Hi John

I am not a fan of 4'33'' either :) But Cage was making a point, more philosophical than musical. 

Anyways I do agree there is a lot of crap in the name of avant garde music. I really dont care for them as I do not have time to waste. As for avant garde music I am only concerned about the works of established composers of today whose music leading orchestras consider it worthy enough to play. 

Well, so it looks like its your choice to stick to more conventional classical harmony even though you have been exposed to more modern music. So thats your choice, and not a bad one at all! You could spend a lifetime writing and understanding great music in this domain...which even includes film scores....who can complain about JWs music for example, which is all mostly tonal (except some of his concert pieces)?

I find works like the Salonen concerto or Corigliano symphony infinitely intriguing, but it seems you dont care for such music. You can call 20th century music such as this any name you want, but that doesnt bother me. However that also ends the discussion between us about this topic since you have made up your mind (although I hope to discuss each others works in another thread in the future). 

Cheers 

Anand

@agitato said:

Hi John

I am not a fan of 4'33'' either 😊 But Cage was making a point, more philosophical than musical. 

Anyways I do agree there is a lot of crap in the name of avant garde music. I really dont care for them as I do not have time to waste. As for avant garde music I am only concerned about the works of established composers of today whose music leading orchestras consider it worthy enough to play. 

Well, so it looks like its your choice to stick to more conventional classical harmony even though you have been exposed to more modern music. So thats your choice, and not a bad one at all! You could spend a lifetime writing and understanding great music in this domain...which even includes film scores....who can complain about JWs music for example, which is all mostly tonal (except some of his concert pieces)?

I find works like the Salonen concerto or Corigliano symphony infinitely intriguing, but it seems you dont care for such music. You can call 20th century music such as this any name you want, but that doesnt bother me. However that also ends the discussion between us about this topic since you have made up your mind (although I hope to discuss each others works in another thread in the future). 

Cheers 

Anand

Thanks Anand, and my name is Paul. Paul T. McGraw. Good luck, and I hope you discover what you seek.

Just wanted to answer a couple of your questions:

@Another User said:

Hi agitato,

Here is a simple test to see if we can relate to each other regarding musical aesthetics. If you buy a hamburger from your favorite restaurant and open the container and find it empty, would you be happy? Wouldn't you ask for your money back? You might even want to report them to someone for fraud. With me so far?

My point is that the hamburger container has an incredibly tasty thing that I have never seen before, made of differrent ingredients, and I am curious about it.

(I am a vegetarian btw so do not really care for hamburgers anyways:))

And oh, sorry to call you John...just that I am typing this in the middle of work!

The blunder with which many a modern composters bluff themselves and others: They refer to erstwhile masterpieces that got a sorry initial reception (and got vindicated later), to explain the audiences' convulsions resulting from their offerings, and perhaps lay claim to future recognition.

1) It wasn't only atonal works that were initially panned - see Eroica, La Mer, Tannhauser, Rachmaninov's 1st symphony, Brahms' 1st Piano Concerto, Carmen(!!!), and many-many others... It was usually due to very bad performances, sometimes due to the works' technical diffculties, length, or novelties. [I must concede here - and from first hand experience - that contemporary composers whose works are relatively demanding (i.e. need rehearsal time since it is not the London Symphony reading them), even when tonal, they get bad performances, since performers/conductors don't usually spend enough time on them. However this excuse cannot be used for every single work]

2) Hacks forget that a) The great works didn't take forever to be recognized and appropriately praised, but only several months or maybe a year (as with The Rite), and b) they conveniently forget that these misapprehended works are flanked left and right by acknowledged masterworks that the audience did appreciate at that very time (few exceptions). Where are the successful works of these hacks (Petrouchka, Firebird, Nightingale), so that we can apologize for our momentary lack of vision regarding their misunderstood Rite? Or is it that their whole catalogue consists of works we are simply unable to appreciate?..

