Ultimate Modernism-hater discussions + Vents

[i heart xenakis]

I'm sick of threads being polluted by the vitriolic, anti-intellectual, Nazi, substandard-IQ feces spewing out of the mouths (or more appropriately, fingers) of users like Derek, Lau, Tehpro (possibly the most hilariously incorrect username ever), Counterpoint (when has this guy ever made a point?), cygnusdei (again, hilariously misleading screen-name), etc.

I'm not even going to bother pretending to have the pretense of trying to make this civil.  It usually takes about 2 posts before it just becomes bullshit so let's skip that.  This isn't about Xenakis or Stockhausen or Nono; it's just in general.  If you want to gripe about how much you hate Bussotti then come do it in here instead of *** up someone else's previously intelligent (or comparitively intelligent) thread.  If you want to make fun of the idiots who make fun of people like Bussotti come do it in here instead of *** up a thread.  I'm also making this thread because I think it's the most fun thing to talk about, and we need one for just in general as opposed to specific pieces, because it just gets infuriating when people like Derek try to talk about specific things they don't understand.  This way he/they can make broad remarks referring to every single modernist composer all at once and we can make fun of them for that.  I'm just switching it up a little.


*dings bell*  Who has the balls to go first?

[pies]

a

[pies]

a

[rallestar]

You yourself seem quite an intellectual capacity, Mr. Threadstarter.

[retrouvailles]

Even though I wouldn't have been as blatant about it as skepto, I see where he is coming from and share many of his views. This forum definitely has problems that need to be addressed regarding this matter.

[wotgoplunk]

I figure this is the place to ask a question. Don't flame me, I'm innocent! 

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

I still like it, but why did they do it?

[Petter]

It´s also hard to be at the other end if you appreciate something and lack the knowledge or the history (like myself) about the music, but has the honest intention of finding out more without getting crucified. Which I believe is one cause to the many misconceptions and controversies around this subject. From my point of view at least.

[retrouvailles]

I figure this is the place to ask a question. Don't flame me, I'm innocent! 

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

I still like it, but why did they do it?

I don't think that this question is really valid in many cases. For one, not all 'modern music' composers compose 'massively complex' music. For those that do (or fot hose where it seems massively complex), it might seem complex to you because you don't understand what is going on behind it. Some are complex just to be complex, like those in the New Complexity school. I'll lave this question to Alistair, who knows much more about it than I do.

[i heart xenakis]

You yourself seem quite an intellectual capacity, Mr. Threadstarter.

I know I am.  Thank you.

[i heart xenakis]

Haha, now you are even degrading the real music for the sake of this crap. Beethoven was way better a composer than any of these wannabes who compose all the 'artistic' and 'modern' 'music'. I bet the composer of this piece was like "Yay, I'll make them shove some forks and sheep and other stupid sh*t in the piano so it could sound even more retarded".

Anyways, it seems like you derive a lot of pleasure from your false sense of superiority you get by listening to this inferior and stupid music. Good for you.

First off, my sense of superiority is not false; I am utterly superior to you, and you are utterly inferior to me.  Also, the piano is not prepared, dumbass.  If you even played piano you would be able to tell, but you obviously don't "pro".  Also, how the hell can you compare Luigi Nono to Beethoven?  That's like comparing apples and... Janet Reno.  Dumb ***.  You have absolutely no comprehension of music.

[ahinton]

I don't think that this question is really valid in many cases. For one, not all 'modern music' composers compose 'massively complex' music. For those that do (or fot hose where it seems massively complex), it might seem complex to you because you don't understand what is going on behind it. Some are complex just to be complex, like those in the New Complexity school. I'll lave this question to Alistair, who knows much more about it than I do.

Thank you - although I think that you've already pointed out the principal flaw in the grossly over-simplistic and misleading suggestion that "modern music" = "complex music". Complexity comes in many shapes and guises and what is complex to one person is not necessarily so to another, just as what was complex in one era is not necessarily so in a later one. That said, however, there's no shortage of 16th century music that is complex in its own terms, there are plenty of relatively complex passages in Bach and, of course, scores from approximately 100 years ago such as Strauss's Salome and Elektra or Schönberg's Gurrelieder and Erwartung are obviously more "complex" in many ways than any scores from 100 years earlier. Musical "complexity" can manifest itself in any one or combination of texture, rhythm, form, melodic shape, counterpoint, etc. The worst danger is in listeners listening to music on the basis of its perceived or real complexity rather than concentrating on what it's doing and saying and responding to the effects that it has on their open minds.

Best,

Alistair

[wotgoplunk]

Ok, I understand what you're saying, and yes, it all makes sense to me.

But how would one avoid generalisations? After all, not all modern music is complex, yes, but some of it certainly is. And I'm sure most people have that perception of modern music.

