George Rochberg

> made definition of musical style. There could be a thousand
> styles...There may have been a very few composers, my colleague
> George Rochberg, I think, was the absolute master of the post-
> Schoenberg style. He did better than anybody else, in his early music
> when he was involved in that, it didn't dampen his energies as a
> composer and his personality came through very strongly in those
> early works.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm. . . . . . I don't know. Rochberg may have gone against
serialism, but he was always a chameleon at heart. I remember I had a
lesson with him when I was about 17 years old. He gave me the old Yoda
routine ("Are you READY to be an artist?"), and then warned me against
"fads" (probably would have included microtonality in that rubric, not
to mention that shiester charlatan John Cage), and
then said some stuff, like "Let's say you want to write a Nocturne . . .
so you go and you study the Chopin Nocturnes like crazy. . . " and I was
thinking, "What the @#$%@#$, why would I Want to write a Nocturne? Who
said I wanted to be like Chopin?" But that's the way the guy thinks.
It's always, "absorb the master", and then write "like" him. It doesn't
always work out: Rochberg's Symphony #2 is pretty bad-quality
Schoenber--and bad-quality 12-tone period Schonberg at that. You can
hear that the music is "thin": because Rochberg didn't know how to
thicken it, how to bend the rules like Arnie did.

On the other hand, his piece "Summer Serenade" ("Serenata d'Estate") is
quite beautiful, a sort of cheery , happy, birds-in-the-morning Webern
piece. (It actually sounds influecned by Crumb, a younger composer
colleague of his at the time).

Anyway, I like some of his music. But the philosophy is a bit too much
on the conservative side. We don't need to replace the hegemony of
serialism with the hegemony of Haydn.

>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 19:21:16 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@...>
> Subject: Re: comments by George Crumb
>
> --- In metatuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > There was a discussion not too long ago on the main list (for
> > whatever reason) about serialism
>
> i'd like to see a big wave where composers "fractalize", rather
> than "serialize", all the parameters of their compositions. i have
> some very good reasons to suspect that the results would be a lot
> more palatable, not only to listeners but to the composers
> themselves, who would therefore be more likely and able to discover
> themselves in the patterns that result, and thus end up much farther
> along the path of self-expression than the serialism-trained
> composers had . . .
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 12:38:59 -0700
> From: Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: comments by George Crumb
>
> Hello Paul!
> I will tend to go with some implications off of George comments which
> has pretty much always been my expressed viewpoint. It is much more
> important to potentate what one already has going on. each to its own path.
> Education is better along the lines of helping the student solve their own
> problems, not solutions toward "international Styles". Just as the
> helicopter was much more plausible in Leonardo's time, he rejected it as
> being not the way he wanted people to fly ewhiuch was as important as being
> able to at all. That systems can produce good results is fascinating, yet as
> a process i find it more fascinating to explore the human realms and go
> deeper into to it, as opposed to outside of it. Even when it comes to
> mistakes, human glitches are far more interesting than machine glitches . Of
> course maybe you are more wired for fractals than i, hence go for it.
>
> paulerlich wrote:
>
> > --- In metatuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> >
> > > There was a discussion not too long ago on the main list (for
> > > whatever reason) about serialism
> >
> > i'd like to see a big wave where composers "fractalize", rather
> > than "serialize", all the parameters of their compositions. i have
> > some very good reasons to suspect that the results would be a lot
> > more palatable, not only to listeners but to the composers
> > themselves, who would therefore be more likely and able to discover
> > themselves in the patterns that result, and thus end up much farther
> > along the path of self-expression than the serialism-trained
> > composers had . . .
>
> -- Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 19:55:20 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@...>
> Subject: Re: comments by George Crumb
>
> --- In metatuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> > Hello Paul!
> > I will tend to go with some implications off of George comments
> which
> > has pretty much always been my expressed viewpoint. It is much more
> > important to potentate what one already has going on. each to its
> own path.
> > Education is better along the lines of helping the student solve
> their own
> > problems, not solutions toward "international Styles". Just as the
> > helicopter was much more plausible in Leonardo's time, he rejected
> it as
> > being not the way he wanted people to fly ewhiuch was as important
> as being
> > able to at all. That systems can produce good results is
> fascinating, yet as
> > a process i find it more fascinating to explore the human realms
> and go
> > deeper into to it, as opposed to outside of it. Even when it comes
> to
> > mistakes, human glitches are far more interesting than machine
> glitches . Of
> > course maybe you are more wired for fractals than i, hence go for
> it.
>
> hey kraig,
>
> personally, i don't make my music using any mechanical "systems"
> whatsoever (aside from tuning systems, and even that may change if i
> get really creative with my fretless bass :) )
>
> in fact, if i'm not mistaken, your compositions are far
> more "systemic" than my own, though we both feature
> improvisation . . .
>
> i just meant that if there is a big wave for using a "system" such as
> there was in the 20th century with serialism, i think that fractal
> systems would likely lead to much more artistic success (in terms of
> the types of criticisms crumb made).
>
> now here's a random page mentioning both fractal composition and
> microtonality:
>
> http://timara.con.oberlin.edu/~gnelson/papers/fractal/GNfract.htm
>
> -paul
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 13:07:56 -0700
> From: Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: comments by George Crumb
>
> hello Paul!
> I am sure you might have this impression considering the "exploratory '
> works i have put up. My only system now to is to play around until i like
> the sound of something and then write it down, or preserve what i play
> without thinking. This last method is a result of just having the
> instruments around and while passing them i will just start to play
> something, a pattern or short motive. I write these down like a little
> diary. Composition is possibly edited improv with occasional enhancements
>
> paulerlich wrote:
>
> > in fact, if i'm not mistaken, your compositions are far
> > more "systemic" than my own, though we both feature
> > improvisation . . .
>
> -- Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 20:14:59 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@...>
> Subject: Re: comments by George Crumb
>
> --- In metatuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
>
> > Composition is possibly edited improv with occasional enhancements
>
> wow -- my compositional process exactly (though in my current "jazz"
> group, i tend to leave room for some real improv -- lots of it in
> fact).
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 13:45:47 -0700
> From: Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: comments by George Crumb
>
> Paul!
> Interesting!
> Often i will end up with will hierarchical levels of composition or
> improvisation depending on how you look at it. This is divided up into
> parts with some parts totally determined going to others with little
> indication except to "play along" providing the pitch spectrum of what
> others at most. Other Parts might lie in between with pitch/range given or
> determined at points. The results of going toward one camp or the other
> determined/undetermined) is just not for me, at least for now.
>
> paulerlich wrote:
>
> > --- In metatuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> >
> > > Composition is possibly edited improv with occasional enhancements
> >
> > wow -- my compositional process exactly (though in my current "jazz"
> > group, i tend to leave room for some real improv -- lots of it in
> > fact).
>
> -- Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 21:17:45 EDT
> From: Afmmjr@...
> Subject: Re: Re: comments by George Crumb
>
> I once had the opportunity to ask George Crumb if he had ever considered
> composing an intentional microtonal piece. I pointed out how "Ancient Voices
> of Children" was certainly flirting with microtonality.
>
> His answer was very considered sincere. He said he couldn't because he
> couldn't hear microtonal intervals. I smiled and understood that he was
> quite happy and successful with his own musical language.
>
> Johnny Reinhard
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

***From: Christopher Bailey******************

212-663-2515
http://music.columbia.edu/~chris

**********************************************

--- In metatuning@y..., Christopher Bailey <cb202@c...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_2943.html#2943
>
>
> Anyway, I like some of his music. But the philosophy is a bit too
much on the conservative side. We don't need to replace the hegemony
of serialism with the hegemony of Haydn.
>

***I remember when Rochberg came to U Mich. in the 70's. One of his
string quartets was not only *influenced* by Beethoven but sounded
almost *exactly like* Beethoven. Going a bit too far in *my* book! :)

Probably Crumb's point in the article is that Rochberg was one of the
first to just say "the hell with it" to the prevailing serial style
to do something different. I believe he and Del Tredici were really
the first "serious" (whatever that means) composers to break through
this. Crumb was doing it too, in a way, but his music was
never "tonal" in this respect, although certainly much more "exotic"
than many of the prevailing trends...

J. Pehrson