You're welcome! I'm thinking about doing Dutilleux's "San Francisco Night" next. I could also do his "Chanson de la déportée", but I don't have a good recording... There's a performance here on YT, but the audio quality is pretty questionable. I may end up asking someone to record it with me on piano at some point.
Is this the type of music that Debussy would've ended up composing had he lived until the 1940s or 50s? His late works moved toward Neoclassicism but some of them, like the second book of Preludes and Etudes were still pretty cutting-edge. So, would he have eventually begun writing atonal music?
Yet another piece in an endless stream of modernist trash that proves Mahler's dictum: "Interesting is easy. Beautiful is difficult." Confronted with the joys and tragedies of life, no one turns to music like this. Fall in love, and this music sounds psychotic. Experience the death of a spouse, and this music also sounds psychotic. Because it is.
God forbid people enjoy things, glad you're out keeping the streets safe! Curious what your source is for me not experiencing "the joys and tragedies of life"? I think you skipped a few chapters.
It's fascinating to see these comments under music that I personally consider to be quite accessible compared to the more extreme modernists. This isn't that far removed from Debussy and it has some of the same charm and moody colorfulness. I find it quite relaxing and dreamy. Mahler by the way would have supported music like this just like he supported and defended Schönberg (even though he didn't understand his music).
@@CalebSension To Caleb Sension: Thanks for the response! I know people have their own preferences, and I respect that. I like to think that my comment is not based on mere opinion; if there were no standards in music, then the music colleges might as well just shut their doors and save the students a lot of tuition expense. But I seriously need to ask you, can you actually explain why you find this "music" so satisfying or endearing? What is it that "clicks" with you?
@@steverodak2230 Well damn, look who it is! I was hoping that the other comment I responded to was a one off, but no such luck. Don't see the point in rehashing everything but there are a couple of points here that I would like to cover. *"I know people have their own preferences, and I respect that."* Interesting, then, that your initial comment consists of you stating your opinion as if it is an objective and universal truth, with no indication that there is even a possibility that alternative viewpoints could exist let alone that they do and are equally legitimate. Furthermore, once you did acknowledge the existence of other preferences, you immediately set about suggesting that yours is the correct one. I also know that other people have preferences which differ from mine, and I show my respect for this by leaving them alone to enjoy what they enjoy, by not calling their music 'noise', by not implying that their music should have been made differently in almost every way, and by not implying that their music isn't music with the use of quotation marks. If I wanted to open an honest discussion to better understand our difference in view, I would show my respect by not describing the music they like as "the antithesis of joyful life" in my very first comment. *"I like to think that my comment is not based on mere opinion;"* Of course you do. The question is, can you back that up? You haven't managed yet in the other comments thread so I'm not holding my breath. Nevertheless, I will bite: what objective means do you have for determining how much "spiritedness" is in a piece of music? *"if there were no standards in music, then the music colleges might as well just shut their doors and save the students a lot of tuition expense"* I rather think this is a good example of why some people who play by ear are afraid of learning music theory because they think it will destroy their creativity , the poor sods have been misled into thinking music theory and knowledge are a set of strict rules as opposed to tools. Knowledge of when, how and why a given element or compositional technique is typically used is helpful. It can then be implemented when its result is the desired one...and not implemented when it isn't. I agree that the purpose of a musical education is - or should be - to raise the musical standards of those being educated, the larger one's 'toolkit' is, the better equipped one is to realise a composition. However, as far as I have seen you haven't been using the word 'standard' to denote abilities within a particular compositional style or genre, rather you have been consistently using 'good standard' (or equivalent) to mean a composition type you approve of, and 'low standard' (or equivalent ) to refer to compositions which have - apparently - nothing in common with what you would prefer them to be and hence were clearly never intended to be the same thing. I have a friend who likes old school acoustic pop and rock, he plays guitar and sings. Besides reading some chord charts for guitar, he has no idea what he is doing from a music theory perspective, doesn't read music and doesn't know what a 'key' is. So, does this lack of knowledge mean he is stuck playing something of what you would call a 'low standard' like this Henri Dutilleux? No, it sounds like the aforementioned pop and rock. He didn't need to go to college to learn to like conventionally melodic music, or for that to be very obviously what he's doing. So, what point might there be for this individual to get a more complete musical education? Well, he would probably get the results he is after faster and more consistently if he wasn't working by trial and error, and he'd be much more able to expand a song, for example with a string arrangement amongst other things. Of course this is merely anecdotal evidence, I bring it up only to demonstrate what I would consider a far more plausible explanation for the purpose of musical knowledge than what you seem to be suggesting - essentially that a music college is there to teach students what the correct type of music is.