3) Bad receptions can result for the opposite reasons discussed in this thread as well; for example Prokofiev's 1st Violin Concerto. Probably the finest in the 20th century catalogue (allowing for individual taste), it was rejected as pastiche when it was performed! To me it is original, inspired beyond belief, wonderfully written, and sounds as fresh 100 years later, and of course has assumed its rightful place in concert programming and recordings. Another example is Shostakovich's 9th symphony (pronounced too jovial and making a mockery of the establishment), etc.

Agree with your points Errikos, but in my OP I was not concerned about hacks at all. Somehow the topic switched to that. To me hacks are a distraction and waste of time, since there are so many non-hacks out there to pay attention to. I guess I like to take an optimistic view and focus on whats good out there rather than the bad. My point is, why bother with hacks? and why not just focus on composers who are truly talented and pushing the limits of possibility?

Lets take the Salonen example. I must clarify here that I am an 'almost lay' listener, I can barely grasp tonal harmony, and I am in no way promoting Salonen here but just using him as an example. But I am very intrigued by some works by 'relatively' modern composers such as Corigliano or Salonen. What I like about their works is the sophistication in tonality and orchestral textures. The key is that their works sound beautiful aurally. I doubt that you would call Salonen a hack after listening to something like this

or this

either live or on a hifi stereo system.

Let alone the fact that he is a world class conductor and is deeply rooted in classical music. To me, writing a violin concerto like this requires nothing less than colossal talent. I analyze many orchestral scores, and I wont even know where to begin with a piece like this. This seems so far removed from traditional orchestration of Berlioz or Ravel but yet so beautiful and seems to have so much power. The rhythms and tonal landscapes he moves around and the beautiful colors he creates are astounding....This is music of the highest class, and yet is contemporary. I'd rather not focus on hacks or take the view that classical music is in decadence.

Interestingly you mention Prokofiev. his Viloin concertos are some of my favorites pieces. But Salonen's concerto seems to be Prokofiev on steroids....I think Prokofiev himself would approve of this if he lived today, and for that matter, Beethoven and Mozart would too, if they lived today! (although I believe they would be jazz pianists first;))

Anand

I was certainly not referring to Salonen or Corigliano, composers who don't have to depend on other people's effects to make their musical uterance interesting. Prokofiev is of course in a class of his own.

@Paul McGraw said:

Now imagine you are compelled to sit through 4'33" ostensibly "by" John Cage. He must have been laughing all the way to the bank at how gullible and self-righteous our musical academics have become. If you, like me, KNOW FOR A FACT that John Cage was a con man, with no further evidence needed (although there is lots more) then we might have some common ground.

A con-man?  Wow, that's pretty extreme, if Cage were a con-man what the hell is Donald Trump?  Cage actually wrote some excellent little piano pieces before his desire to integrate eastern philosophy into his music captured his attention.   His 4"33 piece was a statement about silence, about not only the value of silence but that music itself emerges from silence; he was also playing with people's inability to be comfortable with silence, particularly when in a group such as a concert-hall audience..  At least he had an original mind and was capable of originality, I don't hear much of that around here on this forum.  

Paul, you're sounding just like another embittered composer whose ego needs to denounce other creative people who don't fit into your personal tastes.  I sometimes wonder about the role that envy plays among artistic people who haven't really completely accepted their lot in life and their obsessive need to put down others who have achieved more recognition and success than they have.  I wish every composer would turn their "bullshit-detector" inward and shine it on themselves, as it would greatly uplift the level of discussion on this forum.   Between William and Paul, I don't even want to post or participate here any more.   You guys are fundamentalists and really should become a bit more aware of where your angst is really coming from.  It's not about music, it's about ego.  Can't you see that?  It seems pretty clear to me...

Jerry

@William said:

Music is now in a state of fragmentation.  

Anything, including pure noise, is considered as meaningful as anything else.  

So all the "schools" and "traditions" and "movements" are interchangeable and represent merely whatever one's own taste may be.  In the past there was always a singular great movement. In Western music: Beethoven advancing orchestration and form, Mahler and Bruckner expanding the symphony, Schoenberg creating a new kind of harmony with serialism.  But all of that is past.  Now, any sound is potentially music.  So total freedom has been achieved. 

