No one is paying money to come to hear the music of Matthias Pintscher, but major orchestras still feel compelled to promote "new" music by shoving it down the throat of reluctant audiences by coupling it with more attractive fare.
Isn't it obvious by now that musical modernism has utterly failed if composers like Pintscher still have to be forced on audiences?
Orchestras have pretty much become museums. But, the cannon that runs from Bach to Sibelius is amazing and orchestras can entirely sustain themselves on it. If we want new composers to enter that cannon they will have to produce appealing and beautiful music. Then they won't have to be shoved down the throat of audiences but will draw names for themselves and have people eager to hear them (shoving out the composers in the "canon" in the process.) 12 tone music/atonal excesses simply goes against human nature, which is why that sort of music still remains unpopular. The composers of such music aren't frauds: rather, they have neurological dispositions unique to themselves and to a minority of humans. They tend to have fairly high IQs and therefore find it easy to dominate institutions in order to push their artistic ideologies. But inflicting their product on humans who don't share those neurological tendencies is cruel.
[ September 20, 2010, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: Sa'eed ]
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I think the best kind of exposure that a modern orchestra could hope for is some kind of gig involving film or television scoring. The music of Hans Zimmer and Yann Tierson has become quite famous, and both of those composers employ a rather classical approach to music, especially in comparison to the other film scores coming out. Granted, Tierson's music tends to work on a smaller scale than Zimmer's but it's all the same lol.
There is definitely a sense of elitism within the classical music genre, and I think that is a big of why the genre is dying. With each new generation, it's fan base gets smaller and smaller. Whether that is a byproduct of higher IQs and neurological tendencies, I'm not sure, but if you ask me the genre can't afford to alienate itself much longer. Film is probably the only place in the world right now where people are introduced to new classical music without having it shoved down their throats like you say. (Well they kinda are, but most of the time these scores are quite good anyways).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:No one is paying money to come to hear the music of Matthias Pintscher, but major orchestras still feel compelled to promote "new" music by shoving it down the throat of reluctant audiences by coupling it with more attractive fare.
It is obnoxious, but that's the beauty of music, it stands on its own without one needing to be told why they should like it. In theory one of these unknown pieces by an unknown composer should captivate the audience, and leave them wanting more.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I generally like 12-tone. Atonal, not so much.
-Bok
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Atonal makes as much sense as sports where the objects is not to compete.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
This page summarizes a book called "The Agony of Modern Music" written in the 50s by Henry Pleasants:
[T]he popular music audience... is amply supplied with a down-to-earth music of its own which the serious composer, by definition, cannot write, and with which his own product cannot compete, if only because its down-to-earthiness has an intellectual cast neither charming nor intelligible to the popular audience. In short, the composer would like to please, but is not pleased to write what pleases society, or at least that part of society which comprises his audience. Society would like to please the composer, whom it regards as an ornament and as a comforting guarantee of cultural continuity, but it is not pleased by what he writes. The situation is tolerated only because both composer and society have been persuaded to believe that this is the way it has always been.
Society's concept of the composer-audience relationship is as distorted as the composer's. It imagines the present situation to be a replica of what has been happening for generation after generation for a century and a half -- which it isn't -- and assumes that the next generation will be listening to this music with rapture -- which it won't.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: I think the best kind of exposure that a modern orchestra could hope for is some kind of gig involving film or television scoring. The music of Hans Zimmer and Yann Tierson has become quite famous, and both of those composers employ a rather classical approach to music, especially in comparison to the other film scores coming out. Granted, Tierson's music tends to work on a smaller scale than Zimmer's but it's all the same lol.
For that matter, video games are increasingly a source of popular orchestrated* music. The success of tours such as the various Final Fantasy concerts seems to suggest that there is definitely a market for this type of music so long as it actually connects with audiences. Granted, tv, film, and game music has a huge exposure benefit that independent music of this type doesn't enjoy, but there is clearly a market for the music if composers are able to reach it.
*Is there a better term for this general type of music? I'm not really sure what term would be best to use that doesn't overload with a particular period or subgenre, so "orchestrated" seems like the closest I can come up with off the top of my head that seems to fit the general concept.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
My brother is a professional pianist and middling composer who mainly works with atonal compositions. I have to admit that I find the stuff very interesting, but in some cases actively unpleasant to listen to -- which, again, is a reaction of mine that I find interesting, but one that suppresses my desire to listen.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: There is definitely a sense of elitism within the classical music genre, and I think that is a big of why the genre is dying. With each new generation, it's fan base gets smaller and smaller.
This is factually inaccurate. Classical music, both recordings of historically significant pieces as well as modern works are more popular in the present day than ever before. This is mostly to do with the fact that recorded media allows the average listener access to a huge range of musical genres, whereas an appreciation of classical music before recording technology would have necessitated regular and expensive attendance at many musical performances, or membership and regular attendance at a church actually inhabited by a skilled composer and music director.
In short, your assertions are based on popular but inaccurate assumptions. Classical music performances and recordings remain among the most popularly consumed, and the most steadily money making as well. And even in the case of very new compositions, the rate of success (relative to the size of the industry in terms of money invested) versus failure of any particular piece of music, recording, or particular artist is not higher than in the popular music genres, and the music fails to sell the enormous amounts of albums and downloads because it is not supported by a huge multitude of television ads, music videos, product endorsements, and etc.
