Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner 20th century composers can't write "real tunes"

Opus_Maximus, the works in your post are all from what is often called the Darmstadt school of composition -- which is perhaps the thorniest, least accessible of them all. So it's no wonder that you find those works hard to swallow.

Those clips don't exactly represent the best of Darmstadt. IMHO there are wonderful things that come from that school: Boulez's Pli selon pli (reviewed here ), Repons , and Sur Incises (reviewed here ) are just three works which I find very enjoyable. I even attended a performance of Sur Incises, and my goodness I almost thought the audience was applauding a Mahler symphony at the end! Some passages from Stockhausen's Licht are wonderfully lyrical. Stockhausen's Kreuzspiel has a wonderful rhythmic energy to it. And Carter's recent Symphonia (reviewed here ; it's not of the Darmstadt school, but certainly influenced by it) is a very eventful ride.

But here's the thing -- appreciating what is perhaps the most-difficult-to-listen-to school of composition certainly doesn't come easy. But once one is familiar with the idiom, it becomes easy to listen to and even love such works. I could hum several passages from Boulez's Second Piano Sonata, and think that work is incredible -- but since the most well known recording (Pollini) butchers it, it's no wonder why most people hate it.

However, equating contemporary music with the Darmstadt school alone is incredibly limiting -- it's one of many, many strands. Besides, those composers knew that their music would not be easily appreciated. There is, however, much contemporary music that is much more approachable but with much substance as well. The recent works of Magnus Lindberg come to mind -- particularly his Clarinet Concerto (click here for a review) and other orchestral works (reviewed here ).

Salonen's Piano Concerto (recently released on DG, but I can't find it on amazon) is a very impressive and exciting piece. Christopher Rouse has composed a lovely Flute Concerto and a grim yet propulsive Second Symphony , and an uplifting orchestral piece Rapture (reviewed here ). Another wonderful work is Lutoslawski\'s Piano Concerto (composed for Zimerman, whose recording with the composer conducting is by far the most ardent). Incidentally, its last movement's theme is quite "tuney".

Of course, there's always Messiaen's Vingt regards sur l’enfant-Jésus, and Turangalila, which are pretty much established classics (and audience favorites) at this point.

Now, I know you're going to object to this point, but I don't think one should equate a piece's approchability/immediacy with its value. The relationship between those two factors is pretty much all over the map, in my experience.

Now, the whole thing about music's universality -- that's a tricky proposition. I really do love the Darmstadt school works I listed above (as much as, say, a repretoire piece like Brahms's First Piano Concerto), so does that automatically make me (or anyone else with such tastes) less musical, less cultured, or (god forbid) less human? That line of thought, I think, is just as foolish as some composers who think that anyone who doesn't comprehend their idiom are fools. As I said in my other post, not helpful.

The thing about many post-tonal works such as the ones I've mentioned above is that they can and often do operate on degrees of harmonic tension and release. This may not be immediately noticable if one is new to the idiom, but what seems like unrelenting dissonance at first becomes light and shade, or ebb and flow, or whatever words one might use to describe a harmonically cogent piece, with familiarity.

Long story short: composers and listeners should be willing to meet halfway. Amongst other things, listeners shouldn't expect contemporary composers to compose in the comfortable idioms of repertoire favorites (from, for example, the 19th century), and composers shouldn't expect listeners to come back to their works without being aware of what elements can grab most listeners to begin with.

JKS:
However, defining contemporary music with the Darmstadt school is incredibly limiting.

Indeed. However this does not mean that a lot of what the Darmstadt school produced was not essentially a POS

The writer below is obviously not a fan , but does, in my opinion, make some interesting points:

"What Stockhausen bequeaths to modern music comprises largely misconceived ideas and sounds of surpassing ugliness. Had he been born a generation earlier, he might have been no more significant than George Antheil, the so-called "bad boy of music", who is now remembered only for his risible Ballet Mécanique- for piano, percussion, siren and aeroplane propeller. Yet Stockhausen came of age immediately after the second world war. From the ruins of a barbarous regime that had reviled "degenerate art", Germans built a constitutional democracy that exemplified tolerance and respected the creative imagination. It was a receptive audience for experimental music, and for the ideas that Stockhausen advanced through the periodical he edited, Die Reihe (The Row). Stockhausen began his career in the early 1950s with compositions for conventional instruments (such as Kreuzspiel, for oboe, bass clarinet, piano and percussion; and a series of piano pieces). He moved on to electronic music, notably with his Gesang der Jünglinge, for voice and electronic sound, the score of which - being written with geometrical figures - was incomprehensible to those trained merely in musical notation. Yet the problem was not the type of sounds produced by the avant garde; it was rather the type of composition.

An impressionable writer in the Daily Telegraph last week quoted one of Stockhausen's acolytes: "Stockhausen gave us the courage to think anything was possible in music." But not everything is possible in music, any more than it is in poetry. If you read a poem you need, at a minimum, to be able to understand the language in which it is written, the conventions of the genre and the tradition of the art form. Musical appreciation does not depend on the ability to read a score, but it does require the ability to hear sounds in relation to those that precede them. The dominance of western music reflects its ability to combine melody and harmony, and thereby produce a discourse. A musical composition is above all an argument that appeals to the emotions. The work of Stockhausen is not like that. It is not music so much as a series of sonic events, which at its worst feels both pretentiously mystical and interminable (though his opera cycle Licht in fact lasts only for 30 hours). It evinces - in the phrase of the critic Robin Holloway - "neo-Wagnerian ambitions unmatched by the necessary talent."

