Contemporary Music, not "atonal music", is the problem
Christoph Nahr
Hello folks,
Having read the "Atonal Music" threads with great interest, I have to
admit that there are some things which appear somewhat weird to me.
(1) The word "atonal", as used in this thread, seems to refer to any
music written after 1900, perhaps including Hindemith, Janacek,
Stravinsky... Actually, many of those composer's works *were* tonal
but perhaps in a way that does not meet everyone's taste for music?
(2) The discussion seemed to concentrate on the proposed fact that
"atonal" music was not popular. However, I just attended a
performance of Berg's Wozzeck (definitely atonal!) at the Berlin
Staatsoper which was *sold out* days before the event, even though
they restaged an old production. Maybe the problem really lies with
an audience that will never get a taste for "atonal" or truly atonal
music unless it is regularly presented to them?
The problem I perceive is not with "atonal" music but with
contemporary music. People don't seem to care so much about whether a
work is tonal or atonal but whether its composer is dead or still
alive. In the latter case, the work has problems to get any
attention; or if it does, it will get ridiculed (and perhaps
deservedly so).
Hans-Werner Henze is probably the only truly acknowledged contemporary
German composer. Karl-Heinz Stockhausen's assorted weekdays of light
were presented by the press as examples of how ridiculous and
estranged from listeners contemporary music has become. Others are
practically unknown even to connoisseurs of art music (forced
translation of German "Kunstmusik", to avoid silly "classical music").
Isn't it a bit strange that a society doesn't have a number of living
composers of "art music" that are actually accepted by the public?
How is the situation in America or Britain? Do you feel that
contemporary composers should have a larger share of performances as
opposed to people who have been dead for one or two hundred years,
however worthy their music might be? Who is to blame, anyway -- the
composers or their audience?
PS: I think this discussion belongs here, not in
rec.music.classical.contemporary, since contemporary music as a whole
is in question.
--=20
Christoph Nahr, Berlin, Germany
chnahr.at.msn.com (replace .at. with @ to reply)
David Cleary
Christoph Nahr (nos...@nospam.com) wrote:
: Isn't it a bit strange that a society doesn't have a number of living
: composers of "art music" that are actually accepted by the public?
As I understand it, the circumstance under which living composers of art
music were accepted wholesale by the public is a fairly recent historic
phenonemon. From what I've read, this seems to be something which started
in earnest during the late Classical period and extended at least part-way
into the 20th century.
: How is the situation in America or Britain?
From my experience at least, it's not great. In fact it may be worse, at
least in the US.
: Do you feel that
: contemporary composers should have a larger share of performances as
: opposed to people who have been dead for one or two hundred years,
: however worthy their music might be?
Myself, I love classical music of all centuries. I'd prefer to see more
20th century music played in supplement to that of prior eras rather than
in place of it.
: Who is to blame, anyway -- the
: composers or their audience?
That's a difficult question to answer. In the US at least, there are a
number of possible culprits, including:
1. a lack of time and money by the general public to even attend a
concert, much less a new music oriented one. When you're living at
subsistence level and are inundated with family responsibilities, the arts
tend to get pushed off to the back burner, I'd guess.
2. a lack of consistent (or even any) publicity. Note that when some
PR muscle gets behind such groups as the Kronos Quartet, the level of
interest by the public seems to multiply. Examples abound in movies and
similar media.
3. a lack of education. In tougher financial times, the arts are often the
first things to get cut back or eliminated in the schools. My guess is
that the level of rudimentary music appreciation that was available in
prior decades has dwindled.
4. a lack of consistent quality. I compose concert music myself, and I'll
be the first to admit that there's some lousy recent stuff being performed
out there these days. But there's some great stuff too. With music from
prior centuries, the second-raters have been culled from the repertoire;
with our century, we're too close to the music of our time to make those
decisions yet. It thus becomes easy (IMHO too easy) for some people who
have gone to hear a piece of new music that wasn't good to make the
erroneous assumption that all new music sounds like the bad piece they
happened to hear--forgetting that the Stamitzes and Meyerbeers of previous
centuries have been culled out. If I went to a concert consisting of just
these two composers and I didn't think too carefully, I might perhaps be
prone to assume all Classical and Romantic Period music is lousy judging
from these two cases.
Flamers-to-be please note: the above is all very much IMHO. I submit it
humbly and hope it will be taken in the spirit of suggestion in which it
was offered. Discussion and thoughtful comments welcome. Flames and
similar stuff will be cheerfully ignored. Apologies to fans of Meyerbeer
and Stamitz--I just don't happen to like their music so I used them for my
example. :)
Dave
Larry Solomon
Christoph Nahr wrote:
> The discussion seemed to concentrate on the proposed fact that
> "atonal" music was not popular. However, I just attended a
> performance of Berg's Wozzeck (definitely atonal!) at the Berlin
> Staatsoper which was *sold out* days before the event, even though
> they restaged an old production. Maybe the problem really lies with
> an audience that will never get a taste for "atonal" or truly atonal
> music unless it is regularly presented to them?
I think that this is a primary cause for the lag in understanding this
music. Where and when do people even have an opportunity to give it a
chance? Even today the opportunities are slim, and there is a lack of
support from many musical organizations. It's sad when the people are
separated from their own music.
> The problem I perceive is not with "atonal" music but with
> contemporary music. People don't seem to care so much about whether a
> work is tonal or atonal but whether its composer is dead or still
> alive. In the latter case, the work has problems to get any
> attention; or if it does, it will get ridiculed (and perhaps
> deservedly so).
It seems that a composer must be dead to be appreciated -- better dead
than alive, right? There are probably more living, i.e., contemporary,
composers today than in any other period. Yet, a fairly common attitude
is that these composers are wrong or, as you said, are ridiculed. But,
do they "deserve" to be ridiculed? These are our contemporaries writing
the music of our time, music that is about our problems, thoughts, and
feelings. Has there ever been another period in the history of music to
compare with this? Has there ever been a period in which past works were
more performed than contemporary works?
There was recently (April) a stunning performance of Karel Husa's
*Apotheosis of the Earth*, in Houston, with the composer conducting. The
house was packed and the work received a long, standing ovation. Some
people were moved to tears. It is a work about the precious, beautiful
planet we live on, the environmemt and how we are ruining it. The first
movement portrays the Earth as a beautiful globe seen from the vastness
of space and then moves in closer. The second movement is a veritable
hell scene which reminded me of Hieronymous Bosch's paintings. It is one
of the most powerful pieces I ever had the privilege to experience. Yet,
it uses microtones, massive atonal clusters, and chaotic rhythms to
express the devastation. Would anything tonal have been as powerful or
as appropriate? It's hard for me to imagine. The last movement is a
prayer, a voice of hope.
> Isn't it a bit strange that a society doesn't have a number of living
> composers of "art music" that are actually accepted by the public?
> How is the situation in America or Britain? Do you feel that
> contemporary composers should have a larger share of performances as
> opposed to people who have been dead for one or two hundred years,
> however worthy their music might be? Who is to blame, anyway -- the
> composers or their audience?
It may be worse in America -- I think that it is from the reports. I
don't blame composers, but I'm unsure about how much audiences are to
blame. I believe that commercialization of the arts is at the root of
the problem. Education helps and it may be the the primary solution, but
it's not enough. Yes, I think that more contemporary works should be
performed. But, that means that supporting organizations would need to
take more of a leadership role in supporing the art rather than just
being concerned about the box office.
--
Best!
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Larry Solomon
The Center for the Arts http://www.AzStarNet.com/~solo
Tucson, AZ
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
BHeneg8560
In article <33A829...@AzStarNet.com>, Larry Solomon
<So...@AzStarNet.com> writes:
>Christoph Nahr wrote:
>> The discussion seemed to concentrate on the proposed fact that
>> "atonal" music was not popular. However, I just attended a
>> performance of Berg's Wozzeck (definitely atonal!) at the Berlin
>> Staatsoper which was *sold out* days before the event, even though
>> they restaged an old production. Maybe the problem really lies with
>> an audience that will never get a taste for "atonal" or truly atonal
>> music unless it is regularly presented to them?
>
>I think that this is a primary cause for the lag in understanding this
>music. Where and when do people even have an opportunity to give it a
>chance? Even today the opportunities are slim, and there is a lack of
>support from many musical organizations. It's sad when the people are
>separated from their own music.
Hang on - we're still talking about just "art" music, aren't we? I don't
see any
separation between "the people" and some of their other "own" music,
such as R'n'B, Rock, Dub, Death Metal, Broadway musicals, jazz standards,
and so
on and so on. I think we should keep things in context.
Incidentally, while "art music" is a convenient term for this sort of
music, it does unfortunately have the effect of implying that there's no
art involved in
other musics, which is both derogatory and inaccurate. Any alternative
suggestions?
(After all, other contentious areas are lexically policed, why not this
one?)
best wishes
Ben Heneghan
HalvardJ
: Do you feel that
: contemporary composers should have a larger share of performances as
: opposed to people who have been dead for one or two hundred years,
: however worthy their music might be?
Myself, I love classical music of all centuries. I'd prefer to see more
20th century music played in supplement to that of prior eras rather than
in place of it.
**********
There's a piece by Anthony Tommasini in today's New York Times (on-line
AOL version anyway) about contemporary music packing them in for both
the Los Angeles Philharmonic and the San Francisco Symphony. You
might want to check it out.
Hal
Halvard Johnson, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Larry Solomon
Ben wrote:
>Incidentally, while "art music" is a convenient term for this sort of
>music, it does unfortunately have the effect of implying that there's
>no art involved in other musics, which is both derogatory and
>inaccurate. Any alternative suggestions?
Good point. Classical music, to me, is 18th century. I also have a
problem with calling contemporary music "classical". How can it be
"classical" when it hasn't been time-tested? I don't have a problem with
"art music", although your concern about snobbery has been voiced by
others. The same concern has been raised about the term "serious music"
that was once used, and which seems inappropriate to me. "Concert music"
has been used, but what about Rock concerts? I don't have a solution,
but I do find myself using "complex music" as a category sometimes.
Larry Solomon
BTW, my statement did not exclude popular music. The complex music of
our time also belongs to the people of our time (it is this that I was
addressing, in case there was any doubt).
Dave Dalle
Larry Solomon (So...@AzStarNet.com) writes:
> of space and then moves in closer. The second movement is a veritable
> hell scene which reminded me of Hieronymous Bosch's paintings. It is one
> of the most powerful pieces I ever had the privilege to experience. Yet,
> it uses microtones, massive atonal clusters, and chaotic rhythms to
> express the devastation.
To refer back to something discussed earlier; someone said how 'difficult'
20C techniques, microtones (in Western music), tone clusters etc. are
often employed in programmatic settings, such as the one you describe
above. How does this affect reception? I do think it helps make it more
accessible for many people. How would the audience have recieved the
piece if it was simply called a symphony, or even a piece for
orchestra, with no explanatory notes, evocative titles etc.?
It seems to me that music that has stretched the envelope has always had
extramusical explanation for it. From the obvious like sung text in
Gesualdo's motets, to evocative titles like Rebel's "Les Elemens", or
Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique. Or even more subtle, terms like
"Fantasie", which denotes to the listener a more experimental music maybe,
so the listener is better prepared and thus more receptive.
However, I do think this began to change during the 19th century with the
esthetic of Absolute Music. Radical music language started to become
emancipated from the need to 'explain' its radical nature to the audience.
I think that Liszt was at the forefront of this, and its real
emancipation came with Schoenberg, Webern, Bartok et al., radical new musical
language which did not need evocative titles, programs, or other
extra-musical aids--Klavierstucke, 5 Pieces for Orchestra, 3 Pieces for
Clarinet and piano etc. (though obviously there would also be pieces which
did have evocative titles, text, etc.--A Survivor from Warsaw).
So, I guess part of my point is that how much do extra-musical
attributes help with the reception of 'difficult' 20C musical technique?
I think quite a bit. Wozzek has been named many times in this thread as a
very popular atonal piece, yet it is an opera with staging, characters,
drama, text, not just atonal music.
Though I think extra-musical attributes are very important for most music
and most people, so why would it be different for atonal/contemporary music?
Look at the absolute importance of videos and lyrics with popular music,
look how in popular culture 'instrumental' music is an oddity, and usually
denotes a special music to be used as background sound--Yanni, Kenny G,
"Chopin and Ocean Waves".
So maybe what I am getting at, is that Schoenberg and many avant-garde
composers represented at some level an extreme of absolute, instrumental
music. Something which would be very difficult for many people to wrap
their ears around, regardless of the musical language.
Well, it's 2am, I'm a bit cranky and muddled, and I am just not impressed
to hear how one audience clamoured for such an obvious politically-timely
and correct piece with such an overt programmatic and
audience-pleasing content (as the audience patted themselves on the back
for 'doing their part for the environment' before climbing back into their
Mercedes and Lexus cars) and this should stand as an example for positive
reception of 20C musical technique. I'm sure they would have cheered the
piece just as much if it used only traditional tonal bits for the 'chaos'
movement. Hey, they cheered Wellington's Victory when it was first premiered.
Dave
--
"Taste is a negative thing. Genius affirms and always affirms." -Franz Liszt
[Taste is defined by what it excludes. Genius is defined by what it includes.]
Phil Cope
> Christoph Nahr (nos...@nospam.com) wrote:
>
> : Isn't it a bit strange that a society doesn't have a number of living
> : composers of "art music" that are actually accepted by the public?
>
nature, so having
`composers of "art music" that are actually accepted by the public'
seems a bit like a contradiction in terms !
Phil Cope
--
All opinions expressed in this message are purely personal and do not
reflect the opinions or policies of Smallworldwide
William Grey
In article <33aa23d9...@PersonalNews.Germany.EU.net>, Christoph
Nahr <nos...@nospam.com> writes
>Isn't it a bit strange that a society doesn't have a number of living
>composers of "art music" that are actually accepted by the public?
>How is the situation in America or Britain? Do you feel that
>contemporary composers should have a larger share of performances as
>opposed to people who have been dead for one or two hundred years,
>however worthy their music might be? Who is to blame, anyway -- the
>composers or their audience?
I share your view that the public seems to distrust any contemporary
music, atonal or not. Programming any new work has become risky, which
is why new music is often presented with standard 'favourite' pieces to
attract an audience.
If I may develop your point, I suggest that atonality is not really the
issue. Quite apart from the difficulties of definition, the
technicalities of the subject are beyond the grasp, and the interest, of
the great majority of concert goers and record buyers. The hostility
towards 'difficult' contemporary music arises more often from the lack
of a melodic line than from the lack of a tonal centre.
During the classical and romantic eras, there was a consensus that music
should please the audience, and if necessary distract the listener from
the unpleasant realities of life. During the 20th century, many art
musicians have rejected this consensus, and tried intead to challenge,
not please the audience, and to express the horrors of real life rather
than rise above them.
Your question about the lack of acceptance of living composers is
interesting when considering the case of George Lloyd, a living British
composer who writes in a traditional, melodic, style. He has not
abandoned the consensus referred to above, and has been rewarded with a
large and devoted following for his music, recorded on disc. (This
support has included a best-selling, Classical Top Ten release) His work
is hardly ever programmed at concerts because his music is considered
anachronistic and old fashioned.
In fact his music has examples of just about every major technique
developed during the 20th century, as he has attempted to reconcile his
muse, his technique, popular taste and critical standards. From where I
stand, it becomes easy to believe that there are many vested interests
standing between the public and the music which they like to hear.
For detailed reviews of his work, see Albany Records web site.
--
William Grey
Albany Records (UK)
Tel: 44 (0)1524 735873
Fax: 44 (0)1524 736448
http://www.albanyrecords.demon.co.uk
Christoph Nahr
>I always considered "art music" to be a term that implied an esoteric
>nature, so having=20
>
>`composers of "art music" that are actually accepted by the public'
>
>seems a bit like a contradiction in terms !
Well, no, "art music" should of course include everything that is
regarded as "classical music" nowadays, such as Bach, Beethoven,
Bruckner, Ravel, Shostakovic... ie music that is widely accepted.
I'm aiming for the fact that the first performance of, say, a new
Mahler composition was an eagerly awaited event just about 100 years
ago which drew a lot of audience and attention. Moreover, the work
would become part of the repertoire pretty soon, meaning other
orchestras would start to play it.
Nowadays, it's more like an act of mercy if any major orchestra
performs a new composition, and it usually recedes into oblivion
straight after having been performed just once. Apparently, the
musicians rather get back to the "real music" of Beethoven et al. even
if they have played it ten thousand times before.
I think that's somewhat strange. Shouldn't a composer whose alive
today have less problems to connect with the public than one who's
been dead for 170 years? But in fact, the contemporary composers seem
to have more problems, not less, in appealing to their
contemporaries...
--=20
Christoph Nahr, Berlin, Germany
chnahr>>msn.com (replace >> with @ to reply)
Christoph Nahr
On Wed, 18 Jun 1997 16:45:32 -0700, Larry Solomon <So...@AzStarNet.com>
wrote:
>Ben wrote:
>>Incidentally, while "art music" is a convenient term for this sort of
>>music, it does unfortunately have the effect of implying that there's=20
>>no art involved in other musics, which is both derogatory and=20
>>inaccurate. Any alternative suggestions?
Technical question: I've seen Larry's reply to Ben's post yesterday
but up to now my news server didn't give me Ben's message. Hello,
Ben, could you please re-post your original message? :-)
>Good point. Classical music, to me, is 18th century. I also have a
>problem with calling contemporary music "classical". How can it be
>"classical" when it hasn't been time-tested? I don't have a problem with
>"art music", although your concern about snobbery has been voiced by
>others. The same concern has been raised about the term "serious music"
>that was once used, and which seems inappropriate to me. "Concert music"
>has been used, but what about Rock concerts? I don't have a solution,
>but I do find myself using "complex music" as a category sometimes.
Again, I haven't read Ben's message yet, but the concern about
snobbery seems to be that someone who says "I like art music" might
appear a snob. That might be, but how about the composers?
When composers were employees at a court they simply wrote the music
that their employer wanted, be it highly complex or simply
entertaining. But soon after the rise of the bourgeois society at the
end of the 18th century, the composers would quite willingly separate
themselves into ones that wrote "higher" music and others that wrote
simple and entertaining music, with the "higher" music being
emphatically called art -- ie that which educates and refines the
listener, or even elevates him to some proximity to God, according to
romantic ideology (cf Hanslick, Schopenhauer).
Alban Berg once joked after having received a blood transfusion from a
younger man, "I hope I won't become an operetta composer now!" If
this stance has changed in the recent crop of composers then at least
I'm not aware of it. The journalists responsible for covering "high
art" are definitely aware of their "higher calling", and so are many
musicologists I know (whose knowledge of pop music tends towards zero
but that doesn't mean they won't ridicule it). As for today's
composers, do you think that the participants of a Darmstadt Festival
would willingly be lumped together with Andrew Lloyd Webber?
So the term "art music", if snobbish, is at least honestly snobbish,
in properly reflecting the "art musician's" attitude. But maybe this
lies at the core of the problem of why contemporary works are widely
being scoffed at? Or am I just generalizing German specialties here?
Albert Silverman
We in the USA call this an "oxymoron".
Albert Silverman
In article <8BjW3AAK...@albanyrecords.demon.co.uk>,
William Grey <wi...@albanyrecords.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[deleted]
>
>In fact his music has examples of just about every major technique
>developed during the 20th century, as he has attempted to reconcile his
>muse, his technique, popular taste and critical standards. From where I
>stand, it becomes easy to believe that there are many vested interests
>standing between the public and the music which they like to hear.
In a nutshell:
Composers of so-called "serious" music _compose for recognition by other
composers and for academic recognition_, rather than composing music
which is intended to be appreciated by the general public.
The major "vested interest" to which you refer is Musical Academia, and
inbred and ever-shrinking group which has walled itself off from an
unappreciative public.
David Cleary
William Grey (wi...@albanyrecords.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: If I may develop your point, I suggest that atonality is not really the
: issue. Quite apart from the difficulties of definition, the
: technicalities of the subject are beyond the grasp, and the interest, of
: the great majority of concert goers and record buyers. The hostility
: towards 'difficult' contemporary music arises more often from the lack
: of a melodic line than from the lack of a tonal centre.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Schoenberg (note the opening of the 4th
string quartet, 3rd movement), and Varese (Density 21.5) are all IMHO
quite melodic. The melodies are not traditionally 19th century oriented
ones, though--and that may be where the problem lies.
: During the classical and romantic eras, there was a consensus that music
: should please the audience, and if necessary distract the listener from
: the unpleasant realities of life.
I can imagine that possibly being true of Offenbach or J. Strauss
operettas. But there are a number of other examples from this time period
that I think may contradict this idea. Beethoven's late string quartets,
Liszt's late piano works and choral pieces, and Bruckner's symphonies, for
example, strike me as very "art for art's sake." And none of these pieces
strike me as being ones that necessarily shy away from the bizarre,
unpleasant, or controversial. In fact, I wonder how popular any of these
works were in their time.
