Finally, a modern classical composer that doesn't alienate the audience!

[ahinton]

I know exactly what you mean by this kind of so-called post-intellectualism but I do not agree that this is a particular example of it in practice. Yes, Ferneyhough's writings can seem pretty abstruse and complex at times but, in this particular example, I think that what he has to say is of interest and illustrates certain aspects of how and why his Fourth Quartet came about, not least in its relationships with Schönberg's Second Quartet.

The only issues that I might raise about it are these:

fulfilling the linguistic norms that pertain in structuralist discourse
"Structuralist discourse" might be seen to be something of a woolly concept.

Schoenberg's Second String Quartet -- which I feel is a work of exceptional interest by virtue of initially attempting to be a string quartet, and then absolutely failing to achieve that goal.
I disagree with the last part of that statement, as indeed I feel entitled to do having composed a string quintet that also includes a solo soprano in its fifth and last movement!

In a sense, the final Beethoven quartets are a paradigmatic example of this quality, and one can imagine that, at the time, it must have been difficult to imagine a continuation of that remarkable phenomenon of dis-balance between the imposition of the subjective self on Beethoven's part (representing, if you will, an exemplar of prevailing humanistic attitudes towards self-formation) and the various relatively stabilized conventional forms into which the quartet had congealed in the preceding decades.
The going certainly gets abit tough here! - most especially the "an exemplar of prevailing humanistic attitudes towards self-formation" bit - although, read in the specific context of what immediately follows, even that should seem at least a little less obtuse.

...has, during the course of this century, led to what can only be termed a certain degree of subjectively imposed gratuitousness
He was referring, of course, to the 20th century at the time of writing, but I'm not sure that I understand what he means by "subjectively imposed gratuitousness" in this context, nor am I convinced that, even if what he say led to it actually did so, it could really "only" be termed "subjectively imposed gratuitousness".

There is a sort of transcendence which comes about with the introduction of the voice immediately subsequent to the awesome breakdown of the scherzo second movement, where we witness the total automation, the sort of pataphysical, self-destructive logic of late tonal thinking in which the interwoven harmonic patterns typical of early Schoenberg are no longer capable of carrying the discourse for more than a handful of measures at a time, with the consequence that matters grind to a halt.
The notion of transcendance I accept, but the latter part of this I disagree with and it seems to do Schönberg something of a disservice; I wonder what he would have made of this?!

What I tried to do in this work
Warning bells invariably ring in my head whever I read a composer beginning a sentence thus!...

the supposition that verbal and musical modes of expression and intimately and immediately interrelated
The first "and" should, of course, read "are"; is that a misprint in the text that you copied or have you gone to the not inconsiderable trouble of typing it all out yourself?

Best,

Alistair

[djealnla]

I know exactly what you mean by this kind of so-called post-intellectualism but I do not agree that this is a particular example of it in practice. Yes, Ferneyhough's writings can seem pretty abstruse and complex at times but, in this particular example, I think that what he has to say is of interest and illustrates certain aspects of how and why his Fourth Quartet came about, not least in its relationships with Schönberg's Second Quartet.

The real problem of this text is that it is so abstract that it becomes a meaningless loquacious babble. Another problem is that it is obsessed with the exploration of phenomena which were not proven to exist in the first place.

I have a theory concerning what I call 'threshold works,' a category of compositions typified by what I understand to be a *surplus* of meaning, caused by their straddling the divide or fault line between one way of perceiving and another in a way somehow embodied in the actual texture.

Music exists to be heard, what exists on the page is irrelevant in the end.

Parts of my Fourth Quartet are, in fact, quite narrative, and certainly the narrative of Schoenberg's Second String Quartet is that of the dissolution of the string quartet genre as such -- of the predominately discursive logic of the genre as defined, say, by Haydn through to late Beethoven.

What is a string quartet? A piece written for 2 violins, viola and cello (in most cases). Ferneyhough then proceeds to talk about the issue of form:

In a sense, the final Beethoven quartets are a paradigmatic example of this quality, and one can imagine that, at the time, it must have been difficult to imagine a continuation of that remarkable phenomenon of dis-balance between the imposition of the subjective self on Beethoven's part (representing, if you will, an exemplar of prevailing humanistic attitudes towards self-formation) and the various relatively stabilized conventional forms into which the quartet had congealed in the preceding decades. If we compare the early, middle, and late quartets, we can distinctly perceive this transformation taking place.

This, however, is completely irrelevant. The transformation of form has been taking place throughout music history, not just with Beethoven and similarly revolutionary composers. Mozart was breaking his time's musical conventions in many of his works, such as the Rondo of the 20th Piano Concerto, the Finale of the Jupiter Symphony, or the K 593 Quintet, long before Beethoven wrote any of his early masterpieces. Every composer's musical style evolves. Furthermore, he writes some nonsense about an alleged "imposition of the subjective self on Beethoven's part", which supposedly represents an example of "prevailing humanistic attitudes towards self-formation", when he never bothers showing anything that would demonstrate that Beethoven had such things in mind. I believe that Beethoven wrote the music that was in his inside (as did/does every sincere composer), and if that's the whole ego business that Ferneyhough is aiming at, then his statement is pointless, because virtually every composer merges his own ideas with what he has absorbed from elsewhere (unless he is as a-historic as Cage).

It seemed to me, when beginning to think about my own quartet, that -- as with the concept of post-histoire which everyone has been talking about lately -- the logic of this linear progression from generally objectively viable forms of musical communication to subjectively authentic but communally no longer sustainable 'languages' (or, at the very least, stylized forms of intercommunion) that had reached such a decisive stage in the last works of Beethoven has, during the course of this century, led to what can only be termed a certain degree of subjectively imposed gratuitousness.

Now let's look at this paragraph. At the beginning of his text Ferneyhough wrote:

As the program notes point out, this composition has to do with language. To what extent is music a language; to what extent can one treat music *like* a language without regard to how far it actually succeeds in fulfilling the linguistic norms that pertain in structuralist discourse?

First of all, a language is a group of symbols which have no meaning, but to which humans have ascribed meaning by means of mutual agreement. If the Morse code can be employed as a type of language, so can music be used in a communicative fashion. If we look at the past, we can see that the Baroque era, for instance, knew the Affektenlehre, while if we look at "recent" times, we can find Messiaen's work Méditations sur le mystère de la Sainte Trinité, which uses Messiaen's langage communicable. Taken as a whole, both of these "works" predate Ferneyhough's pointlessly extended rant about music and language by several years (and in the specific case of the doctrine of affects by a few centuries).

The only issues that I might raise about it are these:

fulfilling the linguistic norms that pertain in structuralist discourse
"Structuralist discourse" might be seen to be something of a woolly concept.

Exactly. Does it mean anything at all?

Schoenberg's Second String Quartet -- which I feel is a work of exceptional interest by virtue of initially attempting to be a string quartet, and then absolutely failing to achieve that goal.
I disagree with the last part of that statement, as indeed I feel entitled to do having composed a string quintet that also includes a solo soprano in its fifth and last movement!

How could that work fail to achieve that goal, if he maintains that Beethoven always achieved that objective, in spite of all of his innovations? What kind of double standard is that?

...has, during the course of this century, led to what can only be termed a certain degree of subjectively imposed gratuitousness
He was referring, of course, to the 20th century at the time of writing, but I'm not sure that I understand what he means by "subjectively imposed gratuitousness" in this context, nor am I convinced that, even if what he say led to it actually did so, it could really "only" be termed "subjectively imposed gratuitousness".

Again, it's just a pile of speculations about the ego of composers.

There is a sort of transcendence which comes about with the introduction of the voice immediately subsequent to the awesome breakdown of the scherzo second movement, where we witness the total automation, the sort of pataphysical, self-destructive logic of late tonal thinking in which the interwoven harmonic patterns typical of early Schoenberg are no longer capable of carrying the discourse for more than a handful of measures at a time, with the consequence that matters grind to a halt.
The notion of transcendance I accept, but the latter part of this I disagree with and it seems to do Schönberg something of a disservice; I wonder what he would have made of this?!

Subjective perception of the music, no more, no less; besides, why does he suppose that it was a manifestation of Schoenberg failing, rather than an example of Schoenberg succeeding at an aesthetic goal/mission?

What I tried to do in this work
Warning bells invariably ring in my head whever I read a composer beginning a sentence thus!...

Indeed, and we can just imagine what Sorabji would have stated about Ferneyhough's music!

the supposition that verbal and musical modes of expression and intimately and immediately interrelated
The first "and" should, of course, read "are"; is that a misprint in the text that you copied or have you gone to the not inconsiderable trouble of typing it all out yourself?

I found this on YouTube. You are presumably referring to the second "and", not the first. I corrected several other typos (including one during the course of this post), but for some reason did not feel like correcting this one.

[Bob]

Nothing to launder if you don't wear pants.


Darnit... My post makes no sense now. I only saw the first page.  

Oh great.  And my post gets sandwiched between two long posts.  With arguments!  They must have arguments if they're that long.   

I have an inadequate post here.   

[ramseytheii]

The real problem of this text is that it is so abstract that it becomes a meaningless loquacious babble. Another problem is that it is obsessed with the exploration of phenomena which were not proven to exist in the first place.

I have a theory concerning what I call 'threshold works,' a category of compositions typified by what I understand to be a *surplus* of meaning, caused by their straddling the divide or fault line between one way of perceiving and another in a way somehow embodied in the actual texture.

Music exists to be heard, what exists on the page is irrelevant in the end.

Parts of my Fourth Quartet are, in fact, quite narrative, and certainly the narrative of Schoenberg's Second String Quartet is that of the dissolution of the string quartet genre as such -- of the predominately discursive logic of the genre as defined, say, by Haydn through to late Beethoven.

What is a string quartet? A piece written for 2 violins, viola and cello (in most cases). Ferneyhough then proceeds to talk about the issue of form:

In a sense, the final Beethoven quartets are a paradigmatic example of this quality, and one can imagine that, at the time, it must have been difficult to imagine a continuation of that remarkable phenomenon of dis-balance between the imposition of the subjective self on Beethoven's part (representing, if you will, an exemplar of prevailing humanistic attitudes towards self-formation) and the various relatively stabilized conventional forms into which the quartet had congealed in the preceding decades. If we compare the early, middle, and late quartets, we can distinctly perceive this transformation taking place.

This, however, is completely irrelevant. The transformation of form has been taking place throughout music history, not just with Beethoven and similarly revolutionary composers. Mozart was breaking his time's musical conventions in many of his works, such as the Rondo of the 20th Piano Concerto, the Finale of the Jupiter Symphony, or the K 593 Quintet, long before Beethoven wrote any of his early masterpieces. Every composer's musical style evolves. Furthermore, he writes some nonsense about an alleged "imposition of the subjective self on Beethoven's part", which supposedly represents an example of "prevailing humanistic attitudes towards self-formation", when he never bothers showing anything that would demonstrate that Beethoven had such things in mind. I believe that Beethoven wrote the music that was in his inside (as did/does every sincere composer), and if that's the whole ego business that Ferneyhough is aiming at, then his statement is pointless, because virtually every composer merges his own ideas with what he has absorbed from elsewhere (unless he is as a-historic as Cage).

It seemed to me, when beginning to think about my own quartet, that -- as with the concept of post-histoire which everyone has been talking about lately -- the logic of this linear progression from generally objectively viable forms of musical communication to subjectively authentic but communally no longer sustainable 'languages' (or, at the very least, stylized forms of intercommunion) that had reached such a decisive stage in the last works of Beethoven has, during the course of this century, led to what can only be termed a certain degree of subjectively imposed gratuitousness.

Now let's look at this paragraph. At the beginning of his text Ferneyhough wrote:

As the program notes point out, this composition has to do with language. To what extent is music a language; to what extent can one treat music *like* a language without regard to how far it actually succeeds in fulfilling the linguistic norms that pertain in structuralist discourse?

First of all, a language is a group of symbols which have no meaning, but to which humans have ascribed meaning by means of mutual agreement. If the Morse code can be employed as a type of language, so can music be used in a communicative fashion. If we look at the past, we can see that the Baroque era, for instance, knew the Affektenlehre, while if we look at "recent" times, we can find Messiaen's work Méditations sur le mystère de la Sainte Trinité, which uses Messiaen's langage communicable. Taken as a whole, both of these "works" predate Ferneyhough's pointlessly extended rant about music and language by several years (and in the specific case of the doctrine of affects by a few centuries).

Exactly. Does it mean anything at all?

