For the Birds

[Quijote]

Dennis, Trevor & Bernard. I'm sorry but the names alone put me off!

Hello PDG. OK, I know what you mean. How about this :

Ludwig van Beethoven = Lewis Beetrootfield;
Johann Bach = John Brook
Johann Strauss = John Ostrich (or bouquet of flowers)
And so on.

What's in a name, PDG?!!!

[Peter]

Nobody going to take me up on this? Ok, here's a bit of polemic for you, dear readers : in my honest opinion 'acousmatic' music represents the cutting edge of our art (and I don't mean electronic in the sense of Jean-Michel Jarre which is simply a 'fast-food' version). Forget all that Emin nonsense, here is where the arguments get really serious (about how we define music, its function, its reception, its 'signifying' or semiotic aspects ...). Before I give my take on this, it might be a good idea to first check out (via your preferred search engine) the leading lights in this field such as :
Denis SMALLEY
Trevor WISHART
Bernard PARMEGIANNI

... to name but a few.

I 'admit' it may challenge what some would call 'music', but I would truly urge you to make the effort.
However, it is true that this (a Beethoven forum) may not be the place for such a debate. Please ignore this posting if not interesting for you.

Well I listened to some Denis Smalley and yes interesting weird sound effects, but why? Seriously as a musician it baffles me. I mean why listen to that when I can spend the time listening to a Beethoven quartet which for me has far greater meaning and provides a much more enjoyable listening experience? Some of his pieces seemed quite long at around 16 minutes and I wonder if you can explain what it does for you?

[Quijote]

Well I listened to some Denis Smalley and yes interesting weird sound effects, but why? Seriously as a musician it baffles me. I mean why listen to that when I can spend the time listening to a Beethoven quartet which for me has far greater meaning and provides a much more enjoyable listening experience? Some of his pieces seemed quite long at around 16 minutes and I wonder if you can explain what it does for you?

Thank you Peter for putting your head on the block, and forgive me for allowing me the chance to chop it off, if you don't mind! (This is what I admire about British people.) Your reaction is perfectly normal, and the issues it raises are fundamental to music. As I have posted elsewhere, the complexities of such issues are such as to render any posting I may attempt grossly inadequate ... but I will try.
Again, there is a slight problem with terminology, and what your instinctively good ears 'tell' you.
First thing to say is that Smalley's music (and its ilk) is not 'sound effects'. If you approach this music expecting 'harmony', 'melody' and teleological progression / goals à la 19th century you will inevitably be disappointed (a bit like expecting to see clearly representational images in Jackson Pollock, shall we say?). Ok, you weren't to know when you first listened, so your reaction is perfectly normal. May I say at this juncture Peter that when I first heard such music (I was, probably like you, brought up in strictly classical terms) I was completely agog (postively so). Just like when I first heard Beethoven.

Ok, for you you would rather give your time over to listening to B's late quartets than this sort of music. I 'prefer' both (different listening experiences, different listening 'demands'), and the problem I have with your posting is - to a point - in your terminology ('enjoyment' and 'meaning'). I think we can let 'enjoyment' pass for the moment (one's man's meat is another's poison and so on), but the term 'meaning' is really an incredibly vast subject (hence any posting such as mine and anybody else's will always be grosssly ineadequate). The semiotics of music is a subject that will occupy musicological conferences for many years to come.

To turn now to the 'music' in particular, as in my Pollock similie above, electroacoustic (acousmatic) music is essentially about listening to sounds for-and-in-themselves, and their placing in musical (if not actual) time. I really can't elaborate too much because I would need a couple hundred of pages to effectively 'make the case', so to speak. That said, if you look closely at developments in music since (let's say) Mahler, you will notice a growing interest in percussion instruments, in 'noise' producing instruments, in an interest in the 'qualities' of sound in themselves and not for any harmonic/vertical structural properties.
I suppose if I had really to define what I'm trying to say it would be "sounds for sounds' sake". The 'beauty' of sound, if you will. Still, compositionally speaking, how to combine these sounds in a musically significant structure is perhaps not that far removed from what exercised Beethoven.
Fair enough?

[Peter]

Thank you Peter for putting your head on the block, and forgive me for allowing me the chance to chop it off, if you don't mind! (This is what I admire about British people.) Your reaction is perfectly normal, and the issues it raises are fundamental to music. As I have posted elsewhere, the complexities of such issues are such as to render any posting I may attempt grossly inadequate ... but I will try.
Again, there is a slight problem with terminology, and what your instinctively good ears 'tell' you.
First thing to say is that Smalley's music (and its ilk) is not 'sound effects'. If you approach this music expecting 'harmony', 'melody' and teleological progression / goals à la 19th century you will inevitably be disappointed (a bit like expecting to see clearly representational images in Jackson Pollock, shall we say?). Ok, you weren't to know when you first listened, so your reaction is perfectly normal. May I say at this juncture Peter that when I first heard such music (I was, probably like you, brought up in strictly classical terms) I was completely agog (postively so). Just like when I first heard Beethoven.

I can assure you I am not rooted to the German Classic/Romantic tradition - I enjoy a great deal of music going back to Gregorian chant. In particular music of the Ars Nova and composers such as Guillaume de Machaut and Francesco Landini - you also have to listen to this music with a different set of ears than when listening to Beethoven. I accept that you are very much into most things contemporary but I think you should also accept that it does not automatically make one a philistine if one does not share such tastes. Maybe in 10 years I'll agree with you, after all I wasn't that fond of 14th century music 10 years ago!

[Quijote]

I can assure you I am not rooted to the German Classic/Romantic tradition - I enjoy a great deal of music going back to Gregorian chant. In particular music of the Ars Nova and composers such as Guillaume de Machaut and Francesco Landini - you also have to listen to this music with a different set of ears than when listening to Beethoven. I accept that you are very much into most things contemporary but I think you should also accept that it does not automatically make one a philistine if one does not share such tastes. Maybe in 10 years I'll agree with you, after all I wasn't that fond of 14th century music 10 years ago!

Peter, I never suggested that you are a philistine. I, however, can confess to the charge in that I tend to bypass the period you refer to (Machaut, Landini etc). I find also that it does require different listening strategies. I should be even more ashamed as it has provided inspiration for certain contemporary composers such as Webern, Arvo Pärt, Tavener (aagh!! Let's not go down that path again).
I also have to tell you that when (on the rare occasions) I listen to works by Palestrina, Machaut, and so on that I experience almost unbearable melancholia. I wonder why that is so in my case.