At the end of the concert

Frank wrote:

ant's what Shark himself heard a replay of ...but if he had listened more deeply, there would have been much more.

It might be true but I got very bored and had to change the channel....

I try to give my opinion, with all the usual limitations. There are at least two elements that, in my view, must be added to the discussion, which is already quite “meaty” in itself and from which many insights have emerged. The first element is “the meaning of applause” (you will say “huh?”, I will tell you that one does not always applaud for the same reason); the second element is the “purpose” with which a piece was written (you will say “huh?”, I will tell you that the Finale of Mahler's Ninth certainly has a different purpose compared to the finale of the “Barber of Seville”, which in turn has a different purpose compared to “... sofferte onde serene...” by Luigi Nono).

Let's go in order: why do we applaud? What meaning does our applause have? The sensations that move us to applaud at the end of Mahler's Second are of one type, those with which we reach the end of his Ninth are of a completely different type. And here is already a first element of distinction. Do I applaud for “exaltation”? Do I applaud for “admiration”? Do I applaud for “gratitude”? And, then, whom do I applaud? Do I applaud the music, the musician, or both? The answer, in this case, varies from evening to evening, from person to person etc. etc., but it is already enough to complicate the matter...

The second factor concerns the “purpose” of music. Up to a certain point, it is evident that the dramatic, dialectical, rhetorical path of (almost) all musical compositions dedicated to large spaces (a necessary clarification, because if I didn't, it would suffice to take any of Brahms' Intermezzi to contradict me), I was saying: the rhetorical path of these pieces was directed towards a final (who knows?) “catharsis,” whereby the tension accumulated during the piece (especially in the adagios) was released in concluding movements with a “final rush,” which had and still have an almost liberating effect. Think of how Beethoven's Fifth is constructed, a marvelous example (which I do not choose by chance, obviously, because it defends my thesis from the outset against the myriad of “ehm ehm” that I am sure you will raise; I am prepared), with that first movement drawn like a bow, whose arrow however seems not to shoot; the bow remains tense throughout the slow movement, which seems to ease the tension, until the Scherzo begins, then we realize that the tension is still all there and that, in fact, it has increased, and the scherzo does not end, no!, it flows into that luminous and explosive C major, from which a memory of that Scherzo will emerge once again, in turn a memory of the first movement, until the end, affirmative, decisive, “ok, it is said!”. Fine, it is an example, I hope it clarifies the point of view at least a little...

If you think of that piece (the Fifth) and if you then think, for one, of “Das Lied von der Erde,” it becomes evident that the dramatic and dialectical path is exactly opposite in the two pieces (and I do not take Mahler continuously by chance: he is perhaps the first great symphonist who does not “seek applause” but seeks something else). “Das Lied von der Erde” begins conversely (or ends conversely, if you prefer) to what was said above: “Der Abschied” is a piece that, apart from the text, would call for silence at the end (how can one applaud after that exhausting “farewell” spoken in words and with sounds?).

So, here the two elements I spoke of at the beginning are merging: we applaud, but why? When a piece like Beethoven's Fifth ends, we certainly applaud for “exaltation” (or happiness, or irrepressible joy; let's call it what we prefer, but I think we understand each other perfectly). But at the end of “Das Lied,” we certainly do not applaud for that... We can applaud because the performance was to our liking, we can applaud because it is anyway a way to say “thank you” both to the composer and to the musicians... This aspect, in the case of the Fifth, is absorbed into the applause of joy (and it is evident, for example, in the theater, where at the end of an opera joyful applause breaks out, which is then differentiated according to the artist who appears on stage: this one receives a roar of great approval, that one does not provoke any variation in the intensity of the applause, the other even provokes some dissent and so on...).

And here I come (“finally!” you will say) to the first question, namely why avant-garde music concerts end differently from others?. I listen little to modern and contemporary music, it interests me little and I like it even less, so I do not have many cases to propose, but they are, in any case, almost all in conformity with the example made by Kappa in his initial post. I myself applaud almost out of “duty,” at least to give satisfaction to those who played (and in many cases the music played is so incomprehensible that one can barely understand if the person who played it}

...he did it well or poorly, but I certainly do not applaud out of gratitude toward a composer whose work I have heard—at best, something that bores me, and at worst, something that annoys me. But that is not the point, in my opinion. "Pierrot Lunaire" may or may not be pleasing (and I personally find it little pleasing, I believe that has been made clear by now), but it is a piece that manages to keep an audience present (even if only for a short while, alas) and to mediate the need for experimentation with the need for communication. The same can be said of Berg's "Wozzeck" (but not, in my opinion, or not entirely, regarding "Moses und Aron").

