John Corigliano - Symphony No. 2 - 1

[AfroDeezeeYak]

Excuse me: "composition for 4 instruments"*

[PhilharmoniaNSK]

@AfroDeezeeYak

Yes, this is about quartet version. But later Corigliano revised this work.

[AfroDeezeeYak]

@PhilharmoniaNSK Oops: I was correcting my post with the correct title of a piece by Babbitt (which I was using as example in the discussion below).

[pyrosplodeyflames]

What 'processes which are given higher priority in the composition' or examples of such things?

[AfroDeezeeYak]

@pyrosplodeyflames

Look at works by Babbitt. His 'Quartet for 4 instruments" is composed with his time point system: the placement of every note is dictated by intervals that occur within the row. The rhythm which occurs is dictated by this process, and placement in the register is dictated by ideals in presenting intervals with clarity (e.g. smaller intervals which occur quickly should be spaced farther apart).

[pyrosplodeyflames]

I can't agree with any of you who are arguing right now.

There is a reason why tonal music and atonal music are the way that they are. Tonal music has to do with organization of sound based on how the human ear will naturally perceive it. Atonal music involves the intentional disorganization to confuse, frustrate, or invigorate.

Neither one is musically functional on it's own! That's why some parts of Corigliano's symphony are relatively tonal, and others aren't. There are no wrong answers.

[AfroDeezeeYak]

@pyrosplodeyflames There are essentially 2 sides on present argument: one which believes atonal music.....sucks (with justifications given, albeit: really poor ones). The other side is essentially proving those justifications to be incorrect.

Only one side of the argument is attempting to claim that the embracing or abandoning of tonality is wrong (so I'm not sure h ow you can disagree with everyone, considering what you just wrote).

[AfroDeezeeYak]

@pyrosplodeyflames Also, I couldn't help but find fault in part of your sentiment on atonality: atonal music isn't inherently frustrating to the ear. "Intentional disorganization" is also inaccurate: just as there are rules regarding counterpoint, metric significance, ect in common practice tonal music, there are also 'rules' (or guidelines rather) in composing atonal music with clarity. As well as this: atonal music isn't composed relative to tonal. The process is an independent one.

[AfroDeezeeYak]

@pyrosplodeyflames Also: your sentiment on Atonal music is incorrect.

Atonal music doesn't aim to 'confuse' nor 'frustrate'. That is an uneducated response to the aesthetic subjectivity. As well as this, 'intentional disorganization' is also false: just as there are guidelines in common practice tonal music (e.g. harmony, counterpoint), there are guidelines in Atonal music. Atonal music isn't composed relative to the process of composing tonal music: it is an independent process in itself.

[pyrosplodeyflames]

@AfroDeezeeYak I was talking about organization of sound by the ear, not on the sheet. I understand that there are guidelines to atonal music, like the 12 Tone Row. I know it's a different process.

Okay, so if it's not about confusing or frustrating, then what's the point?

[pyrosplodeyflames]

@AfroDeezeeYak Wait, I may have just had an epiphany. Is atonal music supposed to feel REALLY trippy?

[AfroDeezeeYak]

@pyrosplodeyflames Haha I wouldn't find most atonal music to be 'trippy', I think my teacher's sentiment on the general aesthetic explains it pretty well: "It's like looking at stars on a clear night".

Generally: most atonal music has a goal that is conceived prior to the actual composition process. Some are more abstract, while others are more accessible (in regards to the latter: some of the movements from Webern's 'Variations' comes to mind).

[AfroDeezeeYak]

@pyrosplodeyflames Often: the aesthetic result is simply the product of processes which are given higher priority in the composition.

[pyrosplodeyflames]

@AfroDeezeeYak Like what?



[AfroDeezeeYak]

@pyrosplodeyflames I'm not sure what you are asking exactly....

[stringbean1245]

Have you ever heard of a little movie called the red violin? He kinda wrote all the music. So shut up a little.

[AndrewMosesClarinet]

This Reminds me slightly of the beginning of Lutoslawski's Livre Pour Orchestra.

[Rasterius]

What is this atonal rubbish? Pretentious I say.

[aquago1016]

@Rasterius How so? 

[Rasterius]

@aquago1016 When someone can't compose tonal music they revert to atonality. Sure it was revolutionary when it began but it's been done and doesn't do anything for the art of music. If people take the argument that all music is valid then any person should be capable of performing professionally. I could go on stage and play as an untrained violinist and still this would be called music. This is the path of pretentiousness, and it is where a lot of 21st century art is heading.

[Zircemerald]

@Rasterius This piece was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in Music ten years ago...

