gustavmahlerboard.com
General Category => Gustav Mahler and Related Discussions => Topic started by: Wunderhorn on March 09, 2007, 12:03:26 PM
-
I wonder if someone could master a composer's style so well as to sound like them. We need more Bruckner and Mahler! All these idiot composers of today have the audacity to believe there is still such a thing as originality! HUMAN, ALL TOO HUMAN ::)
-
i disagree. to wish for anton and gustav 'clones' will not produce the desired result. the originals would not be so great if anyone else could do it.
who are today's 'idiot' composers? a few names, please...
dj
-
Some people are dead in spirit and believe intellect is equal to emotion. :'( "What skilled attention they get, all these dying of their wounds!" --Samuel Beckett
P. S. You are also gravely wrong, you cannot separate music from its natural language, which took Western Theory a very ling time to prefect; It cannot be separate just as novels require sentences, paragraphs, etc, etc.... david johnson, you are what Christ would have called 'The blind leading the blind." You simply don't realize you are finding your own happiness from memorizing chaotic sound, simply because you memorize whatever idiotic scheme it contains, doesn't mean it is coming from anything other then memorization itself!
-
i disagree. to wish for anton and gustav 'clones' will not produce the desired result. the originals would not be so great if anyone else could do it.
who are today's 'idiot' composers? a few names, please...
dj
By the way, If you have read G. E. B. You'd know that J. S. Bach polyphony can be computer generated. Composer discover their style and create their in, not create their style and create their in like all the idiots of today; And since they discover their style it is a finite thing which can be achieved superficially, despite what you may wish.
-
Some people are dead in spirit and believe intellect is equal to emotion. :'( "What skilled attention they get, all these dying of their wounds!" --Samuel Beckett
P. S. You are also gravely wrong, you cannot separate music from its natural language, which took Western Theory a very ling time to prefect; It cannot be separate just as novels require sentences, paragraphs, etc, etc.... david johnson, you are what Christ would have called 'The blind leading the blind." You simply don't realize you are finding your own happiness from memorizing chaotic sound, simply because you memorize whatever idiotic scheme it contains, doesn't mean it is coming from anything other then memorization itself!
uh...??? wtf !? you're nuts as well as rude :)
oh, well. only anton and gustav can and should produce their music.
now how about some of those idiot names?
dj
-
By the way, If you have read G. E. B. You'd know that J. S. Bach polyphony can be computer generated. Composer discover their style and create their in, not create their style and create their in like all the idiots of today; And since they discover their style it is a finite thing which can be achieved superficially, despite what you may wish.
I do not even know what you said in the above quote. Can you perhaps rephrase it?
-
Some people are dead in spirit and believe intellect is equal to emotion. :'( "What skilled attention they get, all these dying of their wounds!" --Samuel Beckett
P. S. You are also gravely wrong, you cannot separate music from its natural language, which took Western Theory a very ling time to prefect; It cannot be separate just as novels require sentences, paragraphs, etc, etc.... david johnson, you are what Christ would have called 'The blind leading the blind." You simply don't realize you are finding your own happiness from memorizing chaotic sound, simply because you memorize whatever idiotic scheme it contains, doesn't mean it is coming from anything other then memorization itself!
uh...??? wtf !? you're nuts as well as rude :)
oh, well. only anton and gustav can and should produce their music.
now how about some of those idiot names?
dj
Sorry I was rude, anyway. Music that comes from the major and minor scale have evolved from much history. In my view, music began to brake up around the Post-Romantic period, therefore the natural style of the composer themselves must be manufactured from an altered, less natural state; Do you see what I mean? Hence composer from traditional Western Theory discovered their style in a natural system while modern composer first need to manufacture their superficial style; Understand? Though many avante-garde composer of today are highly intelligent, I'm not exactly sure that their music would hold much merit on a purely emotion state. Hence, a Hollywood Film Score composer is about the closest thing we have this day and age to actual composer, if that doesn't give you a plethora of names then I don't know how to help you.
-
I think there's some truth in what you're both saying. Although, Wunderhorn, I'm more likely to lean towards David's side of the argument. Yes, computers can be taught to compose in the style of most any given composer - at least to some degree. But that's also the problem: regardless of getting it right, stylistically speaking, it still comes out sounding computer generated. The results will probably never reach the brilliance of the original. My question to you is, why would you want it to be? Isn't it good enough to be content with eleven Bruckner symphonies, and eleven Mahler symphonies? As they used to say in the "show business", it's better to leave them wanting more.
