 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-06-23 12:47
Permit to point out to You the magnificent volume I am reading at the moment:
"Polyphony & Complexity", by Mahnkopf,Cox and Schurig (ed.´s; first volume in the "New Music and Aesthetics in the 21st Century" -series).
Very high density - a must for anyone rumping around on contemporary grounds; main theme is on composing, interpreting and the performance of pieces by the school of complex composers, Ferneyhough, Cox, Mahnkopf etc.
Markus
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2004-06-23 20:44
What did you say about my mudda?
That kind of talk is enough to get an entire country invaded, these days...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CPW
Date: 2004-06-25 13:46
Hindemith had a hit?
Heck....he did not even pronounce his own name correctly.
Glass:
glassglassglassglassglassglassglass
Reich..stephen
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2004-06-25 14:35
Does Sibelius, as in The Kalavala enter this "elite" category ?? I'd love to hear/play the Swan of T [cant recall the spelling], Help. Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2004-06-25 17:34
TKS, John - Prob. could have found it in a "famous composers book" ! Never played, have heard it ,cor anglais [Eng horn] solo, on classical FM and by Walter Kessler in Tulsa Phil. Orch, haunting, song of death, beautiful, harmonies beyond my understanding!!. Could be played directly by a Basset Horn [in F], or I'd like to try it on Eb Alto cl, my poor man's B H !. On back, I read [via library loan] parts of the Kalavala Legends, of Finland, from which Sib. derived inspiration. May try to find a concert band arr. or at least a symp orch score, perhaps to have it trans. it for band [with permission, of course]. Ken Kolb, have you ever run across it??, perhaps others from this Suite? Its somewhat unappreciated music IMHO. May look further in books and Grove's. Interesting ! ?. Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2004-06-25 19:53
Did a bit of looking, John, on www.musicnotes.com, there are ?several E H solos, arr's. with piano and woodwinds for $ 17, which I will discuss w: conductor at concert tonite, may order just out of curiousity. Have you , others?, had any dealings [downloads?] here, please. Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-06-26 07:30
To enter Sibelius here would seem - at least controversial, this term "complexist" being (more or less) coined for a peculiar "brand" of nowadays composers. This composition by Sibelius You mention seems to be intriguing, though.
I really cannot understand why any step from common ground/tradition/mainstream/the generally accepted by a majority is derogated as arrogant eliticism?! Is the former´s cool selfassuredness so easily disturbed? I have the feeling that I could´ve expected this - as if I ever wanted to pimp myself up thus! Those "I´m way to cool for that new stuff"-answers - is this all such a bulletinboard means to You, talking about reeds and clarinetbrands? And looking down on anything different from this? If it´s not Your cup of tea, be it so - why insult posters who do "our thing" differently? I´m sorry if I appear touchy or snobbish, that is absolutely not my intention, never was, all I wanted to do was to share a great book I was reading, full stop. There are some who are interested in New Music or avantgarde - although much less than I thought to be here on such a board, to be honest, the strangest thing being the conservatism of the younger/not so old here. Is it wrong to expect some sort of tolerance amgonst musicians/teachers/performers/composers, an interest in what others are doing, without looking down on things one doesn´t understand/want/dig?
Markus
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2004-06-26 09:02
First, re the preceding comments:
One of the problems with an online forum is that there is no personal contact in the conveyance of opinions. The same exact statement can be said as an insult, or as a tongue-in-cheek bit of sarcasm. Depending on who's reading, the same exact conversation could be viewed as light banter or biting derision. I read the comments above as the former, apparently Markus read them as the latter.
Now, re new music (excuse long tirade):
I see a number of gaps between different schools of composers, performers, and listeners. These are only my theories from observation in my past year of composition studies, please feel free to shoot holes in them.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that Markus is well past his twenties. If this is so, then it is likely that many of the complexist movements, as well as much of modernism, was considered radical by many schools of music during his formative years, and he has seen their rise to acceptance in the more "educated" musical community. Also, these ideals were evolving, and different techniques came into the consciousness gradually. To me, however, at the age of 23, these ideas and ideals have always existed, always been accepted by most academic schools of thought as valid, and always been around as "that new artsy stuff." We, as a generation, often have a bit of a harder time finding anything to rebel against, since "anything goes" has been OK for decades. In short, we have very little avant garde, or something that is truly unique and above the mix. To someone who has been around a bit longer, many of these concepts appear as "tired" and "academic" upon initial, casual investigation.