Your notion that classical music and new music are becoming less popular only works out if you compare the growth of that genre in popularity with the huge growth of the popular music industry. But new music is not an industry linked with the targeting of advertisement to children, the selling of fast food and sneakers, and clothes. As such its level of "notariety" or "popularity" is not aptly compared with the popular music industry. Because modern composers do not live in infamy and plaster sex tapes on the internet, walk red carpets or endorse Nike and expose their bodies on television, it is assumed that this is a "dying art," even as new music has more composers, more performers, and more listeners than ever before. Not that this ignorance should be bothersome to me as a composer, but it is troubling that many people seem to lack any decent sense of perspective regarding the nature of music and the music industry, as well as music history. We essentially apply a false sense of the terms of "popularity" created by the modern music and film industries, to an art which inhabits a similar aesthetic space, but is based on a very different history and has never been so calculatedly packaged and sold to the public as has popular music. It's rather like suggesting that books are less popular today because they make less money than films, whereas this was not true in the 19th century. And yet our literacy rate is higher, more people read, and more books are written today than ever before in the world. But because our spending on entertainment in general in the western world is now higher, and because modern music now accounts for a smaller proportion of that spending than other genres, it is judged the lesser for it, while it is in fact thriving.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Because modern composers do not live in infamy and plaster sex tapes on the internet, walk red carpets or endorse Nike and expose their bodies on television, it is assumed that this is a "dying art..."
Question: why don't they? Posted by Ryoko (Member # 4947) on :
When making these sorts of pronouncements, it is always useful to refer to Slonimsky's "Lexicon of Musical Invective".
There you can read about critical responses to the "modern" music of the day:
Beethoven is described as "dull and crass" and several other composers (that are now considered as part of the "canon") are similarly derided.
It is a pretty entertaining book. Posted by Ryoko (Member # 4947) on :
Re: Film music
For example, take 2001: A Space Odyssey
György Ligeti's music is perfectly used for dramatic effect. However, if the same music was performed in concert, many audience members would be left scratching their heads.
My point being that people often enjoy things outside of the traditional western music canon without realizing it. It all depends on the context.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Because modern composers do not live in infamy and plaster sex tapes on the internet, walk red carpets or endorse Nike and expose their bodies on television, it is assumed that this is a "dying art..."
Question: why don't they?
Probably they're too busy, also they have taste.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Because modern composers do not live in infamy and plaster sex tapes on the internet, walk red carpets or endorse Nike and expose their bodies on television, it is assumed that this is a "dying art..."
Question: why don't they?
Probably they're too busy, also they have taste.
Well part of it might be that the "celebrity niche" is filled almost entirely with TV/Movie stars, so composers have been muscled out for some time now.
Also, I don't think anybody wants to see John Williams naked and/or having sex.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Well part of it might be that the "celebrity niche" is filled almost entirely with TV/Movie stars...
I dunno. Lady Gaga, John Mayer, etc. are all fairly well-known celebrities with outsize public personas. What is Lady Gaga doing right that modern composers aren't?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Well part of it might be that the "celebrity niche" is filled almost entirely with TV/Movie stars...
I dunno. Lady Gaga, John Mayer, etc. are all fairly well-known celebrities with outsize public personas. What is Lady Gaga doing right that modern composers aren't?
She doesn't write in the classical form.
Posted by Ryoko (Member # 4947) on :
I would like to first say that I have nothing against Lady Gaga at all. I think her pop music is as strong (creatively speaking) as most of the other pop-stuff available.
That being said, Lady Gaga is selling to an audience with expectations that "songs" will last about 2 to 3 minutes.
I would love to know what she would do to try and sell a work that lasted for 45 minutes.
That is a lot of meat and blood. lol
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Well part of it might be that the "celebrity niche" is filled almost entirely with TV/Movie stars...
I dunno. Lady Gaga, John Mayer, etc. are all fairly well-known celebrities with outsize public personas. What is Lady Gaga doing right that modern composers aren't?
I'm sorry, are you just being contrary, or do you actually think that point is not covered by my previous post? Popular mass marketed music is attractive to and attracted by people who are extraordinarily if not primarily skilled at gaining and holding the attention of the public through a concerted scheme of advertising, manipulation of public image through media, and the production of a certain type of product, and the marketing of that product to a certain spectrum of consumer. It is a business, primarily in the business of making money.
New music composition is composed of a broad range of artists, and is not an industry in any way comparable to the popular music industry. So composers are doing nothing "wrong." They are simply not doing what the popular music industry is doing. The idea that "success" in music is defined by the popular mainstream image of success is ludicrous and unreasonable, and that has been my point. By any reasonable historical perspective, new music enjoys enormous success today.
quote: That being said, Lady Gaga is selling to an audience with expectations that "songs" will last about 2 to 3 minutes.
I would love to know what she would do to try and sell a work that lasted for 45 minutes.
QFT. You don't judge the success of such widely different types of art by applying the same standards. Financial success is not an absolute, nor is notariety, nor is the size of listenership, believe it or not. If a piece of music, or the works of an artist can last the ages to influence people even in the far future, that is a success in its own right, and perhaps a much greater one. Financially speaking J.S. Bach was a minor success, and for the hundred years after his death, also largely forgotten. Yet do we class him today as less of a success than Handel, who was made wealthy and famous by his compositions? No, Bach is judged the greater, and far more of his works are known today, and what's more, matter far more today. This is not the type of judgment we are in a position to make about *anything* being produced today. But even on the very crude terms of finances and, yes, notariety, new music composition *still* enjoys more financial and popular success than at any time in the past.
[ September 20, 2010, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ryoko: When making these sorts of pronouncements, it is always useful to refer to Slonimsky's "Lexicon of Musical Invective".
There you can read about critical responses to the "modern" music of the day:
Beethoven is described as "dull and crass" and several other composers (that are now considered as part of the "canon") are similarly derided.
It is a pretty entertaining book.
That book was written with the intention of justifying musical modernism. As Henry Pleasants claims:
quote:Society would like to please the composer, whom it regards as an ornament and as a comforting guarantee of cultural continuity, but it is not pleased by what he writes. The situation is tolerated only because both composer and society have been persuaded to believe that this is the way it has always been.
Slonimsky is trying persuade audiences that the modern situation is merely a continuation of a tradition. Significant composers are always derided and resisted in their lifetime! Therefore, the resistance to modern composers is really quite normal. But it isn't: Most composers were appreciated in their lifetime. In fact, in the 18th and 19th centuries orchestras used to play mostly new compositions. New compositions were what the elites who could attend musical performances wanted to hear, because such works were enjoyable. Today, new compositions are resisted and shoved down the throat of audiences -- precisely because they aren't enjoyable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:do you actually think that point is not covered by my previous post?
