Introducing contemporary music

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I also feel that way, but I happen to be on the supporting side of so-called "modernist music". It seems that many of those who are against it believe that it is some sort of elitist thing and have that notion in the back of their mind while evaluating it, which can cause a negative response. I believe that some of it does require some intellectual work on the part of the listener, but not all of it, or else hardly anyone would like it.

I certainly don't view it as elitist (mind you, I'm not against it). There do seem to be some posts along the lines of (paraphrasing unflatteringly) "you don't like this music because you're too stupid to understand it" which I would hope we can all agree is a terrible argument. Such comments might be born out of frustration, I don't know.

[retrouvailles]

Yeah, I will be the first to admit to saying certain things like that on occasion, and such comments were born out of frustration (I'm not a patient person for the most part). However, there is a grain of truth to it sometimes, for some music does require a bit of knowledge to understand it to a good enough degree to enjoy it. Some might argue that it isn't worth liking some music like that, and I would agree with them in certain cases. However, some music does exist where it is worth having some knowledge before listening to it in order to enjoy it. One might even say that such a thing would apply to some Romantic composers (I have Mahler in mind). It's certainly not intended to be an insult toward anyone, but just a form of advice. Of course, however, this does not apply to all post-Romantic music, for there is enough post-Romantic music pleasant enough to like instantly with no sort of intellectual conditioning.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I think that music which yields all its secrets on first listening is not great music, no matter what era it is from. There's obviously a difference between visceral emotional appreciation of music and intellectual appreciation of music, and some level of knowledge or conscious thought assists the second, again no matter what era.

[weissenberg2]

It is fine if you can't like contemporary, but it is so diverse it is hard for me to believe you can't like any of it

If you are new to it try listening to the following:

[retrouvailles]

The Barber isn't really contemporary, for Barber has been dead for over 20 years.

[weissenberg2]

Indeed he has but he is 20th century, and I think a good introduction to contemporary harmonies

[scottmcc]

It is fine if you can't like contemporary, but it is so diverse it is hard for me to believe you can't like any of it

If you are new to it try listening to the following:

I never said I can't like contemporary--I just haven't found much that I have liked.  there's a big difference.  I agree with you that there is a lot of diversity within the genre/subgenre.  I made it through the 3 recordings you listed.  can't say I really cared for them, but I'm not offended by them either.  koji atwood used to post on this board a lot if I'm not mistaken.  these pieces are  absolutely nothing like the girl punching the piano earlier in the thread though, which is what I was talking about before. 

I like contemporary (visual) art a lot, but there's a great preponderance of it that is pure trash:  literally, a big pile of "found objects," arranged so as to take up an entire wing of a gallery, and passed off as high art.  not only do I not like it, but I'm offended that someone would waste an entire room on a heap of garbage, especially when there are real artists who are struggling to make it.  I think there is a similar current in music, and it saddens me. 

furthermore, I feel that this shows that the art world as a whole has embraced moral relativism entirely too much.  there absolutely must be at least some concept of right and wrong, and good and bad, or else chaos will ensue.  how many dung jesuses do we need before we can say that they're not art?  how many people will headbutt a piano until they bleed before we say that it's not music?  I'll grant that everyone's tastes may be different, but really, there must be a line drawn where we the listeners/viewers say that enough is enough.

by the way, if you want someone to agree with me, watch this movie:  https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0912592/

[indutrial]

I never used to think of it as elitist until i joined this place.

I cannot tie this feeling down to just one post. It is rather the impression gained from many.

Thal

I have to admit that, when I first arrived here, the discussions on modern music were pretty wretched and dismal, owing mostly to the outlandishly smug and antagonistic attitudes its biggest supporters put forth. Thankfully, those farging iceholes were banned and/or decided to take their trolling madness elsewhere. In that regard, things have certainly calmed down a bit as of late, but the forum will eternally harbor a predictable level of intolerance and short-sightedness on the subject of recent music. My only wish on the matter (which I've expounded on plenty) would be simply to see a slightly more scholarly tone in regards to the music as a whole, rather than the endless back-and-forth of subjective elephant talk about beauty, ugliness, good and evil, etc... What bothers me is that, amongst the music "students" on this forum, plenty act like complete f**king brats whenever someone threatens their precious little senses with something that's not immediately understandable or familiar. It's like seeing a bunch of math students pouting and moaning when they realize that they have to study differential equations and advanced calculus instead of just drilling basic arithmetic and simple geometry proofs for four years. A more lucid example could be physics majors who, for whatever reason, decide to stick with Newtonian mechanics and ignore recent fields like quantum mechanics and special relativity. In a sense, it's tempting to think that nobody under the age of 30 should be allowed to indulge in a ton of criticism, since over 90% of them are simply bad students who haven't truly become scholars of their own craft.

I'm in a good mood tonight because I just picked up a second-hand copy of volume 10 of The New Oxford History of Music, subtitled 'The Modern Age: 1890-1960.' I would definitely like to get some of the preceding volumes as well, since I'm very aware that I'm dreadfully limited in my knowledge of romantic, classical, and baroque musics.

[retrouvailles]

I'm very aware that I'm dreadfully limited in my knowledge of romantic, classical, and baroque musics.

You're one of the lucky ones, in a way. Way too many people have the opposite problem!

[lontano]

Sounds compelling reading.

I will see if there is a copy in the prison library.

Thal

Strange Urban (Prison) Legend: No matter how many times the books were burned, they reappeared on the shelves of the prison & hospital libraries within 39 days... And no matter how often I try to get rid of them, they are rediscovered in the deep recesses of my storage locker.

[mikey6]

I like contemporary (visual) art a lot, but there's a great preponderance of it that is pure trash:  literally, a big pile of "found objects," arranged so as to take up an entire wing of a gallery, and passed off as high art.  not only do I not like it, but I'm offended that someone would waste an entire room on a heap of garbage, especially when there are real artists who are struggling to make it.  I think there is a similar current in music, and it saddens me. 

To go slightly off topic, I think reality shows have something to do with this point.  While I do like to indulge in trash like Britain's got Talent and such (mainly to see the bad acts), it annoys me to see talent that isn't put through because it's not popular!  Having an audience vote of whom the majority would be ignorant of whatever act is being shown cannot be helping eschew the trash from the talent.  Even the judges are not always skilled in the act and really have no idea whether the artist is superb or merely decent - it all makes for entertaining TV in it's lowest form.

[indutrial]

You're one of the lucky ones, in a way. Way too many people have the opposite problem!

Somebody above mentioned that a lot of rock/jazz musicians seem to be more into music from composers like Ligeti, Bartok, etc... In a way, I'm somewhat part of that category and will freely admit that I initially learned a lot about classical music via really ludicrous avenues like Emerson, Lake, & Palmer and Yes (who used to open their sets with an excerpt from Stravinsky's Firebird). As I mentioned elsewhere, a history teacher of mine also gave me a bunch of great Bartok and Stravinsky CDs. My bass guitar instructor (who was bizarre and rock-and-roll as hell!) even got me into studying bits from Bartok's Mikrocosmos, which to my prog-rock/Nirvana-soaked ears (both of which I don't really listen to much anymore) was like opening the gates to a new world of ideas and musical architecture. I got into stuff like Liszt and Beethoven as well, but not quite as much as composers like Stravinsky and Bartok.

Being a bassist/guitarist, I would say that studying jazz theory did a lot to shape my musical trajectory. From the outset, you learn to get used to very thick modal harmonies and things like melodic-minor tonality, octatonic scales/harmonies, and dissonant alterations (b9, #11, etc..). After a lot of that, things like the Scriabin mystic-chord and the Tristan chord seem more commonplace and all varieties of chromaticism seem to make a sort of sense.

I'm planning on following the Boulanger approach and dedicating some serious time to studying Bach's music (especially the Well-Tempered Clavier and the suites) more closely. I've listened to those pieces a zillion times and I'm a huge fan of similar sets of preludes/fugues from the past century (Niels Viggo Bentzon, Walter Hus, Henry Martin), so I may as well become more well-grounded in Bach's original 48 pairs. As well, I really want to learn more about Scarlatti and Haydn, who I have next to zero knowledge about. Some stupid quiz I took on the internet about "what composer are you?" gave me Haydn as a result, and I felt like a dumbass for not knowing his work at all  

As well, I've found myself feeling hugely inspired after I read a couple of items about Elliott Carter's first string quartet, one of my favorite chamber works from any time period. Prior to the composition of that masterpiece, Carter spent a ton of time pouring over the quartets of centuries past ("I read through all the Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Debussy, Ravel, Bartók, Berg, and Ruth Crawford Seeger quartets to find a way of using the four instruments to present my ideas."), as well as studying contemporaries like Nancarrow and Ives (whose influences are blatantly at work). Considering the fantastic results of drinking deep from all the different periods, I think that Carter's approach sets a fine example.

[ahinton]

This is true, but it is always going to happen. This is a forum with thousands of members from all age groups and various levels of experience.

I have said some daft things in the past, but it sometimes feels on this forum that there is an effort to intellectualise 20th century music and make it only suitable for some kind of elite listener, and this puts me off.

That depends what you mean by "intellectualising"; you must surely agree that music from many eras has intellectual content and that composers must use intellectual faculties in order to bring about their works, but I have no more patience tan you do with the kind of intellectual snobbery and assumed superiority that trades unduly and unwarrantably upon élitism as as weapon to fire against the allegedly stupid.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Congratulations, you almost managed to quote his post in full.

I quoted that part of scottmcc's pot to which it was necessary to draw your attention, as you had previously quoted selectively from elsewhere in the same post and thereby avoided the point at issue.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I have gone further, but i am only expressing my own opinion.

It would be impossible for me to express the opinion of anyone else as far as i am aware.

Again, as I have said before, expressing opinions can be fine (s long as they are genuine) but (a) opinions based on insufficient experience (of which I am not accusing you) will by definition be of less worth those arising from ample experience and, more importantly, (b) opinion expressed as fact is the issue that we've lately been addressing here; part of scottmcc's post seems to veer in that direction.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I never used to think of it as elitist until i joined this place.

I cannot tie this feeling down to just one post. It is rather the impression gained from many.

That's all very well, but what about your own opinion on this matter - i.e. the one that you glean from your own personal listening experiences and perhaps also from reading about certain music?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Somebody above mentioned that a lot of rock/jazz musicians seem to be more into music from composers like Ligeti, Bartok, etc... In a way, I'm somewhat part of that category and will freely admit that I initially learned a lot about classical music via really ludicrous avenues like Emerson, Lake, & Palmer and Yes (who used to open their sets with an excerpt from Stravinsky's Firebird). As I mentioned elsewhere, a history teacher of mine also gave me a bunch of great Bartok and Stravinsky CDs. My bass guitar instructor (who was bizarre and rock-and-roll as hell!) even got me into studying bits from Bartok's Mikrocosmos, which to my prog-rock/Nirvana-soaked ears (both of which I don't really listen to much anymore) was like opening the gates to a new world of ideas and musical architecture. I got into stuff like Liszt and Beethoven as well, but not quite as much as composers like Stravinsky and Bartok.

Being a bassist/guitarist, I would say that studying jazz theory did a lot to shape my musical trajectory. From the outset, you learn to get used to very thick modal harmonies and things like melodic-minor tonality, octatonic scales/harmonies, and dissonant alterations (b9, #11, etc..). After a lot of that, things like the Scriabin mystic-chord and the Tristan chord seem more commonplace and all varieties of chromaticism seem to make a sort of sense.

I'm planning on following the Boulanger approach and dedicating some serious time to studying Bach's music (especially the Well-Tempered Clavier and the suites) more closely. I've listened to those pieces a zillion times and I'm a huge fan of similar sets of preludes/fugues from the past century (Niels Viggo Bentzon, Walter Hus, Henry Martin), so I may as well become more well-grounded in Bach's original 48 pairs. As well, I really want to learn more about Scarlatti and Haydn, who I have next to zero knowledge about. Some stupid quiz I took on the internet about "what composer are you?" gave me Haydn as a result, and I felt like a dumbass for not knowing his work at all  

As well, I've found myself feeling hugely inspired after I read a couple of items about Elliott Carter's first string quartet, one of my favorite chamber works from any time period. Prior to the composition of that masterpiece, Carter spent a ton of time pouring over the quartets of centuries past ("I read through all the Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Debussy, Ravel, Bartók, Berg, and Ruth Crawford Seeger quartets to find a way of using the four instruments to present my ideas."), as well as studying contemporaries like Nancarrow and Ives (whose influences are blatantly at work). Considering the fantastic results of drinking deep from all the different periods, I think that Carter's approach sets a fine example.

Thanks for all this information about your musical background, of which I was previously unaware.

You really shouldn't have invoked Carter here, you know; Thal won't appreciate that at all! That said, I do agree with you and, whilst Carter has for the most part used very different ways of expressing his ideas in his quartets than did any of the composers he mentions, his quartets simply would not have come about without that study. I, too, find his first quartet one of the most remarkable of the second half of the 20th century, just as I find Schönberg's D minor one the most remarkable of its first half.

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

I also feel that way, but I happen to be on the supporting side of so-called "modernist music". It seems that many of those who are against it believe that it is some sort of elitist thing and have that notion in the back of their mind while evaluating it, which can cause a negative response. I believe that some of it does require some intellectual work on the part of the listener, but not all of it, or else hardly anyone would like it.

I do think that there are a number of composers (and followers) in the 20th Century who justly can be called "elitist" if not "sectarian" (I'm thinking particularly of some serialists), but I also think that those people who dismiss (much of) modern music by default because it is "difficult" and "dissonant" are just as elitist. I you find you do not like certain music, that's OK. If you dismiss certain music as "nonsense" because you don't like it, that's elitist, and very much not OK.
There's plenty of music I do not like because it simply doesn't work for me. But I won't call such music nonsense because of that. (Not entirely true, I'd call most pop and all house-and-associated music nonsense, but we're talking serious music here... )

Why would one four note chord be OK, and another not? Who is to judge? Plenty of music we do call consonant today was called dissonant in the past.

gep

[thalbergmad]

That's all very well, but what about your own opinion on this matter - i.e. the one that you glean from your own personal listening experiences and perhaps also from reading about certain music?

I think i will give up on my opinion.

You are one of the worst offenders in making this feel elite music.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

I quoted that part of scottmcc's pot to which it was necessary to draw your attention, as you had previously quoted selectively from elsewhere in the same post and thereby avoided the point at issue.

Best,

Alistair

Most people generally select the part of posts they think relevant.

To do otherwise would be pointless.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Again, as I have said before, expressing opinions can be fine (s long as they are genuine) but (a) opinions based on insufficient experience (of which I am not accusing you) will by definition be of less worth those arising from ample experience and, more importantly, (b) opinion expressed as fact is the issue that we've lately been addressing here; part of scottmcc's post seems to veer in that direction.

a) We do not always know the level of experience of someone who posts an opinion. Makes no difference to personal preferences which are as valid as anyone else's. No more and no less.

b) I do not know about others, but when i post an opinion, i do not claim it as fact. It is only me typing and only me that has access to this account.

Thal

[ahinton]

I think i will give up on my opinion.

That's your prerogative alone, of course, but no one here is asking or expecting you to do that.

You are one of the worst offenders in making this feel elite music.

I think that, at the very least, you should support that accusation with some evidence; please therefore try to do so.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Most people generally select the part of posts they think relevant.

To do otherwise would be pointless.

Whilst pointlessness has not always guaranteed stopping some people here from posting what they have posted, you have apparently now accepted the point that I was making by quoting from that part of scottmcc's post that was directly relevant to the issue concerned.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

a) We do not always know the level of experience of someone who posts an opinion. Makes no difference to personal preferences which are as valid as anyone else's. No more and no less.

This is, of course, true, at least in principle, although there have nevertheless been fairly clear instances when some people have made sweeping generalisations that, on the evidence of their other remarks, appear to be based on insufficient knowledge and experience of the matters on which they make them.

b) I do not know about others, but when i post an opinion, i do not claim it as fact. It is only me typing and only me that has access to this account.

Assuming that no one is hacking into your account (a reasonable assumption, I think), then I think that we can all accept that it is only you that types the posts that are signed off "Thal"; that said, you have made certain remarks in the past that suggest that you are rubbishing certain music that you dislike, even though you may well have heard it more than once, rather than confine yourself to expressing your dislike of it and, in any case, we're not just referring to you here - others have made far more (and in some cases also more frequent) acerbic comments which seek to disparage music that they don't like just because they don't happen to like it at the time of writing.

I'e asked before, so I'll ask again, this time in a little more detail: if someone listens to music that they dislike and make disparaging remarks about it purely because of that dislike and then at a later date come to appreciate that music, how can this change of heart make any difference to whether or not that music is to be disparaged?

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

a) We do not always know the level of experience of someone who posts an opinion. Makes no difference to personal preferences which are as valid as anyone else's. No more and no less.

Person 1: has heard 1 piece of Bach for the first time, and says "stupid music!"
Person 2: Ton Koopman after completing his Bach Cantata project says "good music!"

Both opinions are equally valid?
You'd have a very hard time convincing me....

b) I do not know about others, but when i post an opinion, i do not claim it as fact.

You forgot the word "always" between "i do not" and "claim it as a fact".....

[retrouvailles]

You forgot the word "always" between "i do not" and "claim it as a fact".....

You'd also have a very hard time convincing Thal about anything, it seems. We have had this argument (and similar ones) with him for many years now.

[indutrial]

I do think that there are a number of composers (and followers) in the 20th Century who justly can be called "elitist" if not "sectarian" (I'm thinking particularly of some serialists), but I also think that those people who dismiss (much of) modern music by default because it is "difficult" and "dissonant" are just as elitist.

Indeed. All classical musicians are elitists in the grand scheme of things. I call 'BULLSH1T' whenever somebody who knows even a small amount of the repertoire tries to act like some humble commoner who's under threat from the modern age's ivory-tower elitists. The way I see it, you're either in the classical music world lock, stock, and barrel or you don't belong in it at all. When you decide to be a serious musician, the first best thing you can do is simply become comfortable with the fact that you are in a different strata of music appreciation than the legions of people who listen to Lady Gaga, Boys Like Girls, Nickelback, or whatever other idiotic consumer crap comes floating down the pipe.

There's no point in trying to define any sort of strata within the classical music world, be it in terms of aesthetic idealism, popular interest, etc... History has proven a million times over that applying such rubrics DOES NOT WORK and, moreover, serves no purpose in the long run. Like I've said a dozen times, the most talented and important classical musicians in this world always manage to look past all of the stratification and the beautiful vs. ugly/consonant vs. dissonant/right vs. wrong/good vs. evil BULLSH1T and simply abide by the standards of openness and hard work. One of the best examples I will cite a million times over is a musician like Irvine Arditti, whose repertoire pretty much has no boundaries. His quartet has performed works by Bach and Beethoven, as well as performing recent works by Carter, Ferneyhough, and Xenakis. They do it all. They work their asses off and, as a result, the classical music world is enriched by the proliferation of works new and old.

Obviously, people can and will have opinions about this or that. People will choose specialties and favorites amongst the wide selection of classical music that can be listened to. Fine...whatever. I just think it degrades the status of classical music when the people within its borders get too fired up bickering about the nonsense concerns mentioned above, since all the while the true classical music world is moving on without them.

[thalbergmad]

I think that, at the very least, you should support that accusation with some evidence; please therefore try to do so.

I will not even attempt to do so, as i am not going to trawl through your thousands of essays.

Some of us do actually work for a living.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Whilst pointlessness has not always guaranteed stopping some people here from posting what they have posted, you have apparently now accepted the point that I was making by quoting from that part of scottmcc's post that was directly relevant to the issue concerned.

I quote what i feel is relevant and leave the rest.

Very simple to grasp really.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Person 1: has heard 1 piece of Bach for the first time, and says "stupid music!"
Person 2: Ton Koopman after completing his Bach Cantata project says "good music!"

Both opinions are equally valid?

Yes, as both persons are only expressing a personal opinion.

It does not matter if 10,000 people agree with person 1 or 10,000,000 agree with person 2, they are both only expressing an opinion.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

When you decide to be a serious musician, the first best thing you can do is simply become comfortable with the fact that you are in a different strata of music appreciation than the legions of people who listen to Lady Gaga, Boys Like Girls, Nickelback, or whatever other idiotic consumer crap comes floating down the pipe.

You have hit the nail flush on the head. You have discovered my problem.

I have not yet decided to be a serious musician.

Thal

[ahinton]

Indeed. All classical musicians are elitists in the grand scheme of things. I call 'BULLSH1T' whenever somebody who knows even a small amount of the repertoire tries to act like some humble commoner who's under threat from the modern age's ivory-tower elitists. The way I see it, you're either in the classical music world lock, stock, and barrel or you don't belong in it at all. When you decide to be a serious musician, the first best thing you can do is simply become comfortable with the fact that you are in a different strata of music appreciation than the legions of people who listen to Lady Gaga, Boys Like Girls, Nickelback, or whatever other idiotic consumer crap comes floating down the pipe.

There's no point in trying to define any sort of strata within the classical music world, be it in terms of aesthetic idealism, popular interest, etc... History has proven a million times over that applying such rubrics DOES NOT WORK and, moreover, serves no purpose in the long run. Like I've said a dozen times, the most talented and important classical musicians in this world always manage to look past all of the stratification and the beautiful vs. ugly/consonant vs. dissonant/right vs. wrong/good vs. evil BULLSH1T and simply abide by the standards of openness and hard work. One of the best examples I will cite a million times over is a musician like Irvine Arditti, whose repertoire pretty much has no boundaries. His quartet has performed works by Bach and Beethoven, as well as performing recent works by Carter, Ferneyhough, and Xenakis. They do it all. They work their asses off and, as a result, the classical music world is enriched by the proliferation of works new and old.

Obviously, people can and will have opinions about this or that. People will choose specialties and favorites amongst the wide selection of classical music that can be listened to. Fine...whatever. I just think it degrades the status of classical music when the people within its borders get too fired up bickering about the nonsense concerns mentioned above, since all the while the true classical music world is moving on without them.

This all makes good sense; the only example with which I might take you gently to task is that of Irvine Arditti, whose quartet has, in its 35 or so years, presented initially almost entirely post-WWII works and subsequently almost entirely 20th/21st century works, their very occasional forays into Bach being just the odd arrangement of a Contrapunctus from The Art of Fugue and those into Beethoven being the Grosse Fugue (which is only one of six movements of a single Beethoven quartet); I've heard that they also once played the Beethoven C# minor quartet but I have no definite information on that - but I do know that they were once invited to participate in a series pitting the Haydn Op. 20s with contemporary quartet repertoire and Irvine declined to do this. The principle stands, however and, perhaps, you best quartet ensemble would be the Pacifica Quartet, who have not only played all five Carter quaertets but improbably performed all of them in a single programme on a number of ocasions and they, unlike the Ardittis, have a substantial repertoire of much earlier music including plenty of quartets by Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert and others.

Best,

Alistair

[weissenberg2]

I never said I can't like contemporary--I just haven't found much that I have liked.  there's a big difference.  I agree with you that there is a lot of diversity within the genre/subgenre.  I made it through the 3 recordings you listed.  can't say I really cared for them, but I'm not offended by them either.  koji atwood used to post on this board a lot if I'm not mistaken.  these pieces are  absolutely nothing like the girl punching the piano earlier in the thread though, which is what I was talking about before. 

I like contemporary (visual) art a lot, but there's a great preponderance of it that is pure trash:  literally, a big pile of "found objects," arranged so as to take up an entire wing of a gallery, and passed off as high art.  not only do I not like it, but I'm offended that someone would waste an entire room on a heap of garbage, especially when there are real artists who are struggling to make it.  I think there is a similar current in music, and it saddens me. 

furthermore, I feel that this shows that the art world as a whole has embraced moral relativism entirely too much.  there absolutely must be at least some concept of right and wrong, and good and bad, or else chaos will ensue.  how many dung jesuses do we need before we can say that they're not art?  how many people will headbutt a piano until they bleed before we say that it's not music?  I'll grant that everyone's tastes may be different, but really, there must be a line drawn where we the listeners/viewers say that enough is enough.

by the way, if you want someone to agree with me, watch this movie:  https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0912592/

try Hindemith 

[ahinton]

I will not even attempt to do so, as i am not going to trawl through your thousands of essays.

Some of us do actually work for a living.

I have not penned "thousands of essays" but, even if I had, if you are so convinced that I have done so much damage as you say you believe I have done, most people here would expect you to be capable of recalling at least a few examples succinctly demonstrating beyond doubt that I have indeed done so. Your unwillingness to attempt to justify yourself here must therefore be for another reason which I would guess is that you don't actually possess any evidence to do so.

I work for a living, too although, as a self-employed person, I do it in times of my choosing; I believe that you, on the other hand, work for an employer (please correct me if I am wrong about that), but your duties under your contract of employement seem not to deter you from posting quite frequently duing what I imagine to be your customary working hours...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I quote what i feel is relevant and leave the rest.

Very simple to grasp really.

Then we are both doing the same thing, so it should not be an unduly onerous task for you to accept that what I quoted from scottmcc revealed evidence of some willingness on his part directly to equate music he dislikes to that with which he wonders why anyone bothers, as though the two "facts" were wholly interdependent.

Best,

Alistair

[weissenberg2]

You may also like the Copland clarinet concerto

[ahinton]

Yes, as both persons are only expressing a personal opinion.

It does not matter if 10,000 people agree with person 1 or 10,000,000 agree with person 2, they are both only expressing an opinion.

But you've still gotten this wrong; the first of those two opinions may seek to masquerade as an "opinion", no more, no less, yet all it does is to pronounce Bach's music as "stupid" because the listener didn't like it - this would be reveal precisely the same absence of logic had this listener heard 100 pieces of Bach 10 times each, disliked them all and made the same comment; how can Bach's music be both "stupid" (just because this person says he/she thinks it is so because he/she doesn't like it) and "good" because Ton Koopman say that his ample experience of it leaves him with that impression? Bach was not stupid and could not in any case have been so purely as a consequence of the alleged opinion of someone living many years after his death who happens to have heard some of his music and disliked it!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

You have hit the nail flush on the head. You have discovered my problem.

I have not yet decided to be a serious musician.

Leaving aside the improbability that any one person could hope to discover your entire "problem" in one go, I rather think that the writer to whom you refer here intended the term "musician" to be interchangeable with "listener" in the context concerned, as I am sure you will have noted even though you have chosen to ignore it; furthermore, I cannot imagine anyone in his/her right mind imagining that you are not serious about music when you spend all the time that you do in seeking out rare scores and sharing your enthusiasms by scanning and uploading them for the benefit of others.

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

Yes, as both persons are only expressing a personal opinion.

It does not matter if 10,000 people agree with person 1 or 10,000,000 agree with person 2, they are both only expressing an opinion.

Thal

*very deep sigh*
No.
If person 1 would say "this music I do not like" such was an opinion, and I would not have a problem with that. What person 1 does is judging, in generalisation, the entire output of a composer he doesn't know squat about and does not care to get to know about.
Of course Person 2 does present á la a fact too, but here we have a professional talking.

It's like asking me to give an opinion () about a single slice of cake and then went judging the whole baking trade by it. A top baker might do so, but not me.

Opinions are never facts.

[thalbergmad]

Opinions are never facts.

Precisely, so one is a valid as another.

Simple

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Then wqe are both doing the same thing

Exactly.

Congratulations.

Thal

[gep]

Precisely, so one is a valid as another.

Simple

Thal

*gnack*
*very, very deep sigh...*
No. The validity of any opinion is based upon the reasoning behind it. Someone ditching Bach after hearing one piece once has an opinion based on nothing. Someone like Ton Koopman has his opinion based on his huge practical and theoretical knowledge. Of course, both are equally entitled to having their opinions, they are just nowhere near equally valid.

let me put it another way....

Imagine you applying for a job somewhere. Your may-be boss decides to check on you. he finds two people willing to give their opinion on you.
No. 1: "I just saw Thal passing by once five years ago. Didn't like the look of him, he had a beard. My opinion is that he is unfit for the job".
No. 2: "I have worked with Thal for 10 years, every day of the week. My opinion is that he is perfect for the job".

Would you like you could-be boss to take these two different opinions as equally valid?

Of course, if he wouldn't take them as equally valid, and let the 2nd prevail, he might come to the conclusion that either No. 1 had an uncanny human knowledge, or that No. 2 was apparently payed by you. 

gep

[thalbergmad]

*gnack*
*very, very deep sigh...*
let me put it another way....

Even deeper sigh.

Let me put it another way.

1. gep after listening to one work of Thalberg denounces him as rubbish.
2. thal after examining his entire works proclaims him a genius.

Both as personal opinions are equally valid. One might have experienced more than the other, but as personal opinions, both are equally valid.

Music is in the ear of the beholder, not in the essay of the pompous.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

I have not penned "thousands of essays" but, even if I had, if you are so convinced that I have done so much damage as you say you believe I have done, most people here would expect you to be capable of recalling at least a few examples succinctly demonstrating beyond doubt that I have indeed done so. Your unwillingness to attempt to justify yourself here must therefore be for another reason which I would guess is that you don't actually possess any evidence to do so.

This is pianistimo tactics and i am not falling for it.

"read through my last million words and prove me wrong"

Like her, you lack the balls to admit you are wrong and any effort would be wasted.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

furthermore, I cannot imagine anyone in his/her right mind imagining that you are not serious about music when you spend all the time that you do in seeking out rare scores and sharing your enthusiasms by scanning and uploading them for the benefit of others.

If i were a serious musician, i would practise daily and take lessons. I do neither.

Enthuastic musician would be a better description.

Thal

[richard black]

some music does require a bit of knowledge to understand it to a good enough degree to enjoy it

That, to me, is a major fail. I'm quite happy with the concept of a piece of music that requires more than one hearing to enjoy it, also with the concept of a piece that requires a bit of knowledge to appreciate it intellectually, but to enjoy, in general, no. (I suppose, unless one includes under the heading 'a bit of knowledge' the knowledge of the piece itself - but I don't want to get hair-splitting about this.)

But I am also happy to accept that my views on this subject are personal and indeed political - as a left-leaning sort of musician I regard my ideal audience as made up largely of Joe Schmo of whom I make no demands beyond a willingness to listen attentively.

[indutrial]

If i were a serious musician, i would practise daily and take lessons. I do neither.

Enthuastic musician would be a better description.

Thal

You're a serious music enthusiast, Thal. I'm not much different, since I don't play any classical instruments and boast no music education beyond what I've taught myself. Though you love to crack on modern music and modern art, I'm pretty sure that you've at least tried to listen to it, though you've probably heard a bit too many extreme examples that exist beyond a giant divide from the music you like (there are a probably a hundred works that you should listen to before you leap into something like a Ferneyhough piece). Based on the nature of your posts, I think you simply enjoy being humorous and deflating people who threaten to become windbaggy (which you've probably done to me in the past).

Being a non-academic in terms of music, there is a good portion of individuals in the classical music world that I feel alienated by. I was planning on pursuing an advanced degree in music history until I sat down with the professors at my university and realized that I didn't want to deal with those kind of personalities for two years of classes. Aside from pretty much disregarding my academic background (since I didn't have an illustrious undergrad degree in music  ), the whole tone of the meeting came off as very territorial from their end, which didn't endear them to me in the least. While this music's scene is by nature elitist vis-a-vis things like popular taste, I don't see the point of acting elitist from one person to another when both parties are clearly interested in similar goals.

[indutrial]

But I am also happy to accept that my views on this subject are personal and indeed political - as a left-leaning sort of musician I regard my ideal audience as made up largely of Joe Schmo of whom I make no demands beyond a willingness to listen attentively.

Are you saying that you're a modern variety of a socialist realist. I hate to say this, but no matter what you play, Joe-Schmo-type 'listeners' are still going to be spending most of the recital texting people and thinking about which girl in the next row is the hottest piece of tail.

[thalbergmad]

though you've probably heard a bit too many extreme examples that exist beyond a giant divide from the music you like (there are a probably a hundred works that you should listen to before you leap into something like a Ferneyhough piece).

This explains my experience very well. Instead of levering myself in gently, I went straight for Xenakis, Berio, Barrett, Finnissey and Ferneyhough. This was undoubtedly an error as the music differed so much than that i was used to.

I can be a man of extremes, so this type of music does interest me. So much so, that i intend to find a recording of Tristan 1973 by Hans Werner Henze, which requires a prepared piano, orchestra and electronic tapes. It is in 6 movements and lasts only 44 minutes. If that does not "convert" me, nothing will.

Thal

[indutrial]

I can be a man of extremes, so this type of music does interest me. So much so, that i intend to find a recording of Tristan 1973 by Hans Werner Henze, which requires a prepared piano, orchestra and electronic tapes. It is in 6 movements and lasts only 44 minutes. If that does not "convert" me, nothing will.

Hah, you sound like somebody who looks for trouble!

As you well know, my main interest these past few years has centered on the music from the first half of the twentieth century. I like several composers from the latter half, but many of them exhibit solid links to the earlier decades (for example, Wuorinen's connection to Stravinsky, Carter's neoclassical roots). When I dived into things like Ferneyhough and Barrett, I was immediately struck by a sense that my ears and brain were out of their league. The reaction to things like Cage and Glass was, of course, very different. Both things sort of pushed me back into focusing on the earlier century, a period that, in my opinion, evinces a strong balance of looking forward and reaching back. Composers like Milhaud, Holmboe, and Tansman include just as many baroque elements as they include modern harmonies and rhythmic devices. I still consider the main problem with assessing twentieth century music to be the tendency towards extremism. Too many people get overexcited about the outer rim of the avant-garde and end up shoving composers like Xenakis, Stockhausen, and Nono into everybody else's unprepared faces. A ton of the composers whose work preceded this avant-garde extremism get passed over in music classes. As well, tons of active composers who espouse traditional approaches go completely under the radar while the modern music scene takes on an uglier and more esoteric guise.