Couldn't some music be composed to benefit others, rather than just the composer?
I wonder how many times a composer was rattling off another minuet, thinking "I can't wait for the King to get OVER this dance!"

Should a piece of music's message be part of what determines it's value?

Really, though - is it possible to have discussions without some of us becoming angry, or feeling insulted?

It's a fascinating subject, if we can get over our emotions and entertain other people's ideas briefly and not feel as if a personal slight is being given.

I sometimes feel as if anyone interested in the piano is automatically expected to appreciate all forms of 'higher' music, and be extremely worldly in their views.

"Huh?" from me too. I have no idea what he's trying to say.

So, he's good because he is painful to listen to? Or he is good because he tricked people into a painful experience? You have trouble walking out of painful situations? You find people in pain to be funny? Is that the genius that is Xenakis, or are you saying people who listen to him are stupid sheep?

I have to dissagree here. Firstmost I've never ever seen someone expressing the quetion "Why do you enjoy Chopin?". Perhaps the common feeling that "Not AGAIN the 1st balad!" but other than that nothing else.

And then it's the way the question is posted. There's no harm in asking in order to grasp something that perhaps you felt missing, or because you are trully curious, but I hardly think this is the case with any thread about C20/21 music in recent months in PW. (except for the collection of brilliant music which you started I think?). The words, horrible, weird, alien, etc spring in mind when thinking this thread alone and then it's the case of fraud, etc from other threads.

I find this is far from a sociological question, posted as it stands in this thread!

There's no reason why a composer needing to compose in an individual way cannot also include wanting to relate to an audience as part of it. There's no reason to make it into an all or nothing situation. Regardless of whether they do or don't consider an audience and to what degree (or what kind of audience it might be, for that matter), composers need to be given the freedom to compose, without an externally applied artificial constraint of trying to please some generalized mass of people. Said in a different way, I think it's important for artists to let their art guide them, even if for some it may mean going into territory that others may not understand right away (or perhaps ever).



But they may be doing something other than merely "expressing themselves", when they lose awareness of potential audience reaction to the music. Constantly wondering "what will people think?" is not necessarily the best framework for creative work.

I sense some false dichotomies! There was no either/or in my posts - I was merely pointing out that if the composer is composing for reasons other than connecting with an audience then it doesn't matter if the audience fails to connect! And then when it comes to connecting with an audience - one composer's idea of connection may be very different to another - there is not merely one way for a composer and audience to meet. By this I mean, maybe for one composer it is important that the audience hum the tunes they've just met as they leave the venue; for another composer the desired response might be that the audience leaves with a sense of intellectual stimulation; another composer might want to have created a particular emotional response, another might be looking to have the audience see the commentary on another composer's work in their own. There are umpteen things a composer might desire to accomplish in the interaction between the music and its audience.

But if the composer takes the view that those connections are beyond the influence of the composer, and that the composer must simply follow the muse/music where it leads, then surely the audience response is interesting, but beside the point.

Finally, there is a false dichotomy at play in the idea that a composer thinking about how music will connect with people is the same thing as wondering "what will people think?" or trying to please all of the people all of the time.

What about "what will people feel?", or an even more effective a line of questioning: "how can I communicate my musical ideas to my audience?" or "what is the experience I wish this musical idea to deliver?" or any number of other useful questions for composers to ask themselves, which should not be any inhibition to good writing but rather should assist the composer in expressing their thoughts well. Considering a composition as something that will be performed by people and listened to by people should not prohibit creativity in the slightest!

NB: I didn't say that composers shouldn't think about their audience, simply that if they don't care about the reception of the work when they write it then it's a bit rich to care once the writing is done.

I wrote that for the upper classes of educated people...specifically those who graduated Harvard.

All kidding aside, I apologize, it was very late when I typed that. What I was trying to say was Beethoven may have been composing for the upper crusts of society or what not, but that did not stop many people from enjoying his music.

Of course it did. He was dead for quite a while before there were regular complete performances of his later sonatas and string quartets, and even then, people had trouble with them. I think some music lovers still do have trouble with some of that stuff. It's not necessarily easy to comprehend what he was up to, even if it is not as shocking as it once was.

NB: I didn't say that composers shouldn't think about their audience, simply that if they don't care about the reception of the work when they write it then it's a bit rich to care once the writing is done.

It can happen, although in the real world the benefit of others is coming off very difficulty! Philosophically speaking everything is happening about ourselves. Even if we do something great and noble and kind (offering money to UNICEF for example), it comes down to the fact that WE feel better afterwards!

I know the above isn't exactly true, but it still applies that composition is about the composer and what he has to say. In concert hall music. In media music things change (since I have experience at that as well).

It is possible, if people attempt to think before they post (and I'm not talking about you!). I can gather tens of negative and insulting comments for generally pretty much all C20/21 composers. It's not easy to just stay unbiased when people attack what you do.

