# What do you HATE most about contemporary music?



## Spawnofsatan

Since I come across so many nihilistic people (sometimes day after day) who have no interest or enjoyment without considering a sense of hope for the future, I'm interested to know what qualities of contemporary music make you hate it so much?


----------



## starthrower

Not this thread again!


----------



## D Smith

Seriously. Haven't we had enough negativity on this site? Enough already.


----------



## MarkW

The same things I dislike in non-contemporary music: music that doesn't go anywhere ... or does so uninterestingly.


----------



## Pugg

starthrower said:


> Not this thread again!


I second this :tiphat:


----------



## arpeggio

People who complain about contemporary music.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

Spawnofsatan said:


> Since I come across so many nihilistic people (sometimes day after day) who have no interest or enjoyment without considering a sense of hope for the future, I'm interested to know what qualities of contemporary music make you hate it so much?


I was going to just let this sink, but since somebody else has now moved it to the top of the page: The above is obviously directed at me, in response to a conversation where, among other things, I categorically said I don't hate contemporary music. I also expressed a higher opinion than the OP here of the one specific (quasi)-contemporary work that actually came up for discussion there (Grisey's "Partiels").

That aside, I'm not rigorous enough to call myself a nihilist, but nihilism is of course the only realistic philosophy, and is felt as a threat only by those who don't really believe in what they claim to believe in.


----------



## Haydn man

What on earth is the point of putting HATE in capitals in a thread about contemporary music.
We are discussing music here not terrorism or murder, lets keep some sense of perspective.


----------



## Delicious Manager

What a ridiculous question! Contemporary music today covers the widest range of styles and forms than at any time of music history. There is no one type of 'contemporary music'; there are DOZENS. Your question renders itself null and void.


----------



## joen_cph

Delicious Manager said:


> What a ridiculous question! Contemporary music today covers the widest range of styles and forms than at any time of music history. There is no one type of 'contemporary music'; there are DOZENS. Your question renders itself null and void.


Tend to agree with this.


----------



## Dedalus

Lol, I love this question. Yes, HATE in all caps. I'd actually love to see people vent and just lay down everything they hate about certain kinds of music. I think that would be a fun read. Heck, negativity is funny sometimes.


----------



## norman bates

As Ned Rorem perfectly said, intelligence ahead of emotion.


----------



## Spawnofsatan

Delicious Manager said:


> What a ridiculous question! Contemporary music today covers the widest range of styles and forms than at any time of music history. There is no one type of 'contemporary music'; there are DOZENS. Your question renders itself null and void.


It's not a ridiculous question, I've come across LARGE amounts of people that absolutely hate it, including online. I want to know *Why??*

I agree with your statement about contemporary music though!


----------



## Weston

I'm astonished at the backlash. What's the big deal?

I notice no one has really answered the question. It must be because if you hate something it's very much a gut reaction. For example, I don't want to analyze why I HATE country music so much. I'd prefer not to exist in the same universe with it and don't want to think about it enough to answer such a question, nor even name it aloud.

But I must not have openly loathed contemporary classical music as I do the genre above I've already mentioned more than is comfortable, because in my early days in TC I did try to answer this question about contemporary music. I posted a "poem" of nonsense random letters and syllables, then assured the reader it is a great poem if only it is read with an open mind.

That was another way of saying if the language is unfamiliar, why bother? We'll never feel it the same way we feel a poem in our native language (the "native language" in this metaphor being common practice harmonies) even if we learn the new idiom. But I think this was an America-centric reaction.* The rest of the world seems to enjoy the arts in multiple languages and idioms with relish.

Since those early posts I have spent time immersing myself in more contemporary music, going so far as to have it playing softly in the background while sleeping (NOTHING keeps me awake for long) in the hopes it will become more familiar. Whether that actually worked or the exercise itself was an indicator I was ready anyway, I now enjoy _almost_ every genre and era of Western music, from Guillaume Du Fay to Kaija Saariaho (whom I adore).

But still not country. I intend to keep it that way.

[* A rash generalization, but I didn't want to turn this post into a lengthy essay no one would want to read.]


----------



## EdwardBast

Pugg said:


> I second this :tiphat:


Third! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


----------



## Delicious Manager

Weston said:


> That was another way of saying if the language is unfamiliar, why bother?


Every single piece of music you have ever listened to was 'unfamiliar' when you heard it for the first time.



Weston said:


> Since those early posts I have spent time immersing myself in more contemporary music, going so far as to have it playing softly in the background while sleeping (NOTHING keeps me awake for long) in the hopes it will become more familiar.


A lot of contemporary music demands proper listening and attention. Perhaps approach composers and their music in a more ordered way (eg chronological evolution, influences, etc).


----------



## Weston

Delicious Manager said:


> Every single piece of music you have ever listened to was 'unfamiliar' when you heard it for the first time.


The music is unfamiliar. Its idiom / language is not. Otherwise, we'd just read the same book over and over. But I'm not likely to read a book in Swahili and enjoy it, even if I learn Swahili.

All this is moot however. The rest of my post explains that I overcame these limitations.


----------



## Blancrocher

I don't actually hate anything about contemporary music, but I do give it a hard time in order to prepare it for the hardships of life. Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.


----------



## EdwardBast

Blancrocher said:


> I don't actually hate anything about contemporary music, but I do give it a hard time in order to prepare it for the hardships of life. *Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind*.


 Isn't that a line from _The Torturer's Apprentice_?

Edit: Oops! I just realized responding will keep this one bobbing in the sewer for a few more hours. My apologies. It won't happen again. I hope.


----------



## arpeggio

Spawnofsatan,

I must apologize for the some of the reactions to your OP.

This forum has been around for over ten years. One of the mistakes that I made when I first joined is not realizing that some of the early threads I started were actually redundant. They raised issues that have been addressed in many other older threads.

We have been discussing the pros and cons of contemporary music for many years. I have lost track of the all the polls the "poll king" has generated about the subject. All of us have said everything we can say about the subject. There is nothing more than I can add.

One excellent thread that deals with it, that sadly has been closed down, is http://www.talkclassical.com/43391-i-am-not-modernist.html. There are some entries there that you may find interesting.


----------



## Strange Magic

I don't hate any music. Music is either interesting, or it isn't. Vast swathes of music are profoundly uninteresting to me, but others find them to be their catnip. I'm just lucky, though, in that the small, nay tiny, percentage of music I find interesting quite fully satisfies me.


----------



## Woodduck

If I don't like music I just move on. Hate is too time-consuming, and gives me indigestion. Admittedly this strategy is difficult when I'm thrift shopping and am force-fed Goodwill radio. When that happens, hatred threatens to eat me alive me until I run to the cashier and pay - or decide I don't really need anything - and return to the safety of my car and NPR. 

What I most dislike about contemporary music is not the music but the program notes. I would rather not have my intelligence insulted by being told by the composer that I'm about to hear a calculatedly yet expressively integrative metamorphosis of heretofore incommensurable qualia which is simultaneously an unequivocal renunciation of both the sublime and the kitschy with the objective of revealing sound in its unflitered, uncompromised, and sometimes incontrovertibly ugly beingness.

Hell, if I can't figure that out just by listening I'll go put on some Mozart.


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> ...a calculatedly yet expressively integrative metamorphosis of heretofore incommensurable qualia which is simultaneously an unequivocal renunciation of both the sublime and the kitschy with the objective of revealing sound in its unflitered, uncompromised, and sometimes incontrovertibly ugly beingness.


Sounds like my kind of piece. Where can I get ahold of it?


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> Sounds like my kind of piece. Where can I get ahold of it?


:clap: .................


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

DaveM said:


> Sounds like my kind of piece. Where can I get ahold of it?


Well, okaaaaaay:






https://www.amazon.com/Lachenmann-Das-Mädchen-mit-Schwefelhölzern/dp/B00023BHE8


----------



## Poodle

The random noise


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> I would rather not have my intelligence insulted by being told by the composer that I'm about to hear a calculatedly yet expressively integrative metamorphosis of heretofore incommensurable qualia which is simultaneously an unequivocal renunciation of both the sublime and the kitschy with the objective of revealing sound in its unflitered, uncompromised, and sometimes incontrovertibly ugly beingness.


But how else is a listener to make sense of the more cerebral works of Deutscher?


----------



## KenOC

See my scholarly paper, "Intimations of Tonality: Reverence and Parody in Early Deutscher." Should be out of peer review soon.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> See my scholarly paper, "Intimations of Tonality: Reverence and Parody in Early Deutscher." Should be out of peer review soon.


Thanks; I feel it's a significant contribution to the meta-analysis.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Weston said:


> That was another way of saying *if the language is unfamiliar, why bother*? We'll never feel it the same way we feel a poem in our native language (the "native language" in this metaphor being common practice harmonies) even if we learn the new idiom. But* I think this was an America-centric reaction*.* The rest of the world seems to enjoy the arts in multiple languages and idioms with relish.


Well, _c'est la vie!_ ... there's not much point in trying to suggest that there is a world of culture outside of what is familiar to you in Tennessee that is worth engaging with. You just stick with what is familiar to you and leave the rest of us to enjoy exploring different aspects (including contemporary music)


----------



## Guest

Spawnofsatan said:


> Since I come across so many nihilistic people (sometimes day after day) who have no interest or enjoyment without considering a sense of hope for the future, I'm interested to know what qualities of contemporary music make you hate it so much?


Trying to understand your OP, did I miss where you elaborated on the connection between nihilism and the qualities of contemporary music? Or is it just the hating of it by the nihilists that you've met?


----------



## TurnaboutVox

co


Weston said:


> I'm astonished at the backlash. What's the big deal? [...]
> 
> But I must not have openly loathed contemporary classical music as I do the genre above I've already mentioned more than is comfortable, because in my early days in TC I did try to answer this question about contemporary music. I posted a "poem" of nonsense random letters and syllables, then assured the reader it is a great poem if only it is read with an open mind.
> 
> That was another way of saying if the language is unfamiliar, why bother? We'll never feel it the same way we feel a poem in our native language (the "native language" in this metaphor being common practice harmonies) even if we learn the new idiom.
> [...]
> 
> Since those early posts I have spent time immersing myself in more contemporary music, going so far as to have it playing softly in the background while sleeping ... in the hopes it will become more familiar. Whether that actually worked or the exercise itself was an indicator I was ready anyway, I now enjoy _almost_ every genre and era of Western music, from Guillaume Du Fay to Kaija Saariaho (whom I adore).


I see Weston's post as describing a journey he has made since his early days on TC, not a statement of his current position on contemporary music. He has been a registered member since 2008, so that's a fairly long journey.


----------



## Weston

^Thank you! It's gratifying to know someone read the entire post, not just the first two paragraphs. It's the risk I run when getting a bit too wordy while not necessarily being that skilled to write with clarity.


----------



## Dim7

Woodduck said:


> What I most dislike about contemporary music is not the music but the program notes. I would rather not have my intelligence insulted by being told by the composer that I'm about to hear a calculatedly yet expressively integrative metamorphosis of heretofore incommensurable qualia which is simultaneously an unequivocal renunciation of both the sublime and the kitschy with the objective of revealing sound in its unflitered, uncompromised, and sometimes incontrovertibly ugly beingness.


If I had my way calculatedly yet expressively integrative metamorphosis of heretofore incommensurable qualia which is simultaneously an unequivocal renunciation of both the sublime and the kitschy with the objective of revealing sound in its unflitered, uncompromised, and sometimes incontrovertibly ugly beingness would be outlawed.


----------



## DaveM

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Well, okaaaaaay:


I had no idea what to make of what I was listening to, but after I was finished, for the first time in months my sinuses felt remarkably clear...


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Weston said:


> ^Thank you! It's gratifying to know someone read the entire post, not just the first two paragraphs. It's the risk I run when getting a bit too wordy while not necessarily being that skilled to write with clarity.


In that case, I sincerely apologise. I clearly misunderstood your meaning (even though I did read the entire post) - it is good to know that you have 'moved on'

I'd be very happy for my earlier post to be deleted


----------



## Woodduck

Dim7 said:


> If I had my way calculatedly yet expressively integrative metamorphosis of heretofore incommensurable qualia which is simultaneously an unequivocal renunciation of both the sublime and the kitschy with the objective of revealing sound in its unflitered, uncompromised, and sometimes incontrovertibly ugly beingness would be outlawed.


You're too late. That stuff has already been superceded by the readmittance of the sublime and the kitschy, though only when prefixed by "meta-". I believe metakitsch is presently more popular than metasublimity.


----------



## Zhdanov

Spawnofsatan said:


> what qualities of contemporary music make you hate it so much?


its lack of talent & professionalism.


----------



## Dedalus

Zhdanov posted on this thread, it has officially begun.

Edit: I mainly say that because of the name.


----------



## KenOC

Interesting that Zhdanov initiated the struggle against formalism among composers in February, 1948. But at the end of August in the same year he died of heart failure, possibly related to his alcoholism. Stalin at one point had talked of Zhdanov as being his successor.

Little-known fact: Zhdanov's son married Stalin's daughter, although the marriage lasted only a year.

I wonder if our own Comrade Zhdanov recognizes my avatar.


----------



## SimonNZ

Zhdanov said:


> its lack of talent & professionalism.


I started a thread on the nominees for the Gramophone Contemporary recording prize recently, with links to playlists for all but one of the six recordings. It got a whopping *two* replies, so perhaps the majority feel as you do (or I just don't know how to make a new thread inviting). But I was really curious what the haters would make of the albums, because that bunch actually struck me as all very approachable, all contradicting the academics-only / aimless noise accusations already showing up on this thread. And though not on the cutting edge or necessarily representative of everything, they are still largely in the ballpark of the work being done by a great many fine composers right now.

Could you perhaps sample a few of these and point to the lack of talent and professionalism?:

http://www.talkclassical.com/44692-gramophone-contemporary-award-2016-a.html


----------



## Zhdanov

SimonNZ said:


> http://www.talkclassical.com/44692-gramophone-contemporary-award-2016-a.html


these vids not available on me.


----------



## SimonNZ

Zhdanov said:


> these vids not available on me.


Okay - so which contemporary composers and works are you think of as showing lack of talent and professionalism?


----------



## Zhdanov

SimonNZ said:


> which contemporary composers and works are you think of as showing lack of talent and professionalism?


the likes of Cage, Glass etc.


----------



## Zhdanov

and don't consider Stravinsky, Berg, Shostakovitch & other 20th century great composers as modernists.


----------



## SimonNZ

Zhdanov said:


> the likes of Cage, Glass etc.


I'm going to need to hear more about that "etc", or you'll run the risk of appearing as many contemporary haters do: reacting to the myths rather than the music. And cage and Glass aren't at all typical of, for example, all the premieres at this year's BBC Proms. Or even typical of the Huddersfield festival, if you want to go a step more out there.


----------



## Zhdanov

SimonNZ said:


> I'm going to need to hear more about that "etc",


must be Reich & Carter besides Cage & Glass right? Adams is pretty lame too.


----------



## Guest

Dedalus said:


> Zhdanov posted on this thread, it has officially begun.


Will passengers please extinguish cigarettes and prepare for lock down.


----------



## Zhdanov

dogen said:


> Will passengers please extinguish cigarettes and prepare for lock down.


why put cigs out?


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

Zhdanov said:


> and don't consider Stravinsky, Berg, Shostakovitch & other 20th century great composers as modernists.


Saying you don't consider Stravinsky a modernist is like saying you don't consider Schumann a romantic.

-----

re: OP - One thing that bothers me about a lot of distinguished contemporary composers is their alienation from vernacular song. This doesn't apply to Debussy or Ravel, but Wagner and Stravinsky are borderline cases, and now we have even ostensibly easy composers like Steve Reich and Éliane Radigue who've never evinced the ability to write a "Girl with the Flaxen Hair" (with or without words) (to say nothing of harder composers like Young or Murail) - maybe analogous to a distinguished contemporary painter who's never evinced the ability to draw a good cartoon.

Philip Glass is maybe an exception here - and Arvo Pärt has cranked out, what, TWO relatively short, vernacular pieces in his career? - but maybe they just aren't that good, period.

And then there are "post-minimalist" composers like William Duckworth and Paul Epstein, some of whose best work is definitely more-or-less in the vernacular - but then it's unclear whether they're even equal to the popular music that they're running through the Stravinsky-by-way-of-Glass-&-Reich filter (e.g. I suspect that a side-by-side comparison with Vince Guaraldi does Duckworth no favors), which raises the question of why we're even bothering with the "classical" version at all.


----------



## Zhdanov

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Saying you don't consider Stravinsky a modernist is like saying you don't consider Schumann a romantic.


such a term as modernism or contemporary is utter nonsense because not telling of anything but actual timeline. Schumann himself was modern and contemporary at some point.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

"Modernist" isn't the same thing as "modern."


----------



## Zhdanov

Hildadam Bingor said:


> "Modernist" isn't the same thing as "modern."


not modern because in fact the term 'modernism' means *post-modern* with a disclaimer attached: this music is a pile of rubbish but at least its modern etc.


----------



## Vronsky

Zhdanov said:


> its lack of talent & *professionalism*.


Can you give some examples for this, Zhdanov? I'm just curious.


----------



## Zhdanov

Vronsky said:


> Can you give some examples for this, Zhdanov? I'm just curious.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

^^^  But Steve Reich's music is _meticulously_ crafted, whatever else it is, Zhdanov. I can't see that an accusation of his work being 'unprofessional' could survive serious evaluation. You might not like it, but that's not the same thing.


----------



## Zhdanov

TurnaboutVox said:


> But Steve Reich's music is _meticulously_ crafted;


i did not say it didn't take him a lot of effort to write a piece though as primitive as this.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

Zhdanov said:


> not modern because in fact the term 'modernism' means *post-modern* with a disclaimer attached: this music is a pile of rubbish but at least its modern etc.


No, "but at least it's modern" is a modernist judgment. A post-modernist judgment would be "but at least it subverts the cishet white male narrative."


----------



## Zhdanov

Hildadam Bingor said:


> No, "but at least it's modern" is a modernist judgment. A post-modernist judgment would be "but at least it subverts the cishet white male narrative."


in fact, whenever they cover up by going on about how modern or contemporary it is, they end up post-modernist, because they use *fake values* to evaluate a piece of art, as if 'subversion of cliches' or 'contemporariness' can be considered as merits, which these are clearly not, just as the amount of effort spent on composing the piece or personal liking aren't.


----------



## Nereffid

Zhdanov said:


> in fact, whenever they cover up by going on about how modern or contemporary it is, they end up post-modernist, because they use *fake values* to evaluate a piece of art, as if 'subversion of cliches' or 'contemporariness' can be considered as merits, which these are clearly not, just as the amount of effort spent on composing the piece or personal liking aren't.


If personal liking isn't a merit, then personal disliking isn't a demerit.


----------



## Zhdanov

Nereffid said:


> If personal liking isn't a merit, then personal disliking isn't a demerit.


yes of course and that's been pretty obvious.


----------



## Zhdanov

modernism is a cheat no better than this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes


----------



## Guest

Zhdanov said:


> in fact, whenever they cover up by going on about how modern or contemporary it is, they end up post-modernist, because they use *fake values* to evaluate a piece of art, as if 'subversion of cliches' or 'contemporariness' can be considered as merits, which these are clearly not, just as the amount of effort spent on composing the piece or personal liking aren't.


So, the right values are...?


----------



## Zhdanov

MacLeod said:


> So, the right values are...?


the ability of a composer to narrate with his music something like a story in order to create a piece of art similar to a novel or painting or both while communicating transcendent emotions onto a listener.


----------



## arpeggio

Zhdanov said:


> its lack of talent & professionalism.


We have at least three excellent composers who are involved with TC: Frederick Magle, Steven O'Brian, Vasks, _etc._

Mr. O'Brian made an excellent post concerning the plight of contemporary classical composers: http://www.talkclassical.com/44700-revised-poll-do-composers.html#post1103277

I would not dare accuse them of lacking talent or professionalism.


----------



## Five and Dime

^^^ I quite liked that Arvo Part Symphony #4 above. Except the coughing. I'll have the check out a better recording.

Thanks for the tip, Zhdanov.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Zhdanov said:


> the ability of a composer to narrate with his music something like a story in order to create a piece of art similar to a novel or painting or both while communicating transcendent emotions onto a listener.


I don't like some contemporary music, but there is plenty that I do like. Neither you nor I seem to like the music of Steve Reich .... but you and I differ a lot when you claim Reich's music is 'unprofessional' or that it lacks 'talent'.

As for your proposition that music needs to have a 'narration something like a story', well, I find that unnecessary - some pieces of abstract art can greatly move me without having any 'story' to tell - and so can some pieces of music. I guess 'communication' works both ways - the composer can communicate with us, but we have to be open to that communication, too.


----------



## Dedalus

Zhdanov said:


> the ability of a composer to narrate with his music something like a story in order to create a piece of art similar to a novel or painting or both while communicating transcendent emotions onto a listener.


This just sounds arbitrary.


----------



## Zhdanov

arpeggio said:


> We have at least three excellent composers who are involved with TC: Frederick Magle, Steven O'Brian, Vasks,.


so what am i supposed to do now? shut up and kneel in awe?


----------



## Zhdanov

Headphone Hermit said:


> As for your proposition that music needs to have a 'narration something like a story', well, I find that unnecessary


if so, you don't get music properly; because a story & image are necessary things for a music masterpiece, even if not meant in the first place, like with Mozart's 40th sympth, but the music should produce them anyway in the end.



Dedalus said:


> This just sounds arbitrary.


no, its from experience, from classical music history, its proven by time and works of music geniuses, ranging from Monteverdi to Khatchaturan.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

Zhdanov said:


> the ability of a composer to narrate with his music something like a story in order to create a piece of art similar to a novel or painting or both while communicating transcendent emotions onto a listener.


In other words, a romantic judgment (I mean, TOTALLY, UNMISTAKABLY). To which the Enlightenment composer would of course reply: "Stop talking nonsense. Does this composer have taste and learning, or not?"


----------



## StevenOBrien

Nearly every widely regarded modern/contemporary composer was a talented, rigorously trained professional. No matter how disagreeable their styles seem to you, I guarantee you that the majority of them could write extremely well in a conservative style if they chose to. Came across this surprising tonal piece by Webern recently, for instance:






By the way, it bewilders me that pieces 50 years old are still considered "comtemporary".


----------



## Dim7

Zhdanov said:


> if so, you don't get music properly; because a story & image are necessary things for a music masterpiece, even if not meant in the first place, like with Mozart's 40th sympth, but the music should produce them anyway in the end.


Does Well-Tempered Clavier for example tell a story?


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

Dim7 said:


> Does Well-Tempered Clavier for example tell a story?


It's a reeeeeeally long training montage.


----------



## arpeggio

Zhdanov said:


> so what am i supposed to do now? shut up and kneel in awe?


No. A person has a right to like or dislike whatever music they want to.

In spite of my animas toward Cage I still try to respect those who follow his music.

Your remark goes against the experiences I have had working with composers. The vast majority were very talented and professional.

Even though one was a complete jerk, he was still a very talented musician. His professionalism left much to be desired.

I have worked with one serial and one aleatoric composer. They were both very concerned about trying to communicate with the audience.

I have only worked with three composers who were no talent nothings. Ironically they were very conservative, tonal composers.

Beyond the above I do not know what else I can say.


----------



## Zhdanov

Hildadam Bingor said:


> In other words, a romantic judgment (I mean, TOTALLY, UNMISTAKABLY). To which the Enlightenment composer would of course reply: "Stop talking nonsense. Does this composer have taste and learning, or not?"


its not in learning (taste is rather arbitrary a notion indeed) for if we take, say, Mussorgsky - it isn't his learning that does the trick, but him staying true to classical principles of telling a story and creating images and characters on it.


----------



## aleazk

Dim7 said:


> Does Well-Tempered Clavier for example tell a story?


It's a story about long lost temperaments.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

Zhdanov said:


> its not in learning (taste is rather arbitrary a notion indeed) for if we take, say, Mussorgsky - it isn't his learning that does the trick, but him staying true to classical principles of telling a story and creating images and characters on it.


"For if we take, say, Steve Reich, it isn't his [x] that does the trick, but [y]."


----------



## Zhdanov

Dim7 said:


> Does Well-Tempered Clavier for example tell a story?


as if Bach composed only Clavier and no other works ?


----------



## Zhdanov

StevenOBrien said:


> Nearly every widely regarded modern/contemporary composer was a talented, rigorously trained professional. No matter how disagreeable their styles seem to you, I guarantee you that the majority of them could write extremely well in a conservative style if they chose to.


then let them show it and prove they can do this like men.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

Zhdanov said:


> like men


Quoted without comment.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

It is not that I hate contemporary music but there is so much music by the greats of the past to listen to. There is only a limited amount of time.


----------



## Zhdanov

arpeggio said:


> No. A person has a right to like or dislike whatever music they want to.


i haven't yet started on what i like and what i don't.



arpeggio said:


> I have worked with one serial and one aleatoric composer. They were both very concerned about trying to communicate with the audience.


i did not mean communication in terms of communication with the audience. Tarkovsky once replied to a Soviet authority while producing his Stalker: the only audience i care about is Bresson and Bergman.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

The soviet era composers had to worry about satisfying the goverment. Otherwise they could have ended up being killed.


----------



## Zhdanov

Johnnie Burgess said:


> The soviet era composers had to worry about satisfying the goverment.


Tarkovsky is not a composer, he was a movie director.



Johnnie Burgess said:


> Otherwise they could have ended up being killed.


you've no idea what your talking about. Bresson and Bergman were not in Soviet government, which btw had no practice of killing just like this.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Sure there were a lot of Russian composers who worried they would be arrested if they angered Stalin.


----------



## Zhdanov

some of you West folks need education badly. Western education is indoctrination, it seems.


> _The soviet era composers *had to worry about satisfying* the goverment. Otherwise they could have ended up being *killed*._


 - priceless, as if Goebbels never gone, huh?


----------



## StevenOBrien

Dim7 said:


> Does Well-Tempered Clavier for example tell a story?


Anger management classes for your clavier?


----------



## Zhdanov

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Sure there were a lot of Russian composers who worried they would be arrested if they angered Stalin.


which one of them, care to specify?


----------



## Guest

It may be advisable to buy a swatter.


----------



## Dr Johnson

Zhdanov said:


> so what am i supposed to do now? *shut up *and kneel in awe?


_Please_ don't do that.

This is priceless. I take my hat off to you for keeping this up with a straight face (as it were).


----------



## Guest

Zhdanov said:


> as if Bach composed only Clavier and no other works ?


Of course he did but what is your answer to the question asked of you? -

Does Well-Tempered Clavier for example tell a story?


----------



## Zhdanov

dogen said:


> what is your answer to the question asked of you?


it's not WTC that made Bach what he is.



dogen said:


> Does Well-Tempered Clavier for example tell a story?


obviously not, but some of his sonatas, partitas & organ works do.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

Zhdanov said:


> it's not WTC that made Bach what he is.


It really is though.


----------



## DeepR

I dislike modern music that gives me the impression that the music is too much concerned with novelty in concept, methods and techniques while the way it sounds seems less important... I don't like music for how it was made/conceived, that's totally secondary to the end result: how it sounds and what it communicates, whatever that may be (and of course, what that does to me; how it makes me feel and think). 
Original ideas, methods and techniques don't necessarily produce great sounding music, not to these ears at least. I also don't like very abstract music that doesn't seem to say anything (nor create interesting texture or captivating atmosphere of sorts), other than "listen how interesting this is". So yes, highly subjective.
I'm not going to bother with learning how something was made, when, after repeated attempts, I can't make the slightest connection to the music at an intuitive level. Art shouldn't require a manual. 
Now, I'm sure my impressions are unjustified and I'm to blame for not making enough effort etc. So be it. I'd rather be stubborn, trust my own instincts and listen to what my ears and mind tell me. I came a long way with it. 
This is not directed at anything specific, just some randomly picked modern music I've tried to listen to over the years. 
I love lots of early 20th century music and some late 20th century music as well.


----------



## Simon Moon

If we're including much of the 20th century, when talking about 'contemporary' music, then, what I hate most about it is that there is so much of it, in various styles to explore, and so little time to explore it all. 

I hate the idea that I might be missing something great!

I find it interesting that I, a non musician with little knowledge of music, enjoy mostly contemporary (20th and 21st century) music much more than earlier periods.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

The story music tells ...

Once upon a time there was a pretty key signature on a staff. Its best friend was the time signature. They loved to play with their friends the notes and rests and fermatas and trills. Sometimes they hopped up and down in a frenzied dance and sometimes they took a leisurely stroll. Sometimes they sang a happy tune and sometimes they played a mournful song. And they all lived happily ever after. The end.


----------



## Guest

post deleted.............oeps


----------



## Zhdanov

Simon Moon said:


> I find it interesting that I, a non musician with little knowledge of music, enjoy mostly contemporary (20th and 21st century) music much more than earlier periods.


not interesting at all, rather banal... i for one began with so-called 'rock music' only to realise, 30 years on, that i wasted my time; thankfully, so-called contemporary stuff didn't fool me that long; i pretty soon went with Wagner, Mussorgsky and Verdi.


----------



## Strange Magic

DeepR said:


> I'd rather be stubborn, trust my own instincts and listen to what my ears and mind tell me. I came a long way with it.
> This is not directed at anything specific, just some randomly picked modern music I've tried to listen to over the years.


My philosophy exactly. Music is interesting, or not. Holds for non-"modern" music also.


----------



## Mahlerian

DeepR said:


> I dislike modern music that gives me the impression that the music is too much concerned with novelty in concept, methods and techniques while the way it sounds seems less important...


I think I'd be less interested in that too. Can you give an example?



DeepR said:


> I don't like music for how it was made/conceived, that's totally secondary to the end result: how it sounds and what it communicates, whatever that may be (and of course, what that does to me; how it makes me feel and think).


Hey, me too!



DeepR said:


> Original ideas, methods and techniques don't necessarily produce great sounding music, not to these ears at least.


Agreed. You need to do something with it.



DeepR said:


> I also don't like very abstract music that doesn't seem to say anything (nor create interesting texture or captivating atmosphere of sorts), other than "listen how interesting this is".


Sure, I guess I wouldn't like that either.



DeepR said:


> I'm not going to bother with learning how something was made, when, after repeated attempts, I can't make the slightest connection to the music at an intuitive level. Art shouldn't require a manual.


I agree. I find that great art communicates without explanation, although explanations can lead to a deeper understanding and appreciation for art.



DeepR said:


> Now, I'm sure my impressions are unjustified and I'm to blame for not making enough effort etc. So be it. I'd rather be stubborn, trust my own instincts and listen to what my ears and mind tell me. I came a long way with it.
> This is not directed at anything specific, just some randomly picked modern music I've tried to listen to over the years.
> I love lots of early 20th century music and some late 20th century music as well.


I don't disagree with what you've said, I just can't figure out what music you're talking about. And that's not me being sarcastic either, because the lines for what sounds like noise or random nonsense are different for everybody.


----------



## Simon Moon

Zhdanov said:


> not interesting at all, rather banal... i for one began with so-called 'rock music' only to realise, 30 years on, that i wasted my time; thankfully, so-called contemporary stuff didn't fool me that long; i pretty soon went with Wagner, Mussorgsky and Verdi.


Why is my taste banal?

Good for you that weren't 'fooled' by contemporary music for long.

I tried many times to get into classical music, when the only things being recommended to me were Wagner, Verdi (and all the other pre 20th century greats), and very little of it did anything for me (I like quite a bit of Mussorgsky, however).

It wasn't until I heard "The Rite of Spring" that I discovered that classical music was not entirely what I thought it was.

My ears are opened, and I continue to try to listen to pre 20th century music quite often, but so far it has not clicked.

Now, if you could only figure out why you need to belittle the tastes of people that don't agree with you...


----------



## Guest

Simon Moon said:


> Why is my taste banal?
> 
> Now, if you could only figure out why you need to belittle the tastes of people that don't agree with you...


With you I wait for an illuminating answer.


----------



## Guest

Zhdanov said:


> obviously not


So by YOUR logic, WTC is an example of FAKE VALUES, (as opposed to the right values as described by yourself previously).


----------



## Simon Moon

dogen said:


> So by YOUR logic, WTC is an example of FAKE VALUES, (as opposed to the right values as described by yourself previously).


Yep.

I was thinking the same thing when I read his post.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Fakeness works wonders.

_ε[SUP]2[/SUP] = 0_


----------



## Autocrat

The thing I hate about contemporary music is that so few people understand what the word "contemporary" means. From there, it's a "Write Your Own Adventure Story" with gross generalisation and bonus prejudice stroking.


----------



## Guest

I don't mind dissonance, but I need some melody! Extreme pointillistic music is a turn off, as is most "spectral" music. Recent Penderecki is fine, most Schnittke, and composers of their ilk since they have some recognizable melodies, but anything beyond that and I'm out!


----------



## Blancrocher

Autocrat said:


> The thing I hate about contemporary music is that so few people understand what the word "contemporary" means.


From what I've been able to infer from discussions, I believe "contemporary music" refers to anything composed by composers who died between twenty years and about two months ago.


----------



## Sloe

Blancrocher said:


> From what I've been able to infer from discussions, I believe "contemporary music" refers to anything composed by composers who died between twenty years and about two months ago.


What about the composers that are still alive or died less than two months ago?

The contemporary music I Do not like is the music were the instruments are played in a way that they Do not sound as they usually Do. I just think it sounds ugly. There might be exceptions.


----------



## nbergeron

I hate that it consumes so much of my time and money. No, actually I don't.


----------



## Weston

Headphone Hermit said:


> In that case, I sincerely apologise. I clearly misunderstood your meaning (even though I did read the entire post) - it is good to know that you have 'moved on'
> 
> I'd be very happy for my earlier post to be deleted


Not to worry, H². I took no offense and still regard you highly. I only wish I could have reassured you half a thread ago.


----------



## Zhdanov

dogen said:


> So by YOUR logic, WTC is an example of FAKE VALUES,


how is it fake values? research being a fake value? are you okay?


----------



## Zhdanov

Simon Moon said:


> I was thinking the same thing when I read his post.


mine is here in full -



Zhdanov said:


> obviously not, but some of his sonatas, partitas & organ works do.


is it so hard to read posts entirely?


----------



## Zhdanov

Autocrat said:


> The thing I hate about contemporary music is that so few people understand what the word "contemporary" means.


'contemporary' means 'pushed on you' - i.e. you come for Le Sacre Du Printemps and it comes in a package with some 'contemporary' politically correct toady.


----------



## Chordalrock

Kontrapunctus said:


> I don't mind dissonance, but I need some melody! Extreme pointillistic music is a turn off, as is most "spectral" music. Recent Penderecki is fine, most Schnittke, and composers of their ilk since they have some recognizable melodies, but anything beyond that and I'm out!


For me it's more like the other way around: melody or no melody, I need a strong atmosphere.

A person only needs two things for appreciating the best of early Penderecki: interest in atmosphere (or mood), interest in THAT kind of atmosphere or mood. If you don't want to put time into listening to that kind of music, but you want to watch a good movie, you can watch Kubrick's The Shining and get a taste of some nice early Penderecki and other similar music in a context that might help you appreciate what that music is doing (i.e. creating interesting sounds and moods).

It's also worth mentioning that a lot of chaotic sounding contemporary music is rather melodic, as long as you aren't focusing on the decorative chaos to the exclusion of the bass lines and/or chord progressions that create a sense of melody (in voice leading, the top voice of the chords creates the melody). Good examples of this are the piano concertos by Ligeti and Unsuk Chin. They can be very virtuosic, but there's easily digestible aspects to them if you know what to listen for.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Fakeness works wonders.
> 
> _ε[SUP]2[/SUP] = 0_


Let me test my deciphering skills...

An epsilon amount of skill/talent times an epsilon amount of people interested in composing equals no good contemporary music after Ligeti and Boulez died?

But yet, putting on a "fake" contemporary mask is good enough to pass for a composer these days?

I think that there will always be a large number of subpar composers in any era. But there's still, for me at least, good current stuff that I would place in equal esteem and enjoyment to past music. And in fact, because of improvements in technology and instrumental technique, contemporary music sounds a lot more organic and unified in sound, cerebrally smooth, and emotionally/viscerally engaging.

I think any attempt to discredit it from a societal perspective (i.e. we've become too soft or politically correct or postmodern) sounds no different from Socrates's "kids these days" stuff, but tailored to our current generation.

Anyway, here's some other 2010's music I find compelling.


__
https://soundcloud.com/emmanuelle-gibello-2014%2Fsets


----------



## Autocrat

Zhdanov said:


> 'contemporary' means 'pushed on you' - i.e. you come for Le Sacre Du Printemps and it comes in a package with some 'contemporary' politically correct toady.


Sure it does. Thanks.


----------



## Woodduck

SeptimalTritone said:


> Let me test my deciphering skills...
> 
> An epsilon amount of skill/talent times an epsilon amount of people interested in composing equals no good contemporary music after Ligeti and Boulez died?
> 
> But yet, putting on a "fake" contemporary mask is good enough to pass for a composer these days?
> 
> I think that there will always be a large number of subpar composers in any era. But there's still, for me at least, good current stuff that I would place in equal esteem and enjoyment to past music. And in fact, because of improvements in technology and instrumental technique, contemporary music sounds a lot more organic and unified in sound, cerebrally smooth, and emotionally/viscerally engaging.
> 
> I think any attempt to discredit it from a societal perspective (i.e. we've become too soft or politically correct or postmodern) sounds no different from Socrates's "kids these days" stuff, but tailored to our current generation.
> 
> Anyway, here's some other 2010's music I find compelling.
> 
> 
> __
> https://soundcloud.com/emmanuelle-gibello-2014%2Fsets


I cannot imagine a more perfect answer to the question posed in the title of this thread.

First off - just to be clear - I don't hate this stuff. In fact, I don't find that it rises to the level of anything worth hating, except perhaps in the sense that I hate all noise that seems to have no reason to exist.

I ask you, in absolute sincerity and genuine perplexity, by what criteria you judge this stuff as "good" - why you place it "in equal esteem...to past music." What past music are you thinking of? Bach? Beethoven? Wagner? Stravinsky? Josquin? Joachim Raff? Irving Berlin? Carrie Jacobs Bond?

To pull no punches, I find these assemblages of noises to be inane, boring, and quite without musical interest, and I'd say that to compare them to past music is an insult to past music - even to Carrie Jacobs Bond, bless her. The Gibello thing sounds very much like someone frying bacon and puttering about in the kitchen while being captured by a cheap tape recorder left running in the next room. I won't say what I think the other things sound like. I will simply ask: how is this to be recognized by the unwary as music at all? What if someone overhearing it were unaware that someone called a composer produced, recorded, and assembled these sounds intentionally? Only the fourth example bears some clear resemblance to music, but given the tedium of the result, that fact is not necessarily to its credit.

Can you say why you find this stuff "organic and unified in sound" and "cerebrally smooth"? Can you even say what such language means, and why it should be taken as complimentary? I thought _I_ was pretty "out there" with my "calculatedly yet expressively integrative metamorphosis of heretofore incommensurable qualia"!

And finally: do you really believe these compositions make any sort of case for the excellence of contemporary music? That _is _what you're trying to do, isn't it?


----------



## Guest

Zhdanov said:


> how is it fake values? research being a fake value? are you okay?


I'm fine. I have simply repeated what you have said in previous posts.


----------



## Zhdanov

dogen said:


> I'm fine. I have simply repeated what you have said in previous posts.


you simply misquoted what i said.


----------



## Guest

Weston said:


> I'm astonished at the backlash. What's the big deal?
> 
> I notice no one has really answered the question.


I suspect spawnofsatan asked this in a bored moment, as he's not returned to engage with any of the responses, not even those that might not qualify under your 'backlash'.

Perhaps that's because 'contemporary' is such a meaningless epithet. I mean, what would we make of "What do you hate about _OLD _music?"


----------



## Guest

Autocrat said:


> Sure it does. Thanks.


You can defy the laws of physics if you use your own dictionary. :lol:


----------



## Guest

Zhdanov said:


> you simply misquoted what i said.


You think that if it helps you.


----------



## Spawnofsatan

MacLeod said:


> I suspect spawnofsatan asked this in a bored moment, as he's not returned to engage with any of the responses, not even those that might not qualify under your 'backlash'.
> 
> Perhaps that's because 'contemporary' is such a meaningless epithet. I mean, what would we make of "What do you hate about _OLD _music?"


I did actually and was harassed by someone, which has since been deleted by mods unfairly.
The OP was genuine, though it seems too convoluted to participate in now.


----------



## Chronochromie

Woodduck said:


> I cannot imagine a more perfect answer to the question posed in the title of this thread.
> 
> First off - just to be clear - I don't hate this stuff. In fact, I don't find that it rises to the level of anything worth hating, except perhaps in the sense that I hate all noise that seems to have no reason to exist.
> 
> I ask you, in absolute sincerity and genuine perplexity, by what criteria you judge this stuff as "good" - why you place it "in equal esteem...to past music." What past music are you thinking of? Bach? Beethoven? Wagner? Stravinsky? Josquin? Joachim Raff? Irving Berlin? Carrie Jacobs Bond?
> 
> To pull no punches, I find these assemblages of noises to be inane, boring, and quite without musical interest, and I'd say that to compare them to past music is an insult to past music - even to Carrie Jacobs Bond, bless her. The Gibello thing sounds very much like someone frying bacon and puttering about in the kitchen while being captured by a cheap tape recorder left running in the next room. I won't say what I think the other things sound like. I will simply ask: how is this to be recognized by the unwary as music at all? What if someone overhearing it were unaware that someone called a composer produced, recorded, and assembled these sounds intentionally? Only the fourth example bears some clear resemblance to music, but given the tedium of the result, that fact is not necessarily to its credit.
> 
> Can you say why you find this stuff "organic and unified in sound" and "cerebrally smooth"? Can you even say what such language means, and why it should be taken as complimentary? I thought _I_ was pretty "out there" with my "calculatedly yet expressively integrative metamorphosis of heretofore incommensurable qualia"!
> 
> And finally: do you really believe these compositions make any sort of case for the excellence of contemporary music? That _is _what you're trying to do, isn't it?


If you're taking recommendations listen to some Gubaidulina, Murail, Haas, Grisey, Sciarrino, Chin, Saariaho, Radulescu, Andriessen, Rihm and Dusapin. I'm sure that if you're really interested you'll find something that you like or at least can appreciate in some way.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

SeptimalTritone said:


> __
> https://soundcloud.com/emmanuelle-gibello-2014%2Fsets


I think Pink Floyd already did this.



SeptimalTritone said:


>


Cute.



SeptimalTritone said:


>


Sounds like a printer.



SeptimalTritone said:


>


Pretty.


----------



## Sloe

Woodduck said:


> I won't say what I think the other things sound like. I will simply ask: how is this to be recognized by the unwary as music at all? What if someone overhearing it were unaware that someone called a composer produced, recorded, and assembled these sounds intentionally? Only the fourth example bears some clear resemblance to music, but given the tedium of the result, that fact is not necessarily to its credit.


I liked the Elena Rykova piece and yes if someone was driving and that was played on the radio that person would perhaps be worried that something was wrong with the car but it was fun to listen to anyway.


----------



## aleazk

Hildadam Bingor said:


> I think Pink Floyd already did this.


You mean this?


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

aleazk said:


> You mean this?


Don't know that one. I meant this:


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

SeptimalTritone said:


> Let me test my deciphering skills...
> 
> An epsilon amount of skill/talent times an epsilon amount of people interested in composing equals no good contemporary music after Ligeti and Boulez died?


Actually, I was just referencing the dual numbers.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Chronochromie said:


> If you're taking recommendations listen to some Gubaidulina, Murail, Haas, Grisey, Sciarrino, Chin, Saariaho, Radulescu, Andriessen, Rihm and Dusapin. I'm sure that if you're really interested you'll find something that you like or at least can appreciate in some way.


Thank you for the recommendations.

I listened to Tristan Murail - Le partage des eaux. I never want to hear that piece again! What awful and completely uninteresting sound.

I also listened to Gubaidulina Chaconne - I loved it! Also her Viola Concerto sounds interesting enough that I'd want to give it a second go.

A world of difference between the two pieces. In general I like contemporary music that sticks to the roots of music, like the Chaconne. That Murail piece sounds like the composer is just trying to create unique(and not pleasant) sounds at random - I could not discern interesting melody, rhythm, harmony, tone color, development, etc.


----------



## Strange Magic

Regarding SeptimalTritone's examples of contemporary music, put me down in Woodduck's camp. The French have a fine phrase for this sort of "Art": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Épater_la_bourgeoisie


----------



## Nereffid

I will, of course, defend to the death (or until I lose interest, whichever comes first) the right of anyone to enjoy whatever music they like, and I've gone on record many times arguing against the idea of objective standards by which we should judge music, but listening to those recordings by Gibello and López I find myself being hoist by my own postmodernist petard.

I would never dispute anyone's sincerity in saying they find this compelling (What, never? Well... hardly ever), but I have to ask, _if this is compelling music, then what isn't?_


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

SeptimalTritone said:


> Anyway, here's some other 2010's music I find compelling.
> 
> 
> __
> https://soundcloud.com/emmanuelle-gibello-2014%2Fsets


May I ask what you find compelling about this? There is no music whatsoever(unless of course you want to stretch the definition of music but then it'd be like cheating) - the Prelude sounds like rain in the background with occasional sounds of what could be someone washing dishes in the kitchen. Animals has crickets throughout and other not completely identifiable-but-nature-sounding effects getting louder then softer then there are some voices speaking French and some weird alien-sounding effects. After that I lost interest, knowing what the rest of the tracks would be like. If this is music then I want no part of it.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

Man, if everybody hates the breakfast piece so much, maybe there's more to it than I thought.


----------



## Woodduck

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Man, if everybody hates the breakfast piece so much, maybe there's more to it than I thought.


THere might be poached eggs, but they wouldn't be picked up by the tape recorder.


----------



## joen_cph

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Thank you for the recommendations.
> 
> I listened to Tristan Murail - Le partage des eaux. I never want to hear that piece again! What awful and completely uninteresting sound.
> 
> I also listened to Gubaidulina Chaconne - I loved it! Also her Viola Concerto sounds interesting enough that I'd want to give it a second go.
> 
> A world of difference between the two pieces. In general I like contemporary music that sticks to the roots of music, like the Chaconne. That Murail piece sounds like the composer is just trying to create unique(and not pleasant) sounds at random - I could not discern interesting melody, rhythm, harmony, tone color, development, etc.


Murail´s "_L´Esprit des Dunes_" has obvious cinematic qualities and it´s quite accessible, IMHO.

Gubaidulina´s _Piano Sonata _ is a bit similar to - and just as good & attractive as - the _Chaconne_, but a bit less traditional. Her _Piano Quintet _is another quite early, conservative work, very close to Shostakovich (too close actually, IMO).


----------



## Chronochromie

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Thank you for the recommendations.
> 
> I listened to Tristan Murail - Le partage des eaux. I never want to hear that piece again! What awful and completely uninteresting sound.
> 
> I also listened to Gubaidulina Chaconne - I loved it! Also her Viola Concerto sounds interesting enough that I'd want to give it a second go.
> 
> A world of difference between the two pieces. In general I like contemporary music that sticks to the roots of music, like the Chaconne. That Murail piece sounds like the composer is just trying to create unique(and not pleasant) sounds at random - I could not discern interesting melody, rhythm, harmony, tone color, development, etc.


Glad you liked some Gubaidulina. Luckily the contemporary composers I enjoy and can recommend are a pretty diverse bunch so as I said there's something for almost everyone.

However I urge you to try other Murail, maybe his piano work Territoires de l'oubli and his orchestral work L'esprit des dunes.


----------



## millionrainbows

Back on negative topic, perhaps the listeners who "hate" contemporary music have not considered this: perhaps it is contemporary music's JOB to confound our expectations.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

millionrainbows said:


> Back on negative topic, perhaps the listeners who "hate" contemporary music have not considered this: perhaps it is contemporary music's JOB to confound our expectations.


Okay, but if we get to the point where we EXPECT it to confound our expectations...

(Actually I think that point has come and gone again.)


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Back on negative topic, perhaps the listeners who "hate" contemporary music have not considered this: perhaps it is contemporary music's JOB to confound our expectations.


_Whose_ expectations?

Maybe music doesn't have a job.


----------



## Blancrocher

Woodduck said:


> _Whose_ expectations?
> 
> Maybe music doesn't have a job.


That would explain its dismal financial situation these days, I suppose.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

Blancrocher said:


> That would explain its dismal financial situation these days, I suppose.


Okay, that's it, thread might as well stop here, nobody's going to top this.


----------



## DeepR

Mahlerian said:


> I don't disagree with what you've said, I just can't figure out what music you're talking about.


I explained my reasons for not liking certain modern music as the topic starter asked. I wanted to avoid specific examples because of the highly subjective nature of it all. I don't think further discussion on this will be very fruitful.


----------



## millionrainbows

When faced with questions like these, I play a game. I assume that I know exactly what they mean, and that it makes perfect sense. Then I explain to them the reasons they don't like it, is because they don't have the proper tools to approach it. Is that condescending?

On the other hand, opinions like these are usually way out of synch with the parameters of the music and what it requires to approach it. It's like expecting to see realistic figures in a Jackson Pollock drip painting. Don't hold your breath, and go look at some Norman Rockwell.

If you initially don't like the sound of the music, you probably never will, unless you want to try.

If you don't like creamed zucchini, please don't spit it back in our face.

If you want to like contemporary music, you can. But you have to want to, *before *you make up your mind that you don't.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> _Whose_ expectations?


Mr. Joe Average, of Anytown, USA



> Maybe music doesn't have a job.


Then maybe music should go to Greenwich Village and hang out, sleep on floors, etc.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

millionrainbows said:


> Mr. Joe Average, of Anytown, USA


Yeah but he voted for Bush.



millionrainbows said:


> Then maybe music should go to Greenwich Village and hang out, sleep on floors, etc.


I dunno, isn't contemporary music crabbed enough already? (It's okay, I'll show myself out.)


----------



## Ingélou

millionrainbows said:


> If you want to like contemporary music, you can. But you have to want to, *before *you make up your mind that you don't.


Can't you just listen with an open mind? I find that I like some contemporary pieces of music and not others.


----------



## Strange Magic

Is it OK to not like (or not find interesting) some contemporary music? I hope so, or else I'm in big trouble here over SeptimalTritone's specific examples. I did not find them interesting--they were either too bourgeois or not bourgeois enough.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

Strange Magic said:


> they were either too bourgeois or not bourgeois enough.


First she tried the Maxwell Davies. It was too bourgeois!

Then she tried the Michael Finnissy. It wasn't bourgeois enough!

Finally she tried the Thomas Adès. It was juuuuuuuust right.


----------



## millionrainbows

DeepR said:


> I dislike modern music that gives me the impression that the music is too much concerned with novelty in concept, methods and techniques while the way it sounds seems less important…


It's OK with me if music's ambitions exceed the actual result. It makes it more Platonic, like the idea is as important, if not more, than the sound itself. Then, if I understand anything at all about how it was composed, its purpose and aesthetic aims, then I feel satisfied intellectually, and can ignore the shortcomings of the resultant sound. On the other hand, if its really great players like Ensemble Intercontemporaine or Arditti, I can enjoy both aspects, and consider it a success.



> I don't like music for how it was made/conceived, that's totally secondary to the end result: how it sounds and what it communicates, whatever that may be (and of course, what that does to me; how it makes me feel and think).


If I know how it was made, it makes me savor the end result even more than if I did not.



> Original ideas, methods and techniques don't necessarily produce great sounding music, not to these ears at least.


But I like both. I like to use my ears as well as my intellect. I consider music like this to be an intellectual elitist sort of thing, like reading Foucoult.



> I also don't like very abstract music that doesn't seem to say anything (nor create interesting texture or captivating atmosphere of sorts), other than "listen how interesting this is". So yes, highly subjective.


If the music is suggesting that it is interesting, without actually being interesting, that is a fascinating paradox. Some of Cage is like that: "Listen to how interesting it is to hear David Tudor scrape a contact mike across the strings of an open piano."



> I'm not going to bother with learning how something was made, when, after repeated attempts, I can't make the slightest connection to the music at an intuitive level. Art shouldn't require a manual.


Oh, but that's a very interesting quandary, when something is a total mystery.



> Now, I'm sure my impressions are unjustified and I'm to blame for not making enough effort etc. So be it. I'd rather be stubborn, trust my own instincts and listen to what my ears and mind tell me. I came a long way with it.


Yours is not the only "hard luck" story here. Some people have come back from strokes. And please, don't trust your own perceptions when it comes to this music. Get a good mentor, and submit completely.



> This is not directed at anything specific, just some randomly picked modern music I've tried to listen to over the years. I love lots of early 20th century music and some late 20th century music as well.


Yes, we realize fully that this is not a blanket indictment of 20th century music. All that you have said makes perfect sense.


----------



## DeepR

millionrainbows said:


> When faced with questions like these, I play a game. I assume that I know exactly what they mean, and that it makes perfect sense. Then I explain to them the reasons they don't like it, is because they don't have the proper tools to approach it. Is that condescending?
> 
> On the other hand, opinions like these are usually way out of synch with the parameters of the music and what it requires to approach it. It's like expecting to see realistic figures in a Jackson Pollock drip painting. Don't hold your breath, and go look at some Norman Rockwell.
> 
> If you initially don't like the sound of the music, you probably never will, unless you want to try.
> 
> If you don't like creamed zucchini, please don't spit it back in our face.
> 
> If you want to like contemporary music, you can. But you have to want to, *before *you make up your mind that you don't.


I think you're quick in making assumptions about the reasons people don't like music (lacking the tools, listening with (the wrong) expectations etc.). The reasons for not liking music can be so individual and subjective that they're hard to put into words at all.


----------



## Strange Magic

Question for millionrainbows, is it OK to not like (not find interesting) some contemporary music? If not, I'm in big trouble here with not only SeptimalTritone's specific examples, but with the cutting-edge-of-human-creativity people. I'd hate that!


----------



## DeepR

millionrainbows said:


> It's OK with me if music's ambitions exceed the actual result. It makes it more Platonic, like the idea is as important, if not more, than the sound itself. Then, if I understand anything at all about how it was composed, its purpose and aesthetic aims, then I feel satisfied intellectually, and can ignore the shortcomings of the resultant sound. On the other hand, if its really great players like Ensemble Intercontemporaine or Arditti, I can enjoy both aspects, and consider it a success.
> 
> If I know how it was made, it makes me savor the end result even more than if I did not.
> 
> But I like both. I like to use my ears as well as my intellect. I consider music like this to be an intellectual elitist sort of thing, like reading Foucoult.
> 
> If the music is suggesting that it is interesting, without actually being interesting, that is a fascinating paradox. Some of Cage is like that: "Listen to how interesting it is to hear David Tudor scrape a contact mike across the strings of an open piano."
> 
> Oh, but that's a very interesting quandary, when something is a total mystery.
> 
> Yours is not the only "hard luck" story here. Some people have come back from strokes. And please, don't trust your own perceptions when it comes to this music. Get a good mentor, and submit completely.
> 
> Yes, we realize fully that this is not a blanket indictment of 20th century music. All that you have said makes perfect sense.


Well, that clarifies your approach to music, which is very different from mine. Yet, I'm sure there's lots of music that you and me both like, which is quite fascinating in itself. I don't think there's any "right" approach to it. 
My approach is first and foremost based on intuition, gut feeling and making a connection to the music on that level. That doesn't mean I can't appreciate music in a more intellectual and conceptual way, but that is far less important to me.

I would never submit to anyone when it comes to listening to and appreciating music. I want to, I have to, make my own journey through music and let it evolve independently as much as possible. I'd almost consider it betrayal to myself and my musical identity if I'd let someone else tell me what's good and what's not and how to listen to something.
(I would seek the help of others if I wanted to learn about theory, composition, playing an instrument etc.)


----------



## SimonNZ

millionrainbows said:


> Back on negative topic, perhaps the listeners who "hate" contemporary music have not considered this: perhaps it is contemporary music's JOB to confound our expectations.


Again: you're describing the myths and not the music.


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> Is it OK to not like (or not find interesting) some contemporary music? I hope so, or else I'm in big trouble here over SeptimalTritone's specific examples. I did not find them interesting--they were either too bourgeois or not bourgeois enough.


You have to live with this music; own it, and play it in your car. Eventually, you will be in the right receptive mood, enough to see what good there is in it, if it's there.

Yes, "goodness" does exist, objectively, in music. It's not just your opinion; the goodness is actually there, in the music. This is because we, as humans, share many universal aspects of consciousness, and even aesthetic enjoyment. Many of these shared qualities have been hard-wired into our brains over thousands of years.

Have faith in the composer, and that he knows this, and has put it into his music.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

joen_cph said:


> Murail´s "_L´Esprit des Dunes_" has obvious cinematic qualities and it´s quite accessible, IMHO.
> 
> Gubaidulina´s _Piano Sonata _ is a bit similar to - and just as good & attractive as - the _Chaconne_, but a bit less traditional. Her _Piano Quintet _is another quite early, conservative work, very close to Shostakovich (too close actually, IMO).


Yes, I heard those cinematic qualities but cinematic does not mean interesting; it was more like dull background music to a boring film 

I thought I heard a little bit of Bartok in the Chaconne of Gubaidulina. Will definitely seek out the Piano Sonata.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Chronochromie said:


> Glad you liked some Gubaidulina. Luckily the contemporary composers I enjoy and can recommend are a pretty diverse bunch so as I said there's something for almost everyone.
> 
> However I urge you to try other Murail, maybe his piano work Territoires de l'oubli and his orchestral work L'esprit des dunes.


I'm glad you mentioned Gubaidulina!

I might try another Murail piece but first impression was not good.


----------



## millionrainbows

_



Back on negative topic, perhaps the listeners who "hate" contemporary music have not considered this: perhaps it is contemporary music's JOB to confound our expectations.

Click to expand...

_


SimonNZ said:


> Again: you're describing the myths and not the music.


What music? I thought we were all just spewing rhetoric. I guess I missed the heartfelt defense of whatever particular music you refer to.

I think it's a useful myth; contemporary music should be challenging and confrontational. I think Boulez shared that view.

Even without being confrontational, it can confound our expectations, such as John Cage's quiet works, or Morton Feldman.

Ives wanted to surprise, and shock, I think.

So how can this be merely "the description of a myth" if that "myth" runs throughout the music as a widely-used aesthetic? No, it's more than that; much more.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Can we all at least agree that the sound of frying bacon is not to be considered music?


----------



## millionrainbows

DeepR said:


> ...I would never submit to anyone when it comes to listening to and appreciating music. I want to, I have to, make my own journey through music and let it evolve independently as much as possible. I'd almost consider it betrayal to myself and my musical identity if I'd let someone else tell me what's good and what's not and how to listen to something.
> (I would seek the help of others if I wanted to learn about theory, composition, playing an instrument etc.)


What's different about playing or learning? Listening is the main way we learn about music. It is passive, and receptive. It brings in new information that we do not possess. In fact, I consider the 'passive' act of listening to be just as important, if not more, and this quality is missing in many musicians. As in jazz and other forms, even Stockhausen, being receptive and listening is extremely important.

For me, if somebody had some good advice about how I could listen to music better, and comprehend more about it, I would be receptive.


----------



## SimonNZ

re: "cinematic qualities" - I'm listening again to Murail's Le partage des eaux, trying to hear why someone would have such a negative reaction, then asked myself what people approaching this as film music would think was on the screen...which through that filter would mean the music was at time and in places perhaps conveying something dark, uncertain, tense, troubled and maybe the prelude to an unpleasant shock.

I don't believe the music is trying to suggest any of those things, and am glad I can divorce modern classical, from the simplistic and reductive - and insulting and manipulative - use its been put to in films.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Can we all at least agree that the sound of frying bacon is not to be considered music?


I don't think there will be any kind of consensus on that. After all, there is that infamous thread with over 100 pages and 1,500+ posts on the topic of whether the literal absence of music is music or not. :devil:


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

SimonNZ said:


> re: "cinematic qualities" - I'm listening again to Murail's Le partage des eaux, trying to hear why someone would have such a negative reaction, then asked myself what people approaching this as film music would think was on the screen...which through that filter would mean the music was at time and in places perhaps conveying something dark, uncertain, tense, troubled and maybe the prelude to an unpleasant shock.
> 
> I don't believe the music is trying to suggest any of those things, and am glad I can divorce modern classical, from the simplistic and reductive - and insulting and manipulative - use its been put to in films.


I didn't approach the Murail piece as film music at all; I approached it, like I approach all music, with an open mind, trying to listen to the music itself without preconceived associations. Someone suggested "cinematic qualities" to the piece and I agreed that it did conjure up such qualities during my listening.


----------



## millionrainbows

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Can we all at least agree that the sound of frying bacon is not to be considered music?


I don't think John Cage would agree. He hoped to erase that distinction, and considered all sound as "music."

If there was the sound of bacon frying in a performance of 4'33" (performed in an IHOP because the music hall caught on fire), then it would be "music" in that regard.

If I got a digital recording of bacon frying, and put it into my computer and messed with it, I could turn it into music. It would be musique concrete. If I did a spectral analysis of it, there's no telling what kind of frequencies I would find. I could sample the bacon frying into a keyboard, and 'play' it like a piano.

If I were a conceptual artist, I could fry some bacon, and experiment with various microphone placement, and "magnify" the sound, amplify it, until it became a monumental flurry of sound. Then I could run it all through a flanger, and pitch-shift it.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

DiesIraeCX said:


> I don't think there will be any kind of consensus on that. After all, there is that infamous thread with over 100 pages and 1,500+ posts on the topic of whether the literal absence of music is music or not. :devil:


I only had a cursory look at that thread. I can't imagine anyone is seriously claiming the literal absence of music is music (but wouldn't be surprised if such a person existed). I thought it was more of people liking to wax philosophically than actually claiming 4'33'' is music. I mean would an empty sheet of paper be considered prose? An empty canvas a painting? This can get pretty ridiculous.


----------



## SimonNZ

millionrainbows said:


> What music? I thought we were all just spewing rhetoric. I guess I missed the heartfelt defense of whatever particular music you refer to.
> 
> I think it's a useful myth; contemporary music should be challenging and confrontational. I think Boulez shared that view.
> 
> Even without being confrontational, it can confound our expectations, such as John Cage's quiet works, or Morton Feldman.
> 
> Ives wanted to surprise, and shock, I think.
> 
> So how can this be merely "the description of a myth" if that "myth" runs throughout the music as a widely-used aesthetic? No, it's more than that; much more.


And yet I listen to a very large amount of contemporary classical and that's not what I'm hearing. Cage is only typical of Cage. Feldman is only typical of Feldman.

The myth is harmful. The myth gets repeated as fact, by people who have only heard the smallest amount, if even that. The myth is why composers who should be household names are struggling. The myth is what boards of directors who don't know better talk of when programming concert seasons.


----------



## millionrainbows

SimonNZ said:


> re: "cinematic qualities" - I'm listening again to Murail's Le partage des eaux, trying to hear why someone would have such a negative reaction, then asked myself what people approaching this as film music would think was on the screen...which through that filter would mean the music was at time and in places perhaps conveying something dark, uncertain, tense, troubled and maybe the prelude to an unpleasant shock.
> 
> I don't believe the music is trying to suggest any of those things, and am glad I can divorce modern classical, from the simplistic and reductive - and insulting and manipulative - use its been put to in films.


On the other hand, music started out as accompaniment to dramatic action, to enhance and complement, and intensify the action. Music retained the vestiges of this as "dramatic gesture," and I think Boulez was very much into this idea of 'gesture.'

Besides, darkness and tension is not bad; it can be entertaining. If, however, you feel that the music was conveying something lighter, you have a point, although I do not normally associate Tristan Murail's music with "Zip-ah-dee-Doo-Dah" sorts of things.


----------



## millionrainbows

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I only had a cursory look at that thread. I can't imagine anyone is seriously claiming the literal absence of music is music (but wouldn't be surprised if such a person existed). I thought it was more of people liking to wax philosophically than actually claiming 4'33'' is music. I mean would an empty sheet of paper be considered prose? An empty canvas a painting? This can get pretty ridiculous.


Once again, you are jumping the gun. If you'd done your homework, and actually immersed yourself into that thread, you would know that 4'33" is not about 'silence' or 'emptiness'. It will be the sounds you hear during that particular performance.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think John Cage would agree. He hoped to erase that distinction, and considered all sound as "music."
> 
> If there was the sound of bacon frying in a performance of 4'33" (performed in an IHOP because the music hall caught on fire), then it would be "music" in that regard.
> 
> If I got a digital recording of bacon frying, and put it into my computer and messed with it, I could turn it into music. It would be musique concrete. If I did a spectral analysis of it, there's no telling what kind of frequencies I would find. I could sample the bacon frying into a keyboard, and 'play' it like a piano.
> 
> If I were a conceptual artist, I could fry some bacon, and experiment with various microphone placement, and "magnify" the sound, amplify it, until it became a monumental flurry of sound. Then I could run it all through a flanger, and pitch-shift it.


Kinda ludicrous, if you think about it. I'm going to adhere to definitions that make sense. Think about it: if, by Cage's definition, any sound is music then the definition of it is so vague as to become meaningless. This definition does not distinguish between the purposeful, skillfully-crafted sound of a symphony vs a random everyday sound that takes zero effort or knowledge to produce.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

millionrainbows said:


> Once again, you are jumping the gun. If you'd done your homework, and actually immersed yourself into that thread, you would know that 4'33" is not about 'silence' or 'emptiness'. It will be the sounds you hear during that particular performance.


Same difference. See my post above.


----------



## millionrainbows

SimonNZ said:


> And yet I listen to a very large amount of contemporary classical and that's not what I'm hearing. Cage is only typical of Cage. Feldman is only typical of Feldman.
> 
> The myth is harmful. The myth gets repeated as fact, by people who have only heard the smallest amount, if even that. The myth is why composers who should be household names are struggling. The myth is what boards of directors who don't know better talk of when programming concert seasons.


Well, I'm not trying to destroy anyone's career. Generalizations are used for convenience. You seem to be putting a social spin on this, as if modern music was being stereotyped, and we are guilty of being "musical racists." People are entitled to generalize whole segments of whatever they wish, if it does not suit their criterion of good art or music. This is especially true of art. That's how genres are created. Genres and labels are there for convenience. I would certainly not give Industrial Music to my grandmother. The genre helps me, and granny, to identify it.

Besides, if something is good enough, it will survive, and rise above labels, and, much to the chagrin of artists, create its own genre, such as Minimalism has done.

If it's not good enough, it gets swept into the "myth" stereotype internment camp at Guantanamo.


----------



## millionrainbows

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Same difference. See my post above.


This is certainly not the place to discuss 4'33," so I'll be as brief as possible.



TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> ...This definition does not distinguish between the purposeful, skillfully-crafted sound of a symphony vs a random everyday sound that takes zero effort or knowledge to produce.


That's absolutely correct; but you don't seem to understand the ramifications of that, or the purpose of Cage pointing that out. I think your real complaint is not with the piece itself, or what Cage is saying with it, which you just pointed out, but rather your acceptance of this as art. That's your problem, not ours, or the art's.

I think you get more mileage out of your argument against 4'33", if you said less about it, and just viscerally expressed a dislike for conceptual art, or whatever. If you go into specifics, you'll get sucked into a vortex from which there is no escape.


----------



## SimonNZ

millionrainbows said:


> Well, I'm not trying to destroy anyone's career. Generalizations are used for convenience. You seem to be putting a social spin on this, as if modern music was being stereotyped, and we are guilty of being "musical racists." People are entitled to generalize whole segments of whatever they wish, if it does not suit their criterion of good art or music. This is especially true of art. That's how genres are created. Genres and labels are there for convenience. I would certainly not give Industrial Music to my grandmother. The genre helps me, and granny, to identify it.
> 
> Besides, if something is good enough, it will survive, and rise above labels, and, much to the chagrin of artists, create its own genre, such as Minimalism has done.
> 
> If it's not good enough, it gets swept into the "myth" stereotype internment camp at Guantanamo.


Industrial music isn't commonly misrepresented. Contemporary classical most certainly is.

As I've said before: sometimes its really hard to believe I'm on a site for classical enthusiasts...as when I read your last two sentences.

Do you even listen to any? And by contemporary I mean living, working composers.


----------



## millionrainbows

SimonNZ said:


> Industrial music isn't commonly misrepresented. Contemporary classical most certainly is.


Yes, but I used that only to point out the convenience of genres, at times, as generalizations.



> As I've said before: sometimes its really hard to believe I'm on a site for classical enthusiasts...as when I read your last two sentences. Do you even listen to any? And by contemporary I mean living, working composers.


Yes, I love it. Does Elliott Carter count as a living composer? He's not dead yet. And my last two sentences are simply telling it like it is: art and music survive by becoming "memes" and insinuating their existence into the collective consciousness. If it is good, it will eventually be recognized for those qualities. Maybe sooner, maybe later, maybe in a perfect world.

I have a voracious appetite for music, and have a special interest in "difficult" music. I do get tired of hearing it defended, though, as if it were a "victim." As far as those who do not like what I consider good "difficult" music, their opinions mean nothing.

I do understand how that kind of mind operates, though. That's why I find it disingenuous to pretend that we don't. We knoww what we are listening to, and what it took to get there, and how the average mind of Americans works. Why do we keep pretending we don't?

Modern music does not need defending from the likes of people with mindsets like this. This is totally unimportant to me, and a waste of my time and gifts.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, but I used that only to point out the convenience of genres, at times, as generalizations.
> 
> Yes, I love it. Does Elliott Carter count as a living composer? He's not dead yet. And my last two sentences are simply telling it like it is: art and music survive by becoming "memes" and insinuating their existence into the collective consciousness. If it is good, it will eventually be recognized for those qualities. Maybe sooner, maybe later, maybe in a perfect world.
> 
> I have a voracious appetite for music, and have a special interest in "difficult" music.


Elliott Carter died November 5, 2012.


----------



## mmsbls

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Kinda ludicrous, if you think about it. I'm going to adhere to definitions that make sense. Think about it: if, by Cage's definition, any sound is music then the definition of it is so vague as to become meaningless. This definition does not distinguish between the purposeful, skillfully-crafted sound of a symphony vs a random everyday sound that takes zero effort or knowledge to produce.


I think Cage wanted to expand people's conception of what music actually is. Most people are used to thinking of music as purposeful sound. In fact, most people's definition is probably stricter than that. Cage heard sounds such as street sounds in New York as music. He thought people could expand their concept of music by choosing to hear any sounds as music - even the somewhat random "background" sounds heard when musicians _do not play_.

I actually agree with your definition, especially the purposeful part, and I would not consider 4'33" music. I do, however, understand Cage's view. I'm perfectly happy to have others view 4'33" or other non-purposeful sounds as music. I was told that there is a cellist who started every concert with 4'33". Presumably the audience became more open to hearing the various sounds in her concert as musical, and perhaps that made their concert experience more enjoyable. Maybe it would not do so for you or me, and that's perfectly fine.


----------



## SimonNZ

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, but I used that only to point out the convenience of genres, at times, as generalizations.
> 
> Yes, I love it. Does Elliott Carter count as a living composer? He's not dead yet. And my last two sentences are simply telling it like it is: art and music survive by becoming "memes" and insinuating their existence into the collective consciousness. If it is good, it will eventually be recognized for those qualities. Maybe sooner, maybe later, maybe in a perfect world.
> 
> I have a voracious appetite for music, and have a special interest in "difficult" music. I do get tired of hearing it defended, though, as if it were a "victim." As far as those who do not like what I consider good "difficult" music, their opinions mean nothing.
> 
> I do understand how that kind of mind operates, though. That's why I find it disingenuous to pretend that we don't. *We knoww what we are listening to,* and what it took to get there, and how the average mind of Americans works. Why do we keep pretending we don't?
> 
> Modern music does not need defending from the likes of people with mindsets like this. This is totally unimportant to me, and a waste of my time and gifts.


That's fine as long as you're actually listening. But its been demonstrated time and again, here and elsewhere, that the myth has become so accepted as to be treated as fact by many without any listening.


----------



## violadude

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Kinda ludicrous, if you think about it. I'm going to adhere to definitions that make sense. Think about it: if, by Cage's definition, any sound is music then the definition of it is so vague as to become meaningless. This definition does not distinguish between the purposeful, skillfully-crafted sound of a symphony vs a random everyday sound that takes zero effort or knowledge to produce.


I'm fine with the sound of bacon frying being considered music. The real question is, is it good music? I personally don't find pieces such as Cage's Water Walk to contain the elements necessary for effective music. However, his pieces for prepared piano, his constructions in Metal, Music in Four Parts, Music of Changes, In a Landscape etc. do, and yet Cage dismissers never want to mention these pieces, they just spend all day harping away at his more out there compositions.

The fact is, the majority of Cage's output could be described as music even by somewhat conservative standards. It's a shame his entire career is often ignored for his relatively few infamous experiments.


----------



## KenOC

violadude said:


> I'm fine with the sound of bacon frying being considered music. The real question is, is it good music?


I think it depends on the quality of the bacon. And good bacon is getting frightfully expensive. Will fine music, once again, be reserved for the aristocracy?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

millionrainbows said:


> This is certainly not the place to discuss 4'33," so I'll be as brief as possible.
> 
> That's absolutely correct; but you don't seem to understand the ramifications of that, or the purpose of Cage pointing that out. I think your real complaint is not with the piece itself, or what Cage is saying with it, which you just pointed out, but *rather your acceptance of this as art.* That's your problem, not ours, or the art's.
> 
> I think you get more mileage out of your argument against 4'33", if you said less about it, and just viscerally expressed a dislike for conceptual art, or whatever. If you go into specifics, you'll get sucked into a vortex from which there is no escape.


Agree especially the bolded part. I think it's better than I also say as little as possible about 4'33'' here lest I derail this thread.


----------



## KenOC

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Agree especially the bolded part. I think it's better than I also say as little as possible about 4'33'' here lest I derail this thread.


I agree we should not mention 4'33". I certainly won't mention 4'33" and I hope nobody else mentions 4'33". I will remain totally silent on the subject of 4'33" and, as I say, will not so much as mention 4'33" or even the work's name, 4'33". Silence, after all, is golden.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

By the way, here is my example of a beautiful contemporary piece that fits the more traditional definition of music


----------



## Woodduck

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Kinda ludicrous, if you think about it. I'm going to adhere to definitions that make sense. Think about it: if, by Cage's definition, any sound is music then the definition of it is so vague as to become meaningless. This definition does not distinguish between the purposeful, skillfully-crafted sound of a symphony vs a random everyday sound that takes zero effort or knowledge to produce.


I'm basically in sympathy with you (and in agreement about Cage's infamous experiment). But no definition of music will satisfy everyone, and so there will never be complete agreement about whether something heard should be called music or not. Is music best defined from the standpoint of the composer, or that of the listener? Does any sound, regardless of its source or purpose, become music when someone enjoys listening to it? That might seem a reasonable point of view - but then we have to remember that we're no longer talking about the thing itself. If "music" exists only when it's heard, then it's just as meaningless to call sounds music as it is to deny that they are music.

Sometimes common usage is the only reasonable criterion for defining a thing. Traditionally, humans have considered music to consist of intentional sounds, other than speech, organized or patterned in time in order to embody, express or communicate some emotional/physical/aesthetic feeling. This is music considered as a product of art, not merely as an experience.

In accordance with this common definition, I'll suggest an empirical test: what you're hearing is music if, knowing nothing beforehand about its source or purpose, you can tell it's music when you hear it. This isn't foolproof (whether the fool in question is the composer or the listener), and it won't tell us whether the music is good or not. But most of us actually do think we know when we're hearing music, and this will be true regardless of its style or culture of origin.

With regard to some of the stuff we're asked to listen to nowadays, it's possible for music to sound so random, or so much like mere noise, that despite its composer's intention of fulfilling the terms of the minimal definition above, an intelligent person could fail to recognize it as music - or, even allowing that it might be music, could fail to find any artistic value in it. In such cases, there's no need to argue definitions.

As far as I'm concerned, if I hear bacon frying, it had better be breakfast, or the cook will be looking for work.


----------



## Adam Weber

You know, for all the people on here who claim to hate minimalism, you all sure love having the same conversation again... and again... and again...


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

KenOC said:


> I agree we should not mention 4'33". I certainly won't mention 4'33" and I hope nobody else mentions 4'33". I will remain totally silent on the subject of 4'33" and, as I say, will not so much as mention 4'33" or even the work's name, 4'33". Silence, after all, is golden.


I think mentioning 4'33'' seven times in a single post is considered an offence so great that is punishable by forcing you to append the words "4'33'' is the greatest piece of music" to your signature. Luckily for you, you stopped at six.


----------



## Autocrat

Woodduck said:


> As far as I'm concerned, if I hear bacon frying, it had better be breakfast, or the cook will be looking for work.


Yeah, I've had to sack both the cook AND the gardener this week.


----------



## DaveM

KenOC said:


> I agree we should not mention 4'33". I certainly won't mention 4'33" and I hope nobody else mentions 4'33". I will remain totally silent on the subject of 4'33" and, as I say, will not so much as mention 4'33" or even the work's name, 4'33". Silence, after all, is golden.


If you really want the ultimate musical experience, find a 33rpm vinyl recording of 4'33" and play it at 78rpm.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think John Cage would agree. He hoped to erase that distinction, and considered all sound as "music."


Well John Cage was wrong...he ain't God you know!


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Nereffid said:


> I will, of course, defend to the death (or until I lose interest, whichever comes first) the right of anyone to enjoy whatever music they like, and I've gone on record many times arguing against the idea of objective standards by which we should judge music, but listening to those recordings by Gibello and López I find myself being hoist by my own postmodernist petard.
> 
> I would never dispute anyone's sincerity in saying they find this compelling (What, never? Well... hardly ever), but I have to ask, _if this is compelling music, then what isn't?_


For me, over the past 40 years, neoromanticism, new simplicity, and a lot of spectralism and minimalism are not compelling. I also don't like much baroque music, preferring older Renaissance polyphony. There are a good amount of "A-rank" or "B-rank" common-practice or early 20th century composers/works that I don't enjoy. Even with a masterful figure like Boulez, I enjoy the Piano Sonata 2, Le Marteau, Derive 1 and 2, and Sur Incices, but I don't like the combination of explosive melodic figures with chordal stasis of Repons, even though it does have live electronic manipulation.

It is an error to think that I enjoy everything (i.e. "what isn't compelling?"). I also don't believe in complete relativism/postmodernism, although I of course believe that different music seeks to do different things, often vastly different things. It's not a matter of stooping low and finding anything compelling, it's a matter of for me at least, choosing music that treats sound as a unified and evolving body, not a sum of notes, lines, and harmonies. To me, it opens up an expressive dimension.

Just as Webern created a music of associations: intervals, timbres, pitches, inversion canons, motifs, harmonic simultaneities, so does Cage's Water Walk in its treatment of sounds in general: some percussive, some noise (noise as a technical term), some pitched. Some of the sounds are held, some are just point sounds. And the ending of certain sounds, i.e. silence: that creates its own space too. I prefer to listen to it without looking at the video, to treat it like a Webern op 21.

You, and others, are fine to not like this music, but this idea of me finding nothing un-compelling or of having highly relative/postmodern ideas is wrong.

Edit: regarding that older post of mine you cited, you raise a good point. I have a very hard time with my likes and dislikes. The thing is, a lot of composers/pieces I really like now and consider my favorites I didn't like upon first few, or even more, hearings. Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler (all too long, complex, and too many theme groups and expositions and recapitulations. Mahler's symphonies were in particular extremely difficult to get through.). Schoenberg (sounded awful, the notes felt more like code for music than actual music). Debussy (sounded trivial, like film music). Webern (sounded to ethereal and zen: I legitimately thought I could never ever get it). Chopin (pretty dance/waltz homophonic music). Schumann (little poetic piano miniatures, not profound). All of the Darmstadt composers (too modern). Musique concrete (just a bunch of random everyday sounds). Feldman (not much happening: nice ditties but too repetitive and not anything special). Cage (too experimental, and again, not much happening)

And likewise, a lot a liked the first few times, I don't like now, often because I got a strong initial impression but didn't find them interesting as time went on. I have almost every single time gotten it wrong. It's terrible. My listening skills and ability to pick up on things has dramatically improved over these years, and I can make comparisons of musical characteristics of composers I never could before.

Still, I always wonder whether my current tastes reflect a lack of discernment. Even now, I recently revisited Mahler's 6th symphony, and it turns out I missed hearing _an entire development of a theme_ and _an entire structural procedure_ in the first movement. I used to think that the first movement was kind of a weak movement, too long for too little content. Now I really like this movement, although only through careful reflection and having the right things pointed out to me did that happen. Of course, knowing things doesn't logically directly entail greater liking, but I always question my musical awareness.

There's still a large body of music that some guy would recommend that I don't like. In fact, probably most of what some guy listens to I still don't like. It's hard for me to be secure about it. But nevertheless, what I've recommended, I do sincerely enjoy.


----------



## Nereffid

SeptimalTritone said:


> It is an error to think that I enjoy everything (i.e. "what isn't compelling?"). I also don't believe in complete relativism/postmodernism, although I of course believe that different music seeks to do different things, often vastly different things. It's not a matter of stooping low and finding anything compelling, it's a matter of for me at least, choosing music that treats sound as a unified and evolving body, not a sum of notes, lines, and harmonies. To me, it opens up an expressive dimension.
> ...
> You, and others, are fine to not like this music, but this idea of me finding nothing un-compelling or of having highly relative/postmodern ideas is wrong.


Don't worry, I don't think you enjoy everything - my "what isn't?" was a rhetorical flourish rather than an accusation, and it was far more about my own response to some of those pieces, and not about your tastes per se. My basic position is that people can find great music wherever they choose, and if it happens to be music I dislike a lot, then I feel I have enough empathy to imagine what it might be they're getting from the music that I don't get. But this position starts to break down (or, perhaps, the slope gets a bit too slippery) with pieces like the Gibello and Lopez you linked to - there's just no "there" there for me, and I'm left utterly baffled not just about what people who enjoy it might get out of it but also about how one piece might be considered good and another not. (The closest I can get is to reflect on the fact that I like sitting at the seashore and listening to the waves and the birds, and there are probably some combinations of waves and birds that might, if I were to really overthink it, be preferable to other combinations; but this is a real stretch, and besides I don't consider those sounds to be music anyway.)



SeptimalTritone said:


> Just as Webern created a music of associations: intervals, timbres, pitches, inversion canons, motifs, harmonic simultaneities, so does Cage's Water Walk in its treatment of sounds in general: some percussive, some noise (noise as a technical term), some pitched. Some of the sounds are held, some are just point sounds. And the ending of certain sounds, i.e. silence: that creates its own space too. I prefer to listen to it without looking at the video, to treat it like a Webern op 21.


As it happens, I posted something a couple of years ago in response to _Water Walk_:
Now, this is interesting, because I enjoyed that performance and am perfectly happy to call it music. But as I was watching I realised that the crucial aspect of my enjoyment was that I was _watching_. Take away the visual element and I wouldn't be entertained or interested. When I can see Cage performing I "get it" as music, but with pure audio it sounds like random noises, even when I know that it's not random but precisely planned. Without the visual element the music is, to my ears, essentially indistinguishable from sounds produced with no compositional intent, the incidental sounds of life going on, which is outside my musical boundary/grey area.
Indeed, I find myself in the bizarre situation that removing the visuals and just listening to the sound is a less enjoyable musical experience than removing the _audio_ portion and engaging my imagination about which sounds are being produced.
I'm sure Cage would have been amused by that!



SeptimalTritone said:


> Still, I always wonder whether my current tastes reflect a lack of discernment. ... I always question my musical awareness. ... It's hard for me to be secure about it. But nevertheless, what I've recommended, I do sincerely enjoy.


For what it's worth, I'm quite confident that by many people's standards my tastes have always lacked discernment; the trick is to not worry about it. As long as I stick to the golden rule of not calling a piece of music _bad_ just because I don't like it, it all remains in the realm of personal taste, and I've not yet come to any psychological harm through failing to appreciate something I'm apparently supposed to appreciate. If someone sincerely likes something, they like it, regardless of how I feel, and the same goes for what they sincerely dislike; it doesn't matter whether it's Boulez or Einaudi or Mahler or Gibello, none of us need to feel like we've failed some sort of test.


----------



## arpeggio

Nereffid said:


> For what it's worth, I'm quite confident that by many people's standards my tastes have always lacked discernment; the trick is to not worry about it. As long as I stick to the golden rule of not calling a piece of music _bad_ just because I don't like it, it all remains in the realm of personal taste, and I've not yet come to any psychological harm through failing to appreciate something I'm apparently supposed to appreciate. If someone sincerely likes something, they like it, regardless of how I feel, and the same goes for what they sincerely dislike; it doesn't matter whether it's Boulez or Einaudi or Mahler or Gibello, none of us need to feel like we've failed some sort of test.


I have learned that most here think like this.

But we have that 20% who believe that when they do not like something it must be bad and they are engaged in a crusade to save the classical music world from unacceptable music.

Confession. When I was younger I felt that the greatest music was 20th century (I was rather obnoxious about this myself). As I got older I realized that such an attitude was completely bogus . Even though I still appreciate and follow modern music, my favorite composers and Mahler and Beethoven.


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> It's OK with me if music's ambitions exceed the actual result. It makes it more Platonic, like the idea is as important, if not more, than the sound itself. Then, if I understand anything at all about how it was composed, its purpose and aesthetic aims, then I feel satisfied intellectually, and can ignore the shortcomings of the resultant sound. On the other hand, if its really great players like Ensemble Intercontemporaine or Arditti, I can enjoy both aspects, and consider it a success.
> 
> If I know how it was made, it makes me savor the end result even more than if I did not.
> 
> But I like both. I like to use my ears as well as my intellect. I consider music like this to be an intellectual elitist sort of thing, like reading Foucoult.
> 
> If the music is suggesting that it is interesting, without actually being interesting, that is a fascinating paradox. Some of Cage is like that: "Listen to how interesting it is to hear David Tudor scrape a contact mike across the strings of an open piano."
> 
> Oh, but that's a very interesting quandary, when something is a total mystery.
> 
> Yours is not the only "hard luck" story here. Some people have come back from strokes. And please, don't trust your own perceptions when it comes to this music. Get a good mentor, and submit completely.
> 
> Yes, we realize fully that this is not a blanket indictment of 20th century music. All that you have said makes perfect sense.


What caught my attention in all of this was the bit about Foucault, who was writing a sort of philosophy and history. His aim was focused on truth, saying the truth about eg the doctor / patient relationship etc. But music doesn't have propositional content so it can't be true or false.

So I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say here.

Maybe the best analogy is more with a complex and pointless puzzle or something, rather than philosophy. A big sudoku. Both are elitist in their different ways I guess,


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> You have to live with this music; own it, and play it in your car. Eventually, you will be in the right receptive mood, enough to see what good there is in it, if it's there.
> 
> Yes, "goodness" does exist, objectively, in music. It's not just your opinion; the goodness is actually there, in the music. This is because we, as humans, share many universal aspects of consciousness, and even aesthetic enjoyment. Many of these shared qualities have been hard-wired into our brains over thousands of years.
> 
> Have faith in the composer, and that he knows this, and has put it into his music.


This doesn't actually answer my question. Rather, it is a series of assertions, some of which may be true but which do not necessarily apply to the issue at hand. The only plausible assertion that seems to be being made, is that, sooner or later, one will like and appreciate everything, providing that one applies oneself diligently, and/or is not a coarse and brutal clod. But perhaps I misapprehend (clod?).


----------



## Sloe

Adam Weber said:


> You know, for all the people on here who claim to hate minimalism, you all sure love having the same conversation again... and again... and again...


Many of us also like to listen to the same music again and again but for that we do not like music were we here the same melody again and again. That is another thing I do not like with contemporary music also music that sounds like frying bacon and music that sounds like the rain.


----------



## Woodduck

Originally posted by Nereffid:

_As long as I stick to the golden rule of not calling a piece of music bad just because I don't like it, it all remains in the realm of personal taste_...



arpeggio said:


> I have learned that most here think like this.
> 
> But we have that 20% who believe that when they do not like something it must be bad and they are engaged in a crusade to save the classical music world from unacceptable music.


We also have people who don't believe that those are the only possible positions. But it's less confusing and more comfortable to assign those people to the second category. Heaven forbid that anyone should actually produce poor music, and that someone should be so insensitive as to point it out.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Nereffid said:


> But this position starts to break down (or, perhaps, the slope gets a bit too slippery) with pieces like the Gibello and Lopez you linked to - there's just no "there" there for me, and I'm left utterly baffled not just about what people who enjoy it might get out of it but also about how one piece might be considered good and another not. (The closest I can get is to reflect on the fact that I like sitting at the seashore and listening to the waves and the birds, and there are probably some combinations of waves and birds that might, if I were to really overthink it, be preferable to other combinations; but this is a real stretch, and besides I don't consider those sounds to be music anyway.)


Ah okay. I'll help you out. You seem to be asking in good faith. I'll tell you what I like and care about in this music, and you'll at least know what I am hearing. For most of these pieces the reason is different.

For Cage's Water Walk, I like the associations between sounds, and the ebb and flow of their textural density. If you notice in the video, a lot of the sounds derive from water, or steam, or clinking ice cubes (note the title of the piece!). The sound of the blowing steam, the toilet flushing, and the water pouring from the sink, they are all related as a noise sound. The electric blender halfway through the piece gets "commented on" in a loud toy whistle she plays into a pitcher, and it also gets "commented on" by the pop song on the radio. One percussive sound at one time relates to another. These "soft" relations and "hard" relations between sounds, and their ebb and flow, are what comprise the piece, and the piece can be thought of, as I said before, as a Webern op 21 with no voice leading/melody/canon structure, but with an expanded sound palette. I think it's essential to not look at the video too much or at all, because then the sounds are perceived as too different because the eye sees different things. The electric blender doesn't _look_ like the toy whistle or the radio, and so the eye might judge them as unrelated elements, and yet for the ear they play off of each other. We don't need to "look" to appreciate the tape music in Varese's Poeme Electronique because there's nothing to see, it's just tape music, and similarly goes with the Cage.

For Lopez's Fabrikas, I like the slow evolution of the sound structure, the micro-details, the glacially changing macro sound, the long stretches of intense flurry, and the long stretches of pure silence. I like how gradually certain elements come in while others come out, and I like how this slow change interacts with the repetitive nature of the sounds. It's basically the minimalist repetition and slow changes of a Feldman, Reich, Glass, or early Adams, but with the mechanical factory sounds, some of them with stronger pitch content and others with lesser pitch content, and some with a fast rate or repetition and others with a slower.

One could then view the Gibello as having elements of both the Cage and the Lopez above. Slowly evolving popping noise. "Commentary" with the clanks of everyday objects, kind of like how people talk about dialogue in a string quartet. Insects, other insects, ticking sounds, human voice fragments, chirps: all playing off of each other in a total texture.

So this is what I hear in these pieces. I absolutely do not get any special enjoyment out of listening to the seashore or the freeway. Everything in these pieces is deliberate, and it's very dynamic in a musical sense. There is association, rhythm, sound differentiation and sound properties, textural evolution, climax, lull, and everything in between. Real life doesn't sound like this music. I would guess that just like to the uninitiated, Schoenberg's/Webern's/Boulez's piano pieces sound like a child or cat randomly banging, similarly, to the uninitiated, this music sounds no different from listening to everyday real life objects.

So that's what I'm hearing. Hopefully you will understand my position, even though you won't like and enjoy.


----------



## ArtMusic

Spawnofsatan said:


> Since I come across so many nihilistic people (sometimes day after day) who have no interest or enjoyment without considering a sense of hope for the future, I'm interested to know what qualities of contemporary music make you hate it so much?


There are aspects of contemporary music that I dislike that were of the experimental genres of the 1950s and 1960s. However, I understand that they were experimental in idiom and those composers experimenting half a century ago were more interested in discovering different avenues to sounds. It is interesting historically, but musically to the ears, less so. That's just my opinion.


----------



## millionrainbows

DeepR said:


> Well, that clarifies your approach to music, which is very different from mine. Yet, I'm sure there's lots of music that you and me both like, which is quite fascinating in itself. I don't think there's any "right" approach to it.
> My approach is first and foremost based on intuition, gut feeling and making a connection to the music on that level. That doesn't mean I can't appreciate music in a more intellectual and conceptual way, but that is far less important to me.
> 
> I would never submit to anyone when it comes to listening to and appreciating music. I want to, I have to, make my own journey through music and let it evolve independently as much as possible. I'd almost consider it betrayal to myself and my musical identity if I'd let someone else tell me what's good and what's not and how to listen to something.
> (I would seek the help of others if I wanted to learn about theory, composition, playing an instrument etc.)


Well, isn't this basically what John Cage is providing us with 4'33"? This is an opportunity to hear sounds which we would otherwise not consider, as music. He's not "bullying" us into listening; he's inviting us in to a subjective, quiet space. He's not forcing a definition of music on us, he's simply asking us to listen differently.



mmsbls said:


> I think Cage wanted to expand people's conception of what music actually is. Most people are used to thinking of music as purposeful sound. In fact, most people's definition is probably stricter than that. Cage heard sounds such as street sounds in New York as music. He thought people could expand their concept of music by choosing to hear any sounds as music - even the somewhat random "background" sounds heard when musicians _do not play_.


I agree, and Cage was not trying to "define" music; he was questioning our definition and idea of what we normally call a music, in the context of a musical performance, so Westerners could experience it. So, Cage was "undefining" music, removing the performer's intent, and making the listener the "composer" of the music in that he is listening to the ambient sounds as music.

He refers to this process of listening numerous times in his writings; in his book "Silence" he recounts a story of sitting in a restaurant, listening to a jukebox, and noticing that the swimmers outside, diving into a pool, seemed to be synchronized with the music. The same thing arose in popular culture when people began listening to "Dark Side of the Moon" while watching "The Wizard of OZ", and swearing that they were in synch. If anything, this tells you about human perception, and how we tend to look for patterns in random events. To me, that is a valuable lesson.



> I actually agree with your definition, especially the purposeful part, and I would not consider 4'33" music.


How do you know? Each 4'33" performance is different. I can listen to traffic sounds at night and do this easily. It's not rocket science.



> I do, however, understand Cage's view. I'm perfectly happy to have others view 4'33" or other non-purposeful sounds as music.


Good, because it's not like he's forcing you to listen to anything in any certain way.



> I was told that there is a cellist who started every concert with 4'33". Presumably the audience became more open to hearing the various sounds in her concert as musical, and perhaps that made their concert experience more enjoyable. Maybe it would not do so for you or me, and that's perfectly fine.


You sound a tad defensive, as if you have to defend your rejection. The fact is, this is an ability, more like a "game," that any person is able to do. All you have to do is put on a CD of "Dark Side of the Moon" and watch The Wizard of Oz at the same time. :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> ...what you're hearing is music if, knowing nothing beforehand about its source or purpose, you can tell it's music when you hear it. This isn't foolproof (whether the fool in question is the composer or the listener), and it won't tell us whether the music is good or not. But most of us actually do think we know when we're hearing music, and this will be true regardless of its style or culture of origin.


I think this misses the point completely, because Cage was trying to expand our notions of what music is, and extend this into the area of random sound, all sound.



> With regard to some of the stuff we're asked to listen to nowadays, it's possible for music to sound so random, or so much like mere noise, that despite its composer's intention of fulfilling the terms of the minimal definition above, an intelligent person could fail to recognize it as music - or, even allowing that it might be music, could fail to find any artistic value in it. In such cases, there's no need to argue definitions.


There is a fairly new genre called "noise music" in which the composers admit that what they are doing is noise, not music in the accepted sense. It seems that now, we have crossed the threshold into the area of "art" or "conceptual art." So go ahead, call it noise, and say it's not music; it won't bother them, or the people who listen to this art.



> As far as I'm concerned, if I hear bacon frying, it had better be breakfast, or the cook will be looking for work.


You're at the wrong IHOP, Woodduck. This is a concert, called "New Directions in Avant-Garde Pork." If you want breakfast, try the Denny's down the street. :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Cage was trying to expand our notions of what music is, and extend this into the area of random sound, all sound.
> 
> There is a fairly new genre called "noise music" in which the composers admit that what they are doing is noise, not music in the accepted sense. It seems that now, we have crossed the threshold into the area of "art" or "conceptual art." *So go ahead, call it noise, and say it's not music; it won't bother them, or the people who listen to this art. *
> 
> You're at the wrong IHOP, Woodduck. This is a concert, called "New Directions in Avant-Garde Pork." If you want breakfast, try the Denny's down the street. :lol:


You're not telling me anything, million. I know exactly what Cage was doing. I also know what he thought and said he was doing. The "genre" of "noise-music" has been around longer than either of us. And I was here when the term "conceptual art" was coined. I've eaten at that IHOP numerous times. So go ahead, call it "art." It won't bother me, or the people who distinguish it from more substantial cuisine.

But OK: cute phraseology aside, if you read me carefully, you'll see that I've never said that "noise music" _couldn't_ be music. One may contrive arrangements of sounds other than tones for an aesthetic effect, and if that's "music to my ears" for someone, fine. Let's just not confuse it with music as traditionally understood around the world - music as the art of arranging abstract sound for an expressive effect apart from, and far exceeding, the effect of the sounds themselves.

Even allowing that noise music can be _called_ music, most of what I've heard isn't anything to write home about - certainly nothing to compare to SeptimalTritone's "past music," whether we're discussing the past of Germany or Russia or India. Some of it shows a bit of imagination and some sense of form, but that's elementary, artistically speaking, and isn't necessarily much of an achievement. Art aspires to a great deal more, and when Walter Pater famously said that "all art aspires to the condition of music," it wasn't montages of noises he was thinking of. What art would aspire to those? (Well, there _are_ those charming assemblages of found objects...)

Sounds recognizable from the "real world" have associations that can be "imported" by the composer for an easy effect, much as images are "imported" by a photographer, or objects assembled in an "installation," and the inherent effectiveness of these elements can hardly be credited to the artist. If, on the other hand, noises are used in such a way as to suggest no known source - as abstract sounds - then they lack both the ready-made affective power of recognizable noises or the capacity of tones to create melody or harmony; they tend to rely on "psychic disturbance" - on piquing our natural human fascination with (and even fear of) the mysterious, unidentifiable stimulus. Neither sort of effect is equivalent to the effect - the incomprehensibly meaningful effect - of a good melody.

On the whole, "noise music" is an impure (in the ways explained above) and weak "art form," and whether we want to call it music or not rarely seems worth arguing about. Whatever it does achieve is unquestionably different from what music made from tones can achieve and has achieved historically. From Varese and Stockhausen on down to the sad little sound games of an Emmanuelle Gibello, I hear little to suggest that the notion that noise can be a basis for a great "art nouveau" is anything but wishful thinking.


----------



## arpeggio

Woodduck said:


> Heaven forbid that anyone should actually produce poor music, and that someone should be so insensitive as to point it out.


This is were we part ways and we each actually operate in alternate universes.

I actually have performed some real turkeys in my time. During the 2¾ years I played with the 75th Army Band I was exposed to more garbage than many members hear in a lifetime. 99% of the bad composers I have played you have probably never heard of. There was this one guy, I think his name was Ortner. We played a march and a symphony that he composed. The agony. 

I have said this before (I have had my head ripped off for saying this so when you criticize me, try to be original). I have played music that is so bad that it made _433_ sound good.

So when a person trashes whatever, I think how would they react if they had to listen to Ortner.

What is even worse is some of the garbage I composed.


----------



## Woodduck

arpeggio said:


> This is were we part ways and we each actually operate in alternate universes.
> 
> I actually have performed some real turkeys in my time. During the 2¾ years I played with the 75th Army Band I was exposed to more garbage than many members hear in a lifetime. 99% of the bad composers I have played you have probably never heard of. There was this one guy, I think his name was Ortner. We played a march and a symphony that he composed. The agony.
> 
> I have said this before (I have had my head ripped off for saying this so when you criticize me, try to be original). I have played music that is so bad that it made _433_ sound good.
> 
> So when a person trashes whatever, I think how would they react if they had to listen to Ortner.
> 
> What is even worse is some of the garbage I composed.


Why would I want to criticize you? I save my invective for crummy music! :lol:

Actually I'm in perfect sympathy with everything you've said. I've also composed a few turkeys of my own.


----------



## Nereffid

SeptimalTritone said:


> Ah okay. I'll help you out. You seem to be asking in good faith. I'll tell you what I like and care about in this music, and you'll at least know what I am hearing. For most of these pieces the reason is different.
> 
> For Cage's Water Walk, I like the associations between sounds, and the ebb and flow of their textural density. If you notice in the video, a lot of the sounds derive from water, or steam, or clinking ice cubes (note the title of the piece!). The sound of the blowing steam, the toilet flushing, and the water pouring from the sink, they are all related as a noise sound. The electric blender halfway through the piece gets "commented on" in a loud toy whistle she plays into a pitcher, and it also gets "commented on" by the pop song on the radio. One percussive sound at one time relates to another. These "soft" relations and "hard" relations between sounds, and their ebb and flow, are what comprise the piece, and the piece can be thought of, as I said before, as a Webern op 21 with no voice leading/melody/canon structure, but with an expanded sound palette. I think it's essential to not look at the video too much or at all, because then the sounds are perceived as too different because the eye sees different things. The electric blender doesn't _look_ like the toy whistle or the radio, and so the eye might judge them as unrelated elements, and yet for the ear they play off of each other. We don't need to "look" to appreciate the tape music in Varese's Poeme Electronique because there's nothing to see, it's just tape music, and similarly goes with the Cage.
> 
> For Lopez's Fabrikas, I like the slow evolution of the sound structure, the micro-details, the glacially changing macro sound, the long stretches of intense flurry, and the long stretches of pure silence. I like how gradually certain elements come in while others come out, and I like how this slow change interacts with the repetitive nature of the sounds. It's basically the minimalist repetition and slow changes of a Feldman, Reich, Glass, or early Adams, but with the mechanical factory sounds, some of them with stronger pitch content and others with lesser pitch content, and some with a fast rate or repetition and others with a slower.
> 
> One could then view the Gibello as having elements of both the Cage and the Lopez above. Slowly evolving popping noise. "Commentary" with the clanks of everyday objects, kind of like how people talk about dialogue in a string quartet. Insects, other insects, ticking sounds, human voice fragments, chirps: all playing off of each other in a total texture.
> 
> So this is what I hear in these pieces. I absolutely do not get any special enjoyment out of listening to the seashore or the freeway. Everything in these pieces is deliberate, and it's very dynamic in a musical sense. There is association, rhythm, sound differentiation and sound properties, textural evolution, climax, lull, and everything in between. Real life doesn't sound like this music. I would guess that just like to the uninitiated, Schoenberg's/Webern's/Boulez's piano pieces sound like a child or cat randomly banging, similarly, to the uninitiated, this music sounds no different from listening to everyday real life objects.
> 
> So that's what I'm hearing. Hopefully you will understand my position, even though you won't like and enjoy.


Thank you, and bravo! That surpasses what I hoped for, and I can certainly now see where you're coming from (though I am still not interested in going there!). Mostly, the "explanations" for liking this music that I've come across here have tended to be either glib assertions that all one has to do is listen with an open mind, or something along the lines of "I like this stuff that you think is crap because it's awesome and I'm cool and you're not".


----------



## Ingélou

This thread, despite its unfortunate title, has certainly made the issue a lot clearer to me. It has its parallels with the situation in art & literature. There are many styles being tried out in the contemporary arts & I prefer some (the ones with recognisable *form*) to others, but what does that matter? 

Time will sort out the rubies from the baubles.

Thanks, 'Spawnie', Septimal Tritone, Nereffid, Woodduck & others. :tiphat:


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I listened to Tristan Murail - Le partage des eaux. I never want to hear that piece again! What awful and completely uninteresting sound.


Currently listening to Partage for the first time in a while - THIS purty l'il Debussy echo is supposed to be "awful... sound"? People are toooooooouchy.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Currently listening to Partage for the first time in a while - THIS purty l'il Debussy echo is supposed to be "awful... sound"? People are toooooooouchy.


I listened to it again despite my saying that I never want to hear that piece again! My second impression is not as harsh as the first - I would not call it awful but merely dull now - but still do not see anything appealing in this music. Interesting that you see similarities to Debussy; I don't hear them myself.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Interesting that you see similarities to Debussy; I don't hear them myself.


People who want to put down spectralism always say "It just sounds like Debussy." (Okay, by "people," I mean Rzewski and Kyle Gann, but I feel like if they've both done it, there must be others.) That's obviously a rationalization of their not wanting to deal with a rival school of music, but I do think it contains a grain of truth - maybe especially for Murail, more than for Grisey or Dufourt.


----------



## ArtMusic

I have composed contemporary music of my own. But I am perfectly open to critics who say that my music is at best very ordinary. So I would say contemporary musicians and composed should also be less hostiles to criticisms, in fact all the great composers were criticized and artistically attacked throughout their lives. It's a historical fact.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

I hate this, for example.


----------



## Avey

Boy am I behind on this thread; That is, sorry if I am repeating:

I have said this numerous times in the latest concerts thread, but I absolutely detest the _programmatic music_. Every new/contemporary/sanctioned piece had the composer (or --- forbid the conductor) appearing before the performance and explaining to us what exactly the strings or the bassoon represents.

Look, that is fine, if you wrote the music thinking or evoking something. But I really don't want to hear about it. I don't hate programmatic music; some of my favorite works are blatantly symbolic of something.

I just dislike this dastardly trend that all commissioned/contemporary music that is performed is given a preface as if we need to know when/how/why/what the sound is conveying to ME THE LISTENER. I hate it. I really really despise it.


----------



## Woodduck

The fear seems to be that people won't know what to make of contemporary music unless it's "explained."

Is that fear more unjustified than this annoying way of dealing with it?


----------



## SimonNZ

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I hate this, for example.


Heh. I actually think Ondřej Adámek is one of the most interesting contemporary composers - but that piece is probably not the best place to start.

Here's one I posted on the "Pieces That Have Blown You Away" thread:

http://www.talkclassical.com/30292-pieces-have-blown-you-55.html#post800066

or maybe this:






...but don't be expecting Brahms or Wagner


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

SimonNZ said:


> ...but don't be expecting Brahms or Wagner


Should I expect second rate Lachenmann, which is to say third rate Stockhausen? Cuz that's what it feels like I'm getting at first listen.


----------



## SimonNZ

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Should I expect second rate Lachenmann, which is to say third rate Stockhausen? Cuz that's what it feels like I'm getting at first listen.


That came way too quickly after my post. Try listening to more than the first few seconds of each before dismissing them completely. Because neither work sounds like Lachenmann or Stockhausen. "Cuz" the first has a visual factor, which should at least be entertaining, even if you're not persuaded by the music.


----------



## LarryShone

Its simplicity and downright cheerfulness 
Or the fact that a lot of it doesnt seem like music at all. Its either really happy and simple (I love you baaaaby yea) or street wise and trendy (yea yea, uh huh yea)
No substance.


----------



## SimonNZ

LarryShone said:


> Its simplicity and downright cheerfulness
> Or the fact that a lot of it doesnt seem like music at all. Its either really happy and simple (I love you baaaaby yea) or street wise and trendy (yea yea, uh huh yea)
> No substance.


Which composers and works are you describing here?


----------



## LarryShone

SimonNZ said:


> Which composers and works are you describing here?


Oh I saw contemporary and thought it was dealing with pop music!


----------



## SimonNZ

Avey said:


> Boy am I behind on this thread; That is, sorry if I am repeating:
> 
> I have said this numerous times in the latest concerts thread, but I absolutely detest the _programmatic music_. Every new/contemporary/sanctioned piece had the composer (or --- forbid the conductor) appearing before the performance and explaining to us what exactly the strings or the bassoon represents.
> 
> Look, that is fine, if you wrote the music thinking or evoking something. But I really don't want to hear about it. I don't hate programmatic music; some of my favorite works are blatantly symbolic of something.
> 
> I just dislike this dastardly trend that all commissioned/contemporary music that is performed is given a preface as if we need to know when/how/why/what the sound is conveying to ME THE LISTENER. I hate it. I really really despise it.


I haven't had *any* contemporary work "explained" to me before hearing - nor do I expect it. And I can't think of many that might be classified at a stretch as programmatic. Where do you see this happening?


----------



## LarryShone

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I hate this, for example.


Good grief what was that? I could only endure so much. Dreadful


----------



## Guest

SimonNZ said:


> Heh. I actually think Ondřej Adámek is one of the most interesting contemporary composers - but that piece is probably not the best place to start.
> 
> Here's one I posted on the "Pieces That Have Blown You Away" thread:
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/30292-pieces-have-blown-you-55.html#post800066
> 
> or maybe this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...but don't be expecting Brahms or Wagner


I liked Kameny and am listening to Sinuous Words now. For me, the appeal is the quiet, the tension, the unorthodox use of orthodox instruments, the ceremonial aspect (of Kameny); but I can see how, if you're looking for "something to happen" in the sense of, for example, traditional, melodic forward motion, you might be disappointed.

But 'hate'? Certainly not.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

SimonNZ said:


> That came way too quickly after my post. Try listening to more than the first few seconds of each before dismissing them completely.


Uh... 0:34-0:27 is more than a few seconds.

Also I wasn't "dismissing them completely."



SimonNZ said:


> "Cuz" the first has a visual factor, which should at least be entertaining


...which is supposed to make it DIFFERENT from Lachenmann???

Anyway, I stopped being 4 years old 27 years ago, so I'm certifiably over the "Look it's classical instruments but they're moving around and paying castanets and there's glasses, they're so craaaaaaaaazy LOL" pitch.


----------



## Avey

SimonNZ said:


> I haven't had *any* contemporary work "explained" to me before hearing - nor do I expect it. And I can't think of many that might be classified at a stretch as programmatic. Where do you see this happening?


Literally every performance I go to that is premiering a new work or a recent composition is given a pre-concert treatment -- either the conductor, composer his/herself, or a critic/historian discusses the piece and what it is getting across. I don't necessarily want to run through all the ones I can remember, but just to make my point (that I am not making this up) these are some I recall the past few years:

John Adams, Scheherazade.2
Most of Andy Akiho's work
Danielpour, Clarinet Quintet
Bruce Adolphe, Einstein's Light
Kenji Bunch, Ralph's Old Records
Lots of James MacMillan
Avner Dorman
Tomas Svoboda

Not saying all contemporary music is programmatic. Just saying that in my experience, whenever I do see a new work performed, I am ALWAYS getting the programmatic details of the music. Always.


----------



## Ingélou

Avey said:


> Literally every performance I go to that is premiering a new work or a recent composition is given a pre-concert treatment -- either the conductor, composer his/herself, or a critic/historian discusses the piece and what it is getting across. I don't necessarily want to run through all the ones I can remember, but just to make my point (that I am not making this up) these are some I recall the past few years:
> 
> John Adams, Scheherazade.2
> Most of Andy Akiho's work
> Danielpour, Clarinet Quintet
> Bruce Adolphe, Einstein's Light
> Kenji Bunch, Ralph's Old Records
> Lots of James MacMillan
> Avner Dorman
> Tomas Svoboda
> 
> Not saying all contemporary music is programmatic. Just saying that in my experience, whenever I do see a new work performed, I am ALWAYS getting the programmatic details of the music. Always.


I am interested - is this then becoming a fashion or trend?

I only really go to baroque concerts so I don't hear modern music performed live but this year the Losh-Atkinson Historic Sounds Competition featured a 'modern-sounding' winner & a runner-up sponsored by the Friends of Norwich Baroque which sounded a bit nineteenth century & symphonic.

(The remit of the competition: Norwich Baroque is keen to widen the appreciation of Baroque music by challenging composers to experiment with the sounds and styles of the 17th and early 18th centuries to produce a work with a distinctive 21st century flavour.)


Sorry for the length of this explanation. Why it's relevant is that this year the judging panel included a living composer who also conducted Norwich Baroque when they played the two pieces. This was a first - and so was the fact that this conductor spent about ten minutes before each piece explaining its subtleties to us and getting the players to demonstrate various features.

I felt thoroughly patronised and fed up. So I do hope it *isn't* becoming a trend.


----------



## Blancrocher

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I hate this, for example.


Can hardly blame you - I lasted about 4 seconds.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

Ingélou said:


> I am interested - is this then becoming a fashion or trend?


Probably. They're not kicking around the construction "neo-romantic" for nothing these days. But it's not the ONLY trend - like, nobody's going to be prefacing these with programmatic details:


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Probably. They're not kicking around the construction "neo-romantic" for nothing these days. But it's not the ONLY trend - like, nobody's going to be prefacing these with programmatic details:


They both were awful. Beyond bad.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I hate this, for example.


That is well beyond terrible.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Johnnie Burgess said:


> They both were awful. Beyond bad.


No kidding. I think even I, without any musical training, can create less awful music.


----------



## EdwardBast

Blancrocher said:


> Can hardly blame you - I lasted about 4 seconds.


I went a little longer. Maybe close to a minute. By the gods, that is annoying!


----------



## Tristan

I don't really hate anything about contemporary music, actually. I essentially never listen to any of it (About 1-2% of the music I own was composed after 1960), but I don't hate it.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

Johnnie Burgess said:


> They both were awful. Beyond bad.


I'm not sure either piece deserves the designation, but "beyond bad" pretty much means the same thing as "original" (really worthless music isn't "beyond bad," it's just "meh").


----------



## bz3

What I hate most is when it sounds like an orchestra warming up, but really it's just polyrhythms that I am supposed to be "getting" or something. In a similar vein I like some modern poetry but not when it reads like someone chopped up Eliot and put the words into a blender.

But like others, I don't necessarily "hate" anything about music I dislike unless it becomes ubiquitous in other media. I don't spend any time at all thinking about it, in fact.


----------



## KenOC

Back in the 60s, Ravi Shankar always got irritated when the audience applauded the sounds he made when tuning his sitar before a performance. So I guess it can go either way!


----------



## joen_cph

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I hate this, for example.


I´m interested in what it is, people find so terrible - those introductory vocals are just quite normal, Japanese voices & language "melody", including a Thank You.

Stravinsky 1913, 3 Japanese Lyrics: note the instrumental parts too


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

bz3 said:


> In a similar vein I like some modern poetry but not when it reads like someone chopped up Eliot and put the words into a blender.


So, when it reads like Eliot, basically.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I hate this, for example.


Okay, finally listened to this. Pretty good! Better than the pieces by the same composer that SimonNZ said people should Start With.


----------



## Sloe

joen_cph said:


> I´m interested in what it is, people find so terrible - those introductory vocals are just quite normal, Japanese voices & language "melody", including a Thank You.
> 
> Stravinsky 1913, 3 Japanese Lyrics: note the instrumental parts too


The Stravinskij piece was great.
The piece Richannes Wrahms linked to was not. This is why hearing the talking together with the odd music is just uncomfortable.


----------



## Guest

What is the point of picking like this on one or two pieces of music as if they represent the whole of 'contemporary' music? They don't, any more than a single piece by Mozart (or someone much less well known from the same period) could be representative of his period.


----------



## SimonNZ

Avey said:


> Literally every performance I go to that is premiering a new work or a recent composition is given a pre-concert treatment -- either the conductor, composer his/herself, or a critic/historian discusses the piece and what it is getting across. I don't necessarily want to run through all the ones I can remember, but just to make my point (that I am not making this up) these are some I recall the past few years:
> 
> John Adams, Scheherazade.2
> Most of Andy Akiho's work
> Danielpour, Clarinet Quintet
> Bruce Adolphe, Einstein's Light
> Kenji Bunch, Ralph's Old Records
> Lots of James MacMillan
> Avner Dorman
> Tomas Svoboda
> 
> Not saying all contemporary music is programmatic. Just saying that in my experience, whenever I do see a new work performed, I am ALWAYS getting the programmatic details of the music. Always.


But at premieres that's meant to be no more than a "special treat", having the composer or an enthusiastic bigwig present and talking about the work, rather than a necessary prerequisite before hearing the work. Kind of like hearing an author talk about their book at a launch, what they hope it conveys, the ideas they wished to get across to the reader.


----------



## Sloe

MacLeod said:


> What is the point of picking like this on one or two pieces of music as if they represent the whole of 'contemporary' music? They don't, any more than a single piece by Mozart (or someone much less well known from the same period) could be representative of his period.


The thread is called what do you hate about contemporary music and therefore examples people don´t like are picked out. I think very few here hates or dislike all contemporary music.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

MacLeod said:


> What is the point of picking like this on one or two pieces of music as if they represent the whole of 'contemporary' music? They don't, any more than a single piece by Mozart (or someone much less well known from the same period) could be representative of his period.


The greatest piece represents the period. Which in Mozart's case is probably Don Giovanni, though I wish it were Figaro.


----------



## micro

> What do you HATE most about contemporary music?


everything but Arvo Pärt's works


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

micro said:


> everything but Arvo Pärt's works


Why do you only hate his works.


----------



## micro

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Why do you only hate his works.


On the contrary, he is the only sane living composer I know. Classical music like most arts has gone too far throughout the last century. I just like his music.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

micro said:


> On the contrary, he is the only sane living composer I know. Classical music like most arts has gone too far throughout the last century. I just like his music.


Sorry, misunderstood you.


----------



## SimonNZ

Sloe said:


> The thread is called what do you hate about contemporary music and therefore examples people don´t like are picked out. I think very few here hates or dislike all contemporary music.





micro said:


> On the contrary, he is the only sane living composer I know. Classical music like most arts has gone too far throughout the last century. I just like his music.


Compare and contrast.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

SimonNZ said:


> Compare and contrast.


Just cause one poster only likes 1 contemporary composer mean all the others agree with that person.


----------



## SimonNZ

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Just cause one poster only likes 1 contemporary composer mean all the others agree with that person.


Oh, I know that, but actually a few other people upthread have expressed a similar opinion. I wish it were as rare as Sloe feels, but I don't think it is. And as I've said elsewhere there is a near 1:1 correlation between sweeping dismissals of contemporary classical and lack of exposure to it.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

SimonNZ said:


> Oh, I know that, but actually a few other people upthread have expressed a similar opinion. I wish it were as rare as Sloe feels, but I don't think it is. And as I've said elsewhere there is a near 1:1 correlation between sweeping dismissals of contemporary classical and lack of exposure to it.


It would also be nice if the fans of contemporary, not all, but some would not put down all other classical music.


----------



## SimonNZ

Johnnie Burgess said:


> It would also be nice if the fans of contemporary, not all, but some would not put down all other classical music.


I don't see that kind of put down happening. One thing that gets reiterated by most contemporary fans in the many, many discussions there have been like this one is how nearly all love the classical of earlier eras just as much.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

SimonNZ said:


> I don't see that kind of put down happening. One thing that gets reiterated by most contemporary fans in the many, many discussions there have been like this one is how nearly all love the classical of earlier eras just as much.


There has been a few. But that seems to be more in the past on TC.


----------



## Adam Weber

micro said:


> On the contrary, he is the only sane living composer I know. Classical music like most arts has gone too far throughout the last century. I just like his music.


You might like Einojuhani Rautavaara's and/or Kalevi Aho's work.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Adam Weber said:


> You might like Einojuhani Rautavaara's and/or Kalevi Aho's work.


I have liked what I have heard of them.


----------



## Avey

SimonNZ said:


> But at premieres that's meant to be no more than a "special treat", having the composer or an enthusiastic bigwig present and talking about the work, rather than a necessary prerequisite before hearing the work. Kind of like hearing an author talk about their book at a launch, what they hope it conveys, the ideas they wished to get across to the reader.


I don't know what else to say. We two have clearly had vastly different experiences in the concert halls. I know that for my sake, w/r/t contemporary music, I find myself reading/listening to something about what the music represents nearly every time I get to see one performed (which is uncommon). I never limited it to premieres -- that being just one instance of contemporary music in the hall -- but included any performance of a recently written work. There is something about explaining new music to audiences -- whether that is a detailed program or musical construction process or recent events etc -- _before the concert_ that really disturbs me. It is just something that I continue to experience, and I very much dislike it.

Also, I am not sure why a "special treat" changes my original point...? That is, whether the pre-concert discussion is just a "treat" doesn't respond or explain my original gripe that nearly all contemporary works are given an explicit program/explanation of the music. Your author point, however, is apt, because that is precisely what bugs me about contemporary music. The composer has every right to say something -- I am sure something inspired the composer; I am sure he meant the oboe to signal something. I just don't necessarily need him/her or the conductor or someone else telling me that. Write it down, let us read about if we wish. Do a post-concert discussion. Or, maybe, god forbid, let the music be the music?

And beyond all that, my main really difficult hurdle here: Why is contemporary music overwhelming programmatic -- of a recent event, a person, for a place? This cannot be my singular experience.


----------



## SimonNZ

Its interesting...we really have had very different experiences of these things. 

They often have pre-concert talks here (in a seperate hall) to explain "what it all means" - but this is for the likes of Beethoven and Mahler symphonies. And even if I was to read detailed program notes on a work it could just as easily be for a warhorse as for something new.

Whenever I've heard a composer talk before a concert its only been to express gratitude and enthusiasm, if they talk about the work its because they're excited about it, its never been "you need to know this before you start listening". I guess they do that on the radio before live concerts start, but thats really just to fill in the time, and create a sense of drama.


----------



## Guest

Sloe said:


> The thread is called what do you hate about contemporary music and therefore examples people don´t like are picked out. I think very few here hates or dislike all contemporary music.


Actually, the OP asks,



> I'm interested to know what qualities of contemporary music make you hate it so much?


In other words, "Can you explain specifically, with examples, why you hate contemporary music?"- not "Can you explain which pieces of contemporary music you hate (presuming that you like the rest)?"



Hildadam Bingor said:


> The greatest piece represents the period.


In the case of Mozart's period, we have the advantage of hindsight, so we might find it easier (though not necessarily easy) to select a piece that is 'typical' or representative - though I doubt that all music contemporary with Mozart could be represented by Don Giovanni.

But which piece are you going to pick out as representative of our period?



Avey said:


> And beyond all that, my main really difficult hurdle here: Why is contemporary music overwhelming programmatic -- of a recent event, a person, for a place? This cannot be my singular experience.


Is it? And if it is, why is it a hurdle for you?

Oddly enough, the last concert I went to had a new piece that was allegedly inspired by the old piece also on show!

Magnus Lindberg's _Two Episodes _was a world premiere at the BBC Proms and, according to the programme notes is "the equivalent of adding a modern portico to some old and revered building" - in this case, Beethoven's Symphony No 9.


----------



## Nereffid

MacLeod said:


> Oddly enough, the last concert I went to had a new piece that was allegedly inspired by the old piece also on show!
> 
> Magnus Lindberg's _Two Episodes _was a world premiere at the BBC Proms and, according to the programme notes is "the equivalent of adding a modern portico to some old and revered building" - in this case, Beethoven's Symphony No 9.


I notice you said "allegedly", which half-answers the question I have - did Lindberg's portico seem to fit?

New works composed as responses to old works seem very hit-and-miss to me in terms of whether they have much in common with their inspiration.


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> I notice you said "allegedly", which half-answers the question I have - did Lindberg's portico seem to fit?
> 
> New works composed as responses to old works seem very hit-and-miss to me in terms of whether they have much in common with their inspiration.


Well to be honest, I couldn't hear what I was supposed to be listening out for, which connects to my thread elsewhere about composing for a narrow audience. These two pieces were quite short, but you'd still have to have several listens and/or be a specialist to spot the connections. Regardless of that, the pieces themselves were...okay.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

MacLeod said:


> In the case of Mozart's period, we have the advantage of hindsight, so we might find it easier (though not necessarily easy) to select a piece that is 'typical' or representative - though I doubt that all music contemporary with Mozart could be represented by Don Giovanni.
> 
> But which piece are you going to pick out as representative of our period?


That's of course the big question. I dunno, this one, maybe? 




That has to be considered at least 35 years old now, but mass consciousness seems to be only now beginning to absorb the kind of ideas contained in it (after spending much of the last 50 years mulling over ideas from the first couple of years of the Theater of Eternal Music).

And then these maybe represent other strains that will eventually be perceived as having secondary importance, as Gluck now seems less important than Mozart and Haydn:











Starting from the premise that the most important event in European and American history* in the last 40 years is the Revolt of the Elites - https://books.google.com/books?id=dZ9mv5uyVPEC - I think minimalism can be understood as representing the elite withdrawing into pseudo-Buddhist Epicureanism (and calling it populist and multicultural), spectralism as representing the same withdrawing into an essentially sexless kind of sadomasochism (and calling it populist and honest) (spectral music always seems to me like it would work perfectly as the soundtrack for a Michael Haneke movie), and extended techniques as representing the same withdrawing into mere apolitical anti-consumerist posing (and calling it Marxist).

* Japanese history too, I guess, but I don't know much about Japanese classical music (like, I know Takemitsu).


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

Alternately, considering the relative popularity of Arvo Pärt - I mean, as classical music goes - maybe Stravinsky c. Orpheus (1948) should be considered our representative composer, since we're evidently still in the process of absorbing his ideas from that time.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod: _"But which piece are you going to pick out as representative of our period?"_



Hildadam Bingor said:


> That's of course the big question. I dunno, this one, maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be considered at least 35 years old now, but mass consciousness seems to be only now beginning to absorb the kind of ideas contained in it (after spending much of the last 50 years mulling over ideas from the first couple of years of the Theater of Eternal Music).


I hate to think of my consciousness as being part of a mass, but I suppose there's no escaping it no matter how hard I try to stand out. 

Could you say what those ideas are in "The Well-tuned Piano" that we are only now beginning to absorb? And why do you think something we are only beginning to absorb is representative of our time?

Maybe my mass consciousness isn't working the way it should, but the only thing I find hard hard to absorb in that piece is the fact that it's five hours long, and I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here for that long listening to some guy with an enormous bladder noodle around with a few notes on a twangy piano. I have an (untwangy) piano of my own, and I can do my own noodling, and take a bathroom break, any time I feel like it.


----------



## aleazk

I hate its haters... they are so boring and predictable.


----------



## DaveM

aleazk said:


> I hate its haters... they are so boring and predictable.


My guess is that there are a lot of them. So much hate...


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> My guess is that there are a lot of them. So much hate...


I hate hate. It's really hateful.


----------



## Sloe

SimonNZ said:


> Compare and contrast.


If someone likes Arvo Pärt they can´t dislike all contemporary music since he is a contemporary composer.


----------



## Sloe

MacLeod said:


> Actually, the OP asks,
> 
> In other words, "Can you explain specifically, with examples, why you hate contemporary music?"- not "Can you explain which pieces of contemporary music you hate (presuming that you like the rest)?"


Since not all contemporary music sound the same but it is very different I think it is impossible to draw all contemporary music over one line. But to point out certain aspects of some contemporary music one dislike is possible.


----------



## Genoveva

The meaning of the OP seems perfectly clear to me. It's simply asking people who hate contemporary music to explain what their main reasons are. I'm not clear what use might be made of this kind of information, except perhaps that some folk may be interested in collecting the negative thoughts of others, or possibly they are interested in finding out how many people hate contemporary music. Beyond that, I'm not sure that the answers would serve any useful purpose, as they're hardly likely to inspire people to try out something they may not yet have delved into.


----------



## Guest

@Hildadam
Christopher Lasch is a new name to me; and looks interesting. Thanks.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Today I have listened to some of Vagn Holmboe. It is pretty good.


----------



## Woodduck

Genoveva said:


> The meaning of the OP seems perfectly clear to me. It's simply asking people who hate contemporary music to explain what their main reasons are. I'm not clear what use might be made of this kind of information, except perhaps that some folk may be interested in collecting the negative thoughts of others, or possibly they are interested in finding out how many people hate contemporary music. Beyond that, I'm not sure that the answers would serve any useful purpose, as they're hardly likely to inspire people to try out something they may not yet have delved into.


People overlook the value of negative criticism. Enthusiasts are often the last people to give us any insight into what they love. They're just too identified with it. Find out what people dislike about something you like, and you may get a fresh perspective on why you like it. Tchaikovsky said some highly disparaging things about Brahms, but if you're a lover of Brahms and can understand what Tchaikovsky was referring to in Brahms's music you may start wondering why that music is the way it is and come away with a deeper understanding of Brahms - and of yourself.


----------



## EdwardBast

SimonNZ said:


> Its interesting...we really have had very different experiences of these things.
> 
> They often have pre-concert talks here (in a seperate hall) to explain "what it all means" - but this is for the likes of Beethoven and Mahler symphonies. And even if I was to read detailed program notes on a work it could just as easily be for a warhorse as for something new.
> 
> Whenever I've heard a composer talk before a concert its only been to express gratitude and enthusiasm, if they talk about the work its because they're excited about it, its never been "you need to know this before you start listening". I guess they do that on the radio before live concerts start, but thats really just to fill in the time, and create a sense of drama.


In the U.S., or New York at least, the practice Avey describes-elaborate preemptive explanations by composers-was pretty common a few years back. I usually interpreted it as a misguided attempt to humanize the composer in the hopes that the audience would go easier on him/her. I personally despise the practice. Let me hear the piece and I'll then let you know whether I want to hear the composer talk.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

EdwardBast said:


> In the U.S., or New York at least, the practice Avey describes-elaborate preemptive explanations by composers-was pretty common a few years back. I usually interpreted it as a misguided attempt to humanize the composer in the hopes that the audience would go easier on him/her. I personally despise the practice. Let me hear the piece and I'll then let you know whether I want to hear the composer talk.


Maybe think if you hear them first you would be less likely to react badly if you do not like the music.


----------



## Guest

Hildadam Bingor said:


> That's of course the big question. I dunno, this one, maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be considered at least 35 years old now, but mass consciousness seems to be only now beginning to absorb the kind of ideas contained in it (after spending much of the last 50 years mulling over ideas from the first couple of years of the Theater of Eternal Music).
> 
> And then these maybe represent other strains that will eventually be perceived as having secondary importance, as Gluck now seems less important than Mozart and Haydn:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Starting from the premise that the most important event in European and American history* in the last 40 years is the Revolt of the Elites - https://books.google.com/books?id=dZ9mv5uyVPEC - I think minimalism can be understood as representing the elite withdrawing into pseudo-Buddhist Epicureanism (and calling it populist and multicultural), spectralism as representing the same withdrawing into an essentially sexless kind of sadomasochism (and calling it populist and honest) (spectral music always seems to me like it would work perfectly as the soundtrack for a Michael Haneke movie), and extended techniques as representing the same withdrawing into mere apolitical anti-consumerist posing (and calling it Marxist).
> 
> * Japanese history too, I guess, but I don't know much about Japanese classical music (like, I know Takemitsu).


The Lachenmann is unavailable, but I found this (radio only) performance at the BBC Proms in 2013 of Tanzsuite mit Deutschlandlied






What is overlooked in the idea that any piece of music might be representative of 'contemporary' as that as soon as it is performed, it is historical. Doubtless we could embark on an extended philosophical discussion about where the actual fulcrum of contemporary/historical occurs and what this means, but I'll just observe simplistically that like 'modern' and 'classical', the word 'contemporary' is problematic if what we are trying to establish is the idea that there is a piece of music out there that is representative of a type of music which is itself undefinable.



Woodduck said:


> MacLeod: _"But which piece are you going to pick out as representative of our period?"_
> 
> I hate to think of my consciousness as being part of a mass, but I suppose there's no escaping it no matter how hard I try to stand out.
> 
> Could you say what those ideas are in "The Well-tuned Piano" that we are only now beginning to absorb? And why do you think something we are only beginning to absorb is representative of our time?
> 
> Maybe my mass consciousness isn't working the way it should, but the only thing I find hard hard to absorb in that piece is the fact that it's five hours long, and I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here for that long listening to some guy with an enormous bladder noodle around with a few notes on a twangy piano. I have an (untwangy) piano of my own, and I can do my own noodling, and take a bathroom break, any time I feel like it.


As an antidote to Tom Service's hyperbole about the piece, this will do just fine. I have no intention of listening for 5 or 6 hours either. Besides, having just listened to one of his half hour lectures (The Listening Service), this time on the subject of Transcendence, I think I can get the gist without having to sit through any of the pieces he recommends (though Binary Finary's _1998 _has more immediate appeal than Fauré's _Requiem_). It's interesting that the achieving of transcendent or ecstatic states seems to be the same end of much music from all centuries (millionrainbows will be pleased!) which rather suggests that these pieces can't be representative of 'contemporary' - you'd have to go to the Lachenmann if what is being looked for is some kind of revolt, or 'anti-classical'.


----------



## Genoveva

Woodduck said:


> People overlook the value of negative criticism. Enthusiasts are often the last people to give us any insight into what they love. They're just too identified with it. Find out what people dislike about something you like, and you may get a fresh perspective on why you like it. Tchaikovsky said some highly disparaging things about Brahms, but if you're a lover of Brahms and can understand what Tchaikovsky was referring to in Brahms's music you may start wondering why that music is the way it is and come away with a deeper understanding of Brahms - and of yourself.


I wasn't overlooking the value of "negative criticism", as you imply.

I merely stated that the OP's question seems quite clear. However, I fully agree with those who say that the question posed is so vague that it seems most unlikely to generate any information that could be of potential use to anyone. As another member remarked, it's tantamount to asking _"Why do you HATE old classical music?"_ If you are suggesting that the "negative criticism" that this question might generate could provide us with a "fresh perspective" or any useful information, I would like to know what it is.

To elicit a more useful set of responses, the question should have been posed more along the lines: "Which types of contemporary classical music have you listened to but disliked, and can you say which particular aspects you found most off-putting?" As things are, the question looks too antagonistic, as if it was designed to spark off a dispute between opposing camps. I note that the OP has stated that he has made one response but it was deleted by the mods, and that he does not intend to participate further in this thread. Enough said.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

Woodduck said:


> Could you say what those ideas are in "The Well-tuned Piano" that we are only now beginning to absorb?









Woodduck said:


> Maybe my mass consciousness isn't working the way it should, but the only thing I find hard hard to absorb in that piece is the fact that it's five hours long, and I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here for that long listening to some guy with an enormous bladder noodle around with a few notes on a twangy piano. I have an (untwangy) piano of my own, and I can do my own noodling, and take a bathroom break, any time I feel like it.









MacLeod said:


> What is overlooked in the idea that any piece of music might be representative of 'contemporary' as that as soon as it is performed, it is historical.


dude u just blew my mind



MacLeod said:


> It's interesting that the achieving of transcendent or ecstatic states seems to be the same end of much music from all centuries (millionrainbows will be pleased!) which rather suggests that these pieces can't be representative of 'contemporary' -


No it doesn't - it doesn't even "rather" - because the only way it would would be if somebody was saying "these pieces" (by which I guess you mean Young's and Grisey's) are "representative or contemporary" specifically because they supposedly have the "end" of "achieving of transcendent or ecstatic states."



MacLeod said:


> you'd have to go to the Lachenmann if what is being looked for is some kind of revolt, or 'anti-classical'.


People have been writing "anti-classical"/anti-"transcendent" music since Debussy's Pelleas and Melisande more than 100 years ago.


----------



## Sloe

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Today I have listened to some of Vagn Holmboe. It is pretty good.


He is good but is a composer that in a couple of weeks have been dead for 20 years and whose works sometimes are over 80 years old really be called contemporary?


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Sloe said:


> He is good but is a composer that have in a couple of weeks been dead for 20 years and whose works sometimes are over 80 years old really be called contemporary?


He did have a long career. Composing music for nearly 60 years.


----------



## Art Rock

Sloe said:


> <about Holmboe>He is good but is a composer that have in a couple of weeks been dead for 20 years and whose works sometimes are over 80 years old really be called contemporary?


In another thread someone posted Debussy as an example of contemporary classical music.....


----------



## Sloe

Art Rock said:


> In another thread someone posted Debussy as an example of contemporary classical music.....


Maybe it was an old thread.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Art Rock said:


> In another thread someone posted Debussy as an example of contemporary classical music.....


So what would be a good definition of comtemporary classical music then?


----------



## Mahlerian

Art Rock said:


> In another thread someone posted Debussy as an example of contemporary classical music.....


No, he's an example of *modernist* music. Contemporary classical music is generally defined as music since the 1970s or so.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Mahlerian said:


> No, he's an example of *modernist* music. Contemporary classical music is generally defined as music since the 1970s or so.


Is that music written by a composers from 1970's till now even if the composer had written stuff in the 1930's for example?


----------



## Sloe

Johnnie Burgess said:


> He did have a long career. Composing music for nearly 60 years.


You did not say what works you had been listening to.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Sloe said:


> You did not say what works you had been listening to.


His late string quartets.


----------



## Mahlerian

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Is that music written by a composers from 1970's till now even if the composer had written stuff in the 1930's for example?


I would say so. Contemporary music festivals will still include works by Cage, Xenakis, Stockhausen, Carter and so forth. I would be loath to include, say, Stravinsky or Shostakovich or Britten, all of whom lived only a bit into the 1970s, just as histories of 20th century music generally don't include much about Rimsky-Korsakov or Dvorak.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Mahlerian said:


> I would say so. Contemporary music festivals will still include works by Cage, Xenakis, Stockhausen, Carter and so forth. I would be loath to include, say, Stravinsky or Shostakovich or Britten, all of whom lived only a bit into the 1970s, just as histories of 20th century music generally don't include much about Rimsky-Korsakov or Dvorak.


Now if they lived a couple decades past the 1970's and wrote into the 1990's would they count?


----------



## Mahlerian

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Now if they lived a couple decades past the 1970's and wrote into the 1990's would they count?


Would their styles, in this hypothetical example, have evolved to change with the times? Because Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Britten, Dvorak, and Rimsky-Korsakov remained more or less rooted in the same way of writing that they had used in the preceding chronological era. One can look at Janacek as an example of a composer whose distinctive style only developed after the Romantic era and in response to new undercurrents that would lead to Bartok and Stravinsky.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Mahlerian said:


> Would their styles, in this hypothetical example, have evolved to change with the times? Because Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Britten, Dvorak, and Rimsky-Korsakov remained more or less rooted in the same way of writing that they had used in the preceding chronological era. One can look at Janacek as an example of a composer whose distinctive style only developed after the Romantic era and in response to new undercurrents that would lead to Bartok and Stravinsky.


So if they were influence by Bartok and Stravinsky amoung others they might be contemporary?


----------



## Mahlerian

Johnnie Burgess said:


> So if they were influence by Bartok and Stravinsky amoung others they might be contemporary?


Huh? No. Bartok and Stravinsky are of the modern era. Influenced by post-minimalism, post-serialism, neoromanticism, or spectralism, yes.


----------



## Guest

Hildadam Bingor said:


> dude u just blew my mind


That's a good thing...right?



Hildadam Bingor said:


> No it doesn't - it doesn't even "rather" - because the only way it would would be if somebody was saying "these pieces" (by which I guess you mean Young's and Grisey's) are "representative or contemporary" specifically because they supposedly have the "end" of "achieving of transcendent or ecstatic states."
> 
> People have been writing "anti-classical"/anti-"transcendent" music since Debussy's Pelleas and Melisande more than 100 years ago.


On your first point, I was simply observing that since transcendence has been a stated aim of music from different periods, that is not a criteria that could be used to justify the Young piece as 'representative' - of 'contemporary' you'd have to come up with another criteria.

As for 'anti-classical' of course there have been composers throughout history writing music to overturn the contemporary orthodoxy ("Polyphony, sir??, are you mad??") but, I would argue, not to the same degree as has been prevalent in the 20th C.

I don't think either a definition, or a representative piece can be found.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> That's a good thing...right?
> 
> On your first point, I was simply observing that since transcendence has been a stated aim of music from different periods, that is not a criteria that could be used to justify the Young piece as 'representative' - of 'contemporary' you'd have to come up with another criteria.
> 
> As for 'anti-classical' of course there have been composers throughout history writing music to overturn the contemporary orthodoxy ("Polyphony, sir??, are you mad??") but, I would argue, not to the same degree as has been prevalent in the 20th C.
> 
> I don't think either a definition, or a representative piece can be found.


You must realize, MacLeod, that the transcendence achieved through listening to five notes manipulated for five hours is not your garden variety of transcendence. Some transcendences are more transcendent than others. I think it's becoming clearer, as music progresses along its inevitable path, that the next phase will be the transcendence of transcendence itself. Perhaps that will require only three notes and nine hours, or maybe - hey, I think I've got it! - an eternity of silence.

Heh heh. You're a has-been, La Monte.


----------



## Blancrocher

5 hours? By the time you finish listening to it, it's no longer contemporary.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

Blancrocher said:


> 5 hours? By the time you finish listening to it, it's no longer contemporary.


lol 5 hours amirite?


----------



## Woodduck

Hildadam Bingor said:


> lol 5 hours amirite?


Five hours of actual composing.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

Wollt ihr nach Regeln messen, was nicht nach eurer Regeln Lauf?


----------



## mstar

Hildadam Bingor said:


> lol 5 hours amirite?


Thanks, I actually quite like it.

Edit: Oh! This is Wagner! I just realized this is Wagner!

This is my first ever Wagner!


----------



## Woodduck

mstar said:


> Thanks, I actually quite like it.
> 
> Edit: Oh! This is Wagner! I just realized this is Wagner!
> 
> This is my first ever Wagner!


:lol: .....................

If it's a beginning and not an end, you've embarked on an immense journey. I hope to see you at the next station.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor

mstar said:


> Thanks, I actually quite like it.
> 
> Edit: Oh! This is Wagner! I just realized this is Wagner!
> 
> This is my first ever Wagner!


*exhales* Was it as good for you as it was for me?


----------



## StevenOBrien

Zhdanov said:


> arpeggio said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have at least three excellent composers who are involved with TC: Frederick Magle, Steven O'Brian, Vasks, _etc._
> 
> 
> 
> so what am i supposed to do now? shut up and kneel in awe?
Click to expand...

yes

15 characters


----------



## Phil loves classical

Answer to the OP: the same that gets me interested, a departure from tradition. Gets annoying after a while with listening too much end-to-end, with many composers' blatant non-conformance for non-conformance's sake actually becoming the norm. I can't say there is a meaningful general direction being pushed towards. Postmodern art itself is nihilistic.

In a sort of way, it is more defined by what it is not, than what it is. There are many pieces I've heard where the music simply says "I am a piece of music, can you hear it? Yes, I most certainly am". Once in a while it is intriguing to hear, for me. I have read, and experienced myself, that postmodern contemporary music strips music of a narrative.


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

well. A lot of contemporary music lacks charm. A lot of it feels so derivative. And also, I agree with that guy that a bunch of them are non-conformist just for the sake of it.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Phil loves classical said:


> Answer to the OP: the same that gets me interested, a departure from tradition. Gets annoying after a while with listening too much end-to-end, with many composers' blatant non-conformance for non-conformance's sake actually becoming the norm. I can't say there is a meaningful general direction being pushed towards. Postmodern art itself is nihilistic.
> 
> In a sort of way, it is more defined by what it is not, than what it is. There are many pieces I've heard where the music simply says "I am a piece of music, can you hear it? Yes, I most certainly am". Once in a while it is intriguing to hear, for me. I have read, and experienced myself, that postmodern contemporary music strips music of a narrative.


This seems somewhat negative to me and actually more nihilistic than the thing being criticised. Taking Schoenberg as the supposed arch-villain of this, he sincerely thought of himself as extending the tradition that had preceded him, not wiping it out to declare the new beginning of music. Total conformity in any era of dominant practices would have stagnated music entirely. I think it's beyond doubt that music as 'serious art' really had stagnated by the end of the 19th century.

In any case music, as much as any other of the arts, reflected social change and the collapse of a system of strict stratifications and moral codes and widespread systems of conformity. I don't believe that meaning is stripped out of music (or any art) by the process of opening up the boundaries for experimentation. I also don't believe that the composers doing it have no thoughts or ideas going into whatever they create.

Meaning? Narrative? What does a Beethoven bagatelle actually _mean_?


----------



## David OByrne

E Cristobal Poveda said:


> well. A lot of contemporary music lacks charm. A lot of it feels so derivative. And also, I agree with that guy that a bunch of them are non-conformist just for the sake of it.


explain exactly what conformist and non-conformist is in art? please

In general, classical is non-conformist, the old-man genre that most people think died 300 years ago?


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

David OByrne said:


> explain exactly what conformist and non-conformist is in art? please
> 
> In general, classical is non-conformist, the old-man genre that most people think died 300 years ago?


Well, imo, nonconformity is bending the established status quo to the point where it almost breaks away, but still manages to appropriately stay within its group.

These days some composers throw away musicality for the sake of being "revolutionary"


----------



## David OByrne

E Cristobal Poveda said:


> Well, imo, nonconformity is bending the established status quo to the point where it almost breaks away, but still manages to appropriately stay within its group.
> 
> These days some composers throw away musicality for the sake of being "revolutionary"


What is the status quo in music?

What is "musicality" in your book? Idiomatic music? Music with nice fluffy melodies?

Revolutionary? huh?


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

I mean, perhaps my opinion should be discarded, since I consider the death of classical music to be around the time of atonality's rise in popularity...

Musicality is what I regard as something that cannot be achieved through technical methods. It's a kind of quality that music either has, or doesn't.


----------



## David OByrne

Phil loves classical said:


> Answer to the OP: the same that gets me interested, a departure from tradition. Gets annoying after a while with listening too much end-to-end, with many composers' blatant non-conformance for non-conformance's sake actually becoming the norm. I can't say there is a meaningful general direction being pushed towards. Postmodern art itself is nihilistic.
> 
> In a sort of way, it is more defined by what it is not, than what it is. There are many pieces I've heard where the music simply says "I am a piece of music, can you hear it? Yes, I most certainly am". Once in a while it is intriguing to hear, for me. I have read, and experienced myself, that postmodern contemporary music strips music of a narrative.


Now apply this to people that only think old diatonic music is the only way music should be


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

What i hate the most is those who crictise contempory music, just because its not ancient old boring music


----------



## ST4

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> What i hate the most is those who crictise contempory music, just because its not ancient old boring music


And those that only listen to old music and pretend that they know all the ins and outs of contemporary music, resulting in giving really superficial arguments for why it sucks and shouldn't exist but in fact they are only projecting their own bitterness into their words.

btw, how's it Eddie long time no see :cheers:


----------



## SONNET CLV

Spawnofsatan said:


> *What do you HATE most about contemporary music?*


The fact that it spurs questions such as this one!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

ST4 said:


> And those that only listen to old music and pretend that they know all the ins and outs of contemporary music, resulting in giving really superficial arguments for why it sucks and shouldn't exist but in fact they are only projecting their own bitterness into their words.
> 
> btw, how's it Eddie long time no see :cheers:


All good thanks busily posting in STI and living the life in Sunbury:cheers:


----------



## ST4

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> All good thanks busily posting in STI and living the life in Sunbury:cheers:


Dude Zappa's been missing you, I stopped attending the Appliantology church hearings cause you weren't there


----------



## ST4

Btw this thread is gold, I love people that hate contemporary music because they're so into their hate, it's the most amusing thing in the world


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

ST4 said:


> Dude Zappa's been missing you, I stopped attending the Appliantology church hearings cause you weren't there


Sorry for that, I will have to be atonal for my sins :devil: (Ps I have been posting on the Z forum one )


----------



## Phil loves classical

eugeneonagain said:


> This seems somewhat negative to me and actually more nihilistic than the thing being criticised. Taking Schoenberg as the supposed arch-villain of this, he sincerely thought of himself as extending the tradition that had preceded him, not wiping it out to declare the new beginning of music. Total conformity in any era of dominant practices would have stagnated music entirely. I think it's beyond doubt that music as 'serious art' really had stagnated by the end of the 19th century.
> 
> In any case music, as much as any other of the arts, reflected social change and the collapse of a system of strict stratifications and moral codes and widespread systems of conformity. I don't believe that meaning is stripped out of music (or any art) by the process of opening up the boundaries for experimentation. I also don't believe that the composers doing it have no thoughts or ideas going into whatever they create.
> 
> Meaning? Narrative? What does a Beethoven bagatelle actually _mean_?


I was talking about postmodern music, not high Modern. I don't see Schoenberg as a villain at all, and an admirer. Music was progressing at a rapid pace up to the avant garde of the 60's. I believe Cage was a big culprit in destroying music. Maybe it was a necessary evil. What meaning is there in Lachenmann's String Quartets? Postmodernists themselves preach about experience over meaning.


----------



## ST4

Phil loves classical said:


> What meaning is there in Lachenmann's String Quartets?


They'e a pretty groovy set. I've been listening to the driving on my way to work the past few weeks. First it's like boom, then it's like boom. Easy to miss stuff but once you get used to the general aesthetic you'e like "Damn this is pretty good, gotta get more of this stuff" it's infectious bro.


----------



## Casebearer

What I HATE most about modern music is that it isn't aired enough.


----------



## ST4

Casebearer said:


> What I HATE most about modern music is that it isn't aired enough.


