Ultimate Modernism-hater discussions + Vents

[thalbergmad]

Having done my own research, this could be the man.

http://www.sfcv.org/2008/04/08/opening-a-bag-of-tricks/

What creativity.

Thal

[indutrial]

Having done my own research, this could be the man.

http://www.sfcv.org/2008/04/08/opening-a-bag-of-tricks/

What creativity.

Thal

Why spend time looking it up at all if you seem to be fully aware that it's something you're going to think is ridiculous? I guess it's one of those "i'll believe it when I see it" situations.

[thalbergmad]

Why spend time looking it up at all if you seem to be fully aware that it's something you're going to think is ridiculous?

Why not?

It is a Sunday afternoon, it is pissing with rain and i have got bugger all else to do.

So, we have a "composer" who requires tennis balls to be bounced off an upturned drum, a flutist to blow into a bottle of water over a microphone and a percussionist to swing a tambourine on the end of a rope.

What the hell is ridiculous about that?

Thal

[ahinton]

and a percussionist to swing a tambourine on the end of a rope.

What the hell is ridiculous about that?

The realisation that you've even managed to mention that instrument at all without reference to banging or to pianistimo, I suppose...

Best,

Alistair

[s_bussotti]

Why not?

It is a Sunday afternoon, it is pissing with rain and i have got bugger all else to do.

So, we have a "composer" who requires tennis balls to be bounced off an upturned drum, a flutist to blow into a bottle of water over a microphone and a percussionist to swing a tambourine on the end of a rope.

What the hell is ridiculous about that?

Thal

Well that's definitely pretty excessive.  The tennis ball and tambourine sounds could certainly be replicated with much more ease, although I suppose it is meant to be a performance art piece and not JUST music, so you have to value it on those criterium.  Can't personally say I see the merit of the piece though...

[indutrial]

Why not?

It is a Sunday afternoon, it is pissing with rain and i have got bugger all else to do.

So, we have a "composer" who requires tennis balls to be bounced off an upturned drum, a flutist to blow into a bottle of water over a microphone and a percussionist to swing a tambourine on the end of a rope.

What the hell is ridiculous about that?

Thal

Touche, Mr. Thal.

I may have mentioned it before (don't remember), but I still would like to see a performance of the symphony that was composed for 100-odd cars/trucks/buses/airhorns (many with different horn sounds) which was to be conducted by a guy standing in a cherry-picker while the score was being projected onto a drive-in movie screen that all of the vehicles' drivers could see. That would be an interesting way to see modern art brought into the faces of the folks who live in middle America (only place that working drive-in movie theatres may still be easy to find). Plus, a realization of that would definitely sound like nothing anyone's ever heard before.

[thalbergmad]

Well that's definitely pretty excessive. 

Not when compared to my recently finished "Kamikaze Concerto", where all the performers are required to kill themselves before the piece has ended.

The premier will be at a small farm in Texas, but at the moment i cannot find a first violin.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

I may have mentioned it before (don't remember), but I still would like to see a performance of the symphony that was composed for 100-odd cars/trucks/buses/airhorns (many with different horn sounds) which was to be conducted by a guy standing in a cherry-picker while the score was being projected onto a drive-in movie screen that all of the vehicles' drivers could see. That would be an interesting way to see modern art brought into the faces of the folks who live in middle America (only place that working drive-in movie theatres may still be easy to find). Plus, a realization of that would definitely sound like nothing anyone's ever heard before.

I think s busotti made a valid point in his last post. Perhaps with the "modernists", the music needs to be seen as well as heard. The above does look rather interesting.

Thal

[mephisto]

Not when compared to my recently finished "Kamikaze Concerto", where all the performers are required to kill themselves before the piece has ended.

The premier will be at a small farm in Texas, but at the moment i cannot find a first violin.

Thal

I would suggest a place like Iraq for that piece, wouldn't be that difficult to find eager "players"....

[ahinton]

Not when compared to my recently finished "Kamikaze Concerto", where all the performers are required to kill themselves before the piece has ended.

The premier will be at a small farm in Texas, but at the moment i cannot find a first violin.

Thal

Like so many contemporary works, whilst it's often hard enough to secure that all-important première, it's usually far harder still to arrange subsequent performances; where do you suppose the second one of you Kammerkazekonzert will take place - Collegeville, PA? Wherever it may be, it sounds to be a little less than original, being (as it seems at least to me) rather akin to a mere variation on the 45th symphony of a rather well-known composer who died around a couple of centuries ago, if you don't mind my saying so...

Best,

Alistair (who always prefers his performers to be sufficiently alive and well to accept the applause after their performances of his work)

[s_bussotti]

But why is modern music so complicated? Why did the composers feel the need to make their works so massively complex?

That is certainly one of the problems that a lot of the aforementioned "modernist-haters" have, in that they are unable to differentiate the various types and schools of modern classical music.  Not all of modern music is complicated, and not ALL of modern music is anything other than modern itself in the purely chronological format; take a look at, say, the Violin Concerto by Philip Glass or Carl Vine's Piano Concerto.   But of course there is certainly a lot of modern music that one would deem "complex", and quite possibly even the majority of modern work is such, but the problem is that as you go from composer to composer and school to school, it will almost certainly be a different reason every time that complexity arrises.  Even if one were to look at two pieces by Carter, they may both be "complex" or "academic" but would likely be for different reasons, so it's an impossible question to answer.

It´s also hard to be at the other end if you appreciate something and lack the knowledge or the history (like myself) about the music, but has the honest intention of finding out more without getting crucified.

I would actually have to disagree with that assertion, and while obviously I couldn't cite hundreds of different examples on this forum (but you could certainly do so if you so wished) I will only point to the thread concerning Szymanowski.  Someone asked for some background information on him, and so far everyone has seemed to be quite helpful and civil.  I think one of the problems is that a lot of the people who are "asking" about, say, Iannis Xenakis (which is certainly the center of the most notorious of this type of thread) a lot of people are either asking in a very derogatory way, as they throw in their own two cents, or are not even asking at all and would prefer to make ignorant comments while having no knowledge on the composer, and because this is unfortunately the more common case, perhaps someone may have accidentally misinterpreted your genuine wanting to learn?

So would you agree the composers are in some way setting themselves up to be disliked or not understood by the general listening audience?

With the possible exception of your wording when you say "setting themselves up", that's actually a fairly valid point.  I don't think someone like Richard Barrett of Clarence Barlow writes a piece of music with the expectation of the mass public being able to enjoy and comprehend their works;  I would have to assume that modern composers are aware that their market is a niche market.  But the comprehension of complicated compositional technique is very rarely required to enjoy a piece of music, and it's not as if they're writing music with the intent to be disliked by anyone.  They are writing music that they hope will be enjoyed by their audience, which will primarily consist of classical listeners with a specific affinity for modern music.

I donno but you guys, but i tink dat Soreboobjies is a good composer. he rote such hard musik.

A classic example of the intellectual capacity of this type of person.  What I find particularly ironic is that you go out of your way to misspell quite a few words there, when in fact I believe the distinction of poor grammar belongs to that of you and your kind, Jake.

Oh no, here we go again. Why cannot we all just accept that we have different tastes and leave it at that?

Ah, but the problem is not what someone's personal preference is in regard to the music they enjoy, it's the complete and utter disrespect modern artists are given on this forum, so this is tangential ideology.

Some people think Finnissy is a genius and I think that a stegosaurus with a frontal lobe lobotomy had equal creative powers. I do not have to have a reason, I do not need letters after my name or a college education to have that view and i don't need to answer boring long winded essays.

I'll exclude the brain-damaged dinosaur analogy because that would just be pendantic.  But this post is certainly the credo of the modernist-hater, and I'm glad you've expressed it in a way that is coherent enough to use as an example.  Nobody is telling you to like Michael Finnissy, nobody here is doing that.  But let me ask you, and you have to be honest: you must admit that, while the compositional technique Finnissy composes in is in contradiction to what you are both used to and enjoy the end result of, you admit that he has very interesting musical ideas and is a good musician, no?  Even you have to admit that.  And that is the problem; all of the people that seem to so consistently bash composers like Finnissy or Ferneyhough are always misintepreting the argument of the other side; they seem to stick to this bizarre, defensive dogma that we are trying to force you to love Finnissy's music!  Of course not!  only 499/500 people would probably enjoy one of Finnissy's piano concerti, and we're totally aware of it.  We just want people like you to be able to say that Finnissy is actually a true composer, and that what he is doing is art, whether it's something you would enjoy or not.  Similar to me; I don't like to watch the Superbowl, but I can easily respect the hard work and athleticism of a professional football player.  So, just like we know you're probably never going to get any emotional reaction out of listening to Finnissy's Solo Piano Concerto No. 4, all we want is for you to stop showing him such disrespect.  You plead to be allowed to have an opinion and we're not trying to stop you from liking or disliking the music, we are just sick of people who don't understand or personally enjoy new music bashing it for being "incoherent" or "random" and the such, because it simply isn't and you know it isn't.

