 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I actually kind of enjoy the idea of attributing contumely to modern music, because I think many people do find it to be the musical equivalent of harsh, insulting language. And I took the word as directed to the music not the composer.
Plus contumeliousness is a word, and was used correctly, and I think it's ok to use actual words in sentences correctly without fear of condemnation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And Thor, just want to point out the Bob up at the top did do a kind of half-compliment to the Polish avant garde in his first tirade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is such a thing as chance (or aleatory) music, in which some elements are left to the individual choices of the performers.
Yes there is, but "chance" is a mis-nomer. In every case, parameters are established - be they notes, instruments, even circumstances - and that's the antithesis of chance. It's a set of arbitrary instructions, but it simply isn't random - thus the word "choice." Randomness is impossible in music, except maybe with some kind of computer program random note generator, and even that is a little too constructed to be a fair test of the concept.
Plus, any music that is based on the twelve notes of the Western octave, or any like system in any tuned system, is by definition not random because already a number of choices and limitations have been made as to what constitutes notes.
Ok, I'm a blowhard blowing hard, but I think this is one term that should be retired.
And anyway, though I haven't seen the sheet music, I would swear that there is nothing aleatoric in this Williams scherzo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 3, 2014 - 9:30 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Smaug
(Member)
|
In the 21st Century it's all about choice. We are in the Post-Post-Post modern period. History is now nothing more than a grab-bag of styles that a composer of talent (like Williams) can pull out one style at any time.
Inasmuch, this new Scherzo is a good piece. It was a chance for him to write something that realistically he couldn't ever put in a film. It's a chance for him (the composer who can write anything) to write for a pianist who can play anything.
His goal was to write something on the edges of his sense of vocabulary (notice there was no smashing of glasses in the percussion section, this piece is a pretty tame modern piece) with layers of craft. The orchestration is interesting.
The point in the end is that Williams can write a beautiful "Scherzo" like Scherzo for Motorcycle and Orchestra or the Adventures of Mutt...but that's not what this was. If he wrote another piece like one of those, he would be ripped down for writing "film music" for the concert hall. There's literally no way for a composer to win.
He wrote the piece he wanted to write. I can tell you, regardless of what it sounded like, it was interesting/challenging for the musicians. For the audience, we've all heard this stuff before, regardless of how you feel about it. If Williams' goal was to do both, write something interesting, challenging, and interesting for musicians to play, he'd find himself in the company of the classics and we'd then be complaining that it sounds like Bruckner. There's no winning.
Personal Final judgement: it's a good piece that I don't particularly need to listen to ever again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You guys are crazy. This is great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Needs more motorcycle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 3, 2014 - 11:05 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
bobbengan
(Member)
|
Stepping down off of my cat-punching academia-bashing soapbox of earlier...
In all seriousness, my problem with this kind of music is exactly what I stated before: It is, almost single-handedly, what killed the symphony orchestra. It's not accessible, it's not memorable, it's very harsh and grating and the number of people who would PAY MONEY to sit through something like this is vastly marginal compared to something like, say, THE NUTCRACKER Suite.
THAT piece of music will be loved and cherish (and performed) for hundreds of years. John Corigliano's Clarinet Concerto? Or this? Probably not, except perhaps by music historians as a small footnote in the history of music.
This kind of stuff feels elitist and pretentious, intentionally designed to be enjoyable only to fellow musicians who can appreciate the "virtuosity" of the performance requirements and complexity of the meters or rhythms, without offering anything the average listener can take away and be transported by (except, of course, to cat-punching territory).
I liken it to obscure self-indulgent films that only film school snobs enjoy (sadly I know LOTS of those types), or modern fine art. Does the work of Pollock REALLY stack up against something like the breathtaking, almost photo-realistic wonders of the Hudson River Artists...? I digress...
Once symphonic music became "Academic and serious", it began to fall drastically out of public favor. Hadn't that happened, I'd like to think it would still be a more prevalent and financially viable musical entity. Instead most orchestra are just barely getting by (and many of them, including opera companies, are dropping like Storm Troopers).
Anyone have any thoughts on that specifically? That's my biggest beef with pieces like this. They're doing more damage, and for what? So a composer can prove he can fill up a score sheet with a lot of notes? Does Williams really NEED to prove such things at his age and tenure?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This kind of stuff feels elitist and pretentious....
It seems to me that in one sense, this is an impenetrable argument. "I don't like this music [insert whatever kind of music you despise for whatever reason you say], so those who do must be stupid/pretentious/lowest common denominator/elitist/whatever." Ok, I guess you can say that but what difference does it make?
I could say in response that it is pretentious to say that you know what is good or right or whatever with music and this other stuff ain't gonna hang around but what you like is.
Here's a crazy thought - Williams wrote this piece because he wanted to. He likes writing music like this, just like he likes writing all kinds of other music. He's a musical omnivore and this is important to him. And you know what? He knows a hell of a lot better than you that this isn't going to be as popular as The Nutcracker Suite or E.T.
It works for me. It doesn't work for you. That doesn't make me pretentious, and it doesn't make you whatever insult I could call up that would be equally unhelpful. It just means different kinds of music speak to us differently.
What it doesn't mean is that I'm right and you're wrong. And it doesn't mean that you're right either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stepping down off of my cat-punching academia-bashing soapbox of earlier...
In all seriousness, my problem with this kind of music is exactly what I stated before:
I don't think restating what you stated before counts as stepping off your academia-bashing soapbox.
Looks to me like you're nailed to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
