Originally posted by NemesioThis reminds me of T. S. Eliot.
So, I personally cannot wait until composers rediscover the natural grammar of their art and
start composing music that is intelligible rather than the kind that requires a PhD to appreciate.
"Yet if the only form of tradition, of handing down, consisted in following the ways of the immediate generation before us in a blind or timid adherence to its successes, "tradition" should positively be discouraged. We have seen many such simple currents soon lost in the sand; and novelty is better than repetition. Tradition is a matter of much wider significance. It cannot be inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great labour. It involves, in the first place, the historical sense, which we may call nearly indispensable to anyone who would continue to be a poet beyond his twenty-fifth year; and the historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence; the historical sense compels a man to write not merely with his own generation in his bones, but with a feeling that the whole of the literature of Europe from Homer and within it the whole of the literature of his own country has a simultaneous existence and composes a simultaneous order. This historical sense, which is a sense of the timeless as well as of the temporal and of the timeless and of the temporal together, is what makes a writer traditional. And it is at the same time what makes a writer most acutely conscious of his place in time, of his contemporaneity."
- from "Tradition and the Individual Talent"
_____________________
Purposefully writing something "modern", taken in the context of what Eliot is saying here, is "following the ways of the immediate generation before," resulting in a doomed "current soon lost in the sand." Atonal music may be an escape from the past, but the continued progress of classical music demands a return to tradition. Is this what you are saying essentially? If so, there must be modern composers setting about doing just that, are there not? Do you know of any? What's on the horizon?
Originally posted by Nemesio==================================
For me, music is about the creation and release of tension. I don't claim that this is a novel
idea -- until the 20th century, it was a universally defining characteristic of music. It was
present in plainsong with the departure from and arrival to a particular final, in the Renaissance
music with the various modal tonal centers and tension creat lligible rather than the kind that requires a PhD to appreciate.
Nemesio
Frankly, I think France (of all countries!) has produced the only interesting 20th-century composers:
Debussy, Fauré, Vierne, Ravel, and especially Duruflé and (although I'm not too crazy about
him) Messiaen. The English have offered a number of excellent composers in the 20th century,
but all writing in a sort of blended style (like Howells, Harris, or Matthias) which hearkens to
the earlier ages (a sort of neo-Baroquist approach, but not like Stravinski).
=================================
I think there is validity to a lot of what you wrote.
But you also have to take into account that Debussy's music was discribed as hideous by at least one of his contemporary critics.
Another woman upon hearing Ravel's Bolero declared that the composer was mad.
There is plenty lot of 20th century music which is easily approachable. And several composers proved that there was still much that could be done with tonality. Though they did tend to be looked down upon in some academic circles enthusiastic about the 2nd Viennese School.
IMO France is by no means the only country to produce great 20th composers.
Originally posted by epiphinehasSchoenberg, who invented the 12 tone technuque, claimed that he was "a conservative who was forced to become radical". [paraphrase]
This reminds me of T. S. Eliot.
"Yet if the only form of tradition, of handing down, consisted in following the ways of the immediate generation before us in a blind or timid adherence to its successes, "tradition" should positively be discouraged. We have seen many such simple currents soon lost in the sand; and novelty is better than repetition. Tra g about doing just that, are there not? Do you know of any? What's on the horizon?
He saw himself as conservative. You wouldn't know it by the sound of the music. But only by the extreme stress on form might you know it.
In his own crazy way he considered that he WAS returning to some purity of music style of the classic era.
Originally posted by epiphinehas===================================
This reminds me of T. S. Eliot.
"Yet if the only form of tradition, of handing down, consisted in following the ways of the immediate generation before us in a blind or timid adherence to its successes, "tradition" should positively be discouraged. We have seen many such simple currents soon lost in the sand; and novelty is better than repetition. Tra g about doing just that, are there not? Do you know of any? What's on the horizon?
If so, there must be modern composers setting about doing just that, are there not? Do you know of any? What's on the horizon?
==================================
Sure. George Rochberg, after the death of his child, could not write atonal any longer and express his emotions.
Scarmolin, backed away from modernism and wrote very accessible pieces with the Hollywood sound reminiscient of Korngold or Miklos Rosza.
Hansen, Barber, Vaughn Williams, Bax, David Diamond, Tubin, even Shostakovich, Glazanov, let alone Sibelius and Miakovsky of course, all squeezed more out of tonality.
There's plenty more.
Originally posted by jaywillI have yet to hear anything from - Duruflé and Messiaen.
[b]==================================
Frankly, I think France (of all countries!) has produced the only interesting 20th-century composers:
Debussy, Fauré, Vierne, Ravel, and especially Duruflé and (although I'm not too crazy about
him) Messiaen. The English have offered a number of excellent composers in the 20th century,
but all writing in a sor ...[text shortened]... School.
