# Contemporary Classical that (hopefully) doesn't suck



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I've broken this out of the other related thread so the topic title can match what we're doing better.

Up for discussion...

BurningDesire's suggestions:

"The Seasons" by John Cage (either piano or orchestral versions), Concerto Grosso No. 4/Symphony No. 5 by Alfred Schnittke, "Sweeney Todd" by Stephen Sondheim, "Lontano" by Gyorgy Ligeti, "Deserts" by Edgard Varese, Symphony No. 3 by Henryk Gorecki, "Transfigured Notes" by Milton Babbitt, "Offertorium" by Sofia Gubaidulina, "Music for 18 Musicians" by Steve Reich, "Rothko Chapel" by Morton Feldman, and "Omega" by Iannis Xenakis

Here is our starting point... "The Seasons" by John Cage






I'll come back after I have a chance to play this through my big stereo. Don't want to listen on tiny laptop speakers. Don't wait for me though. Everyone else can feel free to join in.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

I would better suggest you anything by Rautavaara, Part and Tavener.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

We'll get there. I need to focus on one at a time to sort things out.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> I would better suggest you anything by Rautavaara, Part and Tavener.


An offertory of retro-conservative contemporary composers is really off point in this thread, regardless of the quality or validity of their work.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

1947, it is pushing the definition of contemporary a little, is Glen Miller contemporary pop.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Messiaen, Ligeti, and Schnittke would be starting ground. 
Schnttke - Concerto Grosso 1, Viola Concerto
Ligeti - Orchestral Works and Piano Concerto
Messiaen - Quartet for the End of Time, Turangilia-Symphonie, Organ Works


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

I enjoyed that. 

I don't have much else to say beyond that, but I genuinely enjoyed it. 

Looking forward to hearing the other pieces as this thread progresses.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

A thread subject with the word *suck*, that doesn't *suck*.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

I didn't really suggest those in any particular order. Not a suggested listening order, nor a chronological order, nor any order indicating which I like best.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

If you would like to give us an order, we'll follow it.

(How often does anyone get an offer like that?!)


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

quack said:


> 1947, it is pushing the definition of contemporary a little, is Glen Miller contemporary pop.


Yeeah, more than pushing, its a far stretch.

Accepted:
1890 - 1975 'modern'
1975 - present 'contemporary'

Of course there is always overlap, sixties, late sixties, some works already fall into the 'contemporary' mode, some Carter, Berio, etc. But '40's' 'modern' ain't contemporary, foh shoh 

Wherever people can start to get a handle on it is fine by me, though it would be nice if they got their musicological defined periods correct


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Contemporary in Classical is different from Contemporary in Pop though.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

As for The Seasons, I liked its space. I'm getting a visual of Anton Webern and Erik Satie visiting Chinatown.


----------



## DrKilroy (Sep 29, 2012)

What about the fifth sonata of Sonatas and Interludes by Cage? I always thought it sounds kind of funky. 






Best regards, Dr


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

There is tons of great contemporary classical out there, both in the areas of what would be considered more 'cutting edge' and not. I've never had a problem with contemporary classical music, only the attitudes some seem to have that innovation and being on the "cutting edge" are the _only_ ways to make valid artistic statements. I like well-rounded composers that retain a little more tradition as well as being more modern myself which is why Schnittke is one of my personal favorites. I sense some contemporary composers as genius as they may be, get somewhat stifled by their own restrictions.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Cage...thanks for the videos...I've tried, I really have. But all I hear is someone without musical talent whose compositions aren't interesting, not even diverting. For somebody dripping with musical talent, not post-tonal but more recent than Cage:


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

quack said:


> 1947, it is pushing the definition of contemporary a little, is Glen Miller contemporary pop.


Glen Milller never was 'pop'--couldn't be because I like him.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

PetrB said:


> An offertory of retro-conservative contemporary composers is really off point in this thread, regardless of the quality or validity of their work.


As far as I can tell, the OP is asking for contemporary classical music that people feel is rather good. All three (Rautavaara, Part and Tavener) are contemporary classical composers, and I assume member Renaissance feels they composed good work.

@bigshot: Are you only looking for certain types of contemporary music or _any_ good contemporary classical music?

Also, I have high hopes that this thread generates a list of interesting works that are discussed in a positive manner (the discussion, not necessarily the verdict). There was an old thread where both modern and contemporary works were posted and discussed. I quite enjoyed that.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

If we believe Stravinsky then how about the Grosse Fuge?

"[it is] an absolutely contemporary piece of music that will be contemporary forever."



Sorry, I couldn't resist - please ignore this post and continue more relevant discussions :lol:


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2012)

In all of this, the receptor will be constantly assumed to be a completely neutral and infallible entity, hence the lack of necessity for talking about it or thinking about it or questioning it. And so the receptor will be consistently ignored.

But in such a dynamic and volatile situation, ignoring the functions and inputs and limitations and contributions of one of the main components means that the elements of the situation that are attended to, in this case some recommended pieces as presented on youtube, will never be genuinely understood. Certainly the handicap presented by the thread title "Contemporary Classical that (hopefully) doesn't suck" will never ever be overcome. How can it be?

It will look, at least to bigshot when he finds a piece that he can enjoy, that the handicap has been overcome. (Not that bigshot will be thinking in those terms--handicap, overcome.) Raatavaara's symphony #8, say, might seem to bighot to be a not-sucky piece. Success!

Nah. The underlying issues are still there. The skewed perspectives are still skewed. The transference of value from where it belongs to a place alien to value is still counterproductive.

People will be exposed to many and various pieces, it's true. (But aren't they anyway?) Some will hear Cage's _Seasons_ for the first time and think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Others will be indifferent to it. Others will hate it. (But isn't that true all the time with any piece anyway?) bigshot will have found a piece or two that he genuinely enjoys. Wouldn't he have done that anyway?


----------



## Zauberberg (Feb 21, 2012)

Plenty to choose, but my 2 cents:


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2012)

Gobbledy ****!! ...functions, inputs, limitations - Bah humbug


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2012)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Gobbledy ****!!


Oh what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say "Gobbledy ****" to old ladies. (Man.) I'm sorry, but from the back... (I'm 37. I'm not old.)


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Cage...thanks for the videos...I've tried, I really have. But all I hear is someone without musical talent whose compositions aren't interesting, not even diverting.


I think the scribbles on a chalkboard say it all, if we are calling this classical music. As a classical piece, it sucks (in my humble opinion). I would categorize it as a jazz experiment, which is not so unlikeable in that context.


bigshot said:


> Here is our starting point... "The Seasons" by John Cage


Yes, my comment sucks as well, because of what I am referring to.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

mud said:


> I think the scribbles on a chalkboard say it all, if we are calling this classical music. As a classical piece, it sucks (in my humble opinion).


Cool story bro. Do you actually like any music?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Cage is not a good example to prove to others what Contemporary Music of. Schnittke imo is much better.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Cage is not a good example to prove to others what Contemporary Music of. Schnittke imo is much better.


He's a fine example. The Seasons is one of the great ballets of a century brimming with great ballets. Schnittke is brilliant too, but if somebody doesn't hear the genius and beauty in something like Cage's ballet, the failing is on their part, not his.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2012)

"Take four listeners occupying the same box at the same performance; the first is bored, the second entertained, the third is indignant, and the fourth enthusiastic."

Written in 1852 (or earlier), but those four listeners are still alive and still arguing.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> Cool story bro. Do you actually like any music?


I much prefer Vivaldi's Le quattro stagioni, if you want to talk about seasons.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

mud said:


> I much prefer Vivaldi's Le quattro stagioni, if you want to talk about seasons.


If you are compaing everything to Vivaldi's 4 Seasons, there is no comparison. Vivaldi's 4 Seasons is a cd of perfection. Bach is about as close as you get to that but still not as consistent.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> If you are compaing everything to Vivaldi's 4 Seasons, there is no comparison. Vivaldi's 4 Seasons is a cd of perfection. Bach is about as close as you get to that but still not as consistent.


Cage's is more perfect. :3


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> Cage's is more perfect. :3


You are wrong.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> If you are compaing everything to Vivaldi's 4 Seasons, there is no comparison. Vivaldi's 4 Seasons is a cd of perfection. Bach is about as close as you get to that but still not as consistent.


I am not really comparing them, because I do not consider the latter to be classical music. This was merely to answer the question with an example of what I like about the expressivity of classical music, in regard to their common subject matter.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

mud said:


> I am not really comparing them, because I do not consider the latter to be classical music. This was merely to answer the question with an example of what I like about the expressivity of classical music, in regard to their common subject matter.


Well I don't consider Vivaldi to be Classical music either. He's Baroque :3


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Baroque is closer to Metal than Classical imo.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> Well I don't consider Vivaldi to be Classical music either. He's Baroque :3


Who knew? Classical music and the classical period are disinct references, of which classical music is the default (and includes the Baroque period). Methinks the contemporary period has PMS.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Baroque is closer to Metal than Classical imo.


I would not be surprised if its recording artists were influenced by metal (in their tempo and such).


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Baroque is closer to Metal than Classical imo.


Uh, some metal maybe. Then there's other metal which sounds more like blues and jazz music, and plenty more that has alot in common with music like Stravinsky, Xenakis, Schoenberg...


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

mud said:


> Who knew? Classical music and the classical period are disinct references, of which classical music is the default (and includes the Baroque period). Methinks the contemporary period has PMS.


Me thinks the classicist lacks class.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> Me thinks the classicist lacks class.


We seem to be playing rock, paper, scissors, which reminds me of scribbles on a chalkboard... an example of why contemporary classical discussions suck.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2012)

"Take four listeners occupying the same box at the same performance; the first is bored, the second entertained, the third is indignant, and the fourth enthusiastic." --1852


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

some guy said:


> "Take four listeners occupying the same box at the same performance; the first is bored, the second entertained, the third is indignant, and the fourth enthusiastic." --1852


Take classical music and abandon its traditions, and you end up with people listening to something else, under false pretenses.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Right. Shouldn't there be a counter-thread, like, *"Romantic classical music that (hopefully) doesn't suck?"*


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Right. Shouldn't there be a counter-thread, like, *"Romantic classical music that (hopefully) doesn't suck?"*


There wouldn't need to be one if contemporary music had not contrasted it by sucking, as its major departure (in my humble opinion), or its awe inspiring development to some.

Anyway, I am getting off this train (of thought) as it has gone off topic. I started out on topic though, and merely followed the responses to its bottom line of these being different categories of music.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2012)

mud said:


> some guy said:
> 
> 
> > "Take four listeners occupying the same box at the same performance; the first is bored, the second entertained, the third is indignant, and the fourth enthusiastic." --1852
> ...


Best non sequitur of the year, I say.

But seriously....

Oh, never mind. Ride yer dam' hobbyhorse.

Hey, it's only what I've been doing on this thread, as well.

Woo Hoo!! Giddy-up, liddle pony!!


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

some guy said:


> Best non sequitur of the year, I say.


So is the date of your quote. But I digress.


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2012)

Say _what?_

Another non seq?

The date of my quote is just that, the date that quote appeared in print. December, 1852. That date may be many things, and perhaps you're suggesting that it's irrelevant?, but a non sequitur it's not.

(If you said "Bunnies are my favorite animal" and I responded with "1852," _then_ it would be a non sequitur.)


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

some guy said:


> The date of my quote is just that, the date that quote appeared in print. December, 1852. That date may be many things, and perhaps you're suggesting that it's irrelevant?, but a non sequitur it's not.


The past "does not follow" its future, unless histroy repeats (or remains consistent with) itself, and there in lies the beauty of classical music recordings. So why don't you share some more _contemporary classical that (hopefully) doesn't suck_, instead of playing word games with me? I think bigshot is waiting to be enlightened...


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Non sequitur refers to not following in a logical progression, not in a temporal, historical sense.

He probably doesn't wish to add more music to the pyre in a thread that is biased from the outset.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

quack said:


> Non sequitur refers to not following in a logical progression, not in a temporal, historical sense.


The progression of logic does not exclude time, especially when the premise of this topic was disconnected from the conclusion of such a quote, based on its lack of inheritance from that time. While my response to it was connected to each subject (or premise, as it were).


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

you're right, I haven't got time for this illogic.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

quack said:


> you're right, I haven't got time for this illogic.


Back to the future...


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> I didn't really suggest those in any particular order. Not a suggested listening order, nor a chronological order, nor any order indicating which I like best.


Begging BurningDesire's pardon, I wish to suggest an order via some parameters:


musical works composed/completed between 1982 and 2001 (over ten years old, but not greater than 30 years)

&
composer's year of birth to be after 1947 (the under-age-65 crowd  )

I haven't encountered a large amount of YouTube videos containing contemporary classical music from the most recent ten years (2002 to the present), but to my surprise there are a number of clips of works from the 1990s and the 1980s. Some examples which came to my mind did not have a corresponding YT vid, so some of my following suggestions are culled from what's available on the internet and not exactly indicative of my personal favorites.

[I also trust that TC members shouldn't have disagreements about the 1980s, & up through the present, being contemporary  ]


"At First Light" (1982) by George Benjamin. 




"Pentimento" (1984) by Jose Luis Turina. 




"Yi" (1986) by Qigang Chen. 




"Du Cristal..." (1990) by Kaija Saariaho. 




"Sterbende Gärten" (1993?) by Bent Sørensen. 




"Malstrom" (1998) by Hanspeter Kyburz. 





"All ye who enter here ... "


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Another excellent piece by Cage:


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

You know, if we all add Mud to our ignore lists, then his trolling will cease to be effective.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I had not heard Cage's The Seasons. Parts of it sounded like Cage (to me), but I was really blown away by the wonderful _Spring_. I would never have guessed that was Cage. It sounded Debussian (if that's the appropriate adjective). Really beautiful.

I read that he originally wrote the ballet as a piano work and then completed an orchestral version. I very much wanted to hear that version (especially _Spring_), but I could not find a version on youtube or Spotify.

I'd be interested to see the actual ballet and how the choreography worked with the music.

@BurningDesire: Thanks for that suggestion.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> You know, if we all add Mud to our ignore lists, then his trolling will cease to be effective.


He likes Vivaldi though. I can't say all his takes are bad.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> You know, if we all add Mud to our ignore lists, then his trolling will cease to be effective.


You don't need to do that, just don't get provoked by his posts.
All though i know that very few people have the skill to not be provoked.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> I had not heard Cage's The Seasons. Parts of it sounded like Cage (to me), but I was really blown away by the wonderful _Spring_. I would never have guessed that was Cage. It sounded Debussian (if that's the appropriate adjective). Really beautiful.
> 
> I read that he originally wrote the ballet as a piano work and then completed an orchestral version. I very much wanted to hear that version (especially _Spring_), but I could not find a version on youtube or Spotify.
> 
> ...


Spring is awesome. My favorite bit would probably be Summer. Cage based it on the Indian concept of the seasons: Winter being associated with quiescense, Spring with creation, Summer with preservation, and Fall with destruction, and the opening prelude is recapped at the end symbolizing the cyclical nature of the seasons :3

A friend of mine described the piece as being like Schoenberg and Debussy mixed, which kinda makes sense since Schoenberg was an important teacher for Cage, and one of Cage's favorite composers was Erik Satie, a contemporary of and influence on Debussy.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

Okay, I found one piece that doesn't suck, no it blows... :tiphat:


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

I know some people who are dissatisfied by Post-modernistic absurd innovations. They tend to be called trolls, because they disagree...


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Arsakes said:


> I know some people who are dissatisfied by Post-modernistic absurd innovations. They tend to be called trolls, because they disagree...


Post-modernism is a dumb term, and really only one of the pieces I listed fits under that dumb term anyway (Schnittke's Concerto Grosso No. 4/Symphony No. 5). And I don't call somebody a troll for disagreeing. I call somebody a troll for constantly saying mean and rude things (which tbh is typical of many of the anti-modern music folk here, BUT not all of them)


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

mud said:


> Okay, I found one piece that doesn't suck, no it blows... :tiphat:


Ha! An apt description, both pro and con. I hope he didn't pay a lot for the score.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Dream*

Another excellant Cage piece.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

And the very groovy sonata number V for prepared piano :


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

aleazk said:


> And the very groovy sonata number V for prepared piano :


Sonatas and Interludes is such an amazing piece  and that recording. I love Boris Berman's interpretation. Honestly, I wish that Cage kept writing more music like this, rather than stripping his personality from the music he was writing most of the time, or attempting to at any rate.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

bigshot said:


> BurningDesire's remaining suggestions: Concerto Grosso No. 4/Symphony No. 5 by Alfred Schnittke, "Sweeney Todd" by Stephen Sondheim, "Lontano" by Gyorgy Ligeti, "Deserts" by Edgard Varese, Symphony No. 3 by Henryk Gorecki, "Transfigured Notes" by Milton Babbitt, "Offertorium" by Sofia Gubaidulina, "Music for 18 Musicians" by Steve Reich, "Rothko Chapel" by Morton Feldman, and "Omega" by Iannis Xenakis
> 
> Here is our starting point... "The Seasons" by John Cage


OK. I finally got time to listen to this carefully. I think it was a mistake to start with John Cage. There is nothing for me to grab onto here... no room for virtuosity on the part of the performer- most of it is one hand playing. The meandering noodling had me squirming for the other shoe to drop within four minutes, but it never did. I suppose there's some sort of stucture here with the four seasons, each preceded by a transition bit. But it just seemed like a few random blips repeated and partially repeated with an occasional dissonant chord here and there. It was the musical equivalent of a leaky faucet.

Burning Desire, I am making an effort here. Can you look through your list and suggest something that has obvious qualities. It isn't a matter of style. I want the best of the best. Stuff that is the equivalent of Beethoven's ninth for this genre. It doesn't have to be like Beethoven's ninth. It just has to have stature as great music with virtuoso performance. I want to be impressed. Is that possible?

thanks


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> @bigshot: Are you only looking for certain types of contemporary music or _any_ good contemporary classical music?


I want the *best* contemporary classical has to offer. I love Ives. He is my favorite composer. But the twenties and thirties isn't really "contemporary". Up to now, everything I've heard after around 1960 or so is awful. I've considered contemporary classical music a dry well and have moved on to more promising pastures. I'm open to reconsidering it, but I listen to a LOT of different kinds of music, and I don't spend a lot of time on genres that aren't rich veins for prospecting. If someone can point me to just the good stuff, I'm there with bells on.

As an example, I saw this video for the first time this week and it had me on the floor. Absolutely astounding on every level.






Are there any contemporary classical performances like this? Virtuosity. Expressiveness. Dynamic contrast. Variety. Lyrical flow. Structure. Cleverness. Beauty. Atmosphere. Everything.

I could know absolutely nothing about classical music and watch this and know that I was looking at and listening to pure genius. Even if I didn't personally like the music, and preferred heavy metal or broadway show tunes, I would still be impressed and engaged.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

bigshot said:


> OK. I finally got time to listen to this carefully. I think it was a mistake to start with John Cage. There is nothing for me to grab onto here... no room for virtuosity on the part of the performer- most of it is one hand playing. The meandering noodling had me squirming for the other shoe to drop within four minutes, but it never did. I suppose there's some sort of stucture here with the four seasons, each preceded by a transition bit. But it just seemed like a few random blips repeated and partially repeated with an occasional dissonant chord here and there. It was the musical equivalent of a leaky faucet.
> 
> Burning Desire, I am making an effort here. Can you look through your list and suggest something that has obvious qualities. It isn't a matter of style. I want the best of the best. Stuff that is the equivalent of Beethoven's ninth for this genre. It doesn't have to be like Beethoven's ninth. It just has to have stature as great music with virtuoso performance. I want to be impressed. Is that possible?
> 
> thanks


Virtuoso doesn't equal good music. There is plenty of great music written that requires virtuoso musicians to perform it, but that isn't what makes it good. Honestly I don't know what to tell you. The Seasons is quite straight-forward, it has thematic material that makes sense to my ears. The sonorities are beautiful and colorful, and I have no idea how you got "meandering noodling" out of this piece. If you don't get anything out of it, I don't know what to say. I might ask if you get nothing out of Debussy nor Satie either, nor out of classical music from China and Japan? I don't rank pieces, I just think The Seasons is a wonderful composition, and it appeals to me much in the same way Debussy's Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun does.

I guess all I can say is try and listen to it some more, and maybe something will click? I tended to pick pieces that are easier to follow in a narrative way, that don't come off as abstract as most serialist and chance and hyper-complex avant-garde music sometimes does. Maybe explore Asian classical and folk music some, and quieter more spacey music. I can link you some. Its a different aesthetic than Beethoven.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

bigshot said:


> OK. I finally got time to listen to this carefully. I think it was a mistake to start with John Cage. There is nothing for me to grab onto here... no room for virtuosity on the part of the performer- most of it is one hand playing. The meandering noodling had me squirming for the other shoe to drop within four minutes, but it never did. I suppose there's some sort of stucture here with the four seasons, each preceded by a transition bit. But it just seemed like a few random blips repeated and partially repeated with an occasional dissonant chord here and there. It was the musical equivalent of a leaky faucet.
> 
> Burning Desire, I am making an effort here. Can you look through your list and suggest something that has obvious qualities. It isn't a matter of style. I want the best of the best. Stuff that is the equivalent of Beethoven's ninth for this genre. It doesn't have to be like Beethoven's ninth. It just has to have stature as great music with virtuoso performance. I want to be impressed. Is that possible?
> 
> thanks


Schnittke: Concerto Grosso No. 1 (1977)
Messiaen: Des Canyons aux Etoiles (1971-74)
Lutoslawski: String Quartet (1964)
Lutoslawski: Symphony #3 (1983)
Schnittke: Viola Concerto (1985)


----------



## Guest (Nov 7, 2012)

bigshot said:


> I want the *best* contemporary classical has to offer.


I'm willing to wager, having read dozens of your posts over the past month or so, that this is not what you want.

I think what you want is contemporary classical that fits into the slot of "what bigshot already values." But new music is not offering you what you already value. It's offering you something different from what you already value. It's a zero sum situation we're in, because what you want is for the music to fit you rather than changing yourself to fit what the music is, what music has become. As long as you stay at that point, there is probably very little if any contemporary music that will do what you're asking for. What you're asking for is the wrong thing.

Your comment that you could "know absolutely nothing about classical music and watch this and know that [you were] looking at and listening to pure genius" says everything, I think. You don't seem aware of or willing to acknowledge that "absolutely nothing about" is pure supposition on your part. You come into the situation with quite a lot of something, one something being an idea about genius, another something being that you do, in fact, know quite a lot about (older) classical music, and quite a long list of other somethings about which you have some idea--virtuosity, expressiveness and the like.

"Absolutely nothing" is quite far from what anyone brings to any experience. Even infants don't start out with "absolutely nothing."

What you should be asking for is not "the *best* contemporary music"--"best" being chimerical as you know already perfectly well--but "what do I need to change about my listening in order to be able to process the kinds of things that seem to be giving some guy and violadude and COAG and BurningDesire and aleazk and so forth such pleasure?"


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> Maybe explore Asian classical and folk music some, and quieter more spacey music... Its a different aesthetic than Beethoven.


Bigshot wants new, virtuosic? Well the improvised parts are new, and it's certainly in Gould territory re virtuosity. A bit of extra patience may be required.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

The piece by Steve Reich suggested by BD (Music for 18 Musicians) is quite accessible and atmospheric:


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> Virtuoso doesn't equal good music.


I want virtuoso AND good music. I'm interested in music that uses every aspect of expression fluently and eloquently. I don't want reductivism... just one aspect of music at a time. To me, that is lazy. If your ancestors built pyramids, don't build a pup tent and say it's the same thing. I believe on standing on the shoulders of giants to go further than they went, not to reduce it down to a lazy minimum.

Are you really saying that you are incapable of identifying the difference between great works and mediocre ones? Because if that's true, you can't help me. There is too much great music I can easily find to sort through a dumpster full of packing peanuts for a lone diamond mixed in.

I am very familiar with Debussy and Satie. I can easily tell you why one is great and the other isn't. I can appreciate oriental music, polytonal music and avant garde music. But it has to be really good. I am looking for someone who knows the difference who can offer me some breadcrumbs to follow.

But that person has to be knowledgeable and brave enough to express an opinion on good and bad. If they can't do that, all they can do is point to the pile of packing peanuts and say, "Figure it out for yourself."

If someone else is knowledgeable enough and interested in guruing me in this, I'd appreciate the help and I'd be happy to share tips that I might know that you don't yet.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Britten, in a rehearsal, famously said, "Gentlemen, it's supposed to sound ugly! This is _modern _music."

But not all contemporary music sounds like aimless noodling or a scrapmetal truck colliding with a herd of cattle. John Adams' music seems quite popular, and even his detractors wouldn't say that it's aurally unpleasant. I admit to being a particular fan of quite a few of his works. Here's one, complete with virtuosity. The distant influence of Indian classical music is nice.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

And plenty of good Shostakovich music in his later years as well. Yeah I agree that Cage wasn't a good first choice for modern music. And Debussy is better than Satie. 
Cello Concerto No. 2 in G major (1966)
String Quartet No. 8 in C minor (1960)
Shostakovich: Symphony No. 15 in A Major (1971) 
Shostakovich: String quartet No. 15 (1974)


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I've listened to a lot of Shostakovich. He is great.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

bigshot said:


> I've listened to a lot of Shostakovich. He is great.


If you like Shostakovich, you should like Schnittke as well. See Viola Concerto and Concerto Grosso #1.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Thanks... I'm kinda looking for a guru that can work with me a bit. Hopefully there's someone who can help me.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Thanks... I'm kinda looking for a guru that can work with me a bit. Hopefully there's someone who can help me.


Since you haven't commented on any of the recent suggestions, I'm not sure there is much point in making new ones at least for the time being.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Are you offering to work with me? Last time I clicked on every one of the videos posted and they kept getting worse and worse. I need someone who knows the material who will listen to my comments about the videos and see if they can address them or send me back to get things I may be missing. I kinda need a bit of back and forth, not just one hits.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Are you offering to work with me? Last time I clicked on every one of the videos posted and they kept getting worse and worse. I need someone who knows the material who will listen to my comments about the videos and see if they can address them or send me back to get things I may be missing. I kinda need a bit of back and forth, not just one hits.


Speaking only for myself...if you found the videos I posted to "just get worse and worse," then I'm not the person to work with you. Good luck though!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I'm not talking about this thread. I'm talking about the last time I asked this. I need someone who has the patience to carefully select for me and take the time to explain. I don't want to watch a bunch of videos offered by a bunch of people. I want it boiled down a bit by someone who knows their stuff.

If someone came here asking for advice on beginning with Wagner or classic Jazz or country music or any of the other areas I've gone into, I would be able to quickly come up with a half dozen killer suggestions that I could walk people through to get them started. If they had questions or problems with the music, I could help them figure it out and see what it's all about. But it seems that no one really seems entirely comfortable with contemporary classical music. They listen to it, but they claim they can't judge what of it is good and what is bad, and don't seem to be able articulate what makes it truly great. It's just "I like".

I don't want someone who will pick something I might like based on other stuff I like. I don't want whatever is sitting on top of your CD player this week. I want someone who can select the self evident drop dead greats who can explain why they're great.


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2012)

bigshot said:


> I need someone who has the patience to carefully select for me and take the time to explain.


What you need is to have the patience to listen and respond for yourself. And take the time to learn to hear what's going on.



bigshot said:


> I want it boiled down a bit by someone who knows their stuff.


You want someone to do your work for you (and want to be able to continue to knock that work as being no good).



bigshot said:


> ...it seems that no one really seems entirely comfortable with contemporary classical music.


Hahahaha, wow. You cannot be serious. I've been entirely comfortable with it for forty years now. I call silly.



bigshot said:


> They listen to it, but they claim they can't judge what of it is good and what is bad, and don't seem to be able articulate what makes it truly great. It's just "I like".


What you're having trouble with really is something entirely other, I think. You insist that "they" play by your rules and then whinge when "they" offer you a different set of rules for you to play by. You want to see greatness as inhering in the pieces. I want you to consider seeing quality as what happens when a listener engages with a piece--different listeners will get different results. This is the same for older music. Different listeners get different results. The only thing is, because older music has been around for awhile, it's more familiar. More comfortable. More easily comprehensible. Not for any objective quality of the music itself but simply because we know it already. But new music is new. You understand? New. What does that mean? Not familiar. Not comfortable. Not easily comprehensible. So long as you insist that new music sound like what you, bigshot, already know, this whole business is pointless. As I said before, zero sum.



bigshot said:


> I want someone who can select the self evident drop dead greats who can explain why they're great.


You can't have this. You may get some people who will offer you their favorites. You may even get some people who will assure you that their favorites are "self evident drop dead greats." But all that will be illusory. At some point you will either have to accept this or move on to something else: there is no such thing as "self evident drop dead greats." You really cannot continue to insist on having something that doesn't exist and that never will exist. Chimera. Null set. (That you can identify "great" pieces of the past is fine. But are those things really "self evident"? No. Those things have had decades if not centuries to establish themselves. Decades of all sorts of people listening and enjoying. That's all it is, really. Lots of people listening and enjoying over the years as opposed to few people in the last couple of months or years listening and enjoying. Not really comparable.)

Besides, when people do offer you suggestions, you kill any incentive for continuing that activity by calling their choices crap. Come on. Surely you must be able to see what you are contributing to this situation. And what you are contributing is rejection.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I haven't gone through this thread, so I don't know if his work has been mentioned, but have you tried Henri Dutilleux? For 2nd half of 20th century, Dutilleux seems to have the ability to be a gateway drug to some. The first work I heard was the Violin concerto. I was surprised at how I couldn't deny that I had pretty unreservedly enjoyed myself when hearing it live. After exploring more of his music, I've discovered that the 1st and 2nd symphonies are yet more accessible. The Cello Concerto is good as well, though a bit less accessible for whatever reason. Ironically, a temporary TC member who had been to the same concert as me that heard the Cello Concerto and thought it was very bizarre that anyone could like such a piece, thinking he was surrounded by a bunch of pretentious, brainwashed weirdos. There are more basic musical reasons I think less of the accessibility of that work though.

However confusing Dutilleux might initially be in his form, there is no denying his ingenuity for orchestration and relatively memorable atonal material.

Violin Concerto, a bit more contemporary





Symphony 2, unadulterated Dutilleux(the 1st has roots in older composers like Shostakovich or Messaien), but with more perceptible sections and architecture. 





Really, there is material in these that would make for classy movie soundtracks.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

bigshot said:


> I want someone who can select the self evident drop dead greats who can explain why they're great.


Well, as you know I posted a couple of suggestions. I can't assure you that they are "self evident drop dead greats" and can't explain why they're great. In fact, I can't even tell you (as you asked for elsewhere) "what to listen for." This is, after all, music.

Sorry to be so inadequate to your needs!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

some guy said:


> You can't have this. You may get some people who will offer you their favorites.


bull sheist. There are people who are both passionate about music and knowledgeable. That is what I'm looking for.

If there is no one with the knowledge and passion for this stuff, why are we wasting time with it? We should go back to Beethoven and Bach. I got the Sony Glenn Gould CBC broadcasts on DVD the other day. They make me want to dance just watching them. SHOW ME SOMETHING RECENT LIKE THAT.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

The fact is there are no classics in Contemporary Classical. The style of music is hard to make classics with. I think that is the answer bigshot wanted to hear.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Are you serious?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

bigshot said:


> But it seems that no one really seems entirely comfortable with contemporary classical music. They listen to it, but they claim they can't judge what of it is good and what is bad, and don't seem to be able articulate what makes it truly great. It's just "I like".


Wrong. Its more along the lines of them understanding that artistic expression is considerably more complex than "good" or "bad". Most modern music fans will likely be able to tell you plenty they think is great, or they think sucks, but they generally also acknowledge that this is personal. It's not an objective thing. Its kinda mindless to say that a certain artist is the greatest if you aren't even that big a fan of their music.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Are you serious?


Yeah. The Classics were more clearcut in the Romantic Era. There are still a lot of good songs in Modern times but I can't think of one that everyone can agree on to be a Classic. But the ones I mentioned I think are the closest. Ligeti has some good tracks as well but I'm sure you've heard of those.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Right. Shouldn't there be a counter-thread, like, *"Romantic classical music that (hopefully) doesn't suck?"*


There was actually. 
http://www.talkclassical.com/14793-please-recommend-good-music.html

Herlocksholmes, one of my favorite TC users of all time. Banned twice he was.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> It's not an objective thing.


