# How best to approach modern composers?



## Manok (Aug 29, 2011)

I was wondering how to start listening to modern composers? With the more traditional I start with the symphonies and concertos but with modern composers it's often difficult to tell without research what is considered the best by a composer, or at least should be the best, is that the best way or is there another?


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

If you tend to be especially receptive to unfamiliar orchestral works of composers from earlier periods you should approach modern composers the same way. Go for the symphonies, concertos, etc. with them too.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Hi, Manok.

My suggestion to you, for whatever it may be worth, is to alter your way of thinking. There is no "best" approach - there is, rather, whatever approach is most suitable to you.
Likewise, there's not really a "best" musical work issued from any given composer. It's all a matter of perception. Even if 95% of listeners love Stravinsky's _Le Sacre du Printemps_, this does not imply that you love this work.

Discovering composers and/or music previously unfamiliar to you is similar to a dating or a "getting to know you" process.
Just as with some personalities whom "click" with you while other personalities might turn you off, you need to know what you like and what you think may appeal to you.

I can only speak for myself, so this is not necessarily an approach suitable for you take, but buying "blind" has lead me to discover almost 50% of the composers in my music collection. No particular research. Simply by browsing inside brick-n-mortar stores' classical music sections, I made decisions (on the spot) to purchase merely based upon the amount of albums present under the composer's name tab (the lesser the # of albums - the more I am intrigued by the "underdog" status) and the title of the works on the discs. I prefer orchestral music, so if the album credited an orchestra then I'm more inclined to "try out" that disc of music, even without any sound samples.
I realize my method/approach is singular and not appropriate to most others wishing to take the "plunge" into the lesser known arena. YouTube video clips and website sound sample files have significantly altered how people in the 21st century approach the discovery of new (to them) music.

Maybe you are not a risk-taker and my "story" will not assist you in any ways which are comfortable with you. But you might consider giving it a try and attempt to obtain some contemporary compositions simply by virtue of subject matter and/or the performing ensemble. In a lot of cases, you may never know what the music sounds like unless you are willing blind buy based upon whims, moods or spurs of the moment.
If you decide to pass over a composer or an opus, you may go to your grave never knowing what that music sounds like (especially if such music is not available in any other format).
With me, I'd rather hear something with which I'm unacquainted (and possibly dislike it) rather than remain ignorant about it.

Hope this helps or at least was interesting reading.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Stay in full view of the modern composer at all times and approach slowly while making soothing noises and without making any sudden moves. They spook easily.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Manok said:


> I was wondering how to start listening to modern composers? With the more traditional I start with the symphonies and concertos but with modern composers it's often difficult to tell without research what is considered the best by a composer, or at least should be the best, is that the best way or is there another?


I started with the big names, and that was before internet. I read on composers - those biographical dictionaries of composers where & still are useful for me in this regard - and also went to just see what took my fancy from those composers output.

But honestly I think you might not be able to avoid at least some research. I know that it can be confronting with all the choice we got now. We are at a stage of information overload now, and music is no exception to that.

So what I advise is just hunt around. You can also build on things by genre and country for example. If you like piano concertos of before the modern period, why not try some of the modern period? If you like French composers of 19th century, why not try some of the 20th century? & so on.

I started off with many composers with compilation albums of their music. This applies for the 20th century too. Naxos is good in this regard as to both composers collectively and individual composers. Eg.:


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

The only advice I have: don't try to impose your mentality to the composer and the music. Instead, let the music and the composers be the ones who impose their ideas to you.


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

I approach modern composers with a smile.


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2013)

And a drink in each hand.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

With a matter of fact outlook, and one piece at a time... and then, if the piece at all interests, listen to it again. If you favor a genre, i.e. piano quartet, concertante instrumental soloist with orchestra, etc.then first seek out the new works within those particular genres.

A somewhat chronological investigation of the 20th century composers might be useful, 'informative' and establish a thread and path down which you can go at your own pace.

Mostly, though, "Matter of fact," i.e. it is just one other piece of music at a time.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

Randomly flip through different modern works, listening only to the first five seconds of a work, until you find one where the first five seconds interest you so much that you don't want to move onto another.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StevenOBrien said:


> Randomly flip through different modern works, listening only to the first five seconds of a work, until you find one where the first five seconds interest you so much that you don't want to move onto another.


I actually did that when I was first getting into jazz. Well maybe I'd listen to a half a minute or minute of each track on a cd (in the store), see if I really want to buy it. It was a quick way, and I like to go off that gut reaction thing.

