# Student Performers Attitudes Towards Contemporary Music



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I spoke with my daughter (grad student in cello performance) today, and she told me she was dismayed by the large number of performance majors who simply were not excited to perform modern or contemporary music. She understands that many people don't like modern/contemporary music, but these are young performance majors immersed in learning to play composed music. She feels it's strange that they would not be excited to experience what all the student or professional composers they see everyday are composing. She wants to start a group of performers who focus on contemporary works, and mostly she wants to do this for fun (i.e. because it's exciting). 

I can imagine some reasons why young performers would vastly prefer the standard repertoire to newer works, but I can also imagine newer works being very exciting especially for students (i.e. this is what's newly happening in your field). I knew and know many students in various subjects, and they seem(ed) extremely interested in new aspects of their fields. Music performance is different than science, sociology, and philosophy, but students are students. 

I'm interested in the views of music students or those who went to music school on this subject. Did you sense any excitement in the performance majors when playing new music? Did they mostly seem uninterested? What are your thoughts on why either of these were the case?

(I'm not so interested in the modernist/anti-modernist debate but rather on why students in this one particular field would seem to be different from those in other fields).


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

As someone who was never a music student I would suggest that if you are in math and the sciences, you are there because you want to push the bounds of knowledge. If you are a composition major, you want to make your own distinctive mark. But if you are in performance then you are as likely to be interested in performing the vast historical musical archive as in trying new music.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MMSBLS, I read of a study some years back that might be relevant. Several "idiot savants" in music were tested. These were people of no special talent except that they could easily remember long pieces of music from a single hearing and play them, often faultlessly, on a keyboard with all the correct chords, figurations, and so forth.

What was found was that CPT music of the 19th century and earlier could be accurately remembered and reproduced, but the farther the music departed from that, the more difficult it became for them, the less could be readily remembered, and the less accurate their performances became. This was with regard to composers like Prokofiev, Bartok, and others.

Perhaps young performance majors simply find modern music too difficult in that regard, the learning more work than pleasure, and the reward of hearing the music not commensurate with the time and effort involved.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I think students do find new music - contemporary music - exciting to discover. The real question is whether this is taken up any further. There are friends I know who by and large prefer traditional repertoire because the music itself is appealing to them. Very few wholly devote to performance of contemporary music alone although I would say the vast majority are excited about discovering it for the first time.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I was trolling around YouTube a couple of years ago and was amazed to find the late Michael Tippett conducting a student orchestra (middle school/high school) in his own Ritual Dances from "The Midsummer Marriage." It's not difficult music to listen to necessarily, but I would think fiendishly difficult to play. And they did it wonderfully. And seemed not at all put out by the experience.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Depends on the musician. Honestly, a lot of young musicians, not necessarily the majority, are more interested in being diva stars than anything else and the number of pieces they play that they actually like are very few.

I don't know about anyone else...most musicians at my school that weren't the former were fine with modern music.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

New music can be rather difficult, but of course, so is much work in other fields. I do understand that some students would prefer older music and probably because they like the music much more. I think my daughter's view was that before coming to a university it might make sense that students would prefer the music they've heard and loved for so long, but once they come to the university and start to see that many people (essentially all composition majors and professors who compose) are writing in newer styles, they could be at least somewhat interested in exploring that new music. Obviously some are, but she was simply surprised that it was difficult to get groups together to play that new music. 

I suppose the other effect could be that given the choice between playing a student composition or a professor's work compared to the all-time greats, they choose Mahler, Dvorak, Schubert, etc..


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> but once they come to the university and start to see that many people (essentially all composition majors and professors who compose) are writing in newer styles,


And that raises some interesting questions. I know from from others on this site, also from a friend who is a composition professor that there is significant pressure on students to follow in the 'truth' according to the faculty even if the students would not otherwise do so. Actually that isn't much different from the sciences as I can personally attest. So the issue of what composition majors do is no surprise, the real question then becomes how much does academia (i.e. the faculty) differ from the rest of the world. I don't know the answer to that but I can make a guess. Tenure is a great thing in some ways but it can also be self-selecting and can have the side effect of minimizing the effect of the outside world.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

There is a deep suspicion of new music, and there has been since the mid-19th century at the least. What has changed is that the suspicion of the new has extended back all the way as far as the early 20th century for some. It makes sense that this is so, given that this is the time when the common language of music ceased to exist and was replaced with a variety of languages, which are less or more familiar-seeming to one who feels that the language of the common practice period is the most natural.

You can see this on Youtube; there are people who go around to videos of Hindemith, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Boulez, Berg, etc. simply to say how horrible the music is, how everyone who says they like it is duped or lying, etc. I have seen such comments on Prokofiev and Shostakovich videos as well. They feel that because a common language no longer exists, what it has been replaced with is actually no language at all, but meaningless babble.

