# Contemporary Music!



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Inspired by the (sometimes frustrating!) thread in the composers' section of the forum, I thought we could have a good old heated discussion about contemporary music and its direction! 

Here are a few extracts from an article I read in _Contemporary Music Review_ - I'm intrigued to see what you think (if you don't feel like reading four measly paragraphs, skip to the last one - that's where the most interesting discussion will lie):

_If ever there was a time or an ethos ready for change, it is surely contemporary art music at the [start] of this century. For the greater part of our audience, listening to modern music has become an experience fraught with anxiety and dissatisfaction. And not only listeners, but performers and composers as well, have been grumbling more vociferously of late - in a manner reminiscent of the whispering about the emperor and his new clothes! Have we, in our effort to strip music to its fundamental truths, instead fashioned for ourselves a straitjacket?

...

For, confident of our superior gifts and erudition, we frequently have gratified ourselves with smug, self-indulgent music that we have taken too seriously, music that failed to address the needs of its audience, that spoke in abstruse strains to the educated minority.

...

And, while composition will always remain a very personal experience, it is still true that most composers write for other human beings to hear. A large part of our problem has been that in limiting our artistic options, we have robbed our palettes of greater expressive breadth. For this reason, our music is fast becoming obsolete. That, in turn, has limited our audience.

...

This is not to suggest that tonality is the panacea, or that atonality has led to our decline. The question of tonality is only symptomatic of a deeper ill. The real issue is musicality. The real issue is humanity in the music. Atonality will never vanish, just as tonality never has. But too often non-music has been allowed to masquerade as music. The dogmas that have been espoused in the name of expression have often been obstacles to true individual expression._


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

I actually completely agree with the article posted above. I mean, sure, I love atonality, just as I love tonality, but most of all I just love music. I feel like the 20th century was more about stretching the boundaries of music for the sake of the stretching, not enough about the music, and now that the stretching is done with, the real music-making can finally take place by those who combine the influences of the past centuries and make something new of it. 

Not to disparage people like Berg, Bernstein, Britten, Stravinsky, Bartok, or any of the composers who did make really spectacular, great music, but those like Schoenberg, who just shoved music ahead, I don't feel are going to be remembered so much for the music as for their contributions to what will happen this century.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

[Non-scholarly opinion alert!]

I am ready for change. My very slight aversion to 20th century music has nothing to do with accessibility or with how esoteric it became. There are several factors in play:

1. When you throw tonality out the window, rather than adding a dimension to the music you are actually taking away a dimension. It's in the very word itself. Atonality is a lack of tonality, a lack of one of the dimensions in the language of music. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this. Great art has been achieved using a limited palette for instance. However, there is nothing intrinsically right with it either. I'm just paraphrasing the article now.

2. All this boundary stretching has taken away another dimension too, that of surprise. Without voice leading or a home key, or in some cases even without a discernible rhythm, there can be no expectations built up, therefor no surprises. If every note is a surprise, then none of them are. Again it's okay not to have surprises, but it seems the option itself has been discarded.

3. There is also an unfortunate cultural effect that takes place. I call it the _action soundtrack effect._ We have all been exposed to various levels of atonality all our lives, most often in action TV and movie soundtracks. As soon as Captain Kirk gets in a fight with a cheesy looking alien, or as soon as there is a chase scene in a late night cop show, out comes the atonal music. This was especially prevalent during the 1950's and 1960's. So now whenever I hear Schoenberg or Varese, I want to get up and turn off the imaginary TV so I can listen to music. Younger people may not have this affliction -- I think the trend started dying out in the 1970's, but it never completely died out.

After all those aversions I can still say there are some wonderful 20th century pieces that grab my undivided attention. Ligeti, Ginastera, Penderecki, and yes even Schoenberg can be riveting. (I have yet to quite grasp Varese or Messiaen) There must be something artistic going on I don't quite understand but can at least sense on a subconscious level.

The 20th century's excesses are not evil or destructive, but I am glad the music world is beginning to realize they are not the be all end all.


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2010)

Difficult to know how to respond to these four snippets, or to the responses to them so far.

My first thought, since I'm reading William Weber's _The Great Transformation in Musical Taste: Concert Programming from Haydn to Brahms,_ is that these arguments have all been made before, in the 19th century. The more I read about that volatile century, the more I wonder if it weren't even more violent and revolutionary and even regressive than its equally contradictory century mate, the 20th. Always our own time seems the most radical break with the past. I wonder.

Otherwise, I'd just like to testify (Testify!!) as someone who has been listening to contemporary music since the early 1970s that none of the standard cliches about music and audiences has ever applied to my own experience. Aside from the inevitable duds, I have never found any piece of twentieth century music to be anything worse than initially bewildering. Most of them have been quite enjoyable. Many of them have been terrific. Some of them have been staggeringly phenomenal. Why, that's just how I feel about music from the 19th and 18th and 17th centuries. Hmmm. There have always been audiences for new music, even if they are smaller than those for older music. (We keep ignoring the fact that if audience size is any factor, then "classical" music on the whole, even the most popular warhorses, draws a very small crowd compared to practically any other kind of music.)

Otherotherwise, I'd like to make yet another plea for people to notice that tonality is not the only issue for twentieth and twenty-first century music. It's odd to see how often music in the last century is always divided along these lines, as if nothing else had happened in that time. Here are a few other contrasting pairs, though I also hasten to add that not all the issues of new music come in nicely balanced pairs of antitheses, either!!

