Who Killed Classical Music?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • MrGongGong
    Full Member
    • Nov 2010
    • 18357

    #76
    Originally posted by Trudge View Post
    Steady on, or I might have to start charging a license fee.
    I think you mean a licence ?

    (off to Pedants corner then )

    Comment

    • Serial_Apologist
      Full Member
      • Dec 2010
      • 37560

      #77
      Originally posted by MrGongGong View Post
      I think you mean a licence ?

      (off to Pedants corner then )
      I understand either will do.

      You're also permitted to create melodies when using tone rows.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diYObAZqXiE

      Comment

      • ferneyhoughgeliebte
        Gone fishin'
        • Sep 2011
        • 30163

        #78
        Originally posted by Trudge View Post
        Steady on, or I might have to start charging a license fee.
        [FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]

        Comment

        • teamsaint
          Full Member
          • Nov 2010
          • 25190

          #79
          Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View Post
          I understand either will do.

          You're also permitted to create melodies when using tone rows.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diYObAZqXiE
          that was the bit that stumped me.
          Q.When is a melody not a melody?
          A :When it doesn't suit somebody's agenda, or career path............
          I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

          I am not a number, I am a free man.

          Comment

          • Sydney Grew
            Banned
            • Mar 2007
            • 754

            #80
            Originally posted by Honoured Guest View Post
            . . . the music "progressed" until the audience consisted of few more than the composers and a few academics and performers.
            Verily this shows why tonality is both inescapable and indispensible: it is the only large-scale structural principle we have. Dodecaphonism affords no equivalent. The idea of "emancipating dissonance" is as illogical and impossible as squaring the circle. Even the common people sense this, and instinctively cry out upon those interminable passacaglias. We see the proof do we not in the fact that when used as accompaniment to short cinematographical scenes - especially scenes of crime, horror and perversion - twelve-note serialism does not of itself offend; indeed it is considered appropriate. But in the case of a serious symphony the listener needs to be given a sense of direction. The key question whenever we listen to music is "Whither is the mind of the composer leading us?" It is an inescapable fact that fine literature must consist of words arranged on a page in accordance with natural grammar. And it is an equally inescapable fact that fine music must consist of pitched sounds arranged in accordance with the sphere of natural tonal grammar. Art depends upon Nature to that extent.

            It is true that Brahms produced a passacaglia. But consider: a) it is a tonal passacaglia (which really makes all the difference), and b) he produced only one (as far as I am aware).

            Comment

            • ahinton
              Full Member
              • Nov 2010
              • 16122

              #81
              Originally posted by Sydney Grew View Post
              Verily this shows why tonality is both inescapable and indispensible
              How does it do this, "verily" or otherwise"?

              Originally posted by Sydney Grew View Post
              it is the only large-scale structural principle we have.[
              What do you mean by that and how do you arrive at such a conclusion?

              Originally posted by Sydney Grew View Post
              Dodecaphonism affords no equivalent.
              The two are not of themselves necessarily incompatible; you can have loittle or no tonal reference without having recourse to serial methodology just as you can write serial music that has tonal references; I would have thought that this is well known. Serialism is, in any case, merely a means to an end, as Richard Barrett has rightly pointed out over and over again and, in most cases, most pairs of ears would be unable to tell whether or not a piece with few if any direct tonal references was composed using serial principles.

              Originally posted by Sydney Grew View Post
              The idea of "emancipating dissonance" is as illogical and impossible as squaring the circle
              It's just an inadequate way of expressing a development in musical language; dissonance is, in any case, in the ear of the beholder up to a point and it does not require "emancipating" from anything.

              Originally posted by Sydney Grew View Post
              Even the common people sense this
              I won't dignify that with a response.

              Originally posted by Sydney Grew View Post
              and instinctively cry out upon those interminable passacaglias
              Sorry - what's this got to do with anything, let alone the subject under discussion here?

              Originally posted by Sydney Grew View Post
              We see the proof do we not in the fact that when used as accompaniment to short cinematographical scenes - especially scenes of crime, horror and perversion - twelve-note serialism does not of itself offend; indeed it is considered appropriate.
              "We" see nothing of the kind. Name me a film director that could tell whether this or that passage in the composer's movie score was written using 12 note serial principles!

              Originally posted by Sydney Grew View Post
              But in the case of a serious symphony the listener needs to be given a sense of direction.
              But we're not just taking symphonies here, serious or otherwise - and to the extent that we are, there's no shortage of serious ones within which their composers have had recourse to 12 note serial methods without in any way interfering with the music's sense of direction. A composer can in any case write music with little or no sense of direction whether or not what he/she writes is tonal or not, or serial or not.

              Originally posted by Sydney Grew View Post
              The key question whenever we listen to music is "Whither is the mind of the composer leading us?"
              Surely a subconscious question at best when concentrating on listening to a work that engages the attention of the listener sufficiently. Music can tell the listener about where it's going whatever its language if it so chooses.

              Originally posted by Sydney Grew View Post
              It is an inescapable fact that fine literature must consist of words arranged on a page in accordance with natural grammar. And it is an equally inescapable fact that fine music must consist of pitched sounds arranged in accordance with the sphere of natural tonal grammar. Art depends upon Nature to that extent.
              Once again, I have no idea wha you mean here.

              Originally posted by Sydney Grew View Post
              It is true that Brahms produced a passacaglia. But consider: a) it is a tonal passacaglia (which really makes all the difference), and b) he produced only one (as far as I am aware).
              Once again, what have passacaglias to do with this, be they by Bach, Godowsky, Reger, Sorabji, Stevenson, yours tgruly or that German composer whose name you have a strange habit of drawing into all manner of discussions?

              Comment

              • ferneyhoughgeliebte
                Gone fishin'
                • Sep 2011
                • 30163

                #82
                Originally posted by ahinton View Post
                ["emancipation of the dissonance" is] just an inadequate way of expressing a development in musical language; dissonance is, in any case, in the ear of the beholder up to a point and it does not require "emancipating" from anything.
                But doesn't the fact that the second half of your statement here is taken practically for granted nowadays (whereas until at least the middle of the Century "dissonance" was regarded as something that needed resolving - something lacking in itself) suggest that "emancipation" was exactly what was achieved by the composers of Schönberg's generation?
                [FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]

                Comment

                • Richard Barrett

                  #83
                  Originally posted by Sydney Grew View Post
                  Verily this shows why tonality is both inescapable and indispensible: it is the only large-scale structural principle we have. Dodecaphonism affords no equivalent. The idea of "emancipating dissonance" is as illogical and impossible as squaring the circle. Even the common people sense this, and instinctively cry out upon those interminable passacaglias. We see the proof do we not in the fact that when used as accompaniment to short cinematographical scenes - especially scenes of crime, horror and perversion - twelve-note serialism does not of itself offend; indeed it is considered appropriate. But in the case of a serious symphony the listener needs to be given a sense of direction. The key question whenever we listen to music is "Whither is the mind of the composer leading us?" It is an inescapable fact that fine literature must consist of words arranged on a page in accordance with natural grammar. And it is an equally inescapable fact that fine music must consist of pitched sounds arranged in accordance with the sphere of natural tonal grammar. Art depends upon Nature to that extent.

                  It is true that Brahms produced a passacaglia. But consider: a) it is a tonal passacaglia (which really makes all the difference), and b) he produced only one (as far as I am aware).
                  We citizens of the twenty-first century extend warm greetings to you, intrepid time-traveller from the depths of the past. We feel sure you will be moved to modify your quaint views once you have familiarised yourself with the music of the past 100 years!

                  Comment

                  • Sydney Grew
                    Banned
                    • Mar 2007
                    • 754

                    #84
                    Originally posted by ahinton View Post
                    "those interminable passacaglias" - sorry - what's this got to do with anything, let alone the subject under discussion here?
                    The member appears not to realize that the "serial method" is simply another name for a passacaglia. A piece written in that style starts off, somehow or other manages to repeat all twelve notes of the well-tempered chromatic scale - both those that fit and those that do not fit, and then . . . perhaps five seconds later . . . repeats them all again . . .. and then . . . round and round and round . . . again and again and again. This goes on for perhaps twenty minutes and then as we await the umpteenth repetition everything stops. What is that but a passacaglia, and indeed a silly and irrational one, since we are not told a) why the number of notes has to be twelve, and b) why things that don't fit musically are thrown in regardless.

                    All we see in that is a) a great deal of superstition, and b) eighty years more or less of follow-the-leader group-think, in respect to what was a deeply flawed idea in the first place.