But the problem with total freedom is chaos.  If everything is meaningful, the state of "nothing means anything" can also exist.  I am not sure it does, so I don't mean to sound extremely negative.  But I remember the great filmmaker Jean Renoir stating: "If I had total freedom I wouldn't know where to begin."  

btw  unlike Errikos I always try to find time to mouth off here on the VSL Forum - as long as the libations hold out.    😮👍🍺

That's all you do William, is "mouth-off", exactly like you said.   You write in such incredible generalities and make such sweeping assumptions ("Music is now in a state of fragmentation") that I have to laugh at your posturing.   More's the pity.  

William writes " In the past there was always a singular great movement..." 

Of course this is wrong, as there have been aesthetic clashes and debates going back to the 14th century with Ars Nova.  The critics were pounding composers in the 19th century as romanticism and modernism clashed, and today, as always, the best composers write music that is authentic to the culture and reflective of the many traditions we've inherited from our ancestors.  Even in the 16th century, there were different approaches and styles all throughout Europe.  There never has been a "singular great movement", you're sentimentalizing the past, which is what people tend to do when they cannot cope with the challenges, complexities, diversity, influences and dynamism of the 21st century.

@Paul McGraw said:

Now imagine you are compelled to sit through 4'33" ostensibly "by" John Cage. He must have been laughing all the way to the bank at how gullible and self-righteous our musical academics have become. If you, like me, KNOW FOR A FACT that John Cage was a con man, with no further evidence needed (although there is lots more) then we might have some common ground.

A con-man?  Wow, that's pretty extreme, if Cage were a con-man what the hell is Donald Trump?  Cage actually wrote some excellent little piano pieces before his desire to integrate eastern philosophy into his music captured his attention.   His 4"33 piece was a statement about silence, about not only the value of silence but that music itself emerges from silence; he was also playing with people's inability to be comfortable with silence, particularly when in a group such as a concert-hall audience..  At least he had an original mind and was capable of originality, I don't hear much of that around here on this forum.  

Paul, you're sounding just like another embittered composer whose ego needs to denounce other creative people who don't fit into your personal tastes.  I sometimes wonder about the role that envy plays among artistic people who haven't really completely accepted their lot in life and their obsessive need to put down others who have achieved more recognition and success than they have.  I wish every composer would turn their "bullshit-detector" inward and shine it on themselves, as it would greatly uplift the level of discussion on this forum.   Between William and Paul, I don't even want to post or participate here any more.   You guys are fundamentalists and really should become a bit more aware of where your angst is really coming from.  It's not about music, it's about ego.  Can't you see that?  It seems pretty clear to me...

Jerry

Hi Jerry,

What is the purpose of this post of yours? What do you hope to gain? Are you trying to silence me? All of these insults, posturing, and amateur psychoanalysis prove nothing. I will not answer you in kind. I have no time to waste on such nonsense. And one thing that you did not talk about was musical aesthetics, or answer my call for greater discrimination and discernment within the realm of concert music. You talked about what Cage hoped to gain by silence. How about a statue of nothing that makes a statement about an empty podium? It is so obsurd it would be funny if it were not so pathetic.

The reason that I use John Cage as an example is that 4'33" is a PERFECT example. What could be less worthy of being called "music" than silence. It isn't even noise. What writer of trash could be less worthy of the noble title of composer than John Cage?

Did you know that John Cage made a very big deal about his claim to have studied with Schoenberg? This claim was especially helpful to him in his early career. Yet Cage does not appear on any class lists or student records of USC, where he claimed to have studied with Schoenberg. When pressed on the matter Schoenberg refused to say anything about Cage. After repeated questions as to whether Cage did or did not study with him, Schoenberg said something about Cage being "very creative." This from a man who took great pride in his legitimate students, writing letters of recommendation and helping them with their careers.

Other students of Schoenberg during the period in which Cage claimed his studies took place have no recollection of John Cage ever being in class, or at the frequent gatherings Schoenberg held at his home. for his pupils. There have been academic papers written to try and reconcile these facts, but no actual evidence of any studies has ever been found, just attempts to obfuscate the simple truth. John Cage falsified his credentials and obviously was a con man.

