|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
63.155.114.24
In Reply to: RE: Can someone give me a good description of 'modernism' , as used in the Hahn posts? posted by free.ranger on July 05, 2016 at 10:06:20
... is composer who cannot compose "classical" music as well they used to. While it can be hard to explain exactly WHY this is, you know "modern-classical" music when you hear it.The social and artistic climate that was partly responsible for things "classical" (or even "neo-classical") no longer exists, except in fragmented ways
And the *thing* can be seen as well as heard. Go the the nearest large museum and take a close look at the oil paintings there. Can any "modern" painter paint a figurative scene nearly as well as Titian, Velazquez, Goya, or Ingres did - in spirit as well as in fact? The answer, for me at least, is a resounding...
"No. Not really."
On the other hand (OK, I'm getting tired of writing "OTOH"), we can do certain things in music and painting that the old composers never dreamed of, or even wanted.
Edits: 07/06/16 07/06/16 07/06/16 07/06/16Follow Ups:
A detractor using my "silly" definition exactly as described. Such pronouncements come from people who believe that since they don't understand or like a particular type of music, that this music isn't governed by any rules or acceptable logic. "Nobody can tell if you play a wrong note" is a common (and usually incorrect) complaint.
dh
Let me see if I have this right...
You assume that I am a "detractor"? I would say that I am not...
You assume that I "don't understand or like a particular type of music"? Actually, I "like" almost all types of music. Even though I may not "love" all types of music...
You make the assumption that I believe that *ALL music* in NOT governed by "any rules or acceptable logic"? This would be, perhaps, the most preposterous of all preposterous assumptions...
If I understand your post correctly, I can only pray that you'd learn to trot outside of your little corral for a change - you know, the one so neatly bordered by the confines of your prejudicial imaginations.
But after careful rereading of your first post, I still come away with, to paraphrase, "Because of societal changes, all truly great visual and musical art was created by people long dead. No living artist is capable of creating art equal in worth to the past masters, and there's nothing you can do about it."
Or am I still missing something?
This bit, I'm 180 degrees from your understanding:
"You make the assumption that I believe that *ALL music* in NOT governed by "any rules or acceptable logic"? This would be, perhaps, the most preposterous of all preposterous assumptions..."
A common complaint about modernism in all eras is with note selection and that it "is not possible to tell whether a wrong note is being played or not". This usually accompanies something to the effect of "this new music has no logic, it's just scribble on the page." So no, I don't think you believe good music has no rules or logic. Hope that clarifies. Sorry again for the unwarranted heat.
dh
In Beethoven's day, many other composers wrote music similar to Beethoven's, but nowhere near as good (as he himself didn't hesitate to point out in several famous instances). In fact, most were mediocre or worse and are largely forgotten today.
Same is true of Titian. It's hard to beat Western civilization's greatest artists at their own games, but it wasn't much easier back in their own day.
BTW, if you think painters today are incapable of achieving near-photographic realism and can only do abstract stuff, you are very, very, wrong. But equaling the achievements of Titian, Velazquez or Goya is another matter entirely.
I never said or implied that there were Beethovens and Titians aplenty, "back in the day", or at any time. They did, however exist. And I feel fairly confident in saying that beacons of this sort do not exist today. Not at all, not really.And the really good figurative painters, back in the day, were not really about what WE might call "photo-realism". But I'm glad you mentioned the term, because what you seem to be implying here is a perfect example of how we misunderstand the spirit of classical art. The best painters, back in the day, were not simply producing painted photographs.
This is not what "Art" was about. Yes, they were after a faithful representation of surfaces, atmospheres, and spaces but the goal was something waaaaay more "real" than that. Mere "photo-realism" seems dry and impotent in comparison.
We seem to have trouble getting beyond the materialistic and the mechanistic. We understand most everything about composition but we have trouble composing as we once did.
Edits: 07/06/16 07/06/16
I don't think I misunderstand the spirit of classical art quite that badly. There is a 17th century Dutch landscape painting in the Frick Gallery in New York (can't remember the artist right now, will post the name if I do) It's a bucolic scene of a thatched-roof country cottage with a wrought iron fence in front of it. From a distance of at least 5 feet or so, that fence looks like it was painted in the most astoundingly accurate and meticulous detail. But if you look very closely, you see a technique was used that produced that effect with a relatively few simple but carefully placed brush strokes, and the "realism" dissolves.
