A Newbie Question About Modern Music

[Philidor]

Originally Posted by Despina41

Where's RT!?

If Reiner's division of nineteenth century music into romantic and patriotic* is accepted then what Copland says makes sense. For music to be fully patriotic -- for it to fulfill it's new obligations towards the state -- it had to be industrialised. It needed to be made bigger and louder to fill the newly built concert halls structured like secular churches to contain and worship the new patriotic muse and house the congregation of bourgeois citizens sucking the tit of jingoism.

Second, it marked the population's general alienation from music. Patriotism’s too important to be left to amateurs and the new concert halls had to be staffed by professionals. The general public was relegated to mere spectators with patriotism transforming music into a type of pornography, with the important 'business' of music transferred to a professional music elite.

This alienation continues to this day. Amid the breast beating about making music 'accessable' to 'new audiences' a key fact is forgotten: from the nineteenth century onwards the aim was to exclude the general public from music production. The business of the state is too important to be left to amateurs. You might as well demand that amateurs build bridges or help manufacture poison gas. Their job is to consume such products, and be passive receptacles for state propaganda.

The Greenwich Early Music Festival last weekend was PACKED -- instrument makers, small publishing houses, nice middle aged ladies buying recorders, or drinking tea while gossiping about their early music groups. It was a knock-down example of pre-industrial, pre-patriotic, pre-Romantic music, and you couldn't tell where the 'amateurs' ended and the 'professionals' began. Everyone was getting high on the joy of music making, on being exposed directly to primary musical sources. It's a very different activity compared to sitting in a concert hall having industrialised music propaganda shoved at you.

That same democratic spirit exists in Haydn, Mozart and early Beethoven string quartets (and Schubert Lieder) but then something nasty happened and the general public was transformed into passive consumers of a patriotic-musico-porn product, manufactured and marketed on an industrial scale, as opposed to being actual participants enjoying a direct connection to the primary source.

As music is widely recognised as the most powerful and influential of the arts it makes sense for the state to have worked to achieve this transformation. It's the old, old story of the control-freak, rational Apollonian seeking to harness and subvert the anarchic, instinctual Dionysian. But it only works for a while before nature breaks free and balance is restored.

It's a shame Copland didn't live to see the (partial) rejection of this alienation through the rediscovery and colonisation of pre-industrial music brokered by the authentic music movement from the 1960s onwards. Music's too important to be left to the professionals and art’s too important to be manipulated by the state. A sort of Lutheran musical revolution is needed, with professionals stripped of their status, booted from the concert halls, and music democratised and reunited with an alienated general public.





* I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth

[haydnguy]

What you say Philidor is a great point and one that I had never thought of. What your saying is the way to get the music accessible again. Allow the people to become part of the music. Not just consumers of music that is marketed to the masses.

That is, for me, the real danger in having performers parading around for calenders. The accountants eventually will want to change the music for the audience. Then the music gets corrupted. Of course, one might argue that that already happens to some degree but hopefully not as much as it once did thanks to being able to record CD's outside the big record companies at a reasonable price.

But as Flor alluded to in principle, this is a lesson that must be re-learned. And it must start early in a child's life as they see mom and dad, however bad they are musically, engaged in music themselves. This may go against the grain in our "time strapped" society but it certainly can be done with the choices we make.

[Philidor]

Originally Posted by haydnguy

What your saying is the way to get the music accessible again. Allow the people to become part of the music. Not just consumers of music that is marketed to the masses.

Exactly. It just struck me, observing the beehive of democratic activity at Greenwich, how a Beethoven or Wagner or Schoenberg music festival looks. Answer: institutionalised alienation: a strict demarcation between professionals and amateurs; the audience expected to sit in rows in a big hall and do what they’re told; groups of women with jewels the size of pigeon eggs competing with other women; their men talking business and golf in the bar; an announcer on TV patronising the viewing public, talking in hushed tones with other ‘professionals’ about how 'great' Wagner was and what a 'genius' and (with massive hypocrisy and wrong-headedness) how Wagner should be made ‘accessible’ (via a whacking state subsidy into which, no doubt, the 'professionals' would run to dip their beaks). It's pure porn, and like a return to the days when the Bible was written in Latin. No wonder most sensible people avoid concert halls like the plague.

[haydnguy]

I will have to think on this some more and post back here.

[haydnguy]

Originally Posted by Despina41

Late Brahms will open your ears to the Second Viennese School.

Despina, (or anyone else), could you give me an example or two of Brahms pieces that would fall into this category?

Thanks.

[Florestan]

Originally Posted by Philidor

Exactly. It just struck me, observing the beehive of democratic activity at Greenwich, how a Beethoven or Wagner or Schoenberg music festival looks. Answer: institutionalised alienation: a strict demarcation between professionals and amateurs; the audience expected to sit in rows in a big hall and do what they’re told; groups of women with jewels the size of pigeon eggs competing with other women; their men talking business or golf in the bar; an announcer on TV patronising the viewing public, talking in hushed tones with other ‘professionals’ about how 'great' Wagner was and what a 'genius' and (with massive hypocrisy and wrong-headedness) how Wagner should be made ‘accessible’ (via a whacking state subsidy into which, no doubt, the 'professionals' will run to dip their beaks). It's pure porn, and like a return to the days when the Bible was written in Latin. No wonder most sensible people avoid concert halls like the plague.

I think this would be an excellent ongoing project for brightcecilia - the promotion and support of playing music at home. It fits perfectly with the present make-it-yourself zeitgeist.

And here is a challenge for the experts. Much early (gothic to baroque) music lends itself well to this activity. But what would a contemporary Täfelmusik be like?

Is it possible to steer a stylistic course that does not veer into pop or pastiche/anachronism?

[Alpha Centauri]

Originally Posted by Philidor

* I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth

On the contrary, you've phrased it far more eloquently than I did

I wouldn't necessarily say that "patriotism" is an appropriate term for all the music written from the 1870s onwards - of course there are composers who did different things too. But it's a Zeitgeist that mirrors the rise of the "nation state", and the disappearance of the "Romantic" primacy given to the individual in favour of an "all of us together" feeling. Its corollary, the angst and self-doubt in patriotism (which I hear and feel in Mahler, for example) is so much a parallel trend that I think it belongs in the same style.

But I still think that "C18th Music", "C19th Music", and "C20th Music" are neater and preferable categories

[Despina41]

This should be in the Brahms listening group, but starting with Late Brahms is a little wrong.


Anyway, the intermezzi are a good starting place because they're short and have a limited range. (Harder to focus on the clarinet stuff..too many instruments and pretty colors. PS: the plural of opus is opera.)

All righty, let me point out some things to listen for. You have to attune your ears to what Schoenberg would have heard and wanted to develop. You can't go in listening like it's Romantic Piano Greatest Hits ala Chopin, or you'll hear Chopin. (That is, indeed, what most people hear.)

Here's one played by Mr. Richter (S.).

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD-HHR4Ixso"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD-HHR4Ixso[/ame]

The main idea of the entire piece is just a half step. Up, then down, then expanded. Things move in contrary motion to each other. This is the sort of motivic development that Schoenberg heard in Brahms. In his article/radio talk "Brahms the Progressive," Schoenberg used a string quartet slow movement as his example, and he argued that a major second was the motivic cell for that movement (it's more subtle there too). This is classic late Brahms: economy of materials -- to the point where it's quite severe; strict ABA form, but within that, plenty of play. You can hear even in the major key section that the rhythmic/pitch material from the opening.
You could argue, and surely Schoenberg would, that the entire piece is based on the first 4 bars. This is GOOD composition to Schoenberg. Webern took it to new levels too, but he's another story.

Here's the famous one! 119/1. Actually, all of opus 119 is here.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDHXjbD3s1g&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDHXjbD3s1g&feature=related[/ame]

The harmony is about as far out as Brahms gets, but the dissonances resolve, and it's still functional (compare to Debussy). Once again, chains of falling thirds are the very limited basic material here. You have a canon that's very hard to hear, between RH and LH starting round :35. Sort of music games that the Second Viennese School put in their music. Brahms keeps it all within a tonal framework, although here he is pushing the boundaries -- note the ascending fourths (top voice) around 2:12. F#-B-E-A..a circle of fifths, but upsidedown it sounds a little out there. Schoenberg loves this stuff.

Hope that helps. Early Schoenberg is tonal and sounds JUST like Brahms anyway. See if you can find any of the early songs, op 2, or some unpublished piano music.

[Florestan]

Originally Posted by Despina41

the plural of opus is opera.

DOH!

I did know that. I really did. But then I forgot it.

This is really fantastic stuff. I shall listen to the clips when I get home. You're a wonder.

[Herzeleide]

Haha! I got confused, sorry.

I thought by 'RT' Despina meant Richard Taruskin. For some reason...