# Why should you listen to "modern" music...?



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

member Science began an intriguing thread asking for suggestions of Modern and Contemporary classical music for the hypothetical listener who thinks he or she doesn't like Modern/Contemporary music. I know that members such as myself, Harpsichord Concerto, and a number of others get labeled as "Conservatives" or "Wigs"... in spite of the fact that we actually have and enjoy a rather sizable collection of music from the 20th and 21st centuries... quite likely a great deal larger than many self-proclaimed "Modernists/Progressives." On the other hand... we have any number of Modernists/Progressives who have a self-proclaimed aversion to the Classical era, or the Baroque, or the Renaissance, or certain major composers.

My question is *Why should a listener put forth the repeated effort in attempting to appreciate a body of music he or she doesn't like?* Some listeners don't like Bluegrass (I personally love it). Some don't like Rock music. I can't abide Hip-Hop and most Pop Music of the last couple of decades. I suspect that there is no one here who does not have a body or genre of music they can't stand. So why should the hypothetical individual who cannot stand Modern/Contemporary music be taken to task for his or her taste? Why should the hypothetical individual who has an aversion to Modern/Contemporary Music continue to put forth the effort?


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> My question is *Why should a listener put forth the repeated effort in attempting to appreciate a body of music he or she doesn't like?*


He or she shouldn't. Listen to whatever you like.

It might as well be an informed aversion, though. Otherwise that's a bit like claiming to dislike baroque music without having heard Handel or Bach.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Don't listen to it if you don't like it. The problem are the unfounded critiques. If you don't like the music, state it simply: I don't like it. But if, also, you want to make some remark, you better have good arguments. I mean, in the cases in which these remarks are not purely subjective, but that are on the lines about suggesting that there are objective properties in the music that make it "unpleasant", if you want.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Dunno about Contemporary, but if Modern starts with Debussy the term covers a lot of different stuff. How does a blanket aversion work?


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Don't listen to it if you don't like it. The problem are the unfounded critiques. If you don't like the music, state it simply: I don't like it. But if, also, you want to make some remark, you better have good arguments. I mean, in the cases in which these remarks are not purely subjective, but that are on the lines about suggest that there are objective properties in the music that make it "unpleasant", if you want.


"Unpleasant" is pretty weak sauce, as far as musical criticisms go. And pleasure is subjective, so there's no inherent suggestion of objective shortcomings with the music in there.

I think a lot of 20th/21st century classical music fans have been made hypersensitive to this sort of thing. There are plenty of people who are willing to claim that everything written after 1945 was made by stringing random notes together. They're fond of commenting on YouTube videos.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Don't listen to it if you don't like it. The problem are the unfounded critiques. If you don't like the music, state it simply: I don't like it. But if, also, you want to make some remark, you better have good arguments. I mean, in the cases in which these remarks are not purely subjective, but that are on the lines about suggesting that there are objective properties in the music that make it "unpleasant", if you want.


Agreed 100%.

I don't consider myself a modernist, although I listen to and enjoy a good deal of modernist music. I think of myself primarily as a music lover.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Classical music is after all many many genres, the same as with painting or illustration or novels. I would not wish for someone to force me to read a romance novel, for instance, though I have read a couple and they are not all breathless and corny as I imagined them to be.

The only reason I can think of to try with unpleasant music is if you are convinced there is some merit and you _want_ to try. I find no merit in Lady Gag or that rapper, what's the name? Enema? So I have no desire to try those genres. But with modern or "new music" as it is now being called, I do have a desire to at least try because there might be some merit in doing so. I have not completely dismissed it. I never did really.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I listen to LOTS of modern music. Nino Rota, Frank Sinatra, Lennon/McCartney, Leadbelly, Sonny Rollins... In the 20th century, musical creativity exploded past the traditional concert hall into other venues... records, films, radio and the internet primarily. "Classical music" has traditionally been concert hall music. I don't categorize music by the place that it's played any more. In the modern world, that would be absurd. Music falls into two categories... "Good" and "Lousy".

We've hit a stage of musical zen. "There is no more classical music, and everything is classical music." I don't listen to classical music any more. I listen to "GOOD" music. Tell me about good music. I don't care if it has an opus number attached to it.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

There is certainly no reason that any particular listener _ought_ to listen to a genre they dislike including modern classical music. I suppose there are some listeners that really do enjoy every musical genre, but I suspect they are rather rare. We like some things and don't enjoy others, and that seems true in sports, music, food, and just about every human endeavor.

Having said that, let me try to explain why I personally continue to push myself in an attempt to "learn" to appreciate more modern classical music.

I grew up listening to popular music and hardly ever listened to classical. In my 30s I increased my classical exposure, and in my 40s I started to seriously listen to a significant amount of classical music. I was simply stunned by how beautiful so many pieces were. I distinctly remember the first time I heard Rachmaninoff's 2nd piano concerto and feeling that time had stopped when the 2nd movement started. I worked my way through Goulding's _Classical Music_ text finding work after work that moved me like none had before and composer after composer who startled me with such a range of gorgeous music. I couldn't believe that I had been almost completely ignorant of such wondrous experiences. So many composers's works I heard from early Baroque through late Romanticism gave me joy beyond what I'd thought existed.

Then I hit a wall - the modern era. There were some works I liked, but somehow the vast majority of the suggested great composers sounded nothing like what had thrilled me for years. How could this be? The modern era followed the Romantic just as the Romantic had followed the Classical and Classical followed Baroque. Composers were probably better trained than ever before and their numbers greater since populations and standards of living had increased so much. How could the music that had consumed my life suddenly give me no pleasure? Would I never experience the joy of hearing another Rachmaninoff's 2nd piano concerto for the first time? Would I never discover another beloved composer such as Dvorak or Schubert? Yes, there were plenty of older composers and works I had not heard, but here was roughly 100 years of "musical desert" that _ought_ to yield so much joy for my exploration throughout the remainder of my life.

I was determined to "learn" to like this vast new genre of music. I craved the delight of finding new gems and fully expected to gradually learn to love what had come so easily before. I joined TC with my main motivation learning to like modern music. Since that time I have made modest but real progress. I have gradually uncovered new works that thrill me. Admittedly the progress is slower than I had hoped, but I have had enough success that I am still confident in more success.

No one must love _all_ classical music, and perhaps no one can. But for those who have found such joy in a wide range of works from the 1600s (or earlier) through the early 20th century, there is a continuation of music created for much the same reasons through today. The thought of simply being unable to appreciate a century of masterpieces and missing out on the excitement of newly created works saddens me.

So I will continue to listen until I know it is simply not for me or until the new works open up in all their beauty.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

ahammel said:


> And pleasure is subjective, so there's no inherent suggestion of objective shortcomings with the music in there.


Yes, so what?. It may be subjective, but there it is: you feel something unpleasant or you don't. If you feel something as unpleasant, I can try to make an objective hypothesis about why is that. If I burn your hand, you will feel that as unpleasant, and the objective fact is that you have nerves in your hand which detect the heat, etc. 
So, "unpleasant" may have subjective components, but that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
In this forum and other media, most of the critiques towards this kind of music rely on the artifice of trying to show that there's something "inherent" in the music that makes it "incompatible" with the human "emotions" or whatever. Most of them are simply fallacious, misinformed, pretentious or even dishonest.
So, if people don't like it: ok, you don't have to like everything. But, please, keep your pseudo-philosophy of music away from this. 
Philosophy of art is a serious subject, not something you can improvise while you are writing here.

(sorry about the "you", it's a rhetorical resource of which I tend to abuse, I'm not saying that you are actually sustaining those things)


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Well, I certainly don't take anyone to task for disliking music I like, that would be silly, but I will defend that music if I feel it is being attacked unfairly. For example; I've never complained about anyone saying "I don't like what I've heard by Xenakis" but I will complain if someone says "Xenakis is not music" - the difference between the two should be obvious so I'll leave it at that.


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Dunno about Contemporary, but if Modern starts with Debussy the term covers a lot of different stuff. How does a blanket aversion work?


You know, there's no set term for when "modern" classical began. Some think it started with Impressionism, others think it started with Futurism.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Yes, so what?. It may be subjective, but there it is: you feel something unpleasant or you don't. If you feel something as unpleasant, I can try to make an objective hypothesis about why is that. If I burn your hand, you will feel that as unpleasant, and the objective fact is that you have nerves in your hand which detect the heat, etc.
> So, "unpleasant" may have subjective components, but that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
> In this forum and other media, most of the critiques towards this kind of music rely on the artifice of trying to show that there's something "inherent" in the music that makes it "incompatible" with the human "emotions" or whatever. Most of them are simply fallacious, misinformed, pretentious or even dishonest.
> So, if people don't like it: ok, you don't have to like everything. But, please, keep your pseudo-philosophy of music away from this.
> ...


Since "unpleasant" was the only thing in quotes, I mistakenly assumed that was what you objected to. My apologies.

I agree that the attitude of "I don't like 20th century music (usually serialism in paritcular), so there must be something inherently wrong with it" is extremely vexing. It is unfortunately so common that I suspect that 20th/21st century fans sometimes see it when it isn't there.

EDIT: And, conversely, people who are not especially fond of the 20th and 21st centuries in classical may perceive attempts to criticize the "there's something wrong with modern music" attitude as saying "you have to like serialism or you're an idiot", which leads to things like this thread. I knew I had something resembling a point in there somewhere 



Crudblud said:


> Well, I certainly don't take anyone to task for disliking music I like, that would be silly, but I will defend that music if I feel it is being attacked unfairly. For example; I've never complained about anyone saying "I don't like what I've heard by Xenakis" but I will complain if someone says "Xenakis is not music" - the difference between the two should be obvious so I'll leave it at that.


Indeed.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Unless something is totally unorganized noise, I'll acknowledge that it's music. But there are plenty of sounds that qualify as music, but further qualify as lousy music.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> I've never complained about anyone saying "I don't like what I've heard by Xenakis" but I will complain if someone says "Xenakis is not music" - the difference between the two should be obvious so I'll leave it at that.


Ah, but _totally hypothetically_, what do you say if somebody opines, "Xenakis is BAD music"?


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> member Science began an intriguing thread asking for suggestions of Modern and Contemporary classical music for the hypothetical listener who thinks he or she doesn't like Modern/Contemporary music. [...] So why should the hypothetical individual who cannot stand Modern/Contemporary music be taken to task for his or her taste? Why should the hypothetical individual who has an aversion to Modern/Contemporary Music continue to put forth the effort?


Just to be clear...are you saying that the hypothetical listener in science's scenario is 'being taken to task'?

It's not the way I read the scenario...



science said:


> Scenario:
> 
> Someone says to you, "You know, I don't know all that much about classical music, but I just don't think I like the twentieth century music. [etc] *You say, "Before you make up your mind about modern music, listen to... "*


This sounds like a perfectly amicable conversation.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Ah, but _totally hypothetically_, what do you say if somebody opines, "Xenakis is BAD music"?


That fits in to the same category as "Xenakis is not music," that is to say it's an opinion stated as if it was objective fact, so of course I would confront the person who said it.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> 
> My question is *Why should a listener put forth the repeated effort in attempting to appreciate a body of music he or she doesn't like?* ...


I think that in terms of listeners like me who are into music as a hobby, there should be no 'shoulds' or 'shouldn'ts' in music. Yes, it is a passion and even an obsession for me at times, but at no point do I think that its good to force myself to listen to something I don't like. Life's too short. So basically I agree with ahammel:



ahammel said:


> He or she shouldn't. Listen to whatever you like.
> 
> ....


Of course it is, I think, good to have a big picture view of music. To know some important pieces from each era, or some of the major composers of the era. I am again talking of myself. Over the years I have attempted to listen widely, absorb as much as I can. From those wide experiences, I have boiled down or crystallised, sorted out what I like most. & those are the things I focus on now. I would say to anyone to be broad as possible then (like a funnel) go down to the level of what you like most. If you don't know certain things, aren't exposed to them, how are you supposed to establish your musical taste, or identity as a listener? How are you able to develop a focus or a series of them? So that's how I see it, I started broad and go for the specifics later.

Of course for musicians its different. They do have 'shoulds.' I was reading an interview with the late Stuart Challender, one of Australia's most highly regarded conductors, he led the Sydney Symphony Orchestra for a number of years until his untimely death 20 years ago. During that time, he got the orchestra performing things that where rarely performed here (eg. Mahler, Bruckner, R. Strauss, Berg). & he also premiered new works, esp. by Australian composers. & also new music from overseas (eg. Elliott Carter).

But I was surprised that in this interview, Maestro Challender said that he actually didn't like a lot of new or newer musics. He didn't see himself as a diehard Modernist in other words. But he did say that its good to keep abreast of the latest developments, or of the last 50 or 100 years. Its the same as someone in Beethoven's time, or Mozart's time, if you where into music, you would attempt to listen to the music that was being written at that time by living composers. It doesn't stop you from enjoying music of long dead composers. I might return tomorrow and dig up that interview and actually quote what Challender said. He's like many Australian classical musicians I have read, he cuts through the dogma and jargon of Modernism, of new music. He just said it as he saw it, said it straight.

& I think maybe that's where I'm largely out of step with some supporters of new/newer music on this forum. I don't believe in dogma, I think the music is more important than that, and I'd rather have a person's honest opinions of the music rather than (what I see as) some prefabricated ideology or dogma. That's what I think is important, separating what is new/newer music - all these great composers - from the dogmas that have been built up around them. Most often its got nothing to do with them, its more to do with the fans. & that's the same for any type of music, not only new music. You got that with all eras of music, and sometimes even single composers (look at the Wagner cult for example). So its not unique to Modern music, this kind of unquestioning view of it as a pseudo religion or whatever.

So for me, Modern and Contemporary music can be great, but some of the other things attached to them I got little time for...


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> My question is *Why should a listener put forth the repeated effort in attempting to appreciate a body of music he or she doesn't like?*


Why indeed. If you've made your mind up, there's no reason why you should.



ahammel said:


> He or she shouldn't. Listen to whatever you like.





aleazk said:


> Don't listen to it if you don't like it.


But, until you've listened to it, you won't know you like it. And you may need to listen more than once before 'making up your mind' which is the key thing for me.



Weston said:


> with modern or "new music" as it is now being called, I do have a desire to at least try because there might be some merit in doing so. I have not completely dismissed it. I never did really.


Quite. You've not made your mind up whether you like it or not and are willing to give it several tries.



mmsbls said:


> So I will continue to listen until I know it is simply not for me or until the new works open up in all their beauty.


Indeed. And of course, this doesn't just apply to allegedly 'difficult' modern music. I daresay I'll be trying Mozart and Wagner some more before I do. I haven't made my mind up.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I listen to music purely for enjoyment and entertainment. As I have over 1000 CDs in my collection of music that I do not see why I should spend time listening to music I don't like. I reserve doing things I don't like for decorating the house and the aspects of my job I find at trial. Music is to be enjoyable.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Mahlerian said:


> ...
> I don't consider myself a modernist, although I listen to and enjoy a good deal of modernist music. * I think of myself primarily as a music lover*.


That's a good way of putting it, and in light of that I'd make my own thread saying "Why should you listen to any music?" If a person wants to listen to something they haven't heard, its up to them. If a person doesn't want to, same thing, its their business.

But as I said in my longer post, for me trying a bit of everything, then funnelling down, has worked. I am culling my collection, and a good deal of stuff I'm culling is vocal and pre-1800's. So what? Is anyone going to say I should have kept these? But some things by them I've kept.

Another analogy I've said before is classical music as a smorgasbord from which the listener chooses things.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Simple answer is no.*



StlukesguildOhio said:


> member Science began an intriguing thread asking for suggestions of Modern and Contemporary classical music for the hypothetical listener who thinks he or she doesn't like Modern/Contemporary music. I know that members such as myself, Harpsichord Concerto, and a number of others get labeled as "Conservatives" or "Wigs"... in spite of the fact that we actually have and enjoy a rather sizable collection of music from the 20th and 21st centuries... quite likely a great deal larger than many self-proclaimed "Modernists/Progressives." On the other hand... we have any number of Modernists/Progressives who have a self-proclaimed aversion to the Classical era, or the Baroque, or the Renaissance, or certain major composers.
> 
> My question is *Why should a listener put forth the repeated effort in attempting to appreciate a body of music he or she doesn't like?* Some listeners don't like Bluegrass (I personally love it). Some don't like Rock music. I can't abide Hip-Hop and most Pop Music of the last couple of decades. I suspect that there is no one here who does not have a body or genre of music they can't stand. So why should the hypothetical individual who cannot stand Modern/Contemporary music be taken to task for his or her taste? Why should the hypothetical individual who has an aversion to Modern/Contemporary Music continue to put forth the effort?


I really have nothing to add to this issue. Most of the following I have said before in other posts.

Like others have said above, the simple answer is "no".

As far as modernists disliking pre-20th century music, I am getting tired of stating that the vast majority modernists still enjoy and appreciate traditional music. There was one person here who had a problem with some Mozart. Yet anti-modernists keep accusing us of hating baroque, classical or romantic music. This is not true. The musical tastes of the vast majority of modernists is very diverse.

I have been involved in the debate concerning the pros and cons of modernistic music for many years in life and in many forums on the Internet. There are other forums were the animus against modernistic music is much greater than it is at TALK CLASSICAL (TC).

It appears to me that the reason that modernists are overly sensitive is because it appears that many anti-modernists want to suppress modernistic music. I have seen posts like the following in other forums and sometimes here.

One: Classical music is dying and the reason is because of Schoenberg and his 12-tone music. If we can drive modernistic music out of the classical genre we will save it. I have actually seen some posts here where people were claiming that they were on a mission to save classical music by purging music from the repertoire that they disapproved of.

Two: I recall one individual in another forum complaining that his local symphony orchestra performed a piece of Schoenberg at one of their concerts. I tried to locate it but I could not. I think the program was the Schoenberg _Violin Concerto_ and Beethoven's _Sixth_. He had season tickets and he was mad that he had to sit through the Schoenberg in order to hear the Beethoven. As a result he did not renew his season tickets for the next season.

Third: I recall reading an exchange in another forum where a person got mad when he heard the local classical music radio station played a modernistic work. He claimed he called the station and told them they should never broadcast this type of music.

Fourth: In another forum I actually read that one individual felt he had a duty to attack modernistic music whenever he could. There were many people that were discovering classical music and he had an obligation to save them from the evils of modernism.

Fifth and finally I observed in another forum where some of the members started a thread which proposed that they should ban all discussions concerning modernistic music from their forum. This circle of anti-modernists has partially succeeded. In the past several week the has been only one thread that had some discussions concerning modernistic music. There were a few posts concerning Schoenberg and Berg.

I have read many posts here and elsewhere where people expressed the opinion the that orchestras, opera houses and other musical organizations should never program contemporary music.

I know of a one modernist who dislikes Mozart. I never read anything by him that stated that Mozart should be banned from the concert hall. Do I have to repeat that I dislike Verdi? My animus toward Verdi does not extend to his operas being banned from the Met.

We have no problem with people who dislike modernistic music. What upsets us is when the animus against modernistic music borders on censorship.

90% of the above I have stated before in other posts. I apologize for being redundant.


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

bigshot said:


> Unless something is totally unorganized noise, I'll acknowledge that it's music. But there are plenty of sounds that qualify as music, but further qualify as lousy music.


Noise is sound with the intent to be music, it's irrelevant how organized it is.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2013)

hello said:


> Noise is sound with the intent to be music, it's irrelevant how organized it is.


Possibly. The selection of 'unorganised noise' with the intent that it should be music is, surely, a type of organisation?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

There are no "shoulds." Only judgments.

For me, the music isn't hard to enjoy, so I'd rather hear it than have to be defensive all the time.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> Possibly. The selection of 'unorganised noise' with the intent that it should be music is, surely, a type of organisation?


If people argue about this issue, I bet when I come back to this thread tomorrow, its going to be yet another stoush about the usual things. Is noise music and all that stuff.

But what I think is the topic of this thread is asking if there needs to be a compulsion, requirement or feeling by any classical listener that he or she should listen to modern/contemporary music. I think its about that, not about what is or isn't music.

I just don't see the use of these arguments/debates, we've had quite a few here (most of them I know without even opening/reading the thread from its title). They've been in overdrive lately. I say guys give it a rest. More productive to punch real punching bags not composers.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Re what I said in this post earlier about Stuart Challender's views on new music, I dug up that interview (extract below in green). Maybe it explains a bit of the reason why some people on this forum who are themselves musicians come to defending new music - as a matter of principle, perhaps. Just as they'd defend other types of music that is necessary for them to know as part of their profession? Anyway, I'm guessing.

One of Challender's appointments after he returned to Australia was the artistic direction of the Seymour Group, which he took on in 1981 and 1982. Considering the group's raison d'etre is contemporary music, it's revealing to hear his views on recent composition: "I had always been fascinated by contemporary music. Ninety per cent of it, I loathe. I am sure if I had lived in Mozart's time, I would have loathed 90 per cent of it. But I don't think that is any reason not to do it. Otherwise it is going to die. I think every musician has a responsibility to play contemporary music."

Sourced from Symphony Australia 1987 Concert Yearbook.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

ahammel said:


> He or she shouldn't. Listen to whatever you like.
> 
> It might as well be an informed aversion, though. Otherwise that's a bit like claiming to dislike baroque music without having heard Handel or Bach.


There's no rush as well. People sometimes talk like there's a list of things they have to like and tick off, and then go on forums asking people for the magic key to understanding them. The magic key is in their own head, when their musical brain is ready to like something it will. And personal understanding is so much more enjoyable than just dutifully ticking something off on a list as you feel you have to. And music is entertainment, for enjoyment.

There was a thread a while back with someone asking why do people talk about music (can't find it now), something I had been wondering myself as I haven't really felt like talking on classical forums that much for a while. Some seem to go on forums so they can understand and so like music they hadn't before. I don't think that is likely to be too successful though. The best way to get to like some kind of music is actually to listen to lots of it over a period so your brain can adjust to the style.

The purpose of music forums to me is simply a bit of intellectual stimulation, some fun debate. I don't expect it to make me like any kind of music I haven't before, that's unrealistic to me.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

starry said:


> There's no rush as well. People sometimes talk like there's a list of things they have to like and tick off, and then go on forums asking people for the magic key to understanding them. The magic key is in their own head, when their musical brain is ready to like something it will. And personal understanding is so much more enjoyable than just dutifully ticking something off on a list as you feel you have to. And music is entertainment, for enjoyment.
> 
> There was a thread a while back with someone asking why do people talk about music (can't find it now), something I had been wondering myself as I haven't really felt like talking on classical forums that much for a while. Some seem to go on forums so they can understand and so like music they hadn't before. I don't think that is likely to be too successful though. The best way to get to like some kind of music is actually to listen to lots of it over a period so your brain can adjust to the style.
> 
> The purpose of music forums to me is simply a bit of intellectual stimulation, some fun debate. I don't expect it to make me like any kind of music I haven't before, that's unrealistic to me.


I agree that 'ticking things off' isn't the way to go. Life's too short for that. But when I studied literature, I was given book-lists, and if I hadn't worked through them, I wouldn't have discovered many authors who became my favourites.

Similarly, as a bit of an ignoramus, I've asked for names on TC - and been given them, in abundance. I'll get round to trying some of them eventually. But I have already been able to expand my taste on the basis of recommendation. My violin teacher recommended Rebel & Mahlerian suggested Debussy, & I like both composers, having never sampled them before.

I agree with your idea of 'intellectual stimulation & fun debate' & look forward to the day when I might have an inkling of what some of the more learned contributors are on about!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

hello said:


> Noise is sound with the intent to be music, it's irrelevant how organized it is.


I can put a sign on a cow that says "dog", but it don't make it a Schnauzer!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

starry said:


> The purpose of music forums to me is simply a bit of intellectual stimulation, some fun debate. I don't expect it to make me like any kind of music I haven't before, that's unrealistic to me.


Some of us are here looking for breadcrumbs. The trick is discerning which trail to follow. You have to read a few of a person's posts to figure out if they know what the hell they're talking about or not. I've found lots of great music that I haven't heard before in groups. The thing is, it's a lot of music being recommended by a tiny handful of people.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Yeh but even with lists (which can be found all over the internet with searching) you have to put the work and time in and listen through enough of the stuff to actually get to grips with a style. I don't see how there would be one magic piece or composer who suddenly makes some kind of music understandable. Basic repertory lists aren't that hard to find, though they are pretty much just a starting point anyway. To get a fuller grasp of a style bigger lists including plenty of more obscure stuff might be needed with much music, and that takes lots of time and effort to listen through. Much of it, as with any list, will probably be lesser music too, but to find the gems you have to crawl though all of it. A pro-active research probably yields greater rewards than asking for crumbs from the table.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

starry said:


> Yeh but even with lists (which can be found all over the internet with searching) you have to put the work and time in and listen through enough of the stuff to actually get to grips with a style. I don't see how there would be one magic piece or composer who suddenly makes some kind of music understandable. Basic repertory lists aren't that hard to find, though they are pretty much just a starting point anyway. To get a fuller grasp of a style bigger lists including plenty of more obscure stuff might be needed with much music, and that takes lots of time and effort to listen through. Much of it, as with any list, will probably be lesser music too, but to find the gems you have to crawl though all of it.


Ah, you've found my weakness! From listening to 'Sparky's Magic Piano' I do suffer from magical thinking & aspire to finding the key that will make modern music understandable.

But a list from google is different from the recommendation of someone you know, trust or admire. Using an internet list, I might try someone, think 'yuk', & turn it off after 30 seconds. When my teacher told me of Rebel's 'Elements', I put it on my FB page, tried it, thought 'yuk', then tried it again, and after five goes, I find I absolutely *love* it!

I didn't have to try so hard with the Debussy that Mahlerian kindly suggested as a possible way of adjusting my old-fashioned ears, but I would have persevered if I hadn't liked it...

This is a good thread, because it's about attitudes to music. I shall never be an expert listener to all forms of music, but I'd like to have a mental map of western classical music. It would give me pleasure in the same way as my grasp of literary history gives me pleasure. When I read a poem, I can say, 'Ah, this uses metaphysical imagery', or 'This poet has been influenced by Ted Hughes', and it enhances my enjoyment, just as a wine-taster can detect various 'notes' in their sample.

When I was young, I went to a university society & was impressed by an old don who told me that he still considered himself a student, and meant to go on learning till the end of his life. That's the spirit!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> member Science began an intriguing thread asking for suggestions of Modern and Contemporary classical music for the hypothetical listener who thinks he or she doesn't like Modern/Contemporary music. I know that members such as myself, Harpsichord Concerto, and a number of others get labeled as "Conservatives" or "Wigs"... in spite of the fact that we actually have and enjoy a rather sizable collection of music from the 20th and 21st centuries... quite likely a great deal larger than many self-proclaimed "Modernists/Progressives." On the other hand... we have any number of Modernists/Progressives who have a self-proclaimed aversion to the Classical era, or the Baroque, or the Renaissance, or certain major composers.
> 
> My question is *Why should a listener put forth the repeated effort in attempting to appreciate a body of music he or she doesn't like?* Some listeners don't like Bluegrass (I personally love it). Some don't like Rock music. I can't abide Hip-Hop and most Pop Music of the last couple of decades. I suspect that there is no one here who does not have a body or genre of music they can't stand. So why should the hypothetical individual who cannot stand Modern/Contemporary music be taken to task for his or her taste? Why should the hypothetical individual who has an aversion to Modern/Contemporary Music continue to put forth the effort?


I don't have much to add to the many "there is no _should_" comments, but my initial reaction to science's thread carries over here too. science's hypothetical listener enjoyed a wide range of 18th and 19th century music but couldn't handle this "modern" stuff at all. My argument there was that if this listener could appreciate both Handel and Wagner - who wrote very different music - then that listener should be more than capable to finding something modern to appreciate. So while I wouldn't take this listener to task for his or her _taste_, I might question how much actual _effort_ they'd put in. It just strikes me as unlikely that of the huge variety of music that's been written in the past 100 or 50 or 20 years, that there's _nothing_ there for them. I have to ask this hypothetical listener, "what's your particular definition of modern music, and if I were to name some composers do they fall under that definition?"


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

The thing with 20th century music is the more composers I listen to the more I feel my knowledge of the period and enjoyment of it increases. So I'm likely to be more interested in listening to the music of a composer I haven't heard of than one I have probably already heard. And there are 1000s of composers out there, so looking at people pretty much randomly has been as good as anything to me. I think that's less narrow and so more stimulating in a way. You look at things from everywhere and across the full range of styles.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Ingenue said:


> Using an internet list, I might try someone, think 'yuk', & turn it off after 30 seconds.


Patience is definitely a key. Generally if I'm searching on google for popular music, I look to see who likes albums I like and what else they like. I'd slog through a list of more than a thousand things to find some good stuff even if some of it is crap. Finding good stuff is hard work. With classical music though, as I said, I tend to take more of a random approach and listen to as many composers as possible.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

TC sometimes reminds me of Groundhog Day,we go round and round dealing with the same subjects and this is one of the most boring.
It all depends on the stage of life you've reached and the stage of your music "quest" that you have reached.
If,as DavidA has mentioned he has 1,000 recordings and in my case I have about 7,000, and not much longer to be around,one's attitude to experimentation is different from a beginner, I know that I've got music that I haven't yet listened to by composers that I think I do like.
When you begin you come across everything and most of it you've never heard and you hear it whether you wish to or not.
But I cannot accept that there should be a cold blooded scheme to subject yourself to every type of music under the sun,you will hear a lot of it and it will call you or not as the case may be,
In my own case it just happened as I stumbled along ,various people gave me the benefit of their advice and gave me records,took me to concerts and so on.
I found in the end that the only music I could not accept was the pots and pans thrown around in the kitchen type of music, but then some folk don't like Mozart or Verdi ???
By the way I certainly did not consider Rachmaninoff or Debussy to be modern,but then Rachmannoff didn't die until five years after I was born so there you are.
I thought modern meant Birtwhistle and his ilk,there's that word again Ahammel .
Collecting records is not cheap unless you pinch everything off the internet I suppose but it is meant to be a pleasure.
People should not end up covered in angst because they cannot appreciate x or y ,take it easy and ignore the fanatics wherever they may appear.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Why yeh forums do tend to cover the same subjects, mainly across the recommend me some modern music, or I hate modern music threads. People seem fascinated by modern music even if they say they don't like it.

Still, it's probably more interesting than list your favourite composers/works.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

There's no _should _when you get to a certain age, but surely a love of music would compel us to search out this new fangled stuff and give it a twirl, even once..?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Kieran said:


> There's no _should _when you get to a certain age, but surely a love of music would compel us to search out this new fangled stuff and give it a twirl, even once..?


Is this aimed in my direction.if so you will see that I said that one hears it on the way.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

moody said:


> Is this aimed in my direction.if so you will see that I said that one hears it on the way.


Not at all, it was aimed at the OP which asks why we _should _listen to new music...


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2013)

Sid James said:


> But what I think is the topic of this thread is asking if there needs to be a compulsion, requirement or feeling by any classical listener that he or she should listen to modern/contemporary music. I think its about that, not about what is or isn't music.


The thread is 'about' the OP - as you correctly say, about the idea of compulsion or expectation to listen to _any _particular kind of music. But it is also 'about' the threads of the conversation that are woven into members' exchanges. There was a thread being woven in from page one about stepping from saying "I don't listen to x because I don't like it" to ""I don't listen to x because it's unpleasant/bad/not music" - see posts by aleazk, ahammel, weston, bigshot, crudblud and hello.

Small point really.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

moody said:


> People should not end up covered in angst because they cannot appreciate x or y ,take it easy and ignore the fanatics wherever they may appear.


That will probably be the best sentence I read all day.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2013)

It is difficult to address the question of the OP because the context that the OP presents to get to the question is entirely false.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> I know that members such as myself, Harpsichord Concerto, and a number of others get labeled as "Conservatives" or "Wigs"...


No, not really. (Yes, I'm aware of the "dinosaur" thread.)



StlukesguildOhio said:


> in spite of the fact that we actually have and enjoy a rather sizable collection of music from the 20th and 21st centuries...


The things I've seen listed as belonging to this "sizable" collection are actually from a quite small subcategory--it is the subcategory that gets the most press, the most attention in the popular media (popular in this context being things like the BBC Music Magazine and Gramophone), the subcategory, consequently, that most people already know about, even if they don't "follow" contemporary music, the subcategory, what's more, which is presented to us by people who themselves do not "follow" contemporary music.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> quite likely a great deal larger than many self-proclaimed "Modernists/Progressives."


One, quite likely not. 
Two, who are these self-proclaimed modernists/progressives? I have seen very little proclaiming of these categories by anyone other than the self-proclaimed (!) conservatives.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> we have any number of Modernists/Progressives who have a self-proclaimed aversion to the Classical era, or the Baroque, or the Renaissance, or certain major composers.


Well, I suppose that "one" or "two" do qualify as "any number," but I think the import of this is to suggest that there are lots and lots of "Modernists/Progressives" (as proclaimed here by someone other than the members of that group) who have proclaimed aversion to earlier eras. And that is absurd.

So out of this contextual soup of absurdity and falseness, we are supposed to respond intelligently and insightfully to the question posed? Whew. Good luck with that one.

But wait, there's more!! Two more questions, which finesse the ur-question in the direction of more absurdity and more falseness.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> So why should the hypothetical individual who cannot stand Modern/Contemporary music be taken to task for his or her taste? Why should the hypothetical individual who has an aversion to Modern/Contemporary Music continue to put forth the effort?


Incroyable.

"The deck is stacked. Wanna play cards, sucker?"

No.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The BBC did three programs on modern music called 'The Sound and the Fury'. One thing that amazed me was how composers like Copeland were persecuted and even put off composing by the bullying tactics of certain of the avant-garde I sat out the programs but they reinforced me in my dislike of what Moody calls 'pots and pans thrown around the kitchen' I can certainly take some modern music and enjoy it. But I'm afraid certain types just seem to me to be an unholy racket I cannot cope with. That might be my failing but there it is. Music to me is to be enjoyed not to be endured.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Music to me is to be enjoyed not to be endured.


A perfectly legitimate position. However, on a more general point, there is something to be said for exploration, which puts one in the position of finding ways to deal with the unfamiliar. This ought to include consideration of the possibility that the artist is less interested in appealing to standard aesthetic considerations (in this case, 'enjoyment') and is more interested in what they have to 'say', having chosen a non-standard way to express it.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> My question is *Why should a listener put forth the repeated effort in attempting to appreciate a body of music he or she doesn't like?* Some listeners don't like Bluegrass (I personally love it). Some don't like Rock music. I can't abide Hip-Hop and most Pop Music of the last couple of decades. I suspect that there is no one here who does not have a body or genre of music they can't stand. So why should the hypothetical individual who cannot stand Modern/Contemporary music be taken to task for his or her taste? Why should the hypothetical individual who has an aversion to Modern/Contemporary Music continue to put forth the effort?


I think it is in the individual's own interest to make _some_ effort. I speak from personal experience here. I grew up with Beethoven and Brahms; in my early teens I thought Liszt and Rachmaninov to be very seriously avant garde. Initially I couldn't make head or tail of it and just listened from one little passage that I enjoyed to another ten minutes further into the work. And then eventually acquired a taste for it. I have largely outgrown Liszt but still like Rachmaninov.

In the same way I acquired a taste for ever more outlandish stuff. In my mid-teens, my teenage rebellion basically consisted of listening to music all my peers found outrageous: Stravinsky, Bartok, Shostakovich etc. 

It is true though that for some genres, composers and pieces, no matter how much I tried, I simply could not work up any enthusiasm. Even after numerous times of listening to, for example, Messiaen's "Quartet for the end of time," I still cannot for the life of me find anything in there that does anything for me (I can only imagine what the prisoners of war in the camp where the work was first performed must have thought!). I cannot stand the sight or sound of opera, and once again not for lack of trying to acquire a taste (one is after all a philistine until such time as one can quote from Wagner and Verdi in the shower. 