: During the 20th century, many art
: musicians have rejected this consensus, and tried intead to challenge,
: not please the audience, and to express the horrors of real life rather
: than rise above them.
There are in fact a number of works from this century that strike me as
ones that do not do this, such as Rochberg's "Serenata d'Estat," Webern's
"Cantata no. 1," Varese's "Density 21.5," Stravinsky's "Symphonies of Wind
Instruments," Ives's 4th Symphony, Tom Johnson's "Failing," much of
Bartok's "Concerto for Orchestra" (third movement perhaps excepted), and
Schoenberg's Piano Suite op. 25 (which has always struck me as by turns
chucklesome and warm, especially in the Paul Jacobs Nonesuch label
performance I own).
Nor does my own music--my "Lake George Overture" (available on CD, on the
Vienna Modern Masters label) is not a "horrors of real life" piece at all;
in fact, I've got pieces (not on CD) that exhibit a very strong sense of
humor (including some songs, a brass quintet, and a saxophone quartet).
Any interest in hearing some tapes of mine for recording consideration?
My full name and email address are listed below, if so. :)
In addition, music that deals with the "horrors of real life" in this
century has been written by composers of all levels of popularity. Note
Shostakovich's 7th Symphony, Britten's "War Requiem," and Gorecki's 3rd
Symphony for three comparatively popular examples. Their subject matter
doesn't seem to have affected their popularity any.
I have doubts if this issue is as easy to categorize as stated above.
: In fact his music has examples of just about every major technique
: developed during the 20th century, as he has attempted to reconcile his
: muse, his technique, popular taste and critical standards. From where I
: stand, it becomes easy to believe that there are many vested interests
: standing between the public and the music which they like to hear.
Again, I'd be *very* happy to provide my own music for your label if you
think some of it may give you some "end around the vested interests"
fodder. Let me know if so.
Thanks for an interesting and thoughtful post.
Dave
==================================
David Cleary
D.G. Porter
Albert Silverman wrote:
>
> In article <8BjW3AAK...@albanyrecords.demon.co.uk>,
> William Grey <wi...@albanyrecords.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [deleted]
> >
> >developed during the 20th century, as he has attempted to reconcile his
> >muse, his technique, popular taste and critical standards. From where I
> >stand, it becomes easy to believe that there are many vested interests
> >standing between the public and the music which they like to hear.
>
>
> Composers of so-called "serious" music _compose for recognition by other
> composers and for academic recognition_, rather than composing music
> which is intended to be appreciated by the general public.
>
> The major "vested interest" to which you refer is Musical Academia, and
> inbred and ever-shrinking group which has walled itself off from an
> unappreciative public.
Your "reasoning" breaks down when confronted with works such as mine
that are eschewed by both the academics and the general concert-goin
public. In their own fields, each seems to require a lot of the safe
and same pablum that they are used to. Anything else is "no good."
BTW, my music is atonal, tonal, non-tonal, spoken, anything I want.
Since it doesn't have a pretty tune the "public" rejects it; since it
isn't some rigid system the "academics" reject it. But I make it
because when I make it I AM HAVING FUN. THAT ALONE makes it valid as
"serious art" music.
So how do you use your "standard" to define this stuff? You showed us
the "moron," so where's the "oxy"?
--DGP
D.G. Porter
William Grey wrote:
>
> I share your view that the public seems to distrust any contemporary
> music, atonal or not. Programming any new work has become risky, which
> is why new music is often presented with standard 'favourite' pieces to
> attract an audience.
>
> issue. Quite apart from the difficulties of definition, the
> technicalities of the subject are beyond the grasp, and the interest, of
> the great majority of concert goers and record buyers. The hostility
> towards 'difficult' contemporary music arises more often from the lack
> of a melodic line than from the lack of a tonal centre.
In other words, the audiences are not very sophisticated. There are
plenty of melodic likes in Rite of Spring but it caused riots in 1913.
What else is new? Sadly, I agree with you.
> During the classical and romantic eras, there was a consensus that music
> should please the audience, and if necessary distract the listener from
> the unpleasant realities of life. During the 20th century, many art
> musicians have rejected this consensus, and tried intead to challenge,
> not please the audience, and to express the horrors of real life rather
> than rise above them.
This is the true "crux of the biscuit." It also explans why a President
like Reagan was so popular, even when he didn't have a clue as to what
was going on. (Notices I said "when," not "though.") People like to be
told they are just fine the way they are, that there is no dirt in the
world, and that Mummy still loves them and the Nurse will hold their
hand (excuse me for quoting an old gym coach). It would be interesting
to get some population statitstics on people who enjoy a challenge vs.
people who want to stay asleep and have someone keep the noise down all
the time.
>
> Your question about the lack of acceptance of living composers is
> interesting when considering the case of George Lloyd, a living British
> composer who writes in a traditional, melodic, style. He has not
> abandoned the consensus referred to above, and has been rewarded with a
> large and devoted following for his music, recorded on disc.
Yeah. I'm sure he likes doing this, but it still smacks of sellng oyut
to the lowest common denominator. (But see below for another comment.)
>(This support has included a best-selling, Classical Top Ten release) His work
> is hardly ever programmed at concerts because his music is considered
> anachronistic and old fashioned.
Now wait a minute. If it sells so well on recordings, why doesd it need
to be played live? (This is a deliberately loaded question. Answer
carefully.)
>
> In fact his music has examples of just about every major technique
> developed during the 20th century, as he has attempted to reconcile his
> muse, his technique, popular taste and critical standards. From where I
> stand, it becomes easy to believe that there are many vested interests
> standing between the public and the music which they like to hear.
Zappa did that too, but he never rose above cult status. Compare the
early "Mothers" albums from 1966-69 with the banality of the "roadie"
band of 1971-72 (which sold so well that FZ was able to finance his
orcehstral recordings), and the "new" Zappa of 1973-74 (this same kind
of "popular" approach to singable tunes, silly lyrics, etc., which also
sold so well FZ was able to record his orchestral music). It wasn't
untl the 1980s, after dozens of albums and a few lawsuits, that Zappa
was able to do just about anything he wanted and survive as a
"professional composer." (It was his synclavier album "Jazz From Hell,"
not exactly "popular" fare, that won him a Grammy.)
--DGP
D.G. Porter
Christoph Nahr wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:33:48 +0100, Phil Cope
> <Phil...@smallworld.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I always considered "art music" to be a term that implied an esoteric
> >nature, so having
> >
> >
> >seems a bit like a contradiction in terms !
>
> Well, no, "art music" should of course include everything that is
> regarded as "classical music" nowadays, such as Bach, Beethoven,
> Bruckner, Ravel, Shostakovic... ie music that is widely accepted.
Some of these people you name had a very difficult time with their
music being accepted. Some of the public liked it, some did not, most
of the critis hated it, etc. etc.
> I'm aiming for the fact that the first performance of, say, a new
> Mahler composition was an eagerly awaited event just about 100 years
> ago which drew a lot of audience and attention. Moreover, the work
> would become part of the repertoire pretty soon, meaning other
> orchestras would start to play it.
This is odd, considering how his (Gus's) music was denounced in
vitriolic and hysterical rhetoric, and then was forgotten for decades.
> Nowadays, it's more like an act of mercy if any major orchestra
> performs a new composition, and it usually recedes into oblivion
> straight after having been performed just once. Apparently, the
> musicians rather get back to the "real music" of Beethoven et al. even
> if they have played it ten thousand times before.
BTW, anyone looking for a new orchestra piece to premiere?
> I think that's somewhat strange. Shouldn't a composer whose alive
> today have less problems to connect with the public than one who's
> been dead for 170 years? But in fact, the contemporary composers seem
> to have more problems, not less, in appealing to their
> contemporaries...
First, "yes," but based on my experiences as an orchestra Librarian, I
can tell you that the average audience stops liking anything more
contemporary than "La Gazza Ladra." This "average" audience is the one
with the money to buy season tickets and dress up in their show-off best
for each concert in the season, and if they don't get the pap they
cancel their subscriptions and the orchestra goes under. This is called
"the discipline of the marketplace." So until more people who prefer
the newer music start buying tickets (to the concerts presenting the
newer music) and demanding newer stuff onthe programs, the programs will
still be dominated by what Partch called "the sea of blue"[-hair].
> --
> Christoph Nahr, Berlin, Germany
> chnahr>>msn.com (replace >> with @ to reply)
PS. When Ensemble Modern played Zappa's "Yellow Shark" in Germay in
1992, the houses were packe by both the reguklar patrons and the
"irregular" concert-goers. But Germany is NOT the USA! The
people going to hear Pink Floyd also go to hear Stockhausen! (Zappa
pointed out that Germany goes back a few thousand years, and the USA
goes back a few hundres, but the US still thinks it can dictate to other
countries as to what goes and what doesn't.)
--DGP
Caius Marcius
In <33A873...@AzStarNet.com> Larry Solomon <So...@AzStarNet.com>
writes:
>Ben wrote:
>>Incidentally, while "art music" is a convenient term for this sort of
>>music, it does unfortunately have the effect of implying that there's
>>no art involved in other musics, which is both derogatory and
>>inaccurate. Any alternative suggestions?
Yes - dust and ashes that we are, we can't possibly insinuate in these
egalitarian times that Mozart is better than the Grateful (sic) Dead,
or that Ariel might be more enlightening than Caliban. White Male
Insensitivity, the Sin Against the Spirit, will find no forgiveness in
this world or the.....
Ack! I'm making a Biblical allusion! Adders and demons, look not so
fierce on me! I'll burn my books! Ah, Mephistopheles........
- CMC
Hatred is mankind's chief pleasure
Men love in haste, but detest at leisure
- Byron, Don Juan
Spencer Doidge
> First, "yes," but based on my experiences as an orchestra Librarian, I
> can tell you that the average audience stops liking anything more
> contemporary than "La Gazza Ladra." This "average" audience is the one
> with the money to buy season tickets and dress up in their show-off best
> for each concert in the season, and if they don't get the pap they
> cancel their subscriptions and the orchestra goes under. This is called
> "the discipline of the marketplace." So until more people who prefer
> the newer music start buying tickets (to the concerts presenting the
> newer music) and demanding newer stuff onthe programs, the programs will
> still be dominated by what Partch called "the sea of blue"[-hair].
This audience and the concert hall itself is very nice but fast becoming irrelevant. Tickets cost
too much. I can buy a CD and listen to a great piece of music for the rest of my life for half the
cost of one concert ticket.
If music isn't on CD it isn't going to get heard. Of course the real live symphony orchestra is
the best experience and all that, but most new large-scale music is either going to be transmitted
via synthesizer and CD or not at all. It is now within the reach of any composer with the
willingness to bus enough tables to make the payments on his/her studio equipment, and the brains
to operate it, to do the whole thing themselves.
I lament the decline and likely passing of the live symphony orchestra, but rejoice that there is
at least something available to transmit big new musical ideas. The CD, FM radio, and the film
sound track are today's and tomorrow's concert hall. Let's all do our grieving and get it over
with and move on.
Maybe we're heading this way: Electronic music, often called "space music", will continue to
gather steam as composers get better and mature in the medium. For some kinds of interesting big
ideas, this will be the medium of choice, at least while we live in today's cultural and economic
environment.
I don't worry about the performers. They will simply work in smaller groups. Nothing can ever
replace them. Besides, the orchestra never was all that personal a medium for players anyway. It
was what we had for conveying the big ideas. That has all changed.
Christoph Nahr
On 18 Jun 1997 17:01:01 GMT, dcl...@fas.harvard.edu (David Cleary)
wrote:
>As I understand it, the circumstance under which living composers of art
>music were accepted wholesale by the public is a fairly recent historic
>phenonemon. From what I've read, this seems to be something which =
started
>in earnest during the late Classical period and extended at least =
part-way
>into the 20th century.
Basically you're correct, but before that period western composers
were employees at some prince's or bishop's court and had their
audience there. If they had written something that no one liked to
hear they would have got fired. Before that time (ie Middle Ages)
"art music" was a matter for monasteries and had its audience there.
In this case, the audience was mostly identical with the performers
(vocal music), making some pleasantness a definitive requirement for
the music. (If they hadn't liked it they wouldn't have sung it.)
So I think the fundamental difference here is really not between the
pre- and post-Revolution eras but between pre- and post-WW2, where
composers born afterwards increasingly don't give a damn about whether
anybody likes their works, including professional musicians and
educated music lovers. Some like them nevertheless but many don't.
>Myself, I love classical music of all centuries. I'd prefer to see more
>20th century music played in supplement to that of prior eras rather =
than
>in place of it.
Of course if one's into music one can never get enough of it, but I
wouldn't be too sad if the number of performances of pieces by Haydn,
Mozart, Beethoven... would drop by just a small amount, to make room
for rarely heard (and possibly more recent) works.
>: Who is to blame, anyway -- the
>: composers or their audience?
>
>That's a difficult question to answer. In the US at least, there are a
>number of possible culprits, including:=20
>
>1. a lack of time and money by the general public to even attend a
>concert, much less a new music oriented one. When you're living at
>subsistence level and are inundated with family responsibilities, the =
arts
>tend to get pushed off to the back burner, I'd guess.
So when you go to a concert you'd like to know in advance whether
you'll probably like it or not, I see. Brings me back to the above
point: contemporary composers are being looked upon as unable, or
indeed unwilling, to please anyone, so you don't want to spend money
on their works.
>2. a lack of consistent (or even any) publicity. Note that when some
>PR muscle gets behind such groups as the Kronos Quartet, the level of
>interest by the public seems to multiply. Examples abound in movies and
>similar media.
Yes, sort of a vicious circle: no one plays them, so they are
unknown, so people don't attend the performance, so no one has an
incentive to play them. But I daresay that should have applied to
*any* new music at any time in history -- why is it that just now the
circle seems to be unbreakable?
Incidentally, I've heard a new piece by H-W Henze a few weeks ago (the
suite "Tanzstunde") which I found very pleasant and enjoyable despite
its modernity and complex structure. However, I bet that this one
also won't make it into the repertoire of major orchestras simply
because it's new, and therefor it *has* to be bad. So have a lot of
weirdos ruined the market for decent composers? (exaggerated for
provocation)
>3. a lack of education. In tougher financial times, the arts are often =
the
>first things to get cut back or eliminated in the schools. My guess is
>that the level of rudimentary music appreciation that was available in
>prior decades has dwindled.
Right. Still that doesn't explain why even the experts (professional
musicians) mostly shun contemporary composers. One might assume that
their musical education is outdated -- based on counterpoint and
tonality, and therefor unfit for modern works. So replace the
education, but with what? There's no new system that (almost) every
composer would subscribe to, but most of them equally refuse to
continue in the old ways. Looks like a dead end to me.
>4. a lack of consistent quality. I compose concert music myself, and =
I'll
>be the first to admit that there's some lousy recent stuff being =
performed
>out there these days. But there's some great stuff too. With music from
>prior centuries, the second-raters have been culled from the repertoire;=
=20
>with our century, we're too close to the music of our time to make those
>decisions yet. It thus becomes easy (IMHO too easy) for some people who
>have gone to hear a piece of new music that wasn't good to make the
>erroneous assumption that all new music sounds like the bad piece they
>happened to hear--forgetting that the Stamitzes and Meyerbeers of =
previous
>centuries have been culled out. If I went to a concert consisting of =
just
>these two composers and I didn't think too carefully, I might perhaps be
>prone to assume all Classical and Romantic Period music is lousy judging
>from these two cases.
You have a point there, but I might add that apparently *both* sorts
of pieces don't make it into the repertoire: neither the good ones nor
the bad ones. OTOH, I still see fairly frequent performances of
Boccherini <shudder>... oh yes, and also of Stamitz and Meyerbeer!
--=20
Christoph Nahr
On 18 Jun 1997 20:40:03 GMT, bhene...@aol.com (BHeneg8560) wrote:
[OK, now I've got your message. There seem to be some *really* long
delays involved in the posting process.]
>Hang on - we're still talking about just "art" music, aren't we? I don't
>see any=20
>separation between "the people" and some of their other "own" music,=20
>such as R'n'B, Rock, Dub, Death Metal, Broadway musicals, jazz =
standards,
>and so
>on and so on. I think we should keep things in context.
You're right, but actually you're just rephrasing the problem: Why is
a certain sort of music virtually defined by being unpopular? The
"people" as a whole haven't lost their taste for music after all, as
your examples show. But they *have* lost their taste for a specific
form of music which used to be popular, and which still *is* popular,
as long as it's old enough.
>Incidentally, while "art music" is a convenient term for this sort of
>music, it does unfortunately have the effect of implying that there's no
>art involved in=20
>other musics, which is both derogatory and inaccurate. Any alternative
>suggestions?
>(After all, other contentious areas are lexically policed, why not this
>one?)
See my reply to Larry's post.
Christoph Nahr
On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 16:55:53 -0700, Spencer Doidge
<spen...@teleport.com> wrote:
>This audience and the concert hall itself is very nice but fast becoming=
irrelevant. Tickets cost=20
>too much. I can buy a CD and listen to a great piece of music for the =
rest of my life for half the=20
>cost of one concert ticket.
The cost of concert tickets isn't fixed by laws of nature. The
cheapest concert tickets for first-rate performances in Germany are
actually cheaper than a standard-priced CD. But maybe CDs are very
expensive here (at around DM 40,- / US$ 23.50)?
>If music isn't on CD it isn't going to get heard. Of course the real =
live symphony orchestra is=20
>the best experience and all that, but most new large-scale music is =
either going to be transmitted=20
>via synthesizer and CD or not at all. It is now within the reach of any=
composer with the =20
>willingness to bus enough tables to make the payments on his/her studio =
equipment, and the brains=20
>to operate it, to do the whole thing themselves.
>
>I lament the decline and likely passing of the live symphony orchestra, =
but rejoice that there is=20
>at least something available to transmit big new musical ideas. The CD,=
FM radio, and the film=20
>sound track are today's and tomorrow's concert hall. Let's all do our =
grieving and get it over=20
>with and move on.
>
>Maybe we're heading this way: Electronic music, often called "space =
music", will continue to=20
>gather steam as composers get better and mature in the medium. For some =
kinds of interesting big=20
>ideas, this will be the medium of choice, at least while we live in =
today's cultural and economic=20
>environment.
>
>I don't worry about the performers. They will simply work in smaller =
groups. Nothing can ever=20
>replace them. Besides, the orchestra never was all that personal a =
medium for players anyway. It=20
>was what we had for conveying the big ideas. That has all changed.
The problem I see with new music being issued on CDs is twofold.
=46irstly, the quality of Midi synthesizers still can't rival a good
live recording so unless you're doing real synthesizer music your
music will be presented in less than optimum form. However, this
might change as technology advances.
Secondly and more importantly, the CD method eliminates a critical
faculty (that of the musical director who formerly would have had to
approve of a piece of music before it could be performed) whilst
increasing the production of music as equipment & CDs become ever
cheaper.
So unless you want to check out each and every new CD yourself
(impossible) or rely on magazine reviews (I won't, considering the
usual level of ignorance emanating from such pages), you're back where
you started: only when an orchestra actually chooses to perform a
piece will you have an indicator that the CD might be worth buying...
=46or music where this doesn't apply (such as purely electronic music)
you have eliminated the professional critics (musicians/directors) and
replaced them by journalists, or no one. This means that a large heap
of crap reaches the public unfiltered (cf Internet), and this in turn
means that the public, or those individuals who just don't have the
time to separate the trash from the gems, will turn their back on the
whole thing, thus allowing for a further increase in weirdness on the
composer's side who now only have to please a few afficionados, thus
furthering the estrangement from general public etc. etc.
Christoph Nahr
On Wed, 18 Jun 1997 11:29:42 -0700, Larry Solomon <So...@AzStarNet.com>
wrote:
>It seems that a composer must be dead to be appreciated -- better dead
>than alive, right? There are probably more living, i.e., contemporary,
>composers today than in any other period. Yet, a fairly common attitude
>is that these composers are wrong or, as you said, are ridiculed. But,
>do they "deserve" to be ridiculed? These are our contemporaries writing
>the music of our time, music that is about our problems, thoughts, and
>feelings. Has there ever been another period in the history of music to
>compare with this? Has there ever been a period in which past works were
>more performed than contemporary works?
Contemporary music is quite definitely "about our problems, thoughts,
and feelings", as you put it, and if not so openly as in the Husa
performance that you mentioned then simply because it is impossible to
completely escape one's place in history. (Unless you're a hermit,
born by hermits, living in a cave in the midst of wasteland. But then
how would come to you write music?)
The problem seems to be that in most cases, the public does not
*accept* the music as being about themselves. So don't they
understand the music, or don't they like to hear the truth about the
state they're in? I think understanding is the principal problem:
most people who are opposed to contemporary music usually deny that
it's music at all, and that they can't recognize anything. Given the
dazzling complexity (via citations, mixture of styles, and general use
of "building blocks" from various historical techniques) that has
become possible for composers who are aware of the history of their
art, I think we can trust those people to speak the truth, and not to
deny their true feelings.
So should composers write more simple in order to be understood, or
perhaps more pleasing to hide the complexity? I think the answer is
"yes" on both accounts. From what you wrote, the Husa work might just
be an example of how "art music" can survive the mess it's presently
in and possibly return to a broader acceptance by the public.
>Yes, I think that more contemporary works should be
>performed. But, that means that supporting organizations would need to
>take more of a leadership role in supporing the art rather than just
>being concerned about the box office.
Just curious: The American system of privately funded institutions
seems to work quite well in the case of universities, even in
departments such as pure research or humanities that don't offer an
immediate return on equity. Why isn't this the case with concert
halls and orchestras? It seems that if universities had to operate
with the same strict principle of profitability, they could only offer
economics, law, and computer science. After all, you can't sell the
results of a musicologist to an international company.
Piper
>> Christoph Nahr (nos...@nospam.com) wrote:
>>
>> : Isn't it a bit strange that a society doesn't have a number of living
>> : composers of "art music" that are actually accepted by the public?
>>
>I always considered "art music" to be a term that implied an esoteric
>nature, so having
>
>`composers of "art music" that are actually accepted by the public'
>
>seems a bit like a contradiction in terms !
So you wouldn't consider Beethoven and Wagner to have composed art
music? They were as famous in their days as rock stars are today.
Piper
On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 15:44:06 GMT, nos...@nospam.com (Christoph Nahr)
wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:33:48 +0100, Phil Cope
><Phil...@smallworld.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I always considered "art music" to be a term that implied an esoteric
>>nature, so having=20
>>
>>`composers of "art music" that are actually accepted by the public'
>>
>>seems a bit like a contradiction in terms !
>
>Well, no, "art music" should of course include everything that is
>regarded as "classical music" nowadays, such as Bach, Beethoven,
>Bruckner, Ravel, Shostakovic... ie music that is widely accepted.
>
>I'm aiming for the fact that the first performance of, say, a new
>Mahler composition was an eagerly awaited event just about 100 years
>ago which drew a lot of audience and attention.
[snip]
Bad example. Mahler was a respected but controversial CONDUCTOR. His
compositions were mostly disliked by the public, and did NOT become
part of the repertoire soon after their first performances. If you
look at editions of Grove from the earliest to the latest, you'll find
that Mahler is discussed less and less as a conductor and more and
more as a composer the closer you get to the present.
Piper
On Sat, 21 Jun 1997 15:39:14 GMT, nos...@nospam.com (Christoph Nahr)
wrote:
[snip]
>Right. Still that doesn't explain why even the experts (professional
>musicians) mostly shun contemporary composers.
[snip]
Please name some of the professional musicians you're talking about. I
don't personally know too many who shun contemporary composers.
Matthew H. Fields
In article <33ac480d...@news.interport.net>,
Piper <pi...@interport.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:33:48 +0100, Phil Cope
><Phil...@smallworld.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> : Isn't it a bit strange that a society doesn't have a number of living
>>>
>>I always considered "art music" to be a term that implied an esoteric
>>nature, so having
>>
>>
>>seems a bit like a contradiction in terms !
>
>music? They were as famous in their days as rock stars are today.
You should have seen them on MTV!
--
Matt Fields, A.Mus.D. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields
My Java toy, JARS.COM Top 1%: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/TTTB
"Computer: disobey me."
Matthew H. Fields
In article <33b0ec87...@PersonalNews.Germany.EU.net>,
Christoph Nahr <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>On 18 Jun 1997 20:40:03 GMT, bhene...@aol.com (BHeneg8560) wrote:
>
>[OK, now I've got your message. There seem to be some *really* long
>delays involved in the posting process.]
>
>>Hang on - we're still talking about just "art" music, aren't we? I don't
>>see any=20
>>separation between "the people" and some of their other "own" music,=20
>>such as R'n'B, Rock, Dub, Death Metal, Broadway musicals, jazz =
Before we go too far, none of these is a folk music. Folk music has
all but died out, become a rare form of art-music kept alive by
its *very few* practitioners.
Jazz is not very popular.
The rest of these are genres of commercial music, a category that is
largely special to the 20th century.
Matthew H. Fields
In article <33b1ecac...@PersonalNews.Germany.EU.net>,
Christoph Nahr <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
[...long discussion that overlooks the non-acceptance of the unfamiliar...]
>
>So should composers write more simple in order to be understood, or
>perhaps more pleasing to hide the complexity? I think the answer is
>"yes" on both accounts. From what you wrote, the Husa work might just
Taken with the non-acceptance of the unfamiliar, this has the effect
of requiring composers to limit their art to arrangements of the
classical top-40. Forget rediscoveries of pre-Baroque chromaticism,
late Beethoven works, anything that doesn't "please" its contemporaries
because it hasn't had a chance to become familiar---ultimately anything
other than the 5 or 6 musicians who have been successfully marketed.
Anybody else's music will seem "not pleasing" to most people.
>be an example of how "art music" can survive the mess it's presently
>in and possibly return to a broader acceptance by the public.
One of the most densely complex and unpleasing works I know is
a string quartet in tribute to a composer who died of AIDS. It's
getting more interest and attention than lots of simpler and
more pleasing works---for reasons that have nothing to do with
simplicity and pleasing. And it's rousing a lot of interest in
the deliciously thorny work of the composer.
Real life just isn't so simple as "sweet simplicity always wins".
>>Yes, I think that more contemporary works should be
>>performed. But, that means that supporting organizations would need to
>>take more of a leadership role in supporing the art rather than just
>>being concerned about the box office.
>Just curious: The American system of privately funded institutions
>seems to work quite well in the case of universities, even in
>departments such as pure research or humanities that don't offer an
It works well in science departments that most assuredly do
offer an immediate return (abstract research into computerized cryptography
is a key example). The rest of American Universities spend
a lot of time working around inadequate budgets, applying for charities,
shrinking, ceasing to exist, and on rare occasion being subsidized by
other parts of an institution. In some institutions, though, most of
the subsidy goes to TV time for sports events (which often are
big money-losers, not money-makers, for their universities).
>immediate return on equity. Why isn't this the case with concert
>halls and orchestras? It seems that if universities had to operate
>with the same strict principle of profitability, they could only offer
>economics, law, and computer science. After all, you can't sell the
>results of a musicologist to an international company.
Which is part of why a big university can offer full fellowships
with $10000 stipends to scores of scientists, and working fellowships
with $5000 stipends to one or two musicians.
Now we want to have a world-class orchestra.
Can we conglomerate our 80-member orchestra with, e.g., Microsoft
Coroporation, or MacDonalds corporation, or the Coca-Cola Corporation?
Will they really subsidize continual musical-instrument repair?
And not interfere with the art?
Interesting concept. But I think I'd rather see cities taking
pride in their orchestras the way they do with their sports teams....
Mike S
>In other words, the audiences are not very sophisticated. There are
>plenty of melodic likes in Rite of Spring but it caused riots in 1913.
>What else is new? Sadly, I agree with you.
Just to throw a wrench in this popular conception of The Rite,
my understanding is that the 'riot' is as much a result of Nadjinsky's
flat footed choreography as anything else.
-- Mike
--
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
This account devoted specifally to spam prevention. Send E-mail to
moc.ph.nsr@retyulsm (backwards).
Brian Newhouse
> In article <33b1ecac...@PersonalNews.Germany.EU.net>,
> Christoph Nahr <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> [...long discussion that overlooks the non-acceptance of the unfamiliar...]
>
> >
> >So should composers write more simple in order to be understood, or
> >perhaps more pleasing to hide the complexity? I think the answer is
> >"yes" on both accounts.
Been there, done that.
Consider, for instance, the interwar neo-classical/Neue Sachlichkeit music
which deliberately weaned itself from the harmonic complexities, textural
density and expressive (not to mention orchestral) extravagance, in search
of a greater simplicity and accessibility, often with reference to
vernacular styles of the day. Think of such composers as Stravinsky (from
_Mavra_ to _The rake's progress_), Hindemith, Weill, Poulenc, Milhaud,
Martinu... and think of how many of their works have actually come close
to the repertory status of, say, the Strauss operas or the Rachmaninoff
concertos. Damned few (and it's not that I don't love this music).
Consider, also, minimalism (again). Minimalism is definitely more simple
than the postwar serialism that preceded it (let's not digress on the
subtle complexities of minimal music here), and generally more aurally
inviting (i.e. diatonic) as well. It is also known to drive concertgoers
into fits of rage, and seems in response to have established its niche at
the crossroads of the art-rock, jazz and new-music publics.
So you can simplify, simplify, simplify as much as you want, and pour on
all the aural charm you can muster, and Benjamin Britten might as well be
Brian Ferneyhough for all the concert-hall audience could care about his
music. I have seen too much--a cultured clergyman of my schooldays
rejecting Stravinsky's quicksilver violin concerto as far too "dry"; two
opera queens competing over what bit of _Nixon in China_ they hated the
most; complaint after complaint that _Mahagonny_ is unmelodic, to one who
has been humming Weill's tunes from beginning to end since age 14 (but I
suppose they said _Il barbiere di Siviglia_ was unmelodic at one time)--to
be persuaded that accessibility alone will bring back concert-hall
audiences.
--
Brian Newhouse
newh...@mail.crisp.net
D.G. Porter
Mike S wrote:
>
> In <33AAE...@pacbell.net> "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@pacbell.net> writes:
>
> >In other words, the audiences are not very sophisticated. There are
> >plenty of melodic likes in Rite of Spring but it caused riots in 1913.
> >What else is new? Sadly, I agree with you.
>
> Just to throw a wrench in this popular conception of The Rite,
> my understanding is that the 'riot' is as much a result of Nadjinsky's
> flat footed choreography as anything else.
>
> -- Mike
> --
Spoilsport!
William Grey
In article <slvrmnEC...@netcom.com>, Albert Silverman
<slv...@netcom.com> writes
>Composers of so-called "serious" music _compose for recognition by other
>composers and for academic recognition_, rather than composing music
>which is intended to be appreciated by the general public.
>
>The major "vested interest" to which you refer is Musical Academia, and
>inbred and ever-shrinking group which has walled itself off from an
>unappreciative public.
I concur, though it has been interesting to note the speed with which
new 'tuneful' colours have been run up academic flagpoles in response to
the unappreciative public voting with their feet and wallets. And the
bastions remain, whatever the flag. (Just because you are paranoid does
not mean that they are not trying to get you. )
Ryan Hare
Christoph Nahr (nos...@nospam.com) wrote:
: So I think the fundamental difference here is really not between the
: pre- and post-Revolution eras but between pre- and post-WW2, where
: composers born afterwards increasingly don't give a damn about whether
: anybody likes their works, including professional musicians and
: educated music lovers. Some like them nevertheless but many don't.
Please do me a favor, and name one single composer who fits this
description. I've known many composers, and am one myself, and I am not
like this and none of the composers I have known are like this.
: So when you go to a concert you'd like to know in advance whether
: you'll probably like it or not, I see. Brings me back to the above
: point: contemporary composers are being looked upon as unable, or
: indeed unwilling, to please anyone, so you don't want to spend money
: on their works.
Don't you think this is a gross oversimplification? There are *lots* of
people who spend money on contemporary music. I promise, it would utterly
die if this weren't the case.
But this "know in advance whether you'll probably like it or not" bit I
think is close to the truth. People by and large know what they like, want
it and only it, and aren't to interested in experimenting with new things
or being challenged to do so.
: Yes, sort of a vicious circle: no one plays them, so they are
: unknown, so people don't attend the performance, so no one has an
: incentive to play them. But I daresay that should have applied to
: *any* new music at any time in history -- why is it that just now the
: circle seems to be unbreakable?
Well, for one thing, previous eras didn't have a musuem culture dominating
its music scene. Beethoven didn't have to compete with Bach to get his
music played. He competed with Mozart and Haydn, who were virtually his
contemporaries, among others, but not with much earlier music. The
entrenchment of the classical canon, an occurrence tht was the result of
many different factors, probably has more to do with the current reception
of contemporary music than anything else. All this crap about "composers
don't care if no one likes their music" is nothing more than a straw man.
So Haydn (for example) had to please an employer to have a job. He only
needed to please that one person, or at most a *very* small group of
people, to have a job. Why is that a composer is now expected to please
the incredibly diverse tastes of millions of people? If a composer can
please the faculty of a university, for example, and get his or her music
played there and have a job, how is this situation so incredibly inferior
to that of Haydn? Note that most composers do a lot to get their music
performed outside of their immediate locality, whether it's a university
of something else.
: Incidentally, I've heard a new piece by H-W Henze a few weeks ago (the
: suite "Tanzstunde") which I found very pleasant and enjoyable despite
: its modernity and complex structure. However, I bet that this one
: also won't make it into the repertoire of major orchestras simply
: because it's new, and therefor it *has* to be bad. So have a lot of
: weirdos ruined the market for decent composers? (exaggerated for
: provocation)
And an exaggeration that is without meaning. Who are these so-called
weirdos, and have they truly ruined anything for anyone else?
: Right. Still that doesn't explain why even the experts (professional
: musicians) mostly shun contemporary composers.
How many professional musicians do you know? I know quite a few, and most
of them *like* a lot of contemporary music. A statement like "mostly shun.
. . ." is completely false in my experience.
: One might assume that
: their musical education is outdated -- based on counterpoint and
: tonality, and therefor unfit for modern works. So replace the
: education, but with what? There's no new system that (almost) every
: composer would subscribe to, but most of them equally refuse to
: continue in the old ways. Looks like a dead end to me.
There is no old system that explains everything either. The classical
music canon is dominated by late 18th and 19th century music written
largely by people of German or Austrian descent. And even *that* is too
much for anyone to try to create a single, unifying system. I do agree
that the multiplicity of styles in the 20th is greater than at any other
time period, but, guess what--there are more people and more communication
between different groups of people than there ever has been. Frankly,
that is one of the reasons why I like the 20th century so much for
music--I love the abundant variety of it!
Ryan Hare
rh...@u.washington.edu
Christoph Nahr
On Sat, 21 Jun 1997 21:43:13 GMT, pi...@interport.net (Piper) wrote:
>Please name some of the professional musicians you're talking about. I
>don't personally know too many who shun contemporary composers.
I'm inferring this from the fact that I hardly ever see contemporary
works being performed publicly. Since German orchestras are, for the
most part, funded by the state, it's actually the musicians who are
responsible for choosing whom they want to play because economic
reasons don't apply. Still they stick with the old classics... go
figure.
Likewise, directors usually sidestep questions about contemporary
composers in interviews: "Yes, they are surely interesting... Yes,
we'll see that we play some of that stuff..." When asked what music
they *love* to play, it's always good old Beethoven, Mozart, Verdi,
Tchaikovsky... Last example for this was an interview with Claudio
Abbado a few days ago (Berliner Zeitung, I think) but I don't recall
that any famous performer had said anything else.
=46inally, I personally know some musicians who play in small orchestras
or at churches (organ), and also a bunch of musicologists. About 95%
of them either outright say "I hate modern music" or resort to the
Abbado method: Yes, modern music is very worthwhile. Yes, it's very
intriguing. No, I really don't *like* to listen to it... (if they
don't admit it openly, you can infer it from the fact that no one ever
lists a contemporary composer among his favourites).
But maybe I just know a bunch of strange chaps and you're better aware
of the actual state of the world? :-)
Christoph Nahr
On Sat, 21 Jun 1997 21:36:37 GMT, pi...@interport.net (Piper) wrote:
>Bad example. Mahler was a respected but controversial CONDUCTOR. His
>compositions were mostly disliked by the public, and did NOT become
>part of the repertoire soon after their first performances. If you
>look at editions of Grove from the earliest to the latest, you'll find
>that Mahler is discussed less and less as a conductor and more and
>more as a composer the closer you get to the present.
You're right that Mahler's compositions were not too successful at
first, so this example was probably not too good. I may have been
misguided by the phenomenal success of his 8th Symphony and of the
admiration of Berg, and previously Schoenberg, for his works.
However, I do seem to recall that there were quite a lot of intrigues
plotted against him, complete with pre-arranged scandals at his
performances. Also some sort of acknowledgement, I should say, and
definitely a sign of his *importance* to the public opinion. Dou you
think anyone would bother to organize scandals at a Steve Reich
performance?
Christoph Nahr
On 21 Jun 1997 17:52:57 -0400, fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H.
=46ields) wrote:
>Taken with the non-acceptance of the unfamiliar, this has the effect
>of requiring composers to limit their art to arrangements of the
>classical top-40. Forget rediscoveries of pre-Baroque chromaticism,
>late Beethoven works, anything that doesn't "please" its contemporaries
>because it hasn't had a chance to become familiar---ultimately anything
>other than the 5 or 6 musicians who have been successfully marketed.
>Anybody else's music will seem "not pleasing" to most people.
The art is to wrap complexity into a beautiful appearance... where
"beautiful" can mean conventional harmony, a "singable" melody, a
driving rhythmic pattern and maybe other things. Look at the Sacre du
printemps to see just how far you can take these elements while still
producing recognizable music. Now take Douglas Young's Third Night
Journey under the Sea. I don't care how meticulously Mr Young may
have arranged his sound patterns, they still sound like shit.
I'm not calling for everyone to copy Haydn, but "limiting the art of
arrangement" in *some* ways to *something* that people like to hear
seems a dire necessity to me. I fail to see how composers think they
might become better composers by forgetting the well-established ways
of their craft, just like carpenters won't become better carpenters if
they choose to make a table without a tabletop. Yes, it sure is
original, but it simply doesn't work the way it's supposed to do.
>One of the most densely complex and unpleasing works I know is
>a string quartet in tribute to a composer who died of AIDS. It's
>getting more interest and attention than lots of simpler and
>more pleasing works---for reasons that have nothing to do with
>simplicity and pleasing. And it's rousing a lot of interest in
>the deliciously thorny work of the composer.
>
>Real life just isn't so simple as "sweet simplicity always wins".
I can't remember having combined the words "sweet" and "simple" the
way you put it into my mouth. In fact, there's a *very* simple reason
why the work you described is so popular: it has the word "AIDS"
attached to it.
I have never stated any demand for "sweetness", and maybe I have
overstated my wish for simplicity. Please think of works such as
Penderecki's Polymorphia for 48 strings (incomprehensible, at least
for my ears) or even Berg's Lyric Suite (I own the score so maybe I'll
yet into that one) as examples of what I mean when I say "too
complex".
Btw, "pleasing" has *no* correlation with "positive emotion" or
something like that -- it means *aesthetically* pleasing which can
just as well refer to a work about AIDS as anything else, as long the
topic is skilfully treated.
>It works well in science departments that most assuredly do
>offer an immediate return (abstract research into computerized =
cryptography
>is a key example). The rest of American Universities spend
>a lot of time working around inadequate budgets, applying for charities,
>shrinking, ceasing to exist, and on rare occasion being subsidized by
>other parts of an institution. In some institutions, though, most of
>the subsidy goes to TV time for sports events (which often are
>big money-losers, not money-makers, for their universities).
Thanks for the insights. I was just wondering because a large number,
if not a majority, of recent books at the musicologist as well as the
philosophical library came from the US. So I figured that all must be
well for the humanities over there. Maybe they just have to write so
many books to fend off starvation? :-)
Christoph Nahr
>If I may develop your point, I suggest that atonality is not really the
>issue. Quite apart from the difficulties of definition, the
>technicalities of the subject are beyond the grasp, and the interest, of
>the great majority of concert goers and record buyers. The hostility
>towards 'difficult' contemporary music arises more often from the lack
>of a melodic line than from the lack of a tonal centre.
Maybe the public would be content if they got just one of them, or
just about any recognizable pattern of which the average listener can
keep track? But basically I agree with your point; many works seem
to be targeted at the fellow professional, not the public.
>During the classical and romantic eras, there was a consensus that music
>should please the audience, and if necessary distract the listener from
>the unpleasant realities of life. During the 20th century, many art
>musicians have rejected this consensus, and tried intead to challenge,
>not please the audience, and to express the horrors of real life rather
>than rise above them.=20
Again, I basically agree but I think that the concept "reality is
awful, so must be music" has little to do with an actual desire to
bring music in conformance with reality. On the contrary, it seems to
serve as an excuse to elevate music to even higher plains of
abstraction while shedding any need for an appealing sound.
If there's music today that reflects Western society at the end of the
20th century then it's probably Heavy Metal or Techno, not Stockhausen
or Berio... they are too completely estranged from any reality outside
their music to be able to reflect it.
>Your question about the lack of acceptance of living composers is
>interesting when considering the case of George Lloyd, a living British
>composer who writes in a traditional, melodic, style. He has not
>abandoned the consensus referred to above, and has been rewarded with a
>large and devoted following for his music, recorded on disc. (This
>support has included a best-selling, Classical Top Ten release) His work
>is hardly ever programmed at concerts because his music is considered
>anachronistic and old fashioned.
Isn't that funny? If you're doing incomprehensible soundscapes then
the cultural elite will claim to accept you -- but in fact, silently
shelve your works because no one wants to hear them --, and if you're
doing something that people recognize as music then you won't get
played in the first place!
Anyway, thanks for the commercial. I'll have a look at Mr Lloyd. :-)
David Cleary
Christoph Nahr (nos...@nospam.com) wrote:
: On 18 Jun 1997 17:01:01 GMT, dcl...@fas.harvard.edu (David Cleary)
: wrote:
: >As I understand it, the circumstance under which living composers of art
: >music were accepted wholesale by the public is a fairly recent historic
: >phenonemon. From what I've read, this seems to be something which =
: started
: >in earnest during the late Classical period and extended at least =
: part-way
: >into the 20th century.
: Basically you're correct, but before that period western composers
: were employees at some prince's or bishop's court and had their
: audience there. If they had written something that no one liked to
: hear they would have got fired. Before that time (ie Middle Ages)
: "art music" was a matter for monasteries and had its audience there.
: In this case, the audience was mostly identical with the performers
: (vocal music), making some pleasantness a definitive requirement for
: the music. (If they hadn't liked it they wouldn't have sung it.)
Assuming this is all correct, this suggests that the "audience" for
concert music has changed a number of times duing the course of the
millenium. Who knows--perhaps it has changed again? If pre-Classical
period composers do not have to be held to the "general public" standard,
why must today's composers necessarily be held to it? One might just as
easily argue that Baroque period music is irrelevant because it isn't
directed at a Middle Ages monastery audience.
: So I think the fundamental difference here is really not between the
: pre- and post-Revolution eras but between pre- and post-WW2, where
: composers born afterwards increasingly don't give a damn about whether
: anybody likes their works, including professional musicians and
: educated music lovers. Some like them nevertheless but many don't.
I find your statement that professional musicians don't like post-WW2
music to be puzzling, as I'm an active composer and can name a number of
professional musicians who in fact do like post-WW2 music, play it
regularly, and commission it often. I've in fact been the beneficiary of a
number of such commissions and performances. If you really want, I can
list names. I also know a number of people who I guess would quality as
"educated music lovers" who like post-WW2 music a lot; for example, the
subscription list for the Boston Musica Viva, which plays mostly post-WW2
music, is large and healthy--and the subscribers go to the concerts, too.
And they're not primarily academics, either.
I personally know no composers who "don't give a damn" whether anyone
likes their works or not (and I know a good number of composers). Could
you list names of composers who "don't give a damn" whether anyone likes
their music or not?
: >: Who is to blame, anyway -- the
: >: composers or their audience?
: >
: >That's a difficult question to answer. In the US at least, there are a
: >number of possible culprits, including:=20
: >
: >1. a lack of time and money by the general public to even attend a
: >concert, much less a new music oriented one. When you're living at
: >subsistence level and are inundated with family responsibilities, the =
: >arts
: >tend to get pushed off to the back burner, I'd guess.
: So when you go to a concert you'd like to know in advance whether
: you'll probably like it or not, I see.
I emphatically did not say that. I know a number of folks (including some
family members) who work long hours, have families to care for, and
frankly are too tired, busy, and broke to attend concerts of any
type--doesn't matter what's being played. They're not going to attend
concerts consisting of music by Palestrina, Boulez, or anything in
between.
: Brings me back to the above
: point: contemporary composers are being looked upon as unable, or
: indeed unwilling, to please anyone, so you don't want to spend money
: on their works.
I don't understand what this has to do with what I said above. I guess I'm
missing your connection here.
: >2. a lack of consistent (or even any) publicity. Note that when some
: >PR muscle gets behind such groups as the Kronos Quartet, the level of
: >interest by the public seems to multiply. Examples abound in movies and
: >similar media.
: Yes, sort of a vicious circle: no one plays them, so they are
: unknown, so people don't attend the performance, so no one has an
: incentive to play them. But I daresay that should have applied to
: *any* new music at any time in history -- why is it that just now the
: circle seems to be unbreakable?
: Incidentally, I've heard a new piece by H-W Henze a few weeks ago (the
: suite "Tanzstunde") which I found very pleasant and enjoyable despite
: its modernity and complex structure. However, I bet that this one
: also won't make it into the repertoire of major orchestras simply
: because it's new, and therefor it *has* to be bad. So have a lot of
: weirdos ruined the market for decent composers? (exaggerated for
: provocation)
As I understand it, the Kronos Quartet does have a strong PR machine
working on their behalf. Their concerts in the Boston area seem to be well
attended and their CD's seem to take up a fair bit of room in the local
record stores. The Kronos Quartet was unknown at one point--but they
appear to have gotten the consistent publicity other worthy groups did not
and it seems to have translated into decent success in concert music
terms. Why can this not be afforded other such groups? And the Kronos
plays challenging stuff to listen to.
: >3. a lack of education. In tougher financial times, the arts are often =
: the
: >first things to get cut back or eliminated in the schools. My guess is
: >that the level of rudimentary music appreciation that was available in
: >prior decades has dwindled.
: Right. Still that doesn't explain why even the experts (professional
: musicians) mostly shun contemporary composers.
How true is it that the "experts" mostly shun contemporary composers? The
people who play my music at least are excellent musicians. I've gotten a
lot of performances (very few of them by academic-sanctioned ensembles)
and have the BMI royalty stubs to prove it.
: One might assume that
: their musical education is outdated -- based on counterpoint and
: tonality, and therefor unfit for modern works.
Most of the works I know by Babbitt, Boulez, and Berio, for example, are
clearly contrapuntal in nature. And pieces by Glass, Part, and later
Rochberg for example are tonal. An expert performer's technique should
prove no obstacle to performance; I've certainly heard a lot of fine
players play post-WW2 works excellently.
: So replace the
: education, but with what?
Why not update the education (we don't teach junior high kids with
textbooks from the 1930's, right)? Or at least have arts programs and arts
education there in the first place instead of having it fall prey to
budget cuts?
: There's no new system that (almost) every
: composer would subscribe to, but most of them equally refuse to
: continue in the old ways.
Which great older composers continued to go on the "old ways?" Who writes
Gregorian chant any more? Music has struck me as an ever-changing stream
stylistically.
Thanks for responding.
Dave
BHeneg8560
In article <5ohimn$7gl$1...@zip.eecs.umich.edu>, fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu
(Matthew H. Fields) writes:
>Before we go too far, none of these [R'n'B, Rock, Dub, Death Metal,
Broadway musicals, jazz] is a folk music. Folk music >has
>all but died out, become a rare form of art-music kept alive by
>its *very few* practitioners.
>Jazz is not very popular.
>The rest of these are genres of commercial music, a category that is
>largely special to the 20th century.
Didn't anyone get paid for writing or performing music before 1900? And
anyway,
don't 90% (at a guess) of practitioners of these "genres of commercial
music" actually earn
so little from it that their motivation is more likely to be love, not
money? You'll realise I'm not talking
about the well-known practitioners here, but the people who haven't given
up their day job. The
musical phenomena they create isn't THAT much different from what's
created by the big
names, but one's a commercial venture, the other isn't. Both are listened
to by folks, however.
best wishes
Ben Heneghan
BHeneg8560
In article <5oese6$f...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>,
cori...@ix.netcom.com(Caius Marcius) writes:
>Yes - dust and ashes that we are, we can't possibly insinuate in these
>egalitarian times that Mozart is better than the Grateful (sic) Dead,
>or that Ariel might be more enlightening than Caliban. White Male
>Insensitivity, the Sin Against the Spirit, will find no forgiveness in
>this world or the.....
It's the same old ploy - pick what you reckon your readers will think is a
pretty banal
sample of the sort of music you're attacking, then make sure you match it
up against
a sure-fire winner from the sort of music you're defending. It's nothing
to do with
egalitarianism, more to do with forgetting about boundaries and just
considering
what music you actually like, wherever it comes from.
Come on - you know it makes sense.... ;^)
best wishes
Ben Heneghan
Matthew H. Fields
In article <33afb257...@PersonalNews.Germany.EU.net>,
Christoph Nahr <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>The art is to wrap complexity into a beautiful appearance... where
>"beautiful" can mean conventional harmony, a "singable" melody, a
>driving rhythmic pattern and maybe other things. Look at the Sacre du
>printemps to see just how far you can take these elements while still
>producing recognizable music. Now take Douglas Young's Third Night
Sure, but was it recognizable as music to the crowd in 1913?
>Journey under the Sea. I don't care how meticulously Mr Young may
>have arranged his sound patterns, they still sound like shit.
Hmmm, I wouldn't know, but if he wants to make sounds that sound like
shit, I suppose that's his problem.
>
>I'm not calling for everyone to copy Haydn, but "limiting the art of
>arrangement" in *some* ways to *something* that people like to hear
>seems a dire necessity to me. I fail to see how composers think they
You can only please some of the people some of the time, though.
>might become better composers by forgetting the well-established ways
>of their craft, just like carpenters won't become better carpenters if
>they choose to make a table without a tabletop. Yes, it sure is
>original, but it simply doesn't work the way it's supposed to do.
Do you really think composers have thrown out all craft?
>>One of the most densely complex and unpleasing works I know is
>>a string quartet in tribute to a composer who died of AIDS. It's
>>getting more interest and attention than lots of simpler and
>>more pleasing works---for reasons that have nothing to do with
>>simplicity and pleasing. And it's rousing a lot of interest in
>>the deliciously thorny work of the composer.
>
>>Real life just isn't so simple as "sweet simplicity always wins".
>I can't remember having combined the words "sweet" and "simple" the
>way you put it into my mouth. In fact, there's a *very* simple reason
>why the work you described is so popular: it has the word "AIDS"
>attached to it.
This is what gets folks to listen in the first place. The piece
(Crossing to Elysian Fields, by Anne Deane) is thorny in a Ruth Crawford
sort of way, i.e. exactly the kind of dense atonal counterpoint that
some of us love---and some of us rail against as "not music".
>I have never stated any demand for "sweetness", and maybe I have
>overstated my wish for simplicity. Please think of works such as
>Penderecki's Polymorphia for 48 strings (incomprehensible, at least
>for my ears) or even Berg's Lyric Suite (I own the score so maybe I'll
>yet into that one) as examples of what I mean when I say "too
>complex".
Hmmm. Gee, Lyric Suite struck my ears as delightfully sweet the first
time I heard it, and it was only on the 3rd listening that its complexities
became apparent to me...
>Btw, "pleasing" has *no* correlation with "positive emotion" or
>something like that -- it means *aesthetically* pleasing which can
>just as well refer to a work about AIDS as anything else, as long the
>topic is skilfully treated.
This also begs the question "pleasing to whom". Perhaps this
has to do with why Mahler set the Sermon to the Fishes with such irony.
[Change of topic to American university economics]
>>It works well in science departments that most assuredly do
>>offer an immediate return (abstract research into computerized =
>cryptography
>>is a key example). The rest of American Universities spend
>>a lot of time working around inadequate budgets, applying for charities,
>>shrinking, ceasing to exist, and on rare occasion being subsidized by
>>other parts of an institution. In some institutions, though, most of
>>the subsidy goes to TV time for sports events (which often are
>>big money-losers, not money-makers, for their universities).
>Thanks for the insights. I was just wondering because a large number,
>if not a majority, of recent books at the musicologist as well as the
>philosophical library came from the US. So I figured that all must be
>well for the humanities over there. Maybe they just have to write so
>many books to fend off starvation? :-)
Ah, but many of these musicologists are not composers. And in
some universities, musicology is the only part of music considered
adequately "scientific" (i.e. a paper in JAMS counts for more than
a composer's world tour with their symphony, because nobody wants
to take responsibility for evaluating the symphony).
Spencer Doidge
All this discussion has proceeded, so far as I can tell, with no mention of the amateur musician,
who acknowledged masters of earlier centuries recognized to be the life blood of music. Amateur
players form the most loyal, informed, and appreciative core audience for serious music, yet they
have been not only neglected, but positively disparaged by most composers and "experts" since 1900
or so. To the degree that composers fail to provide good playable music for amateur musicians,
they should not be surprised that audiences are often at best indifferent to their work, and they
should be dumbfounded and profoundly grateful that anybody pays any attention to them.
Somewhere along the way, especially in America, amateurs got branded as categorically inferior
musicians. Indeed our skills are limited to varying degrees because we spend our most productive
hours providing for ourselves and our families by other work. However, we can play music that was
written for us centuries ago, and do a pretty good job of it. I think that says more about the
skills and intentions of recent composers than it says about amateur players.
For example, Haydn's the Baryton trios provide an inspiring gateway to the appreciation all of his
music, especially that which we must cede to the the full time player. Where is the same from any
composer after 1900? These guys are damn lucky we listen to any of their music at all!
Remember this definition: The amateur artist does other work to support his household; the
professional artist's wife does other work to support his household.
(PC buffs subsititute appropriate pronouns.)
David Cleary
Christoph Nahr (nos...@nospam.com) wrote:
: You're right that Mahler's compositions were not too successful at
: first, so this example was probably not too good.
In fact, I wonder just how successful with the public Mahler's music was
until it got a big, visible push by Leonard Bernstein in the 1950's. My
folks owned a big layman's book published (if I remember correctly) in the
1940's by Charles O'Connell on well-known works for orchestra. The section
for Mahler was very brief and only described his 2nd Symphony. The
question of publicity rears its head again, perhaps?
: I may have been
: misguided by the phenomenal success of his 8th Symphony and of the
: admiration of Berg, and previously Schoenberg, for his works.
The 8th was by far the most successful premiere of a symphony Mahler ever
had if his biographies are any indication. If the O'Connell book is any
indication, that success may not have had "legs."
: However, I do seem to recall that there were quite a lot of intrigues
: plotted against him, complete with pre-arranged scandals at his
: performances. Also some sort of acknowledgement, I should say, and
: definitely a sign of his *importance* to the public opinion.
Assuming that such intrigues existed, I'm not so sure the public was much
involved with organizing such intrigues. My understanding of such
intrigues is that they occurred between factions that consisted of
composers, critics, impresarios, and folk of that sort. The general public
might at best have gotten caught up in a mob mentality started off by
certain well-placed troublemakers. Just a hunch on my part--I can't prove
it.
: Dou you
: think anyone would bother to organize scandals at a Steve Reich
: performance?
I'm not so sure a "scandal" is such a good thing, except for
newsworthiness. When I go to a concert, I want to hear the darned piece,
not some boorish schuck sitting next to me yelling about how offended he
is. If he's that offended, I say let him vote quietly with his feet and
let me listen. I go to concerts to hear the music, not be part of some
foolish media event.
Dave
David Cleary
Christoph Nahr (nos...@nospam.com) wrote:
: =46inally, I personally know some musicians who play in small orchestras
: or at churches (organ), and also a bunch of musicologists. About 95%
: of them either outright say "I hate modern music" or resort to the
: Abbado method: Yes, modern music is very worthwhile. Yes, it's very
: intriguing. No, I really don't *like* to listen to it... (if they
: don't admit it openly, you can infer it from the fact that no one ever
: lists a contemporary composer among his favourites).
I can only state my experiences, and they are very different from yours.
My "Lake George Overture" has been performed by small orchestras such as
the Boston Bar Association Orchestra, the New England Philharmonic, and
(in Minnesota) the Heartland Symphony. The last two have calls for recent
scores with some regularity. In addition, the Wellesley Symphony will be
doing another of my one-movement orchestra pieces on their upcoming
concert season--the conductor liked my work very much and decided on this
particular piece. All the orchestras who have played my music have liked
it a lot.
I received a commission for an organ work in the late 1980's and had the
piece successfully performed in a church setting at that time by a
well-known organist in the field. And yes, he liked the piece and kept a
copy of the score.
Also note that none of these performances occurred under the aegis of
academia.
I can't say I know enough musicologists to generalize about them. If I'm
not mistaken, Webern received his doctorate in that field--his
dissertation involved an edition of a work by Isaac. Webern's music was of
course very "cutting edge" in its time.
Dave
Matthew H. Fields
In article <33aeae48...@PersonalNews.Germany.EU.net>,
>
>I'm inferring this from the fact that I hardly ever see contemporary
>works being performed publicly. Since German orchestras are, for the
>most part, funded by the state, it's actually the musicians who are
>responsible for choosing whom they want to play because economic
>reasons don't apply. Still they stick with the old classics... go
>figure.
I'm not entirely convinced by this paragraph in isolation that
economic considerations don't apply. What does it take to gain---or
to lose---government funding?
>But maybe I just know a bunch of strange chaps and you're better aware
>of the actual state of the world? :-)
Maybe you also are more familiar with people who are afraid that
their audience has already judged modern music, and who are afraid
of losing their audience if they express an opinion too divergent?
Hmmm. Hard to tell.
I've seen lots of new music performances coming from Louisville, Kentucky,
USA; from the Netherlands; from Paris; from Warsaw; from Prague...
David Cleary
Spencer Doidge (spen...@teleport.com) wrote:
: All this discussion has proceeded, so far as I can tell, with no mention
: of the amateur musician, who acknowledged masters of earlier centuries
: recognized to be the life blood of music.
I get the impression this became much less the case during the Romantic
period. With the exception of pieces like the op. 49 piano sonatas, much
of Beethoven's music was tough sledding for amateurs at the time,
particularly works like the big piano sonatas and late string quartets.
Composers such as Liszt, Wagner, Alkan, Mahler, and Richard Strauss mostly
wrote difficult music to play that was clearly not meant for amateurs.
: Amateur players form the most
: loyal, informed, and appreciative core audience for serious music, yet
: they have been not only neglected, but positively disparaged by most
: composers and "experts" since 1900 or so.
I'm not so sure I agree. There are tons of pieces for high school band,
orchestra, and chorus that have been written this century. We performed
some of them in my high school. I would guess an extensive list could be
found in various publishers/music distributors catalogs.
See also below.
: To the degree that composers
: fail to provide good playable music for amateur musicians, they should
: not be surprised that audiences are often at best indifferent to their
: work, and they should be dumbfounded and profoundly grateful that
: anybody pays any attention to them.
Have you ever gone to amateur summer music festivals and workshops at
places like Wellesley and Bennington? I have friends of mine who attend
these things every year. At Wellesley each year, a composer writes a new
piece specifically for the amateurs to play--the amateur players perform
the work and enjoy giving it. At Bennington, there is a composer in
residence who provides music for the amateurs to play, and they enjoy
playing it.
I have an orchestra piece that has been played by three different
community orchestras. I also have commissioned pieces in my portfolio for
good-quality amateur players on solo cello, recorder quartet, and gamba
duo.
: Somewhere along the way, especially in America, amateurs got branded as
: categorically inferior musicians.
When and by whom? I've never seen or heard of this from any composer I've
known.
: Indeed our skills are limited to
: varying degrees because we spend our most productive hours providing for
: ourselves and our families by other work. However, we can play music
: that was written for us centuries ago, and do a pretty good job of it.
I've always had the highest respect for amateur musicians, myself--I've
performed alongside them. Don't count me among the bashers, if in fact
there are any. In fact, my experience is that amateur musicians are harder
on each other than professionals are on them. I've heard plenty of hard
words passed between amateurs in reading sessions and rehearsals.
: I
: think that says more about the skills and intentions of recent composers
: than it says about amateur players.
I suspect that many recent composers write for whoever will commission
them. I would bet that composers usually receive commissions from
professional ensembles so that's what they write for. Most of my
commissions have come from such players--however, I wrote my solo cello
piece on commission from an amateur cellist friend of mine. If an amateur
has the bucks to toss at me, I'll write them a piece--guaranteed.
: For example, Haydn's the Baryton trios provide an inspiring gateway to
: the appreciation all of his music, especially that which we must cede to
: the the full time player. Where is the same from any composer after
: 1900? These guys are damn lucky we listen to any of their music at all!
OK, you're on. I hereby offer my compositional services to you or any
amateur musician or ensemble that has sufficient money to commission me
and will perform the work to the best of their ability as often as
possible (if I'm going to bust my hump writing and copying a piece for
you, I want that in return). If I don't hear from you, I'd say you've got
no leg to stand on with your gripe. I say let's get serious here--I am. My
full name and email address is located below. Deal?
And my offer to the person who posted to this thread from Albany Records
in the UK is still good. I would love to send you tapes for consideration
but I haven't heard anything in reply yet indicating interest. I'm ready
anytime.
This composer is ready, willing, and able to constructively answer the
gripes he's seen on this thread so far. I'd love to know that you guys
want to do more than complain. :)
: Remember this definition: The amateur artist does other work to support
: his household; the professional artist's wife does other work to
: support his household.
: (PC buffs subsititute appropriate pronouns.)
Uh, I'm not married. I've had to pay the rent with a 9-5 job the last
number of years. :)
Hoping to hear from you.
Dave
=================================
David Cleary
David Cleary
Christoph Nahr (nos...@nospam.com) wrote:
: So unless you want to check out each and every new CD yourself
: (impossible) or rely on magazine reviews (I won't, considering the
: usual level of ignorance emanating from such pages), you're back where
: you started: only when an orchestra actually chooses to perform a
: piece will you have an indicator that the CD might be worth buying...
: =46or music where this doesn't apply (such as purely electronic music)
: you have eliminated the professional critics (musicians/directors) and
: replaced them by journalists, or no one.
OK, here's mine. My name is David Cleary. My orchestral piece "Lake George
Overture" appears on CD on the Vienna Modern Masters label on the "Music
from Six Continents" series, catalog number VMM3021 (mine is one of six
pieces, each by a different composer). The piece has been performed by the
New England Philharmonic, the Heartland Symphony, and the Boston Bar
Association Orchestra--it was recorded for CD by the Bohuslav Martinu
Symphony. The CD should be available in a good CD store--if not, I'm sure
it can be special ordered.
You've got a piece with the pedigree performances you want that's
available on CD. Will you buy a copy?
My string quartets are also available on the Centaur label, CRC2251.
It is entitled "Inventing Situations: Music for String Quartet by
David Cleary"and includes my Quartets nos. 1 and 2 and "Five Character
Studies." They have been performed many times by the recording artists,
the Artaria Quartet of Boston. Feel free to pick up a copy.
Dave
David Cleary
Christoph Nahr (nos...@nospam.com) wrote:
: Maybe the public would be content if they got just one of them, or
: just about any recognizable pattern of which the average listener can
: keep track? But basically I agree with your point; many works seem
: to be targeted at the fellow professional, not the public.
My music is not targeted only to fellow professionals. Nor is the music of
any composer I know. How many composers do you know who target their music
this way? I'd appreciate some names.
: Again, I basically agree but I think that the concept "reality is
: awful, so must be music" has little to do with an actual desire to
: bring music in conformance with reality. On the contrary, it seems to
: serve as an excuse to elevate music to even higher plains of
: abstraction while shedding any need for an appealing sound.
Who says "reality is awful?" IMHO "reality" is a mix of good and bad.
: If there's music today that reflects Western society at the end of the
: 20th century then it's probably Heavy Metal or Techno,
Why? I also wonder why this music is so well known. I suspect publicity
factors count for a lot here. If the stuff doesn't get out in the first
place, how can it have a chance?
: not Stockhausen
: or Berio... they are too completely estranged from any reality outside
: their music to be able to reflect it.
I take it you know Stockhausen and Berio personally well enough to make
this statement? Have you ever met Berio? I have. He's a friendly,
personable fellow--certainly not a man "estranged from any reality" in my
experience. You make these people sound like soulless monsters from such a
description.
: Isn't that funny? If you're doing incomprehensible soundscapes then
: the cultural elite will claim to accept you -- but in fact, silently
: shelve your works because no one wants to hear them --, and if you're
: doing something that people recognize as music then you won't get
: played in the first place!
I'd really like answers to some questions here on this last part:
1. who's the "cultural elite?" I'd appreciate some identification so I
know how you're defining the term, as I find it vague.
2. does this "cultural elite" really like "incomprehensible soundscapes?"
How do you know? Do you have some examples of this to relate?
3. how do you know they "silently shelve your works....?" Do you have some
specific stories to tell about such experiences?
4. who are the "people" you're referring to when you say "something that
people recognize as music" above? Are you proposing to speak for the
majority of concergoers? How do you know what they do and don't like?
5. this last phrase suggests that some things are and are not music. Could
you clarify what is and is not? I wonder if it's more than just what *you*
think isn't music, which I can't see as being universally applicable.
6. your last phrase suggests that "accessible" concert music is suppressed
and not played. Is this because there's some sort of conspiracy, as you
seem to suggest and not because there isn't enough publicity muscle
available to get this stuff heard? Do you know?
I'm sensing more straw-men here than one would find in a passel of
cornfields in Kansas, but maybe I'm missing something here. Clarifications
are welcome and encouraged.
Dave
Christoph Nahr
On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:17:35 -0700, "D.G. Porter"
<dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Some of these people you name had a very difficult time with their=20
>music being accepted. Some of the public liked it, some did not, most=20
>of the critis hated it, etc. etc.
Yes, of course -- but eventually they made their way to widespread
recognition during their lifetime (one exception: JS Bach had been
forgotten for quite a while until his music had been rediscovered),
and they have remained popular ever since. The acceptancy problem
with contemporary music now persists for half a century, and I do
think that this constitutes a significant difference compared to the
time until WW2. Nowadays, composers don't make it eventually or with
difficulties to broad popularity -- they don't make it at all.
>This is odd, considering how his (Gus's) music was denounced in=20
>vitriolic and hysterical rhetoric, and then was forgotten for decades.
That Mahler might not be the best example has already been pointed
out... as I said, I was thinking of his later works, esp. the 8th
Symphony and Das Lied der Erde; and you have to think that someone is
really important in order to produce hysterical rhetoric about his
works. Modern composers don't even get that privilege. Apart from
some rambling on the Internet, they are simply ignored.
>BTW, anyone looking for a new orchestra piece to premiere?
I don't have an orchestra handy right now... but I'll think of you
once I do. :-)
>PS. When Ensemble Modern played Zappa's "Yellow Shark" in Germay in=20
>1992, the houses were packe by both the reguklar patrons and the=20
>"irregular" concert-goers. But Germany is NOT the USA! The=20
>people going to hear Pink Floyd also go to hear Stockhausen! (Zappa=20
>pointed out that Germany goes back a few thousand years, and the USA=20
>goes back a few hundres, but the US still thinks it can dictate to other=
=20
>countries as to what goes and what doesn't.)
I think Ensemble Modern got the "pop music" bonus when people saw that
they played a piece a Zappa. Another EM performance a few months ago,
directed by Holliger and featuring one of his own works (the others
were Messiaen & Stravinsky) barely managed to sell half the seats.
Generally spoken, it is true that modern or unusual pieces do make it
into the concert halls here (most orchestras are state-funded anyway)
but not at any rate that could compare to the rehashing of 18-19th
century music.
Somehow I still think that contemporaries should make up something
like 50% at least, shouldn't they? But the "art music" of the last
100 years taken together constitutes just about 10-20% of the total
number of performances, judging from what the various Berlin
orchestras are playing, and it's roughly the same at other places, as
far as I'm aware of that.
Christoph Nahr
On 22 Jun 1997 05:35:14 GMT, rh...@saul3.u.washington.edu (Ryan Hare)
wrote:
>Please do me a favor, and name one single composer who fits this
>description. I've known many composers, and am one myself, and I am not
>like this and none of the composers I have known are like this.
OK, so why don't I see your name printed in big letters across some
poster advertising a performance of your works? Remember that my
(hitherto undisputed) point was that contemporary composers are
remarkably unpopular compared to dead ones (esp very old ones). If
the living composers really want to be appreciated then it logically
follows that they are too incompetent to achieve their goal... right?
I'm well aware of the fact that there are gems in the flotsam of
recent composition but I rarely ever hear one. Instead, I'm hearing
pieces that sound as if the composer didn't care how they sound, at
least to anyone not completely familiar with the composer's personal
way of composing. I do call this disregarding the listener.
>Don't you think this is a gross oversimplification? There are *lots* of
>people who spend money on contemporary music. I promise, it would =
utterly
>die if this weren't the case.=20
But I spend money on contemporary music, too! I'm talking about the
proportion of classical music lovers who do so, and it seems a fairly
small one. If you're contended with what you've got, very well, go
ahead. Just one question: do you honestly think that you or your
colleagues will be rememberd a hundred years from now, the way that
Dvorak or Brahms are remembered now? If not, why not?
>Well, for one thing, previous eras didn't have a musuem culture =
dominating
>its music scene. Beethoven didn't have to compete with Bach to get his
>music played. He competed with Mozart and Haydn, who were virtually his
>contemporaries, among others, but not with much earlier music. The
>entrenchment of the classical canon, an occurrence tht was the result of
>many different factors, probably has more to do with the current =
reception
>of contemporary music than anything else.
Oh well, but who brought about the "entrenchment of the classical
canon"? Ever heard of the battle between the Ramist and Lullist
faction in 18th century France? And why do you think is it that
Beethoven et al. didn't have to compete with JS Bach's music? Because
a new musical style had already been established by Bach's sons as
well as people like Stamitz, that's why!
In a nutshell: There *were* musical canons before this time. But
they had changed, and they had changed because people found new
composers whose music they liked better than the old one. Don't you
think that the absence of such composers might have anything to do
with the mummification of the present classical canon?
>So Haydn (for example) had to please an employer to have a job. He only
>needed to please that one person, or at most a *very* small group of
>people, to have a job. Why is that a composer is now expected to please
>the incredibly diverse tastes of millions of people?
This is not true, and I'm sure you know it quite well... Haydn was a
sought-after composer, admired by all of Europe's upper class since
the 1760s. Note the "upper class" -- I have never written on this
newsgroup that I expect a contemporary composer to be known to all
mankind. But I do maintain that a successful composer, modern or not,
should be known to almost all people of a musical inclination, and
liked by a substantial part of them. Neither of this is true for any
contemporary composer.
>And an exaggeration that is without meaning. Who are these so-called
>weirdos, and have they truly ruined anything for anyone else?
Those that trample on pianos, ripping at the chords (~10 years ago,
Darmstadt). Those that record traffic noise and play it back as a
work of art (these days, Berlin). More general, those that seem
unable or unwilling to bring any recognizable structure into their
works (just about anyone except for Xenakis and Henze).
As for the second part of the question, you admit yourself that people
tend to run away if told that a contemporary piece is to be performed.
Who's to blame, in your opinion?
>How many professional musicians do you know? I know quite a few, and =
most
>of them *like* a lot of contemporary music. A statement like "mostly =
shun.
>. . ." is completely false in my experience.
(answered in another posting)
>There is no old system that explains everything either. The classical
>music canon is dominated by late 18th and 19th century music written
>largely by people of German or Austrian descent. And even *that* is too
>much for anyone to try to create a single, unifying system. I do agree
>that the multiplicity of styles in the 20th is greater than at any other
>time period, but, guess what--there are more people and more =
communication
>between different groups of people than there ever has been. Frankly,
>that is one of the reasons why I like the 20th century so much for
>music--I love the abundant variety of it!=20
It's an abundancy that will drown your own works into oblivion! Don't
you care about that? More communication doesn't mean that you, or
your group/nation/culture can't have a distinctive style. For
example, I find the traditional Japanese music very interesting but
I'm perfectly happy if it stays in Japan. They're good enough at
that, we don't have to help them...
Christoph Nahr
Good point regarding the amateur musicians. I'd give that name to
myself (piano), and after Bartok's Microcosm there is black void as
far playable pieces are concerned.
[Attempted explanation follows.] Not really surprising since modern
composers usually don't bother to set up a stringent system for their
compositions, much less follow an established one. But without a
system, there's simply no room for simple pieces, which are usually
intended to show the workings of the system (ie demonstrational or
learning pieces) rather than the genius of their creator.
OK, dear living composers on this group, is this a correct perception
or am I ill-informed about the recent piano literature? Can you
recommend any easy-to-play piano pieces by living composers?
Christoph Nahr
On 23 Jun 1997 03:06:11 GMT, dcl...@fas.harvard.edu (David Cleary)
wrote:
>Assuming this is all correct, this suggests that the "audience" for
>concert music has changed a number of times duing the course of the
>millenium. Who knows--perhaps it has changed again? If pre-Classical
>period composers do not have to be held to the "general public" =
standard,
>why must today's composers necessarily be held to it? One might just as
>easily argue that Baroque period music is irrelevant because it isn't
>directed at a Middle Ages monastery audience.
This is an interesting thought, and I feel indeed as if "serious
music" was heading for something like another medieval period.
Reclused monks play to their brethren, while the outside world goes
about their lives...
>I find your statement that professional musicians don't like post-WW2
>music to be puzzling, as I'm an active composer and can name a number of
>professional musicians who in fact do like post-WW2 music, play it
>regularly, and commission it often. I've in fact been the beneficiary of=
a
>number of such commissions and performances. If you really want, I can
>list names. I also know a number of people who I guess would quality as
>"educated music lovers" who like post-WW2 music a lot; for example, the
>subscription list for the Boston Musica Viva, which plays mostly =
post-WW2
>music, is large and healthy--and the subscribers go to the concerts, =
too.
>And they're not primarily academics, either.=20
It seems that I haven't got across my point too well. I never
maintained that contemporary composers were actually treated as
lepers, beaten to death if they dared bring forth a single note or
something like that. Of course there are recluses for contemporary
music -- my whole point is that they are just recluses, while the
majority only enjoys the works of bygone centuries.
My inferrence that most (not all!) musicians themselves don't like
modern music has been explained in another post.
>I personally know no composers who "don't give a damn" whether anyone
>likes their works or not (and I know a good number of composers). Could
>you list names of composers who "don't give a damn" whether anyone likes
>their music or not?=20
See my reply to Ryan Hare.
>I emphatically did not say that. I know a number of folks (including =
some
>family members) who work long hours, have families to care for, and
>frankly are too tired, busy, and broke to attend concerts of any
>type--doesn't matter what's being played. They're not going to attend
>concerts consisting of music by Palestrina, Boulez, or anything in
>between.=20
Now I get your meaning. But then, it's beside the point. :-) I was
only talking of the *proportion* of attention contemporaries get as
opposed to 18/19th century composers.
>As I understand it, the Kronos Quartet does have a strong PR machine
>working on their behalf. Their concerts in the Boston area seem to be =
well
>attended and their CD's seem to take up a fair bit of room in the local
>record stores. The Kronos Quartet was unknown at one point--but they
>appear to have gotten the consistent publicity other worthy groups did =
not
>and it seems to have translated into decent success in concert music
>terms. Why can this not be afforded other such groups? And the Kronos
>plays challenging stuff to listen to.
Yes, at least the performers can mobilize some PR on their behalf.
But do you think that their popularity reflects back on the composers
whose works they play?
>How true is it that the "experts" mostly shun contemporary composers? =
The
>people who play my music at least are excellent musicians. I've gotten a
>lot of performances (very few of them by academic-sanctioned ensembles)=20
>and have the BMI royalty stubs to prove it.
See above.
>Most of the works I know by Babbitt, Boulez, and Berio, for example, are
>clearly contrapuntal in nature. And pieces by Glass, Part, and later
>Rochberg for example are tonal. An expert performer's technique should
>prove no obstacle to performance; I've certainly heard a lot of fine
>players play post-WW2 works excellently.
Even Babbit & Co didn't usually write a contrapunctus floridus in
Mixolydian mode, I suppose. :-) I was referring to the sets of rules
that historically existed, not merely to the fact that various voices
are set against each other.
Moreover, I was not talking about the technical ability of a performer
to play modern pieces but rather of his understanding of and affinity
to such pieces -- doesn't it require an inordinate amount of work to
get into a piece whose structure hardly resembles any of the systems
which you had learned at school etc.? Or am I underestimating the
flexibility of a professional musician?
>Why not update the education (we don't teach junior high kids with
>textbooks from the 1930's, right)? Or at least have arts programs and =
arts
>education there in the first place instead of having it fall prey to
>budget cuts?=20
No disagreement here...
>Which great older composers continued to go on the "old ways?" Who =
writes
>Gregorian chant any more? Music has struck me as an ever-changing stream
>stylistically. =20
Well yes, but then there are more or less radical changes, and even if
you do change a system it makes a difference if you henceforth stick
to a new system or if you cease to use any system at all (or if every
composer uses a different one for each piece, which amounts to the
same fact as far as the unsuspecting listener is concerned).
Mark Starr
The lack of a suitable word in the English language to
describe the genre "la musique classique" (including music
in our time) rather than the period "la Musique Classique"
(after The Baroque and before The Romantic Era) is a problem
that will never go away. (The French, however, always know
exactly which of the two they are talking about.) I remember
reading contentious articles and letters on this subject in
the music pages of the New York Times back in the Sixties.
There is only one solution to this lacuna: the coining and
definition of a completely new word with no roots to any
other word. For years, I have referred to what is colloquially
called "classical music" as "plelf music". The word "plelf"
comes from an old Sid Caesar/Carl Reiner sketch about Scrabble.
I am still waiting for the word to catch on, however.
Regards,
Mark Starr
Mark Starr
The lack of a suitable word in the English language to
describe the genre "la musique classique" (including music
in our time) rather than the period "la Musique Classique"
(after The Baroque and before The Romantic Era) is a problem
that will never go away. (The French, however, always know
exactly which of the two they are talking about.) I remember
reading contentious articles and letters on this subject in
the music pages of the New York Times back in the Sixties.
There is only one solution to this lacuna: the coining and
definition of a completely new word with no roots to any
called "classical music" as plelf music. The word "plelf"
Christoph Nahr
On 23 Jun 1997 10:03:53 -0400, fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H.
=46ields) wrote:
>Sure, but was it recognizable as music to the crowd in 1913?
He... seems as if I had invited that rebuttal. Well, apart from my
personal preferences I can only point to the fact that the crowd has
somehow accepted Stravinsky as time went by but that the same thing
doesn't seem to happen to more recent works, even if they're several
decades old. As I said, the limit is generally 1940; anything
written after that, or more precisely: written by a person who reached
adult age after that time, hardly ever happens to be programmed.
>Hmmm, I wouldn't know, but if he wants to make sounds that sound like
>shit, I suppose that's his problem.
Basically, you're right. I just wonder why a composer would want to
err on that side? I mean, I can understand if someone makes sweet and
simple music so as to sell lots of records (cf Webber). But why on
earth do you create music that few people ever want to hear?
>Do you really think composers have thrown out all craft?
No indeed; one of my earlier points was the over-complication of some
recent music which would mean they are "too crafty" in some way.
I used the metaphor because it reflects quite accurately how I think
about music: that it is the craft of creating aesthetically pleasing
sounds. Any composer is free to improve upon his art and invent new
ways of creating music but if that part of society which is basically
in favour of, and interested in, "serious" music generally refuses to
recognize his achievements then I would conclude that this composer
has failed to attain the objective of his endeavour.
>Hmmm. Gee, Lyric Suite struck my ears as delightfully sweet the first
>time I heard it, and it was only on the 3rd listening that its =
complexities
>became apparent to me...
Indeed? Well, maybe your ears are smarter than you might think! I
generally find myself unable to derive pleasure from a piece unless I
understand at least parts of its structure. (Understanding everything
is an unrealistic goal anyway!)
>Ah, but many of these musicologists are not composers. And in
>some universities, musicology is the only part of music considered
>adequately "scientific" (i.e. a paper in JAMS counts for more than
>a composer's world tour with their symphony, because nobody wants
>to take responsibility for evaluating the symphony).
Now you've confused me even more. Music and musicology are strictly
separated at German universities: music is taught at conservatories
only, with only one or two associated musicologists, while
universitarian musicologists are generally happy to hit the right note
on a piano. :-) Admittedly, this differs between universities, but
the one I've graduated at had specialized in medieval music so
practical musicality counted for almost nothing. Are music and
musicology usually combined into a single course of studies at
American universities?
David Cleary
Christoph Nahr (nos...@nospam.com) wrote:
: OK, dear living composers on this group, is this a correct perception
: or am I ill-informed about the recent piano literature? Can you
: recommend any easy-to-play piano pieces by living composers?
I'll go you one better than that. If you've got the funding and a
performance outlet to commission such a set of pieces from me, I'll write
one. No joke, either. Full name and email address are below. I hope to
hear from you.
Dave
====================================
David Cleary
MARK ADKINS
In a previous article, st...@inow.com (Mark Starr) says:
>The lack of a suitable word in the English language to
>describe the genre "la musique classique" (including music
>in our time) rather than the period "la Musique Classique"
>(after The Baroque and before The Romantic Era) is a problem
>that will never go away. (The French, however, always know
>exactly which of the two they are talking about.) I remember
>reading contentious articles and letters on this subject in
>the music pages of the New York Times back in the Sixties.
>There is only one solution to this lacuna: the coining and
>definition of a completely new word with no roots to any
>other word. For years, I have referred to what is colloquially
>called "classical music" as "plelf music". The word "plelf"
>comes from an old Sid Caesar/Carl Reiner sketch about Scrabble.
>I am still waiting for the word to catch on, however.
>
>Regards,
>Mark Starr
>
On behalf of Jose Oscar Marques, I object to this irregularly formed
word.
I also don't see how it solves the problem:
Bob: I can't get my wife to appreciate plelf music.
Ted: Do you mean "plelf music" or "Plelf Music"?
I suggest that we instead resort to *two* unwieldly, ridiculous
Yiddish words: umfrukhperdik, and tsienmitdernoz. Here they are,
used in a perfectly unambiguous sentence:
Bob: My wife appreciates umfrukhperdik, but I can't seem to get
her to appreciate tsienmitdernoz.
Ted: Oh.