Music/noise
Control/noncontrol
Acousmatic/soundscape
Composition/improvisation
Traditional notation/nontraditional notation (including graphic scores)
Development/stasis

There is, of course, much much more than just these. But we can't hardly "do" the whole last hundred years or so in one little post, much less one little thread. But I fear that the discussion will never really accomplish anything good unless the participants can get unstuck from the tonal/atonal thing. And that will never happen unless we listen to more things from our own time. To have a really rollicking conversation, we really ought to listen to everything, not just the things we already like.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Music doesn't change it expands. People can always write and peform music from the past and many do. I like that a wide variety of music exists even if I neither like it nor have the opportunity to listen to a lot of it. Contemporary music can never truly cut itself off from the past.



> To have a really rollicking conversation, we really ought to listen to everything, not just the things we already like.


Agreed. Even listening to music we definitely don't like can expand our mindset.



> This is not to suggest that tonality is the panacea, or that atonality has led to our decline. The question of tonality is only symptomatic of a deeper ill. The real issue is musicality. The real issue is humanity in the music. Atonality will never vanish, just as tonality never has. *But too often non-music has been allowed to masquerade as music*. The dogmas that have been espoused in the name of expression have often been obstacles to true individual expression.


The highlighted part of the article doesn't make sense to me. Non-music can only be a work that lacks sound. Any sound can be 'framed' and become music. An object such as a screwdriver can _masquerade_ as music but the sound the screwdriver makes _is_ music, if someone believes it to be such.



> The 20th century's excesses are not evil or destructive, but I am glad the music world is beginning to realize they are not the be all end all.


I don't think the music world ever thought anything was the be all and end all. For any piece of music there is always someone out there who doesn't like it.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

some guy said:


> My first thought, since I'm reading William Weber's _The Great Transformation in Musical Taste: Concert Programming from Haydn to Brahms,_ is that these arguments have all been made before, in the 19th century. The more I read about that volatile century, the more I wonder if it weren't even more violent and revolutionary and even regressive than its equally contradictory century mate, the 20th. Always our own time seems the most radical break with the past. I wonder.


It's an interesting idea - it's often the case, no matter what we talk about, that it's all been said before (I just hope I don't have to hear another person talking about how the moral values of society have declined!). I'm not quite sure what to make of it, although my instinctive reaction would be to suggest that the 19th century was viewed by the composers in a more volatile fashion, but the changes of the 20th century were more fundamental.



some guy said:


> Otherotherwise, I'd like to make yet another plea for people to notice that tonality is not the only issue for twentieth and twenty-first century music.


I think that's the most important thing that the article sought to consider (if not very clearly). There's tonality/atonality - which is one small dimension of the whole issue - and then there's _musicality_, which is essentially the ability to consider all the dimensions of music and their history and bring them into a new whole that features some kind of humanity.

For me, the most interesting aspect of the article was the sentiment expressed in the third paragraph - the idea that composition is (quite obviously) a very personal affair, but that the composer should also remain aware of the 'needs' of the audience. This is something I strive for in my own music, but it needs to be kept firmly away from the whole 'selling-out' notion (i.e. that people like popular music, let's make 'cheesy' classical). Rather, I prefer to see it in the respect that people 'need' a sense of home, of expectation and surprise, which is only created by at least partial tonality. This is not pandering to popular culture, but rather considering the way that the brain processes sound.


----------



## Jaime77 (Jun 29, 2009)

_I don't think the music world ever thought anything was the be all and end all. For any piece of music there is always someone out there who doesn't like it._

*Argus * I think you right the world never thought it was the be all and end all but academic circles and critical circles for a time did. There was a time and there still is that snobby attitude in some universities, where composition is taught and most composers reside and get recognition, that contemporary music must be a certain thing stylistically.

The hallmarks are: complex structurally, dissonant, ametric and extended instrumental technique - these definitely became the way to go. There was of course minimalism as a counter movement but even still in some places that is looked down upon as some kind of 'pop music' compared to serious modern music.

I have personally met some dyed-in-the-wool modernists who slam everything they hear if it has the smallest reference to previous music. It is as though some composers are fighting viciously over the last scraps of what they deem is original. This, I hope, is dying out.

btw.. nice new thread Polednice ;-)


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

jaibyrne said:


> btw.. nice new thread Polednice ;-)


 I just started it because of what I read yesterday evening, but I hope I'm not stealing your thunder from the other thread! Hopefully, ideas raised here will feed into the discussion we were having in the Composers' forum


----------



## Jaime77 (Jun 29, 2009)

No this is great - the other thread got me the answers I wanted specifically re. composers. This deserves it's own space


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Hmmmm.....

I think tonality is a near perfect system for expression, however i still do not believe using tonality and only tonality is a valid practise in this war. I say this mostly due to the huge impact the second world war has had on arts...

On the other hand I think that the total atonality is a very silly experimental and does not sound human nor does it carry any emotion, feeling or expression. Of course this could just be that it does not suit my personal taste.

OVERALL - I believe that everybody should be able to express themselves musically how they see fit and however works for them. If this is how they do it then so be it.


----------



## Stunt21 (Jan 22, 2010)

Completely agree with the comment above.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I agree with the opinions of some guy. Much "new" music, from whatever century, has pushed the boundaries in some way and this is one of the reasons much classical music is still performed today after hundreds of years. Listen to almost any masterpiece of the past and you will perhaps hear ways in which the composer challenges your perceptions of what is music. 

