Classical Music Forum banner
1 - 20 of 62 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
hello,
Style of composition is something that has been on my mind recently. My own style varies a lot, starting out when I first tried my hand at composing three years ago tonal, then heading towards modal, now tonal/polytonal mix. I'm writing a quartet at the moment where three movements are polytonal, one is roughly modal and one varies between pentatonicism and pantonality. I'm not sure where I'll go next, because my opinions change faster than I can write music. I must say that a few months ago I started listening extensively to pantonal period music by the second viennese school and it's really influenced me a lot. I'm not attracted by serialism at the moment however.
So, how are the other composers here composing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Currently I am working on finishing an a capella SSSAAATTTBBB mass setting. I mostly follow tonal ideas but when I feel I need to adjust I let it. To be a successful composer, just like any other art, i believe, you need to follow exlusively where your heart leads you. I just finished a song cycle based on the struggles of an immigrant when they first come to America and experience the difference in culture. To add to the questions already presented in the former post, I would also like to to add my own. Any choral/solo voice composers this is for you. I have been struggling to find a good outlet of poems to set to score. I have been trying to use amatuer poems (less copyright stress and its nice to have someone email you asking you to use your poem), but that is becoming more stressful in that the poems dont have the depth I'm looking for now. If anyone has any ideas...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taggart

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Any choral/solo voice composers this is for you. I have been struggling to find a good outlet of poems to set to score. I have been trying to use amatuer poems (less copyright stress and its nice to have someone email you asking you to use your poem), but that is becoming more stressful in that the poems dont have the depth I'm looking for now. If anyone has any ideas...
Yes, it seems powerfull emotions are out of fashion today- far too many poems out there about doing the dishes or watering the plants!
If I were you, I go looking for poetry forums, groups ect. online. These tend to contain tons of new poems flooding in everyday. Not all the poems will be good, but you never know, you just may spot the Goethe that makes you the next Schubert :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Not all the poems will be good, but you never know, you just may spot the Goethe that makes you the next Schubert
New poetry afterall is the future. I'm part of one group (fictionpress.com), very nice poetry, but I think I'll branch out. (Your comment is hilarious! :) ) Do you know of any specific forums that come to mind?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I must admit I haven't yet looked through poetry forums online a lot, but I found that yahoo has quite a few groups devoted to poetry. I'll look around tommorow and see what I can find- after all, though art song isn't an interest for me at the moment, it's always good to have resources at hand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts
vivaciouswagnerian said:
i believe, you need to follow exlusively where your heart leads you.
Well said! And my heard leaded me tonal compositions, because my feeling of so many "modern" music is the development to noise not to music, the development of brain as receiver not heart, I mean, you need instructions to a work to understand it, if I listen to some music it really really hurts me worst though I try to understand it. Experiments which can be interesting, yes, but heart enriching music I must say no. And there I follow my heart. Tonal music is not at a point of ending for me, it is a convinction.

Greetings,
Daniel :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
godzillaviolist said:
From what period would you class music as noise? Starting from Wagner-Debussy explorations of the 19th century, from the Stravinsky-Schoenberg leap into modernism or from mid the twentieth century Avante Garde on? :)
I truly think that depends on one's taste (if I'm looking at your question right). I am currently reading a very interesting book called "Einstein's Violin: A Conductors Notes on Music, Physics, and Social Change" where he has begun to analyse what makes music MUSIC. Anways, he says that art in general but music specifically is a representation of what culture is experiencing (even to the point of semi-accepting rap, although I dont know if I'd go that far). So I mean, bororqeians (sp?) had little stress that our modern world contains and therefore their music expresses simplicity. Wagner *swoon* took his feelings (i.e. expressing your feelings and the realistic view on society rather than sticking with "traditions") and presented them unrestrained. Jumping ahead to Stravinsky. He said himself that he feels music can not present a feeling, and if it does its only the illusion of one. But anyone who has heard his Rite of Spring can not deny there are feelings there. WOW I went on a rant, sorry. So case-in-point, personally, I dont think any music henceforth is just noise. A composer has expressed himself or his beliefs using sound, and isnt that the whole point of music?

Oh my God, I just saw your quote Daniel in Einsteins Violin, I had missed it. Now I feel stupid for ranting about a book ya'll have probably already read :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taggart

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts
godzillaviolist said:
From what period would you class music as noise? Starting from Wagner-Debussy explorations of the 19th century, from the Stravinsky-Schoenberg leap into modernism or from mid the twentieth century Avante Garde on? :)
Difficult to answer. Actually I must agree with vivaciouswagnerian that probably many of today's composers express their feelings, but the effect it has on me is noise. A composer can also express noise! Does expressing feelings mean expressing music? You can express also "sounds". Maybe this is a better expression. So this is going to be the general question "What is music?".

But I think everyone agrees that serious music of our days (besides of any style) is mostly having dissonances, no consonances (if we talk about avant garde...).

For me it is against my convinction to let dissonances be dissonances...never or almost never solving them.
If you are religious you can understand it maybe better what I mean. It is a question of beauty and artificial beauty. To form up beauty (which is going to be solving dissonances to consonances) is for me natural. And that's why lots of modern's music is against my own ideas.

vivaciouswagner said:
I just saw your quote Daniel in Einsteins Violin, I had missed it. Now I feel stupid for ranting about a book ya'll have probably already read :p
I must say: I haven't read it. *blushing*

I finished the Wagner biography, and the effect was: after I haven't found any good "key" to enter Wagner's music-world, I am now curious what I will explore! I will keep you up to date.

All the best,
Daniel :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
I'm so happy you are starting in Wagner, he is quite an experience. He inspired many (hint hint Mahler *swoon* hehe)

It is a question of beauty and artificial beauty. To form up beauty (which is going to be solving dissonances to consonances) is for me natural. And that's why lots of modern's music is against my own ideas.
I dont know if I'd call unresolved dissonance "artificial beauty". I agree completely with the classical idea is that all dissonance resolves, tension release, ect. I dont know if your familiar with a composer by the name of Eric Whitacre (www.ericwhitacre.com). He finds that some dissonances are just too beautiful to resolve and I agree. I do, however, have a limit :p, but dissonance, i think, just characterizes the frustration we as a society are going through.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Daniel:
Difficult to answer. Actually I must agree with vivaciouswagnerian that probably many of today's composers express their feelings, but the effect it has on me is noise. A composer can also express noise! Does expressing feelings mean expressing music? You can express also "sounds". Maybe this is a better expression. So this is going to be the general question "What is music?".
I know it sounds odd, but I really believe one has to learn how to hear dissonant music. I used to hate dissonant music with a passion, and I didn't understand why twentieth century composers used it so frequently. In fact I'd say I was probably more musically conservative than you, as I found most Romantic music written after about 1860 too dissonant for my tastes, including most Brahms. Dissonance gave me a strong feeling of physical illness, of nausea.
But about a year and a half ago I started listening to more dissonant music, something which was triggered by listening to Strauss' Burleske. You see when I first listened to it, I found almost painfully dissonant, but after several listenings the dissonance turned from unpleasant to beautifull and colourfull. My thought was "If this happened in this peice, what about others?" And gradually through late romanticism into modernism and beyond, I started to really enjoy dissonant and atonal music. You might think this means I lost my sensitivity to music, but that is not the case. I appreciate music of the past far more now than I ever could have before. For example, just today I was playing Hadyn duet with my teacher and I suddenly realised just how great a composer he was.

Daniel:
But I think everyone agrees that serious music of our days (besides of any style) is mostly having dissonances, no consonances (if we talk about avant garde...).
I can't think of any composer who never uses consonances. There may be one, but I have never heard them before.

