@agitato said:

"I have thought more about my comments about plagiarism. It can be a harsh word as it implies some kind of moral judgement. I think a better term, that isn't so tied up with legal definitions is a "lack of ability to engage in original thinking"." -jsg

Ok, probably 'unoriginal' would have been a better choice of word than plagiarism. But I see your point. You did explain it in the previous post but I hadnt read it fully.

"I am more inclined to listen to atonality when I know the composer has technical prowess for the reasons stated above. Incredibly though, when I was studying at a well known institution, I met fellow student composers who did not know how to write fugues or even textbook counterpoint. Or had no real concept of competent 4 part harmonic writing, let alone any extended harmony. These very same composers where writing atonaly and being encouraged to do so. It seems as though the paradigm in institutions was (and perhaps still is) to encourage free thinking and divorce from common practice -mh7635

This is fascinating to me. I havent studied music full time in a university but took only a few courses. so I wasnt aware that student composers, at least in some universities did not even know how to write 4 part harmony! 

If a child scribbles on a piece of paper its not art. But if Picasso scribbles, its entirely different, since his mind was highly trainined in classical painting and multiple other art forms. I was in the Picasso museum once and was blown away by his classical paintings....couldnt tell them from Rembrandt or caravaggio!  It was with that background that he broke the rules. 

Same with music. 

more later. ...

We should keep in mind that the so-called "rules" of music, i.e. classical harmony, modal, tonal and modern counterpoint, etc., are not rules at all, but rather generalizations and extrapolations based on what a given set of composers did in a certain period of music history.   The purpose of theory is not tell composers how to write music, nor is it to predict how future music should be written. The deeper and more true purpose of music theory is to teach musicians how to listen more deeply to the inner voices, to detail, to subtle levels of harmonic and melodic tension, to feel rhythm in mind and body.   The past isn't meant to be copied, it is meant to be understood and assimilated, and from that point the subjectivity and individuality of the composer takes over, or at least it ought to. 

Yet, at the same time, the "rules" often express what composers return to time and time again:  obviously there are certain patterns of sound that resonate, give us pleasure and meaning, and therefore we continue to use scales, chord structures and other musical components that have been used before..  But a good composer somehow can do this without cliche, without sounding like the music was written 100 or 200 or 300 years ago.  Ability and skill are what we acquire through education, practice and repetition, talent is what we are born with and to my mind talent is connected to the uniqueness of individual personality, or what we call originality.  Some composers have it and some do not.

I honestly don't find that Salonen piece that creative, it just sound like more early 20th century music to me

I think this Ciupinski piece is more creative. harmonically speaking it's not adventurous but the use of instruments and certainly in terms of soundscape and the way voices play with each other. the organization of the parts i suppose. i mean even the use of harmonic glissandi is in a context we don't usually here (horror etc...)

https://vimeo.com/213449699

as far as the direction of music, personally we are not going to see music get more complex on a grand scale, if the trends of music are any indication people prefer simplicity. as far as concert music goes, i think a more profound marriage between synthetic instruments and electronics and not in a noise art context, 

Re: This Ciupinski piece - very 1980s, and pleasant enough, but like a lot of music these days, so uninspired and uninteresting... No meat...

It's all subjective of course; or is it?

Thanks for sharing the Ciupinski...I havent heard of him.

Very nice piece and was a pleasure to hear, as Errikos says. Lots of interesting textures while being accessible tonally (by that I mean it has recognizable melodies)..and thats where I think Salonen is different. I find Salonen piece more tonally intriguing (i.e., less recognizable scales or patterns that you normally hear) while being texturally more restrained (although he is not so reastrained in his other peices). I think this is harder to achieve. Although this is subjective, technically I think Salonen piece is of a much higher class although I am no expert to judge.

Here is a violin+orchestra combination that is "accessible" while being very very rich and modern orchestrally:

red Violin Chaconne

@agitato said:

If a child scribbles on a piece of paper its not art. But if Picasso scribbles, its entirely different, since his mind was highly trainined in classical painting and multiple other art forms. I was in the Picasso museum once and was blown away by his classical paintings....couldnt tell them from Rembrandt or caravaggio!  It was with that background that he broke the rules. 

Same with music.

I completely disagree. A scribble is the same scribble no matter who the doodler was. If an experienced pilot crashes a plane killing all on board, it is no less of a crash because he was experienced. The idea that atonal sound is less offensive because the noise maker should have know better does not make the noise less noxious. Accepting atonal noise as art is just another sympton of the corruption of post modernist relativism.

Paul,

Noxious? corrupt? Perhaps you just do not like it and perhaps that would have been the best way to express your opinion, unless you want to be as offensive as the atonality you dislike, do you? The internet is a vehicle for free speech, so do not be surprised when insulting, demeaning adjectives like yours are challenged in an equally forthright way. I write atonally at times and I do not consider myself noxious or corrupt because of it and so find your blinkered, prejudicial comments highly offensive.

Your attitude tells me all I need to know about you and I am grateful for all the great musicians and composers of the last 100 years who are forever beyond your comprehension.

@mh-7635 said:

 

Paul,

Noxious? corrupt? Perhaps you just do not like it and perhaps that would have been the best way to express your opinion, unless you want to be as offensive as the atonality you dislike, do you? The internet is a vehicle for free speech, so do not be surprised when insulting, demeaning adjectives like yours are challenged in an equally forthright way. I write atonally at times and I do not consider myself noxious or corrupt because of it and so find your blinkered, prejudicial comments highly offensive.

Your attitude tells me all I need to know about you and I am grateful for all the great musicians and composers of the last 100 years who are forever beyond your comprehension.

Good for you MH. You have taken the high road. Instead of insulting me personally, or denigrating my knowledge, you have chosen to defend the artistic merit of ugliness. Wow, if only I was enlightened and thoughtful in my comments about noxious and corrupt music.

Just a little consideration of others would do here Paul before you upload your bigoted opinion. Otherwise flamewars start as you have found out here before.

We all have differences of opinion when it comes to music so let's be respectful to that fact and post accordingly. i said last time we spoke that my comments where not ad hominem and neither is this, although what you seem to be missing is that your comments are also a damning of composers who write atonaly too.

@mh-7635 said:

Just a little consideration of others would do here Paul before you upload your bigoted opinion. Otherwise flamewars start as you have found out here before.

We all have differences of opinion when it comes to music so let's be respectful to that fact and post accordingly. i said last time we spoke that my comments where not ad hominem and neither is this, although what you seem to be missing is that your comments are also a damning of composers who write atonaly too.

Hi mh,

Leaving sarcasm aside, despite how much fun it is, please carefully read my post and your posts.

You say I should show consideration of others, so are you showing me consideration? The only "flamewar" is being conducted by you, now isn't it? If we all have differences of opinion and should be respectful of others and post accordingly, why are you not being respectful of what you call my "opinon?" Seriously, are you being respectufl towards me?

Please look up the definition of "ad hominem." Your post is an EXACT example of an ad hominem attack. And while you keep attacking me personally, I have not "damned" any composer, even those who chose to write ugly, obnoxious and disgusting atonal music. I am damning the music. This is not a diffiuclt distinction to make. 

However, I do think that while you are looking in the dictionary for "ad hominem" you should also look up the word "hypocritical." Perhaps while you are looking in the dictionary you can find more insults to fling at me personally.  You might need some more amunition after my next paragraph. 

Atonal and avant-gard music are like a house of mirrors. The mirrors turn what is true and natural into distortion and ugliness.

I can't attack you personally Paul as I don't know you. I am attacking your position and use of inflammatory language, perhaps re-read the definition. If you don't understand that music is inextricably linked to its creator and is a distillation of personal expression then you will never accept any responsibility here for the implication of insult.

I've called you out for your opinion and you have taken it personally and now seem hell bent on stoking this  even further. Good luck with that, I can't really be bothered with your small minded aesthetics and disparaging words.

Paul and mh,

please, I think this is escalating into something unnecesary, I am sure both of you fundamentally love classical music and musical instruments and thats why we are all here. If we all got together in a concert hall we would all be friends and equally thrilled to hear any good music.

mh,

I dont think Paul meant anything personal against you. He just has a different preference on where music should go. The choice of words may not be the best, but then he is speaking his mind and thats important to know what he really feels about this.

Paul,

your views are interesting and thanks for being honest about them. I am not an avid fan of avant garde music or anything. However I find it extremely intriguing and I am infintiely curious about it, to the extent that I do not believe it is corrupt or nonsense. (You would not really call the Salonen or Ives peices atonal noise would you? If you listen to them on good speakers or headphones the sound is just AMAZING. The thing is they are using the same instruments of a classical orchestra to create the most innovative sounds. It wouldn't take much time to realize these are geniuses. 

The key is that I do not understand whats going on. For someone to criticize some piece of art, or call it nonsense, they should have understood it right? So I believe there is something there that I find very intriguiing that I do not understand and I would like to learn.

I feel about many modern works much the same way as I first heard Brahms after several years of only knowing Mozart and Beethoven. or Wagner after Brahms, or the feeling of hearing Stravinsky after hearing music up to Wagner and Mahler. The evolution of western classical music over the last 400 years is fundametally based on bold innovations in both exploring the tonal landscape and in instrumental design. As far as I know this is different from any other type of music in the world. 

 Of course, you can say it makes no sense trying to understand a 'scribble' as there is nothing meaningful in it. But you and I know when we hear Charles Ives Holiday Symphony or Salonen's violin concerto that these are no scribbles of a child. Or take this symphony of Corigliano. 

Would you also say that the Rite of Spring is corrupt? Audiences could not understand this piece in 1912, But Stravinsky was taking music in entirely new directions. It took me lots of hearing to appreciate it but once I got what he was trying to do, it just gives me goosebumps everytime I hear it. The way instruments are used, the use of polytonality, polyrhythm etc. etc.,... and the sound is truly visceral if you hear it live.

Similarly there are compoers today who are taking music in new directions. Thats the way western classical music evolves...its like engineering and science. No one can stop its growth wheather they like it or not, since it is based on curiosity and a solid structural framework that was built over centuries starting from Bach and Haydn.

Of course, its a personal choice what you prefer to listen to or create. I once knew a guy who used to hate any music that came after Beethoven, calling it pure noise.

But music will not stop!

Cheers

Anand

re you sure

@mh-7635 said:

I can't attack you personally Paul as I don't know you. I am attacking your position and use of inflammatory language, perhaps re-read the definition. If you don't understand that music is inextricably linked to its creator and is a distillation of personal expression then you will never accept any responsibility here for the implication of insult.

I've called you out for your opinion and you have taken it personally and now seem hell bent on stoking this  even further. Good luck with that, I can't really be bothered with your small minded aesthetics and disparaging words.

Hi mh,

You are correct that you do not know me. It would have been prudent to have thought about that before attacking me. So in your mind, any criticism of a piece of music is a criticism of its creator? Is that right? Are you certain you can live with that? You will never again be able to say anything critical about any piece of music without knowing that you are being critical of its creator?

I'm glad you are giving up on your "flame war" and your "calling me out", because this has gotten terribly boring.

Hi agitato,

Thanks for making the effort to be a peacemaker. Doing so is rare in our culture, almost as rare as humility, which you have also demonstrated to your credit.

I am 64. I graduated with a degree in music composition in 1976. I studied 20th century techniques extensively and graduated based on a senior recital of my own compositions, made up entirely of noxious, corrupt and ugly atonal and avant-garde music. It was not until I was older, and gained some small amount of wisdom that I realized what a fool I had been.

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. Mozart never sent audiences screaming for the exits, yet he was a true genius. Do you think less of Mozart because he was not an innovator? I used to, but I do not any longer. 

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?

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.

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