# Tolerable modern composers?



## Manok

I will give a few examples of modern composers I actually like, and maybe you can help me find more that I might enjoy. Penderecki, Bartok, Berg, Schoenberg, Mahler, Copland, Ives, some but not all Cage, Villa-Lobos, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Poulenc(don't know if hes modern or not?) I'd like to like more modern music, but very little of it I can tolerate.


----------



## emiellucifuge

You like Schoenberg?

Do you mean this?:





If so, Im surprised Shostakovich or Poulenc managed to write anything offensive to you


----------



## joen_cph

That´s a pretty tolerant selection anyway ! 

Some other names that could be explored & wrote quite attractive works, are, for example -

- Tubin: Symphony no.5 with Järvi
- Pettersson: Symphony no.8, not with Segerstam
- Pärt -> Tabula Rasa Concerto
- Valen -> Violin Concerto
- Crumb ->Cello Solo Sonata
- Jon Leifs: Geysir, Saga Symphony
- Holmboe: Symphonies 1 & 11
- Ruth Crawford Seeger: String Quartet
- Dane Rudhyar: Piano Works
- Samuil Feinberg: Piano Sonatas
- Babadyanian: Violin Concerto
- Taktakishvili: Violin Concerto
- Tristan Keuris, including Piano Concerto

etc.


----------



## Guest

All modern composers are tolerable.

You will find as you listen to more and more things that fewer and fewer things are intolerable.

Though there will of course still be things you don't particularly care for. There are probably 18th and 19th century things that you don't particularly care for.


----------



## Cygnenoir

I think you'll find this more than tolerable enough:

Prokofiev: Romeo and Juliet, Symphony No. 5
Messiaen: Quatour pour la fin du temps, Turangalîla-symphonie
Ligeti: Lux Aeterna, Clocks and Clouds
Tavener: Song for Athene, The Lamb


----------



## starthrower

I bought the CPO Sallinen orchestral box recently. I highly recommend the disc featuring Symphony No. 6/Cello Concerto; and another disc that features symphonies 2 & 4, and the horn concerto. But the whole set is quite good. It's modern music that hopefully will appeal to those of varying tastes. Colorful, adventurous, but far from hardcore avant garde.

If you like Penderecki, Bartok, and Schoenberg, you shouldn't have any problem with Schnittke, Norgard, or Henze either. Also Lutoslawski. My favorite Polish composer.


----------



## Manok

I forgot about Prokofiev, he wrote one of my favorite pieces ever, his 2nd piano concerto. I have a dislike for long periods of silence. I enjoy unique sounding orchestral and choral experiences.


----------



## Itullian

Janacek, Miaskovsky

the English bunch, Britten, Elgar, Delius, Stanford, Bax. Parry, Vaughn Williams, Malcolm Arnold, Rubbra, William Walton


----------



## elgar's ghost

Manok said:


> I have a dislike for long periods of silence.


I think you'd better avoid Webern and Feldman, then - some of their works have as many rests as they do notes.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Hindemith:


----------



## Manok

Itullian said:


> Janacek, Miaskovsky
> 
> the English bunch, Britten, Elgar, Delius, Stanford, Bax. Parry, Vaughn Williams, Malcolm Arnold, Rubbra, William Walton


I enjoy elgar, britten, bax and vaughan williams, and william walton, I just wanted to keep my list kind of short. . Edit and Janacek.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

*Ligeti*


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

More *Ligeti*


----------



## neoshredder

Schnittke. lol j/k Though I enjoy his Concerto Grosso. It definitely has a lot of dissonance in it.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Xenakis


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Anthony Pateras


----------



## neoshredder

Philip Glass - Koyaanisqatsi I really enjoyed. Not much dissonance there. It gets a little too repetitive as expected at times but I enjoyed it.


----------



## Manok

Tried a track of George Crumb's Makrokosmos, and found that interesting. I will look at others as well that I haven't heard of.


----------



## Sid James

Manok said:


> I will give a few examples of modern composers I actually like, and maybe you can help me find more that I might enjoy. Penderecki, Bartok, Berg, Schoenberg, Mahler, Copland, Ives, some but not all Cage, Villa-Lobos, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Poulenc(don't know if hes modern or not?) I'd like to like more modern music, but very little of it I can tolerate.


I think a lot of bases have been covered, many good recommendations here.

Your list is quite eclectic and varied already, Manok.

Just keep exploring.

Based on what you say, you liking Mahler and Schoenberg,* Zemlinsky *is a good bet, he's kind of got their vibe, but of course unique. It took me a while to warm up to him, but I love him now. Favourite works are his _Sinfonietta, Lyric Symphony_, _Orchestral songs_ for baritone and orchestra, and the _Maeterlinck songs _for mezzo-soprano and orchestra.

As with Berg, another composer who used techniques involving atonality and serialism in a flexible way, with emphasis on tradition, is* Frank Martin*. His _Petite Symphonie Concertante _is a masterpiece that is loved by many listeners. His_ Ballades _are also great - they involve solo instruments playing with orchestral accompaniment. A favourite work of mine is his_ Mass for Double Choir_. Martin's music has modern sounds but there is a lot to hang onto, eg. melody and counterpoint.

Since you like Ives, Copland and some Cage, it may be good to try some* Hovhaness*. He used Cage's techniques a bit like Lutoslawski did, in a more controlled way. His music has aspects of neo-classicism, new age, and a kind of romantic emphasis on melody (some of it coming from Armenia, the Middle East, Japan, etc.).

