Is Music So Bad Now?

Nah, Boulez won't be remembered in 100 years like he thinks he will be.

There is nothing wrong (or at least abnormal) about having an opinion and being outspoken about it. Composers at odds with Boulez and avant garde music certainly have proven to have no reservations of their own with voicing negative opinions.

I also said that. The only reason it annoys me personally to read some of his opinions is because he pisses (or has pissed in the past) on some composers I like, but as I said...it's fine. If anything, saying "all music is awesome, I love everything" would be...unnatural.

Also, I'm pretty sure Boulez has a far better understanding of what kind of music will prove to be historically significant, than you or anyone on this site :thumbsup:.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't see him as being particularly different from a party politician who feels the need to prop up "his team."

It's not really payback so much as it is a reaction caused by confusion and discomfort.

Is that what it was when it was avant-garde attacking traditionalists?

You're right (as always): it's the superstar composers of sacred music and that for high school concert bands who will prove to be the name of the game for this time.

You betcha!

You're right (as always): it's the superstar composers of sacred music and that for high school concert bands who will prove to be the name of the game for this time.

lol

I'd have to disagree: that sort of comparison couldn't be made because when one idea or trend gets the spotlight, others are not condemned or outlawed. Plus, Boulez isn't all about his 'team'.

I'm pretty sure declaring other music to be irrelevant/useless/whatever counts as condemnation. I don't view him much differently from his other "music of the future" predecessors extending back to the mid-1800's, or the Brahmsians that tried to run the Wagnerians out of town (just from the opposite viewpoint). It's human nature to politicize anyway (taking away any legal connotations). A few people rise about the pettiness of it (ironically, sometimes the people at the centre of it), but I'd say that's the exception.

You should see some of the work he has been programming in the recent years....Ravel, Mozart, Stravinsky, etc.

Ravel and Mozart are irrelevant to the discussion because they have nothing to do with the avant-garde or new music. (They also sell more tickets, which I suspect is not a small concern to a conductor.) Stravinsky made in-roads with Boulez because he became a serialist; I'm still not clear what Boulez thinks about most of his neo-classical output, which he certainly did not like in the past. I also realize he has come to find some grudging respect for Bartok and probably some others, but then he entirely dismisses the minimalists and who knows who else in the modern scene. If he were really above what I'm calling his partisanship, he would be programming those works on concerts as well.

The point being, he dished it out, he still dishes it out, so it's fair game for the other side to do the same. And no, I don't think all the arguments are simply due to confusion and discomfort. That is far too easy and self-serving an explanation.

OK, Boulez admits that he openly bullied composers (even estabilished ones) into avant-gardism - and is still proud of it.

Another one of the many 20th century facts that a lot of people would be glad to pretend that it just didn't happen.

OK, Boulez admits that he openly bullied composers (even estabilished ones) into avant-gardism - and is still proud of it.

Without his influence, Stravinsky would surely have been a footnote in history.

Another one of the many 20th century facts that a lot of people would be glad to pretend that it just didn't happen.

You don't understand: he bullied them to free them. :sith:

"The Fourth is strong on this one"...

This is the great thing about music: all the different styles, ideas, degrees of radicalism and the various resulting characters.

Agreed.

BTW. Nice new avatars those of you and Wayne-Scales :thumbsup: ...

It's important that we establish that with the condemnation by Boulez and co., affected styles were still around. Boulez was extremely influential, but not law.

His group eventually became the Establishment at music schools. I have heard composers talk about how they would have been failed at school if they had written a major or minor chord in their compositions. That may not be "law," but it's about as close as you're going to get at school.

Ravel and Mozart are highly relevant to the discussion of whether or not Boulez only makes efforts to support 'his team'. He is an internationally acclaimed conductor and wouldn't be doing music he once considered 'of little importance' unless he was compelled to.

I don't view composers who are long-dead and, most importantly, long-established as being competition.

In any case, although I used Boulez as one example, it was not my intention to make this all about Boulez. It was supposed to be about the avant-garde in general.

There's a video of Stockhausen talking about how a tiny number of humans are evolving to a higher plane of existence (and it's rather obvious where he views himself on that scale) while others aren't and they're causing all the problems in the world because they can't reach this new point of evolution. While not so explicit, the general undertone of the argument coming from the avant-garde side is that everyone else is too ignorant (or whatever) to figure out what's going on.

This is the great thing about music: all the different styles, ideas, degrees of radicalism and the various resulting characters.

I could probably live without the fighting, ideally. But then, I have done it too....

Its only a plethora if you let it be.

Its just like grouping people together and calling them "Christians." That may mean a heck of a lot of differences within the group.

What do you mean by "the establishment"? I too have heard of composers talking about how they didn't receive high marks in school because they weren't innovative or experimental enough....seems to be a common excuse when presented with failure.

What I mean is that, for a long time, there was a focus on music that was what I'll call anti-traditional. I'm pretty certain it still is at many places. Other than for specific coursework, where one might learn a few tricks, why should someone who has no interest in writing such music be forced to write such music as final compositions and be failed if they don't?

Again: my point was to bring attention to the fact that Boulez is interested in older works as well as new ones.

Whether Boulez programs Mozart or whether he doesn't has pretty much no bearing on Mozart's reputation. It probably doesn't mean much if he suppresses Reich, Adams, and whoever else within a larger context either, but within his local area, where he's the big man on stage, I'm sure he would have the power to destroy or humiliate any up-and-coming composer who is writing in a style he doesn't deem worthy. It seems from his words that he would indeed do so even now, which I find disappointing for someone of his age. I've mentioned him and Stockhausen, but they are only two examples. There are many such idealogues that have existed in the past and exist today. The critics that cling to them are usually even worse, because they spew their vitriol in volumes of prose. I don't think musical approaches are beyond debating or pondering by any means, but the zeal with which some of these people pursue their rhetoric against their (perceived) opponents is pretty ridiculous in the end, and it unfortunately fans the flames of the other side too which only makes it continue.

It is a mistake to assume that Stockhausen is some kind of representative of the many styles and ideas described as 'avant garde'.

True. But the common answer given by people on "that side" to their critics is that they just don't understand. You yourself said as much a couple of pages ago. While there are certainly some people who don't understand, it is too easy of a comeback to apply to everyone.

True. But the common answer given by people on "that side" to their critics is that they just don't understand. You yourself said as much a couple of pages ago. While there are certainly some people who don't understand, it is too easy of a comeback to apply to everyone.

You wouldn't say that if you understood ;D

Let's not forget that Stockhausen, Boulez etc. were themselves mocked by the likes of Fluxus, an avant-garde group who came up with instructional pieces such as "build a fire in front of the audience" in an attempt to mock the complexity of the Darmstadt serialists. They themselves thought that they knew best and everybody else didn't understand that art was an everyday occurrence that just happened, a continuation of John Cage's school of thought. They themselves were guilty of dropping composers from their concert programmes because they didn't adhere to this school of thought. In no way were the likes of Boulez etc. the only ones who bullied and stifled the careers of other composers for not following what they believed was the only 'correct' path.

Because a good teacher will force you to write in idioms you aren't comfortable with. It's called learning, and yes if you refuse to learn you should be failed.

But why write music in an idiom you don't care for? (Unless you're being paid or whatever). That viewpoint doesn't recognize the existence of passion - and a composer's passion isn't always for music in general, or for writing music in general. Why learn about something you don't want to, when you could learn to compose in idioms that resonate with you, which would be a much more rich and rewarding experience?

You wouldn't say that if you understood ;D

Let's not forget that Stockhausen, Boulez etc. were themselves mocked by the likes of Fluxus, an avant-garde group who came up with instructional pieces such as "build a fire in front of the audience" in an attempt to mock the complexity of the Darmstadt serialists. They themselves thought that they knew best and everybody else didn't understand that art was an everyday occurrence that just happened, a continuation of John Cage's school of thought. They themselves were guilty of dropping composers from their concert programmes because they didn't adhere to this school of thought. In no way were the likes of Boulez etc. the only ones who bullied and stifled the careers of other composers for not following what they believed was the only 'correct' path.

Yes, I realize that. I'm trying to say it's wrong from any direction to attack someone's music that viciously, especially publicly. If you want, I'll throw an obnoxious conservative out there as an example: Hanslick. Look how often throughout history such condemnations have proven to be incorrect (or whatever) and fodder for amusement by anyone reading music history anyway. It's one thing to have personal opinions, but to try to destroy someone's career and get more people to follow "your" path...that's a psychosis of some sort. Are they so insecure in what they are peddling that they have to resort to that? I do wonder.

I recently came across a video on youtube of Xenakis talking about some scandal he had because all the serialists were against him--he called them fascists. So yes, it happened even within the avant-garde.

Because a good teacher will force you to write in idioms you aren't comfortable with. It's called learning, and yes if you refuse to learn you should be failed.

I don't disagree, but I'm talking about some final, thesis-like composition that I would imagine should be a personal expression, not an exercise in throwing in every technique you've learned just because. That's what coursework is for.

Studying composition at a University is supposed to take you out of your personal bubble. As a composer of the 21st century, you're going to be expected to learn about the recent innovations and demonstrate that you are familiar with them. If one can't or don't want to do that, then studying at a University isn't for them, simple as that.

