Statistics for atonal music

[jakub_eisenbruk]

Since some time ago I created a thread asking about how many people listen to modern classical music (not including neoromanticism, neoclassicism a minimalism), I decided to write a study about that. I will not post it here, since it's written in Czech and it contains approximately 3 pages of text, plus several lists of statistical results; however, I will post here some of the most relevant results (almost all of them, actually). Don't ask me how I created these statistics, since I don't wish to be blamed for that; however, I based my results on what I could find on Youtube and partly on Google, but there is something to be kept in mind; that out of the percentages of listeners I mention in my list, the entire number is not comprised exclusively of people who like the music of the individual composer, but may have just stumbled upon it by accident - and of course, these numbers are not 100% accurate, but they probably seem to indicate the approximate amount of people who listen to modern classical music. So, I just hope someone finds this interesting.

Olivier Messiaen – 1.45 %
Béla Bartók – 0.98 %
Karlheinz Stockhausen – 0.94 %
Iannis Xenakis – 0.51 %
György Ligeti – 0.47 %
Arnold Schoenberg – 0.42 %
Alban Berg – 0.30 %
Luciano Berio – 0.25 %
Paul Hindemith – 0.20 %
Charles Ives – 0.13 %
Pierre Boulez – 0.10 %
Henri Dutilleux – 0.096 %
Anton Webern – 0.090 %
Morton Feldman – 0.069 %
Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji – 0.069 %
Einojuhani Rautavaara – 0.048 %
Elliot Carter – 0.039 %
Witold Lutosławski – 0.034 %
Giacinto Scelsi – 0.023 %
Harrison Birtwistle – 0.015 %
Milton Babbitt – 0.013 %
Ernst Krenek – 0.0078 %
Michael Finnissy – 0.00049 %

I know, these numbers are just sad. There are actually some contemporary composers whose music can't even be found on Youtube; however, those are not included within these statistics.

Jakub Eisenbruk,

Prague.

[Petter]

Is it the % of any music or classical music pre1900?

[jakub_eisenbruk]

It is the approximate amount of people who listen to classical music, or at least do so on the internet; that is, a percentage within the entire 100% number, that encompasses the whole of humanity.

Jakub Eisenbruk,

Prague.

[Petter]

So how many % listened to minimalism, neoromanticism and neoclassicism in comparison to pre 1900 art music in your study? How many % did Stravinsky and Prokofiev get i.e?  This is interesting. 

[pies]

Modern music sux

[thalbergmad]

Michael Finnissy – 0.00049 %

Seems rather high to me.

Probably Indutrial and one of his pupils.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Alistair Hinton - 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

[retrouvailles]

I don't think Alistair would qualify, given that his music isn't atonal, at least from what I've heard.

[thalberg]

Thalbergmad, LOL!!! You're hilarious!

[go12_3]

Thalbergmad, LOL!!! You're hilarious!

Cheers to you! Thal!   LOL,  I need some laughs today, thanks! 

[thalbergmad]

It was pretty silly and probably something i will later regret.

 

Thal

[ahinton]

It was pretty silly and probably something i will later regret.

 

Thal

It may well have been just that but, since "retrouvailles" is correct in the above post, the only thing that you might regret is the sore index finger that you may have as a direct consequence of having so unnecessarily typed so many zeros; you certainly have no need to regret any offence (at least not to me, since none has been taken)...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

the only thing that you might regret is the sore index finger that you may have as a direct consequence of having so unnecessarily typed so many zeros

I placed a small paper weight on the 0 and went to the kitchen to get a beer.

When i came back, it was done.

Thal

[jakub_eisenbruk]

I'am to sorry to disrupt the little and entertaining discussion that has been transpiring here, but anyway...

So how many % listened to minimalism, neoromanticism and neoclassicism in comparison to pre 1900 art music in your study? How many % did Stravinsky and Prokofiev get i.e?  This is interesting. 

I actually didn't calculate any specific statistics around that, but I derived the numbers posted here from statistics concerning traditional (tonal) classical music in general, including composers from Palestrina to Elgar. I actually didn't intend to calculate any specific numbers for neoclassicism, neoromanticism a minimalism, but I may do that as well - although the previous statistics were also pretty exhausting to calculate. I also suspect that it might be a bit difficult to calculate statistics for someone like Philip Glass - considering the amout of film scores he has done to this day, and the overall way, in which his music has spread.

Jakub Eisenbruk,

Prague.

[bob3.1415926]

I can't believe Witold Lutosławski is so low. His Paganini variations get played on radio3 practically weekly (not that I'd call them atonal).

[ahinton]

I placed a small paper weight on the 0 and went to the kitchen to get a beer.

When i came back, it was done.

Thal

As I imagined, actually - but then how did the last digit get there? And, more inportantly, why? Whilst I have never actually traced the source of the following remark, I did hear that Richard Strauss once said of a composer (in German, of course, but the English translation is) "Why do you write atonally? You have talent!" Leaving aside what you or I or anyone else might think about that in or out of its apparent context, I suspect that members here will find no small difficulty in figuring out what your percentage is meant to be about when it supposedly relates, as "retrouvailles" rightly observes, to the music of a composer who writes tonally.

Best,

Alistair

[ryguillian]

Since some time ago I created a thread asking about how many people listen to modern classical music (not including neoromanticism, neoclassicism a minimalism), I decided to write a study about that. I will not post it here, since it's written in Czech and it contains approximately 3 pages of text, plus several lists of statistical results; however, I will post here some of the most relevant results (almost all of them, actually). Don't ask me how I created these statistics, since I don't wish to be blamed for that; however, I based my results on what I could find on Youtube and partly on Google, but there is something to be kept in mind; that out of the percentages of listeners I mention in my list, the entire number is not comprised exclusively of people who like the music of the individual composer, but may have just stumbled upon it by accident - and of course, these numbers are not 100% accurate, but they probably seem to indicate the approximate amount of people who listen to modern classical music. So, I just hope someone finds this interesting.

Olivier Messiaen – 1.45 %
Béla Bartók – 0.98 %
Karlheinz Stockhausen – 0.94 %
Iannis Xenakis – 0.51 %
György Ligeti – 0.47 %
Arnold Schoenberg – 0.42 %
Alban Berg – 0.30 %
Luciano Berio – 0.25 %
Paul Hindemith – 0.20 %
Charles Ives – 0.13 %
Pierre Boulez – 0.10 %
Henri Dutilleux – 0.096 %
Anton Webern – 0.090 %
Morton Feldman – 0.069 %
Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji – 0.069 %
Einojuhani Rautavaara – 0.048 %
Elliot Carter – 0.039 %
Witold Lutosławski – 0.034 %
Giacinto Scelsi – 0.023 %
Harrison Birtwistle – 0.015 %
Milton Babbitt – 0.013 %
Ernst Krenek – 0.0078 %
Michael Finnissy – 0.00049 %

I know, these numbers are just sad. There are actually some contemporary composers whose music can't even be found on Youtube; however, those are not included within these statistics.

Jakub Eisenbruk,

Prague.

There's more noise in this data than there is in the music it deals with.

Useless.

[thalbergmad]

You have a certain charming way of letting a man know his hours of work has been in vain

Thal

[ahinton]

There's more noise in this data than there is in the music it deals with.

Useless.

I would not have dreamt of expressing it as rudely as you have, but at the same time I would have no small amount of difficulty in disagreeing with you in principle here; those of us who care about what we do need statisticians of this kind of persuasion like we need a hole in the head.

AND...

I cannot help but notice

that


Mr Carter is once again spelt



"Elliot".




Does anyone think that, by the time Elliott reaches his second century, this little problem might actually at long last have disappeared off the face of what's left of the earth (if anything) forever?...

Best,

Alistair

[ryguillian]

I would not have dreamt of expressing it as rudely as you have, but at the same time I would have no small amount of difficulty in disagreeing with you in principle here; those of us who care about what we do need statisticians of this kind of persuasion like we need a hole in the head.

AND...

I cannot help but notice

that


Mr Carter is once again spelt



"Elliot".




Does anyone think that, by the time Elliott reaches his second century, this little problem might actually at long last have disappeared off the face of what's left of the earth (if anything) forever?...

Best,

Alistair

Sometimes a pike in the gut is needed.

And on things spelling-related: even people who seem to "like" the artist spell his name this way... insane? --- Perhaps this Eliot Carter was friends with T. S. Elliott?

[general disarray]

There's more noise in this data than there is in the music it deals with.

Useless.

With apologies to Mr. Eisenbruk, I'm afraid this interpretation has some merit, given that the data tallies "hits" (accidental and otherwise) without discriminating these from actual "listenings."

And if there is any validity to the low number of "hits" and the correspondence to interest in the works of these composers, then you can blame this on education -- not the composers.  Public music education hardly exists in the US.

I have graduate-school-educated friends who wouldn't recognize mainstays like Chopin or Rachmaninov if they found them in their knickers.  Let alone His Highnessbelle, that ole  Two "T's" Elliott Carter!   

[ahinton]

With apologies to Mr. Eisenbruk, I'm afraid this interpretation has some merit, given that the data tallies "hits" (accidental and otherwise) without discriminating these from actual "listenings."

And if there is any validity to the low number of "hits" and the correspondence to interest in the works of these composers, then you can blame this on education -- not the composers.  Public music education hardly exists in the US.

I have graduate-school-educated friends who wouldn't recognize mainstays like Chopin or Rachmaninov if they found them in their knickers.  Let alone His Highnessbelle, that ole  Two "T's" Elliott Carter!

I have to say that I disagree fundamentally here. The declared information sources are apparently random samples from Google and YouTube - no more, no less; not only are the quoted percentages gleaned from incomplete samples from either source, these two sources themselves are by no means the only ones of their kind on the internet - and, let's face it, even a fully comprehensive listing of data extrapolated from all available internet sources will yield but a tiny fraction of the total information on the extent to which people listen to the composers mentioned, since any meaningful statistics on this would have also to accommodate details of people who have listened to live public performances, radio and television broadcasts, CDs, DVDs and other recordings and, in some cases, their own performances. Not only has this not been attempted, it would not even be possible to achieve with any reliability; the information provided therefore tells us nothing beyond the fact that - and how - it has been gathered.

Best,

Alistair

[general disarray]

I have to say that I disagree fundamentally here. The declared information sources are apparently random samples from Google and YouTube - no more, no less; not only are the quoted percentages gleaned from incomplete samples from either source, these two sources themselves are by no means the only ones of their kind on the internet - and, let's face it, even a fully comprehensive listing of data extrapolated from all available internet sources will yield but a tiny fraction of the total information on the extent to which people listen to the composers mentioned, since any meaningful statistics on this would have also to accommodate details of people who have listened to live public performances, radio and television broadcasts, CDs, DVDs and other recordings and, in some cases, their own performances. Not only has this not been attempted, it would not even be possible to achieve with any reliability; the information provided therefore tells us nothing beyond the fact that - and how - it has been gathered.

Best,

Alistair

SYSTEMS FAILURE!

No, no, you misunderstand me.  We agree.  I am in support of ryguillian's comment as quoted.

(Sheesh.)

[ahinton]

SYSTEMS FAILURE!

No, no, you misunderstand me.  We agree.  I am in support of ryguillian's comment as quoted.

(Sheesh.)

No, I didn't misunderstand you at all; on the contrary, in fact. What I mistakenly omitted to observe that it was not you but the original poster with whom I disagree, for the reasons that I gave.

Best,

Alistair

[argerichfan]

Whilst I have never actually traced the source of the following remark, I did hear that Richard Strauss once said of a composer (in German, of course, but the English translation is) "Why do you write atonally? You have talent!"

I've read several variants of that anecdote, one of the more convincing has Strauss looking over a Hindemith score and saying to him: 'Why do you write like this? You have talent!'

[mikey6]

I don't think Alistair would qualify, given that his music isn't atonal, at least from what I've heard.

But neither is most of Bartok, Messiaen, Ives Sorabji, Hindemith or Krenek!

Does anyone think that, by the time Elliott reaches his second century, this little problem might actually at long last have disappeared off the face of what's left of the earth (if anything) forever?...

Best,

Alistair

If he changed his name to Elliot, there would be no problem!

[ahinton]

I've read several variants of that anecdote, one of the more convincing has Strauss looking over a Hindemith score and saying to him: 'Why do you write like this? You have talent!'

Discretion discouraged me from naming the victim that you have now named!

Best,

Alistair

[argerichfan]

Discretion discouraged me from naming the victim that you have now named!

But doesn't 'naming the victim' put more perspective on Strauss' remark?  Hindemith's 'modernism' (hardly atonal) sounds rather benign today, and I quite like some of his music. 

[jakub_eisenbruk]

Just in case anyone is wondering whom I will be adressing in this post, this is a general reply:

First of all, many people are apparently blaming me for presenting "unreliable statistics" - as if I hadn't already declared that in my first post in this topic. These numbers are not 100% accurate, and as Alistair has correctly pointed out, to present reliable statistics for the popularity of the previously mentioned composers is virtually impossible - I just found it humorous, that his post in general was intended as a critique of my statistical results and techniques, and not a reaffirmation and a sincere defense of what I had already stated at the beginning of this discussion.

As far as music education is concerned, I started to take care of that myself, and my schoolmates now can distinguish Bach from Chopin, although the regular playings of Threnody and Synaphai haven't up to this moment increased the popularity of either of the two aforementioned pieces.

As for the issue of some composers writing large amounts of non-atonal music, it should be pointed out, that my original article written in Czech was concentrated on music such as atonal, but also bitonal and having dissonances as the natural rule, and not the other way around.

