# Help me get into modern music



## R3PL4Y (Jan 21, 2016)

For a long time, I held the same belief as far too many people, that all of the good classical music had already been written and that there was nothing of value in modern classical music. However, I have reversed my stance on this issue, and I am looking to find recommendations for composers, works, and recordings of more modern works (essentially the last 50 years, although not composers like shostakovich or copland who were writing in this time.) I prefer orchestral music, but I am open to other reccommendations. I am open to really any styles, whether in the vein more of Boulez or Rautavaara or whatever.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Check out Varese you can't go wrong there!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

This list was compiled by the collective voting of many TalkClassical members. The works were all composed after 1950 and include widely diverse styles and genres of music.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Good list you can't go wrong here


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Lutoslawski, Schnittke, Gubaidulina, Hans Werner Henze, Luciano Berio, Xenakis, Kagel, etc.


----------



## Rosie (Jul 4, 2016)

Schoenberg and john luther adams are really good from my limited experience


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

Try the eight symphonies of Per Nørgård. The 3rd is a good one to start with.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

R3PL4Y said:


> For a long time, I held the same belief as far too many people, that all of the good classical music had already been written and that there was nothing of value in modern classical music. However, I have reversed my stance on this issue, and I am looking to find recommendations for composers, works, and recordings of more modern works (essentially the last 50 years, although not composers like shostakovich or copland who were writing in this time.) I prefer orchestral music, but I am open to other reccommendations. I am open to really any styles, whether in the vein more of Boulez or Rautavaara or whatever.


Find out what works won composition prizes such as the Grawemeyer or Pulitzer, what albums won _Gramophone_ magazine's contemporary music awards or a Grammy, what albums by modern composers get listed in MusicWeb's annual best-of-the-year, which works have appeared on Q2 Music's annual countdown of its listeners' favourite modern music, which modern composers show up in the contents pages of books that are general introductions to classical music, which works of theirs have the most recordings listed on ArkivMusic, etc etc etc.
In other words, be systematic about it, don't just rely on random people urging you to listen to Julia Wolfe's _Steel Hammer._


----------



## Biwa (Aug 3, 2015)

You might find this article interesting...

http://www.wnyc.org/story/10-great-works-20th-century-pierre-boulezs-90th-birthday/

Have an adventurous spirit. You've got lots of wonderful and fascinating music to look forward to! :tiphat:


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)




----------



## Mahlerite555 (Aug 27, 2016)

You can't force yourself to like anything. You can try to understand it and re-listen a few times, but for most people, atonal music simply won't do it.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Mahlerite555 said:


> You can't force yourself to like anything. You can try to understand it and re-listen a few times, but for most people, atonal music simply won't do it.


You can listen to atonal music now and then for a few years to start hearing it the way it should be heard. Then you can cull the works that appeal to you in particular due to your own psychological peculiarities. We're all human. If I can do it, anyone can do it.


----------



## Mahlerite555 (Aug 27, 2016)

Chordalrock said:


> You can listen to atonal music now and then for a few years to start hearing it the way it should be heard. Then you can cull the works that appeal to you in particular due to your own psychological peculiarities. We're all human. If I can do it, anyone can do it.


There's a good reason Schoenberg has not found his public, a general large public that truly loves his music. Mahler, while being very dissonant himself, did gain such a public. So did Sibelius, and one could even argue, people like Shostakovich and Prokofiev. But not Schoenberg, or any other atonal composer. There is a reason for that.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Mahlerite555 said:


> There's a good reason Schoenberg has not found his public, a general large public that truly loves his music. Mahler, while being very dissonant himself, did gain such a public. So did Sibelius, and one could even argue, people like Shostakovich and Prokofiev. But not Schoenberg, or any other atonal composer. There is a reason for that.


Most people don't want to put in the effort or aren't aware that they could, same as with classical music in general. That doesn't mean it can't be or hasn't been done. My impression is the younger generations of musicians are very much open to atonal music, it helps if they grew up with it. Same with normal people, it helps a lot if they actually grew up with that music, just like with classical music in general. The vast majority of people never bother with classical music at all beyond Moonlight Sonata or something because they didn't grow up with it. Too much effort, intellectual laziness, whatever. Not the fault of the music.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Mahlerite555 said:


> You can't force yourself to like anything. You can try to understand it and re-listen a few times, but for most people, atonal music simply won't do it.