Anyway, the point being that it is (in my ever so humble opinion) perfectly okay to dislike certain pieces or types of music, but such dislike should preferably be based on a reasonable amount of experience rather than ignorance. And I should add that my not liking Wagner's music does not in the least diminish my respect for it. If you dismiss music before giving it a reasonable try, you may well be robbing yourself of much musical pleasure.

A year or two ago they played some or other orchestral piece by Schoenberg on TV. Now, I never really enjoyed his school of music. But then found to my own immense surprise that I became fascinated with the piece.

It was actually funny: Barenboim was conducting, and it one point had to frantically wave his hands towards the audience when some bloke thought the piece had ended and started clapping, setting off a wave of incipient applause. Luckily maestro Barenboim got the whole thing under control even as he was still conducting the orchestra.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> That [viz. "Xenakis is BAD music"] fits in to the same category as "Xenakis is not music," that is to say it's an opinion stated as if it was objective fact, so of course I would confront the person who said it.


I, for one, am so heartily sick of quibbles over the opinion/fact distinction that I would be perfectly willing to mentally append the missing "in my opinion" clause and move on.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

ahammel said:


> I, for one, am so heartily sick of quibbles over the opinion/fact distinction that I would be perfectly willing to mentally append the missing "in my opinion" clause and move on.


And that's fine, but to me it is important because that omission reveals a great deal about the attitude of the person who makes the comment.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Crudblud said:


> And that's fine, but to me it is important because that omission reveals a great deal about the attitude of the person who makes the comment.


Your sentiment may be the main reason for the acronym IMO not being obsolete. Personally, it is assumed in all unsupported statements, on all boards and in 'real life'.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Your sentiment may be the main reason for the acronym IMO not being obsolete. Personally, it is assumed in all unsupported statements, on all boards and in 'real life'.


And supported opinions don't require that acronym at all.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> And that's fine, but to me it is important because that omission reveals a great deal about the attitude of the person who makes the comment.


I think it strange, on a discussion board, to be more concerned with the attitude than with the comment itself. IMO of course!


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2013)

Life is short, why not enjoy it? Why work to embrace music of apparently dubious merit when there's plenty of good music in many genres to explore and enjoy? 

This is not to say that we should close our ears to music we don't think we'll like. Variety is the spice of life and trying something different from time to time can be quite enjoyable. But it seems silly to work to appreciate something just for the sake of conforming to others' expectations. 

If the music is good, you will probably stumble into it sooner or later and find yourself enjoying it. 

But if by chance you go to your grave never realizing that you would have liked, for example, Stravinsky's Petrushka if you had only listened to it, well... who cares? You probably missed out on many millions of pleasurable experiences in your short life.

(Oops - I put this post first on another thread by mistake - apologies for the double post.)


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

KenOC said:


> I think it strange, on a discussion board, to be more concerned with the attitude than with the comment itself. IMO of course!


If we were having structured _for and against_ debates in which we were split in to teams and assigned very specific views (likely not our own*), then I would agree, but here on TC we we argue from our own personal perspectives, and so the attitude of the poster is inseparable from the posts they make. I am of course speaking purely in terms of "serious discussion."

*I think this is a good idea, and we could all learn something from doing it. Of course, it would be very difficult to organise on a forum.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

its nice to know what is new.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

arpeggio- As far as modernists disliking pre-20th century music, I am getting tired of stating that the vast majority modernists still enjoy and appreciate traditional music. There was one person here who had a problem with some Mozart.

I've been here long enough to have sat through several rounds of threads dismissing Mozart as "lightweight"... but that was not the main thrust of my argument. I was suggesting that all of us have our biases... the composers, genre, musical periods, etc... that we dislike... or simply find uninteresting. Even within this group made up of self-proclaimed classical music lovers there are those who are less than fond of opera, lieder, Renaissance madrigals, Byzantine chant, etc... Is this any different from those who are not overly fond of Modern/Contemporary music?

Yet anti-modernists keep accusing us of hating baroque, classical or romantic music. This is not true. The musical tastes of the vast majority of modernists is very diverse.

I really haven't seen a lot of this... and even if it were true it really don't see it as being an issue at all. I was an active member at another musical site for a while where a good number of members were Early Music aficionados. Not only did they have no use for Stravinsky or Xenakis, but they almost never listened to Beethoven, Brahms, of Mahler. I suspect the animosity between "pro-Modernists" and "anti-Modernists" is a two-way street. Take for example this post:

StlukesguildOhio (quote)-_in spite of the fact that we actually have and enjoy a rather sizable collection of music from the 20th and 21st centuries..._

someguy- The things I've seen listed as belonging to this "sizable" collection are actually from a quite small subcategory--it is the subcategory that gets the most press, the most attention in the popular media (popular in this context being things like the BBC Music Magazine and Gramophone), the subcategory, consequently, that most people already know about, even if they don't "follow" contemporary music, the subcategory, what's more, which is presented to us by people who themselves do not "follow" contemporary music.

Now I doubt that I am the only one who reads a great degree of self-superiority and arrogance in such a response: "Yoo listen to Modern and Contemporary music. Haw! You don't even know what "Contemporary Music" is. You just listen to the schlock marketed by the mass media... unlike me."

I can't help thinking of the kid in high-school he believed he could impress everyone by bragging about how he never listened to any of the popular crap played on the radio, but only obscure punk bands whose recordings could only be gotten in bootleg format imported from overseas.

My point here is that such obnoxious, self-superiority is a great part of what turns many off from wanting to even explore Modern/Contemporary music. Forums such as TC continually get "newbies" who find themselves enthralled with Eine Kleine Nachtmusic, The Four Seasons, Bolero, the 1812 Overture, and the Moonlight Sonata. How many would wish to delve deeper if we all jumped on such individuals and proclaimed, "Bolero!? The Four Seasons!? the 1812 Overture!? You call that "classical music!?" You don't even know what "classical music" is?"

Sometime back I began a thread on Modern/Contemporary/and living Composers in which members offered up examples of newer works of music which they particularly admired, and offered some thoughts as to what they liked about such music:

http://www.talkclassical.com/11807-exploring-modern-contemporary-music.html

A good number of members added to this thread... except for one one individual... some guy one might have thought would have seen such a thread as an ideal venue for offering up some links to music he admired. But I guess its far easier to simply show up dismissing everyone else and proclaiming one's own superior grasp of new music, than it is to actually contribute something of value.

I have been involved in the debate concerning the pros and cons of modernistic music for many years in life and in many forums on the Internet. There are other forums were the animus against modernistic music is much greater than it is at TALK CLASSICAL (TC).

I highly doubt that. I have seen some knock-down drag out attacks on the whole of 20th century music on sites over the years.

It appears to me that the reason that modernists are overly sensitive is because it appears that many anti-modernists want to suppress modernistic music. I have seen posts like the following in other forums and sometimes here.

No... I suspect it has more to do with a certain attitude of arrogance among certain supporters of "Modernism".

One: Classical music is dying and the reason is because of Schoenberg and his 12-tone music. If we can drive modernistic music out of the classical genre we will save it. I have actually seen some posts here where people were claiming that they were on a mission to save classical music by purging music from the repertoire that they disapproved of.

Of course such an attitude is naive. The whole debate of Post-Romanticism vs Serialism is a non-issue. I do think, however, that there are valid issues or questions to be raised concerning the viability and likely survival of music without taking into consideration the wants/needs of the audience. I understand the Romantic idea that the artist must not pander to the audience... but can any art form continue to survive without an audience?

Two: I recall one individual in another forum complaining that his local symphony orchestra performed a piece of Schoenberg at one of their concerts. I tried to locate it but I could not. I think the program was the Schoenberg Violin Concerto and Beethoven's Sixth. He had season tickets and he was mad that he had to sit through the Schoenberg in order to hear the Beethoven. As a result he did not renew his season tickets for the next season.

And I empathize. I might personally like such leaps in style... but I question the idea of using Beethoven or Mozart to sell Schoenberg ("A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down...?"). Schoenberg should stand or fall on his own.

Third: I recall reading an exchange in another forum where a person got mad when he heard the local classical music radio station played a modernistic work. He claimed he called the station and told them they should never broadcast this type of music.

And should we deny him the right to voice his opinion? YOu and I have just as much right to call the station and tell them we'd like to hear more Modern works.

Fourth: In another forum I actually read that one individual felt he had a duty to attack modernistic music whenever he could. There were many people that were discovering classical music and he had an obligation to save them from the evils of modernism.

And again, would you deny him the right to voice his opinion? Honestly, I suspect such debates drawn a certain audience of individuals who just look on... who just might find themselves interested in exploring this music that is the center of such controversy.

We have no problem with people who dislike modernistic music. What upsets us is when the animus against modernistic music borders on censorship.

The problem is in confusing censorship with lack of financial support. As a painter, I have the freedom to paint whatever and however I wish... but if the audience isn't interested and fails to support me financially, that is not censorship... that is the free market system. Honestly, I'd like to see more support for newer music... beyond the realm of the mass-media supported pop music... but I think this will be best achieved through education... through introducing others to music you love... and not through debate and personal insult.


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

bigshot said:


> I can put a sign on a cow that says "dog", but it don't make it a Schnauzer!


False analogy.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Because, even for the 'conservative' listener, so much of it is just damned downright _pleasant_...

