# what is modern music?



## Pierre menard (Jul 6, 2010)

I am curious about finding out more about the more modern classical music (the music that was in the 20th century and now)........for example, conlon nancarrow, Ernst krenek, Xenakis, Pierre Boulez, Cage......

What i was wondering about is if musical patterns play an fundamental role in much of modern music.......if that is what characterize modern music.....its form.......if the thing about modern music is to build patterns.......it's musical tapestries.....

So much of the modern music is like logical puzzles, and the main satisfaction of listening to modern music is finding these patterns..........Is this view correct? anybody know? 

An example of a pattern (and a logical puzzle) is: 3 - 7 - 15 - 31 - 63 - 127

Do you find the pattern(s) in this row of numbers? I am wondering if the enjoyment of classical music is akin to such a logical puzzle..and solving such a puzzle, or perceiving the pattern musically......of course, in music you will use the musical characteristics to build patterns.......you know, rythm, harmony, contrapunct.......

I guess discovering musical form and patterns in Mozart/Bach/tchaikovsky (and the likes of these composers) also play a role.......but am i right in saying that the patterns has begotten an dominering role in modern music.......one has sacrified the more immediate listenability for patterns.........( i say immediate listenability, because i guess maybe that a modern composition becomes more listenable once you perceive its patterns.....) ????

Is this view of what modern classical is all about (much of modern classical, anyways) correct? 

Thanks for any reply, i want to understand modern music!


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

Do you find the pattern(s) in this row of numbers?

The next number = 2 X previous number + 1


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

I also want to understand modern music, but I still haven't researched enough. Some modern works I like, though - Carmina Burana is one of them (and not just O Fortuna, but whole work), Rite Of Spring is also one of my favorites (though these are not very contemporary anymore), I have listened to some piano works of Philip Glass, too, this is also quite listenable.
I even like one piece of Schoenberg - Survivor From Warsaw - it's very powerful, emotional and even scary. I want to listen to more Schoenberg because people usually hate him, so I want to discover is he really that "bad". I am planing to listen to his earlier works such as Verklarte Nacht first (haven't yet done it), then I may progress to something newer.


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

Pierre menard said:


> So much of the modern music is like logical puzzles, and the main satisfaction of listening to modern music is finding these patterns..........Is this view correct? anybody know?


I enjoy listening to quite a lot of "modern music" and I don't listen to them as "logical puzzles."


----------



## Pierre menard (Jul 6, 2010)

Whistlerguy said:


> Do you find the pattern(s) in this row of numbers?
> 
> The next number = 2 X previous number + 1


Could it be 0? 2 times 0 + 1 = 1

the next number after zero is 1

Am i correct?


----------



## Pierre menard (Jul 6, 2010)

Whistlerguy said:


> I also want to understand modern music, but I still haven't researched enough. Some modern works I like, though - Carmina Burana is one of them (and not just O Fortuna, but whole work), Rite Of Spring is also one of my favorites (though these are not very contemporary anymore), I have listened to some piano works of Philip Glass, too, this is also quite listenable.
> I even like one piece of Schoenberg - Survivor From Warsaw - it's very powerful, emotional and even scary. I want to listen to more Schoenberg because people usually hate him, so I want to discover is he really that "bad". I am planing to listen to his earlier works such as Verklarte Nacht first (haven't yet done it), then I may progress to something newer.


Yeah, i like very much "rite of spring" by Stravinsky......there was a period many years ago when i constantly listened to it.......listening to it gets you a very immediate satisfation.......

I like it that you want to listen more to Schoenberg because so many hate him, thats good!


----------



## Pierre menard (Jul 6, 2010)

Earthling said:


> I enjoy listening to quite a lot of "modern music" and I don't listen to them as "logical puzzles."


But dont you get an satisfaction and enjoyment out of possible patterns that are in the compositions? Is this not an vital part of much of this modern music?

Is this not an fundamental part of the listening experience?


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

Pierre menard said:


> But dont you get an satisfaction and enjoyment out of possible patterns that are in the compositions? Is this not an vital part of much of this modern music?


Hearing certain patterns such as sequences, imitation, that sort of thing, of course. But that is just as true of Bach as it is Boulez. But I don't listen to music as a "puzzle" to be solved. There's nothing puzzling about it.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> But I don't listen to music as a "puzzle" to be solved. There's nothing puzzling about it.


Me too. And that's why I am not very quick to learn about the form of some works. I feel like if I analyze and dissect the piece some of its magic might be lost, the same way you lose enjoyment when you know how magician performs his tricks.


----------



## Pierre menard (Jul 6, 2010)

Earthling said:


> Hearing certain patterns such as sequences, imitation, that sort of thing, of course. But that is just as true of Bach as it is Boulez. But I don't listen to music as a "puzzle" to be solved. There's nothing puzzling about it.


I understand that you dont have this relationship with music, that patterns are the main focus in listening and composing.......maybe the analogy with logical puzzles also wasn't the best........but do you know if what i am talking about, this point of departure with regards to music, is something that plays an vital role in much of modern music?

Do you know any composers who compose by just taking consideration of patterns, exclusively patterns, and not immediate listenability?


----------



## Pierre menard (Jul 6, 2010)

Whistlerguy said:


> Me too. And that's why I am not very quick to learn about the form of some works. I feel like if I analyze and dissect the piece some of its magic might be lost, the same way you lose enjoyment when you know how magician performs his tricks.


that is a good point whistlerguy.....i know what you mean.......i have'nt really analysed much of compositions.......for the most part my own.....or the results of my improvisations, for the most part, i guess.........

but i had an experience where i watched a movie some years ago, and i got relatively obsessed with it and analysed it to pieces........and some of the magical feeling of seeing the movie disappeared and has never returned i guess.......it's still good but some of the magic is gone...........it has never been as good again as the first times i watched it...........


