|
|
My Take on
Current Situation in Music
from forum
discussion, July 23, 2003
The
following is my personal view of the current state
of the "serious" music. I compose tonal music and
earn my living mostly as a translator; I am
Siberian Russian, arrived into the US as a
political refugee in 1987, and live in Southern
Colorado mountains. I am looking for congenial
minds who would be interested in discussing music
on the similar plane. I am also looking for
musically adept performers interested in recording
my instrumental compositions and my art songs (in
English, Russian, Italian, and French). If you
strongly disagree with my views or tastes (which is
more than possible, given the prevailing cultural
atmosphere), please feel free to express your
disagreement. My primary goal, however, is not to
argue but to find those who may have made similar
conclusions.
It is difficult for me to write about music,
because musical ideas aren't designed to be
described in words in the first place. There are so
many connotations and overtones within the content
of music that spoken word truly becomes a lie,
however careful we weigh our expressions. When I
call this or another composer "sick" (which,
probably, sounds offensive to some), I refer to
that morbid sensitivity characteristic of most
artists and intellectuals in the first half of the
20th century, who felt that the European
civilization, as a whole, didn't pass the test of
time, that it failed, betrayed them, resulted in
horrors of World War I and deserved, therefore,
complete avoidance and punishment (as in
Shoenberg's case) or partial avoidance and
expressionist or symbolist deformation (as in
Ravel's and Skriabin's cases). From Martian's point
of view their world outlook would seem parochial,
transient, local -- after all, most of the cultural
shifts in the 20th century were reactionary, caused
by the global wars and social upheavals which, in
turn, were inevitable results of explosive
differential between the paces of cultural and
biological developments. I prefer the artists who
could reflect the contemporary tensions but also
transcend them by retaining the rich and
comprehensible lexicon of the past, by referring to
the European system of musical co-ordinates firmly
based on the physiological correspondence between
consonant and dissonant harmonies with pleasant and
unpleasant emotions. For example, Rakhmaninov,
Puccini and Sibelius were bold enough to use any
chords, as dissonant as necessary, to express their
ideas, but never lost sight of clear consonant
harmonies serving as emotional anchors,
mathematically and physiologically justified and
embedded in the European musical language. They
were the true developers of musical language, the
ones who created new things without rejecting or
mocking the solid treasures of the past. Ravel,
Skriabin, Prokofiev, and many others felt an inner
need to partially reject the past, more than it was
historically justified; for them "sounding new and
original" was already more important than being
properly understood or identified with. This
internal need could be explained by many cultural
and personal traits but, in the final analysis, is
entrenched in moral infirmity. (Here I come
dangerously close to the Taliban certitudes of
religious moralists; however, I don't hide in the
past but face the future, my moral convictions are
based on experimental facts, not on the faith of
any kind. Moral relativism and moral absolutism are
equally repulsive to me; we must be as moral as we
can be, and our morality is measured by the extent
to which we are able to predict the consequences of
our actions and to prevent causing pain in order to
achieve our own ends.) There were all kinds of
degrees of that modernist shift toward oblivion,
total break from tradition, disdain for audience --
finally arriving at artistic newspeak that only a
few "chosen ones" pretend to understand. (In my
opinion, jazz was already a part of that
reactionary shift, because tonal harmonic system of
coordinates, as used in jazz, becomes intentionally
blurred, misinterpreted, ambiguous, non-essential.
There is one step, really, from tonal jazz to
atonal one, and difference could be almost
unnoticeable.) Shoenberg and other atonalists were
the most consistent haters and destroyers of the
past, and later gained the acceptance of the
modernist, emotionally jaded rationalizers of
impotence and mediocrity of Adorno's ilk who viewed
any tonality in general as a staple element of Nazi
culture.
First atonalists and other "sick" composers,
however talented individually, prepared a ground
for something even they didn't anticipate.
Gradually, a great substitution came, a true
cultural catastrophe, so huge that almost nobody is
courageous enough to talk about it. Musical talent,
as well as musical perception, are inseparable from
that physiologically justified musical system of
co-ordinates which we call "tonality", from human
emotional language that expresses itself in harmony
and melody. Where tonal harmony and melody are not
required, talent is not required either. So, one by
one, talentless musicians started to realize that a
new, easy path to fame was open to them: since
their predecessors already used a language that
nobody could properly understand, why couldn't they
use any kind of gibberish, and get away with it,
pretending that such is "their artistic language"?
Et voila! The new era began, the age of the
Emperor's New Clothes, and Andy Warhol, its
prophet, intoned: "Art is anything you can get away
with". Talent and skill don't matter, more than
that -- they are orderly, purposely persecuted,
hunted down, and crushed. Mediocrity triumphs,
bureaucrats of art are entrenched in every artistic
institution, their well-being depends on the status
quo, and the status quo requires that talent, in no
way or form, should be allowed within the
sacrosanct confines of the Feeding Ground, "Serious
Art". Whatever remains of talent is relegated to
vulgar field of commercial art. Transition is
complete.
There, you have it. Now, put me against the brick
wall, and shoot away. I have nothing to lose.
Thank you,
Alexander
Feht
|
|
|
|
ScooterTB23
|
You know.. There is one problem. Our worldview
as a culture, especially in this country, is no
longer limited to a European background. This split
was as beneficial as it was needed. The umbilical
cord that bound the US to Europe was cut after the
last world war. How could we, as a nation and a
culture, find our own way, through the traditions
that were no longer relevant to our lives or our
history? Why should we hand on to a way of doing
things which didn't reflect our population or our
background? This is why I don't entirely agree with
your opinion on the direction of music.
Although I would eagerly send John Cage and his
like to the eternal pit for taking what was more
then art and converting it to a coffee table drama,
I still think that a wider scope of "tradition" is
quickly becoming an integral part of what we call
Classical music.
I also have a hard time attributing the loss of
audiences to the music that was played. I believe
that we are undergoing a change which has ripped
countries like China apart. That divide between
what was and what will be, the cell phones and the
rituals, the DVD's and the oral history, are
exactly what cause the loss of our audiences. The
new Classical music, as I have always stated, is in
the movies. Movie scores have become the new
tradition in this country, at least where the
ticket buying public lies. Movie music was a real
American divide, and is the genre where the best
American composers play their talents. It's not
only the new opera: it has forced orchestras to
rethink their strategies to get people to come
back.
As for Jazz, I have a different view. Jazz is and
always has been a way to express oneself, and make
money. Like everything else, Jazz had simplistic
roots and developed into something which could not
sustain itself. Now it has returned to what it once
was: a way of expression which draws from the
populists' wallet.
Ok.. shot fired.. I'll wait or the return. However,
I wouldn't expect a doctoral rebuttal on this
board. We have always been a more casual community,
and perhaps that is why not many have replied
yet.
Scoot
|
|
Alex Feht
|
You make valid points, which rather add to my
view rather than contradict it. Indeed, a break
from European tradition has been inevitable, and
there were many reasons for it other than general
mediocrity that filled the void. I also agree that
American movie music is, in a sense, the only
natural "sequel" to classical music -- I would say,
movie music is what's left of classics. Time to
time, I hear in the movie music very interesting
and talented things, even real melodies and
fascinating modulations -- unfortunately,
undeveloped and fragmentary. For example, the score
for Attenborough's BBC series, "Life of Plants",
shows a lot of promise and talent (forgot the
composer's name, of course) -- but it lasts only as
long as the introduction lasts, and if it returns
later in the film, it returns unchanged. The
general impression is that musically gifted
composers are out there but they are in exile,
forced to write for omnivorous, tasteless
commercial clients -- or not to write at all. Some
popular songs (20 or so songs by Beatles (or by G.
Martin?), some others, time to time, here and
there) show melodic and even harmonic
inventiveness, but they are mostly vulgar, and the
philosophy they carry is intellectually repulsive.