Some of his [Finnissy's] earlier works and Folklore are really nothing like English Cuntry Tunes.

Very true, although let's not be misleading and try to say they're Chopin.  This is another problem; a lot of people will bash Xenakis, but I bet most of them would love some of his later works like Keqrops or Kyania.  They just do not have the interest in learning something new.  They hear Persepolis and say "Ok I'm done." which is a very poor way of being a true music listener.

Aah .... true to form, pianostreeters!

But back to business. I posted this question in rachfan's thread but it didn't get much traction, so here it is again:

Is the use of 'perversion' to describe music ever warranted?

True to form?  No sir, it is your post that is true to form considering your history here.  I find it laughable that you would be so insolent and condescending towards people who are obviously much more well-versed in nearly every aspect of music than you, and while it is certainly "true to form" that users like Xenakis, retro and Alistair would come to the defense of modernist music it is even more boring, repetitive and futily redundant that you would come into this thread that you have no interest in or the knowledge to make valuable posts in and attempt to assert your false sense of superiority.  Your question is not even a question but an assertion and bait as you just wait for someone to respond so you can make your inane and ludicrous statements about modern music.  Oh, you're so so very superior to all the others in this thread, because they're fools for not having the retrograde, behind-the-times, plebeian taste in music that you do.

Back slightly on topic, I have come up with another question, does anyone find modern music beautiful?

Thank you for asking this question; you're a star of this thread  Certainly there is modern music out there that people would find truly beautiful and breathtaking, and I would be inclined to cite, say, Sorabji's first Piano Sonata or the works of composers like Ives or Prin or Dutilleux, but because the notion of there being a lot of different genres within the realm of modern classical music has been beaten to death by several members, I will get to something else.  I would say that the reason people listen to a lot of modern music is not to experience "beauty" but to experience other emotions.  I feel that modern music, while of course often lacking the lyricism of Liszt or Chopin, is usually written to either represent something or evoke entirely different emotions than what the music of the 1800's was.  With Schoenberg, the only/primary reason for music stopped being "to be beautiful"; modern music has different goals in mind, so if one is looking for modern music to be "beautiful" in the normal sense of the word, it would be similar to going to McDonalds and being disappointed when you don't see Filet Mignon on the menu.


[cont]

[s_bussotti]

A poster is not intelligent unless they blindly embrace contemporary music. Gotcha.

Actually I think you have that backwards, somewhat.  A poster is not intelligent if they would prefer to remain ignorant or prejudiced towards ANY school of music, whether Baroque or Post-Spectralist.  As was the case with cygnus' post, I find it hilariously hypocritical that you would refer to people like myself as the "blind" ones, when it is people like you that may listen to one or two pieces of modern music, stop there, and then just say, "Ok I'm done.  Heard enough, don't need to know more, learn more or listen to more.  I know I hate it and that it's useless."  Does that sound like an intelligent being?  Of course not!  And that's you I just described.

They aren't. There's nothing complex about contemporary compositions, it's just not music. Anything that requires copious amounts of extra-aural justifications corroborated by a massive dose of double think and self delusion doesn't have the single stretch of artistic merit to it, but then, artistic concerns are of no interest to the progressive, who's only reason d'etre is to push things forward for the sake of pushing things forward and little more.

This is possibly the most idiotic post in this entire thread, and considering there's a post likening modern music to pedophilia, that says a lot.  There's at least a fraction of logic to that one; but to this there is not, and it's all-the-more revolting because it's written with almost half-decent grammar so it has the first-glance facade of carrying some weight, but upon immediate inspection that guise is destroyed.  First of all, there is nothing complex about contemporary compositions?  I think quite a few, or pretty much every, person who is knowledgeable on the subject would vehemently disagree with you on that point.  If it's so easy and straight-forward, would you care to explain how spectralism and post-spectralism work?  Or how bout quickly drop a Schenker of Xenakis' "Herma"- Musique Symbolique.  Perhaps explain the use of Synthetic Chords in the works of Roslavets, or what Pointist music is please.  The idea that no modern compositions are complex is just so ludicrously stupid there is no way to really argue with it, because there is no logic to it in the first place, therefore one can not make a logical rebuttal.  Also, how exactly is it not "music"?  I don't know what definition of music you use, but the definition is in fact "organized sound created with the specific intent to be listened to".  Therefore anything written by the composers you will go on to mention is in fact music, and this means that you are using a different (and incorrect) definition of music, making any of your posts null and void as they do not correlate with what anyone else is talking about.  And just as a note, how can something be "not complex" and also require double-thinking?  Or is it that it's simple, but you just have to think about everything twice due to lack of musical knowledge?  Neither supposition would surprise me, considering your lack of intelligence in this post.  (and just as a note, it looks quite pseudo-intellectual and white-trash to use the Anglicized "reason" in front of "d'etre".)  Now, what composers have the reson d'etre of not creating quality work, but only doing something new?  And also, who is the judge of where the line between the two is drawn?  Sometimes new is good, and sometimes new is bad; you are not the jury, because you say it is the COMPOSERS' reason for composition.  Show me ANY composer who has said he has no interest in creating quality work.  Good luck, because you won't find one.  You also speak as though going "forward" is a bad thing, which only further illustrates your nullifying bias.

I mean, really, any art form which includes second rate phonies like Stockhausen or John Cage among their "greats" must be a little bit suspect, at the very least, don't you think? But then, according to the post-modernist credo, there is no such thing as "greatness" and everything is relative to the individual. Mea culpa.

Just infuriatingly stupid.  Again, as I said in response to thal's posts about dinosaurs and tennis balls, just because you don't understand and/or appreciate the end result of a composer's music does not mean you should have no respect for them or call them "phonies".  I defy you to counter this argument: John Cage and Karlheinz Stockhausen are two of the "greats" of Avant-Garde Music.  Can you honestly say that is false?  Of course not, therefore they ARE greats, simply not in a genre you personally enjoy.  Also, show me where all the post-modernist composers got together and decided on a credo.  No seriously, show me.  Again... just horribly stupid.  Like, I'm sure Steve Reich and Pierre Boulez have the same credo

Define what it means to have your eyes open then.

Pathetic attempt at enciting a contextivist response.  Define "both eyes closed" first.  If you truly don't know what we mean, then you are mentally insufficient.

Well, in the other thread you yourself compared that modern crap with Beethoven so don't try to blame it on me. For further discussion I would like to present again some modern artwork by composer Hikari Kiyama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBY9lF7lLfY

After thoroughly analyzing the piece using some of the finest mathematical formulas in existence I came to conclusion that I don't know the sufficient adjectives to mock this stupid piece of sh*t the amount it deserves. I mean, this is the absolute pinnacle of the noise you call modern music.

A prime example of Brutalist music, possibly the most difficult genre to "leap into" without acquiring a taste for it.  But what exactly are you trying to prove with this post?  That there is wildly dissonant music out there?  Thanks; I'm sure nobody here had any idea.  Now, what mathematical formulai did you use to analyze this piece?  Be specific.  Also, why would you think mathematical analysis would be more suitable than harmonic analysis, exactly?  Or is it that you  lack the musical knowledge?  Now, have you ever even seen the sheet music, or is it safe to assume that the only thing you know about the piece or the composer is what's in the youtube video?  That's the sort of stupid, ignorant crap we're getting sick of.  You listen to two minutes of a very dense piece, don't bother to learn anything about it, and then feel justified in trying to bash it on a lack of this or that, when you of course have no idea what's actually going on in the piece.

My 2 cents: if something is out of the mainstream, isn't it expected that it will be less appreciated, demographic-wise? Isn't this a fact of life - why does it seem to be objectionable? Classical music is already out of the mainstream in terms of the general public. Based on quotes by proponents of 'modern' music here, there seems to be yet a mainstream in classical music ('Beethoven' is mentioned a lot). As modern/post-modern/contemporary music is out of the mainstream classical music (again, I'm merely reiterating the views expressed here), is it not expected that it is less appreciated? What is the problem here?

