If La Scala boos living composers

Shark, you are right, well done.

Frank wrote:

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

I have listened to the video, but now I am waiting for you to fulfill this commitment.

Ciao FranK!

Many, too many elements have emerged that sometimes struggle to fit together.

First of all, I would like to respond to Gino, who initially focuses on the accessibility of Contemporary Music.

We know well that a musical piece can have different levels of accessibility; each level brings in a certain number of listeners. To play along and simplify from one extreme, there is pop music, and from the other, contemporary music. But there is always a "but!". History has taught us that a piece can reach different target audiences simultaneously; Beethoven teaches us this, for example, with the Fifth (perhaps less so with the Great Fugue, since it has been cited), as well as Chopin in various works that have now entered the ears of even the most "crude" listener. (Shall we talk about Mozart?)

In my opinion, up to this point, the argument holds water... Gino writes, Lachenmann writes, and everyone chooses their own target audience.

I strongly suggest seizing this opportunity: does Lachenmann make listeners flee from the concert halls? Well, what better context to propose that music which would instead make them return and stay? This is the best moment; step forward.

Let's say that up to here the argument can still stand; it is just a matter of choices and opportunities that anyone can seize.

But immediately after, "unfortunately" it seems that the fault lies with "disconnected images"; thus, to plead the cause, even "poor" technique can contribute greatly—the issue is objective, there is no escaping it: "the proposed images are disconnected". The point is that the images could be connected and the audience might be unable to correlate them (as typically happens with Bach's more demanding works, all Flemish music, all dodecaphonic music, etc... this goes somewhat hand-in-hand with Red's question, obviously without an answer), so dear Daniele, everyone will stick to their own opinion if we limit ourselves to taste, but if we move to the technical side, whoever is right always emerges; it is a technicality, an objective matter, if the relationships are there: They ARE there! (if that were not the case, the value of the music of the last of the pupils would be comparable to that of Bach, but we know that's not how it works; Bach is one thing and everything else is another).

Turning back to us...

...so if the images are disconnected, people flee from the halls, but what if the images are connected and people continue to flee from the halls? It has been trivially written about excellent music with a level of enjoyment so high that it makes the piece only proposable to an audience of experts (Dear Gino). Which is not a bad thing; it is just a choice made by the composer. Everyone has the audience they Deserve, and nowadays anyone can make themselves known if they want, so it takes only a moment to outdo Lachenmann, if one has the ability.

Following my video, which I posted precisely because I believe the center of the discussion is not complexity but levels of enjoyment, another discussion started regarding how to write today.

In my opinion, the best analysis was made by Penderecki, as you may remember

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/2935-intervista-esclusiva-al-maestro-krzysztof-penderecki-in-occasione-dei-suoi-80-anni/

I have always wondered why his last few minutes of interview did not provoke reactions, and while I do not feel like saying absolutely anything (Shark) to the Penderecki in question, as they were a congenital part of the avant-garde—in fact, they created the avant-garde and that is their music, their style! And it can be so until the end of their days. Not all composers change styles like Stockhausen; others remain faithful to themselves like Mozart.

Frankly, lately I am starting to not quite understand the traditionalists (who "coincidentally" always arrive later) because they are almost even worse than the anachronists; the latter at least are aware of what they are.

In the '80s there was the advent of the Internet; today everyone is connected, masses from every part of the world can easily reach anything from any part of the world with a click. This is a fact; the composer can no longer afford the luxury of thinking of music for a single target audience. Or rather, they can do it because fortunately there is still freedom, but it shows a lack of sensitivity toward today's reality. Today much music remains interesting, so one can forgive them everything... but my point of view is that the composer must at least live in the present, and certain music for me (and not just for me) is part of the past... with the penalty that it truly interests too few people. I can already see the smirks; make an effort and write an interesting work that also reaches people other than a small group of composers and performers dedicated to the cause, because the world today is different.

And indeed, even"

Whoever created it and contributed to its spreading over time realizes it, and from which great artists, who are they, besides admitting this fact, some have adapted their style to the needs of the times.

I am certain that many will dissent, but in my eyes there are too many signs to ignore: when something is taught in a conservatory, there are courses like “Performance practice of contemporary music”, etc. … most likely all this "contemporary" no longer exists and as always, listen to the speeches of those who are still considered the greatest living composers.

Someone will then say to me, but then what to do? For now, pull out Adam's attributes and be yourself. Penderecki at the end of his video says phrases like, one today cannot … cannot … cannot. That is not necessarily true. And it is precisely today that one can do whatever they please. And in fact, as someone reminds us, it is quite in crisis. Like all great artists who understand when it is time to change.

