Classical Music Forum banner
781 - 800 of 848 Posts

·
Read Only
Joined
·
2,024 Posts
You're using Equivocation. You were the very first one to use "standard". I thought you meant a personal standard, personal criteria I used. When judging, a person will use both their personal standards and biases in addition to universal standards such as the example I gave. I explained in post #727 this difference which you ignored. There are standards to the craft of composition no matter what the "practice" (your term) is. Like the example I gave in post #725 DOESN'T MATTER if it's Classical, Romantic, Tonal, Serial, Microtonal, Impressionistic...it doesn't matter.
No, now you're using equivocation. " ' Bubbles' fails to meet the standards [by whatever equivocating term you want to call them]..." "At some point Stravinsky was also judged to have failed to meet 'standards'..." "What standards are you talking about?"

Sustained dissonance also used to be non-standard. Playing string instruments in front of the bridge rather than behind it was standard. Cellos and basses were not struck with timpani mallets, and screws and bolts were not wedged into piano strings. Those "universal" standards have been shifting for a while, Torkelburger. You don't judge Penderecki's Threnody by Bach standards, or Cage's Sonatas and Interludes by Chopin standards, so I don't know why you would judge "Bubbles" by Penderecki or Cage standards. The only reason I can see is to find a pretext to condemn something you just don't like. "Bubbles" is unlike Carter and others, so it's beyond the pale. But I could also say Carter is unlike Beethoven and therefore unacceptable.

In fact, that is why the composer of "Bubbles" removed those very notes from his children's improvisation. He was following the "standards" of the craft of composition as set by history and experts, to help the judges determine his piece as a piece of better quality than it would have been determined had he not followed that standard.
So I don't know what your gripe with the piece is, other than 1. the intention of the composer and 2. you just subjectively don't like it.

As for the rest of the screed, TL;DR
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
988 Posts
This pieces has meaningful rhythms, instrumentation and it sounds (pseudo-)tonal for me. I'm curious if its possible to interpret the harmonies as fast changing tonal. However this is different to how Schönbergs 12-tone pieces sound. It is something very different to typical serialism.
Thanks SanAntone, fluteman, and Aries for the kind words! It is not pseudo-tonal, Berg would be more tonal than this. It really is a pure 12 tone row with no key or triad relation and all notes are sounded in order without repetition until the transition which is segmented pieces of the row and the second theme is pentatonic, of course (still atonal in the strict sense discussed earlier in the thread). You are absolutely correct in that my goal was to not sound "typical" (at least what majority of non-serial listeners associate with the style) and be something "quite different", unique, etc.

ETA: The "serial style" really is adaptable to the composer using it. So as SanAntone said, there is nothing really "typical". Like to me, the SVS styles are completely different (I mean Schoenber and Berg's Violin Concertos are both "serial" but they don't really sound much alike right?), and Boulez is very different from them, Stravinsky STILL sounds like Stravinsky even when writing serial music, and Nono is his own sound, Dallapicolla, and on and on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
988 Posts
Sustained dissonance also used to be non-standard.
Like I said, it doesn't matter anyway. Just because some standard today may be changed 100 years in the future does not forbid me from using it to judge music of acceptable quality today. I don't care if the standard in 100 years from now is to play upside-down with their instruments filled with water. If sustained dissonance was not a standard 300 years ago, by all means, the judges had every right to dismiss it back then as sub-standard. Doesn't matter if the standard is different now.

And as John Corigliano says (paraphrasing), "It doesn't matter what style of techniques, modern or contemporary, old or new you use, it is what you do with it that matters." Meaning there are abstract principles of communication involved that go beyond playing techniques you keep mentioning and all the trivial things you bring up that apply to Mozart, Lachenmann, or whoever, whether it be issues of cohesion, form, or lack thereof.

Sustained dissonance also used to be non-standard. Playing string instruments in front of the bridge rather than behind it was standard. Cellos and basses were not struck with timpani mallets, and screws and bolts were not wedged into piano strings. Those "universal" standards have been shifting for a while, Torkelburger.
Again, that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. And going by that logic, one would use different standards to judge Mozart and Beethoven, and early Beethoven and late Beethoven.

You don't judge Penderecki's Threnody by Bach standards,
What's funny is that that is exactly what chipia seems to be doing. I haven't seen you say this even one time to him. Interesting.

Cage's Sonatas and Interludes by Chopin standards
And that.

And when listeners go to an orchestra concert, is it unfair of them to have a universal set of minimum standards of professional performance (which is what they are paying the performers for)? Like you go to a Mozart symphony concert and several players play 80 cents sharp or flat of every note they play, it wouldn't be fair of anyone to say they didn't meet standards of quality performance because standards are never set in stone, right?

So I don't know what your gripe with the piece is, other than 1. the intention of the composer and 2. you just subjectively don't like it.
Since you seem to not find anything wrong with the piece whatsoever, keep harping the pro-modern crowd for reasons why it's bad and arguing against them, and advocating for qualities you find have merits (such as how you argued how good the rhythm is and how well it takes up the slack for no melody being present), why don't you ask chipia? Chipia thinks the piece is terrible and is unworthy of the award? Yet, you've haven't one single time asked chipia: "How is it "badly written"?", or "How specifically could it have been "better", if there is such a thing?"

I don't recall seeing you tell chipia "The standards you're using are what puzzles me. How much of your judgement [sic] of this piece is based on what you knew about it prior to listening to it, and on what you know of the "composer's" intentions?"

Strange, that.

It's as if you have a bias or prejudice or something. Interesting.

Quite honestly, the piece in question may very well have been deserving of the award after all. If I were one of the judges, I may have rated it highly and recommended it for the award. Just due to the following:

1) we do not know the quality of the other pieces submitted (the composer nor chipia does either)
2) we do not know the number of the other pieces submitted (the composer doesn't mention it if he even knows, and chipia doesn't seem to know either)
3) was there contact between judges (this would allow for a less-fair adjudication process)
4) what was the number of judges (the fewer the number, the less-fair)
5) were votes cast independently or together at once, as if they were separate and with a ranking system, it would be more fair. In addition, a control such as omitting the highest and lowest scores from the vote and averaging the rest may help as well.

So the piece may have, in fact, been worthy of the award. We just do not know. It is unfair for the composer (and whoever agrees with his "experiment" to judge as you say "based on what we (only) know of his intentions".
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
2,024 Posts
Torkelburger said:
Like I said, it doesn't matter anyway. Just because some standard today may be changed 100 years in the future does not forbid me from using it to judge music of acceptable quality today. I don't care if the standard in 100 years from now is to play upside-down with their instruments filled with water. If sustained dissonance was not a standard 300 years ago, by all means, the judges had every right to dismiss it back then as sub-standard. Doesn't matter if the standard is different now.
But that makes your standard "personal", not "universal".

Again, that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. And going by that logic, one would use different standards to judge Mozart and Beethoven, and early Beethoven and late Beethoven.
In a way, we do. But they generally remain under the same rubric: "common practice".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
988 Posts
But that makes your standard "personal", not "universal".

In a way, we do. But they generally remain under the same rubric: "common practice".
And when listeners go to an orchestra concert, is it unfair of them to have a universal set of minimum standards of professional performance (which is what they are paying the performers for)? Like you go to a Mozart symphony concert and several players play 80 cents sharp or flat of every note they play, it wouldn't be fair of anyone to say they didn't meet standards of quality performance because standards are never set in stone, right?
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
2,024 Posts
And when listeners go to an orchestra concert, is it unfair of them to have a universal set of minimum standards of professional performance (which is what they are paying the performers for)? Like you go to a Mozart symphony concert and several players play 80 cents sharp or flat of every note they play, it wouldn't be fair of anyone to say they didn't meet standards of quality performance because standards are never set in stone, right?
But you're talking about tuning instruments and playing style (and even there, there could be disagreements with HIP). I'm talking about composition. If the composer says several players should play 80 cents flat or sharp, who are you to disagree? They don't CARE if 15 minutes ago you thought that is substandard. That's what "avant garde" or "cutting edge" does.
Since you seem to not find anything wrong with the piece whatsoever,
By the way, I didn't say that. I'm saying you don't have a firm basis from which to condemn it other than "I don't like it".
...Yet, you've haven't one single time asked chipia: "How is it "badly written"?", or "How specifically could it have been "better", if there is such a thing?"
It's been fairly obvious why the OP thinks it's "badly written".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
Discussion Starter · #790 · (Edited)
1) we do not know the quality of the other pieces submitted (the composer nor chipia does either)
2) we do not know the number of the other pieces submitted (the composer doesn't mention it if he even knows, and chipia doesn't seem to know either)
3) was there contact between judges (this would allow for a less-fair adjudication process)
4) what was the number of judges (the fewer the number, the less-fair)
5) were votes cast independently or together at once, as if they were separate and with a ranking system, it would be more fair. In addition, a control such as omitting the highest and lowest scores from the vote and averaging the rest may help as well.
ad 4) We know that there were two independent (!) committees, each consisting of 3 judges, a composer, a musicologist and a conductor. Also, both committees acknowledged that the piece is worthy of funding (I read the dutch answer by the panel in the video, among others they called the music "skillfully made")

ad 1) The "composer" of Bubbles remarked that John Borstlap, a colleague of him, did not receive any funding for his music, because the Panel said that it lacks originality.

Hear is a piece by Borstlap:

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
988 Posts
ad 4) We know that there were two independent (!) committees, each consisting of 3 judges, a composer, a musicologist and a conductor. Also, both committees acknowledged that the piece is worthy of funding (I read the dutch answer by the panel in the video, among others they called the music "skillfully made")

ad 1) The "composer" of Bubbles remarked that John Borstlap, a colleague of him, did not receive any funding for his music, because the Panel said that it lacks originality.
Thank you, chipia. Seems they could have tweaked it a bit. I would have like to have seen all of the pieces and the exact number of pieces. But more importantly, I think there should have been more than three judges per panel and no communication between each and every judge. I think they should have an anonymous scoring system with no group voting, and throw out the highest and lowest scores, averaging the rest.

And you never know, the "better" piece(s) may have, in fact, won, after all. It's hard to tell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
988 Posts
But you're talking about tuning instruments and playing style (and even there, there could be disagreements with HIP).
If that's bothering you, then say someone got lost and played half a bar behind everyone else for a whole movement. Is it fair to say someone didn't meet standards of quality performance or not?

I'm talking about composition.
Explain the difference, then. Because we are talking about judging art and music using a set of standards. You're just special pleading. Are you saying musical compositions can't be judged by standards but musical performances are? If so, why?

If the composer says several players should play 80 cents flat or sharp, who are you to disagree?
Anticipating this far in advance, that's why I said a Mozart symphony, not Cage. Nice try, though, but you are very predictable, dissident.

They don't CARE if 15 minutes ago you thought that is substandard. That's what "avant garde" or "cutting edge" does.
I would tell them what I told you, if you don't have standards or acknowledge them, then don't be surprised if people don't return the sentiment towards your opinions either, (or in the case of the "avant-garde" composer, their music).

By the way, I didn't say that. I'm saying you don't have a firm basis from which to condemn it other than "I don't like it".
Did chipia condemn it on a firm basis? I didn't see you mention that to him. For some reason that must not have bothered you for the last 800 posts.

And do you think we should abolish the Olympic games in which certain events have no "firm basis" other than "I don't like it" among experts basing their opinions on standards and power structures? Should we propose to replace expert judges with ignoramuses off the street because their "basis" is no better? Or is musical composition the only form of competition in the world where the judges have "no firm basis"?

It's been fairly obvious why the OP thinks it's "badly written".
Great, now what you need to do is ask the dissident follow-up question and snarky-remark of: ""How specifically could it have been "better", if there is such a thing?" don't you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,048 Posts
Ultimately, what difference does this one incident (experiment) make?

It occurred in one city, affecting a limited number of works and composers, and will not have any effect on the wider group of composers and their work, many of whom I would guess know little about it, and care even less. In my view, the only one who has suffered is the perpetrator of this fraud, Comitas.

To the extent this incident is being used to indict the entire body of serial, atonal, and modern, music is a gross exaggeration, and, at least for me, completely unconvincing.
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
2,024 Posts
Torkelburger said:
Anticipating this far in advance, that's why I said a Mozart symphony, not Cage. Nice try, though, but you are very predictable, dissident.
So why Mozart but not Cage? Yes, there are standards of Mozart performance, which we still expect to be met. There was also a compositional standard for Mozart. Which you don't care about anymore, remember? You're not judging through 220 year old eyes or ears, remember? If sustained dissonance was considered substandard 300 years ago you don't care, remember? Good grief you're all over the place.
Explain the difference, then. Because we are talking about judging art and music using a set of standards. You're just special pleading. Are you saying musical compositions can't be judged by standards but musical performances are? If so, why?
:lol: Good night. See above. "If sustained dissonance was not a standard 300 years ago, by all means, the judges had every right to dismiss it back then as sub-standard. Doesn't matter if the standard is different now." Those standards change. It doesn't matter if it was 300 years ago or the Torkelburger Standard of yesterday. It's there to be broken if "progress" is to be made.
Did chipia condemn it on a firm basis?
Not really, just based on a dislike of atonality, apparently.
Great, now what you need to do is ask the dissident follow-up question and snarky-remark of: ""How specifically could it have been "better", if there is such a thing?" don't you?
What would the point be when I know the answer probably would be "compose with more tonality"? I don't see how the question is "snarky", either.
 

·
Registered
Sibelius, Beethoven, Satie, Debussy
Joined
·
1,700 Posts
Ultimately, what difference does this one incident (experiment) make?

It occurred in one city, affecting a limited number of works and composers, and will not have any effect on the wider group of composers and their work, many of whom I would guess know little about it, and care even less. In my view, the only one who has suffered is the perpetrator of this fraud, Comitas.

To the extent this incident is being used to indict the entire body of serial, atonal, and modern, music is a gross exaggeration, and, at least for me, completely unconvincing.
Quite. I made a similar observation earlier, but received only a partial response form the OP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
988 Posts
One wonders why indeed dissident has refrained from subjecting chipia to his weak, bargain-basement Socratic Method line of questioning the rest of us have been subjected to. It really would have dwindled the 800 posts down to only a few, given that it supports the rest of what we have been saying all along—mainly that the experiment proves nothing, is pointless, useless, baseless, along with chipia’s criticisms. Yet, we saw nothing from dissident who only comes crawling out of the word-work to feign ambivalence in order to troll the “pro modern” crowd.

You could have mentioned, dissident, right from the beginning to chipia that he had no firm basis from which to say modern music is better or worse for sounding analogous to random notes, he had no firm basis from which to say any of his ideas would improve the music submitted, he had no firm basis from which to say the piece submitted is better or worse than tonal music or any other such music he prefers, he had no firm basis from which to criticize one method of composition as better than any other, etc.

It’s anyone’s guess as to why you failed to mention to chipia that there is no firm basis on which to criticize any judge’s repeated selection of one style over another given that there is no firm basis that he cannot prove that one style is any better or worse than another. There is no firm basis for any losing composer or composer’s unwillingness to submit because of fears of feeling cheated or victimized due to judge’s likes or dislikes since there is no firm basis that the judge’s likes or dislikes are better than their own. There is no firm basis for which to ask any judge to explain him or herself as they may choose a piece for any reason they wish, even if they have no reason at all or are not aware of any reason. Apparently, it must have slipped your mind to have explained this to chipia who seems the Bubbles composer was slighted.

You could have mentioned right from the beginning, dissident, that the composer of Bubbles experiment proves nothing since there is no firm basis on which to determine the piece he submitted is worse or better than any other piece submitted, that there is no firm basis for it to have been improved or worsened, there is no firm basis for it to be compared as better or worse than any piece in the canon no matter the tonality you compare it to, method of composition you compare it to, orchestration you compare it to, etc. That would have saved us all a lot of trouble. As many have said from the start, the whole experiment is baseless, pointless, and the OP’s “criticisms” therefore amount to nothing more than goading of other members.
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
2,024 Posts
One wonders why indeed dissident has refrained from subjecting chipia to his weak, bargain-basement Socratic Method line of questioning the rest of us have been subjected to. It really would have dwindled the 800 posts down to only a few, given that it supports the rest of what we have been saying all along-mainly that the experiment proves nothing, is pointless, useless, baseless, along with chipia's criticisms. Yet, we saw nothing from dissident who only comes crawling out of the word-work to feign ambivalence in order to troll the "pro modern" crowd.

You could have mentioned, dissident, right from the beginning to chipia that he had no firm basis from which to say modern music is better or worse for sounding analogous to random notes, he had no firm basis from which to say any of his ideas would improve the music submitted, he had no firm basis from which to say the piece submitted is better or worse than tonal music or any other such music he prefers, he had no firm basis from which to criticize one method of composition as better than any other, etc.

It's anyone's guess as to why you failed to mention to chipia that there is no firm basis on which to criticize any judge's repeated selection of one style over another given that there is no firm basis that he cannot prove that one style is any better or worse than another. There is no firm basis for any losing composer or composer's unwillingness to submit because of fears of feeling cheated or victimized due to judge's likes or dislikes since there is no firm basis that the judge's likes or dislikes are better than their own. There is no firm basis for which to ask any judge to explain him or herself as they may choose a piece for any reason they wish, even if they have no reason at all or are not aware of any reason. Apparently, it must have slipped your mind to have explained this to chipia who seems the Bubbles composer was slighted.

You could have mentioned right from the beginning, dissident, that the composer of Bubbles experiment proves nothing since there is no firm basis on which to determine the piece he submitted is worse or better than any other piece submitted, that there is no firm basis for it to have been improved or worsened, there is no firm basis for it to be compared as better or worse than any piece in the canon no matter the tonality you compare it to, method of composition you compare it to, orchestration you compare it to, etc. That would have saved us all a lot of trouble. As many have said from the start, the whole experiment is baseless, pointless, and the OP's "criticisms" therefore amount to nothing more than goading of other members.
You don't care to address my last comment? "Why didn't you say X to chipia" is irrelevant and a deflection.
(edit) I see you did...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
988 Posts
So why Mozart but not Cage?
So you don't get to present a strawman/or change the subject by saying that playing out of tune is considered normal practice just like you did.

Yes, there are standards of Mozart performance, which we still expect to be met.
From what firm basis do you have from which to condemn it other then? What makes those standards universal ("we"), and not personal?

There was also a compositional standard for Mozart. Which you don't care about anymore, remember?
Wrong. That's you. Not me. I've been advocating for universal standards that transcend quibbles over STYLE between eras all along. Craft and style and not the same and I've been trying to get that through to you for pages now and you still don't get it.

You're not judging through 220 year old eyes or ears, remember?
Yes, I am and I've already given two examples in quite extensive detail explaining how. And why the tonality, musical era, composer, etc. doesn't matter.

It was you, not me who said:
"You don't judge Penderecki's Threnody by Bach standards, or Cage's Sonatas and Interludes by Chopin standards…"

You are referring to style, not craft.

If sustained dissonance was considered substandard 300 years ago you don't care, remember?
Exactly. Because, for the millionth time, that is style, not craft.

Those standards change.
The style changed.

Not really, just based on a dislike of atonality, apparently.
You don't seem to know for sure, so one wonders why you don't see the need to point it out to him via incessant Socratic questioning/trolling you subjected others to who you pretend to innocently not understand. You're all over the place.

What would the point be when I know the answer probably would be "compose with more tonality"?
What was the point of asking all the other posters in the thread a barrage of follow-ups when you know what their answers are as well?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
988 Posts
That post is actually quite relevant. Because the conversation should have been over a long, long time ago. As I explained. All of us and you included, by whatever POV you look at, showed that the whole thing was pointless and baseless--the experiment and the OP.
 
781 - 800 of 848 Posts
Top