Overrated?

[mcgillcomposer]

In my opinion, this topic isn't even worth commenting on unless one has completely mastered counterpoint, harmony, orchestration, and form. I am not saying that I have mastered any of these (I have not), but in studying them thoroughly I have noticed very profound things in seemingly simple textures. I think the best way to look at the hierarchy of composers is by classifying them into echelons of craftsmanship; the most refined craftsmen would be at the top (e.g. Beethoven [the only problems of orchestration arose due to his deafness], Mozart, Wagner, etc.).

[soliloquy]

What?  No.


Judging a composer by only these would eliminate the value of aesthetic.  There are certainly Bach fugues that are crafted better (crafted better as per the provisions you listed) than say... Dutilleux Cello Concerto, but who is to say which is a "better" piece, or who is a "better" composer?  Also, your list does not take into account many of the necessary judging tools that would be used in post-romantic era music; how can one decide if Stockhausen or Purcell is a better composer?  There is no way to make any speculation whatsoever by these stipulations.

[counterpoint]

In my opinion, this topic isn't even worth commenting on unless one has completely mastered counterpoint,

Everybody can hear me, but only a few do understand me...   

[Etude]

the most refined craftsmen would be at the top (e.g. Beethoven [the only problems of orchestration arose due to his deafness], Mozart, Wagner, etc.).

Very original.     IMO it's impossible to objectively rank the greatness of composers.  In real music (not academics) there are no rules, including harmony, counterpoint, orchestration etc.  While playing by "the rules" might be effective in some cases, in many others an entirely different aim  may present cause to abandon them. 

[elevateme_returns]

No.

AAAAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[mcgillcomposer]

What?  No.


Judging a composer by only these would eliminate the value of aesthetic.  There are certainly Bach fugues that are crafted better (crafted better as per the provisions you listed) than say... Dutilleux Cello Concerto, but who is to say which is a "better" piece, or who is a "better" composer?  Also, your list does not take into account many of the necessary judging tools that would be used in post-romantic era music; how can one decide if Stockhausen or Purcell is a better composer?  There is no way to make any speculation whatsoever by these stipulations.

Then what do you propose?

[mcgillcomposer]

Very original.     IMO it's impossible to objectively rank the greatness of composers.  In real music (not academics) there are no rules, including harmony, counterpoint, orchestration etc.  While playing by "the rules" might be effective in some cases, in many others an entirely different aim  may present cause to abandon them. 

Mastering these areas has nothing to do with mastering rules. The rules came out of the music, and are NOT absolute. A good teacher will give you musical reasons for the rules, and will not punish you if you break them in a way that makes musical sense. In other words, I am not talking about elementary harmony, ctpt, etc. These are things that can be studied by any amateur. I am talking about ARTFUL harmony, counterpoint, and orchestration: subtle things that are absolutely wonderful in the music of great masters...it might be the postponment of a certain goal harmony (and HOW it is postponed), or creating a new plane of tone that is absolutely breath-taking and perfectly placed (the pizzicato stings at the opening of the 2nd mvmt. of Beethoven's Emperor concerto for example).

Also, what about the feeling that formally something is perfect? As far as I know, most books on form only go so far as to describe superficial formal structures...often VERY generalized. But, in reality, each piece has a unique form (even if we are comparing two in sonata form...they are two DIFFERENT sonata forms). My personal belief is that some people are simply born with a remarkable sense of proportion and balance, which lead to mastery of form. Among many things, this is something required of a great composer.

- D

...oh, and as for Stockhausen...

Ya, exactly, there is NOTHING to say. 

[soliloquy]

.oh, and as for Stockhausen...

Ya, exactly, there is NOTHING to say. 

So obviously you think Purcell is the better composer?  If so, tell me why.

[mcgillcomposer]

So obviously you think Purcell is the better composer?  If so, tell me why.

I have only ever heard snipits of his music, and to be honest, I can't say that I remember any of it. I don't want to comment on someone's music that I do not know, so give me another composer and I will.