Then why can I say that Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington and Miles Davis are the three greatest musicians in jazz and not really worry about anyone disagreeing that strenuously?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> Yeah. The Classics were more clearcut in the Romantic Era. There are still a lot of good songs in Modern times but I can't think of one that everyone can agree on to be a Classic. But the ones I mentioned I think are the closest. Ligeti has some good tracks as well but I'm sure you've heard of those.


I think we're coming to the conclusion that contemporary classical music isn't as fertile a field as baroque, classical and romantic music. Also, I think it's becoming clear that most of the avant garde music that really matters was created before the 1960s. If I'm wrong, someone can feel free to pipe up with the clear cut exception to the rule.

Honestly, I wasn't expecting it to fold this fast. I thought there must be something I didn't know about yet.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

bigshot said:


> I think we're coming to the conclusion that contemporary classical music isn't as fertile a field as baroque, classical and romantic music. Also, I think it's becoming clear that most of the avant garde music that really matters was created before the 1960s...Honestly, I wasn't expecting it to fold this fast. I thought there must be something I didn't know about yet.


I'm quite sure you know it all now. It's been proven by the fact that you didn't like the music that others went out of their way to suggest to you. :cheers:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Contemporary in Classical is different from Contemporary in Pop though.


pop has very brief shelf-life. Current is contemporary there, and anything five years old is already starting to gather dust on the shelf. After ten years, it is 'an oldie.' 

Contemporary classical, a work may have been premiered in the late 70's or after which is just now gathering momentum as being more generally performed and publicly recognized.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> pop has very brief shelf-life.


I can think of a lot of pop that's close to 50 years old that's still widely enjoyed and is selling well. But perhaps your meaning is different.


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2012)

bigshot said:


> There are people who are both passionate about music and knowledgeable. That is what I'm looking for.


Yes. That would be me. And when I tell you what I know, you call "bull sheist."



bigshot said:


> SHOW ME SOMETHING RECENT LIKE THAT.


There is nothing recent like that. That was then, now is now. There are plenty of things that make me want to dance just watching them, but the ones I've shared with you, on that disastrous earlier thread, you just pronounced to be crap. Unlistenable. The worst of the worst. That's your problem.

Dude. Man up. Take some responsibility for the situation that you have created. And learn to play well with others, or we're all gonna go to the other side of the playground and let you dig in the sandbox by yourself.


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2012)

bigshot said:


> I think we're coming to the conclusion that contemporary classical music isn't as fertile a field as baroque, classical and romantic music.


Hahaha. You're the royal "we" now are you?

Your majesty!!

(I don't suppose you know this, but that "fertile field" metaphor is pretty old. Mozart was compared unfavorably to Buxtehude with it. Beethoven was then compared unfavorably to Haydn and Mozart with it. Berlioz was compared unfavorably to Beethoven with it. It's a hoary old chestnut. I suppose what this shows is that the whole field of music has been seen as infertile by someone at some time.)



bigshot said:


> Also, I think it's becoming clear that most of the avant garde music that really matters was created before the 1960s. If I'm wrong, someone can feel free to pipe up with the clear cut exception to the rule.


Since there's no rule, there's no exception to it. Yes, you're that wrong.



bigshot said:


> I thought there must be something I didn't know about yet.


:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2012)

some guy said:


> Oh what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say "Gobbledy ****" to old ladies. (Man.) I'm sorry, but from the back... (I'm 37. I'm not old.)


Oh, so not old enough to understand 'functions...inputs...limitations....programmatic specificities....' - i.e. pseudo-intellectual prolix. Now I am bored talking to teenagers.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Here are my suggestions, in the form of specific CDs rather than works per se. I can only post 3 at a time, and depending on your response will continue. You should be able to hear samples of these on Amazon. If the CD listing has no sound samples, try the MP3 version.







A very good performance of Cage's early keyboard works, plus some Feldman. This was originally released on Coumbia Masterworks (Cage only) as a 2-LP set.







Excellent performance of Cage's prepared piano piece _Three Dances;_ exciting, I dare say. Plus, a Steve Reich piece played on Farfisa organs. Cheezy, yet contemporary. Plus, Rite of Spring, 2-piano version.







Very good overview, great production, of some lesser-known modern composers. Jacob Druckman you may have heard of. Orpheus is fantastic.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Here's my favorite Terry Riley.







This features the title electric keyboard piece, plus the whimsically titled _Poppy Nogood and the Phantom Band,_ one of Riley's soprano sax improvisations over a rich drone. Must be heard to be believed.







This is a series of studio-recorded improvs using a Yamaha organ re-tuned to "just" intonation. Otherworldly.







This piano work shows the great facility required for Riley's music. On a piano, this aspect is exposed more.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Nice, spacious Feldman, from the excellent series on MODE.







An early 1970s recording of this work, originally released as an LP on Columbia Masterworks. Good performance, warm analog recording.







One of the few "authentic" Stockhausen works available outside of his own label. From the first definitive performances originally released on DG vinyl, with direct participation by him as part of his ensemble.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

bigshot said:


> Then why can I say that Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington and Miles Davis are the three greatest musicians in jazz and not really worry about anyone disagreeing that strenuously?


There may be some people who disagree that they are _the_ three greatest as opposed to three _of the_ greatest. (Parker? Gillespie? Coltrane? Tatum?) 
And besides, none of the above are contemporary. You may find a lot of disagreement concerning _contemporary_ Jazz for the same reasons as there is disagreement concerning _contemporary _classical.
'Greatness' is a measure of stature and stature is built up over time. If today one asked, who is the greatest living British composer, they may very well receive the answer Harrison Birtwistle. He is a composer of great stature in British music. This is quite a different matter from any perceived 'quality' of or in his music. In a hundred years he may have increased or decreased in stature as his music is reassessed by each generation.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Excellent, excellent recording of these little-known early Stockhausen woodwind works, most only on LP until now.







Dallapiccola: one of the "good" serialists, who won-over Aaron Copland to serialism. Like Carter and Perle, he uses 12-tone methods to create _real music._







This might be the best Varése recording out there. It's got both of the _classic_ Robert Craft/Columbia recordings. This recording of _Desérts,_ unlike the Boulez/Sony version, contains the taped electronic interpolations. _Great_ performances, warm analog recording.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Then why can I say that Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington and Miles Davis are the three greatest musicians in jazz and not really worry about anyone disagreeing that strenuously?


I'm sure some people would disagree. Personally I would take issue with putting those three above all the other amazing jazz musicians out there. Some people might agree with you, but that doesn't prove anything, other than more than one person can think highly of a certain artist. I would probably strike Louis Armstrong and Miles Davis (even though they're great musicians) and replace them with Charles Mingus and Herbie Hancock. Its all about personal taste. I'm sure you could find many jazz fans that would favor my selections as well, doesn't prove their objective greatness. If everybody in the world loved the music of John Cage, that wouldn't prove he's the greatest composer, just as if everybody loving the music of Ludwig van Beethoven doesn't prove he's the greatest composer either.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> View attachment 9622
> Excellent, _excellent_ recording of these little-known early Stockhausen woodwind works, most only on LP until now.
> 
> View attachment 9623
> ...


Really? Why stoop down to that level and call tonal-sounding music "real music"? or "good music"?


----------



## IBMchicago (May 16, 2012)

I personally find it difficult to appreciate contemporary classical music unless there is some "visual" appeal (must be the wimp in in me). That being said, love the themes frmo Battlestar Galactica by Bear McCreary, as well as Ramin Djawadi's score for Medal of Honor. Both excellent.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> Really? Why stoop down to that level and call tonal-sounding music "real music"? or "good music"?


He's just paying us a visit in the gutter where the good 'tunes' lay.:lol:


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> If everybody in the world loved the music of John Cage, that wouldn't prove he's the greatest composer,


Wouldn't it? Everybody? In the whole world? I think it might be hard to reject the notion.



BurningDesire said:


> just as if everybody loving the music of Ludwig van Beethoven doesn't prove he's the greatest composer either.


Doesn't it?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> I'm sure some people would disagree. Personally I would take issue with putting those three above all the other amazing jazz musicians out there. Some people might agree with you, but that doesn't prove anything, other than more than one person can think highly of a certain artist. I would probably strike Louis Armstrong and Miles Davis (even though they're great musicians) and replace them with Charles Mingus and Herbie Hancock. Its all about personal taste. I'm sure you could find many jazz fans that would favor my selections as well, doesn't prove their objective greatness. If everybody in the world loved the music of John Cage, that wouldn't prove he's the greatest composer, just as if everybody loving the music of Ludwig van Beethoven doesn't prove he's the greatest composer either.


I'll have to disagree with your argument and say that personal taste is somewhat besides the point when doing an analysis of the most important or "greatest" musicians in the jazz lineage. Louis Armstrong's contributions cannot be underestimated. He was the first great jazz soloist and scat vocalist, and he had a huge influence on future musicians. He expanded the forms, like Beethoven did with 18th century classical music.

Like yourself, Herbie Hancock and Mingus are more suitable to my listening tastes, but this has no bearing on the historical importance or innovations of Armstrong or Ellington. In fact, it's impossible to listen to Mingus without hearing the Ellington influence. Mingus adored Duke's music.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> View attachment 9622
> Excellent, _excellent_ recording of these little-known early Stockhausen woodwind works, most only on LP until now.
> 
> View attachment 9623
> ...


Oh, rats, the attachments didn't come up. Would you repost or give the names of the CDs? I'm interested.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> And besides, none of the above are contemporary. You may find a lot of disagreement concerning _contemporary_ Jazz for the same reasons as there is disagreement concerning _contemporary _classical..


Precisely!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Thanks Millionrainbows, but I'm not ready to invest a lot of money at Amazon on this yet. Perhaps it's just that there isn't any really good contemporary classical at youtube, or maybe people just aren't willing to put in the time to help me on this. I'll wait for the right guru.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> I'm sure some people would disagree. Personally I would take issue with putting those three above all the other amazing jazz musicians out there.


How much do you know about the history of jazz? If you know the full range from ragtime to post Bop and beyond, it's pretty clear that these three stand at the forefront of their respective areas. There really isn't that much disagreement. There are other important figures to be sure, but these three are the ones on the Mt Rushmore of jazz.

Striking Armstrong for Herbie Hancock is like striking Michaelangelo for Norman Rockwell. (Not that I don't like Rockwell mind you. It's just that they aren't anywhere near being in the same league.) Of those three, Miles is in the weakest position, not so much because of his influence and importance, which is undeniable, but because of his more limited musicianship. Other people (like Dizzy) could play faster and higher. But Miles was the one who, for better or worse, took jazz out of be bop and into fusion. Some might applaud him for that. Others might blame him.

But there's no such caveat for Armstrong, who lived, breathed and ate jazz, and Ellington, who along with Fletcher Henderson created big band and then proceeded to make it the greatest art form ever created in America.

