Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic adapting Ives

Carl,

{you wrote...}
>...but I found nothing in this particular interview offensive. He simply >said that in his opinion as a conductor, Ives was an amateur at writing >large-scale music for orchestra.

No, it wasn't as simple as that. What he said was not only was he an amateur, but that if Boulez were to revisit Ives' music he (Boulez) would have to rewrite it. I find that condescending and missing the point.

But to step back from only the Ives section and see what he writes about others, he also labels Rzewski's music simplistic (while he doesn't specify an exact period, he talks about "a period"). He mentions other composers that he doesn't find "inventive". This interview simply (pun intended) reinforces the notion, for me, that Boulez and his ilk want simply to have complexity in music no matter what the reason or result. He simply cannot stand a straightforward approach, and when confronted with one (Ives) he looks at it and figures it would only fly and find a proper home among other suitably academic works if he - Boulez - were to fix it.

Feh.

> From what I know of Ives, I would guess he'd be the first to agree.

Speculation. But if we're speculating, what do you think Ives would have thought of Boulez?

>Has anyone here ever seen Ives' orchestral scores or attempted to perform >them with an orchestra?

Yes, and yes. I recently spent a week studying "Three Places in New England", for a proposed concert this spring. Daunting score, with some great moments. Flawless? Probably not. Affecting? For me, light years more than serialist 'product' served up by Boulez and all the post-Schoenberg crowd.

I saw him conduct two spectacular concerts in London a few years ago, but I frankly gave all credit to the orchestra and soloists (and they were neither run-of-the-mill nor easy programs); the most you could say was that his colorless beating didn't get in the way.

Gad, I can be opinionated!

Cheers,
Jon

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@...>

Carl,

One of the things that always surprises me about Ives is how we--we
being the collective opinion of those who ostensibly give a
crap--can't seem to make up our minds on just what this guy was about.

I can't begrudge Boulez or anyone else their likes and dislikes, but
clearly Boulez is completely oblivious to Ives and his music and seems
an unlikely candidate to offer any relevant insight--Jan Swafford's
book would be an excellent tonic, btw.

When Boulez says an amateur he means an incompetent, when Ives says
and amateur he means stonemason Bell... there's a difference, a big
difference. Boulez gave Ives the highbrow brush-off, and to my mind
he's hardly one to know one way or the other in any way that's
particularly relevant to anything Ives stood for. It's insulting.

Oh well, Boulez had his say, and that's okay... you can rest assured
that he's hardly the only one who feels this way, and it's good to
know where people stand. But if there's one thing you can bank on with
Ives, it's that the verdict on his music is just like the weather in
New England... fitting.

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "clumma" <carl@...>
To: <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 5:36 PM
Subject: [MMM] Re: adapting Ives

> >>In case I haven't said it before I'll say it again: musicians are
> >>the worst thing for music, the worst!
> >
> >Boulez is a musician? That's news to me! And I'm only a *part-time*
> >musician, so I'm safe :)
>
> I've read things attributed to Boulez that made me think he was an
> ass, and I've heard from friends who've know people who've played
> for him that he is indeed an ass, but I found nothing in this
> particular interview offensive. He simply said that in his opinion
> as a conductor, Ives was an amateur at writing large-scale music
> for orchestra. From what I know of Ives, I would guess he'd be the
> first to agree. Has anyone here ever seen Ives' orchestral scores
> or attempted to perform them with an orchestra?
>
> -Carl
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Dan and Jon!
I think Boulez can't see the beauty in the street, he has to transcend it,
run away to his court, he doesn't want to get dirty with folk tunes and
references in the common musical language of his tribe. The ingenuity of his
music is to be understood by only the supra rational entities of the
universe or those willing to dissect his scores. We should be grateful that
Harry gave him a good punch (according to b. Johnson). It is OK to have ones
head in heaven as long as you know your feet are in hell.