[elevateme_returns]

omg purcell is amazing. one of the greatest composers of all time.

listen to

hear my prayer o lord

and

thou knowest lord from music on the death of queen mary

[soliloquy]

I have only ever heard snipits of his music, and to be honest, I can't say that I remember any of it. I don't want to comment on someone's music that I do not know, so give me another composer and I will.

Boulez, Xenakis, Finnissy, Ferneyhough.  Choose one.

[mcgillcomposer]

Boulez, Xenakis, Finnissy, Ferneyhough.  Choose one.

I meant that I don't know much of Purcell's music...you want me to compare Stockhausen to one of the above?

Well, I can begin by generalizing...something that applies (in most cases) to all of the above composers. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your view), evolution has designed the way humans hear things...for example, a lot of things that are distinct from one another in theory (think set theory) are NOT audibly distinct. Although the works of Stockhausen in particular are very interesting theoretically, in many cases, they do not come across audibly...rather, it sounds like a bunch of random notes. This is not because they are not organized...they are highly organized (even his "chance" music). The problem is, they are not organized in a way that the ear has evolved to understand. And although the underlying principles are very interesting, one cannot CONSISTENTLY contradict the nature of human hearing...it becomes tiresome, and quite banal.

That I think his music is awful is my opinion...but it is not a superficial judgment. I tried for many years to appreciate Stockhausen's music, but slowly came to the realization that he goes against many of the fundamental principles of hearing. It is fine to go against fundamental principles of music...but to go against nature is quite often suicide. So much stress is placed on originality and style these days, and unfortunately, style (which ties in with whether or not one is 'original') is not something that can be taught...it is somthing you ARE.

[soliloquy]

I meant that I don't know much of Purcell's music...you want me to compare Stockhausen to one of the above?

Well, I can begin by generalizing...something that applies (in most cases) to all of the above composers. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your view), evolution has designed the way humans hear things...for example, a lot of things that are distinct from one another in theory (think set theory) are NOT audibly distinct. Although the works of Stockhausen in particular are very interesting theoretically, in many cases, they do not come across audibly...rather, it sounds like a bunch of random notes. This is not because they are not organized...they are highly organized (even his "chance" music). The problem is, they are not organized in a way that the ear has evolved to understand. And although the underlying principles are very interesting, one cannot CONSISTENTLY contradict the nature of human hearing...it becomes tiresome, and quite banal.

That I think his music is awful is my opinion...but it is not a superficial judgment. I tried for many years to appreciate Stockhausen's music, but slowly came to the realization that he goes against many of the fundamental principles of hearing. It is fine to go against fundamental principles of music...but to go against nature is quite often suicide. So much stress is placed on originality and style these days, and unfortunately, style (which ties in with whether or not one is 'original') is not something that can be taught...it is somthing you ARE.

Ah, so you are saying Stockhausen is a bad composer on AESTHETIC merits?  But I thought you said the only way to judge how good a composer is by their theory.

[elevateme_returns]

,

[elevateme_returns]

Ah, so you are saying Stockhausen is a bad composer on AESTHETIC merits?  But I thought you said the only way to judge how good a composer is by their theory.

jesus christ.

[soliloquy]

jesus christ.

What about him?  Maybe he has something constructive to say?

[elevateme_returns]

What about him?  Maybe he has something constructive to say?

maybe he has someth- shut your face

[soliloquy]

maybe he has someth- shut your face

That's mature.  Stop spamming please.  I'm trying to argue the merits of aesthetic vs. construction in the valuing of music.

[elevateme_returns]

What about him? Maybe he has something constructive to say?

i dont, ..  was that supposed to be funny?

[soliloquy]

i dont, ..  was that supposed to be funny?

Oh you changed your post from:

"right.  have fun with that"


To this new post.  So obviously you want to continue to argue with me and spam this thread.  You really want to be banned, don't you?

[elevateme_returns]

lol mate, you told me to stop double posting & called it spam. i wanted to find out if you were joking so i thought it would be easier just to click on modify.

here,  look, i even went to the effort of finding the quote for you:

Oh, and can you stop posting so many tiny posts and just post one?  You're spamming atm.

[mcgillcomposer]

What about him?  Maybe he has something constructive to say?

HAHA

[mcgillcomposer]

Ah, so you are saying Stockhausen is a bad composer on AESTHETIC merits?  But I thought you said the only way to judge how good a composer is by their theory.