And that's where I think most of the dislike lies, when people can't understand it. I mean, I'll admit, a lot of what the composers are trying to get at in certain situations just goes over my head.

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

[michel dvorsky]

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

[ahinton]

Ok, I understand what you're saying, and yes, it all makes sense to me.

Well, at least that's a good start!

But how would one avoid generalisations? After all, not all modern music is complex, yes, but some of it certainly is. And I'm sure most people have that perception of modern music.

Who are "most people" in this context? Most people who listen to all kinds of music that, for want of a better word, we could call "classical"? If so, I don't think that the problem that a majority of such people would have is one of contemporary music's complexity at all.

And that's where I think most of the dislike lies, when people can't understand it. I mean, I'll admit, a lot of what the composers are trying to get at in certain situations just goes over my head.

It depends what you mean by "understand". If people find it hard to relate to certain music, contemporary or otherwise (and perhaps that's what you mean by "understanding" it), that could - and almost certainly will - be for a whole raft of different reasons, not just for its complexity of utterance.

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

No. There's no such thing as "the general listening audience" in the first place and, in any case, composers do not and indeed cannot know in advance who will listen to their music when and where, so it would be impossible for them to set themselves up in the way you suggest, even if any of them wanted to (which would obviously be rather absurd).

Best,

Alistair

[wotgoplunk]

Who are "most people" in this context? Most people who listen to all kinds of music that, for want of a better word, we could call "classical"? If so, I don't think that the problem that a majority of such people would have is one of contemporary music's complexity at all.
It depends what you mean by "understand". If people find it hard to relate to certain music, contemporary or otherwise (and perhaps that's what you mean by "understanding" it), that could - and almost certainly will - be for a whole raft of different reasons, not just for its complexity of utterance.

If you were to ask an average joe. Anyone with minimal knowledge of classical (as a whole) music. So why would people find it hard to relate to it, what are the different reasons we have? It's definitely going to be more difficult. For after all, most mainstream "classical" is fairly easy to interpret. But when you're thrown a piece based on mathematical concepts, for example, it's much more difficult to see what the composer's getting at. For the layman anyway.

No. There's no such thing as "the general listening audience" in the first place and, in any case, composers do not and indeed cannot know in advance who will listen to their music when and where, so it would be impossible for them to set themselves up in the way you suggest, even if any of them wanted to (which would obviously be rather absurd).

So where did this musical "elitism" come from? A composer of a work that's difficult to understand is going to have some notion of only certain groups appreciating his work, surely?

[thalbergmad]

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

I like John Field, but some people think that his music is meaningless crap. I hereby respect anyone who has that view, and i challenge nobody that does.

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

I admit that 99.9% of the members here are superior musicians to me and probably superior human beings, but i still have an opinion that is neither right nor wrong.

Thal

[counterpoint]

Also, the piano is not prepared,

The piano is not prepared, that's right.
But there is a tape playing electronically processed piano sounds.
So it sounds like the piano is prepared, if you do not see the speakers.

[indutrial]

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

That approach never worked and it turned far too many threads into the forum equivalents of abandoned minefields. Except if you dare to venture back into one of them, the mines don't kill you. They just rain ten tons of verbal feces your way instead.

Taste can be very overrated and does nothing but bring intellectual discourse to a temporary stalemate. I'd rather see threads talking about the pieces rather than just the typical course of action:

1. NAMEDROP
2. POSITIVE OPINION 1
3. POSITIVE OPINION 2
4. ATTEMPT AT DISCUSSION or ANECDOTE
4. NEGATIVE OPINION 1
5. EMPTY-HEADED FLAME of (1.)
6. NEGATIVE OPINION 2
7. (2.) and (3.) FLAME of (5.)
8. (5.) FLAME of (1.), (2.), (3.), and (7.)

and what do we have....

dogshit


Saying that you don't have to state reasons for disliking something but still feeling the need to say anything at all adds nothing to a thread and is an annoying deviation from any shades of progress. It's not a matter of education as much as it is simply a matter of having an explanation behind your own words and sentiments. Otherwise, the words you speak have no clout whatsoever. Just a bunch of diarrhea. It's annoying when people feel like it's soooo important for them to be the frigging judge of everything without explanation, but then they get annoyed and recalcitrant when somebody else judges their own judgments. The way some people act and think of themselves here makes me feel like it would be more constructive to debate with schoolchildren about ice cream flavors.

[retrouvailles]

I like John Field, but some people think that his music is meaningless crap. I hereby respect anyone who has that view, and i challenge nobody that does.

People don't go around bashing John Field whenever his name is mentioned though. This happens to a lot of the controversial contemporary/modern/20th century/what have you music that is talked about on this forum. And you are included in that bunch, with your condescending and passive-agressive posts toward these composers.

Example 1:

Some people think Finnissy is a genius and I think that a stegosaurus with a frontal lobe lobotomy had equal creative powers.

I could go through many of your other posts and point out other examples, but I still like you, Thal, despite some of your views.

[pies]

a

[cygnusdei]

Aah .... true to form, pianostreeters!

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

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

Full disclosure: the backdrop is art in general. While art is subjective, some certainly crosses the boundary of legality.

[thalbergmad]

This is not an opinion; this is a retarded troll.

Then i must be a retarded troll, i do not deny it.

Even if i was a spotty faced needledicked American schoolboy, i would still be entitled to have a view.

Thal

[pies]

a

[indutrial]

People don't go around bashing John Field whenever his name is mentioned though. This happens to a lot of the controversial contemporary/modern/20th century/what have you music that is talked about on this forum.

I've noticed that tons of composers from the twentieth century who are NOT as radical as the usual suspects (Finnissy, Xenakis, etc...) don't provoke any responses at all, let alone good or bad ones. I've honestly not seen enough decent threads covering topics like Bartok, Stravinsky, and Schoenberg to expect that anything decent whatsoever can come out of threads about composers who came after them. The fact that I've never read a constructive thread on any early 20th century composers (even someone as widely likable as Milhaud or Gershwin) is very telling.
A search for the former's name brings up mind-bending a-hole threads like this:
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,19278.0.html


It's kind of like that jazz debacle that ensued recently. Jazz gets bashed, and the only names that came up in support of that asinine notion were Gershwin, Jarrett, and a bunch of anonymous and meaningless nobodies at the complainer's college. To me, arguments in that context have nothing to offer simply because of the giant void of UNINFORMED-NESS (Jazz's development from 1950-2008) that is sitting there like the proverbial giant pink elephant.

[indutrial]

i would still be entitled to have a view.

Thal

Yes... but most users need to know that they are also entitled the right to hold back their views until they have some bearing and usefulness.

This reminds me of the scene in Big Lebowski when Walter is citing the Supreme Court in the diner after the waitress asks him to stop cursing out loud in front of the other dining families.

"C'mon man...this isn't a first amendment thing..."

[thalbergmad]

troll

Grow some pubes before insulting me.

Thal

[pies]

a

[ahinton]

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

I like John Field, but some people think that his music is meaningless crap. I hereby respect anyone who has that view, and i challenge nobody that does.

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

I admit that 99.9% of the members here are superior musicians to me and probably superior human beings, but i still have an opinion that is neither right nor wrong.

Thal

NOW WILL PEOPLE PLEASE TAKE NOTE Of THIS? WHETHER AND TO WHAT EXTENT I MAY OR MAY NOT AGREE WITH THE SPECIFICS HERE, THAL HAS A POINT - SO PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF IT AND MAKE UP YOUR OWN MINDS - ASSUMING THAT YOU HAVE MINDS TO MAKE UP...

Sorry - rant over - but please think, people - and use the ears that whoever it was gave you and the brains to which those ears are connected. In the meantime, please think of accepting from a composer that all this stuff is really deeply tiresome and that we all just do what we need to to in order to say what we're trying to say and have to stand or fall or both by what we do and nothing else.

Most of you arguers are not composers, so it's easier for you...

Best,

Alistair

[pies]

a

[cygnusdei]

Certainly.  When you perform it.

That gives me too much power. So whether something is a perversion or not is all up to me?

[wotgoplunk]

This forum is beginning to sound like Lord of the Flies 

Can't anyone ask a question or show without being flamed??

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

I still appreciate modern music, and some I do enjoy. But unless it's neo-romanticism, I find there isn't much music from that era I can listen to and find myself filled with emotion, whereas that comes easily from other times.

[Petter]

Pianostreet has taught me alot of new english words.

[webern78]

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

[webern78]

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

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

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

[indutrial]

But then, according to the post-modernist credo, there is no such thing as "greatness" and everything is relative to the individual. Mea culpa.

I'll stick with that point of view rather than abiding by your 'it's music/it's not music' nonsense that rests on nothing more than majority rule and other completely irrational objectivist baloney.

[cygnusdei]

Wait, are we talking about modernism or post-modernism?

[retrouvailles]

Wait, are we talking about modernism or post-modernism?

Most people in here wouldn't even know the difference. There is far too much ignorance on this forum, whether its their fault or not.

[indutrial]

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

Yeah, that's exactly what people are saying 

Posters are not intelligent as long as they approach all music with both eyes closed. It's fairly obvious that a lot of the posters here can't approach non-contemporary music without being immature or short-sighted in some regard or another.

[webern78]

Posters are not intelligent as long as they approach all music with both eyes closed.

Define what it means to have your eyes open then.

