Over and over again the question arises as to why it is that so many music lovers feel disoriented when they listen to contemporary music. They seem to accept with equanimity the notion that the work of the present-day composer is not for them. Why? Because they "just don't understand it." As a nonprofessional phrased it recently, 'Far too many listeners still flinch when they are told that a piece of music is 'modern.'" Formerly--up to the middle twenties or thereabouts--all new music of progressive tendency was bunched together under the heading "ultramodern." Even today there still persists the idea that "classic" and "modern" represent two irreconcilable musical styles, the one posing graspable problems and the other fairly bristling with insoluble ones.
The first thing to remember is that creative artists, by and large, are a serious lot--their purpose is not to fool you. This, in turn, presupposes on your part an open mind, good will, and a certain a priori confidence in what they are up to. Composers vary greatly in range and scope, in temperament and in expression. Because of that, contemporary music imparts not one kind, but many different kinds of musical experience. That too is important to remember. Some present-day composers are very easy to understand, others may be very tough. Or different pieces by the same composer may fit into one or the other category. In between are a great many contemporary writers who range from being quite approachable to being fairly difficult.
(to be continued)
-- Aaron Copland, in "What to Listen for in Music", 1957
- Re: 褰撲唬闊充箰 Comtemporary Music 1posted on 07/28/2004
Just strip the label off any music, and listen to it.
I still cannot understand why most classic music listeners dislike Rock/Pop music. - posted on 07/28/2004
(continued)
To label all this music under the one heading "modern" is patently unfair, and can lead only to confusion. It might be helpful, therefore, to bring some order into the apparent chaos of contemporary composition by dividing some of its leading exponents according to the relative degree of difficulty in the understanding of their respective idioms:
Very easy: Shostakovich and Khachaturian, Francis Poulenc and Erik Satie, early Stravinsky and Schoenberg, Virgil Thomson.
Quite approachable: Prokofieff, Villa-Lobos, Ernest Bloch, Roy Harris, William Walton, Melipiero, Britten.
Fairly difficult: Late Stravinsky, Bela Bartok, Mihaud, Chavez, William Schuman, Honegger, Hindemith, Walter Piston.
Very tough: Middle and late Schoenberg, Alban Berg, Anton Webern, Varese, Dallapiccola, KIrenek, Roger Sessions, sometimes Charles Ives.
It is not at all essential that you agree with my comparative estimates. These are meant merely to indicate that not all new music ought to be thought of as equally inaccessible. The dodecaphonic school of Schoenberg is the hardest nut to crack, even for musicians. For the later Stravinsky you need a love of style, precision, personality; for Milhaud or Chavez a taste for sharply seasoned sonorities. Hindemith and Piston demand a contrapuntal ear; Poulenc and Thomson a witty intelligence; and Villa-Lobos a feeling for the lushly colorful.
(to be continued)
- posted on 07/28/2004
Middle and late Schoenberg, Alban Berg, Anton Webern, Varese, >Dallapiccola, KIrenek, Roger Sessions, sometimes Charles Ives.
Middle and late Shoenberg is ok, Berg and Webern are lousy. And the
others, never heard.(I mean the music)
Villa-Lobos and Albeniz are both my favorite. Villa-Lobos is
from Brazil, he composed so many great Guitar works.
Walter Piston, heard his book of 'harmony'. Bela Bartok, Duke Blue-beard's Castle; Stravinsky, have to listen/watch with opera or ballet,
maybe all russian music are, plus also Hindemith.
Most of the french guys here I know. Can Jorella introduce those
from Britain and America, except Britten ?
Thanks for the post, please continue... - posted on 07/29/2004
(continued)
The first essential, then, is to differentiate composers, trying to hear each separately in terms of what he wishes to communicate. Composers are not interchangeable! Each has his own objective and the wise listener would do well to keep that objective in the front of his mind.
The clarification of objective should also be borne in mind when we distinguish between the musical pleasures to be derived from old and new music. The uninitiated music lover will continue to find contemporary music peculiar so long as he persists in trying to hear the same kinds of sounds or derive the same species of musical enjoyment that he gets from the great works of past masters. This point is crucial. My love of the music of Chopin and Mozart is as strong as that of the next fellow, but it does me little good when I sit down to write my own, because their world is not mine and their musical language not mine. The underlying principles of their music are just as cogent today as they were in their own period, but with these same principles one may and one does produce a quite different result. When approaching a present-day musical work of serious pretentions, one must first realize what the objective of the composer is and then expect to hear a different sort of treatment than was customary in the past.
