Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

952968 Posts in 62845 Topics- by 15308 Members - Latest Member: TolgaAkman
Jump to:  
The Trombone ForumCreation and PerformanceMusical Miscellany(Moderators: JP, BGuttman) New Music = the Emperors New Clothes?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [All]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: New Music = the Emperors New Clothes?  (Read 19342 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
brucolli

*
Offline Offline

Location: Germany
Joined: Mar 9, 2011
Posts: 260
"Trombone - musikFabrik, Cologne"


View Profile
« on: Dec 05, 2011, 05:31PM »

I would like to start a new thread here solely for the discussion of New Music.

I am the trombonist of musikFabrik, one of the leading ensembles for new music, along with Ensemble Modern in Frankfurt, Klang Forum in Vienna, Ensemble Intercontemporain in Paris and the London Sinfonietta. There are, of course many more than these and more and more ensembles are starting up and developing at a rate that we can safely assume that new music ensembles will be a viable alternative to orchestras in the future. They already are in Europe.

I have about 17 years performance practice and have performed hundreds of world premieres and worked with most all of the worlds foremost contemporary composers, including Kagel, Stockhausen, Lachenmann, Rihm, Kurtag etc.

But this thread is not about me, it's about New Music. I am as much interested in learning from others as in sharing my insights and experiences with those who are genuinely interested. I am not a musicologist so I may not always be 100% correct in my statements but I will readily accept my mistakes.

I would like to start of with a couple of questions that have turned up in another thread.

Let's start at the beginning of new music, well, a least the departure of tonality, the 12 tone row.

1. It has been suggested here in this forum that the composers who wrote with 12 tone rows were not able to hear them, it was questioned if they are singable and that they are so difficult for audiences to comprehend that they have fallen out of grace, so to speak.

My view;
I feel this statement is utter rubbish. I would wager that the majority of the people here in the forum could instantly sing a 12 tone row. Try the beginning of the Martin Ballad, for instance. Ok, it's only 11 tones, but it isn't hard to sing a g after the last d.

What about the 2nd and 3rd movements of the Hindemith Sonata? I'm not sure what the exact rules are but certainly all the 12 tones are in these melodies.

Admittedly, these are fairly tonal examples, so how a really atonal one, the cadenza in the 2nd movement to the George Walker Concerto?
Or the 1st movement of the Creston Fantasy? Can any one sing these? I can and I'm sure most who have practiced them also can.

I think the reason that composers stopped using the 12 tone row is that they eventually tired of it and moved on to other things, like serialism where not only the tones but also dynamics and length are mathematically conceived. Good examples - Stockhausen "In Freundschaft" (there is a version for trombone) and Boulez "Pli selon pli".
This happened over 70 years ago (serialism, not the pieces) and it wasn't long before composers like Xenakis started experimenting with algorithms. A great example - "Eonta" for piano, 2 trumpets and 3 trombones. An Incredible piece I can heartily recommend as essential listening for any trombonist.

Is this all not worthy of being considered music or, in the view of one of our illustrious forum members, "Emperors New Clothes" because it doesn't conform to the next statement and thus has no soul?

2. All music, western or non-western has to conform to the overtone series, if not, it isn't worthy of being considered music.

My view;
although the overtone series is immensely important to all music and every tone we play consists of them, I have trouble understanding how the piano and all fixed tuned instruments with their equal temperament fit into this. The only notes from the WT scale that fit into the overtone series is are the octaves. The rest are only approximations.
Once we have chopped the octave into 12 equal parts, why not into 24, 36, 48, 60 and more equal parts. This, of course, is done by composers regularly and I and my colleagues can hear these microtones and sing them. Is this then not to be considered music because it doesn't fit into the overtone series?

I think not.

More later, I hope this sparks off at least an initial, intelligent discussion.

Furchtlos weiter (fearlessly onwards) (Stockhausen)

Bruce








 
 
Logged

Bruce Collings
Rath Trombone Artist
www.musikfabrik.eu
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 3050

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: Dec 05, 2011, 05:45PM »

12 tone row is new music?  Don't know
Logged
HouBassTrombone

*
Offline Offline

Location: Houston, TX
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 1959
"Just play because you love to."


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: Dec 05, 2011, 06:30PM »

I would argue that the 12 tone system was not the first real departure from the tonal world. That is a case of indoctrination by Arnold Schoenberg (which I happen to be a HUGE fan of and my favorite book is his Style and Idea). Listen to Mahler's 9th and try to analysis it. I have yet to see a good theory that can explain everything in that piece.
The argument of not being able to sing something in the 12 tone system.. well I see one flaw in that. The reason we can sing the pieces you have listed is because of repetition. Everyone has heard them many times and can pick out a the note missing. Now would the "non-educated" listener be able to pick that out? When it comes to "New Music" I like the ideas of go contrary to equal temperament. Again I would refer people to read the book just called "Temperament" whose author escapes me at the moment. In answer to your post BOB I would say that 12 tone music is still new to many concert goers.
I do like the idea of throwing out the whole 12 half steps in an octave system. But the problem is inertia. People have become used to playing half and whole tones and even more important: people have become accustomed to listening to them. This should not stop the experimentation though.
Also as far as new music goes: what do people think of pieces like Steve Reich's WTC (World Trade Center)? Or how about the works of Atticus Ross and Trent Reznor in the soundtracks of The Social Network and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo? I find all those works to be powerful pieces of NEW music.
-Z
Logged

Why am I not practicing?????
sabutin

*
Offline Offline

Location: NYC
Joined: Sep 26, 2005
Posts: 4543
"A professional freelance NYC lower brass player."


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: Dec 05, 2011, 06:57PM »

12 tone row is new music?  Don't know

New music is music that is new. That means that if someone finds a new way to present the tune Happy Birthday, that is new music. (It can be done.)

New music in capital letters and quotation marks, however ("NEW MUSIC!!!") is a style of Western European orchestral/chamber music that is not only not "new," but an argument can be made that it is well over 100 years old. I mean, where do you draw the line? Stockhausen?  Cage? Hell, how about Charles Ives? Parts of "Central Park In The Dark" (composed in 1906) sound like they were written last night. Much like the word "jazz", anybody who wants to claim that they are playing "NEW MUSIC" is indeed doing so. Randomly transpose and cut up a Mozart string quartet and give it to an equally randomly chosen set of instruments? That's "NEW MUSIC!!!" So are oh-so-serious attempts at...at whatever people want to try to do. Some of it is bullschmidt and some of it is brillant. Again, just like "jazz"...a word that I use very infrequently when speaking seriously about music because it has become a branding device, just as has the "New Music" label.

"Let's go hear some 'JAZZ!!!' " say the culture clones.

Or

"Let's go hear some 'NEW MUSIC!!!' "

Meaningless on the face of it.

But well used to make some bread.

Bet on it.

AG
Logged

Visit <http://samburtis.com/>. Lots of information on that site in the form of articles plus a link to my method book "Time, Balance & Connections-A Universal Theory Of Brass Relativity" which includes several chapters of the book.
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 42763
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: Dec 05, 2011, 07:43PM »

The process of finding great new music has much debris.  In Mozart's day there were lots of other composers (Salieri being one of the more famous) whose works we basically don't play any more.  Why?  Because Mozart wrote better stuff.

I was librarian of a concert band that had a library of pieces dating back to just after the US Civil War.  We had an awful lot of music that nobody (including people who had been in the band for 50 years) could ever remember playing.  We used to pull up a few of those piece from time to time -- and put them right back.  They weren't worth the effort to play.

Some new music is not appreciated when it is new.  Stravinsky's Rite of Spring caused a riot in the theater when it was premiered 100 years ago.  Today we consider it mainstream.

For that matter, Jazz was denigrated in the early part of the 20th century.  There were people who called it "devil's music".  It was even banned in Nazi Germany.  Yet we consider most forms of Jazz to be pretty mainstream.

I'm sure in 50 or 100 years some of the stuff being excoriated here will be considered fine examples of composition.  Some other pieces that we think are the next best thing will be as old as yesterday's garbage.

Of course until we actually try things out we will never discover if they have "legs" to continue.  Some will indeed be "emperor's new clothes", but others will be the finest woven fabric of music.  Too bad we can't tell which is which right now.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
sabutin

*
Offline Offline

Location: NYC
Joined: Sep 26, 2005
Posts: 4543
"A professional freelance NYC lower brass player."


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: Dec 06, 2011, 04:33AM »

The process of finding great new music has much debris.  In Mozart's day there were lots of other composers (Salieri being one of the more famous) whose works we basically don't play any more.  Why?  Because Mozart wrote better stuff.

I was librarian of a concert band that had a library of pieces dating back to just after the US Civil War.  We had an awful lot of music that nobody (including people who had been in the band for 50 years) could ever remember playing.  We used to pull up a few of those piece from time to time -- and put them right back.  They weren't worth the effort to play.

Some new music is not appreciated when it is new.  Stravinsky's Rite of Spring caused a riot in the theater when it was premiered 100 years ago.  Today we consider it mainstream.

For that matter, Jazz was denigrated in the early part of the 20th century.  There were people who called it "devil's music".  It was even banned in Nazi Germany.  Yet we consider most forms of Jazz to be pretty mainstream.

I'm sure in 50 or 100 years some of the stuff being excoriated here will be considered fine examples of composition.  Some other pieces that we think are the next best thing will be as old as yesterday's garbage.

Of course until we actually try things out we will never discover if they have "legs" to continue.  Some will indeed be "emperor's new clothes", but others will be the finest woven fabric of music.  Too bad we can't tell which is which right now.

A quick test of "which is which?"

If you play a wrong note or rhythm and almost no one seems to notice...people who should be noticing, like your fellow musicians, the conductor/bandleader and the composer/orchestrator/arranger? The Emperor is in the house. Bet on it. Nekkid as a jaybird and full of attitude.

Now...there can be instances where ENC music has been so pounded into the consciousness of academically-trained musicians that they have essentially memorized a piece and will indeed pick up on unauthorized "variations," but when that happens ask yourself this question. If a highly musical listener was hearing this music and a wrong note occurred...a real one, not just a little slip of the lip but a wrong accidental or an entrance a bar or a beat early, not something buried inside of a massive orchestral passage somewhere...would that listener be able to tell? If not...ditto on the jaybird thing.

In the spirit of this discussion...I was idly channel surfing tonight in an effort to find something...anything...that interested me in the vast wasteland of TV. I came across a "Jazz Masterclass" on PBS featuring the one and only Cecil Taylor. Now I have seen other episodes in this and similar series...Jimmy Heath, Barry Harris, Phil Woods...that were very interesting and informative to their audience of young players. Clark Terry's in an absolute masterpiece of teaching. I will say out front that I have absolutely no use for anything that I have ever heard or seen of Mr. Taylor's, but as I said elsewhere, hope springs eternal in my perhaps overly optimistic breast. So I tuned in.

What did I see?

A "jazz critic" rapidly blinking his eyes and waxing rhapsodic over Cecil Taylor's genius.

An academic very seriously explaining how important Taylor will be to the several young players who will be playing with him in this masterclass.

The players themselves, all of whom were either playing politics by saying the right thing so that their teachers will give them good grades and/or did not have a clue about what was about to happen.

And eventually Cecil Taylor, who walked out on stage and began reading off of some papers that were sitting on a music stand. I say "reading" because his eyes were open and he seemed to be looking at the papers. Quick shots of them seemed to show a densely scrawled set of near-hieroglyphics and the sounds that were coming out of his mouth were almost incomprehensible...some combination of English words, references to Egyptian deities (real or imagined, I do not know), grunts, groans and other vocal tics beyond number. Loud, though. Forceful, the way projectile vomiting is forceful. No apparent attempt at contact with the audience, shots of which showed a typical academic group sitting there, eyes glazed over suffering through yet another performance that was supposed to be important and mean something because they had been told that this is the case and feeling guilty because they'd actually rather be somewhere else...almost anywhere else except maybe someplace like Abu Ghraib. This went on for easily five minutes or more. I stuck around, because I wanted to hear him play the piano. As I said...hope springs eternal.

And then he sat down and began his usual semi-random piano pounding. Again...it's forceful, but then so is a nasty beating. After another five minutes that went absolutely nowhere...not up, not down, just continuing like a parking lot full of cars with their various alarms blaring...I turned the TV off and went back to work. (I am in composing mode these days, myself. New music, don'tcha know. But from the heart, mind and body. Bet on it.)

Now...this is a précis of much of the whole "NEW MUSIC!!!" syndrome. The jazz version thereof. It ain't "new"...I mean, he's been playing the same shite for what, 50+ years now?...and it is not really music. Almost, but not quite. It is just a noise salad w/some music dressing. Just enough to keep the rubes interested.

I say "rubes" with some doubt, actually. I have a suspicion that Cecil Taylor is simply seriously unbalanced emotionally and mentally. Just sane enough to be able to make a living off of it. He's not running a game...he really thinks that he is saying something. He reminds me of a street guy I used to know who lived in the East Village during the glory years of the psychedelic revolution. Late '60s/early'70s. I used to hang out on the front stoop of my building on East 5th street with a bunch of friends at any and all hours of the day and night, checking out the local fauna as it drifted on by. This particular character had written a book. A very large book, maybe 300 pages or so. Meticulously handwritten in ink, no mistakes, crossings out or erasures. He would stop passersby and offer to read from it to them, and he looked just interesting and non-threatening enough that many people said OK. He would then select a page and start reading in a very serious manner. The only catch was that the entire book was written in a language that only he understood. Now...I will never really be sure whether that language was a consistent set of words and grammar that actually meant something to him (which would put him somewhere in the "idiot savant" category, I guess) or a totally random group of sounds upon which he imposed his own meanings as he went along, but I am fairly sure of one thing. He was totally honest about what he was doing. It wasn't a hustle of any kind whatsoever. Not a monetary one, anyway. When people would eventually back away and continue on down the street he would simply keep walking, looking for the next audience. Bedbug crazy.

Now during this same time I was beginning to know and play with some very "avant-garde" musicians who were in no way faking it. Carla Bley, Roswell Rudd, Archie Shepp, Charles Mingus, Sam Rivers, Eddie Palmieri and a number of other players whose names have faded from popular memory but were right up there in the same general class. Roots deep as the idioms in which they came up but living right on the furthest edge of the development of those idioms. There is a difference, and I hear it. It is an idiom-free difference as well. It's the same as the difference between that street guy's book and James Joyce's "Finnegan's Wake", William Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury" or almost all of William Burroughs's writing. There is sense in it if you dig deep enough.

But if you don't?

Ah well...so it goes.

And so go I. Back to work.

Later...

S.
Logged

Visit <http://samburtis.com/>. Lots of information on that site in the form of articles plus a link to my method book "Time, Balance & Connections-A Universal Theory Of Brass Relativity" which includes several chapters of the book.
savio

*
Offline Offline

Location: Norway
Joined: Aug 10, 2006
Posts: 4082

View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: Dec 06, 2011, 01:16PM »

I don't have so much experience with "new music" or whatever we call it. I bet there is both quality and not quality like many other things. I remember there was a kind of student orchestra in Norway I played in when the summer was there. Orchestra sounded very good but did use some more time to get things works than the pro orchestra. Anyway this orchestra was used sometimes to let composers try their work. They often was there when we did rehearsal. I remember one time the conductor, good and known in Norway, just did tell the composer how he did write this.....well you know the word. This composer was also known to tell things straight out. No inhibitions.. :D.

But it was a bit to early. We did like to play it. And after a while we got the point with it. We was just inexperienced. The end result was good, and the hole orchestra did get their eyes open. The conductor told him sorry.

So even if we don't understand it at the moment it could come later, Sam?

Leif
Logged

Bass Trombone - Conn, Holton
Sidney Arthur
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jan 29, 2009
Posts: 204

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: Dec 06, 2011, 01:50PM »

A quick test of "which is which?"

If you play a wrong note or rhythm and almost no one seems to notice...people who should be noticing, like your fellow musicians, the conductor/bandleader and the composer/orchestrator/arranger? The Emperor is in the house. Bet on it. Nekkid as a jaybird and full of attitude.

This can, and does, happen, in mainstream repertoire, performed by high level ensembles. Not a good test.
Logged
Andrew Meronek

*
Offline Offline

Location: Almont, MI
Joined: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 6475
"Justly Intoned"


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: Dec 06, 2011, 02:06PM »

My view;
although the overtone series is immensely important to all music and every tone we play consists of them, I have trouble understanding how the piano and all fixed tuned instruments with their equal temperament fit into this. The only notes from the WT scale that fit into the overtone series is are the octaves. The rest are only approximations.
Once we have chopped the octave into 12 equal parts, why not into 24, 36, 48, 60 and more equal parts. This, of course, is done by composers regularly and I and my colleagues can hear these microtones and sing them. Is this then not to be considered music because it doesn't fit into the overtone series?

I think not.

The piano is very important to how western music evolved in relation to the overtone series. Equal temperament as we know it today was gradually landed upon through a couple of centuries of experimentation, where composers and keyboard tuners played with more pure intervals (first, pure intervals and pythagorean tuning, then meantone tuning, then various temperaments until true equal temperament in the beginning of the 20th century). Almost all of it is a consequence of the layout of a keyboard, various composers' desires to be able to play in multiple keys, and the dominance that they keyboard had developed in western music, from the music notation to practically every wealthy household having one in many areas. It pretty much forced music to always be based on the keyboard, even if it wasn't actually performed on one, like with string quartets or unaccompanied choirs.

I think that this is very important to understand if one has a desire to create new music. We have to understand what biases our musical culture has imposed upon us, and the umbiquity of the keyboard is a huge part of it.

One consequence of all of this is that when a composer starts to think that the keyboard and not the overtone series is the basis for all harmony, they can start to try out things that deviate farther and farther from how our ears actually work, and those compositional tools become more esoteric and, quite frankly, less useful. 12-tone serialism is one of these, in my humble opinion.

