A millennial's rant on classical music

[strangeskies]

Time for Godwin's Law?

My work here is done

 

[GrimSurfer]

With the democritisation of taste, many of the "great works" have been thown into the free market of popular opinion and found wanting. Why elevate Proust's In Search of Lost Time, often proclaimed as the greatest novel ever written, over J.K Rowling's Harry Potter series when the latter is more widely read and thus more influential in our current generation? In film, why value Citizen Kane, Vertigo or Tokyo Story over the commercial juggernaut that is the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Why subject countless young piano students to Mozart or Beethoven rather than Elton John? Or teach art students about Picasso rather than Cassius Marcellus Coolidge?

Because great works, old and young, can coexist. Were anyone to claim primacy of one great work over another, they'd be declaring themselves to be foolish. Were anyone to place their preferences ahead of others on the scale of human achievement, they would be egotistic beyond all measure.

That is what started this thread, which has gone full circle IMHO.

 

[ahofer]

One of my favorite pieces. But that can't be all they're playing; it would be a very short concert!

Burleigh’s Southland Sketches; Bernstein Clarinet Sonata; Copland’s Appalachian Spring (13 piece ensemble). Tonight is the 50th anniversary celebration of Alice Tully so they are leaving time to mingle with the artists afterwards.

Interesting news: they announced they are going to release their archive of 3,999 concerts. Not clear on the format or whether it will be available as a collection.

addendum: wow, you could not mistake the joy and love put into that performance.

 

[Cosmik]

I'm a "classically" trained musician and sometime composer

What did your training teach you? Presumably some "rules"..? And did your teachers ever say whether your music was 'good' or 'bad' based on some existing rules? They didn't just say "Hey, what you like you like; what you don't you don't. No sweat".

So if you say "I like classical" rather than "I like this piece", and you know about how "classical" works, then the argument should not be "I like what I like", but "These rules are good because...". So, what was great about the 18th century "classical rules"? And any other classical rules that you really dig.

 

[scott wurcer]

.

Cosmik why don't you give it up at this point you are are just being an an asshole.

 

[MRC01]

What did your training teach you? Presumably some "rules"..? ... So, what was great about the 18th century "classical rules"? And any other classical rules that you really dig.

Even though I've thought about it over the years, it's hard to answer. And I can't do this answer the justice it deserves, since I'm not a musical scholar or historian, only a music lover and amateur musician. The left-brained answer to this would be to answer your question literally and talk about the "rules": musical structure, melody, harmony, rhythm, dynamics and tempo, etc. looking for something that is unique about classical music. It does tend to be more complex and layered than pop music, which makes it both emotionally and intellectually satisfying. But this might be a red herring.

Perhaps the better more right-brained answer is that this complexity is only a means to an end. The key differentiator is that this music touches something profound about the human condition and depth or clarity of artistic expression. How can one justify such a subjective statement? The fact is, something about this music continues to appeal and fascinate people all over the world, after all this time, or they wouldn't still be listening to it! I'm not sure this is describable in words, maybe it's not and that's why we invented music. Looking for that in the "rules" might be like taking apart your television to better understand the show you were watching. Didn't someone say, "writing about music is like dancing about architecture"?

 

[Cosmik]

Even though I've thought about it over the years, it's hard to answer. And I can't do this answer the justice it deserves, since I'm not a musical scholar or historian, only a music lover and amateur musician. The left-brained answer to this would be to answer your question literally and talk about the "rules": musical structure, melody, harmony, rhythm, dynamics and tempo, etc. looking for something that is unique about classical music. It does tend to be more complex and layered than pop music, which makes it both emotionally and intellectually satisfying. But this might be a red herring.

Perhaps the better more right-brained answer is that this complexity is only a means to an end. The key differentiator is that this music touches something profound about the human condition and depth or clarity of artistic expression. How can one justify such a subjective statement? The fact is, something about this music continues to appeal and fascinate people all over the world, after all this time, or they wouldn't still be listening to it! I'm not sure this is describable in words, maybe it's not and that's why we invented music. Looking for that in the "rules" might be like taking apart your television to better understand the show you were watching. Didn't someone say, "writing about music is like dancing about architecture"?

Well as I've put in my "About" section, my musical tastes are primarily those sequences of notes, sounds, chords that trigger something pleasurable in my brain - and that will have something to do with rules, whether learned explicitly or by exposure to their results. But I have a second bullet point which is that I can't separate other factors from that e.g. nostalgia. I love quite a lot of 20th century "classical" music, and I could probably even come up with some musical reasons why, but I can't separate it from the fact that it reminds me of black and white films! And I love those old films.

