# Appreciating Modern Classical Music



## Lucifer Saudade (May 19, 2015)

Okay, so the forum is probably long overflowing with this most hackneyed of subjects. "Modern music" 

"Do you enjoy it; Is this stuff even music?! Were you bewitched by these snotty academics and tricked into liking this nonsensical twaddle?" - and so on and so forth. Understood.

But what I want to know is this: do you need to have a *solid grasp of music theory *to appreciate this kind of music? Is the pleasure derived from listening to it mostly intellectual/ appealing to the advanced musical mind?

If so, I can't understand why this music is being recommended to your average listener/music enthusiast. And if it is not, do some of you the great unwashed like Modern music? I'd appreciate your input as to why.

~~~~~~~

*Note:* When I say "modern" I'm mainly referring to composers such Lutoslawski, Varese, Carter and particularly Atonal and Serialist music e.g Milton Babbit.

I'm aware that this period spans a myriad of musical styles from Debussy/ Bartok/ Stravinsky to Cage/ Britten/ Ligeti to Glass and Adams etc. I'm mostly referring to the more... "difficult" music such as Cage's "Music of Changes". It's an interesting piece... but not necessarily pleasurable for me. I hope you understand what I mean by the subjective word "difficult" anyhow


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

No, you do not have to have a solid grasp (or even a shaky grasp) of music theory to get it. If the music requires you to understand the theory, then the composer has failed.

This goes for Bach as well as Xenakis.


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2015)

Ooh good a can of worms.

Personally, my grasp of reality is a bit shaky.


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2015)

GreenMamba said:


> No, you do not have to have a solid grasp (or even a shaky grasp) of music theory to get it. If the music requires you to understand the theory, then the composer has failed.
> 
> This goes for Bach as well as Xenakis.


Well said! No-one would suggest a similar "grasp" regarding films or novels.


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2015)

I'm unwashed, I like it, it kicks butt.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

No, you don't need any grasp of music theory.

This music may, on average, lean a bit more "intellectual" than Romantic music, but not more "intellectual" than, e.g., Bach's Art of Fugue or Musical Offering (which admittedly aren't everyone's cup of tea either).


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Heck. I have limited theoretical knowledge, yet I really like Schoenberg's Piano Concerto.

Repetition is one's friend.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

isorhythm said:


> No, you don't need any grasp of musical theory.
> 
> This music may, on average, lean a bit more "intellectual" than Romantic music, but not more "intellectual" than, e.g., Bach's Art of Fugue or Musical Offering (which admittedly aren't everyone's cup of tea either).


This is a very good point - everybody seems to forget that "cold intellectual music" was written in the Baroque era already. And then there's Baroque/Classical music that is neither "emotional" (in the Romantic expressive sense) nor "intellectual" (you don't have to listen to it with "analytically") but is just "pretty", like shiny jewellery.


----------



## Lucifer Saudade (May 19, 2015)

Would you say the same for art films/ novels such as Finnegans Wake? How about abstract paintings?

Charles Rosen the pianist, for example, seems to advance the view that some form of musical education/ familiarity is required to appreciate music such as Elliot Carter or poets such as Mallarme.






Wouldn't you agree that there is a sort of continuum of "difficulty of appreciation" that art cruises along to?

I, for one, take it for granted that having more insight into the art of the fugue would render a complex piece such as Beethoven's Grosse Fugue more understandable and hence more enjoyable.

The same doesn't seem to be true _to the same extent _with pop songs such as Katy Perry's "Roar". It's clear that the listener has to put some work into appreciating even Bach, whom some people consider boring. (!!!)

I know it took *ME* a week.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Lucifer Saudade said:


> Wouldn't you agree that there is a sort of continuum of "difficulty of appreciation" that art cruises along to?
> 
> I, for one, take it for granted that having more insight into the art of the fugue would render a complex piece such as Beethoven's Grosse Fugue more understandable and hence more enjoyable.
> 
> ...


Well, yes and no.

People can have both conceptual and perceptual difficulties with music they find difficult. Some music's difficulty is conceptual (the listener doesn't understand what they're supposed to be listening for, or perhaps they reject it on principle); for you, knowing that Beethoven's Grosse Fuge is structured as a fugue helps to make sense of it. More challenging are perceptual difficulties, where we cannot make sense of the musical information with which we are presented, even when we know what we are supposed to be hearing.

Some of the works of contemporary music people find more difficult offer both kinds of difficulty, but I maintain that all great music, even the most difficult of modernist music, is accessible to any listener who approaches it with patience and an open mind.

I don't think there is some kind of absolute scale of difficulty, though; it's a function of what one is familiar and or comfortable with and therefore expects, not an ingrained natural mode of perception in all listeners that is challenged to a specific degree.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Lucifer Saudade said:


> Okay, so the forum is probably long overflowing with this most hackneyed of subjects. "Modern music"
> 
> "Do you enjoy it; Is this stuff even music?! Were you bewitched by these snotty academics and tricked into liking this nonsensical twaddle?" - and so on and so forth. Understood.
> 
> ...


Sorry. This forum has been around for years. This issue has been addressed in many other threads and posts. You have not raised any facts that are new to us.

One example of a post that supports the idea that one does not need a music theory background to like modern music: http://www.talkclassical.com/23223-tonal-atonal.html#post402351


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I agree that some music is more difficult than other music, but I don't think that knowledge of music theory is what overcomes this difficulty.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Lucifer Saudade said:


> Okay, so the forum is probably long overflowing with this most hackneyed of subjects. "Modern music"
> 
> "Do you enjoy it; Is this stuff even music?! Were you bewitched by these snotty academics and tricked into liking this nonsensical twaddle?" - and so on and so forth. Understood.
> 
> ...


I can only answer for myself... I most certainly do not possess an advanced musical mind. And I like some modern music and don't like some other modern music. For music I don't like, it's because I don't like the sound of it, and the opposite is true for music I do like. As far as I can tell, my understanding (or not) of the theory plays no significant part in the liking/disliking. But sure, understanding the theory can ultimately increase one's appreciation - but it's not a necessary condition for appreciation. I don't regard music in terms of "difficulty" (well, yes, some music is more complex than others, but in terms of actual enjoyment of the music "difficulty" has no bearing).


----------



## Lucifer Saudade (May 19, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> Well, yes and no.
> 
> People can have both conceptual and perceptual difficulties with music they find difficult. Some music's difficulty is conceptual (the listener doesn't understand what they're supposed to be listening for, or perhaps they reject it on principle); for you, knowing that Beethoven's Grosse Fuge is structured as a fugue helps to make sense of it. More challenging are perceptual difficulties, where we cannot make sense of the musical information with which we are presented, even when we know what we are supposed to be hearing.
> 
> ...


Hmmm.... let's take the music of Milton Babbit and.. yours truly. 

It seems that for the music to grow on me will require:

1) Musical theory/ Background/ Musical understanding of the peace.
2) Patience and repeated exposure greater then it would take me to appreciate any of your token Romantic/ Classical composers. I did not need any cajoling in liking Debussy's music, as revolutionary as it may have been in the past. 
3) Open mindedness in case I harbour any prejudices/ predisposition to dislike his music - or even Babbit himself. Also, getting used to a different aesthetic from say Romantic music. 
4) etc...

Whether the effort is worth it though... who knows? I wonder what Babbit would have to say.

As for the "difficulty" measure... let's take Ligeti's "Sonata for Solo Cello". Clear Melodic lines. That alone would make it instantaneously accessible to the vast majority of Classical listeners as opposed to the seemingly random disruption (at least to untrained ears) of the Cage piece I sighted in my opening post.

~~~~~~~
*SIDE NOTE:* Mahlerian, you seem to have some background in composition. I'd especially love to ask you a couple of questions (as well as other composers):

1) Do you feel like understanding the Twelve-Tone technique increases your enjoyment of Schoenberg's music (personally speaking) then if you didn't have any musical background?

2) Pieces like Varese's "Ionization" - I enjoy musically. I like hearing the textures and rhythmical variations. For me, it's a fine piece. However, I seem to be listening to it a bit differently then a Beethoven's moonlight sonata... who has a strong emotional component as well as a musical one... do you have any thoughts on this?

Only if you're comfortable in answering, of course :tiphat:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Some "modern music" seems to call for a grounding in music theory, and advanced theory at that. Here's Milton Babbitt himelf, if you can make it through his academese:

"Although in many fundamental respects this music is "new," it often also represents a vast extension of the methods of other musics, derived from a considered and extensive knowledge of their dynamic principles. For, concomitant with the "revolution in music," perhaps even an integral aspect thereof, has been the development of analytical theory, concerned with the systematic formulation of such principles to the end of greater efficiency, economy, and understanding. Compositions so rooted necessarily ask comparable knowledge and experience from the listener... Why should the layman be other than bored and puzzled by what he is unable to understand, music or anything else?"


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Some "modern music" seems to call for a grounding in music theory, and advanced theory at that. Here's Milton Babbitt himelf, if you can make it through his academese:
> 
> "Although in many fundamental respects this music is "new," it often also represents a vast extension of the methods of other musics, derived from a considered and extensive knowledge of their dynamic principles. For, concomitant with the "revolution in music," perhaps even an integral aspect thereof, has been the development of analytical theory, concerned with the systematic formulation of such principles to the end of greater efficiency, economy, and understanding. Compositions so rooted necessarily ask comparable knowledge and experience from the listener... *Why should the layman be other than bored and puzzled by what he is unable to understand, music or anything else?"*


. . . or perhaps its that we already understand it too well to begin with and know that it's academic imposture.

I love these 'Visions of the Self Annointed.'


----------



## Lucifer Saudade (May 19, 2015)

arpeggio said:


> Sorry. This forum has been around for years. This issue has been addressed in many other threads and posts. You have not raised any facts that are new to us.
> 
> One example of a post that supports the idea that one does not need a music theory background to like modern music: http://www.talkclassical.com/23223-tonal-atonal.html#post402351


First of all, thank you for the thread reference.

I'm a new member, and although I have read a few discussions here already I did not read all of them. And as a 'veteran' in other forums on a different topic - I know these recurring threads must be annoying. So sorry 

One Point though: I did not mention any facts in my post. What I wanted was opinions about the extent to which theory helps in the enjoyment of complex modern music.

I had the presumption to ask for guidance from my betters, I guess :devil:


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

KenOC said:


> "Although in many fundamental respects this music is "new," it often also represents a vast extension of the methods of other musics, derived from a considered and extensive knowledge of their dynamic principles. For, concomitant with the "revolution in music," perhaps even an integral aspect thereof, has been the development of analytical theory, concerned with the systematic formulation of such principles to the end of greater efficiency, economy, and understanding. Compositions so rooted necessarily ask comparable knowledge and experience from the listener... Why should the layman be other than bored and puzzled by what he is unable to understand, music or anything else?"


I'm not sure Babbitt is talking about knowledge of music theory, here; it seems equally plausible that he's talking about familiarity, as a listener, with the music that influenced his and others' music. I can't tell because his writing is so muddled.

No one has seized on the really objectionable thing in this Babbitt quote: "concerned with the systematic formulation of such principles to the end of greater efficiency, economy, and understanding"

He seems to be saying that people in the mid-20th century _understood music better_ than people of earlier times, in an objective sense, or in the same way they understood science better. He may also be saying that this greater understanding allowed them to _make music that is better_, in this objective sense, though I can't tell because, again, he is such a poor writer.

Whatever he meant, it's nonsense.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

isorhythm said:


> I'm not sure Babbitt is talking about knowledge of music theory, here; it seems equally plausible that he's talking about familiarity, as a listener, with the music that influenced his and others' music. I can't tell because his writing is so muddled.


Perhaps reading his entire essay will help get a better idea of his meaning. If you dare! :lol:

http://www.palestrant.com/babbitt.html


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> I'm not sure Babbitt is talking about knowledge of music theory, here; it seems equally plausible that he's talking about familiarity, as a listener, with the music that influenced his and others' music. I can't tell because his writing is so muddled.


He didn't mean theoretical knowledge, as he said many times.



isorhythm said:


> No one has seized on the really objectionable thing in this Babbitt quote: "concerned with the systematic formulation of such principles to the end of greater efficiency, economy, and understanding"
> 
> He seems to be saying that people in the mid-20th century _understood music better_ than people of earlier times, in an objective sense, or in the same way they understood science better. He may also be saying that this greater understanding allowed them to _make music that is better_, in this objective sense, though I can't tell because, again, he is such a poor writer.
> 
> Whatever he meant, it's nonsense.