Serialism in itself is cool, especially from a melodic standpoint. But even in non-12-tone serialism there are some assumptions which are wrong. To me, the big one is the interchangeability of intervals, where a major second and a minor seventh are considered to be interchangeable. They are most definitely not, and anyone who gets away from thinking in terms of a keyboard and looks at how those intervals actually sound, and look at the overtone series to see why they sound different, will see why this kind of interval transposability is highly suspect. This goes on to more than diads, to triads, pentads, and any sort of other chords. In 12-tone serialism this interchangability error runs rampant, and to top it off, most 12-tone music to me simply tends to be too mono-tambral to be really interesting. Which is another consequence of the practice of that theory, to severely restrict the possible harmonic color of a composition to that which is only possible by combining elements of the row. We have such a wealth of great musicians, instruments, technology, and compositional techniques to draw upon nowadays, and I find that severely harsh restrictions, while often useful for a compositional exercise (which no one wants to hear, just like no ones to hear me practice my flexibility drills) are silly to adhere to in modern times when we're trying to create real music that moves people.
Logged

"All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians."

- Thelonious Monk
baileyman
*
Offline Offline

Location: Danvers, MA
Joined: Jan 18, 2007
Posts: 1731

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: Dec 06, 2011, 05:19PM »

A quick test of "which is which?"

If you play a wrong note or rhythm and almost no one seems to notice...people who should be noticing, like your fellow musicians, the conductor/bandleader and the composer/orchestrator/arranger? The Emperor is in the house. Bet on it. Nekkid as a jaybird and full of attitude.
...

Bartok seemed to do it differently.  Astonished and depressed by Wagner seeming to wrap up the entire problem of harmony, how to find something new and different.  I remember reading through Mikrokosmos and find one where he annotates that it has all twelve tones in it.  I'm sure that was a jab at the serialists, because the piece was delightful, whereas I've never thought any serial music approached delight.  (His famous low B to F gliss is apparently a dig at Shostakovitch, without respect, so this kind of competitive humor seems consistent.) 

These little pieces have such consistency of style, I think Sam's measure pertains.  His larger pieces, I'm not so sure.  It appears he had specific reason for everything he did, but I'm not sure I can hear it. 

Anyway, Sam's measure seems to describe "style" perfectly.  If you know the style, it's obvious when something is wrong.  Though this isn't equivalent to saying that if you can't hear the error, then there is no style.  It may just mean you don't know the style.  But if you know a lot of styles, your inability to hear the error may very well mean, when you say there's no style there, there isn't. 
Logged
savio

*
Offline Offline

Location: Norway
Joined: Aug 10, 2006
Posts: 4082

View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: Dec 06, 2011, 11:23PM »

how to find something new and different. 

For me this sentence is interesting. Is it sometimes like "you have to find something new" is going on the cost of making music with substance? I feel so. The goal is not music its more often "new" "different"

Not always, but often.

The 12 tone series. I admit I don't get so much out of it? But I admit I never took the time to go close into it and listen. What I did listen, gave me nothing. But it could have been me that understand. For me its constructed math? A row of 12 notes put in system. Backwards, forwards up and down. What is the point?

OK maybe I don't understand, but for me its more math and theory than music. But then again, all styles of music have some math inside. Maybe more than we believe, still we call it music. What is music? Sounds put into system? Or sounds that move our soul? One way ore another. Sounds that make an atmosphere? A cold,warm, pretty, ugly, scary, messy,  .....everything atmosphere? Music could be so much.

In the end we all are different, and music is for listen to get your soul moved. One way or another. Therefore there is music in all styles for everyone. But I admit I don't understand much of it. Do we have too?

Leif
Logged

Bass Trombone - Conn, Holton
Gabe Langfur

*
Offline Offline

Location: Boston, MA, USA
Joined: Apr 9, 2000
Posts: 4363

View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: Dec 07, 2011, 08:05AM »

A little bit of levity for a serious discussion: http://dominicirving.com/temp/cccbsg.pl

Logged

Gabe Langfur
Bass Trombonist
Rhode Island Philharmonic
Vermont Symphony

Trombone Faculty
Boston University
University of Rhode Island
Wellesley College

S. E. Shires Artist
sabutin

*
Offline Offline

Location: NYC
Joined: Sep 26, 2005
Posts: 4543
"A professional freelance NYC lower brass player."


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: Dec 07, 2011, 08:38AM »

A little bit of levity for a serious discussion: http://dominicirving.com/temp/cccbsg.pl

Thank you for this, Gabe.

But...are you sure that the real "levity" in this site doesn't come from the fact that the person who runs it has simply quoted real doctoral-level dissertations and defenses? I mean, if I encountered the following in an academic publication or paper of some kind, I would not be in the least bit surprised.

Quote
The 12-tone consequences of superimposing expressions enables the use of a single sonority amongst many extended pieces. My latest composition explores the boundaries between movements and pitches, whilst utilising a highly structured attitude to a traditional, cultural invention. The most important tip I can give anyone is this: Never oppose anti-theatrical oscillations; rather, endeavour to oppose your tensely-rhythmic dyads. The pursuit of pre-recorded player-semitones to recreate the mostly-rational paradigm is a key focus of my post-War study. I am very much influenced by the idea of composing sub-instrumental transcriptions, particularly whilst combined with a highly provocative approach to approaches.

I mean...my bullcrap meter would surely kick in after the first two sentences if not before and I would either skim the rest, skip over it entirely or leave the premises, but listening to some of the "NEW MUSIC!!!" tripe that is seriously produced at some considerable expense by prestigious schools and concert venues/grants organizations/orchestras, I can envision the above paragraph (maybe cleaned up a little...too many dash-words) appearing on a proposal that gets serious consideration if not gobs and gobs of financial support.

That's where the scene is at, guaranteed.

Come to think of it...maybe this idea should not be approached with quite so much "levity."

Oh well...better to laugh than cry, I guess.

Ho ho ho ho ho ho whores!!!

Ooops.

I slipped.

Later...

AS.
Logged

Visit <http://samburtis.com/>. Lots of information on that site in the form of articles plus a link to my method book "Time, Balance & Connections-A Universal Theory Of Brass Relativity" which includes several chapters of the book.
brucolli

*
Offline Offline

Location: Germany
Joined: Mar 9, 2011
Posts: 260
"Trombone - musikFabrik, Cologne"


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: Dec 07, 2011, 10:03AM »

I'm honored to have some really good, thought provoking posts here already, thank you.

Do I think the 12 tone row is New Music? Well, it's definitely not new but I think it's pretty much the starting point of the development of New Music. (not NEW MUSIC*, I have no idea where this comes from). A departure, where tonality was stretched so far, it had to break.  As in Schönberg's quote; "Ich fühle Luft von anderem Planeten" ("I feel air from another planet")

* New Music as a term may be kind of stupid, but what is the alternative? "20th century" doesn't really count any more. Is contemporary or modern better? I personally interpret New Music to mean, anything from Webern until now but I don't think it's wise to get hung up on the name, I think it's pretty clear what it's supposed to mean.
I did a "new music" presentation in a school a few years ago and, after being asked what New Music is, a 9 year old boy said; it is when composers write music that has never been there before. I think he pretty much nailed it on the head.

Of course, composers like Gesualdo, Dufay, Sweelink were also stretching and even breaking tonality hundreds of years ago. I'm not very experienced in this field, so I might be getting get some of this wrong.

I heard a radio broadcast a while ago where they were comparing original tuning of the harpsichord to well tempered tuning. In original tuning, every tonal key has it's own intonation and color, some very dissonant. Every key has it's own color.
One of the examples they played was the Chromatic Fantasy by Sweelink, first on a modern, well tempered harpsichord and then on an originally tuned harpsichord. Chroma, meaning color, was totally missing from the well tempered version but had it spades in the original version.
How does this fit into the overtone series?

A few years ago my ensemble played a concert in Berlin where Lachenmann's Mouvment was on the program. Since I'd never heard the piece before and I decided to give it a listen, always nice listen to the colleagues, right?
I wasn't quite prepared for the experience waiting me. This performance literally caught fire. A conductor, Emilio Pomarico, who can make music out of almost anything and an ensemble that was giving it's absolute best.

This was one of the most uplifting, invigorating, enjoyable musical experiences I've ever had and, judging from the applause, I'm positive everyone in the sold out hall that day felt the same. For me, it was up there with hearing Clark Terry and Arturo Sandival live (I wanted to sell my horn after hearing Arturo), hearing Mahler's 2nd for the first time and playing next to Ray Anderson for a week on tour.

Isn't this what music is all about? Who cares what kind of music it is if it transports you to another world. 
Who is to tell me that this music sucks because no one will notice if you play a wrong note? If it's done well, they probably will notice, but they may not care because they are enjoying the music so much.

Ah, I see the ******** generator has been posted while I've been writing this. Love it, thanks Gabe.
There are, of course, composers and educators just like this, but let's not generalize, that always leads to trouble.

I've never insisted that everything written today is great. Believe me, it's not true. I think this is also true of all musical periods, it's just that the best music will always endure.
I guess that's the down side of my job, I do have to play mediocre music sometimes (no else here has to do this?), but that is more than made up for by the great music that some of you will never encounter because you're still busy criticizing the bad stuff. It's easy to criticize but hard to be creative and do (or say) something positive.

Bruce














Logged

Bruce Collings
Rath Trombone Artist
www.musikfabrik.eu
Stretch Longarm
old enough to know better

*
Offline Offline

Location: Washington
Joined: Feb 10, 2004
Posts: 3785

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: Dec 07, 2011, 11:19AM »

12-tone series music can become one of those excessively 'cerebral' genres that appeal to those musicians who bury themselves in it's depths (which can alienate the audience), or to pseudo-hip audiences. Kind of like free jazz. It's definitely not for everyone, but what music genre is? To me, it sounds backwards, and consistently the same...strident, and chaotic. But that's me.
Logged

trombone airflow is 360 degrees. Think about it.
HouBassTrombone

*
Offline Offline

Location: Houston, TX
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 1959
"Just play because you love to."


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: Dec 07, 2011, 11:21AM »

Another thing that you touched on Bruce is that a lot of pieces were way before their time. The Sweelink Chromatic Fantasy is one such piece. I love the interpretation of it by Glenn Gould who was famous for his Bach. Another piece is the Grosse Fugue. That piece sits better on a program of 12 tone music than anything else by Beethoven. For me, both of this could fall into the definition of new music because of the sound, not when they were written.
Logged

Why am I not practicing?????
MoominDave

*
Offline Offline

Location: Oxford, UK
Joined: Jan 11, 2005
Posts: 1652

View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: Dec 07, 2011, 12:32PM »

I love much of the music of J. S. Bach. Have done since I first encountered it. In an effort to understand what it was that was exciting me, I learned to analyse it, to pick out the patterns with which he directs and teases the ear. Since then, I've  been able to appreciate his work on an academic level - but with the primary objective of 'merely' complementing the simple joy I experience from listening to it. This to me is the key to what questions need to be asked in order to assess whether a composition is worthwhile to me -

  i) Does it engage me on first listening?
  ii) If not, why not?
    iiA) Is it trite? If yes, forget it.
    iiB) Is it complex in some way that I am not yet equipped to appreciate?
  iii) If yes, does learning to appreciate that complexity seem worth the return? If no, forget it.
  If yes, then do the things necessary to get in touch with that music - listen to it, listen around it, study the theory. Then:
  iv) Does it now engage me when I listen to it with fresh ears?
  v) If not, why not?
    vA) Does it now seem trite? If yes, forget it.
    vB) Does it now seem academically appealing but not actually thrill the ear? If yes, forget it.

The moral for me is that if a worthwhile composition doesn't bother to have an appealing surface (i.e. pass question 1), then it is seriously minimising its chances of becoming appreciated - it gets lumped in with all those other compositions that don't have appealing surfaces, but also don't have appealing insides. I suppose it's not a bad metaphor for finding a partner!

Something strange happened to Western art music in the early 20th century. Previously, the new music that was most admired was music that had an appealing surface. But at some point, the adventurous tonal exploration of the late Romantics became twisted into an admiration of the exploration, winning out over the admiration of the musical effect (I think Leif expressed the problem with this approach very well in his first line). The simultaneous rise of academic institutions that found in this fetishisation of the novel a reason for their existence allowed this unintuitive approach to creating music to not only flourish, but to take the institutional high ground. Almost the whole tradition of Western art music was diverted into this different approach, with the result that very little of the body of most respected 20th and 21st century work is immediately accessible to those who haven't yet devoted significant time to working up a potential appreciation. This is not to deny the existence of masterpieces written within the last 100 years in this New Music tradition (there have been plenty), but rather to contend that these masterpieces have (in my opinion) been distinctly ill-served by the prevailing trend in terms of popularisation. And further, these conditions naturally allow the production of a lot of BS music - vacuous writing masquerading as iconoclasm.

All fields of creativity that maintain a high level of awareness of where they have come from run into problems of triteness vs novelty at some point. It's interesting that Western art music managed to maintain production of music with an appealing surface for approximately 1,000 years before having to face this. The related field of Jazz has travelled the same route in barely 100 years - I must admit that I find much of the most highly regarded stuff out there under the jazz umbrella to be uninspiring to listen to for exactly the same reasons that I find much of the most highly regarded stuff out there under the new music umbrella uninspiring. Both fail question 5B. And every time something requires so much effort just to be dismissed, one loses a bit of tolerance for trying to appreciate the next challenging thing, which after a few such episodes falls foul of question 3, perhaps undeservedly. And therein lies the danger of persistent iconoclasm - worthy efforts can easily drop off the radar due to induced jadedness on the part of the listener.

I think it's no coincidence that other artistic fields underwent similar transformations at a similar time - painting, sculpture, theatre, etc. I suppose that the general cultural upheaval that's been ongoing since the mid 19th century has made it generally difficult for artists to feel that standing still is an appropriate response.

Reading back through this, it strikes me that Leif said it all, in many fewer words, earlier, more modestly, and in a language other than his native tongue... Kudos to you, Leif.
Logged

Dave Taylor

(me, not the other one)
savio

*
Offline Offline

Location: Norway
Joined: Aug 10, 2006
Posts: 4082

View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: Dec 07, 2011, 01:30PM »


Reading back through this, it strikes me that Leif said it all, in many fewer words, earlier, more modestly, and in a language other than his native tongue... Kudos to you, Leif.

Thanks a lot Dave! Strange, maybe my english is better after some time? Anyway I feel familiar with what you say about Bach. Maybe the most analysed composer there is?  As a teacher for small kids I often have to transcribe pop tunes. Its also a kind of analyse. I feel I have much more respect for the people who makes good pop music, after I have transcribed their songs. But you also see the low quality music when doing this. Or what is really quality? I'm not sure. Maybe I should transcribe some 12 tone music to understand? (Would take some time)

I have one question. How much of the "modern" music is controlled by money. In Norway there is money foundation for some modern music.  Set by the government. Not much. I wonder if this make the music in to specific direction. The "money" or the people with money decide where to go? Decide what is good or not. Money is in all other styles, but in very different ways. Common is they often "drive" the music into specific styles.

Leif
Logged

Bass Trombone - Conn, Holton
johntarr

*
Offline Offline

Location: Basel, Switzerland
Joined: Aug 19, 2010
Posts: 156
"How can I practice more deeply?"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: Dec 07, 2011, 03:42PM »

I once heard a Rabi joke: 2 of his followers (excuse my ignorance) were having a dispute and finally, the Rabi said, "You're right, and you're right too." An observer who had been following the proceedings chimed in and said, "But Rabi, how can they both be right!?"  The Rabi responded by saying, "And you too are right!"

As moomindave said, "It's interesting that Western art music managed to maintain production of music with an appealing surface for approximately 1,000 years before having to face this. The related field of Jazz has travelled the same route in barely 100 years - I must admit that I find much of the most highly regarded stuff out there under the jazz umbrella to be uninspiring to listen to for exactly the same reasons that I find much of the most highly regarded stuff out there under the new music umbrella uninspiring."


Back in music school, I used to take both sides of this argument depending on who I was arguing with. Later, I found that it was the heart, soul and mind that made the difference.  I've heard modern music that has been transcendent and scheisse. I've heard tonal music, classical and jazz that is, well you guessed it.... What's the difference? Heart, soul, body and mind. If you have those, it doesn't matter what kind of music you play, the music is only the medium for communicating something greater. Are you inspiring or expiring?

That is question...

With respect and thanks, John
Logged

The Dynamic Musician Series: Dynamic Stability & Breath, Vols. 1 & 2 "Dynamic Resonance" & "Embodying Deep Practice" Using somatic awareness to better playing. www.dynamicmusician.com 
& blog http://dynamicmusician.typepad.com/
HouBassTrombone

*
Offline Offline

Location: Houston, TX
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 1959
"Just play because you love to."


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: Dec 07, 2011, 04:02PM »

Dave- "Something strange happened to Western art music in the early 20th century. Previously, the new music that was most admired was music that had an appealing surface. But at some point, the adventurous tonal exploration of the late Romantics became twisted into an admiration of the exploration, winning out over the admiration of the musical effect (I think Leif expressed the problem with this approach very well in his first line). The simultaneous rise of academic institutions that found in this fetishisation of the novel a reason for their existence allowed this unintuitive approach to creating music to not only flourish, but to take the institutional high ground. Almost the whole tradition of Western art music was diverted into this different approach, with the result that very little of the body of most respected 20th and 21st century work is immediately accessible to those who haven't yet devoted significant time to working up a potential appreciation"

I have to disagree with you there. It was not something strange. I believe and in my research as a musicologist confirm the theory that once you had passed that late Romanticism ideas of harmony, the only logical step was atonal music. Then people wanted order in their atonal music so next the 12 tone system evolves and then full serialism. Of course this then leads others to revolt and go to neo-classical while others continue the path. This leads to a huge divide in what music is around. Now my point is this: we have to wait to see what music lasts. Mahler's music was hated by everyone but some intellectuals in its time and now stands as the biggest commercial draw to concerts. If a orchestra programs Mahler, there will be a full house. Berg, Stravinsky, and Schoenberg have all gone through this as well. So now we are the contemporary audience and hate the music. Who is to say that we will not be looked back on as fools when a living composer now is the great Beethoven or Mahler in 50 years time? I hope that is what is coming.
-Z
Logged

Why am I not practicing?????
brucolli

*
Offline Offline

Location: Germany
Joined: Mar 9, 2011
Posts: 260
"Trombone - musikFabrik, Cologne"


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: Dec 07, 2011, 04:45PM »

Wow, the last posts from Dave, John and Zack are, for me, some of the most interesting that I've read here in the forum.

