185,263 users have contributed to 42,390 threads and 255,475 posts.
In the past 24 hours, we have 4 new thread(s), 23 new post(s) and 49 new user(s).
Glad you liked it Jos. I can listen to the 2nd movement forever. Thats what 'epic' music should sound like rather than 'thump thump music' that pervades movies today.
The score is free to learn from.....
I didnt realize there was a snare drum roll until I saw this!
Anand
Another piece that is food for thought, John Williams Cello concerto:
but as I scrolled down to the comments, was sad to see a war had erupted even there, between the 'tonalists' and others. To me this was just so much fun to listen to, and I cannot label it as any one thing, its old, modern, tonal atonal, everything. Its just pure fluency and mastery in music creation. Nothing else. And people fight over this music! Who could argue about the music of the man who created more memorable melodies in our time than anyone could dream of?
I cant believe this is a living composer and Ive seen him face to face, when he walked out of a concert hall. I was too embarassed to ask him for an autograph.
Anand
Well, let's see how long this takes; I am going to address as many points as I can, so this post might be on the longish side... Anyway, it gives me great pleasure to partake in this discussion - this is what I had hoped the VSL forum would be about in the beginning (save for technical issues). So, thank you everyone for the kind words, and in no particular order:
Anand: Arnold Schoenberg (1874-1951). Lest we forget that we are discussing Schoenberg's pre-dodecaphonic position in compositional hierarchy. His contemporaries then would roughly (±15 years) include: Claude Debussy, Maurice Ravel, Richard Strauss, Igor Stravinsky, Bela Bartok, Gustav Mahler, Max Reger, Alexandre Skryabin, Sergei Rachmaninov, Jean Sibelius, Gustav Holst, Francis Poulenc, Giacomo Puccini, Alexandre Glazunov, Rheinhold Gliere, Ottorino Respighi, Manuel de Falla, Edward Elgar, Florent Schmitt, Franz Schmidt, Carl Nielsen, George Enescu, Charles Ives, and many others - probably important - that I am forgetting in haste...
Verklarte Nacht: This work was premiered in 1902 (having been finished roughly a couple of years earlier). Let's examine musical premieres around that date (±2 years): The Dream of Gerontius, Symphony no.4 (Mahler), Piano Concerto no.2 (Rachmaninov), Pelleas and Melisande - Estampes - La Mer..., Romanian Rhapsodies, The Divine Poem - Etudes - Piano Sonata no.4 (Skryabin), Ein Heldenleben (composed almost concurrently), Jeux d'Eau - String Quartet in F (Ravel), Symphonies nos. 1,2 - En Saga - Finlandia (Sibelius), etc. There was apparently such a fuss about an unresolved 9th chord regarding V.N. (boo-hoo), when I think of, say Ives' Scherzo for String Quartet, it really makes me laugh... And what was that review? "Half Wagner, half Brahms, half Strauss, and no Schoenberg". I respect, but actually feel neither hot or cold for the work.
At any rate, I am not saying that anybody here claimed Schoenberg to be top shelf, but rather protesting my rating him so low. I actually take my cue from R. Strauss who considered himself a 1st class 2nd-rate composer, and go from there. Schoenberg as a tonal composer -including Gurre-Lieder, the chamber symphonies and what have you- is maybe one or two or three places from the bottom and on par with some on the above list (for my taste), and since that list does not contain titans such as Chopin, Brahms, Verdi, Schubert, let alone gods like Wagner, Beethoven, Mozart and Bach, bottom 3rd rung is my best concession. He was a great teacher of course and an extraordinary mind; his textbooks and collected writings make for very interesting reads.
There are three main reasons why classical music is dying: a) It is not culture that one can acquire in adulthood, when striking it rich for example and wishes to fit in with the bourgeois crowd. Art is easy; you see a splash of shyt on the wall for three seconds, and pretend to appreciate it. You don't have to endure two hours of silence in a concert hall listening to stuff to which you cannot relate. Children today are not flooded with great music enough at school or -more importantly- at home, in order for their ears to acclimatise, thus acquiring that culture, b) It is now a more than less museum culture, rather than a vibrant, living culture (like pop music), since composers who could be great tonal ones, either followed academia, or became film composers (a very different kind of music) or pop/rock composers, leaving lesser personalities to carry the banner, c) Technology has replaced the need for families to make their own music by themselves, for almost a century now. Let's all get glued to the TVs and iPads.
John Williams has released a great CD with music for cello and orchestra (the concerto you mention included). It is polished, pleasant music, for more than one hearing (and that is saying something). As far as labeling this music, it is simply called 'lightly chromatic'.
