|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 49 responses total. |
dbratman
|
|
response 25 of 49:
| 
Jun 1 17:22 UTC 2001 |
resp: 22 - That's about what I thought. They're less interested in
teaching composition than in enforcing a particular style. Part of the
rhetoric is that tonality is old and serialism is new. After 50 years
of enforced serialism in the academy, and some 90 years after
Schoenberg worked out the system, there's nothing new about serialism.
resp: 23 - This book sounds as if it's promoting a false dichotomy,
between tonality and creativity. Plenty of tonal music is highly
creative, plenty of non-tonal music is completely devoid of
imagination. (In fact, apply the principles of serialism to all
elements of music, as some composers do, and you can write works
without any thinking in them at all.)
I'm not talking about dumbing-down and writing contentless pseudo-
Hollywood sludge here, but there is nothing wrong with writing music
that some people want to listen to. If no audiences are responding to
your music, you have in fact failed to communicate. (Serialists used
to say they were writing for the future, but the millennium - long past
their expected utopia date - has arrived, and they're less listened to
than ever before.) In the words of Tom Lehrer, "If you can't
communicate, the very least you can do is shut up."
|
albaugh
|
|
response 26 of 49:
|
Jun 3 05:23 UTC 2001 |
A couple of thoughts:
1) Contemporary ("20th century") music is not limited to "serial" ("12-tone")
style, by any means.
2) If a contemporary (atonal) style is the way you feel you want to express
some/all of your musical self, then all means do so, whether or not anyone
else appreciates your music or listens to it. All I ask is that you give your
best effort to create high quality atonal music - atonal doesn't mean you can
simply do anything you want to, and it's automatically "good". Also, just
because *you* choose to express yourself atonally, do not scoff at others who
wish to try to express themselves tonally, even if you smugly believe that
everything has already been done in the tonal arena.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 27 of 49:
|
Jun 4 03:40 UTC 2001 |
Kevin, while your point no. 1 should be evident to anyone with a
cursory knowledge of 20th century music, you might be surprised - or
you might not - at how fiercely was being denied for a while, at least
for post-WW2 work. Those who persisted in writing non-serial music
were dismissed as relics of a previous time who refused to acknowledge
that the calendar had changed - as if it were the calendar that
dictated the style of music - and refused "to acknowledge the necessity
of writing serial music" (that's my best memory of an actual quote
from, IIRC, Pierre Boulez). Or they were ignored altogether. This
totalitarian attitude scared even Stravinsky and Copland into writing
serial music, anxious to be "with it" and fearful that they'd be
marginalized as clueless old coots.
Later there was a period when the music scene was pictured as a battle
between the Webernian strict serialists and the Cagean anarchists, and
anybody else - even free serialists like Elliott Carter - were depicted
as likely to get caught in the crossfire. Sort of like the fate of
conventional liberals and conservatives in the 30s, when some people
tried to force everyone to choose up sides: fascists or communists.
Those days are long since over, but they were pretty intense for a
while there. Look at an average academic modern-music history textbook
from the 1970s and see who and what it discusses for post-1945
composers. Your point no. 2 is a direct rebuttal at these people.
|
keesan
|
|
response 28 of 49:
|
Jun 4 16:02 UTC 2001 |
I read somewhere that most composers felt obligated to base their music on
the current or immediately preceding style so that they would be accepted.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 29 of 49:
|
Jun 4 18:38 UTC 2001 |
Ah, but accepted by whom?
|
albaugh
|
|
response 30 of 49:
|
Jun 5 05:40 UTC 2001 |
I believe Polonius said it best: To thine own self be true. Of course, peer
pressure can be fierce and fearsome...
|
davel
|
|
response 31 of 49:
|
Jun 5 16:29 UTC 2001 |
Polonius was a pompous old bore.
|
keesan
|
|
response 32 of 49:
|
Jun 5 16:59 UTC 2001 |
Re 29 - presumably by other composers following the same logic. This sort
of logic also coerces owners of houses to only remodel them in a style that
other people are remodeling in, because it must be what everyone else wants.
We have friends who have been living with dark blue wallpaper because if they
changed it their resale value might go down. They prefer white.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 33 of 49:
|
Jun 7 07:02 UTC 2001 |
Shosty has done some other pieces ("arrangements", if you must) based on
Russian folk songs or dances. I've played the band arrangements. Fun to
play, great to listen to.
|
mary
|
|
response 34 of 49:
|
Jun 7 13:41 UTC 2001 |
Would someone have a recommendation for a CD of Shosty's (love that)
10th?
|
md
|
|
response 35 of 49:
|
Jun 8 18:01 UTC 2001 |
I have Karajan. It's okay, but I liked my old Ormandy/Philadelphia LP
better.
|
coyote
|
|
response 36 of 49:
|
Jul 3 23:49 UTC 2001 |
Re 32 and earlier:
Of course, many composers (I'll cite Barber and Rachmaninoff as examples) have
been harshly criticized for not being "contemporary" enough and not following
current stylistic trends, but their music is so appreciated now (by most
people) that we're glad that they were bold enough to just write what felt
right for them and not what was bold and modern. Thank goodness for that!
|
dbratman
|
|
response 37 of 49:
|
Jul 9 07:04 UTC 2001 |
And thus we see those once accused of the greatest cowardice being
acknowledged as the most courageous, for the courage of being willing
to stand there and withstand being called cowards.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 38 of 49:
|
Jul 12 05:21 UTC 2001 |
I'm not sure it much matters one way or the other. Would you rather listen
to bad music from a brave composer, or good music from a coward?