[cygnusdei]

Yeah, that's exactly what people are saying 

Posters are not intelligent as long as they approach all music with both eyes closed. It's fairly obvious that a lot of the posters here can't approach non-contemporary music without being immature or short-sighted in some regard or another.

Non-contemporary is anything but music by living composers?

[indutrial]

Non-contemporary is anything but music by living composers?

When I say 'contemporary', I'm merely referring to recent music trends, recent meaning something like the past 50 years. The composers can be dead or alive. I'm not really speaking by any defined specifics.

When I said 'non-contemporary,' I was referring to pretty much everything before the music that everyone's bitching at one another about.

[tehpro]

First off, my sense of superiority is not false; I am utterly superior to you, and you are utterly inferior to me.  Also, the piano is not prepared, dumbass.  If you even played piano you would be able to tell, but you obviously don't "pro".  Also, how the hell can you compare Luigi Nono to Beethoven?  That's like comparing apples and... Janet Reno.  Dumb ***.  You have absolutely no comprehension of music.

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

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

[pies]

a

[indutrial]

Kiyama is pretty cool:

edit: This is not a joke, if you're wondering.  The pianist in the vid has a great technique; I've heard him perform Ligeti etudes.

Some of the youtube comments pregnant dog about how the piece lacks rhythm, harmony, etc... but I think that it's definitely got some rhythmic drive. Certainly unconventional, but it still has it's own kind of swagger. It reminds me of how Dillinger Escape Plan's earlier music sounded compared to other rock acts. The harmonies are borderline non-existent and the rhythmic assaults and time shifts are endless. It immediately appears to be noise, but it's later revealed to be intricately structured noise, which means that it's still composition and shouldn't be degraded simply because your senses don't immediately gel with it.

EDIT:

I just discovered this recent post of Xenakis's 'Eonta' for piano and brass being performed.

(pt. 1)

(pt. 2)

(pt. 3)

Talk about a great work by someone who is utterly loathed by people around here!! The whole work has so much going on! I especially dig the section in the last 1/3 that features the brass section playing on it's own, and these guys pull it off very well. I've actually studied a few incredibly well-written works by the conductor Rand Steiger as well, who's composed a lot of good chamber music as well as being a good conductor. Steiger did a great piece called "Woven Serenade" that was commissioned to him to be part of a contemporary tribute to Mozart.  His case makes it seem so simple and fruitful for someone to stretch his/her inquiring mind from an appreciation of Mozart to a presentation of Xenakis' work. Plenty of users here could stand to learn from an example such as that instead of just nurturing the tired, conservative notions that their lousy teachers and peers have infected them with.

[retrouvailles]

I just discovered this recent post of Xenakis's 'Eonta' for piano and brass being performed.

(pt. 1)

(pt. 2)

(pt. 3)

Talk about a great modern work!! I've actually studied a few incredibly well-written works by the conductor Rand Steiger as well, who's composed a lot of good chamber music as well as being a good conductor.

Oh hey, that's at my old school. I was pissed to miss that performance. I looked forward to it for a while and missed it. But yeah, this is like being there. Awesome performance. Definitely one of his better works, in my opinion. I like the visual effect of the brass players switching locations also (it's called for in the score).

[indutrial]

Oh hey, that's at my old school. I was pissed to miss that performance. I looked forward to it for a while and missed it. But yeah, this is like being there. Awesome performance. Definitely one of his better works, in my opinion. I like the visual effect of the brass players switching locations also (it's called for in the score).

It's pretty impressive that they can play this kind of music while moving around at all. The amount of dedication is inspiring to say the least. This piece is definitely one of my favorite Xenakis works, though I've not heard them all yet. I've loved the way he scores brass instruments since I first heard his other work 'Troorkh' (concerto for trombone & orch.). 'Eonta' is no slouch in that department.

Another recent favorite of mine is his incredible sax quartet 'XAS', which I downloaded off of EMusic a few months back (the Rascher quartet's 'Europe' disc) and have listened to about 2 dozen times. There is a wild and seemingly disjointed section that comes up twice during that piece and is utterly stunning to behold. When I finally got a hold of that score, my jaw almost dropped to the floor. I need to find a score for 'Eonta' now.

[thalbergmad]

Lose some weight before posting!  All of that fat has clogged not only your arteries, but apparently your neurons as well.

You really are a silly little boy.

I will send you a tub of Clearosil for your acne, so your face is not mistaken for a relief map of the Rockies.

Thal

[pianojam]

Wait, are we talking about modernism or post-modernism?

could someone explain the difference between the two please?

[mephisto]

I heart xenakis reminds me of Ahmadinejad. I may agree with some of the things he say, but he is just so extreme he becomes difficult to take seriously.

[thalbergmad]

As much as i love him, i have to agree with that description.

Thal