "composers" today -- who evidently know everything
about the technique of composing -- lack the ability to create melodies? I
worry greatly about the possibility that the second half of the 20th Center
would be considered as the saddest and most arid period in the history of
concert music.]
Answer: The reason so much music of today seems lifeless and arid is because it
_is_ lifeless and arid. This is not a comment about modern music in general.
It has simply always been the case. Most of all the music ever written is
mediocre or worse. It's simply that in the case of older music, the tests of
time have sifted the masterpieces from the chaff for us. For every Bach or
Händel, for every Haydn or Mozart, most of their contemporaries are now
forgotten, and often with good reason. Moreover, one need not look far to find
great masterpieces of the past which were roundly condemned at the time, and
trifles which were highly praised. In the case of late 20th Century music,
historical perspective is lacking, so the mediocre works are still with us.
Whenever I hear someone complain about how terrible 20th Century music is, I
point out composers such as Samuel Barber, George Gershwin, Erich Wolfgang
Korngold, Francis Poulenc, Sergei Rachmaninoff, Maurice Ravel, Ottorino
Respighi, Joaquín Rodrigo, Dmitri Shostakovich, Jean Sibelius, Ralph Vaughan
Williams etc. etc. etc. These were definitely 20th-Century composers, yet their
music is just as melodious and beloved as many earlier composers. True, these
are exceptions, but masterpieces have _always_ been the exception.
Question: ¿Porque pagar por lo menos $50 para oír una sinfonía de Brahms o
Sibelius en conciertos, cuando por el mismo precio, e incluso mucho menos, uno
puede comprar una colección completa de las obras sinfónicas de JB y de JS en
cinta o disco de computadora? [Why pay at least $50 to hear a symphony of
Brahms or Sibelius in concerts, when for the same price, and even much less,
one can buy a complete collection of the symphonic works of JB and JS on
cassette or CD?]
Answer: Recordings may be more attractive than concerts because they are more
cost- and time-effective and because of the great diversity of recorded music
available. Drawbacks include distractions, poor reproduction, static
performances, etc. Many times I have been disappointed with pieces of music in
certain recordings, only to discover later via different recordings just what
masterpieces they were. Best of all, recordings can summon the dead. The
fact that we can hear composers such as Igor Stravinsky perform their own music
is little short of miraculous.
Sir Edward Elgar may have best expressed the advantages of recordings. During
a speech at a reception in November 1927, Elgar illustrated his belief in the
importance of recordings. "Fifty and more years ago the greatest thing in my
strenuous life was to hear orchestral music. I lived 120 miles from London.
To hear a novelty at the Crystal Palace, then the real home of orchestral music
in England, many times have I left home at 6.30, arrived at Paddington about
11, travelled by underground to Victoria, thence to the Crystal Palace; where,
if the train was not late I might hear a few minutes of the rehearsal. Concert
at 3, then a reversal of the journey already described, ending at midnight; and
after all these exertions and privations -- (lunch and dinner were generally
omitted) -- I had heard my symphony once only, -- only once. The luckier
student of today can hear the finest orchestra perform the work of his choice
as often as he pleases. Complicated passages, a single bar if desired, -- can
be repeated until the innermost secrets of the score are analysed and, it may
be, assimilated. For now we have the tone of the orchestra perfectly
reproduced."
As with almost everything in life, concerts and recordings involve compromises.
Nothing can compare to a live concert as a musical experience: the ambience,
the acoustics, the electricity of the performance, etc. Live performances
breathe life into the music because they are never identical. Drawbacks
include expensive tickets, transport, parking, possibly a meal, time required,
limited repertoire, etc. However, concerts remain the most complete musical
experiences. Probably the only better musical experience is to be one of the
performers.
Although I spend far more money on recordings, concerts remain a vital part of
my musical experiences. They truly complement each other.
evan johnson
>Whenever I hear someone complain about how terrible 20th Century music is, I
>point out composers such as Samuel Barber, George Gershwin, Erich Wolfgang
>Korngold, Francis Poulenc, Sergei Rachmaninoff, Maurice Ravel, Ottorino
>Respighi, Joaquín Rodrigo, Dmitri Shostakovich, Jean Sibelius, Ralph Vaughan
>Williams etc. etc. etc. These were definitely 20th-Century composers, yet their
>music is just as melodious and beloved as many earlier composers. True, these
>are exceptions, but masterpieces have _always_ been the exception.
As long as you realize that your implied equation of romantic-style
melody with masterpiecery and vice versa is a flimsy one at best.
Evan
ATETHIS
>about the technique of composing -- lack the ability to create melodies?
This is quite simple to answer. Once a composer has established "his style"
and "his originality" those trying to repeat it are just labeled as copy cats.
I remember listening to a piece by Alfred Schnittke, a composer I generally
don't like, and heard a piece called "In The Olden Style." It was like a
creation from Bach!!! But Schnittke couldn't make his reputation on this
piece.