Tonal jazz... well, as Russians say, "where there's
no real fish, a crowfish will do".
The question is: Are these contemporary leftovers
of classical music on par with the masterpieces of
the past? Where is the intellectual and emotional
depth, where is the indomitable beauty and staying
power of real classics?
No, I don't call for the impossible complete return
to European tradition, I only call for tonal (that
is, physiologically natural) music that is
simultaneously complex and accessible, written in
language that can impress any man who lived and
thought, not only a few Manhattan glitterati with
artificially pointed ears. I am tired of music that
is either primitive and tasteless, or written with
the only narrow goal in sight: to avoid anything
that ever has been tried before. No wonder any
attempts of atonalists like Penderecky and
Stockhausen to write someting tonal are so
laughably inane. These people had no talent to
begin with, they rode the wave of negative reaction
to anything meaningful or skillful, and they truly
believe that they are composers? There are
exceptions, of course, but these unique curios are
destined to be drowned in the ocean of
drum-machined musak and shoenbergian abysmal
noise.
I think that the first piece of music that
expressed individual genius was Monteverdi's
"Vespro della Beata Vergine" (1610). For me, the
last true masterpiece of the classical music, a
natural musical artefact that I can accept without
any reservations, is Puccini's "Nessun dorma",
1923. In the same year, Puccini wrote to his
friend: "What happened to the world? Melody either
disappeared or became vulgar!" Soon, Sibelius
started drinking and stopped writing, saying: "If
what passes for music nowadays is music, I am no
musician -- period." Thus, the era of noble and
natural musical expression lasted little more than
300 years. We live among the ruins and crude
imitations.
P.S. Please, be as casual as it suits you. I am not
trying to be a pompous stuffed shirt. English is
not my native language, I am not at ease with
American colloquialisms. Therefore, I am afraid of
making a foolish mistake by using some idiom in a
wrong way, and stick to more ponderous but reliable
style. Actually, I constantly translate into
English what I am thinking in Russian, which
affects my syntax and choice of expressions.
Thank you,
AF
|
|
Adagio
|
I think in today's day and age, I might be
labeled a musical conservative. Art has changed
drastically and in my opinion, has taken a turn for
the worse. Noise is not art, nor is paint randomly
splashed on a canvas. If only I could have lived
300-400 years ago, I might have thorougly enjoyed
the arts and philosophy of the day.
I agree with you, our current culture thrives on
unimaginative junk and "musicians" write only so
they can bring in a paycheck.
Lester Bangs once said, "The first mistake of art
is to assume that it's serious." I disagree with
this statement in that art can be as serious as it
needs to be; do you consider the mighty symphonies
of Beethoven or the Brandenburg Concertos of Bach
"not serious"? I would be appalled if I ever heard
someone disrespect such serious and beautiful
works.
Yet, what is art but a way of seeing? If
present-day artists would only look past the
guidelines and morals they are told to compose
with, we might still live in a world where free
expression was looked highly upon, and where
geniuses still composed the masterpieces of our
time.
I think I'm more in agreement than disagreement
with you, Alex.
Thank you,
ML
|
|
Andonicus
|
No doctoral dissertation is required as a
response to any of the observations above;
certainly not to Scooter's comments about jazz,
which are really value judgements, anyway.
Any attempt to describe jazz by classical
principles is inappropriate. The futile attempt
usually ends in a condescension, which is neither
positive nor productive. And the populist argument
can be used to describe music of any idiom.
Ando
|
|
Alex Feht
|
Every judgement about music is a value
judgement. Even if I believe that tonal music is
natural, and atonal is not, I don't forget that
most of any tonal music is crap, anyway.
For one, I don't "condescend" toward jazz, because
it is, obviously, a complex, diverse, and evolved
group of genres. I only can say that I don't
understand why other people like it so much, and
that I am somewhat repelled by the vulgar or
bohemian cultural atmosphere usually associated
with jazz (though I remember that there are jazz
musicians who don't necessarily represent such an
atmosphere).
I could suggest that classical music is a deeper,
clearer language with wider lexicon and farther
possibilities, theorizing about ambiguousness of
jazz harmonies avoiding definite tonal centre by
using 9- and 11-chords and diminished 7-chords as
its means of constant tonal shifts without definite
resolution. In fact, I think that lack of
resolution, indecision, is one of the main traits
of jazz, musically and philosophically. In this
sense, ironically, Wagner's "Tristan", late
Skriabin and jazz are affined.
But I admit that I simply have no ears for jazz,
and that this is, probably, the most important
factor affecting my attitude toward it.
AF
|
|
ScooterTB23
|
Well Alex,
It certainly has been enjoyable to have a
discussion about this with you. Unfortunately, if
you are speaking of the purity of the tonal and
intellectual value of modern day classical music,
I'm afraid that the only refuge left is the Band
world. This is not merely because of the rise of
bands, especially in America. More to the point it
happened because of the tendency of most
professional groups to focus on rehashing the past,
instead of plowing ahead towards the future. I'm
not sure why any group would limit itself so,
however it seemed to be the mantra of professional
symphonies, with some exceptions like Corgliano, to
completely abandon the genre as it pertains to new
pieces and new composers.
Thus some very talented composers sought exile in
the band world. Some greats that come to mind, and
remember, this is only the tip of the iceberg, are
Eric Ewazen, Eric Whitacre, Alfred Reed, David
Maslanka. They developed new styles and techniques
without compromising our senses or our ears.
Whitacre's "October" remains one of my most loved
lyrical works, wrought with brilliant resolutions
and motives. Maslanka's "In Memoriam" is a return
to the days of Berlioz, if he had composed in our
time, of course. Other memorable composers are
writing for a select group of instruments, like
Ewazen's "Colcester Fantasy" for Brass Quintet.
I think that we are in no way losing the talent of
great composers. I think that perhaps, like all
fields, they have become more specialized. They are
divided between orchestra, movie music, commercial
(of which there are a few great ones writing for
cartoons and such), small ensemble, jazz, musicals,
and band. As other professions, such as the medical
field and the law, are becoming more specialized,
so are we.
|
|
Alex Feht
|
Could you explain, in simple terms for
uninitiated, what do you call "Band Music"? Is
there some general definition? I am totally
unfamiliar with the term.
AF
|
|
ScooterTB23
|
really? Well, Band music simply means anything
originally scored for winds and percussion only,
usually but not always with the following
instrumentation:
1st and 2nd flutes,
1st, 2nd, and 3rd clarinet
oboe
bassoon
alto sax, tenor sax, and bari sax
bass clarinet
3 to 5 trumpet/cornet parts
1st, 2nd, and 3rd trombones
4 horns
tuba
mixed percussion including tympani
does that help?
|
|
Alex Feht
|
So, if I want to include string instuments, it
cannot be called "Band" any more. Russians use only
the "Wind Ensemble" term, the equivalent of "band"
("gruppa") is reserved for rock music, etc.
I don't know... Music without strings... winds
only... all right, if they tune their instruments
well, it can sound fine, but most of the wind
ensembles I've heard live were badly tuned
(mismatched?).
On the other hand, if what they play is atonal,
tuning doesn't matter, does it?
AF
|
|
Andonicus
|
Quote:
I am somewhat repelled by the vulgar or
bohemian cultural atmosphere usually associated
with jazz
So. What does this have to do with the quality
of the music? I am repelled by much of the European
culture that surrounded and undoubtedly influenced
the work of Mozart, Bach and Beethoven. But it has
almost nothing to do with my appreciation of their
music.
Quote:
But I admit that I simply have no ears
for jazz,...
That says it all.
Ando
|
|
Alex Feht
|
One could argue that cultural atmospheres
associated with various musical styles, as well as
cultural preferences in general, do mean a lot.