IMO France is by no means the [b]only country to produce great 20th composers.[/b]
Originally posted by Nemesio[/b]Yes, pretty much everything can be considered music, though there is the idea of composing the organization of sound. Look into John Cage if you haven't already.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]You can expand the definition of music to be "organized sound".
I could, but then 'poetry' could be consider music, or traffic, or snoring because they all involve
sound. I think restricting music to something which focuses on tone (or pitch) makes more sense.
Most music is "about the creation and re ialized grammar that music has. Otherwise,
it's just noise.
Nemesio
I'm not questioning your understanding of music. I'm sure you've forgotten much more than I know. However, you seem to have a focus on tonality that may blind you to other aspects of sound that can be used for creating and releasing tension. I don't see where tonality necessarily need be a part of this. If you do, then your perspective will continue to be limited.
Originally posted by epiphinehasThat was a lovely quote by T.S. Eliot. Yes, by making novelty the standard of excellence in
Purposefully writing something "modern", taken in the context of what Eliot is saying here, is "following the ways of the immediate generation before," resulting in a doomed "current soon lost in the sand." Atonal music may be an escape from the past, but the continued progress of classical music demands a return to tradition. Is this what you are sayi ...[text shortened]... setting about doing just that, are there not? Do you know of any? What's on the horizon?
music rather than the quality of music itself, the action of composition became a competition to
do something new. The likes of John Cage, inventing bizarre methods of writing music down,
making the 'figuring out how to freakin' play it' part of the experience, or with Stockhausen's
algorithms to determine which pitch comes next in a scale and the length of time it will last in
a given context, or George Crumb's impossible-to-render-accurately rhythmic complexity -- all of
this were just attempts to do something 'new.' The desire for novelty eclipses musical judgment,
even still. Consider this example, which I am paraphrasing from Glenn Gould.
If we were to discover, buried in some 18th-century chest of drawers, a complete symphony
that was apparently anonymous, but bore the strong resemblance to Mozart, we would herald
this discover as valuable. Let's call it Mozart's 42nd symphony, and let's say it's every bit as
good as the breath-taking Jupiter Symphony.
Now, let's say musicological study of watermarks or inks, or UV-light analysis revealed that
the composer was indisputably, say, Georg Philip Telemann, who died in 1767. I could not
exaggerate the furor that would ensue. Telemann would be elevated to the status of genius,
a prognosticator of the classical form to come and so on. Conversely, if it were discovered that,
say, Dvorak wrote this piece in his youth as an exercise for the Prague organ school, then it
would be regarded as a piece of esoterica, get a few odd performances, maybe a few articles
in scholarly journals, and that's it.
I say a piece of music should be judged on its own merit; if someone composes in the classical
form and writes a symphony the calibre of Mozart, I say it should get the attention that Mozart's
symphonies do. If they want to be Impressionist, Baroque, Romantic, or whatever, I say go
for it, and we should embrace it.
If all twelve-tone music sounded like Alban Berg's Violin Concerto, then I would be wholly
supportive of the movement. But the system of developing tone-rows became the end rather
than the means, and attention to chord color (or harmony) and melodic content just got thrown
in the trash.
I don't follow much new music, so I don't genuinely know what's on the horizon. In Pittsburgh,
two composers who are definitely modern write excellent music, Eric Moe and Roger Zahab,
both professors in the University of Pittsburgh. I would recommend them highly as exemplars
of good 21st-century composition. Many of the other composers featured in the performances
of new music interested me far less, so I cannot really recommend them. I'm sure there are
others, but it's not really my forté, so to speak.
Nemesio
Originally posted by jaywill
But you also have to take into account that Debussy's music was discribed as hideous by at least one of his contemporary critics.
I don't mean to suggest that popularity equals excellence. Bach was (essentially) fired from his
post in Arndstadt because they didn't like his organ music and hymn accompaniment. Beethoven
offended people with his Pathetiqué Sonata. I'd hate to list all the pieces that offended the
general public that have come to be recognized as genius.
At the same time, simply because the intelligentsia says that music is good doesn't mean it is,
either. The ivory tower of academia has been lauding the music of Varèse for almost a hundred
years. I've studied it, and I still think it's crap.
Another woman upon hearing Ravel's Bolero declared that the composer was mad.
Ravel hated Boléro, and could not understand why the public liked it. Hell, he was suffering
from Pick's disease when he wrote it! Like Ravel, I think it's one of his worst pieces, as boring
as hell. Except as an exercise in orchestration (Ravel was probably one of the best, if not the
best, orchestrator in the 20th century, and because of its simplicity, Boléro is an excellent
place to examine his masterful technique), I think it has no musical value whatsoever.
There is plenty lot of 20th century music which is easily approachable. And several composers proved that there was still much that could be done with tonality. Though they did tend to be looked down upon in some academic circles enthusiastic about the 2nd Viennese School.
IMO France is by no means the [b]only country to produce great 20th composers.[/b]
I was being hyperbolic, I think. Of course, France isn't the only country to produce great 20th-
century composers. I repent of my exaggerated claim. I should have said that I believed that
France has produced the highest quality and greatest number of great 20th-century composers.
Nemesio
Originally posted by jaywillI'll have to admit that Barber, Schostakovitch, Vaughan Williams, and Sibelius don't do a thing
Hansen, Barber, Vaughn Williams, Bax, David Diamond, Tubin, even Shostakovich, Glazanov, let alone Sibelius and Miakovsky of course, all squeezed more out of tonality.
for me. I recognize their genius and their contribution, but I'm hard pressed to think of a piece
of theirs that I really like.
*shrug*
Nemesio
Originally posted by jaywillYet to hear anything at all? Or anything you liked?
I have yet to hear anything from - Duruflé and Messiaen.
If at all, you could listen to Duruflé's Requiem (being the most famous piece of his).
If you like organ music, the Prelude and Fugue on Alain is sublime (but some people have
trouble listening to organ music because of its timbre). If you want purely orchestral works,
check out the Trois Danses.
Probably the most famous organ piece of Messiaen is La Nativité du Seigneur, a nine-movement
meditation on Jesus' Nativity. If you want orchestral bliss, try the massive Turangalîla-Symphonie.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioYou obviously did not understand my statement. western music or western classical music is what it is, it isn't the end all and be all of music or musical expression.
I have no idea what you just said, but I didn't say that music is solely defined by musical
scales or resolution to the tonic. I said that certain constellations of sounds naturally have a
relaxed feel (fifths, fourths) and others have a tense feel (seconds, sevenths). This lends itself
neatly to tonal music, but also in modal music, or in impressionis ...[text shortened]... like Schönberg's a(nti)tonal
music, even if they lack the capacity to explain it.
Nemesio
Originally posted by eldragonflyWhat on earth made you think I thought that? I listen to various different styles of popular
You obviously did not understand my statement. western music or western classical music is what it is, it isn't the end all and be all of music or musical expression.
music, classic rock, jazz, and Latin American music, and enjoy them thoroughly.
Originally posted by eldragonflyYou must be confusing my posts with those of someone else in some other thread or something.
You keep reaching for these "bottom of the barrel" analogies, that's why.
The only analogy I made was between the a(nti)tonal composers of the 2nd Viennese school and
the poets of the so-called 'LANGUAGE' movement, in which the grammar that originally defined
the language of the medium is dissolved -- in the music, by getting rid of any sense of natural
sonic tension created by relationships amongst tones, in the poetry by getting rid of the normative
grammar which gives language semantic meaning. In both cases, you're left with meaningless
snippets of material (meaningless because the creator decided to ignore the defining concepts
which instill meaning). There is no debate about this, because this explanation is inherent to the
respective media. LANGUAGE poetry strives to create beauty through the sounds of words
and not through their meaning. A(nti)tonal music of the 2nd Viennese school strives to create
beauty through artificial organization of tones not through their sonic relationships to each other.
If you have an objection to what I'm saying, then articulate it. But stop misrepresenting what
I'm saying.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Yes, pretty much everything can be considered music, though there is the idea of composing the organization of sound.
Well, I don't think that all examples of organized sound is music. I see no reason why I should do
so suddenly in great departure with the past, especially since I find such 'music' decidedly
unsatisfying.
Look into John Cage if you haven't already.
I have. I wish I hadn't. I've not heard anything of his worth listening to, and not analyzed
any of his 'scores' and found a single remarkable idea.
However, you seem to have a focus on tonality that may blind you to other aspects of sound that can be used for creating and releasing tension. I don't see where tonality necessarily need be a part of this. If you do, then your perspective will continue to be limited.
I didn't say tonality needed to be a part of it. My speciality is Gregorian chant. My
Masters thesis was on Renaissance music. They are both modal, not tonal. I love Schönberg's
Pelleas und Mellesande and his string sextet Verklärte Nacht, both of which strain the very
boundaries of tonality to say the least. And I don't think that Debussy or especially Messiaen
can't reasonably be considered tonal either.
The idea of constructing a whole, arbitrary grammar ex nihilo and expecting the audience or
even the attentive student of music like myself to enjoy or even vaguely appreciate music
based on it I think is silly. This 'redefining the boundaries' which is parcel to serialism in
particular and many movements within music in the 20th century in general is, certainly, one
of the most unfortunate occurrences within Western Art Music, I believe.
Nemesio