If La Scala boos living composers

What can I say? In my opinion, those who shout "shame" should be ashamed. But I am asking too much!

And what if it were the composers who should be a little ashamed of proposing such unlistenable music?

I mean: it's fine to experiment with new languages, it's fine to use "unprecedented" effects (which then soon become stereotypes themselves, and therefore "old"), but when all the elements that constitute music are removed from music, when neither harmony (and progressions...) nor any recognizable melodic element remains (and here it becomes a bit harder...), finally when even rhythm is eliminated, what remains? Pure sound effects, not even that pleasant. It's no wonder that classical music enthusiasts (the few who are left) gladly go to listen to Beethoven, even knowing they will have to suffer a little listening to other things (but then the ears adjust, thank goodness...)

As for the "non-experts"... how can we complain if the general public flees from concert halls and spends a lot of money to go to a Sports Arena to listen to certain minimalist riffraff producing crappy little tunes? I don't want to defend these characters, but what appetizing alternative is "high-brow" music capable of offering?

Let's go back to writing something that can truly be called "music," and perhaps the boos will decrease.

Gino (ignorant and unknown composer, but lover of music)

Dear Gino, it is my understanding that Beethoven was practically kicked in the ass when he presented the great fugue; not to mention what they would have liked to throw at Stravinsky when he presented the Rite. As for Bach, they said his dissonances were anti-musical and prevented enjoyment—guess what? Of melody.

Therefore, it is too convenient to evaluate the feedback of today's audience on music from 2 or 3 centuries ago; one should compare the boos at La Scala to those Beethoven received in his time.

Here, it is not a question of being unknown or ignorant composers, but a question of comparing apples with apples and pears with pears.

PS

Pleasantness is a subjective thing; you might not like something, while others ...and maybe even find it too pleasant.

Of course... there have been failures in every era and we know that very well. The boos at the premiere of Le Sacre du Printemps have remained in history (but if that's the case, even the premiere of The Barber of Seville was a disaster), and we know well that every innovative language arouses (at least at the beginning) little admiration and much scandal. Therefore, one could make the usual argument: Bach was not appreciated in his time (true up to a certain point), certain pieces by Beethoven, especially from his late period, were not understood (partly true, but the premiere of the 9th Symphony was a success), today we have almost metabolized the so-called "historical twentieth century," in the sense that listening to Bartók, Hindemith, Stravinsky and others no longer bothers us much. Therefore, it would only be a matter of time: it took decades to accept the greats; perhaps those who come in a hundred years will appreciate today's music as we appreciate that of one or two centuries ago (or even earlier). However, some doubts remain for me. You see, you stigmatized the use of the adjective "pleasant," which I had just thrown out there in my message; perhaps you thought that my yardstick for judgment was the "pleasantness" of the music. It is not exactly like that; a musical work can be of great value even if it does not respond to certain canons of "immediate pleasure in listening," canons that are also very subjective. And yet I wonder what is so interesting and innovative about destroying all the elements of music. A modern architect finds solutions that may seem "extravagant," ideas that a colleague from centuries ago would not have even dreamed of, and not only because of the different techniques available. Therefore, if you enter a building built according to "modern" taste, you can well appreciate it, knowing perfectly well that it is not comparable to a great cathedral built in the Middle Ages. But imagine if a building were just a pile of bricks and other construction elements scattered here and there. Would that seem like art to you? Perhaps yes... but what do you do with such a "building"? Or think about cinema. There too, languages have evolved, and today's great directors are not comparable to the pioneers of silent film, nor even to Camerini or De Sica. So, it is perfectly fine to do new things, but what would you say if one went beyond the limits of any intelligibility of the work? If I paid a ticket to hear only strange noises and disconnected images? Would you still call it "cinema," or would you use Fantozzi-esque epithets to qualify such stuff? Well, I have the impression that much current music has now been reduced to pure noise, which evokes no emotion. That is why I mentioned the "general public" who then necessarily turn to other genres of music, obviously deleterious to taste and art, but which serve a purpose where a true alternative is lacking. Returning to the cinema example: if "modern" cinema were all disconnected images and sound effects without head or tail, then one could not complain if "normal" people went to see only the "cinepanettoni" [slapstick Christmas comedies]: they may not be much as "art," but at least they make you laugh.

Ciao

Gino

gpr wrote:

Or think about cinema. Even there, languages have evolved, and today's great directors are not comparable to the pioneers of silent film, nor even to Camerini or De Sica. In that case, it is perfectly fine to do new things, but what would you say if one went beyond the limits of any intelligibility of the work? If you paid for a ticket only to hear strange noises and disconnected images? Would you still call it "cinema," or would you use Fantozzi-esque epithets to qualify such stuff?

What do you think, just for example, of Inland Empire? Strange noises and disconnected images?

