Organicism; The So-Called 'poetry Of The Earth'

I like the poetic nuances, but have always failed to see to it's literal sensibility. 

His lecture says that no matter how hard Schoenberg tried, he could not escape tonality.  I don't disagree - but, why, in the end, would he say that music (even the most eclectic global expression) must remain organic. 

To me, all the vibrations of sound are organic, whether or not they're from acoustic, or electronic sources, which then resonate acoustically. 

(This came to mind:  http://youtu.be/HIXcq_UPFKc?t=8m12s)

So, how do you interpret Bernstein, and if you're a follower, how do you put it to practice?  Does he simply mean, organically in touch with one's self?  If I remember correctly, they even perform music of chance during these lectures, and he seems to be a proponent of such - so, I wouldn't think he means music derived from passionate means, or even inspired. 

Maybe that is wrong, maybe it means.... well, once the performer  has to take on the role of the composer, his interpretation then becomes organic/inspired/passionate...

What's your take on it?

As a rule, I'm always skeptical of composers using the word 'organic' to promote their cause. 

His lecture says that no matter how hard Schoenberg tried, he could not escape tonality.  I don't disagree - but, why, in the end, would he say that music (even the most eclectic global expression) must remain organic. 

did he? i think he said no matter how hard schoenberg tried he could not escape being "rooted in earth". he viewed cerebral or aleatoric atonal music and music before and after as "poetry" alike. he made a prediction that universal music will be among other things tonal. his explanation being: reacceptance of tonality through eclecticism - resurfacing of innate taste for accessibility - superiority of music that stays true to the natural properties of its tonal and grammatical sources.

organic. in my opinion it could either have a vaguely philosophical meaning or sound like one of those corruption in speech that stuck. i've heard people misuse bachian for bacchian a buzzword in literature and music to mean hedonism or things to do with the roman god for example. could mean a textural fixation with sustained notes and suspensions as in organ music rather than visceral or primal or human.

I believe he did say that.  I recall him playing a Schoenberg piece for piano, basically saying that you could draw tonal relationships all over the place, regardless. 

Something that sounded so odd, and 'atonal' for the time, actually had a B Major triad in the mix, being diffused by other means.  And, in the next moment, another traditional chord was found. 

I would say that when you're dealing with 12 notes, and any combination of them, using a different system - no doubt the older system can still try to analyze it, and make it able to be related to.  But this seems to be grasping at straws.  Unless it is ...Berg, or Webern (?) who consciously used a triad in the 12 tone approach, then this is intentional.

I think Bernstein does say he couldn't avoid tonality...Mostly certain :P  But, when I said I agree, I meant in a literal way, that he's still confining himself to 12 tones, or further subdivisions. 

Though, I think that Schoenberg was successful, still, in avoiding the 'tonality system', which in my opinion was the point; doesn't he say that somewhere?  The bit about hating the term 'atonal'...?  

So I guess the point of all this, is that I still don't get Bernstein's point on saying all this in a lecture anyways. 

And, I believe he was being vaguely philosophical, and thus, I'm still confused.  How can you say music is philosophically inorganic?  It seems a man like Bernstein would know that organicism would still be subject to the subjectivity of art.

interesting. was it twelve tone or free atonality? what would be the point though? unless it's contrived like the bit in berg's concerto where he quoted bach it's generally impossible to aurally construct serial music in terms of keys. how would you go about proving that atonality is inseparable from tonality? try to interpret which tone is accidentally emphasised? i'd love to see a clip of that if you can find it.

did he actually use the word organic though?

Transparently BS, as is usual for mr BernStein. There is something significant about the harmonic series (related more to how we perceive sound physiologically, than physical reality, kinda like vision and 'colour theory'), n.b. [clarity edit: .... but not what he thinks. Tonal music, moreover, is not the only valid application of knowledge of the overtone series, by far. Equating the brute fact of the overtone series with a normative system for composition is a philosophical category mistake, besides.]

The entire premise of his 'credo' is based on a false dichotomy, namely that of "natural vs. artificial". Mr. BS associates tonal music with 'natural' and atonal with 'artificial', lumping it in together with mathematics and modern technology, etc. The problem is there is no such clear-cut distinction between natural and artificial. It's nothing but Luddism, a typical self-serving rationalisation of people of his generation who were afraid of science and nuclear apocalypses, and who were no good at math. Hopefully the widespread visibility and obvious usefulness of (e.g.) computers will reduce this sort of attitude amongst the upcoming and future generations.

lol, Mr. BS =)

The entire premise of his 'credo' is based on a false dichotomy, namely that of "natural vs. artificial".

Well, I think that is what confuses me about the whole thing.  Because he was saying earlier about how glorious 'atonal' music can be, and demonstrates how even aleatoric music is a positive thing - and then, if you take that into account with his credo, it leaves me thinking...What the hell? 

For instance, I view sound as how we physiologically perceive and receive it. 

That is why I am challenging someone to say "-music x- is inorganic because..."  Surely someone on this site...Oh yeah, that guy who only writes baroque music even made a long post about it once, and it was not received well.  *shrugs*

yeah, he was very inconsistent. Also, I should mention that I accidentally half my post above. Now amended.

i think he said nothing beyond the fact that all music will be based on the harmonic series. kind of like saying all paintings will be composed of colours really. as opposed to a painting in which music or dance or verbalisation plays an important part. it was to assert the purity of music more than anything else. it's unspecific as to what he meant by tonal. traditional tonal? simpler intervals? heavy on consonances? it'd be difficult to imagine so if you've heard anything he had written and championed.

inconsistency? the bias is implied. by me. like what he said of 20th century music anything written after that "noticeably remote from their basic origins" can still be considered "poetry of the earth". whatever that means.

Still, what in the actual what is 'organic' in music?

That is why I am challenging someone to say "-music x- is inorganic because..."  Surely someone on this site...Oh yeah, that guy who only writes baroque music even made a long post about it once, and it was not received well.  *shrugs*

Actually, the author of that thread was extremely determined in avoiding actual questions. All statements, no logic or justification. His goal wasn't to show 'why ___ music is organic and ___ isn't', it was '___ music is better. because.' and that lead him to a bunch of nonsense about universal vibrations and the condemnation of folk music which doesn't adhere to the 'universal' rules of 17th century European music.