Whether that's true or not, the OP asked for _modern_ music, not _atonal_ music. There's plenty of music out there even for people who will never "get" Schoenberg et al.


----------



## Mahlerite555 (Aug 27, 2016)

Chordalrock said:


> Most people don't want to put in the effort or aren't aware that they could, same as with classical music in general. That doesn't mean it can't be or hasn't been done. My impression is the younger generations of musicians are very much open to atonal music, it helps if they grew up with it. Same with normal people, it helps a lot if they actually grew up with that music, just like with classical music in general. The vast majority of people never bother with classical music at all beyond Moonlight Sonata or something because they didn't grow up with it. Too much effort, intellectual laziness, whatever. Not the fault of the music.


You can't compare it to tonal classical music. When I heard many pieces for the first time, during my time as a teenager, it took no intellectual effort to "understand" them. Show anyone, even the brutest of imbeciles, a piece like Mahler's Adagietto, and they will tell you it is beautiful music. Show them the Schoenberg Variations and I don't think you'll get the same response.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Mahlerite555 said:


> You can't compare it to tonal classical music. When I heard many pieces for the first time, during my time as a teenager, it took no intellectual effort to "understand" them. Show anyone, even the brutest of imbeciles, a piece like Mahler's Adagietto, and they will tell you it is beautiful music. Show them the Schoenberg Variations and I don't think you'll get the same response.


So what? We're not talking about first impressions but about what is possible to attain after listening to a type of music extensively.

Most people have been prejudiced by the tonal or harmonic environment they grew up in. That says nothing about what is natural or easily accessible to a blank slate, it only says that once the malleable brain of a child has adopted a tonal or a certain harmonic outlook, it takes some effort to extend it.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Mahlerite555 said:


> You can't compare it to tonal classical music. When I heard many pieces for the first time, during my time as a teenager, it took no intellectual effort to "understand" them. Show anyone, even the brutest of imbeciles, a piece like Mahler's Adagietto, and they will tell you it is beautiful music. Show them the Schoenberg Variations and I don't think you'll get the same response.


I liked Schoenberg's Variations the first time I heard them (probably I was around 20). Schoenberg has a significant public, it's just smaller than Mahler's. Nothing wrong with that.

To the OP, I always tell people in your position to listen to Abbado's recording of Berg's _Lulu Suite_:


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

Listen to the modern pieces you like in Spotify and then see what crops up in "discover weekly".


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2016)

Mahlerite555 said:


> You can't compare it to tonal classical music. When I heard many pieces for the first time, during my time as a teenager, it took no intellectual effort to "understand" them. Show anyone, even the brutest of imbeciles, a piece like Mahler's Adagietto, and they will tell you it is beautiful music. Show them the Schoenberg Variations and I don't think you'll get the same response.


I fully appreciated Schoenberg and Stockhausen much quicker than Mahler. Speak for yourself and no one else, pal.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> Find out what works won composition prizes such as the Grawemeyer or Pulitzer, what albums won _Gramophone_ magazine's contemporary music awards or a Grammy, what albums by modern composers get listed in MusicWeb's annual best-of-the-year, which works have appeared on Q2 Music's annual countdown of its listeners' favourite modern music, which modern composers show up in the contents pages of books that are general introductions to classical music, which works of theirs have the most recordings listed on ArkivMusic, etc etc etc.
> In other words, be systematic about it, don't just rely on random people urging you to listen to Julia Wolfe's _Steel Hammer._


I fully agree. I have made similar comment on other threads. It's so simple and far more reliable to glance through websites like ArkivMusic or PrestoClassical to get very good advice on things like which composers are worth investigating, what are their best (most popular) works, and the recommended performances based on professional reviews. The alternative of relying on advice from random dudes here is far too risky.


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

Try Anna Meredith


----------



## James Mann (Sep 6, 2016)

R3PL4Y said:


> For a long time, I held the same belief as far too many people, that all of the good classical music had already been written and that there was nothing of value in modern classical music. However, I have reversed my stance on this issue, and I am looking to find recommendations for composers, works, and recordings of more modern works (essentially the last 50 years, although not composers like shostakovich or copland who were writing in this time.) I prefer orchestral music, but I am open to other reccommendations. I am open to really any styles, whether in the vein more of Boulez or Rautavaara or whatever.