I absolutely don't.
Posted by Ryoko (Member # 4947) on :
Sa'eed,
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about Stravinsky?
In particular, Firebird and Rite of Spring.
Firebird is very popular and accessible.
The Rite of Spring had the infamous premiere, but is well loved now.
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:do you actually think that point is not covered by my previous post?
I absolutely don't.
To elaborate, the production of mass marketed music, from inception to delivery is dependent upon a number of marketing tools and forces that give the product the largest possible appeal to the widest audience. The purpose of music produced by the pop music industry, as viewed by that industry in particular, is to comprise a product line that can tie together the promotion of various products and services, and which also serves to promote the notariety and mass appeal of an artist as a public figure in order to enhance that persons appeal and credability to generate a stable and reliably profitable brand. The art, to varying degrees, represents the honest artistic endeavors of artists and producers, but it is the viability of that art and artist in the context of the industry that determines the ´success´ of the artist as seen in the industry, and its continued support within that industry.
The gross marketability of new music, in comparison, does not determine how that music is recieved within its cultural base. If composers within that genre were to attempt to appeal to the mass market in similar way, I think the likely result would be a higher level ofnotariety and eventually a vastly different product. But because new music is not, as pop music is, a mass market product, mass market appeal is not the goal. This type of music appeals to fewer people, and requires more experience in listening, and the credibility of an artist is not based in saleability, but on other factors, including other different social pressures.
Of course, all music lies somewhere on a spectrum between mass market and specialty good. But we do not expect specialty goods to be advertised, at a loss, to the public. we should not reasonably expect purveyors of those goods to rely on mass marketing tactics. There will always be a specialty side of music making, many in fact, and i hasten only to add that this side of music is no less vibrant now than at any other time. To rail against that, as some people are wont to do, seems ridiculous to me. The idea that there would ever *not* exist some corner of art music that is unnaproachable to the public or seemingly hostile to popular taste is silly. The idea that this is some new phenomenon, teetering on the edge of oblivion? Pardon me while I twiddle my mustache and snort with mirth at the very notion.
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
I should add, as a further clarification, that I take particular exception to the idea that new music *actively* works to discourage the appeal of the mass market. It does not. It simply does not court that market in any way similar to popular music. If it did, you´d hear something much more broadly appealing, but the fact that it is not now broadly appealing is not the result of an effort to alienate. Elitism is often a factor among specialists of all stripes, but I assure you it is not the rule, nor the goal, particularly today in comparison with, say, 60 years ago.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:i hasten only to add that this side of music is no less vibrant now than at any other time
Except, of course, that it is completely irrelevant to the zeitgeist.
Posted by Ryoko (Member # 4947) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:i hasten only to add that this side of music is no less vibrant now than at any other time
Except, of course, that it is completely irrelevant to the zeitgeist.
Tom,
Isn't this also true of most modern independent cinema, theater, and literature?
Posted by Ryoko (Member # 4947) on :
One thing I will say...
If you think the audience hates new music, it is nothing compared to the orchestra members.
Not always true, but in my experience you see a lot of rolled eyes when you pass out parts for a new composition.
Sometimes, when treating the orchestra as one instrument, the "big picture" loses sight of the fact that the players spend their entire lives learning "the repertoire" and are then asked to beat their (expensive) bows against the strings "col legno" because it sounds cool.
Granted, it does sound cool . However, if you have a player who can knock your socks off with the Sibelius concerto and you instead ask them to tremolo all day, they quickly lose interest.
My point being that it might be best to first engage the interest of the players and hope their enthusiasm wears off on the audience. Optimistic, I know.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Isn't this also true of most modern independent cinema, theater, and literature?
The audience for what Orincoro calls "new music" is considerably smaller than the audience for indie cinema. And I certainly think non-commercial theater and literature are pretty irrelevant.
Posted by Ryoko (Member # 4947) on :
Well, I'd have to agree with the earlier comment that the modern orchestra is a museum of sorts.
It aspires to be a "time machine", but as the years go by, it seems to be only allowed to go back to Haydn and up to Shostakovich (depending on who you ask).
Of course, the period performance people are pushing the start date up to late Beethoven, so the window seems to be getting smaller, which is sad.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:i hasten only to add that this side of music is no less vibrant now than at any other time
Except, of course, that it is completely irrelevant to the zeitgeist.
A, I think you're wrong, but B, I don't think you're participating in this discussion in very good faith. I've patiently explained to you what I think are the facts, and you've chosen to be abrupt, obtuse, and dismissive, and insulting to me and to the things I care about, and I can't see why. From you, this is surprising- I want you to know I'm personally insulted by the way you've treated me in this exchange, where I was trying very hard to be as comprehensive and as clear and precise as I could be, and where you've done little but cast aspersion on me for doing so.
I haven't posted here in a month, and you've convinced me never to post here again. Thank you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's safe to say I've cast no aspersions on you, unless you think "I write 'new music,' and Tom thinks 'new music' is irrelevant to the zeitgeist," is somehow an aspersion.
I have been directly challenging your assertion that modern composers don't behave more sensationally because a) they're too busy; and b) they have "better" taste than those pop stars who do behave in a way that attracts attention.
Your longer reply -- that they don't bother attracting popular attention because their paychecks don't depend on popular attention -- is more satisfying, but leads inexorably to the next question: are modernist composers happy working for the state?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I don't work for the state. Perhaps you should take your ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ and think about who you're talking to. Perhaps you should have the tiniest shred of courtesy or the tiniest smidgen of respect for the opinion and the experience of someone you're talking to. Perhaps you shouldn't intentionally misconstrue what I say: "don't bother," is exactly what I said. Indeed- that matches my sentiment exactly. It's as F***** simple as that.
