Who's afraid of 20th century music?

[steve_m]

Dear Steve, Mephisto and Jre:
 Thanks! Antheil...how did I forget him?
 By the way, I never heard about Mr. Mosei Weinberg. Could you, Steve, share some information about him with us?
 Best wishes!

Here's some information about him

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mieczyslaw_Weinberg

It says that "according to one reviewer he ranked as, "the third great Soviet composer, along with Prokofiev and Shostakovich." This is pretty surprising, considering the fact that nobody's ever heard of him.

[dnephi]

Who's afraid of incorrect spelling? 

I personally haven't warmed up past impressionistic, but I enjoy Rutter who is even contemporary, Ben Britten wrote Abraham and Isaac, which was surprisingly good. You know, there were some good 20th century composers.   

[mephisto]

Shchedrin rules.

[desordre]

 Dear Steve:
 Thanks for the link. I finally found him on Grove, under "Vaynberg". By the way, he's polish, although spend much of his life in Russia. This quotation is interesting, since it don't consider Stravinsky, who was not actually a "soviet" composer, but one shall pay attention to this political frame.

 Dear Dnephi:
 Sorry for any mistake... I do my best.

 Best wishes!

[jre58591]

Shchedrin rules.

indeed.

btw, *bump*

[soliloquy]

Modern music is a disgusting, cacophonic pile of trash that is worth less than the paper it is written on.  I personally hate anything that has too much counterpoint, dissonance, angularity or atonality.  I just don't understand it.  I'm never capable of grasping what the composer is trying to do, because I've had no musical training whatsoever, nor do I wish to put for any effort at all to try to understand it because I would much prefer to stay in the soothing, watered-down idiom of complete tonality.  Although my personal views may be somewhat slanted, because I have given modern music hardly any listening to at all, besides a few pieces that people have posted links to here.  I think that Ravel and Debussy are not as good composers as most people think they are.  I mean, why write a piece that is not based on harmony or melody, but on creating soundscapes?  Dutilleux is even worse!  That cello concerto, full of its meaningless sonorities and splashes of chromaticism makes me sick to listen to, even in the hands of the great Rostropovich; I'll stick to his Bach Unaccompanied Cello Suites, thank you (preferably the ones in major keys because they're much lighter; Prelude No. 1 from Suite No. 5 is ughhh; too much thinking involved when listening to that piece).  I like some of Scriabin's music, but not his late stuff.  It's so weird.  I mean, someone says "synthetic chord" to me and I go OH NO late Scriabin/Roslavets/Sorabji!  It all sounds so random to me; it's sorta pretty sometimes but it just isn't music like a Mozart Sonata is.  Don't even get me started on those serialist composers either.  Berg's Violin Concerto was written for his dead wife; she probably commited suicide from having to listen to his other stuff lol!  There's no passion in that piece; it's the only serialist piece I've heard and I refuse to listen to any other serialist works, although I do have to say I like Boulez's conducting in Stravinsky's Pulchinella Suite (anything else by Stravinsky I tend to stay away from- too crashy and bangy).  I think the worst are these... oh what are they called... "New Complexity" and "Stochastic" composers.  LOLLERCOASTER has anyone here heard Michael Finnissy's "English Country Tunes"?  My cats can do better than that!  I mean, it's obviously just TOTALLY random and completely pointless, or at least I don't see one.  I'll stick to my Purcell




PS- I will admit to having a liking to some of John William's movie scores and Philip Glass' Symphonies.

[ahinton]