Another gap comes about due to some modernist ideals, namely the focus on the construction of a piece. While I doubt that any composer truly doesn't care what the piece sounds like (Babbitt's "Who cares if they listen", I think, was taken out of context), the focus of much of modernism is on the purity of art. This leads to the ideal, whether real or just imagined by non-modernists especially of a younger generation, that a modernist considers any piece that is complex in construction and ideal, and heavily "artistically" based, is automatically an excellent piece of art, and any piece that is emotionally based is pure whimsy and only good for casual listening.
As for listening, the train derailed at the start of the twentieth century. There was a rise in popularity of popular music, while "classical" music simultaneously saw a new world of possibilities in compositional techniques. Which caused which, or whether they happened independently, is another topic entirely. This gap was widened both by telecommunications/media companies/marketing of popular music, and war backlash/modernism/slow adaptation in the classical world, heavily in the 40s and 50s. Composers saw new things they wanted to try, and the nature of classical music changed by leaps and bounds. Music that had evolved over centuries was invaded by new techniques (e.g. 12 tone serialism, Eastern concepts, color pieces) that are still in their infancy in adaptation to Western music. While serialism, for example, can be fully satisfying, it requires a bit of preparation by most listeners, since the concepts don't have as long of historical refinement, and the listeners do not have nearly as much informal (casual listening) training.
In essence, I think much of the uncertainty of the younger generation toward modernism comes from the perception, real or imagined, that modernists believe "It's good because it's art. It's art because it's complex and modernist." I've found myself thinking this, and I've found through listening that much of it is very satisfying. However, there's a perceived arrogance that "it's good because we say it's good, and so you should think it's good as well" since the techniques don't have a proven track record and a safety net of decades, if not centuries, of critics who can tell us that "Yes this is good, and no that is not." With traditional classical music, we know what's "good" because it's been around so long.
For my money, an area of contemporary music that could be much more thoroughly explored is the Ivesian concept (he was a true avant garde) of layering entire pieces on top of each other (also see Berio's Sinfonia and Corigliano's Gazebo Dances, among others). On the other hand, I've heard and played enough "color pieces", though fascinating and delightful in their own right, to collectively last me a lifetime. Now, though, it seems to me that the term "avant garde" has been frozen in time, attached to a certain style of music rather than referring to what is new and unusual.
That said, I'm leaning to the postmodern as a composer, wherein all musical styles are seen as equally valuable.
As an aside, I'm also a computer science major. For me, music is my refuge where I'm glad everything is not based purely on numbers and equations, but rather on some elusive element of what makes something musically satisfying. This, more than anything else, makes me reluctant to embrace music that is too cerebral. I strive for my pieces to be enjoyable, liked, appreciated, significant, and/or substantial. However, if the main comment on a piece of my music is that it's "interesting", I feel that the piece needs some reworking. That's just my personal style, though, and I do quite like and appreciate a great deal of "interesting" pieces.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-06-26 12:06
Thank You very much indeed, Alex, for Your contribution - such elaborate and accurate statements are very rare around here, and it is very refreshing for me to read something consisting of more than just a few lines.
What You write about the sate of the art of things concerning New Music/avantgarde, as far as their perception goes and the more than ever obvious gap between the scenes and/or performers/audience, I think You´re quite right here. Although it appears very strange to me how a minor subset of so-called serious music can come across as of the "it´s great because we say so, stupid" - arrogance. I always thought younger generations as being rebellious, as quasi naturally inclined to question traditional values and strata of every kind (I am 35, by the way, and as I went to school and university, the generation of Schoenberg, Stockhausen et al was considered to be classical old hags, and we wanted compositions of our own time; nonwithstanding that an oeuvre like Ive´s and Webern is solid ground I can always come back to, and something like Schoenberg´s "Harmonielehre" I can read over and over, it never looses its impact). It is a wonderful aera to live in, this much dreaded and misinterpreted postmodernity, where any time in history, any musical technique and feature is ours to feed from. It makes the attempt to develop one´s own voice harder,yes, because there aren´t any true authorities any more telling what is good and what is bad, whether it is the handling of our instruments or the analysis of a composition. Just telling what it is that we listen to at a given moment or what we look at when a score is in front of us seems all the more difficult. I experience this more as a challenge than a dread - how many times I ´ve listened to a clarinetist performing a composition, or animals quacking and screeching away, or e.g. a cello playing some unheard of sound, and I asked myself, wow I want to do this as well, how can I do this on the saxophone and the clarinet, how to use that in a composition etc. The great performers, yes they intimidate me, but not too long before I find myself biting my nails and my lower lip to manage another bar of this or that piece.
