I'm not asking you to apologize! That would be ridiculous from my behalf!

BUT

1. Who are you exactly to point out what is music and what is not? You are proclaiming out loud to everyone that: "This is NOT music" and thus "This is insulting".
2. Don't you think other people love music as much as you do (perhaps me as well)? Do you think that you, working your ass off in music daily makes your opinion more valid?
3. "Treated like this". Like what exactly? Like in a manner that you don't get or don't like? Other people do!

Not music to MY ears. What I'm stating is simply an opinion not a fact. All I'm doing is trying to understand what makes people like such music.

I'm nobody, so I guess I can't say what I think. Correct?

You can probably find a quote to support any notion you wish. I don't think there's a composer alive today who would want to survive on income from composing alone. Even Beethoven had to encourage friends and wealthy patrons to bankroll him once his hearing had deteriorated to the point where he couldn't perform or conduct.

Today if you want to make money writing music you may as well write pop songs. Contrary to what many may think writing and producing songs is an art that takes a lot of skill.

The largest market for new music that is at all viable is high school band and choral music. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Eric Whitacre out earned Jennifer Higdon or John Adams. I don't believe any of those three really cares who earns more because all three are fairly popular at this time. I believe Whitacre specializes in band and choral music while Higdon and Adams are mostly in the orchestral realm. However, none of them sounds anything remotely like Xenakis. Times have changed and what got attention in the mid 20th century doesn't get as much notice now.

The academic and cultural communities of the mid 20th century demanded a certain style. There were composers who wrote in a more accessible style even then, Howard Hanson, William Schumann, Roger Sessions and many, many others. Yet the piece by William Schumann that I remember best is his Violin Concerto which is in a quite modern idiom, but is still more listenable than Xenakis. However, I personally hate the term listenable almost as much as I hate Anheiser Busch touting drinkability in beer. Budweiser to my taste buds is like having sex in a canoe (effing close to water). The same goes for musical tastes, if you prefer Bud I'm not going to make a big deal about it, but I might suggest you try Sam Adams Boston Lager. I'm quite sure you wouldn't enjoy Rogue Brewing's India Pale Ale.

I guess I'm astounded that once again a diatribe against C20 and C21 music has grown to well over 20 pages. Why do some people insist one size fits all? Why do you have to think that just because you don't like it I can't either? Go back to practicing Mozart (but not any late Mozart) and Chopin and whatever else floats your boat. The attitude I've observed in this thread is very disturbing and judgmental.

Regarding your final paragraph. As a composer I do strive to find some balance. I don't frankly enjoy super avante garde music, so I don't write it. But, I have been told I hear music differently than most and it's not to everyone's taste. Well that's OK with me because I enjoy it and it suits MY taste. At the end of the day if I can't listen and be proud of my efforts no accolades from anyone else will matter. Conversely if I DO enjoy my music, no criticism from others matters either.

Nope! Far from it. If you like to think of yourself as "nobody" be my guest, but I haven't labeled you anything, just asking a fair question.

Yes it's an opinion. Everyone can get away with this silly argument.

I like such music because:
a. It sounds interesting and different from other styles.
b. I compose it.
c. It's unlimited.
d. It's fascinating!
e. As a composer, for better or worst, I'm drawn to the interesting and more 'intelectual', rather than the 'musical'.

In fact I think that "e" has a lot to do with it, but I will report that prior to studying composition properly I was still fascinated by 'new' sound worlds.

Where do you see separation from previous traditions? In the case of Schoenberg, he was just taking the developments of the previous 30 years to the next level. When I look at music from Brahms and Debussy to Stravinsky and Prokofiev and Ravel to Schoenberg I can see a distinct path. I am not very familiar with Xenakis but if you look at avant garde music from the 50's, 60's, and 70's (much of which can be heard in film scores) I would guess that you could see a trend.