Casebearer, you are absolutely correct. But also, that it is sold as a product meant to be conceived the same way as earlier music is a big mistake.

We have generations of younger people into extreme music who will milk it up (as those genres display), it makes complete logical sense to me


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> Taking Schoenberg as the supposed arch-villain of this, he sincerely thought of himself as extending the tradition that had preceded him, not wiping it out to declare the new beginning of music. Total conformity in any era of dominant practices would have stagnated music entirely.* I think it's beyond doubt that music as 'serious art' really had stagnated by the end of the 19th century.*


I don't understand this paragraph. Are you accepting Schoenberg's view that his solution to music's "stagnation" was somehow necessary, while at the same time implying that he never thought or said that a solution was necessary, or that his 12-tone method was that solution? It's my understanding that he was of two minds about this very question, emphasizing alternately what was traditional and what was unprecedented in his music, based on a theory of historical determinism and of his appointed (by God, he said) historical role. In your last sentence you seem to agree with one of his two minds, the one that thought that music had reached some sort of crisis and needed an infusion of something radically new. But had it, and did it? To my ears the early 20th century was quite a vital time musically, filled with great music by a great number and variety of composers who didn't seem to feel the need to "solve" the "problem" of music's "stagnation." I don't hear "total conformity" to "dominant practices" in 20th-century composers who declined to go the way of music's then most radical exponents.

You appear to be accepting the Modernist premise that 20th-century music should be defined by those radical exponents, and that the vast preponderance of music produced and enjoyed during that era was outmoded and not "real" 20th-century music. Or am I reading you wrongly?


----------



## ST4

But Shoeberg wrote some pretty ******* great music aye Woodduck?


----------



## nature

Honestly, the fact that the majority of it is atonal stuff. It simply does not appeal to me at all - I don't find anything particularly clever or intelligent about music that majorly lacks the harmony that typically makes it beautiful and evocative. Ultimately, I fail to see why dissonance is still considered the only way to pioneer any advancement in music among many composers and critics - there are ways to innovate without completely abandoning conventional melody. An infinite number of variations.

Perhaps most of today's traditional-style composers have more incentive to write film scores and soundtracks?


----------



## DaveM

nature said:


> Honestly, the fact that the majority of it is atonal stuff. It simply does not appeal to me at all - I don't find anything particularly clever or intelligent about music that majorly lacks the harmony that typically makes it beautiful and evocative. Ultimately, I fail to see why dissonance is still considered the only way to pioneer any advancement in music among many composers and critics - there are ways to innovate without making "ugly"
> music.
> 
> Perhaps most of today's traditional-style composers have more incentive to write film scores and soundtracks?


Could very well be:
http://www.talkclassical.com/42112-movie-themes-soundtracks-category.html?highlight=


----------



## ST4

nature said:


> there are ways to innovate without making "ugly"
> music.


What in particular is "ugly", I'm dying to know


----------



## Pugg

nature said:


> Honestly, the fact that the majority of it is atonal stuff. It simply does not appeal to me at all - I don't find anything particularly clever or intelligent about music that majorly lacks the harmony that typically makes it beautiful and evocative. Ultimately, I fail to see why dissonance is still considered the only way to pioneer any advancement in music among many composers and critics - there are ways to innovate without completely abandoning conventional melody. An infinite number of variations.
> 
> Perhaps most of today's traditional-style composers have more incentive to write film scores and soundtracks?


One of the most polite and true answers I've ever seen.


----------



## nature

ST4 said:


> What in particular is "ugly", I'm dying to know


Edited that out to more accurately express myself. But I'll elaborate on what I originally meant. Would you not agree that your average music listener (perhaps some one who is not necessarily very interested in classical music) would typically find music that lacks traditional harmony, or has complete dissonance among the notes (I'm thinking of something like Webern) to be "ugly"? Especially when coupled with unconventional rhythms, there is a randomness to the music that many would find "ugly".

EDIT: Not trying to say that all atonal music is pure ugliness. Period. It is of course an acquired taste that has its own appeal. My point is that is inherently less accommodating to the ear due to the lack of conventional melody that people typically associate with the majority of music, in a way that could be considered ugly.


----------



## ST4

nature said:


> Edited that out to more accurately express myself. But I'll elaborate on what I originally meant. Would you not agree that your average music listener (perhaps some one who is not necessarily very interested in classical music) would typically find music that lacks traditional harmony, or has complete dissonance among the notes (I'm thinking of something like Webern) to be "ugly"? Especially when coupled with unconventional rhythms, there is a randomness to the music that most would find "ugly".


Not really, depends on exactly what you mean by an average listener to start with. Large amounts of people are attracted to particular things, which is how we get genres, sub-genres, styles and movements (as in the social term). If there weren't people attracted to those sounds, you wouldn't hear about them, simple.

Classical music is perhaps the most frustrating genre. Nobody is here for the same reason or things, to add to that the music itself is like 5 completely separate genres of music spliced together because they share certain things (like instrumentation and practices).

So to answer your question, before you can specify what/who the average listener is, I say a firm no :tiphat:


----------



## Guest

eugeneonagain said:


> I think it's beyond doubt that music as 'serious art' really had stagnated by the end of the 19th century.


(You _think _it's beyond doubt...but then again...?)

So none of the composers busy in the 1890s could be regarded as trying anything new, or valuable, or 'serious'?


----------



## Mandryka

I listened to some music last night in fact. 

Someone was asking about Xenakis and so I found myself listening to his piece Charisma. I really think it is very expressive, rich in emotions. I really don't know what sort of principles it uses for harmony. I am sure it is poetic music. But in truth it isn't contemporary, Xenakis is history. 

The second is recent, a piece called Tide by James Weeks. I have sometimes been disappointed by recent music, which can seem to be predictable to me - nice, easy to hear, but not very stimulating. This piece is an exception, largely because of the organic way it manages the transitions from one section to the next. As with the Xenakis, I don't know how it is founded harmonically, but I am sure it is expressive and poetic.


----------



## arpeggio

E Cristobal Poveda said:


> well. A lot of contemporary music lacks charm. A lot of it feels so derivative. And also, I agree with that guy that a bunch of them are non-conformist just for the sake of it.


E Cristobal Poveda,

You are new here and you have to realize that this debate has going on for years.

For example, if you can provide us with a definition of charm we can provide you with a substantial list of charming contemporary music.

I do not know if this will satisfy you definition but how about the third movement, "Exhilaration", from Donald Grantham's _Southern Harmony_:






It was composed in 1998 and is frequently performed contemporary band works. There are many examples of live performance by high school and college bands on YouTube.


----------



## Bettina

I'm not a huge fan of contemporary music, but I don't actually _hate _anything about it. In fact, I often wish that I could appreciate it more, and I'm working on it. I try to save my hatred for things that are destructive and harmful (to people, plants, animals, the environment...)


----------



## Mandryka

Woodduck said:


> To my ears the early 20th century was quite a vital time musically, filled with great music by a great number and variety of composers who didn't seem to feel the need to "solve" the "problem" of music's "stagnation." ?


 Who are you thinking of? Schoenberg started to work in a radical way at the end of the first decade of the C20. I'm not sure that it was such a vital time, but I could be wrong.


----------



## ST4

Bettina said:


> I'm not a huge fan of contemporary music, but I don't actually _hate _anything about it. In fact, I often wish that I could appreciate it more, and I'm working on it. I try to save my hatred for things that are destructive and harmful (to people, plants, animals, the environment...)


Well that's a good way to look at it


----------



## ST4

What is this "solving of a problem of music's stagnation" that Woodduck is speaking of, we are speaking about music aren't we? not iconoclasts?


----------



## ST4

Music is a lot of things, I don't see why it has to be just one thing to solve one persons petty attitude, seriously


----------



## DaveM

ST4 said:


> Music is a lot of things, I don't see why it has to be just one thing to solve one persons petty attitude, seriously


Who has said that it should?


----------



## Tallisman

It's very contemporariness


----------



## ST4

DaveM said:


> Who has said that it should?


Many people for instance insist that for a piece to be good, it must have a melody they can hum, for instance. Yet, melodies are not prerequisite or requirement for music. Many styles and aesthetics lean away from that kind of temporal pitch+rhythm structure and expectantly so.

Back to the original question. it's not one person in particular but a highly common attitude that people of a certain classical fan-demographic have voiced repeatedly. They're entitled to their opinion but music is more diverse than one person.

If that makes sense?


----------



## Blancrocher

Recordings are more expensive.


----------



## DaveM

ST4 said:


> Many people for instance insist that for a piece to be good, it must have a melody they can hum, for instance. Yet, melodies are not prerequisite or requirement for music. Many styles and aesthetics lean away from that kind of temporal pitch+rhythm structure and expectantly so.
> 
> Back to the original question. it's not one person in particular but a highly common attitude that people of a certain classical fan-demographic have voiced repeatedly. They're entitled to their opinion but music is more diverse than one person.
> 
> If that makes sense?


I understand your point, but question the way it's being phrased. At the beginning of the above paragraph, you say that it's not one person in particular and that it is a highly common attitude [that good music has accessible (i.e. that you can hum) melody]. But, then you say 'music is more diverse than one person' which is a conflict in terms.

The preference for accessible melody in contemporary music is common and it is not 'petty'. That said, I don't hear anyone saying that music should be just one thing.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> I don't understand this paragraph. Are you accepting Schoenberg's view that his solution to music's "stagnation" was somehow necessary, while at the same time implying that he never thought or said that a solution was necessary, or that his 12-tone method was that solution? It's my understanding that he was of two minds about this very question, emphasizing alternately what was traditional and what was unprecedented in his music, based on a theory of historical determinism and of his appointed (by God, he said) historical role. In your last sentence you seem to agree with one of his two minds, the one that thought that music had reached some sort of crisis and needed an infusion of something radically new. But had it, and did it? To my ears the early 20th century was quite a vital time musically, filled with great music by a great number and variety of composers who didn't seem to feel the need to "solve" the "problem" of music's "stagnation." I don't hear "total conformity" to "dominant practices" in 20th-century composers who declined to go the way of music's then most radical exponents.
> 
> You appear to be accepting the Modernist premise that 20th-century music should be defined by those radical exponents, and that the vast preponderance of music produced and enjoyed during that era was outmoded and not "real" 20th-century music. Or am I reading you wrongly?


What is your question? The opening three sentences of your reply adds something I neither said nor implied. It's not difficult to think something has reached saturation point and an impasse and needs some sort of renewal or kick, whilst at the same time admiring and honouring all that has gone before. I can't speak for Schoenberg - and he explained himself enough already - so I only report what he said. 
Many 20th century composers were clearly kicking at the barricades. It's likely pointless to offer lists of names, but is anyone going to seriously claim that many now famous composers (Debussy, Ravel, Ives, Satie, Stravinsky...add to taste) didn't feel constrained by dominant musical structures? Debussy suggested doing away with the standard tonal system; I don't think he was entirely serious, but it's enough to show that it wasn't just Schoenberg thinking these things.

The early 20th century had a lot of music that was just 19th century music. This is not a bad thing, but art is not stagnant, it moves on whilst retaining its history (even actively retaining much of it).

I'm not accepting any 'modernist premises'. I don't think 20th century music is defined by dodecaphony or ultra-radical exponents. If this were true I would dismiss works like Holst's _Planet's_, but I don't; probably because t looks forward and isn't just a rehash of the 19th century. I'm also a big fan of neo-classicism. I'm fully aware that there were many paths taken at the start of the 20th century. For some reason when this topic arises it seems to be only Schoenberg and 12-tone technique getting it in the neck most of the time. Schoenberg doesn't bother me, because I don't feel like he is telling me to give up listening to other people's music or music different to his. Perhaps people should try and understand that.


----------



## eugeneonagain

MacLeod said:


> (You _think _it's beyond doubt...but then again...?)
> 
> So none of the composers busy in the 1890s could be regarded as trying anything new, or valuable, or 'serious'?


Plenty of them were. There's room for all types of experimentation. Did I give the impression that they weren't?


----------



## ST4

DaveM said:


> I understand your point, but question the way it's being phrased. At the beginning of the above paragraph, you say that it's not one person in particular and that it is a highly common attitude [that good music has accessible (i.e. that you can hum) melody]. But, then you say 'music is more diverse than one person'. It isn't 'one person' or in other words 'a few'.
> 
> The preference for accessible melody in contemporary music is common and it is not 'petty'. That said, I don't hear anyone saying that music should be just one thing.


The first paragraph is an example.

The "one person" in the second paragraph isn't meant literally, it should have been phrased "more diverse than one person's opinion" or even more directly, "More diverse than one singular ideal for what music should be".

I didn't say the 'preference for melody' is petty, it's referring all the way back to Woodducks comment. Music is not a war, it's not about iconoclasts. Music is an artform where disagreement is the norm, it's ridiculous to see Schoenberg (in that case) as someone trying to enforce his own methods onto you or anyone, he is a composer, not a politician 

Schoenberg made a system, that is what everyone's fuss is about. It's just a petty thing. There have been plenty of "controversial innovations" in history, to see one as 'the devil himself' is asinine.

If that was any clearer?


----------



## JAS

Blancrocher said:


> Recordings are more expensive.


Probably a reflection of the smaller market. If they cannot sell enough of a product, the per unit costs inevitably increase. (There may also be some assumption that the market that is interested in it can afford to pay a higher cost.)


----------



## JAS

What do I HATE most about contemporary music? Well, for the contemporary music that I actually HATE, my only real complaint is the way it sounds.


----------



## ST4

JAS said:


> What do I HATE most about contemporary music? Well, for the contemporary music that I actually HATE, my only real complaint is the way it sounds.


All of it? Some of it? A little bit of it? Bits here and there? Or the whole entire thing?


----------



## JAS

ST4 said:


> All of it? Some of it? A little bit of it? Bits here and there? Or the whole entire thing?


In no particular order, yes, yes, yes, yes, and/or yes, depending on the specific piece.


----------



## ST4

It's Hard to make honest generalizations, I found some excellent music from the classical era that I have been really enjoying lately, which is not at all usual for me. If you want me to flee a party, the classical era (or late baroque) is what will usually do it.

Take it or leave it.


----------



## Vaneyes

Hate's too strong a word. Love is much better.


----------



## JAS

ST4 said:


> It's Hard to make honest generalizations, I found some excellent music from the classical era that I have been really enjoying lately, which is not at all usual for me. If you want me to flee a party, the classical era (or late baroque) is what will usually do it.
> 
> Take it or leave it.


For me, nothing is likely to clear a room quite like something by Brian Ferneyhough.


----------



## ST4

Vaneyes said:


> Hate's too strong a word. Love is much better.


True words spoken right here people! :cheers:


----------



## ST4

JAS said:


> For me, nothing is likely to clear a room quite like something by Brian Ferneyhough.


Hmm, interesting. For me, I find the fact that he has an unusual (in practice) style of notation, to be the only 'scary' thing about him, his music like anyone goes between pure amazement and boredom (Beethoven is no saint)


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> For me, nothing is likely to clear a room quite like something by Brian Ferneyhough.


Why spend time listening to something that you hate? Why not spend time finding contemporary* music that you like?

*I assume you're using this term to refer to current music as opposed to the term 'modern' which might be assumed to mean anything 'modern' written over the past 60-70 years?


----------



## ST4

MacLeod said:


> Why spend time listening to something that you hate??


Well I've always been fascinated with the notion of disliking or hating something, more specifically Why? How? Where? and trying to understand it on a less superficial level :tiphat:


----------



## JAS

MacLeod said:


> Why spend time listening to something that you hate? Why not spend time finding contemporary* music that you like?
> 
> *I assume you're using this term to refer to current music as opposed to the term 'modern' which might be assumed to mean anything 'modern' written over the past 60-70 years?


Don't make that assumption. For me, Schoenberg begins the bright line of demarcation, with an ever diminishing value in interest and/or appeal of the music produced, as it just wanders farther and farther from conventional forms and gets weirder and weirder. (As noted elsewhere, the line winds around a good deal, between periods, composers, compositions, and in a few cases within a composition itself.)

I generally spend as little time as possible with music I don't like, but I have made a concerted effort to at least give a fair chance to music I do not know, in case I find something there that I had not expected. Mostly, that has not worked out very well.


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> Don't make that assumption.


OK - so let's be clear what you think about current music as opposed to 'modern' (and let's not use/misuse contemporary at all) - have you heard nothing of current composers that you like at all?


----------



## Star

What do I hate about contemporary music? Just about everything!


----------



## JAS

MacLeod said:


> OK - so let's be clear what you think about current music as opposed to 'modern' (and let's not use/misuse contemporary at all) - have you heard nothing of current composers that you like at all?


I am hard-pressed to think of a current composer of classical music that I really like. Generally, the less the music _sounds_ like something contemporary, the better.


----------



## Agamemnon

It seems these kind of threads/questions pop up all the time and I have already said some things on the matter. But to put it a little different: look at how films use music. Classical music (18th century) is just used as music, romantic music (19th century) is often used as underscoring moods in dramas and romantic movies and atonal music (20th century) is mostly used in horror films. Horror movies use atonal music because it is uneasing music while more popular (older) music often is easing music. Tonal music is pleasant or 'beautiful'; atonal is harsh and 'ugly' yet sublime like a thunder storm is threatening and sublime in it's horror. That's why horror films like atonal music. It is a bit like heaven and hell: heaven (tonal music) is all nice but also a little boring so some people prefer hell (atonal music) because hell or atonal music may be less straightfowardly pleasant but more interesting and exciting! I guess adventurous people will prefer atonal music. People who don't want an adventure but some plain beauty that's easing and comforting will prefer tonal music. And of course, some people like me want it all!


----------



## ST4

Agamemnon said:


> It seems these kind of threads/questions pop up all the time and I have already said some things on the matter. But to put it a little different: look at how films use music. Classical music (18th century) is just used as music, romantic music (19th century) is often used as underscoring moods in dramas and romantic movies and atonal music (20th century) is mostly used in horror films. Horror movies use atonal music because it is uneasing music while more popular (older) music often is easing music. Tonal music is pleasant or 'beautiful'; atonal is harsh and 'ugly' yet sublime like a thunder storm is threatening and sublime in it's horror. That's why horror films like atonal music. It is a bit like heaven and hell: heaven (tonal music) is all nice but also a little boring so some people prefer hell (atonal music) because hell or atonal music may be less straightfowardly pleasant but more interesting and exciting! I guess adventurous people will prefer atonal music. People who don't want an adventure but some plain beauty that's easing and comforting will prefer tonal music. And of course, some people like me want it all!


Actually you've hit onto a bigger, more interesting point on how film/the cinema has perverted music perception. 
When it comes to the subject of mood, there is no "tonality" and "atonality", there are the moods themselves which freely hop between both musical systems.


----------



## DaveM

JAS said:


> Don't make that assumption. For me, Schoenberg begins the bright line of demarcation, with an ever diminishing value in interest and/or appeal of the music produced, as it just wanders farther and farther from conventional forms and gets weirder and weirder. (As noted elsewhere, the line winds around a good deal, between periods, composers, compositions, and in a few cases within a composition itself.)
> 
> I generally spend as little time as possible with music I don't like, but I have made a concerted effort to at least give a fair chance to music I do not know, in case I find something there that I had not expected. Mostly, that has not worked out very well.


There's a 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' about this. We're told that we should give current, contemporary or modern music a chance by listening to suggested/recommended works and by listening to given works repetitively. But that results in listening to a lot of music I don't like. Then someone comes along and says, 'Why spend time listening to something you hate?


----------



## EdwardBast

JAS said:


> *I generally spend as little time as possible with music I don't like*, but I have made a concerted effort to at least give a fair chance to music I do not know, in case I find something there that I had not expected. Mostly, that has not worked out very well.


Ah, but if one counts talking about it and expending emotional energy on it as "time with it" - I certainly would - then one could conclude you spend considerable time with it.


----------



## isorhythm

DaveM said:


> There's a 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' about this. We're told that we should give current, contemporary or modern music a chance by listening to suggested/recommended works and by listening to given works repetitively. But that results in listening to a lot of music I don't like. Then someone comes along and says, 'Why spend time listening to something you hate?


Just don't attack things you don't understand and you won't bother anyone.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> There's a 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' about this. We're told that we should give current, contemporary or modern music a chance by listening to suggested/recommended works and by listening to given works repetitively. But that results in listening to a lot of music *I don't like*. Then someone comes along and says, 'Why spend time listening to something *you hate*?


I think there is a distinction to be made between new music you're exploring and finding it a turn-off, and using the term 'hate' which seems to me to require an awful lot of effort.

If I 'hate' anything, it's because I'm exposed to it against my will - such as having to work in an office where the radio is on and I'm frequently exposed to a dire song that's getting a lot of airplay. If I'm sitting at my PC and someone at TC says, "Have a listen to Black Angels by Crumb" and I've not heard it before, I'd listen, make a provisional decision that I don't like it and move on. I wouldn't 'hate' it.


----------



## Mandryka

When these people say they hate it, it's not like when they say they hate spinach. What they mean is that they think it's a crime against nature, degenerate, Entartete. They hate it like the homophobe hates gay people. It makes them profoundly uncomfortable, it makes them feel that the time is out of joint. And they're posting here because they think, O cursèd spite, that they were born to set it right.


----------



## DaveM

Mandryka said:


> When these people say they hate it, it's not like when they say they hate spinach. What they mean is that they think it's a crime against nature, degenerate, Entartete. They hate it like the homophobe hates gay people. It makes them profoundly uncomfortable, it makes them feel that the time is out of joint. And they're posting here because they think, O cursèd spite, that they were born to set it right.


Beware assuming the nature of the machinations in the minds of others. They may just hate it the way they hate spinach.


----------



## DaveM

isorhythm said:


> Just don't attack things you don't understand and you won't bother anyone.


Is attacking things we do understand okay?


----------



## ST4

DaveM said:


> Is attacking things we do understand okay?


Or attacking things in general? such as people, for no reason at all.....


----------



## isorhythm

DaveM said:


> Is attacking things we do understand okay?


It can be worthwhile, sure, if done politely.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> Beware assuming the nature of the machinations in the minds of others. They may just hate it the way they hate spinach.


Whilst at the same time acknowledging the great benefits and worth of spinach?


----------



## JAS

EdwardBast said:


> Ah, but if one counts talking about it and expending emotional energy on it as "time with it" - I certainly would - then one could conclude you spend considerable time with it.


It may seem odd, but discussing it is the one area of interest this music has for me. I am fascinated by the fact that there are actually people who _genuinely_ seem to be attracted to this music. There is some psychological factor here that continues to escape me. I am infinitely more interested in the phenomenon than in the music, although one is necessarily somewhat involved with the other. I have found myself listening to much of this modern music with no particular expectation, and no real need to directly appreciate it myself (nor any reluctance in the case that it actually might do so), but with some hope that it would shed light on the mystery. Instead, it has mostly deepened it. Some illumination has come from discussion, primarily the idea that what is being sought in this music is not something I am seeking.


----------



## ST4

JAS said:


> I am fascinated by the fact that there are actually people who genuinely seem to be attracted to this music. There is some psychological factor here that continues to escape me.


Now *I* am fascinated by how you state you are fascinated by something as basic as that idea


----------



## Poppy Popsicle

Spawnofsatan said:


> Since I come across so many nihilistic people (sometimes day after day) who have no interest or enjoyment without considering a sense of hope for the future, I'm interested to know what qualities of contemporary music make you hate it so much?


What I hate most about contemporary music is what I hate most about art-music in general, which is to say the cliqueishness of it all and the pompous rituals and verbosity that accompany its consumption.


----------



## JAS

ST4 said:


> Now *I* am fascinated by how you state you are fascinated by something as basic as that idea


Oh, that's easy. It is completely, and utterly outside of my own experience. I don't care for Rock/Pop music, but I can at least understand many of the factors, including social ones, that inspire its wide-spread popularity. I cannot really do the same for most of this modern classical music. I listen to something like a Ferneyhough composition and it takes every fiber of my being to make it all the way through, assuming that I am able to do so. It is not merely unattractive to me, but actively unpleasant, indeed repellent. Liking it seems to me akin to liking the feeling of having bamboo shoots shoved under my fingernails. I can only assume that those who express a genuine appreciation for this music are not having this reaction, or that, in some way, having that reaction is not undesirable. (I understand that there are people who are compelled to cut themselves with razor blades, or even to swallow sharp objects.) It really is a complete mystery to me.


----------



## isorhythm

JAS said:


> Oh, that's easy. It is completely, and utterly outside of my own experience. I don't care for Rock/Pop music, but I can at least understand many of the factors, including social ones, that inspire its wide-spread popularity. I cannot really do the same for most of this modern classical music. I listen to something like a Ferneyhough composition and it takes every fiber of my being to make it all the way through, assuming that I am able to do so. It is not merely unattractive to me, but actively unpleasant, indeed repellent. Liking it seems to me akin to liking the feeling of having bamboo shoots shoved under my fingernails. I can only assume that those who express a genuine appreciation for this music are not having this reaction, or that, in some way, having that reaction is not undesirable. (I understand that there are people who are compelled to cut themselves with razor blades, or even to swallow sharp objects.) It really is a complete mystery to me.


Yeah but so what?

I don't like bananas, which is unusual. Most people like bananas, but to me they are actively unpleasant, to the point where I would struggle to eat one.

It still isn't _fascinating_ to me that people like bananas.


----------



## JAS

isorhythm said:


> Yeah but so what?
> 
> I don't like bananas, which is unusual. Most people like bananas, but to me they are actively unpleasant, to the point where I would struggle to eat one.
> 
> It still isn't _fascinating_ to me that people like bananas.


I don't like chocolate, not even a little bit. I avoid it as much as possible. I fully realize that I am a _very_ distinct minority here, and so the mystery may be why I am the odd man out. But most people don't like this music. Indeed, very, very far from it. Classical music is a fairly small niche, but the number of people who, continuing with the example at hand, at least say that they like the music of Brian Ferneyhough is a mere sliver. Even if we allow for the fact that many, perhaps even most people, have never heard of Brian Ferneyhough let alone listened to one of his compositions performed, I have played or sent youtube links of a number of his works to quite a few people, and I cannot find anyone who hears it who wants to hear it again. Of course, the objection will be raised that such slight anecdotal evidence is not admissible, and I have, of course, not conducted a formal, wide-ranging poll, but where is the evidence to the contrary?


----------



## Poppy Popsicle

JAS said:


> I am fascinated by the fact that there are actually people who _genuinely_ seem to be attracted to this music.


 I feel the same about sadists and masochsts; I am sure they genuinely like those sorts of activities but I cannot share their passion. I suppose it's my loss, not theirs!


----------



## JAS

Poppy Popsicle said:


> I feel the same about sadists and masochsts; I am sure they genuinely like those sorts of activities but I cannot share their passion. I suppose it's my loss, not theirs!


I have two co-workers who are fascinated by serial killers. I sincerely hope that their interest never goes any further than reading books and watching documentaries. Other than that, they seem like perfectly nice people, although I understand that Ted Bundy was considered quite charming.


----------



## ST4

I hate that contemporary music doesn't have the right publicity, it is lumped in with all the really old stuff. Now, not to say that it shouldn't be represented in it linear development in history but it would have a hell of a better time if it leaned towards building up contemporary societies and fanbases, rather than expecting conservative people who are only interested in their "main meal" to accept it. 


You know, like making a stereotypical modern pop fan sit through a black metal concert and expect them to enjoy it? 


Contemporary music is part of the long lineage but it is a different style of classical, new materials + new aesthetics + new concepts = disorientating people who are not "into it" 

By "new', I am meaning relative to the person and their experiences and perception, moreso.


----------



## ST4

This is also what makes a forum like this a pain in the behind, for the aforementioned reasons :scold:


----------



## Chronochromie

Poppy Popsicle said:


> I feel the same about sadists and masochsts; I am sure they genuinely like those sorts of activities but I cannot share their passion. I suppose it's my loss, not theirs!


I should add that to the list of all the things Contemporary Classical fans have been called on this forum: tricksters, credulous fools, homeopaths, nazis,...


----------



## ST4

JAS said:


> I have two co-workers who are fascinated by serial killers. I sincerely hope that their interest never goes any further than reading books and watching documentaries. Other than that, they seem like perfectly nice people, although I understand that Ted Bundy was considered quite charming.


This is all irrelevant to contemporary music but on that note:

There is always a large line between the observer/viewer and the events that took place. People are often (ironically) interested for the same reasons you are fascinated, trying to understand another's motivations and views of the world, of course it's in a dark place but the dark part of the human mind is something we all have to contemplate at some point as live isn't one sided. 
I am not personally interested in those things, but I can understand why someone would, from a more formal perspective.

But again, this has nothing to do with contemporary music :tiphat:


----------



## isorhythm

ST4 said:


> I hate that contemporary music doesn't have the right publicity, it is lumped in with all the really old stuff. Now, not to say that it shouldn't be represented in it linear development in history but it would have a hell of a better time if it leaned towards building up contemporary societies and fanbases, rather than expecting conservative people who are only interested in their "main meal" to accept it.
> 
> You know, like making a stereotypical modern pop fan sit through a black metal concert and expect them to enjoy it?
> 
> Contemporary music is part of the long lineage but it is a different style of classical, new materials + new aesthetics + new concepts = disorientating people who are not "into it"
> 
> By "new', I am meaning relative to the person and their experiences and perception, moreso.


I've found that contemporary music is often a better starting point than older music for non-classical fans who are getting into classical music for the first time.


----------



## ST4

isorhythm said:


> I've found that contemporary music is often a better starting point than older music for non-classical fans who are getting into classical music for the first time.


In my experience, absolutely! It instilled a lot of excitement and awe, completely changing the course of my life, quite really :cheers:


----------



## ST4

ST4 said:


> Contemporary music is part of the long lineage but it is a different style of classical


Or more accurately, a sea of many many many different styles


----------



## Poppy Popsicle

JAS said:


> I have two co-workers who are fascinated by serial killers. I sincerely hope that their interest never goes any further than reading books and watching documentaries. Other than that, they seem like perfectly nice people, although I understand that Ted Bundy was considered quite charming.


I don't quite see your point. Are you trying to say that you hope anyone's genuine interest in "modern music" doesn't spill over into a nihilistic desire to nuke contemporary music festivals?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Poppy Popsicle said:


> What I hate most about contemporary music is what I hate most about art-music in general, which is to say the cliqueishness of it all and the pompous rituals and verbosity that accompany its consumption.


I think that's a fair point in general.


----------



## JAS

Poppy Popsicle said:


> I don't quite see your point. Are you trying to say that you hope anyone's genuine interest in "modern music" doesn't spill over into a nihilistic desire to nuke contemporary music festivals?


Well, I don't think I was actually trying to say that, although I suppose it would indeed be something to hope for (or, rather, hope against).


----------



## ST4

Composers (myself included) need to acknowledge more that we are in a digital age, we need to think more about the way a great majority of people consume music and general entertainment. Once you do that, then you can find ways to embrace it because nothing is worse than selling cassettes of your new string quartet outside of Walmart and expecting to get business :lol:


----------



## JAS

ST4 said:


> I hate that contemporary music doesn't have the right publicity, it is lumped in with all the really old stuff. Now, not to say that it shouldn't be represented in it linear development in history but it would have a hell of a better time if it leaned towards building up contemporary societies and fanbases, rather than expecting conservative people who are only interested in their "main meal" to accept it.
> 
> You know, like making a stereotypical modern pop fan sit through a black metal concert and expect them to enjoy it?
> 
> Contemporary music is part of the long lineage but it is a different style of classical, new materials + new aesthetics + new concepts = disorientating people who are not "into it"
> 
> By "new', I am meaning relative to the person and their experiences and perception, moreso.


I don't really disagree with any of this. I think I would much prefer that contemporary music be treated as something apart from the stuffy old stuff that I much prefer.


----------



## ST4

JAS said:


> I don't really disagree with any of this. I think I would much prefer that contemporary music be treated as something apart from the stuffy old stuff that I much prefer.


Not so much "treated apart" but moreso building up (worldwide, however that's done) it's own society/fanbase. There are people (myself included) that are extremely passionate about it, there are performers that are excited to play it, GET THEM TOGETHER! :tiphat:


----------



## JAS

ST4 said:


> Not so much "treated apart" but moreso building up (worldwide, however that's done) it's own society/fanbase. There are people (myself included) that are extremely passionate about it, there are performers that are excited to play it, GET THEM TOGETHER! :tiphat:


Best of luck with that.


----------



## eugeneonagain

ST4 said:


> Composers (myself included) need to acknowledge more that we are in a digital age, we need to think more about the way a great majority of people consume music and general entertainment. Once you do that, then you can find ways to embrace it because nothing is worse than selling cassettes of your new string quartet outside of Walmart and expecting to get business :lol:


I think I must have missed the parts of the thread leading up to this. What part is the digital age playing in this discussion?

Speaking of cassettes though, I have a very good Marantz cassette deck and a fair collection of cassettes including a copy of With the Beatles purchased on holiday in Yugoslavia (when it was still Yugoslavia).


----------



## ST4

eugeneonagain said:


> I think I must have missed the parts of the thread leading up to this. What part is the digital age playing in this discussion?
> 
> Speaking of cassettes though, I have a very good Marantz cassette deck and a fair collection of cassettes including a copy of With the Beatles purchased on holiday in Yugoslavia (when it was still Yugoslavia).


It's a side-note but it's to do with marketing and the whole convoluted world we live in as classical fans


----------



## ST4

JAS said:


> Best of luck with that.


Thank you JAS :cheers:


----------



## eugeneonagain

JAS said:


> I don't really disagree with any of this. I think I would much prefer that contemporary music be treated as something apart from the stuffy old stuff that I much prefer.


This is not going to happen. It is legitimately part of the same art-music continuum, often employing similar techniques, ideas, presentation and more-or-less the same instruments.

I don't insist that films genres I don't like be removed from inclusion in the world of film. I just don't watch them all that much.


----------



## ST4

Again, this relates to the conundrum that is: explaining classical

It is simultaneously 8 separate genres under the same flagship name, and one singular, unified genre.


How do you explain that to someone with no knowledge of the genre who may have only heard Mozart's night music or Vivaldi's four seasons through advertisements? 

"So it's a genre, but it's not but it is??" 


That kind of confusion :lol:


----------



## ST4

" So Hildegard von Bingen, Haydn and Penderecki are the same genre?  "


I love that though, no other genre has that kind of history :kiss:


----------



## eugeneonagain

Even in a subdivision of popular music (that itself being a subdivision from just 'music') there are differences. This is not a problem.


----------



## ST4

eugeneonagain said:


> Even in a subdivision of popular music (that itself being a subdivision from just 'music') there are differences. This is not a problem.


The difference though is that "popular music" isn't a genre, it's a historical classification.

"Pop music" on the other hand, is a genre....with sub-genres.

Weirdly enough, classical music goes by social/art/political movements rather than sub-genres, to classify changes in musical ideology, which is very fascinating


----------



## isorhythm

Classical music is not a genre but it's a coherent tradition.

I understand how someone might see, say, Xenakis's electroacoustic works as having broken off from the tradition and being part of a new, separate thing.

But someone like Ferneyhough, I think, is still clearly classical - (very) precisely notated, using traditional ensembles, requiring (very advanced) classical technique, concerned with large-scale structure.


----------



## ST4

As in, "popular" music includes:

Blues
Ragtime
Jazz
R&B
Pop
Rock
Metal
Electronic 
Hip Hop

All of these are separate entities but all music (and relating back to classical) is inter-related, despite being separate on a superficial level.


----------



## hpowders

What do I hate most about contemporary music? That there isn't more of it that's excellent!


----------



## ST4

isorhythm said:


> I understand how someone might see, say, Xenakis's electroacoustic works as having broken off from the tradition and being part of a new, separate thing.


But it's very directly connected to the same musical ideas explored in his acoustic music (primarily being his early style), which is still classical. It's more that the amount of time between that and say...e.g. Webern, wasn't 300 years.

Electroacoustic music is quite literally (for the majority of composers after the 50s), firmly routed in the acoustic phenomenon but uses alien timbres (ala, electronically altered sounds, electronically produced sounds, but seperate and combined), through all the typical inversions and all that theoretical stuff, but for certain aesthetic aims etc. but because it's a different medium, you get your statement...


----------



## DaveM

ST4 said:


> But it's very directly connected to the same musical ideas explored in his acoustic music (primarily being his early style), which is still classical. It's more that the amount of time between that and say...e.g. Webern, wasn't 300 years.
> 
> Electroacoustic music is quite literally (for the majority of composers after the 50s), firmly routed in the acoustic phenomenon but uses alien timbres (ala, electronically altered sounds, electronically produced sounds, but seperate and combined), through all the typical inversions and all that theoretical stuff, but for certain aesthetic aims etc. but because it's a different medium, you get your statement...


None of the above, even remotely, relates to classical music. When those who support the premise that some of the most bizarre 'stuff' falls under the umbrella of classical music, they lose all credibility, with me anyway.


----------



## Poppy Popsicle

JAS said:


> But most people don't like this music. Indeed, very, very far from it.


I imagine that's true. And what do you suggest is done about it? Or indeed should anything _be_ done "about it" apart from venting one's frustration? That said, "most people" in *my* entourage are quite happy with it. So where does your point leave us? Nowhere useful, I'd venture.



JAS said:


> Classical music is a fairly small niche, but the number of people who, continuing with the example at hand, at least say that they like the music of Brian Ferneyhough is a mere sliver.


No surprises there. The same could be said of any contemporary art form. Frankly, I am at a loss comprehending how anyone can claim they enjoy reading James Joyce, they must be lying! Surely they really prefer Dan Brown's DaVinci Code.



JAS said:


> Even if we allow for the fact that many, perhaps even most people, have never heard of Brian Ferneyhough let alone listened to one of his compositions performed, I have played or sent youtube links of a number of his works to quite a few people, and I cannot find anyone who hears it who wants to hear it again.


That may well be true, even though I doubt your honesty as you clearly have a questionable agenda. Even though I believe you played a Ferneyhough piece to your Aunt Enid, did you at the same time submit the poor dear to any of Gerard Manley Hopkins "Terrible Sonnets" or impose on her the Grosse Fugue by Beethoven? Did she pop her socks on exposure to those works? Do tell.



JAS said:


> Of course, the objection will be raised that such slight anecdotal evidence is not admissible, and I have, of course, not conducted a formal, wide-ranging poll, but where is the evidence to the contrary?


Well, quite. I think your Auntie Enid's viewpoints are gospel and I'd be a fool to think otherwise!


----------



## JAS

Poppy Popsicle said:


> I imagine that's true. And what do you suggest is done about it?


I don't imagine that anything is to be done about it. No comments in an online forum will substantively destroy or improve the standing of such music, or solve pretty much any other broad problem. It is just a chat forum. Nothing very important happens here, or perhaps that is heresy to admit.


----------



## ST4

DaveM said:


> None of the above, even remotely, relates to classical music. When those who support the premise that some of the most bizarre 'stuff' falls under the umbrella of classical music, they lose all credibility, with me anyway.


What "none of the above" are you referring to? did you quote the right post? 

If not, I want to hear a lot more about this :tiphat:


----------



## isorhythm

ST4 said:


> But it's very directly connected to the same musical ideas explored in his acoustic music (primarily being his early style), which is still classical. It's more that the amount of time between that and say...e.g. Webern, wasn't 300 years.
> 
> Electroacoustic music is quite literally (for the majority of composers after the 50s), firmly routed in the acoustic phenomenon but uses alien timbres (ala, electronically altered sounds, electronically produced sounds, but seperate and combined), through all the typical inversions and all that theoretical stuff, but for certain aesthetic aims etc. but because it's a different medium, you get your statement...


I don't believe this can be described using traditional music theory, or that the pitches could even be notated using traditional notation: 




I agree with your larger point that it's all connected. Where you draw lines is arbitrary. I only meant that if someone considered Xenakis's electroacoustic works to be something other than classical, I would say that's reasonable without necessarily agreeing, whereas if they said that about Webern or Boulez, I wouldn't.


----------



## Guest

ST4 said:


> " So Hildegard von Bingen, Haydn and Penderecki are the same genre?  "
> 
> I love that though, no other genre has that kind of history :kiss:


I beg to differ, on the basis that if all your three examples genuinely belong to the same 'genre', similar disparate examples can be found for 'popular' - say, Irving Berlin, Cream and Deadmau5...?


----------



## Poppy Popsicle

JAS said:


> I don't imagine that anything is to be done about it. No comments in an online forum will substantively destroy or improve the standing of such music, or solve pretty much any other broad problem. It is just a chat forum. Nothing very important happens here, or perhaps that is heresy to admit.


Oh really, that is such a silly response! Are you trying to goad me into saying something that will garner me an infraction?
As to your claim that very few people appreciate contemporary music (such as Ferneyhough etc.), you really should get off your backside and read the many musicological journals and follow the conferences that clearly validate such music. Or perhaps you really think we are tone deaf?


----------



## ST4

isorhythm said:


> I don't believe this can be described using traditional music theory, or that the pitches could even be notated using traditional notation:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with your larger point that it's all connected. Where you draw lines is arbitrary. I only meant that if someone considered Xenakis's electroacoustic works to be something other than classical, I would say that's reasonable without necessarily agreeing, whereas if they said that about Webern or Boulez, I wouldn't.


Yes, I love _La Légende d'Eer_, it's a magnificent work I cherish.

Where do you personally draw the line (as we are not discussing on more formal terms regarding this specific thing) of distinction between what you perceive as "classical" and what you perceive as "other, electronic"

I would rightly suspect that if you heard a Bach fugue put through one of Stockhausen's electronic processes, you would say: "yes, this is classical but it just sounds different" aka timbres.

But when more sophisticated sororities are taking place along a wider frequency spectrum (aka, lots going on) you will deny this?

Am I right?


----------



## ST4

MacLeod said:


> I beg to differ, on the basis that if all your three examples genuinely belong to the same 'genre', similar disparate examples can be found for 'popular' - say, Irving Berlin, Cream and Deadmau5...?


See one of my previous posts, jazz, rock and EDM are not the same genre :lol:


----------



## eugeneonagain

JAS said:


> I don't imagine that anything is to be done about it. No comments in an online forum will substantively destroy *or improve the standing of such music, or solve pretty much any other broad problem*. It is just a chat forum. Nothing very important happens here, or perhaps that is heresy to admit.


There is no problem to solve. The only problem with modern/contemporary art-music is yours: you don't appreciate it. That also doesn't need to be solved, you just need to stop talking about it.


----------



## JAS

Poppy Popsicle said:


> Oh really, that is such a silly response! Are you trying to goad me into saying something that will garner me an infraction?


I really don't think that you require any goading.



Poppy Popsicle said:


> As to your claim that very few people appreciate contemporary music (such as Ferneyhough etc.), you really should get off your backside and read the many musicological journals and follow the conferences that clearly validate such music. Or perhaps you really think we are tone deaf?


As I said, it is a mystery. (I suspect that there are much more complicated factors at work than tone deafness.)


----------



## ST4

Also, McLeod, are you seeing the frustrations of classification in classical in regards to that?


----------



## Guest

ST4 said:


> See one of my previous posts, jazz, rock and EDM are not the same genre :lol:


Exactly. My point is that Bingen, Haydn and Penderecki also belong to sub-genres


----------



## JAS

eugeneonagain said:


> There is no problem to solve. The only problem with modern/contemporary art-music is yours: you don't appreciate it. That also doesn't need to be solved, you just need to stop talking about it.


You do realize that we are both currently posting in a thread titled "What do you HATE most about contemporary music" right?


----------



## ST4

JAS said:


> You do realize that we are both currently posting in a thread titled "What do you HATE most about contemporary music" right?


Judging by the OP, it seems to be challenging the people who are hostile towards contemporary music to speak up. This doesn't say that there IS a problem with contemporary music but rather about the people themselves that have a problem. That's what I gathered from it :tiphat:


----------



## DaveM

ST4 said:


> What "none of the above" are you referring to? did you quote the right post?
> 
> If not, I want to hear a lot more about this :tiphat:


The electro acoustic 'stuff' you are referring to.


----------



## ST4

MacLeod said:


> Exactly. My point is that Bingen, Haydn and Penderecki also belong to sub-genres


I don't disagree with you there but it's part of that bigger issue. Classical music is so old, it existed prior to the existence of sub-genre classification, so throughout history it has obtained a rather convoluted categorization system


----------



## ST4

DaveM said:


> The electro acoustic 'stuff' you are referring to.


Sure, explain away :tiphat:


----------



## Poppy Popsicle

JAS said:


> I really don't think that you require any goading.


Indeed. Why do you persist, then?



JAS said:


> As I said, it is a mystery. (I suspect that there are *much* more complicated factors at work than tone deafness.)


Agreed, though I suspect an ulterior agenda on your part.


----------



## JAS

Poppy Popsicle said:


> Indeed. Why do you persist, then?


A mirror might come in handy here.



Poppy Popsicle said:


> Agreed, though I suspect an ulterior agenda on your part.


Suspect away.


----------



## arpeggio

nature said:


> Honestly, the fact that the majority of it is atonal stuff. It simply does not appeal to me at all - I don't find anything particularly clever or intelligent about music that majorly lacks the harmony that typically makes it beautiful and evocative. Ultimately, I fail to see why dissonance is still considered the only way to pioneer any advancement in music among many composers and critics - there are ways to innovate without completely abandoning conventional melody. An infinite number of variations.
> 
> Perhaps most of today's traditional-style composers have more incentive to write film scores and soundtracks?


Again this an extremely inaccurate statement. As I just stated this debate has been going of for years and those of us who follow contemporary music are constantly supplying examples of tonal contemporary composers who are active. Of course there are still younger composers like Jörg Widmann who push the envelope.

The following threads can provide many examples of modern tonal composers:

http://www.talkclassical.com/43246-your-top-ten-living.html

http://www.talkclassical.com/40523-modern-composers-composing-tonal.html

http://www.talkclassical.com/33380-tonal-music-our-days.html

http://www.talkclassical.com/31547-tonal-composers-post-1960s.html

There are many others.


----------



## ST4

EdwardBast said:


> You mean like an ad hominem attack? See #390.


Nitpicking much? :lol:

Let's keep elaborating on our thoughts here, it's been getting really interesting the last few pages. I'm quite liking the insight into other's views here :tiphat:


----------



## Poppy Popsicle

JAS said:


> A mirror might come in handy here.


Really.



JAS said:


> Suspect away.


Hmm. So, you have no real counter argument. You don't like Ferneyhough; your entourage (your Aunt Enid and her pet toad) don't either. I can't wait for your paper at the next Music Analysis conference in whichever city that might be.

Infraction? It'll be worth it. Greetings to EdwardBast for the impartial support.


----------



## eugeneonagain

JAS said:


> You do realize that we are both currently posting in a thread titled "What do you HATE most about contemporary music" right?


Very fair point.


----------



## isorhythm

ST4 said:


> Yes, I love _La Légende d'Eer_, it's a magnificent work I cherish.
> 
> Where do you personally draw the line (as we are not discussing on more formal terms regarding this specific thing) of distinction between what you perceive as "classical" and what you perceive as "other, electronic"
> 
> I would rightly suspect that if you heard a Bach fugue put through one of Stockhausen's electronic processes, you would say: "yes, this is classical but it just sounds different" aka timbres.
> 
> But when more sophisticated sororities are taking place along a wider frequency spectrum (aka, lots going on) you will deny this?
> 
> Am I right?


I personally would consider Legende d'eer to be classical because it's by a classically educated composer consciously working in the classical tradition. I draw lines according to social context rather than musical qualities. If someone were to draw lines according to musical qualities, they might put Legende d'eer on the other side of the line (or maybe not).

I don't follow the rest of your post. I don't know what you mean by sonorities being "more sophisticated" or "taking place along a wider frequency spectrum," nor how either of those things would be related to having "lots going on."


----------



## JAS

Poppy Popsicle said:


> Infraction? It'll be worth it.


Worth what? Am I really to be personally offended because someone on the internet, using the tagname Poppy Popsicle, has been overtly and intentionally rude to me, in spite of my own very polite, good-humored, and even thoughtful replies? If you think that you are going to hound me into not posting, where, when and how I think appropriate, please save yourself the effort.



Poppy Popsicle said:


> Hmm. So, you have no real counter argument. You don't like Ferneyhough; your entourage (your Aunt Enid and her pet toad) don't either. I can't wait for your paper at the next Music Analysis conference in whichever city that might be.


I cannot speak from personal experience about Music Analysis Conferences, but I have extensive experience and connections in the world of literary criticism, and I know many people who will, privately, admit to publishing books and papers that they consider to be utterly without any real merit, done merely for the sake of padding a vita or appealing to specific individuals for the sake of promotions or job offers. (I even know people who will admit to praising in a published review a work they thought completely absurd merely because there was potentially political capital in so doing.) Academia is a very complicated world. I may be mistaken, but I doubt that the musical world is all that different.


----------



## ST4

isorhythm said:


> I personally would consider Legende d'eer to be classical because it's by a classically educated composer consciously working in the classical tradition. I draw lines according to social context rather than musical qualities. If someone were to draw lines according to musical qualities, they might put Legende d'eer on the other side of the line (or maybe not).
> 
> I don't follow the rest of your post. I don't know what you mean by sonorities being "more sophisticated" or "taking place along a wider frequency spectrum," nor how either of those things would be related to having "lots going on."


Well for starters, that piece has strong musical connections to _Jonchaies _(a large orchestral work of his), which is for acoustic instruments. Xenakis works with notes and shapes primarily as the foundation of his whole musical aesthetic/world. It is in someways a huge, time-stretched version of that work (at face value) "performed" electronically.

It is of note that electroacoustic music (well not so much for earlier, thinner works) is generally quite dense, made up of polyphonic layers. Compare that concept to a fugue if you like.