[Rasterius]

@Zircemerald I know that, i was looking through the pieces awarded and it doesn't matter if a few so called experts call this a great work. The point is pretentious music should not be encouraged or rewarded, and since this is not even original in harmonisation or style it does nothing to progress music. If anyone can go on a stage and play random notes, they should be sent off, yet some in academia call this 'experimental' music.

[Ybarchov21]

@Rasterius Atonality has helped made music where it is today. While music of the past was controlled by strict rules, atonality and other avant-garde forms of music greatly expanded classical music's horizon. Whoever becomes a composer still has to study the old forms, musical progressions, and other things like fugues so that when they compose in their own voice, whether it's tonal or not, they know what rules they are breaking and can still portray whatever they are meaning to portray.

[Rasterius]

@Ybarchov21 Atonality is also old and outdated, it was a great discovery by the second viennese school but now I think we should realise it holds no value in concert halls today. If you want "classical" music to die keep on playing atonal commissioned pieces like at my cities orchestral concerts and people will keep leaving.

[Ybarchov21]

@Rasterius Um, Tonality is old and outdated; we've used it for over 500 years. I heard a composition from a friend that was strictly in the romantic style and I couldn't take it seriously. It sounded like he was trying to copy Chopin, Rachmaninoff, and Brahms at the same time and it sounded inferior to all three of them. Minimalism, atonality, 12-tone, serialism, electronic, and experimental music is the way music will be heading. Neo-Romantic is still there, but they'll don't leave atonal out.

[Rasterius]

@Ybarchov21 In academic circles yes, but with the general public tonal music will be the only music enjoyed by the majority for hundreds of years to come. I'm not saying there isn't artistic merit in atonal music but it is quite a pain to listen to, and music after all should be a mildly enjoyable experience. Notice the only great composers known in the 21st century are tonal composers. Glass, Williams, Elfman, Zimmer, Nyman, Shore, Morricone?

[AfroDeezeeYak]

@Rasterius "Notice the only great composers known in the 21st century are tonal composers. Glass, Williams, Elfman, Zimmer, Nyman, Shore, Morricone"

Couldn't be any more wrong. To the layman: those composers are probably 'the only great' ones. To those who are aware of developments in contemporary classical music: they would be aware of composers like George Perle, Charles Wuorinen, Pierre Boulez, Krzysztof Penderecki, ect, ect.

[AfroDeezeeYak]

@Rasterius "Atonal music...it is quite a pain to listen to, and music after all should be a mildly enjoyable experience"

Just because you yourself find atonal music to be a pain to listen to, doesn't mean others do. For me: explicitly tonal music is a pain to listen to. I'd rather mow the lawn than have to listen to Whitacre or Tichelli.

Also, who said atonal music isn't enjoyable to listen to? Again: you are making the ignorant assumption that all people perceive music as you do.

[AfroDeezeeYak]

@Rasterius "When someone can't compose tonal music they revert to atonality."

Another poor assumption based off more ignorant stereotypes. The first atonal composers were MASTERS of composing in the common practice tradition (i.e. Schoenberg, Webern, Berg).

"If anyone can go on a stage and play random notes, they should be sent off, yet some in academia call this 'experimental' music."

Atonal and or dodecaphonic music doesn't consist of 'random' notes. Another ignorant statement.

[Ybarchov21]

@AfroDeezeeYak Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks man!

[aquago1016]

@AfroDeezeeYak Thank you

[Ybarchov21]

@Rasterius Since the Romantic Period, composers haven't really thought about what the public liked, because the public only like what it knows. Composers are more liberal while the classical music lover is generally more conservative. Why should I restrict my music creating abilities so that the public will like my music? I should just be able to create whatever I feel is right. Babbitt created very atonal music so that the public can aspire to appreciate/love it, and some people already do!

[aquago1016]

@Rasterius Haha! So Corigliano cannot compose music!? Such a ridiculous claims... Have you ever even listened to Corigliano's other works. They are not all atonal. He can write both atonal and tonal music. Each one is used for a different purpose. Corigliano writes atonal music because he feels that it expresses what he needs to say. All things cannot be said through tonal music alone. It opens up music to a wider set of tones. And this rubbish as you call it won him the pulitzer prize for this.

[ichiboku1]

The problem with all this is not the music...it's the unfortunate individuals who still think in terms of logical vs emotional. After reading through some of these comments I can't believe people (even highly educated people) still think in such outdated concepts.

If something evolves that does not mean it is better. If something is logical that does not mean it is devoid of emotion. Spock is a fiction.. I mean, really? I didn't think people actually took Star Trek seriously.

