@agitato said:

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.  

@William said:

"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

@agitato said:

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

@agitato said:

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  

Hi Paul

thanks for clarifying and sorry to misquote you. I had the impression you didnt like Rite based on this earlier post of yours:

"You mention that the "Rite" was initially rejected by many in the audience. Do you find yourself thinking this somehow makes the piece more worthy, more important? I used to think like that. But in time I realized how foolish I was" -Paul

But I guess I misread what you meant.

Anyways I am in total agreement with you on this statement :

"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"

So it looks like you also belong to the camp that is fine with innovation as long as it reflects high quality but does not like mediocity masquerading under atonality or 'avant garde'?  But then I dont think you would cosider Schoenberg mediocre. I guess then you are ok with atonal digressions as long as the music comes back to tonal centers occasionally, but do not like complete abandonment of it. Once again as I said earlier I dont think such expeditions bring down classical music as a whole.

But the only thing I would object to is the use of the word 'evil' with atonality. I dont think any kind of music can be evil. Looking around the world we know what evil is...the current US president is evil, Hitler was evil....but music, no matter how noisy or bad, cannot be evil. (on the contrary, great music has been used by evil people as we know from history)

Cheers

Anand

@agitato said:

Hi Paul

thanks for clarifying and sorry to misquote you. I had the impression you didnt like Rite based on this earlier post of yours:

"You mention that the "Rite" was initially rejected by many in the audience. Do you find yourself thinking this somehow makes the piece more worthy, more important? I used to think like that. But in time I realized how foolish I was" -Paul

But I guess I misread what you meant.

Anyways I am in total agreement with you on this statement :

"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"

So it looks like you also belong to the camp that is fine with innovation as long as it reflects high quality but does not like mediocity masquerading under atonality or 'avant garde'?  But then I dont think you would cosider Schoenberg mediocre. I guess then you are ok with atonal digressions as long as the music comes back to tonal centers occasionally, but do not like complete abandonment of it. Once again as I said earlier I dont think such expeditions bring down classical music as a whole.

But the only thing I would object to is the use of the word 'evil' with atonality. I dont think any kind of music can be evil. Looking around the world we know what evil is...the current US president is evil, Hitler was evil....but music, no matter how noisy or bad, cannot be evil. (on the contrary, great music has been used by evil people as we know from history)

Cheers

Anand

Hi Anand,

I see nothing contradictory in my earlier quote about Rite of Spring and my later statement. As a young man, I placed a very high value on being original, and on being a rebel. I liked Rite at that time for the wrong reasons. As it turns out, I now like Rite for it's artistic merit. Also Rite is tonal, but I did not know that at the time. Also Rite was not rejected quite as violently as I thought. Accounts of the actual premiere make it clear that the primary source of audience angst was the leud dancing of the ballet. That is not to say that they all liked the music of Rite, but it was the dancing that started the riot. So I was ignorant, misinformed, and posturing. I offered my personal experience like a drunk giving a speech at a High School. who might say, "don't follow my example. Whisky is evil. Don't touch it."

I don't understand why you seem to be trying to categorize my life experience, conclusions, and preferences into something that better fits your own paradigm. I am never OK with atonality. Atonality is always evil, and always wrong, whether it is indulged in by Williams or any other composer. Williams seems to be a primarily great composer, but if he used atonality, that use of atonality is evil. A person can commit both good and evil acts. That is a cornerstone of the Christian worldview. Everything done by someone who does evil is not an evil act. Hitler loved his dog, Mussolini made the trains run on time. Those were good acts, but they also ordered the deaths of millions of people which was evil. 

I hate to see any composer waste valuable time, our most precious possession, with atonality. But I believe in freedom to make our own mistakes if that is what we have to do. Another cornerstone of the Christian worldview. That does not mean that I have to like the mistakes, or that I will not try to warn others away from the danger.

Paul

@Paul McGraw said:

A person can commit both good and evil acts. That is a cornerstone of the Christian worldview. Everything done by someone who does evil is not an evil act. Hitler loved his dog, Mussolini made the trains run on time. Those were good acts, but they also ordered the deaths of millions of people which was evil. 

I hate to see any composer waste valuable time, our most precious possession, with atonality. But I believe in freedom to make our own mistakes if that is what we have to do. Another cornerstone of the Christian worldview. That does not mean that I have to like the mistakes, or that I will not try to warn others away from the danger.

Paul

I see, thats why you use the word evil...in the religious sense.

But the problem with religion is that every religion has its own world view and there are billions who do not believe in Christianity or your worldview.

Use of 'danger' and 'evil' with atonality makes no sense to me. I can sit and write counterpoint without a tonal center, will that make me sick? Will a tiger come and eat me? (I cant help here but reminisce the story of Giordano Bruno being burnt alive by the Catholic church for saying the earth is not the center of the universe). 

Sorry Paul, as far as I am cocnerned this ends the discussion between us. Any further argument will only make me express my views on religion, and possibly inflame you (which I really do not want to do), and which is not a topic relevant to this forum.

Let us hope to stick to music. You are an excellent composer and thats all I want to know.

Look forward to hearing more music from you.

Best

Anand

I agree with some of what Paul says - such as Schoenberg wanted to actually break with tonality which is exactly what serialsim was created to do -  but certainly don't think atonality is "evil."   I love a lot of atonal works because they create a new world of sound.  Besides - what is the most atonal sound of all?  The beautiful sound of ocean surf which is almost all white noise.  As far as I'm concerned music can be any sound from a single sine wave to white noise.  

btw - I have to respond to this CRAP:

"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."  - jsg

This is a perfect example of what this obnoxious guy always does - he distorts what someone says and then trashes the distortion.  (The main approach to propaganda by the way.)  I never said there was ONLY ONE MOVEMENT but there was always a singular great movement in the past.  Classicism is a perfect example that was prominent and approved of by the mainstream of music critics and orchestra directors, not to mention audiences.  The clashes OF COURSE were there - including the huge clash between the more classically oriented late Romantics like BRahms and Schumann on the one hand and Wagner and his followeres on the other.  There were many different individual composers who clashed - that is so patently obvious I didn't think it was necessary - except for somebody like Gerber apparently -  to spell that out.   But there WERE huge singular movements that were accepted as mainstream in general by the critics, historians and public alike.  Nowadays THERE IS NO MAINSTREAM - everything from Rap to Granular Synthesis to massed metronomes beating on a stage is given as music, and the music DOES EXIST IN A STATE OF TOTAL FRAGMENTATION LIKE ALL MODERN ART.  No one with the slightest knowledge of aesthetics, culture in general, trends in painting, sculpture, theater, literature, cinema and music today would dispute that - not for an instant. And yet Gerber thinks it is ridiculous. His arrogantly stated, obnoxiously worded contradiction is what is really ridiculous. 

Also I don't "sentimentalize" the past - that is absurd to me.  I shudder to think of the reigning bigotry of various sorts that almost any past society accepted wholeheartedly, with offical state sanction, including artistic ones.  So if somebody is trying to put me in the camp of anti-Modernists beloved of past eras he has the wrong person.  

Lastly - this bit:  I am doing  "...what people tend to do when they cannot cope with the challenges, complexities, diversity, influences and dynamism of the 21st century." - jsg 

Yes, jsg himself can deal with all this complexity today but I can't. Oh no!  The complexity, the challenges !  Here they come!  I can't deal with it!  I'll have to retreat into my sentimental vision of the wonderful glorious past... 

For your information jsg I find most inspiring music is modern, so your lame little attempt at trashing me is curiously misplaced.   In other words - you don't know what you're talking about when you attempt to judge or assess me.  Trust me, you are not even remotely up to the task. 

 Some of you might not wonder so much now as to why I get irate. It would seem as though some of the greatest composers of the last 100 years are spreading evil. I'd laugh at the Aesthetic Luddite if it wasn't for his reference to Hitler in a music forum.

It seems as though our tonal evangelist has the high and mighty musical ground and is not tolerant of voices better than his. The only word he is spreading is his own bigoted prejudice.

I hope his God understands because he sure doesn't. 

Mike,

It appears to me that bigotry and prejudice are your domain, not mine. So now you have a really good reason to ramp up your hate for me personally, I am a Christian. Horrors! You also did not read my post if you think Christianity is the reason I hate atonality. I was using Christian principals to demonstrate that people are capable of both good and bad actions. And that a person is not evil just because some of their actions are evil. But even an evil person is capable of some good actions.

These seem to be difficult distinctions for you. But it is crystal clear that you hate Christians.

This is the point where this thread is asking for being locked and deleted. Please get back to a more civilized, non-political and especially non-religious debate, everybody.

This entire thread is useless and disturbing.  I have decided to resign from this Forum because of it - it is nothing but people acting superior, trying to put down each other, trying to insult because they are better, etc. etc.  

This whole thing  is sickening and has nothing to do with the wonderful aspects of creating music.  I detest this kind of junk and am gone - goodbye and good riddance to you.    

Dietz - my apologies for contributing to this stupidity. 

@Dietz said:

This is the point where this thread is asking for being locked and deleted. Please get back to a more civilized, non-political and especially non-religious debate, everybody.

Thank you. Good decision. Personally I am done with the debate. It is just too depressing.

Paul

@William said:

This entire thread is useless and disturbing.  I have decided to resign from this Forum because of it - it is nothing but people acting superior, trying to put down each other, trying to insult because they are better, etc. etc.  

This whole thing  is sickening and has nothing to do with the wonderful aspects of creating music.  I detest this kind of junk and am gone - goodbye and good riddance to you.    

Dietz - my apologies for contributing to this stupidity. 

William,

If I contributed to your discomfort in any way I appologize to you personally. I sincerely hope you do not quit the forum, as you are one of the most important contributors. Since I personally have become the focus of so much negativity, I will not post to this thread again, and will attempt to avoid discussing my musical philosophy so as not to provoke others by offering a perspective that might upset them.

Paul.

Maybe let it end with some music (which is what I really wanted this to be all about)

something to aspire to? what else is the sky for?

Cheers

Anand