Marziano, deduce whatever you want. I deduce that you do not know how to understand a simple argument in English. Because it is one thing to not appreciate Babbitt's music, and another thing to continue misunderstanding him just to push forward your own idea. Could it be the language? Who knows.
I also deduce that at least you misunderstand the literal meaning of the Italian language, on top of that. Chopin and Mozart made simple, communicative, immediate music. I wonder why you haven't made comparisons with Schutz, with Michelangelo Rossi, with Sweelinck, with Bach.
these are two links with Les Indes Galantes by Jean Philippe Rameau, in full. Have the courage to listen to it all before making the usual hackneyed quarrel of the ancients and the moderns...
And I am making a generalized attack. In all the "art" music forums where I have written, I have read the most disparate criticisms of the contemporary repertoire. And more or less everyone compared it with 1) the Romantics 2) the Classicals. Whoever went furthest back at most reached Bach, but IGNORING the most substantial parts of the Bach repertoire (which are the cantatas). And it's normal; this is what is taught and we are "naturally" inclined to appreciate what we already know.
But before saying that contemporary music is ugly, go listen to Renaissance polyphony, medieval polyphony and monody, madrigals, the Baroque, early opera.
I quote Thallo and would even say: more openness to art in general, which has not been just the rhetoric of beauty for over a century (that is, exactly, since the discovery of the unconscious).
For a very long time, art has been born from the need to narrate the ineffable of the human dimension, not to perfect it by producing trinkets for the gods of Olympus. Unfortunately, however, mass culture is led to believe that "true" art is still that of the nineteenth century; in our forums, we continue calmly to discuss only Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, as if there were still Native Americans in America... Then someone, every now and then, opens the window and exclaims "look, it's 2012...!", and closes it again in horror.
I think that an artist should be interested in the world they live in, however, and not just the parlor of their home.
V
Vitrus
Member
Reply 23 by Vitrus
Posts
37
Frank wrote:
I was curious to know Vitrus's opinion on Beethoven's great fugue
Frank
PS
... I see that some listening suggestions are starting to make an impression. I also very gladly re-listened to Penderecki
The fundamental theme is profound and digestible but develops in a jagged and dissonant manner with very elaborate contrapuntal games, a technical masterpiece. The very well-conceived rhythm chains the listener. The finale is very beautiful... one finds Beethoven again
C
Carlos
Member
Reply 24 by Carlos
Posts
759
Marziano wrote:
[...] I deduce that Chopin knew how to make easy music, too bad it doesn't seem so to me.
If that's the case, then not even any serious opera by Mozart seems easy to me... and yet ...
I am tiptoeing into an already ongoing discussion (from which I had deliberately excluded myself...) to say that, although I am not very inclined toward certain contemporary music (and not just for aesthetic reasons, but for much more significant reasons, at least for me), this argument by Marziano is very dangerous, because it does not take into account how music was listened to in Chopin's time (not forgetting that, for example, the last movement of the Sonata in B-flat minor was harshly criticized by Schumann in the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik — "this is not music," he wrote) and how, on the other hand, the relationship with contemporary art is different today. It is a cat chasing its own tail, if you will, and I am convinced that much of the responsibility for the rejection of the contemporary lies with the contemporary artists themselves; but to say that a serious opera by Mozart is not easy (for us, certainly, it is less difficult than Boulez's Pli selon pli, that is obvious) is not a good reason to automatically decide that Mozart is right and Boulez is wrong (I only mentioned Boulez because he has already been cited: I have nothing against him in particular). Mozart is certainly right (on this I would have no doubts); however, regarding Boulez's faults, one must discuss them away from clichés, even being willing to find some reasons (and I am speaking to myself first and foremost, let me be clear!).
Discussions about contemporary music are like political discussions: you always end up arguing
I understand, although I almost never manage to avoid discussing it for this reason (and, in fact, I argue often). Of course, perhaps it also needs to be worth it and not make everything a matter of principle. It's a shame though, I was curious...
but I am an ardent fan of his arguments regarding musical aesthetics and theory and his conducting style...
even on this point there should be discussion: some composers from the second fifty-year period of the 1900s have built a musical life and a musical discourse of an extremely high level. Paradoxically in the 1800s, theoretical discussion was not at any particularly remarkable level... more was written and said in the 1700s! Since the 1900s, music theory and philosophy have had an incredible surge. Perhaps to the detractors of contemporary music, it will seem little and unimportant...
C
Carlos
Member
Reply 29 by Carlos
Posts
759
thallo wrote:
I, for my part, am not a fan of Boulez's music...
but I am an ardent fan [...] of his conducting style...
Well, not me, even if I like his results. It would be interesting to understand how they are achieved, but this is not the right place for that.
I say this jokingly ... you know that without knowing it, he invented MIDI? ... and if he knew it, perhaps he wouldn't even be too happy
thallo wrote:
Paradoxically in the 1800s, theoretical discussion was not at very high levels... more was written and said in the 1700s! From the 1900s, music theory and philosophy have had an incredible surge.
... if that's the case, also in the 1500s ... but also in antiquity
thallo wrote:
Perhaps to the detractors of contemporary music it will seem little and unimportant...
In addition to finding the behaviors you described, I would add that on average many people latch onto integral serialism.
Now I ask everyone to list at least 3 works that you have listened to and were written specifically with this technique, since I already foresee the “verdict” ... it would be enough if you just listed the titles, there is no need to have listened to them
and Donald McIntyre and Heinz Sednik have heavenly voices...
It's not Pierre's credit
thallo wrote:
i believe it is the fastest Ring in the history of Bayreuth
Well, I won't pronounce myself on this. In any case, I would rather clarify that when I speak of a conductor, I always distinguish his way of conducting from the results he achieves. Nowadays it is mandatory to do so (it wasn't like that, for example, at the beginning of the 20th century, because conducting technique was not as developed). And regarding Boulez, I said that I like the results he achieves, but not "his way of conducting," as you said. From the video, his way of conducting is not visible at all, but the results he achieves can be heard. And, I guarantee you, he certainly does not achieve them (only) through his way of conducting, but through a very accurate use of words during rehearsals. Exhausting.
Ah, ok, I hadn't noticed the difference. And speaking of "way of conducting," I didn't want to distinguish between means and results; you will certainly know better how he approaches it technically. So I reformulate by saying that, as a listener, I appreciate the results he achieves with the orchestras he conducts
X
Xenakis
Member
Reply 35 by Xenakis
Posts
287
Frank wrote:
Now I ask everyone to list at least 3 works that you have listened to and were written specifically with this technique
You yourself suggested somewhere Maessian, Mode of values and intensity
but I am an ardent fan of his arguments regarding musical aesthetics-theory and his conducting style...
even on this point there should be discussion: some composers from the second fifty-year period of the 1900s have built a musical life and a musical discourse of an extremely high level. Paradoxically in the 1800s, theoretical discussion was not at any particularly remarkable level... more was written and said in the 1700s! Since the 1900s, music theory and philosophy have had an incredible surge. Perhaps to the detractors of contemporary music, this will seem little and unimportant...
I ask, is it not possible that listeners in general are more interested in what reaches their ears than what they can read in a theory book?
Frankly, theory and philosophy may fascinate theorists, philosophers, musicologists, scholars... but honestly, what can a listener care about? If there is a beautiful theory behind it but the sonic result is garbage, why should someone bother to listen to something that might be the fruit of mental perversion or masturbation?
T
Talentuoso
Member
Reply 39 by Talentuoso
Posts
206
Ratatouille89 wrote:
Frankly, theory and philosophy may fascinate theorists, philosophers, musicologists, scholars... but honestly, what can a listener care about? If there is a beautiful theory behind it but the sonic result is garbage, why should someone bother to listen to something that might be the fruit of mental perversion or masturbation?
...and no, if there is a composer behind the theorist... it is always a good thing because at that point the intellectual approach becomes aesthetics and, as rightly said, must be understood.
… and whoever listens without taking aesthetics into account... performs a half-listening.
You know what, Ratatouille, I always expect a listener, or rather, a person of average culture to ALSO have intellectual passions: buy books, magazines, newspapers, go to exhibitions, to the theater, concerts, dedicate part of their time to culture, there you go.
This is as far as it goes regarding the listener.
The musician, even more so, that a musician should know, at least by hearsay, what the major aesthetics of the 1900s are and that, perhaps, sometimes they have had the fortune to buy a book that speaks about them, seems like THE BARE MINIMUM to me.
But it is my worldview... the reality is made of people who consider music ONLY as leisure. I am not saying it isn't, be careful; it saddens me that it can be considered ONLY as leisure, as entertainment.
