# Evaluating Modern Music



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Chordalrock said:


> Listening to Mantra. As with so much music, there are passages that I find to be strong, interesting things, but also a lot of it that does nothing much for me. Could it be better, or could I be a better listener? I don't know, to be honest. This isn't the kind of music I can confidently evaluate beyond "this sounds too ordinary" or "I like this but not this" or "I wish this was more consistent in terms of mood".


I think this is a really interesting comment. It's as if Chordalrock is saying

1. I have criteria which I normally use to evaluate music. 
2. These (unspecified) criteria aren't useful with Stockhausen's Mantra.

I seem to remember a similar point in a discussion with someone about Pollini's Nono - where the suggestion was that we just don't have the critical apparatus to evaluate the performance (not the music this time.)

Anyway, I thought it was an interesting and difficult area. Hence a thread.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I don't think this is particular to modern classical music, except insofar as modern classical music happens to be unfamiliar to a larger number of listeners than a lot of other areas of music.

There are particular parts of modern classical where I also feel unqualified to evaluate both composition and performance because I don't feel that I really "get" it (early Boulez is an example I've mentioned before). But this is also true of, for example, heavy metal.

I'm not sure it's a question of applying particular criteria because I don't think that's what I do when I evaluate music; or rather, I might try to apply some criteria after the fact to explain why I do or don't respond to something, but I couldn't generalize any of them across all the music I listen to.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> There are particular parts of modern classical where I also feel unqualified to evaluate both composition and performance because I don't feel that I really "get" it (early Boulez is an example I've mentioned before)...I'm not sure it's a question of applying particular criteria…


I think we apply 'criteria' unconsciously, because of past experience. We can learn new criteria, and I've done it. It works for me. The more I understand how music is created and conceived, the better I am able to understand and enjoy it.

Here are some examples of different music which require different sets of criteria:

Babbitt: understand that he is interested in hearing different permutations of tone rows, and is trying to create a totally integrated syntax. He's about the materials and their resulting manifestations, not about being a classicist or imitating older forms. Realize also that he wants to create varied timbres, and some of this, even using an orchestra, is relatable to his electronic works. To him, it's all just sound-generating sources.

Varese: understand that he uses a personal language of idiosyncrasies, not a system; and he treats sound as 'stuff' in big blocks that he moves around. Don't listen for thematic development.

Elliott Carter: understand that he is a chromaticist, that you will likely hear all 12 notes all the time; but that he is freer than a strict serialist, and there may be narrative or dramatic elements. He does use sets of notes, though, but more freely than a serialist. Ditto with Sessions.

Messiaen: understand that his music is about timbre and 'events' which do not develop in the traditional sense. This is 'moment time,' not narrative.

Shostakovich: understand that he is tonal, and narrative in form. Appreciate that he did not succumb to serialism, and enjoy his dramatic sense and emotion.

Webern: understand that he was the pivotal figure of serialism. His music verges on being 'moment time' like Messiaen's. Events happen, many times as singularities. Sonority of intervals. Colors of dissonance. No harmony. Linear.

Schoenberg: understand his tonal period first. Then realize that he was trying to "stuff a horse into a suitcase." His method was better suited for non-tonal purposes, but he couldn't let go of his tonal roots, because he was a megalomanic who wanted to insure his place in history.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> His method was better suited for non-tonal purposes, but he couldn't let go of his tonal roots, because he was a megalomanic who wanted to insure his place in history.


I think he just really loved Mozart.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> I think he just really loved Mozart.


If he loved Mozart so much, then why did he stuff him into a suitcase? :lol:


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> If he loved Mozart so much, then why did he stuff him into a suitcase? :lol:


Isn't Mozart (and to a greater extent R. Strauss, Wagner, Brahms) the suitcase into which the horse is being stuffed in that metaphor?


