# Are non-classical listeners more receptive to avant garde music?



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

When I first started visiting various classical forums, I was shocked at the hostility shown by many members towards much of 20th century music, especially anything that could be described as "atonal". Coming from a background of rock and jazz, I found the music of Schoenberg, Ligeti, Xenakis and other 20th century composers much more accessible than much of the standard repertoire (I've only recently started to appreciate Brahms and Schumann). I don't think this is uncommon for people with my listening background.

I've posted on several pop, rock and jazz boards, and while the general level of appreciation for classical music is fairly low, there is a lot of respect for composers like Ligeti, Xenakis, Penderecki, even Cage. On the other hand, pre-20th century classical music is mostly ignored.

I wonder if the lack of exposure to older classical music is an advantage in this case, since these non-classical listeners won't have built up prejudices about how the music is supposed to sound. Dissonance doesn't sound "wrong", scary or unpleasant to these people, it sounds cool. The older music, in which dissonances are always resolved, comes across as dull and predictable ("it all sounds the same"). If we want to get more young people into classical music, we shouldn't be throwing Mozart and Tchaikovsky at them, more than likely it will have no relevance to them and seem boring. The music of the 20th century avant garde (which still sounds new, because it's so little heard) may be more likely to convert them.

Thoughts?


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Certainly in my own experience this is highly accurate, although I was already listening to "avant garde" rock music like Frank Zappa, Captain Beefheart and Naked City before I became interested in modern classical music, Zappa was especially influential because he was involved in classical music as well and he introduced me to Stravinsky, Varèse, Webern, Bartók and others, so I think my "way in" may be different to that of someone who listens to The Killers or Kaiser Chiefs, for instance. Of course, there are people who are naturally receptive to all kinds of music regardless of past experiences, but I think it may help to have some experience with unusual time signatures and "non-tonal" melodies and so on before being exposed to the likes of Carter and Xenakis.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Garlic said:


> I wonder if the lack of exposure to older classical music is an advantage in this case, since these non-classical listeners won't have built up prejudices about how the music is supposed to sound. Dissonance doesn't sound "wrong", scary or unpleasant to these people, it sounds cool. The older music, in which dissonances are always resolved, comes across as dull and predictable ("it all sounds the same").


I think it's actually the process of preparation-deferment-resolution that seems very staid to people who may have grown up on the harder-hitting jazz and rock out there. But your experience is not unlike mine.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I came up on AM radio, Elvis, The Beatles, and popular music. When I tried to play Haydn sonatinas in college, I was stumped, because of the simplicity and "dainty" nature of it. A total paradigm-disconnect.

We're different, these "classical" people and me. The closest thing I ever heard to an opera was Roy Orbison's _In Dreams. _I'm from the land that spawned Buddy Holly. I guess it's just in my bones. I came from the darkness...and I shall return to the darkness.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

> If we want to get more young people into classical music, we shouldn't be throwing Mozart and Tchaikovsky at them, more than likely it will have no relevance to them and seem boring. The music of the 20th century avant garde (which still sounds new, because it's so little heard) may be more likely to convert them.


I grew up listening to Led Zeppelin (among other bands). When I began listening to Classical, I found a lot of the recommendations focused either on "Big Tune" music (e.g., Rachmaninoff) or "pleasant" music (e.g., J. Strauss' waltzes). That never made any sense to me.

But that being said, young pop fans come in all shapes in sizes. The less "mainstream" your pop music tastes, the less conservative your classical tastes, I suspect.



> I've posted on several pop, rock and jazz boards, and while the general level of appreciation for classical music is fairly low, there is a lot of respect for composers like Ligeti, Xenakis, Penderecki, even Cage.


It's fair to question whether these boards reflected the average listener. Were these hipster boards? Were there Rihanna fans on the pop boards?

Lastly, I don't know if you have to go so far as Xenakis. A lot of early 20c music (Stravinsky's ballets, Janacek Sinfonietta) probably sounds "new" to non-Classical fans.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Late Comer*

It was not until I was in my fifties that I was able to shed some of my prejudices and started to appreciate some forms of modernistic music. There is still much I do not get like Cage. At least I have learned to respect the fans of Cage. Many anti-modernists misunderstand that when they denounce this music they frequently are reproaching people who appreciate it.

"My music is not modern, it is merely badly played", Arnold Schoenberg.

My epiphany with Elliott Carter came from listening to his string quartets. I remember reading a review which stated that the key to understanding Carter is listening to his string quartets. When an orchestra performs music by Carter they only have a few rehersals to put it togeather. A string quartet may spend months working on a piece before they perfrom it and they become very familiar with the work.

I recently related an experience I had when I attended a performance of Karol Husa's _Prague 1968_, a serial work. See: http://www.talkclassical.com/22354-concert-band-thread-3.html#post419405

What I failed to mention in my post is that my friend with the Army Band stated that they had spent extra time preparing for the concert. They committed over week rehersing the work before the guest conductor Mark Scatterday of the Eastman Wind Ensemble showed up. They then spent several days of intense rehersals with Dr. Scatterday. The result was an electric performance that received a rousing standing ovation from the audience. :trp:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Garlic said:


> When I first started visiting various classical forums, I was shocked at the hostility shown by many members towards much of 20th century music, especially anything that could be described as "atonal".


_I see exactly what you are referring to. I think it's a social-matrix thing: some people are raised to think that they are "better" than other people, and conservative classical music (and piano lessons, ballet lessons, gymnastics, sports, ROTC, church activities) is all part of a talismanic curriculum of life, which seeks to "chase away the demons" and constantly scramble for higher ground._



Garlic said:


> Coming from a background of rock and jazz, I found the music of Schoenberg, Ligeti, Xenakis and other 20th century composers much more accessible than much of the standard repertoire (I've only recently started to appreciate Brahms and Schumann). I don't think this is uncommon for people with my listening background.


_Again, I agree, and I salute anyone with a broad-spectrum approach to music.
_


Garlic said:


> I've posted on several pop, rock and jazz boards, and while the general level of appreciation for classical music is fairly low, there is a lot of respect for composers like Ligeti, Xenakis, Penderecki, even Cage. On the other hand, pre-20th century classical music is mostly ignored.


_True; there are "ways in" to pre-20th century classical music, but I don't think Vivaldi or Haydn are good starting points._



Garlic said:


> I wonder if the lack of exposure to older classical music is an advantage in this case, since these non-classical listeners won't have built up prejudices about how the music is supposed to sound.


_I think so; because pre-20th century classical music is frequently used to "indoctrinate" children, is used in pedagogy, and is more likely to be heard in church; that "voice-leading polyphonic style," anyway, even if its an organ playing or a Baptist hymn on an old, out-of-tune piano at 7:00 in the morning. _



Garlic said:


> Dissonance doesn't sound "wrong", scary or unpleasant to these people, it sounds cool. The older music, in which dissonances are always resolved, comes across as dull and predictable ("it all sounds the same").


_True; also, those "negro rhythms" of rock music don't hurt, either. _

_Plus, popular music often aligns itself with social awareness; Beatlemania, which led to "hippies," free sex, long hair on males, drugs, and Eastern religion: it's no wonder that many old ladies were relieved when John Lennon was shot dead.
_


Garlic said:


> If we want to get more young people into classical music, we shouldn't be throwing Mozart and Tchaikovsky at them, more than likely it will have no relevance to them and seem boring. The music of the 20th century avant garde (which still sounds new, because it's so little heard) may be more likely to convert them.
> 
> Thoughts?


_You are asking an awful lot of many yuppie parents out there, eager to attempt raising "perfect" children. Just be glad you know what you know, and I strongly discourage you from the teaching profession._ :lol:


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

I had/have a big Rock, Jazz and Blues background and I enjoy what is called 'Avant Grade' or 'Atonal' or 'Contemporary' or whatever. With which I have a little of trouble is with what is called 'Romanticism'; you know... 'things' like Shumann and the like but in general I can enjoy all sort of music, even having my preferences.


----------



## Bix (Aug 12, 2010)

Garlic said:


> I've posted on several pop, rock and jazz boards, and while the general level of appreciation for classical music is fairly low, there is a lot of respect for composers like Ligeti, Xenakis, Penderecki, even Cage. On the other hand, pre-20th century classical music is mostly ignored.


I believe what you say, but that is strange - quite a lot of rock and metal bands use pre 20th century classical music to embellish their own, mainly Scandinavian groups and singers.

Tarja Turunen uses Mozart ite missa est 





as an intro to this song 

This lady actually being an opera singer in a previous life.

----------

To look at your question - my experience is that most people who's main format for music is pop etc recognise classical music that has been used on television adverts - I was even described by one of my younger members of staff as 'one who listens to music from car adverts' - they have now been educated.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Bix said:


> I believe what you say, but that is strange - quite a lot of rock and metal bands use pre 20th century classical music to embellish their own, mainly Scandinavian groups and singers...This lady actually being an opera singer in a previous life.


Yes, that is true of these "gothic" or 'whatever you call it' bands, but what are you illuminating, some sort of supposed correspondence between Metal and pre-20th century classical? They've tried to sell me on that idea before, but I'm not seriously considering it (those big video windows are distracting and ugly).


----------



## Bix (Aug 12, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, that is true of these "gothic" or 'whatever you call it' bands, *but what are you illuminating, some sort of supposed correspondence between Metal and pre-20th century classical?* (those big video windows are distracting and ugly).


Not at all, as you will see that part of my post was in regard to a small section of the OP's post, that some non classical musicians like pre-avant garde classical music the there was a simple set of lines to show change of subject back to the OP question of which the paragraph begins with 'To look at your question'



millionrainbows said:


> *They've* tried to sell me on that idea before, but I'm not seriously considering it


I don't know who 'they' are or what they are selling.



millionrainbows said:


> (those big video windows are distracting and ugly).


Maybe so, but there is the option to embed so I did, are you so easily distracted?


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

What metal? 

My earliest exposure to classical was probably Ligeti. Though I am receptive to the more modern techniques and will explore them once in a while, that doesn't mean I embrace them unconditionally or get as much enjoyment out of them as a good old fashioned common practice piece. Or at least not as often.

But I _was_ into classical a few years before I was into rock / pop. Maybe Ligeti is a special case.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Ondine said:


> I had/have a big Rock, Jazz and Blues background and I enjoy what is called 'Avant Grade' or 'Atonal' or 'Contemporary' or whatever. With which I have a little of trouble is with what is called 'Romanticism'; you know... 'things' like Shumann and the like but in general I can enjoy all sort of music, even having my preferences.


You're not the only one to say this, and I think I've come to understand the reason. In pop/rock/metal/jazz, modulation is not really an important factor. Either it stays in one key throughout or it changes key for the end or for a specific section, but the process of moving from one key to another and then back just isn't important. In Romanticism, it's practically the _raison d'etre_ for the whole thing; all of the tension in, say, a Bruckner symphony, is created by one's awareness of long-term key relationships.

In baroque music, this isn't really a factor (to say nothing of pre-baroque). Same for modernism, where keys tend to slip into each other without much effort. But classical and romantic music have this as a crucial element, so it's alien to the way some experience music.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

In my experience, non-classical-listeners are more open to what might be called "study music". Quiet innocuous classical music that can be used as a background for studying. Some of the people actually do like the individual pieces and have even played some of them on the piano (read: Chopin). But I guess most people I know listen to genres like electronic dance (a genre that I know a bit about myself), rap/hip-hop, and alternative rock and dance-pop. I don't really know too many who like jazz and more experimental rock; in that case, they probably would go for more avant-garde music. That said, I haven't really been able to get my friends to like composers like Orff or Stravinsky


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Bix said:


> I don't know who 'they' are or what they are selling.


You know...those guys in hooded robes, emerging from the darkness. I thought you were one, because if it walks like a duck, and posts videos like a duck...


----------



## Bix (Aug 12, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> You know...those guys in hooded robes, emerging from the darkness. I thought you were one, because if it walks like a duck, and posts videos like a duck...


What Benedictine Monks from the English Congregation!?! Those guys!

Duck :lol: come one, that's my one and only video faux-pas, it's been rectified now!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Those who listen than other to lite jazz tend to listen to all the working parts of a piece for it to make a musical sense.

It is empiric, and a guess, that many truly devoted fans of the common practice repertoire hear mainly 'the top' are used to, expect and require something in a syntax 'with which they are already familiar,' a tuneful and readily recognizable motif, or near outright tune (Melody comes up a lot in comments.) Sure, they hear the rest, but I'm not convinced of how much.

There is also an element of escaping into a comfortable, 'ennobling' and grand past, not my cuppa when approaching older music, which in its day was the modern thing.

So there you have some general elements in place which make for HUGE resistance if those listeners are not hearing harmony or syntax with which they are already conversant.

All the anti arguments are around rather inane things, like the cosmic truth of the overtone series, 'traids' and diatonicism are 'organic / natural,' etc. The arguments are false, but do express exactly how those who dislike the modern / contemporary music feel about it. Some people would think Prokofiev 'atonal,' Ravel 'weird and dissonant,' etc.

It is all relative to an individuals cumulative listening experiences often enough setting up a very limited set of expectations of "what music is." Tonality was around for only two hundred years -- already diverging from the basic premise immediately after it was established, just as most art develops -- yet people think it is all there was / is / and should be.

Go figure.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Garlic said:


> ...there is a lot of respect for composers like Ligeti, Xenakis, Penderecki, even Cage. On the other hand, pre-20th century classical music is mostly ignored.
> ...If we want to get more young people into classical music, we shouldn't be throwing Mozart and Tchaikovsky at them, more than likely it will have no relevance to them and seem boring. The music of the 20th century avant garde (which still sounds new, because it's so little heard) may be more likely to convert them.
> 
> Thoughts?


