How The 20th-Century Avant-Garde Committed Musical Suicide
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ต.ค. 2023
- Our current musical era is sometimes described as "post-modern" (whatever that means) or maybe "post-post-modern," but however you characterize it, the period of wild, self-described "avant-garde" experimentation that occupied much of the 20th century is dead. Originality, if that is the composer's goal, has to be achieved by other means. Here are some thoughts on the matter for your consideration.
- เพลง
Retired symphony violinist here. The number of pieces that we had to play that were written on graph paper and involved stop watches... so moving! Many years later, when I was orchestral librarian, I discovered a wall in a storage room where all those works had been stored. In ten years, only one piece was requested, by the composer.
I was a student of Stockhausen’s at the U of Penn in 1964. I was 22. I also got to know John Cage very well not as a follower but a good friend and as an engaging conversationalist. I also was one of the last students of Stefan Wolpe. Your theory is quite well defended. The basis for a useful essay which I encourage you to write.
My own pathway took me to many places both within and outside of the framework of avant-garde “movements”. I was fortunate to have always disdained being “part of a movement”, a major aspect of my own liberations. It’s a long story (I am 81). But I wanted you to know that (as someone directly involved) your analysis is spot on.
Thank you very much.
Virgil Thomson called Cage's work "A ping qualified by a thud"
@@Mackeson3 I think we always have to suspect that there was an element of sexual politics in Virgil Thomson's comments about other gay composers. I think it's important to remember that Thomson bribed Ned Rorem with a Guggenheim fellowship to get Rorem to write laudatory criticism of Thomson's work.
I worked as an usher at a concert that featured a work by John Cage. After the piece, the composer was asked to the stage and was loudly booed.
@@johnsimca7093 Yikes. Which work was it?
My fondest memories when performing such music was being at ease since no one could tell if you’d made a mistake.
That's so true! And it says a lot about "composition" of those pieces. Since when did emotion leave symphonic music? Since when did the great masterpieces that brings us joy or tears, etc. become outdated. In this world of AI it is a bit scary.
On the other side of the coin: it really bothered me when as a composition student something of mine was performed poorly, people would reassure me that no one would be able to tell something went wrong, anyway. That suggested my music had no rhyme or reason to anyone but myself and no one expected it to. To me it was dismissive. If music is no longer an act of communication, they've lost the plot!
An excellent point. There was, back in 2012, a conference given by the pianist Jérôme Ducros at the Collège de France, where he compared atonal vs. tonal music. He had specially composed a short tonal piece for the conference, and everybody realised two notes were wrong near the end. Then he played the first page of a known atonal piece from Schönberg, and played more than half wrong. Nobody noticed, not even the musicologists who were attending and were supposed to know that piece. This tells rather a lot.
The conference and its transcripts can easily be found.
Greetings from Germany! Thank you so much for all your terriffic videos! Your TH-cam channel is one of my favorites! In the 1980s I studied composition at the Munich music academy (Musikhochschule). We students were strictly forbidden to use any harmonic sounds but forced to write cacophonic music like the at this time hyped German composer Wolfgang Rihm. After one year I was so frustrated that I stopped my studies and changed to the conductor's class. To hell with the 20th-Century Avant-Garde!
Agree totally with your comment. 20th-Century music, politics and art in general was atrocious. Avant-garde was like a papal office. At least now we have diverse styles of music with just as many popes ;-) But we are free to choose and that counts. Everyone can choose what gives them soul's pleasure!
That is like entering university in a mathematics course and being forbidden from doing any arithmetic. Completely bonkers! It should have been the other way around: ban students from doing anything modernist as part of their course work until they are very advanced in their studies and are able to write a decent piece in Baroque, Classical, Romantic and Impressionist style.
Modernism is about bending the rules but in order to bend the rules in any artistically meaningful way, you need to be perfectly capable of working within them.
Exactly.
I remember John Cage was amused that the results he achieved by composing by random I Ching hexagrams were indistinguishable from the results Milton Babbitt achieved with careful mathematical calculation of every musical parameter. Charles Wuorinen ( a guy we disagree on ) grumbled "How can you make a revolution when the previous revolution said 'anything goes'?" And, of course, people like Glass and Reich made a revolution by saying the previous revolution was WRONG and very little goes. Thus tonality and regular rhythm re-entered the vocabulary. Many great composers -- Howard Hanson, Henry Cowell, Paul Creston, Gene Gutche -- got left behind in the avant-garde wave; they seem to slowly be coming to the fore again. As they should. Some of the avant-garde stands: Berio, Feldman, Xenakis, Penderecki, Crumb, etc. Because they were talented. But so much of that material was of no consequence; it's sad. Some of those composers may have had some skill and talent, if they hadn't bought into the avant-garde fallacy. I give Berio great credit for telling Reich "If you want to write tonal music, write tonal music."
Spot on sir
David Diamond once asked Schoenberg if he ought to take lessons with him. Schoenberg replied "Why should you,? You are the new Bruckner, I never intended my system for everyone"
Even nowadays in academia (and note this is just anecdotal), there's an over-insistence on composition students to be 'original' and 'find their own style,' which feels like a hangover from decades ago.
Thinking back to my undergraduate just a few years ago, this attitude unintentionally caused mine and my colleagues' music to sound stifled and hemmed in; any whiff of 'pastiche' was marked harshly.
I went to another institution and my new supervisor had better advice: 'I don't care if it's original I only care if it's good.'
😢 Originality should never be the aim, telling a story, finding your voice, these are the aims.
Originality will emerge naturally, born by the mere fact that composers' influences and listening history are inavoidably different. Contrived 'originality' is a fool's errand. A cautionary tale about putting the cart before the horse.
Two quotes:
"A composer isn't original because he tries to be, but because he can't help it." - Ralph Vaughan Williams
"I am not interested in music, or any work of art, that fails to stimulate appreciation of life and, more importantly, pride in life.” -Bernard Herrmann
I love the story of RVW being shown a piece of 'avant garde music' by a young student, apparently, he handed it back to him with the words "If you ever DO think of a tune old chap, don't forget to write it down will you?" 🤣
Latter quote is by Beecham.
@@pianomaly9 Not according to several Vaughan Williams biographies in which I’ve found it - but, given Beecham’s famous disdain for RVW’s music, perhaps he appropriated the quote out of malice!
@@Mackeson3 Fifty years ago Ives scholar/associate or whatever John Kirkpatrick came to Cal State Fullerton and gave a talk to the composition class. He said to the budding young avant-gardistes (which was by then, as Dave implied pulling the last stops on its organ) "never be afraid of a good tune".