Of course not. I simply said that craft has to be mastered prior to achieving anything that is both aesthetically pleasing and professional. It only makes sense that a carpenter master his craft before he can produce a beautiful piece of furniture. Judging by S's music, he has not even come close to mastering a musical craft...a lot of what he does has no relationship to the audible world, and even though it makes sense theoretically (or philosophically in terms of the new 20th century 'theory') it makes no sense musically. A lot of things are thrown in at random because they produce a few seconds of a cool effect, and also somehow fit into the elaborate "theoretical" scheme. It is a very superficial way of working.

Anyway, I do respect your opinion, but I have a feeling that you and I are going to keep going in circles. We simply don't see eye to eye on the matter.

[counterpoint]

Ah, so you are saying Stockhausen is a bad composer on AESTHETIC merits?  But I thought you said the only way to judge how good a composer is by their theory.

What does AESTHETIC mean in music? I think that music is AESTHETIC in it's purest form. So I can't see, how one could distill aesthetic values from other (which?) values of music.

[mcgillcomposer]

What does AESTHETIC mean in music? I think that music is AESTHETIC in it's purest form. So I can't see, how one could distill aesthetic values from other (which?) values of music.

You have a good point. The way I see it, aesthetics is a personal judgment.  Whether or not someone has mastered a craft is a more empirical matter. Although it cannot be measured on a numerical scale, faults can be pointed out using generally accepted principles that are supported by logic reflecting audible phenomena.

[jlh]

You have a good point. The way I see it, aesthetics is a personal judgment.  Whether or not someone has mastered a craft is a more empirical matter. Although it cannot be measured on a numerical scale, faults can be pointed out using generally accepted principles that are supported by logic reflecting audible phenomena.

Often it is these "faults" that make music progressive and have propelled it to many new forms.  "Faults" are seen only because they differ from what others have composed.  So then mastery cannot be measured as an empirical craft.  Auditory signals are very subjective, and what may sound like an audible fault in the composition to you may sound like beautiful genius to someone else.

[quasimodo]

Often it is these "faults" that make music progressive and have propelled it to many new forms.  "Faults" are seen only because they differ from what others have composed.  So then mastery cannot be measured as an empirical craft.  Auditory signals are very subjective, and what may sound like an audible fault in the composition to you may sound like beautiful genius to someone else.

Man, I loooove my random music improvisations 
Beautiful genius
true

 

[counterpoint]

what may sound like an audible fault in the composition to you may sound like beautiful genius to someone else.

That's right. I hear so many wrong notes in pieces of Rachmaninov, but I never heard a wrong note in Stockhausen 

[mcgillcomposer]

That's right. I hear so many wrong notes in pieces of Rachmaninov, but I never heard a wrong note in Stockhausen 

Ya, because it's impossible to tell if someone plays what he actually wrote or not...and I have perfect pitch...strange...

[mcgillcomposer]

Often it is these "faults" that make music progressive and have propelled it to many new forms.  "Faults" are seen only because they differ from what others have composed.  So then mastery cannot be measured as an empirical craft.  Auditory signals are very subjective, and what may sound like an audible fault in the composition to you may sound like beautiful genius to someone else.

I don't think you understand my point. The way evolution has designed our ears to hear relationships among sounds is not subjective...quite the contrary.

[quasimodo]

I don't think you understand my point. The way evolution has designed our ears to hear relationships among sounds is not subjective...quite the contrary.

I don't agree.

[mcgillcomposer]

I don't agree.

I don't think nature cares if you agree or not. There are some very simple tests one could perform to prove that certain combinations are impossible for a human ear to distinguish. A simple rule is that the more notes present (the closer something becomes to a cluster) the less distinct it becomes. Stockhausen uses clusters all the time with no AUDIBLE consequences. On paper it makes sense...in sound it is random. To be frank, it is blatant amateurism.

[quasimodo]

I don't think nature cares if you agree or not. There are some very simple tests one could perform to prove that certain combinations are impossible for a human ear to distinguish. A simple rule is that the more notes present (the closer something becomes to a cluster) the less distinct it becomes. Stockhausen uses clusters all the time with no AUDIBLE consequences. On paper it makes sense...in sound it is random. To be frank, it is blatant amateurism.