As far as "balancing music integrity with financial stability" goes I do not think it would ever be an issue. Working composers compose music to make money. It is a job. A composer's individuality, if it is a well received individuality, would set him apart from other composers and get him more jobs. If the inividuality is not well received then the composer must try different things or risk becoming a non-working composer.

Yes, you must be. I did too, for the longest time, but the day came when what he was doing clicked into place, and I found that I enjoyed it. But how to explicitly describe that enjoyment is beyond me, just as how to describe the enjoyment I get from Medtner is also beyond me. Do you know how to describe what happens to you when you listen to music? I mean, I could say that the patterns and shapes in Xenakis' music excite me and grab my attention and stimulate my imagination, but that really doesn't tell you much, does it?



Maybe it seems like it to you, but seeming like it and it actually being true aren't the same thing.



Well, if you do find it insulting, you are insulting yourself, because that broadly condemnatory concept of what composers are doing is something you made up, rather than what they are really doing - which is creating music.



And so? Is someone saying you should like Xenakis? Do you think everyone hears his music as you do? Do you think they are supposed to?

Just listened to this...



Loved it! First time I've heard of Xenakis.

I made the same point earlier in the thread - but like Skorpius, I didn't mean to imply that every single person acts this way. Some people definately do - very probable, but not all.

To consider this possibility, just think of all the people you've ever met in your life who agree with you on a subject in public or in slightly closed circles, but when it comes down to it they have absolutely no interest in it besides how it will make them look socially. Some people are just scared to be considered ignorant or uneducated, so they will readily fall in line with many things. Most of the ills of the world has been a result of this type of mentality.

But I don't think Skorpius meant anything personal by it.

Thanks for the post - except for the part where you tell me to go play just Mozart, etc.
It points out 2 things that are slightly contradictory to each other, and which Elissa Milne touched on earlier. You claim:
1- I, or others, should not be judgmental about music and limit ourselves to what we already enjoy.
2- If you composed music, you wouldn't worry about how it's publicly received.
If you truly believe 2, then 1 doesn't matter at all - people can be judgmental as much as they like. Elissa mentioned this when she said, in a nutshell, that composers who choose individuality to such a degree that the music becomes alien to the rest of the world - shouldn't complain when others recognize this and judge it badly.

As for judging music - that's part of human nature. If we didn't judge music according to either accepted standards of quality or our own standards of quality, then we would have absolutely no taste and would not be capable of preferring 'this' music to 'that' music, and so on. There would be no reason to consider Mozart a greater composer that some of his peers, no reason to judge Beethoven a composer of greatness.
Judging is absolutely necesarry in every single facet of our life, whether we want to or not - or we would all end up like the Eloi of Wells' The Time Machine: brainless, emotionless, undecisive idiots who don't care whether the food they eat tastes good or bad. They might as well spend their day eating dirt - it's just as valuable and tasty a food as filet mignon. Of course, the dirt-eaters out there will object to this callous usage of dirt in this example, and be suitably offended.

Schoenberg claimed to be a direct heir to the Germanic Tradition - Viennese, to be exact. But that doesn't make it so. Attacking the Germanic Tradition by rejecting all the harmonic and tonal ideas it has produced, in my opinion, is not considered taking the Germanic Tradition to the next level, unless one is confusing the idea of 'development' with 'destruction'.

Schoeberg said in 1910 "In ten years, every talented composer will be writing this way, regardless of whether he has learned it directly from me or only from my work." Well, he lived his life watching this prediction never come to fruition, except for a brief time in which it was in vogue. That time passed and Schoenberg died a bitter old man, angry that his claim as the heir of the Germanic Tradition had been so roundly rejected. I'm not trying to make anyone angry by saying the above, just being honest about his reception so far. Things might change in the future, but it is what it is for now.

How do you feel that his methods were a development of the Germanic Tradition?

Schoenberg was reacting to all the hyper-emotional music and lack of structure of the Romantic period. He advocated a return to structured music like that written in the Classical period, thus the tag of "neoclassic". I mentioned Brahms because I really do see Schoenberg as an extension of where Brahms was going, especially in Schoenberg's early lyrical works. Brahms also advocated a return to structured music and was on the verge of atonality himself. In many of his works, especially the late ones, you can go a very long way into the piece before you get a clear indication of what key it is in.

