Originally posted by Richard Barrett
View Post
Who Killed Classical Music?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by jean View PostMedieval and early Renaissance music is full of the juggling of patterns, so dry and arid to Sid.
I have just sung a wonderful Ave Maria by Jean Mouton - it's a double canon at the fifth, but I doubt if I'd have known if someone hadn't told me.
Were an argument to be proposed that 12 note serialist procedures were in and of themselves the mere "twaddle" as which SG's elsewhere member describes them and therefore, by implication, a kind of retrograde (sorry!) step and an inherent compositional cul-de-sac, ought not the same to be said of music written within the framework of equal temperament with the octave divided into 12 equal semitones as compared to the great "traditions" espoused by Tallis, Byrd and their contemporaries which in themselves flouted the "natural" musical laws adhered to by mediæval composers...
Comment
-
-
Richard Barrett
The most recent English dictionary I have access to is the Collins of 2009, which has:
music (ˈmjuːzɪk)
— n
1. an art form consisting of sequences of sounds in time, esp tones of definite pitch organized melodically, harmonically, rhythmically and according to tone colour
2. such an art form characteristic of a particular people, culture, or tradition: Indian music ; rock music ; baroque music
3. the sounds so produced, esp by singing or musical instruments
4. written or printed music, such as a score or set of parts
5. any sequence of sounds perceived as pleasing or harmonious
6. rare a group of musicians: the Queen's music
7. informal "face the music" - to confront the consequences of one's actions
8. "music to one's ears" - something that is very pleasant to hear: "his news is music to my ears"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Richard Barrett View PostThe most recent English dictionary I have access to is the Collins of 2009, which has:
I take your point (and will almost certainly regret my post, for the can of worms it will open), but maintain there is a delineation between contrived melody and harmony and that which happens to sound musical (Italian accents, pizzicatto rain). A philosopher might be tempted to ponder: what came first, the musicality of the rain or human music?
Incidentally, I'm not saying either/or...there is a place for Lachenmann, but I believe it is more like a sonic sculpture - woven of textures, experimental - than traditionally musical (in Goodall's sense of the lineage from plainsong to the 20th century)It loved to happen. -- Marcus Aurelius
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Thropplenoggin View PostDoes Lachemann's dropped violin bows, scrapings, tappings, etc. really fit the standard definition of MUSIC: 'vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) combined in such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion'?
'vocal or instrumental sounds (or both)' - yep
'combined' - usually
'in such a way as to produce beauty' - certainly in the opinion of Lachenmann and his admirers
'form' - this is vague enough that virtually any composition, improvisation or accidental sound can be described as having one
'harmony' - not as such, but then that also invalidates Gregorian chant, Bach solo violin music and anything ever written for percussion
'expression of emotion' - I don't think anyone complains that there's not enough emotion in Lachenmann; the complaints are more usually about that emotion being too negative
If you're actually trying to get us into a place where we are led to question the definition of music try Cage, Ferrari or Ablinger for starters.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by jean View PostMedieval and early Renaissance music is full of the juggling of patterns, so dry and arid to Sid.
I have just sung a wonderful Ave Maria by Jean Mouton - it's a double canon at the fifth, but I doubt if I'd have known if someone hadn't told me.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by jean View Post. . . the juggling of patterns, so dry and arid to Sid.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Thropplenoggin View Post
Incidentally, I'm not saying either/or...there is a place for Lachenmann, but I believe it is more like a sonic sculpture - woven of textures, experimental - than traditionally musical (in Goodall's sense of the lineage from plainsong to the 20th century)
What about the rest of the world ?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Sydney Grew View PostCareful madam - don't shoot the messenger. ........ Has it been the compositional innovations of recent decades? Or has it been that in many schools both music theory and the performance of good music are no longer taught?
But Russia, France, USA etc were proceeding on different routes. We seemed to be fixated on developments in Germany. Looking further back to Bach and early music, perhaps it was the development of music in the 18th and 19th centuries that was unusual and anomalous, not the pluralistic developements of the 20th century.
That's my off the cuff view at any rate.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Sydney Grew View PostCareful madam - don't shoot the messenger. If you reread the source you will see that they are the common people's adjectives, not my own.
Originally posted by Sydney Grew View PostPersonally I will sit down and listen to any music so long as it bears a sensible and descriptive appellation.
Originally posted by Sydney Grew View PostAfter listening to some things (for example Stockhausen's or Bussotti's stuff) my own adjectives might be "unrewarding" and sometimes even "charlatanish"; but to say more about that would be to stray from the subject of this thread
Originally posted by Sydney Grew View Postwhich concerns, as I understand it, the reaction of the general populace in a number of lands to serious music, and what has brought about a decline in their interest enjoyment and enthusiasm. Has it been the compositional innovations of recent decades? Or has it been that in many schools both music theory and the performance of good music are no longer taught?
First of all, where is the evidence of this "decline in...interest(,) enjoyment and enthusiasm" that you attribute to "the general populace" in terms of their "reactions" to what you here call "serious music", by which I presume you to mean Western "classical" music? The problems that beset some orchestras are generally economic, not arising from public rejection of their work; the numbers of "classical" CDs produced today is greater than was once the case and would be greater till were it not for pirates uploading them to YouTube and elsewhere.
Secondly, what you call "the compositional innovations of recent decades" are not, as jean, Richard Barrett and others have tried to point out to you, of a kind that would be readily identifiable by most listeners and, in any case, when you consider the vast diversity of means, manner and matter within the framework of "classical" music composition today, it is also pretty obvious in any case that music written within this, that or the other discipline arising out of any one particular "composition innovation" does not hold sway as it would need to do in order to turn people away "in their droves" from performances of it.
Thirdly, your arguments continue to take no notice of the fact that Western "classical" music is and has always been a tiny minority interest among those whom you try to group together under the title "the common people"; OK, maybe more people do listen to Bach than they do to Lachenmann but, on a more general scale, the percentage of the population that actually listens to either is so small that you could hardly tell the difference in global terms between Bach's audience and Lachenmann's.
Where you do redeem yourself, however, is in raising the matter of music education and, whilst to suggest that music theory and performance "are no longer taught" in Western countries is an exaggeration, I have no doubt that these things are not taught sufficiently.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Oddball View PostYes, what about the rest of the world. If the title of the programme had been "Who killed the development of Orchestral composition in Germany, given that it was proceeding very nicely in the 18th and 19th Centuries, marked by increased complexity of composition and increased subtlety in reaching emotional sensibilities" , then I guess one might say Schoenberg broke the mould.
Originally posted by Oddball View PostBut Russia, France, USA etc were proceeding on different routes. We seemed to be fixated on developments in Germany. Looking further back to Bach and early music, perhaps it was the development of music in the 18th and 19th centuries that was unusual and anomalous, not the pluralistic developements of the 20th century.
That's my off the cuff view at any rate.
Comment
-
-
Richard Barrett
Originally posted by Thropplenoggin View PostI take your point (and will almost certainly regret my post, for the can of worms it will open), but maintain there is a delineation between contrived melody and harmony and that which happens to sound musical (Italian accents, pizzicatto rain). A philosopher might be tempted to ponder: what came first, the musicality of the rain or human music?
Incidentally, I'm not saying either/or...there is a place for Lachenmann, but I believe it is more like a sonic sculpture - woven of textures, experimental - than traditionally musical (in Goodall's sense of the lineage from plainsong to the 20th century)
Returning to Lachenmann, let's forget about the silly accusations of dropped bows to begin with, shall we? Of course it isn't "traditionally" musical (and, given Goodall's well-known racist views, I wouldn't wish to take any advice from him as to the meaning of "lineage"), but it most certainly issues from a much more tradition-aware standpoint than does the music of such as Stockhausen, however that awareness is expressed. Also, Helmut Lachenmann studied composition in the traditional way, and I can report that he plays the piano quite well; he is demonstrably adept in traditional modes of composition as some of his early works show; his work is played by traditional ensembles such as string quartets and symphony orchestras; so who is to decide that what he does isn't music? - you, or the Deutsche Oper in Berlin for example?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Oddball View PostYes, what about the rest of the world. If the title of the programme had been "Who killed the development of Orchestral composition in Germany, given that it was proceeding very nicely in the 18th and 19th Centuries, marked by increased complexity of composition and increased subtlety in reaching emotional sensibilities" , then I guess one might say Schoenberg broke the mould.
But I don't believe that these works did any such thing. Strauss, Reger, Korngold, Pfitzner, Schreker, Zemlinsky, Schmidtt inter alia didn't hear the Five Orchestral Pieces and chuck their manuscript paper away: they either acknowledged AS's striking new position in the Germanic Tradition or rejected it and carried on with their own stuff, some of which is remarkably successful but still "dead" as far as audience appreciation is concerned. Correspondingly, composers such as Hauer also made their contributions to that tradition: they didn't "kill Classical Music" either - nobody had the power to do such a thing: as a concept, it's as absurd as killing a river. And then there's Hindemith, Krenek, Weill, Hartmann and others - some hostile in aesthetic to Schönberg, others relishing the energizing effect that his Music had on their own Music.
And that's the real point, I think, about Serialism - that it has enabled many of the finest Musical imaginations to produce much of their best work (their most subtle, most emotionally sensible), whatever their attitude to Schoenberg's personal aesthetic. AND it continues to do so.
(Incidentally, Oddy, by "increased complexity of composition" - when following from "in the 18th and 19th Century" - do you mean to imply/state that Mozart's compositions are less complex than Richard Strauss'?)[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Oldcrofter View PostI wonder, Richard Barrett #207, if you could give the context or subject matter of "(Howard) Goodall's well-known racist views," and explain why you " wouldn't wish to take any advice from him as to the meaning of "lineage" "
Comment
-
Comment