[KhagarBalugrak]

@PhillipPark90, well, good luck with your degree. The good news about conservatories is that they are once again drifting more and more toward tonal music. The obsession with atonality and harshness peaked in the 1960s, according to the professors I have talked to, but there's a long way to go before people are able to compose music once more in so-called older styles (so-called since people have written in them ever since they were invented).

[KhagarBalugrak]

@PhillipPark90, abstract concepts are great, but why not express them openly and clearly? My problem with atonal music is not that it expresses abstract concepts; it's that it feels destructive to the emotions. Logical and academic brilliance and pleasure are great, but we must take care not to offend the heart either in music. I apologize for being brazen; I'm just really pissed that no conservatory lets their students write 18th-19th century styles. I mistook you for a professor.

[callmeBe]

@KhagarBalugrak Here is the problem with students/anyone who writes in an "older" style--you say 18th century, and that's fine. That writer stands to squarely put himself in the shadow of a probably superior composer who is completely and thoroughly already studied, performed, and recorded. Beyond that, those older composers "said it all" with whatever their style was. How much more can you say beyond what was already written in the classical era? However, if you can say more--Please DO IT!

[callmeBe]

@KhagarBalugrak More than anything else as an (former) educator, I want you to find your own voice. Ideally I want your music to follow in such a way so that one note inevitably defines what the next will be, rhythm the same way, timing the same way, etc. Now, usually that does not happen--even with a really fine composer, so we settle for less--one note making sense as it leads to the next, etc. In the end this TENDS to be easier in a more modern style--less predictability, less shadow.

[KhagarBalugrak]

@callmeBe, thank you. Indeed, it's really, really difficult to become a good composer. I am not there yet, not even by a long shot. And yet, I do think I have found my own voice. My own voice consists of writing in Romantic, Baroque, Medieval, and Asian styles, and a combination of Asian and Classical European. That comprises almost everything I have to say as a composer, and almost everything I think should be written. Ultimately, it's not about me...it's about what should be written...

[KhagarBalugrak]

@PhillipPark90, it's extremely disturbing how authoritarian, smug, self-satisfied and brutal the conservatories and academies have become regarding peoples' right to have different ideas. Composing tonal music is a great way to get rejected by any conservatory you apply to. Not believing the old German composers are almost infinitely superior to all other composers will see you banished from all possibility of getting a job at a conservatory.

[KhagarBalugrak]

@PhillipPark90, music that aims not to evoke IS inferior. Here's why: as we are living things, we want to feel happiness, joy, and other good things - or if not that, then at least SOMETHING. If we want to become or remain emotionally numb, or even to experience that quite often, then we are psychologically messed up.

By "educate", whether you're aware of this or not, you mean "conform to the prevailing ideas in the academy about atonal/modern classical." Well, I have different ideas!

[KhagarBalugrak]

@PhillipPark90, after declaring modern classical music to be "more evolved" (better) stylistically than older styles, you said this:

"Evocation of moods is no longer the common goal." This clearly states that modern classical music very often (perhaps most of the time) tries NOT to evoke moods. And if you don't evoke moods at all, you can't evoke either positivity or negativity.

[KhagarBalugrak]

@PhillipPark90, as you why I made my comments, you yourself said "Your understanding of how much music has evolved past the 18th century leaves much to be desired."

This clearly implies that you think music has progressed by leaps and bounds since the 18th century; that on the whole, the style of classical music of today is BETTER (and yes, saying it's far more evolved is indeed saying it's better).

[KhagarBalugrak]

@PhillipPark90, I would challenge you to find a single reason for why expressivity in music is to be shunned generally. I can understand why you would think that overwhelmingly negative music should be avoided...but why avoid music that moves people in a POSITIVE way? It isn't a good thing for creatures with the capacity for positive feelings, as human beings are, to instead choose to remain numb. It makes happiness, among other things, impossible.

[KhagarBalugrak]

@PhillipPark90, evolved? Music that does not aim to express something isn't superior to music that does. It's absolutely inferior. It's only natural for human beings to want to feel something - if being moved by music doesn't interest you, there's something wrong with your way of feeling (namely, the refusal to feel).

As far as "progress" of music is concerned, the older the style of music, the better living things tend to respond to it. This is documented in many scientific studies.

[KhagarBalugrak]

@PhillipPark90, so, now, after explaining this, which would have been obvious to you if you either bothered to think it over for awhile, followed your intuition, or simply believed in objective reality as scientists and psychologists do (for the body and mind respectively). Art is either ugly at a point in the piece of music, a particular space in a painting, etc., or it isn't. It might have ugliness mixed in with beauty, or many other things, but it is what it is. It's objective.