The problem is that people are disrespecting, or as you put it, refusing to "appreciate" what is unarguably a viable and important art-form despite have no knowledge on the subject.  Also, nobody expects Penderecki to be as popular as Beethoven, and nobody is demanding anyone likes Murail as much as Bach.  All that the people like the thread-starter want is for people to stop being so ridiculously stubborn in their refusal to learn anything about the music, or at the very least keep their ignorance to themselves.  I'm sure you're aware of this but are just in such denial to the fact that you're defending ignorance you have to keep telling yourself there's a good reason for it.

So it is acceptable to state, as a matter of preference, one's dislike for certain music?

Is this something that we ALL can agree on?

And, along with thal's stegosaurus post, this is the other primary misconception of the delusional modern-basher.  Nobody here is telling you to go listen to Lutoslawski and cream your pants; we're just telling you to stop belittling his artwork because it's not something you personally enjoy.  Just because you don't like, say, Chagal, doesn't make him ANY less of an artist.  What if for ever person that liked Van Gogh, there were a billion people that didn't?  Would that make him less of an artist?  It's NOT about personal taste; it's about disrespect from ignorance and unwavering prejudice and the refusal to become educated on the subject.  So please, feel free to hate Milton Babbitt, but don't tell me he isn't a composer or artist.  Also, your ideological plea for the right to have an opinion is ferociously hypocritical, considering the fact that whenever anyone tries to defend someone like Babbitt you always seem to be showing up, swinging your ego-hammer around trying to make them out to be some elitist Nazi.  So if you want to voice your opinions with less fallout, perhaps you should extend that courtesy to everyone else.

Modernism = braking off with tradition. 

Post-Modernism = braking everything else.

Well considering you couldn't even define "music", how in the word could we possibly expect you to be able to define post-modernism?   Modernism was when artists formed new techniques of composition to better accompany modern times.  Post-modernism is exactly the same; a reaction to modernism, and even includes some retroactivity.  Please stop answering people's questions when you have no idea what the answer is.

Or rather, you can convince yourself that there is a structure, even if there's none.

I believe they call it "cognitive dissonance".

You're just ferocious at definitions, aren't you?  Wouldn't that be "self-dillusion"?  Now, what modern music doesn't have structure?  I can prove even the most dissonant music does, because as I flip through this book by Xenakis called "Formalized Music" I can see the exact formulai used, and even turn the page yet again to see the computer print-out.  Buy the book so-as to at least be slightly enlightened to something other than your ego.  Also, would you say Boulez's Deuxieme sonate pour piano is actually NOT serialist, but just random notes?  Oh, how I've been misled lol.  And even true randomness is a type of structure, but I'm sure that's above your head.


[cont]

[s_bussotti]

Just forget for a moment all your prejudices and ideas about music, then contrast a Chopin ballade with some of the "compositions" posted here like the one where is nothing but scream. Which one moves you, which one doesn't? I think in your heart of hearts...you know the answer...

Why don't you broaden your tastes?  You are the one with prejudices, not us.  We all listen to Chopin AND Ligeti, you only listen to one of those two, so how can we be the prejudiced ones?  And I get more emotional reaction from Ginastera's Piano Concerto No. 2 than anything written by Chopin, so there's the answer to your question.  Why don't you go out and look for some music?  Put aside your prejudices and ideas.  Go listen to Yves Prin's Dioscures, then compare it to a symphony by Telemann.  Which one moves you?  I think in your heart of hearts... you know the answer...

True, but since the progressives here are stepping in defense of music that make no sense it's a bit redundant for you to point that out.

What music makes "no sense"?  Tell me a specific piece.  I defy you to show me music that "makes no sense".  Now, music that you don't understand... well that's something totally different.  I need only to ask for you to find the voice in a Bach fugue and I would expect you to shrivel away.

Yes. The first precept for art is that it must imitate nature, which means it must conform to forms and structures which exists within the realms of what is humanly perceivable. Those forms can be as complex or as simple as you want, they still need to follow basic structural precepts.