Until we can once again begin to show some discernment about the quality of musical creations, the audience will continue to become further and further alienated. And they should. It is an intelligent reaction to people like John Cage.

Irrespective of whether JCcage was a con man or not, or his musical credentials, and despite my love for the grandest and loudest and most organized sound (thats why I love Mahler and Stravinsky and now Salonen), I gotta admit this about Cage: it took some guts to write a 'piece of music; where the pianist walks on the stage, sits in front of the piano for 4'33'' (btw this is 273 seconds, representing absolute zero in the Kelvin scale), then gets up and walks out. He was making a bold philosophical statement that makes us question who we are and how we relate to music from a broader perspective. So this is not really music but about us humans. It has its place in history and we cannot erase it.

@agitato said:

Irrespective of whether JCcage was a con man or not, or his musical credentials, and despite my love for the grandest and loudest and most organized sound (thats why I love Mahler and Stravinsky and now Salonen), I gotta admit this about Cage: it took some guts to write a 'piece of music; where the pianist walks on the stage, sits in front of the piano for 4'33'' (btw this is 273 seconds, representing absolute zero in the Kelvin scale), then gets up and walks out. He was making a bold philosophical statement that makes us question who we are and how we relate to music from a broader perspective. So this is not really music but about us humans. It has its place in history and we cannot erase it.

No, we cannot ever erase the damage done by Cage and his ilk. Was it a bold philosophical statement or extreme laziness coupled with arrogance and a calculating understanding of just how gullible his audience really was?

I am reminded of the Gilbert & Sullivan operetta "Patience" which according to Wikipedia is "a satire on the aesthetic movement of the 1870s and 80s in England and, more broadly, on fads, superficiality, vanity, hypocrisy, and pretentiousness." I love Gilbert and Sullivan, and whenever I see "Patience" the leading character reminds me of John Cage. I highly recommend the experience.

During the late romantic era, the leading composers were Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Brahms, and Verdi. Eventually, the value of the music composed by Bruckner, Mahler, Grieg, and a few others was recognized. But if you have ever listened to "Unsung Masterworks" on YouTube, you know that there are many, many more composers who were active in that era, composed diligently, and wrote often attractive music. They did not gain fame or lasting recognition. Why not? Is it just luck? Was it like Hollywood and they refused to go to bed with the most influential critics? Right now I am listening to Victor Bendix Symphony No. 3 (1895). A very enjoyable piece of music. Why is Brahms lauded and not Bendix?

The answer is that with enough hours, months, and years of study we can begin to glimpse the why. Music of value consists of melody (motives), harmony, counterpoint (voice leading), orchestration, form, structure, and artistic (aesthetic) content. Apparently, some admire the artistic or aesthetic content of John Cage's 4'33" but what about melody, harmony, counterpoint, etc. It is devoid of all other elements. A good melody, all by itself, would not be worthy of being called great music. But I think it would have a better claim to greatness than silence.

And despite Jerry's post above, I would say that Jerry's music has an infinitely better claim to greatness than anything ever put on paper by John Cage.

I want to apologize to Jerry Gerber - I obviously got him pissed off at me, and I know I do mouth off here, off the cuff.  Maybe it's that original criticism I had of the Gumby series - I don't actually think I would have done better and I certainly would have taken the job if offered a lot of money.  Anyway I don't want to be in a vicious argument with anybody - that doesn't make me happy.  It is the music here I really like!

Best,

William Kersten

[/quote]

Hi Jerry,

What is the purpose of this post of yours? What do you hope to gain? Are you trying to silence me? All of these insults, posturing, and amateur psychoanalysis prove nothing. I will not answer you in kind. I have no time to waste on such nonsense. And one thing that you did not talk about was musical aesthetics, or answer my call for greater discrimination and discernment within the realm of concert music. You talked about what Cage hoped to gain by silence. How about a statue of nothing that makes a statement about an empty podium? It is so obsurd it would be funny if it were not so pathetic.

The reason that I use John Cage as an example is that 4'33" is a PERFECT example. What could be less worthy of being called "music" than silence. It isn't even noise. What writer of trash could be less worthy of the noble title of composer than John Cage?