The artist there effectively evoked the idea of the peaceful beauty of the countryside, letting the eye see what it wants to see, without coming anywhere near what we might call "photographic" realism or detail but with superb technique just the same. That is the spirit of great art of any era, imo.
Great modern art and music, including abstract art and "atonal" music, can have the same impact.
If this is the way you see things then I don't know why you'd bother to compare Titian's art to the the art of "photo-realism".
I see a superficial resemblance between those two things. Perhaps, you had assumed otherwise?
Some silly people ask why artists these days can't make a "realistic" picture of a person or a landscape or a still life and have to do abstract art that any two-year old could do. I apologize, you obviously aren't one of those silly people. Actually, anyone who appreciates Titian is far from silly.
... duly accepted.
So many people ask, "Why can't composers write music like Mozart?" And of course, the answer is: Many composers today can write convincingly in Mozart's style. But that doesn't mean they can produce something comparable to the Jupiter Symphony or the G minor viola quintet.
I now realize, your original observation was a much different and better one.
I agree with that statement, but I disagree with your follow-on. I think composers today actually COULD write masterpieces in Mozart's style, but there's only so much room on Mount Olympus, and works like the Jupiter Symphony (how appropriate!) and the G-minor Viola Quintet already have squatters' rights - and they aren't going to be dislodged easily. Then too, there would be such disruption and psychological resistance on the part of the public because such a state of affairs would undermine what they've been taught from childhood, i.e., that Mozart was the boy wonder of composers, a unique genius whose works can never be equaled. IOW, the public, by and large, has the mental capacity to accept only a certain limited number of GREAT WORKS - otherwise, they'll all just get confused! ;-)
Edits: 07/06/16
I'm with genungo on this one. A Mozart or Schubert clone isn't any more likely than a clone of Shakespeare or Milton. Or Rembrandt or Vermeer. Or Titian! Ahem! Sorry again, genungo!
Don't blame my lack of mental capacity, unless you're talking about my failure to produce a decent cello quintet.
. . . at one time, the greatest poets were thought to be: Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, and. . . Ossian! As soon as Ossian was found to be Macpherson - poof! - there went Ossian's place on Olympus! (Thomas Jefferson thought that Ossian was the greatest poet who ever lived!)
To me, that's the proof of the pudding right there. There's no reason to believe that we couldn't have a 21st-century equivalent in music, especially with computer analysis, etc. - LOL!
Many of our tastes in the arts are the results of what role we want to play and how we want to be seen. In addition, the arts are curiously (and often unfortunately) tied to what we today call "identity politics". It's always been interesting to observe how some of the cognoscenti of the time were riveted by the magic of Ossian's words - just as long as he was thought to be a poet from the DISTANT past!
I thought Ossian/Macpherson was and still is remembered as a great poet -- at least he was when I was in school (talk about the ancient past!) But something is undeniably lost when one knows he is not giving you insight about a mysterious ancient culture, at least not directly. Much of the importance of Homer and even of Dante to some extent is that they give one insight into cultures and times other than our own.
OTOH, Fritz Kreisler wrote violin pieces he at first attributed to earlier composers (as a joke, no doubt), but they remained popular even after he fessed up, and remain popular today. I think that's because they were more homages to those composers in the style of Fritz Kreisler rather than true attempts at forgery. If there had been an army of baroque musicologists back then as there is now, he may not have gotten away with the deception so easily. (He mostly picked lesser knowns like Francoeur and Porpora.)
Maybe Macpherson is still respected, but I have to say, as an undergraduate English major, I don't remember even once being assigned to read any of his works. In any case, he's certainly no longer considered among the greatest poets who ever lived.
And I do agree with you about the Kreisler "in the style of" pieces. I think the attributions were only half hearted in any case, and I feel that Kreisler must have been hoping he'd be ratted out at some point (which he was!).
It's been at least 10 years, maybe closer to 20 since I heard a report on NPR where somebody had programmed a computer to write like Chopin. It did so very convincingly (albeit played back on a MIDI piano). The creator of the program clearly understands how to analyze music...if I recall correctly, his opinion was that his program didn't turn out masterpieces whole, but if you carefully selected the best portions of its output, you might well be able to stitch together something pretty damn good. Based on what I heard, I agreed with him--despite my incoming bias which said he had no hope of success. He was working on a Bach one and a Mozart one too. I see no reason to believe this couldn't be achieved with any number of truly distinctive composers, tonal or not. All one needs to do is crack the code of the language and start talkin'. All it takes is time and algorithm skills coupled with decent music theory chops. It's admittedly a big job, but it's a completely deterministic one.
I think that right there gets to why this kind of writing is "an artistic dead end", to turn a borrowed phrase. It's just another extended sort of deterministic process, hardly more creative than clever manipulation of a tone row--in fact in some ways, less so. With modernism you have to find your own way, climb the same mountains the greats have, but in YOUR way, not theirs. I can see the value in writing these sorts of "in the style of" works as exercises for composers. They teach a sort of discipline and develop stylistic control. Sometimes they turn out to be valuable works themselves (some people think Dunbarton Oaks is GOOD Stravinsky ;-)), but I think this is by far the exception. As a listener,I would be insulted by a composer whose output was an explicit extension of the music of anyone else. I don't want to hear anybody try to spend their life trying to sound like Mozart--what a waste of a creative life! Channeling the greats of the past is the work of performers, not composers. To each their own, but do you really believe there are really great composers out there who would aspire to such a thing?
dh
I was thinking more in terms of using the computer analysis as a tool within one's own creative process in writing in an 18th-century style. If you left it completely up to your programming of the computer, then, yes, the result could be completely deterministic in the way that some post-Webern serialism is. I was thinking more in terms of a stunt - but perhaps it's more than a stunt to some composers: think George Rochberg! ;-)
As far as GREATNESS is concerned, I'm less concerned about that. My criteria are: is the music interesting and do I have an emotional connection with it. And, truth to tell, I could possibly see myself having an emotional connection with a computer algorithm - especially when its physical manifestation looks like Alicia Vikander! (Have you seen "Ex Machina"?) ;-)
Trying to create a perfect copy of someone else's work is a self-limiting exercise, even the work of a contemporary, much less someone from centuries ago. That's why people who see music of prior centuries as a pinnacle of absolute perfection are doomed to disappointment in anything written today. It will either be an inevitably imperfect copy or -- even more disappointing -- something completely different, to quote Monty Python.
I've never thought of any work of art as unsurpassable perfection. There are always interesting new avenues to explore.
I haven't either, but that wouldn't preclude producing a work in an older style that was every bit as compelling and "perfect".
And, BTW, what do you think of George Rochberg and his music? I don't see why someone like Rochberg can't use late Beethoven or Mahler as a jumping off point for a new composition. Sure, the resulting composition might be different from Beethoven or Mahler, but why would this be "disappointing"? Are you disappointed in Rochberg's music?
Sheesh, Chris, just because I point out that Stravinsky and Schoenberg have had an important impact on Western music and culture doesn't mean we should forget about Beethoven and his impact.
Like any successful artist, Rochberg built on the past to create his own unique voice. Yes, he used Beethoven and Mahler as jumping off points, and Ives and Boulez too, iirc. But he is a lot different from any of them, isn't he? I'm no Rochberg expert, but I've played his music, I like the Concord quartets, and I'm a big fan of the Concord String Quartet to whom they were dedicated.
And the context was:
"That's why people who see music of prior centuries as a pinnacle of absolute perfection are doomed to disappointment in anything written today. It will either be an inevitably imperfect copy or -- even more disappointing --"
So at a certain critical point in his life, Rochberg decided he would write in Beethoven's and Mahler's styles - and he did so because he genuinely felt that those styles were best suited to what he had to express (or so he said). And yet you don't seem to be disappointed with Rochberg?
He's still Rochberg. Just as Fritz Kreisler is still Fritz Kreisler in his faux baroque sonatas. George Crumb throws in a direct quote of Debussy in Makrokosmos II, but he's still Crumb.