Alfredo Casella ~ _Partita per pianoforte e piccolo_





Stravinsky ~ _Concerto in Eb, Dumbarton Oaks_





John Adams ~ _Simple Tones in Common Time_





...or both downright pleasant and _fun_
Joseph Fennimore ~ _Concerto Piccolo_ for Piano and Chamber Orchestra 





Bernd Alois Zimmermann ~ _Un petit Rien_





...and hauntingly beautiful and nicely 'disturbing'
Irving Fine ~ _Notturno for Strings and Harp_









Luciano Berio ~ _Concertino_





...or all of that while sounding deceptively simple'
David Lang ~ _Wed_





and....


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> arpeggio- As far as modernists disliking pre-20th century music, I am getting tired of stating that the vast majority modernists still enjoy and appreciate traditional music. There was one person here who had a problem with some Mozart.
> 
> I've been here long enough to have sat through several rounds of threads dismissing Mozart as "lightweight"... but that was not the main thrust of my argument. I was suggesting that all of us have our biases... the composers, genre, musical periods, etc... that we dislike... or simply find uninteresting.


etc etc etc.

I can agree that we might all have our biases.

But a number of posters engaged with the general principle (emboldened in the OP) behind the title of the thread, and their contribution seems to have been ignored...

ahammel
aleazk
Mahlerian
Weston
bigshot
mmsbls
crudblud
macleod
sid james
david a
arpeggio
science
starry
nereffid
kieran

The general point agreed is that there are no 'shoulds', no compulsion, though some extolled the virtues of being a little adventurous. One or two pointed out that perhaps the basic premise of the question is flawed.

But there, you have your answer. And no personal insult.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*OP is flawed.*

Of course the vast majority of us think the OP was "flawed".

I am not the brightest bulb here. If I was and I tried to address every issue raised in the OP my response would have been 100 pages long, it would probably instigate a real brouhaha and get me banned for life.

It would take me hours to react to the critique of 'StlukesguildOhio". There were a few low blows in it. Like I have over fifty years experience performing in student, amateur and some professional groups, but I do not know what I am talking about. Life is too short.

I have received a lot of positive feedback to my post and that is enough for me. It is not worth getting upset over the negative ones.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

brianvds said:


> (one is after all a philistine until such time as one can quote from Wagner and Verdi in the shower.


Look forward to the day I can do that; but - duh - did anyone write down what Wagner & Verdi said in the shower? 

PS Sorry - but after ploughing through several learned and/or argumentative posts, I thought I'd bring it down to my level. I shall keep trying to educate myself but have a sinking feeling that some part of a person's musical taste (eg a liking for patterned tunes in my case) is set in childhood & that one is predestined not to like music that strays too far from it.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Ingenue said:


> Look forward to the day I can do that; but - duh - did anyone write down what Wagner & Verdi said in the shower?
> 
> PS Sorry - but after ploughing through several learned and/or argumentative posts, I thought I'd bring it down to my level. I shall keep trying to educate myself but have a sinking feeling that some part of a person's musical taste (eg a liking for patterned tunes in my case) is set in childhood & that one is predestined not to like music that strays too far from it.


Your just silly, everyone knows Liszt was the shower man.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Your just silly, everyone knows Liszt was the shower man.


Psst - Eddie - apostrophe!


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Ingenue said:


> Look forward to the day I can do that; but - duh - did anyone write down what Wagner & Verdi said in the shower?


Wagner: Ach nein! the jews stole all the hot water.

(oh dear. I know I shouldn't have)


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Ingenue said:


> Look forward to the day I can do that; but - duh - did anyone write down what Wagner & Verdi said in the shower?


Verdi is believed to have used Lady Macbeth's Speech:

Arabia intera
Rimondar sì piccol mano
Co' suoi balsami non può.
Oimè!...


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

You should listen or should *have* listened to modern music because you cannot then be accused of being prejudiced when you harp on yet again about the glories of Bach.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Ingenue said:


> Psst - Eddie - apostrophe!


like this








Didn't know Zappa had anything to do with Wagner and Verdi but i guess it is modern music!


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> like this
> View attachment 17176
> 
> 
> Didn't know Zappa had anything to do with Wagner and Verdi but i guess it is modern music!


He said in an interview (with Pierre Boulez, promoting their collaboration) that he liked _Lohengrin_, and I have heard his arrangement of an excerpt from the Vorspiel which can be heard on some Mothers concerts ('68 & '69 iirc). As for Verdi, the Victory March from _Aïda_ makes appearances in some concerts as well, woven in to original music, though I think this was around the late '70s/early '80s.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Was browsing on YouTube, came upon the following comment while looking at this interview with Boulez.

"Pierre Boulez is unquestionably a brilliant musician but he is an awful composer. There is no such thing as atonal music. Music has to have a tonal context, otherwise its just an intellectual exercise without meaning. J S Bach could compose﻿ extremely complex music without it having to devolve into formal structures and systems! Horrible, ugly music that appeals only to people who have been corrupted by pseudo-intellectual music critics and deranged pseudo-composers."

To me this is a comically myopic and insulting conception of music that borders on satire, but I am well aware that there are people who do believe it (or something approximating it) and I'm curious to see the reactions of my fellows here on TC.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> To me this is a comically myopic and insulting conception of music that borders on satire, but I am well aware that there are people who do believe it (or something approximating it) and I'm curious to see the reactions of my fellows here on TC.


That's what you get for reading YouTube comments.

I'm always rather amused at being told I don't really enjoy serialism, it's just that I've been hypnotized by academic musicians.

Even better is: "you don't really like serialism and I can prove it. With _SCIENCE!!_"


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

ahammel said:


> That's what you get for reading YouTube comments.
> 
> I'm always rather amused at being told I don't really enjoy serialism, it's just that I've been hypnotized by academic musicians.
> 
> Even better is: "you don't really like serialism and I can prove it. With _SCIENCE!!_"


Ah yes, here's one I saved from a while back:

"atonal music should not be played, listened to, or composed. Why do I say that? It's been scientifically proven to be destructive to living organisms. Also, atonal music all sounds the same. When you pile on dissonance without any resolution, it makes the expression and texture of music uniformly ugly and basically all the same, just like when pop music restricts music to I, IV and V chords, it makes the music bland and banal and﻿ basically all the same."


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> Ah yes, here's one I saved from a while back:
> 
> "atonal music should not be played, listened to, or composed. Why do I say that? It's been scientifically proven to be destructive to living organisms. Also, atonal music all sounds the same. When you pile on dissonance without any resolution, it makes the expression and texture of music uniformly ugly and basically all the same, just like when pop music restricts music to I, IV and V chords, it makes the music bland and banal and﻿ basically all the same."


Inside every dinosaur there's a fascist.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> It's been scientifically proven to be destructive to living organisms.


:lol:

Forget the autoclave, next time I need something sterilized I'll just play some Webern at it!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

ahammel said:


> That's what you get for reading YouTube comments.
> 
> I'm always rather amused at being told I don't really enjoy serialism, it's just that I've been hypnotized by academic musicians.
> 
> Even better is: "you don't really like serialism and I can prove it. With _SCIENCE!!_"


Hear hear hear hear hear hear hear

but then I'm a serialist at heart..........


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Crudblud said:


> Was browsing on YouTube, came upon the following comment while looking at this interview with Boulez.
> 
> "Pierre Boulez is unquestionably a brilliant musician but he is an awful composer. There is no such thing as atonal music. Music has to have a tonal context, otherwise its just an intellectual exercise without meaning. J S Bach could compose﻿ extremely complex music without it having to devolve into formal structures and systems! Horrible, ugly music that appeals only to people who have been corrupted by pseudo-intellectual music critics and deranged pseudo-composers."
> 
> To me this is a comically myopic and insulting conception of music that borders on satire, but I am well aware that there are people who do believe it (or something approximating it) and I'm curious to see the reactions of my fellows here on TC.


Your are correct, as you always are where Zappa is concerned. Many of his concert recording include classical performances. My favourite would be from one of the YCDTOSAM recordings (forgot which one), from the late 60's where underwood is playing a Mozart piece on stage and the rest of the band are performing some sort of weird ballet! including duck and other animal noises.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Hear hear hear hear hear hear hear
> 
> but then I'm a serialist at heart..........


Then you must mean "hear hera haer hare hrea hrae ehar ehra eahr earh erha erah aher ahre aehr aerh arhe areh rhea rhae reha reah rahe raeh"


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

ahammel said:


> Then you must mean "hear hera haer hare hrea hrae ehar ehra eahr earh erha erah aher ahre aehr aerh arhe areh rhea rhae reha reah rahe raeh"


Very true but I'm just a simple serialist.... my programming/ math is limited :guitar:


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> Was browsing on YouTube, came upon the following comment while looking at this interview with Boulez.
> 
> "Pierre Boulez is unquestionably a brilliant musician but he is an awful composer. There is no such thing as atonal music. Music has to have a tonal context, otherwise its just an intellectual exercise without meaning. J S Bach could compose extremely complex music without it having to devolve into formal structures and systems! Horrible, ugly music that appeals only to people who have been corrupted by pseudo-intellectual music critics and deranged pseudo-composers."
> 
> To me this is a comically myopic and insulting conception of music that borders on satire, but I am well aware that there are people who do believe it (or something approximating it) and I'm curious to see the reactions of my fellows here on TC.


It's also terribly amusing given that a Bach fugue is extremely systematic and formally controlled, and much atonal music is freely composed without recourse to 12-tone or any other overriding method. Critics near-universally reviled what they considered "ultra-modern" music like Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Copland, Krenek, Hindemith, and others, and it was composers who took up the new styles.



Crudblud said:


> Also, atonal music all sounds the same. When you pile on dissonance without any resolution, it makes the expression and texture of music uniformly ugly and basically all the same, just like when pop music restricts music to I, IV and V chords, it makes the music bland and banal and﻿ basically all the same.


Hooray for eloquence!

Anyway, it is impossible to "pile on dissonance without resolution" continually (using a 20th century conception of dissonance/consonance). One would quickly reach a saturation point where one can go no further, like a 12-note chord (cue Lulu death scream). After that something has to be resolved or deferred. Otherwise the piece has to end.


----------



## schuberkovich (Apr 7, 2013)

I see that some people enjoy it but 2nd viennese school rarely does it for me.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

> Originally Posted by *Crudblud*
> Also, atonal music all sounds the same. When you pile on dissonance without any resolution, it makes the expression and texture of music uniformly ugly and basically all the same, just like when pop music restricts music to I, IV and V chords, it makes the music bland and banal and﻿ basically all the same.





Mahlerian said:


> Anyway, it is impossible to "pile on dissonance without resolution" continually (using a 20th century conception of dissonance/consonance). One would quickly reach a saturation point where one can go no further, like a 12-note chord (cue Lulu death scream). After that something has to be resolved or deferred. Otherwise the piece has to end.


Ives used "ugly" dissonance for its own sake, for the sensual effect more than any theoretical reason. He was not structural in his use of it; resolution was not an issue to him. In this sense, Ives was using dissonance for dissonance's sake. He liked it as an aesthetic matter, for its sheer "ugliness." Isn't that a beautiful idea?

But be aware, 12-tone composers: there is a statistical accumulation of notes which can create a "blandness" or sameness because of simple additive redundancy. "Less is more:"

p=perfect fifth (or fourth) 
m=major third (minor sixth)
n=minor third (major sixth)
s=major second (minor seventh)
d=minor second (major seventh)
t=augmented fourth, diminished fifth

Note the overall progression created by "stacking fifths:"
doad: p (two notes=one fifth by itself)
triad: p2 s (three notes give us: two fifths and one major second, etc.)
tetrad: p3 n s2
pentad: p4 m n2 s3
hexad: p5 m2 n3 s4 d
heptad: p6 m3 n4 s5 d2 t 
octad: p7 m4 n5 s6 d4 t2
nonad: p*8* m*6* n*6* s*7 *d6 t3
decad: p*9* m*8* n*8* s*8* d8 t4
undecad: p*10* m*10* n*10* s*10* d*10* t5
duodecad: p*12* m*12* n*12* s*12* d*12* t*6 *(12 notes gives us 12 fifths, 12 major thirds, etc*.)*

Notice these statistical trends: 
•The projection of one fifth upon another always produces a major second; 
•The relatively greater importance of the minor third over the major third; 
•The late arrival of the minor second, and lastly, the tritone.

Each new added note adds one new interval, _plus_ adding one more to those already present; _but beyond seven tones, no new intervals can be added. 
_
In addition to this loss of new material, there is also a gradual decrease in the_ difference_ of the overall group of notes:
•In the octad, the same number of major thirds & minor seconds
•In the nonad, same number of maj thirds, min thirds, and min seconds 
•In the decad, an equal number of maj/min thirds and seconds.
•When 11 and 12 are reached, the only difference is the number of tritones.

So the sound of a sonority, whether it be harmony or melody, depends on what is present, but also on what is not present.

The pentatonic scale (pentad, above) sounds as it does because it contains mainly perfect fifths, and also maj seconds, minor thirds, and one major third, but also because _it does not contain _the minor second or tritone.

*As sonorities get projected beyond the six-range, they tend to lose their individuality. *

:devil: Devil's advocate says: T_his is probably the greatest argument against the rigorous use of atonal theory in which all 12 notes are used in a single melodic or harmonic pattern. These constructs begin to lose contrast, and a monochromatic effect emerges.
_
Statistically, Satan is right. :lol:


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Basically, my belief is that after enough beration, atonality and the people who "enjoy" it will just give up and cease to exist.

After this, Wagnerians can reclaim their rightful position as the snobbiest of Classical aficionados. 

Right?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Couchie, come to my classical avant-garde Jukebox gymnasium (in the do you lift thread) and find out!!

I have a special booth for Wagnerians.....................


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Ives used "ugly" dissonance for its own sake, for the sensual effect more than any theoretical reason. He was not structural in his use of it; resolution was not an issue to him. In this sense, Ives was using dissonance for dissonance's sake. He liked it as an aesthetic matter, for its sheer "ugliness." Isn't that a beautiful idea?


That's why I specified a 20th century view of dissonance, where tertian (or sometimes non-tertian) sonorities with extra non-functional notes can be perceived as points of rest without need of resolution.



millionrainbows said:


> :devil: Devil's advocate says: T_his is probably the greatest argument against the rigorous use of atonal theory in which all 12 notes are used in a single melodic or harmonic pattern. These constructs begin to lose contrast, and a monochromatic effect emerges.
> _
> Statistically, Satan is right. :lol:


True in as far as projection of a single interval can only accomplish a single "affekt". That's why the whole tone scale has such limited use. It only gives us augmented chords.

But tone rows generally include a variety of interval types which can be recombined in all kinds of harmonies: tertian, quartal, quintal, whole tone, or whatever you wish. A skillfully written piece will change its focus at various times just as a tonal piece would in modulation.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Couchie said:


> Basically, my belief is that after enough beration, atonality and the people who "enjoy" it will just give up and cease to exist.
> 
> After this, Wagnerians can reclaim their rightful position as the snobbiest of Classical aficionados.
> 
> Right?


Wagner has withstood a longer and constant spate of beration, and that didn't work.
Time for your plan 'B.'


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Ives used "ugly" dissonance for its own sake, for the sensual effect more than any theoretical reason. He was not structural in his use of it; resolution was not an issue to him. In this sense, Ives was using dissonance for dissonance's sake. He liked it as an aesthetic matter, for its sheer "ugliness." Isn't that a beautiful idea?
> 
> But be aware, 12-tone composers: there is a statistical accumulation of notes which can create a "blandness" or sameness because of simple additive redundancy. "Less is more:"


..........


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Ives used "ugly" dissonance for its own sake, for the sensual effect more than any theoretical reason. He was not structural in his use of it; resolution was not an issue to him. In this sense, Ives was using dissonance for dissonance's sake. He liked it as an aesthetic matter, for its sheer "ugliness." Isn't that a beautiful idea?
> 
> But be aware, 12-tone composers: there is a statistical accumulation of notes which can create a "blandness" or sameness because of simple additive redundancy. "Less is more:"
> 
> ...


Ives' dissonance is not ugly o3o


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> Ives' dissonance is not ugly o3o


No, but it could be construed as "ugly."


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> No, but it could be construed as "ugly."


And Mozart's use of trills could be construed as "idiotic" :3


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> True in as far as projection of a single interval can only accomplish a single "affekt". That's why the whole tone scale has such limited use. It only gives us augmented chords.
> 
> But tone rows generally include a variety of interval types which can be recombined in all kinds of harmonies: tertian, quartal, quintal, whole tone, or whatever you wish. A skillfully written piece will change its focus at various times just as a tonal piece would in modulation.


But refer to the chart: the greatest variety of intervals will be found in 6-note scales, before redundancy sets in and at the point of greatest variety. That's one reason Schoenberg used hexads.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Explanation: "Ugly" in a manner of speaking. Compare it to Mozart, and...well,it does sort of break down, doesn't it? What I mean is...look at Picasso's _Les Demoiselles d' avignon..._uhh...

THIS TREE IS UGLY & IT WANTS TO DIE
KILL UGLY RADIO

pronounced *OO-juh-lay*


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Explanation: "Ugly" in a manner of speaking. Compare it to Mozart, and...well,it does sort of break down, doesn't it? What I mean is...look at Picasso's _Les Demoiselles d' avignon..._uhh...
> 
> THIS TREE IS UGLY & IT WANTS TO DIE
> KILL UGLY RADIO
> ...


I think Ives is more beautiful than Mozart o3o I personally find alot of the classical period to be ugly in a manner of speaking. Its like listening to people who are so afraid of their bodies and their emotions that they just cover themselves up in powder and fake hair and all manner of artifice, this sound of fake people living fake lives. I find that kind of ugly alot of the time. It was like a slump period of western classical music, that Haydn and Mozart helped bring us out of, by teaching and inspiring composers like Beethoven, Schubert and Chopin.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> I think Ives is more beautiful than Mozart o3o I personally find alot of the classical period to be ugly in a manner of speaking. Its like listening to people who are so afraid of their bodies and their emotions that they just cover themselves up in powder and fake hair and all manner of artifice, this sound of fake people living fake lives. I find that kind of ugly alot of the time. It was like a slump period of western classical music, that Haydn and Mozart helped bring us out of, by teaching and inspiring composers like Beethoven, Schubert and Chopin.