I for one have no problems with the trends in contemporary music, in many ways they reflect what was going on 100 years ago. You have a mixture of composers approaching music from different angles, from conservative to more experimental. There is a huge spectrum of styles and approaches, as some guy suggests, and I think that (if one is somewhat flexible and perceptive) the listener can enjoy and understand at least some of the music being produced today.

I think that the article quoted in the original post generalises too much about contemporary music and it's effect on audiences. But I think that if audiences are not flexible, it's not the composers problem. There must be something wrong with classical music today if all we get in our concert halls are endless repetitions of the traditional warhorses because the greys can only stand this type of music. This inflexible approach is fast making classical music into a historical or dead medium, with much of the music post 1945 being sidelined. I think that there is also a danger of the views of conservative listeners of the older generations becoming accepted as mainstream in classical circles, therefore orchestras will not play anything which counters their tastes. I think that this is much more of an insidious, threatening thing than the supposed stranglehold the universities and academies have on contemporary classical music. In my opinion, if you want something wholly "safe" and "uplifting" why not restrict yourself to Andre Rieu or the Vienna new year's day concerts? I think general classical music concerts should be somewhat above mere entertainment level and push the boundaries a little, and give the audience a little credit for being more intelligent and flexible perhaps than conservative concert programmers think.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I think that the article quoted in the original post generalises too much about contemporary music and it's effect on audiences. But I think that if audiences are not flexible, it's not the composers problem.

There has long been a gap between certain aspects of the latest art and the audience's ability to appreciate this. Rembrandt, Mozart, Keats, William Blake, Monet, Matisse, Schubert, etc... are all examples of artists whose work needed time... a generation of two... until it began to be recognized and fully appreciated. Modernism, however, wrought certain experimentation... certain innovations that seemingly pushed the boundaries of what art or music are to such an extreme that they have yet to be appreciated... and it seems clear valid to question whether these innovations did not go too far.

Within the visual arts, for example, Matisse and Picasso have been fully absorbed and are appreciated by the larger art audience... but exhibitions of Dada, Duchamp, Performance art, Conceptual art, etc... do not fill the galleries and museums. The same, it would seem, might be said of 20th century music. Debussy, Puccini, Rachmaninoff, Richard Strauss, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Shostakovitch, Copland, Barber, Bartok, etc... do not lack for an audience... are regularly performed by major orchestras and opera companies... are accessible through numerous recordings. Schoenberg, Berg, Cage, Boulez, Ligetti, Stockhausen, on the other hand, have not ended up having their music whistled by mailmen on their rounds... despite Webern's famous prediction.

The problem is, I suspect, that such art: Schoenberg's "thornier" works, Duchamp's "ready-mades", Joyce's _Finnegan's Wake_ demand too much of the audience. This is not to say that Bach or Beethoven do not also make demands upon the audience... but these demands are always repaid with the pleasure the work affords. For a great many... even a great many of the informed art/music/literature audience the demands of some works of Modernism and Post-Modernism are far too great considering the slim pleasure the work affords.

Perhaps this is not bad in itself. Not every work of art is for everybody. The notion of a single monolithic art/music/literary world is an absurd falsehood. Keats, Dickens, and William Blake's _Songs of Innocence and Experience_ will almost certainly always have a larger audience than that to be found for Milton, Henry James, or William Blake's _Jerusalem_. There are multiple audiences and almost certainly an audience can be found for every work of art of real merit. I believe the problem arises when the supporters of a certain artistic strain... especially of the more demanding, less accessible (and less popular) art presume a position of aesthetic (or even moral) superiority. The fact that Barber, Copland, or Richard Strauss are more accessible than Schoenberg, Ligetti, or Cage in no way denotes that the former are less rich... less artistically worthy... because they are less challenging any more than one might assume that Mozart is lightweight in comparison to Wagner or Berg. I understand the historical importance of art which makes a great break from the tradition of the past... but somehow I don't always imagine that such a break inherently results in a art of great worth. Within my own field of expertise (visual arts) I find myself struggling with the notion that this:










or this:










represent something inherently greater than this:










or this:










... let alone this:










... based upon the degree to which the former works represent a greater break with the traditions of art. By the same token, I question the notion that some of the more esoteric strains of music (some of which I quite admire myself) represent something inherently superior to that achieved within a mode that is upon the surface more conservative... less challenging to the traditions... and perhaps more accessible.


----------



## Jaime77 (Jun 29, 2009)

I disagree that most composers played still today challenged the audience of the time. So much music for one thing was functional - sacred music including bach cantatas - which is vast, Mozart for the courts. they wouldn't have employed him if he was that challenging. beethoven yes was revolutionary in much of his music but many post-beethoven composers were conservative by comparison. schumann, mendelssohn, bruch, brahms - what did these composers do that was challenging? 

also, more importantly, my argument is that referring to music history is in no way to indicate what is going on now. These times are so radically unique and have never happened before. 

thousands of years of modal music and regular pulse which gave rise fairly naturally to tonality and predominant consonance. not cause we just felt like it but cos the brain responds well to it. then in the last 100 years a mix of all kinds of music. some of which is so dissonant and ametric, often devoid of 'singable' melodic lines and difficult to 'follow' as regards form - this kind of music is new and never been accepted by all composers. strauss and rvw and elgar and rachmaninov many others did anything not to write music that went too far into the realm. prokofiev and shostakovich too. prokofiev said that dissonance was a like salt.. too much and you ruin the taste.  even stravinsky valued its importance highly and so did bartok - returning to it, like penderecki and less so, ligeti in later years. 

i know there are many modern musics and i am not against experimentation and breaking rules. what i am suggesting is that such levels of dissonance and ameter and extended instrumental technique for its own sake may be a musical cul de sace. also i find from talking to non-musicians that most of them cant FEEL the music cos of the lack of these brain cues. It seems like it is devoid of emotion to many tho not all people. it is more so cerebrally appealing to someone with analytical tendencies and a detailed knowledge of music. exceptions exist. 

i greatly doubt in a hundred years that humans will some how, after 2000 years start to feel and think so differently about music that this level of 'modernity' will be preferred way of expression. and from what i read about the human brain, the success of music without tonality and clear formal signposts like melody and a clear beat, is highly unlikely. it is in many respects... inhuman. 