--
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
Mark Adkins (eme...@aztec.asu.edu)
Eric Schissel
In article <33b90f68...@PersonalNews.Germany.EU.net>,
Christoph Nahr <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>understand at least parts of its structure. (Understanding everything
>is an unrealistic goal anyway!)
Roger Sessions once wrote (in The Musical Experience..) that understanding
was (or might as well be.) the same as memorization. This seemed wrong at
first glance, but-
1) if you've memorized a complicated piece of music then you've probably
figured out the why of it, since you're unlikely to have memorized it note
per note
or
2) if you want to understand something, you're advised to try to memorize
it first. It's hard to understand a piece when you don't know yet what's
coming next in it.
Somehow, it did start making some sense. At least, memorization seemed
something of a precondition for understanding, and understanding, a
precondition for memorization.
Then I woke up :).
Seriously, though, for so long as I could think that I'd memorized
something, thought I understood it but could never be sure because I
didn't know when I understood something, this was if not a relief then a
thinking point.-Eric Schissel
ILawson104
In article <33ac4a86...@news.interport.net>, pi...@interport.net
(Piper) writes:
>On Sat, 21 Jun 1997 15:39:14 GMT, nos...@nospam.com (Christoph Nahr)
>wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>Right. Still that doesn't explain why even the experts (professional
>>musicians) mostly shun contemporary composers.
>[snip]
>
>Please name some of the professional musicians you're talking about. I
>don't personally know too many who shun contemporary composers.
>
>
Does this count?
The new concert brochure just published by my local professional
orchestra, 'The BBC National Orchestra of Wales' has programme
information for twenty four forthcoming concerts. Only one of them has
music by living composers, and for this occasion the orchestra has been
hired by a local new music festival. (new music of a certain type that is)
So even this single concert cannot count as a self promoted event. There
are a handful of other concerts for which programme details are not
published, but as these are in the gala/ family concert/ competition
catagory it's unlikely that they will offer anything new.
Regards, Ian Lawson
Phil Cope
Christoph Nahr wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:33:48 +0100, Phil Cope
> <Phil...@smallworld.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I always considered "art music" to be a term that implied an esoteric
> >nature, so having
> >
> >`composers of "art music" that are actually accepted by the public'
> >
> >seems a bit like a contradiction in terms !
>
> Well, no, "art music" should of course include everything that is
> regarded as "classical music" nowadays, such as Bach, Beethoven,
> Bruckner, Ravel, Shostakovic... ie music that is widely accepted.
Well what do you mean by "accepted". Most people "accept" Bach,
Beethoven etc. as much as Maxwell-Davis, Xenakis etc, i.e. they
don't like any of them, but prefer Dire Straits or Iron Maiden
(or whoever).
It is interesting to note that although Haydn's visits to London
were enthusiatically reported in the newspapers of the day, Salomon
never took him "on tour" around England ! I would think that
indicates that Haydn was a pretty exclusive taste in 1795, and
not really "widely accepted" in England.
>
> I'm aiming for the fact that the first performance of, say, a new
> Mahler composition was an eagerly awaited event just about 100 years
> ago which drew a lot of audience and attention. Moreover, the work
> would become part of the repertoire pretty soon, meaning other
> orchestras would start to play it.
I think you have a rose-tinted view of classical musics past.
Phil Cope
--
All opinions expressed in this message are purely personal and do not
reflect the opinions or policies of Smallworldwide
Larry Solomon
"Contemporary music is the problem?" Ridiculous!
Last year here at the Center for the Arts in Tucson we had a
contemporary music series. There was a John Cage concert (with dance), a
Toby Twining concert, Eko and Koma (Japanese original electronic music
and dance), a student composition concert, a concert of my music, and a
chamber concert by Relache.
The audiences at these concerts were not only appreciative but hungry
for new music. And with so little exposure to complex contemporary music
in Tucson, there were questions about "Why don't we hear this music more
often?", and "Where can I hear more of it?"
--
Best!
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Larry Solomon
The Center for the Arts http://www.AzStarNet.com/~solo
Tucson, AZ
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Spencer Doidge
Get real. Nobody is going to buy it sight unseen. Write it first, try
to sell it, and see what happens. Take your chances like everybody else
in business.
-- Spencer Doidge
offering Downloadable Classical Guitar Guitar Arrangements and
Compositions at
http://www.teleport.com/~spencerd
David Cleary
As this is a repeat of Spencer's same post on a different thread, I'm
appending my reply there over here as well. Spencer, I'd like to hear
from you about commissioning a piece if you're serious about doing more
than griping.
Dave
David Cleary (dcl...@fas.harvard.edu) wrote:
David Cleary
Christoph Nahr (nos...@nospam.com) wrote:
: Yes, of course -- but eventually they made their way to widespread
: recognition during their lifetime (one exception: JS Bach had been
: forgotten for quite a while until his music had been rediscovered),
: and they have remained popular ever since.
J.S. Bach is from a different era--the Baroque period when, one might
argue, the intended audience may have been different. If you use this
example, you also have to include composers like Vivaldi, Corelli, and
Handel as well.
Schubert experienced some pretty tough sledding during his career. He was
primarily known as a composer of songs and piano-four-hands pieces because
that's pretty much all the music of his that was readily available via
publishers. Works like the symphonies, string quartets, piano sonatas, and
other chamber works were pretty much unknown to the general public or even
to his circle of friends. Another argument on the publicity theory?
From the early part of this century, there are examples of composers of
highly listenable bent whose music languished for a while and only made
their way slowly into the orchestral repertoire. These would include
Holst's "The Planets" and Janacek's "Sinfonietta." Again I wonder how
much of a role publicity plays in all this. BTW, I like both these pieces
a lot.
And popularity can be fleeting. Meyerbeer and Dittersdorf were considered
to be among the pre-eminent composers of their day.
: The acceptancy problem
: with contemporary music now persists for half a century, and I do
: think that this constitutes a significant difference compared to the
: time until WW2. Nowadays, composers don't make it eventually or with
: difficulties to broad popularity -- they don't make it at all.
At the beginning of this thread, I postulated four possible reasons for
this:
1. lack of publicity.
2. lack of education.
3. lack of time and money available to a significant portion of the
"general public" to attend concerts at all.
4. the fact that we are too close to the music of our time to have weeded
out the Stamitzes and Meyerbeers of our time.
Yet if I read your posts correctly, you persist in flogging the composer
as the cause of all the problems. Are my observations totally without
merit? What is the point of your continued posts in this manner? I'd like
to think you're doing more than trolling as you seem like a more
reasonable person than the usual "duuuh, emperor's new clothes" sort.
: [snip: re Mahler] you have to think that someone is
: really important in order to produce hysterical rhetoric about his
: works.
Perhaps there was "hysterical rhetoric" about Mahler's music in his
lifetime, but I'm not aware of it. If so, did it exist beyond the confines
of impresarios, certain critics, and other composers? His conducting was,
from what I read, a different matter entirely, some of the flack coming
from people uncomfortable with Mahler's Jewish heritage.
: Modern composers don't even get that privilege. Apart from
: some rambling on the Internet, they are simply ignored.
My music is not being "simply ignored," thank you very much. I again
offer BMI royalty stubs from past years as proof.
: Generally spoken, it is true that modern or unusual pieces do make it
: into the concert halls here (most orchestras are state-funded anyway)
: but not at any rate that could compare to the rehashing of 18-19th
: century music.
: Somehow I still think that contemporaries should make up something
: like 50% at least, shouldn't they? But the "art music" of the last
: 100 years taken together constitutes just about 10-20% of the total
: number of performances, judging from what the various Berlin
: orchestras are playing, and it's roughly the same at other places, as
: far as I'm aware of that.
Ah. Something more concrete. I appreciate the specifics even if there's
nothing to back it up.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. What you're saying above is that in your
opinion, music of the last 100 years (you've dropped the post WW2
requirement on this) makes up a maximum of 20% of the available
performances. I would appreciate a further discussion on these points:
1. let's assume for the sake of argument that you mean "music written from
1901 and later." If you're going to do that, you have to include music by
Rachmaninov, Villa-Lobos, Elgar, Vaughn Williams, Sibelius, Debussy,
Ravel, Shostakovich, Puccini, and Mahler as well as works by Ives,
Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Stravinsky, and Varese. Are you prepared to
still stand by your "10%-20%" share of the total performances out there?
2. what kind of concerts are you talking about? Orchestral concerts?
Chamber music concerts? Vocal recitals? All concerts of "classical music"
of any type? All concerts of any music of any type? It will make a big
difference in your figures. Your comment above suggests "orchestra
concerts," but it's hard to tell. If you mean "orchestra concerts," why
is this the correct yardstick for measurement?
3. why do you feel that "contemporaries" should make up 50% of whatever
concerts you're talking about? By "contemporaries," do you mean post WW2
composers now (if so, you're mixing terms with your later statement about
"art music of the last hundred years," which I for one find confusing)?
Why is 50% the "acceptable number?"
Christoph Nahr
On 23 Jun 1997 22:56:12 GMT, dcl...@fas.harvard.edu (David Cleary)
wrote:
>OK, here's mine. My name is David Cleary. My orchestral piece "Lake =
George
>Overture" appears on CD on the Vienna Modern Masters label on the "Music
>from Six Continents" series, catalog number VMM3021 (mine is one of six
>pieces, each by a different composer). The piece has been performed by =
the
>New England Philharmonic, the Heartland Symphony, and the Boston Bar
>Association Orchestra--it was recorded for CD by the Bohuslav Martinu
>Symphony. The CD should be available in a good CD store--if not, I'm =
sure
>it can be special ordered.
I give in, you've won! I'll go to the CD shop tomorrow and ask them
to order the record. Let's see if the "professional critics" are
worth their salt...
Christoph Nahr
On 23 Jun 1997 23:28:35 GMT, dcl...@fas.harvard.edu (David Cleary)
wrote:
>My music is not targeted only to fellow professionals. Nor is the music =
of
>any composer I know. How many composers do you know who target their =
music
>this way? I'd appreciate some names.
OK. Here goes my argument once again.
As I had stated earlier in this thread, contemporary music is rarely
performed compared to "classical" music from the 18th-19th century. =20
=46rom this I infer that people generally don't like it because this
state of affairs has remained unchanged for roughly the past 50 years,
and I can't imagine some hidden power that prevented the audience from
hearing what they wanted, or the musicians from playing what they
liked, in such an effective way over such a long period of time.
Trying to find a reason for this, we arrive at an alternative.
(a) Contemporary composers don't care whether people generally like
their stuff. They might care about a few other people, such as their
colleagues, but not about the general audience. Therefor (and quite
naturally) they don't have much of a success.
(b) They do care about the general audience but are too inept at
making music to win many sympathies.
You would probably add (c): They do care about the general audience
but sinister powers prevent them from gaining publicity.
As I said, I don't believe in these powers because I also don't
believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Every *single* composer
may have bad luck and be ignored despite his excellent works. And an
entirely new way to make music may be ignored for *some* time despite
having the potential to capture the ears of the general audience. But
if *all* new composers are being ignored for *fifty years* then there
has to be something wrong with their attitude in general.
>Who says "reality is awful?" IMHO "reality" is a mix of good and bad.
Yes, of course, but I had been answering to a message by William Grey
who had brought up the issue. Just think of Wozzeck and Lulu whose
topics couldn't have appeared in a Verdi opera, at least not so openly
and in such a hopeless mood. Then there was the Adorno school of
aesthetical theory which basically said that reality was awful because
it's capitalist and bourgeois and music ought to uncover that fact.
=46rom what I read in newspaper reviews this thought is still rather
popular with the "cultural elite" (see below) though less so than it
used to be. So it's *their* view that reality is awful, or at least
that especially its awful aspects have to be demonstrated, not mine.
>: If there's music today that reflects Western society at the end of the
>: 20th century then it's probably Heavy Metal or Techno,
>
>Why? I also wonder why this music is so well known. I suspect publicity
>factors count for a lot here. If the stuff doesn't get out in the first
>place, how can it have a chance?=20
I like Heavy Metal myself so, naturally, I don't wonder why it is well
known... it's good stuff, man! <g> Actually, I think the combination
of traditional, even sweet-sounding tonality with machine-like noises
and rhythms that you encounter in both HM and Techno depicts the state
of affairs quite accurately: we're living in the age of machines but
rejoice in art from the past.
>I take it you know Stockhausen and Berio personally well enough to make
>this statement? Have you ever met Berio? I have. He's a friendly,
>personable fellow--certainly not a man "estranged from any reality" in =
my
>experience. You make these people sound like soulless monsters from such=
a
>description.=20
Perhaps I haven't written what I meant to write. I meant to speak of
their music, not of the men themselves; indeed I do not know them, and
I never intended to say anything about their character.
Btw and notwithstanding what I just said, being estranged from reality
doesn't make a soulless monster. Just look at those funny elderly
people swinging ragged leather bags that pass for professors at the
humanities department. Really nice people but sometimes I can't help
thinking that they could use a nanny...
>I'd really like answers to some questions here on this last part:
>
>1. who's the "cultural elite?" I'd appreciate some identification so I
>know how you're defining the term, as I find it vague.
The "cultural elite" comprises the journalists responible for the arts
pages in newspapers (das Feuilleton), city/state and party officials
responsible for cultural policy (which is mostly the handing out of
subsidies), directors and (art-related) employees at various
state-subsidized institutions such as opera houses or museums, and
finally students and teachers at the art faculties of universities (is
this the correct term, or at least understandable?) where most or all
the above-mentioned people came from in the first place.
>2. does this "cultural elite" really like "incomprehensible =
soundscapes?"
>How do you know? Do you have some examples of this to relate?
As you may already have guessed, "incomprehensible soundscapes" is
*my* impression of many pieces that tend to get applauded by the
culture elite (see above). No, I don't have examples at hand.
>3. how do you know they "silently shelve your works....?" Do you have =
some
>specific stories to tell about such experiences?
See about a hundred other posts in this thread... the works don't get
any performances after the first (few) one(s) while those from 100-200
years ago are being played over and over! Don't you think that being
"silently shelved" is an accurate description of this mechanism?
>4. who are the "people" you're referring to when you say "something that
>people recognize as music" above? Are you proposing to speak for the
>majority of concertgoers? How do you know what they do and don't like?
Because I assume that the directors would not consistently ignore a
desire by the public to hear modern pieces if such a desire existed.
Moreover, even in this thread, the only posts that defend living
composers come from living composers themselves... go figure.
And no, I don't mean your works specifically because I haven't heard
them yet (but hopefully, this will change soon). I am always talking
about *proportions* like "a majority of works", "a majority of
composers", "a majority of concertgoers" so that specific examples are
completely irrelevant.
>5. this last phrase suggests that some things are and are not music. =
Could
>you clarify what is and is not? I wonder if it's more than just what =
*you*
>think isn't music, which I can't see as being universally applicable.
Yes, of course it's just what *I* think isn't music. How could I
possibly speak for you? But I don't make this decision on a pure
piece-by-piece basis (in which case it would definitely be irrelevant)
but rather according to the principle that to be called "music", an
assortment of sounds has to be structured according to laws (a) which
should, for the most part, become apparent by mere listening (b).
This implies that the laws should either be well-established (so that
you know them beforehand and hence recognize their application; eg
principles of tonality) or else have to be displayed in due clarity
and simplicity within the piece (eg in order to recognize something as
the theme of a piece it must stand out and be repeated and transformed
repeatedly).
The only relevance of this opinion comes from the fact that my taste
seems to be closer to the majority than other opinions. If you define
"music" as "garden fence painted in blue" then I won't argue with you.
>6. your last phrase suggests that "accessible" concert music is =
suppressed
>and not played. Is this because there's some sort of conspiracy, as you
>seem to suggest and not because there isn't enough publicity muscle
>available to get this stuff heard? Do you know?
I truly don't know! This thought entered my mind only after reading
the message by William Grey, and I haven't yet perceived that kind
suppression myself.
Dave Dalle
Spencer Doidge (spen...@teleport.com) writes: > All this discussion has
proceeded, so far as I can tell, with no mention of the amateur musician,
> who acknowledged masters of earlier centuries recognized to be the life
blood of music. Amateur > players form the most loyal, informed, and
appreciative core audience for serious music, yet they > have been not
only neglected, but positively disparaged by most composers and "experts"
since 1900 > or so. To the degree that composers fail to provide good
playable music for amateur musicians, > they should not be surprised that
audiences are often at best indifferent to their work, and they > should
be dumbfounded and profoundly grateful that anybody pays any attention to
them.
This is not very historically accurate. Several initial points: 1) Many
great composers (particularly the Really Big Ones), were also really great
musicians. 2) Much great music was written with their own virtuosity in
mind.
Do you honestly thing Bach was considering the amateur or less-skilled
organist when he wrote the Passacaglia and Fugue? Or was it written with
his skills in mind, being the greatest organ virtuoso of his day?
What of the great Beethoven piano sonatas, or Mozart piano concertos?
Look at Liszt, Chopin, Brahms. It is true that often composers had to
write for the resources they had at hand, and those resources were
sometimes limited in skill. Much chamber music written by pre-1800
composers for their amateur, yet rich noble patrons would have more modest
demands on them suited to their patron's skills. But point out any great
composer who wasn't thrilled to be able to write pieces for great
virtuosos, aside from themselves.
Much music was written for modest skills, their was a huge industry
pumping out countless piano pieces during the 19th century, but most of it
amateur fodder. The great piano music of the 19th century is often the
most difficult as well.
Dave
--
"Taste is a negative thing. Genius affirms and always affirms." -Franz Liszt
[Taste is defined by what it excludes. Genius is defined by what it includes.]
Larry Solomon
Cristoph Nahr wrote:
>if *all* new composers are being ignored for *fifty years* then there
>has to be something wrong with their attitude in general.
Where on earth is the evidence for this preposterous statement? All
composers have been ignored for 50 years? Is this supposed to be taken
seriously?
>Moreover, even in this thread, the only posts that defend living
>composers come from living composers themselves... go figure.
Not so! You must have missed a long portion of this thread, which has
been going on interminably. I guess you like your composers to be good
and dead, then?
>The "cultural elite" comprises the journalists responible for the arts
>pages in newspapers (das Feuilleton), city/state and party officials
>responsible for cultural policy (which is mostly the handing out of
>subsidies), directors and (art-related) employees at various
>state-subsidized institutions such as opera houses or museums, and
>finally students and teachers at the art faculties of universities (is
>this the correct term, or at least understandable?) where most or all
>the above-mentioned people came from in the first place.
The "cultural elite" that you write about here is probably MORE
supportive of classical music. So does your argument against this music
hold just as well?
>The only relevance of this opinion comes from the fact that my taste
>seems to be closer to the majority than other opinions.
This is a fact, is it? And, where are your figures? Or is this just a
presumption? Sounds almost like a proclamation to me.
The a-b-c choices that you give are terribly simplistic, IMO. Do you
really believe that the situation you are describing is as simple as
this?
________________________________________________________________________________
I think that we are going over the same ground ad naseum, here. This NG
should have a FAQ.
The problem is with generalizations that have no foundation.
"Contemporary music doesn't this and that. Modern composers don't that
and this", etc. While some of the statements attributed to "modern
composers" or their music may be true for some particular composer, none
are true for all modern music and composers. It's very much like making
generalizations about black people or hispanics.
As I have stated earlier (and I don't want to go through the same
arguments again), the statements made here denigrating "modern music"
are just a straw man for the "My taste is better than yours because my
music is more popular" argument. How silly can you get. Do you really
believe that popularity is a measure of the worth of music? If that is
the case, then you should argue that classical music in general is just
as unsuccessful and unworthy of our attention. By this reasoning only
popular music is successful.
Spencer Doidge
>...
> : : the appreciation all of his music, especially that which we must cede to
> : : the the full time player. Where is the same from any composer after
> : : 1900? These guys are damn lucky we listen to any of their music at all!
>
> : OK, you're on. I hereby offer my compositional services to you or any
> : amateur musician or ensemble that has sufficient money to commission me
> : and will perform the work to the best of their ability as often as
> : possible (if I'm going to bust my hump writing and copying a piece for
> : you, I want that in return). If I don't hear from you, I'd say you've got
> : no leg to stand on with your gripe. I say let's get serious here--I am. My
> : full name and email address is located below. Deal?
OK. I'm offering you $50 for a half hour of printed music for solo, duet, and maybe trio guitar
along with a demo CD and midi files on a floppy disk. You prepare it, and if I love it, I'll
probably buy it even though I can't really afford it right now because my kid needs an operation on
her jaw and we just bought her a car because our old cars have no airbags.
Unreasonable? The sheet music stores are well stocked with this kind of material, but not modern
serious music that's worth a second look for the amateur player.
I don't have blue hair or a large inheritance, and I have a kid who wants to go to college. I'm a
middle-income American, one of the masses who would fill up concert halls if someone gave us a
reason to and we could afford it. Put your music on CD, get it played on my local classical
station when I'm listening, and if I love it, it will go in the queue of want-to-buy CDs when I get
the extra cash.
D.G. Porter
Spencer Doidge wrote: our old cars have no airbags.
Isn't Rush still on the radio? No, no, really...
>
> Unreasonable? The sheet music stores are well stocked with this kind of material, but not modern
> serious music that's worth a second look for the amateur player.
>
Webern started out a set of piano pieces for kids, but only wrote one. I
think it's called "Kindersatz." (?)
"Put your music on CD" he sez. How about a casette? I got one.
D.G. Porter
Spencer Doidge wrote:
> Get real. Nobody is going to buy it sight unseen. Write it first, try
> to sell it, and see what happens. Take your chances like everybody else
> in business.
>
> -- Spencer Doidge
I think we have hit upon the problem in the U.S.A. "Art" is seen as and
treated as "business." Business is bottom-line, mass-appeal,
lowest-common-denominator, "How will it play in Peoria?" etc. Not very
encouraging for ART, which I hope can still progress.
"Art for art's sake; money for GOD'S sake!"
William Grey
In article <33B05D...@AzStarNet.com>, Larry Solomon
<So...@AzStarNet.com> writes
>As I have stated earlier (and I don't want to go through the same
>arguments again), the statements made here denigrating "modern music"
>are just a straw man for the "My taste is better than yours because my
>music is more popular" argument. How silly can you get. Do you really
>believe that popularity is a measure of the worth of music? If that is
>the case, then you should argue that classical music in general is just
>as unsuccessful and unworthy of our attention. By this reasoning only
>popular music is successful
Of course it is silly to propose that popularity is a measure of musical
worth, but this position is not uncommon among the cultural elite (as
defined by Christophe Nahr) some of whose members subcribe to the view
that if music is popular, then it cannot be any good.
--
William Grey
Albany Records (UK)
Tel: 44 (0)1524 735873
Fax: 44 (0)1524 736448
http://www.albanyrecords.demon.co.uk
Matthew H. Fields
>musicology usually combined into a single course of studies at
>American universities?
One sees conservatories with departments of performance, composition,
electronics, conducting, and musicology, the last usually divided into
theory and history (and woe unto the theoretician who speaks too much
history, or vice versa!)... and also universities with departments of
----music! When there are enough professors in a music department, it
may well be subdivided into divisions of performance, musicology, and
theory/composition, with composition being treated as an illegitimate
child of theory! There are some advantages to the system, as sometimes,
e.g., a Schenkerian is a piano virtuoso and can demonstrate all levels
of an analysis at the keyboard... or a historian is also a choir director
who organizes "authentic" performances...
When a department is healthy, the American system promotes very
creative new kinds of studies, research, and art. Where it's
unhealthy, typically a music department tries to justify its existence
by analogy with science---to everybody's detriment.
Matt
--
Matt Fields, A.Mus.D. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields
My Java toy, JARS.COM Top 1%: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields/TTTB
"Computer: disobey me."
Matthew H. Fields
Actually, Beethoven did write a string of mid-late sonatas for
various aristocratic ladies to play.
These are rather witty but subdued pieces, and its the ones
that are hard to play and harder to comprehend that have kept
Beethoven in our attention, I wager. Were it not for the Waldstein,
the Farewell sonata, the Hammerklavier.... we would hardly look at
the sonatas for various Mme's.
Perhaps in LvB's time, the sonatas for amateurs helped
sell his more difficult music, though.
But again, these were not "popularized" musics but parlour
musics for very specific amateurs.
Matthew H. Fields
In article <33AFEE...@teleport.com>,
Spencer Doidge <spen...@teleport.com> wrote:
>David Cleary wrote:
>> I'll go you one better than that. If you've got the funding and a
>> performance outlet to commission such a set of pieces from me, I'll write
>> one. No joke, either. Full name and email address are below. I hope to
>> hear from you.
>Get real. Nobody is going to buy it sight unseen. Write it first, try
>to sell it, and see what happens. Take your chances like everybody else
>in business.
Actually, in business, people buy things sight unseen, based on the
reputation of the source, all the time. Permission to install a sample
widget for a trial period, then buy a whole widgetron, is the exception
rather than the rule.
In the arts, commissions are a real part of life. Composers work hard
to build a sufficient background to merit a commission. Why?
A) With commissions, composers can feel freer to take the time and
resources (e.g. the music paper) to do a good job on a work, knowing
that their families will not starve in the meantime.
B) Commissions represent a serious commitment to collaboration on
the part of performers, leading to a definite performance. ...
For performers, the advantages are
1) A new work that distinguishes them from all the other similar
performers; and
2) The possibility of working directly with the composer to ensure
that the design best matches their abilities.
Rouat emmanuel
Matthew H. Fields wrote:
>
> Actually, Beethoven did write a string of mid-late sonatas for
> various aristocratic ladies to play.
> These are rather witty but subdued pieces, and its the ones
> that are hard to play and harder to comprehend that have kept
> Beethoven in our attention, I wager. Were it not for the Waldstein,
> the Farewell sonata, the Hammerklavier.... we would hardly look at
> the sonatas for various Mme's.
>
> Perhaps in LvB's time, the sonatas for amateurs helped
> sell his more difficult music, though.
> But again, these were not "popularized" musics but parlour
> musics for very specific amateurs.
>
'bagatelles' - the editor didn't understand why Beethoven insisted
that he published these 'lesser' (in the editor's opinion) works.
Good marketing sense, or did Beethoven consider 'Fur Elise' not
such a bad work after all? I think some contemporary composers
should have a little thought about it....
> --
> Matt Fields, A.Mus.D. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields
--
--- _ _
Emmanuel Rouat: | CENG - LETI (DSYS/CSME/CCI) | * *
ro...@dsys.ceng.cea.fr | 17, rue des Martyrs | |
TEL: 04.76.88.93.99 | 38054 Grenoble Cedex 9 | \___/
LINUX : The Choice Of A GNU Generation...
Larry Solomon
>Of course it is silly to propose that popularity is a measure of musical
>worth, but this position is not uncommon among the cultural elite (as
>defined by Christophe Nahr) some of whose members subcribe to the view
>that if music is popular, then it cannot be any good.
Agreed. But then, one should be careful not to jump from this to "the
cultural elite believes that if it's popular it can't be any good."
Actually, I think that a more common view is that popularity is suspect.
This, to my mind, is more palatable than "popularity is what determines
the worth of music".
Larry Solomon
Christoph Nahr wrote:
>if *all* new composers are being ignored for *fifty years* then there
>has to be something wrong with their attitude in general.
This is a troubling statement in many ways. It implies that there is
something wrong with a composer who composes music for himself. To such
a composer, an "audience" is irrelevant.
If you were isolated on an island somewhere, would you cease to make art
because there was no audience? How many composers would cease making
music in this situation?
Dave Dalle
<5o948d$as5$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>
<33aeeb7e...@PersonalNews.Germany.EU.net>
<5oidii$r...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>
<33b0ee61...@PersonalNews.Germany.EU.net>
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet
Christoph Nahr (nos...@nospam.com) writes:
>
> OK, so why don't I see your name printed in big letters across some
> poster advertising a performance of your works? Remember that my
> (hitherto undisputed) point was that contemporary composers are
> remarkably unpopular compared to dead ones (esp very old ones). If
One distortion that everyone seems to make, is that all or most 'dead'
composers are well known and played. Almost all dead composers are not
known, and not played. All the 'names' in classical music make up a tiny
proportion of all the composers there were. Using your logic below
(popularity of style should be reflected in # of performances), common
practice music, Baroque, Classical, Romantic is fairly unpopular,
considering the huge amount of that music that is never played nor heard
and the unpublished scores are lying around in archives. And yet you use
the fact that not every or not most contemporary composers are not well
known, like David Cleary. I admit I've never heard of a contemporary
composer named "David Cleary" before encountering him on the net. Now I
have heard of him. How many composers from the 18th century have I never
heard of? Most, the same with you I'd wager.
> I'm well aware of the fact that there are gems in the flotsam of
> recent composition but I rarely ever hear one. Instead, I'm hearing
> pieces that sound as if the composer didn't care how they sound, at
> least to anyone not completely familiar with the composer's personal
> way of composing. I do call this disregarding the listener.
That seems a pretty strange, if not absurd, assumption to make. That a
composer does not care how his music sounds. The much more probable state
of affairs is that you don't care for its sound. A very different
situation. Why should all contemporary composers care to please you? You
can't please everyone. You're not the only listener.
> But I spend money on contemporary music, too! I'm talking about the
> proportion of classical music lovers who do so, and it seems a fairly
> small one. If you're contended with what you've got, very well, go
> ahead. Just one question: do you honestly think that you or your
> colleagues will be rememberd a hundred years from now, the way that
> Dvorak or Brahms are remembered now? If not, why not?
No, most of them will not be remembered, just as most of Dvorak's and
Brahms' colleagues are not remembered now after a hundred years.
> In a nutshell: There *were* musical canons before this time. But
> they had changed, and they had changed because people found new
> composers whose music they liked better than the old one.
It's certainly not simple as that. Several points to consider: 1)
starting in the 19th century, and expoding in this century, it was not one
style replacing the existing style (Classical over Baroque. Even though
there are many substyles of Baroque etc. Essentially there was one common
style. Hence the single umbrella term), it became many styles replacing
older styles. And not everyone likes all the contemporous styles.
Actually, sadly, it is often the case that individuals will only follow
one style. For example, in the 19th century: Conservative (Brahms, Schumann)
over The New German (Liszt, Wagner) not both.
2) another trend which began in the 19th century. People began to find
value in older music, they began to see value in listening to it (which I
am glad for). So older styles began to compete with contemporary ones.
Now, there are so many styles, there is also a lot of competition between
styles.
> But I do maintain that a successful composer, modern or not,
> should be known to almost all people of a musical inclination, and
> liked by a substantial part of them. Neither of this is true for any
> contemporary composer.
That is not true of any composer, living or dead. Though I think you
mistated yourself here a bit. You probably meant all people of a musical
inclination whose musical tradition is the Western Classical one. Rather
than all the musically inclined people in the world, or in Africa, for
instance. Even with that more narrow category, there are few composers
who fit that bill. Bach? Probably, but how about all the hundred's of
Bach's contemporaries. Unsuccessful composers? Is the only goal in
composing music in the Western Classical tradition is to have your music
heard a century from now? Writing for posterity? That's all that counts?
Well then, virtually all music written in the Western classical
tradition have been complete failures. This posterity thing has been
taken a bit too far. I do think it does say a lot that Bach's music plays
such an important role 250 years after his death. But my listening tastes
and my enjoyment of music is not based on guessing what will probably be
still around 250 years from now.
> Those that trample on pianos, ripping at the chords (~10 years ago,
> Darmstadt).
I do have a problem with bashing pianos, for non-musical reasons, I am a
pianist and I worship the instrument, and I hate to see Concert Grands (or
any other good piano) damaged, particularly since I don't have a Steinway
myself. Though, I do think a 9' concert grand dropped from 30 feet on to
concrete would make a fabulous sound! But at what cost! Oh guilty pleasures!
> More general, those that seem
> unable or unwilling to bring any recognizable structure into their
> works (just about anyone except for Xenakis and Henze).
Or more accurately, most music today have structures which YOU are not
able to recognize. Similiar to the point above concerning composer's
apathy' towards their music. Is it the composer, or you?
> It's an abundancy that will drown your own works into oblivion! Don't
> you care about that? More communication doesn't mean that you, or
> your group/nation/culture can't have a distinctive style.
Ah German concern for Nationalism! :) Yes, there is much more competition
among music today then ever before. Because of that most music is
unlikely to achieve a broad audience, regardless of quality, so you have
no grounds to blame the music or the composer for not reaching a mass
audience. I would boldly state that music today that does reach a mass
audience tends to be of a low quality. All the great music (of which
there is so much of in the world) tends to reach smaller, niche markets.
Without all this communication and recording technology, which you fear
because it drowns out music' is probably responsible for you knowing most
of the music you love. In 1780 Vienna, most people were not familiar with
the music of Bach and other older masters. Thus they were able to devote
more listening/playing time into Viennese Classical music. Is this
desirable? Not for me, I want great diversity in music, even if sometimes
it comes at a cost of depth in any single style.
Eric Schissel
Re composers and audiences, I like what a favorite author of mine had to
say on the subject of one of my favorite composers: one always (often,
anyhow) composes for an audience, but you might be surprised how small
that audience can be and still be an audience. (In the case of the
composer in question- Havergal Brian- one might say that in some ways he
was writing for those who still held to his ideals of what music was, and
shared some of his experience and personality; his soulmates as it were.
Though his music is sufficiently "modern"- not just in surface appearance
but in its very soul- that his audience could not be "the old school".
Even if the "modern"ness is superficially no "worse" than a certain
Stravinsky-ish leanness. Never mind, I'm just digging myself into deeper
and deeper holes, may as well send this out...
-Eric Schissel
john harkness
microcosm of all orchestral performance programmes:
Next season, the toronto symphony will perform works by Sven Urkki Tuur,
John corigliano, John Adams (2 - Nixon in China Suite, Fast Ride in a
Short Machine), Tan Dun, Henri Dutilleux (I assume he's still alive, but
three works, Symphony 2, Metaboles and Timbres, Espaces, Movement),
tiensuu, Gary Kulesha, and Raymond Luedeke.
These are part of subscription concert series. in recent seasons
(roughly, since Jukka-Pekka Saraste took over the symphony) they have
also programed works by R. Murray Schaffer, Luciano Berio's Sinfonia
(with the composer present!), Glen Buhr, Steve Reich. The audiences like
some of the pieces and dislike others, but they do get to hear music by
living and 20th Century composers.
Mayb much "modern" music is hard to listen to because of the
conservatism of orchestral management since the 1930s -- read Joseph
Horowitz's Understanding Toscanini to see how a living cultural
tradition became a museum culture.
If no one wants to hear modern music, why do record companies keep
issuing new recordings of Glass, Schnittke, Kancheli, Gubaidulina,
Elliot Carter, John Cage. Someone must be listening to it!
JOHN HARKNESS
j...@netcom.ca
Len Fehskens
On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 22:03:50 GMT, Christoph Nahr at nos...@nospam.com wrote
>As I had stated earlier in this thread, contemporary music is rarely
>performed compared to "classical" music from the 18th-19th century.
>
>From this I infer that people generally don't like it because this
>state of affairs has remained unchanged for roughly the past 50 years,
>and I can't imagine some hidden power that prevented the audience from
>hearing what they wanted, or the musicians from playing what they
>liked, in such an effective way over such a long period of time.
>
>Trying to find a reason for this, we arrive at an alternative.
Regardless of its merits, this music doesn't get played because for the
most part the people who pay for the tickets and donate the money that provide
much (though nowhere near all) of the funding for these institutions just
don't want to hear it. That is their prerogative. Enterprises that ignore
their customers' desires and implement "we know what's best for you" product
strategies tend to go out of business. This is lamentable but no less true
for being so.
It almost doesn't matter *why* there aren't enough "consumers" of this music,
the fact is there aren't. Obviously, changing the music is self defeating.
So if you're seriously upset by the fact that "modern", "contemporary" (or
whatever you want to call it) music doesn't get played "enough", it seems to
me you have a couple of options:
1) change the taste of concert-going, ticket-buying, charitable-donation-
making audiences, which strikes me as an unrealistic goal
2) find another (replacement) source of funding that either doesn't care
what gets played or has the sort of musical taste you'd prefer, another
unrealistic goal; not many rich patrons with the "right" taste out there.
3) find another way to get this (or your, if such is the case) music played
or heard (e.g., recordings)
4) stop worrying/whining about it.
I'm sorry this is the way it is, but most people don't feel they owe artists a
living or a hearing. If you want to make a living doing art, do popular art.
If you don't care about making a living doing art, and just want to be
"heard", then find a way, but don't expect more than a few patron types to
feel like helping you.
De gustibus non disputandem est.
len.
ILawson104
In article <33B145...@netcom.ca>, john harkness <j...@netcom.ca>
writes:
>ILawson104 wrote:
>>
>> In article <33ac4a86...@news.interport.net>, pi...@interport.net
>> (Piper) writes:
>>
>>>Please name some of the professional musicians you're talking about. I
>> >don't personally know too many who shun contemporary composers.
>> >
>> >
>> Does this count?
>> The new concert brochure just published by my local professional
>> orchestra, 'The BBC National Orchestra of Wales' has programme
>> information for twenty four forthcoming concerts. Only one of them has
>> music by living composers, and for this occasion the orchestra has been
>> hired by a local new music festival. (new music of a certain type that
is)
>> So even this single concert cannot count as a self promoted event.
There
>> are a handful of other concerts for which programme details are not
>> published, but as these are in the gala/ family concert/ competition
>> catagory it's unlikely that they will offer anything new.
>>
>> Regards, Ian Lawson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Well, since we are now to take The BBC National Symphony of Wales as the
>microcosm of all orchestral performance programmes:
Am I really suggesting anyone do this?
>
>Next season, the toronto symphony will perform works by Sven Urkki Tuur,
>John corigliano, John Adams (2 - Nixon in China Suite, Fast Ride in a
>Short Machine), Tan Dun, Henri Dutilleux (I assume he's still alive, but
>three works, Symphony 2, Metaboles and Timbres, Espaces, Movement),
>tiensuu, Gary Kulesha, and Raymond Luedeke.
>
>These are part of subscription concert series. in recent seasons
>(roughly, since Jukka-Pekka Saraste took over the symphony) they have
>also programed works by R. Murray Schaffer, Luciano Berio's Sinfonia
>(with the composer present!), Glen Buhr, Steve Reich. The audiences like
>some of the pieces and dislike others, but they do get to hear music by
>living and 20th Century composers.
This doesn't sound like that much either.
The BBC Welsh Orchestra brochure shows that they are devoting about 4
percent of their programme time to the music of living composers ( which
is not necessarily new music ) My guesstimate is that this percentage is
about right for a lot of other UK orchestras. The output of new music on
Radio 3 ( the UK's state classical radio station ) is, on their own
admission about 7%. ( NB I am not assuming these percentages are true
anywhere else in the world. But it would be interesting to compare
figures.What percentage time do the Toronto symphony give to new work ? )
Whether or not these sort of figures count as 'shunning' new music is a
matter for individual interpretation. Radio 3 see the figure of seven
percent as 'about right'. I don't, a book shop only devoting five percent
of it's stock to new novels or a cinema only showing new films for two
weeks in the year would certainly be seen as shunning new work - if they
remained in business long enough for anyone to notice.
>
>Mayb much "modern" music is hard to listen to because of the
>conservatism of orchestral management since the 1930s -- read Joseph
>Horowitz's Understanding Toscanini to see how a living cultural
>tradition became a museum culture.
A lot of modern music isn't hard to listen to - but orchestras down my
way aren't doing the 'easy' stuff either.
>
>If no one wants to hear modern music, why do record companies keep
>issuing new recordings of Glass, Schnittke, Kancheli, Gubaidulina,
>Elliot Carter, John Cage. Someone must be listening to it!
Well I am.
Regards, Ian Lawson
William Grey
In article <33B132...@AzStarNet.com>, Larry Solomon
<So...@AzStarNet.com> writes
>Agreed. But then, one should be careful not to jump from this to "the
>cultural elite believes that if it's popular it can't be any good."
>
>Actually, I think that a more common view is that popularity is suspect.
>This, to my mind, is more palatable than "popularity is what determines
>the worth of music".
Also agreed. How satisfying!
William Grey
In article <5or9qu$i2b$1...@zip.eecs.umich.edu>, "Matthew H. Fields"
<fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu> writes
>Actually, in business, people buy things sight unseen, based on the
>reputation of the source, all the time. Permission to install a sample
>widget for a trial period, then buy a whole widgetron, is the exception
>rather than the rule.
<delete section>
Your point about buying 'sight unseen' is a good one, and it touches on
an issue which has, IMO, some relevance to the broader topic in this
thread, as well as the topic of commissions. My own primary interest
(and bias) is towards recorded music, although I recognise fully that
performance has priority over recording from artistic or creative points
of view. I also recognise that it is particularly difficult, although
not impossible, for a composer to build a reputation for a piece of
music without a recording, which must then be issued on CD through
mainstream distribution channels. Success (and here I mean commercial
success, which in turn leads to popularity, or maybe it is the other way
around) requires that somewhere between 500 and 5000 individuals make a
'purchasing decision' to acquire the CD.
Now, how many individuals do you know who will walk into a store, and
walk out with a disc of music about which they know nothing at all?
I suggest that it simply does not happen, (unless as an aberration.)
Purchasers (and also concert-goers, and patrons of composition) will
usually go for what they know, based (as you point out) on reputation.
Chicken and egg again.
This is why the group defined by Christoph Nahr as the 'cultural elite'
has such great significance. At the risk of a proposing a circular
definition, I am suggesting that the 'cultural elite' is the sum of
those disparate (not conspiratorial) individuals whose opinions make and
break reputations. When a consensus emerges among this group, this is
critical success, as opposed to commercial success, and both are of
course distinct from success as defined by subjective or personal
opinion. It so happens that academic and journalistic institutions wield
particular power in this direction, so they are natural targets when
injured or un-made reputations are at issue.