                    Originally posted by ahinton View Post
                    "The key question whenever we listen to music is 'Whither is the mind of the composer leading us?' " - surely a subconscious question at best when concentrating on listening to a work that engages the attention of the listener sufficiently. Music can tell the listener about where it's going whatever its language if it so chooses.
                    No again the member has misunderstood. When we listen to a piece of music that engages our attention, the only thing that occupies our mind is surely "where is the music going? . . . whither are we being taken and why?" Of course I don't mean that question in so many words. All I mean is that as we follow the music our mind is occupied by what is going on in the music. Our attention is wholly engaged and there is nothing subconscious about that process!

                    Comment

                    • MrGongGong
                      Full Member
                      • Nov 2010
                      • 18357

                      #85
                      Originally posted by Sydney Grew View Post

                      No again the member has misunderstood. When we listen to a piece of music that engages our attention, the only thing that occupies our mind is surely "where is the music going? . . . whither are we being taken and why?" Of course I don't mean that question in so many words. All I mean is that as we follow the music our mind is occupied by what is going on in the music. Our attention is wholly engaged and there is nothing subconscious about that process!
                      Not all music GOES places
                      nor should it

                      Comment

                      • Richard Barrett

                        #86
                        Originally posted by Sydney Grew View Post
                        the "serial method" is simply another name for a passacaglia
                        Oh dear. I think you might have to do a bit of reading to catch up on the actual techniques of serial music, as well as a great deal of listening. Good luck!

                        PS George Perle's 1962 book Serial Composition and Atonality: An Introduction to the Music of Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern might be a good place to start.

                        Comment

                        • jean
                          Late member
                          • Nov 2010
                          • 7100

                          #87
                          ...not to mention another bit of reading to catch up on what a passacaglia is?

                          Comment

                          • aka Calum Da Jazbo
                            Late member
                            • Nov 2010
                            • 9173

                            #88




                            many thanks, never have found these artists without this fascinating thread
                            According to the best estimates of astronomers there are at least one hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe.

                            Comment

                            • ahinton
                              Full Member
                              • Nov 2010
                              • 16122

                              #89
                              Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte View Post
                              But doesn't the fact that the second half of your statement here is taken practically for granted nowadays (whereas until at least the middle of the Century "dissonance" was regarded as something that needed resolving - something lacking in itself) suggest that "emancipation" was exactly what was achieved by the composers of Schönberg's generation?
                              Maybe - but any such "emancipation", if indeed this is what could reasonably be said to have occurred - is suely a far more gradual and long term process than something that could merely be ascribed to certain composers of Schönberg's generation? The weakening of the perceived need for "resolution" is well evident in such works as Tristan und Isolde and even before that there are plentiful examples of gradual loosening of the tonal bonds that are usually thought of when "resolution" of "dissonance" is being considered; what some composers of quite a few generations also did as a part consequence of this was to bring about a kind of ongoing redefinition of what might be deemed to constitute "dissonance" in the first place.

                              Comment

                              • ahinton
                                Full Member
                                • Nov 2010
                                • 16122

                                #90
                                Originally posted by Sydney Grew View Post
                                The member appears not to realize that the "serial method" is simply another name for a passacaglia.
                                You are correct in that; the member realises nothing of the kind, despite having incorporated two passacaglias, each on 12 note themes (albeit not treated serially) in two of his piano works, so his ignorance of such things must be even greater than might at first have been thought.

                                Originally posted by Sydney Grew View Post
                                A piece written in that style
                                Er - read Richard Barrett on this; he has felt it necessary to remind some people that 12 note serial procedures are not a "style" but a mere means of working.

                                Originally posted by Sydney Grew View Post
                                All we see in that is a) a great deal of superstition, and b) eighty years more or less of follow-the-leader group-think, in respect to what was a deeply flawed idea in the first place.
                                "We" might see either or both of these things; the rest of us either do not have the same eyes or perhaps should've gone to Specsavers (not)...

                                Originally posted by Sydney Grew View Post
                                No again the member has misunderstood. When we listen to a piece of music that engages our attention, the only thing that occupies our mind is surely "where is the music going? . . . whither are we being taken and why?" Of course I don't mean that question in so many words. All I mean is that as we follow the music our mind is occupied by what is going on in the music. Our attention is wholly engaged and there is nothing subconscious about that process!
                                You argue with yourself here more effectively than I could! You first write of the need or presumption of being mentally occupied by "where the music is going" and then you write of being mentally occupied by "what is going on" in it; that's not to suggest that the two are necessarily incompatible, but a piece of music doesn't always have to be "going" somewhere in order for its engaged listeners to occupy their mental faculties with what might happen to be going on in it at any given moment.
                                Last edited by ahinton; 24-01-14, 14:43.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X