Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>I suppose it depends on how one uses the expression avant garde.  One
>could look at the Ars Nova as being avant garde for its time.

No you can't... what Ars Nova was looking for was novelty; which is a very
different concept to avant-gardism. It's like claiming that Beethoven's
Battle Symphony was an avant-garde exercise because he wrote it for a
precursor of the mighty Wurlitzer... this bit of the old Ludwig van was
written to make a bigger, louder, newer impact on the public audience; not
to explore some philosophically questionable aesthetic imperative.

>Composers like Debussy, Wagner and Varese probably saw themselves as
>"forsaking all memory to forge a perception without precedent, of
>renouncing the legacies of the past..." (Boulez).  Yet, from my
>perspective, it seems to me that only some of the electronic music could
>fufill the notion as expressed by Boulez.  Some of the electronic music
>seems to have developed (and rightly so from my perspective) a very
>different aesthetic, one in which timbre is considered an equal to
>structure, and has, in some instances, replaced thematic material as a
>primary organizational consideration.

I have no understanding of a notion of how "renouncing the legacies of the
past" relates to popularity or unpopularity, nor how any of those notions
relate to respectability.

>That's a very strange statement to make; given that - by definition - a
>renouncement of the legacies of the past (apart from trapping you deep
>inside the past... the great occupational hazard of avant-gardism) rejects
>the preferences of the popular audience; & generally patronises those
>preferences to boot. Name me one true avant-gardist who has achieved real
>popularity on the basis of his (& we're almost exclusively talking about a
>macho philosophy here; so i'll use the sexual provocatively here)
>avant-garde studies (Debussy doesn't count by this definition)... there
>isn't one.

For me, the Boulez statement is the sort of thing young person makes to
provide some comfort to his ego.  Assuming one could renounce the legacies
of the past, such a renouncement would need to be done having an extensive
knowledge of the past, otherwise, how would one know what to renounce?
While it is often pointed out that many of the currently respected
composers of the past were indeed well known and respected in their own
time,I do feel it is worth adding that many "popular" and highly respected
composers from the past are ignored today.

>I would wager that most everyone on this list knows the names of
>Stockhausen, Xenakis, Boulez, and many of the names of the "older"
>generation of the "avant garde." That in itself would seem to suggest
>that within some circles they have indeed achieve a certain amount of
>recognition and "popularity." Even writing that sentence reminds me of
>the relativity of such notions of "popularity" and "avant garde." I just
>don't see Mahler winning any "People's Choice" award.

The mere fact that people can name names on a relatively specialist list
such as this is no indication of real popularity...  it just says that
some people here are prepared to support these names publically (& almost
as many are inclined to demonise them just as enthusiastically).  Go out
on the street & ask the civilian population how many of these composers
are; & you'll find that apart from the occasional hardcore metalhead who
recognises the name Stockhausen, the sheer irrelevance of this art is
pretty total.

Compare this ignorance with the public importance of more traditional
artistic figures like theodorakis in Greece & Xian in China; & you'll see
how much damage we have to undo here....

All the best,
Robert Clements <[log in to unmask]>