Obviously, if we go the most extreme examples, sure the physiological abilities of our hearing apparel are to be considered, but this doesn't have much to do with your starting point: I do believe that the training aspect is still more important, hence the use of different intervals in oriental music.
So stating Beethoven is "superior" because of his specific use of harmony and counterpoint is IMO wrong.
I definitely prefer listening to, let's say Debussy, than Beethoven because I find the latter's harmonies are poor.

[mcgillcomposer]

Obviously, if we go the most extreme examples, sure the physiological abilities of our hearing apparel are to be considered, but this doesn't have much to do with your starting point: I do believe that the training aspect is still more important, hence the use of different intervals in oriental music.
So stating Beethoven is "superior" because of his specific use of harmony and counterpoint is IMO wrong.
I definitely prefer listening to, let's say Debussy, than Beethoven because I find the latter's harmonies are poor.

It has nothing to do with style. Harmony and counterpoint are not restricted to Western music. And to say that Beethoven's harmonies are poor is a very superficial comment. You may not like them, but the way in which he uses them suits the music and supports the effects he is trying to achieve. I agree that Debussy's harmonies are much richer (more sevenths, ninths, etc.), but that is simply a result of his musical style. Again, we are comparing apples and oranges...aesthetic appeal and craft are two totally seperate issues. That is what allows one to not like a piece of music, but respect it at the same time as a well-written work.

[mcgillcomposer]

...but this doesn't have much to do with your starting point

Remember that I haven't been following up on my initial post...I've been discussing Stockhausen's music and styles similar to his.

[mcgillcomposer]

Don't get me wrong, it IS possible to write very avant-garde music that has direction and makes musical sense. I just personally find that Stockhausen has made no effort to bring his concepts into the realm of audible coherence.

[maxreger]

mcgill composer, I hope you enjoy your career at burger king.

Because there is no way you will become anything as a composer if you can simply throw out the music of Stockhausen, Xenakis, Penderecki, Ligeti, etc... as "sh*t noise", and still try to make a career for yourself as a composer.

Unless of of course, you are not trying to be a composer of music outside of film and maybe tv... what I mean is, even though you might come up with works that mimick the past (as you seen caught up in the 19th century and before)... you will end up with works that have 0 artistic value, copy's of copy's if you will. Its like going into a museum and trying to mold something to look like a 5th century vase. Congrats on being able to do it, but trying to sell it as a 5th century vase will get you thrown in jail. In this case, you will forever be writting music that has allready been written.

I dont mean the avant garde is the ONLY way to express yourself, not at all, Im using them here as an example simply because the thread was. But, you have to consider that, if you are trying to simply have people listen to your works in mass, you might have choosen the wrong career... one of personal self expression, and not of trying to appeal to the most humans possible.

Also, your entire argument on "nature" is actually untrue.

If you go away from the history of Tonal music, you will realize that in NATURE itself, almost no events occur in any sort of tonal context.

Have you ever gone into a forest and heard 1000's of birds singing and chirpping? Name me the key they are in?

Have you ever stopped in traffic and heard 30 guys honk at you at the same time? Why dont you notate that rhythm for me?

Point being, "nature" as you call it, or, the organization of music into sounds "what most people think is music", doesnt have to reflect lyrical content. In fact, lyrical content is less part of nature then the very "sound masses" you describe.

Im not rejecting one idea or the other (clusters vs triads, melody vs non melody), what Im saying is, your idea that nature is implying that music should be tonal is actually far from the truth. Once you consider that events occur in nature (sound events in this case), with no sense of organization to each other. A forest sounds like a forest, your ears can hear it. It doesnt sound like a symphony in Gm, and it doesnt sound like a ballade in G major.

When Penderecki transcribed the stop of a train into what became "threnos", he was doing something that is totally within your hearing ability. You might not like it (I love it)... but, to say its against nature is untrue.

Whether its the mechanical (machines and modern sounds), or the true sounds of nature... TONAL contexts are short and far between.