@@musicianinseattle I'm remembering it in Schonberg's "The Great Conductors' , Beecham replying to some query as to what he thought of/didn't conduct Berg's Wozzeck. btw, down here in Covington, Black Diamond and Maple Valley triangle.
“They wrote themselves out of existence” is what I’ll tell my child when he will inevitably ask me what happened to the 20th century musical avant-garde.
Or perhaps "they de-composed themselves..." 🙂
The trick nowadays is to preface your uninspired music with a personal backstory so admirable that the listener feels like a cad for giving an honest critique.
More specifically, a identity story
A technique perfected by Rothko...
@@finlybenyunes8385 you don't know what your yapping about. You can easily see Pierre Bonnard sublimated by Rothko. He is clearly an American master despite whatever his public sales pitch was.
@@hortleberrycircusbround9678 I think you meant "what YOU'RE yapping about"?
@@finlybenyunes8385 you think it's impressive to call Rothko a hack? Or Morton Feldman a hack because of their Modenist inventions? That's pretty conservative and boring. Lemme help you, Rothko painted abstracted windows. That's the structure, a window. Bonnard also painted a couple window scenes. Rothko is a color- Meister like who? Bonnard. Use your neuroplasticity more before trashing a Modern Master. You don't need to like his work but there is a solid reason why he is celebrated worldwide.
Ravel put his finger on the problem when he described Schoenberg's serial technique as "laboratory music". Method became an end in itself, and the audience was lost.
Ravel was wrong. Schoenberg was a Romantic through and through.
Ravel was ALWAYS right 🎉
Strangely enough, he didn't think so.
@thomaslaubli1886 Actually, he wrote both kinds of music, as well as tonal music. De profundis is serial. The last two movements of the second string quartet are twelve-tonal/pan-tonal/freely atonal. The Suite in G for Strings is tonal.
Rene Leibowitz came up with the term "serialism" in 1947 to describe Schoenberg's "method of composing with twelve tones" - the music Schoenberg began writing with the Piano Suite, op. 25. It's a handy synonym. However, Schoenberg wrote all three types of music throughout the rest of his career.
@@steveschwartz8944 Don't forget that Schoenberg's best music was tonal.
This is one of the best, most insightful essays on 20th-century avant-garde music I've read or heard. Brilliant points made here, which should be required material for every university music student.
When Penderecki was accused of betraying the avant-garde, he replied: I was not a traitor to the avant-garde, but the avant-garde was a traitor to music.
Terrific, one of the most interesting (to me) of all your posts, thank you.
American composer, Stephen Albert said of the atonal/serial movement, "Once you brought the cultural bolshevism of the time, you were down the mindless trail of the avant-garde. Twenty-five years down the line I suspect that one will look back with mystification as to how people took the fifties to the seventies seriously except as some kind of sociological aberration." It seems that Albert had it right.
Another element worth mentioning--although you did imply it--was the arrogance of the avant garde in their belief that art should only appeal to a select group, and therefore unpopularity counted in favor of its worth. (Easy enough for a tenured music professor to hold.) That notion was already gaining a foothold. Alban Berg, of all people, was somewhat distressed that his Wozzeck proved so popular, thinking it a sign that it wasn't serious enough.
I'm glad I helped them reach their goals by not liking their music.
Milton Babbitt's (in)famous High Fidelity article which was titled (although not by him), "Who Cares If You Listen."
And what's wrong with that?
@@stepanvalek3363 Please clarify what "that" is, and I'll try to answer.
@@dennischiapello7243 How an artist feels about their work (or about their audience) doesn't have a bearing on the work's quality (which wasn't necessarily your argument). Also, I sympathize with Berg's sentiment (to an extent). People usually like stuff they're familiar with. With Wozzek being so popular, Berg may have felt he had created something unoriginal/redundant.
Ultimately, expecting people to listen to music designed to be non-melodic, non-rhythmic, non-emotional, non-pretty, is absurd. These were spoiled brats. Their main accomplishment was to cure people of guilt for not appreciating new music; the middle-brow public simply walked away.
As I listened to your really thoughtful comments, two things came to mind. I heard a specialist in Chinese philosophy, a Canadian-American, observe that the discipline of modern philosophy had given up its roots as "love of wisdom" to become "love of knowledge", a shift from "philo-sophia" to "philo-episteme", or something like that. It seems to me that so much of the academic world has made this shift, under some quest for "deeper" meanings. I see it as a residue of the identification of sin with the body (flesh), or a perpetuation of an "ideal" over what's "real" and here-and-now. I think you can see it in the quest for "authentic" performance in the world of HIP in music. It's permeated the visual arts too, where we move from abstraction to "purely" conceptual art. Artist's like Donald Judd would choose industrial materials, and simple repetitive shapes. He would draw up plans and have manufacturers make the work, so that he hoped his art would be free of his physical touch, free of the taint of feeling - the traditional signs of artistic genius. Be rid of paint brush marks, be rid of the artist's hand, be rid of feeling so that all that remains is pure Idea. Artists where I taught spoke of being "post-media": it didn't matter whether you painted, built, filmed, or performed. What mattered was that your concept determined what media you used. Having lived in this world of contemporary art for decades, I'm not so cynical as to claim that it was always intended as a scam or to "pull the wool over people's eyes." I think it was and continues to be a matter of real belief, for the most part (I've also seen work that I really thought was a scam), but that it was about building its own protective, self-energizing and self-affirming bubble - a kind of shield against real feeling, vulnerability, and against the real hard work that is necessary to create something and share it with others. Thanks, as always, for your wisdom and desire to share.
Even traditionalist painters often feel the pressure to add a conceptual element/concept to their work, even if it’s totally irrelevant. And don’t forget talent. That helps, too. The reams of serial compositions by composers using the method as a replacement for authenticity and creativity, while being praised for it, smothered music for a generation at least.
A friend once described a concert he had just experienced in the 1980's as sounding like a hack saw murder,
How would he know what one of those sounds like, I wonder?
Excellent talk, Dave. Thank you!
This was a really interesting take, David. Loved it.
I love what you say about the composers being obsessed with the creation of personal styles in such a deliberate and calculated way that they 'defined themselves out of existence' (paraphrasing a little). What's the point of having a language that only you, the composer, can understand?
I remember another talk where Dave spoke about the "arrogance" of Boulez dropping his 3rd piano sonata on the world where it wasn't even complete.
