Who Killed Classical Music?

[Sydney Grew]

Courteous as ever, I have recently responded to a few comments and questions which incidentally arose. But let us not become confused or derailed! It is in no way about me! This forum has always had a tendency - both curious and regrettable - to turn to personalities and easy "ad hominem" argument. This tendency is in my experience unique to this forum, and entirely absent from any of the other forums I frequent. Keep my own name out of your posts in future; I consider its use a lack of civility.

So, the last post pertinent to the subject of this thread is perhaps reply 219, a quotation from the Musical Times at the half-way (fifty-year) mark. To assist the membership in keeping to the point, I have now removed from that post my own aside about electronic music, and the quotation is thus presented without comment. Members wishing to contribute with equal courtesy should either a) respond to what the editor of the Musical Times said, or b) introduce some new point relevant to the theme of the thread.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Er… let's not get too personal in our discussions.

[Richard Barrett]

It is in no way about me!

So whose silly opinions is it you're peddling, I wonder? Furthermore, your habitual presentation of those opinions as incontrovertible fact is itself personally insulting to other members, particularly (if I may) those whose practical experience and knowledge of the matter under discussion might (heaven forfend!) be greater than yours.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

[Bryn]

[Sydney Grew]

So whose silly opinions is it you're peddling, I wonder? Furthermore, your habitual presentation of those opinions as incontrovertible fact is itself personally insulting to other members, particularly (if I may) those whose practical experience and knowledge of the matter under discussion might (heaven forfend!) be greater than yours.

Personal references are discourteous. Keep to the subject matter of the thread!

[Serial_Apologist]

I think my thread has outlived its usefulness.

[Richard Barrett]

S-A, I don't think that's true (see below). But first:

Personal references are discourteous.

Rubbish. (Well, OK, that was discourteous but you deserved it.) You seem to wish to ignore the fact that here are human beings exchanging opinions, enthusiasms, insights and so forth.

Moving right on: the name of Schoenberg is often unquestioningly associated with the radical changes of musical (to name only this, since of course there are parallels in the visual arts, literature and the sciences) style which accompanied the first quarter of the 20th century. But if we're talking about composers whose work embodies the transition from a musical situation whose (harmonic/timbral/stuctural/rhythmical) certainties were under strain to one in which they ceased to be certainties at all, we would also have to mention Debussy (Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune) in terms of structure and Stravinsky (the Rite of Spring) in terms of rhythm (and both in terms of timbre), not to mention numerous others whose contribution was just as radical if maybe less decisive. Schoenberg comes in for particular attention presumably because he supposedly invented a strict and inflexible system (which of course is no such thing), but in fact he and his music were responding to a social-historical situation in which very many supposed certainties were in the process of evaporating - and they certainly haven't reestablished themselves in the meantime, much as some might wish to turn the clock back...

[Sydney Grew]

Rubbish. (Well, OK, that was discourteous but you deserved it.) You seem to wish . . .

Personal references are discourteous. Keep to the subject matter of the thread.

[Richard Barrett]

Personal references are discourteous. Keep to the subject matter of the thread.

Moving right on: the name of Schoenberg is often unquestioningly associated with the radical changes of musical (to name only this, since of course there are parallels in the visual arts, literature and the sciences) style which accompanied the first quarter of the 20th century. But if we're talking about composers whose work embodies the transition from a musical situation whose (harmonic/timbral/stuctural/rhythmical) certainties were under strain to one in which they ceased to be certainties at all, we would also have to mention Debussy (Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune) in terms of structure and Stravinsky (the Rite of Spring) in terms of rhythm (and both in terms of timbre), not to mention numerous others whose contribution was just as radical if maybe less decisive. Schoenberg comes in for particular attention presumably because he supposedly invented a strict and inflexible system (which of course is no such thing), but in fact he and his music were responding to a social-historical situation in which very many supposed certainties were in the process of evaporating - and they certainly haven't reestablished themselves in the meantime, much as some might wish to turn the clock back...

[Quarky]

Next Tuesday, Jan 21 - 11.30am, on, note, Radio4

"Gabriel Prokofiev (grandson of Sergei Prokofiev) discusses how composers such as Schoenberg killed off 20th-century classical music for all but a limited elite", it says on the page in that inimitably objective, non-partisan way that is becoming the broadcaster's hallmark across all wavelengths these days. Ivan Hewett, Sandy Goehr, Tansy Davies "and others" being brought in as "experts". I think I can forsee how this discussion will invevitably go.

Apologies for resurrecting this thread, but I don't think the attacks on Boulez in the programme by Sandy Goehr etc., were dealt with.

Anyhow, I think the performance last night in H&N : Pierre Boulez: Domaines Robert Plane (clarinet)

disproved the characterisation of him as some sort of Stalinist rigid serial idealist. All sweetness and light in my book - as relaxing as a piece by Mozart!