 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.82.40.236
In Reply to: RE: Hmm. . . your post gets me to thinking (always dangerous!). . . posted by Chris from Lafayette on May 08, 2016 at 23:52:10
There's a mistake you make over and over again. Copland didn't pooh-pooh anyone, he was a modest and respectful man. And you can be sure that when he conducted a concert of his own music, he wanted people to buy tickets and show up, which they did. He was not a charismatic public figure, but he did write some very readable books to help his cause. And he is probably the most popular American classical music composer ever.
His protege Leonard Bernstein was a very charismatic public figure and went even further, not only writing very readable books, but starring on radio and TV, doing his famous Young Peoples' Concerts, and conducting to packed houses all over the world with programs that included music by the composers discussed by Copland, Copland himself, and of course Bernstein himself. You can't accuse either of them of pooh-poohing their audience.
And what about their work for Hollywood and Broadway? Bernstein had a huge hit that changed the Broadway musical forever in West Side Story (which was also a big success as a movie). Though Copland never had such a big show biz hit, versions of his music for the Irwin Shaw play Quiet City and the movie version of Thornton Wilder's Our Town have lived on as classical repertoire standards. Of course, Copland's Appalachian Spring, Rodeo and Billy the Kid were big ballet hits, as was Bernstein's Fancy Free.
Both Copland and Bernstein were influenced by the Second Viennese School, as well as by Stravinsky and many other so-called modernists. And their influence lives on. As for Glazunov, well, I wouldn't put him in a dustbin, but he is further in the past and part of a much older tradition.
Follow Ups:
I'm always on the warpath regarding the serialists, who represented part of the modernism Copland was defending in the article. You keep referring to Copland and Bernstein in terms of their own music, little of which is serialist - although I concede that a serialist influence is present, perhaps, in a tiny portion of their works.
Hi Chris - I must interject two points here. You of course are free to dislike serialism, as many other musicians do. However, let's agree to at least keep things factual and not get out of control - I must correct two things you said:
a) - to suggest that they couldn't have written "easy listening" music if they had wanted to is absurd. We are speaking of world class composers here, masters of their craft, and all three famous teachers of that craft, and not just of their own styles. They of course did not want to write "easy listening", and Copland is quite articulate about some of the reasons why in the article. And parenthetically, "Verklaerte Nacht" is quite a favorite of the "easy listening" crowd, though it was not intended as such by the composer.
b) - of course serialism was music of it's time, as again Copland talks quite well about. To say otherwise is again absurd. Much of Berg's music in particular is unimaginable without the context of WWI.
And perhaps I wasn't clear enough about your first point. Sure, the Second Vienna School composers could have written easy listening music, but my point is that these composers' serial techniques themselves would not allow for the composition of "easy listening" music. It's basically a defect of that style of composition. There might be some disagreement as to whether "Verklarte Nacht" represents "easy listening" music (my wife can't stand it!), but let's concede the point and say that it IS somehow representative of "easy listening". But the fact remains that that work is written in a tonal style, not a serial style! And I'll assert again that music written with 12-tone techniques is simply incapable of the kind of expression we hear in true "easy listening" works, such as a Mozart divertimento or a Johann Strauss waltz.
And, since I've got a head of steam going, I might as well get to your second point: it is NOT absurd to claim that 12-tone music was NOT the music of its time, when tonal music also existed at that same time. Sure, I know that there were 12-tone "true believers" (such as Rene Leibowitz) who claimed exactly that (i.e., that serial music was the ONLY legitimate music of its time and the ONLY legitimate path forward), but history has proven them wrong. And BTW, I say that it's absurd to imply that the horrors of WWI can only be expressed through serialism. Lots of composers wrote music which evokes the horrors of WWI, and most of them didn't need serialism to do it.
I see these guys made the obvious points for me.... c'mon Chris, you don't need to resort to misconstruing my statements...
rbolaw's point about film music is a particularly good one. A great many people listen to very dissonant music in films and don't bat an eye at it, even enjoying it later while listening to the album of the soundtrack.
"A great many people listen to very dissonant music in films and don't bat an eye at it, even enjoying it later while listening to the album of the soundtrack."
I agree with that statement, but if you replaced the word, "dissonant", with the word, "serial", could you then provide any actual examples of such music that people actually enjoy listening to?
I've enjoyed some movies with soundtracks which I wouldn't take seriously. For instance, 2013's "Under the Skin". (Plot: Scarlett Johansson drives around the streets of Glasgow in a van. Well, that's most of it anyway.) The score to this movie is an example of what you might call musique concrete, and, although I did like the movie, I have no desire to hear this score again. I'll be interested to see what examples of serial movie music that you think listeners might be interested in apart from their functional use in the movie.
You can't be serious. ;-)
I only have 100 questions regarding this.Exactly what defines "easy listening? Popularity? Whistling melodies after attending the 18th revival of Oklahoma? Using harmonic concepts that are hundreds of years old? Lack of dissonance defines "easy listening", or is dissonance ok as long as its not derived from a 12 tone concept? Serialism is horrific but atonal is ok? "Intellectual" concepts employed in composition are ok as long as it ain't 12 tone serialism? Mirror harmony/lines is fine but all 12 tone music bites a hot one?
Are all of Beethoven's quartets "easy listening" because they're tonal? How about Bartok's quartets? Or can those guys be excused for writing "hard listening" pieces because they'd already written music more palatable for the masses? Varese sucks due to lack of "easy listening" pieces? Where's Ligetti fit in? Walk around the house whistling melodies by Takemitsu? Guess his stuff sucks. Schnittke's ok because he showed he could write Bach-like sections?
I don't care for most 12 tone pieces I've heard, but I do enjoy some Webern, Berg and Schoenberg pieces that if not completely serial sure as hell were heavily influenced by the concept. There are also a helluva lot of tonal pieces that I find either boring as hell or worse, including some that you may love.
I don't judge music by popularity, simplicity/complexity, tonality/melodic content or lack thereof. My ears listen to *one piece at a time*, and I enjoy or dislike *individual* pieces. I may like one serial piece very much and never wanna hear another particular serial piece again. I can be bored stiff by the trite tonal harmony and lackluster orchestration of many pieces one could describe as "easy listening", and yet love Vaughn Williams' Fantasia On Greensleeves.
Ya know, only a truly tiny percentage of the world's population digs jazz. An even smaller percentage of that tiny slice enjoy MY music. Jeez, I can only dream of being as popular as Schoenberg :-)
BTW -- Learsfool did NOT say serialism was THE music of its time, he simply said it was music of its time. What else was it, music NOT of its time? He did NOT say "....the horrors of WWI can *only* be expressed through serialism." He said "Much of Berg's music in particular is unimaginable without the context of WWI."
Edits: 05/10/16 05/10/16
By "easy listening" I mean music that appeals to the lighter side of human nature - in line with the examples I provided, such as Mozart Divertimenti or Johann Strauss Waltzes. There are certainly some lighter moments in the Beethoven Quartets - Bartok Quartets, not so much. (But there are certainly examples in some of Bartok's other music of his ability to express this type of sentiment. In any case, Bartok was a more eclectic composer and was never enslaved to the overweening Schoenberg's artificial concepts.) The way I'm using the term, "easy listening" doesn't have anything to do with popularity. So don't feel bad if you're not as popular as Schoenberg. ;-)
I contend that serial music is incapable of expressing the lighter side of human nature. But that's only one of many sides that serialism is incapable of expressing. How about tenderness? (And don't try to dredge up the Berg Violin Concerto as a possible example - after all, it's contaminated with that Bach Chorale, and that's a no-no in serialism!)
"I don't judge music by popularity, simplicity/complexity, tonality/melodic content or lack thereof. My ears listen to *one piece at a time*, and I enjoy or dislike *individual* pieces. I may like one serial piece very much and never wanna hear another particular serial piece again. I can be bored stiff by the trite tonal harmony and lackluster orchestration of many pieces one could describe as "easy listening", and yet love Vaughn Williams' Fantasia On Greensleeves."
Hey - me too! And in fact, I DO listen to the occasional serial composition. (How did I end up with four recordings of the Boulez Second Sonata?) That doesn't change the fact that certain compositional processes/practices are inherently less capable of expressing the wide range of human experience and emotion than others are. For me, serialism was one of these "less capable" movements which had its brief moment in the sun (due to a number of artificial factors) and which is now on its way toward a more deserved level of obscurity. And, BTW, your rhetorical questions in the previous paragraph (were they intended to be sarcastic? sorry if I'm not picking up on the tone) are quite understandable to me, as your frustration overcomes you while you observe serialism continue its slow but sure evanescence over the next few generations. ;-)
First -- No, I wasn't being sarcastic. Just asking you to define terms, which your new post does.
I basically agree with you that when we think about 12 tone composition it doesn't conjure up sweet melodies and "pleasant" consonant harmony and feelings of tenderness. But in a way wasn't that the point? The idea was to come up with something leading away from the harmonic concepts Schoenberg felt had essentially been wrung dry. Regarding that I think he succeeded.
Hey, I'm not a "defender" of 12 tone composing. I would not choose to write a piece which was totally serial. In fact, so far (excepting assignments when I was in school) I've never employed the 12 tone concept in anything I've written. But I might in the future, and I do think its another valuable tool in a composer's toolbox, as is atonality and everything else under the sun.
Anything you hear so much of on TV, in movies, in the supermarket, at the dentist and when you're put on hold on the telephone that you barely realize it's there. It is or can be classical, jazz, Stravinsky, Sinatra, Beatles, Taylor Swift, atonal, minimalist, or anything else.
The main flaw in Chris's argument is that you can't put music into little pigeonholes and expect it to stay there forever.
I suppose one might include an element of superficiality in the definition (dentist office music, on-hold music), but superficiality itself is not the main factor (at least not in the way I'm trying to use the term). I certainly don't mean muzak when I refer to "easy listening", and I've already provided examples of musical works which I DID have in mind in connection with the term.
"The main flaw in Chris's argument is that you can't put music into little pigeonholes and expect it to stay there forever."
Sure - except for the fact that I'm not trying to put music into pigeonholes and expecting it to stay there forever. After all, I'm the one arguing that serialism is losing its hold on the musical public, so obviously I'm not expecting it to stay at its current (already reduced) level of importance.
Yes, serial music is a subset of atonal music, larger or smaller depending on how broadly or narrowly you define it. It was a famous early attempt to devise a rigorous system of melody and harmony using the equal tempered 12-tones (or intervals) but without the traditional keys and scales. So no major, minor, diminished or augmented scales. Also no modal, whole tone, pentatonic, hexatonic, or even chromatic.I view the abandonment of keys and tonal centers as by far the most important innovation of serial music, far more than the particular system used in its place. You say serialism in particular is the problem, yet that particular system allowed Schoenberg to adhere very faithfully and conservatively to many aspects of traditional 19th century classical music other than the admittedly fundamental one of key. Later, atonalists wandered much further afield.
"I contend that serial music is incapable of expressing the lighter side of human nature." That's what's nuts in your otherwise reasonable comments (though many of your comments merely reflect tastes that are vastly different than mine). Maybe Schoenberg, Webern and Berg weren't too interested in expressing the lighter side of human nature in their music. Schoenberg especially was apparently a sourpuss who got no closer to humor than jeering sarcasm. But making such absolute pronouncements is a dangerous game. The precise methods of serialism did not become universal. Even Schoenberg did not invariably use them. But its influence reached composers who did write light music.Leonard Rosenman was an Oscar-winning film and TV composer and a composition student of Schoenberg, Sessions and Dallapicola. Yes, not everything he did was serial music in a strict sense, or even atonal. But some of it was, or at least significantly influenced by it. Sure, this material is often used in contexts other than comedy. But it is often used in lighter genres, such as science fiction, The Twilight Zone being a famous example. That show had more than a slight streak of sly humor. And no Schoenberg, no Rosenman. No Rosenman or Jerry Goldsmith, another important movie and TV composer influenced by the second Viennese school, no Twilight Zone, or at least not the same distinctive Twilight Zone music.
Edits: 05/11/16 05/11/16 05/11/16 05/11/16
No Schoenberg, no Rosenman (or Jerry Goldsmith). Is that what you're arguing? Really? Let's see if I can re-construct the argument:Do I have it right? I won't say this argument is nuts, but. . . a syllogism it is not, especially since I daresay that most folks would not agree with at least a couple of the premises! ;-)
- Rosenman studied with Schoenberg (and Sessions and Dallapicola)
- Rosenman wrote some serial music
- Rosenman also wrote some tonal music
- Rosenman wrote some music influenced by atonality
- Rosenman composed science fiction music (a claimed "lighter" genre)
- The Twilight Zone is an example of this science-fiction genre
- Some episodes of the Twilight Zone were humorous
- Rosenman (Jerry Goldsmith too!) is unthinkable without Schoenberg
- Therefore, the Twilight Zone music would not be the same without Schoenberg
- (implied?) And 12-tone / serial music can evoke humor and/or lighter, more carefree states
BTW, correct me if I'm wrong, but I just checked, and could find only one episode of the Twilight Zone that used Rosenman's music. Are there more? And that particular episode of the Twilight Zone ("And when the Sky was Opened" - my wife and I know all of the episodes tolerably well) didn't seem to me particularly light or humorous, but of course I could always be missing the finer points of interpretation. ;-)
All of the musical relationships I describe in my last post occurred to me entirely by listening, before I had any idea who and what was responsible for the things I was hearing. I'm not one of those people who claims there is a relationship between A and B and then searches for examples to prove it. In fact I'm too lazy to be especially good at that, and The Twilight Zone may not be the best example of what I'm talking about, just a very early and classic example, and a personal favorite.
Instead, I hear relationships and later (maybe years later) do some research to try to figure out why that relationship is there. I knew by listening that Schoenberg remained a devoted disciple of 19th century classical and romantic music even while he partly or fully abandoned the concept of key by listening to his music. Later I learned serialism was an invention that helped him do that.
I knew by listening that some others, not everyone, followed Schoenberg's lead in abandoning key, and especially after 1950, began to move away from other fundamental Western musical concepts. Later I learned that some of these had adopted but also greatly expanded and changed Schoenberg's ideas about serialism, and others had moved in different directions entirely.
And I knew by listening that popular culture had begun to absorb the ideas of Schoenberg and his successors by the late 50s and 60s. I later learned, and wasn't surprised, that some key figures behind this openly acknowledged they were influenced by Schoenberg and his successors, or were actual students of them. I don't mean to overstate this influence, it's just one of many, but I hear it.
By making serialism your bête noire, you simultaneously overstate and understate its significance. It's just one aspect of the decreasing emphasis on key and unambiguous tonal centers that we see throughout the 20th century. That trend began well before the 20th century. You could argue that adoption of the equal tempered scale, with its imperfect intervals, was an equally important step away from the concept of key and towards tonal ambiguity.
Schoenberg's serialism was significant as a formal system to assist in an ongoing trend away from the concept of key, much like the cubism of Bracque and Picasso assisted in moving away from earlier systems in the visual arts. Of course serialism and cubism had their limitations, but they were flexible and could be used in conjunction with the earlier systems, so they served their purpose. Schoenberg and especially Picasso, who lived and worked much longer, both moved away from their famous systems later in their careers.
But these systems had their impact. While all Western music is not strictly atonal, key simply does not rule the roost the way it did before serialism. And while all Western art is not strictly abstract, realism does not rule the roost the way it did before cubism. And for a host of reasons, that is unlikely to change. So stop wringing your hands over it already.
Finally, I really meant that Leonard Rosenman and Jerry Goldsmith are examples of hugely successful and influential composers of popular/light entertainment music both of whom were significantly influenced by the second Viennese school (yes, they had other influences too). Exactly what their contributions were to The Twilight Zone in particular, I do not know. You tend to interpret things very literally and narrowly, but in questions like artistic styles or influences, I don't think that generally works well.
Edits: 05/12/16
Nevertheless, I do want to comment on one statement: "By making serialism your bête noire, you simultaneously overstate and understate its significance." As I stated before, I'm a happy camper these days, as serialism and its influence recede further and further into the past. I also disagree with your contention that there has been a "decreasing emphasis on key and unambiguous tonal centers that we see throughout the 20th century". As I see it, this "decreasing emphasis" was more like a temporary dip, and now tonality is back in most of the minimalist writing - at least what I've heard - these days. Maybe there are other trends I'm less aware of, but for sure I'm not hearing stuff today that sounds like post-Webern serialism - or at least not so much! ;-)With regard to realism in art, I just have to shrug and say that, as a complete amateur in this field, I think that realism has not really been a goal of artists since the early 19th century. But, just as with serialism not being the only (or even the best) answer as to how music needed to develop in the early 20th century, so too with cubism: you don't have to dump the baby with the bathwater! You can have an artist such as, say, Raoul Dufy, whose style is hardly realistic, but whose work is nevertheless very identifiable and personal and is still compelling to a large public. IOW, the way forward isn't necessarily cubism, just as the way forward in music wasn't the dead-end of serialism. In any case, there are enough remnants of realism in cubism to make the analogy kind of weak. In fact, I'm not sure there really is a good painting analogy with serialism in music. I'm tempted to say someone like Jackson Pollock, but that's not really a good one either, since abstract expressionism lacks the systematic theoretical basis of serialism. (If anything, it seems more like atonal pre-serialism.) Or perhaps Pollock's work is more like aleatoric music. Or perhaps these art analogies are too much of a stretch to be useful. ;-)
Raoul Dufy, Regatta at Cowes, (1934)EDIT: Of course, there's one sure-fire painting/music analogy. That would be Thomas Kinkade, the Lawrence Welk of painting! ;-)
Edits: 05/12/16
The only thing I will add to this conversation is to comment that the current trend back towards neb-romanticism, although it did start towards the very end of the 20th century, is really more a current, 21st century happening - especially the sheer numbers of composers writing more tonal music again is much greater right now even than in the 90s.
One slightly strange speculative thought - it could be argued that minimalism is a form, or at least an outgrowth, of serialism - it certainly employs many of the same basic compositional principles and processes, though towards a different end.
I suppose that's where we really disagree: Movements like serialism and cubism, like all movements, do appear and then eventually fade away, but for me their impact is long term. Serialism was a notable step in a long term trend in decreasing importance of keys and tonal centers. Cubism was a notable step in a long term trend away from the importance of accurate or even recognizable depictions of specific objects recognizable from everyday life and towards abstraction. There is still music where key is very important, in fact it still is in most music. There is still art that is not abstract, maybe most art. But the era, from the Renaissance until the late 19th century, where certain traditional keys and scales reigned supreme in all Western music, and Western art had to accurately depict directly recognizable scenes from life, is over.
I love Dufy's work, btw.
Edits: 05/12/16
Something we can probably both agree on, since we're making parallels between music and art: Thomas Kinkade, the Lawrence Welk of painting.
And I have to admit that, if this were music, it would be tonal! ;-)
Soon to be released on the Cantaloupe Music label (no joke!):
Of course 12-tone music was A music of its time, not THE music of its time. There is always all sorts of music happening simultaneously in any era. And your comment that such music could never be "easy listening" is easily refuted by listening to TV show and movie soundtracks since the early 1960s. While that material may seldom have been written with a strict 12-tone technique, and may owe more to Edgard Varese, say, than to the second Viennese school, there are strong atonal and other modernist elements (for example, in use of percussion) in much of it.
Mr. Newey made an interesting and revealing comment in this context (sadly lost in the typical billow of his invective) when he referred to this material as "sound effects" rather than music, I suppose his way of dismissing it from the conversation. To him, music is Wagner, Bruckner and Brahms. To me, music is sound, organized to fulfill an abstract communicative purpose (not a concrete, practical purpose like a door bell).
Edits: 05/10/16
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