I suppose that piece also falls into the category of fanciful pseudo-scientfic names : "Constellation-Miroir " etc . Great talk
I remember going to hear Boulez play one of his piano sonatas when I was still in school. It was horrid. I always wondered if that was the point.
Dear Mister Hurwitz, I've been enjoying your mini conferences ( sometimes not so mini, in fact ) for a while now. I find them entertaining AND enlightning. What grabs me most, however, is your immense, exuberant, humourous LOVE and deep, direct, sensual knowledge of music. It is contagious and exhilirating. À propos of this particular topic of the avant-garde and its demise, it seems to me your views intersect with those of Leonard Bernstein's during his famous NORTON LECTURES « The Unaswered question ». His attempt at demonstrating that tonality was embedded somehow in the human condition seems nowadays to be legitimized by this generalized return to a new kind of tonality in music all over the world. I myself spent years -- especially in my youth -- listening almost exclusively to serial, electronic, conceptual abstract compositions. And, with time, I became, as you so rightly put, more INCLUSIVE. Simply, more human. Unafraid of my own emotions. Thanks a million.
Thank you!
My parents took me to see Peter Maxwell Davies conduct his "Eight Songs for a Mad King" as a kid. I have had a soft spot for him since then. He fits your pattern. His later works like "Orkney Wedding" and "Mavis in Las Vegas" are far more approachable. An afternoon with his Naxos quartets is a good afternoon for me.
To abandon tradition, melody, beauty, spirituality and rhapsody in music like the Kellogg's school is to guarantee your irrelevance. I think if Beethoven was the pivotal figure in 19th century music, Schubert was the father of 20th century music, because by the time of Sibelius' death in 1957 the song had become the means by which music reached people, aided by the technological recording advancements. By the mid-60s only masochists would listen to "laboratory music" in preference to The Beatles, Joni Mitchell, The Rolling Stones. And Stockhausen lived on through the genius of his pupils Kraftwerk!
Quote by CS Lewis seems relevant, even to music I feel:
«Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it.»
My father, Karl Korte, was a composer and tenured professor during the 60's, 70's and 80's. He was very much part of the sheltered, academic world which you describe so well, and ultimately became very disillusioned by it- even bitter. If you in any way attempted to create music that anyone outside of academia could relate to you were immediately branded a hack. He rejected it all late in life and mostly stopped composing, although he wrote some charming pieces for guitar and violin inspired by one of his (secret) idols- Astor Piazzolla.
My personal opinion is that the ascent of minimalism and Philip Glass was an over-reaction to the hyper-abstract avant garde of the era. While arrogance should always be avoided, it should also be acknowledged that some great art requires a level of sophistication and insight that many listeners may not command. (Bartok string quartets come to mind.)
I was a student of your father's at UT in the early 90's. Sorry to hear of his passing in 2022.
@@jamessylercomposer5770 Thanks for the reply! I did not know about you or your work but I do now. (Karl would have been very pleased.) All the best.
I was in touch with your father briefly -- I quite like his piece for flute and electronic sounds, REMEMBRANCES -- and he sent me a CD-R of the piece, clearly the Baron recording, but clear and crisp and without any of the vinyl noise my old album had developed.
And I agree with you 100% on the advent of minimalism. I also respect Luciano Berio, who told his pupil Steve Reich "if you want to write tonal music, write tonal music." You wouldn't have gotten that from Boulez!
@@gomro Thanks- always good to hear when someone is aware of his music. I have a theory about atonality that you may or may not agree with. It’s not the lack of a tonal center itself that listeners resisted; there are many great 20th century works- by Penderecki, Ligeti, Sockhausen, Varese and others- that expanded or disregarded tonality and were tonally ambiguous, atonal, polytonal and beyond. It was the adherence to a strict, rigid system that listeners (and ultimately most composers) rejected. Is anyone in the current academic community, or anywhere else, working in the serial, 12-tone format? I don’t keep up with that world anymore, but I would be surprised.
@@erickorte Somewhere else in these comments I mentioned that Cage was amused to find Babbitt's systematized serial music was indistinguishable AUDIBLY from the results Cage was achieving with I Ching hexagrams and star maps. And since music only exists for the hearing, he had a point. And I can go further and say that both Babbitt and Cage get rare performances these days -- though Cage has a body of work that he wrote before embracing Zen and seeking to remove all personality from his music, and that still gets played and recorded. I quite like most of his prepared piano stuff up to 1950...
And I don't know of any composers who are still working in that total serialization vein. I think of Russell Peck, whose music is criminally forgotten, saying that he found people came to hear tonal music, so he dropped the "academia requirements" and wrote what he really liked. Track down his percussion concerto THE GLORY AND THE GRANDEUR, boy, that's a fine piece. Or Mason Bates, or Samuel Jones, or Jennifer Higdon. These are the course of modern composition, not Boulez and Babbitt's path.
There are more bad composers than good composers, in the 20th century and in the past. Since the 20th century happened shortly we know them all. A few will be remembered later on, like Schoenberg, Ives and Ligeti.
Do you have any thoughts on Stockhausen opera cycle "Licht"? One segment of it is hugely popular here on youtube "Michaels Reise um die Erde". I listened to it and I was postiively surprised. I usually reject 20th century music for the reasons you mentioned, but I liked this one for its expressivness.
Also "Klavierstück 9" by Stockhausen is expressive, the end is haunting.
Licht is such a masterpiece. Incredible
@@Cleekschrey yes but some of the days (esp Samstag) are a shameless ragbag of commissions which don't really join together ( - part from having that superformula which in a way made it uneccessary for Stockhausen to invent anything new ( as all these massive operas were essentally theme and variations. Some is heartfelt, like Pieta from Dienstag
Wonderful opera, despite being an assemblage of different commissions.. I saw it at the Royal Festival Hall about 5 years ago. Very accessible :it almost had a naïve quality about it at times. One of my favourite pieces by Stockhausen is 'Trans'
Great video Dave! I always liked Duke Ellingtons take, if it sounds good, it is good. I know rather simple.
This is true. Some avant-garde has survived and will survive simply because it sounds interesting enough to enough people.
Thank you for your video. Until now I've figured I was just a musical philistine when it came to my disdain of most avant-garde works. I've echoed Rimsky-Korsakov's criticism of younger composers churning out "brain-spun" works with no heart. Now I know I'm not the only curmudgeon out there, and you've enlightened me on why many modern composers have jumped t tracks in the pursuit of soulless exercises. Keep up the good work!
