The State of Compositional Aesthetic

[Neumerologist]

How does the state of the composer's aesthetic appear to be in present day? Has the composer's aesthetic changed any since Leonin and Perotin with the advent of organum or is there a universal aesthetic that permeates compelling compositions?

Is an orchestral composer's aesthetic immediately transferrable to a new medium like a theremin, tape recorder and a laptop or do the new processes required to fully adapt this new medium far outweigh those that are transferrable? In transferring to these newer aesthetics and mediums has the rigor of somebody like Bach or Ravel been maintained? Does new music contain the same level of nuance and detail as that of orchestral composers? Is a Stockhausen as mentally facile as a Bach? If they are, are they in the same ways? Do they even use the same parts of their brain to conceive music? Do they draw on similar universal inspirations for creation or aesthetically different ones?

[Neumerologist]

Another catalyst in this topic is improvisation, which brings up the notion of how much it plays a part in modern music or more importantly, what kind of improvising takes place. For me at least, "classical" music's "mass appeal" is partially attributed to the prominence of improvisation in the creative process and interpretation. Is a compelling improviser a "composer" who just doesn't write down their compositions? Much of new music is improvised, however, the medium and context through which the improvising takes place seems to lack the long history of contextual cues that other forms of improvisation do have. IMHO much of John Cage's use of improvisation seems much different than that of somebody like Keith Jarrett or, brace yourself, a rapper. The goal and ends just seem different.

In my encounters with musicians, the goal has always been when reading music to merely use the notes as a pathway to interpreting them as if they were being improvised to recapture the mood the composer was trying to convey. Do today's modern improvisers like Keith Jarrett bare more similarity to Bach than somebody like John Cage does? Personally for me, even though Cage uses all kinds of improvisation, it can very easily come off as an "un-guided" type of improvisation that doesn't allow for as much emotional intent as say a jazz tune would with Keith Jarrett, because the musician, no matter how well trained, has very little context or familiarity.

This is an interesting video on the topic of brain function during improvisation and performing memorized musical ideas:
http://www.ted.com/talks/charles_lim...on_improv.html

IMHO there is a connection that a listener often feels with the music when it feels "improvised" or "spontaneous" regardless of whether it is or not. That being said, especially when reading notes, it takes years and years of encountering similar musical situations as a musician to be able to interpret them with life so they sound compelling. Many times when I see new music performances, the musicians barely know the music, they're often sightreading or just trying to "get through it" and the music is so new for them that it's hard to bring life into the notes without drawing on the "classical" training that is a part of their being. The result is often interesting, but overall sounds very "flat", there's little pulse to the music. And by pulse I don't mean metronomic, I mean it sounds natural. Take a performance of Brahms Symphony No. 4 by say Chicago Symphony Orchestra with Barenboim, there is something very indescribable about all those facile minds going exactly the same direction with the same intent. For me at least, modern music can lack this and it seems to be partially attributed to the lack of acknowledgement for this in the compositional aesthetic of modern composers. It also seems that composers who try to do this, John Adams, Arvo Part, etc. Are often considered irrelevant by modernists even though the music is conceived in present day.

Are we, in departing from conventional "classical" compositional mediums, also departing from a long lineage of knowledge and wisdom, that although still available to us, isn't applicable to a very useful extent in the mediums chosen by composers of the present? Are the composers of today the beginning of a completely new direction with new aesthetics that in 300 years will run a course similar to that of western music? Or, has it turned into a infinitesimally headed snake with no ability to move forward and create new conventions?



BTW if you haven't heard Keith Jarrett's music, he is quite compelling and worth your time. In addition to a being a prolific improvisor, he is also quite an accomplished classical musician performing on numerous classical recordings as a harpsichordist.

[marquis66]

Neumerogist, I have a lot of thoughts on what you have below, and I don't agree with some of your conclusions. You have a lot here, though, so I will just dive in.

Originally Posted by Neumerologist

How does the state of the composer's aesthetic appear to be in present day?Has the composer's aesthetic changed any since Leonin and Perotin with the advent of organum or is there a universal aesthetic that permeates compelling compositions?

I am not even sure what you would deem "the composer's aesthetic"? Do you mean the force that drives us to write? Because that has undoubtedly changed in very dramatic fashion in a myriad of ways, be it the tools available, the socio-political landscape, the discovery of ethnomusic, the rising-falling cycle of style. Do you mean the inherent quality of the end result? I am not sure that the composers are you talking about are even really comparable to modern composers, because the soundworld they inhabit is different, and it has so much to do with personal stylistic taste. Notre Dame polyphony is not for everyone, in the same way that Gorecki was not for everyone, even though they used the same melodies, modes, and figures frequently.

