ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 มิ.ย. 2024
- The first lecture of the series will be given by Charles Rosen, celebrated pianist and writer upon whom President Barack Obama conferred the National Humanities Medal in early 2012. Rosen is the author of the acclaimed The Classical Style, a frequent contributor to The New York Review of Books, and a passionate advocate of new music. He will assess the impact of contemporary music in the 21st century, exploring issues such as the role of public and private institutions, the responsibility of education in keeping the arts alive, the divide between commercial popular music and the concert experience, and the challenges of art's accessibility from the 18th century until today.
![จังหวะนี้ - เม้ก อภิสิทธิ์ [ Official MV ] จอนนี่มิวสิค](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4gQRZCkRyiU/mqdefault.jpg)
I went to school at Stony Brook in the mid 1970s; I followed Rosen, Treitler, Lewin around like a puppy dog. I would show up early to the class on the classical style and Charles Rosen would be practicing Mazurkas on the Steinway. I was smart enough to show up early to every class and he and I would talk about mostly about Chopin. What an education I got! I thought he looked scary but he was actually very friendly and kind. Admittedly he could get some students upset. I remember one comment while he was asking about each student's background. He came to a singer and he said, "A singer? What instrument did you play before you gave up music?" Funny, unless you are a singer! - Seth
You know he died, right?
Thanks for posting! I was lucky enough to be at this lecture. RIP Prof Rosen.
I took a seminar with him called, 1790-1814, or something. He was fascinated with Goethe, the Schlegel brothers, and other writers of the period. He was quite a dynamic lecturer, and when he played examples at the piano, wow. He looked nothing at all like Yoda, which says something about where the rest of us are headed, too.
in regenstein library?
RIP Charles Rosen. The world has become poorer without you.
on a totally lighter and maybe even profane note, I cannot miss the resemblance between Charles Rosen and Master Yoda
+Kushal Dasgupta Yes, I noticed this once as well: mmmusing.blogspot.com/2007/05/jedi-master.html
CHARLES ROSEN led an enviable and rich intellectual life. I became a fan of him because of this lecture and a few other interviews that are available on youtube -- and I haven't even read his books yet! :)
You have much to look forward to!
what a gift is this man's observations
I grew up on modern music, having chosen the saxophone in my youth without understanding the limitations that imposed. Then I learned flute, clarinet, and other instruments, and the range of my musical tastes and understanding increased. Finally I took on the piano, seriously, and began learning the traditions on which all my repertoire was based. I have to say it’s strange to work my way backward through the ages and to see how various composers were shunned, accepted, or totally rejected based on the inertia of the familiar. I’m also delighted to find that JS Bach is one of the most expressive composers in history, and is often misunderstood and performed awkwardly by people who think they are being “true” to what they imagine was authentic. Then along comes modern music [after a few intervening eras] and we’re back to awkwardness again, for the same reasons: performers aren’t sure what to do with it. They have trouble finding the composer’s groove. It’s all the same process: state a theme, an idea, or make some noise; then once you’ve seduced the listener’s ear start playing with it, and hopefully drop the listener off at the next station, with the territory covered in the meantime as their reward. Just because it’s modern doesn’t mean that musical taste no longer applies, though sometimes the composer seems hell-bent on avoiding it. But we rescue those works when we find that groove and apply our interpretation of taste to it. When we give the listener some sense of satisfaction other than having to sit through 10 to 110 minutes of incoherent sounds, we give them a leg up to the style, and open the door for other works by other composers. When looking at cubist paintings, we start seeing patterns… first there’s a bit of a guitar, then there is the profile of a self-assured performer and a cosmopolitan lady listening to him. But over here is a boob and over there are some other body parts, and you start grasping: “oh, the guy is playing the guitar, the woman is listening with pleasure, but what’s really on their minds is sex.” You’ve just been indoctrinated into cubism. Modern music doesn’t have such easily identifiable hooks. It takes some massaging of the line to give it some coherence, to make an impression and provide some sense, so that the next 15 minutes or so aren’t agony for the listener. The same statement could be made for any era or style of music, such that it takes accomplished musicians to make each piece their own, to give it a story, to carve the line into a groove so that it conveys something.
I think Rosen has done a fine job of illustrating these ideas, demonstrating that there is sense to be found, but it takes extraordinary devotion, sometimes, to find it.
this was wonderful, thanks
Just listening to him is amazing, his knowledge of music is staggering. However, I find it funny that he forgot one of Dvorak's most famous and popular compositions: the Song to the Moon from Rusalka. It is definitely one of opera's finest arias and extremely performed.
this is so inspirational thanks
Actually, all nine Dvorak symphonies are well worth being performed more often, and audiences would love the first six symphonies if they could just get a chance to hear them at concerts .
some of the piano trios & string quartets are masterpieces
The reason there is hostility is that the music is not enjoyable. You have to learn to like it, and it takes work. That is not to say that you cant really like the music in time. The piece I like the best - the Art of Fugue - (I came here after listening to Rosen's rendition) when i first heard it, I thought was awful stuff. But I heard it again, possibly with an introduction by Rosen, during the EU's commemoration of the 300'th year of Bach's birth. Played by all sorts of instrument combinations. I wish I could get a recording of that. Anyhoo, by the time it was finished, i was hooked, and I have loved it ever since. The Passions I thought were mindless screeching at first, and again, now I find them sublime. So there is this approachability thing. The more everything is exposed on the surface, the less there is to hear on subsequent listenings. And so simple music becomes elevator music.
BUT there are many pieces of music that are wonderful at first hearing that remain wonderful. That Morales piece with the Saxophone remix.. fantastic. Allegri's miserere. Bach's Chaconne. The great G minor fantasia and fugue. Beethoven's 9th.
To compare - Ride of the Valkyries versus Parsifal... One is immediate, the other takes a lot of repeated listening, but both are good. So it's not locked in stone. Yes, the listener has to learn to appreciate music. But also, there is good music and there is bad music. Good music has a good balance between unexpectedness and expectedness. Noise is too unpredictable, and bland music is too predictable. As an example of an obvious criterion. As the listener "learns the rules", what was unpredictable becomes more predictable, and so learning improves his appreciation. But if the music is inherently unpredictable (say, because the composer is throwing dice to get each of 12 tones in every phrase), it just stinks. It's not fear of the unknown, its dislike of the unknowable. The mind has evolved to gain a dopamine fix when it recognizes a pattern (an evolutionary advantage, fuelled by our reward system). If no pattern can be discerned, the mind gets frustrated and wanders off. All work and no reward.
I disagree . Chance music oten sounds fascinating. Wuorinen does take time . Eliott Carter is always lovable from the first listen , much of Boulez ,Maderna, Berio and Scelsi ,PerNorgard,Babbitt,Sessions are!
thanx for this post
His mind and his hands are those of a 30 year old; so much to be thankful for, but it must have been tough to know the rest of his body was not staying so youthful.
Love what he says about Shostokovich.
IFStravinsky perhaps you could make a case it works for the symphonies, but it's completely irrelevant to Shostakovich's exceptional chamber and piano music
Starts at 12:00
11-30 is when Prof gets out . His books on the Classical and Romantic Era are must reads for every student ! That should be a quoted reference for all . Roger Sessions is great. He was playing Babbittand studying knowing what the music actually was he knew Robert Helps and many others ! " If you don't start at 3 or 4 you will fall off "
He is special one of the first who played Eliott Carter . He knew how to really read music and analyse its parts .
The anecdotes are hilarious.
1:10:20
words to live by
Charles Rosen comes in at 12:00.
This is an invitation to check out my carefully edited excerpts from 1973 Bernstein Harvard Lectures . Subjects include Schoenberg/Berg in 5 parts Stravinsky in 2 parts, Debussy 2 parts, Ives , Mozart symphony#40 (diatonic containment of chromaticism) And "The Greatest five minuets in Music Education" about the evolution of Western Tonality (brilliant beyond belief) . The entire trajectory of Western Art Music was in retrospect a headlong high speed plunge into higher and higher chromatic density leading inevitably to the 20th Century Crisis 1900 - 1923 at least . Modern Art Music including Jazz was inevitable and a very fascinating journey . Anyway check out these posts if inclined .
Jesus ! I know I will get a lot out of these as a budding composer of some 20 years and still have no idea what happening in Boulez or Carter though I love to listen to them . 35 rehearsals for a Birtwistle piece ! No surprise !45 recording sessions! Who can pay for that now ?
Dr. Barbara McKenzie takes us up to 11:40 before we get to hear Charles Rosen.
I love this man he’s so petty
Very few people are productive in their 80s. If I am not mistaken Mr. Rosen is about 85 here. I wonder whether this was his last public appearances (he passed away in December 2012). To some of the commentators who preceded me, did you really expect him to discuss the Boulez piano sonatas? Would that still have been "old music" if he had?
someone should have poured him a glass of wine!
Music ,of all the arts, has been and remains the lucky recipient of the publics least enlightened least adventurous least informed most reactionary judgment calls . I mean if you where one of the rioters at the 1st performance of the Rite of Spring ;but had earlier that same day seen a painting by Picasso you could have damn well just turned your back on it. Music is intrusive and this is a part of it's power !
Well noticed
Anyone knows where the Goethe Quotes from?
"Shoshtakovich is Mahler with wrong notes," LOL
I certainly do not see hear that.
the remark is a huge compliment to Shostakovich.
It is Mahler having finally something to say, but what he says Beethoven did already said with less fluff.
Bla bla till about 11:50
'the single most influential writer'. ??? that's bold.
I come into this with a basic understanding of music theory so excuse my missuse of certain terms.
Modernist made the mistake of going head first into total atonality about a century to early, you need to slip it into the public councousness one dissonant chord at the time, you cant just bitchslap people with a hodgepoge of dissnonant chords, irregular tempos and unorthodox instrumentations and expect people to like it.
I think it's pretty simple why modernist or atonal music hasnt caught on. It just doesnt have a cultural foundtation or frame of reference for it yet ( or if it ever will) In traditional western music we have always had very strong emotional cues that connects us with music. Major is "happy, uplifitng, light, majestic" Minor is "sad, heavy, somber," etc and that extends to all kinds of 5ths, 7ths, 9ths that have turned into "Jazzy chords" "housy chords" "Soul chords" The difference is that they still rely on a major minor dynamic, while atonal throws all of that out the window. People just dont have a frame of reference for it, if music doesnt counjur up any emotions in people, then it serves no purpose at all for people at large.
Why do you think pop musicians use the 3 same chord progressions all over again?
"you need to slip it into the public councousness one dissonant chord at the time"
Here's how you do exactly that:
Start with Palestrina (no dissonance to speak of) and listen your way through the "name " composers up through Mahler's 9th. Then listen to (in this order) Mahler's 10th, Schoenberg's Gurrelieder, Debussy's orchestra works, and Schonberg's 1st Chamber Symphony. Then Berg's Op.1 Piano Sonata. Then move up through Berg's opus numbers (your choice which, but Op.6 is unusually tough going).
This is just one way. There are many other paths. The point ism the years from 1600-1900 are all about adding dissonance gradually. Music history bears out your idea.
Skip to 12:00 for the start
Rosen may have been a great pianist and highly intellectual writer on music, but he comes off as an old school snob of the Boulezian type here, with a rather myopic view on what constitutes 'good music' and what constitutes 'modern' music.
Obama, who had almost no classical performing musician at the White House, could not even have heard of Charles Rosen. Every time I heard Rosen in public offered major disappointment. I'm guessing that all of his literary, musicological, cultural interests took the needed practice time from him.
they may have overlapped at university of chicago
His comment on Randall Thompson was unnecessary and exposed Rosen as being a messy queen.
Amiably rambling. However, he doesn't really address the main issues of the opponents, not of musical modernism, but of atonality, particularly the serial method. Just dismisses them as idiots or people who want "easy listening". Nearly all the great "difficult" composers of the 18th and 19th centuries became accepted fairly soon, though.
Schoenberg and Berg both expected their music to become accessible once it was more familiar, and one of them (I can't remember which) fondly imagined his melodies would soon be whistled in the street. After 110 years of atonalism it is plain that this has not happened. What Rosen wouldn't see or admit is that music around 1900, became locked into the language and attitudes of German Expressionism, exemplified in art by Schiele and Klimt and in poetry by Georg Trakl. Extreme, agonised emotionalism and nervy, tortured sensibilities. Music to be listened to "head in hands". Every musical style has been able to produce dance music, from the Italian renaissance frottole, to Haydn minuets, to Strauss polkas. Except atonal music - no one dances to a Schoenberg waltz.
Well, the culture of dance has changed so radically in the 20th century that this is hardly a fair yardstick to use. Invert the proposition: Some of the most instantly disposable music -- literally "written" on an assembly line -- is the sort of anonymous techno pumped into dance clubs today. Does the fact that people dance to it accrue it some sort of artistic merit? Of course not ...
Which is not to say that people *don't* dance to some pretty strange music, which slaughters your argument from the other direction. Have you heard experimental industrial and breakcore? Believe it or not, it has a rabid following and ravers twitch around to it together in public, blasted at thunderous volume levels through truly frightening sound systems. Forget tonality / atonality, some of this doesn't consist properly of "notes" in anything like a scale system. Stuff that would have made the Italian Futurists proud ...
But this is not a fair argument to begin with. The same thing was said about bebop wrecking jazz, by turning into a tortured, individualistic experience when previously Louis Armstrong was on jukeboxes. People dance to Glenn Miller but not to Charlie Parker or John Coltrane. Is that a dis on them? Is it props to Glenn Miller?
Why won't this exceptionally learned man *JUST ADMIT* that the point of view I insist on, that of an antagonized philistine, is the correct one, and the arbitrary conditionings I'm positing are the germane ones?!?
Good point. Btw Bjork's Debut is one of my favorite works of music of all time.
@@punkpoetry Apropos, I've heard that Björk, with Kent Nagano directing, gave a performance of Schoenberg's "Pierrot Lunaire" in Montpellier in 2012 -- that modernist mastepiece's centenary year. Apparently, however, she declined to record it because she didn't want to take royalties away from classical performers. Which is entirely in character. It was probably the finest performance ever.
Thanks to all three contributors here for a valuable exchange.
Could this woman speak any longer geez
Very good, but rather outdated - not a great deal of engagement with any music made by people under about 75 or more.
Robert Davidson
Good point, Robert.
But given how many Americans still don’t know how to listen to Schoenberg, Webern, and the first generations aerialists like Boulez and Babbitt, there is a point to focusing on early and mid-twentieth century composers.
When the music he discusses was written, the composers were all well under 75.
@@ejb7969 I meant Charles - there were plenty of composers making music beyond modernism when he made this lecture
Appreciate and learn from what he offered, not what he doesn't. If you're going to be disappointed save that for others who know more recent music aren't stepping up! What he does present is still needed.
@@andrewanderson6121 fair point
So simple music last less than complicated music. And he picks up Dvorak as an example (BTW, nobody mentions his celllo concert). Why not Verdi, Rossini or Puccini? Or Ravel or Prokofiev? They are all alive and well, Mr Rosen. Or maybe they are not so easy? And then, are we sure that Haydn has lasted less well than Mozart? Many people would contend this affirmation and argument the very opposite or almost. And is it correct comparing Haendel to Bach, to denigrate him? Every other musician doesn't compare well with Bach, but Haendel is still one of the great ones and I don't know what "difficult" or "easy" have to do with his music. The problem is that Rosen must advocate the cause of so-called "modern" music and can't find a better way than to support the bizarre theories of those who killed music by denying every value to its main ingredient: melody. A word never to be heard in the conference (only later by the NYT critic). I own Rosen's famous book on classical style but I have to read it and I doubt I will, if this is his approach.
You think Ravel is easy???
You have to ask Rosen. I believe that none of the composers I mentioned above are "easy". But of course Rosen can't mention them as his all "theory" would then go to waste. Actually I think that most of the "difficult" music Rosen praises is more "easy" to compose than most of the "easy" music he belittles, as it cannot be proven wrong. BTW you think the italian opera composers are "easier" than Ravel?
No, it depends on what Rosen means by "complicated". He seems to assume that "complicated" means "better than simple". Now I would like to ask him if it is "simple" or "easy" to come up with something like "Largo al Factotum", not to speak of an opera like the great ones made by the italians or Mozart. I think they are much more complicated than most of the stuff produced by the composers of "difficult" (which I define "unlistenable") music. The problem is that he implies that a melody, as it is something which captures imeediately and pleasingly the ear, it is something to despise, preferring compositions based on on absurd theories which only after a study can be appreciated, though not liked. The theme has been debated for a century and it's no use repeating things here. I only point out the intellectual dishonesty by Rosen of picking up, of all composers, not certainly a supreme one to prove his point. Actually, the very opposite of what he says is true: that music with qualities like melody and tonality have survived and are popular, while those of the "modernist" barely live by, with some rare exceptions.
You don't answer my questions. The problem that none of the composers doing anti-music ever came up with a popular melody: because they weren't able to do it. I have no doubts that great composers in tonal music could have composed atonal crap with their left-hand during their sleep: how could they have been proved wrong anyway? History have proved the opposite (i.e. atonal composers unable to ever write a melody) just as true. The only composers dabbling in atonal music who proved capable to compose scores of popular melodies is Ennio Morricone (who later apparently atoned for his avanguardistic years, as I don't think he ever tried his hand at composing modernistic stuff: the kind that forced me to escape from one of his concerts during the interval 25 years ago). And If you think that music could do without the great tonal composers that's alright with me. I'll keep on listening to them, though.
tricky dick "anti-music" "popular melody". Lol!
"And If you think that music could do without the great tonal composers that's alright with me." What? You're speaking complete nonsense.
I think that should be an award for non native english speakers that get 100% of this video hahahaha mister charles is great, but damn is so hard to understand what he's saying.
Rosen was already quite ill (I believe this was his last lecture) and his speech is slurred, at times. I would like to know what he said about Albeniz and Debussy at 54:12, but I simply can't hear the words.
Mr. Rosen wrote THE CLASSICAL STYLE, a masterpiece.
He was also a tremendous pianist who choose works others would not have dared.
However this is snobbish academic Bullshit at its worst.
Not really. These administrators really think with their over- priced tenure they are doing a public service in the name of Music.
Dream on.
very old man speaking about old noise music and still calling it "modern"
***** to fucked up ears perhaps
The Modern Era of music started some time after Mahler and Debussy's death
all old music, old man. Old music for old music, I very much prefer the tonal masters. Snap out of it
Who cares what you prefer?Why don't you put on your Sony Walkman ,with some Brahms playing ,and go play in traffic,you antiquated son of a bitch.
LOL
SHAME on Mr. Robins for pronouncing the word 'cenner.' The word is 'cen-TER.'