No, come to think of it, that isn't a rhetorical question after all. I'd like
to hear some answers to it.
|
md
|
|
response 39 of 49:
|
Jul 12 11:10 UTC 2001 |
Things like moral character, bravery, kindness and compassion don't
seem related to musical ability. Would Beethoven have been a better
composer if he hadn't been an antisemite? Somebody once remarked that
most of Stravinsky's music sounds as if it had been written by "a
bitter little man," which in fact is what he was. But is it worse
music for that?
This courage vs. conforming thing is suspect. In response to an
interviewer's question about his old-fashioned style, Barber once
said, "I keep doing, as they say, my thing. I believe this takes a
certain courage." That sounds very noble, but I wonder if Barber
could've done anything other than "his thing" even if he wanted. I
don't think he knew how to do anything else.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 40 of 49:
|
Jul 14 04:29 UTC 2001 |
I maintain there are only 2 kinds of music - good music and bad music.
Notice I didn't mention anything about "written by".
|
md
|
|
response 41 of 49:
|
Jul 14 12:18 UTC 2001 |
I was going to say it's more of a continuum than simply good vs. bad,
but even on a continuum there has to be a point above which everything
is more or less good, and below which everything is more or less bad.
If you add "within a given cultural context" I might agree.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 42 of 49:
|
Jul 24 05:19 UTC 2001 |
Somewhere in the preceding few posts, the question of the composer's
moral character seems to have gotten detached from the quality of the
music. That's not what I, for one, intended.
It's not whether the composer is brave or a coward in a vacuum, it's
what kind of music he writes and whether he's considered brave or
cowardly for doing so. This is the Shostakovich item, and I've already
said that I don't care whether he was a hero or a toady, I still like
the music. But in the current discussion, the positions are somewhat
different, and the bravery question is intimately tied to opinions
about the quality of the music.
One opinion is that the conservative composers were cowardly, and wrote
bad music; the other opinion is that they bravely stood up to
accusations of cowardice, and wrote good music. While I suppose it
would be possible to argue that they were brave but bad, or cowardly
but good, nobody says that: and the opinion of the music's quality is
held up as proof of the opinion of the composer's character.
md reports an opinion that Stravinsky's music "sounds as if it had been
written by 'a bitter little man.'" Sounds as if. That's an opinion
about the music, not about the man (who could be of totally different
character: Beethoven's Second sounds cheerful, while Beethoven was at
that time profoundly depressed). Whether sounding bitter is a bad
thing for music to be is another question; but if it is a bad thing,
then yes, it is indeed worse music for that.
Could Barber have done something other than "his thing"? I don't know
about him particularly, but in general the answer is often yes. He
could have been shamed into silence by a perception that he was out of
date: Elgar was. He could have been intimidated into writing the
current style, especially if he were young and impressionable: scads of
postmodern composers had serialist early periods, and for that matter
scads of serialist composers had neoromantic early periods, before they
found both the self-understanding and courage to be themselves.
|
md
|
|
response 43 of 49:
|
Jul 24 12:53 UTC 2001 |
I've read that Barber was practically silenced in his later years,
although I don't know if it's accurate to say he was shamed sinto
silence. He did feel that his music was out of date and that he was
marginal. There was one disasterous premiere (Antony and Cleopatra)
that must've cost him a lot of self-confidence. He fell into
depression and alcoholism, and he probably died believing that his
music, other than the Adagio for Strings, would never be widely
performed. (I doubt he ever lost his belief in the *quality* of his
music, only in its programmability.)
The silliest example of someone placing a doctrinal template over the
world is the great Pierre Boulez, who refuses to perform or even listen
to the music of Brahms because he finds it "bourgeois and complacent."
I'll bet he has a secret collection of Brahms CDs that he listens to
when no one else is around, like a guilty pleasure.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 44 of 49:
|
Jul 24 21:17 UTC 2001 |
> While I suppose that it would be possible to argue that they were brave but
> bad, or cowardly but good, nobody says that: and the opinion of the music's
> quality is held up as proof of the opinion of the composer's character.
I suppose what I wonder is _why_ nobody says that. It can't just be that one
says nice things about a great artist. Some composers are considered "polite
but good," others "rude but good." Some are considered "generous but good,"
others "mean-spirited but good." Why is courage, of all traits, so tied up
in our opinion of an artist's ability?