But with classical I've tended not to use that method, I'd add that when I was getting into classical I listened to a good deal of it on radio, so I was familiar with things enough to make a decision to buy it or not. It just goes with building experience I guess.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Prodromides said:


> There is no "best" approach - there is, rather, whatever approach is most suitable to you.
> Likewise, there's not really a "best" musical work issued from any given composer. It's all a matter of perception. * Even if 95% of listeners love Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps, this does not imply that you love this work.*
> 
> Discovering composers and/or music previously unfamiliar to you is similar to a dating or a "getting to know you" process.
> ...


this is really good advice. I'd also like point out that in the age of youtube there's hardly any risk at all in simply plunging. Just do it! The worst that can happen is you won't like it so you turn it off when you've had enough. Way less fuss than a bad date  But if you're "meant to be friends", either you will immediately click, or at least you will be intrigued enough to return to it (or something else by the composer) sometime in the future when you're more receptive.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Manok said:


> How best to approach modern composers?


best not approach them at all.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

I say, dive with your ears straight in to it!

I started in the years way, way before internet and then the best think to get to know was listening to the Classical Music radio Channel. Not knowing where You are, some parts of the are still deprived of quality Classical radio, but then the internet to the rescue! This place is exploding with possibilities for discovering "new" music, You've got BBC Radio 3, ABC in Australia, CBC Radio 2(?) in Canada, a dozen stations in Germany, almost all EU countries have some kind of broadcaster in this genre, not all with contemporary music but many have shows that play this. I think even NPR in the US have online broadcast as do many local US stations.

One good starting point is: *Classical Online Live Radio*, I sure others can add more points were to start.

The wonderful thing with internet radio is that is takes just a little effort to get started and do not add any extra expense, it is actually a money saver, you will get to learn what you like before you need to shell out for the downloads or discs!

/ptr


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Manok said:


> I was wondering how to start listening to modern composers? With the more traditional I start with the symphonies and concertos but with modern composers it's often difficult to tell without research what is considered the best by a composer, or at least should be the best, is that the best way or is there another?


I love music, and I love consuming it even more. I always start out exploring a new, unfamiliar composer by going to Amazon and seeing what's out there. With a more obscure modern composer, if there are a lot of different recordings on a bunch of different labels (especially imports), that's a good omen. I look into what appear to be appealing selections, on labels I respect, or with players/conductors I might recognize, and check out the prices and reviews. If it's a "complete piano works" or "complete string quartets,' that's attractive, as this is a good way to get the musical essence of the composer.
Lastly, I look the composer up on WIK and read up.

What fun, being a hunter-gatherer! I really must be migrating on, now! Ta ta! Tally-ho! and all that good rubbish! :lol:


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

ahammel said:


> Stay in full view of the modern composer at all times and approach slowly while making soothing noises and without making any sudden moves. They spook easily.


Good advice... but dangerous if done without taking precautions. Carry a rolled newspaper with you. It will not seem threatening to the MoCo, but can be used to beat him/her off in case of close-up bitching & complaining about the barbarity of the critics.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Why put yourself through such torture? Stick with the classics.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

^^


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Your best bet is to listen to recordings ,and give them repeated hearings . If you hear a challenging modern work for the first time at a live concert, it will most likely baffle you . 
But the advantage of recordings is the ability to get to know difficult works through repeated hearings .
The old saying "familiarity breeds contempt " does not apply here . It's just the opposite !
There are so many works which I just didn't "get" the first time I heard them, not only contemporary music 
but esoteric things such as the late Beethoven quartets , those of Bartok, Schoenberg, etc. But with repeated hearings, everything came together and I no longer have any difficulty with them.
There is plenty of challenging contemporary music available on CD by composers such as the late Elliott Carter, Pierre Boulez, Stockhausen, Berio, Ligeti, and so many other important composers of our time .
You can also hear it for free on youtube ,where you can also just repeat the video with no difficulty


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

With an open mind


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

the thing is, modern composers[SUP](TM)[/SUP] are not modern as such, for in fact their 'modernity' is at least 100 years old.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

sharik said:


> the thing is, modern composers[SUP](TM)[/SUP] are not modern as such, for in fact their 'modernity' is at least 100 years old.


Depends on the composer. Some are even further behind!

Anyway, to the OP: approach it like you would any unfamiliar music.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

sharik said:


> the thing is, modern composers[SUP](TM)[/SUP] are not modern as such, for in fact their 'modernity' is at least 100 years old.


If Debussy is considered Modern, that just adds a ton to the Modern Repertoire. But I think of Modern in 2 parts. Early Modern and Late Modern (which includes now). Early Modern is way better imo.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

* How best to approach modern composers?*

With a grain of salt.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Manok said:


> I was wondering how to start listening to modern composers? With the more traditional I start with the symphonies and concertos but with modern composers it's often difficult to tell without research what is considered the best by a composer, or at least should be the best, is that the best way or is there another?


It's probably best to begin with making lines of demarcation for Late Romantic, Modern, Contemporary. You can get general ideas from historians and musicologists, but there's nothing wrong with altering their lines. It's trickier for Late Romantic and Modern, when a composer might illustrate elements of both.

Try initializing your "Modern" journey by listening to Janacek, Enescu, Martinu, Ravel, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Stravinsky, Reger, Scriabin, Rachmaninov, Moeran, Myaskovsky, Szymanowski.

Enjoy. :tiphat:


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Manok said:


> I was wondering how to start listening to modern composers? With the more traditional I start with the symphonies and concertos but with modern composers it's often difficult to tell without research what is considered the best by a composer, or at least should be the best, is that the best way or is there another?


In moderation, like I do. And when you had enough, re-balance the listening senses with older music, which is why I have a hundred or so CD of music composed after 1950 but thousands more of 18th century music and surrounding chronology. After all, classical is about older music by and large anyway.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Here's Jascha Heifetz's approach: "I occasionally play works by contemporary composers for two reasons. First to discourage the composer from writing any more and secondly to remind myself how much I appreciate Beethoven."


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> If Debussy is considered Modern, that just adds a ton to the Modern Repertoire. But I think of Modern in 2 parts. Early Modern and Late Modern (which includes now). Early Modern is way better imo.


okay, can you say _one_ informative post without inserting your little opinion at the end? we understand that you don't like modern composers and their music. we understand that you approach music with a foundation-based logic (even in rock music--the classics, bon jovi, boston? lame, closeminded.) however, it just seems like bait (that I so obviously just took).

the fact that so many people are stuck in time makes me really frustrated, because unfortunately that ****-poor attitude of elitism and marketing holy cows is all the concert repertoire is (with few exceptions). This all makes me want to _hate_ composers like J.S. Bach and Beethoven, but of course I can't just because of how brilliant they were. Certainly some of the best (in my opinion), but _life goes on_. Yes, we will still be appreciating their works hundreds of years in the future, but alongside them there will be composers like Schoenberg and Xenakis hailed for their absolutely insightful pieces that will lead us into the music that is being created now and will be created in the next century. Why isn't it possible to enjoy the past while looking forward to the present with different mindsets (rock music included)?


----------



## Bone (Jan 19, 2013)

A couple of good ones to wrap your ears around are Ligeti piano etudes, Bartok string quartets, and Magnus Lindberg large orchestra music. Ones you might want nto avoid right off the bat (but dive in if you are prepared to spend some time with repeated listenings): Carter string quartets, Xenakis anything, or Boulez anything. Zappa, of course, is fairly accessible in both art and pop genres.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

Some modern pieces were written for the same reason as Paganini caprices or Liszt etudes: to exhibit virtuosity and flashiness. For these kinds of pieces--and here I would include Ligeti etudes or Lindbergh concertos--one way in is to appreciate the playing technique. The flashiness isn't the _only_ thing these pieces have going for them, but it's as good a point of entry as anything else.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

Bone said:


> A couple of good ones to wrap your ears around are *Ligeti piano etudes*, Bartok string quartets, and *Magnus Lindberg large orchestra music*. Ones you might want nto avoid right off the bat (but dive in if you are prepared to spend some time with repeated listenings): Carter string quartets, Xenakis anything, or Boulez anything. Zappa, of course, is fairly accessible in both art and pop genres.


Ha... you seem to have read my mind even as I was typing up that last post...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

KenOC said:


> Here's Jascha Heifetz's approach: "I occasionally play works by contemporary composers for two reasons. First to discourage the composer from writing any more and secondly to remind myself how much I appreciate Beethoven."


Heifetz is the guy who said the Schoenberg violin concerto - which Arnie sent to him - was unplayable. Turns out it was playable! Heifetz said he'd need a 6th finger to play it, to which Arnie replied with a hint of drollness, "I can wait." Seriously I like Heifetz, and he did commission violin concertos that are still considered significant from the mid 20th century era (Walton's and Korngold's come to mind). But I don't agree with his ideology, at least as far as that famous quote goes.


----------



## pendereckiobsessed (Sep 21, 2012)

A good method is to understand what the composer is trying to express, no matter how modern the work is. A good way is to hear what people experience from a particular work, like let's say Berg's Violin Concerto. That work is proudly tragic and understanding that even before listening to the music helps one who is not familiar with it to understand its particular expression. 

Overall, just dive on in! The water feels great!


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

For years I tried to understand and enjoy "modern" compositions (from almost 100 years ago, but whatever) and nearly always failed. I think I was trying too hard. It's like trying to enjoy sex. I think it's better for me to let go and just let the sounds wash over me. For example, several months ago I listened to Varese's _Arcana_ several times in a row trying to memorize it, thinking I might appreciate it that way, but I just got bored with it. Yesterday it come up on random play at work, and I found myself humming along to it, thinking, 'Hey, this is pretty cool." I don't know what happened in between but I'll accept it. Granted _Arcana_ is not really all that arcane, but it's a start.

So maybe some of us need to approach music on a subconscious level at first, then see what happens. Or as Yoda might say, "Do... or do not. There is no try. "


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Here's Jascha Heifetz's approach: "I occasionally play works by contemporary composers for two reasons. First to discourage the composer from writing any more and secondly to remind myself how much I appreciate Beethoven."