But "where" is the audience in certain (much, too much) experimental music? It is often an audience that must witness a sort of ritual in which it is neither certain nor expected that they should be involved (the exact opposite of "reverse" pieces like "Das Lied von der Erde," which we were discussing a moment ago), because the purpose of that music is not to involve them, or to lead them through a journey, but simply to "show" them a path (assuming there is a path, by the way). There is a beautiful difference. One thing is seeing a fawn learning to stand on its legs with difficulty and helped by its mother; another is seeing a fossilized stone behind the glass of a display case. They are, or can be, two wonderful things, but they certainly will not evoke the same emotions and/or sensations. I have never seen anyone applaud in a museum, but in a zoo, yes. And the museum metaphor would seem (at least in the collective imagination) to marry better with "old" music, but that is not the case: "old" music is alive and needs to be made to live, whereas experimental music is often born for no other reason than to test a new possibility, a new language, a new effect, regardless of any message this language may convey, and therefore regardless of who listens, and thus it is born dead. And normally, in front of a coffin, one does not applaud...

I don't know if you are following the other topic proposed by Thallo, I was saying that Webern "is no longer noticed by anyone" in my opinion because he is the main architect of the end of narrativity in music (and all his strikes can be felt starting from his earliest works). Schoenberg and even more so Berg, managed to maintain that direct link with tradition....Webern laid the foundations for total serialism and what later, at its peak, saw works like Boulez's Structure.
Despite everything, I want to speak in his defense by proposing that you listen to his Op. 1, such grace that he left in his catalogue

The mere fact that W.'s bagatelles needed an introduction to be digested by the public says a lot... and rightly so you (Carlos), like a lot of other people (professionals and otherwise), stopped at Berg... not without reason I was writing that even classical music today might seem almost out of context, but things will change and indeed syntax and codes have obviously (and perhaps rightly) suffered from the long period of experimentation... but gradually musical results will return.

The new generations do not feel the weight (even historical) of the '50s and '60s... in the end, those who understood everything were the Jazz musicians.

And then there are great examples of musicality in the 1900s: Britten, Messiaen, Berio, Stravinsky... why stop at the avant-garde?

Frank wrote:

I don't know if you are following the other topic proposed by Thallo, I was saying that in my opinion nobody pays attention to Webern anymore because the main architect of the end of narrativity in music (...)

No, but I am glad we said the same thing - at least we will be accomplices in defending ourselves from any "ehm ehm"!

Frank wrote:

And then there are great examples of musicality in the '900: Britten, Messiaen, Berio, Stravinsky... why stop at the avant-garde?

As the Americans say "you made my day!". You said it perfectly: "why stop at the avant-garde?". I was saying that certain music seems dead on arrival, your last consideration consoles me...

I forgot

Carlos wrote:

And normally, in the face of a coffin, one does not applaud...

I was quoting Francesco Filidei, I don't know if you are familiar with the terms of his aesthetics... essentially it talks about dead forms... something perversely macabre (but narrative and perhaps classifiable within instrumental musique concrète) in his latest works.

We overlapped

Carlos wrote:

“why stop at the avant-garde?”

Good Music to everyone

Open content (youtube)

But you, Frank, what do you mean by avant-garde? It seems to me that you are following a path dictated more by your own taste. I hear Webern being performed as little as I hear Messiaen being performed... but even if the opposite were true, it doesn't seem to me to be THE criterion for judging a composer; otherwise, we would have to think in terms applicable also to composers of the past who perhaps are not even taken into consideration now.

I also believe that the argument about an introduction being necessary for pieces to be digestible by the audience is a copy-paste phrase, considering

the variety of the audience, its tastes, and its training. How can one establish that a great fugue does not need an introduction while Webern's bagatelles do? And what about Messiaen's quartet? Sincerely, an introduction wouldn't be bad even for these other pieces (in my opinion).

I also find the discussion regarding musicality to be truly personal; what do you mean by musicality? What criteria do you use?

Perhaps I find it a peculiar argument because I don't like Britten at all.

p.s. Still at the same concert where I heard Sciarrino's madrigals performed, the Neue Vocalisten also performed a piece from Filidei titled "Dormo molto amore" which I found very beautiful (also thanks to a very beautiful text), and several other things I have heard by the same composer I liked very much. The title "Macchina per scoppiare i pagliacci" is then truly more brilliant than Sciarrino's titles (his teacher).

micamahler wrote:

But you, Frank, what do you mean by avant-garde? It seems to me that you are following a path dictated more by your own taste.

ehm ehm... I like the avant-garde. Taste has nothing to do with it.

