Comments for composersnewpencil.com

Comment on The 2008 Salvatore Martirano Memorial Composition Award by Jerry Casey (Mrs. George)

Jerry Casey (Mrs. George) — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 21:46:15 +0000

Has a deadline been set for the 2009 Salvatore Martirano Memorial Composition Award? If so, would you please let me know what that deadline is? Thank you.

Jerry Casey

Comment on Music Composition Directory by Dimitri H. Oselhofen

Dimitri H. Oselhofen — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 01:52:08 +0000

Hi there,

You should check out jamstudio.com It is a songwriter within a browser. Just think…no need for a studio or all that gear and expensive software. I personally think that it is a move in the right direction.

Comment on Oliver Knussen - British Composer by Black Dogs

Black Dogs — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:48:32 +0000

[...] so I was pleased to hear that Michael Finnissy’s alongside is being revived. Since the premiere, Oliver Knussen conducted it as part of the Almeida Festival and more recently Ensemble Corrente bashed through it [...]

Comment on John Tusa Interview with Elliott Carter by J.

J. — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:14:55 +0000

Comparing minimalism with Nazism. Classic.

Comment on Create Digital Music Giveaway by ComposersNewPencil

ComposersNewPencil — Sat, 19 May 2007 19:13:46 +0000

No problem!

Comment on Create Digital Music Giveaway by Susan Gustafson

Susan Gustafson — Sat, 19 May 2007 16:20:26 +0000

Thanks man!

Comment on Why is “Ugly” Music so Hard to Understand? by J.

J. — Thu, 17 May 2007 11:58:15 +0000

I concur: popularity must have no voice in artistic value. My comments have nothing to do with popularity, and I should have clarified that point in a previous comment. That said, it is still the case that ultra-rationalism produces a result that is music only in an academic sense.

Yes, serialization and indeterminacy are both “intellectual constructive tools,” and both can be used with great success in music. What limits the potential for success with these tools? Just a simple matter of degree. Composers might do well to recall the old truism: “All things in moderation.”

Art is reflective of the emotions tied to the human condition. If the results are—to one’s ears, mind you—completely random (both ultra-rationalism and indeterminacy carried to its most extreme end produce this result), to the point that the music could have been created by computer software and sound just as “good,” then in what way does this reflect the emotions of the human condition?

I am not calling for a ban on Boulez. I am not even saying that the ultra-rationalists and opportunistic avant-garde composers should have never been. Art is about experimentation, and the more experiments we attempt, the better. By the same token, as in the world of science, experiments fail more often than they succeed. Learning from failed experiments is invaluable. Clinging to them as if they were successes is fruitless.

Comment on Why is “Ugly” Music so Hard to Understand? by Pablo Chin

Pablo Chin — Thu, 17 May 2007 08:12:31 +0000

On J’s comments,
You seem to forget that your cited “Rite of Spring” was the biggest scandal of the whole 20th century (not only in music but in the entire artistic scene) when it was premiered. It was treated perhaps worse than how you are approaching Boulez and “his league” now. Stravinsky simply challenged the culturally established and passively accepted musical values of the time as much as Boulez and Cage (among others of course) have done it. Certainly, Boulez is today more widely performed than 50 years ago, and nothing seems to indicate that he will be less performed in a near future.
Curiously, for the ancient Greeks there were not boundaries between music and science. The whole origin of Baroque music was inspired in the Greeks, and later, the evolution of functional tonality with its known consequences would follow up. What is the susprise about music as phylosophy now? How do you define heart in music? isn’t phylosophy a form of human expression too? Isn’t sonata form as much an intellectual constructive tool as a total serialization of musical parameters or as consulting the I Ching to make compositional decisions?
It would be worthy to remember that Stravinsky called “Le Marteau sans Maitre” “the only truly significant work of this new age”. A very deliberate comment, but a well deserved acknowledgement to Boulez’s work who you are despising.
Ultimately, the main argument here is, as Kevin pointed, how popularity is unmorally and indiscriminately used as a way to judge on artistic value, and how that fits so well in today’s world of global economy and politics.

Comment on Why is “Ugly” Music so Hard to Understand? by Kevin Ure

Kevin Ure — Mon, 14 May 2007 03:39:19 +0000

I think part of the issue is that I was referring more to the first post, and the professors opinions than your post. My only objection to your post is that you stated that Boulez and Cage’s music has been rejected.

My complaint is with the professor that states that Shostakovich is a more human or expressive composer simply because he is more popular.

I also would not put Boulez or Cage in the same league as Stravinsky, Messiaen, or Schoenberg. However, I do enjoy the formers work, and believe it has a strong place in the history of music.

I think the bottom line is that it is too soon to say what music will and will not stand the test of time. I’m sure you would agree that this is something that only the future can decide. I think the jury is still out on this, and it will take more time before an honest judgement can be made.

In many ways I agree with you, and I feel Boulez held on too strongly to a tradition which had already moved on to other things. On other hand, I do not believe that his music was lacking in passion. Passion is as much a responsibility of the performer as the composer.

Comment on Why is “Ugly” Music so Hard to Understand? by J.

J. — Sun, 13 May 2007 23:28:20 +0000

My prior comments quite clearly named the ultra-rationalists (e.g., Boulez) and the avant-garde opportunists who had no intention of creating music that would ever be listened to over time (e.g., Cage). At no time did I mention those in what might be truly termed the Second Viennese School (e.g., Schoenberg, Webern, et al.); the works of these composers—along with the nationalists and many other 20th century composers—are simply excellent and stand the test of time. My comments don’t deride atonality in general, or even the Twelve Tone approach, but other very specific subsets of these.

If you mean to suggest Boulez or Cage are in the same league as Stravinsky or Schoenberg—or even Ives, Debussy, or Copland—I would humbly suggest you do some intensive listening. It’s not about creating something “natural;” it’s about creating something of passion. Put on a recording of a Boulez Piano Concerto; it is simply intolerable, not because it has no tonal center, but because it has no heart. At all.

This is, of course, a subjective debate in many respects. But not in every respect. Some would call elephant dung smeared on a religious icon art and it may be, in much the same way that Cage or Boulez can be considered art—that is, intellectually stimulating and philosophically intriguing, at least initially. But to place such a piece alongside works of, say, Cézanne or Picasso is simple absurdity. Subjectivity and postmodern relativism are not one in the same.