Hindemith versus Schönberg: tonality and gravity

micamahler wrote:

Of course Messiaen was avant-garde, he certainly was.

Well, the only avant-garde work he did, he disowned... you decide

The rest is modality and rhythm... all taken from tradition for his own use and consumption. In fact, Darmstadt even managed to ignore him... oh well, a missed opportunity for them...

... long live music

Open content (youtube)

Maybe I misunderstood, but it seemed to me that music was being discussed in general and not specifically about Messiaen and that particular piece of his.

That being said, it's not as if if Messiaen disavows one of his avant-garde pieces, then the avant-garde is no good because Messiaen has disavowed it.

Anyway, if we were talking about that single piece by Messiaen, then okay; I apologize for not understanding the topic, I thought it referred to something else, to a broader scope of composers; maybe I misunderstood.

long live music (to quote shark)

Open content (youtube)

these useless discussions cyclically return...

thallo wrote:

these useless discussions cyclically return...

So useless that Micamahler himself says here

http://www.pianoconc...ca-doggi-2013/

micamahler wrote:

I wasn't there, but last year I saw them perform the same concert proposed here and there were at most 15 spectators...

...of course, it wasn't just the composer (deceased)...but 15 people in such a large square and for a composer who should be God knows who... mmmhmm.

I wonder how many musicians are already wandering around there, not to mention those who could have come from outside...

Perhaps someone is counting their chickens before they hatch... namely, the ears of the recipients of their own works.

RedScharlach wrote:

long live music (to quote shark)

In short, a Hanon-style exercise ... now that they have experimented with what noises they can create with their instruments, they will finally be able to put them at the service of a bit of music

Too bad they didn't include the listeners... but were there any?

Shark wrote:

Pity they didn't record the listeners... but were they there?

i was there

Shark, excuse me, you are right. This discussion is fundamental for world culture; I am surprised that there isn't a European funding program for research on the number of spectators at avant-garde concerts or on sarcasm regarding other people's music. Conservatories and universities should talk about it! We should create collective mockery programs; all my teachers always told me that to become good musicians, it is FUNDAMENTAL to speak ill of the music we don't like, of how much it has made the surrounding world bad, of how only we are cool, beautiful, in tune, and creative. Absolutely crucial, then, is setting up the discourse between "us" and "them," possibly talking about a lobby, about ghost institutions that direct art history, favoring those we don't like and penalizing those we do like.

From my point of view, Micamahler's face at the mere presence of 15 spectators at a concert which he probably cared a lot about... says a lot... there is no use hiding behind a finger.

Even if this kind of discussion cyclically comes back into fashion, it is always an opportunity to try and bring some order.

In the meantime, referring to systems as such, a priori no one has anything more or less musical than others.

A necessary disclaimer because, as I said at the beginning of the topic, nothing in music is properly natural, from temperament to how harmonics are conceived and used, etc.

If we really want to talk about natural things, it is more obvious that noise is not artificial (including its sound structure).

Having clarified this, every composer is free to express themselves in the system that belongs to them most, but I would like to take a necessary step further.

There are areas where one must have developed greater musical sensitivity to enjoy listening, a sensitivity that ranges from those who only listen to pop music to those who can instead enjoy a piece of musique concrète. But clearly, I am simplifying.

I maintain this with full knowledge of the facts and would like to use microtonal music as an example. It happens to me that established professionals passionately claim that those who play microtonally are fundamentally "out of tune," in quotes because, according to these highly esteemed musicians, they imply that if one cannot be perfectly in tune when playing a violin, perhaps it is better to dedicate oneself to an area where a (to put it bluntly) falling or rising intonation is the rule.

Instead, what happens is that a microtonal musician (obviously I am not referring, for example, to keyboardists who cannot directly demonstrate this ability or incompetent ones... but equally highly esteemed musicians) has the ability to divide the tone into more parts and not just 2. Because if you make a violinist specialized in microtonal music play a perfect fifth, they can play it as well as non-tempered intervals... the opposite generally does not happen.

That being said, I quote an interview that I reported in the Jazz section regarding Stockhausen

Frank wrote:

Just out of curiosity, in an interview with Jazz Magazine (June 1975) he said:

"It seems to me that today's best jazz musicians maintain a relationship with their instrument and their work that is substantially much more idealistic than the attitude of most musicians in classical orchestras. [...] I try to make them understand, and it is sometimes difficult, that we are first and foremost musicians and only secondarily make a certain type of music [...]"

Why do I include him specifically? Because he is without a doubt the only composer to have explored, experimented with, and cultivated all the important fields of musical research after the fifties. In all fields, he opened new paths and, taking his responsibilities—for example against the Nazi aesthetic order—he surpassed neoclassical stucco, consequently assuming a critical attitude towards tradition and history.