I close by reminding Gino of this topic, it will surely provide him with other elements for reflection

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/2017-il-fatto-che-simili-opere-restino-inaccessibili-alla-massa-e-forse-una-necessita

I will begin my reflection by saying that I have read everything, but I cannot, at least for the moment, find the time to watch Lachenmann's one hour and twenty minute interview.

It seems to me that we are back to the usual... Everyone has their own point of view and I see it as difficult to prove on paper who is right and who is wrong; probably everyone is right in their own reasoning.

I feel compelled to say that if a composer today were to compose only for the approval of an audience, then they should certainly turn to House music, erase all learned harmonic notions which would serve no purpose in that context, considering that this genre of music is "written" by people to whom, when speaking of notes, you say: "Talk to me about frequencies!" (This actually happened to me, it's not a joke). I mean... What are we talking about? It is obvious that a composer composes music out of a need to express themselves, just as a painter, a sculptor, etc., does. I remember with great melancholy a village artist who is no longer with us, who did not have much technical training, relied on instinct, and created sculptures without even having the necessary basics to chip away at stone. He lived with his son who was never home, always alone and somewhat underestimated by everyone as if he were the village madman. Sometimes, when I spent a few days in the village and found myself walking around, I would stop to talk to him, and it was very easy to realize that despite not having received an adequate education, it would take 20 brains of his fellow villagers to make one of his. He liked to talk about Philosophy, about science, and with great humility he also listened to the opinions of others; he had no way to talk much with other people who often, in fact, avoided him.

Why did I tell this story? Because in my opinion, the figure of the artist must be identified; because today we complain that artists are not being paid, but on the other hand, we seem to defend those who produce things that are not liked. A further classification must be made between what is liked today and what POTENTIALLY COULD be liked in 100 years. We live in the present and we must reason in the present. If we complain that artists are not being paid, we cannot fail to take into account today's tastes... Does this mean having to propose disco music? Obviously not, because I am always of the idea that beauty is subjective within certain limits; a beautiful thing is a beautiful thing, but it must be identified within a context. Who, in your opinion, would listen today—where everything we do is driven to an exhausting speed and rhythm, where there is no longer time to do everything—to music with an instruction manual (see a composition by Stockhausen)? Perhaps one day, as someone has said, some compositions will be revalued, while today they can only be appreciated by industry professionals, but then let's not be surprised if they get boos at the first opportunity. What did they expect, knowing the market?

I completely agree with Frank regarding the discussion related to technicalities. There it is objective, there is little to be done, but pleasure is not something correlated to technique. A trend is liked if it is statistically demonstrable that a large percentage of individuals like it. I might like something even if it is technically wrong. I might like a tennis player for their game even if they are not technically perfect (see Nadal, technically a woodcutter who only hits topspin, and Federer, technically priceless but no longer number 1 in the world).

Now, if I launch a product to be put on the market without taking today's market into account, I have failed; that is a fact. If, instead, I launch a product onto the market disregarding the market but doing it for my own personal need, then I have won. We must understand what the artist's expectations are. The artist from my little village did not have the expectation of pleasing people, but he behaved like that and did what he did because in his solitude with his paintings and his sculptures, he was well and felt like himself... He won.

Thanks Frank.

I should preface that I substantially agree with what you have written.

We know well that a piece of music can have different levels of accessibility; each level brings in a certain number of listeners. To play along and simplifying from one extreme, there is pop music, and on the other, contemporary music. But there is always a "meh!". History has taught us that a piece can reach different target audiences simultaneously; Beethoven teaches us this, for example, with the Fifth (perhaps less so with the Great Fugue, since it has been cited), as does Chopin in various works that have now become part of the repertoire of even the most "crude" listener. (Shall we talk about Mozart?)

In my opinion, up to this point, the argument holds up... Gino writes, Lachenmann writes, and everyone chooses their own target audience.

I strongly suggest seizing this opportunity: does Lachenmann drive listeners away from concert halls? Fine, what better context to propose that music which would instead make them return and stay? This is the best moment; step forward.

Let's say that up to here, the argument can still stand; it is merely a matter of choices and opportunities that anyone can seize.

But immediately after, "unfortunately," it seems as though the fault lies with "disconnected images"; then, to argue the cause, even "poor" technique can contribute greatly. The issue is objective, there is no escaping it: "the proposed images are disconnected." The point is that the images could be connected and the audience might be unable to correlate them (as typically happens with Bach's more demanding works, all Flemish music, all dodecaphonic music, etc... this pairs somewhat with Red's question, obviously without an answer), so dear Daniele, everyone will stick to their own opinion if we limit ourselves to taste, but if we move to the technical side, whoever is right always emerges; it is a technicality, an objective matter, if the relationships exist: They DO Exist! (if that were not the case, the value of the music of the last of the students would be comparable to that of Bach, but we know that's not how it works; Bach is one thing and everything else is another).

Certainly, one of the colossal differences between the times in which Mozart, Beethoven, and Chopin composed lies in the fact that their product was not accessible to everyone—as happened in the twentieth century—but only to those who could access the venues designated for musical performance. Only since the last century, therefore, can even the music of these composers—or certain music—become pop, but who can tell us what would have happened in their time if it had been possible for everyone to approach it? I think this reasoning is essential regardless of how it relates to contemporary music.

I am certain that if we move to the technical side, the discussion can already indicate who is right and who is wrong and, personally, I have no doubt as to who that is. But, in truth, what I would have wanted to avoid was yet another sterile opposition between various ideas which, as always, will lead to nothing changing. Therefore, I prefer to embrace Claudio's idea: let's go listen to the music we like most, but let's try not to say things that might just be great nonsense.

A part that I deliberately omitted in my post (so as not to complicate the discussion further) relates to the choices of a concert program. You say, and I even agree, of course:

danielescarpetti wrote:

andiamo ad ascoltare la musica che più ci piace .

What is the idea behind a concert program that pairs Lachenmann with Beethoven?

from what I understood, there were Beethoven's late sonatas. And Beethoven's late sonatas can, in a certain sense, be considered close to the heart of a certain avant-garde. I probably wouldn't have chosen Lachenmann, but I imagine that whoever chose that program was more than capable of justifying it. And I say this because it is never so difficult to justify the most absurd pairings...

...perhaps we have found those to whom the boos were meant to be directed"

But thinking about it carefully, having read all the posts. In short, the 'hairy ladies' have managed, in a certain sense, to appreciate what can be considered the heart of a certain avant-garde. If the lady can understand this... she can also understand Lachenmann. Paradoxically, in this discussion, the hairy lady has expressed a judgment that is even credible.

Oh, let's not talk about Per Elisa, Clair de Lune, or the Fifth Symphony.

Where is the point?

It is quite common, in programs, to pair pieces from the classical repertoire with contemporary ones. This is for two reasons: the first, a certain lack of confidence on the part of theatrical institutions in the ability of contemporary music to fill the theater—a very unnoble and questionable reason—and then because it is thought that—who knows, perhaps?—the average classical music listener might also be enlightened on the road to Damascus. "You know, the other night I went to listen to Beethoven's latest sonatas. In the first part, there was also a certain Lachenmann. I must tell you, I didn't mind it at all!" Sometimes things... just happen!

danielescarpetti wrote:

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

the Milan audience is among the most provincial in the world, but it has the pretension, unlike others, of manifesting its perfect ignorance in the musical field. It happens to clap its hands raw while applauding a mediocrely interpreted Beethoven and to hiss at anything that might deviate from the habitual sound of the instruments. If they continue at this rate, there are already so few young people left who look at Italy.

Dear Xenakis,

"It is difficult, faced with such a spectacle, not to recall the words of Alessandro Baricco, when in L'Anima di Hegel e le mucche del Wisconsin, mocking contemporary music, he observed that even the cultural terrorism of the sixties and seventies had failed to make it loved, and that ultimately the world of art music only keeps it afloat because it finds there the alibi of its own apparent participation in the present." (Cit.)

Pollini Project, it surely must have weighed into the choice of the program

http://www.teatroallascala.org/it/prenota/abbonamenti/tipologie-abbonamento/ciclo-straordinario-progetto-pollini.html

Having read the program, seen the contents and wanting to be provocative... was it only Lachenmann who was booed?

Shark wrote:

Dear Xenakis,

"It is difficult, in the face of such a spectacle, not to recall the words of Alessandro Baricco, when in *Hegel's Soul and the Cows of Wisconsin*, mocking contemporary music, he observed that even the cultural terrorism of the sixties and seventies had failed to make it loved, and that ultimately the world of art music only keeps it afloat because it finds there the alibi of its own apparent participation in the present." (Cit.)

Bravo Shark, nice comment. Especially that "dear" before Xenakis, when I imagine that Xenakis is not dear to you at all, neither the user nor the composer. Your irony always leaves me speechless

danielescarpetti wrote:

the umpteenth sterile opposition between various ideas which, as always, will lead to no change.

it is a matter of asymptotes

thallo wrote:

Well done Shark, nice comment. Especially that "dear" before Xenakis, when I imagine that Xenakis is not dear to you at all, neither the user nor the composer. Your irony always leaves me speechless

But on the contrary Thallo, there are very "funny" things about Xenakis. To everyone it will evoke something I imagine... so imagine...

Open content (youtube)