Actually, the same essay clarifies that the difference is in kind, not quality.

The improvements he mentions are specifically related to the theory, and the principles behind the theory.


----------



## Lucifer Saudade (May 19, 2015)

KenOC said:


> Perhaps reading his entire essay will help get a better idea of his meaning. If you dare! :lol:
> 
> http://www.palestrant.com/babbitt.html


Woah, Babbit himself has chimed in on my meandering reveries! What honour 

"Why refuse to recognize the possibility that contemporary music has reached a stage long since attained by other forms of activity? The time has passed when the normally well-educated man without special preparation could understand the most advanced work in, for example, mathematics, philosophy, and physics. Advanced music, to the extent that it reflects the knowledge and originality of the informed composer, scarcely can be expected to appear more intelligible than these arts and sciences to the person whose musical education usually has been even less extensive than his background in other fields. But to this, a double standard is invoked, with the words music is music," implying also that "music is just music." Why not, then, equate the activities of the radio repairman with those of the theoretical physicist, on the basis of the dictum that "physics is physics." It is not difficult to find statements like the following, from the New York Times of September 8, 1 957: "The scientific level of the conference is so high… that there are in the world only 120 mathematicians specializing in the field who could contribute." Specialized music on the other hand, far from signifying "height" of musical level, has been charged with "decadence," even as evidence of an insidious "conspiracy."

Babbit seems to regard music as a CRAFT first and foremost - requiring it's own highly advanced technical knowledge. Most layman regard music as having only one purpose: pleasure.

They don't seem to care for the particularities of music which the composer deals with (WHEN they're more advanced then the listener's own "perceptual capacity") and are thus destined to be bored and consequently resenting of his music (according to Babbit) unless by some wild chance they actually like the way it sounds... in contrast to 99% of their fellow laymen.

Seems legit. Anyway, it seems Babbit himself doesn't expect me - a mere grasshopper - to like his music. However, being at least to some extent a musician myself, I get that some music is sometimes too complex (he gives an analogy to physics) to engage any number of listeners.

Most One Direction (I think that's the name) fans probably won't appreciate Wagner's music... and Babbit seems to think most Wagner fans won't appreciate his music, similarly :lol:


----------



## Lucifer Saudade (May 19, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> He didn't mean theoretical knowledge, as he said many times.
> 
> Actually, the same essay clarifies that the difference is in kind, not quality.
> 
> The improvements he mentions are specifically related to the theory, and the principles behind the theory.


He mentions "perceptual capacities" - does that mean knowing what to listen to... i.e ear training?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Lucifer Saudade said:


> *SIDE NOTE:* Mahlerian, you seem to have some background in composition. I'd especially love to ask you a couple of questions (as well as other composers):
> 
> 1) Do you feel like understanding the Twelve-Tone technique increases your enjoyment of Schoenberg's music (personally speaking) then if you didn't have any musical background?
> 
> ...


I first encountered Schoenberg's music before I understood anything about the 12-tone technique, and I enjoyed some of the 12-tone works immediately. Other works took more time, and when I first heard about the method I went though a period of skepticism like many others about its supposedly mathematical/logical basis. I feel that my study of theory in the meantime has given me a greater insight than I had before, it is true, but I feel this about all kinds of music, not just modernist music.

As long as you like it, it's fine, right?

Well, okay, that was too snippy. There are all kinds of music, I feel, and I don't think that emotion is the sole domain of any specific era, but it is true that some eras express emotion in more strongly colored ways. Varese's Ionisation doesn't have the kinds of emotional pull that a 19th century Classical or Romantic work would have, because those kinds of pull depend on different things such as melody and traditional tonal harmony. I don't feel that all modernist music is less emotional; in fact I find some of it is extremely powerful on an emotional level.


----------



## Guest (May 19, 2015)

The only training one needs to appreciate the modern and contemporary canons is the ability to break habits. Except in this case, you're not quitting the cigarettes or the fried foods... just quitting the pesky pre-conceived notions that get in the way of using one's ears for a change.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Lucifer Saudade said:


> He mentions "perceptual capacities" - does that mean knowing what to listen to... i.e ear training?


Musicologists have been arguing over this question for years. Most believe that he simply chose his words for the maximum number of syllables.


----------



## Lucifer Saudade (May 19, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> I first encountered Schoenberg's music before I understood anything about the 12-tone technique, and I enjoyed some of the 12-tone works immediately. Other works took more time, and when I first heard about the method I went though a period of skepticism like many others about its supposedly mathematical/logical basis. I feel that my study of theory in the meantime has given me a greater insight than I had before, it is true, but I feel this about all kinds of music, not just modernist music.
> 
> As long as you like it, it's fine, right?
> 
> Well, okay, that was too snippy. There are all kinds of music, I feel, and I don't think that emotion is the sole domain of any specific era, but it is true that some eras express emotion in more strongly colored ways. Varese's Ionisation doesn't have the kinds of emotional pull that a 19th century Classical or Romantic work would have, because those kinds of pull depend on different things such as melody and traditional tonal harmony. I don't feel that all modernist music is less emotional; in fact I find some of it is extremely powerful on an emotional level.


Good post. Wanted a composer's perspective - that's good enough for me! Rock on :tiphat:


----------



## Lucifer Saudade (May 19, 2015)

KenOC said:


> Musicologists have been arguing over this question for years. Most believe that he simply chose his words for the maximum number of syllables.


Hahahaha LMAO. You're really giving him a hard time... it's not that bad aside from the unclear jargon.


----------



## Lucifer Saudade (May 19, 2015)

nathanb said:


> The only training one needs to appreciate the modern and contemporary canons is the ability to break habits. Except in this case, you're not quitting the cigarettes or the fried foods... just quitting the pesky pre-conceived notions that get in the way of using one's ears for a change.


True. That helps with any style. I personally like Rap, Metal, Pop (including modern pop), Electronic music, Folk, Blues, Jazz etc the list goes on. However, I have a hard time with the Avant Garde Jazz and Classical music even though I like Avante Garde pop genres. It may just be more difficult, maybe it's just me yadda yadda

Time will tell, I guess. No one likes everything


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Lucifer Saudade said:


> But what I want to know is this: do you need to have a *solid grasp of music theory *to appreciate this kind of music? Is the pleasure derived from listening to it mostly intellectual/ appealing to the advanced musical mind?
> 
> If so, I can't understand why this music is being recommended to your average listener/music enthusiast. And if it is not, do some of you the great unwashed like Modern music? I'd appreciate your input as to why.


There are 2 ways to appreciate music - aesthetically and intellectually. To appreciate any music intellectually, one must know something about music theory (ranging from simple concepts such as fugues and forms to advanced concepts such as musical set theory). To appreciate music aesthetically I don't believe one needs to know anything about music theory.

When I first explored classical music, I found Baroque, Classical, and Romantic music easy to appreciate, but many works by Debussy, Ravel, and Prokofiev were unenjoyable. Stravinsky was ugly. Over time I came to enjoy those composers, and afterwards I have gradually learned to enjoy more and more works by many modern composers such as Lutoslawski, Messiaen, Boulez, and Carter. And I know very little music theory.

I have often used a metaphor given to me by a young composer friend - learning a new language. I believe people who are not familiar with the "language" of a composer have much more difficulty enjoying that compser's works. Listening to the composer (or other similar compsers) creates a familiarity that did not exist earlier. As one listens more and more, the style or language becomes clearer, and one can more easily appreciate or enjoy the music.

One important key is to listen for what the work offers and not what you're used to hearing. Listening for resolution or harmonies similar to romantic works may only lead to disappointment since the newer works may lack those. When I first heard Boulez, the music seemed to lack everything I liked. I watched a video of Boulez discussing one of his works, Sur Incises, along with parts of the performance. I learned to listen to the short figures in various timbres and found the work much more accessible. Further listening to more Boulez made me even more familiar and able to better focus on aspects I found enjoyable.

So... listening, listening to the particular elements of a composer's music (easier said than done, unfortunately), and maybe more listening (to what's there and not what one previously liked).