How many times can you use the word "precept"?  And no, art does not need to imitate nature; it is the nature of art that one can relate it to something in nature.  Your ideas are so ridiculous and unfounded I'm surprised anyone is taking the time to respond to you.  Your apparent lust to have all art be "beautiful and natural" is equivalent to something like the Regime of Adolf Hitler or Mao Zedong, when you think about it.

Strawman much?

The inate nature of the stupidity of your posts requires an examination of you.  One can only assume that when someone says stupid things abundantly and exclusively, they are intellectually incapable of being in this conversation, therefore the validity of anything you say is brought into question (standard) but because your arguments are so illogical, unfounded, without source and cite and just plain ludicrous, standard logic and debate techniques are futile.

If I may offer an analogy of classical music being similar to pornography (I know ), as both are forms of non-mainstream art (pornography as art is debateable, but bear with me). Within pornography itself there is a mainstream; what you'd call vanilla porn. Outside the mainstream there is a genre for everyone's fancy - fetish, kinky, voyeurism, what have you. BUT there is a definite line that even the most permissive culture would not allow, that is child pornography. I'm sure proponents of pedophilia have convincing arguments for it, but the boundaries seem to be pretty absolute and universal on this one. Any other porn may be permissible, but kiddie porn is ILLEGAL.

Could it be that there are analogous boundaries in classical music that just shouldn't be crossed? Could it be that not just anything new can be progress? Could music be perverted?

This is actually the closest you've gotten to making a point in this thread, which is pretty pathetic considering the post.  I'll just go ahead and pretend you said... oh... "watersports" instead of "pedophilia" because then it becomes nothing more than saying that modern music doesn't harm anyone, as opposed to pedophilia.  And I'll try my best to leave out any "acquired taste" jokes   There are indeed parallels, but they are only on the most very superficial level, which is where you stopped making an argument, so if you want to further elaborate you're going to need to do that.  Surely, within the classical listener market, people who want to listen to Berio or Nono are very scarce in comparison to people that want to listen to Mozart and Haydn, so in that realm they are similar, because I'm sure most guys would rather just see big boobies instead of big boobies covered in pee, or whatever it is those sort of people do.  But the difference is, modern music is what's been written the past 80 years.  It's the only thing that has, pretty much.  Watersports is and always has been on the fringe.  So, our point of view is not "perverted", or to put that into a more apt context, "racy", but it is your view that is retrograde and antiquated.  As far as "crossing the line", I really don't think there is such a thing.  Certainly there is a line that can be crossed when music would stop being pleasant to me, but that would just be my personal preference, as I'm sure some other people would enjoy it, just like there's music you enjoy that I don't, I'm sure.  Watersports though is something that one could use the adjectives "vile" or "disgusting", so your analogy fails.  No offense to watersports fans btw.

Hey, I notice something: You guys seem to have more fun arguing about modern music and whether it is good or bad than actually listening to it. Me I don't want to spend much time arguing about it, I'd rather listen to and play good music. If Stockhausen, Xenakis and others haven't inspired you to stop posting so much on the internet so you could go play their music then maybe the "haters" really do have a point. They are spending more time with piano playing and music.

Are they?  It seems to me they have about an equal number of posts in this thread, and you have an equal number of posts as me, so what is your point exactly?  Also, I'm writing this post as I listen to Rite of Spring, thank you very much, so that would possibly excuse my fiery words!  Funny that you, being new, have no idea what "fiery words" usually means for me, so consider yourself lucky that I'm being restrained.

Ok...let's hear some recordings from you and I Heart Xenakis and Ahinton playing all these great modern pieces...if you start spending more time really getting into all this amazing music and showing it to me...well, you know the saying: "actions speak louder than words."

A close third on the stupidity barometer behind Webern78 and tehpro with this post, mate.  Let's hear you play Beethoven's Hammerklavier Sonata, Brahms' Paganini Variations and Liszt's Douze Grandes Etudes.  If you can't, then you don't love classical or romantic era music.  Now isn't that dumb?  Well, you might have noticed that's the exact same logic you presented.  And I happen to know thatat least two of the three people you mentioned up there could indeed supply you with some very impressive recordings, but I doubt you're going about getting them in the right way.

Yeap, if they really liked it as much as they claim, they surely would struggle to play and record it in all its greatness.

