# Enjoying (or Not) Modern/Contemporary Music



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Modern/Contemporary (henceforth just modern) music is a contentious subject on TC and probably elsewhere as well. I don’t believe it has to be that way, and I would like to attempt to bridge the gap somewhat by encouraging people to talk about their feelings/views/opinions in a constructive way. NOTE: Constructive does not necessarily mean positive. I’m really looking for a dialogue. Mostly I’m looking to see if we can discuss both liking and disliking modern music in a manner that informs everyone. I’m sure by now some people are having a good laugh, but I honestly believe this topic can be dealt with in an interesting, productive manner by all “sides”.

So, what interests you about modern music? What do you dislike about it? Do some of you vastly prefer modern to pre-20th century to the extent that you rarely listen to earlier music? If you dislike it, do you still sometimes listen to works you have not heard (or listen again to ones you have)? And so on.

My only requests are:
1) Please try to add comments that let others understand a bit more about your opinions. If you think that Xenakis’s music is garbage, try to say something that allows those who like Xenakis to better understand why you feel that way (and feel free to use less provocative words than “garbage”).
2) If you wish to argue with or correct someone whose views differ from yours, please try to find a way that engages rather than alienates the other person.

I will follow with a few thoughts. So have fun, learn, and remember our Terms of Service (but of course I know everyone always does ).


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I have been fascinated with modern music and especially people's responses to it for quite awhile. I actually joined TC for the express purpose of learning to like modern music. One of my early threads was Help with enjoying modern music.

About 5 years ago I did not enjoy Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, and other generally enjoyed modern composers. I wouldn't say I couldn't stand them, but their music was not really pleasing. Now I love many of their works. More surprising to me I love some works by Berg, Ives, Lutoslawski, and Schoenberg, and I quite enjoy some works by Boulez, Stockhausen, and Ligeti as well as many other modern and contemporary composers. I constantly find new modern works I like.

In some sense it seems miraculous that music I previously thought was impossible to enjoy, I now love or like. As far as I can tell, my conversion (which is still in progress) is pretty much solely the result of listening to lots of modern music. Slowly but surely my tastes have evolved such that music I found awful, I now like. In fact I actively do not wish to go days without hearing modern music. Having spoken to others who went from not enjoying to enjoying modern music (both on TC and in person), it seems that a simple recipe for success is:

1) Be willing to listen (be open, give it chance)
2) Continued listening really does work (how well it works is dependent on many factors)

For some of us there was a "need" to like modern music. For others there is no need. But I and many others are proof that someone can strongly dislike modern music and then learn to enjoy it (and be very thankful they tried).


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I have really enjoyed the small pieces of more modern music that have been put in my way by kind fellow-members PetrB & Mahlerian. I for one wouldn't know where to start without being pointed in the right direction. I do hope this thread helps to elucidate what are the main characteristics and virtues of modern music & also mentions some shortish & accessible pieces that I and other open-minded listeners could cut our teeth on! 

Fabulous thread, mmbls! :tiphat:


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

I try not to close my ears to modern music. I've found several things lately that I've enjoyed more than I thought I would.

Not being a real student of musicology, however, I do find it hard to appreciate music that seems to be more about being clever or about preaching to the cognoscenti than it does communicating something to the average listener.

Though I'm fascinated by the existence of it and the enthusiasm it generates among its target audience, I feel a bit excluded from the party. If it's too much work to appreciate, I'm afraid it's not worth it to me at this point in my life and situation.

At the same time, I'm humble enough to admit that what might seem to me at this point to be "Ivory Tower" stuff might really be quite good. Whether I want to invest the time to get to the level of appreciation I need to make it work for me or not is sort of an unanswered question right now.

I will seriously consider what you wrote about it, mmsbls


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Quite agree, one should always be open. I remember at University (many years ago), a friend playing some Messiean (on vinyl and that dates it). Unfortunately, the speakers were sited either side of a large cast iron radiator and given the percussion effects, we were convinced that there was something seriously wrong with the heating system. We subsequently learnt the error of our ways. However, despite occasional forays into modern music, I have never been able to appreciate its charm (at least on its wilder shores).

I recently tried to play some Debussy but (unfortunately) found that it didn't "grab" me. Despite a serious effort, I just couldn't "see" what he was trying to do. Yet, I can play and enjoy Granados who is of a similar vintage. I'm really a baroque (and earlier) fan and find modern harmonies (or possible their absence) a little difficult to appreciate (despite trying). I've tried some Satie - Gnossiennes - and they are (just) possible. Still can't see what he's up to but it sounds nice.

I like other "modern" composers, but they, like Granados, are often highly nationalistic - Bartok, Grainger, Vaughan Williams, De Falla, Rodigo, Copland - in others words, I warm to a "good tune" or at least what I understand as good tune.

I *will *keep trying but ......................


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

Sometime soon, I'll have to do a short presentation on a 'song' in which the lyrics and and 'mood' appear to contrast together with a class-mate. I chose Webern's Op. 19, because the lyrics about the beauty of nature will contrast with what most people will initially find dissonant sounds. Of course I'll elaborate and clarify a little on the twelve-tone method and what happened in the 20th century as to contextualize it all. Mostly I'm interested in what the reaction will be, so I'm taking some liberties with original assignment (though the teacher approved the choice, so no worries about that). As I've said before, my mother plainly forbid me to play 20th century music when she's around, because she really can't handle it; I want to know how others would react to it when they hear it for the first time. I sent some modern music to a boy once (Bartók, Webern, Stravinsky, Boulez) and he said it had an inexplicably hypnotic quality. 

I greatly enjoy it myself, in any case.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I came to 20th and 21st century music when I was about 12 years old through a book by Roger Kamien called "Music: An Appreciation." I was fascinated especially by 2 things: the structures of compositions by Arnold Schoenberg, his invention of serialism and how it developed in other people's work later in the century, the detailed analysis of "A Survivor from Warsaw", and also I became fascinated by the strange scores of George Crumb. The book had an excerpt of "Ancient Voices of Children" and I tried to understand how everything in the music worked...which was incredibly difficult for me to understand at the time! 

I looked on YouTube to find these works and I listened to "A Survivir from Warsaw," which immediately struck me as being the most emotional piece of music I had ever heard! I had always looked at music from a more analytical point if view (I loved reading scores to learn about the structure of different compositions, the treatment of melodies etc. etc. looking at Mozart, Beethoven and Bach scores taught me a lot about music in that regard) but with this piece of music I saw and heared something which taught me about music on the emotional level. Music to evoke an emotional response. 20th and 21st century music has done this for me ever since.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

One of my favourite pieces to share with newcomers to 20th century classical music is Nancarrow's first string quartet. It's brimming with energy, rhythmic invention and good humour, and it uses a form that will be familiar to many fans of older classical music: the canon. Nancarrow was very fond of using canon with unusual rhythms to create dense contrapuntal textures. His music also has a distinct melodic nature that I think is quite warm and inviting, opposed to the language of prominent figures like those associated with the Darmstadt school, which can often come across as harsh and hostile to first time listeners.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Cheyenne said:


> Sometime soon, I'll have to do a short presentation on a 'song' in which the lyrics and and 'mood' appear to contrast together with a class-mate.


That sounds like it might be an interesting idea for a thread. Though I'm not ready for any distractions from this one just yet--thanks for all the recommendations, everyone.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> One of my favourite pieces to share with newcomers to 20th century classical music is Nancarrow's first string quartet. It's brimming with energy, rhythmic invention and good humour, and it uses a form that will be familiar to many fans of older classical music: the canon. Nancarrow was very fond of using canon with unusual rhythms to create dense contrapuntal textures. His music also has a distinct melodic nature that I think is quite warm and inviting, opposed to the language of prominent figures like those associated with the Darmstadt school, which can often come across as harsh and hostile to first time listeners.


I wish there was a performance video to go along with this - it might be fun to see it being played.

My caveat is still this at this point - this music is "interesting", but it stirs absolutely no emotion in me. I appreciate it so far on the level of a clever puzzle that engages my mind, but my feelings, or "heart" if you will, is completely untouched.

There is a lot of diatonic music that does not touch me emotionally either. I listen to it anyway.

But, for me to really get excited about something, something deeper in me has to be reached. Barber does, Harbison has, Leifs has. I will keep experimenting with somethings truly modern in the hopes that they will as well, but for now....


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I never had to work at liking modern music. I took to Debussy and Stravinsky right along with Beethoven and Tchaikovsky when I started listening to classical music 30 years ago. But my brain had to work at actually hearing and following the music. 

I remember buying a CD of the Bartok piano concertos years ago. The music sounded very foreign, and I couldn't really follow it, except for the 3rd concerto, which isn't as complex and abstract. 

As far as the extreme dissonance in modern music that many listeners abhor, I tend to enjoy it in the music of some composers, but not as much in others. I don't know what the secret formula is?

But at the moment I'm heading backwards 120 years and enjoying some Mahler and Bruckner. Carry on...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ingenue said:


> I have really enjoyed the small pieces of more modern music that have been put in my way by kind fellow-members PetrB & Mahlerian. I for one wouldn't know where to start without being pointed in the right direction. I do hope this thread helps to elucidate what are the main characteristics and virtues of modern music & also mentions some shortish & accessible pieces that I and other open-minded listeners could cut our teeth on!
> 
> Fabulous thread, mmbls! :tiphat:


Thank you, Ingenue. Whatever the repertoire, I think anyone gets a satisfaction in recommending what they like / love to another and find it 'takes.'

What Mahlerian does (which I hope I also do): 
Whatever the more extreme of his personal tastes in relativity to the taste of the person to whom he is recommending something, he very well takes into account the present taste and very well assesses the so-called boundaries of the person to whom he recommends a piece. He is also very well spoken, and has the knack to tell the person what to listen for and how to listen to the new music, again, keeping the measure to tailor what is said and how to the person to whom he is recommending the music.

Working in this manner often requires setting aside your personal taste and greatest enthusiasms, and instead thinking solely about the recipient of the recommendation. That means perhaps not recommending a piece of the latest avant-garde or new complexity. The "Next Step" for that individual listener could well be something as relatively "tame" or conservative as Rachmaninoff, or Ravel or Copland, for example.

This is also pedagogy at its best, assessing the person to whom something is recommended, and without that choice of repertoire being condescending, choosing well enough that the listener will be able to find their way in, and hear something which at least holds their interest. That same listener, after a few more steps along their individual course of development, is then later ready for something much further afield from their original starting point and their then set of listening habits.

If anyone has had the experience of liking to read, and finding that very thoughtful librarian or bookseller who notices what you are reading and then knows perfectly what next to suggest to you, only a step or two past or outside of your current limits or taste level, you will know of the pedagogy I'm talking about. [[I've been more than fortunate in both, librarian / bookseller, and equally knowledgeable and canny musicians _and_ salespeople in record stores, the "other" librarians.]]

Some who would suggest the newer music are very well meaning, but so wrapped up, genuinely enthusiastic, in music so much more advanced and unlike what others are habituated to that they automatically think to recommend that repertoire. In actuality, if that was not going to take with the individual to whom they recommended something, the listener to whom that music was recommended could come to the conclusion no modern music is for them -- a case of literally too much and much too far too early, virtually slamming the door shut that the person making those recommendations had hoped to open.

Mahlerian has that gift of the right choice for the person at that moment. I hope I do, often enough, similar. While not all of the best thought out efforts in that area always work out, the percentage of 'wins,' if well-done, is high. Too, there is the huge satisfaction of knowing the person who took the recommendation will have, forever thereafter, a richer spectrum of great music to enjoy.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I barely think of Debussy, Satie, Stravinsky, the New Viennese School, Hindemith, Bartók or Shostakovich as modern. They are just so _selbstverständlich_ to me  They are more like an extension of the Romantic. Modern has come to connote experimental or unusual, instead of contemporary, _for me_.

When I think of modern music I am strongly attracted to, I think of Xenakis, Stockhausen, Messiaen, Ligeti, Boulez, Schnittke, Carter, Malec, (early) Penderecki, Scelsi, Varèse...

When I think of modern music I am not much attracted to, I think of (mid-late) Copland, Adams, Glass, Gershwin, Cage, Oliveros, Subotnick... Reich is somewhat more attractive, but generally not for many listens.

I listen to CM from all periods, Ancient to Contemporary, and modern is part of my routine listening spectrum. I have found a lot of modern music that I like a lot and only some that seems trite and banal or outright bad. I prefer the more complex and composed styles to the the more minimal and improvised styles. I _do_ sample some of the modern composers that don't much appeal to me from time to time, but I spend far more time enjoying familiar and new _to me_ works by the composers that already appeal to me. I listen somewhat less to modern music than I did a few decades ago, but that is mainly because I now _also_ listen to Ancient, Baroque, Classical and Romantic, which had not interested me as much decades ago as they do now. In other words, I likely spend a more equal amount of time on my favourite composers from _all_ of the eras.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

brotagonist said:


> I barely think of Debussy, Satie, Stravinsky, the New Viennese School, Hindemith, Bartók or Shostakovich as modern.