Really, I could preach to you all these ways that this music functions and it could mean nothing to you and you may discard it, it's up to you :tiphat:


----------



## ST4

Xenakis tends to (after the 50s) use the electronic medium like an orchestra. Really polyphonically dense, lots of movement/motions, lots of direction and form-related explorations. Maybe the more relevant question to that (which is getting far off the original discussion) is: Does he use the electronic medium effectively and are his dynamic changes effective? (in relation to his orchestral music which goes from *FFFFFF* to p, in a split second, well mastered and all :tiphat:


----------



## ST4

Because with a live orchestra, timbre groups are far more obvious aka you won't mistake a trumpet for a violin or a flute for a timpani etc, than through a limited amount of electronic "tones" (or whatever term pleases you)


----------



## ST4

Maybe that is the area of confusion? :tiphat:


----------



## Phil loves classical

Mandryka said:


> When these people say they hate it, it's not like when they say they hate spinach. What they mean is that they think it's a crime against nature, degenerate, Entartete. They hate it like the homophobe hates gay people. It makes them profoundly uncomfortable, it makes them feel that the time is out of joint. And they're posting here because they think, O cursèd spite, that they were born to set it right.


I actually think Hate is a very understandable reaction to certain radical kinds of music. When a composer intentionally tries to ridicule previous musical systems, even progressive ones, without something worthy to take their place, then it is like a programmer writing a virus program. Some people may even see that guy who started the virus as a champ. Where has there been actual progress in postmodern music since 4'33"? That was the epitome of its Art, and can really be achieved only once, you can only destroy a thing once, without it getting rebuilt. But not all contemporary music has been of that kind of destructive mentality. There is also a big difference between high Modern and postmodern musical thought, even though it may sound the similar.


----------



## DaveM

ST4 said:


> Sure, explain away :tiphat:


Do you call this classical music?


----------



## ST4

Phil loves classical said:


> Where has there been actual progress in postmodern music since 4'33"? That was the epitome of its Art, and can really be achieved only once, you can only destroy a thing once, without it getting rebuilt.


Could you elaborate further on this? :tiphat: (without being facetious or anything), I'm really intrigued by this statement.

4'33 has an infamous reputation and it's a meme but it set out to do it's purpose, in 1952. Speaking from the perspective on a very familiar listener of the avant garde and so on, I don't see how your statement makes any sense at all.


----------



## ST4

DaveM said:


> Do you call this classical music?


_Bohor
Concrete PH	
Diamorphoses
Orient-Occident _

Yes, in every way (as I've already been explaining) :cheers:


----------



## ST4

I have that vinyl too, brings back fond memories :kiss:


----------



## Lisztian

I also call that classical music.


----------



## ST4

My view on the Cage catastrophe:

He challenged what music is, great! Produced some fantastic works and pissed of a lot of people. Now, get back to work and move on with your lives. It's really not that difficult :tiphat:


----------



## ST4

Lisztian said:


> I also call that classical music.


It's quite simple:

1. Classical tradition expands
2. Radical changes in technology between the world wars
3. Composers started applying their studies to the new electronic medium
4. Composers started applying their electronic studies to their acoustic music
5. Composers started molding together the former two and utilizing new stuff in much more ambitious electronic works
6. It becomes the new norm and "cool thing" among young composers
7. The pop crowd take a liking to the concept and begin applying it to a new type of music: electronic pop (Kaftwerk, etc)
8. The rest is history


----------



## eugeneonagain

I also am completely at ease with the idea that Cage was a musician producing music. His works are generally not to my taste though, even though I like a fair amount of avant-garde music


----------



## DaveM

ST4 said:


> _Bohor
> Concrete PH
> Diamorphoses
> Orient-Occident _
> 
> Yes, in every way (as I've already been explaining) :cheers:


That's what I thought. I will accept that atonal and most contemporary music using piano and orchestral instruments falls in the realm of classical music, but there is no reason on God's green earth why that 'stuff' should be included. Those who like to diddle around with random noises, electrical and otherwise don't get to call it classical music just 'cause they say so.


----------



## ST4

eugeneonagain said:


> I also am completely at ease with the idea that Cage was a musician producing music. His works are generally not to my taste though, even though I like a fair amount of avant-garde music


The 20th century was littered with icons, he was definitely an inspiration to many people but he's not the be all-end all of music.

As a side note again; I am quite inspired by his number pieces. The concept of a really long list of pieces using a notation format that is direct yet vague and produces similar results each time (not identical though), is really interesting. Because I'm a person who has that compulsion to notate EVERYTHING in my works.


----------



## Lisztian

DaveM said:


> That's what I thought. I will accept that atonal and most contemporary music using piano and orchestral instruments falls in the realm of classical music, but there is no reason on God's green earth why that 'stuff' should be included. Those who like to diddle around with random noises, electrical and otherwise don't get to call it classical music just 'cause they say so.


Why on earth does it matter what creates the sound?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Lisztian said:


> I also call that classical music.


Me too..........................


----------



## ST4

DaveM said:


> That's what I thought. I will accept that atonal and most contemporary music using piano and orchestral instruments falls in the realm of classical music, but there is no reason on God's green earth why that 'stuff' should be included. Those who like to diddle around with random noises, electrical and otherwise don't get to call it classical music just 'cause they say so.


But they don't, as I've already explained how it functionally works several posts up. It's not BANG, there's some random noises to worship. It's a complex and tiring process.

It appears from my reading of this post that you have trouble with the idea of the electronic medium in classical music, may I ask why? :tiphat:


----------



## ST4

Lisztian said:


> Why on earth does it matter what creates the sound?


Exactly, the whole idea in the first place is that "hey we have technology now and technology produces sounds, hence it is a vehicle that can operate as an instrument" essentially.

There are so many amazing things you can't get solely from an orchestra or a piano :lol:


----------



## DaveM

ST4 said:


> But they don't, as I've already explained how it functionally works several posts up. It's not BANG, there's some random noises to worship. It's a complex and tiring process.
> 
> It appears from my reading of this post that you have trouble with the idea of the electronic medium in classical music, may I ask why? :tiphat:


1. Because it has absolutely no relationship to it.

2. Because it is in a category of (as the Chinese put it) 'One man have fun, million suffer.'

3. And for many other reasons that only can be explained by a comparison:


----------



## ST4

DaveM said:


> 1. Because it has absolutely no relationship to it.


I am really hoping you haven't read my posts on the previous pages, because otherwise I would appreciate you giving me an explanation to how I am incorrect on this 



DaveM said:


> 2. Because it is in a category of (as the Chinese put it) 'One man have fun, million suffer.'


Aka, you don't enjoy it or find it discomforting? I can't stop that, I have no wish to. You are allowed to feel how you do, there is nothing wrong with that :tiphat:



DaveM said:


> 3. And for many other reasons that only can be explained by a comparison:


What is evidenced by the comparison is two things:

1. Evolution of style (approx. 150 years of music)
2. Radically different medium (or instrument if you want to start looking logistically at the way the music itself functions and sounds)

The comparison is shocking, sure. The four Xenakis pieces compared to the movement from the Beethoven piano sonata are different, yes but still part of a tradition, linear development, as I've been saying.

The Xenakis and the Beethoven are both exceptionally great pieces btw, I love both to bits :cheers:


----------



## ST4

Just for more clarity too, electronic music is not a "new" thing as far as modern culture is concerned. It has been around for over 70 years, quite a long time for it to seep into many areas of music. It's part of the family business, as I would figuratively say :lol:


----------



## Lisztian

DaveM said:


> 1. Because it has absolutely no relationship to it.
> 
> 2. Because it is in a category of (as the Chinese put it) 'One man have fun, million suffer.'


I have only recently started listening to music from the past 60 years (I'm more in the exploration phase than anything as far as 'classical' music overall) and had never heard these Xenakis works before. Despite this, it simply baffles me that anyone could find these sounds uncomfortable or something to 'suffer through.' If it also baffles _you_ that people can listen to something like this and call it 'classical' or 'great' music, doesn't that difference in our positions imply that it is inappropriate to suggest that we 'don't get to call it classical music,' as if only one perception is relevant?


----------



## DaveM

Lisztian said:


> I have only recently started listening to music from the past 60 years (I'm more in the exploration phase than anything as far as 'classical' music overall) and had never heard these Xenakis works before. Despite this, it simply baffles me that anyone could find these sounds uncomfortable or something to 'suffer through.' If it also baffles _you_ that people can listen to something like this and call it 'classical' or 'great' music, doesn't that difference in our positions imply that it is inappropriate to suggest that we 'don't get to call it classical music,' as if only one perception is relevant?


Oh okay. Definitions don't matter. Let's call it Country-Western. Works for me.


----------



## ST4

DaveM said:


> Oh okay. Definitions don't matter. Let's call it Country-Western. Works for me.


Wouldn't that be a bit of a naive way to conclude on both the genre that this music is birthed from and, the very thing that makes a genre? it's not a simple discussion sure, it takes some hard thinking but I'm sure you could make a few observations from my posts a few pages (now) back, about stylistic traits that are as inherent (or more) in both electroacoustic music and romantic or baroque or (you name it) period of classical music. :cheers:


----------



## ST4

A little observation of polyphony in general:

Medieval music - quite freely dispersed but with quite regular pulsations (I'm using that instead of "beats")
Renaissance music - often very freely dispersed but routinely cadencial 
Baroque - Rhythmic, very often displaced (especially with the most complex ones like Bach)
Classical - Strictly regimented, to the grid with the pulsations
Romantic - More freer again but still adhering to learned formalities from previous era
20th/21st Century - Quite freely dispersed, much more denser


This is a general overview and it varies from composer to composer but the contrapuntal dungeon is the entry point for a lot of this


----------



## ST4

And to clarify yet again, by "dispersed" I'm talking about the way that individual polyphonic lines/voices/instruments relate to each other, in a metrical way (1-2-3-4, etc)


----------



## ST4

When it comes to electroacoustic music, we are clearly talking about (in the case of much of Xenakis' electronic work) quite dense polyphony. 

Q: What do we get when we start dealing with musical masses of notes? (aka lots of polyphony)
A: Textures of moving sounds


----------



## ST4

Now this is just technical explanations, and as I've started demonstrating; it applies in the same way to every period and genre of music.


----------



## Phil loves classical

ST4 said:


> My view on the Cage catastrophe:
> 
> He challenged what music is, great! Produced some fantastic works and pissed of a lot of people. Now, get back to work and move on with your lives. It's really not that difficult :tiphat:


I think the Cage phenomenon was going to come sooner or later. No his works are not difficult, since there isn't much to it, at least his indeterminate music. Where I'm drawing the line is between indeterminate music and highly organized music. The avant garde golden age was productive in music, but Postmodern music was stagnant from the beginning, only its concepts were new at the time. I heard some funny insults by "Modernists" (actually postmodernists, people keep lumping them together), that the traditional music is outdated and belongs in a museum, but conversely I think Cage's ideas are old, but his followers don't know it yet, as if there is still more to be explored along these lines.


----------



## ST4

Phil loves classical said:


> I think the Cage phenomenon was going to come sooner or later. No his works are not difficult, since there isn't much to it, at least his indeterminate music. Where I'm drawing the line is between indeterminate music and highly organized music. The avant garde golden age was productive in music, but Postmodern music was stagnant from the beginning, only its concepts were new at the time. I heard some funny insults by "Modernists" (actually postmodernists, people keep lumping them together), that the traditional music is outdated and belongs in a museum, but conversely I think Cage's ideas are old, but his followers don't know it yet, as if there is still more to be explored along these lines.


I wouldn't quite agree on the way you phrased that, it's "old" sure. Plenty of music is old but still relevant. His ideas, concepts and philosophies (however esoteric sometimes) still hold up. It's not quite like "Cage is dead so **** him", moreso "Cage done this and this, he has been inspirational and influential. There is no longer a wall of radical inaccessibility, his works are accepted as they are but music itself has moved on"

Same can be said with the much praised "greats" of classical music, they are stylistically and historically "old" but there is plenty of wealth to be found in their work. (same to be said of many Medieval and Renaissance composers).

Once you get the whole "shock value" stuff out the window, then you can start looking at music's position in the 21st century and find solutions relevant to the time but of course, please keep playing Cage's non-4'33 works :tiphat:

The modern day, living composer has new struggles (as I've said like 5 pages back). We are in such a technological world, I'm sure many seasoned classical fans will want to ignore that but future generations simply can't.


----------



## ST4

With Cage, he was diverse; you can't just lump it all into one category. He experimented with both new and old ideas and found inspiration (see the way it's passed down) in many Eastern places. The early Satie and Webern influenced stuff sounds nothing like the middle period and vice versa for the late, number pieces, and so on...


----------



## Lisztian

DaveM said:


> Oh okay. Definitions don't matter. Let's call it Country-Western. Works for me.


As far as _that_ goes...well, what's the difference between the arguing parties here:

Party A (you) has to fight through aural repulsion every time he attempts to listen to this music: aural repulsion that would make it hard to connect it to music that he cherishes, leading to descriptions such as 'diddling with random noises' and 'the most bizarre stuff'
Party A believes that this music cannot be considered classical

Party B viscerally enjoys this music from the get go and doesn't have to fight through any discomfort regarding the purely visceral nature of it: he can therefore analyse it without a mind constantly telling him to turn it off, and for far longer and has done over a much longer period of time (ST4)
Party B also loves a lot of the earlier music that Party A cherishes
Party B, from this state of being able to listen to both sides with pleasure and with a mind actively discerning the musical qualities rather than any purely visceral disgust, believes that this music should be considered classical and has many similarities to earlier works under the umbrella...

Don't you think that, based on this, you should perhaps not be so sure of your opinion regarding what this music should or shouldn't be labelled under?


----------



## DaveM

ST4 said:


> The modern day, living composer has new struggles (as I've said like 5 pages back). We are in such a technological world, I'm sure many seasoned classical fans will want to ignore that but future generations simply can't.


We've been in a technological world for a long time now. If you mean that the living composer is struggling to get electro-acoustic stuff and the like accepted, but eventually future generations will be dragged kicking and screaming to accept it, I wouldn't count on it.


----------



## Phil loves classical

ST4 said:


> I wouldn't quite agree on the way you phrased that, it's "old" sure. Plenty of music is old but still relevant. His ideas, concepts and philosophies (however esoteric sometimes) still hold up. It's not quite like "Cage is dead so **** him", moreso "Cage done this and this, he has been inspirational and influential. There is no longer a wall of radical inaccessibility, his works are accepted as they are but music itself has moved on"
> 
> Same can be said with the much praised "greats" of classical music, they are stylistically and historically "old" but there is plenty of wealth to be found in their work. (same to be said of many Medieval and Renaissance composers).
> 
> Once you get the whole "shock value" stuff out the window, then you can start looking at music's position in the 21st century and find solutions relevant to the time but of course, please keep playing Cage's non-4'33 works :tiphat:
> 
> The modern day, living composer has new struggles (as I've said like 5 pages back). We are in such a technological world, I'm sure many seasoned classical fans will want to ignore that but future generations simply can't.


I'm of the opinion that music hasn't moved on. Just days ago I had this funny experience. I was listening to this contemporary piece (forgot who, maybe Ferneyhough) and it seemed to be saying to me "forget what you think you know what music is, and listen to this", i was mildly intrigued. But then I put on another contemporary piece by another composer and it was saying the same thing with different notes (or sounds). They were basically annihilating each other, or starting from the same grass roots. Prokofiev saw no future in atonal, chromatic music, and in my ears at least, I think he has been proven right, there is no real progression since the 60's.

To me music has been running around in circles since.


----------



## ST4

DaveM said:


> We've been in a technological world for a long time now. If you mean that the living composer is struggling to get electro-acoustic stuff and the like accepted, but eventually future generations will be dragged kicking and screaming to accept it, I wouldn't count on it.


No, actually music and art as a whole. The climate has changed drastically for so many genres, the only genre that is excelling in this current climate to an extreme extent is predictable "pop" music", yes you heard right.

Name any non-classical genre of the 20th century and look into it's community and how it is either surviving or not and compare it to classical too.

It's not a matter of amounts of people per-se either, or else everyone regularly active on this forum alone could finance a lot of stuff.

The way the 21st century, almost 2 decades in too! is living (in regards to art and music) is DRASTICALLY different and in a lot of cases, barely just making it


----------



## DaveM

Lisztian said:


> As far as _that_ goes...well, what's the difference between the arguing parties here:
> 
> Party A (you) has to fight through aural repulsion every time he attempts to listen to this music: aural repulsion that would make it hard to connect it to music that he cherishes, leading to descriptions such as 'diddling with random noises' and 'the most bizarre stuff'
> Party A believes that this music cannot be considered classical
> 
> Party B viscerally enjoys this music from the get go and doesn't have to fight through any discomfort regarding the purely visceral nature of it: he can therefore analyse it without a mind constantly telling him to turn it off, and for far longer and has done over a much longer period of time (ST4)
> Party B also loves a lot of the earlier music that Party A cherishes
> Party B, from this state of being able to listen to both sides with pleasure and with a mind actively discerning the musical qualities rather than any purely visceral disgust, believes that this music should be considered classical and has many similarities to earlier works under the umbrella...
> 
> Don't you think that, based on this, you should perhaps not be so sure of your opinion regarding what this music should or shouldn't be labelled under?


Party A has all the accepted definitions on his side (go read any or all of them) so I'm pretty sure of my opinion.


----------



## ST4

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm of the opinion that music hasn't moved on. Just days ago I had this funny experience. I was listening to this contemporary piece (forgot who, maybe Ferneyhough) and it seemed to be saying to me "forget what you think you know what music is, and listen to this", i was mildly intrigued. But then I put on another contemporary piece by another composer and it was saying the same thing with different notes (or sounds). They were basically annihilating each other, or starting from the same grass roots. Prokofiev saw no future in atonal, chromatic music, and in my ears at least, I think he has been proven right, there is no real progression since the 60's.
> 
> To me music has been running around in circles since.


I really wish there was more context behind your post here because I would love to understand it from your perspective, as I don't whatsoever. There is a certain disconnect I feel from you response, I'd like to get more of an idea about this :tiphat:


----------



## Lisztian

DaveM said:


> Party A has all the accepted definitions on his side (go read any or all of them) so I'm pretty sure of my opinion.


But I don't believe this is true  In fact, I'd say that the majority of the accepted definitions are sided with party B or are at the very least vague on the matter: so that vagueness is where we (well, mainly someone who can such as ST4) brings musical knowledge/examples to the table..All I can say personally regarding my initial exposure to it is that the polyphonic/developmental properties seemed to connect it to a great extent to what came before.


----------



## ST4

I would like to point out DaveM, that I have almost a whole page, just back here:

http://www.talkclassical.com/44746-what-do-you-hate-31.html

..which is discussing a lot of issues/problems you highlighted, that you seemed to not notice :cheers:


----------



## ST4

Also DaveM, several posts up again I could also expand on the musical climate financially and how it is quite damaging for a lot of things in art, the primary source of discussion being another of those things


----------



## DaveM

Lisztian said:


> But I don't believe this is true  In fact, I'd say that the majority of the accepted definitions are sided with party B or are at the very least vague on the matter: so that vagueness is where we (well, mainly someone who can such as ST4) brings musical knowledge/examples to the table..


Feel free to list some of the definitions that fit with electro-acoustical as classical music. I'll be glad to list a number that don't.


----------



## Lisztian

DaveM said:


> Feel free to list some of the definitions that fit with electro-acoustical as classical music. I'll be glad to list a number that don't.


Well lets start with Wikipedia:

Classical music is art music produced or rooted in the traditions of Western music, including both liturgical (religious) and secular music. While a more accurate term is also used to refer to the period from 1750 to 1820 (the Classical period), this article is about the broad span of time from roughly the 11th century to the present day, which includes the Classical period and various other periods.The central norms of this tradition became codified between 1550 and 1900, which is known as the common-practice period. The major time divisions of Western art music are as follows:

the early music period, which includes
the Medieval (500-1400)
the Renaissance (1400-1600) eras.
Baroque (1600-1750)
the common-practice period, which includes
Baroque (1600-1750)
Classical (1750-1820)
Romantic eras (1804-1910)
the 20th century (1901-2000) which includes
the modern (1890-1930) that overlaps from the late-19th century,
the impressionism (1875-1925) that also overlaps from the late-19th century
the neoclassicism (1920-1950), predominantly in the inter-war period
*the experimental (1950-present)*
the high modern (1950-1969)
contemporary (1945 or 1975-present) or postmodern (1930-present) eras.


----------



## ST4

Electroacoustic music is still in current practice among young composers, it's stuck around. One of the benefits of modern technology is that it sounds more organic, earthy, flowing etc than ever, which is beneficial for conveying your artistic intentions clear as possible


----------



## DaveM

Lisztian said:


> Well lets start with Wikipedia:
> 
> Classical music is art music produced or rooted in the traditions of Western music, including both liturgical (religious) and secular music. While a more accurate term is also used to refer to the period from 1750 to 1820 (the Classical period), this article is about the broad span of time from roughly the 11th century to the present day, which includes the Classical period and various other periods.The central norms of this tradition became codified between 1550 and 1900, which is known as the common-practice period. The major time divisions of Western art music are as follows:
> 
> the early music period, which includes
> the Medieval (500-1400)
> the Renaissance (1400-1600) eras.
> Baroque (1600-1750)
> the common-practice period, which includes
> Baroque (1600-1750)
> Classical (1750-1820)
> Romantic eras (1804-1910)
> the 20th century (1901-2000) which includes
> the modern (1890-1930) that overlaps from the late-19th century,
> the impressionism (1875-1925) that also overlaps from the late-19th century
> the neoclassicism (1920-1950), predominantly in the inter-war period
> *the experimental (1950-present)*
> the high modern (1950-1969)
> contemporary (1945 or 1975-present) or postmodern (1930-present) eras.


When I read the descriptions of all the sub-categories under the 'experimental', I am dismayed at how much of it appears to follow no rules whatsoever. If the future of classical music, in any way, depends on this stuff then it is doomed.

But you did come up with a definition that includes the 'music' in question. Point Lisztian.


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> When I read the descriptions of all the sub-categories under the 'experimental', I am dismayed at how much of it appears to follow no rules whatsoever. If the future of classical music, in any way, depends on this stuff then it is doomed.
> 
> But you did come up with a definition that includes the 'music' in question. Point Lisztian.


Why bother at being dismayed by things that have encouraged creativity, learning and even technological progress that has had a resoundingly positive impact on culture and entertainment in general? Without the experimentations and influence of people like Xenakis, Stockhausen, Boulez etc we wouldn't have the technology available to composers, musicians and audio engineers etc who master our favourite Beethoven CDs, compose the soundtracks to blockbuster movies, design our modern concert halls to acoustic perfection and inspire and provide mentoring and support to younger generations of musicians and composers.

Not only classical music, but the arts and entertainment in general have been depending on the experimental avant garde for a long time and will continue to depend on them without question whether we like them or not.

Quite frankly, we would be doomed if everyone consciously chose to ignore their ideas and experiments.


----------



## isorhythm

ST4 said:


> Well for starters, that piece has strong musical connections to _Jonchaies _(a large orchestral work of his), which is for acoustic instruments. Xenakis works with notes and shapes primarily as the foundation of his whole musical aesthetic/world. It is in someways a huge, time-stretched version of that work (at face value) "performed" electronically.
> 
> It is of note that electroacoustic music (well not so much for earlier, thinner works) is generally quite dense, made up of polyphonic layers. Compare that concept to a fugue if you like.
> 
> Really, I could preach to you all these ways that this music functions and it could mean nothing to you and you may discard it, it's up to you :tiphat:


Your enthusiasm is admirable, but you're selling Xenakis short. What he achieved in his electroacoustic music is a lot more radical than just taking orchestral music and transcribing it for another instrument.


----------



## ST4

isorhythm said:


> Your enthusiasm is admirable, but you're selling Xenakis short. What he achieved in his electroacoustic music is a lot more radical than just taking orchestral music and transcribing it for another instrument.


No I'm not trying to sell him at all. The comparison is meant to show how his electroacoustic music is directly related to his acoustic work, but unlike what has been asserted against by you on the page this quote comes from.

Xenakis has deliberate connections between many of his works (both in a motivic way) and and that some pieces repurpose fragments of material from time to time (Varese did the same too)

It was in particular, a response again his assertion that it couldn't be transcribed or understood through traditional notation means, which is anything but true.

His electronic works go through a process close to the acoustic works in the composition stage.

So, aka It's all music folks! :tiphat:


----------



## Guest

I go away to sleep. I come back and we're still talking about music that's at least 40 years old. When will there be a discussion about current music which is, I believe, what the long since departed OP was asking about?

BTW, did Cage and Xenakis claim to be writing 'classical' music?


----------



## ST4

MacLeod said:


> BTW, did Cage and Xenakis claim to be writing 'classical' music?


Well, it's written in the job description


----------



## Omicron9

What do I hate most? That people shy away from unknown music. Very few listeners are willing to give new music a chance. Fear of the unknown, perhaps?

-09


----------



## JAS

Omicron9 said:


> What do I hate most? That people shy away from unknown music. Very few listeners are willing to give new music a chance. Fear of the unknown, perhaps?


Could you elaborate on this a bit? What is it that you think these would-be listeners are afraid they might hear in the music, and what do you think they would hear instead that would allay their concerns?


----------



## Mandryka

JAS said:


> What is it that you think these would-be listeners are afraid they might hear in the music, and what do you think they would hear instead that would allay their concerns?


I think they're sometimes frightened by their inability to appreciate the music, especially if they considered themselves to be musically sophisticated, it's an attack on their self image.


----------



## Omicron9

JAS said:


> Could you elaborate on this a bit? What is it that you think these would-be listeners are afraid they might hear in the music, and what do you think they would hear instead that would allay their concerns?


Sorry JAS, that's too much conjecture and speculation for me.

I can share this: I attend several symphony concerts each season, and I try to listen-in on as many music conversations as possible. I have heard folks complain that they don't know a specific (20/21 century) composer or piece, and speak of it in negative terms without even hearing it. Implying that not knowing it in advance meant they weren't going to like it. As in, they only like the familiar; I could go one step further and extrapolate that it's not a case of knowing what they like, but only liking what they know. We could surmise that there is a subset of symphony attendees that have this fear of (or rejection of) the unknown as a knee-jerk reflex reaction.

So, that's something I dislike about contemporary music. Although it's obviously nothing to do with the music itself, but its perception.


----------



## Larkenfield

Omicron9 said:


> What do I hate most? That people shy away from unknown music. Very few listeners are willing to give new music a chance. Fear of the unknown, perhaps?
> 
> -09


I haven't exactly found that to be true. I see a great interest in the new for many listeners - that is, if the person has made a strong connection with the composer, whether the composer is more well-known, modern or contemporary. Anything _not heard before_ is new, and yet those who love the modern are sometimes unwilling to acknowledge that and then perhaps view others as being closed. They aren't closed. They may simply have a different preference in what they consider new.

Biggest stumbling block to the exploration of the new? The occasional terrible recommendations by those who listen to a great deal of it, because when the modern or contemporary is bad - ugly, squawking, noisy, hyper-intellectual, brutal, anxious, neurotic - it can hit the listener as being so bad and painful that the person may not choose to take another chance for awhile, because for a listener who's sensitive or impressionable, it's hard to shake off mentally... and there's nothing worse, IMO, than being exposed to something that sets up an antagonistic reaction within the listener and it keeps playing destructively in the mind. I had a recent experience of that nature with one of the Xenakis string quartets, but enjoy some of his modern percussion pieces.

Nevertheless, the modern or contemporarily new has to be heard in order to bring attention to those works that may actually have something in the way of universal appeal, lasting value, or are saying something about _today_.

By universal appeal I'm not necessarily referring to popular appeal, because CM in general appeals to only about 3 percent of the population, at least according to recent sales figures. I'm referring to the works that may be conveying qualities of value about the human condition, either in a negative or positive way, and sometimes the destructive is necessary in order to make room for the new.

In any event, the new is happening all the time and I believe many are open to new experiences. One's age may also be a factor in how open a person may be; and some listeners experience music as a way to harmonize their inner nature, while others may use it as a way to break through internal barriers or mental/emotional conditioning. Sometimes both.


----------



## JAS

Mandryka said:


> I think they're sometimes frightened by their inability to appreciate the music, especially if they considered themselves to be musically sophisticated, it's an attack on their self image.


So you basically think that these listeners fear that they are not up to the high standards of new music and if confronted by it their intellectual self-image will be left in tatters . . . . oooooookkkaaaayyyyy. And do you think if they actually listened to more of this music that this dread outcome would not come to pass, or that they should just accept their obvious inadequacy and move on?


----------



## JAS

Omicron9 said:


> Sorry JAS, that's too much conjecture and speculation for me.
> 
> I can share this: I attend several symphony concerts each season, and I try to listen-in on as many music conversations as possible. I have heard folks complain that they don't know a specific (20/21 century) composer or piece, and speak of it in negative terms without even hearing it. Implying that not knowing it in advance meant they weren't going to like it. As in, they only like the familiar; I could go one step further and extrapolate that it's not a case of knowing what they like, but only liking what they know. We could surmise that there is a subset of symphony attendees that have this fear of (or rejection of) the unknown as a knee-jerk reflex reaction.
> 
> So, that's something I dislike about contemporary music. Although it's obviously nothing to do with the music itself, but its perception.


I suspect that we are missing a key element here, which is that there must be something already known, some previous experience, that set the expectation in the first place. Is it not possible, even likely, that they have had a number of encounters with "new" music that were unpleasant or at least disappointing, and that what they are actually expressing is the concern that this additional "new" piece will be like the others? Or are you supposing that people (or at least some people) are just inherently predisposed to dislike anything "new"?

In the specific context you describe, I presume that these are people commenting before the concert about music that is actually on the program? (Otherwise, why would it be mentioned in conversation?) Have you heard more favorable commentary afterwards? Would that not reduce your concerns? Do these listeners not get credit for attending the concert in the first place even though it includes the "new" work?


----------



## Omicron9

JAS said:


> I suspect that we are missing a key element here, which is that there must be something already known, some previous experience, that set the expectation in the first place. Is it not possible, even likely, that they have had a number of encounters with "new" music that were unpleasant or at least disappointing, and that what they are actually expressing is the concern that this additional "new" piece will be like the others? Or are you supposing that people (or at least some people) are just inherently predisposed to dislike anything "new"?
> 
> In the specific context you describe, I presume that these are people commenting before the concert about music that is actually on the program? (Otherwise, why would it be mentioned in conversation?) Have you heard more favorable commentary afterwards? Would that not reduce your concerns? Do these listeners not get credit for attending the concert in the first place even though it includes the "new" work?


Based on my eavesdropping, it would certainly seem that some are indeed inherently predisposed to like anything new. Or in these cases, to even give it much of a chance at all, let alone actually liking it.

Credit for attending the concert because there's a modern piece on the program? Usually a 20/21 piece seems to be programmed thus: Mozart/20-21 century piece/Haydn. So it's usually sandwiched in with some old chestnuts. I suspect the listeners in question are not there to expose themselves to the 20/21 C. piece. Again, all based on what I've overheard. It appears they're at the concert in spite of the modern piece.

A self-evident truth these folks seem to be missing is that at one time Mozart was new and contemporary music.

-09


----------



## EdwardBast

Originally Posted by Mandryka:
I think they're sometimes frightened by their inability to appreciate the music, especially if they considered themselves to be musically sophisticated, it's an attack on their self image.



JAS said:


> So you basically think that these listeners fear that they are not up to the high standards of new music and if confronted by it their intellectual self-image will be left in tatters . . . . oooooookkkaaaayyyyy. And do you think if they actually listened to more of this music that this dread outcome would not come to pass, or that they should just accept their obvious inadequacy and move on?


Mandryka said "sometimes," and I think this is correct. I believe some listeners really are afraid they are missing something or failing to understand, that this makes them conflicted for the reasons Mandryka said, and as a result they react with more overt hostility than they would if they had more confidence in their judgment. On the other hand, I believe what you are implying through sarcasm is also right: That many or perhaps even most of these same people could understand everything there is to understand about this hypothetical "offensive" music and still hate it. Why do you think these positions are mutually exclusive? Why can't both be true?


----------



## JAS

Omicron9 said:


> Based on my eavesdropping, it would certainly seem that some are indeed inherently predisposed to like anything new. Or in these cases, to even give it much of a chance at all, let alone actually liking it.


But why would anyone be so predisposed without actual experience that sets that up? There is a very real risk here (loosely since there is no great consequence to establish a more genuine risk) that advocates of more modern music seem to suggest that people would like (or maybe at least appreciate at some level) the music if only they got to hear it, and yet actually hearing it in these circumstances rarely seems to produce that outcome. The result is that it becomes necessary to accept that the presupposition is in error, or to blame the listeners. (Guess which one usually wins.)



Omicron9 said:


> A self-evident truth these folks seem to be missing is that at one time Mozart was new and contemporary music.


But Mozart is no longer "new" or "contemporary" in that sense, so this "self-evident truth" has no real meaning. There are boatloads of people who have managed to appreciate Mozart from their first hearing (when he was, literally "new" to them, although perhaps conforming to a general approach that was already known). And it must be admitted that Mozart's degree of "newness" is not Schoenberg's degree of "newness," and certainly not Ferneyhough's.


----------



## JAS

EdwardBast said:


> Mandryka said "sometimes," and I think this is correct. I believe some listeners really are afraid they are missing something or failing to understand, that this makes them conflicted for the reasons Mandryka said, and as a result they react with more overt hostility than they would if they had more confidence in their judgment. On the other hand, I believe what you are implying through sarcasm is also right: That many or perhaps even most of these same people could understand everything there is to understand about this hypothetical "offensive" music and still hate it. Why do you think these positions are mutually exclusive? Why can't both be true?


I suspect that both _can_ be true (and other options as well as people are complicated), but Mandryka only mentioned one, which, in spite of the "sometimes," leaves one to presume that it is the primary if not the only explanation. It might be true in a rare circumstance, but I think it accounts for very little of what is actually present and seems like a bizarre kind of defensive projection to me.

Your recasting of it is more reasonable, I think, but it is one thing to say that they might be afraid that they are missing out on something and quite another than they are actually afraid of that something itself. (For myself, I have often _wondered_ if I was missing out on something, but I would never describe that thought as in any way _fearful_. And from my own perspective neither appreciating nor _not_ appreciating more modern music says anything about one's intellect. I have more than 1,000 years of music to listen to, more than enough for a lifetime. And recordings, particularly CDs, have brought new life back to many relatively obscure of neglected composers and works.)

What is really strange is any suggestion that someone might have a vested interest in disliking modern music. Who would not be happy to have more music that they enjoyed/appreciated?


----------



## Mandryka

Another possibility is that some of the people who say they don't like it are lying, they do like it but they don't want to be seen as someone who enjoys modern music, an arty intellectual. I suspect that this is quite common. 

So we have two reasons for people who post here so vehemently against modern music 

1. They feel threatened because they can't appreciate it.
2. They feel threatened because they can appreciate it. 

There are other possibilities. Don't forget I'm addressing the vehemence, not the dislike. I dislike a lot of music.


----------



## JAS

Mandryka said:


> Another possibility is that some of the people who say they don't like it are lying, they do like it but they don't want to be seen as someone who enjoys modern music, an arty intellectual. I suspect that this is quite common.
> 
> So we have two reasons for people who post here so vehemently against modern music
> 
> 1. They feel threatened because they can't appreciate it.
> 2. They feel threatened because they can appreciate it.
> 
> There are other possibilities. Don't forget I'm addressing the vehemence, not the dislike. I dislike a lot of music.


I cannot imagine that as being even marginally likely. By vehemence, I presume that you mean the frequency with which it is mentioned and not the intensity of the reaction. In my own case, it is partly because I would like somewhat more substantive information than what usually transpires between people who already agree with each other, and partly because advocates for the music keep making absurd statements that seem to demand correction.


----------



## Lisztian

MacLeod said:


> BTW, did Cage and Xenakis claim to be writing 'classical' music?


I don't believe this matters. Cage and Xenakis were writing _music_ -just as Stravinsky was writing music or Wagner was writing music- from their place of awareness of the traditions of 'classical' music (more than other music), as well as the interest in more recent developments/possibilities. The label the music fits under comes later by those who like to pigeon hole such things.


----------



## Omicron9

JAS said:


> .... snip!....
> 
> But Mozart is no longer "new" or "contemporary" in that sense, so this "self-evident truth" has no real meaning. There are boatloads of people who have managed to appreciate Mozart from their first hearing (when he was, literally "new" to them, although perhaps conforming to a general approach that was already known). And it must be admitted that Mozart's degree of "newness" is not Schoenberg's degree of "newness," and certainly not Ferneyhough's.


My point being that the listeners in question had to expose themselves to Mozart et. al. at one time; otherwise how would they know that they liked Mozart? Same concept for new music.


----------



## Lisztian

Mandryka said:


> I think they're sometimes frightened by their inability to appreciate the music, especially if they considered themselves to be musically sophisticated, it's an attack on their self image.


I can certainly see this as I've found myself having a mild version of this reaction a few times before (not that I consider myself to be musically sophisticated: quite the opposite). I realised this and worked on it/am now working on it: I can/could probably easily detach myself from the feeling and take those steps largely because the reaction was, as I said, mild: I can imagine that a stronger version of it could lead to a different way of dealing with it.

To be clear, I don't accuse anyone in this thread of that. Just a response to what Mandryka said


----------



## hpowders

The thing I hate most is typing out the word "contemporary". As a pithy poster, this is a bit much.


----------



## JAS

Omicron9 said:


> My point being that the listeners in question had to expose themselves to Mozart et. al. at one time; otherwise how would they know that they liked Mozart? Same concept for new music.


And my point is that lots of people embraced Mozart in spite of being a new experience, but don't embrace modern music in spite of being a new experience. Something other than merely being "new" is the important detail.


----------



## isorhythm

ST4 said:


> No I'm not trying to sell him at all. The comparison is meant to show how his electroacoustic music is directly related to his acoustic work, but unlike what has been asserted against by you on the page this quote comes from.
> 
> Xenakis has deliberate connections between many of his works (both in a motivic way) and and that some pieces repurpose fragments of material from time to time (Varese did the same too)
> 
> It was in particular, a response again his assertion that it couldn't be transcribed or understood through traditional notation means, which is anything but true.
> 
> His electronic works go through a process close to the acoustic works in the composition stage.
> 
> So, aka It's all music folks! :tiphat:


I think there's a misunderstanding - I am a fan of Xenakis, including his electroacoustic works, and I'm not claiming there aren't connections between them. Like you say, it's all music.


----------



## JAS

hpowders said:


> The thing I hate most is typing out the word "contemporary". As a pithy poster, this is a bit much.


Have you considered cut and paste?


----------



## Blancrocher

hpowders said:


> The thing I hate most is typing out the word "contemporary". As a pithy poster, this is a bit much.


Some might just settle for "temporary."


----------



## hpowders

Blancrocher said:


> Some might just settle for "temporary."


Still a bit much. Keep trying.


----------



## Blancrocher

hpowders said:


> Still a bit much. Keep trying.


For brevity's sake, maybe "con."


----------



## DaveM

JAS said:


> And my point is that lots of people embraced Mozart in spite of being a new experience, but don't embrace modern music in spite of being a new experience. Something other than merely being "new" is the important detail.


Absolutely. The fact that people found the music of a number the great composers 'new' in centuries past and the reaction to contemporary, modern music is just more of the same is often trotted out here. The difference is that eventually all phases of pre-20th century music became accepted relatively soon and became the current standard. After a century, most contemporary, modern music has to be sandwiched into concert programs and is rarely presented as the full program whereas a full program of 'traditional' classical music still remains as a reasonable draw.


----------



## hpowders

Blancrocher said:


> For brevity's sake, maybe "con."


Nice!!

There was a time when Beethoven, Haydn, Mozart, Haydn, Brahms and Shostakovich were writing con.

Therefore, one should not ignore today's "con". It may reveal some greatness.


----------



## DaveM

isorhythm said:


> I think there's a misunderstanding - I am a fan of Xenakis, including his electroacoustic works, and I'm not claiming there aren't connections between them. Like you say, it's all music.


So, after a heavy day in the cacophony of the big, bad world, do you come home, pour yourself a drink, put on the headphones and fire up a little Xenakis?


----------



## Lisztian

JAS said:


> And my point is that lots of people embraced Mozart in spite of being a new experience, but don't embrace modern music in spite of being a new experience. Something other than merely being "new" is the important detail.


I think this might be partly due to a relatively large amount of exposure (on television for example) to Mozart (and especially to music that is more similar to Mozart than it is to, say, Babbit), and right from birth.


----------



## Lisztian

DaveM said:


> So, after a heavy day in the cacophony of the big, bad world, do you come home, pour yourself a drink, put on the headphones and fire up a little Xenakis?


I think something that you fail to understand is that this is exactly what some people do...and _some people_ includes people who are as familiar with Beethoven as you are yourself.


----------



## Omicron9

Lisztian said:


> I think something that you fail to understand is that this is exactly what some people do...and _some people_ includes people who are as familiar with Beethoven as you are yourself.


Well-said, Lisztian.


----------



## isorhythm

DaveM said:


> So, after a heavy day in the cacophony of the big, bad world, do you come home, pour yourself a drink, put on the headphones and fire up a little Xenakis?


Is that really all you think music is for?

(The answer to your question is yes, sometimes.)


----------



## JAS

Lisztian said:


> I think this might be partly due to a relatively large amount of exposure (on television for example) to Mozart (and especially to music that is more similar to Mozart than it is to, say, Babbit), and right from birth.


This is, essentially, what is now quite an old argument, but one that has hardly borne any fruit. The idea is that people are somehow getting imprinted by general social exposure to "old" music, and that if we could just imprint them on the "new" music everything would be great. There have been studies that at least suggest that such thinking is, at best, simplistic and based on flawed ideas that there are no innate physical responses to things like heavy dissonance. Personally, I do not think that it is merely a matter of acclimation. I have been hearing modern music all of my life, and have never warmed to it. (Similarly, I have been exposed to rock/pop music all of my life, and I have no fondness for that either. In both cases, the degree of reaction differs depending on the specific nature of the musical piece/performance in question.) And a bigger question might be whether modern music (or, really, any art or entertainment offering) has a right to demand that the listener accept it. I think the clear and unequivocal answer is no.


----------



## Blancrocher

The only relevant argument I've ever really believed is "there's no accounting for taste," but I suppose that's a cop out.


----------



## Nereffid

DaveM said:


> Absolutely. The fact that people found the music of a number the great composers 'new' in centuries past and the reaction to contemporary, modern music is just more of the same is often trotted out here. The difference is that eventually all phases of pre-20th century music became accepted relatively soon and became the current standard. After a century, most contemporary, modern music has to be sandwiched into concert programs and is rarely presented as the full program whereas a full program of 'traditional' classical music still remains as a reasonable draw.


I think it's important to note one huge difference between today (or indeed 60/70 years ago) and Mozart's time: the choice of music available to the listener. 
A listener in Mozart's day would have basically _had to_ listen to contemporary music. If you wanted to go to the opera, you got Mozart, not Monteverdi. Anyone who wanted to regularly hear music was obliged to "keep up". Whereas today with recordings you can easily ignore the music of the past 100 years if you see fit. The trend in concerts playing older music extends back further than programmers not wanting to put audiences off with Schoenberg, by the way. 
Conversely, I think such changes have also had an impact on composers: if the listener in Mozart's time had to keep up, the composer had to make sure not to run too far ahead. 
In the first half of the 20th century, the gap between the most "progressive" composers and the _general_ audience grew much wider than it had ever been, for both of these reasons (it's far more complicated than that, of course, but the point stands). My own impression is that it has narrowed somewhat in the past 40 years or so - so much so that although I do have sympathy for those listeners who feel alienated by 20th-century music (2nd Viennese school and post-war avant-garde in particular), I'm a little puzzled that they can't find anything to enjoy in more recent music.


----------



## Lisztian

JAS said:


> This is, essentially, what is now quite an old argument, but one that has hardly borne any fruit. The idea is that people are somehow getting imprinted by general social exposure to "old" music, and that if we could just imprint them on the "new" music everything would be great. There have been studies that at least suggest that such thinking is, at best, simplistic and based on flawed ideas that there are no innate physical responses to things like heavy dissonance. Personally, I do not think that it is merely a matter of acclimation. I have been hearing modern music all of my life, and have never warmed to it. (Similarly, I have been exposed to rock/pop music all of my life, and I have no fondness for that either. In both cases, the degree of reaction differs depending on the specific nature of the musical piece/performance in question.) And a bigger question might be whether modern music (or, really, any art or entertainment offering) has a right to demand that the listener accept it. I think the clear and unequivocal answer is no.


Fair enough, I haven't really looked into it. I also largely agree with your last sentence, if by accept you mean 'like,' or even 'respect.' That doesn't mean we should voice these reactions in absolute terms (value judgements) or believe that we will always react this way to certain music. To be clear, that last sentence doesn't refer to you, you whose posts I have generally respected and admired, not least for your standing up for yourself despite some ignoble outbursts being thrown your way (veiled or not).


----------



## DaveM

Lisztian said:


> I think something that you fail to understand is that this is exactly what some people do...and _some people_ includes people who are as familiar with Beethoven as you are yourself.


Usually, a smiley at the end of a comment suggests that it not be taken too seriously.


----------



## Lisztian

DaveM said:


> Usually, a smiley at the end of a comment suggests that it not be taken too seriously.


If that's the case, fine (still perhaps not quite fine). However it is harder to judge this as being the case when the sentiment is similar to ones you have frequently expressed (and a smiley can often also represent a sort of smug self-assuredness: intent can be hard to read on the internet at times).


----------



## JAS

Lisztian said:


> Fair enough, I haven't really looked into it.


And I admit that I cannot simply pull out a purely scientific study that essentially "proves" that modern music is equivalent to nails on a chalkboard or a hydraulic jack breaking up concrete. There probably isn't enough money in it to make more comprehensive studies practical, and controlling all factors (which might embrace a lifetime of experiences) would be problematic. Many tests might also be considered unacceptably cruel or unethical (like raising one child in a closet to completely control all influences).



Lisztian said:


> That doesn't mean we should voice these reactions in absolute terms (value judgements) or believe that we will always react this way to certain music.


In the end, I really think that we can only speak for ourselves. (It quickly gets complicated because the broader arguments, in a classical sense, necessarily embrace anecdotal evidence, assumptions or expectations about others. It almost always becomes a kind of numbers game.) It might be that we can also only really speak about now, but it is probably not unreasonable for us to make a personal speculation about the future based on a substantial past.



Lisztian said:


> To be clear, that last sentence doesn't refer to you, you whose posts I have generally respected and admired, not least for your standing up for yourself despite some ignoble outbursts (veiled or not).


Understood, and the sentiment is much appreciated.


----------



## mmsbls

JAS said:


> This is, essentially, what is now quite an old argument, but one that has hardly borne any fruit. The idea is that people are somehow getting imprinted by general social exposure to "old" music, and that if we could just imprint them on the "new" music everything would be great. There have been studies that at least suggest that such thinking is, at best, simplistic and based on flawed ideas that there are no innate physical responses to things like heavy dissonance. Personally, I do not think that it is merely a matter of acclimation. ...


I will both agree and disagree here. I believe you are generally arguing that there is some quality in modern music that differs from older music because modern people seem to have more difficulty "learning the new language" of modern music than those a 150 or 200 years ago had "learning the new language." I believe this is absolutely true. I will add that we have an advantage over those 150 years ago in that we can listen to anything we wish over and over any day rather than going to concerts maybe a dozen times a year or so. So we have more greater opportunities to become acclimated. I personally do not know anyone _who does appreciate modern music_ who didn't need a significant learning period to do so. (I do know people at TC who did not need that period0.

I will disagree with what you possibly meant to say about dissonance (tell me if I'm misunderstanding). I believe there is an innate physical response to dissonance. I also think that response can vary significantly with increased exposure to dissonant chords. We had a nice discussion of a study on the phenomenon of dissonance.


----------



## mmsbls

Some are critical of those who say they don’t like modern music but haven’t heard much. People extrapolate like that all the time, and in general, the extrapolation works quite well. I tell people I don’t like Thai food because the little I’ve tasted is very spicy and I hate spicy food. I have no problem with someone extrapolating their minor experiences with modern music and believing they won’t like other works. Life is too short to have to comprehensively test everything. 

I realize this is a discussion forum where people tend to post their opinions and defend them against all criticism or contrary views, but I'm still a bit surprised more people don't try to understand why others believe as they do rather than argue against them. Personally I've never had much trouble understanding why people dislike modern music or why they might like it. It's rather easy for me since I strongly disliked modern music 6 years or so ago and now I love much of it. 

We see a similar phenomenon (initial strong dislike eventually evolving into like) in other areas (e.g. liquor, smoking). I hate both liquor (all alcohol) and smoking (well, the smoke), but I know many people worked through the initial distaste and learned to like them. Some probably had little trouble, other struggled mightily, and some never got there. That seems similar to modern music.


----------



## JAS

mmsbls said:


> I believe there is an innate physical response to dissonance. I also think that response can vary significantly with increased exposure to dissonant chords. We had a nice discussion of a study on the phenomenon of dissonance.


If you have stated this as intended, I do not see what the disagreement would be. I might disagree that it is a reasonable position that anyone should expect others to go through such retraining, and note that it doesn't seem to be necessary for music that came before it. That is a characteristic of the music, even if the reaction to the effect might be modified.


----------



## mmsbls

JAS said:


> If you have stated this as intended, I do not see what the disagreement would be. I might disagree that it is a reasonable position that anyone should expect others to go through such retraining, and note that it doesn't seem to be necessary for music that came before it. That is a characteristic of the music, even if the reaction to the effect might be modified.


I don't think anyone should _expect_ others to work through something they dislike. I would hope that those who dislike modern music realize that many have essentially been in their _exact_ position and eventually come to love much (although certainly not all) of modern music.

I don't think people living centuries earlier needed no training. I think they needed less.


----------



## Nereffid

mmsbls said:


> Some are critical of those who say they don't like modern music but haven't heard much. People extrapolate like that all the time, and in general, the extrapolation works quite well. I tell people I don't like Thai food because the little I've tasted is very spicy and I hate spicy food. I have no problem with someone extrapolating their minor experiences with modern music and believing they won't like other works. Life is too short to have to comprehensively test everything.


I agree with this.

But at the same time, I've spent too much time trudging around cities trying to find restaurants that will appeal to family members with unadventurous palates to be _always_ sympathetic!


----------



## JAS

mmsbls said:


> I don't think anyone should _expect_ others to work through something they dislike. I would hope that those who dislike modern music realize that many have essentially been in their _exact_ position and eventually come to love much (although certainly not all) of modern music.


And I would hope that those who do like modern music realize that many, many people do not respond favorably to the same music, and quite likely never will (even with effort), and for perfectly legitimate reasons (that do not reflect on their intellect, education, work ethic, shoe size or personal hygiene).


----------



## mmsbls

JAS said:


> And I would hope that those who do like modern music realize that many, many people do not respond favorably to the same music, and quite likely never will (even with effort), and for perfectly legitimate reasons (that do not reflect on their intellect, education, work ethic or personal hygiene).


I don't think I've ever met someone who does like modern music who also is unaware that many, many do not.

I'm really not sure what percentage of classical music lovers could learn to enjoy modern music. Given how strongly I disliked the music and how much I like now, I think most could. Having said that, I believe the real question is how much effort on average it would take.


----------



## JAS

mmsbls said:


> I don't think I've ever met someone who does like modern music who also is unaware that many, many do not.


I know some who will not admit it. ("They don't really dislike it, they just haven't tried it, or given it a fair chance, or listened to it properly.") But the bigger tell is whether those who do realize it accept that there are perfectly legitimate reasons for that dislike, or does such an admission necessarily come with a condescending sneer?


----------



## millionrainbows

Tell me a story, Daddy! I want to hear a story with a beginning and ending, which makes sense! I want my little world to make sense, have meaning, and reassure me!
I don't want that stupid old meaningless music! Wahhhh! John Cage is hiding under the bed!!!


----------



## millionrainbows

Atonal and contempoary music:

How do I hate thee? Let me count the ways:

I hate thee because of the harmonic ambiguity;

I hate thy angularity;

I hate thy disjointed rhythms;

I hate thy leaping melodies (and I'm doing you a favor by calling them melodies);

I hate thy relativity and humanism;

I hate thy ivory-tower academicism;

But most of all, I hate thee because of the sound.


----------



## Blancrocher

mmsbls said:


> We see a similar phenomenon (initial strong dislike eventually evolving into like) in other areas (e.g. liquor, smoking). I hate both liquor (all alcohol) and smoking (well, the smoke), but I know many people worked through the initial distaste and learned to like them. Some probably had little trouble, other struggled mightily, and some never got there. That seems similar to modern music.


In most cases, threads about contemporary music drive people to smoke and drink. I'm impressed that you're still inclined to abstinence.


----------



## Guest

Lisztian said:


> I don't believe this matters. Cage and Xenakis were writing _music_ -just as Stravinsky was writing music or Wagner was writing music- from their place of awareness of the traditions of 'classical' music (more than other music), as well as the interest in more recent developments/possibilities. The label the music fits under comes later by those who like to pigeon hole such things.


It matters to those who wish to denigrate it by saying it isn't.


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> Atonal and contempoary music:
> 
> How do I hate thee? Let me count the ways:
> 
> I hate thee because of the harmonic ambiguity;
> 
> I hate thy angularity;
> 
> I hate thy disjointed rhythms;
> 
> I hate thy leaping melodies (and I'm doing you a favor by calling them melodies);
> 
> I hate thy relativity and humanism;
> 
> I hate thy ivory-tower academicism;
> 
> But most of all, I hate thee because of the sound.


Holy crap, MR has had a break-thru epiphany!


----------



## mmsbls

millionrainbows said:


> Atonal and contempoary music:
> 
> How do I hate thee? Let me count the ways:
> 
> I hate thee because of the harmonic ambiguity;
> 
> I hate thy angularity;
> 
> I hate thy disjointed rhythms;
> 
> I hate thy leaping melodies (and I'm doing you a favor by calling them melodies);
> 
> I hate thy relativity and humanism;
> 
> I hate thy ivory-tower academicism;
> 
> But most of all, I hate thee because of the sound.


When I strongly disliked most Atonal and contempoary music, I only thought I disliked it because of the sound. I also disliked heavy metal and county music for the same reason. I'd be rather surprised if others had other reasons.


----------



## Blancrocher

mmsbls said:


> When I strongly disliked most Atonal and contempoary music, I only thought I disliked it because of the sound. I also disliked heavy metal and county music for the same reason. I'd be rather surprised if others had other reasons.


Sometimes a contemporary composer's hipster clothing and conspicuous environmentalism can be an obstacle for me, though I usually get over such things.


----------



## Agamemnon

mmsbls said:


> When I strongly disliked most Atonal and contempoary music, I only thought I disliked it because of the sound. I also disliked heavy metal and county music for the same reason. I'd be rather surprised if others had other reasons.


I find this interesting. Because in my view 'classical' music - whether it is tonal or atonal - always sounds the same because you always here the same instruments: only when composers started to 'prepare' the piano or used electronics and such there is a new sound. The variety in serious music is almost always strictly musically (which can be found in the score). Popular music on the other hand is musically not so complex or innovative: the music is always the same and variety is sought in different sounds. Every pop artist is looking for an unique and interesting sound (and electronic devices can help in this quest). It doesnt matter if your song is a cover: the only question is whether you can give that song an interesting and own sound. So pop music is all about whether you like the sound of that song/artist or not.


----------



## arpeggio

I can understand if a person dislikes whatever.

What I do not understand is why "some" people who dislike whatever are compelled to mount a crusade to restrain it and criticize anyone who happens to like it.


----------



## DaveM

arpeggio said:


> I can understand if a person dislikes whatever.
> 
> What I do not understand is why "some" people who dislike whatever are compelled to mount a crusade to restrain it and criticize anyone who happens to like it.


I understand that, for some reason, this has become your mantra, but given the OP topic, you have the choice to enter, or not. Having said that, since you're here, if you read closely, no one is criticizing anybody or trying to restrain anything. Actually, it's been a pretty darn good interchange of ideas and perspectives.


----------



## JAS

arpeggio said:


> I can understand if a person dislikes whatever.
> 
> What I do not understand is why "some" people who dislike whatever are compelled to mount a crusade to restrain it and criticize anyone who happens to like it.


I can understand if a person likes whatever.

What I do not understand is why "some" people who like whatever are compelled to mount a crusade to restrain any criticism by anyone who happens to dislike it.


----------



## KenOC

JAS said:


> I can understand if a person likes whatever.
> 
> What I do not understand is why "some" people who like whatever are compelled to mount a crusade to restrain any criticism by anyone who happens to dislike it.


Any psychologist could tell you it's simple insecurity. Some people have invested a lot of their sense of self-worth in having tastes superior to others, and such criticism threatens them on a very basic level. Note: Not meant as medical advice, I'm not a real doctor, etc.


----------



## eugeneonagain

It's my birthday today and for some reason my ex-girlfriend came round with a plant and a chocolate cake (I think the cake was really for her). She said I could play any music I desired, because she knows I sometimes choose music she decides is not to her tastes.

Anyway I used the bluetooth speaker in the kitchen running from the computer and played Ginastera's Concerto for Strings. The opening is quite tame and there is a string of rich, lovely chords, but about 3 minutes in she said the music horrified her and would probably cause nightmares. This might be because it has shades of Bernard Herrmann's Psycho score (I think Ginastera must have seen the film a few years earlier in 1960).

This is the usual reaction I get when people hear music that isn't the stereotypical idea of 'classical music'.


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> It's my birthday today and for some reason my ex-girlfriend came round with a plant and a chocolate cake (I think the cake was really for her). She said I could play any music I desired, because she knows I sometimes choose music she decides is not to her tastes.
> 
> Anyway I used the bluetooth speaker in the kitchen running from the computer and played Ginastera's Concerto for Strings. The opening is quite tame and there is a string of rich, lovely chords, but about 3 minutes in she said the music horrified her and would probably cause nightmares. This might be because it has shades of Bernard Herrmann's Psycho score (I think Ginastera must have seen the film a few years earlier in 1960).
> 
> This is the usual reaction I get when people hear music that isn't the stereotypical idea of 'classical music'.


Is it possible that she came over thinking that she might want to reconnect, but hearing that stuff she reconsidered? :devil:


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> Is it possible that she came over thinking that she might want to reconnect, but hearing that stuff she reconsidered? :devil:


Ah...I didn't think about that. Damn modernist music, to blazes with it.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

What if a composer wrote music with the expressed objective of annoying pre- 1900 classical listeners...........


----------



## dzc4627

Its general tendency to be without beauty, and to be mocking of beauty.


----------



## eugeneonagain

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> What if a composer wrote music with the expressed objective of annoying *pre- 1900 classical listeners*...........


Aren't they all dead now?


----------



## eugeneonagain

dzc4627 said:


> Its general tendency to be without beauty, and to be mocking of beauty.


But isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder?


----------



## Phil loves classical

mmsbls said:


> When I strongly disliked most Atonal and contempoary music, I only thought I disliked it because of the sound. I also disliked heavy metal and county music for the same reason. I'd be rather surprised if others had other reasons.


I have no problem with the sound. Some more tonal ones are in fact pretty catchy. I see limitations with the structure. It is hard to build on atonal music, according to Prokofiev. It is not impossible, there are developments in rhythm which give a bit of sense of movement, but not in the actual notes, and it makes quite a difference. There is actually quite a mish mash in contemporary music which makes it hard to generalize: some are minimalistic, some are pure atonal with no harmonic organization, while some have a few organizing principles at least for short stretches of time likes Ades. This may be hard to accept, but I think atonal music have more limitations than tonal, and is not just a matter of taste. There are some good reasons for this view.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

eugeneonagain said:


> Aren't they all dead now?


well to new ideas maybe..................


----------



## JAS

eugeneonagain said:


> But isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder?


That is what all of the homely people keep saying . . . or so I am told.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Home is where the heart is...................


----------



## Blancrocher

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> What if a composer wrote music with the expressed objective of annoying pre- 1900 classical listeners...........


He'd do a new orchestration of Pachelbel's Canon, I'd bet.


----------



## ST4

Blancrocher said:


> The only relevant argument I've ever really believed is "there's no accounting for taste," but I suppose that's a cop out.


Exactly what has happened with all of the debates I was caught up in several pages back. Nobody even had the courtesy to even say "well I guess that I was very wrong about this aspect of the subject, this has been enlightening. Thank you ST4 for sharing your many years of passionate knowledge with us, we appreciate it", of course in an alternate universe :lol:

If I budge them "Hey bro, I want my answer to the paragraphs after paragraph in that that I have continued to thourally explain your questions/arguements." I'd either get ad hominems or a simple cop out as you've said :scold:


----------



## ST4

isorhythm said:


> I think there's a misunderstanding - I am a fan of Xenakis, including his electroacoustic works, and I'm not claiming there aren't connections between them. Like you say, it's all music.


It is incredibly awesome that you are :tiphat:

The Xenakis guestbook should be made better use of around here, besides recent activity yesterday it's usually dead :lol:


----------



## EdwardBast

eugeneonagain said:


> Aren't they all dead now?


Yes. And wouldn't it be nice if this thread and others like it would follow their example?


----------



## ST4

EdwardBast said:


> Yes. And wouldn't it be nice if this thread and others like it would follow their example?


No, but i would like if contemporary music would be less on 'death row' as a suspect, in that regard and more of a neutral conversation trying to understand where we are all coming from with our struggles or successes, regarding this :tiphat:


----------



## ST4

And also trying to learn about this music in a more mutually supportive environment.

But a man can wish :lol:


----------



## DaveM

I just realized that I like electro-acoustic music after all:


----------



## ST4

Well I'm glad you like alternative indie rock but where's the electronic music bro? :lol:


----------



## DaveM

I believe that those guitars and synthesizers are plugged in...

Fwiw: I'm a rock child of the 70s and 80s. Can't understand how the Killers got lumped into an indie-alternative rock category. A lot of their songs are good ole time beat-thumping rock.


----------



## Woodduck

Eugeneonagain: _"I think it's beyond doubt that music as 'serious art' really had stagnated by the end of the 19th century."_

Woodduck:_ "To my ears the early 20th century was quite a vital time musically, filled with great music by a great number and variety of composers who didn't seem to feel the need to 'solve' the 'problem' of music's 'stagnation.' " _



Mandryka said:


> Who are you thinking of? Schoenberg started to work in a radical way at the end of the first decade of the C20. I'm not sure that it was such a vital time, but I could be wrong.


Composers writing "vital" music (i.e. excellent music which people played and enjoyed then and/or play and enjoy today) between 1890 and 1920 who, with few apparent exceptions, didn't speak or write as if serious music was in a state of stagnation:

_German/Austrian:_ Bruckner, Rott, J. Strauss, R. Strauss, Humperdinck, Wolf, Mahler, d'Albert, Thuille, Pfitzner, Schmidt, Zemlinsky, Reger, Schoenberg, Kreisler, Webern, Berg, Schreker, Braunfels, Lehar, Korngold

_Italian:_ Verdi, Puccini, Martucci, Mascagni, Leoncavallo, Tosti, Alfano, Zandonai, Busoni, Cilea, Giordano, Respighi, Casella

_Spanish:_ Albeniz, Granados, Falla, Turina

_Latin American:_ Villa Lobos
_
French:_ Saint-Saens, Massenet, Faure, Duparc, D'Indy, Chausson, Dukas, Chaminade, Gustave Charpentier, Debussy, Pierne, Magnard, Satie, Ropartz, Koechlin, Schmitt, Tournemire, Vierne, Caplet, Lekeu, Rabaud, Roger-Ducasse, Hahn, Ravel, Canteloube, Delage, Lili Boulanger

_Russian: _Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Taneyev, Lyadov, Lyapunov, Ippolitov-Ivanov, Arensky, Gretchaninov, Glazunov, Scriabin, Rachmaninoff, Gliere, Bortkiewicz, Medtner, Myaskovsky, Stravinsky

_Eastern European:_ Dvorak, Janacek, Suk, Novak, Paderewski, Godowsky, Dohnanyi, Bartok, Szymanowski, Enescu, Kalman

_Scandinavian/Finnish:_ Grieg, Nielsen, Sibelius, Oskar Merikanto, Melartin, Lange-Muller, Stenhammar, Rangstrom, Alfven, Madetoja, Langgaard, Aare Merikanto
_
British:_ Parry, Stanford, Elgar, Bantock, Delius, Vaughan Williams, Holst, Coleridge-Taylor, Quilter, Bridge, Harty, Ireland, Foulds, Bax, Grainger
_
American:_ Foote, MacDowell, Chadwick, Loeffler, Beach, Carpenter, Griffes, Cadman, Daniel Gregory Mason, Bloch

Some of these composers were well-received in their day and are less well-regarded now; some were less well-known then, or were better known as performers or teachers, and have inspired more interest as composers recently; most have retained strong reputations and interest all along. This is certainly not a complete list of composers who wrote music of merit during the period.

It seems a pretty interesting thirty years in music, doesn't it? Pretty vital? Not stagnant? More staggering than stagnant, I think.


----------



## ST4

DaveM said:


> Fwiw: I'm a rock child of the 70s and 80s. Can't understand how the Killers got lumped into an indie-alternative rock category. A lot of their songs are good ole time beat-thumping rock.


Ok so alternative rock (following the exposition of the post-punk phenomenon) is a sub-genre of rock music. The Killers have their own style like everyone else but they are working the commercial ropes alongside Foo Fighters, Radiohead, Smashing Pumpkins and all those 90s bands drawing heavy influence from the grudge side of alt. rock, post-punk (which you can hear strongly in many Killers songs), pop-rock, even some new wave. It's a fusion that varies in extreme degrees (as bands like Foo Fighters also draw immense influence from bands outside of rock even. Dave Grohl after all started off playing drums in a hardcore punk band)

So a band like the Killers,topping the charts with hit's such as "Somebody told me", "Mr Brightside", "When you where young", "Read my mind", can be quite reasonably understood through those influences.
Now indie, yes there are many traces in their style.

Since you mention 70s and 80s, I am sure you would remember the rise of post-punk and new wave quite vividly? and how that with the sidelining of commercial folk rock (for the time) gave way to "college rock" (aka, sort of alternative sort of not) and how the late 80s changed everything in that regard before the overwhelming increase in popularity of "grunge" by a _certain band_ hitting the airwaves.

Now a band can use a keyboard without making it "electronic music", though there is a sub-culture there of electronica-loving alternative rock bands, it's not big enough to negate such a thing. The Killers aren't electronic alternative rock. :tiphat:


----------



## ST4

Woodduck said:


> It seems a pretty interesting thirty years in music, doesn't it? Pretty vital? Not stagnant? More staggering than stagnant, I think.


I say it, depends on the person themselves and what their expectations are for the music vs what they get from it :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck

ST4 said:


> I say it, depends on the person themselves and what their expectations are for the music vs what they get from it :tiphat:


Does it really? Are you willing to make the case that the immense outpouring of excellent and diverse music represented by that list is compatible with a theory that music had "stagnated," or that the period represented was not a vital one?


----------



## ST4

Woodduck said:


> Does it really? Are you willing to make the case that the immense outpouring of excellent and diverse music represented by that list is compatible with a theory that music had "stagnated," or that the period represented was not a vital one?


No but to whether the person perceive it to be stagnated or not vs being a endless well of new things. I'm not giving my own opinion here as that is irrelevant, but it's gotta make you at least think, regarding the long and windy process of getting A - B - C within the past hundred and 50 (approx) years, in musical developments.

There's plenty of amazing music in the romantic era, don't misread me :tiphat:


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Composers writing "vital" music (i.e. excellent music which people played and enjoyed then and/or play and enjoy today) between 1890 and 1920 who, with few apparent exceptions, didn't speak or write as if serious music was in a state of stagnation:


Great list, Woodduck. I don't know what inspired you in the previous 558 posts to list great composers in the 1890 to 1920 period, but that happens to be one of my favorite 30-year periods in the history of western music. I have a hard time finding a single composer in that list in whom I am not keenly interested, and I'm at least passingly familiar with all but a handful. Stanford, maybe, though from what I've heard of his work, I understand its appealing qualities.
I'll add two more: Frenchman Albert Roussel and American Charles Ives.


----------



## Woodduck

ST4 said:


> No but to whether the person perceive it to be stagnated or not vs being a endless well of new things. I'm not giving my own opinion here as that is irrelevant, but it's gotta make you at least think, regarding the long and windy process of getting A - B - C within the past hundred and 50 (approx) years, in musical developments.
> 
> There's plenty of amazing music in the romantic era, don't misread me :tiphat:


I'm not reading you as saying anything about the Romantic era. Are you doing that? I certainly didn't. I sense an unstated opinion (or at least an assumption) lurking in that remark!

But why is your opinion irrelevant? Since I offered evidence in contradiction of other opinions, what's the point of responding to it if not to offer a specific contribution to the argument? Are you part of the party, or just a party-pooper?

:tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> Great list, Woodduck. I don't know what inspired you in the previous 558 posts to list great composers in the 1890 to 1920 period, but that happens to be one of my favorite 30-year periods in the history of western music. I have a hard time finding a single composer in that list in whom I am not keenly interested, and I'm at least passingly familiar with all but a handful. Stanford, maybe, though from what I've heard of his work, I understand its appealing qualities.
> *I'll add two more: Frenchman Albert Roussel and American Charles Ives.*


*
*
How could I have missed them? Thanks!


----------



## ST4

Woodduck said:


> I'm not reading you as saying anything about the Romantic era. Are you? I certainly didn't. I sense an unstated opinion lurking in that remark!
> 
> But why is your opinion irrelevant? Since I offered evidence in contradiction of other opinions, what's the point of responding to it if not to offer a specific contribution to the argument? Are you part of the party, or just a party-pooper?
> 
> :tiphat:


No offense sir, I'm just being captain obvious about this particular subject I suspect? :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck

ST4 said:


> No offense sir, I'm just being captain obvious about this particular subject I suspect? :tiphat:


I haven't met the captain. If you're him, he's more enigmatic than obvious.

So let me take a guess. You think I'm putting down modern music, particularly in comparison to Romantic music. Thus you make a show of opposition while declining to make an actual point, and bring up Romantic music as if I were actually talking about it. But what you're calling "this particular subject" is not the particular subject I'm talking about.

Hmmm...The captain may be obvious after all. 

The captain still has time - limitless time - to respond to my actual point, which is that the period between the last decade of the 19th century and the First World War was a period of fascinating diversity and vitality in music, and not merely because of its most radical innovators.

You may leave a voice mail if you prefer not to go on the record here.


----------



## ST4

Woodduck said:


> I haven't met the captain. If you're him, he's more enigmatic than obvious.
> 
> So let me take a guess. You think I'm putting down modern music, particularly in comparison to Romantic music. Thus you make a show of opposition while declining to make an actual point, and bring up Romantic music as if I were actually talking about it. But what you're calling "this particular subject" is not the particular subject I'm talking about.
> 
> Hmmm...The captain may be obvious after all.
> 
> The captain still has time - limitless time - to respond to my actual point, which is that the period between the last decade of the 19th century and the First World War was a period of fascinating diversity and vitality in music, and not merely because of its most radical innovators.
> 
> You may leave a voice mail if you prefer not to go on the record here.


See, it was that obvious. As I'm not disagreeing with you at all :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck

ST4 said:


> See, it was that obvious. As I'm not disagreeing with you at all :tiphat:


You're a funny man (unless you're a funny woman). In more than one sense.


----------



## Mandryka

Woodduck said:


> Eugeneonagain: _"I think it's beyond doubt that music as 'serious art' really had stagnated by the end of the 19th century."_
> 
> Woodduck:_ "To my ears the early 20th century was quite a vital time musically, filled with great music by a great number and variety of composers who didn't seem to feel the need to 'solve' the 'problem' of music's 'stagnation.' " _
> 
> Composers writing "vital" music (i.e. excellent music which people played and enjoyed then and/or play and enjoy today) between 1890 and 1920 who, with few apparent exceptions, didn't speak or write as if serious music was in a state of stagnation:
> 
> _German/Austrian:_ Bruckner, Rott, J. Strauss, R. Strauss, Humperdinck, Wolf, Mahler, d'Albert, Thuille, Pfitzner, Schmidt, Zemlinsky, Reger, Schoenberg, Kreisler, Webern, Berg, Schreker, Braunfels, Lehar, Korngold
> 
> _Italian:_ Verdi, Puccini, Martucci, Mascagni, Leoncavallo, Tosti, Alfano, Zandonai, Busoni, Cilea, Giordano, Respighi, Casella
> 
> _Spanish:_ Albeniz, Granados, Falla, Turina
> 
> _Latin American:_ Villa Lobos
> _
> French:_ Saint-Saens, Massenet, Faure, Duparc, D'Indy, Chausson, Dukas, Chaminade, Gustave Charpentier, Debussy, Pierne, Magnard, Satie, Ropartz, Koechlin, Schmitt, Tournemire, Vierne, Caplet, Lekeu, Rabaud, Roger-Ducasse, Hahn, Ravel, Canteloube, Delage, Lili Boulanger
> 
> _Russian: _Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Taneyev, Lyadov, Lyapunov, Ippolitov-Ivanov, Arensky, Gretchaninov, Glazunov, Scriabin, Rachmaninoff, Gliere, Bortkiewicz, Medtner, Myaskovsky, Stravinsky
> 
> _Eastern European:_ Dvorak, Janacek, Suk, Novak, Paderewski, Godowsky, Dohnanyi, Bartok, Szymanowski, Enescu, Kalman
> 
> _Scandinavian/Finnish:_ Grieg, Nielsen, Sibelius, Oskar Merikanto, Melartin, Lange-Muller, Stenhammar, Rangstrom, Alfven, Madetoja, Langgaard, Aare Merikanto
> _
> British:_ Parry, Stanford, Elgar, Bantock, Delius, Vaughan Williams, Holst, Coleridge-Taylor, Quilter, Bridge, Harty, Ireland, Foulds, Bax, Grainger
> _
> American:_ Foote, MacDowell, Chadwick, Loeffler, Beach, Carpenter, Griffes, Cadman, Daniel Gregory Mason, Bloch
> 
> Some of these composers were well-received in their day and are less well-regarded now; some were less well-known then, or were better known as performers or teachers, and have inspired more interest as composers recently; most have retained strong reputations and interest all along. This is certainly not a complete list of composers who wrote music of merit during the period.
> 
> It seems a pretty interesting thirty years in music, doesn't it? Pretty vital? Not stagnant? More staggering than stagnant, I think.


Why did you choose a 30 year period? That's a long time. Of course they'll be some good music over a 30 year period!!!!!!!!!

It was the first few years of the 1920s that I was thinking of, when Schoenberg wrote his second Quartet. I trying to imagine what he felt when he saw what his contemporaries were doing. )

(You've really stuffed up that list with a lot of second rate composers, but that's a different point. I had forgotten about Bartok though, who did write music in the Schoenberg style eventually, in the fourth quartet. I'm amused by the fact that you squeezed Verdi in! )


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Does it really? Are you willing to make the case that the immense outpouring of excellent and diverse music represented by that list is compatible with a theory that music had "stagnated," or that the period represented was not a vital one?


A legitimate rebuttal to eugene's complaint about stagnation. I asked for evidence too, but none came.

However, that still takes us away from the period actually in question, which is music now...isn't it? Unless my observation about the use of the word 'contemporary' was a mistake and it was really a reference to 'Contemporary'?

The OP might have asked us to cite music by contemporary composers that we hate - at least allowing room for composers that we might like. Instead, the tedious invitation to dismiss an entire period...


----------



## Mandryka

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


----------



## Guest

An actual serious response to the OP:

I don't hate the music of Karl Jenkins, I just don't have any feelings towards it. I find his compositions take on tropes established from popular styles of music and even classical clichés, and whilst he uses them, he doesn't seem to do anything with them that hasn't been done before. In fact I'd go so far as to say he is a composer who tends to simplify and regurgitate clichés repeatedly. I can't think of any other composer who does this.


----------



## Woodduck

Mandryka said:


> Why did you choose a 30 year period? That's a long time. Of course they'll be some good music over a 30 year period!!!!!!!!!
> 
> It was the first few years of the 1920s that I was thinking of, when Schoenberg wrote his second Quartet. I trying to imagine what he felt when he saw what his contemporaries were doing. )
> 
> (You've really stuffed up that list with a lot of second rate composers, but that's a different point. I had forgotten about Bartok though, who did write music in the Schoenberg style eventually, in the fourth quartet. I'm amused by the fact that you squeezed Verdi in! )


_Some_ good music? You have a gift for understatement.

1890-1920 isn't just some random 30-year period. It's generally acknowledged to have been a time of extraordinary intellectual, artistic, scientific, social and political ferment and change. Romanticism had reached (and arguably passed) its climax; Wagner in particular had done his number on music, and everyone was dealing with the implications, finding ways to incorporate him or to avoid him. Awareness of world culture was opening up, music was finding fresh sources of inspiration in both foreign and native traditions, and the seeds of Modernist ideologies planted by Romanticism were starting to bear fruit. I think the choice of World War I as turning point is also logical.

It would be bizarre to talk about Schoenberg without considering the milieu out of which he emerged, as well as what was going on elsewhere. I wanted to show, by a bare list of composers, that a great deal was going on, most of which had nothing to do with what he was doing. I think we tend to talk about the history of music as if only a handful of the most original or influential people matter, and I believe that that creates a distorted picture.

Why not Verdi? _Falstaff,_ one of the greatest operas ever composed and amazingly "advanced" stylistically, premiered in 1893. It just serves to illustrate the richness and diversity of the period, and to show that even old Romantics had fresh ideas to offer. And what, by the by, is wrong with second-rate composers? How many first-rate composers are there - ever? And who's rating them? Every composer on that list knew his or her business, represents a facet of the musical life of the time, and is worth hearing today.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> A legitimate rebuttal to eugene's complaint about stagnation. I asked for evidence too, but none came.
> 
> However, that still takes us away from the period actually in question, which is music now...isn't it? Unless my observation about the use of the word 'contemporary' was a mistake and it was really a reference to 'Contemporary'?
> 
> The OP might have asked us to cite music by contemporary composers that we hate - at least allowing room for composers that we might like. Instead, the tedious invitation to dismiss an entire period...


These "modern music" discussions, in which we all get to put our limitations on display, are generally tedious. I was glad to take a side road.


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> These "modern music" discussions, in which we all get to put our limitations on display, are generally tedious. I was glad to take a side road.


It is said that when having new guests over, it is best to avoid politics and religion...and modern music.


----------



## EdwardBast

Woodduck said:


> _Some_ good music? You have a gift for understatement.
> 
> 1890-1920 isn't just some random 30-year period. It's generally acknowledged to have been a time of extraordinary intellectual, artistic, scientific, social and political ferment and change. Romanticism had reached (and arguably passed) its climax; Wagner in particular had done his number on music, and everyone was dealing with the implications, finding ways to incorporate him or to avoid him. Awareness of world culture was opening up, music was finding fresh sources of inspiration in both foreign and native traditions, and the seeds of Modernist ideologies planted by Romanticism were starting to bear fruit. I think the choice of World War I as turning point is also logical.
> 
> It would be bizarre to talk about Schoenberg without considering the milieu out of which he emerged, as well as what was going on elsewhere. I wanted to show, by a bare list of composers, that a great deal was going on, most of which had nothing to do with what he was doing. I think we tend to talk about the history of music as if only a handful of the most original or influential people matter, and I believe that that creates a distorted picture.
> 
> Why not Verdi? _Falstaff,_ one of the greatest operas ever composed and amazingly "advanced" stylistically, premiered in 1893. It just serves to illustrate the richness and diversity of the period, and to show that even old Romantics had fresh ideas to offer. And what, by the by, is wrong with second-rate composers? How many first-rate composers are there - ever? And who's rating them? Every composer on that list knew his or her business, represents a facet of the musical life of the time, and is worth hearing today.


You left out Prokofiev, who was quite active for a decade of the period!


----------



## GOLTZIUS

Laziness. thats the biggest problem with most contemporary art in general.


----------



## Nereffid

GOLTZIUS said:


> Laziness. thats the biggest problem with most contemporary art in general.


You think today's composers put less effort into their music than past composers? On what do you base this claim?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> Composers writing "vital" music (i.e. excellent music which people played and enjoyed then and/or play and enjoy today) between 1890 and 1920 who, with few apparent exceptions, didn't speak or write as if serious music was in a state of stagnation:
> 
> (long list)
> 
> Some of these composers were well-received in their day and are less well-regarded now; some were less well-known then, or were better known as performers or teachers, and have inspired more interest as composers recently; most have retained strong reputations and interest all along. This is certainly not a complete list of composers who wrote music of merit during the period.
> 
> It seems a pretty interesting thirty years in music, doesn't it? Pretty vital? Not stagnant? More staggering than stagnant, I think.


I don't quite remember announcing that there was no good, interesting, or listenable music at the close of the 19th century and into the first decades of the 20th century. That is not at all the point. Some from that long list: The Austrian serialists, Satie, Debussy, Stravinsky, Bartok - just to pull out the better-known obvious ones - are clear examples of those _not _satisfied with the state of musical expression as it was. All of them clearly looking for something more, something new. If they weren't they'd have just carried on writing more additions to late 19th century romanticism...as so many others on that list simply did. They do not represent a simple continuation of what went before.

Wagnerism is really the culmination of full-on romanticism and he pushed it right to the edge, almost defining what 'modern music' is and should be and should sound like, so that a composer such as Franck - who is still bizarrely treated as though he sounded different - sounds almost totally Wagnerish. So many early 20th century symphonies - Bantock, Tyberg, Vierne (pupil of Franck) etc - are largely Wagner-lite with bits of other stuff thrown in. It was perhaps only the French avant-garde of the early 20thC making the first real break away from it. They slowly altered the approaches.

We've been through the reasons for why Schoenberg felt the need to challenge standard tonality. I'm a bit tired of running it through the same discussion mill, so I'm not bothering to address it.

I don't even know why someone like Tchaikovsky is on that list. He's a straight-up 19th century romantic with a standard repertoire. His music is great, but it's firmly in a tradition that precedes even his birth.

Please note though, this is not another way of saying: '19th century late romanticism is rubbish'. It's an acknowledgement that romanticism had more or less reached its tipping point. When everyone started sounding like Wagner or his derivatives things grew stale. However there's no point in just looking at Schoenberg and his followers and that decisive break as if he represents the official spoliation of the entire world of music. By looking carefully one can see there is a piecemeal alteration of attitudes and approaches from many quarters, occurring tentatively in some cases. All that happened was another door was opened and the other ones already open didn't close. There's no loss, only gain. Now, after serialism and forays into serious avant-garde music have become acclimatised and even normalised, what is best from them has been subsumed into common musical practise.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> These "modern music" discussions, in which we all get to put our limitations on display, are generally tedious. I was glad to take a side road.


A 337-word side-road? Mostly consisting of a list of composers so diverse it makes multiculturalism look like a case of small gene pool inbreeding.


----------



## fluteman

eugeneonagain said:


> A 337-word side-road? Mostly consisting of a list of composers so diverse it makes multiculturalism look like a case of small gene pool inbreeding.


The diversity of Woodduck's list was the main reason I liked it so much. But I'm not arguing with you. In fact, I haven't read the 558 posts before his list, and I'm not going to, so I have no idea what you two are arguing about. His list does bring to mind a lot of interesting music in the 1890 to 1920 period. And I won't even argue with your "multiculturalism" comment. Nearly all of that music was still firmly in the European tradition, but non-western influences were already beginning to have an impact. That's one reason it's such an interesting period.


----------



## eugeneonagain

fluteman said:


> The diversity of Woodduck's list was the main reason I liked it so much. But I'm not arguing with you. In fact, I haven't read the 558 posts before his list, and I'm not going to, *so I have no idea what you two are arguing about*. His list does bring to mind a lot of interesting music in the 1890 to 1920 period. And I won't even argue with your "multiculturalism" comment. Nearly all of that music was still firmly in the European tradition, but non-western influences were already beginning to have an impact. That's one reason it's such an interesting period.


It's not a long, protracted thing. The original post that was quoted was from far back in the thread and it's really a hangover from other discussions.


----------



## Blancrocher

GOLTZIUS said:


> Laziness. thats the biggest problem with most contemporary art in general.


You're going to make me feel guilty for listening to music in my recliner.


----------



## fluteman

Blancrocher said:


> You're going to make me feel guilty for listening to music in my recliner.


A friend and I once picked strawberries on a scorching hot summer day in North Carolina while listening to Stravinsky (the strawberry picking and the music were both his idea). The experience does nothing to reduce my respect for your decision to opt for the recliner, presumably in a climate-controlled environment.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> You left out Prokofiev, who was quite active for a decade of the period!


Thanks. I had the impression that he didn't write much before 1920, but he was certainly around and blossoming.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> I don't quite remember announcing that there was no good, interesting, or listenable music at the close of the 19th century and into the first decades of the 20th century. That is not at all the point. Some from that long list: The Austrian serialists, Satie, Debussy, Stravinsky, Bartok - just to pull out the better-known obvious ones - are clear examples of those _not _satisfied with the state of musical expression as it was. All of them clearly looking for something more, something new. If they weren't they'd have just carried on writing more additions to late 19th century romanticism...as so many others on that list simply did.
> 
> Wagnerism is really the culmination of full-on romanticism and he pushed it right to the edge, almost defining what 'modern music' is and should be and should sound like... So many early 20th century symphonies - Bantock, Tyberg, Vierne (pupil of Franck) etc - are largely Wagner-lite with bits of other stuff thrown in. It was perhaps only the French avant-garde of the early 20thC making the first real break away from it.
> 
> Please note though, this is not another way of saying: '19th century late romanticism is rubbish'. It's an acknowledgement that romanticism had more or less reached its tipping point. When everyone started sounding like Wagner or his derivatives things grew stale. However there's no point in just looking at Schoenberg and his followers and that decisive break as if he represents the official spoliation of the entire world of music. By looking carefully one can see there is a piecemeal alteration of attitudes and approaches from many quarters, occurring tentatively in some cases. All that happened was another door was opened and the other ones already open didn't close. There's no loss, only gain. Now, after serialism and forays into serious avant-garde music have become acclimatised and even normalised, what is best from them has been subsumed into common musical practise.


With your statement modified or clarified in this way I have little disagreement. I'm just wary of big generalizations about what "music" was like and what it meant in a historical context, and I think the "crisis" (or your "stagnation") of fin-de-siecle music tends to be overblown, the rhetoric biased by the striking nature and influence of the Schoenberg revolution. That revolution dealt primarily with harmony - specifically, chromaticism and what it was felt to portend - and though we see the immense and disruptive impact of Wagner in that department, there was plenty of music outside the German tradition concerned with other things, and people went on writing un-Wagnerian music, finding various ways of using some of his ideas without swimming, or drowning, in a sea of chromaticism. "Romanticism" itself wasn't a monolithic phenomenon, and some of its cultural strains (e.g. the Russian and the Scandinavian) remained vital for decades and adopted new musical ideas as they went along. We can talk forever about how much weight to give to continuities and discontinuities in the transition from the Romantic age, but since the discontinuities get so much attention I thought it interesting to review the sheer diversity of the period (statistically rather than analytically) in order to suggest a balanced picture. Schoenberg and Stravinsky may have been the newest things happening at the time, but that doesn't automatically make them the best things, or the most representative of "classical music."


----------



## eugeneonagain

I can only agree, because it tallies with what I see. I'm certain there is more agreement than disagreement on this topic. It's not easy to always make clear, concise statements from the thoughts - not for me anyway.


----------



## fluteman

OK, with posts 581 and 588, you (Woodduck) and eugeneonagain have made many good points, I'm not surprised there is some general agreement. I'd also suggest there is a lot more profound innovation going on in modern western music, even in the early 1890-1920 period or close to it, than can be put under the heading of chromatic harmony. Far eastern, jazz (and therefore African), folk music from various traditions and even native American influences (from Villa Lobos, for example) could already be heard. Those influences involve much more than harmony.

And I'm highly suspicious of any statement that any one composer is "best" or "most representative" of classical music of any period. Diversity is the lifeblood of any art form, as the human experience is diverse in general. I think your list of significant composers from 1890-1920 illustrates that quite well.


----------



## Chronochromie

Woodduck said:


> Thanks. I had the impression that he didn't write much before 1920, but he was certainly around and blossoming.


Also Ives in the US composers somehow.


----------



## ST4

Nereffid said:


> You think today's composers put less effort into their music than past composers? On what do you base this claim?


I think that he bases his claim on being to lazy to create an argument :tiphat:


----------



## ST4

DaveM said:


> It is said that when having new guests over, it is best to avoid politics and religion...and modern music.


It is also highly adviced to ignore any eye contact at all and being sure not to utter a word in case the guest gets upset, which you wouldn't want, would you? :tiphat:


----------



## fluteman

Chronochromie said:


> Also Ives in the US composers somehow.


Yes, I mentioned Ives as one left out of Woodduck's excellent list. I guess one could mention others as well. I didn't notice the Romanian/French violin virtuoso/composer George Enescu, and, though he may be a bit too young for the list, Frenchman Jacques Ibert, who won the Prix de Rome in 1919. But it was an excellent list.


----------



## arpeggio

In another thread some considered Grainger to be an America composer.

It seems that some here consider him British. Which makes sense since he was part of the English folksong movement.

Any votes for Australian? Granger was proud of his Australian heritage. He helped to established a Granger Museum in Melbourne: http://grainger.unimelb.edu.au/.


----------



## ST4

arpeggio said:


> In another thread some considered Grainger to be an America composer.
> 
> It seems that some here consider him British. Which makes sense since he was part of the English folksong movement.
> 
> Any votes for Australian? Granger was proud of his Australian heritage. He helped to established a Granger Museum in Melbourne: http://grainger.unimelb.edu.au/.


Confuses me too, I always thought he was an Aussie (never knew him of course :lol: ). If not, then this complicates things because he would him among my top Aussie composers if considered so....


----------



## Guest

eugeneonagain said:


> I don't quite remember announcing that there was no good, interesting, or listenable music at the close of the 19th century and into the first decades of the 20th century.


It was the implications of the word 'stagnant' that I was questioning, and you've now acknowledged that it was, in effect, the wrong word, since clearly there was a continuing flow and development by some of the composers who had begun to shift things in different directions.


----------



## EdwardBast

Woodduck said:


> Thanks. I had the impression that he didn't write much before 1920, but he was certainly around and blossoming.


Four piano sonatas, The Gambler, Love for Three Oranges, two piano concertos, Scythian Suite, Classical Symphony, First Violin Concerto, lots of other piano music - 32 opuses all told, almost all of it standard rep now.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> Yes, I mentioned Ives as one left out of Woodduck's excellent list. I guess one could mention others as well. I didn't notice the Romanian/French violin virtuoso/composer George Enescu, and, though he may be a bit too young for the list, Frenchman Jacques Ibert, who won the Prix de Rome in 1919. But it was an excellent list.


I did forget Ibert, but Enescu was on the list. He's a fascinating, original composer, impossible to categorize; Yehudi Menuhin always praised him highly as a man, a composer, and an all-around musician.


----------



## millionrainbows

Most of the composers on "the list" are simply treading water, especially the conservative-sounding ones. 

They are using the same 'modern' chromatic-based ideas which had previously changed tonality (as far back as Bach and Mozart) from its simplistic diatonic origins to "extend it" to create restless modulations to new areas; and using this chromatic way of thinking to slightly 'ooch' tonality into a new flavor-area; but basically, it's the same old tonality with new flavors.

But this is the obvious and necessary course; after all, tonality could never remain as it started, in its diatonic simplicity; even Mozart and Bach knew this. It had to have an injection of chromatic thinking in order for it to mean anything.

The composers on "the list" are tending towards using the 'new musical thought' in the service of tonality, and not using it on its own terms, which produces more radical results which might not even resemble tonality.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> *Most of the composers on "the list" are simply treading water,* especially the conservative-sounding ones.
> 
> They are using the same 'modern' chromatic-based ideas which had previously changed tonality (as far back as Bach and Mozart) from its simplistic diatonic origins to "extend it" to create restless modulations to new areas; and using this chromatic way of thinking to slightly 'ooch' tonality into a new flavor-area; but basically, it's *the same old tonality* with new flavors.
> 
> *The composers on "the list" are tending towards using the 'new musical thought' in the service of tonality, and not using it on its own terms,* which produces more radical results which might not even resemble tonality.


So late 19th- and early 20th-century composers who didn't throw tonality out the window were just "treading water"? You have this on the authority of ...? A hotshot named Boulez, by any chance?

"Tending towards using the 'new musical thought' in the service of tonality" has got to be one of the oddest and most biased rationalizations of the musical practice of the Romantic-to-Modern transition/overlap I have ever encountered. How many of those composers - how many composers ever - give a flying fig about "the service of tonality," or would even find that a meaningful expression, much less a goal? It may be the objective of a certain perverse sort of Modernist artist to make art "in the service of" some theory or other, but most artists just make art, and let the theoretical chips fall where they may, to be swept up and analyzed by people obsessed with such things.

A real composer doesn't concern himself with "using" "the new musical thought" "on its own terms." New musical thoughts, whatever anyone assumes them to be at a particular time, don't come with "their own terms," with instructions for their proper "use"; they don't provide a norm, a standard, or a measuring stick by which to judge music that doesn't use them, or fails to use them in some intrinsically "correct" way. The valid terms of musical thought are set by individual composers, and the success of the resulting work is what _makes_ them valid. The composers of the period in question were a diverse and vivid bunch of individuals. They used what suited their personal artistic goals. Some, obviously, were more conservative than others. But who cares? Is that grounds for dismissal? Who, now, would speak of Brahms or Tchaikovsky as "simply treading water," while Wagner, evidently, was deep sea diving? Maybe Brahms simply found a hike in the diatonic hills more salubrious than a dip in the chromatic pool. My devotion to Wagner notwithstanding, I'm grateful that he did.

Your characterizations assume that atonality, or some sort of commitment to leaving tonality behind, was essential to the "true" musical thought of the age (_"Any musician who has not experienced - I do not say understood, but truly experienced - the necessity of dodecaphonic music is USELESS"_ - Pierre B.). This conflation of the "new" with the "true" is tiresome Modernist dogma, reeking of the snobbery of "in" versus "out," "us" versus "them" - or maybe "me" versus all you bourgeois philistines.

(Music is about more than harmony, by the way.)


----------



## DeepR

I listen to random contemporary pieces on youtube sometimes. It's really hit and miss. Sometimes I like it, sometimes I don't. 
I don't like it when it sounds like a jumbled collage of sounds with nothing to hold on to. As complex and innovative as its underlying systems may be, who cares when the end result is entirely uninteresting, not engaging or pleasing to the ears in any way. 
I get the feeling that sometimes the old "classical" instruments are being put to use for something they were never meant for and aren't particularly good at. If you want to create cool soundscapes there are virtually limitless possiblities within electronic music. I mean, stop abusing violins and piano's etc. for stuff like that.


----------



## ST4

DeepR said:


> I don't like it when it sounds like a jumbled collage of sounds with nothing to hold on to. As complex and innovative as its underlying systems may be, who cares when the end result is entirely uninteresting, not engaging or pleasing to the ears in any way.


To whom? For whom? By whom?


----------



## ST4

Woodduck said:


> A hotshot named Boulez, by any chance?


What's with the Boulez bashing? explain please :tiphat:


----------



## DeepR

ST4 said:


> To whom? For whom? By whom?


To me of course, it's just my subjective opinion. Not trying to bring anything down, just speaking my mind.:tiphat:


----------



## Andolink

As to the OP, what I hate most is the prevalence of bland, derivative music designed to appeal to listeners who equate classical music with film scores, Yanni and Andre Rieu.


----------



## ST4

DeepR said:


> To me of course, it's just my subjective opinion. Not trying to bring anything down, just speaking my mind.:tiphat:


I fell ya, I get where you're coming from. Also knowing you like your mysticism a great deal kinda gives me the idea you're more of a Scelsi than a Penderecki or a Scriabin  etc no prob, I relate to that aesthetic. :tiphat:

(well you also had that amazing really huge contemporary list ages ago too)


----------



## JAS

Andolink said:


> As to the OP, what I hate most is the prevalence of bland, derivative music designed to appeal to listeners who equate classical music with film scores, Yanni and Andre Rieu.


Has Andre Rieu ever composed anything? Has Yanni ever composed a film score? What little I have heard of Yanni's output does not sound like a film score to me. And it should perhaps be noted that film scores run a wide gamut from single instruments to full orchestras, and from lushly romantic to truly bizarre, much like classical music itself. (I am not really considering compilation song soundtracks, which is a different thing entirely, although plenty of songs have been written to accompany a film.)


----------



## ST4

Andolink said:


> As to the OP, what I hate most is the prevalence of bland, derivative music designed to appeal to listeners who equate classical music with film scores, Yanni and Andre Rieu.


Einaudi 

I will agree there!


----------



## Andolink

"Has Andre Rieu ever composed anything? Has Yanni ever composed a film score?"

Neither question has anything whatsoever to do with my point.


----------



## JAS

Andolink said:


> "Has Andre Rieu ever composed anything? Has Yanni ever composed a film score?"
> 
> Neither question has anything whatsoever to do with my point.


Ah, it is a question of commas and the use of "and" in place of "or". You mean them not as exemplars of film scores but as other bland things. There are, of course, many film scores that are hardly bland, although you might certainly consider them derivative (and some are). Instead, you would prefer . . . ? (If you have a taste for the bizarre, you might like Jerry Goldsmith's score for the original Planets of the Apes, which is not a score for me.)


----------



## Andolink

JAS said:


> Ah, it is a question of commas and the use of "and" in place of "or". You mean them not as exemplars of film scores but as other bland things. There are, of course, many film scores that are hardly bland, although you might certainly consider them derivative (and some are). Instead, you would prefer . . . ?


Indeed, I can't remember ever hearing an original film score that wasn't in one way or another derivative, even if perfectly suited to accompaniment of the visuals. And I've heard some that are strikingly, even brilliantly effective.


----------



## eugeneonagain

ST4 said:


> To whom? For whom? By whom?


Well this issue is one of the Schoenberg proclamations I disagree with: that you don't need to write for an audience. You write for your own artistic satisfaction of course, and hope to impress that artistic vision upon the audience. However if you shut the audience out completely, predicated upon a no-compromise attitude to artistic vision, then what was the point of putting it in front of an audience at all?

Someone so convinced of their own visionary greatness shouldn't need the confirmation of an audience. Except I don't believe even Schoenberg believed this. He needed an audience to believe in his music as much as anyone.


----------



## JAS

Andolink said:


> Indeed, I can't remember ever hearing an original film score that wasn't in one way or another derivative, even if perfectly suited to accompaniment of the visuals. And I've heard some that are strikingly, even brilliantly effective.


Just for the sake of understanding, who are some of these contemporary composers (or perhaps specific compositions) that you consider worthy of scorn, and some you think more worthy of your praise?


----------



## ST4

eugeneonagain said:


> Well this issue is one of the Schoenberg proclamations I disagree with: that you don't need to write for an audience. You write for your own artistic satisfaction of course, and hope to impress that artistic vision upon the audience. However if you shut the audience out completely, predicated upon a no-compromise attitude to artistic vision, then what was the point of putting it in front of an audience at all?
> 
> Someone so convinced of their own visionary greatness shouldn't need the confirmation of an audience. Except I don't believe even Schoenberg believed this. He needed an audience to believe in his music as much as anyone.


What a way to misread what I said :lol:

Btw what you actually said is not really about contemporary music at all but about the motivations and intentions of a composer.

Also just some thought matterial: "Was Bach writing for *us*?" or "was Beethoven writing for *us*?"

I'm not gonna go deconstructing everything there, I disagree on your premise. It differs from composer to composer and you'll find that most composers write for musicians moreso than a perceived "audience". 
In non-classical genres, there's a far more established idea of a fanbase than what it seems to be in classical music, which seems to be much more "everything thrown in the same bucket", just look at a regular concert; not exactly composer-based? it's a mix of different composers, often contrasted too.

:tiphat:


----------



## JAS

ST4 said:


> Btw what you actually said is not really about contemporary music at all but about the motivations and intentions of a composer.


With no intention of speaking for eugeneonagain, may I ask what an example of contemporary music is aside from being the product of "the motivations and intentions of a composer"?


----------



## eugeneonagain

ST4 said:


> What a way to misread what I said :lol:


I don't think I misread it. If I did it's understandable given that "To whom? For whom? By whom?" is a rather brief response.



ST4 said:


> Btw what you actually said is not really about contemporary music at all but about the motivations and intentions of a composer.


 When the composer is a composer of contemporary music and putting new approaches in front of an audience, it's very much about contemporary music and how it is interpreted and received.



ST4 said:


> Also just some thought matterial: "Was Bach writing for *us*?" or "was Beethoven writing for *us*?"


Who can say for certain, though most composers hope for a favourable response. I think that both those composers would have had the audience somewhere in the back of their mind, which is not the same as saying they are writing solely to please that audience. There is a difference. In Bach's case he probably wanted to please his god the most.



ST4 said:


> I'm not gonna go deconstructing everything there, I disagree on your premise. It differs from composer to composer and you'll find that most composers write for musicians moreso than a perceived "audience".
> In non-classical genres, there's a far more established idea of a fanbase than what it seems to be in classical music, which seems to be much more "everything thrown in the same bucket", just look at a regular concert; not exactly composer-based? it's a mix of different composers, often contrasted too.


I've been writing and playing music for almost thirty years, playing initially in youth orchestras and writing for ensembles, I know very well how composers and musicians work and think. Never mind the audience, some don't even write for the musicians and that tends to go very wrong sometimes. Knowing your audience doesn't mean pandering to your audience nor compromising your art. It means making a connection.

Do deconstruct where you think you need to though. Generally when I think someone is making an invalid argument I want to take it apart like a jigsaw.

:tiphat:


----------



## ST4

JAS said:


> With no intention of speaking for eugeneonagain, may I ask what an example of contemporary music is aside from being the product of "the motivations and intentions of a composer"?


again misreading 

Music *is* the product of the motivations and intentions of a composer. Whatever those intentions are don't parallel what the end product is. Some people at critical points in their careers are willing to make huge musical risks and others aren't.

I found it peculiar eugeneonagain mentioned Schoenberg specifically, as to say that it is a detractor to this very notion of motivations and intentions, which still are ultimately irrelevant whoever the composer is.


----------



## David OByrne

Does it matter what composers write?


----------



## JAS

ST4 said:


> again misreading


At some point, accusations of "misreading" must be presumed as at least partially the result of "misposting."



ST4 said:


> Music *is* the product of the motivations and intentions of a composer.


So you agree with the point of my question.



ST4 said:


> Whatever those intentions are don't parallel what the end product is.


Huh? What? This would seem to be a complete contradiction of what you just said. Indeed, it fails to make sense even on its own terms.



ST4 said:


> Some people at critical points in their careers are willing to make huge musical risks and others aren't.


Probably true, as far as it goes, but its relevance eludes me unless you are saying that at some points in his/her career, a composer is "willing to make huge musical risks" (without concern for the audience), and at others he/she is not (and is presumably more concerned about other factors, like acceptance and/or marketablilty).


----------



## David OByrne

JAS said:


> (and is presumably more concerned about other factors, like acceptance and/or marketablilty).


Just browsing the thread, is this not which Eugene is meaning. Making classical family friendly and marketable to the public? I see no reason what a composer should dumb down there music


----------



## Andolink

JAS said:


> Just for the sake of understanding, who are some of these contemporary composers (or perhaps specific compositions) that you consider worthy of scorn, and some you think more worthy of your praise?


The ones I don't like don't make enough of an impression on me, generally, for me to make an effort to remember their names or the names of their compositions.

The ones I do like are (in no order):

Per Nørgård (esp. his symphonies)
Chaya Czernowin
James Dillon
Richard Barrett
Enno Poppe
Wolfgang Rihm
Rebecca Saunders
Liza Lim

and many others...


----------



## eugeneonagain

David OByrne said:


> Just browsing the thread, is this not which Eugene is meaning. Making classical family friendly and marketable to the public? I see no reason what a composer should dumb down there music


Family-friendy!

No, that's not what I meant at all. It has nothing to do with brute 'marketability'. I am not reducing it to a simple commodity.


----------



## Woodduck

ST4 said:


> What's with the Boulez bashing? explain please :tiphat:


Tsk tsk. A little dig is hardly a bash. Blame Pierre's own inimitable way with words for the fact that he expressed so succinctly the Modernist fallacy which millionrainbows appears to be regurgitating. Who else would you have me quote to make the point?


----------



## Woodduck

David OByrne said:


> Does it matter what composers write?


Only if you want to listen to music.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Tsk tsk. A little dig is hardly a bash. Blame Pierre's own inimitable way with words for the fact that he expressed so succinctly the Modernist fallacy which millionrainbows appears to be regurgitating. Who else would you have me quote to make the point?


Yes, but as we've discussed before, most opinions on music from composers themselves need to be taken with a large grain of salt. Their often near-fanatical belief in the inevitable rightness and necessity of their path, and the wrongness and/or irrelevance of other paths, can seem extreme but is part of what they need to give themselves the courage and confidence to swim against the tide and reach new shores. In the world of art, this exalted self-belief isn't limited to modernists, however you define them, or to musicians.

More to the point is your earlier comment that there is more to music than harmony. Much as I enjoy millionrainbow's posts, he does seem to focus exclusively on harmony most of the time. Saying the composers on your list are merely "treading water", and giving that comment as much credit as I can, seems to be a very narrow viewpoint, focused entirely on harmony and tonality.

And even there, it's unfair to, for example, the followers of Debussy throughout the first half of the 20th century, many of whom extended and elaborated on his uses of harmony.


----------



## Mandryka

The problem I have with tonality is this: it feels like nostalgia. If I hear a tonal composition by a modern composer I think to myself that either the composer is not a real artist but just someone pandering to mass market tastes, or he's ill at ease in the world today like Furtwangler was, and his music is a sort of reactionary gesture, like Colonel Blimp or something. 

It's a bit like an architect building houses with stockbroker Tudor; or those watercolours that Prince Charles painted,

So although I don't want to agree with Boulez, because there's more to non-tonality than dodecaphonic music, I can see where he's coming from.


----------



## DaveM

Andolink said:


> As to the OP, what I hate most is the prevalence of bland, derivative music designed to appeal to listeners who equate classical music with *film scores*, Yanni and Andre Rieu.


Interesting how wide the divide can be when it comes to what people think can be included under the classical music tent. Apparently, this can't be included (listen particularly at 2:20 for something rather beautiful):






But this can:


----------



## Andolink

The Pearl Harbor film score sounds to me completely derivitave; a mish-mash of Renaissance polyphony and numerous, English and American neo-Romantic composers.

The Xennakis, while maybe not great music, at least sounds refreshingly creative and innovative for its time.


----------



## DaveM

Andolink said:


> The Pearl Harbor film score sounds to me completely derivitave; a mish-mash of Renaissance polyphony and numerous, English and American neo-Romantic composers.
> 
> The Xennakis, while maybe not great music, at least sounds refreshingly creative and innovative for its time.


I rest my case.


----------



## hpowders

ST4 said:


> What's with the Boulez bashing? explain please :tiphat:


You and I both know that those who can, do; those who can't, bash. :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck

Mandryka said:


> The problem I have with tonality is this: it feels like nostalgia. If I hear a tonal composition by a modern composer I think to myself that either the composer is not a real artist but just someone pandering to mass market tastes, or he's ill at ease in the world today like Furtwangler was, and his music is a sort of reactionary gesture, like Colonel Blimp or something.
> 
> It's a bit like an architect building houses with stockbroker Tudor; or those watercolours that Prince Charles painted,
> 
> So although I don't want to agree with Boulez, because there's more to non-tonality than dodecaphonic music, I can see where he's coming from.


I imagine your reaction to contemporary tonal classical music is shared by many. For me it's more a matter of style than of tonality per se. Historically, in the West, tonality developed as an integral aspect of music having other distinctive stylistic traits typical of certain periods. These styles are so ingrained in our consciousness that it seems difficult to create music in the common practice tonal tradition without engaging in a historical exercise, whether in the nature of nostalgia or of some sort of conscious commentary on the past. Tonality in the broader sense of tone-centric hierarchy within a scale has never gone away, and it is, as it always has been, a part of music in nearly every genre worldwide. But I have to agree that the conventions of common practice, chief among them the tonic-dominant relationship with its half-step leading tone, can feel old-fashioned when used in contemporary music (but not, of course, in older music where they seem fully at home).

That said, might not atonality, in the Schoenbergian tradition (the use of the chromatic scale without a central tone and hierarchy) also be heard as nostalgia at this point in time? It sure can sound dated when it catches my ear. Or maybe it's mainly a function of my advancing age: an increasing number of things seem dated to me, and there isn't much new under the sun.


----------



## Woodduck

hpowders said:


> You and I both know that those who can, do; those who can't, bash. :tiphat:


Remember that the next time you put down Bruckner. :tiphat:


----------



## JAS

Andolink said:


> The Pearl Harbor film score sounds to me completely derivitave; a mish-mash of Renaissance polyphony and numerous, English and American neo-Romantic composers.
> 
> The Xennakis, while maybe not great music, at least sounds refreshingly creative and innovative for its time.


I am no fan of Hans Zimmer and his school of musical wallpaper (and Pearl Harbor, while not among the worst of his output, is no exception to my general response) . . . however, I would much rather hear his Pearl Harbor score on a continuous loop than endure the Xennakis even once more. In my view, that is not "refreshing," "innovative" or really even music. (You are more than welcome to as much of that as you like.)


----------



## JAS

Mandryka said:


> The problem I have with tonality is this: it feels like nostalgia.


I have no problem with nostalgia, as long as it is nostalgia for something amenable to me. One of the things I dislike about contemporary classical music is the inordinate emphasis on "originality," to the degree that it steps all over anything else. I do not value "originality" as a preeminent value on its own. And I think that therein lies a big part of the gulf between the various positions in the overall argument.


----------



## mmsbls

JAS said:


> I have no problem with nostalgia, as long as it is nostalgia for something amenable to me. One of the things I dislike about contemporary classical music is the inordinate emphasis on "originality," to the degree that it steps all over anything else. I do not value "originality" as a preeminent value on its own. And I think that therein lies a big part of the gulf between the various positions in the overall argument.


I don't highly value originality other than without any originality music would never change. I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean by the last sentence. Are you saying that those who like modern/contemporary music like it mostly because of its originality? If one doesn't care much for originality, maybe one would care less for modern/contemporary music? Maybe you could expand a bit on that.


----------



## JAS

mmsbls said:


> I don't highly value originality other than without any originality music would never change. I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean by the last sentence. Are you saying that those who like modern/contemporary music like it mostly because of its originality? If one doesn't care much for originality, maybe one would care less for modern/contemporary music? Maybe you could expand a bit on that.


I think that those who like modern/contemporary music tend to place a very high value on originality as an inherent good, perhaps even as a primary good. (I think this is also true of other art forms.) There is a quest for "newness" that seems to drive them, certainly far more than those of us who are perfectly comfortable in our more traditional music. These statements, of course, are an impression, based heavily on actual comments made. (See Mandryka above, and his _carte blanche_ dismissal of "nostalgia.") They also constitute a generality that may not be necessarily true in every instance.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> That said, might not atonality, in the Schoenbergian tradition (the use of the chromatic scale without a central tone and hierarchy) also be heard as nostalgia at this point in time? It sure can sound dated when it catches my ear. Or maybe it's mainly a function of my advancing age: an increasing number of things seem dated to me, and there isn't much new under the sun.


Yes, indeed. Like Reger, Debussy, Strauss, and all the other composers on your list, Schoenberg is long gone. But his music has had its permanent impact, no doubt a lot less than he would have liked, but a lot more than a lot of people here would have liked. I think he'd be especially unhappy that his arch rival and Los Angeles neighbor Stravinsky at least arguably had an even greater impact. 
But despite the ripple effects of these giants of the increasingly distant past, music has moved on. If you don't like Schoenberg or Stravinsky, you can be happy about that. On the other hand, you might be unhappy about the impact the technological age, and especially now the electronic age, have had on music (I was going to say western music, but that term is increasingly becoming obsolete, another major development). For me, both good and bad things nearly always arise out of these fundamental developments.


----------



## DaveM

By far, most composers or pre-1900 wanted their music to be accepted/appreciated. Even when they were being innovative and creating music that was considered new or different (i.e. being original), they wanted their music to be accepted by those who attended their concerts, who were selling their music, buying their music or who were their sponsors (e.g. the court).

Fast forward to where we are now. Some of the most mentioned composers of contemporary music don't/didn't seem to care what is accessible to the listening public. In fact, some posters here, including a couple who apparently compose music, appear to support the premise that the persuasion of the composer trumps the appreciation of the listener. In other words, originality is a higher priority than acceptance.

So, largely as a result, Cage doesn't fill concert halls. Xenaikis doesn't fill concert halls. I'm not promoting Hans Zimmer as some great classical composer. However, earlier in his career up to around 2005, he composed some rather beautiful classical-like music. He not only wanted the public to like his music, it had to like it if he was going to continue to be hired. As a result, his music does fill concert halls.

Edit: Actually, I would rather that the future of classical music not depend on the movie soundtrack/movie theme genre, but IMO the sad fact of the state of present-day classical music is that sometimes that genre is closer to what I consider the heart of classical music (accessible form and melody) than a lot of contemporary music.


----------



## Mandryka

Woodduck said:


> an increasing number of things seem dated to me, and there isn't much new under the sun.


Ah yes, well, I know that feeling. But with music, there's always something new fresh and exciting to hear, especially once you start investigating pre-baroque.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I hope Hans Zimmer doesn't feature widely in this discussion. His conveyor-belt music-to-order is no yardstick by which to measure anything.


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> I hope Hans Zimmer doesn't feature widely in this discussion. His conveyor-belt music-to-order is no yardstick by which to measure anything.


I agree that that description might fit his music of the last 10-12 years, but your broad statement indicates that you're not familiar with his music prior to that. I would add that there are some other composers that have been mentioned here that I am surprised have been featured in this discussion (unless they were mentioned as examples of the OP ).


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> I agree that that description might fit his music of the last 10-12 years, *but your broad statement indicates that you're not familiar with his music prior to that*. I would add that there are some other composers that have been mentioned here that I am surprised have been featured in this discussion (unless they were mentioned as examples of the OP ).


I've been aware of Hans Zimmer since 1987 when he worked on (but thankfully didn't write the music for) The Last Emperor. He has inevitably started to cannibalise and catabolise his own music and also relies upon a very limited palette of ideas.

I think of him more as someone who makes practical parts of a whole for a larger artefact (the film) like a leg of a stool.


----------



## Guest

It should be remembered that one reason for the _apparent_ ubiquity is Zimmer studio composers. I've watched a couple of films recently and been surprised that he'd composed the soundtrack (Hidden Figures, Interstellar).

PS. It should also be borne in mind that the score is meant to be part of a whole and shouldn't be criticised out of context.


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> I've been aware of Hans Zimmer since 1987 when he worked on (but thankfully didn't write the music for) The Last Emperor. He has inevitably started to cannibalise and catabolise his own music and also relies upon a very limited palette of ideas.
> 
> I think of him more as someone who makes practical parts of a whole for a larger artefact (the film) like a leg of a stool.


Not true of movies such as Nine Months, The Peacemaker, Driving Miss Daisy and Pearl Harbor. Your general negative comments about his music only amplify how little you know about his overall contribution. The last 10-12 years do not do justice to his best works. If one looks at his entire filmography, it is astoundingly rich.

Still, I repeat that I am not selling Zimmer as the forefront of contemporary classical music, but I am saying that IMO some of his best music is a darn sight closer to the heart of classical music than a Cage or Xenaikis or a number of others that are being promoted here. In fact, I would go so far to say that it is a sad state of affairs that one has to even turn to sound track composers to find something that is contemporary and closer to what I've loved about classical music than a lot of the alternatives.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> Not true of movies such as Nine Months, The Peacemaker, Driving Miss Daisy and Pearl Harbor. Your general negative comments about his music only amplify how little you know about his overall contribution. The last 10-12 years do not do justice to his best works. If one looks at his entire filmography, it is astoundingly rich.
> 
> Still, I repeat that I am not selling Zimmer as the forefront of contemporary classical music, but I am saying that IMO some of his best music is a darn sight closer to the heart of classical music than a Cage or Xenaikis or a number of others that are being promoted here. In fact, I would go so far to say that it is a sad state of affairs that one has to even turn to sound track composers to find something that is contemporary and closer to what I've loved about classical music than a lot of the alternatives.


The music for Pearl Harbour is generic and actually rather rubbish (it matches the overall ridiculousness of the film). However, I agree he had more variety for _Driving Miss Daisy_. He just ran out of ideas, probably because he spread himself too thinly.

Please don't assert that I 'know very little' about what he has done.It's not only false, it's immensely annoying. It also is not too different from people telling you that you haven't listened to enough Schoenberg to appreciate him. Something that has sent you into paroxysms of rage before now.


----------



## Nereffid

Speaking for myself, there's plenty of room for both Xenakis and Zimmer.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Nereffid said:


> Speaking for myself, there's plenty of room for both Xenakis and Zimmer.


In a dungeon on an island..


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> The music for Pearl Harbour is generic and actually rather rubbish (it matches the overall ridiculousness of the film). However, I agree he had more variety for _Driving Miss Daisy_. He just ran out of ideas, probably because he spread himself too thinly.
> 
> Please don't assert that I 'know very little' about what he has done.It's not only false, it's immensely annoying. It also is not too different from people telling you that you haven't listened to enough Schoenberg to appreciate him. Something that has sent you into paroxysms of rage before now.


The man has won Academy and Grammy awards among others and you should be so lucky as to come up with the melodies in Pearl Harbor. And I'm sorry that you are so easily annoyed. I'll try to be more sensitive in the future.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> The man has won Academy and Grammy awards among others and you should be so lucky as to come up with the melodies in Pearl Harbor. And I'm sorry that you are so easily annoyed. I'll try to be more sensitive in the future.


Plenty of people win those awards for questionable output. I always ask Hans Zimmer cheerleaders to name a memorable theme of his and try to whistle it. It never happens. His 'music' is based upon predictable chord progressions and little more.

I don't need sensitivity, any more than you should need it when being told you don't understand modernist music.

I should cease now because the plan was to be _not_ mentioning Hack Zimmer.


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> By far, most composers or pre-1900 wanted their music to be accepted/appreciated. Even when they were being innovative and creating music that was considered new or different (i.e. being original), they wanted their music to be accepted by those who attended their concerts, who were selling their music, buying their music or who were their sponsors (e.g. the court).
> 
> Fast forward to where we are now. Some of the most mentioned composers of contemporary music don't/didn't seem to care what is accessible to the listening public. In fact, some posters here, including a couple who apparently compose music, appear to support the premise that the persuasion of the composer trumps the appreciation of the listener. In other words, originality is a higher priority than acceptance.
> 
> So, largely as a result, Cage doesn't fill concert halls. Xenaikis doesn't fill concert halls. I'm not promoting Hans Zimmer as some great classical composer. However, earlier in his career up to around 2005, he composed some rather beautiful classical-like music. He not only wanted the public to like his music, it had to like it if he was going to continue to be hired. As a result, his music does fill concert halls.
> 
> Edit: Actually, I would rather that the future of classical music not depend on the movie soundtrack/movie theme genre, but IMO the sad fact of the state of present-day classical music is that sometimes that genre is closer to what I consider the heart of classical music (accessible form and melody) than a lot of contemporary music.


Movies, TV, internet streaming and downloads are fundamental parts of our culture today, like it or not. John Corigliano, Philip Glass, Michael Nyman and Arvo Part, as well as many other contemporary classical composers, have had a major impact in those arenas. They wouldn't have been successful in those arenas if their music was not accessible to a large audience.
You are more than entitled to stick with what you consider the "heart" of classical music. But as time marches on and new generations enter the audience, the boundaries continue to shift, and that goes for all forms of art, not just music.


----------



## Guest

eugeneonagain said:


> Plenty of people win those awards for questionable output. I always ask Hans Zimmer cheerleaders to name a memorable theme of his and try to whistle it. It never happens. His 'music' is based upon predictable chord progressions and little more.
> 
> I don't need sensitivity, any more than you should need it when being told you don't understand modernist music.
> 
> I should cease now because the plan was to be _not_ mentioning Hack Zimmer.


I'm humming and whistling now...can you hear me?


----------



## eugeneonagain

MacLeod said:


> I'm humming and whistling now...can you hear me?


Luckily not. Though I'm sure you're very good at it. The material may let you down.


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> Plenty of people win those awards for questionable output. I always ask Hans Zimmer cheerleaders to name a memorable theme of his and try to whistle it. It never happens.
> 
> I should cease now because the plan was to be _not_ mentioning Hack Zimmer.


That wouldn't be any fun. I know, lets have a whistling contest. I'll whistle Hans Zimmer's greatest hits and you whistle Cage, Xenaikis or Schoenberg.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> That wouldn't be any fun. I know, lets have a whistling contest. I'll whistle Hans Zimmer's greatest hits and you whistle Cage, Xenaikis or Schoenberg.


I feel like I've been given an unfair advantage.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Whistling modern contemporary, ha that too easy lets us now do Bach on the Banjo.................... even makes me cringe


----------



## ST4

eugeneonagain said:


> I feel like I've been given an unfair advantage.


How? they all have melodies in their work. Maybe not as obvious as say, Mozart but it's there.

Hanz Zimmer? you mean largely whistling chord progressions? :lol:


----------



## DaveM

ST4 said:


> How? they all have melodies in their work. Maybe not as obvious as say, Mozart but it's there.
> 
> Hanz Zimmer? you mean largely whistling chord progressions? :lol:


It seems like almost every time a composer for soundtracks or even some Romantic-era composers whose output is heavily melodic are mentioned the 'this is nothing but chord progressions' premise is trotted out as if the music is thin/superficial, not to mention that there is the subtle impression given that the critic or virtually anybody could easily do the same or better. What's particularly interesting is that these same pundits tend to support/promote music that is desperately in search of a melody.


----------



## ST4

DaveM said:


> It seems like almost every time a composer for soundtracks or even some Romantic-era composers whose output is heavily melodic are mentioned the 'this is nothing but chord progressions' premise is trotted out as if the music is thin/superficial, not to mention that there is the subtle impression given that the critic or virtually anybody could easily do the same or better. What's particularly interesting is that these same pundits tend to support/promote music that is desperately in search of a melody.


I'm being facetious in that particular remark about Zimmer but it is worth to note that he is in the league of mainstream film composers that don't get much creative freedom and have ridiculous constraints.

I am of the mindset of those that believe that film directors and film composers (much like the sound-designers and set designers) need to be on the same creative turf, as they are all equally crucial to the the end experience of a film and it's effectiveness (or lack thereof)

I also don't think music is a compulsory thing in a movie either and it shows a lot of skill in a director if they can bring out both the story and actor's performances in a really compelling and immersive way without music.

This is all another discussion of course, but Zimmer is not in the category of composers (and sort of partnered with Christopher Nolan) that don't do this. It tends to be more towards indie directors and their composers, and it really shouldn't.


----------



## DaveM

ST4 said:


> I am of the mindset of those that believe that film directors and film composers (much like the sound-designers and set designers) need to be on the same creative turf, as they are all equally crucial to the the end experience of a film and it's effectiveness (or lack thereof)


I had not planned to continue on the subject of Hans Zimmer, but in for a penny, in for dollar. The soundtrack of Pearl Harbor was said by another (poster) above to be _'generic and actually rather rubbish (it matches the overall ridiculousness of the film)'_. The fact is that while the Ben Affleck related storyline was ridiculously superficial and Affleck's acting even worse given the seriousness of the Pearl Harbor attack related story, Hans Zimmer took the music for the film as a recounting of the attack itself very seriously.

The opening title music is one of the great moments in soundtrack history and the theme (below) that plays while the camera pans across the overturned Arizona is nothing short of heartrending. It takes great skill to compose for this kind of subject matter and I don't believe any composer could have done better.


----------



## Nereffid

eugeneonagain said:


> I always ask Hans Zimmer cheerleaders to name a memorable theme of his and try to whistle it. It never happens.


But in 50 years' time, postmen _will_ be whistling his tunes! :lol:


----------



## Guest

eugeneonagain said:


> I always ask Hans Zimmer cheerleaders


You clearly move in the wrong circles, if there's lots of them to ask. And if there's not, your poll is hardly scientific!

Besides, who needs to be able whistle movie melodies? It's hardly the mark of a great movie.


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> Besides, who needs to be able whistle movie melodies? It's hardly the mark of a great movie.


Hey, I can whistle the shower scene from Psycho!


----------



## 20centrfuge

I have the Hans Zimmer Cheerleaders Calendar. You should see miss July!

:devil:


----------



## eugeneonagain

Nereffid said:


> But in 50 years' time, postmen _will_ be whistling his tunes! :lol:


There probably won't be any more postmen in 50 years. This will _deliver_ them from evil.


----------



## ST4

Postmen have almost already gone extinct, I'd be surprised if younger generations' children will even know what one is


----------



## KenOC

In my country, there are plenty of postmen scrambling from door to door delivering Amazon packages.


----------



## ST4

KenOC said:


> In my country, there are plenty of postmen scrambling from door to door delivering Amazon packages.


Ironically to this thread, my amazon packages are contemporary music :lol:


----------



## eugeneonagain

MacLeod said:


> You clearly move in the wrong circles, if there's lots of them to ask. And if there's not, your poll is hardly scientific!
> 
> *Besides, who needs to be able whistle movie melodies? It's hardly the mark of a great movie.*


No, it really is. Every great film theme has a melody that can be whistled e.g. Dambusters, The Man With the Golden Arm, Dr Zhivago, The Great Escape, Born Free, every one of Ennio Morricone's themes. Even Bernard Herrmann's soundtracks, which are not mere tunes, can be whistled.

The Pearl Harbor "soundtrack" that was posted is laughably awful. That thin horn line surrounded by bland, partially synthesised strings. It's flat and linear. A pop song really.

I know it's near useless complaining, the man has a gigantic fan club. All one has to do is look at the comments under youtube videos of Zimmer output. People saying how amazing it is or that he's a genius and the new Mozart! Easily pleased with mawkish rubbish.


----------



## Guest

eugeneonagain said:


> No, it really is.


No it really isn't. It's true that there are great movies with great melodies, but that's not what I was denying. The mark of a great movie - ie, that which distinguishes it from lesser essays in the craft - is not the soundtrack.


----------



## eugeneonagain

MacLeod said:


> No it really isn't. It's true that there are great movies with great melodies, but that's not what I was denying. The mark of a great movie - ie, that which distinguishes it from lesser essays in the craft - is not the soundtrack.


Yes, it very much is. This is not about the quality of the cinematography or direction, it's about the music (or mediocrity of it).


----------



## Ingélou

What I most HATE about contemporary music is that it provokes discord among *people*. 
But that's down to the people, of course.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Ingélou said:


> What I most HATE about contemporary music is that it provokes discord among *people*.
> But that's down to the people, of course.


All dissonance is waiting to be resolved in some way, so it won't last forever.


----------



## DeepR

About Zimmer: I like the over the top, epic and bombastic sound of some of his music, it serves its purpose: to support the movie with similar qualities.
Now We Are Free from Gladiator is a memorable tune that can be whistled


----------



## fluteman

eugeneonagain said:


> All dissonance is waiting to be resolved in some way, so it won't last forever.


I don't know about that. Does Godot ever show up? In some artworks, things are intentionally left unresolved.


----------



## Guest

eugeneonagain said:


> Yes, it very much is. This is not about the quality of the cinematography or direction, it's about the music (or mediocrity of it).


Seriously? The music, and not photography, script, acting, story, characterisation, themes...?

I like a joke too, but really!


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> No, it really is. Every great film theme has a melody that can be whistled e.g. Dambusters, The Man With the Golden Arm, Dr Zhivago, The Great Escape, Born Free, every one of Ennio Morricone's themes. Even Bernard Herrmann's soundtracks, which are not mere tunes, can be whistled.
> 
> The Pearl Harbor "soundtrack" that was posted is laughably awful. That thin horn line surrounded by bland, partially synthesised strings. It's flat and linear. A pop song really.
> 
> I know it's near useless complaining, the man has a gigantic fan club. All one has to do is look at the comments under youtube videos of Zimmer output. People saying how amazing it is or that he's a genius and the new Mozart! Easily pleased with mawkish rubbish.


 Eugene, you're off again. 

There's no accounting for taste, but you're very much in the minority. Zimmer's filmography is rather amazing. Producers/directors don't continue to throw thousands of dollars at Zimmer if his music doesn't help sell their movies. And not just average movies- big blockbuster movies such as the upcoming Dunkirk. Again, his soundtracks of the last 10-12 years tend to be short themes without the fleshed out material of the past, but that may not be his fault if producers are unwilling to pay for the latter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Film_scores_by_Hans_Zimmer


----------



## eugeneonagain

MacLeod said:


> Seriously? The music, and not photography, script, acting, story, characterisation, themes...?
> 
> I like a joke too, but really!


Well all of those things if it's a discussion about the entire film, but scroll up to the banner and you'll remember it's a forum discussing music. That's why I'm addressing that part and not the other elements.

Should we also discuss the brand of strings used on the instruments when discussing a string quartet?


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> Again, his soundtracks of the last 10-12 years tend to be short themes without the fleshed out material of the past, but that may not be his fault if producers are unwilling to pay for the latter.


I imagine this is true. Zimmer has a reputation for delivering on time and probably not complaining all that much and in the world of blockbuster films rolled off a conveyor belt it's just what's required. In that respect it should be a wonder he's come up with anything at all worth listening to. And that's not criticism, it's praise.


----------



## Guest

eugeneonagain said:


> Well all of those things if it's a discussion about the entire film, but scroll up to the banner and you'll remember it's a forum discussing music. That's why I'm addressing that part and not the other elements.
> 
> Should we also discuss the brand of strings used on the instruments when discussing a string quartet?


I follow your point about the banner, but you also have to follow the conversation and I believe we've been talking at cross purposes as a result.


----------



## Guest

I'm not as bothered by any of this any more. I've determined that there is literally no way that contemporary classical music's detractors can fully know what they are talking about; there is so much pattern recognition that only happens after very high familiarity with this kind of music... and let's face it, nobody's going to spend that much time with music they hate this much. You wouldn't hold your own in an argument conducted in a language you don't speak, either. No offense meant to those who have given it a valiant effort; it's not an insult to tell someone they aren't fluent in every world language, either.


----------



## hpowders

nathanb said:


> I'm not as bothered by any of this any more. I've determined that *there is literally no way that **contemporary classical music's detractors can fully know what they are talking about;* there is so much pattern recognition that only happens after very high familiarity with this kind of music... and let's face it, nobody's going to spend that much time with music they hate this much. You wouldn't hold your own in an argument conducted in a language you don't speak, either. No offense meant to those who have given it a valiant effort; it's not an insult to tell someone they aren't fluent in every world language, either.


Wow! How presumptuous! So we are all ignorant if we don't cheerlead contemporary music and we express how we feel about it in an honest way.

Doesn't matter if one has a Doctorate in Music and is a musical conservative and hangs out mostly with Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms and finds contemporary music contemptible. According to you, such a person must be a musical illiterate.

For me, it's simply a matter of musical taste. If I don't like how it sounds, I won't listen to it again. Has nothing to do with my musical background or degree of sophistication and I'm sure others on TC feel the same way.

I for one don't appreciate being talked down to, indirectly as it may be, as "not knowing what I am talking about" simply because my musical preferences do not agree with yours!


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Maybe the biggest problem contemporary classical music has is it own fans. A lot of them put down people for not liking the music by calling them dumb or lazy for not liking it. Maybe there are some people who read such statements by the fans think why would I listen to music supported by such people. Do you really think that by calling me dumb or lazy will encourage me to listen to what you support when it might be better to just ignore anything you say.


----------



## JAS

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Maybe the biggest problem contemporary classical music has is it own fans. A lot of them put down people for not liking the music by calling them dumb or lazy for not liking it. Maybe there are some people who read such statements by the fans think why would I listen to music supported by such people. Do you really think that by calling me dumb or lazy will encourage me to listen to what you support when it might be better if just ignore anything you say.


I don't think that is the biggest problem of contemporary classical music, although it certainly doesn't help. (I might adjust this slightly to say "some of its own fans," and probably its most vocal ones. I am, of course, including those who merely type.)

Fortunately, none of it really matters in the end.


----------



## hpowders

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Maybe the biggest problem contemporary classical music has is it own fans. A lot of them put down people for not liking the music by calling them dumb or lazy for not liking it. Maybe there are some people who read such statements by the fans think why would I listen to music supported by such people. Do you really think that by calling me dumb or lazy will encourage me to listen to what you support when it might be better if just ignore anything you say.


What it comes down to, if a listener likes what he hears, he will listen again. If not, he won't.
Doesn't mean the listener is a mental defective, one way or the other.

By the way, simply listening to music, whether it is Mozart or Contemporary, requires no great skill and doesn't make one listener superior to another, and is simply based on personal taste.

The skill is in the composing!!


----------



## DaveM

nathanb said:


> I'm not as bothered by any of this any more. I've determined that there is literally no way that contemporary classical music's detractors can fully know what they are talking about; there is so much pattern recognition that only happens after very high familiarity with this kind of music... and let's face it, nobody's going to spend that much time with music they hate this much. You wouldn't hold your own in an argument conducted in a language you don't speak, either. No offense meant to those who have given it a valiant effort; it's not an insult to tell someone they aren't fluent in every world language, either.


Since there have been a number of others who have expressed the same process that with time and effort one may come to appreciate most contemporary music using pattern recognition and otherwise, I won't argue the point. You use the analogy of another language and I think it's applicable. Adapting to the changes in classical music over the centuries until the 20th century might be said to be comparable to learning a new dialect of one's language, while learning to appreciate much of the contemporary music is comparable to learning a whole new language.

Some individuals are up to the task and God bless them. But the history of the last century indicates that so many do not find it accessible that it still remains a relatively small niche in classical programming. There is no reason to believe that this is going to change in the indefinite future.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

DaveM said:


> Since there have been a number of others who have expressed the same process that with time and effort one may come to appreciate most contemporary music using pattern recognition and otherwise, I won't argue the point. You use the analogy of another language and I think it's applicable. Adapting to the changes in classical music over the centuries until the 20th century might be said to be comparable to learning a new dialect of one's language, while learning to appreciate much of the contemporary music is comparable to learning a whole new language.
> 
> Some individuals are up to the task and God bless them. But the history of last century indicate that so many do not find it accessible that it still remains a relatively small niche in classical programming. There is no reason to believe that this is going to change in the indefinite future.


But some fans of contemporary classical music will say is that those people in the past just were not smart enough to understand how superior contemporary classical music is compared to the music of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. Or they were just too lazy to try new stuff.


----------



## JAS

hpowders said:


> The skill is in the composing!!


And I would not omit in the performing, although arguably a very different matter of scale.


----------



## JAS

Johnnie Burgess said:


> But some fans of contemporary classical music will say is that those people in the past just were not smart enough to understand how superior contemporary classical music is compared to the music of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. Or they were just too lazy to try new stuff.


Or, rather, they will say those things about people who prefer music of the past. And they will be saying it, or things very much like it, at the end of the end of the world (assuming that music itself as a concept doesn't somehow end first), and it will be just as untrue then as it is now.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> So late 19th- and early 20th-century composers who didn't throw tonality out the window were just "treading water"?..."Tending towards using the 'new musical thought' in the service of tonality" has got to be one of the oddest and most biased rationalizations of the musical practice of the Romantic-to-Modern transition/overlap I have ever encountered. How many of those composers - how many composers ever - give a flying fig about "the service of tonality," or would even find that a meaningful expression, much less a goal? It may be the objective of a certain perverse sort of Modernist artist to make art "in the service of" some theory or other, but most artists just make art, and let the theoretical chips fall where they may, to be swept up and analyzed by people obsessed with such things.


That's what makes them all sound the same. Most are just working unconsciously, by rote. "Common practice" means just that, at its worst. Mozart understood this, as did Bach, and that's why they were great musical thinkers. Tonality never got "thrown out," but always existed as a tension between the diatonic and the chromatic. Western tonal music was always this way from CP onwards, and to resist this evolution was stagnation.



Woodduck said:


> A real composer doesn't concern himself with "using" "the new musical thought" "on its own terms." New musical thoughts, whatever anyone assumes them to be at a particular time, don't come with "their own terms," with instructions for their proper "use"; they don't provide a norm, a standard, or a measuring stick by which to judge music that doesn't use them, or fails to use them in some intrinsically "correct" way. The valid terms of musical thought are set by individual composers, and the success of the resulting work is what _makes_ them valid.


The materials of music are what they are. The truly great composers understood this dual aspect of Western tonal music. Their music was only valid if they understood and used chromaticism and that realm, such as Mozart and Bach did. If personality and style dominate, then the horse has been put before the cart.



Woodduck said:


> The composers of the period in question were a diverse and vivid bunch of individuals. They used what suited their personal artistic goals. Some, obviously, were more conservative than others. But who cares?


That's my point; they must operate within a language which was larger than they, or their "style" was. To make Wagner into a figure who represents "the furthest expansion of tonality" is hero-worship which ignores the language.



Woodduck said:


> Who, now, would speak of Brahms or Tchaikovsky as "simply treading water," while Wagner, evidently, was deep sea diving? Maybe Brahms simply found a hike in the diatonic hills more salubrious than a dip in the chromatic pool. My devotion to Wagner notwithstanding, I'm grateful that he did.


Wagner is no more 'modern' or deep than Mozart. Wagner went closer to the edge, but that 'edge' is illusory, a matter of style and context.



Woodduck said:


> Your characterizations assume that atonality, or some sort of commitment to leaving tonality behind, was essential to the "true" musical thought of the age (_"Any musician who has not experienced - I do not say understood, but truly experienced - the necessity of dodecaphonic music is USELESS"_ - Pierre B.).


Western tonality was never a "this or that" proposition. Chromatic thinking simply began to take more of a role. "Tonality" in the simplest sense is just another form of simple harmonic model. Western tonality becomes a special form, more specific, in which chromaticism plays a role.

Harmonic "tonalities" can be easily created by using harmonic models, and they proliferated in "the list" of composers. But even these tonalities, in order to be distinguishable at all from a didgeridoo player on the savannah, MUST be fed by the geometric considerations of chromatic thinking.



Woodduck said:


> This conflation of the "new" with the "true" is tiresome Modernist dogma, reeking of the snobbery of "in" versus "out," "us" versus "them" - or maybe "me" versus all you bourgeois philistines.


Don't take it so personally. The "new" has always been there, in the form of the chromatic scale. "Tonality" has always been there in the form of "the one note." Inner vs. outer, singularity vs. proliferation, implosion vs. explosion.



Woodduck said:


> (Music is about more than harmony, by the way.)


Oh, that's right. It has all sorts of social functions and meanings which reinforce people's lifestyles, paradigms, world views, etc.


----------



## Mandryka

hpowders said:


> By the way, simply listening to music, whether it is Mozart or Contemporary, requires no great skill and doesn't make one listener superior to another,


Yes you're right for casual listening, in the background or while digesting lunch. Your listening experience may be a bit deeper if you're able to notice things like the way voices interact, the way rhythms change etc. Even quotations. This sort of listening is a skill which some people need to develop I think.


----------



## Mandryka

Johnnie Burgess said:


> But some fans of contemporary classical music will say is that those people in the past just were not smart enough to understand how superior contemporary classical music is compared to the music of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. Or they were just too lazy to try new stuff.


Who said that people who don't like new music aren't smart enough to understand how superior it is compared to the music of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven?

Anyway, given that some people like it and some people don't, it's not unreasonable to try to account for the difference in taste. And there are likely to a few different causes: intellectual, biological, social etc. Just to say that it's



hpowders said:


> based on personal taste.


is the start of the investigation, not the end.


----------



## Guest

hpowders said:


> Wow! How presumptuous! So we are all ignorant if we don't cheerlead contemporary music and we express how we feel about it in an honest way.


The sentiment that not knowing everything about everything makes a person ignorant... is interesting to say the least. When did I use that word?

I know only one language fluently but I would not say that makes me or anyone like me ignorant by itself.

Nor would any other form of lacking total omniscience necessarily require use of a word like ignorant.


----------



## fluteman

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Maybe the biggest problem contemporary classical music has is it own fans. A lot of them put down people for not liking the music by calling them dumb or lazy for not liking it. Maybe there are some people who read such statements by the fans think why would I listen to music supported by such people. Do you really think that by calling me dumb or lazy will encourage me to listen to what you support when it might be better to just ignore anything you say.


Not me. Before I found these internet discussion groups circa 2004, I didn't even realize there was such a controversy. I saw, and still see, contemporary classical (or 'serious' or art) music as just another musical category, and as with the other categories, some contemporary music interests me greatly and some less so. But if you want to listen to nothing but Vivaldi, why should that bother me? To me the problem in forums like this is people attacking or defending entire categories, i.e., contemporary, modern, romantic, classical, baroque or renaissance. That doesn't strike me as useful, as each of those categories is so broad and diverse there isn't a lot that can be said that applies across the board to any of them. And if anything, that is more true for the contemporary music category than for the earlier ones.


----------



## millionrainbows

Listeners of Western classical music should realize that there is no _essential_ difference in tonality and music that goes toward atonality. If this is an obstacle, then they are missing something in Mozart and Bach.

It's a continuum, a spectrum, and it is 'followable' from start to finish (the present).

If they are blinded to this, then I think my listening experience of Mozart is more profound than theirs. To this extent, they are 'deficient' even in listening to Mozart.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Listeners of Western classical music should realize that there is no _essential_ difference in tonality and music that goes toward atonality. If this is an obstacle, then they are missing something in Mozart and Bach.
> 
> It's a continuum, a spectrum, and it is 'followable' from start to finish (the present).
> 
> If they are blinded to this, then I think my listening experience of Mozart is more profound than theirs. To this extent, they are 'deficient' even in listening to Mozart.


All the same, it is important to differentiate your tone from mine. Words like "ignorant" or "deficient" place some sort of fault with the listener. I think you are being viciously unfair to folks like hpowders and Woodduck by declaring their disinterest in contemporary music to be some sort of intellectual character flaw. It's disinterest. Nothing more.

A side note: whether or not people, with such an apathy for contemporary music that they have no interest in putting in the intellectual work, should spend substantial amounts of time talking about the subject... that's another matter. Probably a matter for a psychologist moreso than for a musicologist. But then, I am guilty of the same sorts of commentary on other subjects. The human mind is an oddball.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> Listeners of Western classical music should realize that there is no _essential_ difference in tonality and music that goes toward atonality. If this is an obstacle, then they are missing something in Mozart and Bach.
> 
> It's a continuum, a spectrum, and it is 'followable' from start to finish (the present).
> 
> If they are blinded to this, then I think my listening experience of Mozart is more profound than theirs. To this extent, they are 'deficient' even in listening to Mozart.


The very idea of a spectrum with no meaningful difference between points on that spectrum (whatever an "essential" difference might be) is, of course, utter nonsense. Look Alaska and Florida are right next to each other if you stand back far enough. Why, they are practically the same dot.


----------



## eugeneonagain

nathanb said:


> The sentiment that not knowing everything about everything makes a person ignorant... is interesting to say the least. When did I use that word?
> 
> I know only one language fluently but I would not say that makes me or anyone like me ignorant by itself.
> 
> Nor would any other form of lacking total omniscience necessarily require use of a word like ignorant.


Absolutely. That frenzied flutter of responses to your earlier post completely missed the point of it. There is this assumption that if you listen to one variety of music, then you are immediately qualified to give an opinion on the entire spectrum of music. Who exactly are the presumptuous ones?

There's a strange schizophrenic argument going on. Those knocking modernism and contemporary approaches are arguing it's no good because a 'fair amount' of listening has proved it to be unlistenable in ordinary musical terms. That is exactly the problem, just like a new language or a new skill of any kind, one needs to not just passively listen and hope that it will all sink in and make sense, based upon past experiences, like some sort of 10-week course.

Even a good deal of standard 'tonal' classical' requires some careful listening when a listener is new to it. You learn more as you listen and listen better. All skills are like this.

I said schizophrenic, but I think it's more dishonest really. It's evident in the dismissals that the lack of pleasing familiarity is an obstacle to listening, but the same people saying they've given it a fair try obviously fall at this first hurdle every time.


----------



## fluteman

millionrainbows said:


> Listeners of Western classical music should realize that there is no _essential_ difference in tonality and music that goes toward atonality. If this is an obstacle, then they are missing something in Mozart and Bach.
> 
> It's a continuum, a spectrum, and it is 'followable' from start to finish (the present).
> 
> If they are blinded to this, then I think my listening experience of Mozart is more profound than theirs. To this extent, they are 'deficient' even in listening to Mozart.


I think you could have made the point you are trying to make here without calling people with more narrow tastes in music than you (or I) blind, deficient, "missing something", or less profound. None of that is necessarily the case, and in any event, why antagonize people? But as of right now I give up on discussions like this. I'm not sure I added much to them, anyway.


----------



## eugeneonagain

fluteman said:


> But as of right now I give up on discussions like this. I'm not sure I added much to them, anyway.


I wouldn't say that. I've read your contributions with interest every time.


----------



## Guest

eugeneonagain said:


> Absolutely. That frenzied flutter of responses to your earlier post completely missed the point of it. There is this assumption that if you listen to one variety of music, then you are immediately qualified to give an opinion on the entire spectrum of music. Who exactly are the presumptuous ones?
> 
> There's a strange schizophrenic argument going on. Those knocking modernism and contemporary approaches are arguing it's no good because a 'fair amount' of listening has proved it to be unlistenable in ordinary musical terms. That is exactly the problem, just like a new language or a new skill of any kind, one needs to not just passively listen and hope that it will all sink in and make sense, like some sort of 10-week course.
> 
> Even a good deal of standard 'tonal' classical' requires some careful listening when a listener is new to it. You learn more as you listen and listen better. All skills are like this.
> 
> I said schizophrenic, but I think it's more dishonest really. It's evident in the dismissals that the lack of pleasing familiarity is an obstacle to listening, but the same people saying they've given it a fair try obviously fall at this first hurdle every time.


I've spent probably 80-90% of my music listening time (which is a lot of time) over the last 3 years or so on 20th and 21st century classical music. I am discovering deeper layers of understanding for said music as recently as, oh I don't know, yesterday? It takes time.

For instance, I would be a tad bit foolish to go toe to toe with Woodduck on the subject of Wagner (this is not to say I have never tried  ). I would be exhibiting a total lapse of judgement at this point if I tried to tell hpowders something he doesn't know about Persichetti. But somehow, this line of thinking is always rejected as some sort of narcissistic elitism when it is invoked in favor of anything under the avant-garde umbrella. It's a double standard.


----------



## Guest

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Maybe the biggest problem contemporary classical music has is it own fans. A lot of them put down people for not liking the music by calling them dumb or lazy for not liking it. Maybe there are some people who read such statements by the fans think why would I listen to music supported by such people. Do you really think that by calling me dumb or lazy will encourage me to listen to what you support when it might be better to just ignore anything you say.


Who called you dumb or lazy? Was it in this thread? Can you give me a post number?

The number of words put in my mouth in the last two hours seems to be an unfathomable number....


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> The very idea of a spectrum with no meaningful difference between points on that spectrum (whatever an "essential" difference might be) is , of course, utter nonsense. Look Alaska and Florida are right next to each other if you stand back far enough. Why, they are practically the same dot.


I guess that's the difference between you and I, JAS; you look for differences, I look for similarities.


----------



## Nereffid

nathanb said:


> A side note: whether or not people, with such an apathy for contemporary music that they have no interest in putting in the intellectual work, should spend substantial amounts of time talking about the subject... that's another matter. Probably a matter for a psychologist moreso than for a musicologist. But then, I am guilty of the same sorts of commentary on other subjects. The human mind is an oddball.


I think the need for the apathetic (or antipathetic) to talk about contemporary music arises from the contradictions inherent in the fact that although they definitely like classical music, here is this thing that classic music now is, and they definitely don't like it. It's hard to ignore something that insistently claims to be the thing you like, when you're certain that it isn't.
(Whereas medieval music, which also requires intellectual work for people more used to baroque/classical/romantic, doesn't get such antipathy, because it's safely in the past)

If we could all agree that "classical music" officially ended in 1908 or 1954 or 1975 or whenever, and that everything that came afterwards is definitely not classical music or anything like it, then perhaps the uninterested could just let it go.


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> I think the need for the apathetic (or antipathetic) to talk about contemporary music arises from the contradictions inherent in the fact that although they definitely like classical music, here is this thing that classic music now is, and they definitely don't like it. It's hard to ignore something that insistently claims to be the thing you like, when you're certain that it isn't.
> (Whereas medieval music, which also requires intellectual work for people more used to baroque/classical/romantic, doesn't get such antipathy, because it's safely in the past)
> 
> If we could all agree that "classical music" officially ended in 1908 or 1954 or 1975 or whenever, and that everything that came afterwards is definitely not classical music or anything like it, then perhaps the uninterested could just let it go.


Probably an accurate assessment. Good point.


----------



## millionrainbows

fluteman said:


> I think you could have made the point you are trying to make here without calling people with more narrow tastes in music than you (or I) blind, deficient, "missing something", or less profound. None of that is necessarily the case, and in any event, why antagonize people? But as of right now I give up on discussions like this. I'm not sure I added much to them, anyway.


Leonard Bernstein explained it all much better than I ever could. Of course, he seemed to like and conduct a wide spectrum of music, including Ives, Feldman, etc.

But I'm not as nice as Leonard Bernstein. I think these people need to open their minds and be more flexible, like me.


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> Listeners of Western classical music should realize that there is no _essential_ difference in tonality and music that goes toward atonality. If this is an obstacle, then they are missing something in Mozart and Bach.
> 
> It's a continuum, a spectrum, and it is 'followable' from start to finish (the present).
> 
> If they are blinded to this, then I think my listening experience of Mozart is more profound than theirs. To this extent, they are 'deficient' even in listening to Mozart.


I'm sure that you are a towering musical giant compared to most of us and that your ability to channel Bach and Mozart as to what they 'knew' is a true phenomenon, but I'm also sure that you're continuing to shoot yourself in the foot when transmitting your perspective.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Nereffid said:


> If we could all agree that "classical music" officially ended in 1908 or 1954 or 1975 or whenever, and that everything that came afterwards is definitely not classical music or anything like it, then perhaps the uninterested could just let it go.


This wouldn't be right though. All of that music is in the same continued tradition of art-music. It isn't popular music; Mozart wasn't pop music for 'the people' that was folk music.

The uninterested are punishing themselves for no reason. All of the best-known and loved art-music of the baroque/classical/romantic periods has not been locked into an impenetrable box. It's still there to be listened to and appreciated and some composers still legitimately compose in that style. The shifts that have taken place have not wiped it out.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

fluteman said:


> Not me. Before I found these internet discussion groups circa 2004, I didn't even realize there was such a controversy. I saw, and still see, contemporary classical (or 'serious' or art) music as just another musical category, and as with the other categories, some contemporary music interests me greatly and some less so. But if you want to listen to nothing but Vivaldi, why should that bother me? To me the problem in forums like this is people attacking or defending entire categories, i.e., contemporary, modern, romantic, classical, baroque or renaissance. That doesn't strike me as useful, as each of those categories is so broad and diverse there isn't a lot that can be said that applies across the board to any of them. And if anything, that is more true for the contemporary music category than for the earlier ones.


I listen to more than just Vivaldi, I also listen to Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Mozart, ZZ Top, Brad Paisley ACDC and others. So if I think the music of John Cage is garbage and do not listen to it is not a problem.


----------



## Nereffid

eugeneonagain said:


> This wouldn't be right though.


Of course it wouldn't! The idea that there's no connection between today's music and that of [insert any time in the past here] is a baffling one to me.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

eugeneonagain said:


> This wouldn't be right though. All of that music is in the same continued tradition of art-music. It isn't popular music; Mozart wasn't pop music for 'the people' that was folk music.
> 
> The uninterested are punishing themselves for no reason. All of the best-known and loved art-music of the baroque/classical/romantic periods has not been locked into an impenetrable box. It's still there to be listened to and appreciated and some composers still legitimately compose in that style. The shifts that have taken place have not wiped it out.


Of course the classical music of the Baroque to Romantic period is not locked away. It is being performed world wide by orchestras today. Bachtrack lists 752 future concerts of Beethoven, 1183 for Bach, 316 for Haydn but only 10 for John Cage.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> I guess that's the difference between you and I, JAS; you look for differences, I look for similarities.


The difference is that I look for differences _and_ similarities, the whole picture. And I don't pretend that these are anything other than what they are, or that one doesn't exist merely because I prefer the other. (It is ironic that your statement is made in one that purports to establish our differences.)


----------



## JAS

eugeneonagain said:


> Absolutely. That frenzied flutter of responses to your earlier post completely missed the point of it. There is this assumption that if you listen to one variety of music, then you are immediately qualified to give an opinion on the entire spectrum of music. Who exactly are the presumptuous ones?
> 
> There's a strange schizophrenic argument going on. Those knocking modernism and contemporary approaches are arguing it's no good because a 'fair amount' of listening has proved it to be unlistenable in ordinary musical terms. That is exactly the problem, just like a new language or a new skill of any kind, one needs to not just passively listen and hope that it will all sink in and make sense, based upon past experiences, like some sort of 10-week course.
> 
> Even a good deal of standard 'tonal' classical' requires some careful listening when a listener is new to it. You learn more as you listen and listen better. All skills are like this.
> 
> I said schizophrenic, but I think it's more dishonest really. It's evident in the dismissals that the lack of pleasing familiarity is an obstacle to listening, but the same people saying they've given it a fair try obviously fall at this first hurdle every time.


There is a schizophrenic argument going on here, but not on the side you suggest. Instead, it is those of us who do not like contemporary classical music who are simultaneously being told (although not necessarily by the same person at the same time) that contemporary classical music is so similar to the kind of traditional classical music we like that there is no reason for us to differentiate between them, but also that we have to exert some undisclosed but considerable effort to learn to listen to contemporary music to appreciate and understand it.

Really, we have hardly even been discussing the music. We are mostly discussing the discussion.


----------



## ST4

Three little pigs and the wolf of romanticism


----------



## JAS

Nereffid said:


> Of course it wouldn't! The idea that there's no connection between today's music and that of [insert any time in the past here] is a baffling one to me.


There is no more similarity between the music of Mozart and Xenakis than there is between bananas and bowling balls.


----------



## EdwardBast

Millionrainbows wrote: "That's what makes them all sound the same. Most are just working unconsciously, by rote. "Common practice" means just that, at its worst. Mozart understood this, as did Bach, and that's why they were great musical thinkers. Tonality never got "thrown out," but always existed as a tension between the diatonic and the chromatic. Western tonal music was always this way from CP onwards, and to resist this evolution was stagnation."

Utter nonsense. There is remarkable variety in this music, more so than in any prior era. Diatonic and chromatic elements have always been used by tonal composers. There is no inherent tension.

The materials of music are what they are. The truly great composers understood this dual aspect of Western tonal music. Their music was only valid if they understood and used chromaticism and that realm, such as Mozart and Bach did. If personality and style dominate, then the horse has been put before the cart.

You are setting up a dichotomy between using chromaticism ("and that realm?" whatever that is supposed to mean) and composers for whom personality and style dominate, as if these things are mutually exclusive? This is a false dichotomy and the point is meaningless blather.

In fact, the rest of the writing below is incoherent blather as well, full of made up and undefined terms. Most of it does not actually respond to the text by Woodduck under which it is placed. If your purpose was to write something so devoid of sense that no one would bother refuting it point by point, I'd say you've succeeded.

That's my point; they must operate within a language which was larger than they, or their "style" was. To make Wagner into a figure who represents "the furthest expansion of tonality" is hero-worship which ignores the language.

Wagner is no more 'modern' or deep than Mozart. Wagner went closer to the edge, but that 'edge' is illusory, a matter of style and context.

Western tonality was never a "this or that" proposition. Chromatic thinking simply began to take more of a role. "Tonality" in the simplest sense is just another form of simple harmonic model. Western tonality becomes a special form, more specific, in which chromaticism plays a role.

Harmonic "tonalities" can be easily created by using harmonic models, and they proliferated in "the list" of composers. But even these tonalities, in order to be distinguishable at all from a didgeridoo player on the savannah, MUST be fed by the geometric considerations of chromatic thinking.

Don't take it so personally. The "new" has always been there, in the form of the chromatic scale. "Tonality" has always been there in the form of "the one note." Inner vs. outer, singularity vs. proliferation, implosion vs. explosion.

Oh, that's right. It has all sorts of social functions and meanings which reinforce people's lifestyles, paradigms, world views, etc.


----------



## Blancrocher

I fear this discussion is likely to continue ad infinitum without substantive progress if we continue to discuss "contemporary music" as though it were a single thing rather than a complex phenomenon. Perhaps we could focus more precisely and productively on a narrower subject, such as the merits and meanings of John Cage's 4'33''.


----------



## eugeneonagain

JAS said:


> There is a schizophrenic argument going on here, but not on the side you suggest. Instead, it is those of us who do not like contemporary classical music who are simultaneously being told (although not necessarily by the same person at the same time) *that contemporary classical music is so similar to the kind of traditional classical music we like that there is no reason for us to differentiate between them, but also that we have to exert some undisclosed but considerable effort to learn to listen to contemporary music to appreciate and understand it.*
> 
> Really, we have hardly even been discussing the music. We are mostly discussing the discussion.


No, actually, that's not what is being said. The argument is that there is one continuous line of art music, with revolutions in style, structure and methods along the way. (I can't speak for millionrainbows because he argues certain elements I don't agree with). This not saying that it is so similar that no new effort is required in listening.


----------



## ST4

JAS said:


> There is no more similarity between the music of Mozart and Xenakis than there is between bananas and bowling balls.


No, Mozart is playing tennis in stubby shoes and short shorts. Xenakis is an earthquake that quickly becomes a pleasurable orgasm.

:tiphat:


----------



## JAS

eugeneonagain said:


> No, actually, that's not what is being said. The argument is that there is one continuous line of art music, with revolutions in style, structure and methods along the way. (I can't speak for millionrainbows because he argues certain elements I don't agree with). This not saying that it is so similar that no new effort is required in listening.


That is what is being said, but even if we ignore that for the moment, your statement is also untrue. We have a long line of moderately cohesive development right up until about Schoenberg. Then we have a bit of unruly clutter followed by complete bedlam.


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> There is a schizophrenic argument going on here, but not on the side you suggest. Instead, it is those of us who do not like contemporary classical music who are simultaneously being told (although not necessarily by the same person at the same time) that contemporary classical music is so similar to the kind of traditional classical music we like that there is no reason for us to differentiate between them, but also that we have to exert some undisclosed but considerable effort to learn to listen to contemporary music to appreciate and understand it.
> 
> Really, we have hardly even been discussing the music. We are mostly discussing the discussion.


You clearly did not comprehend any of my posts, at least. I cannot speak for the intent of others.


----------



## JAS

nathanb said:


> You clearly did not comprehend any of my posts, at least. I cannot speak for the intent of others.


I did read and comprehend your post, as far as it went. Would you say that traditional classical music and contemporary classical music are essentially similar? If not, then my comment would not include you.


----------



## Taggart

Can we please concentrate on discussing the music in a sensible and civilised fashion.

Some off topic posts have been removed.


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> I did read and comprehend your post, as far as it went. Would you say that traditional classical music and contemporary classical music are essentially similar? If not, then my comment would not include you.


Similar in the evolutionary sense. They are not brothers, but rather, ancestor and descendent. Progressively more distant from one another as each new generation comes and goes, but fundamentally and irrefutably related.


----------



## ST4

Now let's divert this to why it is apparently illogical for someone to like both contemporary and older styles of classical music simultaneously?


----------



## JAS

nathanb said:


> Similar in the evolutionary sense. They are not brothers, but rather, ancestor and descendent. Progressively more distant from one another as each new generation comes and goes, but fundamentally and irrefutably related.


Like chickens are related to dinosaurs?


----------



## JAS

ST4 said:


> Now let's divert this to why it is apparently illogical for someone to like both contemporary and older styles of classical music simultaneously?


I like ice cream and Victorian furniture. I don't pretend that they have anything much to do with each other or mix well.


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> Like chickens are related to dinosaurs?


To an astronomically less exaggerated extent. Dinosaurs weren't around 100 years ago. Like you are related to your great grandmother.


----------



## Blancrocher

This may not be the most opportune time to mention it, but I wondered if we could add a contemporary music subforum to TC.


----------



## JAS

nathanb said:


> To an astronomically less exaggerated extent. Dinosaurs weren't around 100 years ago. Like you are related to your great grandmother.


Mozart and Xenakis? Von Weber and Ferneyhough?


----------



## ST4

JAS said:


> I like ice cream and Victorian furniture. I don't pretend that they have anything much to do with each other or mix well.


Are you implying that ice-cream is a type of furniture?


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> Mozart and Xenakis? Von Weber and Ferneyhough?


In 200 years of evolution? Why on earth not?


----------



## ST4

JAS said:


> Mozart and Xenakis? Von Weber and Ferneyhough?


Sounds like a damn good concert, I'm gonna buy tickets


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Blancrocher said:


> This may not be the most opportune time to mention it, but I wondered if we could add a contemporary music subforum to TC.


This is a thread about what you Hate about contemporary music. So why should the one's who like it like to go on to a thread about hating it. Then complain about people hating it?


----------



## eugeneonagain

JAS said:


> That is what is being said, but even if we ignore that for the moment, your statement is also untrue. We have a long line of moderately cohesive development right up until about Schoenberg. Then we have a bit of unruly clutter followed by complete bedlam.


That's just another example of the known fact that you don't like it, not any sort of argument.


----------



## ST4

Von Weber and Ferneyhough would make a really cool concert, just sayin'


----------



## JAS

nathanb said:


> In 200 years of evolution? Why on earth not?


No one could possibly listen to those pairings and say, yeah, they basically sound alike. To suggest otherwise is utterly laughable, and the basis of why these arguments continue to erupt on TC. At least the more ardent advocates of modern classical music cannot admit even the most fundamental concession to the opposition without fearing that the whole house of cards will come tumbling down.


----------



## ST4

Johnnie Burgess said:


> This is a thread about what you Hate about contemporary music. So why should the one's who like it like to go on to a thread about hating it. Then complain about people hating it?


If they're gonna dedicate themselves to hating it, why not you know.. Get a mansion and settle down a little?


----------



## JAS

eugeneonagain said:


> That's just another example of the known fact that you don't like it, not any sort of argument.


Please draw that chart. This should be fun.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Johnnie Burgess said:


> This is a thread about what you Hate about contemporary music. So why should the one's who like it like to go on to a thread about hating it. Then complain about people hating it?


Obviously to intervene into a misinformed orgy of hate.


----------



## ST4

JAS said:


> No one on this side of sanity could possibly listed to those pairings and say, yeah, they basically sound alike. To suggest otherwise is utterly laughable, and the basis of why these arguments continue to erupt on TC. At least the more ardent advocates of modern classical music cannot admit even the most fundamental concession to the opposition without fearing that the whole house of cards will come tumbling down.


Interesting, keep elaborating.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

ST4 said:


> Sounds like a damn good concert, I'm gonna buy tickets


Would be hard to find such a concert. Bachtracks shows only 10 concerts of Xenakis's music and none in the U.S.


----------



## eugeneonagain

JAS said:


> Please draw that chart. This should be fun.


? I don't know what that means.


----------



## JAS

eugeneonagain said:


> ? I don't know what that means.


You don't know what a chart is? An organized sequence of descent would lend itself to such a presentation.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Would be hard to find such a concert. Bachtracks shows only 10 concerts of Xenakis's music and none in the U.S.


In that case it makes me wonder why the detractors worry so much about it. Previously (in a different thread) JAS claimed it was now being forced down listeners' throats.


----------



## JAS

eugeneonagain said:


> JAS claimed it was now being forced down listeners' throats.


Claimed and demonstrated.


----------



## eugeneonagain

JAS said:


> You don't know what a chart is? An organized sequence of descent would lend itself to such a presentation.


I know what a chart is, but I can't fathom what is has to do with your simple dislike of certain music.


----------



## eugeneonagain

JAS said:


> Claimed and demonstrated.


You mean that tiny dearth of performances 'proving' that it isn't all that popular?

How ridiculous.


----------



## Guest

Ok ok, I was wrong to post here today. You win. Jesus ******* christ.


----------



## JAS

eugeneonagain said:


> I know what a chart is, but I can't fathom what is has to do with your simple dislike of certain music.


I am not sure how to be any more direct than to say that contemporary classical music is not properly part of the already somewhat shaky collection of music that bears the name "classical." It may have some vague roots in that history, but it is primarily a radical rejection of the core elements, and thus it is its own thing. That may be fine, if treated as such, but we should not pretend that they are close relatives.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

eugeneonagain said:


> In that case it makes me wonder why the detractors worry so much about it. Previously (in a different thread) JAS claimed it was now being forced down listeners' throats.


Well if you go to St. John's Smith Square in London, they are perforing 3 of the 10 world wide concerts of Xenakis it could feel like they are shoving him down their throats.


----------



## ST4

Ironically Xenakis loved Mozart, Brahms, Beethoven et al


----------



## eugeneonagain

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Well if you go to St. John's Smith Square in London, they are perforing 3 of the 10 world wide concerts of Xenakis it could feel like they are shoving him down their throats.


The solution for you is to not go to London or read the programme in advance. But let me get this straight: are there barely any performances of this hated music, or is it being forced down people's throats?

One cancels out the other.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

eugeneonagain said:


> You mean that tiny dearth of performances 'proving' that it isn't all that popular?
> 
> How ridiculous.


Beethoven Symphony 1 will be performed more times in the next year than John Cage's music.


----------



## ST4

nathanb said:


> Ok ok, I was wrong to post here today. You win. Jesus ******* christ.


I am being reminded once again of why I hate this place, maybe returning was just a waste of time


----------



## DaveM

ST4 said:


> Von Weber and Ferneyhough would make a really cool concert, just sayin'


Here's what would likely happen -and I'm deadly serious- if they scheduled Von Weber first and then Fernyhough after the intermission, the orchestra would return to find a sea of empty seats.


----------



## JAS

DaveM said:


> Here's what would likely happen -and I'm deadly serious- if they scheduled Von Weber first and then Fernyhough after the intermission, the orchestra would return to find a sea of empty seats.


. . . unless people knew nothing about Ferneyhough, in which case the mass exodus would probably occur during the piece. (It might be somewhat mitigated by a general sense of decorum, particularly if it was only a very short piece.)


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

ST4 said:


> Von Weber and Ferneyhough would make a really cool concert, just sayin'


There is only 1 scheduled concert of Ferneyhouhg's music, Oct 7th in Paris.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> Here's what would likely happen -and I'm deadly serious- if they scheduled Von Weber first and then Fernyhough after the intermission, the orchestra would return to find a sea of empty seats.


You mean the people wouldn't even stay to find out whether or not they liked it? Sounds familiar.


----------



## DaveM

ST4 said:


> I am being reminded once again of why I hate this place, maybe returning was just a waste of time


 In all fairness to 'this place', perhaps this thread is best avoided if you feel that way. This subject reliably riles people up...everytime.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

DaveM said:


> Here's what would likely happen -and I'm deadly serious- if they scheduled Von Weber first and then Fernyhough after the intermission, the orchestra would return to find a sea of empty seats.


The only concert coming up of his music is a concert of only his music in Paris in October.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Johnnie Burgess said:


> There is only 1 scheduled concert of Ferneyhouhg's music, Oct 7th in Paris.


And what the fu#k does that mean


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> And what the fu#k does that mean


And from what I have heard of his music on spotify it is one concert too many.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Johnnie Burgess said:


> This is a thread about what you Hate about contemporary music. So why should the one's who like it like to go on to a thread about hating it. Then complain about people hating it?


Where does it say that this site or thread is just for boring old farts who hate contemporary music


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

eugeneonagain said:


> You mean the people wouldn't even stay to find out whether or not they liked it? Sounds familiar.


Thanks to spotify you can sample his music before possibly wasting your money to go hear it.


----------



## arpeggio

*For only I dislike whatever....*

I have been following this thread. It appears that it should be a thread for people who do not connect with contemporary and want to complain about it. No matter what is said if a person hates modern music I seriously doubt that anyone can change their minds.

These members have a right to their opinions. As long as their animas does not result in the containment of threads which cover modern music I really do not care what they think. I have run into people here, in other forums and real life who believe that modern music should never be programed at concerts, played on the radio or even discussed in classical music forums.

mathisdermaler last April started a thread about the prepared piano music. It went well until the members of the anti-Cage league showed up. See http://www.talkclassical.com/48766-john-cages-preludes-interludes.html

Taggert to his credit put a stop to most of the negative waves.

It seems to me that those of us who follow contemporary music should bow out of this thread and let these members grouse away to their hearts content.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Where does it say that this site or thread is just for boring old farts who hate contemporary music


If you go into a thread stating about you hate about contemporary music do not complain that people do not like contemporary music.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Thanks to spotify you can sample his music before possibly wasting your money to go hear it.


Yeah, just buy country hoedown- money better spent in Texas


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

arpeggio said:


> I have been following this thread. It appears that it should be a thread for people who do not connect with contemporary and want to complain about it. No matter what is said if a person hates modern music I seriously doubt that anyone can change their minds.
> 
> These members have a right to their opinions. As long as their animas does not result in the containment of threads which cover modern music I really do not care what they think. I have run into people here, in other forums and real life who believe that modern music should never be programed at concerts, played on the radio or even discussed in classical music forums.
> 
> mathisdermaler last April started a thread about the prepared piano music. It went well until the members of the anti-Cage league showed up. See http://www.talkclassical.com/48766-john-cages-preludes-interludes.html
> 
> Taggert to his credit put a stop to most of the negative waves.
> 
> It seems to me that those of us who follow contemporary music should bow out of this thread and let these members grouse away to their hearts content.


But the moderators do not put a stop of pro contemporary music coming into a thread not liking contemporary music and bashing the one's who do not like it. But stops it when anti contemporary music go into a pro contemporary music thread and bash it. Seems like a double standard.


----------



## ST4

DaveM said:


> In all fairness to 'this place', perhaps this thread is best avoided if you feel that way. This subject reliably riles people up...everytime.


No it just makes me do this too much:










When I have some serious **** going on in my life that I would rather um...spend my energy worrying about 

Just found out today about something (personally related)


----------



## eugeneonagain

Johnnie Burgess said:


> But the moderators do not put a stop of pro contemporary music coming into a thread not liking contemporary music *and bashing* the one's who do not like it. But stops it when anti contemporary music go into a pro contemporary music thread and bash it. Seems like a double standard.


There is no 'bashing' going on. I challenge you to come up with any such post here made by appreciators of contemporary music. I can find a few from the detractors.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Johnnie Burgess said:


> I have not attacked you or your country why do you do it to me. I have reported you.


This site is for all users not just those who dislike contemporary classical music- having a thread where all opinions are not supported and openly bashing contemporary classical music (as a sport) as you have done is not on............


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

eugeneonagain said:


> There is no 'bashing' going on. I challenge you to come up with any such post here made by appreciators of contemporary music. I can find a few from the detractors.


Post 770 is bashing.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Johnnie Burgess said:


> For you I am going to wear out the report button. I do not go pro contemporary threads and bother you. But I will report you every chance I get.


So you don't like country Hoedown?


----------



## Blancrocher

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Post 770 is bashing.


Incidentally, I believe that this is the name of a percussion piece by John Cage.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Post 770 is bashing.


You're right. It's like a massive flood of such posts. I stand corrected.


----------



## DaveM

ST4 said:


> No it just makes me do this too much:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I have some serious **** going on in my life that I would rather um...spend my energy worrying about
> 
> Just found out today about something (personally related)


I'm sorry. Hope whatever it is works out. Personally, I try to participate in these 'conversations' because it hopefully ends up as being intellectually rewarding, but even though it sometimes seems like a battle, in the end I'm sure we're all basically well-meaning people who care about others. All the best.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Fake news in classical music


----------



## norman bates

I'm not a fan at all of the suit-and-tie kind of attire that seems to be necessary both for musicians and listeners. It's like a whole great musical tradition is made just by and for formal and conservative people.


----------



## ArtMusic

The professional music critiques of contemporary music often don't make their opinion very clear. I read several articles where the praised a few things but they then retract into criticism by comparing with what another contemporary composer (often not well known) have written. I don't think that helps.


----------



## mmsbls

It's reasonable to discuss why some do not like modern music. It's reasonable for others to respond to those posts questioning or correcting. And so on... Recently there's been too many personal comments (i.e. more than 0). Please stop simply lashing out at each other. The discussion has morphed from one that could be interesting to many into one that is rather uninteresting:
"It sucks."
"No it doesn't."
"Does too."
"Does not."
etc.
So get back to discussing _why_ one may dislike modern music.


----------



## Adam Weber

ArtMusic said:


> The professional music critiques of contemporary music often don't make their opinion very clear. I read several articles where the praised a few things but they then retract into criticism by comparing with what another contemporary composer (often not well known) have written. I don't think that helps.


Could you link to an example? (Not doubting you. I genuinely want to have a discussion).


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

mmsbls said:


> It's reasonable to discuss why some do not like modern music. It's reasonable for others to respond to those posts questioning or correcting. And so on... Recently there's been too many personal comments (i.e. more than 0). Please stop simply lashing out at each other. The discussion has morphed from one that could be interesting to many into one that is rather uninteresting:
> "It sucks."
> "No it doesn't."
> "Does too."
> "Does not."
> etc.
> So get back to discussing _why_ one may dislike modern music.


Will the bashing by the pro contemporary stop. Will the mocking of Americans who do not like contemporary music stop or will the double standard continue?


----------



## Phil loves classical

millionrainbows said:


> Listeners of Western classical music should realize that there is no _essential_ difference in tonality and music that goes toward atonality. If this is an obstacle, then they are missing something in Mozart and Bach.
> 
> It's a continuum, a spectrum, and it is 'followable' from start to finish (the present).
> 
> If they are blinded to this, then I think my listening experience of Mozart is more profound than theirs. To this extent, they are 'deficient' even in listening to Mozart.


That is one way to look at it. There are similar elements, which in picking them out, makes atonal music more rewarding and can get someone over the hump in their appreciation of the music. There are some big differences as well. Focussing on the differences is what is causing the bickering, how important those differences are. Appreciating any kind of music requires acceptance of its premises or terms. That is how something as radical and shocking as Rite of Spring has been generally accepted since its riotous premiere. Someone can't be expecting something like Mozart when they listen to that, and people know now. Similarly, when listening to Ferneyhough, it is a different musical environment, which continues and departs from certain aspects of previously existing music of certain time periods.


----------



## David OByrne

I keep hearing _Ferneyhough_ mentioned, what should I listen to? he seems a fascinating guy


----------



## Phil loves classical

David OByrne said:


> I keep hearing _Ferneyhough_ mentioned, what should I listen to? he seems a fascinating guy


Yes, a guy who seems to intentionally try and excels at being difficult, especially in the extent of the notation. Basically I see him as a challenge, like a mountain to climb. Once I feel I "get" him, and what he is trying to accomplish, I move on. Try his String Quartet No. 6, for pushing the limits on your sanity. :devil:

http://www.talkclassical.com/49762-most-complex-piece-music.html


----------



## Pugg

ST4 said:


> I am being reminded once again of why I hate this place, maybe returning was just a waste of time


You don't really mean that, straiten your back and rise above it.


----------



## David OByrne

Phil loves classical said:


> Yes, a guy who seems to intentionally try and excels at being difficult, especially in the extent of the notation. Basically I see him as a challenge, like a mountain to climb. Once I feel I "get" him, and what he is trying to accomplish, I move on. Try his String Quartet No. 6, for pushing the limits on your sanity. :devil:
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/49762-most-complex-piece-music.html


Thank you for sharing, I am half way through listening and I am enjoying it a lot. He seems to have really nuanced his expression, the rhythms and gestures are really impressive 

In fact, I don't think I've ever heard anything like this before!


----------



## Andolink

David OByrne said:


> I keep hearing _Ferneyhough_ mentioned, what should I listen to? he seems a fascinating guy


Try his *Incipits*.


----------



## Nereffid

JAS said:


> There is a schizophrenic argument going on here, but not on the side you suggest. Instead, it is those of us who do not like contemporary classical music who are simultaneously being told (although not necessarily by the same person at the same time) that contemporary classical music is so similar to the kind of traditional classical music we like that there is no reason for us to differentiate between them, but also that we have to exert some undisclosed but considerable effort to learn to listen to contemporary music to appreciate and understand it.


That's a very good point! Of course you undercut it somewhat by acknowledging that it's not the same people making the incompatible claims, but still, I think that contradiction is real.

My own view is that modern/contemporary music _when looked at in total_ has most certainly evolved gradually from older music, just as romantic music evolved gradually from renaissance music - in other words, yes, there were some big and relatively abrupt changes along the way, but not every composer suddenly embraced the avant-garde, and a closer look will reveal similarities.

You contrast Mozart and Xenakis, and of course they're extremely different. But who says Xenakis is representative of modern/contemporary music? Why not compare Mozart and, say, Rautavaara or MacMillan, two well-regarded composers who stuck to the more traditional aspects of classical music like symphonies and concertos? I maintain that the 200-year gap between Rautavaara and Mozart is not sufficiently greater than the 200-year gap between Mozart and Palestrina as to justify a claim that any given listener can make one leap but not the other.


----------



## Larkenfield

mmsbls said:


> It's reasonable to discuss why some do not like modern music. It's reasonable for others to respond to those posts questioning or correcting. And so on... Recently there's been too many personal comments (i.e. more than 0). Please stop simply lashing out at each other. The discussion has morphed from one that could be interesting to many into one that is rather uninteresting:
> "It sucks."
> "No it doesn't."
> "Does too."
> "Does not."
> etc.
> So get back to discussing _why_ one may dislike modern music.


Bravo assistant administrator.


----------



## Nereffid

ST4 said:


> I am being reminded once again of why I hate this place, maybe returning was just a waste of time


Hating "this place" on the basis of a handful of posters who frustrate you is not unlike hating all of modern music based on a handful of frustrating encounters with it.


----------



## Mandryka

DaveM said:


> Here's what would likely happen -and I'm deadly serious- if they scheduled Von Weber first and then Fernyhough after the intermission, the orchestra would return to find a sea of empty seats.


I remember years ago, in the early 1980s, Uchida did a concert of Schubert and Schoenberg in Paris. Everyone was there for the Schubert of course, and I'm sure they were expecting to leave after the interval. But she did a crafty thing, at the last minute she changed the order, and did the Schoenberg first. You could sense a frisson of discontent in the seats.

For me it was a formative experience, it showed me how much I like Schoenberg.


----------



## Mandryka

David OByrne said:


> Thank you for sharing, I am half way through listening and I am enjoying it a lot. He seems to have really nuanced his expression, the rhythms and gestures are really impressive
> 
> In fact, I don't think I've ever heard anything like this before!


One thing I love is the cello part at the start. This is exactly what I meant in some post yesterday about how it takes a skill, the acquisition of concepts and the acuity to apply them, to listen to music sensitively, at least for me. It took a long time before I noticed the melody in the cello. And then suddenly the contrast between the writing for violins and the writing for cello started to look interesting.

Maybe other people they have the acuity to hear this sort of thing naturally, not me.


----------



## Mandryka

..................


----------



## Mandryka

...................


----------



## Poppy Popsicle

arpeggio said:


> mathisdermaler last April started a thread about the prepared piano music. It went well until the members of the anti-Cage league showed up. See http://www.talkclassical.com/48766-john-cages-preludes-interludes.html
> 
> Taggert to his credit put a stop to most of the negative waves.
> 
> It seems to me that those of us who follow contemporary music should bow out of this thread and let these members grouse away to their hearts content.


I suppose that if I expect people who have a strong aversion to the music of Cage to stay away from a thread dedicated to singing his praises, then I really should not have posted on this thread dedicated to those who wish to express their hatred of contemporary classical music. Even though their aversion baffles me.
I do feel though that I have the right to counter points that strike me as being wrong-headed, misleading, mendacious, or simply false…
I will try to keep a level head in any future posts I may make in this - long, at times fascinating, at others, frustrating - thread. 
I wonder if anyone could sum up the "hate" position so far? My takeaway from reading the thread is that contemporary classical music is:
Mainly noise, incomprehensible, over-intellectual, elitist, and possibly fraudulent. Is that a fair summary?


----------



## David OByrne

Mandryka said:


> One thing I love is the cello part at the start. This is exactly what I meant in some post yesterday about how it takes a skill, the acquisition of concepts and the acuity to apply them, to listen to music sensitively, at least for me. It took a long time before I noticed the melody in the cello. And then suddenly the contrast between the writing for violins and the writing for cello started to look interesting.
> 
> Maybe other people they have the acuity to hear this sort of thing naturally, not me.


I know nothing really about music (only basic stuff) but I loved that Ferneyhough piece, I checked out another piece afterwards that I also enjoyed. The pieces I've heard pf his so far have been fun, really emotionally expressive, integrated and lively. Should I get that string quartet box set?


----------



## Mandryka

David OByrne said:


> I know nothing really about music (only basic stuff) but I loved that Ferneyhough piece, I checked out another piece afterwards that I also enjoyed. The pieces I've heard pf his so far have been fun, really emotionally expressive, integrated and lively. Should I get that string quartet box set?


You should get the string quartet box, yes. I had exactly the same reaction as you when I heard the 6th quartet.


----------



## David OByrne

Mandryka said:


> You should get the string quartet box, yes. I had exactly the same reaction as you when I heard the 6th quartet.


I will get it this week, a new composer to explore! I'm really excited, still I've never heard anything like his music before. It's inspiring


----------



## Blancrocher

Someone listening to new music and expressing enthusiasm for it in a thread like this feels ominous somehow...


----------



## Razumovskymas

That I'm looking at the emperor and I can't determine wether he's really wearing new clothes or he's just butt-naked.


----------



## Omicron9

David OByrne said:


> I know nothing really about music (only basic stuff) but I loved that Ferneyhough piece, I checked out another piece afterwards that I also enjoyed. The pieces I've heard pf his so far have been fun, really emotionally expressive, integrated and lively. Should I get that string quartet box set?


If you liked the Ferneyhough quartet, then you would love the boxset, if you're referring to the Arditti. I have it and it sees a lot of rotation. Incredible compositions with the usual high-level Arditti performances.

I hear new elements with each listening.

-09


----------



## hpowders

Just a small point: how can one even refer to "contemporary music" as if it is monolithic? As if the choices are to like all of it, or hate all of it...when it consists of such a vast amount of music in so many forms, written by so many composers of different abilities and inspiration?

Seems like a fruitless exercise to me.


----------



## Guest

hpowders said:


> Just a small point: how can one even refer to "contemporary music" as if it is monolithic? As if the choices are to like all of it, or hate all of it...when it consists of such a vast amount of music in so many forms, written by so many composers of different abilities and inspiration?
> 
> Seems like a fruitless exercise to me.


To misquote Universal Studios, "A good point is worth repeating."


----------



## eugeneonagain

A point I made about it in two other similar threads (though as a relative newbie I was likely preceded more than once).


----------



## mmsbls

JAS said:


> There is a schizophrenic argument going on here, but not on the side you suggest. Instead, it is those of us who do not like contemporary classical music who are simultaneously being told (although not necessarily by the same person at the same time) that contemporary classical music is so similar to the kind of traditional classical music we like that there is no reason for us to differentiate between them, but also that we have to exert some undisclosed but considerable effort to learn to listen to contemporary music to appreciate and understand it.


I would agree that much modern/contemporary classical (at least those works that elicit the strongest negative sentiments) sounds rather different from earlier music. Personally I believe that the variation between some contemporary works vastly exceeds the variation between Early Renaissance and Schoenberg.

I believe the argument I've often seen at TC is not that the music itself sounds the same as earlier music but rather that the composers produce that music from a common tradition and generally for a similar audience. Basically modern and contemporary classical have the same roots as Romantic, Classical, and Baroque.


----------



## Mandryka

mmsbls said:


> I would agree that much modern/contemporary classical (at least those works that elicit the strongest negative sentiments) sounds rather different from earlier music. Personally I believe that the variation between some contemporary works vastly exceeds the variation between Early Renaissance and Schoenberg.


The composer who I've seen presented as a sort of anticipation of Schoenberg is Gesualdo, in the responsories. They certainly sound strange. Isn't there a book on atonal renaissance music with a forward by Stravinsky?


----------



## millionrainbows

Millionrainbows wrote: "That's what makes them all sound the same. Most are just working unconsciously, by rote. "Common practice" means just that, at its worst. Mozart understood this, as did Bach, and that's why they were great musical thinkers. Tonality never got "thrown out," but always existed as a tension between the diatonic and the chromatic. Western tonal music was always this way from CP onwards, and to resist this evolution was stagnation."



EdwardBast said:


> Utter nonsense. There is remarkable variety in this music, more so than in any prior era. Diatonic and chromatic elements have always been used by tonal composers. There is no inherent tension.


Next door to gibberish.

The materials of music are what they are. The truly great composers understood this dual aspect of Western tonal music. Their music was only valid if they understood and used chromaticism and that realm, such as Mozart and Bach did. If personality and style dominate, then the horse has been put before the cart.



EdwardBast said:


> You are setting up a dichotomy between using chromaticism ("and that realm?" whatever that is supposed to mean) and composers for whom personality and style dominate, as if these things are mutually exclusive? This is a false dichotomy and the point is meaningless blather.


Utter nonsense. This point is true, and you know it.



EdwardBast said:


> In fact, the rest of the writing below is incoherent blather as well, full of made up and undefined terms. Most of it does not actually respond to the text by Woodduck under which it is placed. If your purpose was to write something so devoid of sense that no one would bother refuting it point by point, I'd say you've succeeded.


That is false and you know it.


----------



## Simon Moon

What I hate about contemporary music, is that there is so much great stuff to explore, it's hard to keep up.

From my point of view, I guess that is what is known as a 'high quality problem'.



hpowders said:


> Just a small point: how can one even refer to "contemporary music" as if it is monolithic? As if the choices are to like all of it, or hate all of it...when it consists of such a vast amount of music in so many forms, written by so many composers of different abilities and inspiration?
> 
> Seems like a fruitless exercise to me.


That is my experience every time I open one of these anti contemporary threads on the TC forum.

The detractors always seem to pick the most the most extreme examples of contemporary music, then paint the entire era with the same broad brush. Ignoring all the great music that does not fit the examples that they deride.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I wouldn't say 'tension between diatonic and chromatic'. Chromatic steps are not out of place in diatonic music at all. Tension is mostly evident in harmony, specifically dissonant harmony (and it is largely a matter of harmony, despite what some others have said in threads like this). 

Dissonance is as much a part of 'tonal music' as 'tonally challenged' music. Music without dissonance is very bland. The setting up of dissonances to be totally resolved (or not as the case may be) pushes music forward as much as any melody (which indeed is related to the harmonic structure).

Now it could be argued that music comprised of largely dissonances may also be bland and somewhat unsatisfactory. I believe this is the charge being laid upon post-Schoenberg contemporary music, but actual listening shows it is not just made up of endless dissonance, or aimless dissonance.


----------



## hpowders

What I hate most about contemporary music (21st century) is there isn't enough to listen to of genuine quality. Where are the masterpieces?


----------



## Fredx2098

hpowders said:


> What I hate most about contemporary music (21st century) is there isn't enough to listen to of genuine quality. Where are the masterpieces?


It's only been 18 years man.


----------



## arpeggio

I have been involved with two games were in each one a finalist was a living American composer who is only in his mid forties: John Mackey.


----------



## Simon Moon

hpowders said:


> What I hate most about contemporary music (21st century) is there isn't enough to listen to of genuine quality. Where are the masterpieces?


While I am not saying that the 21st century is loaded with masterpieces, I do find that there are quite a few works that may qualify, or if not quite masterpieces, certainly are top quality works.

They are incredible pieces, right now, based on their own merit. Not some (in my mind) arbitrary evaluation of them being considered masterpieces.

Magnus Lingberg, Joseph Schwantner, Elliott Carter, Thomas Ades, James Dillon, Kaija Saariaho, and so many other composers have composed notable pieces.

Whether they will one day be considered masterpieces of the 21st century, is unknown. But more importantly (to me), I don't care. Most of the pieces of the past, that most TC members consider masterpieces, do nothing for me (not of lack of trying on my part).


----------



## Enthusiast

hpowders said:


> What I hate most about contemporary music (21st century) is there isn't enough to listen to of genuine quality. Where are the masterpieces?


Would we know it if we heard it? To call something a masterpiece you need perspective and history teaches us to wait a while. My rule of thumb is at least 50 years. And I say this with some feeling that I know which strands of contemporary music I am most likely to enjoy and I have already rejected a lot that many others think worthwhile. But I do know Carter as a composer who has produced masterpieces and he has also live long enough to have done so (within my rule of thumb) and to have still been composing this century. His later music, indeed, is rather more accessible than his earlier work.

There is such variety of music being written, including relatively tonal and romantic works as well as stuff that can really sound "out there" on first hearing and all sorts of "conceptual music". Listening without a road map is bound to involve hearing a lot of music that will never be called masterpieces. If you don't enjoy the exploration for its own sake then you might be well advised not to start. But, on the other hand, if you feel that you know what you like from the later parts of the last century you can probably see some roads to follow?


----------



## starthrower

Orchestral music no longer has the cultural impact on society that it had a hundred years ago. The same is true with jazz. The same complaint could be articulated. Where are the Miles Davis's, Dizzy Gillespie's, etc...? If there are any masterpieces being written, who's to judge, and is anybody going to notice anyway?


----------



## aleazk

What do you hate most of contemporary music? Hmmm. What do you hate most of classical era music? Those long cadenza trills? :lol:

But, really, there are not the analogue of cadenza trills in contemporary music, since it's simply too diverse. One must really ask "What do you hate most of some particular strand of contemporary music?" Well, in neo-romantic music, I find it a bit vapid and vacuous. It displays some aspects of romantic music, but without much of the power and rather meaty content of the latter. The neo strand seems to be more sparse in many cases, more vague, I think many of its pieces don't work. But that's just my view. If you like it, go for it. I always tend to like music which is more dense in musical events.


----------



## Tallisman

Fredx2098 said:


> It's only been 18 years man.


Not to sound like one of the reactionary aesthetic grumps, but that was a bad move:

By 1809 (half that time) in the 1800s we already had Haydn's the Seasons and Harmoniemesse, a whole slew of Beethoven Piano Sonatas, Violin Sonatas, Beethoven's 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, his 4th Piano Concertos, his Violin Concerto, the Ghost Trio. Need I go on?


----------



## hpowders

Fredx2098 said:


> It's only been 18 years man.


Yeah, but I'm running short on time!!


----------



## Tallisman

The problem as I see it:

The 'avant-garde' classical music of our time just sounds generally pretty horrible to most people with functioning ears, and yet much of the music that consciously attempts to stray from the dogmas of nihilistic atonality and grating nastiness just sounds like it's trying to regain some golden tonal paradise and just end up sounding equally as boring. Thus I take refuge in the early 20th century back down into the time of Bach for the good stuff. 

It seems the routes to go down for composers today are: 
- Minimalism, which I find boring and simplistic because I refuse to hypnotised. I'm sure it's great if you go into a kind of trance while listening, but I just generally prefer conscious Romantic ecstasy as a state to be in. 
- Atonality/post-serialism - good if you know how to use it, but the best of it is in Schoenberg and Berg, and it simply doesn't provide the intellectual or aesthetic sustenance for most, myself included, and often doesn't demand skill or a great deal of thought to compose.
- Gallery/Performance art absurdities - e.g the recently posted Sdraulig's 'Collector' etc, 'music' that eschews the idea of music and is essentially trivial, ephemeral. 
- Reactionary neo-classicism/neo-romanticism - often derivative

The last route is to simply try and compose original music that doesn't dogmatically adhere to a particular school, to just un-selfconsciously compose music that might be partially or largely tonal, and that offers something genuinely original. The problem is that European culture in the late 19th century into WW2 went on a kind of cultural sprint, running quickly through different schools and ideas and producing such an abundance of fascinating brilliant music, that one can only feel that we now exist in a hangover state, trying to scrape the bottom of the music-barrel for something new and beautiful, and continually finding that our predecessors did the same thing but much better.


----------



## Fredx2098

Tallisman said:


> Not to sound like one of the reactionary aesthetic grumps, but that was a bad move:
> 
> By 1809 (half that time) in the 1800s we already had Haydn's the Seasons and Harmoniemesse, a whole slew of Beethoven Piano Sonatas, Violin Sonatas, Beethoven's 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, his 4th Piano Concertos, his Violin Concerto, the Ghost Trio. Need I go on?


It's hard/impossible to be aware of all the music available in the moment, especially if you've already decided that you don't like contemporary music and aren't listening to a massive amount of it.


----------



## joen_cph

Fredx2098 said:


> It's hard/impossible to be aware of all the music available in the moment, especially if you've already decided that you don't like contemporary music and aren't listening to a massive amount of it.


You pretty much nailed it.

And I don´t think any masterpieces would necessarily be recognizable from just a bit of listening, it takes time to identify and acknowledge such works. Not that contemporary music can´t be obviously effectful or immediately moving.


----------



## starthrower

Tallisman said:


> The problem as I see it:
> 
> The 'avant-garde' classical music of our time just sounds generally pretty horrible to most people with functioning ears, and yet much of the music that consciously attempts to stray from the dogmas of nihilistic atonality and grating nastiness just sounds like it's trying to regain some golden tonal paradise and just end up sounding equally as boring. Thus I take refuge in the early 20th century back down into the time of Bach for the good stuff.
> 
> It seems the routes to go down for composers today are:
> - Minimalism, which I find boring and simplistic because I refuse to hypnotised. I'm sure it's great if you go into a kind of trance while listening, but I just generally prefer conscious Romantic ecstasy as a state to be in.
> - Atonality/post-serialism - good if you know how to use it, but the best of it is in Schoenberg and Berg, and it simply doesn't provide the intellectual or aesthetic sustenance for most, myself included, and often doesn't demand skill or a great deal of thought to compose.
> - Gallery/Performance art absurdities - e.g the recently posted Sdraulig's 'Collector' etc, 'music' that eschews the idea of music and is essentially trivial, ephemeral.
> - Reactionary neo-classicism/neo-romanticism - often derivative
> 
> The last route is to simply try and compose original music that doesn't dogmatically adhere to a particular school, to just un-selfconsciously compose music that might be partially or largely tonal, and that offers something genuinely original. The problem is that European culture in the late 19th century into WW2 went on a kind of cultural sprint, running quickly through different schools and ideas and producing such an abundance of fascinating brilliant music, that one can only feel that we now exist in a hangover state, trying to scrape the bottom of the music-barrel for something new and beautiful, and continually finding that our predecessors did the same thing but much better.


An insightful critique. And I find much of what has been composed in the 30-40 years following WWII to be highly listenable and satisfying. The search for the "genuinely original" in contemporary music is indeed the needle in the haystack scenario.


----------



## aleazk

Tallisman said:


> The problem as I see it:
> 
> The 'avant-garde' classical music of our time just sounds generally pretty horrible to most people with functioning ears, and yet much of the music that consciously attempts to stray from the dogmas of nihilistic atonality and grating nastiness just sounds like it's trying to regain some golden tonal paradise and just end up sounding equally as boring. Thus I take refuge in the early 20th century back down into the time of Bach for the good stuff.
> 
> It seems the routes to go down for composers today are:
> - Minimalism, which I find boring and simplistic because I refuse to hypnotised. I'm sure it's great if you go into a kind of trance while listening, but I just generally prefer conscious Romantic ecstasy as a state to be in.
> - Atonality/post-serialism - good if you know how to use it, but the best of it is in Schoenberg and Berg, and it simply doesn't provide the intellectual or aesthetic sustenance for most, myself included, and often doesn't demand skill or a great deal of thought to compose.
> - Gallery/Performance art absurdities - e.g the recently posted Sdraulig's 'Collector' etc, 'music' that eschews the idea of music and is essentially trivial, ephemeral.
> - Reactionary neo-classicism/neo-romanticism - often derivative
> 
> The last route is to simply try and compose original music that doesn't dogmatically adhere to a particular school, to just un-selfconsciously compose music that might be partially or largely tonal, and that offers something genuinely original. The problem is that European culture in the late 19th century into WW2 went on a kind of cultural sprint, running quickly through different schools and ideas and producing such an abundance of fascinating brilliant music, that one can only feel that we now exist in a hangover state, trying to scrape the bottom of the music-barrel for something new and beautiful, and continually finding that our predecessors did the same thing but much better.


Fine post. Although I disagree with that part. Most of the good well known composers that used it showed great skill and innovative and interesting ways to use it that nobody thought before, that certainly requires some skill (Webern is the usual example, of course, but also Babbitt and Boulez, all of them very talented and with great skill and knowledge of the craft of music, both of past music as well as modern, since they conducted music from the past, wrote theory essays and critiques, etc.)


----------



## Tallisman

aleazk said:


> Fine post. Although I disagree with that part. Most of the good well known composers that used it showed great skill and innovative and interesting ways to use it that nobody thought before, that certainly requires some skill (Webern is the usual example, of course, but also Babbitt and Boulez, all of them very talented and with great skill and knowledge of the craft of music, both of past music as well as modern, since they conducted music from the past, wrote theory essays and critiques, etc.)


Yes, I grant that atonality and serialism aren't necessarily just arbitrary notes on a page. Simultaneously, atonalism doesn't require skill necessarily. My favourite music that approaches atonality is improvisation, because it can couple the randomness with at least some energetic spontaneity (parts of Keith Jarrett's many solo concerts particularly). And certainly serialism and its kiddies have had adherents that construct their music with great care and skill of musical/orchestral organisation etc. I know of few more intellectual works than Schoenberg or Berg at their best. Webern remains elusive, but that's just me. I did say 'often', not always...
Whereas I find figures such as Bach compose with the whole dictionary, to my ears people like Boulez often compose solely in onomatopoeia. Perhaps this view will change... who knows...


----------



## Tallisman

Fredx2098 said:


> It's hard/impossible to be aware of all the music available in the moment, especially if you've already decided that you don't like contemporary music and aren't listening to a massive amount of it.


Your openness to all types of music is exemplary, as shown in many discussions. Alas, my own ears are delicate receptacles with cochlea of a cautious, timid disposition.


----------