My situation appears unique within TC membership, because my love for concert music written over the most recent 100 years was 'primed', so to speak, by being first a collector of film & TV music.

I agree, though, that, instead of attempting to indoctrinate neophite listeners with Mozart & Tchaikovsky, one can be in a better position to appreciate the music of Luigi Dallapiccola or Roberto Gerhard via listening to certain soundtracks beforehand - such as FANTASTIC VOYAGE by Leonard Rosenman or Benjamin Frankel's CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF. Try spinning LADY IN A CAGE by Paul Glass before tackling a Roger Sessions symphony. 

...oh... by the way, I never listened to rock or heavy metal or anything else - so it is possible to embrace serialism & spectral music & so on without being previously exposed to contemporary pop music.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> You know...those guys in hooded robes, emerging from the darkness. I thought you were one, because if it walks like a duck, and posts videos like a duck...


Good lord this is appalling.

So is it really as near black & white as that? I.e. The 'you're either with me or against me' sort of thingy?


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

PetrB said:


> already diverging from the basic premise immediately after it was established


This is, to my way of thinking, one of the coolest things about tonality. As a system, its inner logic sets this divergence up as the main thing. It sets up divergence as the thing that must happen.

That's why it's always amusing and perplexing how often "tonality" is taken as a single, monolithic thing that's eternal and blah blah blah.

I think that if one were to have looked at tonality's inner logic at the beginning, one would have been able to predict that it would change rapidly over the years until it had changed out of all recognition and that then there would be something else.

As we have seen, this is exactly what did happen. No surprise.

What's surprising is that this extremely restless and dynamic system would become a static object of worship and veneration and that it (or, more accurately, what it looked like at any particular time in its development) would continue to be mimicked without being developed, with minor and insignificant tweaks. With the inevitable differences attributable to the fact that Bax is indeed not Brahms, that Lauridsen is indeed not Bach.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Thread: Are non-classical listeners more receptive to avant garde music?No. There's high probabilty that it's Perry Como, Patti Page, The Four Lads, or the like. Comfort level is everything.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Non-classical music varies quite a bit. There's rock, jazz, soul, metal, etc. Before I started listening to classical, pretty much everything I ever heard on the radio sounded vastly more like early classical than avant-garde. Although I'm not very familiar with the past 20 years or so of popular music, when I do hear popular music played, it still sounds very little like avant-garde to me.

So I guess some popular music listeners could find avant-garde more similar to what they've experienced, but I would have thought that most still would find classical music based on tonality and clear melodies more like "their" music.

I don't know if anyone has experimented with this idea. Take a range of non-classical listeners, determine their listening preferences, play them classical music from various eras, and see what classical they most identify with. I'd be rather interested in that result.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Only those at the edge of popular music and into more experimental things like modern jazz or more complex/experimental work are likely to be more open to modern classical, most people obviously aren't.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

some guy said:


> This is, to my way of thinking, one of the coolest things about tonality. As a system, its inner logic sets this divergence up as the main thing. It sets up divergence as the thing that must happen.
> 
> That's why it's always amusing and perplexing how often "tonality" is taken as a single, monolithic thing that's eternal and blah blah blah.
> 
> ...


This is why I didn't understand the comparison with perspective that was made on an art thread. It makes out tonality to be somehow as limiting and even though it set some guidelines it also probably expanded the possibilities which may not have been evident with the relatively limited palette there had largely previously been.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I used to be a metal head. I prefer Baroque and Classical Eras. The other Eras are harder to get into. Romanticism included. Though I might some day enjoy all Eras. I think melody is the most important thing. Thus why Rock was a big thing and to me Baroque and Classical are very strong with that as well. Jazz is a little tough for me as well.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> So I guess some popular music listeners could find avant-garde more similar to what they've experienced, but I would have thought that most still would find classical music based on tonality and clear melodies more like "their" music.


But tonality is a poorly defined term. If you mean "any music that tends towards a note as conclusive", then I'd say 99% or more of 20th century music is tonal, including everything ever written by the 2nd Viennese School. If you mean "a system of hierarchies based around specific and predefined pitch distance from a central tonic, based entirely or primarily on the relation of the perfect 5th", then much popular music is only loosely "tonal" at best.

Tonality in the second sense began around 1600 and lost its dominance in the late 19th century. It's hardly a universal, but people on Classical forums often treat it as if it is.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

As I've previously posted in the 'how long have you been listening to classical music thread' and elsewhere, my own experience has not been in any way systematic. I think I've listened to music and accepted or rejected it on its merits (though in the case of pop/rock, I'll admit to succumbing to teen-pressure at times). The context in which music is heard might also be important. Bernard Herrmann's film scores and the use of Ligeti in _2001 _were as attractive to me as the appearance of Beethoven's _Pastoral _in _Soylent Green_ and Rachmaninoff's 2nd Piano in _Brief Encounter_. On the other hand, the Schoenberg I've heard has been as unpleasant to my ears as some conventional opera.

I'll grant that if you were to study the habits of those who've had some kind of 'formula' musical upbringing, then you might find a correlation...but that would be quite an undertaking. I think it's more likely that some people are drawn more to one type (or types) of music than others: there are as many variations on that as there are variations on what people like to eat, to read, to watch, to hobby in...


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> The context in which music is heard might also be important. Bernard Herrmann's film scores and the use of Ligeti in _2001 _were as attractive to me as the appearance of Beethoven's _Pastoral _in _Soylent Green_ and Rachmaninoff's 2nd Piano in _Brief Encounter_. On the other hand, the Schoenberg I've heard has been as unpleasant to my ears as some conventional opera.


Doesn't it seem more likely that this is because it's Schoenberg rather than because it's atonal?

I mean, you probably don't like this much, and it's perfectly tonal:





Schoenberg's music sounds great to me. Tonal, atonal, 12-tone, opera, song, or string quartet, it's dramatic and inventive throughout. But a lot of people don't like it. That's fine, I just wish they'd stop treating him like a musical anarchist (or antichrist, for that matter).


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Tonality was never going to limit itself forever to just a few chords, that's like saying that language can never develop.


----------



## Yardrax (Apr 29, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> If you mean "a system of hierarchies based around specific and predefined pitch distance from a central tonic, based entirely or primarily on the relation of the perfect 5th", then much popular music is only loosely "tonal" at best.


I went through a couple of Lady Gaga songs on guitar earlier today (Long story). Not a V - I progression in the bunch. In fact root movement down a fifth/up a fourth was comparatively rare compared to root movement in the opposite direction - down a fourth/up a fifth. All in all it seemed to me that most of the harmony was used more for the colouristic effect than on account of any functional logic. Definitely not tonal in a CPP vein.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Yardrax said:


> I went through a couple of Lady Gaga songs on guitar earlier today (Long story). Not a V - I progression in the bunch. In fact root movement down a fifth/up a fourth was comparatively rare compared to root movement in the opposite direction - down a fourth/up a fifth. All in all it seemed to me that most of the harmony was used more for the colouristic effect than on account of any functional logic. Definitely not tonal in a CPP vein.