The truth is that most of the geniuses today can write a Bach-like or
Beethoven-like work, but since it has been done already there is no challenge
and they soon will be forgotten. Except for that backwards looking Brahms
guy!
Fred
Most People Aren't Famous
David Perkins
asked Puccini to take a look at a new piece he had written and to comment on it.
When he returned to get Puccini's response, he was reported to have said, "Very
interesting, but if you should ever run across anything that looks like a melody,
be sure to write it down."
David
MaestroDJS wrote:
> These discussions sure are interesting. Yesterday a penfriend from Puerto Rico
> sent me e-mail with some interesting questions. Permit me to quote
> approximately [with my English translations]. Below are some of my responses.
> Then again, I may not know what I'm talking about. Sage whiz-dumb at its
> finest. Any comments?
>
> Dave Stybr, Chicago, Illinois, USA
>
> Question: ¿Porque tantos "compositores" hoy día -- que evidentemente conocen
> todo sobre la técnica de componer -- carecen de la habilidad de crear melodías?
> Preocupo mucho la posibilidad de que la segunda mitad del siglo XX sea
> recordada como el período mas árido y triste de la historía de la música de
> concierto. [Why do so many "composers" today -- who evidently know everything
> about the technique of composing -- lack the ability to create melodies? I
> worry greatly about the possibility that the second half of the 20th Center
> would be considered as the saddest and most arid period in the history of
> concert music.]
--
David M. Perkins
Assistant Director, University of Illinois Press
Director of Marketing
e-mail: dper...@uillinois.edu
UIP Website: http://www.press.uillinois.edu
Ethel Jean Saltz
>The truth is that most of the geniuses today can write a Bach-like or
>Beethoven-like work, but since it has been done already there is no challenge
>and they soon will be forgotten. Except for that backwards looking Brahms
>guy!
=====================
That's my impression of true 20th century music. I thought to be 20th
century is to be atonal. I think impressionism is the last for of the
Romantic Era and is still tonal. And the whole reason is exactly
wanting to experiment with new sounds and rid oneself of all rules as
the only way to be unique.
Be-ahavah oo-ve-shalom, Queen Jean of Creekbend
Mac-Niet-Spin-Gal, 390 A.G. (after Galileo/1609)
Worlds Greatest Jewish Thinker - Spinoza-ETHICS
World's Greatest Songs - Psalms in Hebrew
World's Greatest Literature - TaNaK/Old Testament
mailto: nie...@airmail.net
Allen Watson
MaestroDJS wrote:
>
> Question: ¿Porque tantos "compositores" hoy día -- que evidentemente conocen
> todo sobre la técnica de componer -- carecen de la habilidad de crear melodías?
> Preocupo mucho la posibilidad de que la segunda mitad del siglo XX sea
> recordada como el período mas árido y triste de la historía de la música de
> concierto. [Why do so many "composers" today -- who evidently know everything
> about the technique of composing -- lack the ability to create melodies? I
> worry greatly about the possibility that the second half of the 20th Center
> would be considered as the saddest and most arid period in the history of
> concert music.]
>
Your friend in Puerto Rico may be able to find a CD of highlights from a
recent opera by the Spanish composer Jose Maria Cano. The critics don't
like it because it's too old-fashioned, but it does have tunes.
Unfortunately, the CD has not been released in the US.
Cano, Jose Maria: Luna; Domingo, Arteta, Fleming, et al.
Cheers!
- Allen
jerry and judy
>about the technique of composing -- lack the ability to create melodies?
It's not that. Obviously, it's because melodies are crushingly boring to
composers.
Jerry
Dr.Matt
Ethel Jean Saltz <nie...@airmail.net> wrote:
>On 09 Nov 1999 04:22:29 GMT, ate...@aol.com (ATETHIS) wrote:
>
>>The truth is that most of the geniuses today can write a Bach-like or
>>Beethoven-like work, but since it has been done already there is no challenge
>>and they soon will be forgotten. Except for that backwards looking Brahms
>>guy!
>=====================
>That's my impression of true 20th century music. I thought to be 20th
>century is to be atonal. I think impressionism is the last for of the
>Romantic Era and is still tonal. And the whole reason is exactly
>wanting to experiment with new sounds and rid oneself of all rules as
>the only way to be unique.
>
Interesting perspective. I think if we compare modern authors with Chaucer
and conclude that modern authors have rid themselves of the rules of English
in order to be unique, we may have reached an analogous position.
--
My CD "Kabala": http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/cd.html
Matt Fields, DMA http://listen.to/mattaj TwelveToneToyBox http://start.at/tttb
"The syntax of the Now statement is Now." --Microsoft 'enlightenment'
For spammers: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/uce.htm
jerry and judy
fie...@seawolf.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote:
Except- that you can't compare everyday language usage (English) with the
'code' of music, which is much more -integral- with the human animal, AND
has changed generally as a result of the increasing cultural need for more
and more applicable, appropriate and 'needed' artistic ambiguity. It's
apples and oranges!
