Not trying to be arrogant here, but who listens to this?

[ahofer]

"We asked 174 composers ..." Yeah. Depends who you ask. And as a BBC we, ...

If Debussy and Stravinsky are Top 5, and that's reasonable depending on your frame, then I think Ligeti in Top 10 is correct.

But Ravel at 9 with Schumann at 49? This calls the whole 174 into question.

With you on Schumann. Was Mendelssohn in there? Scarlatti? I forget.

 

[theREALdotnet]

I made many indignant exclamations as I scrolled through it.

Yes, me too. But – lists will be lists, their purpose is to stir controversy, debate and ultimately clicks.

It's all highly subjective, of course, but what got me most wasn't so much the high-up inclusion of one or the other surprise candidate, but the many relative nobodies ahead of Schumann...

 

[Multicore]

Yes, me too. But – lists will be lists, their purpose is to stir controversy, debate and ultimately clicks.

How about saying that another way: their purpose is to stir controversy, debate and get us talking about our shared love of music?

It's all highly subjective, of course, but what got me most wasn't so much the high-up inclusion of one or the other surprise candidate, but the many relative nobodies ahead of Schumann...

Putting him bottom of this list is almost worse than forgetting about him.

And there's a bunch of early music but where is Palestrina?

I'm glad I read the list because I was unfamiliar with Carlo Gesualdo and the Madrigals Books 5 & 6 are quite something. I was amused how Wikipedia ended the section about his murder of his wife and her lover. After establishing the facts of the matter (i.e. he did it) "The Gran Corte della Vicaria found Gesualdo had not committed a crime."

 

[Multicore]

This thread started with Messiaen. This is a good article about him based on two recent biographies. I think it does well to situate Messiaen in musical history and to help understand how his music sounds the extraordinary way it does.

Adam Shatz · Wash out your ears: Messiaen’s Ecstasies

Messiaen saw no reason to limit his options in the name of musical progress. He didn’t believe in progress; he...

www.lrb.co.uk

Open in a private window (incognito or whatever) if you already used up your free LRB article.

 

[Multicore]

I got an email from col legno about a new release “Paramyth 1–3” by Clemens Gadenstätter. Since it's played by my heros the Arditti Quartet I went to Qobuz and put it on.

It's fine but it sounds so much like 1950s modernism that I wonder what's the idea. Is there a niche audience in which recapitulating these old innovations is sincerely admired? Or is it some kind of PoMo effort?

Clemens Gadenstätter - Paramyth 1-3, available via col legno - New colors of music

The album Paramyth 13 presents for the first time the complete string quartet cycle by Clemens Gadenstätter. The legendary Arditti Quartet lends the three works remarkable intensity and expressive power.

www.col-legno.com

 

[bluefuzz]

Is there a niche audience in which recapitulating these old innovations is sincerely admired? Or is it some kind of PoMo effort?

What else is a musician or composer to do in 2025? Everything has been done before. Mid century modernism in music is as much a 'tradition' as it is in furniture design, architecture or literature. I don't see that working within a known or established style/genre is necessarily ironic PoMo posturing. It can be, of course, but it can also be an honest investigation of a an approach to music making one finds stimulating. Nothing wrong with that.

I listen to a lot of fairly new music from all sorts of genres, styles and cultures. Much of it highly enjoyable, but rarely (if ever) do I hear anything truly 'new'. It's always possible to trace its antecedants and inspirations to past works or artists ...

 

[Multicore]

So since I posed that here I chatted about it with a friend who is a composer, a good one in my view and who identifies as modernist, and he thought it a safe effort in what remains the mainstream. Sincere and not pomo. I listened to more than half of it and I admit I noticed nothing that seemed remotely pomo. So I suppose my initial reaction reflects the fact that I didn't know that this was such a solid tradition.

Everything has been done before.

This is such an interesting idea. On the one hand it seems absurd. That's just not possible. Everything?

On the other I have argued your point myself often enough. For example, at the July 4 celebration I went to this year I met a young artist and physicist and had a long conversation with him. I too have a diploma in physics and you know my musical and sound art efforts so we had plenty to discuss. I made the case that with the SOTA in digital music production and how we can anticipate it going soon the capacity to compose anything with a very good idea what will sound like (or does, if a recording is the product) is within reach for anyone with a computer and a modest budget for tools. Everything is within reach. So what on Earth is a creative composer to do?

How to understand this dichotomy? I think a key may be in the words mainstream and tradition I already used. It's hard to find audiences for works that don't already have audiences. The well known innovations in Western musics (popular and fine art) are relatively few and we can look at their historical contexts and see that they were needed, i.e. that audiences were ready for something new, and how the innovations fit the need. Some innovators were followed by stylists who established the style innovations as traditions.

My sense is that we're not in a period of history conducive to innovation. We need comfort, not challenge. I often speculate as to the reasons why but that involves PPE and risks going out of ASR bounds.

There are exceptions to this simplistic model that are quite encouraging to think about. Those that remain outside any tradition but are still well liked. Feldman, Scelci, and Varese come to mind.

 

[EJ3]

Everything has been done before.

Even quadraphonic was tried in some European churches that have a large internal architecture to accommodate it. With 4 sets of choirs & musicians around the inside of the church conducted by a central conductor with sub-conductors. And that was, If I remember correctly, in the 1600's.
H'mm, it didn't really take off then, either. Presumably that was not due to a format war, though.

 

[bluefuzz]

This is such an interesting idea. On the one hand it seems absurd. That's just not possible. Everything?

Think of all the (infinite?) possible musics as a landscape of musical memes. To the west there are the towering peaks of Bachs organ works, to the south verdant meadows of free jazz improvisation. Far to the east, only accessible through thorny thickets of poisonous brambles and constantly lashed by storms of icy rain we find Merzbowland. While 'everything' may very well not have been done, there are undoubtedly vast barren deserts of musical memes that will never give sustenance to the human psyche. Almost all of the inhabitable parts of the landscape, where sustainable memes can grow and flourish in brains and hearts, have now been colonised. The colonisation of the little remaining musical landscape is ever accelerating to diminishing artistic returns ...

 

[bluefuzz]

H'mm, it didn't really take off then, either. Presumably that was not due to a format war, though.

The Catholic church had a pretty rigorous DRM policy ... ;-)

 

[olieb]

Almost all of the inhabitable parts of the landscape, where sustainable memes can grow and flourish in brains and hearts, have now been colonised. The colonisation of the little remaining musical landscape is ever accelerating to diminishing artistic returns ...

That reminds me of the story about Max Planck.

Planck was not only gifted in the natural sciences, but also very musical. He played the piano, organ, and cello, and took singing lessons. However, instead of pursuing music, Planck decided to study physics. His professor, Philipp von Jolly, advised him against it, arguing that almost everything in physics had already been researched and that all that remained was to fill in insignificant gaps—a view held by many physicists at the time.

Well, guess what happened?

I agree with you, but only in the sense that “colonised” means imposing a preconceived view and largely ignoring what is (or can be) unique and original.
What is the meaning of "New" in music? How would you even know of a novelty before it shows up?

 

[DVinylfan]

If you don't like that, you're going to hate this

 

[Multicore]

I agree with you, but only in the sense that “colonised” means imposing a preconceived view and largely ignoring what is (or can be) unique and original.

Well said.

What is the meaning of "New" in music? How would you even know of a novelty before it shows up?

You cannot. But retrospectively it is open to objective historical study. What disconcerted me in #1285 is the preference for recapitulation of something deeply unpopular but established. I don't buy bluefuzz's account, which I think reflects the same problem that hinders the supply side, conservatism (small non-political "c", i.e. conserve, enjoy and make do with what you've already got) and a lack of imagination.

 

[Multicore]

If you don't like that, you're going to hate this

Wat? That's well known Cornish pop music by Dick James. How much of the Gadenstätter Paramyth did you listen to? The stuff that made it on the the Drukqs is better, some of which I rate quite high, especially when it was freed from the dance beat.

 

[DVinylfan]

How much of the Gadenstätter Paramyth did you listen to?

None.
I was commenting on the piece the OP referred to.

 

[Multicore]

I was commenting on the piece the OP referred to.

I see. In that case I disagree as I think you'll find lots of people like that don't like Des Canyons aux Étoiles but do like Aphex Twin. I happen to think both are very good.

 

[EJ3]

I see. In that case I disagree as I think you'll find lots of people like that don't like Des Canyons aux Étoiles but do like Aphex Twin. I happen to think both are very good.

I'll stick with Aphex Twin for the win for me (I do not have any but could tolerate it). I must be part of that group (that don't like Des Canyons aux Étoiles but do like Aphex Twin).

 

[bluefuzz]

Well, guess what happened?

Yes, I seem to remember Lord Kelvin held similar views that physics was essentially done and dusted in the late 19th Century. Those scientists were wrong then, but only by a few decades. Both special and general relativity, quantum theory, the modern darwinian synthesis etc. were all well established theories by the 1930s. The standard model of partical physics was essentially complete by the early 70s. There hasn't really been any new science since then. Lot's of technological applications of the science have happened of course but no really new fundamental discoveries. The LHC's 'discovery' of the Higgs Boson was just confirming research from the 60s. Most fundamental physics and cosmology has consisted of more and more wildly speculative mathematical fantasy for getting on for 70 years. But that's another discussion ...

I agree with you, but only in the sense that “colonised” means imposing a preconceived view and largely ignoring what is (or can be) unique and original.

No, on the contrary, my point is that regardless how open to new music we are (however you define it) there are evolutionary/biological limitations to what humans can appreciate as music. We are not a blank slate.

What is the meaning of "New" in music?

I think the majority of creative artists are largely concerned with 'new to me' and will almost always be starting from some kind of established tradition. Whether they ever break free of the tradition takes a while to appreciate. But there's nothing wrong with working within a tradition if done honestly ...

 

[bluefuzz]

I don't buy bluefuzz's account, which I think reflects the same problem that hinders the supply side, conservatism (small non-political "c", i.e. conserve, enjoy and make do with what you've already got) and a lack of imagination.

Obviously, much progressive music – and art in general – has a hard time flourishing in the current Consrvative (with a big C) capitalist climate of race-to-the-bottom commercialisation. But it's not just a lack of imagination. I really do think there are limitations to what is 'musically possible' in a cognitive sense ...

 

[Multicore]

But it's not just a lack of imagination. I really do think there are limitations to what is 'musically possible' in a cognitive sense ...

I can accept this as obviously true in theory but practically I have no idea how we could know whether or not there are galaxies of unexplored music that humans can meaningfully relate to while we've so far only experienced what's on this planet and a bit beyond. So I'm not sure how much we can conclude from this idea.

When I was a 1st year student I got very excited about what the bandwidth theorem might mean for communication through music. Not much, I now think. The ability to relate to music necessitates a language, no matter how primitive or how abstract it may be. Perhaps this corresponds with your cognitive closure idea. But the difficulty with trying to be novel is persuading anyone of the ROI in learning your new dialect or language.

What makes music specifically in relation to other arts so powerful is its capacity for primitive and abstract language. It is the medium in which aliens can share meanings that would be ineffable in any verbal language.