I'm happy to discuss jazz like this, and I'm not afraid of making value statements because I have a lot of experience in this area. I don't need to qualify every statement or say this is just a reflection of my personal tastes because I know enough about the subject to be able to discuss it and not be afraid of someone who might disagree. If they really know their stuff, I'd actually welcome it, because that's how one learns.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

bigshot said:


> Thanks Millionrainbows, but I'm not ready to invest a lot of money at Amazon on this yet. Perhaps it's just that there isn't any really good contemporary classical at youtube, or maybe people just aren't willing to put in the time to help me on this. I'll wait for the right guru.


These two youtube channels have thousands of new(ish) music videos.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheWelleszCompany

http://www.youtube.com/user/NewMusicXX


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I keep repeating this, but here goes again.

I am not looking for piles of music (good and bad) to sort through. I'm looking for a knowledgeable listener who can point me to the keystone works and can spend a little time explaining, answering questions without becoming insecure, and helping me understand.

I'll find that eventually.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Manxfeeder said:


> Oh, rats, the attachments didn't come up. Would you repost or give the names of the CDs? I'm interested.


They are there now. I'm glad you are interested.


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2012)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Oh, so not old enough to understand 'functions...inputs...limitations....programmatic specificities....' - i.e. pseudo-intellectual prolix. Now I am bored talking to teenagers.


Countenance, that was a reference to a scene in a movie. The character's age is 37. I was born in 1952. In any case, 37 is not teen-aged. I'm guessing you're old enough to understand that.

And if you're bored talking to teenagers, then stop. The fact that you're still talking to them reveals that you're not bored, so stop yer moanin'!


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> They are there now. I'm glad you are interested.


There they are. Thanks!


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2012)

bigshot said:


> I'm looking for a knowledgeable listener who can point me to the keystone works and can spend a little time explaining, answering questions without becoming insecure, and helping me understand.
> 
> I'll find that eventually.


bigshot, you crack me up, you really do. You see wisdom as insecurity, finesse as cowardice, wouldn't be able to recognise a knowledgable listener if it came up to you and knocked you over the head.

You will not find what you're looking for because you are asking all the wrong questions, are looking in all the wrong places for something that have you shown over and over again that you are unable to recognize when you do see it.

Good luck.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

bigshot said:


> I keep repeating this, but here goes again.
> 
> I am not looking for piles of music (good and bad) to sort through. I'm looking for a knowledgeable listener who can point me to the keystone works and can spend a little time explaining, answering questions without becoming insecure, and helping me understand.
> 
> I'll find that eventually.


Here you go. Just go to the decades later on in the page. These were all voted on btw. https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/ama/best-works-by-decade
It looks like Lutoslawski's Symphony #3 (1983) and Messiaen's Des Canyons aux Etoiles (1971) are the highest rated of the late 20th Century based on popularity.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

bigshot said:


> I keep repeating this, but here goes again.
> 
> I am not looking for piles of music (good and bad) to sort through. I'm looking for a knowledgeable listener who can point me to the keystone works and can spend a little time explaining, answering questions without becoming insecure, and helping me understand.
> 
> I'll find that eventually.


Well, anyone would tell you that Varése's Poéme Electronique is a keystone work.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

some guy said:


> bigshot, you crack me up, you really do. You see wisdom as insecurity, finesse as cowardice, wouldn't be able to recognise a knowledgable listener if it came up to you and knocked you over the head.
> 
> You will not find what you're looking for because you are asking all the wrong questions, are looking in all the wrong places for something that have you shown over and over again that you are unable to recognize when you do see it.
> 
> Good luck.


Please speak about music you do know rather than people you don't.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)




----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Edgar Varése "Poème électronique" (1958)

I like this. It's like goofy cartoon music!





Dean Elliott "Lonesome Road" (1963)





Les Baxter / Bas Sheva "Lust" (1953)





Louis & Bebe Barron "Battle With The Id Monster" from Forbidden Planet (1956)


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

What about these two piano etudes by Ligeti:


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> I haven't gone through this thread, so I don't know if his work has been mentioned, but have you tried Henri Dutilleux? For 2nd half of 20th century, Dutilleux seems to have the ability to be a gateway drug to some. The first work I heard was the Violin concerto. I was surprised at how I couldn't deny that I had pretty unreservedly enjoyed myself when hearing it live. After exploring more of his music, I've discovered that the 1st and 2nd symphonies are yet more accessible. The Cello Concerto is good as well, though a bit less accessible for whatever reason. Ironically, a temporary TC member who had been to the same concert as me that heard the Cello Concerto and thought it was very bizarre that anyone could like such a piece, thinking he was surrounded by a bunch of pretentious, brainwashed weirdos. There are more basic musical reasons I think less of the accessibility of that work though.


I love Dutilleux's jazzy harmonies and exuberant colors.


----------



## gratefulshrink (Nov 10, 2012)

my first post here. what are you yearning for in contemporary classical music? to be moved emotionally? to be challenged intellectually?


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2012)

If you're asking bigshot, who knows? Probably not even bigshot.

If you're asking me (among others, I'm sure), then I'm not yearning for anything. Contemporary classical music is just fine just as it is. No complaints here. And no needs.

Except to have more and more different things. (Not more of the same, for sure. More of the same is for people who don't like contemporary music. There are a few of those here. I'm sure you'll meet them all. Why, you might even be one of them! We just don't know yet.)


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

gratefulshrink said:


> my first post here. what are you yearning for in contemporary classical music? to be moved emotionally? *to be challenged intellectually?*


This is the thing I really can't stand about modern classical music's fans. If some random noise challenges you intellectually more than baroque music, I don't know what to say ! I find way more intellectual to hear all the melodic lines at once in Bach music for example, than I find in listening to some schizophrenic noise. No offense.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I can't stand the way some members address a brand-new poster, and then say horrible things about modern classical music and its fans.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Renaissance said:


> This is the thing I really can't stand about modern classical music's fans. If some random noise challenges you intellectually more than baroque music, I don't know what to say ! I find way more intellectual to hear all the melodic lines at once in Bach music for example, than I find in listening to some schizophrenic noise. No offense.


While I don't think that this modern music is random noise at all, I do honestly think it's harder to follow complex examples of counterpoint than it is to follow this new stuff. And it's even harder still to follow the masterpieces of Perotin. Perotin can sound random too, though, when he definitely isn't.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Music of the past may sound weird to modern ears, but modern composers are self-consciously weird. It's something they seek out--they want to get the maximum of weirdness into the minimum of notes. 

When one looks back on Raphael's painting, or on the music of Beethoven and Bach, one is stunned by the grandeur of their achievements, and naturally the modern artist abandoned those fields knowing that he couldn't achieve an equal result since the conditions for producing that art have disappeared. 

He was forced to become a master of the freakish, the only untried genre in art.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

Logos said:


> It's something they seek out--they want to get the maximum of weirdness into the minimum of notes.


Yes, it's all a fashion, nothing really artful here. Modern composers are just trying to shock and break as many rules as possible. In these conditions is really hard to make any value judgement, because music itself sounds like hell, you can't make any objective appreciation on it.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

Lukecash12 said:


> While I don't think that this modern music is random noise at all, I do honestly think it's harder to follow complex examples of counterpoint than it is to follow this new stuff. And it's even harder still to follow the masterpieces of Perotin. Perotin can sound random too, though, when he definitely isn't.


Not all modern music, of course, there are good composers even in 21th century. But I was referring to a particular style...of music, you know. And certainly I don't think Perotin's music is random. I keep Perotin in very high esteem.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> I can't stand the way some members address a brand-new poster, and then say horrible things about modern classical music and its fans.


Only about music


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

The music is great though.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

gratefulshrink said:


> my first post here. what are you yearning for in contemporary classical music? to be moved emotionally? to be challenged intellectually?


Both. And one more thing... To be impressed with the skill of an artist.

Also, I was only half joking with the videos I posted. How revolutionary and avant garde is it when popular music of the same time is doing many of the same things in much more interesting ways? Why are we talking about Varese's electronic experiments as groundbreaking when Louis and Bebe Barron did even more advanced things in a movie soundtrack years earlier? Why do we talk about the pioneering work of Stockhausen and not Raymond Scott, who was a pioneer of not only modern electronic music, but took jazz into the machine age in the thirties? How advanced is the beat poet concept of "cut up" music compared to Les Paul's complex editing and overdubbing experiments?

It seems to me that the people academia holds up as being the pioneers are just the pioneers who happen to choose to be in the field of academia. Popular artists often did the same things earler and better, but they aren't recognized.

I think the Beethovens and Da Vincis of the 20th century almost all worked in popular mediums. The people claiming that they're the continuing thread of classical music are mostly poseurs and frauds, just like Andy Warhol and Damien Hirst are in the fine art world.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Why are we talking about Varese's electronic experiments as groundbreaking when Louis and Bebe Barron did even more advanced things in a movie soundtrack years earlier?


In all fairness, Varese wrote music for the theremin in the 1930s and for electronic tape from the early 1950s, about the same time as the Barrons started working in the same or a similar medium. Their famous movie soundtrack is from 1956.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

bigshot said:


> I think the Beethovens and Da Vincis of the 20th century almost all worked in popular mediums. *The people claiming that they're the continuing thread of classical music are mostly poseurs and frauds,* just like Andy Warhol and Damien Hirst are in the fine art world.


Glad that someone sees it. There will be hard times, when it will take courage to tell the truth loudly. We need to be prepared for adjectives such as "ignorant" and "close-minded". It's all part of martyrdom.

Just kidding :lol: Don't take me seriously. But anyway, leaving the joke aside, you are right. This snobbery has to stop.


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2012)

Logos said:


> Modern composers are self-consciously weird.


Nothing changes so much as art. Nothing stays the same so much as bad criticism of art. In music, this particular criticism has been leveled at modern composers since Mozart's time at least.



Logos said:


> When one looks back on Raphael's painting, or on the music of Beethoven and Bach, one is stunned by the grandeur of their achievements....


This is absolutely key. I wish everyone who participates in a discussion of current music could read this:

*When one looks back.*

It's the looking back that does the trick. And of course one can't do the looking back thing quite as well when one is looking at the present.* Indeed, this whole type of criticism is not only ahistorical, it is anti-historical. And we all know what anti-history leads to, repeating the same mistakes over and over again.



Logos said:


> ... and naturally the modern artist abandoned those fields knowing that he couldn't achieve an equal result since the conditions for producing that art have disappeared.
> 
> He was forced to become a master of the freakish, the only untried genre in art.