Also, just to add... the ideas that innovation is key to all great art or is indeed the reason for great art is ludicrous and is a modernists outlook. also the 'beethoven cult' of doing what u believe in to be great regardless of public opinion. this egocentric idea that a composer is a on a divine mission to do greatness through breaking barriers that ppl are unable to understand until after his death. this has become a cultish thing in new music and in my mind a bad thing. how much music did i hear that was innovation for the sake of it. how many composers did i meet who talked like it was them against the world and didn't care what anyone thought cos they were the next superman - way too many !


----------



## Guest (Feb 12, 2010)

jaibyrne said:


> I disagree that most composers played still today challenged the audience of the time.


Well, read some contemporary reports of bewilderment and antagonism, then. Those people, at least, would disagree with your disagreement.



jaibyrne said:


> schumann, mendelssohn, bruch, brahms - what did these composers do that was challenging?


You're kidding, right? For one, Mendelssohn and Bruch probably don't belong on this short list. For two, Schumann and Brahms were plenty challenging, for some listeners at the time. They're not particularly challenging now. But now is different in some ways from then.



jaibyrne said:


> the ideas that innovation is key to all great art or is indeed the reason for great art is ludicrous and is a modernists outlook.


Here's where some specifics would be nice. Who says that innovation is the key to all great art? I see these words all the time in such discussions, but seldom from people who defend contemporary art. Usually, these words are used by the people with some quibble or other with modernism, put into the mouths of the so-called modernists.



jaibyrne said:


> this egocentric idea that a composer is a on a divine mission to do greatness through breaking barriers that ppl are unable to understand until after his death. this has become a cultish thing in new music and in my mind a bad thing.


Well, this idea, as you've said, dates from around Beethoven's time. Not terribly recent, in other words. And where does it come from? The new idea (new in the 19th century) that greatness was what matters in art, which is related to the idea that art was somehow morally superior, that it was, like vegetables, "good for you." It's not an idea that many real composers have ever spent much time espousing. How many real composers do you suppose want to be misunderstood until after they're dead. Composers write for many reasons, of course, but one of them is always "to be heard and enjoyed." Always. For every composer.



jaibyrne said:


> how much music did i hear that was innovation for the sake of it. how many composers did i meet who talked like it was them against the world and didn't care what anyone thought cos they were the next superman - way too many !


Really? We must know completely different composers, then!! (And by the way, what is "innovation for the sake of it" and how can you tell, in the audience, whether that's what you're hearing or not?)


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

some guy said:


> Here's where some specifics would be nice. Who says that innovation is the key to all great art? I see these words all the time in such discussions, but seldom from people who defend contemporary art. Usually, these words are used by the people with some quibble or other with modernism, put into the mouths of the so-called modernists.


I don't feel in a position to comment on how far this view is held by audiences or composers, but it is true that I hear it too often from critics. I remember some concerts I watched last year in which Schumann and Mendelssohn were featured among others, and one critic said that 'both were very conservative, but their music is great _anyway_'. Another critic came to their defence, but rather than help the situation by saying that they needn't be groundbreaking to be great, he attempted to defend them by contending that they _were_ revolutionary and therefore deserved the respect that comes with doing things that are new (whether that notion is right or wrong isn't important)!

Similarly, when I've heard critics commenting on contemporary music, they always seem to scour the music for some aspect of it that they haven't heard done before in anyone else's music. Forget all the similarities it has with other composers - those are minor failures - now, _this bit_ is what I haven't heard anywhere before, so it simply _must_ be good!


----------



## Jaime77 (Jun 29, 2009)

Hi some guy...

all this I say is from experience doing a phd in composition in the UK. you have different experiences. to say that great composers have all been challenging. I don't know. I have not found that to be so in my reading of music history that is all and ok maybe some aspects are new in many composers but familiarity is more than equally important. we talked before  no resolution found. you are the opposite thinker in many ways to me and I guess that is that. so many composers who you don't consider truly great that are still played today certainly produced masterpieces that were not ground-breaking. do you honestly believe in order to be great you must push barriers? I just don't believe this in the slightest. what is wrong with being personal? surely what makes debussy great was that he was himself as much as any revolution. same with messiaen. these are great composers and they didn't go out to be different and therefore immortal. they wanted to express themselves their own way and this came out. I am saddened by unflinching modernism - cant we get a balance here? 

i sound like some old conservative and i am not. my comments about tonality i believe have a very strong case. that was the core of my last post. times are changing and the 'fascist modernist regime' so common in universities - if u haven't seen it u r just lucky - will hopefully die out. 

by the way explain how bach and mozart were challenging? so challenging that they drove people away from places where their music was played like Ferneyhough has done so well.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Within my own field of expertise (visual arts) I find myself struggling with the notion that this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


At least they have some use. What good is a picture of a dog on a bed or some woman messing with her necklace if you need a slash in a dark room.