Did you know that John Cage made a very big deal about his claim to have studied with Schoenberg? This claim was especially helpful to him in his early career. Yet Cage does not appear on any class lists or student records of USC, where he claimed to have studied with Schoenberg. When pressed on the matter Schoenberg refused to say anything about Cage. After repeated questions as to whether Cage did or did not study with him, Schoenberg said something about Cage being "very creative." This from a man who took great pride in his legitimate students, writing letters of recommendation and helping them with their careers.

Other students of Schoenberg during the period in which Cage claimed his studies took place have no recollection of John Cage ever being in class, or at the frequent gatherings Schoenberg held at his home. for his pupils. There have been academic papers written to try and reconcile these facts, but no actual evidence of any studies has ever been found, just attempts to obfuscate the simple truth. John Cage falsified his credentials and obviously was a con man.

Until we can once again begin to show some discernment about the quality of musical creations, the audience will continue to become further and further alienated. And they should. It is an intelligent reaction to people like John Cage.

[/quote]

My purpose is that I hope you gain the self-awareness to recognize that the intensity and vehemence of your opinion about Cage are not about John Cage or modernism in general, or music. It's about your anxiety about who you are.  And by the way, though you wrote above you will "not answer me in kind", you did exactly that, you answered me. 

You wrote "we cannot ever erase the damage done by Cage and his ilk".  And exactly what damage did he do?  He offended your sense of beauty?  You call that damage?  Men and women who do damage are people who rob, steal, rape and harass women, start wars, drive drunk, and who charge obscene prices for basic human needs.   THOSE are the people who cause damage.  My God, get some perspective!

What this is about for me is witnessing a reactionary intolerance to traditions and creativity outside of one person's (yours) definition of culture.  Everyone has the right to reject any artist they want to, I have no argument that Cage isn't your cup of tea, I've never been inspired by his work either.  But it's not your opinion that caught my attention, it's the vehemence.

A cultural fundamentalist cannot, or will not, recognize that change is the very nature of all things on earth.   With fundamentalism, whether it be religious, economic or artistic fundamentalism, every value, ideal and sense of what is "pure" is rigidly adhered to and intolerance to ideas outside of the fundamentalist belief system is reacted to with a fierce animosity, as you demonstrate so clearly in your diatribe against Cage.  With such vitriol against a man who merely expressed himself artistically the way he saw fit, how can I help but suspect your ego is threatened by creativity and ideas outside of your own traditions?  THAT is what you ought to be confronting. The fragility of ego is on display here, and believe me, everyone has trouble with ego, including me.  The bible calls it pride, in modern day terminology we usually call it ego. 

Posturing, insults?   You got to be kidding!  I am just telling you how I perceive your comments, it's none of my business whether you take them constructively or whether you just keep getting more defensive and angry.  It's your choice.

Jerry

@William said:

I want to apologize to Jerry Gerber - I obviously got him pissed off at me, and I know I do mouth off here, off the cuff.  Maybe it's that original criticism I had of the Gumby series - I don't actually think I would have done better and I certainly would have taken the job if offered a lot of money.  Anyway I don't want to be in a vicious argument with anybody - that doesn't make me happy.  It is the music here I really like!

Best,

William Kersten

Apology accepted, but really, you don't need to apologize William.  I'd prefer if you just try to write more carefully and craft a post on an online forum with as much care and attention to detail as when you write a piece of music.  The advantage of doing that, besides the satisfaction of knowing you said exactly what you mean, is that there is less chance of being misunderstood.  Since none of us have facial recognition, body language, gesture or eye contact (all of which help humans to understand and sympathize with one another) the best we can do on online forums is to make our language as precise as possible.  Wise people become humble through the love of truth, fools become humble through humiliation.   Since we are all a little of both, let's try to be wiser.  ;>😉

Jerry

Hi Jerry,

If I was going to answer you in kind, I would insult you, denigrate your knowledge and abilities, create an insulting pseudo psychiatric analysis of your motives and try to silence you from stating your views. That is what you have been doing to me. But I have not responded in kind. Although it would not be difficult to do so. You obviously know nothing at all about me personally, yet you continue to malign and accuse me of motives which you just made up in your head.

Jerry, in all seriousness, your behavior towards me has been shameful. I seem to remember you have a history of losing control like this. Isn't that right Jerry? But usually, your tantrums are reserved for anyone who criticizes your music. Isn't that correct Jerry? You seem to have a habit of losing control. But I think this is the first time you have gone off the reservation because you didn't like someone else's ideas. Or perhaps you have, and I didn't see it. I recommend you do a little soul searching and consider your own motives in making these attacks on me.

I hate to do this to you Jerry, but further personal attacks on me will force me to report you to the forum moderators. 

@Paul McGraw said:

Hi Jerry,

If I was going to answer you in kind, I would insult you, denigrate your knowledge and abilities, create an insulting pseudo psychiatric analysis of your motives and try to silence you from stating your views. That is what you have been doing to me. But I have not responded in kind. Although it would not be difficult to do so. You obviously know nothing at all about me personally, yet you continue to malign and accuse me of motives which you just made up in your head.

Jerry, in all seriousness, your behavior towards me has been shameful. I seem to remember you have a history of losing control like this. Isn't that right Jerry? But usually, your tantrums are reserved for anyone who criticizes your music. Isn't that correct Jerry? You seem to have a habit of losing control. But I think this is the first time you have gone off the reservation because you didn't like someone else's ideas. Or perhaps you have, and I didn't see it. I recommend you do a little soul searching and consider your own motives in making these attacks on me.

I hate to do this to you Jerry, but further personal attacks on me will force me to report you to the forum moderators. 

Maybe you should report me to the Taliban, they hate music and would probably cut my head off.  Or report me to Homeland Security, or the police.  ;>😉

Please take some deep breaths and go for a nice walk Paul.   I sincerely hope you don't have a heart attack over my comments.   I didn't realize how fragile you are.  BTW, I've had no tantrum over this, nor have I lost self-control, I've been calm and relaxed all day and have been enjoying my evening.   Sorry you couldn't learn something and benefit from my observations.

Unfortunately, this forum doesn't allow blocking, otherwise I'd encourage you to block my comments.

Hi Jerry,

For once we agree, I don't think it is possible for someone to set up blocks on posts. But I think in future I will simply ignore anything you post.

I find it amusing that in your mind you think I need to learn something from you. Good night Jerry, I am going to bed now. 

@Paul McGraw said:

Hi Jerry,
For once we agree, I don't think it is possible for someone to set up blocks on posts. But I think in future I will simply ignore anything you post.
I find it amusing that in your mind you think I need to learn something from you. Good night Jerry, I am going to bed now.

Paul, Jerry and William,

reading your comments I see nothing but people passionate about 'classical' music in their own way. Afterall this is all about music and not religion or other kind of ideology where people are out to kill each other. So we really all can get along. Just that one set of people here prefer to music until ~1910 and the other group likes music all the way till 2017. Big deal!  

I am feeling sad that my thread has resulted in so much bitterness between fine composers.

My intention was to understand how others here felt about high quality and genuine 20th century music. I felt that such a discussion is important besides making music, since it provides us a larger perspective.

Anyways I didnt realize this topic can be inflaming and can become a distraction from other threads with good music posted in this forum. So I am sorry about that.

Cheers

Anand

Hi Anand,

There is nothing wrong with your thread. (Ok I do neither belong to any side of People who "prefer"  any music I just like it in the certain way it is. But I am sure this is only my personal attitude and other might and will have different views)

Neither you nor you thread is in any way responsible for the way other react on it. I like the fact, that this comunity discusses more than just which sample is positioned to much in the center , background, foreground, chosen to soft, to accented or what ever. Technical details can be great to talk about, but music is more and the vvivid response your thread received is just the proof that is obviously true for all who discussed here so intensivly.

I personally prefer discussions with honest dispute over those with more or less meaningless consens and flatterey. A good friend is the one who is able to criticise and give you a different view not the one who do not dare to do so.  In this respect the participants of this thread seem to be very verys good friends... arent they ? 😃