One reason why people talk this way, I think, is the impression that any
artist has a "true style," and that discovering that style leads to good art,
while deviating from it leads to bad art. But I'm not sure I believe that.
Elgar had another choice besides writing in his chosen style and falling
silent -- he could have chosen another style. Maybe he would have written
badly in it, but maybe he would have written well. (Consider Stravinsky, who
jumped on every bandwagon that came along, and made good music in almost every
style he tried).
It doesn't help matters any that you can't tell whether an artist was
courageous or not just from his work. How do you tell a brave new direction
from a cowardly pursuit of popular approval? How do you know when a
composer's sticking to his guns and when he's terrified of change. The
standard approach seems to be to call the successful styles "bravely chosen"
and the unsuccesful ones "cowardly."
|
dbratman
|
|
response 45 of 49:
|
Jul 25 18:08 UTC 2001 |
orinoco: the hidden comment in my post was that there's an assumption
that the (perceived) success or non-success of the music as music is
the clue to the composer's courage. Pulled out into the light like
that, this is an odd argument, and I take it that you're agreeing that
it's odd. Certainly in other fields of endeavor, the Brave But Wrong
is a commonplace: war, for instance. General Northern opinion of
Johnny Reb is that he was very brave but totally misguided. The
Cowardly But Great seems less common ... but I'm sure he exists.
That Elgar had a third choice was something I addressed: "intimidated
into writing the current style" is what I said. I do not think this
often leads to good music. Stravinsky changed his style many times,
but that was the kind of composer he was. Less chameleonic types
shouldn't be thought less of because they couldn't follow his example.
He wasn't intimidated into becoming a primitivist in the 1910s or a
neoclassist in the 1920s, nor was he sheepishly following fashion:
usually he was leading it. Becoming a serialist in the 1950s was
another matter, though: then he really was intimidated into it (so was
Copland), and the music really does suffer thereby. Stravinsky was a
great enough composer that the results aren't totally worthless, but
Copland was not so lucky. Or it could be that Copland's powers were
failing anyway.
md: I disagree with almost everything Boulez says, but I'll defend his
right to say it. I've been accused a few times of lying about my own
opinions for politico-cultural reasons, so I won't assume that Boulez
is lying about his. I'll assume that he erects his cultural theories
over the substance of his honest opinions, as I do mine, and that he
really does hate Brahms. His comments are probably just the easiest
way to verbalize the reasons. I wouldn't say that the reason I dislike
Lawrence Welk is because he sounds "bourgeois", but I think my reason
is pretty much the same as Boulez's on Brahms.
What I find offensive about Boulez's opinions is the way he erects them
into dictats, and presumes to enact the cultural standards of his
time. Cultural standards can only be determined by observation.
|
md
|
|
response 46 of 49:
|
Sep 28 15:21 UTC 2003 |
A recent (within the past couple of years) interview with Boulez has
him admitting that "I guess we [i.e., we serialists] went too far in
ignoring the audience." What a horrible thing to have to admit when
you're pushing eighty. Brave of him to 'fess up, although there's no
way he could've continued pretending to ignore the layers of dust
piling up on serialism of the "fuck the audience" type.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 47 of 49:
|
Oct 1 08:43 UTC 2003 |
It's almost more dismaying that he admits it. Why couldn't he have
figured it out earlier?
|
md
|
|
response 48 of 49:
|
Oct 1 13:51 UTC 2003 |
There *is* a niche market for "old-time modernist" music, like Pli
selon pli, Carter's post-1950 concoctions and so on. The mistake of
people like Pierre Boulez and Charles Rosen is in believing the niche
was bigger than it really was. Lock yourself in a hothouse with all
the other old-time modernists and their fans and that's what happens.
Also, there is their equally unrealistic hope that audience taste can
somehow be "elevated" by education and by repeated exposure, a silly
elitist-wannabe idea that says more about their own pretensions than it
says about audience taste.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 49 of 49:
|
Oct 8 03:57 UTC 2003 |
It is true, as the high modernists kept pointing out, that music of the
past that was generally disliked at first came to be accepted later.
However, they exaggerated the extent of the dislike (you can always
find a bad review of anything if you look hard enough), and adopted
absurd standards, like claiming that folks would be whistling "Pierrot
Lunaire" in the streets by the year 2000.
In the end, the public seemed to be willing to go so far and no
farther. "La Sacre du Printemps" seemed to be about the limit.
Possibly the most delightful musical phenomenon of the 1970s was
watching modernists running out screaming, clutching their ears in
agony, from music that _they_ couldn't stand but everyone else liked.
Minimalism most obviously, but Shostakovich also qualifies. He was
sneered at for decades until a few intelligent musicologists, like
Richard Taruskin, invented the musical equivalent of reader-response
theory and asked, "If it's so contentless, then why does it move people
so?" (The simple answer, of course, is that it isn't intellectual
content that makes music succeed, it's emotional effect.)
|