In electronic dance music (where a lot of current pop trends are coming from) and metal, progressions by step are particularly popular. One pop songwriter on the internet was advocating as little use of V-I progressions as possible "because it's too predictable-sounding".


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

starry said:


> Tonality was never going to limit itself forever to just a few chords, that's like saying that language can never develop.


More like things had to change. Regardless if the new product is inferior.


----------



## Yardrax (Apr 29, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> In electronic dance music (where a lot of current pop trends are coming from) and metal, progressions by step are particularly popular. One pop songwriter on the internet was advocating as little use of V-I progressions as possible "because it's too predictable-sounding".


Aye, if you banned the use of bVI - bVII - I progressions you'd probably put a whole legion of Iron Maiden clones out of business (And Iron Maiden themselves). I think it's interesting that someone would go as far as calling the V - I progression passé. A lot of older pop music can be quite a bit more functional in it's harmonies, thinking for example of 'I Got Rhythm' by Gershwin. I know of a couple of Beatles songs with clear V7 - I resolutions but those are vaguer than the Gershwin example. Another example in the opposite direction - Beat It by Michael Jackson consists mostly of a guitar riff played by Steve Lukather plus a i - bVII - i -bVII - bVI - bVII - i - bVII progression, no perfect cadence anywhere I can think of, the root movement is exclusively by step.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Doesn't it seem more likely that this is because it's Schoenberg rather than because it's atonal?


No. I had no preconceptions about him, or about 'atonal' when I was first introduced to him around age 14/15. I just didn't like it - Pierrot Lunaire, and then other pieces I had no interest in pursuing. I presume it was the atonality I was objecting to, even though I had no idea what atonal was and whether I was 'supposed' to like it or not.



Mahlerian said:


> I mean, you probably don't like this much, and it's perfectly tonal:


"Perfectly" tonal? Seems to these amateur ears to be a contradiction in terms! Seriously though, it's not a immediate turn-off, but I'm not keen on _Jeux_, by one of my favourite composers and with which this seems to have something in common.

Although the OP referred 'especially' to atonal, the general question seemed to be about 20th Century. My post aimed at responding to that, not to the 'tonal/atonal' thing (again)!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> No. I had no preconceptions about him, or about 'atonal' when I was first introduced to him around age 14/15. I just didn't like it - Pierrot Lunaire, and then other pieces I had no interest in pursuing. I presume it was the atonality I was objecting to, even though I had no idea what atonal was and whether I was 'supposed' to like it or not.


You misunderstand. I meant that the music didn't appeal to you because of Schoenberg's style, which is dense and hard-edged, rather than because of the fact that it's atonal. I didn't mean to imply that you disliked it because you had heard the name Schoenberg and you expected to hate it (although I believe there are some whose experiences run that way).



MacLeod said:


> "Perfectly" tonal? Seems to these amateur ears to be a contradiction in terms! Seriously though, it's not a immediate turn-off, but I'm not keen on _Jeux_, by one of my favourite composers and with which this seems to have something in common.
> 
> Although the OP referred 'especially' to atonal, the general question seemed to be about 20th Century. My post aimed at responding to that, not to the 'tonal/atonal' thing (again)!


Jeux (along with much other Debussy) is far more rightly called atonal than Schoenberg's Chamber Symphony. Webern was a huge fan of Debussy's music (Schoenberg somewhat less).


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Of course, any are free to carry on as they wish and see fit... I'd still be more than disappointed to see the general point of the OP derailed.

Sooo... (This is one guy's request, btw.) 

Can the discussion of tonal / atonal and talk of various 'chord progressions' be suspended here? The nitty gritties of it I think are irrelevant to the OP, and, well, it is rather boring for all but those few truly into it. There are several other threads which can be bumped for that sort of discussion / display.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Garlic said:


> I wonder if the lack of exposure to older classical music is an advantage in this case, since these non-classical listeners won't have built up prejudices about how the music is supposed to sound. Dissonance doesn't sound "wrong", scary or unpleasant to these people, it sounds cool. The older music, in which dissonances are always resolved, comes across as dull and predictable ("it all sounds the same"). If we want to get more young people into classical music, we shouldn't be throwing Mozart and Tchaikovsky at them, more than likely it will have no relevance to them and seem boring. The music of the 20th century avant garde (which still sounds new, because it's so little heard) may be more likely to convert them.
> 
> Thoughts?


I think there are potentially a few different ideas here so I want to make sure I'm clear about what you (and we) are thinking about.

When you say "lack of exposure to older classical music is an advantage in this case, since these non-classical listeners won't have built up prejudices about how the music is supposed to sound", do you think that the current music they listen to (rock, pop, hip hop, jazz, etc.) does _not_ bias them toward _any_ classical music? Do you think it biases them more towards modern classical (avant-garde in your terms)?

When you say Mozart and Tchaikovsky may have no relevance to young people, do you believe that Boulez, Varese, Takemitsu, etc. have _more_ relevance to young people? If so, why? Is it mostly because it's relatively unknown?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> I think there are potentially a few different ideas here so I want to make sure I'm clear about what you (and we) are thinking about.
> 
> When you say "lack of exposure to older classical music is an advantage in this case, since these non-classical listeners won't have built up prejudices about how the music is supposed to sound", do you think that the current music they listen to (rock, pop, hip hop, jazz, etc.) does _not_ bias them toward _any_ classical music? Do you think it biases them more towards modern classical (avant-garde in your terms)?
> 
> When you say Mozart and Tchaikovsky may have no relevance to young people, do you believe that Boulez, Varese, Takemitsu, etc. have _more_ relevance to young people? If so, why? Is it mostly because it's relatively unknown?


There has been some success with introducing young people, with no real 'experience' in classical, to the more contemporary music which is parallel to the young people's own era.... it is that much more 'from now,' sounds, if they think about it, like some of the more modern of film scores they have heard (subliminally or consciously.)

Too, I've found that some people with perhaps a limited spectrum of listening habit, say simple pop songs, are just more open to music of any stripe, without balking at all. Open minded, regardless of listening habits, not loaded with preconceptions.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Garlic said:


> Thoughts?


I think pop, rock and jazz is tonal music like normal classical music.

I think the mass can't stand atonal music. I never heard atonal movie music. If movie music is classical, it is tonal.

I think one reason, why classical music is less popular than 100 years ago, is, that many composers write atonal music today.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Aries said:


> I think pop, rock and jazz is tonal music like normal classical music.
> 
> I think the mass can't stand atonal music. I never heard atonal movie music. If movie music is classical, it is tonal.
> 
> I think one reason, why classical music is less popular than 100 years ago, is, that many composers write atonal music today.


