3 ms·

I think the dynamic range of multiple instruments naturally invites "lots of complicated dramatic notes", which you can find even in romantic music. Of Messiaen

I think the dynamic range of multiple instruments naturally invites "lots of complicated dramatic notes", which you can find even in romantic music. Of Messiaen's works, my favorite remains "Vingt regards sur l'Enfant-Jésus". Of course the symphony also introduces many new and alluring timbres not found in the piano. In "Catalogue d'Oiseaux" I myself also struggled to find more than a passing resemblance to bird song (i.e. beyond more familiar song found in the treble of l'Alouette Lulu), so thanks for those links. As for ecstatic music, I wonder how you'd appreciate the music of Maurice Ohana, specifically "Messe", which despite being an operatic (or choral?) piece, I find calming. I believe John Sichel's "Oiseaux Ordinaires" is homage to Messiaen's "Oiseaux Exotiques", though once again I'm not sure how much actual birdsong it incorporates. I've always wondered how much of music's aesthetic is inherent, and how much relates to extrinsic factors. Normally you hear a piece and if you like it, you think, "hmm, that's good music". But maybe you only liked it because you're used to that type of music. So if you want to listen to music from a new genre perhaps you listen to it a few times, letting an appreciation percolate from whatever place we draw our musical inspiration. Then, because a lot of people say "this is a good genre; good music" and the genre is large with some shit pieces but also masterpieces, you come to believe that the genre has value. But some genres very few people come to appreciate, and that includes serialism, and I wonder... Is serialism lacking an inherent aesthetic, or is it just too different to easily appreciate? For example I played, and came to love, Schoenberg's "Six Little Pieces for Piano" (op 19). My interpretation was idiosyncratic; like no one else's. But looking on YouTube I can't find any performances that I enjoy or would recommend. So does my appreciation for this music reflect the blood and sweat that I've put into it, or does it reflect the beauty and understanding of the underlying musical theory? The question is: does serialism need to be played to be appreciated?

tgv 4y ago
> "Vingt regards sur l'Enfant-Jésus" Great work. I also like l'Ascencion. I even try to play bits on the organ (not that I'm a good organist). > I wonder how you'd appreciate the music of Maurice Ohana, specifically "Messe" That didn't do it for me. I found it a bit too wandering, amorphous. I listened to some of his guitar work, which is much more concise, somewhat Webern-like. That spoke more to me. Then autoplay put on 12 etudes d'interpretation, which I predominantly found to be too "forced". > Is serialism lacking an inherent aesthetic, or is it just too different to easily appreciate? Composers, musicians, and musicologists have tried to push it long enough, and it never got hold, so I guess it just can't work apart from some gimmicky use. It's too rigid. E.g., the dynamics, rhythm, melody and harmony of a piece should be related to each other, but in serialism, they're simply tossed around as if every preconceived change between pp and ff and then mf and then a bunch of sfz will always be musical. Music thrives under limitations, because it's basically repeated time, and limitations can provide direction. But if I were to start a school of composition that only allows one tone per part, I think nobody would be able to write a meaningful piece (except as a gimmick, again, by picking the instruments that fit with the chord you want). Some limitations are simply not musical, and I guess serialism is among those.
- dhosek 4y ago
  When I sang in the cathedral back in the 00s, the organist would often play Messiaen as a postlude. There were some pieces where with the pedal work, multiple manuals and adjusting stops that it was like watching Keith Moon on the drums.
- orbisvicis 4y ago
  Oh that was fantastic, thanks. It's not often I have reason to listen to organ music. Almost makes one want to purchase an organ. I don't care for the 12 études d'interprétation, but neither do I care for Rachmaninoff's Études-Tableux. I find both to be too pedagogical. Which makes no sense; according to Wikipedia they're meant to be "picture pieces". So I haven't always put much stock in études.

tgv 4y ago

> "Vingt regards sur l'Enfant-Jésus" Great work. I also like l'Ascencion. I even try to play bits on the organ (not that I'm a good organist). > I wonder how you'd appreciate the music of Maurice Ohana, specifically "Messe" That didn't do it for me. I found it a bit too wandering, amorphous. I listened to some of his guitar work, which is much more concise, somewhat Webern-like. That spoke more to me. Then autoplay put on 12 etudes d'interpretation, which I predominantly found to be too "forced". > Is serialism lacking an inherent aesthetic, or is it just too different to easily appreciate? Composers, musicians, and musicologists have tried to push it long enough, and it never got hold, so I guess it just can't work apart from some gimmicky use. It's too rigid. E.g., the dynamics, rhythm, melody and harmony of a piece should be related to each other, but in serialism, they're simply tossed around as if every preconceived change between pp and ff and then mf and then a bunch of sfz will always be musical. Music thrives under limitations, because it's basically repeated time, and limitations can provide direction. But if I were to start a school of composition that only allows one tone per part, I think nobody would be able to write a meaningful piece (except as a gimmick, again, by picking the instruments that fit with the chord you want). Some limitations are simply not musical, and I guess serialism is among those.

dhosek 4y ago
When I sang in the cathedral back in the 00s, the organist would often play Messiaen as a postlude. There were some pieces where with the pedal work, multiple manuals and adjusting stops that it was like watching Keith Moon on the drums.
orbisvicis 4y ago
Oh that was fantastic, thanks. It's not often I have reason to listen to organ music. Almost makes one want to purchase an organ. I don't care for the 12 études d'interprétation, but neither do I care for Rachmaninoff's Études-Tableux. I find both to be too pedagogical. Which makes no sense; according to Wikipedia they're meant to be "picture pieces". So I haven't always put much stock in études.