How could that work fail to achieve that goal, if he maintains that Beethoven always achieved that objective, in spite of all of his innovations? What kind of double standard is that?

Again, it's just a pile of speculations about the ego of composers.

Subjective perception of the music, no more, no less; besides, why does he suppose that it was a manifestation of Schoenberg failing, rather than an example of Schoenberg succeeding at an aesthetic goal/mission?

Indeed, and we can just imagine what Sorabji would have stated about Ferneyhough's music!

I found this on YouTube. You are presumably referring to the second "and", not the first. I corrected several other typos (including one during the course of this post), but for some reason did not feel like correcting this one.

Wonderful, wonderful post.  Very clever in your points of attack, and to my immediate reaction unassailable in your conclusions...

In general I deplore the kind of descriptions that have this effect, of completely turning off a person from the actual sound of a piece, and instead using bland, uninspiring terminology from modern literary criticism to try and define a place for the music, since the actual sound won't place it anywhere in the listener's ear whatsoever.

I would defend him in one area, and that is in his over-wordy (not worldly) explanation of his experience of Beethoven's quartets.  You claim that a quartet is nothing more than a combination of instruments, but classical composers would disagree.  The rough outlines of the form they followed is, in this day and age, much more remarkable than the variation they achieved within it.  

Perhaps in his eyes, Schoenberg failed in the second quartet because of the addition of a singer (a practical reason not to call it a quartet, we can all agree) and Beethoven's "imposition of the subjective self" (terminology taken straight out of 20th century literary criticism) could be very legitimately perceived as his desire to transcend the conventions of the form..

You are right that all forms have developed ("transformation"), but you neglect to mention that they sometimes develop in a way that defines, rather than defies, convention.  Mozart's string quartet writing developed, but developed towards the Haydenesque values which we have used to define the very category of string quartet.

I am glad you posted a point-by-point rebuttal of this mostly useless exposition, in fact I was planning to do the same thing once I had the opportunity to get a little tipsy.  But your post was so excellent, I couldn't let a few weak points go unnoticed!

With sincere thanks,
Walter Ramsey

[john11inc]

The real problem of this text is that it is so abstract that it becomes a meaningless loquacious babble.

It's a bit hard to follow for the sheer reason of a horrendous lack of commas (at least for the most part).  Anyone who wishes to write in such an academic manner needs to have much better grammar than that which is exhibited above, in my opinion.  There's nothing meaningless in it, to me, though.  I don't agree with everything he says, particularly about Beethoven.  One of the remarks strikes me as very introverted, which seems to make a multitude of claims we should, for some reason, take as self-evident:

(representing, if you will, an exemplar of prevailing humanistic attitudes towards self-formation)

That was the only phrase that I don't follow.  I'm not quite sure what he's trying to say, but I'm fairly sure he is making some rather bizarre and unnecessary assumptions.

Anyway, I'm not going to nitpick through that pile of words, seeing as how several people have already done so.  Mostly, however, I see people trying to talk about language like some abstract art, when doing so is going out of the way to misunderstand Ferneyhough's writing.  As a random aside, I've spoken to Ferneyhough numerous times, on the phone and via e-mail (as well as read a number of papers and commentaries), and I can say that this isn't particularly representative of his typical writing style, nor his attitude.

[general disarray]

I'm only dropping in here out of a bout of insomnia and extreme irritation to note that any instrumentalist -- with even a minor performing career -- hasn't the slightest bit of energy or time to engage in this mental masturbation you yahoos expend in pompously posting.

Real musicians make music.  You charlatans strike intellectual, verbal poses around music.  The abstraction of organized sound is THE POINT.  Not your pointless, verbal sallies into narcissistic analyses.  Perform these works.  Or shut up.       

[ahinton]

(representing, if you will, an exemplar of prevailing humanistic attitudes towards self-formation)
That was the only phrase that I don't follow.  I'm not quite sure what he's trying to say, but I'm fairly sure he is making some rather bizarre and unnecessary assumptions.

It's the one that puzzled me the most, too. It begs (at least!) three questions. What does he mean by "self-formation" in this particular context? What are these "humanistic attitudes towards" it and how do they manifest themselves in ways that clearly identify them as such? What evidence is there that they are "prevailing"?

Anyway, I'm not going to nitpick through that pile of words, seeing as how several people have already done so.  Mostly, however, I see people trying to talk about language like some abstract art, when doing so is going out of the way to misunderstand Ferneyhough's writing.  As a random aside, I've spoken to Ferneyhough numerous times, on the phone and via e-mail (as well as read a number of papers and commentaries), and I can say that this isn't particularly representative of his typical writing style, nor his attitude.

I hope that what I did wasn't to "nitpick" as such, for that was not my intention. Clearly, in this instance, Brian Ferneyhough's abiding concern with matters of language in relation to his Fourth Quartet was some kind of motivational factor in the writing of this over-large single paragraph - and I don't see that as a problem in itself. Language, however, is indeed not just "some abstract art" any more than is music, so to write, think and listen on the assumption that they are is to misunderstand a whole lot more than just this writing or indeed the quartet to which it relates. I have never actually spoken to the composer but have exchanged numerous emails with him, in none of which is there the remotest evidence of the kind of writing that we are discussing here. There are other instances of similar methods of expression in his papers and commentaries but, as you suggest, this piece about his Fourth Quartet is perhaps atypical to the extent that its elaborate loquacity, which does indeed have some of its origins in a certain style familiar from arts criticism, social commentary, philosophy, etc. in the latter part of the last century, is almost all-pervasive - to such an extent, in fact, that the sentence
The gears need oiling before the piece can move on.
- with which I profoundly disagree, incidentally! - stands out like a beacon (or is it a sore thumb?); a capital letter, a mere ten words and then a full stop is surely something to which the reader has grown well unaccustomed if he/she has read that far!

I did originally quote examples from emails from him at this point but decided that I should excise that part of this post, as I do not have his permission to do so; my reason for so doing, however, had been to illustrate that he frequently writes with clarity of expression things that are easy to understand and is not short either of wit or of of a sense of humour (not quite the same thing).

"Music exists to be heard", as djealnla reminds those of us (if any) who need reminding; Busoni said as much to Sorabji on the occasion when the latter played his new sonata (now known as his first, although it wasn't) to the former. The old chestnut that seeks to persuade us that "writing about music is like dancing about architecture" may be abit of a slick soundbite, but there's no smoke without fire. There's no harm done in principle in writing about music, of course, as long as the reader never permits him/herself to be persuaded that it is in some way a part of the music. Brian Ferneyhough is, as the above suggests, passionate about teaching and, in fact, finds that teaching is almost part of the act of composition (please don't take that too literally - I'm sure its real meaning should be clear to most people!); it's hard to imagine teaching, lecturing, etc. without recourse to words. Delius had a few things to say about words getting in the way of musical expression and developed a deep suspicion of certain works that, if left to stand on their own two feet without being propped up by "explanatory" verbiage, might collapse. Richard Strauss's final opera even plays with the notion that words and music are in some kind of competition with one another.

"What I was trying to do in this work..." Hmmm. I was once asked by BBC to provide a note for my third piano sonata for a series of new(ish) works in which it was to be broadcast. I did give it some serious thought. Ultimately, however, I wrote that "it is in a single movement and plays for around fifteen minutes". Even the second part of that statement was incorrect. Providing some background as to what brought a work about is one thing; blow-by-blow accounts of the events in it and/or the kind of thing that Brian Ferneyhough has written here can risk becoming a self-defeating exercise, for all that Ferneyhough's piece has plenty to interest even the reader who might disagree with certain aspects of it as you and I and others do. Ultimately, what matters above all in the context of Ferneyhough's article is to listen to his Fourth Quartet, perhaps alongside - or perhaps not alongside - Schönberg's Second Quartet.

I offer all due apologies for the length of this post!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I'm only dropping in here out of a bout of insomnia and extreme irritation to note that any instrumentalist -- with even a minor performing career -- hasn't the slightest bit of energy or time to engage in this mental masturbation you yahoos expend in pompously posting.

Real musicians make music.  You charlatans strike intellectual, verbal poses around music.  The abstraction of organized sound is THE POINT.  Not your pointless, verbal sallies into narcissistic analyses.  Perform these works.  Or shut up.       

Well said Sir.

Despite the fact that I despise the performance that started this thread, I would rather listen to it than read some of the ensuing posts, which appear to be attempting to be even more absurd and complex than the music concerned.

Thal

[ahinton]

Well said Sir.

Despite the fact that I despise the performance that started this thread, I would rather listen to it than read some of the ensuing posts, which appear to be attempting to be even more absurd and complex than the music concerned.

As I have pointed out already, there's nothing wrong in principle with writing about music or with reading writings about music, as long as one continues to recognise that the music itself remains king and that no writings on it are especially likely to assist much, if indeed at all, in the appreciative responses to music as actually listening to it can do. I have indeed said in the past to a musicologist that if we composers didn't do what we do he'd be out of a job! I certainly do not write music so that others can take it to bits and write about it; nor do I write solely for my peers (perish the very thought!).

Best,

Alistair

[john11inc]

I'm only dropping in here out of a bout of insomnia and extreme irritation to note that any instrumentalist -- with even a minor performing career -- hasn't the slightest bit of energy or time to engage in this mental masturbation you yahoos expend in pompously posting.

Real musicians make music.  You charlatans strike intellectual, verbal poses around music.  The abstraction of organized sound is THE POINT.  Not your pointless, verbal sallies into narcissistic analyses.  Perform these works.  Or shut up.      

general disarray
PS Silver Member
Sr. Member
***
Offline

Posts: 688

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?action=profile;u=18851;sa=showPosts

That's a pretty high average word count you've got going there, so in other words, join the club!  Or, that is to say, you already have.  Posts dating back to March of 2009 (at least; can't be bothered to investigate further) seem to consist largely of commentary directed at Alistair and me; perhaps your illustrious career in music (in comparison to ours, of course!  Who are you, again?) would be served better by doing some of that "pompous intellectualism", as opposed to pompous uselessness.  It's good to know your pompousness is spent on better endeavors than music: pompousness?  The irony is melting my computer monitor.

[pies]

A kind reminder: John11inch is a furry (google it, 2nd link is informative).  Are you wearing your fursuit right now, you freak?

[general disarray]

That's a pretty high average word count you've got going there, so in other words, join the club!  Or, that is to say, you already have.  Posts dating back to March of 2009 (at least; can't be bothered to investigate further) seem to consist largely of commentary directed at Alistair and me; perhaps your illustrious career in music (in comparison to ours, of course!  Who are you, again?) would be served better by doing some of that "pompous intellectualism", as opposed to pompous uselessness.  It's good to know your pompousness is spent on better endeavors than music: pompousness?  The irony is melting my computer monitor.

Okay, "john," let's put this tired thing to rest.  Yes, I attacked you.  And I have done so in the past during your numerous screen-name incarnations.  Why?  Not for your obvious learning and intelligence.  That's clear to any fool and you parade it about at every opportunity.  It's a little overwhelming when you realize that the point of your pyrotechnic display of that well-known high IQ is LESS about conveying information and insight than it is about establishing, over and over again, your internet brilliance.  The catch here is that you are rather brilliant.  But your narcissism and need to assert your superiority over the rest of us just drowns your contributions in "john-ness."  Sorry.  

But that's only half the story.  Under your various screen-names, you have been incredibly cruel to posters who cross you.  One typo, one grammatical error, and they are relegated to your dustbin of disdain.  Truly, I've never read more cruel ad hominem attacks on people than those you have posted.  That's why I began posting, well, as an antidote.  Alistair, to his credit or discredit (that's not my job to decide), has always admired your learning, intelligence and championing of modern music.  Worthy things to admire. My comments against him were his avoidance of your astonishing cruelty to those who disagreed with you or insulted your sense of superiority.  I'm sure he will maintain he addressed these issues.  And he did.  In mild, understated British fashion.  Which, of course, was ignored by you.

Okay, here it is.  Post away.  I'll not criticize you again for intellectual pretension.  Actually, you are amazingly intelligent and informed.  Now, sir, if you could see a therapist about this personality disorder of yours (a psychological bequest from your parents, as it is for all of us.).  You owe it to yourself.  You are brilliant but you alienate people and they can't hear what you have to say.  Get it together and dazzle us. I'd be the first to applaud you.  Well, no, actually the second.  Alistair would be the first.    

[ahinton]

Since John is, to the best of my knowledge (and he is, of course, open to correct me if I am wrong), not "a modern classical composer that doesn't alienate the audience", anything that I write in respose to posts about him in this thread will of necessity be off-topic, but I'll write it anyway in the hope that it will clear up any possible misunderstandings so that we may move on (or back) to that topic.

John's contributions to this forum (I cannot speak about any that he has made to others) under various different forum IDs have offered many insights, principally into music which which the majority of members here appear not to be especially familiar or in sympathy. He has taken the trouble to post illustrative examples of extracts from some of that music from time to time, both in score form and recorded form. Whilst I do not (any more than I would expect to) agree with everything that he says any more than I share all of his personal tastes in music, "general disarray" is correct in stating that John's remarks about music are based on intensive study of a considerable swathe of repertoire and he has not, in my experience, pretended to know things about other repertoire when he doesn't.

I am not remotely interested in his IQ level; I am interested in what he has to say when he has interesting things to say.

I understand well his impatience with people who dismiss music without having sufficient prior exprience or understanding of what it is that they dismiss; indeed, I share it. Some of those peremptory dismissals - generally of wht is perceived to be "modern music" - are not merely ill-informed but also rude and sometimes excessively so. There is no excuse for rudeness, whether or not one has due knowledge of the subject under discussion.

This is the principal area where John and I part company. John has indeed been quite remarkably rude to a number of posters here, for reasons that seem to me to go well beyond mere irritation with other posters who do not know much about what he knows and some of whom seek to pretend either that they do or that it doesn't matter that they don't. He doesn't always even confine this kind of writing to responses to such people, as his largely unwarranted recent reply to Richard Black demonstrates. I have no sympathy whatsoever for any of that.

I agree that John can be immensely loquacious at times and, in that loquacity and occasional name-dropping, he evidences a habit of putting his considerable knowledge on display in a manner suggestive of egotism. Given that, even when he does this, he still often has interesting things to say, one might wonder if he is indulging in a kind of subtle irony while parading that intellectual brilliance, although the blunt instrument of his barbs and insults suggests that this is probably not the case. As to egotism, I, too, may be accused of it, the difference being that it is of necessity channelled solely into the music that I write and then only because and to the extent that I am writing the music that I want to write rather than somone else's idea of what I should write.

Anyway, this is not the place to pursue analyses of John's writing style, motivations or hang-ups any more than it is to accuse a Scotsman of writing "in mild, understated British fashion", which I do not do; furthermore, I do not take at all kindly to being told when I might applaud what.

We all know the expression "don't feed the troll" but, in this case, that can be achieved not necessarily by ignoring posts altogether but by engaging in intelligent debate of subject matter that merits it and ignoring only the insults (not that anything I am writing here excuses such insults).

I trust that this will be the end of this discussion, although I fear that I will be wrong about that.

PAX,

Alistair

[djealnla]

Ha! I didn't visit this thread for about 2 days, and now return to it, only to find a bunch of humorous and informative posts. Thank you all!  

So, let's see what's worthy of dissecting:

Wonderful, wonderful post.  Very clever in your points of attack, and to my immediate reaction unassailable in your conclusions...

In general I deplore the kind of descriptions that have this effect, of completely turning off a person from the actual sound of a piece, and instead using bland, uninspiring terminology from modern literary criticism to try and define a place for the music, since the actual sound won't place it anywhere in the listener's ear whatsoever.

I would defend him in one area, and that is in his over-wordy (not worldly) explanation of his experience of Beethoven's quartets.  You claim that a quartet is nothing more than a combination of instruments, but classical composers would disagree.  The rough outlines of the form they followed is, in this day and age, much more remarkable than the variation they achieved within it.  

Perhaps in his eyes, Schoenberg failed in the second quartet because of the addition of a singer (a practical reason not to call it a quartet, we can all agree) and Beethoven's "imposition of the subjective self" (terminology taken straight out of 20th century literary criticism) could be very legitimately perceived as his desire to transcend the conventions of the form..

You are right that all forms have developed ("transformation"), but you neglect to mention that they sometimes develop in a way that defines, rather than defies, convention.  Mozart's string quartet writing developed, but developed towards the Haydenesque values which we have used to define the very category of string quartet.

Thank you for your kind words, but I must disagree with you. My point about Ferneyhough's way of perceiving Beethoven's and Schoenberg's innovations still stands. Also, consider Beethoven's 9th Symphony, Busoni's Piano Concerto or Mozart's opera Don Giovanni (which near its end simultaneously employs three orchestras and in several parts eschews the concept of the number opera). All of these pieces were unorthodox when they first appeared, yet nobody claims that Beethoven finished only 8 symphonies, Busoni didn't write any piano concerto or that Mozart's Don Giovanni isn't an opera (although Ferneyhough might actually decide to state all these things).

There's nothing meaningless in it, to me, though.

I don't think it's meaningless in the usual sense of the word, but it's really hard to understand him at times (if you and Alistair have trouble getting this text, then there's definitely a problem with it). Instead of writing all of his hyper-complex sentences, he could have said something like this:

Beethoven's experiments with the form of the string quartet presaged the 20th century's eclecticism (i.e., the coexistence of many mutually independent compositional movements).

Simple as that.

I'm only dropping in here out of a bout of insomnia and extreme irritation to note that any instrumentalist -- with even a minor performing career -- hasn't the slightest bit of energy or time to engage in this mental masturbation you yahoos expend in pompously posting.

Real musicians make music.  You charlatans strike intellectual, verbal poses around music.  The abstraction of organized sound is THE POINT.  Not your pointless, verbal sallies into narcissistic analyses.  Perform these works.  Or shut up.      

For some reason, this really made me laugh.

A kind reminder: John11inch is a furry (google it, 2nd link is informative).  Are you wearing your fursuit right now, you freak?

John is actually a dumbass.  Don't give him undue praise.  He just rambles and trolls.  I would say that he is at best a retard abusing his ADHD medication and at worst the next Jared Loughner.  What's clear is that he's not a normal human being; after all, he is a furry.  Even the Internet rejects furries.  For those that don't know, being a "furry" is basically one small step away bestiality.  I'm not joking; some furries actually deny being human, think they're furry little animals, and probably are sexually aroused by real animals.  It's something should be included in the next DSM.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it's already covered by something in the current DSM.

If you have nothing useful to post, then please stay out of this discussion, OK?

