"Contemporary" music

Talentuoso wrote:

… whoever listens without taking aesthetics into account ... is only half-listening.

I think I share this reasoning at its core; listening for the sake of it can always be done, but when one feels compelled to express a judgment, then one must necessarily take aesthetics into account.

And I am not just talking about the '900 [20th century]; even Mozart's sonatas are written in a specific way and to satisfy specific and precise requirements

Can anyone explain to me why these discussions about aesthetics, listening methods, etc... only come to the rescue when talking about 20th-century music? That is, if someone says they don't like Liszt, "well, tastes are tastes," but if someone says they don't like Xenakis, "oh well, but you have to consider the mature aesthetics and also the tarapia tapioco, you mustn't limit yourself to a superficial listening!".

I hate Massenet, have I ever told you?

I hate Haydn's piano sonatas, except for some of the late ones.

However, I know and understand what his needs were or as someone used to say, when I feel compelled to formulate an opinion other than I like it or I don't like it, I cannot help but take other factors into account as well.

If we really want to confess, in the context of sonatas for pf I don't like Mozart very much, some seem very frivolous to me and I am for drama

Visceral "hatred" for Chopin... unstructured......

Talentuoso wrote:

I hate Haydn's piano sonatas, except for some of the later ones.

However, I know and understand what his needs were or as someone used to say, when I feel compelled to formulate an opinion other than I like it or I don't like it, I cannot help but take other factors into account.

Well, do it!

Do you understand what I mean? Pages and pages of discussion on the aesthetics of contemporary music, on philosophical implications, on social context, on the value of experimentation... and then someone says "I hate Mozart's sonatas because they seem frivolous to me" and what do people think? They think there is no need to comment because... because Mozart does not need to be defended, because his music will change neither for better nor for worse, whether one defends him or not, because his sonatas will probably continue to be disliked by those who dislike them and liked by those who like them... exactly like all other music.

Carlos, not even Messiaen, Stockhausen, Xenakis, etc. need to be defended

So as someone originally wrote, it is just a matter of taste... let's come to terms with it

Ratatouille89 wrote:

If we really want to confess, in the context of sonatas for piano I don't much like Mozart; some seem very frivolous to me and I am all for drama.

... you start to ask yourself why? Look, the discussion behind it is precisely about aesthetics. How many symphonies by Haydn (since someone mentioned him) or Mozart are in a minor key?

Afterward, in chronological order, what happens?

The concept of "drama," to which you refer, what is it linked to?

Dino wrote:

Carlos, not even Messiaen, Stockhausen, Xenakis, etc. need to be defended

So, as someone originally wrote, it is just a matter of taste... let's come to terms with it

Exactly! Finally...

Well... Asserting one's own tastes can be valid if one knows enough to be able to judge (and, therefore, form a taste); personally, since the authors I don't know are more numerous than those I have studied in depth, I am not content with saying "I like it" or "I don't like it," especially since I cultivate the ambition to make music and not just listen to it. I can postpone learning about what seems less attractive to me (perhaps because I don't much like a certain context or historical period), but I cannot think of abstaining from the effort to understand. It's a bit like if a chef said "I don't like sweets," or something like that... Sooner or later, if you want to know how to cook, you have to set aside your acquired taste and be willing to "make yourself like them," so to speak.

Understanding is an essential condition of taste, and I don't know how often one has understood enough to be able to say "I don't like it": if I liked Mozart's sonatas and not Haydn's, for example, I would have some misgivings...

What CromaDiBrera described is the substantial difference between a creative approach and a passive one; knowledge is the basis of creativity... so it is up to us to commit ourselves and fuel this fantastic "machine."

And I am not referring to that of integral serialism, where the composer's work is effectively substantially nullified (by the way, I am still waiting for the titles of the pieces... if they exist; to avoid any misunderstanding, I will tell you that they exist, but everyone criticizes them and no one knows what they are) ... but to the role of the great "puppeteer" (which can be, for example, Berio).

And if the composer chooses, there is little to be done ... if he does not choose (precisely integral serialism) ... then you are "almost" entirely right.

"Almost all" because the concept of the machine was arrived at for a specific reason (historical-cultural), the works of the 1950s are like that for a specific reason, etc.. The composers of that period had precise needs.

And also keep in mind that Bach was also well acquainted with the concept of the machine; I wrote something in the quadruple counterpoint topic.

Donatoni had also created his machine, and when the "Machine" is, in short, that of the composer's mind,

the game is done

There is a beautiful text, I seem to remember it is titled automatism or choice ... it wouldn't be bad to give it a good reading, it deals precisely with these themes

CromaDiBrera wrote:

Well... Asserting one's own tastes can be valid in the case that one knows enough to be able to judge (and, therefore, form a taste)

I never said that knowing is not necessary, not so much to express one's own tastes, but rather for professional reasons and completeness: but once someone has sufficient knowledge, they must be able to manifest a preference.

I also add that it is not certain that things always go in only one direction, i.e., first I deepen my knowledge, then I express my opinion: it is legitimate, speaking of musicians with an experience that allows them to form a fairly clear idea of an author, a piece, or a trend, even listening—I was saying—it is legitimate that the desire to delve deeper passes as soon as one listens to a piece (and I reiterate the concept: music is what is heard; explanations are accessories that cannot be necessary except perhaps for understanding, but certainly not for enjoying a piece), and because of this, I would speak neither of approximation nor of superficiality. Also because one cannot deepen everything in the same way, so there must be a criterion for choosing. What is it? Clearly, I am speaking as a performer and not as a composer, but if I have to decide whether or not to conduct a certain author, the first thing I do is listen to some of their pieces, not study a book that talks about them... And you?

I would like to add, regarding your

CromaDiBrera wrote:

e, quindi, formarsi un gusto

that I do not agree at all with the fact that taste needs understanding, if anything, habit. If it were as you say, to stick to the culinary parallel, it would mean that a dish you don't like will please you if you know its recipe, but we know well that this is not the case. You don't like a dish. Period. Then, once you know its ingredients and recipe, you can appreciate its complexity, you can appreciate the chef's refinement and recognize their superiority compared to a common homemade menu (or instead establish the poverty of its craftsmanship, depending on the case...). But, if you don't like it, you don't like it!"

Question for Carlos, do you think Cathy Berberian wouldn't have wanted to be a melodist? And yet music chose her. All this to say that those working in the field have a different task compared to a piano bar music listener, with all due respect (whom I also like).

The performer, like the cook, can choose to execute and play dishes they do not enjoy... and receive and give so much satisfaction, so much so that others who try after Berberian end up looking ridiculous.

Constructions have always fascinated composers, and the constructions of the 1900s are great constructions.

When I speak of "builders," I am not referring to those who hide behind the avant-garde to write rubbish, but to the great minds that have contributed to the extension of musical language.

As was being said, if you don't like Gregorian chant, that is your problem (allegorical, not directed at you Carlos)... likewise for Xenakis. Then, deep down, there are those who don't like Chopin, Haydn, Mozart; if we listen to everyone, Schubert will pop up, etc.

The argument is one: the works you conduct are those requested by the paying public, and if due to matters of taste people choose melodrama... the "omelet" is made.

Rest assured that if everyone asked you for Berio (or Allevi), you would have little to choose from... and if you wanted to conduct, you would have to submit to the rules of the market. The same problem applies to the composer: they can choose to do whatever they want at the cost of not eating. But then the talented ones live off their reputation, who knows why, and are studied and performed. You yourself said that you studied one of Stockhausen's studies for pf in the conservatory... yet it conveyed nothing to someone (I don't remember who).

For example, it seems to me that ordinary people are scarce at monochrome concerts if, for instance, there is only Bach on the program...

Tiger wrote:

Question Carlos, don't you think Cathy Berberian wouldn't have wanted to be a melodist?

I don't know... I never knew her. You?

But, anyway: what does that have to do with it?

Tiger wrote:

And yet music chose her.

Oh yeah? Dunno, I don't know. Maybe if she hadn't liked that music she would have sung baroque opera, who knows?

Carlos wrote:

I never said that knowing is not necessary, not so much to express one's own tastes, but rather for professional reasons and completeness: but once someone has sufficient knowledge, they must be able to manifest a preference.

"Once someone has sufficient knowledge", exactly; that is what I said.

Carlos wrote:

Clearly I am speaking as an interpreter and not as a composer, but if I have to decide whether or not to conduct a certain author, the first thing I do is listen to some of their pieces, not study a book that talks about them... And you?

Let's say that I, even just as a listener, am inclined to immediately ask myself why I don't like it (or vice versa). Perhaps because, by cultivating the ambition to compose, I am forced into a continuous exercise of self-criticism, asking myself how much the taste of an idea or a prompt can be shared. You take something that is outside of yourself and you must pass it through yourself to reconvert it again for the enjoyment of your audience: the filter of personal taste becomes an indispensable condition by necessity. For someone like me, however (with all due respect), the subjectivity of one's own taste is the accelerator pedal: never floored, and if you abuse it at the wrong moment, while you are saying "how cool!", you find yourself off track without even realizing it.

Carlos wrote:

But, if you don't like it, you don't like it!

I have a very long list of things that I didn't like at first glance, but which I appreciated greatly only in the attempt to understand them: from Schumann to onions, from Picasso to Sauvignon, from Romanians to dressage, from thermal spas to impressionist films, passing through an infinity of other various and different things.

Frankly, I almost never have the same tastes as the year before, and the guarantee of constantly changing them will give me a little less certainty, it's true, but it amuses me greatly. It seems positive to me to enjoy new things, and I suppose that this is rewarding for the curiosity that an artist, in my opinion, should always cultivate.

I mean: if I had stopped at "if I don't like it, I don't like it", I think I would have had much less fun (given how I am made, obviously).

Carlos wrote:

If it were as you say, to stick with the culinary parallel, it would mean that a dish you don't like, you will like if you know its recipe, but we know well that is not the case. You don't like a dish. Period.

Sorry, I forgot: on this I can really contradict you, from direct experience (it's my job, as some may know: if I don't do it now...!) I work a lot on the "explanation" of food and wine at the table, and I guarantee you that evoking the context in which they are produced makes an enormous difference in terms of enjoyment.

CromaDiBrera wrote:

P.S. Regarding your example about reading the book: a couple of years ago I had the opportunity to compose music for a theatrical performance on the theme "the Passion of Christ"; well, you won't believe it, but I went and reread the Gospel... [...]

Objection, Your Honor: irrelevant! I was talking about reading a book that explains music, not the subject matter; perhaps I explained myself poorly. What I mean is: even if you know Lenau's Don Juan, it doesn't mean Richard Strauss's music will sound better to you. You will simply understand its reasons more clearly.

As for your previous post, I agree with you: curiosity and the desire to understand are fundamental and, don't think otherwise, what I do—namely conducting—is nothing more than proposing to the audience what I think? I hope? I have understood, at least in part, through study, dedication, and continuous research. Of course, I didn't want to trivialize the discussion by stopping at "I don't like it" as the first and only approach/response to something new, heaven forbid! However, and you will recognize this, there is a limit beyond which even dissecting the most hidden secrets of something won't take away the feeling that that thing does not belong to you.

I—and many around here know it—do not like Schönberg's music at all, for example. I am speaking primarily of serial Schönberg, although I am not crazy about his other works either. Well, a few years ago, for a competition, I had to prepare an extremely complicated piece, albeit short, namely Musikbegleitung für eine lichtspielszene (Accompanying music for a film scene), for large orchestra. I had never heard it before and I obtained a recording. I didn't like it at all, but I wanted to study it thoroughly. I reached the point where I could almost have rewritten it; every note had its meaning, every interval found its reason for being in the next one, or in the previous one, of which it was an inversion, a retrograde, etc. etc... in short, I knew it by heart and, regardless of the competition, it was work that helped me immensely in understanding a compositional technique that I only knew theoretically. But that piece continued to not please me at all, not at all, even though many things had changed from my first listening to my condition after a couple of months of study.

I do this continuously; I don't stop myself either and, specifically with Schönberg, I never stop trying to understand him, even if I don't hope that sooner or later I will like it—I think I have resigned myself to that—but I would like to have at least a little less "ethical" perplexity regarding him, since it is the ethical premise of his music that I do not share, even before the sonic result.

Music passes through the ears, whether one likes it or not, just as visual art passes through the eyes. One can explain to you what Guernica represents (which I adore, before you think I don't even like that...), but if aesthetically you do not like that painting, even knowing the reasons behind the idea, you will not be able to change your opinion about it...

For goodness' sake, absolutely right, everything is very clear. In the end, more or less, it seems to me there is also a substantial convergence of views.

P.S. I must also ask you (and all of you) to forgive my terrible habit of late-editing one of my posts to which you were referring: I know, it's not nice; I must stop...

CromaDiBrera wrote:

P.S. I must also ask you (and all of you) for forgiveness for my terrible habit of late-editing one of my posts that you were referring to: I know, it's not nice; I need to stop...

No problem: the quote remained unchanged.