"Contemporary" music

Tiger wrote:

1. I didn't know you were 40 years old

In fact, I haven't reached that point yet

Tiger wrote:

That being said, since you brought it up, if you are learned enough you cannot "afford" to just say boring, or rather you can do it perfectly well but you should also go further [...]

See, this is something that bothers me a lot (not from you specifically, eh! of course... ): because one can easily say "what a pain Liszt!" but if I say that piece is "boring" "I have to go further"? Frankly, I have never understood this thing and I continue not to understand it...

...I think it depends on the fact that a discussion is being held and that DrJellyFish is more interested in something other than ...my "iuuuhuu how beautiful", or your "what a pain".

I think this is clear to everyone and I must say that Frank has been particularly attentive to proposing interesting material that fits perfectly.

I am researching this piece, there is a world written about it ... and it gives me the impression of being a masterpiece.

Tiger wrote:

...I think it depends on the fact that a discussion is being held and that DrJellyFish is more interested in something other than ...my "yuuuhuu how beautiful," or your "what a pain."

You are right, I was right to stay out of it at the beginning, and I return to my self-exclusion, not before pointing out this statement of yours

Tiger wrote:

I am researching this piece [...] and it gives me the impression of being a masterpiece.

it is quite significant... if you hadn't researched it, you wouldn't have noticed that it is a masterpiece, but then again, are we sure that it is?"

Tiger wrote:

...I think it depends on the fact that a discussion is being held and that DrJellyFish is more interested in something other than ...my "yuuuhuu how nice," or your "what a pain."

in what sense? I meant to say that we should go beyond what we like instinctively.

but maybe I understood what you meant

thallo wrote:

i am only telling you one thing... which will probably make me even more unpleasant to those who already consider me unpleasant

the thing that surprises me most about discussions on contemporary music is the almost total absence of argumentative ability in most detractors. To tell the truth, it is something I find in ALL discussions about music, and it is probably the consequence of poor teaching in certain subjects (philosophy first and foremost).

What is argumentation? It is the ability to support, credit, and provide evidence in favor (or against) a thesis. It should be the "younger sister" of demonstration, which is a logical-mathematical principle: it is presupposed (often as an axiom) that the demonstration leads to the truth; argumentation, on the other hand, only increases the strength, credibility, or plausibility of a thesis. One can say with mathematical certainty that 1+1 equals 2, and one can say so for specific reasons (namely, that such formulation is consistent with the axiomatization of Peano arithmetic). One can argue with credibility that radiation is harmful to human health (even if it is not certain that all humans react in the same way to radioactive exposure).

Arguing is harder than demonstrating, given that one is not dealing with axioms or logical formalizations. This is why those who want to do it well must study, and those who do it well are very difficult to refute...

Now... Vitrus says

[/font][/color]

Where is the argumentation?? For what reason unknown to me is the repetition of a listening somehow linked to the aesthetic value of a composition??? Is it written in the Allorto? In the great book of life? Did Sauron of Mordor say it? Is it possible that you do not see these argumentative gaps in your assertions? I know that maybe you have lives and don't care much about the logical strength of your sentences, but it is frustrating... try to be right, dammit!

this is the response to GazzJazz who says:

"You make me think of when at school I used to try to reveal to my classmates that listening to Genesis (just one example) was much more pleasant for me than listening to most of the light music broadcast on the radio, and that it would probably have become so for them too if they had had the patience to listen to it a couple more times... It is not just a matter of taste, but also of willingness to listen and trust in others"

And then, isn't it the listener who gives aesthetic value to the work, or not?, perhaps after the first listening or after repeated listenings.. or not?

Then if a work always makes you ca..re (three listenings I believe are sufficient), well... that is the value that the listener attributes to that work."

Carlos wrote:

it is rather significant... if you hadn't researched it, you wouldn't have realized that it is a masterpiece, but then again, are we sure that it is?

On the contrary, I did research it precisely because I had glimpsed great potential in that piece and I felt the lack of having ignored a work of this magnitude for a lifetime.

Vitrus wrote:

And then, it's the listener who gives aesthetic value to the work, or not?, maybe after the first listen or after repeated listens.. or not?

Then if a work always ca..es (three listens I believe are sufficient), well... that is the value that the listener attributes to that work.

I don't think aesthetics are decided by the listener, but depend on many factors (historical-cultural); the composer expresses themselves within that aesthetic.

I think the value attributed by the listener is a matter of taste; it takes something more to arrive at attributing an intellectual value. Are we all reminding ourselves that we are talking about art music? Many get bored even listening to a Gregorian melody... I remember a topic on "Hildegard von Bingen"... and yet the Liber Usualis is such a complex work that 3 listens to a tiny piece are a drop in the ocean.

Tiger wrote:

...I think it depends on the fact that a discussion is being held and that DrJellyFish is more interested in something other than ...my "iuuuhuu how beautiful," or your "what a pain."

... I also included a judgment of taste in the feedback (... Doc isn't the only one in the discussion). I had even made some predictions ... but 2 opinions are too few.

Carlos wrote:

are we sure that it is?

I don't know if it's a provocation or not, I know there are several regulars of that kind in the forum for whom I wouldn't want anyone to take offense... given the tone of the discussion, I am speaking in general terms and not referring to any of the parties involved.

In the meantime, it is certainly a milestone of electronic music literature; it is a relevant work and a fundamental turning point.

We are talking about 30 years ago now; the speed of technology is supersonic, 30 years is a very long time... think about what systems were like in the '80s and how technology has massively entered our homes.

That it has value, I don't think is up for debate, as with Beethoven's great escape, but one can talk about it (for those who have doubts and wish to).

I would like to make a clarification regarding the term avant-garde, which has one meaning semantically, but in the musical environment it is generally a term used to refer to music from a certain historical period that is now outdated. Current (contemporary) music is light-years away from that aesthetic.

To be clear, there is also the Latin term “nova”, combined with the word art and expressed in Latin as “ars nova,” which identifies the music of the 14th century and certainly not "new art" in a semantic sense... meaning new and therefore from today.

In general, we must distinguish between conservatives and conservatories in relation to where music is truly going.

That being said, the legendary DrJellyFish asks for enlightenment on the criteria for evaluating contemporary music... which is neither dodecaphony, nor serialism, nor structuralism, nor minimalism.

Let's return to the technological discussion, to the relationship of technology with everyday life, to the various cultural evolutions... let's retrace the history of the last century.

2 world wars (never before existed), Auschwitz, electricity, psychoanalysis, etc., have led to the maturation of different aesthetics that have mutated more and more progressively and frenetically.

Today I think that those who have most carried tradition forward, constantly renewing and codifying it, are precisely the jazz musicians.

But it must also be said that by now, and it has been this way for a while, that we are in the "third practice"; one cannot pretend that electronic music does not exist, so it is an area that I urge you to cultivate.

But not because it is a duty, because you hear it everywhere now... today there are not only problems related to language, and I think a musician today must understand and know about it.

One last thing, I would also like to give my feedback after the first listen to that piece (I am talking about Harvey); I liked it to the point that, as a composer, I had the temptation to record the sound of the death knells in my town and write my own requiem.

A bit like when Bach takes Legrenzi's subject and creates the Bach-Legrenzi fugue. The bells are the subject, the development is on the spectra, on the formants..., etc.

It immediately provided me with a lot of creative stimuli, a feeling that I don't know to what extent I recognize (in the sense I mean and which, I admit, is difficult to explain rationally) an interpreter... mostly because I have been through it too.

The immediate next step was to perform an analysis by researching documentation

... but I also wanted feedback from others, because it is a field that interests me and the fact that Carlos gets bored with me is an important datum. In short, I would like to go beyond the tiresome dispute

Frank wrote:

That it has value, I don't think is a matter of debate, as with Beethoven's Great Fugue, but one can talk about it (for those who have doubts and wish to).

No, it wasn't a provocation; it was a totally honest consideration. Let's start from a fact, namely that I had no idea who Jonathan Harvey was, nor had I ever heard that piece before, obviously. After three minutes I got tired and turned it off, but before you say "ah well! but if you didn't even know who he was..." or things like that, I'll stop you right there, because I think I have listened to enough of everything not to be a novice (after all, I said "boring," not bad or things like that - saying "bad" is out of fashion nowadays...).

Why is the value of the piece "not a matter of debate"? From what is it deduced? From the effect it has on the listener? From its historical significance? From its influence on the music that followed? From all three things together? The first time I listened to the Great Fugue (since we are talking about that too), I had no doubt that I was facing a masterpiece, even if I didn't understand it (I was sixteen, though...) and the same happened when I first listened to Pierrot Lunaire, which everyone around here knows I don't like at all - but it has nothing to do with it: it is no less a masterpiece because I don't like it, nor would it be more so if I did - but even in that case, I had no doubt: Pierrot Lunaire is a masterpiece, even if I don't like it. What I mean is that subjective opinion, the judgment of taste, must neither nor can it undermine in an "expert" the objective consideration of the work's value, which means that I can easily say that Harvey's piece is boring, but I won't be able to deny being faced with a masterpiece should I realize it. In this case, honestly, I find it really difficult to consider that piece a masterpiece, but don't take it the wrong way...

Carlos wrote:

The first time I listened to the Great Fugue (since we are also talking about that one) I had no doubt that I was facing a masterpiece

...one of the few, there are those who claim that Beethoven indeed does not know how to write a fugue

Whether an individual notices it or not is irrelevant; Chopin himself considered himself a piano master ...and that's it (and he was a genius and wrote masterpieces) ... without offense to anyone, but if even he can be wrong ...

Carlos wrote:

, but don't take it personally...

...if it were my piece, perhaps hypersensitivity would take over, but in essence it is just your problem

Frank wrote:

... I also included a judgment of taste in the feedback (... there isn't just Doc in the discussion). I had even made some predictions ... but 2 opinions are too few.

In fact, I gave my feedback ... then I got carried away

Frank wrote:

Given this, the legendary DrJellyFish asks for enlightenment on the criteria for evaluating contemporary music … which is neither dodecaphony, nor serialism, nor structuralism, nor minimalism

...I was only giving examples. Here it seems that everyone knows what contemporary music is, but no one knows how to define it. Oh well!

Tiger wrote:

Here it seems that everyone knows what contemporary music is, but no one knows how to define it. Oh well!

... could it be that a thing is defined when it is consolidated, and by definition contemporaneity is "live"...?

... could it be that theory always arrives after practice...?

I am timidly inserting myself, contemporaneity is made by composers... and not by performers or rather, they co-participate but don't truly make it.

However, I am not 100% convinced of this idea of mine ...I'm just throwing it out there.

AbateFaria wrote:

I am stepping in timidly, contemporaneity is made by composers... and not by performers or rather, they co-participate but do not truly make it.

However, I am not 100% convinced of this idea of mine ...I'm just throwing it out there.

In jazz musicians, [it] coexists

Frank wrote:

Today I think that those who have most carried the tradition forward, continuously renewing and codifying it, are precisely the jazz musicians.

Thank you for the tribute, sometimes it seems to me that composers snub us a little... I might be wrong...