Excellent talk and a nice break from discussing recordings. Some of the fruits of the avant garde will survive, e.g. Ligeti or Adams as you referenced. It won't be easy picking through the detritus to find the worthwhile things, however.
Wonderful quote attributed to Beecham, when asked “have you conducted any Stockhausen- “no, but I’ve trodden in some”
I went to grad school to further my composition craft and all I got was some lousy ideas.
Perhaps it was just the particular school and department (it was in the UK), but when I was there they didn’t seem to know what to do with masters students who weren’t studying musicology. They were embroiled in the question of how composition could be a research subject. I’m not sure if the avant-grade actually died or morphed into a different matter. But I still read program notes which read like thesis statements and are more interesting than the music they explain, from composers my generation (millennial) and younger.
That's a good point. Either way, music-making has been ham-strung and suffocated by academia. They've lost the plot.
This is a straightforward summery about what the post WW2 classical music avant-garde was about, and why it ultimately had to implode. While I have always enjoyed many (but by no means all) of the compositions by the (so called) post WW2 avant-garde composers (very certainly I enjoy Penderecki), my approach to them was always the same as to any other piece of music: I have to enjoy listening to it. I know a lot of the avant-garde pieces were basically "paper music", music with a "concept" that may have some internal logic and a set of rules on paper, but that sounds like totally random sounds when actually performed. Interestingly, I do enjoy some of these pieces very much. I love Pierre Boulez' "Sur Incises", but I enjoy it on a very visceral level, rather than an intellectual one. For me, the music is like an immersive, shimmering kaleidoscope of sounds, and I find it deeply soothing and relaxing even (yes, maybe I'm odd that way). But I agree with the assessment that the avant-garde painted themselves into a corner and just basically couldn't get out anymore. The coming up with new rules and do's and don't of composition became more important than the actual compositions, and, as could have been expected, public interest was almost non-existent. It became a bubble.
I have a very similar way of listening to music. I don't understand Iannis Xenakis's fractal based compositional techniques but I really enjoy several of his works on a visceral level, such as Metastasis and Syrmos
I think "Sur Incises" is Boulez's best work, by a far margin. Very seductive, in its triple mirror design.
A quick footnote re. "sclerotic" (a native Polish speaker here): in Polish that word is used exactly as the word "senile" or "Alzheimer" is in English. So I'm pretty sure Penderecki wanted especially to underline the "old age senility" aspect of the avant-garde here (before other aspects like "hardening of the arteries" which is also true but a distant second in terms of meaning in Polish).
I agree with you on this one. I live near a very large university with a music school, so I can have my fill of free but usually very good recitals from faculty and students, on almost any day of the week. Generally, the composition students are moving away from anything avant-garde or serialist or things that do the equivalent of repeatedly blasting F-sharp at 100 decibels, but every once in a rare while I sit through a very avant-garde recital, from someone still trying to beat the proverbial dead horse--and the "message" I get from their "compositions" is so clear that it could just as well be announced with trumpets: "Someone give me a grant! Anyone, PLEASE, give me a grant!"
Hi Dave, I hope you do a video on your favourite classic pieces of the 21st century.
My problem with most of the avant-garde is that they ran out of ideas very quickly and had little sense of what their predecessors had already done. I remember attending a concert of contemporary music and realizing that all of the "new" techniques had been done in the Twenties.
@thomaslaubli1886 As I say, I'm interested in new music and go to contemporary programs. The problem, as I've hinted, is who is considered avant-garde? It's hardly a monolith. It includes a wide range of disparate composers, some better than others.
Also, it's hard to begin from scratch with each new piece. Virgil Thomson recognized this when he predicted to Boulez that he would have a very small catalogue. This says nothing about the quality of Boulez's music, but it's right on the money about its scarcity.
The pianist and wit Oscar Levant knew Schoenberg in Los Angeles. He was visiting Schoenberg and Mrs. Schoenberg brought out the coffee. Schoenberg began humming "one of those unhummable tunes" and demanded of his wife, "What work is that?" She didn't know. "That was the piece I dedicated to you."
Levant and Schoenberg were discussing the Violin Concerto. Levant, objecting to the difficulty of the music, asked, "Who's going to play this?" Schoenberg replied, "In a hundred years, everybody."
Only 12 more years to go!😃
What happened in music after ca. 1950 closely parallels what happened to the visual arts during the same period.
Great insights as always! It would be of great help, for us trying 20th century repertoire, to include Penderecki and other alike composers, in your "10 works for begginers" series
I Learn from you - Thank You very much.
In his history of twentieth century music, “The Rest is Noise,” Alex Ross describes members of the avant garde as detesting music that appealed to normal audiences.
*What a contribution.* Done in a leisurely, casual style, yet you touched some corner stones of the XXth century music phenomena. I sometimes don't agree with your reviews (mostly well), but even then you feel there is a great musical intellect and insight behind judgements you don't approve with. This video has confirmed to me that I haven't spent many hours on your channel in vain.
One thing that might elude you in this survey: the art is born within / out of its age. The _zeitgeist..._ The artists, especially the composers, cannot transcend their day and age and break out of the world they live in... Well perhaps only some, like *_Arvo Pärt,_* or performers like *_Elisabeth Chojnacka,_* but they occupy a special and rather limited niche. Briefly, there cannot be a grand heroic or even cheerful juicy music in an age of fallen, limp humanity, shaped by consumerism and media lobotomized, reduced onto a lower stage of existence with the art surviving just in the form of left-over exotic islands far from the society's mainstream.
I loved your presentation. I often wonder that my own symphonies will be hated, not because they are avant garde in any way, but because they are the complete opposite.
I agree, as another composer. I have seen my "romantic" style music turned down and then gone to concerts where a new "modern" work was presented and was, in my Humble Opinion, noise notated to get attention, not express human emotion.
The gatekeepers at our major symphony orchestras need to be replaced by Dave Hurwitz. I would trust him to make better choices. @@PeteFine
Long ago I found that there was a parallel with visual art, namely painting, and music. In the early 1970s I took the art class at the Barnes Foundation outside Philadelphia. Violette DeMazia gave a lecture on abstract art as compared to art that had (figurative) subject matter. Without saying that abstract art was bad, she pointed out that all the elements of abstract art; drawing, composition, color etc. are also contained in figurative art. So the intellectual appreciation can be similar. But figurative art has the extra benefit in that anyone can more easily have a relationship with the work of art.
Likewise, melody gives everyone an entry point into a work of music. Take that away and you are left with just intellectual appreciation.