Sorry, I can't really answer this. I think Brian Ferneyhough is magnificent but I'm not in touch with modern music. My wife IS, I'll ask her and tell you what she recommends!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

You want help getting into modern music? Then I shall throw a bucket of ice-water on you!


----------



## StephenBailey (Oct 5, 2016)

Mahlerite555 said:


> There's a good reason Schoenberg has not found his public, a general large public that truly loves his music. Mahler, while being very dissonant himself, did gain such a public. So did Sibelius, and one could even argue, people like Shostakovich and Prokofiev. But not Schoenberg, or any other atonal composer. There is a reason for that.


This is true. At least of Schoenberg and some other composers of that school. But you're implications are badly misinformed. The fact is that Schoenberg (and several other "atonal" composers) specifically avoided popular interest and "finding a public." When they became popular, they changed what they did with the direct intention of rejecting that popularity.
To say that this is something inherent in the music itself is absurd in the extreme. Taste is entirely subjective.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Mahlerite555 said:


> You can't force yourself to like anything.


You can't like anything without forcing yourself to.

(Except the things you were raised to like, i.e. the things somebody else forced you to like as a child, however gently. And I don't mean "tonality," I mean specific idioms. I was raised on common practice classical, and didn't like rock until I forced myself to in my very late teens, in exactly the same way that I didn't like Schönberg until forced myself to in the last few years.)


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

R3PL4Y said:


> and I am looking to find recommendations for composers, works, and recordings of more modern works (essentially the last 50 years, although not composers like shostakovich or copland who were writing in this time.)


After the 1990s, I plead ignorance - either that or there just hasn't been anything very new since then (even if only in the same sense that there sort of wasn't anything very new between 1860 and 1894)*** - but from the 1960s through the 1990s, it seems to me that the two new ideas that really mattered were minimalism (perhaps combined with just intonation, to which I think minimalist music may inherently tend) and spectralism, so here are some key works in those idioms:

Terry Riley - Shri Camel (1978) 




La Monte Young - The Well-Tuned Piano (1981) 




Gérard Grisey - Quatre chants pour franchir le seuil (1998) 




Tristan Murail - Désintégrations (1982) 




There's also "extended techniques," which doesn't do much for me, but remains influential (not least on spectralism), so maybe there's something there.

Helmut Lachenmmann - The Little Match Girl (1996) 




*** For example, Rosie mentioned John Luther Adams, whose work I enjoy, but who seems to me to be essentially doing a picturesque version of Terry Riley (who is himself maybe basically a more pleasing version of La Monte Young), sometimes by way of Steve Reich (who is himself maybe basically early Riley with a beat and a more systematic technique).


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

StephenBailey said:


> To say that this is something inherent in the music itself is absurd in the extreme.


I dunno. Schönberg's Expressionist atonal music works, roughly speaking, by taking the part of common practice music that common practice composers and listeners understood as moments of tension, and leaving out the remainder. (This is of course exactly analogous to Expressionist painting.) And the same maybe goes for all the atonal music descended from Expressionist Schönberg, including 12 tone Schönberg.

So atonal music, at least as it actually exists in practice, may or may not be "inherently" unpopular - but as long as listeners continue to know the music of Beethoven (and I think basically everybody can agree that Schönberg, great as he is, has absolutely no hope of eclipsing Beethoven), atonal music may always sound particularly "difficult." (As for why this hasn't prevented Expressionist painting from becoming popular, the answer is the obvious one: You can look away from a painting whenever you want, but you have to listen to a piece of music for a fixed amount of time.)

But of course none of this is any help to people who think music stopped with Mahler. The general public's verdict on Stravinsky in his Nationalist phase and all of Bartók is clear - they're _in_.


----------



## StephenBailey (Oct 5, 2016)

I think I disagree with your premise that Shoenberg takes only the "tension" of CP music. 
It's a totally different system of organizational hierarchy. "Dissonance" doesn't mean "tension" in this music. This is why it's so often referred to as "the emancipation of dissonance." 
By comparison, yes, it is a more dissonant sounding music, particularly when we've all grown up hearing essentially only the CP system for all of our lives. I think it's a mistake to compare the two in those terms though. Apples and oranges.

FWIW, you can stop listening to a piece of music anytime you want. Leave the room. Turn it off. Plug your ears. No one forces anyone to sit through it for a fixed amount of time.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

StephenBailey said:


> I think I disagree with your premise that Shoenberg takes only the "tension" of CP music.
> It's a totally different system of organizational hierarchy. "Dissonance" doesn't mean "tension" in this music. This is why it's so often referred to as "the emancipation of dissonance."
> By comparison, yes, it is a more dissonant sounding music, particularly when we've all grown up hearing essentially only the CP system for all of our lives. I think it's a mistake to compare the two in those terms though. Apples and oranges.
> 
> FWIW, you can stop listening to a piece of music anytime you want. Leave the room. Turn it off. Plug your ears. No one forces anyone to sit through it for a fixed amount of time.


It's not even what I'd call dissonant, in the sense that there would be a lot of bare minor seconds or something in the harmony. By the time you get to composers who use a lot of dissonance, it's just used as color at that point. The belief some people have that atonal composers enjoyed harsh harmonies just isn't true for the most part. I realise you probably use the term to mean, not vertical harmony, but horizontal progressions, but of course in atonal music it's a definition of dissonance that doesn't apply at all. People who hear it as "dissonant", haven't been listening to it enough. It stops sounding new and shocking after a while, like everything else.

A lot of atonal music mostly just portrays new kinds of mood, or sometimes, old kinds of mood in a more sustained and consistent fashion, by using some extra notes. Otherwise pretty much the same as older music: motivic development, counterpoint, melodies, mood.

There's of course also a lot of music that is more avant-garde, but if normal people can appreciate it as part of a horror film, then people who take their music seriously shouldn't be opposed to appreciating it as pure music, just takes a bit of familiarisation, is all.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

StephenBailey said:


> I think I disagree with your premise that Shoenberg takes only the "tension" of CP music.
> It's a totally different system of organizational hierarchy. "Dissonance" doesn't mean "tension" in this music.


I don't think it is totally different, though. Schönberg takes aspects of Strauss a step further, as Strauss took aspects Wagner a step further. Where Strauss has passages that are tonally ambiguous for a while and then clearly establish a key, Schönberg in his Expressionist period either simply stops, or keeps going without ever establishing a key. And at least in Expressionist music, dissonance DOES more or less straightforwardly mean tension. In later atonal music, dissonance may not be INTENDED to mean tension, but again, at least as long as everybody has Beethoven in their heads (so basically forever), I think it always will, at least a bit. If we could erase everybody's memory and start their musical education with Schönberg's piano concerto, maybe the situation would be different - or maybe not (especially considering that Schönberg himself, of course, still had Beethoven in his head _as he was writing it_) - but in any case that's not going to happen. And it doesn't matter. Schönberg as he is has managed to keep a foothold in the repertory for a century. He'll probably never be as popular as Debussy, Bartók, or Stravinsky, but he doesn't have to be.



StephenBailey said:


> This is why it's so often referred to as "the emancipation of dissonance."


I think "the emancipation of dissonance" is an aspiration, not a fact.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Dissonance on its own does not necessarily imply tension. Only in the hands of masters and skillfully merged with tonal harmonics, will there be tension. It works beautifully.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Dissonance on its own does necessarily imply tension, in the sense that it sounds far removed from consonance. Of course, what counts as a dissonance varies across time and geography, even if we discount outlying nations in the Amazon or wherever. Octaves are consonant by definition, and fifths are more consonant than any other interval between octaves. After that it's pretty much a free for all.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I disagree. A whole composition of dissonance is over used without the tonal harmonics to support it.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Berio, Ligeti, Penderecki, Lutoslawski, Schnittke, Xenakis, Gubaidulina, Nono, Carter, Maderna, Gerhard.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

If one is really interested in something, he will not seek for opinion with ordinary or occaisonal people. What a failure, people who are into modern orchestral music thing usually seek for inanities amid their more creative routine posting in internet chat rooms. There maybe a propensity too go down the path of self-destruction once people have not better things to think about and do about. My suggestion is, any piece of music that you hear from the street, slum, disco, karaoke are all representative of the modern orchestral music, anyone of them is top quality for modern music(I am not joking).


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

Ariasexta said:


> If one is really interested in something, he will not seek for opinion with ordinary or occaisonal people. What a failure, people who are into modern orchestral music thing usually seek for inanities amid their more creative routine posting in internet chat rooms. There maybe a propensity too go down the path of self-destruction once people have not better things to think about and do about. My suggestion is, any piece of music that you hear from the street, slum, disco, karaoke are all representative of the modern orchestral music, anyone of them is top quality for modern music(I am not joking).


ha, well said about top quality ! sure they are, such is a standard of quality now 

as for seeking opinions....aren't we all here seeking for opinions, sharing opinions, expressing it in this or that form if it wasn't like that there would be no forum here or anywhere.

it's all about uttering our opinions , seeking for a support or an advice or simply expressing it, by expressing we let people know about what we think, because we think it is important what we think, right? ( it's a rhetorical question for sure) .


