ever leave a composer behind?

Dear Nigel,

The French School! This Poulenc effort is aiming to catch up on some of the music I knew from concerts more than twenty year s ago [which I might add included some Debussy], and so it is a natural thing: Organic spreading.

As for Claude Debussy, I did not undertsand any of it then, and still find it very difficult. Perhaps the real investigation of Poulenc and Ravel will open a door to Debussy, but his music seems very differtent to me.

I don't get Honneger, most Hindemth [I love Nobelissima Visione], almost any atonal piece [Berg Violin Concerto excepted], and so there is much to cover before I catch up with post-Romantic music!

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:
I hope you don't mind me asking what you think of Debussy. I don't remember ever seeing you write about his music, and wonder if this reflects a negative assessment, or simply a lack of interest. For my part, I remember being startled the first time I heard "Prelude a l'apres-midi...",

a lot of music historians say this Prelude is exactly where 20th century music begins.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
a lot of music historians say this Prelude is exactly where 20th century music begins.

Unfortunately for them the piece dates from 1894.


--

quote:

Originally posted by Todd A:

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
a lot of music historians say this Prelude is exactly where 20th century music begins.

Unfortunately for them the piece dates from 1894.


--

everything in music is determined by style and technique, not by calendar.

1894 is plenty close enough to 1900 to serve its purpose.

i'd hate to find a line of demarcation for the
21st century.

quote:

this is the strait-jacket i'm trying to break out of as a listener.

I would hardly think of myself as being in a straight-jacket (but maybe I am a little naive?). Does that mean that if I also do not derive pleasure or value from Madonna or Celine Dion or a whole host of "entertainers" of recent times and avoid them like the plague that I'm missing out on something? I'm just following a basic rule of thumb derived from marginal analysis; if the marginal benefit (pleasure) exceeds the marginal cost (pain) then I'm going to do more of the pleasurable activity; the converse is also true.

Furthermore, my view is that my time on earth is limited and finite. I don't have enough time to spend with the music I do enjoy already so I have to be wise about how I spend my time.

I drew the line in the sand many years ago by avoiding any composer that does not share in my core values. I need heart and soul and emotion and truth in my listening/playing experience. The 20th century music that I avoid is the type that seems to be contrived. Its philosophy was not to create music but to rally against it in protest. It says, "I'm going to just do the opposite of what was done and what has worked in the past". Much like a child who says no to something because they know you will say yes.

Having said this, I do not wish to knock any other forms of music. I'm just trying to say what works for me, that's all.

Regards,
Doug

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
everything in music is determined by style and technique, not by calendar.

Yet the historians you refer to are stuck on talking about it being the beginning of 20th Century music. That's a bit contradictory.

The Prelude is a radical, 19th Century work, not a 20th Century work, for the very simple reason that is was written in the 19th Century. You are far too enamored of academic labels, and if ever there was a totally irrelevant label with respect to musical style and technique, a century-based label is it. Totally useless.


--

quote:

everything in music is determined by style and technique, not by calendar.

Mike: I couldn't agree more.

Todd: Even if we were to be literal about this their is a problem with your reasoning. Debussy's Preludes were all written in the early 20th century (Book 1, I believe was published in 1910?). In fact, all the most revolutionary and forward looking music from Debussy mostly was written post 1900 (Images, Etudes, Preludes, Estampes).

Also, even though Debussy and Ravel mostly take credit for this new musical language or sound, I believe you can credit Franz Liszt for being an early pioneer in new musical transformations to the 20th century. Have a listen to Les jeux d'eaux a la Villa d'Este, for instance, from Liszt's 3rd set of Annees de Pelerinage from 1877. Then compare to Ravels "Jeux d'eau" or "Une barque sur l'ocean", and most of Debussy's Preludes or Images.

Regards,
Doug

quote:

Originally posted by Florestan:

quote:

this is the strait-jacket i'm trying to break out of as a listener.

I would hardly think of myself as being in a straight-jacket (but maybe I am a little naive?). Regards,
Doug

Hold on Doug, that's MY straight-jacket, not yours. didn't ever intend it to apply to you.
just used your quote as a "jumping off" point.

and self choice or not, you narrowed your musical horizons. everybody narrows their focus eventually.

basically, i'm making the transition from playing an instrument to being an audience, and am using my new-found lack of responsibility to broaden what i listen to. it won't last. but right now i'm grooving on not having to "punch in" to the practice room every evening, and seeking out new toys for my ears to play with
:-)

quote:

Originally posted by Florestan:
The 20th century music that I avoid is the type that seems to be contrived. Its philosophy was not to create music but to rally against it in protest. It says, "I'm going to just do the opposite of what was done and what has worked in the past". Much like a child who says no to something because they know you will say yes.