Modern music is a disgusting, cacophonic pile of trash that is worth less than the paper it is written on.  I personally hate anything that has too much counterpoint, dissonance, angularity or atonality.  I just don't understand it.  I'm never capable of grasping what the composer is trying to do, because I've had no musical training whatsoever, nor do I wish to put for any effort at all to try to understand it because I would much prefer to stay in the soothing, watered-down idiom of complete tonality.  Although my personal views may be somewhat slanted, because I have given modern music hardly any listening to at all, besides a few pieces that people have posted links to here.  I think that Ravel and Debussy are not as good composers as most people think they are.  I mean, why write a piece that is not based on harmony or melody, but on creating soundscapes?  Dutilleux is even worse!  That cello concerto, full of its meaningless sonorities and splashes of chromaticism makes me sick to listen to, even in the hands of the great Rostropovich; I'll stick to his Bach Unaccompanied Cello Suites, thank you (preferably the ones in major keys because they're much lighter; Prelude No. 1 from Suite No. 5 is ughhh; too much thinking involved when listening to that piece).  I like some of Scriabin's music, but not his late stuff.  It's so weird.  I mean, someone says "synthetic chord" to me and I go OH NO late Scriabin/Roslavets/Sorabji!  It all sounds so random to me; it's sorta pretty sometimes but it just isn't music like a Mozart Sonata is.  Don't even get me started on those serialist composers either.  Berg's Violin Concerto was written for his dead wife; she probably commited suicide from having to listen to his other stuff lol!  There's no passion in that piece; it's the only serialist piece I've heard and I refuse to listen to any other serialist works, although I do have to say I like Boulez's conducting in Stravinsky's Pulchinella Suite (anything else by Stravinsky I tend to stay away from- too crashy and bangy).  I think the worst are these... oh what are they called... "New Complexity" and "Stochastic" composers.  LOLLERCOASTER has anyone here heard Michael Finnissy's "English Country Tunes"?  My cats can do better than that!  I mean, it's obviously just TOTALLY random and completely pointless, or at least I don't see one.  I'll stick to my Purcell

PS- I will admit to having a liking to some of John William's movie scores and Philip Glass' Symphonies.

All highly amusing, no doubt - especially to all those who have been members of this forum long enough to remember some of the content of certain previous posts from this member and to be able at the same time to recognise the difference between a genuine and a feigned Damascene conversion when one is put before them. Just for the record, it would be quite an achievement on the part of anyone who professes to "have given modern music hardly any listening to at all" to have even heard of Dutilleux and Finnissy, let alone to be able easily to name certain (albeit quite well-known) pieces by each - but then, since that is entirely obvious to all readers who have followed certain threads on this forum for a little while, I will appropriately desist from expanding on this...

That said (or unsaid, or whatever), it astonishes me that anyone would even consider initiating a thread with such a title. Why would (still less should) anyone be "afraid"(sp.) of the music (i.e., apparently by implication, all of the music) of any particular century just because it happened to be written in that particular century? Does such a notion admit of so much as a wisp of logic? I cannot imagine that it does so or could do so. To try to make it fit to the music of the 20th century, of all centuries, is arguably the most absurd aspect of this; the century just ended has given us by far the widest variety of musics of any in history, so to attempt to throw it all into any kind of artificially constructed arena wherein someone can then ask "who's afraid of" all of it - Dmitry Shostakovich and Elliott Carter, Malcolm Arnold and Iannis Xenakis, Harrison Birtwistle and Anthony Payne, Brian Ferneyhough and John Tavener (each member of which pair was born within two years of the other) is patently ridiculous.

I am not, however, suggesting that no music of any era might engender or incite certain kinds of fear in certain of its listeners - merely pointing out that this has little if anything to do with the era in which it was written and all to do with the levels of previous experience of each individual listener; only in a very limited number of instances might it reasonably be construed to have anything to do with the content of the music itself.

Best,

Alistair

[jre58591]

haha da legendary return of da skepto.

[steve_m]

Modern music is a disgusting, cacophonic pile of trash that is worth less than the paper it is written on.  I personally hate anything that has too much counterpoint, dissonance, angularity or atonality.  I just don't understand it.  I'm never capable of grasping what the composer is trying to do, because I've had no musical training whatsoever, nor do I wish to put for any effort at all to try to understand it because I would much prefer to stay in the soothing, watered-down idiom of complete tonality.  Although my personal views may be somewhat slanted, because I have given modern music hardly any listening to at all, besides a few pieces that people have posted links to here.  I think that Ravel and Debussy are not as good composers as most people think they are.  I mean, why write a piece that is not based on harmony or melody, but on creating soundscapes?  Dutilleux is even worse!  That cello concerto, full of its meaningless sonorities and splashes of chromaticism makes me sick to listen to, even in the hands of the great Rostropovich; I'll stick to his Bach Unaccompanied Cello Suites, thank you (preferably the ones in major keys because they're much lighter; Prelude No. 1 from Suite No. 5 is ughhh; too much thinking involved when listening to that piece).  I like some of Scriabin's music, but not his late stuff.  It's so weird.  I mean, someone says "synthetic chord" to me and I go OH NO late Scriabin/Roslavets/Sorabji!  It all sounds so random to me; it's sorta pretty sometimes but it just isn't music like a Mozart Sonata is.  Don't even get me started on those serialist composers either.  Berg's Violin Concerto was written for his dead wife; she probably commited suicide from having to listen to his other stuff lol!  There's no passion in that piece; it's the only serialist piece I've heard and I refuse to listen to any other serialist works, although I do have to say I like Boulez's conducting in Stravinsky's Pulchinella Suite (anything else by Stravinsky I tend to stay away from- too crashy and bangy).  I think the worst are these... oh what are they called... "New Complexity" and "Stochastic" composers.  LOLLERCOASTER has anyone here heard Michael Finnissy's "English Country Tunes"?  My cats can do better than that!  I mean, it's obviously just TOTALLY random and completely pointless, or at least I don't see one.  I'll stick to my Purcell .

FINALLY someone with some sense!

[jre58591]

FINALLY someone with some sense!

he was kidding.

[steve_m]

he was kidding.

I know.

[soliloquy]

he was kidding.

true.  The sarcasm in my last post can only be measured on the Richter Scale.  I shall translate:

Modern music is a disgusting, cacophonic pile of trash that is worth less than the paper it is written on. 

Modern music can be gorgeous or can be cacophonic, therefore it is idiotic to try to define all of the movements and works in the genre "modern".  While some is disgusting trash that is worth less than the paper it is written on, much of it is some of the best music ever produced.


I personally hate anything that has too much counterpoint, dissonance, angularity or atonality. 

I personally enjoy works many that are seeping with heavy counterpoint, dissonance, angularity and atonality.


I just don't understand it.

I may enjoy it more than others because I understand it.


I'm never capable of grasping what the composer is trying to do, because I've had no musical training whatsoever,

I am usually capable of grasping what the composer is trying to do, because I have studied it deeply,


nor do I wish to put forth any effort at all to try to understand it

which does take some effort, and is sometimes necessary to fully appreciate many modern works,


because I would much prefer to stay in the soothing, watered-down idiom of complete tonality.

but I would be willing to say that the effort is by far "worth it" for anyone who has the capacity, because staying in the boring, watered-down idiom of complete tonality is for boring and watered-down people.


Although my personal views may be somewhat slanted, because I have given modern music hardly any listening to at all, besides a few pieces that people have posted links to here.

Although my personal views may be somewhat slanted, because my personal tastes lend to modernism and away from early periods of music.


I think that Ravel and Debussy are not as good composers as most people think they are.  I mean, why write a piece that is not based on harmony or melody, but on creating soundscapes?

I think Ravel and Debussy, who are modern, are two of the greatest composers we have yet to produce.  Their innovative compositional style created new sounds, which display a complete range of emotion, from joy to sorrow.  Whoever made the comment about Debussy's Etude No. 3 in relation to not having Harmony should be beaten, because not only does the piece indeed have harmony and theme, this is rarely the focus of Debussy's work, as anyone who knows anything about Impressionist music could tell you.


Dutilleux is even worse!

Dutilleux is one of my favorite composers!


That cello concerto, full of its meaningless sonorities and splashes of chromaticism makes me sick to listen to,

That Cello Concerto, full of its thematic sonorities and splashes of chromaticism wrenches my heart


even in the hands of the great Rostropovich; I'll stick to his Bach Unaccompanied Cello Suites, thank you (preferably the ones in major keys because they're much lighter; Prelude No. 1 from Suite No. 5 is ughhh; too much thinking involved when listening to that piece).

particularly in the hands of the great Rostropovich; I dare say I even prefer it to his Bach Unaccompanied Cello Suites, thank you (especially the ones in major keys because they're not as deep; Prelude No. 1 from Suite No. 5 is one of the greatest solo cello pieces ever written though; the use of counterpoint is astonishing).


I like some of Scriabin's music, but not his late stuff.  It's so weird.

I love most of Scriabin's music, particularly his late stuff.  It's so atmospheric.


I mean, someone says "synthetic chord" to me and I go OH NO late Scriabin/Roslavets/Sorabji!  It all sounds so random to me; it's sorta pretty sometimes but it just isn't music like a Mozart Sonata is.

I mean, someone says "synthetic chord" to me and I go OOOH late Scriabin/Roslavets/Sorabji!  It's so evocative and beautiful; I do think it is unfair to compare it to a Mozart Sonata though because the compositional style and technique is so different, but I would say they are in general no worse music than Mozart's.


Don't even get me started on those serialist composers either.

Don't even get me started on those serialist composers either.


Berg's Violin Concerto was written for his dead wife; she probably commited suicide from having to listen to his other stuff lol!  There's no passion in that piece; it's the only serialist piece I've heard and I refuse to listen to any other serialist works,

Berg's Violin Concerto was written for his dead wife, and evokes as much sorrow and emotion as any piece from the Romantic Era, and was the piece that inspired my delving into modern music in the first place,


although I do have to say I like Boulez's conducting in Stravinsky's Pulchinella Suite (anything else by Stravinsky I tend to stay away from- too crashy and bangy).

and I think these baseless jabs at Boulez are just immature and are obviously coming from people who do not understand what he's doing with his music.


I think the worst are these... oh what are they called... "New Complexity" and "Stochastic" composers.

I think some of the most innovative and interesting composers are the New Complexity and Stochastic composers, whose works are generally not readily aurally accessible but are some of the most complex and important pieces written, and will pave the way for the future of classical music.


LOLLERCOASTER has anyone here heard Michael Finnissy's "English Country Tunes"?  My cats can do better than that!  I mean, it's obviously just TOTALLY random and completely pointless, or at least I don't see one.

Haha has anyone here heard Michael Finnissy's "English Country Tunes"?  I doubt there are many composers alive today that could produce a work of that magnitude and imagination.  While it may SOUND random and pointless, it is not, but this is what most people stuck in Bach-Beethoven-Brahms will hear because they are usually not educated on the material.


I'll stick to my Purcell

HOW THE HELL CAN YOU PEOPLE LISTEN TO SEDATING CRAP LIKE PURCELL AND THEN BADMOUTH RAVEL?!?


PS- I will admit to having a liking to some of John William's movie scores and Philip Glass' Symphonies.

PS- I will admit to having a liking for some of Scarlatti's Sonatas and Bach's works for solo string instruments.

[jre58591]

well said, brotha. if only more people shared these tastes.

[desordre]

 Mr(s). Hinton:

(...)
That said (or unsaid, or whatever), it astonishes me that anyone would even consider initiating a thread with such a title. (...)

Measure your words, please. I did start this thread. The title is nothing but a joke, but my point is serious, if you did mind to read the whole thing. Since I am part of this forum, I noticed that some people just don't like/enjoy/understand/play 20th century music, disregarding its obvious diferences and its multiplicity.
 By the way, it was not me that used "20th century music" or "modern music" or "contemporary music" as an umbrella term. It's the same thing when someone say that "don't like early music" or - for that matter - that don't like any genre or composer: how could a musician, at least a serious one, say something without a thorough and wide knowledge of the example in question?
 Last but not least, it's sad to see that one of our most distinguished members could be so rude.

 

[pies]

I hate it when critics of 20th century music make the claim that those who enjoy the music force themselves to enjoy it or do so only to seem 'sophisticated'.
This has probably been addressed at some point in this thread, but I'm too lazy to read it.

[ahinton]

Mr(s). Hinton: Measure your words, please. I did start this thread. The title is nothing but a joke, but my point is serious, if you did mind to read the whole thing. Since I am part of this forum, I noticed that some people just don't like/enjoy/understand/play 20th century music, disregarding its obvious diferences and its multiplicity.
 By the way, it was not me that used "20th century music" or "modern music" or "contemporary music" as an umbrella term. It's the same thing when someone say that "don't like early music" or - for that matter - that don't like any genre or composer: how could a musician, at least a serious one, say something without a thorough and wide knowledge of the example in question?
 Last but not least, it's sad to see that one of our most distinguished members could be so rude.
 

Let me take your points one at a time.
It is indeed "Mr.".
You ask that I "measure" my words", but you do not immediately say against what you would like them to be measured. Your thread tiotle does on of itself obviously convey that it is is meant as a joke; this fact is only obvious now that you declare that this was indeed your intention. Let me hasten to assure you that no rudeness towards you was intended by me. I took your title at face value when making the remarks to which you have objected and, had I known that it was meant as a joke, instead of writing - as I did - that
"it astonishes me that anyone would even consider initiating a thread with such a title"
(which is, I think, the remark to which you ascribe rudeness on my part), I would have written that
"it astonishes me that anyone could expect to be taken seriously for claiming to be afraid of the music of one particular century just because it happened to be composed in that century", thereby appropriately exonerating you from any personal idntification with such people. Indeed, now that you have made your meaning - and your stance - clearer, I find myself in agreement with what you write (as would otherwise have been largely obvious from the remainder of what I wrote previously).

I hope that this clears the air and that you now understand that no aspersions were intended to be cast upon you in what I wrote.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I would be willing to say that the effort is by far "worth it" for anyone who has the capacity, because staying in the boring, watered-down idiom of complete tonality is for boring and watered-down people.

Whilst this notion is not entirely unfounded, it might one sense be seen to imply that "tonality" and a state of "watered-down-ness" are somehow by definition inevitably synonymous, which is, of course, far from being the case. A vast corpus of expressive means is available within a tonal language, just as it is within an "atonal" one, provided that the tonal or "atonal" composer has the imagination and the technical expertise to avail him/herself of it to the full.

my personal tastes lend to modernism and away from early periods of music.

I think that you mean either "tend" or "lean", rather than "lend". Whilst individual tastes inevitably form and develop themselves according to each individual's inner persuasions (as indeed they should, otherwise the danger of "received opinion" rears itself), it might be a pity to be unduly strong in one's personal rejection of music of earlier eras. Take, for example, a comparison between two excellent quartets; the Arditti, who for more than three decades have performed almost exclusively the music of the past 100 years or so - and the Pacifica, who perform some of the most challenging music in the Arditti's repertoire but also play Haydn, Mozart, Schubert, etc.; the latter, in their work, maintain - both for themselves as an ensemble and for their audiences - those extraordinary connections that have kept the medium of string quartet continuously alive for so very long - from Haydn to Xenakis, from Mozart to Ferneyhough, from Schubert to Carter, etc.

I think Ravel and Debussy, who are modern, are two of the greatest composers we have yet to produce.  Their innovative compositional style created new sounds, which display a complete range of emotion, from joy to sorrow.  Whoever made the comment about Debussy's Etude No. 3 in relation to not having Harmony should be beaten, because not only does the piece indeed have harmony and theme, this is rarely the focus of Debussy's work, as anyone who knows anything about Impressionist music could tell you.

I think that, by
"we have yet to produce"
you mean
"who have so far lived"; for one thing, "we" have not produced them (their respective parents did) but, more importantly (and less pedantically!), they have already existed. With the remainder of what you write here I agree entirely (except that there's no point in beating anyone because they appear incapable of recognising the value of Debussy's piano études); some of Ravel's greatest work indeed happened to form a substantial part of my earliest musical experiences before I was plummeted into the works of the post-WWII Darmstadt era. The only point at which I might be inclined to take issue with you here (and it is in any case only one of semantics rather than of real substance) is your use of the term "modern"; what I take you to mean (and, if I am correct in so doing, I agree with you entirely) is that these two composers seem to be perpetually new, so "modern" in the sense of permanently fresh-sounding rather than "modern" in the sense of fashionably outré - Sorabji used to say that the problem with so much music that is very "modern" (in the fashion-of-the-moment sense) is that is is apt to come to sound alarmingly passé in a very short space of time.

Dutilleux is one of my favorite composers!
...
That Cello Concerto, full of its thematic sonorities and splashes of chromaticism wrenches my heart

So what does the even more wonderful Violin Concerto - with its most engaging title l'Arbre des Songes - do to and for you?! Dutilleux is indeed one of the most remarkable of living composers. My only regret is that he has released so very little music in his long creative career. Even as he approaches the age of 91, he is still giving us very few works, whereas his even older contemporary Carter (who has on several occasions expressed his admiration for Dutilleux), as he approaches 98, is pouring out fresh music at an almost alarming rate - and at an age greater than that of any other known composer except Ornstein (and even he was packing up at this age).

Berg's Violin Concerto was written for his dead wife, and evokes as much sorrow and emotion as any piece from the Romantic Era, and was the piece that inspired my delving into modern music in the first place

Pardon me, but it wasn't, actually. Berg's wife Helena outlived him for many years. The violin concerto was written "In Memory of an Angel" and the dedicatee was a young lady to whom the composer was not married. It nevertheles evokes just what you say it does. It is now so popular and widely performed that it has become almost standard repertoire! It is indeed a great and moving work - and as good a place as any to begin one's explorations of the music of the last century.

and I think these baseless jabs at Boulez are just immature and are obviously coming from people who do not understand what he's doing with his music.

I'd go farther here and suggest that they are often - if not always - made by those who may have heard some of his music from the late 1940s to the early 1960s but who have never heard a note of his more recent works; Boulez has, it seems to me, has moved on quote some distance and become far more obviously "French" - and, indeed, rather more approachable (in the best sense of the word - i.e. not meaning "by being more compromising") - in his later works. I do wish, however, that he'd spend more time conducting the music of Dutilleux!

most people stuck in Bach-Beethoven-Brahms will hear because they are usually not educated on the material.

I would venture to suggest that anyone who allows him/herself to get "stuck" (what a revolting prospect!) in Bach, Beethoven and Brahms is - apart from anything else - denying him/herself a lot of what each and all of those three great and innovative composers had and have to offer; I also suggest that the idea of being "stuck" in such composers' work would have been utter anathema to each of those composers themselves, just as it is to you and I (and surely to plenty of others).

Best,

Alistair

[mephisto]

For those who love Boulez, what do you see in his music?

Remember this is just a question, nothing more.

And before Hinton answers, by the word "see" I don`t mean that everybody should visualise what they hear, it is just an expression.

[ahinton]

For those who love Boulez, what do you see in his music?

Remember this is just a question, nothing more.

And before Hinton answers, by the word "see" I don`t mean that everybody should visualise what they hear, it is just an expression.

I wasn't going to answer, actually - although I thyink that everyone who may do so will take it as understood that by "see" you mean "hear".

Over to everyone else who wants to say something about Boulez...

Best,

Alistair

[mephisto]

http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=8692

nuff said

[ahinton]

http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=8692

nuff said

I - and surely others - had thought that you were going to leave it open to others to comment on this music in this forum before you added any comment of your own (or, as in this instance, of somene else but with which you presumably identify). Whilst not seeking to undermine what you have drawn attention to here, I do rather wish that you had left others more opportunity to respond to your invitation before doing this.

Just my view, for what it may or may not be worth...

Best,

Alistair

[mephisto]

I just showed the perspective of someone else.

The nuff said comment was of course childiss.

[pies]

And before Hinton answers, by the word "see" I don`t mean that everybody should visualise what they hear, it is just an expression.

[ahinton]

I don't know what happened to the response that I posted to this - so I'll repost it - and it is that I am well aware that "mephisto"'s notion of "seeing" is obviously about "hearing" - so no more need be said about that...

I am still waiting - as, perhaps, is "mephisto", and maybe others, too - for some response re the music of Boulez...

Best,

Alistair

[soliloquy]

[various things]


Best,

Alistair

Sorry about the Berg Violin Concerto mixup.  I have apparently been grossly misinformed =/

Is it possible that when I say "we have produced" I refer to the human race, EG a particular group within the human race EG Ravel's and Debussy's respective parents?   Unless you intend to insinuate that when I say "we" I am not refering to humans, but some other life-form, and if so, might I ask what life-form you are, so that when I use the word "we" it conjures the connotation in your mind of something other than humans?   

I can't honestly say whether I like Dutilleux's Cello Concerto or Violin Concerto (L'Arbre des Songes or Sur le Meme Accord) more, or even the Symphony No. 2 which I am slowly growing more and more fond of.  They are all such just... I hesitate to say "perfect" but...  I suppose it depends on what mood I'm in, but I probably listen to them at least a few times a week =D  And the Piano Sonata isn't exactly bad either   Haven't quite been able to get into "Ainsi la Nuit" yet though unfortunately.

Also, my "watered-down" comment I think might have not been elaborated on enough, due to the form in which I was writing that post.  I'm not saying that "all tonal music" is watered-down, nor am I saying "all tonal music" is watered-down compared to all/any modern music.  I am saying that the lack of adventurism in people who refuse to listen or even TRY to listen to anything that isn't completely (or almost completely) tonal is sort of wussy-ish.


Okie dokie!  Before I attempt to take on the daunting task regarding Boulez that has been brought up, I decided to do a rather quick and reudementary (Ali, feel free to correct my spelling on that because I have no idea =P) sort of spreadsheet of some key pieces, in not necessarily chronological order, that some people interested in sort of "getting into" more modern music might check out, ranging from what I think will probably be the most to least easily accessible (with emphasis on piano).


Faure Nocturnes for Piano --> Faure Requiem Mass --> Debussy "Suite Bergamasque" --> Ravel String Quartet --> Ravel "La Valse" --> Debussy Images Suites I/II --> Ravel Gaspard de la Nuit --> Ravel Miroirs --> Delius Cello Concerto --> Dutilleux Piano Sonata --> Dutilleux Violin Concerto "L'Arbre des Songes" --> Dutilleux Symphony No. 2 --> Prin "Ephemere" --> Messiaen Quartet for the End of Time --> Messiaen Vingt Regards sur l'Enfant-Jesus

Medtner Piano Sonata "Night Wind" --> Scriabin Piano Sonata No. 4 --> Roslavets Violin Sonata No. 6 --> Sorabji Quasi-Habanera Op. 8 --> Scriabin Piano Sonata No. 10 --> Scriabin Three Etudes Op. 65 --> Roslavets Piano Sonata No. 5 --> Ornstein Piano Sonata No. 4 --> Sorabji Piano Sonata No. 1 --> Vine Piano Sonata No. 1 --> Sciarrino Nocturnes

Gershwin Rhapsody in Blue --> Gershwin Piano Concerto --> Rozsa Violin Concerto Op. 24 --> Bartok Violin Concerto No. 2 --> Hindemith Violin Concerto --> Barber Capricorn Concerto --> Stravinsky The Rite of Spring --> Corigliano Symphony No. 1 --> Rzewski North American Ballads --> Antheil Ballet Mechanique --> Ligeti Etudes Book I --> Corigliano Etude Fantasy --> Bolcom 12 New Etudes --> Danielpour Preludes Book II --> Dusapin 7 Etudes pour Piano

Berg Violin Concerto --> Webern Variations Op. 27 --> Schoenberg Six Little Pieces --> Babbitt Semi-Simple Variations --> Boulez Premiere Sonate pour Piano --> Berg Lulu --> Boulez Troisieme Sonata pour Piano --> Bussotti "Pour Clavier" --> Boulez Deuxieme Sonate pour Piano --> Barraque Sonate --> Stockhausen Klavierstuck VI --> Wuorinen Percussion Quartet

Glass String Quartet No. 5 --> Szymanowski Violin Concerto No. 1 --> Kodaly Solo Cello Sonata --> Khachaturian Piano Concerto --> Rautavaara Symphony No. 7 --> Bartok Sonata for Two Pianos and Percussion --> Britten Violin Concerto --> Bartok String Quartets --> Schnittke Symphony No. 8 --> Schnittke Cello Concerto No. 2 --> Hindemith Ludus Tonalis --> Lutoslawski Paganini Variations --> Lutoslawski Concerto for Orchestra --> Penderecki Symphony No. 1 --> Berio Ekphrasis --> Penderecki Cello Concerto No. 1 --> Penderecki Capriccio for Violin and Orchestra --> Penderecki Kanon

Nancarrow Sonatina --> Xenakis Metastasis --> Vivier "Shiraz" --> Xenakis a r. --> Finnissy "Alkan-Paganini" --> Xenakis Evryali --> Ferneyhough Opus Contra Naturam --> Xenakis "Herma" Musique Symbolique --> Xenakis Erikhthon --> Finnissy English Country Tunes


Anyone feel free to change or add things to this.  Probably some gaping holes since it's off the top of my head.






Ok onto one mister Pierre Boulez.

For those who love Boulez, what do you see in his music?

Early Boulez, late Boulez, Boulez as a conductor, Boulez as an innovator, Boulez as a teacher, Boulez as a person?


1- Early works of Boulez.  Most of Boulez's early work is heavily atonal, or possibly more appropriately anti-tonal, which may sort of scare off a lot of listeners.  To be honest, to enjoy most of his music on a simply aural level, you should probably be a big fan of serialism, and maybe a bit of violence.  So on that level, a lot of people that "see something" in Boulez are people who enjoy serialist music.  His early music is also sometimes heavily stochastic and formulaic, so many appreciaters of Boulez are so on an intellectual level, the same way some people might appreciate Carter or Xenakis; particuarly, when refering to his early music, in the development of Integral Serialism (serialization of dynamics, articulation etc).

2- Late works of Boulez.  Might I ask have you heard any of his more recent works?  As mister Hinton said earlier, they have started to steer away from the radical atonality of his earlier works and start to drift into more... well... definitively "impressionist" or "polystylistic" type music.  As Schnittke said, every composer goes through a "serialist puberty"; I guess Boulez was just a late bloomer   You might enjoy them.

3- Boulez as a conductor.  I don't really think any elaboration on this is required assuming you've heard his interpretations of the works of Ravel, Debussy, Mahler, Stravinsky, Bartok and Ligeti.

4- Boulez as an innovator.  Boulez is comparable to the likes of Henry Cowell, John Cage, Iannis Xenakis, Olivier Messiaen, Charles Ives, George Gershwin, Alexander Scriabin and Arnold Schoenberg as far as his level of impact on music is concerned.  The developments he made in Musique Concrete (along with Barraque, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Adams and Cage), in Pitch Multiplications, Polyvalence, Indeterminacy, Integral Serialism and in Aleatoric composition are most-likely immeasurable, and his championing of these forms of composition definitely contributed to their growth.

5- Boulez as a teacher.  Along with his composing and conducting, he also teaches in Paris (College de France), and is still making advances there in aleatoric and stochastic composition with his programs.  Boulez also, with the help of the then-president, formed IRCAM, a music school primarily devoted to furthering electronic music.

6- Boulez as a person.  Boulez is an insecure, arrogant, egomaniac, who tended to get into little battles with other composers like John Cage and Karlheinz Stockhausen; he's a very colorful person.  How can you not love someone who had wars with composers?


Well, there's my brief synopsis on Boulez.  Hope it clarifies a couple things.

[mephisto]

I haven`t heard his later works. I will try to do that.

And he is of course a great conducter.

Are you moved in any way, by his early compositions? Ornstein`s danse sauvage on the other hand is much more violent than Boulez 2nd sonata, yet I love the piece to death, it has melody, clear rythm, and cool cluster chords.

Do you really think that this serial technic og Boulez was so innovative? I admit that I don`t fully understand the principles of serialism my self, but considering the efforts of:
The late romantics->Schoenberg->Webern->Messiaen, what was it that was so amazing about what Boulez did? Remember this is just a question I am asking because I don`t know, not because I am trying to proove something.