Major and Minor Scales

[Ed C]

I suppose this should almost be self-evident, but "some" AG people complain about how "stupid" the public is because they need to justify their art against a public tide of indifference their music. The way to do that is to say "Ah - they don't 'get it'. History will prove me right, I'll be famous and the foolish naysayers will be forgotten."

I have to admit, in my "heyday" as an AG-ist I recall agreeing with a friend that we wished more of the public were "Einsteins" like we were (haha!).

The more enlightened AGists (and there are some!) are willing to meet the public halfway and at least try to propose an entry point - adding video is a BIG help. "2001 - A Space Odyssey" probably exposed more people to AG music than 10 years of grant-funded university concerts....(of course that was Kubrick's doing and not Ligeti's master-stroke).

4/3 String Quartets Orchestrated (Mahler's Way)

[Sorrano]

It is a fault that both sides have, that people tend to think that their side is superior to the other, and it may very well be to those taking the sides. It's going to boil down to individual decisions to like or dislike a composition, style, or whatever. Forced exposure is certainly not an answer as it alienates the intended audience. The approach through movies may be a means, but will that limit that type of music to the theater? Or should we just ban it all and compose in the styles of composers that came before us? There is a real fear among composers to imitate others, and this need for individuality has taken some dramatic turns. We've seen most, if not all, of the arts taking similar turns into what are difficult presentations for the layman. We've also seen political upheavals, combined with technologically advanced weaponry that have transcended our own imaginations. What direction do we go?

[Peter]

It is a fault that both sides have, that people tend to think that their side is superior to the other, and it may very well be to those taking the sides. It's going to boil down to individual decisions to like or dislike a composition, style, or whatever. Forced exposure is certainly not an answer as it alienates the intended audience. The approach through movies may be a means, but will that limit that type of music to the theater? Or should we just ban it all and compose in the styles of composers that came before us? There is a real fear among composers to imitate others, and this need for individuality has taken some dramatic turns. We've seen most, if not all, of the arts taking similar turns into what are difficult presentations for the layman. We've also seen political upheavals, combined with technologically advanced weaponry that have transcended our own imaginations. What direction do we go?

It's hard to think of any other period in music that consciously set out to alienate the public and had such disdain for them - no wonder the appeal is limited. I was speaking to a very pleasant gentleman this afternoon who was quite knowledgeable about Classical music (more than your average member of the public) and I wasn't even talking about modern music, but he brought it up quite simply saying 'I can't whistle to it' - his point being a very natural one (though heresy and indicitive of a limited mental capacity to the AG) - he actually likes a good tune.

I've said it before and I know it may not be a popular comment but I do believe we are in a cultural 'dark age' and there is nothing we can do about it - these movements like the Renaissance and the Classical are outside of our control, you can't suddenly create a golden age in the arts no matter how hard you might try or wish to. Of course we musn't ban what we have or try to go backwards - I think this is an essential process we have to go through and I'm hopeful that at some time in the future another golden age will come, it certainly isn't now.

[Sorrano]

Maybe one of the great fears of the AG movement is that we have used up pretty much everything that we consider traditional. (I realize I am not communicating my thoughts quite how I would like, but maybe you can understand what I am trying to say.) Where do we go from Beethoven, or Bartok, or Stravinsky? At what point are all the possible melodies created so that any other effort is simply a variation of what's been before? Also, I think that we are in a period, much so than ever before, where the artist views himself in a more historical perspective. The need for more individuality increases, often at the sacrifice of the public, but the need persists by our own culture. A renaissance will not occur, either, if we just sit back and lament the current "dark age".

[Peter]

Maybe one of the great fears of the AG movement is that we have used up pretty much everything that we consider traditional. (I realize I am not communicating my thoughts quite how I would like, but maybe you can understand what I am trying to say.) Where do we go from Beethoven, or Bartok, or Stravinsky? At what point are all the possible melodies created so that any other effort is simply a variation of what's been before? Also, I think that we are in a period, much so than ever before, where the artist views himself in a more historical perspective. The need for more individuality increases, often at the sacrifice of the public, but the need persists by our own culture. A renaissance will not occur, either, if we just sit back and lament the current "dark age".

I'm not lamenting it as I said I consider it a necessary process - from Gregorian chant onwards there has not been one continuous golden age, there were highlights such as the Renaissance, Baroque and Classical on the way but always lulls in between where I think we are now. The trouble I think is that you can't artificially conjure up something new without producing a sterile, purely cerebral 'art' which lacks appeal, sincerity and naturalness because it has chosen to reject the past rather than build on it. Can you think of any other period in music history that had a total contempt of the past and such a disdain for the public? No, there was always respect for the past traditions that gave us Palestrina, Bach and Beethoven, the highest achievements that can at best be equalled, but never surpassed.

[Ed C]

The only thing that gives me hope is that music has developed/evolved more in the last 100 years than in the span of 500 years up to Beethoven. Would that be fair to say? I think so. So there's no hurry to leave where we've been. At this point I'm perfectly fine stopping at 1950 -and skipping the following 60 years. That's a drop in the bucket historically.

The other hopeful thing is that I've seen student composition concerts at Juilliard here where the styles range from Leonard Bernstein "Mass"-type pastiches to Ligeti-ish tone cluster stuff. These are kids 10-17 years old. A very good variety. Some of it I quite like actually...whenever I come across these student composers I always try to say "keep up the good work" or "You're on the right track" etc....
"Stay away from those buttons and levers" (joking)

[Peter]

The only thing that gives me hope is that music has developed/evolved more in the last 100 years than in the span of 500 years up to Beethoven. Would that be fair to say? I think so. So there's no hurry to leave where we've been. At this point I'm perfectly fine stopping at 1950 -and skipping the following 60 years. That's a drop in the bucket historically.