I think that Gino (not making generalizations, obviously) specifically means those who attempt to create scores with a haughty "graphic" style, excessively elaborate, with acoustic results that require a preface and technical explanation from the composer. In practice, it is necessary and right to try other solutions, perhaps taking risks (but without falling into the ridiculous), however, it should not be necessary to resort to the composer's own "dictionary" or to a press conference providing instructions for listening; in some cases, it is too much, an almost histrionic, haughty attitude that does not respond to the (equally legitimate) need of the listener to understand even a minimum of what they are hearing. There are very complex works that succeed (knowing that it is nonetheless a subjective aspect) in evoking sensations and emotions; others that seem like pure technicality pushed to the extremes.

The discussion, in and of itself, is now worn out and, as always, will lead to nothing. In the sense that Gino will rightly remain in his positions and Kappa and Red, rightly in theirs.

Who is right and who is wrong then?

For the writer, in principle Kappa and Red, but I am now too aware that one never gets anywhere from these discussions.

The truth is that, as often happens and, I presume, as will always happen, it will be time, and thus future generations, that will decide what will survive of our time and what will inevitably fall into oblivion.

However, it would be important to try not to fall into partisan extremes, which are always wrong; and by this I mean to Gino that just like Beethoven's Great Fugue and Stravinsky's Sacred Monologues, even today's works could one day be considered cornerstones of music, regardless of the intensity of the audience following them today. Therefore, I would be at least cautious about asserting that all of today's music is just noise. Much of it is, but much of the rest is not, and it would be good to try to distinguish between the two things.

sorry for the delay

but at this point everything boils down to a single concept: if you buy the ticket, it's your own f***ing problem.

In 2014 we can easily look up information about the composers whose music we are going to listen to. Lachenmann is famous and studied; if the high-and-mighty ladies of La Scala were surprised by his style, then it's their fault—it would be like buying a lemon gelato and saying "damn, it's sour!". If, instead, there were idiots eager to spend money just to boo Lachenmann, then long live wealth and ignorance.

My advice is always the same: if you don't like this music, don't listen to it and don't come telling others that you are the keepers of the sacred fire of art and that you alone know what is good to listen to and what is not.

I don't mind Lachenmann....

I am now reading the developments of this discussion; before giving my opinion on the subject (which I hope to do shortly), I would like to submit the following

Helmut Lachenmann: my existential and musical journey

It really seems that Lachenmann possesses great intellectual honesty. How many composers today still live in the past and are unable to admit what he says with profound naturalness?

Before jumping to conclusions, we are talking about the relationship of contemporary music with the world of consumption which, says Lachenmann, has totally failed.

Open content (youtube)

I had the chance to listen to it Frank, and I must say that rereading Celibidache's “dated, historically finished, tied to his time” lesson from someone like Lachenmann is, in my opinion, a great piece of evidence!

Meditate people, meditate!

Shark wrote:

I had the chance to listen to it Frank, and I must say that rereading Celibidache's "dated, historically finished, tied to his time" lesson coming from someone like Lachenmann is, in my opinion, a great piece of evidence!

Meditate people, meditate!

In effect, it took 40 years to discover how useless, for a musician, a life spent chasing technique, virtuosity, and the effect that astonishes can be, and it "suggests" trying to pay attention, but lo and behold, nothing less than... to the music.

After the abrupt turn of Part, Penderecki, now HL ... we are finally evolving

I like that 40, Goffredo. One could say that if no one ever has the courage to free themselves from the ties and snares in the name of... "thus everyone does it" and therefore we are all forced to do as everyone else does... no one makes music anymore.

And indeed ... "music is dead"

[Celibidache was already saying it on December 31, 1974, in a little while it will be 40 years ago... there you go]

music died 40 years ago, so.

And if you tell me so, beautiful souls, then I must believe it...

You know, I think Celibidache, Part, Penderecki, Lachenmann are well-referenced enough to be credible ... but everyone is free to continue deluding themselves as they wish ... if they feel like it.

three of the people you mentioned are alive and composing. They are living proof that music is alive...

Exactly! As usual, we return to subjectivity; if this music isn't liked, why listen to it? And above all, why continue to repeat that it isn't liked? I can't stand metal, but that certainly doesn't mean I go to a forum to proclaim that metal is dead (then again, who would even care)

thallo wrote:

tre delle persone che hai citato sono vive e compongono. Sono la prova vivente che la musica è viva... 

In effetti il punto non è "che non compongono"...a parte che per Part e Penderecki vale anche come compongono oggi. HL é troppo "fresco"

Shark wrote:

In fact, the point is not "that they don't compose"... except that for Part and Penderecki, it also applies to whether they compose today. HL is too "fresh"

Penderecki, as I understand it, is not writing at this moment due to an artistic "crisis"; he even withdrew from the committee of a prestigious composition competition (replaced by Morricone).