As soon as I have a moment, I will try to make a slightly more detailed post... for now, take a look at Webern's Bagatelles Op. 9 (the first one is enough) with an eye toward the morphology of the narrative.

that's why I thought of it:

And then there are great examples of musicality in the 1900s: Britten, Messiaen, Berio, Stravinsky... why stop at the avant-garde?

If it's just a matter of habit [RedScharlach], I'm glad. It was a bit like what I thought.

But this confirms to me that "the avant-garde" is a language (sorry: many languages). It's just a matter of habit, like ... for a language! or no?... At first you didn't understand it... then ... at a certain point... you understand it, and maybe even it moves you.

So does anyone agree with me on the fact that music-is-a-universal-language is a lie as big as the universe!?....

micamahler wrote:

The title 'Machine for exploding clowns' is truly more genius than Sciarrino's titles (his teacher)

Another genius idea from Filidei is the Missa super l'Homme armé for four performers with firearms!

LucaCavaliere wrote:

So does anyone agree with me on the fact that music-is-a-universal-language is a lie as big as the universe!?....

I agree.

> for this reason I thought of it:
However, it wouldn't have been a bad idea to touch the score that I indicated to you, partly for face... perhaps the matter doesn't really interest you in the end, but there are others listening for whom I will not hold back.

Narrativity is expressed in many ways and has a constraint of physiological symmetry that moves in binarity or bipolarity, such as in a logical parallelism of Protagonist/Antagonist.
I would already meditate a lot on this, but regardless, how can a narration be made incomprehensible? When 3 different types of situations occur:

Enchantment (it's clear to everyone, right? If I repeat the same word 100 times... at some point one will no longer be able to follow)... here I save Webern... even if the fourth bagatelle...

Silence (it's clear to everyone, right? If I let too much time pass between one word and the next, the listener may lose the thread of the discourse)

Maximum differentiation (it's clear to everyone, right? If I change the subject every 3 seconds... whoever is listening to me won't understand a damn thing and won't be able to follow)

(I am adding transfiguration using hyperparameters, here I save Webern)

In all 3 cases, I am seriously having difficulty remembering the narration; I think that as a side effect, boredom sets in.

Coming to Webern, Op. 9 of 1910, but published in 1924.

What can we OBJECTIVELY say looking at the score of the first bagatelle?

TIMBRAL ATTENTION: low instruments made to play in the high register and vice versa

MEASURE MANAGEMENT: diversifies every instant (see the agogic plan)

UNIQUENESS OF THE EVENT: playing near the bridge, for example, can give rise to "unstable" sounds. The spectrum changes; the Eb of the viola (at the beginning) seems like something else.

DIVISION OF THE TACTUS divided into 2 or 3, and the triplet is always acephalous (it can appear more propulsive or more suspended)

But let's look at the path of the triplets, 9 differentiations in 30'' for 10 measures, some examples:

Vla:
un ta_a

ta_a un

un ta_a|_a

Measure 4: Vl I°: un ta un

Measure 5: Vl I°: un ta_a

Measure 6: Vc: _|_ta ta_a

Measure 7: Vl I° un un ta

Measure 8: Vl II° un ta ta

Measure 9: Vc: ta_|_ta un un

Measure 10: Vc: ta un ta

PITCH PARAMETER:

welcomes different tonal centers (see semitone intervals and augmented fourths, etc., which become fundamental)

The minor second is the link between one voice and another

Despite how it typically happens in the West (for now we are talking about this), Webern uses speculative principles; he moves by shattering the narration through the use of flexional structures (note, there is already an embryo of a concept of process). I don't know if you know them, briefly: long but fixed sound, the interval and the shortest possible sound?
Well, he elevates these basic elements of music to an art... and in relation to the morphology of the narration and what I said at the beginning, he ensures that one DOES NOT easily remember the narration (see agogics, triplet discourse, etc.)
This is always OBJECTIVELY. Keep in mind that it is 1924; his teacher felt obliged to write the presentation... in my opinion, he already understood how things were going. I was absolutely not referring to the explanation of an opera; if you knew the presentation, you would understand that Schoenberg was preparing listeners for something very distant from them. Incidentally, it was the first time this had happened: in short: "precautions for use".

Now, all of this was subsequently radicalized and applied to all parameters of music: Timbre, pitch, intensity, and duration... ok?
It is usually very clear to composers that it is never convenient to change all parameters together and constantly over time...

In a discussion like this, what does taste have to do with it? If there is one thing I approve of little, it is when someone says somewhat uncomfortable things and another person brings it down to taste to diminish them. Therefore, I hope that you now objectively tell me how integral serialism (it was the avant-garde for those who understand it) is narrative.

I "simply" maintain (and the scores do not contradict me) that removing narrativity can lead to boredom... and so it is; except for a percentage of professionals who for some strange reason "enjoy" it (? I will tell you my experience later), this is the classic feedback.

So, it doesn't matter who is performed and who less...

I said that I like the avant-garde... and so it is; I am interested in the conceptual part and I take pleasure in seeing how the intelligence of different composers can work. One thing is certain: an intelligent person is not necessarily musical at the same time, and we return to the second question.

> The discussion about musicality also seems very personal to me; what do you mean by musicality?
> What criteria do you use?
Here I must turn the question back to you: which behaviors (and not syntax, eh!) do you consider unmusical? The opposite is music... if you couldn't think of any

examples of anti-musicality (and I say this to the person who made me hum one of his little tunes for 15 days under the shower) means two things: either you are in a bad way (but that is not the case here) or musicality does not exist... and if so, why are we even talking?

You can find a little help a few lines up: “it is usually very clear to composers that it is never convenient to change all parameters together and constantly over time…”

Parenthesis closed, narrativity is one thing, connection with tradition is another. It is a fact that Stravinsky uses a lot of folk melodies; there are 2 volumes of Taruskin that pick him apart and demonstrate how Russian he is (if you know them and have studied them, you will understand immediately), even if he "liked" to consider himself more American.
Regarding his variations, go see how he manages bipolarity regarding narration (since he no longer has I and V)... but look at it, these are important things for a composer.

A musician knows well that they cannot change everything, they cannot sever ties with the listener; they must innovate starting from tradition, and Schoenberg himself knew this—it was one of his concerns and what allows him to survive even today. Otherwise, you end up writing for only one person, the one you see in the mirror, and ergo: "one sings to oneself and plays for oneself."

You won't like Britten, but as you show in your post, nobody cares about tastes... but if you were to analyze his music, you would understand that he brings innovation into an almost tonal sound system. Ergo, he doesn't change everything for a listener, he doesn't sever ties with tradition. Then again, tastes are tastes, but the music speaks clearly... at least to an expert and, above all, it should be clear to someone who wants to compose. These are all levers.

In general, I am very up-to-date on the music being written; I analyze it myself and I don't overlook even the last decade. Since Filidei was mentioned, he has changed style often and quickly... I was referring to the latest pieces, the ballads... which precisely reflect the aesthetic I was describing to Carlos.

The thing that struck me most in this topic is that reading the posts of various people who have intervened, it seems as if everyone is obsessed with and hardly bored (from a musical standpoint) by experimentation and the avant-garde in general, but no one has recounted their own direct experience explaining why they didn't stand up shouting encores or tearing their hair out from joy.

Personally, when I leave a hall where the object is sonic experimentation, I meditate on how much I can make use of what I have heard and how much less... perhaps that is why I will seem pensive to Kappa. To be sure, if I applaud, it is for the skill of the performers, and sometimes it happens because of the composer's skill in hiding all those aspects that are extra-musical and that they tried to put into music.

Now don't answer me again with "Too much stuff, I don't know where to start"...
Forgive me for taking liberties Art, but we have known each other since 24/07/2005... so if you want to have your say... say it, though...

LucaCavaliere wrote:

So, does anyone agree with me that music-is-a-universal-language is a lie as big as the universe!?....

The only things in the world that are truly universal are 2:
- the archetype of the condition of being a child
- facial expressions

The rest is convention; even the most elementary thing for music (and not for acoustics) such as timbre is a cultural factor...

At this point, we must reach an understanding of what is meant by "avant-garde music" (which is a label like any other). "Avant-garde music" is music that has not yet been historicized, nor yet studied and critically framed by musicology. "Avant-garde music" is music that is no more than ten or fifteen years old, if we really want to provide some temporal coordinates. Berio is history; he is not avant-garde music. Much less so is Pierrot Lunaire!

Carlos wrote:

But "where" is the audience in certain (much, too much) experimental music? It is often an audience that must witness some sort of ritual ...

Mah! Why should a certain audience feel obliged to go to a concert if the music does not interest them? At the "avant-garde music" concerts I attend, there is certainly a smaller audience than at "classical music" concerts, but it is not a less attentive audience, and at the end of the pieces, they applaud more or less depending on how much they appreciated this or that piece.

I would add that one of the reasons why encores are not requested at "avant-garde music" concerts is linked to a pragmatic issue: if three "world premieres" are proposed, or in any case three performances by living composers, an artistic director does not intend to create disparities by having one author's piece repeated at the expense of another. Furthermore, programs are conceived as "self-contained," and groups that perform contemporary music certainly do not prepare encores (the case is different for solo recitals, where an encore is not so rare).

As a "consequence" of facial expressions, the reaction to the faces of pets seems to be universal, much like the reaction to children's faces.

Years ago, I went to a concert at Dal Verme with a friend (Mauro) and one of his friends, a composer. There we found other people whom I didn't know but who were friends of the composer. Ivan Fedele was presenting; the pieces were by Italian contemporaries—my famous memory won't let me remember the names, there was a famous flautist... anyway, long story short, my friend Mauro (a rock band keyboardist and computer science teacher) and I were enthusiastic by the end, so we went to the composer's friends convinced that we would engage in conversation and commentary. They had rushed to form a huddle around the authors of the pieces, whose faces we didn't even know (obviously). Mauro and I had the discussion ourselves, with the composer friend asking me "what is a wind machine?"...

However, I also managed to track down two composers. Riccardo Nova (who is a friend, though) and Meredith Monk; she was at Dal Verme, half-empty.

That said, I haven't been to a concert in ages. I feel disgusted with myself... and this discussion makes me feel incredibly guilty.

Honestly, I don't quite understand the attitude which seems to me to have a vague sense of defiance, or perhaps I am extremely pacifist to the point of seeing a conflict where there is none.

Frank, you advised me on the bagatelles yesterday; half an hour after reading your post, I went (even though I had read them some time ago) to review and re-listen to them. It's not as if just because I don't come here to say that I have read them, you must automatically decide that it is a work I haven't done. Same goes for the variations; even yesterday I had read your post regarding them.

That being said, you tell me to explain why integral serialism is narrative; I don't understand why I should explain it, it doesn't seem to me that I said anything in previous posts that could lead to the consequence of this binomial which, by the way, I do not share.

As far as anti-musical behaviors are concerned, the only one that comes to mind immediately is dressing an event of another type in sound and expecting it to be musical. Example: having a clarinet perform the decay of a gluon, having violins play the trend of the Tokyo stock exchange. These are things that I find—even before listening to them—anti-musical. Then perhaps (for some reason) they even work... But they are not my cup of tea. If I am truly lost, I'll go to Lourdes.

But allow me to say that these are not nice things to say, or perhaps again, it is just me being excessively soft-hearted.

The issue of narrativity, however, finds me in agreement but not entirely; how do Morton Feldman and Arvo Pärt fit into this discussion? You previously said that jazz musicians understood everything... so where is the protagonist-antagonist dualism with Ornette Coleman and Cecil Taylor in free jazz? Or rather, the narrativity.

As far as Britten is concerned, that he is a great composer is not up for debate; I simply do not like him, that is a matter of taste, which I thought was clear. That he contributed to the evolution of "language," fine, I never denied it, and that the connection with tradition (listening) is also useful, that is obvious. I have never questioned any of these things...

Having said all this, it seems to me that the underlying problem is the fact that I said you were speaking in terms of matters of taste and that this annoyed you. I apologize, but it was not truly my intention; however, it seemed to me that it was.

Ciao

RedScharlach wrote:

Berio is history, not avant-garde music. Much less Pierrot Lunaire!

In fact, I have placed it in the other category of music.

RedScharlach wrote:

I would add that one of the reasons why encores are not requested in "avant-garde music" concerts

It was a joke... After that joke I wrote quite something else, among other things extending the discussion to “modern and contemporary” music, eliminating the exclusivity of “avant-garde music,” and therefore also eliminating all questions regarding encores/no encores, absolute first performances, etc.

...well, i, freejazz is an atom of the jazz world, it represents its avant-garde and was the way to approach the classical world of the jazz world.

Discussion too rich

micamahler wrote:

where do Morton Feldman and Arvo Pärt fit into this discussion?

Regarding Pärt personally, I wonder which one: the first extreme or the last modalist? Do you know which one changed styles more?

More repetitive than Morton Feldman (even 25-hour pieces) ... what more could one want? After 5 hours at the last event, people went to drink beer, came back, and nothing had changed (nothing had been lost)... sometimes you need a speaker to follow the score... and come on...

RedScharlach wrote:

At this point, we need to understand what is meant by "avant-garde music" (which is a label like any other).

Excellent question, but let's just say that the whole world thinks about this, especially non-experts

http://it.wikipedia....ca_sperimentale

As far as the last 10 years are concerned, I think we are talking about contemporary music, which in effect means written "Today" in a broad sense or at least in the last decade. And then there is what can be written:

- modern music

- anachronistic music

- experimental music (which is what was called avant-garde)

In my opinion, everything revolves around this trilogy and it cannot be otherwise... today, only experimental music is not being written