[richard black]

Real musicians make music.  You charlatans strike intellectual, verbal poses around music.  The abstraction of organized sound is THE POINT.  Not your pointless, verbal sallies into narcissistic analyses.  Perform these works.  Or shut up.

That's a bit steep. Two questions:

1) Aren't musicians, like anyone else, entitled to a bit of time off the job?

2) Who are you to tell us how to spend our leisure time?

[ahinton]

That's a bit steep. Two questions:

1) Aren't musicians, like anyone else, entitled to a bit of time off the job?

2) Who are you to tell us how to spend our leisure time?

Steep? It's falling off a precipice of its author's own making, even regardless of the very important and valid points that you make above!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

What more is there to say in this thread?

That is surely a matter to be decided by anyone and everyone here who wishes to contribute to it and has something useful to say, not just you (and especially not you if you don't have anything useful to say).

Composers like Kiyama, Ferneyhough

...who are not remotely "alike"; how much of either's music do you know? Do you take this particular piece of Kiyama seriously and do you believe that it is meant to be taken seriously?

and others

Which "others"? - and on what basis do you seek to categorise them alongisde the two already mentioned who, as I've already mentioned, are so unlike one another in any case?

are self-indulgent charlatans that write pointlessly complex music along with pretentious analyses to complement the music.  Some like how the music sounds, but most people don't.

Define "self-indulgent" in the present context and clarify why you appear to wish to use it solely as a pejorative. Aren't all composers "self-indulgent" to the extent that they are expressing their own thoughts and not anyone else's? - in other words, are they not "indulging" their own ideas, modes of expression, etc.?

How complex is "pointlessly" so, on what grounds would you distinguish between justifiable/viable and "pointless" complexity and where and how would you seek to draw a credible line between the two and what in any case gives you reason to assume that you may be a better arbiter of this than anyone else? Might not The Art of Fugue have seemed "pointlessly complex" to some late 17th century composers? Wouldn't the orchestral virtuosity, harmonic language et al in evidence in Salome, Daphnis et Chloë, Gurrelieder, Le Sacre du Printemps, Mahler's Ninth Symphony and even La Mer have seemed "pointlessly complex" to some of Haydn's contemporaries? What of the "pointless complexities" in Chopin's Op. 10 Études or Op. 52 Ballade? What of the "pointlessly" excessive demands made on pianists by Liszt and Alkan? We take all of these in our stride today (not that this makes any of them any the less potent, of course).

Not everyone writes copious analyses of or notes on their own music and, whilst I accept that these are not any can never be the music itself, there is no reason in principle not to undertake such writing. The fact that I don't do it much is a matter of personal choice based on the fact that I do not feel able to write in an enlightening manner about something which, had it been possible, I might otherwise have written in words rather than music in any case.

You resort to the accusation "pretentious". Whilst I do not deny that there can always be a risk of potential pretentiousness in doing that kind of thing, each case has to be taken on its merits or otherwise; it is neither credible nor viable to lump together everyone who writes about their music (or at least everyone who does so about music that you happen not to like) in an attempt to support your rash and ill-explained claim that they're all "pretentious".

I'm just trolling John.  At this point it's the only interesting thing to do on this forum.

Then by your own admission you have nothing useful to say either on this subject or any other that is worthy of discussion here, so it should be clear what you should do if you are not interested in such subjects. I humbly suggest that, if all that you want to do and are interested in doing is to troll John, you go do it elsewhere if you really must do it at all; I'm sure that the rest of us will appreciate that.

Best,

Alistair

[john11inc]

Not quite sure where to start; addressing everything in my typical manner would not be useful, and would take too much time.

1- [nevermind; I can get more satisfaction in other ways]

2- I am not a furry.  I was associated with that group of people from the ages of 15 to 17, meaning five years ago.  This is common knowledge; I have posted on the subject myself.  Da SDC (another piano forum that was, for a time, closely linked to this one in membership) is full of references to it, as a number of members associated with the group (exceedingly uncommon, but not nearly as uncommon as one might think, particularly at the time, when it was less. . . well, less about what it's about now, and gaining momentary traction) were members here, or on da SDC.  To say I'm proud and/or completely lack embarrassment over it would be false, but as I said, it's not something I've ever hid.  Perhaps it is in a particularly bizarre capacity, but I'm sure we all have things we equally (or near-equally) look back on in a bit of an embarrassing light.  I have no idea what "link number 2" is, but I sincerely doubt it's a good example, assuming you're not familiar with the term and are interested in finding out more.  Feel free, but I note that I warn against it.

3- I am a composer, but I'd prefer to think I challenge my audience at least somewhat, given the sporadic opportunities I have to do so.

4- I am loquacious.  I don't do it for any, particular reason.  I have things to say, and I have a way of saying them.  I like to present my statements as unequivocal whenever possible (and whenever applicable), which often necessitates a large amount of explanation.  Hence, loquacity.  I prefer to explain my statements from the start to avoid the illegitimate arguments I foresee as being likely.  It rarely works, because people don't usually read what I have to say, because I am loquacious.  But, typically, I don't write that much more than I have to, in order to say everything I want to say.  I do not write in a particular way to sound intelligent.  I am too lazy.  If I wished to do so, my writing would be much more inscrutable than it already is.  I do not attempt to write in a style which is extremely difficult to follow, but I understand that my writing style is very academic in its syntactical formality, which is fairly idiosyncratic.  Just as I don't write in a way to purposefully sound more intelligent than I am, I have no interest in writing in a way to purposefully sound less intelligent than I am.  I understand that there's not much point in saying something if it's going to be impossible to read, but I don't consider my writing style to be of that level of difficulty, so I don't foresee myself changing it, nor finding reason to.  If I write an amount of text that is going to dissuade someone from reading it, why should I bother also editing the content for that type of person?

5- I am not Narcissistic, nor do I have what one would call a "superiority complex".  If anything, the opposite: I am often completely overwhelmed by the seemingly infinite subjects one could study in music (or in any of my other fields of interest) that I seem to know nothing about.  Speaking to people more knowledgeable than me often makes me feel this way.  However, I do not bother with a false modesty; I have put a lot of work and effort into my studies, which may seem trivial to anyone.  Anyone is entitled to that opinion.  But I am not going to exact effort to make it appear as though I haven't done that work, or don't know something that I do.  I'm sorry to say that I don't see the point in it.  I would not consider myself condescending, because I do not dumb myself down.  This common pejorative of "Narcissism" or "egotism" or "superiority complex" constitutes a disconnect in my writing style and my intentions.  Feel free to say I'm not an especially nice person, or that I have a short temper, or that I can be derogatory, but I am not a Narcissist.