Ha! What a quote! Did Heifetz really say that?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

oogabooha said:


> okay, can you say _one_ informative post without inserting your little opinion at the end? we understand that you don't like modern composers and their music. we understand that you approach music with a foundation-based logic (even in rock music--the classics, bon jovi, boston? lame, closeminded.) however, it just seems like bait (that I so obviously just took).
> 
> the fact that so many people are stuck in time makes me really frustrated, because unfortunately that ****-poor attitude of elitism and marketing holy cows is all the concert repertoire is (with few exceptions). This all makes me want to _hate_ composers like J.S. Bach and Beethoven, but of course I can't just because of how brilliant they were. Certainly some of the best (in my opinion), but _life goes on_. Yes, we will still be appreciating their works hundreds of years in the future, but alongside them there will be composers like Schoenberg and Xenakis hailed for their absolutely insightful pieces that will lead us into the music that is being created now and will be created in the next century. Why isn't it possible to enjoy the past while looking forward to the present with different mindsets (rock music included)?


If insightful meant fingernails on a chalkboard lol. I don't get why people on here get offended for others expressing their dislike for new music. But as I've said before. You are free to your opinion...


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

neoshredder said:


> I don't get why people on here get offended for others expressing their dislike for new music.


Everyone is of course entitled to their own opinion and preferences, but maybe it is not necessary to post the same opinion in every single thread about it. Especially since the subject of this thread is clearly not "what do you think of modern music", but a request for guidance how to approach modern music.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Sturgeon's Law*

When I read the observations of opponents of contemporary music, I think of Sturgeon's Law: "90% of everything is crud." It is attributed to Theodore Sturgeon, an American science fiction author. The phrase was derived from Sturgeon's observation that while science fiction was often derided for its low quality by critics, it could be noted that the majority of examples of works in other fields could equally be seen to be of low quality and that science fiction was thus no different in that regard to any other art.

Time has the means to purge mediocrity from the concert hall. Between 1805 and 1815, give or take a few years, 99% of the music that was premiered then that is still performed today was composed by Ludwig van Beethoven. There were thousands of pieces of music that where composed during this period, but most have been forgotten, except by stodgy doctoral musicology candidates trying to find the subject for their dissertations. 99% of the music composed in Vienna in 1790 has been forgotten. 99% of the music composed in Vienna in 1890 has been forgotten. A hundred years from now, 99% of the music composed in Vienna in 1990 will have been forgotten.

Aficionados of contemporary music are aware that over the course of time the majority of what we like will be delegated to the dustbin of history. Anyone who thinks he can predict what will be remembered is suffering from delusions of grandeur. No one really knows the answer to that question.

When an opponent of contemporary music states that most of it is garbage, that statement is actually correct. It is also true that most of the music composed in the 18th and 19th centuries was also garbage.

The implication of the opponents of contemporary music is that it should never be performed in the concert hall, especially when they show up. Even when it is distasteful to our sensitive ears in order to establish the masterpieces for the concert hall of 2113, there must be new music today.


----------



## Sudonim (Feb 28, 2013)

I'm a real newbie to classical music, but I listen to a lot of jazz, including the most avant-garde stuff, and I find that there are a lot of similarities in the two styles of music (including their evolution - jazz just moved from its "baroque" period to its "modern" period a lot faster). When I began listening to jazz many years ago, I believe the first record I bought was John Coltrane's _Blue Train_. Not a bad beginning at all as it turns out, but I made the mistake of trying to move quickly from there to much more "experimental" things like Anthony Braxton (or even late-period Coltrane), and it didn't really work too well. I couldn't "hear" it yet.

I think you have to learn to listen to the more "modern" composers. I'd suggest finding a good dispassionate guide to recordings that doesn't take a "position" on the various periods but accepts (and assesses) them all on their own terms. To return to the jazz world for a moment, I found that the _Penguin Guide to Jazz Recordings_, by Morton and Cook, has been like that: it recognizes the greatness in every era from Jelly Roll Morton to Evan Parker. (I don't know if the _Penguin Guide to Classical Recordings_ is the same way or not - I've never read it.) I discovered a ton of recordings that I had never heard of and, over time, learned to listen to them and appreciate them. Over time I found that what first sounded like total cacophony began to sort itself out and make more sense. I guess above all, you simply have to _listen._


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

True thing, the more contemporary any sort of music is, the less of a free sandwich it is!

/ptr


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> Aficionados of contemporary music are aware that over the course of time the majority of what we like will be delegated to the dustbin of history. Anyone who thinks he can predict what will be remembered is suffering from delusions of grandeur. No one really knows the answer to that question.
> 
> When an opponent of contemporary music states that most of it is garbage, that statement is actually correct. It is also true that most of the music composed in the 18th and 19th centuries was also garbage..


"Garbage" is too strong a word. Even Sturgeon's "crud" is probably too strong; maybe it applies more to popular music and books, where it's easy to crank something out and a lot of monetary incentive to do so.