Daniel:
For me it is against my convinction to let dissonances be dissonances...never or almost never solving them.
If you are religious you can understand it maybe better what I mean. It is a question of beauty and artificial beauty. To form up beauty (which is going to be solving dissonances to consonances) is for me natural. And that's why lots of modern's music is against my own ideas.
I find that dissonance is a natural form of beauty, whether it's resolved or not. Also, dissonance is phenomena of perspective. Minor chords, for instance, used to be consdered dissonances.
Godzilla :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts
vivaciouswagnerian said:
but dissonance, i think, just characterizes the frustration we as a society are going through.
Maybe, but I think our society is not only frustration today. And for myself I am an optimistic thinking person and want to show this in my compositions. If you just stay in dissonances it is a status not a progress, which I want to reach in my works.

godzillaviolist said:
I know it sounds odd, but I really believe one has to learn how to hear dissonant music. I used to hate dissonant music with a passion, and I didn't understand why twentieth century composers used it so frequently. In fact I'd say I was probably more musically conservative than you, as I found most Romantic music written after about 1860 too dissonant for my tastes, including most Brahms. Dissonance gave me a strong feeling of physical illness, of nausea.
I think we humans are born we a natural feeling for harmony - disharmony. You have to find this feeling! And I don't agree if you would say "the classical harmony-feeling is trained on". It is natural, and we have to live natural (yes sounds very stoic).
For me Brahms is not dissonante at all. I am not against dissonances, to clear that up. The way how to handle dissonances, that is important!
godzillaviolist said:
I can't think of any composer who never uses consonances. There may be one, but I have never heard them before.
I said "mostly" ;).
godzillaviolist said:
I find that dissonance is a natural form of beauty, whether it's resolved or not. Also, dissonance is phenomena of perspective. Minor chords, for instance, used to be consdered dissonances.
Godzilla :)
Logical dissonances yes. But would you agree that most dissonances are not solved? If not give me some examples, so I could have an "ear" on. Do we have to live in such a pessimistic thinking generation? It is up to us to change that. Also with music.

So far,
Daniel :)

P.S. @vivaciouswagneriana and all: What do you think about Siegfried Wagner's music? I borrowed 2 CDs yesterday and I am curious how his music will sound. Wagnerian?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Daniel: I think we humans are born we a natural feeling for harmony - disharmony. You have to find this feeling!
I already have that feeling. It is a feeling, but a feeling that has now been informed by experience.

Daniel: And I don't agree if you would say "the classical harmony-feeling is trained on". It is natural, and we have to live natural (yes sounds very stoic).
But you are not arguing for what is natural but what is traditional. Our lives are not "natural" in the sense that we live in a world we have created. If we used nature's rules for music, we would only have nature's music; raindrops, wind in the trees, thunder ect.
Now, can you honestly imagine something so bizzare and unnatural as a piano existing in nature? :D
Also the sense of classical harmony is not inborn; perhaps you feel that way because you grew up surrounded by it and thus don't have a conscious memory of imbibing it. Classical harmony only became stable around 1700 and stopped becoming so around 1900; two hundred years in the thousands of years of human history. Hardly enough time for our ears to have evolved to suit it. And that's only in the west; Indian music is very different from Western music both in structure and harmony. Nearly all the folk musics of the world have unresolved dissonances that seem perfectly satisfactory to their ears. And that folk music often predates all the masters of classical harmony.

Daniel: The way how to handle dissonances, that is important!
But modern composers are adepts at handling dissonance, and you just have to listen to their works to know that.

Daniel:
Logical dissonances yes. But would you agree that most dissonances are not solved?
Not solved in the traditional way, but you were reffering to them never having any consonances at all.

Daniel:
If not give me some examples, so I could have an "ear" on.
Could you tell me some of the modern works you've listened to? If I knew that, I think I could better understand where you are coming from ( for example; Penderecki's threnody is a world apart from Stravinsky's Sacre ).

Daniel:
Do we have to live in such a pessimistic thinking generation?
I can't really say that I'm from a pessimistic generation. Most people I know are optimists. But I'd hardly blame dead modernist composers for unhappy people.

Daniel:
It is up to us to change that. Also with music.
I hate to be harsh, but writing music in tonal idiom is unlikely to change people's moods. Unless of course what's getting them down is someone playing Boulez twenty-four hours a day. ;)
It may come as a suprise to you, but dissonant music doesn't make me grim, it can even make me happy :) I often listening to Scriabin to cheer myself up, and Prokofiev can always brighten my day and relax me.

Ears intact and functional,

godzilla :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts
Ok :D,

First of all: a nice, controverse and constructive topic!
godzillaviolist said:
But you are not arguing for what is natural but what is traditional. Our lives are not "natural" in the sense that we live in a world we have created. If we used nature's rules for music, we would only have nature's music; raindrops, wind in the trees, thunder ect.
Now, can you honestly imagine something so bizzare and unnatural as a piano existing in nature?
I am not! I am writing abut natural feelings. What you describe are natural sounds and of course kind of music. But this is physical nature. Natural is what way the natural rules go. Difficult to describe (especially because here I feel my English vocabulary limitated). You can describe emotions, feelings, behaviors in music. Any motion is sound or music. And you are like one filtering out of this "flow" of life. You concentrate it on a paper and - express your idea! But you didn't "create" it, it is what you made of existing material, like a focus. What is the intension do you have? This are personal questions, and any composer finds his own answer. I respect them all.
godzillaviolist said:
Also the sense of classical harmony is not inborn; perhaps you feel that way because you grew up surrounded by it and thus don't have a conscious memory of imbibing it. Classical harmony only became stable around 1700 and stopped becoming so around 1900; two hundred years in the thousands of years of human history.
I disagree. It is inborn, but sometimes hard to find. Maybe if you grow up with only dissonant music for example, I am completly sure you'll find it "normal", but I am also completly sure, that you destroy the human soul and sensitivity.
Disharmony remains disharmony, harmony remains harmony. Consonance remains consonance, dissonance remains dissonance. This are facts, you cannot change it. And for me life is they way to reach harmony. So it is definately logical to go for harmony. That it can be a way with dissonances also, which are cleared up, is included.
And another thing, I can understand the way how music went, but do I have to follow the time, if it is absolutlely against my convinction? No!

godzillaviolist said:
Not solved in the traditional way, but you were reffering to them never having any consonances at all.
I must repeat: I said "mostly" not "only".

godzillaviolist said:
Could you tell me some of the modern works you've listened to? If I knew that, I think I could better understand where you are coming from ( for example; Penderecki's threnody is a world apart from Stravinsky's Sacre ).
Some works which I have been listened to or in exerpts:
Ligeti: work with sounds and voices (Don't remember the title)
Rautavaara: Etude (this is very interesting)
Stockhausen: Song of the youths
Some works by German Professors (mostly atonal)
Schönberg
Rihm: a piano piece; or so
Berg or Webern
Höller: organ piece (if I remember the name right)
...

Yes many of "older" avant garde, but the problem I do have in many works is: It hurts me so much, that I must turn off the sound.

Another question I want to ask you all: Is any music worth to listen to?

godzillaviolist said:
But I'd hardly blame dead modernist composers for unhappy people.
I didn't mean that. For many composers music can be kind of a therapy in writing, if you understand what I mean.

godzillaviolist said:
I hate to be harsh, but writing music in tonal idiom is unlikely to change people's moods. Unless of course what's getting them down is someone playing Boulez twenty-four hours a day. ;)
It may come as a suprise to you, but dissonant music doesn't make me grim, it can even make me happy :) I often listening to Scriabin to cheer myself up, and Prokofiev can always brighten my day and relax me.
It comes up that things are a question of taste (which sounds very general, but one cannot change it). You can change moods with tonal music, definately! (yes difficult to argue here, because one says yes, the other one no)

For my inner belief many music of our days (I say many, I don't generalize it) is writing more for the brain as for the heart of listeners.

From a sunny Germany
Daniel :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Wow, I go away for half a day and I miss an entire conversatation hello again! :)

You concentrate it on a paper and - express your idea! But you didn't "create" it, it is what you made of existing material, like a focus.
I completely agree that all sound is already in existance and that we, as composers, are merely reaching into that infinate expanse of sound to create music. However, why can't one express an idea of frustration, fear, death. Modernist views believe in the power of dissonance to create an idea of hatred.

It may come as a suprise to you, but dissonant music doesn't make me grim, it can even make me happy
My heart is to ya! I love to listen to a good Mahler symphony to cheer me up.

It hurts me so much, that I must turn off the sound.

Another question I want to ask you all: Is any music worth to listen to?
I do believe in the power of music and I do believe that it can hurt someone. No one is safe from music's power, however, I dont believe that any, regardless of modernness or dissonance can destroy a human soul. Music is an expression regardless of whether its expirimental or true form. I think rather than painful "noise" it comes down to taste and maybe a closed mind (no offense is made, its the only way I could put it).

For my inner belief many music of our days (I say many, I don't generalize it) is writing more for the brain as for the heart of listeners.
There has been tons of debate on this very topic. Many felt that Mahler's and Wagner's music was completely done for show, for a show of technique, skill, and form. While visible on a score it looks to be just that, if you listen and understand what the composer was trying to get across, you can MAKE it part of the heart.
Also, my dad majored in electronic composition and I hate his music :p. Maybe hate is a strong word, but because I dont understand the formulas ect. it seems like "noise". But I know it has a purpose, and somewhere deep it has meaning for someone, it was thought up wasn't it? I feel we need to appreciate wherever music is going and keep an open mind on the possibilites and know that Beetoven is always there for us in the worst case :D .

What do you think about Siegfried Wagner's music? I borrowed 2 CDs yesterday and I am curious how his music will sound. Wagnerian?
I am so happy that you are interested in Wagner. That is what the term Wagnerian is rooted in. I dont know, seeing as to where are conversations have been going, if you'll like it. I think he is a genious and he revolutionized the idea of color painting for a new society. He is not dissonance to the point you would find it 'noise' and if you look at his programme's and histories you'll see that he lead a revolutionary life and inspired so many. Dont get me started :p

Much love, and I'm glad SOMEONE is this crazy world cares about music!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts
Hello again,

While I write this I put on Siegfried Wagner. Beginning with his Concerto for Violin with Orchestral Accompaniment. A slow and wonderful introduction so far.
vivaciouswagnerian said:
I do believe in the power of music and I do believe that it can hurt someone. No one is safe from music's power, however, I dont believe that any, regardless of modernness or dissonance can destroy a human soul. Music is an expression regardless of whether its expirimental or true form. I think rather than painful "noise" it comes down to taste and maybe a closed mind (no offense is made, its the only way I could put it).
If you define a closed mind as a mind with principles then yes ;). I think this world need rules, not anarchy. And it comes out to a new (general) question: Is there a "right" and a "wrong" music? Can music go "wrong"? Can it follow a planned "right" way? This is a religious question! Everyone has to answer it for her/himself.

vivaciouswagnerian said:
But I know it has a purpose, and somewhere deep it has meaning for someone, it was thought up wasn't it?
I respect the music if it means something to someone and helps him or often the composer her/himself.
vivaciouswagnerian said:
Dont get me started :p
We'll start a new thread in another section of the forum, won't we? :D

All the best,
Daniel :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Daniel:
First of all: a nice, controverse and constructive topic!
Yes, it's good fun, isn't it? :D

Daniel:
I am not! I am writing abut natural feelings. What you describe are natural sounds and of course kind of music. But this is physical nature. Natural is what way the natural rules go. Difficult to describe (especially because here I feel my English vocabulary limitated).
Don't worry about it, I understand what you're saying. What I was saying is that natural rules aren't really natural at all, but human creations. We think they're natural only because we're used to them.

Daniel:
You can describe emotions, feelings, behaviors in music. Any motion is sound or music. And you are like one filtering out of this "flow" of life. You concentrate it on a paper and - express your idea! But you didn't "create" it, it is what you made of existing material, like a focus. What is the intension do you have? This are personal questions, and any composer finds his own answer. I respect them all.
I agree with that. Which is yet another reason modernism is an acceptable form of musical expression. Nearly all of it is based on the past to some degree; modernism is not a break from the past but a continuation from it.

Daniel:
I disagree. It is inborn, but sometimes hard to find. Maybe if you grow up with only dissonant music for example, I am completly sure you'll find it "normal", but I am also completly sure, that you destroy the human soul and sensitivity.
Okay... so are you saying anyone who didn't grow up with tonal classical music written from 1700-1900 doesn't have a soul or sensitivity?

Daniel:
Disharmony remains disharmony, harmony remains harmony. Consonance remains consonance, dissonance remains dissonance. This are facts, you cannot change it.
But they are relative to the person hearing them. I will use the example of the minor triad again; it used to be considered dissonance, but now it's a consonance. So ending a piece on a minor chord would be ending it on an unresolved dissonance.


Daniel:
Some works which I have been listened to or in exerpts:
Ligeti: work with sounds and voices (Don't remember the title)
Rautavaara: Etude (this is very interesting)
Stockhausen: Song of the youths
Some works by German Professors (mostly atonal)
Schönberg
Rihm: a piano piece; or so
Berg or Webern
Höller: organ piece (if I remember the name right)
...

Yes many of "older" avant garde, but the problem I do have in many works is: It hurts me so much, that I must turn off the sound.
I must admit I have never listened to Stockhausen, Holler, Rihm, Rautavaara or Ligeti. So I can't really judge them as composers.
Schoenberg; what peices? I strongly recommend you listen to Gurrelieder, and Transfigured night ( prefferably the string sextet version- I really would like want to play that! ). Those will give an idea of what the composer was capable of in a tonal idiom, and that might might pique your curiousity about later works.
Berg and Webern... well, they're on the harsher side of modernism, it takes a lot of time to appreciate them.
I'm getting an idea of what you think modernism is.
But you should at least give modern music a chance. You have to learn how to hear it the way one would learn how to ride a bycycle; jumping of the bycycle every few seconds is not going to teach you how to ride :D
Here is a list of "modern" compositions that I can honestly say this; if you can listen to them several times and not find beauty, then we'll just agree to disagree. I'll rate them in order of harshness:

Holst's the Planets ( Romantic but full of modern ideas ).
Ravel's Daphnis and Chloe ( or the suites from it ).
Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet.
Scriabin's Poem of exctasy.
Stravinsky's Rite of spring.

For the last two I reccomend a truly wonderfull disc that has both on it, conducted by Gergiev.
Now listen to them several times with an open mind . That means not sitting there expecting to hate them. If you still hate modern music after that, then I'll agree to listen to any kind of music you think will give me my soul back :)

Daniel:
Another question I want to ask you all: Is any music worth to listen to?
Yes.

Daniel:
For my inner belief many music of our days (I say many, I don't generalize it) is writing more for the brain as for the heart of listeners.
I'd say that the majority of composers write for both. I'd even be willing to say they often write more for the heart than the head ( Berg comes to mind ).

Godzilla,

Listening to Scriabin as I write ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts
Another day, another debate. (still sunny here)

godzillaviolist said:
Yes, it's good fun, isn't it?
Yes. :D

godzillaviolist said:
Okay... so are you saying anyone who didn't grow up with tonal classical music written from 1700-1900 doesn't have a soul or sensitivity?
Not exactly, but it has an influence on a personality.

Very interesting by the way: With musical taste you cannot hide anywhere. If someone tells you what music he likes to listen to, it says so much about hers/his personality. Music is such a direct language.

godzillaviolist said:
But they are relative to the person hearing them. I will use the example of the minor triad again; it used to be considered dissonance, but now it's a consonance. So ending a piece on a minor chord would be ending it on an unresolved dissonance.
I agree with you that there is development and mind changes. But must every change be good? I say no.

godzillaviolist said:
Schoenberg; what peices? I strongly recommend you listen to Gurrelieder, and Transfigured night ( prefferably the string sextet version- I really would like want to play that! ). Those will give an idea of what the composer was capable of in a tonal idiom, and that might might pique your curiousity about later works.
It was an excerpt out of Pierrot lunaire, but some time ago. Maybe I will have another look on it. My piano teacher played me once I think the beginning of the Gurrelieder, where a wide wide "field" of sound is starting and getting fuller and fuller. This was impressive.
godzillaviolist said:
Berg and Webern... well, they're on the harsher side of modernism, it takes a lot of time to appreciate them.
I'm getting an idea of what you think modernism is.
But you should at least give modern music a chance. You have to learn how to hear it the way one would learn how to ride a bycycle; jumping of the bycycle every few seconds is not going to teach you how to ride :D
I don't think all modern music is "bad" or something. With some developments in history, I just disagree! There is also music I like! And it is the duty of any musician and composer to get an impression of music history and build up an own mind....and! to go so ahead how his heart leads her/him and to live his principles.

Thanks for the list
godzillaviolist said:
Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet.
I know the dance of the knights. :D
godzillaviolist said:
Scriabin's Poem of exctasy.
I am not Scriabin expert but heard also some piano music on stage not so long ago (with Volodos). It is ok, but not my special taste.

godzillaviolist said:
For the last two I reccomend a truly wonderfull disc that has both on it, conducted by Gergiev.
I will try to listen to it.
godzillaviolist said:
Now listen to them several times with an open mind . That means not sitting there expecting to hate them. If you still hate modern music after that,
I listen always with an open mind! And I don't hate modern music. Some is not my natural as I tried to explain.

godzillaviolist said:
...then I'll agree to listen to any kind of music you think will give me my soul back :)
I didn't mean that :-(.

godzillaviolist said:
Listening to Scriabin as I write
So what exactly? ;-)

It is morning here...ok some minutes past ten ;-). I will go practising very soon.

See you later,
Daniel :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
daniel:Another day, another debate. (still sunny here)
It's nearly always sunny in summer where I am. There are already forest fire warnings around the city, though this year has been suprisingly rainy compared with the last.

daniel:
Not exactly, but it has an influence on a personality.
I've noticed a slight corrospondance in terms of politics, but not in personality. I've met grim and happy avant garde lovers.

daniel:
Very interesting by the way: With musical taste you cannot hide anywhere. If someone tells you what music he likes to listen to, it says so much about hers/his personality. Music is such a direct language.
I'm wondering what we must think about each other :D . I geuss one might have to be carefull of John Cage fans- they might steal your car and call it art! :rolleyes:
But I do know what you mean. For some reason I have never gotten along with people who were adamant fans of Debussy ( I like some Debussy, but not a lot ).

daniel:
I agree with you that there is development and mind changes. But must every change be good? I say no.
But I'm not talking about movements; I'm talking about individual composers. Also, modernism you really do have to learn how to hear, and give it a try for a couple of times.

daniel:
It was an excerpt out of Pierrot lunaire, but some time ago. Maybe I will have another look on it. My piano teacher played me once I think the beginning of the Gurrelieder, where a wide wide "field" of sound is starting and getting fuller and fuller. This was impressive.
You should hear how incredible the opening and ending is with the huge orchestra giving it sonority! Though admitedly, I find the peice in general a bit hyper-Romantic for my tastes. Transfigured night has more control because it is confined to six instruments.
Next time you hear Pierott lunaire, think of it in terms of the setting; this man's out of his mind. The music is out of it's mind. :D

daniel:
I know the dance of the knights.
I have a funny reaction to it. My mother was always telling me how good it was when I was a kid but I thought it was stupid and cacophonous. It never seemed right until I listened to the whole ballet in context.

daniel: I am not Scriabin expert but heard also some piano music on stage not so long ago (with Volodos). It is ok, but not my special taste.
It all depends on the period; he changed a lot over time. Early works were Chopinesque... but then all hell broke loose and he decided he was god and wrote some good music at the same time.

daniel:
I listen always with an open mind! And I don't hate modern music. Some is not my natural as I tried to explain.
I understand, perhaps it's just because I used to hate modern music so much until I gave it a good listen that I think the same might happen with other people too.

daniel:
It is morning here...ok some minutes past ten ;-). I will go practising very soon.
Eeek! What am I doing up so late... oh well, nothing to do tommorow so I don't have to worry.

godzilla
 
1 - 20 of 62 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top