In dealing with the elements and forms of music, various instances were cited to show how recent composers have adapted and extended our technical resources for their own expressive purposes. These extensions of conventional procedures necessarily imply the ability, on the listener’s part, to lend himself by instinct or training to the unfamiliar idiom. If, for example, you find yourself rejecting music because it is too dissonant, it probably indicates that your ear is insufficiently accustomed to our present-day musical vocabulary, and needs more practice--that is, training in listening. (There is always the possibility that the composer himself may be at fault through the writing of uninspired or willful dissonances.)
(to be continued)
- Re: 褰撲唬闊充箰 Comtemporary Music 3.3posted on 07/29/2004
Call me old fashioned, but to me music is classical music, more narrow-mindedly, in classical style. :)
Give me Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, and maybe a little bit of Mendelson, Brahms, Grieg, Dvorak, Chopin, Thaicovsky, or Rachmaninov, I will be very satisfied. Mozart alone will make life endurable. :)
But I am happy to learn more about the modern musicians. Thanks to Ah San's introduction.
Did you get the book I sent? I got it out on Monday.
- Re: 褰撲唬闊充箰 Comtemporary Music 3.3posted on 07/30/2004
If the music is really inspired, people can feel it.
But I feel most of them are either avant-garde or academic, not ready.
Agree with Nietzsche’s comments about modern music.
My feeling is, after the electricity, the city light had kicked the
pure music inspiration away, as it kicks away the star light, the fresh
wind, and the hard and nature life…
Sorry for spelling your name wrong. Should be Jorielle ?
- posted on 07/30/2004
(continued)
In following a new work, the melodic content--or seeming lack of it--may be a source of confusion. You may very well miss hearing the straightforward tune that can be hummed. Melodies nowadays can be "unsingable," especially in instrumental writing, if only because they go far beyond the limitations of the human voice. Or it may be that they are too tortuous, or jagged, or fragmentary to have any immediacy of appeal. These are expressive attributes that may, temporarily, perplex the listener. But the composer, given the expanded scope of contemporary melodic invention, cannot return to the plain and sometimes obvious melody writing of an earlier day. Assuming a gifted composer, repeated hearings should make clear the long-range appeal of his more intricate line.
Finally there is the reproach that is repeated more often than any other, namely, that today's music appears to avoid sentiment and feeling, that it is merely cerebral and clever rather than emotionally meaningful. A brief paragraph can hardly hope to deal adequately with this persistent misconception. If a contemporary composer's work strikes you as cold and intellectual, ask yourself if you are not using standards of comparison that really do not apply. Most music lovers do not appreciate to what an extent they are under the spell of the romantic approach to music. Our audiences have come to identify nineteenth-century musical romanticism as analogous to the art of music itself. Because romanticism was, and still remains, so powerful an expression, they tend to forget that great music was written for hundreds of years before the romantics flourished.
(to be continued)
- Re: 褰撲唬闊充箰 Comtemporary Music 3.3posted on 07/30/2004
一个时代的艺术是体现那个时代的人文风气，我想，作为一个文艺创造者在大时代中也没有太多的个人选择。当代音乐的表现力的确是非常强劲的，而且想象力丰富，用脑子来听，会有种兴奋的知音感。
不用 sorry，知道你在说我。我在网上用的名字是 Jorielle 和阿姗，英文大名是 Ah San 。
xw wrote:
Sorry for spelling your name wrong. Should be Jorielle ? - posted on 07/31/2004
(continued)
It so happens that a considerable proportion of today's music has closer aesthetic ties with that earlier music than it has with the romantics. The way of the uninhibited and personalized warmth and surge of the best of the romanticists is not our way. Even that segment of contemporary composition that clearly has romantic overtones is careful to express itself more discreetly, without exaggeration. And so it must, for the self-evident truth is that the romantic movement had reached its apogee by the end of the last century and nothing fresh was to be extracted from it.