As for your liking Villa-Lobos, another big Brazilian composer of the 20th century was* Camargo Guarneri*. His piano concertos are on Naxos, 6 in all, on two separate discs. I have the first disc, with concertos 1-3, and I have enjoyed these quite a lot (I'm also a fan of Villa-Lobos)...


----------



## Manok

Thanks for the suggestions, tonality or lack thereof doesn't bother me, it's whats done with both that does if that makes any sense at all.


----------



## Guest

I like Lera Auerbach--heavily influenced by Shostakovich and Schnittke:


----------



## Itullian

Jennifer Higdon has written some outstanding things.


----------



## SuperTonic

Based on the list your provided I think you may enjoy Samuel Barber. Everyone knows the Adagio for Strings. I'd also recommend the etudes for orchestra (particularly the 1st or 2nd etudes), Music for a Scene from Shelley, any of his 3 concerti (violin, piano, or cello) or the 1st Symphony.


----------



## LordBlackudder

I'm not really keen on them myself. But Nitin Sawhney is interesting.


----------



## pjang23

André Mathieu (Check out itywltmt's blog)
Été Canadien
Piano Trio & Quintet
Scènes de Ballet
Concerto de Québec


----------



## aleazk

Manok said:


> I will give a few examples of modern composers I actually like, and maybe you can help me find more that I might enjoy. Penderecki, Bartok, Berg, Schoenberg, Mahler, Copland, Ives, some but not all Cage, Villa-Lobos, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Poulenc(don't know if hes modern or not?) I'd like to like more modern music, but very little of it I can tolerate.


mm, but many of those composers (e.g. Stravinsky) are not very modern now (I'm not saying that Stravinsky was not modern in his time) . In the sense that some of that music has now almost 100 years old. For me, "modern" is someone like Boulez, who is still alive.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

neoshredder said:


> Philip Glass - Koyaanisqatsi I really enjoyed. Not much dissonance there. It gets a little too repetitive as expected at times but I enjoyed it.


So did I. Glass would be a "modern and tolerable" composer. As for folks who are thinking what "modern and tolerable" composer means, just take it easy. You don't need to get painfully academic on this.


----------



## Manok

aleazk said:


> mm, but many of those composers (e.g. Stravinsky) are not very modern now (I'm not saying that Stravinsky was not modern in his time) . In the sense that some of that music has now almost 100 years old. For me, "modern" is someone like Boulez, who is still alive.


To me anything modern is late to post 19th century.


----------



## Sid James

^^It has different meanings. You just use your own meaning, Manok.

There's these endless philosophical debates as to when Modernism ended - if it every did? - and where Post-Modernism began.

What about the era after Post-Modernism. Will it be called Post-Post-Modernism?

These labels are of limited value and quite arbitary, I often think. Better just to go with how you see things. As you gave a list of composers you like, I gave my recommendations based on that.

As an aside, I've had enough of people on this forum being smart aleks and questioning the supposed bad motivations behind someone opening a thread. If in real life a person asks you a question or for advice, you usually end up giving the advice sought. Of course, you can clarify why the question was asked, but I usuall do that in order to give a better or more relevant answer to the question.

So on the context of this forum, the questioners of questions are usually parading their own ideologies or their own judgements of things that I see as a waste of time. Like semantics, eg. why a person used such and such a word, this type of chasing your tail stuff. So I'm happy that most people on this thread have simply gotten with it and answered the OP's questions, which I did not find unreasonable or taxing on my comprehension. Again, it's a matter of common sense, not semantics or wordplays...


----------



## frankentomato

John Adams: _A Short Ride in a Fast Machine_ is a crowd pleaser, but _On the Transmigration of Souls_ is incredibly deep, emotional, and won a Pulitzer.

Jean Sibelius: _Tapiola_ or _Finlandia_ are good places to start: both symphonic poems.

Alexander Scriabin: Not only one of the most interesting characters in music history but wrote great music. _Promethée_, a symphonic poem and _Vers La Flamme_, a piano tone-poem are excellent places to start.

Igor Stravinsky: Listen to _Petrushka_, and decide if you really can't stand him.

Leo Ornstein: Often neglected. _Nocturne for Clarinet and Piano_ is actually quite impressionistic sounding, but for more of a distinctly Ornstein-y sound, listen to _A La Chinoise_ (with an open mind)

Conlon Nancarrow: Had absolutely brilliant ideas in his _Studies for Player Piano_.

György Ligeti: _Atmospheres_ and _Musica Ricerdata_, all very different styles, but all good.

That should be enough.


----------



## bigshot

Excuse me. I'm coming into this thread late. Is this the "modern composers are just as good as Bach" thread for this week?


----------



## Rapide

Boulez's serialism. Very "tolerable".


----------



## violadude

bigshot said:


> Excuse me. I'm coming into this thread late. Is this the "modern composers are just as good as Bach" thread for this week?


Nope, this is the "treating composers like immortal gods" club. You're in the right place!


----------



## pluhagr

Stravinsky- Symphony of Psalms


----------



## Ravellian

bigshot said:


> Excuse me. I'm coming into this thread late. Is this the "modern composers are just as good as Bach" thread for this week?











Abandon thread, folks. It's that time of the week to worship Bach.


----------



## Sid James

^^ No we worship the three B's. All of them, morning, noon and night in Vienna. Notice Mr. von Bulow didn't say Wagner cos the guy ran off with his wife :lol: ...


----------



## Igneous01

I suggest Schnittke, I think his first concerto grosso is accessible in a lot of ways, and his string quartets:






this movement sounds like a dvorak quartet excerpt with a psychotic mood swing, lovely


----------



## Manok

Bed breakfast and beyond? Are those the three B's? Only kidding .