During this period I am a bit busy, but I also read the topic

http://www.pianoconc.../2790-scommessa

Kontakte (by Stockhausen) is spoken of as if it were a work written by an alien, music from another planet very far from tradition, therefore unreachable in terms of understanding and listening even for professionals; a theme that seems recurring to me also in this topic.

Instead, I can assure you that it has a very traditional setting; the contents change, but the substance does not, and if anyone had doubts, I would be ready to demonstrate it.

So what changes? The sensitivity of the listener who finds themselves in front of this Egyptian pyramid and wonders how it was possible to build such a thing in the 27th century BC.

...and yet it was built and we can enjoy it, obviously for those who have the desire and pleasure.

Perhaps what happens is that in extreme cases—and here I share Messiaen's statements regarding integral serialism (though I am still waiting for the titles of the works you know that used this technique... if we reached 3 titles, it would already be an excellent result for me)—reminding us that for better or worse it is at the service of a certain aesthetic (let's not forget that in the end, this is what rules)—the composer has little margin of choice and thus little space to show their actual musicality. And anyway, it is not certain and would still need to be verified/demonstrated.

But setting aside these cases (does anyone have the courage to step up and cite 2 other works built with integral serialism?) more or less everyone has sought and seeks to engage their own musicality in the system that belongs to them most (returning to my double disclaimer).

Perhaps one does not feel the need, perhaps it is considered useless, perhaps a part of professionals have sufficient stimuli to want/need/be able to deepen everything in the

repertory (see composers, musicologists, performers endowed with "particular" (so as not to offend anyone) sensitivity) and consequently raise the threshold of musicality, which on average (thinking globally) is towards pop music, until reaching the most extreme cases... but then limits of what? Or what?

And despite everything, I know that this discussion is too tainted by a Western-centric view; I doubt it can hold true for other musical realities or, in any case, in a truly global world, an absolute beauty cannot exist. But not even in a single nation—we are in a forum frequented almost exclusively by Italians... let alone far beyond.

For me, the discussion about "niches" (lobby seems too derogatory) always holds true, and today more than ever; in my opinion, everyone should find their own little piece of the world and try to live in peace within it. In every sense.

Beyond the controversies... this is my very limited thought

Frank wrote:

Perhaps it happens that in extreme cases, and here I am sharing Messiaen's statements regarding integral serialism (for which I am still waiting for the titles of the works you know that utilized this technique… if we reached 3 titles, for me that would already be an excellent result) - reminding us that for better or worse it is at the service of a certain aesthetic (let's not forget that in the end, this is what rules) -, the composer has little margin of choice and thus little space to show their actual musicality. And anyway, it is not certain and would still need to be verified/demonstrated.

But excluding exactly these cases (...does anyone have the courage to step up and cite 2 other works built with integral serialism?) more or less everyone has sought and seeks to put their own musicality into play within the system that belongs to them most (returning to my double premise).

In what sense are you waiting for the titles?

Anyway, do you mean apart from Boulez and Stockhausen? There are quite a few serialists.

Or do you mean that there are few compositions that strictly respect total serialism?

In this second case, besides the aforementioned piece by Messiaen, I think of Boulez's Structures and perhaps some Klavierstücke by Stockhausen. And then we still have to see.

It is obvious that the more stringent the constraints, the fewer the possible worlds will be. As you say, the composer has less and less margin of choice. And it is also proven.

@Bianca

As others have observed, this type of discussion returns cyclically, and cyclically it seems that the problem with the world is structuralism (for which integral serialism is blamed)... given that works truly written with this system can be counted on one's fingertips, and if on one hand this should be the evil of the world, on the other hand a precise list never arrives... confirming that everything could be based on hearsay.

Therefore

Bianca wrote:

There are quite a few serialists

Of course, I also draw from serialism… so it's not as if only Boulez and Stockhausen are worth mentioning, but precisely, one was starting from a specific piece by Messiaen … therefore…

Frank wrote:

@Bianca

As others have observed, this type of discussion returns cyclically, and cyclically it seems that the problem with the world is structuralism (for which integral serialism)... given that the works truly written with this system can be counted on one's fingers, and if on one hand this should be the evil of the world, on the other hand a precise list never arrives... confirming that everything could be based on hearsay.

Therefore

Of course, I also draw from serialism… so it's not as if only Boulez and Stockhausen are worth mentioning, but precisely, one was starting from a certain piece by Messiaen … therefore…

Frank, I didn't quite understand what you mean... perhaps I lost the thread