Why aren't there any Rachmaninoffs anymore?

[Derek]

The world is too large to assume that there is nobody in it talented enough to write similar sort of Romantic music as well as Rachmaninoff did. However it appears as though the only sort of composers that get any sort of acclaim as having done something "new" are composers such as Xenakis.

When I ask professors (and I have done so, face to face) why nobody writes Romantic style music anymore, the answer I receive is: "Because the great masters of the past discovered everything."

If the academic world were really as open minded as it claims to be, it seems to me there would be a big mix of acclaimed modern composers: ones who write "normal" sounding melodic music, and ones who explore alternative methods such as Xenakis or Cage. But there seems to be very few modern Rachmaninoffs, if any at all, in the academic world.

If the academic world were truly open minded, it might admit that "the old masters discovered everything" is in fact an opinion. But most professors I have spoken to seem to assert that it is a fact that nobody can come up with melodic music that was as good as what was written in the past.  If I could find just one person willing to admit that this is an opinion, I might be more willing to regard Xenakis and other composers with more interest.  So far I haven't found such a person, so...I guess this story is somewhat like the Zax!

[retrouvailles]

I don't think it has to deal with the opinion that "they discovered everything". Think about it like this. Back in the 1890s, were people still writing like Mendelssohn? Or maybe even Mozart?If so, name me a composer that was prominent that did. Oh wait, you can't? That's because music , then and now, needs to progress. That isn't to say that old traditions are being destroyed and new ones are being created. Ask any great composer of today and they will say that they are building on them, which they are. Sure, some people write "normal" music today, but there is always a sort of "newness" to their music. For example, look at Valentin Silvestrov (still alive), who on the surface seems to continue the Romantic tradition. But, with further examination, you can see that there is still an element of progression.

More to come later. Gotta run to class.

[Petter]

Because that happened in the past and we´re in the present. It will probably become evident eventually. The way you´re reacting now about Xenaxis is probably simular to the way the modernists reacted about the romantic composers back then. 

[ahinton]

The world is too large to assume that there is nobody in it talented enough to write similar sort of Romantic music as well as Rachmaninoff did. However it appears as though the only sort of composers that get any sort of acclaim as having done something "new" are composers such as Xenakis.

You really do have the knives out for Xenakis, don't you?! The point is that what we understand as Romantic art grew and developed in a past era and it has no more been overthrown since its heyday than has any previous or subsequent artistic movement; we move on (we always have and always will), though not by excluding the past but by discovering more things while cognisant of the past and exploring our relationship with it. Think of composers such as Camille Saint-Saëns, Havergal Brian, Paul le Flem, Leo Ornstein or Elliott Carter, whose lives were (and in Carter's case still is!) sufficiently long to have embraced many artistic changes and metamorphoses; what was/is "the past" to them near the ends of their creative lives? Well, obviously some of it preceded them but some of it is what they lived through in the earlier parts of their lives. Remember that Carter was around when 1920s Paris was all the rage, Stravinsky the height of fashion, the jazz age in full swing and Berg about to write Wozzeck (Carter actually attended the US première of Wozzeck, at which he sat next to George Gershwin) - and he's not only still around but finding many more new things to say in another world altogether - that of the 21st century. Now to suggest as you do that "the only sort of composers that get any sort of acclaim as having done something "new" are composers such as Xenakis" is patent nonsense and, were it true, it would be an appalling prospect.

However, let's pause for a moment and address your actual question briefly. I am entirely unaware that there was ever more than one Rakhmaninov at any time. And look how his style changed and developed while always remaining recognisable as his! In his latter years, gone are the big tunes of the Second Symphony and Second Piano Concerto, yet his style and manner continued to refine itself to the point where my only "criticism" is that, in his last quarter century or so, he wrote so few new works. Don't anyone tell me that the Symphonic Dances contain nothing new! Critics nevertheless frequently accused him of having nothing new to say during those days when he spent more time performing than composing, but they were as wrong as you are when you make unfounded accusations about non-intuituive composers! As one of the leading pianists of his day, Rakhmaninov's performing style was also in some ways quite ahead of its time.

When I ask professors (and I have done so, face to face) why nobody writes Romantic style music anymore, the answer I receive is: "Because the great masters of the past discovered everything."

Leaving aside the fact that your premise is incorrect in any case, I do wonder who elects such professors and why anyone might think it worth paying them salaries if they are serious in giving answers like that!

If the academic world were really as open minded as it claims to be, it seems to me there would be a big mix of acclaimed modern composers: ones who write "normal" sounding melodic music, and ones who explore alternative methods such as Xenakis or Cage. But there seems to be very few modern Rachmaninoffs, if any at all, in the academic world.

Fortunately, not all composers inhabit the academic world! But what on earth is ""normal" sounding melodic music" other than a meaningless phrase? Rakhmaninov was undoubtedly a great melodist (and much more besides); his compatriot and younger contemporary Medtner (also a remarkable pianist) was notably less so, yet does that alone make him a lesser composer? Why are the methods explored by Xenakis and Cage "alternative"? To what? Aren't all methods and approaches effectively "alternatives" to all others? And why do you keep pairing Xenakis and Cage?!

If the academic world were truly open minded, it might admit that "the old masters discovered everything" is in fact an opinion. But most professors I have spoken to seem to assert that it is a fact that nobody can come up with melodic music that was as good as what was written in the past.  If I could find just one person willing to admit that this is an opinion, I might be more willing to regard Xenakis and other composers with more interest.

Frankly, it's not a fact and isn't even a credible opinion either! - so may I urge you to disregard it as either? Even if you do so, however, I don't see why that alone should or even might in itself make you "more willing to regard Xenakis and other composers with more interest"; as I've said, for one thing you don't have to feel obliged to do that and, for another, it should be the music itself that makes you interested if and when it does...

Best,

Alistair

[cygnusdei]

If the academic world were truly open minded, it might admit that "the old masters discovered everything" is in fact an opinion. But most professors I have spoken to seem to assert that it is a fact that nobody can come up with melodic music that was as good as what was written in the past.  If I could find just one person willing to admit that this is an opinion, I might be more willing to regard Xenakis and other composers with more interest. 

I don't quite understand what you mean. Is it not an opinion?

Er ... nevermind. I didn't read it carefully the first time. You mean "old masters discovered everything" may not be true.

[counterpoint]

Who does compose all this music for the movies?

[hodi]

I don't think it has to deal with the opinion that "they discovered everything". Think about it like this. Back in the 1890s, were people still writing like Mendelssohn? Or maybe even Mozart?If so, name me a composer that was prominent that did. Oh wait, you can't? That's because music , then and now, needs to progress. That isn't to say that old traditions are being destroyed and new ones are being created. Ask any great composer of today and they will say that they are building on them, which they are. Sure, some people write "normal" music today, but there is always a sort of "newness" to their music. For example, look at Valentin Silvestrov (still alive), who on the surface seems to continue the Romantic tradition. But, with further examination, you can see that there is still an element of progression.

More to come later. Gotta run to class.

Yeah, but in the romantic period, everything sounded great and many pianists and listeners liked it.
mendelssohn,rachmaninov,chopin,brahms...


now the modern classical music became a subject of extremly intellectual people who write music which is so "intelligent" that the auidence can't understand and can't feel...

let's just take the music and put it in the museum, everybody can see "wow, this is a work of a genius"

[i heart xenakis]

There are composers doing that; you just don't know enough about music to know about it.  It's called Neo-Romanticism, and it's been around forever.  And the reason people like Ferneyhough or Xenakis or Bussotti are the ones getting praise is because they're actually doing something interesting, new, and innovative as opposed to doing something old and tired.  "Praise", as you put it, is going to come from the current musical society, no?  So, while a bunch of pedestrians might prefer to listen to Liebermann than Ligeti, pedestrians aren't the ones handing out medals, scholarships and accolades.

[rachfan]

I spend very little time on the Modern period for good reasons.  The problems as I see it are that 1) melody went out of fashion; 2) aesthetically, noise became undifferentiated from music to the point that it has become accepted as music; 3) the role of the piano as an instrument shifted from emphasizing singing legato lines to sheer percussiveness (why would making a piano "sing" be relevant anymore with the demise of melody?); 4) contemporary composers moved away from composing much of anything for solo piano and gravitated more to writing for orchestra and ensembles; and 5) with the rise of the electronic age, any improvising musician today qualifies as a "composer", with or without talent. 

We are all very fortunate that following the Romantic period and Impressionism, there were also on the scene Late Romantics and Neo-Romantics.  Composers like Rachmaninoff, Bortkiewicz, Liapunov, Scriabin (up through Op. 60 or so), etc. gave and left us with piano music that was so incredibly beautiful.  For the most part, these composers like Rachmaninoff and Bortkiewicz were not touched or tainted by Modernism.  The ravishing sounds they created have not been replicated since by contemporary "composers" who prefer to create ugliness and cacophany.

So what are we supposed to listen to now?  Oh, well, serial music, 12-tone rows, dodecaphoic music, random noise (called "music"), and minimalism.  For using the mathematics of intervals and the successive order of those intervals, all you really need as a composer is a brass monkey.  Then you have avant garde audiences salivating over John Cage's "music" of tapping assorted pieces of junk on a table with a stick, or those listeners who are bewitched by composers directing the placement of paper clips, screws or other trash on piano strings, or requiring pianists to jump up and down off the piano bench to strum piano strings that were never designed or intended for that purpose.  Then there is minimalism in all its repetitious monotony, such as "works" by Glass.  Minimalism is best perceived and understood by an audience of minimal minds. 

And of course, with everyone being a composer these days, talent or no, trying now to sort through sheet music to determine what has merit and what is sheer rubbish would  take more time than anyone possibly has available.  A musical masterpiece is one that is timeless and universal.  When it comes to 20th Century music after 1940, the jury is still out.  The fact is, if you live to be 100, life is way too short.  Once you pay your dues becoming a "well rounded student", it's then best to use valuable time to play music that you really love and enjoy rather than squandering precious hours practicing random noise that is difficult to memorize and that audiences will little appreciate anyway other than thinking that it and they are in vogue. 

When it comes to an appraisal in the late 21st Century solo piano ouvre of the prior 200 years, I'm sure it will amount to a collosal embarrassment.  Experimentalism and fads will never substitute for creative genius in composing beauty. 

It's possible that there are Rachmaninoff's among us today, but if they were to out-compose Rachmaninoff, it would not be accepted by today's critics.  It would be decried as decadent and passe.  It's deemed more interesting to hear the pianist apply slabs of wood to the piano keyboard to create huge tone clusters instead.  How innovative, artistic and beautiful.        

[ahinton]

There are composers doing that; you just don't know enough about music to know about it.  It's called Neo-Romanticism, and it's been around forever.  And the reason people like Ferneyhough or Xenakis or Bussotti are the ones getting praise is because they're actually doing something interesting, new, and innovative as opposed to doing something old and tired.  "Praise", as you put it, is going to come from the current musical society, no?  So, while a bunch of pedestrians might prefer to listen to Liebermann than Ligeti, pedestrians aren't the ones handing out medals, scholarships and accolades.

Apart from your opening salvo, I think that this is largely rather unfair, if you'll pardon my saying so. "Neo-Romanticism" (or "Neon-Romanticism", as the frequently depressing artificiality of some of it has on occasion prompted me to call it) has not "been around forever" although I grant you that it's been around for an uncomfortably long time, but what strikes me about much of what seems to be done in its name is that it gives the real thing - that's to say not only genuine Romanticism of the Romatic era but ditto from subsequent eras - a bad name. We shouldn't expect every composer to be a Ferneyhough or a Xenakis, for all that our world of music would be greatly poorer without such composers. To my mind (and, as you know, I speak as a composer myself), what composers such as those two have done is not to overturn anything but to add to it; as I have observed elsewhere, our intellectual and emotional capacities are, or should be, vastly expanded now to what they once were, because we have such a vast and ever-increasing variety of musical expression to absorb. Xenakis has enhanced our sense of musical vocabulary; so has Shostakovich, albeit (obviously) in entirely different ways. Each are a vital part of 20th century musical humanity - as, of course, was Rakhmaninov also...

Best,

Alistair

[cygnusdei]

Say, this gives me an idea, although it may be a little off topic. As pianists are expected to be versatile, i.e. able to play different styles of music from baroque to contemporary, why shouldn't composers? If I had my say in composition curriculum (if there is such a thing), students would be required to produce compositions in different styles as well, and they all have to be good!

[ahinton]

I spend very little time on the Modern period

Would you care to help us out here by elucidating when, approximately, this "period" started for you?

The problems as I see it are that 1) melody went out of fashion; 2) aesthetically, noise became undifferentiated from music to the point that it has become accepted as music; 3) the role of the piano as an instrument shifted from emphasizing singing legato lines to sheer percussiveness (why would making a piano "sing" be relevant anymore with the demise of melody?); 4) contemporary composers moved away from composing much of anything for solo piano and gravitated more to writing for orchestra and ensembles; and 5) with the rise of the electronic age, any improvising musician today qualifies as a "composer", with or without talent. 