> And, while composition will always remain a very personal experience, it is still true that most composers write for other human beings to hear. A large part of our problem has been that in limiting our artistic options, we have robbed our palettes of greater expressive breadth. *For this reason, our music is fast becoming obsolete*. That, in turn, has limited our audience.


How can contemporary music become obsolete?


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

sorry, i have to take a stab at this.



jaibyrne said:


> I disagree that most composers played still today challenged the audience of the time. So much music for one thing was functional - sacred music including bach cantatas - which is vast, Mozart for the courts. they wouldn't have employed him if he was that challenging. beethoven yes was revolutionary in much of his music but many post-beethoven composers were conservative by comparison. schumann, mendelssohn, bruch, brahms - what did these composers do that was challenging?


Well, I think it worth digging around a bit to read all of the critisim these composers took, even if they were working within the common practice. You might be surprised at how much their music was hated as well as loved.



jaibyrne said:


> also, more importantly, my argument is that referring to music history is in no way to indicate what is going on now. These times are so radically unique and have never happened before.


True enough. But I'm glad for it.



jaibyrne said:


> thousands of years of modal music and regular pulse which gave rise fairly naturally to tonality and predominant consonance.


Ummmm...I don't think it is this simple.

Does Gregorain Chant have a regular pulse? It was around for quite some time. Even modality was not so straight forward to imply that everything was pointing towards functional tonality. Yes, there were powerful forces that pushed music towards conformity. Too much to get into, though.

And you seem to so easily dismiss the music of the world, which has an incredibly rich variety of ideas around rhythm and mode. Some of it very ancient. Modern composers have been inspired by these traditions. Is this wrong?



jaibyrne said:


> not cause we just felt like it but cos the brain responds well to it.


You mention a few times about how the brain responds to music. Could you cite the studies? I've read an article that suggest esoteric art is good for the thinking mind as it challenges the brain to find associations.

http://www.physorg.com/news172253217.html

And although I haven't seen your studies, is the idea of cultural conformity discussed? In essence, what we hear regularly becomes normal and pleasing, in spite of what it is. This must be a factor.



jaibyrne said:


> then in the last 100 years a mix of all kinds of music. some of which is so dissonant and ametric, often devoid of 'singable' melodic lines and difficult to 'follow' as regards form - this kind of music is new and never been accepted by all composers. strauss and rvw and elgar and rachmaninov many others did anything not to write music that went too far into the realm. prokofiev and shostakovich too. prokofiev said that dissonance was a like salt.. too much and you ruin the taste.  even stravinsky valued its importance highly and so did bartok - returning to it, like penderecki and less so, ligeti in later years..


Yes, there is some music that goes above and beyond...I guess. I'm not so damning, as music that avoids using consonance and dissonance relationships or meter offers other delights and ways to enjoy, like colour, timbre, texture, density, counterpoint etc etc.

About salt - it's a good quote, but needs contextualization. Putting salt on ice cream is not so good, but salted pork or salted salmon can be divine. It's all about the context. There is no one way to use salt.



jaibyrne said:


> i know there are many modern musics and i am not against experimentation and breaking rules. what i am suggesting is that such levels of dissonance and ameter and extended instrumental technique for its own sake may be a musical cul de sace. also i find from talking to non-musicians that most of them cant FEEL the music cos of the lack of these brain cues. It seems like it is devoid of emotion to many tho not all people. it is more so cerebrally appealing to someone with analytical tendencies and a detailed knowledge of music. exceptions exist. ..


Often, it is non-musicans who enjoy modern esoteric music the most. Much of the modern practice is not to diminish musics emotion, but to enhance it's possibility. And, if the listener is in the right place (mind and body), can have very profound reactions to this music.

I have seen this many times. I have played very modern music to a lay audience, and had very appreciative responses. People have discussed the physical effect of the music - it's visceral quality. But, I always present music with love and care for the music and the audience that has chosen to come to my concert. It is indeed the classical musician who will often not like modern music, and will play it with this kind of emotion - contempt. How can the composers idea be related if the musicians don't agree with it?

An important thing for composers to remember - know who you are composing for.



jaibyrne said:


> i greatly doubt in a hundred years that humans will some how, after 2000 years start to feel and think so differently about music that this level of 'modernity' will be preferred way of expression. and from what i read about the human brain, the success of music without tonality and clear formal signposts like melody and a clear beat, is highly unlikely. it is in many respects... inhuman.


Dude, come on. inhuman!? It is entirely human. Why do you make such derogatory statements - it's so insensitive to me and others who gain much from the modern art tradition. Such a narrow view of humanity.

Again, what have you read. Please post a link - I'm very curious to see what the parameters of the study are - how the test group was chosen and prepared, what kinds of information they were given, what kind of reaction was recorded, and how the results were tabulated.

But be careful. Many many people out there also criticize Beethoven and Bach for the same reasons. Where is the dance beat? Where is the tune? Where are the lyrics. I'm bored. This is elitist. Etc etc.

Lady Gaga is way more popular than anything in the classical realm. So, is Bach "inhuman"?



jaibyrne said:


> Also, just to add... the ideas that innovation is key to all great art or is indeed the reason for great art is ludicrous and is a modernists outlook.


Umm...ludicrous? What is the reason for greatness in art if some kind of innovative parameter is not met? Are photocopiers great artists because they can churn out lots of mona lisas?

Are the pyramids great because they are big, stone triangles? Or do we consider them great because in their time, they were very innovative, and grand. I mean, we could churn out pyramids now, and surround our selves with greatness if innovation is ludicrous.