Now we are getting some where. I like your number system Dave. I too think that a piece of music should be accessible to anyone listening for the first time. My Lachenmann Mouvement experience was like that and I'm sure it was for most of the people in the audience. There are, of course, pieces that take much longer and repeated hearings to appreciate. Sam's  example of Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury" is a good example in literature. There really is no way you can understand the beginning, if you haven't read the whole book. This doesn't make it any less worthwhile as art. And that is exactly my point, how many things do we write of because we didn't "get it" the first time?

Stockhausen has done lectures on training our ears to hear more. I think you get a transcript of one of these when you buy "In Freundschaft".
Sometimes it really is hard to tell, is the piece bad or am I just not ready for it. The listener also has to be educated and this can only be done by exposure to excellently played New Music.
This is happening in Europe, I don't know what the situation is in America. The orchestras seem to be playing the New Music classics so it must be getting better, slowly.

But what I don't get is, where are all the great American composers?
Other than the minimalists, Glass, Reich, Adams, the Bang and a Can people, Ben Johnston and some film composers. I can't think of any really good American composers. And this from a country that has given us Ives, Ellington, Mingus, Monk, Cage, Morton Feldman, Earle Brown, Nancarrow, Zappa, Harry Partch and so many more.
Tell me who they are, please. I'd real like to know who is doing really creative new work.

Maybe I'm too far removed from the US now, but almost all of the great compeers I know are from Europe or Asia.

Bruce






Logged

Bruce Collings
Rath Trombone Artist
www.musikfabrik.eu
HouBassTrombone

*
Offline Offline

Location: Houston, TX
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 1959
"Just play because you love to."


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: Dec 07, 2011, 07:57PM »

American composers not listed that are great: Michael Daugherty, Elmer Bernstein (film scores), Trent Reznor/ Atticus Ross (film scores and other ambient works), John Mackey (his trombone concerto: Harvest for Joe Alessi is the best trombone concert of all time imo), Charles Ives, and Stephen Sondheim. Yes I know that Ives and Elmer Bernstein are dead but they are lasting the tale of time. Daugherty won a Grammy a few years back for best new classical record that featured an amazing piano concerto and the Metropolis Symphony. Those are the American composers that jump to my head. But Hollywood has a strong pull for American musicians so most of ours get sucked away from the "academic" music circle and into the populus circles.
-Z
Logged

Why am I not practicing?????
HouBassTrombone

*
Offline Offline

Location: Houston, TX
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 1959
"Just play because you love to."


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: Dec 07, 2011, 07:58PM »

Plus I believe in listening to a piece of music three times before making any sort of decision. I think that it takes the mind that many times to be able to comprehend some works. People are often just unwilling to give the time and listen to a piece all the way through or multiple times to really understand them. 
Logged

Why am I not practicing?????
Thomas Matta

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Chicago
Joined: Feb 12, 2005
Posts: 6908

View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: Dec 07, 2011, 09:18PM »

.

But what I don't get is, where are all the great American composers?
Other than the minimalists, Glass, Reich, Adams, the Bang and a Can people, Ben Johnston and some film composers. I can't think of any really good American composers. And this from a country that has given us Ives, Ellington, Mingus, Monk, Cage, Morton Feldman, Earle Brown, Nancarrow, Zappa, Harry Partch and so many more.
Tell me who they are, please. I'd real like to know who is doing really creative new work.

Maybe I'm too far removed from the US now, but almost all of the great compeers I know are from Europe or Asia.

Bruce



Hmmmmm.....

Might I suggest:

Michael Torke
Stevie Wonder
Maria Schnieder
Darcy James Argue
Elliot Carter
John Corigliano
Herbie Hancock
Wayne Shorter
Augusta Read Thomas
George Crumb
John Hollenbeck

That's off the top off my head. Depending on what you define as interesting, some or all of these composers may not meet your criteria.

But I'm sure others will pipe in with some more credible nominees.

My bet is there are dozens (hundreds??) of composers just bubbling under the surface here in the US that have not yet (or never will) break thru the popularity ceiling due to the high degree of importance our largely uneducated masses puts on vapid, mindless "popular" music over here, Bruce.

The cream does not aise to the top in the US quite as easily as it may in Europe?
Logged

Thomas Matta
Associate Professor of Jazz Studies, DePaul University
www.thomasmatta.com
Andrew Meronek

*
Offline Offline

Location: Almont, MI
Joined: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 6475
"Justly Intoned"


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: Dec 07, 2011, 09:44PM »

I too think that a piece of music should be accessible to anyone listening for the first time. My Lachenmann Mouvement experience was like that and I'm sure it was for most of the people in the audience.

I checked out a youtube recording of this piece based on your comment on the previous page, and it's not all that bad. To me, it seems like a piece written as a percussion feature which happens to have some serial elements. A good violation of my previous assertion that 12-tone music is too monotambral.

Quote
But what I don't get is, where are all the great American composers?
Other than the minimalists, Glass, Reich, Adams, the Bang and a Can people, Ben Johnston

 Good!

Quote
and some film composers. I can't think of any really good American composers. And this from a country that has given us Ives, Ellington, Mingus, Monk, Cage, Morton Feldman, Earle Brown, Nancarrow, Zappa, Harry Partch and so many more.
Tell me who they are, please. I'd real like to know who is doing really creative new work.

Maybe I'm too far removed from the US now, but almost all of the great compeers I know are from Europe or Asia.

Bruce

I think that a good portion of the best composers get into American film composing, and that these composers are a lot better than what some people give them credit for. John Williams is obviously legendary, but Thomas Newman, Don Davis, Jerry Goldsmith, Bernard Hermann - these were and are all world-class composers. Of course, American audiences are now starting to get more of a dose of composers from other countries, composers like Alexander Desplat and Hans Zimmer come to mind immediately.
Logged

"All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians."

- Thelonious Monk
brucolli

*
Offline Offline

Location: Germany
Joined: Mar 9, 2011
Posts: 260
"Trombone - musikFabrik, Cologne"


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: Dec 08, 2011, 01:38PM »

American composers not listed that are great: Michael Daugherty, Elmer Bernstein (film scores), Trent Reznor/ Atticus Ross (film scores and other ambient works), John Mackey (his trombone concerto: Harvest for Joe Alessi is the best trombone concert of all time imo), Charles Ives, and Stephen Sondheim. Yes I know that Ives and Elmer Bernstein are dead but they are lasting the tale of time. Daugherty won a Grammy a few years back for best new classical record that featured an amazing piano concerto and the Metropolis Symphony. Those are the American composers that jump to my head. But Hollywood has a strong pull for American musicians so most of ours get sucked away from the "academic" music circle and into the populus circles.
-Z

I actually meant composers who are active today, so no Ives etc. I also thought of Daugherty, but to be honest he doesn't really have a chance in Europe because he's too mainstream. I'll check out Mackey, never heard of him.


My bet is there are dozens (hundreds??) of composers just bubbling under the surface here in the US that have not yet (or never will) break thru the popularity ceiling due to the high degree of importance our largely uneducated masses puts on vapid, mindless "popular" music over here, Bruce.

The cream does not aise to the top in the US quite as easily as it may in Europe?

You're probably right. Thank goodness for state supported art funding, which is still in abundance here in Europe, especially Germany. This is changing though. In Holland, the new government has decided to cut the art funding in half. Tragic.
I still can't figure out why state supported art funding is the downfall of the western civilization.

Plus I believe in listening to a piece of music three times before making any sort of decision. I think that it takes the mind that many times to be able to comprehend some works. People are often just unwilling to give the time and listen to a piece all the way through or multiple times to really understand them. 

Definitely, and hearing music live is so much better than on a recording or youtube.


I see this thread is starting to separate the men from the boys.
As Charles Ives said, "stand up and take your music like a man"

Bruce

"Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible." ~ Frank Zappa
Logged

Bruce Collings
Rath Trombone Artist
www.musikfabrik.eu
Stretch Longarm
old enough to know better

*
Offline Offline

Location: Washington
Joined: Feb 10, 2004
Posts: 3785

View Profile
« Reply #26 on: Dec 08, 2011, 02:23PM »

Wow, the last posts from Dave, John and Zack are, for me, some of the most interesting that I've read here in the forum.

Now we are getting some where. I like your number system Dave. I too think that a piece of music should be accessible to anyone listening for the first time. My Lachenmann Mouvement experience was like that and I'm sure it was for most of the people in the audience. There are, of course, pieces that take much longer and repeated hearings to appreciate. Sam's  example of Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury" is a good example in literature. There really is no way you can understand the beginning, if you haven't read the whole book. This doesn't make it any less worthwhile as art. And that is exactly my point, how many things do we write of because we didn't "get it" the first time?



One can be force-fed Brussels Sprouts until they get used to the taste, but it doesn't mean they will ever like them, or look forward to eating them. You speak as if merely intellectualizing music repeatedly should give it validity to a listener. I love John Steinbeck, but for the life of me find Hemingway terminally boring. Should I have to study Hemingway in depth to appreciate him? Sounds like a lot of work. I have re-read his works, and still think he's dreary and boring, with shallow characters. It is much more enjoyable for me to read Steinbeck, so I don't bother with Hemingway. That doesn't mean someone else won't find Hemingway the most interesting read. This is called 'individual taste', and while person "A" shouldn't scoff and be instantly dismissive of one genre/writer/composer, neither should person "B" instantly scoff at/be dismissive of person "A" for expressing their opinion. So excuse me (for one) if I don't "get it".

Logged

trombone airflow is 360 degrees. Think about it.
brucolli

*
Offline Offline

Location: Germany
Joined: Mar 9, 2011
Posts: 260
"Trombone - musikFabrik, Cologne"


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: Dec 08, 2011, 03:15PM »

One can be force-fed Brussels Sprouts until they get used to the taste, but it doesn't mean they will ever like them, or look forward to eating them. You speak as if merely intellectualizing music repeatedly should give it validity to a listener. I love John Steinbeck, but for the life of me find Hemingway terminally boring. Should I have to study Hemingway in depth to appreciate him? Sounds like a lot of work. I have re-read his works, and still think he's dreary and boring, with shallow characters. It is much more enjoyable for me to read Steinbeck, so I don't bother with Hemingway. That doesn't mean someone else won't find Hemingway the most interesting read. This is called 'individual taste', and while person "A" shouldn't scoff and be instantly dismissive of one genre/writer/composer, neither should person "B" instantly scoff at/be dismissive of person "A" for expressing their opinion. So excuse me (for one) if I don't "get it".



Yes, but there have been foods that we didn't like the first time that we love now, some tastes are acquired. I didn't mean to scoff at anyone for not "getting it" Everyone has the right to like (or not like) whatever they want, but if they don't "get it" I don't think they don't have the right to scoff at the people who are "getting it".

Bruce
Logged

Bruce Collings
Rath Trombone Artist
www.musikfabrik.eu
savio

*
Offline Offline

Location: Norway
Joined: Aug 10, 2006
Posts: 4082

View Profile WWW
« Reply #28 on: Dec 08, 2011, 03:17PM »

Stretch....what you write is interesting. What make us feel a performance is good?  The style like modern/pop/whatever is not enough. It have to be more. A lot more to it. What about the musicians? What about where we listen? What about our own mood when listening? There is so many factors that make the music go in to me personally. Not only one thing, like style "modern, jazz, baroque..." Its the musicians performance, its the conductors way to do the music, its where its done....a lot of factors decide if I can get something out of it. Just the factor "live concert/CD/Youtube" make a big difference to me

I feel its strange to say because we don't like the "style" its no essence in that music. If that's what Sam say, I don't understand it. If he just say he don't like it, then I understand him. We all have different taste but should we call any music "down",  because we don't like it or understand it?

I like nearly any music and its strange. I begin to think that's not only a good thing always. But I often listen to enjoy, not to listen for negative things. I try to enjoy. What is else the point? I also analyse, but then I use different ears.

I like music that moves me, and that could be anything. I told I like any style, but that's not the hole truth. Only if it do something with me. Then its the same what style it is. Modern, pop, jazz, baroque....Bad or good music for me? Its everywhere.

A mother singing a lullaby to the child is honest.  A lot of music today is not. Its made because there is a demand to make something new, some is made because the money tell them to do, some is made because they have to show their technique. Well its endless. The honest good music could still be that mother singing a lullaby. The honest music could still be a not so good instrumentalist trying to make music the best way he/she can?

Well, sorry that messy post. I will search for music that moves me. At the same time I will try to open my eyes for anything. Still, only I decide what is good music. It depends on how the music is given to me, simple as that.

Leif
Logged

Bass Trombone - Conn, Holton
Stretch Longarm
old enough to know better

*
Offline Offline

Location: Washington
Joined: Feb 10, 2004
Posts: 3785

View Profile
« Reply #29 on: Dec 08, 2011, 04:18PM »

Stretch....what you write is interesting. What make us feel a performance is good?  The style like modern/pop/whatever is not enough. It have to be more. A lot more to it. What about the musicians? What about where we listen? What about our own mood when listening? There is so many factors that make the music go in to me personally. Not only one thing, like style "modern, jazz, baroque..." Its the musicians performance, its the conductors way to do the music, its where its done....a lot of factors decide if I can get something out of it. Just the factor "live concert/CD/Youtube" make a big difference to me

I feel its strange to say because we don't like the "style" its no essence in that music. If that's what Sam say, I don't understand it. If he just say he don't like it, then I understand him. We all have different taste but should we call any music "down",  because we don't like it or understand it?

I like nearly any music and its strange. I begin to think that's not only a good thing always. But I often listen to enjoy, not to listen for negative things. I try to enjoy. What is else the point? I also analyse, but then I use different ears.

I like music that moves me, and that could be anything. I told I like any style, but that's not the hole truth. Only if it do something with me. Then its the same what style it is. Modern, pop, jazz, baroque....Bad or good music for me? Its everywhere.

A mother singing a lullaby to the child is honest.  A lot of music today is not. Its made because there is a demand to make something new, some is made because the money tell them to do, some is made because they have to show their technique. Well its endless. The honest good music could still be that mother singing a lullaby. The honest music could still be a not so good instrumentalist trying to make music the best way he/she can?

Well, sorry that messy post. I will search for music that moves me. At the same time I will try to open my eyes for anything. Still, only I decide what is good music. It depends on how the music is given to me, simple as that.

Leif

Yes, Leif, I too believe it is music that moves one that is successful...whether it's a backbeat funk that moves your mojo, a latin beat that moves your feet, a Shostakovitch piece that gets your heart racing, an old Hank Williams tune that expresses deep poetry for the lonesome soul, or gorgeous Red Garland chord-blocking that relaxes your tension. Listening with that 'other set of ears' that you describe is what makes music for me...for others, it may simply be the structural composition of the piece that attracts them - which is cool for them. Everyone is different, but in the big scheme of things, I would bet that the majority of listeners (and a majority of performers) prefer to be 'affected' by the music, aurally, emotionally, spiritually, even visually, while few want to over-analyze it for it's structure. Maybe more musicians would want to analyze it, but they are involved in a different way than the 'average' listener (the folks who listen with that 'different set of ears').

For example, I love jazz, but not all of it just because it carries the moniker "jazz" - I am not ashamed to say that while I can understand and appreciate what Coltrane did, I don't enjoy listening to him as much as, say, Coleman Hawkins, Joe Henderson, Lester, Adderly, Konitz, Getz, or even Flip Philips. I don't enjoy Ornette, but like Shorter. I like Bergonzi but find Lovano not to my taste. Doesn't mean I hate him or think he's less of an artist - he just doesn't do it for me. Nothing personal!

Sam may have a different take, as a professional musician in such a vigorous market (Nooyiok)... he may not want to 'waste time' on something he sees little value in as far as maintaining audiences (and thus maintaining value as a long-lasting cultural art); he may simply, as you say, not like it. Or he may be trying to identify where music needs to head to still be there for others to morph, grow, and entertain with and stay a part of the mainstream - musical growth that lasts. Historically, fads don't last. Only Sam can answer why he feels the way he does, and he's attempted to state his case, and was slammed for it. I think if you go back and read his posts, and remember it's Sam writing it, you may get a different take on it.
Logged

trombone airflow is 360 degrees. Think about it.
Thomas Matta

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Chicago
Joined: Feb 12, 2005
Posts: 6908

View Profile WWW
« Reply #30 on: Dec 08, 2011, 07:47PM »

So-called "Emporer's New Clothes" music isn't as much about the people making it as it is about the people listening to it.

These people go hear certain music just to be seen.

The only "test" that works for me is simple: music that I listen to at home alone - you know, for MY enjoyment - that music passes the test.

I'm less concerned with music that WOWS me - more concerned with music that MOVES me.

Era, style, idiom, instrumentation, classification, etc. are not as important as what it SAYS to me.

I don't look around to see who else is enjoying it.

That's me as Listener / Consumer.
Logged

Thomas Matta
Associate Professor of Jazz Studies, DePaul University
www.thomasmatta.com
savio

*
Offline Offline

Location: Norway
Joined: Aug 10, 2006
Posts: 4082

View Profile WWW
« Reply #31 on: Dec 08, 2011, 11:40PM »

So-called "Emporer's New Clothes" music isn't as much about the people making it as it is about the people listening to it.

These people go hear certain music just to be seen.

The only "test" that works for me is simple: music that I listen to at home alone - you know, for MY enjoyment - that music passes the test.

I'm less concerned with music that WOWS me - more concerned with music that MOVES me.

Era, style, idiom, instrumentation, classification, etc. are not as important as what it SAYS to me.

I don't look around to see who else is enjoying it.

That's me as Listener / Consumer.


I feel the same. Wow music is Wow, then its stop. Next time the wow effect is gone, and the music is there alone. And yes we all have seen the people that go to concerts to show them self, not for listen the music. When we speak about "the Emperors New Clothes" some even go to show of their clothes and jewelry.

"the Emperors New Clothes" is everywhere. Bruce what music do "moves" you? How to listen the "modern" music? Do you have any tips. Some music demands more from us as consumers?

Leif
Logged

Bass Trombone - Conn, Holton
HouBassTrombone

*
Offline Offline

Location: Houston, TX
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 1959
"Just play because you love to."


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: Dec 09, 2011, 03:39AM »

I want to do a little experiment... Can anyone tell me how to upload two files that you guys can listen too and have no take names or anything? I think it can be done in quicktime.... I want to present two pieces composed in the last year and get opinions.
-Z
Logged

Why am I not practicing?????
Thomas Matta

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Chicago
Joined: Feb 12, 2005
Posts: 6908

View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 on: Dec 09, 2011, 03:44AM »

Do you have a YouTube account?
Logged

Thomas Matta
Associate Professor of Jazz Studies, DePaul University
www.thomasmatta.com
brucolli

*
Offline Offline

Location: Germany
Joined: Mar 9, 2011
Posts: 260
"Trombone - musikFabrik, Cologne"


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: Dec 09, 2011, 03:56PM »

I feel the same. Wow music is Wow, then its stop. Next time the wow effect is gone, and the music is there alone. And yes we all have seen the people that go to concerts to show them self, not for listen the music. When we speak about "the Emperors New Clothes" some even go to show of their clothes and jewelry.

"the Emperors New Clothes" is everywhere. Bruce what music do "moves" you? How to listen the "modern" music? Do you have any tips. Some music demands more from us as consumers?

Leif

I see this "showing off your clothes and jewelry" much more in the opera houses and concert halls here in Europe. The people who go to New Music concerts only go because they want to here the music. Why else?

Leif, maybe I'm expecting too much of everyone. I hear new music on an almost daily basis, much of it never before heard by anyone before. When I listen to music for the first time, I just try and let it sink in. I don't analyse it. Many pieces do leave me cold, even when they are played really well. And I think you can tell if a piece is played well or not. The spark has to catch. Something has to move the listener, even if it is only beautiful or interesting sounds, like an abstract painting with beautiful colors.

If there is nothing interesting in a piece, it will be forgotten and probably never be heard again. I have noticed that my personal disposition is very important. If I'm tired, I'm not open to listening and I'm am not going to be very receptive to a piece and it will just go by me without much sinking in. So sometimes I hear a piece one time and don't like it and the next time I love it.
I has happened.

Bruce


Logged

Bruce Collings
Rath Trombone Artist
www.musikfabrik.eu
brucolli

*
Offline Offline

Location: Germany
Joined: Mar 9, 2011
Posts: 260
"Trombone - musikFabrik, Cologne"


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: Dec 09, 2011, 04:01PM »

Stretch....what you write is interesting. What make us feel a performance is good?  The style like modern/pop/whatever is not enough. It have to be more. A lot more to it. What about the musicians? What about where we listen? What about our own mood when listening? There is so many factors that make the music go in to me personally. Not only one thing, like style "modern, jazz, baroque..." Its the musicians performance, its the conductors way to do the music, its where its done....a lot of factors decide if I can get something out of it. Just the factor "live concert/CD/Youtube" make a big difference to me

I feel its strange to say because we don't like the "style" its no essence in that music. If that's what Sam say, I don't understand it. If he just say he don't like it, then I understand him. We all have different taste but should we call any music "down",  because we don't like it or understand it?

I like nearly any music and its strange. I begin to think that's not only a good thing always. But I often listen to enjoy, not to listen for negative things. I try to enjoy. What is else the point? I also analyse, but then I use different ears.

I like music that moves me, and that could be anything. I told I like any style, but that's not the hole truth. Only if it do something with me. Then its the same what style it is. Modern, pop, jazz, baroque....Bad or good music for me? Its everywhere.

A mother singing a lullaby to the child is honest.  A lot of music today is not. Its made because there is a demand to make something new, some is made because the money tell them to do, some is made because they have to show their technique. Well its endless. The honest good music could still be that mother singing a lullaby. The honest music could still be a not so good instrumentalist trying to make music the best way he/she can?

Well, sorry that messy post. I will search for music that moves me. At the same time I will try to open my eyes for anything. Still, only I decide what is good music. It depends on how the music is given to me, simple as that.

Leif

Leif, once again you have said in a few words that that some of us have been trying to say in long, boring posts.
You are truly precious and your english is fine. I understand you perfectly.

Bruce
Logged

Bruce Collings
Rath Trombone Artist
www.musikfabrik.eu
HouBassTrombone

*
Offline Offline

Location: Houston, TX
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 1959
"Just play because you love to."


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: Dec 09, 2011, 04:48PM »

Sonata Rhapsody "The Arch" by James Stephenson - Great music by an American composer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhB1Re3wNxs&feature=share - played by an amazing bass trombonist.
Logged

Why am I not practicing?????
HouBassTrombone

*
Offline Offline

Location: Houston, TX
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 1959
"Just play because you love to."


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: Dec 09, 2011, 07:58PM »

I actually meant composers who are active today, so no Ives etc. I also thought of Daugherty, but to be honest he doesn't really have a chance in Europe because he's too mainstream. I'll check out Mackey, never heard of him.
Why is mainstream hurting him? I agree that he is and that his music does not press any boundaries, but still New Music. And Good Music.
Logged

Why am I not practicing?????
brucolli

*
Offline Offline

Location: Germany
Joined: Mar 9, 2011
Posts: 260
"Trombone - musikFabrik, Cologne"


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: Dec 10, 2011, 03:20AM »

Why is mainstream hurting him? I agree that he is and that his music does not press any boundaries, but still New Music. And Good Music.

Concert and festival organizers in Europe aren't really interested in mainstream, they always want to do something new, or mix so called classics with new. It used to be like that with the jazz scene here but now the festivals seem to be doing mainly mainstream because they can get more people to come and make more money. That's the thing, is popularity a sign of the worth of something? If so, we'd all be listening to Lady Gaga.

Daugherty may have a good chance for the orchestra programs where the tastes are more conservative. In Germany though even the great  English composers like Walton, Vaughn Williams, Elgar hardly ever get played.

Bruce

 
Logged

Bruce Collings
Rath Trombone Artist
www.musikfabrik.eu
Chris Fidler

*
Offline Offline

Location: UK
Joined: Nov 20, 2006
Posts: 2080

View Profile
« Reply #39 on: Dec 10, 2011, 03:31AM »


is popularity a sign of the worth of something? If so, we'd all be listening to Lady Gaga.



Bruce

 

The problem is "THEY" are........  >:(
Logged

The wise musicians are those who play what they can master.
Duke Ellington
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 3050

View Profile
« Reply #40 on: Dec 10, 2011, 05:00AM »

I would argue that the 12 tone system was not the first real departure from the tonal world.
Not even close. I wish I could remember the names of the pieces, but some of Bach's stuff does this. And before then, the renaissance pieces were an entirely other world. After that, atonality continued as well.

"New" music is an incredibly large category. The only ones likely to define serialism as new music are composition professors who are insulated in their own little worlds.

As to whether it's the emperor's new clothes, no. It's an attempt to try something in a different way. Schoenberg himself had an incredible mind and understanding of musical structure (his theory of harmony is a radical and completely sensical way to view tonality. It doesn't just look at the what, but also the how and why), but fell well short of utilizing it in his pieces. What he did do however, was experiment with new methods. 12 tone serialism was one of them. And if you follow the progression of his pieces, he didn't just jump into it either.

It's really not all that different then say Avro Part playing with Tintinnabuli, or Miles Davis (I would say going modal in Kind of Blue here, but really just look at all of his career). Even when you look at some of the older composers like Brahms in his time, he did heavily traditional styles but had an incredible new approach to them.

The biggest difference you'll find between new and old music, is that old music has had the filter of time applied to it.
Logged
savio

*
Offline Offline

Location: Norway
Joined: Aug 10, 2006
Posts: 4082

View Profile WWW
« Reply #41 on: Dec 10, 2011, 05:29AM »

The problem is "THEY" are........  >:(

I admit I listen Lady G.... :/  My daughter listen so I cant just turn her off.

The music made for solo trombone is often modern? Its made after 1950 most of it? The music that Pageno play is very tonal. Its nice playing. A good musician. To be honest, the music it self, don't give me much. But it can change when I listen the music more.

We bass trombone players have a solo piece made by Hartley. Sonata Breve. Its also quite tonal. The second movement look like a snare drum solo.  But this piece give me a lot. Its modern, it really have an idea and point, so even I get it.

Maybe it is because I know it so well?

Well, the music of Lady Gaga can be nice, but it don't demand so much from the consumer. The modern music demands some from us. Or it may not?

Anyway, a lot of the trombone literature is "modern" or "new" ?

Leif
Logged

Bass Trombone - Conn, Holton
MoominDave

*
Offline Offline

Location: Oxford, UK
Joined: Jan 11, 2005
Posts: 1652

View Profile WWW
« Reply #42 on: Dec 10, 2011, 08:54AM »

Dave- "Something strange happened to Western art music in the early 20th century. Previously, the new music that was most admired was music that had an appealing surface. But at some point, the adventurous tonal exploration of the late Romantics became twisted into an admiration of the exploration, winning out over the admiration of the musical effect (I think Leif expressed the problem with this approach very well in his first line). The simultaneous rise of academic institutions that found in this fetishisation of the novel a reason for their existence allowed this unintuitive approach to creating music to not only flourish, but to take the institutional high ground. Almost the whole tradition of Western art music was diverted into this different approach, with the result that very little of the body of most respected 20th and 21st century work is immediately accessible to those who haven't yet devoted significant time to working up a potential appreciation"

I have to disagree with you there. It was not something strange. I believe and in my research as a musicologist confirm the theory that once you had passed that late Romanticism ideas of harmony, the only logical step was atonal music. Then people wanted order in their atonal music so next the 12 tone system evolves and then full serialism. Of course this then leads others to revolt and go to neo-classical while others continue the path. This leads to a huge divide in what music is around. Now my point is this: we have to wait to see what music lasts. Mahler's music was hated by everyone but some intellectuals in its time and now stands as the biggest commercial draw to concerts. If a orchestra programs Mahler, there will be a full house. Berg, Stravinsky, and Schoenberg have all gone through this as well. So now we are the contemporary audience and hate the music. Who is to say that we will not be looked back on as fools when a living composer now is the great Beethoven or Mahler in 50 years time? I hope that is what is coming.
-Z

I don't agree that the "only logical step" was what occurred. If the progression of musical fashion was restricted to proceeding in a straight line then yes, the only place to go from having moved from working with clearly tonal harmony to barely tonal harmony would be to then work with atonal harmony. But that isn't how musical fashion has progressed over the ages - it has moved in zigzags, jinking every time a limit was reached in terms of what those who ultimately paid for the production of music would accept - each time sponsors (whether they were patrons, churches, audiences, etc.) objected to increasing complexity, composers stepped back, and then resumed development in a slightly different direction. In this way, a tradition was maintained for a millennium keeping compositional work within bounds that were defined by what musically relatively unsophisticated parties would accept.

The "strange thing" that I referred to is that as compositional output moved from a place that produced music that was mostly easy to immediately appreciate to a place that produced music that was mostly difficult to immediate appreciate, the sponsors laid aside the habit of a thousand years and didn't object. And nor have they yet, so far as I can tell. That seems strange to me - it seems to me that we have distorted the principle of evolution as applied to musical fashion.
Logged

Dave Taylor

(me, not the other one)
Euphanasia

*
Offline Offline

Location: Moses Lake, WA
Joined: Jan 20, 2005
Posts: 5122

View Profile
« Reply #43 on: Dec 10, 2011, 10:30AM »

Sam's  example of Faulkner's "The Sound and the Fury" is a good example in literature. There really is no way you can understand the beginning, if you haven't read the whole book. This doesn't make it any less worthwhile as art. And that is exactly my point, how many things do we write of because we didn't "get it" the first time?

I don't think that's a legitimate comparison. Faulkner's point throughout his writing is that there's no "it" to get--there are numerous "its" which often clash with each other. You may not understand the story from Dilsey's perspective at first reading, but you get it from multiple other perspectives which are equally interesting, equally pleasing, equally "correct." They're all right and they can all be understood by anyone willing to put in the effort to put the effort into reading.

Faulkner is not about "getting it." This idea of being able to say "I get it" has as its corollary "you don't" and is one of the things that bothers me about modern music--be it jazz or orchestral. It also is what I dislike about Henry Miller or late Joyce. There is something to be said for music that can be appreciated without some sort of theoretical apparatus (or secret decoder ring) which explains why it is, as Twain once said of Wagner, "better than it sounds."
Logged
Andrew Meronek

*
Offline Offline

Location: Almont, MI
Joined: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 6475
"Justly Intoned"


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: Dec 11, 2011, 12:25AM »

I admit I listen Lady G.... :/  My daughter listen so I cant just turn her off.

Lady Gaga, despite what we hear on the radio, is actually a fantastic singer. Check out what she's done with Tony Benett.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPAmDULCVrU&ob=av2e
Logged

"All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians."

- Thelonious Monk
brucolli

*
Offline Offline

Location: Germany
Joined: Mar 9, 2011
Posts: 260
"Trombone - musikFabrik, Cologne"


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: Dec 11, 2011, 07:15AM »


Ho ho ho ho ho ho whores!!!


Aren't we all, in a way?

John Swallow made a big point of telling his students that we are all a kind of prostitute and have to try and sell our wares to whoever we can. He was always very outspoken. But I think he was for the most part right, unless, of course, we are totally independent and can do (or play) any thing we want, without having to rely on that telephone ringing. In fact, I feel most like a "prostitute" when I play in an orchestra. There, you really have no say whatsoever and just have to do what your told. I much prefer the chamber ensemble situation.


I'm not all that knocked out by the mainstream orchestral scene, either. I fact, I see little difference in terms of attitude. It's just a financial difference. By and large the successful orchestral musicians are simply better hustlers.

So it goes.

S.


The whole system has gone rotten, brucolli. Those of us who insist on working outside of that system do so at great risk to our own survival. So that goes as well. Eventually things will get better. (Or of course...they won't, at which point this culture is headed for the dust heaps of history.) Until then we tread through our own Dark Ages, doing the Celtic monk preservation thing with what we know of the past and watching the (usually) empty "modernist" thing relegate itself to the sparsely populated ivory towers of academia and grant-supported, non-people music. 


Sam, I hope you don't mind me quoting you from the other music thread, I wanted to get it back over here where it belongs.
I'm finally starting to understand where you are coming from and can relate to it.

I admit that we in the musikFabrik have learned to "use" the system. It's taken us almost 20 years to do so and we even had a mutiny 15 years ago, where we took it over from being an institutionalized ensemble, belonging to a conductor and composers who used it for their own benefit.
Since then, we, the musicians, now have complete control over what we do, but we are also dependent on that telephone ringing.
So the truth of the matter is, we do a mixture of what we want to do and what the concert/festival organizers want.
The best thing is when we can sell our idea to the organizers and make them think it was theirs. But this part of the business, of which we all in some way or the other take part.

I agree that the more institutionalized something gets, the less creative it gets. I think that is what Boulez meant when he said "blow up the opera houses". The more secure and comfortable everyone gets the less the need to use the creative mind. It's just business as usual.

I once heard the conductor David Robertson tell the joke;

Quote

You know how to make a musician start complaining?

Give him a job with a steady salary.


I think one of the things that makes the New Music scene so enjoyable for me is the quality and attitude of the musicians. Everyone is really trying their best and always looking for ways to make sometimes unplayable music playable.
In my experience orchestra musicians love to complain about just about anything. They who have a secure job and should be happy are often frustrated because they have very little creative input to what they are doing.

Almost of the musicians I know playing New Music are free lancers, fighting to make a living.
Some, like myself, have an orchestra job as security, but I'd give it up immediately if I could make that same money in New Music. Unfortunately, I can't.

Bruce










Logged

Bruce Collings
Rath Trombone Artist
www.musikfabrik.eu
sabutin

*
Offline Offline

Location: NYC
Joined: Sep 26, 2005
Posts: 4543
"A professional freelance NYC lower brass player."


View Profile WWW
« Reply #46 on: Dec 11, 2011, 08:01AM »

Lady Gaga, despite what we hear on the radio, is actually a fantastic singer. Check out what she's done with Tony Benett.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPAmDULCVrU&ob=av2e

Oh yes. She has talent. Musical talent. And some level of musical achievement as well. Musical talent and achievement commensurate with her level of fame and wealth? Not on your life. Whores have talent, too. Does that mean they are the best in their field? No, it just means that they take that talent and bend it to the will of the highest bidders. Is this something new in the history of humanity? No, it isn't, but what is new...at least it is "new" in living memory and apparently in the most recent say three or four centuries of what we laughingly refer to as "civilization"...is that the whores are now sucking up so much of the energy and attention of the culture that there is barely enough left to nourish the real artists.  And I do not mean this simply about pop stars, because the same syndrome seems to be at work in the other arts as well. Whoreish so=called "classical" musical systems abound; whore visual arts, whore movies, whore books and media, whore academia. All bending over backwards to accommodate the middle-mind mean. This certainly wasn't the case from the beginning of the Jazz Age through about 10 years after WW II. There was still enough money to sustain real artistic efforts. Now? I am watching the pool dry up. It ain't dry yet, but it is getting progressively more shallow.

Oh well?

So it goes?

I quote the prophet William Butler Yeats, who saw this syndrome in action on all levels as early as 1919.

Quote
THE SECOND COMING (1919)

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.