Edits: 07/07/16
I'm not talking about quotations, I'm talking about composing in the style of an earlier period or another composer (or at least trying to), as Rochberg did. Forgive my being slow on the uptake, but I guess I'm hung up with your statement about disappointing imperfect copies (of earlier styles styles and composers).
No, no, silly. There is a reason Stravinsky said, "Don't borrow -- steal!" (Though apparently that quote originates from someone else? Sigh!) You have to make the work of past artists your own in some way, small or large, to be a successful artist. DHarvey said it best in this thread, I won't try to better him.
Stravinsky didn't just copy Pergolesi when he wrote Pulcinella. And let's face it -- that Italian baroque material Stravinsky used most likely wasn't even written by Pergolesi, who died young, and whose name was used by many others not trying to copy him either but merely hoping to use his famous name to boost the popularity of their own work. And Crumb didn't just copy Debussy. For me, Rochberg isn't on the same level as Crumb, and nowhere near Stravinsky, but he is an artist, not a mere copyist.
. . . is that he set out to write IN THE STYLE OF other (tonal) composers. IOW, Rochberg's use of earlier styles is FAR more chameleon-like than Stravinsky's use of "Pergolesi" (or even Kreisler's "in the style of" pieces). And as I think we both agree, Stravinsky did NOT set out to write in the style of "Pergolesi" - he merely borrowed a few tunes.
To illustrate the difference, some listeners hear Rochberg's Symphony No. 5 as a virtual re-write of Mahler's Ninth (!), although I admit that I don't hear it that way myself (despite certain sections being extremely evocative of Mahler's work). I guess the point is that modern composers can follow older styles EXTREMELY closely without becoming "mere copyists" and yet without becoming "disappointingly different" and losing their appeal to a given audience just because their style isn't sufficiently original or up to date. Having said that, I must admit that I don't find Rochberg's Fifth Symphony particularly compelling! (Maybe the work is "disappointingly different" just to me!) ;-)
...it's about not wanting to sound like you just stepped out of a museum. You know, being actually creative, having a voice of your own--just like all the other greats that ever were. No great artists today? GMAB. History has never been kind to such criticisms and there's no reason to think that the human race mysteriously lost the ability to create great art some time in the 20th Century. The problem here isn't with the artists.
dh
Duane, given the increasingly irate responses, I think it is the right time to refer to this wonderful parable:Yeah, we don't do anything -- compose, play *any instrument*, write, paint, play basketball, *fill in anything* -- as well as they used to. Nothing you say or show can change the fact that we are not living in the good old days.
I think GEO does it well. Just point people to something you find beautiful and humbly apologize to people who may (and frequently do) find that stuff offensive.
Edits: 07/06/16
I tend to get a little emotional in these debates. Still, I think it's worth standing up now and then and being counted, know what I mean?
Wonderful to see you, it's been ages. How are things? Thanks for thinking of me ;-)
I owe Dima an email, dammit.
dh
Digging the jazz scene in the Bay Area -- Anton Schwartz, Ambrose Akinmusire, Bobby McFerrin and many others. I think the SF Jazz Collective avatar of 2014-2015 was one of their best. Heard them at Bing Hall at Stanford towards the end of their Joe Henderson year residence and it was one of the best concerts I have been to in any genre. Outstanding arrangements of Henderson standards -- modern and hip (they aren't bad words in my book) -- perfect examples of the kind of thing that you were talking about earlier in this thread.The double CD of this material they put out (got a signed copy after the concert) didn't work as well for me though.
Edits: 07/06/16
. . . and all they've got to show for their efforts is a tiny "niche of a niche" audience as well as some entrenchment in academic circles. IMHO, that's not too impressive.
But let's go back to "modernism" for a second. What is your explanation for the fact that the UR-modernist work of the 20th century, Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, has 20 gazillion recordings, while no serialist work has ever gotten more than a couple dozen? I think it's because Schoenberg threw the baby out with the bathwater, but perhaps there's a better explanation than mine. ;-)
The fact that tonality re-emerged (after a good 50 years of full frontal assault) with the music of the minimalists speaks volumes (at least for me). And the main thing it speaks to is that the serialism of Schoenberg and his followers was a musical dead end.
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: