# Your relationship with modernism and contemporary music?



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

What is you relationship with modernism and contemporary music?

I often find myself thinking that the field of contemporary music creates less great global stories -- stories that almost everyone involved with classical music share. Everyone knows Beethoven but not everyone knows Milton Babbitt.

For example, when it comes to contemporary and modern music, I mostly listen to Finns like Saariaho, Bergman, Kokkonen, Salonen, Vuori and Aho. Or Pärt, Ligeti, Gubaidulina, Lutoslawski... People who are kind of around from where I live. So in a way, my relationship with modernism is more regional and local than global.

The musical language of modernism and contemporary is more individual and unique to the composer at hand. That makes it harder to attract as many listeners worldwide. You need to really find the pieces that resonate with you. This inevitably creates the situation where compared to the representation of classical and romantic and early 20th century music, the modernism and the contemporary falls behind.

I think the constant comparison of the modern and contemporary to the great worldwide story of the past also creates frustration that is unnecessary. The modernism and the contemporary mostly do not build as much on the common musical language achieved over centuries, so how could their position even be as wide and established?


----------



## BBSVK (10 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> What is you relationship with modernism and contemporary music?
> 
> I often find myself thinking that the field of contemporary music creates less great global stories -- stories that almost everyone involved with classical music share. Everyone knows Beethoven but not everyone knows Milton Babbitt.
> 
> ...


I dislike contemporary classical music a lot and avoid it. Saariaho makes me mildly interested, though. So mybe she is objectively good, for these days, and you needlesly complicate it with the theories about globalization, localization and what have you. I am from Slovakia.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

It's pretty good! My first experience with something more modern was Prokofiev. Soon followed Bartok, Messiaen & Schnittke. That was in high-school in the 80's.


----------



## BBSVK (10 mo ago)

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> It's pretty good! My first experience with something more modern was Prokofiev. Soon followed Bartok, Messiaen & Schnittke. That was in high-school in the 80's.


Prokofiev is still a normal music, if it counts as contemporary.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

BBSVK said:


> Prokofiev is still a normal music, if it counts as contemporary.


It was modern once and to my 16 year old ears


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Well, I deal with a lot of contemporary music constantly and find it incredibly exciting and stimulating – keep in mind that I'm a contemporary composer, so this is what I do! As with anything, I have my personal aesthetic preferences, and contemporary music spans a huge range of aesthetics. 

Like Waehnen, I listen to a lot of Finnish contemporary music (I am Finnish after all), but I'm also pretty extensively involved in the UK scene, and there's a lot of good music here as well. I'm also a fan of certain types of French influenced music, as well as people like Rebecca Saunders and Ondřej Adamék.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

When I think of modern and contemporary, I think of composers like Max Richter, Caroline Shaw, Gity Razaz, Gavin Higgins, Antti Auvenin, Ólafur Arnalds, Jessie Montgomery, Clarice Assad, Stella Sung - composers who are actually alive today, making incredible new music. 

New music is incredibly important to my orchestra's mission, and we try to commission 2-3 new works per season. Last year, for example, we commissioned a work co-composed Jacob Gunner Walsh and Jon Sonnenberg for "Orchestra and EarthQuaker Pedals," as well as a new tuba concerto by Clint Needham. (Written for tuba and baroque-sized orchestra, so it doesn't require massive forces for other orchestras to program.) This year, we're premiering works by Timothy Adams (a piece about Harriet Tubman) and Sahba Aminikia (who worked with kids in a Syrian refugee camp on the Turkish border). Next year's aren't publicly announced yet, but they include works by two of the composers in my initial list.

I don't mean to turn this into a commercial, but I just wanted to highlight that there is some really exciting and compelling contemporary music coming out all the time. We are moderately-sized regional orchestra, not a big one, and we're still able to add to the repertoire. If you are interested in promoting and championing new music, I assure you your own regional orchestra is probably also just as interested. Get involved with them and maybe you can have an impact on championing new music, too!


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

My relationship with modernism and contemporary music is in bad shape.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I try to keep my ears open and am willing to listen to new music and give it a try. I just picked up that set of eight symphonies by Per Norgard. They are about as far from Haydn-Beethoven-Brahms-Mahler as can be imagined. Harmony, melody in the traditional sense are gone. There are some fascinating sounds that really push the aural experience. I've listened now to numbers 1 - 4 and I can't remember any details - there are no tunes. It would take a very sophisticated audience to sit through any of them. Is it really great music as the booklet suggests? I don't think so. And yet, it is very atmospheric, moody, haunting and while I'm listening I can't just turn it off. It has something going for it. I've picked up a lot of sets of modern symphonies; Simpson, Rubbra, Searle, Tubin, Blomdahl, and more as well as countless single symphony recordings. Try as hard as they can, and I'm sure many composers are quite serious, the most modern composers who were really successful symphonists are all long dead: Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Vaughan Williams.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

I do try to find likable modern Classical music occasionally, and on rare occasions find stuff that is listenable, even engaging.

Unfortunately, for me, a lot of it isn't, even when I can appreciate it intellectually. 

*TC* members often make recommendations, and I'll have a listen. But there is so much other (and older) music that I know I'll like that I have yet to hear. I doubt I've heard half of *Haydn's* or *Mozart's* symphonies more than once, and I've never found one that isn't pleasant. 

But I'm certainly open to suggestions.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't think of Vaughan Williams, and Rubbra as modern symphonists. They were pretty conservative. I get a lot more out of Lutoslawski's works. I find them far more interesting and exciting. I do enjoy a few Norgard pieces, mainly symphonies 3 & 6, and his violin concerto, Helle Nacht. Saariaho is interesting but I don't care much for Aho. He certainly can crank out the material but it sounds very conservative and not interesting to my ears. I'd rather listen to Lindberg's clarinet concerto.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

mbhaub said:


> the most modern composers who were really successful symphonists are all long dead: Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Vaughan Williams.


There are many more cycles to explore that aren't too far out. Martinu, Dutilleux, Honegger, Nielsen, Lajtha, Toch, Karl Hartmann, Piston, W. Schuman. And non symphonists like Takemitsu, and Ligeti.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Waehnen said:


> The musical language of modernism and contemporary is more individual and unique to the composer at hand. That makes it harder to attract as many listeners worldwide . . . The modernism and the contemporary mostly do not build as much on the common musical language achieved over centuries, so how could their position even be as wide and established?


I think that's the main problem with contemporary music of any age: many times the people who thought they were musically sophisticated completely missed what we now consider mainstream classical music. 

Personally, when I hear a contemporary piece, meaning written within the last couple years, I am listening to see if it connects with me on a visceral level, and if it does, then I make the effort to find out why it affected me. There is other music which I can appreciate for its compositional skill, but I just don't like listening to it. 

Beyond that, it's probably going to take ten or twenty years to tell whether a contemporary piece is going to last, so I don't worry too much about whether what someone wrote last week is going to be considered great or be consigned to the ashes. It's my ears and my time, and I'm just looking for whatever makes my soul sing.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

I really like music that is based on something other than traditional harmony. The textures that can be found....very tense and delicate at the same time. Just beautiful stuff.

BUT....

I hate playing modern pieces. Most of the time there are hand mechanisms that have to be worked out, but unlike music relying on traditional harmony, those hand mechanisms will probably only apply to that one piece. Not to mention how difficult modern music can be to sight read, so you won't exactly be spending a rainy afternoon flipping through Benjamin Britton like you would some divertismenti from Mauro Guiliani. 

but as much as I bitch about it, there is a Nocturnal by Britton for Guitar (op 70) that I've had the score for since I was 19. My hope was that I might be able to play it before I die, but I better get to it because I'm not getting any younger


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Waehnen said:


> modernism is more regional and local than global.


Indeed. 


Waehnen said:


> You need to really find the pieces that resonate with you.


Those will most times be the ones that are regional and local


Waehnen said:


> This inevitably creates the situation where compared to the representation of classical and romantic and early 20th century music, the modernism and the contemporary falls behind.


No, it does not fall behind.


Waehnen said:


> I think the constant comparison of the modern and contemporary to the great worldwide story of the past also creates frustration that is unnecessary. The modernism and the contemporary mostly do not build as much on the common musical language achieved over centuries, so how could their position even be as wide and established?


It resonates more with life today. 

I enjoy modern operas from America FAR more than the great works of the past, for example. 

Relatability. It's really rather simple.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Modernism and contemporary classical music is the only classical music that holds any interest for me.

Before I discovered modernism, specifically music from after the mid 20th century, I made many attempts at getting into classical music from earlier eras, but to no avail. 

As soon as I discovered music of the 2nd half of the 20th century (as well as the 2nd Viennese school), I became obsessed. I've been in a constant state of discovery since.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

On TC I have previously described my evolution towards modern/contemporary classical music. When I started seriously listening to classical music, I was stunned by how beautiful the works were. I initially listened to composers who primarily composed before 1900. When I expanded my listening to modern and contemporary music, I was stunned by how unpleasant I found the sounds. My view was that classical music for many centuries before 1900 was spectacularly powerful, beautiful, and fascinating. I assumed that music written later must be similar, but for whatever reasons, I did not enjoy it. I came to TC expressly to learn to enjoy modern/contemporary classical music.

I listened for some time to a wide range of modern/contemporary composers with little success. Eventually, I started to find works I enjoyed. As I explored more and more music, I found other works enjoyable. Slowly I started to find composers I liked. The more I listened, the more I liked. 

I tell the story of Berg's violin concert. The first several times I heard it, it sounded like random notes. I was stunned because I loved violin concertos, and many TC members highly praised the Berg concerto. I kept coming back to it thinking, "I've expanded my listening, and now I will certainly find the concerto enjoyable." I was not able to enjoy it. Finally, I heard an audio file that slowly worked through the concerto explaining each part. I listened a few times, and suddenly, I started to like parts. One day I found myself humming it absentmindedly. Now I consider it my favorite 20th century violin concerto and one of my favorite violin concertos.

While my favorite composers are not modern/contemporary, I have listened to more modern/contemporary classical music.in the past 5 years or so than to any other era. Sometimes I'm overwhelmed by how much music there is. It's almost a limitless source of new works - some wonderful and others less so.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

The terms "modernism" and "contemporary" as pertaining to classical music have specific meanings that I do not see reflected in most posts in this thread, including the OP. They are not synonyms.

Modernism is strictly speaking the music written and composers active during the early part of the 20th century and featured the styles Impressionism, Expressionism, and Neoclassical - along with others. And some composers moved through a variety of these styles during their careers.

Contemporary music is technically that music which is written by living composers. 

I enjoy both modernist and contemporary music but spend much more time discovering new music by living composers which I consider a very rich landscape filled with a plethora of styles and creative approaches to composing.


----------



## Doublestring (Sep 3, 2014)

I'm a major fan of modernism, but more of the so-called moderate modernists and neoclassicists. I like Stravinsky, Bartok, Shostakovich and Villa-Lobos better than Webern, Stockhausen and Boulez. Other favorites are Schoenberg, Berg, Ligeti, Xenakis, Gubaidulina and Saariaho. On the guitar I like playing modern composers like Leo Brouwer and Roland Dyens.

Most people are just not open to discover modernist music. They only want to hear what they already know. That's pretty depressing, because there's so much good music that remains ignored by classical radio and the majority of people.


----------



## Branko (3 mo ago)

I am no stranger to playing and listening to music outside major-minor tonality. My personal experience with this kind of music is that I came to love it as I played it. What may seem "chaotic" at first, could by and by become the most fascinating, emotionally engaging and memorable musical experience, completely equal and sometimes better than with any more conventional piece. 

I listen to it differently than to Liszt - somehow it occupies a different area of my "music receptors". To be fair though, I think I also listen differently to JS Bach than to Mozart than to Brahms.


----------



## Artran (Sep 16, 2016)

Art is about discovery, breaking rules and frontiers and I always want to be challenged with something new. It's part of the fun and pleasure. To resign on contemporary music would be a sign of my degeneration. I hope it will never happen. I have only one personal problem with contemporary composers (and I mean really contemporary, not long dead like Prokofiev, or Shostakovich) and that is I like to listen composer's oeuvre systematically and that's often not possible because of few available recordings.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Most living composers have their own websites with their works listed and often with audio clips. Recordings are not the best way to find new music. YouTube channels, Soundcloud, and the composer websites offer far more music being written today.


----------



## Artran (Sep 16, 2016)

SanAntone said:


> Most living composers have their own websites with their works listed and often with audio clips. Recordings are not the best way to find new music. YouTube channels, Soundcloud, and the composer websites offer far more music being written today.


You're right, but part of the problem is my autistic pleasure to scrobble (catalogue) music on last.fm which is rather complicated (though not impossible) through non-conventional channels.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> The terms "modernism" and "contemporary" as pertaining to classical music have specific meanings that I do not see reflected in most posts in this thread, including the OP. They are not synonyms.
> 
> Modernism is strictly speaking the music written and composers active during the early part of the 20th century and featured the styles Impressionism, Expressionism, and Neoclassical - along with others. And some composers moved through a variety of these styles during their careers.
> 
> ...


I was wondering whether the OP was using the term "modernism" in the formal definition (pertaining to music of the early 20th century) , or a colloquial usage (current, very recent). 

I understood it in the colloquial meaning, since many of the modernist composers are not at all controversial on TC.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Simon Moon said:


> I was wondering whether the OP was using the term "modernism" in the formal definition (pertaining to music of the early 20th century) , or a colloquial usage (current, very recent).
> 
> I understood it in the colloquial meaning, since many of the modernist composers are not at all controversial on TC.


Often I do not wish to use too strictly defined terms here on the forum. I am more interested in free speech and free associations because that way people may freely express themselves.

Here I was referring to modernism as a still thriving movement with many different styles. The modernist project sure did not end in the 20th century, not in the first half nor the later half. The second Viennese school led to serialism, which led to postserialism which led to new styles that still share some of the serialist aesthetics...

With the term contemporary I wanted to expand the associations that the term modernism brings. I wanted to emphasise that we are talking about music that is still created today.

Anyway, everyone are free to interpret the terms used here the way they want. The discussion on the use of the terms is also valuable.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Does anyone here listen to Pehr Henrik Nordgren? He was a very prolific Finnish composer who lived from 1944-2008. Many listeners at this forum including the OP are fans of Finnish composers yet his name is never mentioned. And I don't believe there is a Guestbook entry for him.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier (12 mo ago)

I don't intend to ruffle feathers (& sorry if I do) but it's better to be honest. I don't like it. I don't doubt that some people genuinely like it, but I don't know how much of it is just some sort of musical "stockholm syndrome" wherein they do enjoy the music, but only because they've conditioned themselves to. And with respect to "conditioning" is how much of it is people who do it because they worry about the sunk cost of spending hours listening to something they might not actually like that much.

You might read this and feel insulted that I'd even think you aren't honest about your preferences, but I'm not referring to anyone in particular in this post, and just because I'm doubtful that some people enjoy modern music doesn't mean I think absolutely nobody enjoys it at all. People are different.

I also don't agree with the idea that there are "gateway" composers into modern/contemporary music. It's something you either like or you don't, and not something you gradually work your way into by listening to works that progressively become less & less tonal.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Artran said:


> Art is about discovery, breaking rules and frontiers


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

4chamberedklavier said:


> I don't intend to ruffle feathers (& sorry if I do) but it's better to be honest. I don't like it. I don't doubt that some people genuinely like it, but I don't know how much of it is just some sort of musical "stockholm syndrome" wherein they do enjoy the music, but only because they've conditioned themselves to. And with respect to "conditioning" is how much of it is people who do it because they worry about the sunk cost of spending hours listening to something they might not actually like that much.
> 
> You might read this and feel insulted that I'd even think you aren't honest about your preferences, but I'm not referring to anyone in particular in this post, and just because I'm doubtful that some people enjoy modern music doesn't mean I think absolutely nobody enjoys it at all. People are different.
> 
> I also don't agree with the idea that there are "gateway" composers into modern/contemporary music. It's something you either like or you don't, and not something you gradually work your way into by listening to works that progressively become less & less tonal.


I do not pretend to like all modernist music. For my ears, every age has also produced more or less mediocre music. There is mediocre and lame baroque, classicist, romantic, late romantic and early modernist music for sure -- so of course there is also mediocre and lame modernist and post-modernist music.

One needs to find the music that resonates and satisfies.

I value a lot the pioneering work the modernists composers have done, earning _*the perfect freedom*_ the composers of today have. The boundaries had to be broken and they still need to be broken so that perfect artistic freedom can exist. We truly have that freedom nowadays and it is a most exciting feeling.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't buy the opinion that "you either like it or you don't." And that you can't condition your ears to appreciate new and modern sounds. And to dismiss all modern or contemporary music by referring to all works as "it" is pretty ridiculous.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

starthrower said:


> Does anyone here listen to Pehr Henrik Nordgren? He was a very prolific Finnish composer who lived from 1944-2008. Many listeners at this forum including the OP are fans of Finnish composers yet his name is never mentioned. And I don't believe there is a Guestbook entry for him.


There are a lot of composers I of course know of but have needed to neglect. Seriously, I do not have the time or the energy for everything.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Waehnen said:


> There are a lot of composers I of course know of but have needed to neglect. Seriously, I do not have the time or the energy for everything.


Nobody does but I'm just surprised that in the 12 years I've been here nobody has discussed this prolific Finnish composer. I believe one of his symphonies was chosen for the Saturday selection but other than that there has been no mention of him at this forum.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

starthrower said:


> I don't buy the opinion that "you either like it or you don't."


In fact, his proclamation is flat out wrong. This has been proven in the sciences.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

eljr said:


> In fact, his proclamation is flat out wrong. This has been proven in the sciences.


Honestly, when I was younger I had a prejudice towards older music. I couldn't get into Wagner or Mahler. And now I love it! I just had to buy a few recordings and keep listening.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

starthrower said:


> Does anyone here listen to Pehr Henrik Norgren?


I am a fan of Finnish but had not knowing listened to Norgren.

As a result of this post I found a recent release of his Cello Concert #1 and am at present listening to it. I also found a lovely new to me cellist, Simone Drescher .

You can find the release I am listening to in the "Currently Listening" thread, my last post there.

Cello Concert #1 is thoroughly enjoyable.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

starthrower said:


> Honestly, when I was younger I had a prejudice towards older music. I couldn't get into Wagner or Mahler. And now I love it! I just had to buy a few recordings and keep listening.


I struggled with Mozart for years, Mozart!


----------



## 4chamberedklavier (12 mo ago)

eljr said:


> In fact, his proclamation is flat out wrong. This has been proven in the sciences.


Can you go more into detail on this?


----------



## 4chamberedklavier (12 mo ago)

starthrower said:


> I don't buy the opinion that "you either like it or you don't." And that you can't condition your ears to appreciate new and modern sounds.


Anything's possible with the human brain. So it's not really about whether you can condition yourself to do this or not, or either liking it or not, but how often that's the case.




starthrower said:


> And to dismiss all modern or contemporary music by referring to all works as "it" is pretty ridiculous.


I use modern/contemp music as a synonym for any music that isn't tonal. Sure, not all atonal music is the same, but they all share that commonality (of atonality), so is it unfair to lump them all together in that regard?


----------



## 4chamberedklavier (12 mo ago)

4chamberedklavier said:


> Can you go more into detail on this?


I'm aware of the somewhat recent McDermott study (link) that found that Amazonian tribe people liked dissonant chords as much as consonant chords, but I'm unconvinced by the bold claim that the proves music taste is mostly a cultural thing. Why? Because it only tested vertical arrangement & not horizontal. It shows people like some degree dissonance, but it doesn't necessarily prove people like amount of dissonance present in atonal music. I'd be more convinced if the test incorporated a combination atonal chords & melodies.


(apologies for the triple post, some people might be writing a reply to my previous posts so I figured making a new one)


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

4chamberedklavier said:


> Can you go more into detail on this?


My awareness on the subject is gleamed from a couple on line courses I have taken in neuropsychology, nothing more. I was keen to retain the knowledge as a hobbyist so I can't offer you links to the studies referenced in passing. 
My take away was that the more often you hear a piece of music the less complex it seems to you. What that means is a piece of music that was originally too complex for you when you hear it a few too many times becomes moderately complex and you start to like it. This from Adrian North, Professor of Psychology at Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh.
It's very much the same as what happens to someone from a small town in the Midwest here in the States when they visit NYC. Their brain is processing so many things in a busy city. It becomes overwhelmed and makes them uncomfortable, even anxious . To a native NYer, the brain only alerts you to any changes in patterns. It does not need to be on such high alert, process so much. 

We all have noticed how we seem to like certain music the more we listen to it. The first time through seldom is it as satisfying as the 5th, 10, 15th. It seems this is why. 
That said, culture, tribal identity is also very motivating and not at all conscience to our decision making process. Our music choices may associate us, identify us with a tribe we want identification with. This can prevent us from enjoying a different era in music, a different genre in music. Or it can make us seek out new music. 
It's not as simple as repetitive listening. 

One thing is for sure, our conscience brain seldom is aware of why we do what we do, think what we think...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

eljr said:


> I struggled with Mozart for years, Mozart!


I've never been much of a Mozart listener. Although I can appreciate his genius and I enjoy some of the melodies. But I'm just too busy listening to other stuff.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I do not think that my relationship to modern music is any different than my relationship to baroque music.
As an amateur musician I have performed and I have learned to appreciate all forms of music.


----------



## Highwayman (Jul 16, 2018)

4chamberedklavier said:


> I also don't agree with the idea that there are "gateway" composers into modern/contemporary music. It's something you either like or you don't, and not something you gradually work your way into by listening to works that progressively become less & less tonal.


There are all kinds of examples in my personal history suggesting otherwise:


I intensely disliked Xenakis the first time I heard him but he became a firm favourite in time through first getting acquainted with relatively easier "gateway" composers such as Messiaen and Penderecki.
Stockhausen just didn`t "click" with me for some time even though I was comfy with later (and similar) composers like Ferneyhough at the time. I made my peace with him through repetitive listening.
I instantly fell in love with Bartók`s non-tonal works at first hearing even though I was a fairly conventional listener back then. So he is a proper "gateway" composer for me.
My initial response to Pärt was quite warm. I later developed a strong dislike for his music (his early works are OK). 
Similar to the Stockhausen case, I insisted on composers like Cage and Feldman but to no avail. I respect both composers very much and they are both revered here in TC, so I really tried but it`s not happening. But I still keep the door ajar for any case.
I hated Glass` music at the first hearing and I still hate it. The door is locked for him.
I semi-consciously diverted from the post I quoted. What I tried to exhibit is that it`s not as "straightforward" as the quoted poster made it seem. I`m sure all the 20th/21st century music lovers have their own unique histories/routes/patterns. But I reckon there must be some "gateway" composers in most cases.


----------



## John O (Jan 16, 2021)

Highwayman said:


> I instantly fell in love with Bartók`s non-tonal works at first hearing even though I was a fairly conventional listener back then. So he is a proper "gateway" composer for me


I am curious as to what you consider non-tonal Bartok?


----------



## John O (Jan 16, 2021)

Forty years ago , when I first started listening to classical music, I could include a number of living composers in my list of composers I listened to: Copland, Lutoslawski, Tippett, Orff. And though I now listen to more modern things: Messiaen Ligeti, Berio, Birtwistle: they are all dead now too. I do enjoy some Julian Anderson , Judith Weir, Thorvaldsdottir, John Adams, Ades, Gubaidulina etc. now of them have ever grabbed me in the intense way that Tippett , Ligeti or Beethoven or Bach do.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Through the years I struggled with avant-garde, Ultra-Modern, conceptual music, or whatever you want to call it. I've found, though, that given an even chance, composers such as Schoenberg, Cage, Carter, Xanakis, and Davidovsky; aren't so bad once you get to know them. In jazz there are some artists also on the fringes of the repertoire such as Ornette Coleman, Cecil Taylor, the Art Ensemble of Chicago, and Sun Ra, who are pretty "out there" but worth the effort.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

I think I have only one problem with modernism, and that is only with a certain type of modernism. Actually I referred to it in the OP of another thread. Of course, what I write here is a necessary exaggeration in order to make the point clear. I do not have any particular composers or musical pieces in mind.

But here we go:

If the harmonies must be dissonant, if there must not be a rhythmic pulse to the music, and if the focus must be on the sound and tone colours, does that not rather much define and limit what the music can be like?

It raises questions like this:

1. For how many decades can the focus only be on instrumental and orchestral tone colours? "Oh, this is colourful!"
2. For how many decades must harmonic hierarchies and tendencies be avoided? "All the notes are equal, the focus is on textures and tone colours!"
3. For how many decades must there be no pulse to the music? "Rhythms are banal, and take away the focus from the textures and the tone colours!"
4. For how many decades must it be accepted that the music is just sounds and does not really express anything (unless there are lyrics)? "The focus is on the sound itself, textures and tone colours!"
5. For how many decades must it be almost illegal to state the obvious that with the limitations mentioned above, the music is more or less actually stuffed to a narrow corner and its expressive possibilities are cut down?

Like I said before, my own focus is to enjoy the artistic freedom of our times to the fullest. In my case, I do not limit myself harmonically, rhythmically, texturally or dramatically, and tone colours are only one layer of expression.

I would like to think that I create new kind of rhythms, new kind of harmonic hierarchies and tendencies, new kind of dramatic arches, new kind of sounds and textures -- and view every parameter as a mean to actually express something meaningful. I do not and cannot omit myself some musical parameters in order "play with tone colours and textures".

It is obvious to me that music focusing on sounds, textures and tone colours needed to be created and it is wonderful that such music exists! I am thankful for the pioneering work on such music. But it does not have to be and cannot be a norm for modernism for all that many decades. 

That is how I enjoy my artistic freedom!


----------



## Bone (Jan 19, 2013)

My enthusiasm has waned; I blame it on advancing age. I read more poetry than novels; listen to more romantic/post-romantic than modern; and enjoy a cocktail more than beer.


----------



## Highwayman (Jul 16, 2018)

John O said:


> I am curious as to what you consider non-tonal Bartok?


Unlike some other members I`m hesitant to use the term "atonal" liberally. I use "non-tonal" as an umbrella term when a composition does not strictly follow the common-practice tonality. I specifically had things like the late SQs in my mind but I guess the term would apply to most of his mature works.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

On/off relationship. I like to challenge myself sometimes and listen to something new. But there isn't anything written this century I had felt I wanted to listen to more than once. I'd rather listen to a new contemporary piece than re-listen to another one.

I did download some that caught my attention more to test out the above, and kept immersing myself in it. I can't say I would like it any more than the first time. For me it's a purely cerebral experience, and nothing really stays with me.


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Highwayman said:


> Unlike some other members I`m hesitant to use the term "atonal" liberally. I use "non-tonal" as an umbrella term when a composition does not strictly follow the common-practice tonality. I specifically had things like the late SQs in my mind but I guess the term would apply to most of his mature works.


This I agree with. So much music sits in a strange grey area between not having any pitch hierarchy and being fully common-practice tonal. Look at Berg, for instance, or Messiaen, Takemitsu, Knussen, and Lindberg, just to start with – there's lots of music that lives somewhere in this region (and I personally really enjoy quite a lot of it). Honestly, I'd probably characterize my own music as living somewhere in this region too. Another type of pitch hierarchy arises in spectral and spectral-influenced music, for example. There is a very clear pitch hierarchy here, determined by overtones, analysis, and other factors, along with the concepts of moving between harmonicity and inharmonicity (among other things) – I hesitate to call this atonal as such, but it's definitely not common practice.

Some terminology I'll use includes "pitch hierarchy" or "pitch centre" rather than calling something atonal, unless there really isn't a focus on harmony, or pitch hierarchy has been intentionally leveled somehow.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

composingmusic said:


> This I agree with. So much music sits in a strange grey area between not having any pitch hierarchy and being fully common-practice tonal. Look at Berg, for instance, or Messiaen, Takemitsu, Knussen, and Lindberg, just to start with – there's lots of music that lives somewhere in this region (and I personally really enjoy quite a lot of it). Honestly, I'd probably characterize my own music as living somewhere in this region too. Another type of pitch hierarchy arises in spectral and spectral-influenced music, for example. There is a very clear pitch hierarchy here, determined by overtones, analysis, and other factors, along with the concepts of moving between harmonicity and inharmonicity (among other things) – I hesitate to call this atonal as such, but it's definitely not common practice.
> 
> Some terminology I'll use includes "pitch hierarchy" or "pitch centre" rather than calling something atonal, unless there really isn't a focus on harmony, or pitch hierarchy has been intentionally leveled somehow.


I also dislike the word atonal and do not use it. Why not rather describe the harmonies for what they are --- and not for what they supposedly are not?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

My relationship with contemporary music is on the cool side. I like some of it, but mostly find it unappealing. Essentially, I just take it on a work-by-work basis.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I try to locate and enjoy music from living composers but it is difficult. I don't believe we live in an era with a Mahler -- someone who is going to be "discovered" a half-century after the fact, become well-known and beloved, and then enter the field of the greats.

The last piece from a living composer I heard and thought enough of to either buy it or make a copy for home use was Michael Ippolito's _*Divertimento*_ from 2017. There has been some film music I've mildly warmed to but nothing on the order of Bernard Herrmann or Miklos Rozsa.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

4chamberedklavier said:


> I don't intend to ruffle feathers (& sorry if I do) but it's better to be honest. I don't like it. I don't doubt that some people genuinely like it, but I don't know how much of it is just some sort of musical "stockholm syndrome" wherein they do enjoy the music, but only because they've conditioned themselves to. And with respect to "conditioning" is how much of it is people who do it because they worry about the sunk cost of spending hours listening to something they might not actually like that much.


I am always at a loss as to why some people are unable to understand why other people like modern and contemporary classical music?

I don't have to put myself through a musical "Stockholm Syndrome" in order to enjoy it. Although, at one time it did take a bit of 'work' (I am loath to use that word, since it really doesn't describe the process, because it is enjoyable) to completely get into it, but it was not, nor is it still, a painful process in any way. But, at the outset when I originally started to explore this music, my intrigue was more than enough to get me through the original learning curve.

No, I genuinely like it, and I think it is kind of presumptuous of you, to think you know what is in other people's minds better than they do.

Actually, 'like' does not even begin to describe the deep emotional and/or intellectual impact this music has on me.

For me, music of the Romantic, Classical, Baroque, eras, bores me to tears, and even can come off sounding trite, cliché, and the 'beauty' is way too obvious for me. But I can understand why people like it.



> You might read this and feel insulted that I'd even think you aren't honest about your preferences, but I'm not referring to anyone in particular in this post, and just because I'm doubtful that some people enjoy modern music doesn't mean I think absolutely nobody enjoys it at all. People are different.


I guess I am more charitable toward other people and their opinions, and what they claim their thoughts are. I take them at their word, unless they give me reasons to doubt them. I don't try guess what is 'actually' in their mind, nor do I project my feelings on them.

Again, I can't understand why you would think some people, who claim to like modern music, actually do not? Seems like you are projecting your personal taste on to other people

As I previously said, the feelings I get from listening to modern, contemporary, atonal, etc, classical music, far exceeds simple 'enjoyment'. I will more often than not, become mentally 'transported' by the music.



> I also don't agree with the idea that there are "gateway" composers into modern/contemporary music. It's something you either like or you don't, and not something you gradually work your way into by listening to works that progressively become less & less tonal.


There were definite gateway composers for me. Debussy, Stravinsky, Barber, Sibelius, Bartok were a few.

In general, there is so much more that I like about music, besides the obvious, "wear it on your sleeve" sort beauty that earlier eras of classical music has.

Let me also add, that I am in my mid 60's, and I am not even close to losing my interest in this music.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

starthrower said:


> There are many more cycles to explore that aren't too far out. Martinu, Dutilleux, Honegger, Nielsen, Lajtha, Toch, Karl Hartmann, Piston, W. Schuman. And non symphonists like Takemitsu, and Ligeti.


Ligeti's _Lontano _is a wonderful symphonic work.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

larold said:


> I try to locate and enjoy music from living composers but it is difficult. I don't believe we live in an era with a Mahler -- someone who is going to be "discovered" a half-century after the fact, become well-known and beloved, and then enter the field of the greats.


Back then, the spot for an iconic post-Brahms/Tchaikovsky symphonist was vacant and Mahler had enough interesting/attractive concepts to be the perfect candidate to fill that gap. Nowadays, it's all a red ocean, with the dominance of modern popular music genres (over classical), and the availability of so much variety of music to listen to.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

(Just a little anecdote.)

During my studies I got to meet many Finnish composers. One particular meeting stuck with me. It was Erik Bergman, the pioneer and Grand Old Man of Finnish modernism, already over 90 years old. He came to talk to us students and a guitar work of him was performed. I remember him saying: "I am no clown who just fools around for no reason." And I remember liking the guitar work very much indeed and I understood then how artistic and beautiful it was -- even though there was nothing of the major minor tonality or traditional phrasing. Yeah, Erik Bergman was no clown although his path was no easy for such a modernist in such times. (Clown = Pelle in Finnish.)

I still find Erik Bergman´s music very beautiful and touching.

_Birds in the morning (a flute concerto)_


----------



## 4chamberedklavier (12 mo ago)

(deleted)


----------



## composingmusic (Dec 16, 2021)

Waehnen said:


> (Just a little anecdote.)
> 
> During my studies I got to meet many Finnish composers. One particular meeting stuck with me. It was Erik Bergman, the pioneer and Grand Old Man of Finnish modernism, already over 90 years old. He came to talk to us students and a guitar work of him was performed. I remember him saying: "I am no clown who just fools around for no reason." And I remember liking the guitar work very much indeed and I understood then how artistic and beautiful it was -- even though there was nothing of the major minor tonality or traditional phrasing. Yeah, Erik Bergman was no clown although his path was no easy for such a modernist in such times. (Clown = Pelle in Finnish.)
> 
> ...



That's so cool! Sadly, I didn't have a chance to meet him, but I know a bunch of people who knew him. That's a lovely anecdote. I will say that talking to other composers and listening to them talk about their work is something I find fascinating.


----------



## justekaia (Jan 2, 2022)

starthrower said:


> Does anyone here listen to Pehr Henrik Nordgren? He was a very prolific Finnish composer who lived from 1944-2008. Many listeners at this forum including the OP are fans of Finnish composers yet his name is never mentioned. And I don't believe there is a Guestbook entry for him.


Yes i do and here is a list of my favourite compositions by him.
Symph 1, 3 74, 93
Symph for strings 78
Violin Cto 2 77
Cello Cto 1 80
Transe-chordal 85
Cronaca for viola 91
Cello Cto 3 92
Violin Cto 4 94
Horn cto 96
Rock Score 97
Oboe Cto 01
Solemnity-Euphony 02
SQ 3, 4, 5, 10, 11. 76 83 86 07 08
9 Kwaidan Ballads for piano 72-77
By the way i have not found any recordings of the other string quartets (the ones not listed). Any tip? Thks


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

eljr said:


> My awareness on the subject is gleamed from a couple on line courses I have taken in neuropsychology, nothing more. I was keen to retain the knowledge as a hobbyist so I can't offer you links to the studies referenced in passing.
> My take away was that the more often you hear a piece of music the less complex it seems to you. What that means is a piece of music that was originally too complex for you when you hear it a few too many times becomes moderately complex and you start to like it. This from Adrian North, Professor of Psychology at Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh.
> It's very much the same as what happens to someone from a small town in the Midwest here in the States when they visit NYC. Their brain is processing so many things in a busy city. It becomes overwhelmed and makes them uncomfortable, even anxious . To a native NYer, the brain only alerts you to any changes in patterns. It does not need to be on such high alert, process so much.
> 
> ...


I am able to instantly appreciate works of Mozart and Beethoven. Does this mean that their music is simple, or does it mean that if a piece of music is really good it shoots you an immediate arrow of love?

IMO an excellent piece of music has two components:

Viscerality
Smartness
While you maybe need repeated listenings to detect the smartness of the piece, the viscerality is immediate. Can you really compose an excellent piece of music if you don't care so much about one of the two sides? Excellent for me means "good from any point of view".

In few words, the idea that you can compose an excellent piece of music without an excellent melody doesn't persuade me. It can be smart, but it's not visceral, so it's lacking.

However I see what you say. Once you understand how a melody is constructed, it becomes more pleasant. In long movements it's more difficult to immediately understand the construction of the melody because it takes more listenings to memorize the parts and it requires longer attention (it's easier to lose concentration in a long piece).


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Fortunately, my ears are open and willing to have adventures in contemporary music and they have been for years, so my relationship with the genre is excellent. There is much in the way of aesthetic and musical reward to be had, with or without a toon.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

HansZimmer said:


> *I am able to instantly appreciate works of Mozart and Beethoven. Does this mean that their music is simple, or does it mean that if a piece of music is really good it shoots you an immediate arrow of love?*
> 
> IMO an excellent piece of music has two components:
> 
> ...


I don't think @eljr said, nor even implied, that Mozart or Beethoven (or any other CP composer) were simple, he said, "less complex".

Instant appreciation is about as low on my list of what makes great music, as any attribute could get. I have found, in classical (and the other 2 genres I listen to), the music that stands the test of time, is the music that took me the longest to get into.



> In few words, the idea that you can compose an excellent piece of music without an excellent melody doesn't persuade me. It can be smart, but it's not visceral, so it's lacking.


There are so many other aspects to music, IMO, that contribute to being visceral, besides melody. Viscerality is also very important to me, and I have zero trouble finding it in the vast majority of the music you probably think does not have an excellent melody.

In fact, one of the first things that struck me when I was first getting into modern classical, well before I was able to appreciate everything else it had to offer, was its viscerality.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

starthrower said:


> Does anyone here listen to Pehr Henrik Nordgren? He was a very prolific Finnish composer who lived from 1944-2008. Many listeners at this forum including the OP are fans of Finnish composers yet his name is never mentioned. And I don't believe there is a Guestbook entry for him.


While I haven't fully explored his music, I do own Symphony No. 7, which I like quite a bit.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

In terms of listening, I'm more attuned to the first half of the 20th century than to the second half. Still, I've got more interest in what's gone on post-1950 classical than say, most of what went on prior to the 18th century, apart from mainly just a handful of big names.

The rate of change in music during the last century or so was massive, so too the diversity of styles. Schools of composition more or less fell away as modernism started to wind down, so you no longer get composers huddling around a common set of approaches or ideologies and so on. Everything, not only classical, has broken up into many scenes and subgenres. Then there's the sheer amount of music available. New music is coming out all the time. It can get overwhelming.

These days, I'm more interested in what went on rather than listening to huge amounts of repertoire. I like to read books on music, including biographies of composers whose music I like. I'm trying to gain some sort of perspective on the music I know. While I've had periods where I expanded my grasp of repertoire, I'm not so much motivated to do that now. This period of consolidation has been going for almost ten years now, and I think its good because I'm doing things at a much slower pace which means I no longer feel overwhelmed.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

If I can get into the Second Viennese School, Xenakis, Boulez, Berio, Scelsi, Ligeti, Penderecki et. al. then I believe that anyone can as long as they have an open-mind about music. I completely understand that certain composers aren't for everyone and that some listeners gravitate towards a certain period of music. I don't listen to any classical music earlier than Haydn for example (and I, honestly, don't really listen to Haydn), but I prefer the developments made in the 19th and 20th Centuries. So I've honed in on these eras and I've been a happy camper ever since.


----------



## Montarsolo (5 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> What is you relationship with modernism and contemporary music?


I think Oswald Spengler is right. The culture of the West is a declining culture.
For me, Beethoven is the pinnacle of Western music. However, Spengeler says the romantic period is already on the decline. Because people hark back to the past of their own culture. For Spengler, the peak of Western music lies with Bach. After that it is a downward trend.

Let's say Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are the highest. After that it decreases quickly. It collapses approximately in the 20th century. With Shostakovich as the final revival. With Shostakovich's death, classical music also died. Everything after that is pointless noise. As Spengler said: That it has always been the case that next to every great artist there are 100 superfluous artists. That 100 formed the basis on which that one artist could stand out. But today* there are 10,000 to work without necessity. Make them stop and you won't miss a thing.

* He wrote his book in the 1920s.


----------



## Artran (Sep 16, 2016)

Montarsolo said:


> I think Oswald Spengler is right. The culture of the West is a declining culture.
> For me, Beethoven is the pinnacle of Western music. However, Spengeler says the romantic period is already on the decline. Because people hark back to the past of their own culture. For Spengler, the peak of Western music lies with Bach. After that it is a downward trend.
> 
> Let's say Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are the highest. After that it decreases quickly. It collapses approximately in the 20th century. With Shostakovich as the final revival. With Shostakovich's death, classical music also died. Everything after that is pointless noise. As Spengler said: That it has always been the case that next to every great artist there are 100 superfluous artists. That 100 formed the basis on which that one artist could stand out. But today* there are 10,000 to work without necessity. Make them stop and you won't miss a thing.
> ...


Yeah, those fans of doom and gloom are funny people. Spengler was also a fan of Hitler for a short time.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't rely on the reactionary opinions of others as a listening guide. The idea that everything composed after Shostakovich is pointless noise is nonsense.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Funny thing is that some advocates of the avant-garde propose that it is Shostakovich that is pointless noise, at least tonally speaking.

Anyway, my favourite piece of all time is Boulez's Le marteau, because of the sheer kaleidoscopic variety of rhythmic life and colour. From Living composers I like Chin's Violin Concerto a lot.

My entry to classical music was Mozart and Sibelius, then I moved to the Renaissance, Medieval, Baroque, Romanticism and finally Modern and Contemporary. Key pieces for opening that last bit where Berg's Violin Concerto and Schoenberg's Piano concerto.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Everyone takes their own paths through the history of the music and some roads just don't appeal to some ears. I've always had a harder time appreciating older music. Other than some Bach, and Beethoven, I don't get interested until post 1850. The exceptions would be some of the choral works from the classical and early romantic period. On the surface I like the sound of baroque music but I could never really fall in love with much of it.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

As soon as someone says that they don't like something, I tune them out. I'm not interested in what people don't like, only what they do like.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Montarsolo said:


> I think Oswald Spengler is right. The culture of the West is a declining culture.
> For me, Beethoven is the pinnacle of Western music. However, Spengeler says the romantic period is already on the decline. Because people hark back to the past of their own culture. For Spengler, the peak of Western music lies with Bach. After that it is a downward trend.
> 
> Let's say Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are the highest. After that it decreases quickly. It collapses approximately in the 20th century. With Shostakovich as the final revival. With Shostakovich's death, classical music also died. Everything after that is pointless noise. As Spengler said: That it has always been the case that next to every great artist there are 100 superfluous artists. That 100 formed the basis on which that one artist could stand out. But today* there are 10,000 to work without necessity. Make them stop and you won't miss a thing.
> ...


What a bunch of unfounded garble. I love Shostakovich, but to deny composers like K. A. Hartmann, Penderecki, Ligeti, Boulez, Henze, Berio, Carter, Feldman et. al. is foolish and, honestly, it's a damaging point-of-view to uphold.


----------



## Artran (Sep 16, 2016)

Neo Romanza said:


> What a bunch of unfounded garble. I love Shostakovich, but to deny composers like K. A. Hartmann, Penderecki, Ligeti, Boulez, Henze, Berio, Carter, Feldman et. al. is foolish and, honestly, it's a damaging point-of-view to uphold.


No one should take Oswald Spengler seriously. That being said his The Decline of the West is a fascinating book.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Artran said:


> No one should take Oswald Spengler seriously. That being said his The Decline of the West is a fascinating book.


I suppose the best thing anyone who believes in post-WWII music can do is to ignore Spengler.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> As soon as someone says that they don't like something, I tune them out. I'm not interested in what people don't like, only what they do like.


Then you should learn to follow your own advice:



SanAntone said:


> Can't agree with you about this recording of this work, which I do love. First, and most importantly, Berberin's recording uses the *original version for small chamber ensemble* which I vastly prefer. I also found Pecková's voice unsuited to these songs and her tempos in several of them were slow IMO.
> 
> She does a better job with the Mahler, Wagner, and Brahms.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Neo Romanza said:


> Then you should learn to follow your own advice:


The only reason I made that post was to alert people that the version you praised was not the chamber ensemble version and very different from Cathy Berberian's. 

This is different than claiming to not like modern music, and that it is all bad.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> The only reason I made that post was to alert people that the version you praised was not the chamber ensemble version and very different from Cathy Berberian's.
> 
> This is different than claiming to not like modern music, and that it is all bad.


No, this isn't what happened at all. You said you didn't like the performance I was listening to and proceeded to tell me what performance you preferred. To be honest, I don't really care what version of Berio's _Folk Songs_ you prefer. I was just sharing my love for the performance.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Montarsolo said:


> Let's say Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are the highest. After that it decreases quickly. It collapses approximately in the 20th century. With Shostakovich as the final revival. With Shostakovich's death, classical music also died. Everything after that is pointless noise.


I think something definitely changes after 1950 or so. Some call modernism winding up to be the death of grand narratives. I like to think of the period roughly between 1750 and 1950 as the heroic period of music. Whatever you call it, the end of the industrial revolution, two cataclysmic world wars and the dissemination of music through recordings meant that things would never be the same as they were.

What's the present compared to that time? It might be a babel in comparison, but I think since music is so diverse now and the core repertoire has virtually been a closed book since around 1950, the old ways of thinking about music appear redundant. What’s played in the concert halls and opera houses now only represents a fraction of the music scene. I can’t think of any equivalents to Darmstadt or Bayreuth now, there’s no single place that attract an entire new generation like those did.

I think the advantage of this situation is that there's not much pressure now to agree on a set of dogmas and ideologies about music. I think there's been a lifting of a bit of the weight of history which can just as much stifle creativity as inspire it. Perhaps we’re going back to old ways, when music was in small scenes and more regional. Composers have the advantage of being able to work without too much concern about making it in the big centres like London, Berlin or New York but they can still have a presence on the world stage via internet.


----------



## Andrew Kenneth (Feb 17, 2018)

Sid James said:


> (...) I can’t think of any equivalents to Darmstadt or Bayreuth now, there’s no single place that attract an entire new generation like those did. (...)


In my opinion the "Donaueschinger Musiktage" fits this description.

It's a yearly new music festival that was founded in 1921 in the town of Donaueschingen.
more info => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donaueschingen_Festival

The 2022 festival line-up => Programm der Donaueschinger Musiktage 2022

Labels like Col Legno & Neos release yearly cd's documenting the new music of this festival.

This is one of the latest releases =>


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Sid James said:


> I think the advantage of this situation is that there's not much pressure now to agree on a set of dogmas and ideologies about music. I think there's been a lifting of a bit of the weight of history which can just as much stifle creativity as inspire it. Perhaps we’re going back to old ways, when music was in small scenes and more regional. Composers have the advantage of being able to work without too much concern about making it in the big centres like London, Berlin or New York but they can still have a presence on the world stage via internet.


This is my experience precisely. The social freedom composers have today is as close to absolute as it can be. And also due to technical development, there is nothing imaginable that a composer could not aurally achieve today. The feeling is utterly exciting.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Sid James said:


> Composers have the advantage of being able to work without too much concern about making it in the big centres like London, Berlin or New York but they can still have a presence on the world stage via internet.


Do they have an advantage? Is it the same without the interactions, the networks of artists together inspiring one another? I think not.
I read a book that explained this well. The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

I have a good relationship with modernism and contemporary music. I don’t mess with it and it doesn’t mess with me. 😎
Other than avant-garde jazz I don’t tend to listen to much of what might be considered contemporary classical music. I’m not even clear on what would constitute modernism nowadays. I daresay my go-to guys like Webern, Schönberg, Krenek et al would be considered old hat.
I’m very keen on James MacMillan though.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Andrew Kenneth said:


> In my opinion the "Donaueschinger Musiktage" fits this description.
> 
> It's a yearly new music festival that was founded in 1921 in the town of Donaueschingen.
> more info => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donaueschingen_Festival


Festivals of new music like this are important. Another one is ISCM. There are also many new music ensembles. However, there's no longer a figurehead, or representative of new music as there was in the past. In the late 19th century, composers had to address the legacy of Wagner. In the postwar years, certainly at Darmstadt, it was Webern. 

I don't think that composers today feel an obligation to address any particular aspect of the past, distant or recent, the way they did during modernism. This may be why the situation is much less sectarian than it once was.

There are too many directions now to boil things down in that way. In the early 20th century, in terms of what was cutting edge, you had three major strands - Impressionism, atonality/serialism and primitivism (or approaches rooted in folk music). Post 1945 you had post-serialism, aleatoricism and electronics. From the 1960's you get the decline of isms and schools, which gives way to what we have now.



Waehnen said:


> This is my experience precisely. The social freedom composers have today is as close to absolute as it can be. And also due to technical development, there is nothing imaginable that a composer could not aurally achieve today. The feeling is utterly exciting.


No time like the present, as the saying goes.



eljr said:


> Do they have an advantage? Is it the same without the interactions, the networks of artists together inspiring one another? I think not.


There are of course still networks - local, national, global. There will always be some sort of interaction between musicians, even though composition can be a solitary activity. It can be argued that inspiration is easier to get, because of information technology. In many ways, the world's a smaller place.

Places like London, Berlin and New York have the money to fund big commissions, but breaking into these is really competitive. So composers can quite happily work without a need to do that.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Sid James said:


> Places like London, Berlin and New York have the money to fund big commissions, but breaking into these is really competitive. So composers can quite happily work without a need to do that.


I think you miss my point completely. It is the young artist that have always flocked to "hubs" like NYC, Paris or Berlin. They feed off each other. They inspire each other. These late night collaborations, impromptu meetings have fueled all arts and always have. The young much more so need to gather in artist colonies than do those receiving "big commissions."


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

eljr said:


> I think you miss my point completely. It is the young artist that have always flocked to "hubs" like NYC, Paris or Berlin. They feed off each other. They inspire each other. These late night collaborations, impromptu meetings have fueled all arts and always have. The young much more so need to gather in artist colonies than do those receiving "big commissions."


If you follow my line of argument, its about more networks and hubs, not less but with less dominance from the established centres of classical music:



Sid James said:


> I can’t think of any equivalents to Darmstadt or Bayreuth now, there’s no single place that attract an entire new generation like those did. Perhaps we’re going back to old ways, when music was in small scenes and more regional.





Sid James said:


> There are of course still networks - local, national, global. There will always be some sort of interaction between musicians, even though composition can be a solitary activity.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Sid James said:


> less dominance from the established centres of classical music:


Why?

Where should they go?

Nebraska? There will not be enough collaboration to accomplish anything for them is such blissful surroundings. 

I don't get your point. How does it benefit them to have a different gathering place if that is all you are advocating? 

Vienna would not be know as the capital of classical music if the great artists of the time did not come together in the late 18th century. It was the great influx of talent that demanded opera houses and concert halls be built. 

Ideas are not best derived in solitude if that is one of your contentions. 

I guess I am failing to see how less personal interactions is of any advantage. In any art. In any science.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I think the US produced more varied, and frankly, more aesthetically adventurous music than Europe in the modern and early post-modern period specifically because it wasn't so dominated by a single academic center but that's probably the extreme opposite end of there being no academic centers or collaboration.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

fbjim said:


> I think the US produced more varied, and frankly, more aesthetically adventurous music than Europe in the modern and early post-modern period specifically because it wasn't so dominated by a single academic center but that's probably the extreme opposite end of there being no academic centers or collaboration.


Wasn't it the dominance of NYC that made American music more "adventurous music?"

What was the single academic center of Europe that dominated? Did not Europe, having more history and a greater following have more centers to collaborate? 

With all respect, I think your post has it completely backward.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Post-war Darmstadt, is what I'm implying there.


----------



## PaulFranz (May 7, 2019)

Waehnen said:


> What is you relationship with modernism and contemporary music?
> 
> I often find myself thinking that the field of contemporary music creates less great global stories -- stories that almost everyone involved with classical music share. Everyone knows Beethoven but not everyone knows Milton Babbitt.
> 
> ...


Rautavaara not being in this list is positively criminal.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

PaulFranz said:


> Rautavaara not being in this list is positively criminal.


I have never really warmed up to Rautavaara all that much. I do not dislike the music but it does not really fascinate me either. Of course he had many compositional periods so it would be pointless to reject someone like Rautavaara.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

eljr said:


> Why?
> 
> Where should they go?
> 
> ...


None of what I said negates the continuing importance of established centres, or interaction between musicians.

The established centres still attract those from elsewhere for study and career development. The opposite can also be true, musicians can move to the periphery for inspiration and exposure to new horizons. I think its becoming common for musicians to gain experience in the big centres and then return home, where they can work with local ensembles and musicians.

When new centres emerge, they don't supersede the old ones. As music moved north, Italy remained an important musical centre. Newly developing centres, such as East Europe and Russia in the 19th century, modelled themselves after the established centres. Regional differences are also important within countries, for example in the USA on the west coast, quite a different scene emerged for different types of music, including classical.


----------

