# Contemporary Composers



## shsherm

Tonight I attended a performance of Circus Maximus by John Corigliano and earlier today heard music written by Simon Sargon for piano and clarinet. Circus Maximus was written for large wind symphony and the composer discussed the work from the stage prior to the performance which was played by the USC Symphonic Band. The first performance was by the symphonic band of the U of Texas in 2005. This work is The 3rd Symphony of John Corigliano. A few weeks ago I heard a premier performance of a chamber work written by Simon Sargon, who was in the audience and also heard the second performance in the US of the 2nd Chamber Symphony by John Adams in Dallas, performed at a group called Voices Of Change which focuses on playing newly written music. Are any of you hearing music currently being composed and performed? Years ago I heard the world premier of a work written by Igor Stravinski and he conducted the Chicago Symphony Orchestra at this performance. I am not seeing much about new works in the forum.


----------



## David C Coleman

I must admit I haven't warmed to modern music too much. Since the advent of atonal, polytonal and dissonant music. I tend to shy away from it....I'm not saying that there is no value in it...And it maybe that it will have more of a place in the future...Rather similar to say Bruckner, Mahler and even Schoenberg is becoming more acceptable by the general public now..

Also the advent of popular music has dampened down the impact of Art Music somewhat so it will have a bit of an uphill struggle!!...But I keep an open mind about it and will warm to it eventually I'm sure....


----------



## Methodistgirl

I have heard Paul McCartney do classical contemporary music with his own
compisitions like Yesturday. It was absolutely beautiful.
judy tooley


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> I have heard Paul McCartney do classical contemporary music with his own
> compisitions like Yesturday. It was absolutely beautiful.


Just because it is arranged for orchestra, does not make it classical. If a Jazz peice was played on string quartet, it would still be jazz. If a Mozart quartet was played by a saxophone quartet, it would still be (ruined  ) classical music. I've yet to hear a third stream (in the original and second meaning) that isn't one of three possibilities: X pieces with Y instruments. X Music with Y 'pasted' over the top in counterpoint or an _A_ section in X style followed by a _B_ section in Y style (etc.). The thing that makes it so difficult is that (take Jazz and classical) the styles are so different that any hint of a style instantly stands out.

I should also add that getting a Classical melody and completely changing it so it is barely recognisable (say in a Jazz improv), does not justify it classical.



> And it maybe that it will have more of a place in the future...


Doubtful. A lot of 20th Century composers distance themselves from a the general public and a good deal of musicians poorly because of atonality. If you look at any 20th century composer that the general public would know about, they are always tonal. Atonality is intrinsically natural, and is therefore understood by the world to a certain extent. There are the odd atonal pieces that draw a crowd, but they are more for the (single) emotional effect they produce. Take Penderecki's Threnody for example, it is very obvious what the emotion is, and it does produce it excellently, but if atonality tried to make beauty it would fail would a good deal of musicians and the general public. This is only because of the chaotic nature of atonality, it has no natural form. Though it still has it's roots in tonality (even quarter tone music often does), this cannon be heard, only understood.


----------



## Drowning_by_numbers

I feel incredibly strongly about this topic. New and contemporary music are to very different ideas. Film composers write new music.. but it is not in a contemporary idiom. Just to make the distinction clear. I am talking about the latter.

I am studying contemporary composition in the UK at a music conservatiore and I encounter a lot of the players there who do not like contemporary music, because it's all "atonal and stuff". I recommend that people who believe this should listen to Messiaen's quartet for the end of time.. the fifth movement for cello solo and piano. It is tonal. Well I suppose you should say modal for Messiaen.. in my opinion it is one of the most beautiful pieces of music ever written. It was written while he was in a concentration camp about the apocalypse. It was one of the pieces that converted me to contemporary styles.

I don't understand why contemporary art is so much more widely accepted than contemporary music. Artists just seem to understand that when you are looking at a contemporary painting you should be looking for new techniques, but this just is not the way musician see it? A painting that portrays violence and anger, and looks hideous would be much more accepted than a piece of music hoping to portray the same in a very graphic way. 

Since the wide spread culture of popular music classical music just doesn;t get a look in. So many musicians have never heard anything contemporary and it's so hard to break into this world with no experience of it. I struggle daily, but I am getting there. Why should music sound "nice" if it is portraying something horrible. Contemporary music has such freedom and just becuase you here one twelve-tone piece that is totally atonal and you don't like should not rule out everything that has been written in the last 100 years! That's exactly what I did until a few other things were forced upon me!

Becky

PS I would just like to add that while I love contemporary music, I still am very much wary of contemporary for contemporary sake.


----------



## Drowning_by_numbers

I have just scrolled down in this forum and am staggered that there is no Messiaen or Stravinsky.. Ligeti? Berio?? But no Messiaen?? He did more for music than any other! In my opinion obviously..


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> I am studying contemporary composition in the UK at a music conservatiore and I encounter a lot of the players there who do not like contemporary music, because it's all "atonal and stuff". I recommend that people who believe this should listen to Messiaen's quartet for the end of time.. the fifth movement for cello solo and piano. It is tonal. Well I suppose you should say modal for Messiaen..


It is far from 'tonal', but it has it's roots in tonality.



> I don't understand why contemporary art is so much more widely accepted than contemporary music. Artists just seem to understand that when you are looking at a contemporary painting you should be looking for new techniques, but this just is not the way musician see it?


Music is more imposing than paintings and is this, easier to dislike.



> Why should music sound "nice" if it is portraying something horrible.


Why should something sound "horrible" if it depicts something nice? And are you saying that tonal music can't sound horrible?

[quoteContemporary music has such freedom and just becuase you here one twelve-tone piece that is totally atonal and you don't like should not rule out everything that has been written in the last 100 years[/quote]Forgotten who said it, but "serialist music had the seeds of it's destruction in its beginning".

You know, no contemporary composer has actually seriously thought about using strong elements from (say) the romantic era. Far too many copy the style of a certain composer* I know of none that seriously try to create a new style within and style group.

*This is certainly an excellent learning tool though.


----------



## Drowning_by_numbers

> It is far from 'tonal', but it has it's roots in tonality.


It is entirely based on his modes of limited transposition... a new kind of tonality, in my opinion.



> Music is more imposing than paintings and is this, easier to dislike.


I don't agree with you, so we will have to agree to disagree on this. One chooses to look at a painting in the same way one chooses to listen to music



> Why should something sound "horrible" if it depicts something nice? And are you saying that tonal music can't sound horrible?


I don't believe modernism, including atonality is horrible. I just see it as different, and I think everyone has the capacity to see this should they give it a chance. And no that is not what I said, I was just trying to show my point.



> Forgotten who said it, but "serialist music had the seeds of it's destruction in its beginning".
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is true. Schoenberg set out to break down tonality. But Messiaen didn't, Stravinsky didn't, Ligeti didn't, Berio didn't.. I am simply asking why all twentieth cntury music in tarnished by the same brush as serialism? Twelve-tone music had a MASSIVE impact across the world.. and I myself use techniques like inversion and retrograde in my own work.. so do many composers. But I don't subscribe to total serialism, nor do many.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, no contemporary composer has actually seriously thought about using strong elements from (say) the romantic era. Far too many copy the style of a certain composer* I know of none that seriously try to create a new style within and style group.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I would like to know the foundation for this claim? Stravinsky -neoclassicism?? I use medieval counterpoint in my work, and I know many who do.. many use strcuture and form, like fugue.. it is from the past that we learn about the future. I passionately disagree with you about that one. And maybe bad composers purely copy?? The rest use influence form here and there.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> It is entirely based on his modes of limited transposition... a new kind of tonality, in my opinion.


You can't call it tonality if it is new. It _has _have a new name, otherwise people get confused as to which 'tonality' you are referring to.



> I don't agree with you, so we will have to agree to disagree on this. One chooses to look at a painting in the same way one chooses to listen to music


Go to an art gallery and if you don't like a painting you keep going. In an auditorium if you don't like the piece you are forced to"suffer" through it until one that you may like. That doesn't exactly make you like the piece more, in face it strengthens your dislike for it.



> I don't believe modernism, including atonality is horrible. I just see it as different, and I think everyone has the capacity to see this should they give it a chance. And no that is not what I said, I was just trying to show my point.


I don't see tonality as "nice" either.



> and I myself use techniques like inversion and retrograde in my own work.. so do many composers.


Bach, Machaut etc.



> Well I would like to know the foundation for this claim? Stravinsky -neoclassicism?? I use medieval counterpoint in my work, and I know many who do.. many use strcuture and form, like fugue.. it is from the past that we learn about the future. I passionately disagree with you about that one. And maybe bad composers purely copy?? The rest use influence form here and there.


Stravinsky is using elements but still forging a hugely different style. Was Mozart _that_ different from Haydn? No. They were subtly different, ever since Beethoven everyone is _required _to be worlds apart from another composer regardless of influence.


----------



## Drowning_by_numbers

> You can't call it tonality if it is new. It has have a new name, otherwise people get confused as to which 'tonality' you are referring to.


But most Messiaen addicts call it tonality? And I think we have avoided the confusion by clarifying the point many a time.



> Go to an art gallery and if you don't like a painting you keep going. In an auditorium if you don't like the piece you are forced to"suffer" through it until one that you may like. That doesn't exactly make you like the piece more, in face it strengthens your dislike for it.


I was forced to look at many paintings I didn't like for my art A level, and to study them in much detail.. so how is it different in this circumstance. Besides if you here a piece the whole way through, and actually listen, then you have a right to criticise. If you here part of a piece, and quit, then you do not.



> I don't see tonality as "nice" either.


Again, I was simply explaining my point. I understand what I said could be misinterpreted, and have clarified this once already.



> Bach, Machaut etc.


I don't believe Bach used Stravinsky's rotation serial methods? Or the vast majority of Schoenberg's techniques? These were simply examples.



> Stravinsky is using elements but still forging a hugely different style. Was Mozart that different from Haydn? No. They were subtly different, ever since Beethoven everyone is required to be worlds apart from another composer regardless of influence.


 Hugely different? One hopes to make advancements, that is all. To Influence others. Why is that a bad thing? It seems to me that Bach had amazing new ideas that revolutionised music at the time, and he was around a bit before Beethoven??


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> But most Messiaen addicts call it tonality? And I think we have avoided the confusion by clarifying the point many a time.


I really don't care what "Messiaen addicts" call it. They are biased (obviously). Tonality already has a definition. Messiaen didn't try and create a new definition to Tonality (otherwise he would not have called them what he did). I don't agree with Modality (as that already is taken either), but considering the other words he used, it is okay. Musically it is not tonal, musically it is not called tonality, I don't care what you want it to be.



> I was forced to look at many paintings I didn't like for my art A level, and to study them in much detail.. so how is it different in this circumstance. Besides if you here a piece the whole way through, and actually listen, then you have a right to criticise. If you here part of a piece, and quit, then you do not.


Different scenario.



> Again, I was simply explaining my point. I understand what I said could be misinterpreted, and have clarified this once already.


No you didn't.



> I don't believe Bach used Stravinsky's rotation serial methods? Or the vast majority of Schoenberg's techniques? These were simply examples.


Bach certainly used retrograde and inversion, and at the same time. But unlike serialist, it is [sarcasm]slightly[/sarcasm] more complex.



> Hugely different? One hopes to make advancements, that is all. To Influence others. Why is that a bad thing? It seems to me that Bach had amazing new ideas that revolutionised music at the time, and he was around a bit before Beethoven??


You completely missed my point. While Haydn's style is very similar to Mozart, and Bach's is to Handle, Beethoven to Brahms is completely different. Because of Beethoven's (eroica), every composer believe they have to invent a completely new style (while drawing of old). Music before Beethoven happened gradually, styles evolved. After Beethoven, every composer climbed a mini Mt Improbable rather than continuing to go up the hill. There are a lot of blanks left because of this. However, 20th Century styles has had a lot of it's holes filled, as with Classical and Baroque. Romantic and early 20th century leaves a lot to be desired.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

Yagan Kiely said:


> Just because it is arranged for orchestra, does not make it classical.


Of course it doesn't make it classical.

Now.... if the songs were used in a movie....


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Now.... if the songs were used in a movie....


If classical music was played on classical instruments it is still classical. Sorry! you failed again.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

Yagan Kiely said:


> If classical music was played on classical instruments it is still classical.


----------



## YsayeOp.27#6

shsherm said:


> Are any of you hearing music currently being composed and performed?


Not at concert halls, but I'm trying to spend some time with Marc-André Dalbavie these days.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

If you can't figure that out, you are more lost than I initially thought.


----------



## Methodistgirl

Neil Diamond even though a lot of his music was pop, he did at one time
did some contempary classical with the Jonathan Livingston Seagull 
soundtrack. He would have made Beethoven proud with that one.
judy tooley


----------



## Yagan Kiely

I get the feeling that Beethoven would have spat in Cages face however. Afterall, Beethoven worked hard on every composition... can't say Cage did (on every).


----------



## Drowning_by_numbers

> I really don't care what "Messiaen addicts" call it. They are biased (obviously). Tonality already has a definition. Messiaen didn't try and create a new definition to Tonality (otherwise he would not have called them what he did). I don't agree with Modality (as that already is taken either), but considering the other words he used, it is okay. Musically it is not tonal, musically it is not called tonality, I don't care what you want it to be.


Why are you still picking at this one point. We really have exhausted all possible ideas with this one. "The Quatour... is firmly based in tonality, with Messiaen's unique and highly personal style."
I don't agree with you. Getting aggressive doesn't make you right, I am perfectly entitled to my opinion. And I don't like the way every thing you have posted to every person on this post is aime down at them. Often people will not care what you think.



> Different scenario.


Care to explain?



> No you didn't.


Yes I did, round about when I questioned why all composers are out under the same hat as those who chose serialism. But you chose not to answer that. It is not my fault if you incapable of reading. You simply select one small segment of the argument that you do not agree with, but fail to answer against the whole point.



> Bach certainly used retrograde and inversion, and at the same time. But unlike serialist, it is [sarcasm]slightly[/sarcasm] more complex.


In your opinion. Again I disagree.



> You completely missed my point. While Haydn's style is very similar to Mozart, and Bach's is to Handle, Beethoven to Brahms is completely different. Because of Beethoven's (eroica), every composer believe they have to invent a completely new style (while drawing of old). Music before Beethoven happened gradually, styles evolved. After Beethoven, every composer climbed a mini Mt Improbable rather than continuing to go up the hill. There are a lot of blanks left because of this. However, 20th Century styles has had a lot of it's holes filled, as with Classical and Baroque. Romantic and early 20th century leaves a lot to be desired.


I was aware of the point you were trying to make. I think all composers have always wanted to do something different to those before them, to have an original idea. It is the same in all art forms, just because there have been short periods in time where things have been static does not mean you can claim that these are "gaps".I see your view, but I don't agree with you.


----------



## Drowning_by_numbers

"Modern music is quite enjoyable if you pay attention and actually understand what is trying to be accomplished. A lot of people think its pointless or unintelligent. Different isn't bad."


----------



## Yagan Kiely

I'm the only person that can say whether you explained your point well enough. You can't.



> In your opinion. Again I disagree.


You don't think Bach used retrograde? You don't think the rules of tonality makes it more difficult than freedom of choice?



> It is the same in all art forms, just because there have been short periods in time where things have been static


That is not my point. You have misread it again.



> "Modern music is quite enjoyable if you pay attention and actually understand what is trying to be accomplished. A lot of people think its pointless or unintelligent. Different isn't bad."


Very very few people feel more than one or two emotions with atonal music.


----------



## Guest

shsherm said:


> Are any of you hearing music currently being composed and performed? Years ago I heard the world premier of a work written by Igor Stravinski and he conducted the Chicago Symphony Orchestra at this performance. I am not seeing much about new works in the forum.


I envy you your premiere of a Stravinsky piece conducted by the man. That must have been a real thrill. Unfortunately, I did not start listening to twentieth century music until 1972. Igor was already dead.

Fortunately, John Cage was not, and I got to hear several premieres of his works, with him in the audience. And that has continued for Dumitrescu, Avram, Dhomont, Ferreyra, Bokanowski, Karkowski and a host of others. Indeed, if you still care (!), this forum member listens _mainly_ to music of the past fifty or sixty years (at home) and to music of the past five or six years (at concerts) and sometimes to music of the past five or six days. (Just last month I heard a piece the day it was finished and then again the day after at its premiere.)

But now what? So what if I listen to new works all the time? Well, I guess it means this, that I can say with some confidence that the musics written since 1900 are just as good, just as enjoyable, just as interesting, just as fulfilling as the music written before then. Atonality, serialism, indeterminacy, minimalism, electroacoustic, live electronics, noise art--it's all good fun.

(There's more than just those seven categories, too. Lotta good stuff out there. It's always seemed a great pity to me that so little of it is even known, much less appreciated. But "oh, well.")


----------



## Drowning_by_numbers

Again you tear away poorly at my arguments and fail to realise you points are of little value.

The basic problem here is that you have yet again failed to realise that all 20th century music is NOT atonal! What is your actual argument against the rest, because you cannot pick a small segment and argue against that as if it rules out everything. It's completely narrow-minded and pig headed.

Listening to a lot of 20th century music is not like listening to others, it is about learning to listen in a different and new way. Understanding what it is that the composer is trying to say.



> ortunately, John Cage was not, and I got to hear several premieres of his works, with him in the audience. And that has continued for Dumitrescu, Avram, Dhomont, Ferreyra, Bokanowski, Karkowski and a host of others. Indeed, if you still care (!), this forum member listens mainly to music of the past fifty or sixty years (at home) and to music of the past five or six years (at concerts) and sometimes to music of the past five or six days. (Just last month I heard a piece the day it was finished and then again the day after at its premiere.)
> 
> But now what? So what if I listen to new works all the time? Well, I guess it means this, that I can say with some confidence that the musics written since 1900 are just as good, just as enjoyable, just as interesting, just as fulfilling as the music written before then. Atonality, serialism, indeterminacy, minimalism, electroacoustic, live electronics, noise art--it's all good fun.


Couldn't agree more, heard a piece a few weeks back that was mind-blowing! It's called Byran Wood by David Sawer, and I really would recommend it.

Wow! Which premieres of Cages did you go to??

Ok, lets open up the debate a little:
Who are you favourite 20th century composers, and who are your least favourite?


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Again you tear away poorly at my arguments and fail to realise you points are of little value.
> 
> The basic problem here is that you have yet again failed to realise that all 20th century music is NOT atonal! What is your actual argument against the rest, because you cannot pick a small segment and argue against that as if it rules out everything. It's completely narrow-minded and pig headed.
> 
> Listening to a lot of 20th century music is not like listening to others, it is about learning to listen in a different and new way. Understanding what it is that the composer is trying to say.


Wow, what the hell are you talking about?

You are a _little_ bit confused.


----------



## Drowning_by_numbers

It's in English, can you not read? Don't result to petty inults because you cannot argue back sucessfully.

Again... lets move on and go BACK to the topic.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Don't result to petty inults because you cannot argue back sucessfully.


Argue what? You are talking about a completely different subject to I...Keep up.


----------



## Drowning_by_numbers

No, I am not. I understand perfectly what you are saying thank you. I do in fact speak English.


----------



## Guest

Dear Drowning,

While I do have favorites, and not favorites, I hesitate to mention either. If I start to list favorites, I don't know when to stop, so could easily end up offering a list so long no one would pay any attention to it. I wouldn't even start to list the not favorites. I don't like their music, but I don't think it does anyone any good to hear about that!

You're studying in the U.K., right? Well do get acquainted with Jonty Harrison for sure. Jonathan Harvey, too, if he's still teaching. (Well, even if he's not!) As I recall, Chris Hobbs is in Leicester. Don't know where you're studying, but Chris is a very cool guy who's been involved in AMM, who's been associated with Barney Childs here in the U.S, and who, with his wife Virginia Anderson, is very much engaged in keeping the experimental music tradition of Cage and Cardew live and fresh.

I feel like I know so little of the current British scene. I've never been to a BEAST concert, for instance. Chris Cutler's there, I believe. Tim Hodgkinson (wow! no really, wow!!). Diana Simpson's in Glasgow; she's very cool. 

There's the other reason for not mentioning favorites: the list reveals how little I know about anything!

--Some


----------



## Drowning_by_numbers

Dear Some, 

Yeah I'm at Royal Welsh college at Cardiff. Thanks for the info, it is always good to get acquainted with all the names, so to speak! I actually don't live to far away from Leicester so I will keep my ears open. And I think Jonty Harrison is living in Birmingham, again not to far from here.

To be honest my list would include a vast number of European composers, and very few British. Within the last 50 years the is a definite lack on funding for music here in the UK... but I won't start ranting again. I'm sure I know even less about the U.S, other than the Cageian era. Although a fantastic brass quintet came to college to other week and performed a programme of compositions by living composers from the U.S and there were some great pieces in there. 

Best Wishes,

Becky


----------



## Frasier

Drowning_by_numbers said:


> I have just scrolled down in this forum and am staggered that there is no Messiaen or Stravinsky.. Ligeti? Berio?? But no Messiaen?? He did more for music than any other! In my opinion obviously..


I reckon the problem is that there are so many composers, let alone contemporary composers that this sub-forum will take time to build up and, as you said in your previous post, the music is often considered difficult, not without justification at times. Contemporary music covers a range of "all that's gone previously" plus whatever composers can additionally dream up to express themselves.

Much of it is time wasting - you do find "composers" simply being outrageous in the hope of striking originality (which rarely works since the whole gamut of the aural universe has been uncovered, which is not to say it's been explored fully). Sometimes composers really don't even know what they've composed. If you're studying composition you'll surely know what I mean! I've met them at rehearsals. The conductor / leader stops the ensemble/orchestra to ask the composer to clarify something and it's obvious that he/she hasn't a clue! God forbid the conductor asking them to prepare the work.

But there are some who have the aural imagination to know what they're up to. You often find such composers work from the heart rather than fornulae.

A real problem is finding the opportunity to listen to such music. Fine if you've time to attend concerts but aside from that and the occasional program tucked away in late night Radio 3, how does one obtain exposure to it? I'd be loathe to buy CD after CD of works unknown to me. Perhaps 50% of the time I'd be happy but the rest would end up as beer mats!

About contemporary art being more "accepted" than music. I'm not so sure it is. But one factor that makes it easier is, if you attend a show (or at least catch sight of a piece) that you don't like, you can easily turn away. Music is along a time axis so one can't react as quickly and if they've attended a concert it might not be as easy to walk out!

Best wishes,
EF


----------



## Drowning_by_numbers

> Much of it is time wasting - you do find "composers" simply being outrageous in the hope of striking originality (which rarely works since the whole gamut of the aural universe has been uncovered, which is not to say it's been explored fully). Sometimes composers really don't even know what they've composed. If you're studying composition you'll surely know what I mean! I've met them at rehearsals. The conductor / leader stops the ensemble/orchestra to ask the composer to clarify something and it's obvious that he/she hasn't a clue!


I have heard many of these pieces.. and completely agree. The amount of "contemporary for the sake or contemporary" composers out there is a vast number! The kind where you just stick as many extended techniques as is humanly possible into 100 bars and call it a piece. There is no real aim, other than to be shocking. It's fine if you are the first... but they are not.. and after a while it becomes less shocking and more tiring really!



> A real problem is finding the opportunity to listen to such music. Fine if you've time to attend concerts but aside from that and the occasional program tucked away in late night Radio 3, how does one obtain exposure to it? I'd be loathe to buy CD after CD of works unknown to me. Perhaps 50% of the time I'd be happy but the rest would end up as beer mats!


I agree, and it worries me greatly. I have met many composers, including the vast majority of my peers who wish to go and live abroad, somewhere where there are more opportunities than there are here. There is very little in terms of contemporary music that is available to the masses, and very little opportunities for composers in the UK, other than film and television. Neither of which particularly appeal top me. I dislike the attitude of my peers though.. I think that if no-one stays around to build things here, nothing will ever be here. We spend most of our timne hunting out all the contemporary concerts, which to be fair I am in a Capital city so there are more than most places in the UK but there should be more! And what worries me more is that I didn't in any detail study for my GCSE or GCE's any piece that was written after 1900. So even music students are not really made aware of contemporary music. So the demand is not going to go up...

Ok, my rant is officially over, apologies!

Best wishes,

Becky


----------



## Guest

Here's some thoughts for anyone who's ever said that contemporary music is mostly a waste of time, difficult to understand, that so much of it is just technique for technique's sake (substitute your hobby horse of choice for "technique").

The only way to experience music is to listen to it, and that takes time. And the newer it is, the likelier it will be that you won't like/understand it right away. 

That people don't like certain things is, I think, less important (less useful) than that certain other people do like them. That is, I get more out of hearing people talk about what they like than what they don't like. Besides, so many people have such strong opinions on such scanty evidence. (Perhaps "strong" should read "forcibly expressed," with the force being inversely proportional to the knowledge.)

In either case, I find that I learn more about the person talking than about the music being talked about, so that as people proffer this or that opinion about music, I find I'm always asking--sometimes just to myself, sometimes outloud--"who are you?" That is, what do you listen to? What do you know well? Have you ever overcome a prejudice so that something you once hated you know enjoy? Stuff like that.

I cannot, it seems, say this too often: classical musics of the past hundred years or more are not unlikable. That many musics are disliked is well documented. That they cannot be liked, or not liked as much as people like Beethoven and Mozart, is just simply not true.

So there's my rant to go along with Becky's, I guess!!


----------



## Guest

Here's another name for you, Becky. Trevor Wishart. Interesting stuff. Great guy. 

Any road, keep us current with your musical adventures there in Cardiff, for sure.


----------



## Frasier

some guy said:


> In either case, I find that I learn more about the person talking than about the music being talked about, so that as people proffer this or that opinion about music, I find I'm always asking--sometimes just to myself, sometimes outloud--"who are you?" That is, what do you listen to? What do you know well? Have you ever overcome a prejudice so that something you once hated you know enjoy? Stuff like that.


Is there much point though? The problem seems to be people's insistence on talking _about_ music, worse, what music _is_ or sounds like. Music ultimately resolves at a strictly personal level so the question is why should people wish to verbalise their impressions when they are, in terms of experience, meaningless to anyone else?

But if they didn't, forums such as this wouldn't exist, nor would the jobs of tens of thousands of groupies - the hangers on, e.g musicologists, critics, programme-note writers, reviewers, most of whom have never put 8 bars of any sort of music together in their lives. Perhaps the world would be a better place if they didn't try to make professions of these activities. Then individuals could simply discover their shared orientations.

I don't think prejudice comes into it. One only has the one lifetime and while I'd agree that at the occult level, persevering with something endlessly will reveal secrets of some sort, some of us are reluctant to narrow our attention to that end to the exclusion of much else that, had coincidence favoured us in a different way, may have interested us more - there simply isn't enough time - quite aside from the fact that most listeners only get one chance to hear many contemporary works unless perpetually recording things, legitimately or otherwise. Therefore, simple "like, dislike, indifferent" judgements are inevitable. There really is nothing right or wrong in rejecting an experience one finds distasteful - leisure activities, such as listening to music, shouldn't always be hard work!

bests...


----------



## shsherm

Some of the replys to this thread are amazing to me. I was listening to the radio one night when I was a teen-ager in Chicago (1957 or so) and music written by Elliot Carter, who is now in his 100th year, was played. The piece was the Holiday Overture which I thoroughly enjoyed. I finally found a recording on Naxos in 2006. My point in part is be persistent and never give up. Great music is being written all of the time. A current program on the radio is on KUSC on Saturday evenings in LA. 91.5 FM from 10 PM to midnight called Modern Masterpieces. This is available on streaming audio. The focus is on music currently or recently written. Not all of the music is what could be called avant-garde but some is. If anyone wants to hear music like this there must be other similar radio programs.


----------



## Drowning_by_numbers

> Here's another name for you, Becky. Trevor Wishart. Interesting stuff. Great guy.


Thank you  I'll be sure to have a look!



> There really is nothing right or wrong in rejecting an experience one finds distasteful - leisure activities, such as listening to music, shouldn't always be hard work!


While I agree that it is important to have music that you can switch off to.. for me a strong and successful piece of music is one that is emotionally and intellectually stimulating. And part of the thrill of listening to contemporary music comes from the all the new and exciting ideas. When you find piece that connects with you, and also covers these two grounds then it's a great feeling, and I have spent many a sleepless night studying a work and listening to it trying to work out what is going on... Personally I quite like the ones that are hard work


----------



## Artemis

I wouldn’t wish to poor cold water on anyone’s enthusiasm for contemporary classical music. I’m sure there must be some which I’d quite like if only I could gain easy access to it. The problem is that what little I‘ve heard I don’t like at all (e.g. on the BBC Proms), and I’m not prepared simply to take pot luck in buying any old material and merely hoping for the best. Another issue is that my tastes are strongly in the “classical” and “romantic” eras, with some affection for baroque and English National composers (Elgar mainly). Given these tastes, which have been honed over many years listening and unlikely to change significantly, I do not have much incentive to explore more modern classical music genres. This is reinforced by the fact that there is a vast amount of high quality music from these earlier periods which meets my tastes head-on. I very much suspect that many other classical music fans think in similar terms, which suggests that contemporary classical music (of more or less any variety) will probably face an uphill struggle for a good number of years yet.


----------



## Edward Elgar

I can sympathise with you Artemis!

Who the hell comissions stuff for the BBC proms!

If you've heard Harrison Birtwhistle's "Panic" you know exactly what I'm talking about - the proms is meant to be a celebration of culture, but instead it's being turned into a breeding ground for controversy.


----------



## Guest

Artemis said:


> I wouldn't wish to *poor(sic) cold water* on anyone's enthusiasm for contemporary classical music. I'm sure there must be some which I'd quite like *if only I could gain easy access to it*. The problem is that *what little I've heard I don't like at all* (e.g. on the BBC Proms), and I'm not prepared simply to take pot luck in buying any old material and merely hoping for the best. Another issue is that *my tastes are strongly in the "classical" and "romantic" eras*, with some affection for baroque and English National composers (Elgar mainly). Given these tastes, which have been honed over many years listening and unlikely to change significantly, *I do not have much incentive to explore more modern classical music genres*. This is reinforced by the fact that there is a vast amount of high quality music from these earlier periods which meets my tastes head-on. I very much suspect that many other classical music fans think in similar terms, which suggests that contemporary classical music (of more or less any variety) will probably face an uphill struggle for a good number of years yet.


My dear Artemis, unlike Mr. Elgar, I cannot sympathize. Here's why (taking the bolded comments in order). You think your position is so important that just stating it will affect how others enjoy music. You are lazy. You have made your judgments on scanty evidence. You then go on to suggest that your tastes (which you think very highly of, I see ) would probably lead you to the same conclusions even if you listened to more than just a little.

OK. So you've decided you don't like contemporary classical music, even though your experience of it is so small you can't really have any opinions about it, good or bad. Were there any vegetables that you disliked as a child but that you now enjoy? Then there's hope for you. If not....

(Great use of smilies though on my part, don't you think? )


----------



## Guest

Oh, by the way, Artemis and Elgar, I totally forgot something, being so caught up in that whole smilie thing I was overworking....

And that is, that I too started out with romantics and the classical guys. With some scatterings of baroque and Sir Edward Elgar. Genau.

I don't know that I'd claim any fine honing, but I had a collection as extensive as any child of lower middle-class white parents could hope for, with Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff and Grieg and Beethoven and Schumann and Mendelssohn and Brahms and Berwald and Bach and Vivaldi and Ravel and Holst and oh yeah Elgar. Among others.

And now I listen primarily to music written in the past fifty years, much of that electroacoustic or live electronics. Not stuff the BBC would commission, probably, but there are a lot of Brits doing it: Jonty Harrison, Trevor Wishart, Jonathan Harvey, you'll recall. And Chris Cutler, Tim Hodgkinson, Keith Rowe (a hugely talented musician. I can't believe I left him off my list of people Becky should look up)... All the BEAST folks, of course. 

Anyway, I can't sit here chatting all morning. I have new music to listen to. (Goran Gamstorp's "Growings" for symphony orchestra and tape is on the stereo, and I'm not paying enough attention to it.)


----------



## Frasier

Drowning_by_numbers said:


> ...and I have spent many a sleepless night studying a work and listening to it trying to work out what is going on... Personally I quite like the ones that are hard work


Sure. Some people love cold showers in February! Not me, though.


----------



## Drowning_by_numbers

> Sure. Some people love cold showers in February! Not me, though.


I'm not sure I would compare the two things but each to his own. 



> I do not have much incentive to explore more modern classical music genres. This is reinforced by the fact that there is a vast amount of high quality music from these earlier periods which meets my tastes head-on. I very much suspect that many other classical music fans think in similar terms, which suggests that contemporary classical music (of more or less any variety) will probably face an uphill struggle for a good number of years yet.


A year ago I would have agreed with you. I had no incentive whatsoever to explore modernism, and what little I knew I didn't wish to hear anymore of! I knew of Cage and the experimental ideas that were around, which were of interest to me.. but otherwise minimalism and serialism were the only contemporary styles I knew. Neither of which I liked, and neither of which I wanted to here anymore of.

I think it is about finding a way in, because in my neck of the woods contemporary music is not available, nor promoted. In the UK I would argue that there is a definate lack of contemporary music around, and it definately needs some promotion. It got to the point where I was listening to music that was so alien to me, and had always been alienated from me that I just couldn't understand what the heck was going on. I have had to learn the hard way, thrown in at the deep end in a musical world I didn't understand or appreciate.. but I'm glad I tried, and glad I succeeded. Because once you grasp some of the ideas it all starts to make sense.

And comtemporary music isn't all atonal, and extended techniques, and experimental works like Cage... so much is truly inspiring and incredibly beautiful. It is just a case of finding one person you like.. then the rest gets a lot easier.

I feel as though I have done my bit for contemporary music today 

Best Wishes,

Becky


----------



## Guest

And a very inspiring, encouraging bit it is, too, to be sure. 

I would only add to that, from my experience, "atonal, and extended techniques, and experimental" and so forth are also "truly inspiring and incredibly beautiful."


----------



## Drowning_by_numbers

Of course, I would not like to exclude the above from my list of "truly inspiring and beautiful". My mistake


----------



## Sid James

I think it is worth experimenting a bit with contemporary music, as you might be in for a pleasant surprise. Naxos has budget priced, high quality fully digital recordings of many contemporary composers, especially in its American Classics series. I've bought two Naxos discs of contemporary composers, and I think they are not bad at all.

One is the music of Russian-American composer Alla Pavlova. Her _Symphony No. 2_ can be called neoromantic, inhabiting the same world as Tchaikovsky or Rachmaninov. Some beautiful melodies there. & As Vaughan Williams said (reflecting on his own music), music doesn't have to be original to be enjoyed.

The other disc is music by Chinese-American Huang Ruo (born 1976, so quite young in comparison to most composers who have been recorded). It is of his four _Chamber Concertos_. Quite interesting music with shades of modernism and eastern influences.

I know this music may not be for everyone, but at the cheap price, it is worth trying things out and see how you go. I am familiar with the main repertoire, so I am constantly looking for new music to experience. Variety is the spice of life, as they say.

For those in Sydney, Australia, there is also a weekly radio program from 10pm on Tuesdays on 2MBS fm which has 2 hours of contemporary (post 1945, at least) music. Programs like these are also checking out if you want to experience something new. I think contemporary composers have much to offer, but as with music from other periods, not all of it will automatically be to your taste. Composers today are inspired by not only classical music of the past, but also by trends in other genres. It's all an interesting blend.


----------



## Bach

Edward Elgar said:


> I can sympathise with you Artemis!
> 
> Who the hell comissions stuff for the BBC proms!
> 
> If you've heard Harrison Birtwhistle's "Panic" you know exactly what I'm talking about - the proms is meant to be a celebration of culture, but instead it's being turned into a breeding ground for controversy.


Panic is a fantastic piece - the more contemporary music performed at the proms the better. You wouldn't believe how ignorant John Q. Public is when it comes to modern music. Most people think that classical is old and pop is new and it sickens me to the stomach.


----------



## Edward Elgar

I posted that very nearly a year ago!

Although my tastes have changed somewhat, I stand by what I said in this respect: Panic is not a patriotic or joyous piece that one associates with the last night. Lots of ignorant people watch (few listen) the last night and to put on a piece like Panic on would severely tarnish their view on contemporary music.

It was last year I think when a commission for the last night resulted in "Froms" which was much more successful in that it subverted technology so the common man could understand its relevance. Panic is really Birtwistle's Rite of Spring, a good piece, but it's not going to get people of the land hooked! It should have been used on a night other than the last in my opinion, but then again, who cares what the public think?!

Your last comment is sad but true, if anything pop is old and classical is new, or rather classical music will live on well after the demise of pop.


----------



## Bach

I don't think it matters whether the public like the modernist music (and I don't think they ever will) - knowing that it exists is good enough for me.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Give it another 200 years or so and Xenakis will be as popular as Beethoven is today. The irritating thing is that the quality of his music will not change.


----------



## handlebar

I love American music from the 1930-1950 period. The main composers that spring to mind are Creston,Diamond,Rorem,Carpenter,Copland,Hadley,Korngold,Carter,Hovhaness and Foss.

Contemporary composers I admire are Tan Dun,Bright Sheng, John Corigliano, a very little bit of John Williams and James Horner.

Jim


----------



## Bach

Edward Elgar said:


> Give it another 200 years or so and Xenakis will be as popular as Beethoven is today. The irritating thing is that the quality of his music will not change.


To be honest, I don't think that he will. Beethoven was an enormously influential figure in his lifetime: 20,000 Viennese citizens lined the streets at Beethoven's funeral. His reputation was built on strong foundations - Xenakis will only be remembered as someone who experimented in a time musical uncertainty.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Consider the hostility that people of Beethoven's time had towards premiers of his later works. It's just the same amount of hostility we see now for our modern composers. Nothing's changed! The trends of mankind's history will continue as they have ever done!

I bet people in Beethoven's day were saying, "Beethoven will never be as popular as Haydn because we're used to Haydn by now and I hear he will have a pretty sizeable funeral!"


----------



## jhar26

Edward Elgar said:


> Consider the hostility that people of Beethoven's time had towards premiers of his later works. It's just the same amount of hostility we see now for our modern composers. Nothing's changed! The trends of mankind's history will continue as they have ever done!
> 
> I bet people in Beethoven's day were saying, "Beethoven will never be as popular as Haydn because we're used to Haydn by now and I hear he will have a pretty sizeable funeral!"


Maybe Beethoven's late works were too difficult for many, but he was more famous in his time than todays composers are now. And those who found Beethoven too difficult probably were into Spohr or Rossini or some other contemporaries of Beethoven. I doubt if at any other point in history contemporary music as a whole has been as unpopular with the majority of listeners as it has been for the last forty years or so. That doesn't necessarily mean that it has no artistic merits - others here are far more qualified than me to make that judgement.


----------



## Herzeleide

Edward Elgar said:


> Consider the hostility that people of Beethoven's time had towards premiers of his later works. It's just the same amount of hostility we see now for our modern composers. Nothing's changed! The trends of mankind's history will continue as they have ever done!
> 
> I bet people in Beethoven's day were saying, "Beethoven will never be as popular as Haydn because we're used to Haydn by now and I hear he will have a pretty sizeable funeral!"


How many people lined the street for Xenakis's funeral?


----------



## JoeGreen

Bach said:


> Panic is a fantastic piece - the more contemporary music performed at the proms the better. You wouldn't believe how ignorant John Q. Public is when it comes to modern music. Most people think that classical is old and pop is new and it sickens me to the stomach.


After this post I looked up Panic and shortly after words I looked some other Birtwhistle pieces and now I'm hooked, I'm especially fond of *For O, For O, the Hobby-Horse is Forgot* 

I'll agree that while contemporary Composers will become more accepted as time goes by I doubt we're going to have another Beethoven anytime soon. Modern Technology allows composers from all over the globe to produce their pieces and preserve them, that for anyone individual to have domination is pretty hard.


----------



## Bach

Try Punch and Judy by Birtwistle - you'll love it. It's the most amoral macabre yet hilarious opera ever.


----------



## JoeGreen

Ha! that is actually what I was listening to just right now.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Herzeleide said:


> How many people lined the street for Xenakis's funeral?


Since when did the number of people at a composer's funeral make them more or less great? People who judge a composer's greatness by their popularity can't possibly be listening and thinking for themselves in my opinion.


----------



## Edward Elgar

jhar26 said:


> I doubt if at any other point in history contemporary music as a whole has been as unpopular with the majority of listeners as it has been for the last forty years or so.


Not for the people who care for the future of music. Also, in Beethoven's day, people weren't distracted by the money-making machine of popular culture so perhaps they were more receptive to more complex sounds. If so, only slightly as Beethoven was treated with much hostility in his day, just as Stravinsky was. Their crime; originality.


----------



## Herzeleide

Edward Elgar said:


> Since when did the number of people at a composer's funeral make them more or less great? People who judge a composer's greatness by their popularity can't possibly be listening and thinking for themselves in my opinion.


That was not my point. My point was that Beethoven achieved a great deal of popularity within and straight after his life, whereas Xenakis has not. I was not judging Xenakis's music, but rather merely pointing out that one cannot compare the two because they have not shared the same degree of popularity either during or straight after their lives.


----------



## ecg_fa

I think that it's hard to predict the future 'popularity' of composers. It comes down
to whether or not serious, trained musicians are interested in playing them-- and 
economic concerns will play a part (getting butts into the seats). I think personally
that's it's overall encouraging that most orchestras and chamber music series are introducing newer or 'underknown' works to expand the standard repertoire, a repertoire which
was pretty much originally created in the 20th century out of works which could be recorded
& expanded only slowly and hesitantly. That's not to say it's bad or insignificant or 
shouldn't be acknowledged as important.

The expansion and now diffusion of so many musical delivery possibilities will mean-- for better or worse-- an expansion and multiplicity of 'niche' markets for a variety of classical
music I think, as much as for other forms. So you have 'early music' festivals and 'new music festivals' etc. If bewildering and somewhat confusing, I also think it's exciting for
the music 'consumer.' 

Ed


----------



## Edward Elgar

Alright Herzeleide and ecg_fa, I can see what you mean. We can't predict the future success of contemporary composers, but we can look at trends in history. It seems always to be the case that the works that are treated with the most hostility are the works that become the most loved and most analysed by music scholars. For example, Beethoven's 5th and the Rite of Spring. Dreadful premiers, yet now we love them. People treat todays contemporary composers with the same hostility that they treated Beethoven and Stravinsky and all the other composers who dared to do something different. We are already seeing Berg's work flourish in popularity. Just a thought!


----------



## Herzeleide

Edward Elgar said:


> Alright Herzeleide and ecg_fa, I can see what you mean. We can't predict the future success of contemporary composers, but we can look at trends in history. It seems always to be the case that the works that are treated with the most hostility are the works that become the most loved and most analysed by music scholars. For example, Beethoven's 5th and the Rite of Spring. Dreadful premiers, yet now we love them. People treat todays contemporary composers with the same hostility that they treated Beethoven and Stravinsky and all the other composers who dared to do something different. We are already seeing Berg's work flourish in popularity. Just a thought!


I'm very sympathetic with your position, and I hope you're right. 

The problem is that contemporary/post-WWII classical music is increasingly at war with the idea of the 'classical repertoire' or 'classical canon'; i.e. the standard concert works. In addition to this, pop(/rock: pretends it's different from pop but isn't really) music, with the fascist-like corporate and media power behind, represents another ostensibly adamantine musical force, occluding greater dissemination and propagation of contemporary classical music, and further relegating it to a niche market, as to some extent it does with classical music in general (and like bacteria it's now polluting classical, RE: 'crossover').


----------



## handlebar

Herzeleide said:


> I'm very sympathetic with your position, and I hope you're right.
> 
> The problem is that contemporary/post-WWII classical music is increasingly at war with the idea of the 'classical rep.


Yes, I agree with this in some parts. Yet there are many post WW2 compositions that are very tonal and can certainly be included in the classical repertoire. Take the early Diamond,Creston and Copland/Harris symphonies.W Schuman can also be added in there.
I suppose it all depends on the definition of "contemporary" .

Jim


----------



## KScott

Among some of my favorite contemporary composers of recent vintage are the following:

Derek Bermel
Gary Powell Nash
Arlene Sierra
Melinda Wagner
William Banfield
Augusta Read Thomas
Jeffrey Mumford
James Barnes
Kristin Kuster
Jonathan Holland
Michael Abels

All of these composers have had at least one of their works recorded, and some of them have been performed by major orchestras and conductors. There is a broad range of idioms here from all of the composers I have listed, and some of them may not be for the lay listener. But as a composer myself who has explored both tonal and atonal elements in my score, it is not easy to write for three audiences - the one that sits in the hall, the one that sits on the stage, and the one who is actually doing the writing!

We all can't hear every composition and every composer out there - that would take at least ten average lifespans! But we certainly can partake in a sampling of who is out there to get an idea of who is good for one's ear and who is not.


----------



## handlebar

I would also like to hear more Mennin and Hovhaness!

Jim


----------



## Edward Elgar

Perhaps the reason contemporary music is treated with such hostility is because it's as far away from popular culture as one can get. Let's be honest, the Beatles are closer to Mozart than Xenakis.

The appreciation of a certain type of music stems mostly from associating it with music you already know and respect. Maybe that's why "popera" and classicfm are so popular because they carefully select the tunes that can be easily associated with pop culture.

Without any instantly appealing music to compare contempoary compositions with, their relevance and respect disapears.


----------



## Sid James

I think one has to have a fair degree of flexibility when approaching contemporary classical music. It often takes a while to get accustomed to it. In my case, I have just become rather tired of the old classical cliches and started to search for something new. Altough they might not be very easy to swallow, I like the complexity and ambiguity of works by composers like Messiaen, Varese and Penderecki. This was not always the case...

In the early 2000's I bought a Naxos disc of *Varese*'s _Arcana, Integrales, Offrandes, & Deserts_. I listened to it & thought it was just noise. Unlike say Bartok or Shostakovich, he doesn't offer any tunes amongst the dissonance which you can grab onto. So I actually took the CD back to the store, & got an exchange for a jazz CD (Max Roach). But last year, I decided to buy the same Varese CD again & it has actually become one of my favourites. I especially like _Deserts_, where he has an ensemble play with recorded sounds on tape. Something must have changed. Maybe I am more flexible now or just tired of the old cliches.

I'm willing to give anything a go now...especially when listening to radio. Recently I heard *Stockhausen*'s _Helicopter Quartet_. I can't say I loved it, but it was interesting. So I think contemporary works provide that something extra to the usual standard repertoire. It doesn't mean they are exclusive, but they complement eachother, in a way.

I'm interested in discovering comosers who I haven't heard much, especially Eastern European ones like Szeligowski, Lutoslawski, Ligeti & Xenakis. I would also be open to ones who are still alive like Boulez. One still has to make an effort to be exposed to this type of music, it seems to be relegated to a very small niche of the general classical repertoire. So one has to make some effort to search for them, which is somewhat of a pity.


----------



## proclo

Very very few people feel more than one or two emotions with atonal music. [/QUOTE]

atonal music is a really bad definition...there is no music without tones ! This was already written by Shoenberg almost 100 years ago. By the way if with "atonal" you try to define contemporary music I m afraid you are pritty much wrong : all drones music from the west coast is based on a "rooth" tones...tonal center...pivot pitch...whatever u wonna call it...all minimal music is also based on modes...spectral music has also a strong pitch centre . Messiaen modes as above. But probably for you it is all just atonal which is any way a really stupid definition which does not describe the complexity of contemporary music


----------

