# Help with enjoying modern music



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I'm relatively new to this forum. I adore so much music from the Baroque to Romantic periods, but unfortunately, like many other classical music listeners I enjoy comparatively little modern music. I consider that a shame since so much music including presently composed music is not available for me to enjoy. My general distaste of modern music probably does not stem from a simple lack of listening. I have heard many movements or pieces from a large number of modern composers over the past 3 or 4 years (I subscribe to the Naxos Music Library and often listen to selections, including many suggestions from TC, of modern composers). In general I have not randomly selected these but rather have used “expert” lists such as Gramophone and Third Ear Classical Music guides hoping to sample the "better" pieces. Some may say I have not “really” or carefully listened, and of course, I cannot say whether I have or not.

The modern works I do like are generally considered neo-romantic, I believe. Examples are:
Barber: Violin Concerto
Part: Tabula Rasa
Alwyn: Concerto for Harp and String Orchestra
Bowen: Viola Concerto
Eller: Twilight
Ewazen: Violin Concerto (Thanks Weston)
Myaskovsky: Cello Concerto
Villa-Lobos: Bachiana Brasileiras #4
Paderewski: Piano Concerto
Rota: Piano Concerto E minor
Tubin: Elegy
Pavlova: Elegy for Piano and String Orchestra
Giannini: Piano Concerto

I am aware of a few threads that deal with modern music suggestions, and these were useful to some degree. I believe that many people find modern music as beautiful as I find say classical or romantic. Basically, I would love to hear:
1) Suggestions of how I might come to appreciate modern music. I would especially like to hear from any who were in my position at some time and later grew to like much modern music. 
2) Suggestions of music similar to those listed above or other modern pieces TC members feel I might like (perhaps moving me slowly past neo-romantic if that’s possible?).
3) Thoughts on to what extent musical knowledge, though not necessary, allows one to appreciate modern music more than other periods. Discussions with my daughter (cellist in music school) suggest theory helps enormously (I’m fairly ignorant of theory).

Perhaps I’m asking for something like a primer on modern music enjoyment, and maybe others on TC in my position (I wonder how many are given the general divisiveness in the threads) might benefit as well.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I can only suggest listening to a wide variety of composers & styles to get a grip on the links and differences between the styles. Reading about the composers lives and influences, and going to concerts are also very good things to do in this regard. It's a good thing that you seem to have a good grounding in the earlier music (Renaissance to Classical periods) because that's basically when most of the innovations happened, these things were just further refined from the Romantic period onwards. A good idea is to start from say the late c19th or 1900 and progress up to the music of today. Much of the music of the c20th does have tough dissonance, I don't think that you can really escape that if you want to understand & enjoy what went on throughout the century. But the fact is that many composers still use age-old techniques, such as exploring a single idea or theme throughout a piece. Works like Ives' _Piano Sonata No. 1_, Carter's _String Quartet No. 1_, Schoenberg's _Violin Concerto _ & Boulez's _Piano Sonata No. 2_ all do this to various degrees. Just as with the older music, it's just a matter of subjecting things like this to repeated listenings and what the composers are doing should become clear to you in a matter of time. But give it time because some pieces have finally "clicked" for me after years. It's kind of like putting together one of those 500 piece jigsaws. This is because sometimes these composers do things in a different order or way than in the traditional music. But for me it's often the journey that these guys take me the listener on that is important, not necessarily the final destination. So you have to give it time & patience. It's a bit like a investment, the more effort you put in, the more you'll inevitably get out...


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

My suggestion is to approach modern music by the way of opera.

Often the atonal, dissonant, fractured character of modernist operas suits very well the dramas and tragedies that are being told, which also depict fractured, flawed human beings. The seemingly random character of some works of modern music (seemingly, I mean; of course they do follow a system) sometimes fails to keep my attention, but when it's coupled with a libretto, it makes more sense.

Try to listen to operas such as _Moses und Aron_ by Schoenberg, _Lulu_ by Berg, _Wozzeck_ by Berg, _Oedipe_ by Enesco, _King Roger_ by Szymanowski, _The Cunning Little Vixen _by Janacek, or _Janufa_ by Janacek. Make sure you follow the libretti, because the story line will keep you interested, and will get your ears acclimated to the strange music. Even better is to watch a good DVD version of these works.

I think that the fit between modernist opera music and the intense dramas being told by the above works is a very successful one, and may open you heart and soul to these often challenging musical structures.

Actually maybe you should start by works that are not as challenging as the above, but will already introduce you to the style - like _Pelléas et Mélisande_ by Debussy, _Bluebeard's Castle_ by Bartók, _Le Rossignol_ by Stravinsky, or _Peter Grimes_ by Britten. Another good one, very recent, is_ L'Amour de Loin_ by Saariaho. Another way to get introduced is to catch the transition between the romantics and the modernists in operas such as _Electra_ or _Salome_, by Richard Strauss.

In case you don't like opera, do give it a try anyway. *All* the works quoted above are stunning masterpieces, and are very powerful, able to touch the inner layers of your being. They have relatively little to do with the operatic styles that came before them, so those who find opera overblown or over-the-top, shouldn't fear the same from these often precise and minimalistic works.


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> My general distaste of modern music probably does not stem from a simple lack of listening.


This is a good point, and one that bears emphasizing. Those of us who have never had any trouble liking modern music often forget that simply listening over and over again to something one dislikes is not an altogether safe way to start to like it. It's true that familiarity is generally good, but subjecting yourself to something you dislike will just as likely confirm your dislike.

I think there are two basic principles at work here, expectations and attitude. If you're looking for the things you already know and expect from music, and don't find them in X or Y piece written in the past hundred years, then you're bound to be disappointed. If you go into any listening situation already cringing, already expecting to dislike what you've not yet heard, then of course you will find plenty in the sounds to confirm your fears.

But plenty of other people can hear the same sounds and find only pleasure and delight. Hold on to that observation. It's crucial. The music is not distasteful. You finding it so is inarguable: just don't make the very common mistake of attributing your distaste to the music itself. The music is fine. Generally, of course. There are bad pieces in every age. Many of them. Hence your attempt to weed out the clunkers by using TC and Gramophone and Third Ear. Only problem there is that you have to do that sort of work for yourself (bearing in mind that what you accomplish has only validity for you--sorry, just how it is!). Only you can decide for you what pleases you.



mmsbls said:


> I have heard many movements or pieces from a large number of modern composers over the past 3 or 4 years (I subscribe to the Naxos Music Library and often listen to selections, including many suggestions from TC, of modern composers).


Neither Naxos nor TC is going to point you in the direction of the truly important and representative forces in new music. (Nor are Gramophone nor Third Ear guides, for that matter.) What you'll get, by and large, is what you report as having already gotten, pieces written in modern times that hearken back to the familiar sounds of earlier times--familiar, I hasten to add, to us, now. The "romantic" sounds that the people on your list imitate or recycle are not what Romanticism was all about in its century (the 19th). You know, I'm sure, how difficult their music was for many listeners. That's because those people, in that time, were not trying to please audiences with familiar sounds. They were trying to do good work, to be appreciated by people who were willing to take the time to understand them, sure. And they were trying to continue expanding the vocabulary of music, as all worthwhile composers have done.

The fact that their harsh harmonies and unmelodic melodies and strange forms now seem perfectly normal and pleasing and mild to us is simply the operation of time and of the familiarity that comes with the passage of same. And only in the twentieth century do you find such a preponderance of composers building entire careers out of recycling the sounds of the past (without of course reproducing any of the spirit). That a lot of this kind of music is pleasant for many listeners is no surprise. It was designed to be pleasant, in a different way to the way the music it imitates was designed. No one in the 19th century was trying to be unpleasant, but when you're doing new and unfamiliar things (as all the "great" ones were), then what most people will hear, at first, will be unpleasant. And they did, too. Boy howdy. Now, of course, we hear only "beauty," and we are incredulous that the people of the time could have been so deaf (while still blithely damning the unpleasant sounds of our own time, oblivious to the irony.)



mmsbls said:


> I believe that many people find modern music as beautiful as I find say classical or romantic.


This is also crucial. Hold on to this observation as well!!

A final thought, stay away from theory. Unless you like that kind of thing. Theory's no more going to help you appreciate Lachenmann or Karkowski than it's going to help you appreciate Bach. Once you already do, theory can be the shizz, of course.

A last final thought (and this time I really mean it), stay away also from recommended pieces or even composers. People have their favorites, and once you get going on this project of yours, you'll want to swap stories with other aficionados. But not now. Get some music under your belt first. Listen and explore on your own, without benefit of anyone else's experience. Only when you're experienced yourself will other people's experiences be worthwhile. Of course it seems very logical that you would benefit from others' experiences. But there's no substitute for your own.