An interesting point is that you consider Williams a melodist, when in fact his inability to compose a melody is his one Achilles' heel. Williams composes 'themes', mostly chord-based and, by his own admission, he has enormous trouble coming up with those too... His music sounds melodious, but isn't really. He just knows his craft backwards and his other skills are so well developed, that he furnishes us with such great stuff. His one "melody" that everybody seems to melt over, is so uninspired really... A series of quavers so forced and contrived, but so well presented that (other) people swoon to their sound.
Mike: You know that you and I come from the same kind of background, so when you mention Gurre-Lieder and Verklarte Nacht not being 3rd-4th rate music, you do add the expression "from a technical point at least", knowing that I cannot disagree there. I also agree with you that today's top composers' technique is at least as sophisticated as that of the masters. The same (and more) goes for the instrumentalists of today. So it is puzzling why we don't have any Richters, Casals', Heifetzs, and Furtwanglers today, the same as we don't have Prokofievs. Well, maybe not so puzzling...
fahl: Shoenberg's late-romantic status is something of a post-mortem myth. Even he was disgusted in his own Gurre-Lieder after a few years (although I find many useful things in there, and orchestrally consider it more advanced than Mahler). Mahler's defence of Schoenberg may have had something to do with wishing to help his kindred, as with anything else. And how many really were the late-Romantics? With Wagner's, Brahms', Bruckner's, and Tchaikovsky's demises, who is left really? Mahler and Strauss are clearly his superiors, so it isn't that he has great competition... Reger, Schmidt, Nielsen, Stenhammar and a couple of others?
Your asking me about other tonal composers of the 20th century gives me an opportunity to state that I didn't enter this 'spat' -as Mike I think put it- between tonality vs. atonality. I just jumped in to correct some historically incorrect assertions, as I saw them. Like I said in my post, I appreciate many works by atonalists. For example, when I first heard Ligeti's Requiem (and I remember being intimidated as a student by the A3 and a half long score), my jaws dropped. Having heard so many other such works from the canon, from the off this work grabbed me by the spine. For once, I felt like I was in a cemetery and the dead were chanting from their graves. Tonality or atonality, when a work has such an effect on you there must be something to it. By the same token, I am not that crazy about the metronomes... I have great respect for George Crumb's mysticism and soundscapes, but amongst atonalists these are the lightweights (compared say to Ferneyhough, Stockhausen, or Lachenmann). I envy Xenakis' power and objectivity. To me, his best works are like cosmic rays hitting our planet, like gamma rays do.
Tonalists: There were so many beautiful tonal to chromatic composers last century, where does one begin? Certainly Honegger (who has written a great book about being a composer - I recommend people read it, along with Hindemith's own, and Constant Lambert's Music Ho! before all others!), everyone I mentioned above, the obvious ones (Prokofiev and such), and then Delius sure, Britten, Tippett, Milhaud, Copland, Gershwin (the orchestral works), Martinu, Moeran (wonderful music guys, look him up), Villa-Lobos, Szymanowcki, Schnittke, L. Boulanger, Hovhaness, Cowell, I am going to stop here as I realize the catalogue would number many tens of composers, including many you've never heard of that I wish you had, but I can't omit Barber, Lutoslawcki, and Rautavaara. It is interesting you mentioning van Dieren; I have respect but no particular love. He is certainly in the list even though I've only heard a couple of works.
William: I have great admiration for Varese, and I believe I own his complete works and most scores. Powerful music and concept!
Finally: Please understand everybody that music for film is not the same as concert music, unless the composer is able to produce both kinds ( ex. Korngold, Herrmann, Williams). The aesthetics and requirements almost could not be more different. The fact that both musics are composed for orchestra means little. It is the same as comparing Pink Floyd to Bieber as drum kits and electric guitars are involved in both cases.
Errikos,
excellent post, again. Despite what the critics said then, I felt V.N. was not that bad compared to other parallel premeires you mention, all of which Ive heard. And its not even about some unresolved 9th chord. Its certainly up there in its craft, and in no way reflects the work of a third rate composer.
Just my opninon anyways. I am may be biased because I love harmonielehre. or Structural functions of harmony. I only see a man driven by curiosity and not in desperate need to be recognized.
In any case, I am no expert in music history and there's much to learn from your post. Thanks!
And I so agree with you about music for film and use of orchestras ... thanks for pointing that out clearly.
About us not having Prokofiev's etc., today, what do you think of Salonen's or Coriglianos music? (although the latter has been around for decades..)
Cheers
Anand
Anand,
The Williams cello concerto is teriffic isn't it. I've known the Yo Yo Ma recording for several years now. Perhaps i should have mentioned that one to Paul - if you're reading this, try that on for size as it straddles the border between lyrical romantic and modern extended practice brilliantly. He has also written a violin and bassoon concerto which I have but have not got around to yet.
Very quickly:
I am posting this here, not only because the composer lived quite a long time (contemporary of Stravinsky), but because this work was an examination piece(!), as noted in the programme. This was what 'examinations pieces' sounded like back then!...
I can't wait to catch my breath and come back to this discussion proper in the next few days hopefully...
Thank you for that link. I just ordered the CD. I had never heard of Dyson, and I was entranced by the clip in the video. Do you know any of his other work?
Anand,
The Williams cello concerto is teriffic isn't it. I've known the Yo Yo Ma recording for several years now. Perhaps i should have mentioned that one to Paul - if you're reading this, try that on for size as it straddles the border between lyrical romantic and modern extended practice brilliantly. He has also written a violin and bassoon concerto which I have but have not got around to yet.
I believe I have everything available on CD by John Williams in my collection, both film and concert music. His tuba concerto is my favorite of his concertos.
Anand,
Please forgive this diversion away from the OP but as Mr. Errikos mentioned Hanson, perhaps readers will be interested in this treatise by him. It is free and is a great resource on some of the 20thCs' harmonic practice.....
I suppose it is relevant to the thread in that it gives foundation to somewhere a composer could go to.
About us not having Prokofiev's etc., today, what do you think of Salonen's or Coriglianos music? (although the latter has been around for decades..)
HI again,
I appreciate both composers, but I admit they are not on my regular listening list; I have something by Salonen in my collection, I can't remember what - he is not a spring chicken either you know. You keep mentioning Salonen almost every second sentence with overwhelming enthusiasm, and that pleases me greatly. One must be healthily obsessed with other composers' works at different periods of time. It certainly has happened to me over time, the obsession recedes to appreciation and we move to the next one. I hope this will be the same for you. We grow artistically and technically that way.
Neither these, nor any composer I'm aware of today (and most from the past to be honest - he would be in my top 20 of all time) could be anything but copyists for Prokofiev. The qualities are just so discrepant.
Mike: Thanks for the link!
About us not having Prokofiev's etc., today, what do you think of Salonen's or Coriglianos music? (although the latter has been around for decades..)
HI again,
I appreciate both composers, but I admit they are not on my regular listening list; I have something by Salonen in my collection, I can't remember what - he is not a spring chicken either you know. You keep mentioning Salonen almost every second sentence with overwhelming enthusiasm, and that pleases me greatly. One must be healthily obsessed with other composers' works at different periods of time. It certainly has happened to me over time, the obsession recedes to appreciation and we move to the next one. I hope this will be the same for you. We grow artistically and technically that way.
Neither these, nor any composer I'm aware of today (and most from the past to be honest - he would be in my top 20 of all time) could be anything but copyists for Prokofiev. The qualities are just so discrepant.
Mike: Thanks for the link!
Oh no, I am not at all obsessed with Salonen at all...in fact only yesterday I was listening to Mahler's 8th. I listen to the whole gamut from Mozart to present day, all the time, mostly during work. Not obsessed with any one composer,
The reason why I kept mentioning both Salonen and Corigliano, is two fold. First Ive not heard that much contemporary music and Ive only heard these and a few others.
Second, if you notice, you were the first person to actually respond to the question in my OP, which was about Salonen. There was not a single response by other posters to the music by Salonene and Corigliano so it was sort of itching me, so I kept bringing them up.
Now, I respect your opinion when you say that these two would be mere copysits for Prokofiev. While I love Prokofiev's music, I felt this was a bit too strong...but again my knowledge is limited and you may have many reasons for saying that, and which you may not be able to elaborate here.
All I can say is that I have the score for Prokofievs violin concertos and can loosely follow the structure in these masterpieces and the music is beautiful. With Salonen, I dont have the score, the music is beautiful to hear, but I cant even begin to see how one goes to writing music like that starting from music like that by Prokofiev. Going back to the OP, I was saying that I heard 'LA Variations' live. Ive heard Prokofiev's concertos too...and there is nothing in the latter that could have prepared me for LA variations. The orchestration was beyond anything Ive heard. Its hard to appreciate it the immensity if the sound unless one hears these live.
I have also heard recordings of Coriglianos Red Violin Chaconne, which is quite lyrical yet produces new textures that Id never heard in older music.
Interesting to compare the Red violin chaconne with Prokofiev's and Salonens violin concertos since they are all written for the violin and orchestra.
I somehow feel uncomfortable saying they would be mere copyists for Prokofiev, maybe apprentices would be more appropriate?
Anyways, thank you again... I still have much to learn.
Best
Anand
Happy Sunday morning!
Since this thread appears to be awfully quiet and maybe fading out, I thought of adding a post (perhaps the last of this thread?) of one of my favorite pieces: Sibelius' violin concerto. At points it sounds like a homage to Beethoven's violin concerto from a hundred years earlier.
Here is Salonen conducting it:
Hope you enjoy this performance. The thread started with the Salonen violin concerto, and will maybe end with a Sibelius violin concerto conducted by Salonen. Leaves me pleasantly wondering how music changed so much in 200 years but yet sounds fundamentally like the same language to me:
Beethoven violin concerto: completed in 1806
Sibelius violin concerto: completed in 1904
Salonen violin concerto: completed in 2009
Best
Anand
One more comment about tonality "vs." atonality:
William and Paul are wrong about tonality. Atonality and tonality are in degrees, in shades of grey. Listen to Samuel Barber's piano concerto, tonal or atonal?
What Shoenberg did is try and create a system for working with 12-tones. The evolution from a 7 tone to a 12 tone scale is really what the 20th and 21st centuries are about to a large extent, both melody and harmony are more difficult to work with when using the chromatic scale, the only scale (other than whole-tone) that is constructed with all 1/2 steps. Some composers can find their own voice using 12 tones and other cannot. I wish those that cannot were not so vehement in the denounciation of what they see as a black-and white issue. Dissonance and chromaticism are necessary for music to be realistic, because life on earth consists of constrasts: joy and sorrow, pleasure and pain, life and death, darkness and light.
Without chromaticism and dissonance music would have no real drama, no unity of opposites, which to my mind is what makes music so fascinating.
Great points Jerry.
Ive often wondered about many works by otherwise tonal compsoers in the 20th century, whether they were atonal or tonal...since they often seem to cross the border between the two.
In the end it seems like its really all about expanding to the 12 tones without a tonal reference. I see nothing wrong with that, its just a natural progression of the art that no one can stop. Some people here (e.g., Paul) seem to have a personal feeling against this development. Others here (like William and Errikos) are not against modernism but question the quality/ulterior motive/extremism of composers (and academicians) who hide their mediocrity behind atonality, which I think is a legitimate concern in some cases. But if Barber or Prokofiev 'go atonal' that its a different matter, we better take them seriously.
Cheers
Anand
"Atonality and tonality are in degrees, in shades of grey. " - jsg
That is stating the obvious.
"William and Paul are wrong about tonality. " - jsg
I never stated that they are total opposites. That is ridiculous. The course of music history, let alone individual compositions or composers, shows an obvious progression toward increasing complexity of harmony which ultimately - at the end of the Post-Romantic period - led to atonality. Even the late works of Mahler like the 9th and unfinished 10th symphonies show a trend toward near-atonality which Schoenberg expanded vastly after his Gurrelieder into serialism.
Also throughout music one can findcomposers - especially before the Classical era - whoe conception of tonality sometimes bordered on atonality. One such example is Gesualdo whose works are startingly modern and utterlly unlike the highly regular diatonic harmonies with strict rules of voice leading, modulation and harmonic progression - in the Classical Era.
One other thing - it has been falsely implied I am against Modernism which is utterly wrong, as many of my favorite composers are among the most original and innovative modernists.
"Atonality and tonality are in degrees, in shades of grey. " - jsg
That is stating the obvious.
"William and Paul are wrong about tonality. " - jsg
I never stated that they are total opposites. That is ridiculous. The course of music history, let alone individual compositions or composers, shows an obvious progression toward increasing complexity of harmony which ultimately - at the end of the Post-Romantic period - led to atonality. Even the late works of Mahler like the 9th and unfinished 10th symphonies show a trend toward near-atonality which Schoenberg expanded vastly after his Gurrelieder into serialism.
Also throughout music one can findcomposers - especially before the Classical era - whoe conception of tonality sometimes bordered on atonality. One such example is Gesualdo whose works are startingly modern and utterlly unlike the highly regular diatonic harmonies with strict rules of voice leading, modulation and harmonic progression - in the Classical Era.
One other thing - it has been falsely implied I am against Modernism which is utterly wrong, as many of my favorite composers are among the most original and innovative modernists.