OK, let's take these five statements apart.
1) Who says that melody went out of fashion? Melody may have been redefined, but then has not that always been the case? Let us remember that Lutoslawski once said that "we need to find a new kind of melody"...
2) To whom? And who says so? And how does whoever says so prove it for all of us?
3) So there's no percussiveness and violence in Chopin's B minor Scherzo, Alkan's Allegro Barbaro, Liszt's Cszardás Macabre? - and no singing lines in the piano music of Ligeti, ever? No, this is a bald statement that, whilst not without any truth, seems determined to supress vital detail in order to seek to make its anti-"Modern period" (whatever that may be) case.
4) I'm not sure (as I've indicated already) what you mean by contemporary, but your assertion about moving away from piano composition is fatuous in that it ignores Bartók, Prokofiev, Messiaen, Sorabji, Ligeti, Stevenson, Boulez, Finnissy and others - and just those eight named composers have contributed sufficient piano music to fill up several weeks, I imagine, were it all laid end to end.
5) the "rise of the electronic age" does not of itself actually qualify anyone as anything, even if it might indirectly encourage some people to believe that it does.

We are all very fortunate that following the Romantic period and Impressionism, there were also on the scene Late Romantics and Neo-Romantics.  Composers like Rachmaninoff, Bortkiewicz, Liapunov, Scriabin (up through Op. 60 or so), etc. gave and left us with piano music that was so incredibly beautiful.  For the most part, these composers like Rachmaninoff and Bortkiewicz were not touched or tainted by Modernism.  The ravishing sounds they created have not been replicated since by contemporary "composers" who prefer to create ugliness and cacophany.

So what's wrong - or inappropriate in the present context - with Skryabin post-Op. 60? I am a contemporary composer (in the sense that I am alive and have composed) and I have written for the piano even though my performing abilities are little farther advanced than the five-finger exercise level compared to Rakhmaninov, Medtner, etc.; I daresay that you don't know any of my piano music but I'd really rather you didn't baldly assume, as you do here, that every contemporary piano composer prefers "to create ugliness and cacophany[sp.]" just because, once again, it seems conveniently to suit your attempt at argument.

So what are we supposed to listen to now?  Oh, well, serial music, 12-tone rows, dadacaphoic music, random noise (called "music"), and minimalism.  For using the mathematics of intervals and the successive order of those intervals, all you really need as a composer is a brass monkey.  Then you have avant guard audiences salivating over John Cage's "music" of tapping assorted pieces of junk on a table with a stick, or those listeners who are bewitched by composers directing the placement of paper clips, screws or other trash on piano strings, or requiring pianists to jump up and down off the piano bench to strum piano strings that were never designed or intended for that purpose.  Then there is minimalism in all its repetitious monotony, such as "works" by Glass.  Minimalism is best perceived and understood by an audience of minimal minds.

I'll pass over your at times atrocious spelling, even if only because "dadacaphoic" at least affords no small amount of amusement and I'll also try not to yawn over your recycled interpretation of the time-dishonoured joke about minimalism (not that, in many of its examples, I disagree with you here, mind), but what you once again conveniently omit to address here is that your examples, even if entirely true of themselves, are representative of but a small amount of contemporary music and accordingly provide a woefully unbalanced, bigoted and ill-considered overview of musical composition today.

And of course, with everyone being a composer these days, talent or no,

Or so you say...

trying now to sort through sheet music to determine what has merit and what is sheer rubbish would  take more time than anyone possibly has available.

And more ability than some people have at their disposal, too, I humbly submit...

A musical masterpiece is one that is timeless and universal.

Such a convenient statement - but at the same time a remarkably unrevealing one; how much "time" is required for something to become "timeless" in your definition of that term? And does it have to be "universally" recognised as such throughout its life in order to qualify as such? I hope not - for, if so, that would put the Matthaus-Passion and many other of Bach's works, the late Beethoven quartets and heaven knows what else out to grass, would it not?

When it comes to 20th Century music after 1930, the jury is still out.

Ah - so this is the date when your "Modern period "starts, is it? Ah, well - at least that leaves such works as Vermeulen's Second Symphony, Varèse's Amériques, Schönberg's Erwartung, Bartók's First Piano Concerto, Sorabji's First Organ Symphony, etc. on the side of musical righteousness...

The fact is, if you live to be 100, life is way too short.

Tell that to Elliott Carter, who almost has done just that - and hope that he has the good sense to listen to you!

Once you pay your dues becoming a "well rounded student", it's then best to use valuable time to play music that you really love and enjoy rather than squandering precious hours practicing random noise that is difficult to memorize and that audiences will little appreciate anyway other than thinking that it and they are in vogue. 

If this is true as you express it, then never mind the practising - that's for players and singers to do - but clearly I've been doing far worse than that (according to you) by "squandering precious hours" composing "random noise that is difficult to memorize and that audiences will little appreciate anyway other than thinking that it and they are in vogue"; thanks for the compliment, warning, admonition or whatever else it may be (if anything at all).

When it comes to an appraisal in the late 21st Century solo piano ouvre of the prior 200 years, I'm sure it will amount to a collosal embarrassment.  Experimentalism and fads will never substitute for creative genius in composing beauty.

Well, one has to hand it to you for sheer virtuosic arrogance in claiming such unequivocal certainty of vision about how people in almost 100 years' time will appraise two centuries of piano music since the days of the Chopin/Godowsky Studies, Rakhmaninov's Sonatas, Preludes and Études-Tableaux and the wonderful contributions of composers such as Medtner and Skryabin in the early years of the last century through Busoni, Bartók, Prokofiev, Sorabji, Messiaen, etc. up until some time after your own probable death. I concede at least that you are correct, insofar as it goes, in stating that "experimentalism and fads will never substitute for creative genius", but then many of the very greatest composers have experimented.

It's possible that there are Rachmaninoff's among us today, but if they were to out-compose Rachmaninoff, it would not be accepted by today's critics.

It would be utterly astonishing - and (in this context) stuff the critics anyway!

It would be decried as decadent and passe.

But would that alter the nature of the music?

You call yourself "rachfan". If your love of the music (not to mention the playing) of the great Sergey Vasilieyvich exceeds 1% of mine, you'll be doing well...

Best,

Alistair

[ramseytheii]

I wish I had thge time to read and respond to these in detail, but these days I don't.  I wonder if a little more empathy towards rachfan's view is appropriate here.  The first thing that struck me was he was right about one thing; that is that noise is no longer differentiated from music.  Many composers have said this explicitly, and continue to do so; they just don't think it is a bad thing, like many others do.  Oh, what the hell - like many of us do.

The second thing that struck me, is that his viewpoint of modern music as unmelodic, violent, pessimistic, ugly and cacophonous has a basis in reality.  Does it reflect every piece of modern music, or even every trend, alive today?  of course not.  But there has been no shortage of music in the last fifty years, that completely eschewed solo melody; referential harmony; repetition; and a whole host of techniques which make music readily accessible.  And I do not think it is unfair to say that that style of music has by far received the most attention, both in academic settings and in concert performance.

I'm not making any value judgments about music which doesn't use techniques to make itself "readily accessible," rather just saying that how can we blame people for developing negative views, when they are confronted with such things.  Rather, we should have empathy, and point those who have a prejudiced view of modern music towards music which perhaps will expand their perception of what is going on these days.

I think it is also undeniably true that musicians, who often work and study in extremely esoteric and insular environments, either forget the level of comprehension among the audience, or choose to disregard it entirely.  I don't single out composers in this.  Nor do I think this is necessarily a bad thing - but if a musician either chooses that route, or has the courage to find himself in it, than that musician should be prepared to accept a certain amount of hostility from those around him, and hopefully, that musician can accept with grace and largesse.

Walter Ramsey

[mcgillcomposer]

Didn't Schoenberg himself say there is a lot of great music still to be written in c major. Well, he was right, but a great composer is required for great music to be written, and those don't come along too often. In any case, your plight is not going unanswered. There is a fairly substantial rejection of 20th century composition techniques occurring at many of the leading conservatories. This doesn't involve a reversion back to the 'old ways', but it certainly accommodates for many of the things you find lacking in much of the contemporary repertoire.

I have to admit, however, that I can only speak from personal experience (or from correspondence with friends) for Juilliard, Eastman, Peabody, the Royal Academy of Music, and the Moscow Conservatory. I have heard that the Paris Conservatoire is quite against this new movement.

[Derek]

I spend very little time on the Modern period for good reasons.  The problems as I see it are that 1) melody went out of fashion; 2) aesthetically, noise became undifferentiated from music to the point that it has become accepted as music; 3) the role of the piano as an instrument shifted from emphasizing singing legato lines to sheer percussiveness (why would making a piano "sing" be relevant anymore with the demise of melody?); 4) contemporary composers moved away from composing much of anything for solo piano and gravitated more to writing for orchestra and ensembles; and 5) with the rise of the electronic age, any improvising musician today qualifies as a "composer", with or without talent. 

We are all very fortunate that following the Romantic period and Impressionism, there were also on the scene Late Romantics and Neo-Romantics.  Composers like Rachmaninoff, Bortkiewicz, Liapunov, Scriabin (up through Op. 60 or so), etc. gave and left us with piano music that was so incredibly beautiful.  For the most part, these composers like Rachmaninoff and Bortkiewicz were not touched or tainted by Modernism.  The ravishing sounds they created have not been replicated since by contemporary "composers" who prefer to create ugliness and cacophany.

So what are we supposed to listen to now?  Oh, well, serial music, 12-tone rows, dadacaphoic music, random noise (called "music"), and minimalism.  For using the mathematics of intervals and the successive order of those intervals, all you really need as a composer is a brass monkey.  Then you have avant guard audiences salivating over John Cage's "music" of tapping assorted pieces of junk on a table with a stick, or those listeners who are bewitched by composers directing the placement of paper clips, screws or other trash on piano strings, or requiring pianists to jump up and down off the piano bench to strum piano strings that were never designed or intended for that purpose.  Then there is minimalism in all its repetitious monotony, such as "works" by Glass.  Minimalism is best perceived and understood by an audience of minimal minds. 

And of course, with everyone being a composer these days, talent or no, trying now to sort through sheet music to determine what has merit and what is sheer rubbish would  take more time than anyone possibly has available.  A musical masterpiece is one that is timeless and universal.  When it comes to 20th Century music after 1930, the jury is still out.  The fact is, if you live to be 100, life is way too short.  Once you pay your dues becoming a "well rounded student", it's then best to use valuable time to play music that you really love and enjoy rather than squandering precious hours practicing random noise that is difficult to memorize and that audiences will little appreciate anyway other than thinking that it and they are in vogue. 

When it comes to an appraisal in the late 21st Century solo piano ouvre of the prior 200 years, I'm sure it will amount to a collosal embarrassment.  Experimentalism and fads will never substitute for creative genius in composing beauty. 

It's possible that there are Rachmaninoff's among us today, but if they were to out-compose Rachmaninoff, it would not be accepted by today's critics.  It would be decried as decadent and passe.  It's deemed more interesting to hear the pianist apply slabs of wood to the piano keyboard to create huge tone clusters instead.  How innovative, artistic and beautiful.        

Someone sane on this forum! Thank god. I personally like minimalism though...at least it can be melodic. I like some movie scores by Phillip Glass a lot. It really depends on my mood..sometimes I like really involved, complex romantic stuff and other times I like the simplicity of minimalism. Some Rachmaninoff pieces, such as "Tears," has almost a minimalistic feel to it at times, I think.

[ramseytheii]

As to why they arent any more Rachmaninoffs, it reminds me of the Republicans in the USA these days, who always say, "why aren't there any more Reagans?"

Walter Ramsey

[webern78]

As to why they arent any more Rachmaninoffs, it reminds me of the Republicans in the USA these days, who always say, "why aren't there any more Reagans?"

Walter Ramsey

It'a because feminism killed all the good men amrite?

[cygnusdei]

Rachmaninov was a Republican ??

[Derek]

As to why they arent any more Rachmaninoffs, it reminds me of the Republicans in the USA these days, who always say, "why aren't there any more Reagans?"

Walter Ramsey

Republican debate

[retrouvailles]

Someone sane on this forum! Thank god. I personally like minimalism though...at least it can be melodic. I like some movie scores by Phillip Glass a lot. It really depends on my mood..sometimes I like really involved, complex romantic stuff and other times I like the simplicity of minimalism. Some Rachmaninoff pieces, such as "Tears," has almost a minimalistic feel to it at times, I think.

You are hopeless. I think we should all stop trying to educate you and enlighten you.

[rachfan]

Hi Everyone,

I guess my post on this thread ignited a bit of controversy--not a bad thing really as it stirs debate.  ahinton, I certainly respect your views, but we would probably have to agree to disagree on the nature of modern music.  There were a couple of good natured barbs in your reply, but luckily I have a thick hide, so was not offended.     I should add that I do indeed exceed your 1% threshold regarding love of Rachmaninoff's music.  He has always been my favorite composer since I was probably 8 years old or so.  I've also posted numerous recordings of his piano works in the Audition Room.  I think he's tops!  So at least we have that in common.    

As well, I very much appreciate the support of other posters here who, while perhaps not agreeing with all my opinions, at least agreed in general or with some of them.  I felt validated by that.