(to be continued)
- posted on 08/02/2004
(continued)
The transition from romanticism to a more objective musical ideal was a gradual one. Since composers themselves found it difficult to make the break, it is not to be wondered at that the public at large has been slow to accept the full implication of what has been happening. The nineteenth century was the romantic century par excellence--a romanticism that found its most characteristic expression in the art of music. Perhaps that explains the continued reluctance of the music-loving public to admit that with the new century a different kind of music had to come into being. And yet their counterparts in the literary world do not expect Andre Gide or Tomas Mann or T. S. Eliot to emote with the accents of Victor Hugo or Sir Walter Scott. Why then should Bartok or Sessions be expected to sing with the voice of Brahms or Tschaikovsky? When a contemporary piece seems dry and cerebral to you, when it seems to be giving off little feeling or sentiment, there is a good chance that you are being insensitive to the characteristic musical speech of your own epoch.
(to be continued)
- posted on 08/05/2004
(continued)
That musical speech--if it is truly vital--is certain to include an experimental and controversial side. And why not? Why is it that the typical music lover of our day is seemingly so reluctant to consider a musical composition as, possibly, a challenging experience? When I hear a new piece of music that I do not understand, I am intrigued--I want to make contact with it again at the first opportunity. It's a challenge--it keeps my interest in the art of music thoroughly alive. If, after repeated hearings, a work says nothing to me, I do not therefore conclude that modern composition is in a sorry condition. I simply conclude that that piece is not for me.
I've sadly observed, however, that my own reaction is not typical. Most people seem to resent the controversial in music; they don't want their listening habits disturbed. They use music as a couch; they want to be pillowed on it, relaxed and consoled for the stress of daily living. But serious music was never meant to be used as a soporific. Contemporary music, especially, is created to wake you up, not put you to sleep. It is meant to stir and excite you, to move you--it may even exhaust you. But isn't that the kind of stimulation you go to the theater for or read a book for? Why make an exception for music?
(to be continued)
- posted on 08/05/2004
手头有一本《音乐欣赏》的旧书，里面把二十世纪俄国的音乐作品忽略，倒是把
美国爵士乐和美国音乐专章讨论。怎么说呢，美国人写的吧。
要是中国人写的，怕冼星海和聂耳也不会有专章。但我心里惦念着的二十世纪是
天才俄国作曲家的风云。这里录一下末章节美国音乐家的简介，无奈阿姗不肯多
写字，只好自己一边敲一边学习了。
======
艾伍斯（Charles Ives, 1874-1954）
是美国音乐史中一个不平凡的人物：一位大胆的实验家，他创造了一种个人风格
，这种风格完全不蝇当时欧洲风格的产物。艾伍斯由大约一八八七年至一九零二
年，在纽约附近的许多城市担任教堂风琴师，然后他变成一位成功的商人，把作
曲当成消遣。他写过几 交响曲，许多描写性的小曲，及各种不同媒介的其他作
品，大部分写作于一九一六年以前；但这些作品，直到一九三零年以后才受到大
众的注意。
艾伍斯的音乐整个说来，代表美国文化中独一无二的一种创新活动。他在音乐界
刚开始接受德彪西的印象主义时，就发明了许多新技巧与新构造。其中有许多直
到二十年或更久以后，才有类似技巧在最前进的作曲家的作品中出现。我们在艾
伍斯的音乐中，可以找到每种新奇的音乐效果与实验。复调性与复调式作曲法；
复杂的复节奏；音丛；创新的音乐效果，包括企图使乐队走音使用错误和声的合
唱团－－这些风格要素是他部分作品的特色。
艾伍斯也对音乐结构及基本韵律节奏的实验很有兴趣。他会将非韵律散文节奏与
进行曲般的片段放在一起；在各细节小心琢磨的段落后面，接上一段即兴演奏。
福音赞美歌、流行歌曲、自己创造的抒情旋律、以及各种节奏技巧，以复音构造
结合在一起，其表现由最细腻以至于雄厚无比。这些作品与美国生活与文化有密
切关系，此种关系建立于实际引用美国歌曲及参考许多文学资料两方面。
艾伍斯的作品中，与美国生活最有关连的有：管弦乐曲新英格兰三景（Three
Places in New England, 1903-14）；假日交响曲（A Symphony: Holiday,
1903-13），其中四个乐章各描写华盛顿诞辰，阵亡将士纪念日，七月四日，及
感恩节；第二钢琴奏鸣曲（1909-15），标题“康科德＊麻省”，1840-60，（
Concord, Mass.），四个乐章标题各为“爱默生”（Emerson），“霍桑”（
Hawthorne），“阿尔考特家族”（The Alcotts）与“梭罗”（Thoreau）。
其他作品，特别是第三交响曲（1901-04）及几首室内乐作品，外形上都是典型
的绝对音乐。无论是描述性还是绝对性，它们都表现出一种地方性材料，大幅度
精心实验，以及敏锐音乐想像力的独特混鸽，其中的幽默是一个重要成份。
泰勒（Deems Taylor, 1885-1966）
在他长期担任纽约爱乐交响乐团广播节目评论员期间，为千万音乐欣赏者所熟识
。他曾经是活跃的音乐专题作家，而他丰富而悦耳的作品，使他在较保守的作曲
家中拥有很高的地位。
春勒的管弦乐组曲镜中世界（Through the Looking Glass, 1922），根据卡
罗（Lewis Carroll）的幻想故事写成，一直是舒畅，幽默与有趣的音乐的典型
。他的歌剧后商的侍从（The King's Henchman, 1926）及彼得＊易伯逊（Peter
Ibbetson, 1931）经常演出，是直到大约一九三零年为止最成功的美国歌剧之
一。
一般来说，泰勒代表的是不叛离后期浪漫派和声方法的一个作曲派别。他的音乐
充满了通常所谓的曲调；他的和声在协和与不协和之间有良好的平衡；他的表情
中很少失去温暖的成份。
皮斯顿（Walter Piston, 1894 -）
虽然只比泰勒年轻几岁，但却是完全不同类的作曲家。他的音乐表现出一种新古
典主义的明确曲式，表情客观而有节制，技巧极为高超。除了著名的芭蕾神奇的
吹笛人（The Incredible Flutist,1938）之外，他大都避免写标题音乐，作