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> I don't think this is particular to modern classical music, except insofar as modern classical music happens to be unfamiliar to a larger number of listeners than a lot of other areas of music.
> 
> There are particular parts of modern classical where I also feel unqualified to evaluate both composition and performance because I don't feel that I really "get" it (early Boulez is an example I've mentioned before). But this is also true of, for example, heavy metal.
> 
> I'm not sure it's a question of applying particular criteria because I don't think that's what I do when I evaluate music; or rather, I might try to apply some criteria after the fact to explain why I do or don't respond to something, but I couldn't generalize any of them across all the music I listen to.


One issue might involve the way I listen to music horizontally (in addition to vertically) regardless of the composer, so I guess you could say I listen for phrases in addition to harmony, and I expect the music to consist of units of that sort that have a beginning and end. But with some post-tonal music, all I can do is follow and follow until there's a silence, because I can't necessarily tell if there's any other beginning or end for phrases or if I'm even supposed to hear phrases in the first place.

I do think that a fundamental part of hearing music is hearing it horizontally as well as vertically at the same time, I think both need to be present in the music or otherwise it is like a circle without a center. Notes derive much of their character from what precedes and what comes after, so it seems natural to listen in that manner.

Anyway, some music is just a lot more complex with its phrase structure and some might not have any phrase structure even though it should have it in my opinion.

Another problem is more closely related to lack of familiarity: in common practice music I can mostly hear when something strange happens, when a key changes or when there's chromaticism. With highly chromatic music, not to mention total chromaticism, events for me boil down to things like what I mentioned in the message that Mandryka quoted.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I don't have criteria I normally use to evaluate music, just my ears, musical instinct and experience and my memory to help me make a connection to the music over time, which often leads to appreciation. I refuse any outside help to "get" music. Initially, I don't want to know about its concepts, methods, systems and techniques (later, it might be interesting to learn of). I only care about the end result and how it sounds. If no connection can be established at this "blank" level, I consider it not to my taste. 
Perhaps this makes me stubborn and ignorant, but I feel I wouldn't be true to my own tastes if I'd approach new music in any other way.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> I think he just really loved Mozart.


He should have followed his footsteps more though .


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Pugg said:


> He should have followed his footsteps more though .


But then he wouldn't be the Schoenberg we all know and love.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Chronochromie said:


> But then he wouldn't be the Schoenberg we all know and love.


Little corrections, " some of us know and love"


----------



## Sina (Aug 3, 2012)

There is no criteria, no criteria, and no criteria. A piece of art is not a shampoo or a piece of clothe. It's like you tell me the dream you had last night and I tell you it would be better if you dreamed that part different or this part wasn't in a good mood. It is exactly this ridicules and stupid. That's why I don't give a **** to "critiques" and think it's one of the most stupid jobs in the universe. Art gives no ****. It's just a wonderful wonderland independent and FREE of anyone's expectations or needs or demands or moods or tastes or any other thing. It's our choice to put all the bags on the ground, get into the land and explore every bit of the journey in complete freedom, freedom, and freedom, or stick to anything we already experienced and want to experience and so waste every second of now and the future by just doubling the past. We all die anyway and our planet will explode and nothing remains the same, but we tiny little humans smaller than dusts in the universe tend to think our little worlds is the whole universe as it exists and will ever exist. What a waste, considering our very limited chance to live only once.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Sina said:


> There is no criteria, no criteria, and no criteria. A piece of art is not a shampoo or a piece of clothe. It's like you tell me the dream you had last night and I tell you it would be better if you dreamed that part different or this part wasn't in a good mood. It is exactly this ridicules and stupid. That's why I don't give a **** to "critiques" and think it's one of the most stupid jobs in the universe. Art gives no ****. It's just a wonderful wonderland independent and FREE of anyone's expectations or needs or demands or moods or tastes or any other thing. It's our choice to put all the bags on the ground, get into the land and explore every bit of the journey in complete freedom, freedom, and freedom, or stick to anything we already experienced and want to experience and so waste every second of now and the future by just doubling the past. We all die anyway and our planet will explode and nothing remains the same, but we tiny little humans smaller than dusts in the universe tend to think our little worlds is the whole universe as it exists and will ever exist. What a waste, considering our very limited chance to live only once.