On a personal level, let me reveal more about my taste in music.  While studying piano for 10 years in my youth with my first teacher, I was the "well-rounded student".  Annually, I entered the National Piano Playing Auditions (adjudicated), presenting a memorized program of at least 10 pieces representing the Baroque, Viennese Classical, Romantic, Impressionistic/Modern periods.  So been there, done that.  Later in life I studied for 7 more years with another artist-teacher with the objective of expanding repertoire (all of which I selected).  It became clear to me then that my preferred musical time line runs from about 1810 to about 1940.  (Everyone reading this has his/her own personal time line preference which might be wider or narrower in range than mine.)  So the music that really appeals to me and that I spend my time on is from Beethoven and Schubert as transitional composers presaging the Romantic period, the Romantics, Impressionists and Neo-Romantics.  I no longer play Bach, Haydn and Mozart, as I feel I paid my dues there.  If I were forced to be exiled on a remote island with a piano and scores, I would only take my Late Romantic/Neo-Romantic scores.  That's what I most enjoy learning, practicing and playing, and it would occupy me for years.
 
Having said that, a few more words about Modern music.  First an admission: The most modern piece I've played, quite frankly, is Poulenc's "Melancolie" dated 1940, the approximate upper boundary of my preferred musical time line.  There are moments when I want to be a good sport and find some really appealing and satisfying modern pieces--not a lot, but  perhaps a few--to add to my repertoire.  Recently, I spent time buried in my repertoire guides (Hinson, Bernard, Hutchinson, Friskin, etc.) researching what I'd call the "neo-neo-romantic" composers in the U.S.  I decided that if I were going to make this effort, and being an American, I'd most want to focus on the music composed by my countrymen.   But so often I was turned off by a guide comment like  (and I paraphrase), "This neo-romantic composer uses extensive twelve tone row technique, blah blah."  Not what I'm seeking!!!  Finally, after sifting and more sifting, I came up with some pieces like Corigliano's "Gazebo Dances", Danielpour's "The Enchanted Garden", and Del Tredici's "Soliloquy".  Next step, a test: I went to Amazon and found CD samples of the Adagio from the "Gazebo Dances".  I hope that Corigliano doesn't read these posts, but I thought the music was absolutely dreadful!  Unless I find passion in music, I won't learn it.  (Again, life is much too short.) 

I guess the point is that there are times when I truly want to give contemporary music a chance, and invest time in looking into it; but trying to find things that I would really enjoy is most discouraging.  I do have the blues piece from Barber's "Excursions" on my to-do list, although I'm not very enthusiastic about it.  (I think highly of Barber's Piano Concerto, and his "Knoxville Summer of 1915" for soprano and chamber orchestra blows me totally away.  But I dislike his idiom employed in the piano solo works.) 

I hope this at least shows that yes, it's true that I'm not a rabid fan of modern music.  But at the same time, I do make an earnest attempt to try to find repertoire that would be rewarding should I invest in it.  Perhaps this puts me in a slightly different light than one might gather from my original post.  I just wanted to share that aspect. 

[pies]

a

[rachfan]

Hi pies,

I hadn't heard of Radulescu before.  This Romanian composer doesn't appear in any of the repertoire guides, so evidently stays under the radar.  I read a little about his "spectral technique" then found a couple of CDs at Amazon to sample.  Seems like there is a heavy oriental influence in his music.  It was interesting, but very often atonal or polytonal with considerable random dissonances and rhythms--that is, containing elements of modern music that just don't turn me on, like the presence of splashes of tone, without any melody and  romantic surge.  It seems very objective, external, and detached somehow.  It's probably too avant garde for me; but thanks for the recommendation!   

[lisztisforkids]

Derek is right... Xenakis cant right nothing compared to Penderecki!  Seriously though, is this topic worth anybody's time considering the other gagillion threads on this subject?


 HAPPY BIRTHDAY MESSIAEN!

[mcgillcomposer]

Derek is right... Xenakis cant right nothing compared to Penderecki!  Seriously though, is this topic worth anybody's time considering the other gagillion threads on this subject?


 HAPPY BIRTHDAY MESSIAEN!

No, it's not.

P.S. I think you meant 'write' not 'right'.

[lisztisforkids]

No, it's not.

P.S. I think you meant 'write' not 'right'.

  Thank you for correcting my grammar. And actually it is Messiaen's birthday... That is, its the year of his hundereth birthday. So maybe not the actual day of his birthday, but neverless, there are festivals and recitals going on everywere right now for his 'birthday'.

[mcgillcomposer]

  Thank you for correcting my grammar. And actually it is Messiaen's birthday... That is, its the year of his hundereth birthday. So maybe not the actual day of his birthday, but neverless, there are festivals and recitals going on everywere right now for his 'birthday'.

Bonne Fête M. Messiaen.

...ahhhhh I feel MUCH better. Thanks for reminding us!

[ahinton]

Messiaen's actual birthday is a little way away yet - it's not until December 10, which this year will be the date of his centenary. The following day will be the centenary of Elliott Carter. Let's hope...

Best,

Alistair

[retrouvailles]

The following day will be the centenary of Elliott Carter. Let's hope...

Don't jinx it!

Not that anyone cares about Elliott Carter. Most people here seem to be infatuated only in pieces with a tonality and melody staring them in the face. Or anything "not modern", however they define it. Don't expect a big celebration here when he turns 100. Same with Messiaen.

[ahinton]

Don't jinx it!

Not that anyone cares about Elliott Carter. Most people here seem to be infatuated only in pieces with a tonality and melody staring them in the face. Or anything "not modern", however they define it. Don't expect a big celebration here when he turns 100. Same with Messiaen.

I wouldn't dream of doing so!

But people DO now care about Elliott Carter, far more than was once the case; he's even faring considerably better in his own country now than he used to do (although US did at least award him two Pulitzers a good few years ago now). What's wrong with tonality anyway? - or melody? I just don't care about these things in that kind of way - i.e. I 'm just not interested in the existence and development of entrenched / partisan / bigoted / ignorant attitudes to (for or against) any kind of music in the sense that none of these are as important as the music itself; fortunately, this is a mere irritation rather than the norm, otherwise there would likely be no one around who genuinely loves the music of Carter, Tchaikovsky, Schönberg and Rakhmaninov as I do with a passion. All that matters is "is the music any good". Carter has written tonal music and less tonal music in his 70+ creative years; the overtly tonal Piano Sonata and First String Quartet have stood the test of time well. And you're quite wrong about the celebrations. Messiaen is getting more performances this year than ever before - and so, it would seem, is Carter; I have the centenary leaflet from Boosey & Hawkes (his main publishers) in front of me and this shows at least a hundred performances all over the world, although I'm sure that there are many others taking place besides these. It is also worth remembering that, whilst Rakhmaninov has stood the test of time well, our knowledge of his work as a whole is far greater now than was once the case in those bad old days when one almost always only ever heard the same few of his works over and over again - I am convinced that there are now far more Rakhmaninov devotees than there used to be.

