 
|
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 |
68.57.91.150
In Reply to: What I do not manage to hear . . . . posted by DkB on January 7, 2007 at 14:01:15:
Beethoven, Mozart and Haydn COMPLETELY misses the point, doesn't it? I mean, the point is that Berlioz, Liszt etc. are specifically NOT a direct linear extension of that which came before them...they re-invented the rules. Whether it works or not in any objective way, or even as a matter of personal taste, the camparison is moot.
Follow Ups:
Regardless of the differences in style between Haydn and Liszt, or between Bach, Shankar and McCartney for that matter, coherence is a quality inherent in all good musical works.Works from different styles can be compared according to how tightly they follow the rules within their own individual rules, not just how well they play the same game, within the same style.
I was discussing the level of coherence in Liszt's orchestral work compared to composers such as Beethoven, Strauss, Tchaikovsky etc. in a sort of trans-stylistic comparison. I enjoy doing this sort of thing. Hope this makes sense to you though.
"Coherence", as such, is less of a consideration for Liszt than it was for the other composers mentioned. In other words, what you cite as a difference is, indeed, a difference...but a deliberate one? I mean, how much "coherence" is there in a John Cage work. Personally, although I often appreciate a work due to it's coherence, I also reserve the right not to dislike a work if it doesn't have it (by design). We quickly get into "systems" here, and it's just a matter of taste after that. "No system" is a "system of sorts".
Interesting you mentioned Cage. Beyond chaos, there are certain parameters that limit a particular "chance" musical procedure that provides a certain level of order.The stochastic method of Xenakis or the aleatory of Lutoslawski, while utilising chance, yields certain predictable perceived results that support the intended statement of the composer.
In Cage, the way the sticks of the I Ching get distributed upon being tossed are governed by laws of physics. The parameters used by Cage in each of his chance works, including 4'33", impose certain limits that define the Gestalt of the work, within which fascinating variations occur. In his case, the Zen approach of de-segmenting each moment becomes the aesthetic statement which depends on its departure from the human tendency towards coherence.
The issue of aesthetic statement, for me, is significantly related to the issue of coherence. How powerfully the composer expresses his vision depends on how well technicaly put-together his work is in making that statement. Cage succeeds in his goal in this regard. But was Liszt's goal to present exactly that loosely-strung series of ideas as presented in his symphonic works? Are these an intended expression of Romantic whim and freedom, or are they symptomatic of the limits of his ability to construct an extended musical statement that holds together in rhetorical tightness? Could his ideas have been more effectively expressed so as to hold the listener's attention in a more captivating and engaging way from beginning to end? As in all artworks, this seems to be the arbiter of successful communication. Perhaps this is why Cage wrote 4'33" and not 120'00"?!!
As well as Tchakovsky managed form in his shorter movements, he always admitted a sense of inadequacy in controlling the structure of longer movements.
Thanks for the discussion and for your interesting thoughts!
DkB
Vice-versa, quite a bit of the music of the 18th century misses the highest levels of artistic coherence, despite the clear and established conventions. A student exercise in 18th century harmony or counterpoint could obey all the rules, but not cohere in a way that makes a significant aesthetic statement.
More...Is the function in the form, or the form in the function?:-) The former (to your point) would label "coherence according to rules" as good enough. But, early Mozart -- however solid in form -- to me, is just so-so music in terms of interest, excitement etc. If part of great music is "taking chances", form can be a hinderance as well as a strength.
The flip side is to declare "form in the function". So, if Cage is "about the radicalism", it is the relative lack of form that is the point. Deconstruction, anyone?:-)
There is a "third stream", however, and it is where we meet. "Great art just IS." I truly feel this way. Is there room for subjectivity? Of course. No one can deny the right of another to declare something "great". However, it is always better (don't know about value-wise, but from a utilitarian perspective) to be able to point out the details of "Why?".
All very conceptual, but I like this kind of stuff as much as you do. Many thanks for the dialog, DkB!
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 ]