And naturally, bad criticism levels the same charges at new music, no matter when the new music happens to be. When Beethoven's 9th was new, a common criticism in Paris (where it had not been heard** yet) was that it demonstrated Beethoven's struggles with dementia. Berlioz argued that that symphony on the contrary was "a starting point for the music of the present." Does any of this sound familiar? Not the words so much as the pattern. Well, it gets better. Here's the next paragraph from Jacques Barzun's biography of Berlioz:

To this declaration [of Berlioz'] the standard rebuttal, the eternal rejoiner, was that Beethoven's predecessors Haydn and Mozart had done all that could be done, and had thus left to Beethoven only the bizarre, the contorted, the "rocky ways" of music. Everyone forgot, *everyone always forgets*, that earlier still it was Mozart who was accused of treading the rocky ways.... Critics would in time come around to Beethoven, but only to say that he had accomplished all that music can do "along that line," which of course explains why Berlioz had to follow the rocky ways. (Emphasis mine.)

It would be a nice change if the interweb critics of new music could hold their own criticisms up to as high a standard as they claim to be holding music and the other arts up to.

________________________

*For all practical purposes, "the present" _nowadays_ includes a large chunk of the past. That's certainly one difference between perspectives in the past and perspectives in the present. Many people still think of Schoenberg as modern. No one in Mozart's time would have thought of Vivaldi as anything but ancient. In their terms, Schoenberg is ancient music.

**Also a familiar pattern.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

If you don't look back you have no idea about the progress that is made. It is non-sense. Why not looking back ? Because modern "composers" are afraid I will discover what real music means ?

Also, Beethoven's Ninth was a huge success on the scene. Doesn't matter what critics thought of it. They always seem to put the great things into a negative light and worship pseudo-arts. At least, this is what modern critics are doing. These analogies are useless. There is no way comparing Beethoven to Mozart as you compare Stockhaunsen with Wagner.


----------



## gratefulshrink (Nov 10, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> I can't stand the way some members address a brand-new poster, and then say horrible things about modern classical music and its fans.


thanks for that post.:tiphat: maybe I'll stick around for a while and watch the fireworks


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

The difference between the reactions to the innovations of Beethoven and reactions to today's composers, is that even the musical conservative of Beethoven's time recognized that he had genius. Goethe, who found much of Beethoven's music too demonstrative and stentorian, still recognized that he was a great artist. On the other hand, there are plenty of educated people today who see nothing in modern music but a lot of but nonsense and posturing. Why is this?

It is no more absurd to say that Beethoven is superior to any modern composer than it is to say that Virgil, living in the golden age of Latin poetry, is superior to the crabbed poets of the early dark ages who had forgotten proper Latin grammar.

You seem to intimate that, as time passes, criticism is able to make better judgments; this is quite correct. Yet it is my belief that 100 years from now, scarcely any 20th or 21st Century composers will be remembered as anything but mediocrities, if they are remembered at all.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> And naturally, bad criticism levels the same charges at new music, no matter when the new music happens to be. When Beethoven's 9th was new...


It's a familiar argument. "Some people didn't like Beethoven, but he was ultimately recognized as a genius. Some people don't like [insert name of modernist here], so he will also be recognized as a genius."

A couple of issues with this (besides the underlying logic). First, Beethoven was the most admired and popular composer of his day long before he wrote the 9th Symphony. Well, maybe he shared the "popularity" thing with Rossini...

Second, he was recognized as a genius when still alive and kicking, and this view was further consolidated over time...a short time in fact. Of course there are still those that disagree.

Many of the "unrecognized geniuses" of the 20th century have been waiting 50 to 100 years for that recognition. Anybody care to guess when they will receive their proper due?


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

Logos said:


> You seem to intimate that, as time passes, criticism is able to make better judgments; this is quite correct. Yet it is my belief that 100 years from now, scarcely any 20th or 21st Century composers will be remembered as anything but mediocrities, if they are remembered at all.


True. We are on the same mind here. Atonal & Serial music hasn't died yet, but when it will be over, it will be for eternity. Music of Mozart, Beethoven, Bach always lived in the concerts, but atonal music is nothing more than fashion, and being foreign to the human nature, nothing will keep it alive after the fashion will be long dead.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

KenOC said:


> It's a familiar argument. "Some people didn't like Beethoven, but he was ultimately recognized as a genius. Some people don't like [insert name of modernist here], so he will also be recognized as a genius."
> 
> A couple of issues with this (besides the underlying logic). First, Beethoven was the most admired and popular composer of his day long before he wrote the 9th Symphony. Well, maybe he shared the "popularity" thing with Rossini...
> 
> ...


You make a lot of good points. Beethoven, by the end of his life, was one of the central figures in the culture of central European society, from the top to the bottom, in a way that no modern composer has ever been. Modernists are part of a cordoned off cottage industry that appeals to trendiness.


----------



## gratefulshrink (Nov 10, 2012)

some guy said:


> Except to have more and more different things. (Not more of the same, for sure. More of the same is for people who don't like contemporary music. There are a few of those here. I'm sure you'll meet them all. Why, you might even be one of them! We just don't know yet.)


I agree. I love that we live in an age where contemporary "composers" have had the opportunity to be exposed to all forms of music (from world, through blues, folk, jazz, free jazz, rock, funk, psychedelia). And whether or not these genres of music ever directly influence their compositions, we can trust that hearing such music has influenced their aesthetic development and at least indirectly is expressed in their work. I suppose it has been much the same throughout history (contemporary "songs" and folk music have always been with us), but, in our digital age, we all have access to all forms of music all the time.


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2012)

Ren, nowhere in my post did I suggest that we NOT do any looking back. (And, just by the way, never in my whole life have I ever compared Stockhausen with Wagner. Though now that you mention it....)

In fact, I believe you will find that I was pretty plainly arguing that we DO look back and that when we do we should try to see everything, not just the little bits that confirm our prejudices.

The analogies could be useful--to anyone willing to question their own prejudices.


----------



## gratefulshrink (Nov 10, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Both. And one more thing... To be impressed with the skill of an artist.
> 
> Also, I was only half joking with the videos I posted. How revolutionary and avant garde is it when popular music of the same time is doing many of the same things in much more interesting ways? Why are we talking about Varese's electronic experiments as groundbreaking when Louis and Bebe Barron did even more advanced things in a movie soundtrack years earlier? Why do we talk about the pioneering work of Stockhausen and not Raymond Scott, who was a pioneer of not only modern electronic music, but took jazz into the machine age in the thirties? How advanced is the beat poet concept of "cut up" music compared to Les Paul's complex editing and overdubbing experiments?
> 
> It seems to me that the people academia holds up as being the pioneers are just the pioneers who happen to choose to be in the field of academia. Popular artists often did the same things earler and better, but they aren't recognized.


yes, I agree that Sun Ra, John Fahey, and many others created music as moving and challenging as Stockhausen, Xenakis, Cage, or Carter.


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2012)

Logos said:


> On the other hand, there are plenty of educated people today who see nothing in modern music but a lot of but nonsense and posturing. Why is this?


Could be that these "educated" people are not quite so educated as they think. They certainly have a difficult time crediting the experiences of other educated people who see nothing in modern music but extremely glorious sounds.



Logos said:


> It is no more absurd to say that Beethoven is superior to any modern composer than it is to say that Virgil, living in the golden age of Latin poetry, is superior to the crabbed poets of the early dark ages who had forgotten proper Latin grammar.


No _more_ absurd, certainly.



Logos said:


> You seem to intimate that, as time passes, criticism is able to make better judgments; this is quite correct.


I intimated nothing of the sort.



Logos said:


> Yet it is my belief that 100 years from now, scarcely any 20th or 21st Century composers will be remembered as anything but mediocrities, if they are remembered at all.


That's nice. You have a nice little belief there that is unassailable--BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE TESTED.

Great job!


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2012)

KenOC said:


> It's a familiar argument. "Some people didn't like Beethoven, but he was ultimately recognized as a genius. Some people don't like [insert name of modernist here], so he will also be recognized as a genius."


Ken, this has been explained to you over and over again in other threads on another forum.

The argument I was making was not in any way the same as the argument you've replaced it with. How vulnerable arguments are to the perceptions of readers. Hey! Kinda like music, huh?

Read, Ken. Read. Do it. Now.



KenOC said:


> A couple of issues with this (besides the underlying logic). First, Beethoven was the most admired and popular composer of his day long before he wrote the 9th Symphony. Well, maybe he shared the "popularity" thing with Rossini...
> 
> Second, he was recognized as a genius when still alive and kicking, and this view was further consolidated over time...a short time in fact. Of course there are still those that disagree.
> 
> Many of the "unrecognized geniuses" of the 20th century have been waiting 50 to 100 years for that recognition. Anybody care to guess when they will receive their proper due?


You have issues with a straw man. I'm not surprised. Straw men are specifically designed to have issues with, and then to be skillfully and masterfully destroyed. Leaving, however, the original argument, which hasn't been touched, still waiting for some attention.

Sad, really. Poor widdle argument. No one's paying any attention to it. All these straw creatures are so so so much more interesting....


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

All you've said is that some people like modern music. I can't deny that, I suppose. But to think composers who are, even today, known only by one in a thousand people will be hailed as demigods in the distant future is patently absurd. How many times has this happened in all of human history? Van Gogh perhaps, but that was built around the romanticized marketing of his story as the prototypical 'tortured artist'--good for TV movies, I suppose.

Citing composers of the past who have become widely known after a time of falling into neglect or were unappreciated in their time are inapt because it was easier for great artists to fall into neglect in times that lacked mass communications and popularization; that allowed a master like Bach to become somewhat obscure. A great musician might happen to live in a small town, or be "locked away", as it were by a courtly patron, forcing him to exercise his talents for the benefit of a very small minority, regardless of their merit. Today, there is no excuse for great masters (not that they exist today) to go unknown other than the degeneration of the public taste and their own degeneration which springs from that; it's a case of two philistine bodies of people having mutual disgust for each other. The tasteless public hates the tasteless modern artist who emerged from that very same tasteless public.


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2012)

The masters could be obscure because of a lack of mass communication. Now we have mass communication, the masters can remain obscure because the masses have no taste.

I see...


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

some guy said:


> Ren, nowhere in my post did I suggest that we NOT do any looking back. (And, just by the way, never in my whole life have I ever compared Stockhausen with Wagner. Though now that you mention it....)
> 
> In fact, I believe you will find that I was pretty plainly arguing that we DO look back and that when we do we should try to see everything, not just the little bits that confirm our prejudices.
> 
> The analogies could be useful--to anyone willing to question their own prejudices.


My mistake, you are right, I misunderstood it. But, how should we look back then ? What should we see ? Because I really can't see any continuity between Stockhaunsen and Mozart for example. Not in aesthetics, not in structure, techniques, not even in ideology/philosophy. What should we see, then ?

I was referring to the fact that one can't simply make any comparison between how Beethoven was seen in his days, and how the modern composers are seen now. Because Beethoven may have been innovative, but he still composed music, he altered some conventions regarding harmony, but only to allow himself a better degree of personal expression through his music. This is not the case with modern composers, when everything is altered because they want to be original.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> The masters could be obscure because of a lack of mass communication. Now we have mass communication, the masters can remain obscure because the masses have no taste.
> 
> I see...


Not at all. I am saying that because of the degeneration of the public taste, it is almost impossible for those masters to exist in the first place because mass communications have degenerated the taste of the public at large, from which these composers emerged. Mass communications would be, theoretically, the ideal vehicle for their popularization if they were in fact true masters--but they aren't, for the reasons I've just stated.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

some guy said:


> Could be that these "educated" people are not quite so educated as they think. They certainly have a difficult time crediting the experiences of other educated people who see nothing in modern music but extremely glorious sounds.


Not so "educated" ? :lol: What do you think about people like Einstein who dismissed everything composed after 1800 ? What do you mean by educated ? I hope you do not mean indoctrinated.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

gratefulshrink said:


> yes, I agree that Sun Ra, John Fahey, and many others created music as moving and challenging as Stockhausen, Xenakis, Cage, or Carter.


I would say MORE challenging.


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2012)

Logos said:


> But to think composers who are, even today, known only by one in a thousand people will be hailed as demigods in the distant future is patently absurd.


What may or may not happen in the future is your obsession, not mine. I have never said anything even close to this absurd "hailing as demigods" thing. If I ever did, it would be to argue that hailing composers of the past as demigods is absurd.

(You might want to check your math, too. One in a thousand is quite a large number when your total is in the several billions. Are there really seven million people in the world today, you think, who think Beethoven is a demi-god?)


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Renaissance said:


> Because I really can't see any continuity between Stockhaunsen and Mozart for example. Not in aesthetics, not in structure, techniques, not even in ideology/philosophy.


I'm not sure exactly what precipitated it, but there was a massive cultural shift for the worse in the mid sixties. Maybe it was the Kennedy assasination, the Viet Nam war, hippies, the Beatles... I don't know. But somewhere in there we stopped expecting the best from our cultural leaders and started making excuses for half a loaf. Perhaps if we knew what caused it, we'd know how to turn it around and pull ourselves out of the hole we're in. Perhaps not. But it's undeniable that five decades of aesthetic and creative progress was undone in an instant. Thankfully scientific and technological progress didn't grind to a halt too, or we'd all be living in the stone age again right about now.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

The modern haters should really listen to Schnittke, Ligeti, Berio, Lutoslawski, Penderecki, Adams, Feldman, Dutilleux, Gubaidulina, Boulez, Part, Rautavaara, Tavener, and Carter. Oh well. I guess someone has to always hate on the new stuff.


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2012)

Logos said:


> the degeneration of the public taste


Hey Logos, enough with the question-begging, already. Your insistence, without ever trying to demonstrate it, that public taste has degenerated is the only thing that allows you to insist that it is no longer possible for there to be any "masters."

"Heads you win; tails I lose" may seem like a fun game to you, but probably not to anyone else.

Besides, how is it that this degenerate taste is so precisely correct when it rejects modern music? I sense another fun game: having one's cake and eating it, too.

So here's what I propose as an argument. Because of the degeneration of public taste, the public is no longer capable of recognizing the genius of the modern masters. How's that sound?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> The modern haters should really listen to Schnittke, Ligeti, Berio, Lutoslawski, Penderecki, Adams, Feldman, Dutilleux, Gubaidulina, Boulez, Part, Rautavaara, Tavener, and Carter. Oh well. I guess someone has to always hate on the new stuff.


Give me the best of the best as a youtube link. That's all I ask.


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2012)

bigshot said:


> ...pull ourselves out of the hole we're in.


Speak for yourself, there, bucko. I'm standing on a mountaintop myself, looking out over an incredible vista--mountain after mountain, hills, valleys, meadows, forests.

Do that thing you said. Pull yourself out of the hole you've dug for yourself, and come and enjoy the view with me, why not? Bring Logos and Renaissance with you, too. Plenty of view for everyone up here.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Give me the best of the best as a youtube link. That's all I ask.


I did already and you continued to ignore it.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

some guy said:


> What may or may not happen in the future is your obsession, not mine. I have never said anything even close to this absurd "hailing as demigods" thing. If I ever did, it would be to argue that hailing composers of the past as demigods is absurd.
> 
> (You might want to check your math, too. One in a thousand is quite a large number when your total is in the several billions. Are there really seven million people in the world today, you think, who think Beethoven is a demi-god?)


You started looking us looking into the future, not I, by drawing an analogy with the past: Beethoven was sometimes derided and later praised lavishly, and that this could happen in the case of modern composers. I then showed that this was a distortion, and that Beethoven was almost always recognized as a great genius even by those who had reservations about him, and that it is highly unlikely that artists who have been almost completely unknown to the larger public even at the height of their little fame will be remembered in perpetuity.

As for your second point, I was saying that not one in a thousand people today recognizes the _even the name_ of modern composers (not that one in a thousand people worships a composer as a demi-god), which makes it highly unlikely that they will be remembered at all, let alone celebrated. Again, this was all brought about in reference to an analogy with the reputations of past composers and their later reputations which you made. I see no purpose in picking-up on the poetic exaggeration of the word demigod. It suffices to say that for many generations men like Beethoven and Bach have been admired as great heroes of art by educated people, and in such a way that it is unrealistic to think any modern composer will ever attain to.

You yourself introduced a line of thought into the argument and are now claiming that I'm obsessed with it, simply because I addressing it with a counter-argument.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Neoshredder... You have to specifically tell me that it's among the most significant works in modern classical music. No offense, but internet forums are full of suggestions, most of them pretty ill informed. If I'm going to spend an hour or two acquainting myself with music, I want to know that the person offering it is 100% behind it and is willing to discuss it with me. You wouldn't think that would be hard to find, but it seems that fans of modern cassical music are terrified of having to go out on a limb and support their opinions.

One person who knows his stuff inside and out presenting me with one link at a time that represents the best of the best and he is prepared to fully explain if necessary. Those are my ground rules.

If anyone is interested in exploring music I know a lot about for the first time, I'd be happy to do the same for them.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Here you go. I declare this the biggest work of the late 20th Century.


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> But, how should we look back then ? What should we see ?


We should try to see two things, what the past looks like to us (that's easy--that's what we already do) and what the past looked like when it was the present. This second thing is not very easy. Because we're not in the past, because our ideas and assumptions are different from theirs, it's easy to overlay our aesthetics, our beliefs over theirs and judge their beliefs by ours.



Renaissance said:


> Because I really can't see any continuity between Stockhaunsen and Mozart for example. Not in aesthetics, not in structure, techniques, not even in ideology/philosophy. What should we see, then ?


There's only one "n" in Stockhausen, by the way, the one at the end. But to the point. I wasn't arguing ever that there's a continuity between Stockhausen and Mozart. Quite the contrary. I was observing that however much the music changes from era to era, the criticism of the new sounds exactly the same. No matter what bad critics are looking at, whether it's contemporaries of Mozart looking at Mozart or contemporaries of Stockhausen looking at Stockhausen (to use the names you've brought up), the criticisms are the same.



Renaissance said:


> This is not the case with modern composers, when everything is altered because they want to be original.


That is another thing that is always the same. Modern composers want to be original. The good ones, do anyway. And that has also always been true, whether the modern composer was Monteverdi or whether the modern composer is Steen-Andersen.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> The modern haters should really listen to Schnittke, Ligeti, Berio, Lutoslawski, Penderecki, Adams, Feldman, Dutilleux, Gubaidulina, Boulez, Part, Rautavaara, Tavener, and Carter. Oh well. I guess someone has to always hate on the new stuff.


I am not "modern hater". I don't hate certain styles because they are new/modern, in fact they aren't new at all. What is new in Cage's music for example ? I only dislike certain things. I actually respect very much Arvo Part, Tavener, Rautavaara, Penderecky and I am quite neutral about Schnittke, Ligeti, Adam, Carter. And I really hate Boulez, Stockhaunsen, Cage, and the so called post-serialist composers. What is good is good, regardless of time, epoch, style, country. But what is trash is trash too. It just happened to be more trash in the last decades.


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Neoshredder... You have to specifically tell me that it's among the most significant works in modern classical music. No offense, but internet forums are full of suggestions, most of them pretty ill informed. If I'm going to spend an hour or two acquainting myself with music, I want to know that the person offering it is 100% behind it and is willing to discuss it with me. You wouldn't think that would be hard to find, but it seems that fans of modern cassical music are terrified of having to go out on a limb and support their opinions.
> 
> One person who knows his stuff inside and out presenting me with one link at a time that represents the best of the best and he is prepared to fully explain if necessary. Those are my ground rules.
> 
> If anyone is interested in exploring music I know a lot about for the first time, I'd be happy to do the same for them.


Slave, bring me a salver!!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

To explain why I'm setting these ground rules...

In the past, I have made several attempts at investigating modern classical music. I took the big names and concepts... Glass, Riech, 12 tone row, Stockhausen, electronic music, Ligeti, prepared piano, Messaien, Cage, etc... And went out and bought CDs that appeared to be the best regarded. I listened to them, read the (distictly UNhelpful) liner notes and listened to them again. I came up as dry as dust. When I was ripping CDs for my music server, these CDs got boxed up unripped and stuck in the garage. Total waste of time and money.

I'm open to the idea that perhaps I wasn't listening to THE BEST, or that I didn't have the frame of reference to UNDERSTAND what I was listening to. But I know for sure that taking lists of names and randomly listening cold to them DOES NOT WORK. I won't make that same mistake twice. If I'm going to discover it, I need a good guru.

I've had good gurus that totally turned around my thinking before. One of my best friends heard me say that I didn't like country music, and he invited me over one Saturday afternoon to hear some records in his collection. By the end of the night, I was a die hard fan with a laundry list of great leads to chase down. That's what I need here.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> Here you go. I declare this the biggest work of the late 20th Century.


Would you please post all three parts? What should I be listening for? Who are the performers? Any background to the piece or performance I should know?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Here is part 2 and 3. And I like the colourful sounds of the Symphony. All sorts of interesting moods. See for yourself.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Who was Lutoslawski? What was he intending with his work? I'd appreciate a little background. I can just do a wikipedia search, but since you're familiar with the work, you can point me to the right info. Thanks.

By the way, there's no rush on this. It's going to take me a while to carve out time to absorb a symphony.


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2012)

bigshot said:


> To explain why I'm setting these ground rules...


Fear of a peasant uprising.



bigshot said:


> In the past, I have made several attempts at investigating modern classical music.


Why?



bigshot said:


> I took the big names and concepts... Glass, Riech, 12 tone row, Stockhausen, electronic music, prepared piano, Messaien, Cage, etc... And went out and bought CDs that appeared to be the best regarded. I listened to them, read the (distictly UNhelpful) liner notes and listened to them again. I came up as dry as dust. When I was ripping CDs for my music server, these CDs got boxed up unripped and stuck in the garage. Total waste of time and money.


OK, so you followed the advice of some anonymous experts and found that your reactions were different from theirs. But you still want some expert to tell you what's good? You already know what's good (for you). So you must forgive us if we think that what you really want is to dump on music that you don't like. That your not liking it is reason enough to call it a total waste of time. (At the very best, all I can come up with that's any different from that is that you want someone to find you a contemporary piece that fits in with the taste(s) that you already have.)



bigshot said:


> I'm open to the idea that perhaps I wasn't listening to THE BEST, or that I didn't have the frame of reference to UNDERSTAND what I was listening to. But I know for sure that taking lists of names and randomly listening cold to them DOES NOT WORK. I won't make that same mistake twice. If I'm going to discover it, I need a good guru.


Gurus aren't going to act like slaves, though. Just a friendly warning, there. Gurus are going to be more than inclined to treat you as a grasshopper, however. Are you ready, are you really ready to be a grasshopper? I have my doubts. If anyone's going to be setting any ground rules, it's gonna be the gurus, not the grasshoppers.

I agree that for you (FOR YOU) random listening cold is not a good idea. For you, because your attitudes and expectations are going to get in the way of any understanding or enjoyment. At least the attitudes and expectations that you've expressed, ad nauseum, in this forum.

I still think the question "why?" needs to be answered first.



bigshot said:


> I've had good gurus that *totally turned around my thinking* before.


I agree that this that I've bolded is what is needed here.

For some reason with your country/western friend, you were willing to be a grasshopper.

Are you willing to be a grasshopper in the present circumstance? Nothing that you've said so far, in this or any other thread, has indicated any such willingness.

The only thing I've brought away from all of this is "Slave! Bring me a salver!!"


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

If you have nothing to add to our discussion of Lutoslawski, some guy, please go somewhere you have something to offer to the conversation. I understand that there are certain people in internet forums have difficulty relating to other people and aren't able to discern subtle social cues, so I'm stating it clearly for you. I'm patient up to a point, and I'm rapidly approaching my limit. This is your shot across the bow as fair warning.


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2012)

"Begone, guru!! There's no room for your wisdom here. Avast!!"


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Renaissance said:


> Not all modern music, of course, there are good composers even in 21th century. But I was referring to a particular style...of music, you know. And certainly I don't think Perotin's music is random. I keep Perotin in very high esteem.


Right, but you probably know how a lot of people think modal cadences like Perotin's sound random. Folks think along the lines that Perotin and Ockeghem, etc., wrote nothing but swiveling lines resulting in a perfect cadence resolution over and over. Reminds me of one of my favorite short lectures on Perotin's viderunt omnes:



> The foundation of Viderunt omnes is a plainchant that likely served the Parisian liturgy for Christmas Day. The text comes from verses of Psalm 98 in the Vulgate's Latin (Ps. 98:3b-4a, 2), jubilantly singing of the moment when God's salvation is made known to all the Earth. (Incidentally, the text naturally seems to call for such a concord of many voices!) Following the responsory form of plainchant, Viderunt omnes consists of a solo incipit, a chanted conclusion, a short verset (also perhaps for solo), and a repeat of the opening section. Pérotin's setting preserves the form and retains the liturgically correct chant melody, but embellishes it by two "discant clausulae," sections of composed polyphony that substitute for the solo chants. For each clausula, the choir sings the notes of the chant melody, but each note is greatly extended. *Above this abstracted chant is woven a web of three solo voices dancing about one another in long, metrical melismas on the chant syllables. The most astounding innovation of Notre Dame polyphony was the addition of rhythm to such ornamental voices: the upper voices sing dozens of notes above each step of the chant, regulated by the six modal rhythms. The rhythmic patterns possible (which may shift in each voice phrase to phrase) are each related to a poetic foot: long/short (trochaic), short/long (iambic), long/short/short (dactylic), short/short/long (anapestic), long/long (spondeic), and short/short (pyrrhic). Within the limitations of these rhythms, the voices move freely as if by elaborate improvisation. Often sequential melodic motifs are expounded, and in this piece Pérotin even uses canonic relationships between voices.* But the power of the piece doesn't come from this intricacy, but rather from the deep sense of harmony. Each phrase begins with a "perfect" harmony of fifths and octaves; the music then progresses in a compelling filigree upon the chant tone, a lengthy marginal gloss. But each phrase returns irrevocably from dissonance to perfection of harmony.


I've emboldened the portion that is more relevant to what I'm saying here.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> The modern haters should really listen to Schnittke, Ligeti, Berio, Lutoslawski, Penderecki, Adams, Feldman, Dutilleux, Gubaidulina, Boulez, Part, Rautavaara, Tavener, and Carter. Oh well. I guess someone has to always hate on the new stuff.


I can't speak for many of the people who dislike modern/contemporary classical music, but the problem with this statement is that many of those who dislike the music _have_ listened. Many have listened to many works of these composers and some of those works several times. It's true that people should sample before commenting on music, art, books, etc., but some have sampled and _still_ don't like it. In the general public, I wouldn't be surprised if many who speak in derogatory terms about modern music do not have much listening experience, but I suspect that on TC that's far less true.

It's OK not to like modern music. It's even OK to say it sucks since really all that _can_ mean is that you dislike it (although maybe a different choice of words would be more productive unless you want to **** others off). To me the interesting question is whether present day classical music listeners enjoy contemporary music significantly less than earlier era listeners did (people living in 1900, 1850, 1800, etc.). We know that modern music has always been problematic at some level to listeners even in the past. If today's listeners have roughly the same difficulties, apparently classical music today is simply business as usual. Only if today's listeners have significantly more difficulty with modern music (i.e. _many_ fewer as a percentage of listeners enjoy it than before) do we have a new issue. Although I _suspect_ there is a much more widespread dislike of modern music now, I'm not sure we (anyone here at TC) know the answer to that question.

Finally, if listeners today actually do have more difficulty enjoying modern music, I highly doubt it would be because composers are doing something they fundamentally did not do before. The reasons would be much more complex.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> I can't speak for many of the people who dislike modern/contemporary classical music, but the problem with this statement is that many of those who dislike the music _have_ listened. Many have listened to many works of these composers and some of those works several times. It's true that people should sample before commenting on music, art, books, etc., but some have sampled and _still_ don't like it.


The key (as in house key not musical key) here is in the subject heading of the thread: Contemporary Classical that (hopefully) doesn't suck.

The assumption there, going into it, is that contemporary classical music sucks. The challenge, such as it is, is to find for the thread starter some exceptions to that rule.

But what if that's not a rule? What if contemporary classical music is perfectly fine? And how does one determine "perfectly fine"? How, not to leave anyone out, does one determine that contemporary classical music sucks?

In any event, it should not surprise anyone that if you go into a situation expecting that you're going to hate it, determined not to like it, sure that your personal, individual, true-only-for-you conclusions, whether based on exposure (I won't say "experience" for this situation) or not, are somehow, by some linguistic or philosophical alchemy, to be taken as universal truths, then you will very probably hate what you hear. Subsequent listens may, magically, convince you that you were mistaken. Probably they will simply reinforce the prejudices.

This is why I think bigshot's quest, and similar quests by similar listeners, is doomed to failure. Only engagement can work. And pushing new music away from you, as if you were an infant and new music were vegetables, is not going to result in engagement.



mmsbls said:


> To me the interesting question is whether present day classical music listeners enjoy contemporary music significantly less than earlier era listeners did (people living in 1900, 1850, 1800, etc.). We know that modern music has always been problematic at some level to listeners even in the past. If today's listeners have roughly the same difficulties, apparently classical music today is simply business as usual.


We've talked about this at length, here and on other threads. The historical trend that can be adduced by looking at printed concert programs is from going to concerts expecting new music to going to concerts expecting to hear old music--and royally pissed off if any new music creeps onto the program.

The trend is not that old, not even three hundred years. And the antagonism towards new music has gotten several significant bumps in the past. 1950s, 1900, 1860s, 1848, 1820s.

The interesting thing about the criticisms is that they don't change all that much. Whether an anti-modernist is complaining about Mozart or complaining about the post-Ligeti desert, the criticisms _sound_ all the same. It may be true that in the arts there is no new thing under the sun, though I think that that is not true. It is certainly true that with criticism there is nothing new.



mmsbls said:


> ...if listeners today actually do have more difficulty enjoying modern music, I highly doubt it would be because composers are doing something they fundamentally did not do before. The reasons would be much more complex.


Boy howdy!!

Here's an interesting question to go with your interesting question, are people who enjoy modern music working any harder to do so than any other listeners in any other era. I can only speak for myself about this question. I never found modern music (generally) to be anything but a great joy.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

some guy said:


> The key (as in house key not musical key) here is in the subject heading of the thread: Contemporary Classical that (hopefully) doesn't suck.
> 
> The assumption there, going into it, is that contemporary classical music sucks. The challenge, such as it is, is to find for the thread starter some exceptions to that rule.


I agree that the OP seems to assume an almost impossible task. I think all one can do is make positive suggestions, and if they don't "work", maybe others will benefit from them.



some guy said:


> Here's an interesting question to go with your interesting question, are people who enjoy modern music working any harder to do so than any other listeners in any other era. I can only speak for myself about this question. I never found modern music (generally) to be anything but a great joy.


That is an interesting question. Unfortunately, it's rather hard to answer questions such as these. I know you've never struggled (much) with new music. I, as you know, can't say the same. One thing we do know is that it's much easier today to listen to new music, learn about new music, and give yourself a chance to like it than it ever has been in the past. I would say that is a good thing.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

mud said:


> There wouldn't need to be one if contemporary music had not contrasted it by sucking, as its major departure (in my humble opinion), or its awe inspiring development to some.
> 
> Anyway, I am getting off this train (of thought) as it has gone off topic. I started out on topic though, and merely followed the responses to its bottom line of these being different categories of music.


You are certainly certain you are absolutely in the right on your empirically arrived at 'expert' opinion. That is the only repeatedly 'demonstrated' thing in this entire thread. You've dodged and waffled whenever another response might require you support your argument further beyond 'I don't like it, I don't get it.' So, you've lived up to your avatar / moniker: Your Name Is Mud.


----------



## Guest (Nov 13, 2012)

some guy said:


> Countenance, that was a reference to a scene in a movie. The character's age is 37. I was born in 1952. In any case, 37 is not teen-aged. I'm guessing you're old enough to understand that.
> 
> And if you're bored talking to teenagers, then stop. The fact that you're still talking to them reveals that you're not bored, so stop yer moanin'!


Oh, so the oldest teenager on the planet! I get it now.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Phwew, what a condescending thread idea! "Hey _modern-boy!_ Go find me some contemporary music that hopefully doesn't suck! I don't need my music to suck, as you have taken care of that department very well! Now go find me some modern music I can stand, and I will pronounce my royal opinion!"


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Then why can I say that Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington and Miles Davis are the three greatest musicians in jazz and not really worry about anyone disagreeing that strenuously?


I would. Charlie Parker, John Coltrane and Sonny Rollins are the three greatest jazz musicians.


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

Those would be my top 3 too, but I don't know about greatest. Armstrong, Ellington and Davis are at least in the top 10.


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

And wow, this thread really sucks


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)




----------