Stockhausen's most notable intervention in the public sphere was instead a peculiarly fatuous description of the 9/11 bombings as "the greatest work of art ever". (Stockhausen claimed, not convincingly, to have been misquoted, but there is no dispute that he likened the murder of thousands of civilians by theocratic fanatics to an intense aesthetic experience.) Artistic values are independent of political ones. But the sounds that came from Stockhausen's electronic workshop are liable to prove as enduring and profound as their creator's most notorious pronouncement on public affairs."

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/music

Personally, I enjoy and hold in great esteem a large and varied amount of 20th century music, including many which others might find 'difficult'; in fact, nearly all apart from what Steve quite rightly referred to as the "beep and squawk" school.

PS. Thanks for mentioning Turangalîla; thinking it had been too long since I listened to it, I stuck through the headphones sat here in front of the screen. I still think I prefer the Nagano/Berlin version I'm listening to now, compared to the Chailly/Concertgebouw recording I also own. YTurangalîlaMV of course


Michael B.

Well, since some of Stockhausen certainly appeals to my emotions and intellect, I suppose I should just bloody well give up.

Writing positively about modern music in this forum is just about as fruitless as defending Lang (which, incidentally, I don't -- defend Lang, I mean, so I suppose that's, what, poetic justice, sweet irony, karma, or all three?!?).

I suppose I should just bloody well give up.

Ah, not quite the reaction I was expecting...sorry . I was rather hoping you might take up the challenge, at least regarding some of the writer's comments (which I think are rather dubious) such as:

"But not everything is possible in music, any more than it is in poetry. If you read a poem you need, at a minimum, to be able to understand the language in which it is written, the conventions of the genre and the tradition of the art form."

"The dominance of western music reflects its ability to combine melody and harmony, and thereby produce a discourse. A musical composition is above all an argument that appeals to the emotions"

As an aside, merely because Stockhausen seemed to have been a bit of a idiot in certain regards, I'm not sure that means all his musical output should be written off either. Wagner wasn't perhaps the most admirable human being...

Writing positively about modern music in this forum is just about as fruitless as defending Lang.

But as you mention earlier the Darmstadt school is but one smallish (and perhaps the most extreme) part of 'modern' music. I believe you will find many positive supporters of many genres of modern music in this forum, but perhaps not many (including those of fairly wide musical/artistic experience and ability, and the desire/open-mindedness to give everything a fair go), for whom some works seem to be incomprehensible and/or artificial noise.

PS. Turangalîla's just finished... now that's what I call an uplifting finale

-Michael B.

Hrm, the 20th century is certainly... a fatiguing affair. I have enjoyed listening to the music of the infamous 2nd Viennese school and other assorted oddities of the 20th century. Art at this time is confusing since it often examines the nature of itself and delivers ironical smirks toward age-old commandments.

Well, Janus K. Sachs, not everyone wants to learn how to hack their way through the Amazon when it is so much easier to traipse through a garden. Certainly, something can be gained from either, but one requires far more time and effort than the other. For some reason, some of us have that immortal obsession where we are constantly pushing ourselves to the next level.

At this point I'm simply too old and too weary to respond to every invective against modern music. Incidentally, PoStTeNeBrAsLuX, by invective I meant the stuff you quoted on Stockhausen, not you or your posts.

Everything is far more -- and at the same time, far less -- than you make it out to be.

JKS:
At this point I'm simply too old and too weary to respond

Perhaps at some point when you are feeling less old and less weary? I do enjoy reading your contributions here and find them informative and thought-provoking.

-Michael B.

Much thanks. I must get some rest now. And I thought the recent inauguration would be helpful . . .

If you are referring to his comments on September 11th, I just found the quote and I see that after his initial remarks about the incident, he later says that "It is a crime, you know of course, because the people did not agree to it. They did not come to the 'concert'. That is obvious. And nobody had told them: 'You could be killed in the process.'"

As for his declaration that it was the greatest work of art, I don't understand why he should be considered stupid or malevolent for saying such. He simply seems to be astonished at the scope and power of what happened.

The non-harmonization thing may be true about the folk songs Grainger specifically singles out (or maybe not true - I haven't verified that he's right). But it is for certain not true for folk songs generally. There are many examples of folk songs from all over the world that have a traditional accompaniment that includes harmonization. And then there are folk songs that are sung by groups that are often harmonized in some way and/or may have some form of counterpoint going on, as well. And then there's a huge range of non-vocal tunes (for dancing, mostly) that are also usually played with some kind of harmonization. So much for his pure, unadorned, "real" melody idea.

I think the main difference is that even accompanied folk songs would not originally have been harmonized according to the rules of functional tonality. When folk songs are harmonized using these harmonic relationships and voice leading rules, made up long after the folk songs were first sung, I do believe it gets a bit cheesy and the folk song loses it's character. Nonetheless, I have harmonized quite a lot of folk songs using quartal harmony, and that's actually kind of neat!

I think even if you have a "real" folk singer, but have placed them on the stage of a big city's orchestra hall to perform for a bunch of un-folk urbanites, you've lost the character of the music.

But the thing I was after is that for me, there's something kind of slippery and dishonest in Grainger's characterization of folk tunes as not only "real", but also somehow unattainably authentic in a way art music composers can't be, and therefore, the composers are forced to turn to them for real tunes or else go without. I mean, that's just not a fair description of the situation, except maybe for Grainger's own use of those tunes himself.