Hey, can I try one of those brownies?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Sina said:


> There is no criteria, no criteria, and no criteria.


Um. "Criteria" is a plural.


----------



## Xenakiboy (May 8, 2016)

Pugg said:


> Little corrections, " some of us know and love"


Why Don't you tell him yourself?


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2016)

From the perspective of the consumer of music, the only criteria really required is, "Do I like it enough to want to listen to it again?" That applies to all musics.

From the perspective of the critic (one who wishes to evaluate the worth of music to society, or more narrowly, to the readership of a newspaper) or the student, you would hope that they make their criteria evident from time to time, just so we can be sure of the validity of the evaluation.

If a consumer says, "This doesn't sound enough like Mozart, so I won't listen again," I respect their evaluation. If a critic says "This doesn't sound enough like Mozart, keep away," I don't


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> From the perspective of the consumer of music, the only criteria really required is, "Do I like it enough to want to listen to it again?" That applies to all musics.


I think that's probably the only criterion, period. "Und doch, 's will halt nicht geh'n."


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> I think that's probably the only criterion, period. "Und doch, 's will halt nicht geh'n."


Most of my longterm favorites, heck pretty much the whole classical genre, would be unknown to me or unappreciated if I hadn't put a lot of effort into improving myself as a listener. I've listened to a lot of music that has seemed boring at the time, but I wouldn't have improved if I hadn't.

If there were no standards, we'd have to invent them. The poverty and misery of a civilisation without the ideal of self-improvement is mind-boggling to behold.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Chordalrock said:


> One issue might involve the way I listen to music horizontally (in addition to vertically) regardless of the composer, so I guess you could say I listen for phrases in addition to harmony, and I expect the music to consist of units of that sort that have a beginning and end. But with some post-tonal music, all I can do is follow and follow until there's a silence, because I can't necessarily tell if there's any other beginning or end for phrases or if I'm even supposed to hear phrases in the first place.
> 
> I do think that a fundamental part of hearing music is hearing it horizontally as well as vertically at the same time, I think both need to be present in the music or otherwise it is like a circle without a center. Notes derive much of their character from what precedes and what comes after, so it seems natural to listen in that manner.
> 
> ...


One response is that it may be true that the impact of a note comes from its context, but it doesn't follow that music has to have a narrative, even less so one with a beginning and an end. This is I think one of the things in late Feldman - it really doesn't seem to matter where you enter or leave the second quartet as far as I can see. There may be a relation to modernist literature, Finnegan's Wake for example, the Tunc Page.

The point about events in chromatic music is also interesting, it would be nice to listen to something like Canonical form (Babbitt) with someone who appreciated the music, just to see if they're hearing a narrative punctuated by major events.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Chordalrock said:


> Most of my longterm favorites, heck pretty much the whole classical genre, would be unknown to me or unappreciated if I hadn't put a lot of effort into improving myself as a listener. I've listened to a lot of music that has seemed boring at the time, but I wouldn't have improved if I hadn't.


But that's my point. Like Sachs, something made you keep coming back.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think you have to think about totally chromatic music in a certain way, because if it uses all 12 notes, it's not going to be very tonal, if at all, since the more notes you add, the less tonally defined the music gets. 

You have to listen to it in terms of harmonic tensions. This will help in listening to Elliott Carter and Roger Sessions. Doesn't that free you up? It did me.

Of course, there is music like John Cage or Henry Cowell's tone -cluster piano music, or Messiaen, or Varese, or some Boulez, which is really not engaged with the ideas of tonality and pitch in that way. It wants to be 'just sound' or in Messiaen's case, sonority and color.

These are some of the criteria I use in approaching a piece of music. What is it trying to do, what is it trying to accomplish, is it involved with issues of tonality, to sound itself?

