Who Killed Classical Music?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

And which Lachenmann composition involves dropping a violin bow?

I asked this very same question the last time Thropple made this point, but I can't recall the reply.

[ahinton]

Medieval 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.

Quite - just as, indeed, you'd have been unlikely to know merely by listening and/or singing a piece that it's a 12 note serial one.

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...

[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"

(my emphases) I think this is a little restrictive, and, as I've said before on this forum, personally I don't see what's to be gained by making any kind of hard and fast distinction between what's music and what isn't. What "music" means to me is a particular way or ways of listening because I'd want to include the possibility of listening "musically" to sounds that weren't intended as music - speech, for example, or the sound of rain. But in any case the above definition doesn't demand the presence of "tones of definite pitch: and so on, still less the "expression of emotions" or whatever.

[Thropplenoggin]

The most recent English dictionary I have access to is the Collins of 2009, which has:

Reaching for a Collins dictionary? What fresh lunacy is this?!

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)

[kea]

Does 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'?

In what way would a Lachenmann piece not fit the definition of music?

'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.

[Quarky]

Medieval 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.

Thanks Jean. I hope the significance of your example doesn't get lost in the melée.

[Sydney Grew]

. . . the juggling of patterns, so dry and arid to Sid.

Careful 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. Personally I will sit down and listen to any music so long as it bears a sensible and descriptive appellation. After 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, which 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?

[MrGongGong]

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's not "experimental" because (like Stockhausen) then experiments happen before the performance.

What about the rest of the world ?

[Quarky]

Careful 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?

Yes, 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 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.

[ahinton]

Careful 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.

So you say, but, notwithstanding the fact that you decline to provide evidence in support of this assertion by "the common people" (whoever they may be), your citation of them nevertheless implies your endorsement thereof.

Personally I will sit down and listen to any music so long as it bears a sensible and descriptive appellation.

If by "appellation" you refer to the titles of the pieces concerned (and, if not, plese correct this assumption by explaining what you do mean by it), are you stating that these are a factor that of themselves invites and influences your value judgements and whether or not you listen or wish to continue listening to them? If so, that is surely a most bizarre posture! A piece of music could, for example, be entitled Thirteen Self-Portraits for string quartet or String Quartet No. × but it would sound the same either way!

After 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

It would indeed, not least because you would in so doing be substituting the expression og personal opinions and responses for addressing the thread topic.

which 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?

The problems here have been addressed by othes, including me, previously but you seem to ignore them.

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.

[ahinton]

Yes, 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.

Well, this "one" wouldn't"! - at least other than in the apparent laissez-faire approach to orchestration in some of his later music whjich seems to me all the more bizarre given the precision of his earlier scores such as Pelleas und Melisande, Gurrelieder, Erwartung and Five Orchestral Pieces.

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.

You may have a point there, methinks. The fact remains, however, that the populace and everything in its environment changed constantly, just as did music, so the very notion of the kind of virtue of stagnation as implicitly advocated by certain folk here simply does not stand up to scrutiny and seeks to fly in the face of all aspectgs of human progress and development.

[Richard Barrett]

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)

The origin of (human) music, and its relationship to the sound-producing activities of other species and our own distant ancestors is something I've made quite a study of actually. These days there are a number of interesting popular books on the subject, by Steven Mithen, Oliver Sacks and Bernie Krause for example. The distinction you're making concerns only the intention behind the sounds, whether they're composed deliberately or not, which I suggest is not necessarily the most important issue especially since it isn't always possible to discern, but already within "intentional" and even "traditional" music there are areas of ambiguity - take the wind-machine in Daphnis et Chloë (assuming you regard this as a "traditional" work, even though it certainly wasn't regarded as such when it was written) for example.

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?

[Oldcrofter]

I 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" "

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Yes, 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.

Hmm. I'd say you guessed wrong, Oddy - 'tho' it is a tribute of a sort to Schönberg if the three orchestral works that he wrote whilst still living "in Germany" (Pelleas & Melisande, Five Orchestral pieces and the Orchestral Variations could by themselves "kill" such a "development". (Alright - seven works, if you include the orchestral songs, the Gurrelieder and Jakobsleiter - and eleven if you include the operas.)

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'?)

[ahinton]

I 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" "

I do not seek to speak for Richard on this, but it is now clear that Thropplenoggin was referring to Howard of that ilk, whereas Richard's comments would appear to relate to Reginald ditto and, as such are perfectly understandable; it would have been more sensible had the identity of the Goodall concerned been clarified with a forename, given that it could otherwise refer to more than one person.