Barry
-
Yes Barry, it is fully enough. I'm just sick of every imbecile composer that pops up this day in age actually taking the same professional title as Mozart, Beethoven, etc, etc with that dribble they call music, AND THAT IT IS ORIGINAL DRIBBLE NONE THE LESS!
-
'Music that comes from the major and minor scale have evolved from much history.'
music develops from many scalar expressions. M/m are just two of several modes a composer can use.
i don't really understand your idea.
you don't like non-M/m compostions? is there a certain tonal symmetry you must have from music to enjoy it?
dj
-
'Music that comes from the major and minor scale have evolved from much history.'
music develops from many scalar expressions. M/m are just two of several modes a composer can use.
i don't really understand your idea.
you don't like non-M/m compostions? is there a certain tonal symmetry you must have from music to enjoy it?
dj
Fair enough. Let me put it like this then, despite that since the baroque and high Renaissance great skill has become apparent, figures such as Wagner and Mahler have devised overwhelming emotional stated and formal brilliance that many go back to again and again. My argument is this. Take Schnittke and his late quartets or his first concerto grosso, when he uses emotional climaxes he always returns to tradition planted in such. In all forms of modernism there are emotional moments but only within intense application to memory can you have full comprehension of the music. Is it once mastered any more profound then a late Bruckner symphony? Therefore is the extra time necessary? The only form that I'm complete against is total serialism. I simply don't believe in art anymore. If I met the greatest living composer I would remain ineffective. The modern democratic world seems to make contemporary genius something better situated in an absurdest play. This is why the modern day giants are all conductors. (Stockhausen in Michael's Reise has perhaps the most beautiful trumpet theme in all contemporary music, it also bares much influence on past forms.)
-
It seems to me that you are saying that the currrent crop of "classical music" composers are simply not composing music as great as their predecessors, and that you wish they would try to emulate them more?
You mention Hollywood film composers. Considering that some film scores were composed by composers who also wrote traditional classical music (Korngold, Rozsa, Copland), I can see how you would find film scores to be similar to the great classics. Korngold's violin concerto is derived from several of his film scores. I suppose we are lucky that film scores in the early days were written by such composers, and it has probably led to some imitation by others.
-
I also love Bernard Hermann's 'Cape Fear'. Many films even rather recent films such as Michael Mann's 'Last of the Mohicans' have excellent music. I simply love 'pure' music, of course I'm using the word pure loosely. The film score to 'Cape Fear' was so good Scorese used it in his remake, check it out. 8)
-
In all forms of modernism there are emotional moments but only within intense application to memory can you have full comprehension of the music. Is it once mastered any more profound then a late Bruckner symphony?
Personally, my life has been enhanced, enriched, and has benefited greatly from many 20th century composers...Serialism in particular is still a revelation to me...I do not listen in order to 'comprehend' the music or to feel emotions and etc...I enjoy the journey and mystery, wherever or whatever conceptual form or sound the composer constructs. For me, tonality doesn't always equal 'emotional' experience or profounity.
In my humble opinion, emotion is very subjective and hard to qualify in general statements about music. Each person will have a different experience with any work of music. In other words, to state that a peace of music has 'no' emotion seems farfetched. Of course in your experience, Wunderhorn, that may be the case, and your experience is valid. But I would be careful in stating (as if it were fact for everyone) that most modern music has limited emotional appeal, as clearly you are speaking from your experience alone. :)
-
It was film music that got me interested in classical music. I was not brought up on it at all. I had so many film soundtracks on LP, that I grew to love orchestral music, and eventually gravitated toward symphonic music. I swore I'd never get into opera or baroque or chamber music, but I love that stuff, too.
Michael Mann's Last of the Mohicans is really almost sort of like a silent movie with a great muscial score. There is little dialog in the film, and it is really built around 4 major visual action sequences. Without Randy Edelman's score, that film would have fallen flat. I think Edelman also did the score for Gettysburg, which was also effective.
Two great film scores I've enjoyed in recent years are Rachel Portman's scores for Emma and Chocolat. She really bolstered both films with her music, IMO.
-
I had gone a long period without sleep and am now regretting my long bellyaching in this thread :P Perhaps you might see, like Daminfino, what I was getting at, though it could have been said far better without having been stupidly offensive. :-\
Apologize to all who stomached me!
-
not to worry. some of us have worked upon our grand stomachs for awhile, now. i think i've been too successful and must currently take that part of anatomy in the other direction.
dj
-
Really, your point is understood, Wunderhorn. But you have to keep in mind that not everybody objects to what composers have done since Mahler. Like you, I feel that there's been a drop-off of sorts. But yet, some music since Mahler has been incredibly effective and interesting. I also like some of today's "neo-romantic" composers. I especially like Jennifer Higdon and Esa-Pekka Salonen; both of whom are excellent orchestrators.
There is a computer generated work attributed to Mozart: it's a Sinfonia Concertante; but not the famous one for violin and viola. Instead, it's one for winds. K. two ninety-something or other. I went to a chamber orchestra where it was performed. Before the concert, the conductor talked about how he thought it was wonderful, and sounded like authentic Mozart. It thought it sounded like total garbage! Actually, I think it's called a "Concertone", as opposed to "Concertante".
-
Of the composers who wrote after Mahler, I would say that there are some who wrote very good music, and even a few masterpieces that will make the list of music worth hearing forever.
At the top of my list would be Gliere's magnificent Symphony No. 3 "Ilya Mourometz", which is on a scale, with the power, substance and beauty of Mahler (but without all the marching). Farberman's 93 minute recording is as intense an experience as any work by Mahler or Bruckner in my opinion. (Yes, I know it is heresy to say such things on this board, but that's my opinion and it is what it is.)
In addition, I would include the following composers/works written after Mahler's death that are equal in quality (although not necessarily in scope).
Rachmaninoff - Symphonic Dances, The Bells, Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini
Myaskovsky - late symphonies
Nielsen - Symphony No. 4
Barber - Adagio for Strings
Gershwin - Rhapsody in Blue
Hovhaness - Symphony No. 2 "Magic Mountain"
Tubin - Symphonies 3 & 5
Ralph Vaughan Williams - Symphony No. 8
David Diamond - Symphony No. 3
There are surely others that haven't popped into my head this morning.
I have not heard much by living composers, but of the dozen or so that I have heard pieces by in concert, I have especially liked Stephen Paulus. His symphonic work called Sea Pictures (not yet recorded) is very fine. I've also liked some of the music I've heard from Joan Tower.
Like you, I have little interest in cacaphony and noise without point. But I don't want composers to write more music that sounds like Mahler and Bruckner. We've already got more than 20 works by those composers to listen to. They were who they were, they wrote what they wrote. I want to hear voices that are just as compelling and just as immersive, but unique.
Saying that no one since Mahler and Bruckner are great composers is like saying no one since Shakespeare is a great writer. I don't want more writers to write like Shakespeare. I want more writers who write great literature in their own voice. And many have.
-
Asking for more Mahler sounds a bit like,"I want more,I want as much as possible plus". And Deryck Cooke/Joe Wheeler et al obliged once.
i think that's about it,tho'.
Fresh composers can offer nrw pleasures. Most of the music written in every age isn't much cop;today is no different. And we can't agree on what's the most enjoyable (enjoyable for whom?),or on what's the best,or any good. So we each have to make our way on our respective journeys. Pointing out what's appealed to us and offering arguments/reasons may be the best we can do. SAs some posters have already done.
And get some more sleep.
2 more thoughts.
Friedrich Witt did a good job of warmed-over early Beethoven. Took 'us' nearly 50 years to rumble the Jena symphony.
I heard a Prokofiev violin concerto early in my listening career, and afterwards couldn't understand why anyone would compose,want to play or broadcast,or publish or listen to anything so spikey and annoying. Some years later,after much listening , I heard it again and thought it was beautiful.
Moral: If you hate it,move on to summat else. One day,perhaps,who knows ...............
Ivor
-
"I heard a Prokofiev violin concerto early in my listening career, and afterwards couldn't understand why anyone would compose,want to play or broadcast,or publish or listen to anything so spikey and annoying. Some years later,after much listening , I heard it again and thought it was beautiful".
hmmmmmm; maybe it's time now for me to revisit the Prokofiev violin concertos. Why? . . because I still find them spikey and annoying! :D
-
Barry,
I must add thast between the two hearings,about 2-3 years apart,I'd allowed myself to listen to anything (classical !). I think what happened was as my listening experience of all and sundry continued,the horizons of what was enjoyable and tolerable,grew/widened.
Which is also a reply to the "I know what I like". That's a recipe for inertia. "If you keep on doing what you've always done,you'll keep on getting what you've always got."
Ivor