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Lucifer Saudade said:


> Anyway, it seems Babbit himself doesn't expect me - a mere grasshopper - to like his music.


To paraphrase Beecham - some people enjoy music and some just like the sound it makes?


----------



## binkley (Feb 2, 2013)

Lucifer Saudade said:


> But what I want to know is this: do you need to have a *solid grasp of music theory *to appreciate this kind of music? Is the pleasure derived from listening to it mostly intellectual/ appealing to the advanced musical mind?


For me theoretical knowledge is not necessary, and the pleasure is mostly visceral. What was necessary for me was exposure to a lot of diverse music from the late romantics onwards.

Regarding Babbitt's analogy with modern physics, I'll take a different angle. There's a popular quote, variously attributed to Einstein or Feynman, which goes something like "if you can't explain your work to a 6-year-old you don't understand it yourself". OK, I'll take the position of the 6-year-old with regards to music theory. Through his music, Schoenberg "explains" himself sufficiently well for me. Of course I don't understand it as deeply as an academic music theorist, any more than Einstein/Feynman expected the 6-year-old to understand their work at the theoretical level. But just as science should have a practical or self-evident level that an interested non-scientist can appreciate, so good music should have at least superficial visceral appeal to the engaged non-musician.


----------



## EDaddy (Nov 16, 2013)

GreenMamba said:


> No, you do not have to have a solid grasp (or even a shaky grasp) of music theory to get it. If the music requires you to understand the theory, then the composer has failed.
> 
> This goes for Bach as well as Xenakis.


You make a good point, GM. Very good point. You either get it or you don't.


----------



## Lucifer Saudade (May 19, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> There are 2 ways to appreciate music - aesthetically and intellectually. To appreciate any music intellectually, one must know something about music theory (ranging from simple concepts such as fugues and forms to advanced concepts such as musical set theory). To appreciate music aesthetically I don't believe one needs to know anything about music theory.
> 
> When I first explored classical music, I found Baroque, Classical, and Romantic music easy to appreciate, but many works by Debussy, Ravel, and Prokofiev were unenjoyable. Stravinsky was ugly. Over time I came to enjoy those composers, and afterwards I have gradually learned to enjoy more and more works by many modern composers such as Lutoslawski, Messiaen, Boulez, and Carter. And I know very little music theory.
> 
> ...


I see. I had no trouble with Debussy/ Ravel/ Prokofiev or even Bartok. But Massiaen was already challenging. His works instantly interested me - however, I couldn't say I liked them the way I liked Debussy. The split typically occurs around that time in Classical music - and I'm a fast adapter. It doesn't take long for a style to grow on me.

So I thought it must be different with the "Atonal" music. It's encouraging to hear Boulez grew on you though. And your point about knowing what to listen to is very helpful, thanks for that 

I'll keep trying. At any rate, I'm glad this stuff is out there. It'd be disappointing if I reached the mountain peak and there was no hill to climb anymore


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Lucifer Saudade said:


> I'll keep trying. At any rate, I'm glad this stuff is out there. It'd be disappointing if I reached the mountain peak and there was no hill to climb anymore


I came to TC explicitly to "learn" to like modern music better. I didn't view it as a challenge but rather as a source of vastly more of the music that had captivated me for years (i.e. classical music). To have a full century of classical music (especially including contemporary music) that was foreign to me seemed sad. I loved the exploration of earlier works leading to exciting discoveries, and I wanted to continue that exploration.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> I came to TC explicitly to "learn" to like modern music better. I didn't view it as a challenge but rather as a source of vastly more of the music that had captivated me for years (i.e. classical music). To have a full century of classical music (especially including contemporary music) that was foreign to me seemed sad. I loved the exploration of earlier works leading to exciting discoveries, and I wanted to continue that exploration.


I too, actually and that for me has been fruitful, being exposed to Schoenberg's Piano and Violin Concertos-pieces I never would have dreamed of listening to on my own, but thanks to the "modern crew" at TC, I'm so happy I was persuaded to take the plunge!


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Here is my way of enjoying Schoenberg.

1) Grab beer from fridge
2) Open vinyl or CD or iTunes file of Schoenberg album
3) Place song up and blast it
4) Chill back in lounge chair and listen
5) Slurp beer slowly
6) Don't worry about overanalyzing Schoenberg... so relaxing and enjoyable...


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Lucifer Saudade said:


> Wouldn't you agree that there is a sort of continuum of "difficulty of appreciation" that art cruises along to?
> 
> I, for one, take it for granted that having more insight into the art of the fugue would render a complex piece such as Beethoven's Grosse Fugue more understandable and hence more enjoyable.
> 
> ...


I maintain that all you need is ears and the desire to listen, the same with any music. I don't have a music degree. I like a lot of modern music and, in fact, I began my classical journey with the Modern and worked backward to the Romantic, Classical and Baroque (and even, somewhat more limitedly, to the Renaissance and Early) Periods. Reading about music is fascinating, if you're interested in that (I am), and it can help you understand more about music, but it is not requisite. Only active listening is requisite.

It took you a week to appreciate Bach? Fine. What if it took a year, or even years? For me, that's the enjoyment and the staying power this music has. If I could take it all in as quickly as a pop song, I'd be done with it in the time it takes to play the recording once or twice. I want more from this music. That's why I'm 'here', that is, why I listen to classical.


----------



## TradeMark (Mar 12, 2015)

I am a huge fan of modern classical music and I know little to nothing about music theory. I don't believe that you need to understand music theory to enjoy modern classical music. If you look around the forum you will find that most fans of modern classical music don't talk really about the theory behind the music. They talk about how the music sounds to them. To be honest, I've found that the people who pay too much attention to theory are the ones who tend dislike modern classical music.

I would suggest approaching modern classical music with an open mind. When listening, try to focus on how the piece sounds to you. After listening think about the parts or aspects of the piece that you liked. When listening again your mind will more than likely adjust to these to these aspects and you will be more likely to enjoy piece you're listening to.

These are just a few tips I learned from pure listening experience. I would avoid listening to stereotypes about modern classical music, or jumping on any of the anti-modern bandwagons. Try to form your own thoughts on the music you hear.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Lucifer Saudade said:


> Okay, so the forum is probably long overflowing with this most hackneyed of subjects. "Modern music"
> 
> "Do you enjoy it; Is this stuff even music?! Were you bewitched by these snotty academics and tricked into liking this nonsensical twaddle?" - and so on and so forth. Understood.
> 
> ...


No formal music qualification is needed for great music - it should reach out to you. Mozart or Stockhausen, Handel or Cage.


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2015)

I got into classical almost accidentally (via an unwanted radio). The station mainly played Men With Wigs stuff which I found I enjoyed, so I followed it up with a book (Jan Swafford) and took the plunge. I was aware of the oftenheld notion of Modern=Rubbish and so was almost predisposed to have a negative opinion when my listening moved into the 20th century (the Swafford book works chronologically). In fact I quickly discovered contemporary is probably at least as enjoyable as any other era. Composers I'd not heard of two years ago are slowly but surely taking the lion's share of my classical CD collection.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Sound Paintings*

The following is a link to another post that may address some of your concerns: http://www.talkclassical.com/31204-listening-unfamiliar.html#post628922

I have read of composers other than David Holsinger who refer to their music as sound paintings.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Lucifer Saudade said:


> Okay, so the forum is probably long overflowing with this most hackneyed of subjects. "Modern music"
> 
> "Do you enjoy it; Is this stuff even music?! Were you bewitched by these snotty academics and tricked into liking this nonsensical twaddle?" - and so on and so forth. Understood.
> 
> ...


This is something you can only answer for yourself. There are people who don't have any theoretical knowledge who dislike this sort of music, and presumably not as many but still plenty of others who respond better to it.

From GreenMamba:


> No, you do not have to have a solid grasp (or even a shaky grasp) of music theory to get it. If the music requires you to understand the theory, *then the composer has failed.*
> 
> This goes for Bach as well as Xenakis.


The only thing the composer has failed to do is engage you in particular. Composers from different times and places don't have to submit themselves to basically fascist ideas of "well if it isn't this, or if it doesn't do this then it isn't any good" because other happy consumers will certainly come along and appreciate what they've done. Making heavily theoretical music isn't a crime. Just like having a career in math or physics isn't a crime. Someone writing about string theory doesn't have to justify his passions to an unsympathetic crowd, because he has his audience and his thoughts are very valid and interesting to them.