The other hopeful thing is that I've seen student composition concerts at Juilliard here where the styles range from Leonard Bernstein "Mass"-type pastiches to Ligeti-ish tone cluster stuff. These are kids 10-17 years old. A very good variety. Some of it I quite like actually...whenever I come across these student composers I always try to say "keep up the good work" or "You're on the right track" etc....
"Stay away from those buttons and levers" (joking)

I think music has changed more radically in the last century yes but I'm not sure I'd use the words developed and evolved. It really raises the question about progress in art - can we say Bartok, Stravinsky or Schoenberg are better than Beethoven? They use more complex rhythms etc but does greater complexity equal greater art?

[Quijote]

I think music has changed more radically in the last century yes but I'm not sure I'd use the words developed and evolved. It really raises the question about progress in art - can we say Bartok, Stravinsky or Schoenberg are better than Beethoven? They use more complex rhythms etc but does greater complexity equal greater art?

Or that Beethoven is better than Haydn? Or Bach better than Palestrina? Is a high-rise tower better than an igloo? Or is an haut cuisine dish better than grilled chicken pieces in naan bread?

[Peter]

Or that Beethoven is better than Haydn? Or Bach better than Palestrina? Is a high-rise tower better than an igloo? Or is an haut cuisine dish better than grilled chicken pieces in naan bread?

Yes I'd agree because you're talking (aside from food and buildings) about people who reached the very highest level of perfection in their art. I do think however it is perfectly possible to say that Beethoven was a better composer than Salieri or Hummel for example, just as he was certainly a better composer and pianist than I am!

[Ed C]

It really raises the question about progress in art - can we say Bartok, Stravinsky or Schoenberg are better than Beethoven? They use more complex rhythms etc but does greater complexity equal greater art?

I feel like this may be dragging the thread too far beyond it's original scope but what the heck...

The words "greater", "best", "better" etc.. are all subjective and based on personal taste wouldn't you say? Personally I find Beethoven to be "greater" than the next 100 composers put together, but a person's taste is inarguably their own to decide...

Having said that, I don't necessarily agree greater complexity equals greater art, but I do love Bartok! (but not more than LvB)..

[Peter]

I feel like this may be dragging the thread too far beyond it's original scope but what the heck...

The words "greater", "best", "better" etc.. are all subjective and based on personal taste wouldn't you say? Personally I find Beethoven to be "greater" than the next 100 composers put together, but a person's taste is inarguably their own to decide...

Having said that, I don't necessarily agree greater complexity equals greater art, but I do love Bartok! (but not more than LvB)..

They are subjective terms but let's take an example of an average student (if we're allowed to use the word 'average') stumbling through a performance of a Beethoven sonata and Schnabel playing the same work - are we unable to say which is the better performance? I'd say that if someone came out in favour of the student they had poor musical judgement and I wouldn't care about their own 'personal taste'! This subjective argument is used constantly to devalue things - a 5 year olds scrawl just as worthy and great as Leonardo's 'The last Supper' - you see taken to its logical conclusions you end up with nonsense.

[Ed C]

I know what you mean, and certainly I use "better" and "best" myself by accident - but I would ideally like to say, "I preferred Schnabel's version". I don't think that would devalue Schnabel in any way and yet the superiority of the Schnabel performance would be implied based on the reputation of the speaker.

I suppose this is a pet peeve stemming from people saying "Elvis blows away Beethoven!" or something like that (no one's ever said that actually). The speaker much prefers Elvis. Beethoven is greater of course.

[Peter]

I know what you mean, and certainly I use "better" and "best" myself by accident - but I would ideally like to say, "I preferred Schnabel's version". I don't think that would devalue Schnabel in any way and yet the superiority of the Schnabel performance would be implied based on the reputation of the speaker.

I suppose this is a pet peeve stemming from people saying "Elvis blows away Beethoven!" or something like that (no one's ever said that actually). The speaker much prefers Elvis. Beethoven is greater of course.

But why? Quite clearly if student A doesn't know half the notes and makes a complete mess of it and B gives an exemplary account, preference has nothing to do with it, one is clearly 'better' than the other? However if I hear Barenboim or say Kempff then yes preference does play a big part because we are comparing like with like. Also with Beethoven and Salieri - Beethoven is the greater composer (fact) but you can also say you prefer Salieri's music to Beethoven's - there is no contradiction as the two things are not the same.

[Ed C]

If the student makes lots of mistakes then that's a quantitative difference, not necessarily a qualitative difference. Actually Schnabel may not be the best example of a technically "perfect" pianist, right?

One of my favorite living pianists is Hyun-Jung Lim - she plays the Hammerklavier at the manuscript tempo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzttpRoVnoc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=055zq2IyqRQ

She's probably as different from Kempff as possible. But can I say she is greater than Kempff?

Hyun-Jung Lim is better than Schnabel and Kempff combined, and without doubt the greatest interpreter of Beethoven's piano works that has ever lived.
(HJ you owe me!)

[Peter]

If the student makes lots of mistakes then that's a quantitative difference, not necessarily a qualitative difference. Actually Schnabel may not be the best example of a technically "perfect" pianist, right?

True which means we can say there are pianists with 'better' techniques, yes?

One of my favorite living pianists is Hyung-Jung Lim - she plays the Hammerklavier at the manuscript tempo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzttpRoVnoc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=055zq2IyqRQ

She's probably as different from Kempff as possible. But can I say she is greater than Kempff?

Yes I enjoyed this, thanks - definitely better than our local pub pianist (even before he's had a few)