"D.Stearns" wrote:

> When Boulez says an amateur he means an incompetent, when Ives says
> and amateur he means stonemason Bell... there's a difference, a big
> difference. Boulez gave Ives the highbrow brush-off, and to my mind
> he's hardly one to know one way or the other in any way that's
> particularly relevant to anything Ives stood for. It's insulting.
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
http://www.anaphoria.com

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

🔗Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@...>

"D.Stearns" wrote:

> Carl,
>
> One of the things that always surprises me about Ives is how we--we
> being the collective opinion of those who ostensibly give a
> crap--can't seem to make up our minds on just what this guy was about.
>
> I can't begrudge Boulez or anyone else their likes and dislikes, but
> clearly Boulez is completely oblivious to Ives and his music and seems
>
> an unlikely candidate to offer any relevant insight--Jan Swafford's
> book would be an excellent tonic, btw.
>
> When Boulez says an amateur he means an incompetent, when Ives says
> and amateur he means stonemason Bell... there's a difference, a big
> difference. Boulez gave Ives the highbrow brush-off, and to my mind
> he's hardly one to know one way or the other in any way that's
> particularly relevant to anything Ives stood for. It's insulting.
>
> Oh well, Boulez had his say, and that's okay... you can rest assured
> that he's hardly the only one who feels this way, and it's good to
> know where people stand. But if there's one thing you can bank on with
>
> Ives, it's that the verdict on his music is just like the weather in
> New England... fitting.
>
> --Dan Stearns

Some of my opinions on Pierrot :-

> I can't attribute much credibility to a man who declared for decades
> that if it's not serialism "ca ne vaut rien" (it's worthless). Then he
> makes his fortune out of promoting the great non-serialist
> 'masterpieces'.

> I recommend reading some of his critical works. He is ever so
> slightly disparaging towards Bartok and Messiaen in particular. He
> doesn't really understand that they run with a different spirit to
> him. I suspect that they don't fit into either the first or second of
> the Viennese Schools. Furthermore he is somewhat arrogant in his
> pseudo-scientific presentation of taste. "Taste is thus and Messiaen
> is not for those of good taste." Why do I remember all this? I read
> it years ago. Because it annoyed me.

> I can't say that I put my feet up and fire up a little Boulez after
> dinner.

He belongs to the Century past, though we should inform him of
microtonality. Perhaps he'll convert.

It's a shame that we don't all agree with Pierre.

And as for IRCAM.......

Give him a few months and he might change his position.

I'm sounding as bad as Pierre himself.

Did Harry really smack him one? What a meeting of ideas!

Best Wishes

🔗clumma <carl@...>

I don't want to belabor this peripheral topic, or spend too
much energy defending a guy I suspect is an ass, but...

Kraig wrote...

>I think Boulez can't see the beauty in the street, he has to
>transcend it,

I actually read an int. in which he said he thinks all sounds,
including street noise, are a kind of music.

>he doesn't want to get dirty with folk tune

What about Mahler? Plenty o' folk tunes in there.

>The ingenuity of his music is to be understood by only the supra
>rational entities of the universe or those willing to dissect his
>scores.

Still referring to Boulez? I've never heard his music.

>We should be grateful that Harry gave him a good punch (according
>to b. Johnson).

Still referring to Boulez!?

Jon wrote...

>>I found nothing in this particular interview offensive. He simply
>>said that in his opinion as a conductor, Ives was an amateur at
>>writing large-scale music for orchestra.
>
>No, it wasn't as simple as that. What he said was not only was he
>an amateur, but that if Boulez were to revisit Ives' music he
>(Boulez) would have to rewrite it. I find that condescending and
>missing the point.

It depends on what he meant by re-write, but some of Ives' music
may be unplayable as written, and much of it is actually intended
to be "finished" by the performer (the Universe symphony, for
example).

