# Will Modern Music Ever Become Accepted?



## Sequentia

In other words, will the public ever accept the mature works of Berg, Bartók and composers more radical than them? What would bring such a change of opinion about? Is this similar to posing the question "Will the wide public ever cherish Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 19 more than Lady Gaga's latest hit?"? Will Babbitt's views be proven true?

All opinions are welcome!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Because composers that died before the 50s are very modern aren't they? And did you just imply that Bartók is a _radical composer?_ It seems to me that he is quite a popular composer anyway. Sorry, that was my rant. I don't want to go and create an argument.

Okay, to me it doesn't matter if "radical" modern composers aren't as popular as other music. They still have supporters to keep them going and there is a contemporary music audience to cheer them on. I just don't like it when composers, for example Elliott Carter, are insulted and put down and their music is described as worthless. Not saying that that's happened or anything.


----------



## Sequentia

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Because composers that died before the 50s are very modern aren't they? And did you just imply that Bartók is a _radical composer?_ It seems to me that he is quite a popular composer anyway. Sorry, that was my rant. I don't want to go and create an argument.
> 
> Okay, to me it doesn't matter if "radical" modern composers aren't as popular as other music. They still have supporters to keep them going and there is a contemporary music audience to cheer them on. I just don't like it when composers, for example Elliott Carter, are insulted and put down and their music is described as worthless. Not saying that that's happened or anything.


"Radical" was just an analogy - most Xenakis is less accessible than Bartók's Concerto for Orchestra.

As for Bartók's popularity, perhaps you could sift through the 35 pages of comments at http://community.nytimes.com/commen...01/23/arts/music/23composers.html?sort=oldest. In fact, the link illustrates that the general public doesn't give a damn about atonal music.


----------



## Ramako

Simple answer: no.

Stravinsky's rite of spring caused riots on its opening as we constantly hear, and now... it is a moderately well-known piece of music praised as a masterpiece in academic circles (I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just saying it isn't that popular if it is one of the great masterpieces of its time compared to, say, a Beethoven symphony). I'm just using this as an example for modern music in general - it simply hasn't been accepted to the same extent as parallels 50-100-1000 years earlier.

Beethoven was considered a bit strange in his own time, but universally acknowledged as the greatest composer alive, and was certainly not as sidelined as modern composers now. Only 10-20 years after his death, 50 years certainly, he was massive. Same goes for Mozart, Wagner etc. No one in the twentieth century compares for popularity with these people, except people like Rachmaninov - not exactly Radical.

True Bach was ignored for 100 years after his death: but Bach was considered too old-fashioned even in his own day, so we can't call him radical. Again, Mahler took only 50 years to be accepted.

In my opinion, modern music, from about Schoenburg onwards, including people like Cage and Stockhausen, will become a genre in itself, separate from "classical" music. Many of these works question the very basics of aesthetics that Classical composers worked with, so of course they are going to be of a completely different nature, to posterity as well as current society.

Disclaimer: I am not trying to insult anyone, I am not actively questioning the validity of anything, I am only expressing my opinions, and I maybe wrong, signed _Ramako_.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Sequentia said:


> "Radical" was just an analogy - most Xenakis is less accessible than Bartók's Concerto for Orchestra.
> 
> As for Bartók's popularity, perhaps you could sift through the 35 pages of comments at http://community.nytimes.com/commen...01/23/arts/music/23composers.html?sort=oldest. In fact, the link illustrates that the general public doesn't give a damn about atonal music.


Are you implying that Bartók's music is largely atonal?


----------



## neoshredder

Modern Composers? You mean Early Modern Composers. Ligeti and Schnittke are the Late Modern Composers along with many others.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

neoshredder said:


> Modern Composers? You mean Early Modern Composers.


oxymoron........


----------



## neoshredder

Well whatever. Not modern enough imo. 50 years is a long time. Just see how much different the movies are now from 50 years ago.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

neoshredder said:


> Well whatever. Not modern enough imo. 50 years is a long time. Just see how much different the movies are now from 50 years ago.


And music. 50 years ago they had 4'33" and now they have Hans Zimmer's latest movie score.


----------



## brianwalker

Sequentia said:


> In other words, will the public ever accept the mature works of Berg, Bartók and composers more radical than them?


Berg and Bartok are already accepted by the public.



> Is this similar to posing the question "Will the wide public ever cherish Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 19 more than Lady Gaga's latest hit?"?


Mozart will be more popular than Lady Gaga in 30 years, when nobody listens to Lady Gaga anymore.



> Will Babbitt's views be proven true?


Who?


----------



## Krisena

I am *certain* that today's contemporary music and the modern and postmodern music of the 20th century and will become accepted in the future. I see no reason at all why they wouldn't. Classical music listeners today have grown up with the old music, but imagine in future generations when children sometimes get it played for them, when they start incorporating traits of atonality, klangfarbenmelodie or minimalism into popular music - first for novelty, then dramatic effect, then for esthetical purposes, then it becomes an ingrained part of the pop language, and so on - _and have you even noticed the sheer amount of modern music in cinema?_ This in turn will contribute to the increased popularity of the academic composers of the 20th and 21st century, even though pop music will still be pop music and academic music will still be academic music.

I think modern music has come to stay, and later it will simply be yet another style of music that can be mixed with any other for all possible purposes. It just has a certain burn-in time, but look some generations into the future, do you honestly not see it?

It's not like this music is ugly, we just aren't too used to it yet. Me and most of my friends are around 20 years old, and once I got them to sit down and listen to works by Messiaen, Takemitsu, Bartok and Nordheim on an album I have. At first they gave me strange looks, but then I pointed out some aspects of the music they probably hadn't thought about yet, and they stopped talking and started to listen, and afterwards, they actually found the experience rewarding and insightful. Modern and contemporary music isn't counter-inuitive, contrary to most of the older generation's belief, but after over 500 years of tonality, I wouldn't expect such a dramatic change as the one we've seen in the beginning of the 20th century to be understood completely after even a 100 years.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Krisena said:


> I am *certain* that today's contemporary music and the modern and postmodern music of the 20th century and will become accepted in the future. I see no reason at all why they wouldn't. Classical music listeners today have grown up with the old music, but imagine in future generations when children sometimes get it played for them, when they start incorporating traits of atonality, klangfarbenmelodie or minimalism into popular music - first for novelty, then dramatic effect, then for esthetical purposes, then it becomes an ingrained part of the pop language, and so on - _and have you even noticed the sheer amount of modern music in cinema?_ This in turn will contribute to the increased popularity of the academic composers of the 20th and 21st century, even though pop music will still be pop music and academic music will still be academic music. I think modern music has come to stay, and later it will simply be yet another style of music that can be mixed with any other for all possible purposes. It just has a certain burn in time, but look some generations into the future, do you honestly not see it?


That would be amazing.


----------



## Sequentia

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Are you implying that Bartók's music is largely atonal?


No, but

1) it is substantially more dissonant than Beethoven, and
2) this thread does not deal only with Bartók.


----------



## neoshredder

Sequentia said:


> No, but
> 
> 1) it is substantially more dissonant than Beethoven, and
> 2) this thread does not deal only with Bartók.


It's a change but not Avant-Garde level yet. I guess Early Modern is not a good title. Early 20th Century is better. Things have changed since then.


----------



## Sequentia

brianwalker said:


> Berg and Bartok are already accepted by the public.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/nov/28/alex-ross-modern-classical-music



brianwalker said:


> Mozart will be more popular than Lady Gaga in 30 years, when nobody listens to Lady Gaga anymore.


It was a synecdoche.



brianwalker said:


> Who?


Try Wikipedia.


----------



## Sequentia

neoshredder said:


> It's a change but not Avant-Garde level yet. I guess Early Modern is not a good title. Early 20th Century is better. Things have changed since then.


When I say "modern" I'm referring to 20th century music that is rejected by most listeners. To this day, many people describe Schönberg as contemporary.


----------



## neoshredder

Do you consider 1940's movies as modern? Or the music? Why should Classical be any different? And yes Schonberg is more modern than Beethoven. I guess this just shows how little respect people have toward Modern Classical if they are going way back to the early 20th Century and calling it Modern.


----------



## Krisena

I edited my original post btw, in case some people didn't read it. 

*Sequentia*, if I was the Weasel Word Police, you would be under arrest. You need sources when you say "many people" and "most listeners". Who are these people?

Schönberg isn't contemporary anymore, because he's been dead for 60 years and music has progressed far beyond his innovations. He is modern though, in the _modernistic_ meaning of the word.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Sequentia said:


> When I say "modern" I'm referring to 20th century music that is rejected by most listeners. To this day, many people describe Schönberg as contemporary.


Oh yes very contemporary. He's over 60 years dead! That's like saying Rossini and Bach were contemporaries.


----------



## neoshredder

Gotta give him respect for knowing about Xenakis at least.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Krisena said:


> I edited my post btw, in case some people didn't read it.
> 
> *Sequencia*, if I was the Weasel Word Police, you would be under arrest. You need sources when you say "many people" and "most listeners". Who are these people?
> 
> Schönberg isn't contemporary anymore, because he's been dead for 60 years and music has progressed far beyond his innovations. He is modern though, in the _modernistic_ meaning of the word.


Schoenberg was a modernist but a conservative. He wrote music conventional in all but tonality. His rhythms might also be a bit less conventional than older music but when it comes to orchestration, counterpoint etc. there's not much that's new.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Sequentia said:


> In other words, will the public ever accept the mature works of Berg, Bartók and composers more radical than them? What would bring such a change of opinion about? Is this similar to posing the question "Will the wide public ever cherish Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 19 more than Lady Gaga's latest hit?"? Will Babbitt's views be proven true?
> 
> All opinions are welcome!


"Public" - what exactly does that mean? The masses that gathered at the Olympic Stadium in London last night? Well then, you have empirical evidence that the answer to your question is "no". They preferred Sir Paul McCartney and _Chariots of Fire_.


----------



## Andreas

For today's modern music enthusiasts, Schoenberg is old hat. But for the general public, he is as schockingly unlistenable as he was back in the 1920s.

When Boulez celebrated his 85th birthday with a concert in Vienna and he "dared" to play Stravinsky, Debussy and Janacek along with a work of his own, many subscribers gave back their tickets.

The general audience, the average concertgoer is lightyears behind. Concert programmes sometimes put a modern work together with an old favourite. I have regularly witnessed people go through agonies during those seven or ten minutes of atonality, at the end of which they sighed with relief, glad that good old Tchaikovsky was about to kick in any second.

I think it's unlikely that atonal music will ever become popular. The dissonances are too harsh. Maybe the conflicting frequencies are a strain on the ears on a purely physiological level, causing some kind of pain, I don't know. Anyway, the intuitive reaction is usually one of irritation and discomfort. Even for many lovers of classical music, atonality is not pleasing, and ultimately, only pleasing music can become popular.


----------



## norman bates

Ramako said:


> Simple answer: no.
> 
> Stravinsky's rite of spring caused riots on its opening as we constantly hear, and now... it is a moderately well-known piece of music praised as a masterpiece in academic circles


----------



## norman bates

anyway, i think that for many reasons, a lot of "modern" music (modern meaning 20th century music) will never be popular. In some case just because is plain ugly, no matter what the ultrarelativists will say: Beethoven music was accepted during his life or soon after his death, with the exception maybe of things like the grosse fuge, not a century after. Other music for a lot of different aspects. And of course, there are modern work who will became popular because there's a lot of beautiful music in the "avantgarde". And movies are certainly a key for a wider acceptance of certain works.


----------



## hocket

Ramako's answer was spot on IMO.

From the late nineteenth century onwards the arts in general have broadly embraced the commitment experimentation and innovation in Romanticism and made that the central to the ideology. Breaking the mould and redefining what is acceptable were key elements of modernism and remain important in 'post-modernism' (perhaps behind it all there is an element of artists conceptions of themselves, wishing to distance themselves from the notion of being 'mere' craftsmen). As a result being 'challenging' and 'difficult' are touted as being 'good things' in themselves. I'm certainly not intending to suggest that there aren't virtues in these things but I am sceptical about being trapped by them -they are not the only things to aspire to.

As Ramako said, the world's had plenty of time to see if atonal and challenging music will develop a broad appeal and the answer has been a resounding no. Redefining what is acceptable has largely only found a receptive audience and affected a fraction of 'classical music's' already fairly small following. Deliberately challenging and difficult music has proven to only have appeal to a relative minority. That shouldn't be a problem for anyone really, but it has proven to be. I guess part of what riles some is that our academies tend to be dominated by people who are committed to modernist and post modernist music and that their pedagogical approach is naturally determined by that and indoctrinates ensuing generations. The result is what appears to outsiders to be an elitist, hermetic sect that is self-perpetuating and as many of our higher learning institutions are state funded this is done at the expense of a public that by and large views these things as follies, indulgences or even as a sort of con. OTOH the supporters of the modernist approaches become frustrated that a wider public doesn't appreciate them and become increasingly insistent that what they're doing is 'the only way'.

BTW, I loved the story about people in Norway sitting around listening to atonal music and learning to appreciate aspects of it they didn't understand and coming to respect each others' points of view. It conforms to our stereotype of Scandanavia as an oversized 70's commune hilariously.


----------



## Krisena

I think it's a fallacy to compare the modern movements to Beethoven, after all, *Beethoven didn't abandon tonality*, he simply developed what was there already. If anything, it supports _my_ argument. I mean, if people had a hard time adapting to HIM, of course they will need even longer time to get used to exprimental music. The differences in leap is substantial.



hocket said:


> BTW, I loved the story about people in Norway sitting around listening to atonal music and learning to appreciate aspects of it they didn't understand and coming to respect each others' points of view. It conforms to our stereotype of Scandanavia as an oversized 70's commune hilariously.


What's your point? Is this some form of suppression technique, because I feel I'm being ridiculed here, for some reason.


----------



## hocket

Krisena said:


> What's your point? Is this some form of suppression technique, because I feel I'm being ridiculed here, for some reason.


Probably because you are being ridiculed but if you find the idea that some people in other countries stereotype your part of the world as a paradise of reasonableness and tolerance an offensive one then I apologize profusely.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Repeatedly I have been surprised by the tales on this forum, of concert patrons returning tickets and being outraged at the inclusion of the slightest bit of modern music in a programme. Amsterdam must be a great anomaly, because my own experiences have never beared resemblance.

For the past two years I have held multiple subscriptions to the concertgebouw orchestra, allowing me to attend nearly a concert per week. The orchestra provides multiple subscriptions each with a different flavour. For the past few years they have chosen to make their main subscription, the 'A' series, entirely consistent of 20th/21st century music. These have always been sold out and received triumphantly both by audience and by press. (The latest concert included music by Lindberg, Saariaho, Rijnvos and Boulez for example.)

Is Amsterdam really so different? I can hardly imagine that it is, being a large city with a population like any other.


----------



## Krisena

hocket said:


> Probably because you are being ridiculed but if you find the idea that some people in other countries stereotype your part of the world as a paradise of reasonableness and tolerance an offensive one then I apologize profusely.


Hm. I interpreted it more like you dismissed my opinion on the grounds that I live in a sheltered and safe society, and that I know nothing of the world or something like that. I don't know what to say! Norway is a great place to live I guess.

But, jesus christ, let's get back on track, this is so off-topic, it makes me cry.



Krisena said:


> I think it's a fallacy to compare the modern movements to Beethoven, after all, *Beethoven didn't abandon tonality*, he simply developed what was there already. If anything, it supports _my_ argument. I mean, if people had a hard time adapting to HIM, of course they will need even longer time to get used to exprimental music. The differences in leap is substantial.


----------



## Eschbeg

Ramako said:


> Beethoven was considered a bit strange in his own time, but universally acknowledged as the greatest composer alive


Not true. In 1834, the German musicologist Raphael Georg Kiesewetter wrote a history of music, and when he got to the chapter on the nineteenth century he entitled it, "The Age of Beethoven and Rossini." For him and for everyone else, Rossini was considered at least an equal and possibly a superior to Beethoven. Certainly the Italians and French thought so, and if Kiesewetter's book is any indication than some Germans thought so too. These days, of course, very few of us are willing to put Beethoven and Rossini even in the same sentence. The _New Oxford History of Music_ series chooses to entitle its nineteenth century volume "The Age of Beethoven," which shows how much history has been rewritten in order to accommodate our current biases. (Not that we aren't entitled to our biases; I just think we should own up to them as ours and not pretend they were the same biases that our composer-heroes subscribed to as well.)

This goes some way toward answering the question of the thread. Will modern music ever become as accepted as Beethoven? I would guess no, and part of the reason (I'm not saying it's the whole reason) is that no one expects it to. If the number of times the word "universal" is used in reference to Beethoven is any indication, we've already chosen what the standard of classical music should be, so by comparison modern music (as well as Medieval and Renaissance music) will inevitably always be found wanting.


----------



## Ukko

/\ Excellent exposition. I have read that Beethoven expressed annoyance with the Viennese public for preferring Rossini's music to his - based on public performances. I have also read that his Op. 29 was his most popular work in his time, the general opinion being that his music had drifted toward strange since then.

I do think that music composed later in the 19th C that doesn't much resemble Beethoven's was/is accepted. Maybe it's a matter of who is doing the accepting. Rachmaninoff and Schoenberg had admirers both in common and otherwise. If the OP is referring to the general population, spin-offs of Rachmaninoff's music is about as far as CM's acceptance extends.


----------



## norman bates

to be considered in the top two composers now means to be "not accepted?"


----------



## Toddlertoddy

brianwalker said:


> Berg and Bartok are already accepted by the public.


That's if the public even knows who those two are. Everyone (almost) will know Mozart, but won't know Berg.



brianwalker said:


> Mozart will be more popular than Lady Gaga in 30 years, when nobody listens to Lady Gaga anymore.


That's an outrageous claim but it would be interesting if that actually happened.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

...will the public ever accept the mature works of Berg, Bartók and composers more radical than them?

I would reiterate the fact that Bartok... some of Bartok... has been rather accepted for some time.

I would also repeat HC's question as to just who this audience or "public" is? Even among the audience of classical music lovers there are some who love Berg, some who begrudgingly acknowledge him, some who will never come around... and some who are into the latest _avant garde_ experiments.

The initial question... "Will Modern Music ever become accepted?"... is truly impossible to answer for at least two reasons that I can think of offhand:

We cannot presume to know what the future generations will value.

The term "Modern Music" is too open-ended. What composers specifically are denoted by the term "Modern Music"? Richard Strauss is certainly accepted. His operas are among the most performed and beloved of the century. The same is true of Puccini, Rachmaninoff, Aaron Copland, Barber, etc... On the other hand, some composers are not that well accepted. Schoenberg is still not whistled by the postman on his rounds. Varèse, Xenakis, Scelsi, etc... are not among the most beloved composers... even among classical music fans. Should we expect otherwise? In every era there will be those composers who will survive and be appreciated by a far larger audience. In spite of the brilliance of his work, Heinrich Ignaz Franz Biber is nowhere as well beloved as J.S. Bach, Handel, Vivaldi... or even Rameau, Domenico Scarlatti, and Boccherini.

The general audience, the average concertgoer is lightyears behind.

This brings us to another question. How much responsibility does the listener or audience bear? Is it the responsibility of the listener to follow wherever the composer may lead... however esoteric (or even unpleasant) that may seem? How would this concept have worked out for Bach or Haydn or even Beethoven? To suggest that the audience is light-years behind if they refuse to accept some music is rather pretentious, it would seem. One might just as well argue that the artist who engages in the most esoteric experiments and fails to reach more than a handful of listeners is light-years behind in that he or she doesn't "get it" or grasp what the audience wants. I'm of the belief that art is a two-way dialog... a form of communication involving a degree of effort on both sides. But I am also of the belief that not all art is for everybody. I don't mean this in an "elitist" sense that certain art is above certain individuals... which is what seems to be implied when someone declares "You just don't 'get it.' " Rather I mean this in a sense of an elective affinity. We determine what is or is not worth the degree of effort involved considering the likely degree of pleasure to be derived. I have acknowledged that Chinese opera, Hip-Hop, and Xenakis are not for me. On the other hand I have gladly put forth the effort demanded in order to come to an appreciation of Byzantine Chant, Indian Ragas, Wagner's Operas, Alban Berg, and Giacinto Scelsi. If the future largely deems that berg and Scelsi are not worth the effort, it's no skin off my nose.


----------



## Ralfy

No one can tell, and it will probably not matter because we'd be long gone by then.


----------



## Xavier

Here's my question:

Should the music of composers like, say, Carter and Boulez continually piggy-back on that of great composers from the past to get an audience? They almost always have to be 'sandwiched' in the middle of the program.

If their music deserves to be heard, then let it stand *on its own feet*. It's been around for 50 years or so-hadn't most the works by the more mainstream composers that challenged their initial audiences pretty much been accepted after half a century?

The impression is given that the fans seem to think... _"if only people will listen they'll learn to love it"_. Then when that doesn't work.... _"if only people would lay aside their bourgeois prejudices of what they think they like, they'll learn to love it"_-which I find a rather patronizing attitude.


----------



## aleazk

Well, I _accept_ modern music. And luckily there are some very good people interpreting and recording it, so I can listen and enjoy 'modern music'. I'm done.  If you don't like it, well, that's your business and not mine.


----------



## brianwalker

Toddlertoddy said:


> That's an outrageous claim but it would be interesting if that actually happened.


You've never heard this before I bet.


----------



## mmsbls

brianwalker said:


> Mozart will be more popular than Lady Gaga in 30 years, when nobody listens to Lady Gaga anymore.





Toddlertoddy said:


> That's an outrageous claim but it would be interesting if that actually happened.


It is perhaps an outrageous claim, but I think it may be true. Two _huge_ bands of the 70s are KC and the Sunshine Band (5 number 1 hits plus a number 2 hit) and Three Dog Night (3 number one hits plus 15 more top 20 hits). I assume that Mozart is currently more popular then both these bands - more people know Mozart, more Mozart music is sold, and more Mozart music is performed.

I personally don't know Lady Gaga's music so I don't know if it may tend to last more than the vast majority of popular music greats.


----------



## aleazk

> Mozart will be more popular than Lady Gaga in 30 years, when nobody listens to Lady Gaga anymore.


Pop music of the 80's is more popular than Mozart today, in statistical terms.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Pop music of the 80's is more popular than Mozart today, in statistical terms.

Sentimental attachment to the music they were weaned on as teens. A great many people never explore music... any music, not merely classical... beyond that which they came to know as a teenager. As such, you cannot discern what will survive until the generation born and raised upon a given body of music passes away. When I was a kid the radio stations used to play pop music from the 60s and 50s continually. Today it would be some freak event if Little Richard or Bo Diddly ended up on the radio. But 80s music? Those raised on that are now in their 50s and a major market force. How relevant... in statistical terms... is the popular music of the 40s... 30s... 20s?


----------



## aleazk

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Pop music of the 80's is more popular than Mozart today, in statistical terms.
> 
> Sentimental attachment to the music they were weaned on as teens. A great many people never explore music... any music, not merely classical... beyond that which they came to know as a teenager. As such, you cannot discern what will survive until the generation born and raised upon a given body of music passes away. When I was a kid the radio stations used to play pop music from the 60s and 50s continually. Today it would be some freak event if Little Richard or Bo Diddly ended up on the radio. But 80s music? Those raised on that are now in their 50s and a major market force. How relevant... in statistical terms... is the popular music of the 40s... 30s... 20s?


yes, Mozart, or any other composer, will always be present, but I think never will reach the high level of popularity of popular music. And this is even independent of the actual content of the music, since most (not all, of course) part of today's popular music is popular because of marketing strategies.


----------



## Ukko

mmsbls said:


> It is perhaps an outrageous claim, but I think it may be true. Two _huge_ bands of the 70s are KC and the Sunshine Band (5 number 1 hits plus a number 2 hit) and Three Dog Night (3 number one hits plus 15 more top 20 hits). I assume that Mozart is currently more popular then both these bands - more people know Mozart, more Mozart music is sold, and more Mozart music is performed.
> [...]


Hah. I remember "Three Dog Night" - by name only.


----------



## Petwhac

Modern music will be, and is, accepted. But it will not be _as_ accepted or _as_ popular. I cannot conceive of a scenario where this will not be true.

I am taking as read which music is being referred to as 'modern'. (ie non tonal, non harmony based etc)


----------



## brianwalker

Sentimental attachment to the music they were weaned on as teens. A great many people never explore music... any music, not merely classical... beyond that which they came to know as a teenager. 


Bingo.

http://www.bakadesuyo.com/what-music-will-we-probably-enjoy-for-the-res

A recent study by Steve Janssen at the University of Amsterdam shows that the bands and *songs people remember most clearly and fondly in middle age are the ones they came to love between the ages of 16 and 21 -*- late adolescence and early adulthood.

By contrast, when asked to name favourite books and movies, people favour more recent works. The strong musical reminiscence bump between 16 and 21 years of age makes sense because our relationships with music really gets going when we enter puberty, and becomes most intense from then through to early adulthood. This is no coincidence. It is music that plays when we fall in love, when our hearts break, when we discover sex and learn the meaning of true friendship.

http://crookedtimber.org/2012/07/19/music-that-survived/

*Music that hasn't survived*, and that ought to have - The Boo Radleys (Giant Steps), The Blue Aeroplanes (Swagger, Beatsongs), the House of Love (Babe Rainbow, their masterpiece, received startlingly bad reviews at the time). Dance music I have less to say about, because the genre I liked the most - drum'n'bass - appears to have disappeared almost in its entirety, while the other people I liked (Amon Tobin; the various incarnations of Kieran Hebden; Bonobo) are still around more or less doing what they always did.
Like some other CT bloggers, I'm long past the age where I could plausibly claim to be in touch with modern popular music, and rapidly approaching the 'there's nothing new that sounds at all interesting' stage of advanced cultural decrepitude.

It's always been a puzzle to me. The music you hear in puberty (say 1962 - 1970) is always the greatest music ever, so I have to severely discount my judgements, but really: Dylan, Beatles, Stones, Brian Wilson. What do you young people think about them?



aleazk said:


> Pop music of the 80's is more popular than Mozart today, in statistical terms.


100 years then. All pop music has a popularity that is asymptotic to zero over time.


----------



## Krisena

brianwalker said:


> 100 years then. All pop music has a popularity that is asymptotic to zero over time.




I'd like to see your source on this statement, please.


----------



## brianwalker

Krisena said:


> I'd like to see your source on this statement, please.


There is no pop band that is more popular with older generations than with the generation it was a part of. This is a law with no exceptions.


----------



## BurningDesire

Xavier said:


> Here's my question:
> 
> Should the music of composers like, say, Carter and Boulez continually piggy-back on that of great composers from the past to get an audience? They almost always have to be 'sandwiched' in the middle of the program.
> 
> If their music deserves to be heard, then let it stand *on its own feet*. It's been around for 50 years or so-hadn't most the works by the more mainstream composers that challenged their initial audiences pretty much been accepted after half a century?
> 
> The impression is given that the fans seem to think... _"if only people will listen they'll learn to love it"_. Then when that doesn't work.... _"if only people would lay aside their bourgeois prejudices of what they think they like, they'll learn to love it"_-which I find a rather patronizing attitude.


Actually it can stand on its own feet. There _are_ concerts of exclusively newer pieces, and many of those composers have been increasingly recorded and listened to. They aren't popular on the extreme level of other composers, but they're by far more accepted than they were 50 years ago. And the reason alot of people who love say that if you give it a chance you can learn to love it, is that thats how they grew to love it. I didn't really like atonal music a few years ago, and now I really genuinely enjoy it.


----------



## Sid James

Sequentia said:


> In other words, will the public ever accept the mature works of Berg, Bartók and composers more radical than them? What would bring such a change of opinion about? Is this similar to posing the question "Will the wide public ever cherish Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 19 more than Lady Gaga's latest hit?"? Will Babbitt's views be proven true?
> 
> All opinions are welcome!


I've seen these types of threads here over the years. I think gazing into the future is like a gypsy with a crystal ball, or voodoo. Its kind of dodgy at best.

I would say that 'atonal' music, and much of the 'hard core' post-1945 music will never be as popular as the classical music that is VERY popular, eg. 'warhorses' we all know from between the years of about 1750-1950, more or less.

But so what? I mean speaking personally, I would rather sit through some things people consider 'wierd' and 'too radical' than (say) some more 'accessible' things that to me are boring. Like I'm in no rush to hear Tchaikovsky's first piano concerto live in concert, though I am a lover of his music. I don't mind that piece, but what about playing his second concerto or even the unfinished third one? That third one looks forward to 'Modernism' imo, even maybe to Bartok. Quite 'banging' on the ivories, quite dissonant. I think if people heard it, they might love it. But they are unlikely to hear it live, or the 2nd concerto, everyone wants the 'barnstormers.'

You know I was speaking about this issue of flexibility and open attitude to an acquaintance recently and this person said 'How am I supposed to know what I don't like if I don't listen to it in the first place?' & that hit the nail on the head for me. In terms of live concerts here, if our major orchestras (which are a shadow of the past, their golden years under the likes of Mackerras and Challender, when they didn't only play mainly warhorses)...if they played a wider variety of music, people might jump onto the bandwagon of newer or new music (& by new music, I don't only mean the 'palatable' type, like Arvo Part).

But they don't (those two maestros are rolling in their graves, most likely, people last year even walked out on Mahler's 9th!). So people like me tune out and go to groups that have less 'profile' and less 'prestige' but they actually offer more varied, BETTER, programs. Programming includes not only 'warhorses,' which of course have to be played, but also a wide variety of less known works by 'big name' composers, also works of lesser known (or whatever you call them, underrated or second tier) composers, and also new or newer music, esp. of the country concerned. So you get a mix, and that's what often happens at chamber concerts here, they are more diverse and eclectic than the 'flagship' symphony orchestras. Compare say the Australian Chamber Orchestras programs with the Sydney Symphony's, and you'll see my point, maybe. Of course its my bias, but I was around in earlier decades when SSO presented solid programs, not the stuff that is like a shadow of that now.

So imo its not only 'difficulty' of access to new or newer music, but also exposure. & in that, I include not only people actually physically at a concert, but those hearing radio broadcasts of it, or going to the radio station's website and downloading podcasts or listening to clips on youtube, etc.


----------



## starthrower

The general public isn't any more familiar with Mozart or Beethoven than they are with Xenakis. They're only familiar with the household name, not the music. 

Everyone knows the name Frank Zappa. Does that mean the general public accepts and enjoys his music? No! They think he's some weirdo who sang about yellow snow, and gave his kids funny names. 

Uncompromising music is for music enthusiasts. Who cares what the public thinks? They can keep listening to what they've already heard since childhood. What does the average joe know about classical music beyond da da da dah... da da da dah...?

I put the blame on classical radio and orchestras who keep beating the same dead horse. Where's your audience now?

And speaking of classical radio... I have my radio alarm clock tuned to the local station here. It makes me get out of bed and turn off that boring stuff they play every morning.


----------



## Sid James

starthrower said:


> ...
> I put the blame on classical radio and orchestras who keep beating the same dead horse. Where's your audience now?


I think that's spot on. I mean I have introduced acquaintances to Modern period works, and they end up liking or even loving it, or some of it. I mean acquaintances with some experience of classical music, but not 'Modern' or 'Contemporary' music. But it boils down to what I said in my post just above. If people who are already into classical have not heard certain composers who are being exposed now on this forum, which is good - eg. Schnittke who you've gotten into, or Ligeti with CoAg's recent forays into his music, or a whole lot of other stuff from members like me who are all over the shop and generalists - then how can they form an opinion on it?

& I am pretty open to any experience of 'Modern' or 'contemporary' musics. You don't have to even own a cd. If you go to youtube or to a concert and hear something, or you borrow a cd, or hear something on radio (well, they do program some more recent music here, but not a great deal) - well that is enough 'experience' to at least form an opinion. Whether the listener wants to go further or not is up to them. But at least they have heard some of this music, they are not just making stabs in the dark, they are not doing voodoo or a seance, gazing into the future when I just go with what I like now, I just try to get into music in a natural way.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

In terms of live concerts here, if our major orchestras (which are a shadow of the past, their golden years under the likes of Mackerras and Challender, when they didn't only play mainly warhorses)...if they played a wider variety of music, people might jump onto the bandwagon of newer or new music... 

Ironic, then, that Mackerras is best known (at least in terms of his recordings) for his recordings of Mozart. I have his complete Mozart Symphonies, his classic reading of Rimsky-Korsakov's _Scheherazade_, a disc of Schubert masses, a disc of Mozart arias by Renee Fleming. I think the Modernist he was best known for was Leos Janacek. His box set of Janacek's operas has been on my "wish list" for some time now.


----------



## science

brianwalker said:


> There is no pop band that is more popular with older generations than with the generation it was a part of. This is a law with no exceptions.


Don't know what you count as pop, or I'd say "Robert Johnson."


----------



## science

The "Mozart will be more popular than Lady Gaga in 30 years" discussion is really interesting. Everyone has made good points. 

My own take: some "popular" music does get re-discovered by later generations. The CDs of Louis Armstrong's Hot Fives and Sevens recordings aren't selling to 120 year-olds clinging to their youth. A lot of people my age (30s) appreciate classic '60s and '70s music more than most of the music we grew up with ('80s and '90s): we'd rather listen to the Beatles and Pink Floyd and Johnny Cash than Boy George or Twisted Sister or Vanilla Ice or Tiffany. And I'd bet in 30 years we'll have culled today's pop music quite a bit, and at least some of it'll be getting rediscovered by younger people. (My guess: it is techno/electronica etc that will be most appreciated by later generations. But we'll have to wait and see.)

So I don't think it's possible to make any simple generalizations.


----------



## Andreas

Sid James said:


> In terms of live concerts here, if our major orchestras (which are a shadow of the past, their golden years under the likes of Mackerras and Challender, when they didn't only play mainly warhorses)...if they played a wider variety of music, people might jump onto the bandwagon of newer or new music (& by new music, I don't only mean the 'palatable' type, like Arvo Part).


Yes. Back in the 60s and 70 you had Bernstein and Karajan, they were extremely popular and, therefore, very influential. They drew large audiences more or less regardless of what they played, didn't they? And I think Bernstein in particular did a lot to help establish Nielsen and Mahler as part of the standard repertoire, and Karajan championed Sibelius at a time when the latter had already faded into obscurity.

But today, I think, you don't have such dominating giants anymore among conductors. I mean people who could pretty much single-handedly change concert programmes around the world.

Some soloists may still have that kind of impact. A performance of the Schoenberg violin concerto some years ago sold out at my local concert hall, but that was probably because it was Hilary Hahn playing. Now, if Lang Lang started playing the Ligeti Etudes, he might start a craze.


----------



## Arsakes

doubled ........................


----------



## Arsakes

science said:


> The "Mozart will be more popular than Lady Gaga in 30 years" discussion is really interesting. Everyone has made good points.
> 
> (My guess: it is techno/electronica etc that will be most appreciated by later generations. But we'll have to wait and see.)
> 
> So I don't think it's possible to make any simple generalizations.


Most of the people looks for more *Dubstep* or *Electric Guitar* rawrs ... If they find out that the music they're going to listen has not enough of any of those two I mentioned, they will call it boring, archaic, reactionary ... whatever.

Lady Gaga is the most popular right now. Mozart is also quite popular, but I doubt he reaches the first place at all.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

But today, I think, you don't have such dominating giants anymore among conductors. I mean people who could pretty much single-handedly change concert programmes around the world.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Conductors such as Valery Gergiev, John Eliot Gardiner, Philippe Herreweghe, William Christie, René Jacobs, Paul Hillier, Simon Rattle, Harry Christophers, Masaaki Suzuki, Ton Koopman, and even Pierre Boulez have had a profound impact upon the classical music world. They have been every bit as instrumental in unearthing and performing less-well-known repertoire.


----------



## Sid James

Andreas said:


> Yes. Back in the 60s and 70 you had Bernstein and Karajan, they were extremely popular and, therefore, very influential. They drew large audiences more or less regardless of what they played, didn't they? And I think Bernstein in particular did a lot to help establish Nielsen and Mahler as part of the standard repertoire, and Karajan championed Sibelius at a time when the latter had already faded into obscurity.
> 
> But today, I think, you don't have such dominating giants anymore among conductors. I mean people who could pretty much single-handedly change concert programmes around the world...


I think that the post-1945 decades where frankly, times of 'real' progress, not only in the arts but in many other things. Of course, not everything was perfect then, but even though it was before my time, I know that there was a sense of optimism that we lack now. Its now a time of pessimism, comparatively speaking.

But there have been advocates for new music, one of them I admire is Sir Simon Rattle, another is Claudio Abbado. These guys have simply conducted as wide a variety of new music, new composers, they can get their hands on. My impression is that they have cut the ideology and just delivered the goods. Over their time with the Berlin Philharmonic, they've tried to kind of modernise that orchestra. The HD series, broadcast here in cinemas, had them playing not only their 'turf' like Mahler but also things like Takemitsu and Nino Rota. I know Gustavo Dudamel is doing great things in L.A. now. There are others as well, incl. in Australia (eg. Richard Tognetti and Helena Rathbone of the Australia Chamber ORch.), but I'm not as up on everything as some others are on this forum.



> ...
> Some soloists may still have that kind of impact. A performance of the Schoenberg violin concerto some years ago sold out at my local concert hall, but that was probably because it was Hilary Hahn playing...


I think Hilary Hahn has lifted the profile of Schoenberg's violin concerto, well amongst the classical music listenership at least. Her cd coupling that with the Sibelius sold well, I think. She's part of a trend amongst soloists to couple a more 'warhorse' type work with a less known but equally good one, possibly a more challenging or recent one. Ms. Hahn did this recently with her Tchaikovsky/Jennifer Higdon album. I think this is a great concept, but she's not the only one doing it.



> ...Now, if Lang Lang started playing the Ligeti Etudes, he might start a craze.


Well I think he has played Berg - his Chamber Concerto, the piano part in that - and I think I read in an interview with him that he did it in Berlin. & they received it well. But I don't think it was issued on cd. But funding for new or newer music recordings is not exactly plentiful (maybe even less plentiful than for other classical music, which is already tight!).

Which brings me to this -



StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> Ironic, then, that Mackerras is best known (at least in terms of his recordings) for his recordings of Mozart. I have his complete Mozart Symphonies, his classic reading of Rimsky-Korsakov's _Scheherazade_, a disc of Schubert masses, a disc of Mozart arias by Renee Fleming. I think the Modernist he was best known for was Leos Janacek. His box set of Janacek's operas has been on my "wish list" for some time now.


Well I think you are most likely correct, Mackerras' recorded legacy is most likely mostly pre-1945 music. I think his work in raising the profile of Janacek was very important, though. But during his time with the Sydney Symphony Orchestra he did play post 1945 music. Eg. I remember a performance of Shostakovich's 10th symphony. He also conducted Australian composers like Peter Sculthorpe.

However, it was his successor with the SSO, Stuart Challender, who made a bigger effort to get more new or newer music played, and also to get composers played that were pre-1945 but not regularly played here. Eg. Bruckner, Berg, R. Strauss, Mahler where some of his main 'pet projects.'

But what I am saying is that the recorded legacy can often differ from what conductors have done just live in concert, with no resulting recording being published. But Challender did make some legendary recordings that did make it to cd, and some have been reissued. So his legacy lives on, even though he is gone now.


----------



## hocket

*brianwalker wrote:*



> There is no pop band that is more popular with older generations than with the generation it was a part of. This is a law with no exceptions.


The Velvet Underground and Nick Drake spring immediately to mind.

When it comes down to it is Mozart actually popular with a larger proportion of the population that he is exposed to than he was when he was alive? I wonder.

(PS: Incidentally, 'Babe Rainbow' did get a much rougher ride with the press than it deserved but even Guy Chadwick was quite open about how self-indulgent the lyrics were at the time and it was a marked departure in style more generally. While I probably wouldn't view it as their 'masterpiece' it's good to hear that the album has other enthusiasts).


----------



## Andreas

Sid James said:


> I think that the post-1945 decades where frankly, times of 'real' progress, not only in the arts but in many other things. Of course, not everything was perfect then, but even though it was before my time, I know that there was a sense of optimism that we lack now. Its now a time of pessimism, comparatively speaking.


That's a good point. The zeitgeist of those decades does seem to have been much more progressive and daring. And there were a lot more things left to be discovered, like rock, disco, electronic music. Today, we are sitting on a Pile of Everything. I'd guess fashion designers are no less desperate to create sonething new that modern composers.

You mention Rattle and Abbado, and I absolutely agree. Definitely two big name conductors who are trying to broaden the horizon. The two being the successors of Karajan in Berlin, I guess they felt they had ample occasion to do so.

But there are also some strong reactionary forces, like Christian Thielemann, who will take over the Dresden Staatskapelle this season. The main programme of his first-season concerts: Bruckner and Brahms. I love Thielemann, though, he's impeccable in his own way.


----------



## Krisena

brianwalker said:


> There is no pop band that is more popular with older generations than with the generation it was a part of. This is a law with no exceptions.


That doesn't really back the guy up. You and him are making two different arguments.

While you may be right about what you said, a lot of that pop music is now part of the musical canon. Groups like The Beatles, Elvis, Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Pink Floyd etc. (you know there are many) now have a consistent amount of listeners, even among the younger generations. Even if your statement is true, that they are and will never be as popular as in their active periods (although I have a feeling that they will be on and off in mainstream popularity as a part of a retro movement in the future), they will _not_ die out, unless music history is erased, along with the classical composers.

And I don't think Mozart will ever be mainstream, unless someone starts to market him as such. Good luck with that, is all I have to say.


----------



## BurningDesire

Krisena said:


> That doesn't really back the guy up. You and him are making two different arguments.
> 
> While you may be right about what you said, a lot of that pop music is now part of the musical canon. Groups like The Beatles, Elvis, Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Pink Floyd etc. (you know there are many) now have a consistent amount of listeners, even among the younger generations. Even if your statement is true, that they are and will never be as popular as in their active periods (although I have a feeling that they will be on and off in mainstream popularity as a part of a retro movement in the future), they will _not_ die out, unless music history is erased, along with the classical composers.
> 
> And I don't think Mozart will ever be mainstream, unless someone starts to market him as such. Good luck with that, is all I have to say.


I think he means that previous generations will never love a new pop thing more than the generation it came from. He didn't say anything about subsequent generations. I know tons of people who love older music, so I doubt that was his implication ^^


----------



## Krisena

BurningDesire said:


> I think he means that previous generations will never love a new pop thing more than the generation it came from. He didn't say anything about subsequent generations. I know tons of people who love older music, so I doubt that was his implication ^^


Ahhh! Reading comprehension wanted.

My points still stand though.


----------



## brianwalker

hocket said:


> *brianwalker wrote:*
> 
> The Velvet Underground and Nick Drake spring immediately to mind.


Really? The Velvet Underground is more popular with the current teenagers and 20 somethings than with the generation that it was a part of? I know that for peculiar reasons their first album didn't sell very well, but they _were_ huge.



> When it comes down to it is Mozart actually popular with a larger proportion of the population that he is exposed to than he was when he was alive? I wonder.


Even if the fraction was higher for Mozart when he was alive and exposed the fraction for Mozart in the future will be far less low than fraction of popularity of pop musicians among future generations. The difference is an asymptote towards 2-3% of the population and an asymptote towards 0% of the population.

There are numerous composers who are *proportionally, relative to exposure,* more popular with today's audiences than the audience in their lifetime. Mahler and Bach comes to mind. Other composers were popular in their lifetime for parts of their work not as popular today, composing simpler pieces to appease their patrons and more complex works for future listeners.



Krisena said:


> That doesn't really back the guy up. You and him are making two different arguments.


Older and younger. I forgot to include the latter.



> While you may be right about what you said, a lot of that pop music is now part of the musical canon.


Because the generation that came of age during the 60s are now in their years of power and command the commanding cultural institutions. Once they die out the cultural landscape will look different.



> Groups like The Beatles, Elvis, Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Pink Floyd etc. (you know there are many) now have a consistent amount of listeners, even among the younger generations. :


Asymptotic to zero. Nobody listens to Elvis anymore, and the iconic value of the other four will dwindle with time, kept alive only as the spirit of the counter-culture lives on. We might not live to see the day that their popularity vaporize, but the day will come. They will be replaced by new icons.

Dylan is still alive. The Stones are all still alive. Let's wait until they die before we pronounce their immortality. Even if their popularity is "consistent" now, it's strictly a parochial thing. You think anyone listens to Elvis in Europe?

Even if the remark about a "consistent amount of listeners" is true, for now, their appraisal is hardly consistent. Each generation considers the pop music of their time to be the greatest ever. The appraisal of the classical canon has remained very much constant.



> Even if your statement is true, that they are and will never be as popular as in their active periods (although I have a feeling that they will be on and off in mainstream popularity as a part of a retro movement in the future), they will _not_ die out, unless music history is erased, along with the classical composers.


It's a slow death, imperceptible but inevitable.

Retro movements are only retro a certain number of years back from the present. As pop music history accumulates the older music will lose its edge since the music of the present will replace it as the old, edgy music. 30 years from now the demographic/archetype, and by that I mean the archetypal individuals of the newer generations, as archetypes repeat themselves across generations, who listen to, say, "classic rock" (you know the type) will listen to My Bloody Valentine and Neutral Milk Hotel and Radiohead instead.



> And I don't think Mozart will ever be mainstream, unless someone starts to market him as such. Good luck with that, is all I have to say.


I said that "Mozart will be more popular than Lady Gaga in X years, _when nobody listens to Lady Gaga anymore._"


----------



## starthrower

My grandmother liked Tony Orlando & Dawn, so I guess they were popular with the older generation? Then again, she liked hairy Italian guys.


----------



## BurningDesire

Modern music will never ever be accepted ever! Thats why I'm able to own quality recordings of Ives, Varese, Stravinsky, Bartok, Schoenberg, Webern, Boulez, Gorecki, Penderecki, Cage, Zappa and many others :3

I think it will gradually become more and more accepted into the canon of classical music. We already see more and more performers taking the material seriously and recording it well.


----------



## Krisena

*brianwalker*: This is too much speculation (goes for both of us), I can't argue against that. Let's just say that you and I have different visions of the future.



brianwalker said:


> I said that "Mozart will be more popular than Lady Gaga in X years, _when nobody listens to Lady Gaga anymore._"


I wasn't referring to you. Sorry, if it seemed like that. :/


----------



## hocket

brianwalker said:


> Really? The Velvet Underground is more popular with the current teenagers and 20 somethings than with the generation that it was a part of? I know that for peculiar reasons their first album didn't sell very well, but they _were_ huge.


I would be amazed if they weren't more popular now than they were when they existed. They were certainly way more popular during the eighties and nineties. Describing a band who are famous for their lack of commercial success, and whose highest US chart position was #171 (which, incidentally was for the first album) as 'huge' seems to seek to redefine the term.



> Asymptotic to zero. Nobody listens to Elvis anymore, and the iconic value of the other four will dwindle with time, kept alive only as the spirit of the counter-culture lives on. We might not live to see the day that their popularity vaporize, but the day will come. They will be replaced by new icons.


Cultures change, sure, but your predictions are nothing more than assumptions. The culture could just as easily change such that the small fraction of the populace that listens to Mozart, Beethoven and Bach ceases to exist in any meaningful sense. This sounds like wooly, dewy eyed notions about 'timeless classics' dressed up as something more. There are still plenty of people, plenty who are not survivors of the appropriate generation, that listen to Sinatra, Nat King Cole, Bing Crosby, Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker, etc. and those things have nothing to do with the 'dominant generation' of the baby boomers with its counter culture and 60's social revolution.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Krisena said:


> I am *certain* that today's contemporary music and the modern and postmodern music of the 20th century and will become accepted in the future. I see no reason at all why they wouldn't. Classical music listeners today have grown up with the old music, but imagine in future generations when children sometimes get it played for them, when they start incorporating traits of atonality, klangfarbenmelodie or minimalism into popular music - first for novelty, then dramatic effect, then for esthetical purposes, then it becomes an ingrained part of the pop language, and so on - _and have you even noticed the sheer amount of modern music in cinema?_ This in turn will contribute to the increased popularity of the academic composers of the 20th and 21st century, even though pop music will still be pop music and academic music will still be academic music.
> 
> I think modern music has come to stay, and later it will simply be yet another style of music that can be mixed with any other for all possible purposes. It just has a certain burn-in time, but look some generations into the future, do you honestly not see it?
> 
> It's not like this music is ugly, we just aren't too used to it yet. Me and most of my friends are around 20 years old, and once I got them to sit down and listen to works by Messiaen, Takemitsu, Bartok and Nordheim on an album I have. At first they gave me strange looks, but then I pointed out some aspects of the music they probably hadn't thought about yet, and they stopped talking and started to listen, and afterwards, they actually found the experience rewarding and insightful. Modern and contemporary music isn't counter-inuitive, contrary to most of the older generation's belief, but after over 500 years of tonality, I wouldn't expect such a dramatic change as the one we've seen in the beginning of the 20th century to be understood completely after even a 100 years.


I disagree.
The classical masters have, if anything - tightened their grip on the top spots in the last 50 years - a time when the young have had access and exposure to Schoenberg, Stockhausen etc. Modern music is a minority interest in the classical music world and I see no reason why future generations will accept it any more so than todays have predominantly rejected it.

Mozart had mass appeal in his own day - he filled opera houses in Vienna and Prague and peopled whistled his melodies in the streets and salons. He could fill his own subscription concerts - people paid massive sums to hear his works in his heyday. His work was commissioned by and large - people wanted it and they were prepared to pay. How many modern concerts would be packed out with a ligeti first half and stockhausen second half? Modern composers only get a hearing because promoters are crafty - 2 classical pieces and a 10 minute modern atonal meandering meaningless melodyless tone poem in between. I am not saying that is a bad thing but let's face it - modern music has very little support and it will remain so.


----------



## Petwhac

The way I see it is this:
The 20C saw, in the West, the emergence of multiple traditions and genres of music with their own canons, their own 'masters' and masterpieces. Jazz, Rock and Film Music did not exist in previous centuries. What is regarded as contemporary classical music is no more than a curiosity to a lot of people. It is possible to be a highly skilled, creative, trained and successful musician without ever having heard the name, let alone the music of Babbit, Ferneyhough, Scelsi or Wuorinen. 
Some post war classical composers do make it on the radar of the more curious fans of the other traditions. For instance, what service to the music of Ligeti and Penderecki was provided by the huge exposure of 2001 A Space Odyssey? The minimalists have fared better than most due to their association with pop culture in general. 
The fact is because of the technology of recording, and especially recently because of youtube, all music is now accessible to all. People are able to explore a whole world of music but by and large they stick to what they know they already like.


----------



## Sid James

stomanek said:


> ...
> 
> Mozart had mass appeal in his own day - he filled opera houses in Vienna and Prague and peopled whistled his melodies in the streets and salons. He could fill his own subscription concerts - people paid massive sums to hear his works in his heyday. His work was commissioned by and large - people wanted it and they were prepared to pay.


Yeah but Mozart struggled to find a permanent court job, in the end I think he gave up, basically went freelance. You know the 'too many notes' criticism from Salieri or the ARchbishop of Salzburg, can't remember which. To the latter, Mozart was nothing more than a servant, than a cook or a maid. I'm being serious.

But yeah, the wigs did get a measure of popularity. When Haydn was released from his duties at Eszterhazy's palace, his concerts in London for which he wrote the 12 'London symphonies' where very successful. This was the start of the transition from aristocratic to middle class patronage of classical music. In other words, music for people who could pay to attend concerts but not pay to have their own orchestra like Eszterhazy or other aristocrats, whose days at the centre of musical life where numbered.



> ...
> How many modern concerts would be packed out with a ligeti first half and stockhausen second half? Modern composers only get a hearing because promoters are crafty - 2 classical pieces and a 10 minute modern atonal meandering meaningless melodyless tone poem in between. I am not saying that is a bad thing but let's face it - modern music has very little support and it will remain so.


I agree with that, certain types of post-1945, and even pre-1945 musics, will never be as popular as things by the likes of Mozart and Haydn, esp. their 'warhorses.' As I said, funny how not much else gets played from their heaps of symphonies - I'm talking live in concert - apart from things like Haydn's 'Surprise' and Mozart's two G minor symphonies (#25, #40 - they are more romantic leaning and 'emotional', sturm und drang, 'perfect' for those whose minds are stuck between 1800-1900 of the classical repertoire, and then ONLY warhorses).

That's what I'm saying, and I largely agree with what Petwac says above. Some post 1945 music will connect with a broader public, some will not. But what we need is conductors to 'push' things we don't know a bit now, just like Mackerras did with Czech repertoire after 1945, or Bernstein with Mahler, or more recently Simon Rattle with modern British music, much from post-1945. I don't mean push ideology like Boulez did post-1945, but actually expose/advocate/educate about areas of the repertoire people don't know, even people who've been listening to classical for ages.

Its kind of happening with some younger musicians, like violinist Hilary Hahn and the pianist Francesco Tristano Schlimme, also the cellist Jean Guiyen Queyras, innovative musicians like that, playing both old and new things.


----------



## Andreas

Sid James said:


> Its kind of happening with some younger musicians, like violinist Hilary Hahn and the pianist Francesco Tristano Schlimme, also the cellist Jean Guiyen Queyras, innovative musicians like that, playing both old and new things.


Cellist Sol Gabetta also recorded a piece for cello solo by Latvian composer Peteris Vasks. It first came on a bonus CD accompanying her Elgar/Dvorak recording but was also issued as a single (don't see that too often with classical music). She also played part of that piece on some TV show a couple of years ago, which is how I got to know about Vasks. Though many probably wouldn't call him modern but rather neo-romantic.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Sid James said:


> Yeah but Mozart struggled to find a permanent court job, in the end I think he gave up, basically went freelance. You know the 'too many notes' criticism from Salieri or the ARchbishop of Salzburg, can't remember which. To the latter, Mozart was nothing more than a servant, than a cook or a maid. I'm being serious.
> 
> Yes Mozart was snubbed by the musical establishment so he had not the umbrella of a regular income. But if you think that while he was in Vienna - he got support for his subscription concerts - and they were not cheap. Probably in todays money something like 100 pounds per concert - and out of that income he managed to maintain a fashionable house in Vienna for some time of the type that only a wealthy merchant could afford. Can you imagine, say John cage, issuing a series of concerts where the tickets are 100 quid a piece and filling the wigmore hall - he would be lucky to sell a handful of seats. Of course we know what would happen if a new mature authentic Mozart symphony or piano concerto were found - the queues for tickets would be bigger than the olympics.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Not to repeat myself but Ive been to plenty of world-premieres including commissioned works, which were received well in a packed Concertgebouw. The composer often comes onto stage and takes a bow.
What is the problem?


----------



## Krisena

stomanek said:


> I disagree.
> The classical masters have, if anything - tightened their grip on the top spots in the last 50 years - a time when the young have had access and exposure to Schoenberg, Stockhausen etc. Modern music is a minority interest in the classical music world and I see no reason why future generations will accept it any more so than todays have predominantly rejected it.
> 
> Mozart had mass appeal in his own day - he filled opera houses in Vienna and Prague and peopled whistled his melodies in the streets and salons. He could fill his own subscription concerts - people paid massive sums to hear his works in his heyday. His work was commissioned by and large - people wanted it and they were prepared to pay. How many modern concerts would be packed out with a ligeti first half and stockhausen second half? Modern composers only get a hearing because promoters are crafty - 2 classical pieces and a 10 minute modern atonal meandering meaningless melodyless tone poem in between. I am not saying that is a bad thing but let's face it - modern music has very little support and it will remain so.


That's a good argument, but you didn't address my most powerful point, namely the incorporation of modern musical features into pop music. What do you say to that? I think people can swallow anything and everything if it's served on the right platter, if they can identify with the image of the artist, because, let's not kid ourselves, that's what pop music is about, and that is why future generations will accept it.


----------



## PlaySalieri

emiellucifuge said:


> Not to repeat myself but Ive been to plenty of world-premieres including commissioned works, which were received well in a packed Concertgebouw. The composer often comes onto stage and takes a bow.
> What is the problem?


Yes but what else was on the program? My point is that you need Beethoven, Brahms or Mozart to help the new generation of composers to get their work heard.
Send me a link to the Concertgebouw program that included ONLY modern repertoire.
When the composer is present - and there is a world premier - audiences are very kind.


----------



## Andreas

Krisena said:


> That's a good argument, but you didn't address my most powerful point, namely the incorporation of modern musical features into pop music. What do you say to that? I think people can swallow anything and everything if it's served on the right platter, if they can identify with the image of the artist, because, let's not kid ourselves, that's what pop music is about, and that is why future generations will accept it.


Great point. Not just pop music, though, but movies too. I think that with 2001 A Space Odyssey and The Shining, Stanley Kubrick has probably done more in terms of exposing the general public to modern 20th century music and getting people interested in Ligeti and Penderecki than any conductor.


----------



## PlaySalieri

emiellucifuge said:


> Not to repeat myself but Ive been to plenty of world-premieres including commissioned works, which were received well in a packed Concertgebouw. The composer often comes onto stage and takes a bow.
> What is the problem?


Here is a link to the programs:

http://www.concertgebouw.nl/concerten-en-tickets/gefilterd-op=klassiek

Study it. All mainstream repertoire. Where is your avant garde?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Krisena said:


> That's a good argument, but you didn't address my most powerful point, namely the incorporation of modern musical features into pop music. What do you say to that? I think people can swallow anything and everything if it's served on the right platter, if they can identify with the image of the artist, because, let's not kid ourselves, that's what pop music is about, and that is why future generations will accept it.


That is outside of classical music. It's a different market. It's like putting a drumbeat with mozart sy 40. I don't count it.


----------



## Andreas

stomanek said:


> Here is a link to the programs:
> 
> http://www.concertgebouw.nl/concerten-en-tickets/gefilterd-op=klassiek
> 
> Study it. All mainstream repertoire. Where is your avant garde?


Click on the "Subgenre Modern" (on the left).


----------



## Krisena

stomanek said:


> That is outside of classical music. It's a different market. It's like putting a drumbeat with mozart sy 40. I don't count it.


But won't it make the public more receptive to modern music as a result?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

We need new, fresh composers to create music that can appeal to the younger generation of listeners, meaning including young children-listeners. We need music that sustain people's interest, not scare them off.

I showed this to my niece, a seven year old and she enjoyed it. She is not music trained.

*Joby Talbot* (born 1971), _Alice's Adventure in Wonderland_, commissioned by the Royal Ballet, Covent Garden (2011)


----------



## Petwhac

Andreas said:


> Great point. Not just pop music, though, but movies too. I think that with 2001 A Space Odyssey and The Shining, Stanley Kubrick has probably done more in terms of exposing the general public to modern 20th century music and getting people interested in Ligeti and Penderecki than any conductor.


It also introduced many many people to 'Also Sprach Zarathustra'. It is that piece which has become iconic in relation to the film. 
Any music can be accepted when it forms a background to action on the screen. It is quite a different matter to pay money to sit in a concert hall to hear it. 
Krisena I think misses the point in believing that pop music which 'incorporates modern musical features' (which ones?) plays a role in popularising contemporary 'art' music.


----------



## Petwhac

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> We need new, fresh composers to create music that can appeal to the younger generation of listeners, meaning including young children-listeners. We need music that sustain people's interest, not scare them off.
> 
> I showed this to my niece, a seven year old and she enjoyed it. She is not music trained.
> 
> *Joby Talbot* (born 1971), _Alice's Adventure in Wonderland_, commissioned by the Royal Ballet, Covent Garden (2011)


Harmonically static. Quite colourful orchestration but basically just film music. Would never stand up in the concert hall against Firebird, Petrushka, The Rite, Orpheus, Nutcracker etc.
Sorry to disagree with you but this is _so _dissapointing!


----------



## emiellucifuge

stomanek said:


> Here is a link to the programs:
> 
> http://www.concertgebouw.nl/concerten-en-tickets/gefilterd-op=klassiek
> 
> Study it. All mainstream repertoire. Where is your avant garde?


I dont need to study it thanks, these are the programmes I pay attention to on a daily basis.

Here you go, an entire series of subscription concerts by the worlds greatest orchestra (The Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra):
http://www.aaaserie.nl/

Some examples which I have attended (I hold multiple subscription tickets):

Boulez - _Rituel_
Rijnvos - _Antarctique (opdrachtcompositie, wereldpremière). _Dit werk is het laatste deel van de nog te voltooien cyclus _Grand Atlas_, _Représentation du monde universel en sept tableaux musicales._*
Saariaho - _Circle Map (opdrachtcompositie, wereldpremière, cocomissie met Boston, Stavanger, Goteborg Symphony Orchestras, Orchestre National de France, Royal Scottish National Orchestra)_
Lindberg - _Kraft_

Pärt _Cantus in memoriam Benjamin Britten_
Machaut _delen uit de Messe de Nostre Dame_
Ligeti _Pianoconcert (eerste uitvoering door het KCO)_
Anoniem _O-antifonen (Cyprus 14[SUP]e[/SUP] eeuw)_
MacMillan _Hodie puer nascitur (bewerking van antifoon, wereldpremière)_
Birtwistle _Machaut à ma manière (Nederlandse première)_
Anoniem _Credo (Cyprus 14[SUP]e[/SUP] eeuw)_
Wuorinen _Machaut mon chou (Nederlandse première)_

Glanert - Insomnium (Nederlandse première)
Maderna - Venetian Journal
Wagemans - Dreams
Henze - Symfonie nr. 8

There is a whole years worth of concerts like this. The next program is:

Lutosawski _Jeux vénitiens_
Murail _Pianoconcert (opdrachtcompositie, Nederlandse première)_
Ives _Symfonie nr. 4_

Further, we have another major orchestra (The radio orchestra), which plays alot of modern music, for example I attended a concert including two premieres by dutch composers, a Stravinsky serialist work and Stockhausen's Gesang der Junglinge, also in the Concertgebouw.

The national opera company often does modern operas and premieres.
Next season includes 2 premieres by composers George Benjamin and Michel van der Aa, as well as an opera by Glass. (also Britten if you consider that modern)
www.dno.nl



PS: "Opdrachtcompositie" means comission.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Petwhac said:


> Harmonically static. Quite colourful orchestration but basically just film music. Would never stand up in the concert hall against Firebird, Petrushka, The Rite, Orpheus, Nutcracker etc.
> Sorry to disagree with you but this is _so _dissapointing!


But good enough for a seven year old, which was what I was trying to suggest. Yes, I agree it would not stand up against the pieces you suggested.


----------



## Krisena

Petwhac said:


> It also introduced many many people to 'Also Sprach Zarathustra'. It is that piece which has become iconic in relation to the film.
> Any music can be accepted when it forms a background to action on the screen. It is quite a different matter to pay money to sit in a concert hall to hear it.
> Krisena I think misses the point in believing that pop music which 'incorporates modern musical features' (which ones?) plays a role in popularising contemporary 'art' music.


I certainly don't think I'm missing any points. I honestly believe that pop music in the future will make the academic music of the 20th century more accessible, _disarming_ it. Isn't it the future of modern music we're discussing?

The features I've been talking about are so exhausting to list every single time, I just refer to them with the quote you've got there. Mainly, I talk about atonality, hefty dissonances, novel instrumental combinations, klangbfarbenmelodie, those things.


----------



## Petwhac

Krisena said:


> I certainly don't think I'm missing any points. I honestly believe that pop music in the future will make the academic music of the 20th century more accessible, _disarming_ it. Isn't it the future of modern music we're discussing?
> 
> The features I've been talking about are so exhausting to list every single time, I just refer to them with the quote you've got there. Mainly, I talk about atonality, hefty dissonances, novel instrumental combinations, klangbfarbenmelodie, those things.


Would you have any specific examples of the type of pop music you have in mind? Which pop music has those things you mentioned? (Not including 'novel instrumentation' which I don't consider exclusive to modern classical music.)


----------



## Petwhac

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> But good enough for a seven year old, which was what I was trying to suggest. Yes, I agree it would not stand up against the pieces you suggested.


Even seven year olds deserve the best. Peter and the Wolf? Ravel's Mother Goose?


----------



## Krisena

Petwhac said:


> Would you have any specific examples of the type of pop music you have in mind? Which pop music has those things you mentioned? (Not including 'novel instrumentation' which I don't consider exclusive to modern classical music.)


No, I don't, because it doesn't exist yet, obviously. 

I think you misunderstood me. I'm talking about *THE FUTURE*, you know, the time that has yet to come.

Edit: The closest I've heard is this, it's just the intro, but it's something. This isn't even pop music, but the days will come, mark my words.


----------



## Vesteralen

I think Krisena is correct, at least up to a point. It seems quite probable to me that the inclusion of modern serious music techniques in popular, and especially film music will, over time, break down some of the barriers that make so much late 20th and early 21st century concert music forbidding and off-putting to minds that haven't been trained to appreciate it. To some degree, I think it already has.

I'm not sure that will necessarily translate into any kind of popularity for it, however. I don't think modern culture in general is tending to encourage non-interactive or reflective listening habits. The target audience for modern cinema is a pretty much "instant gratification" audience. Concert music will probably have to include more and more multimedia types of programming if they ever hope to reap the benefits of pop culture conditioning. - if there is even time left to do so.


----------



## bigshot

Personally, I think the current wave of what is the equivalent of classical music has become "functional multimedia music". In other words, it's designed to serve a function in a larger context of a movie, play or video. The music played in concert halls is created specifically for that venue... Traditionally the venue for classical music... But I think classical music has moved on and left the concert hall behind.


----------



## Krisena

bigshot said:


> Personally, I think the current wave of what is the equivalent of classical music has become "functional multimedia music". In other words, it's designed to serve a function in a larger context of a movie, play or video. The music played in concert halls is created specifically for that venue... Traditionally the venue for classical music... But I think classical music has moved on and left the concert hall behind.


Wow, I've never even thought of this before, and I suddenly realize you must be right. "Leaving the concert hall behind" is a great expression. Thank you for your input, it's not an everyday happening that one gets to widen one's perspective like this. 



Andreas said:


> Great point. Not just pop music, though, but movies too. I think that with 2001 A Space Odyssey and The Shining, Stanley Kubrick has probably done more in terms of exposing the general public to modern 20th century music and getting people interested in Ligeti and Penderecki than any conductor.


Thank you.


----------



## Petwhac

bigshot said:


> Personally, I think the current wave of what is the equivalent of classical music has become "functional multimedia music". In other words, it's designed to serve a function in a larger context of a movie, play or video. The music played in concert halls is created specifically for that venue... Traditionally the venue for classical music... But I think classical music has moved on and left the concert hall behind.


In that case it it *not *the equivalent of classical music. It is relegated to the role of accompaniment.
Music that _cannot_ stand alone is an _inferior_ kind of art music.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Petwhac said:


> Even seven year olds deserve the best. Peter and the Wolf? Ravel's Mother Goose?


Well, if you want to suggest offering the best to a sever year old, it would have to be Handel. But to keep to the topic of the thread as far as modern music is concerned, and without scarying off the seven year old, your suggesting is not bad. But have you got something much more recent?


----------



## BurningDesire

Petwhac said:


> In that case it it *not *the equivalent of classical music. It is relegated to the role of accompaniment.
> Music that _cannot_ stand alone is an _inferior_ kind of art music.


I agree so much, though I wouldn't say that of ALL film music nor ALL video game music. It can't be a slave to the other media, it must be an equal partner. Otherwise its just dramatic noise in the background, not really describing anything thats happening, other than just how you should feel about it.

also art music is a redundant term


----------



## PlaySalieri

emiellucifuge said:


> I dont need to study it thanks, these are the programmes I pay attention to on a daily basis.
> 
> Here you go, an entire series of subscription concerts by the worlds greatest orchestra (The Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra):
> http://www.aaaserie.nl/
> 
> Some examples which I have attended (I hold multiple subscription tickets):
> 
> Boulez - _Rituel_
> Rijnvos - _Antarctique (opdrachtcompositie, wereldpremière). _Dit werk is het laatste deel van de nog te voltooien cyclus _Grand Atlas_, _Représentation du monde universel en sept tableaux musicales._*
> Saariaho - _Circle Map (opdrachtcompositie, wereldpremière, cocomissie met Boston, Stavanger, Goteborg Symphony Orchestras, Orchestre National de France, Royal Scottish National Orchestra)_
> Lindberg - _Kraft_
> 
> Pärt _Cantus in memoriam Benjamin Britten_
> Machaut _delen uit de Messe de Nostre Dame_
> Ligeti _Pianoconcert (eerste uitvoering door het KCO)_
> Anoniem _O-antifonen (Cyprus 14[SUP]e[/SUP] eeuw)_
> MacMillan _Hodie puer nascitur (bewerking van antifoon, wereldpremière)_
> Birtwistle _Machaut à ma manière (Nederlandse première)_
> Anoniem _Credo (Cyprus 14[SUP]e[/SUP] eeuw)_
> Wuorinen _Machaut mon chou (Nederlandse première)_
> 
> Glanert - Insomnium (Nederlandse première)
> Maderna - Venetian Journal
> Wagemans - Dreams
> Henze - Symfonie nr. 8
> 
> There is a whole years worth of concerts like this. The next program is:
> 
> Lutosawski _Jeux vénitiens_
> Murail _Pianoconcert (opdrachtcompositie, Nederlandse première)_
> Ives _Symfonie nr. 4_
> 
> Further, we have another major orchestra (The radio orchestra), which plays alot of modern music, for example I attended a concert including two premieres by dutch composers, a Stravinsky serialist work and Stockhausen's Gesang der Junglinge, also in the Concertgebouw.
> 
> The national opera company often does modern operas and premieres.
> Next season includes 2 premieres by composers George Benjamin and Michel van der Aa, as well as an opera by Glass. (also Britten if you consider that modern)
> www.dno.nl
> 
> 
> 
> PS: "Opdrachtcompositie" means comission.


as I don't speak Dutch I can't make any sense of that!

So are the programs all modern? or a mix? (ie Beethoven symphony + modern)


----------



## BurningDesire

bigshot said:


> Personally, I think the current wave of what is the equivalent of classical music has become "functional multimedia music". In other words, it's designed to serve a function in a larger context of a movie, play or video. The music played in concert halls is created specifically for that venue... Traditionally the venue for classical music... But I think classical music has moved on and left the concert hall behind.


I don't think so, music has only grown to include more venues and mediums. We still have concerts and we still have plenty of artists, even if we completely ignore all rock, jazz, folk, and pop music composers (which is kind of silly to do since there is plenty great in those idioms too, but anyway), who write music for concert purposes. Pretty much every piece I've written is for concert performance, or simply for listening to in a private setting. Even if I were to compose a score for a film or a video game or anything else, it is meant to be good music that doesn't need that other artform to work.


----------



## PlaySalieri

emiellucifuge said:


> I dont need to study it thanks, these are the programmes I pay attention to on a daily basis.
> 
> Here you go, an entire series of subscription concerts by the worlds greatest orchestra (The Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra):
> http://www.aaaserie.nl/
> 
> Some examples which I have attended (I hold multiple subscription tickets):
> 
> Boulez - _Rituel_
> Rijnvos - _Antarctique (opdrachtcompositie, wereldpremière). _Dit werk is het laatste deel van de nog te voltooien cyclus _Grand Atlas_, _Représentation du monde universel en sept tableaux musicales._*
> Saariaho - _Circle Map (opdrachtcompositie, wereldpremière, cocomissie met Boston, Stavanger, Goteborg Symphony Orchestras, Orchestre National de France, Royal Scottish National Orchestra)_
> Lindberg - _Kraft_
> 
> Pärt _Cantus in memoriam Benjamin Britten_
> Machaut _delen uit de Messe de Nostre Dame_
> Ligeti _Pianoconcert (eerste uitvoering door het KCO)_
> Anoniem _O-antifonen (Cyprus 14[SUP]e[/SUP] eeuw)_
> MacMillan _Hodie puer nascitur (bewerking van antifoon, wereldpremière)_
> Birtwistle _Machaut à ma manière (Nederlandse première)_
> Anoniem _Credo (Cyprus 14[SUP]e[/SUP] eeuw)_
> Wuorinen _Machaut mon chou (Nederlandse première)_
> 
> Glanert - Insomnium (Nederlandse première)
> Maderna - Venetian Journal
> Wagemans - Dreams
> Henze - Symfonie nr. 8
> 
> There is a whole years worth of concerts like this. The next program is:
> 
> Lutosawski _Jeux vénitiens_
> Murail _Pianoconcert (opdrachtcompositie, Nederlandse première)_
> Ives _Symfonie nr. 4_
> 
> Further, we have another major orchestra (The radio orchestra), which plays alot of modern music, for example I attended a concert including two premieres by dutch composers, a Stravinsky serialist work and Stockhausen's Gesang der Junglinge, also in the Concertgebouw.
> 
> The national opera company often does modern operas and premieres.
> Next season includes 2 premieres by composers George Benjamin and Michel van der Aa, as well as an opera by Glass. (also Britten if you consider that modern)
> www.dno.nl
> 
> 
> 
> PS: "Opdrachtcompositie" means comission.


OK - I looked a bit more and found programs for september and december - some all modern programs - a few - not that many. Not like the Royal Festival Hall or Barbican where you have a program every night. But it seems the concergebow is similar to those london venues for repertoire - very little modern.


----------



## BurningDesire

Thinking about it some more, I think the fact that modern pieces do get played is an example of the repertoire expanding, as well as the fact that much older music is getting played for the first time in centuries. More difficult music will typically not get played as much, but it does get played and recorded, musicians do dedicate time and effort to performing things like the music of Boulez and Babbitt, and conductors do champion newer music, including making it really exciting and fun for newbies (like Gustavo Dudamel). Things are far from hopeless. People nowadays are more accustomed to the sounds in modern music. I mean, you can hear polytonality in the score for the Land Before Time, and Primus, a pretty successful rock band builds songs using heavy dissonance and heavy use of the tritone (they use it to the extent most rock bands use the perfect 5th in their riffs). Some of the weirder stuff like Stockhausen and Xenakis and Cage can still be confusing and difficult, but it does get played. Its not all disappearing into obscurity, in fact its probably getting the best performances its ever had and more fans than it had in the beginning.

^_^


----------



## bigshot

The popular music, rock and jazz of today will be the classical music of the future. But it won't primarily exist in the concert hall any more. It will be on recordings, in movies, on the internet and television. The concert music being made today is very marginalized, and likely will not hold the same importance to people in the future that it holds with the few who follow it today. It's like a vestigal tail left over from an extinct animal.

To future generations, the Beatles and Duke Ellington will be mentioned alongside Debussy and Handel. What we consider modern classical music probably doesn't have the societal resonance to survive. The passage of time is much more likely to sweep away than to preserve.


----------



## Krisena

Petwhac said:


> In that case it it *not *the equivalent of classical music. It is relegated to the role of accompaniment.
> Music that _cannot_ stand alone is an _inferior_ kind of art music.


I disagree with just about every word you said there.


----------



## BurningDesire

bigshot said:


> The popular music, rock and jazz of today will be the classical music of the future. But it won't primarily exist in the concert hall any more. It will be on recordings, in movies, on the internet and television. The concert music being made today is very marginalized, and likely will not hold the same importance to people in the future that it holds with the few who follow it today. It's like a vestigal tail left over from an extinct animal.
> 
> To future generations, the Beatles and Duke Ellington will be mentioned alongside Debussy and Handel. What we consider modern classical music probably doesn't have the societal resonance to survive. The passage of time is much more likely to sweep away than to preserve.


What a foolish thing to say. JS Bach is one of the best known and most popular composers, and he was obscure in his own time and even more obscure for years after his death. Antonio Salieri was hugely popular and successful in his time, and is now pretty obscure. Who is to say that anything will die out and dissappear completely, or survive eternally? Besides that, it is more likely that most things will be preserved because there are far more reliable ways to preserve information now, and information can be considerably more widespread thanks to things like the internet. Such foolishness.


----------



## bigshot

If you look at history, it is much more likely to be remembered if you were well known than if you were not. Bach's music was completely forgotten for a century after his death. If it hadn't been for Mendelssohn championing him, we might not know it today. Look at ancient Greece. Although great thinkers and writers works are still in print, only a tiny bit of music remains. Music is an ephemeral artform, and music that is preserved in a recording is more likely to survive than music designed to be performed in a concert hall.

The world of music is changing. That's not a good thing or a bad thing. It's an inevitable thing.


----------



## Petwhac

bigshot said:


> If you look at history, it is much more likely to be remembered if you were well known than if you were not. Bach's music was completely forgotten for a century after his death. If it hadn't been for Mendelssohn championing him, we might not know it today. Look at ancient Greece. Although great thinkers and writers works are still in print, only a tiny bit of music remains. Music is an ephemeral artform, and music that is preserved in a recording is more likely to survive than music designed to be performed in a concert hall.
> 
> The world of music is changing. That's not a good thing or a bad thing. It's an inevitable thing.


Classical music is music that is *written down*. Thats why we can still hear live performances of Machaut and Perotin.
It has nothing to do with recording. Pop music is a descendent of folk music which was passed on aurally and not written down. The invention of recording changed the way pop music could be transmitted but it has not moved very far from it's roots. Short song forms and dance forms, very repetitious. Jazz of course is different again and has it's own lineage.
Anyone who thinks that the pop music of today will be the classical music of tomorrow is sadly deluded.


----------



## Vaneyes

I think the general public has accepted WAM's PC 21, whether they realize it or not.


----------



## Petwhac

bigshot said:


> To future generations, the Beatles and Duke Ellington will be mentioned alongside Debussy and Handel.


Only by those who know no better.


----------



## Petwhac

Krisena said:


> No, I don't, because it doesn't exist yet, obviously.
> 
> I think you misunderstood me. I'm talking about *THE FUTURE*, you know, the time that has yet to come.
> 
> Edit: The closest I've heard is this, it's just the intro, but it's something. This isn't even pop music, but the days will come, mark my words.


If that's the future then shoot me now! 
It is utter meaningless drivel. A mish mash of 70s prog-rock, film music and song. It has *absolutely nothing to do with classical music.*


----------



## Sid James

Vaneyes said:


> I think the general public has accepted WAM's PC 21, whether they realize it or not.


Yeah well it's alternate title, the 'Theme from Elvira Madigan,' rings a bell with this listener, so to speak.


----------



## bigshot

Petwhac said:


> Only by those who know no better.


Pssst! Your ignorance is showing!


----------



## Sid James

Petwhac said:


> ...Anyone who thinks that the pop music of today will be the classical music of tomorrow is sadly deluded.


I see them as all linked - pop, classical, rock, jazz, world music. Just look at the output of composers of recent decades. Eg. Reich and Glass. But also the jazz craze back in the 'roaring '20's' which did touch classical in a big way. I mean there's even ragtimes in Debussy's more 'highbrow' piano music.

But its basically about how each individual listener see things. I see all the genres as linked, or many of them at least. Depends on the composers involved as well. & there are many links within classical that I think many listeners don't realise.

But if other people think it's all separate, or more seperate, kind of in boxes so to speak, then fine. People can think what they want.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Anyone who thinks that the pop music of today will be the classical music of tomorrow is sadly deluded.

To future generations, the Beatles and Duke Ellington will be mentioned alongside Debussy and Handel.

Only by those who know no better.

I guess I'm among those who know no better... alongside Leonard Bernstein, Philip Glass, Osvaldo Golijov and a great many who might just know better than yourself.


----------



## bigshot

Petwhac said:


> It has nothing to do with recording. Anyone who thinks that the pop music of today will be the classical music of tomorrow is sadly deluded.


Recording technology is the single biggest difference between the last 100 years of music and every century that preceded it. Music is no longer written down by one person and performed by different groups at different times in concert halls. It's written, performed and fixed in time as an audio recording, often by the same people. That is a HUGE change. Live performance used to be the end result of the musical creation process. Now it's a sideline to the real end product- the recording.

By the way, Mozart was considered to be a composer of "popular music" in his day too.


----------



## bigshot

Sid James said:


> Yeah well it's alternate title, the 'Theme from Elvira Madigan,' rings a bell with this listener, so to speak.


I especially like the theme song to 2001!

Even classical music from the past is swiftly becoming better known as "media music". Don't believe me that media is the classical of the present? Try to think of Philip Glass's most famous work.


----------



## Sid James

stomanek said:


> ....
> 
> Yes Mozart was snubbed by the musical establishment so he had not the umbrella of a regular income. But if you think that while he was in Vienna - he got support for his subscription concerts - and they were not cheap. Probably in todays money something like 100 pounds per concert - and out of that income he managed to maintain a fashionable house in Vienna for some time of the type that only a wealthy merchant could afford. Can you imagine, say John cage, issuing a series of concerts where the tickets are 100 quid a piece and filling the wigmore hall - he would be lucky to sell a handful of seats. Of course we know what would happen if a new mature authentic Mozart symphony or piano concerto were found - the queues for tickets would be bigger than the olympics.


Well, as I said, Hilary Hahn played the Schoenberg violin concerto to packed houses in Europe. I'd guess they were interested in hearing a work like that which is rarely played live.

But basically, what you're saying is you value Mozart more than John Cage. So would most classical listeners today. But so what? I acknowledged before that the more experimental type of music will not pull as large crowds as the wigs or romantics.

But as I said, a lot of classical listeners don't know much (or any!) music of post 1945, even post 1900. So I think a large element of them not liking it is by default. They don't know what they don't like, in other words, as they have not heard it.

For example, John Cage who you mention, virtually everyone - even those into rock, jazz, metal, etc. - know his 'silent sonata' or 4'33." But on this forum there has been discussion/exposure of his other music, which is real music, not conceptual art. & I have bought cd's of this music, eg. the sonatas and interludes for prepared piano, 'Credo in Us,' 'In a Landscape' (which is on Francesco Tristano's bachCage ablum - is putting works by the two together heresy? Do we go by what we just tlike or ideology and false dichotmies?). I have also attended concerts with Cage's actual music being performed, and its great.

Anyway, I can go on. What I'm saying is that yes, this will not be as popular as the wigs, but a good deal of people would and do latch onto more recent musics. Many people like it and some do prefer it to the older stuff.

So this fetish with old music, with building shrines and 'Gods,' well I'm over that. I don't have sacred cows. I dont' build shrines. I just listen to what I like. I don't legitimise my opinions with things like false dichotomies. Its that simple.


----------



## Petwhac

bigshot said:


> Recording technology is the single biggest difference between the last 100 years of music and every century that preceded it. Music is no longer written down by one person and performed by different groups at different times in concert halls. It's written, performed and fixed in time as an audio recording, often by the same people. That is a HUGE change. Live performance used to be the end result of the musical creation process. Now it's a sideline to the real end product- the recording.
> 
> By the way, Mozart was considered to be a composer of "popular music" in his day too.


New Classical music is still written down and performed by others in concert.

Mozart was a court composer whose music may have had a wider appeal to those who had the opportunity to hear it. Really very few people would have heard it as they would have been busy being peasants in the countryside! They of course still had their *folk music* which is what your pop music is now- roughly speaking.
Mozart was _not_ a composer of popular music of his day!


----------



## bigshot

Sid James said:


> But basically, what you're saying is you value Mozart more than John Cage. So would most classical listeners today.


Well, there is another factor that we haven't discussed yet. It's how much brand visibility something has. That has nothing to do with inherent quality and everything to do with marketing. The fine art critic did a devastating documentary on contemporary art titled, "The Mona Lisa Curse" that dealt with this. If you're interested, here is a link to the whole program...

http://animationresources.org/?p=980

I think there are more similarities between contemporary art and contemporary music than many would like to admit. The only difference is the number of zeros on the price tags.


----------



## bigshot

Petwhac said:


> New Classical music is still written down and performed by others in concert.


Less and less every day.

Mozart's popularity with the public went up and down with public tastes, but he was paid for just about every piece he wrote, and he wrote many of his works specifically to please a particular audience.

The idea that modern popular music is the equivalent of "peasant folk songs" is condescending, and totally misses the cultural and artistic importance of jazz as a medium of personal artistic expression capable of great profundity. Duke Ellington and Louis Armstrong were popular musicians who hewed closer to what Beethoven and Mozart did than many modern composers do. Jazz is the 20th century's single greatest contribution to the musical arts.

"It is becoming increasingly difficult to decide where jazz starts or where it stops, where Tin Pan Alley begins and jazz ends, or even where the borderline lies between between classical music and jazz. I feel there is no boundary line." Duke Ellington


----------



## Petwhac

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Anyone who thinks that the pop music of today will be the classical music of tomorrow is sadly deluded.
> 
> To future generations, the Beatles and Duke Ellington will be mentioned alongside Debussy and Handel.
> 
> Only by those who know no better.
> 
> I guess I'm among those who know no better...


If you say so! ....


StlukesguildOhio said:


> alongside Leonard Bernstein, Philip Glass, Osvaldo Golijov and a great many who might just know better than yourself.


If they said that the Beatles and Ellington will be mentioned alongside Debussy and Handel then they are also wrong.


----------



## Petwhac

bigshot said:


> Mozart's popularity with the public went up and down with public tastes, but he was paid for just about every piece he wrote, and he wrote many of his works specifically to please a specific audience.


What's that got to do with anything?
I'm all for composers getting paid and pleasing audiences.


----------



## bigshot

Creating works for the public and getting paid for it is what popular musicians do. "Folk Musicians" perform for themselves and their immediate circle, not an audience. No money involved.


----------



## Petwhac

bigshot said:


> Creating works for the public and getting paid for it is what popular musicians do. "Folk Musicians" perform for themselves and their immediate circle, not an audience. No money involved.


Money became involved in folk music when someone invented recording and copyright.

Please let me know when a pop song lasts as long as a symphony and not by virtue of endless repetition or the stringing together of separate bits. Large scale musical structures that are organically conceived and that justify their length are not to be found in pop music or film music. The closest thing to a successful blend of two traditions are the orchestral works of Gershwin. Popular song does not lend itself well to large scale structures.

A journalist is not a novelist.
An illustrator is not a fine artist.
A potter is not a sculptor.


----------



## bigshot

Petwhac said:


> Money became involved in folk music when someone invented recording and copyright.
> 
> Please let me know when a pop song lasts as long as a symphony and not by virtue of endless repetition or the stringing together of separate bits.


When money and copyright became involved folk music ceased to be. Folk music is based on oral tradition and regionalism. Recording obliterated that.

I already told you about a jazz musician who wrote long form works... Duke Ellington. You'll also find plenty of long form jazz pieces after the introduction of the LP record. The music was composed to fit the restraints of the medium, not the other way around.

Gershwin was a classical composer who gravitated towards popular music. There were plenty of popular musicians who gravitated the other direction.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

An illustrator is not a fine artist.

Oh really?























































Perhaps you might want to quit while you're ahead. The history of art is laden with artists working as illustrators to such an extent that the imagined dividing line is hazy at best. Many of the greatest painters of the Middle-Ages and Renaissance were essentially employed as illustrators, illustrating the central narratives of the faith to a largely illiterate audience.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Please let me know when a pop song lasts as long as a symphony and not by virtue of endless repetition or the stringing together of separate bits. Large scale musical structures that are organically conceived and that justify their length are not to be found in pop music or film music.

What does length have to do with it? There are endless short works... madrigals by Monteverdi, sonatas by Scarlatti, preludes and fugues by Bach, lieder by Schubert and Schumann, melodies by Faure and Debussy... that have survived and are undoubtedly "classics".


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

If they said that the Beatles and Ellington will be mentioned alongside Debussy and Handel then they are also wrong.

What makes your opinion (in contrast to Bernstein, Glass, Golijov, Gershwin, and any number of other composers/musicians) any more valid than BurningDesires absurd dismissal of Mozart?


----------



## bigshot

StlukesguildOhio said:


> An illustrator is not a fine artist.
> Oh really?


I've never seen that Daumier before. Is that from La Rire?

I gave him a shot across the bow early on. He should have taken the opportunity to close his mouth and open his ears.


----------



## Petwhac

StlukesguildOhio said:


> If they said that the Beatles and Ellington will be mentioned alongside Debussy and Handel then they are also wrong.
> 
> What makes your opinion (in contrast to Bernstein, Glass, Golijov, Gershwin, and any number of other composers/musicians) any more valid than BurningDesires absurd dismissal of Mozart?


What makes it any _less_ valid?

I take your point about art but I think most art historians do draw a distinction between illustration and fine art especially in more recent times. It is possible to work as an illustrator and also to paint portraiture, landscape or abstract for other than the utilitarian.

'Classics' is different from 'classical' at least as far as I have taken the terms to be used in this discussion, indeed in this forum. Blue Suede Shoes is a 'classic' rock and roll song but would you really call it classical music? Hardly!

The Lieder of Schubert and Schumann are settings of poetry where the voice and piano are interwoven and inseparable. Once again it is _written music_. The text (words and music) is something to be interpreted by performers (as in a playwright's works) The same goes for all 'art song'. As for the shorter works of Bach, Scarlatti and every other composer your logic is flawed if by your comment you mean: _Some classical works are short therefore any short work can be considered classical._

I love a lot of pop music and I love a lot of jazz. There are fundamental differences in the aims, concepts and processes of these different traditions. Like it or not! This does not mean there is not some cross pollination. 
Bartok, Vaughn Williams and many others incorporated folk song into classical works. Billy Joel uses Beethoven as the basis for a song, Santana uses Brahms's 3rd symphony. John Williams borrows heavily from Holst and Richard Strauss for his film scores. Emereson Lake and Palmer did Prog Rock versions of Pictures At An Exhibition and Fanfare For The Common Man as well as a piano concerto by Ginastera. Just because film music can be atonal for effect ( horror, suspense or dreamlike usually) it does not mean that atonal music by Berio, Ligeti and a hundred others sets out to create those feelings. Just because Kubrick used Ligeti in his movie it doesn't make Ligeti a film composer and just because Paul McCartney writes an 'Oratorio' that doesn't make him a 'classical' composer.

Some people may think that writers of TV soaps are the Shakespeares of today........... I don't.


----------



## Petwhac

bigshot said:


> I've never seen that Daumier before. Is that from La Rire?
> 
> I gave him a shot across the bow early on. He should have taken the opportunity to close his mouth and open his ears.


That's cos you're firing duds my friend! I bet my ears are more open than yours will ever be, since you wish to take a personal and insulting tone.


----------



## bigshot

Learning is the goal, not being "right".


----------



## Petwhac

bigshot said:


> Learning is the goal, not being "right".


 I'm learning to be right:lol:


----------



## bigshot

Petwhac said:


> 'Classics' is different from 'classical' at least as far as I have taken the terms to be used in this discussion, indeed in this forum. Blue Suede Shoes is a 'classic' rock and roll song but would you really call it classical music? Hardly!


All art expresses its time and place. It is an expression of culture. Music is an abstract art form. It could certainly be argued that Blue Suede Shoes is as relevant and revolutionary a musical statement in Elvis's day as the 9th symphony was in Beethoven's. It certainly led to as profound a musical change.

Quibble alert: I'd say that Hound Dog (or Blue Moon of Kentucky) would be more important tan Blue Suede Shoes because there is a lot more synthesis going on. Big Mama Thornton's version of Hound Dog is nothing like Elvis's.


----------



## bigshot

Petwhac said:


> I'm learning to be right:lol:


You do that by listening.


----------



## Petwhac

bigshot said:


> It could certainly be argued that Blue Suede Shoes is as relevant and revolutionary a musical statement in Elvis's day as the 9th symphony was in Beethoven's.


There was not that much revolutionary about the 9th. Original, yes.

Anyway, I thought we were talking about music. I think the only thing revolutionary about Elvis is that he made black music acceptable for whites. Absolutely nothing in the music itself is revolutionary. For that try L'apres Midi D'une Faune by Debussy.


----------



## Petwhac

bigshot said:


> You do that by listening.


To music or to you?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I've never seen that Daumier before. Is that from _La Rire_?

Actually the reputation of this print has grown to the point that it is commonly recognized in the art world as Daumier's masterpiece... but it is very rare. The work was in response to a massacre of innocent civilians by French troops who mistakenly thought that a sniper was holed up in the building. The large print was displayed as a stand-alone artwork and published by Charles Philipon's _L'Association Mensuelle Lithographique_, also called _L'Association pour la Liberté de la Presse_ a group engaged in the struggle for the freedom from censorship under the reign of King Louis-Philippe. Although it had initially passed the censors, Louis-Philippe ordered the confiscation of all copies and the lithographic stone.


----------



## bigshot

Petwhac said:


> To music or to you?


OK. I give up on you. I thought there was a glimmer of hope. Have a nice day!


----------



## bigshot

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Actually the reputation of this print has grown to the point that it is commonly recognized in the art world as Daumier's masterpiece... but it is very rare.


i only have Der Maler Daumier, the Verlac book and the four volume Lithographien series. They're all pre 1940s. That must have been republished later. If you ever get to Los Angeles, stop by for a visit. I've got a collection of illustration in first editions going all the way back to Cruickshank. Lots to make your mouth water!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

'Classics' is different from 'classical' at least as far as I have taken the terms to be used in this discussion, indeed in this forum. Blue Suede Shoes is a 'classic' rock and roll song but would you really call it classical music? Hardly!

So essentially the debate is one of semantics... or rather the interpretation or definition of "classical music". I am of the mind that there has been no satisfactory definition put forth that embraces everything from Byzantine Chant through Osvaldo Golijov... but also provides a clear separation between "classical music" and various popular of folk music. I might point out that while your argument that Mozart was not a popular composer, what do we make of Offenbach, Gilbert and Sullivan, Stephen Foster, Victor Herbert, John Philip Souza, Scott Joplin, Johann Strauss II, Franz Lehar, etc... What I would point out is that the term "classical music" (excepting its reference to the period of Haydn and Mozart) was first employed during the period in which popular music was gaining in accessibility die to published scores of popular songs and later the advent of recording and broadcast technologies. The term was employed with the clear intention of conveying a value judgment... that this body of music represented "classic" music... the best music... as opposed to the inherently inferior popular music. And this is a definition that makes sense... Classical Music is made up of the finest music from across history just as the "classics" in literature represent the finest works of writing... without any notion of exclusions of populist forms such as the theater or the novel... or in our time, the comic book.

But what you are suggesting is a clear separation of "classical music" on one hand and all the other popular musical forms on the other... and such a division seems impossible to justify as composers for a century or longer have been blurring the divisions between 'classical music" and popular music.


----------



## Arsakes

In my taste which is eternal and universal (!) Rock & Roll is interesting. Rock has gone too far and Metal should be purged from the history of mankind!

Well about Modern-Classic music (the Shoenberg-Cage school), it will be there but because of emotional and structural weakness comparing to Impressionist and older styles it won't get the amount of popularity of older styles.


----------



## Sid James

Petwhac said:


> ...
> If they said that the Beatles and Ellington will be mentioned alongside Debussy and Handel then they are also wrong.


Well with the Beatles, what about things like 'Beatles go Baroque?' (image below) I could imagine that being done as part of the same program as Handel by a chamber orchestra, and I would be happy to hear it live. I don't see it as a thing I have to chose one or the other, I can go with both.

As for Duke Ellington, he did a number of works that he meant to be concert hall pieces. 'Black, Brown and Beige' is the most well known one.

But seriously, modern music will be accepted sooner than I can accept many of the false dichotomies and tired old cliches being trundled out on this thread, I can tell you. Do I accept modern music? YES. Do I accept false dichotomies, eg. the choice I HAVE TO make between old and new music? NO, I DON'T.

But if other people do, good for them. Its a free world.


----------



## Petwhac

_But what you are suggesting is a clear separation of "classical music" on one hand and all the other popular musical forms on the other... and such a division seems impossible to justify as composers for a century or longer have been blurring the divisions between 'classical music" and popular music.

_It is not only I who sees a difference between the two. How is it that you may go to a concert of works by Boulez and Beethoven but part of the program doesn't consist of a rock band giving a performance of Led Zeppelin's 'Lemon Song'?

Why, when I visit an Art Gallery do I not see, along side the Picassos and Mondrians, this....
View attachment 6640


It is visual art is it not? Why would a curator see it as somehow different to 'Guernica'?


----------



## Petwhac

bigshot said:


> OK. I give up on you. I thought there was a glimmer of hope. Have a nice day!


Quitter!:tiphat:


----------



## Krisena

I don't believe in art.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Sid James said:


> So this fetish with old music, with building shrines and 'Gods,' well I'm over that. I don't have sacred cows. I dont' build shrines. I just listen to what I like. I don't legitimise my opinions with things like false dichotomies. Its that simple.


For me, if not for you, it never was a fetish and I am an atheist - so I don't worship gods - spiritual or musical - even if your object of worship has now shifted from ancient to modern. I have listened to Cage, Ligeti etc etc - some of it sounds interesting - but it is not my passion and I prefer earlier periods of music - baroque to early 20thC. So we like different kinds of music - that's all. Good luck.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

It is not only I who sees a difference between the two. How is it that you may go to a concert of works by Boulez and Beethoven but part of the program doesn't consist of a rock band giving a performance of Led Zeppelin's 'Lemon Song'?

Well... from my experience I have never attended a concert in which multiple genre within the realm of what is commonly termed as "classical music" have been performed. In other words... I have never attended an opera and been treated to a string quartet and a bit of Renaissance madrigals. I have no problem with categorizing or dividing music into various forms and/genre. The problem is the idea that there is this over-arching musical style known as "classical music" which embraces virtually all of the musical forms of the past... but remains clearly separate from any taint of modern popular music forms.

Why, when I visit an Art Gallery do I not see, along side the Picassos and Mondrians, this....

Attachment 6640

It is visual art is it not? Why would a curator see it as somehow different to 'Guernica'?

Well... I can only guess at what image you were thinking of as your attachment doesn't work. I will say that I suspect that you haven't visited a museum in quite some time if you have the idea that any form of commercial art or design is not thought of as "Art" by a great many within the art community. I have attended exhibitions that included posters:










(This was from an exhibition of Polish posters at MoMA NY)

books:










cars:










(From the collection of MoMA)

comic books:










(The work of R. Crumb was featured at the Pittsburgh Biannual not too long ago)

motorcycles:










(This exhibition featured at the Guggenheim)

And of course there are any number of works of illustration, advertising, design, film, photography, video, installation, CGI, etc... to be found in Museum collections and exhibitions. This does not negate making value judgments. Most illustration, advertising, comic books, and design are mediocre at best... if not pure hack crap. But then again the same can be said of most of what is passed off as "fine art"... or contemporary classical music.

What is so frightening about the idea that eventually Gershwin's _Summertime_, Harold Arlen and E.Y. Harburg's _Somewhere Over the Rainbow_, Duke Ellington's _Sophisticated Lady_, Miles Davis' _Kind of Blue_, and Lennon and McCartney's _Norwegian Wood_ might be recognized as "classics" of the 20th century and placed along-side Richard Strauss, Stravinsky, Bartok, Britten, and Shostakovitch?


----------



## BurningDesire

Petwhac said:


> _But what you are suggesting is a clear separation of "classical music" on one hand and all the other popular musical forms on the other... and such a division seems impossible to justify as composers for a century or longer have been blurring the divisions between 'classical music" and popular music.
> 
> _It is not only I who sees a difference between the two. How is it that you may go to a concert of works by Boulez and Beethoven but part of the program doesn't consist of a rock band giving a performance of Led Zeppelin's 'Lemon Song'?
> 
> Why, when I visit an Art Gallery do I not see, along side the Picassos and Mondrians, this....
> View attachment 6640
> 
> 
> It is visual art is it not? Why would a curator see it as somehow different to 'Guernica'?


Well what would be wrong with a program consisting of a Beethoven piece, some Boulez, and a Led Zeppelin song? Its all great music, and I'd go to see it, and if they do it well, then I'd likely go and see them perform more eclectic concerts of great works of music :3

I've seen concerts that include a variety of pieces before. String quartet, solo piano, jazz group, renaissance ensemble. Why not include a rock band in that? I've written for ensembles that strongly resemble rock bands in instrumentation, does that make my music unfit for the concert hall?


----------



## starthrower

If a Led Zeppelin song is to be included, better to perform one they actually wrote, or give credit where credit is due.

The Lemon song is a rip off of Willie Dixon's Killing Floor.

I don't want to see motorcycles at the Guggenheim. That stuff belongs at a bike show, not an art museum.

R Crumb is great, but he'll never get any funding or promotion. Too much stuff in his work people don't want to think about, unlike shiny motor bikes.


----------



## Krisena

BurningDesire said:


> I've seen concerts that include a variety of pieces before. String quartet, solo piano, jazz group, renaissance ensemble. Why not include a rock band in that? *I've written for ensembles that strongly resemble rock bands in instrumentation*, does that make my music unfit for the concert hall?


This is completely off-topic, so excuse me, but you seem to never miss an oppurtunity to call attention to the fact that you compose. Care to post a few pieces in the Composer section? I'll show you some of mine.


----------



## BurningDesire

Krisena said:


> This is completely off-topic, so excuse me, but you seem to never miss an oppurtunity to call attention to the fact that you compose. Care to post a few pieces in the Composer section? I'll show you some of mine.


oh ^^; I just thought it was pertinent to the point I was making. I don't have any posted online, I can email you audio if you'd like to hear some of my work.


----------



## Krisena

Sure, send away.


----------



## Very Senior Member

StlukesguildOhio said:


> So essentially the debate is one of semantics... or rather the interpretation or definition of "classical music". I am of the mind that there has been no satisfactory definition put forth that embraces everything from Byzantine Chant through Osvaldo Golijov... but also provides a clear separation between "classical music" and various popular of folk music. I might point out that while your argument that Mozart was not a popular composer, what do we make of Offenbach, Gilbert and Sullivan, Stephen Foster, Victor Herbert, John Philip Souza, Scott Joplin, Johann Strauss II, Franz Lehar, etc... What I would point out is that the term "classical music" (excepting its reference to the period of Haydn and Mozart) was first employed during the period in which popular music was gaining in accessibility die to published scores of popular songs and later the advent of recording and broadcast technologies. *The term was employed with the clear intention of conveying a value judgment... that this body of music represented "classic" music... the best music... as opposed to the inherently inferior popular music. And this is a definition that makes sense... Classical Music is made up of the finest music from across history just as the "classics" in literature represent the finest works of writing... without any notion of exclusions of populist forms such as the theater or the novel... or in our time, the comic book. *
> 
> But what you are suggesting is a clear separation of "classical music" on one hand and all the other popular musical forms on the other... and such a division seems impossible to justify as composers for a century or longer have been blurring the divisions between 'classical music" and popular music.


From the text I have highlighted, you appear to be saying that classical music is made up only of _"the finest music from across history"_. If so, how do you assess the many thousands of works written in the various historical periods (baroque, classical, romantic etc) that are not particularly fine, and indeed many could quite poor if not downright awful? Are you saying that anything less than the "finest" examples of such music is not classical music, or are you saying that all of the music written in those various historical periods, regardless of its merit as perceived today, is to be regarded as the "finest"?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

R Crumb is great, but he'll never get any funding or promotion.

He's actually quite admired by the art critic, Robert Hughes, who has called him the Bruegel of our time. This in spite of the fact that Hughes is often accused of being overly conservative.

The following is an interview of Crumb by Hughes:

*Robert Crumb will undoubtedly go down in history as comicdom's most complex artist. Publicly shy, he nevertheless makes himself the focus of much of his work; highly critical of consumer culture he nevertheless has tons of "merch" and a website to push it; most importantly he uses the "harmless" medium of comic books to explore the outer reaches of adult assumptions about race, sex and the American condition. New Yorkers recently had a rare opportunity to see Crumb face his contradictions and his legacy when he appeared at the New York Public Library in a conversation with Robert Hughes, the irascible essayist and TIME's art critic for more than 30 years. Though the event quickly sold out, TIME, comix was there to bring you highlights of the 2-hour event.*

*Highlights of the conversation:*

HUGHES: I want to know something about where your work begins from.

CRUMB: Well, there's the Egyptian hieroglyphs...

HUGHES: You didn't grow up looking at Egyptian hieroglyphs. What did you grow up looking at?

CRUMB: I'm a total child of popular culture. That's all I ever saw until I was 20 years old. TV. Comic books. That's it. In my family we had a TV when I was 5 years old in 1948. We started watching it a lot. We watched Howdy Doody and the Lone Ranger. That was the stuff that was deeply imprinted on me. Little Lulu and Donald Duck and Felix the Cat - real basic popular culture that was fed to kids. My parents had no culture. Not what's considered a culture with a capital K.

HUGHES: In your cartoons there's this character, very clean cut, straight, with a rigid suit. Is that your dad?

CRUMB: That's my dad, yeah.

HUGHES: In real life what did your dad do?

CRUMB: He was in the U.S. Marine Corps for twenty years. He joined in 1936. My mother made him retire in 1956. He loved the Marine Corps. He would have stayed if my mother had allowed him to. She made him quit because she got tired of being transferred around all the time and living in tract houses on U.S. military bases.

HUGHES: You were a base baby?

CRUMB: Yeah, I was a base baby. My father was that kind of man. That real classic, American John Wayne type of guy. A very intimidating man. Deep booming voice. A hot temper. If he got angry he might strike you.

HUGHES: Did he let you know that he loved you when he wasn't striking you?

CRUMB: No. He was from very reserved farm people. When I would come home to visit after I left home he would say, "It's good to see you Robert," and shake hands.

HUGHES: Did it ever cross his lamps that you would have ever ended up as an artist?

CRUMB: Well, we were always drawing comics as kids. My brother Charles made me draw comics. I was very much under his domination. He was actually a much stronger artistic visionary than I was. I had to do it to be a worthwhile person. And my father saw this and he used to say, "oh you guys will get over this when your reach your teens and you get out and play football." He was just totally bewildered by us. He saw us as Martians. We'd be lying on our beds in the fetal position, reading comics. He was a man of action, a U.S. marine. "Get off your duffs!" We broke his heart. He had three sons and they all turned out to be complete defective weirdoes. My older brother [Charles] committed suicide. He's dead. But my other brother [Max] is still alive. He lives in a hotel in skid row in San Francisco. He's lived in the same room for 25 years.

HUGHES: One of the reasons you've been so popular is because we think of you as fearless and crazy. You are one of the few Americans I have ever come across who seems to be totally unaffected by the notion of political correctness.

CRUMB: Maybe I should be more correct.

HUGHES: Why?

CRUMB: It's not nice to draw those pictures of women with no heads and those ******** images of black people and stuff. I didn't realize how hurtful it was when I did it. I was surprised when people didn't love me after that. I want everyone to love me. Please love me.

HUGHES: Yeah, but you're the kind of loon who thinks that if he tells the truth about his own inner drives and if he exposes things, then people will love him.

CRUMB: Then they'll see that I'm human like them, and I just want acceptance.

HUGHES: But you see you're horribly wrong.

CRUMB: I realize that now. You can't make everybody love you. It's an exercise in futility and it's probably not even a good idea to try.

[A woman in the audience yells "We love you!" The audience applauds.]

CRUMB: Don't embarrass me. I know you love me, ok, alright. You're killing me you love me so much. Back off.

HUGHES: What I want to get to is the way these images worked on people. You have been furiously accused of being a racist.

CRUMB: Yeah well, [characters like Angelfood McSpade] were just stereotypical 1920s images of big-lipped black people which actually had very little to do with real African Americans. They were cartoon stereotypes I was playing around with. All that stuff I did in the late 1960s was cartoon stereotypes. I was playing around with them in a psychedelicized way. I dunno. It's hard to explain. It's not my job to explain it.

HUGHES: Well let's try to explain it. Why did practically nobody else get on to that very intense content and make something out of it the way you did?

CRUMB: I think that you had to be really, really alienated to get that point. You had to be very alienated from the culture.

HUGHES: Why is it that some artists will handle something that most of their audience would find reprehensible?

CRUMB: You've got to have nothing to lose. If you're trying to work the art game, if you're like Andy Warhol or something, then you're in with cake-eaters of society. You want to get in with them and please them and get their money.

HUGHES: You're one of the few people I've ever met who hates the contemporary art system even more than I do.

CRUMB: It's the kiss of death.

HUGHES: I thought that nobody hated Warhol and what he stood for more than me but you do.

CRUMB: It's just kind of annoying when a Marilyn Monroe silkscreen print goes for $100,000 when a drawing I worked really hard on (goes for next to nothing.) I saw a small Breughel painting for sale for less than an Andy Warhol silkscreen print.

HUGHES: That doesn't surprise me at all. If you consider the relative merits of a $5000 Goya Capriccio and on the other hand a $500,000 work by the "immortal" Jeffrey Koons, you become aware that there's been some really, serious, mass-hysterical degeneration of taste. But let's go to what really influenced you in "museum culture." You do note a number of museum artists as being primarily influences...

CRUMB: Not primary, no. All the primary influences for me go back to those childhood comicbooks and TV shows and old movies that I saw on television. Everything basically comes from that.

HUGHES: If there was some side of your imagery in the 1960s that you wished you had stretched more than you did, what would it be?

CRUMB: Good drawing probably. It was sloppy. I was taking too many drugs.

HUGHES: Did you at any time share that view that was so prevalent at Haight Ashbury and other "great centers of world learning" that dropping 250 mics was going to somehow or other induct you into a better world, which if everybody else dropped along with you would then turn out to be kind of utopia?

CRUMB: Yes I did believe that, I'm embarrassed to say. I remember preaching that to people.

HUGHES: It was a kind of self-congratulation in a way.

CRUMB: Well, no because all the hippies that took LSD felt that, in the beginning with some actual validity, that they had perceived a lot of things that were wrong with the direction that industrial civilizations was going. And this was all suddenly revealed very clearly. It got fogged over a bit with all the other crazy stuff that was going on but in the beginning when you took LSD you saw that there was something all wrong with this whole set-up here. "We've got to get back to the land. We gotta get back to nature. We gotta get rid of all this polluting chemical nonsense. We've got to stop this. It's unhealthy for the planet." It all became viscerally clear. It all became suddenly life threatening. All these cars coming at you.

HUGHES: Well it was life threatening

CRUMB: But in a normal state you just kind of adapt to it. But [on LSD] it all just seemed totally insane.

HUGHES: What interests me is the way in which this impacted your art. Because in point of fact, 60's discontent, 60s worries, 60s despair - that left its mark in writing and in music, but it didn't leave much trace in the visual arts. I'm wondering why this should be so. While you're not the only person to have approached this, you are probably the best known. Your work is one of the most powerful testimonies to it.

CRUMB: Well a number of my colleagues turned out similar stuff. I'm not sure why the museums and galleries are fixated on me.

HUGHES: Does it **** you off when people treat you as a representative figure of the 1960s?

CRUMB: Nah, I guess I got used to it. It was just kind of ironic because at the time I felt outside of all that. But in a way I was typical 60s guy. I took LSD. I said, "Oh wow! Groovy! Man!"

HUGHES: But there are certain artists who we don't talk about as 60s artists. We don't say, "Oh, Giorgio Morandi [(1890-1964)], the 60s artist"

CRUMB: Who?

HUGHES: He was this Italian who painted still lives, bottles, arranged on a table... One of the really great artists of the 20th century. Anyway, my point is that, let's say you are talking about Francisco Goya. We don't talk about Goya being an artist of [just] the 1780s or an artist of the 90s when he was doing the "Capriccios."

CRUMB: I understand what you're saying. You get stuck with this label. That's annoying as hell. What about everything I've done since then?

HUGHES: One of the great things in my opinion about cultural memory is that, if properly understood, it belies all that ******** about avant-gardeism. Because everything is simultaneously present.

CRUMB: I agree with you completely. And the thing about comics is that comics are part of a definite, specific lineage and no cartoonist has considered himself a complete, groundbreaking innovator. You're proud of the fact that you picked up from this guy and that guy before...

HUGHES: I wanted to ask about work ethic. You're very, very American in a lot of ways, not least in your commitment to continuous, relentless production.

CRUMB: That's not so true any more as it used to be. It's tapered off a lot more now that I am slightly more well adjusted.

HUGHES: Are you happy?

CRUMB: I'm a little bit happier. Yes. I don't feel as driven. When I was younger I just lived my life on paper. I didn't really live in the real world very much. As a consequence I couldn't cope with the real world and real people very well. That in itself became life threatening so I had to stop drawing so much and learn how to cope with people. Otherwise it would have killed me.

HUGHES: Let's suppose you hadn't had that immense outlet for dreams and resentment...

CRUMB: Oh boy. I'd be drawing those big butts on some prison wall. Or in some lunatic asylum someplace. Or I'd be dead. I could easily have killed myself. I was so depressed. But now I'm better. Fame helped. Getting recognition helped.

HUGHES: Truer words were never spoken.

CRUMB: It can also be hell on earth. But suddenly being an object of fascination for attractive women because of being famous was nice.

HUGHES: It's what the great Dr. Sigmund (I think) said, that great artists are compelled by three principal motives: fame, money and the acquisition of beautiful lovers.

CRUMB: Acquisition of beautiful lovers I would put at the top myself. I could do without the fame and even the money I don't really give a **** about. But I couldn't live without the beautiful lovers.

HUGHES: I've found that the artists who say they could do without the fame and without the money are fairly famous and doing quite well.

CRUMB: I'm sure that's true. But the trick is you can't get the beautiful lovers unless you get the fame if you're a guy like me. I just didn't have what it takes. I was a wimpy, nerdy nothing.

HUGHES: I don't know about this Crumb. Your strips and your pages are full of horrendous looking, nerdy nothings with large overbites whose general apparent unattractiveness is nevertheless compensated for every few frames by the exhibition of this gigantic schlong.

CRUMB: It's all fantasy. And it was really fun to draw.

HUGHES: I want to talk about Robert Crumb's Genesis. It's something that every ex-Catholic boy might entertain nightmares about doing.

CRUMB: [jokingly]I've gotta get it off my chest.

HUGHES: What's it doing on your chest?

CRUMB: I was fooling around with Adam and Eve one day. Doodling about Adam and Eve. At first I did this satirical take off on Adam and Eve - lots of jokey asides and Jewish slang because they're Jewish right? God is Jewish.

HUGHES: Now you're going to get it for anti-Semitism.

CRUMB: Finally I got over fooling around and I realized I just had to tell it straight.

HUGHES: Is God going to look like Mr. Natural?

CRUMB: Nah. He has a white beard but he actually ended up looking more like my father. He has a very masculine face like my father. My problem was, how am I going to draw God? Should I just draw him as a light in the sky that has dialogue balloons coming out from it? Then I had this dream. God came to me in this dream, only for a split second, but I saw very clearly what he looked like. And I thought, ok, there it is, I've got God.

HUGHES: And what did she look like?

CRUMB: I went through that whole thing too; maybe I'll draw God as a black woman. But if you actually read the Old Testament he's just an old, cranky Jewish patriarch. It's a lot of fun doing Genesis, actually. It's very visual. It's lurid. Full of all kinds of crazy, weird things that will really surprise people.

AUDIENCE: Do you ever feel like maybe the fame isn't worth it?

CRUMB: All the time. But then my ego starts to push me forward. It just happened recently. I was in London doing this thing and these paparazzi were taking pictures of me and it was so horrible. I was so angry I just wanted to smash their cameras in their faces. Later that night I just thought, "I'm going to quit drawing. It's just not worth it." Life is a trap.


----------



## Petwhac

StlukesguildOhio said:


> 'Classics' is different from 'classical' at least as far as I have taken the terms to be used in this discussion, indeed in this forum. Blue Suede Shoes is a 'classic' rock and roll song but would you really call it classical music? Hardly!
> 
> But what you are suggesting is a clear separation of "classical music" on one hand and all the other popular musical forms on the other... and such a division seems impossible to justify as composers for a century or longer have been blurring the divisions between 'classical music" and popular music.


That Xenakis is so lame compared to this if percussion is what you're into. Yet if you asked Weckl if he was a classical musician playing classical music I think he might say *no.*


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

From the text I have highlighted, you appear to be saying that classical music is made up only of "the finest music from across history". If so, how do you assess the many thousands of works written in the various historical periods (baroque, classical, romantic etc) that are not particularly fine, and indeed many could quite poor if not downright awful? Are you saying that anything less than the "finest" examples of such music is not classical music, or are you saying that all of the music written in those various historical periods, regardless of its merit as perceived today, is to be regarded as the "finest"?

Well let's look at literature by way of analogy. Let's take Dante. His _Comedia_ (as well as the _Vita Nuova_) is an unquestionable masterpiece... one of the supreme "classics" of literature. His friend, peer, and mentor, Guido Cavalcanti could be considered a minor "classic". But what of all the other poets of the time? We'd still call them "Poets"... and if we wished to be specific, "Italian Renaissance Poets"... but are they "classics"? I'd think not.

Thus I have no problem with suggesting that there are any number "Classical Era Composers" or "Romantic Era Composers"... and any number of "Romantic Era Symphonies" or operas or string quartets that don't qualify as "classic music".

Again... I understand that the over-arching term "classical music" is far more simple to employ... but does such a term really clearly embrace all the music that might be included from the Middle Ages onward while at the same time clearly excluding that which we deem "popular music"?

Again, I ask where do we place figures like: Offenbach, Gilbert and Sullivan, Stephen Foster, Victor Herbert, John Philip Souza, Scott Joplin, Johann Strauss II, Franz Lehar, Leonard Bernstein, Osvaldo Golijov, Astor Piazzolla etc...


----------



## bigshot

Saint, you are much more patient than me. When I realized that not only did he not know much about jazz, he was ignorant about art and the basics of classical music too, I got discouraged. The decidedly adversarial tone he takes to avoid admitting he is less knowledgeable about the subject than he should be makes him hopeless. He isn't interested in what other people say. He's speaking for his own benefit.


----------



## Very Senior Member

StlukesguildOhio said:


> From the text I have highlighted, you appear to be saying that classical music is made up only of "the finest music from across history". If so, how do you assess the many thousands of works written in the various historical periods (baroque, classical, romantic etc) that are not particularly fine, and indeed many could quite poor if not downright awful? Are you saying that anything less than the "finest" examples of such music is not classical music, or are you saying that all of the music written in those various historical periods, regardless of its merit as perceived today, is to be regarded as the "finest"?
> 
> Well let's look at literature by way of analogy. Let's take Dante. His _Comedia_ (as well as the _Vita Nuova_) is an unquestionable masterpiece... one of the supreme "classics" of literature. His friend, peer, and mentor, Guido Cavalcanti could be considered a minor "classic". But what of all the other poets of the time? We'd still call them "Poets"... and if we wished to be specific, "Italian Renaissance Poets"... but are they "classics"? I'd think not.
> 
> Thus I have no problem with suggesting that there are any number "Classical Era Composers" or "Romantic Era Composers"... and any number of "Romantic Era Symphonies" or operas or string quartets that don't qualify as "classic music".
> 
> Again... I understand that the over-arching term "classical music" is far more simple to employ... but does such a term really clearly embrace all the music that might be included from the Middle Ages onward while at the same time clearly excluding that which we deem "popular music"?
> 
> Again, I ask where do we place figures like: Offenbach, Gilbert and Sullivan, Stephen Foster, Victor Herbert, John Philip Souza, Scott Joplin, Johann Strauss II, Franz Lehar, Leonard Bernstein, Osvaldo Golijov, Astor Piazzolla etc...


Trying to keep this simple and straighforward, can you please just tell me whether your definition of "classical music" includes all the music written by medieval, renaissance, baroque, classical, romantic, impressionist etc composers, or only the "finest" examples of it?

Here I'm referring to all the standard listed composers from those eras who wrote music that was recognisably of the same form as that by their more famous contemporaries.

I'm simply trying to nail down precisely whether you are applying a minimum quality cut-off among the works of these composers, in order to qualify as "classical". To give an illustrative example, if we took a highly obscure sonata written by one of the less well known Bach family members, say a work that is so insignifiacnt that it is never played these days or hardly ever, do you consider this be classical music or not?


----------



## Petwhac

bigshot said:


> Saint, you are much more patient than me. When I realized that not only did he not know much about jazz, he was ignorant about art and the basics of classical music too, I got discouraged. The decidedly adversarial tone he takes to avoid admitting he is less knowledgeable about the subject than he should be makes him hopeless. He isn't interested in what other people say. He's speaking for his own benefit.


Are you referring to me? Saints last post was a response to Very Senior Member. Please clarify. You may wish to discuss with members directly as opposed to making snide comments about them to other members, but hey, we can't all have manners.
It is _you_ who are adversarial and makes wild assumptions about the depth of others' knowledge and experience.


----------



## bigshot

Would you like me to continue to address you? I got the feeling you didn't.


----------



## Petwhac

bigshot said:


> Would you like me to continue to address you? I got the feeling you didn't.


Feel free but please make it clear who you are talking to.


----------



## Vesteralen

Very Senior Member said:


> Trying to keep this simple and straighforward, can you please just tell me whether your definition of "classical music" includes all the music written by medieval, renaissance, baroque, classical, romantic, impressionist etc composers, or only the "finest" examples of it?
> 
> Here I'm referring to all the standard listed composers from those eras who wrote music that was recognisably of the same form as that by their more famous contemporaries.
> 
> I'm simply trying to nail down precisely whether you are applying a minimum quality cut-off among the works of these composers, in order to qualify as "classical". To give an illustrative example, if we took a highly obscure sonata written by one of the less well known Bach family members, say a work that is so insignifiacnt that it is never played these days or hardly ever, do you consider this be classical music or not?


I can't speak for him, but my understanding of what he said is that there is "classic" music, and there is what we call "classical" music, and they are not the same thing. "Classic" implies a value judgment, and embraces music of all genres that has achieved a certain timeless status. "Classical" is intended to be a much wider term, but still leaves up in the air things like, for example, operetta, which is considered "classical" by some and "popular" by others.

Not my argument, but I thought I'd like to set it out to see if I followed his line of reasoning correctly.


----------



## bigshot

All right Petwack. How about starting with jazz.

Jazz is a form of musical expression that is capable of expressing complex forms and true emotions. Jazz composers and performers invest their own life experience into their work and see it as a form of personal expression. The roots of jazz are in a combination of "art music" (ragtime) and "popular music" (tin pan alley). But as it evolved, it became much more than its influences. Jazz was originally conceived to be a form of music that was intended to be performed live for an audience, but recordings fixed performance in time and spread them far and wide. The basic structure of Jazz is based on theme and variations. It can have a wide range of instrumentation from solo instrument the to an orchestra. The relationship of the soloist to the band in large form jazz arrangements is very similar to the piano to the orchestra in piano concertos. Performers often interpret the compositions of others. The length of a jazz piece can extend from a few minutes to as much as an hour. Jazz was a profound expression of its culture and time and place. It evolved through a number of styles which developed as musicians traded ideas and were influenced by each other. Although Jazz had its roots in New Orleans, it quickly spread and became the music of the entire human race. As time went by, the forms and musical theory behind jazz became more complex and more abstract. Jazz is regarded as the highest creative expression of its day. Its influence touched every art form, from fine artists to great film directors, writers and dancers.

The same can be said of classical music. The only difference between jazz and classical is jazz's roots in improvisation. But many modern classical works embrace improvisation as well.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Trying to keep this simple and straighforward, can you please just tell me whether your definition of "classical music" includes all the music written by medieval, renaissance, baroque, classical, romantic, impressionist etc composers, or only the "finest" examples of it?

Here I'm referring to all the standard listed composers from those eras who wrote music that was recognisably of the same form as that by their more famous contemporaries.

I'm simply trying to nail down precisely whether you are applying a minimum quality cut-off among the works of these composers, in order to qualify as "classical". To give an illustrative example, if we took a highly obscure sonata written by one of the less well known Bach family members, say a work that is so insignifiacnt that it is never played these days or hardly ever, do you consider this be classical music or not?

Obviously a definition of what amounts to a "classic"... based upon artistic merits... of any art form is extremely fluid and open to debate. A definition based upon style seems no less fluid. The difference is that the decisions as to inclusion or exclusion in the former are based solely upon artistic merit, where in the latter the exclusions are based upon disallowing certain works based upon styles (which have grown increasing blurred) or the intentions and/or intended audience.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The roots of jazz are in a combination of "art music" (ragtime) and "popular music" (tin pan alley). But as it evolved, it became much more than its influences.

Go back further... and you find another of the roots of jazz was the music developed by classically trained black musicians in New Orleans and vicinity. Many of these musicians unable to find employment after the Civil War were employed in dance halls and brothels where they would utilize their abilities in improvising upon popular tunes... sometimes in parody of "white classical music" and sometimes to extend the length of a popular tune for dances and for strippers. There is also an influence from African drumming merged with "white" hymns that developed into spirituals, as well as Latin-American influences. In many ways the mere concept of insisting upon maintaining this artificial boundary between "classical" music and everything else seems more about maintaining social boundaries... separating "high class" from "low class"... and more about divisions originally rooted in racism... than it does about anything else.

Again... I ask where do we place figures like: Offenbach, Gilbert and Sullivan, Stephen Foster, Victor Herbert, John Philip Souza, Scott Joplin, Johann Strauss II, Franz Lehar, Leonard Bernstein, Osvaldo Golijov, Astor Piazzolla etc...

And Louis Gottschalk...?


----------



## Very Senior Member

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Trying to keep this simple and straighforward, can you please just tell me whether your definition of "classical music" includes all the music written by medieval, renaissance, baroque, classical, romantic, impressionist etc composers, or only the "finest" examples of it?
> 
> Here I'm referring to all the standard listed composers from those eras who wrote music that was recognisably of the same form as that by their more famous contemporaries.
> 
> I'm simply trying to nail down precisely whether you are applying a minimum quality cut-off among the works of these composers, in order to qualify as "classical". To give an illustrative example, if we took a highly obscure sonata written by one of the less well known Bach family members, say a work that is so insignifiacnt that it is never played these days or hardly ever, do you consider this be classical music or not?
> 
> Obviously a definition of what amounts to a "classic"... based upon artistic merits... of any art form is extremely fluid and open to debate. A definition based upon style seems no less fluid. The difference is that the decisions as to inclusion or exclusion in the former are based solely upon artistic merit, where in the latter the exclusions are based upon disallowing certain works based upon styles (which have grown increasing blurred) or the intentions and/or intended audience.


You said very clearly that classical music - not just "classic" music" - comprises the finest of music from ages past. Have you changed your mind?


----------



## Very Senior Member

Here's the text of what you wrote:

_"What I would point out is that the term "classical music" (excepting its reference to the period of Haydn and Mozart) was first employed during the period in which popular music was gaining in accessibility die to published scores of popular songs and later the advent of recording and broadcast technologies. The term was employed with the clear intention of conveying a value judgment... that this body of music represented "classic" music... the best music... as opposed to the inherently inferior popular music. And this is a definition that makes sense... *Classical Music is made up of the finest music from across history just as the "classics" in literature represent the finest works of writing... without any notion of exclusions of populist forms such as the theater or the novel... or in our time, the comic book."*_

The last sentence clearly states that ".. classical music" is made up of the finest music from across history ..."

I am simply asking whether this is exhaustive or whether non-finest examples of what are normally deemed to be classical music fit your definition of the term.


----------



## Very Senior Member

Vesteralen said:


> I can't speak for him, but my understanding of what he said is that there is "classic" music, and there is what we call "classical" music, and they are not the same thing. "Classic" implies a value judgment, and embraces music of all genres that has achieved a certain timeless status. "Classical" is intended to be a much wider term, but still leaves up in the air things like, for example, operetta, which is considered "classical" by some and "popular" by others.
> 
> Not my argument, but I thought I'd like to set it out to see if I followed his line of reasoning correctly.


That's not the way I read it. There is no suggestion that "Classical" is intended to be a much wider term.

If it does imply this, then the argument makes no sense.

If it does not imply this, then the argument still makes no sense.

As I think SLG has rumbled.


----------



## bigshot

I don't think there is a hard and fast definition of classical music. The edges bleed and the gray areas move toward the center as time passes. As he said, it was originally defined by record labels and concert promoters to differentiate it from other forms of music. It's amazing that we let corporate interests define our art, but it's not like that hasn't happened in other artistic fields too.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

You said very clearly that classical music - not just "classic" music" - comprises the finest of music from ages past. Have you changed your mind?

What makes you think I've changed my mind? I merely acknowledged that even if we accept that "classical music" is comprised of the best music from across the whole of history there will be disagreements as to what music does or does not qualify. There is no universally agreed-upon canon of classic literature or painting... and I doubt that we can expect that the situation in music will somehow be different. Undoubtedly there are works by Mozart, Beethoven, and certainly any other great composer that you might name that are far from being "classics".

basically we are just going around in circles here. I am suggesting that the term "classical music" is meaningless unless someone can clearly define it. Instead I am suggesting that "classic music" be employed as an all-embracing terms which doesn't exclude music based upon style or intended audience.

Again no one has offered a reasonable definition of "classical music" as a style as opposed to a value judgment.

Duke Ellington summed it up by saying, "It's all music."


----------



## Very Senior Member

OK, now for a simple explanation of what I've been driving at.

The point is that classical music can’t be defined in the manner SLG seems to be suggesting by whether it is the “finest” of its type from the various time periods when it was written. If this were true then it would mean that non-finest classical music, as normally understood by most people, is not classical music on SLG’s definition. Hence he would throw out great swathes of classical music, as normally understood, as not qualifying because it’s not the finest. This sounds completely daft

On the other hand, if he was not suggesting this at all, but that classical music comprises both the finest and non-finest examples of the type of music, then this is pointless because we know that already. It would be tantamount to admitting that classical music can only be defined by form, which is what most people accept anyway. If classical music is defined by form then it can’t any include pop/rock/metal etc, regardless of its quality. Hence that argument too goes down the pan. 

Hence the argument put forward by SLG runs aground whichever way you look at it. It is simply illogical


----------



## Very Senior Member

StlukesguildOhio said:


> basically we are just going around in circles here. I am suggesting that the term "classical music" is meaningless unless someone can clearly define it. Instead I am suggesting that "classic music" be employed as an all-embracing terms which doesn't exclude music based upon style or intended audience.



May be you are, but I'm certainly not. I suggest you have offered a revised definition of classical music that doesn't make any sense.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

There is no suggestion that "Classical" is intended to be a much wider term.

What, then, would you call a term that supposedly denotes everything from Byzantine Chant to Gregorian Chant, to Hildegard of Bingen to the songs of Walther von der Vogelweide, to Guillaume de Machaut, to Dufay, to the madrigals of Gesualdo and Monteverdi, to concerti grossi, cantatas, oratorios, masses, opera, string quartets, and on and on through Strauss' waltzes, Offenbach's Operettas, Stravinsky's ballets, Schoenberg's Sprechstimme, Weill's Cabaret/Operetta, and on through Pierre Schaeffer's experiments with Musique concrète, Bernstein and Gershwin's mergers of orchestral music with jazz and Latin-American music, Piazzolla's tangos, and the avant garde experiements of Xenakis and Stockhausen?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

May be you are, but I'm certainly not. I suggest you have offered a revised definition of classical music that doesn't make any sense.

And your definition makes sense. You haven't even made the least attempt to lay this definition out there. Either because you can't... or more likely because your definition of classical music is: "the music I like."


----------



## bigshot

Very Senior Member said:


> If classical music is defined by form then it can't any include pop/rock/metal etc, regardless of its quality.


Defining classical music by form is just as much of a slippery slope as defining it by quality. I think I quoted Greenberg's definition early on in this thread. It seems reasonable to me.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The point is that classical music can't be defined in the manner SLG seems to be suggesting by whether it is the "finest" of its type from the various time periods when it was written. If this were true then it would mean that non-finest classical music, as normally understood by most people, is not classical music on SLG's definition. Hence he would throw out great swathes of classical music, as normally understood, as not qualifying because it's not the finest. This sounds completely daft...

How is it daft? I can't think of a single serious reader who presumes that every work of literature composed by a formally educated writer amounts to "classic literature". How is it a loss if we come to accept that maybe Mozart's first symphonies are not classics while Duke Ellington's greatest works are?


----------



## Petwhac

bigshot said:


> All right Petwack. How about starting with jazz.


My pleasure, and I have to say, at this point, the opinions I express are wholly personal and I have not studied the history of Jazz in an academic way. However, I have been writing and playing Jazz for many years, I have played at Ronnie Scott's in London and as keyboard player for Ronnie Laws (whos work I assume you know) at Pizza Express in Soho. I have my own 6 piece Fusion group for whom I write all the material. We gig 3 or 4 times year in and around London and will be launching an album in a week or so with a two hour performance at another well known jazz club in London. All this is for me, a sideline from my main occupation of commercial media composer, arranger and producer.



bigshot said:


> Jazz is a form of musical expression that is capable of expressing complex forms and true emotions.


Well, let's say it's a genre with many sub genres. Bop, Cool, Smooth, Fusion, Swing, Dixieland. Rarely are the forms particularly complex to my mind and as for true emotions, I'm not sure what that means.


bigshot said:


> Jazz composers and performers invest their own life experience into their work and see it as a form of personal expression.


I wouldn't feel qualified to speak on behalf of all jazz composers but to me, that seems so broad a statement as to be meaningless.



bigshot said:


> The roots of jazz are in a combination of "art music" (ragtime) and "popular music" (tin pan alley).


As I said I'm not a scholar of jazz but I would have thought that it's origin is likely to be a result of the African influence (through slavery) meeting with the European harmonic influence as in Church music, via Gospel, Blues, Spirituals from rural then later to the Northern cities like Chicago.



bigshot said:


> The basic structure of Jazz is based on theme and variations.


Not in the classical sense. Typically in a jazz performance a 'head' is played in a pre determined arrangement and may have been based on a popular song or specially composed. Lets say the Miles Davies Quintet's version of Someday My Prince Will Come. Once the 'tune' has been stated, each member will solo/improvise over the harmonic framework that the tune is built upon. The performance as a whole stands or falls by the quality of the soloists ( and the 'feel' of the rhythm section of course). In the case I have cited, the quality is as you might expect, is superb. Although this piece doesn't represent all approaches to Jazz, it is a very common way of doing things and very different from a classical theme and variations. For that, let's turn to Beethoven's on a waltz by Diabelli. Unlike the Miles Davies in which the 'text' is stated once at the beginning and again at the end with the soloists free to 'blow' over the 'changes', Beethoven will slowly explore different aspects of the theme through modulation and thematic development. He will in places, altogether abandon the harmonic framework, the melodic contours or the key of the original theme so as to obliterate any memory of it's original character while keeping some of it's essence.
This is quite different from him improvising over the chord changes of the waltz. He has created a 'text' for generations of pianists to interpret and bring to it their own insights. The 'text' in Mile's piece is 16 bars of a popular song from Disney's Snow White, beautiful though the song is and iconic as the version recorded on the album of the same name is.

They are quite different in their aims, process and outcomes and both are 'classics' of their type but only one is a classical composition.



bigshot said:


> Jazz was a profound expression of its culture and time and place............. Jazz is regarded as the highest creative expression of its day.


Eh?, what do you mean 'it's day'? Do you mean it's day has gone....oh no! It's culture? It's time and place?

When someone says ....is regarded as.... I wonder who is doing the regarding.



bigshot said:


> The same can be said of classical music. The only difference between jazz and classical is jazz's roots in improvisation. But many modern classical works embrace improvisation as well.


As you can probably tell I disagree that there is no difference between Jazz and Classical.

It is possible to appreciate both without the need to merge them into a single entity.

If you'd like to discuss Classical or Pop and Rock too, that's fine.


----------



## BurningDesire

StlukesguildOhio said:


> From the text I have highlighted, you appear to be saying that classical music is made up only of "the finest music from across history". If so, how do you assess the many thousands of works written in the various historical periods (baroque, classical, romantic etc) that are not particularly fine, and indeed many could quite poor if not downright awful? Are you saying that anything less than the "finest" examples of such music is not classical music, or are you saying that all of the music written in those various historical periods, regardless of its merit as perceived today, is to be regarded as the "finest"?
> 
> Well let's look at literature by way of analogy. Let's take Dante. His _Comedia_ (as well as the _Vita Nuova_) is an unquestionable masterpiece... one of the supreme "classics" of literature. His friend, peer, and mentor, Guido Cavalcanti could be considered a minor "classic". But what of all the other poets of the time? We'd still call them "Poets"... and if we wished to be specific, "Italian Renaissance Poets"... but are they "classics"? I'd think not.
> 
> Thus I have no problem with suggesting that there are any number "Classical Era Composers" or "Romantic Era Composers"... and any number of "Romantic Era Symphonies" or operas or string quartets that don't qualify as "classic music".
> 
> Again... I understand that the over-arching term "classical music" is far more simple to employ... but does such a term really clearly embrace all the music that might be included from the Middle Ages onward while at the same time clearly excluding that which we deem "popular music"?
> 
> Again, I ask where do we place figures like: Offenbach, Gilbert and Sullivan, Stephen Foster, Victor Herbert, John Philip Souza, Scott Joplin, Johann Strauss II, Franz Lehar, Leonard Bernstein, Osvaldo Golijov, Astor Piazzolla etc...


Well obviously we wouldn't include Gilbert because he's not a composer. I really don't see anything wrong with calling any of the others "classical music", though it only contributes to how vague a definition it is. I actually do have an idea for classification that makes some sense: We have music that is composed by a single person (classical composers, many song writers and some rock and electronic musicians), music which is collaboratively composed (as is the case in much rock and pop music), and music which is has 2 or more unrelated composers (as in jazz, where you have the composer who creates the main theme, and the harmonic climate for the work, and sometimes rhythmic elements, and then you have the improv composers who improvise harmonic spelling, rhythms, melodies past the theme). How is that?


----------



## BurningDesire

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The point is that classical music can't be defined in the manner SLG seems to be suggesting by whether it is the "finest" of its type from the various time periods when it was written. If this were true then it would mean that non-finest classical music, as normally understood by most people, is not classical music on SLG's definition. Hence he would throw out great swathes of classical music, as normally understood, as not qualifying because it's not the finest. This sounds completely daft...
> 
> How is it daft? I can't think of a single serious reader who presumes that every work of literature composed by a formally educated writer amounts to "classic literature". How is it a loss if we come to accept that maybe Mozart's firts symphonies are not classics while Duke Ellington's greatest works are?


Also, it should be kinda obvious that calling this stuff "classical" is not denoting quality. We're mostly referring to a musical tradition. The folks who call Carter and Varese noise obviously aren't making a value judgement when they refer to that as classical. There really isn't any point in trying to come up with a defining category for "great music" because we already call it "great music".


----------



## bigshot

Petwhac said:


> My pleasure, and I have to say, at this point, the opinions I express are wholly personal and I have not studied the history of Jazz in an academic way. However, I have been writing and playing Jazz for many years, I have played at Ronnie Scott's in London and as keyboard player for Ronnie Laws (whos work I assume you know) at Pizza Express in Soho


Okie doke. I've actually done an awful lot of research into the history and elements of jazz, probably even more so than classical. I could expand on each point I made in that post quite a bit, but my reply would get very long and unwieldy, so I'll start at the roots of jazz and if you're interested, I'll comment on the rest later on.



Petwhac said:


> As I said I'm not a scholar of jazz but I would have thought that it's origin is likely to be a result of the African influence (through slavery) meeting with the European harmonic influence as in Church music, via Gospel, Blues, Spirituals from rural then later to the Northern cities like Chicago.


That's the general outline of the accepted outline of jazz, but there is more to it than that.

The first form of Jazz was Ragtime, which was created by Scott Joplin, Joseph Lamb and James Scott. These three men represent the dichotomy of the origins of Jazz that is rarely discussed. Joplin saw ragtime as an "art music". His intent was to create a distinctly American form of music that would equal European tradition (read: classical music like Chopin and Liszt). Lamb was white and added a level of lyrical flow and stylistic organization to the form. (There were other white ragtime composers too. Ragtime was not the product of any single race.) James Scott brought the Negro folk element into ragtime, which operated much like Bohemian folk music did within Dvorak's works. Ragtime was primarily intended to be a uniquely American form of classical music based on Negro folk themes.

Ragtime fused with military band music, epitomized by the work of John Philip Sousa. Sousa was a classically trained composer, conductor and bandleader. He's known today primarily for his marches, but in his day, he was also known as a composer of light classical music and operettas. As a teenager, he wanted to run away from home to join a circus band, but his father enlisted him into the Marine band to prevent that. Sousa also saw his music as being the American equivalent of European classical music, emulating composers like von Suppe and Johann Stauss II.

The third element that went into the mixing pot of jazz was 100% "popular music"... tin pan alley. These songs were created in New York to feed the sheet music market, which was the times equivalent of today's music business. Tin Pan Alley provided many of the tunes that early jazz musicians would use as a basis for their music. But it wasn't just jazz tapping into tin pan alley. It worked the other way too. Ragtime swept through popular music like wildfire, and many great ragtime composers came from the ranks of popular songwriters. An example of this is Zez Confrey.

These three elements combined in different proportions to create the different branches of jazz. Ragtime piano evolved into the stride piano of James P. Johnson. Military band music fused with ragtime to create the sound of the early New Orleans based bands like Armstrong's Hot Fives and Jelly Roll Morton's band. The larger scale orchestrations of Sousa based on the model of von Suppe and Strauss led to the sound of the primarily white dance bands and Fletcher Henderson's swing big band. Popular music fed jazz with melodies to be "ragged"... the early term for syncopation or ragged rhythm.

OK. That is a nutshell version... My point here is that from the very beginning, jazz was intended to be "art music". It fused with popular and folk elements in much the same way that Dvorak and Bartok used their own folk melodies as a jumping off point. It was not exclusively black or rural- on the contrary, it alao derived from white and urban sources, as well as educated classical and light classical sources.

There is no reason to see the origin of jazz as any different from any other musical movement... including the ones we commonly think of as "classical". It came from many of the same sort of nationalistic musical and social backgrounds as a lot of classical music. When you look at where it came from, you realize that classical influenced jazz even more than jazz influenced classical. The one thing that's for sure about the early origins of jazz is that it was not primarily popular music.


----------



## Petwhac

@ bigshot- Thanks, that's very interesting but just affirms my view that jazz has it's own lineage and tradition and canon which are quite distinct from 'classical' although like I said there has been cross-fertilisation and mutual influence. It seems that the development of jazz has run concurrently with that of classical. If Ragtime was popular from the 1890s to WW1, there is during that period, a separate development going on in the music of Mahler, Faure, Holst, Debussy, Delius, Elgar, Bartok, Ravel, Stravinsky etc. To be sure some of the mannerisms of early Jazz can be found in some of the work of some of those listed.


----------



## Sid James

stomanek said:


> For me, if not for you, it never was a fetish and I am an atheist - so I don't worship gods - spiritual or musical - even if your object of worship has now shifted from ancient to modern. I have listened to Cage, Ligeti etc etc - some of it sounds interesting - but it is not my passion and I prefer earlier periods of music - baroque to early 20thC. So we like different kinds of music - that's all. Good luck.


Well I was making a general comment re fetishism, not about you personally. Its not even a matter of what music a person listens to. Its about attitude. & in terms of what you say above, I think that's a good attitude. Its talking from experience, from your experience and about your preferences, etc. Its real. So I think that's better than some ideological crapola/drivel which I must admit I've had a gutful of, here and elsewhere in life.



BurningDesire said:


> Well what would be wrong with a program consisting of a Beethoven piece, some Boulez, and a Led Zeppelin song? Its all great music, and I'd go to see it, and if they do it well, then I'd likely go and see them perform more eclectic concerts of great works of music :3
> 
> I've seen concerts that include a variety of pieces before. String quartet, solo piano, jazz group, renaissance ensemble. Why not include a rock band in that? I've written for ensembles that strongly resemble rock bands in instrumentation, does that make my music unfit for the concert hall?


Concerts can be of different sorts, and things are evolving from the older more established models.

For example, there is a group doing Australian contemporary music, mainly classical experimental, but also other things. Also they do international repertoire, from Glass to Xenakis and beyond. They even did a Harry Partch concert. They are very diverse. They are called 'Ensemble Offspring' and are headed by one of our finest percussionists, Claire Edwardes.

But the thing is, they don't only do concerts in the regular venues, like recital halls or at the radio station concert hall. They also have been doing gigs in the suburbs, in bowling clubs! Their aim is to get families to go there, people who have children and are into classical music. At these gigs, Claire in an interview they do 'bite sized' pieces, both older contemporary and literally brand new stuff.

So what I'm saying is some groups are being flexible and branching out, bringing music to different audiences and different markets.

I think this is great. And I have been enjoying many types of concerts in different venues. For me its about variety, and theres a lot happening out there, its not 'one size fits all.' Its like a smorgasbord and you choose what you want.


----------



## bigshot

I suppose if you define classical music as European Art Music, American Art Music is a separate lineage. Certainly George Gershwin, Charles Ives and Aaron Copland follow a different canon and tradition too, even though they were classically trained. Gershwin had the same basic background as Ellington, and Ives was certainly influenced by Sousa too.

What shall we call this? "American Classical"?


----------



## Eschbeg

bigshot said:


> I suppose if you define classical music as European Art Music, American Art Music is a separate lineage. Certainly George Gershwin, Charles Ives and Aaron Copland follow a different canon and tradition too, even though they were classically trained.


The case could be made for Gershwin, but I don't think it's so clear with Ives and Copland. Ives, for one, pretty unambiguously considered himself the direct heir to the nineteenth-century European greats. He once identified his predecessors as "César Franck, Brahms, d'Indy, or even Elgar." There's American marching band music scattered throughout his works, no doubt about it, but Ives was just applying American sounds to a long-established European symphonic tradition of which he considered himself a part. As for Copland, even his most American works are as indebted to Stravinsky as they are to American sources. The melodies may sound American but the techniques are distinctly European, the direct result of what he was studying when he was in France.


----------



## BurningDesire

bigshot said:


> I suppose if you define classical music as European Art Music, American Art Music is a separate lineage. Certainly George Gershwin, Charles Ives and Aaron Copland follow a different canon and tradition too, even though they were classically trained. Gershwin had the same basic background as Ellington, and Ives was certainly influenced by Sousa too.
> 
> What shall we call this? "American Classical"?


More pointlessness. Its still a part of the long musical tradition. Many of the European countries were as separate from one another as the US is from them, so stop acting like its Europe Vs. the US.


----------



## BurningDesire

Eschbeg said:


> The case could be made for Gershwin, but I don't think it's so clear with Ives and Copland. Ives, for one, pretty unambiguously considered himself the direct heir to the nineteenth-century European greats. He once identified his predecessors as "César Franck, Brahms, d'Indy, or even Elgar." There's American marching band music scattered throughout his works, no doubt about it, but Ives was just applying American sounds to a long-established European symphonic tradition of which he considered himself a part. As for Copland, even his most American works are as indebted to Stravinsky as they are to American sources. The melodies may sound American but the techniques are distinctly European, the direct result of what he was studying when he was in France.


Also, "American" military marches are descended from the same sorts of marches from Britain and Germany and other countries.


----------



## Petwhac

Eschbeg said:


> The case could be made for Gershwin, but I don't think it's so clear with Ives and Copland. Ives, for one, pretty unambiguously considered himself the direct heir to the nineteenth-century European greats. He once identified his predecessors as "César Franck, Brahms, d'Indy, or even Elgar." There's American marching band music scattered throughout his works, no doubt about it, but Ives was just applying American sounds to a long-established European symphonic tradition of which he considered himself a part. As for Copland, even his most American works are as indebted to Stravinsky as they are to American sources. The melodies may sound American but the techniques are distinctly European, the direct result of what he was studying when he was in France.


Yes, this seems a wholly reasonable view and well put.


----------



## bigshot

Eschbeg said:


> The case could be made for Gershwin, but I don't think it's so clear with Ives and Copland. Ives, for one, pretty unambiguously considered himself the direct heir to the nineteenth-century European greats.


Joplin was aiming there too.

I consider Copland part of the cinematic tradition... Steiner, Salter, Kornold, Waxman. His music sounds just like American film soundtracks to me. (that isn't a bad thing. I think that film composers are more interesting than their contemporaries in classical music) Cinematic music is a hodgepodge of different influences, sometimes surpassing the sources in some ways.


----------



## bigshot

BurningDesire said:


> More pointlessness. Its still a part of the long musical tradition. Many of the European countries were as separate from one another as the US is from them, so stop acting like its Europe Vs. the US.


I was following his line of reasoning. Don't get all Canadian on my ***!


----------



## Very Senior Member

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The point is that classical music can't be defined in the manner SLG seems to be suggesting by whether it is the "finest" of its type from the various time periods when it was written. If this were true then it would mean that non-finest classical music, as normally understood by most people, is not classical music on SLG's definition. Hence he would throw out great swathes of classical music, as normally understood, as not qualifying because it's not the finest. This sounds completely daft...
> 
> How is it daft? I can't think of a single serious reader who presumes that every work of literature composed by a formally educated writer amounts to "classic literature". How is it a loss if we come to accept that maybe Mozart's first symphonies are not classics while Duke Ellington's greatest works are?


It's daft because you propose to re-define "classical music" as music, across all genres and ages, which is the "finest" of its type. That is, all the best baroque, romantic, jazz, pop, swing, rock, rap, metal etc would be lumped together as "classical", and presumably non-classical music would comprise the remainder, i.e. all of the non-finest music.

I'm surprised that you haven't had a ton of people coming down on you for this.

However, if that's really what you believe, where would you draw the line in terms of quality to qualify as "classical"? For example how good does a 1960's pop song have to be before it becomes "classical music"? How bad does an 18th C symphony have to be before it is no longer classified as "classical"?

And most especially, who do suggest is going to decide upon these quality parameters?


----------



## bigshot

I think it's age... Like once something gets to be 75 years old, it can be called an antique.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

It's daft because you propose to re-define "classical music"

How am I "re-defining" something that you have yet to be able to define? And that is surely the problem... the term is virtually meaningless. Someone can say they listen to "classical music" and what they mean is essentially the core repertoire of orchestral music from 1750-1930. Another could say the same thing... but what they mean is that they listen to vocal/choral/operatic compositions from the late Renaissance through Bach, and still another may mean that like someguy they listen mostly to music from the mid-20th century to the present especially stuff like this:






The term is so broad and encompasses such a wide spectrum of historical periods, styles, and genre as to be wholly "meaningless". One cannot imagine a similar term in the visual arts or literature... not unless the term is one of value judgment: "masterpieces", "the classics". The only such term I can think of which comes close is the "fine arts"... a term which has grown increasingly rare in use among those in the art world for the same reasons: the lines between "fine art" and "applied" art are too vague and have grown increasingly blurred (What? Architecture isn't a "fine art"?); the term implies a value judgment (something "fine" as opposed to not fine...) but this is a value judgment based upon outdated ideas about art forms.

All definitions are inherently abstractions and imperfect at that... but I have a fairly solid idea of what you are talking about if you speak of "Baroque Opera" or "Impressionist Painting". This is in no way true if you emply the term "classical music."

However, if that's really what you believe, where would you draw the line in terms of quality to qualify as "classical"? For example how good does a 1960's pop song have to be before it becomes "classical music"? How bad does an 18th C symphony have to be before it is no longer classified as "classical"? 

Again, these are just absurd questions intended to deflect attention to the fact that you embrace a given term... and yet cannot define what that term means. We can ask the same question of the term "masterpiece" or "literary classic". There is no universally-agreed-upon canon of what paintings or novels are classics/masterpieces... and which ones just fall short. There's no clear line or wholly objective set of criteria by which we may come to such a decision. As such, most most in the art world would never think to suggest "I only look at masterpieces" nor any literary critic state "I only read the classics".

Again, the reality is that the term "classical music" initially referred solely to the music composed by the formally educated/trained musicians/composers from the period of Mozart and Haydn. It only came to be employed recently (toward the end of the 19th century) as a term intended to embrace the whole of Western music composed by formally educated/trained musicians/composers (and almost exclusively the time frame of Bach onward) in order to differentiate the music of the upper classes from the music of the masses... or the "lower classes". It embraced (and still does) the populist music of the "upper classes" (Strauss, Gilbert and Sullivan, Lehar, Victor Herbert, Gershwin) while excluding everything else... without any logical justification.

If the term "classical music" is intended as a value judgment... a belief that this music alone is the finest stuff there is... then just say so openly and then explain why the best music by Duke Ellington, or a Hollywood song writer, or Lennon and McCartney do not qualify.

If the term is intended to define a given style, on the other hand, then offer some logical definition of this style and logically explain your reasoning behind what you include and exclude in this style.

If you are not defining "classical music" as either a style of music or a value judgment of music... what then does the term denote?


----------



## BurningDesire

StlukesguildOhio said:


> How am I "re-defining" something that you have yet to be able to define? And that is surely the problem... the term is virtually meaningless. Someone can say they listen to "classical music" and what they mean is essentially the core repertoire of orchestral music from 1750-1930. Another could say the same thing... but what they mean is that they listen to vocal/choral/operatic compositions from the late Renaissance through Bach, and still another may mean that like someguy they listen mostly to music from the mid-20th century to the present especially stuff like this:
> 
> The term is so broad and encompasses such a wide spectrum of historical periods, styles, and genre as to be wholly "meaningless". One cannot imagine a similar term in the visual arts or literature... not unless the term is one of value judgment: "masterpieces", "the classics". The only such term I can think of which comes close is the "fine arts"... a term which has grown increasingly rare in use among those in the art world for the same reasons: the lines between "fine art" and "applied" art are too vague and have grown increasingly blurred (What? Architecture isn't a "fine art"?); the term implies a value judgment (something "fine" as opposed to not fine...) but this is a value judgment based upon outdated ideas about art forms.
> 
> All definitions are inherently abstractions and imperfect at that... but I have a fairly solid idea of what you are talking about if you speak of "Baroque Opera" or "Impressionist Painting". This is in no way true if you emply the term "classical music."


So are you suggesting that this site only be used to discuss the "greatest" compositions? As decided by whom? I have provided a pretty solid definition of "classical music" which is that it is a musical tradition, that began with Ancient Greece. Its no value judgement, as in the term "classical education" meaning the tradition of a way of learning. All these diverse works, from the few recorded works from antiquity, to plainchant, to renaissance madrigals, to baroque operas and fugues, to classical symphonies, to romantic tone poems, to 20th century ballets and musique concrete and sound mass composition, are all connected to this musical tradition, and that is why they are called classical. I am of the opinion that it should also include things like Frank Zappa, who's writing and musical thinking are descended from that lineage, even though a fair amount of his compositions are rock songs.


----------



## Very Senior Member

StlukesguildOhio said:


> How am I "re-defining" something that you have yet to be able to define? And that is surely the problem... the term is virtually meaningless.
> 
> etc......
> 
> If the term is intended to define a given style, on the other hand, then offer some logical definition of this style and logically explain your reasoning behind what you include and exclude in this style.
> 
> If you are not defining "classical music" as either a style of music or a value judgment of music... what then does the term denote?


I can scarcely believe any of this. You seem to have dug yourself into a hole and can't get out.

The obvious quick reply to what you say is that if there was any substance in any of it then we would already have seen the "finest" works of various former jazz/pop/rock artists from 40-60 years ago entering into the accepted sphere of "classical music". But it hasn't happened so there is no empirical support for your hypothesis. These works remain firmly embedded in the genres from which they originated, and have stayed there exclusively, save possibly for very few exceptions.

More generally, I find it astonishing that you appear to be saying that you don't know what "classical music" comprises just because there isn't a neat two-line definition of it. I can't see why are you placing the onus on me to define "classical music" when there is already a generally well understood notion of what constitutes this term around the world. Whilst there may one or two grey areas, such as the lkind of material that you say is appreciated by "someguy", these are so insignificant in the bigger picture that they are not worth worrying about.

If you are having difficulty accepting this, may I suggest that you check out your local record store under "classical", classical music radio station playlists, and a few classical music concert programmes. I think that a fairly consistent picture of what constitutes classical music will emerge.

As an experiment, if you want to broaden the generally accepted understanding of what constitutes classical music, you might try sending in a request to your local classical music radio station asking if they will play some of pop or jazz or rock hits. Or maybe you could go into one of the big CD retailers in your vicinity, and tell them that you've come along to re-organise their store layout so that it fits in with your ideas about the correct classification of classical versus non-classical music. Tell them that they've got it all wrong and that the very best of the Ella Fitzgerald, Bing Crosby, The Ink Spots, etc should be relocated over the other side among the classical section. I would be interested to hear how you get on.


----------



## Very Senior Member

BurningDesire said:


> So are you suggesting that this site only be used to discuss the "greatest" compositions? As decided by whom? I have provided a pretty solid definition of "classical music" which is that it is a musical tradition, that began with Ancient Greece. Its no value judgement, as in the term "classical education" meaning the tradition of a way of learning. All these diverse works, from the few recorded works from antiquity, to plainchant, to renaissance madrigals, to baroque operas and fugues, to classical symphonies, to romantic tone poems, to 20th century ballets and musique concrete and sound mass composition, are all connected to this musical tradition, and that is why they are called classical. I am of the opinion that it should also include things like Frank Zappa, who's writing and musical thinking are descended from that lineage, even though a fair amount of his compositions are rock songs.


I think you are flogging a dead horse with this Frank Zappa stuff you keep going on about. He was not a classical music composer despite what pretensions he may have about himself. The only people who might conceivably regard him as a classical composer are some of the fans of his rock music. Classical music forums throughout the Net do not treat him as a classical composer. I very much doubt that the vast majority of classical music fans have even heard of him. His stuff is not played on classical music radio stations, except possibly on extremely rare occasions. I've never heard any it on classical music radio, and I've been an attentive listener for years. He was first and foremost a rock artist and performer, and not an especially top rate one at that.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Sid James said:


> Well I was making a general comment re fetishism, not about you personally. Its not even a matter of what music a person listens to. Its about attitude. & in terms of what you say above, I think that's a good attitude. Its talking from experience, from your experience and about your preferences, etc. Its real. So I think that's better than some ideological crapola/drivel which I must admit I've had a gutful of, here and elsewhere in life.


Participation on this forum has a way of moderating one's opinions and manner of expression. I think I am learning how to survive on here without making a monkey of myself while maintaining my perspectives. I also realise since joining this forum that I don't know much in comparision with many others on here. Still - I have some points to make and fight for.


----------



## Vesteralen

I sympathize with both sides of this argument.

On the one hand, "classical music" is a woefully inadequate term to designate music made up of so many different styles over so long a period of time. And, it's made even more confusing by its possible reference to exclusively one of those styles in vogue over a very limited time span of that period.

On the other hand, it does convey an idea to most of us based simply on the way we've been accustomed to hear it used. For example, when joining this site, I was under absolutely no illusion that it was a place for discussion of exactly the type of music that would be found in the "classical' section of a library or retail outlet of recordings. I was also quite sure that if I wanted to start a conversation about Perotin or Stockhausen, I could do so in the "Classical Music" form, whereas if I wanted to talk about Duke Ellington or The Beatles, I would have to do that in the sub-forum designated "Non-Classical Music".

So, in a way, both sides are right, aren't they?


----------



## bigshot

I think the real definition of classical music is concert music- meaning it's music composed to be performed by musicians who probably did not compose it for an audience in a concert hall. Under this definition, I think classical music in the sense that it's been written and performed for hundreds of years is dying. Modern media is wiping away old models and building new ones. In the future, the term classical music will either develop a broader definition and survive, or it will stay the same and become increasingly marginalized as old music for a bygone venue.


----------



## Guest

I guess a proportion of "the public" has already accepted, and will continue to accept modern music. But I can't see the "Lady Gaga public" (assuming you mean some kind of undiscerning majority) taking modern music to to their hearts. Would it be desirable if they did?


----------



## PetrB

It is from a personal perspective, perhaps because you are newer to the 20th century repertoire, that to me it seems you do not know that 'modern' composers, and some of the more populist contemporary composers are already widely accepted, their works frequently performed, recorded, and 'consumed'

I do believe the audience for the various 'serial schools' of any era, past or present, will just be less because of that common apparent inability to get over I -V -I, a conditioned but it seems a very common and fixed listening habit.

I also believe the better music by the aforementioned general 'serialist' schools will also remain, and stay in circulation, as 'time' has proven that most good music just remains good music. Bach was 'picked up' after nearly 70 years of stillness; something similar happened to the receptivity for Mahler.

Stravinsky's "Le Sacre du Printemps," 100 years old next year, is now THE favorite orchestral piece of many classical music fans.


----------



## bigshot

Modern "classical" music has not really been accepted by the public at large. One look at sales figures of recordings will tell you that. Even just looking at sales figures for just classical music, modern music doesn't chart very well. I do think that modern avante garde music is more popular with younger, less experienced classical music listeners, because it is a gateway music from the world of progressive rock.

Will Lady Gaga fans eventually accept classical music? Perhaps. I don't think that there's any generalization you can make about Lady Gaga fans, except that they're young. When I was young I didn't listen to classical music. I do now. People mature and so does their appreciation of music.


----------



## Crudblud

Very Senior Member said:


> I think you are flogging a dead horse with this Frank Zappa stuff you keep going on about. He was not a classical music composer despite what pretensions he may have about himself. The only people who might conceivably regard him as a classical composer are some of the fans of his rock music. Classical music forums throughout the Net do not treat him as a classical composer. I very much doubt that the vast majority of classical music fans have even heard of him. His stuff is not played on classical music radio stations, except possibly on extremely rare occasions. I've never heard any it on classical music radio, and I've been an attentive listener for years. He was first and foremost a rock artist and performer, and not an especially top rate one at that.


You're right that BD needs to curb his enthusiasm a little bit, but you're no better for having such strong opinions against someone you clearly know nothing about.


----------



## Guest

Let's take care not to make too many generalisations about Lady Gaga fans. I assume of course that the OP was using Lady Gaga as a representative of 'pop', or mass appeal music (presumably, sequentia could just as easily have said Dizzee Rascal or Rihanna?) There are folk out there (and here) whose listening habits crosses many genres, and the same can be said of music fans of different ages.


----------



## bigshot

I think you can safely say that fans of mainstream pop music are probably younger than fans of classical or jazz. I'm not intending to be critical of young people. I was a young person myself once.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> I think you can safely say that fans of mainstream pop music are probably younger than fans of classical or jazz. I'm not intending to be critical of young people. I was a young person myself once.


In the main, you can. I merely wished to observe that not all fans of mainstream pop are young, and not all fans of classical are old.


----------



## bigshot

All fans of classical are crusty even if they're young.


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> All fans of classical are crusty even if they're young.


Speak for yourself!


----------



## bigshot

Now I'm gonna be keeping tabs. I'm determined to catch you being crusty!


----------



## Very Senior Member

Crudblud said:


> You're right that BD needs to curb his enthusiasm a little bit, but you're no better for having such strong opinions against someone you clearly know nothing about.


What do I need to know except what I've already noted that:

- Frank Zappa is not regarded as a classical composer on any of the classical music forums that I am aware of.

- I do not recall his work ever being played on any of the classical music radio stations that I'm aware (in the UK).

- Despite his nomination, he was not accepted for inclusion among the "TC Greatest Composers List", not even as an honourable mention.

Sorry if these facts are awkward for his fans, but don't accuse me of not knowing anything about him. I know all that is relevant to this discussion.

If you can contradict any of these assertions, please speak.


----------



## Very Senior Member

bigshot said:


> I think the real definition of classical music is concert music- meaning it's music composed to be performed by musicians who probably did not compose it for an audience in a concert hall. Under this definition, I think classical music in the sense that it's been written and performed for hundreds of years is dying. Modern media is wiping away old models and building new ones. In the future, the term classical music will either develop a broader definition and survive, or it will stay the same and become increasingly marginalized as old music for a bygone venue.


There is something very obviously circular about your assertion that "classical music is concert music."

Presumably you mean clasical music is music performed in classical concerts, not any old concert.

What's the use of that, if you mean a classical music concert, as you have simply begged a definition of a "classical concert".


----------



## PlaySalieri

PetrB said:


> It is from a personal perspective, perhaps because you are newer to the 20th century repertoire, that to me it seems you do not know that 'modern' composers, and some of the more populist contemporary composers are already widely accepted, their works frequently performed, recorded, and 'consumed'
> 
> I do believe the audience for the various 'serial schools' of any era, past or present, will just be less because of that common apparent inability to get over I -V -I, a conditioned but it seems a very common and fixed listening habit.
> 
> I also believe the better music by the aforementioned general 'serialist' schools will also remain, and stay in circulation, as 'time' has proven that most good music just remains good music. Bach was 'picked up' after nearly 70 years of stillness; something similar happened to the receptivity for Mahler.
> 
> Stravinsky's "Le Sacre du Printemps," 100 years old next year, is now THE favorite orchestral piece of many classical music fans.


When I first heard Le Sacre - I thought - fantastic! A new dawn! But alas - Le Sacre is a one off - a false dawn.


----------



## Crudblud

Very Senior Member said:


> What do I need to know except what I've already noted that:
> 
> - Frank Zappa is not regarded as a classical composer on any of the classical music forums that I am aware of.
> 
> - I do not recall his work ever being played on any of the classical music radio stations that I'm aware (in the UK).
> 
> - Despite his nomination, he was not accepted for inclusion among the "TC Greatest Composers List", not even as an honourable mention.
> 
> Sorry if these facts are awkward for his fans, but don't accuse me of not knowing anything about him. I know all that is relevant to this discussion.
> 
> If you can contradict any of these assertions, please speak.


I was actually referring to your general dissenting opinion of him that seemed to be based on no actual experience. But since you asked...

1. Forums are not the arbiters of truth.

2. Zappa's orchestra and chamber work (which, by the way, he was writing long before he started making rock singles in Cucamonga) is not populist, even if there were a wealth of recordings available I wouldn't expect to hear it on the radio.

3. See 1.


----------



## Very Senior Member

Vesteralen said:


> I sympathize with both sides of this argument.
> 
> On the one hand, "classical music" is a woefully inadequate term to designate music made up of so many different styles over so long a period of time. And, it's made even more confusing by its possible reference to exclusively one of those styles in vogue over a very limited time span of that period.
> 
> On the other hand, it does convey an idea to most of us based simply on the way we've been accustomed to hear it used. For example, when joining this site, I was under absolutely no illusion that it was a place for discussion of exactly the type of music that would be found in the "classical' section of a library or retail outlet of recordings. I was also quite sure that if I wanted to start a conversation about Perotin or Stockhausen, I could do so in the "Classical Music" form, whereas if I wanted to talk about Duke Ellington or The Beatles, I would have to do that in the sub-forum designated "Non-Classical Music".
> 
> So, in a way, both sides are right, aren't they?


It seems that you are agreeing fundamentally with what I'm saying, and you've only made a courtesy sop in the other direction.

I readily accept that there is no simple, definitive, catch-all, technical definition of "classical music" that can be relied upon to delineate its the scope. There are definitions of "classical music" but while they may be necessary they are not sufficient.

Rather, as I mentioned in another thread, one has to use common-sense and treat classical music as whatever is broadly accepted by today's mass audience as comprising the relevant genres, both current and historical. To try to extend that coverage by asserting that it covers all the "finest" music from all genres (jazz, pop, rock you name it) is ludicrous. It simply won't wash as a practical proposition with the general public who buy/listen to the stuff. I'm astonished that the suggestion could be made with any hope of it not being challenged.

As I stated previously, if there was any chance of the proposition being valid then there would be evidence already that significant examples of jazz/pop/rock etc would already be treated as forming an integral part of the classical music repertoire. No such evidence exists, so the proposition has no empirical support. To continue pressing this argument is simply barking up the wrong tree, as it has no legs.


----------



## Very Senior Member

Crudblud said:


> I was actually referring to your general dissenting opinion of him that seemed to be based on no actual experience. But since you asked...
> 
> 1. Forums are not the arbiters of truth.
> 
> 2. Zappa's orchestra and chamber work (which, by the way, he was writing long before he started making rock singles in Cucamonga) is not populist, even if there were a wealth of recordings available I wouldn't expect to hear it on the radio.
> 
> 3. See 1.


Regards (1) are you arguing that all the classical music forums have got it wrong in not regarding Zappa as a classical composer, including this one in not accepting Zappa for nomination as a classical composer in the TC Greatest Composers list I referred to previously?

Regards (2) when you say that Zappa's orchestra and chamber work is not populist, I suggest that what you mean is that he is not popular enough to be rated as a classical composer, and that in fact his so-called classical stuff is so way out of line with classical music as most people understand that it is not classical to all intents and purposes.


----------



## Crudblud

Very Senior Member said:


> Regards (1) are you arguing that all the classical music forums have got it wrong in not regarding Zappa as a classical composer, including this one in not accepting Zappa for nomination as a classical composer in the TC Greatest Composers list I referred to previously?
> 
> Regards (2) when you say that Zappa's orchestra and chamber work is not populist, I suggest that what you mean is that he is not popular enough to be rated as a classical composer, and that in fact his so-called classical stuff is so way out of line with classical music as most people understand that it is not classical to all intents and purposes.


1. I am arguing that argumentum ad populum is not a solid argument and will be ignored in future if you continue to use it.

2. I suggest that you avoid trying to twist my argument to suit your own ends; what I said is that it is not populist, and that is exactly what I meant. Even if it were radio friendly, recordings are quite few in number owing initially to Zappa's own perfectionism (there are many bootlegs available of performances conducted by Kent Nagano which Zappa did not deem suitable for release despite being perfectly listenable) and, since his death, his wife's "iron fist" approach to handling his catalogue of both recordings and scores. An increase in the number of recordings and performances over the past decade suggests that this drought is slowly but surely coming to an end.

Just for the record, here is a list of respected conductors and ensembles who to my knowledge have either commissioned, performed or recorded (in some cases all three) work by Zappa: Pierre Boulez, Kent Nagano, Zubin Mehta, Peter Eötvös, London Symphony and Philharmonic Orchestras, Kronos Quartet, Ensemble Modern, Ensemble Ambrosius, Ensemble Ascolta (who recently premièred new works here in the UK), Abnuceals Emuukha Electric Orchestra, and the California EAR Unit (who had to mime to a tape after finding the music too difficult to perform well). Last I checked, the above organisations don't hand out commissions to random people on the street.


----------



## bigshot

Very Senior Member said:


> There is something very obviously circular about your assertion that "classical music is concert music." Presumably you mean clasical music is music performed in classical concerts, not any old concert..


Well, let me elaborate a bit. Maybe it will help you understand. I got this concept from one of Greenberg's lectures I'm watching right now.

Concert music is composed specifically to be performed by a group in a concert hall. There are always exceptions to any rule, but it is generally structurally and thematically more complex. Usually the music we refer to as "classical" is not of our own time. When it is performed, it is *reanimated* in the sense that we are taking music of the past and are bringing it to audiences of the present where it is appreciated both in its historical context and in the context of the present.

Therefore, a rock or jazz musician performing his own work probably wouldn't qualify. However a recreation of Paul Whiteman's Aolian Hall concert or a recital of Scott Joplin rags might.

As time passes and music evolves and famous musicians die, the need to bring this music from the past back and perform it in its own context increases. I see no reason why in the future audiences might not go to a concert hall to see a quartet of musicians in tuxedos present a recital that includes Norwegian Wood and Eleanor Rigby. I also don't see why the same sort of audience might not go see a small orchestra perform Duke Ellington arrangements of Black and Tan Fantasy or The Mooch the way we go see performances of American in Paris or Rhapsody in Blue today.

It's all a matter of temporal perspective. The more removed contemporary music becomes from older musical forms, the more likely orchestras and instrumentalists will pick up these forms and add them to the classical repetoire. I believe film music has already crossed that line. There are many symphony orchestras here in the States performing suites of Waxman or Stalling's work, or scores for silent films.


----------



## bigshot

Very Senior Member said:


> Regards (1) are you arguing that all the classical music forums have got it wrong in not regarding Zappa as a classical composer.


In America, Zappa is accepted as a classical composer as much as Glass and Reich. He just worked in two different genres.


----------



## BurningDesire

Crudblud said:


> You're right that BD needs to curb his enthusiasm a little bit, but you're no better for having such strong opinions against someone you clearly know nothing about.


*she

Also, I have every right to express how I feel about Frank and his music. I'm being no more enthusiastic about his work than many on the forum are with Mozart or Beethoven or Wagner or Chopin.


----------



## BurningDesire

Very Senior Member said:


> What do I need to know except what I've already noted that:
> 
> - Frank Zappa is not regarded as a classical composer on any of the classical music forums that I am aware of.
> 
> - I do not recall his work ever being played on any of the classical music radio stations that I'm aware (in the UK).
> 
> - Despite his nomination, he was not accepted for inclusion among the "TC Greatest Composers List", not even as an honourable mention.
> 
> Sorry if these facts are awkward for his fans, but don't accuse me of not knowing anything about him. I know all that is relevant to this discussion.
> 
> If you can contradict any of these assertions, please speak.


Such things speak more to the ignorance of music fans than they do anything wrong with Frank's output. Also you know nothing about him, at all. So sorry, you lose this argument.


----------



## Petwhac

bigshot said:


> I see no reason why in the future audiences might not go to a concert hall to see a quartet of musicians in tuxedos present a recital that includes Norwegian Wood and Eleanor Rigby.


Well they would be hearing someone's _arrangement_ for a quartet (string or otherwise). There's no reason why that could not happen. When you go to see a performance of Berio's 'Folk Songs' you are hearing arrangements by a contemporary classical composer of material that is not classical music, it is folk music. ( I am aware that Berio actually composed a couple of the songs entirely himself but that represents a rather special case and they are in a deliberately folky style, quite unlike the rest of his output)
Because you are at a concert containing folk song or pop song arrangements it does not mean those songs are classical music.


----------



## bigshot

What makes you think that the quartet couldn't be for guitars and drums?

Perhaps there will be a HIP movement with the proper Rickenbacker...

My point is, the one thing we can be sure of in music is change. What may be popular now may seem like classical music to someone in the future. Music is changing at an increasing rate. There have been more changes in the past 100 years than there were in the previous three centuries. I bet a lot of what we take for granted are going to seem silly to folks as little as fifty years from now.


----------



## Sid James

bigshot said:


> ... I see no reason why in the future audiences might not go to a concert hall to see a quartet of musicians in tuxedos present a recital that includes Norwegian Wood and Eleanor Rigby. ...


Looks like that type of thing is already happening -





& of course, the 'Beatles go Baroque' type cd's have been selling pretty well (there's a Naxos cd, I think I put the cover image on this thread earlier).


----------



## Very Senior Member

BurningDesire said:


> Such things speak more to the ignorance of music fans than they do anything wrong with Frank's output. Also you know nothing about him, at all. So sorry, you lose this argument.


Among other things, I'm setting the record straight that Frank Zappa was not accepted for nomination as a classical composer in the recently completed _TC 50 Greatest Composer List_, despite your efforts to get him included. It would therefore seem that you and your small band of supporters have not made the case adequately.


----------



## BurningDesire

Very Senior Member said:


> Among other things, I'm setting the record straight that Frank Zappa was not accepted for nomination as a classical composer in the recently completed _TC 50 Greatest Composer List_, despite your efforts to get him included. It would therefore seem that you and your small band of supporters have not made the case adequately.


Most ignorant folks are pretty stubborn to let go of their ignorance.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Well... hopefully that will change by the time you graduate.


----------



## bigshot

Very Senior Member said:


> Among other things, I'm setting the record straight that Frank Zappa was not accepted for nomination as a classical composer in the recently completed _TC 50 Greatest Composer List_, despite your efforts to get him included.


Did I miss the Talk Classical 50 Greatest Composers presentation ceremonies? Damn! I gotta get me a tuxedo! Did the Queen attend?


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> Perhaps there will be a HIP movement with the proper Rickenbacker...


They'd need to check their history: there's no Rickenbacker on Eleanor Rigby or Norwegian Wood


----------



## BurningDesire

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Well... hopefully that will change by the time you graduate.


At least I have space to grow. Old people don't change so easily.


----------



## neoshredder

The problem is people just aren't willing to try new things. The Classical crowd tends to prefer old music in general. I have no problem avoiding that stereotype as rock was my first love. So discovering new music always intrigues me. Most good new music seems to be underground these days. Progressive Rock and Metal in particular are underground somewhat.


----------



## Very Senior Member

bigshot said:


> Well, let me elaborate a bit. Maybe it will help you understand. I got this concept from one of Greenberg's lectures I'm watching right now.
> 
> etc


I think you have failed to pick up the essence of my comment questioning your assertion that "classical music" is best defined as "concert music".

Presumably you don't mean that classical music is music performed at any kind of concert? It would only make any sense if you meant a "classical concert music". By including "classical" as part of the description of the type of concert you are referring to makes the whole thing circular, and thus useless.

.........

What you say concerning a latter-day rendition of material like _Norwegian Wood_ and _Eleanor Rigby_ being performed in a classical music concert venue would only be passable as classical music if the audience accepts it as such, and this would require quite significant changes to be made to the form/manner of the presentation compared with the original Beatles sound. The changes needed would such as to transform the works from one form to another, so again the argument becomes pointless as all you are saying is that non-classical music can be made classical by transforming the original to classical.

........

In any case, all this is a million miles away from what SLG was proposing, namely that the "finest" examples of pop and jazz music can be seen as "classical music" without any change needed to the original format; they become "classical" merely by virtue of their fame and quality.

What a silly and fanciful notion this is. This is the main target of all my comments in this thread. I'm still awaiting details of any real-life examples of this supposed phenomenon which he or any one else can point to. Please anyone, can you point to any unedited pop jazz/rock/metal songs which are considered so fine that they are now generally regarded as forming part of the standard classical music repertiore. I'm not talking about possible one-off performances as tributes, but any pop/jazz classics works which are considered to be so good that they are performed regularly at classical music concerts in the same form/instrumentation as the original.


----------



## bigshot

I got a note from the moderators. There appears to be a misunderstanding about my use of the word "ignorant" in this thread.

Ignorance is not the same as stupidity. Ignorance is simply not knowing. Everyone is ignorant. One person doesn't know anything about jet engines, another doesn't gnow about the economy of Guatamala. Nothing wrong with being ignorant.

I was attempting to discuss three subjects that the other poster had little experience in. He wasn't interested in hearing what I had to say, so I gave up. I simply stated that.

Later, the same poster asked me to elaborate on one of the subjects, and I did. He thanked me. If I hadn't pointed out that I had information to share that he wan't aware of, but he had to be interested in it, It never would have gotten to that point.

"Everyone is ignorant, just on different subjects." -Mark Twain


----------



## neoshredder

I hate the word ignorant. But yeah it is probably true that everyone can be ignorant. It is just not nice to say.


----------



## bigshot

Very Senior Member said:


> I think you have failed to pick up the essence of my comment questioning your assertion that "classical music" is best defined as "concert music". Presumably you don't mean that classical music is music performed at any kind of concert? It would only make any sense if you meant a "classical concert music". By including "classical" as part of the description of the type of concert you are referring to makes the whole thing circular, and thus useless.


Yes, when you reframe what I say that way, it becomes circular.

But that wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking about the future when things we take for granted no longer exist. There will be a desire to present those things in their original context in a concert setting as a "reanimated" work... In other words, bringing a bygone musical form or work back to life for a concert audience of the future.

Many things on pedestals in museums today were cast into the trash in the past. What future generations consider "classical" may be different from what we might now consider to be that.


----------



## bigshot

neoshredder said:


> I hate the word ignorant. But yeah it is probably true that everyone can be ignorant. It is just not nice to say.


Can you suggest a nicer word with the same precision of meaning? I suppose I could say "doesn't know anything about", but it seems to me, that wouldn't be much better.


----------



## bigshot

neoshredder said:


> The problem is people just aren't willing to try new things. The Classical crowd tends to prefer old music in general.


i think that's because classical music *is* old music. Contemporary music is a quite different thing and comes from a different place and time.


----------



## neoshredder

Lack experience or knowledge in this subject would be better but still a shot to the ego. Maybe inexperienced?


----------



## Very Senior Member

What about the word "moronic" when used to refer to someone's question?

That made me wince, but I haven't complained about that or anything else. I simply took it as evidence that someone is getting deeply worried about the highly dubious nature of the assertions being made.

As for "ignorant", one ought to know that this is not part of the accepted lingo in this place.


----------



## bigshot

Inexperienced is good. I'll make the change.

Edit: Apparently, I can't edit older posts. Please consider the word ignorant retracted from posts 112 and 158 and substitute inexperienced instead. Thanks!


----------



## bigshot

Ha! You are like the "outer rim of bread", very senior!


----------



## Very Senior Member

Possible substitutes for "ignorant":

- Possibly you may be slightly confused

- I'm not sure that I have come across such a strange notion before

- I had assumed that this was common knowledge

- I think that maybe you ought to consider re-examing the issue in the light of more widely recognised sources

There are millions of them. I practise it everyday. One has to do so in order to get by, as I only have a small number of "lives" left before I'm history


----------



## bigshot

Are you British Very Senior? In the US, you'd have to be an elderly priest or a grandmother to use euphemisms like that! You know what Oscar Wilde said... "England and the United States share many things... Except of course the language."


----------



## Guest

Very Senior Member said:


> I do not recall his work ever being played on any of the classical music radio stations that I'm aware (in the UK).


Memory can be so unreliable...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/hearandnow/pip/kcf9m/


----------



## Sid James

Re how classical has absorbed non-classical influences, look for Australian composer Matthew Hindson's "Rush" for guitar and string quartet on youtube. Last time I looked it was there, I won't both to get it, if people want to go there - JUST DO IT! (as Nike says).

Anyway, this work employs the same format as Boccherini in his guitar quintets. Its got the same contrapuntal density and layering as Mendelssohn's Octet for Strings. It's got 'riffs' taken from R & B music. Its got rhythms and this kind of 'twangy' soung (eg. plucking) remniscent of country and western music.

These are explicit influences on the composer, the youtube clip should have info on that too.

& some people here suggest that classical and 'other' or 'non classical' are separate? Gimme a break.

As for ignorance, I don't care a rat's backside if someone is ignorant or knowledgeable. That can change, people can learn. We naturally do that cos we're inquisitive. What I'm concerned about is ATTITUDE. & I've seen a fair few 'knowledgeable' people in my life who have attitude that leave something (maybe even A LOT) to be desired. Maybe go and look how our politicians behave in parliament on a bad day (eg. like apes, or worse) and you get what I mean. ALL KNOWLEDGEABLE AND EDUCATED PEOPLE.

Far out.


----------



## Very Senior Member

MacLeod said:


> Memory can be so unreliable...
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/hearandnow/pip/kcf9m/


You had to dig very deep to find that. It was a two programme 7 years ago played late at night/early hours of the moning on Radio 3's "Hear and Now" programme, which is their primary contemporary music programme (some it "new" music" of unclear status).

For anyone not familiar with Radio 3, it's the BBC's mainly classical radio programme, but it's also used for jazz, "world music", plays, and discussion programmes about the arts in general. It has to offer such a wide variety of items in order to satisfy its remit as a licence-funded broadcaster.

That very isolated incident apart, have you come across any other examples of Radio 3 playing any of Zappa's works in their mainstream classical music programmes, over the past 7 years?

What precisely do you infer from this isolated incident of some of Zappa's work being performed on Radio 3 in its Hear & Now programme? Do you think it's classical music. I would interested to hear your views on this since you appear to have come leaps and bounds in your knowledge of classical music since your first venture here a couple of weeks ago.

In fact, I'm now wondering why, if you are so adept at finding ancient programmes about Zappa's music on Radio 3, you couldn't have applied the same zeal towards finding the answer to your first question posed on this Forum regarding the number of brass instruments used in Beethoven's early symphonies. It's extremely easily Googlable, and it's how most of the more technical stuff gets answered on here anyway.


----------



## Sid James

Very Senior Member said:


> ...
> That very isolated incident apart, have you come across any other examples of Radio 3 playing any of Zappa's works in their mainstream classical music programmes, over the past 7 years?
> 
> ....


A bit of what I call a pseudo legalistic approach there which I described on an old thread. A rant for sure but targeted at this kind of attitude:
http://www.talkclassical.com/19402-driving-wedges-pseudo-legalisms.html

Some people on this forum should indeed wear wigs, but not wigs of composers who gave the world music, but judges who ask for 'hard' evidence (and I can say more but I won't), as the great William Hogarth imaged ages ago.










As I said, it's got not much to do with knowledge - having it or not - but more to do with attitude but who gives a rat's ar*e? Especially when we can talk pseudo intellectual jargon and gobbledigook.


----------



## Very Senior Member

bigshot said:


> Are you British Very Senior? In the US, you'd have to be an elderly priest or a grandmother to use euphemisms like that! You know what Oscar Wilde said... "England and the United States share many things... Except of course the language."


That's a secret but I listen to Radio 3 quite a lot, it only takes me about 40 minutes to get to work in Whitehall each day, I spell "favourite" that way, I like cricket, and one my favourite composers is Elgar. Apart from that I'm admitting now't else. Cheers!


----------



## bigshot

My great grandfather passed a saying down that has come to me. "A Yorkshireman's Advice to his Son: If evr y' do ought fr naught do it fr th' sin." the dialect is a bit inpenatrable for us Yanks, but I get the jist of it. My grandmother was Swedish, and she added one more saying to the family tradition... "Mein skoll, dein skoll, allen vrackin frickin skoll." words to live by!


----------



## bigshot

We recognize Zappa's importance as a classical composer here in Los Angeles...
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/cul...ew-green-umbrella-concert-at-disney-hall.html

Baltimore Symphony plays Zappa with Glass
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/ent...c/2010/07/baltimore_symphonys_zappa_glas.html

Cincinnati
http://www.expresscincinnati.com/exp-commentary/zappa/

Perhaps Radio 3 and the much lauded Talk Classical 50 Composers Award are a bit "inexperienced"?

Insert wink here


----------



## Very Senior Member

Sid James said:


> A bit of what I call a pseudo legalistic approach there which I described on an old thread. A rant for sure but targeted at this kind of attitude:
> http://www.talkclassical.com/19402-driving-wedges-pseudo-legalisms.html
> 
> Some people on this forum should indeed wear wigs, but not wigs of composers who gave the world music, but judges who ask for 'hard' evidence (and I can say more but I won't), as the great William Hogarth imaged ages ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, it's got not much to do with knowledge - having it or not - but more to do with attitude but who gives a rat's ar*e? Especially when we can talk pseudo intellectual jargon and gobbledigook.


If you have a problem with my asking for any other examples of Zappa's music being played on Radio 3 since the isolated incident 7 years in a relatively obscure late non-prime time programme, why don't you just say so?


----------



## Guest

Very Senior Member said:


> You had to dig very deep to find that.


I didn't have to dig deep at all. It was a simple search and appeared on the second page. I also found references to a performance at the Proms.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/proms/archive/search/people/frank-zappa

You asked for any examples. I obliged.
Do I think it's classical music? I don't know, I've not listened to it.



> I would interested to hear your views on this since you appear to have come leaps and bounds in your knowledge of classical music since your first venture here a couple of weeks ago.
> 
> In fact, I'm now wondering why, if you are so adept at finding ancient programmes about Zappa's music on Radio 3, you couldn't have applied the same zeal towards finding the answer to your first question


I'm fascinated to know what impertinent thing it is I've posted that has provoked such a needlessly sarcastic post.


----------



## Crudblud

BurningDesire said:


> *she
> 
> Also, I have every right to express how I feel about Frank and his music. I'm being no more enthusiastic about his work than many on the forum are with Mozart or Beethoven or Wagner or Chopin.


Duly noted on both counts. I apologise.


----------



## Very Senior Member

MacLeod said:


> You asked for any examples. I obliged.


No I didn't. Get your facts straight. I said _"I do not recall his work ever being played on any of the classical music radio stations that I'm aware (in the UK)."_, which was a statement of fact. It was intended to indicate that Zappa's music is not a regular feature, or anything like, on classical music stations that I have listened to. I wasn't making any definitive assertions or seeking to be contradicted by exceptional items in the distant past on a programme devoted to wide-ranging contemporary music.



> Do I think it's classical music? I don't know, I've not listened to it.


Why therefore are you posting a link to music of which you do not know its style? It's easy to work out that the BBC's "Hear and Now" programme is not confined to classical music. The orchestrations carried out by the Ulster Orchestra on that occasion could ihave involved any amount of re-jigging to make it presentable, but like you I don't know.



> I'm fascinated to know what impertinent thing it is I've posted that has provoked such a needlessly sarcastic post.


Perhaps you might wish wish to take another a look at the tone of your comment, implying that I suffer from poor memory. It might have been more polite simply to have noted that you had found this old, late-night programme which might be relevant but you aren't sure because you haven't heard any of the content.

Against your comment about my posible lapse of memory, my reply was simply pointing out that a very similar process by which you discovered the Zappa broadcast could have been used to answer your query about the instrumentation used in Beethoven's syphonies. I thought you might wish to take note, as it may come useful in the future before asking any more such questions. I often find that I get much better answers that way should I ever need to seek advice on anything technical in the music sphere. It's quicker and often leads to the discovery of further interesting facts albeit possibly tangential to the matter first investigated.


----------



## Guest

I said, "you asked for examples," to which you have now said



Very Senior Member said:


> No I didn't. Get your facts straight. I said _"I do not recall his work ever being played on any of the classical music radio stations that I'm aware (in the UK)."_, which was a statement of fact.


You also said, in the same post I previously quoted, "If you can contradict any of these assertions, please speak."

Mistakenly, I leapt in before crudblud to offer an example of his work being played on a classical music station. I was not contradicting the truth of your statement that 'you do not recall'. But, as Sid James suggested, this is getting unnecessarily legalistic.

I'm happy to apologies for insulting your mental recall. It was not meant to be an insult, but a light-hearted comment. I'm sorry. But perhaps you too need to listen to the tone of your comments.


----------



## Very Senior Member

bigshot said:


> Perhaps Radio 3 and the much lauded Talk Classical 50 Composers Award are a bit "inexperienced"?
> 
> Insert wink here


I'm not so sure about Radio 3 being "inexperienced". They have some very fine presenters. To give just one recent example, last Saturday Andrew McGregor, in his Weekly _CD Review_ programme, discussed Daniel Barenboim/West Eastern Divan Orchestra's performance of the 9 Beethoven Symphonies. What he had to say was a good deal more interesting and revelatory than most of the kind of comment one typically finds on most classical music forums, where you tend to get pretty boring recommendations based on hardly any useful information at all.

As for TC's 50 Greatest Composers Awards, how dare you sugggest that it's a bit "inexperienced"? It had the benefit of lots of very competent and knowledgeable members, plus admittedly a few who have only seen a few videos. But the rest of us strove hard and persistently to make sure the overall result was a creditable achievement. I won't listen to any criticism of it, and if you make any more such negative comments I'll report you for insulting behaviour (insert one huge wink).


----------



## BurningDesire

Crudblud said:


> Duly noted on both counts. I apologise.


No problem, friend ^^


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Is this one of Zappa's "classical" music pieces? I think Zappa will be well remembered as a rock musician more than anything else. He also performed his own jazz music. Does this also make him a jazz composer? Is he the "everything-Zen-Guru-composer"? :lol:


----------



## Very Senior Member

bigshot said:


> We recognize Zappa's importance as a classical composer here in Los Angeles...
> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/cul...ew-green-umbrella-concert-at-disney-hall.html
> 
> Baltimore Symphony plays Zappa with Glass
> http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/ent...c/2010/07/baltimore_symphonys_zappa_glas.html
> 
> Cincinnati
> http://www.expresscincinnati.com/exp-commentary/zappa/


I admit that I do not know enough about Zappa's music from personal listening to be able to form a view about whether any of it can justifiably be regarded as classical music. But this isn't admitting much. I haven't been to Siberia in winter but I trust that it's very cold there. Nor do I have close knowledge about a vast array of other issues, but I think I have worked out how to acquire the information that I need in order to be able to form reasonable judgements.

I don't pretend to have exhausted all possible news sources about the way Zappa's music is regarded. I was referring mainly to my experience on various classical music forums over several years, to what I have gleaned from sundry internet searches, and to my recollection of music played on the BBC's Radio 3 classical musiic programmes. I admit that I was unaware of the exception posted by member Macleod, but that was inconclusive as far as I'm concerned.

I have recently checked various other music forums to see if there has been anything of relevance which is new. I'm quite happy to be corrected but I haven't come across any threads anywhere else apart from TC in which Zappa's music has been discussed in the context of classical music. I had an extra good look at the DDD site because they tend to deal more with a wide range of music than mainly classical. Sure enough, Zappa is listed as 51st Greatest Rock Artist, not as a classical composer. I gather he worked his way up the list of rock artists to No 51 after originally being posted as not being good enough to qualify in the top 100.

I'm by no means suggesting that this kind of rating is reliable. It's probably highly arbitrary, but it's certainly indicative that he is not regarded as a classical composer, nor a highly rated rock artist/composer, in music forums. Maybe they've got it all wrong. It would be especially interesting to see the reaction over there to any suggestion that Zappa be included in their list of classical composers. Why not? It's been tried here, so why not there too? I'm not a member of that forum any longer, and haven't been for many years, but one can "lurk". I do once recall the subject coming up but that was several years ago, and they have since discarded all the old threads, but the answer was "no".


----------



## BurningDesire

Very Senior Member said:


> I'm not so sure about Radio 3 being "inexperienced". They have some very fine presenters. To give just one recent example, last Saturday Andrew McGregor, in his Weekly _CD Review_ programme, discussed Daniel Barenboim/West Eastern Divan Orchestra's performance of the 9 Beethoven Symphonies. What he had to say was a good deal more interesting and revelatory than most of the kind of comment one typically finds on most classical music forums, where you tend to get pretty boring recommendations based on hardly any useful information at all.
> 
> As for TC's 50 Greatest Composers Awards, how dare you sugggest that it's a bit "inexperienced"? It had the benefit of lots of very competent and knowledgeable members, plus admittedly a few who have only seen a few videos. But the rest of us strove hard and persistently to make sure the overall result was a creditable achievement. I won't listen to any criticism of it, and if you make any more such negative comments I'll report you for insulting behaviour (insert one huge wink).


Don't you dare report anybody for speaking their mind. It is just a subjective list made by music fans. Nothing more. It is not immune from scrutiny. Deal with it.


----------



## Crudblud

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Is this one of Zappa's "classical" music pieces? I think Zappa will be well remembered as a rock musician more than anything else. He also performed his own jazz music. Does this also make him a jazz composer? Is he the "everything-Zen-Guru-composer"? :lol:


Yes, but you must remember that as in his rock and pop music, his work is very diverse.

Here's the Ensemble Modern performing his 1985 piece Times Beach II.


----------



## BurningDesire

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Is he the "everything-Zen-Guru-composer"?


pretty much :3 He began by writing chamber and orchestra music, while also playing in RnB bands. In his 20s, he expanded to writing rock songs, and combining both his instrumental music ideas with the RnB that he loved, and he also incorporated elements of improvisation, many of which are inspired by the music of John Cage. He was a virtuoso guitar player who was also a highly skilled improviser, and he would take his improvisations and compose new music around them. So its like classical meets rock and jazz recombined into classical, by a very serious and skilled artist.


----------



## Petwhac

Sid James said:


> Re how classical has absorbed non-classical influences, look for Australian composer Matthew Hindson's "Rush" for guitar and string quartet on youtube. Last time I looked it was there, I won't both to get it, if people want to go there - JUST DO IT! (as Nike says).
> 
> Anyway, this work employs the same format as Boccherini in his guitar quintets. Its got the same contrapuntal density and layering as Mendelssohn's Octet for Strings. It's got 'riffs' taken from R & B music. Its got rhythms and this kind of 'twangy' soung (eg. plucking) remniscent of country and western music.
> 
> These are explicit influences on the composer, the youtube clip should have info on that too.
> 
> & some people here suggest that classical and 'other' or 'non classical' are separate? Gimme a break.


I have been listening to "Rush" as you suggested. I am not going to give a critique of the piece except to say that it has some good points and some not so good ones. I do commend the effort to fuse different genres in this way however, as I have said before....

If a composer takes elements of folk music, dance music, pop music, bluegrass, techno or Balinese, Japanese,
or Peruvian music and uses them in a composition that is played by an ensemble, *it does not make those genres themselves classical music.* Surly this is not so hard to fathom.

Mahler incorporated marching band and dance music (waltz) into his symphonies, Ades used elements of dance (club) music in Asyla. There is nothing new about that.

This does not mean that Norwegian Wood or Eleanor Rigby are, or ever will be considered 'classical' music in the same sense that music by their contemporaries like Penderecki, Boulez, Shostakovich, is.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

BurningDesire said:


> ... So its like classical meets rock and jazz recombined into classical, by a very serious and skilled artist.


I would not go as far as suggesting "classical meets rock and jazz recombined into classical". There is nothing to me that I could pick up in the pieces posted above by me and by Crudblud that would suggest any hint of jazz and or rock. Yes, it may have sounded modern/contemporary to my ears, and without prior knowledge that it was by Zappa, I would have labelled it, rightly or wrongly, as contemporary "classical music" because it sounded like that. However, I would definitely not use the terms "classical composer" per se to describe Zappa, nor would I use the terms "jazz musician" to describe him because that would be rather misleading in the normal understanding of those terms. It would appear to me that Zappa is, first and foremost a rock musician, with wide ranging musical and compositional interests; in short the "everything-Zen-Guru-musician".


----------



## Very Senior Member

BurningDesire said:


> Don't you dare report anybody for speaking their mind. It is just a subjective list made by music fans. Nothing more. It is not immune from scrutiny. Deal with it.


If that's a reference to my post, may I draw your attention to the last phrase in brackets right at the very end. Can't you see that I was not in any way attempting to be serious on that particular matter?

May I also suggest you might try a bit harder to appreciate where people like me are coming from on topics like this one. I have given my own comments on the subject matter of this thread mainly in answer to the proposition put forward by SLG, which I consider to be unacceptable. But I also think that my comments are much more reflective of opinion by the "silent majority" of classical music fans than is found typically on forums such as this one.

In my view places like this are not representative of wider opinion on the subject of classical music. There are some very good members here, but on many music forums (not all) one tends to find a predominance of very young members some of whom think they know it all or enough to get by. On the whole I reckon that the kind of people who form the great majority of classical music listeners wouldn't dream of coming to places like this, and if they did I suspect they wouldn't wish to stay for long given some of the outlandish topics on obscure composers which are sometimes thrown up.

My comments, although I can see how they might irritate you given your tastes, are no more than a representation of what I believe would result if somehow the views of a much bigger, more typical classical music audience could be tapped into. This is not to say that topics on the kind of modern rock style music you favour can't be discussed, but it tends to jar somewhat when you try to present it as of similar status as that of the works of Mozart and other "greats", or when you attempt to rubbish any their achievements. You will attract counter-comment and I've given you some ot it.


----------



## BurningDesire

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I would not go as far as suggesting "classical meets rock and jazz recombined into classical". There is nothing to me that I could pick up in the pieces posted above by me and by Crudblud that would suggest any hint of jazz and or rock. Yes, it may have sounded modern/contemporary to my ears, and without prior knowledge that it was by Zappa, I would have labelled it, rightly or wrongly, as contemporary "classical music" because it sounded like that. However, I would definitely not use the terms "classical composer" per se to describe Zappa, nor would I use the terms "jazz musician" to describe him because that would be rather misleading in the normal understanding of those terms. It would appear to me that Zappa is, first and foremost a rock musician, with wide ranging musical and compositional interests; in short the "everything-Zen-Guru-musician".


Why is he first and foremost a rock musician? He began by writing classical music. Everything he wrote, even rock songs are written with the attention to detail and orchestration that any classical composer would. First and foremost, he is a composer who learned by studying Webern, Stravinsky, Varese and others. I'd call that classical.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

BurningDesire said:


> Why is he first and foremost a rock musician? He began by writing classical music. Everything he wrote, even rock songs are written with the attention to detail and orchestration that any classical composer would. First and foremost, he is a composer who learned by studying Webern, Stravinsky, Varese and others. I'd call that classical.


He may well have started composing contemporary "classical music" after studying the works of those composers you mentioned. But the majority of his musical works are modern rock, not classical nor jazz. He is regarded by his fans as a rock musician in the main, song writer and guitarist, which are fair descriptions given his many albums.

One could list many jazz and rock musicians who are/were classical trained, and may well have crafted their popular words "with the attention to detail and orchestration that any classical composer would", but that alone does not necessarily predetermine their overall artistic idiom.


----------



## BurningDesire

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> He may well have started composing contemporary "classical music" after studying the works of those composers you mentioned. But the majority of his musical works are modern rock, not classical nor jazz. He is regarded by his fans as a rock musician in the main, song writer and guitarist, which are fair descriptions given his many albums.
> 
> One could list many jazz and rock musicians who are/were classical trained, and may well have crafted their popular words "with the attention to detail and orchestration that any classical composer would", but that alone does not necessarily predetermine their overall artistic idiom.


The majority of his music are instrumental compositions, or virtuosic songs. Just because the instruments used are electric guitars, vibraphone, drums, synthesizers, organs, I don't think that is the deciding factor. Most of his fans regard him as a composer.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

The "everything-Zen-Guru-musician", as per my initial thoughts. Or you may wish to abbreviate it to Zappa-Zen or Zen-Zappa, but "classical" would be misleading in the normal understanding and usage of the term.


----------



## BurningDesire

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> The "everything-Zen-Guru-musician", as per my initial thoughts. Or you may wish to abbreviate it to Zappa-Zen or Zen-Zappa, but "classical" would be misleading in the normal understanding and usage of the term.


I don't think so. Classical is a vague term referring to composers and works part of a long and diverse musical tradition. Not misleading at all to include him, since he is a part of that tradition.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

BurningDesire said:


> I don't think so. Classical is a vague term referring to composers and works part of a long and diverse musical tradition. Not misleading at all to include him, since he is a part of that tradition.


Let's see what members think. I just created a poll.


----------



## Sid James

Very Senior Member said:


> If you have a problem with my asking for any other examples of Zappa's music being played on Radio 3 since the isolated incident 7 years in a relatively obscure late non-prime time programme, why don't you just say so?


Well I should not have gotten involved in it but I'll just let that post stand as it is. Its more a reflection on what's happened on this forum lately, all the fighting.

But I just think the whole direction this thread is going is no good and just tit-for-tat. That's all I'll say.


----------



## neoshredder

Very Senior Member said:


> I'm not so sure about Radio 3 being "inexperienced". They have some very fine presenters. To give just one recent example, last Saturday Andrew McGregor, in his Weekly _CD Review_ programme, discussed Daniel Barenboim/West Eastern Divan Orchestra's performance of the 9 Beethoven Symphonies. What he had to say was a good deal more interesting and revelatory than most of the kind of comment one typically finds on most classical music forums, where you tend to get pretty boring recommendations based on hardly any useful information at all.
> 
> As for TC's 50 Greatest Composers Awards, how dare you sugggest that it's a bit "inexperienced"? It had the benefit of lots of very competent and knowledgeable members, plus admittedly a few who have only seen a few videos. But the rest of us strove hard and persistently to make sure the overall result was a creditable achievement. I won't listen to any criticism of it, and if you make any more such negative comments I'll report you for insulting behaviour (insert one huge wink).


Are you threatening bigshot? Should I report you for that? Top 50 Greatest Composeres Awards is a popularity contest.


----------



## bigshot

BurningDesire said:


> Don't you dare report anybody for speaking their mind. It is just a subjective list made by music fans. Nothing more. It is not immune from scrutiny. Deal with it.


Not to worry. He was kidding.


----------



## bigshot

BurningDesire said:


> he also incorporated elements of improvisation, many of which are inspired by the music of John Cage.


i have had a couple of friends who worked with him. None of them ever mentioned that he cared for Cage. His biggest influences were Varese, Ives and Johnny "Guitar" Watson.


----------



## bigshot

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> He may well have started composing contemporary "classical music" after studying the works of those composers you mentioned. But the majority of his musical works are modern rock, not classical nor jazz.


From his first album, he included tracks of his classical compositions onto his rock albums. He had a tremendous amount of freedom to experiment in the early days. It's likely that he wouldn't have been able to find a label that would release his classical work as classical music. So he just slipped it in among rock music.

But if you listen to Freak Out or Absolutely Free, there's no doubt which tracks are rock music and which are avant garde classical music.


----------



## Crudblud

bigshot said:


> i have had a couple of friends who worked with him. None of them ever mentioned that he cared for Cage. His biggest influences were Varese, Ives and Johnny "Guitar" Watson.


Don't forget Stravinsky and Bartók.

As for Cage, Zappa has commented that once he saw Cage apply a contact mic to his throat and drink carrot juice on stage, and thought that maybe there was a chance for his own music after all. He has also noted that it is impossible to work with improvisation without acknowledging Cage. Granted, this does not indicate a liking for his music in general, but Zappa at least acknowledged and seemingly respected some of the advances he made.


----------



## BurningDesire

Crudblud said:


> Don't forget Stravinsky and Bartók.
> 
> As for Cage, Zappa has commented that once he saw Cage apply a contact mic to his throat and drink carrot juice on stage, and thought that maybe there was a chance for his own music after all. He has also noted that it is impossible to work with improvisation without acknowledging Cage. Granted, this does not indicate a liking for his music in general, but Zappa at least acknowledged and seemingly respected some of the advances he made.


I think Zappa really loved alot of the ideas Cage put forward. That all sounds can be used in music, and you can hear alot of chance elements in Zappa's work, especially in the early Mothers years  at times stuff like Lumpy Gravy and We're Only in it for the Money really have a Cage flavor about them.


----------



## bigshot

Crudblud said:


> Granted, this does not indicate a liking for his music in general, but Zappa at least acknowledged and seemingly respected some of the advances he made.


He said The Shaggs were better than the Beatles too!

As for chance elements, I think he felt differently about that later on.


----------



## brianwalker

Apropos of http://www.talkclassical.com/20510-will-modern-music-ever-4.html#post333925 and the Lady Gaga vs. Mozart thing.






Nana Mouskouri. She's already well underway to being cosigned to the oblivion of history. She was the Lady Gaga of her day, selling hundreds of millions of records.

Ask anyone on the street under 50 who "Nana Mouskouri" is and you'll draw a blank, 9 out of 10 times.


----------



## LordBlackudder

i dont think it will


----------



## BurningDesire

bigshot said:


> i have had a couple of friends who worked with him. None of them ever mentioned that he cared for Cage. His biggest influences were Varese, Ives and Johnny "Guitar" Watson.


Yeah, Zappa himself mentioned Cage


----------



## millionrainbows

Oh, I think it's obvious that Zappa modeled his Steve Allen Show appearance on Cage's previous TV appearance.


----------



## mtmailey

I think not, i do not like newer music to much CRAP MUSIC out there that lacks meaning & to depressing to hear.Also the music is to loud to make one deaf or lose hearing slowly.


----------



## Neo Romanza

I think it's premature to make any kind of predictions as to the acceptance of Modern music. This said, I, as I'm sure many others, would love to see more adventurous programming made by our local orchestras, conductors, and record companies, but I think that even would be pushing it and/or simply grasping at straws.


----------



## arpeggio

Neo Romanza said:


> I think it's premature to make any kind of predictions as to the acceptance of Modern music. This said, I, as I'm sure many others, would love to see more adventurous programming made by our local orchestras, conductors, and record companies, but I think that even would be pushing it and/or simply grasping at straws.


It is interesting that you should mention this. A friend of mine is not renewing his subscription to the National Symphony. Since Eschenbach has become the director, the programming has become more conventional. He stated that he likes Brahms _Third_ as much as anybody but he has heard it several times in live performances. One can spend up to $90 per ticket and he is not going to spend that amount of money to hear something he is very familiar with. He would occasionally like to hear something different.


----------



## KenOC

The thread title is, "Will Modern Music Ever Become Accepted?" I guess I'd have to ask, "By whom?"


----------



## Neo Romanza

arpeggio said:


> It is interesting that you should mention this. A friend of mine is not renewing his subscription to the National Symphony. Since Eschenbach has become the director, the programming has become more conventional. He stated that he likes Brahms _Third_ as much as anybody but he has heard it several times in live performances. One can spend up to $90 per ticket and he is not going to spend that amount of money to hear something he is very familiar with. He would occasionally like to hear something different.


A sign of Eschenbach's diminishing career for sure. I don't think he's done anything particularly noteworthy since his Roussel cycle on Ondine with the Orchestre de Paris.


----------



## starthrower

I'd have to ask what is considered modern music in the 21st century? And what is meant by accepted? There is still loads of music composed over the past 100 years that rarely gets programmed by orchestras or radio stations. It's not even modern anymore. But it's all been recorded, and people buy the records. I don't care if orchestras and radio stations keep programming war horses. I don't need 'em. And I won't support 'em.


----------



## violadude

I haven't read the whole thread, I only read the OP and a few posts after that so I'm not sure what all has been discussed, but I would have to know what the OP means by "being accepted by the general public". Has any era of classical music been accepted by the public? I mean, most people can pick out a few tunes here and there because they are used in movies and cartoons, but no one cares about Beethoven's string quartets or Brahm's piano concertos or this or that. 

Same is true of 20th century music. I'm sure most people could pick out Rite of Spring, Claire De Lune and Adagio for Strings. Anyone who's a Stanley Kubrick fan could probably pick out some Ligeti pieces. People who saw "Children of Men" might be able to recognize "Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima" if you played it back to them, but I'd say, for the majority of the public, they are just as much in the dark about the majority of 20th century classical music as they are in the dark about the majority of any other classical music period (and when I say that, I mean it in a more or less kind of way, please don't respond by literally trying to come up with more well know Romantic era pieces than 20th century pieces  ).

To be honest, I think the Medieval/Renaissance era gets the most heat when it comes to popularity. Most people could pick out at least one or two pieces written in the 20th/21st century, but no one knows crap pre-Purcell.

As for 20th/21st century pieces being accepted in general by musicians or people interested in music, well at my school and by many on this forum, most people already speak of Turangalila Symphony, Nixon in China and others as if they are already well established classics.


----------



## starthrower

As far as the general public is concerned, acceptance is really a moot point, because you can't accept or reject music you're not even aware of.


----------



## violadude

starthrower said:


> As far as the general public is concerned, acceptance is really a moot point, because you can't accept or reject music you're not even aware of.


Wow, that's a good point that I didn't even think about.:clap::cheers:


----------



## starthrower

Just driving home your elaborated points!  What's more distressing than indifference due to ignorance is the fact that 50 million people spent money on Kenny G records!


----------



## Guest

Thread duty:

I think "new" classical music was once very accepted by the general public - from the time of Mozart to Mahler new works were generally well received. Top classical music composers and virtuoso performers had status comparable to today's filmmakers and movie stars. Granted the audience was somewhat localized to places like Vienna and Paris, but at that time and in those places classical music was genuinely popular.

The music of Schoenberg and his followers will never attain the level of popularity enjoyed by Beethoven or Liszt in their times. For two reasons. First, their music is simply not as enjoyable for the typical listener -- it wasn't meant to be. Schoenberg and his followers rejected popular forms of classical music as kitsch, and explored new forms of musical expression instead. But by focusing on theoretical developments rather than the likes and tolerances of their audiences, they quickly lost their audiences. Avant garde composers effectively wrote music for themselves and their peers, while pretentiously assuming that the general public would some day recognize their genius. They "led" but few followed.

Second, in the past century society has changed dramatically. Classical music now has to compete with many new forms of music, entertainment, and even cultures. The marginalization of classical music was probably inevitable, but classical composers' preoccupation with modernism may have accelerated the process a bit.

Classical music isn't dead or dying -- it's just pushed into a corner. There will always be some classical music fans. And classical music (both romantic and modernist) is often used in movie and videogame soundtracks. From time to time a piece of classical music (e.g. the theme to Star Wars) will enjoy wide acclaim and popularity. New classical music which is written with listeners' likes and tolerances in mind can be popular even today.

But early 20th century "modernist" classical music will never be particularly popular amongst general audiences.


----------



## Ramako

BPS said:


> I think "new" classical music was once very accepted by the general public - from the time of Mozart to Mahler new works were generally well received. Top classical music composers and virtuoso performers had status comparable to today's filmmakers and movie stars. Granted the audience was somewhat localized to places like Vienna and Paris, but at that time and in those places classical music was genuinely popular.


That simply isn't true. Mozart was considered difficult, and Mahler was terribly appreciated in his own time. The 19th century saw the shift towards appreciating old music rather than new, and there are concert statistics to prove it - indeed new music was programmed less at points in the 19th century than it is now. Wagner was considered noise. I can multiply the points.

(Of course, the statistics may be skewed in as much as I'm not sure how relevant concerts were before the late 18th century tbh, or how much 'art music' was appreciated outside a small circle of the elite, but I'm willing to follow them in any case as I think they demonstrate a trend.)

It is true that certain strands of modern music have not yet integrated into a larger audience (whatever that means). Stravinsky has, but Schoenberg largely hasn't. Beethoven was appreciated much more quickly than it will have taken Schoenberg to be more widely popular. I think this is both a technical and an aesthetic issue.



BPS said:


> First, their music is simply not as enjoyable for the typical listener -- it wasn't meant to be. Schoenberg and his followers rejected popular forms of classical music as kitsch, and explored new forms of musical expression instead. But by focusing on theoretical developments rather than the likes and tolerances of their audiences, they quickly lost their audiences. Avant grade classical composers began writing music just for themselves and their peers, while pretentiously assuming that the general public would catch up with them eventually. They "led" but few followed.


In as much parts of this may be true, it was also progressively becoming so from earlier. Just read some quotes from Mahler - they're full of how only future generations who have sufficiently matured will understand his music. It is an obvious precursor to some nonsense Stockhausen once said about the human race being about to 'evolve' (one of the consequences being that they could understand avant-garde music).

Nevertheless, I think the assumption that modern music will eventually be accepted just like 19th century music is usually held stronger than its basis suggests, given that it is based on extending history in a purely selective way: 19th and 18th century music which was first not popular is now popular, so 20th century music which is now unpopular will become popular in the future. What about 12th-17th century music? Medieval music is forgotten much more than 20th century music now. It is entirely possible that Boulez will never reach Mozart's popularity, but will remain fairly niche like Monteverdi... It may be that about 1700-1900 may always be a more popular period... Like certain periods in the other arts are more popular than others now.


----------



## Guest

This is mostly just plain wrong. [Note: It took me so long to write this that Ramako got in first with the same point. Well. Let mine stand, too, I guess.]

It's a view held by a lot of people, I know. In defiance of the facts. But what's a few facts to an ideologue?



BPS said:


> I think "new" classical music was once very accepted by the general public


True.



BPS said:


> from the time of Mozart to Mahler new works were generally well received.


No. From Mozart to Beethoven, maybe. But with the rise of the middle class in 1800, rose also the idea that "new" music was suspect. In Mozart's time, new music was welcomed. It was old music that was suspect. With a few exceptions. The idea of a canon, the idea that older music was better grew stronger and stronger from 1800 on, though it was a hard struggle. But by 1860, that idea had clearly won. From then on, performances of new music became more and more difficult to put on or to put across.

Notice how far we are, still from, Schoenberg. Schoenberg came fairly far along in a process. He caused nothing of what he's credited with (blamed for) causing. The kind of thinking that rejected Schoenberg's music preceded Schoenberg's pantonal and serial systems by a hundred years or more.



BPS said:


> Top classical music composers and virtuoso performers had status comparable to today's filmmakers and movie stars.


Yeah, there were a few performers, which you can probably count on the fingers of one hand, and who moved as the century (the 19th century) progressed from playing new works written by and for them to playing old works of established masters.



BPS said:


> Granted the audience was somewhat localized to places like Vienna and Paris, but at that time and in those places classical music was genuinely popular.


Music in the nineteenth century was international and not at all localized in a few large cities.



BPS said:


> The music of Schoenberg and his followers will never attain the level of popularity enjoyed by Beethoven or Liszt in their times. For two reasons. First, their music is simply not as enjoyable for the typical listener -- it wasn't meant to be.


Yes, that must be why Schoenberg claimed his music would eventually be whistled by the mailman. Yes. Because it wasn't meant to be, um, whistled by mailmen....



BPS said:


> Schoenberg and his followers rejected popular forms of classical music as kitsch, and explored new forms of musical expression instead.


Boolean, eh? I think you'll find that composers are perfectly capable of exploring new forms of musical expression while enjoying popular forms of classical music just fine. You really don't know any real composers, do you?



BPS said:


> But by focusing on theoretical developments rather than the likes and tolerances of their audiences, they quickly lost their audiences.


Wow, this feeble canard has such a robust tenacity. It's amazing. the canard that will not die. So what are all those people called who fill the halls of new music concerts? (Probably not a world you're very familiar with, I'm guessing.) They're called an audience. Surprise surprise. _Their_ audiences, properly so-called, have never been lost at all. They may have lost a few other people, members of _other_ audiences (audiences that had, historically, been rejecting new music for over a hundred years, recall), but _their_ audiences? They didn't lose _any_ of their audiences.



BPS said:


> Avant garde composers effectively wrote music for themselves and their peers, while pretentiously assuming that the general public would some day recognize their genius.


Sounds like a description of Beethoven. You may have heard of him. Very avant garde. Very arrogant. Pretentiously assumed that the general public would some day recognize his genius. Yes. Obscure German boy from Bonn. Still, you may have heard of him....



BPS said:


> Second, in the past century society has changed dramatically. Classical music now has to compete with many new forms of music, entertainment, and even cultures.


Yeah yeah. Society. Changed dramatically. Read some history some time, maybe. It will amaze you how much society has changed. IN EVERY CENTURY. Yes. It's pretty amazing how that's been.

You may also read, if you get ahold of the right books, how diverse musical culture was in the 19th and 18th centuries. And earlier. Many new forms of music, entertainment, and even cultures. Yes. It's pretty amazing how that's been....



BPS said:


> The marginalization of classical music was probably inevitable, but classical composers' preoccupation with modernism may have accelerated the process a bit.


You mean like Berlioz? Liszt? Wagner? (The music of the future.)



BPS said:


> New classical music which is written with listeners' likes and tolerances in mind can be popular even today.


You mean like Xenakis? Karkowski? Yoshihide? Those are three people who are very popular with some listeners. Why, you may even know some of them. They're right here at TC. (Hint: They're the ones you ignore at worst and squabble with at best.)



BPS said:


> But early 20th century "modernist" classical music will never be particularly popular amongst general audiences.


God no! Stravinsky? Bartok? Janacek? Debussy? Ravel? Prokofiev? Those guys will never be popular. No!

Really?

I think I need some details about what you mean by popular.

Plus, you may want to seriously consider getting out more. Oh, it's fun!!


----------



## arpeggio

*Great Music*

I pity those who can only listen to great music because there is a lot of great music that is not great.


----------



## apricissimus

BPS said:


> Thread duty:
> 
> I think "new" classical music was once very accepted by the general public - from the time of Mozart to Mahler new works were generally well received. Top classical music composers and virtuoso performers had status comparable to today's filmmakers and movie stars. Granted the audience was somewhat localized to places like Vienna and Paris, but at that time and in those places classical music was genuinely popular.


Did the "general public" ever really hear this music though? It's only with the easy availability of recordings (records, CD's, and now the Internet) that the masses truly have had access to a very wide variety of musics to choose from. Maybe I'm not as educated about this, but I don't know how you can call classical music "genuinely popular" in the past when you admit that it was limited to small audiences in select cities.


----------



## millionrainbows

Will Modern Music Ever Become Accepted? No, it will always be the "dark side" of tonality. It came forth from darkness, and to darkness it shall return! Thus shall it ever be, verily!


----------



## Aries

Sequentia said:


> In other words, will the public ever accept the mature works of Berg, Bartók and composers more radical than them?


They will accept it in the way, they accept it now. They do not will acept it in the way, they do not accept it now.



Sequentia said:


> Is this similar to posing the question "Will the wide public ever cherish Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 19 more than Lady Gaga's latest hit?"


No. Lady Gaga's latest hit will be out in 20 years and forgotten in 50 years.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Aries said:


> No. Lady Gaga's latest hit will be out in 20 years and forgotten in 50 years.


Lady who? You see, I've already forgotten.


----------



## KenOC

Aries said:


> No. Lady Gaga's latest hit will be out in 20 years and forgotten in 50 years.


In the same way that Bach reflected and summarized the age of faith, Beethoven the height of the new revolutionary Vienna, and Mahler the same culture as it faded at the end of the century, Lady Gaga has captured our times and our culture. Her music will survive so long as either remain of interest.

Her masterpieces already firmly in the canon are well-known: Poker Face, Paper Gangsta, Just Dance, Bad Romance, and others. But less noticed songs, such as Marry the Night and Americano, are likely to end up being classed with Bach's Art of Fugue, Beethoven's late piano sonatas, and Mahler's last works. I'm sure we can all agree on that.


----------



## Rapide

It depends on how "modern" the composer tries to push it. Pure nosie music - maybe for a handful of fringe radicals. Serialism - largely already accepted by modern composers.


----------



## Blancrocher

KenOC said:


> In the same way that Bach reflected and summarized the age of faith, Beethoven the height of the new revolutionary Vienna, and Mahler the same culture as it faded at the end of the century, Lady Gaga has captured our times and our culture. Her music will survive so long as either remain of interest.


Indeed, we will all be listening to Lady Gaga records and live performances of her music (using period instruments) long after the works of Bach, Beethoven, and Mahler have been forgotten.

But not until.


----------



## Guest

Rapide said:


> ...a handful of fringe radicals.


Thanks for the ad populum sideswipe, Rapide. What a gentleman you are.

Just by the way, noise is spelled en oh aye ess ee, not en oh ess aye ee. (Not even nosey is spelled en oh ess aye ee. Fun to speculate on what nosey music would be, though.)


----------



## starry

KenOC said:


> In the same way that Bach reflected and summarized the age of faith, Beethoven the height of the new revolutionary Vienna, and Mahler the same culture as it faded at the end of the century, Lady Gaga has captured our times and our culture. Her music will survive so long as either remain of interest.
> 
> Her masterpieces already firmly in the canon are well-known: Poker Face, Paper Gangsta, Just Dance, Bad Romance, and others. But less noticed songs, such as Marry the Night and Americano, are likely to end up being classed with Bach's Art of Fugue, Beethoven's late piano sonatas, and Mahler's last works. I'm sure we can all agree on that.


I know you are being ironic and the comparison is completely pointless. However I think the best songs I've heard are Dance in the Dark and Telephone.


----------



## Aries

KenOC said:


> In the same way that Bach reflected and summarized the age of faith, Beethoven the height of the new revolutionary Vienna, and Mahler the same culture as it faded at the end of the century, Lady Gaga has captured our times and our culture. Her music will survive so long as either remain of interest.


I don't think so. Bach, Beethoven and Mahler is more timeless. Popular music is too simple and just time-bound. While the status of the classical composer do not change much, few listen today to the popular music of the 90s, fewer to the popular music of the 80s, fewer to the 70s, 60s, 50s, 20s. At least when everyone, who lives today, is dead, nobody will listen to Lady Gaga.



KenOC said:


> Her masterpieces already firmly in the canon are well-known:


Her masterpieces? Did she composed it?



KenOC said:


> Poker Face, Paper Gangsta, Just Dance, Bad Romance, and others. But less noticed songs, such as Marry the Night and Americano, are likely to end up being classed with Bach's Art of Fugue, Beethoven's late piano sonatas, and Mahler's last works. I'm sure we can all agree on that.


I think you are kidding me.


----------



## niv

Aries said:


> I think you are kidding me.


No, really? 

(btw, lady gaga actually writes her own song. with a little help, no doubt bout that, but still...)


----------



## jhar26

There already is an audience for modern classical. Not such a big audience that classicFM would ever consider programming it, but those composers probably aren't interested in that type of popularity. If they were they would write music with a tune. But some contemporary composers do that already, so maybe some of them will "become accepted by the public at large."


----------



## jhar26

Aries said:


> I don't think so. Bach, Beethoven and Mahler is more timeless. Popular music is too simple and just time-bound. While the status of the classical composer do not change much, few listen today to the popular music of the 90s, fewer to the popular music of the 80s, fewer to the 70s, 60s, 50s, 20s. At least when everyone, who lives today, is dead, nobody will listen to Lady Gaga.


I'm not so sure. The casual popular music fan is by and large clueless about the history of popular music, but the more dedicated ("serious") among them are as historically aware about it as most classical music fans are about "art music." Pop, rock, blues, country, jazz and the rest of it has it's classics and to it's followers the Beatles, Bob Dylan, the Stones, Billie Holiday, Sinatra and so on are just as much required listening as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Wagner are to us. The fact that popular music is 'too simple' is part of the attraction. To most people complexity is a turn-off.


----------



## niv

Yeah. 30 years after people still listen to Thriller after all.


----------



## Guest

jhar26 said:


> I'm not so sure. The casual popular music fan is by and large clueless about the history of popular music, but the more dedicated ("serious") among them are as historically aware about it as most classical music fans are about "art music." Pop, rock, blues, country, jazz and the rest of it has it's classics and to it's followers the Beatles, Bob Dylan, the Stones, Billie Holiday, Sinatra and so on are just as much required listening as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Wagner are to us. The fact that popular music is 'too simple' is part of the attraction. To most people complexity is a turn-off.


On the whole, I agree, but I'll take issue with the notion that 'complexity/simplicity' is a key dimension to analyse differences between classical and popular. Different musics have different purposes. Not all classical musical is meant as some highbrow, complex, intellectually challenging 'entertainment'. Not all 'pop' or 'rock' music is meant as some low-brow, dance-oriented, 3 minute disposable trifle.

I'm very happy to have a mixed collection of the simple and the complex, the emotional and the cerebral, the uplifting and the melancholic, the long and the short, the intricate and the crude, the whimsical and the sober...and that's just listening to Stravinsky and Wilco!


----------



## PetrB

Odd question, I think, since "modern" music has been accepted for almost the entire past one hundred years when what we call modern music was being written.

The question is after the fact of modern music having been accepted.


----------



## Guest

Indeed.

Here's another question, playing off of Petr's observation: Will the more conservative classical music forum posters ever give up the idea that modern music is unacceptable?


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> Indeed.
> 
> Here's another question, playing off of Petr's observation: Will the more conservative classical music forum posters ever give up the idea that modern music is unacceptable?


Not before the more radical cfm posters give up the idea that all forms of music are equally enjoyable.


----------



## aleazk

MacLeod said:


> Not before the more radical cfm posters give up the idea that all forms of music are equally enjoyable.


Well, but the mere fact that actually there is people enjoying all musical forms is a counterexample of that!.


----------



## neoshredder

Depends how modern? If we're talking about Debussy, Ravel, Shostakovich, and Stravinsky. Then yes it is accepted already imo. If we're talking about Xenakis, Stockhausen, Berio, Nono, and etc. Not so much accepted. Once dissonance took over, it limited its access to the Classical Community. Some can't tolerate it. Most noticeable on Classical Radio stations which ones aren't played much or at all.


----------



## Guest

neoshredder said:


> Once dissonance took over....


Can you put a date on this?

Everyone you mentioned as being already accepted was once accused of being "dissonant."

As were Mahler and Wagner and Liszt and Bizet and Berlioz and Chopin and Beethoven and Mozart.

And so forth.


----------



## neoshredder

some guy said:


> Can you put a date on this?
> 
> Everyone you mentioned as being already accepted was once accused of being "dissonant."
> 
> As were Mahler and Wagner and Liszt and Bizet and Berlioz and Chopin and Beethoven and Mozart.
> 
> And so forth.


My estimate would be World War II and after. Hard to put dates on any period. But the early part of the 20th Century gets a lot more play than the later part. Back when there were less genres. Thus making sense why Classical was doing great back then.


----------



## Guest

Yes, that must be why Schoenberg was so popular, eh?

(Wasn't he the guy who destroyed classical music? Way before 1945?)

((No wait. That was Wagner. Yeah. Even earlier.))


----------



## neoshredder

some guy said:


> Yes, that must be why Schoenberg was so popular, eh?
> 
> (Wasn't he the guy who destroyed classical music? Way before 1945?)
> 
> ((No wait. That was Wagner. Yeah. Even earlier.))


Yeah music went a lot of directions in the early 20th Century. Probably the most diverse period for Classical Music.


----------



## Guest

Fewer genres but the most diverse period.

I'm intrigued.


----------



## neoshredder

some guy said:


> Fewer genres but the most diverse period.
> 
> I'm intrigued.


Hint. The most diverse period for Classical Music. Of course other genres took off more in the later part of the 20th Century. My favorite being Rock.


----------



## Couchie

some guy said:


> Can you put a date on this?
> 
> Everyone you mentioned as being already accepted was once accused of being "dissonant."
> 
> As were Mahler and Wagner and Liszt and Bizet and Berlioz and Chopin and Beethoven and Mozart.
> 
> And so forth.


A rather severe misapplication of inductive reasoning:

"Humans once accepted that a Major 7th isn't unbearable, so in the future they will accept my random keyboard-banging".


----------



## Guest

Couchie said:


> A rather severe misapplication of inductive reasoning:
> 
> "Humans once accepted that a Major 7th isn't unbearable, so in the future they will accept my random keyboard-banging".


That's a severely uncalled for substitution of a made-up conclusion for the one actually made, which was that "dissonance" has been used to whip composers from long before 1945.

That dating "dissonance taking over" from 1945 is only possible if one ignores all the dissonance (or at least the perceived dissonance) of new music before 1945. That in fact "dissonance taking over" cannot be dated at all because it's not really a thing that happened at any particular time.


----------



## Couchie

The fact that the fall of the Roman Empire cannot be dated has no bearing on the fact that the Roman Empire fell.


----------



## Guest

The fall of the Roman Empire can be dated quite easily. The dating is a range, of course, because it's a thing that happened slowly over time. 

And there have to be two date ranges, one for the western half and one for the eastern. But that's no big deal, either.

If your point is that dissonance did take over but nobody knows when, that will make me grin.

I enjoy grinning.


----------



## millionrainbows

To the degree that "resolution to 1:1 no longer was a top priority," and dissonance went relatively unchecked and unresolved, then it is fair to say that "dissonance took over" after Mahler's 10th, Strauss' Metamprphosen, and post-Wagner. Just a generalization, but true enough if taken in the spirit of its meaning.

You see, someguy, that's the difference between you and me; you never make an effort to see the other guy's point. You're always seeking conflict in your defense of modernism. Tsk, tsk!


----------



## Guest

I think also a distinction should be made between composers who used dissonance in moderation within a more traditionally tonal work to add a little spice and composers who decided to replace traditional tonality completely with dissonance. As far as I know Schoenberg was the first composer to do the latter. Audiences were not amused.


----------



## millionrainbows

Will modern music ever become accepted? I hope not, or then I won't be part of a cool subculture; I'll be "commercial" like everybody else.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> You see, someguy, that's the difference between you and me; you never make an effort to see the other guy's point. You're always seeking conflict in your defense of modernism. Tsk, tsk!


There are many differences between us. This is not one of them. Or, if it is, you've got it flipped.

BPS, dissonance as spice? Dissonance, technically speaking, is the raison d'être of tonal music, the main motivating purpose for everything that happens. But what the hell? Why use musical terms technically in a musical discussion? No one does that any more! That is so 1877.

As for replacing traditional tonality completely with dissonance, that doesn't have any meaning at all that I can discern. Any examples? (Other than simple name dropping. In what way did Schoenberg do this thing? And remember, neoshredder has already affirmed that dissonance didn't take over until after WWII, long after Schoenberg's main work had already been done.)


----------



## ClassicalCumulus

I don't believe Modern classical music will ever garner as large a following as its predecessors, albeit I feel it was a necessary evil in which to further classical music along it's evolutionary path. Every movement within the art world need not catch like wildfire, rather have enough influence and star power to help keep the train on the tracks. 

Art is like a machine; every component is necessary yet some are more visible than others.


----------



## Guest

As someone who engages in mixing metaphors for sport, I must say that this is the most entertaining mix of metaphors I have seen in a long time.

:tiphat:


----------



## neoshredder

some guy said:


> There are many differences between us. This is not one of them. Or, if it is, you've got it flipped.
> 
> BPS, dissonance as spice? Dissonance, technically speaking, is the raison d'être of tonal music, the main motivating purpose for everything that happens. But what the hell? Why use musical terms technically in a musical discussion? No one does that any more! That is so 1877.
> 
> As for replacing traditional tonality completely with dissonance, that doesn't have any meaning at all that I can discern. Any examples? (Other than simple name dropping. In what way did Schoenberg do this thing? And remember, neoshredder has already affirmed that dissonance didn't take over until after WWII, long after Schoenberg's main work had already been done.)


Like I said. There was no clear cut time period. But more and more music started heading towards dissonance over time. Schoenberg maybe started it but it gained a lot more steam in the late 20th century. I think it's time to start heading towards tonality again in the traditional sense. Some dissonance is fine. But mix it in with some great tonal parts.


----------



## neoshredder

ClassicalCumulus said:


> I don't believe Modern classical music will ever garner as large a following as its predecessors, albeit I feel it was a necessary evil in which to further classical music along it's evolutionary path. Every movement within the art world need not catch like wildfire, rather have enough influence and star power to help keep the train on the tracks.
> 
> Art is like a machine; every component is necessary yet some are more visible than others.


I believe it is a dead end. Big mistake to go so extreme. It's almost for shock value now how far they took it. But maybe Classical Music has run its course. Everything else will be just like recycling old thoughts. I'm just glad there is plenty of music in the past to choose from.


----------



## niv

some guy said:


> BPS, dissonance as spice? Dissonance, technically speaking, is the raison d'être of tonal music, the main motivating purpose for everything that happens. But what the hell? Why use musical terms technically in a musical discussion? No one does that any more! That is so 1877.


I'll answer with another quote:


prokofiev said:


> Of course I have used dissonance in my time, but there has been too much dissonance. Bach used dissonance as good salt for his music. Others applied pepper, seasoned the dishes more and more highly, till all healthy appetites were sick and until the music was nothing but pepper."


(at the very least, I've seen it attributed to prokofiev in many places, but please don't make me find the actual source)


----------



## ClassicalCumulus

neoshredder said:


> I believe it is a dead end. Big mistake to go so extreme. It's almost for shock value now how far they took it. But maybe Classical Music has run its course. Everything else will be just like recycling old thoughts. I'm just glad there is plenty of music in the past to choose from.


You don't truly believe that, do you? I'm not saying you're wrong by any means, it's just a rather dreary outlook to have! At one point in time no one even knew what electricity was, and here we are - presumably typing our responses on these things called laptops. There's still original ideas to be had. I mean this is music we're talking about, after all!


----------



## Eschbeg

niv said:


> Of course I have used dissonance in my time, but there has been too much dissonance. Bach used dissonance as good salt for his music. Others applied pepper, seasoned the dishes more and more highly, till all healthy appetites were sick and until the music was nothing but pepper."
> 
> 
> 
> (at the very least, I've seen it attributed to prokofiev in many places, but please don't make me find the actual source)
Click to expand...

It comes from an interview with Olin Downes of the _New York Times_ in 1941. He was touring the U.S. at the time but he had already moved back to the Soviet Union, so it was perhaps in his interest to make such a statement.


----------



## quack

ClassicalCumulus said:


> You don't truly believe that, do you? I'm not saying you're wrong by any means, it's just a rather dreary outlook to have! At one point in time no one even knew what electricity was, and here we are - presumably typing our responses on these things called laptops. There's still original ideas to be had. I mean this is music we're talking about, after all!


Laptops are just harpsichords with a built in card game.


----------



## ClassicalCumulus

quack said:


> Laptops are just harpsichords with a built in card game.


Jokes. You got jokes, quack.


----------



## NarcissisticNimbus

But, guys. What *is* music really?


----------



## Guest

neoshredder said:


> I believe it is a dead end.


Yes, that must be why audiences have been steadily growing for new music over the past 20 or 30 years.

I've been going to new music festivals all over the world for seven years, and even in that short span I've seen a significant increase in the sizes of audiences.

And there are plenty of new composers each year, too. Fun, exciting, inventive composers who are also a blast to hang out with, just by the way.

If you got out more, maybe you'd be less tempted to draw such hasty conclusions.


----------



## Guest

ClassicalCumulus said:


> here we are - presumably typing our responses on these things called laptops.


Some of us traditionalists are proud to be still using a full size tower desktop!


----------



## mmsbls

some guy said:


> Yes, that must be why audiences have been steadily growing for new music over the past 20 or 30 years.
> 
> I've been going to new music festivals all over the world for seven years, and even in that short span I've seen a significant increase in the sizes of audiences.


This leads to an interesting question. How ought one to measure a music's audience? I have read several studies online that look at attendance at orchestral concerts and some that looked at CD purchases. Unfortunately, these studies grouped all classical together so we get no indication of modern or contemporary music.

What do you think are good indicators of contemporary or post WWII classical music? CDs or downloads might be a reasonable indicator. Contemporary concerts might as well, but I wonder if anyone has actually attempted to estimate the growth in the contemporary classical audience (say over the past 30-50 years).


----------



## Guest

Not just CDs and downloads, but youtube hits as well.

And traffic on websites such as Bandcamp.

In my very limited and specialized experience, I've noticed that the festivals that take place in the same building(s) each year have gotten more and more cramped for space, and the others have had to look for larger and larger spaces to fit the increased crowds.


----------



## arpeggio

*Contemporary music is dead?*



some guy said:


> Yes, that must be why audiences have been steadily growing for new music over the past 20 or 30 years.
> 
> I've been going to new music festivals all over the world for seven years, and even in that short span I've seen a significant increase in the sizes of audiences.
> 
> And there are plenty of new composers each year, too. Fun, exciting, inventive composers who are also a blast to hang out with, just by the way.
> 
> If you got out more, maybe you'd be less tempted to draw such hasty conclusions.


I have had the same experiences.

For example a few years ago I attended a contemporary music festival at Tangelwood that was dedicated to Carter and I have the chance to meet him. In other threads here I related my experiences with meeting Carter.

Along with Carter there were concerts that featured the music of Harrison Birtwistle and John Harbison.

I also got to meet Harbison and he is really a cool guy.

Every concert that I attended at that festival was sold out and the audiences were very enthusiastic.


----------



## neoshredder

some guy said:


> Yes, that must be why audiences have been steadily growing for new music over the past 20 or 30 years.
> 
> I've been going to new music festivals all over the world for seven years, and even in that short span I've seen a significant increase in the sizes of audiences.
> 
> And there are plenty of new composers each year, too. Fun, exciting, inventive composers who are also a blast to hang out with, just by the way.
> 
> If you got out more, maybe you'd be less tempted to draw such hasty conclusions.


Very hard to find cd's of the works these days. Youtube is your friend for some of these hard to find works. Some of these Composers include...
Chin, Daugherty, Carter Saariaho, Gubaidulina, Lindberg, Norgard, Aho, Adams, Salonen, Sallinen, Hallgrimsson, Catan, Chapela, Muhly, Gan-Ru, Boulez, Widmann, Yoshimatsu, and Rihm. Many of these are hard to find on amazon.


----------



## Guest

A lot of anti-modernism comes across to me as wishful thinking.

The a-m very much wants modern music to not exist, even if the a-m is never in a position to experience it.

Just that it exists is bad enough. It must be stopped. And short of actually stopping it is the insistence that it's already dead. And the more life it shows, the more insistent is the clamor that it's dead.


----------



## KenOC

some guy said:


> The a-m very much wants modern music to not exist, even if the a-m is never in a position to experience it.


"Paranoia runs deep, into your life it will creep…"

Bufalo Springfield, "For What It's Worth"


----------



## Guest

neoshredder said:


> Very hard to find cd's of the works these days. Youtube is your friend for some of these hard to find works. Some of these Composers include...
> Chin, Daugherty, Carter Saariaho, Gubaidulina, Lindberg, Norgard, Aho, Adams, Salonen, Sallinen, Hallgrimsson, Catan, Chapela, Muhly, Gan-Ru, Boulez, Widmann, Yoshimatsu, and Rihm. Many of these are hard to find on amazon.


What?

Here are the numbers Amazon returns followed by the numbers Arkiv returns. Amazon shows everything they have. Arkiv shows how many recordings they know of. It's instructive to compare those two databases.

Chin..................42 and 6
Daugherty...........6 and 70
Carter...........1,197 and 160
Saariaho..........189 and 55
Gubaidulina......124 and 101
Lindberg............54 and 26
Norgard...........127 and 26
Aho...................45 and 33
Adams...........1,555 and 116 
Salonen............204 and 22
Sallinen..............63 and 42
Hallgrimsson.........9 and 10
Catan.................28 and 6
Chapela................2 and 1
Muhly.................19 and 19
Gan-Ru.................6 and 0
Boulez...............633 and 83
Widmann.............21 and 19
Yoshimatsu..........65 and 27
Rihm.................111 and 82

Aside from Ge Gan-ru, everyone seems readily available. There are few discrepancies between the number of available recordings as reported by Arkiv and the numbers reported by Amazon. That is, the Amazon numbers, which include duplicates, are almost always either the same or larger, as one would expect.

And if one uses the other Amazon sites besides dot com, one will get many more hits. (Amazon.de, for instance, returns 123 Ergebnissen for Rihm.)


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> "Paranoia runs deep..."


Not sure you know what "paranoid" means.

It certainly is mis-applied to this situation.


----------



## KenOC

My comment was addressed to your, "The a-m [anti-modern I assume] very much wants modern music to not exist..." Not sure where this comes from, or what benefit it would bring anybody. It seems a peculiar belief. Perhaps if you expand on it a bit it will become clearer.


----------



## neoshredder

some guy said:


> What?
> 
> Here are the numbers Amazon returns followed by the numbers Arkiv returns. Amazon shows everything they have. Arkiv shows how many recordings they know of. It's instructive to compare those two databases.
> 
> Chin..................42 and 6
> Daugherty...........6 and 70
> Carter...........1,197 and 160
> Saariaho..........189 and 55
> Gubaidulina......124 and 101
> Lindberg............54 and 26
> Norgard...........127 and 26
> Aho...................45 and 33
> Adams...........1,555 and 116
> Salonen............204 and 22
> Sallinen..............63 and 42
> Hallgrimsson.........9 and 10
> Catan.................28 and 6
> Chapela................2 and 1
> Muhly.................19 and 19
> Gan-Ru.................6 and 0
> Boulez...............633 and 83
> Widmann.............21 and 19
> Yoshimatsu..........65 and 27
> Rihm.................111 and 82
> 
> Aside from Ge Gan-ru, everyone seems readily available. There are few discrepancies between the number of available recordings as reported by Arkiv and the numbers reported by Amazon. That is, the Amazon numbers, which include duplicates, are almost always either the same or larger, as one would expect.
> 
> And if one uses the other Amazon sites besides dot com, one will get many more hits. (Amazon.de, for instance, returns 123 Ergebnissen for Rihm.)


Well I remember that Amazon's Classical Forum had a voting round for all decades. Particular pieces were hard to get ahold of. Plus you got to consider a lot of these Composers had more famous works before the 2000's. The game was one of the harder ones due to lack of popularity. The 1750s was even worse to play though.


----------



## KenOC

neoshredder said:


> Well I remember that Amazon's Classical Forum had a voting round for all decades.


http://tinyurl.com/lc98cuk with caution...


----------



## neoshredder

KenOC said:


> http://tinyurl.com/lc98cuk with caution...


Thanks. Bookmarked.


----------



## Nereffid

neoshredder said:


> Well I remember that Amazon's Classical Forum had a voting round for all decades. Particular pieces were hard to get ahold of. Plus you got to consider a lot of these Composers had more famous works before the 2000's. The game was one of the harder ones due to lack of popularity. The 1750s was even worse to play though.


Heh. So, will the music of the 1750s ever be accepted?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Nereffid said:


> Heh. So, will the music of the 1750s ever be accepted?


far too modern I feel


----------



## ClassicalCumulus

some guy said:


> A lot of anti-modernism comes across to me as wishful thinking.
> 
> The a-m very much wants modern music to not exist, even if the a-m is never in a position to experience it.
> 
> Just that it exists is bad enough. It must be stopped. And short of actually stopping it is the insistence that it's already dead. And the more life it shows, the more insistent is the clamor that it's dead.


I've only been here since yesterday and I've seen you post a couple times about your displeasure with modern music's existence. Given that you are serious - I can't discern sarcasm seeing as I haven't studied your posts enough - can you give me (us) some examples of what specific modern music you are referencing? YouTube or some names of some pieces.

I'm completely fine with your opinion on the matter; I'm just genuinely curious. It'd be good to know in case I run in to some "modern resistance" in real life!


----------



## Guest

ClassicalCumulus said:


> I've only been here since yesterday and I've seen you post a couple times about your displeasure with modern music's existence.


No one will ever in million years see me do this. Either you have grossly misunderstood what I've said, or you have simply misstated what you really meant to say.

I hope it's the latter.



ClassicalCumulus said:


> ...in case I run in to some "modern resistance" in real life!


???

Spend some more time at TC. You'll see resistance to the modern in spades. Read some books. You'll see resistance to the modern in spades. Go to concerts where the music of Britten or Janacek or Liebermann is being played. You'll see resistance to the modern in spades.

I just attended a concert where Liebermann's latest was performed. Despite being an extremely mild piece that would have passed for current in 1930, there were several patrons who left the hall because it was too loud. (I was doing lobby duty.) And one of those also said it was the most hideous thing he had ever heard.

I think people should really get out more, I really do!


----------



## Guest

I think it is much harder to "objectively" judge a work based on its merits if you meet and hang out with the composer or even the performers. Most such creative types are cool dudes (or dudettes) and once you meet them, your opinion of them tends to bleed into your opinion of their works. In other words, if you like the guy, you're more likely to like his works.

For example, let's say you go to Burning Man and have a really good time. While you're there you hear some new stuff by Dupka that just sounds awesome in that environment. Later on you may go home, listen again, and wonder what you were thinking. Or more likely, the positive association is already permanently burned into your brain, you always like the piece, but people to whom you recommend the work wonder how you could possibly like the work.

If you want to be able to make unbiased assessments of new works, better not to expose yourself to the artist or any sort of social milieu which will color your assessment. Best to listen to the works alone without distractions. Only then can you form reasonably unbiased opinions.

If you're hanging out with the composers, that tells me your views of their works are gonna be biased toward effusive praise. Nothing wrong with that, but just don't be surprised if other people don't share your enthusiasm.


----------



## Guest

Xavier said:


> The impression is given that the fans seem to think... _"if only people will listen they'll learn to love it"_. Then when that doesn't work.... _"if only people would lay aside their bourgeois prejudices of what they think they like, they'll learn to love it"_-which I find a rather patronizing attitude.


Excellent point! It's not only patronizing, it's also manipulative and delusional.


----------



## ClassicalCumulus

some guy said:


> No one will ever in million years see me do this. Either you have grossly misunderstood what I've said, or you have simply misstated what you really meant to say.
> 
> I hope it's the latter.
> 
> ???
> 
> Spend some more time at TC. You'll see resistance to the modern in spades. Read some books. You'll see resistance to the modern in spades. Go to concerts where the music of Britten or Janacek or Liebermann is being played. You'll see resistance to the modern in spades.
> 
> I just attended a concert where Liebermann's latest was performed. Despite being an extremely mild piece that would have passed for current in 1930, there were several patrons who left the hall because it was too loud. (I was doing lobby duty.) And one of those also said it was the most hideous thing he had ever heard.
> 
> I think people should really get out more, I really do!


Cripes! Ok, ok, ok. Let me rectify this.

1) I misread what you said; thinking you meant modern music needs to stop, not anti-modernism.

2) I'm fully aware anti-modernism exists! I put _modern resistance_ in quotes as more of a label, not to mean I didn't really believe people were against it.

Long story short: disregard that entire post.


----------



## niv

some guy said:


> A lot of anti-modernism comes across to me as wishful thinking.
> 
> The a-m very much wants modern music to not exist, even if the a-m is never in a position to experience it.
> 
> Just that it exists is bad enough. It must be stopped. And short of actually stopping it is the insistence that it's already dead. And the more life it shows, the more insistent is the clamor that it's dead.


You can replace "modernism" with a lot of things and this quote keeps working.


----------



## mmsbls

some guy said:


> I just attended a concert where Liebermann's latest was performed.


I love many of Liebermann's works. What is his latest?

As I've stated before on TC, one profound difference between classical and pop music is the ability to hear new works. When I was young, I remember knowing when Stevie Wonder's new album would come out, and I would purchase his albums on that day. I could hear his music as soon as pretty much anyone. With classical I can be aware that a composer has written a new work, but I may have no way of hearing it for years.


----------



## Guest

ClassicalCumulus said:


> Cripes! Ok, ok, ok. Let me rectify this.
> 
> 1) I misread what you said; thinking you meant modern music needs to stop, not anti-modernism.
> 
> 2) I'm fully aware anti-modernism exists! I put _modern resistance_ in quotes as more of a label, not to mean I didn't really believe people were against it.
> 
> Long story short: disregard that entire post.


Thanks! You relieve my mind!!


----------



## Guest

mm,

I'll look it up for you. It's not been recorded, though. The world premiere was Saturday.

BPS,

Not sure what introducing "objective judgment" does aside from creating a factitious context in which you can berate me for hanging out with my friends.

Not sure why you would want me to not hang out with my friends. Maybe patronizing, manipulative, and delusional? I dunno know.

Anyway, your generalizations about judgment (granting for the moment and only temporarily that "judging" is all it's cracked up to be) may be generally true. But you'd have to know me and my critical acuity quite a lot better than you do in order to draw any specific conclusions about me.

I do wonder, though, what you have against effusive praise.  The last review I just wrote seemed over the top effusive, even to me, but it was about the music of someone I do not know personally. In fact, I know him through a friend whose latest CD I also reviewed. And my only worry now is that my friend will wonder why I liked the other guy's music so much more than I liked his.


----------



## Guest

Some Guy - I think it's great when you share your knowledge of and enthusiasm for new music. I'm sure most of us could learn a lot from you.

I decided a long time ago that sites like TC work best when people share their knowledge of and enthusiasm for the classical music (broadly defined) they like, and keep their criticisms of others and navel-gazing to a minimum.

It occurs to me that I haven't been following my own rule very well recently. I've got to do a better job of deciding which threads to participate in and how to participate.

For example this thread "Will Modern Music Ever Become Accepted?" naturally encourages antagonism between lovers of modern music and those who are less keen on it. Any time one side over-states or mis-states a legitimate opinion, it invites push-back from the other side. Escalation of hostilities seems almost inevitable. 

It suspect that there's not a huge overlap between the music you're interested in right now and the music that I'm interested in right now. That's no reason to quibble - variety is the spice of life.

I'm bowing out of this thread and will try to stay away from similar ones.


----------



## Guest

BPS, sounds good.

I hope our paths continue to cross, because of the smallness of the overlap. (We are agreed on the whole spicy variety thing.)

mm, the Liebermann was _Four Seasons_ for Mezzo-Soprano, Clarinet and Piano Quartet, Op.123, poems by Edna St. Vincent Millay, and it was sung by the young up and coming Sasha Cooke. She's good. "Up and coming" is probably wrong. She's already arrived.


----------



## bigshot

BPS said:


> I decided a long time ago that sites like TC work best when people share their knowledge of and enthusiasm for the classical music (broadly defined) they like, and keep their criticisms of others and navel-gazing to a minimum.


I follow four classical music forums and this one scores the lowest by that set of criteria.


----------



## nightscape

As long as city and community orchestras continue to have musical outreach, accessibility, programs, encourage and connect with schools to visit rehearsals, as long as there can be affordable music lessons, including inner city children, then there is always a chance. More importantly, as long as the music itself is still good, as long as composers remain engaged, enthralled and driven to write captivating music, then it will always be relevant.


----------



## PetrB

neoshredder said:


> Do you consider 1940's movies as modern? Or the music? Why should Classical be any different? And yes Schonberg is more modern than Beethoven. I guess this just shows how little respect people have toward Modern Classical if they are going way back to the early 20th Century and calling it Modern.


Your comparison is radically faulty. Music was not newly invented in the very late 1800, early 1900's, for starters.


----------



## KenOC

"Will Modern Music Ever Become Accepted?" This shouldn't be a controversial question. I read the thread title with the following definitions:

- "Modern music" = atonal, serial, post-tonal, etc. Basically, music that in the larger sense and in detail as well has little relationship to the tonalities of traditional concert music. If that definition is unsatisfactory, then how about, like pornography, "I know it when I hear it."

- "Accepted" = placed alongside traditional favorites by broad CM audiences, commonly heard on classical FM stations, programmed as other than medicinal "sides" at concerts (and fairly frequently).

It seems to me that in this sense very little "modern music" has been "accepted" to this point, despite some being written close to a century ago. There are an increasing number of 20th-century composers who are indeed becoming accepted, but few who wrote "modern music" in this sense.

There are of course many fans of modern music, and quite a few (mostly smaller ensemble) concerts presenting it in some areas for aficionados. But for the most part, this music is still waiting for broader acceptance. I see CM moving in the opposite direction now, and believe those few contemporary composers who will still be played in another 50 years are not writing "modern music" in the sense used here.

Others may disagree!


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Others may disagree!


No, they may not!!!  .


----------



## aleazk

... and if someone disagree, will be beheaded!...


----------



## sonnenuntergangstunde

Krisena said:


> Nordheim


I'd just like to say thanks, after seeing your post I checked out some music by Nordheim as it was a name I didn't recognise. It's amazing stuff! I'm really enjoying the Dodeka recording, and also the track _solitaire_ off Electric. This music is hauntingly beautiful, but with a very dark undertone. Love it 

In terms of the topic at hand, yes no doubt the music of today will be appreciated in the years to come. In years gone by I think most art was underappreciated at it's conception.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

aleazk said:


> ... and if someone disagree, will be beheaded!...


Rather be headless than wear a wig


----------



## DeepR

Whenever I take shot at modern music and hear an orchestra or any kind of smaller ensemble play a kind of textural, droning, "sci-fi" music, I can't help but think that it's another attempt to sound modern and innovative with the wrong instruments (the far more suitable and versatile instrument for this type of music being of course, the synthesizer).... It's like trying to make melodic music with sticks and rocks. To me, traditional accoustic "classical" instruments simply sound annoying when used this way. It sounds thin and dry. It leaves me cold and on earth. It doesn't take me "out there". 
Maybe I'd like it a bit better with a serious amount of reverb...


----------



## Crudblud

DeepR said:


> Whenever I take shot at modern music and hear an orchestra or any kind of smaller ensemble play a kind of textural, droning, "sci-fi" music, I can't help but think that it's another attempt to sound modern and innovative with the wrong instruments (the far more suitable and versatile instrument for this type of music being of course, the synthesizer).... It's like trying to make melodic music with sticks and rocks. To me, traditional accoustic "classical" instruments simply sound annoying when used this way. It sounds thin and dry. It leaves me cold and on earth. It doesn't take me "out there".
> Maybe I'd like it a bit better with a serious amount of reverb...


So, you don't like the music because it doesn't do what you wrongly assume it was meant to do?


----------



## KenOC

Crudblud said:


> So, you don't like the music because it doesn't do what you wrongly assume it was meant to do?


I will happily give any composer the benefit of a doubt (unless total incompetence is apparent) and assume that the music does "what it is meant to do." But most people are more interested in whether the music does what *they* want it to do -- provide an enjoyable and rewarding experience, for instance. If music can't meet the listener's needs, it really doesn't matter how successful it is on its own terms.


----------



## Ingélou

I am a *very conventional* person with *traditional tastes* in music, but *PetrB* :tiphat: has introduced me to a lot of new things (new to me) & recently recommended *Robert Moran's Requiem: Chant du Cygne*, & it's *fabulous*.

So if *even I* can enjoy this not-very-'melodic' piece, there is *hope for us all*; leading to the conclusion that *yes*, _modern music will eventually be accepted_, though by that time it will have acquired another label, presumably.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> If music can't meet the listener's needs, it really doesn't matter how successful it is on its own terms.


Contrariwise, if the listener can't accept that logically "new" means "unfamiliar" and hence "not at all good at" or even "not even trying to" accomplish(ing) something with your needs; if the listener is so stuck on today's "needs" (really, they are merely "wants") to the detriment of tomorrow's needs; if the listener thinks of the composer as a servant who is obliged to guess what your needs might be in order to have your majesty deign to notice her (or him); then that listener doesn't deserve to be counted at all.

Credibility. How about some credibility in the listener?

(N.B.-Ken has apparently forgotten that his hero, Herr Beethoven, was doubtless the first composer to compose music for its own terms, regardless of listeners' needs. And that music has somehow become successful at convincing an overwhelming number of listeners of the validity of its terms.

Music that meets listeners' needs right away from its first performances tends, does it not, to vanish rather as time passes.)


----------



## KenOC

some guy said:


> Credibility. How about some credibility in the listener?(N.B.-Ken has apparently forgotten that his hero, Herr Beethoven, was doubtless the first composer to compose music for its own terms, regardless of listeners' needs. And that music has somehow become successful at convincing an overwhelming number of listeners of the validity of its terms.
> 
> Music that meets listeners' needs right away from its first performances tends, does it not, to vanish rather as time passes.)


Of course, Beethoven was wildly popular and successful in his lifetime, generally acknowledged as the finest composer living from about the time he was 30. And he always read his reviews with an eagle eye!

As for "the listener", I suspect few have any interest in abstract arguments over the roles and duties of the composer and audience. They want something to listen to that they will enjoy, in whatever way. If a composer can't supply that, now or in the future, the rest doesn't count for much.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Of course, Beethoven was wildly popular and successful in his lifetime, generally acknowledged as the finest composer living from about the time he was 30. And he always read his reviews with an eagle eye!
> 
> As for "the listener", I suspect few have any interest in abstract arguments over the roles and duties of the composer and audience. They want something to listen to that they will enjoy, in whatever way. If a composer can't supply that, now or in the future, the rest doesn't count for much.


Conversely, if the audience is so sitting back on its ears as to only expect 'music which uses a syntax with which they are familiar' -- Beethoven, _*Syntax and Form Busting Composer par excellence,*_ would not have been as popular. I think many forget that in those earlier eras (one TC member has it as their favorite quote) _"People used to go to concerts to hear new music."_ They expected, sure, something similar, but were more open to the new than many a contemporary listener whose listening _habits_ are entrenched in the common practice period and possibly extending to some more mid 20th century modern music which still goes along the same old lines of a recognizable theme, bass line, etc.

This retrospect view of Mozart and Beethoven being populist composers who kept their ear to the ground to know what the public liked and wanted paints a picture of these composers musing, "I must be sure to learn exactly what will keep the punters happy." That view is both revisionist and absurd. That view could not include Beethoven muttering about one piece that he could wait fifty years if no one got it at the time, for example.

Though their music did have immediate appeal, Mozart said he thought many people found his music difficult to listen to (they did) and Beethoven began to lose some of that public in the last third of his career as his music became more and more abstract (and, yes, dissonant,) starting with the late quartets; even the very well received symphony no. 7 prompted Karl Maria von Weber to call it cacophony and thereby pronounced that Luigi was now ready to be hauled off to the madhouse (catalyzed, really, over a noodling chromatic bass line under a pedal point setting up the coda / finale of the first movement.)

No, no audience member counts any less, but some current attitudes that composers should write to whatever level an audience wants is very new-age, as self-serving and self-indulgent as the less populist composers are often accused of being. It implies the audiences are not in any way wishing to work at it, that two-way communication then being abandoned. Audiences did not, specifically, do so in the past, nor should they now. In the past the public really did expect something pretty new each time they went to a concert, not more of the same.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Conversely, if the audience is so sitting back on its ears as to only expect 'music which uses a syntax with which they are familiar'... No, no audience member counts any less, but some current attitudes that composers should write to whatever level an audience wants is very new-age, as self-serving and self-indulgent as the less populist composers are often accused of being. It implies the audiences are not in any way wishing to work at it, that two-way communication then being abandoned. Audiences did not, specifically, do so in the past, nor should they now. In the past the public really did expect something pretty new each time they went to a concert, not more of the same.


All I can say to that is that "blame the audience" arguments are not even imaginably useful. What audiences "should" like is a matter of opinion, and any such opinion is useless in the face of reality.


----------



## aleazk

DeepR said:


> Whenever I take shot at modern music and hear an orchestra or any kind of smaller ensemble play a kind of textural, droning, "sci-fi" music, I can't help but think that it's another attempt to sound modern and innovative with the wrong instruments (the far more suitable and versatile instrument for this type of music being of course, the synthesizer).... It's like trying to make melodic music with sticks and rocks. To me, traditional accoustic "classical" instruments simply sound annoying when used this way. It sounds thin and dry. It leaves me cold and on earth. It doesn't take me "out there".
> Maybe I'd like it a bit better with a serious amount of reverb...


Sorry, but this is the most nonsensical critique of modern music I read in a while.


----------



## aleazk

KenOC said:


> I will happily give any composer the benefit of a doubt (unless total incompetence is apparent) and assume that the music does "what it is meant to do." But most people are more interested in whether the music does what *they* want it to do -- provide an enjoyable and rewarding experience, for instance. If music can't meet the listener's needs, it really doesn't matter how successful it is on its own terms.


Success in its own terms is usually what makes a piece of music good... I don't look for "my needs" in music; instead, I look for the thorough realization of interesting ideas, ideas that stimulate my imagination.
The idea about music fulfilling the audience's expectations is ridiculous. So, where's the place for the imagination, then?. At least I listen to music for entering worlds that I would had never entered before. I want to be surprised. So, the audience knows it all, after all?. That's very arrogant and stupid...


----------



## KenOC

aleazk said:


> I don't look for "my needs" in music; instead, I look for the thorough realization of interesting ideas, ideas that stimulate my imagination.


I think you've just defined "an enjoyable and rewarding experience"!


----------



## aleazk

KenOC said:


> I think you've just defined "an enjoyable and rewarding experience"!


Of course, expecting that, _is_ expecting something in some sense. But, really, it's a very general kind of expectation, very different to what you say.


----------



## KenOC

aleazk said:


> Of course, expecting that, _is_ expecting something in some sense. But, really, it's a very general kind of expectation, very different to what you say.


I don't think I said anything about expectations (and it's nothing to do with expectations). But if music doesn't provide that "enjoyable and rewarding experience," then audiences won't like it. This seems such an obvious fact that I don't even know why it's being discussed. To blame this on shortcomings of the listeners, as I said, is not at all useful -- unless you have plans for mass surgery or drug treatment to "correct" the attitudes of those nekulturny audiences!

BTW I certainly agree that "success on its own terms" is essential, but it's only half of the formula.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> All I can say to that is that "blame the audience" arguments are not even imaginably useful. What audiences "should" like is a matter of opinion, and any such opinion is useless in the face of reality.


Ah yes, the marketplace and popular general demand. The paradigm of all the fine arts, of course.


----------



## aleazk

KenOC said:


> I don't think I said anything about expectations (and it's nothing to do with expectations). But if music doesn't provide that "enjoyable and rewarding experience," then audiences won't like it. This seems such an obvious fact that I don't even know why it's being discussed. To blame this on shortcomings of the listeners, as I said, is not at all useful -- unless you have plans for mass surgery or drug treatment to "correct" the attitudes of those nekulturny audiences!


Well, of course, that's tautological... what we are discussing is the populist message behind the comment "music should please audience in detriment of its complexity", and also the arrogancy behind that.
If this audience wants an easy entertainment, then a freak show, or something like that is more suitable for them, not classical music concerts. Classical music is art in one of its more refined forms, it's tacit that the audience is not there only for being entertained (in the common meaning of the word), but also challenged intellectually. Classical music is a complete artistic experience; emotion, imagination, intellect, all those are stimulated as well as challenged. If people have their boundaries set on stone, then they are not the adequate people for art appreciation...


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Ah yes, the marketplace and general demand. The paradigm of all the fine arts, of course.


Certainly the marketplace is the paradigm of classical music through much of its history! Bach and some other early composers -- not all! -- wrote to the stated requirements of their employment. After the baroque, composers wrote either as directed by their patrons (Haydn for most of his career) or for the marketplace in general (Mozart, later Haydn, and almost all of Beethoven and other 19th-century composers). Beethoven in particular was the King Kong of the music publishing industry, selling easily and at premium prices to a host of publishers (he boasted in a letter from the late 1790s, "I can sell anything I write!")

Now all of a sudden the "marketplace" is something dirty and beneath consideration? If the marketplace is not to be the arbitor, then who or what do you suggest?


----------



## KenOC

aleazk said:


> ...what we are discussing is the populist message behind the comment "music should please audience in detriment of its complexity", and also the arrogancy behind that.


You are very much putting words in my mouth. May I suggest that you read what I said rather than...well, whatever you're doing.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Ah yes, the marketplace and general demand. The paradigm of all the fine arts, of course.

And of course the ivory tower of academia has proven itself so much superior.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Certainly the marketplace is the paradigm of classical music through much of its history! Bach and some other early composers -- not all! -- wrote to the stated requirements of their employment. After the baroque, composers wrote either as directed by their patrons (Haydn for most of his career) or for the marketplace in general (Mozart, later Haydn, and almost all of Beethoven and other 19th-century composers). Beethoven in particular was the King Kong of the music publishing industry, selling easily and at premium prices to a host of publishers (he boasted in a letter from the late 1790s, "I can sell anything I write!")
> 
> Now all of a sudden the "marketplace" is something dirty and beneath consideration? If the marketplace is not to be the arbitor, then who or what do you suggest?


Sorry to burst the bubble, but those employers back then were often the aristocracy, a learned and cultivated elite, the cognoscenti if you will. They were not everyman with a college education who managed to achieve a great job and a salary of six figures a year saying, "I'm spending money, and I should have what I want as I want it."

Huge difference.


----------



## mmsbls

PetrB said:


> I think many forget that in those earlier eras (one TC member has it as their favorite quote) _"People used to go to concerts to hear new music."_ They expected, sure, something similar, but were more open to the new than many a contemporary listener whose listening _habits_ are entrenched in the common practice period and possibly extending to some more mid 20th century modern music which still goes along the same old lines of a recognizable theme, bass line, etc.


I think most people at TC accept the fact that a significant percentage of modern audiences (at least for large ensembles) are uncomfortable (or worse) with modern/contemporary music. I don't know what the actual percentage is, but I think many feel it's high enough to effectively prevent much "new" music from being performed. There have been many threads where people have argued whether this situation is primarily the audiences' fault or the composers' fault. I personally don't believe it is anyone's _fault_. I'm more interested in understanding what has happened and how we might change things.

I'm not sure I have ever seen any convincing description of how this situation has come to be. Why did audiences of the past "expect something pretty new each time they went to a concert" while present audiences expect/desire pretty much the same? What I'd really like to know is whether societal events have driven the change or has modern/contemporary music had any effect? I can easily imagine both playing a role, but I don't have a good sense of how either actually has effected audiences' desires.

Does anyone have a sense of how this change in audience expectations has evolved and what were the drivers?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Sorry to burst the bubble, but those employers back then were often the aristocracy, a learned and cultivated elite, the cognoscenti if you will. They were not everyman with a college education who managed to achieve a great job and a salary of six figures a year saying, "I'm spending money, and I should have what I want as I want it."

Huge difference.

So in other words the aristocrats were all cognoscenti... a learned and cultivated elite... and all the rest were irrelevant schleps. Or was the reality that the opinions of the aristocracy were the only ones that mattered because they were backed by the wealth that paid for the art?

By this standard it is the masses that matter today... because it is their dollar that bankrolls art.

Or do you have another (likely self-appointed) cognoscenti in mind?


----------



## PetrB

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Ah yes, the marketplace and general popular demand. The paradigm of all the fine arts, of course.
> 
> And of course the ivory tower of academia has proven itself so much superior.


Academia / cognoscenti: Picasso, Rauschenberg / John Adams, Ligeti

Marketplace of general popular demand: Thomas Kinkaide ("painter of light") / John Williams, Andrew Lloyd Weber


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Sorry to burst the bubble, but those employers back then were often the aristocracy, a learned and cultivated elite, the cognoscenti if you will.


True for the most part! Also quite conservative. For example: Prince Nikolaus Esterhazy II commissioned a mass (the one in C) from Beethoven for his wife's nameday because Haydn was out of the game. When he heard it, he pronounced it "unbearably ridiculous and detestable," adding "I am angry and mortified."

Sorry Prince, no moneyback guarantees in those days! 

So if we substitute the "cognoscenti" for the unwashed hoi polloi (that seems to be what you are suggesting), then who is the arbitor? You?


----------



## aleazk

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Sorry to burst the bubble, but those employers back then were often the aristocracy, a learned and cultivated elite, the cognoscenti if you will. They were not everyman with a college education who managed to achieve a great job and a salary of six figures a year saying, "I'm spending money, and I should have what I want as I want it."
> 
> Huge difference.
> 
> So in other words the aristocrats were all cognoscenti... a learned and cultivated elite... and all the rest were irrelevant schleps. Or was the reality that the opinions of the aristocracy were the only ones that mattered because they were backed by the wealth that paid for the art?
> 
> By this standard it is the masses that matter today... because it is their dollar that bankrolls art.
> 
> Or do you have another (likely self-appointed) cognoscenti in mind?


Oh, yes?. I think the audience overrates itself about supporting the artists. New pieces are often composed because of commissions from big foundations, academic centers, etc. All of them pay big quantities. Big money prizes are founded by excentric millionaires (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grawemeyer_Award_(Music_Composition)). So, as always, the big public is not the first benefactor of composers...


----------



## PetrB

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Sorry to burst the bubble, but those employers back then were often the aristocracy, a learned and cultivated elite, the cognoscenti if you will. They were not everyman with a college education who managed to achieve a great job and a salary of six figures a year saying, "I'm spending money, and I should have what I want as I want it."
> 
> Huge difference.
> 
> So in other words the aristocrats were all cognoscenti... a learned and cultivated elite... and all the rest were irrelevant schleps. Or was the reality that the opinions of the aristocracy were the only ones that mattered because they were backed by the wealth that paid for the art?
> 
> By this standard it is the masses that matter today... because it is their dollar that bankrolls art.
> 
> Or do you have another (likely self-appointed) cognoscenti in mind?


Then as now, there were less than irrelevent "schleps" as you so quaintly put it who may have had a great sense but no power to exercise that sense.

The likelihood that Donald Trump, Bill Gates, or any number of financially successful folk are not going to ever be known as the Alexey Razumovsky or Count(s) Esterhazy of our present time is staggeringly high.

Now, we have a lot of people with money who seem to think that the money itself automatically endows that sense upon the holder of that money.

I'm not about to appoint anybody, but would really think it more than right for anyone to try to unseat those who seem to think their consumption alone has granted them that appointment, or at least someone should run around shouting about those who think the job is inherent to having and spending money (i.e. a purchased ticket to the symphony entitles them to determine what is written and played), "The Emperor Has No Clothes."

So was it Peggy Guggenheim or the general masses who were supporting some of your early 20th century painter heroes? How long did it take for the hoi polloi and their collective cash to catch up -- half a century or more? I think you're a bit at odds with yourself, as a painter, and find it odd you don't see the direct parallel when it comes to the arena of art music.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Academia / cognoscenti: Picasso, Rauschenberg / John Adams, Ligeti
> 
> Marketplace of general popular demand: Thomas Kinkaide ("painter of light") / John Williams, Andrew Lloyd Weber


And the marketplace of "general popular demand" in Beethoven's day was Muller and Kauer. So what? BTW I'm not sure why you put Adams in "academia" given his general attitudes and the fact that he is almost solely supported by writing works that are seemingly popular with the audiences you denigrate.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Academia / cognoscenti: Picasso, Rauschenberg / John Adams, Ligeti

Marketplace of general popular demand: Thomas Kinkaide ("painter of light") / John Williams, Andrew Lloyd Weber

Academia / cognoscenti: Jeff Koons, Damien Hirst, Tracey Emin

Marketplace of general popular demand: Andrew Wyeth, Chuck Close, Andy Warhol

I reality there is no real "popular" market of any relevance when it comes to the visual arts for the simple reason that art remains far too expensive of a commodity. On the other hand... the so-called "Art Market"... your cognoscenti... has shattered into an array of smaller markets each with its own values and standards.

It may just be that the market for music is the same. There is no single monolithic cognoscenti with agreed upon tastes.

By the way... Picasso, Matisse, Van Gogh and the rest of the Modernists from the early 20th century are now largely embraced by your unwashed masses. What happened with Schoenberg, Webern, Ligeti, etc...?


----------



## brotagonist

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I reality there is no real "popular" market of any relevance when it comes to the visual arts for the simple reason that art remains far too expensive of a commodity.


Not directly, but huge oversized glossy art books, published by Abrams and many others, are highly collectible and may be considered the analogue of the CD.


----------



## Musician

I couldn't care less if 'modern music' will ever be accepted. Why should this bother anyone?
People will accept or reject all sort of things, why should this be even an issue.
I believe this question broils down in an inverted fashion to personal tastes. Some people actually 'love' modern music. Some people 'think' they love it, and some fool themselves into loving it. The only relevant question is why should any of this make a difference to any of us? to me it makes no difference at all if one loves, thinks or fools themselves into loving 'modern music'. 
The bottom line is that this so called interest on what other people would accept or reject when it comes to 'modern music' doesnt add or diminish anything in the universe. The sun will shine bright, and the moon too at night, the birds will continue singing, and the waters will flow as usual, the earth will continue to revolve and the stars would light up the skies, but nothing, and I stress nothing will change or happen if someone will reject or accept 'modern music'. 

My personal opinion, that the vast majority of the music that was written in the time of the Romantics, yes including Beethoven, Bach, Mendelssohn and Mozart are all pointless drivels and are a total waste of time if you ask me. I only listen to the more famous, and major compositions of these great musicians, but the rest? give me a break, I'll rather compose something myself or paint a painting then be busy listening to all of Mozart's 600 works. The guy had no life, why in the world did he compose so much music? Couldnt he do some other things like, read a book, or indulge in a deep conversation? same with Mendelssohn and Bach? endless compositions , majority totally pointless and added nothing to the world. Yes, its absolutely beautiful and nice to create beautiful music, but one has to also be busy doing other things in life besides worshipping music endlessly.

When was the last time you were busy listening to every single work by these composers? face it, you couldnt care less, there are far more important things in life then giving their music the centrality to dominate your life. Music is there to enjoy, and relax, and get inspired, period. Some people made an entire cult out of it. 

Music was always balanced in the lives of people in ancient times, they listened to it, enjoyed it and moved on with their daily activities. But to cult mentality of music began after the Greeks introduced the idea of 'art music' and that has created a race towards a movement that became central to peoples lives, when the correct balance is to keep music innocent and beautiful in the rite measure in peoples lives. 

So this race that began slow and gained momentum and reached pick levels with the introduction of modern music, and pop music, has created fan clubs of people who have nothing else in their lives besides been busy with music all day. And that in turn has created another race, and its called ' : who will compose the most idiotic music next'?

The winners of course are by no particular order, Justin Biber, Gaga, and of course the outrageous Cirus...so there you go here are the Titans of the 'Modern Music' of today , they have won the race and they have won the crowds and the fame, but they are all talentless.

So my advice to every composer here, take it easy, enjoy the music that you like, compose some nice melodies for yourself and others to enjoy, and move on, life is much bigger then all of this. Music is indeed important but its not all, and Beethoven, Mahler, Mendelssohn and Mozart who gave their lives for 'the cause' of music have gained nothing, for all is vanity. Beethoven was a Kook, deaf and paranoid, Mendelssohn overworked himself to death, Mozart was strange and odd and was buried poor in some nameless cemetery, Bach was forgotten for 100 years, and his later fame gained him nothing, what is important is to be a good and decent human being.

Best Wishes,

Saul


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

So was it Peggy Guggenheim or the general masses who were supporting some of your early 20th century painter heroes? How long did it take for the hoi polloi and their collective cash to catch up -- half a century or more? I think you're a bit at odds with yourself, as a painter, and find it odd you don't see the direct parallel when it comes to the arena of art music.

Unfortunately the traditional visual arts are still ruled by the super rich because of the labor intensive nature of the medium and the cost of materials. On the other hand, photography and film were populist media right from the start... and one can surely argue that they are by far the dominant visual art forms of the last century.

Peggy Guggenheim. Get real. She had money and a lot of time on her hands... but no real taste. Alfred Barr Supplied that. Or Marcel Duchamp. Or any of the other artists who she was ****ing. On the other hand we have Alfred Barr whose taste was mocked by academia and the critics of the day for purchasing such nonsense as Soutine and Modigliani.

So only the opinions of the cognoscenti matter in music? Or has classical music of today become largely irrelevant as the populace and the money goes elsewhere?


----------



## KenOC

Musician said:


> My personal opinion, that the vast majority of the music that was written in the time of the Romantics, yes including Beethoven, Bach, Mendelssohn and Mozart are all pointless drivels and are a total waste of time if you ask me.


Though I didn't (in fact) ask, nor am I aware of others asking, be assured that your comments will be given all due consideration.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Ultimately, what I am suggesting is that the opinions of the wealthy and academically educated cognoscenti is no more accurate in selecting the great art of our time than the larger audience. By the same token, what I like and suspect as being the best of the music of today is obviously not what everyone else likes. I take some offense at the notion (put forth by some) that their opinions are gospel truth while the opinions of those who disagree with them aren't even worth counting.

To return to the OP: "Will Modern Music Ever Be Accepted?" The obvious answer is yes. Yes, some of it is not only accepted but beloved today. Certainly some of it will be loved in the future. Why should it be so shocking to suggest that some of the music of today is mediocre... or crap... and it won't survive? Why should it surprise anyone that we are not all in agreement as to just what is "crap" and what is "brilliant" and "innovative"? And why should anyone get up in arms over the suggestion that neither the academia nor the masses... no one group and no one individual will deem what music survives?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Not directly, but huge oversized glossy art books, published by Abrams and many others, are highly collectible and may be considered the analogue of the CD.

To a very limited extent that may be true. Most art books are limited to an edition of several thousand at the most... with the exception of sure-fire sellers like Monet, Renoir, DaVinci, etc... especially if accompanying a major exhibition. Other than that, most big art books are published for libraries in academia... especially if we are speaking of contemporary artists.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Saul
....................................................


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> True for the most part! Also quite conservative. For example: Prince Nikolaus Esterhazy II commissioned a mass (the one in C) from Beethoven for his wife's nameday because Haydn was out of the game. When he heard it, he pronounced it "unbearably ridiculous and detestable," adding "I am angry and mortified."
> 
> Sorry Prince, no moneyback guarantees in those days!
> 
> So if we substitute the "cognoscenti" for the unwashed hoi polloi (that seems to be what you are suggesting), then who is the arbitor? You?


Sorry, though a professional musician, I am not now, nor ever have been an academic. I would never be invited to be an adjudicator for the Pulitzer Prize in Music, but then again, I doubt if anyone on TC could be on that panel 

There are only a tiny percent of TC members of a sort, a sort of which are legion as displayed on other fora -- those who would have John Williams film scores as the apex of the contemporary canon, Andrew Lloyd Weber Musicals and Les Miserables as opera and classical, or the score to The Legend of Zelda qualified as classical because it uses orchestral instruments and 'theory', who think Stravinsky destroyed music forever with the horrible noise of Le Sacre du Printemps, etc. ad nauseum.

Shall we name them the arbiters of taste?

How about those who go so far as John Adams but cannot / will not recognize Georg Friedrich Haas or Beat Furrer as wonderful contemporary composers, and instead would promote Joe Hisaishi's works?

To whom, a very pertinent question, indeed.


----------



## Ondine

PetrB said:


> [...]. Mozart said he thought many people found his music difficult to listen to (they did)[...].


Of course.

There are endless letters from his father urging Mozart to please the ears of the audience and the aristocrat of the time in order to have success. In the same way Mozart wrote back to each of those endless letters that it was really difficult for him to be forced to please disgusting society members of the time. His operas -mostly the 'buffa' ones- were intended to make fun of a society that did not care about his output. His operas were if analysed in modern terms, anthropological/sociological essays -read between the lines- about the aristocrat banality, the gossiping and the stupidity of them.

Interestingly too is that Mozart wrote most of his succeeding chamber oeuvre to his closest friends that were renowned 'virtuosos' of the time and that he knew well that were capable of accepting the challenge or could accept the challenge with enthusiasm; not for pleasing society.


----------



## Musician

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Saul...
> 
> AKA "Troll"..........................................


Are you saying that a person should not be given the freedom to say that he thinks that some people take music just way too seriously , and that the vast majority of the celebrated composers' music was totally pointless?


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Though I didn't (in fact) ask, nor am I aware of others asking, be assured that your comments will be given all due consideration.


Too right. another nano-second none of us will ever get back at the end of our lives. Next!


----------



## KenOC

Ondine said:


> There are endless letters from his father urging Mozart to please the ears of the audience and the aristocrat of the time in order to have success. In the same way Mozart wrote back to each of those endless letters that it was really difficult for him to be forced to please disgusting society members of the time.


Mozart also wrote in one letter to his father of his evident pride in writing music that appealed to both connoisseurs and the less refined together, though the latter might not know why they were so pleased. That viewpoint has always appealed to me.


----------



## Mahlerian

StlukesguildOhio said:


> By the way... Picasso, Matisse, Van Gogh and the rest of the Modernists from the early 20th century are now largely embraced by your unwashed masses. What happened with Schoenberg, Webern, Ligeti, etc...?


Listened to and cared about by more than you might expect, obviously. All of their works (even minor and early pieces) have been recorded and continue to be performed around the world. That doesn't happen to a forgotten composer or even one with only small niche interest, no matter how "accessible". The further we get from the early 20th century, the longer Schoenberg and Stravinsky continue to not die, and anti-modernists have to revise their calendars of "when a composer is truly accepted" by another decade or two...


----------



## PetrB

Ondine said:


> Of course.
> 
> There are endless letters from his father urging Mozart to please the ears of the audience and the aristocrat of the time in order to have success. In the same way Mozart wrote back to each of those endless letters that it was really difficult for him to be forced to please disgusting society members of the time. His operas -mostly the 'buffa' ones- were intended to make fun of a society that did not care about his output. His operas were if analysed in modern terms, anthropological/sociological essays -read between the lines- about the aristocrat banality, the gossiping and the stupidity of them.
> 
> Interestingly too is that Mozart wrote most of his succeeding chamber oeuvre to his closest friends that were renowned 'virtuosos' of the time and that he knew well that were capable of accepting the challenge or could accept the challenge with enthusiasm; not for pleasing society.


Bingo! .........................


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Are you saying that a person should not be given the freedom to say that he thinks that some people take music just way too seriously , and that the vast majority of the celebrated composers' music was totally pointless?

You are certainly free to post as you see fit. Others are free to question just why one would choose the name "musician" if music were not something of great importance to said individual. Your post is certainly "trollish" in the sense that you have clearly set about to do little more than provoke. I probably should have followed KenOC's more tactful approach and simply given your comments all due consideration.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Mozart also wrote in one letter to his father of his evident pride in writing music that appealed to both connoisseurs and the less refined together, though the latter might not know why they were so pleased. That viewpoint has always appealed to me.


That was specifically about the piano and wind quintet, K. 452. It just came out that way, of course, but he realized that he had made a work which would appeal to both factors, the general public not getting all the more refined and subtle writing, but that the work still had that strong surface appeal as well.


----------



## Musician

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Are you saying that a person should not be given the freedom to say that he thinks that some people take music just way too seriously , and that the vast majority of the celebrated composers' music was totally pointless?
> 
> You are certainly free to post as you see fit. Others are free to question just why one would choose the name "musician" if music were not something of great importance to said individual. Your post is certainly "trollish" in the sense that you have clearly set about to do little more than provoke. I probably should have followed KenOC's more tactful approach and simply given your comments all due consideration.


I'm a musician correct, but its not the most important thing in my life, its one of the most important, but not the most.
There is this taboo, that the 'Greats' cant be 'touched', well I'm not afraid to to say it clearly that almost all of Mahler's music is a pointless drivel, and that the vast majority of Bach's music is also pointless. Mendelssohn wrote so much like Mozart, huge prolific outpour but the quality was lost in the quantity. Had they did other things in their lives besides , live, sleep , think and eat music, then they would have composed less music but with more evident quality. But the culture they lived in idolized that lifestyle, and for me personally that lifestyle is not my cup of tea.

Make a test, ask anyone here when was the last time they have heard a Meyerbeer opera?

The dude wrote so much music, all of his life, and no one listens, isnt this a waste?


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> Listened to and cared about by more than you might expect, obviously. All of their works (even minor and early pieces) have been recorded and continue to be performed around the world. That doesn't happen to a forgotten composer or even one with only small niche interest, no matter how "accessible". The further we get from the early 20th century, the longer Schoenberg and Stravinsky continue to not die, and anti-modernists have to revise their calendars of "when a composer is truly accepted" by another decade or two...


I think this all boils down to what "accepted" means. I tend to use "accepted" to mean freely programmed in municipal orchestra concerts or on classical FM radio, but that's obviously a pretty limited definition.

In fact, these composers (and many others) certainly have their audiences and are available on CDs, downloads, Internet radio stations, Internet music services, and so forth. Given that, I guess I'm not really sure what we're jawing about here...except that some of the historical stuff has been interesting. And of course who pays for music and who decides what's treasure and what's trash is always an interesting question!


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> That was specifically about the piano and wind quintet, K. 452. It just came out that way, of course, but he realized that he had made a work which would appeal to both factors, the general public not getting all the more refined and subtle writing, but that the work still had that strong surface appeal as well.


Thanks for the reference! LvB certainly liked it and used it as inspiration for his Op. 16. But Mozart's is better.


----------



## Mahlerian

Musician said:


> There is this taboo, that the 'Greats' cant be 'touched', well I'm not afraid to to say it clearly that almost all of Mahler's music is a pointless drivel, and that the vast majority of Bach's music is also pointless. Mendelssohn wrote so much like Mozart, huge prolific outpour but the quality was lost in the quantity.


Aren't we glad that someone is here that can make such fine distinctions for us? The arbiter of quality has arrived, unafraid to announce THE TRUTH!



> Make a test, ask anyone here when was the last time they have heard a Meyerbeer opera?


Well, I'm trying to forget....


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> And the marketplace of "general popular demand" in Beethoven's day was Muller and Kauer. So what? BTW I'm not sure why you put Adams in "academia" given his general attitudes and the fact that he is almost solely supported by writing works that are seemingly popular with the audiences you denigrate.


Harvard University (BA, MA) while there he studied composition under Leon Kirchner, Roger Sessions, Earl Kim, and David Del Tredici, he conducted the Bach Society Orchestra and was a reserve clarinetist for both the Boston Symphony Orchestra and the Opera Company of Boston.

Taught at the San Francisco Conservatory of Music from 1972 until 1984. Through there, he was recommended to Edo de Waart, then conductor of the San Francisco Symphony, as a consultant on contemporary music, then his works were performed there (I am not certain, but he may have also gotten the post of composer-in-residence for one or two seasons as well.)

This is not exactly as if he learned and wrote independently, got his work done in local alternative hang-outs, then was invited to have his works performed by major ensembles 

Much of his complaints about academia and attitudes therein I agree with, though they seem to be more an American East Coast phenomenon than a West Coast event. I trained on the west coast and ran into no such stiffness or snootiness, all the teachers were published practicing composers, you could write however you could or wished, your teachers would do everything they could to help you in that direction, the only admonition that the work not be 'Frivolous."

He is welcome to his self-conceits and whatever posturing which goes along with being one of the people and a populist composer. To hear him talk, even I think loudly, "Elitist."  He has a more than legitimate grudge that while at Harvard, Kirchner told him flat out "not to bring me this sort of thing," meaning one of Adams tonal pieces -- so much of what he remembers and rails against is rather real in some of those east coast schools.

But his path, training and launch was academia and connections therefrom all the way, including being an academic at San Francisco Conservatory until that recommendation led him to Davies Hall as consultant to Maestro de Waart.


----------



## Musician

Mahlerian,

I think that I was crystal clear that that was purely my personal opinion.
If you like Mahler, then that's your choice and I respect that.


----------



## PetrB

Mahlerian said:


> Aren't we glad that someone is here that can make such fine distinctions for us? The arbiter of quality has arrived, unafraid to announce THE TRUTH!
> 
> Well, I'm trying to forget....


Some people are quite reliably good for a hearty laugh, no?


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Thanks for the reference! LvB certainly liked it and used it as inspiration for his Op. 16. But Mozart's is better.


I suppose it would start a flame war to say that I love and admire Luigi, and there is no disputing his towering genius, or the glorious and intelligent music, but I think Mozart is better, period 

[[ Flame war on TC! Film at eleven ]]


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> I think this all boils down to what "accepted" means. I tend to use "accepted" to mean freely programmed in municipal orchestra concerts or on classical FM radio, but that's obviously a pretty limited definition.
> 
> In fact, these composers (and many others) certainly have their audiences and are available on CDs, downloads, Internet radio stations, Internet music services, and so forth. Given that, I guess I'm not really sure what we're jawing about here...except that some of the historical stuff has been interesting. And of course who pays for music and who decides what's treasure and what's trash is always an interesting question!


Some of this very simply comes down to locale. If you are in New York, London, Major European Capital, San Francisco, and those places you might not think of so much, like Louisville, or Milwaukee (plucked those arbitrarily out of the air) you will see and hear more contemporary and earlier modern on the regular programming than, say, on the Dallas - Fort Worth Symphony's programming. I don't know if that has more to do with the local symphony board and their taste, or their underestimating what their community is up for, or if it reflects the general taste of the local populace, but there it is.


----------



## arpeggio

*When the music is well performed, audiences will accept modern music.*

The problem I have with these discussions is I have attended too many modern music concerts were the audience liked the music. For example the army band concert that performed Husa's _Prague 1968_. See: http://www.talkclassical.com/22354-concert-band-thread-3.html#post419405


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Harvard University (BA, MA) while there he studied composition under Leon Kirchner, Roger Sessions, Earl Kim, and David Del Tredici, he conducted the Bach Society Orchestra and was a reserve clarinetist for both the Boston Symphony Orchestra and the Opera Company of Boston. Taught at the San Francisco Conservatory of Music from 1972 until 1984....


Well "taught" in SF may be a bit generous. To hear Adams tell it, he was a bit of a dogsbody! In any event, coming out of academia doesn't mean you're an academic. Beethoven (yes, again, sorry) studied with Haydn, Albrechtsberger, and Salieri, which was as "academic" as you were going to get in those days, but I don't remember him being called an "academic" composer. Well, he *was* criticized as being too "learned" in his early days... 

I most decidedly do NOT consider Adams an "academic" composer, whereas Sessions, much as I like his music, reeks academia from beginning to end. I really think that Adams made a decision to reject the academic approach to music, though he still had to eat. His biography is fascinating reading in this respect.

BTW, although he was at the SF Conservatory until 1984, his substantial musical output began around 1975 and was most decidedly NOT academic, to these ears at least!


----------



## Musician

Now thinking about it, I think that that first long post of mine was one of the most hilarious posts I have ever made. It was a sort of a rant to diffuse the over seriousness that sometimes these discussions can reach...I didn't mean everything I said, of course. Mahler has some fine moments, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Bach and Mozart, and Mahler are great Composers without a question, but I only wish they composed less. Mozart sometimes sounds the same, 600 works? how about concentrating on quality instead of quantity? same goes for Mendelssohn...

I also don't think that the question of 'will we accept modern composers' is relevant or will make a major difference...


----------



## aleazk

KenOC said:


> BTW, although he was at the SF Conservatory until 1984, his substantial musical output began around 1975 and was most decidedly NOT academic, to these ears at least!


Adams' music is the clear product of an academic composer... the music is extremely well crafted in every academic sense you can think, he follows all the rules. The music fulfills all the concerns about form, direction, balance that an academic can have. I can tell you, Adams was/is a very good student and did all of his homework. Adams is the typical successful product of the academia. He may give the image of a "bad boy"... that's pure and deliberate construction. Adams is as academic as Carter, both were/are guided by concerns and ideas that belong to the academic realm.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Well "taught" in SF may be a bit generous. To hear Adams tell it, he was a bit of a dogsbody! In any event, coming out of academia doesn't mean you're an academic. Beethoven (yes, again, sorry) studied with Haydn, Albrechtsberger, and Salieri, which was as "academic" as you were going to get in those days, but I don't remember him being called an "academic" composer. Well, he *was* criticized as being too "learned" in his early days...
> 
> I most decidedly do NOT consider Adams an "academic" composer, whereas Sessions, much as I like his music, reeks academia from beginning to end. I really think that Adams made a decision to reject the academic approach to music, though he still had to eat. His biography is fascinating reading in this respect.
> 
> BTW, although he was at the SF Conservatory until 1984, his substantial musical output began around 1975 and was most decidedly NOT academic, to these ears at least!


Oh, THAT meaning of academic. I would have instantly understood exactly what meant if you had used the legitimate and time-honored phrase, *"petty academic."*

You don't even have to have trained at all to be that kind of person or artist. There is plenty of it around, including more than one or two pieces sitting in the composer's category of this site, written by autodidacts.

Certainly, "academic" in the sense you mean can be found within Academe, but it is a mentality, both slavish to formality and of (I think) a very limited scope of imagination which pretty much leaves any hint of truly "creative" out of the picture.

Certainly, those who went through the same grist mills of academe are part and parcel of the circle who have been commissioning Adams for works all along the way.

I think there is severe exaggeration about "those" academics so many cite and complain about, as to both numbers and influence. It is a very convenient and rather meaningless argument which has become a handy bugbear to haul out in an argument or discussion.

You can start out fresh and end up deathly dull academic -- like Hindemith, or Roger Sessions. It is a proclivity, individual, not a gene pool, an elitist cabal or institution.

(Of course, misery loves company, so those few there are tend to hang out together


----------



## KenOC

aleazk said:


> Adams' music is the clear product of an academic composer... the music is extremely well crafted in every academic sense you can think, he follows all the rules. The music fulfills all the concerns about form, direction, balance that an academic can have...


Well, definitions are slippery, but I think that you just called Ravel an "academic composer"!


----------



## aleazk

KenOC said:


> Well, definitions are slippery, but I think that you just called Ravel an "academic composer"!


And he was. I think you are confusing the things. You can compose something that may be not popular among some of the academia of the day, but may still be academic. The important thing is that the composer embraces the craft of what he learned in the academia. The academia changes and renews itself. But that does not mean that the basic principles are abandoned, quite the opposite.
I'm sure you would like to catalogue Ligeti as an academic composer. But, by your standard, he wouldn't be an academic composer, since he broke with the academia in the 50's in a very similar way Adams did it...


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Well, definitions are slippery, but I think that you just called Ravel an "academic composer"!


How about a little sand to keep these from sliding around?

*Academic*: = Academically trained and knows the craft and can practice it well.

*Petty Academic *= learned the craft, can exercise it well, but found they had more IQ than anything to really say, has little or no creative intuition upon which to rely, ergo slavish to form and formality, has to rely wholly upon intellect vs. intellect and creative intuition.

How's that?


----------



## KenOC

aleazk said:


> And he was. I think you are confusing the things. You can compose something that may be not popular among some of the academia of the day, but may still be academic. The important thing is that the composer embraces the craft of what he learned in the academia. The academia changes and renews itself. But that does not mean that the basic principles are abandoned, quite the opposite.


Now you've defined just about all the great composers of history as "academic." I'm not sure how that's very useful.


----------



## aleazk

KenOC said:


> Now you've defined just about all the great composers of history as "academic." I'm not sure how that's very useful.


Because classical music is mainly an academic thing, you know... for some reason it's called sometimes 'academic music'...


----------



## aleazk

PetrB said:


> How about a little sand to keep these from sliding around?
> 
> *Academic*: = Academically trained and knows the craft and can practice it well.
> 
> *Petty Academic *= learned the craft, can exercise it well, but found they had more IQ than anything to really say, has little or no creative intuition upon which to rely, ergo slavish to form and formality, has to rely wholly upon intellect vs. intellect and creative intuition.
> 
> How's that?


What about:

Academic: what I don't like, can't understand........................................... omg, I'm going to say it..... ATONAL music!.
Good music: a good tune my little brain can understand and untrained ear can hum.


----------



## PetrB

I swear there is some extreme social posturing, all sorts of college educated folk are working very hard, American style, to appear folksy, and part of that is a traditional American distrust of anything vaguely hinting at "intellectual."

Fact is, just about every classical composer has been some sort of formidable intellect, was academically trained, and writes FORMAL music, not cabaret, musicals, other genres of pop music.

The American population, in great numbers, needs to get over this fact while at the same time they need to collectively stop crying "Elitist" at the drop of a hat every other time specialization and all the training and skills the craft involves is mentioned. That hue and cry is so far past the dulled ear hearing the little boy cry "Wolf" all the time that it is less than any kind of cute or amusing.

And this hue and cry from a crowd who themselves, being just three percent of the population who consume an entirely artificial construct and feel it as worthwhile -- as if they are too not already in that category of "elitist."

Go figure, and while at it, give me a break


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Fact is, just about every classical composer has been some sort of formidable intellect, was academically trained, and writes FORMAL music, not cabaret, musicals, other genres of pop music.


So true! Classical music is a formidably complex and difficult craft.



PetrB said:


> The American population, in great numbers, needs to get over this fact while at the same time they need to collectively stop crying "Elitist" at the drop of a hat....


Well, it's hard for me to blame that unwashed public for wanting music they can enjoy. You may blame them, I won't.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> So true! Classical music is a formidably complex and difficult craft.
> 
> Well, it's hard for me to blame that unwashed public for wanting music they can enjoy. You may blame them, I won't.


That 97% do have all the music they can and want to enjoy, pop music, light classical, a movement of a baroque piece on the lite classical FM in the car on the way to work, music "to relax to" -- in veritable planetary sized chunks.

The other 3%, of course, bathe regularly, and if they really do not find anything to their liking post 1900, 1950, or 1850 for that matter, there are still planetary chunks of great classical music for them to happily consume and investigate the rest of their lives without running short, let alone out, of new pieces to enjoy.

I can not and do not feel sorry for those who feel left out because they can not or will not make an effort or give more time to the less familiar, and if the newer and less familiar is not for them anyway, why would anyone need to feel any sorrow for them on that count?

Contemporary music at present includes such a myriad of styles, tonal and non-tonal realms, formalist, other forms, etc. that no one need be "left behind."

Anyway, no one, absolutely no one, "gets everything."

Add: Of course if you feel there is some desperately unfilled need, and a gap, you could drop everything you do at present, do an intensive training, and write that "enjoyable music" you seem to somehow posture as being in such extreme short supply, or find the composers who do write that same music you can enjoy, and write a check, give them a commission.

You are part of the problem if you are not part of the solution, or however that goes


----------



## aleazk

KenOC said:


> Well, it's hard for me to blame that unwashed public for wanting music they can enjoy. You may blame them, I won't.


Again. What I cannot understand; if they want an easy entertainment, why they come to this complex world of classical music in the first place?. They are in the wrong place... Please, Mr. Einstein, can you make a theory which is more easy to understand for us?, we want to have our physics degrees, but we are lazy for learning all that weird math stuff... 
If the new rich wants the social validation of being a connoisseur of classical music, he will have to make an effort instead of all those demands. The fact is that, in the world of artistic creation, nobody cares for them, and their unwashed demands... even less their bribes in the form of purchased concert tickets.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> That 97% do have all the music they can and want to enjoy, pop music, light classical, a movement of a baroque piece on the lite classical FM in the car on the way to work, music "to relax to" -- in veritable planetary sized chunks.


Your comment is a symptom perhaps of why "classical music" is losing any relevance in the Western world. You echo nicely Babbitt's comments: "...if this music is not supported, the whistling repertory of the man in the street will be little affected, the concert-going activity of the conspicuous consumer of musical culture will be little disturbed."


----------



## Garlic

KenOC said:


> Your contempt for the broader musical public is truly impressive. A symptom perhaps of why "classical music" is losing any relevance in the Western world. You echo nicely Babbitt's comments: "...if this music is not supported, the whistling repertory of the man in the street will be little affected, the concert-going activity of the conspicuous consumer of musical culture will be little disturbed."


I don't see contempt in either PetrB's post or the Babbitt quote.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Your contempt for the broader musical public is truly impressive. A symptom perhaps of why "classical music" is losing any relevance in the Western world. You echo nicely Babbitt's comments: "...if this music is not supported, the whistling repertory of the man in the street will be little affected, the concert-going activity of the conspicuous consumer of musical culture will be little disturbed."


[Babbitt is dead. I would hate to see you preoccupied with that essay, written decades ago, for the rest of your life. Besides, he was right, the whistling habit of the man on the street is not at all disturbed by either Chopin, John Adams, or Georg Freiderich Haas, and the conspicuous consumers of classical music remain relatively or wholly undisturbed as well (as Sargeant Friday used to say, "Just the facts, Ma'am.")]

The "contempt" -- your word, standing elsewhere but since edited, I see -- I have (not speaking for Aleazk) is more for the truly unimportant whiners (including their collective few dollars) who are completely unwilling to meet anything requiring much effort on their part even remotely halfway.

They are a tiny of the tiniest minority who are schrei-ing a demand that artists "write for them." -- or at least it seems to me you are speaking 'for them.' and saying they are.

They are the absolute shallowest and flakiest of the lot. _Any and all new-age leave no one behind Pollyanna rationales in the world about "coaxing them into the fold they may later develop more advanced tastes" is seriously off the mark and not worth a moment's time to even consider_, and on a sheer point of "it is just business," they are a waste of time cultivating as clients - they will not pay off in return custom, ever. Name one practical business model where you gain only one client out of hundreds courted, and then by catering to that one, you end up losing up to fifty percent of your already established regulars. (Of course you can't, because that 'model' makes no sense at all.)

It is that despicable dynamic of one who screams, "I am spending money and you should jump to my whim."

Look at a lot of the posts on this site. Noobs and those along the way to educating themselves, exploring, making a real effort to learn about and find more and more they like, whether it is going back to the Renaissance or to the early 20th century. These are the ones who truly appreciate what they consume, and some may have a limit or draw the line at 1900, 1950, wherever, they try to look into "other" music and simply find it is not for them. The majority of those are not whining that composers are no longer writing songs of love for them, nor nearly demanding / dictating that today's composer make more music they fine "enjoyable."

I find the whole plaint near disingenuous, a tiny minority trying to appear like it is a majority with some voice of real and effective authority.

Like I said, collectively, if it is such a tremendous majority, their collective dollars could commission works to their taste, problem solved. The marketplace is working, and clearly it is also supporting some of that very non-enjoyable music those few are whining about, while also supporting a lot they can enjoy.

The complaint is like someone wanting to take over the entire room or hall, when paid or not, they are a voluntary guest, not the host, That is just tremendously rude, and a highly privileged and spoiled brat entitled sort of attitude. Paid or comped, the entire program that evening is -- surprise surprise, not all about them and their taste only.

I can not count how many concerts I've attended where one of the usual three pieces programmed was nothing I wanted to hear; yet I've heard more lately, and seen posts on TC, of loudly exclaimed outrage that the concert goer was _subjected_ to such garbage, had to sit through it _[there is a foyer / lobby, folks, you can sit that one out]_, felt horribly cheated out of one-third the price of their seat, etc. This is utterly infantile, and I cannot believe that anyone, guy on the street to symphony board member, would give a moment's attention to such a complaint.

Who wants to capitulate to a child throwing a hissy fit, or more importantly, _should_ one capitulate to a child throwing a hissy-fit?


----------



## isridgewell

I have to quote (somewhat inaccurately from memory!), Peter Warlock/Phillip Hestletine from "The Sackbut"

"There is no such thing as "new or modern" music, just good music and bad music. Dates, periods and styles are of interest only to the historian or scholar. Some works composed only yesterday already sound more lifeless and old fashioned than music written over three centuries ago. All old music was new once. Good music is ageless, regardless of style or fashion."


----------



## aleazk

Petr, you are a pitiless destroyer of impostures!.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I'm listening to "Ariel's Music" by Brett Dean. It was composed in 1995. I like it very much. Brett Dean is an Australian composer born in 1961 and is very much accepted and liked in this country of largely conservative taste. His opera "Bliss" was a huge success among audiences when it was premiered in 2010. His music is atonal.


----------



## IBMchicago

I just wish Mozart had further developed his brief 12-tone passage in the 4th movement of the 40th. It would have helped me appreciate 12-tone much more had the master of the finest musical aesthetics eased me into this.


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> Your comment is a symptom perhaps of why "classical music" is losing any relevance in the Western world. You echo nicely Babbitt's comments: "...if this music is not supported, the whistling repertory of the man in the street will be little affected, the concert-going activity of the conspicuous consumer of musical culture will be little disturbed."


Why go to Babbitt for complaints about the rift between composers and the public? Go to Adams:


----------



## brotagonist

This discussion has whetted my appetite for exploring new (to me) composers. Adams, Sessions... and from the _Greatest Living Composer_ thread of the weekend, Simpson and Nørgård, both of whom I already YouTubed. It always astonishes me to learn that some of these composers have been so long established and remain unknown.


----------



## Blancrocher

brotagonist said:


> This discussion has whetted my appetite for exploring new (to me) composers. Adams, Sessions... and from the _Greatest Living Composer_ thread of the weekend, Simpson and Nørgård, both of whom I already YouTubed. It always astonishes me to learn that some of these composers have been so long established and remain unknown.


That's because YouTube wasn't around that whole time. What a game-changer!


----------



## quack

Blancrocher said:


> That's because YouTube wasn't around that whole time. What a game-changer!


This is very true and makes the whole idea of "acceptance" even more confusing. People often weren't so accepting as they didn't want to spend their money on unheard modern works, buying another Beethoven would be a safe bet. Now if you can sample such a huge range, not only new music but "new" older music, also-rans of the classical era, acceptance is broadening.

I see it as a double edged sword though. If people are hearing and listening to a wider range of musics at home then when they go out to concerts I would think they are more likely to want the old warhorses. If you have a readily available library of obscure composers then an outing to a symphony would be something special so you'd want to listen to a classic.


----------



## Blancrocher

quack said:


> I see it as a double edged sword though. If people are hearing and listening to a wider range of musics at home then when they go out to concerts I would think they are more likely to want the old warhorses. If you have a readily available library of obscure composers then an outing to a symphony would be something special so you'd want to listen to a classic.


It's always hard to say. Similar things were said about radio, records, cds, and basically any other technology that made it easier to listen to music at home. My own sense--and it's really just a hunch--is that familiarity breeds interest, and a greater likelihood of people going out to try new things. With the decline of elementary music education, things like streaming sites are probably essential. Of course, empirical assessments are probably impossible since there are too many societal factors at play when it comes to how many people listen to what kinds of music.

By the way, I'd also mention the good work done by influential blogs by Alex Ross, Tom Service, etc. Seeing knowledgeable people talk respectfully about Mozart, Stockhausen, Wagner, and Puccini (sometimes in that order!) with choice audio links is almost certainly having an affect on musical taste and appreciation, at least within the small ranks of people interested in classical music.


----------



## Cheyenne

There are two obstacles. The first is the disappearance of classical music from the general audience's listening habits altogether. The man who listens to classical FM when he drives to work is already a rare specimen in many parts of the world, let a lone the man who puts up a Beethoven symphony after his labors. Many listeners could easily get into classical music, at the surface if nowhere else, if only they knew about it more, and were not held back by their prejudice. Those who love the sounds orchestras create could love much of classical music, if only in high-light reels, but many of those are entirely ignorant of it (think of the soundtrack listeners that love film and video game music). It is not, I dare say, all their fault, and the only evidence I have is myself - the journey to find classical music to begin with is a difficult one, and social acceptance, however melodramatic that sounds, is not easy to attain. To find it at all is to go far beyond the surface, and there is little help along the way. If I had not found this forum I would probably have just given up by now.

If classical music once again finds itself fulfilling the desire of the crowd (which, as I said, it potentially could, in its present form), there is the problem of judgement and the problem of knowledge. As PetrB said, it is ridiculous for anybody to state that all 20th century classical music is not to his 'taste', for there is so much right now, of different styles and modes and languages, that there truly is something for everyone, if only he looked, and if only he knew _how_ to look. Popular music, however, works very differently from classical music in its complete form (that is to say, not in its 'classical fm' or 'quotation listening' form ); and I suspect many people who profess to love classical music in reality love only a certain form of it. Adorno said it was the understanding the underlying structure of a work - rather than its individual components, the 'catchy tunes' - that was missing in the mind of so many listeners; and that pop music, by discarding a reliance on structure, further distanced the public from classical music*. If the other mode of listening can be tapped into, I am certain, like him, that a great deal of people could ultimately understand 20th century music:

_If the disposition of work and leisure time were different than [it is] today; if people, independent of cultural privilege, could spend their leisure time occupied substantively and extensively with artistic matters; if a demonically precise mechanism of advertising and anesthetization did not not, in every instant of their leisure, prevent them from occupying themselves with actual art - then in principle, the consciousness of consumers could be changed in such a way that they could understand new art without the new art having to be dumbed down on that account. The argument that the public wants kitsch is dishonest; the argument that it needs relaxation, at least incomplete. The need for the bad, illusory, deceptive things is generated by the all-powerful propaganda apparatus; but the need for relaxation, to the extent that it really - and today with justification - exists, is itself also a product of a circumstance that absorbs people's strength and time in such a fashion that they are no longer capable of other things.#_

Many people will perhaps find the tone I took a little patronizing and elitist. Allow me to comment further on the divide between the public and classical music in general. The aesthetic relativism which many people cling to when I criticize a work of art is entirely irrelevant, so the tone doesn't even need to be condescending. It is not a battle between two men who have studied a symphony and a metal-album and have independently decided that they like only one of them, and criticize the other for not liking the same thing. The 'battles' I have witnessed all my life are those where one person criticizes another for not liking the same pop album, while both persons are entirely ignorant of either metal or classical music - have not, in fact, listened to one complete song or piece composed in either 'form'. We cannot even seriously debate the quality of any kind of music when nobody knows anything about it: and is it not a shame that so many people are ignoring years upon years upon years of art? If modern music is to be appreciated widely, should not the appreciation of history become widespread first? That is why I always repeat: it is not (yet) a matter of taste, but of knowledge.

Furthermore, I don't 'like' mass-culture - why should that be so strange to say? People are scared of articulating it, even if they truly believe it, because it is supposedly an elitist thought, and shows 'contempt for the masses'. But no! - it does not show contempt for the masses - for any of the individuals that make up the masses of men - but for the combined effect of their _collective_ habits and predilections. And the combined effect of that is, foremost, the ignoring of almost all entertainment from the past, and a shying away from anything which is a little more difficult to understand. I don't understand why it is this way - perhaps it is indeed the 'propaganda-machine'? I merely wish it was not so. However, to ask what average Joe will think of Webern or Schönberg is unnecessary now: as it currently is, he'll never even hear them. Let us fix that first - the second will follow naturally, I think.

*: I'm intepreting and simplifying from memory. Sorry if it is off the mark 
#: Theodor W. Adorno: _Why Is the New Art So Hard to Understand?_


----------



## arpeggio

*Kevin Puts*

Oh! No! What are we to do? A young forty-one year old American composer who teaches at Peabody is composing accessible music. This is undermining everything I have been reading about contemporary music in the _Wall Street Journal_.

Maybe if some of the self-proclaimed experts on music spent more time listening to contemporary music instead of reading about it they might learn something.

You Tube of Puts' _Piano Concerto_. (This is no more of a stain to the ear than Prokofiev):






Those backward Australians. To show their disapproval of modern music they applaud.

I know that I will never convince people, who live in this fantasy that the musical world of the 19th century is so superior to the musical world of today, that the world they dream about really never existed.

Of course they should realized that they will never convince me to denounce all of the 20th century or contemporary music that I enjoy listening too along with Beethoven.

I feel sorry for people who can only listen to great music. There is an awful lot of great music out there that is not great.


----------



## brotagonist

arpeggio said:


> There is an awful lot of great music out there that is not great.


Very true. Luckily, we have YouTube. It is simply not possible to purchase it all and we would have to live for thousands of years to hear it all.


----------



## LordBlackudder

classical is for the pompous, high classes the oddballs and your gran. it will become less and less desirable. the whole genre will become increasingly distant and removed from society.

as music taste is influenced by environment the severe lack of classical music in society will mean no one will appreciate the modern composers no matter how good.


----------



## brotagonist

LordBlackudder said:


> as music taste is influenced by environment the severe lack of classical music in society will mean no one will appreciate the modern composers no matter how good.


Some people don't take the time to explore for themselves. It comes down to how much you actually like music, whether music serves your needs and how satisfied you are with the music you're getting from the media.

Is "music taste... influenced by environment..."? For some, this is no doubt true. However, I hear rap and hiphop blasting out of cars and apartments, I hear pithy pop music in stores... and I still dislike them as much as ever. I make my own environment, shaped by interests that guide me to various types of music and away from other types. The external environment (media, fashion, celebritization...) doesn't exert much influence on me. I am more likely to become curious after reading a qualified book about music or select posts on TC. These influence the environment I create for myself.


----------



## ArtMusic

Will modern music ever become accepted? Accepted as much as Mozart's music in our life time - I would say definitely not, no way near it. Accepted by smaller group of listeners compared with the larger body of listeners - it already is.


----------



## PetrB

IBMchicago said:


> I just wish Mozart had further developed his brief 12-tone passage in the 4th movement of the 40th. It would have helped me appreciate 12-tone much more had the master of the finest musical aesthetics eased me into this.


The only thing that brilliant gesture shares in common with 12 tone serial procedures is it contains the 12 chromatic pitches 

What it does do -- rapidly, breathlessly you could say, by way of a sequence of intervals, _imply_ a series of harmonic changes (which I think dazzling) and disrupts the listeners ear, acting like a palette cleanser served between courses, and what is then heard next 'settles' the listener back down. It is a serious sequence which escapes the tonal landscape which went before it, disorients, the thematic material after returns you to land, feet on the ground.

Darius Milhaud pointed out a sequence of 12 pitches to Robert Moran, I believe from Don Giovanni, which Moran used as the bass line in the last movement of his Requiem; Chant du Cygne, that work too, not serial.

That passage in K.550, even when you have heard it before and know it is coming, is still breathtakingly astonishing (Hats off, ladies and gentleman, to a true genius) but has nothing to do with 'serial music.'


----------



## PetrB

arpeggio said:


> oh! No! What are we to do? A young forty-one year old american composer who teaches at peabody is composing accessible music. This is undermining everything i have been reading about contemporary music in the _wall street journal_.
> 
> Maybe if some of the self-proclaimed experts on music spent more time listening to contemporary music instead of reading about it they might learn something.
> 
> You tube of puts' _piano concerto_. (this is no more of a stain to the ear than prokofiev):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> those backward Australians. To show their disapproval of modern music they applaud.
> 
> I know that i will never convince people, who live in this fantasy that the musical world of the 19th century is so superior to the musical world of today, that the world they dream about really never existed.
> 
> Of course they should realized that they will never convince me to denounce all of the 20th century or contemporary music that i enjoy listening too along with Beethoven.
> 
> I feel sorry for people who can only listen to great music. There is an awful lot of great music out there that is not great.


yay! -- FUN!!! / Nice / Engaging / Musical, etc. Thanks for the link.
Some mentalities, I think, whether excluding or including, just have to limit the scope of what they perceive to be "legitimate" forms of expression. The more their losses, I say.

BY THE WAY -- _zOMG! A female conductor. Tsk, tsk, what is the world coming to? Next thing you know, you wait and see, they'll be allowed to drive cars, fly planes, vote, and do open heart surgery. Mark my words!_


----------



## PetrB

LordBlackudder said:


> classical is for the pompous, high classes the oddballs and your gran. it will become less and less desirable. the whole genre will become increasingly distant and removed from society.
> 
> as music taste is influenced by environment the severe lack of classical music in society will mean no one will appreciate the modern composers no matter how good.


Somehow, I don't think there are enough of those thirty-somethings who still live in their parent's basement, jobless, sitting around in sweatpants and shirts while playing video games, for them to make any dent in a major sociological shift of mores or aesthetics, at least not any time soon.


----------



## Pennypacker

PetrB said:


> It is that despicable dynamic of one who screams, "I am spending money and you should jump to my whim."
> 
> ...a tiny minority trying to appear like it is a majority with some voice of real and effective authority.
> 
> ...That is just tremendously rude, and a highly privileged and spoiled brat entitled sort of attitude.


You know Petr, you could be a great rapper!


----------



## PetrB

Pennypacker said:


> You know Petr, you could be a great rapper!


Love to talk, love to read, love music, hate spoken word w/ music, classical or other genres. Wouldn't work, and besides, I'm not at all big on couplet rhyming either, stopped me dead in my tracks when trying to read Canterbury tales


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I swear there is some extreme social posturing, all sorts of college educated folk are working very hard, American style, to appear folksy, and part of that is a traditional American distrust of anything vaguely hinting at "intellectual."

There is a real degree of truth to this. I found myself absolutely repulsed that a politician born with the proverbial "silver spoon in hand" could dismiss another politician... a black man who had worked his way up, eventually graduating near the top of his class from an Ivy League school as an "elitist" and not a good old "real" American. This aspect of American culture dates back to the founding of our nation. Many in Congress shortly after the Revolutionary War, we might remember, were dead set against purchasing Thomas Jefferson's personal library (the foundation of the Library of Congress)... to many foreign and "elitist" books, you understand.

I think the situation in the Visual Arts is somewhat different from what you are speaking of here with regard to music. There is little effort to appear "folksy". What we have is a bias at the higher level of academia (in many... not all... schools) which stresses ideas and theories over practice. In the late 19th century artists studied at art academies which stressed the hands-on practice of making art objects. Very few of the Modernists... well into the 20th century... had university degrees. On the other hand, Modernist teachers such as those at the Bauhaus, Hans Hoffmann and Willem DeKooning (during his stint at Black Mountain) all stressed mastering the traditional foundations of drawing, painting, design, color theory, etc...

Following the apparent triumph of Abstraction supported by critics such as Greenberg, Rosenberg, etc... many lesser artists/educators took the position that figurative art was dead. By the 1960s and 1970s, as Pop Art and Photorealism burst upon the scene and the shift turned in favor of figurative art, few university art faculty had the ability to really teach the traditional skills of drawing and painting. This became painfully obvious in the work of many artists of the 1980s whose drawing skills were atrocious. But the shift away from the focus on traditional studio skills was ideal for academia. The stress upon ideas and concepts and theories... words as opposed to the actual physical creation of art... was more in line with academia... which logically stresses ideas and words. Teaching ideas and concepts and theories is also far less expensive. No need for highly skilled faculty, studio space, expensive materials, etc...

A shift began to take place with the opening of the Musee D'Orsay. The grand opening of the museum to house late 19th century art (formally housed in far more limited confines at the Louvre) was accompanied by a grand coffee table book by Robert Rosenblum. The increased exhibition space of the Musee D'Orsay allowed for exhibition of a great deal of art once relegated to deep storage at the Louvre. This resulted in a degree of re-evaluation of the art... and the myth of Modernism. Artists long vilified, such as William-Adolphe Bouguereau were recognized as really not half-bad... although admittedly nowhere near as innovative as Manet of Degas.
This re-evaluation resulted in reactionary movements such as the ARC:

http://www.artrenewal.org/

But it also resulted in the desire by many artists who were not prepared to dismiss the achievements of Modernism for a more traditional arts education. One outstanding result is the New York Academy of Art founded in part by money from the estate of Andy Warhol. This and other figurative art schools rejected the notion that academia should set itself up as the arbiter of the _avant-garde_ (Academic Avant Garde?).

Beyond this there has been an increasing popularity of apprenticeships and Old Master-style ateliers. Many students are dissatisfied with the idea of shelling out what amounts to the price of a good sized home to earn a degree in staring at one's navel and thinking deep thoughts. Not only are the traditional skills in art more marketable, but it is also obvious that the more abilities one has, the more possibilities are open to one. Mastering these traditional skills in no way limited the great Modernists of the late 19th and 20th centuries. Apprenticeships also offer a realistic view of the day to day life of making art... as well as the business side.

To this we might add the increasing interest in what might be termed "lowbrow" art or populist art: posters, comic books, Hollywood celebrities, rock stars, pornography... and the art building upon these sources. A lot of this stuff is pure kitsch... but there are moments of real brilliance. There is also the recognition that being open to such populist art is what Picasso alluded to when he suggested that art built solely upon "High" art quickly stagnates... ossifies... and becomes sterile and academic. Picasso went on to suggest that the greatest art was produced in the same manner by which the Renaissance aristocrats produced their heirs: through a merger of the "high" and the "low".

And this hue and cry from a crowd who themselves, being just three percent of the population who consume an entirely artificial construct and feel it as worthwhile -- as if they are too not already in that category of "elitist."

Go figure, and while at it, give me a break 

Yes... we are all "elitists" here... but even within the ranks of elitists there is no consensus... and there are those who scramble to be seen as "elitists" among the elitists.

I always liked Bill Watterson's (Of Calvin and Hobbes fame) take on the whole of the art world:

_People always make the mistake of thinking art is created for them. But really, art is a private language for sophisticates to congratulate themselves on their superiority to the rest of the world. As my artist's statement explains, my work is utterly incomprehensible and is therefore full of deep significance._


----------



## PetrB

Pennypacker said:


> You know Petr, you could be a great rapper!


Love to talk, love to read, love music: _hate the spoken word w/ music_, classical or other genres.

It wouldn't work, and besides, I'm not at all big on couplet rhyming either, stopped me dead in my tracks when trying to read Canterbury tales -- it is an interminable stream of rhymed couplets


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Oh! No! What are we to do? A young forty-one year old American composer who teaches at Peabody is composing accessible music. This is undermining everything I have been reading about contemporary music in the Wall Street Journal.

I don't think anyone has suggested that the whole of contemporary music is garbage. I like a good deal myself:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio




----------



## StlukesguildOhio




----------



## Pennypacker

PetrB said:


> Love to talk, love to read, love music, hate spoken word w/ music, classical or other genres. Wouldn't work, and besides, I'm not at all big on couplet rhyming either, stopped me dead in my tracks when trying to read Canterbury tales


Well I guess accidental rap in replies is good enough. And I'm learning so many new words just by reading your comments. Please everyone, keep the whining, myths and cliches coming so Petr can bash them.


----------



## Mahlerian

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I don't think anyone has suggested that the whole of contemporary music is garbage.


_*Are you kidding????*_

This sentiment is expressed in some form or another so incredibly often that I cannot believe you have not heard it. Maybe not in this discussion, perhaps. The fact that it comes out of ignorance of what's available rather than a conscious rejection of all contemporary music is exactly the point.


----------



## arpeggio

*Thanks*



Mahlerian said:


> _*Are you kidding????*_
> 
> This sentiment is expressed in some form or another so incredibly often that I cannot believe you have not heard it. Maybe not in this discussion, perhaps. The fact that it comes out of ignorance of what's available rather than a conscious rejection of all contemporary music is exactly the point.


Thanks Mahlerian.

When I read StlukesguildOhio's post I thought I screwed up again. I do not think that the post was directed at him. I thought some of his responses were actually quite good. I thought I was making the point that some members here and elsewhere actually believe that contemporary music is inferior to anything composed before 1911.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

_*Are you kidding????*_

This sentiment is expressed in some form or another so incredibly often that I cannot believe you have not heard it. Maybe not in this discussion, perhaps. The fact that it comes out of ignorance of what's available rather than a conscious rejection of all contemporary music is exactly the point.

OK... If I am to be honest and agree that you have a point... there are those who have suggested that the whole of music of the last 100 years is an anomaly that has produced nothing of merit, might you be just as honest and admit that there are more than a few supporters of Modernism that have likely turned off more than a few of those who might have been interested in delving deeper through their snide and condescending attitudes. Rather than dismissing the opinions and tastes of those who are not ready (and may never be ready) for the more avant-garde or esoteric works of Modern/Contemporary music, might it not be far better to simply offer some suggestions of what you do like... and why:

http://www.talkclassical.com/27380-bear-witness-our-love.html

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


----------



## Mahlerian

StlukesguildOhio said:


> OK... If I am to be honest and agree that you have a point... there are those who have suggested that the whole of music of the last 100 years is an anomaly that has produced nothing of merit, might you be just as honest and admit that there are more than a few supporters of Modernism that have likely turned off more than a few of those who might have been interested in delving deeper through their snide and condescending attitudes.


I agree. The polemics written by, say, Boulez and Adorno, defining progressive and modern and art with as narrow a brush as possible, have served only to re-enforce the notion that the music they defend is as ill-spirited and nasty as the ones who defend it.

Just as many are turned off by fans of classical music as a whole, seeing them as elitist snobs, there are many who, not without reason, find themselves unattracted to this or that extremely vocal faction within the larger audience because of the associated rhetoric (Wagnerites, Historically Informed Performance purists, Furtwangler fanatics).



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Rather than dismissing the opinions and tastes of those who are not ready (and may never be ready) for the more avant-garde or esoteric works of Modern/Contemporary music, might it not be far better to simply offer some suggestions of what you do like... and why:
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/27380-bear-witness-our-love.html
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/11807-exploring-modern-contemporary-music.html


I don't know the people I'm talking with, so I try not to assume any familiarity on the part of people who may read what I write. I post often in the Current Listening thread, and I hope that gives something of a sense of what I love (although I listen to things I don't love as well, or things that I feel I might come to love given time). As for explaining it? It's difficult enough for me to explain why I love Mahler, Bach, or Debussy without trying to explain how _Le marteau sans maitre_ appeals to me.


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> I agree. The polemics written by, say, Boulez and Adorno, defining progressive and modern and art with as narrow a brush as possible, have served only to re-enforce the notion that the music they defend is as ill-spirited and nasty as the ones who defend it.


Happy birthday to Theodor Ludwig Wiesengrund, born this date in 1903. We know him better as Theodor W. Adorno. Little love for this fellow in our times, it seems.


----------



## mmsbls

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Rather than dismissing the opinions and tastes of those who are not ready (and may never be ready) for the more avant-garde or esoteric works of Modern/Contemporary music, might it not be far better to simply offer some suggestions of what you do like... and why:


I feel this is a very important point. I understand why some people believe modern music is awful, why they can't understand how anyone could possibly like it, and why they might feel it is a threat to most people's listening pleasure. I also understand why some who love modern music feel personally attacked by blanket negative accusations about modern music, why they believe such accusations stem from ignorance, and why they might feel compelled to strongly defend the music they love.

I used to be mystified by modern music and strongly disliked it, but now I spend much of my time listening to it and strongly support it. There are two reasons for this evolution. First, while I strongly disliked much of modern music, I had a strong desire to learn to like and understand it. Second, and possibly equally as important, there were many on TC who advocated modern music in a positive manner. They suggested works, talked about what was interesting and moving about various pieces, and made me realize that modern music is an extension of classical music in the same manner that Romantic extended Classical and Classical extended Baroque. Put simply, they made me realize _I could actually come to enjoy modern music_. I greatly thank those members (and a few people I know personally) who helped guide me into the light.

Those people engaged me without making me feel like a bad person, a musical dope, an evil person etc. Now admittedly, I never criticized modern music as some do so there was less reason to attack me. I know that when something one loves is attacked, people often get defensive and respond in unproductive ways. That's human nature. But I firmly believe that the best response to strongly negative criticism of modern music is to attempt to understand why someone might feel that way and response in a positive manner.

I believe that anyone who likes classical music can learn to like some modern music. But attacking back just widens the gulf and solidifies their position even more. That's also human nature.


----------