Perhaps you shouldn't just sit there and fondle your oversized ego and wind me up for the sheer pleasure of it and then whine and bitch when you can't get a decent discussion after I spent 30 minutes thinking about how to respond to you and you took a minute to jot off a quick little F*** you to reward me for that, and to needle me yet again by mangling what I've said. I can only assume it's intentional Tom, because you're not so stupid. I was being serious, I don't find it worth it anymore. And that's a real goddamn shame when you're the one convincing me there's no hope in this for me. It's a real freaking surprise. I hope you're really happy and satisfied with yourself.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I am not responsible for your investment in this conversation, Orincoro, or what you bring to it. Your decision to have it or not is your decision; I would not take that from you.
---------
Overwhelmingly, composers of "art" work for the state. They are not paid by private donors to produce atonal music; nor are they paid by concert halls; and neither are they paid in great numbers to score films and commercials. They are paid by grants and, to a far lesser degree, donations filtered through arts organizations. To a very great degree, the flowering of the arts you describe here is (I believe) due directly to the fantastic growth of state-funded art grants in the last sixty years.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Orincoro: Holy cow, relax just a little bit. Tom in this very thread said that he finds modernist composition interesting but difficult to listen to. I doubt he is suggesting that modernist composition is virtually dead, just that it does not hold a place in the public's consciousness like it used to.
Tom: Consider that Orincoro's life is music, a bit more diplomacy wouldn't ruin your ideas.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
Perhaps you shouldn't just sit there and fondle your oversized ego and wind me up for the sheer pleasure of it and then whine and bitch when you can't get a decent discussion after I spent 30 minutes thinking about how to respond to you and you took a minute to jot off a quick little F*** you to reward me for that,
Tom, don't take this the wrong way, but the man has a point here. Your ego is definitely bigger than your knowledge base. Raw intelligence does not equal years of study and experience, and you still haven't totally absorbed that lesson. Please try to.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
and to needle me yet again by mangling what I've said. I can only assume it's intentional Tom, because you're not so stupid. I was being serious, I don't find it worth it anymore. And that's a real goddamn shame when you're the one convincing me there's no hope in this for me. It's a real freaking surprise. I hope you're really happy and satisfied with yourself.
To Orincoro-- take it easy. I don't think it was actually intentional. Tom comes by his cluelessness honestly. How can you expect someone without at least a bachelor's in Music to be able to comment intelligently on this subject? You can't, or at least you shouldn't, IMO. Of course, there's the occasional pleasant surprise, but please note my use of the world occasional. Remember, the US is not as musically literate as Europe. Nowhere near, in fact. I get the feeling you've lost touch with how different the level of classical music awareness is in Europe versus the US. Pearls, swine, etc..
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I believe I am, in fact, commenting factually, if not necessarily intelligently. Nor do I think I'm out of my depth, here. Do you believe that we have been discussing topics arcane enough to require, say, a bachelor's degree in Music Composition?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
Perhaps you shouldn't just sit there and fondle your oversized ego and wind me up for the sheer pleasure of it and then whine and bitch when you can't get a decent discussion after I spent 30 minutes thinking about how to respond to you and you took a minute to jot off a quick little F*** you to reward me for that,
Tom, don't take this the wrong way, but the man has a point here. Your ego is definitely bigger than your knowledge base. Raw intelligence does not equal years of study and experience, and you still haven't totally absorbed that lesson. Please try to.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
and to needle me yet again by mangling what I've said. I can only assume it's intentional Tom, because you're not so stupid. I was being serious, I don't find it worth it anymore. And that's a real goddamn shame when you're the one convincing me there's no hope in this for me. It's a real freaking surprise. I hope you're really happy and satisfied with yourself.
To Orincoro-- take it easy. I don't think it was actually intentional. Tom comes by his cluelessness honestly. How can you expect someone without at least a bachelor's in Music to be able to comment intelligently on this subject? You can't, or at least you shouldn't, IMO. Of course, there's the occasional pleasant surprise, but please note my use of the world occasional. Remember, the US is not as musically literate as Europe. Nowhere near, in fact. I get the feeling you've lost touch with how different the level of classical music awareness is in Europe versus the US. Pearls, swine, etc..
I hardly think that you need a degree in music to be able to converse reasonably about a subject. I played 9 instruments, 3 of them well enough to get offers for college for them, when I was younger, so I know a bit about it despite not having a degree in it. I've even written some music, while in school, and my school had a music theory class that I took.
That's one of the dumbest things I have heard in a while. There are plenty of people on this very site who are intelligent enough, and/or have direct life experiences in a number of topics, including music.
If you need a degree to have an understanding of it that speaks more of your limitations than on that subject.
Hell....even people who have degrees often disagree on topics in music. It's one of the most subjective topics in the world.
[ September 21, 2010, 01:59 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:Overwhelmingly, composers of "art" work for the state.
Tom is making a good point here, though different genres have to bow down to different idols of mammon. Poetry, for example--one of my genres of choice--now exists principally in academia; "professional poets" are almost without exception M.F.A-wielding instructors or English professors who also write poetry. As Bob Dylan puts it, "You're gonna have to serve somebody," and in my case, it's The University.
Hmm...this reminds me of some old saw about pipers and tunes...
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
quote:Overwhelmingly, composers of "art" work for the state. They are not paid by private donors to produce atonal music; nor are they paid by concert halls; and neither are they paid in great numbers to score films and commercials. They are paid by grants and, to a far lesser degree, donations filtered through arts organizations. To a very great degree, the flowering of the arts you describe here is (I believe) due directly to the fantastic growth of state-funded art grants in the last sixty years.
I can't tell if you think this is a bad thing. If you do, could you explain why?
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ryoko: Well, I'd have to agree with the earlier comment that the modern orchestra is a museum of sorts.
It aspires to be a "time machine", but as the years go by, it seems to be only allowed to go back to Haydn and up to Shostakovich (depending on who you ask).
Of course, the period performance people are pushing the start date up to late Beethoven, so the window seems to be getting smaller, which is sad.