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

Ariasexta said:


> If one is really interested in something, he will not seek for opinion with ordinary or occaisonal people. What a failure, people who are into modern orchestral music thing usually seek for inanities amid their more creative routine posting in internet chat rooms. There maybe a propensity too go down the path of self-destruction once people have not better things to think about and do about. My suggestion is, any piece of music that you hear from the street, slum, disco, karaoke are all representative of the modern orchestral music, anyone of them is top quality for modern music(I am not joking).


????????????????


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

helenora said:


> ha, well said about top quality ! sure they are, such is a standard of quality now
> 
> as for seeking opinions....aren't we all here seeking for opinions, sharing opinions, expressing it in this or that form if it wasn't like that there would be no forum here or anywhere.
> 
> it's all about uttering our opinions , seeking for a support or an advice or simply expressing it, by expressing we let people know about what we think, because we think it is important what we think, right? ( it's a rhetorical question for sure) .


There is no batter modern music than modern pop or disco DJ music, I hope people can discover the good music beside them they really do not need to seek for highly pretentious punk(bad music) to find an educated taste among the normal types of modern music. Modern classical is not just boring but evil, its messages are similar to the violence/drug instigating hardrock for the thugs, it is sick, dark, deceptive, evil. I do want to help people to get away from the evil, but people do not take my advices seriously on this matter.

I tried it several years ago, those modern classical punks are incredibly uninspiring, painfully boring.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Ariasexta said:


> Modern classical is not just boring but evil, its messages are similar to the violence/drug instigating hardrock for the thugs, it is sick, dark, deceptive, evil. I do want to help people to get away from the evil, but people do not take my advices seriously on this matter.


Gee, I wonder why that is. Maybe because not only it sounds ridiculous but you haven't tried to back up those assertions?


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

R3PL4Y said:


> I held the same belief as far too many people, that all of the good classical music had already been written and that there was nothing of value in modern classical music.


that is correct and true.



R3PL4Y said:


> However, I have reversed my stance on this issue, and I am looking to find recommendations for composers, works, and recordings of more modern works


don't waste your time.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> You want help getting into modern music? Then I shall throw a bucket of ice-water on you!


indeed all this 'modern music' stuff is nothing more but a 'ice bucket challenge' they had in the media not long ago.


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

mmsbls said:


> This list was compiled by the collective voting of many TalkClassical members. The works were all composed after 1950 and include widely diverse styles and genres of music.


Is it an ordered list, i.e, did the first get the most votes, the second the second most, and so on?


----------



## juliante (Jun 7, 2013)

Genoveva said:


> I fully agree. I have made similar comment on other threads. It's so simple and far more reliable to glance through websites like ArkivMusic or PrestoClassical to get very good advice on things like which composers are worth investigating, what are their best (most popular) works, and the recommended performances based on professional reviews. The alternative of relying on advice from random dudes here is far too risky.


I would tend to take this approach but not sure it is any better than 'random' recommendations on good ole TC. the reason being - tastes are so individual and to a large extent unpredictable, therefore I think recommendations from individuals are just as likely to hit the spot than anything. (I do however believe that there is something more reliable in a 'canon' that has coalesced over centuries... )


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Mal said:


> Is it an ordered list, i.e, did the first get the most votes, the second the second most, and so on?


The voting procedure was not simply a matter of works being ordered by number of votes. Still the intent was to order the list where the top work was voted "Best" and so on.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

This thread was started as a way for a member to find more modern works to enjoy. It is inappropriate and rude to simply say modern music is awful in this context. Please refrain from such comments.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

"_Modern classical is not just boring but evil, its messages are similar to the violence/drug instigating hardrock for the thugs, it is sick, dark, deceptive, evil."

_:devil:_

_


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Mahlerite555 said:


> You can't force yourself to like anything. You can try to understand it and re-listen a few times, but for most people, atonal music simply won't do it.


I reread the OP, and I did not see where he specified atonal music.

He was simply asking for modern music recommendations. As far as I can tell, the majority of modern classical is not atonal.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## Guest (Oct 8, 2016)

Simon Moon said:


> I reread the OP, and I did not see where he specified atonal music.
> 
> He was simply asking for modern music recommendations. As far as I can tell, the majority of modern classical is not atonal.
> 
> Someone please correct me if I am wrong.


For some people is that the same atonal,modern equivalent of ugly,random notes.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Simon Moon said:


> I reread the OP, and I did not see where he specified atonal music.
> 
> He was simply asking for modern music recommendations. As far as I can tell, the majority of modern classical is not atonal.
> 
> Someone please correct me if I am wrong.


He mentioned Modern, but he could've been speaking more to Contemporary, which is more in line with OPie's description of his needs--"essentially the last 50 years, although not composers like Shostakovich or Copland....any styles...."

On occasion, OPies will return to their thread to make things a little clearer. :tiphat:


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Mahlerite555 said:


> You can't compare it to tonal classical music. When I heard many pieces for the first time, during my time as a teenager, it took no intellectual effort to "understand" them. Show anyone, even the brutest of imbeciles, a piece like Mahler's Adagietto, and they will tell you it is beautiful music. Show them the Schoenberg Variations and I don't think you'll get the same response.


So what?

Not all beauty in music is obvious at first listening, or on the surface, as in the Mahler piece you mention.

Flowers are beautiful, but so is the precise ballet of a cheetah hunting down a gazelle.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

In response to the OP, here is one of my favorite violin concertos.

Violin Concerto 2 by Penderecki. Written in 1992.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

If you don't mind considering a few suggestions from a "random dude", here's a list of 10 of my favourite post 1950 works:

Barber	-	Piano Concerto
Britten	-	Violin Concerto In D minor
Hovhaness	-	Symphony No 2 Mysterious Mountain
Ligeti	-	Atmospheres
Schnittke	-	Concerto for viola and orchestra
Shostakovich	-	Symphony No 10
Tippett	-	Fantasia Concertante on a Theme of Corelli
Vaughan Williams	-	Symphony No 8
Villa-Lobos	-	Guitar Concerto Fantasia Concertante
Walton	-	Cello Concerto


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> This thread was started as a way for a member to find more modern works to enjoy. It is inappropriate and rude to simply say modern music is awful in this context. Please refrain from such comments.


It is precisely because of posts like these that many of the people who follow contemporary music have left.

And no matter what they do they are losers.

If they think Schoenberg is as good as Beethoven they are losers.

If they get frustrated and leave they are losers.

Like I have stated there are a few threads that I like to follow liked the "Contemporary Thread". I also like the "Obscure Symphony Thread". I am sticking around for those.


----------



## James Mann (Sep 6, 2016)

I met Brian Ferneyhough many years ago at a concert of his chamber music, I went along with my wife as usual. 
It was one of the best classical concerts I've seen, the music was so intense and lyrical. I'm not big on contemporary music, as I've said but Ferneyhough is a composer I highly recommend!


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

Simon Moon said:


> ... one of my favorite violin concertos. Violin Concerto 2 by Penderecki.


Wow! Superb. But note this is phase 2 Penderecki, his "New Consonance" phase about which Music Professors can be a bit sniffy. See "Third Ear", where Zierolf sniffs. He, and Rob Cowan in Guinness guide, pick out "Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima" as his key work, which involves extreme dissonance:






I guess he's trying to capture the emotions felt during a nuclear attack. Painful listening! But powerful & interesting. But can it be in any way beautiful? A cheetah hunting a gazelle is a beautiful, natural thing. But is a nuclear attack? When you are on the ground suffering the immediate effects? Do you find pictures of an atomic bomb being dropped and the thousands of damaged victims staggering around beautiful? (I'd be worried about you if you did!) So how can this work be called beautiful? Should you even try and hear it as being beautiful?

Does a work of art have to be beautiful? I suggest not - it may be there to generate powerful, painful, complex emotions. But as Harold Bloom says, "pleasure and pain are the same thing on the heights". So this work of Pendericki is, I would argue, a powerful art work that should be taken seriously and experienced. But approach with care and caution! And don't expect a "nice" experience, but be ready for a cold shower. I listened to this after a morning listening to some of Mozart's gentler works; a warm sauna followed by a freezing cold dip & beating by birch branches effect.. an experience that should be had... it cannot be all warm sauna...


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

Maybe it's smart to ease into modern/contemporary music?! Britten & Korngold violin concertos can be a good place to start. When I first got into more modern music, I started with Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Bartok, Hindemith & Britten


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> When I first got into more modern music, I started with Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Bartok, Hindemith & Britten


Same here--though Schnittke was very important to me from the start, too. Out of curiosity, who are some of your favorite recent composers? I notice from another thread that you're trying to play a piece by Ferneyhough, which must be a daunting challenge.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Mal said:


> I guess he's trying to capture the emotions felt during a nuclear attack.


Nope.



> ... the piece had originally been titled 8′37″ (in perhaps an oblique homage to Cage), and was changed on the suggestion of the director of Polish Radio to the more emotive Threnody in order to enhance its impact at the forthcoming UNESCO Prize of the International Composers' Jury in Paris.


https://johnsonsrambler.wordpress.com/2007/06/12/taruskin-vol5-page-220/


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

Blancrocher said:


> Same here--though Schnittke was very important to me from the start, too. Out of curiosity, who are some of your favorite recent composers? I notice from another thread that you're trying to play a piece by Ferneyhough, which must be a daunting challenge.


I usually give up every time I look at the Ferneyhough piece  ...and I have a hobby of buying scores. Some of my "new favorites" are Magnus Lindberg, Toshio Hosokawa, Aaron Jay Kernis, Hilda Paredes, Poul Ruders, Jesus Rueda, Peteris Vasks, Kaija Saariaho, Anna Thorvaldsdottir. Very many in fact!


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Nope.


Well he must have thought it expressed the emotions surrounding a nuclear attack otherwise he wouldn't have given it that title, even as an afterthought. In any case, for me, the title fits, and i think it helps the listener get a handle on the work, or (at least) it helped me. Of course you can't be too programmatic about such matters, it may also represent the emotions felt by a Polish dissident when communist torturers do their worst, or... well you think of some really violent act that's really bad...


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

Éclairs sur l'au-delà... [Illuminations of the Beyond...] (1987-1991) by Olivier Messiaen is quite approachable:


----------



## scott777 (Oct 9, 2016)

Vaneyes said:


> "_Modern classical is not just boring but evil, its messages are similar to the violence/drug instigating hardrock for the thugs, it is sick, dark, deceptive, evil."
> 
> _:devil:_
> 
> _


Didn't some people describe Elvis's music as the devils music?
Even Beethoven probably caused similar animosity at the time.


----------



## Friendlyneighbourhood (Oct 8, 2016)

Mal said:


> Éclairs sur l'au-delà... [Illuminations of the Beyond...] (1987-1991) by Olivier Messiaen is quite approachable:


For a long time, that's been one of my favourite orchestral works of all time. I can't describe my admiration for Eclairs!


----------



## scott777 (Oct 9, 2016)

R3PL4Y said:


> For a long time, I held the same belief as far too many people, that all of the good classical music had already been written and that there was nothing of value in modern classical music. However, I have reversed my stance on this issue, and I am looking to find recommendations for composers, works, and recordings of more modern works (essentially the last 50 years, although not composers like shostakovich or copland who were writing in this time.) I prefer orchestral music, but I am open to other reccommendations. I am open to really any styles, whether in the vein more of Boulez or Rautavaara or whatever.


I agree that modern classical music still has value (responding to some posters who disagree). In fact, it's fairly obvious, since some people still listen to it and enjoy it, then by definition it has value. Maybe not much commercial value, but still value.
It took me many years before I started to enjoy atonal works and harshly dissonant works such as Penderecki, Henze and Boulez but now I have a new avenue to explore.


----------



## scott777 (Oct 9, 2016)

I highly recommend:
Henze’s 5th
Ligeti, Apparitions
Lutoslawski, Postludes
Panufnik 3rd (perhaps controversially, but its quite accessible)
Penderecki, Anaklasis
Schnittke 7th
Tippett, Symphony 2 & Ritual Dances - The Midsummer Marriage


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

Elliott Carter: string quartets.

Don't let anyone tell you which modern/20th-century/contemporary composers you should like or dislike. You're curious about this genre of classical music, and that's a great start. Keep your ears and mind open, and listen to all you can find. Eventually you'll start to gravitate toward certain composers.

Discard previous notions about melody, harmony, and form. Do not judge modern music with pre-20th century criteria. Think about painting: you couldn't judge or try to learn about Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko, et. al. with the same criteria as you'd judge/learn about 16th-century artists.