Fascinating stuff, truly. Does anyone have any links to academic papers / sources that are drawn from in the video? I'm working on an essay. Thanks :)
Cage's In a Landscape and Maxwell Davies' Farewell to Stromness seemed to come from nowhere given their composers. And what did Leonard Bernstein mean when he said music is "about nothing"? BTW Mr. Hurwitz, your recommendation of the DORAT'S box set of Beethoven's nine symphonies was spot on. I am very happy with the purchase and realized there was more to composer's symphonies than 5, 7, and nine. Thank you again. Your channel has become a daily indispensable treat. I am subscribed.
Thank you for watching!
You know the 20th century Avant-Garde was over when the writing (bloviated philosophy) about the music/visual art/performing art(s) was more interesting than the actual performed music/painting/dance. Arvo Part is another great example of a composer who went from 12 tone composition to a more expressive style. Great topic Dave!
Everybody has different likes and dislikes and all I can say is more power to you for not liking Part - it is your privilege. I happen to like Part and have listened to him since the 1990@@thomaslaubli1886
Thanks for this very thought-provoking presentation. It's a subject I've considered many times from my extremely unacademic viewpoint. It seems to me that the 20th and even 21st century composers we most enjoy are those who continued the traditions of instrumentation left to us by the 19th century. So through the 20th century we had Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Bartok, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Britten, etc. This continues now into Adams, Macmillan and so on. It seems to me that fast technological developments, especially in the field of electronics, lured some musicians into a route to composition which avoided the rigours of the centuries. The use of electronics in instrumentation and performance using recorded music/sound allowed the merely modern to parade as academic and ingeneous. Some excellent composers do use electronics but I struggle to think of any who have not previously and to a greater extent used 'traditional' instrumentation.
You got it right. Can't be said or discussed better 👍
Spot-on both about Avant-garde and contemporary Musicology.
Hallo from Greece! Enjoyed your way to talk! Beside playing almost exclusively Bach I find much innocent pleasure in Turkish classical music.
First time on this channel. What a magnificent work of thought and sensibility this video is. If you have it transcribed, i'd LOVE to translate it to Spanish, so I can share it with non English speaking people around here. (The TH-cam automatic translation of automatic subtitles works awfully, sadly).
Cheers, and thanks!
Sorry but I don't have it transcribed--thank you, though, for your kind thoughts!
Interesting point of view, largely agree. About Penderecki: I studied with him for several years. The last time we were together he told me over lunch that even though he had spent his summers for years in Lucerne, Boulez--who ran a music festival there--had never programed one of his works. There was a personal animus between them. Plus, I don't think Penderecki's works, since he was a Pole, received the clandestine financial support the avant-garde received from the Committee for Cultural Freedom and its various successors--both of these things might have colored Penderecki's comments about the "avant-garde." There's an irony, that has yet to be addressed, that probably the most performed piece of post WWII music, and probably most loved, is Giazotto's "Adagio." It would be interesting to hear your comments on this.
Excellent and thoughtful comments. However, there are still many critics and some influential (younger, oddly enough) composers in academia who still persist in a single-minded agenda: either absolute novelty or a great deal of abstraction are still the only allowable angles in 21st century composition. (The embrace of technological novelty doesn't help). Or, especially for some middle-aged critics, normal human emotions are too 'sentimental' to be allowed in new music. Dave is so correct in pointing out the inhumanity in this kind of agenda. For us tonally- minded composers from the late 20th who got sidelined, and who also did not follow the minimalists' path, this is still an uncertain and strange time-we might have some musical and life experience to offer, but too many younger composers whose ears have been too often numbed by simplistic pop and electronics cannot relate. Not all, to be sure. However, one of the problems (as Dave points out in a subtle way) is that a lot of avant-garders young and older really don't have much harmonic facility. Nor are they able to create memorable melody. Nor have they the capability to even play a wedding gig. I know that's an extreme statement, but....listen.
As a PhD student I feel I must offer an explanation for that "irrelevant minutiae" that have become the common theme of so many doctoral dissertations in musicology and humanities in general. 30 or 40 years ago, a dissertation could take 10 years to complete and end up being like 1,000 pages long. However, as the number of PhD students have increased, the means to finance their research have run thin. Nowadays, a typical doctorate lasts between 4 to 6 years. Some research grants in my country last for just 3 years. This includes at least 1 year to write it up and about 4 more months of revision. This means you may have as little as 2 years for conducting reseach before you're pushed to start writing. That's not much when you're trying to make an original contribution. And to make it even worse, you're are also burdened with other obligations: attenting conferences, doing reseach stays abroad, lecturing and tending to undegraduate students, helping to organize seminars, etc.
In these conditions, it's no wonder we are pushed to limit our reseach to narrower and narrower topics. In my experience it's not really an "Academic Avant-Garde mentality" problem. We would love to expand the scope of what we're doing. It's more of a resources and a systemic problem.
It's still a problem.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Indeed it is! All I wanted to say was that it's not specific to musicology or related to the restrictive mentality of Avant-Garde music, but more of a general (and practical) problem. Great and insightful video, by the way. As always.
Really interesting talk - I agree 100%. I was fascinated by the avant garde as a teenager (40+ years ago) in the sense of marvelling at how quickly music was changing (in the 60s and 70s) and how experimental it had become BUT I was almost always left with the feeling of "This is interesting but doesn't do anything for me [emotionally]". There was also the feeling of this "music" doesn't require any skill to compose. As you say, this music essentially reached a dead end.
The greatest composers are those that could/can actually compose and have something to say which they share with us. So I love Bach to Berg, Reich/Glass, some Maxwell Davies, Tippett, Messaien, even some Xenakis...while some pieces can be initially very difficult to "get" after some perserverance I discover a great emotional message in their works. Conversely I find composers such as Ferneyhough and his New Complexity pretentious drivel that leaves me cold.
I like your analogy of the bridge with no visible means of support. The rush to the patent office approach to composing has led to a few decidedly wobbly structures. If I've written anything half-decent that remains standing it's by adhering to more solid principles - and this mainly means checking out what Haydn did - the best avant-gardist of all!
I feel like many of the avant-gadists do not seem to be able to differentiate between "pushing the boundaries" and "crossing the boundaries". Pushing the boundaries is precisely what made the composers like Liszt, Bartok or Stravinsky the musical giants, they had their one foot set in the rich tradition of historical music and other foot firmly set in the future created by themselves; whilst also taking the inspiration from centuries old music outside of classical tradition. These composers "expanded" the scope of music; rather than restricting their expression to limited rules. Disowning the entire tradition by declaring it as irrelevant (which I define as "crossing the boundaries") might make you look ahead of your time in the short term, but it won't stand the test of time in many of the cases; especially if it's the experimentation just for the sake of it.
"they had their one foot set in the rich tradition of historical music and other foot firmly set in the future created by themselves; whilst also taking the inspiration from centuries old music outside of classical tradition"
Actually this is no contrast to the 2nd Viennese School. Schönberg first and foremost teached by studying closely traditional works. He was a little bit limited, because he considered J.S. Bach the beginning of the tradition. So he had to learn a little bit about Renaissance music from Webern. But Schönberg even despised composers, who were "crossing the boundaries".
@@Sulsfort I think Schoenberg's veneration of the classics was a smokescreen. Judge him by his music, not his words.
I Believe it was the philosopher Wittgenstein who concerned himself the pointlessness of a private language.
@@ThreadBomb "I think Schoenberg's veneration of the classics was a smokescreen."
I don't think so, because analyzing the classics was an important part of his teaching. More important than introducing his serial technique.
"Judge him by his music, not his words."
I do. First I liked Beethoven and fugues by J.S. Bach. And that was a good preparation for enjoying Pierrot lunaire, the 2nd string quartet, the piano pieces op. 11, the piano suite op. 25 ...
When you swear off all things found music of the past and said music of the past and one of the things found in music of the past is appeal and listenability, well, need I say more?
I think that only now, with more sophisticated electronic avant garde music or noise in general becoming a ricurrent element (also in more mainstream Digital composed music) the younger generations are very sensible to atonality and noise. I mean, It all started with rock and roll and then Velvet underground, and now you can see that what people consider cool strong moments in a Song (in contrast with more melodic calm parts) seems to be what composers as Stravinskij or maybe Penderecki invented as atonal elements in their music. If i listen to some of the Penderecki avantgarde works i can recognize a lot of elements that are present in today electronic music and made their way to PoP music in the last Years. Its difficult tò explain in detail. But i think if you are a youngster and you know both avantgarde music and today's electronic music you can see of what im talking about.
I have long felt that music that can be enjoyed needs to have elements that are in some sense familiar, with points at which the composer diverges from our expectations. Without the divergence, the music would be predictable and therefore boring; but without the familiar, with no recognizable form to grasp on to, the sounds become just a series of sounds, with no connection/progression that can transform them into music. Thus, if a piece strays too far from our musical understanding, rather than an intellectual basis, it is difficult to appreciate it, emotionally or otherwise, as music. In a similar way, it is because of Picasso's enormous emotional strength in his earlier works that imbue his less obviously representational later works with their communicative ability. (It is also easier to give a composer who has demonstrated his understanding of 'real' music the benefit of the doubt with his more esoteric works - Tippett and Nicholas Maw come to mind.)
Excellent. I'd like to hear you continue this premise and expand into the 20th c. rise and dominance of popular culture especially for the general listener. Concert music and new music movements of the day can never seem to compete with the commercial machine as a cultural phenomenon.
I can't ever remember leaving the symphony humming a twelve tone row. I wouldn't know what one sounds like to identify it without a heads up in the program notes, and then I still wouldn't when I was hearing it.
It would seem to me that the musical history of the 20th century was such a liberation of formal styles, eclectic interests, raw emotionality and psychology, disturbing expressionism and political and social restrictions and upheaval, that growing pains would be inevitable. No wonder so many Serialists abandoned the form and re-embraced tonality. No wonder that radical changes prompted the post- and neo- influences (neo-Classical, post-Romantic, etc.); was it experimentation or fear or something else? It seems to me that some avant-garde music is just academic, experimental for its own sake. It’s music that I can walk away from without regret. I love both tonal and atonal (I wish there was another word!) and dissonant and lyrical music, but not everything. Not all aleatory music is as good as Lutoslawski, for example. What we call “Modern” is still developing.
For me, a composer who I guess would be classified as "late Romantic" or so, I find so much modern music (including that which is referred to as Avant Garde, to be little more than an experiment in sound and not containing the emotions that make us human. Some are brilliantly orchestrated but where is the musical content? I hear so many "Look what I can do with the orchestra...look how strange I can sound...isn't that so original?" works that, unfortunately, conductors see worthy of performance. I realize that, in his day, Beethoven, or Mahler, etc. were considered "modern" and "new" but the expressiveness and tonalities that convey emotions were always there. So much of modern composition for classical instruments lacks that, in my view. I truly believe that these new works will never survive and be listened to for centuries like the great masterpieces we still love.
Where was Cancrizans when we needed him?
I think the avant- guard underestimated how complicated it is to write music that’s actually good in that style. Berg’s violin concerto is a work that I think sounds great, but most other pieces are just music for musicians that, like free jazz, has no heart and soul.
Some free jazz I like, but a lot of it was just crap.
@@Warp75 Yeah, you have to be really good to know what to do with all that freedom.
@@SoiledWigThat’s exactly it
I subscribe to the comments of the great musical humorist, Anna Russel. With modern music, you never know if the composer has reached great new heights, or if he is just trying to put one over on us.
depends how familiar you are with the idiom? when I first heard Debussy's 'Jeux' as a teenager i was utterly perplexed by it but i just listened to umpteen times til i felt as if i could relate to it. I hesitate to say' understand' as i think the piece retains a mystery. Nonetheless, it would have been easy for me to write the piece off on first encounter.
Your description of a inclusive composer fits the beatles perfectly!
While a graduate student at the University of Chicago, I was acquainted with an interesting artist: Easley Blackwood. I’d be interested in to hear your opinion of his compositions.
www.classicstoday.com/review/review-11295/?search=1
I have an album of his called "Radical Piano"- it's 20th century avant-garde works for solo piano. I play it occasionally.
@@DavesClassicalGuideDo you have any comments about the microtonal work?
I think in the post-Avant Garde period that we’re in right now, we should be using the sounds and ideas resulting from this extensive experimentation to fulfill a goal. In a way I find that lots of Avant Garde music lacks a “goal” aside from an abstract collage of textures. I think the real geniuses of the time knew how to do that (Stockhausen, Ligeti, Penderecki, Xenakis, Crumb), but many others did not.
What I find interesting is that this does not appear to be how the classical tradition is moving. My observation is that since the Avant Garde there has been a split where American composers inspired by Reich explore this pan-diatonic postminimal thing (something Kyle Gann writes about) and European composers inspired by Lachenmann and Ferneyhough try to continue the avant garde values of abstraction and texture. Neither of these fulfill my ‘argument’ of taking the sounds created by the avant garde to fulfill a purpose. However, I notice that popular music is fulfilling this goal. Specifically in bands/groups like black midi, King Gizzard, Squid, Death Grips, Kendrick Lamar, and JPEGMAFIA. They all use elements of noise, fragmentation, and abstract texture to support whatever goal they have in their song. I don’t know what you think of that or if this ramble is relevant to the video, but this is just what I was thinking watching this
Dave: What do you think about Harry Partch?
I've discussed him here and at Classicstoday.com.
I was jealous of a fellow student who said his college major was "composition" -- I desperately wished I could be him. Then, after a year or so, I asked him "How's the composition going?" "Oh, I quit." I felt terrible for him. He explained, "If you write anything beautiful, they make fun of you. Everything has to be ugly. I didn't choose to be a composer in order to write music that I don't like." What he said kept ME from becoming a composer for at least a decade. I think EVERY composer in the world needs to watch your video here -- it has been a long time in coming.
How long ago was that? i was a comp. major in the late 90's, and at least at my school, we weren't hamstrung in that manner.
I remember now, it was in 1978. Fortunately for me, in 1977 John Williams released that wonderful 2-LP set of STAR WARS with the London Symphony which, for me, was a revival of "Classical Music" being composed, by FILM composers. So, I (eventually) used that ("Film music") as my excuse to become a composer. Now I write classical music, which is all I really wanted to do all along.@@SoiledWig
perfect workaround!@@kellyrichardson3665
I agree with you, it seams to me that all of art have it's limits - the human spirit is alveus in search for some now media to express itself when the old one drains out the given possibilities , which, I think, is not necessary a bad thing - that aside, I wonder, how do you value the Schnittke's work among the others avantgarde composers of the late XX century, let's say from mid 70's up to now, and his music in general?
...and how dogmatic they were. Thinking about young Boulez booing neo-classicist concerts by Stravinsky...
Speaking of Rochberg: is there any indication that Naxos will finish that fabulous collection of his symphonies? I have learned to love Rochberg, but he is seriously under-recorded. In my humble opinion.
I agree, and I wish I knew.
I'm glad that stuff exists for its own sake.
I have never had any use for it.
Wonderful food for thought here on a subject I've been contemplating for most of my 75 years. I remember rejoicing when I was still in music school in the early 70s when Harold Schonberg wrote an editorial in the NY Times declaring that serialism was officially dead, having failed to win a significant audience in half a century. I think that was one of the problems; I think at least up to Beethoven, if a composer wrote a work and the audience hated it, the piece was considered a failure and often the composer would revise it. But increasingly after Beethoven, if audiences didn't like something, it was the audience, not the composer, who supposedly failed, and presumably future audiences would one day see the error of their ways. I'm not advocating pandering to the lowest common denominator of listeners, but it's like the tree falling in the forest: If no one will listen to what you've written, is it really music? It's quite revealing how often the nicest thing that can be said about an avant-garde work is that it is "interesting"; you almost never hear it described as "beautiful" or "moving" or anything involving emotion rather than pure intellect.
This is why Tchaikovsky wrote the most moving, beautiful music ever written. Thank god he realized that music should be beautiful.
I wonder where all of this places Alma Deutscher, the current darling of non-musician concertgoers. My own assessment of her is that she is to music what Thomas Kinkaid is to painting. I'm not particularly fond of Boulez or Stockhausen either, but Alma Deutscher seems to signify, to me, a return to the court of the Hapsburgs. What does that say about our own evolution?
I remember seeing a documentary about Simon Rattle, he was rehearsing some Hans Werner Henze stuff with The CBSO and all at once he stopped and said "Hang on, I think I've found a tune here somewhere!"
My old music teacher went to a concert featuring something or other by Peter Maxwell Davies. He said where he was sitting he could see the score on the conductor's music stand and he said it just looked as if someone had loaded some ink onto the tip of a 12 inch ruler then flicked it onto the page "Flick flick flick orchestrate that!" he said.🤣
Great composers are pretty rare, no matter their style. Why would we expect anything different from the avant-gardists?
Also, what do we mean by "avant-garde?" It seems that it depends on the current musical consensus. Boulez reacted against neoclassicism and Romanticism, moving toward greater architectural complexity. The minimalists reacted against the complexity. As you point out, the better minimalists moved toward greater inclusivity of traditional methods and viewpoints and greater expressivity. Reich went from phase tape pieces to Different Trains, Adams from Shaker Loops to the Violin Concerto.
At some point in “art”, I think the avant- garde & ultra-modernism just had to come about and then eventually run it’s course. We just happened to be alive to experience that epoch. Unfortunately for many of us “art” in the 20th century took on the most reprehensible aspect of politics-sheer arrogance. “We’re going to shove this stuff down your throat whether you like it t or not. You`re sitting in the middle of the row and were going to shove George Walker into your ears between two Beethovens. Deal with it! What are you gonna do, get up and leave?” [The NSO did just that.] I agree that there is a lot of modern music in the last century which is inventive & interesting and engagingly challenging to the ears, which can be satisfying in itself, but there is a limit to general audience patience and acceptance. Even Stokowski often dealt with that issue during his life.
To attempt an analogy, rather like spelunking (or 'pot holing' if you are English), there is some value in mapping subterranean tunnels even if most of them are dead-ends. It can be a dangerous pastime especially when the dead ends become literal. Very very occasionally a new passage is discovered and options are widened. Devoting years of one's life to such exploits is risking wasting precious creativity time (not that composition is a competition). The classical tradition is just that - a tradition, and traditions tend to preserve the best aspects of the past and evolve cautiously if new accretions prove sufficiently robust when tested. In the music technology sphere there was a period in the late 1980s when computing and MIDI was offering enticing potential for compositional exploration with crude artificial intelligence - random notes which obeyed programmable rules of probability and so forth. It produced interesting and fascinating results for the spelunking operator, with memorable happy accidents etc. but for an audience it would eventually become tiresome - like an unwanted wind chime.
I got into Shostakovich from an early age and his marvellous mid to late 20th c music was dark, beautiful, amazingly expressive and largely tonal.
Umm....Soviet Union under Stalin and the Communist Party?
The modernist tendency was to believe how you communicated was more important - or, indeed, of more interest, than what you were trying to communicate. Same with the Avant-Gard, perhaps.... 17:37
In the 20th century, a very confused century, intellectually speaking - the narrative became more important than the event. Many composers would mostly base their careers on their ideas about music rather than the music itself. In fact, the music would simply be attached to the narrative just in order to justify the concert and the label of the composer. There are though many great avant-garde composers and compositions, and many important ideas, concepts and techniques worth studying and enjoying. Actually, I think they are indispensable for a composer.
Ideology is a terrible glitch of the mind that both led to horrible death on a massive scale in 20th Century wars and to the horrible sound of the ‘Avant-garde‘ attempt to apply ideology to ‘music‘. I’m convinced that in the future, most of it will be of interest only to clarify that - if education gets around to the task of protecting us all from the ideolgy glitch
Your comment re: excursions into philosophy by composers reminds me of the reverse, Adorno's philosophy of Mahler. I so wish I could have back the time I wasted reading that thing.
Me too.
Me three.
"At the end of the day, they were not good musicians." I disagree there Dave.
Someone asked Boulez about what happened to the total-serialist movement. He said something like, "Perhaps we didn't take into consideration something about the way people hear music." I think the avant-garde of the 50s and 60s defined music as something different than most people can hear.
So there was enormous energy put into an organizational system that couldn't be heard.
You basically have it right. It was self-destructive. People generally couldn't see that because so much importance had been attached to "progress" in the art form.
When I’m not able to tell the difference between when the musicians tuning their instruments or when they play the music, then I know it is Avant-Garde.
Although the beginning of Beethoven's Choral Symphony always sounds to me a bit like a tuning-up ... but not the rest! Maybe a Beethoven joke.
To me the ultimate irony is how much of this music was eventually unoriginal. So much sounded like the same chaotic mess with little to grab onto as a listener. I'm glad most composers today do not go that route.
Ives' 4th is one of my favorite works. My musical friends hate my for that. I don't care. It's an amazing, staggering work that I only play when my neighbors are out.
A genuine masterpiece. So is his 2nd Orchestral Set.
It's like what I say about architecture: an interesting concept is all very well, but you can't live in a concept. Music, like architecture, must serve human needs ahead of any ideology or abstract ideal.
I guess, the problem is that all countries, which collaborated with the nazi or the fascists had a problem with the tradition, because in nazism and (later) fascism, the tonal tradition was welcomed, and "modern music" was banned. Even in France, which partly collaborated, you had fiercely fighting traditionalists and fiercely fighting avantgardists, and Poulenc even attacked Messiaen, who was somewhere in between; after Landowski was disempowered, Boulez took over, until the postmodernism started.
Maybe, Central-Europeans need a philosophical concept, which allows them to write their music. In the german speaking world, Adorno postulated that after WW II and the shoah tonality was no more possible. As a result, even tonal music by jewish composers was banned (like the works by Gal, Korngold, Toch and many others). This lasted, until the postmodernism took over and tonality became restored at first in quotation marks, but, at last, the quotation marks got omitted.
The development in the english speaking world seems to me more continious, because of the need of finding financial support. What was the rule in central Europe, was the exception in USA and Great Britain. Composers like Britten, Bernstein, Menotti, Barber, Floyd, Walton and even Tippett wouldn't get any chance in post-war Germany.
But the real suicide of the avantgarde was, in my opinion, the treason of their ideals: Boulez re-worked most of his earlier works to make them richer in sound - and "Rituel" has from start to end nothing to do with avantgarde. Stockhausen started to write melodies, as did Penderecki, and Ligeti (who never was really avantgarde) wrote something like "Mysteries of the Macabre" and championed the beautiful sounds of Vivier. Lutoslawski and Penderecki both became more and more conservative, as did Berio. Nevertheless, the thinking about the musical material and the re-thinking of it is, in my view, the benefit of the avantgarde, and also the development of some techniques. I'm not sure, if a masterpiece as Corigiliano's 1st symphony could have been written without the knowledge of aleatoric passages a la Lutoslawski, collage, multi-layered developments and soundscapes. This is one of the works, which needed the avantgarde, maybe just to go pass it.
Yes, I’ve always gotten the sense that Wagner and tonality became associated with Naziism and thus sullied.
Ligeti is one of my very very favorite composer, I find his music very moving and human and also pretty avantgarde, but in a positive and imaginative manner. But yes, he's not the most avantgarde of all. I guess he was such a genius that he didn't feel the tradeoff originality - beauty as strongly as some others.
He's also one of my favorites. No matter how strange or different it may be, the listener can generally tell the difference between music as communication vs. an academic exercise.
I largely disagree on this. I find most works of the new tonality deadly dull, repetitive and unconvincing. The Avant-Garde of the '50s-'70s hasn't died. Boulez, Stockhausen, Nono, Maderna etc. continue to be performed and recorded. They may have literally passed on, but they continue to influence many young composers. At least in their early works, they were genuinely expressive. (eg. Boulez: Le Soleil des Eaux, Stockhausen: Drei Lieder, Nono: 3 Epitaphs for Garcia Lorca, Maderna: Tre Liriche Greche). True, they placed strictures on themselves with twelve note and serial ideas, but often used these to great expressive purpose. Also defending the twelve note compositions of what is sometimes called the middle generation, the composers who studied with or were directly influenced by Schoenberg, Berg and Webern. (Gerhard, Valen, Skalkottas, Searle, Lutyens etc., all of whom were able to work successfully in large musical forms. Off my soap box now!!! Otherwise, I greatly enjoy your postings!
It may surprise you to learn that I don't actually disagree with you about the fact that many of those composers wrote excellent music. The reality, though, is that nothing you have said matters a bit, because even your list of "good stuff" repulses most listeners, and ultimately,, even in the snotty and rarified world of classical music, listeners do matter.
During the last Century IRCAM seemed to reighn supreme. Did they ever produce a listenable piece of music? At least Picasso in his Rose and Blue periods produced works that could be understood and apprecieated by a large percentage of the population.
One more thing: on a contemporary music appreciation Facebook group recently, someone asked the question: why do people still think tonal music should still exist? (Or something to that effect.) I couldnt believe the utter naive stupidity of such a question but was heartened by the number of responses calling it out.
Write what you want, but dont dictate your tastes on the rest of us! Oh, and make sure your music says SOMETHING.
I really think that there were two kind of avant-garde composers: those who cared about his music actually being listened and enjoyed by someone (Penderecki, Zimmermann, Ligeti...), and those who didn't (Stockhausen, Kagel...). It seems a fact that the first ones evolved and survived the avant-garde dictatorship, and the others didn't.
But I agree with you: the first ones where great musicians, and the others just weren't.