@@ollimoore To allimoore: I read your responses, and, yes, you make sense. Let me run these ideas by you: Let us imagine for a second that we at a Criminal Court which has been commissioned to determine whether this composer has violated the law. This Court is to determine the life or death of the composer and his music. The Civil Trial has already determined that supposed standards such as textbooks, school, cookbooks, musical treatises, and the like, cannot be used as culpable evidence and therefore inadmissible since no lawful precedent regarding their indisputability has been lawfully recognized due to their subjective nature. Therefore, it is the disposition of the Criminal Court that the prevailing Statute of Free Moral Agency is the sovereign right of the composer to write music at his own behest regardless of standard, intent, content, and social benefit. So, we have an objective ruling giving lawful credence to an innately subjective moral tenet of human existentialism. The composer gets off the indictment and is released free of all charges. I agree with the court’s decision. Now, that leaves us to the objections levied by the Prosecutor (analogous to a listener of the music). The Judge rules, however, by law, that the listener is also privy to the same rights as the composer. He has the right by Free Moral Agency to accept or reject by choice, a choice based on his own standards which cannot be used a culpable evidence against the listener. Thus, the standards of what I deem as good are good to me because they offer spiritual, cognitive, and visceral satisfaction of the soul and make me happy. Since these discovered “ingredients’ bring me joy, it is my nature to share this wondrous experience with others by espousing these essential indispensable criteria.
@@steverodak2230 *"He has the right by Free Moral Agency to accept or reject by choice, a choice based on his own standards which cannot be used a culpable evidence against the listener."* Well yeah, of course. What would the alternative be, that people were forced to listen to music they didn't like? I am certainly not advocating for anything like that. *"Since these discovered “ingredients’ bring me joy, it is my nature to share this wondrous experience with others by espousing these essential indispensable criteria."* I'm not convinced that raining on their parade, so to speak, is the best way to do this. However, in principle I see no issue at all with 'the listener' advocating for things that they prefer, or expressing how something makes them feel be it positive or entirely negative. To remove this would be to stifle most if not all musical discussion, I'm absolutely not advocating for that either. Colour me needlessly pedantic if you will, though, but there's a distinction between "I can't see the point in this at all, just seems like noise to me" and "this is just pointless noise." (bear in mind that these are just examples, not based specifically on what you wrote) The first is only a description of 'the listener's personal perspective. As said, I would question what 'the listener' hopes to achieve by it, but it's basically a non issue. The second version, however, is now a claim about reality, and for it to be true, the composer and others (who are also 'the listener' and have the same rights) must be, in some way, wrong. Now, it could be that the second version is only phrased as a claim because of carelessness on the part of the writer, but if 'the listener' continues to argue the point in the same manner then we can ascertain that they have at least some awareness of what they are doing. Almost inevitably, any attempt on the part of 'the listener' to argue in favour of their claim involves dealing with the primary counterevidence to it - the fact that people composed, performed, uploaded and are listening to the music - usually by proposing an explanation for the existence of the counterevidence which undermines its credibility and which is consistent with the claim. A typically hostile 'sledgehammer' approach (which I thank you for not taking) to this would be something like "This guy has no idea what he is doing lmao can't believe all these retards are falling for this Emperor's new clothes BS 🤣🤡" although of course less openly accusatory options are available. In any case, what could've been something like "wow I hate this, I like happy tunes I can whistle and this just isn't doing it for me" has become claims and/or inevitable implications presented as if they are factually accurate. I think it would be unreasonable to expect this to go unchallenged. As someone I don't remember the name of said: "you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts." *"Thus, the standards of what I deem as good are good to me because they offer spiritual, cognitive, and visceral satisfaction of the soul and make me happy."* Great! I'm pleased for you. It's just not what you said, that's all.
![Symphony No.1 - Henri Dutilleux [w/ score]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JmqOw-GymkU/mqdefault.jpg)
![Symphony No.1 - Henri Dutilleux [w/ score]](/img/tr.png)
The harmonies at 10:35-11:02 are so beautiful.
Pandiatonicism, baby
Holy heck, how did I only find this now? Thank you so much for uploading the score!
You're welcome! I'm thinking about doing Dutilleux's "San Francisco Night" next. I could also do his "Chanson de la déportée", but I don't have a good recording... There's a performance here on YT, but the audio quality is pretty questionable. I may end up asking someone to record it with me on piano at some point.
I also enjoyed it very much! I love Henry Dutilleux particularly. Looking forward to more scores at your channel! THANK YOU!