There are no cultural moral absolutes, of course,
but even cultural relativism, like any relativism,
pre-supposes comparison. And comparison reveals one
culture to be more evolved and diverse than
another. Jazz culture seems to occupy a narrow
slice of society, whereas the culture of tonal
classical music has dispersed throughout the social
fabric of every country. Which proves to me that
the language of tonal classical music is richer and
more accessible at the same time.
This is not to say that there aren't jazz pieces
rivaling classical music in complexity or
inventiveness. There are, I am sure, compositions
for Hindu sitar and Bali instruments which bring a
lot of pleasure to connoisseurs. The reservation is
that one doesn't need to be a connoisseur to
appreciate the best ahievements of the tonal
classical music. It speaks in language familiar to
absolute majority of human beings, regardless of
the place or of the time of their birth. The same
cannot be said about jazz.
In other words, you write here in English, not in
Laotian, because you want to be understood, not
because you think that English is somehow "better"
than Laotian. The same with classical music and
jazz. Jazz is "Laotian" for everybody but some
people who grew up in its cultural milieu, and
developed special ears for it. Tonal classical
music is understood equally well by Amazon Indians,
Chinese, Russians, Indonesians, Germans, Jews, and
Australian Aborigines. It is the most universal,
democratic, and time-independent musical language
of all.
AF
|
|
ScooterTB23
|
I'm sorry, Alex But I have found the opposite to
be true in my experience. Win Ensembles, Wind
Symphonies, Symphonic bands, whatever you may call
them, are usually far more in tune then a string
group of the same age. Perhaps it is the wind
instrument's intrinsic propertied which make it
less susceptible to immediate changes in pitch, or
perhaps it is the modus operandi for sound
production with wind instruments but wind groups
are typically more in tune. As to style, we can
argue all day, and I'm sure that we will agree by
the end about who is better. It does make me worry
about the quality of the wind programs in your home
country if they aren't a match for the strings.
And by the way, cultural relativism as it has been
known is dead, and shall ever be. There ARE moral
absolutes. There have to be, or our entire system
of right and wrong is subject to change by the
whims of current "pop ethics" if you will, and the
moral ineptitude of some downtrodden cultures who
have yet to migrate out of archaic times. We must
think with a world view, not a "culture view".
|
|
caacrinolas
|
This topic is a bit shocking, I must admit.
Please excuse, like Alex, the quality of my
language because it's not my first neither and I
try as much as possible to express myself the
clearest possible.
I sense that you might miss something in your
speeches. You look like saying that tonal music is
the most natural thing that that it is more
valuable than any other system. We're talking here
of a language, and more than that, we're talking
about occidental values. I'm not sure that european
tonality is more valuable than any modal music from
arab countries or gamelan, for example.
During the last century, we exposed our little
occidental selves to the other face of the worl, we
also discovered the history of music, things that
we haven't really get into before (they didn't sing
polyphonic songs of 1500 back in 1800), it's more
or less an overture that leaded us to the question:
is there more than our system? Is there other ways
to express? The answer is yes, and spiting on the
other avenues is like creating a shell over our
ears and shutting ourselves on our own culture.
The 12-tone system appeared in a time when the
tonal system had the historical NEED to be
abolished, because it wasn't able to express the
tragedies of the composers anymore - I'm mostly
talking about shoenberg and his pupils, those
genious composers who found the way to find another
language for what they wanted to express. Of
course, their music aren't beautiful and are hard
to listen to; but their life wasn't exactly
beautiful and they didn't want to express
beautifulness. They were true to their
expressionnist nature, and they just continued
Wagner's romantic work. If you compare Berg's
Wozzeck with Wagner's Tristan, you'll find
ressemblences, because they were written in similar
ideas.
About the neo-classics and the so called
'futurists', they were the one who didn't want to
continue the traditions of Wien, they found their
own way of expressing through their overture to the
world. Don't blame the pioneers, they are the ones
who made us evolve.