Regards,
Doug

well, none of that applies to hindemith, stravinsky, schoenberg, berg, webern, poulanc, and on and on ...

your using a 6" brush to paint a toothpick.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd A:

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
everything in music is determined by style and technique, not by calendar.

Yet the historians you refer to are stuck on talking about it being the beginning of 20th Century music. That's a bit contradictory.

The Prelude is a radical, 19th Century work, not a 20th Century work, for the very simple reason that is was written in the 19th Century. You are far too enamored of academic labels, and if ever there was a totally irrelevant label with respect to musical style and technique, a century-based label is it. Totally useless.


--

the best way to squeeze the most juice out of music is to keep an open mind. that includes accepting the conventions of the music discipline in order to understand the point of view it represents. in other words "When in Rome ...

if you can't do that, you are doomed to live in the smallest possible musical universe.

that's ok with most people.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
the best way to squeeze the most juice out of music is to keep an open mind. that includes accepting the conventions of the music discipline in order to understand the point of view it represents. in other words "When in Rome ...

if you can't do that, you are doomed to live in the smallest possible musical universe.

I'm not sure what this even means.

I'm not a music historian, and have no interest in becoming one, but to place such significance on the Prelude, and to call it in any way a "20th Century" work is goofy, however illustrious the academicians who label it thusly.

This conventional view also ignores a couple things. For instance, Liszt's Nuages Gris is surely as forward looking a work as the Prelude, and if one looks around the end of the 19th Century a bit more there are other forward looking works.

But even more the mere concept of 20th Century music is rather ridiculous. What style and technique similarities are there between the works of Pfitzner and Cowell, for instance? Or Dohnanyi and Cage? The 20th Century, and to a lesser extent the 21st Century thus far, saw the widest variety of styles and techniques so far. Recognizing that seems to expand the musical universe, not shrink it.


--

quote:

Originally posted by Todd A:
I'm not sure what this even means.
--

exactly so.
think on it.

quote:

As for Claude Debussy, I did not undertsand any of it then, and still find it very difficult. Perhaps the real investigation of Poulenc and Ravel will open a door to Debussy, but his music seems very differtent to me.

I think this must be right, as I tried Poulenc's solo piano music shortly after getting into Debussy's Preludes, etc. I thought it would be a short leap, but I struggled to like the Poulenc, and had to persevere for quite a while before I "got it". I'm not sure I could describe the difference though - my technical knowledge of music just ain't up to it!

Regards
Nigel

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:

quote:

As for Claude Debussy, I did not undertsand any of it then, and still find it very difficult. Perhaps the real investigation of Poulenc and Ravel will open a door to Debussy, but his music seems very differtent to me.

I think this must be right, as I tried Poulenc's solo piano music shortly after getting into Debussy's Preludes, etc. I thought it would be a short leap, but I struggled to like the Poulenc, and had to persevere for quite a while before I "got it". I'm not sure I could describe the difference though - my technical knowledge of music just ain't up to it!

Regards
Nigel

when all else fails, try to follow the lines - the melody - and let the harmony fall when it may.

i fell in love with poulenc playing his trio for horn, trombone and trumpet. charming little french country tunes for the trumpet that are absloute murder to play.

i find the same in his piano music, charming melody.

his writing for all manner of wind instruments is notable for how striking he can make them sound; always charming.

nobody ever had as much fun with clarinets and bassoons as poulenc.

as for debussy, you have to think of the harmonic structure of his music the way you think of color in a painting. it is totally in the service of producing an effect, maybe even an emotional feeling. it is a sea that the melodic lines swim in.

it is useful to listen to new music half asleep a few times - things leak into your ears and to your musical brain without exerting any effort.

and it always helps to clear your mind of everything but hearing what is being played in the moment.

be all about the sound.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
exactly so.
think on it.

No, please, enlighten me. You apparently live in a large, possibly gigantic, musical universe, and I'd like to understand how to get there.

Also, I'd really like to see how Pfitzner and Cowell use the same style and technique, since they are both 20th Century composers.



--

quote:

Originally posted by Todd A:
No, please, enlighten me.

I'd really like to see how Pfitzner and Cowell use the same style and technique, since they are both 20th Century composers.
--

well, you are the only person on earth i have heard to make the claim that in a century, there is or ever has been a single style. that is your premise, not mine.

in my musical world, there are only trends and tendencies that leak over the edges of a century like an overflowing cup.

but here are some things you could do, were you so inclined :

1 - buy a good music history and read it. don't take anything as gospel, take it all with a grain of salt - just another opinion to consider.

2 - for Pfitzner and Cowell, pick two favored works of similar length (and structure if possible), listen and attempt to identify "themes". how often are they repeated? what instruments are they played by? how far into the piece do they repeat? does the tempo change? what of loud / soft variations? when do they occur?

assemble your listening notes into an orderly format. compare your notes on the two works.
do you perceive any similarities?

3 - if you can, obtain some scores of music you like by Pfitzner and Cowell. if you can't read music, now is the time to learn! there is no rational way to compare the styles of two composers without referencing the music itself.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeeschman:
well, you are the only person on earth i have heard to make the claim that in a century, there is or ever has been a single style. that is your premise, not mine.

Utter, disingenuous nonsense; I never made any such statement, nor is it my premise at all. You have posted such lines as “everything in music is determined by style and technique, not by calendar” and “a lot of music historians say this Prelude is exactly where 20th century music begins.” There is no such thing as “20th Century music”, in classical or any other broad category of music. As the 20th Century progressed, the differences in style and technique varied quite widely. I selected Pfitzner and Cowell for very specific reasons, and I can only assume that you are unfamiliar with the music of one or both, because your didactic suggestions would be of interest to very few people (if anyone) trying to find the similar style and techniques used by these two. Perhaps you could explain something similar comparing two better known figures – Webern and Korngold, say.


--

quote:

Originally posted by Todd A:
Perhaps you could explain something similar comparing two better known figures – Webern and Korngold, say.
--

actually, you have to let me pick the two composers. see, i'm not really interested in having you dictate how i spend my precious music time. i get to do that for myself.

if you find what i write ridiculous or offensive, don't engage me. i don't have the time or patience for that. i spend my music time on music. and i am interested in cultivating relationships on this forum with like minded souls.

incidentally "I selected Pfitzner and Cowell for very specific reasons, and I can only assume that you are unfamiliar with the music of one or both, because your didactic suggestions would be of interest to very few people (if anyone) trying to find the similar style and techniques used by these two."

based on your recommendation, i wouldn't listen to either of these.

:-)

quote:

I'm not a music historian, and have no interest in becoming one, but to place such significance on the Prelude, and to call it in any way a "20th Century" work is goofy, however illustrious the academicians who label it thusly.

I could be completely wrong on this but for the benefit of those who might have lost the train of thought here.....

Todd: I believe the earlier reference to the Preludes was referring to "Debussy's" Preludes, NOT "Preludes" as a form, in general. Hence, this is why I corrected you earlier about the year composed (not 1894 but 1910 and forward). In the context of Debussy's Preludes, whether you agree or not, they were really responsible for forming the bedrock of a new sound world, that of Impressionism. Of course, things don't happen just overnight. Things were shaping up for this in the latter couple of decades of the 19th century. This is roughly when Post Romanticism was taking shape. What was happening though was that there were those who wanted to hold onto the Romantic roots and those who wanted to take radically new directions. The same thing was happening with art, literature, etc. and not just in music. Knowing a little bit of history never hurt anyone....

quote:

But even more the mere concept of 20th Century music is rather ridiculous. What style and technique similarities are there between the works of Pfitzner and Cowell, for instance? Or Dohnanyi and Cage? The 20th Century, and to a lesser extent the 21st Century thus far, saw the widest variety of styles and techniques so far. Recognizing that seems to expand the musical universe, not shrink it.

Todd: 20th century music is more than a mere concept; it is a fact. I don't understand the logic in denying this? To reiterate what I alluded to in earlier posts the most prominent part of 20th century music (especially the first 3 or 4 decades) saw a very distinct group of individuals whose sole purpose was to rebel or be "anti" romantic. Some resorted rather to 18th century concepts but they didn't want to recognize Romanticism. This camp believed Romanticism had exhausted itself. The interesting thing is that this group was rebelling against Romantic ideals in music/art/literature etc. because they believed "Art" & ones inner feelings shouldn't mix. This is why I have trouble with this style because it comes off exactly how they desired; it is typically cold, devoid of any human feeling/sentiment etc. (this is only my own personal feeling). That is why I said I have basically left these composers behind. And to this day I still see this divide in the general populus. It seems most who hail Baroque/Classicism will outrightly avoid Romanticism. If anything they would next go to the 20th century (Glenn Gould is an obvious example).

As for your other comments about style and structure / and the bit about the widest variety of styles & techniques....I'm just not sure I can agree with this either. Most 20th century music is very easily identified and it seems to all follow a relative similar structure and sound (I am mainly talking about the Atonal group and most everything after 1940.)

quote:

Originally posted by Florestan:
To reiterate what I alluded to in earlier posts the most prominent part of 20th century music (especially the first 3 or 4 decades) saw a very distinct group of individuals whose sole purpose was to rebel or be "anti" romantic. Some resorted rather to 18th century concepts but they didn't want to recognize Romanticism. This camp believed Romanticism had exhausted itself. The interesting thing is that this group was rebelling against Romantic ideals in music/art/literature etc. because they believed "Art" & ones inner feelings shouldn't mix. This is why I have trouble with this style because it comes off exactly how they desired; it is typically cold, devoid of any human feeling/sentiment etc. (this is only my own personal feeling). That is why I said I have basically left these composers behind. And to this day I still see this divide in the general populus. It seems most who hail Baroque/Classicism will outrightly avoid Romanticism. If anything they would next go to the 20th century (Glenn Gould is an obvious example).

this sort of comment should name names, identify specific works and cite dates.

Mike, I just want to keep it simple. I also don't want to discount music at the expense of offending anyone as I'm well aware that their are many people who might like exactly what I don't like. So apologies on this as I really don't mean to offend anyone. I'm just speaking from my own point of view.

Answering the main question of this thread: I've left behind composer who favor Atonal and Expressionist flavors, I guess. There, I said it. To me, this mainly includes the likes of Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Hindemith, Boulez etc. and this general style. Those who are familiar with these composers will understand what I mean. I am a pianist and so I am not so familiar with a lot of their orchestral output save the few things I've heard through taking music history courses etc. I just have trouble listening to and enjoying this style. I simply need tone, structure, focus, direction etc. in my music.

Specifically, I have Pollini's recordings of Schoenberg, Webern, Boulez, Berezovsky's recording of Hindemith's Ludus tonalis, Suite 1922, Richter's Berg and the Piano Concert and to be honest I have a lot of trouble listening to this.

Hope this answers your question.
Doug

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:

I don't get ... almost any atonal piece [Berg Violin Concerto excepted]


Originally posted by andrewchiswick:

Berg Violin Concerto is ... one of the few "atonal" works to enter the mainstream repertoire and justifiably so.

Yes, a great musical work.

But not truly atonal, nor truly tonal. In fact, much of its genius and appeal derives from the successful straddling of both tonality and atonality.

All best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by Florestan:

Answering the main question of this thread: I've left behind composer who favor Atonal and Expressionist flavors, I guess. There, I said it. To me, this mainly includes the likes of Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Hindemith, Boulez etc. and this general style. Those who are familiar with these composers will understand what I mean. I am a pianist and so I am not so familiar with a lot of their orchestral output save the few things I've heard through taking music history courses etc. I just have trouble listening to and enjoying this style. I simply need tone, structure, focus, direction etc. in my music.

Doug, I'm a pianist and I love Hindemith, but Ludus Tonalis is difficult. Sounds too theoretical to my ears.

However, his three piano sonatas from 1936, and his flute sonata (also 1936) are wonderful ... tonal yet not diatonic, freely modulating in inventive ways, often neither major nor minor, very lyrical, soulful, bittersweet, contrapuntal, and always walking a beautiful line between consonance and dissonance. And decidedly abundant in "tone, structure, focus, direction."

Best to check them out by playing them if you're able. Or at least listen to a recording while reading the score ... better to reveal their delights.

All best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:
Doug, I'm a pianist and I love Hindemith, but Ludus Tonalis is difficult. Sounds too theoretical to my ears.

However, his three piano sonatas from 1936, and his flute sonata (also 1936) are wonderful ... tonal yet not diatonic, freely modulating in inventive ways, often neither major nor minor, very lyrical, soulful, bittersweet, contrapuntal, and always walking a beautiful line between consonance and dissonance. And decidedly abundant in "tone, structure, focus, direction."

i can't make it all the way through ludus tonalis without groaning, i am ashamed to
say :-)

i love the piano sonatas and played the trumpet sonata for junior year boards (great work).

i would like to clear up two things.

i made comments about the "everyman" music i remember from the fifties, but didn't identify any works. i was specifically referring to richard strauss' symphonia domestica and shostakovitch' symphony no. 5.

and about atonal music (that excludes hindemith) : right now i am just trying to comprehend it. if i said that, in general, i enjoyed it, it would be a lie. since i am taking the time now to expand my ears, i want to take another crack at this music. there's a lot of it, and in some ways i feel cheated by turning my back to it. but it's all intellectual - not because it really grabs me.

for instance, schoenberg's moses and arron severly depresses me, and makes me feel aimless and fidgity. on some occasions i have rushed to the turntable as if there were a fire to take it off. wozzeck is even worse.

but on some level, i suspect these reactions are the result of a failing on my part. after all, if it is as awful as i sometimes feel, how come there's so much of it?

in the end, i want to understand as much music as i can, to increase my enjoyment. that specifically means trying to hear a piece of music with the composer's ears, to whatever extent i can.

it's a variation on "walk a mile in the other man's shoes ....

quote:

Originally posted by Florestan:
I've left behind composer who favor Atonal and Expressionist flavors, I guess. There, I said it.

Specifically, I have Pollini's recordings of Schoenberg, Webern, Boulez,

and to be honest I have a lot of trouble listening to this.

Hope this answers your question.
Doug

it does :-)

i have that pollini recording and i find it inpenetratable. and he's one of my favorite pianist. i feel like i'm short-changing the performance because i don't get it.