Modern orchestras would mostly sustain themselves on contemporary composers if contemporary composers weren't, on average, so abusive of ears and minds of the average person who would find a Haydn symphony pleasant to listen to. It isn't that orchestras strive to be museums but that by the market process have realized that music from earlier eras is what audiences want since, you know, those sort of composers didn't shun things like melody as a matter of course. So the meat of orchestras repertoire consists baroque/classic/romantic music and as a form of affirmative action modernist works are thrown in.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I believe I am, in fact, commenting factually, if not necessarily intelligently. Nor do I think I'm out of my depth, here. Do you believe that we have been discussing topics arcane enough to require, say, a bachelor's degree in Music Composition?
Yes, you are out of your depth, and yes, the topics we are discussing are involved enough, and the surmise you and others have offered is facile enough that I am convinced one may indeed need some significant training in theory or musicology to understand why that is. You and others apparently believe that in the realm of music, particularly the trajectory of artistic development and the development of performance practice, what *appears* to be the case is *necessarily* so. For example, you and others are not clearly expressing or seeming to grasp the reasons why classical music vis-à-vis the Modern Symphony Orchestra exists today:
Take for example, from "Sa'eed" (whomever this troll may be):
quote:Modern orchestras would mostly sustain themselves on contemporary composers if contemporary composers weren't, on average, so abusive of ears and minds of the average person who would find a Haydn symphony pleasant to listen to. It isn't that orchestras strive to be museums but that by the market process have realized that music from earlier eras is what audiences want since, you know, those sort of composers didn't shun things like melody as a matter of course. So the meat of orchestras repertoire consists baroque/classic/romantic music and as a form of affirmative action modernist works are thrown in.
Assumes entirely without evidence, and in fact quite mistakenly, that the modern symphony orchestra would, in some alternate universe, thrive as an entertainment medium if at some point in the recent past, say the turn of the 20th century, it had not become the fashion to employ historical programming as a way of raising money for the continuation of symphonic institutions, and instead modern composers continued to sculpt the bulk of the performance repertoire. The assumption has become that modern composers are incapable of doing so, and that they have been ghettoized to "tacked-on" performances behind historical draws, this out of some sense of charity. This ignores the fact that the the very *notion* of a concert season arose from the programming of historical works beginning in Europe in the late 19th century, and this was done in order to draw the public to new works, many of which are now on the "historical" side of the program today. It is also *enormously* more practical for symphonies to have a large repertoire of common cannon pieces to play during a concert season and tours, in the event that competing institutions may program the same works, and to avoid repeating performances year after year. It also allowed modern composers to develop and put in practice performance techniques to complex for earlier times in which performers would be expected to play new music at site, and so only played that music which adherred to a more rigid formula, and more orthodox methods of performance, such as more regular rhythms, organization of sections, and harmonic structures. The development of historical programming and "cannon" programming allowed performance techniques to be enhanced within the skills of a working orchestra, and allowed modern composition to exist. Without that cannon and the skills it requires, there would be no modern composition, because there would be no modern performance techniques.
The development of a concert-goers cannon was motivated by money, and it allowed composers and performers alike, for the first time in history, to offer their works directly to the market, rather than to rely exclusively on the patronage of the rich. In essence, historical performance gave birth to the possibility of such a thing as a modern composer. Mendelssohn, Brahms, Dvorak, Wagner, Stravinsky, Mahler, Sibelius, Ravel, Debussy, Bernstein, and many many others made their careers in music because it was possible to compose new music and to perform old music as part of a single entertainment world. That world still exists, and it is not smaller than it was in their time, it is larger. But the world of classical music did not make this realization yesterday. Historical performance was introduced because it was a draw when it was *first created*. It is not as if at some point in the past, audience shrieked and cried: "No! No! Give us what was played last year!" This format was sold to the public, and it was resold to the public in the 20th century, at *enormous* profit to both the music industry and the classical music world, in the form of records, radio, television, then tapes, CDs, and mp3s. Historical performance has *always* been a consumer product, and modern composition, meaning for this purpose music composed and performed in its own time through the medium of the symphony orchestra has *never* been one.
And education in even the rudiments of that world would tell "Sa'eed" that no, the inclusion of new works in a Modern Symphony Orchestra's season or repertoire is not "charity," and it is not "affirmative action." Music directors and conductors, as well as the performers, many of whom studied as or studied with modern composers and under teachers who composed and taught them a love of new music, are intellectually curious people, who are interested in seeing the future of their medium grow in positive ways. They select new works for many reasons, some the same as the reasons they select older works: politics, social pressure, personal affinity, and taste. It is by no means, nor ever has been, a perfect medium. But the notion that Orchestras aspire to be museums? How many people do you know who work in an orchestra? Because I know scores, and have met hundreds, and I can't recall a one who balked at the idea of exploring new and challenging works. I've attended performances of symphony orchestras in a dozen countries, met many directors, performers, and many composers, and nowhere in this equation is "charity-case" at all, *at all* appropriate or fitting.
The sad aspect of all of this is that in this discussion, as in so very many, the anti-intellectual bent against modern music is so severe, people are not even willing to admit a difference between their own personal tastes, and the actual facts. In actual fact, Lady GaGa is tremendously popular. She is not to my taste. In actual fact, modern composition today enjoys more public support, both in the private market and in the public, as a function of real dollars, and in comparison with the size of that artistic community in centuries past relative to the size of their societies, and you don't want to believe that's true because you don't like it? The sad fact is that none of you are even in touch enough with this subject to recognize that there are others who are. That there are many others, and that they *do* care. And that they don't need your pity or your scorn, but might, perchance, appreciate your respect. I challenge you all, many of whom I'm sure have not voluntarily sought out a new music concert in your lives, to go out and find one you think sounds interesting (choose carefully, crap is heavy on the ground in ALL artistic endeavors), and attend with an open mind. I have never been to a modern composition concert in which I was offended. I have been bored, I have been exasperated, I have been pleased and I have been shocked, but I have never been offended. Why is it so offensive to you? What injures you so, that you must insist, entirely without cause that the source of your fear is so insignificant? Why must you insist that that which you have no affinity for lacks value? That the process of coming to appreciate something new is too arduous? Why must you imagine that it could only be that you are subject to these rigors because you are hated and reviled by evil intellectual elitists? Why, I ask you, did I myself enter into this world to find a veritable galaxy of warm and appreciative, and kind, and generous people who believe deeply in what they do and in getting others to share that experience with them, and you, many of whom know nothing of these people or their motivations, insist that this idea has such questionable validity? Insist even that it is a plot against you, the innocent victim of some awful cabal against your base values? And why have I known so many people, so many casual listeners and open minded curious beginners, who have but opened a tiny crack in that door to reveal that what lies on the other side can be beautiful, deep, and rich? Are we all just drinking the same water?