Familiarity and learning a style are not the same as adopting it, but I otherwise agree one should learn as much as one can.

He has proven to be perfectly capable of 'destroying or humiliating' the work of any other similarly styled composer which he didn't like. I don't find it disappointing myself: if you're an 'up and coming' composer, having your music exposed via Boulez for any reason, you're going to gain from that

Well, I guess it's possible that him trashing your music is maybe going to get you support by people who don't like him....

Yep...among pretty much any and every school of thought to various degrees. So....why are we talking about Boulez and Stockhausen again?

I was trying to use them as examples, not focal points per se.

What I'm calling the politicization or propagandizing of certain styles is stupid and actually self-defeating. The greatest of the great composers learned as much as they could about as many styles as they could and fused them together with their own style; they didn't fetishize. Maybe there are a few that don't fit that description, but the ones that are coming to my mind now did so.

This comes from a tendency back in the mid-20th Century where the academy attempted to be on the "forefront" of musical expression and many conservatories forced their students to write in avant garde styles. And, of course, when your teacher at Juilliard speaks, you, as a young and malleable student, will surely follow and be molded to how the teacher wants. This still goes on today but to a lesser extend. Because of the increased pluralism of styles in the late 20th and now 21st Centuries, it is clear that this forcing of one specific style (or set of styles) can't work. People will write what they want to write.

Now, should students be forced out of their comfort zone and write in things which they are unfamiliar, absolutely. To take an example from my studies, my comp teacher assigned me to write a pop song with simple harmony and a secular text (since it's a Christian school there are more banal worship songs than can fit in a landfill). I did my best but it was quite a bad piece. I was simply not familiar with the genre or idiom. But I learned a great deal. Similarly, I was assigned to write a piece for electronics simply out of rhythmic elements, no pitches. Multiple meters where encouraged while loops where discouraged. This was also unusual for me since I didn't know what I was doing. I don't think rhythmically like that about my music. But it forced me to think about it in, honestly, a very clinical way. It was a good learning experience. That type of thing should be thoroughly encouraged in university.

What shouldn't be encouraged is teachers forcing students to write what the students' do not want to write on a broader scale. I know stories about students being failed for not writing specifically in an avant garde style. Conversely I've seen this happen with pro-romantic teachers at Juilliard (ironically) who failed a student for not having enough melody in their songs. Let the student write what he wants to write while making him do unusual and uncomfortable things too.

Then don't study composition formally since apparently, you know how to provide yourself with a more 'rich and rewarding experience' than people who are actually out there teaching.

Well, that isn't necessarily true - someone can instruct you just in the specific idiom(s) you want to learn if they have a truly thorough understanding of it.

But why write music in an idiom you don't care for? (Unless you're being paid or whatever). That viewpoint doesn't recognize the existence of passion - and a composer's passion isn't always for music in general, or for writing music in general. Why learn about something you don't want to, when you could learn to compose in idioms that resonate with you, which would be a much more rich and rewarding experience?

• agree
  

Most of the time its not ignorance so much as not wasting time.

I think it's worthwhile to mention that the student composer should hold themselves responsible for choosing a means to an education that suits their objectives. If someone wishing to write 'new' music puts themselves at Eastman or Julliard, they only have themselves to blame for not getting the most facilitating education. The same could be said about someone more traditionally-minded placing themselves somewhere like North Texas or Stanford.

But how do you know this beforehand? I'm not in the US, but even where I am, I don't think I could say which schools have what particular outlook.

Why not just skip school altogether then?

Because degrees are necessary for stuff.

And, you learn things in school.

Depending on whether it's "learning" or "indoctrination".

lol

• agree
  

Don't post if you have veritably nothing to add to the discussion.

Ignoring idioms you aren't interested in is not the key to a rich and rewarding education.

I mean, this is one of the most ubiquitous ideas in academia. It doesn't matter what you're studying, be it music or art or engineering, you have to be able to put aside your personal preferences and look at your field from different viewpoints.

If you can't do that, you're obviously not interested in learning and should save your money.

Well, intellectual curiosity in itself (which is what you are calling "learning") is not worth anything in my view, in spite of being valued by our society for reasons that I do not believe have been meditated on seriously. Maybe it has a purpose in a utilitarian field like engineering or chemistry, but with regards to something that has nothing to do with utility, like music composition - I don't think it's best to take the same approach.

You can always learn about various idioms any time you choose, but passion can't really be ignored - it pretty much demands and commands one's attention in the present moment, thereby hindering efforts to learn about things outside of itself.

In my view, if you were truly passionate about music you would want to explore as many idioms as possible to know the subject inside out.