By the way, as far as the flamer-like comment on the nature of "noise" within information is concerned, may I just tell the annoyed person (whatever his name may be), that in contemporary music, there are no distinctions such as dissonances, but only so called nearer a farther "proximities" - at least according to what I have been taught in music and composition classes up to this day. It should also be pointed out, that the term noise refers to an unspecified sound, such as that of two cymbals, and not to notes you can play on a tuned piano. Thus, I doubt there is really a substantial correlation between the so called "noises" of modern classical music and the music of composers such as Sorabji, who didn't really include any professed "noises" in his music (excuse me Alistair, if he did indeed include some percussion instruments in some of his larger works, such as Messa Alta Sinfonica), and I'am not really suffering from the impression that the data I posted or the music to which they are related indeed possess such qualities.

Jakub Eisenbruk,

Prague.

[ahinton]

If he changed his name to Elliot, there would be no problem!

Apart from the fact that it would be abit on an impertinence to suggest that anyone do such a thing during his 101st year, I take leave to suggest that, even if he did, some people out there would then immediately start using that second "t" when it was no longer appropriate!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

as Alistair has correctly pointed out, to present reliable statistics for the popularity of the previously mentioned composers is virtually impossible - I just found it humorous, that his post in general was intended as a critique of my statistical results and techniques, and not a reaffirmation and a sincere defense of what I had already stated at the beginning of this discussion.

Well, thanks - and I did not mean to come across as rude - but the point is that your statistics seem not to have elicited anything appreciable in the way of acceptance of the humour that you say you intended and which, I have to say, is pretty much lost on me - and, on top of all that I wrote previously, there is the additional factor that atonality has not even been defined within the context of what you submitted, any more than any cognisance has been put forward of the fact that quite a few of the composers youmention wrote music that is patently tonal.

I doubt there is really a substantial correlation between the so called "noises" of modern classical music and music of composers such as Sorabji, who didn't really include any professed "noises" in his music (excuse me Alistair, if he did indeed include some percussion instruments in some of his larger works, such as Messa Alta Sinfonica)

That's the one orchestral piece of Sorabji that has NO percussion!...

Best,

Alistair

[ryguillian]

These numbers are not 100% accurate

And you're reckless with numbers yet again!

Saying that these numbers "are not 100% accurate" is like saying that more than 5 people live in New York City. I'll say it again: these figures are absolutely useless. And this is not an overstatement!

By the way, as far as the flamer-like comment on the nature of "noise" within information is concerned, may I just tell the annoyed person (whatever his name may be), that in contemporary music, there are no distinctions such as dissonances, but only so called nearer a farther "proximities" - at least according to what I have been taught in music and composition classes up to this day. It should also be pointed out, that the term noise refers to an unspecified sound, such as that of two cymbals, and not to notes you can play on a tuned piano. Thus, I doubt there is really a substantial correlation between the so called "noises" of modern classical music and the music of composers such as Sorabji, who didn't really include any professed "noises" in his music (excuse me Alistair, if he did indeed include some percussion instruments in some of his larger works, such as Messa Alta Sinfonica), and I'am not really suffering from the impression that the data I posted or the music to which they are related indeed possess such qualities.

Your prose is more twisted than your feigning, pseudo-statistical numerological "methods". But I think I can make out some weak trembling signal amongst the... *cough* noise.

I'm not sure why you put "noise" in quotes since statistical noise (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_noise) is hardly a coinage of mine. Perhaps you might take a statistics class or pick up a textbook before you speak about topics to others lest you again mistakenly take something as newfangled that's par for the field---like a zoologist looking with awe and mysterious wonder at a fawn as if it were some alien creature. "My, what is this 'fawn' with its 'fur' and its 'legs'?!" Stupid.

And please don't patronize me with some b.s. paragraph of musical education. I'm well aware of the history of perception and differentiation between dissonance and consonance and Schoenberg's supposed "emancipation" of the former which gave birth to the type of rhetoric you're echoing. Spare me. You don't want to start this war.

[ahinton]

Saying that these numbers "are not 100% accurate" is like saying that more than 5 people live in New York City.

Or that Mozart was a viola player...

Your prose is more twisted than your feigning, pseudo-statistical numerological "methods". But I think I can make out some weak trembling signal amongst the... *cough* noise.

I think that point has been sufficiently well made for the shortcomings of this exercise to be exposed for what they are...

like a zoologist looking with awe and mysterious wonder at a fawn as if it were some alien creature. "My, what is this 'fawn' with its 'fur' and its 'legs'?!" Stupid.
[/quote
"Faun", surely? (or am I perhaps ignorant of a nicety of American English?); anyway, I think that we have here reached the postlude à l'après-minuit d'un faune...

differentiation between dissonance and consonance and Schoenberg's supposed "emancipation" of the former which gave birth to the type of rhetoric you're echoing.

I really hope that nothing which Schönberg may have started, supposedly or otherwise, might be seen as having given rise to anything of the order of this piece of statistical non-point-proving; we might at least have had an opportunity to try to glean something useful from it had certain parameters been laid down first, not least some conscientious attempt to define what tonality might be and how (a) it is often a matter of degree and aural environment context and, as such, a definitionally elusive phenomenon rather than something specific in any black-and-white sense and (b) perception of it inevitably varies from listener to listener according to experience.

Le cheval est mort, methinks - so let us desist from flogging it further...

Best,

Alistair

[ryguillian]

"Faun", surely? (or am I perhaps ignorant of a nicety of American English?); anyway, I think that we have here reached the postlude à l'après-minuit d'un faune...

Surely not. "Fawn" is totally acceptable spelling. "Faun" is something out of Roman mythology I'm afraid!

Le cheval est mort, methinks - so let us desist from flogging it further...

And as the most-vitriolic (in his youth at least) Herr Boulez said "Schoenberg ist tot".

[ahinton]

Surely not. "Fawn" is totally acceptable spelling. "Faun" is something out of Roman mythology I'm afraid!

Well, I'll desist from fawning while at the same time urging you not to let on to debussy about that!

And as the most-vitriolic (in his youth at least) Herr Boulez said "Schoenberg ist tot".

Indeed he did, but then he also declared (at around the same time) that he'd like to witness the burning down of all those opera houses in some of which he was later to be seen conducting Wagner - but in any case, Schönberg was not a horse - not even a Trojan one...

Best,

Alistair

[argerichfan]

Indeed [Boulez] did, but then he also declared (at around the same time) that he'd like to witness the burning down of all those opera houses in some of which he was later to be seen conducting Wagner - but in any case, Schönberg was not a horse - not even a Trojan one...

And nor was Liszt.  Considering Boulez's programming during the New York Philharmonic years -and I've read about the 'burning down stuff'- I wouldn't take anything seriously that Boulez says.  Why should we?  Why is it important?  Yes, I guess he had a secret fondness for Liszt and Bartok, but composers are notoriously unreliable as critics or taste makers.   I'm sure Boulez has nothing whatsoever positive to say about Elgar, but does that opinion really carry any weight?   The aspects of Elgar he criticizes are not necessarily the aspects that make this composer so endearing to others less prejudiced.

For all that, Boulez's Second Sonata has a certain interest to me.  How many folks here can appreciate it as much as Elgar's Gerontius, though I'll admit I have to be in two quite different moods! 

[ahinton]

And nor was Liszt.  Considering Boulez's programming during the New York Philharmonic years -and I've read about the 'burning down stuff'- I wouldn't take anything seriously that Boulez says.  Why should we?  Why is it important?  Yes, I guess he had a secret fondness for Liszt and Bartok, but composers are notoriously unreliable as critics or taste makers.   I'm sure Boulez has nothing whatsoever positive to say about Elgar, but does that opinion really carry any weight?   The aspects of Elgar he criticizes are not necessarily the aspects that make this composer so endearing to others less prejudiced.

He has a not-quite-so-secret respect for Chopin, too - and his performances of music by his compatriots and forebears (not just Debussy, Ravel and Messiaen but also Roussel and even Dutilleux on occasion) demonstrate that he is by no means the polemicist he once was; we know his rmarks about the "uselessness" of composers who did not even make a stab at 12-note composition, yet he has done quite abit for the music of Carter who has always given this kind of thing a wide berth. I suspect that Boulez's antipathy towars Elgar is one of temperamental incompatibility rather than founded on a desire to accuse.

For all that, Boulez's Second Sonata has a certain interest to me.  How many folks here can appreciate it as much as Elgar's Gerontius, though I'll admit I have to be in two quite different moods! 

Oh, thaat sonata again! I respect it, of course and it is undoubtedly a seminal piece of music history, but I simply cannot engage with it, even after hearing Pollini play it, as much as I can with some of Boulez's later work that seems to suggest that he has become rather more of an identifiably "French" composer...

Best,

Alistair

[ryguillian]

He has a not-quite-so-secret respect for Chopin, too - and his performances of music by his compatriots and forebears (not just Debussy, Ravel and Messiaen but also Roussel and even Dutilleux on occasion) demonstrate that he is by no means the polemicist he once was; we know his rmarks about the "uselessness" of composers who did not even make a stab at 12-note composition, yet he has done quite abit for the music of Carter who has always given this kind of thing a wide berth. I suspect that Boulez's antipathy towars Elgar is one of temperamental incompatibility rather than founded on a desire to accuse.
Oh, thaat sonata again! I respect it, of course and it is undoubtedly a seminal piece of music history, but I simply cannot engage with it, even after hearing Pollini play it, as much as I can with some of Boulez's later work that seems to suggest that he has become rather more of an identifiably "French" composer...

Best,

Alistair

Why is this surprising? A lot of smarter people have complicated relationships with music (and not just with music!). Take me and Sorabji, for example... I go between hating him and loving him. I've called his music "sh*t" before and also called him a genius... Gould and Chopin... Gould and Mozart... same thing. Hamelin seems to have a similarly complicated relationship with Sorabji's music...

[cmg]

even after hearing Pollini play it, as much as I can with some of Boulez's later work that seems to suggest that he has become rather more of an identifiably "French" composer...

Best,

Alistair

"French?"  How so?  Interesting point.  Please elaborate.

[ryguillian]

"French?"  How so?  Interesting point.  Please elaborate.

Finesse of texture and orchestration. "Fluidity" of music. I can't imagine Alistair is using "French" to mean what, for example, Bach meant it to mean in his French Suites, etc.

[ahinton]

Why is this surprising? A lot of smarter people have complicated relationships with music (and not just with music!). Take me and Sorabji, for example... I go between hating him and loving him. I've called his music "sh*t" before and also called him a genius... Gould and Chopin... Gould and Mozart... same thing. Hamelin seems to have a similarly complicated relationship with Sorabji's music...

I didn't suggest that it was surprising and, knowing as much as I do about Boulez's work as a musician (which I do not pretend to be all that much), it doesn't surprise me. Everyone's opinions and feelings about another composer's work are bound to change from time to time, influenced by particular performances, one's own moods and the simple fact of changing one's mind; I must admit that your own vacillations in respect of Sorabji strike me as unusually extreme both in scope and frequency, but that's your prerogative, of course. Hamelin respects Sorabji immensely (otherwise he would not have spent the time he did in editing some of his scores - something for which he has had no further time in recent years for obvious reasons), but he is not inclined to perform his music. He used to say that OC was unplayable as he believed the composer intended it to be played, although he openly changed his mind about that during Jonathan Powell's NYC performance of it almost five years ago.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Finesse of texture and orchestration. "Fluidity" of music. I can't imagine Alistair is using "French" to mean what, for example, Bach meant it to mean in his French Suites, etc.

You've answered for me precisely as I would have done - except to add a recommendation to listen, for example, to Répons and Messagesquisse to get an idea from Boulez himself about this rather than reading what I might have written...

Best,

Alistair

[jakub_eisenbruk]

And you're reckless with numbers yet again!

Saying that these numbers "are not 100% accurate" is like saying that more than 5 people live in New York City. I'll say it again: these figures are absolutely useless. And this is not an overstatement!

No, I'am not being reckless again, but merely pointing out what I said before, since many people apparently missed it. And yes, these numbers are not 100% accurate. So? Is that a lie? Or had I said they are 70.6324598648% accurate, would you call them a lie, denounce me as a liar, or applaud me for the accuracy and veracity of my research? Or should I, apart from the numbers I already posted here, also calculate their own accuracy, by comparing the amount of numbers I worked with with the total amount of utilizable information that exists in the whole world, while at the same time calculating statistics for the mechanism leading to the absolute precision of such a kind of research? These numbers were intended to be approximate, not useful nor trusthworthy.

Your prose is more twisted than your feigning, pseudo-statistical numerological "methods". But I think I can make out some weak trembling signal amongst the... *cough* noise.

Thank you for speaking in such a nice way about my way of writing, since I write stories and articles quite often (even though the vast majority of them is written in Czech). It's funny you criticize me for using "pseudo-statistical 'methods'", as if I had explained them at some point of this discussion - and if I, although it is not that way, turned out to be a experienced statistician, you would indeed have to confess, that your condemnation of my "methods" (which were never explained in this discussion) was way too hasty. By the way, I'd like to know something more specific about the alleged trembling signal, since, as far as I perceive it, my post retained a constant level of stylistic throughout.

I'm not sure why you put "noise" in quotes since statistical noise (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_noise) is hardly a coinage of mine. Perhaps you might take a statistics class or pick up a textbook before you speak about topics to others lest you again mistakenly take something as newfangled that's par for the field---like a zoologist looking with awe and mysterious wonder at a fawn as if it were some alien creature. "My, what is this 'fawn' with its 'fur' and its 'legs'?!" Stupid.

You're not sure - so much for 100% accuracy. But anyway, just to clarify up things a little bit, I have never heard about the term "statistical noise" up to this day, and so I understood it as implying informational and worthless crap. But that's ok, and I'am sorry for such misunderstanding. And no, this is not a question of taking a statistics class (no matter how hard you may insist that it is), since the only essential thing that is lacking here is a complete amount of utilizable information, for even if I had given those hypothetical numbers to somebody working within an statistical agency, the determination of their exactitude and trustworthiness is a process that in itself is questionable and open to a debate, just as my statistics are (although to a obviously greater degree). I simply stated that those were numbers calculated on the internet - period. There's no doubt that I would love to take a statistics class, since I have been fascinated by statistics in general ever since my childhood, but at the present moment, school inhibits me from doing so. Your part about zoologists isn't really worth answering, at least not in my eyes, since it doesn't really relate to this discussion, nor it embodies anything significant that may have been said during it's development. Go soot a pit.

And please don't patronize me with some b.s. paragraph of musical education. I'm well aware of the history of perception and differentiation between dissonance and consonance and Schoenberg's supposed "emancipation" of the former which gave birth to the type of rhetoric you're echoing. Spare me. You don't want to start this war.

Well, your use of the abbreviation "b.s." speaks for itself - it goes on to show how much you are biased against anything I have said so far. I don't really think it (the paragraph) deserves to be classified with such words - I articulated my thoughts in a simple and concise way. By the way, since when did I do activities that can be interpreted as not sparing you? I just posted a few statistics, and you attacked me in pretty a harsh way. Alistair doesn't agree with them either (although as I have already said, I never even explained my "methods" in the first place), but he has a much more educated and humorous way of expressing it. But that just shows some of the double standards of persons like you - you say I should spare you, while you yourself run around like a mad wolf, and wish to tear my post and "statistical methods" to pieces. And what do you mean by your last sentence? You say a war has already been started, and then you say I'am wishing to start it - what's the point? The only logical explanation that I can come up with, is that you're referring to Schoenberg's war, which now seems to be threatening pianostreet's territory as well.

Jakub Eisenbruk,

Prague.

[ryguillian]

I didn't suggest that it was surprising and, knowing as much as I do about Boulez's work as a musician (which I do not pretend to be all that much), it doesn't surprise me. Everyone's opinions and feelings about another composer's work are bound to change from time to time, influenced by particular performances, one's own moods and the simple fact of changing one's mind; I must admit that your own vacillations in respect of Sorabji strike me as unusually extreme both in scope and frequency, but that's your prerogative, of course. Hamelin respects Sorabji immensely (otherwise he would not have spent the time he did in editing some of his scores - something for which he has had no further time in recent years for obvious reasons), but he is not inclined to perform his music. He used to say that OC was unplayable as he believed the composer intended it to be played, although he openly changed his mind about that during Jonathan Powell's NYC performance of it almost five years ago.

My relationship with Sorabji's music is a very complex one, but let's also consider that Gould once said of Mozart that he was a composer who "should have died younger rather than older" (Gould coincidentally said the same of Berg), but then went on to record his complete piano sonatas (some more than once)...

Saying that Hamelin respects Sorabji immensely seems like an overstatement to me. When I've talked to him about Sorabji he's usually been taken aback. When I asked him if he planned on recording more Sorabji he made a full body twitch, made direct eye contact, and said "Why Sorabji?!" while making a facial expression that looked like he'd just bit into a rancid lemon. He even went so far as to say that his good friend M.-A. Roberge had been "disillusioned" in respect to Sorabji's work. I think Hamelin was at one point entranced by Sorabji, but the spell is broken now... and he looks back on his entrancement as some youthful folly...

[ryguillian]

No, I'am not being reckless again, but merely pointing out what I said before, since many people apparently missed it. And yes, these numbers are not 100% accurate. So? Is that a lie? Or had I said they are 70.6324598648% accurate, would you call them a lie, denounce me as a liar, or applaud me for the accuracy and veracity of my research? Or should I, apart from the numbers I already posted here, also calculate their own accuracy, by comparing the amount of numbers I worked with with the total amount of utilizable information that exists in the whole world, while at the same time calculating statistics for the mechanism leading to the absolute precision of such a kind of research? These numbers were intended to be approximate, not useful nor trusthworthy.

Saying they're "not 100%" accurate is certainly true, no doubt. But so is saying that the Earth is made of things. These numbers aren't even useful as an approximation.

Thank you for speaking in such a nice way about my way of writing, since I write stories and articles quite often (even though the vast majority of them is written in Czech). It's funny you criticize me for using "pseudo-statistical 'methods'", as if I had explained them at some point of this discussion - and if I, although it is not that way, turned out to be a experienced statistician, you would indeed have to confess, that your condemnation of my "methods" (which were never explained in this discussion) was way too hasty. By the way, I'd like to know something more specific about the alleged trembling signal, since, as far as I perceive it, my post retained a constant level of stylistic throughout.

And you've messed yourself when trying to defend yourself. Cute. "[A] constantl level of stylistic"? REALLY?

Well, your use of the abbreviation "b.s." speaks for itself - it goes on to show how much you are biased against anything I have said so far. I don't really think it (the paragraph) deserves to be classified with such words - I articulated my thoughts in a simple and concise way. By the way, since when did I do activities that can be interpreted as not sparing you? I just posted a few statistics, and you attacked me in pretty a harsh way. Alistair doesn't agree with them either (although as I have already said, I never even explained my "methods" in the first place), but he has a much more educated and humorous way of expressing it. But that just shows some of the double standards of persons like you - you say I should spare you, while you yourself run around like a mad wolf, and wish to tear my post and "statistical methods" to pieces. And what do you mean by your last sentence? You say a war has already been started, and then you say I'am wishing to start it - what's the point? The only logical explanation that I can come up with, is that you're referring to Schoenberg's war, which now seems to be threatening pianostreet's territory as well.

You're neither simple nor concise nor accurate nor precise (although I don't imagine you know the difference). And I'm oh-so-glad you know "people like me", and when you do finish your psychoanalysis of me don't bother publishing it as I'm sure it'll be quite error-ridden.

Ryan David Patrick Hayes-Nørretranders,

Malebolge.

[retrouvailles]

Saying that Hamelin respects Sorabji immensely seems like an overstatement to me. When I've talked to him about Sorabji he's usually been taken aback. When I asked him if he planned on recording more Sorabji he made a full body twitch, made direct eye contact, and said "Why Sorabji?!" while making a facial expression that looked like he'd just bit into a rancid lemon. He even went so far as to say that his good friend M.-A. Roberge had been "disillusioned" in respect to Sorabji's work. I think Hamelin was at one point entranced by Sorabji, but the spell is broken now... and he looks back on his entrancement as some youthful folly...

I can corroborate this statement, sadly. I, too, have talked to Hamelin about recording more Sorabji. It all started when I asked him whether or not he learned Opus Clavicembalisticum. He said that the work was not worth learning, for it would take 10-15 years to get it to a performable state. He applauded the efforts of Jonathan Powell though, who, according to Hamelin, learned it in just 6 months. he also cited the audience size at Jonathan Powell's New York performance of the OC as proof that Sorabji isn't worth learning, saying that there were only 25 or so people in the audience. But I digress, for Sorabji does not belong in this thread (among many other composers mentioned before), given that he isn't atonal.

[daro]

And nor was Liszt.  Considering Boulez's programming during the New York Philharmonic years -and I've read about the 'burning down stuff'- I wouldn't take anything seriously that Boulez says.  Why should we?  Why is it important? 

That remark has actually become very important, since in one of the most bizarre footnotes of history, it was used after 9/11 as the basis for arresting the then-75-year-old Boulez as a suspected terrorist. Now, if it had been an aesthetic judgment rather than political ...

Anyway, sorry for the digression. Carry on.

yd

[cmg]

Finesse of texture and orchestration. "Fluidity" of music. I can't imagine Alistair is using "French" to mean what, for example, Bach meant it to mean in his French Suites, etc.

Yes.  I thought that's what he meant, but "finesse" and "fluidity" are rather ambiguous terms at best.  What great orchestrator of any nationality has failed to produce textural finesse and fluidity in his or her finest works?  Richard Strauss, most notably.  Not to mention Wagner.  Or Respighi, or, well, I could on. 

The point being, these are not composers of "French" music . . . or ARE they, according to your definition?   

[ryguillian]

What great orchestrator of any nationality has failed to produce textural finesse and fluidity in his or her finest works?

"Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge?" -- Job 38:2

Not I, of course...

Ondine couldn't have been written by a German. Strauss, really? Bulky waltzes? Not French.

Think before you write, please.

[general disarray]

"Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge?" -- Job 38:2

Not I, of course...

Ondine couldn't have been written by a German. Strauss, really? Bulky waltzes? Not French.

Think before you write, please.

Ondine, whether by Ravel or Debussy, was not orchestrated by the composers.  Piano solo only.  And the topic was regarding "French" orchestration?

And you really shouldn't accuse people of not thinking before they write.  I mean, we might get the idea that you are, well, rude.