respecting music vs. loving music.

[panic]

"The problem nowadays is that people are taught to have too much respect for music. They should be taught to love it instead." I think it was Stravinsky who said that but I might be wrong.

In my opinion music lost a major connection with human emotion and the ability to move the listener when it completely stepped outside of tonality into more dissonant territory. Not that it can't still do so, but just that tonality is such an effective simulation of human emotion for most people.

This topic came to mind when I realized that there are large numbers of people (including many here) who have great respect for Finnissy, Stockhausen, Ferneyhough, Barlow etc. but that I have yet to see anyone proclaim that they explicitly "love" that kind of music. Sorabji is borderline because some of his less dissonant music can indeed be very powerful. But I was wondering if perhaps Stravinsky missed the point - that perhaps modern and ultramodern music itself is so out of keeping with the spectrum of human emotion that it is nearly impossible, or at least much more difficult, to find anything in it to love or be moved by. Does ultramodern music have the capacity to be loved, instead of just respected, in the same way that music of earlier ages can? If not, is it a failure of the music or of ourselves?

[ibbar]

I explicitly love a number of pieces by the composers you mention.

Finnissy-English Country Tunes; Verdi transcriptions 10, 15; Autumnall; O, Schoner Mai; PC4

Flynn's "Wound" is a masterpiece, and I feel no other piece conveys raw, violent passion as effectively.  Also, the ending moments of Salvage contain chords (dissonant ones, at that) that are extremely beautiful.

Barlow's Cogluotobusisletmesi is beautiful, and I love the point near the end where it almost begins to sound like a music box.

I despise Stockhausen.

I don't believe that modern music is inherently out of connection with human emotion, quite on the contrary-some of it hits me very deeply.

[lisztisforkids]

While I do enjoy and beleive that much atonal and dissonant music is as emotional and powerfull as say Beethoven, I find that most of it goes 'against' natural feelings and movements of the human body and mind... It may not be out of human emotion, but it definetly is not natural if you know what I mean....

The public in general revolts at Atonal and Dissonant music, and why shouldent they? Most people dont want to hear a Finnisy Country Tune, they want music that they can understand....

[kriskicksass]

I love Stravinsky's Rite, does that count?

[stevie]

thats rite

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA, k

[bennom]

While I do enjoy and beleive that much atonal and dissonant music is as emotional and powerfull as say Beethoven, I find that most of it goes 'against' natural feelings and movements of the human body and mind... It may not be out of human emotion, but it definetly is not natural if you know what I mean....

The public in general revolts at Atonal and Dissonant music, and why shouldent they? Most people dont want to hear a Finnisy Country Tune, they want music that they can understand....

Modern music is very close to human emotions and human experience in it self. The world is chaotic, horrible and generally a dark place. The avantgarde music reflects this very well.

The problem, however, is that the human mind/body does not crave for this music. The most natural sound is the sounds based on the harmonics, triads for example. Western music has always used the antagonism between the consonant sound and dissonant sound, the tension being releaved and so on. But when modern music only deals with dissonants, it misses the actual point of making music. That is, to heal the human soul from its torments.

Why is Pärt's music so popular? Triads, my friends, triads...

[alzado]

I can't speak to many of these composers, since I know little or nothing about them.

However, I have been both reading about and listening to Sorabji lately.

It is interesting that Sorabji did not intend his music to reach a mass audience.  He wanted to attract only the most serious performers and the most serious listeners.  It appeared as though he fully expected the "masses" would not be able to understand or appreciate him.  The possibility of making his masterpieces "common" may have been one motivator for his prohibiting performances of his work for many years.

This appears to fit in somewhat with what you have said.