If Beethoven were alive today...

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by urtextmeister:
Sorrano,


And think of the options a composer has today. Isn't this the most musically confusing start to a century?

Each successive period will be more and more confusing. Our access to older music as well as modern has opened up lots of new worlds musically and directions one can go. We also have greater access to music of all ages of all cultures much more so than any other people that have ever lived upon the earth. Indeed, this is a confusing era.

[urtextmeister]

Next Question:
Is this good or bad?

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by urtextmeister:
Next Question:
Is this good or bad?

From a compositional standpoint I find this very good. The opportunities to deal with various kinds of music seem unlimitless; the tools of composing are a vast assortment. Problem is that most people involved with music today do not use most of them.

[urtextmeister]

I agree. There are many options for composers today and that should be a good thing. In a way, however, the rules and regulations that Beethoven encountered regarding music are enviable. With so possiblities, it is hard for a composer to know where to start. There are no more rules to break!
Maybe minimalism is a good route for a composer to take these days--say more with less.

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by urtextmeister:
I agree. There are many options for composers today and that should be a good thing. In a way, however, the rules and regulations that Beethoven encountered regarding music are enviable. With so possiblities, it is hard for a composer to know where to start. There are no more rules to break!
Maybe minimalism is a good route for a composer to take these days--say more with less.

And why not set one's own rules per composition? I believe that was Stravinsky's strategy. One does not need to be a minimalist; just use a set of rules and be capable of working within them.

[urtextmeister]

Originally posted by Sorrano:

And why not set one's own rules per composition?

That is an attractive idea, but what about the climate we live in? Doesn't that have to enter in. I could decide that I going to compose according to Beethoven's rules, but how much validity would I have as a composer?

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by urtextmeister:
That is an attractive idea, but what about the climate we live in? Doesn't that have to enter in. I could decide that I going to compose according to Beethoven's rules, but how much validity would I have as a composer?

I think that Stravinsky applied this idea as a rule in his own works. He set the boundaries by which he composed each work (particularly after his neo-romantic works). Some things he wrote under the traditional 12-tone rules. George Crumb's Ancient Voices of Children, for example, are bound by certain motivic and mathematical formulas. When I suggest we set rules I do not necessarily mean to set them by someone else's rules; we have unlimited tools today by which we can compose. We can compose with Bach's harmony, but work along the florid linear writing of Palestrina. Or we can use similar types of rules as in Bach's chorales but use 12-tone harmony. It's our choice.

[urtextmeister]

I think we are talking about two different types of rules. When you mention Crumb's piece being governed by certain motivic and mathmentical rules, yes, I think that is true of most music (most successful music, anyway). Almost all music has some structural glue to hold it together-harmony, serialism, rhythm,etc.
The stylistic rules, however, are a little different I think. They have more to do with aesthetics and musical, cultural norms.
For example, what if Beethoven had "Rite of Spring" in 1802? I don't think anyone would have played it or listened to it. Conversely, what if I wrote Beethoven's first symphony (you have to imagine that this piece did not exist) in 2003? People might admire my knowledge and ability to mimic classical composers, but who would listen to it and take it seriously?
I don't think we can ignore the time we live in and just write "pure" music. I think Peter might disagree with me...

[Sorrano]

Whether or not one chooses to compose in the same style as Beethoven or Mozart is one's own perogative. However, that one has the choices of using the same tools as Palestrina, Beethoven, or Schoenberg gives today's composer many more options (as well as more instruments to work with as well as better developed instruments). I may choose to limit myself to 17th century harmony or do something as Prokofiev did in his Classical Symphony, keeping with the basic Sonata form of the late 18th Century with a more modern harmonic vocabulary.

In returning to your primary focus in this thread I listed Stravinsky and Bartok as possible successors (or Beethovenian figures) in this century because of the vast influence (Stravinsky) of the music and because of the great innovation (Bartok) that is displayed. Perhaps I could have mentioned Ives, as well.

[Peter]

Originally posted by urtextmeister:
I don't think we can ignore the time we live in and just write "pure" music. I think Peter might disagree with me...

I agree with you as I can't think of a great composer who ignored the time he lived in!

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[urtextmeister]

First of all, sorry for putting words in your mouth, Peter. And I am glad that we agree that great composers do not ignore the time in which they live.
Sorrano, you are right that the choice exists for us to compose with the vocabulary of an earlier time, later time or virtually any new vocabulary we can come up with. We have more documented music on our shelves than Beethoven did simply because we have more history. We also live in a time of great musical diversity. Perhaps it takes more guts to write in a conservative style on traditional instruments than a more avante garde approach...
Regarding Ives: do you think the types of innovations made by Ives or, for that matter, Henry Cowell, John Cage and others is comparable to what Beethoven did? I don't really have an answer for this. I am just wondering what you or others think.

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by urtextmeister:
Sorrano, you are right that the choice exists for us to compose with the vocabulary of an earlier time, later time or virtually any new vocabulary we can come up with. We have more documented music on our shelves than Beethoven did simply because we have more history. We also live in a time of great musical diversity. Perhaps it takes more guts to write in a conservative style on traditional instruments than a more avante garde approach...
Regarding Ives: do you think the types of innovations made by Ives or, for that matter, Henry Cowell, John Cage and others is comparable to what Beethoven did? I don't really have an answer for this. I am just wondering what you or others think.

I think that Stravinsky had a keen interest in this approach to music. Unfortunately, my memory does not serve me well at this time in regards to his attitude, but as I recall he basically said what you did about having guts, except that he referred to those that chose the newer styles rather than reverting back to traditional styles (such as Sibelius and Rachmaninoff--and even Debussy with his later works).

It's hard to compare innovations from one period to another. Things have to be taken into consideration, such as how difficult was it for Beethoven to break with tradition as it was for Ives or for Cage? Social and political backgrounds are significantly different and these, too, have an effect on what course people take. In my opinion, I think it was more difficult for Beethoven to make drastic changes than it was for Cage, as in Cage's time everyone, it seems, wanted to do something unique and different for its own sake.

[urtextmeister]

I agree with you on this. The innovations of Cage and others may have been shocking, but in context probably no more shocking than what Beethoven did. By extension, in today's musical climate, it is almost impossible to shock. Almost everything has been done.
I wonder if the intent behind Beethoven's innovations was to shock, however. Was he trying to shake up his audience or was he just following some inevitable artistic path?

[Peter]

Originally posted by urtextmeister:

I wonder if the intent behind Beethoven's innovations was to shock, however. Was he trying to shake up his audience or was he just following some inevitable artistic path?

I don't think Beethoven set out to shock - he was following his own artistic ideals. Nor do I see a comparison with Ives or Cage, neither has achieved the universality of Beethoven, nor a great impact on the 20th century compared to Debussy, Stravinsky, Schoenberg or Bartok.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by urtextmeister:
I agree with you on this. The innovations of Cage and others may have been shocking, but in context probably no more shocking than what Beethoven did. By extension, in today's musical climate, it is almost impossible to shock. Almost everything has been done.
I wonder if the intent behind Beethoven's innovations was to shock, however. Was he trying to shake up his audience or was he just following some inevitable artistic path?

When I compose I often find that music takes its own direction, as though it were sentient and had its own will. Like Peter, I don't think that was Beethoven's intent to shock the world, but rather to express some ideas that needed expressing. If the world was to be shocked by it, then so be it. ("Es muss sein!")