品中也不包含国民乐派的成份。皮斯顿替许多不同的媒体写了同样优秀的作品，
他的一连串器乐作品包括室内乐三重奏以至于交响风与协奏曲。
不协和与强烈节奏是皮斯顿一九三零年代的特色。不协和有许多不同的来源，包
括亨德米特风格的线性对位法，类似史特拉文斯基的敲击性和弦效果，并象勋伯
格那样，有系统地运用音的组合。由大约一九四零年开始，他的作品音色显得较
为温暖而富感情，但节奏的省略并未减低，追求新和声组合的精力也旺盛如昔。
皮斯顿很幸运地能找到一种有个性而强烈的风格，他所有的音乐都呈现这种风格
，而且他能以一种敏锐而充份的音乐智慧将他的概念表现出来。
汉森（Howard Hanson, 1896 -）
内布尼斯加人，是第二位获得罗马大奖的美国人。他于一九二一年至二四年三年
期间居住意大利，一九二四年开始担任伊士曼音乐学校校长，在这个职位上，他
努力地发展美国音乐。经由演奏及唱片，他使许多种音乐－－甚至是最艰深的－
受到大众的注意。但他自己的作品一直保特着保守的浪漫派色彩。
他的两首作品，诺迪克（Nordic）交响曲（1922）及“浪漫”（Romantic）交
响曲，最能代表他风格中活泼与戏剧化的一面。“浪漫”交响曲名字取得很好，
它将许多一八七零年代作品特有的青春气息与率直情感带入了二十世纪。汉森的
作品，处处表现出他对管弦乐法的精通：乐器音色的变化，精细的管弦乐运用，
及响亮的高潮，这些是他音乐的典型性质。其他重要作品包括一部歌剧，快乐之
驰骋（Merry Mount,1932），一首合唱作品，贝奥武夫的挽歌（Lament for
Beowulf,1926），以及两首无标题的交响曲（1937 & 1943）。
在他晚期作品中，汉森采取了较不协和而浓缩的风格，但他仍保留着早期作品特
有的浪漫温暖情绪与震撼人的表情。
汉森对后来整个现代的美国作曲家有很好的影响。与他接触过的许多学生，受他
的刺激而能独立作曲：他没有耐心去听那些模仿他风格的作曲者。他鼓励；年轻
作曲家以许多不同方式表现他们的音乐概念，就目前美国音乐特有的多变化与扎
实技巧来说，汉森实具有间接的贡献。
汤姆森（Virgil Thomson,1896 -）
中西部人，在哈佛受学，居过几年巴黎。他是非常有名的音乐评论家，一九四零
年至一九五四年期间他为纽约先锋论坛报撰写音乐评论，文章具有散文风格、机
智、引人入胜，可读性强。汤森第一个受人注意的作品是歌剧四神仙三幕剧（Four
Saints in Three Acts, 1934，脚本为史坦Gertrude Stein所写）。
另有许多较小作品及电影纪录片配乐（特别是垦荒的锄The Plough That Broke
the Plains及路易斯安那故事Louisiana Story），使他更加成为一位作品愉人
，易接受的作曲家。
汤姆森的风格一直是直接的、自然的；他的旋律流畅，通常使用单纯的和声。他
的音乐优点是具有广大的吸引力，毫不做作。汤姆森是个世故而温文尔雅的人，
他能写出单纯、思乡而坦然的音乐。
赛兴士（Roger Sessions, 1896 -）
布鲁克林人，上过哈佛与耶鲁两个学校，并继续随布劳赫（Ernest Block）学
习。接受几个奖学金支助，在德国和意大利住了八年（1925~1933）。他曾在加
州及普林斯顿大学积极从事教学，也一直为美国音乐的价值与尊严而大声疾呼。
在所有美国出生的作曲家中，也许赛兴士是技巧方面最讲究，并最能坚持新古典
广义理想的一位。像皮斯顿一样，他最拿手的是庞大的器乐绝对音乐作品：他的
主要作品有三首交响曲，一首小提琴协奏曲，一首弦乐四重奏，及两首钢琴奏鸣
曲。赛兴士作曲缓慢，具有一种不是所有二十世纪作曲家都有的自制力；以智慧
创造音乐是他的个人特色。
赛兴士音乐给人的最深印象是不具个人感情。他对国民乐派、音乐描写、或外来
成份均不感兴趣，作曲的指导原则是：只根据音乐法则，细心处理材料。因此，
他作品中所呈现的形式非常清晰，通常也具有明确的旋律。他的和声具有伸缩性，
根据音乐的需要而采取有调或无调的成分，但效果经常是易接受的，甚至极不协
作的音响也是如此。
节奏方面，他的音乐也可以看出是来自大师之手，复节奏并不少见，音乐构造中
包含着相当多的小节奏细节。
柯维尔（Henry Cowell, 1897 -）
出生及受教育均在加州，曾以钢琴演奏家、演说家、作家、教授及多产作曲家姿
态活跃于欧洲及美国。有许多年，他自认为实验者，企图以各种方法扩展音乐的
表情范围。
柯维尔的风格要素中，较壮观的一种是音丛（tone cluster）：以拳头、小臂、
甚至一个木块敲击钢琴，发出一群声音。他的管弦乐作品中也用到音丛，并常常
以复音方式安排：以一连串这种音丛形成一个“旋律”，与另一个旋律同时出现
。他也使用复杂的节奏模式及极端的不协和，所造成的音乐往往具有恼人效果。
一九五五年左右，柯维尔与其他许多“先锋”作曲家一样，根本改变了作曲风
格，以图接近作曲家与听众之间已形成的距离。他以各种媒介写了许多协和、有
感情甚至感伤的作品，其中有许多是为中学生乐团演奏之用：这些作品听到的机
会（或许受欣赏的程度也如此）是他实验性、不协和的作品所无法相比的。然而
，他对新表现方法的兴趣并未减低。
格什温（George Gershwin, 1898 - 1937）
与以上提过的作曲家全然不同。在我们讨论过的作曲家中，没有一个像他用到这
样多爵士音乐，也没有人写得出像他那样的感伤味道。爵士音乐指的主要是一种
演奏方法，但爵士演奏家所用的某些节奏与和声技巧可以记在谱上，因此可用在
其他音乐之中。
在格什温以前有许多作曲家曾将爵士方法用在正统音乐里：史特拉文斯基、克任
乃克(Kyenek)、亨德米特，和其他许多同样具有代表性的作曲家，早在一九二零
年代就将爵士节奏用在他们的作品中，但没有一位像格什温这样彻底地运用这种
要素。
格什温开始写作大规模、组织严密的作品之前，所受的训练与其他大多数作曲家
不同，对音乐价值的看法也不同。他过去是位商业钢琴家（在纽约“天平街”Tin
Pan Alley地区工作）及戏院音乐家。因此他自然而然地具有即兴、短促、而“
通俗”的风格；在这种风格中，脑力的运用，或甚至心脑之间的平衡，都无关紧
要。他的音乐中，最常有的情绪是哀伤、思乡、感伤与浪漫，在表现这些情绪时，
他表现出了一种敏感的旋律天赋，一种多变化、稍带半音的和声天才，以及一种
对节奏变化敏悦的感觉。
他的风格中，最特别的要素是切分法、短旋律片段相当多次的反复，及接近印象
派的形式自由。一般人将这些要素与爵士方法密切关连。他主要的大器乐曲的有
著名的钢琴与管弦乐蓝色狂想曲（Rhapsody in blue, 1924），Ｆ调钢琴协奏
曲（1925），及管弦乐曲一个美国人在巴黎（An America in Paris, 1928）。
他的通俗歌剧波基与贝丝（Porgy and Bess, 1935）已成为美国音乐最著名的
代表之一。这些作品显示出他的风格是多面的。
我们不能用评估传统形式的专家或真正现代作曲家的标准，来评估格什温。他的
音乐是世故与单纯，坦诚的情操与多愁善感，富灵气的旋律与常用形式，混合起
来的。如果我们在格什温音乐中寻找技巧的细节、情绪的广大幅度，与扎实的构
造等其他作曲家一般所具有的条件，我们会犯下错误。他所写的几乎全是钢琴与
声乐曲；蓝色狂想曲的管弦乐总谱是一位职业编曲家所写的。自从赫伯特（Victor Herbert）以来，也许没有一位美国作曲家能像他写得这样旋律优美、情绪动人。
哈利斯（Roy Harris, 1898 -）
自认为比其他任何作曲家都更能宣扬美国音乐。他的国民主义并不完全能由标题
或主题事物表现出来，虽然从他的部份标题中，可看出他有意地追求国民乐派的
表现。甚至在他的绝对音乐作品中，一种强烈、粗犷、有时显得尖锐的性质，会
使人想起它们代表着美国生活的一面。
哈利斯在一九二六至大约一九三二年间所写的一些管弦乐与室内乐作品中，表现
出一种不协和而粗野的风格，所用的构造常是对位式的。他对自发曲式（Self-
generating form）很感兴趣（也就是，从头至尾内部不分段的曲式），创出一
套狂想曲式的作曲法。从一九三零年代中期开始，他经常以调式音阶而非调性音
阶作曲；这使得他的作品具有一种严肃、冷淡的气氛。第三交响曲（1937）由分
成五个对比部份的单乐章构成，是哈利期当时风格的最佳代表。甚至是其中的对
位部分（这首交响曲第四段是赋格），音乐也是以成群的音进行，而非真正不同
节奏合成的构造；因此无可避免地具有某种单调效果。这首作品的器乐音色也有
点压抑。
由大约一九三五年开始，哈利斯的生涯表现出另一面的发展，在他的创作中民谣
和传说开始占有一些地位。如序曲强尼凯旋（When Johnny Comes Marching
Home, 1934），合虽作品五首民主之歌（Five Songs for Democracy）及山姆
叔之子（Sons of Uncle Sam），芭蕾我们骄傲欢呼（What So Proudly We
Hail），以及标题“民歌交响曲”（Folk-Song Symphony）的第四交响曲，都
表现了这方面的兴趣。与纯粹的绝对音乐比起来，表现国民乐派观点的作品几乎
必然是为比较广大的听众而写，因此我们可以了解为什么这类作品中许多都使用
较保守的和声。
柯普兰（Aaron Copland, 1900 - ）
是这一代中最著名的美国作曲家，同时也是著名的音乐评论家，教师。除格什温
外，柯普兰比这里讨论的其他任何美国作曲家都更广范地使用舞曲节奏。在一九
二零年代，他的作品中带有爵士手法。得奖作品舞蹈交响曲（Dance Symphony）
、一首钢琴协奏曲（1927）、以及当时其他作品，采用了切分法，交错重音，以
及那时候时髦的其他爵士要素。
一九三零年代初，柯普兰放弃了这些方法，而写极不协和、构造单薄、配器疏松
的作品：他的短小交响曲（Short Symphony, 1933）是这个时期的代表作。从
大约一九三五年开始，他的风格变得较为温暖、协和，也对芭蕾音乐发生兴趣，
写了如比利小子（Billy the Kid），罗德欧（Rodeo）及阿巴拉契亚之春（App
-alachian Spring）等作品。就这些作品及其他如林肯画像（A Lincoln Portr.）
，草原故事（Saga of the Prairies）等作品内容来说，它们是属于柯普兰生
涯中国民乐派的一个时期。
一九四零年以后的作品表现了柯普兰对庞大曲式的精通；他采用了较紧密、详细
的作曲法，但仍然保持着早期风格中的节奏活力。他的第三交响曲（1946）很能
表现三十多年来作品中特有的平衡、节制、优秀技巧。他不滥用情感，而能现现
温暖的感情，他的风格一直是客观、响亮与强烈的。
=====
附：再新生代的名录
Elliot Carter, 1908 -
Samuel Barber, 1910 -
William Shuman, 1910 -
Gian-Carlo Menotti, 1911 -
Norman Dello Joio, 1913 -
David Diamond, 1915 -
Vincent Persichetti, 1915 -
Ulysses Kay, 1917 -
Leonard Bernstein, 1918 -
Peter Mennin, 1923 -
Gunther Schuller, 1925
etc.
作品欣赏
Samuel Barber:
弦乐之慢板，作品十一
Capricorn Concerto, Opus 21
大提琴奏鸣曲，作品六
柯普兰
阿巴拉契亚之春
罗德欧
墨西歌沙龙
格什温
波吉与贝丝
蓝色狂想曲
汉森
第二交响曲（浪漫）
艾伍斯
钢琴奏呜曲，第二号，康柯德＊麻省
路宁
狂想变奏曲
麦克杜威
第二号组曲，作品四十八（印弟安）
森林素描
Vincent Persichetti
管弦乐诗篇
皮斯顿
钢琴三重奏
第三交响曲
William Shuman
第四号弦乐四重奏
海底逆流
赛兴士
第二交响曲
华里斯
离子化
电子音诗
- Re: 褰撲唬闊充箰 Comtemporary Music -2posted on 08/06/2004
xw wrote:
无奈阿姗不肯多写字，只好自己一边敲一边学习了。
我也不懂啊，昨天还被母亲骂了，说我“现代音乐什么都不懂，甭想去学音乐了”。我这里也是自己一边敲一边和大家一起学习的。怕长篇的英文大家看不下去，每天抄一小段来给分享。谢谢ｘｗ的中文介绍。我只略微知道一点 Ives （他的作品很创新），Thomson （合唱团里练过他的曲子）， Piston （写和声法的那个吧）。请ｘｗ继续。 - posted on 08/06/2004
(continue)
It may be that new music sounds peculiar for the sole reason that, in the course of ordinary listening, one hears so little of it by comparison with the amount of conventional music that is performed year in and year out. Radio and concert programs, the advertisements of the record manufacturers and their dealers, the usual school curricula--all emphasize the idea, unwittingly, perhaps, that "normal" music is music of the past, music that has proved its worth. A generous estimate indicates that only one-quarter of the music we hear can be called contemporary--and that estimate applies mostly to music heard in the larger musical centers. Under such circumstances contemporary music is likely to remain "peculiar," unless the listener is willing to make the extra effort needed to break the barrier of unfamiliarity.