    Surely some revelation is at hand;
    Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
    The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
    When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
    Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
    A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
    A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
    Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
    Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.
    The darkness drops again but now I know
    That twenty centuries of stony sleep
    Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
    And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
    Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Oh well?

So it goes?

Yeats pinned it. "The ceremony of innocence is drowned;/The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity."

Hmmmmm...

A précis of what is happening here?

Bet on it.

S.
Logged

Visit <http://samburtis.com/>. Lots of information on that site in the form of articles plus a link to my method book "Time, Balance & Connections-A Universal Theory Of Brass Relativity" which includes several chapters of the book.
sabutin

*
Offline Offline

Location: NYC
Joined: Sep 26, 2005
Posts: 4543
"A professional freelance NYC lower brass player."


View Profile WWW
« Reply #47 on: Dec 11, 2011, 09:00AM »

Aren't we all [whores], in a way?

More like slaves. Forced at the point of a financial gun to bend over for the man. Forced much more often these days than was the case even 20 years ago. (See my post above.)

Quote
John Swallow made a big point of telling his students that we are all a kind of prostitute and have to try and sell our wares to whoever we can.He was always very outspoken.

I do not know John Swallow personally, but if I had been his student and he said that to me, we would have had issues. Serious issues. (I tend to be fairly outspoken, too.) The teachers who I personally most admired...teachers in a personal sense, teachers as models...were the ones who tried with all of their heart and soul not to be whores. (And most often took a pretty good financial beating in the process, unfortunately.)

Need I make a list? I think not.

Quote
ut I think he was for the most part right, unless, of course, we are totally independent and can do (or play) any thing we want, without having to rely on that telephone ringing.

I have a line that I have used for many years when asked how I make a living.

"Oh...I'm independently poor." It's only half a joke. It took me a while in the NYC freelance scene to begin to understand how destructive whoredom is to creativity, but I finally figured it out and pretty much extricated myself from the whorehouse. Once in a while I still duck in and turn a trick or two if the money is really good and and I am correspondingly really broke, but I most certainly no longer solicit. And I always insist on safe money-sex. No long-term affairs, nothing really kinky.

Quote
Sam, I hope you don't mind me quoting you from the other music thread, I wanted to get it back over here where it belongs.
I'm finally starting to understand where you are coming from and can relate to it.

I don't mind in the least. The last thing that I am is a website content Nazi.

Quote
I admit that we in the musikFabrik have learned to "use" the system. It's taken us almost 20 years to do so and we even had a mutiny 15 years ago, where we took it over from being an institutionalized ensemble, belonging to a conductor and composers who used it for their own benefit.
Since then, we, the musicians, now have complete control over what we do, but we are also dependent on that telephone ringing.
So the truth of the matter is, we do a mixture of what we want to do and what the concert/festival organizers want.
The best thing is when we can sell our idea to the organizers and make them think it was theirs. But this part of the business, of which we all in some way or the other take part.

We all have to make our compromises. One of my strongest models was Jimmy Knepper, who simply did [and played] exactly as he damned well pleased and made no compromises in that manner whatsoever. He'd work for anyone, but he would not compromise his playing in the least and he never, ever hustled anybody. Ditto Carmine Caruso on the teaching level. But...both were marginalized during their lifetimes as a result. Y'pays yer money and  y'takes yer chances.

Quote
I agree that the more institutionalized something gets, the less creative it gets. I think that is what Boulez meant when he said "blow up the opera houses".

It is also at least partially what the Zen teachers mean when they say "If you meet the Buddha on the side of the road, kill him."

Yup.

As soon as it gets "defined," it's as dead as a doornail.


Quote
I think one of the things that makes the New Music scene so enjoyable for me is the quality and attitude of the musicians. Everyone is really trying their best and always looking for ways to make sometimes unplayable music playable.

And here is where we disagree. I think that music should not be "unplayable," and my experiences playing the music of some of the greatest masters in my my own idioms (often with them as well) are what have informed this idea. Nothing that Gil Evans, Duke Ellington, Charles Mingus, Thad Jones, Dizzy Gillespie, Chico O'Farrill, Bob Brookmeyer or a number of other serious American-style composers has written is "unplayable." Not even on first glance. Difficult technically in some manner? Yes, sometimes. But overall? No. The "difficulty" always lies not in the notes, but in the music. How to make it swing (and not just in the jazz sense), how to make it seem almost effortless, how to make it glide on little cat feet into the subconscious enjoyment centers of fairly evolved non-musicians. I almost always tell my students "Any fool can write something that you can't play," and I stand by that statement. I don't care whether it is the (largely empty of musical content) virtuoso showpieces of the 19th and 20th century Western European style idioms or the so-called "new music" that I most often hear when something is labelled as such. If it's "unplayable" then just don't play it. This is not to say that technical advances are worthless...my admiration for such technical wizards as say Frank Rosolino, Slide Hampton or Dave Taylor should attest to that fact...but rather to say that the only "technical advances" that are worth a lick are those that are achieved in the pursuit of real music.

Of course, we then have to define "real music." My definition is very simple. If it is both a three-brained music...mind, body and soul being utilized in the pursuit of art at a fairly high level...and it also speaks to some appreciable cross-section of non-musicians as art (as a moving artistic experience) rather than study material or someplace to go out stylin'...then it is "real" according to my own take on things. Dassit. That's where I am coming from. I cannot tell you how many times I have been walking down the street or in some other public place carrying my horn and had people of a certain age stop me to tell me about their experiences listening to say Charlie Parker or the rest of the Harlem bebop crew or Tito Puente or Machito or Duke Ellington or Count Basie. Working people, mostly, of all races. Eyes lit up like beacons as they remember. Music like that? Music that reaches civilians and is still "art?" In any idiom? I will play it against all odds or resistances.

Quote
In my experience orchestra musicians love to complain about just about anything. They who have a secure job and should be happy are often frustrated because they have very little creative input to what they are doing.

Almost of the musicians I know playing New Music are free lancers, fighting to make a living.
Some, like myself, have an orchestra job as security, but I'd give it up immediately if I could make that same money in New Music. Unfortunately, I can't.

Bruce

I understand the "I can't" part, Bruce. I really do. Been there, done that. Family, society's expectations, etc. etc. etc.

All's I can say is...do it.

In the long run, you be bettah off.

Bet on it.

S.
Logged

Visit <http://samburtis.com/>. Lots of information on that site in the form of articles plus a link to my method book "Time, Balance & Connections-A Universal Theory Of Brass Relativity" which includes several chapters of the book.
brucolli

*
Offline Offline

Location: Germany
Joined: Mar 9, 2011
Posts: 260
"Trombone - musikFabrik, Cologne"


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: Dec 11, 2011, 12:24PM »

Nice post, Sam.

I must admit, though, I actually like the challenge of trying to figure out how to play "unplayable" music.
It's like a puzzle for me and I like puzzles. But you're right, the solution has to be a musical solution otherwise it's meaningless.

Many times when I come back to a piece I once thought was unplayable I think, what was the problem? This isn't that difficult. I get bored playing the same old stuff over and over and keep looking for new ways to approach the basic things I have to practice everyday in order to maintain my playing at a high level. I always end up coming back to Schlossberg,  Arban, Lafosse, et al, though.

I guess that's just me. Different strokes for different blokes.

Bruce




Logged

Bruce Collings
Rath Trombone Artist
www.musikfabrik.eu
sabutin

*
Offline Offline

Location: NYC
Joined: Sep 26, 2005
Posts: 4543
"A professional freelance NYC lower brass player."


View Profile WWW
« Reply #49 on: Dec 11, 2011, 12:59PM »

Nice post, Sam.

I must admit, though, I actually like the challenge of trying to figure out how to play "unplayable" music.
It's like a puzzle for me and I like puzzles. But you're right, the solution has to be a musical solution otherwise it's meaningless.

Many times when I come back to a piece I once thought was unplayable I think, what was the problem? This isn't that difficult. I get bored playing the same old stuff over and over and keep looking for new ways to approach the basic things I have to practice everyday in order to maintain my playing at a high level. I always end up coming back to Schlossberg,  Arban, Lafosse, et al, though.

I guess that's just me. Different strokes for different blokes.

Bruce

Yup.

And I am still not "bored" playing middle range long tones. Too many overtones to get bored.

S.
Logged

Visit <http://samburtis.com/>. Lots of information on that site in the form of articles plus a link to my method book "Time, Balance & Connections-A Universal Theory Of Brass Relativity" which includes several chapters of the book.
brucolli

*
Offline Offline

Location: Germany
Joined: Mar 9, 2011
Posts: 260
"Trombone - musikFabrik, Cologne"


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: Dec 28, 2011, 02:48AM »

'nuff said. Happy holidays everyone.

http://youtu.be/M8fdYdYm4Io
Logged

Bruce Collings
Rath Trombone Artist
www.musikfabrik.eu
brucolli

*
Offline Offline

Location: Germany
Joined: Mar 9, 2011
Posts: 260
"Trombone - musikFabrik, Cologne"


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: Jan 11, 2012, 02:08PM »

I just played two performances of Bartok's Violin Concerto and, guess what, this piece has 12 tone rows galore. And even quarter tones, at least in the violin part. I wonder what Bartok would have composed if he had lived longer instead of dying in poverty in New York because he was considered too modern and wasn't appreciated as he should have been. (I hope I have the story correct)

I also wonder how many composers and works that are condemned today, by musicians, no less, will be considered masters and masterpieces in 100 years. Time will tell.
Logged

Bruce Collings
Rath Trombone Artist
www.musikfabrik.eu
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 42763
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: Jan 11, 2012, 02:22PM »

...

I also wonder how many composers and works that are condemned today, by musicians, no less, will be considered masters and masterpieces in 100 years. Time will tell.


This has been my point all along.

There will be a lot of new music that is trash.  And there will be some music that will transcend this era and become mainstream.

I wish I could tell in advance which is which.

We are approaching the centenary of one such misunderstanding: the riot in the theater for Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring".  Scandal in 1913 - mainstream in 2013.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
William Lang
*
Offline Offline

Location: New York City
Joined: Jul 31, 2006
Posts: 82

View Profile
« Reply #53 on: Jan 11, 2012, 11:12PM »

all music was new at some point.

playing anything can be fun, because if there is an audience somewhere, and as long as you're playing for someone who wants to listen, anywhere, anytime, life is good.

playing a show, or an orchestra concert, or a jazz gig, or a new music piece, or onstage with lady gaga! there will be someone there who is interested.

this way there is no whoring, as long as you play for others as well as yourself, and find satisfaction in being a part of something larger.

it's great when your love and the audiences lines up exactly, but there is always love somewhere to be found.
Logged
blast

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: scotland
Joined: Jul 26, 2001
Posts: 5906
"Bass/Contrabass trombone, Scottish Opera."


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: Jan 11, 2012, 11:36PM »

I did wonder where I stood on this... but actions speak louder than words and in a couple of weeks I will be playing some 'modern' music with the London Sinfonietta. To do this, I have had to buy myself out of some opera work, so I will do this work at a loss. This must mean that I value playing modern music quite highly, which I suppose I do.
To me, one of the important aspects of being a professional is that I am willing and able to turn my hand to ANY kind of music. Some musics are more distant from me than others, but I should be willing to play them all. I must admit that I really enjoy solving the challenges that can sometimes occur in modern repertoire, and being part of a performance of new work.... and money is a secondary factor.

Chris Stearn
Logged

Still cannot think of anything better to do.LB 116 M,M8
robcat2075

*
Offline Offline

Location: Dallas, Texas
Joined: Apr 19, 2009
Posts: 1959

View Profile
« Reply #55 on: Jan 12, 2012, 09:57AM »

New Music?

hmmm...

When i was in college music was defined as any "organized sound".  That was a widely held idea in academic circles.

So you could record someone washing some dishes and the fact that you could then play the sounds back made it "organized" and so it became music.

That was an overly broad definition of music and a damaging one that has alienated audiences.  That definition disregarded the importance of the audience and  the concept of music as communication with the listener.

Most of the academic composers have abandoned the common musical language audiences and composers shared in the past. 

That's OK, artistic freedom and all that... but they have completely failed at getting the audience up to speed on the new languages they are inventing and then damn the audience for not "getting" it.

It's like someone who writes a novel in Klingon. How much success do you really expect that to have? Twelve-tone serialism is very much like that.

The "Emperor's New Clothes" analogy is a good one.

I was a composition student at the University of North Texas in the 80's.  Without fail, whenever one of the professors was unveiling a new opus they always pointed out that their work wouldn't be "accessible" to most listeners and that only the very discerning would fathom the very daring and very serious method by which they produced this very new piece.

What was their music like? Ghastly bores.  Lots of electronic bleeps and bloops, a light show, a guy in black tights throwing clay at the walls.  If any of you are old enough to recall "Bad Conceptual Art" on Saturday Night Live...  it was like that, except it was proudly funded by a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts.

I got an "A" exactly once in my composition studies at UNT.  That happened when i gave up writing the instrumental music I was interested in and wrote a short program for my Commodore-64 that would produce... electronic bleeps and bloops!

you can hear the result here:

Robot Song No. 1

Robot Song No. 2

My serious new music composer teacher was gobsmacked. Probably because he didn't have the programming chops to do even that simple little bit.

That's when I got out of the composition department.  My teacher couldn't teach me what I was interested in and wouldn't be able to teach me how to do this thing he was interested in.

 



 





Logged

Robert Holmén

Hear me as I Play My Horn

They may say I can't play but they can't say I didn't play.
djdekok

*
Offline Offline

Location: Norristown PA
Joined: Sep 25, 2001
Posts: 3969

View Profile WWW
« Reply #56 on: Jan 12, 2012, 10:47AM »

Hmmmmm.....

Might I suggest:

Michael Torke
Stevie Wonder
Maria Schnieder
Darcy James Argue
Elliot Carter
John Corigliano
Herbie Hancock
Wayne Shorter
Augusta Read Thomas
George Crumb
John Hollenbeck

That's off the top off my head. Depending on what you define as interesting, some or all of these composers may not meet your criteria.

But I'm sure others will pipe in with some more credible nominees.

My bet is there are dozens (hundreds??) of composers just bubbling under the surface here in the US that have not yet (or never will) break thru the popularity ceiling due to the high degree of importance our largely uneducated masses puts on vapid, mindless "popular" music over here, Bruce.

The cream does not aise to the top in the US quite as easily as it may in Europe?

Add these composers: 
Jennifer Higdon
William Bolcom
Abbie Burt Betinis
Leslie Bassett

Logged

Daniel De Kok
Principal, Warminster (PA) Symphony Orchestra
Principal, Doylestown (PA) Wind Symphony
B.M. Michigan
M.M. Western Michigan
M.S.L.S. Clarion
savio

*
Offline Offline

Location: Norway
Joined: Aug 10, 2006
Posts: 4082

View Profile WWW
« Reply #57 on: Jan 12, 2012, 04:16PM »

I'm making a little "bomb" now. You are warned. But I did go in to my self and really see what I mean about this question. I listen what Sam say and can understand why he say it. I understand Brucolli, but in another way. What Chris say is interesting because there is a difference in playing this "style" with a good ensemble, then listen it at home or in the concert hall.

My take is to try understand all music I come across as good as I can with my conditions to do it. Next is to love the music honestly.

My "bomb" is I think most of the "new modern music" is fake. Really fake and also speculative.
Some is not and are really music made with an idea, and with a mind that have the word "art" written inside. It will stay there in 100 years, but most of the music I have listen, is written with the word money inside the brain, and will not be there. 

For us musicians, the music is a combination of "logic way to think" and our soul/heart. In the audience there is all stages, from only heart and soul, to only "cold thinkink brains" to people that cant do neither of this things.

I admire a few modern composers, but so many of them are fake. I admire the movie composers, because they really know what they do. They are really like that old man from before our time that did repair and make shoes. Maybe it was not all art, but they all did know how to do it. Today some are speculative, and just through things out and hope fore the best. We see it not only in music but also many other forms of art.

The reason there is so much crap today is because its so easy to make things today. Computers, new technology, internet, TV....its no problem to make a "fake" today. And obvious people do it. That's why I say speculative.

What to do about it? Be honest against your self. If you like something you like it. But of course always try to expand your mind. Be open. Still, listen your heart. There is the honest answear, not in your brain.

Leif
Logged

Bass Trombone - Conn, Holton
savio

*
Offline Offline

Location: Norway
Joined: Aug 10, 2006
Posts: 4082

View Profile WWW
« Reply #58 on: Jan 12, 2012, 11:05PM »

Let me add, there is easy to make crap in all other genres too. I have software that can make compositions with one click on the computer. Its true!! One click and I have a song with melody and chords. It can even make a title for me. One touch....click there it is....

Leif
Logged

Bass Trombone - Conn, Holton
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 42763
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: Jan 13, 2012, 05:04AM »

Let me add, there is easy to make crap in all other genres too. I have software that can make compositions with one click on the computer. Its true!! One click and I have a song with melody and chords. It can even make a title for me. One touch....click there it is....

Leif

And just like the infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters, one might actually be good! :-P

The problem is, we won't know what new stuff will last.  It takes time.  Will people still be running "Amahl and the Night Visitors" in 2050?  Or will it be like Donizetti's "Il Furioso" -- an opera that is revived just to show how much better his other works are?

I think it's nice that folks like Bruce and Chris are playing new works.  We have to listen to them or they will never  become great.  Sure, there is junk.  There are charlatans.  In the world of sculpture, we have the collections of garbage; some of which will become great art and most of which should be recycled.

We can listen and make our minds up.  But we have to listen.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
savio

*
Offline Offline

Location: Norway
Joined: Aug 10, 2006
Posts: 4082

View Profile WWW
« Reply #60 on: Jan 13, 2012, 06:26PM »

And just like the infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters, one might actually be good! :-P

The problem is, we won't know what new stuff will last.  It takes time.  Will people still be running "Amahl and the Night Visitors" in 2050?  Or will it be like Donizetti's "Il Furioso" -- an opera that is revived just to show how much better his other works are?

I think it's nice that folks like Bruce and Chris are playing new works.  We have to listen to them or they will never  become great.  Sure, there is junk.  There are charlatans.  In the world of sculpture, we have the collections of garbage; some of which will become great art and most of which should be recycled.

We can listen and make our minds up.  But we have to listen.

I agree with what you say, but there are so many aspects in this.

What music made today will stay there in 100 years? There are some answears Bruce G. that you might not have been thinking about, or maybe you have.  ;-)

We have to look in the history. One thing is sure, if a composer make some very different and change the direction, then it will be remembered. A complete new "direction" will be in the history books no matter what. Problem is today we still love all the directions that have been developed in the past history, it have been more and more new styles, today we have problem following the new styles because its endless.

Another thing is it was a bit different in example Bach's time. He did live in a little town and people in Norway, as an example, could not see or listen what he did. No internet, no radio. So his music was "re discovered" about 100 years after his death. People had hard time just to survive. In Norway they eat the bark from trees, so I bet they was not reading the trombone forum in this days. Totally different world all over. There is many explanation why.  But some of it was because the world was so different in all aspects of their life's. Scientists still find unknown music from Bach, Mozart and even Grieg.

Today the music has grown into so many differently styles. It would even be difficult to find all styles it have grown into. Jazz, rock, pop, rap, classical, DJ, do some here know all the styles? And of top on this the styles still grow in different directions. Just look at jazz. How many sub styles are there in jazz? I doubt any here knows. Some creative people try to combine it all. Like jazz/folk music. Jazz/classical, Classical/pop. Its endless today, and there is some of the problem. How to make something new? How to make something new with a substance that will be remembered?

I think the future will loose the styles and be more into the person. Not style, but the person. Because the quality will always be in the person, not the style. There will not be any clear direction like rock/classical etc.. I think it will be much more blend of all music arts, also blend of sound, sculpture, text, story, painting, design, clothes, only fantasy set the limits...... Its nothing new, it did start with the opera many hundred years ago. Text, music, story....how to find up the wheel again? Therefore I say the interesting will be the person. Maybe it always have been like that?.

The problem is how to consume all there is today?  How to consume all that happens around us. I bet even the history people will soon have problem to categorise all that happens. A computer can do it but can we? Today everything is "forced" on to us. Its massive, its industry, because its so easy to "spread the news" with today's technology of communication.

In 100 years it will be difficult to follow everything. It even is today. In 1900 there was a "Ford" in 1950 there was Volkswagen, Volvo, Lamborghini, Rolls Royce, Cadillac. Today there is Toyota, the best car in the world of course....just joking, but who can follow all the car brands today?

Do you see my point Bruce G.?  I bet its not easy with my English on top of it.  :D  In Mozart's time there was Mozart. In Brahms time it was a lot more, In Mahler's time there was so many. In our time nobody have the clue. Only the computers can count them. That's why I say its not the style but only the person that will survive in the future. I think what all people seek more and more is humanity. Because its more and more a loss.  :(

Leif
Logged

Bass Trombone - Conn, Holton
brucolli

*
Offline Offline

Location: Germany
Joined: Mar 9, 2011
Posts: 260
"Trombone - musikFabrik, Cologne"


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: Jan 16, 2012, 12:57PM »


We can listen and make our minds up.  But we have to listen.

Well said, Bruce.
Although I'm afraid many people, even musicians, make up their minds before they listen.

Logged

Bruce Collings
Rath Trombone Artist
www.musikfabrik.eu
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 42763
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: Jan 16, 2012, 01:18PM »

When we lived in New York City, we used to subscribe to the New York City Opera.  We usually tried to find a series with mostly new stuff.  It became harder and harder as the years went on and NYCO tried to become Met Junior.

I remember seeing something by Alberto Ginastera that I couldn't wait for the end of.

I remember seeing a work called "The Most Important Man in the World" that I thought was good, but highly topical (it dealt with racial discrimination).  I don't think it has been performed since.

I wouldn't be unhappy if the Ginastera work disappeared from view.  Although he wrote some really good stuff also.  But who knows -- maybe in 2030 it will be acclaimed as a masterwork and it's me that's destined to disappear from view (which will probably happen in the next 20 years anyway).

In Mozart's day people probably said that Salieri was the great composer and that Mozart was writing rubbish.  I can understand that I might not be smart enough to recognize great music.

There will always be new music, I hope.  And there will be new masterpieces, I hope.  I want to hear a few that I can recognize.  But I'll probably have to listen to a lot of junk in the interim.  Bring it on.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
sabutin

*
Offline Offline

Location: NYC
Joined: Sep 26, 2005
Posts: 4543
"A professional freelance NYC lower brass player."


View Profile WWW
« Reply #63 on: Jan 16, 2012, 01:21PM »

Well said, Bruce.
Although I'm afraid many people, even musicians, make up their minds before they listen.

And then here are those who only think that they are listening. Those who "listen" but do not hear. Those whose minds are also pre-made up, but in the opposite direction. Prejudice goes both ways, y'know, witness the people who only think that bop and post-bop are "jazz" or the so-called moldy figs of the late '40s/early '50s who put down the beboppers and championed only older styles.

Duke Ellington's greatest compliment was that something was "beyond category."

Yup.

It's either good or it's not, no matter when it was conceived or in what style it is being played.

Fats Waller once answered the question "What is 'swing,' Mr. Waller?" by saying "If you don't know, I can't tell you."

Yup.

Ditto here. Of course, definitions may vary.

My own definition?

Twofold:

1-Music that requires the use of all three brains...physical, emotional and mental...at a very high level.

and

2-Music in which there is neither room nor accepted excuses for faking.

Dassit.

Or, as Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain his definition of  "hard-core" pornography in 1964 by saying,

Quote
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . but I know it when I see it . . .

Yup.

I know real music it when I hear it.

Bet on it.

Good enough for me, anyway....the results of others may differ. That's what makes horse races. It's also makes what makes bad concerts and lame academic institutions as well.

So it goes.

Attend neither.

You be bettah off.

Bet on that as well.

S.
Logged

Visit <http://samburtis.com/>. Lots of information on that site in the form of articles plus a link to my method book "Time, Balance & Connections-A Universal Theory Of Brass Relativity" which includes several chapters of the book.
robcat2075

*
Offline Offline

Location: Dallas, Texas
Joined: Apr 19, 2009
Posts: 1959

View Profile
« Reply #64 on: Jan 16, 2012, 07:31PM »

I think the main element that makes new music a topic for argument is the question of "who should pay for it?"



Logged

Robert Holmén

Hear me as I Play My Horn

They may say I can't play but they can't say I didn't play.
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 42763
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: Jan 16, 2012, 07:58PM »

I think the main element that makes new music a topic for argument is the question of "who should pay for it?"


If we look at the great orchestral works that we play so much today, it was almost all "government sponsored".  Haydn was in the employ of a nobleman.  Bach was a church organist.  Mozart spent a short time as an employee of the Archbishop Colloredo but as soon as he parted ways he lived hand-to-mouth. 

Liszt married well.  Chopin had a lover.  Tchaikowsky had a position as a teacher in university.  Borodin was a professor of Chemistry.  Charles Ives sold insurance.

So there were very few composers who actually made money at it.  Most had to compose for the love of it.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
Stretch Longarm
old enough to know better

*
Offline Offline

Location: Washington
Joined: Feb 10, 2004
Posts: 3785

View Profile
« Reply #66 on: Jan 16, 2012, 08:50PM »

I think Leif nailed it. With today's technology & communication, the world is not only a smaller place, but communication is blurred as a result - we are inundated with multitudes of info bytes that defy categorization. In the olden days there was room to make a statement that today has difficulty in speaking as a voice. I for one have difficulty applying attention of focus to subjects because there are so damned many to focus on. Everything moves so fast nowadays - if a new idea comes along, I think it is swallowed in the deluge of ideas from so many fronts that it doesn't get the chance to be digested or ruminated upon.

Out of all of this 'brain barf' comes some good ideas, but many don't get more than a cursory glance before it's gone - buried under the enormity of input from everyone with a computer and a keyboard/guitar and a fleeting idea.

I think the world moves too fast nowadays to compare it to the past on the same metric. If Mozart had the internet at his disposal, what would his music have meant to the general public? How about Francis Poulenc? Or for that matter Frank Zappa?
Logged

trombone airflow is 360 degrees. Think about it.
robcat2075

*
Offline Offline

Location: Dallas, Texas
Joined: Apr 19, 2009
Posts: 1959

View Profile
« Reply #67 on: Jan 17, 2012, 02:09PM »

If we look at the great orchestral works that we play so much today, it was almost all "government sponsored".


It's a fairly common argument for government funding of the arts that since governments did it in the past it is natural for them to do it now.

But that "government funding" of old was really just a ruling class using money extracted from their subjects for their own self-aggrandizement and amusement.  They weren't subject to any measure of public oversight such as regular elections to retain their office.

I'm sure some cynic will chime in to claim nothing has changed but really that old mechanism of arts spending is not tenable anymore.









Logged

Robert Holmén

Hear me as I Play My Horn

They may say I can't play but they can't say I didn't play.
brucolli

*
Offline Offline

Location: Germany
Joined: Mar 9, 2011
Posts: 260
"Trombone - musikFabrik, Cologne"


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: Jan 17, 2012, 02:47PM »

I have the feeling that we, as musicians, listen (and judge) music too much as musicians. We ask ourselves, is this something we'd like to play or can we relate to it as a musician or a trombone player? This doesn't seem to be such a problem with modern art, fiction or stage.
Music really seems to separate.

In my experience, there are two types of musicians, those who are open to new music and those who are not. This has nothing to do with the quality of the musician. It just is.
For me, the first prerequisite in asking someone to play with MusikFabrik is, other than being a first class player, are they open to it. If not, forget it, it's just not going to work, no matter how good they are.

Once again Karlheinz has some very fitting words.

Quote

When listening like a discoverer, one must not begin by differentiating the world into good and bad or into pleasant and unpleasant, but rather to listen like a true discoverer, like a discoverer of art, disregarding first of all the aesthetic qualities and to proceed as, for example, when one discovers something in nature. Also then one certainly does not say that this flower is a bad flower or that another flower is a good flower; or that this flower is a disgusting flower, which I never want to see again, and that another flower is a beautiful flower, which I would like to see again. Instead, everything is perceived like something phenomenal which exists and which is taken in by someone in order to think about it, in order to create his own world, his thoughts and his feelings, and to form his life according to new impressions. And then – in both discovering and inventive perception – one decides later about the quality, according to the degree of variety, the complexity, the wealth of relationships, and the degree of true renewal. So wherever people are shown something of which they had no idea, they discover the world through the creative activity of others. Then, as listeners, they become creative themselves, and not just consumers.

(Stockhausen in: Entdeckerisches Hören, 1961)

Logged

Bruce Collings
Rath Trombone Artist
www.musikfabrik.eu
robcat2075

*
Offline Offline

Location: Dallas, Texas
Joined: Apr 19, 2009
Posts: 1959

View Profile
« Reply #69 on: Jan 18, 2012, 02:52PM »

Here's a thought experiment...

What do you regard as the newest piece of music to earn a place in the standard repertoire?  Something an orchestra can put on a "classical" (not "pops") program and not have to sandwich it between two war horses to keep the audience from running off?

I have trouble thinking of anything after Copeland's productive period that would satisfy that benchmark and that's going back to the 1940's.

I don't think Phillip Glass has gotten there yet.

Logged

Robert Holmén

Hear me as I Play My Horn

They may say I can't play but they can't say I didn't play.
blast

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: scotland
Joined: Jul 26, 2001
Posts: 5906
"Bass/Contrabass trombone, Scottish Opera."


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: Jan 18, 2012, 03:24PM »

Here's a thought experiment...

What do you regard as the newest piece of music to earn a place in the standard repertoire?  Something an orchestra can put on a "classical" (not "pops") program and not have to sandwich it between two war horses to keep the audience from running off?

I have trouble thinking of anything after Copeland's productive period that would satisfy that benchmark and that's going back to the 1940's.

I don't think Phillip Glass has gotten there yet.


I would say that things are better this side of the pond. Just before Christmas I went to see the Scottish premiere of a work by James MacMillan. Full hall and a  stunning new work..... only piece on the program.
Chris Stearn
Logged

Still cannot think of anything better to do.LB 116 M,M8
HouBassTrombone

*
Offline Offline

Location: Houston, TX
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 1959
"Just play because you love to."


View Profile
« Reply #71 on: Jan 18, 2012, 07:34PM »

Here's a thought experiment...

What do you regard as the newest piece of music to earn a place in the standard repertoire?  Something an orchestra can put on a "classical" (not "pops") program and not have to sandwich it between two war horses to keep the audience from running off?

I have trouble thinking of anything after Copeland's productive period that would satisfy that benchmark and that's going back to the 1940's.

I don't think Phillip Glass has gotten there yet.


I also disagree with this statement. I am from a fairly conservative area and even have the HSO and DSO play much more recent music than Copland.
Logged

Why am I not practicing?????
Thomas Matta

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Chicago
Joined: Feb 12, 2005
Posts: 6908

View Profile WWW
« Reply #72 on: Jan 18, 2012, 09:35PM »

What do you regard as the newest piece of music to earn a place in the standard repertoire?  Something an orchestra can put on a "classical" (not "pops") program and not have to sandwich it between two war horses to keep the audience from running off?

I have trouble thinking of anything after Copeland's productive period that would satisfy that benchmark and that's going back to the 1940's.

That's a good question.

Newest Piece of Music and New Music don't necessarily mean the same thing, however....
Logged

Thomas Matta
Associate Professor of Jazz Studies, DePaul University
www.thomasmatta.com
robcat2075

*
Offline Offline

Location: Dallas, Texas
Joined: Apr 19, 2009
Posts: 1959

View Profile
« Reply #73 on: Jan 18, 2012, 09:46PM »

I also disagree with this statement. I am from a fairly conservative area and even have the HSO and DSO play much more recent music than Copland.
 

It's a question, not a statement.

I posed a question.  What are those newer works standard repertoire works that can anchor a program on their own?  I can't think of any that have that status after Copeland.  I'm not saying nothing newer ever gets played, I'm saying it hasn't been able to "stick" and get the repeat performances that get it regarded as standard repertoire.  Lots of new stuff has been played, none of it seems to stick around.

I'm looking at the Dallas Symphony Orchestra 2011-12 schedule right now... in 23 programs there are all of 6 "new" works that date after the 1940's. One of those was a brief Barber piece for organ and orchestra.

None were program closers.  All were programmed with more conventional, European composer music that was the main attraction on the program. I'd be very surprised if any of them get repeated in future years. It doesn't sell tickets or attract donors here in Dallas.

But I'll ask again... can you identify anything since 1950 (?) that has become strong standard repertoire?

Possibly some later Shostakovich might barely qualify?  But later Shostakovich doesn't make many appearances here in Dallas.

Hovhaness? I'm doubtful.  I think he is fading now that he's dead.


 
Logged

Robert Holmén

Hear me as I Play My Horn

They may say I can't play but they can't say I didn't play.
Thomas Matta

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Chicago
Joined: Feb 12, 2005
Posts: 6908

View Profile WWW
« Reply #74 on: Jan 18, 2012, 09:58PM »

Again, are you asking about post-1940, or New Music?

If the former.....

Adams? (Short Ride....)
Corigliano? (Symphony no. 1, or Red Violin...)

If the latter - I think you may be right!

Carter?

I really can't think of much. I'd love to be educated by those of you more versed in the latest orchestral repertoire.....
Logged

Thomas Matta
Associate Professor of Jazz Studies, DePaul University
www.thomasmatta.com
robcat2075

*
Offline Offline

Location: Dallas, Texas
Joined: Apr 19, 2009
Posts: 1959

View Profile
« Reply #75 on: Jan 19, 2012, 09:54AM »

Again, are you asking about post-1940, or New Music?


By "newest" I meant "most recent".  What is the most recently composed thing that can be labeled "standard repertoire"?

Since there are works written in the 1940's that can be safely called standard repertoire, I'm wondering if anything since then, of any sort, has become standard rep.

Most of the music we regard as standard repertoire today was embraced by audiences and performers within about 20 years of its composition and usually much faster than that.

We've had several 20 year spans since 1950 but not much written since then has gained acceptance.  It's like music died with Prokofiev in 1953. 

The Adams you mention might be a candidate.  "Short Ride" is getting performed at the DSO later this season.  But that will be the first time.

(By comparison, Saint-Saens' "Organ Symphony" has probably been done 8 times here in the last 20 years.)


Logged

Robert Holmén

Hear me as I Play My Horn

They may say I can't play but they can't say I didn't play.
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 42763
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: Jan 19, 2012, 12:48PM »

You can easily draw with some music from movies or shows.

Bernstein's Symphonic Dances from West Side Story draws.
Bernstein's Mass draws.

But you need a composer with charisma.  John Williams has it.  Carlysle Floyd doesn't.  Note that I do not make value judgments about their compositions.  Floyd wrote some really nice stuff.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
robcat2075

*
Offline Offline

Location: Dallas, Texas
Joined: Apr 19, 2009
Posts: 1959

View Profile
« Reply #77 on: Jan 23, 2012, 07:33AM »

You can easily draw with some music from movies or shows.

Most people would call that "pops" and most orchestras have a "pops" series for just that sort of music. They have tremendous promotion behind them that concert music typically does not. That's why I excluded "pops" music from the consideration of what gets to be standard repertoire and what doesn't.
Logged

Robert Holmén

Hear me as I Play My Horn

They may say I can't play but they can't say I didn't play.
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 42763
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: Jan 23, 2012, 11:52AM »

I think the Symphonic Dances from West Side Story has progressed past "pops".

I would hope that eventually some of the Stephen Sondheim stuff will also.

And even "Tommy".

I know there are some who think that a classical orchestra should limit itself to works no newer than Mahler and an opera company should concentrate on Verdi, Bellini, and Donizetti (all of whom wrote "popular" works in their day).
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
brucolli

*
Offline Offline

Location: Germany
Joined: Mar 9, 2011
Posts: 260
"Trombone - musikFabrik, Cologne"


View Profile
« Reply #79 on: Feb 16, 2012, 04:43AM »

These two articles from the Guardian pretty much sum up my feelings in this thread.
One is by Alex Ross, author of "The Rest is Noise" which was recommended by Zack (Houbasstrombone)

I received "The Rest is Noise" for my birthday and will definitely read it after finishing Winston Churchill's intriguing "The Second World War"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/nov/28/alex-ross-modern-classical-music

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/jan/30/contemporary-classical-music-finds-audience?fb=native

Bruce
Logged

Bruce Collings
Rath Trombone Artist
www.musikfabrik.eu
HouBassTrombone

*
Offline Offline

Location: Houston, TX
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 1959
"Just play because you love to."


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: Feb 16, 2012, 04:35PM »

Both are great books!
-Z
Logged

Why am I not practicing?????
robcat2075

*
Offline Offline

Location: Dallas, Texas
Joined: Apr 19, 2009
Posts: 1959

View Profile
« Reply #81 on: Feb 19, 2012, 07:23AM »

I heard John Adam's "Short Ride in a Fast Machine" at the Dallas Symphony last week. It's only slightly interesting.  I don't think it's the sort of piece people will seek out to rehear or cause them to seek out more John Adams music. 

It may have a place as a short, loud piece that can open a program before a soloist is brought out to play the concerto, but you could do the same with almost any Sousa or classic orchestral march and be more musically interesting and musically valid.

Logged

Robert Holmén

Hear me as I Play My Horn

They may say I can't play but they can't say I didn't play.
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 42763
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #82 on: Feb 19, 2012, 08:35AM »

What you are describing is exactly the process that must take place on all new music.

We don't play everything Mozart wrote, or Haydn or Vivaldi.  They wrote some great music and also a lot of "so-so" music.  And how about their contemporaries (some of whose names are forever lost)?

What will we play by John Adams or Philip Glass in 2030?  I don't know.  I'm sure something by each of them will survive.  Will they still be popular in 2180?  Only time can tell.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
robcat2075

*
Offline Offline

Location: Dallas, Texas
Joined: Apr 19, 2009
Posts: 1959

View Profile
« Reply #83 on: Feb 20, 2012, 10:34AM »

What you are describing is exactly the process that must take place on all new music.

We don't play everything Mozart wrote, or Haydn or Vivaldi.  They wrote some great music and also a lot of "so-so" music.  And how about their contemporaries (some of whose names are forever lost)?

What will we play by John Adams or Philip Glass in 2030?  I don't know.  I'm sure something by each of them will survive.  Will they still be popular in 2180?  Only time can tell.

It is true that we don't perform everything Mozart or Haydn or Vivaldi wrote, but we couldn't if we tried, they wrote that stuff by the bale.



There's a common thesis in these sort of discussions about "new music" that I might summarize as "It takes a long time and many performances before audiences decide whether to accept a piece or not"

I think that's basically flawed.  In general, the works that are widely performed and loved today were were embraced pretty quickly by the audiences of their time.  I'm talking about works that have been introduced since the beginning of the modern public concert era about 200 years ago.

It's true that composers like Bach and Vivaldi had to be rediscovered long after their death, but they weren't active in the modern concert era.

There are some great pieces that had famously disastrous premieres or initial negative reviews but those are fairly rare and it seems to have impeded their acceptance by only a few years, if at all.

Mahler had to wait for the invention of the LP record to get heard enough to get traction in the audiences' ears, but he's an outlier.

There ARE some composers who were frequently performed 120 years ago and are not today.  It's probably been a while since the NY Philharmonic programmed an overture by Flotow or Auber.  But I'd argue they've been displaced by better things that have come along since, not by older works that came from behind.

For the most part, the things we recognize as good today were quickly recognized as good by the audiences of their time.



Logged

Robert Holmén

Hear me as I Play My Horn

They may say I can't play but they can't say I didn't play.
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 42763
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #84 on: Feb 20, 2012, 10:42AM »

One other thing to remember is that great music is not necessarily written for the concert hall.

Wagner wrote very few things that were not parts of operas.  Yet we perform many of his works in concert because they are popular.  Similarly, we only play Delibes' ballet music even without dancers.

I could envision we will be playing  suites of music from motion pictures or television shows in the future.  Howard Cable's music from Lord of the Rings may have legs.  As will John Williams work for many films.  Will we be performing excerpts from Akhenaton by Glass?  Nixon in China?  Who knows.

Your comment that sometimes the initial response to a work may be counterindicative of its long term viability indicates that we don't always know what is great.

Will we be performing John Cage's 4:33 as anything other than a joke in 50 years?
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
robcat2075

*
Offline Offline

Location: Dallas, Texas
Joined: Apr 19, 2009
Posts: 1959

View Profile
« Reply #85 on: Feb 29, 2012, 11:37AM »

One other thing to remember is that great music is not necessarily written for the concert hall.

Wagner wrote very few things that were not parts of operas.  Yet we perform many of his works in concert because they are popular.  Similarly, we only play Delibes' ballet music even without dancers.

That didn't just happen after 100 years of audience contemplation, Wagner pushed the concert performance of his works himself.  In his own lifetime he was arranging and publishing and conducting in sit-down orchestra concerts the excerpts we are familiar with today.  Because there was a buck to be made I'm sure.


Quote
I could envision we will be playing  suites of music from motion pictures or television shows in the future.  Howard Cable's music from Lord of the Rings may have legs.  As will John Williams work for many films.  Will we be performing excerpts from Akhenaton by Glass?  Nixon in China?  Who knows.

We can envision lots of things, but since the beginning of the concert-giving era 200 years ago or so, there's exceedingly little track record to support the idea that now-famous works toiled in obscurity for many decades before booming to the foreground.  There just aren't many cases of it and it's unrealistic to think that's going to change.

Every ignored composer loves the idea that all the greats had to be rediscovered in modern times but it's more urban legend than history.


Quote
Your comment that sometimes the initial response to a work may be counterindicative of its long term viability indicates that we don't always know what is great.

I think musicologists play up the negative reactions for more than they are worth for the sake of constructing an dramatic narrative.  They love to note that "Eduard Hanslick" wrote a bad review of this or that but he's just one guy and they never mention him when he gave a good review so how important was he really?  Probably not much.


Quote
Will we be performing John Cage's 4:33 as anything other than a joke in 50 years?

Joke at the outset. Perhaps it will get an ironic boost when the copyright expires.
Logged

Robert Holmén

Hear me as I Play My Horn

They may say I can't play but they can't say I didn't play.
brucolli

*
Offline Offline

Location: Germany
Joined: Mar 9, 2011
Posts: 260
"Trombone - musikFabrik, Cologne"


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: Mar 08, 2012, 08:44AM »

Here is at least someone who seems to think differently than the majority of the people here.
I like the description, "slave performers"

Quote

Why I love Stockhausen
By Björk
The Guardian, Thursday 30 October 2008


For me, Stockhausen was one of the pioneers who started a new root in music. The electronic root, whose aesthetic is very specific, has its own organic interior, a structure that has DNA independent from other music trees (for example, the classical Beethoven/Wagner/Mahler tree or the blues/rock/Philip Glass branch). When Karlheinz harnessed electricity into sound and showed the rest of us, he sparked off a sun that is still burning and will glow for a long time.

For my generation, Stockhausen's published lectures had unbelievable impact. He was the most hopeful of figures: the 21st century was going to be great. The classical teachers in my school, meanwhile, kept moaning about the good old days of music and changing the masses of music pupils into slave performers, putting to sleep any creative thought or the will to make new things.

I remember sitting in his studio in Cologne, surrounded by 12 speakers, him creating a current traveling up and down, swirling around us like the force of nature that electricity is, my insides pulsating to his noise - primordial, modern and futuristic. He celebrated the sound of sound, in both his electronic music and his acoustic music. For example, my favourite piece of his, Stimmung, is vocal only, using the voice as a sound and exploring the nuances of it in a microscopic way, rid of the luggage of the opera tradition or any other vocal disciplines, styles or techniques.

Now the 21st century has started, Karlheinz was right, things are great, we are communicating telepathically, of course (as he prophesied), and music schools have changed, allowing more room for fresh young minds that are writing music on computers. I look around me, listen to the rumbles and the noises and all the music that is being made today by youngsters, and I feel he wasn't so far off. He knew.

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Logged

Bruce Collings
Rath Trombone Artist
www.musikfabrik.eu
Thomas Matta

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Chicago
Joined: Feb 12, 2005
Posts: 6908

View Profile WWW
« Reply #87 on: Mar 08, 2012, 09:17AM »

Frankly, I don't care what music is popular to the masses now, nor do I really care what will be popular to the masses in 10, 50, 0r 100 years.

I'm here enjoying music TODAY.

Again, it's time to quote the great WIllie Nelson:

"Laugh at what makes you laugh, and don't look around to see who's laughing with you."

Same applies to music.

Listen to what YOU enjoy, and don't look around to see who else likes it.

Life is too short to worry about what other LISTENERS think.

On the other hand, life is boring without arguments and discourse.
Logged

Thomas Matta
Associate Professor of Jazz Studies, DePaul University
www.thomasmatta.com
Stretch Longarm
old enough to know better

*
Offline Offline

Location: Washington
Joined: Feb 10, 2004
Posts: 3785

View Profile
« Reply #88 on: Mar 08, 2012, 10:41AM »

Frankly, I don't care what music is popular to the masses now, nor do I really care what will be popular to the masses in 10, 50, 0r 100 years.

I'm here enjoying music TODAY.

Again, it's time to quote the great WIllie Nelson:

"Laugh at what makes you laugh, and don't look around to see who's laughing with you."

Same applies to music.

Listen to what YOU enjoy, and don't look around to see who else likes it.

Life is too short to worry about what other LISTENERS think.

On the other hand, life is boring without arguments and discourse.

No, it's not.  Evil
Logged

trombone airflow is 360 degrees. Think about it.
D Gibson
« Reply #89 on: Mar 08, 2012, 11:19AM »

Tom Matta...yes.
Logged
bds9992

*
Offline Offline

Location: Denville, NJ
Joined: Mar 26, 2010
Posts: 197
"in the big room, even silence is loud."


View Profile
« Reply #90 on: Mar 08, 2012, 05:03PM »

I don't understand the specifics of the genre, but in mentioning John Hollenbeck and Maria Schneider I have a sense of what is being talked about.

Permit me to say that no music is new. Every note of music that has and ever will be produced is recombined pieces of other things.

It's all 12 notes. Just because you played something that you think has never been played before, doesn't mean it hasn't. I'm sure people like Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie played everything some individuals will ever play.....multiple times over.

Quarter tones are interesting, no doubt, and I was actually looking up different scales last night (examples: Taishikicho Ryo from Japan, Adonai Malakh from Israel and Bhairubahar Thaat from India). But even when I found the musical combinations startling, the notes, the pitch is still the same. A sound is a sound whether it comes out of a violin, a gun or a sonic boom.

Might I suggest also that everything is rhythm. Pitch is based off of matter vibrating at a certain frequency. Frequency is a speed. Vibration is one up, one down....at great speeds, that's rhythm. Matter is frozen energy, right? Energy operates at a certain speed. All those little tiny atoms, at the very bottom, are moving at light speeds, which makes the things they comprise look solid. That's speed. Therefore, that is rhythm.

I could get even deeper with you all but the point I'm attempting to make is, everything is rhythm, nothing is new, and so even Maria Schneider is descendant of Africans, despite what others might say.
Logged
savio

*
Offline Offline

Location: Norway
Joined: Aug 10, 2006
Posts: 4082

View Profile WWW
« Reply #91 on: Mar 08, 2012, 10:17PM »

Frankly, I don't care what music is popular to the masses now, nor do I really care what will be popular to the masses in 10, 50, 0r 100 years.

I'm here enjoying music TODAY.

Again, it's time to quote the great WIllie Nelson:

"Laugh at what makes you laugh, and don't look around to see who's laughing with you."

Same applies to music.

Listen to what YOU enjoy, and don't look around to see who else likes it.

Life is too short to worry about what other LISTENERS think.

On the other hand, life is boring without arguments and discourse.

 Good! Good! Good! Good! Good!

Leif
Logged

Bass Trombone - Conn, Holton
crabwisediamond
*
Offline Offline

Location: Putney, VT
Joined: Apr 23, 2012
Posts: 42

View Profile
« Reply #92 on: Apr 30, 2012, 08:47AM »

New music often challenges and transforms our preconceptions of music.  Sometimes implicitly, sometimes as a side effect.
Of course you can't "hum a few bars" of 4'33'' of silence.
Of course you can't sing a 1028 particle grain cloud.
As soon as rules are stated they are swept away.
Art is Nature and is expanding with the Universe.
My contemporaries and I create music by programing algorithms into computers and letting them loose.
Are there audience members who are so distracted by their own egos, questions of skill and form, and a fear of the unknown that they are unable to enjoy the piece?
A few, sure,
and I bet they are musicians!
Logged
Stan

*
Offline Offline

Location: Tallahassee, FL
Joined: Mar 2, 2003
Posts: 467

View Profile
« Reply #93 on: May 06, 2012, 07:13AM »

Back to the OP, and the general theme of this thread...

I'm a musicologist.  Ph.D., dissertation, teaching, the whole shebang. So, I can talk the bull**** talk when I have to.  I just want to make 2 points:

1.  ALL music was once new music.  Most of it that's rememberred was once controversial.
2.  Serialism is here to stay, and anybody who can't get behind that idea needs to have their musician license revoked.  Sam's right, and money does a lot of talking.  But the music you're all talking about wouldn't still be around today if it didn't have some real artistic merit.  If you don't believe that, then you don't know how to listen. 

Bet on it.

Stan
Logged
Stan

*
Offline Offline

Location: Tallahassee, FL
Joined: Mar 2, 2003
Posts: 467

View Profile
« Reply #94 on: May 06, 2012, 07:29AM »

Quote
Every ignored composer loves the idea that all the greats had to be rediscovered in modern times but it's more urban legend than history.

Rob, this statement is so ignorant as to the history of western musc as to be absurd.

Here's a partial list of "nobody composers" whose works were largely rediscovered.  I'm sure you've never heard of them.

Schubert. Mozart. JS Bach. Palestrina. Shostakovich. Mussorgsky. Still. Ives.

It's not an urban legend, it's $$$$ and publicity. If you don't have those, your works get buried until someone finds them.

Also, the Adams piece you didn't "think was interesting" is one of the most widely programmed pieces of the last decade.  If you can't see it as "musically valid," whatever the heck that means, then I'd like to suggest that the problem may be with you and not Mr. Adams.

Stan
Logged
brucolli

*
Offline Offline

Location: Germany
Joined: Mar 9, 2011
Posts: 260
"Trombone - musikFabrik, Cologne"


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: May 06, 2012, 01:10PM »


Also, the Adams piece you didn't "think was interesting" is one of the most widely programmed pieces of the last decade.  If you can't see it as "musically valid," whatever the heck that means, then I'd like to suggest that the problem may be with you and not Mr. Adams.

Stan

John Cage said something to the effect of; if you listen to a piece of music for 10 minutes and think it's boring, listen to it for 20 minutes. If you still find it boring, listen for 40 minutes...

Listening is an art that needs to be cultivated. A good musician MUST be a good listener.

Logged

Bruce Collings
Rath Trombone Artist
www.musikfabrik.eu
robcat2075

*
Offline Offline

Location: Dallas, Texas
Joined: Apr 19, 2009
Posts: 1959

View Profile
« Reply #96 on: Jun 23, 2012, 04:42PM »

Rob, this statement is so ignorant as to the history of western musc as to be absurd.

My thesis is more reasoned than your rebuttal and more supported by the facts.

Quote
Here's a partial list of "nobody composers" whose works were largely rediscovered.  I'm sure you've never heard of them.

"Stan", an adult on the internet, wrote that last sentence.  He imagines I'm devastated by his cleverness..

Quote
Schubert. Mozart. JS Bach. Palestrina. Shostakovich. Mussorgsky. Still. Ives.

Remember, I said my thesis applies to composers active in the modern concert-giving era (when public audiences actually had good chances to hear new music, not just noble patrons).

Bach and Palestrina weren't part of the modern-giving era.  And I already mentioned that Bach was so far back he had to be rediscovered. None-the-less, successful among their limited audience in their lifetimes and successful today, fitting my thesis.


Mozart barely made it to the modern concert-giving era. None-the-less, major works of his remained in frequent use after his death and composers immediately began citing his influence. Mozart was never really forgotten. Successful during his lifetime, successful today. He fits my thesis. 

Schubert's "Great" symphony was revived a few years after his death.  He was apparently well-regarded enough that people took time to look for manuscripts he hadn't published that had been stashed away. Also successful during his lifetime and successful today, fitting my thesis.

Mussorgsky's Boris Godunov was a popular success in his lifetime and has gotten numerous stagings and revisions since his death. Success during his lifetime, successful today.

Shostakovich?  You imagine he was forgotten?  He's been widely performed since his death with no let-up. Successful during his lifetime, successful today.

William Grant Still? Not a major presence during his lifetime, not a major presence today.  If that's your example of a composer who's now standard repertoire after being ignored, it's a lame one.

Charles Ives is rarely programmed on concerts today.  He's remained about as marginally-known since his death as he was during his life, when he received a Pulitzer Prize and could be heard on broadcast performances and recordings.  He was not completely obscure during his life. A moderate presence during his lifetime, a moderate presence today. Again, that fits my thesis.

Quote
It's not an urban legend...
Stan hasn't come up with a single example of a composer who was ignored in his lifetime yet is standard repertoire today.

Again, my thesis is: if they are standard repertoire today they were successful in their own time too.  Composers who were failures in their lifetime yet are beloved today are exceedingly rare creatures.

Quote
Also, the Adams piece you didn't "think was interesting" is one of the most widely programmed pieces of the last decade.  If you can't see it as "musically valid," whatever the heck that means, then I'd like to suggest that the problem may be with you and not Mr. Adams.

Stan, adult on the internet, has soundly thrashed me by suggesting that I have "a problem". Ouch!

However I'll suggest that if you actually tallied a score you'd find the Adams piece would not be at the top of a list of pieces that were "frequently performed" in the last ten years.

Can Stan cite such a list?

Here's the most recent list I can find:

http://www.americanorchestras.org/images/stories/ORR_0809/ORR_0809.pdf

Adams tops a list only when it is restricted to works written in the last 25 years.

Gustav Holst's one-hit wonder gets as many performances in a year as all of Adams' works combined.





Logged

Robert Holmén

Hear me as I Play My Horn

They may say I can't play but they can't say I didn't play.
Stan

*
Offline Offline

Location: Tallahassee, FL
Joined: Mar 2, 2003
Posts: 467

View Profile
« Reply #97 on: Jun 27, 2012, 08:20AM »

Stan's my actual name, and I can only guess by the vitriol with which you used it that my "cleverness" did indeed touch a nerve.

All I can say is that you can't argue with someone who knows they're right.  Even if, as in your case, they're wrong.

I apologize for being unfathomably stupid, but I had assumed that by "successful during their lifetime" you meant "make enough money composing to A, not be destitute and B, command a certain amount of respect for their craft."  That was not true of Mozart, Shostakovich, Mussorgsky, Still, or Ives.  I can also only assume that since you're not acknowledging Still or Ives as relevant composers that you're the kind of listener who would outright dismiss John Adams.  Oh wait...

I'll only offer:

-Performed since his death is not the same thing as successful in his life.
-We obviously have a differing definition of success.  I'm using the one that doesn't involve starvation and loans.

Your list of performed repertoire, which is only inclusive of the US and Canada and completely ignores the (much more musically educated) concert-going audiences of Europe and Asia, is all topped by dead composers.  John Adams is the highest living composer on the list.  From your survey, it seems that dying was the best thing that ever happened to Beethoven and Tchaikovsky, whose works did not receive hundreds of performances a year while they were alive.   How do I know that?  The programs still exist.  The same programs that tell me that Adams is one of the most programmed living composers.  And a minimalist at that.  I make a side-living writing program notes, so I do follow that kind of thing.

To be blunt, audiences don't always get it.  Especially concert-going audiences of people like you who have their minds made up once they read the program.  We've lived with 100 years of the Rite of Spring and 100 years of Pierrot Lunaire.  However you'd like to call it, those works are here to stay, and their creators are part of the standard canon.  Maybe not the standard canon that you'd personally like to listen to, but the standard canon of recorded, concertized, and disseminated works.  History has spoken on Schoenberg and Stravinsky.  A century ago, their critics sounded exactly like you.

The same can be said for Monteverdi, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, and anyone else who did something against the status quo.  History is on my side, and not yours. 

I'm not trying to suggest that you have a problem.  I'm telling you that you have one. 
Logged
D Gibson
« Reply #98 on: Jun 27, 2012, 09:37AM »

Guys...the sarcastic sniping is stinking up the room. Please save the barbs for your PM's and stay on topic. I find both of your points interesting, but am put off by the bad vibes. Moving forward, please....

DG
Logged
DocHoss
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jan 5, 2012
Posts: 74

View Profile
« Reply #99 on: Jul 02, 2012, 03:16PM »

I've read this whole thread (more or less...) and have come to an interesting conclusion.  I'd like to know what you guys have to say about it...

Democracy killed "New Music"

A little clarity for the discussion...I'm using the term "democracy" to imply free markets and a non-monarchy.  I'm using the term "killed" not in a "sword through the heart" or instant death way, but in a "began its inexorable decline" way.  I'm using the term "New Music" as a catch-all for post-Romantic, post-Stravinsky. 

To support my assertion, I'd say that as the era of the monarch-supported composer-in-residence went away to be replaced by a market-driven economy, composers would be forced to compose only pieces that are capable of appealing to a mass market.  Thus, you begin to see the hyper-serialized works of Stockhausen and his ilk begin to be replaced by movie music, and the rise of the golden era of pop.

What do you think?  What can you add?  How do you feel about it?
Logged

"If you want to be an artist, you have to make a mess." - Pablo Picasso
SilverBone
Put the Cool in "Coulisse!"

*
Offline Offline

Location: Portland, OR
Joined: Sep 16, 2006
Posts: 3015

View Profile
« Reply #100 on: Jul 02, 2012, 03:34PM »

If free markets and non-monarchy killed new music, then it must be flourishing in places like North Korea.

I think the key lies more in your phrase "composers ... forced to compose only pieces that are capable of appealing to a mass market."  This is true because composers do like to eat as much as the rest of us.

Appealing to the mass market is the problem.  The public at large has decided that pre-digested pap is the answer - any art that requires involvement on their part is too much work.  Free markets didn't cause that - the members of the marketplace did it to themselves voluntarily.
Logged

-Howard

The nastiest fellow I've known
Smashed his trombone and ruined its tone.
There's a simple excuse
For his slush pump abuse:
He was born to be bad to the bone.
D Gibson
« Reply #101 on: Jul 02, 2012, 04:05PM »

I'm no music historian, but I always had the impression that the monarchs who endowed new music were competing to keep up with their peers by picking the new "thing"...the new fashion.
 
Logged
Thomas Matta

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Chicago
Joined: Feb 12, 2005
Posts: 6908

View Profile WWW
« Reply #102 on: Jul 02, 2012, 04:43PM »

Had there not been the Dukes keeping composers on salary / retainer / etc, where might our music evolved?
Logged

Thomas Matta
Associate Professor of Jazz Studies, DePaul University
www.thomasmatta.com
Stan

*
Offline Offline

Location: Tallahassee, FL
Joined: Mar 2, 2003
Posts: 467

View Profile
« Reply #103 on: Jul 02, 2012, 05:30PM »

Tom et al.,

Music "evolved" into the private sphere relatively recently in the history of the Western world.  The idea of having a pet composer to write you new stuff is only about 600 years old.  Most of the time, those guys weren't paid to write new, cutting edge stuff.  The cutting edge, paradigm-shifting ventures often start with someone else's money and end in bankruptcy.  They were paid to provide background music to something else. 

For every one really amazing thing that Monteverdi, Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven...whoever...wrote, they wrote more cookie-cutter stuff that paid the bills.  Composers, as an almost universal rule, have always  been beholden to someone else's dollars.  The ones who weren't did really crazy things like Gesualdo's madrigals, the Symphonie Fantastique, and everything that Charles Ives wrote. 

In many ways, the iPod and the invention of the "personal soundtrack" has killed new music.  It's forced things to take on a homogenized, uniform sound in order to sell at a competitive $.99/track.

But, I think new music's current predicament really got under way in the 1950s.  Milton Babbit's article from 1958, "Who Cares if You Listen," was a real turning point in the funding of music in this country.  Babbit postulated that music, in the serial footsteps of the Second Viennese School, had become a mathematical science and should be funded in academia (like the sciences).  That idea got a lot of traction, and you start seeing theorists/composers taking prestigious places at American universities.  Many of those individuals have been named in this thread.  These people, in order to keep their funding, propagated the kind of music that I defended rather rudely a few posts back (sorry for being a jerk).  While this led to some great music, it also fostered an us-vs-them mentality in American patronage circles which had been very used to patronizing 18th and 19th-century European (mostly Germanic) musics.  The university patronage structure went one way, the private patronage structure went another way, and the explosion in distribution technology meant that people could listen to things at home.  They weren't listening to university-patronized experimental music, because it A, simply wasn't being recorded and B, it clearly wasn't being marketed at them.

In 1960, with the space race on and America on top of the world, higher education was on fire.  Nobody ever anticipated a collapse of the entire higher ed endeavor, and so those composers kept plugging along on academic music that lives by an entirely different set of aesthetic principles than music intentionally aimed at broad consumption.  It's not bad music, but you really do have to be trained in order to understand it.  That's because things like integral serialism grew up beside things like rocket science.  A layman can't understand the principles of thrust without help, just like he can't understand the principles of Stochastic music without a roadmap.  Our society has chosen to devalue and defund both of those things.  We mock what we don't understand, and thus this entire discussion on the "emperor's new clothes."

Stan the music historian
Logged
Stretch Longarm
old enough to know better

*
Offline Offline

Location: Washington
Joined: Feb 10, 2004
Posts: 3785

View Profile
« Reply #104 on: Jul 05, 2012, 04:37PM »

  We mock what we don't understand, and thus this entire discussion on the "emperor's new clothes."

Yes, but wouldn't it be equally correct to say people mock what they plain just don't like?

Some folk don't like Country Western, because it's 'too whiney', 'too simplistic' etc.
Some folk don't like classical because the atmosphere of the audience is 'too stuffy' or 'too pretentious' etc.
Some folk don't like jazz, because they say it's 'too confusing', 'can't dance to it', 'it's elitist' etc.

Maybe they don't understand, but maybe they just don't like it. One can perhaps 'appreciate' an art form when it's explained to them, but they can't be forced to 'like' it. People are different.
Logged

trombone airflow is 360 degrees. Think about it.
brucolli

*
Offline Offline

Location: Germany
Joined: Mar 9, 2011
Posts: 260
"Trombone - musikFabrik, Cologne"


View Profile
« Reply #105 on: Jul 06, 2012, 02:49PM »

The fact that people like something is not necessarily a sign of quality.
Logged

Bruce Collings
Rath Trombone Artist
www.musikfabrik.eu
D Gibson
« Reply #106 on: Jul 06, 2012, 03:10PM »

The fact that people like something is not necessarily a sign of quality.

Amen.
Logged
Stretch Longarm
old enough to know better

*
Offline Offline

Location: Washington
Joined: Feb 10, 2004
Posts: 3785

View Profile
« Reply #107 on: Jul 06, 2012, 03:11PM »

The fact that people like something is not necessarily a sign of quality.

I agree. The fact that people understand something isn't a sign of quality, either. There's crappy, pointless, wandering jazz, and there is poignant, structured melodic jazz. I like and understand jazz, but I don't like all jazz. Which produces quality...Ornette Coleman, or Kenny G? Some would say Ornette, because his art is built on morphing traditional jazz theory, and KG is perceived as a schmarmy, trite noodler who shines behind the wine-and-cheese jazz edifice. But if you don't dig Ornette, then KG's massive record sales to people who don't 'understand' jazz is "quality" to the record producer. Subsequently, more people know KG's name than Ornette's. Will either one stand the test of time? Hard to tell what will happen in 100 years. But I digress, the OP is about composers...
Logged

trombone airflow is 360 degrees. Think about it.
Torobone

*
Offline Offline

Location: Toronto area
Joined: Sep 7, 2009
Posts: 1766

View Profile WWW
« Reply #108 on: Jul 07, 2012, 02:06PM »

I just found this thread with a lot of comments and different direction from several posters. My definition of "New Music" is specifically: the exploration of new sounds and composition methods played by classically trained musicians. Some of the players also play at jazz festivals. The music may be mathematically or algorithmically generated by computer.

Here is a link to Narration by the Ig Henneman Sextet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKcmTwOQKa8

My first exposure to New Music was in 1976 at a concert at the University of Toronto. I briefly dated a girl whose parents were well connected and I was invited along to hear the Canadian Brass as guest artists. They had just released their 3rd album or so and I was excited.

Of the pieces played that evening, I remember the French horn and tuba of the CB on stage, reading music. Between them was a scorekeeper with a projector. One represented a Greek god, and the other was an uber-virtuoso musician who challenged the god to a competition. The music was unfamiliar to me, and the musician was ahead on the scorecard as the piece progressed. At the end, the god was declared the winner anyway, because, it was explained, you just can't beat a god.

Another guest artist was a pianist from Japan, flown over for the concert. He played the piano is a very athletic style for a computer generated premiere of a piece of music. I remember my date's mother checking the music afterward and informing us he had indeed played the notes on the page.

Here is another example, with the score for Prednisomnia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsMcgvi-GzI

I know there is an audience for this style of music. I'm afraid I have yet to join their ranks.
Logged

Martin Hubel
Yamaha 891Z & 830 Xeno Bass, & '74 Bach 42 (played regularly)
brucolli

*
Offline Offline

Location: Germany
Joined: Mar 9, 2011
Posts: 260
"Trombone - musikFabrik, Cologne"


View Profile
« Reply #109 on: Jul 07, 2012, 03:04PM »


Of the pieces played that evening, I remember the French horn and tuba of the CB on stage, reading music. Between them was a scorekeeper with a projector. One represented a Greek god, and the other was an uber-virtuoso musician who challenged the god to a competition. The music was unfamiliar to me, and the musician was ahead on the scorecard as the piece progressed. At the end, the god was declared the winner anyway, because, it was explained, you just can't beat a god.


This would be "Linea Agon" by Iannis Xenakis. The trombone player, as Linea, is pitted against the God duo of horn and tuba. It's a very difficult piece to pull off well. I still haven't found a way to play the game so that the audience understands it.
It's not really a good piece for an introduction to new music and, although I love Xenakis, I'm undecided if this is a good piece. But, my respect to the CB for programing it.

I do wonder how many people have had "bad" experiences with a new music piece or performance and have written off the whole genre for ever after.
Logged

Bruce Collings
Rath Trombone Artist
www.musikfabrik.eu
Torobone

*
Offline Offline

Location: Toronto area
Joined: Sep 7, 2009
Posts: 1766

View Profile WWW
« Reply #110 on: Jul 07, 2012, 05:07PM »

This would be "Linea Agon" by Iannis Xenakis. The trombone player, as Linea, is pitted against the God duo of horn and tuba. It's a very difficult piece to pull off well. I still haven't found a way to play the game so that the audience understands it.
It's not really a good piece for an introduction to new music and, although I love Xenakis, I'm undecided if this is a good piece. But, my respect to the CB for programing it.

I do wonder how many people have had "bad" experiences with a new music piece or performance and have written off the whole genre for ever after.

It was a long time ago, and thanks for the correction and information on the piece. I would say that your comment about the audience not understanding the piece, to me at least, speaks to a problem with the piece. On my evening, I could not have had more knowledgeable people with me to help me understand what I was hearing.

I should also "come clean" and mention that my date that night was the bass clarinetist in Narration, the first video. Lori Freedman gets it, and has for the past 30 years made her living in New Music and other genres. A few years ago, I saw that she flew from Montreal to Toronto to play The Riot by Jonathan Harvey. Here she is again playing it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOvzoo1d38I

For me, I'm not sure of New Music's value, unless it leads a composer to music that I will enjoy as his/her style evolves. The musicians' talent and artistry are there, but it sounds like the enjoyment is for the composer, a select few, and those that like the Emperor's New Clothes. There is so much other music I enjoy and am still exploring to spend much time on New Music. I try occasionally, based on my coached introduction.

If I say I like New Music, can I have a grant?
Logged

Martin Hubel
Yamaha 891Z & 830 Xeno Bass, & '74 Bach 42 (played regularly)
brucolli

*
Offline Offline

Location: Germany
Joined: Mar 9, 2011
Posts: 260
"Trombone - musikFabrik, Cologne"


View Profile
« Reply #111 on: Jul 08, 2012, 12:03PM »

I would say that your comment about the audience not understanding the piece, to me at least, speaks to a problem with the piece. On my evening, I could not have had more knowledgeable people with me to help me understand what I was hearing.

......

For me, I'm not sure of New Music's value, unless it leads a composer to music that I will enjoy as his/her style evolves. The musicians' talent and artistry are there, but it sounds like the enjoyment is for the composer, a select few, and those that like the Emperor's New Clothes. There is so much other music I enjoy and am still exploring to spend much time on New Music. I try occasionally, based on my coached introduction.


I think you're right, it is a problem with the piece. The thing is though, it's really fun to play and it's rather frustrating that the audience is kind of left out in the blue. It probably needs a really good theater director to make it work.

I do think lot's of people like to pay money to watch musicians having fun on stage, even if it's with music they don't necessarily like. If the musicians aren't having fun how is the audience supposed to?

I admire you for your opinion, it's honest and you are entitled to it, as everyone is, of course. But you also seem to understand that music you don't really like can be important and valuable to others.

One can't ask for more than that.

Logged

Bruce Collings
Rath Trombone Artist
www.musikfabrik.eu
Torobone

*
Offline Offline

Location: Toronto area
Joined: Sep 7, 2009
Posts: 1766

View Profile WWW
« Reply #112 on: Jul 10, 2012, 06:45PM »

I think you're right, it is a problem with the piece. The thing is though, it's really fun to play and it's rather frustrating that the audience is kind of left out in the blue. It probably needs a really good theater director to make it work.

I do think lot's of people like to pay money to watch musicians having fun on stage, even if it's with music they don't necessarily like. If the musicians aren't having fun how is the audience supposed to?

I've gone to a concert where an interpretive dance company was used for a suite of newly written circus music for the Hannaford Street Silver Band. For some in the audience, they were happy just watching and listening to good music being made by the band. For others, the visual dance aspect added something. John Williams' music for Star Wars is now being played beneath a movie screen. I know many people that felt the pictures added to the performance.

For Linea Agon, perhaps the same is true. Theatrics might bring new life to the piece, particularly when it appears the audience is not currently being drawn to it.

Thinking about this some more, I wonder whether new music helps build technique? I think most people would agree the study and practice of classical music and jazz builds technique and musicianship. If I'm playing new music with unexpected intervals, rhythms, and other musical devices not familiar to me or the audience, does it matter if I play it correctly to anyone but the composer and myself? For me, it might be similar to my experience in a rock band, where imprecise phrases went unnoticed and my technique began to suffer. I felt better when I stopped.
Logged

Martin Hubel
Yamaha 891Z & 830 Xeno Bass, & '74 Bach 42 (played regularly)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [All]   Go Up
Print
Jump to: