|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
73.151.94.19
In Reply to: RE: A friendly and charming defense of "Modernism" by a friendly and charming composer posted by jdaniel@jps.net on May 08, 2016 at 11:16:43
how are we to discern what a composer's "objective" is. And further, why would a composer even want to convey an objective? Seems contrived, self-defeating, and more than capable of sucking all of the mystery out of music.
Follow Ups:
I too wonder if it is possible for us to ever know in explicit terms what a composer's true "objective" is. Even when the composer tells us what he or she *thinks* it is, he or she is likely to provide an incomplete answer - which is, basically, the WRONG answer. Half-truths are worse than lies, at least in some ways.The better composers won't tell you that much, they know better.
So I'm pretty sure that we've got to "read between the lines", so to speak, with our ears. Make a sort of educated guess regarding what the music is really about if you want to know much of anything about the music. That's just the way almost all of art is, IMO.
Edits: 05/10/16 05/10/16
there'd be NO need to compose music.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
How does one pen a musical journey yet hold the piece together? In other words, give themes and movements their own unique personalities yet make sure they still have Daddy's eyes?
Composers go about it in different ways, using different methods, some in the listener's "mother tongue", some not. Or some might dispense with process "x" altogether. This is where hell seems to break loose.
IMHO it helps to know *how* the composer tackles that issue and from what angle, hence "understanding the composer's objective."
Is the piece not tonal? OK, that means I'll have to listen to Babbit and Obrecht (why do people never bash the the more esoteric Polyphonists?) from a different POV and probably more than once. It's my job and sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn't.
Edits: 05/10/16 05/11/16
There is mental muscle involved in any type of music appreciation but, OTOH, I'm not so sure that it's my responsibility to try to defend or justify the music that meets my ears.
Or could it be that some people's ears are like silky moist vaginas, while other people's ears are like relatively dry assholes?
Seriously, what is the crux of the question here? And are there certain questions that should not be asked of anyone?
right: my ears, once overly moistened from hanging out on Wagner's Rainbow Bridge for too long, couldn't initially register the faint humidity of Debussy's Pelleas.
Speaking of fun, where's Newey?
Not worth it? ;-)
OTOH, it's still very worthwhile (for me anyway, and even as a rear-guard action), to bash the serialists. As their influece continues to ebb away, they'll probably be like the esoteric polyphonists in another century or two (i.e., not worth the effort to bash). Tchaikovsky? I think he'll still be going strong! After all, who can ever tire of his magnificent self-pity? ;-)
Never heard that term before, ever!
Wagner's objective was to write through - composed music (no applause allowed in the Church of Wagner). If you're a big fan of strophic Schubert songs or Mozart operas-- with all their stop and go traffic signals--your hopes and expectations are going to be dashed and it's not Wagner's fault for having different objectives (using a different template) than Mozart.A Serialist has a different objective as well. After absorbing or internalizing a thorny piece, an examination of the composer's objectives may very well break the code.
Edits: 05/10/16 05/10/16
Yes, I guess that's right, but "composer's objectives" sound too much like a hill to be taken. Writing music seems more like a journey into the unknown, involving discoveries rather than pursuing a known goal and deciding upon the best means of attaining it. But you're right about different ways of going about the task.
runs out?
I recall my first experience listening to Stravinsky's Rite, it was very early in my listening career, and having just come off Grieg and Tchaikovsky (their objectives being quite different than Stravinsky's!) I was sorely disappointed. Where was the grand, full orchestra reprise of the opening bassoon theme at the end of the Rite?? Complete with cascading scales and arpeggios??
Long story longer, it took awhile before I figured out that Stravinsky's objectives were different. Knowing that didn't spoil the mood but rather enhanced my appreciation of piece; it provided the key in.
To give one last example, Debussy's objective--broadly speaking --was to write music that sounds loosely constructed, yet carefully stitched together under the surface. I don't like the music any less for knowing that.
That analogy wouldn't work for me. I want the direct experience of art, unfiltered and unanalyzed. When I reflect on the most powerful experiences I have had with art,music in particular, the common denominator was the journey into the unknown.
objectives are different than composer y's.
It's fine not to like composer x on first or second hearing (definitely sound before Wiki, as I've told you know who many times.) But a bit of study has helped me better appreciate certain works, early music, and some 20th Century pieces.
Sometimes the objective is in the title, like Schoenberg's "Farben" (one of his pieces for orchestra) which means "to dye" or "colors". It's easy to complain that the piece doesn't go anywhere but then ah: colors!
Rite of Spring still sounds like an outgrowth of the Romantic era to me, and although I was similarly puzzled by it when I first heard it, I never had to guess what Stravinsky's objective might be in order to establish an emotional connection and attachment to the work. All it took was gaining some familiarity with it.
BTW, I'm not necessarily knocking the quest for finding a composer's objective as an aid to appreciating a particular work. Many roads lead to Rome.
O
it never came.
Brother, I hear you.
If he would have put more harps and soft strings in his music, he would have been a much better composer!
!
Very broad, I would hope. Because I hate boredom in music.
native tongue: it was easy to place them on the highest pedastal, and I have to battle that urge constantly whether listening to Binchois or Boulez.
Edits: 05/10/16
It's the composers job to construct a bridge (of sorts) that leads the listener from pedestal past to pedestal present, while possibly laying the groundwork for pedestal future.It's the reasonable thing to do. And I believe that the reasonable listener will respond accordingly.
Edits: 05/10/16
I loved Fantasia, especially the Stravinsky part, as a four-year old. My first assignment as a six-year old piano student was Bartok's Mikrokosmos. So I guess it depends on where you start.
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: