Sorry William... the Auric just doesn't do it for me.  It's true, I *do* have a taste for more modern music. Blame my childhood music teacher who made me learn from Bartok's Mikrocosmos...  It's got nothing to do with how old the music is, but how it relates to the music of its time.  

And... sorry to say:

http://philipglass.com/compositions/orphee/

He's done a Cocteau trilogy.  I don't care for the others but stand by the Beauty and the Beast score as a lovely thing, for all the reasons I cited.  

I love Bartok.  Also Ligetti is one of my favorite composers - so no, you can't assign my assessment of Auric to preferring "old fashioned" - which is a silly term.  As if something being "new" means it is good.  That is funny.   

I agree. Personal taste is not a sufficient criteria for establishing the value and meaning of a piece of music.  

I'm reading a book by Julian Johnson:  Who Needs Classical Music? - Cultural Choice and Musical Value, that tries to address just this issue:

“Debate about music, even technical debate between musicians, has always been an attempt to wrestle with this conundrum: music flows from individuals to other individuals and yet seems to be shaped by supra-individual forces. The basic model of that conundrum does not change whether it is understood in terms belonging primarily to magic, religion, mysticism, natural science, philosophy, psychology, sociology, or politics. This debate has an important ancillary presence to that of music itself, and its marginalization today should provoke some reflection. This discourse was a way of thinking not just about music, but about the way music mediated ideas of the world. It was thus a way of reflecting on our conceptions of the world, which is why musical theory was for centuries inseparable from theories of cosmology, natural science, and politics.

The lack of serious discourse on music today implies an absence of this self-reflection about music and its mediation of the ideas by which we live. This might give us some cause for concern. Argument about music has never delivered permanent answers; rather, its significance lay in its role within the continuous process of social change through a self-critique of cultural ideas. The absence of such musical debate today suggests a stasis underneath the rapid surface movement in contemporary culture. It also suggests an unquestioning acceptance of current musical practice and a passivity in relation to its products. This, in turn, suggests a certain lack of concern about music—a sign, perhaps, that music is not as important as it used to be even though it is far more ubiquitous. Argument, discourse, and debate point to things that are of importance, that wield power, that influence and impinge upon our lives. What doesn’t matter to us, we never argue about.”

When I consider the French music of the late 19th and 20th centuries I appreciate—that touches me most deeply—I'm going for Debussy, Ravel, and from Les Six... it's Poulenc, probably because I sense a meaningful continuity with those first two in their deep, for their time, explorations of texture and expansions of harmony... pushing boundaries... things the French approach to classical music seems notable for since at least Perotin's melismatic music and on.  At the other end you see it in the contribution of the French contemporary composers to the development of spectral music—more explorations of texture, timbre and harmony.  I obviously value music that pushes the boundaries, that points a way forward.... I just don't hear that in Auric. Sure, it's lyrical. But I don't go there for inspiration on the way forward to a future music. One could argue that the music of Philip Glass is informed by the proposal for a music of simplicity coming out of Eric Satie's practice, and influenced by an awakening to the music of non-Euro-American musical traditions.  He did, after all, study in Paris with Boulanger while assisting Ravi Shankar with his film scores.

Well I'm contradicting myself but ...  

"I just don't hear that in Auric..."  

Who cares?  You don't because you can't.  Also, so what if the music doesn't indicate some complicated trend of the future?  It sounds beautiful to many people.  That is ultimately the only thing that matters.  And Auric is considered one of the greatest film composers. 

I think one of the things that really irritated me is that Glass has the arrogance to TAMPER with a masterpiece. I don't like that because he has no right to do it.  He ripped out Auric's score, without Cocteau's approval or permission obviously, and stuck his own stuff in there. I hate that when it is done and I don't care if people always do that with remixes etc.  It is bullshit.  The original should be valued for what it is and not tampered with.

By the way the added music score for the Bela Lugosi Dracula was equally disturbing and ruinous to a great film.  The original film has no music except at the main title and it actually is more powerful because of it.  There is only the silence of the tomb, and the faint white noise of the optical sound background.   Joyce Carol Oates identified the reason for this silence being so good: the entire film is like a dream and dreams have no music score. 

Of course that is debatable as music can create the emotional tone of a dream, but that is another subject...

Also - here is something on Auric that features many great recordings -

George Auric

The reason why people write stuff against Auric is because he was not aligned with the group that championed Debussy, who was at the time the most modern, but Auric became more conservative. Though his early scores - such as Blood of a Poet - were quintessentially modern film scoring.

edited - I need to stop ranting! 

I now wear a patch that is supposed to control the desire to post on VSL Forum  so that may offer some relief.   

con·serv·a·tive

kənˈsərvədiv/

adjective

adjective: conservative

1. holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation

Synonym: old-fashioned (and many other less than complementary ones).

pro·gres·sive

prəˈɡresiv/

adjective

adjective: progressive

1. happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step.

2. (of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.

William wrote:  “I don't like that because he has no right to do it.  He ripped out Auric's score, without Cocteau's approval or permission obviously, and stuck his own stuff in there.”

Au contraire:

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/pasatiempo/music/musical-bestiary-the-sounds-of-jean-cocteau/article_fffedab1-9ed6-52f2-a00b-db0004a1c080.html

“After securing permission from the estates of both Cocteau and Auric, Glass had the soundtrack (the actors’ speech as well as Auric’s music) stripped away from the film. He composed his new score as an entirely original piece, making no reference to Auric’s, and set the vocal line in French, following the text exactly as it was spoken by the actors. The opera was recorded by singers, and technical adjustments were effected to synchronize their singing as closely as possible to the lip movements of the actors. The resultant work could be screened as a film opera with a prerecorded soundtrack, or it could be performed live by singers plus instrumental ensemble as the film was projected.”

And you might have a listen to the overture to the “approved” version of Glass’ score:

https://itunes.apple.com/ca/album/glass-la-belle-et-la-be-te-1-ouverture/634025085?i=634025149

I would hardly characterize this as “dull droning”. 

I had a listen to a recording of the Auric score as played by the Moscow Symphony Orchestra and, to be fair, it sounds a lot better than the awful optical sound I’d only ever heard on the film prints.  That’s certainly been part of my reaction to the original score.  

The estate of Cocteau is not Cocteau. 

Anyway I don't care to argue about this. 

I'd rather you didn't either. Friendly debate aka rational discourse is always a much more productive way to interact, particularly online.

Philip Glass - La Belle et la Bete    2014

Jean Cocteau  1889 - 1963

Georges Auric 1899 - 1983

:-)

Minimal music proffers its own aesthetic; you either like it or you don't (same as with serialism, spectralism or whatever). 

Having said that, between the four most famous exponents of the genre (Glass, Reich, Adams, Riley), I'd say Glass is the least learned in the art. This is as obvious as it is incontrovertible. That is not to say that he has nothing to say musically, he does have his own "sound", and although it would not be outrageous to quip that he is the Hans of 'serious' music, it wouldn't be fair to Glass, even though there are similarities.

My listening suggestions would include Reich's Variations for Winds, Strings, and Keyboards, Adams' Shaker Loops, and Riley's Salome Dances for Peace. I don't think anybody could argue that there is no real music in these works. These (and others) are much better than purely experimental, empty works such as In C, and Random Round (both of which I have performed in ensemble situations, 🤢).

Of Glass' more "meaty" works I would include Akhnaten and Koyaanisqatsi. Einstein on the Beach is pure methane.

... or pure methamphetamine?  I used to enjoy Einstein on the Beach whilst on driving trips back in my student days.  

The closing aria of Satyagraha is a gorgeous thing, with that rising vocal line and the gradually more ornamental accompaniment.  The rest is more Glass' mannerism.  He has glimmers of creativity, but tends to get stuck. I suppose that's easy to do when one gets a life-time contract with a major record label.

I watched a documentary on him years ago that featured him at work in his apartment, at the piano, explaining how he works.  "It's quite simple really" he stated as he proceeded to write the same figures over and over again on the staff.  I had to laugh out loud, and thought of the King's New Clothes.

I agree with you that he's the light-weight of the founders of the style. Contemporary music as easy-listening.

Anand,

Where did you get the impression that I had stated either Mahler or Beethoven were "old-fashioned"???? Not my words my friend, but William's.  I've loved Mahler since I first heard the early Bernstein recordings with the New York Philharmonic. I'm of the opinion that Mahler, in many ways brought the symphonic tradition to it's culminating point—a true progressive.  Beethoven... well, let's talk about those last few string quartets of his, not just the big fugue. That was music that was considered to be avant-garde in its day.  Debussy?  Better to compare Debussy to Vincent D'Indy if you want a more useful comparison...  or, as I did, in comparison with his French compatriot, Auric. 

I think it's silly to compare the music of Philip Glass and the other innovators of his time with those of earler eras. Each artist is working with the materials at hand, which are profoundly the cultural conditions of their time.  The American minimalists were responding, to some extent, to the chaos that John Cage had led contemporary music into in the U.S., as well as the chaos of complexity that total serialism had led to in Europe at the time. Both approaches were based on the idea that music can be largely precomposed according to some kind of process, be it throwing dice, mapping musical pitches to a star map, or devising a sequence of numbers that map to every parameter of the music. Steve Reich's response to this, as he wrote in his essay Music as a Gradual Process  http://www.bussigel.com/systemsforplay/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Reich_Gradual-Process.pdf , was that the processes in the music should be able to be heard.  

Of course Ligeti... but again, to compare his music to that of the so-called "minimalists" is to compare frogs with grandmothers.  Better to compare his music to his fellow composers of the Darmstadt school... Boulez, Nono, Stockhausen, Berio, Kagel, etc.  That makes sense and is actually pretty interesting if you look at Ligeti's standing in that group at the time and who's music is still left standing in the present. And if you don't like their music, fair enough. But let's not take the attitude that we can flatten history out and compare the Gregorian Chants of Perotin to the string quartets of Brian Ferneyhough and come to the conclusion that one is "better" than the other.  They're not. They're the product of their time—their music is the way each composer thought about music in a creative way—both innovators in their own right. I can say I prefer to listen to Perotin over Ferneyhough for a variety of reasons... use of consonance, voice vs. instrumentation, level of complexity, their respective place in the history and evolution of European art music, etc., but to come to the conclusion that one is better than the other?  I don't think so. I can only say I enjoy one more than the other and try to understand why, hopefully in a way that can inform my own musical creativity. 

About your test. Which tonal tradition are you speaking of? Since when does one have to be proficient at the harmonic practice of a particular era to be given the stamp of approval for music being made now?  Functional harmony? Palestrina? Bach? Haydn?  Or the triadic harmony articulated by Riemann that seems to better describe the chromatic practices of the late Romantic composers?  Do we need to be able to reproduce a sculpture in a Hellenic style to a bona fide sculptor?  I think it's interesting to consider that Glass was taken on as a student by Nadia Boulanger in Paris. She was not known to suffer fools gladly, or take on just any student, having refused Astor Piazzola among others.  

Somehow people get the idea that Glass is some kind of untutored hack. I think you should be careful before judging the level of education and musical knowledge a composer has.  He, apparently, wrote a substantial amount of "traditional" music in his youth which was destroyed precisely because it lacked an individual voice. And please consider, for instance, the following text shows some of Glass' thinking about the harmonic relations in his Einstein on the Beach work:

"Glass describes one of the main harmonic ideas of the work is taken from the closing section of “Train.” He states that this particular progression resembles a traditional cadential formula, though presented with an altered chord in the middle that serves as a pivot chord, ultimately leading to a resolution of the cadential figure a half step lower than expected. The harmonies of this thematic idea are F minor – D-flat major – B-double flat/A major – B major – E major. Thus, the progression begins in the key of F minor and ends in the key of E major, with the B-double flat/A harmony serving as flat- IV in F minor and IV in E major.27 This particular analysis of the pivot chord in this progression is taken from Glass’s own writings, presumably to show how this particular harmony would function if the context remained in the realm of F minor. However, since this harmony never appears in the exact form of B-double-flat major, only as A major, a better understanding of this harmony in terms of F minor is that it is a chromatic mediant in this key. As the progression moves forward, its new E major context becomes clear, so that this A major pivot chord can also be heard as IV in the new key."

So, perhaps he's not describing the harmonic structure of one of Handel's oratorios, but you've go to admit, there's a level of sophistication in the thinking here about harmonic structure—an awareness of the way tonality can be manipulated, its ambiguities leveraged.

If you're interested in knowing more about this you should read the whole piece. It's a good read:

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1072&context=musicstudent

Anyway... I don't know why I'm defending the music Philip Glass here. I don't really much of it, but I wish there were a higher level at which the dialogues on music could be shared here. Not with people throwing out misinformation, putting words in other's mouths, and using language like "bullshit" to describe the work of others.  If we have something useful to say... we should say it, in an intelligent and respectful way. Back it up with evidence, not just hearsay and "I know what I like" subjective statements. That's the issue with the sorry state of our post-modern era. It all comes down too often to "what I like" instead of taking the time to understand how we got here and how we might move forward based on that realization of the deeper meaning of such a divine thing as music.

OK... I'll shut up now (for the moment)....  ;-)

Kenneth.

Ivry Gitlis said something interesting a few years ago; he opined that all music should be viewed and performed as 'modern' and 'contemporary', as Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Wagner, Debussy, etc. were all considered 'modern' and 'contemporary' in their own time. On the other end of the spectrum the names thrown here and in other threads, like Ligeti, Ferneyhough, Kagel, Stockhausen, etc., these composers also are old news, so far as the 'modern' composition world is concerned. Even Ferneyhough and Glass -who are still alive- are part of history, in the same way that Verdi and Saint-Seans were not part of 'modernity' in 1900 and 1920 respectively. It doesn't matter that a Ferneyhough page looks (and sounds) like if through some printing error four pages of music were printed onto one, this is still 'old' music; older than the crap Ades and Golijov are churning out today, even if Ferneyhough composed it yesterday. Strict chronological contemporariness isn't relevant.

Is this an important point? Hugely in my opinion, as people tend to consider composers in film that are very much current and relevant (mostly to disparage them), but have somehow stopped the clock in the 60s and 70s (occasionally 80s), when it comes to 'serious' music (almost 40, 50, and 60 years ago respectively!). That is an enormous period of time that is ignored, and is indicative of the compositional desert we have been traversing these past few decades, compared to the past (again, I exclude historical composers that due to their good fortune reached very old age and are still with us, or were until a few years ago). I would argue the same about film music, and pop music. Collins, Anderson, Sting, Waters, May, Gibb, McCartney, Jagger, Lynne, Diamond, Simon, Bacharach, insert names of preference, are all very much alive today and most still release music, but who would claim that they are part, representative, or relevant in 'modern'/'contemporary' pop musical creation?

I exclude 'serious' computer music from all this (no, DJs or Jean Michel Jarre are not part of this world), but wonder whether this swamp of an artistic impasse is common with other arts. I do keep only half an eye on what's happening in visual arts and architecture, and don't consider myself expert enough to be confident of my opinion.

At any rate, when I hear around academia "This is an exciting time to be a composer", I laugh out silly. Yeah, very exciting times, when one can make a living from 'serious' composition ONLY if one is part of academia, so only if one teaches it. We have come down from all the major orchestras in the world pleading with Sibelius for an 8th symphony for decades, and completing supposed sketches of it 70 years later, to orchestras (not major) doing us a grudging favour workshopping our works (these can rarely be called performances even when in concerts). And so it should be as most people's music today transforms music manuscript into (used) toilet paper...

If these mutants find anything "exciting" today, is that anybody can claim to be a "composer".

I suppose the cause of the serious composers' lot today is the language barrier between him/her and an audience and the retreat of serious music to behind the university/conservatory ramparts of academia. I tend to agree with John Adams implications about so called academic music and how alienating and de-personalised it can get at times, especially when rhythm becomes complex. (Adams calls rhythm a great unifier!) - as a composer however, I reserve the right to venture forward uninhibited. Obviously it does not always have to be so divisive, especially if one can write with hooks (not literally musical, although, yeah, that too) for the audience to hang their hats on when listening - a tenuous connection to the past at the very least perhaps. The danger is that the more you align yourself with previous practice, the more successful and probably irrelevant you might be in art music. We have to decide.

The drive to move forward in all aspects of our life might play a part in demoting stlyistic trends in short time frames and deeming them irrelevant, and now the atonal genie has been unleashed, is it any wonder there is a limbo as well as  a plethora of stylistic reaction to Darmstadt and Webern. One could conceivably blame Darmstadt for Errikos' desert because ever since, composers' have had to struggle with an existential justification for what they write, which has to be conducted against a back drop of angst related to acceptance by a wide audience. How much this compromises or fuels the writing is a key question for anyone serious about their utterances. 

Darmstadt definitely takes all the blame that composers must carry (there are socio-political reasons for the current state of affairs as well). However I would say that even that behind-closed-doors academic music is hardly the stuff of Pythagoras and his closed circle of initiates. I know and understand the principles and aspects of current academic music, and it's not Ligeti or Xenakis or Lachenmann by any stretch of the imagination. It often apes such composers (badly), in the same way lots are aping Hans in Hollywood (better). Just because something is atonal, rhythmically difficult to impossible, and uses every possible way to play an instrument rather than the way it was originally designed to be played, it doesn't necessarily make it a good, or even an interesting piece of music.

Be that as it may, it isn't that all art-composers today write in aural hieroglyphics; in fact a lot of them compose in darn approachable spicy harmonies, using orchestral artifice as modernistic raison d'être, so it's not a matter of the proverbial abyss of inaccessibility, dividing the "enlightened", misunderstood ""genius"" from the plebeian masses, although this kind of abstruse composition is hardly dead yet - it will take many more a spike to nail that coffin. 