In a way, if you want to think this way, you might as well consider the entire TONAL system "the farce" (I dont think it is, but you get what Im saying).

You talk about manipulation, the entire harmonic series is full of non tempered intervals, the entire Well Temp system is indeed a man made correction, so that music could be "un-naturally" transposed.

The proof is in the birds. Transcribe nature, and you come closer to Xenakis then Bach... tranpose modern life and you come closer to Penderecki's early works then Chopin.

Just different view points on this subject. This "anti-modernist" views on these boards are pretty common, its expected. I dont know if the avg person will ever understand half these things, most of the people on here are either kids on piano forums or amture players and amature composers. Its easy for them to destroy works they arent ready to understand on any level. After they come to understand, they might choose to not listen, but most of the smart ones will stop the critiques.

[maxreger]

-forgive the spelling mistakes.

-also, this is directed at alot of people, so forgive me jumping around and implying certain things you didnt say. Didnt want to write too much more than that.

[moi_not_toi]

some say that Stockhausen SUCKS BOOTY, but the question here is: has anyone heard it in person by the composer? Interpretation of Stockhausen is like reading a Teenage Angst poem to a large audience of parents; it makes sense to the person who wrote it and usually ONLY to the person who wrote it, so they're the only ones who can interpret it.

I know that the Helicopter Quartet (or quintet, whtevr) was actually set up in his opera as being octophonic, each soud system sounding different, so duophonic earphones and the general way that a CD is set up don't allow for the difference of sound in his work. Personally, counterpoint of that size and extent give me SHIVERS when I hear it (likewise with Spem in Alium by Tallis and the song Company by Stephen Sondheim).

And about Stockhausen sucking booty, there's not enough music there to be much of anything, it's like the background music coming from the audience during a performance of a symphony: There's not much there, but EVERYONE hears it.

[counterpoint]

mcgill composer, I hope you enjoy your career at burger king.

Because there is no way you will become anything as a composer if you can simply throw out the music of Stockhausen, Xenakis, Penderecki, Ligeti, etc... as "sh*t noise", and still try to make a career for yourself as a composer.

maxreger, if you want to say, that serious composers nowadays are forced to compose like Darmstδdter Ferienkurse and Donaueschinger Musiktage - I tell you, that this sort of music is on the way to expire. Many, many of the younger composers are so tired of this hyper intellectual (and unerotic) way of composing. It was funny for some time to include shock effects in concerts of "serious" music (E-Musik). But you can't do the same shock effects over and over, if you don't want to loose credibility. Music has to find new ways of making sounds speaking to people. Music is a mirror of the time we're living in. Stockhausen is music of the 20th century - it's music of the past.

[maxreger]

No, No, I dont mean one has to compose LIKE them, or in THEIR styles... I used them because the thread was involving them. What I mean is, if people in general can discredit their works, and what they did in their time without having second thoughts... its hard to believe they will be able to question and represent their own times.

This idea of "the un-natural" compositions of the second half of the 20th century is simply not something that holds up. Again, most natural aural occurences (in nature or society), have nothing to do with tonal music. In fact, a stochastic composition is certainly closer to nature then a BACH fugue. That isnt to say one is aesthetically better then the next, only that one is a closer representation of natural accoustical phenomena than the other.

Consider that Messiaen's music (some of it), would be a much closer representation to what is natural then a Mozart concerto. This idea that "music needs to be able to be followed by the human ear with total precision I find untrue", simply because the sound world we live in doesnt function that way. (outside of the concert hall)

I actually see music like Xenakis's to be the most natural, same with some of Penderecki's or Ligeti's.

I hope you can follow my point, as its pretty truncated, I am not defending this form of writting over tonality. Only, saying that it has plenty of reasons for having existed, and still existing in some form or another.

After all, like you said, Stockhausen is the music of the past, so what does that make people writting like Beethoven in the 21st century then?

Further more, consider that composers of the past remain to influence new schools of thought, having these avant garde composers as influences is no different then having say, Chopin. Only, they in a way, have more in common with our century then did Chopin.

Again, Im not saying one MUST compose like them, only that one CANNOT be anything trying to compose like Chopin anymore either.