That is true, I'm afraid, especially in the academia, where the contemporary music thrives! :-/

The same exact argument Stores made - citing a few late string quartets and piano sonatas does not diminish the fact that Beethoven died with the reputation of being a musical genius, his music loved by many. Among those difficult late works were very popular works written at the same time.

It's still not a good argument - Beethoven's critical and public reception is not even remotely analogous to Schoenberg's critical and public reception.

But this is what happens when someone ignores certain user's posts: they fail to realize that this argument has already been answered and put to bed, and should never have been put forth in the first place.

The same exact argument Stores made - citing a few late string quartets and piano sonatas does not diminish the fact that Beethoven died with the reputation of being a musical genius, his music loved by many. Among those difficult late works were very popular works written at the same time.

It's still not a good argument - Beethoven's critical and public reception is not even remotely analogous to Schoenberg's critical and public reception.

But this is what happens when someone ignores certain user's posts: they fail to realize that this argument has already been answered and put to bed, and should never have been put forth in the first place.

I think we should re-name this thread, "The Rhetoric of Music."

But I already mentioned that things in the media change (largely so). I've been very fortunate in the gigs I got for computer games, to always keep part of my aesthetics and character in what I write (it's pretty obvious from my output! :D), but of course music for media is not about music, but about media. Plus ads and promotional DVDs have made me feel AWFUL (but it was money! Bills and kids (and wives) need to be paid! :D).

Of course there will be a compromise, otherwise we are not talking about composers but about autistic tendencies (and you can search the forum where I've mentioned that almost one too many times!). The composer isn't about him/herself alone. I did mention the message, but the message shoudln't be about themselves, but about anything. And I do feel that composers who overcame themselves, in any era, managed to stay in history. Beethoven wasn't composing about the Emo girl he was in love with, but about Napoleon (assuming the stories about the 3rd are correct), about nature, about... the emperor for a little while, etc. Bach was simply divine!

Things in the C20/21 got very different and now it is thought that one needs to be totally indiependant (to which I dissagree).

If you think about it, on a personal level, I'm here not only because of my love for piano playing and composing, but also about the ability to communicate with all you people! I am hoping that this will be reflected in my music somehow (even if it is a queer note here and there only!)

Beethoven's late works weren't the only ones that much of the public had trouble grasping. I wasn't really comparing Beethoven/Schoenberg, but giving an example of another who'd been, at times, greatly misunderstood (and often not at all). You're not alone in your "questioning" of Schoenberg and others...I'm not a fan myself. I think, however, much of the negative feedback you've gotten has been in response to labeling music that many love as "crap". I'll be the first to admit that often I've been guilty of throwing a "crap sticker" on that which I don't really care for, but that doesn't make it "crap".

One can still toggle messages, as I have done after seeing Stores' response to this.

So I'll point out that your pretense about the Beethoven thing is somehow being settled is just that, pretense (I know perfectly well that some of Beethoven's later music was well-recieved and that he was esteemed - but that is not the issue). But then, you seem to have misunderstood or ignored what my comment was about in the first place, so you are doubly wrong.

I remember this particular style of disingenuousness in some of your posts from other threads, like the thread about using metronomes. It reminds me of some public figures who have been thoroughly trained to stay "on message" no matter what anyone says to them, rather than risk having genuine conversation. They simply ignore the actual substance of what is being said, and if possible, latch on to any little snippet of verbiage that can lead back to a reiteration of their position, regardless of context or intended meaning.

Back to talk on this thread. The original point I was trying to make is that I don't think people should enjoy something when they really don't and only act like they do for intellectual purposes. A piece of music can be the most structured piece of music in the world, have the most profound form, and obey the "laws of music" but that DOESNT MAKE IT GOOD.

So what is so enjoyable about Xenakis? I must be missing something.

Seems like some composers write for the sake of it being original. That is so great.. Strip music from all value and twist it any way you want in order to win your place among the names of other weird 21c composers. Am I the only person who finds this insulting?

There are composers of the 20 and 21 centuries that I like. Xenakis? I don't like the feeling of needles being thrown in my ears.

So what is so enjoyable about Xenakis? I must be missing something.

Seems like some composers write for the sake of it being t original. That is so great.. Strip music from all value and twist it any way you want in order to win your place among the names of other weird 21c composers. Am I the only person who finds this insulting?

There are composers of the 20 and 21 centuries that I like. Xenakis? I don't like the feeling of needles being thrown in my ears.

I find the statement that anyone who claims to enjoy the music of, say, Xenakis is only faking it in order to seem intellectual rather insulting, not to mention presumptious. Some people legitimately enjoy this style of music, myself included.

(I may be reading more into your post than you intended, but that's how it came off to me).