Every single one of those statements is untrue.

Pop, rock, and jazz may be tonal, but they are not tonal in the sense that music in from 1600 through 1900 is tonal (and hence not tonal _like_ "normal" classical music).

Atonal movie score is common.

There is less atonal music written now than 50 years ago.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Pop, rock, and jazz may be tonal, but they are not tonal in the sense that music in from 1600 through 1900 is tonal (and hence not tonal _like_ "normal" classical music).


Where is the difference in the tonality?



Mahlerian said:


> Atonal movie score is common.


Do you have some examples for atonal movie scores?



Mahlerian said:


> There is less atonal music written now than 50 years ago.


What i heard from today sounds mostly at least very excentric. Which tonal composer from today can you recommend?


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Aries said:


> Where is the difference in the tonality?
> 
> Do you have some examples for atonal movie scores?
> 
> What i heard from today sounds mostly at least very excentric. Which tonal composer from today can you recommend?


I have reviewed your posts and I think you know much about atonal film scores and contemporary tonal music than you are letting on.

In one of your posts you stated that one of your favorate composers is John Williams (He is one of mine as well). I refuse to believe that you are unaware of all of the atonal music Williams employed in his sound tracks. Off the top of my head I can think of the atonal cues in _Raiders of the Lost Ark, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Empire of the Sun and JFK_. There is also some of his concert music like the _Violin Concerto_ which I have referenced and provided You Tube links in other posts: http://www.talkclassical.com/22601-poll-most-accessible-contemporary-3.html#post387951


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Aries said:


> Where is the difference in the tonality?


Voice leading, methods of resolution of tension, which kinds of harmonies are seen as stable/unstable...in short, just about everything that makes common practice music tonal (as distinguished from the "modal" music that preceded it and the chromatic music that followed) is altered.

If you want to get into detail (it bores me to write it as much as it bores PetrB to read it, I'm sure, so I'd rather not), create a new thread.



Aries said:


> What i heard from today sounds mostly at least very excentric. Which tonal composer from today can you recommend?


Keep in mind that the following are tonal in a looser sense that includes pop/rock/jazz and the like.

Adams, Part, Silvestrov...and many others that have fan and critical approval but don't appeal much to me personally: Higdon, Rautavaara, Yoshimatsu. There's a lot out there. Why spend time complaining about the things you don't enjoy?


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> You misunderstand.


I thought I might! I should have asked for clarification before bumbling on.



Mahlerian said:


> I meant that the music didn't appeal to you because of Schoenberg's style, which is dense and hard-edged, rather than because of the fact that it's atonal.


That may well be true. I was trying to explain that whatever it was that put me off, it was not a preconception about what I was listening to.

A further reflection on the OP. It's difficult to define a category of 'non-classical listeners' that listen to avant-garde classical, isn't it? Unless what Garlic meant was 'Classical' (ie Classical period) and the anti avant-garde prejudice was built on exposure to just Haydn and Mozart!


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> I have reviewed your posts and I think you know much about atonal film scores and contemporary tonal music than you are letting on.


I have on CD:
- Thomas Schmidt-Kowalski: Symphony #4, Violin Concerto #2
- Toru Takemitsu: Spirit Garden, Three Film Scores for String Orchestra, Dreamtime, A Flock Descend into the Pentagonal Garden
- Arvo Pärt: Symphony #4
- some John Williams stuff



arpeggio said:


> In one of your posts you stated that one of your favorate composers is John Williams (He is one of mine as well). I refuse to believe that you are unaware of all of the atonal music Williams employed in his sound tracks. Off the top of my head I can think of the atonal cues in _Raiders of the Lost Ark, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Empire of the Sun and JFK_.


I have this on CD. But I always skip this and listen to the next track "Star Wars-Suite - Main title".

I obviously like John Williams more, when he composes like Richard Wagner instead of Schönberg.

I think i stated only that he is my favourite american composer. I do not really know any other american composer.



arpeggio said:


> Voice leading, methods of resolution of tension, which kinds of harmonies are seen as stable/unstable...in short, just about everything that makes common practice music tonal (as distinguished from the "modal" music that preceded it and the chromatic music that followed) is altered.


I think the most important thing is, that the tones refer to a tonal center.



arpeggio said:


> Adams, Part, Silvestrov...and many others that have fan and critical approval but don't appeal much to me personally: Higdon, Rautavaara, Yoshimatsu.


Thanks.



arpeggio said:


> Why spend time complaining about the things you don't enjoy?


I think classical music developed from Barock to Classic to Late Classic to Romantic to Late Romantic. I would like to see music to move on in the same direction. But the modern music is not a development in this direction, but a alienation. And there is a rivalry between the just high developt classical music and the atlianated classical music.

It is the same in painting. Look how good Anton von Werner is: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...enquartier_vor_Paris_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

And painters painted blob pictures in the 20th century.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Aries said:


> I think the most important thing is, that the tones refer to a tonal center.


I hear implied tonal centers in everything by Schoenberg, Webern, Takemitsu, some Boulez...whether you hear them or not, there are tonal aspects to so-called atonal music. And there is such a thing as ambiguous tonality, wherein more than one tonal center is implied at a single time, going as far back as Wagner.

So, what's the line of demarcation? Very specifically, how far from certainty does one have to get to drift out of orbit entirely? Name the first atonal piece of music.



> I think classical music developed from Barock to Classic to Late Classic to Romantic to Late Romantic. I would like to see music to move on in the same direction. But the modern music is not a development in this direction, but a alienation. And there is a rivalry between the just high developt classical music and the atlianated classical music.


Music did move on in the same direction. Schoenberg's music is in a direct line of development from Wagner, Brahms, Strauss, and Mahler. Stravinsky's music is a development out of Mussorgsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, and Debussy. If you allow that, everything in the 20th century follows.

If it's a rivalry, why do composers like Shostakovich and Britten acknowledge influence from the Second Viennese triumvirate? Why did Stravinsky and Copland "cross the line" from Neoclassicism to 12-tone writing?

Steve Reich on Boulez: "For me, what is important is not the style but the quality and integrity of any composer's music. Back in 1962 I learned from my teacher Luciano Berio a bit about Boulez's Structures for two pianos and that made it clear how thoroughly Boulez had worked to come up with a new, highly integrated musical language based on earlier music by Schoenberg, Webern and Messiaen."


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> I hear implied tonal centers in everything by Schoenberg, Webern, Takemitsu, some Boulez...whether you hear them or not, there are tonal aspects to so-called atonal music. And there is such a thing as ambiguous tonality, wherein more than one tonal center is implied at a single time, going as far back as Wagner.
> 
> So, what's the line of demarcation?


There is tonal music with few dissonances, and there is tonal music with many dissonances. The line of demarcation is exceeded, if other rules are used, like the 12-tone-technique.



Mahlerian said:


> Very specifically, how far from certainty does one have to get to drift out of orbit entirely?


If a dissonance is no longer called a dissonance, the composer is out of the orbit.



Mahlerian said:


> Music did move on in the same direction. Schoenberg's music is in a direct line of development from Wagner, Brahms, Strauss, and Mahler.


No.

Wagners Leitmotifs are incompatible with Schönbergs 12-tones for example. Wagners son wrote completly different music than Schönberg. Wagner is maybe 0-5% dissonant, mature Schönberg is 100% dissonant. Wagner expresses greatness, Schönberg expresses sorrow and misery.



Mahlerian said:


> If it's a rivalry, why do composers like Shostakovich and Britten acknowledge influence from the Second Viennese triumvirate? Why did Stravinsky and Copland "cross the line" from Neoclassicism to 12-tone writing?


Read the criticism of Martin Scherber. That tells you that there is a rivalry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Scherber#Criticism


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Aries said:


> There is tonal music with few dissonances, and there is tonal music with many dissonances. The line of demarcation is exceeded, if other rules are used, like the 12-tone-technique.


You don't know what you're talking about, clearly.






This is not 12-tone. It's what's called "free atonality" by some. The composer said it was "pantonal". The first 12-tone piece was not written until 1923, over a decade after Pierrot lunaire and some 15 years after the above.



> If a dissonance is no longer called a dissonance, the composer is out of the orbit.


There are plenty of chords which would have been thought of as dissonant, that is, requiring resolution, in common practice music that are perfectly acceptable in Jazz. Are those musicians "out of the orbit"?



> Wagners Leitmotifs are incompatible with Schönbergs 12-tones for example. Wagners son wrote completly different music than Schönberg. Wagner is maybe 0-5% dissonant, mature Schönberg is 100% dissonant. Wagner expresses greatness, Schönberg expresses sorrow and misery.


Once again, you have _no idea whatsoever_ about this subject. Schoenberg used leitmotif in his own opera, Moses und Aron, and his ideas about motivic/thematic development are directly related to Wagner's leitmotif technique.

And Siegfried Wagner is more or less forgotten while Schoenberg is far more frequently recorded and played. Justly so, in my opinion.

How can anything be 100% dissonant? Tones resolve into other tones, so long as it's not a collection of parallel minor seconds or cluster chords.

There's a lot of misery in Wagner (and far more lugubrious than Schoenberg, too), and more levity in Schoenberg than you might think:







> Read the criticism of Martin Scherber. That tells you that there is a rivalry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Scherber#Criticism


This article is poorly written, and I fail to see the relevance. Just because there are some (Scherber and Ansermet on one side, Adorno and Boulez on the other) who see the two camps as bitterly opposed, that doesn't mean that they are opposed out of necessity. The fact that there are many who have crossed lines, many who respect the other side, if you will, seems to belie this idea.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> You don't know what you're talking about, clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Music like this can be good. But it should be an exception. Dissonances require consonances. As long as dissonances count as dissonances, there is a good chance for consonances. Otherwise the composer has to say: I am not varied.

The 12-tone technique means many, many dissonances by system, way too much for a healthy average. And it is a strange idea. When i have a melody of 11 different tones, why the 12th tone should be an other different? Maybe it sound better, if it is the same like #3. That is not art. The only sence is to prove that all tones of the instrument operate.

An other problem i have with modern classical music is, that it is not well-ordered. It is muddled. I think popular music is well-ordered like classical classical music, but not so high developed, less noble, less aestetical and mostly in song-form.

What about a poll? Is popular music more similar to conservative classical music, or more similar to avant garde classical music?


Mahlerian said:


> There are plenty of chords which would have been thought of as dissonant, that is, requiring resolution, in common practice music that are perfectly acceptable in Jazz. Are those musicians "out of the orbit"?


I do not know Jazz. I did not like, what i heard.



Mahlerian said:


> How can anything be 100% dissonant?


Not in this meaning.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> When you say Mozart and Tchaikovsky may have no relevance to young people, do you believe that Boulez, Varese, Takemitsu, etc. have _more_ relevance to young people? If so, why? Is it mostly because it's relatively unknown?


I'm sure the reason is because those last named composers are 'of our own time.' Things of our own time are more immediate, and often more relevant, than things from the past, especially to the neophyte.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I'm sure the reason is because those last named composers are 'of our own time.' Things of our own time are more immediate, and often more relevant, than things from the past, especially to the neophyte.


That's all they got. Otherwise they would realize how inferior these modern Composers are to the all-time greats.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I'm not sure 40/50 years ago is that much of our own time now.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> That's all they got. Otherwise they would realize how inferior these modern Composers are to the all-time greats.


In what ways? Be specific, with conclusive proof of objective inferiority.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> In what ways? Be specific, with conclusive proof of objective inferiority.


Proving one piece of music is better than another is an impossible mission. All we got is proof that many prefer music of the past more.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Proving one piece of music is better than another is an impossible mission. All we got is proof that many prefer music of the past more.


Then how can anyone "realize" that today's composers are not as great as the "greats" if it is impossible to prove in any way?


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Aries

This is really a minor point but you are attributing quotes to me that were made by Mahlerian.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Then how can anyone "realize" that today's composers are not as great as the "greats" if it is impossible to prove in any way?


Yes no way of proving that Green Day is better than Sibelius. Nonetheless, most of us would agree that Sibelius is superior. The same goes for modern music.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

starry said:


> I'm not sure 40/50 years ago is that much of our own time now.


40 to 50 years in classical music is not much compared to the shifts in popular arts, and they are still a helluva lot closer than nearly 300 years ago, no?


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

There's a lot of avant-garde music I don't respond to and not because I don't understand it but rather because I think it doesn't try to express anything other than to make an awful racket just for the sake of it. Someone like Ligeti or Xenakis, however, seem to have nailed down the essence of their sound-world and there's a moving quality in their music that you don't get from composers like Boulez or Stockhausen for example. I think there is heart in Ligeti and Xenakis whether they wanted it there or not. I also think a lot of these mid to late 20th Century composers have made it incredibly difficult for people to access the music, which may be precisely their whole point in composing the way they do, but I think if you're writing for an audience, there should be some kind of human expression in the music so it's not all random sounds and go nowhere musical motifs. This is really the reason I personally don't enjoy most of this post-WWII classical music. I know the world has 'changed' and there's a need to push the envelope and take the music in a new direction, but I don't think a composer should ever sacrifice a good melody or even a beautiful harmonic progression just to 'shock' people. I'm not into being shocked, I'm into being emotionally moved by music.

That's just my two cents.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> Yes no way of proving that Green Day is better than Sibelius. Nonetheless, most of us would agree that Sibelius is superior. The same goes for modern music.


I didn't realise Green Day wrote classical music.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

@arpeggio


arpeggio said:


> Aries
> 
> This is really a minor point but you are attributing quotes to me that were made by Mahlerian.


I am sorry.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> I didn't realise Green Day wrote classical music.


It was just an example to prove my point that now all music is equal. Just like Stockhausen is inferior to Sibelius.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

neoshredder said:


> It was just an example to prove my point that now all music is equal. Just like Stockhausen is inferior to Sibelius.


But I believe Crudblud's point is that they are trying to do different things with their music.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

The OP asked a certain question related to introducing young people to classical music. The question is, "Which genre or era of classical music will appeal most to people beginning an exploration of classical music?" I doubt a study has been done, and if so, perhaps no one here could find it. Still there are TC members who grew up _not_ listening to classical or listening rarely. When they started listening to classical, what was their experience with newer and older genres?

I very rarely listened to classical until I was around 30. I listened to the popular music of the time (rock, pop, soul, etc.) but not jazz. I did take piano lessons for a couple of years and played standard piano repertoire for beginners. My experience was that pre 20th century classical was almost universally beautiful while much later music was not. The later music required repeated listening, understanding that the newer music was unlike what I was used to, and to some extent reading about the music. The bottom line is that _I_ was much more attuned to older genres than newer ones.

Obviously that was only my experience. Are there others who had a late introduction to classical? Did you find modern or earlier classical music more to your liking?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

apricissimus said:


> But I believe Crudblud's point is that they are trying to do different things with their music.


My opinion doesn't change regardless of the differences in their styles. And I agree that earlier music is easier getting into. Would be a nice poll to see what most think is the best choice for classical starters. Mozart being a great starting choice.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

My personal experience seems to mirror this hypothesis. In the '60s-'70s, young people listened mostly to rock music. At the age of 13, I was listening to Black Sabbath and Uriah Heep. I very quickly became bored with the ubiquitous four-man rock band of vocals, lead guitar, bass guitar and drums with nine to ten three-minute songs. Just as the lyrics were done and the music started to get interesting, it was faded out! I began to read the album jackets, looking for clues that might distinguish a band from the pack: more than four members, played other instruments, had longer songs, etc.

The North American scene was mostly stock-in-trade (Hendrix was dead, the Airplane had landed, the Dead continued to pump out boring neo-folk), but the European scene was fascinating: Pink Floyd (Ummagumma, Meddle, Atom Heart Mother), Tangerine Dream (Zeit, Alpha Centauri, Atem, Phaedra), Hawkwind (In Search of Space, Doremi Fasol Latido), Clearlight Symphony, White Noise (first album), Ash Ra Tempel, Cabaret Voltaire (Red Mecca, Mix-up, Voice of America) and on and on. These bands captivated my interest and I purchased German and English imports nearly exclusively.

A friend had a recording of the soundtrack to 2001: A Space Odyssey. I instantly liked the two Ligeti tracks. We also got into Morton Subotnick (Touch, Silver Apples of the Moon) and other Tangerine Dream-like quasi-classical composers. Then, I discovered Deutsche Grammophon's amazing 20th Century Classics series! Stockhausen became my favourite composer in the mid-1970s. This led to Xenakis, Messiaen, Kagel, Schoenberg, Malec, Nono and Webern, who immediately replaced Stockhausen at the top of my list of favourites. The electronics and atonality of these and other composers seemed to fit and go beyond what I was getting from European rock.

It took me a good decade or longer to work my way back into the Romantic, Classical and Baroque eras. Baroque still sounds mostly all the same to me, although I really love Bach, especially the Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin, the Solo Cello Suites and the lute music, which led me to a love of Turkish and Arabic classical musics. As I got older, my listening needs changed. I was no longer hanging out day after day, but was spending time at home with a book, exercising or whatever. Rock music was invasive and distracting, too simplistic, interesting for only a few playings, etc. I also began to tire of some of the more bizarre modern classical works and tended to gravitate to chamber music, but also to the more formal orchestral compositions. The Second Viennese School have remained at the top of my list of favourites, as have Messiaen and Xenakis, but Stockhausen, Nono, Kagel and others have been replaced by Beethoven, Haydn, Brahms, Schubert, Bartók, Hindemith and Mahler. I am more interested in complexity, instrumentation... nourishment for the ears, and not just high-calorie ear candy devoid of essential nutrients.

I think my own progression to an appreciation of the wealth of western and non-western classical musics might have been helped along by the fortuitous musical trends of my youth. I am undecided whether today's youth have the same advantages, as hip-hop, rap and soul music do not appear to mesh with classical music as the music of my own youth did.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think those people who began listening to music as a solitary pursuit, not associated with any social matrix, are most receptive to any music they may hear, including avant garde. 

As a further elaboration along that trajectory, those listeners with "good ears" and good pitch acuity are more likely to be receptive to atonal or more dissonant music. 

This is because the mediocre-eared can respond viscerally to obvious consonant harmonic aggregates, but their pitch acuity does not extend to individual pitch relations, or even aggregates of dense harmony, which they usually reject as "dissonant" because of superficial acoustic factors, and because they are not able to "hear into" harmonic densities. I'm afraid this is a "brain" aspect of the "ear/brain" connection, but seeing as the sensual and cerebral tend to synergistically feed-off each other, it could just as well be attributed to "tin ears."

This is why many people can't name intervals, or name chord qualities of major, minor, augmented, and diminished.

Ligeti, however, might just as well appeal on some visceral level to someone with no pitch acuity at all, since the ability to "hear into" random pitch aggregates is irrelevant, except in regard to scaled pitches as we know them.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I began listening to classical music somewhat regularly around the age of 17 or 18. Before then most of the music I'd heard was southern white gospel music (i.e. the Stanley Brothers) or Christian pop-rock (Carmen, Petra, Amy Grant). I had of course heard the really popular music on the radio and at my friends' homes, so I wasn't totally unfamiliar with it (Peter Cetera's "Glory of Love" was the soundtrack to my 3rd grade crush), but I will admit that around 1993 or 1994 one of my cousins compared a Petra song to Nirvana and I had no idea what he was talking about.

When I started listening, to me pretty much everything before about 1890 sounded "nice." I didn't know what was going on, I didn't understand about listening for development or variations or anything, I just listened from moment to moment without trying to remember what I'd heard or compare it to anything. I was slowly figuring out to do that when someone explained it to me. Funny thing: I'd had a year of music theory, so I could handle a fair bit of analyzing chords and keys and modulations, but the idea of variation or development just really never occurred to me. On the other hand, I appreciated orchestration and especially counterpoint very much, because I'd tried and gloriously failed to do them.

But around 1890 things got interesting for me. Something like Debussy's music with its asymmetrical phrases and novel (to me) harmonies and creative orchestrations held immediate fascination. Takemitsu's "From Me Flows What You Call Time" was one of the first classical works I really loved, even though I didn't really believe it counted as "classical," but labels like that didn't mean much to me even then (now I'm firmly opposed to taking them very seriously). Crumb's "Black Angels" fascinated me. Other early loves were Golijov's "Dreams and Prayers of Isaac the Blind," Stravinsky's "Symphony of Psalms."

I also found things more interesting on the other side of Monteverdi or so. As soon as you get back there where the chords and keys weren't worked out the way we would today, and on period instruments that weren't familiar to me, so that the harmonies and timbres were novel to me. I didn't think I liked Gregorian chant because I was only familiar with really echoey, sugary versions of it that sounded like lamenting for a victim of medieval torture. But just about anything else medieval up to about Monteverdi always struck me immediately and viscerally; one of my favorite albums remains Marie Keyrouz' _Chant Byzantin_. I've always had a thing for striking timbres and harmonies.

For me, most of the "common practice period" was not immediately appealing, with exceptions of course - especially Mozart's Requiem, Mozart's 20th piano concerto, Beethoven's 5th symphony, Mozart's 40th symphony, and perhaps oddly Dvorak's Mass. Perhaps not coincidentally, some of those were the works that initially led me to begin appreciating development (especially Mozart's 40th and Beethoven's 5th). Of course I hadn't heard a lot more than that....

Bach I appreciated in general, not any specific works very much, just because I was listening to the counterpoint. I didn't hear anything else in it. I really liked the contrapuntal passages in Mozart's requiem as well.

Chopin grew on me a few years later, when it seemed less saccharine to me. And then I got really into Brahms, and then I was off and rolling with the common practice period.

A few German late romantic types - Richard Strauss, Bruckner, Mahler - were the hardest for me to get into. And, perhaps oddly, Handel. I still don't enjoy the Water Music or Fireworks or even the Messiah very much; nor the organ concertos; if not for the coronation anthems and Solomon I might never have begun to understand him. He's the only Baroque composer I feel that way about: I really love Vivaldi, Biber, Zelenka, D Scarlatti, of course Bach, whoever I've heard (and I've heard the DHM 50 box a few times). I still only enjoy Tchaikovsky; there's no love there; Taneyev is becoming my favorite romantic Russian composer, though it has been Mussorgsky for awhile. Schumann is a bit closed to me, and I haven't found myself loving any of Liszt's orchestral works yet.

Probably right now my favorite period of music is medieval and Renaissance, guys like Brumel and Josquin. I find the logic of their works fascinating - something like Dufay's isorhythmic motets fascinate me to no end. I also love all the baroque music that no one has ever analyzed for me - stuff like Zelenka - where I'm able to listen to it truly for myself, find and hear what I can find and hear, without any idea what's "actually" or "supposed to be" in it.

But the easiest stuff for me to appreciate, or to enjoy, remains modern stuff, even minimalism (though I don't enjoy Pärt or Górecki as much as many people evidently do). Stockhausen, Xenakis, Nono, Sciarrino, Feldman, Vasks, Salonen, Dutilleux, Lutoslawski, Ligeti, Carter, Shostakovich, Henze, Rzewski, Adams, Reich - it's like candy to me. I don't really understand how anyone can fail to enjoy that from the first moment they hear it. But I know that people don't, and I don't mind; there's room for everyone here. (Schnittke occurs to me as an exception. I have heard some of but haven't enjoyed his music yet.)


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Garlic said:


> When I first started visiting various classical forums, I was shocked at the hostility shown by many members towards much of 20th century music, especially anything that could be described as "atonal". Coming from a background of rock and jazz, I found the music of Schoenberg, Ligeti, Xenakis and other 20th century composers much more accessible than much of the standard repertoire (I've only recently started to appreciate Brahms and Schumann). I don't think this is uncommon for people with my listening background.
> 
> I've posted on several pop, rock and jazz boards, and while the general level of appreciation for classical music is fairly low, there is a lot of respect for composers like Ligeti, Xenakis, Penderecki, even Cage. On the other hand, pre-20th century classical music is mostly ignored.


Well that makes sense, since I did for a while listen to non classical radio (I mean a station more geared at less mainstream stuff, they played some of the charts stuff but also much else, much obscure/alternative stuff). Anyway, on that station, they often interviewed these rock, indy, fusion musicians and some did mention the likes of Cage and Stockhausen. But this has been going on for ages. Stockhausen is on the cover of The Beatles' Sergeant Peppers album (they attended his lectures back in the 1960s).



> I wonder if the lack of exposure to older classical music is an advantage in this case, since these non-classical listeners won't have built up prejudices about how the music is supposed to sound. Dissonance doesn't sound "wrong", scary or unpleasant to these people, it sounds cool. The older music, in which dissonances are always resolved, comes across as dull and predictable ("it all sounds the same"). If we want to get more young people into classical music, we shouldn't be throwing Mozart and Tchaikovsky at them, more than likely it will have no relevance to them and seem boring. The music of the 20th century avant garde (which still sounds new, because it's so little heard) may be more likely to convert them.
> 
> Thoughts?


Well I don't see it as a matter of others converting a person to classical music, or anything else. The individual has to come to it himself, in his own way. Thats been my experience. All I would advise to those getting into any area of music thats new to them - whether its ancient or modern, of whatever genre - be as broad as you can at the start. Take in a bit of everything, then specialise and funnel down as you go along. I don't see the use of listening to just experimental, nor to just listening to say Baroque or Classical or Romantic.

If a listener just focuses on one era or one period of classical music, it may be more a disadvantage than an advantage. It has its pitfalls in other words. I think its good to have a big picture view of what went before 20th century music, for instance. Music of the present tends to build on that of the past. Its hundreds of years of tradition there. Many of my favourite composers of the 20th century where inspired by, studied, played music of earlier composers. There's not many that are totally isolated and devoid of any kind of backward glance. Not many made a complete break with the past. Even Cage goes back to Satie, and to Asian musics which is centuries old.

What I see as a big problem with online discussions about new music is they tend to move towards dichotomies quickly. If you been around here long enough, you can spot them easily. People easily go to the black versus white arguments, which are like fallacies. I think that you go back say to Tchaikovsky who you mention, he was an enormous innovator in his time (and popular too!). He influenced the likes of Janacek and Sibelius in the early 20th century. & also of course Russians like Rachmaninov, Prokofiev and Shostakovich. So thats way beyond his death, right into the heart of Modernism. So I don't think the old stuff is boring, especially if people get to know and understand the significance of such connections. They're important for many reasons. They have got real meaning unlike the fallacies and dichotomies I talked of.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Tchaikovsky ... was an enormous innovator in his time


Can you tell me more about that or direct me to a source that I could read about it?


----------



## Guest (Jul 14, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> This is why many people can't name intervals, or name chord qualities of major, minor, augmented, and diminished.


"Can't" as in "biologically incapable"?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> "Can't" as in "biologically incapable"?


I don't know why; they just failed the ear test. Maybe they can learn to apply their minds more, and pass the test eventually. Maybe not.


----------

