Satoshi Akima wrote:

>>The 20th century - were you there?

Len Fehskens responded:

>It is just this sort of snide implication of closemindedness or
>philistinism that grates on those of us who think that serialism was an
>interesting idea that didn't pan out, but still listen to a great deal of
>"modern" music.  ...
>
>So yes, I was there.

What's wrong with (amongst others) Alfven, Arnold, Atterberg, Bacewicz,
Balakauskas, Bantock, Barber, Bartok, Bax, Bliss, Bloch, Blumenfeld,
Boughton, Brian, Bridge, Britten, Bush, Carwithen, Chavez, Clarke, Copland,
Delius, Diamond, Dohnanyi, Egge, Elgar, Enescu, Falla, Fernstrom, Finzi,
Gershwin, Ginastera, Glass, Hanson, Hindemith, Holst, Honegger, Janacek,
Jones, Jongen, Khachaturian, Kodaly, Kvandal, Lajtha, Larsen, Larsson,
Mahler, Moeran, Mompou, Myaskovsky, Nielsen, Novak, Nyman, Petterson,
Pfitzner, Piazzolla, Piston, Poot, Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, Ravel, Respighi,
Roussel, Rubbra, Saeverud, Sallinen, Satie, Schmidt, Shostakovich,
Sibelius, Simpson, Sisask, Stenhammar, Szymanowski, Theodorakis,
Tishchenko, Tubin, Vaughan Williams, Villa-Lobos, Vincent, Walton,
A.Williams, G.Williams, Willson and Wordsworth? 20th-century, all of them.

That apart, I agree with the posting.

OTOH, I'm less in agreement with the following (also Len Fehskens):

>I am very wary of the "music as language" metaphor.  Serialism is not
>"another" language in the same sense that French is another language.

Serialism as such isn't another language - it's just another way of coming
up with thematic material.

However, there are other types of music - Indian Classical, for example -
where the answer to the question "would someone who learned to understand
this music find it rewarding?" is clearly "yes" and the answer to the
question "is this part of the Western Classical tradition?" is equally
clearly "no".  IMO the "music as language" metaphor works very well here.
Western Classical music has its conventions, and knowing these conventions
can help in appreciating Western Classical music, but doesn't help in
appreciating Indian Classical music.

If that's accepted, then there's at least a logical possibility that any
other sort of music for which the conventions of Western Classical music
don't help can also be viewed as a different language.  As the more extreme
atonal music evidently has sincere admirers, I'm of the opinion that the
"different language" analogy is reasonable there too.

Satoshi Akima also wrote:

>Having said that I think that serialism/pantonality is a major musical
>language.  To not listen to it is akin to not listening to Renaissance
>Polyphony.  There is plenty more good music, that is true, but you are
>still denying yourself something really worthwhile.

This is a valid opinion, but not one I agree with.

IMO, Indian Classical music is a major musical language.  It's not one I
understand, but even so, I've heard pieces which I found appealing.  It's
also a tradition which goes back several centuries, so there's a lot of it
both in quantity and in variety.

By contrast, the pantonality tradition lasted a few decades at most.  It
seems, judging by previous posts, that three or four pieces (none of which
I've heard) are regarded as beautiful.  The few dozen I have heard have
struck me as dull if not downright ugly.

If I decide that I need to learn a new language, which is the more natural
choice - one with a long and varied tradition and where I already find some
of what I've heard appealing, or one with a short tradition, little if any
future, and where what I've heard hasn't appealed at all?

Peter Varley
[log in to unmask]