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

Pierre menard said:


> I understand that you dont have this relationship with music, that patterns are the main focus in listening and composing.......maybe the analogy with logical puzzles also wasn't the best........but do you know if what i am talking about, this point of departure with regards to music, is something that plays an vital role in much of modern music?
> 
> Do you know any composers who compose by just taking consideration of patterns, exclusively patterns, and not immediate listenability?


I'm not sure what you mean by "patterns"-- if you aren't referring to motivic development, imitation, this sort of thing. I assume you are referring to serial technique?

I find it better to get rid of as many preconceptions about musical language (tonality or lack thereof) when listening. Each piece has its own inherent "logic" if composed thoughtfully. If you listen to Webern's _Passacaglia_ the same way as you would listen to a passacaglia by Bach, there will be obvious problems. Many of the techniques as far as form essentially are the same, though the harmonic language is not.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> what is modern music?


baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

♫ Why can't we be friends, why can't we be friends ♫


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Who hates Schoenberg?!


----------



## Pierre menard (Jul 6, 2010)

Earthling said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "patterns"-- if you aren't referring to motivic development, imitation, this sort of thing. I assume you are referring to serial technique?
> 
> I find it better to get rid of as many preconceptions about musical language (tonality or lack thereof) when listening. Each piece has its own inherent "logic" if composed thoughtfully. If you listen to Webern's _Passacaglia_ the same way as you would listen to a passacaglia by Bach, there will be obvious problems. Many of the techniques as far as form essentially are the same, though the harmonic language is not.


Hmmm, maybe i am not sure what i mean by patterns myself.....I guess i am talking about just taking consideration of the intervallic relationships between the notes....when composing and listening....in other words, just taking consideration of the mathematical relationships between the notes.....and composing music with only the intervallic relationships between the notes in mind.......

If I try to clarify with an example: I've composed a simple piece consisting of two patterns of rhythm...two patterns called A and B…..let us say that I want some sort of drum, with a distinct timbre, to play pattern A………and another drum, with another timbre, playing pattern B……..

These two patterns consist of an equal quantity of beats, so to say…..but the beats in the different patterns do not all happen in the same moments………and these two patterns are of equal length in time……an length consisting of 36 equal moments (not specifying the duration of the moments……)….now, 36 is equal to the number of notes in 3 octaves……that is, 12 + 12 + 12 = 36…….

Now, since this is so I can use the traditional numbering one uses for the different notes in the octave: 1 - flat2 - 2 - flat3 - 3…..and so on……I can use this terminology to present the two rhythmic lines A and B. And the rythms presented with this terminology will look something like this:

A: 1 - #5 - flat10 - 13 - 16 - flat19 - 20 - 21 - 22
B: 1 - flat2 - flat3 - flat5 - flat7 - flat10 - 13 - 17 - 22

(the corresponding notes are: A: (C - Aflat - Eflat - A - D - F# - A - B - C) and B: (C - C# - Eflat - F# - Bflat - Eflat - A - E - C))

Now, there are some patterns in these two rythms……..considering A first…..Between the first and second note, between note 1 and note #5 (between C and Aflat) there are 7 notes…..between the second and the third note, between #5 and flat10, there are 6 notes……….between the third and the fourth note, between flat10 and 13 (between Eflat and A), there are 5 notes………and so on till you get to two last notes of this pattern, between 21 and 22 there are zero notes…….that is, between B and C there are zero notes………..

So what you have in pattern A is that there becomes a shorter and shorter duration between the beats…….between the first and second beat there is 7 moments, between the second and the third, there is 6 moments, between the third and the fourth there is 5 moments, between the fourth and the fifth there is 4 moments, between the fifth and sixth there is 3 moments….between the sixth and the seventh there is two moments…….between the seventh and the eight there are 1 moment……and between the eight and the ninth beat there are zero moments…………

Now, what about rhythm B? You find the same intervallic relationship between the notes (or beats), just in reverse order………

Between the first and second beat there are zero moments………….between the second and the third beat there are 1 moment………between the third and the fourth beat there are 2 moments……….between the fourth and the fifth beat there are 3 moments…….and so on until you get seven moments between the eight and ninth beat………..

Now, you have here two rhythms that are identical, but the second, B, is just a reversed version of the first, A………….

Now, this is an example of composing with just patterns in mind…….with just taking consideration of the intervallic relationships………and making patterns out of intervallic relationships………

And one who studies this composition could through analysis discover that line A is identical with line B, but that it is just a reversed version of it………and this is something equivalent to solving or seeing a pattern in a logical puzzle, is it not????

Hope this was not too obscure.....


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

No, I don't think about mathematics while listening to any music.


----------



## SuperTonic (Jun 3, 2010)

What you are describing sounds like Set Theory, which was developed by Schoenberg as a way to analyze or compose music before he developed 12 tone technique.


----------



## Pierre menard (Jul 6, 2010)

SuperTonic said:


> What you are describing sounds like Set Theory, which was developed by Schoenberg as a way to analyze or compose music before he developed 12 tone technique.


hmmm, do you know anything about this Set theory - stuff? I tried to read an article about it one time, but it was difficult stuff..........


----------



## SuperTonic (Jun 3, 2010)

I studied it in college. It is pretty complicated, and I can't say that I fully understand all of it. The book "The Structure of Atonal Music" by Allen Forte is the seminal work on the subject. 
http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Atonal-Music-Allen-Forte/dp/0300021208/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278718931&sr=8-1

However, if you are looking for a more casual introduction, I would recommend John Rahn's Basic Atonal Theory.
http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Atonal-Theory-John-Rahn/dp/0028731603/ref=sr_1_24?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1278719201&sr=1-24


----------