The only solution I can see would be to have a more comprehensive music education starting from an early age, so that the languages of the 20th century become more familiar and less forbidding.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Becca said:


> Tenure is a great thing in some ways but it can also be self-selecting and can have the side effect of minimizing the effect of the outside world.


In many academic fields there is essentially no outside world. I came from particle physics where basically no one understood or cared about what we did (and it didn't affect anyone). In classical music the outside world interacts somewhat strongly, if less directly with music departments, by attending concerts and buying CDs. But yes, professors can direct their students along paths that would potentially be rather different from those more influenced by the outside world.

Performance students have told me they learn the established repertoire because that is what they need to know to get jobs. Since that repertoire has little to no new music, the emphasis will be on older music.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> It makes sense that this is so, given that this is the time when the common language of music ceased to exist and was replaced with a variety of languages, which are less or more familiar-seeming to one who feels that the language of the common practice period is the most natural.


The language problem is huge. A composition student friend of mine felt that people's problems with appreciating much of modern music stems from the fact that so few composers write in the same language. One almost must learn each composer's language before appreciating their music. Just because I finally learned Boulez's language and hear his music differently than I did before does not necessarily help me with a contemporary composer.

I wonder if the vast majority of composers in the first half of the 20th century had written in styles very similar to Schoenberg, Berg. and Webern, would listeners have acquired that language much more easily? Would they feel as comfortable with the music as they do with Brahms, Mahler, and Bruckner? Would few rail against Schoenberg and his unnatural music?


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

mmsbls said:


> The language problem is huge. A composition student friend of mine felt that people's problems with appreciating much of modern music stems from the fact that so few composers write in the same language. One almost must learn each composer's language before appreciating their music. Just because I finally learned Boulez's language and hear his music differently than I did before does not necessarily help me with a contemporary composer.
> 
> I wonder if the vast majority of composers in the first half of the 20th century had written in styles very similar to Schoenberg, Berg. and Webern, would listeners have acquired that language much more easily? Would they feel as comfortable with the music as they do with Brahms, Mahler, and Bruckner? Would few rail against Schoenberg and his unnatural music?


Composers _should_ have their own language-that's part of what makes music fresh and exciting.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Morimur said:


> Composers _should_ have their own language-that's part of what makes music fresh and exciting.


Well, I think it's a question of how different one's language is from others. My understanding is that in earlier times (Baroque, Classical, and Romantic) the language was much more uniform. Maybe one would say there were a very small number of languages with many dialects. In modern music there truly seem to be many languages being used at the same time.

I don't disagree that more languages can make music exciting. It's simply that my experience has been that I must listen much more before I can appreciate the music.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> The language problem is huge. A composition student friend of mine felt that people's problems with appreciating much of modern music stems from the fact that so few composers write in the same language. One almost must learn each composer's language before appreciating their music. Just because I finally learned Boulez's language and hear his music differently than I did before does not necessarily help me with a contemporary composer.


Very true. It was a long time after coming to appreciate Schoenberg's music that I came to terms with Babbitt's, and those are both "12-tone composers"!



mmsbls said:


> I wonder if the vast majority of composers in the first half of the 20th century had written in styles very similar to Schoenberg, Berg. and Webern, would listeners have acquired that language much more easily? Would they feel as comfortable with the music as they do with Brahms, Mahler, and Bruckner? Would few rail against Schoenberg and his unnatural music?


I suspect that more would be able to hear it without the idea that it's devoid of melody or harmonic meaning, at the very least.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

MarkW said:


> I was trolling around YouTube a couple of years ago and was amazed to find the late Michael Tippett conducting a student orchestra (middle school/high school) in his own Ritual Dances from "The Midsummer Marriage." It's not difficult music to listen to necessarily, but I would think fiendishly difficult to play. And they did it wonderfully. And seemed not at all put out by the experience.


Similarly, I was watching a documentary about Sir Peter Maxwell-Davies recently and he was getting youth musicians to perform his music too - and they seemed to be really enjoying it (and they were making a great job of producing interesting, enjoyable music). I bet the conviction of the conductor has a large part to play in encouraging engagement with modern music


----------



## Gordontrek (Jun 22, 2012)

I don't mind new works- many of them I have loved and enjoyed premiering. 
But there a lot that I've performed as a student that, in addition to sounding like a marching band falling down the stairs and making the audience squirm in their seats, are incredibly technically demanding. But since the piece is so "random," no one can tell if I completely frack a note. In a sense that's a good thing, but also, it takes away from anyone appreciating just how difficult the piece is. 
Don't think of me as some ultra-conservative purist; I am NOT against atonality/modernism/whatever the heck you call it. But I have my own set of frustrations and dislikes in that regard. I can't speak for all the students referenced in the OP, but perhaps for some of them.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Interesting question.