Could You elaborate more on this what You call "the Ives concept"?
I agree, one of the most horrid attributions is to be said to be "interesting"; although most often it appears to me the attitude/ears of the listener need to be reworked - as Schoenberg has it, it is a question of getting used to, modern intervalls as well as any performance practice, to be felt as harmonious. What really enrages me is when "i don´t understand" is followed by "this is unmusical,weird crap", or the like.
I´d be very interested in Your compositions - is there a possibility that some for the clarinet/saxophone find their way on to my desk?
Thank You again, Alex,
Markus
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2004-06-26 13:37
Having sat through one tedious Kronos quartet performance too many, I can honestly say that music without benchmarks is similar to noise.
If you wish to train a listener you need two things;
a willing audience,
some reference point of commonality,
otherwise the depth and breadth of the artist's message is veiled.
I've also listened to Gamalan, played live, and the reliance on Pentatonics makes the music at least approachable.
The local symphony orchestra operates at a budget surplus. They regularly commission new works, to be performed by a splinter group of more daring performers that enjoy the challenge of bringing new music to the fore.
The important notion is that they prepare their audience.
After years of regular intervals and dulcet tones, bringing the new to music feels more like devolution than invention. It's no sin to make something
beautiful...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mnorswor
Date: 2004-06-26 15:25
Markus,
Where did you obtain a copy of this book? What is the ISBN#? I'm thrilled to see discussion of this type on this board as this is the type of music I've committed myself to for over 10 years. I play the Ferneyhough pieces and Michael Finnissy and Chris Dench regularly write for me. This music requires a huge time committment but in the end, I'm left with a feeling of satisfaction and understanding because I've had a chance to really get inside a piece. More on this later when I've got a bit more time. I've got to practice!!
Thanks Markus for the info. I'll be very interested to get a copy of this book and any info you can give would be most appreciated.
Regards,
Michael Norsworthy
m.norsworthy@comcast.net
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-06-26 20:57
Michael,
The volume´s ISBN is:
3-936000-10-7
The full title: Polyphony & Complexity, editors: Claus-Steffen Mahnkopf, Frank Cox, and Wolfram Schurig, Wolke Verlag, Hofheim 2002.
I got it through the library, one of those rare because unsearched for hits...You must be an extremely well endorsed player, I envy You, a Big Three of Complexity write for You, incredible! (Yes, about practice, I attacked 10 more pages of my edition of the "La Chute...", - I would love to peer over Your, an expert´s, shoulder whilst You´re at it, I bet I could learn at least how to breathe through it...there are patches of my ambitus where those of half-tones come easily, but most of the lines I have to play with Rehfeldt´s charts on my lap, which takes well You can guess ages...). I stumbled into the Complexist stratum because of my dissertation (which is thematically along this line of semantical,syntactical and pragmatic/performative overload), and most essays in this book have a rather clear notion of postmodernity, deconstruction, evolution and the various instabile relations between composer-performer-score-audience. I would make me glad if You got this book and found something of worth in it for You.
Synonymous Botch,
What makes You think music is there to "train listeners", or that New Music isn´t plainly beautiful? Even to a position that hangs onto the metaphysical illusion that a musical work of art is the author´s intention put in a box to be reopened by a listener, even according to this beauty is an extremely elusive thing, which is not to say it is subjective, because an artwork isn´t itself due to the same thing we judge our lasagne by (Garfield would object, on this particular item). There are "benchmarks", though I´m not very certain what You mean by this - I interpret it as "some point of reference I am used to/recognize". If that is true, it is just a a matter of plain habit/getting used to it. An idea I can relate to a lot, there might be not too few people who wouldn´t profit from it, though it is conditioned by a willingness, an openess to confront new, open forms. The discovery of the dodecaphonic row marks a watershed for western music, a terminal incision, after which music is no longer just a deduction from history - I have serious doubts whether this "in X there´s a traditional element Y I recognize, therefore X might have something" is of any use. Nothing new will come from it, just something You already know. The well-tempered scale and the use of woodwind-multiphonics e.g. are categorical adversaries, neither can be integrated into the other´s system. This is not at all to say they cannot be used to perfection in composition, granted, a musical work that embodies this conflict creatively is a major achievement, and a most beautiful one. Apropos "devolution": what is devoluted is the traditional notion of absolutist control over performance, of tradition´s rule over musical development (which doesn´t take a straight path, and not upwards at all, such imperialist´s, Kant - fired ideas I oppose strongly, I doubt whether it a path at all, that fundamental metaphor, instead Deleize´s proposal of smooth space is more valid). There´s no direct line of inheritance down from let´s say the Bach-dynasty to complexity, instead it is full of jerks and sudden jumps, and it goes backwards (yeah, Penderecki and Pärt and etc), changes speed without pause, and the now will not at all be turned into some sort of add-on to that pompous history. Concerts by the Kronos 4tett might turn out tedious, I agree, but I find this so for different reasons, I bet...oh, there´s still the Arditti, e.g. performing Ferneyhough, a sheer blast, honestly, or Angster or Spaarnay on clarinets.
And so on.
Markus
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mnorswor
Date: 2004-06-27 04:50
Markus,
Thank you for the info. Perhaps we could have a discussion "off-list" sometime.
Well endorsed?? I wouldn't say that at all. I just stumbled into this arena as you did and happen to have met some of the right people at an appropriately generous time. THe relationships however, have proven fruitful and this 7 or so years of working with them have brought about a fountain of knowledge, especially from Michael Finnissy who has become one of my dearest friends and teachers. I actually called Michael today and asked him to locate a copy of this book for me in Europe because I can't seem to find it in the USA on any of the major web booksellers. Hopefully he'll be able to track it down for me.
I'm enjoying the banter back and forth between everyone on this topic. Our of curiosity, has anyone else played any of this type of music before? Those of us that do form a small circle (myself, Carl Rosman, Angster, Molinari) and we're always glad to add to the circle whenever possible.
A question though... why would one listen to this music any differently that any other type of music? Does it not have form, pitch, rhythm, shape, color? Is it not interesting on some other level other than to be "beautiful and pleasing"? (I happen to think it is beautiful and pleasing, and textured much the same way as a great oil painting or scultpure is) As life has become more complex and chaotic with the rise of the internet, global communication and culture sharing so shouldn't music become the same?
In regards to the quarter tones and other techniques... I practice them the same way I practice tonguing in Beethoven, I sit down and do it! Finnissy had an interesting remark when I first asked him 10 years ago about why did he write such complexity with quarter tones and weird rhythms (or so it seemed at the time)... his response was "Well if people want to play my music, they'll learn how to do it, if they don't they won't." It was just that simple, and still is for him and the others of the "New Complexity School". And btw, if you think these guys' notation is difficult and daunting, try looking at some of Richard Barrett's stuff sometime, GREAT!!! but HARD!!!
Hoping to read more on this topic,
Michael
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-06-27 09:01
Michael,
I agree with You completely - beyond any doubt the complexist music is not "just" beautiful or the reverse, as any artwork isn´t itself for the emotional response it evokes in the reception it gets, as this applies as well to any other attributes of this kind ;"difficult", "densely structured" and the like are attributions of the same kind, endorsed by argumentation lines a la "I don´t respond emotionally to it, but I can cherish it because it is complexely made." - a stance very often taken with modern artworks. And immediately afterwards the cry for the reinvention of the author arises, because there´s need for an explication, seemingly. What, to my humble opinion, has instead to be comprehended/realized, is that there´s no such thing as an author´s priviledged access to the artwork´s interieur/meaning/inner reason, since the work itself has taken that seat completely. The author´s position is solely valid for the production process, but there absolutistically; as soon as the artwork is declared (a performative, according to Austin) finished (even a fragment is nolens volens finished thus, with the point of time it leaves the author´s hands, here unvoluntarily), the authors is vanished. No insistence of the author can change a thing in the artwork, which in music is o n l y in existence when it is heard, n o t the score, one can´t hear an intention, it doesn´t exist as long as it not translateable into changing airpressure on the human ear. So therefore I am very relieved that You mention the only dimensions applicable to a musical artwork, heighth, duration, timbre, dynamics, spatial projection. That´s the point, and that´s all a musical artwork is made from. With "beautiful and pleasing" I meant that it eludes me how one can perceive the works of the 20ieth and 21st century as anything else but beautiful and pleasing, I was raised by this music, and thus Schoenberg sounds to my ears as something quite "classical", great indeed, but not a revolutionary attack to my listening; as well as the former squabble between the Strawinsky- and the Vienna-school appears rather preposterous, looking back, than substantially grounded, or the fight between the serialists and the New romanticists, followed by the Complexists´ train. This weakens the inner forces of New Music, to my view, this interior hickhack between the persons (the diversions cannot be shown in the works but on polemic assumtions). In Complexist work (as well as e.g., in accomplished improvisational music, F.Cox very accuratedly points out from time to time in the volume in question!), one can hear all the parameter of music, and it is a question of upbringing how they´re perceived. For my part, music where I can stomp my feet to irritates me, a lot.
Michael Finnisy as "friend and teacher" - I don´t know what to say...impressive. I am not too old to imagine such a circle´s You mention aura sort of delievering some celestial wisdom to the ones sharing it...yes, a serious backdroop into metaphysics, but here I cannot help it, I apologize sincerely. I admit an unimpeded reverence for for those works of art written and performed by those You mention.
Though I think that Finnisy didn´t answer Your question for th e reason of those quartertones really - There are two categories of reasons possible: a) some the author will give - those have no standing ontologically within the artwork; if this possible reason is not discernible by the ear, when the artwork ereignet itself, it isn´t there at all; b) reasons the author can give in respect to her/his production process, like "that row of quartertones because I thought them fitting for this and that reason", speaking in past tense, which is crucially important. But Finnisy´s answer is sort of Cagean, if I´m allowed to out it thus, like "well, take it or leave it, I have given it out of hands, that´s how I wrote it, that´s how it should be"; F. Cox in this improtant volume we´re talking about is very concise in pointing out how fuzzy, fluid and in an empiricist´s sense unreliable and insufficient way a score delivers/encodes information/significants.
I am glad to have been sorts of helpful to You, and would love to continue, be it "off" or " on" the board (there are times I could need some authoritative help/backup here...), and I will check out Barrett´s work beyond any doubt,
Markus
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2004-07-01 08:15
Re Ives:
The part of Ives that I find so attractive is the collage element, mixing a lot of different pieces of music together. Each individual piece of music is, at times, intact, but the net result is a grand texture of sound. While it sounds like a whole messy jumble, Ives' music always has a driving coherence, a sort of orderly madness (isn't madness relative anyways?). The whole is not only more than the sum of its parts, it is something different entirely.
It also gives, to me, the impression of "no sound left behind." Listening to such music is like sitting in a crowded restaurant, where you hear little snippets of what is going on, and you know that each snippet is part of a completely independent conversation. Each conversation believes that it is the only conversation of consequence and makes no effort to blend with the rest. A piece from the 18th century might be one of these conversations by itself. However, those conversations mix together to form a jumble, a whole, unique sound of its own. Complexity without intense calculation, I find very satisfying. And I find it different from the minimalist and aleatory elements I hear in other pieces, because in Ives (and similar works) each part of the whole proclaims itself as significant and non-static.
It's a hard concept to describe, but this music is some of the very few of the 20th century that I can listen to ad nauseam, where being "interested" is very possible and fulfilling, but it is also optional, and a score is definitely not needed to appreciate it. (on a side note, after hearing Berio's Sinfonia, the 3rd movement, I thought "oh, so someone's already written down the noises in my head! No need for me to keep composing..."). On top of those and some Corigliano, I'm at a loss to mention other composers, largely because I've only recently become dangerously obsessed with the concept.
I suppose Ives appeals to me so much because, after listening to enough of it, I can fully entertain myself in any situation I find myself by just listening (boring lecture, DMV queue, family reunion, whatever). When actually listening to the music, it's almost like getting on to a good ride at an amusement park: you don't have to invest a lot of attention, the ride will just take you; but you can see a lot of fascinating things from the top if you pay attention.
I'll try to polish up my clarinet piece (which was, granted, written before I had discovered as much Ives, etc., and could use some revision regardless) and get you a copy of it, Markus (send me a note?). Alternatively, my clarinet choir piece will hopefully be done by early fall.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
