# How to 'get' modern music



## morsing (Jan 14, 2019)

Hi,

Just joined up, but was following some discussions here last year...

Went to hear Nielsen's 4th with the LSO last Thusrday (!) and one of the other pieces were Hans Abrahamsen's Let me tell you... He has won multiple prizes for this music by now, so it must have hit the spot somehow.

My wife called it the emperor's new clothes, and I must admit I don't get most of the modern music (including this piece). Why can't it be melodic? Or at least have a theme?

Is there a way of understanding this type of music, or should I just let it go?

I do actually have Eichberg's 1. and 2. symphonies (2006 / 2010), and like them, but they don't at all sound like the constant pling-plong I hear in most modern music, so it's not all like it.

Thanks


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Best bet in such cases is to hear it again and get familiar with it. 

Then you'll recognize patterns, motifs, different expressions and moods.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

You just have to keep trying different pieces and composers until something grabs your ear. Right now I'm intrigued by Michel Van Der Aa. Some of his pieces sound really good to my ears. But it may not sound good to you.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

You don't have to 'get' it. Really. There are many such threads on this forum, but it's something I don't encounter in other mediums. 
No one has ever asked me: 'How do I 'get' the books of James Joyce? Why are they not straightforward like a Martin Amis novel?' Or: 'How do I 'get' the films of Lars von Trier?'

What happens there is people just sample the work, decide whether or not they like it or it has something to say to them. Then they either pursue it or move on. With 'modern music' (and modern painting) there seems to be demand that it 'reveal' itself or risk being marked out as charlatanry.

Sometimes it looks very much like charlatanry (and may well be at times), but this is just how art is. There is no requirement for anyone to like everything on offer. I don't like marzipan, so I nether buy nor eat it, despite other people saying it is marvellous.

If you feel that you _need to_ _understand_ it, there is possibly something in it that appeals to you and frustration comes from not being able to pin that down; plus the disconnect between this music and the music you already know. In that case I say: take it on its own terms. Read about it and the composer. Sample the work of different composers and different parts of their work. 'Modern music' isn't an homogenous lump, one-size-fits-all.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

I think the issue for most is frustrated expectations - if music does not deliver what the listener has been conditioned to expect then frustration results. Most CM listeners expect the payoffs of themes, motives and key changes and consider them necessary and 'natural' for all music, which is not the case. Sort of like if your expectation for great food is based on a lot of melted cheese and cream sauces, then you are going to not like Chinese food, no matter how well it is done. The key thing is to let go of expectations and just listen and then decide if you like it or not. Modernist music is gestural. It may not have themes or motives but it has phrases and these can be very expressive and human


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

eugeneonagain said:


> You don't have to 'get' it. Really. There are many such threads on this forum, but it's something I don't encounter in other mediums.
> No one has ever asked me: 'How do I 'get' the books of James Joyce? Why are they not straightforward like a Martin Amis novel?' Or: 'How do I 'get' the films of Lars von Trier?'
> 
> What happens there is people just sample the work, decide whether or not they like it or it has something to say to them. Then they either pursue it or move on. With 'modern music' (and modern painting) there seems to be demand that it 'reveal' itself or risk being marked out as charlatanry.
> ...


I really dig this post. :tiphat:


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

morsing said:


> Hi,
> 
> Just joined up, but was following some discussions here last year...
> 
> ...


I tend to agree with your wife about _let me tell you_.

Maybe your wife will like some more creative recent music more. There's a discussion going on here where I mentioned a piano piece by Helmut Lachenmann called Guerro - I bet she'll like that more! There's absolutely no plinging and plonging.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

If it doesn't draw you in then stay outside it. I love a lot of contemporary music but it grew on me slowly and there were many different paths that my liking of different composers followed. One mistake I made was going for music that appealed to me quickly. I often found that such music became boring after a few hearings. My suggestion is small steps from music you already really like.

Incidentally, the Abrahamsen piece you heard is an unusually approachable one. Your wife's comment - the emperor's new clothes - might be perceptive: each time I listen to it I wonder if there is much to it before it (fairly quickly) convinces me that there is! I do greatly enjoy it but I couldn't swear that it will be with us in 75 years time!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't care much for the vocal part, but I like the music. Don't worry about not liking a piece of music because the composer won some prizes. That doesn't mean jack to the listeners.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^^^ No, no - you can't knock Barbara!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> ^^^ No, no - you can't knock Barbara!


I like Barbara, it's what she's singing that doesn't do much for me. Now when a great vocalist sings Nacht by Alban Berg, that gets me inspired!


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

morsing said:


> He has won multiple prizes for this music by now


that is a warning sign.



morsing said:


> My wife called it the emperor's new clothes


and she must be right.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> I love a lot of contemporary music but it grew on me slowly and there were many different paths that my liking of different composers followed.


That reminds me of the first time I heard something by Anton Webern. I got angry. How could anyone tell if they were hitting the right notes? But eventually I recognized what was going on, and now he's one of my favorite composers.

There are so many threads in modern music, find one that speaks to you and figure out why it does. (For some reason, I found myself attracted to the music of Varese, Scelsi, and Feldman; then I set to finding out the reason I was. So now if a contemporary composer is exploring sound, my ears perk up.) Then find out who is in their "school" and the composers who influenced them. That may lead you to understand another thread in modern music, which may lead you eventually to understanding even the plink-plonk music. But even if it doesn't, it's your ears. Life's too short to cram them with things you just plain don't like.


----------



## Guest (Jan 14, 2019)

It’s like trying to ‘get’ any other kind of music. It took my a long time to come around to early, medieval polyphony by composers like Machaut but I adored the enthusiasm I saw about his music online and I ended up listening to it more until I became more accustomed to the soundworld and language of that kind of music.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Try for a while, explore different contemporary composers. In the end you may start to like it, or not. The latter is also fine, it all comes down to personal taste (and I would appreciate if the "new clothes of the emperor" statements were not made anymore on TC - it is very insulting to the people who do like this music).


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

morsing said:


> Hi,
> 
> Just joined up, but was following some discussions here last year...
> 
> ...


I was there the previous night - they performed the same programme minus the Nielson. I didn't really get the Abrahamsen piece either and I have heard it a number of times now.

Sir Simon Rattle's view on Abrahamsen's 'Let Me Tell You'

I thought Rattle's rendition of the Sibelius was so beautiful.

Repeat listening can be the key to exploring the new.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I got a CD by The Arditti Quartet called "The Complete String Quartets of Harrison Birtwistle," a supposedly "modern" composer. I listened to it, and enjoyed it; then I realized....He's not really that modern! He's still dealing with pitch! If you will notice, the strings are all playing pitches! No glissandos, no scraping, no thumping...This is really conservative music.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Torkelburger started this thread about the techniques. It has to be the most useful thread, rather than just talking about what you like about the music generally.

Share and Learn About Techniques of Modern Music


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> I got a CD by The Arditti Quartet called "The Complete String Quartets of Harrison Birtwistle," a supposedly "modern" composer. I listened to it, and enjoyed it; then I realized....He's not really that modern! He's still dealing with pitch! If you will notice, the strings are all playing pitches! No glissandos, no scraping, no thumping...This is really conservative music.


And conservative doesn't mean _bad_ either. Yes, Birtwistle is certainly on the more traditional side, but he chooses his own limitations based on what kind of music he really loves to write. All composers have their own limitations consciously or unconsciously set upon themselves and that's how we have such a diverse array of styles these days.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

You can never trust someone whose name consists of two surnames.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

eugeneonagain said:


> You can never trust someone whose name consists of two surnames.


Yeah, like Ralph Vaughan Williams or Ludwig Vaughan Beethoven.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 29, 2018)

eugeneonagain said:


> You don't have to 'get' it. Really. *There are many such threads on this forum, but it's something I don't encounter in other mediums*.


Is this statement really true?

Let us consider an author who wrote novels in which there appeared, to the uninitiated reader, to be no relationship between a paragraph and its predecessor and successor, and in which there was no apparent plot line and no obvious character development. If such novels existed, I'm sure any literary forums which parallelled this one would be awash with questions like 'is this really literature?' or 'how am I meant to understand and appreciate this?'. Many people will find a lot of modern classical music compositions just as bewildering as the kind of novel I've described.

I'm no expert on literature, or literary forums, so perhaps such novels don't exist - the obvious barrier would be finding a publisher. The point is that any work in any art form which challenges the established boundaries is certain to attract questions. Those hostile to it will question its validity as art: those who are more open, but confused about what is being presented to them, will look for some pointers to help them understand it.

To listeners accustomed to the standard classical repertoire, a lot of modern composers are challenging. There is clearly an option to simply write it all off as unmusical noise, and to be content with the vast body of work already in existence. Many of us however would like to think that the music we love is a living and developing entity, with new works being produced all the time and just waiting to be explored.

Perhaps the path to appreciating new music really is just to listen to it and persevere, even if at first it seems alien. I remember purchasing 'Rubycon' by the electronic group Tangerine Dream (not classical, I know) on the basis that I generally enjoyed large scale instrumental music, and thought this would be something for me. On the first few listens, it seemed shapeless, though not unpleasant, and I struggled to appreciate it at all. Many listenings later, it is now music I regard very highly. From my limited exposure to modern classical music, I would say that it is much more difficult to assimilate than Tangerine Dream, and some of it does actually sound unpleasant. I want to give it a fair hearing, but it ain't easy.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

starthrower said:


> I don't care much for the vocal part, but I like the music. Don't worry about not liking a piece of music because the composer won some prizes. That doesn't mean jack to the listeners.


How cynical is it to write a piece in which the words are unintelligible and call it "Let Me Tell You"? How are we to "get" modern music when composers throw such perversities at us? And what is Barbara Hannigan doing with her arms? In any earlier era the lovely Ms. Hannigan would either have been laughed off the stage or inspired concern that she looked unwell, and the composer would have been fined for fraud, put in the stocks, had leeches applied to his temples, or been sent to the priest for exorcism.

I suppose I have to concede that the orchestral part has a certain hypnotic moodiness, especially where the timpanist is cleaning his drum heads.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

It's quite a monotonous piece, but Hannigan has lovely hair and I found myself concentrating on that most of the time.


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

I have said this before but the way I "got" modern music (not contemporary) is that if I focus on the music and let the music come to me and not allow myself to anticipate what the next note(s) will be I "get" it much better. I still have to listen several times. I found that if I listened to a piece 3 times and I don't like it then I will not like it. I have only not liked very few pieces.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Oh no. Not another I do not get modern music thread because there are no melodies. There are plenty of contemporary works that have melodies. One of the works I recommend when I see a post like this is _Watchman Tell Us of the Night_ by Mark Camphouse. He is one of these ivory tower atonal composer that is the chairman of the composition department at George Mason University.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

arpeggio said:


> Oh no. Not another I do not get modern music thread because there are no melodies. There are plenty of contemporary works that have melodies. One of the works I recommend when I see a post like this is _Watchman Tell Us of the Night_ by Mark Camphouse. He is one of these ivory tower atonal composer that is the chairman of the composition department at George Mason University.


Camphouse can be described as an 'ivory tower atonal composer' when this piece isn't?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Watchman Tell Us of the Night reminds me somewhat of the sound world of Jennifer Higdon - particularly 'Blue Cathedral'.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

For UK members - the concert referred to in the OP:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0001yjt


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> How cynical is it to write a piece in which the words are unintelligible and call it "Let Me Tell You"? How are we to "get" modern music when composers throw such perversities at us?


I had no more difficulty hearing these words than I do making out what words are being belted out by any other opera. There may be a deliberate irony, but I wouldn't call it cynical.

As DavidA said in the thread about piano - and dozens of others have said about their favourite genre when it comes under attack - if you don't like it, don't listen to it.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

janxharris said:


> Camphouse can be described as an 'ivory tower atonal composer' when this piece isn't?


I was being sarcastic. We have some members who think all academic composers are "ivory tower atonal composers."


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> I had no more difficulty hearing these words than I do making out what words are being belted out by any other opera. There may be a deliberate irony, but I wouldn't call it cynical.
> 
> As DavidA said in the thread about piano - and dozens of others have said about their favourite genre when it comes under attack - if you don't like it, don't listen to it.


I was thinking the same thing. In fact I can hear many of the words - more on the commercial CD than with this concert, perhaps - than with many pieces. It is not my favourite piece but it has proved to be a very accessible and popular one while also managing to sound new and different. It is also, I think, more effective when listed to as a complete piece (every time I have listened to it I found myself being won over as the work proceeded). The attack on it from the point of view of the intelligibility of the words seems misguided in several different ways.


----------



## morsing (Jan 14, 2019)

Thanks for all the input. I also spoke to my dad at length about this last night, who has a decent repertoire of modern music. He had also listened in on the specific concert in question.

- Why can't it be melodic?

They ran out of melodies!

- Why do people ask this of modern music but not other things?

They do, my wife is an artist but just rolls her eyes at modern art. Indeed, I roll my eyes at modern food... I absolutely do not get modern food either, but clearly some find it "exciting".

Even my dad, owning 30-40 CDs covering the '60s to '10s, find it hard going sometimes, but some of it he likes. Getting to know a piece is definitely the way forward. Obviously, if you don't like it, you don't like it, but give it a chance first.

I just put on a bit of "Let me tell you..." and the music isn't too bad, I think the singing is a bit more difficult but I will sit through is when I get a moment.

- Try for a while, explore different contemporary composers. In the end you may start to like it, or not.

Indeed, I wouldn't say I've exhausted listening to all the traditional music, but it's time to venture a bit further.

- I thought Rattle's rendition of the Sibelius was so beautiful.

It was, but Nielsen's 4th is fantastic, shame if they left it out.


Thanks


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

morsing said:


> Thanks for all the input. I also spoke to my dad at length about this last night, who has a decent repertoire of modern music. He had also listened in on the specific concert in question.
> 
> - Why can't it be melodic?
> 
> They ran out of melodies!


There's a grain of truth there. As a very, very basic summary, the first 1600 years of Western classical music was concerned with melody, from chant to organum to full-on polyphony. After 1600 the primary concern was harmony - melodies were fitted into the rules of harmony. In the 20th Century, starting with Debussy/Satie, the concern was with sound. So right now composers are drawing from 2,000 years of innovations, of discards, and experimentation, which is why right now it is challenging to encounter something new. It's not just a lack of melody or harmony; it's just hard to find a common frame of reference.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

It's odd that the Abrahamsen piece kicked off this thread discussion on modern music and a lack of melody because that piece sounds full of melody lines to my ears. I just can't decipher the lyrics.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

What is 'modern food'?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

morsing said:


> ...Is there a way of understanding this type of music, or should I just let it go?...
> 
> I do actually have Eichberg's 1. and 2. symphonies (2006 / 2010), and like them, but they don't at all sound like the constant pling-plong I hear in most modern music, so it's not all like it.


Roughly 8 years ago I was in a very similar situation. I actually became a member of TC to learn to like modern music. I adored classical music from 1500 (and earlier) through Romanticism. Finding music I loved from the 400 year period was such a joy that I was determined to extend that period another century so I could enjoy yet more great music. I was stunned by how seemingly awful much modern music sounded. I didn't understand why anyone would compose such music. I knew that many loved modern music and saw no reason why composers would suddenly change what they had been doing for centuries, but I simply hit a wall and could not hear anything pleasing in much modern music.

For some, learning to enjoy modern music may simply be a result of listening repeatedly. Some of those may require listening once or twice to a work while others may require listening much more. For me, I believe by far the most important barrier was my expectations. I was expecting music similar to what I had heard before (e.g. Classical and Romantic) with distinct melodies and familiar harmonies. I had to learn to hear new aspects of music (e.g. focus on timbre, rhythm, unusual chords). My personal path to loving modern music took quite awhile, and admittedly, was sometimes rather frustrating, but there are so many wonderful modern/contemporary works I eventually discovered making the process well worth the effort.

When I first heard Berg's Violin Concerto, I found it unpleasant with random sounding notes. I listened perhaps 6 or 7 times over a few years always expecting that I would make a breakthrough. Eventually I listened to video discussing the work. A week or so later, I found myself humming parts of the ending. Now I find it beautiful, and it is one of my favorite violin concertos.

Boulez's music was a complete mess to me. Ugly, chaotic, unlistenable. I heard a video discussing Sur Incises and breaking down parts of the price. It started making some sense, and after several more times listening I found it quite enjoyable. Now I adore the work. It's nothing whatsoever like Baroque, Classical, or Romantic music, but the simple and more complex figures created by the different timbres flittering through the ensemble are a pure joy.

I heard several of Schnittke's works without enjoying any. A few years later I had reason to listen again and suddenly, almost magically, found that I liked them all. Schnittke became a favorite composer.

The bottom line is that many have been in your situation and later come to love modern music. It may require repeated listening and listening to aspects rather different from what you are familiar with. Once people become familiar with the new "language", many find they enjoy the music as much as earlier music.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

As a listener of almost entirely modern (post WWII up through contemporary era) classical music, I might have some insights.



morsing said:


> Thanks for all the input. I also spoke to my dad at length about this last night, who has a decent repertoire of modern music. He had also listened in on the specific concert in question.
> 
> - Why can't it be melodic?
> 
> They ran out of melodies!


Did 'they' really run out of melodies? Or did melodies just become more complex, intricate, labyrinthine?

I hear melodies in much of modern music.

But here's the thing, even if a piece does not have an obvious melody, does not mean there aren't other great attributes to get out of it.



> - Why do people ask this of modern music but not other things?
> 
> They do, my wife is an artist but just rolls her eyes at modern art. Indeed, I roll my eyes at modern food... I absolutely do not get modern food either, but clearly some find it "exciting".


But just like modern music, where not all of it is atonal and unmelodic, much of modern art is not abstract or not representational.

People, when it comes to modern music, or modern art, seem to hear or see a small sampling, then paint all if it with the same broad brush.



> Even my dad, owning 30-40 CDs covering the '60s to '10s, find it hard going sometimes, but some of it he likes. Getting to know a piece is definitely the way forward. Obviously, if you don't like it, you don't like it, but give it a chance first.


But just because it may be hard going, does not mean it is not great.

Much of the classical music I listen to, is pretty thorny and hard going. I enjoy it on several levels. Not the least of which is a feeling of catharsis after listening to some of it



> I just put on a bit of "Let me tell you..." and the music isn't too bad, I think the singing is a bit more difficult but I will sit through is when I get a moment.


It sounds a bit conservative and 'safe' to me.



> - Try for a while, explore different contemporary composers. In the end you may start to like it, or not.
> 
> Indeed, I wouldn't say I've exhausted listening to all the traditional music, but it's time to venture a bit further.


Traditional classical music never did anything for me. And it wasn't for lack of trying.

It wasn't until I heard 20th century music, until I became a fan of classical. I started with pretty 'safe' composers, such as: Bartok, Stravinsky, Barber, Britten, then moved to more challenging composers, such as: Carter, Webern, Magnus Lindberg, Berg, Ligeti, Penderecki, Joan Tower, etc.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Simon Moon said:


> As a listener of almost entirely modern (post WWII up through contemporary era) classical music, I might have some insights.
> 
> Did 'they' really run out of melodies? Or did melodies just become more complex, intricate, labyrinthine?
> 
> ...


Personally, I think a reliance on melody (as the word is generally used in forums such as this) became an obstacle to producing profound new music and that there was a need to find new ways to express new things. Thematic material of some sort remains a necessity, of course.

Unlike you, I am a huge fan of most of the classical repertoire but I am not sure I get your idea of safe vs challenging. It isn't only that I can't really see much difference between your examples of each (well, OK, Carter can be challenging) but also are you sure there was no thorny challenging music before 1914? And why do you reject (if you do) the music you categorise as safe?

"Let Me Tell You" _is _a fairly conservative and "safe" piece - but is still surely more surprising and inventive than most recent minimalist works and does _as a whole _deliver quite a lot of "satisfaction" - but I wonder why these necessarily mean something bad for you when applied to contemporary music? The reason I ask is because I find myself practicing similar discrimination - largely because so much of such "safe" music ultimately seems to fail to deliver what it promises - but I do try to keep my mind open and I do always want to find music I can enjoy.

I think it is an interesting question why some of us reject, or are at least suspicious of, contemporary music that is not a bit of a challenge. And whether we are right or not to do so.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

morsing said:


> Hi,
> 
> Just joined up, but was following some discussions here last year...
> 
> ...


Look at it this way, you're making history by being amongst the first people to hear the Abrahamsen piece live. The Nielsen is now a classic, around a hundred years old and countless people have heard it before you. So I'd try look at the positives of this experience, and whether or not you enjoyed the new work can be independent of that.

Overall, programming of new pieces can be tricky and controversial. I haven't heard the Abrahamsen piece, but as a general point inclusion of music by living composers at least means that classical music isn't all just about dead composers.

Simon Rattle is following in the footsteps of many in his profession, musicians who throughout history have performed and advocated new music which they believed to be of merit. Whether or not it turns out to be a passing fad or one of those rare pieces which embeds in the repertoire remains to be seen, but at least the music has been communicated to a wide audience. Its a bit of a lottery but as the saying goes, you have to be in it to win it!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> Roughly 8 years ago I was in a very similar situation. I actually became a member of TC to learn to like modern music. I adored classical music from 1500 (and earlier) through Romanticism. Finding music I loved from the 400 year period was such a joy that I was determined to extend that period another century so I could enjoy yet more great music. I was stunned by how seemingly awful much modern music sounded. I didn't understand why anyone would compose such music. I knew that many loved modern music and saw no reason why composers would suddenly change what they had been doing for centuries, but I simply hit a wall and could not hear anything pleasing in much modern music.
> 
> For some, learning to enjoy modern music may simply be a result of listening repeatedly. Some of those may require listening once or twice to a work while others may require listening much more. For me, I believe by far the most important barrier was my expectations. I was expecting music similar to what I had heard before (e.g. Classical and Romantic) with distinct melodies and familiar harmonies. I had to learn to hear new aspects of music (e.g. focus on timbre, rhythm, unusual chords). My personal path to loving modern music took quite awhile, and admittedly, was sometimes rather frustrating, but there are so many wonderful modern/contemporary works I eventually discovered making the process well worth the effort.
> 
> ...


I "get" modern music (in an unreflective aesthetic sense) very easily, but for things that don't come as easily to me - traditional Korean liquors, for example, or postmodern furniture design - this is a beautiful and inspiring post. I hope you keep telling this story when more people come to this site with this problem.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

you see a piece of something brown and sticky and originally, you do not like it. But then you see a lot of people coming close to it and smelling to it and saying how wonderful it is. You do not want to be seen as being dumb, so you start smelling to it too and shouting at all passers-by how wonderful that smell is. Originally, you just pretend, but after a while, after you ego invests a lot of energy into the activity, you convince yourself that it indeed smells good and you derive narcissistic supply from considering yourself an expert of all stuff brown and sticky.


----------



## derin684 (Feb 14, 2018)

morsing said:


> Thanks for all the input. I also spoke to my dad at length about this last night, who has a decent repertoire of modern music. He had also listened in on the specific concert in question.
> 
> - Why can't it be melodic?
> 
> ...


Nobody's run out of melodies, they just don't wanna write the same old stuff that composers have been writing for two hundred years!

In fact; modern music is NOT unmelodic or ear unfriendly, but if your ear is programmed to hear "catchy" melodies, it will sound unmelodic. Even some romantic era music can sound unmelodic at first.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Jacck said:


> Originally, you just pretend, but after a while, after you ego invests a lot of energy into the activity, you convince yourself that it indeed smells good and you derive narcissistic supply from considering yourself an expert of all stuff brown and sticky.


To be more accurate, you should change the "you" to "some."

But there are also listeners who take music as it is and either accept it or reject it according to their own individual perspective and sense of sesthetics. Lawrence Kramer, in Why Classical Music Still Matters, wrote, "Art music is addressed to someone who has a certain independence of mind and, in listening to the music, is expected to respond in an idiosyncratic and special way."


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Above, I was a little provocative/joking  I like some modern music, but find a larger part of it dull and uninspired. But there are a few atonal pieces I do indeed like. One of them is Henze's 7th symphony, another piece I recently discovered is this one
Bent Sørensen - Phantasmagoria for piano trio (2007)


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Jacck said:


> Above, I was a little provocative/joking .


I kind of figured that.  I was just making sure all the bases were covered. :tiphat:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Jacck said:


> you see a piece of something brown and sticky and originally, you do not like it. But then you see a lot of people coming close to it and smelling to it and saying how wonderful it is. You do not want to be seen as being dumb, so you start smelling to it too and shouting at all passers-by how wonderful that smell is. Originally, you just pretend, but after a while, after you ego invests a lot of energy into the activity, you convince yourself that it indeed smells good and you derive narcissistic supply from considering yourself an expert of all stuff brown and sticky.


It would be easy enough not to like something but to let other people enjoy it; instead, however, you've chosen to characterize it as excrement and to everyone who claims to enjoy it as pretentious and dishonest.

I think that's very interesting.

I believe - and of course I could be wrong here, but if I am I'd really like to see the more convincing alternative - that the motivation for that choice is defensiveness. I believe that you don't feel ok with yourself not liking modern classical music, and that's why you lash out at people who do.

You're not at all alone in this. It's lots of people. And to be fair to you guys, many - perhaps most - people who do enjoy modern classical music actually do insult people like you, sometimes in private conversations but sometimes in public forums like this.

We all have to get over this. There exists some music that is liked by some people but not by others. It's ok. No one's inferior, no one's superior, it's just different tastes, different experiences, and it's ok.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Manxfeeder said:


> To be more accurate, you should change the "you" to "some."
> 
> But there are also listeners who take music as it is and either accept it or reject it according to their own individual perspective and sense of sesthetics. Lawrence Kramer, in Why Classical Music Still Matters, wrote, "Art music is addressed to someone who has a certain independence of mind and, in listening to the music, is expected to respond in an idiosyncratic and special way."


I read a scientific paper about modern music some time ago (I am not able to find it now) which explained from from a neuroscientific perspective why the music of Schoenberg is ugly. The brain derives pleasure from musical patterns that it is able to predict, which is consonant music, but if the music is too chaotic/dissonant, the brain perceives it as ugly. You can probably train yourself to enjoy this ugly music, but the absolute majority of people are hardwired in their brains to dislike this music instinctively. That also explains the strong resistance against this kind of music by the majority of listeners. These are biological facts. But I agree that you can train yourself to enjoy this kind of music, but I do not believe that anyone (or at least the large majority of people) likes this kind of music at first listening.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

science said:


> You're not at all alone in this. It's lots of people. And to be fair to you guys, many - perhaps most - people who do enjoy modern classical music actually do insult people like you, sometimes in private conversations but sometimes in public forums like this.
> 
> We all have to get over this. There exists some music that is liked by some people but not by others. It's ok. No one's inferior, no one's superior, it's just different tastes, different experiences, and it's ok.


I don't have a snowflake mentality, and I am not being insulted by anyone disparaging any of the music I enjoy. Say whatever you want about any music you want. Why should I take offence?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Jacck said:


> I do not believe that anyone (or at least the large majority of people) likes this kind of music at first listening.


But so what? The same is true of many of the finest pleasures in life. Almost no one initially likes coffee, beer, whiskey--or for that matter, classical music as a whole.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Jacck said:


> I don't have a snowflake mentality, and *I am not being insulted by anyone disparaging any of the music I enjoy*. Say whatever you want about any music you want. Why should I take offence?


That's not what I think is happening.

Edit: Also, and much more importantly: this is not really about you personally. This fight between "the music you like is the equivalent of excrement" and "you're inferior because you don't like the music we like" is much bigger than just you. If somehow you mange to proclaim the former without being on the team of the former, I suppose that's interesting, but it doesn't invalidate the bigger point that classical music as a whole has to get over this insanity and immaturity.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

Why not listen to just one piece 3 times before you make up your mind on what to like or not. That means I have 2 more times on Stockhausen's Kurzwellen...


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

science said:


> But so what? The same is true of many of the finest pleasures in life. Almost no one initially likes coffee, beer, whiskey--or for that matter, classical music as a whole.


sure, there are some people who can derive pleasure from being hurt/humilated/beaten/suffocated/urinated upon. We call them masochists. Similarly there are people who can derive pleasure from nails scratching on a blackboard, but they are definitely a minority and will always be a minority. The objective fact is, that this music is unpleasant to a large majority of listeners and will be unpleasant to a large majority of listeners in a hundred years from now. This is not going to change. You can call it refined taste or bad taste, that is a matter of perspective. Many classical music lovers are also angry at the modernists that they pushed normal music out of academia and marginalized a lot of fine composers for being "old-fashioned", which means they did not embrace the atonal/serialism craze. It is as if a 4% minority hijacked the whole academia and pushed out any normal sounding music.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> Why not listen to just one piece 3 times before you make up your mind on what to like or not.


That's probably a fine idea, if you're determined to like something. I'd say the spacing matters, though. Listening to something three times in a day probably isn't the best way to decide how one feels. How about a minimum of five years?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Jacck said:


> sure, there are some people who can derive pleasure from being hurt/humilated/beaten/suffocated/urinated upon. We call them masochists. Similarly there are people who can derive pleasure from nails scratching on a blackboard, but they are definitely a minority and will always be a minority. The objective fact is, that this music is unpleasant to a large majority of listeners and will be unpleasant to a large majority of listeners in a hundred years from now. This is not going to change. You can call it refined taste or bad taste, that is a matter of perspective. Many classical music lovers are also angry at the modernists that they pushed normal music out of academia and marginalized a lot of fine composers for being "old-fashioned", which means they did not embrace the atonal/serialism craze. It is as if a 4% minority hijacked the whole academia and pushed out any normal sounding music.


Well, you are definitely on one side of the argument. :lol:

Live and let live, brother. I'm fine with you not liking the music I like. There's nothing wrong with that.

Conversely - no matter how angry it makes you - there's nothing wrong with me liking it. Get angry about something else. You're fighting a battle that you lost decades ago, probably before you were even born. No matter how much invective you spew, or how high you raise your blood pressure over it, people like me are going to go on enjoying Schoenberg and Nono and Stockhausen and Takemitsu and Chin.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I see modern classical music analogous to alternative rock music compared to mainstream rock. Similar forms, different techniques. I can't say the same about a lot of more contemporary music, it is more a reaction against music in my view.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

science said:


> Well, you are definitely on one side of the argument. :lol:
> 
> Live and let live, brother. I'm fine with you not liking the music I like. There's nothing wrong with that.
> 
> Conversely - no matter how angry it makes you - there's nothing wrong with me liking it. Get angry about something else. You're fighting a battle that you lost decades ago, probably before you were even born. No matter how much invective you spew, or how high you raise your blood pressure over it, people like me are going to go on enjoying Schoenberg and Nono and Stockhausen and Takemitsu and Chin.


I firmly believe that it is anyone's right to get angry over whatever he wants to get angry. Ultimately, the anger damages most the one who is getting angry. I can assure you that I am in no way getting angry over your musical preferences. There are about a million things that make me much angrier, starting with my boss at work and continuing with politicians etc.  I also enjoy the composers you mentioned. I am just not OK with placing them anywere near Bach, Beethoven, Schubert etc.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Jacck said:


> you see a piece of something brown and sticky and originally, you do not like it. But then you see a lot of people coming close to it and smelling to it and saying how wonderful it is. You do not want to be seen as being dumb, so you start smelling to it too and shouting at all passers-by how wonderful that smell is. Originally, you just pretend, but after a while, after you ego invests a lot of energy into the activity, you convince yourself that it indeed smells good and you derive narcissistic supply from considering yourself an expert of all stuff brown and sticky.


Alternatively, you see a piece of something which seems brown and sticky and you assume it smells bad. But when you actually bend down for a closer sniff, you discover that it smells a bit unusual, not something you're familiar with, but not actually bad. After a while, you might get to like its characteristic odour, though you also might not.

In time, you come to realise that it's just a stick, though perhaps from an unfamiliar tree.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

High modernism has gone as far as it can go with György Kurtág and Vyacheslav Artyomov—they are the last great composers. Everyone else simply stutters.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

John Cage: I Have Nothing to Say and I Am Saying It.
I like that


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Jacck said:


> I also enjoy the composers you mentioned.


Then why characterize their music as excrement, or people who listen to it as "being hurt/humilated/beaten/suffocated/urinated upon?"


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> John Cage: I Have Nothing to Say and I Am Saying It.
> I like that


Feldman was great. Cage? A mountebank.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

Blæ! I "got" modern music because I was curious


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

science said:


> Then why characterize their music as excrement, or people who listen to it as "being hurt/humilated/beaten/suffocated/urinated upon?"


because I believe that large portion of modern art is ####. There was some joke where a chimp painted an abstract impressionistic painting and the gallery critics hailed it as great. Actually, the chimp paintings are better than many human modern paintings
https://www.livescience.com/39428-chimp-painted-art.html
and it is the same with much of modern music. I just see no real skill in composing this music. Just beat the piano or fiddle the string in a random manner and then used this generator to generate its description and you are all set

The Contemporary Classical Composer's Bull#### Generator 
http://www.dominicirving.com/cccbsg/
:lol:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Jacck said:


> it is the same with much of modern music. I just see no real skill in composing this music. Just beat the piano or fiddle the string in a random manner and then used this generator to generate its description and you are all set


But you actually like it?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Post mortem of post modernism.


----------



## Guest (Jan 19, 2019)

Driving home from work, listening to a symphony, live on the radio. I'd missed the beginning, so it was unknown to me. One movement sounded very vaguely familiar, but the rest, I decided, was ghastly.

Turned out to be Tchaikovsky's Symphony No 6!

There are many brown sticks out there, off many different trees. Not all are lovely to all.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

science said:


> But you actually like it?


I like some of it, maybe 10%, the rest is not memorable. Actually, I listened to Takemitsu yesterday (Toward the sea) and to Henze today in the morning. I can appreciate some Boulez, some Ligeti, some Stockhausen, some Xenakis. Not that I listen to it that often, but sometimes I am in the mood. I even listened to some Ferneyhough the other day and enjoyed some of it


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Jacck said:


> I firmly believe that it is anyone's right to get angry over whatever he wants to get angry. Ultimately, the anger damages most the one who is getting angry. I can assure you that I am in no way getting angry over your musical preferences. There are about a million things that make me much angrier, starting with my boss at work and continuing with politicians etc.  I also enjoy the composers you mentioned. *I am just not OK with placing them anywere near Bach, Beethoven, Schubert etc.*


Do you think that nobody (in the last 100 years - ie since the advent of the 12 tone technique) has come near? Avant garde or otherwise?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Not even the advent of 12 tone composition allowed anyone to get as close to being as dreary and repetitive as Schubert. This why I think serialism was a great success.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

eugeneonagain said:


> Not even the advent of 12 tone composition allowed anyone to get as close to being as dreary and repetitive as Schubert. This why I think serialism was a great success.


Serialism has not had success.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

janxharris said:


> Serialism has not had success.


That's clearly a false statement. Perhaps you meant: 'serialism has not succeeded in winning me over'?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

eugeneonagain said:


> That's clearly a false statement. Perhaps you meant: 'serialism has not succeeded in winning me over'?


No, I do enjoy some pieces (though I'm not completely won over and my opinion can see saw a bit) - I meant in terms of repeat performances at the concert hall. I'm not aware of one piece that could compete with, say, Beethoven's Fifth Symphony.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Ligeti? You can’t tell me you don’t find any of his work memorable?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Red Terror said:


> Ligeti? You can't tell me you don't find any of his work memorable?


Did someone say they weren't memorable?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Red Terror said:


> Ligeti? You can't tell me you don't find any of his work memorable?


The Chamber Concerto is interesting.


----------



## stone (Dec 10, 2016)

It took me a long time of listening to modern music to "get it" having become a classical listener through the typical route of Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart et al. It was a truly rewarding experience when it "clicked". I think it needs to be approached with humility first of all. I am into composers who develop unique and creative ways of solving problems associated with the so-called crisis of tonality, complexity and innovation without flashy gimmicks, and expanding and pushing musical ideas to their limits. I do think art in general has to challenge the audience somewhat and we need to put in some effort, I'm not into being pandered to and personally, I think the rewards that come from listening feel greater when you've "earned it".

The majority of my listening is modern/contemporary with some exceptions like mature Mozart and Haydn, later Beethoven, Bach, Couperin, Rameau and a few others. I listen to music to be stimulated both emotionally and intellectually, I am attracted to complexity as well as the unfamiliar and driven by curiosity for new musical experiences; I need some kind of friction to really grab me which allows me to find a peculiar, sublime beauty in works from composers such as Carter and Messiaen for example. I find I get bored listening to familiar-sounding music, it sounds nice an' all but then I want to move on to something else soon. I feel the same way with painting and other visual arts. I love Feldman too and I was listening to Aldo Clementi earlier, that kind of pointillist compositional style is also demanding on the listener in different ways.


----------

