Equals?

[provistbrahms]

It has come to my attention that when listening to modern and classical music they are equal in feeling but not in technicality. What do you guys think on this one? <p>[This message has been edited by provistbrahms (edited 04-02-2001).]

[Nicole Marie]

I agree! The method for composition used in more modern pieces is so different. But still the same.<P>If you mean "technicality" in the actual development of an idea in music then, yes there is a difference in the past and present compositions. Look at a Glass score then look at a Bach score and you'll SEE the difference, never mind sound. <P>But there is a similar style to the development of modern and classical compositions. Many early composers developed techniques, at the time considered outlandish. Todays modern composers write with the same outlandish ideals but could they be the new "classical" composers that future composers will follow? Yes. So the likes and differences are there in the modern and classical styles.

[provistbrahms]

Todays modern composers write with the same outlandish ideals but could they be the new "classical" composers that future composers will follow? Yes. So the likes and differences are there in the modern and classical styles.[/B][/QUOTE]<P>Yes I can see where you are going. It is quite possible. There are always new ways to be found when composing music to add to the ones already in place.

[Peter]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by provistbrahms:<BR><B>It has come to my attention that when listening to modern and classical music they are equal in feeling but not in technicality. What do you guys think on this one? <BR>[This message has been edited by provistbrahms (edited 04-02-2001).]</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Sorry, but I think the other way around is more accurate. Technically, orchestral instruments are generally superior today, if slightly more sharp on the ear. Players, too, are at least the equal of musicians of old. But with feeling, I cannot see how a work by one of the great masters could ever compare with an example from that most lamentable of expressive arts: Modern classical music. Feeling surely comes from within. It pours from Beethoven, but from today's efforts? No, sir.

[audiogirl]

Hello......<BR>I'm not sure what is meant by technicality, but I think the old timers as a whole were better at feeling. As for modern composers, I hope that time will be kind to Boublil and Schonberg--the whole world seems to be in love with one of their works, as I am. These guys do "feeling" pretty well.<P>

[Luegwig]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><BR>with feeling, I cannot see how a work by one of the great masters could ever compare with an example from that most lamentable of expressive arts: Modern classical music. Feeling surely comes from within. It pours from Beethoven, but from today's efforts? No, sir.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I quite agree. Beethoven was a radical, but he was trying to find a better way to communicate his soul to others' in a way they could understand. Last century, it seemed to be about music theory and testing the limits of the definition of music.<P>What seems to be communicated by this modern stuff (with exceptions) is confusion (a valid expression considering post-modernist philosophy) and frankly, I don't know what else.<P>I may get killed for this, but I think that the Romantic movement that happened immediately after (or if you prefer during...) Beethoven was a travesty of sorts. Composers seemed to think that Beethoven opened the door for breaking all the rules--so they did and musical discipline went out the window. Beethoven may have tossed out some of the classical rules of composition, but he made his own rules and stuck by them. His revolution had purpose and a discipline of its own. <P>What happened after was an ever increasing amount of chaos. <P>Enough ranting. I look forward to your disagreements!<P>-Bill

[Peter]

No disagreement from me, Bill. Your post could just as easily have been written by me!

[Nicole Marie]

Good points Bill. <P>But isn't what you said, "What seems to be communicated by this modern stuff (with exceptions) is confusion (a valid expression considering post-modernist philosophy) and frankly, I don't know what else." A matter of opinion?<P>I can relate better with a Glass piece, at times, then a Beethoven piece. Honest! What you find confusion, I understand. Plus I enjoy performing a modern piece/multi media piece better then a Beethoven Symphony. Now I'm going to get burned for this! <P>

[Glenn Gould]

Nicole you shouldn't get burned for wanting to progress and discover new things. I suggest that we all embrace whats to come with open hearts and open spirit and not forget the past, i think the main reason for all the confusion, aswell as the lack of new concert pieces being produced has very much to do with composers being afraid that they cannot exceed or live up to the expectations that audiences have... Beethoven pretty much blew everyone away and continues to do so. In anycase, i believe these days, contrary to how i once thought, that there will be a renaisance for concert/classical music and composition of it.<P>Posted with Love,<BR>Glenn

[Peter]

Nicole, you shall burn a la Joan of Arc! Seriously, though can you please try & explain why you prefer playing modern/multi-media music to Beethoven's symphonies? Forgive me, but the former is the nadir to the latter's zenith of orchestral, compositional achievement. Is it the frivolity/fun(?) aspect of the former which appeals to you? Please elucidate.<P>Peter

[audiogirl]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Glenn Gould:<BR>[In anycase, i believe these days, contrary to how i once thought, that there will be a renaisance for concert/classical music and composition of it.<P>Posted with Love,<BR>Glenn[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Hey, Gigi. (Just kidding.)<P>In the interest of a rebirth........<BR>It's just an opinion, but I think a good way to turn someone on to a different kind of music is a good live performance. There is absolutely no comparison between live and canned to my ear. I have (EEK!) been to country concerts and enjoyed them.<BR> <BR>There are plenty of free "concerts in the park", etc., but having priced some tickets to other concerts, I sometimes wonder if the price of a classical music concert ticket is prohibitive to the music's exposure. Is there any truth to this? Anyone?<BR><p>[This message has been edited by audiogirl (edited 04-03-2001).]

[Glenn Gould]

I've attented many a performance where i was able to get a ticket for under 20 dollars. Dimitry Hvorostofsky was about 22. However its always a wonder to me how the arts organizations can pay for an orchestra, solo performers, and venue and still make a profit.<P>Glenn

[EJA_2]

Forgive me if I sound Hippocratic, but I think that first of all, music -- and any other art -- should be beautiful. After that may come expressive, instructive, communicative, and anything else the composer or artist wants to throw in. As a group, and as a rule, the moderns fail at this. There are individuals and instances where they succeed as well as the masters. I think music is a composer's primary means of expression, just as writing is a writer's. When a composer is having a bad day what comes out is, well, bad. I'm sure that happened with the masters as it does with contemporary composers. I recollect several Classical composers who complained of the inferior quality of their production at various times in their career. I think the bane of art in the modern era has been the valuation of expression above beauty. This is characteristic of nihilistic post-modern philosophy. Absolute standards have been rejected -- standards for beauty included -- and as a result, the structure that those standards upheld has disintegrated. Another factor to consider is that time has a way of eliminating the lesser works, so we don't hear the master's bad days. Still I think that there is a general lack of perfectionism among contemporary composers. <P> -- EJA

[Glenn Gould]

EJA<P>Your entire argument is flawed in that, beauty and perfection are both a matter of opinion when it comes to music.<P>Your opinion is yours and i'm certain justified but it isn't very necessarily true.<P>Glenn<BR>

[Nicole Marie]

Good point Glenn!<P>Back to the question Peter asked about why I enjoy multi media/contemporary performance better....well...<P>I enjoy the music more and I enjoy being part of a composers concept that may be different from anything I've seen before. <BR>When I perform in mulit-media programs, it's about being part of music, stage, pre-recordings played along with your live performance, sometimes costumes, dancers! You name it I've performed with it. <P>One performance I was in required me to learn dance steps so I could dance with my bass! We did lifts and everything.<P>There is also a bass performance piece, that requires the double bass instrument to be dressed in a womans dress. The player acts as a man at a bar trying to pick up this woman (the double bass) and well...it gets racey from there. But to me that is more exciting to perform then a symphony.<BR>

[audiogirl]

I'm curious, EJA. I have read in your other posts (and maybe you were being a little facetious) that you're pretty much a strictly classical kind of guy. I may be jumping to conclusions on this one. Have you ever heard anything non-classical that you thought was beautiful?

[Glenn Gould]

Brava! Nicole,<BR>

[EJA_2]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Glenn Gould:<BR><B><BR>Your entire argument is flawed in that, beauty and perfection are both a matter of opinion when it comes to music.<BR></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>GG,<BR>Assuming your presuppositions my argument is flawed. It's not so flawed considering my presuppositions, namely, and to wit, that there is an absolute standard both for beauty and perfection that can be applied to anything, be it music, art, science, or morality. Now, do not get the idea that I reject the concept of differing tastes. Certainly there are different aspects of beauty and perfection that appeal to different people. Nevertheless, the absolute nature of these ideals remains. Let me also add my definition of a perfectionist: not one who is perfect, but one who knows that he is not perfect, yet strives towards that which he knows to be an impossible goal. <P>Nicole, <BR>How does a double bass sound muffled by a dress? You must be fascinated by the absurd? Or just novelty? If it sounds good, I am all for it. If not that composer can just take it home with him and use it for whatever he sees fit. <P>Audiogirl,<BR>Yes, I have heard many things that I would consider to be beautiful outside the Classical genre. As an example, have you heard the adds for Kathy Haggerty's new disc on beethoven.com? I heard the clips and liked them. I've heard C&W songs that are somewhat beautiful. I've heard Jazz that's beautiful. I've heard contemporary music that is beautiful, for example many of the film scores on "Film at Eleven." Was it you that said something about the 'Titanic' score? I liked that although I doubt I would have liked the movie, had I seen it. I've heard some nice Bluegrass. I like much of Celtic music. The pipes send me into a surrealistic state which is hard to describe. I also like 'Stairway to Heaven' by Led Zeppelin, when its played by the LSO. Led Zeppelin themselves fell a little short in the instrumentation and vocals, in my opinion. <BR>I suspect you refer to a statement I made along the lines of "give me Classical or give me death?" Yes, overall I prefer Classical music as having the greatest concentration of music that I find beautiful. <P><BR> -- EJA<p>[This message has been edited by EJA (edited 04-03-2001).]

[audiogirl]

Ethan, thanks for answering my question about what you like. I thought you were probably exaggerating to make a point in your other posts.<P>However, I'm a little confused by this discussion of absolutes. I don't quite understand what you're saying. Do you have an example to clarify? Do you mean that the terms 'beauty' and 'perfection' are inherently absolute words? That whoever is pronouncing things one or the other, regardless of taste, we tend to think they're either perfect or not, beautiful, or not?

[TallBlondeFlutist]

I'm going to put in my 2 cents (for that may be all it's worth). My tastes run more for the "old" classical. Maybe I just don't "get" the more modern stuff, but I can say I don't like it. I like true melody, harmony, consistent rhythm, etc. I don't like excessive dissonance, etc.<P>Call me an old square, but I only pay for the classics. (I have even been known to not attend a concert when there was nothing that would appeal to me - and I have walked out on some performances such as that which Nicole describes.) Try as I might, but I don't like the modern stuff. It completely baffles me.<P>I recognize it is a matter of personal taste, so I won't criticize those who don't see (er, hear) as I do, but I don't have to be subjected to non-music.