Perhaps we should try to pass off midi recordings as real ones like you did, right?  I happen to have a midi of Boulez's Deuxieme sonate pour piano.  I can run it through a .wav converter and tinker with it in Audacity, Finale and Sibelius to get it sounding quite real.  Where's your Gaspard de la Nuit?

Pedophilia may be offensive to you, but not to its proponents. My point is that even when the boundaries of tastefulness can be pushed further and further by "keeping an open mind", eventually it may hit a limit, as in the case of child pornography.

You really need to drop this argument; it's stupid, because when you use pedophilia as the example, it stops being about art and starts being about morals, which derails what could possibly have been a coherent argument.

I didn't coin the definition, the Greeks did, and it served our civilization admirably ever since, or at least, until very recently. If you want to dismiss this conception then you'll have to dismiss everything that happened in art since classical times, but i supposed that, true to your own credo, you probably do.

Meaning that you probably have the same taste in art as a born-again Christian Scientist.  That does not speak well for your level on the societal hierarchy.  You do not put the guidelines on art; the composers and artists do.

I also find it very amusing that you blame me of pushing a dogmatic view of art when every third rate hack out there is making a career by perpetuating arbitrary bullsh*t ideals or morals they based off whatever semantic gimmick they could attach a name to it. Expressionism, serialism, minimalism, spectralism, post-modernism, clavicembalisticism ad infinitum. Woe is me for even daring to champion a universal ideal for art in the midst of this self indulgent mess. 

You are a hypocritical fool, boy.  You express great angst for the freedom to enjoy what art you want, then bash the art that others also want the freedom to enjoy.  Your posts are similar to the rantings of a 9 year old throwing a tantrum in the store; loud, pointless, incoherent, and not likely to get you the outcome you desire.  So, you feel serialism is a "bullshit moral"?  Well first of all, what in the hell does Serialism have to do with morality?  But beside that, perhaps I think your seemingly, in lack of better terms, COMMUNIST ideal is bullshit, and believe me, I do.  You beg for freedom while simultaneously wanting to deny artists thier freedom.  Screw off.

If the piece is over 1 hour long it automatically sucks because it's utterly stupid to create such long pieces. It also deteriorates your hearing if you are forced to hear that much noise in one sitting.

Ah, so you really ARE a 12 year old with ADHD.  Also, hilariously, list of 60 minute + pieces would include Mozart Operas, Bach Oratorio's, Britten Requiem, Beethoven Symphony No. 9 (or at least close), Brahms Piano Concerto No. 2 (again, close) etc.

Despite my huge prejudices against Sorabji and modern music in general, I took the time to listen some of his piano variations

http://www.emusic.com/album/Kaikhosru-Sorabji-SORABJI-Piano-transcriptions-of-Ravel-Bach-Ch-MP3-Download/10888293.html

I honestly don't see why people make such a big deal about Sorabji being stupid and random music. Due to all the negative things I have heard about Sorabji (in this forum), I expected to hear some some horrible noise and I was greatly surprised that I thoroughly enjoyed all of the pieces. Maybe this is not the kind of "modern music" that people talk about at all and I'm just being stupid since I don't know anything about modern music anyway 

There you go!  More people should take a leaf out of this poster's book.  He is/was one of the most vehemently anti-academic music posters on this site, and he went out and tried to find something he liked and did, which any of you can do.

I say, Origami was rather enchanting. That was pleasing to my ears.

Thal

Glad you enjoyed it.  Try Yves Prin, Henri Dutilleux and Alexander Goehr.



Anyway, how bout some of you modern-haters read this post so you can understand WHY you piss us off so much.  It might be helpful to you.

[thalbergmad]

Anyway, how bout some of you modern-haters read this post so you can understand WHY you piss us off so much.  It might be helpful to you.

Well, I will start reading it today and probably finish it middle of next week.

Forgetting the modern - haters, why do modern - lovers have to write the equivalent of War & Peace to try to get a point across?

Sod this, I am going to listen to some Webern.

Thal

[Etude]

Was that the longest post in PS history?

[s_bussotti]

Was that the longest post in PS history?

Doubt it.  Ramsey had dropped some ferociously long ones a few years ago back when he had just joined the site.

[Etude]

 

You mentioned Finnissy's compositional techniques at one point.  Could you possibly go into further detail about these techniques?  I'm quite curious about this...

[s_bussotti]

You mentioned Finnissy's compositional techniques at one point.  Could you possibly go into further detail about these techniques?  I'm quite curious about this...

Well Finnissy's music is wildly varied, despite what may usually seem to be a wall of dissonance and atonality, so it would be difficult to classify his technique without referring to specific pieces.  Although, to make a general overview, I would classify his music as primarily horizontal while syncopating several lines with various beats or rhythms (often by coupling asyncopated tuplet fragments on top of one-another), with the "climaxes" often iterated by dynamics not in tempo or volume, but in the verticality of the attacks.  Despite the impossiblity of ever playing most of his full pieces at tempo, he actually manages to bring a fair bit of pianism into his works; you might play through one or two of the shorter ones at a nice, slow tempo and you'll see what I mean.  The brain has a lot of trouble making sense of his music, but surprisingly it makes sense to the fingers a lot of the time, if THAT makes any sense.  But again... comparing Hikkai to Song #9 is a bit silly.  I only chose those examples because you can look at them here:

http://www.bmic.co.uk/collection/pdfs/6803w.pdf

http://www.bmic.co.uk/collection/pdfs/6735w.pdf


I'm also a sucker for his notation, which almost seems to flow with the ideas of the music.

[Etude]

Well Finnissy's music is wildly varied, despite what may usually seem to be a wall of dissonance and atonality, so it would be difficult to classify his technique without referring to specific pieces.  Although, to make a general overview, I would classify his music as primarily horizontal while syncopating several lines with various beats or rhythms (often by coupling asyncopated tuplet fragments on top of one-another), with the "climaxes" often iterated by dynamics not in tempo or volume, but in the verticality of the attacks.  Despite the impossiblity of ever playing most of his full pieces at tempo, he actually manages to bring a fair bit of pianism into his works; you might play through one or two of the shorter ones at a nice, slow tempo and you'll see what I mean.  The brain has a lot of trouble making sense of his music, but surprisingly it makes sense to the fingers a lot of the time, if THAT makes any sense.  But again... comparing Hikkai to Song #9 is a bit silly.  I only chose those examples because you can look at them here:

http://www.bmic.co.uk/collection/pdfs/6803w.pdf

http://www.bmic.co.uk/collection/pdfs/6735w.pdf

Those two pieces are indeed very different.  I think I vaguely remember reading somewhere that Finnissy made large use of stochastic techniques, but I suck at maths so I'm not going too far down that road.  I'm still not sure how he could expect a human to execute such complex rhythms... or for the listener to actually perceive such rhythms as being what they are.  The aural effect it creates makes the music seem improvisatory, unless this is caused by the poor soul who has to play it not having a clue how to space the layers of cross-rhythms...

[jaypiano]

Hi, s_bussotti,

I'm actually a friend of the composer Bussotti, who even wrote a piece for me, so, needless to say,
your "calling card" certainly has a particular resonance for me.  Glad to "meet" you here.
I noted the 2 Finnissy links for downloading you provided.  Where on internet can one go to download
more music of that ilk?  It's always Bach and Corelli and Beethoven, etc, etc, etc., which is marvelous, of course, but for us passionate modernists, what are the options?  Would be most appreciative, if you
have the time.

[s_bussotti]

Hi, s_bussotti,

I'm actually a friend of the composer Bussotti, who even wrote a piece for me, so, needless to say,
your "calling card" certainly has a particular resonance for me.  Glad to "meet" you here.
I noted the 2 Finnissy links for downloading you provided.  Where on internet can one go to download
more music of that ilk?  It's always Bach and Corelli and Beethoven, etc, etc, etc., which is marvelous, of course, but for us passionate modernists, what are the options?  Would be most appreciative, if you
have the time.

I've sent you a personal message

[pies]

Have song 9 + Hikkai ever been recorded?

[indutrial]

Forgetting the modern - haters, why do modern - lovers have to write the equivalent of War & Peace to try to get a point across?

Because, in the context of literary metaphors, while Bussotti's last treatise might represent Tolstoy's big-un, modern haters barrage us with posts that are as pithy and brainless as Archie comics, Dan Brown novels (they appear to be smart sometimes), or books written by political commentators. Those multi-quote mega-posts are definitely too much to read through for me.

[pies]

Re: Ultimate Modernism-hater discussions + Vents