Stravinsky an extension of the Romantic era? I don't think he would take too kindly to that statement. He was more like the anti-thesis to it


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

Yeah it seems like every time I like something "modern", someone tells me it's not really that modern. Well I guess that just reveals what I _truly_ like the most.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I grew up hearing _The Rite of Spring_ and _The Planets_, but I fell away from serious listening for a while before my later teenage years, at which point I worked forward from Bach (an early and lasting marker of my taste then as now), Beethoven, and Mozart. There was resistance. When I first seriously encountered Debussy, I balked at least a little, and when I first heard Mahler, I balked constantly. But there was always that spark of interest that brought me back, to try to understand what I quickly came to know I had an imperfect knowledge of.

My developing love of Mahler and my interest in theory and score reading went hand-in-hand. At the same time, I was pushing forward into later music. But it went in steps. At first I wouldn't go any farther than Stravinsky or Bartok. Then it was Messiaen. Then Takemitsu. Then Berg, then Schoenberg, and now I am perfectly comfortable listening to music by Carter, (some) Babbitt, Boulez, Webern, Ligeti, and just about anything unfamiliar. If I don't get it, I'm fine with that. Maybe I will at some other point, maybe I won't. It doesn't really bother me much either way.

I love contemporary music because it depends so much on ensemble interplay and interconnected lines. The sense that this line and that line fit together in a deep way while remaining very separate from each other seems stronger when the counterpoint is not based on hierarchical relations. The variety of timbre and color provided by the use of extended techniques and unconventional ensembles can provide the most exquisite unexpected beauties. And I love the sound of harmonies that would never appear in common practice works, from quartal and quintal chords to bitonal aggregations.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Modern/contemporary is my favorite period. As I said on another thread, for analizing music, I find sometimes useful to talk on one hand about the structure of the piece, and on the other, the actual musical material which is used in the piece.
The material used in modern music is extremely interesting for me. On the emotional, and also the imaginery, side, it takes me to very strange and fascinating worlds. Worlds than only this music opens for me. Also, the material often has many dimensions of complexity. This is also interesting for me from the aural point of view. Very interesting interplay between timbre, rhythm, etc. As I said, the material is not an unidimensional line, but a multidimensional thing.
And this also has implications for the structure. Often this music evolves in time in various layers, given the nature of the material used. For example, here 



, there are basically two variables: timbre and pitch. Both start to evolve in their own realm, but producing a general effect. The tension grows as the pitch becomes high and the timbre more bright. Then a contrast, with low pitch and opaque timbre. That kinds of things really attract me. Here's a similar effect 



.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Vesteralen said:


> Not being a real student of musicology, however, I do find it hard to appreciate music that seems to be more about being clever or about preaching to the cognoscenti than it does communicating something to the average listener.
> 
> Though I'm fascinated by the existence of it and the enthusiasm it generates among its target audience, I feel a bit excluded from the party. If it's too much work to appreciate, I'm afraid it's not worth it to me at this point in my life and situation.


I used to believe that modern music was too academic in that it could appeal only to those who understood the theory behind the music. The music certainly did not appear accessible to the vast majority of classical music listeners. I too felt excluded from the party. There were times I believed that I would never enjoy much modern music and contented myself with knowing there was a vast mountain of music from before the 20th century.

I have told the following story before, but I think it bears repeating here. Many here felt that the Berg Violin Concerto was one of, if not, the best violin concertos of the 20th century. I love violin concertos so I decided that I would concentrate on the work. I had heard the concerto perhaps 3 or 4 times, and to me it sounded as though it consisted of random notes. That was pretty much true of all non-tonal and serial works. I was very frustrated that I could not enjoy this supposedly monumental work. I listened a few more times without any success. Then I found a BBC audio commentary of the concerto (unfortunately the link no longer works). The commentary discussed portions of the concerto and them played them. I listened a couple of times to the commentary. Suddenly parts started to sound interesting and even enjoyable.

I listened to the full concerto a couple more times, and I was rather stunned to realize I was humming a melody from the concerto while drying off after a shower. Soon after I was listening to the concerto, and my wife called me to go somewhere. I could not leave because the ending was simply too hauntingly beautiful. I had to stay and listen to the last few minutes.

I do believe that those who understand music theory may get more from a modern work, but they also get more from earlier works. My daughter understands Wagner's Ring infinitely better than I do, but I'm not sure she loves the music much more. Just as loving Beethoven means liking music that is distinctly different from popular music (Beatles, Alicia Keys, Prince...), loving modern music means liking music that sounds distinctly different from Classical or Romantic music. It may take awhile to become familiar with the style (and some may never enjoy it), but one _can_ become more familiar with that style and then "suddenly" find it wonderful.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

violadude said:


> Stravinsky an extension of the Romantic era? ...He was more like the anti-thesis to it...


I am not a musicologist  I meant it loosely, and I did say, "for me." _I_ see Stravinsky as part of that huge _bouleversement_ of Classical forms that occurred at about 1900, when composers _en masse_ started composing, not for their audiences, but for themselves. I don't think it is too far-flung to suggest that the individuality that developed has many traits in common with Romanticism in music, taken to the extreme. And Stravinsky, in his later compositions, eg., the Symphonies, returned to a more Romantic style, that is termed his Neo-Classical period.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

Alright, I'll answer what I had been thinking about while reading these responses.

I _love_ 20th century music. A lot of what I listen to is 20th century music and some of my favorite composers are from that era. If you look at my library, you'd find all kinds of 20th century composers: Poulenc, Orff, Szymanowski, Britten, Bartok, Shostakovich, Vaughan Williams, Stravinsky, Rachmaninov, even Rutter. I love those composers and I love 20th century music, just as much as I love 17th century music and all the other forms of classical music that I enjoy listening to.

Now, I will admit that I am not such a fan of contemporary classical and 20th century music from the last few decades of the century, especially what some might call "avant garde" or "experimental". I'm not as familiar with that type of music, but I have heard some of it and exposed myself to some of it, either through recommendations I've found on this site or from hearing it at concerts and a lot of it doesn't seem to appeal to me. I'm just being honest. I am in no way "anti" any form of music. I don't consider anything "garbage" or anything like that. I welcome all types of music and I love see contemporary composers being successful. A lot of it may not appeal to me, but that doesn't mean I'm "against" it or judge it harshly.

My tastes are always evolving. A while ago, I never listened to string quartets because I considered the genre "boring" as a whole. I can't even imagine thinking that anymore. I'm not saying I will always feel that way about contemporary music, but what I like definitely has recognizable patterns. Even as a little kid, there was certain music that appealed to me and now looking back I can see how it fits one of those patterns even if at the time I wouldn't have been able to say what it was.

Either way, I just wanted to say that I definitely enjoy listening to 20th century music and my tastes are always evolving. I never seem to disregard music I've liked in the past. I just keep adding more to my list. There may come a time where I "add" music that I once considered off-putting. Years ago, I never would've dreamed that "dubstep" would be one of my favorite genres of music! It's happened before, it could happen again


----------



## Stargazer (Nov 9, 2011)

My gripe with a lot of modern music is that many of the composers consciously try to make things sound bad. Sometimes I'll be listening to a modern piece, and I'll be thinking "wow, this is really pretty good!". Then all of a sudden, BANG, CLANG, CHOPCHOPCHOP! And there goes all my interest. I feel like a lot of the composers are trying so hard to be unique, and to break new musical barriers, that they stop caring as much about how the music actually sounds. I feel the same way about modern art, I can look at a painting of a bunch of colored blobs all day, but I'll never consider them to be visually appealing.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

mmsbls, now let's apply the experiment to the experimenter!. During your "conversion process", you asked modern music enthusiasts about their subjective experiences with the music, what aspects they found interesting about it, etc. 
Now that you have a foot in the "other side" with us, what do _you_ find in the music?, what are your subjective experiences with it?, it provides you with new experiences (call them new emotions, imaginery, whatever) or more of the same kind of experiences you had with previous music?.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

brotagonist said:


> I am not a musicologist  I meant it loosely, and I did say, "for me." _I_ see Stravinsky as part of that huge _bouleversement_ of Classical forms that occurred at about 1900, when composers _en masse_ started composing, not for their audiences, but for themselves. I don't think it is too far-flung to suggest that the individuality that developed has many traits in common with Romanticism in music, taken to the extreme. And Stravinsky, in his later compositions, eg., the Symphonies, returned to a more Romantic style, that is termed his Neo-Classical period.


Stravinsky is interesting by comparison with some of his contemporaries for the seemingly internal genesis for his progress towards greater interiority in his works. Around the beginning of his "Neo-Classical period" (a label he hated, by the way), Stravinsky had a spiritual crisis and a reorientation back to the Christian faith. Moreover, for both personal, professional, and political reasons he also became distanced from his homeland--and, most importantly, the kind of theatrical exhibitions that characterized the start of his career. In 1935, Stravinsky says himself:



> At the beginning of my career as a composer I was a good deal spoiled by the public. ...But I have a very distinct feeling that in the course of the last fifteen years my written work has estranged me from the great mass of my listeners. ...Liking the music of The Firebird, Petrushka, The Rite of Spring, and The Wedding, and being accustomed to the language of those works, they are astonished to hear me speaking in another idiom. They cannot and will not follow me in the progress of my musical thought. What moves and delights me leaves them indifferent, and what still continues to interest them holds no further attraction for me.


What strikes me about many works of his Neo-Classical period is not only the individuality of expression, but the personal turmoil that underlies it: for example, the state of "religious ebullience" he said produced the Symphony of Psalms, and the tragic loss of loved ones and troubled personal health (and another change of national residence) occurring in the midst of composing the Symphony in C. These are works of intense feeling. Of course, one can hear it, but it's nice when the biographical record confirms it!

A final note about what makes Stravinsky's middle period (and the others, but especially this one) special is the personal symbolism he develops around formal elements including anything from metric intervals to fugal form. And so there is intense thought to go along with the intense feeling.

(I'm writing this out not for the sake of argument, but simply because you caught me in a period of re-ignited interest in Stravinsky, btw. I read E.W. White's "Stravinsky: The Composer and his Work" this weekend, and am re-examining Whites analyses of various works at the moment.)

p.s. It's not my intent to derail the thread!


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

It depends on which modern Composers. A lot of variety to say the least. I prefer the ones closer to tonality.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

aleazk said:


> mmsbls, now let's apply the experiment to the experimenter!. During your "conversion process", you asked modern music enthusiasts about their subjective experiences with the music, what aspects they found interesting about it, etc.
> Now that you have a foot in the "other side" with us, what do _you_ find in the music?, what are your subjective experiences with it?, it provides you with new experiences (call them new emotions, imaginery, whatever) or more of the same kind of experiences you had with previous music?.


That's an interesting question. When I think of the pre-20th century music I love (with small exceptions), I think of beautiful music. Some modern music is beautiful in a similar way (e.g. the Adagio in the 2nd movement of Berg's Violin Concerto or Vasks's Viatore for String Orchestra). Works can vary enormously and still create the same sense of pure beauty for me. For example, Tallis's Spem in Alium, Bach's Prelude to Cello Suite #3, Mozart's Romance from Piano Concerto 20 (K466), and Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto are all supremely beautiful but differ from each other as much as the Berg or Vasks differs from them.

Some modern music gives me a completely different sensation - that of fun, interesting, cool, maybe wild sounds. For example Boulez's Sur Incises has wonderful bursts of sound that captivate me, and Messiaen's Turangalila Symphonie Movement 5, Joie du sang des etoiles, has a motif that runs throughout that I can only describe as pure fun. They are not classically beautiful but compelling nonetheless.

In pre-20th century music I generally always look for the same type of reaction. Modern music is different in that the sounds often create a new type of experience - complex rhythms, experiments in timbre, very subtly changing music. Some I find fascinating/wonderful/exciting while others leave me completely cold.


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2013)

When I first started listening to classical music--first realized there was such a category--I devoured everything. Some things I didn't like. So I tried to like them. Then I'd give up and move on to something else. 

Something I never did was think, "classical music is boring" or "classical music is ugly" or anything like that. I might have found, at any given time, Bellini to be boring or Mahler to be ugly, but I never extrapolated anything from that than I didn't like Bellini or Mahler. And even that. Maybe it was just La sonnambula that was boring, but not Zaira. Maybe it was just symphony #3 that was ugly but not 1 or 2.

And even those reactions of mine were provisional. I like all of Mahler very much now and very little of Bellini. But I would never ever even dream of concluding that a) I don't like opera (because I do, very much) or that I will never ever like Bellini (because I have felt that way earlier of many of today's favorites).

20th century the same. I fell in love with it immediately when I was 20, even more than when I had fallen in love with classical at 9 or 10, if that's even possible. I hated Berio's Visages. But I never concluded from that that something was wrong with modern music. I never concluded from that even that something was wrong with Berio. I never even concluded that I would never ever be able to enjoy Visages. (And it's true. I enjoy it very much now.)

So what I find difficult to understand in certain posters is the willingness and even eagerness to draw conclusions like "avant garde experimental noise crap" from one, brief exposure to a few seconds of one youtube clip of one piece by Merzbow. It is simply absurd, so far as my own experience shows, to conclude that something is wrong with "modern music" because you've had a bad experience with one or two pieces--experiences, furthermore, that you could easily avoid.