6- Please keep in mind that I have been a member of this forum for 8 years.  That means that I was a member when I was 14.  Please don't confuse the me of 8 years ago with the me of 6 years ago with the me of 4 years ago with the me of 2 years ago.  Bald derogatives have left my repertoire, and did so quite a while ago, except in extremely rare cases of utmost frustration, or responding to people who have done the same to me.  Do not attempt to hold me to a double standard.  Look around you, right here in this thread.  What do you see?  Do you see me starting trouble, or do you see me being involved in it?  The latter; I don't start fights.  I am just louder, so my name gets associated with a huge number of confrontations that were not my doing.  Including this one.

7- I do not name drop.  I used to, but I do not do this any more.  It has been some time.

8- If I alienate people, then I will find new people.  Don't worry about it, because I sure don't.  I don't remember asking for anyone to be my BFF.

9- My response to Richard Black was not meant to be even vaguely mean.  In no way did I intend to insult him.  This is a misunderstanding of the way in which I speak.  I suppose that means that it would be my miscommunication, assuming everyone agrees with this (I believe I am correct in saying that this refers to another active, rather hostile thread currently under way in the Repertoire board).  I did not call Richard Black anything; I noted that there were fallacies in his logic, and that he misunderstood things.  There is no way to argue with someone without telling them that they are wrong (or at least that you think they are wrong).  I don't even think Richard felt the way you apparently do, Alistair, as I've known him long enough (as well as one knows another member on this forum, I suppose) to feel quite confident in saying that if he felt unduly insulted, he would have more to say about it than what he did.  In fact, Richard is certainly one of the members I respect the most on this forum.  But, again, I do not wrap my statements in downy comforters and gently lob them back.  I am incredibly direct.  Something is wrong, I say, "you are wrong."  Someone misunderstood something, I say, "you are completely misunderstanding this."  Someone has made a conclusion I disagree with, I will call their reasoning fallacious.  I will call such thinking illogical.  I feel that is fair.  Taking offense to me explicitly stating what is otherwise quite obvious, regardless, seems silly to me.  And do you know why?  I am not socially retarded; maybe I am, but not that entirely so =P  I understand that saying someone could lose 5 pounds is nicer than calling them a fat ass.  But, here's why I don't go way out of my way to avoid stepping on toes: my experience is that whenever someone's had a chance to step on mine, they've done it.  At least, when I'm dealing with someone who I know doesn't have kid gloves in their closet, I don't bother getting mine out.  Richard Black is one of those people.  He is a big boy.  Please do not unjustly characterize my disagreements with people as unilaterally being anything in particular, and certainly not before knowing what I deem to be a justification.  These enormous, wordy posts are not typical of me; they are just what stands out.  They are what you guys remember when you think of me.  That is definitely not my fault.  However, I understand that was only an example.  I am trying to improve, as is probably obvious.  Give me time.

10- My tone is rarely sarcastic in matters where it is obvious I have put effort into responding.  I'm sure it would be considered preferable if the opposite was the case, as my justifications for my writing style may be considered unacceptable.

11- Again, as I apparently have a bad habit of doing, I'm terribly sorry for making this about me.  Oh; excuse me.  That was you guys, with quite a range of vocabulary, ranging for "Narcissist" to "retard".  Carry on.  Feel free to blame it on me, considering I've now written the longest post on it.  I see the issue is not actually with insulting someone, but how someone is insulted, as, if it was, that would make you a pack of hypocrites.  I won't waver: that is illogical.  Perhaps this post wouldn't have been so loquacious if you all didn't have so many things to say, or if I felt comfortable in simply saying things, without backing them up with reason.  Perhaps your own posts would be longer if some of these points were explained more thoroughly.  Perhaps. . . just perhaps. . . the length of a post doesn't really mean all that much.  I'm sorry, but I'm much too busy staring into this mirror to answer these questions for you.

12- If someone has constructive ideas regarding how I can be less alienating and/or how I can change the way in which I interact with people on this forum, that will also not require me to compromise those things which I have previously mentioned, I'm more than interested.

[ahinton]

Well, John, all that seems reasonable enough to me. It must have taken quite some time to write and perhaps it was a useful opportunity to get certain matters off your chest as you have now done. As I stated previously, let's hope that this now clears matters up for those concerned about certain issues and we can move back to the topic. In the interim, I am interested - though not perhaps especially surprised - to learn that you are a composer; there's certainly no egotism surrounding that, since as far as I know this is the first itme you've even mentioned the fact and even then only when implicity invited to do so! Perhaps you can at some point tell us something about your work or direct those interested to find some of it.

Best,

Alistair

[sashaco]

I probably ought to avoid this thread, since some folks seem to want to hi-jack it as an opportunity to show who's the cleverest or nicest (or something) categories in which I'm out of the running.

The phrase "humanist attitudes towards self formation" does not seem particularly obscure to me- it sounds like pure Sartre.  What's puzzling me is the word "prevailing".  Does the writer mean to suggest that these attitudes were prevailing in Beethoven's time or at the time of writing? 

I'm prompted to write because of the Thomassini NY Times piece which puts Beethoven at number 2 on his "Great Composers" list.  He puts him ahead of Mozart because of the very struggle to compose the we can hear in Beethoven.  As I understand it, Thomassini is celebrating humanistic self-formation, and suggesting that evidence of it is somehow more worthy than the apparent effortlessness of Mozart's work.  This seems to say more about current attitudes towards "self-formation"  than it does about either the two composers or "prevailing attitudes" at Beethoven's time. ( I remember comparisons I heard years ago between some of Beethoven's work and those unfinished Michelangelo pieces, where we see the figures emerging from the marble.)

I actually share Thomassini's feelings (I won't claim they're thoughts in my case), but I suspect that there's something about Beethoven that allows us to see what we want for ourselves.  Shakespeare has been considered great in every age, but always for different reasons- we can find in him what WE think is great. 