Please give me an example of a great piece of classical music that isn't innovative. Then, we should have a look, and see what is actually going on in that work and determine if this is simply regurgitated, or was in fact, highly creative and innovative. Please, it would be interesting to do this.



jaibyrne said:


> also the 'beethoven cult' of doing what u believe in to be great regardless of public opinion. this egocentric idea that a composer is a on a divine mission to do greatness through breaking barriers that ppl are unable to understand until after his death. this has become a cultish thing in new music and in my mind a bad thing. how much music did i hear that was innovation for the sake of it. how many composers did i meet who talked like it was them against the world and didn't care what anyone thought cos they were the next superman - way too many !


Like some guy said, I really don't know of whom you speak. But, it is a criticism I have heard from the haters of modern art - again and again. It is so tiring.

When I decided to be a composer, I was inspired by the idea of innovation. It seemed to me that the works of art I revered most were the product of 2 things: creativity and work. I ask, is this wrong? Do you wish your artists not to be creative? Is that what everyone wants? Mass conformity? (rhetorical questions btw)

Sure, anything cultish is suspect - anything. And yes, some artists have not cared what the audience thinks, but very few. Even the arch enemy of all things "human", mr stockhausen, greatly desired to communicate with his audience.

More to the topic at hand, I think modern music is changing, and evolving. It must. I support the idea of returning to earlier values and practices, but it should be done through the lens of our modern eyes critically. We cannot replicate what was done, nor should we desire to do so.

One thing that has shown to be quite regular throughout history is that with a new era comes a rejection of the previous era. This is logical, but is it right? I feel that the now artist is doing themselves a disservice to simply brush off what came before them. What a wonderful pallet of ideas and concepts the modern era brought us - they are gifts. Love it! Learn from it! Have fun. Modern music can be so pleasurable. It can be playful (gruber, cage, adams, ades) or serious (boulez, nono, rorem, vivier, kancheli). Dramatic (zimmermann, xenakis, grisey, sessions, gubaidulina) or serene (part, reich, gorecki, brown, young). And on and on. The 20th century was an explosion of creativity. A vast reservoir that contrary to your belief, I believe will be treasured in the future, just as it is now, even if only to a small group.

Lastly I suggest you all go back and re-read Andre's post. As someone who works in the industry, I can personally attest to the truth with which he speaks. I could go on about it, but think I'm already overstaying my welcome.

But if anyone cares, I could elaborate on what it is that orchestra programming committees are like, in a vague way as it wouldn't be right to divulge this information openly. But I will say this: the topic of tonality is hardly on the table.


----------



## Jaime77 (Jun 29, 2009)

Hi scott, thanks for the clear response and your arguments are well made. I was emotionally driven in my expression and as a result some of it is o.t.t. No kind of art is inhuman. I think that many great composers were 'conservative' and perhaps more significantly many great works of art were not ground-breaking or challenged the audience. That is my belief. do i list masterpieces that were not challenging in their time? and what about composers that were challenging and are not up there with the greats. consider Ives and varese.. are these up there with Beethoven? I don't know. 

I am a composer. That is what makes me emotional. I am scared my music will be called rubbish by someone like yourself who is into cutting edge avant garde and will scan my work for derivative elements and tear it apart. Maybe you will say nothing I write can be great or a masterpiece cos I am too conservative. This bothers me a lot. So you see I take these things personally. I know what it is like to be around artists who tear shreds out of each other and it was a horrible experience. Perhaps this makes me fear that which I don't want to produce. Having said that, I think rachmaninov and rvw and mozart many others were truly great composers that deserve to be remembered though not challenging in their masterpieces for the greater part. 

and I also believe from talking to many people, musician and non-musician that tonality and regular meter is generally preferred (90 percent) because, for whatever reason, it somehow has the ability to move people emotionally and that is what most of the people i have met want. again ... personal. i dont mean to offend either really


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Scott Good said:


> You mention a few times about how the brain responds to music. Could you cite the studies? I've read an article that suggest esoteric art is good for the thinking mind as it challenges the brain to find associations.


If anybody is genuinely interested in this, Steven Pinker has an excellent chapter on music in _How the Mind Works_, and other good starting places are Robert Jourdain's _Music, the Brain and Ecstasy_; _The Origins of Music_ by Wallin, Merker and Brown; _The Memetics of Music_ by Steven Jan; and _This is Your Brain on Music_ by Levitin.

As well as the above, Professor Usha Goswami has done some fascinating research on the connection between music and language which suggests that the tonal system is an important factor in how children learn to speak and read (_Phonological Skills and Learning to Read_), which is well-complemented by _Music, Language and the Brain_ by Patel.


----------



## Jaime77 (Jun 29, 2009)

Thank you Polednice. I read the Levitin book and also Nicholas Cooke's Very Short Introduction to Music raises some wonderful points about music history, criticism and tonality. Most of all I have listened myself to music and to musicians and so feel it is personal and empirical to me to think as I do. Again I don't for a second want to say that I am against any kind of art. I just prefer tonality and I don't like how as a composer I have felt certain aspects of modernity forced down my neck. But hey, that is my own story


----------



## Scott Good (Jun 8, 2009)

Jaibyrne,

Excellent response! Very gentlemanly. Thank you.

Actually, I have listened to quite a bit of your music! I like it - some more than others - but the first piece up on your player, with the layered voices, is quite evocative. Congratulations.