----------



## Glaliraha

Frank Zappa
Philip Glass
Steve Reich


----------



## neoshredder

Schnittke and Ligeti. Everyone else is intolerable.


----------



## starthrower

Igneous01 said:


> I suggest Schnittke, I think his first concerto grosso is accessible in a lot of ways, and his string quartets:


Gee, thanks! Am I allowed to proceed further?


----------



## Arsakes

Sid James said:


> ^^ No we worship the three B's. All of them, morning, noon and night in Vienna. Notice Mr. von Bulow didn't say Wagner cos the guy ran off with his wife :lol: ...


"I believe in God, Mozart and Beethoven."


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

What I think of Beethoven


----------



## KenOC

Nobody's been tolerable since Schumann. Early Schumann.


----------



## Guest

Oliver Greif wrote basically tonal works...often rather dark. Picture Shostakovich without a trace of humor! This is one of my favorites. (The Sonate de Requiem is a sonata for cello and piano, not a vocal work. The other piece is his Piano Trio.)


----------



## Tristan

Poulenc is definitely modern; try Duruflé as well. I also like Orff and Britten.


----------



## BurningDesire

It feels like this thread is giving me the finger whenever I see its title.


----------



## neoshredder

Tristan said:


> Poulenc is definitely modern; try Duruflé as well. I also like Orff and Britten.


I always think of Composers starting from the 1960's and after as modern. But the early 20th Century is much better imo.


----------



## jani

Tolerable modern composers? 
Is that a trick question?


----------



## Mahlerian

jani said:


> Tolerable modern composers?
> Is that a trick question?


Perhaps. Where are the intolerable ones, for starters?


----------



## neoshredder

Mahlerian said:


> Perhaps. Where are the intolerable ones, for starters?


Cage, Nono, and Xenakis for starters.


----------



## Mahlerian

neoshredder said:


> Cage, Nono, and Xenakis for starters.


Funny you should mention Nono...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intolleranza_1960


----------



## neoshredder

Some of us prefer beautiful melodies over ugly melodies. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.


----------



## Cygnenoir

There are other elements in music than melody.


----------



## violadude

neoshredder said:


> Cage, Nono, and Xenakis for starters.


But...but...but....I love those composers


----------



## BurningDesire

neoshredder said:


> Some of us prefer beautiful melodies over ugly melodies. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.


Oh hello HarpsichordConcerto. When did you get here?


----------



## neoshredder

BurningDesire said:


> Oh hello HarpsichordConcerto. When did you get here?


Not quite. But we do have some things in common with Classical Music.


----------



## violadude

Your intolerance of composers that I love is intolerable.


----------



## neoshredder

berghansson said:


> There are other elements in music than melody.


What should I listen to tonight? Some random sounds or an organized Symphony? Tough choice.


----------



## violadude

neoshredder said:


> What should I listen to tonight? Some random sounds or an organized Symphony? Tough choice.


All composed music is organized.


----------



## jani

neoshredder said:


> What should I listen to tonight? Some random sounds or an organized Symphony? Tough choice.


May i recommend this great symphony!


----------



## neoshredder

violadude said:


> All composed music is organized.


True. But it was intentionally Composed to sound chaotic. And those chaos pieces sound quite similar to each other. I guess you can change the instruments as much as possible. Even if the scores look entirely different, the ear isn't that gifted to tell one chaotic piece from another. Which is why atonal just doesn't work to the mass public.


----------



## neoshredder

jani said:


> May i recommend this great symphony!
> Sibelius Symphony 3


Great selection for melody. My favorite Sibelius Symphony right there.


----------



## violadude

neoshredder said:


> True. But it was intentionally Composed to sound chaotic. And those chaos pieces sound quite similar to each other. I guess you can change the instruments as much as possible. Even if the scores look entirely different, the ear isn't that gifted to tell one chaotic piece from another. Which is why atonal just doesn't work to the mass public.


Hm, true but wouldn't you say that this is true of all styles? For example, most music in the classical style sounds broadly similar and the differences are in the more nuanced details.


----------



## neoshredder

violadude said:


> Hm, true but wouldn't you say that this is true of all styles? For example, most music in the classical style sounds broadly similar and the differences are in the more nuanced details.


At times it can be. At least it is pleasing to the ears. But still Sturm und Drang, Galante, Mature Classical (Beethoven) allows for some variety.


----------



## mmsbls

Not everyone might like the wording of the OP, but it is a request to find more modern composers to enjoy:



> I will give a few examples of modern composers I actually like, and maybe you can help me find more that I might enjoy.


The recent discussion has strayed off topic and towards a rather negative place. Please return to suggesting modern composers or music as pleasurable listening experiences.


----------



## violadude

neoshredder said:


> At times it can be. At least it is pleasing to the ears. But still Sturm und Drang, Galante, Mature Classical (Beethoven) allows for some variety.


And you wouldn't say that there is as detailed variety within atonal music between Berg and Webern, for example, as there is between Mozart and Haydn?


----------



## Mahlerian

violadude said:


> And you wouldn't say that there is as detailed variety within atonal music between Berg and Webern, for example, as there is between Mozart and Haydn?


At least as much. From a theoretical perspective, there is actually more differentiation in their use of harmony, form, counterpoint, etc. than between any two classical era composers.



Neoshredder said:


> But it was intentionally composed to sound chaotic.


No it wasn't. This is just wrong. It's actually very easy to write music that sounds disorganized. Any amateur can do it. It's much harder to write good, integrated music, which the best of the Darmstadt group's work is.


----------



## Cygnenoir

neoshredder said:


> What should I listen to tonight? Some random sounds or an organized Symphony? Tough choice.


Well...it depends on what mood you're in. I prefer both "random sounds" and symphonies, it be Beethoven, Mahler, Webern or Schnittke.

If you accuse this of being random, unorganized sounds, then you're way off, pal!





But random sounds (in the non-musical category) _can_ actually be very pleasant. Just the love for pure, natural sounds... Take water: Rain, waves, waterfalls, or brooks. Or a fresh breeze. You can hear musical elements anywhere, only if you use your imagination.

On topic, any music is tolerable if I allow it to be so. But we can't just enjoy everything, can we?


----------



## DavidA

I must confess that much modern music is not for me. It appears to me an unholy racket. This may be (possibly is) a failing on my part, but I do think music should be enjoyable. For a tolerable modern composer, what about John Rutter? 
(Anticipate howls of derision)


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Come on moderners - don't let the old fogies' get ya down... there are just jealous because there not where it's at right!, they think they are happy with their cobwebs and rusty music from a bygone age- well really many bygone ages ago. So cheer up, don't let the ....... get to ya.

And now for some non -Rusty Muse

"I refuse to submit myself only to sounds that have already been heard,"


----------



## Mahlerian

DavidA said:


> I must confess that much modern music is not for me. It appears to me an unholy racket. This may be (possibly is) a failing on my part, but I do think music should be enjoyable. For a tolerable modern composer, what about John Rutter?
> (Anticipate howls of derision)


Is it really so hard to understand that some people do enjoy Schoenberg, Webern, and Boulez, and for much the exact same reasons you enjoy any music that you enjoy?


----------



## millionrainbows

Hey, I happen to like music that I can't tolerate! That's called "transcending your own ego.":lol:

Actually, self-immolation is an ancient religious practice. After listening to some of Xenakis' organ music & flagellating myself with my little whip, I felt much more spiritually enlightened.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

^ Ah - but do you find it tolerable once you listen or do you go back for more.............


----------



## musicican

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petr_Eben
(Petr Eben, Czech composer)





http://www.zdenek-lukas.cz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=872:zdeneklukas-21-8-1928-13-7-2007&catid=73:nastnka
Zdeněk Lukáš

Jiří Pavlica





Of course, a lot of modern ones that are tolerable were already mentioned.


----------



## ptr

musicican said:


> (Petr Eben, Czech composer)


Eben is one of my favourite 20th century organ composers!

/ptr


----------



## musicican

ptr said:


> Eben is one of my favourite 20th century organ composers!
> 
> /ptr


I also like his choral works, such as
http://www.dumknihy.cz/noc-121325


----------



## PetrB

What an unfortunate choice of words, 'tolerate' meaning something one is grudgingly willing to put up with....


----------



## ptr

musicican said:


> I also like his choral works, such as
> http://www.dumknihy.cz/noc-121325


I think I have one measly choral work by Eben on CD, do you know if there's any anthologies with his choral music to be recommended? Looked at Supraphon's site and could not see any..

/ptr


----------



## DavidA

Mahlerian said:


> Is it really so hard to understand that some people do enjoy Schoenberg, Webern, and Boulez, and for much the exact same reasons you enjoy any music that you enjoy?


As far as Boulez goers, YES! I have some Schoenberg and Webern but they are not among my most played discs. Anyway, they cannot be said to be really 'modern'. I'm talking about the sort of 'music' that sounds to me like someone trying to saw a violin in half or a piano being pushed downstairs. If it's your cup of tea then fine but please leave my ears out of it!


----------



## Chronochromie

DavidA said:


> As far as Boulez goers, YES! I have some Schoenberg and Webern but they are not among my most played discs. Anyway, they cannot be said to be really 'modern'. I'm talking about the sort of 'music' that sounds to me like someone trying to saw a violin in half or a piano being pushed downstairs. If it's your cup of tea then fine but please leave my ears out of it!


It probably wasn't a good idea to resurrect this thread...


----------



## starthrower

DavidA said:


> I'm talking about the sort of 'music' that sounds to me like someone trying to saw a violin in half


You mean like those menacing strings in Le Sacre?


----------



## DavidA

starthrower said:


> You mean like those menacing strings in Le Sacre?


Nope! They are tuneful compared with some of the stuff we hear!


----------



## Mahlerian

DavidA said:


> As far as Boulez goers, YES! I have some Schoenberg and Webern but they are not among my most played discs. Anyway, they cannot be said to be really 'modern'. I'm talking about the sort of 'music' that sounds to me like someone trying to saw a violin in half or a piano being pushed downstairs. If it's your cup of tea then fine but please leave my ears out of it!


I am not referring to your ears at all.

I am referring to your ability or inability to understand that your perception and mine are not the same. I cannot hear any resemblance whatsoever between Boulez's music and a piano falling down stairs, except insofar as both sounds involve pianos.


----------



## 20centrfuge

Manok said:


> I will give a few examples of modern composers I actually like, and maybe you can help me find more that I might enjoy. Penderecki, Bartok, Berg, Schoenberg, Mahler, Copland, Ives, some but not all Cage, Villa-Lobos, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Poulenc(don't know if hes modern or not?) I'd like to like more modern music, but very little of it I can tolerate.


Let me just say that I know what you are working through here because it is similar to what I have been working through - trying to find contemporary composers whose music is at least cohesive, listenable, and eventually even enjoyable. Based on your list above I would certainly check out:

*Messaien (start with Quartet for the End of Time (Gil Shaham's recording is marvelous))
*Rautavaara (I think the Violin Concerto is a good place to start, but I too am relatively new to his music)
*Ades, Thomas - an English fellow, only in his 40's, some of his music is more listenable than others. On youtube I would maybe start with "Polaris" or "In Seven Days" or maybe his "Violin Concerto" - on the other end is his opera "The Tempest" which is more difficult listening IMHO
*Prokofiev (although not really modern is just such an amazing composer, please listen to Symphony 6 with Neemi Jarvi)
*Adams - quasi minimalism which you may or may not love but at the very least I would check out "The Chairman Dances" to see what you think

On the more complex end of the spectrum of new music, but still listenable, is Wolfgang Rihm, whose output is so gigantic I can't even tell you where to start.