Okay, whatever. I think that music back then was based on the principle of consonance/dissonance and its ebb & flow. Got me? It probably still is, in many of today's listeners.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> But refer to the chart: the greatest variety of intervals will be found in 6-note scales, before redundancy sets in and at the point of greatest variety. That's one reason Schoenberg used hexads.


... and, Genius that he was, likely did not need even a half-page of mathematical twiddiling to arrive at that conclusion: used his ears


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

PetrB said:


> ... and, Genius that he was, likely did not need even a half-page of mathematical twiddiling to arrive at that conclusion: used his ears


Probably true after he assimilated and memorized the row, but as the Schoenberg museum shows, he used all sorts of charts, wheels, and graphic aids. He _was_ a graphic artist, remember.

Anyway, I'm glad that you appreciate the effort it took me to write and generate that "half-page of mathematical twiddiling" as you call it.  Have a nice day. ,:-(


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

BurningDesire said:


> I think Ives is more beautiful than Mozart o3o I personally find alot of the classical period to be ugly in a manner of speaking. Its like listening to people who are so afraid of their bodies and their emotions that they just cover themselves up in powder and fake hair and all manner of artifice, this sound of fake people living fake lives. I find that kind of ugly alot of the time. It was like a slump period of western classical music, that Haydn and Mozart helped bring us out of, by teaching and inspiring composers like Beethoven, Schubert and Chopin.


Maybe there are different kinds of beauty though. And all music is in a sense an artifice, a style used to cloak thoughts and emotions.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> I think Ives is more beautiful than Mozart


Well, it's your taste!


----------



## Guest (May 5, 2013)

BurningDesire said:


> I personally find alot of the classical period to be ugly in a manner of speaking. Its like listening to people who are so afraid of their bodies and their emotions that they just cover themselves up in powder and fake hair and all manner of artifice, this sound of fake people living fake lives. I find that kind of ugly alot of the time. It was like a slump period of western classical music, that Haydn and Mozart helped bring us out of, by teaching and inspiring composers like Beethoven, Schubert and Chopin.


I find that interesting - that you invest the music with the images you have of the period. I must say I'm not surprised, since over time we accumulate such associations whether we like it or not (unless we avoid popular culture and its stereotypical representations). But it's precisely the artifice and formality that I hear and enjoy in Haydn.

However, don't be fooled by the casting off of wigs in the 19th C. Delve a little deeper under the Romantic surface, and you'll find as much hypocrisy and fakery there too.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> ...I personally find alot of the classical period to be ugly in a manner of speaking. Its like listening to people who are so afraid of their bodies and their emotions that they just cover themselves up in powder and fake hair and all manner of artifice, this sound of fake people living fake lives. I find that kind of ugly alot of the time.


EEwww, yeah, kinda like old people.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

I don't always know what benefits accrue to the intended recipients of charities I give to, but with Birtwistle I'm always assured the benefit of the dirt.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> I don't always know what benefits accrue to the intended recipients of charities I give to, but with Birtwistle I'm always assured the benefit of the dirt.


I seriously dirt that!


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

aleazk said:


> Yes, so what?. It may be subjective, but there it is: you feel something unpleasant or you don't. If you feel something as unpleasant, I can try to make an objective hypothesis about why is that. If I burn your hand, you will feel that as unpleasant, and the objective fact is that you have nerves in your hand which detect the heat, etc.
> So, "unpleasant" may have subjective components, but that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
> In this forum and other media, most of the critiques towards this kind of music rely on the artifice of trying to show that there's something "inherent" in the music that makes it "incompatible" with the human "emotions" or whatever. Most of them are simply fallacious, misinformed, pretentious or even dishonest.
> So, if people don't like it: ok, you don't have to like everything. But, please, keep your pseudo-philosophy of music away from this.
> ...


Jeez! I can't believe my english was that clumsy!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> Originally Posted by Marschallin Blair View Post
> 
> I don't always know what benefits accrue to the intended recipients of charities I give to, but with Birtwistle I'm always assured the benefit of the dirt.





PetrB said:


> I seriously dirt that!


How dirt you! _;P_


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Jeez! I can't believe my english was that clumsy!


Hom, cut yourself a bit of slack. Many of my postings have been far clunkier, awkward, etc. and English is (they tell me) my native tongue!


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> member Science began an intriguing thread asking for suggestions of Modern and Contemporary classical music for the hypothetical listener who thinks he or she doesn't like Modern/Contemporary music. I know that members such as myself, Harpsichord Concerto, and a number of others get labeled as "Conservatives" or "Wigs"... in spite of the fact that we actually have and enjoy a rather sizable collection of music from the 20th and 21st centuries... quite likely a great deal larger than many self-proclaimed "Modernists/Progressives." On the other hand... we have any number of Modernists/Progressives who have a self-proclaimed aversion to the Classical era, or the Baroque, or the Renaissance, or certain major composers.
> 
> My question is *Why should a listener put forth the repeated effort in attempting to appreciate a body of music he or she doesn't like?* Some listeners don't like Bluegrass (I personally love it). Some don't like Rock music. I can't abide Hip-Hop and most Pop Music of the last couple of decades. I suspect that there is no one here who does not have a body or genre of music they can't stand. So why should the hypothetical individual who cannot stand Modern/Contemporary music be taken to task for his or her taste? Why should the hypothetical individual who has an aversion to Modern/Contemporary Music continue to put forth the effort?


I listen to modern music just like for any other periods of classical music/music in general: if it is engaging I continue, if it is not I do not engage further beyond a certain point. There is nothing is any period of music, modern or baroque or whatever that I go for just for the sake of it.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

Certain people are trying to dictate to others how to live & so forth.classical music maybe old but sounds better than most new music.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

OP: Why? Because like Castor Oil, it's good for you!!!


----------



## Guest (Sep 11, 2014)

No, because like [favorite food here], it's good.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

OP: Why shouldn't you?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> My question is *Why should a listener put forth the repeated effort in attempting to appreciate a body of music he or she doesn't like?*


But how do we know they don't like it? *I remember now! They keep on telling us and disparaging it!*


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> My question is *Why should a listener put forth the repeated effort in attempting to appreciate a body of music he or she doesn't like?*


There is absolutely no sense in a listener beating their head against _what for them_ is a [_virtual_] brick wall:..it is a complete waste of their time.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

I have an odd propensity towards suffering.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Lucky for me, a lot of modern music sounds good to my ears. But the term is much too general, and doesn't really mean much. I would be just as dissatisfied subjecting myself to Boulez or Xenakis all day, as if I had to listen to classical and romantic concertos all night. There's plenty of stuff in between. For example, Honegger's 4th symphony sounds glorious to my ears, and there's so much other great stuff along these lines that can be appreciated by all kinds of listeners.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

At Guantanamo Bay, the inmates must listen to modern music so they will quickly reveal the names of their terrorist leaders. It's a more humane form of torture than water-boarding.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Haha, hpowders, always the controversial one.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

You have a simple choice, listen to modern contemporary music now, or wait 200 years until it becomes "classic" and then listen.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I've likely said this before, but I don't think there are any "shoulds" concerning the music that classical music enthusiasts appreciate. Listen to modern/contemporary or don't listen; it's nobody's business but your own.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Haha, hpowders, always the controversial one.


I live on the cutting edge.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

senza sordino said:


> You have a simple choice, listen to modern contemporary music now, or wait 200 years until it becomes "classic" and then listen.


Not much of a choice as I see it.


----------



## satoru (May 29, 2014)

While I was reading Steven Pinker's "Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" (2002), I got struck by the notion that appreciation of modern music (or not) is a trait common in identical twins, meaning that it is influenced by genetic background. If you don't like to sound of modern music, don't force yourself. Period.

My friend who started playing cello during grad school years says she now likes contemporary music and she thinks they are "player music", much more fun when you perform, than simply listening to them. So it can be different with the degree of involvement into the music.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

satoru said:


> While I was reading Steven Pinker's "Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" (2002), I got struck by the notion that appreciation of modern music (or not) is a trait common in identical twins, meaning that it is influenced by genetic background.


"Genetic background?!?" That is hogwash! Their 'informative environment,' the music they were exposed to in early childhood, and continually through their near to adult or adult years, as with anyone, is what makes or breaks the deal for those finding the modern fine arts at least accessible vs. disliking them, i.e. it is a matter of built-up listening habits, not genes.


----------



## satoru (May 29, 2014)

PetrB said:


> "Genetic background?!?" That is hogwash! Their 'informative environment,' the music they were exposed to in early childhood, and continually through their near to adult or adult years, as with anyone, is what makes or breaks the deal for those finding the modern fine arts at least accessible vs. disliking them, i.e. it is a matter of built-up listening habits, not genes.


Of course, the study was conducted on twins separated at infancy and reared in different environment. I don't have an easy access to the original article Pinker referred to. If you are interested, I can try to locate it. It is:

Bouchard, T. J., Jr. 1998. Genetic and environmental influences on intelligence and special mental abilities. Human Biology, 70, 257-259.


----------

