Conversation from Flos Carmeli

For my general readers, this might not be interesting, but it is a continuation of a conversation over here with Steven Riddle. I guess the thread is old, because it will not let me post my comment, so here it is, because it is an interesting conversation. You may need to go back and read the conversation to get the full context. The italicized quote is snipped from Mr. Riddle's last salvo.

My impression of classical music post 1950 is that it has tended to mill about itself in the center of the room throwing its dwindling audience to the periphery.

Most classical music performance organizations face dwindling audiences. What I see as a general trend is to shore up the base: early music specialists delve WAY into historically informed performance, realizing that even if they were to go the way of Stockowski, very few from the general public would be interested, and they would only lose the hard-core early music geeks.

Similarly in modern music, which, far from being a collection of dead-end "isms", which was never as much of a problem in music as in painting, is thriving and actually drawing people to concerts. The problem is that it is the same small group of people. Sometimes someone will wander in because of an ensemble's collaboration with a particular pop musician, and sometimes those people will stay, and eventually get bored with the pop performer.

However, that being said, there are two major, thriving music organizations in the Bay Area that consistantly bring in audiences for all sorts of music, from early music to mid-twentieth century serialism, to whatever is brewing at the moment: The San Francisco Symphony and the Oakland East Bay Symphony.

I have even encountered people who swear that they hate modernist music enjoying some pretty abstract stuff.

I don't think that Stockhausen is over-intellectualized, rather he is dense and requires hyper-educated listeners, which are out there. In fact his most difficult stuff is the stuff that wanders out of his rigorous approach into the realm of hippy-esque goofiness. That stuff, even I find unlistenable.

Then there is the case of John Cage, whose music always interests me far more than the theory behind it (which is terribly silly stuff). Sort of like Ornette Coleman, whose theory is incomprehensible, although his music is powerfully interesting stuff.

As to surrealism, are you familiar with the California Post Surrealists? They were an interesting bunch who were all in favor of the exploration of the subconscious, but wanted to structure it within a context of the rational mind. Definitely check out there painting.

An interesting musical ear test

Here is a nifty online test that lets you tell how good your ear is. If the samples changed, it would be interesting to repeat this test at various hours of the day (and before and after meals, coffee, etc.). I have always thought that my ear was best in the mornings and late at night. Theory lab was always most difficult in the afternoon, especially after lunch on a warm day.

Anyway, on this afternoon, after a big lunch in a warm kitchen, I got 86.1%, which is acceptible, considering that I have not done any sort of critical listening for awhile (although I have a couple of CDs that I should review, so things like this are a good warm up). I am going to wait a couple of days, and then will try this again at an hour that I have always thought my ears worked best at.

If you do this and want to do the experiment that I am doing, wait a couple of days before repeats and note the hour, food, caffeine, alcohol, and medication consumption. Should you wish to post this information anonymously, in the comments box, that would be fine, and I will put everything in a spreadsheet and see if there are any interesting conclusions.

For others who want to track and manipulate the data themselves, here is mine from this test:

86.1% November 15, 12:30pm, following a big lunch (meat and carbs). Had two shots of espresso at 7am, so I am two shots lower than usual at this time of day.