Hi William,
While I agree that extreme chromaticism, such as is found in late Mahler, or even some Richard Strauss, can often seem to be approaching atonality, I find there is still a connection, even if thin, to a tonal center. In contrast, Schoenberg's twelve-tone system is specifically designed to avoid any pitch center. The entire system is designed to treat all 12 tones equally, specifically to avoid an accidental tonal center. It is the very definition of atonality. Thus I do not find atonality to be an extension of the tonal system, but a break from it. Like a rubber band that can be stretched only so far, then it breaks. Schoenberg intentionally wanted to break the rubber band, by design. I have concluded that Schoenberg was truly searching for what he hoped would be a new kind of music, as opposed to the avant-garde who simply throw tantrums of rebellious theatrics. So while Schoenberg's invention proved to be evil, I do not believe that Schoenberg the man was evil.
Hindemith did a lot of work on trying to develop a system that truly maintained a connection with tonality while avoiding triadic harmony. Much of his work was aimed at establishing various degrees of dissonance. His book "The Craft of Musical Composition" part 1, is detailed and logical regarding this issue. That is not to say that it will actually help composers produce a variety of original works of art. He was very important to me for many years, eventually, however, I concluded that his efforts, while brilliant and original, were a dead end compared to tonality coupled with the triadic system.
Paul
Great points Jerry.
Ive often wondered about many works by otherwise tonal compsoers in the 20th century, whether they were atonal or tonal...since they often seem to cross the border between the two.
In the end it seems like its really all about expanding to the 12 tones without a tonal reference. I see nothing wrong with that, its just a natural progression of the art that no one can stop. Some people here (e.g., Paul) seem to have a personal feeling against this development. Others here (like William and Errikos) are not against modernism but question the quality/ulterior motive/extremism of composers (and academicians) who hide their mediocrity behind atonality, which I think is a legitimate concern in some cases. But if Barber or Prokofiev 'go atonal' that its a different matter, we better take them seriously.
Cheers
Anand
Hi Anand,
I do not believe I ever said I was opposed to "modernism." First, you must define what you mean by "modernism." I despise atonality and blame atonality and the avant-garde for bringing the institutions of classical music into disrepute. Isn't the Williams Concerto for Tuba modern? Isn't the "Miserere" by James MacMillan modern? If by "modernism" you mean the atonal and avant-garde then I would say that by that definition "modernism" is old and not really modern at all. The pernicious parasite of atonality has brought its host, classical music, to its deathbed. Either it will die, or classical music will die. Both cannot live.
Paul
hat is
Paul,
You are right. I used the term modernism without knowing what I was implying. I'll fix my post later.
Would you say that atonality is your only problem? But the fact is though that many composers works go back and forth. Even the Williams concert works, esp the violin concerto, do not have an apparent tonal center much of the time, to my ears at least, even though he may not be using any established technique like serialism. Are you fine with these works?
Also I had the impression you didn't like rite of spring as well, which is very tonal. Or maybe you respect the work but don't think it's step in the right direction?
Best
Anand
Hi Anand,
I don't know why you would think I had a problem with Rite of Spring. I have not completed a bar by bar analysis, but I hear it as being completely tonal. In my opinion, it is one of the best compositions of the early 20th century.
Just based on listening, not analyzing, I would agree that much of Williams concert work seems to swerve back and forth between tonality and atonality. Personally, I find this much more enjoyable and less destructive than pure atonality. Williams concert work varies a great deal from composition to composition. In general, he loves to use jazz chords (9ths, 11ths, and even 13ths), tone clusters, and even bitonality. I looked very closely at the Tuba Concerto simply because it appealed to me, and although some sections might be harmonically challenging, it is always tonal. As a former cellist, I have also looked some at his cello concerto, and it is far more challenging harmonically, perhaps becoming atonal much of the time. It is little wonder that he recently revised it for the fourth time. I am not aware of any other work that he ever revised, let alone four revisions. I do not personally like all of his film music, or all of his concert music.
Williams is an example of a composer with the skill to use "20th-century techniques" in a way that appeals to a wide audience. In his piece "Quiddich" from the Harry Potter movies, he uses tone clusters and bitonality.
In the Planets by Holst, there is extensive use of tone clusters and bitonality. Some people think that Williams study of the Planets had a decisive influence on his personal style and led to his frequent use of those techniques. I don't know if that is true or not.
Regarding your initial question "is atonality my only problem?" I would not classify atonality as my problem. My problems include age, diabetes, arthritis, neuropathy, and prostate issues. There are many things I dislike that others like, such as rap and hard rock and minimalism, but I do not hate those forms of music. I love classical music and I hate atonality and the avant-garde because they have almost destroyed what I love.
Paul
