Howard Goodall on BBC Two

[Sir Velo]

But both Alkan and Sorabji (and plenty of other composers) inspire far more than mere "fanatical loyalty from a small group of aficionados", thereby rather undermining the very premise of your doubt here!

Er, not really. I was expressing contumely with Rosen's notion that only those composers who inspire fanatical loyalty from a small group of admirers are somehow "significant". Are Beethoven,Wagner, Stravinsky not significant just because they have appealed to and influenced a large number of musicians and listeners? I certainly don't doubt that both Alkan and Sorabji inspire far more than mere loyalty, but I'm sure you'd agree that they do have a corps of fanatical admirers, which notwithstanding, does not make them among the most significant composers of either their or our generations.

[Ian]

But I wouldn't have said "oh really fancy that" in either case. I'd have asked you what it is about the intrinsic construction of Schoenberg's music that you find unsatisfying.

My point is that you didn't.

[ahinton]

Er, not really. I was expressing contumely with Rosen's notion that only those composers who inspire fanatical loyalty from a small group of admirers are somehow "significant". Are Beethoven,Wagner, Stravinsky not significant just because they have appealed to and influenced a large number of musicians and listeners? I certainly don't doubt that both Alkan and Sorabji inspire far more than mere loyalty, but I'm sure you'd agree that they do have a corps of fanatical admirers, which notwithstanding, does not make them among the most significant composers of either their or our generations.

Fair comment insofar as it goes; what seems to matter here is that a composer might or might not be deemed significant in his/her own time and/or at any later time irrespective of whether and to what extent he/she might "inspire fanatical loyalty" at any time. Furthermore, such "fanatical loyalty" is often to be taken with more than a grano of salis when, as is all too often the case, the kind of hagiography in which the acolytes concerned tend to indulge is indiscriminatory on the alleged grounds that the particular composer could do no wrong and was somehow congenitally incapable of writing anything other than flawless masterpieces, an attitude that does no one any favours and which, sadly, can also be quite understandably off-putting to others.

[MrGongGong]

ample evidence suggests that many composers have gotten on fine without recourse to it as a compositional tool.

let's (NOT) have a discussion by what one means by the word "influence"
which DOESN'T mean the same thing as "Pastiche" or even "in the style of" .......

How about Serialism's influence on Jazz ?
(which is outside my knowledge) was this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmolodics

influenced by Schoenberg's theories ?

[Julien Sorel]

My point is that you didn't.

And my point is you didn't say anything about the internal construction of Schoenberg's music. Since yours was the opening stage in the conversation if you had said something along those lines a different conversation would have ensued. And then you call other people defensive.

[Nick Armstrong]

Warning: off-topic!

I enjoy reading ahinton's astonishingly long sentences, but they always remind me of the last part of Chapter 9 of Winnie-the-Pooh. Scroll right down (if you can be bothered) to the last two paragraphs, beginning at 'You can imagine Piglet's joy...'.

http://www.greeting-cards-4u.com/Poo...ook/chap9.html

"the story went on and on, rather like this sentence, until Piglet who was listening out of his window without much hope, went to sleep quietly and naturally, slipping slowly out of the window towards the water"

A sensation I recognise from some of the threads on this august Forum

[Nick Armstrong]

I was expressing contumely with Rosen's notion....

Are you sure that's what you mean to say?

Contumely

1. insulting display of contempt in words or actions; contemptuous or humiliating treatment.
2. a humiliating insult.

[Thropplenoggin]

Are you sure that's what you mean to say?

Contumely

1. insulting display of contempt in words or actions; contemptuous or humiliating treatment.
2. a humiliating insult.

Caliban: the pedant's pedant.

[Nick Armstrong]

Caliban: the pedant's pedant.

Not sure ascertaining that the right word is in play counts as pedantry...

Still, thanks. I think

[MrGongGong]

Caliban: the pedant's pedant.

That's


pe·dan·tic
/pəˈdantik/
Adjective
Of or like a pedant.
Synonyms
punctilious - donnish - priggish - meticulous


( to absent friends ...........)

[Sir Velo]

Are you sure that's what you mean to say?

Contumely

1. insulting display of contempt in words or actions; contemptuous or humiliating treatment.
2. a humiliating insult.

Yes; as in "contempt for"; or "scorn".

While we're at it, pehaps you could have a word with those posters who get confused over where to put their apostrophes, or litter their posts with typos.

[Nick Armstrong]

Yes; as in "contempt for"; or "scorn".

While we're at it, pehaps you could have a word with those posters who get confused over where to put their apostrophes, or litter their posts with typos.

I think they are often made aware of the fact

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

well chaps after all this i am still at a loss to understand what serialism is in addition to or other than what Mr G described it as ....... what subtlety or complexity i have missed above remains opaque .... no matter

S_A may well have something to say about serialism and jazz, my guess would be that it helped to make experimentation more the norm than conformance ... so e g George Russell could play with scales and modes etc ... but HG is more to the point with Debussy to my ears .... and the Russians (Rimsky) [Duke Ellington, Gil Evans and Charlie Parker were great listeners to modern classical music [forgive the oxymoron] ... i suspect that most jazz musicians are magpies, taking what they can make work and leaving the rest than 'adherents' of a method or discipline ... well at least until 'Jazz' was adopted in the Academy and perish the thought, they had to pass exams ...

[Sir Velo]

Fair comment insofar as it goes; what seems to matter here is that a composer might or might not be deemed significant in his/her own time and/or at any later time irrespective of whether and to what extent he/she might "inspire fanatical loyalty" at any time. Furthermore, such "fanatical loyalty" is often to be taken with more than a grano of salis when, as is all too often the case, the kind of hagiography in which the acolytes concerned tend to indulge is indiscriminatory on the alleged grounds that the particular composer could do no wrong and was somehow congenitally incapable of writing anything other than flawless masterpieces, an attitude that does no one any favours and which, sadly, can also be quite understandably off-putting to others.

ahinton, I think you could argue your way out of winning the lottery if you so chose.

When I used the words "significant" and "fanatical loyalty", I was quoting Rosen. Perhaps I could have chosen a better example than Alkan, who did indeed influence a whole generation of pianist-composers. However, the general point still stands, viz that it is ludicrous to suggest, as Rosen does, that only those composers with a limited following of fanatics can lay claim to be significant.

[Sir Velo]

HG said something like "serialism hasn't produced a single piece of music the ordinary listener can understand or enjoy. In 100 years."

Well, what is an ordinary listener?
Was that me in 1973, borrowing Schoenberg/Webern/Berg from the local record library following a few cues from R3 or Gramophone, and finding an instinctive, excited response to it without any lessons or training in music or musicology?

I discovered that 2ndVS music - a lifelong pleasure

Of course, assuming the records are the same as those you mention on the Gurrelieder thread (viz Schoenberg's Op.16, Webern's Op.10; Beg's Orchestral Pieces Op.6), then these are not strictly serial works. Schoenberg's first serial composition is generally considered to be the waltz from the Funf Klavierstucke, Op. 23, from 1923; and Webern: his Three Lieder, for voice, E flat clarinet and guitar, op. 18 (1925).