Jerry
Rbgirl3121
>melody with masterpiecery and vice versa is a flimsy one at best.
Umm... are you insinuating that this applies to Ravel too??? Umm, I don't think
so!
I kind of agree in some cases (eg Sibelius, Vaughan Willams) but definitely not
Shostakovich, Rachmaninoff, Poulenc or Ravel.
Several of my favourite composers. Wonderful, timeless music. I was discussing
Rachmaninoff with a friend and we decided that Rachmaninoff did not move
forward or create any new "breakthroughs" in music but instead refined all that
was wonderful about the nineteenth century and summed it all up.
And Ravel is simply a god... there is nothing else to say about that!
Dr.Matt
of the 19th century. Nu?
Dr.Matt
jerry and judy <jerb...@zianet.com> wrote:
>In article <IeWX3.722$zl1.1...@news.itd.umich.edu>,
>fie...@seawolf.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote:
>
>> In article
><2C55A2694839BA11.0F3410B3...@lp.airnews.net>,
>> Ethel Jean Saltz <nie...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> >On 09 Nov 1999 04:22:29 GMT, ate...@aol.com (ATETHIS) wrote:
>> >
>> >>The truth is that most of the geniuses today can write a Bach-like or
>> >>Beethoven-like work, but since it has been done already there is no
>challenge
>> >>and they soon will be forgotten. Except for that backwards looking Brahms
>> >>guy!
>> >=====================
>> >That's my impression of true 20th century music. I thought to be 20th
>> >century is to be atonal. I think impressionism is the last for of the
>> >Romantic Era and is still tonal. And the whole reason is exactly
>> >wanting to experiment with new sounds and rid oneself of all rules as
>> >the only way to be unique.
>> >
>>
>> Interesting perspective. I think if we compare modern authors with Chaucer
>> and conclude that modern authors have rid themselves of the rules of English
>> in order to be unique, we may have reached an analogous position.
>> My CD "Kabala": http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/cd.html
>> Matt Fields, DMA http://listen.to/mattaj TwelveToneToyBox
>http://start.at/tttb
>> "The syntax of the Now statement is Now." --Microsoft 'enlightenment'
>> For spammers: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/uce.htm
>
>
>'code' of music, which is much more -integral- with the human animal, AND
What do you mean by "more integral with the human animal"?
I don't understand.
>has changed generally as a result of the increasing cultural need for more
>and more applicable, appropriate and 'needed' artistic ambiguity. It's
When I write "atonal" music, it's not usually for ambiguity. When Debussy
wrote it, perhaps it was--I'm not really sure.
Anyhow, I just went ahead and compared the two. Too late!
>apples and oranges!
And you cannot compare any aspect of apples and oranges?
One has more pectin per unit mass. One has more vitamin C per unit mass.
evan johnson
>>As long as you realize that your implied equation of romantic-style
>>melody with masterpiecery and vice versa is a flimsy one at best.
>
>Umm... are you insinuating that this applies to Ravel too??? Umm, I don't think
>so!
We all know how you feel about Ravel. But I'm not sure what you think
I am insinuating. All I implied is that there is no correlation any
more between romantic-style melody and whatever I meant by
"masterpiecery." Ravel wrote some quite gorgeous music, masterpieces,
but his melody is not often the most attractive part of his music.
Evan
jerry and judy
fie...@stargate.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote:
Music is a much more natural and integral means of expression than any
spoken language -with its centuries of arcane (and duly forgotten)
references.
> >has changed generally as a result of the increasing cultural need for more
> >and more applicable, appropriate and 'needed' artistic ambiguity. It's
>
> When I write "atonal" music, it's not usually for ambiguity. When Debussy
> wrote it, perhaps it was--I'm not really sure.
> Anyhow, I just went ahead and compared the two. Too late!
Ambiguity in music didn't first appear with atonality or even
Impressionism. It's been a necessary ingredient since the very first
clever usage of fifths and fourths.
> >apples and oranges!
>
> And you cannot compare any aspect of apples and oranges?
>
> One has more pectin per unit mass. One has more vitamin C per unit mass.
> Nu?
But apples and oranges were once priced very differently, hence the common
sense reference.
Shame on you for trying to confuse me,
I (think) I know what I (think) I know,
Jerry
Dr.Matt
You mean music isn't full of centuries of arcane and duly forgotten
references? Why a raised leading tone in minor, for instance? (well,
because of major 6ths expanding to octaves in organum, and in turn because
of melodic formulas in chant)....
Dr.Matt
>> >
>> >Except- that you can't compare everyday language usage (English) with the
>> >'code' of music, which is much more -integral- with the human animal, AND
>>
>> What do you mean by "more integral with the human animal"?
>> I don't understand.
>
>Music is a much more natural and integral means of expression than any
>spoken language -with its centuries of arcane (and duly forgotten)
>references.
Oh, you mean like all the chant motifs underlying the assumptions of tonality?