Overrated?

[counterpoint]

Prokofiev's grandson composed a concerto for turntable and orchestra recently and sold out the concert hall.

Respighi did that already in 1924  

I know, that many so-called "new" composition are written and performed. But do they sound new? No - they sound like "same procedure as every year"...

[maxreger]

Respighi did that already in 1924  

I know, that many so-called "new" composition are written and performed. But do they sound new? No - they sound like "same procedure as every year"...

So you are saying music is dead then?

I mean, the new music that appears and you dont even know, its all either bad or worthless... and the music that was new in the past 50-60 years is not good. LOL

So, I guess music is like an old museum to you?

Plus, how NON progressive do you want music to be, you want just BRAND new works that sound 100% original? You think Stravinsky busted out RITE of SPRING with no influence? Schoenberg? You think op 25 just fell out of the sky in 2 minutes?

[counterpoint]

So you are saying music is dead then?

Yes, that's how it looks to me.

 

I mean, the new music that appears and you dont even know, its all either bad or worthless... and the music that was new in the past 50-60 years is not good. LOL

 

I did not say, that all of that music is uninteresting, but most of it.

So, I guess music is like an old museum to you?

You understand me very well 

The so-called Avantgarde music sounds very old fashioned to me now.
 

Plus, how NON progressive do you want music to be,

Oh, did I say, I want music to be NON progressive? 

No, just the contrary: I want music to be progressive - but it isn't.

[maxreger]

-well, I understand you more now... at least its clear how you feel. I have to disagree, as Ive seen plenty of new music from the last 20 years that I think is great, as Im sure others feel of works by other composers in the same time frame.

There is no point in going on about this.

[counterpoint]

There is no point in going on about this.

Allright. Peace 

[maxreger]

-of course, that does leave one problem,

you feel the avant garde is old fashioned... ok... so what is liszt then to you? Beethoven? Mozart? Bach? Palestrina?

If old fashioned is a bad thing, and their is nothing left to be composed, and I guess its boring to hear works that are old fashioned... then, there is no more music for you.

If even the latest schools are old fashioned, then certainly the oldest are as well? Since old fashioned is a negative in the context that you put it, you have nothing else to listen to.

Unless of course, it doesnt matter if something is old fashioned in your regards to listening to said music? So, the dying music of the avant garde (as you put it) is music that is important again.

[counterpoint]

-of course, that does leave one problem,

you feel the avant garde is old fashioned... ok... so what is liszt then to you? Beethoven? Mozart? Bach? Palestrina?

If old fashioned is a bad thing, and their is nothing left to be composed, and I guess its boring to hear works that are old fashioned... then, there is no more music for you.

There is much music for me to play, that is not old fashioned.

Many works of Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Schumann, Brahms sound very modern to me.
Scriabin, Debussy, Messiaen, Strawinsky - great!
Berio, Ligeti, Lutoslawski - great!

Just a few examples. You don't have to be worried about me   

[mcgillcomposer]

Why did I know that this whole thing was going to boil down to the question of style? It has nada to do with style. There are composers from all eras who knew what they were doing, and an even larger number who had no clue. The reason we still listen to composers like Bach, Beethoven, Stravinsky,  Bartok, etc. is because they were the cream of the crop. In 100 years there will probably only be a handful of composers from our time who will be listened to...the ones with a solid craft or the ones who had no clue? I'd put my money on the ones with craft (and not even all of them to boot).

Re: aesthetics ... it isn't necessarily related to craft. A good example is our friends who find Stockhausen's music appealing. The man has no craft, he just has a very strong philosophical backing. It's like building a piece of furniture using the theory of furniture building rather than knowing how to properly sand a piece of wood. Nonetheless, some people find it aesthetically pleasing. Thus, aesthetics does not necessarily have anything to do with craft.

[jlh]

Why did I know that this whole thing was going to boil down to the question of style? It has nada to do with style. There are composers from all eras who knew what they were doing, and an even larger number who had no clue. The reason we still listen to composers like Bach, Beethoven, Stravinsky,  Bartok, etc. is because they were the cream of the crop. In 100 years there will probably only be a handful of composers from our time who will be listened to...the ones with a solid craft or the ones who had no clue? I'd put my money on the ones with craft (and not even all of them to boot).

Re: aesthetics ... it isn't necessarily related to craft. A good example is our friends who find Stockhausen's music appealing. The man has no craft, he just has a very strong philosophical backing. It's like building a piece of furniture using the theory of furniture building rather than knowing how to properly sand a piece of wood. Nonetheless, some people find it aesthetically pleasing. Thus, aesthetics does not necessarily have anything to do with craft.

If you've mastered all of music theory, form, etc., why do you say Stockhausen "has no craft"?  That's hilarious!    People have "craft" because theorists have made it accessible and people understand and appreciate it.  Do you dismiss all late 20th century works because they lack a tonality?

You also say that craft has nothing to do sith style.  Who are you to say what is acceptable as far as "craft" is concerned, and by whose rules do you presume to judge this music?  To me you sound like some kid who doesn't understand or like the music and so you dismiss it without a second thought.  Yes, some people really enjoy Stockhausen -- not that I necessarily put myself in that category, though.  What I don't like is your attitude that music is only music if you give it a stamp of approval.  I feel sorry for anyone with that attitude.  You stay happy in your little bubble of elitism while I broaden my horizons.

Suggested reading:

"Who Cares if you Listen?"
Original title: "The Composer as Specialist"
Milton Babbitt, High Fidelity (Feb. 1958)

https://www.palestrant.com/babbitt.html

[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.

[mcgillcomposer]

It doesn't take much training to realize that Stockhausen has no craft. And trust me, Stockhausen does not speak for all of modern music. There are plenty of modern composers who I have a great liking for.

[jlh]

OK, so you haven't "mastered" them.  But in saying that one should not comment in this thread unless one HAS mastered them seems to put you in a contradictory category. 

[mcgillcomposer]

You also say that craft has nothing to do with style.  Who are you to say what is acceptable as far as "craft" is concerned, and by whose rules do you presume to judge this music? 

It has nothing to do with what is acceptable or not. Tell me how craft has anything to do with style? What I was trying to say is that REGARDLESS of style, there is well-crafted music and poorly-crafted music.

Craft is not a set of rules, it is a metier that is based on principles, and it is far from being the only prerequisite to becoming a great composer. I don't understand why everyone is so hung up over this; in most conservatories craft IS the bulk of the training in composition. At universities this is not necessarily the case because they are required to 'academicize' things.

And what gives with the personal attacks? If you have to revert to that in order to form an argument I feel sorry for you.

[mcgillcomposer]

OK, so you haven't "mastered" them.  But in saying that one should not comment in this thread unless one HAS mastered them seems to put you in a contradictory category. 

I mean no one who hasn't mastered them has license to knock established great composers. Stockhausen is not in the same category as Beethoven, for example...wait 200 years and then we'll talk about it.

[jlh]

I'm not attacking you.  I'm attacking your ideas and I do feel sorry you have such a closed mind.  How do you expect music to evolve if you only consider composers of the past to be great composers?  That's a slap in the face to the composing community.  I see that to you music is dead.

[jlh]

I mean no one who hasn't mastered them has license to knock established great composers. Stockhausen is not in the same category as Beethoven, for example...wait 200 years and then we'll talk about it.

I would put very few composers in the same category as Beethoven.  No one's arguing with that.  Beethoven is not going to compose anymore obviously.  He's dead. 

Where do we go from this point on in your opinion?

[mcgillcomposer]

I'm not attacking you.  I'm attacking your ideas and I do feel sorry you have such a closed mind.  How do you expect music to evolve if you only consider composers of the past to be great composers?  That's a slap in the face to the composing community.  I see that to you music is dead.

You should probably read what I've written more carefully. To have a closed mind would mean that I have dismissed all of Stockhausen's music without actually listening to it or giving it a chance. This if not the case at all. I said earlier that I tried for a very long time to appreciate his music.