Many people have written about Beethoven as the first "artist" in the modern sense.  We think of him with his messy hair. venereal disease, deafness, tortured by the world and by his demons and so forth.  When we see struggle in his work we hold this up to ourselves as evidence of genius, because we've defined genius largely in refernce to "Beethoven" the "artist" in the first place.  I realize I've now strayed far from the original topic, but I'm curious what people think.

While I'm writing I would like to compliment Alistair for his deploring of the practice of so many artitsts now of explaining their work, and for skewering them over the phrase "what I was trying to do". Frankly I find it embarrassing when I hear someone doing this.  I loved the movie "Little Miss Sunshine" but it was nearly ruined for me when I heard the writers  describing their process, and going on and on about "having something at stake." A work stands on its own or it doesn't stand.

As I wrote that last sentence Alvin Lucier's "I am Sitting in a Room" popped into my head, a piece in which the description of the creation of the piece and its purpose  forms the subject of the piece itself. Anyone know it? Post-modernism at its naked best.

 Sasha
 

[lmpianist]

A kind reminder: John11inch is a furry (google it, 2nd link is informative).  Are you wearing your fursuit right now, you freak?

there are undoubtedly worse things to be.

[john11inc]

Well, John, all that seems reasonable enough to me. It must have taken quite some time to write and perhaps it was a useful opportunity to get certain matters off your chest as you have now done. As I stated previously, let's hope that this now clears matters up for those concerned about certain issues and we can move back to the topic. In the interim, I am interested - though not perhaps especially surprised - to learn that you are a composer; there's certainly no egotism surrounding that, since as far as I know this is the first itme you've even mentioned the fact and even then only when implicity invited to do so! Perhaps you can at some point tell us something about your work or direct those interested to find some of it.

Best,

Alistair

It doesn't take me much time to write posts: I've wasted quite a bit of time on the internet and have developed a pretty nice WPM.  I don't really consider it getting matters off my chest, though, as that implies that I've been internally burdened by them.  My youtube profile has and does state that I am a composer, and to what degree I am a composer.  It's nothing worth writing about, nor should I ever be in the position in which I have to qualify my statements with such an addition.  If I did, they wouldn't be worth stating in the first place.  Although I think your memory is failing you, as we did speak about that Tierkreis adaptation for solo violin I was working on a while back.  Only select movements of it ended up being performed, however.  There were, how to put it lightly, communication issues with the performer, in that she wanted something less ambitious than the final product, and didn't inform me (in fact, only ever alluded to it) until what ended up being a ~70' work was all but completed.  Christel (Stockhausen), who was the organizer of the event where it was played, also didn't want to program it in its entirety; I think it was a combination of the length of the piece and her ideology regarding Tierkreis itself, which is very conservative.  My compositions don't fall neatly into an identifiable "school", so to talk about them would require more time and space than is appropriate for this thread.

I probably ought to avoid this thread, since some folks seem to want to hi-jack it as an opportunity to show who's the cleverest or nicest (or something) categories in which I'm out of the running.

The phrase "humanist attitudes towards self formation" does not seem particularly obscure to me- it sounds like pure Sartre.  What's puzzling me is the word "prevailing".  Does the writer mean to suggest that these attitudes were prevailing in Beethoven's time or at the time of writing? 

I'm prompted to write because of the Tomassini NY Times piece which puts Beethoven at number 2 on his "Great Composers" list.  He puts him ahead of Mozart because of the very struggle to compose the we can hear in Beethoven.  As I understand it, Tomassini is celebrating humanistic self-formation, and suggesting that evidence of it is somehow more worthy than the apparent effortlessness of Mozart's work.  This seems to say more about current attitudes towards "self-formation"  than it does about either the two composers or "prevailing attitudes" at Beethoven's time. ( I remember comparisons I heard years ago between some of Beethoven's work and those unfinished Michelangelo pieces, where we see the figures emerging from the marble.)

I actually share Tomassini's feelings (I won't claim they're thoughts in my case), but I suspect that there's something about Beethoven that allows us to see what we want for ourselves.  Shakespeare has been considered great in every age, but always for different reasons- we can find in him what WE think is great. 

Many people have written about Beethoven as the first "artist" in the modern sense.  We think of him with his messy hair. venereal disease, deafness, tortured by the world and by his demons and so forth.  When we see struggle in his work we hold this up to ourselves as evidence of genius, because we've defined genius largely in reference to "Beethoven" the "artist" in the first place.  I realize I've now strayed far from the original topic, but I'm curious what people think.

A possible explanation.  However, given that it is only a possible explanation, and that it is composed of conjecture (assuming you are correct), and that it took you that many paragraphs to amplify on a parenthetical aside adequately, it's hard to defend the clarity of the statement.

[ahinton]

It doesn't take me much time to write posts

Same here; indeed, somewhat less than some people might assume, in each case, I imagine.

I think your memory is failing you, as we did speak about that Tierkreis adaptation for solo violin I was working on a while back.

I cannot vouch for the quality of my memory or the extent to which it might be failing, but whilst I do indeed recall you speaking about Tierkreis on one occasion I have heard no more about it since and, since I do not know any of your work and have not heard you play, it is not unreasonable of me to shrink from making assumptions about the balance between your work as performer, composer, scholar or whatever that would of necessity be based on insufficient information.

Only select movements of it ended up being performed, however.  There were, how to put it lightly, communication issues with the performer, in that she wanted something less ambitious than the final product, and didn't inform me (in fact, only ever alluded to it) until what ended up being a ~70' work was all but completed.  Christel (Stockhausen), who was the organizer of the event where it was played, also didn't want to program it in its entirety; I think it was a combination of the length of the piece and her ideology regarding Tierkreis itself, which is very conservative.

These things can happen sometimes; I am sorry to hear that your experience was as fraught as it evidently was. That's quite a substantial duration for a solo violin work, though (although still small when compared to Allgén's sonata).

My compositions don't fall neatly into an identifiable "school", so to talk about them would require more time and space than is appropriate for this thread.

Fair enough, perhaps you might consider starting another one, then...

Best,

Alistair

[richterfan1]

xD lol nice footwork

[ahinton]

xD lol nice footwork

Whose pedalling technique are you seeking to compliment here?

Best,

Alistair

[nmitchell076]

I actually thoroughly enjoyed the performance.  I thought some of the rhythms employed in the composition were quite striking really.  Its overpowering, sure, but there are a couple of sections I found compelling and would listen to them repeatedly if extracted from the composition as a whole.