Enjoy!


----------



## Pieck (Jan 12, 2011)

Dude, why do have to enjoy modern music? I'm doing fine without it.
But if you insist, I like Part (especially the Te Deum)


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

It might be useful if you tell us which well-known works of modern music you've already heard, other than the ones you liked.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Pieck said:


> Dude, why do have to enjoy modern music? I'm doing fine without it.


Erm.. because Modern music is at least as rewarding as 'old' music and has the advantage of being (more) relevant.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Pieck said:


> Dude, why do have to enjoy modern music? I'm doing fine without it.


haha!

Some people say that modern music (I'm guessing you mean anything written in the 20th cent.) needs an "acquired taste." Many listenings of certain works can do the trick sometimes. Of course, don't force yourself to listen to anything unless you're truly motivated.

If you don't know _Prokofiev_ or Shostakovich yet, they will be nice surprises! Prokofiev especially is very tonal for all his dissonance, he had a very high sense of aesthetic. Ex. Piano Concerto No. 3. Yet he's not exactly romantic, he's definitely modern.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> If you don't know _Prokofiev_ or Shostakovich yet, they will be nice surprises! Prokofiev especially is very tonal for all his dissonance, he had a very high sense of aesthetic. Ex. Piano Concerto No. 3. Yet he's not exactly romantic, he's definitely modern.


Yes the artistically-isolated and repressed soviet school of music is a good way to ease into 'modern' music.


----------



## Pieck (Jan 12, 2011)

I think (maybe I'm wrong) that he meant contemporary, not early 20th century.


----------



## Lipatti (Oct 9, 2010)

There is contemporary music, and then there is contemporary music... There is music written in 1910, and music written in 2010 - and there can be a HUGE difference between these two. I would say the best way to approach music written in the 21st century (which I'm assuming is what the OP is after) is by moving slowly and chronologically. If you like Debussy, Bartok, Scriabin etc., you can then go on to composers like Varese, Schoenberg, Messiaen. From there, you can then approach the likes of Arvo Part, Gorecki, Steve Reivh, John Adams, Saariaho etc. I would dare to say this is among the "safest" routes available.

Unfortunately, history hasn't had the time yet to do the job for you and filter out the most remarkable compositions. But on the other hand, you have the opportunity to participate yourself and, as a "consumer", shape the musical preferences of your generation.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Pieck said:


> I think (maybe I'm wrong) that he meant contemporary, not early 20th century.


You may be right, but technically modernism started early in the 20th century.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> My suggestion is to approach modern music by the way of opera.


Although I've heard very little opera and don't consider myself a fan of it, I think that may be a good idea. I've read about Salome and Electra and was amazed that they were actually performed. Even now they would be shocking to many (I don't mean the music). Certainly I'm used to watching movies with dissonant soundtracks. I agree that having the libretto is a must.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Salome, Elektra? Thats romanticism.

Try these:
Moses und Aaron - Schoenberg
Lulu 
Wozzeck - Alban Berg
L'Amour loin - Saariaho
Licht - Stockhausen
The Prisoner - Dallapiccola


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

some guy said:


> If you're looking for the things you already know and expect from music, and don't find them in X or Y piece written in the past hundred years, then you're bound to be disappointed. If you go into any listening situation already cringing, already expecting to dislike what you've not yet heard, then of course you will find plenty in the sounds to confirm your fears.


Rather than expecting to dislike them, I'm actually somewhat excited when hearing new pieces hoping that I'll finally enjoy this one; however, I believe you're correct that I'm listening for things I have liked in the past (i.e. pre-modern music). I think I do have to try to embrace the new; otherwise, as you say, I'll be disappointed.



some guy said:


> The fact that their harsh harmonies and unmelodic melodies and strange forms now seem perfectly normal and pleasing and mild to us is simply the operation of time and of the familiarity that comes with the passage of same.


Much music was certainly not enjoyed in its own time period. I remember when I first learned that Tchaikovsky's violin concerto was intensely disliked at first, I couldn't believe that something so wonderful could have had that effect.

This leads to an interesting question. Music of other periods may not have been enjoyed and accepted immediately, but within years or perhaps a few decades the listening public did come to enjoy it. That seems not to be the case with modern music. It's been roughly 100 years since Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern started writing atonal music. One might have guessed that by the 30's, 50's or certainly the 70's listeners would have grown to embrace the new modern sounds. Perhaps one difference is that modern music (with the exception of movies) is rarely played. I listen to a music station that plays very obscure composers but hardly ever plays modern music, and I think this is true of classical music stations in general. Concerts play more modern music, but still relatively little. On the other hand, when rock music hit the streets, it was soon played everywhere. Thoughts?


----------



## wingracer (Mar 7, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> On the other hand, when rock music hit the streets, it was soon played everywhere. Thoughts?


Rock music wasn't all that "NEW". It was basically just a fusion of existing forms from blues, country and jazz music. It took off because of that, while it was new, it was still familiar and accessible.

I too am just starting to delve into the world of new classical. I think the key is to move into it slowly and in steps. Start with the early stuff that is only a little out of the norm and gradually get more and more experimental as you find pieces you like.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

In response to several replies, I was referring to much post romantic music including contemporary.



Webernite said:


> It might be useful if you tell us which well-known works of modern music you've already heard, other than the ones you liked.


The list would be much too long to include here, but this might be somewhat representative (not all are well-known):

Schoenberg (Verklarte Nacht, Piano Suite), Berg (Violin Concerto), Berio (Sinfonia, Sequenzas), Adams (Violin Concerto,Nixon in China, City Noir), Aho (Violin Concerto), Arnold (Symphonies), Bliss (Color Symphony), Brian (Violin Concerto, symphonies), Britten (many), Carter (Piano and Violin Concertos), Crumb (A Haunted Landscape, Echoes of Time and the River), Ginastera (Violin Concerto), Glass (Violin Concerto, Metamorphosis IV), Gorecki (Symphony 2, 3), Holmboe (Chamber Concertos), Ives (Symphonies), Ligeti (Atmospheres, Piano Concerto), Lutoslawski (Cello Concerto), Menotti (Violin Concerto), Messiaen (Quartet for the End of Time), Pettersson (Symphonies), Poulenc (Piano Concertos), Rautavaara (Symphonies), Schnittke (Piano Concerto), Giya (Time... and again for Violin and Piano), Reich (The 4 Sections), Rorem (Piano works), Simpson (Symphonies), Tavener (The Protecting Veil), Tippett (Concerto for Double String Orchestra), Walton (Cello and Violin Concertos), Tuur (Architectonics), Higdon (Piano Trio), Huang(Chamber Concerto).

I have heard several pieces from many of these composers although in most cases I have not listened to a piece more than once. I do not dislike all of the above, but overwhelmingly if I don't dislike the piece, I find it just OK.

Of course I have listened to many pieces by Bartok, Shostakovich, Hindemith, Prokofiev, and Stravinsky.

One fun note: I heard Nadja Salerno-Sonnenberg and The New Century Chamber Orchestra. For an encore they played Schnittke's Moz-art a la Haydn. It was actually a fun piece. She announced the piece and then said "Sorry."


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> This leads to an interesting question. Music of other periods may not have been enjoyed and accepted immediately, but within years or perhaps a few decades the listening public did come to enjoy it. That seems not to be the case with modern music. It's been roughly 100 years since Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern started writing atonal music. One might have guessed that by the 30's, 50's or certainly the 70's listeners would have grown to embrace the new modern sounds.


I think you've really stumbled onto something here. Maybe its because at a certain point it seems modern musicians decided to act more like scientists than artists. Maybe their experiments are not working because they are over thinking them and trying to reinvent the wheel.

Also comparing something like Tchaikovsky's violin concerto not being initially appreciated and the modern music is completely a different scenario. Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninov were generally criticized for their lack of complexity, over-simplicity and lack of new and novel ideas. The polar opposite of what modern music is criticized for. Thats another reason why I don't agree with some guy's analysis that other artistic genius's of the past suffered similarily.

Also perusing through your list of 'modern' works you've tried. If you haven't enjoyed most of those pieces - guys like Britten and John Adams, you likely will have very little chance of appreciating the pieces that most people here refer to as 'modern'.


----------



## toucan (Sep 27, 2010)

You seem to have the most important trait: a strong desire to penetrate modern music.

1/ Get well versed in the Modernism of the earlier XXth century (excepting Second Vienna School): 
*Debussy*
Later* Scriabin* (start with the 4th piano sonata, and if you like it go for the 5th)
*Stravinsky*, the pieces that made his reputation, Firebird, Petrushka and Rite of Spring
*Bela Bartok*. Start with Miraculous Mandarin then go for the heady stuff, his first two piano
Concertos and Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta. Then reward yourself with the
Concerto for Orchestra, a great and agreeable piece but mellower than the previous pieces.
+ scattered odd-ball pieces, like Mossolov's *Iron Foundry*, Honegger's *Pacific231*,
Prokofiev's _Scythian Suite_ and his 7th Piano Sonata.

2/ As transition, get into *Messiaen*, *Lutoslawski* and *Dutilleux*, starting with their earlier music, then moving into their mature modernism. You will have made a great step in the right direction once you grasp (and hopefully enjoy) _Reveil des Oiseaux_ by Messiaen, _Metaboles_ by Dutilleux, and the Third Symphony by Lutoslawski.

3/ When you have covered steps one and two you are ready for the most challenging stuff: Schoenberg and the Vienna School + post-world war two Avant-Garde (Boulez et alii.

As preparation (if you don't know them already), get into the more challenging symphonies of Mahler (2, 3, 6, and 7) and into Late Liszt (pieces like Nuages Gris or Csardas Macabres or Gondole Lugubre: good recordings by Brendel, Erno Szegedi and Andreas Bonatta). The reason they are helpful, other than that Schoenberg grows ouf of them in certain ways, is that they require several hearing before we understand them - but not as many hearing as Webern or Boulez. That gets us used to putting in some effort and study; and once we grasp and enjoy them it teaches us that it is worth the effort, that there is great enjoyment at the end of the tunnel.

4/ Schoenberg, Berg and Webern. Their work subdivides broadly into three periods: late romanticism of their youth, then Free Atonality (atonal but not twelve-tone), then Serial. Start with their earlier work. Then for Free Atonality start with Schoenberg's KonzertStucke op 16 (especially the third one: "Farben"), and go to you tube and search for "Webern in Mayberry."

Once you grasp free atonality you are ready to tackle composition with twelve notes. Start with Schoenberg's Variations op. 31. The twelve-note theme or series is stated simply at the start of the second movement, that makes it easier to replay it on your CD player over and over until you get it. It really is a simple melody that happens to have 12 notes, instead of 8 or 12 or 27 notes, as other melodies might have.

5/ Post war avant-garde. Many people might advise you to prepare yourself with Gyorgy Ligeti, who is indeed the "easiest" among that post war group and indeed, rather well liked by the neo-tonal crowd as well as by Boulez.

Pierre Boulez is arguably the best of them and certainly the most prestigious. His *Notations* for Orchestra have been integrated into the standard repertoire, thanks to the commitment of people like James Levine, Claudio Abbado and Daniel Barenboim, as well as Boulez himself. The best place to start with him is with his latter work, which is most accessible: *Repons*, *Sur Incise* and *Derive 1*. Then move progressively back in time, until you reach those watershed works, *Pli Selon Pli* and *Marteau Sans Maitre*.

Marteau sans maitre and Pli selon Pli sort of resemble Schoenberg's _Pierrot Lunaire_. Pierrot Lunaire is an important step toward serialism, Marteau and Pli selon Pli are important steps away from it. Once you see that, your musical education is nearly complete.

Once you have gotten there you are ready to tackle some of the most difficult music ever composed, like Boulez's Second Piano Sonata and his Livre pour Quatuor, or Karlheinz Stockhausen's Klavierstucke.. On your way there you probably will go through excrutiating torture and bouts of great anger, where you will tell yourself music shouldn't be so difficult, obscure and ugly. Hang in there. Those who have been through this before you and succeeded, are still screaming in disbelief, gratitude and joy at the sheer beauty, as well as the coherence and clarity of the harmonies discovered or invented by Schoenberg, Webern, Boulez and a handful of others. It's kind of like sports, where you have to push yourself to the point of pain, before those chemicals that bring you elation are released.


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2011)

What it is to not have any baggage going into it. Wow. All the caution, all the tentative first steps that seem necessary to most listeners.

I plunged right in. March 1972, Bartók. June 1972, Stravinsky. October 1972, Carter. (The gaps were from being in Europe at the time, studying and then travelling. Not so many opportunities to explore music, because I was also busy exploring new places. (Well, new to me.)

1973-82, all the rest. (Musique concrète, live electronics, experimental (the original meaning of this: indeterminacy), minimal (all the meanings of this, not just "repetition"), installations, as well as all the orchestral and chamber stuff put out by Lutosławski and Ligeti and Berio and the like.

1982 added Christian Marclay, Diamanda Galas, and Ornette Coleman, among others, and the last 29 years have been one delight after another.

And ALL because I didn't have any idea that any of this music was anything but interesting and exciting and pleasurable. I found out immediately that the people around me hated it, but so what? I found out very soon that program notes, for LPs as well as for concerts, were uniformly cautious and apologetic, but I just stopped reading them. (I had stopped years before, actually, with Beethoven and Tchaikovsky LPs, but I started again when this new adventure began.) It was too late to be warning _me_ about how awful this stuff might seem at first. I was already in love.

Were there things along the way that I didn't like? Of course. But a Berio _Visage_ here and an Ashley _Purposeful Lady Slow Afternoon_ there and a piano piece or two by Scelsi never led me to conclude that "modern music," in toto, had something fundamentally wrong with it. And that's because there's not. It's not scary, it's not difficult, it's not flawed, it's not unpleasant, it's not dismissive of audiences--it's not anything bad except as anyone goes into it already thinking it's bad. And you have to have been pretty isolated (as I was) to go into it without all that baggage. Too bad. New music has been very poorly served since 1810. The nineteen century avant garde, as mmsbls has noted, has made its way into our hearts and minds. Twentieth century? Not so much. The effort of trying to understand and enjoy Berlioz and Liszt and Schumann and Wagner and Bruckner and Mahler and Debussy and Ravel just wore everyone out, I guess. Though Bartók and Stravinsky and the like seem to be pretty universally admired if not enjoyed by now.

Still, the attitude, dating from around 1810 (though you can find earlier manifestations of it) that "modern" music is dangerous and ugly has only grown since Beethoven's time, aided and abetted in the twentieth century by the invention of reproductive machines, which means that people can boycott "new" music on concerts with impunity--now you can get your Vivaldi and Grieg fixes without ever setting foot inside a concert hall. And the concert halls have responded by being very cautious not to give anyone any cause to stay away, anyone but the people who actually LIKE the new stuff. But those people aren't important! Even composers have responded by making entire careers out of making pastiche music.

Still, the new stuff keeps going on. And, as Babbitt pointed out years ago, maybe "under the radar" is not entirely a bad place to be. If you can find ways to feed your family and pay mortgages, the artist freedom is unparalleled!!

(You'll maybe have noticed that serial, which seems to loom so large in the minds of most listeners as THE thing that happened in the twentieth century, was not a prominent part of my own listening adventures. I've filled in that gap since 1982, with Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Wellesz, Boulez, Sessions and the like. But I still prefer the not so serial complexities of people like Birtwistle and Ferneyhough. Not important, just a personal thing. I always liked Gerhard and Skalkottas. Santarsola's two guitar concerto was the first twelve-tone piece I understood and enjoyed.)


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2011)

tdc said:


> Tchaikovsky [was] generally criticized for their lack of complexity, over-simplicity and lack of new and novel ideas.


Not at the time, he wasn't. This is just simply not true. Later, maybe, but not while he was alive.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

some guy said:


> Not at the time, he wasn't. This is just simply not true. Later, maybe, but not while he was alive.


You may be right, but many people today will even criticize guys like Arvo Part for being way out there too. I saw (my cities) premiere of his fourth symphony and saw many people squirming in their seats over that one, and it wasn't because they thought his music was too romantic sounding. These same individuals were there for a Chopin piano concerto.

Its almost as though we've reached the stage where others distaste is used as some kind of gauge of greatness at times?

I dont know.

For the record I don't mind the music of Schoenberg, Webern or Boulez etc. and I dont even consider guys like Stravinsky, or Bartok modern. I'm not radically old fashioned or opposed to modern music in any way shape or form. But as I said, at this point I think the traditional forms are perhaps under-rated among many modern composers.


----------



## wingracer (Mar 7, 2011)

I hear you TDC. Someone earlier said something along the lines of neo-romanticism being irrelevant. Does that mean that ANY composer today using a more traditional tonality is irrelevant? This is something that really bugs me. There are people that seem to think that the only way to be original is to use the newer tonal systems, but tone is only one aspect of music.

Say I was a composer. I came out with loads of music all pretty heavily based in more traditional tonality but extraordinarily original and unique in rhythm, form and arrangement. Would I be irrelevant for not also incorporating more atonal harmonies? Would this make me a neo-romanticist or neo-classicist? 

Or would I perhaps (if my music was also VERY good) be the innovator of the next wave of "NEW" music?


----------



## wingracer (Mar 7, 2011)

As for Tchaikovsky, I am no expert on his history but I do recall a story about his violin concerto. From what I recall, he was being criticized by the violinists he wanted to perform it because they thought it was too difficult. I also believe he received criticism from the Nationalists just for writing a concerto in the first place. But through it all, it was quickly accepted as a great work once he finally got it performed.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

wingracer said:


> As for Tchaikovsky, I am no expert on his history but I do recall a story about his violin concerto. From what I recall, he was being criticized by the violinists he wanted to perform it because they thought it was too difficult. I also believe he received criticism from the Nationalists just for writing a concerto in the first place. But through it all, it was quickly accepted as a great work once he finally got it performed.


It's true that many violinists felt it was unplayable. Apparently the critic Eduard Hanslick said, "For awhile the concerto has proportion, is musical, and is not without genius, but soon savagery gains the upper hand and lords it to the end of the first movement...Tchaikovsky's violin concerto brings to us for the first time the horrid idea that there may be music that stinks in the ear."

Say it ain't so!


----------



## toucan (Sep 27, 2010)

wingracer said:


> I hear you TDC. Someone earlier said something along the lines of neo-romanticism being irrelevant. Does that mean that ANY composer today using a more traditional tonality is irrelevant? This is something that really bugs me. There are people that seem to think that the only way to be original is to use the newer tonal systems, but tone is only one aspect of music.
> 
> Say I was a composer. I came out with loads of music all pretty heavily based in more traditional tonality but extraordinarily original and unique in rhythm, form and arrangement. Would I be irrelevant for not also incorporating more atonal harmonies? Would this make me a neo-romanticist or neo-classicist?
> 
> Or would I perhaps (if my music was also VERY good) be the innovator of the next wave of "NEW" music?


It has been a longstanding hope of traditionalists that tonality would supplant atonality, Sibelius Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Schoenberg and Arvo part, Pierre Boulez. But their hopes never get realized, in spite of the fact that Sibelius, Shostakovich and Part probably have more fans than Stravinsky, Schoenberg and Boulez. Truth us, most people tacitly acknowledge a reality not all of them are happy with, namely, that 'Modernism," however defined, is the style of the XXth century, just as Romanticism was the style of the XIXth Century, Classicism of the XVIIIth, Baroque of the XVIIth, etc.

Music written in the tonal system used by a broad range of composers from Monteverdi to Mahler can be good: but new, innovative? Hardly, since it it does little more than repeat formulas and methods that became of the past - old - once Debussy and Schoenberg, taking the route discovered by Wagner, broke lose from it. As old as Gregorian Chant.


----------



## wingracer (Mar 7, 2011)

I understand all that and do not really disagree with it, but my question still stands. Again, tonality is only ONE aspect of music. So if I composed brilliant music with truly new and original ideas in the fields of rhythm, form, arrangement, instrumentation, performance, etc, but stuck to a more traditional tonality, would I be irrelevant or an innovator?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

toucan said:


> Music written in the tonal system used by a broad range of composers from Monteverdi to Mahler can be good: but new, innovative? Hardly, since it it does little more than repeat formulas and methods that became of the past.


I don't know if I necessarily agree with this. There is something overly presumptuous in assuming everything under the sun has been discovered in tonality. How can one claim to know the limitations of such broad formulas?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> ... little modern music
> 
> Barber: Violin Concerto
> Part: Tabula Rasa
> ...


"Modern music" is really a very broad term and the music certainly has an enormous sound type, far more than any preceding periods (I'll discuss this a bit more below). The list you compiled above are more or less, as you already described, neo-Romantic (I haven't listening to everything listed by you above). I don't really consider many of the more weird electronic fart variety that sound no different to one's experience when sitting next to say, a refrigerator or an electronic computer game, to be modern "classical" music in the sense that say, a piano quintet composed at the same time could. More importantly, it's one's listening experience that matters most. Indeed, I was listening to Alan Rawsthorne's (1901-1971) chamber music lately and it was generally listenable and enjoyable, many pieces composed in the last two or three decades. Far less appealing though, I could easily find (and have posted many examples here) the more bizarre sounding types (yes, sounds; not really music), that have very, very little appeal except to the lucky connoisseurs (whom I do not really envy). So, in a nutshell, it's best to have your own exploration, rather than following specific recommendations when it comes to exploring this very vast sounding landscape; sounds where there could literally be no notes played (e.g. John Cage's _4'33"_), to sounds that remind you of mundane non-musical items in life, to music that has relevance to your listening senses.



mmsbls said:


> I am aware of a few threads that deal with modern music suggestions, and these were useful to some degree. I believe that many people find modern music as beautiful as I find say classical or romantic. Basically, I would love to hear:
> 1) Suggestions of how I might come to appreciate modern music. I would especially like to hear from any who were in my position at some time and later grew to like much modern music.
> 2) Suggestions of music similar to those listed above or other modern pieces TC members feel I might like (perhaps moving me slowly past neo-romantic if that's possible?).
> 3) Thoughts on to what extent musical knowledge, though not necessary, allows one to appreciate modern music more than other periods. Discussions with my daughter (cellist in music school) suggest theory helps enormously (I'm fairly ignorant of theory).
> ...


Most of the "advice" are not particularly helpful, basically saying "just go listen". My tip above was to follow your own exploration based on something about a piece that you might be able to identify with and go from there - perhaps you enjoy the clarinet and piano in chamber music, and therefore might search for some 20th century music featuring these instruments. This is what I have been doing and have been proving correct to myself, as far as identifying "modern music" that appeal to my listening senses are concerned. You sound like a listener of generally older music (Baroque, Classical, Romantic) and this might be one route for you.


----------



## toucan (Sep 27, 2010)

wingracer said:


> I understand all that and do not really disagree with it, but my question still stands. Again, tonality is only ONE aspect of music. So if I composed brilliant music with truly new and original ideas in the fields of rhythm, form, arrangement, instrumentation, performance, etc, but stuck to a more traditional tonality, would I be irrelevant or an innovator?


If you want to be new, why stick with a system that is not?

This said, it is hard to qualify a hypothetical work!
Composers like Olivier Messiaen and Wolfgang Rihm tend to flow in and out of atonality, inside many of their works: yet both are basically moderns.
While Philippe Hersant uses atonality and dissonance - but to emphacize and enhance tonality, by contrast: Hersant is basically traditional, therefore.

Sibelius, Shostakovich and Arvo Part have never been irrelevant. The question is, have they composed masterpieces equal to Rite of Spring?



tdc said:


> I don't know if I necessarily agree with this. There is something overly presumptuous in assuming everything under the sun has been discovered in tonality. How can one claim to know the limitations of such broad formulas?


I don't think anyone claims to know the limitations (if any) of the Tonal system (for all that matters, I don't know anyone who claims to know the limitations, if any, of the modal system!). But there are many of us who believe tonality - classical tonality - since the earlier XXth century, no longer seems to inspire masterpieces, that is all.

(Exceptions: Richard Strauss probably & Witold Lutoslawski's Fourth Symphony)

To me, twentieth century tonal works (whether I like them or not, sometimes I do) seem cramped, narrow-minded, obscure, almost oppressive. I seldom if ever find in them the broad perspectives of XIXth century symphonists, for example (even Dvorak) - broad perspectives that seem reflective of broad minds.


----------



## wingracer (Mar 7, 2011)

toucan said:


> If you want to be new, why stick with a system that is not?


Name just ONE composer that hasn't used something in his music from the past. If you know who the world's first composer was, you might have this answer. Otherwise, even if he uses a totally new and never heard of before tonal system, he may still be using common rhythms or forms or instruments or arrangements or what have you.

About the only pieces I can think of that are really, truly, 100% original are things that most people would not consider music.


----------



## wingracer (Mar 7, 2011)

toucan said:


> To me, twentieth century tonal works (whether I like them or not, sometimes I do) seem cramped, narrow-minded, obscure, almost oppressive. I seldom if ever find in them the broad perspectives of XIXth century symphonists, for example (even Dvorak) - broad perspectives that seem reflective of broad minds.


That sounds more like a fault in the composer's competency than a fault in the tonal system.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

> Name just ONE composer that hasn't used something in his music from the past.


True. As I said, the big innovations occured between the Renaissance and Classical eras, what has happened since has just been further refinement and tweaking of ideas that were already there.



> That sounds more like a fault in the composer's competency than a fault in the tonal system.