 

[GrimSurfer]

When some alien race stumbles upon a piece of space junk called Voyager in about a billion years from now, they'll drop the needle on the music disc and give it a listen.

https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/golden-record/whats-on-the-record/music/

If they last until the end, they'll snort, beep, or oink something that means "neat sounds" before moving onto something more important like time travel or harnessing black hole energy. And that's assuming they have an audiohole, input or output.

They're unlikely to rank order the noises into any distinguishable terrestrial pattern. Not one to suit the masses. Nor one to suit the impresarios (or is that impressaria?).

Why? Because if they're really smart, they'll regard the time structures as mathematical representations and tones as modulated frequencies. They're apt to do so because all of this social mumbo jumbo we append to music would make as much sense to them as why chimp A uses a banana leaf as an umbrella while chimp B uses a palm frond does to us.

 

[Guermantes]

What did your training teach you? Presumably some "rules"..? And did your teachers ever say whether your music was 'good' or 'bad' based on some existing rules? They didn't just say "Hey, what you like you like; what you don't you don't. No sweat".

So if you say "I like classical" rather than "I like this piece", and you know about how "classical" works, then the argument should not be "I like what I like", but "These rules are good because...". So, what was great about the 18th century "classical rules"? And any other classical rules that you really dig.

Sure there were "rules" but they were usually termed "techniques" and structured somewhat along historical lines. When we submitted assignments they were expected to be "in genre" and so, being a mostly diligent student, I didn't submit a musique concrète work when the topic was to write a Baroque two-part invention. As to whether my work was rated "good" or "bad" or indifferent, that depended on the teacher and their criteria. Some were happy to see works that simply showed competency in applying the techniques, others rewarded creativity and originality. But I don't know any modern compositions that slavishly follow Baroque conventions. Even Stravinsky's neo-classicism was influenced by his 20th century perspective.

I'm not sure about your second paragraph -- I would interpret "classical rules" in this sense as "conventions" and in the sense that all musical genres have their conventions whether be-bop, blues or organum. I suspect your point is that if you understand the conventions then you should be able to voice your opinion on a piece with reference to them. Isn't this this the basis of criticism (in the academic sense) or am I missing the point?

I'm not much of a fan of Mozart or Haydn precisely because I can clearly hear the conventions of 18th century Classicism in their music but I can respect that others consider that their works are more than the sum of their parts. Beethoven is usually valorised for breaking out of Classical conventions and ushering in Romanticism, but of course that's the post-Romantic perspective.

I find Messiaen's Modes of Limited Transposition and ideas about non-retrogradable rhythms fascinating but they are not easily recognised by listening to his works unless you do some score analysis. Composers like Schoenberg, Messiaen and Arvo Pärt broke the old "rules" but then created their own. Richard Strauss started to break the rules but then thought better of it.

 

[Zog]

Perhaps the better more right-brained answer is that this complexity is only a means to an end.

I concur. And the means, ie the art or in this instance, the music, is a mode of communication. The composer has something to say. The Eroica can be seen as an important statement. The music is the means by which L van B speaks. The meaning? That is open to interpretation. The kind of feelings it invokes in me is a sense of perseverance, also relentlessness. Then the deepest pathos in the Funeral March, and eventually in the Finale the sense of triumph feels perfectly justified - deserved even.

An open question: does anyone else find Arvo Pärt's Für Alina satisfying to listen to? A few minutes of the simplest and slow piano music. Also I find The Boxer (esp the version by Mumford & Sons) to be moving. Many others of course. Classical music clearly does not have a monopoly on communication. Perhaps the tools at disposal - especially an orchestra, rich harmony, and Form give the composer more scope?

 

[Wombat]

The rule is, 'rules are objective unless they are subjective'. Even 'there are no rules' is a rule. Sorta.

 

[Zog]

I'm not much of a fan of Mozart or Haydn precisely because I can clearly hear the conventions of 18th century Classicism in their music but I can respect that others consider that their works are more than the sum of their parts.

I think I have learned something! We are all different and I am sure I will still love the late symphonies of M & H but that is a fascinating perspective.

 

[ahofer]

I studied arranging at Berklee, which is much more of a jazz and pop school, or was at the time (80s). I also studied theory and composition in more traditional classes at Yale.

Both taught a lot of “rules”, initially. Everyone has to learn the tonal basics. However, the Yale sequence pushed us to break convention sooner.

 

[ahofer]

I have an observation about my “favorite” pieces. I generally was indifferent on first listen. Case in point, the Bernstein Sonata. I didn’t know it well before the concert last night, but I like to listen to the program beforehand. I did, meh.

Shifrin’s performance was superb. I loved it. Now I have put it on while eating breakfast. Today I think the second movement is breathtaking, with it’s delicate prefiguring of several West Side Story tunes like America and Somewhere.

None of the “gateway drugs” I listed before are among my favorites now. The same is true for pop and jazz. I put on Katy Lied and I hear all the great songs that aren’t Black Friday. Hindemith’s Schwanendreher. The things that have really stuck with me over time didn’t blow me away on first listen.

Something to think about.

 

[strangeskies]

I think I have learned something!

Me too. If I say "I love my children" (ie the set of all humans that are my children) and not "I love [child's name]", then I love the rules/code that define the set of my children and not any of the children themselves.

This perspective comports with The One True Theory of Axiology.

 

[amadeuswus]

An open question: does anyone else find Arvo Pärt's Für Alina satisfying to listen to? A few minutes of the simplest and slow piano music.

Hi Zog
I listened to Fur Alina just now (sorry, couldn't figure out quickly how to put in the umlaut). I am more familiar with Part's Spiegel im Spiegel. Do you know this as well? Outwardly simple music, both pieces, but also strangely moving if you are in the right mood.

 

[Cosmik]

Me too. If I say "I love my children" (ie the set of all humans that are my children) and not "I love [child's name]", then I love the rules/code that define the set of my children and not any of the children themselves.

This perspective comports with The One True Theory of Axiology.

Unsurprisingly you're missing the point. If you say you've been trained in X, then that means you have submitted to the rules of X, and have gone along with the rules of X in order to say that you have, indeed been trained in it.

It's interesting that this is taken to be "being an asshole", but suggesting someone loves "rules" is not an insult. If someone says "I am trained in FORTRAN, and I love FORTRAN", it literally means they love the rules of FORTRAN. And they might enjoy being asked to explain why that is. Not an insult. See how it works?

I agree that a load of blokes sitting round going "I love classical, me. I really, really love it. And the Eagles." isn't going to go anywhere. But if someone is a graduate of "classical" composition, and they "love" classical music, there could be some more interesting insights.

 

[amadeuswus]

Me too. If I say "I love my children" (ie the set of all humans that are my children) and not "I love [child's name]", then I love the rules/code that define the set of my children and not any of the children themselves.

This perspective comports with The One True Theory of Axiology.

Hi strangeskies

Trying to make sense of your cryptic post.... Maybe I am saying something similar (or not!), but to me it's not so bad that it's possible to go back to classical period composers like Haydn or Mozart and trace how their music might generally reflect certain conventions or "rules." But Mozart and Haydn often defy your expectations too; theirs is not music by the numbers. Without conventions to subvert, there would be less to surprise and delight and move the listener. It might even be hard to communicate at all. For that matter, every post in this thread depends upon conventions/rules of grammar, spelling, syntax, etc., but ASR members seem quite free to speak their mind.

 

[ahofer]

I love classical music that stays mostly within tonal boundaries. I love classical music that pushes tonal boundaries, which has been happening regularly at least since Bach.

@Cosmik ’s concept of “rules”, I think, utterly misses the actual concept and application of frameworks and techniques for musical composition. As I pointed out earlier, there are much more slavishly adhered -to format guidelines in pop/rock than concert hall music. We don’t love them or not love them, per se. They are guidelines that make a song/chord progression/melody sound a certain way, or achieve a specific effect. But then Mozart, John Lennon, or Brahms comes along, mixes up some conventional stuff with a few novel twists and says-how about this?

Tonal harmony and cantus formus are indeed highly codified. You can write a computer program to churn out compositions that would be graded a pass in your theory class. 99/100 times it is also very boring, like listening to a beginner guitarist improvise on a pentatonic scale. Great music is great for reasons that transcend “rules”.

Your quest here (or troll, I’m not sure) is quixotic at best.

 

[Cosmik]

I love classical music that stays mostly within tonal boundaries. I love classical music that pushes tonal boundaries, which has been happening regularly at least since Bach.

@Cosmik ’s concept of “rules”, I think, utterly misses the actual concept and application of frameworks and techniques for musical composition. As I pointed out earlier, there are much more slavishly adhered -to format guidelines in pop/rock than concert hall music. We don’t love them or not love them, per se. They are guidelines that make a song/chord progression/melody sound a certain way, or achieve a specific effect. But then Mozart, John Lennon, or Brahms comes along, mixes up some conventional stuff with a few novel twists and says-how about this?

Tonal harmony and cantus formus are indeed highly codified. You can write a computer program to churn out compositions that would be graded a pass in your theory class. 99/100 times it is also very boring, like listening to a beginner guitarist improvise on a pentatonic scale. Great music is great for reasons that transcend “rules”.

Your quest here (or troll, I’m not sure) is quixotic at best.

Don't call it rules then! But the term "classical" indicates something, like it does in mathematics or economics. Sorry to break it to you, but to be "classical", music has to be adhering to some sort of <word meaning rules>, and to say you love "classical" means - at some level - you love those rules. Is it unreasonable then to ask why you love those rules?

(It's the only way to get beyond "I love classical, me. I really, really love it").