That's all for now, good luck with your exploration!


----------



## DavidA

Mahlerian said:


> I am not referring to your ears at all.
> 
> I am referring to your ability or inability to understand that your perception and mine are not the same. I cannot hear any resemblance whatsoever between Boulez's music and a piano falling down stairs, except insofar as both sounds involve pianos.


I didn't say how it sounds to you. If you read my post it says, 'it sounds to me'. In addition the reference to the piano falling downstairs was not made directly to Boulez's music.


----------



## Cosmos

Where did all this Modern hate come from anyway?


----------



## Mahlerian

DavidA said:


> I didn't say how it sounds to you. If you read my post it says, 'it sounds to me'. In addition the reference to the piano falling downstairs was not made directly to Boulez's music.


Maybe not, but then you misread the statement you were responding to, which is entirely about understanding that other people enjoy things which you find incomprehensible or repellent.


----------



## DavidA

Mahlerian said:


> Maybe not, but then you misread the statement you were responding to, which is entirely about understanding that other people enjoy things which you find incomprehensible or repellent.


As I said I've no problem with other people enjoying them. It's just I don't! I mean, there is a thread in which someone expresses the view that they find Mozart's music boring. If people can say that then surely I am allowed to dislike the discordant noise that passes for music with certain modern composers.


----------



## Mahlerian

DavidA said:


> As I said I've no problem with other people enjoying them. It's just I don't! I mean, there is a thread in which someone expresses the view that they find Mozart's music boring. If people can say that then surely I am allowed to dislike the discordant noise that passes for music with certain modern composers.


The problem is you keep making statements about the music being "discordant noise" and supposedly not music at all. These are surely statements about the music itself, rather than simply your perception of it. I understand very well that when you hear Boulez, it sounds disorganized, cluttered, and random. You can dislike it all you want, and if I heard it that way, I'm sure I would dislike it too.

But it doesn't sound that way to me at all.

It sounds beautiful, like a shimmering prism, or the play of light on water, something fluid and in motion, full of wonderful sonority, rich harmony, and graceful melodic lines.

And once again, you responded to my question if you found it incomprehensible that others could perceive this music as good with a no. Are you going back on that, or do you continue to think that I do not actually perceive what I say I perceive?


----------



## quack

Der Leiermann said:


> It probably wasn't a good idea to resurrect this thread...


Some people aren't warmed enough by the music they love, they need to make a bonfire from the music they hate.


----------



## PetrB

DavidA said:


> As I said I've no problem with other people enjoying them. It's just I don't! I mean, there is a thread in which someone expresses the view that they find Mozart's music boring. If people can say that then surely I am allowed to dislike the discordant noise that passes for music with certain modern composers.


I think some has to do with frequency, i.e. so many dozens of posts with all those adjectival strings of 'screechy, ugly, breaking glass, sawing violins in half, etc. go quite a long way, and when one feels entitled to drop in on a thread which is all about modern just to leave one's private road apples in the middle of the road, so to speak, then it is time for the adults to call you out on it (has been, has been done, somehow _continues here,_ even.) The OP is about music you can tolerate, not a platform to rant, and generalize rant at that, about all the sorts of music you can not tolerate. If your tolerance level is low, has a small compass, then even a thread with the intent of the OP is maybe something best considered as having nothing to do with you.


----------



## hpowders

What does "modern" mean? Is Copland "modern"?

If so, then Copland along with Schuman, Persichetti and Mennin.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Mahlerian said:


> The problem is you keep making statements about the music being "discordant noise" and supposedly not music at all. These are surely statements about the music itself, rather than simply your perception of it. I understand very well that when you hear Boulez, it sounds disorganized, cluttered, and random. You can dislike it all you want, and if I heard it that way, I'm sure I would dislike it too.
> 
> But it doesn't sound that way to me at all.
> 
> It sounds beautiful, like a shimmering prism, or the play of light on water, something fluid and in motion, full of wonderful sonority, rich harmony, and graceful melodic lines.
> 
> And once again, you responded to my question if you found it incomprehensible that others could perceive this music as good with a no. Are you going back on that, or do you continue to think that I do not actually perceive what I say I perceive?


I find _Derive 1 _and _2_ especially wonderful:


----------



## DavidA

Mahlerian said:


> The problem is you keep making statements about the music being "discordant noise" and supposedly not music at all. These are surely statements about the music itself, rather than simply your perception of it. I understand very well that when you hear Boulez, it sounds disorganized, cluttered, and random. You can dislike it all you want, and if I heard it that way, I'm sure I would dislike it too.
> 
> But it doesn't sound that way to me at all.
> 
> It sounds beautiful, like a shimmering prism, or the play of light on water, something fluid and in motion, full of wonderful sonority, rich harmony, and graceful melodic lines.
> 
> And once again, you responded to my question if you found it incomprehensible that others could perceive this music as good with a no. Are you going back on that, or do you continue to think that I do not actually perceive what I say I perceive?


I find it incomprehensible that people could like this music. But I also find it incomprehensible that people could find Mozart boring. I am surely allowed both opinions!


----------



## PetrB

Vittorio Rieti; Alfredo Casella; Irving Fine; Arthur Berger; Leonard Bernstein; Aaron Copland; Lukas Foss; Harold Shapero.


----------



## Mahlerian

DavidA said:


> I find it incomprehensible that people could like this music. But I also find it incomprehensible that people could find Mozart boring. I am surely allowed both opinions!


I don't find either incomprehensible, even though I love both Boulez and Mozart. I acknowledge that people who perceive Mozart differently may be bored by it, and I acknowledge that people who perceive Boulez differently may find it repulsive.

You are of course allowed your own opinions.

But the question of whether or not Boulez's music is actually nonsensical noise is not merely one of opinion; if it can be understood by anyone, then obviously it is not nonsensical noise. In order to continue making the claims that you do, you must believe that my perceptions are in fact mistaken. If you have proof or indication of this, I'd be happy to hear it.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> I find it incomprehensible that people could like this music. But I also find it incomprehensible that people could find Mozart boring. I am surely allowed both opinions!


You're allowed both, every, and all opinions.

I just want to share what strikes me as arrestingly beautiful with people.

I don't like most of Boulez's _oeurve_, but I love the aforementioned pieces.

Perhaps you will to. . . or not; but check them out regardless. _;D_


----------



## DavidA

Mahlerian said:


> I don't find either incomprehensible, even though I love both Boulez and Mozart. I acknowledge that people who perceive Mozart differently may be bored by it, and I acknowledge that people who perceive Boulez differently may find it repulsive.
> 
> You are of course allowed your own opinions.
> 
> But the question of whether or not Boulez's music is actually nonsensical noise is not merely one of opinion; if it can be understood by anyone, then obviously it is not nonsensical noise. In order to continue making the claims that you do, you must believe that my perceptions are in fact mistaken. If you have proof or indication of this, I'd be happy to hear it.


I'm sorry, but you tell me I am allowed my opinion. but then you read other things into it. I never said that my view of some music by modern composers was anything but my opinion. It's how it sounds to me. Now if it sounds wonderful to you that is fine. You are entitled to your opinion like I am entitled to mine. the fact that this thread is entitled 'Tolerable Modern Composers' surely implies there are some the OP himself finds intolerable?


----------



## Mahlerian

DavidA said:


> I'm sorry, but you tell me I am allowed my opinion. but then you read other things into it. I never said that my view of some music by modern composers was anything but my opinion. It's how it sounds to me. Now if it sounds wonderful to you that is fine. You are entitled to your opinion like I am entitled to mine. I consider Wellington's Victory and the 1812 Overture dreadful pieces of music. But if other people think they are wonderful then fine. It is opinion.


No, you are making statements about the music as if they were objective.

You can't just say "Mars is 500 miles away from the moon" and then expect people not to contradict you just because it's your opinion. You can't just say that Chinese characters are incomprehensible scribblings. You can't just say the first movement of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony isn't in D minor because you don't hear it that way. You can't just say that Schoenberg's music isn't thematic/motivic.

Similarly, you can't just say that Boulez's music is noise.

It may be your view that it is bad, and your perception of it may be similar or identical to noise, but surely you must see that you are making a mistake in conflating the subjective with the objective.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Mahlerian said:


> No, you are making statements about the music as if they were objective.
> 
> You can't just say "Mars is 500 miles away from the moon" and then expect people not to contradict you just because it's your opinion. You can't just say that Chinese characters are incomprehensible scribblings. You can't just say the first movement of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony isn't in D minor because you don't hear it that way. You can't just say that Schoenberg's music isn't thematic/motivic.
> 
> Similarly, you can't just say that Boulez's music is noise.
> 
> It may be your view that it is bad, and your perception of it may be similar or identical to noise, but surely you must see that you are making a mistake in conflating the subjective with the objective.


Blairification: One's entitled to one's own _opinion_. However, one's not entitled to one's own _facts_.


----------



## DavidA

Mahlerian said:


> No, you are making statements about the music as if they were objective.
> 
> You can't just say "Mars is 500 miles away from the moon" and then expect people not to contradict you just because it's your opinion. You can't just say that Chinese characters are incomprehensible scribblings. You can't just say the first movement of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony isn't in D minor because you don't hear it that way. You can't just say that Schoenberg's music isn't thematic/motivic.
> 
> Similarly, you can't just say that Boulez's music is noise.
> 
> It may be your view that it is bad, and your perception of it may be similar or identical to noise, but surely you must see that you are making a mistake in conflating the subjective with the objective.


I think if you read what I put in the statements you replied to you will find I was not being objective but giving my opinion. I have no problem with you disagreeing but please don't compare my statements to scientific, measurable statements because if you read the context it obvious they were not meant that way.


----------



## starthrower

DavidA said:


> Nope! They are tuneful compared with some of the stuff we hear!


I'm sure those remarks were made about older music in relation to Stravinsky 100 years ago. His music being "some of the stuff we hear" nowadays.


----------



## DavidA

starthrower said:


> I'm sure those remarks were made about older music in relation to Stravinsky 100 years ago. His music being "some of the stuff we hear" nowadays.


Well the Sacre did cause a riot at the first performance!


----------



## PetrB

DavidA said:


> I find it incomprehensible that people could like this music. But I also find it incomprehensible that people could find Mozart boring. I am surely allowed both opinions!


Post #92. I have a hunch on your screen it is numbered as "0."
http://www.talkclassical.com/17793-tolerable-modern-composers-7.html


----------



## Marschallin Blair

DavidA said:


> Well the Sacre did cause a riot at the first performance!


. . . for the _choreography._

Later when a concert-only _Sacre _was given, Stravinsky was carried outside on the shoulders of a cheering crowd.


