# "New" vs "Old" Music?



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

The title of this thread may seem a bit provocative in light of the current debate/discussion... argument concerning Modern/Avant-Garde music... but this is not at all what I am interested in. 

I have gone through any number of periods in which my listening habits... focus... have changed. Some three years ago I was quite focused upon music by American composers... especially Post-WWII. The Baroque has long been a favorite period, but shortly after feeling "burned out" on "new" American music I started to focus on the Baroque... especially upon composers that I had little experience with. As by music collection has grown to a nearly unmanageable scale (I long ago ran out of shelf space and find I am surrounded by teetering towers of yet "to be listened to" discs) I have found that I am more interested at present in alternative performances/recordings of works that are already known to me. I find that I already have too many discs of music that I have yet to be able to listen to enough to truly digest, and so at present I am avoiding too many purchases of "new" music... or rather music that is "new" (ie, unknown) to me.

So where do you stand? How much of the music that you listen to is "new" to you vs music that you already know and love/admire/enjoy?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I'm in a similar place as you, though I think I got here much quicker and having a much smaller music collection (approx. 500-600 cds). About 5-6 years ago I was eagerly listening to any new composer I hadn't heard before, snatching up new recordings frequently and spending a lot of time hearing new things on youtube. This lasted up until maybe a year or so ago. Even with my collection as it is I find there is so much in it I am not that familiar with or rarely listen to, and that I consistently get the most enjoyment out of a small number of composers. I also realized with oeuvres as vast as composers like Bach and Mozart, it can really take a lifetime to get intimately familiar with the majority of their different works, especially if one factors in all the different recordings/interpretations of their most famous works. So, personally at his point I am for the most part content spending the majority of my time listening to music I already know (but much of it only on a surface level) and appreciate. I still do of course enjoy hearing unknown music, but at this time at least 80% of what I listen to is music by composers I already know and enjoy.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

You are not alone. I think it is part the "comprehensive" listener's journey (relatively speaking) that many, including me, go through phases of exploration and find that after a certain period, one returns back to some "core" repertoire/period. With me, it was the later Romantic period music (excluding opera, roughly the one hundred years post 1850 of music up to around or end of WWII). I listened to much lesser known Romantic pieces by both the greats and lesser known composers. I still do, but not to the extent that I did during the last five years or so. The majority of these were music I have not listened to before ("new"). Regardless, I am still keen to listen to "new" Baroque and Classical music, especially when a new recording of some favourite composers appear. But I still do listen and purchase music by favourite composers that I deeply enjoy, for example every year I am sure to buy music by Handel, JS Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Haydn of pieces that I already have, keen to listen to an interpretation by a particular band / discover a new perspective on a familiar piece. For example, I have nine versions of Handel's _Saul_. I have lost count on the number of _Brandenburg_. I am about to order another version of Beethoven's symphonies (Frans Brüggen, Rotterdam 2011).

So, briefly then I went through a journey of lesser known mid to late 19th and 20th century instrumental works, but am now less keen than before, but am still open to never listened to pieces from all periods, especially earlier Baroque and Classical. Explorative phases have reassured me even more that my taste remains firmly with what I have always liked all along and one result is I still do purchase and attend music by those composers.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I am still in the soaking up everything new (to me) stage and I hit almost all periods and genres of music. But after a couple of decades of that, I am just beginning to see how this could become tiresome. I still want to learn, but there are times when too much new becomes overwhelming. I can see the need to drink deeply of a handful of favorite works from time to time too. While I do try to get different versions of the works truly important to me, this is often only to try finding the definitive version. 

So I think I am in slow transition.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

For me most from 1900 on


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Yes, those stacks of un-listened-to CDs. But I try to keep it to a minimum. Consumerism is what keeps the system up and running for now. However when you don't actually consume anymore, but only purchase and have the unused thing sit there, it gets really bad.

The advantage of an expansive CD collection is that you can indeed rediscover old purchases. When I first got into classical music, I bought many Bach CDs with traditional interpretations, Karl Richter, Marriner, Münchinger, Karajan even. Then I became interested in historically-informed recordings. And now, after some years, it's interesting to revisit those traditional recordings.

Still, it just so happens that I keep discovering new composers, so that I'm kind of balancing the familiar with the unfamiliar.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

When I think about it, most of my listening is 20th century. Nothing unusual for the most part -- Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Ravel, Bartok, some Britten, that sort of thing. I like the tonal approach with a lot of spice.

Otherwise, the usual long-dead culprits -- Beethoven for sure, Haydn (a lot), Bach, Zelenka, some Mozart.

I probably listen least to the Romantics between 1830 and 1900, except for the occasional dose of Bruckner and of course some others.

After writing this, I feel dull, middle-of-the-road, essentially uninteresting...


----------



## Conor71 (Feb 19, 2009)

The last year or so I have been in a phase of re-evaluation and refinement meaning I have not listened to as much new music as what I did in the first few years of my CM journey.
I think I have identified the composers I wish to continue listening to for the foreseeable future and those which I have outgrown.
A big change in my listening recently was deleting all the Classical era music and Brahms from my iPod - Apart from a little Early Music and some Bach I basically have nothing pre-romantic that I enjoy listening to anymore.
I no longer wish to be a well-rounded listener and just want to focus on the music which gives me the most pleasure!


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

I think it is fifty/fifty for me, I feel that discovering new music is all important, may it be in the form of rarities form them old war-horses or the odd duckling that has a swan's genetics. I also think it is very important to challenge your own preconceptions of what (classical) music is, can be and/or will become by keeping your nose in the newly plowed furrows of music to grow!

/ptr


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> How much of the music that you listen to is "new" to you vs music that you already know and love/admire/enjoy?


An interesting question. I too possess a (precariously swaying) tower or two of un-listened to CDs.

Listening to new music/composers requires focused concentration and aural engagement which, depending on ones mood and state of mind, can be rather demanding - and yet with out this business-like attitude, the new will never cross the boundary to the "comfortable" and familiar. Once the familiar _easy-listening_ stage sets in one must then exercise caution and restraint less the familiar becomes tediously repetitive - familiarity breeds contempt after all. Some new music finds more or less instant report with my ears and music sensibilities, in these cases I'm like a dog burying a bone to dig up and continue with later. In the meantime I exercise some discipline and listen to something new. Perhaps there will be instant rapport with the new piece. But if not, there is that musical bone waiting for me - something akin to enjoying the chill before stepping into a nice hot (but not too hot) bath.

I find new, unheard opera very challenging in this respect. I ease the aural demands somewhat by reading the libretto (in translation) and researching the opera/composer on the internet. But there is no getting round it - listening to something new is work - albeit potentially extremely rewarding work.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I think 80% is new or almost new. With a gigantic backlog on the "to listen" pile.


----------



## JCarmel (Feb 3, 2013)

There is little that I can add to what has already been said in these excellent posts. 
I allow myself to play just whatever I fancy listening-to....I kind-of go with the flow as t'were & so in that way I never feel any limitations on the size of my recorded music collection. Apart from cd's, I have tapes, videos, dvd's and LP's...so I really have too much to listen-to already, anyway. 
But I do feel that it is most important to try to approach the Unknown & appreciate music that is unfamiliar. It is so easy to stagnate & just listen to what you know you like.....

"Curiosity is one of the great secrets of happiness" Bryant H. McGill


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> "New" vs "Old" Music?


but where's new music?.. i see none ...all they do is copy old music and present it as new!


----------



## Guest (Mar 30, 2013)

Interesting pattern expressed here: exploration --> settling in. That accounts for a lot. The people who have followed that pattern will quite naturally have the difficulties they report as having with new music.

The leap from that to the conclusion that there's something wrong with new music is still a gigantic leap, howsumever.

So exploring is what you do first until you've developed a taste, then you listen to what you like, with what looks to me, anyway, like a subtext that that pattern identifies a process of maturation. Not sure, of course, if I'm reading that right, but I certainly do not think that exploration is a preliminary step to eventual knowledge or even wisdom.

Far as I'm concerned, exploration _is_ wisdom.

And I certainly don't fancy the idea that listening to music is difficult. I'm sure it is for many people. Many people report it as being so, so it must be so. I just don't understand that. Listening to music is a great joy. And listening to new music is an even greater joy. Well, maybe not greater. Different. And joyful.

I'm very fond of a lot of different pieces, and I have a group of them I return to over and over again. But I find increasingly as I age that I do not listen to music in order to hear what I enjoy so much as I listen to music in order to enjoy what I hear. I listen as much as I can to music that is new. That's because I'm not interested so much in what I know as in what I do not know.

The subtext here, to anticipate some inevitable, snippy rebuttals, is that that pattern is in all ways superior and more mature than the pattern that ends in settling in, yes. I happily admit that.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

we put too much expectations on Stravinsky and Schonberg and others, whereas in fact they did not start a new era in music, they rather put an end to music as such, just like Malevich's _Black Square_ put an end to painting.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

sharik said:


> we put too much expectations on Stravinsky and Schonberg and others, whereas in fact they did not start a new era in music, they rather put an end to music as such, just like Malevich's _Black Square_ put an end to painting.


Please heed the OP and take this type of off-topic discussion elsewhere. There are already too many threads about this, no need to fill this one with it as well. The OP clearly states what is meant with new music in the present disucssion: music you have not listened to yet.


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

I'm still too much of a newbie, not to be listening to "new" music.
There is so much out there, that I'm not aware of.
It's an exciting journey, which gives me great pleasure
Long may it continue


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

You know what's amazing? I'm essentially caught up on my listening. Sure, there are a lot of disks I haven't heard enough times, a lot of works I don't know well enough, but there's nothing looming over me sending psychic messages of, "You bought me. Now listen to me."

And what's more amazing? I don't feel a need to run out and get a lot of stuff. I'm really content - and have felt this way for about 6 weeks - with the music I have. In those six weeks I've bought maybe 20 cds.

But of the stuff that I am buying, about a quarter is actually just upgrading or attempting to upgrade the recording I have. That means, to answer the question of the thread, about 3/4 of the new music I have been buying lately is music that is totally new to me. Never heard this work before. But essentially _all_ of my listening is music that I've heard before, except of course the very first time that I listen to a disk I just bought.

Lately I've just been in the mood for consolidating my knowledge rather than stretching it.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I like everything from Baroque to Late Romanticism. Modernism is when things started to get cold to me. Not a period I enjoy that much. But I still give it a try to see if I changed my stance.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I'm about 80/20 with old/new. I don't have the time to devote to studying a new piece that I used to have, which is frustrating. It's more rewarding to me to hear a different recording of something I've already studied. 

Having said that, today I have a stack of CDs I just picked up last week which is half familiar and half completely new, from Baroque to modern. The Charles Wuorinen CD will probably go unplayed after the first listen because I can't devote myself to figuring out why all those random noises should make sense. And that makes me very irritated. 

But as they say, ars longa, vita brevis.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I started a similar thread awhile ago so people can also look there if they wish.

I'm still pretty much in the same phase I was back then. I listen to probably 90% new music spread over the Medieval through Contemporary eras. I eagerly search for new works to explore. I'm constantly looking for new sources of music. TC is a wonderful resource, and I find that in many threads, whatever the context, people point to works they have enjoyed. I also use online sites, books, friends' recommendations, etc. I have a very long list of "new" works I have yet to explore.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I think an easy error to make is to dismiss modern music just because it's either not to our taste, or that it doesn't conform to what we expect from music. For me, a lot of music from the Romantic period and afterwards seems attached to philosophy and sentimentality, and I feel like I need to study extra-textual aids to get a handle on what the composer wants.

Last year I attended the premiere of Deirdre Gribbin's The Binding of the Years, a piano concerto she composed for Finghin Collins to perform. Impossible to take all this in! It seemed the orchestra was at odds with the piano, a war on stage, a musical battle taking place. Also, since the piece was based upon Aztec fire rituals, it appeared to be very visual music and perhaps a necessary knowledge of these ceremonies would be helpful, since at times the music sounded like little more than a soundtrack that should accompany visual images.

Or else the music was stretching itself metaphorically to suggest these images. I wasn't sure.

I didn't dislike the work, but nor could I make head nor tails of it. It was complex, involved, very startling in its abrupt shifts. It would take many turns of a disc before I'd say I _got_ it. It definitely involved more than _mere music_, which would be a problem from my perspective. Music itself wasn't enough, but now it had a partner in the act, and the partner was some other programmatic knowledge required by the audience.

I don't want this to sound like a criticism of the music, by the way, but it's more an explanation of how I often struggle with modern musical ideas. They crisply disavow the music, as its own end and means, in favour of some other idea that either the music has to propagate, or else the idea is to augment the music. I'm not sure which. In some sense, my difficulty with this is that when I listen to music, I *own* the music, and so I create my own program or listening experience around it. I don't want to be told what the music is about, unless it's a theatre piece. I don't like an agenda to be set which tells me what I should feel when I listen to a work. I like to fill those particular blanks in myself.

Now, again, this isn't the music's fault and I own up to the fact the people thought Mozart too complicated in his day and so he fell into some neglect for a few years. If music is a work of great genius, then it takes time for an audience to catch up. This is by definition, almost. We're not all geniuses and so the composer has the advantage. I think if I heard Mahler's fifth when it was first performed, I might have reacted in a similarly cold way, but now I can put it on and let it wash through me, without comparing it to anything else but itself...


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Kieran said:


> Now, again, this isn't the music's fault and I own up to the fact the people thought Mozart too complicated in his day and so he fell into some neglect for a few years. If music is a work of great genius, then it takes time for an audience to catch up. This is by definition, almost. We're not all geniuses and so the composer has the advantage. I think if I heard Mahler's fifth when it was first performed, I might have reacted in a similarly cold way, but now I can put it on and let it wash through me, without comparing it to anything else but itself...


"Nobody understood [the fifth]! I wish I could conduct the first performance 50 years after my death." - Gustav Mahler

I listen to a mixture of music I know, music I don't, and music I'd like to know better. Sometimes I even listen to things I dislike and have no clue why I bother with at all.

When I want to get to know something, though, I usually listen to it a lot, read the score, etc.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> "Nobody understood [the fifth]! I wish I could conduct the first performance 50 years after my death." - Gustav Mahler


Exactly! Poor old Gustav, it must be very hard for composer to know the music he wrote is *spot-on* - but few people get it. This is why all these great composers fall into neglect at some stage in their lives, I suppose... :tiphat:


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

*This thread is turning onto a surreal train wreck, because some people post here just reading the title and not the first post, and therefore post something which is totally out of whack with the other posts and the intent.... *


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Art Rock said:


> *This thread is turning onto a surreal train wreck, because some people post here just reading the title and not the first post, and therefore post something which is totally out of whack with the other posts and the intent.... *


Then my answer to the first post is 5/95...


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Art Rock said:


> *This thread is turning onto a surreal train wreck, because some people post here just reading the title and not the first post, and therefore post something which is totally out of whack with the other posts and the intent.... *


This is why most people just make poll threads, those are simple (to the point of only involving mouse input) and they don't confuse the rapidly expanding portion of the membership who either can't or simply refuse to read, or, dare I say it, trolls who know what the thread is about and would rather stir up yet more conflict over some hot topic that is being handled well (a series of words which I use with some reservation) in other threads.

Anyway. My listening tends to go in phases with regard to every factor, so for a time I might be exclusively interested in 19th century chamber music or 20th century solo piano etc., the longer phases usually relate to the number of different composers I'm listening to, at the moment I'm listening to many but in a few months I might be listening to only one or two. This also applies to familiar and unfamiliar music, at some points I'll listen exclusively to one or the other, but usually a well balanced mix of both.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> This is why most people just make poll threads, those are simple (to the point of only involving mouse input) and they don't confuse the rapidly expanding portion of the membership who either can't or simply refuse to read, or, dare I say it, trolls who know what the thread is about and would rather stir up yet more conflict over some hot topic that is being handled well (a series of words which I use with some reservation) in other threads.
> 
> Anyway. My listening tends to go in phases with regard to every factor, so for a time I might be exclusively interested in 19th century chamber music or 20th century solo piano etc., the longer phases usually relate to the number of different composers I'm listening to, at the moment I'm listening to many but in a few months I might be listening to only one or two. This also applies to familiar and unfamiliar music, at some points I'll listen exclusively to one or the other, but usually a well balanced mix of both.


The title of the thread is misleading. And there are no trolls once again in this thread.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> The title of the thread is misleading. And there are no trolls once again in this thread.


Any potentially misleading aspect of the title is wholly clarified by the OP which clearly states that *this thread is not about common practice vs. modern music*. I also did not say that there were any trolls in this thread, though I do not necessarily think I would have been wrong if I had said that. In order to hopefully avoid further derailing of this otherwise interesting thread I will not say any more on the matter.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Crikey....


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

I'm torn on this issue. There's lots of stuff I still haven't heard (I didn't grow up a Classical fan) and I like a lot of stuff outside the canon, which means so much more to listen to. But I also like to listen to works many times so I can fully appreciate them. I think there's a long arc between "still don't fully appreciate it" and "sick of it."

One thing I don't do is listen to various performances of the same work. Not that it wouldn't be rewarding too, but there's only so much time (plus, I'm not exclusive to Classical).


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> Far as I'm concerned, exploration _is_ wisdom.


Thanks for your agreeable compliment. You will note (those who bothered to answer StlukeguildOhio's first post properly) that exploration is a large part of it. Though what I will also admit it that I am not as adventurous when it comes to noise (new noise or old noise, I cannot really tell, they all sound the same to me).


----------



## ProudSquire (Nov 30, 2011)

My CD collection is rather petite, I shamefully admit, but I'm working on it. Now, I've only gone through three periods of listening, Classical, Romantic and Modern, with the latter being less explored than the previous two. The only epoch which I have yet to fully explore is the Baroque era. I feel that when the time is right I'll be well and ready for it. I plan on fixing that some-time in the near future, but for now I'm still going through the classical, romantic and modern phase.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I'm an obsessive listener. When I discover something I like, then I go through a deep immersion on this composer's oeuvre. That takes a while. When I exhaust the subject, a new obsession comes out.


----------



## Guest (Mar 30, 2013)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> You will note (those who bothered to answer StlukeguildOhio's first post properly) that exploration is a large part of it.


Read my whole post. You will then note that I did indeed already note that.