And, since Rakhmaninov is the subject here, I do think it important to see him in the context of some of these people who seem to see him as in some sense representative of art frozen in time - the kind of attitude that appears to have prompted the question of "why aren't there any...?" - in other words, "why aren't things just like they were 75 or 100 years ago"? That kind of attitude is not even mere nostalgia - it's complacency! One has only to consider the three Rakhmaninov symphonies to observe how substantially, in the one medium alone, the composer developed and changed his ways over the years without ever losing or compromising his distinctive musical character; one could hardly imagine Rakhmaninov as being creatively complacent, for all that certain critics tried to claim that this was indeed the case.

Best,

Alistair

[mephisto]

Rautavaara and Penderecki are as good composers as anyone in the past

[ahinton]

ahinton, I certainly respect your views, but we would probably have to agree to disagree on the nature of modern music.

Thank you. But would we really have to do that? I, at least, am not so sure. I would like at least to think that we could agree that "modern music", or "new music" (or whatever term you might like to use) is, like its composer and performer practitioners, a broad church that admits of many different stylistic persuasions. You may, however, be referring not to this per se but specifically to "modernism", which is another matter and that is a concept with which I have some trouble, since much if not all of what may be deemed "modernist" on Wednesday will become either accepted or passé by the following Monday, so to speak.

 

There were a couple of good natured barbs in your reply, but luckily I have a thick hide, so was not offended.   

It's always gratifying to know that no offence has been taken when none was intended in the first place...

I should add that I do indeed exceed your 1% threshold regarding love of Rachmaninoff's music.

Good!

He has always been my favorite composer since I was probably 8 years old or so.  I've also posted numerous recordings of his piano works in the Audition Room.  I think he's tops!  So at least we have that in common.   

Well, not quite that; I do not have a "favourite" composer, but my love and respect for Rakhmaninov is nevertheless immense.

On a personal level, let me reveal more about my taste in music.  While studying piano for 10 years in my youth with my first teacher, I was the "well-rounded student".  Annually, I entered the National Piano Playing Auditions (adjudicated), presenting a memorized program of at least 10 pieces representing the Baroque, Viennese Classical, Romantic, Impressionistic/Modern periods.  So been there, done that.  Later in life I studied for 7 more years with another artist-teacher with the objective of expanding repertoire (all of which I selected).  It became clear to me then that my preferred musical time line runs from about 1810 to about 1940.  (Everyone reading this has his/her own personal time line preference which might be wider or narrower in range than mine.)  So the music that really appeals to me and that I spend my time on is from Beethoven and Schubert as transitional composers presaging the Romantic period, the Romantics, Impressionists and Neo-Romantics.  I no longer play Bach, Haydn and Mozart, as I feel I paid my dues there.  If I were forced to be exiled on a remote island with a piano and scores, I would only take my Late Romantic/Neo-Romantic scores.  That's what I most enjoy learning, practicing and playing, and it would occupy me for years.
 
Having said that, a few more words about Modern music.  First an admission: The most modern piece I've played, quite frankly, is Poulenc's "Melancolie" dated 1940, the approximate upper boundary of my preferred musical time line.  There are moments when I want to be a good sport and find some really appealing and satisfying modern pieces--not a lot, but  perhaps a few--to add to my repertoire.  Recently, I spent time buried in my repertoire guides (Hinson, Bernard, Hutchinson, Friskin, etc.) researching what I'd call the "neo-neo-romantic" composers in the U.S.  I decided that if I were going to make this effort, and being an American, I'd most want to focus on the music composed by my countrymen.   But so often I was turned off by a guide comment like  (and I paraphrase), "This neo-romantic composer uses extensive twelve tone row technique, blah blah."  Not what I'm seeking!!!  Finally, after sifting and more sifting, I came up with some pieces like Corigliano's "Gazebo Dances", Danielpour's "The Enchanted Garden", and Del Tredici's "Soliloquy".  Next step, a test: I went to Amazon and found CD samples of the Adagio from the "Gazebo Dances".  I hope that Corigliano doesn't read these posts, but I thought the music was absolutely dreadful!  Unless I find passion in music, I won't learn it.  (Again, life is much too short.) 

I guess the point is that there are times when I truly want to give contemporary music a chance, and invest time in looking into it; but trying to find things that I would really enjoy is most discouraging.  I do have the blues piece from Barber's "Excursions" on my to-do list, although I'm not very enthusiastic about it.  (I think highly of Barber's Piano Concerto, and his "Knoxville Summer of 1915" for soprano and chamber orchestra blows me totally away.  But I dislike his idiom employed in the piano solo works.)

Well, thank you for revealing, in some considerable detail, what most appeals to you. I won't comment beyond that except to express puzzlement that, if Barber's Piano Concerto does so, his Piano Sonata apparently doesn't...

I hope this at least shows that yes, it's true that I'm not a rabid fan of modern music.  But at the same time, I do make an earnest attempt to try to find repertoire that would be rewarding should I invest in it.  Perhaps this puts me in a slightly different light than one might gather from my original post.  I just wanted to share that aspect. 

Appreciated! But please do think twice about no longer playing Bach and Haydn!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Yeah, but in the romantic period, everything sounded great and many pianists and listeners liked it.
mendelssohn,rachmaninov,chopin,brahms...

Excuse me, but I must ask you here (just as I asked someone else recently on this forum) what are the dates that (for you) frame the Romantic period? - I ask because you cite four composers, of whom the earliest birth date is 1809 and the latest death date 1943. I have other questions, too. Whatever gives you the idea that "everything" written in this Romantic period (whatever its time frame may be) "sounded great"? - has there ever been any era in music when every composer's music without exception has really done that? How many listeners liked what they heard during that period? Well, a whole lot less than nowadays, for sure, since there were no recordings or broadcasts during the first century or so of the Romantic era and the concert performance tradition only began to grow and develop during that 100 years, so far fewer people got to hear that then-contemporary music in those days than is the case today. Did those German folk who had the good fortune to hear Bach at least once a week not like what they heard as much as listeners in the Romantic period did? And are you really trying to persuade us that little or no music has been written since the end of the Romatic period (whenever that was) to which people like to listen?

now the modern classical music became a subject of extremly intellectual people who write music which is so "intelligent" that the auidence can't understand and can't feel...

You are obviously writing here of your own opinion of certain kinds of contemporary music only, rather than offering a sanguine and more pragmatic view of contemporary music as a whole; never has there been so wide a variety of new music on offer than is the case today, yet you and others like you still seem bent on being extremely selective in accusing "modern music" in toto for something which you just happen not to like about certain kinds of it.

let's just take the music and put it in the museum, everybody can see "wow, this is a work of a genius"

You are right to warn about "museum-piece art", although I've never quite been convinced that some of the music that has arguably suffered such a fate at one time or another has done so purely by its own virtues or lack thereof; perhaps the classic and best-known case is Schönberg, much of whose music at one time used far more frequently to be discussed and written about, especially in acadamic circles, than performed before audiences and, even today, there remains the vestiges of a long-held belief that a concert organiser would have only to put the name Schönberg on a programme to ensure the emptying of a hall. As far more people now appreciate, much of Schönberg's music is full of humanity and passion and was written to communicate with listeners and absolutely not as potential academic fodder.

Best,

Alistair

[rob47]

yo Rachfan

check out this performance of a ligeti Etude "Autumn in Warsaw"



i kind of think of that descending opening motive in a singing melodious sort of way and in all it's rhythmically altered entrances and variations throughout.

there are performances by Pierre-Laurent Aimard and Fredrick Ullen? i prefer over this one (not that this one isn't good)

I dunno if you'd like it but it definitely brought me great pleasure on the first listen

(not even sure if that's the topic at hand i didn't back read much )

i just noticed the hilarious youtube comments may relate to this thread

bortkievitch (2 weeks ago) Show Hide Marked as spam
0 Poor comment Good comment 
Reply | Spam
Chopin,Liszt,Brahms,Rachmaninov...they composed truly piano studies.Ligeti's piano studies are a truly musical rubbish.
Ramatganski (2 weeks ago) Show Hide Marked as spam
0 Poor comment Good comment 
Reply | Spam
This Etude is actually very powerful.
Still, it's apparent how you're an intelligent, pleasant human being with original, relevant, worth-while opinions (not "rubbish" at all).

[thalbergmad]

Then you have avant garde audiences salivating over John Cage's "music" of tapping assorted pieces of junk on a table with a stick, or those listeners who are bewitched by composers directing the placement of paper clips, screws or other trash on piano strings, or requiring pianists to jump up and down off the piano bench to strum piano strings that were never designed or intended for that purpose. 

The piano under the hands of some contemporary composers is no longer an instrument of beauty, but a gigantic trash can into which they can pour their latest garbage.

Nowadays, an unmade bed is considered to be art and even a man pushing a peanut along the street with his nose has received excellent reviews. Is music going in the same direction? Are composers so lacking in ideas that they can only try to outdo eachother with stupidity to get noticed.

Much of the bollox written in the last 50 years will eventually either be laughed at, taken the piss out of, or even better, completely consigned to the latrine of history.

There is no point of accusing me of being a retard as i have no problem with admitting that i am.

Thal

[ahinton]

The piano under the hands of some contemporary composers is no longer an instrument of beauty, but a gigantic trash can into which they can pour their latest garbage.

Ah - SOME! Not ALL, I am relieved to note. And in your view, of course...

Nowadays, an unmade bed is considered to be art and even a man pushing a peanut along the street with his nose has received excellent reviews. Is music going in the same direction? Are composers so lacking in ideas that they can only try to outdo eachother with stupidity to get noticed.

Dunno, guv. For one thing, I can't stand peanuts and have certainly never tried to push one anywhere with anything and, for another, I do not regard my efforts to ensure that I make my bed in good time are for artistic reasons; furthermore, whilst it is not for me to remark on whether I am lacking in ideas in my own work, I can confirm that, since I have never regarded any aspect of composition as a competitive sport, it has never occurred to me to try to outdo any other composer in anything at all.

Much of the bollox written in the last 50 years will eventually either be laughed at, taken the piss out of, or even better, completely consigned to the latrine of history.

Assuming you to be correct even to the point of your barbed and graphic expression here, why do you suppose (if indeed you actually do) that any or all such treatment will eventually be meted out only to the "bollox written in the last 50 years"? Is there some kind of special significance in the particular cut-off point of 1958, like the death of Vaughan Williams in that year, for example?

There is no point of accusing me of being a retard as i have no problem with admitting that i am.

Now why would I do that?!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Ah - SOME! Not ALL, I am relieved to note. And in your view, of course...

I thought it important to use the word SOME.

If i were to kidnap my next door neighbours cat, fasten bells to her paws and then stick a firework up her arse, i would create a noise similar to that of the horse mank that SOME of our contemporary composers produce.

Thal

[cygnusdei]

I hope this doesn't stray too far from topic, but there seems to be a strong tonal tradition in sacred music. Some composers that come to mind are Duruflé (died in 1986), John Rutter, and Morten Lauridsen (both living composers).

Lauridsen's Lux Aeterna has been recorded at least twice. Other than a mild but systematic dissonance, the music is very much tonal, and the harmonic idiom is in fact quite conservative.

[epf]

Well, the saying "fools rush in where angels fear to tread" addresses my feelings in replying to this but, nothing ventured, nothing gained!

It is my opinion (somewhat educated, but nevertheless an opinion) that there are great composers living and active today. What is it that makes them"great"? Public acceptance of their music. Period. Does that mean that their music is "timeless"? Not necessarily.

If we look at history we see that one of the "greatest" composers of his day was Ignace Pleyel (who?, you say). Precisely my point. He was a student of Haydn, a prolific composer and one whom many considered truly great. Yet he gave up composing and started a publishing business (music) and, later, a company to make pianos (it's still in business).

My own preference for music runs from the Elizabethan era through the early part of the Romantic era. I like some music from other periods, generally do not like atonal music (if I can't hum it I probably don't like it). There is music from my preferred periods that I don't like, either.

I do not think the great masters have written it all, have discovered it all, or know it all. There is still great music to be written. When I studied composition I learned to write music in lots of different styles. Do I write great music? Not hardly! My stuff is, frankly, trite and I generally do not write anymore unless a request has been made and I feel I can address the request properly. I'd rather spend my time playing the piano and recording music of lesser known composers.

So, while it's been interesting reading this thread, I find that I agree with some of the underlying sentiments but disagree with the rather universal application that seems to be the way in which these sentiments are expressed.

Ed (donning asbestos underwear)

[thalbergmad]

If we look at history we see that one of the "greatest" composers of his day was Ignace Pleyel (who?, you say).

It is true that tastes change over time. Telemann was considered to be the equal of Bach, Woelfl the equal of Beethoven and there was a time when Herz and Hunten were more popular than Chopin & Liszt.

Anyway, who the hell plays Pleyel any more.

Apart from me and possibly you.

Thal

[ramseytheii]

I hope this doesn't stray too far from topic, but there seems to be a strong tonal tradition in sacred music. Some composers that come to mind are Duruflé (died in 1986), John Rutter, and Morten Lauridsen (both living composers).

Lauridsen's Lux Aeterna has been recorded at least twice. Other than a mild but systematic dissonance, the music is very much tonal, and the harmonic idiom is in fact quite conservative.

I'm glad you mentioned that.  Duruflé and Rutter (I don't know Lauridsen) compose music meant for use in the church (as opposed to sacred music composed for the concert hall).  I believe strongly that the reason church music has maintained its tonal veneer, while still acquiring progressive qualities, is that it has a functional element to it.

A church is still a place where the audience matters, not only for whether or not they actually like the music, but whether they are able to sing it or comprehend it in the first place.  It is, in my mind, a place where the true dialogue of music survives in a niche form. 

Composers for the concert hall long ago discarded the need to have an answer in terms of a sympathetic listeners; they've done this both in theory and in practice.  Is it any wonder that such a deeply entrenched hostility towards the phantom "modern music" exists? 

I feel that ahinton does his own music, and music of many of his colleagues, a great disservice, when confronted with the grievances of rachfan, merely refuses to not recognize the source of those grievances. 

I think for the most part, composers living today, who are living in the esoteric atmosphere of their own music and music rarely heard by others, would be well advised to not pretend as though people's incomprehension of "modern music" has no basis in reality.  Ignoring those trends will only create more hostility.  Or put another way, not accepting that these oft-heard complaints have a basis in reality is a great weakness, which will not aid in the general acceptance of new music.

Walter Ramsey

[pianogeek_cz]

Um... This guy, Gil Shohat, sounds pretty Rachmaninoff-esque to me in places... a very, very healthy mix of romantic and modern.

So far, I've downloaded the first movement of his viola concerto, and it's definitely -good-.

[rachfan]

Hi epf,

I certainly agree with your comments.  "Timeless" music (and the composers who write it) can absolutely be a fleeting phenomenon.  You mention Playel for example.  I would also advance the case of Carl Maria von Weber, a pioneer of Romanticism following the transitional composer Schubert.  In his own time Weber was looked upon with awe and was considered to be a giant in the Pantheon of composers, even by Liszt.  Yet, once Chopin, Liszt, Schumann, Mendelssohn and later Brahms came along and dominated the musical scene, Weber soon lost much of his original luster and his compositions became overshadowed.  Nevertheless, he is still honored even today, but his music is heard only occasionally now.  So yes, much of his music did not pass the timeless test.  The law of probability suggests that a similar fate awaits some, not all, of the Modern composers as well. 

On the other hand, we can point to timeless music--Bach's WTC, the Mozart Piano Concerto No. 21, Beethoven's 4th Piano Concerto, Schubert's Piano Sonata in B flat, Chopin's Etudes, Liszt's Sonata, Mendelssohn's Variations Serieuses, Schumann's Carnival, Brahms' 1st Piano Concerto, Rachmaninoff's 3rd Piano Concerto, etc. etc.  Works like those have indeed withstood the tests of time without becoming timeworn.  And they continue to have universal appeal as well.

I agree too that the Romantics did not discover and exhaust every facet of their art of composing--not even close!  In fact, they probably just scratched the surface.  I sometimes wonder, had the trauma of WWI not occurred, if the Late Romantic age would have continued much longer than it did.  After WWI, the world was never the same, including music.  La Belle Epoque was history.  That's not to say, however, that the composing of extraordinary music in the Romantic tradition could not have continued along with the development of other parallel styles, even into our day.  Richard Strauss, Vincent d'Indy, Ralph Vaughn Williams and Serge Rachmaninoff prove that point, although only the last was a great contributor to the solo piano literature as well.  I think that any conservatory professor who fatuously claims that "The Romantics discovered everything there was to discover", such that Romanticism could be discarded like a used tissue, is semi-informed at best.  There was far more lush, melodic and moving music yet to be discovered.  But that spark of remaining potential was largely snuffed out by the march of Modern music.

David

   

[epf]

Anyway, who the hell plays Pleyel any more.

Apart from me and possibly you.

Great -- that means there's at least two of us! I'm actually working to record all his solo piano pieces (still struggling to find much of it).

Ed

[thalbergmad]

I look forward to hearing some of your recordings.

I am currently engrossed with Woelfl at the moment, but perhaps Pleyel is not a world apart.

Thal

[rachfan]

Hi rob47,

Thanks for leaving that link to the Ligeti chromatic etude, Autumn in Warsaw.  I had not heard his music before.  I also listened to his Devil's Staircase.  Not bad!   

[ahinton]

If i were to kidnap my next door neighbours cat, fasten bells to her paws and then stick a firework up her arse, i would create a noise similar to that of the horse mank that SOME of our contemporary composers produce.

But if you didn't, silence would presumably reign instead and there would be the added advantage of your having committed no veterinary crimes merely to prove a point of your own about the music of certain contemporary composers.

Best,

Alistair

[rachfan]

Hi pianogeek,

Have you been able to find any samples of recordings for Shohat's piano solo music?  I've looked a bit, but cannot locate any.  It seems too that his output in that department is quite small to date.

[guendola]

So many silly commens, but the forum community handles them fine

Well, about the original question: I suppose there is no second Rachmaninoff because no serious composer would like to be a copy of another composer, they prefer to be original.

[epf]

The underlying theme in several of the posts in this thread suggest that the problem lies with composers who toss away the rules and write whatever they want to write. I thought I had read that complaint before and did a quick search of my library. I didn't have far to go. Here's a comment I found from the year 1725:

Some people will perhaps wonder why I have undertaken to write about music, there being so many works by outstanding men who have treated the subject most thoroughly and learnedly; and more especially, why I should be doing so just at this time when music has become almost arbitrary and composers refuse to be bound by any rules and principles...my efforts do not tend--nor do I credit myself with the strength--to stem the course of a torrent rushing precipitously beyond its bounds. I do not believe that I can call composers from the unrestrained insanity of their writing to normal standards.

This is from the author's "Forward to the Reader." The book is Gradus ad Parnassum  (in English that is literally "Steps to Parnassus") by Johann Joseph Fux. This was the text book that Leopold Mozart used with his son, Wolfgang. It was used by Beethoven who wrote an introduction to it, by Haydn and Bach.

What was happening then has happened in every musical period. Perhaps the movement back to more traditional writing is already underway and will stem the "torrent."

Ed