It is equally absurd to whinge about things you simply cannot change. Masami Akita is going to do whatever he does regardless of what any particular TCer thinks about his work--even if a whole group of TCers votes him down!

I don't like everything. I don't even like everything that is "avant garde/contemporary/experimental." But so what? That's just me. And I have lots of friends who also like "avant garde/contemporary/experimental" generally who absolutely adore the pieces I abhor. In fact, it was the gentle suggestion of one of those that got me to give the abhorrent Scelsi another listen.

Magic!!


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

some guy said:


> I don't like everything. I don't even like everything that is "avant ...


I see. That seems to be a more honest opinion of yours because I thought I read previously that you liked "everything" or to that effect. In anycase, I came across this engaging piece by Helmut Lachenmann (born 1935, Germany). I liked how the sixteen voices "mingle" with each other sometimes almost fugue like and other times counterpoint like, and there is this sense of freshness with it.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

I got interested in modern music primarily through recommendations, so to speak, by other people of various fields, whose works I had already fallen in love with (Gould, Adorno, Th. Bernhard, Kubrick). I, as a non-musician, trusted their judgements and felt that if they were enthusiastic about this music then it cannot possible by a complete fraud.

Since, I have become a great admirer of Schoenberg and school, because I discovered that their music featured the same characteristics that I'm fons of in general: clear forms, dense counterpoint, and a continuous musical argumentation. This kind of modern music (and I would include Boulez here as well) has indeed become, in my mind, a natural evolution of Bach, Beethoven, Brahms.

Other modern music, however, seems to move in a different direction, where (perceivable) forms and structures are almost entirely dissolved. Music in the style of early Penderecki, Nono, Ligetian clusters: atmospheric soundscapes or sound experiments. I have a less natural relationship to such music, but I can immerse myself in it still.

With modern atonal music, I haven't really developed an independent judgement yet. I rely on reputations and trustworthy testimonals to spark my interest. If I relied entirely on my impressions, my taste, I feel I might get fooled by some charlatan. I can tell whether I like certain modern works or not, but I cannot tell whether they are great and important or third-rate and insignificant. I would guess that it's because in modern music these matters are perhaps no longer discernible by the ear of a lay person.


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> I came across this engaging piece by Helmut Lachenmann (born 1935, Germany).


Listening to this, I'm prompted to express the view that one of the features of music (indeed, the art) of the past 100-130 years is the way it has explored and expanded on 'aesthetics'. What I mean by that is where art might once have been universally expected to represent only the aesthetically pleasing (even where the subject matter was horror), it became an increasingly legitimate approach to challenge that universal. In other words, music can be, to put it grossly, 'ugly': the form and the content can be unified in horror, or the absence of pleasure. However, I must hastily acknowledge that one man's 'horror' is another man's 'beauty': as always, the subjective plays a part in the appreciation of the art.

In the case of this particular piece, on first listening, I find the vocal sounds unattractive, though please don't infer that I am concluding that 'Consolation' is either horrific or ugly!


----------



## Pyotr (Feb 26, 2013)

Question : Do you think it is harder to 'get tired of" an atonal work? In other words, once you get to like an atonal work, does the rush last longer than a tonal work, or , is it just like any other music that one likes and eventually gets tired of after multiple playings?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Certainly what first would have put me off "modern music" was what at the time I would call the lack of a "tune". Progress I've made in that area can I suppose be attributed to (a) expanding my notion of what counts as a "tune" and (b) understanding that there doesn't have to be any sort of "tune" in the first place.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Pyotr said:


> Question : Do you think it is harder to 'get tired of" an atonal work? In other words, once you get to like an atonal work, does the rush last longer than a tonal work, or , is it just like any other music that one likes and eventually gets tired of after multiple playings?


I find I don't tire of great music, whatever the period or style. Of course, I don't usually listen repeatedly to the same work in a short span of time, as some do.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

Excellent posts!

I don't have too much to add, except that I think that some twentieth-century composers are more adept than others at creating music that works equally well on both aesthetic and technical levels. Not that this is necessary, but it does mean that you can listen to this music without necessarily having to analyze it in-depth in order to appreciate it. Webern was an excellent craftsman, but in order to get a good grasp of his music, you do have to spend a bit of time in analysis. This is not a criticism. It simply means that Webern's "aesthetic" qualities are highly dependent on his "technical" ones. Lutoslawski, on the other hand, wrote music which (I think) can be immediately grasped on the aesthetic level without the necessity for intensive analysis. Looking at the score will, of course, enhance this experience, but it is not pre-requisite to a deep understanding of Lutoslawski's art.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I'm not going to offer any advice about modern music, mostly because I don't have any. The purpose of this post is to direct your (plural) attention to the slew of Albany CD/SACD recordings that Berkshirerecordoutlet.com is offering at $1.99ea. Maybe not 'contemporary' but thoroughly 'modern', and mostly not Big Names.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Celloman said:


> Excellent posts!
> 
> I don't have too much to add, except that I think that some twentieth-century composers are more adept than others at creating music that works equally well on both aesthetic and technical levels. Not that this is necessary, but it does mean that you can listen to this music without necessarily having to analyze it in-depth in order to appreciate it. Webern was an excellent craftsman, but in order to get a good grasp of his music, you do have to spend a bit of time in analysis. This is not a criticism. It simply means that Webern's "aesthetic" qualities are highly dependent on his "technical" ones. Lutoslawski, on the other hand, wrote music which (I think) can be immediately grasped on the aesthetic level without the necessity for intensive analysis. Looking at the score will, of course, enhance this experience, but it is not pre-requisite to a deep understanding of Lutoslawski's art.


I'm not really sure this is the case. 
Well, let me rephrase that and say that it's not the case for me.
Ultimately, liking a piece of music means liking the sounds that it makes. Perhaps understanding what the composer is doing (and why) will increase your liking it, but it's still quite possible to like the sounds of it without having a clue what's going on.

And I would say the same of any music, not just "modern" music.


----------



## GiulioCesare (Apr 9, 2013)

What I find increasingly annoying is the ambiguity surrounding the word "modern". Using "modern" to refer to notated music composed since the early 1900s until the present day seems to me to be a mistake. The music of Stravinsky, Bartok, Berg, Schönberg, Webern has a cohesive thread that it does not share with the music of Schnittke, Gorecki, Reich, Adams, etc. I think we should once and for all settle for "modernism" to refer to music from roughly the 1900s to roughly the 1950s or 1960s, then "postmodernism" for later music.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Even then there is a big difference in the sound of Stravinsky compared to Berg. Modernism can mean so many different things put into one period of time. Same goes with Postmodernism. The last 100 years doesn't have any uniformity of style.


----------



## GiulioCesare (Apr 9, 2013)

neoshredder said:


> Even then there is a big difference in the sound of Stravinsky compared to Berg. Modernism can mean so many different things put into one period of time. Same goes with Postmodernism. The last 100 years doesn't have any uniformity of style.


Neither did any other period in history.

But the two periods I mentioned share basic common patterns. Postmodernism feeds from modernism, but adds many other characteristics to the picture that weren't there or were only marginally there in modernism: polystilism, randomness, eclecticism, an emphasis on repetition, disdain for all kinds of structure (where modernism disdained solely musical structure), bricolage, instrumental experimentation, etc.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

There must be a need for labels, or they wouldn't be there, eh? But they are of little use to me. So... what do the labels do for you?


----------



## Joris (Jan 13, 2013)

I'm not sure I can contribute to the discussion but I'll try to say something about my subjective experience with modernist music. 

I listen to modernist music when I want to learn something for the sake of learning something. I feel that it's good to push your limits (in many ways)..I have to admit though that I don't really work off negative emotions or stress with it, although I have to say it's not solely intellectually stimulating: it's also about appreciating good/interesting sounds. It's fascinating how 
- composers have their own idiom
- composers can make 'atonal' or dissonant music 'work' (I sometimes read along with the score), this can be satisfying
- the music can reflect the hectic of the society we are currently in, or how the music can reflect values that are closer to us today

Sometimes I listen to it in frustration with overly 'goody-goody' music or pop music (for example after I was forced to listen to bad pop music)

But I have to be in the mood; half-tired half-stressed is definitely not a good moment to listen to it (for me)

Sometimes I think the mood I'm in when trying modern music again is a good one: open and soberly reflective, so maybe my humble fascination with the music is also about something more moral, if that makes sense


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Even then there is a big difference in the sound of Stravinsky compared to Berg.


Right. Berg was far more Romantic. Stravinsky disparaged Berg for being overly Romantic and emotionally outgoing in tone.

But there's far more similarity between them than between Stravinsky and his teacher Rimsky-Korsakov, for example (Firebird and before aside, all of which Stravinsky practically disowned anyway).


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> But there's far more similarity between them than between Stravinsky and his teacher Rimsky-Korsakov, for example (Firebird and before aside, all of which Stravinsky practically disowned anyway).


This is of course correct, but some musicologists also suggest that Stravinsky continued to make use of the octatonic scale learned from R-K throughout his whole career (though others confine it to the early period). My impression is that the debate over the issue is unpleasant, so I'd rather not discuss it D); but I did want to suggest that as soon as a composer disavows the influence of another--even one who sounds very different--we may have a case of significant influence. More generally, there is some danger in separating composers on the basis of labels and schools for this reason.

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


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Pyotr said:


> Question : Do you think it is harder to 'get tired of" an atonal work? In other words, once you get to like an atonal work, does the rush last longer than a tonal work, or , is it just like any other music that one likes and eventually gets tired of after multiple playings?


I think it's harder to get tired of atonal work for me, by eliminating the chord hierarchy found in tonal functional harmony it causes me to really listen out to other elements of music more such as the rhythms (often very very interesting) or the tone colours/orchestration (often the most important aspect) or a vague melodic contour in the that I can hang on to (like in a lot of works by Xenakis, although even the melodies in Schoenberg's music are very recognisable as fitting most of the structural rules for melody that ad already been set, or so it sounds to me!) or textures that mix in all of these things. So by paying less attention to things like melody and harmony which dominates much music until the 20th century I find that there is a _lot_ more to hear and _lot_ more to find beauty in and I find I can spend more time listening to atonal music than listening to one type/genre of tonal music from one era.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I have a friend who is a composition major in grad school. He loves modern/post-modern music more than earlier styles. He told me that it took him some time listening to modern music to begin appreciating it. We were discussing whether "learning" to like modern music today was different from learning to like the contemporary music in the past (say people in 1880 liking music written from 1850-1880). His view was that works composed during the Baroque, Classical , and Romantic eras were similar enough to other works that one "just" had to learn one or two new styles to become comfortable with almost all modern music. On the other hand, many 20th century composers' works vary enough from each other that one has to almost "learn" each composer's style separately. So there is much more listening involved in appreciating modern composers. He, of course, does not view that as a negative in any way. 

For those who have spent time "learning" to appreciate modern composers, do you feel that the "veil" was lifted composer by composer, or once you appreciated one composer, most others became accessible as well?


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

Certainly contemporary classical is music, but it simply does not appeal to me as much as music from other eras do. This may be because I feel that the complexity of the styles and expressiveness type as well as level differs from era to era. 

In all, though, there is no reason to say that any music is not "music," unless it really isn't. And if contemporary music is good enough to truly be called "contemporary classical," it certainly has been deemed good enough to be music.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> ...
> So, what interests you about modern music?...


One thing is the diversity of styles in the period. Another thing is the connections between what's new and what's old (eg. I like Modern composers reworkings of sonata form or fugues, theme and variations and so on). Another is that we know more about the lives and times of more recent composers than those of the past, especially of the distant past. The record is not always complete on what they did in their lives, but it tends to be more complete than it was ages ago (eg. we hardly know anything about the lives or many medieval and Renaissance composers, and so much has been lost, so in some ways we are blessed with the historical record we have about guys from 1900 until today).



> ...What do you dislike about it?...


I suppose that a lot of it can be full on, intense, draining. For example I really like Shostakovich, however if I listen to too much of his music within a short space of time, I would become extremely depressed. With composers pre-1900 that doesn't tends to happen at all. I put it down in good part to the horrific events that where witnessed during the 20th century. I don't blame composers for responding to it with chilling, psychopathic and angsty music. I think that speak to some deal of earnestness on their part and authenticity. But it can be hard to focus on people like Shostakovich - or say the Second Viennese School, or Penderecki, or even Messiaen in his more darker modes - for any sustained length of time without getting burnt out.

But as I said this is an era of much diversity, so you still got composers who don't plumb the depths as much and offer something else which is less intense. Some like that who I like are Hovhaness or Gershwin or Minimalist composers.



> ...Do some of you vastly prefer modern to pre-20th century to the extent that you rarely listen to earlier music?


A week would rarely go by without me listening to something Modern. However compared to when I joined this forum I am now listening to more music that I started with, most of that being very early 20th century or 18th and 19th centuries.



> If you dislike it, do you still sometimes listen to works you have not heard (or listen again to ones you have)? And so on.


With some composers I cast my net wider, with others I just listen to a limited number of there works and stop there. I push my comfort zones, but it varies with what returns I am getting. There is no formula to this but I tend to like some thematic unity, even if fragmentary, in a piece. So for example Elliott Carter's String Quartet #1 is my favourite work by him I know, and I got a few cd's of his music in different genres. Its pushing things but not too much, it still relates to things like the American landscape and theme and variations. As his quartets progress, he kind of loses me, however with some of his other things I have found those kinds of connections as well.

