Stop and prepare : Cage

[Peter]

And I repeat my last question : what form should this renaissance take?

Patience. Well they could start with a tune.

[Quijote]

Patience. Well they could start with a tune.

"They", the "other"? Hmm ...
Pärt, Reich , Glass, Adams, Gorecki (the list is quite long) do provide the melodies you seem to crave. Now, please address this renaissance you allude to.

[Quijote]

Yes flippant, but actually it is a relevant point - most great composers of the past were well known names to ordinary people and much of their music eagerly anticipated, can the same be said of composers born after 1950? Interestingly all the composers you mention were also born pre 1950.



They're certainly making new awful sounds and provide a sample link for members to make their own judgement of my remarks.
http://www.digital-music-archives.co...plication.php? .
I wouldn't even describe it as music, it is an acoustic science and it would possibly be better appreciated if split from the wider category of western art music.



Mozart thought so and Beethoven generally did - he only made two notable exceptions - Op.95 and writing a new finale for Op.130. Let's be clear here, Beethoven's music did cause some critics to indulge in tirades of abuse on first hearing but within his lifetime his music was generally accepted by critics and public - even contrary to popular belief were some of the late quartets such as Op.127. Chamber music and sonatas however cannot be viewed in the same way as today because they were not really intended for public performance. Beethoven knew what the public would come to appreciate and has been proven correct. Schoenberg on the other hand has been proven wrong and his music has led to a dead end - that doesn't mean that I would dismiss him as unimportant or not a serious figure.

You would - oh dear shock horror!

Over 100 years surely?

Apart from your last point about recording technology (where I stand semi-corrected), I must urge patience too as I digest your Taliban-like 'fundamentalism'. I detect that your mask is beginning to slip, and I do hope what I find behind is not too ugly.

[Peter]

Apart from your last point about recording technology (where I stand semi-corrected), I must urge patience too as I digest your Taliban-like 'fundamentalism'. I detect that your mask is beginning to slip, and I do hope what I find behind is not too ugly.

Some silly references here Philip which go too far. I am simply expressing my views which you are entitled to disagree with but not to describe in such terms. I've no wish to continue the debate if that is your approach and shall leave it there.

[Quijote]

The 'Taliban-like' reference I retract (with appropriate apology), but not the 'fundamentalism' comment, which I do believe to be true of you, as I meant 'musical fundamentalism' (perhaps I am guilty of this too from the other side of the spectrum). I would like to explain why I used this term, and will clarify it my next posting.
Let us both try to remain civil, calm and measured. Please now serve me a (small) slice of humble pie, which I promise to eat in total silence...

[Quijote]

Yes flippant, but actually it is a relevant point - most great composers of the past were well known names to ordinary people and much of their music eagerly anticipated, can the same be said of composers born after 1950? Interestingly all the composers you mention were also born pre 1950.

I'm not sure how many people turned out to the funerals of Schumann, Wagner, Bruckner, Brahms and Mahler (to give a few "household names"), and I wonder if their works were really eagerly anticipated by ordinary people. By the educated, the cognoscenti, sure. Can this be said of composers born after 1950? For their possible funeral turnouts, let's wait and see. As to "eager anticipation" of their works, yes - for a specific sector of people.

[Quijote]

They're certainly making new awful sounds and provide a sample link for members to make their own judgement of my remarks.
http://www.digital-music-archives.co...plication.php? .
I wouldn't even describe it as music, it is an acoustic science and it would possibly be better appreciated if split from the wider category of western art music.

You call it "new awful sounds", I call it music. Some composers working in this field are so discouraged by people's reactions (the most common "fundamentalist" one being 'That's not music!') that they call it 'sonic art' instead. However, you are once again employing demagogy to shore up your own personal opinion. I have no problem with your personal opinion, but I do with your approach here. If I may paraphrase your comment above, it becomes thus :
'That's not music, that's just noise. Here, click on this link to see if you don't agree with me.'
It probably is a bit of a quantum leap from 19th century repertoires to electroacoustic music, but with a bit of background reading concerning the history and development of this music, to understand the musical standpoint, the composer's intentions and so on would be no bad thing. Yes, it all does require effort. I didn't come to electroacoustic music straight from Beethoven either, you know!

[Quijote]

I wouldn't even describe it as music, it is an acoustic science and it would possibly be better appreciated if split from the wider category of western art music.

I call it music. You don't, you call it acoustic science. Thank the deity of your choice for the acoustic science instigated by Pythagoras that discovered a correspondence between pitches and numerical proportions (that later gave us the pitch system, and music such as Beethoven, inter alia. The roots of electroacoustic music are in fact firmly grounded in wesern art music tradition.

[Quijote]

Mozart thought so and Beethoven generally did - he only made two notable exceptions - Op.95 and writing a new finale for Op.130. Let's be clear here, Beethoven's music did cause some critics to indulge in tirades of abuse on first hearing but within his lifetime his music was generally accepted by critics and public - even contrary to popular belief were some of the late quartets such as Op.127. Chamber music and sonatas however cannot be viewed in the same way as today because they were not really intended for public performance. Beethoven knew what the public would come to appreciate and has been proven correct. Schoenberg on the other hand has been proven wrong and his music has led to a dead end - that doesn't mean that I would dismiss him as unimportant or not a serious figure.

Your point here refers to the artist's duty toward his/her audience. I'll have to return to it later. In the meantime, your point about Schoenberg : he was in fact proved right, as even he felt offended when audiences seemed to appreciate his music. If you don't believe me, read his 1937 essay "How One Becomes Lonely". Another interesting essay on the topic is Milton Babbitt's 1958 essay "Who Cares if You Listen?" (although the original title was "The Composer as Specialist.")
More later, then.

[Quijote]

And I hope to read more about the renaissance, too. Icon.

[Peter]

The 'Taliban-like' reference I retract (with appropriate apology), but not the 'fundamentalism' comment, which I do believe to be true of you, as I meant 'musical fundamentalism' (perhaps I am guilty of this too from the other side of the spectrum). I would like to explain why I used this term, and will clarify it my next posting.
Let us both try to remain civil, calm and measured. Please now serve me a (small) slice of humble pie, which I promise to eat in total silence...

Well I don't particularly care for the fundamentalist label either with its religious and fanatical overtones being applied simply to a dislike of a particular 'musical' genre. How then would you define the vast majority of people who dislike most classical music? What about someone who loves Beethoven but can't stand Bach? Or someone who doesn't like pop or Jazz? Is someone who likes the Beatles but hates Punk a heretic, or an extremist? It is a nonsense to use such language in this context. I have been civil and have not resorted to personal abuse but you heap all sorts of labels on anyone for daring to criticise the avant garde from conservative reactionary, demagogue, to your latest 'Taliban' remarks - yours is the true fundamentalist and patronising position as you seem to think that anyone who doesn't share your tastes is lacking in education. I personally regard myself as having a pretty broad spectrum in musical taste from Perotin to Britten and I know what I like without having to read why I should like it.

[PDG]

Is someone who likes the Beatles but hates Punk a heretic, or an extremist?

No, both Michael and I are perfectly rational, thank you...

[PDG]

Mozart thought so and Beethoven generally did - he only made two notable exceptions - Op.95 and writing a new finale for Op.130.

Peter, are you saying that Beethoven changed these compositions in order to please his audience? Are you referring to the high-spirited, major mode ending of Op.95, which I always took to be a nod of respect towards the just-deceased Haydn? And then Op.130, where his disparaging comments about the critics are well-known!
We could also mention the linking slow movement of Op.53 and the convoluted Fidelio history.

[Michael]

No, both Michael and I are perfectly rational, thank you...

Speak for yourself!



(I believe I am limited to ten demented images, otherwise I would have continued in the same vein.)

[Peter]

Peter, are you saying that Beethoven changed these compositions in order to please his audience? Are you referring to the high-spirited, major mode ending of Op.95, which I always took to be a nod of respect towards the just-deceased Haydn? And then Op.130, where his disparaging comments about the critics are well-known!
We could also mention the linking slow movement of Op.53 and the convoluted Fidelio history.

No not exactly PDG - with Op.95 he sent a note to Sir George Smart saying that it was written for a small circle of connoisseurs and "is never to be performed in public". With Op.130 he did grudgingly accept that a new finale was necessary. With Fidelio and Op.53 I think the reasons are different.