Elliott Carter was a mystery to me for a very long time, until I understood (by reading a book) that he used set theory, but was not really a 12-toner or a serialist. He just has his own approach, which might involve dramatic elements. His music is 'classical' in the same sense that Pierre Boulez' Piano Sonatas are; they are concerned with pitch and rhythm and their application to classical instruments, played in traditional ways: no fists, rulers, or buttocks, just hands on keys.
Now, I can savor his music in new ways I never thought possible.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> But that's my point. Like Sachs, something made you keep coming back.


That something was the reputation of classical music, not the music itself. The reputation. See my point?

Instead of being like a lot of people and dismissing it as a boring relic created by dead white males - which is what it sounded like to me - I humbled myself in the face of a canon of reported geniuses and people better and smarter than me. That doesn't happen if you don't believe in standards, or the value of standards. Something might keep you coming back if you're one of the very few very lucky, but as we can see from the market share of classical music, that something isn't anything as reliable as reputation and a culture of self-improvement would be.

The punch-line is that my life is now musically rich, which is something you can't say of your MTV generation, who haven't had the benefit of growing up in a social environment that values anything much. If I were more selfish, I could just laugh at the suckers who buy into the nihilism of our era, but it's rather a tragedy, so I don't.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Chordalrock said:


> The punch-line is that my life is now musically rich, which is something you can't say of your MTV generation, who haven't had the benefit of growing up in a social environment that values anything much. If I were more selfish, I could just laugh at the suckers who buy into the nihilism of our era, but it's rather a tragedy, so I don't.


No one born as of about 1946 is in a position to condescend to the MTV generation. Except maybe the millennials, my tribe - that's after the MTV generation; the Google generation, if you will - there are signs that we may generally speaking not be nihilists but communists (in the kill-the-capitalist-pigs sense).


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> No one born as of about 1946 is in a position to condescend to the MTV generation. Except maybe the millennials, my tribe - that's after the MTV generation; the Google generation, if you will - there are signs that we may generally speaking not be nihilists but communists (in the kill-the-capitalist-pigs sense).


I'm MTV generation myself (just not from USA), so I'm in a perfect position to condescend to them, seen it, done it, grown out of it.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Chordalrock said:


> I'm MTV generation myself (just not from USA), so I'm in a perfect position to condescend to them


Fair enough. Every person has the right, or perhaps the duty, to despise their own country.


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2016)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> I think that's probably the only criterion, period. "Und doch, 's will halt nicht geh'n."


Quite (once I'd been able to find the translation!)



Chordalrock said:


> If there were no standards, we'd have to invent them. The poverty and misery of a civilisation without the ideal of self-improvement is mind-boggling to behold.


And the standard is that it makes me want to keep coming back.



Chordalrock said:


> That something was the reputation of classical music, not the music itself. The reputation. See my point?


The reputation of classical music may be its undoing if the music itself is not worth returning to. Your admirable desire for self-improvement is shared by others I'm sure, but needn't be imposed on us all. I developed my interest in classical music because I was already familiar with some of it and liked it, the music, (not the reputation) enough to explore further.

Having said that, 'reputation' does play a part in my choosing who to listen to next. Bruckner's reputation prompts the thought that there must be something in it that I've not yet found, so I'll give it a listen - but having listened, I've heard something that prompts me to return. Why does the same not apply (in my case) to Wagner, to whom I have no desire to return?

It's the music.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

^^^ I fail to see how the good reputation of a good thing can be its undoing. It is not at all bad to investigate something because it's reputed to be good and thus worth our while. In fact it's important that this be part of the process of growing and learning. As children confronting a world of infinite possibilities we need that imprimatur of value, and beginners in the vast world of classical music are in much the same position. 

No one's desire for self-improvement was "imposed" on me. That desire came naturally. I wanted to know what was great in the world, I found great music easily, and I was able to acquire knowledge and form tastes and judgments early, because someone older than I knew what records to stock in the library and felt a responsibility to do so. It could have been Dittersdorf rather than Beethoven. It's nice to discover Dittersdorf, but I'm very glad that he came to me later - much later.


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> ^^^ I fail to see how the good reputation of a good thing can be its undoing.


I did say 'may'...it's not inevitable, and it rather depends which reputation we're referring to. Here's an example

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/paul-kilbey/contemporary-classical-music_b_1176990.html

The BBC's Ten Pieces initiative is attempting to do something about this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/3l2p7df6Yhg8dRp20Hp85VG/ten-pieces-secondary
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01vs08w

However, I'm afraid I have instinctive dislike of the idea that listening to high quality classical music (not the stuff that we all agree is below par, right?) is ennobling, and that I should listen to a whole genre on the basis of the reputation of the genre, not the music.



Woodduck said:


> No one's desire for self-improvement was "imposed" on me.


Nor me, but in previous exchanges with Chordalrock, I've sensed this idea that we must all have standards or we all go the way of the MTV generation (or worse...if there is worse).


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> It's nice to discover Dittersdorf, but I'm very glad that he came to me later - much later.


Why is it that whenever I hear of Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf, I'm reminded of Dagwood's boss?


----------



## Xenakiboy (May 8, 2016)

Yep, new music sucks. Old music is proven to just be better, old music will always be better!!!!!!


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2016)

Xenakiboy said:


> Yep, new music sucks. Old music is proven to just be better, old music will always be better!!!!!!


It's objectively great, it's that plain and simple. Follow the reputation!

(Disclaimer: the value of a reputation can go down as well as up. Your standing in the community can be at risk if you do not maintain your viewpoint)


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

dogen said:


> Disclaimer: the value of a reputation can go down as well as up.


The academic mannerisms of Wagner will never attain the level of true art such as practiced by geniuses like Meyerbeer.


----------



## Xenakiboy (May 8, 2016)

dogen said:


> It's objectively great, it's that plain and simple. Follow the reputation!
> 
> (Disclaimer: the value of a reputation can go down as well as up. Your standing in the community can be at risk if you do not maintain your viewpoint)


What about that kid Mozart? he think's he can be better than Bach! :lol: Can't even write a nice good 'ole melody! :scold:


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> However, I'm afraid I have instinctive dislike of the idea that listening to high quality classical music (not the stuff that we all agree is below par, right?) is ennobling, and that I should listen to a whole genre on the basis of the reputation of the genre, not the music.


Well, I've been listening to classical music for more than a quarter-century and I don't feel even a little bit ennobled; I remain resolutely a happy commoner. Even when it comes to music that was written for the _actual_ nobility!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

"Criteria," to me, are not objective guidelines; they are things that you develop in your personal approach to music. They are based on what you like, and on your experience, and they develop and change as your experience accumulates.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I feel "ennobled" as a classical music listener when I watch the grammys, and see the gyrations of the dancers who are provided for my titillation, in the absence of any musical substance.

I mean, let's put this thing into some perspective.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Xenakiboy said:


> Yep, new music sucks. Old music is proven to just be better, old music will always be better!!!!!!


If you are being sarcastic, Xenakiboy, please be apprised that sarcasm does not translate well on-line.


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> I feel "ennobled" as a classical music listener when I watch the grammys, and see the gyrations of the dancers who are provided for my titillation, in the absence of any musical substance.
> 
> I mean, let's put this thing into some perspective.


I'd feel titillated, but as I don't watch the Grammys, I guess I can feel more ennobled than you!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> I'd feel titillated, but as I don't watch the Grammys, I guess I can feel more ennobled than you!


Oh, I just happened to see the Grammys on a TV screen while I was walking through Wal-Mart.


----------



## Guest (Aug 16, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, I just happened to see the Grammys on a TV screen while I was walking through Wal-Mart.


You walk through Wal-Mart? Please don't tell me you shop there.

(When in hole, best to stop digging! )


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> You walk through Wal-Mart? Please don't tell me you shop there.
> 
> (When in hole, best to stop digging! )


I'm sorry, I can't answer you right now; I'm in the MacDonald's drive-thru, and it's time to order.


----------