So I do flex myself but I got my limitations as well. I worked those things out and now I tend to just repeatedly listen to things I know, or composers I know in the Modern era. I attend premieres of new pieces now and then as well, but much rarer than previously in that exploratory stage.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

I'm not a fan of Modern/Contemporary music for the most part as many will know but as this seems to be an actual discussion asking for those like me to try to explain what I hear and think in perhaps trying to help bridge a gap, I would like to participate.

_*So, what interests you about modern music? *_

I guess I'm interested because others are interested. As an example, I look up to Leonard Bernstein a lot (As well as a lot of other great musicians, composers, conductors, etc. whom I respect deeply) and when someone I respect speaks highly of others and records their works it makes me wonder "what do they enjoy so much about this particular work or composer?"

_*What do you dislike about it?*_

As some on this board know, I have a problem with many modern composers. I don't understand a good deal of it. I don't find a lot of "melody" in modern or contemporary music and that is primarily what I listen for. I hear others correct me and say, there's something wrong with your ears if you don't hear melody in this or that and maybe there is, but I just don't hear it. However, I admit there are some works that I find interesting even though I can detect no melody within them.

Now, I'm not trying to offend anyone. I'm just trying to explain my own personal thought process, so that maybe others can understand where I am coming from. I don't think of a lot of those "modern" kinds of works as music but rather "soundscapes". I'm not saying it's noise or that's not music in the general sense of what history has decided is the definition of music. I just categorize things in ways that make sense to me. For no other reason. The standard way of looking at the world doesn't always work for me so I categorize things a certain way so that I can keep track and make sense of them.

Now to me, Eine Kleine Nacht Musik is music. Melodies throughout each movement. From J.S. Bach to Dvorak nothing but melodies. All of Mahler's Symphonies, nothing but beautiful melodies throughout every single line. Love them and can't get enough.

But then I come to something like Ligeti's Atmospheres. I like it and find it interesting but I can find no melody in it. Because I can't detect a melody, I don't think of it as music but rather as a "soundscape". I don't hear individual notes or lines or motifs or melodies or repeating ideas of thought. I hear random "sound". And I'm not saying its noise, or that it is indeed random, but just that it just sounds random to me, but it also retains a certain atmosphere for lack of a better word. That's why I use the word "soundscape". Thinking back to 2001: A Space Odyssey, if I just close my eyes and think of floating in space and stars, etc. Atmospheres is a perfect "soundscape" for that. It goes along with an image. It is as disorienting for me as floating around without gravity in the middle of the galaxy would be. Because of that, it works for me and I can listen to it and enjoy it.

There are other works though that I just can make no connection too of any kind and when that happens I just say I don't understand them and pass on them.

*Do some of you vastly prefer modern to pre-20th century to the extent that you rarely listen to earlier music? *

No, I listen to pre-20th century music most of the time.

_*If you dislike it, do you still sometimes listen to works you have not heard (or listen again to ones you have)? And so on.
*_
Yes, even though I find I dislike much of it. I continue trying new works I have not heard that many members post or speak highly of, but if I can find nothing of interest in the piece then I move on. There are also many newer composers whom I do like, but their works contain what I think of as melodies.

Overall I often find it frustrating because I don't understand. I wish I understood what others hear in works that I don't understand. I honestly do. I wish Leonard Bernstein was around to sit down and explain them to me in a way that makes sense like he did with so many other works. I wish each classical CD came with a bonus CD from the conductor with a 20-30 minute dialogue explaining certain works so that I (and many other listeners like me) could try to understand them better.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

realdealblues said:


> I guess I'm interested because others are interested. As an example, I look up to Leonard Bernstein a lot (As well as a lot of other great musicians, composers, conductors, etc. whom I respect deeply) and when someone I respect speaks highly of others and records their works it makes me wonder "what do they enjoy so much about this particular work or composer?"


This is how I gradually gained an introduction to modern/contemporary music. Meeting and befriending knowledgeable people who were enthusiastic about the contemporary music scene and even participated in it made me determined to listen with a friendly ear. In the very early going, attending jazz concerts in particular opened my mind to random-sounding contemporary music (which often turned out to be mathematically precise!).

I now cook up playlists the way I do most meals: a big, messy stew with whatever looked good for the price!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

realdealblues said:


> Overall I often find it frustrating because I don't understand. I wish I understood what others hear in works that I don't understand. I honestly do. I wish Leonard Bernstein was around to sit down and explain them to me in a way that makes sense like he did with so many other works. I wish each classical CD came with a bonus CD from the conductor with a 20-30 minute dialogue explaining certain works so that I (and many other listeners like me) could try to understand them better.


I don't agree with his perspective on a number of the issues here, but this is still a great introduction for the layman. (I apologize in advance for Bernstein's horrible singing...)


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> I don't agree with his perspective on a number of the issues here, but this is still a great introduction for the layman. (I apologize in advance for Bernstein's horrible singing...)


I'd seen that video but it had been a few years so I just went ahead and watched it again. I can see and understand what he talks about and I get the theory behind it. I guess it comes down to as he put it "Aesthetics" and maybe works having a positive or negative aesthetic for me.

My ears don't find most of those works aesthetically enjoyable I guess. I guess I need it to come back to some sort of structure. Like when he's talking about Beethoven, Mozart and Bach using all 12 tones in a few bars there and in a round about way, using a Tonal Row. The work can go dissonant or random or chromatic or whatever, but I need it to come back and resolve to some sort of chord or structure for me to really "enjoy" listening to it.

So while I can listen to the Schoenberg pieces Bernstein plays and I can have a greater understanding of how they work, I just don't find them aesthetically pleasing or aesthetically positive to my ear. He talks about Berg maybe being more aesthetically positive or "pleasing to most general listeners ears" than Schoenberg. Maybe I should try more Berg?


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

realdealblues said:


> Maybe I should try more Berg?


Maybe you should 

For decades I felt that Berg was the least interesting of the Schoenberg-Webern-Berg triumvirat. I certainly don't enjoy the former two any less, but this past year, I have come to cherish Berg's works with great fervour. His String Quartet, Chamber Concerto, Violin Concerto, Lyric Suite, Lulu Suite and Three Orchestral Pieces have a lush romanticism with a hint of atonality that is heady and intoxicating.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

realdealblues, many of your thoughts are similar to my own. 

I can take dissonance in music. I can enjoy music where dissonance is quite prevalent. But there does seem to be a "threshold" with me where dissonance is too much and the work has little sign of consonance and I lose interest in the work and I forget what I just heard in the work a few seconds before. It could be a weakness on my part, I'm not sure. I can think of a number of "atonal melodies" (don't shoot me for using these terms, guys) that I really like, but these pieces that I like aren't entirely dissonant or atonal; they eventually contain some tonality and that's why I like the work. It's this combination of the two that I especially like and can sometimes find in composers like Stravinsky, Prokofiev, or Shostakovich. But works that are so highly dissonant lose my interest.

There's been talk about listening for other things in music like that, including rhythm. And I don't discount rhythm, but there are some aspects of music that I just can't disregard. Even in other genres, some electronic music I listen to contains rhythm and the beat as one of the most important parts. But if that music was lacking in other areas, such as melody or harmony, etc. I might find it difficult to enjoy.

Just wanted to clarify some of my reservations about modern music


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

realdealblues said:


> I'd seen that video but it had been a few years so I just went ahead and watched it again. I can see and understand what he talks about and I get the theory behind it. I guess it comes down to as he put it "Aesthetics" and maybe works having a positive or negative aesthetic for me.
> 
> My ears don't find most of those works aesthetically enjoyable I guess. I guess I need it to come back to some sort of structure. Like when he's talking about Beethoven, Mozart and Bach using all 12 tones in a few bars there and in a round about way, using a Tonal Row. The work can go dissonant or random or chromatic or whatever, but I need it to come back and resolve to some sort of chord or structure for me to really "enjoy" listening to it.


This is not necessarily a sign that you will never enjoy it, though. Just leave it aside for now.



realdealblues said:


> So while I can listen to the Schoenberg pieces Bernstein plays and I can have a greater understanding of how they work, I just don't find them aesthetically pleasing or aesthetically positive to my ear. He talks about Berg maybe being more aesthetically positive or "pleasing to most general listeners ears" than Schoenberg. Maybe I should try more Berg?


If you found the selection he played enjoyable, or think that you could appreciate it in performance, by all means! I came to Berg first myself, and for a while preferred his music over Schoenberg's. Now it's the other way around, although Berg's operatic works are excellent and his oeuvre as a whole of a consistently high quality.

I don't think Bernstein had much sympathy for Schoenberg.  Respect, yes, but not much sympathy, and there are problems with each of the excerpts he plays. With the String Quartet he plays only the accompaniment without the melody line, so it's missing a crucial element (although his singing would have been far worse). With the Op. 11 he explains very well how the right hand melody works, but waves off the left hand by saying it's doing things that are tonally unrelated. He destroys Pierrot lunaire with his truly horrible sounding performance, whereas in the right hands the sprechstimme can have a mesmerizing effect. While he plays the excerpts from the Op. 23 Waltz (by no means my favorite 12-tone piano piece by Schoenberg at any rate; I prefer the Suite, Op. 25) well enough, he never even plays a complete section, so it sounds far more fragmentary than it should.

This is not to say if Bernstein's excerpts sounded aesthetically wrong to you they'll automatically sound right in better performances. They probably won't. To me the response to Schoenberg's music is very positive indeed, and I do listen with joy to many of his works. Maybe it won't be that way for you, but as long as you don't go around proclaiming him as a musical anti-Christ, I won't mind.

Another thing I disagree with Bernstein on is practically his entire spiel on Mahler. I do not believe any of the following statements:
- That Mahler foresaw the future (World Wars, the brink of annihilation) and communicated it through his music. The obsession with death was, as Bernstein remarked, a particular feature of fin de siècle Viennese culture.
- That Mahler knew about his own impending death. This has been debunked. Mahler had been in ill health for some time, but he did not know _that_ he would die after completing his Ninth, possible superstition about the number aside. The 9th is not a conscious "farewell to life".
- That Mahler "would never be able to finish his 10th, because he had said it all in his 9th". This is sentimentally appealing perhaps (and has led to ridiculous theories that he wrote three separate "farewell" works in his late period), but unsupported by the evidence. He did want the manuscript destroyed, but only because he had not had a chance to finish it. If he were obsessed with farewells, he would not even have considered ending with the second movement scherzo (which he initially did, before the fallout with Alma).

(Sorry about the digression!)


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

What I don't understand here is the need to understand music. I don't understand a lot of music that I like. Hell, I've lived a long life not understanding much of anything, been happier than i probably deserved to be, and nobody has shot me or run me over because I didn't understand. Well, I was run over once, but the guy was just drunk.

Listen to the music a few times, see if there is a handle in there; if there ain't, forget it. There's a _lot_ of music out there you ain't heard yet, some of it is going to ring your chimes.

[what's that? who's ringing that bell?]


----------



## Schubussy (Nov 2, 2012)

I don't really get the criticism that modern classical music is only accessible to people who understand music theory/study it. I don't know a time signature from a grand staff but I like it just fine. I don't try to analyse it, I just listen and my ears like the moods a lot of it creates. 

Also I find string quartets difficult to get into for some reason. I instinctively 'get' a lot of abstract modern classical music, it just works for me, but much less 'challenging' string quartets I find a lot more difficult. I think I just need to listen to more string quartets, and I think it's the same for a lot of people with modern music.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

realdealblues said:


> _*What do you dislike about it?*_
> 
> As some on this board know, I have a problem with many modern composers. I don't understand a good deal of it. I don't find a lot of "melody" in modern or contemporary music and that is primarily what I listen for. I hear others correct me and say, there's something wrong with your ears if you don't hear melody in this or that and maybe there is, but I just don't hear it. However, I admit there are some works that I find interesting even though I can detect no melody within them.
> 
> ...


Well, the thing is that, to some extent, you are right, some of that music is indeed like a "soundscape". Check this short interview with Ligeti. He makes here a very insightful comment about his music. He speaks about what kind of images he's trying to transmit. 



 (they were rehearsing Lontano probably). I really connected with his description because that's precisely what I feel when I listen to pieces like Lontano.
I think that, indeed, if you are expecting melody in the style of old music, then you will have problems with this music. But think about it in this way: as an oportunity for discovering new aspects, realms, dimensions in music which are not contained in the old music; they don't use melody because they explore other things (like rhythm, color, layering of activity, etc.), which to me are as equally interesting, engaging and important. And, as Ligeti says, it also can be full of emotion and intensity.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

In the 20th century, the most creative music making was being done outside of the concert hall. I consider Jazz to be the our modern culture's equivalent of classical music.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Tristan said:


> I can take dissonance in music. I can enjoy music where dissonance is quite prevalent. But there does seem to be a "threshold" with me where dissonance is too much and the work has little sign of consonance and I lose interest in the work and I forget what I just heard in the work a few seconds before.


