Who Killed Classical Music?

[Sydney Grew]

Yes indeed the late Mr. Perle could not in his cultural isolation be expected to be aware of the finer points of musical composition. Here are some examples from him of a) what I have called "follow-the-leader group-think," and b) his inability to express himself consistently in the English language.

"The crucial and monumental development in the art music of our century has been the qualitative change in the foundational premises of our musical language - the change from a highly chromaticized tonality whose principal functions and operations are still based on the seven notes of the diatonic scale, to a scale that comprehends all twelve notes. We can point to the moment of that change with some precision. It occurs most obviously in the music of Scryabine, Schönberg, Webern, and Berg . . . I think it is safe to say that nothing comparable to this transformation in the language of music has occurred since the beginnings of polyphony."

Well! I think it is safe to say that Mr. Perle's assertion there is just a great untruth. There was no "crucial development"; nor was there even any "monumental development." And there was no "qualititative change in the foundational premises of music." None of that happened. Wishful thinking (to express it in the kindest way) from the Viennese school. He seems to have picked up a few striking phrases from one of Schönberg's books, and reproduced them without properly assimilating or examining them. Are not his words those of a third-rater promoting his own confused agenda? His confusion is plain to see just a little further down the page, where he assures us that:

"The revolutionary change in the basic language of music that is represented in the work of the mainstream composers of our century did not result in the annihilation of basic musical values and means."

So - let's get this straight: the "foundational premises" have all of a sudden "changed qualitatively" (no they didn't) and indeed "in a revolutionary manner" (no they didn't do that either). The revolution in the "basic language" (those "foundational premises" presumably) did NOT "annihilate the basic musical means" (and values). That's what he says, but it makes no sense. How can the "basic language" differ from the "basic means"? How can a revolution not annihilate?

Anyway that's quite enough of that. My conclusion and advice: don't bother with Perle's ramblings.

[ahinton]

Yes indeed the late Mr. Perle being an American could not be expected to be aware of the finer points of musical composition.

If you believe that no American could understand such things, you are making a point solely about your view of Americans which tells us only about you and your wholly unsustainable and distasteful views of Americans in general and nothing about the subject under discussion here.

Here are some examples from him of a) what I have called "follow-the-leader group-think," and b) his inability to express himself consistently in the English language.

"The crucial and monumental development in the art music of our century has been the qualitative change in the foundational premises of our musical language - the change from a highly chromaticized tonality whose principal functions and operations are still based on the seven notes of the diatonic scale, to a scale that comprehends all twelve notes. We can point to the moment of that change with some precision. It occurs most obviously in the music of Scryabine, Schönberg, Webern, and Berg . . . I think it is safe to say that nothing comparable to this transformation in the language of music has occurred since the beginnings of polyphony."

Well! I think it is safe to say that Mr. Perle's assertion there is just a great untruth. There was no "crucial development"; nor was there even any "monumental development." And there was no "qualititative change in the foundational premises of music." None of that happened. Wishful thinking (to express it in the kindest way) from the Viennese school. He seems to have picked up a few striking phrases from one of Schönberg's books, and reproduced them without properly assimilating or examining them.

You may think that; I could possibly comment, so I will. I happen to think that Mr Perle - unquestionably a very considerable figure in 20th century Western music - might have rather over-egged the pudding here in that, whilst the development/s of which he writes were indeed "crucial" and "monumental", they didn't just suddenly occur with the advent of the three principal composers of he Second Viennese School, nor were they confined to those composers during their time, but the extent to which those facts undermine his general argument is small indeed and I see no evidence that is represents "wishful thinking " on his part (why and how should or would it, indeed?). Did he really mention "Scryabine" - and even if he instead mentioned Scriabin , I was unaware that this Russian pianist and composer was a member of any Viennese School.

Where in the above quotation from Perle is any evidence of "follow-the-leader group-think"? Which particular leader? and who is/was allegedly doing the following?

Likewise, where is the alleged "inability to express himself consistently in the English language"?

Are not his words those of a third-rater promoting his own confused agenda?

Whose words and whose agenda? Perle's or yours? Not Perle's in my view, not least because what you quote from him is not even suggestive of any kind of "agenda".

His confusion is plain to see just a little further down the page, where he assures us that:

"The revolutionary change in the basic language of music that is represented in the work of the mainstream composers of our century did not result in the annihilation of basic musical values and means."

So - let's get this straight: the "foundational premises" have all of a sudden "changed qualitatively" (no they didn't) and indeed "in a revolutionary manner" (no they didn't do that either). The revolution in the "basic language" (those "foundational premises" presumably) did NOT "annihilate the basic musical means" (and values). That's what he says, but it makes no sense. How can the "basic language" differ from the "basic means"? How can a revolution not annihilate?

The confusion here is self-evidently yours. What the "extremes" in Gesualdo, Bach, Beethoven, Berlioz, Chopin, Liszt, Alkan, Wagner and others led towards - not only in the music of those three Second Viennese School composers and Scriabin but also in that of Ives, Roslavets, Varèse, Vermeulen, , Busoni, Stravinsky and others in the early years of the past century - was not a "revolution" in the sense of overthrowing and supplanting - or indeed even seeking to overthrow and supplant - past accretions of Western music language but additions and enrichments thereto; I would be most surprised if any of those composers would fundamentally have disagreed with that. "Foundational premises" did indeed "change qualitatively", but not because of any undermining of "established" Western musical language but as a direct consequence of the enhancements and enrichments of that language, just as did the absorption into it of aspects of non-Western musical languages.

Anyway that's quite enough of that.

More than enough of some of it, to be sure!

My conclusion and advice: don't bother with Perle's ramblings.

Mine: don't bother with your advice. Sorry.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

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.

Oh, indeed - in opera and lieder, dissonance was allowed out on parole long before it was released onto instrumental/absolute Music. But there was still the belief up to the end of the 19th Century that "dissonance" "needed" "resolution" (and not just at New Year. Nor any other Tippett opera come to that. I'm drifting ... ): even Tristan (and Elektra & Salome) resolve (eventually) onto final consonances. It was, I believe, to the emancipation from this belief that Schönberg referred.

[ahinton]

Oh, indeed - in opera and lieder, dissonance was allowed out on parole long before it was released onto instrumental/absolute Music. But there was still the belief up to the end of the 19th Century that "dissonance" "needed" "resolution" (and not just at New Year. Nor any other Tippett opera come to that. I'm drifting ... ): even Tristan (and Elektra & Salome) resolve (eventually) onto final consonances. It was, I believe, to the emancipation from this belief that Schönberg referred.

OK, fair enough - yet even if we are broadly to confine ourselves to Schönberg's reference to this, one might consider when he first made it in relation to when he composed his second chamber symphony, for it would seem that the latter might appear to demonstrate that he could as easily contemplate emancipated and unemancipated dissonaces as having rightful places side by side with one another in the music of his time and beyond.

[Quarky]

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.

It seems to me that ahinton and ferney have given a totally comprehensive answer to Sidney's assault. Myself, I'm just a mere dabbler in the subject, but may be there is an analogy to scientific developments. For example Michael Faraday discovered the law of electromagnetic induction, and I believe (although not present at the time) he demonstrated a conceptual electric motor. However it took the best part of the 19th Century for engineers to make electric motors a practical possibility (the air gap between rotor and stator had to be minimal).

So the analogy is that it has taken composers many years from the beginning of the 20th Century to make serial/atonal music just a practical tool in the composers tool kit. It seems to me that most listeners will enjoy a certain amount of serialism in a composition, even though they might far rather listen to tonal stuff.

[MrGongGong]

It seems to me that most listeners will enjoy a certain amount of serialism in a composition, even though they might far rather listen to tonal stuff.

I refer you to mr Barrett above

IMV to fundamental problem with Sid is that he defines what music is for
then says what is wrong with music that doesn't fit his definition

which, in spite of the pseudo intellectual lan-gu-age
is a crock of shite

[Richard Barrett]

Well, there isn't much point in bothering to engage with things like

fine music must consist of pitched sounds arranged in accordance with the sphere of natural tonal grammar

since they're so obviously untrue.

On the other hand, it has taken composers many years from the beginning of the 20th Century to make serial/atonal music just a practical tool in the composers tool kit did get me thinking, although I don't agree with it. I'm not sure whether any composers actually think like that, but the point of evolving a new compositional technique is precisely to make a newly-imagined kind of music possible - it has a sense of necessity behind it which expresses itself in the music. If such a technique becomes, in the mind of a composer, just another tool in the toolbag, that sense of necessity is lost. But still there are parallels with scientific discoveries: just as a scientific discovery, once made, expands our view of what reality consists of and can't subsequently be "undiscovered" again, so a musical "discovery" like the development of seriality expands the previous view of what music consists of and again can't subsequently be "uninvented", except for those in a state of denial.

[MrGongGong]

fine music must consist of pitched sounds arranged in accordance with the sphere of natural tonal grammar[/I]
.

I'm thinking of using that as a title for a piece.
I didn't have Sid down as a Arnold Dreyblatt enthusiast

[Richard Barrett]

I didn't have Sid down as a Arnold Dreyblatt enthusiast

I think of him more as a Tony Conrad sort of guy.

[MrGongGong]

I think of him more as a Tony Conrad sort of guy.

[Sydney Grew]

. . . yet another attempt to besmirch the name of Arnold Schönberg as the bogeyman of 20th century music. . . .

Well - I have two final questions for member Hinton:

1) Why twelve notes? I have asked this question many times but no one has ever ventured an answer. Why not eleven, say, or seven plus one, or six? There cannot possibly be any musical reason for the twelve every time round can there? Why not simply select the note you want when you want it (i.e. free pan-tonalism)? (And that the note you want is the next one in some fixed "row" should not be the reason why you want it should it?)

2) As has already been observed, the common people stay away in droves from performances of modern music. Why is the member unable or unwilling to accept their judgement? There are two obvious remedies are there not: either re-educate the people (very unlikely) or write more attractive music.

[Richard Barrett]

the note you want is the next one in some fixed "row" should not be the reason why you want it should it?

Why not?

As you presumably well know, the musical reason for twelve is that there are twelve pitch-classes in the chromatic scale. One reason for their (theoretically) strict permutation in serial music is in order to create a harmonic consistency against which deviations may be perceived - in other words in this sense the function of the permutation is no different from the kinds of "rules" which govern the absence of parallel fifths and octaves in Renaissance counterpoint. On the other hand, not all serially-composed music uses twelve tones in Schoenberg's manner. Stravinsky for example several times used diatonic (seven-note) scales in a serial way.

[teamsaint]

Well - I have two final questions for member Hinton:

1) Why twelve notes? I have asked this question many times but no one has ever ventured an answer. Why not eleven, say, or seven plus one, or six? There cannot possibly be any musical reason for the twelve every time round can there? Why not simply select the note you want when you want it (i.e. free pan-tonalism)? (And that the note you want is the next one in some fixed "row" should not be the reason why you want it should it?)

2) As has already been observed, the common people stay away in droves from performances of modern music. Why is the member unable or unwilling to accept their judgement? There are two obvious remedies are there not: either re-educate the people (very unlikely) or write more attractive music.

I would be interested to see some stats on this.The "common people" and others stay away in droves from quite a lot of core rep concerts too. Check out ticket availability (and prices) at some upcoming Strauss and Ravel concerts at the RFH.

The recent Schnittke concert there was very well attended, and the Ligeti/Takemitsu pulled a decent crowd.
As RB mentioned, and he should know, the cautious choices of promoters and managers (as well as the works offered by conductors and orchestras who have an eye to getting booked) are a problem in themselves, and I suspect don't represent the real demand to hear music from the last 80/90 years.

It all becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. As Beef Oven! is at pains to point out, professional music needs to take risks. Not all Schoenberg is for everybody, but then neither is all Brahms, Rachmaninov, or whoever.
The Schoenberg PC, sensibly programmed could very easily become a much more popular work than it is currently IMO, and it might actually help build new audiences.

[ahinton]

Well - I have two final questions for member Hinton:

1) Why twelve notes? I have asked this question many times but no one has ever ventured an answer. Why not eleven, say, or seven plus one, or six? There cannot possibly be any musical reason for the twelve every time round can there? Why not simply select the note you want when you want it (i.e. free pan-tonalism)? (And that the note you want is the next one in some fixed "row" should not be the reason why you want it should it?)

Richard Barrett has already answered that one as thoroughly and correctly as it needs to be answered.

2) As has already been observed, the common people stay away in droves from performances of modern music. Why is the member unable or unwilling to accept their judgement? There are two obvious remedies are there not: either re-educate the people (very unlikely) or write more attractive music.

I have no idea who "the common people" might be nor even who you think they might be, but the majority of people stay away from performances of almost all Western "classical" music; only a very tiny percentage thereof regularly attend performances of Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert or even - dare I say it - Brahms; it's very much a minority interest even in USA and Canada, Europe and Russia. But what do you mean in any case by "modern" music? Some of the music under discussion here - Ives, Strauss, Schönberg, Stravinsky, Busoni and others - is of over a century's vintage.

I am "unable and unwilling to accept" the "judgement" of an as yet unspecified group of people in this context, not only because I do not accept what you seek to claim as being representative of a "judgement" per se but also on the grounds I have already clarified - firstly, the fact of the minority interest in all Western "classical music" and, secondly, the sheer age of some of the music that's being considered here. Let's take just two examples from a century ago - Schönberg's Five Orchestral Pieces and Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps; these found less than favour with the audiences at their premières and yet within no time at all they were both well on the way to becoming established classics, widely performed and listened to in many countries.The former met with a mix of puzzlement and outright hostility when Henry Wood premièred them in London, yet when Schönberg came to conduct them in the same city they were apparently a considerable success; whether or not that tells us anything about Schönberg's conducting skill and rapport with the orchestra concerned (as distinct from Wood's) I cannot say, but what can be said with certainty is that the taste of London's concert going public had hardly turned itself on its head within the space of little more than a year!

[gurnemanz]

The Schoenberg PC, sensibly programmed could very easily become a much more popular work than it is currently IMO, and it might actually help build new audiences.

I remember going to a lot of trouble to see the Harry Kupfer Moses und Aron in 1975 in Dresden. It was a sellout for about 50 performances. A memorable experience. Over the years, I have always been drawn to getting to grips with supposedly more difficult modern music. The friend I went with (both in our early twenties) was a serious rock fan and only liked modern classical music. I have generally found it to be more easily appreciated in the concert hall rather than via radio or recordings and will admit that in the living room context (wife and others commenting what the hell's that racket?) I am sometimes inclined to give it a miss.