Since I graduated from college forty years ago, I do not know what the state of affairs in colleges today are.

I went to a college where most of the students preferred the classics. When I was playing in the Army right out of college most of the players preferred contemporary music.

Today it is interesting.

I play with three groups: One orchestra and two concert bands.

One band prefers playing light classic and pops music.

The orchestra and the other band equally prefers classic and contemporary music and some pop.

My youngest son teaches at a music school in Southern California and works as a freelance musician. He tells his students if you want to make a living playing you have to able to play everything. Classical, contemporary, pop, whatever is thrown in front of you. Remember my post concerning the Christmas gig: http://www.talkclassical.com/31317-rant-horrible-music-composers.html?highlight=christmas#post632229

When I was in the Army I was expected to play all sorts of music.

Very few musicians can make a living just playing art music. The majority either learn how to play what they have to in order to make a living or take up selling life insurance.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> Very few musicians can make a living just playing art music. The majority either learn how to play what they have to in order to make a living or take up selling life insurance.


That's true, but they may not like some of the music they have to play. My wife is playing with an community orchestra that is playing one premiere (or in one case a West coast premiere) on every concert this year. The contemporary works are pretty tame by our standards (except one case of overtone singing), but many of the performers do not enjoy them. My guess is that many in the audience do not as well (I heard from a few who did not so I'm extrapolating and could be wrong).

I don't expect those attitudes to change much any time soon. I'm just thrilled that I get to hear new music in performance more than I expected recently.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

^^^
Like I said I play with three groups and it depends on the group I am playing with. Each group is different.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> I wonder if the vast majority of composers in the first half of the 20th century had written in styles very similar to Schoenberg, Berg. and Webern, would listeners have acquired that language much more easily?


Maybe. But the fact that the vast majority of composers _didn't_ write in those styles is significant.

Irish schoolchildren are compulsorily taught the Irish language as a second language every day throughout primary and secondary school. But fewer than half of us say we're able to speak it, and only a tiny minority of us use the language regularly. Those who do tend to be people who went to a school where Irish was used as the first language. 
So yeah, adding the 2nd Viennese school (for example) to a basic music education might help increase fluency, but if there remains little or no incentive to speak a minority language outside of the academic setting, people won't want to speak it.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Like arpeggio is a long time since I left musical school, thirty-two years this summer in fact. But what I remember it was a rather different situation to the one described here.

For some people, especially performance majors, everything circled around their instrument, and "traditional" pieces (if the instrument was their voice, even more so). However, composition majors, usually had a much more open view, and new stuff, contemporary stuff was their daily bread. Conducting majors were a little bit in between.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Sviatoslav Richter, when asked by Shostakovich why he didn't play all his preludes and fugues, simply said: "Why should I play the ones I don't like?" Some (not all) contemporary music sounds pretty awful to me. I can therefore understand why young people don't want to play it, especially as relatively few want to actually listen to it. I remember as a lad playing a Waltz by Poulenc (not very well, I might add) and my parents saying what a noise it was. And my father was a very good pianist to boot! Now obviously if you are a professional musician you should be able to play all sorts of music so training in it is necessary. But to enjoy? That's another thing.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Sviatoslav Richter, when asked by Shostakovich why he didn't play all his preludes and fugues, simply said: "Why should I play the ones I don't like?" Some (not all) contemporary music sounds pretty awful to me. I can therefore understand why young people don't want to play it, especially as relatively few want to actually listen to it. I remember as a lad playing a Waltz by Poulenc (not very well, I might add) and my parents saying what a noise it was. And my father was a very good pianist to boot! Now obviously if you are a professional musician you should be able to play all sorts of music so training in it is necessary. But to enjoy? That's another thing.


but performers *CAN* enjoy contemporary music (even if you are vociferous and persistent in your disbelief that this can be the case)

see post #5 "I was trolling around YouTube a couple of years ago and was amazed to find the late Michael Tippett conducting a student orchestra (middle school/high school) in his own Ritual Dances from "The Midsummer Marriage." It's not difficult music to listen to necessarily, but I would think fiendishly difficult to play. And they did it wonderfully. And seemed not at all put out by the experience."

and post #13 - "I was watching a documentary about Sir Peter Maxwell-Davies recently and he was getting youth musicians to perform his music too - and they seemed to be really enjoying it (and they were making a great job of producing interesting, enjoyable music). I bet the conviction of the conductor has a large part to play in encouraging engagement with modern music"


----------