[maxreger]

counterpoint, do you have MSN? IM? anything, Id like to talk to you more directly about this very subject.

[counterpoint]

counterpoint, do you have MSN? IM? anything, Id like to talk to you more directly about this very subject.

In this forum, there's a function "Send this member a personal message" in the profile of every member. Call my profile by clicking on my name anywhere, then you can call this funtion. But I have to say, that I will not have much time for escalating discussions until next week.

[maxreger]

sent you a PM, hope it got there... comp was having some problems.

[counterpoint]

I got it - and sent you a reply 

[jlh]

I know MANY composers, a lot of whom are currently students.  I know from them that the emphasis on composers is to bring something new to the table.  It's simple economics -- if you don't do something that's never been done before, you will not distinguish yourself from the millions of other composers in the world.  You will be reduced to a neo-romantic or classical composer and you will NEVER get the distinction you need to survive.  Maybe some of your music will be used for soundtracks to film or TV, but your name will be forever a small credit that no one ever looks at.  You will not be remembered for anything because the styles of music you're copying have already been exhausted, and the pioneers of that music are the ones we remember, like Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, etc. 

[jlh]

It has nothing to do with style. Harmony and counterpoint are not restricted to Western music. And to say that Beethoven's harmonies are poor is a very superficial comment. You may not like them, but the way in which he uses them suits the music and supports the effects he is trying to achieve. I agree that Debussy's harmonies are much richer (more sevenths, ninths, etc.), but that is simply a result of his musical style. Again, we are comparing apples and oranges...aesthetic appeal and craft are two totally seperate issues. That is what allows one to not like a piece of music, but respect it at the same time as a well-written work.

I hate to point out the obvious, but you cannot separate aesthetic value from craft.  Don't you understand that they are linked?   You cannot simply reduce all music to form and correctness.  If all composers wrote using the same rules there would never be new music and we'd be stuck in the past listening to and playing the same music over and over again.  To say that ANYONE has completely mastered a certain style of music is to make a subjective judgement, as all artforms are man-made, with man-made rules.  If one creates the rules, then who's to say they they mastered the artform?  I think you have to compare apples and oranges to come up with an answer to your initial question.  Think about it, why do you like Chopin's music, is it because he used sonata form as a starting point for his ballades?  Is it because you like the flow?  is it because you like the chords?  Why do you like anyone's music?  Do you listen to something and dismiss it because the composer didn't sound like a classical composer?  Then AGAIN you have it... the way music SOUNDS.  That is the aesthetic value.  If you limit a comparison of composers to form and theory, then you rob the music of it's value at all.  Music might as well be blinking lights if you do that, and that is not the goal of music.

[counterpoint]

I know MANY composers, a lot of whom are currently students.  I know from them that the emphasis on composers is to bring something new to the table. 

Please tell me, where all these composers with their "new" styles of composing hide. Where are the concerts with their works, where are their fans?

[jlh]

You're not understanding me.  If someone composed music that sounds similar to Beethoven or other older music that is played at concert halls, it will NEVER be played.  People don't want something that sounds like the past -- they want the past itself.  That and new ways of looking at music.  That's an often overlooked truth about composing.  Composers see that people flock to concerts of the old masters and think if they mimic them they will also be famous.  It very rarely works that way.

There is new music performed all the time if you know where to look..  Prokofiev's grandson composed a concerto for turntable and orchestra recently and sold out the concert hall.  I've been asked a few times to premier or play new music for professional orchestras.  Universities have MANY new music concerts every year.  Composers frequently compose new works for competitions as well.  It's out there.

[maxreger]

-exactly...

There is alot new music on the rise, and its soooo many schools that you cant say "this is the music of today"...

I know tons of composers influenced by the avant garde, just like I know tons influenced by the minimalists... folk influences from their individual cultures.... etc...

I dont know a single person writting minuets ala Mozart that has done ANYTHING with their careers.

The great music of the past is really that, PAST. Being influenced by things 45 years ago is not the same as copying things that are 200 years old. Just as if you use a rondo in your piece with new musical aesthetics it can work, trying to BE a 200 year old composer will get you tv commercials for clenex at best... (outside of film scores).