Now from mmsbls:


> There are 2 ways to appreciate music - aesthetically and intellectually. To appreciate any music intellectually, one must know something about music theory (ranging from simple concepts such as fugues and forms to advanced concepts such as musical set theory). To appreciate music aesthetically I don't believe one needs to know anything about music theory.
> 
> When I first explored classical music, I found Baroque, Classical, and Romantic music easy to appreciate, but many works by Debussy, Ravel, and Prokofiev were unenjoyable. Stravinsky was ugly. Over time I came to enjoy those composers, and afterwards I have gradually learned to enjoy more and more works by many modern composers such as Lutoslawski, Messiaen, Boulez, and Carter. And I know very little music theory.
> 
> ...


*There are a million different ways to appreciate music.* You can appreciate the subject if it is programmatic, especially if it is religious. You can consider how it fits into history, or what it might have to do with the composer's life. There's no end to the possibilities.

In my mind it's much the same as someone in aviation school being fascinated with planes in an entirely different way than the autistic child who has a special interest in planes and likes to memorize serial numbers, etc. Some people have synesthesia. I've known people dislike or especially enjoy certain musical effects like pizzicato, and they can't tell me why they feel that way about it. A good friend of mine can't listen to piano music without falling asleep because when he was little his mother would take him to her piano recitals and he couldn't stay awake through them. *Now he listens to it in order to go to bed at night.* :lol:


----------



## Lucifer Saudade (May 19, 2015)

Okay, thanks guys.

I'd appreciate it if you share a piece (or better yet, refer me to a similar thread) you like and describe what you like about it/ what to actually LISTEN to.

Here's what I'm thinking when listening to Ligeti's Atmosheres 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

First off, it immediately fascinates me upon hearing it. The rich textures, shifts in timbre and volume and of course the lack of any conventional harmony/ melody. I can see why this piece was used in Kubrick's Space Odyssey - it's very ethereal.

But while it certainly interests me, I can't say that I ENJOY it on a VISCERAL level as much as say, the Bartok Etudes (at THIS point in time) or that I'll come back to it, everyday.





Moreover, I don't understand what's going on musically speaking. Methinks it is precisely the LACK of harmony/ melody/ rhythm in the Bartok sense of the word that stops *me* personally from ENJOYING it (and I LOVE the fact that it sounds nothing like the old music and so fresh and new).

I'm not saying there is anything WRONG in the music itself, far from it! What I'm saying is, I have a tough time with it.

Perhaps I should mention at this point that I'm an amateur guitar player. Harmony, rhythm and melody are the basis of most of our music (from Jazz to Rock). Even THIS is closer to "old music" then to Xenaxis. I find the piece interesting and enjoyable personally. 





This is where I'm coming from. However, I'd love a DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE on what *YOU* enjoy about the piece (or any other piece), BEYOND mere interest.

Just the sound it makes? The complex timbre/ sound masses? Does it sound disconcerting/eerie or beautiful and expansive?

Once again, thanks for your help.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I think you do understand what's going on with the Ligeti, honestly. The "rich textures, shifts in timbre and volume" are it. That's the whole point of that piece, and Ligeti's style generally at that time.

Do you know Ligeti's later music at all? I'd be curious what you think of the Violin Concerto for example.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Lukecash12 said:


> From GreenMamba:
> 
> The only thing the composer has failed to do is engage you in particular. Composers from different times and places don't have to submit themselves to *basically fascist ideas *of "well if it isn't this, or if it doesn't do this then it isn't any good" because other happy consumers will certainly come along and appreciate what they've done. Making heavily theoretical music isn't a crime. Just like having a career in math or physics isn't a crime. Someone writing about string theory doesn't have to justify his passions to an unsympathetic crowd, because he has his audience and his thoughts are very valid and interesting to them.


Yes, I should have written "failed for me." But I wasn't arguing against complex, theoretical music, just arguing that I have to like the result in practice, not just on paper.

The rest of your response is overwrought.


----------

