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.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
"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.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
I think another thread is in order. One that was not originally aimed at intellectual bashing and proppgating ridiculous stereotypes.
Posts: 79 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