Good luck on your new quest!

Regards,
-09


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

cwarchc said:


> Try Anna Meredith


Looks like she's off the classical path, for now anyway. But this is very cool:


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

R3PL4Y said:


> For a long time, I held the same belief as far too many people, that all of the good classical music had already been written and that there was nothing of value in modern classical music. However, I have reversed my stance on this issue, and I am looking to find recommendations for composers, works, and recordings of more modern works (essentially the last 50 years, although not composers like shostakovich or copland who were writing in this time.) I prefer orchestral music, but I am open to other reccommendations. I am open to really any styles, whether in the vein more of Boulez or Rautavaara or whatever.


In my experience (especially) contemporary music is far more accessible when it is played live (instead of listening to it on CD or internet), so my advice would be: get out of your chair and go to a live performance of contemporary art/music.

BTW, recently I was fortunate to be at a live performance of a composition by the young composer Nanna Ikonen (she is Finnish but studied music in the Netherlands). I was overwhelmed by it so that's why I want to have her name mentioned: if she is gonna be one of the greatest composers I was the first to mention her on TC ). Unfortunately I can not find any of her compositions on the internet. She also plays saxophone in The S h i t Ensemble (yes, she is not very conventional...) which can be found on the internet and is some kinda avantgarde jazz/pop and nowhere as brilliant as her own (classical) compositions...


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

^^^ Good advice. There are clear cases where this is advantageous, as when the positions of the musicians within the space is important, or when there are various kinds of extra-musical effects, like G.F. Haas with his light tricks. However, I'll mention that I often have the problem of hearing a new work I really like, often a premiere, but knowing I'll probably never hear it again. It's like when I order a delicious beverage at a bar with a million craft beers: I know I'll never find the damned thing again.


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

Yes, I certainly recognize this frustration (like in the case of the composition of Ikonen that overwhelmed me and can't be re-experienced). But then again: that's the magic of music! That is: now it is here and then it's gone! Music is really an experience and thus essentially non-repeatable. In that way recording music so you can hear it again and again is in essence a demolishment of the uniqueness of the art, making it into a 'consumption article'.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Paul Hindemith wrote beautiful, innovative music that is relatively easy compared to a lot of modern music.

Try "Symphonic Variations on a Theme by Carl Maria von Weber"

"Symphony: Mathis der Maler" (the opera is good too)

Piano sonatas 2 and 3

Oboe sonata

Can't go wrong with those!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

To get into Modern music you need to be harmonically adventurous, not afraid of dissonances that don't get resolved. I believe that is the essential ingredient. Modern music makes use of diatonic-extensions at the very least (which may be the most intriguing concept over straight chromaticism or indeterminate harmony). I recommend Bartok's 10 "Easy Pieces", which are pianistically undemanding, but harmonically a different matter


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

Chordalrock said:


> So what? We're not talking about first impressions but about what is possible to attain after listening to a type of music extensively.
> 
> Most people have been prejudiced by the tonal or harmonic environment they grew up in. That says nothing about what is natural or easily accessible to a blank slate, it only says that once the malleable brain of a child has adopted a tonal or a certain harmonic outlook, it takes some effort to extend it.


If you enjoy it, fine. But I would rather have a dentist drilling half my teeth, than listen to Schoenberg.


----------



## Goddess Yuja Wang (Aug 8, 2017)

OP: I created a somewhat similar thread recently, and two of the recommendations I got are now two of my favorite pieces. They are so awesome and modern:

Berio's Sinfonia.






Ligeti's Mysteries of the Macabre:


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

haziz said:


> If you enjoy it, fine. But I would rather have a dentist drilling half my teeth, than listen to Schoenberg.


Be careful, you may turn out to have the bad luck of having a dentist who likes to listen to Schoenberg while at work.

Personally I would rather listen to Schoenberg, it's far less painful.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

haziz said:


> If you enjoy it, fine. But I would rather have a dentist drilling half my teeth, than listen to Schoenberg.


With or without anaesthesia?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

That's hilarious - a dentist who plays Schoenberg when cleaning the patient's teeth / pulling out.  It's a good point that many dentists do play classical music at their practice. I have been to one. He played orchestral music that I couldn't recognize at the time, more than likely it was just some easy sounding pieces that were arrangements. But it definitely was not atonal music.


----------