Perhaps 4 or 5 years ago I was bothered by dissonances that many TC members would consider rather mild. Much of the music of Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Bartok, and Shostakovich sounded unpleasantly dissonant to me. After extended listening I no longer consider those dissonant, and much more dissonant music seems fine to me as well.

The two problems I still have are vastly extended dissonance and especially high pitched dissonance. An example of the later is Ligeti's Atmospheres. There is a part where a highly dissonant chord rises for a long time until the chord abruptly stops and one hears a low, almost cosmic boom. The effect is remarkable. Unfortunately for me, the high dissonance is so unpleasant that I can barely listen to the sequence. For me it is similar to hearing nails on a blackboard. It is painful, not because it is unpleasant, but because my ears seem to hurt afterwards.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I enjoy much of it. Its hard to know what to listen to though as my radio stations don't play much contemporary music.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Schubussy said:


> I don't really get the criticism that modern classical music is only accessible to people who understand music theory/study it. I don't know a time signature from a grand staff but I like it just fine. I don't try to analyse it, I just listen and my ears like the moods a lot of it creates.


I used to wonder if that were true, but now I agree that modern music can be quite accessible to those without any theory training. I can, however, understand how some might believe that music theory is a requirement. For them so much classical music is so readily accessible. Almost everything from Baroque (or earlier) through Romantic seems easy to like, and those works that someone may not enjoy are certainly not awful. But when they listen to modern works, they are instead confronted with sounds that truly sound terrible. How could someone possibly like those works unless there is some intellectual component that makes up for the awful sounds?

For me I think I simply had to get over the expectation that every work would have lovely melodies and harmonies that I was used to hearing. I had to learn to listen to what the music was presenting me. I learned to listen to rhythms, unusual timbres, strange harmonies, bursts of sound or silence, or whatever else was in the music. I'm still not always successful, but I listen for vastly different things than I did before.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> For me I think I simply had to get over the expectation that every work would have lovely melodies and harmonies that I was used to hearing. I had to learn to listen to what the music was presenting me. I learned to listen to rhythms, unusual timbres, strange harmonies, bursts of sound or silence, or whatever else was in the music. I'm still not always successful, but I listen for vastly different things than I did before.


Exactly! .


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

Some composers are something of an acquired taste, like wine or coffee. But once you've familiarized yourself with their musical language, they can be very rewarding!


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

bigshot said:


> In the 20th century, the most creative music making was being done outside of the concert hall. I consider Jazz to be the our modern culture's equivalent of classical music.


That's your opinion ;-)

I like some jazz and have collected a fair number of albums, but, truth be told, it's just fancy popular music. It's not classical music. There are hundreds of true diamonds in 20[SUP]th[/SUP] Century concert music, but jazz reveals itself to be mostly fool's gold.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

brotagonist said:


> That's your opinion ;-)
> 
> I like some jazz and have collected a fair number of albums, but, truth be told, it's just fancy popular music. It's not classical music. There are hundreds of true diamonds in 20[SUP]th[/SUP] Century concert music, but jazz reveals itself to be mostly fool's gold.


Another way of looking at it is that Jazz and pop and rock and their subgenres were styles that have their roots in Africa hundreds of years ago whereas "classical" music has its roots in the music of Europe. In this international world today, a lot of styles of jazz and classical "cross over" and get inspiration from other styles to make music that is constantly new and diverse. The only music that is essentially locked into its own sound world and doesn't take any influences from anything apart from itself is today's pop music.

So perhaps there is no "fools gold" after all, it's mainly a big mix up of styles these days where some broad genres/styles such as jazz just have a different history and can't really be compared to classical, or any other style, in that way.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

Then I'm a very happy fool.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I will never understand that compulsion of trashing great music. As for me, I love jazz, and I love contemporary classical. Fool is a word I would never use to refer to fans of jazz or contemporary classical. Sorry, but that's completely ridiculous.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

aleazk said:


> I will never understand that compulsion of trashing great music. As for me, I love jazz, and I love contemporary classical. Fool is a word I would never use to refer to fans of jazz or contemporary classical. Sorry, but that's completely ridiculous.


I didn't trash it. I put it in it's place. Some people like to put it on the same level as classical music, when it is just a variant of popular music.

You have misread my post. The word 'fool' was never used. I used the name _fool's gold_, which refers to pyrite, a mineral that has the lustre of true gold, but proves not to be real gold.

There was no reference to lovers of jazz being fools. I was very clear, when I made my statement, that I, too, own and like much jazz, but that I recognize it not to be classical music.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

brotagonist said:


> That's your opinion ;-)
> 
> I like some jazz and have collected a fair number of albums, but, truth be told, it's just fancy popular music. It's not classical music. There are hundreds of true diamonds in 20[SUP]th[/SUP] Century concert music, but jazz reveals itself to be mostly fool's gold.


Have you heard contemporary jazz musicians like Brad Mehldau, Lage Lund, Vijay Ijer, Jacky Terrasson, Joshua Redman? You should come up with a lot of convincing arguments otherwise you'll just look ignorant.
Watch this




it continues here




and tell me that that is pop music and not art music.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Another way of looking at it is that Jazz and pop and rock and their subgenres were styles that have their roots in Africa hundreds of years ago whereas "classical" music has its roots in the music of Europe. In this international world today, a lot of styles of jazz and classical "cross over" and get inspiration from other styles to make music that is constantly new and diverse. The only music that is essentially locked into its own sound world and doesn't take any influences from anything apart from itself is today's pop music.
> 
> So perhaps there is no "fools gold" after all, it's mainly a big mix up of styles these days where some broad genres/styles such as jazz just have a different history and can't really be compared to classical, or any other style, in that way.


The mother of jazz is blues - rooted in New World slavery at least as much as Africa. Blues is the grandmother of rock. 'Pop' changes every generation or so; when I was a child it was derived from folk, with regional aspects from Mexico and blues.

Americans are a 'racially' mongrel people, getting more so all the time. You could get confirmation from any racist bigot - who is likely to be an unadmitted mongrel himself. Our music is a reflection of who we are, which is pretty much everybody.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Americans are a 'racially' mongrel people...


I tend to think that everyone is a mongrel. Think of the various tribes that roamed the steppes of Asia and invaded Europe; think of those that resided there, in the north, in the west, in the east, in the centre and in the south. They were all migrant, to greater or lesser degrees. There is plausible evidence that they merged with the Neanderthals. And how did they all get there? The fossil record suggests they migrated from the mid-east and originated in Africa.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

brotagonist said:


> I didn't trash it. I put it in it's place. Some people like to put it on the same level as classical music, when it is just a variant of popular music.
> 
> You have misread my post. The word 'fool' was never used. I used the name _fool's gold_, which refers to pyrite, a mineral that has the lustre of true gold, but proves not to be real gold.
> 
> There was no reference to lovers of jazz being fools. I was very clear, when I made my statement, that I, too, own and like much jazz, but that I recognize it not to be classical music.


I know what fool's gold means. Of course it's not classical music, but then again jazz has its own qualities that classical does not have. I think jazz has every reason to feel proud, if a genre can "feel" anything


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

niv said:


> Of course it's not classical music, but then again jazz has its own qualities that classical does not have.


This is the very reason why 12% of the albums in my collection are jazz and 21% of the albums in my collection are rock (Hilltroll72, "*lues is the grandmother of rock").*


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

brotagonist said:


> This is the very reason why 12% of the albums in my collection are jazz and 21% of the albums in my collection are rock (Hilltroll72, "*lues is the grandmother of rock").*


*
You still haven't given any single argument why you think jazz isn't the same level as classical*


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

brotagonist said:


> I tend to think that everyone is a mongrel. Think of the various tribes that roamed the steppes of Asia and invaded Europe; think of those that resided there, in the north, in the west, in the east, in the centre and in the south. They were all migrant, to greater or lesser degrees. There is plausible evidence that they merged with the Neanderthals. And how did they all get there? The fossil record suggests they migrated from the mid-east and originated in Africa.




That's going too far back to be racist significant, or even music significant.

Genetic studies in the past few decades indicate that humans, along with the larger animals, retreated from the ice back into Africa during a stretch back there. About 90,000 years ago a few of them (not a lot, according to the genetic record) came back north and spread out again. The majority of people remained in Africa, and passed down a much more diverse set of genetic codes - because there were more of them. No Neanderthal genes though.

It amuses me to suggest that the Aryan supremacists are just a bit confused. It ain't the 'Aryan' that makes them special, it's that smidgin of Neanderthal. They are really Neanderthal supremacists. Somehow that doesn't have the same ring to it.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Piwikiwi said:


> You still haven't given any single argument why you think jazz isn't the same level as classical


Perhaps I couldn't argue my conviction sufficiently well to convince the esteemed 'musicologists' on TC, although my suspicion is that genuine musicologists actually _do_ support my opinion.

Any musicologists here who wish to tackle this?


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

So, does "contemporary" generally refer to this highly dissonant experimental music? Are there contemporary composers that compose with more "tonality" or are they just "neo-Romantic" or something? I am admitting ignorance here


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

The 20C saw a blurring of the lines between classical and popular music.
Much popular music has evolved from folk music but with the invention of radio and phonograph and the birth of rock music there has been a to-ing and fro-ing of influences.
Jazz was born in America and owes a debt to both African and European traditions. It has developed along it's own course and borrows from classical and rock as do those two borrow from Jazz.
Duke Ellington wrote scores and was well acquainted with classical music. We all know the Jazz inflected pieces by Milhaud, Stravinsky and Shostakovich and more recently Mark Anthony Turnage who has worked with legendary jazzers Peter Erskine and John Scofield.
The minimalists were very influenced by popular music as well as non European traditions. Progressive rock bands of the 70's such as Genesis and Yes took influences from classical, blues rock and jazz.
Brian Eno has straddled both pop and classical camps as did Zappa.
Musical's such as West Side Story and Sondheim's Sweeny Todd are a hybrid of classical and popular approaches.
Jazz Fusion bands like Steps Ahead, Chick Corea, Weather Report and players like Herbie Hancock, Chris Potter and countless others are far from being 'pop' music.

The different categories are really only useful for librarians and retailers who need to know where to file or shelve things.

A piece like Steve Martland's 'Horses Of Instruction' seems to owe a debt to minimalism, jazz fusion and rock.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Tristan said:


> So, does "contemporary" generally refer to this highly dissonant experimental music? Are there contemporary composers that compose with more "tonality" or are they just "neo-Romantic" or something? I am admitting ignorance here


From my experience, "contemporary music" generally refers to one of three quite different things:
1. Any concert music from the past 30, 40, or 50 years, regardless of style.
2. Post-WWII concert music in a serial/high modernist/post-serial style.
3. Any modernist or post-modernist music.

This thread has generally taken the third definition, which includes everything from Debussy to Reich, but excludes Pfitzner, Rachmaninoff, and Schmidt. In my view, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and Shostakovich are all equally modernist, although they are not equally "progressive" stylistically.

So I see Boulez, Adams, Ligeti, and Ferneyhough all as contemporary music.

Neo-Romantic music is a contemporary movement that combines a romantic gestural language with the advances in harmony and orchestration of the 20th century.





Finally, and this is more of a personal contention than anything else, remember that dissonance is contextual, not absolute. Taking a chord that sounds pretty in Debussy and sticking it in a piano work by Mozart will sound quite dissonant and out-of-place.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

Just as a side note:

I've never heard that Zwilich Violin Concerto before. That was Modern enough for me that it doesn't sound anything like Haydn or Mozart, etc. but still had enough "resolution or structure" (for lack of better words) in enough spots that it was enjoyable to listen too. I really liked the 2nd movement.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I was using the terms modern and contemporary to roughly mean post-Romantic era. As Mahlerian says roughly modern and post-modern. So Rachmaninoff, Sibelius, and Schmidt do not count even though they wrote well into the 20th century. 

I don't have a strict definition of Contemporary Classical music. I guess I generally think of it as 1970s onward or as music from living composers. I'm more interested in the seemingly sharp divide for many classical music lovers between music composed in the Romantic style and music afterwards. It appears that the percentage of classical music listeners who like Classical and Romantic era music is quite high, but that percentage drops off significantly in the early Modern era.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

brotagonist said:


> Perhaps I couldn't argue my conviction sufficiently well to convince the esteemed 'musicologists' on TC, although my suspicion is that genuine musicologists actually _do_ support my opinion.
> 
> Any musicologists here who wish to tackle this?


Jazz isn't nearly as scholastic/academic 'supported' as is classical. I think this is a very good thing, but maybe the intelligentsia figure it detracts from standing.

[I smell a relationship between formal training and the ability to improvise.]


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

realdealblues said:


> Just as a side note:
> 
> I've never heard that Zwilich Violin Concerto before. That was Modern enough for me that it doesn't sound anything like Haydn or Mozart, etc. but still had enough "resolution or structure" (for lack of better words) in enough spots that it was enjoyable to listen too. I really liked the 2nd movement.


Glad you liked it. I'm not really a fan of the Neo-Romantic style in general, but it seems to have taken off particularly in America.

Keep in mind that many on the internet who enjoy traditional classical music find Neo-Romanticism just as unpalatable as high modernism. I'm thinking in particular of reviews like this one. When someone commented on his review with the fact that the concerto in question had won a Pulitzer, he responded "I dislike the modern repertoire as it is mostly noise and not the talent of such as Wagner, Bach or Mozart. Noise is what small children and animals make."

And that's of this piece!!!


----------



## Schubussy (Nov 2, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> And that's of this piece!!!


Just sounds like random noise to me, did she pull the notes out of a hat?


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Glad you liked it. I'm not really a fan of the Neo-Romantic style in general, but it seems to have taken off particularly in America.
> 
> Keep in mind that many on the internet who enjoy traditional classical music find Neo-Romanticism just as unpalatable as high modernism. I'm thinking in particular of reviews like this one. When someone commented on his review with the fact that the concerto in question had won a Pulitzer, he responded "I dislike the modern repertoire as it is mostly noise and not the talent of such as Wagner, Bach or Mozart. Noise is what small children and animals make."
> 
> And that's of this piece!!!


I find the label of Neo-Romantic a bit perplexing as applied to this piece. Do you know if she herself would label it as such.
It seems to me to have far more in common with Bartok or Shostakovitch than any of the archetypal Romantics.
It's a rather inventive and lively piece actually.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> I find the label of Neo-Romantic a bit perplexing as applied to this piece. Do you know if she herself would label it as such.
> It seems to me to have far more in common with Bartok or Shostakovitch than any of the archetypal Romantics.
> It's a rather inventive and lively piece actually.


It's not my label. I don't know what she would call it, but people have a habit of calling Glass, Reich, and Adams "minimalists" despite their dissent. Higdon and other composers called Neoromantic (Rihm, Corigliano, etc.) don't write like Pfitzner or Rachmaninoff, they take in and utilize elements of 20th century modernism.

As you say, it has some similarities with Bartok or Shostakovich (are they considered similar to each other now???), but the general orientation and aesthetic outlook are, I feel, somewhat different.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> From my experience, "contemporary music" generally refers to one of three quite different things:
> 1. Any concert music from the past 30, 40, or 50 years, regardless of style.
> 2. Post-WWII concert music in a serial/high modernist/post-serial style.
> 3. Any modernist or post-modernist music.
> ...


Thanks for the information and clarifying some of those terms for me. I certainly like much modernist music.

And the Neo-Romantic stuff sounds great; that is definitely the kind of thing I like


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Jazz isn't nearly as scholastic/academic 'supported' as is classical. I think this is a very good thing, but maybe the intelligentsia figure it detracts from standing.
> 
> [I smell a relationship between formal training and the ability to improvise.]


There is nothing "magical" about being able to improve and 99% of all contemporary jazz muscians have formal training. People have written countless books about how jazz works and contemporary jazz is every bit as complicated as classical. I spend the last 7 years of my life studying jazz fulltime so I know how it works.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

I hadn't heard that Jennifer Higdon Violin Concerto either. For myself, that one was a little more borderline for me. There were a spots I thought were really interesting (almost Ravel-ish to my ears) but other spots were pushing the envelope and a little taxing for my ears. I wouldn't classify it as noise though. It wasn't completely unlistenable but there was less "structure" again for lack of a better word than the Zwilich Violin Concerto from earlier.

If you were to go too much beyond a work like this, then it starts to lose me in what feels like complete disorder or musical chaos. I can deal with things like that up to a point or if the work was called "Musical Chaos" where I could at least go "ok, I see where we're going", but it starts to lose its aesthetics to me the listen unless it's going to resolve in some way.

I know this isn't classical (but it's the only thing I could think of right now to give as an example) and I don't know how many people here are familiar with Pink Floyd but it you take a work like "A Saucerful Of Secrets".






If all they did was the first 5:20 of this video, I couldn't listen to it and enjoy it. But when you add the next part, that stems out of that "chaos or noise" and resolves back into some sort of structure then it makes it enjoyable for me to listen too. I'm not sure why that is...


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

brotagonist said:


> Perhaps I couldn't argue my conviction sufficiently well to convince the esteemed 'musicologists' on TC, although my suspicion is that genuine musicologists actually _do_ support my opinion.
> 
> Any musicologists here who wish to tackle this?


Well I would like to read that if you can find something like this. I kind of hard to have a discussion with someone if he/she doesn't even have one argument to support their opinion.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Why do I dislike modern music?

Well, first of all, putting limits on the word dislike: recently I've been listening to Schoenberg and Adams, various pieces by both of whom I quite like. Many pieces by composers like Boulez and Ligeti I can enjoy too. There are pieces and composers I really don't enjoy at all. Steve Reich gets on my nerves. Even the pieces by Cage I find pleasant are just merely incidentally interesting.

I think that's the main thing. I can get a reasonably strong reaction from modern music, but nothing that _grabs_ me in the least. Nothing that makes me want to go back and listen to it again. I consider that the main criterion for really enjoying something.

What is that grabbing force? Well, to answer that I would have to enter the realm of speculation. Maybe it's the melodies that get under my skin and make me want to listen to something again. Or maybe it's just that I don't in general like a wide range of things and prefer to concentrate on a few. A final speculation is that often people who like modern music like to be challenged by it and/or love the variety of it, and I prefer to be challenged and have variety in other ways: those are just not things I want out of music I listen to recreationally.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

The notes are far from random; I'm glad the Pulitzer Prize committee still supports great works like it to get these poor composers some due, while the rest of the world calls the things they put their very life into 'random noise'. I'm reminded of Webern's children apparently not at all liking his music. How they do they do it?

Edit:
In case anybody thinks I meant to compare those who disliked the work to children, I didn't at all. Just a rather unfortunate juxtaposition, 's all.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Piwikiwi said:


> There is nothing "magical" about being able to improve and 99% of all contemporary jazz muscians have formal training. People have written countless books about how jazz works and contemporary jazz is every bit as complicated as classical. I spend the last 7 years of my life studying jazz fulltime so I know how it works.


I gather that by "improve" you mean improvise. There is a significant body of evidence that many classical musicians suck at improvisation. There is also a body of evidence indicating that 'contemporary jazz' has, ah, evolved away from many of the characteristics that permeate earlier forms, and taken on many of the formal characteristics of classical music. There seems to be no blues left in it. This is probably good for you, but not for this geezer.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

brotagonist said:


> I didn't trash it. I put it in it's place. Some people like to put it on the same level as classical music, when it is just a variant of popular music.
> 
> You have misread my post. The word 'fool' was never used. I used the name _fool's gold_, which refers to pyrite, a mineral that has the lustre of true gold, but proves not to be real gold.
> 
> There was no reference to lovers of jazz being fools. I was very clear, when I made my statement, that I, too, own and like much jazz, but that I recognize it not to be classical music.


Jazz is not classical music... is jazz. Classical music is not jazz... is classical music. End of the debate, even considering their mutual influences. I find the idea of trying to establish which one is "superior" as meaningless. Maybe the "fool's gold" of some people is the true gold for some others.
Some people consider classical music as the true and objective "great art music". And, considering its 1000 years of tradition, that's true to some extent.
Personally, I feel more identified with the values and tradition of classical music, that's why I'm a classical music musician and not a jazz one. But, to be honest, I couldn't care less about these comparisons, they are always partial and of little meaning outside some very restricted academic/historic kind of discussion.
I know you were not trying to say that jazz lovers are fool; but I found, all, the analogy and the wording a little unhappy (i.e., not a good analogy), that's why I twisted it to make the point.
Now, if you excuse me, I'm going to listen to Bill Evans playing Ligeti's Arc-en-ciel at 5 o'clock in the morning. 
:tiphat:


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Jazz is not classical music... is jazz. Classical music is not jazz... is classical music. End of the debate, even considering their mutual influences. I find the idea of trying to establish which one is "superior" as meaningless. Maybe the "fool's gold" of some people is the true gold for some others.
> Some people consider classical music as the true and objective "great art music". And, considering its 1000 years of tradition, that's true to some extent.


From my perspective, it's bizarre to compare the two. Classical music is about composition to a far higher degree than it is about performance. Jazz music is about performance to a far higher degree than it is about composition. They have different aesthetic aims and means.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I gather that by "improve" you mean improvise. There is a significant body of evidence that many classical musicians suck at improvisation. There is also a body of evidence indicating that 'contemporary jazz' has, ah, evolved away from many of the characteristics that permeate earlier forms, and taken on many of the formal charactristics of classical music. There seems to be no blues left in it. This is probably good for you, but not for this geezer.


 Only reason classical musicians aren't good at improvising is that they don't practice it or get taught how to improvise. I also like the old style more but I just wanted to point out that formal training is a major part of jazz.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

aleazk said:


> Jazz is not classical music... is jazz. Classical music is not jazz... is classical music. End of the debate, even considering their mutual influences. I find the idea of trying to establish which one is "superior" as meaningless. Maybe the "fool's gold" of some people is the true gold for some others.
> 
> Some people consider classical music as the true and objective "great art music". And, considering its 1000 years of tradition, that's true to some extent.


Ho hum - a hornpipe is a hornpipe whether it's Handel or Soldier's Joy. Jazz can be Dave Brubeck's Rondo a la Turk or Jacques Loussier playing Bach or George Gershwin having a Rhapsody in Blue or Louis Armstrong having a Wondeful World. A folk tune can be folk or classical depending on the arrangement. Classical music is a set of styles and techniques which can absorb almost *any* music. It's not a matter of superiority, since that depends on taste but rather of preferences.

I say *almost* any music because I recognise that some folk styles e.g. Gaelic psalm singing - call and response with ornamentation, harmony and quarter tones - are very difficult to enclose in Common Practice Classical music.



Mahlerian said:


> From my perspective, it's bizarre to compare the two. Classical music is about composition to a far higher degree than it is about performance. Jazz music is about performance to a far higher degree than it is about composition. They have different aesthetic aims and means.


Don't forget that some classical music also values improvisation - variations on a theme and divisions. But yes, there are differences in style and technique.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Piwikiwi said:


> Only reason classical musicians aren't good at improvising is that they don't practice it or get taught how to improvise. I also like the old style more but I just wanted to point out that formal training is a major part of jazz.


Hmm. Most organists do it a a "Voluntary" exercise. Harpsichordists and continuo players do it all the time when they figure out the base.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> From my perspective, it's bizarre to compare the two. Classical music is about composition to a far higher degree than it is about performance. Jazz music is about performance to a far higher degree than it is about composition. They have different aesthetic aims and means.


Indeed. When I said it's a very restricted academic/historic kind of discussion, it's not that it's restricted because of being in the academic realm, but that even in the academic sense it's a restricted discussion because all the formal differences, like the one you opportunely mention.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Piwikiwi said:


> Only reason classical musicians aren't good at improvising is that they don't practice it or get taught how to improvise. I also like the old style more but I just wanted to point out that formal training is a major part of jazz.


Sure and I accept all of that... except I insist on qualifying your last 'pointing out'. Formal training is a major part of _contemporary_ jazz. Well, there's another quibble too. I consider improvisation to be spontaneously conceived 'playing with' the music; how formal can training be for that? The alternative is a piece like Mozart's K.475 - it _sounds_ something like improvisation... .


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

Also, it's important to remember that jazz improvisation takes years of hard work before you can master it, just as formal Classical training takes years of reading music and practicing. It's a completely different beast, but every bit as challenging.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Sure and I accept all of that... except I insist on qualifying your last 'pointing out'. Formal training is a major part of _contemporary_ jazz. Well, there's another quibble too. I consider improvisation to be spontaneously conceived 'playing with' the music; how formal can training be for that? The alternative is a piece like Mozart's K.475 - it _sounds_ something like improvisation... .


Most modern jazz musicians are very well schooled and mostly phenomenal readers. They study Jazz theory, they analyse the playing styles and techniques of the masters. There are well established Jazz 'conservatoires' such as The GuildHall in the UK and Berklee College in the US.

As others have said, there's no point setting up some competition between Jazz and Classical, they are different and have their own lineages and traditions though there has always been cross influences in both directions.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Piwikiwi said:


> Well I would like to read that if you can find something like this. I kind of hard to have a discussion with someone if he/she doesn't even have one argument to support their opinion.


I wasn't having a discussion. Google defines discussion as:

1. The action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.
2. A conversation or debate about a certain topic.

I use this forum to casually and enjoyably spend some time, not for lengthy and unresolvable debates. I simply don't have the interest or time for that depth of involvement in a casual pastime.

I can refer you to Wikipedia:

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

The most basic definition of 'art music' is (taken from the article):

Art music... is an umbrella term used to refer to musical traditions implying advanced structural and theoretical considerations and a written musical tradition. The notion of art music is a frequent and well defined musicological distinction, e.g., referred to by musicologist Philip Tagg as one of an "axiomatic triangle consisting of 'folk', 'art' and 'popular' musics."

Further on in this article:

The term may refer to (my italics): _Some_ forms of jazz, excluding _most_ forms generally considered to be popular music. _Jazz is generally considered as popular music_.

See also:

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

The latter is a list of the art music traditions of the world. Jazz is not among them.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> From my perspective, it's bizarre to compare the two. Classical music is about composition to a far higher degree than it is about performance. Jazz music is about performance to a far higher degree than it is about composition. They have different aesthetic aims and means.


What category would John Cage's chance procedures fit into? (just to throw gasoline on the fire...)

Also, there were Jazz groups that had tightly charted arrangements with brief improvised solos. Would those be chamber orchestra pieces with cadenzas?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

bigshot said:


> What category would John Cage's chance procedures fit into? (just to throw gasoline on the fire...)


Composition, as his pieces still depend on a specific pre-determined outline. You're right that it's a blurrier area, though.



bigshot said:


> Also, there were Jazz groups that had tightly charted arrangements with brief improvised solos. Would those be chamber orchestra pieces with cadenzas?


Even those arrangements are not expected to be followed precisely, and the performance can change significantly, in the notes, rhythms, and so forth played by the musicians. The musicians are expected to bring their own personalities to the music, and people generally listen to the musicians as much as, or more than, the basic elements of composition.

Once again it is a grey area, though. There are elements left to performers in classical music, and there are strictly adhered-to conventions and pre-conceived arrangements in Jazz.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Composition, as his pieces still depend on a specific pre-determined outline. You're right that it's a blurrier area, though.


Thanks, Mahlerian ;-) I knew that and was tempted to say it, but I didn't want to get myself in over my head again :lol:

I also like your explanation of the second part, as I had wondered about the more composed jazz works, too.

This is why I am here: to learn more about the music I love and love more all the time ;-)


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Over the past few weeks I've been rediscovering a lot of 20th and 21st century gems. What I love the most about recent music is the huge diversity of styles, every single composer is distinguishable from one another and there are so many these days that I could _never_ get bored of it!

Recent stuff I've been getting into:
Beat Furrer
Brian Ferneyhough
Pierre Boulez
James Dillon
Alfred Schnittke (at the moment)

And one past discovery for me a couple of months ago was Ginastera, whose music amazes me every single time I hear it.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Even those arrangements are not expected to be followed precisely, and the performance can change significantly, in the notes, rhythms, and so forth played by the musicians. The musicians are expected to bring their own personalities to the music, and people generally listen to the musicians as much as, or more than, the basic elements of composition.
> 
> Once again it is a grey area, though. There are elements left to performers in classical music, and there are strictly adhered-to conventions and pre-conceived arrangements in Jazz.


A lot of big band stuff is pretty strict


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Piwikiwi said:


> A lot of big band stuff is pretty strict


And not only are you expected to play the dots with the utmost precision but also take a blinding solo when required!


----------



## GiulioCesare (Apr 9, 2013)

Petwhac said:


> The 20C saw a blurring of the lines between classical and popular music.


Nonsense.

___________________


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

GiulioCesare said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> ___________________


Oh yes sorry, I see your point. You have made a very strong case to support your position and in the light of your well considered and detail critique I will go away and reconsider my position.


----------



## korenbloem (Nov 5, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Oh yes sorry, I see your point. You have made a very strong case to support your position and in the light of your well considered and detail critique I will go away and reconsider my position.


I agree with him or her. Ever heard: Feldman, Boulez, Cage, Schnittke, Gordon, Golijov, Ligetti, Shostakovich, Pendereki, Part, Reich, Riley, Meredith Monk, Galas, Bun-Ching Lam, John Adams, John Luther Adams, Salonen etc?


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

korenbloem said:


> I agree with him or her. Ever heard: Feldman, Boulez, Cage, Schnittke, Gordon, Golijov, Ligetti, Shostakovich, Pendereki, Part, Reich, Riley, Meredith Monk, Galas, Bun-Ching Lam, John Adams, John Luther Adams, Salonen etc?


You can focus on the segment of 20th century classical music that is very different from popular music... or you can focus on the segment of 20th century classical music that is similar to popular music and the popular music that it's similar to classical music, the latter is what Petwhac is doing.

Let me give you one example, since you've mentioned some minimalist composers, tell me if this popular music band, Sigur Ros, doesn't take a few cues from that:


----------



## GiulioCesare (Apr 9, 2013)

Oh, I am not denying that.

There clearly is common ground and I'd say even mutual influence between classical and popular music in the 20th century. Post-modernism can be seen in pop, rock and especially styles like house, techno and electronic pop music.

What I'm denying is that this is a 20th century novelty. House is as tied to post-modern minimalism as jazz is to serial modernism, just as popular dances and folk tunes were tied to romantic classical music, and the music of the periods before that.


----------



## korenbloem (Nov 5, 2012)

niv said:


> You can focus on the segment of 20th century classical music that is very different from popular music... or you can focus on the segment of 20th century classical music that is similar to popular music and the popular music that it's similar to classical music, the latter is what Petwhac is doing.
> 
> Let me give you one example, since you've mentioned some minimalist composers, tell me if this popular music band, Sigur Ros, doesn't take a few cues from that:


Even Mozarts most famous melodies are from his contemporary folk (popular) music. This is from all times. The thing is classical tradition survives and the others are mostly forgotten. Concert music and popular music always blend with eachother. I think that because of the recording, 50s, (and marketing) popular music is been seem as historical signanificant, what in 1800 different was.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

GiulioCesare said:


> Oh, I am not denying that.
> 
> There clearly is common ground and I'd say even mutual influence between classical and popular music in the 20th century. Post-modernism can be seen in pop, rock and especially styles like house, techno and electronic pop music.
> 
> What I'm denying is that this is a 20th century novelty. House is as tied to post-modern minimalism as jazz is to serial modernism, just as popular dances and folk tunes were tied to romantic classical music, and the music of the periods before that.


Are there any 18th or 19th C equivalents of:
Zappa
Chick Corea
Pat Metheny
Bernstein
Sondhiem
Eno
King Crimson
Genesis
Focus
Yes
Bowie
Bacharach
Radiohead
Imogen Heap
Brian Wilson

The 20C saw something different emerge from the distinct lineages of _notated classical composition_ and the _aurally passed down folk music_. The invention of recording gave rise to music which is 'composed' but not always written down. The art work was the recording as opposed to a score which needed realisation.

It is not just a case of 'classical' composers using folk or popular melodies and dance rhythms in their work although it still goes on in works like Ade's Asyla or Martland's Street Songs or Berio's Folk Songs or Turnage's Hammered Out to name a few.

As niv pointed out, I was really focusing on the nature of the music that is more usually described as popular but which has much less in common with the folk music of previous centuries.

What would you say was the _essential_ difference between an art song and songs such as (for example) Alfie by Burt Bacharach, Night Game by Paul Simon or Rock and Roll Suicide by David Bowie?


----------



## korenbloem (Nov 5, 2012)

The thing allot of those musicians have been trained in the classical tradition, but walked there own path: Examples Bernstein, Eno (has an master in arts), Chick Corea etc. I think because the western world openend up for different musical ethnics, the persons who where trainend in the academical tradition (conservatory, universities etc) also expanded their ears and arts.


IMO: People as brian wilson, bowie have nothing to do with concert and acadamical musictradition, even when there fans try to make it seem. They are just pop-musicians (that IMO NOT a Lesser form of art, just different).


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

korenbloem said:


> The thing allot of those musicians have been trained in the classical tradition, but walked there own path: Examples Bernstein, Eno (has an master in arts), Chick Corea etc. I think because the western world openend up for different musical ethnics, the persons who where trainend in the academical tradition (conservatory, universities etc) also expanded their ears and arts.
> 
> IMO: People as brian wilson, bowie have nothing to do with concert and acadamical musictradition, even when there fans try to make it seem. They are just pop-musicians (that IMO NOT a Lesser form of art, just different).


We must talk about the music itself and not about the background of those that created it. Wilson's and Bowie's songs are not solely of the same tradition as Madonna's or Abba's, the former's music (some of it) lies somewhere in between 'art music' and 'pop music' which is the phenomenon I am talking about. They are at the songwriter/performer end of the spectrum but what about this...
What is this?






Which 'tradition' is this music in?






Is this pop?


----------



## Guest (Oct 2, 2013)

Petwhac said:


> What is this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes. It's got some overlay of other things, but underneath it's just pop.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

I share the view that it is unhelpful to draw a strict dividing line between the "popular" and "classical" traditions. Some music refuses to be so neatly pigeonholed. For example I enjoy the music Tangerine Dream, a group that is clearly inspired by avant garde and minimalist composers, yet is generally dismissed as "new age" or "prog rock."

Another example is this, by Penguin Cafe Orchestra:






They even use classical instruments and have the word "orchestra" in their name, yet are taken seriously as classical music.

I am of the opinion that, when it comes to generic classification, many people are influenced by contextual factors rather than the music itself.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> I share the view that it is unhelpful to draw a strict dividing line between the "popular" and "classical" traditions. Some music refuses to be so neatly pigeonholed. For example I enjoy the music Tangerine Dream, a group that is clearly inspired by avant garde and minimalist composers, yet is generally dismissed as "new age" or "prog rock."
> 
> Another example is this, by Penguin Cafe Orchestra:
> 
> ...


It's Mary & Max! What a splendidly made movie.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

The "art" in contemporary popular music is rarely exactly where the classical tradition teaches us to look for it, but that doesn't mean it's altogether absent. Since the mid-60s at least (earlier probably, but I'm not looking for a fight so I'll play it safe), the intellectual dimension of popular music (and even quite a bit of arguably "classical" music) is not usually in harmony or structure, but in technology - exploring what can be done with an electric guitar and a Moog synthesizer and a tape and a computer and so on. You and I might not care to explore that kind of field or consider it an "art," but fortunately for most people out there, we're not the dictators of music. Since that music is mostly marketed for people we implicitly despise, we choose to focus on elements familiar to us, elements whose terms enable us to dismiss it with cool scorn; but in other terms, highly technical perhaps and probably unfamiliar to most of us, a massive amount of talent and thought and effort have gone into creating that music. This doesn't mean we have to like it, of course, but it's nice to keep things in perspective.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

What I like most of all in modern music is electronic/synthesizer music and the endless possibilities of sound. I love atmospheric/soundscape/ambient music... music without overt rhythm and melody... slowly moving, with complex layers of sound being subtlely manipulated... it's like painting or sculpting with sound.... it can be intellectually stimulating and emotional too, just in a different way than most music. The music comes first, technology makes it possible.


----------



## Musician (Jul 25, 2013)

Allegorically, to me the progression of music is like a Great Mountain that begun about a thousand years ago. It ascended slowly and progressively from minimal musical innovation to a greater complexity and flexibility until it reached the zenith in the 19th century, where composers probably have composed some of the more passionate, memorable and moving works. But since the 1950's or so there has begun a rapid deterioration of the general quality of music. Not because that there was a lack of talented composers but because it was the change of an Era. Not all things become 'better' when time marches down. At the advent of modern technology, and the industrialization of the world, composers and artists generally have become more lazy, and have begun to utilize things like softwares, and other digital devices and mediums to create their art. While back then, composers really had to rely on their knowledge of music, and their technical abilities. 

That approach has generated true scholarly composers, who were not only masters of music, but also understood music better then anyone today. That lack of technology has bred effective mastery on the Art of Composition. The modern way of life has effected people in such a way that romantic classical composition in effect runs oblique to it, and in turn, anyone who composes in that way is most of the time considered as someone that is not 'In Tune' with the present. 

But said all this, the proponents of this theory that says that an effective composer is a composer that is in tune with modernity are missing a few points, and its worth pondering them.

1. The New York City Classical music station's annual countdown lets its hundreds of thousands of listeners to vote in what they believe are the best works ever conceived by humans. Every year without exception Beethoven's Ninth grabs the Top Trophy. And the top 40 are all baroque, classical, romantic composers without exceptions. Not even one modernist composer is ever permitted to have this honor, and I have been following these annual countdowns for years. I'm sure that in other major world capitals there are similar countdowns with similar results.

2. It seems that listeners refuse with clear and almost radical commitment to let any of the modernists close to what one might call 'The Greats'. They are not in anyway bothered with been in tune with time, they just instinctively understand that those composers and their modern works are not in the same caliber. 

3. I can't detect even the slightest of hints towards changing this rock solid approach by the listeners of the world.

Now lets dwell on the whole idea that music must be 'in tune' with the present modern time.

Can anyone please provide me with a clear reference that explains that this so called 'requirement' is actually vital when composing music? I just don't know what the whole hassle is all about. Why do some lovers of modern music insist on this requirement? Music is a free art, its not a political philosophy, where the laws of a given society must change to fit the new requirements of the people. The art of music and creating music is free of any duress that it must sound classical or modern. Classical composers didnt compose their music believing that been true to their present day style was in anyway a requirement. When Beethoven composed music, he didnt really think about the renaissance, or about his present time. I believe that he was composing a piece of music that is not bound within the limitations of time. And as a result of his approach to music, those who were his contemporaries enjoyed his music, we enjoy his music, and many people in the far future will still enjoy his music. Because Great music can't be contained within the limitations of time. True it needs time to be written upon, but it must transcend it. Any music that is not transcended can't be called Great. 

Now lets use some rational thinking. If the modernist movement suggest that music must be in tune with the present times. Then all the work of today's composers will have no value in a 100 years, because the modern composers of the future will consider these works as inconsistent with the Music of the Time. So by way of rationality, this theory and approach is detrimental to their own stance on this issue.