Beautiful : thanks for sharing . I have not come across this recording before and I enjoyed it very much .
Thank you very much for the score. It is wonderful composition.
Great job doing this! Thank you so much for sharing the score.
Is this the type of music that Debussy would've ended up composing had he lived until the 1940s or 50s? His late works moved toward Neoclassicism but some of them, like the second book of Preludes and Etudes were still pretty cutting-edge. So, would he have eventually begun writing atonal music?
Maybe. I feel that from Chopin to Debussy to Dutilleux is in the grand tradition of French preludes.
@@bobcinqand Messiaen!
Really the influence of Debussy’s Etudes is so audible. Straight continuation ⚡️
great
Not my favorite, but I definitely like how some of it sounds, very mysterious and I definitely enjoyed it
10:35 So beautiful
Isn't it lovely? It's one of my favorite moments, along with 5:20 - 6:10
Beautiful shade of colors. I guess there are still goods from RUclips's algorithm.
w o w
Is this rather impressionistic or expressionistic?
Revulsionistic.
Neither nor
Yet another piece in an endless stream of modernist trash that proves Mahler's dictum: "Interesting is easy. Beautiful is difficult." Confronted with the joys and tragedies of life, no one turns to music like this. Fall in love, and this music sounds psychotic. Experience the death of a spouse, and this music also sounds psychotic. Because it is.
God forbid people enjoy things, glad you're out keeping the streets safe!
Curious what your source is for me not experiencing "the joys and tragedies of life"? I think you skipped a few chapters.
It's fascinating to see these comments under music that I personally consider to be quite accessible compared to the more extreme modernists. This isn't that far removed from Debussy and it has some of the same charm and moody colorfulness. I find it quite relaxing and dreamy. Mahler by the way would have supported music like this just like he supported and defended Schönberg (even though he didn't understand his music).
These pieces don't inspire.
Completely without melody, sensible harmony, rhythm, or spiritedness. This noise is the antithesis of joyful life.
Amazing, everything you just said is wrong.
@@CalebSension To Caleb Sension: Thanks for the response! I know people have their own
preferences, and I respect that. I like to think that my comment is not based on mere opinion;
if there were no standards in music, then the music colleges might as well just shut
their doors and save the students a lot of tuition expense. But I seriously need to ask you, can you
actually explain why you find this "music" so satisfying or endearing? What is it that "clicks" with you?
@@steverodak2230
Well damn, look who it is! I was hoping that the other comment I responded to was a one off, but no such luck. Don't see the point in rehashing everything but there are a couple of points here that I would like to cover.
*"I know people have their own preferences, and I respect that."*
Interesting, then, that your initial comment consists of you stating your opinion as if it is an objective and universal truth, with no indication that there is even a possibility that alternative viewpoints could exist let alone that they do and are equally legitimate. Furthermore, once you did acknowledge the existence of other preferences, you immediately set about suggesting that yours is the correct one.
I also know that other people have preferences which differ from mine, and I show my respect for this by leaving them alone to enjoy what they enjoy, by not calling their music 'noise', by not implying that their music should have been made differently in almost every way, and by not implying that their music isn't music with the use of quotation marks. If I wanted to open an honest discussion to better understand our difference in view, I would show my respect by not describing the music they like as "the antithesis of joyful life" in my very first comment.
*"I like to think that my comment is not based on mere opinion;"*
Of course you do. The question is, can you back that up? You haven't managed yet in the other comments thread so I'm not holding my breath. Nevertheless, I will bite: what objective means do you have for determining how much "spiritedness" is in a piece of music?
*"if there were no standards in music, then the music colleges might as well just shut their doors and save the students a lot of tuition expense"*
I rather think this is a good example of why some people who play by ear are afraid of learning music theory because they think it will destroy their creativity , the poor sods have been misled into thinking music theory and knowledge are a set of strict rules as opposed to tools. Knowledge of when, how and why a given element or compositional technique is typically used is helpful. It can then be implemented when its result is the desired one...and not implemented when it isn't.
I agree that the purpose of a musical education is - or should be - to raise the musical standards of those being educated, the larger one's 'toolkit' is, the better equipped one is to realise a composition. However, as far as I have seen you haven't been using the word 'standard' to denote abilities within a particular compositional style or genre, rather you have been consistently using 'good standard' (or equivalent) to mean a composition type you approve of, and 'low standard' (or equivalent ) to refer to compositions which have - apparently - nothing in common with what you would prefer them to be and hence were clearly never intended to be the same thing.
I have a friend who likes old school acoustic pop and rock, he plays guitar and sings. Besides reading some chord charts for guitar, he has no idea what he is doing from a music theory perspective, doesn't read music and doesn't know what a 'key' is. So, does this lack of knowledge mean he is stuck playing something of what you would call a 'low standard' like this Henri Dutilleux? No, it sounds like the aforementioned pop and rock. He didn't need to go to college to learn to like conventionally melodic music, or for that to be very obviously what he's doing. So, what point might there be for this individual to get a more complete musical education? Well, he would probably get the results he is after faster and more consistently if he wasn't working by trial and error, and he'd be much more able to expand a song, for example with a string arrangement amongst other things.
Of course this is merely anecdotal evidence, I bring it up only to demonstrate what I would consider a far more plausible explanation for the purpose of musical knowledge than what you seem to be suggesting - essentially that a music college is there to teach students what the correct type of music is.
@@ollimoore To allimoore: I read your responses, and, yes, you make sense. Let me run these ideas by you: Let us imagine for a second that we at a Criminal Court which has been commissioned to determine whether this composer has violated the law. This Court is to determine the life or death of the composer and his music. The Civil Trial has already determined that supposed standards such as textbooks, school, cookbooks, musical treatises, and the like, cannot be used as culpable evidence and therefore inadmissible since no lawful precedent regarding their indisputability has been lawfully recognized due to their subjective nature. Therefore, it is the disposition of the Criminal Court that the prevailing Statute of Free Moral Agency is the sovereign right of the composer to write music at his own behest regardless of standard, intent, content, and social benefit.
So, we have an objective ruling giving lawful credence to an innately subjective moral tenet of human existentialism. The composer gets off the indictment and is released free of all charges. I agree with the court’s decision.
Now, that leaves us to the objections levied by the Prosecutor (analogous to a listener of the music). The Judge rules, however, by law, that the listener is also privy to the same rights as the composer. He has the right by Free Moral Agency to accept or reject by choice, a choice based on his own standards which cannot be used a culpable evidence against the listener.
Thus, the standards of what I deem as good are good to me because they offer spiritual, cognitive, and visceral satisfaction of the soul and make me happy. Since these discovered “ingredients’ bring me joy, it is my nature to share this wondrous experience with others by espousing these essential indispensable criteria.
@@steverodak2230
*"He has the right by Free Moral Agency to accept or reject by choice, a choice based on his own standards which cannot be used a culpable evidence against the listener."*
Well yeah, of course. What would the alternative be, that people were forced to listen to music they didn't like? I am certainly not advocating for anything like that.
*"Since these discovered “ingredients’ bring me joy, it is my nature to share this wondrous experience with others by espousing these essential indispensable criteria."*
I'm not convinced that raining on their parade, so to speak, is the best way to do this. However, in principle I see no issue at all with 'the listener' advocating for things that they prefer, or expressing how something makes them feel be it positive or entirely negative. To remove this would be to stifle most if not all musical discussion, I'm absolutely not advocating for that either.
Colour me needlessly pedantic if you will, though, but there's a distinction between "I can't see the point in this at all, just seems like noise to me" and "this is just pointless noise." (bear in mind that these are just examples, not based specifically on what you wrote) The first is only a description of 'the listener's personal perspective. As said, I would question what 'the listener' hopes to achieve by it, but it's basically a non issue. The second version, however, is now a claim about reality, and for it to be true, the composer and others (who are also 'the listener' and have the same rights) must be, in some way, wrong. Now, it could be that the second version is only phrased as a claim because of carelessness on the part of the writer, but if 'the listener' continues to argue the point in the same manner then we can ascertain that they have at least some awareness of what they are doing. Almost inevitably, any attempt on the part of 'the listener' to argue in favour of their claim involves dealing with the primary counterevidence to it - the fact that people composed, performed, uploaded and are listening to the music - usually by proposing an explanation for the existence of the counterevidence which undermines its credibility and which is consistent with the claim. A typically hostile 'sledgehammer' approach (which I thank you for not taking) to this would be something like "This guy has no idea what he is doing lmao can't believe all these retards are falling for this Emperor's new clothes BS 🤣🤡" although of course less openly accusatory options are available. In any case, what could've been something like "wow I hate this, I like happy tunes I can whistle and this just isn't doing it for me" has become claims and/or inevitable implications presented as if they are factually accurate. I think it would be unreasonable to expect this to go unchallenged. As someone I don't remember the name of said: "you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."
*"Thus, the standards of what I deem as good are good to me because they offer spiritual, cognitive, and visceral satisfaction of the soul and make me happy."*
Great! I'm pleased for you. It's just not what you said, that's all.