To feel no need of involvement in the musical expression of one's own day is to shut oneself off from one of the most exciting experiences the art of music can provide. Contemporary music speaks to us as no other music can. It is the older music--the music of Buxtehude and Cherubini--that should seem distant and foreign to us, not that of Milhaud and William Schuman. But isn't music universal? What, you may ask, does the living composer say that will not be found in somewhat analogous terms in an earlier music? All depends on the angle of vision: what we see produces wider extremes of tension and release, a more vivid optimism, a grayer pessimism, climaxes of abandonment and explosive hysteria, coloristic variety--subtleties of light and dark, a relaxed sense of fun sometimes spilling over into the grotesque, crowded textures, open-spaced vistas, "painful" longing, dazzling brilliance. Various shades and gradations of these moods have their counterpart in older music, no doubt, but no sensitive listener would ever confuse the two. We usually recognize the period a composition belongs in as an essential part of its physiognomy. It is the uniqueness of any authentic art expression that makes even approximate duplication in any other period inconceivable. That is why the music lover who neglects contemporary music deprives himself of the enjoyment of an otherwise unobtainable aesthetic experience.
(to be continued)
- Re: 褰撲唬闊充箰 Comtemporary Music -8posted on 08/06/2004
共学共进吧！
谢谢阿姗的辛劳，对文章有些不同意见，再谈。 - Re: 褰撲唬闊充箰 Comtemporary Music -9 (completed)posted on 08/07/2004
(continued)
The key to the understanding of new music is repeated hearings. Fortunately for us, the prevalence of the long-play disk makes this entirely possible. Many listeners have attested to the fact that incomprehensibility gradually gives way before the familiarity that only repeated hearing can give. There is, in any event, no better way to test whether contemporary music is to have significance for you.
-- Aaron Copland, in What to Listen for in Music, 1957
- Re: 褰撲唬闊充箰 Comtemporary Music -8posted on 08/07/2004
xw wrote:
对文章有些不同意见，再谈。
文章是 Copland 写的。我理解他的看法，他是从作曲家角度来看的。我也想学作曲，所以尽量与他认同。有不同意见，咱们讨论讨论，甚好。
- posted on 08/09/2004
做作曲家，好啊。是全职的还是兼职呢？我觉得在美国还是兼职的好！
想写些意见，昨晚补读音乐史，感触良多。这里抄两段，与科普兰并读无妨：
Prokofiev on the importance of Melody ---
I have never questioned the importance of melody. I love melody, and I regard it as the most important element in music. I have worked on the improvement of its quality in my compositions for many years. To find a melody instantly understandable even to the uninitiated listener, and at the samoe time an orgininal one, is the most difficult task for a composer. He is beset by a great multitude of dangers: he may fall into the trivial or the banal, or into the rehasing of something already written by him. In this respect composition of complex melodies is much easier. It may also happen that a composer, fussing over his melody for a long time, and revising it, unwittingly makes it over-refined and complicated, and departs from simplicity. I fell into this trap, too, in the process of my work.
Prokofiev, Letter to Tikhon Khrennikov
Stravinsky's view of musical composition ---
The creator's function is to sift the elements he receives from imagination, for human activity must impose limits on itself. The more art is controlled, limited, worked over, the more it is free.
As for myself, I experience a sort of terror when, at the moment of setting to work and finding myself before the infinitude of possibilities that present themselves, I have the feeling that everything is permissible to me...
Will I then have to lose myself in this abyss of freedom? To what shall I cling in order to escape the dizziness that seizes me before the virtuality of this infinitude ? ... Fully convinced that combinations which have at their disposal twelve sounds in each octave and all possible rhythmic varieties promise me riches that all the activity of human genius will never exhaust.
What delivers me from the anguish into which an unrestricted freedom plunges me is the fact that I am always able to turn immediately to the concrete things that are here in question. I have no use for a theoretic freedom. Let me have something finite, definite --matter that can lend itself to my operation only insofar as it is commensurate with my possibilities. And such matter presents itself to me together with its limitations. I must in turn impose mine upon it ...
Myh freedom thus consists in my moving about within the narrow frame that I have assigned myself for each one of my undertakings.
I shall go even further: my freedom will be so much the greater and more meaningful the more narrowly I limit my field of action and the more I surround myself with obstacles. Whatever diminishes constraint, diminishes strength. The more constraints one imposes, the more one frees onself of the chains that shackle the spirit.
Stravinsky, Poetics of Music
FROM - DONALD JAY GROUT & CLAUDE V. PALISCA --A History of WESTERN
MUSIC
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation