The future of classical music ... in China

Your 'hot spot' for all classical music subjects. Non-classical music subjects are to be posted in the Corner Pub.

Moderators: Lance, Corlyss_D

Post Reply

some guy
Modern Music Specialist
Posts: 1625
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:00 am
Location: portland, or
Contact:

Re: The future of classical music ... in China

Post by some guy » Tue Oct 22, 2013 9:21 am

Both articles are about performers.

So it's not so much "the future of classical music" as it is "the future of the continued performance of the music of composers who died long ago, in the past. (Bach and Mozart were mentioned.)"

The future of classical music as a living tradition, as the continuing efforts of composers to extend that traditon, that would be about the future of classical music.
"The public has got to stay in touch with the music of its time . . . for otherwise people will gradually come to mistrust music claimed to be the best."
--Viennese critic (1843)

Confusion is a word we have invented for an order which is not understood.
--Henry Miller

slofstra
Posts: 8901
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 2:23 pm
Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada
Contact:

Re: The future of classical music ... in China

Post by slofstra » Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:50 am

Sure, okay.

There was one interesting comment along the line of classical music composition. One person said he would like to hear classical music that sounded a little more "Chinese", so perhaps more of an Oriental influence in classical music composition lies in store.

some guy
Modern Music Specialist
Posts: 1625
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:00 am
Location: portland, or
Contact:

Re: The future of classical music ... in China

Post by some guy » Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:15 pm

Well, there are Chinese composers, both acoustic and electronic, but I don't know if any of them sound Chinese, per se.

I can recall a vaguely Oriental sound to some isolated bits of things. But those bits don't sound much different from chinoiserie done by a composer from Duluth or from Vilnius.

It would be healthy for the performers featured in these articles to be familiar with their composer colleagues, but that's generally true for anywhere in the world. :)
"The public has got to stay in touch with the music of its time . . . for otherwise people will gradually come to mistrust music claimed to be the best."
--Viennese critic (1843)

Confusion is a word we have invented for an order which is not understood.
--Henry Miller

slofstra
Posts: 8901
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 2:23 pm
Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada
Contact:

Re: The future of classical music ... in China

Post by slofstra » Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:22 pm

some guy wrote:Well, there are Chinese composers, both acoustic and electronic, but I don't know if any of them sound Chinese, per se.

I can recall a vaguely Oriental sound to some isolated bits of things. But those bits don't sound much different from chinoiserie done by a composer from Duluth or from Vilnius.

It would be healthy for the performers featured in these articles to be familiar with their composer colleagues, but that's generally true for anywhere in the world. :)
I hasten to disown the wording "sound Chinese" since I don't know what that means exactly, and I don't want to be caught engaging in Orientalism. However, the comment came from a Chinese symphony patron, so I assume that he knows what he meant.

some guy
Modern Music Specialist
Posts: 1625
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:00 am
Location: portland, or
Contact:

Re: The future of classical music ... in China

Post by some guy » Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:29 pm

Yeah.

Odds are the patron means something very much like what people mean when they say something sounds "American."

They are not referring to Mumma or Tudor, guaranteed.

Not even to Sessions or Carter, I'll warrant.

(Hmmm. Am I talking insurance or music, here? :? )
"The public has got to stay in touch with the music of its time . . . for otherwise people will gradually come to mistrust music claimed to be the best."
--Viennese critic (1843)

Confusion is a word we have invented for an order which is not understood.
--Henry Miller

barney
Posts: 2961
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:12 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: The future of classical music ... in China

Post by barney » Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:51 pm

some guy wrote:Both articles are about performers.

So it's not so much "the future of classical music" as it is "the future of the continued performance of the music of composers who died long ago, in the past. (Bach and Mozart were mentioned.)"

The future of classical music as a living tradition, as the continuing efforts of composers to extend that tradition, that would be about the future of classical music.
I found the article fascinating. Speaking for myself, I want to preserve the music of composers who died long ago, which coincidentally happens to be in the past. In the same way, I want to read people who died long ago, in the past. They have insights that remain important, and they hold my interest. If they don't. I stop reading/listening, exactly as I do with living composers/authors, in the present.

That's what makes a cultural tradition, something I consider important. You and others don't compose in a vacuum. I am reasonably open to contemporary classical - I've heard four John Adams chamber works in concert in the past week, for example, but don't moralise at me or others who still love Mozart etc. Or - dare I say it - esteem Mozart over Adams.

I interviewed Murray Perahia a couple of weeks ago. He prefers music with a tonal structure. That's absolutely his, and anyone's right.

Tarantella
Posts: 1089
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:09 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: The future of classical music ... in China

Post by Tarantella » Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:40 pm

Barney, you're a champion!!!

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26866
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: The future of classical music ... in China

Post by jbuck919 » Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:58 pm

barney wrote:I interviewed Murray Perahia a couple of weeks ago.
I am impressed.

Here is a film about classical music performance in China. It is rich and complex enough that I think I missed much the first time through, or maybe it's because I was still recovering from my 2007-2008 illness. Anyway, I'd be very happy to watch it again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Together_%282002_film%29

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

some guy
Modern Music Specialist
Posts: 1625
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:00 am
Location: portland, or
Contact:

Re: The future of classical music ... in China

Post by some guy » Wed Oct 23, 2013 12:49 am

My very dear barney, speaking for myself, I want to preserve the music of composers who died long ago, which coincidentally happens to be in the past. In the same way, I want to read people who died long ago, in the past. They have insights that remain important.*

I was talking about terminology, pointing out that to talk about the future of the past is to talk about reproduction not production. If classical music is a living thing, if it continues to be produced, then to talk about the future is to talk about production not reproduction. That's all.
barney wrote:[D]on't moralise at me or others who still love Mozart etc. Or - dare I say it - esteem Mozart over Adams.
You've lost me, here. I wasn't moralizing at all. And even if I had been, I certainly would not have been moralizing at people who love Mozart or who esteem him over Adams, since I am in that same group.
barney wrote:I interviewed Murray Perahia a couple of weeks ago. He prefers music with a tonal structure. That's absolutely his, and anyone's right.
He is certainly free to prefer any old thing he wants. Whether, as a public person, he is equally free to air his preferences or to invest them with any validity is, as we already know, debatable. (Only let's not. :D ) But that is neither here nor there. The whole business of preferences and rights is completely tangential to anything I was saying. To anything I was reacting to, for that matter.

*We part company here, however: "If they don't [hold my interest]. I stop reading/listening, exactly as I do with living composers/authors, in the present." At this point, if I act as I believe, I question my interest. Why is my interest flagging? What do I need to do to keep it from doing so? If, after making an effort, I find that I'm still not interested, then I stop. But only provisionally. My "interest" is not a be all nor an end all kinda thing.

[There. You can take the text after the asterisk to be moralizing. :) So you know what I consider to be moralizing.]
"The public has got to stay in touch with the music of its time . . . for otherwise people will gradually come to mistrust music claimed to be the best."
--Viennese critic (1843)

Confusion is a word we have invented for an order which is not understood.
--Henry Miller

barney
Posts: 2961
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:12 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: The future of classical music ... in China

Post by barney » Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:35 am

some guy wrote:My very dear barney, speaking for myself, I want to preserve the music of composers who died long ago, which coincidentally happens to be in the past. In the same way, I want to read people who died long ago, in the past. They have insights that remain important.*

I was talking about terminology, pointing out that to talk about the future of the past is to talk about reproduction not production. If classical music is a living thing, if it continues to be produced, then to talk about the future is to talk about production not reproduction. That's all.
barney wrote:[D]on't moralise at me or others who still love Mozart etc. Or - dare I say it - esteem Mozart over Adams.
You've lost me, here. I wasn't moralizing at all. And even if I had been, I certainly would not have been moralizing at people who love Mozart or who esteem him over Adams, since I am in that same group.
barney wrote:I interviewed Murray Perahia a couple of weeks ago. He prefers music with a tonal structure. That's absolutely his, and anyone's right.
He is certainly free to prefer any old thing he wants. Whether, as a public person, he is equally free to air his preferences or to invest them with any validity is, as we already know, debatable. (Only let's not. :D ) But that is neither here nor there. The whole business of preferences and rights is completely tangential to anything I was saying. To anything I was reacting to, for that matter.

*We part company here, however: "If they don't [hold my interest]. I stop reading/listening, exactly as I do with living composers/authors, in the present." At this point, if I act as I believe, I question my interest. Why is my interest flagging? What do I need to do to keep it from doing so? If, after making an effort, I find that I'm still not interested, then I stop. But only provisionally. My "interest" is not a be all nor an end all kinda thing.

[There. You can take the text after the asterisk to be moralizing. :) So you know what I consider to be moralizing.]
Ok, if you weren't moralising, I apologise. This topic (new music) seems to have come close once or twice, but it may be my blinkers. I agree that I have a duty not to shut off modern music just because it is challenging - the question is how far that duty extends. I really have no interest in heavy metal - I got to hear it when my kids were younger. But we are talking of art music. At what point can I, or Perahia, say, I've heard enough, I don't like this, or I don't understand this, or this is too hard. Not at the first difficult moment, ok - the seventh? Seventy times seven?

some guy
Modern Music Specialist
Posts: 1625
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:00 am
Location: portland, or
Contact:

Re: The future of classical music ... in China

Post by some guy » Wed Oct 23, 2013 11:44 am

Here's what I think about this situation: you have no duty at all so far as enjoying or not enjoying anything goes.

You can say, for yourself, at any point, "I've heard enough, I don't like this, or I don't understand this, or this is too hard." Why, you could even say it at the first difficult moment, if you're so inclined, though I do think your desire to stay open to challenging music is a good thing. And if you feel it as a duty, to yourself, I would applaud that as well.

Only when it comes to bad-mouthing what you don't like, understand, find too difficult would I say that duty enters into it.

Then, you do have a duty to not bad-mouth.

And, reading this over, I think that probably I just don't like bad-mouthing. Nothing to do with music, per se. :)

I'd like to promote the idea that if a person who loves Monteverdi and Bach, who revels in Gluck and Berlioz, who can't get enough of Mussorgsky's Khovanchina, who also appreciates Vivaldi and Mozart and Saint-Saens and Brahms, who listens to Dvorak and Prokofiev, if that person can also love Lachenmann and Karkowski and Ferrari, and can never get enough of Francisco Lopez or Beatriz Ferreyra, then probably those five people (and dozens more) are probably worth listening too as well.

Hahaha, reading this over, I think that I just said that things that are worth listening to are worth listening to. Well, so be it! :lol:
"The public has got to stay in touch with the music of its time . . . for otherwise people will gradually come to mistrust music claimed to be the best."
--Viennese critic (1843)

Confusion is a word we have invented for an order which is not understood.
--Henry Miller

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests