# Contemporary "art" music



## Guest (Mar 16, 2014)

Maybe it's time to run through this again.

Maybe we should just never talk to each other again.

Contemporary "art" music, modern classical, avant garde, however you want to refer to the various musics of the past hundred years, are all fine. That there seems to be an endless string of posters who report contemporary music as being incomprehensible, crap, difficult, worthless is beside the point. The music is fine.

Do I mean that it is just as good as Beethoven or Bach? No, I do not. "Just as good as" is a meaningless string of words. It is fine, meaning it is worth listening to. It repays repeated listening as well. It is enough.

When I was about nine, I discovered classical music. It was love at first hearing. And I still love it.

When I was 20, I discovered twentieth century music. It was love at first hearing. And I still love it, even though the first piece was Bartok's _Concerto for Orchestra,_ and I'm now listening to Emmanuelle Gibello.

There are tons and tons of individual pieces from the 15th to the 20th century that I do not like. That has, however, never led me to conclude that something is wrong with classical music generally. There isn't.

There are tons and tons of individual pieces from the past hundred years or so that I do not like. That has, however, never led me to conclude that something is wrong with modern or contemporary music generally. There isn't.

I have to accept that there are people who reject it, who do not like it, who take every opportunity to attack it. That's a great pity, but it doesn't change the rock solid fact that there's nothing really wrong with "art" music in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

Start by assuming that there's nothing wrong with it. See where that leads you.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Well, you see… you're thinking with a clear head. You need to amp up the emotions, while taking too many things personally. This will sufficiently distort the intellect some. Then… maybe, you'll understand.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I actually don't see much attacking. Questioning, admissions of not understanding, and even joking, yes. But seldom outright attacking. Most people wouldn't want to appear that closed minded.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Weston said:


> I actually don't see much attacking. Questioning, admissions of not understanding, and even joking, yes. But seldom outright attacking. Most people wouldn't want to appear that closed minded.


And, should anyone ever be worried about attacks, they're more than welcome to post some contemporary art music in "Current Listening." We run a tight ship there--can't remember the last time I saw an inflammatory comment. Heck--some of us would probably listen to whatever is posted.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

some guy said:


> Start by assuming that there's nothing wrong with it. See where that leads you.


This really is the critical part of the OP. _some guy_, in my opinion, seems to enjoy modern/contemporary music with "less effort" than many/most, but there are others on TC who take to modern/contemporary music quickly/easily as well. That's, of course, great. I wish I were like that, but alas I am not.

So if you love classical music composed before 1900 or so and find that modern/contemporary music is markedly different _and_ unpleasant, what should you do? Well, that's up to you. Ignore it if you wish. BUT if you're curious, want more classical music, wish you could appreciate it, etc., there is a nice option. Repeated listening to various composers and styles will gradually allow you to appreciate/understand the new "language" each composer uses. In many threads at TC over the years people have suggested this same method. It consists of only 2 steps:

1) Assume the music is basically like all the wonderful music you've heard and love _but different in certain ways_ like Classical is different from Baroque and Romantic is different from Classical. But the new music is _simply_ an extension of the old in the same way music has changed over 100s of years.

2) Listen. And listen, and listen.

When I first started listening, I wondered how long it would take and I was rather frustrated when I did not find success easily. I've asked many people how long it took them, and 2-3 years is not an uncommon answer. For me I started seeing a significant change in that time period. Some things happened much faster and others are still in progress. The conversion is amazing when it happens!


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

some guy said:


> Do I mean that it is just as good as Beethoven or Bach? No, I do not. "Just as good as" is a meaningless string of words. It is fine, meaning it is worth listening to. It repays repeated listening as well. It is enough.


I find this interesting. Most of us listen to music for enjoyment, I assume? So, it there any thought out there on the comparative enjoyment of music? I mean, you said it yourself, Bach and Beethoven were better. So why even bother with anything less than those two in the first place? If not for the novelty factor that could potentially substitute and reward for *presumably*/*potentially** somewhat of a lesser quality, then what?

* *edit*


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Serge said:


> I find this interesting. Most of us listen to music for enjoyment, I assume? So, it there any thought out there on the comparative enjoyment of music? I mean, you said it yourself, Bach and Beethoven were better. So why even bother with anything less than those two in the first place? If not for the novelty factor that could potentially substitute and reward for somewhat of a lesser quality, than what?


For me there are two reasons. First, as you say, listening to similar music can eventually make one want to hear something different. So Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven are my 3 favorite composers, but I do enjoy listening to varied styles. Second, modern/contemporary music can give me sensations distinctly different from anything those 3 give me. As I posted elsewhere, Messiaen's Turangalila Symphony gives me a a sense of fun and excitement that I will not get from the big 3. Sometimes I want Renaissance music, other times Schubert's piano impromptus, and other times Glass's Aguas de Amazones.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

So many genuine composers have their own unique aura to them that it's hard not to stay open. It actually takes much more effort to restrict yourself, I've found.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

Serge said:


> I find this interesting. Most of us listen to music for enjoyment, I assume? So, it there any thought out there on the comparative enjoyment of music? *I mean, you said it yourself, Bach and Beethoven were better*. So why even bother with anything less than those two in the first place? If not for the novelty factor that could potentially substitute and reward for somewhat of a lesser quality, then what?


Re-read, the OP. You'll find it didn't say the bolded bit.


----------



## Guest (Mar 17, 2014)

Thanks Wood. Yeah, Serge, the bolded bit is your interpolation. What I said was quite quite different. And part of it was that good, better, best are impertinent.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

To be honest, these abstract threads about contemporary music are getting a little repetitive. We have already discussed all this infinite times.

It would be more interesting, I think, if we, modern music enthusiasts, start to make less abstract threads. I mean, threads in which particular styles and pieces can be discussed.

When I was just starting to listen to this music, I found much more useful the information related to: i) the composers' inspirations and influences, the musical and maybe philosophical ideas present in their works, how all this relates to the past (either as a continuation or as a reaction); ii) how all the things in i) can illuminate or make more clear how the pieces can be approached.

"Start by assuming that there's nothing wrong with it. See where that leads you."

This is a very good start, and, of course, it's the first step needed. Now, let us add more actual information about the music.

It would be great if somebody can continue the series "Contemporary Music Discussion" I tried to start some time ago with this thread. I think it was a relatively successful thread. The thread was about spectralism, and the topic was discussed (thanks to the contributions of several members) from many points of view (conceptual, historical, etc.), and a lot of pieces and composers were recommended. Many members were interested and discovered new pieces they liked.

If I have the time, I will try to make one about serialism. But it would be nice if others more knowledgeable members jump to the wagon too, since I don't want to contaminate all of those discussions with my own points of view and limitations.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

I've never thought there's anything "wrong" with it, but many works I *still* find very difficult to appreciate, especially after 1950, this may en will probably change.
Bartok, Prokofiev, Messiaen and many others from the 20th century are among my most favourite composers
some styles, like total serialism seem to be simply against all my musical principles, I don't think this will ever change much but I may probably find that even in such a style there are pieces I might like
other kinds of pieces, like Lutoslavsky's string quartet, tend to give me headaches, but this is perhaps only because I'm not ready for them 
like also for many of the more progressive music of the last few decades

The main difference between me and the OP might well be that he started to listen to classical when he was 9 years old, while I started when I was about 17, and he started to listen to 20th century music when he was 20, while I'm not much older atm myself.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

lupinix said:


> I've never thought there's anything "wrong" with it, but many works I *still* find very difficult to appreciate, especially after 1950, this may en will probably change.
> Bartok, Prokofiev, Messiaen and many others from the 20th century are among my most favourite composers
> some styles, like total serialism seem to be simply against all my musical principles, I don't think this will ever change much but I may probably find that even in such a style there are pieces I might like
> other kinds of pieces, like Lutoslavsky's string quartet, tend to give me headaches, but this is perhaps only because I'm not ready for them
> ...


Re total serialism: check this and this.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

aleazk said:


> Re total serialism: check this and this.


going to listen right away thanks


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> For me there are two reasons...


OK, so it's _*new*_ AND _*different*_. Now we are getting somewhere...


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

some guy said:


> Thanks Wood. Yeah, Serge, the bolded bit is your interpolation. What I said was quite quite different. And part of it was that good, better, best are impertinent.


So, there is no "better" music? Just what you get from listening to it? Am I getting it right this time? Well, that'd be more in line with what I would normally expect you to say, and so I was somewhat surprised. Makes sense to me, I am not arguing.

+

But that again brings us to my question of "comparative listening enjoyment".

We know, but how do we measure? Are there ways to stimulate and enhance? Etc.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I came much later to modern classical music, probably about 5 years ago. In fact around the same time, maybe slightly earlier, I got to understand some experimental and modern jazz works. It's not something that you have to rush, if you are ready for it quickly then great but the main thing is just to try when you are ready for it. It's no great mystery, it's simply music like any other, it's just about being receptive and putting the effort in.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Serge said:


> I mean, *you said it yourself, Bach and Beethoven were better.* So why even bother with anything less than those two in the first place?


The OP does NOT say that Bach and Beethoven were better. You might want to re-read it


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Serge said:


> So, there is no "better" music? Just what you get from listening to it? Am I getting it right this time? Well, that'd be more in line with what I would normally expect you to say, and so I was somewhat surprised. Makes sense to me, I am not arguing.
> 
> +
> 
> ...


But you are arguing, in a way, conflicted within yourself. "How do we measure." Well, you can not if you do not give other music a more than fair shake _*on its own terms*_ rather than initially listening while wondering if it "matches" Bach and Beethoven. Think about how radically different are those two composers, and already you've then got a real problem "measuring" the greatness of Bach against Beethovenm, their approaches and intentions, ergo their music itself, being so radically different and worlds apart.

Start undoing that idea (which it seems is nearly cast in concrete) before you even consider having "open ears," to other forms of beauty, perfection, or greatness.

If you are constantly expecting similar sounds, shapes and sentiments from any other composers, you will not succeed in finding any music from later eras "for your enjoyment."


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

I realize this is a random comment but I find it quite lamentable that Babbitt is so poorly recorded. A good, complete Babbitt box set (a la Ligeti) would be cause for celebration.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

The OP could be made to "defend" any kind of music. A compelling case for modern music would have to be more specific. How about a *modern piece of the week* topic to discuss the specific qualities of specific pieces?


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Id also be very interested in discussion about what makes modern art music art music and not "just" music... and what is the connection to classical music from the past, if there is any, especially in the case of the more "extreme" avantgarde music.


----------



## Guest (Mar 17, 2014)

DeepR said:


> The OP could be made to "defend" any kind of music.


Good. Do it.



DeepR said:


> A compelling case for modern music would have to be more specific. How about a *modern piece of the week* topic to discuss the specific qualities of specific pieces?


This is also good. In this thread, however, the one we're currently in, I was not so much trying to make a compelling case for modern music so much as a compelling case for changing attitudes. If the attitudes remain firmly in place, there's no amount of discussing specific qualities of specific pieces that will do any good at all.

And those threads in the past have had lives that were remarkably brief.* People generally seem to have little interest in talking about music. We've seen this illustrated over and over again. Talking about themselves, sure thing. About their needs and their interests and their disgust with this that or the other thing. But about music itself? Um, not so much.

I'm certainly not opposed myself to seeing it tried again. And again and again. After all, this thread that we're in announced itself as redundant.

*There was one that went for a long span, but I didn't spend much time with it. It was started by someone I had grown to distrust over the years, and I wanted to have nothing to do with it.


----------



## Guest (Mar 17, 2014)

DeepR said:


> Id also be very interested in discussion about what makes modern art music art music and not "just" music... and what is the connection to classical music from the past, if there is any, especially in the case of the more "extreme" avantgarde music.


This I would be less interested in, but so what? Do it!

(When I was young, I was interested in "classical music" exclusively. Since I started my modern phase with Bartok and Stravinsky, perhaps the connections were clearer. I never ever thought about such things until recently, when a composer friend of mine said "You think that what I am doing is 'classical music'?" I said "Yes" at the time, but since then I have become less and less attached to the term. Since then, I have read about the origins of the term, too, and the attitudes that that term began to encourage or even engender. I don't have that much problem with "art," but I would say that "art" is whatever people who enjoy "art" think it is, even if that's a broken off chunk of sidewalk or a random blast of five or six different car and truck horns. I also never think any more in terms of extreme. Be fair, if your day to day experiences are with what other people call extreme, they're hardly extreme to you any more, being right up with them. Day to day. Extreme identifying the location of an observer not a description of what's being observed.)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I can see someguy's point, but I'm to the point now that I get embarrassed defending modernism. I'd rather acknowledge the other side's view, and go ahead and acknowledge that there are _major _obstacles for many listeners in accepting, say, serialism as simply an 'extension' of Bach and Beethoven.

It's not the same kind of music, the DNA is different, really, because it's not based on the same harmonic principles, and I'd rather talk about those differences. To compare becomes absurd, and to treat both as if they were part of the same paradigm and worldview of the Bach/Beethoven listener, is equally absurd, and disingenuous.

I'm sick of trying to 'assimilate' super-modern 'art' music with reactionary, conservative, traditional music like Beethoven, Mahler, and Brahms. I'm going to go ahead and celebrate the difference and uniqueness of 'art' music.

If the critics don't like it, I'll tell them it's a new world, they must be polite and politically correct, and allow modernism to at least walk in the same parade, with a big banner. I'm sure the mayor and city council will boycott the parade if modernism is not included. Samuel Adams beer will also withdraw its corporate sponsorship of this forum as well.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

What I find intriguing is that I've heard examples of music that is considered modern art music, yet it seems so far removed from anything classical (from the earliest forms to early 20th century) - for example, soundscape-like music with electronic instruments - that it made me wonder what validates it to be discussed on this forum in the first place... other than the opinions of a minority perhaps. 
Maybe it would help if certain music was considered as a different genre altogether (not better or worse, but different), worthy of its own forum, to be discussed on its own terms. Perhaps that would prevent some of these discussions and comparisons to the classical music as most people know it.


----------



## Freischutz (Mar 6, 2014)

DeepR said:


> The OP could be made to "defend" any kind of music. A compelling case for modern music would have to be more specific. How about a *modern piece of the week* topic to discuss the specific qualities of specific pieces?
> ...
> Id also be very interested in discussion about what makes modern art music art music and not "just" music... and what is the connection to classical music from the past, if there is any, especially in the case of the more "extreme" avantgarde music.


This sounds like a friendly idea, and there'd certainly be nothing wrong with it if people started such a discussion spontaneously, but I think suggestions like these actually have an ugly underside in this specific context of discussing our attitudes towards contemporary music. This is best explained with an exchange of words:

_A compelling case for *Beethoven's* music would have to be more specific. How about a "Beethoven piece of the week" topic to discuss the specific qualities of specific pieces? I'd also be very interested in discussion about what makes Beethoven's music "art music" and not "just" music ... and what is its connection to classical music from the past, if there is any, especially in the case of his more extreme late works._

Already we are on the defensive. Already we are trying to justify ourselves. Already we are asked to provide a service as though it is only with hand-holding that anyone is ever going to "get" this crazy stuff. It also suggests that such a person has never bothered to look up a composer's name or compositional style on Wikipedia to see how the references all lead back to the 19th century.

I'm _all_ in favour of threads talking about contemporary music, but I'm in favour of threads that do it because people _like_ the music and they want to share it in the same way that we talk about common practice period repertoire - and doing so, anyone else is free to look in and try it out. _Those threads already exist!_ I don't think that any kind of music should be subject to these kinds of defensive justifications. That is what the whole point of the attitude change is - just listen to something and then talk about it, don't ask, "Why should I like this? And is it worthy of me?"


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DeepR said:


> What I find intriguing is that I've heard examples of music that is considered modern art music, yet it seems so far removed from anything classical (from the earliest forms to early 20th century) - for example, soundscape-like music with electronic instruments - that it made me wonder what validates it to be discussed on this forum in the first place... other than the opinions of a minority perhaps.


_Well, you chose a subdivision of Western music which is virtually a genre of its own: electronic music. But just because its sound is purely electronic, and not produced by conventional acoustic instruments, we should not overlook its ties to tradition. Pierre Boulez did extensive research at IRCAM on electronic sound, and he otherwise used traditional instruments: pianos, violins, etc. And now, acoustic instruments are being analyzed spectroscopically, so it's possible that the differences will diminish.

Other forms of modernism are much easier to reconcile with tradition; Elliott Carter and Schoenberg wrote string quartets, Milton Babbitt wrote a piano concerto, and Pierre Boulez wrote piano sonatas. It is obvious that these composers are still dealing with traditional forms.

In fact, it seems that these composers *already *consider themselves as being connected strongly with tradition. So why should you, a mere listener, define for them and everyone else what is acceptable music for discussion alongside the likes of Bach and Beethoven?

Is it because you consider yourself to be a part of the 'majority'? How does one join this club and gain membership? I suppose it's a "don't ask, don't tell" situation; an assumed status quo, an ingrained culture, like so many things of human devise.

_


DeepR said:


> Maybe it would help if certain music was considered as a different genre altogether (not better or worse, but different), worthy of its own forum, to be discussed on its own terms. Perhaps that would prevent some of these discussions and comparisons to the classical music* as most people know it.*


Yes; a ghetto for modernism. That sounds like the *ultimate solution.

*Minority; majority. The will of the people will prevail!


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

We all realize that most classical music buffs hate Cage. No problem there. But there is a significant minority who like his music. They should be able to freely discuss it without having to constantly defend themselves.

There is one mistake the pro-Cage people make and it is a extension of defending themselves. If a person despises Cage no amount of rhetoric is going to change their minds.


----------



## Freischutz (Mar 6, 2014)

arpeggio said:


> We all realize that most classical music buffs hate Cage. No problem there.


I think this is a problem depending on what you mean by "hate". On the one hand, you have people for whom "hate" is profound dislike. On the other hand, you have people for whom "hate" is a belief that Cage was little short of a charlatan. That certainly is a problem.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is. Why not simply listen to what you like listening to without worrying about what others are listening to? Or do you think your personal enjoyment of modern "classical" music will increase if you know others are listening to it as well?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

DeepR said:


> What I find intriguing is that I've heard examples of music that is considered modern art music, yet it seems so far removed from anything classical (from the earliest forms to early 20th century) - for example, soundscape-like music with electronic instruments - that it made me wonder what validates it to be discussed on this forum in the first place... other than the opinions of a minority perhaps.
> Maybe it would help if certain music was considered as a different genre altogether (not better or worse, but different), worthy of its own forum, to be discussed on its own terms. Perhaps that would prevent some of these discussions and comparisons to the classical music as most people know it.


Classical music will evolve and change, it has to. I'm sure some medieval and renaissance composers would have hated some later instruments and forms of music which developed within classical in later centuries.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is. Why not simply listen to what you like listening to without worrying about what others are listening to? Or do you think your personal enjoyment of modern "classical" music will increase if you know others are listening to it as well?


There is a highly vociferous number of individuals who literally bash modern and contemporary like it is as favorite sport of theirs -- there are enough threads, polls clearly inflected with a tone making it plain they find newer music 'not music,' 'noice,' 'cacaphony,' etc.

With the absence of any such group, or even a few individuals, who consistently act the same toward any other era or genre, what is one to think? That a number of people who like older music are very threatened by newer music, feeling they must jump in on the more and most neutral of threads where it is the subject, is what most comes to mind.

Go figure.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Winterreisender said:


> I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is. Why not simply listen to what you like listening to without worrying about what others are listening to? Or do you think your personal enjoyment of modern "classical" music will increase if you know others are listening to it as well?


Well, can't you turn that around and also ask "Why not simply listen to what you like listening to without worrying about what others are listening to? Or do you think your personal dislike of modern "classical" music will increase if you know others are not listening to it as well?"


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> Well, can't you turn that around and also ask "Why not simply listen to what you like listening to without worrying about what others are listening to? Or do you think your personal dislike of modern "classical" music will increase if you know others are not listening to it as well?"


The assumption there seems to be that I am one of the modern music bashers, when actually I am not.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Sorry*



Freischutz said:


> I think this is a problem depending on what you mean by "hate". On the one hand, you have people for whom "hate" is profound dislike. On the other hand, you have people for whom "hate" is a belief that Cage was little short of a charlatan. That certainly is a problem.


Sorry. I picked the word "hate" because I was getting tired of the word "dislike". (Note: I have been locking horns with many of these individuals in this and other forums for years.) If there is another term that you think is more appropriate, I am all ears.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Winterreisender said:


> The assumption there seems to be that I am one of the modern music bashers, when actually I am not.


Sorry, I didn't mean "you" in the sense of _you_, if you follow me! I just meant, in rhetorical terms, your question could be turned round.
Oliver Cromwell sometimes gets quoted for writing "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken", to which the obvious answer is "Yeah? Well, the same to you!"


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Freischutz said:


> I think this is a problem depending on what you mean by "hate". On the one hand, you have people for whom "hate" is profound dislike. On the other hand, you have people for whom "hate" is a belief that Cage was little short of a charlatan. That certainly is a problem.


Ohh, that's even worse than simply "hating" Cage. The belief that he was a 'charlatan' is an active attack, not just an expression of taste. Now, your problem is my problem.


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2014)

Winterreisender said:


> The assumption there seems to be that I am one of the modern music bashers, when actually I am not.


Really. Well, you sure had me fooled. Wow.

Anyway, as Nereffid has already pointed out, the assumption to be questioned was that the statement only works the way you phrased it. It actually works better (is more in line with what actually happens) put the other way around.

In any case, and this addresses one of arpeggio's concerns as well, defenses of modern music are not done--at least mine aren't--in order to convince the antis to change their mind about what they like or not. Mine are to counter poisonous and toxic remarks with positive views of modern music. Mine are to encourage people who are neither anti nor pro to ignore, or at least to discount, the negative remarks. And finally, mine are to remind the antis that their responses do not contribute anything useful or valuable to the conversation. Venting, as I've said before, serves _only_ the venters. Everyone else it just makes uncomfortable.

Would you go into someone's house, look at the pictures on their walls, and pronounce that said pictures are crap? I'm guessing not. And if you did, what would you expect the result to be? That your host and hostess would look at you, and at the pictures, and say "You're right! How could we have ever thought these pictures were OK. We'll replace them immediately!!"?


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

some guy said:


> Really. Well, you sure had me fooled. Wow.


Same here..........


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Winterreisender said:


> I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is. Why not simply listen to what you like listening to without worrying about what others are listening to? Or do you think your personal enjoyment of modern "classical" music will increase if you know others are listening to it as well?


Too logical. What are you doing here?


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Too logical. What are you doing here?


I haven't come here to criticise. I like a lot of contemporary "art" music, which is why I eagerly opened a thread entitled 'Contemporary "art" music.' But then to my disappointment, I saw that it isn't a thread discussing the music itself, but rather a thread implicitly having a go at the haters. Well I guess haters gonna hate. The trick is to not let it bother you.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DeepR said:


> Id also be very interested in discussion about *what makes modern art music art music and not "just" music... and what is the connection to classical music from the past,* if there is any, especially in the case of the more "extreme" avantgarde music.


... what other than a sort of canonization, done in the past with the birth of music history, and its declaration that this music was now to be called, _classical_ and considered _art_. Since we've all grown up with that in place, it is accepted without question.

Really, there could be an equally legitimate discussion as to why all, or most, have accepted the dictum that older classical music is, indeed, art music because older classical music _is_ "just music."

Some of the above is disingenuous, in that many can readily distinguish between old and new "art music" vs. many a well-made film or video game score, and I don't think there is any real argument when it comes to 'classical' vs. pop culture musics' being art, and more populist music which may be more or less artful, but not fine art.

But, that thingie where all the old stuff is great monumental art and anything newer most likely can not or will never be anywhere near the quality of the older music? Nonsense.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Ohh, that's even worse than simply "hating" Cage. The belief that he was a 'charlatan' is an active attack, not just an expression of taste. Now, your problem is my problem.


Not that it matters, but I don't see this as worse than hating. It can be a result of hating though, like many even more unpleasant things.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

PetrB said:


> But, that thingie where all the old stuff is great monumental art and anything newer most likely can not or will never be anywhere near the quality of the older music? Nonsense.


Well, I agree. I guess I had the more bizarre/abstract/hard to understand avantgarde in mind. The kind that would be hard to identify as art music unless you've read or heard beforehand that it is... Some music seems to be created completely on its own terms/rules with no apparent connections to other "art music". It made me wonder why it's considered art music... probably in the end because some people say it is art music. I'm just looking at the far end of the spectrum here.

Anyway this is getting a little off-topic, as the subject was about some people's attitude towards modern classical/art music in general. My attitude is that I'm interested (otherwise I wouldn't even post here), yet somewhat sceptical based on some of the music I've heard, but I'm learning and I'm slowly starting to appreciate more of it.


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2014)

Here's my take on the situation DeepR outlines.

I don't have any trouble with the more "bizarre/abstract/hard to understand avantgarde." So much so, that I don't even accept those words as pointing to anything. (I'd rather hear about the pieces that DeepR would put in that box. Or those boxes.) I also don't have much invested in what it's called, either. So I'll just point out that I got into this world via Bartok's _Concerto for Orchestra._ That was my particular entry piece into twentieth century music. From there I went to Stravinsky and then to Carter and Varese and electronic music (electroacoustic) generally. Xenakis, Dlugoszewski, Mumma, Cage, Partch, Marclay. Very quickly, too. 1972: Bartok. 1976: Cage. 1984: Marclay.

And so forth on up to Lachenmann (German instrumental and orchestral), eRikm (French turntablist), Oliveros (US drone minimalist), Karkowski (Polish eai). Among others.

The common thread, as I see it, among these very different sounding things, is a fascination with sound. Rather a good thing for a musician, come to think of it. Sound as a thing that is valuable in and of itself, regardless of systems. Where this fits in with older, "classical" music is that while there is a system there, the progressive desire to push the boundaries of that system in the interest of making good sounds is a point of contact with these newer manifestations. It's all about making good sounds.

With folk and pop musics, it's more about using a fairly limited array of sounds to achieve social or monetary goals. With making good sounds, the goals are more "artistic" than they are social or monetary, though obviously all three of these can be present in any musical effort. Which is why I'm not all that invested in what things are called.

Dunno if that helps any. Probably just muddies the water even more. Think of the nutrients!!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DeepR said:


> Id also be very interested in discussion about what makes modern art music art music and not "just" music... and what is the connection to classical music from the past, if there is any, especially in the case of the more "extreme" avantgarde music.


I guess I take this statement at face value rather than reading into it what may not be there. The OP started this thread with this statement (obviously about music rather than posts):



some guy said:


> Start by assuming that there's nothing wrong with it. See where that leads you.


So rather than questioning the intention, I would rather see a response to the content. I think this leads to perfectly valid and potentially interesting questions. What are the boundaries of art music? Should everything from early Medieval through all contemporary avant-garde be considered one type of music? I remember being struck by by the term "noise artists" rather than musicians. Is noise music also art music or a different type of art? And is art music necessarily classical music?

I'm not sure the answer matters very much in a practical sense, but if it's organized sound that people wish to hear and it's not created for the popular culture, then it's probably reasonable to consider it some form of art music. Others might have different criteria. We call this forum TalkClassical so at some point we might have to distinguish between what we consider classical and some other forms (Jazz, maybe noise art, etc.).

I think the thread was meant to include all such music/organized sound so this discussion might be slightly off-topic, but it also might be useful for those less knowledgeable about newer music.

Edit: I wrote this before seeing "some guy's" nice response to the content.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Yes, that's what I was getting at. The boundaries. The lines are getting really vague. There's a lot of other non-folk and non-pop music that is (among other things) about fascination with sound, making new sounds, but only some of it is considered art music, while other music isn't. I would classify a lot of ambient music as art music, but that never shows up on this forum. But apparently the French turntablist and US drone minimalist from above are considered art music (they have an academic background perhaps, does that make it art music?).

At some point we're going to have to draw lines and differentiate. There's nothing wrong with that. So maybe it would be better to leave the old "classical music" for what it is and classify certain other music under a different genre, be it modern art music, electronic art music, or whatever you want to call it. Just for practical purposes, to avoid confusion and misunderstanding. As long as we don't get into the silly sub-sub genres that you see in metal and trance music for example.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Suppression*



Winterreisender said:


> I haven't come here to criticise. I like a lot of contemporary "art" music, which is why I eagerly opened a thread entitled 'Contemporary "art" music.' But then to my disappointment, I saw that it isn't a thread discussing the music itself, but rather a thread implicitly having a go at the haters. Well I guess haters gonna hate. The trick is to not let it bother you.


I have no problem with haters. My problem is when some of the haters want to suppress music they have objections to. Most of the anti-modern crowd here are rather tame when compared to some that I have had run-ins with in other forums. I actually participated in another forum where that anti crowd wanted all discussions concerning modern music banned from that particular forum. I have also interacted with individuals who wanted all music they disliked banned from the radio and the concert hall.

Sometimes the resistance to 20th century music can even be ridiculous to this crowd. I remember preforming (If I recall correctly this is a band work that KenOC admires) Holst's _Hammersmith: Prelude & Scherzo_. Half the audience and even members of the band hated it and objected to us performing it.

I have learned that most of the people here are very intelligent and a lot smarter that I am. I know perfectly well that everyone who is reading this right now is aware that for every Mozart there have been a hundred Salieris. Everyone here is aware that 99% of the music that was composed in 2013 will be forgotten a century form now. Do I really have to concede to the anti-contemporary music crowd that the pros are aware of this? In order to produce the masterpieces of tomorrow we have to put up with a lot of mediocre music. The pros know that.

The minute we start saying that this composer should not get a government subsidy or this composer should not be performed in the concert hall or whatever we are heading down a slippery slope that will lead to an environment that no one will be happy with. There are reactionary forces out there that would even suppress music that some our most conservative members approve of.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Maybe I've come to the wrong place. I have no axe to grind. I was hoping this would be a forum where serious music lovers could interact and share their love for music in peace and harmony; perhaps make a few lasting friends.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Maybe I've come to the wrong place. I have no axe to grind. I was hoping this would be a forum where serious music lovers could interact and share their love for music in peace and harmony; perhaps make a few lasting friends.


Haha, you would think you could've made this decision 3,000 post ago. There's a good bit of love around here... sometimes the ugly rears it's head, but that's life, eh? Hang in there.

:tiphat:


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

hpowders said:


> Maybe I've come to the wrong place. I have no axe to grind. I was hoping this would be a forum where serious music lovers could interact and share their love for music in peace and harmony; perhaps make a few lasting friends.


It's the right place. Unfortunately, there are few "blue meanies" here as anywhere.
Hang in there.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Itullian said:


> It's the right place. Unfortunately, there are few "blue meanies" here as anywhere.
> Hang in there.


I don't know--I think this thread has been a veritable utopia of civility and humane kindness. Check out the comments on a Xenakis video on Youtube to put things in perspective :lol:


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Itullian said:


> It's the right place. Unfortunately, there are few "blue meanies" here as anywhere.
> Hang in there.


Thanks. It's either here or the car forums and they are pure hell. Nobody gets along there. At least here, there's an iota of hope.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Thanks, guys. You gave me the very needed kick in the butt. I'm here!!!


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2014)

DeepR said:


> The boundaries. The lines are getting really vague.
> 
> At some point we're going to have to draw lines and differentiate.


Not sure I agree with this. But if we're gonna draw lines, we should know 1) why we're drawing them and 2) be pretty sure that we're drawing them in the right place.

From my personal listening, I would say that there are two broad categories, art and commercial. Perhaps three, art, commercial, and folk.

And I would say, too, that "modern art music" has much more in common with "classical music" than it does with anything else. That is, I don't see any reason for splitting it off.

Well, except maybe for this one: "classical music" (the term not the music) has been causing trouble ever since it was coined. I'd be happy to jettison it and just use descriptive terms for things. You know, symphony, lieder, electronic improv, turntablism, electroacoustic, opera, concertos, stuff like that. After all, everyone from Hildegard of Bingen through Beethoven was able to write music without the benefit of the term "classical music." Probably composers will be able to continue to write music if we were to dispense with the term. In fact, I don't know of any living composers (just thinking of the people I know personally) who think that they're writing "classical music" or even care.

I even wonder how many 19th or 20th century people thought that they were writing "classical music." The ones writing around the time the term was coined called what they were doing either "Romantic music" or "modern music."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> Not sure I agree with this. But if we're gonna draw lines, we should know 1) why we're drawing them and 2) be pretty sure that we're drawing them in the right place.
> 
> From my personal listening, I would say that there are two broad categories, art and commercial. Perhaps three, art, commercial, and folk.
> 
> ...


LOL. When at work on my rather conservative little musical scribbilngs, I'm not thinking they are 'classical' music, but if thinking anything of them at all except for how to make them kind of alright, they must be just "music." On the other hand, I know that if they were to somehow magically become available to the public in a commercially released CD, merchants would not be dropping them anywhere near the "pop music" bins.

Go figure.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is. Why not simply listen to what you like listening to without worrying about what others are listening to? Or do you think your personal enjoyment of modern "classical" music will increase if you know others are listening to it as well?


The point, I thought, was about what gets most regularly programmed on classical FM stations and actual symphonic subscription series programs -- and not, by way of example, a very brief, mixed and somewhat adventurous series like the BBC proms.

The whole listening thing, with so much access to one form of recording or another, and who is listening to what, is a whole other matter, and probably a very different and broader picture to the one of FM classical and Symphonic Subscriptions programming.*

Sadly, between costs, availability, laziness and ease of access in listening to recordings, I think there are far fewer a percent of that 3% of all classical listeners who at all, let alone regularly, are seen in a seat at a major symphonic program -- that is probably a very small minority within the minority, and I find that rather sad.

I, too, am one who stays away, though, for two reasons: 
1.) price
2.) there is very little in the way of even early 20th century repertoire put on often, let alone the later stuff.

If there were more of what I'm most interested to hear LIVE, I'd work my way around a very limited budget and commit 

* For a younger generation, it is probably unknown that until the advent of the internet, the main venues where the general listening public was exposed to and learned of new classical music were radio and concert programs -- and almost nowhere else.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Before the internet, the main places I learned about new music were the record store and coffee shops (or other places for conversation). Knowledgeable, kind people recommended let me borrow CDs, etc. 

Until I went to college, there was no place that performed classical music within several hours of me (and that was further than I was usually allowed to drive). 

Once I was in college, things really started to pick up, in part because there was so much more music available, mainly because there were so many more knowledgeable, kind people around. 

Once I was out of college, the internet existed, but for several years the CD shop was still the main source of new discoveries.


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2014)

Yeah. That's the biggest downside of the shift from storing music on discs to storing music as files on a computer--there's no way to make a CD shop for sound files. I used to work in one of the last big classical music shops in the US. Very few people came in, but those who did came in for the conversation as much as for the discs.

Too few.

Too bad.


----------



## cournot (Jan 19, 2014)

arpeggio said:


> I have no problem with haters. My problem is when some of the haters want to suppress music they have objections to.


I'm one of those traditionalists who dislikes most avant-garde/serialist/what have you music intensely. And I would just like to say that I think it is the modernists who have done most of the suppressing. We all know of cases such as Korngold who saw his musical career disappear because he was not part of the new movements. I have heard and read more than one professor and critic who disparages music because it panders, or is too accessible. And at major music departments, I doubt there would be space for even 10% of the composers to be traditionalists who would actively seek to eschew the trends of most modern music since the 40s or 50s. And I'm sure if such music were both popular and liked by the average concert goer (already a tiny minority of the listening public) we would hear scathing remarks about such music being retro and unimaginative and unoriginal. Moreover, I have had decades of experience going to concerts whereby music directors who think they know better than the audience program a bit of unpleasant music at the start of the concert to make me listen to it. In fact I just heard a concert of Beethoven's 9th where the preceeding modernist piece that was played before it was not followed by a break so that it was literally impossible to enter the concert hall without hearing the first piece. The conductor wanted people to hear both pieces and no one was allowed to enter after music had started.

It's not just my imagination that modernists are often condescending. I've heard Howard Hanson referred to as a fascist. And I've been told time and again that of course I might not like music x or y, but with time and study I'll learn to appreciate it. And hey at least it's not commercial! I say hogwash, Mozart was commercial and he did pretty well by us.

So in my view, there is much sin on both sides. I am not against experimentalism per se, and I wouldn't mind a world of mostly modern music if there were a few concerts I could go to with new and modern traditional music that was written as if serialism, 12 tone, minimalism had never existed. But in fact, we know that even if there were a market for such stuff that music schools and critics would neither welcome nor encourage such trends. In my view that undercuts avant garde music. If there were a musical tradition in which the median composer had the appeal of Shostakovich or Gershwin, the market for all classical music -- traditional and modern -- would be greatly expanded and both sides could coexist.

But if the divide is such that most people feel traditional means old and contemporary must mean intellectual music that has little that is immediately accessible, then I'm afraid we will see a continuation of what we already see. Classical music being increasingly sidelined. The institutions that remain mostly playing museum pieces. And a few mostly sponsor driven new pieces designed to be heard by 50 people at most. If there is no way for new music to consistently appeal to the median concert goer then classical music as we know it will fade as a mainstream activity for good.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

90% of the modernists that I know do not want to suppress old music and like Howard Hanson.

The reason I refuse to engage you is because I refuse to believe that you are unaware of the circumstances behind the Hanson remark. You are completely misconstruing it and you know it.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2014)

cournot said:


> I'm one of those traditionalists who dislikes most avant-garde/serialist/what have you music intensely.


Thank you for calling your own neutrality into question right from the top. Takes a lot of pressure off. Most of the points you raise are either simply wrong or at least distortions of reality. I apologize if you feel slighted that I don't support that particular assertion. These points have been being raised and rebutted for over two hundred years--yeah, these very points that you're raising about twentieth century avant garde are the same as the ones raised against nineteenth century avant garde, stuff that now makes up part of the tradition that you admire. (Earlier than that, music was written to be new, not to be part of a tradition.)

But I do have a couple of things to say about a couple of points.



cournot said:


> I have had decades of experience going to concerts whereby music directors who think they know better than the audience program a bit of unpleasant music at the start of the concert to make me listen to it.


The music you find unpleasant is probably the main reason I'm at the concert. You want to take that away from me? You don't even know me.

That is, there is a difference between public and private, a difference that is increasingly under attack by people who aggressively want to take the rules governing privacy into public with them. But public is different from private. There are other people besides yourself in public, with different needs, tastes, desires, abilities. In public, you have to alter your patterns to accommodate other people. There are consequences if you don't. Maybe I don't want to hear some of the music you adore. In my own home, I rarely listen to anything by Chopin or Bax, for instance. Rarely or never. But if I go outside my own home into public, I do so in the full knowledge that I will probably have to listen to them some time. And I'm good with that. My desire to not hear those composers has to be left in my home. Why, my desire to not hear rap or country/western has to stay there, too.



cournot said:


> In fact I just heard a concert of Beethoven's 9th where the preceeding modernist piece that was played before it was not followed by a break so that it was literally impossible to enter the concert hall without hearing the first piece. The conductor wanted people to hear both pieces and no one was allowed to enter after music had started.


This concert you were presumably free to not attend, I'm guessing. Besides, the motivation you impute is probably not the correct one. Imagine going into a hall for ten minutes, then going out for twenty, then going back in for 65. It's clunky. So maybe it was the programmer's fault, eh? In any case, once the program is made, it doesn't make sense to have a break between a short piece and a long one if that's all there is to the concert.



cournot said:


> It's not just my imagination that modernists are often condescending.


There's no way to know, really. Thread after thread everywhere on the internets is full of remarks from people who are convinced they are being condescended to. Trouble is, once you've decided that people are condescending to you, you will feel condescended to all the time, no matter what. Best to leave the whole condescension thing out of the discussion entirely. It's entirely a matter of interpretation and sensitivity. Nothing to do with the ideas or the topics, that's for sure. That is, even in the rare cases where it is verifiably true, it's still impertinent.

[Edit: following arpeggio's post, which appeared as I was writing--None of the "modernists" I know want to suppress old music. 100% not wanting to.]


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

cournot said:


> And I would just like to say that I think it is the modernists who have done most of the suppressing.





arpeggio said:


> 90% of the modernists that I know do not want to suppress old music and like Howard Hanson.


What is a modernist? Is is someone who likes modern music, someone who supports modern music, someone who dislikes older music? I'm not really sure what people mean when they use the term.

If it's either of the first two, I think there are a lot of modernists on TC. And I think most of them do not take part in these type of discussions.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> There's no way to know, really. Thread after thread everywhere on the internets is full of remarks from people who are convinced they are being condescended to. Trouble is, once you've decided that people are condescending to you, you will feel condescended to all the time, no matter what.


I suppose the converse is also true: once you've decided that you're not being condescending, you will feel that you're not being condescending, all the time, no matter what attitude you actually adopt or express.

Anyway, condescension seems to be an inevitable thing in music; if you like rap and I don't, or if you a certain style of rap and I don't, or if you like this song from _Frozen_ and I don't, or if you like a collection calling itself the most relaxing adagios for harp and I don't, or whatever and whatever and whatever, the fact is that both of us are _likely_ to scorn each other for it. There are people who really don't scorn anyone for their musical taste - out there in the ordinary world those people might even be the majority - but among people whose identities involve "really caring" (or whatever) about music, those people are probably even the minority.

If we were at a concert of works by Bartok, Hindemith, and Ligeti, and an old grandmother complained, "I just have to have my Beethoven," you - and many of us here - would without doubt feel and probably (not to her face of course) express scorn for her. And if we told her that we really liked the music, she wold probably feel scorn for us and might even express it to our faces.

This is the world, the real one, that we live in, and we might as well be honest about it. Even if it's not initially good for whatever ideological project we have. Our ideological projects might have a little harder time taking off if we begin with honesty, but once they get going they'll be better for it.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

cournot said:


> If there is no way for new music to consistently appeal to the median concert goer then classical music as we know it will fade as a mainstream activity for good.


It's headed that way anyway as the median concert goer ages into oblivion. Revolutionary idea - could programming change the median concertgoer? Maybe to one that represents a sustainable demographic?


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

You scorn, I scorn, we all scorn the pop scorn.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Some people here seem to think that expectations imprinted on the brain by several years or decades of listening can be transcended by merely deciding to be more open minded. Come on. Rhetoric like that isn't even pop psychology. It's not psychology at all. It's wishful thinking.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> 90% of the modernists that I know do not want to suppress old music and like Howard Hanson.
> 
> The reason I refuse to engage you is because I refuse to believe that you are unaware of the circumstances behind the Hanson remark. You are completely misconstruing it and you know it.


Hi, cournot and arpeggio. Could one--or both of you--be more specific about the remark made by Howard Hanson to which you alluded? Thanks.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2014)

Chordalrock, speaking only for myself and my own experience as a listener, I would say that expectations can be transcended. Of course they can. I started out with Hollywood music myself. It was all I knew as a small child. When I got some old 78s from my uncle, it was a revelation. Haydn, Rachmaninoff, Chopin.... This was real music!! For me. So already, I had moved from whatever Hollywood had imprinted. It was all older music, of course. That was what was readily available. It was what Columbia Records offered on their mail order thing I got one year for my birthday; it was what the radio stations played; it was what the local symphony orchestra played. After about twelve years of that, I heard Bartok's _Concerto for orchestra._ More revelation. And more transcending of imprinting. And the Carter and Stockhausen and musique concrete that followed, quite rapidly, a matter of months, involved even more transcending.

Of course, as you will have noticed, in my case the transcending came because of love, and who knows where love comes from or why?

So for me there was no deciding about anything.

Maybe your view is correct. Maybe people without love cannot transcend anything. Could be.

I hope you're wrong. (Wishful thinking.) In any case, the answer to a closed mind is to open it, by whatever means possible. Once it's open--however doubtful or difficult or unlikely that opening may be--then all the rest will indeed follow, inevitably.

Worth a try, anyway.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Chordalrock said:


> Some people here seem to think that expectations imprinted on the brain by several years or decades of listening can be transcended by merely deciding to be more open minded. Come on. Rhetoric like that isn't even pop psychology. It's not psychology at all. It's wishful thinking.


I guess a re-training of the mind to stop it from going down it's usual grooves is in order. But that can only start when one realizes that they've been closed-mind. I suppose a sort of flash of clarity takes place, and then the close-mindedness is recognized and becomes unbearable. Therefore, evolution turns in high gear.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> What is a modernist? Is is someone who likes modern music, someone who supports modern music, someone who dislikes older music? I'm not really sure what people mean when they use the term.
> 
> If it's either of the first two, I think there are a lot of modernists on TC. And I think most of them do not take part in these type of discussions.


Clearly, to the anti-modernist, it is that imagined wholesale, "_Them._" There is no dealing with people who have such vague unreal generalities cemented as an actual reality in their imaginations. I've learned this, taking decades to accept some of the smallness and more victim-fantasy constructs of people, with the slowest of speed, because I am an optimist about people


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Well, I'm pretty open minded, and to take an example I've tried to like Webern and other big serialist works, quite naively and open mindedly and open to a divine intervention to make me a better listener, alas to no avail. There are just types of music that don't do anything for me that other people vouch for. 

I think it has something to do with synaptic connections, our different musical backgrounds and how they've shaped our brains to perceive things differently. It's pretty widely accepted that once your brain becomes mature, it's no longer very plastic, so improving or altering your taste is at least supposed to take a long time and a significant amount of effort in adulthood. If it didn't, I'd say everybody would be listening to all sorts of cool classical music but it just doesn't happen. I don't think it's a lack of love, it's more likely a lack of intensely musical growing up environments or lack of sufficient effort in later life.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> Some people here seem to think that expectations imprinted on the brain by several years or decades of listening can be transcended by merely deciding to be more open minded. Come on. Rhetoric like that isn't even pop psychology. It's not psychology at all. It's wishful thinking.


I've seen someone with tastes so conservative that Mahler and Debussy were way too far out to even consider listening to, to say nothing of Bartok, come to appreciate Stravinsky and Messiaen and Ives and Adams (occasionally, even Schoenberg) simply through exposure. It's not impossible.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> I've seen someone with tastes so conservative that Mahler and Debussy were way too far out to even consider listening to, to say nothing of Bartok, come to appreciate Stravinsky and Messiaen and Ives and Adams (occasionally, even Schoenberg) simply through exposure. It's not impossible.


Let's not start talking about what I've seen. This is a planet where people have reported phenomena ranging from UFO abductions to teleportation, which is to say everything is possible. Exceptions don't a rule make. I know what the science say. I don't know why the science doesn't always agree with experience, but it's still science and experience is typically too limited to derive any rules from.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Chordalrock said:


> Let's not start talking about what I've seen. This is a planet where people have reported phenomena ranging from UFO abductions to teleportation, which is to say everything is possible. Exceptions don't a rule make. I know what the science say. I don't know why the science doesn't always agree with experience, but it's still science and experience is typically too limited to derive any rules from.


If science says something is impossible, that's one thing. If science says something is unusual, "you're telling me there's a chance."


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

some guy said:


> ....
> Start by assuming that there's nothing wrong with it. See where that leads you.


The problem I have with that assertion is that it assumes contemporary composers are just as talented as masterss from the past, which is simply not true. Unfortunately if Mozart was alive today, and he picked up his pen and composed a symphony no.42, I very , very much doubt I would struggle with his new no.42.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> The problem I have with that assertion is that it assumes contemporary composers are just as talented as masterss from the past, which is simply not true. Unfortunately if Mozart was alive today, and he picked up his pen and composed a symphony no.42, I very , very much doubt I would struggle with his new no.42.


What is "talent", whom do you refer to with masters of the past, and on what grounds do you base that they had more talent?

I'm not saying you're wrong, or right, just that I would like to know what you really mean


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> The problem I have with that assertion is that it assumes contemporary composers are just as talented as masterss from the past, which is simply not true.


It's night-time here in Ireland; I'm done for the day.
Oh I can't wait to come back tomorrow to read the responses to this one!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ArtMusic said:


> ... if Mozart was alive today, and he picked up his pen and composed a symphony no.42, I very , very much doubt I would struggle with his new no.42.


This tells me something about you (and about me, since I think I would be in the same place), but it doesn't tell us anything about how comparatively talented Mozart and modern composers are.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

I don't think I would necessarily recognize the "new" Mozart if he wrote that stuff truly armed with his newly-found knowledge of music. But I'd very much like to hear, and I'd be listening.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Serge said:


> I don't think I would necessarily recognize the "new" Mozart if he wrote that stuff truly armed with his newly-found knowledge of music. But I'd very much like to hear, and I'd be listening.


I was assuming that resurrected Mozart wouldn't know about all the new things in music that have appeared. If he did he would probably be super-conservative harmonically (given how hard those developments were for people who lived through them) but very interested in all the new technologies. Of course there's no way to know. He might discover Grand Theft Auto and abjure composition forever.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> The problem I have with that assertion is that it assumes contemporary composers are just as talented as masterss from the past, which is simply not true.


I've always thought that the general assumption would be that the best composers would be as good or perhaps better than the past. There are many, many more people studying music composition today than say 200 years ago. Further, those people have vastly more access to music than ever before. They can hear essentially any music they wish any day. The formal education builds on hundreds of years of previous education. It's true that some of the promising composers might work in other music fields than classical music, but I still imagine there are quite a few more people composing art music today.

There may be a genius or two from the past that happened to have greater talent than anyone living today, but there almost certainly is much more talent and ability today at the level of excellent composer than ever before. Why would the assumption be anything different?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> The problem I have with that assertion is that it assumes contemporary composers are just as talented as masterss from the past, which is simply not true. Unfortunately if Mozart was alive today, and he picked up his pen and composed a symphony no.42, I very , very much doubt I would struggle with his new no.42.


I'm sure you would, actually. He was very much a progressive. If we're playing imagination games, I bet he would've been on the forefront of Contemporary Classical and you'd be looking for another "favorite composer." Just a wild guess.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

mmsbls said:


> I've always thought that the general assumption would be that the best composers would be as good or perhaps better than the past. There are many, many more people studying music composition today than say 200 years ago. Further, those people have vastly more access to music than ever before. They can hear essentially any music they wish any day. The formal education builds on hundreds of years of previous education. It's true that some of the promising composers might work in other music fields than classical music, but I still imagine there are quite a few more people composing art music today.
> 
> There may be a genius or two from the past that happened to have greater talent than anyone living today, but there almost certainly is much more talent and ability today at the level of excellent composer than ever before. Why would the assumption be anything different?


I kind of agree. Regardless, there's a reason why contemporary composers wouldn't be as able as someone like Bach or Josquin or Dufay. Let me explain. Composing contemporary music is a very different matter from writing contrapuntal and polyphonic pieces within the traditional limits. The limits that traditional composers had to learn and deal with make composition a lot harder, and when you do as much of it as Bach did, and you happen to also be a genius, you become such a supreme master of composition technique that modern composers don't really compare. My claim is that Bach would adapt to contemporary practices pretty easily but contemporary composers would have to sweat a lot to rise to Bach's level, and they're not sweating a lot. Their training was never all that hard -- and a big part of it was in styles they don't use. And ultimately the styles they do use don't require as much expertise.

Composing fluid and interesting counterpoint within the traditional limits is really, really hard. I'm relatively certain that contemporary composers -- lacking the lifetime of training of masters like Bach -- wouldn't be able to compose polyphonic works within those limits nearly as facilely as the greatest of the past. They may be able to compose a satisfactory completion of the last fugue of Art of Fugue, but only _given enough time and effort_. And as far as their own style of composition goes, they're competing almost in a different universe, one with lower standards basically. And you need extremely high standards to be able to rise to the level of the classics.

All that said, I do think that there's tons of great talent in the musical world today. I also think they could benefit from more accessible idioms and competing more directly with the greats of the past.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Chordalrock said:


> I think it has something to do with synaptic connections, our different musical backgrounds and how they've shaped our brains to perceive things differently. It's pretty widely accepted that once your brain becomes mature, it's no longer very plastic, so improving or altering your taste is at least supposed to take a long time and a significant amount of effort in adulthood. If it didn't, I'd say everybody would be listening to all sorts of cool classical music but it just doesn't happen. I don't think it's a lack of love, it's more likely a lack of intensely musical growing up environments or lack of sufficient effort in later life.


I generally agree with everything you say above. Of course there is significant variation in people's experiences with music. There are some who came to modern music later and loved it immediately or fairly soon, but from those I have talked with or learned about through TC, that experience is unusual. Everyone I know personally who enjoys the types of modern music we are discussing (not Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, etc.) went through years of listening before they came to strongly enjoy it. Many people on TC have related similar paths - years of listening and often struggling before they enjoyed it.

From my personal experience, an open mind is necessary but not sufficient. I required significant listening to "achieve" my successes. I was drawn to listen repeatedly for a variety of reasons. Others will not be drawn to listen over and over, and of course, that's OK. And some might listen repeatedly and have little success. I will simply say that I'm glad I did continue listening.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> I kind of agree. Regardless, there's a reason why contemporary composers wouldn't be as able as someone like Bach or Josquin or Dufay. Let me explain. Composing contemporary music is a very different matter from writing contrapuntal and polyphonic pieces within the traditional limits. The limits that traditional composers had to learn and deal with make composition a lot harder, and when you do as much of it as Bach did, and you happen to also be a genius, you become such a supreme master of composition technique that modern composers don't really compare. My claim is that Bach would adapt to contemporary practices pretty easily but contemporary composers would have to sweat a lot to rise to Bach's level, and they're not sweating a lot. Their training was never all that hard -- and a big part of it was in styles they don't use. *And ultimately the styles they do use don't require as much expertise.*


False, utterly false.

Composing to the highest possible standard (as Bach routinely did, of course) is difficult no matter what the idiom. All composers are still taught Baroque counterpoint (and Renaissance polyphony) as well as post-Wagnerian tonal harmony and the various non-functional harmonic idioms that have followed.

If anything, while it may have been just as difficult to compose well in the 1700s as in the 21st century, we have the added "curse" of additional historical baggage to be grappled with. One is not expected to be able to compose "naively", as one could (to a greater extent, at least) when only a single dominant musical culture existed in Europe. On the contrary, all of the "retro" postmodernist movements, from Minimalism to Neoromanticism, are *defined* by their very conscious stance vis a vis history and its implications; they are _anything but_ naive.

Is it true that contemporary composers cannot compose Baroque music without it sounding like pastiche? Yes. But look at the other way around. There's no way that Bach, with all of his experience and musical knowledge, would be able to compose something worthwhile in a contemporary idiom (any of them).


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Vesuvius said:


> I'm sure you would, actually. He was very much a progressive. If we're playing imagination games, I bet he would've been on the forefront of Contemporary Classical and you'd be looking for another "favorite composer." Just a wild guess.


This sort of speculation, both yours and ArtMusic's, is grossly incoherent because, I suspect, neither of you has worked out what you mean by saying "if Mozart was alive today." Could you clarify? Do you mean Mozart with all of his biography intact plucked out of history at age 34 and dropped in the middle of our modern culture? Would this come with incontravertible proof that he was in fact "the Mozart?" In such a case, obviously, everyone would be dying to hear his 42nd symphony. And he would still be an historical figure with a special dispensation to write in a now anachronistic style. Or would he have to make his way in our world with nothing but his original genetic attributes and skills, with a father attempting to pimp him out on American Idol or something? In this case, it is unlikely he would even be able to make a living performing the works of Mozart. Moreover, there would be very little basis for even equating him with the historical Mozart. In short: What exactly are you guys talking about?


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> There's no way that Bach, with all of his experience and musical knowledge, would be able to compose something worthwhile in a contemporary idiom (any of them).


Of course not, unless he was up to speed. Other than that, what do you even mean?


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> If anything, while it may have been just as difficult to compose well in the 1700s as in the 21st century, we have the added "curse" of additional historical baggage to be grappled with. One is not expected to be able to compose "naively", as one could (to a greater extent, at least) when only a single dominant musical culture existed in Europe. On the contrary, all of the "retro" postmodernist movements, from Minimalism to Neoromanticism, are *defined* by their very conscious stance vis a vis history and its implications; they are _anything but_ naive.


True, but this is partly why it's more difficult to become a supreme expert today in whatever style you create or adopt: you've spent most of your time studying styles and approaches you'll never use much or at all. The musical culture is too fragmented for something like a concerted-effort-to-master-one-single-style to take place as it did in the past. Why do contemporary composers study traditional counterpoint if they're never going to use what they learned in their own compositions? It doesn't make much sense and it certainly won't make them better composers of contemporary music. In fact, it's a waste of time for them in these cases.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Here we go again*



Chordalrock said:


> I kind of agree. Regardless, there's a reason why contemporary composers wouldn't be as able as someone like Bach or Josquin or Dufay. Let me explain. Composing contemporary music is a very different matter from writing contrapuntal and polyphonic pieces within the traditional limits. The limits that traditional composers had to learn and deal with make composition a lot harder, and when you do as much of it as Bach did, and you happen to also be a genius, you become such a supreme master of composition technique that modern composers don't really compare. My claim is that Bach would adapt to contemporary practices pretty easily but contemporary composers would have to sweat a lot to rise to Bach's level, and they're not sweating a lot. Their training was never all that hard -- and a big part of it was in styles they don't use. And ultimately the styles they do use don't require as much expertise.
> 
> Composing fluid and interesting counterpoint within the traditional limits is really, really hard. I'm relatively certain that contemporary composers -- lacking the lifetime of training of masters like Bach -- wouldn't be able to compose polyphonic works within those limits nearly as facilely as the greatest of the past. They may be able to compose a satisfactory completion of the last fugue of Art of Fugue, but only _given enough time and effort_. And as far as their own style of composition goes, they're competing almost in a different universe, one with lower standards basically. And you need extremely high standards to be able to rise to the level of the classics.
> 
> All that said, I do think that there's tons of great talent in the musical world today. I also think they could benefit from more accessible idioms and competing more directly with the greats of the past.


My experiences as an amateur musician who has over fifty years experience playing with community orchestras and bands clashes with many of the perceptions of some members including what I have just read above.

I am all of the time having real life contact with amazing composers who can do everything that the above commentator says they can not.

Our orchestra in the spring has a concert which features music by young student composers. Our last concert featured two such works.

One was a piano piece by a ten year old that sounded as good as anything that Chopin composed.

The second was an amazing chamber work by a sixteen year old for six clarinets.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

arpeggio said:


> My experiences as an amateur musician who has over fifty years experience playing with community orchestras and bands clashes with many of the perceptions of some members including what I have just read above.
> 
> I am all of the time having real life contact with amazing composers who can do everything that the above commentator says they can not.
> 
> ...


I think you're misreading a fair amount. 1) Doing something and doing something facilely are two different things. 2) Chopin wasn't a master of counterpoint nor was he one of the "greatest". So even if what you say is true, it's far easier to compete with Chopin than, say, Brahms.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> I think you're misreading a fair amount. 1) Doing something and doing something facilely are two different things. 2) Chopin wasn't a master of counterpoint nor was he one of the "greatest". So even if what you say is true, it's far easier to compete with Chopin than, say, Brahms.


I am not misreading anything. What I am stating is that I frequently meet composers who can do what you say they can not. I was trying to provide you with examples of recent experiences. You want counterpoint, the clarinet piece had plenty of it.

You can believe what you want to believe. What I am saying is that your observations conflict with my experiences as a performing musician.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> True, but this is partly why it's more difficult to become a supreme expert today in whatever style you create or adopt: you've spent most of your time studying styles and approaches you'll never use much or at all. The musical culture is too fragmented for something like a concerted-effort-to-master-one-single-style to take place as it did in the past. Why do contemporary composers study traditional counterpoint if they're never going to use what they learned in their own compositions? It doesn't make much sense and it certainly won't make them better composers of contemporary music. In fact, it's a waste of time for them in these cases.


But contrapuntal rules _are_ still important today as guidelines for how to write effectively in multiple voices, and therefore any thing but a waste of time. Some of the modernists have been masters at counterpoint: Stravinsky, Bartok, Schoenberg, Messiaen, and so forth. Do they write Baroque pastiche using that ability? No, and they had no interest in doing so. They wanted to use the principle and the discipline to inform their own work in their own aesthetic.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

arpeggio said:


> I am not misreading anything. What I am stating is that I frequently meet composers who can do what you say they can not. I was trying to provide you with examples of recent experiences. You want counterpoint, The clarinet piece had plenty of it.
> 
> You can believe what you want to believe. What I am saying is that your observations conflict with my experiences as a performing musician.


Except I explicitly stated that modern composers are certainly able to compose "satisfactory completions" of Art of Fuge. Exact words. Heck, Sir Donald Francis Tovey did just that. So obviously it happens.

So, yes, I am sorry but you have misread me.

What I did say was that contemporary composers can't compose great pieces with equal facility, and I also said standards are lower in contemporary music than in the music before the 20th century. If you have an issue with those two statements, fine, but you might want to stop putting words in my mouth. I'm perfectly aware there is tons of talent in the musical world today as I previously stated.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> But contrapuntal rules _are_ still important today as guidelines for how to write effectively in multiple voices, and therefore any thing but a waste of time. Some of the modernists have been masters at counterpoint: Stravinsky, Bartok, Schoenberg, Messiaen, and so forth. Do they write Baroque pastiche using that ability? No, and they had no interest in doing so. They wanted to use the principle and the discipline to inform their own work in their own aesthetic.


Which rules are important? I think that's one tiny detail you conveniently left out. I think it's pretty obvious that doing tons of species counterpoint exercise is a waste of time unless you actually plan to write traditional counterpoint.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Chordalrock said:


> True, but this is partly why it's more difficult to become a supreme expert today in whatever style you create or adopt: you've spent most of your time studying styles and approaches you'll never use much or at all. The musical culture is too fragmented for something like a concerted-effort-to-master-one-single-style to take place as it did in the past. Why do contemporary composers study traditional counterpoint if they're never going to use what they learned in their own compositions? It doesn't make much sense and it certainly won't make them better composers of contemporary music. In fact, it's a waste of time for them in these cases.


This is untrue as well. You can apply the lessons of Renaissance counterpoint or 19th century harmony to lots of contemporary styles. I do it all the time.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> I think you're misreading a fair amount. 1) Doing something and doing something facilely are two different things. 2) *Chopin wasn't a master of counterpoint nor was he one of the "greatest"*. So even if what you say is true, it's far easier to compete with Chopin than, say, Brahms.


Well, as subjective, your opinion of Chopin may be valid, but against a whole bunch of other subjective opinions of composers and "the cognoscenti," you are in disagreement. Maybe you have that notion many do, that counterpoint has only one type, the North European sort as practiced by Bach. That would cloud your reasoning as to many a later master of counterpoint -- keep you from recognizing that what they did was masterly counterpoint -- at all. "Bach is counterpoint" (and that the only kind which qualifies) is a common and extremely constricted view which many seem to hold, rather dearly


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Chordalrock said:


> Which rules are important? I think that's one tiny detail you conveniently left out. I think it's pretty obvious that doing tons of species counterpoint exercise is a waste of time unless you actually plan to write traditional counterpoint.


No,No No No

I never write "tons of species counterpoint exercises" in my compositions, and yet the lessons I learned and internalized from my species counterpoint class are invaluable to my composition technique. I wouldn't be able to write now like I do without them.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> Except I explicitly stated that modern composers are certainly able to compose "satisfactory completions" of Art of Fuge. Exact words. Heck, Sir Donald Francis Tovey did just that. So obviously it happens.
> 
> So, yes, I am sorry but you have misread me.
> 
> What I did say was that contemporary composers can't compose great pieces with equal facility, and I also said standards are lower in contemporary music than in the music before the 20th century. If you have an issue with those two statements, fine, but you might want to stop putting words in my mouth. I'm perfectly aware there is tons of talent in the musical world today as I previously stated.


What you just said still contradicts my experiences.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> True, but this is partly why it's more difficult to become a supreme expert today in whatever style you create or adopt: you've spent most of your time studying styles and approaches you'll never use much or at all. The musical culture is too fragmented for something like a concerted-effort-to-master-one-single-style to take place as it did in the past. Why do contemporary composers study traditional counterpoint if they're never going to use what they learned in their own compositions? It doesn't make much sense and it certainly won't make them better composers of contemporary music. In fact, it's a waste of time for them in these cases.


This sounds like the typical lazy / resentful music student attitude to studying older forms and techniques. Funny, though, whether directly showing or not, almost all great composers were highly trained in just those disciplines, and from those studies learned modes of thinking about music which ultimately helped them make very strong pieces -- part of why they are considered great. Those pieces may not have any obvious signs that those techniques were studied, no obvious imitation of past usage -- while they are very much part of the composer's toolbox and played a large part in the composer making a successful piece, regardless of the harmonic vocabulary or style.

Very few of the more noted composers bypassed studying forms and the various sorts of counterpoint, and though you'd have to ask, I think you would find most of them would say those skills and modes of musical thought they gained or developed via studying those technical aspects are invaluable.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> Which rules are important? I think that's one tiny detail you conveniently left out. I think it's pretty obvious that doing tons of species counterpoint exercise is a waste of time unless you actually plan to write traditional counterpoint.


I think you ought to canvas umteen composers who have completed such training. You may be the extremely rare bird who studied counterpoint and found it of no use, but I guarantee you that would be a very seldom occurring opinion.

BTW, I find it both weird and fascinating that you speak of these things _like they are rules_


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

PetrB said:


> This sounds like the typical lazy / resentful music student attitude to studying older forms and techniques. Funny, though, whether directly showing or not, almost all great composers were highly trained in just those disciplines, and from those studies learned modes of thinking about music which ultimately helped them make very strong pieces -- part of why they are considered great. Those pieces may not have any obvious signs that those techniques were studied, no obvious imitation of past usage, but are very much part of the composer's toolbox.
> 
> Very few of the more noted composers bypassed studying forms and the various sorts of counterpoint, and though you'd have to ask, I think you would find that most of them would say that those skills and modes of musical thought they gained or developed via studying those technical aspects are invaluable to them.


I was always a lazy student (though not of music), I'll admit that readily, but I'd also say highly successful people are at least equally biased about the merits of the system that molded them -- just in the opposite direction. Just because this is how we do it now and have been doing for a long time doesn't mean it's efficient or rational. In fact, just think about people still using lectures as the primary means of learning -- in the age of the internet, half a millenium after the printing press was invented. It's just the most obviously ridiculous thing about our cultural studying habits today and there are others I could mention.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Chordalrock said:


> What I did say was that contemporary composers can't compose great pieces with equal facility, and I also said standards are lower in contemporary music than in the music before the 20th century. If you have an issue with those two statements, fine, but you might want to stop putting words in my mouth. I'm perfectly aware there is tons of talent in the musical world today as I previously stated.


The standards aren't lower for judging great contemporary music. That's silly. For example, there were thousands upon thousands of random serialist composers composing in the second half of the 20th century (hell, there still are probably thousands upon thousands of serialist composers), and yet how many did we end up knowing about? Boulez, Babbit...some Stockhausen. The thresh hold of greatness is still great enough that only a few make it to the other side, just as in the past.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

violadude said:


> The standards aren't lower for judging great contemporary music. That's silly. For example, there were thousands upon thousands of random serialist composers composing in the second half of the 20th century (hell, there still are probably thousands upon thousands of serialist composers), and yet how many did we end up knowing about? Boulez, Babbit...some Stockhausen. The thresh hold of greatness is still great enough that only a few make it to the other side, just as in the past.


If there are more composers considered "great" from the 20th century than from other eras, I believe that this can be attributed to one or both of the following:
1) There hasn't been enough time for the separation of great from good to occur (it looks like this has already happened to a large extent)
2) The 20th century marks the spread of classical music beyond Europe. It saw the first great composers to come out of the Americas and from eastern Asia, areas which had not previously had any Western Classical background.

In my opinion, it's a mixture of both.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I used to think it was easy to write in the style of Mozart, then I actually tried writing in the style of Mozart and found out it was incredibly hard to make it sound as good as Mozart did. I think anyone who thinks composing a serialist, avant-garde, set theory, minimalist or new minamalist work is taking the easy way out should try doing it for themselves and see how "easy" it is to write a successful one.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

violadude said:


> I used to think it was easy to write in the style of Mozart, then I actually tried writing in the style of Mozart and found out it was incredibly hard to make it sound as good as Mozart did. I think anyone who thinks composing a serialist, avant-garde, set theory, minimalist or new minamalist work is taking the easy way out should try doing it for themselves and see how "easy" it is to write a successful one.


Unfortunately, for this exercise to be of any value, you have to already believe in the merits of the style you're trying to emulate. Otherwise one actually could come away thinking that one has composed, say, something that sounds exactly like Schoenberg or Reich (remember that joke video posted here a while back?) when anyone with any degree of familiarity with the subject whatsoever can recognize that it sounds nothing whatsoever like Schoenberg or Reich.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> I was always a lazy student (though not of music), I'll admit that readily, but I'd also say highly successful people are at least equally biased about the merits of the system that molded them -- just in the opposite direction. Just because this is how we do it now and have been doing for a long time doesn't mean it's efficient or rational. In fact, just think about people still using lectures as the primary means of learning -- in the age of the internet, half a millenium after the printing press was invented. It's just the most obviously ridiculous thing about our cultural studying habits today and there are others I could mention.


So, all the opinions you've given on music training and any worthwhile benefits are all outsider / no direct experience assumptions? Thanks, that explains a lot for me of what looks like a seriously huge amount of misinformation from you -- and that misinformation, or lack of information, seems to be that which upon those opinions are based.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

PetrB said:


> So, all the opinions you've given on music training and any worthwhile benefits are all outsider / no direct experience assumptions? Thanks, that explains a lot for me of what looks like a seriously huge amount of misinformation from you -- and that misinformation, or lack of information, seems to be that which upon those opinions are based.


Sure. If you had read some of my first messages -- in the composer subforum -- I never made secret of being a hobbyist and nothing more than that.

That's not to say I'm wrong. It could even mean I can think more clearly about these issues. As Chomsky pointed out, the most educated are typically the most brainwashed.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Chordalrock said:


> Sure. If you had read some of my first messages -- in the composer subforum -- I never made secret of being a hobbyist and nothing more than that.
> 
> That's not to say I'm wrong. It could even mean I can think more clearly about these issues. As Chomsky pointed out, the most educated are typically the most brainwashed.


Hm...yess... and the least educated are typically the least informed. Funny how that works isn't it? 

But this is a seriously annoying trend I've seen and I'm guessing it's gotten worse with the advent of the internet (It's hard for me to remember a time when there was no internet so I can only guess). It not only happens in music but in many areas of science as well. It's the popular trend of people forming and holding deeply to these anti-establishment sentiments just from reading a few blogs or whatever about the subject. Sorry bud, but you don't get to disprove established ideas about music (or evolution or physics or astronomy) without first becoming deeply knowledgeable about the subject yourself.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

violadude said:


> Hm...yess... and the least educated are typically the least informed. Funny how that works isn't it?


But then I'm not typical, and you all do sound rather typical.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Chordalrock said:


> But then I'm not typical, and you all do sound rather typical.


Oh, are you somehow highly informed without being educated? I'd like to know how that works.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2014)

The idea of "greatness" is pernicious.

It is very much a distinguishing characteristic of the nineteenth century, part and parcel with all the other bad things (in aesthetics) that happened in the nineteenth century.

But I don't see any fruitful thinking about greatness happening any time soon. So much so that I am officially embarrassed to have even brought it up.

The statement that standards are lower is wrong, not because I believe that standards are just as high, but because I believe that "standards" are impertinent.

Even something like "Bach was really good at counterpoint" has to account for the fact that his fugues constantly break the rules of Fux' treatise on counterpoint.

And the claim often made that Berlioz really sucked at counterpoint (despite having passed all his counterpoint exams with very high marks), ignore the musical and dramatic context in which counterpoint appears in his works. 

Standards being lower now than in the 18th century assumes that one size fits all. One size fits one.

Bach was no good at large scale symphonic writing, for instance, and a complete failure at eai.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

violadude said:


> Oh, are you somehow highly informed without being educated? I'd like to know how that works.


When I said "the most educated" I was clearly alluding to formal education. And I don't mean that I'm highly informed about contemporary music or composition in general, just enough to be able to think outside the box a bit and come up with some good ideas. It helps that unlike music students I have some actual familiarity with critical thinking as well as philosophy, psychology, and aesthetics.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

some guy said:


> The idea of "greatness" is pernicious.
> 
> It is very much a distinguishing characteristic of the nineteenth century, part and parcel with all the other bad things (in aesthetics) that happened in the nineteenth century.
> 
> ...


Your attitude may benefit a listener but a composer does need some sense of standards, the clearer the better. If past composers hadn't cared about standards, they wouldn't have composed great music, or at least as much of it.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Chordalrock said:


> When I said "the most educated" I was clearly alluding to formal education. And I don't mean that I'm highly informed about contemporary music or composition in general, just enough to be able to think outside the box a bit and come up with some good ideas. It helps that unlike music students I have some actual familiarity with critical thinking as well as philosophy, psychology, and aesthetics.


And those good ideas include thinking that species counterpoint is not beneficial unless you are writing strict species counterpoint?

And how do you know that other music students don't have experience with philosophy, psychology and aesthetics?


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

violadude said:


> And those good ideas include thinking that species counterpoint is not beneficial unless you are writing strict species counterpoint?


It can be beneficial even if you're not writing tonal music, but doing a lot of such exercises won't be an efficient use of time for contemporary composers who want to write in contemporary idioms. It's like studying history by memorising hundreds of dates when all you needed to do was get an idea of the big picture.



violadude said:


> And how do you know that other music students don't have experience with philosophy, psychology and aesthetics?


I observe them on the internet.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Chordalrock said:


> It can be beneficial even if you're not writing tonal music, but doing a lot of such exercises won't be an efficient use of time for contemporary composers who want to write in contemporary idioms. It's like studying history by memorising hundreds of dates when all you needed to do was get an idea of the big picture.


Uh-huh

And how would you know this if you are not a composer composing in a contemporary style who has done tons of species counterpoint exercises? Especially since most people who are composers composing in a contemporary style who have done tons of species counterpoint exercises would disagree with you?


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

You honestly can't think of a better use for your time than such exercises? I suppose since you're constantly posting on TC, perhaps you sincerely can't.

I'm pretty sure contemporary composers would be better served by analysing modern and contemporary music that they find fascinating and figuring out what made those works so great, and by absorbing that sort of knowledge and understanding rather than by writing species counterpoint. But you think otherwise? You must be kidding.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Chordalrock said:


> You honestly can't think of a better use for your time than such exercises? I suppose since you're constantly posting on TC, perhaps you sincerely can't.
> 
> I'm pretty sure contemporary composers would be better served by analysing modern and contemporary music that they find fascinating and figuring out what made those works so great, and by absorbing that sort of knowledge and understanding rather than by writing species counterpoint. But you think otherwise? You must be kidding.


Oh yes, as if I claimed that writing species counterpoint is the only thing Messaien EVER did before composing the Turangalila symphony 

Dude I think you're the one who must be joking. You can't possibly think that's what I meant when I say that species counterpoint exercises are invaluable to quality composition, regardless of the genre.

And seriously, what kind of view do you have to contemporary composers that you think they are all such thick headed buffoons that they don't even stop and analyze other contemporary pieces to see what makes them great?


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

How can I be joking when there was just someone in one of these threads who complained that nobody taught him contemporary composition in college but was still expected compositions in contemporary idiom? All he had ever been taught was Fux and similar CPP stuff. Don't you find all this incredibly absurd?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Chordalrock said:


> How can I be joking when there was just someone in one of these threads who complained that nobody taught him contemporary composition in college but was still expected compositions in contemporary idiom? All he had ever been taught was Fux and similar CPP stuff. Don't you find all this incredibly absurd?


Did he name what the college was? That's certainly not the average experience as far as I'm aware. Certainly not at a dedicated music-specific college.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

violadude said:


> Did he name what the college was? That's certainly not the average experience as far as I'm aware. Certainly not at a dedicated music-specific college.


You'll have to ask him:

http://www.talkclassical.com/31162-musicians-views-contemporary-modern-3.html#post629548


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

violadude said:


> And seriously, what kind of view do you have to contemporary composers that you think they are all such thick headed buffoons that they don't even stop and analyze other contemporary pieces to see what makes them great?


I think they're "victims" of a system they have to be part of if they want to succeed. People who see the absurdity, usually don't partake or drop out and do something else with their lives or go on to succeed independently, is my impression. This isn't limited to composition.

But anyway, think about the economics concept of opportunity cost. If you do one thing, you can't do another thing at the same time. If you choose to spend time on Fux, this is time taken away from analysing contemporary works.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Species counterpoint is a degree requirement because it's fundamental to understanding tonal music. Also, Schenker. So, a good part of one's overall music education - composition training is not vocational training!

That anecdote about the guy in the other thread sounds bad - but it's just an anecdote


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> Some people here seem to think that expectations imprinted on the brain by several years or decades of listening can be transcended by merely deciding to be more open minded. Come on. Rhetoric like that isn't even pop psychology. It's not psychology at all. It's wishful thinking.


No one who generally decides there are a range of set patterns for anything, including 'how life should go,' is going to readily step outside those boundaries of convention, because staying within those conventions is very much tied in with their overall ideas of comfort and ease of mind. I think more people are like that than not.

But, ya know, when it comes to music, it is just music, not a physical re-arrangement of the house you live in, a physical change of residence, a new job, or any of the rest of "the scary stuff." It is just music. So when it comes to a bit of totally non-threatening non-dangerous more than safe bit of adventure in the arts, I think many people are just being downright wusses about it.

Until the dawn of the new-age genre, and that semi-pop genre music for healing and relaxation, etc. stuff, it may come as a shock that no matter how beautiful we think the music is, most composers' intent is to get people from stasis to ecstasis, i.e. in one way or the other, _disturb the audience members!_ Now it seems, we have routine requests for music which will not disturb a particular listener.

I'd recommend a vacation, or a visit to a Zen Retreat, a relaxation retreat, or a spa before I'd readily be able to guess what "does not disturb, or too much disturb," a listener with such requests.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> Let's not start talking about what I've seen. This is a planet where people have reported phenomena ranging from UFO abductions to teleportation, which is to say everything is possible. Exceptions don't a rule make. I know what the science say. I don't know why the science doesn't always agree with experience, but it's still science and experience is typically too limited to derive any rules from.


It does you no credit to discredit the experiences of others -- it merely throws all your reported personal perceptions and experiences into the same damned dustbin.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> But then I'm not typical, and you all do sound rather typical.


But, then, you are -- as typical as in the old cliche, "common as dirt"... _even thinking you are not typical makes you about as typical as it gets _

The phrase used in some 12-step programs for that particular personal self-evaluation / vanity is "Terminal Uniqueness," and you are not alone in that many are laboring under the delusion they are not typical, are utterly inimitably unique.

People in general are typical of one of a handful of basic personality types, including those eccentrics who think they are unlike anyone else fall into one of a handful of basic personality types. There is really no avoiding it.

It is maybe a matter of unasked for serious / major genius and all the confluent circumstances which allow it to thrive which makes an infinitesimally small number of the entire population atypical, i.e. _somewhat but not even then utterly unique._


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> How can I be joking when there was just someone in one of these threads who complained that nobody taught him contemporary composition in college but was still expected compositions in contemporary idiom? All he had ever been taught was Fux and similar CPP stuff. Don't you find all this incredibly absurd?


You go to a school with a less than stellar music department, or perhaps a retro-conservative bastion of old-era practices, and that is what you get. I've noticed a number of posts at the least implying that somehow, schools are responsible for 'victimizing,' young music composition students.

Schools are businesses, and some are far better than others. Too, there are some more suited to a student and that student's needs and wants then the equally fine school a stone's throw away. It seems there is an assumption if one near-passively sets out 'to go to school,' that that is all that is required, and the school will do right by you. (I think that was pretty much over by the 1950's, including the institutions with the highest profile reputations and esteem.)

It is a buyer beware world, very much including your education, and even more so your higher education. The student, and perhaps their parents, really have to do far more than just pick a name on the basis of a certain prestige that name has and think the rest will take care of itself.

Students can and do, for academic reasons, transfer to other schools, and there is nothing alarming "on your school record" about one transfer, at least.

An aggressively applied energy and assertiveness have to accompany any persons decision making of the what and where of their higher education. Without that, if not a victim, the student was uncaring and passive enough about what happens to them that little sympathy for 'what happened' can be given.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Posted in another forum, said to be cobbled together from composers' bios: "This experimental work of electroacoustic and spectromorphologic effects includes aleatoric, aphoristic, and spectral sonic events that transcend but still fundamentally include intuitive, stochastic, polystylistic, and serialistic elaboration, as the result of its pre-compositional plannification and temporal structuring at micro- and macro-musical-architectonic levels."


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Ah yes, when academics write for academics they use some funny words don't they. Still, in the academic circles for which these words are written each one has a precise meaning. It's a bit uncool for us outsiders (and despite my music training I am most definitely an outsider to this sort of thing) but can actually be an effective way to communicate complex ideas quickly. We can all have a laugh at the funny words tho!

Just wondering why it's of relevance to the thread?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Posted in another forum, said to be cobbled together from composers' bios: "This experimental work of electroacoustic and spectromorphologic effects includes aleatoric, aphoristic, and spectral sonic events that transcend but still fundamentally include intuitive, stochastic, polystylistic, and serialistic elaboration, as the result of its pre-compositional plannification and temporal structuring at micro- and macro-musical-architectonic levels."


Clearly, that training did not stop with fux or tonal counterpoint, then 

I think many now still think that undergraduate school is a complete training in what the degree says your major was, and that is anything but the reality. With over sixty percent of required undergraduate courses being still general education (European colleges and conservatories do not suffer from this), _this makes the undergraduate degree a diploma in less than two years theoretical training within the majored-in subject. That is now not even enough to get a job sweeping up as a professional in the field one majored in, let alone for a moment think one is 'fully prepared.'_ Since music literature has that many more developments in repertoire and that much more repertoire (20th century and beyond) than it did in 1900, longer study for both performance majors and composition majors is the norm.

Anyone thinking an undergraduate diploma is enough (other than one done at European school or a specialized school where all four years are _fully nothing but courses in and around the major subject_), is wildly mistaken.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*I understand this.*



KenOC said:


> Posted in another forum, said to be cobbled together from composers' bios: "This experimental work of electroacoustic and spectromorphologic effects includes aleatoric, aphoristic, and spectral sonic events that transcend but still fundamentally include intuitive, stochastic, polystylistic, and serialistic elaboration, as the result of its pre-compositional plannification and temporal structuring at micro- and macro-musical-architectonic levels."


I think I am in real trouble. I understand this.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

PetrB said:


> It does you no credit to discredit the experiences of others -- it merely throws all your reported personal perceptions and experiences into the same damned dustbin.


I wouldn't say I'm discrediting. I'd say it's merely the common scientific practice to put exceptions aside until they are numerous enough that the theory has to be entirely scrapped. There are reasons why people might experience unusual things, ranging from genetic to the unimaginable, but this doesn't have to invalidate more general ideas about the hows and whats.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Composition is to a large degree about problem solving. Studying techniques such as species counterpoint, classical harmony, serialism, using modes of limited transposition, matrices etc., serve to equip the composer with a variety of tools with which to fashion their music.
It is not necessary for a composer to employ or even study any particular practice if they can get along without it. But in music as in engineering, knowledge and understanding of a wide spectrum of techniques past and present, can serve to spark the imagination or to help oil the wheels of creativity.
It is in the composers own interest to explore the techniques employed by others and to adopt or discard whichever they choose.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> I think they're "victims" of a system they have to be part of if they want to succeed. People who see the absurdity, usually don't partake or drop out and do something else with their lives or go on to succeed independently, is my impression. This isn't limited to composition.
> 
> But anyway, think about the economics concept of opportunity cost. If you do one thing, you can't do another thing at the same time. If you choose to spend time on Fux, this is time taken away from analysing contemporary works.


This sounds like "teen angst academic conspiracy theory" more than anything else.... again, now we know that music study was no where in or around your major, all that inflection could be the reported hearsay of yet another lackluster and untalented sour grapes music major.

ADD: In the area of music composition, where and with whom you trained are way down the list, or not on the list, when one is submitting a score to any musicians or musical organizations for their consideration. You may have gotten to that gateway via the recommendation of a colleague, their being academic or not again not a qualifier.

It is the piece, and its qualities alone, which is entirely what gets the work performed, or not. Degrees, "qualifications," and all the rest are maybe asked about only after the work has first generated interest on its own... your 'academic experience,' your academic rating, all primarily irrelevant at that juncture.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

PetrB said:


> This sounds more like teen angst "academic conspiracy" more than anything else.... again, now we know that music study was no where in or around your major, all that inflection could be the reported hearsay of yet another lackluster and untalented sour grapes music major.


The smug rhetoric of a person whose satisfaction derives ultimately neither from hard work well rewarded nor from great talent possessed but rather from luck mistaken as just rewards. You can quote me.

I know I'm changing the topic somewhat but here's something that illustrates the fallibility of your academic gods: Sibelius stopped composing in great part because at that time the media and academia were filled with closed minded serialists and avant-gardists whose primary job was to stamp out composers of his kind and any kind that didn't fit their idea of what a contemporary composer should sound like. Like all institutions, music departments and their positions of authority attract mainly two kinds of people: those with an ax to grind and those who are, pardon my French, mindless conformists.

Sibelius was really only the tip of the iceberg. People who could have gone on to compose great works but were dispirited or otherwise thwarted by the nature of the people who had influence and by the people who blindly followed -- were probably rather numerous.

In other words, silly practices and prejudices in places of authority have real consequences. There's cause there for some amount of angst.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I could get people to listen to contemporary music with understanding if I was there in the room with them. All it takes is some simple explanation of what's going on, and what to listen for. I'd use all sorts of analogies, and I'd be able to determine what pieces were being listened to. I'd start 'em out with some selected John Cage, then maybe some Feldman. I'd explain Elliott Carter, Babbitt, Schoenberg, Webern, and Stockhausen.

If they still didn't get it, I'd put on some jazz or rock and give them another beverage.


----------



## rrudolph (Sep 15, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> I could get people to listen to contemporary music with understanding if I was there in the room with them. All it takes is some simple explanation of what's going on, and what to listen for. I'd use all sorts of analogies, and I'd be able to determine what pieces were being listened to. I'd start 'em out with some selected John Cage, then maybe some Feldman. I'd explain Elliott Carter, Babbitt, Schoenberg, Webern, and Stockhausen.
> 
> If they still didn't get it, I'd put on some jazz or rock and give them another beverage.


I have actually done this on a few occasions, with decidedly mixed results.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> I know I'm changing the topic somewhat but here's something that illustrates the fallibility of your academic gods: *Sibelius stopped composing in great part because at that time the media and academia were filled with closed minded serialists and avant-gardists* whose primary job was to stamp out composers of his kind and any kind that didn't fit their idea of what a contemporary composer should sound like. Like all institutions, music departments and their positions of authority attract mainly two kinds of people: those with an ax to grind and those who are, pardon my French, mindless conformists.


False. Sibelius stopped composing when the mainstream was writing in the Neoclassical style opened up by Stravinsky and Hindemith. 12-tone music was still limited to Schoenberg (who admired Sibelius) and a few disciples (some of whom didn't and said so), and the term "serialism" didn't even exist. Experimental/avant-garde music like musique concrete was barely even noticed.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Chordalrock said:


> The smug rhetoric of a person whose satisfaction derives ultimately neither from hard work well rewarded nor from great talent possessed but rather from luck mistaken as just rewards. You can quote me.
> 
> I know I'm changing the topic somewhat but here's something that illustrates the fallibility of your academic gods: Sibelius stopped composing in great part because at that time the media and academia were filled with closed minded serialists and avant-gardists whose primary job was to stamp out composers of his kind and any kind that didn't fit their idea of what a contemporary composer should sound like. Like all institutions, music departments and their positions of authority attract mainly two kinds of people: those with an ax to grind and those who are, pardon my French, mindless conformists.
> 
> ...


It's not the 60s anymore. That kind of attitude is not as prevalent among college professors these days. And even if it was, the basics learned in a college setting are still valuable.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> The smug rhetoric of a person whose satisfaction derives ultimately neither from hard work well rewarded nor from great talent possessed but rather from luck mistaken as just rewards. You can quote me.
> 
> I know I'm changing the topic somewhat but here's something that illustrates the fallibility of your academic gods: Sibelius stopped composing in great part because at that time the media and academia were filled with closed minded serialists and avant-gardists whose primary job was to stamp out composers of his kind and any kind that didn't fit their idea of what a contemporary composer should sound like. Like all institutions, music departments and their positions of authority attract mainly two kinds of people: those with an ax to grind and those who are, pardon my French, mindless conformists.
> 
> ...


You cite one composer who had a lifelong problem with alcoholism which finally took him over, and "academia," long after the fact of that composer's training, as a real case of persecution? That is more than a little difficult to take seriously.

Any composer, past and present, in order to be a composer, make a career and continue it, has had some psychological aspect which translates to a will of steel, not to be mistaken with "ego." It is those whose psychology has them too soft, unable to persevere, whose 'creativity' is stifled, either by "academia" or the world at large.

Bach or Bartok, these composers had to battle, pretty constantly, and ignore a lot of negativity all about them, in order to get going and keep going.

There is a popular notion that nurturing just about anyone is going to have that individual flower to their maximum potential, to which there is a mere grain of truth only.

Being an artist, making and keeping a career, is not for those who are soft. Authority or lack of immediate popular acceptance has not stopped any of those composers whose works we know now from doing what they were driven, and "had to do."

Steve Reich and Philip Glass were driving taxis and doing other sundry jobs well into their forties before they could "rely" upon their music to sustain them. Both grew up and trained in a climate less than receptive to the kind of music they were writing, and both persevered.

It is not 'authority' -- that abstract thing so easy to claim is the reason for an individual's lack of progress or their failure vs. a possible success -- that keeps people from succeeding. It is the person's lack of belief in themselves, and their softer personality which has them too easily giving up.

I'm sensing in these "they blocked this or that creative person" posts a projection which includes an array of weak reasons and excuses for a person not getting ahead, and perhaps feeling the broken shards of a dream ambition not even attempted, let alone actually pursued, accompanied by the complaint about the taste of sour grapes from one who never even began to try, let alone actually act upon vs. any evidential material to the contrary. Then, contorted or truncated altered histories are cherry-picked to support that lament.

BTW, as much as I went through all the academic training, I loved the learning, but do not put the more negative aspects, or the petty aspects of academia, on any sort of pedestal; nor do I think academia is the end-all and be all arbiter of either taste, or what ends up being performed or liked by the public. You've assigned me a slot which is not only not mine, but doesn't fit me at all. [Projection 101a.]


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> False. Sibelius stopped composing when the mainstream was writing in the Neoclassical style opened up by Stravinsky and Hindemith. 12-tone music was still limited to Schoenberg (who admired Sibelius) and a few disciples (some of whom didn't and said so), and the term "serialism" didn't even exist. Experimental/avant-garde music like musique concrete was barely even noticed.


Fair enough, although slightly modified, I think the point still stands, so you are basically nitpicking.

It's actually the case though that Sibelius had a more generalised contempt toward the modern world and its developments and this was another major factor I think.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

PetrB said:


> Any composer, past and present, in order to be a composer, make a career and continue it, has had some psychological aspect which translates to a will of steel, not to be mistaken with "ego." It is those whose psychology has them too soft, unable to persevere, whose 'creativity' is stifled, either by "academia" or the world at large.


We're basically arguing over responsibility. I think the cool tough guy idea that everyone is responsible for their own success or lack of sounds good on paper but doesn't work in the real world. In the real world, everyone's actions affect everyone else's lives and everyone is, to a degree, responsible.

Even Beethoven stopped composing for a year or so when he had some "family troubles". So was he someone with great willpower as commonly portrayed or was he rather someone who was, despite occasional awfully bad luck, still a fairly fortunate individual who was able to compose in a peaceful and hopeful state of mind and a good attitude merely due to relatively benevolent circumstances?

I'm not familiar with Bach's or Bartok's life stories, but I doubt they're any more superhuman than Beethoven was. Which is to say their supposed willpower was probably not much more than fortunate circumstance.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

violadude said:


> It's not the 60s anymore. That kind of attitude is not as prevalent among college professors these days. And even if it was, the basics learned in a college setting are still valuable.


This is true. I was merely trying to illustrate a point.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> Fair enough, although slightly modified, I think the point still stands, so you are basically nitpicking.
> 
> It's actually the case though that Sibelius had a more generalised contempt toward the modern world and its developments and this was another major factor I think.


The problem is that I have seen several people bring up the idea that "serialism stifled Sibelius", and it is believed in spite of any temporal inconsistencies this may cause. I've even seen it brought up in arguments about the supposed dogmatism of Schoenberg himself in these matters. It's far from nitpicking, it's important to make distinctions when your assertions malign others.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> We're basically arguing over responsibility. I think the cool tough guy idea that everyone is responsible for their own success or lack of sounds good on paper but doesn't work in the real world. In the real world, everyone's actions affect everyone else's lives and everyone is, to a degree, responsible.
> 
> Even Beethoven stopped composing for a year or so when he had some "family troubles". So was he someone with great willpower as commonly portrayed or was he rather someone who was, despite occasional awfully bad luck, still a fairly fortunate individual who was able to compose in a peaceful and hopeful state of mind and a good attitude merely due to relatively benevolent circumstances?
> 
> I'm not familiar with Bach's or Bartok's life stories, but I doubt they're any more superhuman than Beethoven was. Which is to say their supposed willpower was probably not much more than fortunate circumstance.


If it is all roulette of circumstance, caprices of fate, or predestination, i.e. some people just won't make it to heaven on earth or heaven after earth no matter how they try, they why whinge about or against circumstance... all then being 'the way it should be.' New-age shallow sentiment, the way you've couched it, at least IMO, since there should be no weeping over those who did not make it, as they were not left behind.

I don't think any amount of gentle encouragement or a shift in society is going to create any more individuals like those few who are running on not a desire, nor a dream wish, nor an ambition, but rather are running on the fuel of an overwhelming need. It is the overwhelming need to write music which drives the achievers, against all the advise to the contrary about how impractical their pursuit, how rare the chance for success, etc. Ultimately, they remain, some get known, short or long term, while any others with mere desires or wants have folded somewhere along the way.

Sometimes, that need is so great it compels some of the most shy, self-doubting and insecure people -- like Manuel de Falla, the painter Giacometti, Anton Bruckner, for example. to continue to make and do, no matter what.

The facts of the circumstances of the likes of Bruckner and Giacometti sort of turns the argument that a lot of the gentler souls are crushed by a sort of academic conspiracy or society's lacks into an insupportable mush. Neither academia or society can inculcate in every slightly talented person a driving need to create or invent, two criteria ever present in those of note who have created and invented everything many think of as having value.


----------



## Guest (Mar 24, 2014)

I think it's a lot more simple than any of this, really.

To some people, modern art music is malign. It has caused all sorts of things, from alienating audiences to crushing the careers of composers who deserved better. Never mind that the audiences had started rejecting new music over a hundred years before Schoenberg wrote a note of pantonal music or Stravinsky wrote one barbaric bar. Never mind that it was alcohol that crushed Sibelius. Modern music is responsible for all the bad things that have happened in the last century. Probably caused the world wars and aids, too, for all I know.

The hatred ain't gonna go away just because it don't coincide with the facts none.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

some guy said:


> I think it's a lot more simple than any of this, really.
> 
> To some people, modern art music is malign. It has caused all sorts of things, from alienating audiences to crushing the careers of composers who deserved better. Never mind that the audiences had started rejecting new music over a hundred years before Schoenberg wrote a note of pantonal music or Stravinsky wrote one barbaric bar. Never mind that it was alcohol that crushed Sibelius. Modern music is responsible for all the bad things that have happened in the last century. Probably caused the world wars and aids, too, for all I know.
> 
> The hatred ain't gonna go away just because it don't coincide with the facts none.


I think you're confusing me with someone else. I don't hate modern music, I just don't get most of it and shake my head at the irony of modern music buffs having a victim mentality when it was them and no one else who had all the power in the institutions for decades.

The only reason modernism in music died was that the modernists themselves became tired of what they were doing and started to seek more approachable ways of expressing themselves thru music. It's still the same people in power though, kind of.

I'll also helpfully point out that even if I loved the modernists I wouldn't allow myself to be blinded to the negative aspects of the phenomenon. Usually when one type of people have all the power, other types of people suffer. It's life, it happens. We should discourage it but also admit that, yes, it does happen and is kind of normal.


----------



## Guest (Mar 24, 2014)

Chordalrock said:


> I think you're confusing me with someone else.


What makes you think I was talking to and or about you?



Chordalrock said:


> I don't hate modern music, I just don't get most of it and shake my head at the irony of modern music buffs having a victim mentality when it was them and no one else who had all the power in the institutions for decades.


You're not the only one shaking your head at this point. Modern music buffs have had all the power in the institutions for decades? Wow. I had no idea. I wish I'd known that. Man, what I could have done with that power. And I didn't even know.

In fact, I don't know any modern music buffs who now have or who have ever had any power in any institution. I think you're confusing us with someone else.



Chordalrock said:


> The only reason modernism in music died...


Wait a minute! Modernism died? Wow. I wonder if all those people I'm going to see in Paris next week know that. Man, that weekend of modern music.... Awkward.

And then in May in Prague. More embarrassment. All those people--composers, performers, listeners. I... I don't know how to break it to them. Are you sure?



Chordalrock said:


> ...the modernists themselves became tired of what they were doing and started to seek more approachable ways of expressing themselves thru music.


Really. Who?



Chordalrock said:


> It's still the same people in power though, kind of.


Do you have any idea what's really going on in the world?



Chordalrock said:


> I'm not too familiar with contemporary music.


Oh. OK, then.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

some guy said:


> Wait a minute! Modernism died? Wow. I wonder if all those people I'm going to see in Paris next week know that. Man, that weekend of modern music.... Awkward.
> 
> And then in May in Prague. More embarrassment. All those people--composers, performers, listeners. I... I don't know how to break it to them. Are you sure?


Maybe this is more of a PM thing, or for a different thread, but..who are you going to see in Paris and Prague? (or is it friends rather than concerts?) Also I've been meaning to ask after you've said you travel quite a a bit if you've seen Ensemble Intercontemporain live.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

some guy - that last post of yours! Wine came out my nose! And I wasn't even drinking wine! (OK I was - so what). You've won TC today


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I guess we all know very well that Boulez, Cage, Babbitt, Stockhausen, Oliveros (we can label them however you want; the semantics disinterest me) have been pillars of (some of) the musical establishment(s) for some time now. They may not often suffer brow-raising CD sales or dominate the "current listening" threads on classical music message boards (which would delegitimize them anyway), but they get tenures at the elite universities because (we) the elite know whom to respect and whom to scorn.

I figure we can afford to be honest about this because to the true believers financial success remains suspicious. 

Among the great ironies and great strengths of capitalism are that it transforms radicals, would-be rebels into pillars of an establishment. This requires multiplying establishments, but where a market of any size exists that multiplication presents no problem. 

Therefore the competition for pity does not impress me. Just as (and because) there is evidently more than enough money for lots of different kinds of composers to do their thing, there is enough pity to distribute among them for not being more famous with the filthy masses who dare not to "get" their work. 

(There, I shudder to reflect, but for the grace of some god go I.)


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ok, that was supposed to be sarcastic and even in a way funny, but seriously, though I enjoy (forgive me, I realize "enjoy" is supposed to be a bit taboo for such sublimity, but I cannot help it, at heart I'm still a fairly simple fool) contemporary music easily and genuinely, when I behold the arrogance of its advocates I am occasionally glad not to be considered among them. 

Their attitude may be ultimately defensive, it may be justified, it may be whatever, but it is bad rhetoric, bad strategy - it is, that is, if the goal really is to promote the music rather than to build up a sense that it cannot be enjoyed by the scum (I can afford to be honest here because I am not speaking for myself) who don't already "get" it. 

I am no less arrogant in my own way of course, but I'm glad not to be of that party, no matter what music I enjoy.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Yeah science, damn the universities, but just what happened in the old C20? Universities began to offer sweet money to composers who had good academic credentials for teaching and whatnot. And guess what - many of them did! Because they're composers and ruddy well should know a lot about music! And Paris Conservatoire before that! The evil Cesar Franck ad Gabriel Faure! Because that was bad news for music forever! And we all know how PC prize winners like Emil Paladilhe and Victor Masse and Maurice le Boucher have gone on to dominate music all because they won the Pricks of Rome. 

And I'd say, el capitalismo aside, people do get a bit more mellow with age. That's all G, dog. Shooting for the establishment sounds like a conspiracy theory. Is it possible some of these chaps are rewarded for exemplary gifts and ability? Boulez is pretty flash but he probably just wanted to get cool wheels, a sweet crib and holiday in the Maldives, right? Wake up sheeple

BTW - look on the current listening thread. I reckon there's a fair whack of contemporary stuff on there alongside a bunch of other musics and I don't see that any deligitimisation (what is that anyway?) of anything occurring. Don't see you much on current listening however - what have you got on right now?

Edit: just spotted your "you mad bro" vibe - nice one


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

*So, most advocates of contemporary music are arrogant but so are you (by your own admission), and your saving grace is that your arrogance favours a 'different' party? *



science said:


> Ok, that was supposed to be sarcastic and even in a way funny, but seriously, though I enjoy (forgive me, I realize "enjoy" is supposed to be a bit taboo for such sublimity, but I cannot help it, at heart I'm still a fairly simple fool) contemporary music easily and genuinely, when I behold the arrogance of its advocates I am occasionally glad not to be considered among them.
> 
> Their attitude may be ultimately defensive, it may be justified, it may be whatever, but it is bad rhetoric, bad strategy - it is, that is, if the goal really is to promote the music rather than to build up a sense that it cannot be enjoyed by the scum (I can afford to be honest here because I am not speaking for myself) who don't already "get" it.
> 
> I am no less arrogant in my own way of course, but I'm glad not to be of that party, no matter what music I enjoy.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> *So, most advocates of contemporary music are arrogant but so are you (by your own admission), and your saving grace is that your arrogance favours a 'different' party? *


That's a good point, and even if I could evade the way you've phrased it, I intended to cede more or less the same point with my final comment.

I don't think I have a party, though. I'm not on the anti- side (I like the music), I'm not on the pro- side (it's ok with me if you don't, and I like other musics too). If I'm a partisan of anything, I'm a partisan of affecting (at least) humble tolerance of different tastes. I personally enjoy the diversity very much. I just wish we could be nicer to each other. That's no doubt foolish, but what the heck. I'm a fool, as I well know.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

dgee said:


> Yeah science, damn the universities, but just what happened in the old C20? Universities began to offer sweet money to composers who had good academic credentials for teaching and whatnot. And guess what - many of them did! Because they're composers and ruddy well should know a lot about music! And Paris Conservatoire before that! The evil Cesar Franck ad Gabriel Faure! Because that was bad news for music forever! And we all know how PC prize winners like Emil Paladilhe and Victor Masse and Maurice le Boucher have gone on to dominate music all because they won the Pricks of Rome.
> 
> And I'd say, el capitalismo aside, people do get a bit more mellow with age. That's all G, dog. Shooting for the establishment sounds like a conspiracy theory. Is it possible some of these chaps are rewarded for exemplary gifts and ability? Boulez is pretty flash but he probably just wanted to get cool wheels, a sweet crib and holiday in the Maldives, right? Wake up sheeple
> 
> ...


Let's not pile on Chordalrock, though. We can talk to him (I guess) without talking _down_ to him, especially if it's basically facts that we're talking about (who/what is "the establishment") rather than just tastes/opinions (let alone semantics).


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Remember Lope - it's the mere act of liking contemporary music that is inflammatory. It's a much cosier situation when we can all assume that we share our lack of understanding - and sometimes dismissal or worse :-( - of anything that sounds a bit yucky. If you like contemporary music you must at least be deferential and gentle and not publicise the fact lest someone be upset and never, NEVER, suggest that someone who doesn't "get it" is in any way not open to new experiences or has conservative expectations or is just a crashing dimwit - ;-) jokes, jokes!!!!!

Whatever you do, don't normalise liking contemporary music! Remember that a lot of people feel "very special" for liking the "great masters" when nearly everybody in the whole world finds them hella boring. Don't suggest there's things they haven't "got" yet ;-)

Hey - someone's gotta be the modernist bad cop round here!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

dgee said:


> some guy - that last post of yours! Wine came out my nose! And I wasn't even drinking wine! (OK I was - so what). You've won TC today


Seconded. No contest: Prize entry!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

dgee said:


> Remember Lope - it's the mere act of liking contemporary music that is inflammatory. It's a much cosier situation when we can all assume that we share our lack of understanding - and sometimes dismissal or worse :-( - of anything that sounds a bit yucky. If you like contemporary music you must at least be deferential and gentle and not publicise the fact lest someone be upset and never, NEVER, suggest that someone who doesn't "get it" is in any way not open to new experiences or has conservative expectations or is just a crashing dimwit - ;-) jokes, jokes!!!!!
> 
> Whatever you do, don't normalise liking contemporary music! Remember that a lot of people feel "very special" for liking the "great masters" when nearly everybody in the whole world finds them hella boring. Don't suggest there's things they haven't "got" yet ;-)
> 
> Hey - someone's gotta be the modernist bad cop round here!


There used to be a few members here who really had this attitude, but I haven't seen them active for awhile. I think you're safe. You can relax now. You've become the oppressor, whether you realize it or not. You've got to let people not like the music you like.

(Edit: Let me clarify this. One of the points of someguy's post, and your and PetrB's celebration of it, was to humiliate Chordalrock. I'm sure we all know this, but it needs to be said explicitly to make this all clear. More edit so you can discern what I really mean: Your collective hateful attitude towards people like him gives me a hateful attitude towards you. In my case it's not going to translate into hating the music, but in some other people's cases it will, and does. If that's not your goal, change your rhetoric. If it is your goal, well done all three.)

I suppose I'm too defensive in a way in that I've been on the other side of the elitist attitudes a few times. But still, even if I am a bit sensitive because of those experiences, no matter what pride I have in whatever, I really hope I don't have (let alone express) that particular sort of attitude, in any way.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

This doesn't suggest:

*This reminds me why I don't like violin concertos: they're about the playing. They're not about the music, they're about art, which is to say the art of playing and not the art of music alas.*

A reasonable discussion is occurring


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

dgee said:


> Remember Lope - it's the mere act of liking contemporary music that is inflammatory. It's a much cosier situation when we can all assume that we share our lack of understanding - and sometimes dismissal or worse :-( - of anything that sounds a bit yucky. If you like contemporary music you must at least be deferential and gentle and not publicise the fact lest someone be upset and never, NEVER, suggest that someone who doesn't "get it" is in any way not open to new experiences or has conservative expectations or is just a crashing dimwit - ;-) jokes, jokes!!!!!
> 
> Whatever you do, don't normalise liking contemporary music! Remember that a lot of people feel "very special" for liking the "great masters" when nearly everybody in the whole world finds them hella boring. Don't suggest there's things they haven't "got" yet ;-)
> 
> Hey - someone's gotta be the modernist bad cop round here!


A very close second prize, by a nose, to Someguy's first prize.

Congratulations to the winners.


----------



## Guest (Mar 24, 2014)

SimonNZ said:


> Maybe this is more of a PM thing, or for a different thread, but..who are you going to see in Paris and Prague? (or is it friends rather than concerts?) Also I've been meaning to ask after you've said you travel quite a a bit if you've seen Ensemble Intercontemporain live.


In Paris, it's the _Presences electroniques_ festival at Centquatre. With music by some people who are also friends.

In Prague, it's visiting friends. Who put on an annual festival called _Echofluxx._


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

some guy said:


> What makes you think I was talking to and or about you?


I don't know. Maybe that mysterious thing called context. Plus mentioning Sibelius.



some guy said:


> You're not the only one shaking your head at this point. Modern music buffs have had all the power in the institutions for decades? Wow. I had no idea. I wish I'd known that. Man, what I could have done with that power. And I didn't even know.
> 
> In fact, I don't know any modern music buffs who now have or who have ever had any power in any institution. I think you're confusing us with someone else.


Uh, what? Why would you deny serialism and modernism were the main thing, to the exclusion of other things, in the academia in the 1960s and around the decades surrounding it? Even today, contemporary styles are expected of composition students in, um, like 100% of the time if you study composition on the highest levels. You think this was different around the mid-century?



some guy said:


> Wait a minute! Modernism died? Wow. I wonder if all those people I'm going to see in Paris next week know that. Man, that weekend of modern music.... Awkward.
> 
> And then in May in Prague. More embarrassment. All those people--composers, performers, listeners. I... I don't know how to break it to them. Are you sure?


Modernism died. I don't mean the music that had already been composed doesn't get performed at all. Same as Baroque died, doesn't mean we don't listen to it. Simply means it doesn't exist as a movement worth mentioning anymore and all the big name composers moved on from archetypal modernist stuff like serialism to more approachable composition.



some guy said:


> Really. Who?


There's a ton of composers who scrapped serialism and started to use more approachable styles: Rautavaara, Lindberg, and Penderecki are just some of them, all some of the best known contemporary composers in the classical music world.



some guy said:


> Do you have any idea what's really going on in the world?


In all honesty, reading messages like yours, sometimes I wonder if I've accidentally entered some sort of alternative universe.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

I think people take this stuff too seriously sometimes. No, I don't think that earlier works are really relevant in the 21st century. However, it doesn't mean I don't gain enjoyment from them, as I can either view them with a historical viewpoint (an "academic" setting, or looking at form for my own compositional gain) or I can appropriate them to be relevant to my life in the 21st century (I listen to Van Cliburn's _Tchaik 1 Pno Concerto_ at various important moments in my life, and all of the sudden that music becomes something that is relevant to my life). However, it won't have the same relevance of describing the moments of now.


----------



## rrudolph (Sep 15, 2011)

Chordalrock said:


> Why would you deny serialism and modernism were the main thing, to the exclusion of other things, in the academia in the 1960s and around the decades surrounding it?


Pulitzer Prizes in Music 1960-1969

1960-Carter: String Quartet #2 (OK, we'll call it "modernist" if you insist, although I'm growing to dislike that word intensely-but NOT serialist. Carter taught at St. John's College, the Peabody Conservatory, Yale University, Cornell University, and The Juilliard School, among others).
1961-Piston-Symphony #7 (this guy wrote a major texbook on tonal harmony, taught at Harvard for 34 years and smoked a pipe. I bet he even wore tweed jackets with patches on the elbows. Can't get much more academic than that. Not serialist, modern but conservatively so)
1962-Ward-The Crucible (Very "accessible" to the non-specialist listener. Ward taught at Julliard, Columbia University, North Carolina School of the Arts and Duke University. Apparently academia didn't suppress him very much)
1963-Barber-Piano Concerto #1 ("modernist"? I don't think so)
1964-65-No award
1966-Bassett-Variations for Orchestra (Studied with Honegger and Nadia Boulanger, Professor Emeritus at University of Michigan, not serialist or radical)
1967-Kirchner-Quartet #3 (OK, pretty "modernist". Studied with Schoenberg, taught at Harvard for many years)
1968-Crumb-Echoes of Time and the River (although Crumb's music can be pretty, shall we say, "esoteric", his language is essentially tonally based and has absolutely nothing to do with what might be called "academic serialism", if there really is such a thing. Taught at University of Pennsylvania along with Richard Wernick and George Rochberg for many years)
1969-Husa-String Quartet #3-(Husa is anything but a radical "modernist". Longtime professor at Cornell University)

I'm no big fan of the Pulitzer (for a variety of reasons), but it is a sort of major conventional form of recognition, and the fact that more that half of the compositions that received that recognition were NOT serial/radical sounding and were written by guys who were part of the academic scene says to me that academia did not suppress nonradical tonally based music.

Lest I be accused of cherry-picking outliers to prove my point, here are some other noteworthy works from around the same time period:
Bernstein-West Side Story, Candide (1957), Symphonic Dances from West Side Story (1961)
Stravinsky-Agon (1957), Threni (1958), Requiem Canticles (1966)-(OK, there is some serialism in there, but it's Stravinsky serialism, not really "academic").
Britten: Prince of the Pagodas (1957), Noah's Fludde (1958), War Requiem (1962), Death in Venice (1973)

Other non-radical composers such as Copland, Thomson, Diamond, Hanson, Schuman, Arnold and scores of others were actively composing and in many cases holding academic posts during this time period as well. They're far from obscure to classical music fans and were and are pretty well respected.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

That's a valid argument. I guess I've been paying too much attention to what has been written on internet forums by some more conservative posters.


----------



## rrudolph (Sep 15, 2011)

Thank you for hearing (reading) me out. 
I learned some things compiling that list and researching the academic credentials of those composers...I'll be following up by checking out the music of a couple of them that I'm not very familiar with. This thread put me on that path, so thanks for facilitating my learning process (which is why I come here in the first place)!!!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> In all honesty... sometimes I wonder....


There are times, when one has little or no knowledge and not much more experience, no repeated experience enough at least to have some basis with which to "evaluate" what one is looking into / listening to / reading / watching...

then, rather than making some rationalized construct where naiveté and lack of experience are valued as somehow heightening the powers of critical thinking and giving deeper aesthetic insight, that this construct has some superb unique value…

and of course, when it becomes pretty plain that is not working so well…

then, perhaps wonder and wonderment and a mind less cluttered and busy with "how to evaluate" something upon one's very first exposure to it are the more preferred and valuable states in which to find oneself.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

rrudolph said:


> Pulitzer Prizes in Music 1960-1969
> 
> 1960-Carter: String Quartet #2 (OK, we'll call it "modernist" if you insist, although I'm growing to dislike that word intensely-but NOT serialist. Carter taught at St. John's College, the Peabody Conservatory, Yale University, Cornell University, and The Juilliard School, among others).
> 1961-Piston-Symphony #7 (this guy wrote a major texbook on tonal harmony, taught at Harvard for 34 years and smoked a pipe. I bet he even wore tweed jackets with patches on the elbows. Can't get much more academic than that. Not serialist, modern but conservatively so)
> ...


This is a lovely post and a great example of solid argument. It refutes the "serialism" and "institution" arguments perfectly, and without projecting any haughtiness.

However, we should also admit that the partisans of contemporary music reject many of the works here as too traditional. If Chordalrock starts listening only to "contemporary" works like West Side Story and Candide, Britten's War Requiem, Shostakovich's Viola Sonata, he's going to get no less scorn than hitherto. That is a little bit of what is implicit in the "I'm no big fan of the Pulitzer" statement.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

science said:


> This is a lovely post and a great example of solid argument. It refutes the "serialism" and "institution" arguments perfectly, and without projecting any haughtiness.


I agree it's a lovely post--though it won't wipe away skepticism. Most of the names in it are established and even old composers, the sort that get awards but aren't necessarily reflective of current trends in academia or anywhere else (except Stravinsky, God bless him, who always had his finger on the pulse of his cultural moment in addition to being a genius). It doesn't say much about who's getting into music programs and coveted appointments in the 1960s (though the final paragraph gestures towards that issue). There's also the old adage: all politics is local politics. Different institutions have different ideologies: Harvard in the 60s wasn't the same as Columbia. It's probably possible to generalize about "academia," but one has to be careful.

I'm just throwing out some caveats, even though I don't have a dog in this hunt--I love Barber _and_ Boulez, after all.


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2014)

science said:


> If Chordalrock starts listening only to "contemporary" works like West Side Story and Candide, Britten's War Requiem, Shostakovich's Viola Sonata, he's going to get no less scorn than hitherto.


No.

....................................


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> No.
> 
> ....................................


Please, by your own example, prove me wrong!


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

If an individual wants to listen to West Side Story, the War Requiem or Shostakovich 10, all power to them. That's some pretty good music

If said individual wants to launch from a platform of relatively little knowledge an argument that is full of logical holes and factual error that the above music is objectively (i.e. NOT "in my opinion")better or more emotional/human/natural/clever/creative than, say, Salvatore Sciarrino or Morton Feldman or Hans Werner Henze (to name a diverse bunch), they might get some feedback. If they continue and continue in this vein it's likely to cause some dismay and disappointment.

It's do unto others, innit. Or should people interested in contemporary music always be really polite and gentle with those that want to have a crack at the music they enjoy? I don't think contemporary music is that desperate for attention, to be honest


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Different Worlds*



Chordalrock said:


> In all honesty, reading messages like yours, sometimes I wonder if I've accidentally entered some sort of alternative universe.


In a sense you are correct.

I have discovered that there is a great barrier between performing musicians and non-musicians. One of the members jokingly refers to a friend who is a professional French horn player. The horn player tends to judge a piece on whether or not horn part is interesting. I am an amateur bassoonist who has over fifty year experience performing in various community orchestras and bands. As a result of my experiences my impressions of classical music is going to be radically different from those of a non-musician. Because of my experiences of actually performing contemporary music my observations may be gibberish to a non-musician.

For example I do not understand what make Bach's counterpoint more facile than Hindemith's. I have just come from a band rehearsal where we have been practicing Hindemith's _Symphony in Bb for Band_. This work has some of the most intense counterpoint I have ever performed. To a non-performer Hindemith's counterpoint may be clumsy.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I wrote this and never posted it but now I reread it and decided to post it:

Really, I know I'm not a starving composer trying to get more money or attention, but I think it's fine. We're exaggerating the suffering of contemporary music. Maybe not all of it meets "our" standards, but labels like Kairos and Tzadik exist, and DG has the 20/21 series, and Naxos does a lot of contemporary music, and so does ECM, and Nonesuch, and Hyperion etc. And _most_ of those things get performed before they get recorded. Again I do realize that much of that music is ideologically impure - Whitacre springs to mind, or Tavener, or in other directions Lloyd Webber, Jenkins, all that world fusion stuff being explored by people like Yo-Yo Ma, and of course video game music and soundtracks, and this kind of list could go on and on - but it _is_ new music. Anyway, no matter how much that kind of stuff disgusts the more elite ("discerning" etc.) listeners critics, at least they can take solace in the fact that such music isn't the only music getting made. At least some of the stuff that gets made does meet our considered approval, however reluctantly we grant it, and manages not to become too compromisingly popular. (I'm only half-teasing. Maybe two-thirds teasing. But I'm at least one-thirds serious. Maybe even half serious, with an effort.)

Truthfully, things have probably never been much easier for new music. It's easy to point out that until about Mendelssohn's time people wanted to hear new music rather than old music. Even though that is true, it's also true that the absolute number of composers able to find an audience is higher today than it was then, just as there are hundreds of _times_ more orchestras than there were then. Not to mention universities or various music festivals.

(Granted many of those institutions have the misfortune of being incorrigibly bourgeois, or even worse, but perhaps the plutocrats are replacing the old aristocrats, so there's even some really good reason to hope we can get back to the way it was before 1848. Naturally, our plutocrats need to be educated in the use of elite culture to legitimize their rule, but that's what we're here for. Until they take our advice, of course, they remain merely really rich bourgeois. But as they get a bit more comfortable with their inherited stations, the prestige of the old aristocratic activities will increasingly appeal to them, and they will begin to consult us again.) (I'm half-teasing. Maybe two-thirds teasing, at the most.)

It's also true that there's more old music than there used to be; if we're talking about relative importance (that old zero-sum game) then things really might be as bad as they've ever been for new composers, what with people not listening exclusively to them in a time when we're also rediscovering so much Baroque, Renaissance, and medieval music. And of course all those orchestras and music venues in all those tiny cities (like San Antonio and Nashville) have to try to balance all these things out financially.

But in the end, it's still true that at the moment there are hundreds, probably even thousands of composers making a decent living around the world at the moment. Granted, just as composers had to do in the old days, these jomomos have to give some lessons (sadly, to proletarian students rather than to glorious aristocrats, but for now money has no stink). Despite these humiliations, their music is getting made, some of it is getting to be a bit more famous, and some of it is even recorded, and just occasionally some of it even achieves our approval. (I'm not kidding.)


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

some guy said:


> Maybe it's time to run through this again.
> 
> Maybe we should just never talk to each other again.
> 
> ...


Cool beans, reading this has inspired us to celebrate your spirit via our electroacoustic thread. No noise is some noise is all noise.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

This was a good thread to bump.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

science said:


> This was a good thread to bump.


No problem... I compliment your compliment.

Feldman's connection to abstract expressionism has inspired me to look into this further.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I wonder whether Chordalrock is going to give us a second chance. He was one of the most interesting people here on the topic of Renaissance music. I'm not saying he was always right or that I always agreed with him, because usually I could barely understand what he was talking about, and when I did I was sometimes surprised by what he said. But anyway, many of his posts were interesting and educational for me.


----------



## elmago (Mar 9, 2015)

I am a composer (although not even close to being avant garde) sometimes many have said my music is "difficult to understand".
Just like anything else it takes some getting developing a taste for it, but art music is worthy of ones time.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Francisco Lopez is an incredible composer here... his works are rather akin to sound sculpture to me... There are a lot of nooks and crevices to explore within his works...

In fact, the conceptual art of a lot of electroacoustic music is key to really looking at any entry or exit point for a lot of those composer's works.


----------

