it's important to note that CLEANLINESS, CLARITY and PRECISION are NOT musical issues. Focusing on them are the disease of the second half of 20th century that made classical music sound intelectual and boring to most people. the overall effect has always been more important, just like in the Strauss example.
A great approach to a difficult topic and I really like your ambition explaning people the wonders and fascination of even the most complicated modern music! Maybe there's still hope for contemporary music becoming more widely loved one day!
Xenakis is one of the greatest classical composers of all time, period. Just thought I'd add because there is some confusion in one of the comments in this section. Xenakis is on the same level of greatness as Beethoven, both composers also wrote incredibly agressive music for their times that was and still is revolutionary. Xenakis was one of my first loves when it comes to classical music. If I didnt first obsess over composers like Xenakis, Messiaen, Stockhausen, Stravinsky, Bartok, Webern and Varese, then i would never have ended up also appreciating composers like Beethoven, Bach, Mahler, Bruckner, Wagner and all those renaissance composers. But my allegiences are obviously with modern classical rather than the centuries before, even though there is plenty to learn from all music of all eras of all genres.
I disagree. Dissonance has a rightful place in music, but if you completely abandon consonance, the appeal goes down. I don’t think history will remember those composers too well. Even today, we play music like Stravinsky who rode that line some, but 12 tone and other Atonal music is rarely performed. I think as time moves forward this kind of music will really only find a home in a music history classroom.
@@Hastenforthedawm I mean you can disagree, that’s part of the beauty of music. But it’s just a fact that it isn’t played often. And it probably won’t be. That kind of music is appealing to a niche market. Most pro orchestras won’t play that kind of music because it does not attract an audience.
If I am honest, and unfortunately I usually am, I'm not a fan of 20th century art music. But I'm glad it's there. It's exploration of timbre, rhythmic complexity, and emotion is sometimes exactly what is needed for a particular statement or thought. To be clear, I do love Stravinsky and friends. Just not a big fan of the *full works* of the outer edge composers, so-to-speak.
if everyone is pushing the boundary such that no one is making music that sounds good or is fun to play anymore, then what boundaries are even being pushed?
@@Hastenforthedawm I mean yeah there are individuals making good music, but have you ever wondered why contemporary classical has basically no cultural impact in the concert space? The closest we have is film and game music because they're generally written to have actual themes, and emotional impact.
@@AhrkFinTey because after WW2, classical music performers and venues lost their grip on marketing music because "popular" forms of music (of all types) took full advantage of new methods of organization, promotion and technologies more broadly. Contemporary classical music uniquely fell into reliance of fan support whereas popular genres of music found ways of promoting to new audiences. Of note though, popular genres of music basically since the late 90s have gradually come to suffer a similar fate as contemporary classical music via the music industry simply not being able to sustain new artists in the way they were able from aprox 1950-1995. If we look back before the modern age; concert music (orchestras, ensembles and operas) was seen as rich people entertainment. Whereas in the modern age it is often (wrongly) perceived as complicated "old people music". So on some level, aside from the folk music of any given place, and maybe solo piano music (given that privately playing piano scores in one's own house was traditionally one of the main ways that music used to be experienced) classical music in general always will be at odds with layman society, even in the postmodern era when we assume that such barriers have broken down.
HI! I just stumbled on your videos today and I have to say I'm absolutely LOVING them so far!! This one has made me think a lot about how we approach ridiculously difficult music in different ways; I come from a background of metal, more specifically either technical death metal or progressive metal, and a hallmark in both of these genres is difficulty. 32nd note runs, absurdly weird rhythms, etc. (the channel Metal Music Theory does an absolutely AMAZING job explaining some of the ideas these artists present) and drummers creating new techniques to be able to play as fast as possible- see Lord Marco or Spencer Prewett on youtube for examples of this. What's interesting to me is the difference between the pursuit of perfection found in metal, which often times leads to hundreds of thousands of hours of practicing single songs for musicians, and the approach that the musicians in the classical world take, wherein being able to hear the struggle is more valued. I love your videos, keep it up!!
An interesting consideration might be that the instruments have virtually stood still in terms of development. My Buffet clarinet is essentially using the same keyword invented around 1839. Yes, the players progress but I wonder if the likes of Ferneyhough yearn for instruments that don't exist. Perhaps they would be better off with a package from Spitfire Audio!
As examples of "impossible" music for the organ, I'd cite Khaikosru Sorabji's three Organ Symphonies, as well as Jean-Louis Florentz' _Debout sur le Soleil_ and _La Croix du Sud_.
I love Ferneyhough 2nd quartet so much! That's the work that made Ferneyhough click for me. Made me think of Beethoven and Bartok, but with a vocabulary coming from Varese and Schoenberg, a fantastic sound theatre!
I kind of expected to hear how a computer would render the score. Something like a flute glissando turns out to be a very fast chromatic scale, though a computer would probably indulge a portamento which really is physically impossible (but MIDI supports it as a pitch bend).
It's an open question to what extent this still qualifies as music. It's probably a question for sociologists (and psychiatrists) rather than for musicologists. Xenaxis & Ferneyhough's "music" is mostly noise produced with musical instruments. At one point, atonal composers had the alibi of "experimental" music. But the "Pierrot Lunaire" & cie experiment have been a failed one for 100+ years. At the end, they came up with the "Who cares if you listen" Milton Babbit's program article, spitting at their audience, while justifying their lack of talent and ideas. Our answer should be: "Who cares what you call music. You are a fraud. Or worse".
I personally love Xenakis and Ferneyhough- I’m a huge fan of their music (especially Ferneyhough before he started using open source). My opinion is that it is 100% music. Furthermore, I think it is emotional music, and some of the most emotional music I’ve heard. Hearing the performers struggle in playing Ferneyhough’s Transcendental Etudes or Transit is a sound I really connect with. If anything, I see Ferneyhough’s music as being extremely literal- not something “abstract”. Ferneyhough confronts us with the literal sounds of pure struggle directly, instead of being interpreted through harmony, melody, rhythm, etc. These sounds to me are very emotional, unique, and by no means “overly complex for no reason”. I see Xenakis’s music as brutal and savage- an evolution of Stravinsky’s primitivism. I’m thinking Synphai and Keqrops. To me, the sounds of the brass in Synphai around 2/3rds in, then in immediately juxtaposed to the piano highlights the primitive, brassy nature. His music truly is dissonant, brutalistic, and horrific. The lopsided polyrhythms in both those pieces feel disjointed- similar to the rite of spring. Another Xenakis piece I recommend is Jonchaies- which is basically a 10 minute climax. I think if you listen to that, you’ll see what I mean about the primitivism and brutality. Anyways- I recommend you listen to those pieces and keep in mind what I am trying to say. Let me know if you see where I’m coming from or if you think I’m full of shit.
Music is the exploitation of the human brain's rationalization of sound, to create a coherent piece with both a beginning and end. This is not music. This is noise.
0:00, an ashkenaz wrote that music, right? it's pretty much always them when it comes to awful cacophony toiletification of some otherwise beautiful concept, in this case, an orchestra.
@@AnAverageItalian I assume that that means "hard to follow or understand". Which is of course complete nonsense, it's extremely easy to follow, in fact, you understood it perfectly, didn't like it, can't really disagree because anyone can verify my claim since schönberg, cage and co weren't exactly modest about their BS, so you commented trying to pass my statement off as impossible to understand, to at least make me look bad if you can't disagree with me flat out. A very common tactic, and it always fails.
it's important to note that CLEANLINESS, CLARITY and PRECISION are NOT musical issues. Focusing on them are the disease of the second half of 20th century that made classical music sound intelectual and boring to most people. the overall effect has always been more important, just like in the Strauss example.
A great approach to a difficult topic and I really like your ambition explaning people the wonders and fascination of even the most complicated modern music! Maybe there's still hope for contemporary music becoming more widely loved one day!
Xenakis is one of the greatest classical composers of all time, period.
Just thought I'd add because there is some confusion in one of the comments in this section.
Xenakis is on the same level of greatness as Beethoven, both composers also wrote incredibly agressive music for their times that was and still is revolutionary.
Xenakis was one of my first loves when it comes to classical music. If I didnt first obsess over composers like Xenakis, Messiaen, Stockhausen, Stravinsky, Bartok, Webern and Varese, then i would never have ended up also appreciating composers like Beethoven, Bach, Mahler, Bruckner, Wagner and all those renaissance composers.
But my allegiences are obviously with modern classical rather than the centuries before, even though there is plenty to learn from all music of all eras of all genres.
I disagree. Dissonance has a rightful place in music, but if you completely abandon consonance, the appeal goes down. I don’t think history will remember those composers too well. Even today, we play music like Stravinsky who rode that line some, but 12 tone and other Atonal music is rarely performed. I think as time moves forward this kind of music will really only find a home in a music history classroom.
@@JwsteeleMusic I couldn't disagree any more strongly with you, this is maximum level disagreement with every fibre of my being.
@@Hastenforthedawm I mean you can disagree, that’s part of the beauty of music. But it’s just a fact that it isn’t played often. And it probably won’t be. That kind of music is appealing to a niche market. Most pro orchestras won’t play that kind of music because it does not attract an audience.
@@JwsteeleMusicthat is a condemnation of the audience and not the music!
If I am honest, and unfortunately I usually am, I'm not a fan of 20th century art music. But I'm glad it's there. It's exploration of timbre, rhythmic complexity, and emotion is sometimes exactly what is needed for a particular statement or thought.
To be clear, I do love Stravinsky and friends. Just not a big fan of the *full works* of the outer edge composers, so-to-speak.
if everyone is pushing the boundary such that no one is making music that sounds good or is fun to play anymore, then what boundaries are even being pushed?
Some people like pop music and R&B other people like black metal and grindcore.
There is no reason to limit yourself
@@AhrkFinTey "no one is making music that sounds good" - speak for yourself
@@Hastenforthedawm I mean yeah there are individuals making good music, but have you ever wondered why contemporary classical has basically no cultural impact in the concert space? The closest we have is film and game music because they're generally written to have actual themes, and emotional impact.
@@AhrkFinTey because after WW2, classical music performers and venues lost their grip on marketing music because "popular" forms of music (of all types) took full advantage of new methods of organization, promotion and technologies more broadly.
Contemporary classical music uniquely fell into reliance of fan support whereas popular genres of music found ways of promoting to new audiences.
Of note though, popular genres of music basically since the late 90s have gradually come to suffer a similar fate as contemporary classical music via the music industry simply not being able to sustain new artists in the way they were able from aprox 1950-1995.
If we look back before the modern age; concert music (orchestras, ensembles and operas) was seen as rich people entertainment.
Whereas in the modern age it is often (wrongly) perceived as complicated "old people music".
So on some level, aside from the folk music of any given place, and maybe solo piano music (given that privately playing piano scores in one's own house was traditionally one of the main ways that music used to be experienced) classical music in general always will be at odds with layman society, even in the postmodern era when we assume that such barriers have broken down.
HI! I just stumbled on your videos today and I have to say I'm absolutely LOVING them so far!! This one has made me think a lot about how we approach ridiculously difficult music in different ways; I come from a background of metal, more specifically either technical death metal or progressive metal, and a hallmark in both of these genres is difficulty. 32nd note runs, absurdly weird rhythms, etc. (the channel Metal Music Theory does an absolutely AMAZING job explaining some of the ideas these artists present) and drummers creating new techniques to be able to play as fast as possible- see Lord Marco or Spencer Prewett on youtube for examples of this. What's interesting to me is the difference between the pursuit of perfection found in metal, which often times leads to hundreds of thousands of hours of practicing single songs for musicians, and the approach that the musicians in the classical world take, wherein being able to hear the struggle is more valued. I love your videos, keep it up!!
An interesting consideration might be that the instruments have virtually stood still in terms of development. My Buffet clarinet is essentially using the same keyword invented around 1839. Yes, the players progress but I wonder if the likes of Ferneyhough yearn for instruments that don't exist. Perhaps they would be better off with a package from Spitfire Audio!
As examples of "impossible" music for the organ, I'd cite Khaikosru Sorabji's three Organ Symphonies, as well as Jean-Louis Florentz' _Debout sur le Soleil_ and _La Croix du Sud_.
I love Ferneyhough 2nd quartet so much! That's the work that made Ferneyhough click for me. Made me think of Beethoven and Bartok, but with a vocabulary coming from Varese and Schoenberg, a fantastic sound theatre!
How do you know what's impossible without attempting it
I kind of expected to hear how a computer would render the score. Something like a flute glissando turns out to be a very fast chromatic scale, though a computer would probably indulge a portamento which really is physically impossible (but MIDI supports it as a pitch bend).
What piece was at 5:30 for tuba?
One of mine 😉 th-cam.com/video/TxIuN_O8pLg/w-d-xo.html
yo let’s get whatismusic on this
1:50 this is why i dislike being in 2nd violins.
Hey mah dude! Make an ending for the videos. Just like a piece of music. Why did you make this choice?
🤣
It's an open question to what extent this still qualifies as music. It's probably a question for sociologists (and psychiatrists) rather than for musicologists. Xenaxis & Ferneyhough's "music" is mostly noise produced with musical instruments. At one point, atonal composers had the alibi of "experimental" music. But the "Pierrot Lunaire" & cie experiment have been a failed one for 100+ years. At the end, they came up with the "Who cares if you listen" Milton Babbit's program article, spitting at their audience, while justifying their lack of talent and ideas. Our answer should be: "Who cares what you call music. You are a fraud. Or worse".
❤
I personally love Xenakis and Ferneyhough- I’m a huge fan of their music (especially Ferneyhough before he started using open source). My opinion is that it is 100% music.
Furthermore, I think it is emotional music, and some of the most emotional music I’ve heard. Hearing the performers struggle in playing Ferneyhough’s Transcendental Etudes or Transit is a sound I really connect with. If anything, I see Ferneyhough’s music as being extremely literal- not something “abstract”. Ferneyhough confronts us with the literal sounds of pure struggle directly, instead of being interpreted through harmony, melody, rhythm, etc. These sounds to me are very emotional, unique, and by no means “overly complex for no reason”.
I see Xenakis’s music as brutal and savage- an evolution of Stravinsky’s primitivism. I’m thinking Synphai and Keqrops. To me, the sounds of the brass in Synphai around 2/3rds in, then in immediately juxtaposed to the piano highlights the primitive, brassy nature. His music truly is dissonant, brutalistic, and horrific. The lopsided polyrhythms in both those pieces feel disjointed- similar to the rite of spring. Another Xenakis piece I recommend is Jonchaies- which is basically a 10 minute climax. I think if you listen to that, you’ll see what I mean about the primitivism and brutality.
Anyways- I recommend you listen to those pieces and keep in mind what I am trying to say. Let me know if you see where I’m coming from or if you think I’m full of shit.
Of course its music.
Music is the exploitation of the human brain's rationalization of sound, to create a coherent piece with both a beginning and end.
This is not music. This is noise.
@@weareone1575 of course it isn't music.
0:00, an ashkenaz wrote that music, right? it's pretty much always them when it comes to awful cacophony toiletification of some otherwise beautiful concept, in this case, an orchestra.
Calm down goebbles it's just a TH-cam video
@@greenfloatingtoad Calm down, stalin, it's just a comment.
and P.S.: I'm still right about my assessment. If music is atonal and/or cacophonious, you'll be lucky if it ISN"T done by an ashkenaz.
This is extremely out of pocket my man
@@AnAverageItalian I assume that that means "hard to follow or understand".
Which is of course complete nonsense, it's extremely easy to follow, in fact, you understood it perfectly, didn't like it, can't really disagree because anyone can verify my claim since schönberg, cage and co weren't exactly modest about their BS, so you commented trying to pass my statement off as impossible to understand, to at least make me look bad if you can't disagree with me flat out.
A very common tactic, and it always fails.