I personnaly think that the ones who doslike
12-tone pieces are usually the one who never really
listen to it or never tried to understand it - and
play it. Here, I do have an objection; not all
12-tone music is good, it's like tonal music; not
everything is good there neither (I personnaly
don't really like Webern's pieces) but just listen
to some of the tragical pieces of Shoenberg (who
did return to tonal msuic at the end of his life)
and Berg (who's a really really sensitive composer,
the most of the group in my sense - wozzeck is just
so superbly sad and very powerful). Personnaly,
12-tone is far from being my favorite language, but
I can appreciate it when it's well-written. I
really prefer free atonality, because it almost
always plays on tonal tensions.
There is also the french school with Messiaen and
Boulez, we could only blame Boulez (you absolutely
can't say they don't have talents, they are both
total geniuses) of writing too complex msuic that
only him can understand. And he also understood his
mistakes, you know... he breaked from serialism
before he realized that there were no avenue.
And for Messiaen, well, it's a spiritual man. For
those who say that tonal music is the most natural,
then you should know that Messiaen claimed exactly
the same thing about his language.
The main problem of this century isn't the loss of
tonal music. This is ridiculous. Don't think I
don't like it, I'm a musician and a music-lover as
you all, and I do appreciate tonal music, and I
don't know one single person on earth that totally
hate it. But the problem is not there; the problem
is the kind of individualism that came over our
composers nowadays.
From the begining of the xxth century, the styles
became more and more heterogenous, leaving the
copmosers with an idea of renewal at any price,
revolution after revolution, musics against musics,
and in the end, all those styles became so
eprsonnal that every composers lost a bit of what I
call the desire to be understood. The music became
more and more complex, written for an elite and
that doesn't reach mr. and ms. everybody.
But that was a few years ago, because music is
always changing. People don't really write serial
msuic anymore - there is a few, but not a lot
amongst the students that will be the composers of
tomorrow. There's a flow of renewal, a lil come
back in the past values, but without falling in the
easy romantism. The music is less intellectual and
a decade ago and more near to the emotions, but it
probably won't ever return to absolute I-IV-V-I
tonal music. Music has understood its mistakes and
now, I think it's the people who are listening to
music that should make an effort. We live in a time
where we tend to lost any identity and I feel that
the XXth century will only reflect that state of
our society: the quest for an identity.
But as I said, things are changing... just go to
modern music concerts, with actual music (I say
actual, by young composers) and you'll see that
things are different. We're sick of intellectual
and elitist works. And it's you're bold enough,
you'll see what happen to music around the world; I
often see in the english-speaking boards that when
talking about contemporary music, the general names
are always from the united states... cage, glass,
adams, etc. There is really good music in canada,
in France, and in Japan too! And once you discover
something, and you try to understand it, you can't
help but being fascinated by it.
Those were my two cents. ^_^
(edit: I really really can't conceive that someone
can actually claim that Ravel and Prokofiev wrote
music in the idea of sounding 'new' greater than
the idea to be understood. o_O That's
unbeleivable... no offense, Alex, I respect your
opinion, but I do have serious doubts about
it.)
|
|
Alex Feht
|
I don't see how your opinion contradicts my
conclusions. You also observe that music has
deviated from accessible, diverse language into the
realm of esoteric, unintelligible personal
self-expression, and that it must return to some
level of comprehensibility. Consonant and dissonant
intervals produce corresponding physiological
emotional reactions, which constitute the emotional
system of co-ordinates natural for human ear and
brain. Sorry, but this is a scientific fact, rooted
in mathematical proportions expressed by consosnant
intervals and perceived as "harmonious" by human
brain. Such system of coordinates is the only
musical language that could be universal, that is,
understood by any human being. Other systems can
enrich the tonal one, but they could never
substitute it. Either we can agree that tonality is
inseparable from humanity, or we will live in
eternal hell of musical Babel Tower, where
everybody speaks his own musical language unknown
to others.
You also assume that I don't know much about
Shoenberg, Berg, Webern, etc. I've heard enough of
that stuff. Dodecaphony is a negative reaction to
tonality and harmony, not a thing in itself. It can
only exist as a "novelty" on the background of
tonal musical literature; on it's own it loses any
meaning (with the exception of those spots where
Berg cheats: he introduces hints of tonality by
skipping this or that tone in his 12-tone series,
making it a fast transitional one).
"Wozzeck", in my opinion, is hysteria itself,
expressed in opposition to European culture that,
from Berg's poin of view, resulted in horrors of
the World War I. To me, comparing "Wozzeck" with
"Tristan" is like comparing an eggplant with the
evening sky: yes, there's something bluish to both,
so what? They are things of completely different,
incompatible orders. Shoenberg's conscious position
was one of a destroyer; he hated European cultural
heritage, and expostulated expansively on this
subject in writing. No wonder Shoenberg's and
Penderecky's tonal pieces are so uninventive and
boring -- they have chosen atonality exactly
because they could not produce anything new within
the natural system. Shoenberg, a tragic case? Yes.
Shoenberg, a genius? I think not.
I don't see what is so unusual in observing that
Prokofiev, for example, always chased novelty and
originality above all, and very rarely became
emotional or deep. I don't know a colder composer;
he played with notes like an egotistical child, and
it didn't matter to him if his music praised the
most inhuman regime in human history. As a result,
very many of his compositions leave casual
listeners uninterested. But Prokofiev was a
talented musician enough not ever to abandon
tonality.
There can be varying opinions on Ravel. I don't
deny that he was extremely talented (he also never
abandoned tonality) and meticulous, even
perfectionist. I don't like his exquisiteness that
sometimes borders upon negligibility of
content.
Messiaen pays attention to the meaning of the
combinations of sounds, and therefore, could be
more or less interesting for a moment or two. But
his language is extremely esoteric, and almost
nobody is ready to spend much time learning it.
Boulez, Cage? They lost themselves to the audience
in the labyrinth of their experiments. Who can say
with clear conscience that he or she really enjoys
a piece by Boulez? Nobody. In the final analisys,
art isn't "anything one can get away with" for 15
minutes -- these experiments are nothing but
musical hooliganism, mockery and waste of
listener's time, like many other phenomenae in
modernist art.
Naturally, my opinions are shocking to you -- we
represent two very different cultural systems.
Believe me, your opinions are equally shocking to
me, even though I've heard similar "calls for
understanding" from many musicians who grew up
within the confines of insitutionalized perversion
and persecution of tonality that prevailed during
the last half of the 20th century.
No offense, either. We speak from different worlds,
and only very long time will decide who was
right.
AF
P.S. Your native language is French, mine is
Russian. But we both write in English here. Why?
Because we want to understand each other. For the
same reason, I think, tonality is destined to win
over atonality and other experiments, however
interesting ones.
|
|
Fugato
|
Quote:
tonality is inseparable from
humanity
English is not my native language (I'm French),
and I regret being unable to express correctly my
ideas... How do you say in english the word
"ETHNOCENTRISME" ? I think it is the name of your
sickness, Alex... I know your opinion because... I
had the same, exactly the same, with the same
arguments... But I've changed a little... I agree
with you on many point but... take care of
extremism...
J'enrage de ne pouvoir m'exprimer correctement !
Que c'est frustrant...
Just a question, Alex : Do you like Nietzsche
?
|
|
caacrinolas
|
we both write in english but we both can't fully
express our ideas.
I agree with the loss of values and the mistakes of
music of being too complex for a normal person, but
I really disagree about stating tonal music as the
real absolute answer. The music has evolved. we can
use elarged tonality or references to it, but we
can't return at puccini's time.
And I personnaly think that Prokofiev is one of the
most interesting and hcallenging lyric and melodist
composer.