Yeah, I thought that was pretty cool! I have a thing for complex percussion stuff, hehe. I saw Stomp not too long ago, and it was amaaazing!

Schoenberg wrote an essay called, "Brahms the Progressive." He saw him as you do.

When talking music, you need to be cautious. Of course i have heard some 20th century music and thought "ok, this is absolute sh1t". Really, there is some music by guys mentioned in this thread that could not get a better review than that from me. But i am not going to express myself in such a way knowing other `people enjoy that music . Maybe i't s me who's missing something, not them. It would be arrogant of me to think "they re wrong, i am right".

I really enjoy Berg's piano sonata. Years ago, i would ve ran away from it after the first few bars. Or Ligeti.

People need to be more tolerant, less arrogant, more open minded. And if even then, you still think it's worthless, fair enough. But at least listen without prejudice, give it a shot, and, more importantly, do not assume it s not good just because you don t enjoy it.

I friggin hate coffee, i think it's disgusting, and if i have a sip of it at 4 pm, i wont get any sleep in 12 hours (based on my last experience). Am i entitled to say all you coffee lovers are dumb and have no clue? I don't think so.

Of course I know it's me who's missing something but that obviously doesn't make me enjoy the music, does it? Why do you think I'm not trying to understand? I took an entire theory course on late 20 and 21 century music. I even got to write 12 tone music, with matrix and all. I'm not that stupid, believe me. Until I start to like it I have no reason to lie.

As I see it, those defending the music aren't arguing against your claim to not like the music, they're arguing against a perceived claim that the music is bad because you don't like it. There's a difference between not liking a composer and stating that a composer has "stripped music of all value." One is a subjective opinion. The other is (or at least, is being perceived as) an attempt to make an objective claim based on that subjective opinion.

It's perfectly fine that you don't like atonality. I don't much care for Baroque music (especially Bach. I don't dislike him, and I see why he has the immense respect that he does, but I'd much rather be spending time listening to something else.) I don't think anyone is trying to say you're wrong in not liking atonality. We're just arguing against attempts to condemn the music.

"Stripping it of value", coming out of MY mouth, simply means the music has NO value for me. Keyword: me. Not anybody else. I'm not trying to shove beliefs down anyone's throat. Saying 'the music is wonderful but I don't like it' makes absolutely no sense to me. If the music sounded good to me, I would like it. But it sounds 'bad' to me, therefore I don't like it. Doesn't mean it sounds this way to everybody else, obviously. I also don't mean to say it's universal garbage. What I say applies to my taste, and I've given my reasons for it. While trying to understand the essence of a reason why people love atonality so much. Is that really so terrible?

It's not terrible at all- thank you for clarifying my misunderstanding.

Does anyone love atonality all that much? That is, atonality per se?

I would think that people love particular works more than the overarching 'atonality'. Further, atonality is not an appropriate descriptor for works for unpitched instruments or works which use more tones in the octave than the 12 semitones pianists are used to (some Xenakis).

Yes, good point about the Brahms. I'm not so sure he would ever have strayed into a lot of atonality though - he was still very much the traditionalist butting heads with the Wagnerians and Lisztians. If anything, I would propose that Liszt was much more adventurous harmonically.

I can definately identify with Schoenberg about the hyper-emotionalism - it gets to be a bit much.

Some people talk about the value of individuality in music - not wanting to compromise, or buckle to popular opinion, and how it's admirable and all that: putting your individual message out there, no matter what happens.

But at the same time you suggest that nobody should state their individual opinions because it might offend someone?

Seems like a double-standard, to be honest with you.
It gets pretty boring tiptoeing around life, tailoring one's speech to always please...
That opinion would be right at home in Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 - it's why they started banning books: all those pesky offensive personal opinions.

Um, there might be something about the way you express the thought...