Originally Posted by Neumerologist

Is an orchestral composer's aesthetic immediately transferrable to a new medium like a theremin, tape recorder and a laptop or do the new processes required to fully adapt this new medium far outweigh those that are transferrable? In transferring to these newer aesthetics and mediums has the rigor of somebody like Bach or Ravel been maintained?

I am still not following your use of aesthetic, unless you mean to say that a composer today needs to prepare for their music to appear on a recorded medium, and does that shape their compositions. If that is what you mean, that is a very interesting question, and I would think that the answer is no. The biggest criticism of recorded media regards their lack of sound quality, particularly at the extremes of the range and that colors are muted unless the recording is of superior quality. If what you are suggesting were the case, then we would see those things tending towards more homogeneity so that the recording matched the live experience, and we see the opposite - colors and range are becoming wilder.

Originally Posted by Neumerologist

Does new music contain the same level of nuance and detail as that of orchestral composers?

Depends on what you mean by "new music", but I would argue even if it doesn't contain those things, it is not a mark on its quality, only its style.

Originally Posted by Neumerologist

Is a Stockhausen as mentally facile as a Bach? If they are, are they in the same ways?

Yes, but only in the regard that neither are easy to understand thoroughly

Originally Posted by Neumerologist

Do they even use the same parts of their brain to conceive music? Do they draw on similar universal inspirations for creation or aesthetically different ones?

I would say Yes and No; one has to acknowledge that both the world as a whole and their individual universes were infinitely different, and that makes all the difference.

Originally Posted by Neumerologist

Is a compelling improviser a "composer" who just doesn't write down their compositions?

Without a doubt.

Originally Posted by Neumerologist

Much of new music is improvised

Eh... define "much of". I disagree that any more than 10% of new music is improvised, and I think that is a stretch.

Originally Posted by Neumerologist

the medium and context through which the improvising takes place seems to lack the long history of contextual cues that other forms of improvisation do have. IMHO much of John Cage's use of improvisation seems much different than that of somebody like Keith Jarrett or, brace yourself, a rapper. The goal and ends just seem different.

Well, hold on here... using John Cage as the pinnacle of classical music improvisation is giving his influence WAY too much weight. He was absolutely unique in how he did things, and he is not the vanguard of improvisation, for my money. What Cage was doing was WAY outside of the norm, in terms of the expansion of the definition of what music is, looks like, feels like and smells like. Look at composers like Fred Rzewski, even as modern and improvisatory as the music is, it is still in the Post-Romantic/Modern musical tradition. Cage has his acolytes to be sure, but they are not the majority of the classical improvisation movement.

Originally Posted by Neumerologist

In my encounters with musicians, the goal has always been when reading music to merely use the notes as a pathway to interpreting them as if they were being improvised to recapture the mood the composer was trying to convey.

Yes - Music isn't what's on the page, that is just its recorded medium.

Originally Posted by Neumerologist

Do today's modern improvisers like Keith Jarrett bare more similarity to Bach than somebody like John Cage does?

Hmm... Maybe? That is a yes and no for me, because I think that when you are dealing with Cage you really have to look beyond the end product and look at the "how". At its core, it is reminiscent of "how" Bach wrote (and improvised!), but of course their end products are different.

Originally Posted by Neumerologist

Personally for me, even though Cage uses all kinds of improvisation, it can very easily come off as an "un-guided" type of improvisation that doesn't allow for as much emotional intent as say a jazz tune would with Keith Jarrett, because the musician, no matter how well trained, has very little context or familiarity.

Cage would say to hell with your "emotional intent". It isn't meant to be there, so stop looking for it. Like I said earlier, you can't really use it as a mark of its quality, but its fine for your personal taste.

Originally Posted by Neumerologist

Many times when I see new music performances, the musicians barely know the music, they're often sightreading or just trying to "get through it" and the music is so new for them that it's hard to bring life into the notes without drawing on the "classical" training that is a part of their being.

The bane of my existence as a composer. Inevitably they ask me if I am happy with the end product, and I understand why performers do it since it is not common to be able to ask the composer this question. I am looking for an interpretation of the music, and as long as that is happening, I am happy, even if this phrase isn't exactly metrically the way that I wrote it.