----------



## Mahlerian

starthrower said:


> I'm sure those remarks were made about older music in relation to Stravinsky 100 years ago. His music being "some of the stuff we hear" nowadays.


The "cat running up and down a piano" thing dates back at least to Wagner's time. Most jabs at modern music date back to Beethoven or Berlioz.


----------



## PetrB

Mahlerian said:


> The "cat running up and down a piano" thing dates back at least to Wagner's time. Most jabs at modern music date back to Beethoven or Berlioz.


Domenico Scarlatti ~ The Cat's Fugue, dubbed that by Muzio Clementi (1752 - 1832), who likened the head of the fugue subject to notes as 'random' as if a cat had walked across the keyboard.


----------



## Johannes V

Proust has written a good word on the subject of obscurity in art, with regard, however, to poetry (and he was surely no enemy to the modern!):

_If they are to evade my question, the young poets (in verse or prose) have a preliminary argument they might put forward. 'Our obscurity,' they might say,' is the same obscurity as was held against Hugo, as was held against Racine. In a language whatever is new is obscure. And how can the language not be new when the thought, when the feeling are no longer the same? If it is to remain alive the language must change with the thought and adapt itself to new needs, just as the feet of those birds that were to go on water turned into flippers...One day the astonishment that we provoke in you will itself seem astonishing, just as today the insults are thought astonishing with which a dying classicism greeted the onset of romanticism"
That is what the young poets might say to us. And we, having first congratulated them on these ingenious words, might say to them: 'Not wanting doubtless to make allusion to the schools of preciosity, you have played on the term 'obscurity' by tracing the pedigree of your own so far into the past. It is on the contrary very recent in the history of literature. It is something other than the astonishment, or, if you like, the unease that may have been caused by Racine's earliest tragedies, or the earliest odes of Victor Hugo. But a sense of that same necessity, that same constancy of the laws of the universe, and of the human mind, which prevents me from imagining, as might a child, that the world is going to change in accordance with my own wishes, prevents me from supposing that, were the conditions of art suddenly to be modified, masterpieces now will be what they have never been, through the centuries: more or less unintelligible.'_

Obscurity may be translated into that "thorniness" which many, including myself at times, profess to find in a good deal of modern music.


----------



## Guest

Given the state of things lately, I would think resurrecting a thread like this, regardless of post content, should warrant an infraction, frankly.


----------



## Dustin

nathanb said:


> Given the state of things lately, I would think resurrecting a thread like this, regardless of post content, should warrant an infraction, frankly.


:lol:

lkj;ijlkomoiobbb[olkj./n


----------



## PetrB

nathanb said:


> Given the state of things lately, I would think resurrecting a thread like this, regardless of post content, should warrant an infraction, frankly.


In the real world, there are legal penalties for digging up the dead without going through the proper channels, getting legal permission, and other laws as well about, well ______ing with the dead.


----------



## Dim7

Dustin said:


> lkj;ijlkomoiobbb[olkj./n


Fiercely disagree.


----------



## Morimur

Brian Ferneyhough


----------



## DavidA

Marschallin Blair said:


> . . . for the _choreography._
> 
> Later when a concert-only _Sacre _was given, Stravinsky was carried outside on the shoulders of a cheering crowd.




History reveals it wasn't just the choreography. The reviews of the music were merciless. "The work of a madman … sheer cacophony," wrote the composer Puccini. "A laborious and puerile barbarity," added Le Figaro's critic, Henri Quittard.
The Rite opened with an introductory melody adapted from a Lithuanian folk song, featuring a bassoon playing, unusually, at the top of its register, and prompting composer Camille Saint-Saëns to exclaim: "If that's a bassoon, then I'm a baboon!"


----------



## Chronochromie

DavidA said:


> The Rite opened with an introductory melody adapted from a Lithuanian folk song, featuring a bassoon playing, unusually, at the top of its register, and prompting composer Camille Saint-Saëns to exclaim: "If that's a bassoon, then I'm a baboon!"


I've been told that it's a myth.


----------



## KenOC

Stravinsky's Rite, reviewed by Olin Downes courtesy of Slonimsky: "...the expression of one who is fundamentally a barbarian and a primitive, tinctured with, and educated in, the utmost sophistications and satieties of a worn-out civilization."


----------



## science

I've heard - perhaps someone here can confirm or deny this - that in the Rite Stravinsky's rhythms were more shocking or disorienting to early audiences than his harmonies. If that's true, we might be reducing or losing a bit of the fun complexity of history by focusing too much on the harmony.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Schnittke is definitely tolerable - more than tolerable. Amazing, in fact! Wonderful! Ligeti is just as good.


----------



## Mahlerian

science said:


> I've heard - perhaps someone here can confirm or deny this - that in the Rite Stravinsky's rhythms were more shocking or disorienting to early audiences than his harmonies. If that's true, we might be reducing or losing a bit of the fun complexity of history by focusing too much on the harmony.


A British composer and conductor, Constant Lambert, wrote about the Rite in his book _Music Ho!_, a lament for how all music has gone south.



Lambert said:


> Stravinsky's rhythm is not rhythm in the true sense of the term, but rather 'metre' or 'measure'. In many sections of Le Sacre du Printemps *the notes are merely pegs on which to hang the rhythm, and the orchestration and harmony are designed as far as possible to convert melodic instruments into the equivalent of percussion instruments*. The essential effect of augures printanières-a passage in which the regular pulse of an unchanging chord is accented with irregular beats-could be obtained equally well on a single drum, and, in a more elaborate passage such as the glorification de l'élue, we feel that an upwards skirl or flam on the flute is merely a more elaborate notation for a high percussive instrument like the tambourine, that *an arbitrary discord in the bass* is merely a more emphatic kettledrum. The essential thought could be expressed on a large number of varied percussive instruments, though admittedly without the heightening of the nervous effect obtained by Stravinsky's pointillist scoring.


He's saying that the notes are themselves completely arbitrary and only make sense because of the rhythm (similar to what Taruskin claims about Schoenberg; both are wrong). I would imagine that both rhythm and harmony played an effect in initial reactions to the piece.


----------



## Nereffid

DavidA said:


> *I find it incomprehensible* that people could like this music. But *I also find it incomprehensible* that people could find Mozart boring. I am surely allowed both opinions!


OK, this is one of my bugbears, so I have to ask:

Do you _literally_ find it incomprehensible?

Surely you accept the _fact_ that some people like Boulez's music. You might not share that opinion, but to say you find it _incomprehensible_ suggests to me that you're saying you lack the ability to see the world from another person's point of view. But it seems unlikely you'd gladly draw attention to such a total lack of empathy in your character. Which then suggests that perhaps you're implying, through a non-literal use of the word _incomprehensible_, that the other person's point of view is not a valid one.


----------



## PetrB

Nereffid said:


> OK, this is one of my bugbears, so I have to ask:
> 
> Do you _literally_ find it incomprehensible?
> 
> Surely you accept the _fact_ that some people like Boulez's music. You might not share that opinion, but to say you find it _incomprehensible_ suggests to me that you're saying you lack the ability to see the world from another person's point of view. But it seems unlikely you'd gladly draw attention to such a total lack of empathy in your character. Which then suggests that perhaps you're implying, through a non-literal use of the word _incomprehensible_, that the other person's point of view is not a valid one.


There is no explaining "the offended 18th century" when the attitude is displayed by a person from the 20th / 21st.


----------



## starthrower

Mozart and Haydn are mostly uninteresting to my ear. I won't call them boring.


----------



## Becca

I am quite amused to see some of the composer's who are listed as 'modern'! It seems to be that the issue has less to do with when a piece was composed and more to do with the style of the work. Take for example Peter Maxwell Davies, he has written pieces which cover a very wide gamut of styles. There are some such as Jennifer Higdon, Christopher Theofanidas and Graham Waterhouse whose works are both contemporary and yet very traditional in style.


----------



## DavidA

Der Leiermann said:


> I've been told that it's a myth.


Who told you that?


----------



## DavidA

Nereffid said:


> OK, this is one of my bugbears, so I have to ask:
> 
> Do you _literally_ find it incomprehensible?
> 
> Surely you accept the _fact_ that some people like Boulez's music. You might not share that opinion, but to say you find it _incomprehensible_ suggests to me that you're saying you lack the ability to see the world from another person's point of view. But it seems unlikely you'd gladly draw attention to such a total lack of empathy in your character. Which then suggests that perhaps you're implying, through a non-literal use of the word _incomprehensible_, that the other person's point of view is not a valid one.


I think we all lack the ability to see the world from some other people's point of view. There are certain things we have no empathy for. Just that some of us are honest about it!

BTW I didn't say the other viewpoint is not valid. Just I can't understand it. Please don't misquote me.


----------



## ArtMusic

Going back to the topic of this thread (and I don't think I have contributed to this thread), a tolerable modern composer is *Jonathan Dove*. He composes instrumental music, operas and theater work that are quite accessible in general.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Dove

http://www.jonathandove.com/


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

This thread is still going on...

aaaaahahahahahahahahaha

not the least sorry


----------



## Piwikiwi

Richannes Wrahms said:


> This thread is still going on...
> 
> aaaaahahahahahahahahaha
> 
> not the least sorry


Intolerable really


----------



## Nereffid

DavidA said:


> I think we all lack the ability to see the world from some other people's point of view. There are certain things we have no empathy for. Just that some of us are honest about it!
> 
> BTW I didn't say the other viewpoint is not valid. Just I can't understand it. Please don't misquote me.


Misquote you? Heh. What I said was "_suggests_ that _perhaps_ you're _implying_". Three degrees away from even _paraphrasing_ you, let alone quoting.

Well look, I see tastes in music as analogous to tastes in food. I don't like strong blue cheeses at all. But I know it's all about molecules, so I can _understand_ why some people do. The process by which they like that food is the exact same as the process by which I like some other food.
Tastes in music... same thing. The neural processes that occur when I hear music I like are in the same category as those that occur when someone else hears music they like. It's not that the other person has an "I like ugly music" part of their brain and I don't! So I might not enjoy their music but it's perfectly easy to understand how they're capable of liking it.


----------



## Jos

Seen and heard this piece live by my wifes pianoteacher and a very talented student ( and a whealthy one too, two! grand pianos in the house ).
Very "tolerable", heck, I actually enjoyed it ! :lol:


----------



## Piwikiwi

Nereffid said:


> Misquote you? Heh. What I said was "_suggests_ that _perhaps_ you're _implying_". Three degrees away from even _paraphrasing_ you, let alone quoting.
> 
> Well look, I see tastes in music as analogous to tastes in food. I don't like strong blue cheeses at all. But I know it's all about molecules, so I can _understand_ why some people do. The process by which they like that food is the exact same as the process by which I like some other food.
> Tastes in music... same thing. The neural processes that occur when I hear music I like are in the same category as those that occur when someone else hears music they like. It's not that the other person has an "I like ugly music" part of their brain and I don't! So I might not enjoy their music but it's perfectly easy to understand how they're capable of liking it.


I also hated blue cheeses until I tried Gorgonzola. You need to try(if you want to) to find your musical gorgonzola.


----------