True again. There is just as much good or bad "tonal" music as "atonal." Writing in one or other style does not guarantee anything in terms of quality or listener engagement. Don't forget that there isn't even a clear boundary between "tonal" and "atonal," many of the composers of today don't really give a hoot about such silly distinctions. I think to be a good composer today is to make music which engages you and might possibly engage others. It has to come from the heart, not just be some technical exercise. It doesn't make any difference to me if a contemporary composer is tuned in to what Schoenberg, Stravinsky or Varese were doing earlier. It's more important to develop an individual style, whether it be "tonal" or "atonal" or something in between, as is often the case...


----------



## wingracer (Mar 7, 2011)

Well said Andre.

And just in case some of you think I'm just a hater, I'm listening to Schoenberg's Piano Concerto op.42 right now and rather enjoying it.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Even composers have responded by making entire careers out of making pastiche music.

And those composers would be...?

Oh yeah... anyone you don't like.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

toucan said:


> Once you have gotten there you are ready to tackle some of the most difficult music ever composed, like Boulez's Second Piano Sonata and his Livre pour Quatuor, or Karlheinz Stockhausen's Klavierstucke.. On your way there you probably will go through excrutiating torture and bouts of great anger, where you will tell yourself music shouldn't be so difficult, obscure and ugly. Hang in there. Those who have been through this before you and succeeded, are still screaming in disbelief, gratitude and joy at the sheer beauty, as well as the coherence and clarity of the harmonies discovered or invented by Schoenberg, Webern, Boulez and a handful of others. It's kind of like sports, where you have to push yourself to the point of pain, before those chemicals that bring you elation are released.


You laid out a fairly specific and perhaps lengthy path to "success". Thanks for your (and everyone's input). At this point it seems worth the effort. There's plenty of wonderful music to explore before ~ 1900, but there seems so much potentially more after then.

Based on other posts I suspect that some do not have to go through torture or even much difficulty to appreciate modern music. I guess I'll see how hard it is and whether it's worth the journey. I'm a physicist, and one of the most beautiful things (and most difficult) I've ever discovered was quantum mechanics (something very, very few would ever imagine beautiful). I suspect it's far more bizarre than any music I will ever hear.


----------



## Comus (Sep 20, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> I'm a physicist, and one of the most beautiful things (and most difficult) I've ever discovered was quantum mechanics (something very, very few would ever imagine beautiful). I suspect it's far more bizarre than any music I will ever hear.


Musica universalis.



wingracer said:


> And just in case some of you think I'm just a hater, I'm listening to Schoenberg's Piano Concerto op.42 right now and rather enjoying it.


That was the piece that made modern music click for me. That brief whirlwind in the middle of the third movement shook me loose.


----------



## Llyranor (Dec 20, 2010)

I'm not sure I get modern music yet. I didn't understand (or appreciate) some of the atonal stuff I've heard at some concerts.

Where do Prokofiev's 1st Violin Concerto or Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra fit? I don't know much about the music theory behind them, but some parts sound 'modern', but not atonal. I enjoy those pieces.

Sibelius's 5th Symphony sounds 'modern' to me. I understand he kept to tonal composition, but his 5th doesn't sound like a 19th century piece at all. It took repeated listenings to appreciate the 1st movement, but I really enjoy this symphony now.

What does modern sound like? How do you describe it? I'm not really sure.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Llyranor said:


> What does modern sound like? How do you describe it? I'm not really sure.


----------



## wingracer (Mar 7, 2011)

That is one form of "modern" music. There are many others.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

The primary purpose of art (for the audience)... IMO... is pleasure. I see little or no use in forcing yourself to explore music of any period of genre if it fails to give you pleasure. At the same time... I would be open to trying different things... even when they don't immediately resonate with you. I doubt that opera or a good many forms of classical music immediate resonates with many listeners who are later passionate fans. 

What you must recognize when confronting Modern and especially Contemporary music is that the situation is not the same as it is with older music. With older music much of the difficult work has been done for us. Time, the critics, the historians, subsequent generations of audiences and composers have filtered out the lesser works... the period pieces... and most of what survives is the strongest music of the era. With contemporary music we are not so "blessed". We are confronted with the good the bad and the ugly and we have to decide which is which. The best we can do is decide what brings us pleasure. 

Personally, my adventure with classical music was somewhat chronological. I began with the Baroque and moved forward through Mozart and Haydn on to the early and then later Romantics, Modernism, and finally contemporary music. Like many listeners, I delved deepest into Romanticism and Post-Romanticism... for a long time. This is something I have only recently begun to move away from as I have dug further into Modern and Contemporary music as well as the Baroque and "early" music (Renaissance, medieval, etc...) Modern and contemporary composers come in an incredibly broad array of "flavors": Expressionists, Post- and Neo-Romantics, Post-Impressionists, Atonal Modernists, Minimalists, etc... The best I could suggest is that you build off the composers you like... do a little research online (or better still, through a library) and discover which composers built of which predecessors. Begin there. And then every so often... take a shot in the dark. Listen to something out in left field. Seriously listen to it. Give it a chance... a second chance... and perhaps a third chance. Ignore the opinions of others about which composers are too conservative or reactionary... and which composers are painful to listen to. With time I have found that some of the composers I thought I would hate... and initially did hate... strike me now as exquisitely beautiful... or hypnotic... and others that I thought I would love were indeed overly conservative... imitative... a weak pastiche of composers far better than they. But you can only make these decisions by listening.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

> The primary purpose of art (for the audience)... IMO... is pleasure. I see little or no use in forcing yourself to explore music of any period of genre if it fails to give you pleasure. At the same time... I would be open to trying different things... even when they don't immediately resonate with you.


It depends how you define pleasure. There's many kinds of pleasure in listening to classical music of various kinds, even of the c20th. Some like to have this visceral shock that comes from some pieces, others like to go back into the past, yet others like to dissect what's going on in a piece in terms of technique, structure, etc.

& yes it is good to be as flexible as possible, otherwise one can shut oneself off from a myriad of experiences, which have the potential to enhance your knowledge of the repertoire (& some would say, in a way, one's life as well).



> What you must recognize when confronting Modern and especially Contemporary music is that the situation is not the same as it is with older music. With older music much of the difficult work has been done for us. Time, the critics, the historians, subsequent generations of audiences and composers have filtered out the lesser works... the period pieces... and most of what survives is the strongest music of the era. With contemporary music we are not so "blessed". We are confronted with the good the bad and the ugly and we have to decide which is which.


I tend to disagree. There have been many good books on c20th and contemporary classical music by scholars and musicologists that indeed have helped me differentiate between the composers that are more worth exploring than others. Of course, it's smart (and sometimes fun) simply to do the sifting oneself, as some guy and you have suggested.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I tend to disagree. There have been many good books on c20th and contemporary classical music by scholars and musicologists that indeed have helped me differentiate between the composers that are more worth exploring than others. Of course, it's smart (and sometimes fun) simply to do the sifting oneself, as some guy and you have suggested.

But how accurate do you imagine these critics/scholars are? Looking to my own field (the visual arts) I can pull out books from as recently as the 1980s in which critics sang the praises of artists who are all but forgotten now... while other artists, ignored at the time, are now recognized as being far more important. Until recently, certain composers such as Rachmaninoff, Puccini, and Massenet were dismissed as lightweight composers soon to be forgotten. Yet they have survived better than many of the hard-core modernists who dismissed them. The reality is that what survives depends upon the sustained opinions of an audience of music "experts" (critics, musicologists, producers, etc...) as well as the opinions of subsequent generations of composers and music lovers.

I agree that we do the sifting through what is "good" or "bad"... but I also recognize that there is far from any consensus when it come to which contemporary music is "good" or "bad"... Hell, even Schoenberg still seems up in the air with many, and I don't think we can assume that everyone who dislikes Schoenberg is an idiot. For all his innovation... which will seem less and less relevant over time... he may prove far less lasting than Puccini or Richard Strauss.

I have little use for dismissing a composer without having given the music a chance. I think John Cage is far overrated by many and 4:33 amounts to little more than a Duchampian conceptual ploy... decades after Duchamp... but I have also listened to other examples of Cage's work and recognize that there are some lovely works there. On the other hand, I agree that many listeners feel put off by Contemporary music because of the pretentious twits who would act as the arbiters of taste... championing only the most difficult or challenging work and dismissing everything else.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

> But how accurate do you imagine these critics/scholars are?


Of course, it's good to take everything one reads with a grain of salt. But by the same token, it's good to be as widely read as possible, not only sticking to one author or viewpoint. There are a plurality of opinions out there, and each of them can enhance one's enjoyment and understanding of music. I like reading books on music because I learn a lot about the history of a piece, the context it was produced in, the circumstances in the composer's life at the time, it's impact on future composers, etc. But yes, there are 'fads' and 'trendy' things as you say, fashions that come and go. But even having an understanding of them, as you do with the visual arts, can help one question the ideas put forth by the "experts."



> The reality is that what survives depends upon the sustained opinions of an audience of music "experts" (critics, musicologists, producers, etc...) as well as the opinions of subsequent generations of composers and music lovers.


Agreed. As I said, these things are about a plurality of opinions. Like in this forum, everyone has their unique "angle." I think that this is the beauty of music. I was at a concert last year with a friend were they played a piece by Australian composer Brett Dean. I thought it was creepy and dark, my friend said he thought it was full of colour and movement. Every piece has a different impact on each individual listener, everyone can notice something different. This 'intersubjectivity' is what is important in when we discuss a piece of music. I don't want to get too high falutin' but I read this in a book about music of the Classical era recently. It was hypothesising that each individual listener at the premiere of a Haydn symphony more than 200 years ago would have had a different "take" on the piece, depending on their class especially. Unfortuntaly I didn't finish that book, but it was by Melanie Lowe, if my memory serves me correctly.



> On the other hand, I agree that many listeners feel put off by Contemporary music because of the pretentious twits who would act as the arbiters of taste... championing only the most difficult or challenging work and dismissing everything else.


Speaking for myself and others who go to concerts of contemporary music, this is a fallacy. I went to a concert last year of three living composers and each of them "talked" in different ways to me and the same friend I was with (we regularly go together to concerts here in Sydney). Golijov's more folksy Jewish/gypsy music made an impact on us, as did Crumb's more avant-garde "Voice of the Whale" as did Daniel Rojas' piece of music reflecting the culture of his native South America (can't remember which country specifically). Neither of us said things to the effect that Golijov was not as good as Crumb because he wasn't as "avant-garde" or something like that. I tend to take each composer on his own terms, and I think that more and more listeners are doing this. What you speak of happened back in the 1960's when theoreticians like Adorno and musicians like Boulez were championing the "avant-garde" at the expense of everything else. I don't think this happens as much any more. At least composers I know who I have spoken to after concerts and a friend in the industry don't give me that impression. If someone expresses ideas to the effect that Cage was a better composer than say Barber because his music was more dissonant or something like that, I'd think that he/she is a dinosaur who's crawled out of the jurassic period. People used to think like that maybe 40-50 years ago, but look around now and you'd hardly see a person - be s/he a musician or listener or scholar - who thinks like this now. Even at music school, conservatoria, budding musicians are taught BOTH how to play modern and original instruments (or copies) and BOTH the theory of ancient and modern music. It's no longer EITHER/OR but definitely BOTH...


----------



## wingracer (Mar 7, 2011)

Good points Andre. I think a lot of us (including myself often times) think of "modern" music in very 20th century terms. But many of the concepts we have come to think of as representative of modern music are a hundred years old now. Schoenberg is as old to us today as Bach was to Chopin, still in our minds but no longer our maestro. Time to move forward.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

On the other hand, I agree that many listeners feel put off by Contemporary music because of the pretentious twits who would act as the arbiters of taste... championing only the most difficult or challenging work and dismissing everything else. 

Speaking for myself and others who go to concerts of contemporary music, this is a fallacy. I went to a concert last year of three living composers and each of them "talked" in different ways to me and the same friend I was with (we regularly go together to concerts here in Sydney). Golijov's more folksy Jewish/gypsy music made an impact on us, as did Crumb's more avant-garde "Voice of the Whale" as did Daniel Rojas' piece of music reflecting the culture of his native South America (can't remember which country specifically). Neither of us said things to the effect that Golijov was not as good as Crumb because he wasn't as "avant-garde" or something like that. I tend to take each composer on his own terms, and I think that more and more listeners are doing this. What you speak of happened back in the 1960's when theoreticians like Adorno and musicians like Boulez were championing the "avant-garde" at the expense of everything else. I don't think this happens as much any more..

Now Andre, you'll note I in no way suggested that YOU take such a view of contemporary music... and you'll also note that I counter-balanced this side of exclusionary thinking with that of the other side... those who reject Modern and Contemporary music without giving it a real chance... without ever even having sat down and actually listened to the work. But I wouldn't say such exclusionary thinking is extinct... on either side. I know it certainly isn't within the visual arts. There are still those who would take an either/or position: "You're either with us, or you're with the enemy".

I fully agree that such thinking should be put to an end... and that for many it is coming to an end in that "It's no longer EITHER/OR but definitely BOTH..." I think that in many ways that the battle between neo-Romantics who would embrace traditional tonalism and approaches to orchestration, and the hard-core Modernists who argued that tonality was dead were both left behind by subsequent composers who found that they could employ either... and they could also reject both and look to other sources of inspiration beyond Romanticism or Modernism... they could look to the forms of popular music and folk music and medieval music, and non-Western music, etc...

By the way... I still don't like Schoenberg. I find him crude and lumpen. Yet I quite like what I've heard of Berg and Webern... as well as Bartok, Stravinsky, and many others.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

> Good points Andre. I think a lot of us (including myself often times) think of "modern" music in very 20th century terms. But many of the concepts we have come to think of as representative of modern music are a hundred years old now. Schoenberg is as old to us today as Bach was to Chopin, still in our minds but no longer our maestro. Time to move forward.


I agree & there's of course a lot of stuff that's happened since Schoenberg, in terms of extending his ideas or rejecting them (both approaches can be valid, in different ways). We now live in an age of pluralism. I was just talking to a housemate of mine and the subject of music popped up. I asked him "What type of music do you like?" and he said "Everything." As Stlukes was saying, this diversity can be confusing to many people, there are less goalposts than in eras before. But I think it also make living now in the middle of this more exciting. The thing that basically works for me is is opening myself up to as much music as possible, as much of the different styles. Of course, not all at once, but bit by bit. I'm fortunate to be living in Sydney, Australia where we have a small but vibrant contemporary classical music scene. I would like to be hearing more of this stuff on radio, and not at some ungodly hour after midnight which is what usually happens. But of course this stuff is nowhere near mainstream, and the radio stations have to keep this in mind.



> I fully agree that such thinking should be put to an end... and that for many it is coming to an end in that "It's no longer EITHER/OR but definitely BOTH..." I think that in many ways that the battle between neo-Romantics who would embrace traditional tonalism and approaches to orchestration, and the hard-core Modernists who argued that tonality was dead were both left behind by subsequent composers who found that they could employ either... and they could also reject both and look to other sources of inspiration beyond Romanticism or Modernism... they could look to the forms of popular music and folk music and medieval music, and non-Western music, etc...


Yes, again I agree that it's good to embrace the plurality of styles out there. Of course, it's like a smorgasbord, you take from it what you like and leave what you don't like. But it's good to actually know and take in a wide variety of styles to begin with, then whittle it down. If one starts with some of those old outdated ideologies of so-called progress versus regression, one is basically shooting oneself in the foot, imo. Music is no place for ideology, it's a place for challenging one's own preconceptions, finding out what others think, opening oneself up to new horizons. For me, it's all about learning and trying to let go of some of those gut reactions which I might have when first listening to something that's too complex for me to understand or take in on the first listen. Which brings me to...



> By the way... I still don't like Schoenberg. I find him crude and lumpen. Yet I quite like what I've heard of Berg and Webern... as well as Bartok, Stravinsky, and many others.


I disagree. I can think of many criticisms of Schoenberg, and some of my own earlier primitive gut reactions (before I began to fully appreciate his music) but I wouldn't call him "crude" or "lumpen" (are you referring to Karl Marx's "lumpen proletariat?" because that's the only context that I have heard the word come up in). Think about it. Schoenberg's _Pierrot Lunaire _was influenced by cabaret and went on to in turn influence others like Ravel, Stravinsky, Maxwell-Davies, Messiaen, etc. in some of their own song cycles. Yes, it is not like the lieder of Schubert or Schumann or something like that, but c'mon it's from 1912, not from three or more generations before. There's a wealth of beauty in this work and many others by Schoenberg. All you have to do is listen to what he's doing underneath the surface, especially with the text. But no, it isn't like Berg, Webern or the others you mention. There is something extra intense and condensed in Schoenberg. It's everything coming at you at once, at a hundred miles an hour. It can be an acquired taste, but I found that once I 'connected' with one of his works (the _Violin Concerto_ in Hilary Hahn's recording) I could (with considerably less effort) do the same with his other masterpieces, which I am slowly working my way through now. Again, a useful thing has been hearing live a number of his works last year, and I hope to see _Pierrot_ done live here by the Australia Ensemble next month. & he has some quite neo-classical sounding works, like the Serenade and Suite for chamber ensemble, which are comparable to works in the same vein by Stravinsky or Bartok. They definitely have the same kind of "polish" & I would hardly call them crude when compared to contemporaneous works by the other two guys...


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I have bumped this thread because some posts in another thread I started were getting off that topic and onto this one. I will try to get people posting on this topic to post here instead. The specific issues being discussed were how to learn to enjoy atonal music.

In one post on that thread I said about atonal music, "But what I really would like is to "learn" to like it myself. So the real question is: Given that someone really wants to appreciate non-tonal centered (?) music, what ought she to do? My experience says that "just" listening either takes a very long time (although maybe 3-5 years is not unreasonable based on others experience) or does not work for me. I need to listen in a particular way. Maybe I just haven't learned how yet (and I don't mean music theory)."

One response was:


some guy said:


> If "really wants to" is a given, then I don't see the necessity for the question at all. "Really wants to" means she will. So I'm thinking there may be something else going on.


I do not believe everyone who really wants something will get it. That sounds too much like the Little Engine That Could (i.e. believing "I think I can, I think I can ..." will guarantee success). Perhaps what you are saying is that if someone really wants something reasonably attainable she will do what it takes to make that outcome likely. Fine. I am simply asking for help in attaining my goal. I feel as though I am floundering and need guidance. What I have tried may have helped somewhat, but I still feel far from my target.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

NOTE: *I'm not done with this yet! But I wanted to let mmsbls see what I have so far because it is already a lot to digest anyway*

Ok so the piece I picked to show you, mmsbls, is Schoenberg's 3rd string quartet. It is relatively easy to follow and also it is the first twelve tone piece that I was able to comprehend.






Ok, so it starts out with the fast pace accompaniment going back and forth between 2nd violin and viola, easy enough to understand. Then the 1st violin comes in with the main theme. This turns out being kind of a duet between the violin and cello with the cello having these understated counter-statements to each of the violin phrases. Notice already how in this quartet there is a conventional sort of duet going on between 1st violin and cello and viola and second violin, this sort of thing was very common by this time and I'm sure you guys are used to it.

Nailing the exact theme of the 1st violin might be kind of tricky so I made a sound bite of me playing the piano...just the main theme on the violin isolated from everything else.


__
https://soundcloud.com/violadude%2Fschoenberg

One of the hard things about the comprehension of this main theme is that it is not rhythmically regular. I made a version of the main theme also with me counting, so you could feel the pulse of the theme.


__
https://soundcloud.com/violadude%2Fexcerpt-2

Notice two things about this theme. It is made up of four short phrases: A descending half note, two descending fourths the first a perfect 4th the second a tritone, another pair of descending fourths this time the tritone first and then the perfect fourth, and a descending major third (technically the way it's spelled it is a diminished 4th..but it sounds like a major third so...). Notice also how every phrase begins on the 2nd beat of the measure instead of the first.

At 0:19 the main melody gets passed off to the cello. The main theme in the cello is not exactly the same as in the violin, but it is important in twelve tone music, when discussing themes to pay more attention to the general contour of the theme rather than each individual interval. In the cello melody the contour is much the same as it was in the violin and implies pretty much the same melody, hopefully you can hear it. Sorry for the horrible sound quality.


__
https://soundcloud.com/violadude%2Fschoenberg-excerpt-3

You'll notice then at 0:25 the 2nd violin plays an inverted version of the first phrase from the original melody, the first phrase being a descending half step. And as the 2nd violin harks on this now ascending half step for a while, the viola gets its turn at its own version of the main melody (also take note that the rapid accompaniment has now obviously gone to the 1st violin and cello, role reversal essentially).


__
https://soundcloud.com/violadude%2Fschoenberg-excerpt-4

Notice how the first couple phrases of the viola melody are the same as the first couple phrases in the cellos melody (with a bit of octave displacement). So even though the viola melody sounds far from what the original melody was, it is taking off from somewhere at least.

That ascending half tone motif derived from the first phrase of the original melody now goes to the cello, while the 2nd violin finally gets _its_ turn with the melody (0:33). The interesting thing here is that, all the versions of the main melody have been in 4 phrases so far, but the 2nd violin only gets 2.


__
https://soundcloud.com/violadude%2Fschoenberg-excerpt-5

After this, the instruments keep passing back and forth their own mutation of the melody (keeping the "starting the phrase on the second beat" theme mostly intact).

Notice that the isolated "1st phrase" in both its ascending and descending transformation has become a theme unto itself. Appearing in the viola (0:36) and the violin (0:55).

Notice also how the accompanying figure is pretty much ever-present.

There is a short section at 0:45 that consists of nothing but the accompaniment figure treated as a main theme, being put into mini canons among the instruments and things like that.

Oh wait did I mention this first movement is in a loose sonata form? Yup. So far we have only been in the 1st theme group. This comes to a climax at around 1:05 where we have come full circle and are back in our original arrangement of 1st violin and cello in a duet with each other, as well as 2nd violin and viola. See the cello harping on those minor second intervals from the first phrase? It is interesting that at this climax that the violin notes are long and lyrical and contrast the cello notes which are short and spastic, as if making burst like commentary on what the violin is doing.

Take note of the group of 3 slowed down notes at 1:18 in the viola. This becomes important in the development section.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

violadude said:


> NOTE: *I'm not done with this yet! But I wanted to let mmsbls see what I have so far because it is already a lot to digest anyway*
> 
> Ok so the piece I picked to show you, mmsbls, is Schoenberg's 3rd string quartet. It is relatively easy to follow and also it is the first twelve tone piece that I was able to comprehend.
> 
> ...


This piece actually wasn't bad. Probably the most enjoyable thing by Schonberg I have ever heard. I had never heard any of his quartets before.


----------



## Guest (Dec 12, 2011)

I wrote two fairly long posts early in this thread.

I stand by those posts.

At the moment I can't think of much to say to add to what I said in those two.

I don't know why you're floundering. Like I said before, there were isolated pieces and composers that I didn't like or get right off, but that never held me back from exploring and enjoying everything else.

This is not in any way like the little engine who could. It's just logic. If "really wants to" is a given, then "really will," will follow. I can think of nothing else than to question the "really," really I can't! If you really want to like this stuff, then you'll just go for it, no? You won't flounder, you'll swim. A wave or two might knock you skew wompus for a sec, but so what? You love swimming!!

Or, maybe it's this. This just occurred to me. The difference between your experience so far and mine was that I didn't "really want to" like the stuff. I really _did_ like the stuff. I liked the sounds; I liked the whole idea of adventure and discovery. So when I hit specific pieces I didn't like, I just moved on. I'd go back from time to time and revisit those pieces. Eventually, I came to like them.

There were also pieces I never liked, ever. Though since "ever" isn't quite over, I shouldn't say I will never like them. I just recently (2010) liked a piece by Boulez for the first time. (_...explosante fixe..._) And in 2009, I finally liked a piece I'd had in my CD collection for eleven years, M. Behrens' _Final Ballet._

I have never had any trouble with "modern" music _generally,_ though, so am probably not the best person to help you if you do have trouble. I will say that I went from Bartók to musique concrete very quickly. And from there to live electronics and experimental and Fluxus and turntable music. Minimal came a lot later for me (the sparse and drone minimalism--the repetition minimalism came earlier for me), and serial came last of all. Somehow I just gave all those folks a miss first time through my traversal of the 20th century, in favor of electroacoustic and Harry Partch and indeterminacy and the like.

Why not just listen to what you like, after all? I guess I don't have a good sense yet of why you report as "really wanting to" and of "floundering" all at the same time. I don't know why this is a goal for you. You may never like it, you know. I don't know that that hurts anyone.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

@violadude: I listened to parts and read all of your post. I will obviously have to work on this. I did manage to hear the theme several times along with the inverted theme so I'm hopeful of following everything. My daughter also was interested so we'll probably work a bit on this together. It's late so I'll work more on this tomorrow.

Thanks so much for all the work you have done!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> @violadude: I listened to parts and read all of your post. I will obviously have to work on this. I did manage to hear the theme several times along with the inverted theme so I'm hopeful of following everything. My daughter also was interested so we'll probably work a bit on this together. It's late so I'll work more on this tomorrow.
> 
> Thanks so much for all the work you have done!


Of course! And also, I will probably have even more done by the time you revisit this thread. 

I actually think it is really fun typing out these long explanations of pieces to help people understand them. Putting in words the workings of a piece of music helps me get closer to the piece as well!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

some guy said:


> I wrote two fairly long posts early in this thread.
> I stand by those posts.


I appreciated those posts greatly.



some guy said:


> Or, maybe it's this. This just occurred to me. The difference between your experience so far and mine was that I didn't "really want to" like the stuff. I really _did_ like the stuff.


I think you are right that we differ significantly in this respect.



some guy said:


> I guess I don't have a good sense yet of why you report as "really wanting to" and of "floundering" all at the same time. I don't know why this is a goal for you. You may never like it, you know. I don't know that that hurts anyone.


When I was a physics grad student, I desperately wanted to understand theoretical physics. All of us did. But many of us floundered at the higher levels (quantum field theory for example). Maybe not as much as I'm floundering with atonal music, but I had much more experience with physics. We learned a lot, but ultimately we did not achieve a good understanding of the subject. The vast majority of us became experimental physicists (and we loved that).

I don't have the same desire to like atonal music as to understand physics, but I would _love_ to have a whole genre of classical music to explore and enjoy. It would be like redoing my exploration of late romantic music - what a joy! But you're right. I may not ever enjoy atonal music and that would be OK.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The Five Pieces For Orchestra is the first thing I listened to of the Second Viennese School. I connected with this music right off! I had been listening to Frank Zappa's orchestral music previously, so when I heard this I said aha! I never found this music difficult to enjoy.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

What you said below, this list mmsbls, shows you have listened to a good amount of the newer repertoire. Also I'd add the things you've listed in your opening post.

Going off my own experience, I'd just leave them for a while and periodically return to them, treating them as new (or almost). I've done that before and gained new insights into music I had last listened to ages ago, left on the backburner.

The other thing is to read widely about music, as I suggested in my earlier verbose posts here.

& as you mention hearing that Schnittke work live in concert, this is the best thing, imo. New or newer music is best experienced live, imo. There are special harmonies in much post-1945 musics esp. & also that some of it involves improvisations and chance, so the live performance you hear/see is like a one-off, it won't happen again (of course, it could be recorded, but that's not the same, hearing the "canned" version later, etc.).

So this is what I think now. Don't complicate it with too many things newer to you. More complexity and be overwhelmed. Although I'm not negating what people are saying about other pieces above. But speaking strictly for myself, for my brain which is far from super advanced & not one shred of musical training, or not much beyond a few lessons, the message is keep it simple & one step at a time, etc...



mmsbls said:


> In response to several replies, I was referring to much post romantic music including contemporary.
> 
> The list would be much too long to include here, but this might be somewhat representative (not all are well-known):
> 
> ...


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Going off my own experience, I'd just leave them for a while and periodically return to them, treating them as new (or almost). I've done that before and gained new insights into music I had last listened to ages ago, left on the backburner.
> 
> The other thing is to read widely about music, as I suggested in my earlier verbose posts here.


I'm not quite sure of the best approach, but certainly periodically returning to works makes sense. Also I agree that reading about music will help as well. I recently bought Griffiths' Modern Music and After, and about a year ago I read half of Ross's The Rest Is Noise. I will eventually get around to reading the former and finishing the latter. I will also look for detailed discussions of specific works. I read a wonderful analysis of Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra and found that quite useful. Hopefully I can find similar discussions for many other works.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> I'm not quite sure of the best approach, but certainly periodically returning to works makes sense. Also I agree that reading about music will help as well. I recently bought Griffiths' Modern Music and After, and about a year ago I read half of Ross's The Rest Is Noise. I will eventually get around to reading the former and finishing the latter. I will also look for detailed discussions of specific works. I read a wonderful analysis of Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra and found that quite useful. Hopefully I can find similar discussions for many other works.


One approach that works well for me is to pick a particular composer's oeuvre where he clearly changed his compositional idiom from tonal to 12-tone (or to a mixture). There are many examples in many genres, from solo to symphonic pieces. Try listening to some of Scriabin's solo piano music. The sonatas were lovely tonal pieces. Other shorter pieces by him were also clearly 12-tone or "12-tonish".


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Try listening to some of Scriabin's solo piano music. The sonatas were lovely tonal pieces. Other shorter pieces by him were also clearly 12-tone or "12-tonish".


I don't think they were. They were more or less _chromatic_, surely. I am concerned that people are throwing the word 'atonal' around without being clear about what it means. And 'atonal' and '12-tone' aren't the same thing. '12-tone', 'dodecaphonic' or 'serial' music was developed largely by the composers of the second viennese school and is a well defined compositional technique described at mind numbing length in many a textbook.

On the other hand, the slow movement of Andrew Rudin's piano concerto is (like the other movements) strictly twelve tone and yet I challenge anyone (a) to believe it (other than because I said so) and (b) not to be strongly reminded of a very well known, very tonal C20 piano concerto.

In fact, the composer assured me that it is twelve tone when I interviewed him for _Fanfare _(Sep/Oct 11, p140).

It's not on Youtube, but it is on the composer's website, here:
http://www.composerudin.com/electronic.php?genre=orchestral&id=75


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

I see, thanks for your notes, JM. Or try Egon Wellesz' symphonies. The earlier ones were traditional tonal while the mid to last symphonies were 12-tone for sure; I checked the sleeve notes.  This transition makes interesting listening.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Tapkaara said:


> This piece actually wasn't bad. Probably the most enjoyable thing by Schonberg I have ever heard. I had never heard any of his quartets before.


Knowing your tastes, I think you would like Webern more, if you haven't already tried his works.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Pieck said:


> Dude, why do have to enjoy modern music? I'm doing fine without it.
> But if you insist, I like Part (especially the Te Deum)


Well said there.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Of course no one has to enjoy modern music. If I had not continued listening to, exploring, and generally working on modern music, I'd be thrilled with the many works from before 1900 or so that I love. But I did continue, and I have opened up a wonderful new world of beautiful, exciting new music. Just as I would hate to give up Mozart, Schubert, or Wagner, I would equally hate to give up that new world I have found. Basically I'm hooked. 

I looked back on my post #17 written almost 3 years ago and can hardly believe the works that I said I either did not enjoy or thought were just OK. Some I now own and absolutely adore - Schoenberg (Verklarte Nacht), Berg (Violin Concerto), Bliss (Color Symphony), Britten (many), Glass (Violin Concerto), Ives (Symphonies), Menotti (Violin Concerto), Walton (Cello and Violin Concertos), Poulenc (Piano Concertos), Messiaen (Quartet for the End of Time). I have heard works by many of the other composers that I quite like and now own or would like to own. 

Overall, I'm very thankful for all the TC members who posted about modern music, suggested new works, and convinced me that continuing to listen and explore would be well worth my time. My journey is far from over, but I am thrilled that I didn't give up and revert to only pre-1900 listening.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

If you don't like atonal music, there's nothing wrong with that, but please don't attack those of us who do enjoy it if you do not know anything about it.


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2014)

Verbal alchemy, mms.

One takes a statement like this "You might like x or y modern piece" and turns it into "You have to enjoy modern music; if you don't you're an idiot" and then do that every time anyone starts talking about any modern music that they like.

If anyone else performs the same transformation, one "Likes" them.

One start threads entitled "Why must people be forced to like modern music?" which is an empty set, but it seems, regardless, able to generate page after page of contention.

Might be fun to see how much "modern" music anyone here has ever heard in a symphony concert or on the radio. Pieces must be referred to by name, not by "some horrible crashing piece of cacophony" that was very possibly some innocuous piece by Britten or Shostakovich.

Of course, the results are predictable. Any list of pieces generated by this exercise would reveal that very little modern music is played on the radio or in the concert hall. Practically none. And the likelihood of hearing what some people here have recently begun to refer to as "extreme" is exactly zero.

A lot of hatred is being expressed over music that hardly anyone has had any exposure to at all in the ordinary pursuits of their day. Curious that.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Agree with your last sentence. Folks seem to desire to provoke from a position of lack of knowledge and I don't understand why they are doing it.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

hpowders said:


> Agree with your last sentence. Folks seem to desire to provoke from a position of lack of knowledge and I don't understand why they are doing it.


Because they're proud of their ignorance. Nothing more, nothing less.

Taste is _not even an issue_. I don't care one bit what your tastes are. There are plenty of posters here who don't like contemporary music. That's fine. But braying about how the music itself is inherently wrong makes you look ridiculous. Equally as ridiculous as the 19th century person who said that you can equal the effect of Wagner's Tannhauser Overture by banging random keys on a piano.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Because they're proud of their ignorance. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Taste is _not even an issue_. I don't care one bit what your tastes are. There are plenty of posters here who don't like contemporary music. That's fine. But braying about how the music itself is inherently wrong makes you look ridiculous. Equally as ridiculous as the 19th century person who said that you can equal the effect of Wagner's Tannhauser Overture by banging random keys on a piano.


I believe they enjoy just making people mad. If one is going to provoke, logically, it seems to me, he should have plenty of ammunition to defend his point of view.


----------