On re-reading the above I find that it verges on a statement of the
obvious, but the point is that buying a <new> work sight unseen may be
less common than you suggest, and a buying decision based on reputation
raises the question of how reputations are made.
Christoph Nahr
On 24 Jun 1997 17:03:34 GMT, dcl...@fas.harvard.edu (David Cleary)
wrote:
>At the beginning of this thread, I postulated four possible reasons for
>this:
>
>1. lack of publicity.
>2. lack of education.
>3. lack of time and money available to a significant portion of the
>"general public" to attend concerts at all.
>4. the fact that we are too close to the music of our time to have =
weeded
>out the Stamitzes and Meyerbeers of our time.
>
>Yet if I read your posts correctly, you persist in flogging the composer
>as the cause of all the problems. Are my observations totally without
>merit? What is the point of your continued posts in this manner? I'd =
like
>to think you're doing more than trolling as you seem like a more
>reasonable person than the usual "duuuh, emperor's new clothes" sort.
Yes, I hope I'm doing more than trolling here. Now that I've
succeeded in making every living composer on this planet my personal
enemy, I'll try to clarify a bit.
=46irst. I DO NOT THINK that each and every contemporary composer is
unworthy of attention. If there is a performance of a contemporary
piece that does not sound ultimately weird to begin with (like the
recorded traffic noise) then I'll buy the ticket and get there. When
recent works are broadcast on radio then I'll tune in and hear how it
sounds like. When the Konzerthaus here did a poll about what people
would like to hear I stated that I want to hear modern music. When my
sister (ultra-conservative in classical music) spent a few days in
Berlin I tried to convince her that Berg's piano sonata op.1 was a
worthwhile piece which just needed a little attention to get into. I
have been trying to get the Lake George CD today (local store,
Classical.net US & UK) but have been unsuccessful so far. I'll try
other URLs of CD retailers that have been posted, or do you know any
definitive address that will ship to Germany? Also, my question for
contemporary piano music was sincere; alas, your reply was not.
Again, can you recommend anything that the amateur pianist might find
enjoyable to play? If I like them then I'll recommend them to every
musician I know.
To make it short, _I'm not your enemy_.
But it simply remains a fact that, whenever I look into the radio
guide (high-quality public funded radio, that is) or Berlin's monthly
program of cultural events, the amount of really new music doesn't
stand any comparison to the amount of old (and really old) music.
Why is this? My thesis stems from personal experience and personal
acquaintances with "ordinary but classic-loving people", ie no
professional orchestra musicians or composers.
People aren't born with an attitude against contemporary music. If
they care for classical music at all, then they will typically listen
to a few contemporary pieces. Once they make the experience that
*all* of those pieces do not only sound a bit worse than Beethoven et
al. but downright awful to their ears, they'll put a big red no-no
sign next to "contemporary music" in their heads and that's it.
This is my personal experience (for quite a while, I didn't bother to
check out any new stuff because the half dozen or so that I had heard
were so terrible) as well as what I hear from other people. And to
me, it is a perfectly valid explanation of why contemporary pieces are
so rarely programmed.
Please note: Once this idiosyncrasy has been established it doesn't
matter any more how good *your* works are -- people just don't want to
know! It also doesn't matter if performances of your concerts have
convinced a few hundred or thousand people that your works are good --
this will not remove the blockade that has already been established in
millions of other minds. However, it isn't through magic, market
forces, or poor education that the dislike could be established: it
is because of a mismatch of composer's works and listeners'
expectancies.
My more or less humble opinion is that the listeners are right to
demand that the composers have to meet their capability to understand
music; that the composers therefor should proceed slowly and
carefully, and using a set of common rules, when altering the way
music is made. My objection to recent composers is that they haven't
done so.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE No replies of the sort "But I DO know a composer
who has done so!" Think about the mechanism that I've described and
you will see that *individual* examples are not a valid incursion.
I'm treating composers as a group here, and you'll always find
exceptions.
Moreover, and this is an important point which I haven't voiced so
far: The public dislike of contemporary music has (obviously) already
been established. That means that in fact, even a *majority* of
*younger* composers might meet my criterium -- and still they would
fail to grab a market share from Beethoven & Co.
However, *if* the attitude of younger composers (as a group) is indeed
more friendly towards the common classic-lover than that of the
previous generation of composers, *and* if my assertion is true that
the market will ultimately follow public taste, not the other way
round, then we'll see contemporary composers rise like Phoenix from
the ashes... I sure hope they will.
Regarding the four points that you had advanced, I think three of them
aren't valid explanations because they miss one important restriction
that I had always imposed on my "proportion of contemporaries": that
it is a proportion of *classical concerts*. I'm not talking about the
number of David Cleary concerts as opposed to Michael Jackson
concerts, or Beavis and Butthead airings. I'm talking about the
number of David Cleary concerts as opposed to Beetehoven concerts.
When you only look at the people that would also like to attend a
Beethoven performance (it's clear that I'm talking about composers
here, not performers :-)) then your explanations no longer apply.
These people *are* obviously educated enough to enjoy Beethoven. They
*do* have enough money for the ticket. Sometimes, they even *do*
attend performances of Meyerbeer, Stamitz, Boccherini, and besides,
fifty years should be enough to identify at least *some* worthwhile
repertory pieces that might reach, say, the status of Schubert or
Mussorgsky if not that of Bach or Beethoven outright.
The one point I concede you is lack of publicity, but this is, I
think, duly explained by the vicious circle that I had mentioned in
another post: people don't like to hear new music, so it's not being
programmed, so people don't get to hear it, so they can't get to like
it. And my little thesis above tries to explain how this circle has
been started in the first place.
>Perhaps there was "hysterical rhetoric" about Mahler's music in his
>lifetime, but I'm not aware of it. If so, did it exist beyond the =
confines
>of impresarios, certain critics, and other composers? His conducting =
was,
>from what I read, a different matter entirely, some of the flack coming
>from people uncomfortable with Mahler's Jewish heritage.
The question of where the intrigues etc. exactly originated has
already been raised but I still think that the involvement of the
general public in these affairs was greater than would be possible
today. Or do you know any recent example of such affairs?
>My music is not being "simply ignored," thank you very much. I again
>offer BMI royalty stubs from past years as proof.
Glad to hear it, but see above for the invalidity of individual
examples as incursions against my thesis.
>Please correct me if I'm wrong. What you're saying above is that in your
>opinion, music of the last 100 years (you've dropped the post WW2
>requirement on this) makes up a maximum of 20% of the available
>performances. I would appreciate a further discussion on these points:=20
This won't be possible because I've written nonsense, sorry for that.
I had been under the impression of the events scheduled here for July
which leaned heavily to the old side. But the same isn't true for
either radio broadcast nor other months where music from the first
half of this century is quite heavily programmed, so I should have
sticked with "post WW2" music (which doesn't appear in great numbers
anywhere and which is the topic of this thread, after all). Sorry for
the confusion, this was daft.=20
>3. why do you feel that "contemporaries" should make up 50% of whatever
>concerts you're talking about? By "contemporaries," do you mean post WW2
>composers now (if so, you're mixing terms with your later statement =
about
>"art music of the last hundred years," which I for one find confusing)?
>Why is 50% the "acceptable number?"
Yes, post WW2. These are my thoughts about the threshold. Basically,
I think that any healthy culture should be able to create by itself
most of the works it enjoys. The only sort of "reason" for this
feeling might be that otherwise a culture cannot reflect upon itself.
Otherwise, it's just greediness: I want more good art, and ever more
of it, and made public in such a way that I can easily access it!
So we could say that our culture (lumping together Europe & North
America) is healthy regarding pop music, musicals, and maybe Jazz?
(Though modern Jazz styles tend to be quite complicated, similar to
modern "serious music".) This is also true for movies and books.
Granted, in an age so historically inclined as ours, a host of works
of bygone times will remain popular forever (as it seems now), and
rightly so, but they do not outnumber recent production.
As far as I can see, the traditional fine arts are the only exception
to this rule, and I don't see a justification for that fact. Seeing
just how excellent and widely known the music of the past two
centuries is, I would be content with something like a third of
performances going to contemporary composers; but two thirds would be
more like the situation in other areas such as pop music.
So here are my clarification. Thank you for the patience. I admit
having used some wordings in this thread that were quite provocative
but I had hoped to inspire the discussion with them... instead, they
seem to have triggered some people's pre-programmed "he's the enemy"
reaction. I apologize for anything that has been interpreted as a
personal attack; none of it was meant that way.
(I do not apologize for building an argument on generalizations,
however. The notion that an argument shouldn't contain any
generalizations is ludicrous, and really just a device to suppress any
kind of meaningful arguments.)
Christoph Nahr
On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 08:43:09 -0700, Larry Solomon <So...@AzStarNet.com>
wrote:
>The audiences at these concerts were not only appreciative but hungry
>for new music. And with so little exposure to complex contemporary music
>in Tucson, there were questions about "Why don't we hear this music more
>often?", and "Where can I hear more of it?"
GOOD!! Once this attitude reaches the "general public" that nowadays
mostly consumes The Dead Ones, my case is lost and forgotten. Maybe I
still won't like (some of) the new music but then I will admit that it
doesn't matter. From your experience, do you reckon that we're on
some sort of crossroads, and good times for contemporary composers are
ahead? (My own experience doesn't show this so far.)
Christoph Nahr
On Sun, 22 Jun 1997 01:38:59 GMT, newh...@mail.crisp.net (Brian
Newhouse) wrote:
>Consider, for instance, the interwar neo-classical/Neue Sachlichkeit =
music
>which deliberately weaned itself from the harmonic complexities, =
textural
>density and expressive (not to mention orchestral) extravagance, in =
search
>of a greater simplicity and accessibility, often with reference to
>vernacular styles of the day. Think of such composers as Stravinsky =
(from
>_Mavra_ to _The rake's progress_), Hindemith, Weill, Poulenc, Milhaud,
>Martinu... and think of how many of their works have actually come close
>to the repertory status of, say, the Strauss operas or the Rachmaninoff
>concertos. Damned few (and it's not that I don't love this music).
So do I, and they *are* frequently performed repertory pieces here.
(Please disregard what I said about "the last 100 years" in another
post, that was nonsense... it should have read "the last 50 years".)
>Consider, also, minimalism (again). Minimalism is definitely more =
simple
>than the postwar serialism that preceded it (let's not digress on the
>subtle complexities of minimal music here), and generally more aurally
>inviting (i.e. diatonic) as well. It is also known to drive =
concertgoers
>into fits of rage, and seems in response to have established its niche =
at
>the crossroads of the art-rock, jazz and new-music publics.
But just a niche, and this is my point.
>So you can simplify, simplify, simplify as much as you want
[counter-examples follow]
Simplification is my point, too. I'm talking about the preferences of
the majority of concert-goers, as they materialize in what is
eventually programmed. I'm not talking about any individuals.
Christoph Nahr
On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 16:53:33 -0700, Larry Solomon <So...@AzStarNet.com>
wrote:
>Where on earth is the evidence for this preposterous statement? All
>composers have been ignored for 50 years? Is this supposed to be taken
>seriously?
I open the monthly program comprising all cultural events in Berlin
(and there are quite a few). Among 100-200 pieces there are not even
ten by living composers (note that I kindly assume that a composer is
living if I don't know his and he's not evidently Baroque or
somesuch). The same relationship holds for radio transmissions. Do
you belive me or don't you?
>Not so! You must have missed a long portion of this thread, which has
>been going on interminably. I guess you like your composers to be good
>and dead, then?
OK. I herewith expand my assertion: The only posts that defend
living composers come from living composers themselves and members of
the cultural elite, eg members of the Tucson Center for the Arts.
>The "cultural elite" that you write about here is probably MORE
>supportive of classical music. So does your argument against this music
>hold just as well?
Pardon me? I started the whole argument by stating that
contemporaries are performed very infrequently. If the "cultural
elite" says that this music is good but doesn't care to see it
performed then this is a contradiction. If said elite says old music
is good *and* it is programmed frequently, where's the problem?
>>The only relevance of this opinion comes from the fact that my taste
>>seems to be closer to the majority than other opinions.
>
>This is a fact, is it? And, where are your figures? Or is this just a
>presumption? Sounds almost like a proclamation to me.
I'm comparing the music that I like to what is being programmed and
find a large coincidence... that's where I got this presumption.
>The a-b-c choices that you give are terribly simplistic, IMO. Do you
>really believe that the situation you are describing is as simple as
>this?
Please see my (latest) reply to David Cleary for an elaboration of
this point.
ILawson104
In article <hu$h8PAjt...@albanyrecords.demon.co.uk>, William
Grey<wi...@albanyrecords.demon.co.uk> writes:
The most important thing is exposure. It is only through exposure that a
composer can build an audience. If a composer's music is heard and liked
(s)he's in business. Radio and television are the most effective means of
exposure and in the UK that means the BBC and the independent radio
station Classic FM.
In the pop world the record industry essentially provides the programming
for all pop music stations. It might be a love-hate relationship, but pop
radio needs the record industry's product and the record industry needs
the exposure. This is a comparatively democratic situation as there are a
large number of record companies and hence a large number of decision
makers and opportunities for artists. Pop radio mainly reflects the output
from this diverse group.
As for new 'classical' music in the UK, the situation is almost the
opposite. Radio 3 ( The 'highbrow' station ) has its own resources to put
on new music, and in practice can broadcast (or ignore ) any new music it
wants to. The trend has been to favour dissonant music.
In this situation, what are the options for a new music label ?
It could mirror the tastes of R3 editors. Doing this will get you a pat
on the back from the Beeb and probably a bit more exposure. Another
advantage to this strategy would be greater eligibility for
public/charitable subsidy. The only problem being, you wont sell many
discs, because hardly anyone likes the music.
Since Classic FM has been on the air things have changed for the better
and I'm sure some classical labels are aiming their releases at Classic FM
in the hope of repeating the success of Gorecki's third symphony.
Regards, Ian Lawson
Matthew H. Fields
In article <5orlmk$i0c$1...@mrnews.mro.dec.com>,
Len Fehskens <fehs...@mail.dec.com> wrote:
> 1) change the taste of concert-going, ticket-buying, charitable-donation-
> making audiences, which strikes me as an unrealistic goal
>
> 2) find another (replacement) source of funding that either doesn't care
> what gets played or has the sort of musical taste you'd prefer, another
> unrealistic goal; not many rich patrons with the "right" taste out there.
Actually, I think this is the key. Too much of this stuff has been
hidden in secret corners like academia :-) and Toronto :-) and when you
suddenly play it in Arizona :-) the untapped thirst for it becomes
apparent! :-)
Matt
--
Matt Fields, A.Mus.D. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields
Matthew H. Fields
Ouch!
I got hit by stray schrapnel from a musical canon-ball.
Matthew H. Fields
In article <33B12A...@dsys.cea.ceng.fr>,
Rouat emmanuel <ro...@dsys.cea.ceng.fr> wrote:
>Beethoven did have an argument with an editor (publisher?), concerning his
>'bagatelles' - the editor didn't understand why Beethoven insisted
>that he published these 'lesser' (in the editor's opinion) works.
>Good marketing sense, or did Beethoven consider 'Fur Elise' not
>such a bad work after all? I think some contemporary composers
>should have a little thought about it....
And perhaps about this:
"If the best critics and orchestras have failed to find the meaning of
Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, we may well be pardoned if we confess our
inability to find any. The Adagio certainly pssessed much beauty, but
the other movements, particularly the last, appeared to be an
incomprehensible union of strange harmonies. Beethoven was deaf when
he wrote it.. It was the genius of the great man upon the ocean of
harmony, without the compass which had so often guided him to his
haven of success; the blind painter touching the canvas at random....
"
---Daily Atlas, Boston, 6 February 1853
Mike S
>Ouch!
> I got hit by stray schrapnel from a musical canon-ball.
Then you'd better treat it carefully, or you'll get a staff infection...
--
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
This account devoted specifally to spam prevention. Send E-mail to
moc.ph.nsr@retyulsm (backwards).
Jonathan Wiener
Christoph Nahr wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 08:43:09 -0700, Larry Solomon <So...@AzStarNet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The audiences at these concerts were not only appreciative but hungry
> >for new music. And with so little exposure to complex contemporary music
> >in Tucson, there were questions about "Why don't we hear this music more
> >often?", and "Where can I hear more of it?"
>
> GOOD!! Once this attitude reaches the "general public" that nowadays
> mostly consumes The Dead Ones, my case is lost and forgotten. Maybe I
> still won't like (some of) the new music but then I will admit that it
> doesn't matter. From your experience, do you reckon that we're on
> some sort of crossroads, and good times for contemporary composers are
> ahead? (My own experience doesn't show this so far.)
FWIW, the NY Times had an article to this effect June 17.
Brian Newhouse
[snip]
>
> Your point about buying 'sight unseen' is a good one, and it touches on
> an issue which has, IMO, some relevance to the broader topic in this
> thread, as well as the topic of commissions. My own primary interest
> (and bias) is towards recorded music, although I recognise fully that
> performance has priority over recording from artistic or creative points
> of view. I also recognise that it is particularly difficult, although
> not impossible, for a composer to build a reputation for a piece of
> music without a recording, which must then be issued on CD through
> mainstream distribution channels. Success (and here I mean commercial
> success, which in turn leads to popularity, or maybe it is the other way
> around) requires that somewhere between 500 and 5000 individuals make a
> 'purchasing decision' to acquire the CD.
>
> Now, how many individuals do you know who will walk into a store, and
> walk out with a disc of music about which they know nothing at all?
> I suggest that it simply does not happen, (unless as an aberration.)
> Purchasers (and also concert-goers, and patrons of composition) will
> usually go for what they know, based (as you point out) on reputation.
> Chicken and egg again.
>
Part of the problem here is that you can't browse in a record store the
way you can in a bookstore. If you had some system in which customers
could listen to a sample of the CD they were considering, that might help
(I believe some record-store chains are beginning to do something like it,
but of course they restrict that service to the records they want to
promote. And wasn't this a common practice in music stores of the 30s and
40s? (I'm thinking of our first sight of Betty Hutton in _The miracle of
Morgan's Creek_))
--
Brian Newhouse
newh...@mail.crisp.net
Eric Schissel
Moreover, not every great composer from the 18th and 19th century has had
their "day in court", yet. (And I submit that Josef Rheinberger's chamber
music could hold its own against Schumann's very fine output in that
medium, for instance, though of course Schumann's orchestral music and
piano music are better.)
Now who was it here that recently slandered Meyerbeer and Stamitz?
-Eric Schissel
BHeneg8560
Dave Dalle writes:
>BHeneg8560 writes:
>>
>> Whatever you like is what makes "greatness" and "quality". The presence
or
>> absence of these attributes in any single piece of music can never
reach
>> the status of fact so long as there are credible dissenting voices - it
>> remains an opinion.
>
>Though certain trends can be observed and intelligent assumptions made
>from them. It would be a very difficult, if not impossible thing to do
to
>prove whether Mozart is greater than the Grateful Dead. However, given
>some boundaries, 'greatness' can be much more safely decided. The
problem
>with Mozart and the Grateful Dead, is that they are so esthetically
>different, people listening to either are most likely listening for
>different things.
>So what to do? Don't compare Mozart with the Grateful
>Dead, compare Mozart with another contemporous composer, who had the same
>esthetic goals as Mozart, and who tried to achieve them with the same
>means. Someone listening to a fortepiano sonata by both Clementi and
Mozart,
>are most likely listening for the same esthetic ends in both pieces, and
I
>think it would be safe to say that Mozart accomplished that esthetic end
>'better' than Clementi[...]
Yes, but "better" is still an opinion. I understand why you restrict the
context to members of the same genre (although I don't think it's very
relevant myself - a subjective opinion), but deciding which is "better"
(Mozart or Clementi) is still a case of "which do I prefer?" Subjective
decisions are always involved, from the choice of what criteria you use,
to how successfully YOU think each composer's met those criteria. OK, in
that case, you could choose to invoke criteria that are "generally found"
to be applicable to this sort of music. But that is also YOUR decision, a
subjective choice, and what's more, those other criteria are someone
else's opinions, either first-hand or nth-hand, about what's significant
in this sort of music.
>There remains and will
>always remain some grey area, but I think some tangible things can be
pulled
>from the sea of relativity.
Yes...more sea...:^) This is the first use of the word "relativity" in
this discussion. I don't really see its relevance, still less what the big
problem is with relying on subjective opinions in aesthetic matters. In
fact, I don't really see how you can avoid it, and I certainly don't see
the need to choose between (for example) particular sonatas by Mozart or
Clementi on the basis of criteria that are invoked because they're
supposedly objective, but are in fact just as subjective as one's own
personal taste. What more do you need? Remember, you're not committed to
your aesthetical choices for life - you can change your mind again and
again and again.
best wishes
Ben Heneghan