I suggest a different approach. How about letting music just be music, innocent and pure without all sort of 'requirements' and let composers compose the music that they love, and let not time judge it, but the listeners themselves?

I think that music lovers and listeners can make their own wise decisions whether they like a certain piece of music or not. This approach will eliminate unnecessary pressures and fears for new aspiring composers who will feel way more comfortable and acceptable in music institutions, and that in turn will eliminate the spirit of elitism that so extensively has dominated the academics. 

So lets judge the music based on its quality and meaning, instead of measuring it on a time-scale that in my judgement is not needed or required.

Cheers,

Saul


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Musician said:


> I suggest a different approach. How about letting music just be music, innocent and pure without all sort of 'requirements' and let composers compose the music that they love, and let not time judge it, but the listeners themselves?
> 
> I think that music lovers and listeners can make their own wise decisions whether they like a certain piece of music or not. This approach will eliminate unnecessary pressures and fears for new aspiring composers who will feel way more comfortable and acceptable in music institutions, and that in turn will eliminate the spirit of elitism that so extensively has dominated the academics.
> 
> ...


I think you'll find a lot of people on the forum would agree with most of what you have here (with some qualifications, for the sake of debate), but I worry that some of what came before will anger some people. I hope it won't, of course, but we'll see.

The challenge of meeting contemporary standards isn't just one of today, but also was of the past. Just think of the era of the Renaissance, which produced at least a baker's dozen of great composers who never seem to make it onto radio stations or great composers lists. What if people tried to compose like Palestrina in the baroque or classical period? No matter how good it was, I suspect people would have thought it just didn't sound quite right. Conversely, I sometime fantasize about what Palestrina would have thought listening to Bach, Beethoven, Schubert, or Wagner for the first time. Perhaps he would have thought even their best compositions were vulgar or "dissonant."

Our own time is musically diverse--both in terms of taste and the kinds of music that's being made. A lot of modernists are probably as or more inspired by Gesualdo than any composer has been since the Renaissance. Conservatories tend to be conservative (hence the name), but I don't find it easy to generalize about contemporary music nonetheless. There are too many composers, groups of composers, audiences, and institutions for that to be really possible. As for elitism, there are many forms of elitism: and it's always present anywhere you have more people who want in somewhere than there are spaces available.

And besides, a great many people--myself included--would list Messiaen among the greats. :lol:


----------



## Guest (Oct 2, 2013)

Musician said:


> It ascended slowly and progressively from minimal musical innovation to a greater complexity and flexibility....


Except of course that it did nothing of the sort.



Musician said:


> But since the 1950's or so there has begun a rapid deterioration of the general quality of music. Not because that there was a lack of talented composers but because it was the change of an Era.


So the "Era" defines the quality of the music, not the composers?



Musician said:


> Not all things become 'better' when time marches down.


Things like science become better. For science, it makes sense to talk about improvements. Art? Not so much. There there is no clear sense that Beethoven is an improvement over Bach or that Tchaikovsky is and improvement over Schumann. One of Wagner's more pernicious ideas was that art improved over time, and that he was at the apex.



Musician said:


> At the advent of modern technology, and the industrialization of the world, composers and artists generally have become more lazy....


But the advent of modern technology and the industrialization of the world were 19th century phenomena, which was when, according to you, music reached its apex.

And you cannot know many composers and artists if you think they have become more lazy as a group.



Musician said:


> [Composers] have begun to utilize things like softwares, and other digital devices and mediums to create their art. While back then, composers really had to rely on their knowledge of music, and their technical abilities.


Ah, the good old days, when the mighty quill ruled the day. How lazy people are who use software, which takes, dear Saul, technical abilities.



Musician said:


> The New York City Classical music station's annual countdown lets its hundreds of thousands of listeners to vote in what they believe are the best works ever conceived by humans.


Where did you get your figure? hundreds of thousands? And "best works ever conceived by humans" (as opposed to simians or cetaceans?) is rather over-stating things. WQXR asks for listeners' favorites; they report the numbers as being in the thousands, not the hundreds of thousands. (I assume you're talking about WQXR. You didn't name any names.)



Musician said:


> And the top 40 are all baroque, classical, romantic composers without exceptions. Not even one modernist composer is ever permitted to have this honor, and I have been following these annual countdowns for years.


Then you have missed Stravinsky and Gershwin and Copland and Bernstein. Mild stuff, mostly, but still.

And you're leaving the Q2 countdown completely out of your account? Why?



Musician said:


> It seems that listeners refuse with clear and almost radical commitment to let any of the modernists close to what might call 'The Greats'.


Well, the people (in their thousands) who play this annual game do not have many modern composers as their favorites. But so what?



Musician said:


> They... instinctively understand that those composers and their modern works are not in the same caliber.


Do they now? And you know this how?



Musician said:


> The listeners of the world.


A couple thousand WQXR listeners are not "the listeners of the world, much as New Yorkers might want to think so.



Musician said:


> Now lets dwell on the whole idea that music must be 'in tune' with the present modern time.


Let's not.



Musician said:


> Can anyone please provide me with a clear reference that explains that this so called 'requirement' is actually vital when composing music?


Um, it's not a requirement. It's a straw man.



Musician said:


> Why do some lovers of modern music insist on this requirement?


Who? Who insists this?



Musician said:


> The art of music and creating music is free of any duress that it must sound classical or modern.


Well, baroque music does all sound, um, baroque. And classical does all sound classical. Stating this as a requirement, however, is to get everything backwards. It was not a requirement to sound classical; it just happened that way. In the twentieth century, a new thing came about. Composing in a way the mimicked the forms and patterns of the past. Well, that actually started in the 19th century, but audiences didn't go for it. Not until the next century would audiences accept old-fashioned sounding music from their own time.



Musician said:


> Now lets use some rational thinking.


Good idea.



Musician said:


> If the modernist movement suggest that music must be in tune with the present times. Then all the work of today's composers will have no value in a 100 years, because the modern composers of the future will consider these works as inconsistent with the Music of the Time.


You're forgetting that baroque music sounded baroque because it was of its time. And it has lasted pretty well. You're forgetting that the more recent a piece is, the less time it has had to last. So to criticize a two year old piece for not lasting for centuries, or even decades, is just silly. And, worse, you are confusing two different perspectives, the listener's and the composer's. The listener can enjoy music from any old time. (The composer as listener is just the same.) The composer as creative artist will, it is to be hoped, not want to simply go over the same ground as has already been gone over. Mozart didn't do that. Beethoven didn't do that. Berlioz didn't do that. Even the so-called "conservative" Brahms didn't do that. The creative artist will want, again, hopefully, to make something that would not otherwise exist. Otherwise, why bother? If it already exists, it needn't be made again.

That is all, I would say, that "of its time" means. Whatever is new and unique at any given time.



Musician said:


> How about letting music just be music, innocent and pure without all sort of 'requirements' and let composers compose the music that they love, and let not time judge it, but the listeners themselves?


Sweet, but neither rational nor realistic. And it's always listeners who judge, not time. "Time" doesn't judge anything. Listeners do. It takes some time to get the results in, that's all.



Musician said:


> I think that music lovers and listeners can make their own wise decisions whether they like a certain piece of music or not.


And this is different from how things are and always have been how?



Musician said:


> This approach will eliminate unnecessary pressures and fears for new aspiring composers who will feel way more comfortable and acceptable in music institutions, and that in turn will eliminate the spirit of elitism that so extensively has dominated the academics.


Nah. Probably not.



Musician said:


> So lets judge the music based on its quality and meaning, instead of measuring it on a time-scale that in my judgement is not needed or required.


Hey, I have another idea! Let's listen to music, carefully, sensitively, intelligently. Letting it say whatever it has to say (a bad metaphor, but "oh well") regardless of what we want it to say. Yeah. That'll work.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

It depends on the audio frequencies. If a Contemporary composer has not taken too much liberty with, he often has my blessing. Simple as that.


----------



## GiulioCesare (Apr 9, 2013)

> The 20C saw something different emerge from the distinct lineages of notated classical composition and the aurally passed down folk music. The invention of recording gave rise to music which is 'composed' but not always written down. The art work was the recording as opposed to a score which needed realisation.


If you're saying that the 20th century brought about recordings, and that that changed the way music is approached, then you obviously have a point. But that has nothing to do with your original claim that "the 20th saw a blurring of the lines between classical and popular music", implying that that wasn't the case beforehand.

Which brings us to:



> Are there any 18th or 19th C equivalents of:
> Zappa
> Chick Corea
> Pat Metheny
> ...


Of course there were. They have just gone into oblivion, precisely because of what you said: there were no recordings back then. Orally passed music was passed orally. When it wasn't anymore, it was forgotten and disappeared.



> It is not just a case of 'classical' composers using folk or popular melodies and dance rhythms in their work although it still goes on in works like Ade's Asyla or Martland's Street Songs or Berio's Folk Songs or Turnage's Hammered Out to name a few.
> 
> As niv pointed out, I was really focusing on the nature of the music that is more usually described as popular but which has much less in common with the folk music of previous centuries.


Just like classical music, popular music evolves. Saying pop songs today have less in common with folk dance songs of the 18th century is like saying Ferneyhough's music has less in common with Vivaldi's music.



> What would you say was the essential difference between an art song and songs such as (for example) Alfie by Burt Bacharach, Night Game by Paul Simon or Rock and Roll Suicide by David Bowie?


What do you mean by "art song"?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Musician said:


> 1. The New York City Classical music station's annual countdown lets its hundreds of thousands of listeners to vote in what they believe are the best works ever conceived by humans. Every year without exception Beethoven's Ninth grabs the Top Trophy. And the top 40 are all baroque, classical, romantic composers without exceptions.
> 
> 2. It seems that listeners refuse with clear and almost radical commitment to let any of the modernists close to what might call 'The Greats'. They are not in anyway bothered with been in tune with time, they just instinctively understand that those composers and their modern works are not in the same caliber.


Presumably these polls indicate that the people who listen to the New York City Classical music station generally prefer music of the Baroque through Romantic. That's not surprising since that's what essentially all classical music stations play. Those who love Renaissance or Modern music will choose other avenues for listening. There is a strong selection process for voters in those polls. Now it certainly may be the case that the majority (or even vast majority) of classical music listeners prefer Baroque through Romantic music. I still have seen no data or articles that give high confidence on the true listening preferences of _all_ classical music listeners.

Even if the vast majority of listeners prefer Baroque through Romantic, that's simply a statement about present preference and not about the value, quality, or future popularity of Modern music.

Now lets dwell on the whole idea that music must be 'in tune' with the present modern time.



Musician said:


> I suggest a different approach. How about letting music just be music, innocent and pure without all sort of 'requirements' and let composers compose the music that they love, and let not time judge it, but the listeners themselves?
> QUOTE]
> 
> As far as I can tell, music _is_ just music. It seems to me that music of past eras tend to be far more homogeneous than music of the Modern and Contemporary Eras. Since post -Romantic music has more variability, there appear to be fewer requirements than in previous eras.
> ...


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

GiulioCesare said:


> Of course there were. They have just gone into oblivion, precisely because of what you said: there were no recordings back then. Orally passed music was passed orally. When it wasn't anymore, it was forgotten and disappeared.


Hmmm, I cannot agree with that. Someone like Zappa in the 18 or 19th century wouldn't have been what you said. my bet? He would have been a classical composer. Why he wasn't a classical composer in the 20th century? Because he could do more than just writing scores, the lines were blurred, precisely for the reasons Petwhac detailed.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

niv said:


> Someone like Zappa in the 18 or 19th century wouldn't have been what you said. my bet? He would have been a classical composer.


Zappa might have been somebody like Satie, perhaps?


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2013)

Actually, Zappa was just Zappa.

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


----------



## GiulioCesare (Apr 9, 2013)

> Hmmm, I cannot agree with that. Someone like Zappa in the 18 or 19th century wouldn't have been what you said. my bet? He would have been a classical composer. Why he wasn't a classical composer in the 20th century? Because he could do more than just writing scores, the lines were blurred, precisely for the reasons Petwhac detailed.


Zappa was a mix between a classical and a popular composer. Are you really telling me there weren't cases like that in the 18th and 19th century?

There are a gazillion of examples of, say, organists who would compose works and notate them, while also touring and playing popular and folk tunes.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

GiulioCesare said:


> Zappa was a mix between a classical and a popular composer. Are you really telling me there weren't cases like that in the 18th and 19th century?
> 
> There are a gazillion of examples of, say, organists who would compose works and notate them, while also touring and playing popular and folk tunes.


Zappa and the others I mentioned are _not _ making popular of folk tunes. There are plenty today who are.
Are there really a gazillion examples of what you say? I doubt it, but we'll never know for sure what music they made and it is not relevant to my point.
Before recording, music that was passed aurally/orally was by necessity modest in length and scope. Folk tunes and folk dances. The hour long prog-rock extravaganzas of the 70s, the 12 inch dub reggae mixes of the 80s have no equivalent in the 18th and 19th century because they are as much to to with the manipulation of sound as with singing or dancing. Groups like The Beatles and The Beach Boys began incorporating sound manipulation into their short form popular songs while others like Pat Metheny have incorporated elements of Rock, Jazz and Classical as well as musical styles from other cultures.


----------