Originally Posted by Neumerologist

For me at least, modern music can lack this and it seems to be partially attributed to the lack of acknowledgement for this in the compositional aesthetic of modern composers.

Here is that aesthetic question again... so are you saying that modern music is to hard to understand by the musicians, so that is why it doesn't translate to the audience? An interesting idea, but I don't think I am buying what you are selling... maybe if it was marked down, I would take a bigger look at it though. I think that musicians definitely have the ABILITY to understand and internalize modern music, but many of them just don't take the time to do so. If you think the division between theoretical/philosophical musicians and performing musicians is big in the non-musical community, you should see how big it is in the academic world. Whoo Boy!

Originally Posted by Neumerologist

It also seems that composers who try to do this, John Adams, Arvo Part, etc. Are often considered irrelevant by modernists even though the music is conceived in present day.

John Adams is not considered irrelevant by modernists in any way, shape or form. Minimalism is huge right now, and he is their figurehead. Even Part and the other holy minimalists (Tavener, Glass, Reich, Vasks, etc etc) have a fair share in the game, it isn't like they are completely neglected.

Originally Posted by Neumerologist

Are we, in departing from conventional "classical" compositional mediums, also departing from a long lineage of knowledge and wisdom, that although still available to us, isn't applicable to a very useful extent in the mediums chosen by composers of the present?

I don't think that we are departing from classical mediums at all. Are they expanding, to include other things, sure. But that is not an abandonment of the past, it is an acknowledgement that art music, and art in general, is about expansion of the form. Even Schoenberg insisted that his students knew formal, classical theory. Analysis students still start with Bach and Mozart and Beethoven. I didn't even get Late Beethoven until I was a grad student.

Originally Posted by Neumerologist

Are the composers of today the beginning of a completely new direction with new aesthetics that in 300 years will run a course similar to that of western music? Or, has it turned into a infinitesimally headed snake with no ability to move forward and create new conventions?

There will be new conventions, but the aesthetic hasn't radically changed, in my opinion (shaded a little, but still basically the same). Those two statements are not connected to one another.

Cheers!

[Neumerologist]

Hey marquis. Long time no see! Thanks for the response. This thread was to some degree regarding some other recent discussions about modern music (someguy's thread "the idea of modernity", just in case you were wondering where it's all coming from...)

Originally Posted by marquis66

I am not even sure what you would deem "the composer's aesthetic"? Do you mean the force that drives us to write? Because that has undoubtedly changed in very dramatic fashion in a myriad of ways, be it the tools available, the socio-political landscape, the discovery of ethnomusic, the rising-falling cycle of style.

Yes, and that was exactly what I was wondering if I was alone about. You hit it on the head. "Do we even conceive music for the same reasons anymore?" is the basic premise. It seems as if reasons for conceiving music have shifted in many ways. There seems to be quite an interest in exploring the mechanics of a single instrument or instruments as the sole goal of the piece yet they aren't etudes or exercises. Bach's partitas seem to fall into this category to a degree. What I'm getting at, is there so little left to do with conventional instruments that composers have exploit the flaws in an instrument?

Is there some sort of inevitable departure from a profound intent or narrative like that of Bach in music today because it is merely tapped out? In other words, is there more concern for technical mechanics than profundity? The reason I started a discussion on it is a lot of modern music that strikes my own personal tastes and seems to not be based solely on "mechanics", doesn't seem to be deemed relevant or "new" on this forum. The term "new" seems to be used to mean something other than being "new" in age yet nobody will describe what this other use of "new" is.

I'd be interested to hear your take on some of the recent threads on modern music on BC BTW.

Originally Posted by marquis66

I am still not following your use of aesthetic, unless you mean to say that a composer today needs to prepare for their music to appear on a recorded medium, and does that shape their compositions. If that is what you mean, that is a very interesting question, and I would think that the answer is no. The biggest criticism of recorded media regards their lack of sound quality, particularly at the extremes of the range and that colors are muted unless the recording is of superior quality. If what you are suggesting were the case, then we would see those things tending towards more homogeneity so that the recording matched the live experience, and we see the opposite - colors and range are becoming wilder.

Very interesting perspective on this.

Originally Posted by marquis66

Depends on what you mean by "new music", but I would argue even if it doesn't contain those things, it is not a mark on its quality, only its style.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by marquis66

Well, hold on here... using John Cage as the pinnacle of classical music improvisation is giving his influence WAY too much weight. He was absolutely unique in how he did things, and he is not the vanguard of improvisation, for my money. What Cage was doing was WAY outside of the norm, in terms of the expansion of the definition of what music is, looks like, feels like and smells like. Look at composers like Fred Rzewski, even as modern and improvisatory as the music is, it is still in the Post-Romantic/Modern musical tradition. Cage has his acolytes to be sure, but they are not the majority of the classical improvisation movement.

I agree, and I did not in any way intend to undercut some of the fantastic classical improvising that's out there. I completely waffled in saying that much new music is improvised. I think part of why I said it was that much of it sounds random. Part of why I gave Cage's influence a lot of weight, was IMHO he opened a door that is still wide open. His music had a sound that really pushed music into this new place sonically. Very similar to what Ornette Coleman did. Schoenberg might've introduced the twelve tones, but Cage basically discarded everything and brought music into this very volatile realm. And, the "Cage" sound is everywhere in concert music. I feel like that "sound"/ideal is tapped into quite a bit. Part of where this is coming from is sitting through concerts of "new" music so many times and constantly hearing this sound.

Originally Posted by marquis66

Hmm... Maybe? That is a yes and no for me, because I think that when you are dealing with Cage you really have to look beyond the end product and look at the "how". At its core, it is reminiscent of "how" Bach wrote (and improvised!), but of course their end products are different.

Besides the improvising part I don't feel there is much similarity at all. I feel like when Bach improvised his means were COMPLETELY different. He was thinking of harmonies, devices, melody, form, etc. with a goal to be different and more sophisticated than the standard of the day. His improvisations weren't listened to as improvisations, they were compositions that he improvised, there was a very polished intent in them. Somebody like Keith Jarrett undoubtedly has similar aims. It might be just me, but I don't get that from a lot of Cage's music.

Originally Posted by marquis66

Cage would say to hell with your "emotional intent". It isn't meant to be there, so stop looking for it. Like I said earlier, you can't really use it as a mark of its quality, but its fine for your personal taste.

The problem here is, is emotional intent something that can be dispensed with when writing music? Removing it from the picture arguably turns everything into an emotionless transaction. It's like reading a thesaurus. How pervasive among modern composers do you think the philosophy of rejecting "emotional intent" is? I think Cage would definitely say to hell with emotional intent. Is the adoption of a conscious diversion from emotional intent in music the reason many modernists are having trouble finding wider acceptance? Is emotion not the thing that a listener grasps on to when in the audience experiencing a composer's work? Isn't the composer being in touch with their emotional state be it cold, angry, wheedling, coy, etc. what separates music from being merely notes to being music?

Originally Posted by marquis66

Here is that aesthetic question again... so are you saying that modern music is to hard to understand by the musicians, so that is why it doesn't translate to the audience? An interesting idea, but I don't think I am buying what you are selling... maybe if it was marked down, I would take a bigger look at it though. I think that musicians definitely have the ABILITY to understand and internalize modern music, but many of them just don't take the time to do so. If you think the division between theoretical/philosophical musicians and performing musicians is big in the non-musical community, you should see how big it is in the academic world. Whoo Boy!

Im saying it's part of the reason and I'm trying to figure out if it relates to a shift in "why" composers write music today and what they write it for. Judging from your experiences you shared, I have similar ones...it is definitely part of it. And what I'm suggesting is that there is possibly a disconnect in what composers write music for in this day and age. From my experiences it seems many musicians do indeed not take the time to learn a new composer's music and the reason for it many of the times is they don't see the value in it or don't find something in it that interests them. I say this acknowledging that there are always exceptions, there are plenty of composers who are proving this idea wrong. That being said, here is the other end of it, there are scores of composers who write new music where the musicians do the exact opposite and really learn the music and really like performing it, the audience loves it, yet the musical result is often disapproved by the "new" music crowd. It's a dynamic that I can't quite figure out and am beginning to think it's similar to the punk band mentality of somebody gaining wider acceptance, or "accolades", that they are "selling out".

Originally Posted by marquis66

John Adams is not considered irrelevant by modernists in any way, shape or form. Minimalism is huge right now, and he is their figurehead. Even Part and the other holy minimalists (Tavener, Glass, Reich, Vasks, etc etc) have a fair share in the game, it isn't like they are completely neglected.

Holy minimalists. That is the coolest term ever. I'm going to remember that one. IMHO It seems like their contribution is significantly downplayed like it's little kid stuff.

Originally Posted by marquis66

I don't think that we are departing from classical mediums at all. Are they expanding, to include other things, sure. But that is not an abandonment of the past, it is an acknowledgement that art music, and art in general, is about expansion of the form. Even Schoenberg insisted that his students knew formal, classical theory.

I want to agree. I'm constantly on the ropes of whether this is really the case. It just doesn't seem like music is "expanding" anymore, it seems like it's imploding on itself. I feel in many regards the artistry and fire of what drew people to concert music has moved to other mediums (jazz, film, popular music). I feel the aesthetic of Mozart, Bach and minds like that has predominantly shifted to those realms and a mechanical-analytical approach is reigning in the academic world. That true fire to create something that moves people has been out and out lost in many circles, this isn't inference, it's more I've heard "new" music composers snark about their intentions one too many times. Much new music has tons of intellectual depth yet it is put together with the emotional intent of a dictionary and I find it much harder to find a connection with it. It seems many good composers I've encountered have either moved to the film world because they have to eat or went on to a new non-music major for their master's. The "new" music fad appears to be growing more and more separated from what a "working" composer even does, yet it's a huge part of most composition students' appetites now. Mozart, Beethoven, etc. were "working" composers. Bach wrote for funerals. It seems there's a divide with "why" composers write music now. There is a big divide, maybe even several ... hopefully you can see I'm trying to bring light to this for the better rather than "blame". I love all kinds of modern music, electronic music, etc., just trying to figure out why the climate is the way it is.

Originally Posted by marquis66

There will be new conventions, but the aesthetic hasn't radically changed, in my opinion (shaded a little, but still basically the same). Those two statements are not connected to one another.

Well said.

[Tarantella]

I cannot seem to get this "quote" function going!!

[Tarantella]

[Much new music has tons of intellectual depth yet it is put together with the emotional intent of a dictionary and I find it much harder to find a connection with it. It seems many good composers I've encountered have either moved to the film world because they have to eat or went on to a new non-music major for their master's. The "new" music fad appears to be growing more and more separated from what a "working" composer even does, yet it's a huge part of most composition students' appetites now.]

I absolutely agree with all of this!!

[Herzeleide]

Originally Posted by Neumerologist

The problem here is, is emotional intent something that can be dispensed with when writing music? Removing it from the picture arguably turns everything into an emotionless transaction. It's like reading a thesaurus. How pervasive among modern composers do you think the philosophy of rejecting "emotional intent" is? I think Cage would definitely say to hell with emotional intent. Is the adoption of a conscious diversion from emotional intent in music the reason many modernists are having trouble finding wider acceptance? Is emotion not the thing that a listener grasps on to when in the audience experiencing a composer's work? Isn't the composer being in touch with their emotional state be it cold, angry, wheedling, coy, etc. what separates music from being merely notes to being music?

Here's what Oliver Knussen says:

I think the expressive character of music is very dangerous stuff to be dealing with consciously if you're a composer... ... one decides what it is is one wants to write, and then simply does it as best one can, often learning how to compose it as you go. You don't plumb your depths to write a terribly self-expressive piece. You do it with technique, and hope that it talks back to you when you finally hear it. I suspect Brahms felt the same way, or Tchikovsky or Berg, who certainly all approached the actual composition technically, however affecting the end product.

Knussen has suffered starvation for his irresponsibly unemotional approach to composition:



... but do note that Knussen avoids the word 'emotion', prefering the infinitely more preferable word 'expression' - because, as everyone knows or at least should know, music can express many things, one of which is emotion. Some sort of emotional reaction is inevitable when listening to music, I admit, but, well it's a complex issue, which may or may not have more or just as much to do with the listener's state of mind before listening to it, and his or her environment, the context of the experience etc. Some music is overtly emotional, some may excite one's intellect.

I've said other stuff around here before on the inifinitely variable and suggestive capacity for music to relate to other things, and emotion is be a byproduct of all of that. Music, ultimately, however, is an abstract art and should not be reduced to merely a vehicle for emotions or as manipulation thereof. A composer who takes such a stance cannot expect to produce good music and the listener who takes such an approach simply misses out on everything music has to offer.

I've dabbled in composition. It's intellectual work, difficult, philosophical and it can be exciting. The romantic notion of me pouring my heart out with all the dots on the page is a complete myth. It's very different to actually listening to music, which is essentially a subjective experience - a composer has to sculpt something objective out of a sea of infinite possibilities.

Composers have known this for hundreds of years.

What do you think the emotional intent of these was? -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsNPeGV3zJg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsh88GrsY34

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kotK9FNEYU

My head hurts after all of that. I think I'll go listen to some film music...

[Tarantella]

Such an interesting question (in a fascinating discussion)!! The Josquin, Bach and Coltrane are all examples of the very highest art of music but I think "emotional intent" not the right approach to this music.

One should think of music in terms of "affecting" or "touching" or "resonating" rather than simply 'emotion'. When something 'touches' us it may not be merely emotion, but can charge our empathetic or intellectual processes.

An important consideration is the "function" of music - this needs to be factored into our responses. For example, the Josquin is a deeply religious and, IMO, transcendent - coming from one of the greatest composers of all time. The Bach? This composer's music defies any kind of categorization. Personally, this is always a transcendent and deep experience for me - but I wouldn't call it 'emotional', unless one is talking about the Passions.

I think there are multiple factors at play when one listens to music. It is when these factors are reduced to ONE, say the intellect, that problems arise. I think this is THE problem with the avant garde: it is an intellectual exercise all about what is possible: just not enough for me!!

[Aran]

This discussion is so interesting but to me, so complex - so many factors need attention since “music” broke from its traditional form (or perhaps developed rather fast, possibly looking back to the symbolists and then Schoenberg). It wasn’t just music using traditional acoustic instruments but the work started in 1942 by Pierre Schaeffer in sound-based composition; and in the mid 1950s by Stockhausen who started on electronic and electroacoustic music. Meanwhile, Boulez and a few others took up serialism/“total serialism” taking a cue from Messiaen from whom Boulez and Stockhausen took composition lessons.

In parallel were all the technical advances. By the 1950s the problems with tape recorders had (largely) been resolved. It was one of those important developments as it occupied studios until around the turn of the 21st century. There was Robert Moog in the 1960s applying voltage control to synthesiser modules. Until then the basis of synthesiser modules existed but standardising voltage control let them all be put in the same box. And 1979, the digital sampling Fairlight synthesiser appeared; MIDI, sequencing software, et al.

So it’s difficult to sort out what’s what in this explosion of creative media. And whether there should be a boundary around what can be called music - or is it allowed to encompass anything to do with sound organisation - even then, where do you draw the line? Speech? That’s part of the spectrum if including Schoenberg’s Sprechstimme and Mallarmé’s attempts to musicalise speech (as in Un Coup de Dès and the unfinished “Le Livre“). Poetry? And indeterminacy. I suppose there’s no bound there. Performance from a traditional printed score incurs indeterminacy within tightly controlled limits of course (in that the instructions are imprecise re dynamics and often tempo), through improvisation, aleatoric operation to the wider indeterminacy of Cage and Cardew. Electronic music recorded on some medium (or for that matter a recording of any musical performance) is free of indeterminacy beyond local performance conditions. With traditional music a record is a kind of snapshot of an interpretation. With “taped” electronic music it’s a definitive performance.

Why the reception of atonal, electronic and electroacoustic music presents problems puzzles me. Electroacoustic music seems more acceptable in the cinema and recent younger audiences have accepted Stickhausen. Why Stockhausen when, for example, Boulez, Schoenberg and countless young composers are still held at a distance?

In ways it’s about communication, something that troubled Darmstadt and the avant garde of the 1950-1960s when they began to question their lack of acceptance. Whether communication was the right concept, I don’t know. In those days the music-listening public had expectations. The avant garde didn’t cater to them. Meyer-Eppler questioned “musical communication as a problem of information theory” (Die Reihe vol 8 Retrospective). Deryck Cooke saw it in a less technical way (though it could amount to the same thing). “It’s a simple fundamental fact which lies unacknowledged beneath all the technical surface talk of atonality, dodecaphony, serialism and what have you: the real crucial thing that happened to music in Schoenberg’s hands was that it completely severed contact with the musical vernacular, in which it had always been rooted…..” and in an essay “The Future of Musical Language.”

Although the question of musical "linguistics" is discussable, the severing of that vernacular does raise problems about finding a compositional aesthetic in that each composer may need to be considered on a case by case basis. An interesting topic.

[Tarantella]

Hi D, this is a characteristically thoughtful and intelligent response. I'm sorry nobody seems to have taken up the discussion. After some time has elapsed and I've formulated a response I'll come back. Hopefully somebody else will jump in to bridge the void. Cheers, S.