| Author |
 Topic  |
|
pranakasha
Silver Member
USA
406 Posts |
 Posted - 04 July 2007 : 05:29:49 AM
|
Dear Forum,
There appears to be a prejudice among today's composers against those who would take it upon themselves to embrace the compositional styles and techniques of yesteryear, especially pertaining to the 18th and 19th centuries.
This seemingly arbitrary decision to exclude the techniques used in the 18th and 19th centuries while apparently allowing all 20th century techniques is absurd. Why are we allowed to only go back 100 years? Why not 150, 200? etc.
The line seems to me to be completely arbitrary and I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why, when in fact we have composers, not well respected, however still popular and performed quite regularly, such as Rachmaninoff, Sibelius, and even Howard Hansen, who composed at least some of their pieces using 19th century techniques well into the 20th century. In the late 1970's John Williams created quite a stir when he composed the soundtrack to Star Wars.
Somehow this extreme disdain for pre-20th century music has been passed from mentor to student in succession for decades. As far as I can tell, there is no musical or artistic reason for it and I am beginning to suspect that the real reason is political.
18th century and 19th century music are the favorite genres of the majority of classical musicians, amateur and professional, and form the meat and potatoes of the concert seasons of almost every orchestra in the world.
Why is there such a disconnect between today's composers and today's musicians? In the classical music of India, for example, the classical composers and the classical musicians are one and the same person. In contemporary pop music the music generally is composed by the musicians in the band. Modern Western Classical music really seems to be unique in this regard.
---Matt
Matthew Charles Weiss
Pranakasha Productions
Seattle, WA USA
www.WeissConcerto.com
|
Edited by - pranakasha on 05 July 2007 12:33:53 PM |
|
|
qccowboy
Platinum Member
Canada
1821 Posts |
Posted - 04 July 2007 : 07:22:19 AM
|
I think you err by naming Rachmaninov, Sibelius and Hanson as examples of composers writing in a historicist style. They are all three quite firmly entrenched in the 20th century. None of the three, Hanson in particular, could have been composing what they did in the 19th century.
The point is that these three, while choosing to compose music that is tonal, did not ignore what was going on around them. There are advancements in their music - Rachmaninov from the point of view of the orchestration, micro-structure, and rythme; Sibelius from the point of view of the macro-form and thematic/harmonic development; and Hanson for blending rythmic advancements with his predilection for rich harmony.
To be fair, most of Rachmaninov's and Sibelius' musical output were very early into the 20th century, and many people still find their music "sounds" 19th century. However, no one would confuse any it for the music of Beethoven or Mozart. They are on the cusp of two musical centuries.
The music of Hanson, however, is unmistakably 20th century.
If you want to name some more present-day tonal composers, why not name people like Arvo Pärt, whose music is heavily coloured by eastern orthodoxy. Again, here is music that is quite tonal, almost entirely lacks stong dissonance, yet is readily identifiable as being 20th century.
John Rutter? Still living and kicking, still composing. However, he is in a very particular spot musically: his music is relatively circumstantial - he composes almost exclusively church music.
Why gloss over those who composed music that was tonal and accessible yet undeniably modern? Benstein, Barber, Schuman, Rorem, Martinu, Martin, Hindemith, Szymanowski, and so many more...
All composers with unique voices who composed tonal music that is readily identifiable as "modern".
I'm afraid I don't understand this obsession with defending "historicism". At no period in the past have "historicists" done anything of note. No 19th century composers composing baroque music, no 19th century composers still writing plainchant.
Why should the 21st century be different? Why this obsession with living in the past and denying the present?
On an added note, I think it is quite unfair of you to label all contemporary composers as turning our backs on performers/audiences. While the early 20th century saw a violent swing away from tonality - and understandably so, after the excesses of Wagnerian ultra-chromaticism, the last 30 years have seen a gradual stabilizing of musical trends. There are still young-ish composers out there influenced by the "avant-garde" of the 1950's (obviously, those composers are still teaching, so they will still have students/disciples). However, there is a new wave of composition teachers who are open-minded, and have an appreciation for music in ALL its forms, whether that be tonal or not.
