Originally posted by Philip
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Stop and prepare : Cage
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by Peter View PostYes flippant, but actually it is a relevant point - most great composers of the past were well known names to ordinary people and much of their music eagerly anticipated, can the same be said of composers born after 1950? Interestingly all the composers you mention were also born pre 1950.
They're certainly making new awful sounds and provide a sample link for members to make their own judgement of my remarks.
http://www.digital-music-archives.co...plication.php? .
I wouldn't even describe it as music, it is an acoustic science and it would possibly be better appreciated if split from the wider category of western art music.
Mozart thought so and Beethoven generally did - he only made two notable exceptions - Op.95 and writing a new finale for Op.130. Let's be clear here, Beethoven's music did cause some critics to indulge in tirades of abuse on first hearing but within his lifetime his music was generally accepted by critics and public - even contrary to popular belief were some of the late quartets such as Op.127. Chamber music and sonatas however cannot be viewed in the same way as today because they were not really intended for public performance. Beethoven knew what the public would come to appreciate and has been proven correct. Schoenberg on the other hand has been proven wrong and his music has led to a dead end - that doesn't mean that I would dismiss him as unimportant or not a serious figure.
You would - oh dear shock horror!
Over 100 years surely?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Philip View PostApart from your last point about recording technology (where I stand semi-corrected), I must urge patience too as I digest your Taliban-like 'fundamentalism'. I detect that your mask is beginning to slip, and I do hope what I find behind is not too ugly.'Man know thyself'
Comment
-
The 'Taliban-like' reference I retract (with appropriate apology), but not the 'fundamentalism' comment, which I do believe to be true of you, as I meant 'musical fundamentalism' (perhaps I am guilty of this too from the other side of the spectrum). I would like to explain why I used this term, and will clarify it my next posting.
Let us both try to remain civil, calm and measured. Please now serve me a (small) slice of humble pie, which I promise to eat in total silence...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Peter View PostYes flippant, but actually it is a relevant point - most great composers of the past were well known names to ordinary people and much of their music eagerly anticipated, can the same be said of composers born after 1950? Interestingly all the composers you mention were also born pre 1950.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Peter View PostThey're certainly making new awful sounds and provide a sample link for members to make their own judgement of my remarks.
http://www.digital-music-archives.co...plication.php? .
I wouldn't even describe it as music, it is an acoustic science and it would possibly be better appreciated if split from the wider category of western art music.
'That's not music, that's just noise. Here, click on this link to see if you don't agree with me.'
It probably is a bit of a quantum leap from 19th century repertoires to electroacoustic music, but with a bit of background reading concerning the history and development of this music, to understand the musical standpoint, the composer's intentions and so on would be no bad thing. Yes, it all does require effort. I didn't come to electroacoustic music straight from Beethoven either, you know!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Peter View PostI wouldn't even describe it as music, it is an acoustic science and it would possibly be better appreciated if split from the wider category of western art music.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Peter View PostMozart thought so and Beethoven generally did - he only made two notable exceptions - Op.95 and writing a new finale for Op.130. Let's be clear here, Beethoven's music did cause some critics to indulge in tirades of abuse on first hearing but within his lifetime his music was generally accepted by critics and public - even contrary to popular belief were some of the late quartets such as Op.127. Chamber music and sonatas however cannot be viewed in the same way as today because they were not really intended for public performance. Beethoven knew what the public would come to appreciate and has been proven correct. Schoenberg on the other hand has been proven wrong and his music has led to a dead end - that doesn't mean that I would dismiss him as unimportant or not a serious figure.
More later, then.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Philip View PostThe 'Taliban-like' reference I retract (with appropriate apology), but not the 'fundamentalism' comment, which I do believe to be true of you, as I meant 'musical fundamentalism' (perhaps I am guilty of this too from the other side of the spectrum). I would like to explain why I used this term, and will clarify it my next posting.
Let us both try to remain civil, calm and measured. Please now serve me a (small) slice of humble pie, which I promise to eat in total silence...'Man know thyself'
Comment
-
Originally posted by Peter View PostMozart thought so and Beethoven generally did - he only made two notable exceptions - Op.95 and writing a new finale for Op.130.
We could also mention the linking slow movement of Op.53 and the convoluted Fidelio history.
Comment
-
Originally posted by PDG View PostPeter, are you saying that Beethoven changed these compositions in order to please his audience? Are you referring to the high-spirited, major mode ending of Op.95, which I always took to be a nod of respect towards the just-deceased Haydn? And then Op.130, where his disparaging comments about the critics are well-known!
We could also mention the linking slow movement of Op.53 and the convoluted Fidelio history.'Man know thyself'
Comment
Comment