[ September 21, 2010, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Orincoro, who are you arguing with? Absolutely nothing you wrote addresses in any way the things that I've said, and indeed your last paragraph appears to be directed at some completely imaginary participant.
Posted by Ryoko (Member # 4947) on :
Full disclosure: I enjoy new music, support it, and have contributed as a composer. As a performer, I've premiered several new works. So, I'm fully invested and definitely biased on the side of new music.
That being said, this issue that Sa'eed brings up is one I've long debated with myself:
Satisfying audience expectations.
Yes, if you attend a new music festival, you should expect new music.
However, to go back to the original post, tacking on a new piece in front of Beethoven 9 is tricky.
For some people, it might seem like they are being told:
"Don't worry, you'll get your cake, but first you have to eat your vegetables".
It is only natural that some are going to resent this.
Of course, in my opinion, they are both cake. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It only just now occurred to me that Orincoro may have perceived my objections to his reflexive dismissal of the "taste" of pop stars (and the common consumer) to be a defense of Sa'eed's original trolling.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
This thread to me is not a trolling thread, but a very valid topic for conversation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, I think it's a valid topic for conversation. But Sa'eed/Clive was also very definitely trolling. (In the same way that "Are women inherently inferior" is a valid topic of conversation, but Clive's previous posts on that subject were also clearly and deliberately inflammatory.)
Posted by Ryoko (Member # 4947) on :
I've been giving the benefit of the doubt.
It is definitely an interesting subject.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Oh, I think it's a valid topic for conversation. But Sa'eed/Clive was also very definitely trolling. (In the same way that "Are women inherently inferior" is a valid topic of conversation, but Clive's previous posts on that subject were also clearly and deliberately inflammatory.)
quote:originally posted by Orincoro: Assumes entirely without evidence, and in fact quite mistakenly, that the modern symphony orchestra would, in some alternate universe, thrive as an entertainment medium if at some point in the recent past, say the turn of the 20th century, it had not become the fashion to employ historical programming as a way of raising money for the continuation of symphonic institutions, and instead modern composers continued to sculpt the bulk of the performance repertoire.
The modern symphony orchestra would thrive as an entertainment medium through modernistic programming if such programming is as inherently entertaining/enjoyable as music from earlier eras. An overwhelming reliance on historical programming became necessary as a consequence of modern music becoming denuded of entertainment value. PBS classical music stations do not mostly play baroque-classical-romantic music because audiences are inexplicably drawn to older music but because such music offers the most entertainment value.
quote:This ignores the fact that the the very *notion* of a concert season arose from the programming of historical works beginning in Europe in the late 19th century, and this was done in order to draw the public to new works, many of which are now on the "historical" side of the program today.
That some works were initially resisted but become embraced later does not mean that all music that's resisted will be eventually embraced by audiences. What worked in the late 19th century when composers still produced tonal music will not necessarily work in the 20th century when avant-garde composers produce ugly music which probably goes against the average human nature (except against the nature of some people with peculiar mental traits.)
[ September 21, 2010, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: Sa'eed ]
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Oh, I think it's a valid topic for conversation. But Sa'eed/Clive was also very definitely trolling. (In the same way that "Are women inherently inferior" is a valid topic of conversation, but Clive's previous posts on that subject were also clearly and deliberately inflammatory.)
You can't possibly know his motivations, and to assume that he posts threads with all the same ones shoehorns him into a position where there are less compelling reasons not to troll.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:This ignores the fact that the the very *notion* of a concert season arose from the programming of historical works beginning in Europe in the late 19th century, and this was done in order to draw the public to new works, many of which are now on the "historical" side of the program today.
That some works were initially resisted but become embraced later does not mean that all music that's resisted will be eventually embraced by audiences. What worked in the late 19th century when composers still produced tonal music will not necessarily work in the 20th century when avant-garde composers produce ugly music which probably goes against the average human nature (except against the nature of some people with peculiar mental traits.)
Your kind are always on the wrong side of history. If you understood anything of what I've said, or of the history of music, you might understand that. But typically you have no actual knowledge base to speak from, you can provide no apt examples of why Stravinsky is celebrated today and huranged by the public a century ago. Why Satie was seen as a buffoon by some, but is beloved today by nearly all- why endless numbers of new pieces are written and fade away, because only a precious few are worth preserving. And, a great capper, you have no idea how the music you are discussing even sounds. You natter on about atonal music this and that like an old man perplexed over that newfangled microwave that "makes the plate *hot* and the food *cold* I tells ye!" Like an old bity that thinks the internet is a fad. You take the short view, and you argue from a stature of willful ignorance- I'm happy to know your like are always wrong in your proscriptivism. So sad you don't even understand why that is.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Orincoro: what is the "right side" of history where music is concerned?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:This ignores the fact that the the very *notion* of a concert season arose from the programming of historical works beginning in Europe in the late 19th century, and this was done in order to draw the public to new works, many of which are now on the "historical" side of the program today.
That some works were initially resisted but become embraced later does not mean that all music that's resisted will be eventually embraced by audiences. What worked in the late 19th century when composers still produced tonal music will not necessarily work in the 20th century when avant-garde composers produce ugly music which probably goes against the average human nature (except against the nature of some people with peculiar mental traits.)