As for composers of the past being the only great ones...I never said that. I simply said that Stockhausen is not in the same category as Beethoven as a composer (which is obvious to anyone who has even the foggiest notion of craft). There are wonderful composers who are still living and who have a solid craft amongst other qualities. I don't know where you get the idea that I despise all modern music.

Regarding craft: The audition process at Julliard for composition requires that one be able to comment intelligently on the issue of metier as it relates to music of ALL periods. Thus, it is universal, and not restricted by style.

Wouldn't it be more closed-minded of me to accept Stockhausen's music on the principle of authority? I carefully evaluate all music that I hear, regardless of the composer, so that I don't subscribe to any ideologies. This is, to me, the opposite of being closed-minded.

[mcgillcomposer]

I would put very few composers in the same category as Beethoven.  No one's arguing with that.  Beethoven is not going to compose anymore obviously.  He's dead. 

Where do we go from this point on in your opinion?

What do you mean where? You mean in terms of this post?

All I wanted to say from the very beginning is that unless we have first mastered a metier (something basic and common to all great composers) then we have no real jurisdiction to knock the music of great composers (Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, etc.); the simple reason being that the comments would be superficial. This post was started as a response to "The most overrated composer" post...I was simply saying that, aside from the purpose of amusement, it wasn't even worth commenting on and was essentially meaningless.

[quasimodo]

What do you mean where? You mean in terms of this post?

All I wanted to say from the very beginning is that unless we have first mastered a metier (something basic and common to all great composers) then we have no real jurisdiction to knock the music of great composers (Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, etc.); the simple reason being that the comments would be superficial. This post was started as a response to "The most overrated composer" post...I was simply saying that, aside from the purpose of amusement, it wasn't even worth commenting on and was essentially meaningless.

"The most overrated composer" thread was specifically related to piano music, and it's quite obvious that for both Mozart & Beethoven, it was not really the best part of their works, especially Mozart, but even Beethoven, precisely because his "craft" or "style" or whatever you want to call it was much more suited for orchestra, and also, probably, because the instrument in the classical period was not as rich and evolved as it became from the XIX century on...

[mcgillcomposer]

"The most overrated composer" thread was specifically related to piano music, and it's quite obvious that for both Mozart & Beethoven, it was not really the best part of their works, especially Mozart, but even Beethoven, precisely because his "craft" or "style" or whatever you want to call it was much more suited for orchestra, and also, probably, because the instrument in the classical period was not as rich and evolved as it became from the XIX century on...

Beethoven's 32 sonatas are not an essential part of his output (not amongst the best of his work)? The 4th piano concerto? And Mozart did absolutely nothing for the piano sonata or concerto...right...detect the sarcasm? That's not even worth commenting on...yet here I am commenting  .

Regardless, Mozart and Beethoven "not at their best" is still pretty damn good.

[quasimodo]

Anyhow, your concept of "craft" is largely debatable, the evolution of composition, in a constant way, has been to loosen the framework, the rules, the canons of structure, harmony, counterpoint etc.
In the end of the day, a musical work is appreciated or despised according to subjective, emotional reactions, and not through objective, technical criteria. So it's not even a debate on "style" it's a debate on "taste". Composers aim at striking an audience, not a small milieu of universities and competition juries.
Let's not forget that Bach in his time was considered a second rank composer by his peers and by the public. Because his music did not match the concept of a composer's "craft" which was valid in his time.

[quasimodo]

Beethoven's 32 sonatas are not an essential part of his output (not amongst the best of his work)? The 4th piano concerto? And Mozart did absolutely nothing for the piano sonata or concerto...right...detect the sarcasm? That's not even worth commenting on...yet here I am commenting  .

Being prolific is not a guarantee of quality.

Regardless, Mozart and Beethoven "not at their best" is still pretty damn good.

That's what I call subjective...

[mcgillcomposer]

Anyhow, your concept of "craft" is largely debatable, the evolution of composition, in a constant way, has been to loosen the framework, the rules, the canons of structure, harmony, counterpoint etc.
In the end of the day, a musical work is appreciated or despised according to subjective, emotional reactions, and not through objective, technical criteria. So it's not even a debate on "style" it's a debate on "taste". Composers aim at striking an audience, not a small milieu of universities and competition juries.
Let's not forget that Bach in his time was considered a second rank composer by his peers and by the public. Because his music did not match the concept of a composer's "craft" which was valid in his time.

I think it was more an issue of style.

Regardless, I have trouble picturing Mendelssohn sitting at a desk with the St. Matthew's Passion thinking "I am going to introduce this Bach fellow as one of the greatest composers the world has known because I like the groove of his tunes."

Also, it is no coincidence that practically every great composer to follow Bach revered his music to the highest degree. I highly doubt this was strictly on the basis of it being aesthetically pleasing.

[mcgillcomposer]

Being prolific is not a guarantee of quality.

You're right. What's your point? Just because I said 32 sonatas? Actually, compared to many composers, that's not prolific at all.

[mcgillcomposer]

That's what I call subjective...

Every judgment of quality is in one way subjective...by definition, there is no way around it. But, I definitely have some good company behind me on this one.

[mcgillcomposer]

Anyway, as fun as this has been I need to sleep...it's 6:00 am here!!! Thanks for the conversation...some really interesting things were said.

[mephisto]

Conterpoint are you familliar with the composers Marc-André dalbavie and Rautavaara?

Both compose entirely new music(contermporary music) wich is both new and accesible. Just because there are many bad composers today doesn't mean that music is dead. There where many bad composers in Mozart's lifetime too.

Rzewski for instance, his music is great and accesible. but not old-fashioned.



edit:

After reading more of this topic, i realise that I may have missunderstood, because counterpoint actually likes the music of even Ligeti.

[jlh]

What do you mean where? You mean in terms of this post?

All I wanted to say from the very beginning is that unless we have first mastered a metier (something basic and common to all great composers) then we have no real jurisdiction to knock the music of great composers (Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, etc.); the simple reason being that the comments would be superficial. This post was started as a response to "The most overrated composer" post...I was simply saying that, aside from the purpose of amusement, it wasn't even worth commenting on and was essentially meaningless.

No, I mean where in your opinion is music to go from this point in its evolution?

[arbisley]

First of all, I'd like to say how much more interesting I find this thread to the other one about overrated composers.

Yes I love Rautavaara's piano concerto, can't remember if it was his first or he wrote any others. On the other hand, his symphony for birds and orchestra I find gets boring after a while, possibly like some people find Beethoven's pastoral boring, because it continues to explore similar methods throughout.

I find that "avant garde" composers on the whole tend to take the idea of a philosophy and then try to craft music around that, take 4minutes 33 by John Cage. Taking the sound of a train stopping and orchestrating it seems to me to defeat the purpose of instruments which can make beautiful sounds, because it lays importance on something we hear every day as "noise".

I will comment more at some stage...

[maxreger]

to arbisley:

the same argument could be made then, that art works like Pollocks "lucifer" and Picasso's "guernica" are not very useful works, being that you could paint beautiful things with a paintbrush also... you see, its a matter of perspective.

to mcgill:

do you think "gruppen" by stockhausen is a piece devoid of any "skill" No control of counterpoint? Timbre? Texture? Form? etc

If so, I would challenge to see your current work as a composer. In fact, I would like you to PM me a sample score of something of yours, as to me it seems like you must be one hell of a composer to be able to state such a claim.

[mcgillcomposer]

to mcgill:

do you think "gruppen" by stockhausen is a piece devoid of any "skill" No control of counterpoint? Timbre? Texture? Form? etc

This is certainly one of his more successful works...I must confess, I actually do like it . I just wish he was more consistent.

[mcgillcomposer]

In fact, I would like you to PM me a sample score of something of yours, as to me it seems like you must be one hell of a composer to be able to state such a claim.

I can send you an audio sample of my latest string quartet as soon as it's finished. It will be a simulation unless you want to wait until October.

[maxreger]

-I just need the score to be able to hear it, I rather have that (or a sample of the score if you dont want to send the whole thing)... then have a MIDI or sampled version. If you would like, send me that via yousendit and link me via PM. I would be glad to see it.

[soliloquy]

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 disagree.  For instance, I strongly enjoy the sounds of Krzysztof Penderecki's Cello Concerto No. 1; most people on this forum would become crippled with migraines half-way through that piece.  There are people who would prefer to listen to Led Zeppelin than listen to a Wagner Overture, and I'm sure that the Zeppelin people would find the Wagner boring, and vice-versa.  How can this be true if what music someone thinks "sounds good" isn't subjective?  Or are you referring to the ability to appreciate sound?  Personally, I can not appreciate either the sound or the construction of Nine Inch Nails' music, as I'm sure a lot of people on here can not appreciate (100% sure, there has been a rather prolific thread about it =P) EITHER the sound or construction of say... "Synaphai" by Iannis Xenakis.  Now, would you say that Rachmaninov's Prelude in C Sharp Minor is a worthless piece because at the time he had very little theory?  I mean, the piece is extremely harmonically simple.  What about the works of Philip Glass, possibly a bit more complicated in their construction but still extremely simple harmonically?  No matter how incredible the Glass Violin Concerto sounds, would you still say it is an inferior piece because inferior or pedestrian construction was used?  And on the note of Stockhausen, you state that his music does not follow traditional musical construction methods, therefore it is displeasing to listen to, and because what sonorities are enjoyable is unsubjective, everyone must hate Stockhausen Klavierstuck X.  I like it, certainly more from the sounds it creates than that gaudy monstrosity of a score, I can promise you that

[mcgillcomposer]

I disagree.  For instance, I strongly enjoy the sounds of Krzysztof Penderecki's Cello Concerto No. 1; most people on this forum would become crippled with migraines half-way through that piece.  There are people who would prefer to listen to Led Zeppelin than listen to a Wagner Overture, and I'm sure that the Zeppelin people would find the Wagner boring, and vice-versa.  How can this be true if what music someone thinks "sounds good" isn't subjective?  Or are you referring to the ability to appreciate sound?  Personally, I can not appreciate either the sound or the construction of Nine Inch Nails' music, as I'm sure a lot of people on here can not appreciate (100% sure, there has been a rather prolific thread about it =P) EITHER the sound or construction of say... "Synaphai" by Iannis Xenakis.  Now, would you say that Rachmaninov's Prelude in C Sharp Minor is a worthless piece because at the time he had very little theory?  I mean, the piece is extremely harmonically simple.  What about the works of Philip Glass, possibly a bit more complicated in their construction but still extremely simple harmonically?  No matter how incredible the Glass Violin Concerto sounds, would you still say it is an inferior piece because inferior or pedestrian construction was used?  And on the note of Stockhausen, you state that his music does not follow traditional musical construction methods, therefore it is displeasing to listen to, and because what sonorities are enjoyable is unsubjective, everyone must hate Stockhausen Klavierstuck X.  I like it, certainly more from the sounds it creates than that gaudy monstrosity of a score, I can promise you that

Fair enough. It is a monstrosity of a score!!! I can't believe Richter learned them...what patience lol.

[soliloquy]

Fair enough. It is a monstrosity of a score!!! I can't believe Richter learned them...what patience lol.

Did Richter learn the Stockhausen Klavierstucken?  Maybe you are thinking of Pollini?

Anyway, randomly for the viewing pleasure and/or displeasure, here are the first couple pages from Klavierstuck X (right click + open in new window for full view):

















Now, how can one judge the "value" or "quality" of a piece like this based solely on constructional aspects?

[mcgillcomposer]

You can't, but it should be one of many things to take into account.

[counterpoint]

Now, how can one judge the "value" or "quality" of a piece like this based solely on constructional aspects?

You have to consider, that there are gloves with cutted fingertips involved... 

[herr schwampasche]

you people are fools ... the only overrated composer is windows xp. real ones know that windows 2000 is the best.