Michel R. Edward
compositeur
Ville Saint-Laurent, Québec
www.dosblanc.ca |
 |
|
|
pranakasha
Silver Member
USA
406 Posts |
Posted - 04 July 2007 : 09:12:39 AM
|
Dear Michel,
Thank you for your eloquent response.
Today is the 4th of July (Independence Day for the USA) and I will be on the faculty of a music camp for kids ages 5-18 Thursday until Sunday. Most likely, I will not have internet access, but I certainly will pick up the debate when I return.
I invite anyone who is interested in the topic to please speak out.
Hopefully we can keep the name calling and cheap shots minimized this time around, in contrast to the mêlée on the following thread that has since been shut down:
http://www.composeforums.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2316
I look forward to exploring this subject in detail...
---Matt
Matthew Charles Weiss
Pranakasha Productions
Seattle, WA USA
www.WeissConcerto.com
|
Edited by - pranakasha on 04 July 2007 09:13:51 AM |
|
|
|
Hal Owen
Moderator
USA
1808 Posts |
Posted - 04 July 2007 : 09:42:22 AM
|
Matt,
Michael states my position admirably. His phrase "composers with unique voices" stands out to me as significant. If a composer livng today chooses to write in the style of Mozart, his or her voice would not be unique, except that what was written would probably be recognized as "pretty poor Mozart."
Writing in an older style is fun, and it's a challenge to come as close as possible to the style. I've done it for learning and teaching purposes, for special occasions that called for it, or for entertainment value (Does anyone remember the "Happy Birthday Vatiations" of a couple of years ago on the forum?). I would not want any of it to be taken seriously as representative of my personal style - what I perceive as my "unique voice."
Certainly, older styles and techniques can be evident as components of our personal musical language, but most of us would rather not have our music taken as the work of someone else or of a bygone era.
Harold Owen
mailto:hjowen@uoregon.edu
Visit my web site at:
http://uoregon.edu/~hjowen |
|
|
|
ronan
Administrator
Canada
2094 Posts |
Posted - 04 July 2007 : 8:24:45 PM
|
William Shakespeare was a brilliant playwright. His plays are still popular with audiences today and speak directly to them. BUT, if a contemporary playwright wrote a play using Elizabethan English and only the devices that Shakespeare used, he would be ignored, ridiculed, at best treated as a mild curiosity. The point is, he would not be taken seriously as a writer no matter how well he mimicked Shakespeare.
Listening to music composed today in imitation of earlier times (and not just restricted to the 18th and 19th centuries) is hearing music as out of place and disjointed as a fake Shakespearian play would be. The masters of the past were the masters of their times. They certainly did not copy the music of their past. They were innovators on the cutting edge of the developing language of music. Yes, their music still speaks to us today because it was inventive; that's why it retains its freshness.
Only Mozart could have written Mozart; only Brahms could have written Brahms because they were both products and creators of their times. If they had written in earlier styles they would have been forgotten and ignored no matter how brilliant they were.
This should not be taken as an endorsement of change for the sake of change. What I am talking about is understanding the history of music and its ever-changing language (languages actually) and extending it. In other words, using music in a creative way, just as the past masters did, to speak to other humans.
To turn your back on the creative developments of the past 100 or 150 years and dismiss it, shows a profound ignorance of music and what it is all about. It is much much more than pretty harmonies and soothing melodies in a language as remote as Elizabethan English is today. Beethoven did not write to please the audiences of his day; he wrote to wake them up, to unsettle them, to startle them, to make them aware of a reality much larger than anyone could imagine. His music was immensely popular because it suited the times when revolutions were sweeping the western world. It was not popular because it was a copy of the music of the past; it was original.
The same holds true today. If music does not speak about the reality we live in and try to extend our understanding of our world and possibilities, then it is meaningless.
This is what music is to me. Why I seek out the music of today. And why I write the way that only Ronald James Brown, born in mid-20th century Canada, can write it.
Ron
Finale 2006c, full GPO & JABB under XP/Pro SP2
|
Edited by - ronan on 04 July 2007 8:26:29 PM |
|
|
|
qccowboy
Platinum Member
Canada
1821 Posts |
Posted - 04 July 2007 : 8:44:11 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by pranakasha
There appears to be a prejudice among today's composers against those who would take it upon themselves to embrace the compositional styles and techniques of yesteryear, especially pertaining to the 18th and 19th centuries.
This seemingly arbitrary decision to exclude the techniques used in the 18th and 19th centuries while apparently allowing all 20th century techniques is absurd. Why are we allowed to only go back 100 years? Why not 150, 200? etc.
I would like to continue commenting on these statements quoted above.
I believe they are erroneous.
No one is "excluding the techniques" of yesteryear.
There is a massive difference between the accusation of exclusion/prejudice you make in your post, and what you are actually advocating: which is the absolute denial of all musical advancement over the last 200 years.
We do not live in mozartian times. There is nor eason for anyone to be writing music that is purely "of that period". It would be dishonest. The music of that period expressed the artistic values of that period. There is no reason to do so, particularly when one is using a computer, and all sorts of other technological advancements that were unheard of and unimaginable at that time.
You cannot pick and choose what part of your reality you want to express. Either you live in the present day, or you do not. If you are to express yourself in a historicist manner, then you must deny ALL aspects of your life that do not fit into that historical perspective. If not, then all you are doing is exercises in style, with no substance. Of course no one will take you seriously.
"Look! I invented the wheel!"
Sounds silly doesn't it? Except that that is exactly what historicists are doing. The musical wheel has been invented, we are now driving around at 100 kilometers and hour in our new musical automobiles.
I'll have you notice that the new Dodge Charger has a lovely retro look. It's undeniably a car of 2007, but it has styling of the 1950's. Would Dodge have been able to market a car right out of the 1950's? With all of its technical limitations intact? it does sound stupid, doesn't it.
So why doesn't "I want to write music like Mozart" sound just as stupid? Well, it does. Historicist music will never be anything more than a musical curiosity, the same as Renaissance Faires, and historical re-enactments.
Why this obsessive longing for a bygone musical era with all of its limitations?
I have a theory, but chances are you would find it offensive.
Oh, and just a clarification: I guess it depends what circles you travel in... I haven't seen ANY "disconnect" between composers and musicians. The only people I've seen who do not understand more modern music are those whose musical knowledge is too limited to have been exposed to any of it.
Michel R. Edward
compositeur
Ville Saint-Laurent, Québec
www.dosblanc.ca |
Edited by - qccowboy on 04 July 2007 8:46:10 PM |
|
|
|
Will Denayer
Silver Member
Ireland
183 Posts |
Posted - 05 July 2007 : 12:53:30 AM
|
"I guess it depends what circles you travel in... I haven't seen ANY "disconnect" between composers and musicians. The only people I've seen who do not understand more modern music are those whose musical knowledge is too limited to have been exposed to any of it."
Michel, This is well said and I fully agree.
The old topic has been closed, perhaps for the better, but what I want to say is relevant to this topic also. I really do not care whether a composer uses tonality or not and so, for me, none of this was or is the subject. The statement I opposed was about the lack of craft and beauty in contemporary music. This is not so and I resist such statements, as they do not make sense to me. I was also taken aback by Herr Weiss's list of composers. This is list is given without explanation, he just says that all musicologists take it for granted that they were born in Germany of Austria. Fortunately, although I do not keep Blut und Bodem lists (blood and soil), there is indeed one Jew among them - I'm reassured, but I still find it a strange act to compose such a list and it lacks sensitivity also. Indeed, once our culturally minded neighbours from the East start compiling lists, you can be sure that there will a hell of a lot of trouble.
|
|
|
|
qccowboy
Platinum Member
Canada
1821 Posts |
Posted - 05 July 2007 : 07:01:26 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by pranakasha
Why is there such a disconnect between today's composers and today's musicians? In the classical music of India, for example, the classical composers and the classical musicians are one and the same person. In contemporary pop music the music generally is composed by the musicians in the band. Modern Western Classical music really seems to be unique in this regard.
Excuse me for dissecting your post bit by bit, but I keep coming back and noticing things that I seem to have glossed over the first time.
This last paragraph actually contains factual errors. "Modern western Classical music" does not show any particular difference in regards to the performer/composer relationship than music of centuries past.
The major difference between composers/performers of pop music and composers of art music, is that the pop singer sings his/her song, and no one else is allowed to perform that song in public, while the art music composer's output is meant to be distributed through a publisher (ideally) to the greatest amount of performers possible for the maximum exposure possible.
let's go the "example" route again:
madonna comes out with a new song.
You do not hear any other singers doing that song in shows and on CDs.
vs
On the other hand, Corigliano wrote a piano concerto, there are now 3 CDs of that concerto available with different artists, simultaneously.
Western art music has ALWAYS had a distinction between the performer and the composer. There have been great composer/performers over the years, but they were the exception more than the rule. And they performed music by OTHER composers as well. When Rachmaninov played in concert, he played his music, AND the music of others. He was hired as a concert pianist, not as "Rachmaninov the composer". Paul Hindemith was hired as a violist. He performed the music of others as well as his own (as a string player you should be aware that he premiered a number of viola concertos by other composers).
madonna might do a cover of an older song by someone else, but she certainly won't do a new song that just came out by Avril Lavigne. Pop music does not have the same expected "shelf life" as classical music. As a matter of fact, quite the opposite. Art music tends to take a while before it actually hits a stage/performance, while pop music is very much a "flavour du jour" issue.
Michel R. Edward
compositeur
Ville Saint-Laurent, Québec
www.dosblanc.ca |
|
|
|
Jean
Moderator
USA
860 Posts |
Posted - 05 July 2007 : 09:35:30 AM
|
Hi, Michel!
quote:
The major difference between composers/performers of pop music and composers of art music, is that the pop singer sings his/her song, and no one else is allowed to perform that song in public, while the art music composer's output is meant to be distributed through a publisher (ideally) to the greatest amount of performers possible for the maximum exposure possible.
That is a very general statement which is not entirely true. If that were the case, tribute bands and other artists who perform cover songs in clubs and other venues would be in big trouble. So would the Boston Pops Orchestra and other orchestras. As long as the copyright owner allows performance and mechanical licenses to be purchased, the music can be performed or recorded.
Fine Arts/Technology Instructor,
at School of Our Lady,
http://www.schoolofourlady.org
Choral Director of Teen and Children's Choirs, St. Barbara Parish.
My Favorite Music Sites
http://www.composeforums.com
http://www.justplainfolks.org
Mac, Dual 2GHz Power PC G5
e.5 GB DDR SDRAM
Finale 2004c
Cubase SE
|
|
|
|
qccowboy
Platinum Member
Canada
1821 Posts |
Posted - 05 July 2007 : 09:48:11 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jean
Hi, Michel!
quote:
The major difference between composers/performers of pop music and composers of art music, is that the pop singer sings his/her song, and no one else is allowed to perform that song in public, while the art music composer's output is meant to be distributed through a publisher (ideally) to the greatest amount of performers possible for the maximum exposure possible.
That is a very general statement which is not entirely true. If that were the case, tribute bands and other artists who perform cover songs in clubs and other venues would be in big trouble. So would the Boston Pops Orchestra and other orchestras. As long as the copyright owner allows performance and mechanical licenses to be purchased, the music can be performed or recorded.
I think the point of my statement was pretty clear, despite the gross generalization. Pop singers write songs for themselves, not for others. Their goal is to sell recordings of themselves singing/performing their material
Composers of art music compose for others to play, and the more others the better.
Michel R. Edward
compositeur
Ville Saint-Laurent, Québec
www.dosblanc.ca |
|
|
|
ronan
Administrator
Canada
2094 Posts |
Posted - 05 July 2007 : 1:09:51 PM
|
pranakasha said: "Somehow this extreme disdain for pre-20th century music has been passed from mentor to student in succession for decades".
I just noticed this sentence. What disdain? Where is it? In the courses I took pre-20th century composers were treated with the utmost respect and we spent a lot of time analyzing their techniques. That still doesn't justify copying them and calling oneself a composer at the same time.
Ron
Finale 2006c, full GPO & JABB under XP/Pro SP2
|
|
|
|
LouisDekker
Full Member
20 Posts |
Posted - 05 July 2007 : 9:12:20 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by pranakasha
I invite anyone who is interested in the topic to please speak out.
I return here after a long time and it's like déjà vu..... This topic has been discussed here so often and the out come is always the same. I will speak out too since you invite everyone to do so.
I firmly believe that you have the right to compose, immitate any style or do what every pleases you in your compositions. They may even be hugely popular amongst listeners, perhaps even more popular than some very contemporary compositions, but, like everyone here confirms, don't expect publishers, performers or academics to come running to you with praise. I too wrote a little concerto in classical style and it had a huge audience, a lot of people liked it, but it remained just a curiosity, exactly as it was intended. That's just the way it is..... I think what others are trying to say here is, if you are serious about being a composer, then why spend a lot of time and effort in something that, in the greater scheme of things, is going be just a curiosity? Why not explore what you really want to say musically with techniques and methods available to you today?
Although I liked your concerto and I think you did a fine job with it, I would much rather listen to Mozart's or Stamitz's if I had to choose something in that style.
Just my opinions, I hope to rester au-dessus de la mêlée ........
PS: One thing I completely agree with you.... I would certainly never want anyone to sing "Oops...I did it again" except Britney. |
Edited by - LouisDekker on 05 July 2007 9:15:09 PM |
|
|
|
Will Denayer
Silver Member
Ireland
183 Posts |
Posted - 06 July 2007 : 01:23:18 AM
|
| That stuff about 'my loneliness is killing me', I didn't find that so bad at all. A while ago, a saw a guy on tv explaining that some of the old Abba songs are as good as Schubert and so I listened to a couple of them. I don't find that so bad either. Past week, I was in Orleans (in France) and there was a festivity going on, don't know why. A punk band was playing on the street - revisiting the seventies, black coats, purple hair and enough noise to kill a army, but it was a real pleasure to see these guys play - it was great fun for them and self-expression, no compromises whatsoever, raw, real, authentic, wild, barbarian but not uninformed, I almost kissed them! |
|
|
|
pranakasha
Silver Member
USA
406 Posts |
Posted - 09 July 2007 : 09:28:38 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by LouisDekker
quote:
Originally posted by pranakasha
I invite anyone who is interested in the topic to please speak out.
I return here after a long time and it's like déjà vu..... This topic has been discussed here so often and the out come is always the same. I will speak out too since you invite everyone to do so.
I firmly believe that you have the right to compose, immitate any style or do what every pleases you in your compositions. They may even be hugely popular amongst listeners, perhaps even more popular than some very contemporary compositions, but, like everyone here confirms, don't expect publishers, performers or academics to come running to you with praise. I too wrote a little concerto in classical style and it had a huge audience, a lot of people liked it, but it remained just a curiosity, exactly as it was intended. That's just the way it is..... I think what others are trying to say here is, if you are serious about being a composer, then why spend a lot of time and effort in something that, in the greater scheme of things, is going be just a curiosity? Why not explore what you really want to say musically with techniques and methods available to you today?
Although I liked your concerto and I think you did a fine job with it, I would much rather listen to Mozart's or Stamitz's if I had to choose something in that style.
Just my opinions, I hope to rester au-dessus de la mêlée........
PS: One thing I completely agree with you.... I would certainly never want anyone to sing "Oops...I did it again" except Britney.
Dear Louis,
Thank you for your posting.
I'm really looking forward to learning more about your experiences and I would love to hear the piece that you mention and view the score.
I've been out of town for the past few days and am formulating quite a lengthy response to all the postings so far. Hopefully I'll get it up here today or tommorrow. Lot's of catching up to do on all the other things in my daily life...
---Matt
Matthew Charles Weiss
Pranakasha Productions
Seattle, WA USA
www.WeissConcerto.com
|
|
|
|
pranakasha
Silver Member
USA
406 Posts |
Posted - 10 July 2007 : 12:55:29 PM
|
Dear Forum,
I just returned from a 4-day music camp for kids ages 5-18. It was great fun being on the faculty and I was pleasantly surprised at the overall level of music-making. The coolest thing about this camp was the string orchestra which consisted of the faculty, advanced students, and all the rest of the students sitting side-by-side. This was especially good for the youngest kids who got a chance to absorb the experience of playing great music with professional-quality musicians.
Here is a list of some of the works we explored:
Bach Brandenburg Concerto #3
Bach Brandenburg Concerto #4
Bach Brandenburg Concerto #5
Vivaldi Summer Concerto
Beethoven Quartet Op. 59 #1
Rossini Overture to the Barber of Seville
Mendelssohn Octet Op. 20
Grieg Holberg Suite Op. 40
Benjamin Britten Simple Symphony
Shostakovich Quartet #1 Op. 49
Norman Leyden Serenade for Strings
A few of these were watered-down arrangements, however most were the real McCoy.
If I had to pick a favorite, I would say that the Beethoven quartet Op. 59 #1 stood head and shoulders above all the other compositions. These middle quartets come from a Beethoven who is far different from the symphonic composer that we are accustomed to. Here Beethoven pushes the limits of the genre to which he belongs and takes the musicians and the listener to the most surprising places.
If you have not listened to Beethoven's middle quartets, do yourself a favor and get a hold of a CD.
If anyone here can recreate even half of what Beethoven achieved in these quartets, I will be the first to stand up and give you a prize and humbly bow at your feet so that I might become your disciple.
Interestingly enough, Beethoven's later quartets went so far out of the 19th century genre that no composer in the 1800's even attempted to follow in his footsteps. Either they all thought he had gone crazy, or else these manuscripts were not available.
Coincidentally, my tabla teacher just arrived in Seattle for the summer and I had my first lesson last week. The rest of the year he lives in his home in New Delhi, India. His mother is a world-famous Kathak dancer, and his younger brother is an excellent vocalist.
The classical musicians of Northern India have taken their art to such a high level that it literally puts the rest of us to shame. There exists such high respect and love for the tradition and organic evolution of Indian music, that when compared to what has happened to Western Classical music, it becomes painfully obvious how far off the track we have gone in the past 100 years or so.
I'm literally embarassed to play anything beyond Debussy or Ravel for my teacher. On the other hand, I am quite proud of showing off Mozart and Bach...
At the core of the classical music of North India is the idea that any composition must exist within the realm of a particular raga. Specifically defining a raga is troublesome, but in western terms, a raga could be called the combination of a certain mode, a certain melodic shape, certain rules for ascending and descending the mode, and a certain overall sound that evokes a certain mood. Throughout history, many ragas have emerged and evolved, and new ones continue to develop even now.
Anyone interested in this subject should buy the following book which is available on Amazon.com:
The Raga Guide a survey of 74 Hindustani Ragas
by Joep Bor
It contains Western and Indian notation of the 74 most commonly played ragas and includes CDs of demonstrations of each by some of Indias finest musicians.
So what happened? Why and how did Western composers abandon their own musical tradition which remains very much alive as far as the musicians are concerned? This has not happened in Western Folk music or pop, only in Western Classical music.
We can thank our Serialist brethren and their various treatises and techniques that, however sophisticated they might be, in the end are based on a premise that was nothing more than fantasy (to put it nicely) and had no roots in tradition, the physics of sound, or the physiology of the human ear and brain.
Thankfully, we now have more than a few decades between us and them, and are now realizing just how much B.S. the system really was. So how does a 21st century composer recover from such a gross error? To me, the answer lies in reconnecting to some previous genre, learning the idiom, and making it one's own. After that, there is a chance that something new might emerge that fits the context of the traditions that have shaped our music for centuries.
---Matt
Matthew Charles Weiss
Pranakasha Productions
Seattle, WA USA
www.WeissConcerto.com
|
Edited by - pranakasha on 10 July 2007 1:01:17 PM |
|
|
|
ronan
Administrator
Canada
2094 Posts |
Posted - 10 July 2007 : 1:26:19 PM
|
Hi Matt,
I really enjoyed reading your article until I got to the last two paragraphs where you start pontificating and repeating things that are simply not true.
So what happened? Why and how did Western composers abandon their own musical tradition which remains very much alive as far as the musicians are concerned? This has not happened in Western Folk music or pop, only in Western Classical music.
No one has abandoned our musical tradition. That is your belief that is not backed up by the reality of the history of western music.
We can thank our Serialist brethren and their various treatises and techniques that, however sophisticated they might be, in the end are based on a premise that was nothing more than fantasy (to put it nicely) and had no roots in tradition, the physics of sound, or the physiology of the human ear and brain.
"Serialist brethern?" What on earth are you talking about. Serialism was a path explored from about the 1930's to the 1950's. It is still taught in some universities (who also teach the historical development of harmony and counterpoint, etc) but it is more and more regarded as a obsolete device. Get over it!
Thankfully, we now have more than a few decades between us and them, and are now realizing just how much B.S. the system really was. So how does a 21st century composer recover from such a gross error? To me, the answer lies in reconnecting to some previous genre, learning the idiom, and making it one's own. After that, there is a chance that something new might emerge that fits the context of the traditions that have shaped our music for centuries.
How do we return from such a gross error? What error? The one you think that some composers tried out more than 50 years ago?
Matt: I really wish you would get out there and listen to what today's composers are doing, rather than accusing them of something they have not done. You are obsessed with serial music. Fine. That's your problem. But you can't blame contemporary composers for your affliction.
Your argument makes about as much sense as dismissing contemporary movies because they used to be silent and shot in black and white on a fixed stage.
Ron
Finale 2006c, full GPO & JABB under XP/Pro SP2
|
|
|
|
pranakasha
Silver Member
USA
406 Posts |
Posted - 10 July 2007 : 1:39:41 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronan
Hi Matt,
I really enjoyed reading your article until I got to the last two paragraphs where you start pontificating and repeating things that are simply not true.
So what happened? Why and how did Western composers abandon their own musical tradition which remains very much alive as far as the musicians are concerned? This has not happened in Western Folk music or pop, only in Western Classical music.
No one has abandoned our musical tradition. That is your belief that is not backed up by the reality of the history of western music.
Dear Ron,
In my opinion, Serialism was such a radical departure from our tonal system that subsequent composers to this day are now allowed and in fact encouraged to use dissonance too haphazardly.
Since I apparently am blind to any subsequent traditions beyond Serialism, would you be able to trace the paths of the main ones for me?
---Matt
Matthew Charles Weiss
Pranakasha Productions
Seattle, WA USA
www.WeissConcerto.com
|
|
|
|
ronan
Administrator
Canada
2094 Posts |
Posted - 10 July 2007 : 1:55:52 PM
|
Here's a link to page with links to several contemporary composers. Not a serialist among them. Nor will you find that excessive and unnecessary dissonance you seem to be worried about: http://www.ronaldjbrown.com/links.htm.
For a starter on the basis of the harmonic development during the past century, you can start by reading Persichetti's "Twentieth Century Harmony."
Ron
Finale 2006c, full GPO & JABB under XP/Pro SP2
|
Edited by - ronan on 10 July 2007 1:56:34 PM |
|
|
|
Hansen
Bronze Member
Germany
69 Posts |
Posted - 10 July 2007 : 2:08:17 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by pranakasha
In my opinion, Serialism was such a radical departure from our tonal system that subsequent composers to this day are now allowed and in fact encouraged to use dissonance too haphazardly.
When I studied in the stronghold of serialism, in Darmstadt, in the Fifties, I got the impression that the application of such a kind of mathematics to music is such an absurdity that the resulting composing became an absurdity of music par excellence. |
|
|
|
pranakasha
Silver Member
USA
406 Posts |
Posted - 10 July 2007 : 2:14:31 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronan
Here's a link to page with links to several contemporary composers. Not a serialist among them. Nor will you find that excessive and unnecessary dissonance you seem to be worried about: http://www.ronaldjbrown.com/links.htm.
For a starter on the basis of the harmonic development during the past century, you can start by reading Persichetti's "Twentieth Century Harmony."
Ron
Finale 2006c, full GPO & JABB under XP/Pro SP2
Dear Ron,
Thank you for the links to contempory composers (some of whom I am quite well acquainted with on this Forum!).
I understand that composers as a whole have become much more "tonal" by today's standards, but my point is that Serialism skewed our sense of taste so badly that what today's composers consider "very tonal" to the lay ears and to the ears of classical musicians from other cultures, is still quite far afield and very difficult to justify.
I also am aware of the desperate attempt of modern composers to align themselves with some kind of tradition, however these so-called "traditions" emerge and subside so quickly that they never have time to mature and evolve in an organic way. If the traditions of old could be likened to a fine wine, these modern "traditions" are nothing more than Cherry Coke, Coke Black, Diet Coke, etc. etc.
---Matt
Matthew Charles Weiss
Pranakasha Productions
Seattle, WA USA
www.WeissConcerto.com
|
|
|
|
qccowboy
Platinum Member
Canada
1821 Posts |
Posted - 10 July 2007 : 2:15:34 PM
|
actually, the "absurdity" of serialism draws ALL of its inspiration from the hyper-chromaticism of Wagner.
In post-Wagnerian tonalism the dominant-tonic relationship has been stretched so thinly that at times the music is very nearly non-tonal. The serialist idea was NOT to create music that was dissonant, but rather to bring order to the chaos of this extended chromaticism.
If you actually spent some time READING about serialism, and Schoenberg's musical ideals, you would understand this rather than poo-poo it.
And of course, this "understanding" does not mean that you have to adopt serialism. It means you need to stop going on with tired old musical urban legends about serialism and modern music and actually LEARN something about contemporary music and the musical ideals of those composers.
There is often as much, if not more, dissonance in post-wagnerian chromatic tonalism as there is in some examples of serialist works.
And if you wan to listen to serialism applied in a brilliant fashion, then listen to the Berg violin concerto. This piece alone puts the lie to your rantings about serialism. There is a wonderful, and inexpensive, recording on Naxos label: it goes for around $7.99.
Naxos 8.554755
And before you go on about how it is not "real" serialism because it has tonal elements... let me simply say: who the hell said it HAD to be "pure" serialism, except those who demonize it?
/rant mode over
Michel R. Edward
compositeur
Ville Saint-Laurent, Québec
www.dosblanc.ca |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