You are reading too much into my sentiments, as many have. The problem is if I say "I like some of Stockhausen's music" or "I believe Schoenberg is a great composer" - both true statements, then I also mean "I hate tonality" or "pop music sucks" or whatever. It is this leap of faith that really gets me! And is %100 not true. Not only do I like this music, but I play it and write it.

Perhaps you could do me the favor of popping by my myspace page and listen to what I do. Please listen to a few tracks - they are only snippets due to union regulations, but I think the 10 samples give a sense of the breadth of my love and interest for music. (sorry, I guess again some self promotion. It's just that I am above all other professional consideration, a composer. It is how I express my ideas best)

http://www.myspace.com/scottgoodcomposer

Let me come along with you for a bit. In my undergrad University daze, I remember getting this sinking feeling that if I found pleasure in Tchaikovsky or Brahms (which I do very much), that I'm a dupe, or a flake or something like that. I very much resented this opinion, which seemed very closed - not a good way for an artist to be. So, I just ignored it. But much of it was about young people finding their way, and their voice, by defining themselves on what they are not. Unfortunately, I'm not so sure if this is the best way to go. One thing I try to emphasize to my composition students is to approach art with love, not hate. With inclusion rather than exclusion. Towards beautiful, not away from ugliness. This produces a more peaceful state of mind, and lets the river of creativity flow more freely.

I just want to address a few points specifically.



jaibyrne said:


> Hi scott, thanks for the clear response and your arguments are well made. I was emotionally driven in my expression and as a result some of it is o.t.t. No kind of art is inhuman. I think that many great composers were 'conservative' and perhaps more significantly many great works of art were not ground-breaking or challenged the audience. That is my belief. do i list masterpieces that were not challenging in their time? and what about composers that were challenging and are not up there with the greats. consider Ives and varese.. are these up there with Beethoven? I don't know.


Well, as I said, if you could list one or two, perhaps we could investigate and find the truth in the notes. Just a thought - I like to figure things out for myself.

And, I believe that Ives was great at being Ives, Beethoven of being Beethoven, and Varese of being Varese. I like them all, and have been moved by all of these composers.

To weigh their greatness against each other would be tricky. By what standards? I don't know, seems futile. I mean, I could rip on Beethoven if I wanted, and find flaws - not that hard to do. In fact, I was more immediately pulled to the other composers than Beethoven - he took some work. And for precisely the same reasons as you say modernists are biased, I resented at times, the impenetrable authority that Beethoven has been bestowed upon by the classical elite. It made me weary of his music. But, I've come around, and do enjoy quite a bit of his music now. Especially the 2nd movement of his Violin concerto. It was a real turnaround piece for me. I'm even starting to get into the famous 9. Was quite taken with the last couple of performances I have seen - Waaaaaaayyyyy better live.

Most important point is that these men were very creative and also very hard working. They produced innovative works that stimulate the mind and emotions in very different ways. In certain ways, Ives 4th speaks to the modern human condition better than any Beethoven work - it is freer, and not constrained by a common practice. He discusses sound noise in this music, and ritual. He has melody of sentiment and motive of science. It's a remarkable work that I'm so sad is rarely performed.

Do you think it better if the audience gets another Beethoven 5, or a chance to experience at least once, the unique and beautiful voice of Ives' 4th symphony live? Does it not shed some light on our history to hear Varese's _Arcana_ or _Ameriques_, and how new technology was being thought about by artists of the time?



jaibyrne said:


> I am a composer. That is what makes me emotional.


Me too, man. Me too.



jaibyrne said:


> I am scared my music will be called rubbish by someone like yourself who is into cutting edge avant garde and will scan my work for derivative elements and tear it apart.


Well, as I hope is clear now, this is not the case!

But let me tell you, I have taken some big knocks in very public spaces. I have been accused of all sorts of indiscretions by audience members. Some people absolutely hate my music...in fact sometimes even more so if it is tonal! I'd give you some juicy quotes, but didn't save the bad ones and can't find them anymore.

It sucks - I'm having a hard time dealing with it to be honest. Tough as nails they say. Sorry, but I'm flesh and blood...and emotion.



jaibyrne said:


> Maybe you will say nothing I write can be great or a masterpiece cos I am too conservative. This bothers me a lot. So you see I take these things personally. I know what it is like to be around artists who tear shreds out of each other and it was a horrible experience. Perhaps this makes me fear that which I don't want to produce. Having said that, I think rachmaninov and rvw and mozart many others were truly great composers that deserve to be remembered though not challenging in their masterpieces for the greater part.


Mozart not innovative? That is craziness! Even Rachmaninoff not innovative? Not so sure I agree. The opening of the 2nd concerto - wow - fresh - unique - blending jazz, impressionism, and romanticism. He might be cliche now, but in his time...I don't know, I'm very open to what innovation means. Perhaps that is the miss communication. Innovation means to me to create something new - not a copy. Just in terms of what Rach did for the piano is enough for me. Worth study and appreciation for it's uniqueness.

But, you keep flipping between challenging and innovation, as if they mean the same thing. Please be clear in what you mean.



jaibyrne said:


> and I also believe from talking to many people, musician and non-musician that tonality and regular meter is generally preferred (90 percent) because, for whatever reason, it somehow has the ability to move people emotionally and that is what most of the people i have met want. again ... personal. i dont mean to offend either really


Moi aussi 

If 90% is the mark, well, ok fine. But %10 is quite a few people (600 million)! It is more than the entire "market" for classical music period! Please don't forget this.