[KhagarBalugrak]

@PhillipPark90, and just as red blocks are red blocks and NOT two, three or five trillion things at once, so it is with emotions. At a given point in time, you are (or were) either angry, or you aren't (or weren't). You may have had mixed emotions, but either anger was mixed in there somewhere or it wasn't. And as art is a process of emotional communication, either a piece (or performance) expresses something or it does not. It is objective, and only our conditioning makes perception hard.

[KhagarBalugrak]

@PhillipPark90, oh, and one more thing: how can a particular piece be more than one thing? Either a piece expresses, for instance, sadness at a given point, or it does not. (And if the performer chooses to not express what is written, that's a different thing called a RENDITION of a particular piece). Things ARE WHAT THEY ARE. A block red on all surfaces with no other color cannot be something other than totally red.

[KhagarBalugrak]

@PhillipPark90, and finally, there is this: beauty is not only a form, but a psychosomatic energy. ALL works of art express something. Art is not merely a physical science; it's also a means of emotional, mental and even ideological communication. Art DOES communicate things objectively as it invariably expresses something. What divides people about what is expressed is twofold: a.) as you said, conditioning, and b.) personal desires - what one WANTS to have communicated to oneself.

[KhagarBalugrak]

@PhillipPark90, to point out once and for all how flawed your idea is, think about this: the feeling of beauty can be experienced internally by individuals. So why can't it be clearly and objectively communicated to others through art? The assumption that beauty only exists in the mind of the beholder indicates that you subconsciously don't believe this type of communication is possible - that people are absolutely separate from one another and from the art they think they are enjoying.

[KhagarBalugrak]

@PhillipPark90, the idea that beauty is subjective is intellectually bankrupt. If beauty only exists in the mind of the beholder, then it doesn't exist at all in the real world. Your idea, shared by those who haven't thought about what that idea implies, implies that there is no such thing as beauty at all. It reduces all art to a single shade of grey, insofar as beauty is concerned. Beauty must exist objectively, at least potentially, or it would be impossible to even experience it within.

[H2Zman]

wow. this sounds like a horror movie film score. hehe



[KhagarBalugrak]

@orkid682, the answer is simple: narcissism. They wanted to set themselves up as unique, special and distinct from past generations, and, ironically, impose their ugly style on the whole classical music world. Both rebellious and authoritarian in all the worst ways, these people wrote (and write) their music not for the world, but for one another, and as a means of spitting on the rest of society.

[craftsjames]

i agree. i don't know. uneasiness is not subjective and a lot of this music is uneasy.

[Ender775]

@craftsjames Uneasiness itself is not subject, but what causes uneasiness is. It's a hard concept to grasp and/or accept, but it's true. Music that we consider "beautiful" is horrible in other parts of the world, the way this seems horrible to some people. Consider that back in the day, people in Europe loved the smell of rotting fish.

[TheDavid2222]

beauty is subjective.

[KhagarBalugrak]

@TheDavid2222, beauty isn't subjective. The sound of vomiting isn't beautiful. Neither is the sound of someone screaming as they are being tortured. And neither is this hideous mess of a piece.

[TheDavid2222]

@KhagarBalugrak your absolutley right. I've looked into David Hume and Immanuel Kant regarding aesthetic philosophy and taste is certainly not subjective. Just because something is dissonant doesn't mean it isn't beautiful. A piece can be so angry that it's beautiful. I understand what it feels like to enjoy a piece because of how angry it is. Not everyone can do that. One emotion is not superior to another in art.

[bylokonnor]

If you just let the music carry you, you realize that it does go somewhere, or at least advances and evolves. There are climaxes and more restful sections. Even a sudden return to traditionnal harmony towards the end of the movement, like an accomplishment.

[Composerland]

The writing is obviously excellent, performance even more so. I get this feeling, kind of sick feeling: where are we going? I hear a lot of new music, and it is impossible to say. Rhetorical. ... When I sit in the audience, say at the NY Philharmonic, I look at the patient listeners, the audience; I decide that people these days are gracious listeners, in general. Some walk out. peace

[milesdavisiscoolthe2]

This sounds like a brilliant symphony to me.

[TheRastafarka]

that sounds freaks me out

[croscream]

It sounds like a mechanical bug trying to fly or some horrible ancient prehistoric monster dying in a tarswamp.

[croscream]

Later in the music what ever is making that terrible sound is being stalked and bitten to death by a a huge dog and then it goes to haven and his family moarns it's dead.