I do agree with the general thrust of your post, but I think there's a lot of old and new stuff that is interesting enough, but not timeless. I'm OK with that. I don't want to listen to garbage or crud, but there's plenty of ground between that and Great.


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2013)

The sense of entitlement is strong. Not sure quite how that happened or even why it happened. But it is strong. In this particular situation, the sense of entitlement is over 200 years old. That means, necessarily, that a lot of pieces that were described as noisy and unlistenable are now the favorite pieces of people who today describe more recent pieces as noisy and unlistenable. And yet, no matter how much the music itself changes, it seems that the criticisms of current musics are stuck in the same blinkered place they were centuries ago.

I like to think that the cliche that everyone is entitled to their opinions is actually false. There's no entitlement with opinions. An opinion has to be defensible. And preferably defended as well. The whole rationale of expository prose is that opinions have to be defended.

Repeating is not defending. And I think it's fine to remind people who repeat the same opinions over and over again, in any situation, that it would be nice if they would stop.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Please let's stay on topic. Comment on people's posts and not on the people themselves.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Toned Down*



GreenMamba said:


> "Garbage" is too strong a word. Even Sturgeon's "crud" is probably too strong...


Actually I toned it down. Sturgeon's orginal word was "cr*p". And he was not refering to popular literature. The remark was made in the 1960's. He was complaining when literary critics asserted that the best science fiction of the time, Bradbury, Asimov, Dick, Heinlein, Clark _etc._, was inferior to high brow literature.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Lest we forget John Cage's absurd approach in approaching unfamiliar modern music, which was something along the lines of repeatedly listening _until you do get it_: "... twice, four times, eight times, sixteeen times" (I might have got the quote wrong), or whatever it was. That's _not_ the way to approach modern music or any music.


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2013)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Lest we forget John Cage's absurd approach in approaching unfamiliar modern music, which was something along the lines of repeatedly listening _until you do get it_: "... twice, four times, eight times, sixteeen times" (I might have got the quote wrong), or whatever it was. That's _not_ the way to approach modern music or any music.


So far as I know, Cage had no "approach," absurd or otherwise, for approaching unfamiliar modern music. Certainly, "until you do get it" had no part of any of Cage's thought.

What he did say was something about boring-ness:

"If something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If still boring, then eight. Then sixteen. Then thirty-two. Eventually one discovers that it is not boring at all."

This is not any sort of approach to anything. It is an observation about perception.

I think the best thing to do with "modern composers" is not think of them as in some separate category from other composers. As somehow needing special treatment somehow because of how strange and unnerving their music is. Best thing is to not "approach" music at all. Let it come to you. Let it tell you whatever it has to say. Don't impose anything on it--wishes, desires, tastes, expectations. If there's to be any imposition at all, let it do the imposing. Match its energy, its force, its power with perceptiveness and intelligence and receptivity, just as you do with anything else.


----------



## RobertoDevereux (Feb 12, 2013)

pendereckiobsessed said:


> A good method is to understand what the composer is trying to express, no matter how modern the work is. A good way is to hear what people experience from a particular work, like let's say Berg's Violin Concerto. That work is proudly tragic and understanding that even before listening to the music helps one who is not familiar with it to understand its particular expression.


I would agree with this. *Manok*,What I would also add is, do you know Aaron Copland's short book called "What to listen for in music"? He talks about a whole range of musical pieces, from Palestrina to the Second Viennese School and devotes quite a lot of space to the value of listening to modern music. He basically says that any composer has 4 devices available to him/her - Rythm, Melody, Harmony, and Tone Color - but what makes a piece a truly substantial and interesting work is _la grande ligne_ - "the grand line", a sense of inevitability that takes the listener with it. That could be achieved by various devices, such as structure, timing, etc. This applies to Beethoven as much as to, say, Ligeti - it's just that they chose to play with these 4 devices and construct "the grand line" in different ways.

I found that Copland's view helped me immensely with listening to and enjoying modern music, even if I don't "understand" it. I've recently heard Berg's Violin Concerto, John Adams' opera "Nixon in China", Sir Peter Maxwell Davies' Symphony No. 9, and a new piece by Carlo Boccadoro called "Ritratto di musico", and, with Copland's analysis in mind, I was able to relax and really appreciate all of these works (even though I may not choose to play them in my car as I drive to work). There is a lot of exciting stuff that's been written after 1950 and that's being written now, so I think it's worth being part of that process - you only live once!  And no, in all likelihood they won't beat Bach's B Minor Mass, but more often than not they are part of the same lineage!

RD


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

RobertoDevereux said:


> I would agree with this. *Manok*,What I would also add is, do you know Aaron Copland's short book called "What to listen for in music"? He talks about a whole range of musical pieces, from Palestrina to the Second Viennese School and devotes quite a lot of space to the value of listening to modern music. He basically says that any composer has 4 devices available to him/her - Rythm, Melody, Harmony, and Tone Color - but what makes a piece a truly substantial and interesting work is _la grande ligne_ - "the grand line", a sense of inevitability that takes the listener with it. That could be achieved by various devices, such as structure, timing, etc. This applies to Beethoven as much as to, say, Ligeti - it's just that they chose to play with these 4 devices and construct "the grand line" in different ways.
> 
> I found that Copland's view helped me immensely with listening to and enjoying modern music, even if I don't "understand" it. I've recently heard Berg's Violin Concerto, John Adams' opera "Nixon in China", Sir Peter Maxwell Davies' Symphony No. 9, and a new piece by Carlo Boccadoro called "Ritratto di musico", and, with Copland's analysis in mind, I was able to relax and really appreciate all of these works (even though I may not choose to play them in my car as I drive to work). There is a lot of exciting stuff that's been written after 1950 and that's being written now, so I think it's worth being part of that process - you only live once!  And no, in all likelihood they won't beat Bach's B Minor Mass, but more often than not they are part of the same lineage!
> 
> RD


Copland's section on modern music in that same book helped me appreciate 20th/21st century music a lot too! I definitely give a recommendation.


----------



## Guest (Mar 10, 2013)

Manok said:


> I was wondering how to start listening to modern composers? With the more traditional I start with the symphonies and concertos but with modern composers it's often difficult to tell without research what is considered the best by a composer, or at least should be the best, is that the best way or is there another?


Is it that the forms themselves - symphonies, concertos - make them easier to start with? Or that they are 'traditional'? Or that they are so well known, it's easy to start with Beethoven's 5th?

And, conversely, is it that the 'modern' composers don't write in traditional forms that makes it less easy to 'start listening to them'? Or that it's less easy to find a recommendation, since they are less well-known?


----------



## Guest (Mar 10, 2013)

Vaneyes said:


> Try initializing your "Modern" journey by listening to Janacek, Enescu, Martinu, Ravel, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Stravinsky, Reger, Scriabin, Rachmaninov, Moeran, Myaskovsky, Szymanowski.
> 
> Enjoy. :tiphat:


Some interesting 'moderns' in there. It rather suggests that the context in which one hears music might be just as important as the approach to something that has a label.

For example, I first heard Rachmaninov's Piano Concerto No.2 as part of the film _Brief Encounter_. I then heard it played in the Young Musician of the Year in 197? (or was it 198?) It didn't strike me as modern at all. But then nor did Ligeti's _Atmospheres _or _Lux Aeterna_ when I saw _2001: A Space Odyssey_.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

With cynicism and vigilance!


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Arsakes said:


> With cynicism and vigilance!


That is the way of the world; Alligator wrestling is fun, if it it doesn't eat you, there's a faint chance of survival! 










/ptr


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> And, conversely, is it that the 'modern' composers don't write in traditional forms that makes it less easy to 'start listening to them'? Or that it's less easy to find a recommendation, since they are less well-known?


Even or especially when composers like Schoenberg wrote using traditional form, listeners have a hard time hearing it. The score of the 3rd quartet has an analysis at the beginning by Erwin Stein, and everything in the first movement is labeled "quasi": quasi-exposition, quasi-development, quasi-recapitulation, quasi-coda(!). I could hear the sectional divisions before I looked at the score, but I didn't necessarily recognize them in this exact fashion, because nothing is repeated exactly the same way (even in the fourth movement rondo).

I know that the first scene of Wozzeck's Act II is a sonata form movement, and I recognize, knowing that, where all of the themes and sections are. Would I ever have picked up on it without being told? Probably not. I'm paying more attention to the drama and how the music works with it than analyzing it as an abstraction.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Is there an operative definition for "modern composer" for the purposes of this thread? Are you using chronology, technique, or some combination of the two?


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

For me, very much a combination, something post 1900 and not very rooted in romantic composition styles.

/ptr


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

^ hear hear give the man a hand


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

ptr said:


> For me, very much a combination, something post 1900 and not very rooted in romantic composition styles.
> 
> /ptr


So Stravinsky is modern, and Schoenberg is modern. Is Strauss or Mahler modern (or is that about the breaking point)? Presumably Arnold and Copland are modern, but are Hanson and Hovhaness also modern? The film music of John Williams typically relies on very traditional techniques, although often with very modern elements at least in isolated cues, but his "classical" music is certainly far more modern (and far less listened to).


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

^ yes yes and yes but I think you hit on the breaking point there


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

violadude said:


> Copland's section on modern music in that same book helped me appreciate 20th/21st century music a lot too! I definitely give a recommendation.


This is what I get for not finishing that book. Although well written, I found it too fundamental for my listening level at the time I tried reading it, so I got a little bored. I should pull it out and try again.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

JAS said:


> So Stravinsky is modern, and Schoenberg is modern. Is Strauss or Mahler modern (or is that about the breaking point)? Presumably Arnold and Copland are modern, but are Hanson and Hovhaness also modern? The film music of John Williams typically relies on very traditional techniques, although often with very modern elements at least in isolated cues, but his "classical" music is certainly far more modern (and far less listened to).


My simplified take on these:

*Modern*; Stravinsky, Schönberg,

*In-Betweeners with one foot in each corner*; Hovhaness, Copland, Arnold (Richard) Strauss, John Williams (But I would put his film music on a separate branch as it is often written imitate, not be "original", this is much more a matter of fact statement than a quality comment!)

*Not Modern today*; Mahler, Hanson (and Ole' Howie is almost and inbetweener)

i.e. I don't think that there is only god/bad or black/white, rather that the most common is having one foot in each pond, and you support yourself on either foot depending on where You are in your career and for what "purpose" or aim the work at hand has.

/ptr


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

ptr said:


> My simplified take on these:
> 
> *Modern*; Stravinsky, Schönberg,
> 
> ...


Based on that distinction, I cannot think of any "modern" composer that I have any use for at all, certainly not a "modern" composition that I would want to hear a second time. (I agree about Williams' film music, which is intentionally a stylistic throwback, seeking as it is a broad audience and with a need for an immediate connection in the context of a film as it is being viewed. This is in distinction to someone like James Horner, who is often guilty of stealing more than style, or Hans Zimmer who . . . well, I cannot for the life of me figure out what Zimmer is doing except collecting huge fees.)

I presume that Cage is relegated to avant garde and thus not strictly part of your "modern" grouping, or is he? (It seems to me that "chance" music is a denial of the act of composition, so it can hardly be, really, part of any grouping of composers.)

I accept that there is a group, although relatively even smaller than the already shrinking group of classical music lovers, that is genuinely attracted to "modern" music. I do not dismiss this group, but there must be some fundamental difference in what one is seeking in the experience of music, some difference that I do not hear or appreciate. When I listen to music, I look for at least an occasional response of enjoyment or pleasure, sometimes in the appeal of a melody, and sometimes from an appreciation of recognizing a pattern or harmonic device. My response, therefore, is a mix of emotion and intellect. What is it that people are seeking, and presumably finding, in "modern" classical music?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

JAS said:


> I accept that there is a group, although relatively even smaller than the already shrinking group of classical music lovers, that is genuinely attracted to "modern" music. I do not dismiss this group, but there must be some fundamental difference in what one is seeking in the experience of music, some difference that I do not hear or appreciate. When I listen to music, I look for at least an occasional response of enjoyment or pleasure, sometimes in the appeal of a melody, and sometimes from an appreciation of recognizing a pattern or harmonic device. My response, therefore, is a mix of emotion and intellect. What is it that people are seeking, and presumably finding, in "modern" classical music?


All of the above. The exact same things you appreciate in non-modern music I appreciate in modern classical music.



JAS said:


> I presume that Cage is relegated to avant garde and thus not strictly part of your "modern" grouping, or is he? (It seems to me that "chance" music is a denial of the act of composition, so it can hardly be, really, part of any grouping of composers.)


Cage is generally considered an "experimental" composer, not avant-garde (which usually includes post-serial composers like Ligeti or Boulez instead).


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

JAS said:


> When I listen to music, I look for at least an occasional response of enjoyment or pleasure, ...


I'm not sure I would listen to music that provides only occasional enjoyment or pleasure.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Cage is generally considered an "experimental" composer, not avant-garde (which usually includes post-serial composers like Ligeti or Boulez instead).


I will accept that distinction, although I thought the whole idea of avant-garde was experimentation.



Mahlerian said:


> All of the above. The exact same things you appreciate in non-modern music I appreciate in modern classical music.


This seems to me inherently impossible. One might enjoy a hillside covered in sylvan splendor unsullied by the hand of man (an appreciation of sublime nature), and the same hillside cleared of all signs of life and with deep cuts made by modern strip mining (I suppose a kind of appreciation of the power of technology, especially imposed on a large scale), but it seems to me that it is not possible to enjoy both for the same reason. They are two scenes of such stark contrast, sharing so little beyond the same latitude and longitude, that it can only be in the inherent differences that one finds equivalent, but very different, appreciation.

I have never heard so much as a moment of genuine melody in a "modern" composition, unless it might be to throw in some brief quotation of a popular song, which is subsequently buried under the more general noise. Indeed, the whole idea of "modern" classical music seems to be to eschew "melody," unless that word is so distorted as to no longer have any meaning.

Perhaps I simply need to accept that there is nothing in "modern" classical music for me. Unlike modern pop music, which is constantly forcing its way into my attention, an annoyance of no small degree, it is fairly easy to ignore "modern" classical music. I would probably neither mourn nor notice its passing. (Yes, to some extent I harbor some resentment that "modern" classical is what has killed classical music in general. There are, no doubt, many other factors, but the demise of classical music as a force fits too well with the rise of "modern" compositional theory. I cannot accept this is merely coincidence.)


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

I don't think that what one is seeking in "modern" music is any different from what You would look for in any music, i.e. some kind of emotional and/or intellectual stimulation! (I don't think it need to be more difficult!)

If I may lower myself to an analogy; It's a bit like food, some people can live a long and happy life eating nothing else but "hamburgers" every day, some only eat Italian, some only eat raw food, some like something different, new, exiting every meal, some only like to eat their mothers cooking, some only eat what Oprah Winfrey tell them is healthy and the list could go on and on, now exchange the food items with musical genres.

I am the type that likes varieties, some day's I want something aromatic, some day's something sweet, some day's I really crave something Mexican and spicy that really burns the hairs of your back, some day's nothing will suffice like Mothers Sunday roast, some days I really yearn the taste of wrought Iron (No I don't think I'm pregnant, at least I don't think so  ), and I could go on for ever..

I think that this is the wonderful thing about the infinite musical menu, it is all food for the mind and feeling, you don't have to love, care for or like everything or anything in either food or music, the choice is up to You!

Long and winding and not saying much beyond the first line... 

/ptr


----------



## RobertoDevereux (Feb 12, 2013)

ptr said:


> I think that this is the wonderful thing about the infinite musical menu, it is all food for the mind and feeling, you don't have to love, care for or like everything or anything in either food or music, the choice is up to You!
> 
> /ptr


*ptr*, totally! That's exactly my experience too! The only thing I'd add is that music is a product of its time, so I find it fascinating and ...fulfilling (not sure that's the best word) to see how my contemporaries express in music the events, moods, and ideas of the times we are living through together.

P.S. Don't get me wrong though - my core musical preferences are most definitely pre-20th century 

RD


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> So far as I know, Cage had no "approach," absurd or otherwise, for approaching unfamiliar modern music. Certainly, "until you do get it" had no part of any of Cage's thought.
> 
> What he did say was something about boring-ness:
> 
> ...


I don't ever approach or think of modern composers as a separate category per se: the critical factor for me is the music itself, whether written in 2013 or 1713 or 1013, either it engages or it does not (at different points in time).

"Letting the music come to you" are nice ways to put it. Bach's _Brandenburg_ "came to me" effortlessly. This utopian desire in reality does not exist even for the most ardent "guru" listeners, and admission to that is being honest about the pleasure of listening in general. I for one, am more than courageous enough to admit that.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"If something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If still boring, then eight. Then sixteen. Then thirty-two...”

If my math is right, on the 16th try you have to listen for 2,185 hours. I'm not sure Mr. Cage's advice is totally sound.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

ptr said:


> If I may lower myself to an analogy; It's a bit like food, some people can live a long and happy life eating nothing else but "hamburgers" every day, some only eat Italian, some only eat raw food, some like something different, new, exiting every meal, some only like to eat their mothers cooking, some only eat what Oprah Winfrey tell them is healthy and the list could go on and on, now exchange the food items with musical genres.


There is nothing wrong with analogy, as long as the analogy is apt. I think the problem here is that the distinction between hamburgers or Italian food really doesn't begin to approach the stark differences between "modern" and more traditional classical music. The analogy would cover liking Haydn or Brahms, or opera or ballet, but I think we would need something more different for the analogy to fit. My suggestion would be eating Western foods (beef, chicken, fish, etc) as opposed to eating insects. That should not be taken as being as insulting as it may seem at first. After all, most of the people of the world include insects in their diets. I would not find the idea of eating a grasshopper or a grub to be very appetizing, but is it really inherently more or less repugnant than eating the muscle of a chicken, which doesn't bother me at all?

For me, I think the appeal of "modern" compositions will have to remain a mystery. And how best to approach them will remain, for me, with dread and apprehension.


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Even or especially when composers like Schoenberg wrote using traditional form, listeners have a hard time hearing it. The score of the 3rd quartet has an analysis at the beginning by Erwin Stein, and everything in the first movement is labeled "quasi": quasi-exposition, quasi-development, quasi-recapitulation, quasi-coda(!). I could hear the sectional divisions before I looked at the score, but I didn't necessarily recognize them in this exact fashion, because nothing is repeated exactly the same way (even in the fourth movement rondo).
> 
> I know that the first scene of Wozzeck's Act II is a sonata form movement, and I recognize, knowing that, where all of the themes and sections are. Would I ever have picked up on it without being told? Probably not. I'm paying more attention to the drama and how the music works with it than analyzing it as an abstraction.


Well, I know when I'm listening to a symphony by Beethoven, and I suppose I know when I am listening to a movement from a 'traditional' symphony, but beyond that, the form of the music is, for me, irrelevant. It's all just 'these notes/sounds in this order' and I either like it or don't. But my questions were aimed at trying to understand whether 'starting with symphonies' was a suggestion because Manok thinks that symphonic form is easy to access (whatever actually may be the case).



JAS said:


> Is there an operative definition for "modern composer" for the purposes of this thread? Are you using chronology, technique, or some combination of the two?


I didn't like to ask yet another question - but there, you've been and gone and done it! I note that Manok has not come back to answer anyone's counter-queries yet...

....still waiting....


----------