Your kind are always on the wrong side of history. If you understood anything of what I've said, or of the history of music, you might understand that. But typically you have no actual knowledge base to speak from, you can provide no apt examples of why Stravinsky is celebrated today and huranged by the public a century ago. Why Satie was seen as a buffoon by some, but is beloved today by nearly all- why endless numbers of new pieces are written and fade away, because only a precious few are worth preserving. And, a great capper, you have no idea how the music you are discussing even sounds. You natter on about atonal music this and that like an old man perplexed over that newfangled microwave that "makes the plate *hot* and the food *cold* I tells ye!" Like an old bity that thinks the internet is a fad. You take the short view, and you argue from a stature of willful ignorance- I'm happy to know your like are always wrong in your proscriptivism. So sad you don't even understand why that is.
These posts comprised entirely of invective directed at other posters are not OK. I'm impressed you kept the profanity at a minimum, but you need to knock this off. I was really hoping for a good response here, especially your opinions regarding Stravinsky, please consider writing such a post.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed:
quote:This ignores the fact that the the very *notion* of a concert season arose from the programming of historical works beginning in Europe in the late 19th century, and this was done in order to draw the public to new works, many of which are now on the "historical" side of the program today.
That some works were initially resisted but become embraced later does not mean that all music that's resisted will be eventually embraced by audiences. What worked in the late 19th century when composers still produced tonal music will not necessarily work in the 20th century when avant-garde composers produce ugly music which probably goes against the average human nature (except against the nature of some people with peculiar mental traits.)
Your kind are always on the wrong side of history. If you understood anything of what I've said, or of the history of music, you might understand that. But typically you have no actual knowledge base to speak from, you can provide no apt examples of why Stravinsky is celebrated today and huranged by the public a century ago. Why Satie was seen as a buffoon by some, but is beloved today by nearly all- why endless numbers of new pieces are written and fade away, because only a precious few are worth preserving. And, a great capper, you have no idea how the music you are discussing even sounds. You natter on about atonal music this and that like an old man perplexed over that newfangled microwave that "makes the plate *hot* and the food *cold* I tells ye!" Like an old bity that thinks the internet is a fad. You take the short view, and you argue from a stature of willful ignorance- I'm happy to know your like are always wrong in your proscriptivism. So sad you don't even understand why that is.
So tell us why Schoenberg/Berg and their disciples have yet to become mainstream (as judged by what orchestras program frequently and what classical music stations choose to play) after that sort of avant-garde music being around for over a 100 years? This is not really new stuff anymore, and the fact such music has still yet to become popular attractions after a century is perhaps evidence of its repellent nature. I certainly concede that the people who produce such music and claim to enjoy it aren't frauds but they are probably wired differently than normal humans and, as I said earlier, it's cruel to inflict that sort of music on people (most people) who haven't been blessed with that wiring (as then that sort of music wouldn't still need affirmative action to make it onto the programs of orchestras.)
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
With regards to this comment:
"Your kind are always on the wrong side of history."
I am absolutely convinced that I am on the right of history on this matter because it's been a HUNDRED freakin years of modernist/atonal crap and audiences still ain't buying. Give up.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Their goal isn't necessarily to grow their audience. Especially in the popular demographic.
I'd like to think their goals are more in line with innovation and originality. And eventually, as in any art form, the composer just creates what speaks to them. Composers today have a WHOLE lot of cool music history behind them to inform their musical decisions--and atonal music has DEFINITELY informed modern composers.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: So tell us why Schoenberg/Berg and their disciples have yet to become mainstream (as judged by what orchestras program frequently and what classical music stations choose to play) after that sort of avant-garde music being around for over a 100 years?
A, number 1, that's a ridiculous qualifier. Classical radio is one thing, and it is certainly not on a parallel path with live performance and composition. So just hang that one up for another discussion, it's unreasonable to throw it into this one simply because it disqualifies any possible answer. Berg is not programmed on classical radio for the same reason that Sigur Ros is not programmed on top 40, and since the radio market for classical music is small and stagnant anyway, there is no demand for Webern on classical radio, although it doesn't stop the occassional play. As I've said, repeatedly, and as you have steadfastly ignored, standards of "mainstream" acceptance and celebration you have learned from the music industry are not useful when talking about this subject, not least because they are very different worlds, and work in very different ways. The fact, firstly, that you've *heard* of Schoenberg and Berg indicates that they are *very* mainstream in the realm of classical music. They are programmed very often, and they continue to be sources of profitable recordings and touring performances all over the world. They were never accepted as "mainstream" artists in the same way that Beethoven has never was a "mainstream" artist. When he was alive, the idea of an international or even intracontinental musical mainstream was beyond the realm of fantasy. Few but the tiniest numbers of people ever heard his orchestral works when he was alive, far fewer than Webern's during his day. It took a very long time until his name itself was such common coin. And how do you think it got that way? His influence on later composers, on Webern and Berg, (who were even more powerfully effected by and powerful popularizers of Bach), caused his music to be programmed and celebrated in that small circle before it could be packaged and sold to a "mainstream" public, a concert-going public, by a fledgling entrepreneurial music business. Same for Charles Ives, and Samuel Barber and Benjamin Brittan- the influence of Beethoven on them and their love of Beethoven fed the latter's popularity, and built careers that see their names remembered, even though all of them composed deeply challenging music. How many popular touring artists from the turn of the 20th century can you name? And yet you can name these two, and probably if you have the least bit of interest in the subject you can name five more easily.
Did you like the soundtrack to Inception? Hans Zimmer didn't learn the technique of recursion and reversed layering of electronic sound elements from Beethoven- it was Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Stockhausen, and Varese- same place the Beatles learned it- who now share the same source of inspiration that impacts, in very clear and meaningful ways, how ALL studio music is now produced. You like John Williams? You can thank Beethoven, but also Aaron Copeland and Alban Berg, who through their music, and their enormous impact on the world of symphonic composition, helped Williams to discover the arrangement techniques he is beloved for. Beethoven's arrangements are harsh and jarring (which most performers of Beethoven symphonies has become aware of at some point), a trait he shares with many Romantic period composers, and a fact that he compensated for with beautifully crafted sectioning and harmonic progressions. Berg and Webern and Mahler and Sibelius lovingly crafted their arrangements to help smooth the impact of more challenging harmonic and melodic material, bringing the art of arrangement into a new kind of brilliance, that gave birth to modern soundtrack writing. All of those composers you hear in the movies have studied this music, or they have studied with teachers who were devoted to it. Their influence is ever-present, it is very much in the zeitgeist.
So you keep on crowing about how they're "not popular I tells yee!" They don't really have to be popular in any sense that you are prepared to accept. And I very clearly stated at the outset that your conception of "popularity" is cockeyed to begin with. You don't know the progression, but it's there, staring you in the face. It's not at all necessary that you personally, or even more than the tiniest fraction of people care for or care about any of these people. The music you listen to today is rife with their footprints. It's such a truism in the academic study of music that when amateurs stumble upon the realization themselves and gush about it as I did when I was 19, I feel embarrassed for having not thought of it myself, given the evidence at hand. But we are as a culture so deeply devoted to music, and so naive about its history, that this is all too common a phenomenon- it's one that frustrates me, and one that I have to remind myself should not surprise.
[ September 22, 2010, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That was an interesting post. I'm glad I read it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
That's awful nice of you. Perhaps I should have posted that bit first- it's very hard to access these basic assumptions in a way that's meaningful to someone who doesn't normally think about them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Orincoro: I really enjoyed that post, and I'm not just saying that since I requested it.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: So tell us why Schoenberg/Berg and their disciples have yet to become mainstream (as judged by what orchestras program frequently and what classical music stations choose to play) after that sort of avant-garde music being around for over a 100 years?
A, number 1, that's a ridiculous qualifier. Classical radio is one thing, and it is certainly not on a parallel path with live performance and composition.
Live orchestral performance is on a parallel path with classical radio. Looking at the NSO's season, there is, for instance, a preponderance of Beethoven and many other composers that are standard fare on classical radio. There are exceptions but the overall trend is unmistakable. Orchestras make the meat of their programming ancient music from the classical and romantic eras, and when music from the 20th century is present it tends to be from composers who, while distinctive and unique, produce tonal, accessible works.
quote:The fact, firstly, that you've *heard* of Schoenberg and Berg indicates that they are *very* mainstream in the realm of classical music. They are programmed very often, and they continue to be sources of profitable recordings and touring performances all over the world. They were never accepted as "mainstream" artists in the same way that Beethoven has never was a "mainstream" artist
Absolutely wrong. Beethoven was a musical God in his time and much esteemed by music lovers. Within several decades of his death his music became mainstream. And he made money of his works which never lacked for publishers or subscribers as, back then, people wanted to hear new, current music. He was as popular as a composer then could be, at least within Vienna. I've heard of Schoenberg/Berg because I've read about music history and, sure, I own a CD of their works. Can't say I'm not adventurous.
quote:Did you like the soundtrack to Inception? Hans Zimmer didn't learn the technique of recursion and reversed layering of electronic sound elements from Beethoven- it was Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Stockhausen, and Varese- same place the Beatles learned it- who now share the same source of inspiration that impacts, in very clear and meaningful ways, how ALL studio music is now produced.
So their value lies in their impact on better musicians?
[ September 23, 2010, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: Sa'eed ]
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
I went to that National Symphony Orchestra performance. The sight of the orchestra -- and the spectacle of the 9th -- was majestic, but I am simply too familiar with the 9th. From now on I'll try to catch live classical works I'm not too familiar with.
I happened to have missed by complete accident the first half of the show (the Matthias Pintscher work). I don't go out to DC too often and I'm always slightly disoriented every time I go there. I thought it would be an easy walk from the metro stop to the Kennedy Center but it wasn't.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I don't know how we can have this conversation about ALL music from a period. There has been a great deal of excellent "classical" music from the last century, and a lot of it has been quite musical and popularist. If you're talking about the specific genre of atonal sound you can link that with similar works of visual art that have got most people scratching their heads-- and possibly rightly so.
I disagree that classical music is doing brilliantly well. Most concerts I attend are a sea of grey heads. However, I have been to the "Lord of the Rings symphony" performance and that music, which you might not rank at the same level as Beethoven in turn of genius, but you could certainly consider it quite an inspired piece of orchestral music-- and that concert had a good number of people who were below the age of sixty-five!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The chamber orchestra I help manage was also drawing a sea of grey heads. We diversified the musical lineup with more contemporary artists and that helped draw in a more diverse crowd.
Posted by Ryoko (Member # 4947) on :
Musical Literacy:
I debated on whether to start a new topic for this subject, but I ended up posting it here for context.
How important is musical literacy (the ability to read, write, perform musical notation with or without an instrument) when discussing "classical" music (and modern "art" music)?
Obviously, people are able to get by just fine without knowing the difference between major and minor, etc.
The same is true of those illiterate in other languages. You don't have to know how to read to enjoy poetry (in English). Granted, you may not understand everything that is going on, but you can still enjoy it. For that matter, you could potentially not even speak the language and still find enjoyment in the sounds of the poetry.
(Obviously, there is a big functional difference between musical illiteracy and language illiteracy...one could make you starve. However, for the sake of this discussion as it pertains to the arts, can we agree to make them more or less analogous?
Also, I intend no offense to those who are unable to read music )
As someone who is "musically literate", my guess is that I'm more able to remember a given musical idea or phrase and recognize its transformation, etc. than someone who is musically illiterate.
Therefore, when the musical language becomes more sophisticated (harmonically, rhythmically, etc.), perhaps I'm more able to adapt to and understand the musical "world" the composer is creating.
For the musically illiterate, it might be like reading poetry in a foreign language.
Thoughts?
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
I think another thread is in order. One that was not originally aimed at intellectual bashing and proppgating ridiculous stereotypes.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Just came back about 50 minutes ago from the Strathmore musical center in Maryland. The National Philharmonic Orchestra performed Mahler's Resurrection symphony. It was sublime.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)