>But to step back from only the Ives section and see what he writes
>about others, he also labels Rzewski's music simplistic

I've only heard _The People_, which is what Boulez was commenting
on. In my opionion, it's nice stuff, recalls Beethoven, but is
too simple. I may not mean that in the way Boulez does -- for
example some of my favorite music is extremely simple -- but in
the artistic context of the work, I think it needs more guts to
pull itself off.

>(while he doesn't specify an exact period, he talks about "a
>period").

You mean in the part about improvisation?

>He mentions other composers that he doesn't find "inventive".

He also praises Beethoven and Mahler. Can't say I can fault
him there.

>This interview simply (pun intended) reinforces the notion, for
>me, that Boulez and his ilk want simply to have complexity in
>music no matter what the reason or result. He simply cannot
>stand a straightforward approach,

This may very well be.

>and when confronted with one (Ives) he looks at it and figures
>it would only fly and find a proper home among other suitably
>academic works if he - Boulez - were to fix it.

I didn't get that from what he said. Maybe it's because I tend
to agree with him on Ives -- I think he was a cool composer but
not a great one. As an experimentalist, he was great -- works
like Decoration Day, The Unanswered Question, and the Concord
Sonata. But never do I get the impression this guy would have
any idea what his stuff would sound like until he heard it
performed. This may be part and parcel to experimentalism... in
which case, I say experimentalism is severely limited. At the
end of the day, the chances you'll accidentally assemble music as
good as what can be crafted in a feedback loop... are about nil.

>I saw him conduct two spectacular concerts in London a few years
>ago, but I frankly gave all credit to the orchestra and soloists
>(and they were neither run-of-the-mill nor easy programs); the
>most you could say was that his colorless beating didn't get in
>the way.

:) He does good by Mahler, but not as good as Bernstein did.
While I'm at it, I'll mention that Bernstein _is_ one of my
favorite composers.

-Carl

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@...>

Carl,

All I can say is that this--your bit about experimentalism and Ives'
music--is as idiotic a bit as I've ever heard on these (often
infuriating) lists in the couple of years I've been here.

Ives played through all the music he wrote at the piano,
experimentalism (whatever the hell that is exactly) is not (unless it
is) just throwing anything together--I guess it really is no wonder
that you or anyone of your mindset can't understand this music, though
this never seems to stop you from talking as though you surely do.

The arrogance of some people never ceases to amaze me.

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "clumma" <carl@...>
To: <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 2:46 PM
Subject: [MMM] Re: adapting Ives

> I don't want to belabor this peripheral topic, or spend too
> much energy defending a guy I suspect is an ass, but...
>
> Kraig wrote...
>
> >I think Boulez can't see the beauty in the street, he has to
> >transcend it,
>
> I actually read an int. in which he said he thinks all sounds,
> including street noise, are a kind of music.
>
> >he doesn't want to get dirty with folk tune
>
> What about Mahler? Plenty o' folk tunes in there.
>
> >The ingenuity of his music is to be understood by only the supra
> >rational entities of the universe or those willing to dissect his
> >scores.
>
> Still referring to Boulez? I've never heard his music.
>
> >We should be grateful that Harry gave him a good punch (according
> >to b. Johnson).
>
> Still referring to Boulez!?
>
>
> Jon wrote...
>
> >>I found nothing in this particular interview offensive. He simply
> >>said that in his opinion as a conductor, Ives was an amateur at
> >>writing large-scale music for orchestra.
> >
> >No, it wasn't as simple as that. What he said was not only was he
> >an amateur, but that if Boulez were to revisit Ives' music he
> >(Boulez) would have to rewrite it. I find that condescending and
> >missing the point.
>
> It depends on what he meant by re-write, but some of Ives' music
> may be unplayable as written, and much of it is actually intended
> to be "finished" by the performer (the Universe symphony, for
> example).
>
> >But to step back from only the Ives section and see what he writes
> >about others, he also labels Rzewski's music simplistic
>
> I've only heard _The People_, which is what Boulez was commenting
> on. In my opionion, it's nice stuff, recalls Beethoven, but is
> too simple. I may not mean that in the way Boulez does -- for
> example some of my favorite music is extremely simple -- but in
> the artistic context of the work, I think it needs more guts to
> pull itself off.
>
> >(while he doesn't specify an exact period, he talks about "a
> >period").
>
> You mean in the part about improvisation?
>
> >He mentions other composers that he doesn't find "inventive".
>
> He also praises Beethoven and Mahler. Can't say I can fault
> him there.
>
> >This interview simply (pun intended) reinforces the notion, for
> >me, that Boulez and his ilk want simply to have complexity in
> >music no matter what the reason or result. He simply cannot
> >stand a straightforward approach,
>
> This may very well be.
>
> >and when confronted with one (Ives) he looks at it and figures
> >it would only fly and find a proper home among other suitably
> >academic works if he - Boulez - were to fix it.
>
> I didn't get that from what he said. Maybe it's because I tend
> to agree with him on Ives -- I think he was a cool composer but
> not a great one. As an experimentalist, he was great -- works
> like Decoration Day, The Unanswered Question, and the Concord
> Sonata. But never do I get the impression this guy would have
> any idea what his stuff would sound like until he heard it
> performed. This may be part and parcel to experimentalism... in
> which case, I say experimentalism is severely limited. At the
> end of the day, the chances you'll accidentally assemble music as
> good as what can be crafted in a feedback loop... are about nil.
>
> >I saw him conduct two spectacular concerts in London a few years
> >ago, but I frankly gave all credit to the orchestra and soloists
> >(and they were neither run-of-the-mill nor easy programs); the
> >most you could say was that his colorless beating didn't get in
> >the way.
>
> :) He does good by Mahler, but not as good as Bernstein did.
> While I'm at it, I'll mention that Bernstein _is_ one of my
> favorite composers.
>
> -Carl
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>

🔗clumma <carl@...>

> All I can say is that this--your bit about experimentalism and
> Ives' music--is as idiotic a bit as I've ever heard on these
> (often infuriating) lists in the couple of years I've been here.

Sheesh Dan... you're right. What was I thinking?

> Ives played through all the music he wrote at the piano,
> experimentalism (whatever the hell that is exactly) is not
> (unless it is) just throwing anything together--I guess it
> really is no wonder that you or anyone of your mindset can't
> understand this music, though this never seems to stop you
> from talking as though you surely do.

What does it mean to understand it?

> The arrogance of some people never ceases to amaze me.

The willingness of people to read between the lines where
their emotions are involved never ceases to amaze me. If
I had used the name "Boulez" in place of "Ives" in my last
message, would you still bother to call me arrogant?

By the way- I'm not being sarcastic in the least in this
message. It's certainly true that my last message meets the
typical usenet BS factor infinity quota... So why don't
you tell us why you like Ives, what it takes to understand
his music, and why it isn't arrogant to speculate about how
Boulez must have complexity for complexity's sake at all
costs.

-Carl

🔗clumma <carl@...>

By the way, I admit to relatively little exposure to Ives'
music. I can only say that I've heard stuff I've really
liked, and stuff I thought just didn't work. Plenty that
I thought was significant, nothing that I took as a sign
of greatness (in the historical sense).

This, the author hopes, counts as one of the opinions we're
all supposed to respectfully enjoy the sharing of around
here.

Experimentalism -- I was not referring to anything outside
of my post. I simply meant the practice of trying out lots
of new techniques, without bothering to master each one. A
composer like Bach started out with a set of techniques he
hadn't mastered, and gradually mastered them. He always
pushed the boundaries, and did stuff that the rest of the
music world wouldn't do for many years after his death, but
this is not what I meant by experimentalism. Cowell, OTOH,
was an experimentalist. He had lots of ideas and was
incredibly prolific, but never really realized the full
potential of any of his ideas, with the possible exception of
tone clusters.

-Carl

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@...>

Carl,

Ives was a real individual with a real individual sound, a sound all
his own, and your response was like a 'I don't like jazz because all
jazz sounds the same' brush-off.

A lazy brush-off is one thing, and a pretty benign thing at that, but
a lazy brush-off as the basis for "never do I get the impression this
guy would have any idea what his stuff would sound like until he heard
it performed" just pisses me off--especially when "this guy" is
someone of Ives' caliber and accomplishments the guy doing the color
commentary is someone of your caliber. I call that arrogant.

Ives mastered Ives music, and Ives music kicked butt... no other music
I've ever heard does for me what the music of his that I most admire
does. It's a singularity. It's the work of someone who deeply
understood what it was that they wanted to do and had the wherewithal
and intestinal fortitude to pull it off contradictions and all.

Aside from the music itself, I think Jan Swafford's biography is the
best place to get both a detailed and balanced idea of what Ives was
all about.

As far as some of my own feelings about Ives, you could try this (it's
neither detailed nor balanced):

<http://shredlikehell.homestead.com/files/The_Peace_of_God_in_Five_Fla
ts.htm>

Something else to remember when lumping all your eggs in one basket is
that Cage and Partch were often mentioned in the same breath as
experimentalists...

--Dan Stearns

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Wellwellwell,

I'll just try and take a middle path for the moment, be brief, and then suggest that maybe we've reached the point that anything further on this thread go over to metatuning:

http://groups.yahoo.com/metatuning/

Carl, when you wrote your explanation of your thoughts it tended to bother me more than your first post on the matter. For instance:

>Kraig wrote...
>
> >he doesn't want to get dirty with folk tune
>
>What about Mahler? Plenty o' folk tunes in there.

Yes, but extrapolated through a refined medium, and even here Boulez' treatment comes off as cold and analytical compared to Bernstein, Sinopoli, even the historic recordings of Mahler himself conducting. Certainly no sense of the ghetto klezmer band.

>Still referring to Boulez? I've never heard his music.

Wow. Well, since he was a composer long before he added 'conductor' to his resume, a fair knowledge of what he ends up being interested enough to compose it definitely sheds light on his interpretive, not to mention aesthetic, demeanor.

> >No, it wasn't as simple as that. What he said was not only was he
> >an amateur, but that if Boulez were to revisit Ives' music he
> >(Boulez) would have to rewrite it. I find that condescending and
> >missing the point.
>
>It depends on what he meant by re-write

I found it clear: it needed to be done for the music to be performed by him.

>but some of Ives' music may be unplayable as written

None that I am aware of, esp since most all has been performed and recorded.

>and much of it is actually intended to be "finished" by the performer (the >Universe symphony, for example).

The Universe may be one of the *only* examples! I'd hardly say that "much" of it is in a flux state, and stand willing to be corrected if that is not the case. But many important works are right there in notational form.

>I've only heard _The People_, which is what Boulez was commenting on.

I'm familiar with much more than that one piece.

>In my opionion, it's nice stuff, recalls Beethoven, but is too simple.

Hmmm. We're all entitled to opinions, but 36 variations on a theme, for solo piano, that contains some sections of intensely bravura and complex passages... this really is a significant piece, with 6 cycles of 6 forms of musical variation. I'd hardly call it simple.

>He also praises Beethoven and Mahler. Can't say I can fault him there.

Neither can I, but that is beside the point.

>This may be part and parcel to experimentalism... in which case, I say >experimentalism is severely limited.

But it all depends on whether or not the composer actually understands just what he is composing, and I don't know that you or I could safely say Ives *didn't* have a grasp; my intuition is that he *did*.

Wrap-up: my bottom line, in trying to understand the statements from Boulez, is that I have a fairly good knowledge of his music, I've seen him conduct on a number of occasions, have read a fair number of articles and interviews, and have a *good* knowledge of the two composers he tends to dismiss as simplistic. I find his elitism and lack of a broad interest to be exactly as I've come to expect from him, and it simply goes to further the one thing that I've found more reliable than any other barometer: people make/play music that is a reflection of their own personalities. I rarely am disappointed in the person whose music I find compelling...

Just my take on the situation.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗clumma <carl@...>

> I'll just try and take a middle path for the moment, be brief, and
> then suggest that maybe we've reached the point that anything
> further on this thread go over to metatuning:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/metatuning/

Way to get the last word in. So much for impartial moderation.

I'm not a member of metatuning, and you'll kindly note that I'm
not the one who brought this thread to fisticuffs, though I
certainly am fanning the flames.

>Yes, but extrapolated through a refined medium, and even here
>Boulez' treatment comes off as cold and analytical compared to
>Bernstein, Sinopoli, even the historic recordings of Mahler
>himself conducting. Certainly no sense of the ghetto klezmer band.

My favorite recorded instance of Mahler is actually by way of
Kurt Massur. Don't know the ghetto klezmer band.

>Wow. Well, since he was a composer long before he added
>'conductor' to his resume, a fair knowledge of what he ends up
>being interested enough to compose it definitely sheds light on
>his interpretive, not to mention aesthetic, demeanor.

I'm sure it does.

>>and much of it is actually intended to be "finished" by the
>>performer (the Universe symphony, for example).
>
> The Universe may be one of the *only* examples! I'd hardly say
> that "much" of it is in a flux state, and stand willing to be
> corrected if that is not the case.

I remember reading that Ives changed many of his scores on an
almost daily basis, over periods of many years, after they were
published.

An review of Ives Plays Ives quotes him on the Emerson movement
of the Concord sonata:

"the daily pleasure of playing this music and seeing it grow,
and feeling that it is not finished and the hope that it will
never be."

Nothing wrong with that, of course.

>Hmmm. We're all entitled to opinions, but 36 variations on a
>theme, for solo piano, that contains some sections of intensely
>bravura and complex passages... this really is a significant
>piece,

Agree 100%.

>>He also praises Beethoven and Mahler. Can't say I can fault him
>>there.
>
>Neither can I, but that is beside the point.

How is that besides the point? Aren't we judging the fellow on
what he likes and dislikes?

>But it all depends on whether or not the composer actually
>understands just what he is composing, and I don't know that
>you or I could safely say Ives *didn't* have a grasp; my
>intuition is that he *did*.

I just said the music itself didn't convince me of this. I said
never, but that's probably too strong.

On the subject of Dan's remark on caliber and arrogance... it
may be that none of us here are on Ives' level... in which case
how is either praise or criticism of his music any more or
less arrogant or meaningful?

-Carl

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Carl,

{you wrote...}
> > I'll just try and take a middle path for the moment, be brief, and
> > then suggest that maybe we've reached the point that anything
> > further on this thread go over to metatuning:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/metatuning/
>
>Way to get the last word in. So much for impartial moderation.

Well, I certainly didn't get the last word in! :) And I wasn't really attempting to. My offering of opinions is separate from my moderating the list. Read on...

>I'm not a member of metatuning, and you'll kindly note that I'm not the >one who brought this thread to fisticuffs, though I certainly am fanning >the flames.

It doesn't matter to me *who* went *where* with the thread, I found that we had spent a fair amount of time on it, and that whatever ties to microtonality had long passed. Metatuning was a list *specifically* set up to handle threads that are valid in terms of continuing discussion but that have strayed from the main focus of a given list. It takes zero effort to subscribe (and unsubscribe) and I felt it was a good time to move on.

I still have problems with your arguements, but if you want to continue, post at http://groups.yahoo.com/metatuning/

Back to making microtonal music....

Cheers,
Jon

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@...>

Joe,

When I say my buddy Joseph Pehrson, or my buddy Carl Lumma, I might
mean my friends and I might be casting sideways aspersions... either
way, there's usually a difference worth noting.

--Dan Stearns

----- Original Message -----
From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@...>
To: <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 1:01 PM
Subject: [MMM] Re: adapting Ives

> --- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:
>
> /makemicromusic/topicId_1437.html#1459
>
> > >>In case I haven't said it before I'll say it again: musicians
are
> > >>the worst thing for music, the worst!
> > >
> > >Boulez is a musician? That's news to me! And I'm only a
*part-time*
> > >musician, so I'm safe :)
> >
> > I've read things attributed to Boulez that made me think he was an
> > ass, and I've heard from friends who've know people who've played
> > for him that he is indeed an ass, but I found nothing in this
> > particular interview offensive. He simply said that in his
opinion
> > as a conductor, Ives was an amateur at writing large-scale music
> > for orchestra. From what I know of Ives, I would guess he'd be
the
> > first to agree. Has anyone here ever seen Ives' orchestral scores
> > or attempted to perform them with an orchestra?
> >
> > -Carl
>
> I agree entirely with Carl. Boulez said that Ives was an amateur,
so
> Dan Stearns should be very happy about it!
>
> BTW... Jed Distler is a friend of mine...
>
> Joseph Pehrson
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_1437.html#1461

> Carl,
>
> One of the things that always surprises me about Ives is how we--we
> being the collective opinion of those who ostensibly give a
> crap--can't seem to make up our minds on just what this guy was
about.
>
> I can't begrudge Boulez or anyone else their likes and dislikes, but
> clearly Boulez is completely oblivious to Ives and his music and
seems
> an unlikely candidate to offer any relevant insight--Jan Swafford's
> book would be an excellent tonic, btw.
>
> When Boulez says an amateur he means an incompetent, when Ives says
> and amateur he means stonemason Bell... there's a difference, a big
> difference. Boulez gave Ives the highbrow brush-off, and to my mind
> he's hardly one to know one way or the other in any way that's
> particularly relevant to anything Ives stood for. It's insulting.
>
> Oh well, Boulez had his say, and that's okay... you can rest assured
> that he's hardly the only one who feels this way, and it's good to
> know where people stand. But if there's one thing you can bank on
with
> Ives, it's that the verdict on his music is just like the weather in
> New England... fitting.
>
>
> --Dan Stearns
>

Ok... so I made *two* posts on this topic, and I promised only *one..*

Yes, Boulez' comments on Ives were totally unfair, just as Carter's
have been, and I can see why Dan Stearns was angry.

It didn't affect me like that... I would *expect* something like that
from Boulez.

What's he doing with Zappa, though? Is that just box office draw?

And are the cats at IRCAM really "microtonalists"?.. well, they're
going after something "Spectral" like that, seems to me...

All arguments go to MetaTuning. Nice people can stay here.

J. Pehrson

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_1437.html#1481

>
> Experimentalism -- I was not referring to anything outside
> of my post. I simply meant the practice of trying out lots
> of new techniques, without bothering to master each one. A
> composer like Bach started out with a set of techniques he
> hadn't mastered, and gradually mastered them. He always
> pushed the boundaries, and did stuff that the rest of the
> music world wouldn't do for many years after his death, but
> this is not what I meant by experimentalism. Cowell, OTOH,
> was an experimentalist. He had lots of ideas and was
> incredibly prolific, but never really realized the full
> potential of any of his ideas, with the possible exception of
> tone clusters.
>
> -Carl

Varese hated the label "experimental." He always said that
his "experiments" were over by the time he made the music...

adapting Ives

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗clumma <carl@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Alison Monteith <alison.monteith3@...>

🔗clumma <carl@...>

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@...>

🔗clumma <carl@...>

🔗clumma <carl@...>

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗clumma <carl@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@...>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>