I was distinguishing between the notion that exploration leads to wisdom and the notion that exploration is the wisdom itself.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I'll post once again to state that my intention was not to poll listeners as to whether they listen more to "old" music like Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach than "new" like Ligeti, Stockhausen, and Golijov. My question was geared toward how much time you spend exploring music that in "new" to you (regardless of its age) vs music you are somewhat familiar with. I think we might do well to recognize that "exploration" (which someguy equates to knowledge) need not be limited to an exploration of the latest music composed last week. Three years or so ago Biber, Zelenka, and Dufay were all "new" to me. My "discovery" and "exploration" of their music was no less exciting and eye-opening than my discovery and exploration at the same time of several contemporary composers. Last summer... after having had the work on my shelf for years... I finally got around to listening to Humperdinck's _Hänsel und Gretel_. I was completely enthralled... and rushed out to get a couple other recordings of the work.

Indeed... I'll go further and suggest that exploring multiple recordings of a well-known repertoire is not "settling in". Rather, it is an act of delving deeper. It seems to me that I can continue to explore music that is wholly "new" to me, but if my listening habits is limited to seeking out the latest sensation, then ultimately my grasp of said music remains rather superficial. Bach's _Well Tempered Clavier_ and Beethoven's _9th Symphony_ did not become something that I was familiar with and something that I could possibly understand or appreciate on a deeper level after but a single hearing. The same would seem to apply to any work of music that is "new" to me. Now certainly, there are those instances when I go back and listen to the 9th again simply because it is a work I enjoy. It is something I take pleasure in... and yes this is a pleasure different from that of discovering and exploring something wholly new. But I should note that listening to a familiar work of music is not without "discovery". Different performances spotlight different aspects of the composer's intentions... and then there is the fact that I myself, as a listener, have changed... what I bring to the music is different... making my experience of that music different. My experience of Bach's _Brandenburg Concertos_ today is not the same as my experience as a teenager with little experience with the whole of classical music. My experience with the Brandenburg Concertos just some 3 or 4 years ago is quite different from my experience after discovering Zelenka, Biber, and other Baroque composers.

By way of analogy, I find myself thinking of Dante. The great Renaissance poet lived at a time before the Gutenberg press when books were costly beyond our comprehension. He probably had a library of 100 or so books, and may have been somewhat familiar (if he was lucky) with a couple hundred others. My personal library numbers over 3500 books... a good many of which I have read. I have read books my writers Dante could never have known of... Chinese and Persian poets, Arabic storytellers, etc... But am I the greater or wiser reader? Somehow I suspect that Dante's grasp of the limited number of books he owned far exceeded mine... that he was able to burrow deeper into these works and discover and explore as much or more than I can with my far larger library... to say nothing of my access to the internet.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

In fairness, the OP is asking a different question than I answered, but the reaction to this was possibly a little off-putting. I don't buy music I don't first source, stalk, then listen to with semi-obsessiveness. But I do have DVDs I haven't bothered to watch. I understand that sometimes we buy stuff but then fall back on the old familiars. 

I kind of also stalk the consensus on certain performers and conductors and so if I buy, I'm kind of certain that the performers have enough reputation that I can trust it. An exception is Muti's Don Giovanni, which I bought because the store didn't have Giulini's. eventually they did, and Muti sits there, staring at me reproachfully...


----------



## julianoq (Jan 29, 2013)

I feel that I am on a good position now. I just started to listen to classical music around 6 months ago and since I started I am obsessed with it. I have so much "new" stuff to listen that I feel like a kid discovering the world again. At this moment I am listening probably 50/50, I love to listen to different performances (I discovered that a person can't own enough Beethoven symphonies cycles, I have 11 already), but at the same time I still have too much new stuff to listen to (I am just starting to appreciate Bach now). 

I just hope that I have enough time and money in my life to appreciate this amazing stuff that I ignored for 28 years!


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

mostly new


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> I was distinguishing between the notion that exploration leads to wisdom and the notion that exploration is the wisdom itself.


Correct. *We all explore*. You are not the only one who explores. Nearly all posts in this thread exemplifies exploration. Money spent. Time allocated. Discovery. As to whether we are the wiser as a result, I am not here to judge others.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Yesterday, I listened to for the first time *Francesco Cavalli's* (1602-1676) opera, _La virtù dei strali d'Amore_ (1642). Listening to such early examples of the genre can increase one's appreciation of opera in general in the sense that one can clearly experience just how far the genre has developed over the four centuries. Part of opera exploration, even though it is a genre that I have much experience with, whether 1642 or 1942 or today. I think I am a slightly "wiser" opera listener as a result, even though this is not the first time I have listened to Cavalli's or pre-18th century operas. And I think the audience in that live recording would probably think similarly in many ways (new Naxos release, Europa Galante/Fabio Biondi). It was striking in several aspects that while this is "new" music (I have not listened to before), it actually still felt "new" in another sense that it was a stretch of sounds and voices that only the last decade or so have really re-discovered. So it is both "new" in StlukeguildOhio's definition and indeed new because we modern folks have only just re-discovered Cavalli and early opera (outside of Monteverdi).


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Though I understood the OP as being about known music vs not as well known music (new) music, and answered accordingly, I realize I did not attempt to give a value. Since I listen on shuffle play most of the time with perhaps serious listening to one lengthy work on the weekend, it must be about 50% new and 50% familiar. I like to try guessing what is playing if it is not immediately recognizable. Sometimes I'm way off though.


----------



## Guest (Mar 31, 2013)

KRoad said:


> An interesting question. I too possess a (precariously swaying) tower or two of un-listened to CDs.
> 
> Listening to new music/composers requires focused concentration and aural engagement which, depending on ones mood and state of mind, can be rather demanding - and yet with out this business-like attitude, the new will never cross the boundary to the "comfortable" and familiar. Once the familiar _easy-listening_ stage sets in one must then exercise caution and restraint less the familiar becomes tediously repetitive - familiarity breeds contempt after all. Some new music finds more or less instant report with my ears and music sensibilities, in these cases I'm like a dog burying a bone to dig up and continue with later. In the meantime I exercise some discipline and listen to something new. Perhaps there will be instant rapport with the new piece. But if not, there is that musical bone waiting for me - something akin to enjoying the chill before stepping into a nice hot (but not too hot) bath.
> 
> I find new, unheard opera very challenging in this respect. I ease the aural demands somewhat by reading the libretto (in translation) and researching the opera/composer on the internet. But there is no getting round it - listening to something new is work - albeit potentially extremely rewarding work.


It seems most people like "ancient music" - i.e. 19th century and before that. But we must remember that it IS ancient music. I like to try all periods and styles and my listening habits and tastes have changed dramatically over the years. Our needs grow more sophisticated, I think. I like Ligeti now and couldn't stomach it even 5 years ago. Not all his works appeal (as is the same with any composer) but there are some brilliant pieces and I have to say that intelligent internet companions I've 'met' on messageboards have influenced my tastes more recently. One introduced me to Scelsi and Xenakis and I listen to the latter's "Rebonds" and enjoy this. The Scelsi doesn't appeal at all - seeming too much life film music to my ears.

My bedrock composers are Bach/Beethoven/Brahms but I agree we shouldn't listen to one exclusively as this limits our scope and experiences. What's the old saying, "all things in moderation". I very much agree with that and over-familiarity with a particular composer, or period, can be fatiguing and ultimately unsatisfying, IMO. There is no ONE style or period more important than another. Having said that, I eschew the avant garde and sound design which passes for music. Like good wine, our tastes for a particular variety will seldom stay the same.

I'm enjoying Samuel Barber at the moment, and his piano sonata in particular. A somewhat under-rated composer, but this sonata is a magnificent achievement. An academic friend recently presented a lecture on Barber and was chuffed that I was sitting in the audience and knew so much about him. Lots don't know his work at all.

Thanks for starting the discussion. It's making me think while my family is out fishing on the lake and ocean outlet in front of our house!!


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> By way of analogy, I find myself thinking of Dante. The great Renaissance poet lived at a time before the Gutenberg press when books were costly beyond our comprehension. He probably had a library of 100 or so books, and may have been somewhat familiar (if he was lucky) with a couple hundred others. My personal library numbers over 3500 books... a good many of which I have read. I have read books my writers Dante could never have known of... Chinese and Persian poets, Arabic storytellers, etc... But am I the greater or wiser reader? Somehow I suspect that Dante's grasp of the limited number of books he owned far exceeded mine... that he was able to burrow deeper into these works and discover and explore as much or more than I can with my far larger library... to say nothing of my access to the internet.


This is a point I myself often think about. Is it better to have many desultory sources of knowledge or to have a few truly great ones? Now I should think I tend towards the latter view. In my library I've been getting rid of many of many things and see them as distractions from better books. Some people think their mind the richer the more it resembles a cabinet of curiosities--thousands of exotic feathers, bits of driftwood, glittering things here and there, all sorts of oddities. But I think the deeper intellects keep theirs as a temple, continually returning to the old pure streams of lofty thought and avoiding clutter at all costs.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

It's gets tiresome to see a good thread get hijacked.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> _The title of this thread may seem a bit provocative_ in light of the current debate/discussion... argument concerning Modern/Avant-Garde music... but this is not at all what I am interested in...I have found that I am more interested at present in alternative performances/recordings of works that are already known to me... at present I am avoiding too many purchases of "new" music... or rather _music that is "new" (ie, unknown) to me..._So where do you stand? How much of the music that you listen to is _"new" to you _vs music that you already know and love/admire/enjoy?


A lot of it, I'd say 80%, is _"familiar" music I already know and admire._ This is an important qualifier, and apparently easy to miss.
The reason, for me, is partly due to economic factors, but there are still plenty of YouTube postings and sound-bites that are free, which allow me the exploration of "unfamiliar" music (like Bach Cantatas I haven't heard, all the Mozart I haven't explored yet).

I will now go further, so forgive me if the following details take my post beyond the specified bounds of the thread query, but I feel that more 'fleshing-out with detail' is needed in order to make this an interesting response.

As far as any specifics as to what is "familiar" to me, I've been listening to the early Domaine Musical recordings, box 1 (1956-1967). This includes works by Stockhausen, Berio, and Messiaen (recorded in glorious mono, 1956), and Boulez' Le Marteau (stereo recording from 1964), all conducted by Boulez. These 1956 mono recordings are especially charming, as they were recorded in a very "dry" room which sounds more like a soundstage than a concert hall. Every detail is audible, not mushed-up with too much hall echo. Nice and dry, like an old master drawing or intaglio print.
The personnel is stellar, as well: Severino Gazzelloni on flute, Yvonne Loriod on the Messiaen piano parts.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I think that my listening habits right now are somewhere around 65-75% music that is at least partially familiar to me (favorite recordings I've owned for some time as well as new recordings of favorite works). The remaining 25%+ is devoted to what is essentially "new" music... or rather music that is "new" to me.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> It gets tiresome to see a good thread get hijacked.


Quite. I've removed some of the most egregiously insulting posts. Can we stick to the terms of service and have this discussion without a whole lot of sniping and snarling?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ....
> 
> So where do you stand? How much of the music that you listen to is "new" to you vs music that you already know and love/admire/enjoy?


I listen to much less music that is new to me now than I did when I got back into classical about 5 years ago after an almost decade long hiatus, or at least massive slow down compared to the decade before that. I have also experienced a type of burnout with music new to me, so what I've been doing over the past year or so is going back and mainly listening to recordings I have - many of which I have not listened to for a long time, or not that many times over the past few years. Its been a joy. I now tend to really think about buying a recording. I only buy it if I want to listen to it straight away (to avoid adding to the unlistened pile I got, which is slowly getting smaller, but not at a very fast rate!). & even a good number of those recordings I buy are music I know (eg. heard on radio before, or had on tapes which desperately need replacing, etc.).

Indeed, I feel I am swinging back as I did in that 'hiatus from classical' decade to non-classical. Then it was jazz, now I'm increasingly interested in things like country and rock. I might put classical on hold for a while, or nearly, and get into other areas which do indeed have a lot of music thats new to me, plenty of that there.

I personally can't treat classical, esp. the heavy stuff, as a kind of ear candy. I got to kind of sink it in (which others have talked about regarding their own experiences with this). But that may happen over a long period of time.

The final thing is that regarding the debate thats gone on this thread, I don't make myself listen to things anymore which I'm unlikely to like, or have chances of liking. I don't think there should be any 'shoulds' in music, as in anything else thats voluntary or a hobby, for enjoyment. So I have culled quite a lot of cd's from my collection in recent months, and they are things that did not hold my attention for long (most of that being of certain genres or eras that I am interested in least) and now I've kind of worked through that, I've worked through my basic tastes/preferences/needs, and I'm ok with developing that and narrowing things down a bit. I know my way around the classical music 'universe' better a bit now than before, so what I'm doing is focussing things on areas that give me 'high returns' so to speak.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

The final thing is that regarding the debate thats gone on this thread, I don't make myself listen to things anymore which I'm unlikely to like, or have chances of liking. I don't think there should be any 'shoulds' in music, as in anything else thats voluntary or a hobby, for enjoyment. So I have culled quite a lot of cd's from my collection in recent months...

I agree, and find it egregious when some insinuate that their listening habits are so much better, or intelligent, or open-minded, or mature than others. For you to say "I don't like Wagner" or "I don't like Schoenberg" is simply a statement of fact... like "I don't like liver." Of course the problem arises when reasons are given to justify one's taste: "Wagner was a Nazi." "Schoenberg was the Anti-Christ of music." "Mozart is overrated." This opens the discussion up to dispute.

I listen to music for pleasure, and "listening for pleasure" need not be reduced to an assumption of mere ear candy. One can take pleasure in art which is quite thorny or intellectually challenging, just as some take pleasure in solving complex crossword puzzles. I have come to a point... which may or may not be momentary... in which I am no longer seeking out any "new" music because it is something I "should" listen to or "should" like. Using Schoenberg as my whipping boy I probably have more recordings by him than do many who love his music because others repeatedly told me I "should" like him... I "would" like him if only I listened to this recording or that piece... I must like him if I am to be taken seriously as a serious, mature, and intelligent aficionado of classical music. The result, however, has been that for all my investment of time, effort, and money I have derived little real pleasure... certainly far less than I derived from any number of old favorites... or "new" recordings of the same.

I can't say I am seriously thinking of editing my collection... not just yet. There is always the chance that I will come around to liking Schoenberg or any number of other composers who simply haven't gelled with me... but I can't see making further investments in recordings... let alone large investments of time and money in something that fails to bring me pleasure when there is so much music out there that does bring me pleasure.

The truth is that you can dislike Wagner or Schoenberg or the whole of "atonal" music or even Mozart or Beethoven and still love classical music... because there is simply such a wealth of work there that none of us will every be able to digest it all. Even an individual who specializes in the baroque or Medieval music or opera will admit that he or she will never be able to experience, let alone digest, all there is to be enjoyed.

Undoubtedly, its only human nature to want others to enjoy what we enjoy... and this is unquestionably the reason behind the hostility directed toward those that don't share our passion for composer X,Y, or Z. But to what avail. I suspect that talking and writing honestly about what music you do enjoy will intrigue and perhaps convert far more listeners than constant disputes and comments that berate, belittle, and insult others' taste. But then again... disputes and arguments are probably inherently more dramatic, and it is also only human nature to enjoy such drama over peaceful agreement.


----------



## OboeKnight (Jan 25, 2013)

I didn't really get heavy into listening until about a year ago. I was just so preoccupied with playing oboe that I didn't have a need to listen all that much. Now I'm still preoccupied with oboe, and I'm also preoccupied with listening...so, I have no life (not that I ever did anyhow )

I've been going all over the place with my listening. I've got a monumental list of things I want to listen to so I take a few pieces and listen to them over and over until I'm sick of them, and then I move on.


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I'll post once again to state that my intention was not to poll listeners as to whether they listen more to "old" music like Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach than "new" like Ligeti, Stockhausen, and Golijov. My question was geared toward how much time you spend exploring music that in "new" to you (regardless of its age) vs music you are somewhat familiar with. I think we might do well to recognize that "exploration" (which someguy equates to knowledge) need not be limited to an exploration of the latest music composed last week. Three years or so ago Biber, Zelenka, and Dufay were all "new" to me. My "discovery" and "exploration" of their music was no less exciting and eye-opening than my discovery and exploration at the same time of several contemporary composers. Last summer... after having had the work on my shelf for years... I finally got around to listening to Humperdinck's _Hänsel und Gretel_. I was completely enthralled... and rushed out to get a couple other recordings of the work.
> 
> Indeed... I'll go further and suggest that exploring multiple recordings of a well-known repertoire is not "settling in". Rather, it is an act of delving deeper. It seems to me that I can continue to explore music that is wholly "new" to me, but if my listening habits is limited to seeking out the latest sensation, then ultimately my grasp of said music remains rather superficial. Bach's _Well Tempered Clavier_ and Beethoven's _9th Symphony_ did not become something that I was familiar with and something that I could possibly understand or appreciate on a deeper level after but a single hearing. The same would seem to apply to any work of music that is "new" to me. Now certainly, there are those instances when I go back and listen to the 9th again simply because it is a work I enjoy. It is something I take pleasure in... and yes this is a pleasure different from that of discovering and exploring something wholly new. But I should note that listening to a familiar work of music is not without "discovery". Different performances spotlight different aspects of the composer's intentions... and then there is the fact that I myself, as a listener, have changed... what I bring to the music is different... making my experience of that music different. My experience of Bach's _Brandenburg Concertos_ today is not the same as my experience as a teenager with little experience with the whole of classical music. My experience with the Brandenburg Concertos just some 3 or 4 years ago is quite different from my experience after discovering Zelenka, Biber, and other Baroque composers.
> 
> By way of analogy, I find myself thinking of Dante. The great Renaissance poet lived at a time before the Gutenberg press when books were costly beyond our comprehension. He probably had a library of 100 or so books, and may have been somewhat familiar (if he was lucky) with a couple hundred others. My personal library numbers over 3500 books... a good many of which I have read. I have read books my writers Dante could never have known of... Chinese and Persian poets, Arabic storytellers, etc... But am I the greater or wiser reader? Somehow I suspect that Dante's grasp of the limited number of books he owned far exceeded mine... that he was able to burrow deeper into these works and discover and explore as much or more than I can with my far larger library... to say nothing of my access to the internet.


I must say I'm very impressed by your considerable library!! And you're quite astute, IMO, on what you say about being able to "burrow deeper" into the experiences one has already had - which may be less than others have had. Once again, it's a qualitative judgment rather than a quantitative one. The tell tale signs are 'referencing' - the extent to which the ideas of others are present in music, books or films and what is actually done with these ideas. For some this will be merely derivative, whilst for others a truly wonderful landscape and new way of representing things will emerge from knowledge. This is one of the hallmarks of genius, IMO. The blind Milton: a vision of Heaven and Hell that any 'sighted' person would have difficulty representing.

I guess we've strayed from the beaten path of this topic!!


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I like llistening to more new music. But gotta rely on the reliables. Like Sibelius.


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

I joined TC to get an increase in "New".

And the result has exceeded my expectations. :tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think every classical listener, just by nature of the genre, will purchase and listen to "new" (as in unfamiliar) and different versions and performances of compositions they have heard before; in other words, "new old music."

For example, I have 3 cycles of Mahler symphonies, by Boulez, Abravanel, and Bernstein; so for me, Mahler symphonies are "old," since I am familiar with them, but each new performance/conductor I get is "new," so my latest Mahler purchase is "new old music."

As the thread title is _"New" vs "Old" Music,_ this principle and particular use of the terms "new and "old" demonstrates a fundamental characteristic of classical music.

In classical, a _score_ is used as the "blueprint" or software to generate a performance. This performance can be recorded "live," as a performance, or recorded in a studio as a recording, both of which can be converted into a concrete "artifact" of the performance/recording, as a vinyl LP record, compact disc, or music file.

With popular music, this same procedure is _possible_ if the "song" or composition has been written-down as such; this applies to "old standards" like the Great American Songbooks of Gershwin, Rodgers & Hammerstein, Cole Porter, etc.

However, in popular music more emphasis is placed on the artist's performance or the particular issue of the "artifact," especially if the record or CD becomes a "hit;" then that particular performance becomes the "definitive artifact" and supercedes the "blueprint" of the song.

This is especially true of very popular artists, such as Elvis Presley; we consider his performance, captured as a master take recording, as the "definitive" version, by which all other "new" versions would pale by comparison. 

The song "Hound Dog" itself will probably not survive or be discussed as a "composition" unto itself apart from Elvis' iconic performance of it; perhaps experts and historians will venerate Big Mama Thornton's recording of it, since she wrote & recorded it first, before inspiring Presley, but this is an exception.

In this way, we see a fundamental difference emerging; _popular music_ is usually more concerned with human gesture and performance factors, unique and identifiable voice quality, and performance gestures that many times overshadow the "constant" elements of the composition.

In classical music, the "composition" is considered to be "iconic" blueprint, a kind of "definitive prototype" or "Platonic ideal" which conveys, in written form, the musical information to the performers. The composition or song is the "DNA" which conveys its unique information, which remains as a "constant" throughout numerous versions of its realization.

Of course, in this day and age of recording and music reproduction, hardly any performance escapes being recorded and thus becoming an "artifact," so even in CM there are certain "hits" which fans consider to be definitive versions, but rarely does a CM performer "own" a composition, because to the CM fan, the composer is given special veneration, because of the _musical ideas conveyed._

Glenn Gould's Goldbergs come to mind, but this can be disputed, as _performances and recordings will always be superceded by classical music's hierarchy of the composer, as conveyor of ideas, being on top;_ rather than popular music's venerated artists at the top of their hierarchy. It's a different hierarchical structure. Still, Glenn Gould scored a "hit" with his 1955 recording, thus showing that even CM has been affected by mass-media.

So for the CM fan, the composer is given special veneration, because of the _musical ideas conveyed;_ a composer's work is like a biological strain of DNA which, like the Immaculate Conception or "virgin birth" is conveyed again and again, to be born anew in a slightly different, but essentially constant, form. This is "the old" becoming "new," in a never-ending cycle of rebirth and re-manifestation.

This is not to discount forms of popular music which are totally "artifact-oriented." Much popular music is created without a score, aurally/visually on computers, with no paper score whatsoever. The music is created by interaction with the recording process itself; no separation exists between the idea and its manifestation.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Classical performances from the 50s and 60s (the first two decades with reasonably high fidelity and stereo) only seem to get more entrenched as artifacts. Each generation of performers is less respected than the one preceding. 

For example, look at the Berlin philharmonic--Simon Rattle is less respected than Abbado, who is less respected than Karajan, who is less respected than Furtwängler.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Logos said:


> For example, look at the Berlin philharmonic--Simon Rattle is less respected than Abbado, who is less respected than Karajan, who is less respected than Furtwängler.


And yet... I'm inclined to take Rattle over Karajan in terms of what he extracts from the BPO performance-wise. Different folks-different strokes, I guess.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Logos said:


> Classical performances from the 50s and 60s (the first two decades with reasonably high fidelity and stereo) only seem to get more entrenched as artifacts. Each generation of performers is less respected than the one preceding.
> 
> For example, look at the Berlin philharmonic--Simon Rattle is less respected than Abbado, who is less respected than Karajan, who is less respected than Furtwängler.


If I may be allowed to use your statement as a "given," then if what you say about listener perceptions of these conductors is true (of course we know it is opinion & can be disputed), then CM is becoming (in the perceptions of its listeners & consumers) more like pop music. The reason is, of course, due to the advent of recording.

CM is becoming "entrenched in the physical artifact" due to recording, as further reflected in the audio fidelity of the artifact itself (as recording technology improves), although the principle of "the work itself" being the most important factor should ideally not really be "touched" by any of this, as it is the "pure spirit" or archetypal truth which transcends all physical manifestation;

"Our present era" could be seen as being perceived as "tainted" or less and less "in touch" with the tradition & mindset needed to do justice to this "spirit" of CM; as above, the attachment to "gross physical factors" has superceded the realm of the Composer as spirit and conveyor of metaphysical "truth" or pure spirit, _in real time._

Before recording, music was only heard one time, as a unique performance; now it is like a caged bird, trapped forever as a physical manifestation of what once was the exclusive domain of "the now," in the realm of being and spirit, as manifest by the performers and the audience.

Perhaps that is the proper and ultimate providence of CM, and perhaps of all music: the sacred moment of being, conveying spirit in the "now," as a unique moment. In this sense, all music is "new" music, moment by moment. Have we forgotten this in our preset age of recording? I think so, if we confine our perceptions to listening to artifacts. Then again, as technology progresses, perhaps "virtual performance" will surpass the actual moment.

I see in all this an analogy to Christianity; the "spirit" is represented by the composition, created by the composer (as "god"), and is not really comprehensible to Humanity until it is "manifest" in physical form, as Christ was. In this way, "spirit" is conveyed in understandable terms. Does one have to be physically present at an actual performance as this is conveyed? Many times, this is true, and that's the way it was done in times past.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> I see in all this an analogy to Christianity; the "spirit" is represented by the composition, created by the composer (as "god"), and is not really comprehensible to Humanity until it is "manifest" in physical form, as Christ was. In this way, "spirit" is conveyed in understandable terms. Does one have to be physically present at an actual performance as this is conveyed? Many times, this is true, and that's the way it was done in times past.


There's much to what you say, but I don't think being at an actual artistic performance is necessary anymore than witnessing firsthand the events of scripture is necessary to appreciate fully their import.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Well, if illiteracy didn't kill this thread, bringing up religion surely has.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Crudblud said:


> Well, if illiteracy didn't kill this thread, bringing up religion surely has.


Oh your favourite Deity yea (if you get one)! - note I'm being PC here :lol:


----------



## Feathers (Feb 18, 2013)

My New-vs-Old ratio has gone from 5/95 (as in, I-probably-won't-hear-a-new-piece-or-composer-until-I-somehow-bump-into-one) to 25/75 after I joined TC. 25% "new" music may not seem like a lot, but it's actually a lot for me. Sometimes I feel like I lack the enzyme for digesting music and tend to listen to the same pieces over and over again, but I'm working on opening my ears to more new music and am quite happy to realize that the percent of "new" music that I listen to is increasing.


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2013)

I am almost entirely focused on my existing collection at the moment. With something like 850 CDs, it is a serious undertaking to listen to them all, even more so to get to know them all reasonably well.

I purchase new music in dribbles (e.g. just 10 or so albums in 2013). These are mostly just bulking up my collection of favorite composers or artists.

Once I get more comfortable with my level of knowledge about my existing collection, I will start purchasing a bit more. But never again the heady days of buying faster than I can listen.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Sid James said:


> I listen to much less music that is new to me now than I did when I got back into classical about 5 years ago after an almost decade long hiatus, or at least massive slow down compared to the decade before that. I have also experienced a type of burnout with music new to me, so what I've been doing over the past year or so is going back and mainly listening to recordings I have - many of which I have not listened to for a long time, or not that many times over the past few years. Its been a joy. I now tend to really think about buying a recording. I only buy it if I want to listen to it straight away (to avoid adding to the unlistened pile I got, which is slowly getting smaller, but not at a very fast rate!). & even a good number of those recordings I buy are music I know (eg. heard on radio before, or had on tapes which desperately need replacing, etc.).
> 
> Indeed, I feel I am swinging back as I did in that 'hiatus from classical' decade to non-classical. Then it was jazz, now I'm increasingly interested in things like country and rock. I might put classical on hold for a while, or nearly, and get into other areas which do indeed have a lot of music thats new to me, plenty of that there.
> 
> ...


"Country and rock." Sid, I just had no idea. Ha. Ha. Ha. _;D_


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio: Undoubtedly, its only human nature to want others to enjoy what we enjoy... and this is unquestionably the reason behind the hostility directed toward those that don't share our passion for composer X,Y, or Z. But to what avail. I suspect that talking and writing honestly about what music you do enjoy will intrigue and perhaps convert far more listeners than constant disputes and comments that berate, belittle, and insult others' taste. But then again... disputes and arguments are probably inherently more dramatic, and it is also only human nature to enjoy such drama over peaceful agreement. 

I suppose you can say that without fear of contradiction. Ha. Ha. Ha. . . Yeah, 'non-disputandum' all the way .


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

For me - 80% old, 20% new.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Classical genre: Really old.
Rock genre: slightly old.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

At this stage 90% new, 10% creaking.


----------



## Guest (Feb 24, 2014)

Hey! That is exactly the ratio of new to old that there was in concerts of Haydn's time. 90 to 10.

Something has happened over the past coupla hundred years, something bad, and it ain't anything gone wrong with the music, either. Nope.

Nope, nope, nope.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I'm a bit too familiar with the basic repertoire and long for something different to stimulate me.
That's why I have a 90%, 10%, new to creaky ratio. Enjoying exploring composers I'm not familiar with.
I've found a few clunkers, but I've also been pleasantly surprised by the likes of Schuman, Mennin, Persichetti, Pohjola, etc;


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> "New" vs "Old" Music?


'old music' - check, Schonberg and Stravinsky, we know them; but as for 'new music' - yet to be seen, for it is long time that no one can come even close to _Le Sacre Du Printemps_ in terms of novelty.


----------



## Guest (Feb 24, 2014)




----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

It's all old....


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Not when it was written in 2006.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

That's just a little less old than 2005.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I have Wall Street Journals older than that in my attic.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

but how new is 'new'?.. since when 'second hand' has become this 'new' eh?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

2006 is as new as I am currently. Seppo Pohjola's Second Symphony.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Anything in memory is old. Just different levels of oldness.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I'm starting to feel older.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

All the time. But now is new. Just don't bother remembering.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I was looking forward to tomorrow. Now I'm not.
Hurry Sundown Not!!!


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Vesuvius said:


> Anything in memory is old. Just different levels of oldness.


Profound, but alas, impractical.

"Can you describe the man?"
"He was old."
"So he was somewhere between one day and 100 years."


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

GreenMamba said:


> Profound, but alas, impractical.
> 
> "Can you describe the man?"
> "He was old."
> "So he was somewhere between one day and 100 years."


Well, that's what intellect is for - Finding points of oldness.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The terms are pretty elastic. In Telemann's day, people used last year's music to line their birdcages.


----------

