|
On March 11 2010 10:07 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2010 09:19 koreasilver wrote:
So you:
1. Completely gloss over my explanation that my definition of "general public" does not include those that do not have an real interest in music... It is hard to take your explinations seriously when your previous post consisted of all caps yelling and cursing. Show nested quote +MANY MANY MANY PEOPLE AND TONS OF CLASSICAL MUSICIANS AND THE COMPOSERS THAT ARE STILL EXTREMELY RELEVANT TO NOT ONLY CLASSICAL MUSIC BUT ALSO THE MUSIC OF THE GENERAL POPULATION EVERYWHERE.
What the fuck. Manner up if you want to be taken seriously. You always post so angrily, it is disconcerting.
A previous post to a different poster, really? They weren't connected at all to one another. You're just picking bones here.
|
Osaka27171 Posts
After reading that first post of yours I automatically ignored all your other posts based of the impression left by the first one. Maybe that is why your other (presumably better) posts don't get the attention you think they deserve.
|
Except that wasn't my first post in the thread and you read another post of mine that came after that post.
|
Baa?21244 Posts
Something else that I want to bring up with all these accusations and usage of the word "elitism" is that with regards to classical music, that term does not describe the same thing, depending on who you're talking to.
Now, thusfar, we have generally used it as a case of "general public" vs. the "elitist" circles of classical music. However, even within classical music, without any regard to the general public, there are two split camps who each view the other as being "elitist."
First, we have aficionados who enjoy, say, Beethoven and Mozart. The standard. The staple. At odds with them is a faction of modern composers/atonal fans who think that classical music today is heeding too much attention on the old masters, and are at best ignoring contemporary composers, or at worst actively suppressing them. Both sides view the other as elitist - the tonal-fans think that people who are striving for the intellectual exercise of atonality are not enjoying music for music, but simply composing new things just to be unique. Conversely, atonal composers view themselves as the new wave who's being suppressed by the older generation. In this particular debate both sides view the general public (again, koreasilver has a different definition of general public than I do apparently) as ignorant of this.
|
I attend more Operas than Orchestras, and I am irritated by the ugliness of the aimless "modernization" or post-modernization given to many works. If you want to talk about alienation, there is nothing more alienating than a performance of La Boheme unable to take itself seriously.
If Opera does die (although I have seen no signs of this at the present,) it will be killed by the "elites" and not by the spectators.
|
10387 Posts
On March 11 2010 10:10 Caller wrote:
needs more Shostakovitch in this thread
Shostakovich is a master, I love playing his works..
Kinda sad how orchestras are struggling nowadays  Santa Monica has this pretty strong music system where they teach every kid about music and rhythm starting from the second grade, and then have them all choose either instrumental or vocal music in the fourth grade. If such a schooling system was widespread, I think it'd be unlikely that classical music would be struggling.
|
I would rather they stick to real and good music, but if they have to play some weird stuff to survive, then so be it.
|
I've done crime while listening to Beethoven.
|
It isn't because of elitism, which exists in all genres of music in some form or another. If you really do love the music you love it, and if really do you hate it you hate it.
The fact that is classical music doesn't have hot new composers whose works are "easily digestible" or rather "catchy" (ranging from your basic movie/ video game music to avantgarde works) and other genres of music have long ago supplanted the title of most popular music. Less exposure to classical music, which to me isn't really catchy, decreases the chance of being interested in it.
|
What on earth are you guys arguing about?
|
On March 12 2010 09:02 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Something else that I want to bring up with all these accusations and usage of the word "elitism" is that with regards to classical music, that term does not describe the same thing, depending on who you're talking to.
Now, thusfar, we have generally used it as a case of "general public" vs. the "elitist" circles of classical music. However, even within classical music, without any regard to the general public, there are two split camps who each view the other as being "elitist."
First, we have aficionados who enjoy, say, Beethoven and Mozart. The standard. The staple. At odds with them is a faction of modern composers/atonal fans who think that classical music today is heeding too much attention on the old masters, and are at best ignoring contemporary composers, or at worst actively suppressing them. Both sides view the other as elitist - the tonal-fans think that people who are striving for the intellectual exercise of atonality are not enjoying music for music, but simply composing new things just to be unique. Conversely, atonal composers view themselves as the new wave who's being suppressed by the older generation. In this particular debate both sides view the general public (again, koreasilver has a different definition of general public than I do apparently) as ignorant of this.
Almost all contemporary composers dabble in or have dabbled extensively in 12 tone serialism. Even the minimalism counter movement away from 12 tone serialism did not move back to the old status quo, and there really are no contemporary composers that have gone backwards to goddamned Mozart. If you look at all of the truly regarded contemporary composers, they are all composers that have moved forward away from the previous status quo. The very fact that you think atonal composers are the "new wave" of composers just show how much you don't really know what you're talking about. 12 tone serialism was THE status quo amongst composers not long ago and anyone that wanted to make music like Benjamin Britten were looked upon as idiots. Atonality in music is nothing new, and its position as the "counter-culture" has already passed with minimalist composers becoming the counter of the serialists. The thing is, all these minimalist composers all had studied serialism due to the climate of the musical world at the time, and the bounds of "tonality" in music in general has exploded so far that the atonality of the serialists isn't anything new; it's quite standard now.
I can go on and on but there's really no point in going on.
|
Baa?21244 Posts
On March 12 2010 09:56 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2010 09:02 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Something else that I want to bring up with all these accusations and usage of the word "elitism" is that with regards to classical music, that term does not describe the same thing, depending on who you're talking to.
Now, thusfar, we have generally used it as a case of "general public" vs. the "elitist" circles of classical music. However, even within classical music, without any regard to the general public, there are two split camps who each view the other as being "elitist."
First, we have aficionados who enjoy, say, Beethoven and Mozart. The standard. The staple. At odds with them is a faction of modern composers/atonal fans who think that classical music today is heeding too much attention on the old masters, and are at best ignoring contemporary composers, or at worst actively suppressing them. Both sides view the other as elitist - the tonal-fans think that people who are striving for the intellectual exercise of atonality are not enjoying music for music, but simply composing new things just to be unique. Conversely, atonal composers view themselves as the new wave who's being suppressed by the older generation. In this particular debate both sides view the general public (again, koreasilver has a different definition of general public than I do apparently) as ignorant of this. Almost all contemporary composers dabble in or have dabbled extensively in 12 tone serialism. Even the minimalism counter movement away from 12 tone serialism did not move back to the old status quo, and there really are no contemporary composers that have gone backwards to goddamned Mozart. If you look at all of the truly regarded contemporary composers, they are all composers that have moved forward away from the previous status quo. The very fact that you think atonal composers are the "new wave" of composers just show how much you don't really know what you're talking about. 12 tone serialism was THE status quo amongst composers not long ago and anyone that wanted to make music like Benjamin Britten were looked upon as idiots. Atonality in music is nothing new, and its position as the "counter-culture" has already passed with minimalist composers becoming the counter of the serialists. The thing is, all these minimalist composers all had studied serialism due to the climate of the musical world at the time, and the bounds of "tonality" in music in general has exploded so far that the atonality of the serialists isn't anything new; it's quite standard now. I can go on and on but there's really no point in going on.
Serialism, both twelve-tone and not, are predecessors to the modern atonal movement. I see nothing wrong with describe minimalist composers as being atonal, since they're certainly not working from tonal centers. As I touched on before, the term "atonality" is braod enough to include everything that is non-tonal, which is a perfect description of what composers today are doing.
Indeed, I see nothing wrong with describing both Schoenberg and Cage as being part of the countermovement against the same thing - the pre 20th century "establishment." To say that composers today are rebelling against Schoenberg is ridiculous.
Your condescending attitude would probably server you better if you were actually right in your accusations that other people don't know what they're talking about.
|
Baa?21244 Posts
On March 12 2010 09:31 ArvickHero wrote:Kinda sad how orchestras are struggling nowadays Santa Monica has this pretty strong music system where they teach every kid about music and rhythm starting from the second grade, and then have them all choose either instrumental or vocal music in the fourth grade. If such a schooling system was widespread, I think it'd be unlikely that classical music would be struggling.
I agree, the elimination of required music education in primary schooling is certainly contributing to the lack of appreciation for music, both classical and not. It really is unfortunate, I'm sure there are many people who enjoy music today only do so because of exposure at an early age from whatever source. Classical music in America, at least, was doing much better, say, about half a century ago. Someone earlier brought up Leonard Bernstein and his Young People's Concerts and his TV programs - back then, classical music was certainly much more deeply ingrained into the cultural subconscious than it is today.
|
On March 12 2010 10:45 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2010 09:56 koreasilver wrote:On March 12 2010 09:02 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Something else that I want to bring up with all these accusations and usage of the word "elitism" is that with regards to classical music, that term does not describe the same thing, depending on who you're talking to.
Now, thusfar, we have generally used it as a case of "general public" vs. the "elitist" circles of classical music. However, even within classical music, without any regard to the general public, there are two split camps who each view the other as being "elitist."
First, we have aficionados who enjoy, say, Beethoven and Mozart. The standard. The staple. At odds with them is a faction of modern composers/atonal fans who think that classical music today is heeding too much attention on the old masters, and are at best ignoring contemporary composers, or at worst actively suppressing them. Both sides view the other as elitist - the tonal-fans think that people who are striving for the intellectual exercise of atonality are not enjoying music for music, but simply composing new things just to be unique. Conversely, atonal composers view themselves as the new wave who's being suppressed by the older generation. In this particular debate both sides view the general public (again, koreasilver has a different definition of general public than I do apparently) as ignorant of this. Almost all contemporary composers dabble in or have dabbled extensively in 12 tone serialism. Even the minimalism counter movement away from 12 tone serialism did not move back to the old status quo, and there really are no contemporary composers that have gone backwards to goddamned Mozart. If you look at all of the truly regarded contemporary composers, they are all composers that have moved forward away from the previous status quo. The very fact that you think atonal composers are the "new wave" of composers just show how much you don't really know what you're talking about. 12 tone serialism was THE status quo amongst composers not long ago and anyone that wanted to make music like Benjamin Britten were looked upon as idiots. Atonality in music is nothing new, and its position as the "counter-culture" has already passed with minimalist composers becoming the counter of the serialists. The thing is, all these minimalist composers all had studied serialism due to the climate of the musical world at the time, and the bounds of "tonality" in music in general has exploded so far that the atonality of the serialists isn't anything new; it's quite standard now. I can go on and on but there's really no point in going on. Serialism, both twelve-tone and not, are predecessors to the modern atonal movement. I see nothing wrong with describe minimalist composers as being atonal, since they're certainly not working from tonal centers. As I touched on before, the term "atonality" is braod enough to include everything that is non-tonal, which is a perfect description of what composers today are doing. Indeed, I see nothing wrong with describing both Schoenberg and Cage as being part of the countermovement against the same thing - the pre 20th century "establishment." To say that composers today are rebelling against Schoenberg is ridiculous. Your condescending attitude would probably server you better if you were actually right in your accusations that other people don't know what they're talking about.
Have you actually ever listened to minimalism? Minimalism was a strong return to consonance, despite these composers still writing on occasion pieces with strong serialist influences (Different Trains, and the first movement of Tabula Rasa for example). Minimalist composers do work with strong tonal centers, and the fact that you are lumping minimalism with "atonal" music just shows that you really have no idea what you are talking about.
And minimalism wasn't a movement away from of Schoenberg? lol what?
Michael Nyman
It was made pretty clear to me that if you didn't write serial music you were just a total dummy, and if you wanted to write music like Britten you might as well not breathe. I sat down and tried to write a twelve-tone piece and it just came out horrible and mangled and it had nothing to do with who I was as a composer. So I went into voluntary exile.
Steve Reich
When I was writing twelve-tone music ... the only way I could deal with it was not to transpose the row or invert the row or retrograde the row but to repeat the row over and over again, so I could sneak some harmony in there... The experience of writing twelve-tone music was an important and valuable one for me in that it showed me what I had to do - which was to stop writing it.
Minimalists in America in the mid-1960s had to fight against the expected serial style of composition like Stockhausen, and In Britain, composers who were to become minimalists were largely under the influence of Cageian musical philosophies, having passed through a phase of serialism, and consequently you do see that the early works of some minimalists had strong serialist influences. Almost all of the late-20th-century minimalist composers have reported feeling restricted by the accepted musical practices of their various situations. Steve Reich did write serial music when he was a student, but he inclined towards stronger tonality. For god's sake, Steve Reich explicitly even says here that he had to stop writing 12-tone serialism. If that isn't a direct statement of rebellion against Schoenberg then I don't know what is, and if you yourself can't hear the distancing from Schoenberg in the music of Terry Riley, Steve Reich, and some of Philip Glass' early works, then you are just beyond help.
And I have never said that all contemporary composers are rebelling against Schoenberg either. I just said that the minimalists did. Your idea that atonal music is "suppressed" by the opponents of Schoenberg is just absurd as the influence of Schoenberg is literally everywhere, and only an area of composers moved to minimalism. The whole idea of atonal vs old classical that you presented is nonexistent.
|
tldr; I am accusing you of being full of baloney.
|
Imho,
Classical groups (orchestras) performing:
popular classics e.g. well known crowd pleasers like Tchaik Piano concerto etc. -> staple of most concerts to support basic funding of orch (hard to believe as it may seem, the musicians get paid real money..)
avant-garde / rarer pieces -> conductor/guest conductor/soloists opportune decisions, collaboration with composers, experimentation, music director's decision etc.
pop/movie music -> $ and contracting & publicity to a large scale audience that does not necessarily have the necessary background knowledge or training to understand the history and complexity of "classical" music (which results in boredom and otherwise neglect from the general public towards it)
As for elitism, its something like comparing amateur sc players to korean progamers - part of the pride involved is having such a profession that requires dedication of a large fraction of your life into said practical vocation.
|
On March 12 2010 09:56 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2010 09:02 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Something else that I want to bring up with all these accusations and usage of the word "elitism" is that with regards to classical music, that term does not describe the same thing, depending on who you're talking to.
Now, thusfar, we have generally used it as a case of "general public" vs. the "elitist" circles of classical music. However, even within classical music, without any regard to the general public, there are two split camps who each view the other as being "elitist."
First, we have aficionados who enjoy, say, Beethoven and Mozart. The standard. The staple. At odds with them is a faction of modern composers/atonal fans who think that classical music today is heeding too much attention on the old masters, and are at best ignoring contemporary composers, or at worst actively suppressing them. Both sides view the other as elitist - the tonal-fans think that people who are striving for the intellectual exercise of atonality are not enjoying music for music, but simply composing new things just to be unique. Conversely, atonal composers view themselves as the new wave who's being suppressed by the older generation. In this particular debate both sides view the general public (again, koreasilver has a different definition of general public than I do apparently) as ignorant of this. goddamned Mozart.
I'm sorry, what? Out the window go the last shreds of your credibility in this matter.
Carnivorous Sheep hit the nail on the head with a succinctly delivered framing of the issue, and you're just being needlessly confrontational and petty. And you called Mozart 'goddamned'. Have you been smoking crack?
I hope you realise that modernist atonalism and serialism, whilst extremely entertaining and original, is possibly the most devoid of emotion music can be. It is purely conceptually driven, rather than emotionally driven. The passion of a Beethoven symphony will never, EVER be irrelevant. Neither will a Mozart or a Purcell or a Handel or a Mendelssohn or a Rachmaninov etcetc.
Most classical aficionados I meet will gladly take the old, tonal, beautiful music over the conceptually ravishing but realistically brutally ugly new music any day. In fact the only people I regularly meet who honestly prefer the newer musical styles are usually fall under two categories:
- actual instrumentalists who have been overexposed to certain composers, and are bored, wanting something that pushes sonic boundaries purely for a sense of freshness and novelty
- people who lack emotional maturity
|
I hope you realize that I wasn't saying anything against Mozart or any older composers, and that I find it amusing in how you really didn't add anything to the actual conversation. If we're going to go into our personal tastes in music then I generally do dislike serialism and I would much rather listen to impressionist or minimalist composers. Except we weren't discussing our personal opinions on how we like or dislike serialism or any form of music.
|
Well I'm not exactly an expert on serialism and minimalism, or anything post 1920-ish, but I'd like to say that the area of "classical" music that I enjoy listening to ends at about 1900. Sure, I've tried, practiced, and played atonal music on the piano, and some of them were fun to play - but not enjoyable. Hope you get the difference... it's fun because it's, for most part, more challenging, and it really sounds funky. Heh. Playing something technical and tonal, say, the famous La Campanella for example, was more enjoyable for its artistic value.
So I've always stayed away from atonality as much as I can... I haven't yet met a music-elitist who's a major proponent of atonality and serialism, but I'd imagine it's quite difficult "hanging out" with that person if the views are so conflicting.
|
On March 12 2010 14:29 OpticalShot wrote:
Well I'm not exactly an expert on serialism and minimalism, or anything post 1920-ish, but I'd like to say that the area of "classical" music that I enjoy listening to ends at about 1900. Sure, I've tried, practiced, and played atonal music on the piano, and some of them were fun to play - but not enjoyable. Hope you get the difference... it's fun because it's, for most part, more challenging, and it really sounds funky. Heh. Playing something technical and tonal, say, the famous La Campanella for example, was more enjoyable for its artistic value.
So I've always stayed away from atonality as much as I can... I haven't yet met a music-elitist who's a major proponent of atonality and serialism, but I'd imagine it's quite difficult "hanging out" with that person if the views are so conflicting.
Serialism/12 tone was influencial at the time but "stopping" at 1900 leaves out a good deal of already highly regarded composers some of whom whose works could be considered atonal but on the whole are not such as Bartok, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, and others Debussy, Ravel, Rachmaninoff (and more), are you sure your tastes stop at 1900?...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