If we go with the majority, then we are doomed to endless boom boom boom. Also, vocal music is by far the preferential medium...so, should we abandon instrumental music, and just sing songs? Maybe we should...sounds awfully boring and conformist to me.

And lastly (also to Polendice), people prefer what they know - this is obvious, and is why I question Pinker and the gang for not looking at the picture through a wider lens. I like Pinker quite a bit, he is Canadian after all! But I'm not such a fan of his writings about art - something I feel he knows little about, and the arguments I have seen are surface - not very deep like his work on language, behavior, and violence for instance.

And remember, Pinker believes music is like Cheese cake (summary: tasty, but bad nutrition - does no overt good aside from visceral pleasure), and doesn't believe it relates in any way to our evolution as a species! In other words, useless except as entertainment. I don't know, seems like jumping the gun - I mean every culture has music, so, it must be essential to who we are, no? To build sense of community and culture, ritual, emotional communication, to assert individuality and build creativity etc etc

I'd be weary of Pinker in this subject. But, he's is very bright, so, I don't write it off completely. I'm going to check out some of those other suggestions made by Polendice.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Scott Good said:


> And lastly (also to Polendice), people prefer what they know - this is obvious, and is why I question Pinker and the gang for not looking at the picture through a wider lens. I like Pinker quite a bit, he is Canadian after all! But I'm not such a fan of his writings about art - something I feel he knows little about, and the arguments I have seen are surface - not very deep like his work on language, behavior, and violence for instance.


Things certainly do become slightly shaky when these studies focus on western music history in particular, but it's not always the case. Pinker's consideration of the arts is certainly _far_ more hypothetical and theoretical than other studies, but I still think his ideas have value (at least as far as evolutionary musicology is concerned).



Scott Good said:


> And remember, Pinker believes music is like Cheese cake (summary: tasty, but bad nutrition - does no overt good aside from visceral pleasure), and doesn't believe it relates in any way to our evolution as a species! In other words, useless except as entertainment. I don't know, seems like jumping the gun - I mean every culture has music, so, it must be essential to who we are, no? To build sense of community and culture, ritual, emotional communication, to assert individuality and build creativity etc etc


Surely it's true that music is not relevant to our evolution as a species? Of course it's useful for a sense of community, culture and everything else you mentioned (and I don't think Pinker meant to disagree with notions such as these), but the point is that it didn't immediately affect our ancestors' ability to reproduce successfully. The arts are essentially an extraordinary by-product of _other_ evolutionary advances in the human brain (just as can be said of religion, but I won't get into that here ).



Scott Good said:


> I'd be weary of Pinker in this subject. But, he's is very bright, so, I don't write it off completely. I'm going to check out some of those other suggestions made by Polendice.


Pinker does raise some interesting things to consider, and he makes it clear that they are really just suggestions, but the other studies are definitely worth looking at


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I disagree that most composers played still today challenged the audience of the time. So much music for one thing was functional - sacred music including bach cantatas - which is vast, Mozart for the courts. they wouldn't have employed him if he was that challenging. beethoven yes was revolutionary in much of his music but many post-beethoven composers were conservative by comparison. schumann, mendelssohn, bruch, brahms - what did these composers do that was challenging?

I believe my original post suggested that "there has long been a gap between *certain aspects of the latest art* and the audience's ability to appreciate this..." I would not suggest that every artist of merit created in a vocabulary that was challenging to the tradition into which he or she worked. I would suggest that Bach in many ways was a conservative... building upon existing forms (albeit taking them to unheard of heights)... but I have read of choir-members and parishioners complaining of the difficulty of his music. Schumann certainly challenged the tradition with his linkage of musical forms with poetic forms and narrative and his aversion to the then-popular bombastic and virtuosic theatricality in favor of a certain classicism rooted in Mozart (among others). But on the whole I agree that not every artist of real merit... genius even... so challenges the traditions that he or she leaves the audience confused. Many of the greatest masters were incredibly popular, suggesting that their work did not baffle. I don't think popularity is any measure of the worth of art... for or against.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

At least they have some use. What good is a picture of a dog on a bed or some woman messing with her necklace if you need a slash in a dark room.


----------



## Jaime77 (Jun 29, 2009)

_And, I believe that Ives was great at being Ives, Beethoven of being Beethoven, and Varese of being Varese. I like them all, and have been moved by all of these composers.
_

Totally agree with this Scott and I rather look at music history this way. On reflection there are innovative elements and some composers pushed boundaries more than others. I don't think we are either of us saying that innovation=greatness. Otherwise I could throw a cello out a window in a moment and be suddenly great  or has that been done in a woody allen film? lol the point is that many lasting composers but not perhaps all had a keen sense of individuality which in maturity naturally asked questions about music and pushed some boundaries or perhaps.. redefined certain things is better.

_Many of the greatest masters were incredibly popular, suggesting that their work did not baffle. I don't think popularity is any measure of the worth of art... for or against._

I agree with this StLukes and also to say many single works are masterpieces and not groundbreaking.

let's not generalize (tho I sure did to start with!) there are many forms of greatness.

Also now is now and then was then. Now I feel that it indeed is the age of individuality - a great time to be yourself. Some will like and some will not with your artistic endeavour. I have come to love some atonal pieces (for want of a more inclusive term) but for me, the heart is in tonality and that is where I belong. We will see if history remembers me and if I care... I am not sure. We will also see where music history is going, if that is not too much a paradox. I also love many other present music like Jazz for example and have come to love many indigineous non-Western music too. All interesting to me.

Thanks for the comments on my music! wasn't expecting that


----------

