[PSmith08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears It's funny, but the only music I have ever had to work to connect to have all been 20th century works. Bach and earlier works, Beethoven, Mahler, Rock, folk, jazz, swing, Tibetan chant, Classical Chinese, Japanese, Indian (subcontinent) etc. have all come easily. It's the later 20th century works that have demanded work. It took months and months for me to connect to George Crumb, Ives and Cage (and Schoenberg and Webern for that matter). I don't know what it is about certain later composers but they just did not come naturally to me.

I have dealt with the same issues with Schoenberg, but - ultimately - I think that there is an inherent disconnect with him, and the rest of the modern composers. The lack of a musical geography, for me, created a gulf, so to speak, between composers like Mahler and Wagner and the later individuals (i.e., the Second Viennese School and their students).

Perhaps, in retrospect, this is my problem with modern (as in the style, not the chronological sense) composers. In their haste to innovate, they abandoned the safe, sequential musical geography that begins (for all intents and purposes) with Bach.

 

[gratefulshrink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Sarvis As far as serialism is concerned at least, I think the movement was doomed from the beginning becasue it bears no relationship to pleasing harmonic and note progression - somethng that is essentially universal throughout the world's music. The fact that there is a strict set of mathematical rules in 12-tone music (a la Bach's rule set) was ultimately unimportant because Bach's rules were founded on what was pleasing to the ear, and 12-tone music was not. Those serialist composers that have found a real audience (and don't get me wrong, some serial music is very cool) found a way to preserve traditional melodic structure in the context of the new musical vocabulary. It must have been a very exciting concept when the 2nd Vienese school thought it up (and attractive to musical minds such as Mahler), but the idea was ruined by the preeminence of form in the minds of composers. Schoenberg himself once said that 12-tone technique should not be apparent to the audience, but that is not what happened. The technique became a form of snobbery to isolate the creator from the unwashed masses, and the movement was destined to ultimate obscurity. In the process the natural evolution of technique was aborted for much of the last century, in some circles at least. Thank heaven that nationalists such as Shostakovich and the Americans continued to evolve without blatant serialist influence. They knew that form was secondary to function.

But aren't composers such as Carter, Ligeti, Penderecki, Stockhausen, and Boulez still using serialist techniques? Or are they more eclectic?

 

[PSmith08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gratefulshrink But aren't composers such as Carter, Ligeti, Penderecki, Stockhausen, and Boulez still using serialist techniques? Or are they more eclectic?

Not that this was addressed to me, but I see that those composers overtaken by others. Boulez remains in the public eye because he is an outstanding conductor and a bit of an enfant terrible. With the advent of Cage, Glass, and others (if you'll forgive my eclectism with modern composers), the serialists and atonalists are becoming relics.

Even Schoenberg, Webern, and others are becoming ossified figures in the pantheon, as opposed to the avant-garde.

 

[Doc Sarvis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gratefulshrink But aren't composers such as Carter, Ligeti, Penderecki, Stockhausen, and Boulez still using serialist techniques? Or are they more eclectic?

Serial music is still around - My point was that it is generally non-intuitive (to Bunny's comment) and has never found a large audience. Unlike romanticism, it widened the gulf between audience and creative forces.

Some of it is good, though...

 

[gratefulshrink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSmith08 Not that this was addressed to me, but I see that those composers overtaken by others.

Throw out a few names here, so I can get more of a sense of where you're coming from.

I thought that Carter was still highly respected.

 

[Bunnyears]

Well, I don't know where George Crumb fits in, but after learning to love his music Schoenberg became a lot easier. In fact, Schoenberg's Variations for Orchestra sounded rather sweet and antiquated the last time I heard them (at the Barenboim Mahler concert).

Crumb for me was the hardest music to connect to, but he opened up the rest of 20th century music. Crumb's works are not something that I can listen to on a daily basis, but they are well worth the trouble because they put you down somewhere else on the musical map than you have ever been before. In the inimitable words of Dorothy, "Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore!"

 

[PSmith08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gratefulshrink Throw out a few names here, so I can get more of a sense of where you're coming from. I thought that Carter was still highly respected.

Fair enough. I see composers like Glass, Cage, Crumb, and the like becoming more central to the discourse of difference, so to speak, than Boulez, Messiaen, and Schoenberg. However, that is just my opinion.

 

[PSmith08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears In fact, Schoenberg's Variations for Orchestra sounded rather sweet and antiquated the last time I heard them (at the Barenboim Mahler concert).

You're lucky. In Chicago, we got the Mendelssohn violin concerto. It got such an ovation, despite sloppy portamento and the woodwinds getting off beat, that a companion of mine remarked that Znaider must have relatives in Chicago.

 

[Bunnyears]

At least no one around you was snoring. The woman behind me was so soundly asleep my friend (seated in the box behind me, too) had to keep moving her off his shoulder.

Her husband was very embarrassed when he had to shake her awake after the M5 finished.

 

[Ferbose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Sarvis As far as serialism is concerned at least, I think the movement was doomed from the beginning becasue it bears no relationship to pleasing harmonic and note progression - somethng that is essentially universal throughout the world's music. The fact that there is a strict set of mathematical rules in 12-tone music (a la Bach's rule set) was ultimately unimportant because Bach's rules were founded on what was pleasing to the ear, and 12-tone music was not. Those serialist composers that have found a real audience (and don't get me wrong, some serial music is very cool) found a way to preserve traditional melodic structure in the context of the new musical vocabulary. It must have been a very exciting concept when the 2nd Vienese school thought it up (and attractive to musical minds such as Mahler), but the idea was ruined by the preeminence of form in the minds of composers. Schoenberg himself once said that 12-tone technique should not be apparent to the audience, but that is not what happened. The technique became a form of snobbery to isolate the creator from the unwashed masses, and the movement was destined to ultimate obscurity. In the process the natural evolution of technique was aborted for much of the last century, in some circles at least. Thank heaven that nationalists such as Shostakovich and the Americans continued to evolve without blatant serialist influence. They knew that form was secondary to function.

I could not have said it better.

 

[gratefulshrink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSmith08 Not that this was addressed to me, but I see that those composers overtaken by others. Boulez remains in the public eye because he is an outstanding conductor and a bit of an enfant terrible. With the advent of Cage, Glass, and others (if you'll forgive my eclectism with modern composers), the serialists and atonalists are becoming relics. Even Schoenberg, Webern, and others are becoming ossified figures in the pantheon, as opposed to the avant-garde.

How do you think composers like Ferneyhough, Birtwhistle, Ruders, and LIndberg fit in here? I wouldn't say that they are relics.

 

[PSmith08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gratefulshrink How do you think composers like Ferneyhough, Birtwhistle, Ruders, and Lindberg fit in here? I wouldn't say that they are relics.

I would say, especially in the cases of Ferneyhough and Birtwhistle, that their progress away from Serialism (and ultimately the Second Viennese School) keeps them relevant.

Ultimately, despite a liking for Schoenberg and some Boulez, I have to side with Doc and go one better (taking perhaps an approach that Boulez would appreciate): Serialism is a pharmakon in the worst possible sense if a composer wishes to remain relevant.

 

[periurban]

You'd probably find that if you looked outside the classical or orchestral world that serialism and the more avante garde elements of "serious" music have been adopted by more mainstream musicians and are actually alive and well.

Just as elements of jazz were appropriated into popular music, so have the discarded remnants of what once was cool and innovative in the classical world.

 

[gratefulshrink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by periurban You'd probably find that if you looked outside the classical or orchestral world that serialism and the more avante garde elements of "serious" music have been adopted by more mainstream musicians and are actually alive and well. Just as elements of jazz were appropriated into popular music, so have the discarded remnants of what once was cool and innovative in the classical world.

Good point.

Alot of what I listen to was influenced by minimalism and related classical influences; obscure recordings by La Monte Young, Henry Flynt, Charmelagne Palestine are more readily available. Glenn Branca has been mentioned, and is a good cross-over artist.

Jazz composers like Anthony Braxton and Joe McPhee have also been influenced by trends in classical music.

 

[PSmith08]

That's quite true, but - given my tastes - even the Second Viennese School is practically outside my scope of interest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by periurban You'd probably find that if you looked outside the classical or orchestral world that serialism and the more avante garde elements of "serious" music have been adopted by more mainstream musicians and are actually alive and well. Just as elements of jazz were appropriated into popular music, so have the discarded remnants of what once was cool and innovative in the classical world.