I'm afraid that -and I can't elaborate on this- what's missing today from music (most genres of music) is strong character. As if everything has been watered down and homogenized by some mystery agent. I see all these clips where people really know their very sophisticated harmony, and some others really know their very sophisticated orchestration, however when I hear the works... There is no soul(?), I don't know how else to describe it and it frustrates me for I realize the lack of epistemology here. What I can say is that very-very-very-very rarely do I come across a Melody worthy of the capital 'M', even in those genres where melody is the sine qua non ingredient (ex. Opera, Musical Theatre, pop/rock ballads, soundtracks, etc.). And I mean melodies worthy of Tchaikovsky, Rodgers, Mercury, and Morricone; not just barely passable tunes.

Complete and utter vacuum.

We were encouraged as students to read Babbitt's "mighty", "defiant", notorious manifesto "Who Cares if you Listen". That's great Milton, coming from the six-figure security of Princeton University's music faculty, but it occured to me then, and I still don't understand how we can ignore, and who is hurt the most by the obvious rebutter, "Who Cares if you Write".

Well put Errikos.

Melody or even Theme, is one of those technical "hat hooks" I was thinking about - a focus for the listener, a way to follow the story, a way to elicit emotion. As it happens, I have been re-acquainting myself with Tchaikovskys' 4th, 5th and 6th symphonies and continually marvel (along with his orchestration) at his melodic invention and the sheer beauty and power of his works. But, melody ( at least overt melody which I think you mean) is out of fashion these days and am I right in thinking that it is not encouraged in our conservatories? - it certainly wasn't in mine - in fact, the less you knew about technique, the better! - believe me that was an eye opener for someone who worked like a f---er beforehand to master fugal writing.

I have heard some academic musings and have to agree that character was absent in most of what I heard, but novelty wasn't. It is almost as if the novelty, the uniqueness, is more important than the expression, in an effort to stand out from a backdrop of works infused with the "homogenising mystery agent', which might well be the uncompromising ethic of Babbitt.  A lot of pieces were actually an ordeal for the listener.

Let's not forget though that genius is rare and when heard, it can be unmistakeable.

Richard rodgers - now there was a supreme melodist. Do you prefer him with Hart or Hammerstein? Me I like both.

(Anand, we seem to have digressed....blame it on the Greek..:-)

"...when I hear around academia "This is an exciting time to be a composer", I laugh out silly. Yeah, very exciting times, when one can make a living from 'serious' composition ONLY if one is part of academia, so only if one teaches it. We have come down from all the major orchestras in the world pleading with Sibelius for an 8th symphony for decades, and completing supposed sketches of it 70 years later, to orchestras (not major) doing us a grudging favour workshopping our works..." Errikos

"...What I can say is that very-very-very-very rarely do I come across a Melody worthy of the capital 'M', even in those genres where melody is the sine qua non ingredient (ex. Opera, Musical Theatre, pop/rock ballads, soundtracks, etc.). And I mean melodies worthy of Tchaikovsky, Rodgers, Mercury, and Morricone; not just barely passable tunes..." - Errikos

I had to quote these because they are so true and pertinent.  

We are living in a time of complete decadence artistically.  There is no movement "forward".  All forms of art exploded into pieces in the first half of the 20th century and the pieces are flopping amid a welter of blood and gore on the floor of art -  as grotesque, feeble and semi-animate as the twitching body parts of the axed teenagers in the original Evil Dead.

Mike: I think Rodgers was a great composer with both Hart and Hammerstein. With Hart I believe he had more depth and colour, but I think Hammerstein's positivity allowed his melodic gift to reach its peak. As hammed as it's always presented, nevertheless You'll Never Walk Alone is Schubert.

With that, I'd like to clarify that I don't consider 'melody' an absolute requirement for the procurement of great music. La Mer and Le Tombeau de Couperin are not exactly treasure troves of whistling material, but the orchestra is singing. And Bartok and Stravinsky... Hah-hah! I suppose it is personal character and integrity, talent, and inspiration that amount to greatness (at least some technique is necessary of course). I just find these missing today.

I'm surprised that you encountered novelty at the conservatory. I follow quite a bit of contemporary writing, and it's all a meandering rehash of years (if not decades) -old instrumental techniques. As Schoenberg put it long time ago: "Such music could be taken to pieces and put together in a different way, and the result would be the same nothingness expressed by another mannerism".

Bill: I agree with your imagery. Evil Dead... A phenomenal and seminal movie for its time and, as Raimi said, it would be nothing if not for Lo Duca's soundtrack.