And don't say that nobody listens to Messaien's or
Boulez's art... there's a lot of people who does,
trust me. It might be impossible to you, but there
ARE people who are actually enjoying Pli selon Pli,
the magnificent Turangalila symphony or the
spiritual andenjoyable 20 regards sur l'enfant
jésus for piano... You should not consider
your own values as the universal ones.
|
|
Alex Feht
|
No, I don't "like" Nietzsche, though I think
that he made many true, talented and interesting
observations. (His attempts at composing music were
abject failures, as I have observed in his scores.)
I don't forget that application (or misapplication,
as some might point out) of Nietzsche's "superman"
dream stimulated a self-delusion of the whole
German nation, which, in turn, resulted in disaster
for the whole human race. However, blaming
Nietzsche, personally, for German
National-Socialist crimes would be tantamount to
blaming Jesus Christ for all the crimes of the
Church or blaming Robert Owen for the mass
atrocities of the Bolsheviks and Maoists.
My point of view is that we all are mutants, that
humanity mutates and evolves biologically with
neckbreaking speed, and that there are many points
of this growth in many directions. Some of the
growth is healthy, some is cancerous.
I can read French (though would prefer not to write
in French). So, please, you are welcome to use
French expressions when you find it difficult to
say something in English.
There is an English word "ethnocentrism". However,
I don't locate any cultural center in any ethnic
unit or race. I declare tonality to be the
universal musical language, accessible to all human
beings. On the other hand, dodecaphonists, Boulez,
Berg, etc. are purely local European phenomenae,
and over-emphasizing their significance could be
called an "ethnocentrism".
There is nothing absolutist in saying that tonality
is natural, and atonality is not. It is a
scientific fact, either you like it or not. I don't
mind using atonal chords and fragments as special
means of expression, but to be understood correctly
by a majority of people, these special means of
expression must be anchored in universally
understood musical system of emotional
co-ordinates, that is, in tonality.
No, "a lot" of people don't listen to Boulez. Very
few do. A lot of people listen to Bach and
Beatles.
I also think Prokofiev was very talented,
harmonically and melodically inventive, and often
simply interesting. I also happened to know that he
was a rare fool and a coward, and one can hear his
foolishness and cowardice in his music. Consider a
single fact from his biography, for example:
Prokofiev returned to Soviet Russia with his young
and beautiful wife. Stalin's secret police arrested
her almost immediately, and she perished in the
Gulag. Prokofiev didn't say a word about it, and
went on writing oratorios praising Stalin and his
Party. THIS MAN UNDERSTOOD ANYTHING ABOUT "ROMEO
AND JULIET"? Yeah, interesting, sometimes beautiful
music, but cold as a fish, freezing cold.
AF
|
|
caacrinolas
|
I prefer what you say now than what you said in
your previous posts. I conceive that's it's a bit
fool to admit that Shoenberg, Messiaen or Prokofiev
weren't geniouses - you even staed that some were
'sick'. That attitude is a bit extremist.
And concerning your blaming of ethnocentrism, we
never stated that the european evolution of music
was the correct one, as opposed to your vision of
tonal... it's a language among other, here is the
difference.
|
|
kfigaro
|
I am not agree at all with Alex's point of view
:(((, if Webern and Boulez are often hard to
listen.... I love very much the music of Messiaen
(Poèmes pour Mi, L'ascension, St
François d'Assise), Bartok (images, 4
pièces for orchestra, the wooden prince) and
Lutoslawski, OK, they compose atonal music but
lyrical and beautiful music in the spirit of
Debussy (modal music)
|
|
Adagio
|
I can't take sides in an argument like this.
However, if I hear a tonal piece that is very
beautiful and expressive, I enjoy that. If I hear
something atonal (perhaps Shostakovich Polka), sure
it's not very pretty, but its enjoyable to a
certain extent.
The truth is, human beings should enjoy whatever
music they wish without worrying about opression,
opinions, or discrimination. If we enjoy what we
hear, we should listen and that is that. After all,
isn't that what music is all about?
|
|