# Why isn't modern classical music popular?



## Agamemnon

Following a post by Phil loves classical with the link https://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/nov/28/alex-ross-modern-classical-music I think the question this article raises merits a new thread. There is a lot of talk on this forum about atonality and Cage but I think the question should be broader which broadening would illuminate far better what the problem really is: e.g. modern paintings are hugely popular yet almost nobody likes modern classical music. Why?

I think the answer is that somewhere in the 20th century all has gone wrong because of a totally false dichotomy which evolved in music: new generations got all excited by new popular music like jazz, rock and pop while other people - mostly the older people - were grossed out by this wild, loud and primitive monkey music and sought a safe heaven of civilization in older, more 'civilized' music like classical music. This opposition is also clear by the phrase one always hears about classical music: classical music is relaxing, soft-spoken (while pop is wild and loud). So art music became music for old people who were disgusted by the noisy modern music thus art music became equivalent to classical music (which this very website enforces because it is called 'talkclassical' instead of 'talkart', yet modern music like atonality and Cage are not excluded from conversation at all). And also for young people art music became equated with classical music = very old music = boring to death music = dead music for dead people.

So while there is no such dichotomy in visual arts, the rise of jazz and rock 'n' roll caused a strange and false dichotomy in music: art music became equated with very old music while entertainment music became equated with modern/contemporary music. And so there is no vast audience for 'modern classical' music because it doesn't appeal to the classical audience which generally hates modernity (which includes atonality and Cage) nor to the modern audience which doesn't know art music can be modern too! BTW, 'modern classical' is actually an oxymoron or even contradiction which sums up it's core problem right away...


----------



## Gordontrek

Agamemnon said:


> I think the answer is that somewhere in the 20th century all has gone wrong because of a totally false dichotomy which evolved in music: new generations got all excited by new popular music like jazz, rock and pop while other people - mostly the older people - were grossed out by this wild, loud and primitive monkey music and sought a safe heaven of civilization in older, more 'civilized' music like classical music.


While I mostly agree with this, I think there is another element to it- modern classical music is, of course, quite formulaic and mathematical in nature, especially 12-tone and serialism. Perhaps part of that willingness of the classical faithful to distance themselves from the "wild, loud and primitive monkey music" was the embracing of more sophisticated compositional techniques, as opposed to more traditional tonal harmony which also served as a basis for said monkey music. While less pleasing to the ear than tonal harmony (depending on who you ask), embracing these new techniques definitely created a new "system" that separated the civilized from the wild. And if you ask _me,_ these new techniques are cool to study, but come at the expense of aesthetic beauty in the actual sound of the music. In other words, while older, traditional music was written with the beauty of the sound in mind, modern music is composed more so with beauty of _structure_ in mind. Ultimately, that is, in my opinion, why modern music is not more popular.


----------



## arpeggio

We have had this discussion many times before and we have never come up with an answer. I doubt if we will come up with one now.

I will repeat two points I have tried to make countless times.

One. Not all post 19th century music is noisy. There are many great tonal composers. For example: Shostakovich, Vaugh Williams, Poulenc, Barber and many, many others. We have had threads devoted to living tonal composers.

Second: Copyright laws have a great deal to do with the performances of contemporary music. All of the older music is public domain. There are now websites were one can download for free many of the classics: http://imslp.org/wiki/Main_Page
I have mentioned before the exorbitant fees that our community orchestra has to pay to rent modern music. Anywhere from $500 to over $1,000. Last Christmas we had to cancel a performance we had scheduled of Menotti's _Amahl and the Night Visitors_ because we could not afford to pay the publisher the rental fee.


----------



## Art Rock

Agamemnon said:


> e.g. modern paintings are hugely popular yet almost nobody likes modern classical music. Why?


I see famous modern painters like Rothko, Warhol, Richter and Pollock get just as much vitriolic hatred from lots of people as modern classical music composers.


----------



## bharbeke

Today's audiences identify much more with the performer than the composer. This can make it hard for new music to break through (especially if the local symphony or philharmonic is mostly playing older stuff).


----------



## Nereffid

I think the OP's point is true, and also there's this from the referenced article by Alex Ross:

"The core problem is, I suspect, neither physiological nor sociological. Rather, modern composers have fallen victim to a long-smouldering indifference that is intimately linked to classical music's idolatrous relationship with the past. Even before 1900, people were attending concerts in the expectation that they would be massaged by the lovely sounds of bygone days. ("New works do not succeed in Leipzig," a critic said of the premiere of Brahms's First Piano Concerto in 1859.)

The music profession became focused on the manic polishing of a display of masterpieces. By the time Schoenberg, Stravinsky and company introduced a new vocabulary of chords and rhythms, the game was fixed against them. Even composers who bent over backwards to accommodate a taste for Romantic tonality encountered scepticism; they could not overcome, except by drastic measures, the disadvantage of being alive."

Of course it depends what one means by "modern". As Ross notes, "The mildest 20th-century fare can cause audible gnashing of teeth"; he cites Britten's _Serenade_, while a few months ago someone on TC reported that some listeners at a concert had trouble with the modernity of Poulenc's clarinet sonata. At this stage, the general classical audience (in as much as there is such a thing) has fallen behind by an entire century. One might expect it to catch up somewhat, as the passage of time would allow a gradual seeping of older music (in this case, the likes of Schoenberg and Stravinsky) into the general consciousness, but it seems to me that the chance of this happening has been significantly hampered by more recent developments, namely the rise of minimalism and its related spin-offs. In as much as the general public pays attention to classical music at all (your stereotypical "Classic FM listener"), "modern" music is quite popular, but the composers in question are the likes of Einaudi, Glass or Whitacre (or John Williams); the general public has more or less ignored several decades worth of modern music and has identified a continuity of classical music in today's "accessible" composers - a leap that many in the specialist audience are unable to make.


----------



## Agamemnon

Art Rock said:


> I see famous modern painters like Rothko, Warhol, Richter and Pollock get just as much vitriolic hatred from lots of people as modern classical music composers.


Good point but I don't think there is the same dichotomy (which was my point): a lot of people hate modern art but modern art still has a much wider audience than modern classical music because modern art has not been neglected as modern classical music is. People who are interested in modern paintings don't ignore modern art while people who are interested in modern music do usually ignore modern classical music (because they listen to e.g. rock).


----------



## Marinera

Art Rock said:


> I see famous modern painters like Rothko, Warhol, Richter and Pollock get just as much vitriolic hatred from lots of people as modern classical music composers.


From what I observed modern art is actually popular, I find people attend quite enthusiastically exhibitions with modern artists. The ones you mentioned especially attract lots of people I think. Perhaps postmodern and contemporary artists get more sneers.


----------



## arpeggio

One final point.

I have been participating in these discussions on various forums for over ten years. Every observation I have seen so far I have seen many times before.

There are many people who are unhappy that classical music is not more popular than they would like it to be. They are constantly trying to come up with the reasons why. Many of them just plain dislike non-tonal music and they try to make this music a scapegoat concerning the state of classical music.


----------



## Lisztian

I completely agree with the OP.

I also think that a lot of modern classical music is always going to be a really esoteric interest and will probably never achieve the level of popularity of composers like Beethoven or Mozart. I also think this is completely fine and shouldn't be used as the springboard for a value judgement: some composers are against 'compromising' their music to the tastes of the masses to any extent, while some take a middle ground: as long as they do what they believe in I don't think it matters how popular the result is, but rather that the fruits of talented peoples' aesthetic contemplations and compositional efforts are simply _there_ for all of the infinitely varied tastes of music lovers. There is something for everyone, and it's up to us to keep an open mind.


----------



## isorhythm

This topic is already exhausted, and exhausting, but the short answer is that the social conditions that gave rise to the standard classical repertoire no longer exist.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Agamemnon said:


> I think the answer is that somewhere in the 20th century all has gone wrong because of a totally false dichotomy which evolved in music: new generations got all excited by new popular music like jazz, rock and pop while other people - mostly the older people - were grossed out by this wild, loud and *primitive monkey music* and sought a safe heaven of civilization in older, more 'civilized' music like classical music. ..


Most unfortunate choice of words in that bit I highlighted above..!

I don't see this history at all. People who didn't follow jazz (and especially later on 50s jazz) never necessarily gravitated toward classical music as a rule. Semi-opera music, mostly songs, served as popular music from the very early 20th century, then more modern early "dance band" vocalists like Rudy Vallee _et al_. The 'crooner' type music, much different to pop music after Elvis, typified by the likes of Bing Crosby and Al Bowlly took this audience for those not into straight-up jazz and that pretty much carried on throughout a lot of the 50s and early 60s.

Jazz or classic rock is no longer as popular as people like to imagine. It is not mainstream by any means and is also considered "old music" by hordes of the whipper-snappers toting around their bluetooth speakers linked to a smartphone churning out products from the Max Martin song factory.

'Classical music' always was 'art music' and music written for particular audiences, often of a particular class. Regardless of whether half those in that audience were/are generally cultural barbarians.

If people actually came to 'classical music' as respite from the noise of jazz or pop, they would have been either rudely awakened or stuck listening to one sort of output - all the adagios with the nicest melodies and dynamics not much above _mezzo piano_.

Modernist visual arts have had a lot of promotional and cultural activity put into them over the last 50-70 years. Several prominent museums have promoted exhibitions which have been attended by many school kids. They have been absorbed into the culture by appearing in other media: I'm certain more people considered Van Gogh differently after the film with Kirk Douglas or the Jackson Pollock with Ed Harris. It helps with explanations, it's a way in.
The art also appears everywhere, on posters, on bags, t-shirts, on designer crockery and furnishings damn it... We end up becoming accustomed to it and really the effort is different. You can just look at the painting or artwork or not even look at it and it enters your consciousness.

Modern music has very little of this sort of overt assistance. Film music, of the golden Hollywood period, was perhaps the greatest conduit for new musical ideas expressed in a more accessible form. Compare the average soundtrack from the 30s and the early 40s to those of the late 40s, the 50s and the 60s. Listen to Hindemith's Eb Symphony and then Alex North's soundtrack for Spartacus, the aesthetic relationship is strong. Arnold Bax's 1948 score for Oliver Twist is more dissonant than might be imagined, but the audience would not have been thinking that because it fits the film's narrative and dramatic needs.
Film music has probably exposed more people to new musical ideas in art music than any deliberate concert.

You are probably right that in general people have a mistaken idea of what 'classical music' is and see it as a largely historical art movement. As long as people within the classical music world keep on making distinctions and propagating the idea that everything collapsed and was destroyed after Schoenberg, that mistaken perception will continue.
In terms of aiming to raise the profile of art music in general culture, I have no illusions about this. It doesn't generate huge revenue streams and general economic culture - which has become general culture - is driven more by that than the propagation of art for the improvement of humankind.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Agamemnon said:


> ... e.g. modern paintings are hugely popular yet almost nobody likes modern classical music. Why?


Both modern painting (which I'm not certain I'd describe as "hugely popular" -- people, it seems, still tend to prefer "realism" ala Thomas Kinkaid over abstraction ala Jackson Pollock or Willem DeKooning) and modern music (contemporary classical!) ... let me start over here ....

Both modern painting and modern music have been assimilated into our lives via commercialism in ways most folks don't overtly notice -- fabric patterns and graphic backgrounds mimic modern art, film soundtracks often utilize Schoenbergian/Pendereckian/Xenakisakian techniques to underscore dramatic moments. Yet folks don't notice it much in context.

If modern painting _is_ more popular to the common folk than is modern music, it may well be simply because of the visual nature vs. the aural nature of the two art forms. It takes less time invested to experience a modern painting -- you look, you see, you are struck by the wavy lines or the colors or the design, and that's that. Music, on the other hand, demands time. And investing time to look, see, and be struck takes ... time! A commodity rare for folks.

I listen to a lot of contemporary music. (I've been working my way through the NEOS box set - 7 CDs - "Darmstadt Aural Documents Box 3 - Ensembles" for the past several days. There is much there to experience, but it takes time. Unlike glancing at the aforementioned box set's abstract cover art, which takes only a moment to see and notice a Mondrian-like patterning.) Time tends to be the culprit to a lot of musical investments.

I've known folks who are absolutely _astounded_ to hear that a Mahler symphony can take well over an hour to hear. An hour! You're not in Justin Bieberland Kansas anymore!

I feel fortunate to have such time to devote to music listening, a favorite hobby. There was a time when my time was more restricted -- by things like work! But now I have leisure to burn, and that allows me to hear much music, not only the familiar but the new and unfamiliar, and challenging. And to contemplate it. Which contemplation is probably an important part of appreciating art. And contemplation takes time, too. So that's time on top of time.

There is approximately 8 hours of music in the NEOS Darmstadt box set, if one listens to it straight through from disc 1 to disc 7. But the contemplation time is profoundly more hours, to fully try to assimilate this music into one's consciousness.

Contemplation of visual art takes equal time, I suspect. But the actual viewing process is usually one of lesser time than the hearing process of experiencing music.

And of course I probably make as little sense in this post as ever, and we're no closer to understanding why people don't flock to modern-contemporary classical music.


----------



## Larkenfield

The 20th century did not “go wrong”, as sick as much of it was with destruction and carnage; it just turned out differently than everyone may have expected. Whatever was produced in modern music was entirely appropriate to the social conditions, even if there’s a great deal that one does not like. Society has become fragmented and there’s a major dichotomy between the material and the spiritual that’s been reflected in the music. The hard part is finding what’s good in modern music, and it’s there, but some listeners may be too lazy or are just not motivated enough to find it. On YouTube for example, it can be found everywhere and is frequently appreciated. But it’s a minority interest just like classical music as a whole is a minority interest, with only about 3% of the population making purchases that even include the staples of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. The challenge with modern music is that so much of it has not been pre-digested like the music of 200 years ago. So the sorting out of the best in the modern is ongoing.


----------



## DaveM

arpeggio said:


> We have had this discussion many times before and we have never come up with an answer. I doubt if we will come up with one now.
> 
> I will repeat two points I have tried to make countless times.
> 
> One. Not all post 19th century music is noisy. There are many great tonal composers. For example: Shostakovich, Vaugh Williams, Poulenc, Barber and many, many others. We have had threads devoted to living tonal composers.
> 
> Second: Copyright laws have a great deal to do with the performances of contemporary music. All of the older music is public domain. There are now websites were one can download for free many of the classics: http://imslp.org/wiki/Main_Page
> I have mentioned before the exorbitant fees that our community orchestra has to pay to rent modern music. Anywhere from $500 to over $1,000. Last Christmas we had to cancel a performance we had scheduled of Menotti's _Amahl and the Night Visitors_ because we could not afford to pay the publisher the rental fee.


I was never aware of that. Seems like the publishers are shooting themselves in the foot.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Actually classical is more popular now than ever. Not only there are more people alive, but it is easy to learn about new composers and order the music (or even find obscure or forgotten composers because of youtube).
Dance, pop and folk music also existed centuries ago - do you think that listeners cared too much about "serious" music? People were mostly living in the village areas and probably never heard about any symphonic music during their lifetime.
Jazz and rock are also "dying" along with the traditional world music styles. 
The future pop music is just "fast food" like whatever is popular now - probably something pentatonic with electronic sounds and loud percussion.


----------



## DaveM

Art Rock said:


> I see famous modern painters like Rothko, Warhol, Richter and Pollock get just as much vitriolic hatred from lots of people as modern classical music composers.


Apples and oranges. When it comes to modern art, there's nothing comparable to the concerts and individually-owned recordings of classical music. Besides, IMO, the eye is much more forgiving than the ear. I might not particularly like a given work of modern art, but it is far less likely to cause the negative reaction as is provoked by the dissonance of so many modern classical works.


----------



## DaveM

BabyGiraffe said:


> Actually classical is more popular now than ever.


I just knew there was a parallel universe.


----------



## Taggart

When I started getting into "Classical Music" I was listening to a lot of David Munrow. Munrow was also working within the folk tradition with groups like Young Tradition. The folk movement was also taking up shawms and hurdy gurdies.

Now, many years later, I'm into Baroque. We have a local HIP Baroque ensemble. On Monday, the leader of that group was down the pub leading an Irish Session. He also has played in a ceilidh band. He's quite capable of mixing Lord Kellie's reel with some modern folk composition - plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Part of the problem is that we are talking about listening to music. It's easy to listen to what you know because it's comfortable. When you listen, you don't do as much work as when you play music. When you listen, you can keep within a limited compass without it seeming boring. When you play music, you need challenge and variety. OK the performing editions are expensive but basic sheet music has never been cheaper. Music teaching thrives on new music because it provides a challenge.

We have a situation where there is more music available, more teaching available in a whole variety of styles and yet we are concentrating on listeners because of the availability of recorded music rather than on getting people to make music. Maybe that is the problem we need more chorale societies, amateur operatic societies, amateur orchestras and fewer cd's and mp3's.


----------



## Ingélou

All art music, serious art, and serious literature demands more mental effort from its audience. But to a certain extent the art (of all types) from the past could make an immediate appeal via tunes, representations, and good stories or structured rhythms & rhymes.

Modern music - modern art - modern poetry and other literature - demand that the reader or auditor does the work. These forms take more mental effort, so where they do find appreciators, these will be avid and loyal admirers, just as I am passionate about cryptic crosswords and not at all interested in doing a non-cryptic one.

If you don't 'put together' what you are hearing - seeing - or reading, that is if you don't make the mental effort, the music/ artwork/ poetry will seem disjointed, random, violent, and meaningless. And if you find the music (etc) like that, you will find it hard to understand why modern-music lovers are so passionate. You will think they are posing - or think that they are congratulating themselves on their own perspicacity in being able to understand what sounds so unpleasant.

Because Modern Music (etc) requires this extra effort, it is an acquired taste, and people who love other sorts of classical music are often not willing to make the effort or take the time to learn. I have read many posts by people on TC who said that they *set out* to appreciate modern music and then succeeded. But many members, probably including me, don't have that initial will to educate their musical palate.

This is why modern classical music isn't popular, in my opinion - *but* if modern music got more exposure so that it could become a fashion or even a cult, *then* more people would have the will to 'put together' the art of this music in their minds, and become passionate adherents.

For myself, I have always been a lover of history and don't have the will to make the adjustment - which doesn't stop me respecting those who do, or abhorring those who keep battering away about how awful modern classical music must be simply because they don't like it.


----------



## Taggart

Please do not post comments which merely indicate your dislike of modern music. This adds nothing to the argument and offends those who like modern music. The Terms of Service are intended to promote civilised discussion which respects the views of other members.

A number of off topic posts have been removed.


----------



## St Matthew

Ingélou said:


> All art music, serious art, and serious literature demands more mental effort from its audience. But to a certain extent the art (of all types) from the past could make an immediate appeal via tunes, representations, and good stories or structured rhythms & rhymes.


It's only so true, as far as exposure and becoming acquainted with the aesthetics (or musical features) of a style that may be foreign to your ears at first. Otherwise it's exactly like all other (classical) music (and music in general). If you like it, you listen to it in any situation, both casually and really focused.

There really isn't much more too it in this context.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Ingélou said:


> Modern music - modern art - modern poetry and other literature - demand that the reader or auditor does the work. These forms take more mental effort, so where they do find appreciators, these will be avid and loyal admirers, just as I am passionate about cryptic crosswords and not at all interested in doing a non-cryptic one.
> 
> If you don't 'put together' what you are hearing - seeing - or reading, that is if you don't make the mental effort, the music/ artwork/ poetry will seem disjointed, random, violent, and meaningless. And if you find the music (etc) like that, you will find it hard to understand why modern-music lovers are so passionate. You will think they are posing - or think that they are congratulating themselves on their own perspicacity in being able to understand what sounds so unpleasant.


One of the real problems faced by modern art (music, literature, painting...) is that the audience is never sure what is of meaningful, lasting quality and what is unimportant, lackluster dribble, or, even, simply a fraud.

It's easier to know quality of past artworks. Society (and time) has spoken. The grain has been threshed from the shaft and the result is clear. There were a lot of "classical era" composers, and today we can access quite a multitude of them, but we tend to turn back to Mozart and Haydn. They just seem better. They _are _better. Their music espouses those qualities that we expect from great art -- things like "meaningfulness," "lastingness", "quality" and the ability to "move and inspire", to entertain, to satisfy, to seem somehow humanly "right".

Yet, in Mozart's and Haydn's own time it was a bit harder for the audience to sort through all the music available and assign "lastingness" and "quality" labels. We all know that "popular" artists of the day may not necessarily prove lasting. We have much history to attest to that. What we don't have is any way to cull out the great from the current mass of art, often because the artist is ahead of the curve and we commoners with less imagination and insight cannot know/see/hear what they do. But Time is a grand arbiter and will eventually show the way.

When Schoenberg devised his twelve-tone system he was on the cusp of change. He intuited that the overblown, lush, heavily orchestrated language of music (Late Romanticism) was on its deathbed. The average concert-goer of the day didn't know that. Even Schoenberg, visionary genius that he was, penned the _Gurrelieder_, contributing to the Late Romantic sprawl of the day. I'm not sure _Pierrot Lunaire _was well appreciated at its premiere, but I suspect not. Yet, today, that work stands as a trail blazing masterwork, while _Gurrelieder_ remains more a pleasant diversion -- good music, certainly, but not the sort of piece that guarantees immortality in Art. Had Schoenberg continued penning _Gurrelieder_s, we likely would barely know his name, or his music.

I listen to a lot of contemporary music. (As I type this I'm hearing Liza Lim's "City of Falling Angels" for 12 percussionists, a work from 2007, via my headphones.) I suspect I listen to a lot of "ungreat" music along the way, but I suspect also that audiences in Mozart's day, attending concerts regularly, did exactly the same. And then, how many of them could have put words to why the Mozart piece was better than the other concert works they heard that day. Perhaps they weren't even aware of it at the time. Perhaps a few of the more sensitive types were aware that _something_ was different with this man's music. Of greater import, perhaps; or of greater quality. Haydn would have certainly known. But then, the great artists tend to have that "seventh sense" about things. The rest of us must flounder, and trust that Time will sort it all out.

But I do enjoy exploring the aural world of contemporary music. Liza Lim's piece is throbbing and pulsing and spewing out bells and whistles and woodblock tappings, and I'm not quite sure what to make of it all. Is it great art music? I don't even want to go there. I simply want to listen and hear what I can hear, and take from the piece whatever I can based upon my own life experiences (both as a member of Humanity and as a well-traveled listener in the world of music and contemporary music). That's good enough for me.


----------



## Woodduck

I don't want to be interpreted as suggesting anything as simple as a decline in the quality of music, or a decline in the musical sophistication of audiences, when I suggest that there are easily understandable musical reasons (among other possible reasons) for the present state of audiences' relationship with contemporary - or new, or "modern" - music. I can predict that I'll be accused of suggesting that, but I'll risk it!

Only a small minority of people have ever thought of music as something that required intentional effort or active attention. Popular music has seldom required it; its appeal is immediate and effortless, and that's why it's popular. Given this, it's not unreasonable to assume that people who enjoy classical music have the same basic attitude; they will tend to prefer music that is most easily comprehended and enjoyed with the least effort. People just don't see musical enjoyment as something to _work_ for, or even have a clear idea of what "work" means in this context. And of course there is no reason why they should. Music is for pleasure.

Given the tendency of human nature to view pleasure and effort as antithetical, we wouldn't expect the resistance to "modern music" to be a phenomenon peculiar to our time. But things haven't always been quite as they are now. Contrary to a familiar modernist myth, new music in earlier eras was not typically premiered before hostile and uncomprehending audiences; legendary flops or scandals were the exception. On the whole, people looked forward to hearing new works by well-respected composers, and new works now recognized as masterpieces, even when their initial critical or popular reception was uncertain or unfavorable, were generally soon applauded and adopted into the repertoire as classical musical organizations became more prevalent and the concept of a repertoire gained more and more ground.

This isn't hard to explain. Through most of the history of music, the basic vocabulary of "art music" was not very different from that of the popular music of its day; Handel, Haydn, Beethoven and Brahms could adapt popular tunes, or write melodies similar to them, and even if the formal elaboration of their works could tax the comprehension of unsophisticated listeners, their basic (tonal) harmonic schemes and their melodic and rhythmic structures generally followed principles familiar in popular songs and dance music. Because of this commonality of idiom, melodies composed by "classical" composers were widely enjoyed in arrangements for keyboard or small ensembles, and opera arias were picked up and sung by people in the streets.

But this comfortable and even symbiotic relationship between popular and classical music began to break down at a certain point - somewhere, I'd say, around the middle of the 19th century - as composers explored the technical possibilities of their material in pursuit of more personal and esoteric realms of expression. Particularly with respect to harmony, "art music" was taking on qualities increasingly remote from anything heard in parlors, churches, pubs and workplaces, people were challenged more and more to wrap their minds around sounds strange to them, and public concerts, reflecting the difficulties this presented, became increasingly conservative in their programming.

Similarities between popular music and the art music being produced by a majority of composers endured into the early 20th century, when it was still not uncommon for new classical works to enter the basic repertoires of orchestras and opera houses. "Conservative" composers such as Sibelius, Puccini, Vaughan Williams, Rachmaninoff and Copland (to name only some of the more famous) introduced music which, because of its comprehensible tonal structures, memorable melodic content, and emotional appeal, became "popular," even among people with little general knowledge of classical music, sometimes to the point of being adapted by actual popular music composers. And such adaptations were likely to be performed in a manner not dissimilar to that of classical music performers, and even performed by the same artists: "crossover" wasn't a word people needed in 1920, and as late as World War II opera singers would travel to the front lines to entertain the troops and be gratefully applauded for singing not only popular ballads but arias which the boys wouldn't have thought of entering an opera house to hear.

I think my generation (early baby boom) was probably the last generation to grow up in households where pianos were prevalent, the bench was filled with familiar and well-loved classics ("50 Favorite Piano Pieces You Love to Play"), 78 rpm records containing both Caruso and Bing Crosby were stacked by the Victrola, people went to small town churches and sang melodies by Mendelssohn, and you could turn on the TV on a Sunday evening and see and hear famous classical musicians on the the Ed Sullivan Show, smack up against the popular music stars of the day. As a kid in the '50s, I couldn't have known how widely the idioms of contemporary classical music had by then departed from anything recognizable in popular culture, or how popular music was at that very moment giving birth to styles born of parents whose European genes would be barely recognizable.

I witnessed the tail end of Western music as a more or less, and ever decreasingly, unified tradition, a tradition in which popular and classical music had for centuries been kissing cousins. But the fragmentation of Western culture is certainly not confined to music. So why should we be surprised that contemporary classical music isn't widely popular, when even popular music has shattered into a hundred pieces? Listening to contemporary classical music involves, for all but a tiny subset of people, trying to make sense of sounds that require work to come to terms with. And work isn't something people tend to associate with musical enjoyment, not least because there's no assurance whatever that once one has done the work, enjoyment will ensue.


----------



## KenOC

A passing thought -- there's a whole lot of music from the past that people think of as "classical," and probably few have heard more than five percent of it. For most, there's a whole world laying undiscovered. Perhaps there's just simply no demand for more of it. Supply has so far outstripped demand that new "classical" music, even of a benign tonal kind, is hardly worth producing.


----------



## Larkenfield

The challenge with a great deal of modern and contemporary music is that it has not been _pre-digested_ like the now-accepted music from 200 years ago. So the sorting out of the best in the modern is ongoing and may require an extra investment in time. The aesthetic challenge is that some of it may sound so turbulent and awful that some listeners get permanently turned off by modern works entirely, conclude that the truly listenable doesn't exist at all, and consequently miss out on those works that are saying something beautiful and meaningful about today and not about two centuries ago. It's a choice to put in the time and there are some listeners willing to make it and some who are not. I believe those people driven by a natural insatiable curious are always willing to explore the new and view hearing the 'failures' as part of their aesthetic growth & development.


----------



## Zhdanov

it is also that a main point behind modern stuff being this 'new' routine with this 'revolution' schtik to it that is in itself being, er, revolting... for you can't get people into something by trolling them, right?


----------



## arnerich

I truly believe the best music has yet to be written. I really do. But the most important music? That has come and gone. We're post historical now folks and the issue at hand really has less to do with music and everything to do with people. What can be done? Just enjoy the music for what it is and share it with both likeminded individuals and newcomers alike.


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> Of course it depends what one means by "modern". [...] In as much as the general public pays attention to classical music at all (your stereotypical "Classic FM listener"), "modern" music is quite popular, but the composers in question are the likes of Einaudi, Glass or Whitacre (or John Williams); the general public has more or less ignored several decades worth of modern music and has identified a continuity of classical music in today's "accessible" composers - a leap that many in the specialist audience are unable to make.


Which could prompt the conclusion that modern classical music _is _popular after all, and in the same way that past audiences would prefer this composer over that one (were LvB, WAM and JH really the only composers busy in the late 18th C?) so modern audiences prefer Glass and Einaudi over their more inaccessible peers.

Oh, and while on the question of popularity, shouldn't we ask 'popular with whom'? Classical audiences in the 19th C were not the massed working classes...were they? Doesn't CM just continue to be a pastime for a minority?


----------



## Zhdanov

arnerich said:


> I truly believe the best music has yet to be written.


well maybe in the next life...


----------



## Guest

DaveM said:


> IMO, the eye is much more forgiving than the ear.


The Alex Ross quote offered earlier seems to suggest this is not the case, but I tend to agree. Unpleasant sounds cause a physical sensation quite unlike unpleasant visuals.

(To be clear, I'm not saying that all modern music is unpleasant sound - I'm just talking about any sound.)


----------



## KenOC

We probably should think about what “popular” means. Beethoven’s music was popular in Vienna, pop. about 200 thousand, and to some extent in London, Paris, and other places as well. We’re talking here in aggregate about a medium-sized US city!

The Eroica wasn’t even heard in Italy for over half a century, when Sgambati conducted it in 1860.

“Historical” classical music is doubtless more popular today, in terms of absolute size of listening audience, than it has ever been before. But “new” classical music? Maybe another story.


----------



## St Matthew

KenOC said:


> A passing thought -- there's a whole lot of music from the past that people think of as "classical," and probably few have heard more than five percent of it. For most, there's a whole world laying undiscovered. Perhaps there's just simply no demand for more of it. Supply has so far outstripped demand that new "classical" music, even of a benign tonal kind, is hardly worth producing.


This is actually a thought in the right direction!

It's true that the decline in wider interest in not only modern classical music but classical music in general, is NOT to do with the expansions of style and aesthetic (including everything from serialism to minimalism to neo-classicism) but is quite blatantly due to the rise in competing genres that haven't been around a fraction as long. I could name a really long list of non-classical genres and sub-genres that have cropped up in the 20th century (that I'm sure we're all at least aware of), that have taken public/international interest. Combined with many related factors such as technology, concert culture, advertisement etc, it is not one bit surprising that not only modern classical but classical music in general has take nose nosedive.

On the bright side, luckily both still exist and there are still concerts and recordings around the world all the time for both modern and older classical music. :tiphat:


----------



## Guest

St Matthew said:


> it is not one bit surprising that not only modern classical but classical music in general has take nose nosedive.


But has it taken a nose dive?


----------



## Nereffid

MacLeod said:


> Which could prompt the conclusion that modern classical music _is _popular after all, and in the same way that past audiences would prefer this composer over that one (were LvB, WAM and JH really the only composers busy in the late 18th C?) so modern audiences prefer Glass and Einaudi over their more inaccessible peers.
> 
> Oh, and while on the question of popularity, shouldn't we ask 'popular with whom'? Classical audiences in the 19th C were not the massed working classes...were they? Doesn't CM just continue to be a pastime for a minority?


I had thought about bringing up that very point about "popular with whom", and of course the same can be said about the other arts - Ross mentioned the "relative popularity" of Balanchine, Beckett and Godard, but that "relative" could mean anything, really. 
I'd give someone else's right nut to have some reliable figures to track the size and nature of the classical audience over the centuries, because most of what we say about popularity seems to be simply biased guesswork. You might have missed this post from a month ago; in the 18th century, classical music was the preserve of the 1-percenters. Obviously since then the close link between wealth and art has broken down. 
Also:


isorhythm said:


> the short answer is that the social conditions that gave rise to the standard classical repertoire no longer exist.


Exactly, and as indicated above the meaning of "popular" classical music has also changed.


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> You might have missed this post from a month ago.


I did, though I didn't miss the thread. As it was a poll, I declined to participate, and hads I done so, it would have been to observe, as I have here, that CM didn't decline.

[I'm reminded of conservatives in the UK who lament the 'decline' in our education standards, pointing to a fall in our position in international league tables; it doesn't occur to them that other countries might just have had the impertinence to have got better!]


----------



## EdwardBast

Some of it is very popular — by the demographic standards of the classical music audience.


----------



## DeepR

The question is, does it matter? Classical music has been around for a while. Today there is a wealth of diverse music from the past that's more than enough for a lifetime and easily available to the public. There are countless masterpieces from different genres and eras in which many possibilities of music and expression have already been explored. Under those circumstances I suppose it gets harder and harder for new music to appeal to a broader public. Especially when composers often strive to explore new terrority and find a unique voice in music. But with so much already done and explored, their music is bound to become more exotic and less universal in its appeal. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just how it goes.


----------



## Omicron9

I think I could be bits of all these, but my humble opinion is also a matter of exposure. Classical radio seems to never play 20/21-century works. Most symphony orchestra seasons rarely include modern works. I attend BSO concerts each season, and while they do include modern works, those are in the vast minority. Furthermore, the BSO is, again, my opinion, an organization among US symphonies that isn't afraid of recent works, and even commissions them from time to time. Even so, the bulk of their programs consists of pre-1900 works.

I also think that people like what they know; not only in music, but in many areas. How can they acquire a taste for modern works when they can't hear it on the radio, and most symphonies don't program much of it. It's kind of a vicious cycle in this way.

Again, just my thoughts.

-09


----------



## isorhythm

Why isn't zydeco popular? Or free jazz, death metal, psychedelic folk, noise rock? Musicians and fans in these genres don't worry about it.

People don't want to let go of the idea that the music of the western classical tradition should be _the_ music, like it was in the good old days of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. This is not realistic.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> Contrary to a familiar modernist myth, new music in earlier eras was not typically premiered before hostile and uncomprehending audiences; legendary flops or scandals were the exception. On the whole, people looked forward to hearing new works by well-respected composers, and new works now recognized as masterpieces, even when their initial critical or popular reception was uncertain or unfavorable, were generally soon applauded and adopted into the repertoire...


Please excuse the trim. The original post was a tour-de-force and I enjoyed it, but I would question the bit I quoted above.

The audiences of premières in earlier musical eras were very different from audiences of known 'scandal premières' of later eras: Church premières for a long time. Later almost exclusively private aristocratic courts; aristocrats in concert halls; small gatherings in private houses of...the aristocracy. So the composer was writing wholly or partially for someone else rather than his own artistic desires. What audience in this milieu would have kicked up a fuss? There was only a tiny audience being catered to: God or a ruling aristocrat.

Only later in Europe (post French Revolution), when other classes like the merchant class and others in the middle class could occupy the roles of patron that were before the preserve of the church, do we see a different audience. Not all the attendees would be at a performance merely to be seen in the 'correct' surroundings with the 'correct' people. Most would have paid to see and hear the music/performer so being dissatisfied, and also in a position to express this, we are more likely to hear about it.
The famous scandal performances of the early 20th century, the Stravinsky _Rite of Spring_, the _Skandalkonzert_, the ballet _Parade_ occurred for reasons other than just simple changes in popular musical accessibility. These were premièred at a period of great social change and also during a period (in Paris and Vienna) when many new artistic movements were appearing and their adherents clashing with one another.
The disruption of _Parade_ in 1917 was not a musically disgruntled audience, but opposing artistic factions - mostly Dadaist and early surrealists attacking Picasso's décor. The music itself was favourably received by a majority only being trashed by a few critics and that's not unique.

Not only art changed between the 18th-20th centuries, but also the _reception_ of art.


----------



## larold

<<...modern paintings are hugely popular yet almost nobody likes modern classical music. Why?>>

I'll repeat a response I've given countless times here and other places. Name one "modern" (meaning now, living) composer that has written one serious classical music composition that has captured the attention of the world, has sold a lot of recordings, is discussed on forums like this one as often as Shostakovich or Bach or Beethoven, and is regularly played in concert everywhere (not just in megamarkets like London and New York but also in Des Moines.) When you find the answer to that question you'll find the answer to your other question.

The bottom line is, for all the arguments otherwise, what has failed classical music in the late 20th and 21st centuries is the quality of the music that has been composed. An art form that does not continue to create new hits and memorable artifacts can't do very well. This is the state of classical music worldwide.

Imagine if rock music never produced a big star band since The Beatles disbanded in 1970. Think people would still listen? Imagine if there had never been a hit on Broadway since "Hair" ... think anyone would go to those shows? Imagine if the last great film was "The Godfather" from 1972; think people would still buy tickets and attend? This is where classical music is.

Here's some other stuff I've said countless times: the last "new" symphony that was written that captured the world's attention was Gorecki No. 3 "Symphony of Sorrowful Songs" (from the 1970s) on a recording issued in the early 1980s. The last opera to enter the standard repertory was written during World War II. The last composer whose body of work can be compared to Bach or Beethoven was Shostakovich. He died 1975. It has been a generation, at least, since any of these conditions were met by any of a major composition, a composer, or an opera.


----------



## eugeneonagain

larold said:


> <<...modern paintings are hugely popular yet almost nobody likes modern classical music. Why?>>
> 
> I'll repeat a response I've given countless times here and other places. Name one "modern" (meaning now, living) composer that has written one serious classical music composition that has captured the attention of the world, has sold a lot of recordings, is discussed on forums like this one as often as Shostakovich or Bach or Beethoven, and is regularly played in concert everywhere (not just in megamarkets like London and New York but also in Des Moines.) When you find the answer to that question you'll find the answer to your other question.
> 
> The bottom line is, for all the arguments otherwise, what has failed classical music in the late 20th and 21st centuries is the quality of the music that has been composed. An art form that does not continue to create new hits and memorable artifacts can't do very well. This is the state of classical music worldwide.


Really? Mainstream critics said much the same thing at the beginning of the 20th century: 'where are the great composers of today?' 'Where are the great works?' While all the time the people now thought to be the greats of the 20th century were busy at work and being ignored by the same critics. It takes time.

Shostakovich was not lauded all that much in the West during his lifetime and other big names e.g.: Hindemith, Prokofiev, Berg had to have written at least one mainstream work to please most people before they could be embraced. Britten was pretty conservative and even he wasn't considered all that great until later on.

However, in reality there are loads of works that are great music that haven't 'captured the attention of the world'. A great deal of the most famous works of the past didn't necessarily become world famous in their own time - indeed several were virtually unknown, Bach's Toccata & Fugue in Dm being one example.

Naming one work under the conditions you require in order to prove that this shows a decline in quality is really a false argument. We could ask the same of folk music: when was the last great folk million seller? There hasn't been one, ergo folk is now rubbish. It doesn't fly. The real answer is that its audience is smaller and a large part of it either conservative or satisfied with a lot of the historical output; same for Jazz; same for classic rock; same for classical.

Art music is not popular music and is not even at the forefront of music (or probably art).


----------



## Blancrocher

Modern music _is_ popular-people just don't realize they're listening to Philip Glass half the time.


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> Really? Mainstream critics said much the same thing at the beginning of the 20th century: 'where are the great composers of today?' 'Where are the great works?' While all the time the people now thought to be the greats of the 20th century were busy at work and being ignored by the same critics. It takes time. Shostakovich was not lauded all that much in the West during his lifetime and other big names e.g.: Hindemith, Prokofiev, Berg had to have written at least one mainstream work to please most people before they could be embraced. Britten was pretty conservative and even he wasn't considered all that great until later on.


So, during the early 20th century, the composers you mention, plus Bartok, Ives, Rachmaninoff etc. were being practically totally ignored until later; classical music was just one big wasteland except for pre-1900 music. I don't think so. But let's say it was. Then, presumably they were recognized by the mid 20th century, 20-30 years later. Now here we are, 67 years since the mid 20th century: As *larold* implies above: Where are the great contemporary composers? Where are the great works that have captured the attention of the classical music audience? How much time do you want?



> However, in reality there are loads of works that are great music that haven't 'captured the attention of the world'. A great deal of the most famous works of the past didn't necessarily become world famous in their own time - indeed several were virtually unknown, Bach's Toccata & Fugue in Dm being one example.


So, there are works, composed in the last few decades, on the level of Bach's Toccata & Fugue sitting out there undiscovered? With the internet and YouTube?



> Naming one work under the conditions you require in order to prove that this shows a decline in quality is really a false argument. We could ask the same of folk music: when was the last great folk million seller? There hasn't been one, ergo folk is now rubbish. It doesn't fly. The real answer is that its audience is smaller and a large part of it either conservative or satisfied with a lot of the historical output; same for Jazz; same for classic rock; same for classical. Art music is not popular music and is not even at the forefront of music (or probably art).


So, which is it? The above seems to negate your other arguments e.g. It takes time and there are undiscovered works out there.


----------



## arpeggio

eugeneonagain said:


> Really? Mainstream critics said much the same thing at the beginning of the 20th century: 'where are the great composers of today?' 'Where are the great works?' While all the time the people now thought to be the greats of the 20th century were busy at work and being ignored by the same critics. It takes time.
> 
> Shostakovich was not lauded all that much in the West during his lifetime and other big names e.g.: Hindemith, Prokofiev, Berg had to have written at least one mainstream work to please most people before they could be embraced. Britten was pretty conservative and even he wasn't considered all that great until later on.
> 
> However, in reality there are loads of works that are great music that haven't 'captured the attention of the world'. A great deal of the most famous works of the past didn't necessarily become world famous in their own time - indeed several were virtually unknown, Bach's Toccata & Fugue in Dm being one example.
> 
> Naming one work under the conditions you require in order to prove that this shows a decline in quality is really a false argument. We could ask the same of folk music: when was the last great folk million seller? There hasn't been one, ergo folk is now rubbish. It doesn't fly. The real answer is that its audience is smaller and a large part of it either conservative or satisfied with a lot of the historical output; same for Jazz; same for classic rock; same for classical.
> 
> Art music is not popular music and is not even at the forefront of music (or probably art).


And I will repeat a point I have made countless times, including earlier in this thread. It is unfair to compared music that is in the public domain and is free to perform and record to works that are copyrighted where one has to pay royalties to the composer or his estate.


----------



## eugeneonagain

arpeggio said:


> And I will repeat a point I have made countless times, including earlier in this thread. It is unfair to compared music that is in the public domain and is free to perform and record to works that are copyrighted where one has to pay royalties to the composer or his estate.


It's very true. The high costs of renting orchestral parts (forget buying them) is an obstacle for many orchestras. I remember years ago playing in an ensemble that had hired parts to play Francaix from Schott the publisher and it was very expensive. Enough to dissuade them from future forays.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> So, during the early 20th century, the composers you mention, plus Bartok, Ives, Rachmaninoff etc. were being practically totally ignored until later; classical music was just one big wasteland except for pre-1900 music. I don't think so. But let's say it was. Then, presumably they were recognized by the mid 20th century, 20-30 years later. Now here we are, 67 years since the mid 20th century: As *larold* implies above: Where are the great contemporary composers? Where are the great works that have captured the attention of the classical music audience? How much time do you want?


You're exasperating. Yes, they were being more-or-less ignored apart from the ever-small minority who were promoting 'new music' (which means _current_ music). A group usually including fellow composers, who generally have wider tastes and a better handle on musical developments than the listener.

Rachmaninov was always popular, so let's forget about him. Ives has never been mainstream. Bartok is only partially popular; his Orchestra and Percussion piece can be quoted and his quartets, but he's someone to point to for people who generally hate modern music, but are afraid of looking like they are stuck in 1860. He is rarely programmed.

Plenty composers from the 20th century are acknowledged as having written fine music, so I don't really acknowledge the negative point you are attempting to make. If you're looking for a new Mozart or Beethoven, forget it. They were also looking for that and making comparisons in the 19th century.



DaveM said:


> So, there are works, composed in the last few decades, on the level of Bach's Toccata & Fugue sitting out there undiscovered? With the internet and YouTube?


Is this in response to something I claimed? I don't see it. My mention of Bach's Toccata and Fugue made no claim that other works are 'on its level', although as it happens I think there are lots of later works that are as good or better. I'm not religious about Bach, there's no mileage in that sort of thing.


----------



## arpeggio

Oh gosh. We are having to read another snobbish post that the only great music is 18th and 19th century. So what? Just because a living composer may not be as great as Beethoven does not mean he is a total loser. If Mozart can not save classical music I seriously doubt that a living composer who sounds like Mozart can do it.


----------



## Gordontrek

eugeneonagain said:


> Plenty composers from the 20th century are acknowledged as having written fine music, so I don't really acknowledge the negative point you are attempting to make. If you're looking for a new Mozart or Beethoven, forget it. They were also looking for that and making comparisons in the 19th century.


The accepted "canon" with audiences today basically stops with Ravel; maybe only Shostakovich is the exception. But in the minds of the regular audience member they're in the same camp as Brahms and Dvorak.
The point that I think is trying to be advanced here is that "modern" classical, from the Second Viennese School forward, still is not popular with audiences, and that is significant. Take the popular claim that defenders of modern classical often use- "Beethoven's 9th was panned when it first came out; it took several years to be recognized universally as a masterwork." True, but how long? Within ten years at the most? The avant-garde pioneered by Schoenberg and co. has had more than 70 years to get popular, but hasn't. Why not? As you noted, most of the attention it gets seems to be from the "ever-small minority"- in this case composers, theorists, and especially conductors who program it, but of course must finish off the program with a nice spoonful of Tchaikovsky to keep people in the hall.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Gordontrek said:


> The accepted "canon" with audiences today basically stops with Ravel; maybe only Shostakovich is the exception. But in the minds of the regular audience member they're in the same camp as Brahms and Dvorak.
> The point that I think is trying to be advanced here is that "modern" classical, from the Second Viennese School forward, still is not popular with audiences, and that is significant. Take the popular claim that defenders of modern classical often use- "Beethoven's 9th was panned when it first came out; it took several years to be recognized universally as a masterwork." True, but how long? Within ten years at the most? The avant-garde pioneered by Schoenberg and co. has had more than 70 years to get popular, but hasn't. Why not? As you noted, most of the attention it gets seems to be from the "ever-small minority"- in this case composers, theorists, and especially conductors who program it, but of course must finish off the program with a nice spoonful of Tchaikovsky to keep people in the hall.


Honestly I don't see this problem. There's this fantasy that 'classical' music before Schoenberg was some sort of mass movement enjoyed by all - or even able to be enjoyed by all, it was relatively small. There were, and still are, people who don't even like what people here acknowledge as the rock-bottom, unquestionable classics (though this gets added to piecemeal as time rolls on).

The fact that music of the Viennese School (an historical and quite brief moment) isn't popular with a mass audience who want whistle-able tunes and a great thumping theme like Wagner's rousing Tannhäuser overture to ensure they had a proper night of "classical", is neither here nor there with regard to the merits of music. It's relevant to why it isn't *popular*, but that question has been answered already numerous times: to wit, the rise of popular music in the 20th century and ossification of the largely fixed classical music canon.

Back up there in the thread I mentioned how the music of composers like Hindemith (and there are many like him, Bartok, Prokofiev and then the many other lesser European composers who fled Nazism and finished up in Hollywood) whose music informed the music that entered the film music canon, which is largely where classical music went as a mainstream outlet.


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> You're exasperating.


Something my wife will corroborate. 



> Yes, they were being more-or-less ignored apart from the ever-small minority who were promoting 'new music' (which means _current_ music). A group usually including fellow composers, who generally have wider tastes and a better handle on musical developments than the listener. Rachmaninov was always popular, so let's forget about him. Ives has never been mainstream. Bartok is only partially popular; his Orchestra and Percussion piece can be quoted and his quartets, but he's someone to point to for people who generally hate modern music, but are afraid of looking like they are stuck in 1860. He is rarely programmed.Plenty composers from the 20th century are acknowledged as having written fine music, so I don't really acknowledge the negative point you are attempting to make. If you're looking for a new Mozart or Beethoven, forget it. They were also looking for that and making comparisons in the 19th century.


Addressing the OP: The point is not that there wasn't any fine music written in the 20th century. It is that there has not been composers that have composed the sort of works that have captured the attention of classical listeners enough to sustain and grow classical music in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Yes, there are other reasons, already mentioned, that are contributory, but IMO, they are secondary.



> Is this in response to something I claimed? I don't see it. My mention of Bach's Toccata and Fugue made no claim that other works are 'on its level', although as it happens I think there are lots of later works that are as good or better. I'm not religious about Bach, there's no mileage in that sort of thing.


Refer to the quote below. The inference is that there are undiscovered 20th century gems out there. Perhaps so, but if you use Bach's Toccata & Fugue as an early 18th century example, inevitably you are raising the bar as to the potential quality of those undiscovered masterworks, something hard to believe with the reach of the internet and YouTube.



eugeneonagain said:


> However, in reality there are loads of works that are great music that haven't 'captured the attention of the world'. A great deal of the most famous works of the past didn't necessarily become world famous in their own time - indeed several were virtually unknown, Bach's Toccata & Fugue in Dm being one example.


----------



## Phil loves classical

There hasn’t been a contemporary piece of music that can compare with the Rite of Spring in terms of originality, complexity, and harmony, rhythmic variety, which is why that is the most popular modern piece of music. Plus the underlying musical concepts of even the most “difficult” contemporary music have been around since the early 20th century. The music is for a niche market in general, as its taste is not really universal.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> The audiences of premières in earlier musical eras were very different from audiences of known 'scandal premières' of later eras: *Church premières* for a long time. Later almost exclusively *private aristocratic courts; aristocrats in concert halls; *small gatherings in private houses of...the aristocracy. So *the composer was writing wholly or partially for someone else rather than his own artistic desires.* What audience in this milieu would have kicked up a fuss? There was only a tiny audience being catered to: God or a ruling aristocrat.
> 
> Only later in Europe (post French Revolution), when other classes like the merchant class and others in the middle class could occupy the roles of patron that were before the preserve of the church, do we see a different audience. Not all the attendees would be at a performance merely to be seen in the 'correct' surroundings with the 'correct' people. Most would have paid to see and hear the music/performer so being dissatisfied, and also in a position to express this, we are more likely to hear about it.
> The famous scandal performances of the early 20th century, the Stravinsky _Rite of Spring_, the _Skandalkonzert_, the ballet _Parade_ occurred for reasons other than just simple changes in popular musical accessibility. These were premièred at a period of great social change and also during a period (in Paris and Vienna) when many new artistic movements were appearing and their adherents clashing with one another.
> The disruption of _Parade_ in 1917 was not a musically disgruntled audience, but opposing artistic factions - mostly Dadaist and early surrealists attacking Picasso's décor. The music itself was favourably received by a majority only being trashed by a few critics and that's not unique.
> 
> *Not only art changed between the 18th-20th centuries, but also the reception of art.*


Your final point is certainly correct. I take it as complementing, rather than refuting, mine.

You do seem to imply that composers for the church and the court, being in the direct employ of those institutions, would have written rather differently, perhaps more creatively and with less regard for the tastes of their listeners, had their music been destined for public concerts. I find that questionable. Composers still had to make a living, and I'm not at all sure that baring one's creative soul for the anonymous and fickle John Q. Public and hoping that he'll buy a season's subscription is a more musically liberating prospect than writing for skilled professionals under one's own direction at the court of Count Esterhazy or the Margrave of Brandenburg.

I also want to point out that I didn't attribute any failed premieres to "simple changes in popular musical accessibility." As you suggest, most of the famous scandals had at least as much to do with non-musical circumstances as with the music itself. Bizet's _Carmen_ and Stravinsky's _ Sacre_ didn't wait long for popular acclaim, and sometimes the acceptance of new music by the public was ahead of that of critics with axes to grind.


----------



## KenOC

Let’s not forget that the music scene was a bit different “back then.” From Mozart through Beethoven, the norm was a performer/composer (Haydn and some others had more specialized berths as Kapellmeisters and so forth). Composers often made their livings as much by being virtuosi as by composing. Cooper estimates that Beethoven lost half his income when he had to give up performing – a cruel blow.

Income from concerts of symphonies and so forth was chancy, because it cost a lot of money to prepare the parts, hire the bands, and rent the hall. There were not many mega-successes like Beethoven found with his Wellington’s Victory. So for Ludwig and others, the bulk of their income was from the sale of solo and chamber music to publishers, with payments depending on the publishers’ estimates of how many copies of the sheet music might be sold. Again, Beethoven did pretty well; in his late life, published scores of his works were snatched up not only for performance but for “study.”

Just saying that the way we estimate popularity today might not be totally appropriate to other times. In particular, basing assessments only on orchestral performances may be quite misleading.


----------



## Guest

We also enjoy polishing the arguments of the past. Ross' article was written in 2010, a quarter of a generation ago. Isn't it time to move one?


----------



## science

It seems to me that modern[ist] classical music isn't aiming for huge widespread popularity, and that is the kind of target you usually won't hit unless you aim for it.

I also believe that modern[ist] classical music should not aim for huge widespread popularity, because doing so would change many of the things I love about it.

And finally, I even believe that some members of the audience (and perhaps sometimes the composer and performers) of modern[ist] classical music actually get a bit of a buzz out of its unpopularity, so that when some of it became relatively popular at least some of us decide we'd rather listen to something else. Which is great. This is a fantastic part of the human condition. The desire to be different stimulates creativity.

All things considered, however, I do not believe that modern[ist] classical music is actually as unpopular as some people like to believe. It's more popular, for example, than big band jazz, or pansori, or jug band music, or tango nuevo, or any number of other traditions.


----------



## Blancrocher

Classical composers should produce better music videos. A still cover shot of your album is not likely to result in many up-votes.


----------



## Agamemnon

isorhythm said:


> This topic is already exhausted, and exhausting,


Perhaps that's true; it's hard to be original in coming up with new topics after years of debate on almost everything on this forum. Yet I do think that the topic - which is slightly different from the usual discussions on atonality and Cage - has generated a lot of interesting - and maybe even some fresh - insights. It has definitely enriched my knowledge. So I think the topic is a success and I thank all contributors!


----------



## isorhythm

Agamemnon said:


> Perhaps that's true; it's hard to be original in coming up with new topics after years of debate on almost everything on this forum. Yet I do think that the topic - which is slightly different from the usual discussions on atonality and Cage - has generated a lot of interesting - and maybe even some fresh - insights. It has definitely enriched my knowledge. So I think the topic is a success and I thank all contributors!


To my surprise, it has.


----------



## Simon Moon

As the OP and others have already hit on, the problem has several different facets.

The one I see the most here on TC by those that don't listen to modern classical, is that modern classical seems to get painted with the same broad brush post after post. It's always portrayed as being atonal, thorny, noisey, etc. Which ignores so much (maybe even the majority) of modern classical which does not fit this description. 

It's like, listeners were exposed to one or two pieces in their past that fit the above description, then decided that all modern pieces and composers sound the same. Without actually exploring the breadth of what really is available from modern composers. 

With non classical listeners, the problem may be (possibly perpetuated by classical listeners themselves), they believe that classical, especially modern classical music, is for elitists and intellectuals. 

Anther possible problem is that, how many people have the time and attention span to concentrate on 30 minute+ concertos and symphonies. Remember, the vast majority of music listeners these days, is listening to MP3s, on their phones, with $20 IEMs, while they're are doing almost anything else, besides really paying attention to what they are listening to. I don't see it being too likely that someone in the gym, or doing chores around the house, is going to be putting on Penderecki's 2nd violin concerto.


----------



## DaveM

Simon Moon said:


> As the OP and others have already hit on, the problem has several different facets.
> 
> The one I see the most here on TC by those that don't listen to modern classical, is that modern classical seems to get painted with the same broad brush post after post. It's always portrayed as being atonal, thorny, noisey, etc. Which ignores so much (maybe even the majority) of modern classical which does not fit this description.
> 
> It's like, listeners were exposed to one or two pieces in their past that fit the above description, then decided that all modern pieces and composers sound the same. Without actually exploring the breadth of what really is available from modern composers.


Particularly, when it comes to listeners who have been on TC for any length of time, I don't think that's true. We've had so many threads on this subject where examples have been posted of modern works that the poster thinks should be appreciated. There have been countless modern works by countless composers posted. Speaking for myself, decision-making as to what I like or don't like has not been made in a vacuum.


----------



## Blancrocher

There should probably be more beer at contemporary classical concerts.


----------



## fluteman

Sigh. To me, where so many of these threads wander off into the dark wood is in their opening premise, here stated in the original post's title. When was classical music ever popular? True, there was a bubble from the early 1900s to the 1960s created by the phonograph and broadcast radio and TV. Those technologies suddenly brought the opera and symphony to the rising, ambitious middle class, where it had mainly been the domain of the wealthy aristocracy. 
The middle class had been rising before that, but if a family wanted to hear Beethoven's symphonies they had to buy a piano for the parlor (there were hundreds of piano makers in America alone in the late 19th century) and someone had to learn how to play it well enough to play the piano transcriptions of Beethoven symphonies and other classical standards that were available in the sheet music that sold like hotcakes at the time.
The sudden easy and cheap availability of classical music enabled a series of great performers from Enrico Caruso to Van Cliburn to rise to greater popular stardom than they ever would have in previous centuries. Alas, the tide began to turn in the mid 1960s. The scope and pervasiveness of broadcast radio and TV, and the ready availability of LPs, meant any sort of music or other entertainment was easily available to anyone. The digital era and the internet increased that scope and availability many times over. The classical music fad inevitably faded.
Other factors that have been mentioned in this thread are also relevant, but it has little to do with the merits of "modern" music. Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner and Tchaikovsky have also faded away, and will even more so as those of us who grew up in the 50s and 60s disappear. However, I do believe that great music, and art in general, has a timeless quality that will keep it from disappearing entirely from our culture.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Woodduck said:


> ...
> Only a small minority of people have ever thought of music as something that required intentional effort or active attention. Popular music has seldom required it; its appeal is immediate and effortless, and that's why it's popular. Given this, it's not unreasonable to assume that people who enjoy classical music have the same basic attitude; they will tend to prefer music that is most easily comprehended and enjoyed with the least effort. People just don't see musical enjoyment as something to _work_ for, or even have a clear idea of what "work" means in this context. And of course there is no reason why they should. Music is for pleasure.
> ...


Back in the days when I taught, I used to introduce my students to the concept of "difficult pleasures". I was instructing in the literature of Sophocles, Dante, and Shakespeare, which they often found difficult to ingest, and on the occasion that one of the more astute ones would question me with some form of "Do you _really_ like reading this stuff?" I would counter with some form of "Certainly. It's much more pleasurable than comic books." Of course, I always had a bevy of comic book readers (when I had readers at all) so I would segue into my talk on "difficult pleasures." But I wouldn't use the topics of discussion in the class -- Sophocles, Dante, Shakespeare -- but rather would tap into something more familiar to my students. Something like ... skateboarding.

When you get your first skateboard, I would say, you feel pretty good when you acquire the ability to role along for several yards without falling off and busting up your face. And you enjoy the "simple pleasure" of skateboarding at its most elemental level. But most skateboarders aren't content to just roll along without fear of falling off. They seek greater challenges on the board. And with practice, and time, they begin to explore the various "tricks" of the board -- flipping, grinding, sliding, grabbing ... And these various tricks bring pleasures of their own. And once one learns how to do these tricks, without much worry of busting up one's face, one experiences a "difficult pleasure." And the top skateboarders, those ones we watch in the Olympic Games or wherever, do remarkable things. And even if you can't do such things, you _can_ intuit that such things are "fun", on a grander scale than rolling along for a few yards without falling off. And of course, once one gets to the competitive level of the master skaters one has little joy in the simple task of just rolling along without falling off the board. The experience of difficult pleasures changes one -- it changes attitudes and feelings and expectations and experience itself.

Granted, I don't listen much to Top 40 pop music via AM radio anymore. There once was a time when I did, and it was the source of some pleasure for me. But I can hardly enjoy that now, having learned to flip and grind and slide and grab in the universe of classical (serious) music. And in the star system of contemporary art music. For as incomprehensible as it may be to many, I actually do enjoy listening to Xenakis, Boulez, and Penderecki much more than I do to ABBA or the Beach Boys. Yet, in some strange way, my journey into serious art music has given me a greater appreciation for the "art" in such artists as ABBA and the Beach Boys. I just don't enjoy their music as much today as I once did. But it takes more effort to listen to a Xenakis piece, more "work". But the pleasure seems greater somehow, more fulfilling, than that I receive from listening to pop.

I sometimes miss the simple joy of hearing Top 40 music with the great interest and pleasure I once did, but I also know I am in a better place now where the difficulties of Bach, Beethoven, Schubert, Wagner, Debussy, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Xenakis and Cage, among others, can now greatly please and satisfy. And I do not regret losing the joys of simple pleasures for those of more difficult pleasures.

Interestingly enough, many of us evolve into _different_ areas of difficult pleasures, and I know that those of literature and music aren't for everyone. For myself, I remain a novice at skateboarding, and I can still derive some simple joy at being able to roll along for several yards without falling off the board and busting my face. Unfortunately, I possess neither the interest nor the time to pursue this task into the realm of the difficult pleasures. Alas.... My loss, I suspect.


----------



## eugeneonagain

^ Brilliant post which captures the process. I'd only say that I still get pleasure from listening to pop music of my own youth, but not in the euphoric way a lot of my teenage peers did (and, for some, still do).


----------



## JamieHoldham

People are really overthinking this question I feel - it's quite simple why modern music isn't successful......

money, and greed.

Modern classical music has little to no profit as well as demand, therefore it isn't particularly popular - whereas pop music, jazz, ect is - because it makes money and lines the pockets of people who value money, personal wealth and power over trying to put extra effort for little reward.

Follow the money.


----------



## gustavdimitri

In the old days you had folk music and the elitair classic music ...
Nowadays you have all sorts of music, and modern ´classical´ music is just one tiny elitair part of it ...
The modern ´classical´ scene looks like the experimentals from the 60ties ... who does really understand them?
Don´t get me wrong, I love all sorts of music, eclectic as I am!


----------



## eugeneonagain

What is 'elitair'?


----------



## gustavdimitri

Sorry, I used the wrong word... the english word is elitist...


----------



## eugeneonagain

Geen probleem. Ik zie nu pas dat je uit Nederland komt. Ik had het moeten weten


----------



## Agamemnon

There seems to be a lot of Dutch people on this forum: already since the 17th century we Dutch people swarm the globe and now we've found the digital highways to pop up everywhere on the web and confuse the rest with our broken English.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Agamemnon said:


> There seems to be a lot of Dutch people on this forum: already since the 17th century we Dutch people swarm the globe and now we've found the digital highways to pop up everywhere on the web and confuse the rest with our broken English.


Along with the Irish.


----------



## Botschaft

fluteman said:


> Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner and Tchaikovsky have also faded away, and will even more so as those of us who grew up in the 50s and 60s disappear.


Nonsense. How have they faded away? They are still among the composers most frequently performed by orchestras all around the world; Mozart was the top selling composer last year. When was classical music ever popular? I say _today_. It might not be as generally popular among the educated classes as it once were, but it's still going quite strong. The same (with few exceptions) can hardly be said of modernist or contemporary "classical" music (an oxymoron if I've ever heard one).


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

And you hear complaining about why is there a new Beethoven symphony cycle going on sale. If it was not selling no one would produce them.


----------



## tortkis

According to bachtrack 2016 statistics, in UK and USA, there were as many contemporary music concerts as Classical era music. If "Contemporary" in this statistics means the 21st century classical, it seems to be doing well also in other countries considering its short period of time. I don't know how much in "20th Century" is "modernism" music, but together with "Contemporary", the 20th & 21st music is as popular as Romantic except for Germany, Austria and Japan.


----------



## Nereffid

tortkis said:


> According to bachtrack 2016 statistics, in UK and USA, there were as many contemporary music concerts as Classical era music. If "Contemporary" in this statistics means the 21st century classical, it seems to be doing well also in other countries considering its short period of time. I don't know how much in "20th Century" is "modernism" music, but together with "Contemporary", the 20th & 21st music is as popular as Romantic except for Germany, Austria and Japan.


Yes, it looks like 20th/21st century music makes up 40% of concert music in the UK, about the same as Classical/Romantic. Of course one statistic doesn't tell the full story, but it's a useful data point in these sorts of discussions.
Interesting to note that the top 10 composers and works are all Classical/Romantic. Although modern music _overall_ is just as popular, the greater number and diversity of composers presumably makes its popularity less obvious.


----------



## Botschaft

Nereffid said:


> Yes, it looks like 20th/21st century music makes up 40% of concert music in the UK, about the same as Classical/Romantic. Of course one statistic doesn't tell the full story, but it's a useful data point in these sorts of discussions.
> Interesting to note that the top 10 composers and works are all Classical/Romantic. Although modern music _overall_ is just as popular, the greater number and diversity of composers presumably makes its popularity less obvious.


I guess quantity has a quality all its own.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Nereffid said:


> Yes, it looks like 20th/21st century music makes up 40% of concert music in the UK, about the same as Classical/Romantic. Of course one statistic doesn't tell the full story, but it's a useful data point in these sorts of discussions.
> Interesting to note that the top 10 composers and works are all Classical/Romantic. Although modern music _overall_ is just as popular, the greater number and diversity of composers presumably makes its popularity less obvious.


I wonder what percentage of those from the 20th and 21st were born in the UK or would it also include a lot of works from Americans from that time frame.


----------



## mmsbls

The graph people are discussing shows the percentage of works performed as a function of era (Classical, Romantic, Modern...). The works can be composed by anyone so we don't know the nationality of the composers.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

mmsbls said:


> The graph people are discussing shows the percentage of works performed as a function of era (Classical, Romantic, Modern...). The works can be composed by anyone so we don't know the nationality of the composers.


The UK had several big composers in the 20th century including Vaughan Williams, Benjamin Britten, Edward Elgar so I could see a lot of their works being performed in the UK.


----------



## mmsbls

I suspect that Vaughan Williams, Benjamin Britten, and Edward Elgar might very well be performed more often in the UK.


----------



## Michael Diemer

It may be much simpler than all this. Music connects with people on a visceral, emotional level. Most modern music does not connect with people this way. This is not to say it has no merit, that is far from the case. but its merit is appreciated only by a select subset of the population. If there is no emotional reaction, most people just aren't going to "get it." and they therefore will avoid it. Simple as that. Music is different than the other arts. It's a "hot" medium, to use McLuhan-esque terminology. The visual medium of pictorial art is much "cooler." Music involves you deeply, you respond to it in almost primal ways. Other art forms are more static. Music gets inside of you, you participate in it. There are other artforms that are hot, like theater. That also involves you in powerful ways. Opera may be the most powerful of all, as it combines music and theater. It pulls you in the moment the curtain rises, and doesn't let go. Our senses are linked to our emotions. Music is the most emotional artform. But this can also vary across individuals. While pictorial arts are in general cooler, some people may react quite emotionaly to them, while music leaves them flat. There are even people who have "amusia," that is, they do not get music at all. It is just noise to them, usually unpleasant. So there can be individual differences in all this, but in general, I think that music is for most of us an emotional experience. That's what most people look for, that 's what they expect. When it's not there, they move on.


----------



## mmsbls

Michael Diemer said:


> It may be much simpler than all this. Music connects with people on a visceral, emotional level. Most modern music does not connect with people this way. This is not to say it has no merit, that is far from the case. but its merit is appreciated only by a select subset of the population. If there is no emotional reaction, most people just aren't going to "get it." and they therefore will avoid it. Simple as that. Music is different than the other arts. It's a "hot" medium, to use McLuhan-esque terminology. The visual medium of pictorial art is much "cooler." Music involves you deeply, you respond to it in almost primal ways. Other art forms are more static. Music gets inside of you, you participate in it. There are other artforms that are hot, like theater. That also involves you in powerful ways. Opera may be the most powerful of all, as it combines music and theater. It pulls you in the moment the curtain rises, and doesn't let go. Our senses are linked to our emotions. Music is the most emotional artform. But this can also vary across individuals. While pictorial arts are in general cooler, some people may react quite emotionaly to them, while music leaves them flat. There are even people who have "amusia," that is, they do not get music at all. It is just noise to them, usually unpleasant. So there can be individual differences in all this, but in general, I think that music is for most of us an emotional experience. That's what most people look for, that 's what they expect. When it's not there, they move on.


I agree with everything you say about music here. The question would then be why does much modern music not connect emotionally with most classical music listeners the way earlier classical era music does, Several people at TC have given possible reasons for this apparent fact. My biggest questions revolve around the issue of whether the answer has more to do with innate structures in the brain and features of modern music or with most people's conditioning to other styles of music (predominantly common practice tonality).


----------



## Michael Diemer

mmsbls said:


> I agree with everything you say about music here. The question would then be why does much modern music not connect emotionally with most classical music listeners the way earlier classical era music does, Several people at TC have given possible reasons for this apparent fact. My biggest questions revolve around the issue of whether the answer has more to do with innate structures in the brain and features of modern music or with most people's conditioning to other styles of music (predominantly common practice tonality).


Ah, the old Nature vs Nurture thing. Before I respond, I need to do what I should have done before my first reply, which is to read all the other posts in this thread. I'm new to this forum, and am not used to a place where there is so much activity!


----------



## mmsbls

Michael Diemer said:


> Ah, the old Nature vs Nurture thing. Before I respond, I need to do what I should have done before my first reply, which is to read all the other posts in this thread. I'm new to this forum, and am not used to a place where there is so much activity!


Yes, although I think the true answer would be some combination of both. Some members have said they came to TC from progressive rock and other avant-garde (?) styles of popular music, and they found modern music easier to appreciate than older styles. I found that rather interesting. Still I think one would need detailed, large statistics studies to understand if CPT conditioning were the significant hurdle for many people. Those studies would likely be somewhat difficult to conduct.


----------



## EdwardBast

mmsbls said:


> I agree with everything you say about music here. *The question would then be why does much modern music not connect emotionally with most classical music listeners the way earlier classical era music does*, Several people at TC have given possible reasons for this apparent fact. My biggest questions revolve around the issue of whether the answer has more to do with innate structures in the brain and features of modern music or with most people's conditioning to other styles of music (predominantly common practice tonality).


My guess is that it's because the forms of earlier classical music are specifically designed to mimic, and therefore derive their coherence from, meaningful patterns in human emotional experience; It's baked into the structure. Expression is not (only) the goal of this music, it is its means and substance. For example, ternary form (standard ABA or modified, ABA') is the dominant form of short piano works in the 19th and 20thcs because it embodies some of the most basic meaningful plots of emotional life: An initial stable condition is challenged in the central section and restored or modified in the last. Just think of how many human story types that covers: contentment broken by grief but eventually restored, anguish temporarily evaded through fantasy but doomed in the end, longing fulfilled but later frustrated, naive joy threatened and then restored in a darker form. The form works because so many meaningful chapters of human experience also unfold in ternary patterns.

Much modern music does not rely on the patterns of emotional life for its structures. Is there any reason it should or must?


----------



## Phil loves classical

Easy answer in my view. Traditional music is more consonant (at least in the way we are either brought up or naturally hear with perfect intervals), harmonizes, modulates and resolves in straight forward, satisfying ways (I know this may sound relative but as some argued, it isn’t). There is no place like home (key).


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

EdwardBast said:


> My guess is that it's because the forms of earlier classical music are specifically designed to mimic, and therefore derive their coherence from, meaningful patterns in human emotional experience; It's baked into the structure. Expression is not (only) the goal of this music, it is its means and substance. For example, ternary form (standard ABA or modified, ABA') is the dominant form of short piano works in the 19th and 20thcs because it embodies some of the most basic meaningful plots of emotional life: An initial stable condition is challenged in the central section and restored or modified in the last. Just think of how many human story types that covers: contentment broken by grief but eventually restored, anguish temporarily evaded through fantasy but doomed in the end, longing fulfilled but later frustrated, naive joy threatened and then restored in a darker form. The form works because so many meaningful chapters of human experience also unfold in ternary patterns.
> 
> Much modern music does not rely on the patterns of emotional life for its structures. Is there any reason it should or must?


No it does not have to rely on those patterns but composers of post modern music should not complain if most people do not like their music or want to support it.


----------



## mmsbls

Johnnie Burgess said:


> No it does not have to rely on those patterns but composers of post modern music should not complain if most people do not like their music or want to support it.


Some people may lobby for support of art or more specifically support for contemporary composers or music, but I wonder how many composers actually complain about the public not supporting their own music?


----------



## Blancrocher

mmsbls said:


> Some people may lobby for support of art or more specifically support for contemporary composers or music, but I wonder how many composers actually complain about the public not supporting their own music?


That's one thing that makes me miss the Romantic period-I have faith that many composers from that time would make a sordid scene by regularly berating the listening public at large.


----------



## Michael Diemer

Well, I have read all the posts in this thread. Many good points made, such as copyright issues, the greed of the music industry, neurological factors and many others. I must admit, I am more confused after reading all this than I was before. This tells me that we have something rather complictaed here. I don't know that we can ever sort out the relative importance of such factors as peer pressure (young people listen to what everybody else listens to); the control of radio bandwidth by the music industry, which populates the airwaves with almot everything but classical music, new or old; innate responses to tonal versus atonal music; how well plants grow when bathed with Mozart versus Rap; and so on. It may be that all this and more figures into the equation. Hopelessly complicated, like most human phenomena.


----------



## Larkenfield

——-cancelled——-


----------



## arpeggio

As I have stated in many threads, including this one, one of the factors that determines the performance of contemporary music are the rental fees publishers charge orchestras for works that are not in the public domain.

We had a rehearsal tonight with the McLean Symphony. One of the works we will be performing in our June concert will be William Grant Still's _Symphony Number 1_. Even though the work was composed in 1934 it is still covered by copyright. We had to pay the publisher $1,000 to rent the parts. This is a lot of money for a small community orchestra. We received a gift from a patron that help us pay the fee. Without the gift we would have not been able to program the work.

After the rehearsal I was discussing the rental situation with our conductor. He was bemoaning the fact that publisher want groups to perform the music they publish but the exorbitant rental fees make it very difficult.


----------



## janxharris

arpeggio said:


> As I have stated in many threads, including this one, one of the factors that determines the performance of contemporary music are the rental fees publishers charge orchestras for works that are not in the public domain.
> 
> We had a rehearsal tonight with the McLean Symphony. One of the works we will be performing in our June concert will be William Grant Still's _Symphony Number 1_. Even though the work was composed in 1934 it is still covered by copyright. We had to pay the publisher $1,000 to rent the parts. This is a lot of money for a small community orchestra. We received a gift from a patron that help us pay the fee. Without the gift we would have not been able to program the work.
> 
> After the rehearsal I was discussing the rental situation with our conductor. He was bemoaning the fact that publisher want groups to perform the music they publish but the exorbitant rental fees make it very difficult.


How much do you think the composer should get? (He gets half the $1,000 fee). Is he alive - probably not?


----------



## paulbest

arpeggio said:


> As I have stated in many threads, including this one, one of the factors that determines the performance of contemporary music are the rental fees publishers charge orchestras for works that are not in the public domain.
> 
> We had a rehearsal tonight with the McLean Symphony. One of the works we will be performing in our June concert will be William Grant Still's _Symphony Number 1_. Even though the work was composed in 1934 it is still covered by copyright. We had to pay the publisher $1,000 to rent the parts. This is a lot of money for a small community orchestra. We received a gift from a patron that help us pay the fee. Without the gift we would have not been able to program the work.
> 
> After the rehearsal I was discussing the rental situation with our conductor. He was bemoaning the fact that publisher want groups to perform the music they publish but the exorbitant rental fees make it very difficult.


This is ludicrous , considering music is a free art form. Composers like Schnittke would be appalled knowing his music is hampered from performance due to *the money factor* , His music was a statement against the monetary machine. I mean sure orchestra members have bills to pay like all of us, it is they who should receive all donations/ticket sales profits not the holder of the score.

Here let me see if I can make a link to a post I just made on another topic, which deals with this Q of how can we get more Mahlerites away from Mahler and into modern composers :lol:

Who has beaten Mahler at his own game?


----------



## janxharris

paulbest said:


> This is ludicrous , considering music is a free art form. Composers like Schnittke would be appalled knowing his music is hampered from performance due to *the money factor* , His music was a statement against the monetary machine. I mean sure orchestra members have bills to pay like all of us, it is they who should receive all donations/ticket sales profits not the holder of the score.


So the composer need not be paid? Orchestral members have bills but composers don't?


----------



## paulbest

janxharris said:


> How much do you think the composer should get? (He gets half the $1,000 fee). Is he alive - probably not?


Along with orch/conductors receiving the profits from ticket sales, the composers heirs should also be greatly benefited , Its only fair.

Modern music concert venues, spread across the country, with budget ticket prices, doors open Friday at noon through 10PM, Sunday 10am to 6PM (all day? Yes , you know churches do business all day sunday,,and look how successful they've become, Joel Osteen sings bad, real bad, and he's a millionaire, JUNT THINK, if Joel can get huge all day sunday crowds flocking and fleecing in, why can't the REAL DEAL music become even more successful??
I'm serious here. 
You take the huge evangelical crowds and bus them out of Lakewood church, down the street to the all day modern music concert hall, ,,why you'd have them *running the isles, jumping benches*.
faces beaming with joy upon leaving the venue. ,,I mean to say, Henze, Schnittke , perhaps even the music of Pettersson , they might experience a real true catharsis , a real Eleusinian mystery experience.

Yaeh Henze would *blow their minds*. 
This is what I'm talking about
A new transformed America, where music now connects us in a brotherly environment, where love reigns. The music of our beloved modern masters, would bring us to a New America, where the lying/cheatin factor is diminished to nil. 
A New World where the race issue evaporates, where men and women relate in love, fidelity. 
This is what I believe modern music has the inherent power to bring to us. 
The old religion won't work any longer. I was a evangelical back in 1978-1980, its a fraud, a scam. Its fake. 
Modern music is The New Eleusinian Mystery, which takes broken lives and makes them complete. Better than any Jungian psyche session for sure.

If we can work this out, together, I know lives will be touched, folks healed, folks redeemed. 
AND! here's the good thing in all this, folks like Joel Osteen can sell his snakeoil and make huge profits , he may end up living in a Tiny Home, as he can't pay his mortgage on his $12M mansion.
I am telling you as a ex rock and roller,a ex religious fan-atic, ,,from experience, modern music has the power, the potential to heal and transform us into Sons of God. 
You too can become a Henzeian, a Schnittkeian, a Petterssonian. 
You only gotta believe, with faith.
Paul 
, The Ravelian, and all Ians mentioned above. 
way down south in the Big easy


----------



## paulbest

janxharris said:


> So the composer need not be paid? Orchestral members have bills but composers don't?


Yes , you can read my long winded rant above, where i do agree composers/heirs should receive their due.


----------



## millionrainbows

If somebody listens to this recording, and doesn't like it, then there is no hope for them. You either like it, or not.


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> If somebody listens to this recording, and doesn't like it, then there is no hope for them. You either like it, or not.
> 
> View attachment 116991


Well, the Stockhausen Kontra-Punkte on that album is an answer to the question posed by the OP title.


----------



## mbhaub

arpeggio said:


> As I have stated in many threads, including this one, one of the factors that determines the performance of contemporary music are the rental fees publishers charge orchestras for works that are not in the public domain.
> 
> We had a rehearsal tonight with the McLean Symphony. One of the works we will be performing in our June concert will be William Grant Still's _Symphony Number 1_. Even though the work was composed in 1934 it is still covered by copyright. We had to pay the publisher $1,000 to rent the parts. This is a lot of money for a small community orchestra. We received a gift from a patron that help us pay the fee. Without the gift we would have not been able to program the work.
> 
> After the rehearsal I was discussing the rental situation with our conductor. He was bemoaning the fact that publisher want groups to perform the music they publish but the exorbitant rental fees make it very difficult.


By coincidence, one of my orchestras is also playing the Still Afro-American symphony and paying the rental fee. Whenever people ask why we don't play more modern music I simply tell them "we can't afford it". This season alone we've played Pictures at an Exhibition in the Ravel version ($800), Carmina Burana ($1000 - and that didn't include the choral parts), a flute/harp concerto by Liebermann ($750), and some pricey items by Copland, Moncayo, Khachaturian and others. I get it: publishers incur huge costs engraving and printing, composers should be paid, but holy cow! it's gotten expensive out there.


----------



## apricissimus

mbhaub said:


> By coincidence, one of my orchestras is also playing the Still Afro-American symphony and paying the rental fee. Whenever people ask why we don't play more modern music I simply tell them "we can't afford it". This season alone we've played Pictures at an Exhibition in the Ravel version ($800), Carmina Burana ($1000 - and that didn't include the choral parts), a flute/harp concerto by Liebermann ($750), and some pricey items by Copland, Moncayo, Khachaturian and others. I get it: publishers incur huge costs engraving and printing, composers should be paid, but holy cow! it's gotten expensive out there.


I don't know anything about the costs of music publishing, but wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to typeset and print music now with computer aided music notation software? Part of me thinks is is mostly just rent-seeking, particularly for scores that are several decades old (or older), like some of the pieces you mention.


----------



## paulbest

mmsbls said:


> Some members have said they came to TC from progressive rock and other avant-garde (?) styles of popular music, and they found modern music easier to appreciate than older styles. .


Yes, I came out of the Jimi Hendrix experience,,,,this partly explains why I am not fond of Bach, Beethoven and countless other classical/romantic composers.
its its old and its *hip* I will like it. Its its old and stale, no.
From Hendrix to bach, that's a pretty giant leap I'd say...

Which mainly explains why I love composers that are *far out*, music that CRUSHES me.
I mean Allman Brothers Wearhouse New orleans 1970, , yeah , blow my mind with Schnittke. Like can you dig it?


----------



## flamencosketches

http://fineartoflistening.com/?p=450

Does anyone here agree with the premise of this amateur essay? From what I can tell, the idea is that the onset of serialism pretty much drove a wedge between the serialist composers who dominated the music scene and the listeners who could not comprehend the new, arcane music, which in turn turned several generations off of classical music entirely (or at least only onto earlier works).

Personally, I don't buy it. But is there something to it? Look at how much of an industry there is on recreating the music of the past (to say nothing of the HIP/early music movement). We never saw this in past centuries.


----------



## arpeggio

mbhaub said:


> By coincidence, one of my orchestras is also playing the Still Afro-American symphony and paying the rental fee. Whenever people ask why we don't play more modern music I simply tell them "we can't afford it". This season alone we've played Pictures at an Exhibition in the Ravel version ($800), Carmina Burana ($1000 - and that didn't include the choral parts), a flute/harp concerto by Liebermann ($750), and some pricey items by Copland, Moncayo, Khachaturian and others. I get it: publishers incur huge costs engraving and printing, composers should be paid, but holy cow! it's gotten expensive out there.


We rented the Still from Luck Music in Detroit. I hope the set you got was in better condition then the one we received.

My director told me that the Still estate turned over the management of his music to Schirmer. Since then the rental fees for his music skyrocketed.

Here in the United States many composers have started their own publishing companies. Renting music from these companies is a lot cheaper than the rental fees from the big name publishers. Donald Grantham only charges $300 to rent his works from his publishing company.


----------



## RogerWaters

Agamemnon said:


> modern paintings are hugely popular yet almost nobody likes modern classical music. Why?


It's incredibly simple. Modern paintings are popular because it's quite easy to look at a modern painting while standing around with other elite folk sipping champaign. It demands very little of you, and you can move off to find the food platter after a few minutes of pretending you've had something approaching an aesthetic experience. With modern classical _music_, however, you have to sit in a big hall for up to a few hours, with no socialising, no alcoholic beverages, and no opportunity to dart away for a blessed *** to escape the monstrosities.

In short: they both blow, but music demands more of the listener which throws the cost/benefit accounting of appearing at a cultural event too far towards the former.

Of course, there are some who derive genuine pleasure from their experiences in this realm, but my bet is they are in the minority. I suspect that even those who, say, adorn their homes with modern art (particularly expressionism, and that kind of thing) implicitly associate the art with high-society; the cultural intelligentsia, etc.


----------



## arnerich

The answer is simple; composer weren't resonating with their audiences.


----------



## Enthusiast

flamencosketches said:


> http://fineartoflistening.com/?p=450
> 
> Does anyone here agree with the premise of this amateur essay? From what I can tell, the idea is that the onset of serialism pretty much drove a wedge between the serialist composers who dominated the music scene and the listeners who could not comprehend the new, arcane music, which in turn turned several generations off of classical music entirely (or at least only onto earlier works).
> 
> Personally, I don't buy it. But is there something to it? Look at how much of an industry there is on recreating the music of the past (to say nothing of the HIP/early music movement). We never saw this in past centuries.


Lots of people think that. Maybe thinking that soothed their embarrassment about not getting the latest music. But it is a silly argument. Why should the existence of a few composers who some people don't like stop them from listening to the music they do like? No, if classical music is unpopular these days (and I'm not sure how to measure that meaningfully) it is a wider thing. Classical music - most of it - takes a bit of "work" before you really relate to it. I'm also not sure that serious literature is that widely liked, either, and much of it also requires some effort. There are now intelligent and rewarding alternatives to both classical music and literature. Those who bother with the real thing are probably drawn by an inner feel for it.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Modern music is extremely popular and even influential, only the instruments and venues have changed. Beyonce is the modern Wagner. 

Modern classical music (see the contradiction?) is doomed to remain elitist, as there are a too many entry barriers. And serious classical music it is not a economical viable business (only Karajan became filthy rich of it, but he also needed state paid orchestras), it will always be dependent on subsidies. Sad but true.

Modern paintings are more popular, because they are potential tradable goods, investment objects. And more people like to gaze at something if they know it costs a fortune or, even better, if they can likely earn a fortune with it. It is just like gambling.


----------



## paulbest

NLAdriaan said:


> Modern music is extremely popular and even influential, only the instruments and venues have changed. Beyonce is the modern Wagner.
> 
> Modern classical music (see the contradiction?) is doomed to remain elitist, as there are a too many entry barriers. And serious classical music it is not a economical viable business (only Karajan became filthy rich of it, but he also needed state paid orchestras), it will always be dependent on subsidies. Sad but true.
> 
> Modern paintings are more popular, because they are potential tradable goods, investment objects. And more people like to gaze at something if they know it costs a fortune or, even better, if they can likely earn a fortune with it. It is just like gambling.


Excellent post. 
You say a lot here.

*modern classical music*, sort of a oxymoron , as we know the true core of the classical era, was way gack, even before the romantic era. Wagner perhaps was the 1st to break new ground, followed by Debussy's Prelude.

Then Stravisnky was a sensation. TV /cell phones were not around, and Van Gogh was not fully recognized for what his true worth. 
Yes folks love to visit a art exhibition where exquisite art can be gazed at , with little effort, and one can stand there as long, or shorta time as will.
But think about it, there are artists in the world who have abilities to copy Van Gogh almost to the point of fooling the experts. But no one wants to see a *imitation*, although most, if not all museum visitors can be tricked quite easily if the original is replaced by a mere copy.

Not to detract from the incredible thrills one gets from seeing van Gogh 's masterpieces, these works are highly valuable for their incredible imagination in colors, images. The works are simply magical., which is why van Gogh attracts large crowds. But note the time period in order to gain the art's true value, in monetary terms.

All great artists past 100+ years, these masterpieces have gained high monetary values. Yet classical music has taken some losses in audience attendance. 
Or is it more a budget factor, as everything now a days is expensive to host? Not sure what classical concert seats go for, as I never attend a live orchestra event.

So considering organizations feel strapped tp program what is best to fill as many seats as possible, its a risky venture to program a modern which may result in the audience who came to hear a old classic standard, to respond negaitively, thus losing future potential customers.

Great paintings are right in front of the person, nothing hidden , its all there, stand, gaze and more on. Great modern classical takes some effort on the part of the attendee. Its a generational issue as well. Note the audience gatherings at concerts. Nearly all are over the ages 30-40. Many in their 60's.+. 
Don't see many 20 yr old do you?

The 20ish group want the new music, and many are making new discoveries via chat forums such as TC, and of course YT is a great way to get to know modern classical.

So I do forsee a changing of the guards , slowly over the course of the next 100 years. In the mean time, who is going to pay the bills for the artists who are committed to performing great modern classical? 
This could become a major issue over the next 100 years, The old elitist patrons don't want to fund modern classical, only the old standards. 
But the new generations are not going to support orchestras playing mostly the old standards, They just are not. Seats will be empty, and orchestras need every seat filled to make ends meet.
This is a dilemma which no one has any quick solutions.


----------



## NLAdriaan

It took Mahler 60 years and his life, including a nazi-ban, to become something of a household name. 

If you see how very little of the periodical music survived the ages, the fate of most music is just to fade away. And still, I guess 70% of the audience coming to classical concerts do not know what they are listening too. And the small percentage of classical freaks, you will find quite some of them here, are fighting on square inches about the one and only recording that is right and all others that are terribly wrong 

I also agree with you that everyone would benefit from getting to know more of classical music. It is just unlikely that your great dreams come true. But let's sure dream on, as the goal may only come closer if we work on it.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

None of the above.

Classical music as a whole (and jazz) are at the bottom of popularity (in the US) because other and far more lucrative forms of music are pushed by people and companies making a great deal of money off of it.

If farting to bagpipes would sell, they would push that.


----------



## Larkenfield

"Why isn't modern classical music popular?"

It _is_ popular for those who like it. 

But the eclecticism of examples is so wide that one can only go work by work to find the gems.


----------



## apricissimus

Oldhoosierdude said:


> None of the above.
> 
> Classical music as a whole (and jazz) are at the bottom of popularity (in the US) because other and far more lucrative forms of music are pushed by people and companies making a great deal of money off of it.
> 
> If farting to bagpipes would sell, they would push that.


I don't think pop music and such sells well only because record companies push it. I think it's because people actually like that sort of thing (and that's why record companies lean in that direction). And for what it's worth, there's a lot of pretty good pop music out there too.


----------



## millionrainbows

"Listening to music" is not, and never really was, a social activity. I can remember back in the vinyl days, there were moments of awkwardness when I wanted people to listen with me. If they did, then they could be trusted as fellow listeners who were really interested in music, or just wanted to hear a new album, before the days of internet, when LPs cost money.

Now that everybody has access to all kinds of competing media, "listening to music" has become something people do when they can't watch a screen, when driving a car, or exercising. "Listening to music" is now a specialized activity.

Now, music is for people in cars, mainly teens, who want a buzz. Classical music is way too long. Music must have vocals, and must represent a lifestyle. It helps if it is "sexy" or has "masculine swagger."


----------



## paulbest

Just wonderful posts above,,which when I get time later today, will make a few comments, But I mean , EXCELLENT views/insights, such great pontificating, I am sure we will get to the bottom of this , perplexing conundrum. 
Every post lately deserves fully, a ponderance of attention. 
But with heads like you guys here, I am sure we will arrive at clearer notions at to whats going on here with modern classical, its abortive rise to reach the wider public.


----------



## apricissimus

millionrainbows said:


> Now, music is for people in cars, mainly teens, who want a buzz. Classical music is way too long. Music must have vocals, and must represent a lifestyle. It helps if it is "sexy" or has "masculine swagger."


"Sexy" and "swagger" can be just the thing you need sometimes!


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> *"Listening to music" is not, and never really was, a social activity.* I can remember back in the vinyl days, there were moments of awkwardness when I wanted people to listen with me. If they did, then they could be trusted as fellow listeners who were really interested in music, or just wanted to hear a new album, before the days of internet, when LPs cost money.
> 
> Now that everybody has access to all kinds of competing media, "listening to music" has become something people do when they can't watch a screen, when driving a car, or exercising. "Listening to music" is now a specialized activity.
> 
> Now, music is for people in cars, mainly teens, who want a buzz. Classical music is way too long. Music must have vocals, and must represent a lifestyle. It helps if it is "sexy" or has "masculine swagger."


It was among the crowd I grew up with. Some of my friends' parents had good classical collections, and after the intake of trendy chemical amusement aids, someone might look through the shelves and say: "Scriabin, I wonder what that sounds like?" One of my friends bought Subotnik and Xenakis records too. We had no idea what we were doing and listened to more jazz and rock than classical, but it was a regular activity, along with playing music.


----------



## paulbest

I say we needa 24/7 modern classical station, which plays the standards of mod classical 1st, then fills in with late night/early morn hours of different styles in mod classical.
Day hours should be devoted to only top 10 mod composers. 
Stockhausen, Rihm, Ligeti gets late night/early am play. 
Glass, Cage, etc, all late night/early am hours. Keep the popular top 10 moderns up front. 
We have no alternative radio stations, Classical radio is all the same boring stuff, how can youths come to know great modern music w/o some radio play time?


----------



## Varick

Woodduck said:


> I don't want to be interpreted as suggesting anything as simple as a decline in the quality of music, or a decline in the musical sophistication of audiences, when I suggest that there are easily understandable musical reasons (among other possible reasons) for the present state of audiences' relationship with contemporary - or new, or "modern" - music. I can predict that I'll be accused of suggesting that, but I'll risk it!
> 
> Only a small minority of people have ever thought of music as something that required intentional effort or active attention. Popular music has seldom required it; its appeal is immediate and effortless, and that's why it's popular. Given this, it's not unreasonable to assume that people who enjoy classical music have the same basic attitude; they will tend to prefer music that is most easily comprehended and enjoyed with the least effort. People just don't see musical enjoyment as something to _work_ for, or even have a clear idea of what "work" means in this context. And of course there is no reason why they should. Music is for pleasure.
> 
> Given the tendency of human nature to view pleasure and effort as antithetical, we wouldn't expect the resistance to "modern music" to be a phenomenon peculiar to our time. But things haven't always been quite as they are now. Contrary to a familiar modernist myth, new music in earlier eras was not typically premiered before hostile and uncomprehending audiences; legendary flops or scandals were the exception. On the whole, people looked forward to hearing new works by well-respected composers, and new works now recognized as masterpieces, even when their initial critical or popular reception was uncertain or unfavorable, were generally soon applauded and adopted into the repertoire as classical musical organizations became more prevalent and the concept of a repertoire gained more and more ground.
> 
> This isn't hard to explain. Through most of the history of music, the basic vocabulary of "art music" was not very different from that of the popular music of its day; Handel, Haydn, Beethoven and Brahms could adapt popular tunes, or write melodies similar to them, and even if the formal elaboration of their works could tax the comprehension of unsophisticated listeners, their basic (tonal) harmonic schemes and their melodic and rhythmic structures generally followed principles familiar in popular songs and dance music. Because of this commonality of idiom, melodies composed by "classical" composers were widely enjoyed in arrangements for keyboard or small ensembles, and opera arias were picked up and sung by people in the streets.
> 
> But this comfortable and even symbiotic relationship between popular and classical music began to break down at a certain point - somewhere, I'd say, around the middle of the 19th century - as composers explored the technical possibilities of their material in pursuit of more personal and esoteric realms of expression. Particularly with respect to harmony, "art music" was taking on qualities increasingly remote from anything heard in parlors, churches, pubs and workplaces, people were challenged more and more to wrap their minds around sounds strange to them, and public concerts, reflecting the difficulties this presented, became increasingly conservative in their programming.
> 
> Similarities between popular music and the art music being produced by a majority of composers endured into the early 20th century, when it was still not uncommon for new classical works to enter the basic repertoires of orchestras and opera houses. "Conservative" composers such as Sibelius, Puccini, Vaughan Williams, Rachmaninoff and Copland (to name only some of the more famous) introduced music which, because of its comprehensible tonal structures, memorable melodic content, and emotional appeal, became "popular," even among people with little general knowledge of classical music, sometimes to the point of being adapted by actual popular music composers. And such adaptations were likely to be performed in a manner not dissimilar to that of classical music performers, and even performed by the same artists: "crossover" wasn't a word people needed in 1920, and as late as World War II opera singers would travel to the front lines to entertain the troops and be gratefully applauded for singing not only popular ballads but arias which the boys wouldn't have thought of entering an opera house to hear.
> 
> I think my generation (early baby boom) was probably the last generation to grow up in households where pianos were prevalent, the bench was filled with familiar and well-loved classics ("50 Favorite Piano Pieces You Love to Play"), 78 rpm records containing both Caruso and Bing Crosby were stacked by the Victrola, people went to small town churches and sang melodies by Mendelssohn, and you could turn on the TV on a Sunday evening and see and hear famous classical musicians on the the Ed Sullivan Show, smack up against the popular music stars of the day. As a kid in the '50s, I couldn't have known how widely the idioms of contemporary classical music had by then departed from anything recognizable in popular culture, or how popular music was at that very moment giving birth to styles born of parents whose European genes would be barely recognizable.
> 
> I witnessed the tail end of Western music as a more or less, and ever decreasingly, unified tradition, a tradition in which popular and classical music had for centuries been kissing cousins. But the fragmentation of Western culture is certainly not confined to music. So why should we be surprised that contemporary classical music isn't widely popular, when even popular music has shattered into a hundred pieces? Listening to contemporary classical music involves, for all but a tiny subset of people, trying to make sense of sounds that require work to come to terms with. And work isn't something people tend to associate with musical enjoyment, not least because there's no assurance whatever that once one has done the work, enjoyment will ensue.


This is the most outstanding post not only in this entire thread, but one of the top posts in this entire forum that I have read. Clear, coherent, well thought out. Bravo Woodduck!!!



larold said:


> <<...modern paintings are hugely popular yet almost nobody likes modern classical music. Why?>>
> 
> I'll repeat a response I've given countless times here and other places. Name one "modern" (meaning now, living) composer that has written one serious classical music composition that has captured the attention of the world, has sold a lot of recordings, is discussed on forums like this one as often as Shostakovich or Bach or Beethoven, and is regularly played in concert everywhere (not just in megamarkets like London and New York but also in Des Moines.) When you find the answer to that question you'll find the answer to your other question.
> 
> The bottom line is, for all the arguments otherwise, what has failed classical music in the late 20th and 21st centuries is the quality of the music that has been composed. An art form that does not continue to create new hits and memorable artifacts can't do very well. This is the state of classical music worldwide.
> 
> Imagine if rock music never produced a big star band since The Beatles disbanded in 1970. Think people would still listen? Imagine if there had never been a hit on Broadway since "Hair" ... think anyone would go to those shows? Imagine if the last great film was "The Godfather" from 1972; think people would still buy tickets and attend? This is where classical music is.
> 
> Here's some other stuff I've said countless times: the last "new" symphony that was written that captured the world's attention was Gorecki No. 3 "Symphony of Sorrowful Songs" (from the 1970s) on a recording issued in the early 1980s. The last opera to enter the standard repertory was written during World War II. The last composer whose body of work can be compared to Bach or Beethoven was Shostakovich. He died 1975. It has been a generation, at least, since any of these conditions were met by any of a major composition, a composer, or an opera.


Another excellent post. Very well said!!!

V


----------



## Varick

And now for the opposite:



paulbest said:


> This is ludicrous , considering music is a *free art* form.


 Really? Since when? 
And exactly free how? Free for the composer/creator to make? Market? Distribute? Sell? Free for the listener? Concert goer? 
Transmitter?


paulbest said:


> Composers like Schnittke would be appalled knowing his music is hampered from performance due to *the money factor* ,


 Well, good for Schnittke that his music *hasn't* been hampered for that reason.


paulbest said:


> His music was a statement against the monetary machine. I mean sure orchestra members have bills to pay like all of us, it is they who should receive all donations/ticket sales profits not the holder of the score.


So to hell with the creator of said music???? Wow, what a world. Wait, I think there are a few words for that: Slavery and theft.



paulbest said:


> Along with orch/conductors receiving the profits from ticket sales, the composers heirs should also be greatly benefited , Its only fair.


So the sponsers and the house that it's performed in and who are footing the bill for all the logistics of getting the orchestra there (buses, planes, trains, hotels, etc), advertising for the performance, paying for the electricity in the building, the heat or Air conditioning in that building, the infrastructure to keep the building's upkeep, etc, etc, they shouldn't get a dime?



paulbest said:


> Modern music concert venues, spread across the country, with budget ticket prices, doors open Friday at noon through 10PM, Sunday 10am to 6PM (all day? Yes , you know churches do business all day sunday,,and look how successful they've become, Joel Osteen sings bad, real bad, and he's a millionaire, JUNT THINK, if Joel can get huge all day sunday crowds flocking and fleecing in, why can't the REAL DEAL music become even more successful??
> I'm serious here.


 You are??? 


paulbest said:


> You take the huge evangelical crowds and bus them out of Lakewood church, down the street to the all day modern music concert hall, ,,why you'd have them *running the isles, jumping benches*.
> faces beaming with joy upon leaving the venue. ,,I mean to say, Henze, Schnittke , perhaps even the music of Pettersson , they might experience a real true catharsis , a real Eleusinian mystery experience.


 Uhhhhmmmm, no, probably not. See Woodduck's post. He explains it well.



paulbest said:


> Yaeh Henze [Hanz Henze???]would *blow their minds*.


 "Possibly"......., but not probably.


paulbest said:


> This is what I'm talking about
> A new transformed America, where music now connects us in a brotherly environment, where love reigns. The music of our beloved modern masters, would bring us to a New America, where the lying/cheatin factor is diminished to nil.
> A New World where the race issue evaporates, where men and women relate in love, fidelity.
> This is what I believe modern music has the inherent power to bring to us.
> The old religion won't work any longer. I was a evangelical back in 1978-1980, its a fraud, a scam. Its fake.
> Modern music is The New Eleusinian Mystery, which takes broken lives and makes them complete. Better than any Jungian psyche session for sure.


 Good Lord!



paulbest said:


> If we can work this out, together, I know lives will be touched, folks healed, folks redeemed.
> AND! here's the good thing in all this, folks like Joel Osteen can sell his snakeoil and make huge profits , he may end up living in a Tiny Home, as he can't pay his mortgage on his $12M mansion.
> I am telling you as a ex rock and roller,a ex religious fan-atic, ,,from experience, modern music has the power, the potential to heal and transform us into Sons of God.
> You too can become a Henzeian, a Schnittkeian, a Petterssonian.
> You only gotta believe, with faith.
> Paul
> , The Ravelian, and all Ians mentioned above.
> way down south in the Big easy


That's quite a world you inhabit. Completely devoid of any semblence of realism. Yes, it's nice to dream, but putting lines like "I'm serious here" kind of take away the lightness of fun, yet emotional whimsy.

It is apparent, you have never owned, let alone even run a business because you obviously don't have the slightest inkling of what goes into one, let alone running or even growing one. Many people have tried creating this utopian world in your fantasies, yet have only created hells on Earth. You seem to be a nice enough fellow, but I do believe you are in dire need of some realistic, real world experience and understanding. It appears you have traded in one extreme style of religious fervor for another.

V


----------



## Ethereality

Classical music is the music that has been most-listened to and will be the most-listened to. To say it is not popular is only within the limited lens of trending music. Get rid of age bias by taking (age × popularity for each year), and compare that to every song ever produced, and Classical you will see is the most popular, impactful, and lasting.


----------



## paulbest

Varick said:


> This is the most outstanding post not only in this entire thread, but one of the top posts in this entire forum that I have read. Clear, coherent, well thought out. Bravo Woodduck!!!
> 
> Another excellent post. Very well said!!!
> 
> V


Yes agree, both postings from Woodduck and larold are outstanding and require several reads to gather all the gems scattered in their testimony.

I too am a late baby boomer, and recall the many Beethoven box LP sets in everyones home, We did not have much back then, a 16 inch black and white was a huge improvement over the 12 inch, as I recall, to own a color TV was a miracle, even if the color went screwey afer some months and the people's skin was turned greenish, now orangish lol..yep those were the days. 
When word got out like WILDFIRE *hey did you hear, the Beatles said they are as great as god*, some reference to John's comment on how amazingly popular the Beatles had become. Which may have some truth there, as rock music did become like a *god*, For sure. We worshiped the great guitarists. Now I see on YT, young girls from all over thew orld jamming exactly like the *old gods*. sheesh, talk about go up in smoke, I see now it was all a sham, I was *had*. 
The real deal was composers making scores in my time, my epoch, for my generation. That was the true, the real, , whereas rock was the fraud, the lie, the cheat. 
*although will admit I revisit King Crimsons, Epithet, as a song I missed out on, though I had known of Court of the Crimson King, we would love to catch ona radio am station from Little Rock , Ar, late night music from the Underground sounds. , as we had ice chests of beer in the van), anyway. Yeah, the real deal is modern classical composers making masterpieces in my day, my epoch, my generation, But somehow , we all had no access to many great modern masters. 
I can see all this today. Pop music rules supreme, due to many reasons, , which are now being discussed here with great insights.

Its good we can discuss this Q, as to why modern classical music is not gaining in popularity. For only by discussing this critical issue, can we perhaps open new possibilities for youths to come into contact with modern classical.

Seeds must be at the very least, planted, , later on some youths will recall the experiences with modern classical, which could result in new members to the classical community. 
Modern classical has to be more than 1 alternative among countless, It really should be recognized for its true lasting values, as all great art has past thousands of years. The old greeks, romans, adored their great classical composers and the musicians who performed the works, mostly it was folk songs,, still it was their classical music, There were no alternatives. 
Folk music was a potent means of holding groups of people connected to one another, as a civil society.

I recall a travel show, where a british explorer went to the rugged out back of the Uzbekistan mts, where a woan on a tiny mandolin played her best folk songs and sang, WOW factor off the charts. Bela Bartok has made unreal, incredible Hun folk tunes into classical masterpieces.

I consider some modern masters as these folk musicians in olden times. I hear country, jazz, all 1000's varities of pop culture music as fad, not true lasting values. 
Pull the plug on electricity, most of that fad music will fade away.
Modern classical is far far ahead of its time. In 100+ years from now, modern classical of our times will become valued for what it truly is. 
Its only a matter of time, as old gods fall, and this new music will takes its place. Its only a matter of time which I will not live to see its day in the sun.


----------



## paulbest

Varick said:


> And now for the opposite:
> 
> Really? Since when?
> And exactly free how? Free for the composer/creator to make? Market? Distribute? Sell? Free for the listener? Concert goer?
> Transmitter? Well, good for Schnittke that his music *hasn't* been hampered for that reason. So to hell with the creator of said music???? Wow, what a world. Wait, I think there are a few words for that: Slavery and theft.
> 
> So the sponsers and the house that it's performed in and who are footing the bill for all the logistics of getting the orchestra there (buses, planes, trains, hotels, etc), advertising for the performance, paying for the electricity in the building, the heat or Air conditioning in that building, the infrastructure to keep the building's upkeep, etc, etc, they shouldn't get a dime?
> 
> You are???
> Uhhhhmmmm, no, probably not. See Woodduck's post. He explains it well.
> 
> "Possibly"......., but not probably.
> Good Lord!
> 
> That's quite a world you inhabit. Completely devoid of any semblence of realism. Yes, it's nice to dream, but putting lines like "I'm serious here" kind of take away the lightness of fun, yet emotional whimsy.
> 
> It is apparent, you have never owned, let alone even run a business because you obviously don't have the slightest inkling of what goes into one, let alone running or even growing one. Many people have tried creating this utopian world in your fantasies, yet have only created hells on Earth. You seem to be a nice enough fellow, but I do believe you are in dire need of some realistic, real world experience and understanding. It appears you have traded in one extreme style of religious fervor for another.
> 
> V


Ok, I can now see how thin and sparse my ideas really are, as you easily punched holes at every turn.

hummm, yes, concert halls require maintenance , staffing, , as you say, logistics of flying The Norrepoking orch with its conductor Christian Lindberg, to a concert hall in NYC to perform 2 or 3 Pettersson syms. Quite expensive agenda, and there is no guarantee enough NYers will fill the seats on a composer they've never heard of before. 
Lindbgerg and his sponsors have taken his Pettersson promotion world wide. 
I think the Asians are more readily interested in Pettersson than the classical crowds here in the USA. Tokyo, S Korea I believe is on the list for Lindberg's Pettersson Project, if I am not mistaken.

Anyway, great expose on my rather daunting, flimsy expose.
I will have to rethink my ideas as to how we can have modern classical to take its true place in this culture, in our epoch...Or yet,, is our epoch not one of consumerism, commercialism, *the cheap*, the *fake*. , So if the majority is sold on the *quick and easy music style*, which requires no depth of emotional involvement, and for only a short period of time (most pop songs are over in 6 minutes) , how can it possibly happen in our times? can't. 
As I ;ve stated often, modern classical is for the future, for the few who will arise out of this darkness and see the true value in great modern classical.

Its only a matter of time for this awakening to the truly great in music. .


----------



## Enthusiast

larold said:


> <<...modern paintings are hugely popular yet almost nobody likes modern classical music. Why?>>
> 
> I'll repeat a response I've given countless times here and other places. Name one "modern" (meaning now, living) composer that has written one serious classical music composition that has captured the attention of the world, has sold a lot of recordings, is discussed on forums like this one as often as Shostakovich or Bach or Beethoven, and is regularly played in concert everywhere (not just in megamarkets like London and New York but also in Des Moines.) When you find the answer to that question you'll find the answer to your other question.
> 
> The bottom line is, for all the arguments otherwise, what has failed classical music in the late 20th and 21st centuries is the quality of the music that has been composed. An art form that does not continue to create new hits and memorable artifacts can't do very well. This is the state of classical music worldwide.
> 
> Imagine if rock music never produced a big star band since The Beatles disbanded in 1970. Think people would still listen? Imagine if there had never been a hit on Broadway since "Hair" ... think anyone would go to those shows? Imagine if the last great film was "The Godfather" from 1972; think people would still buy tickets and attend? This is where classical music is.
> 
> Here's some other stuff I've said countless times: the last "new" symphony that was written that captured the world's attention was Gorecki No. 3 "Symphony of Sorrowful Songs" (from the 1970s) on a recording issued in the early 1980s. The last opera to enter the standard repertory was written during World War II. The last composer whose body of work can be compared to Bach or Beethoven was Shostakovich. He died 1975. It has been a generation, at least, since any of these conditions were met by any of a major composition, a composer, or an opera.


I wasn't going to reply to this as I have responded, I'm sure, to your earlier iterations of the same ideas. But, as your post has been held up for praise, I thought it might be worthwhile saying something after all. Firstly, I am not clear why we should expect a modern piece to be serious and good and also to attract instant worldwide recognition. And, anyway, I wonder how you measure that. There are certainly some very avant garde works that have received multiple recordings and plenty of less avant garde composers who get regularly played in orchestral concerts (I am not a fan but MacMillan is one example in Britain and Adams more widely). It is certainly true that most composers who became active after 1945 are not as widely appreciated on this forum or more widely among people who would call themselves classical music fans. But does that prove anything and is it so unusual? And really none of this leads to your statement that recent music lacks "quality". You and many others don't like it. A lot of people (and a lot of musicians) do. Which people am I going to go to for an assessment of the worth of recent music? Negation is just that - negation. It says nothing in itself and, when there are so many people of impeccable taste, who disagree it looks at best controversial.

My other point is just suppose it really is the case that nearly all recent music is of poor quality .... . How could that be the reason why classical music is not popular today? The most played and recorded music is still the music of much earlier times. Some early 20th Century music is creeping in to join it, presumably because it has also become good box office. But there isn't enough new music played in major mainstream concerts to really influence how popular classical music is. Of course, if you are saying that classical music needs new music to continue to thrive, then why don't you really immerse yourself in it and see where it gets you?

From your argument it seems like very modern music fails to be like the music of the past. Its crime is that it delivers something new. But that could easily be an argument for how vibrant and alive classical music still is.


----------



## larold

Classical music is and isn't popular compared to the past. There are more people playing it today than ever before and the quality of local, community and regional orchestras is better than ever before. Many international orchestras have run into money problems that have affected their performance standards but few have gone out of business and none that weren't solely supported by government(s) which withdrew funding.

So the market is still strong for both players and listeners. However, over the past half-century I believe the creative aspect has changed in ways that left listeners, in the main, behind.

First, composers in Brahms' and Beethoven's time wrote music for performance. If it wasn't performed people didn't hear it and didn't come to know it. Ergo they had to write for audiences with some concept of what audiences wanted.

That is the main thing, in my view, that has changed. Composers no longer write for performance and don't write for audiences. They write for themselves and for real or perceived ideas of what is current or right or leading edge in current music. I know one critic who doesn't like most modern music (21st century, new music) who says composers mostly write music to shock audiences.

Another change in the past half-century is the diversion of musical forms, mostly popular, that attracted potential audience members. Another is the growth of other forms of media, film mainly, that attracted what would in a preceding century have been a person with artistic capability who'd have written music. In modern times visual arts became more important.

Another change is the form of music being created today. If you look at CM history the forms that have moved the greatest numbers of people the most often have been symphonies, concertos and opera. What was the last great symphony? Gorecki's Symphony of Sorrowful Songs? That was written 45 years ago. There have been several operas written in recent years that made noise but none have become Don Giovanni or Madame Butterfly. And what is the last great concerto? It is these big forms that move the greatest number of people and create new fans.

There is no single answer to any question about modern classical music compared to its stature in the past but the above provide some ideas of changes that have overtaken the world industry. Many people still believe great music is being written today. It's just that none of it has moved the world.


----------



## Enthusiast

larold said:


> Classical music is and isn't popular compared to the past. There are more people playing it today than ever before and the quality of local, community and regional orchestras is better than ever before. Many international orchestras have run into money problems that have affected their performance standards but few have gone out of business and none that weren't solely supported by government(s) which withdrew funding.
> 
> So the market is still strong for both players and listeners. However, over the past half-century I believe the creative aspect has changed in ways that left listeners, in the main, behind.
> 
> First, *composers in Brahms' and Beethoven's time wrote music for performance. *If it wasn't performed people didn't hear it and didn't come to know it. Ergo they had to write for audiences with some concept of what audiences wanted.


They also wrote for audiences that were in general mostly or entirely interested in the new music of the time so their knowledge and interests were very different to modern audiences. It is probably true that they were guided by a sense of what was fashionable, not such a big factor for classical audiences today! So you are comparing with a time when the very interests and motivations of "the audience" was nothing like what most classical audiences today want. If any of today's audiences are at all like their 19th century forebears then it is probably the audience that seeks contemporary music. That group is a relatively small subset of today's (already small) classical audience.



larold said:


> That is the main thing, in my view, that has changed. Composers no longer write for performance and don't write for audiences. They write for themselves and for real or perceived ideas of what is current or right or leading edge in current music. I know one critic who doesn't like most modern music (21st century, new music) who says composers mostly write music to shock audiences.


Your premise - that modern composers don't write for audiences but write for themselves - is very shaky. Aside for a solitary critic (who, as you say, is not a devotee of modern music - a significant career disadvantage for a critic to explain away), where did you get that idea from? It seems plain to me that many modern and avant garde composers believe very strongly in their visions and want audiences to hear their music. Some also care about posterity. As your argument relies strongly on your assertion here I think you need to do a lot more to convince us that you have correctly understood the motivation of, say Carter, Boulez, Lachenmann, Birtwistle and Benjamin (to name only the modern composers who I have listened to over the past two days). This may not be easy as for some of them their spoken and written words were designed to shock (even while their music almost certainly wasn't).



larold said:


> Another change in the past half-century is the diversion of musical forms, mostly popular, that attracted potential audience members. Another is the growth of other forms of media, film mainly, that attracted what would in a preceding century have been a person with artistic capability who'd have written music. In modern times visual arts became more important.
> 
> Another change is the form of music being created today. If you look at CM history the forms that have moved the greatest numbers of people the most often have been symphonies, concertos and opera. What was the last great symphony? Gorecki's Symphony of Sorrowful Songs? That was written 45 years ago. There have been several operas written in recent years that made noise but none have become Don Giovanni or Madame Butterfly. And what is the last great concerto? It is these big forms that move the greatest number of people and create new fans.
> 
> There is no single answer to any question about modern classical music compared to its stature in the past but the above provide some ideas of changes that have overtaken the world industry. Many people still believe great music is being written today. It's just that none of it has moved the world.


It may be that the symphony is a dying form - it certainly isn't so central to modern music (and hasn't been since Scriabin and Debussy) as it was in the 19th century. But if you think contemporary composers should be aiming for the popularity of Gorecki's 3rd then I have to ask why? Populism and the writing of great symphonies don't go together very well. But I am not sure that reflects badly on the symphonies that are being written. We would really be in dire straits if our times had merely delivered to us tens of Gorecki 3s! I am in my sixties and when I was growing up Shostakovich himself was widely considered to be a poor composer. At that time, only his 1st and 5th had achieved any sort of respectability or popularity. Look at his works, now.

Operas? Well, yes, operas written to make money from mass audiences are not very common these days. We have musicals which fulfill that function and, if it is entertainment we want, there are films and TV. In Mozart's time (and the same is more or less true for Puccini) people were hungry for entertainment and opera was one great source of it. Also, the economic of putting on a great show and making money from ticket sales was much more appealing for composers then than now. But operas are doing well. Our own Royal Opera regularly programmes new operas by composers who are considered challenging and gets good audiences for these. Many in those audiences would not pay to hear an orchestral or chamber piece by the same composers but come away from their operas claiming to have had a wonderful time.

Concertos? There have been far more great piano and violin concertos since 1910 than there were in the 110 years before that! Bartok, Stravinsky, Ravel, Shostakovich and Prokofiev all contributed to this wealth. In the last fifty years there have been many more but it will be a while before they get a mainstream audience. And then there are many composers who (like Debussy and others) didn't use the form but composed much music of a supremely high quality.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think it's a mistake to place classical music alongside popular music, as if the two were separate yet somehow intimately related. The truth is, popular has always been popular, and classical music was always reflective of the dominant power structure.

I think new technologies and recording simply replaced the roles that classical music used to occupy. Firstly, power, which is now secular and capitalist, such as sales of recordings, movies, TV; cinema and broadway, which replaced opera; large concert spectacles, also replacing opera and symphonic concerts; etcetera. Classical music has simply changed its stripes, in the functional sense. Any coherent, familiar, or generic identity it has is purely historical in nature; its present state is now an exercise in post-modernist recognition.
The idea of "art music," which was not ever a dominating factor in classical, only became a valid idea when the 20th century rolled in, and classical music had to re-define itself, since "popular" forms had already begun to assimilate its former functions (to serve power, be utilitarian, entertain, and manipulate mythologies, like it used to do when it was the only game in town.

Audiences don't want "art" music for the purpose of divine contemplation;they want to be entertained, and for music to be utilitarian, meaning serving cinema as illustration, and used in broadway musicals.

Therefore, I see the argument that serialist artists "turned off" several generations of "classical music" listeners, as blaming the artists, and the new role of art itself, when the real problem is in the inability of the modern audience to recognize the new post-modernist context and function of "classical music", and resentment that the "new music" composers have chosen to adopt the forms of historic classicism, its instruments and forms, and see themselves as a continuation of that historicism, which has largely been abandoned by newer technologies and popular forms.

In other words, as Marshall McLuhan would say, the modernist nay-sayers are "somnambulists" who are trying to move forward with rear-view-mirror vision. A classic case of post-modernist alienation.


----------



## Thomyum2

larold said:


> Many people still believe great music is being written today. It's just that none of it has moved the world.


Why is it important that the world be moved? If music moves one person, doesn't that make it worthwhile?

As someone who in my youth aspired to be a musician who would someday become popular and 'move the world', I eventually discovered that my talent wasn't going to get me to that lofty goal, and I became discouraged and gave up and moved onto other things that would pay the bills. Many years later in life, I discovered again how much I really do love music and I took it up again. I've come to realize that had I been encouraged in my youth to study and pursue music out of my love and passion for it, instead of out of a need to be successful, I might have built a career doing something that I truly love instead of spending many years in jobs that just paid the bills and didn't give me a lot of deep satisfaction. Of course there are economic practicalities to working in and supporting the arts and that can't be denied, but shouldn't we encourage musicians and artists, and especially those in their youth, to pursue their passions and not be deterred if they don't move the world? Let's not call the composers of our times failures because they're not another Brahms or Beethoven!

In this forum, I often see posts that express a fear of the impending death of classical music because of its insufficient popularity. But just a thought here - isn't its survival more dependent on engendering a love for the music for the long haul rather than promoting popularity in the moment? Isn't this passion, rather than popularity, the key element that has preserved the tradition and allowed these works written hundreds of years ago to still be with us? I think that a passion strong enough to lead a small number of people to devote their lives to an art form more is a more essential ingredient to its survivability than passing popularity or audience sizes, which will wax and wane over time with the changing trends, but ultimately not be responsible for the long-term endurance of the works. Shouldn't we be promoting that passion rather than popularity, and won't the popularity naturally follow, in time, if we do?


----------



## millionrainbows

I think the "great music" of "classicism" today is disguised in post-modernist drag as mundane TV themes and Broadway songs, and cinematic music.

The Perry Mason Theme
The Pink Panther
Mannix
The Jackie Gleason theme ("Melancholy Serenade")
The great tin-pan alley composers:
Rogers & Hart, Cole Porter, Harold Arlen Johnny Mercer, with songs like:
Over the Rainbow
What Is This Thing Called Love?
I've got you Under My Skin
My Funny Valentine
All The Things You Are
My Favorite Things
Yesterday
My Foolish Heart

The point is that this "popular" music is actually playing the role that classical music played in years past, to the degree that the circumstances can be adapted to the historical situation.


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> It is certainly true that most composers who became active after 1945 are not as widely appreciated on this forum or more widely among people who would call themselves classical music fans. But does that prove anything and is it so unusual?


That's 73 years! How easily you dismiss that as being significant. Yes it is unusual. larold's point is worth repeating:

_'Imagine if rock music never produced a big star band since The Beatles disbanded in 1970. Think people would still listen? Imagine if there had never been a hit on Broadway since "Hair" ... think anyone would go to those shows? Imagine if the last great film was "The Godfather" from 1972; think people would still buy tickets and attend?_'



> And really none of this leads to your statement that recent music lacks "quality"...
> My other point is just suppose it really is the case that nearly all recent music is of poor quality .... . How could that be the reason why classical music is not popular today?


That has to be at least considered. How can that be dismissed so easily?



> From your argument it seems like very modern music fails to be like the music of the past. Its crime is that it delivers something new. But that could easily be an argument for how vibrant and alive classical music still is.


It could also be an argument for it not being successful and relevant to most classical listeners.


----------



## paulbest

Enthusiast said:


> I wasn't going to reply to this as I have responded, I'm sure, to your earlier iterations of the same ideas. But, as your post has been held up for praise, I thought it might be worthwhile saying something after all. Firstly, I am not clear why we should expect a modern piece to be serious and good and also to attract instant worldwide recognition. And, anyway, I wonder how you measure that. There are certainly some very avant garde works that have received multiple recordings and plenty of less avant garde composers who get regularly played in orchestral concerts (I am not a fan but MacMillan is one example in Britain and Adams more widely). It is certainly true that most composers who became active after 1945 are not as widely appreciated on this forum or more widely among people who would call themselves classical music fans. But does that prove anything and is it so unusual? And really none of this leads to your statement that recent music lacks "quality". You and many others don't like it. A lot of people (and a lot of musicians) do. Which people am I going to go to for an assessment of the worth of recent music? Negation is just that - negation. It says nothing in itself and, when there are so many people of impeccable taste, who disagree it looks at best controversial.
> 
> My other point is just suppose it really is the case that nearly all recent music is of poor quality .... . How could that be the reason why classical music is not popular today? The most played and recorded music is still the music of much earlier times. Some early 20th Century music is creeping in to join it, presumably because it has also become good box office. But there isn't enough new music played in major mainstream concerts to really influence how popular classical music is. Of course, if you are saying that classical music needs new music to continue to thrive, then why don't you really immerse yourself in it and see where it gets you?
> 
> From your argument it seems like very modern music fails to be like the music of the past. Its crime is that it delivers something new. But that could easily be an argument for how vibrant and alive classical music still is.


WOW there is much to ponder here in this top notch post.
I don't know where to begin. 
I was not aware that Enthusiast is not a comrade with us in new modern classical music. 
Hey all are welcome. Yet I do forsee some conflicts erupting now and then over old vs the new. It is inevitable,as this world on every level is in conflict, bickerings, mud slinging.

Your post gave me the thought of a new topic, to be titled,,,
*Which modern composers in the 20th C would you say are the new Bach, Beethoven and the Mozart's of our times*

Man the romantic/classical club members ain't gonna like that one too much. 
Basically I am saying the old gods foundational support of the iconic big 3, are slowly in demise. And so which moderns are one day inevitably , will take shape as the new icons in classical music.

Look for that new topic later today


----------



## Phil loves classical

Avant garde and experimental music will never be as popular as more accessible music. Not only in Classical but also in pop, jazz, electronica. There is really nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Amen ... except that it won't stay avant garde for ever!


----------



## paulbest

millionrainbows said:


> I think it's a mistake to place classical music alongside popular music, as if the two were separate yet somehow intimately related. The truth is, popular has always been popular, and classical music was always reflective of the dominant power structure.
> 
> I think new technologies and recording simply replaced the roles that classical music used to occupy. Firstly, power, which is now secular and capitalist, such as sales of recordings, movies, TV; cinema and broadway, which replaced opera; large concert spectacles, also replacing opera and symphonic concerts; etcetera. Classical music has simply changed its stripes, in the functional sense. Any coherent, familiar, or generic identity it has is purely historical in nature; its present state is now an exercise in post-modernist recognition.
> The idea of "art music," which was not ever a dominating factor in classical, only became a valid idea when the 20th century rolled in, and classical music had to re-define itself, since "popular" forms had already begun to assimilate its former functions (to serve power, be utilitarian, entertain, and manipulate mythologies, like it used to do when it was the only game in town.
> 
> Audiences don't want "art" music for the purpose of divine contemplation;they want to be entertained, and for music to be utilitarian, meaning serving cinema as illustration, and used in broadway musicals.
> 
> Therefore, I see the argument that serialist artists "turned off" several generations of "classical music" listeners, as blaming the artists, and the new role of art itself, when the real problem is in the inability of the modern audience to recognize the new post-modernist context and function of "classical music", and resentment that the "new music" composers have chosen to adopt the forms of historic classicism, its instruments and forms, and see themselves as a continuation of that historicism, which has largely been abandoned by newer technologies and popular forms.
> 
> In other words, as Marshall McLuhan would say, the modernist nay-sayers are "somnambulists" who are trying to move forward with rear-view-mirror vision. A classic case of post-modernist alienation.


 Hey Millionrainbows. 
I noted your post somewhere, can't find it now, where you welcome me back with open arms, ,,yes indeed I did shed a bit much of my neurosis, and have a bit more polish on my wording (you mention I appear more erudite. perhaps so, In fact I like to ruminate (********) and add some rhetoric for a good laugh, some take me way too serious, I like to take things to the ultimate extreme,
Whereas your post here , has NAILED it , dang near perfectly. 
I mean we've all been waiting, looking, hoping, for someone to put up the goods, and staop the nonsense of beating around the bush,,,and then like the Long ranger just in the nick of time, along comes you as ZORO, and puts things in very clear perspective.

Why would my favorite modern composers score to even the slightest dictates, on the whims of a public which may even reject his work, if he even attempts to please his fan club?
Elliott Carter never set out to scorea work, with his fan club in mind, Ridiculous. Although obviously he knew he had to make something work for a certain group of music fans, in order to make smash hits, He knew the Beatles success story. 
And he was indeed both true to his creative imagination and to his fan club.
He did not write for Mahlerites nor Brucknerians, Why would he?

No, that crowd can never ever be happy with new modern classical,. They reside ina antiquated realm of *the old world music*, Nothing wrong with that, as I too love Vivaldi, Wagner, Mozart and another 2 or 3 pre 1900. That's about it for me, 5 compoers in my cd collection pre 1900.

The mods and the roman-antics will never quite get along, 
They control the programs, the concert halls, they have the power and the money.

Elliott Carter gets the crumbs.

Nice hearing from you.
Look forward to a nice stay here.
Although I've written some very long winded posts past 3 weeks, my time is running short, as I am remodeling my home.

But I will ck in to see how my posts are going over.
I am a voice for the modern classical movement, I am The Yellow Vest in classical for my fav modern composer.

If I get the boot, so be it. Time for a change, I intend to have my say, of course within a respectful, discursive manner. Its good to find a open chat forum where free speech is regarded as a inalienable right. (wow, got lucky spelling that word, so not scholarly as you imagine I am).

anyway, had to look up your expression, somnambulist , 1789 French word, a sleeper walking.

Yes indeed, this is exactly what Jung was getting at throught his works, That mankind is sleep walking, to who knows where.
Modern classical is not given its rightly due, its true value, due to man's sluggish, slow to make a realization in great artistic expression. This is why modern classical has been stilted, denied, rejected with disdain. 
Its mankind as its usual.
At least that's how I see things. I too was a sound sleep walker. 
had some serious runins with reality. Thus great modern classical music was a life raft in a sea of troubles , woes, harshness. 
I am alive now to music, as before I was a dead man walking.

Great to meet others who are awake, alive and full of zest for great modern classical.

Without great modern classical, just what would this life be for us


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> Yes indeed, this is exactly what Jung was getting at through his works, That mankind is sleep walking, to who knows where.
> Modern classical is not given its rightly due, its true value, due to man's sluggish, slow to make a realization in great artistic expression. This is why modern classical has been stilted, denied, rejected with disdain.
> Its mankind as its usual.
> At least that's how I see things. I too was a sound sleep walker.
> had some serious runins with reality. Thus great modern classical music was a life raft in a sea of troubles , woes, harshness.
> I am alive now to music, as before I was a dead man walking.
> 
> Great to meet others who are awake, alive and full of zest for great modern classical.
> 
> Without great modern classical, just what would this life be for us


You may have been a "dead man walking" who's now "alive and full of zest" and thoroughly ape for Elliott Carter, but if you're implying that other people who don't care for the composers you favor are sleepwalking or among the walking dead, you are likely to be told where you can put that theory.

It seems that one (your?) definition of a modern composer is "a composer whose music has never become popular enough to suit me." I'm guessing that a number of such composers will remain "modern" forever.


----------



## paulbest

Woodduck said:


> You may have been a "dead man walking" who's now "alive and full of zest" and thoroughly ape for Elliott Carter, but if you're implying that other people who don't care for the composers you favor are sleepwalking or among the walking dead, you are likely to be told where you can put that theory.
> 
> It seems that one (your?) definition of a modern composer is "a composer whose music has never become popular enough to suit me." I'm guessing that a number of such composers will remain "modern" forever.


Yes I think you understand here I am coming from. Modern to me, are those composers who remain within the old classical/romantic traditions, (not sure I will define that thesis at the present time ) as far as maintaining some organized structure, , possess qualities of uniqueness, individuality, and a boldness to establish a new form which carry the spirit of the times. 
This is how I hear Elliott Carter, Things which I can not associate with the music of quite a few popular American composers , some who are more famous(than Elliott) , who are regularly programed on the concert circuit 
Not sure if it is because Elliott 's music requires more prep time to make a good go at the very challenging music or what it is which keeps Elliott from concerts on a regular basis. 
I mean , consider how often Beethoven, Mahler, Burkner, Dvorak has been performed in Vienna past 100 years = ALOT.

The EU folks love, adore, support their cherished FAVORITE composers.

It has been some decades now that Elliott has completed many of his masterpieces. I should hope to find the NY Phil, Cleveland, Chicago performing Elliott's music at least 3to 4 times in a season, if not more often.

I bet Elliott is performed more often in Europe than here in the USA.

Let me ck the NY Phil schedule now,,,Ok I see John Corigliano's sym 1 (don't know the work, but will after this post) on June 1st,,other than that, not much for modern composers, and nothing of Elliott Carter,,,perhaps Elliott was performed in the 2018 season,,,let me ck that,,, be right back in a jiffy

No such luck,,cked back as far as sept- Dec 2018, nada in Elliott's music from the New York Phil...hummm, that's odd, as New York is the hip capital of the world, of all orchestras in the USA, one would expect Elliott Carter at least once a month on the program. 
maybe I'll look at the Chicago 2019 schedule tomorrow, sure to find some Carter happening in Chicago, another stronghold for avantgarde modern composers.

This NY Phil schedule looks rather boring to me. Heck, even Bugs Bunny gets some play time May 17-18th.
Yet Carter is ignored. 
https://nyphil.org/calendar?season=19&page=all#


----------



## paulbest

Oh yes, modern to me, are only those composers who hold onto some semblance of past masters. I mean Stockhausen seems to veer too far off in left field. 
3 orchestras, 3 conductors on one stage at the same time, is one of his works. Sorry I just don't get it. To me that's not modern classical. Its something else, other than.


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> Modern to me, are those composers who remain within the old classical/romantic traditions, (not sure I will define that thesis at the present time ) as far as maintaining some organized structure, , possess qualities of uniqueness, individuality, and a boldness to establish a new form which carry the spirit of the times.
> This is how I hear Elliott Carter, Things which I can not associate with the music of quite a few popular American composers , some who are more famous(than Elliott) , who are regularly programed on the concert circuit


What is this "spirit of the times" you talk about, and why do you think Carter represents it? Wasn't his style essentially developed in the 1950s and '60s? I was alive then, and I can tell you, those times were quite different from ours. If our times have a spirit, isn't it better represented by music being written now? And if quite a few popular American composers are regularly programmed, mightn't that be because people feel they represent the spirit of the times better than Carter does?


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> What is this "spirit of the times" you talk about, and why do you think Carter represents it? Wasn't his style essentially developed in the 1950s and '60s? I was alive then, and I can tell you, those times were quite different from ours. If our times have a spirit, isn't it better represented by music being written now? And if quite a few popular American composers are regularly programmed, mightn't that be because people feel they represent the spirit of the times better than Carter does?


The "spirit of the times" seems best represented by John Williams, whose most popular works are already getting a bit long in the tooth. But I'm not at all sure who I'd put in second place. Carter? Are there real people, somewhere, who even know who he is???


----------



## paulbest

Woodduck said:


> What is this "spirit of the times" you talk about, and why do you think Carter represents it? Wasn't his style essentially developed in the 1950s and '60s? I was alive then, and I can tell you, those times were quite different from ours. If our times have a spirit, isn't it better represented by music being written now? And if quite a few popular American composers are regularly programmed, mightn't that be because people feel they represent the spirit of the times better than Carter does?


Interest Q's , 'Let me see here,,,well, I'd say the spirit of our epoch is better put, Epoch = a extended period of time, maybe the german word Zeitgeist carries the idea of our times. I also grew up in the 60's. born in 56, , the 60's were quite a time for the free spirit. Elliott was composing all through the 60's, 70.s up to 2000, the new millennium I believe.

Carter will always be contemporary, as Bach will always be baroque. My guess is Bach's star will slowly decline as Elliott's star slowly rises,. These changing of the gods takes long stretches of time. Rome was not built in a day as the old saying goes.

bach had a good head start, that's all. Carter is the new kid on the block, and folks just need a healthy dose of curiosity to get to know Elliott's music.
Elliott's music works best in a concert hall.

Yes Elliott carries a sense of the 60's, 70.s which makes his music relevant to me today, in 2019. Its like I can reconnect with a past I never quite lived fully,. Its like Elliott captures a time and place, where I want to go back to, and yet still harks to a bright future. Carter is therapeutic, and healthy. Makes this earth less dank, less morbid. In religious terms, Carter breaks satan's power.

Classical music has this potential to heal, and bind the wounds.

Salvific power to be en-joyed by any who will just open their minds to the new music.


----------



## larold

_They also wrote for audiences that were in general mostly or entirely interested in the new music of the time so their knowledge and interests were very different to modern audiences. It is probably true that they were guided by a sense of what was fashionable, not such a big factor for classical audiences today! _

I don't know what local or international orchestra you attend but I would guess this theory does not hold true in its programming. It certainly does not hold true in programming for PBS in USA or Radio 3 in UK.

What you have described is the interest young listeners have. In general, the people that support classical music are not young.


----------



## paulbest

larold said:


> . In general, the people that support classical music are not young.


 Yes, look around at concerts, the crowds are 50- 90 years old. 
These folks have never heard Elliott's music, much less heard the name *Carter* in music. They are out of touch, live in a cocoon.


----------



## DaveM

paulbest said:


> ...My guess is Bach's star will slowly decline as Elliott's star slowly rises...


Somehow, I don't think Bach is going to lose this competition:


----------



## Enthusiast

larold said:


> _They also wrote for audiences that were in general mostly or entirely interested in the new music of the time so their knowledge and interests were very different to modern audiences. It is probably true that they were guided by a sense of what was fashionable, not such a big factor for classical audiences today! _
> 
> I don't know what local or international orchestra you attend but I would guess this theory does not hold true in its programming. It certainly does not hold true in programming for PBS in USA or Radio 3 in UK.
> 
> What you have described is the interest young listeners have. In general, the people that support classical music are not young.


You may be misunderstanding what I said? I talked about 19th century audiences - who mostly wanted new and fashionable music - and compared it with modern classical audiences who want old music ... and the music that is fashionable is no longer of the classical tradition.


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> Interest Q's , 'Let me see here,,,well, I'd say the spirit of our epoch is better put, Epoch = a extended period of time, maybe the german word Zeitgeist carries the idea of our times. I also grew up in the 60's. born in 56, , the 60's were quite a time for the free spirit. Elliott was composing all through the 60's, 70.s up to 2000, the new millennium I believe.
> 
> Carter will always be contemporary, as Bach will always be baroque. My guess is Bach's star will slowly decline as Elliott's star slowly rises,. These changing of the gods takes long stretches of time. Rome was not built in a day as the old saying goes.
> 
> bach had a good head start, that's all. Carter is the new kid on the block, and folks just need a healthy dose of curiosity to get to know Elliott's music.
> Elliott's music works best in a concert hall.
> 
> Yes Elliott carries a sense of the 60's, 70.s which makes his music relevant to me today, in 2019. Its like I can reconnect with a past I never quite lived fully,. Its like Elliott captures a time and place, where I want to go back to, and yet still harks to a bright future. Carter is therapeutic, and healthy. Makes this earth less dank, less morbid. In religious terms, Carter breaks satan's power.
> 
> Classical music has this potential to heal, and bind the wounds.
> 
> Salvific power to be en-joyed by any who will just open their minds to the new music.


So Carter's music represents the "spirit of the times" for a small minority of the people who actually live in the times, and all the rest of us have to do is wait until after we're dead to realize that Carter represented the spirit of the times during which we were alive.

I can hardly wait.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> The "spirit of the times" seems best represented by John Williams, whose most popular works are already getting a bit long in the tooth. But I'm not at all sure who I'd put in second place. Carter? Are there real people, somewhere, who even know who he is???


Hey, watch it. The inhabitants of the TC bubble are all too real. Some of us, anyway (not saying who).


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> Hey, watch it. The inhabitants of the TC bubble are all too real. Some of us, anyway (not saying who).


Well, of course I'm familiar with John Carter, Warlord of Barsoom. But this Elliott person -- a nephew perhaps?


----------



## millionrainbows

Hi, KenOC and Woodduck. What are you guys doing? Having fun? You getting a cheap buzz? You should try malt liquor, it's a good bang for the buck.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Hi, KenOC and Woodduck. What are you guys doing? Having fun? You getting a cheap buzz? You should try malt liquor, it's a good bang for the buck.


Well look who it is...

What am I doing? I'm looking for a sane answer to a question from someone who's been filling a number of threads with extravagant claims for four composers he appears to believe are the culmination and transformation of Western music, failure to appreciate whom with sufficient fervor is a symptom of sleepwalking or zombiehood (no, I'm not making that up).

So what are _you_ doing? Looking for trouble?


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> Well look who it is...
> 
> What am I doing? I'm looking for a sane answer to a question from someone who's been filling a number of threads with extravagant claims for four composers he appears to believe are the culmination and transformation of Western music, failure to appreciate whom with sufficient fervor is a symptom of sleepwalking or zombiehood (no, I'm not making that up).
> 
> So what are _you_ doing? Looking for trouble?


To quote Rodney King:



> …


Anyway, y'all know what he said. His ultimate lesson: drugs and swimming pools don't mix. But as long as you just post here, you should be OK.


----------



## larold

_Yes, look around at concerts, the crowds are 50- 90 years old. These folks have never heard Elliott's music, much less heard the name *Carter* in music. They are out of touch, live in a cocoon. _

I bet most 50-year-olds would be surprised to hear they are out of touch and live in cocoons because they don't like Elliott Carter's music.

Did you know Elliott Carter was composing music in the 1930s coincidental with Sibelius, Elgar, and Rachmaninoff?

Or that he was writing in the 1950s alongside Shostakovich, Prokofiev and Poulenc?

Or the 1970s same as Messiaen, William Barber, Dutilleux and Rautavaara?

Or during the 1990s coincidental with Kurtag, Lutoslawski, Ligeti and John Adams?

Finally the 21st century arrived and he became known as a great composer -- during a time when history's greatest composers were all dead, the greatest contemporary compositions were unknown, orchestras were having financial problems everywhere, and people wrote books about the death of classical music.

Guess people were equally out of touch and living in cocoons to favor those living composers over him all the years of his life.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

paulbest said:


> Yes, look around at concerts, the crowds are 50- 90 years old.
> These folks have never heard Elliott's music, much less heard the name *Carter* in music. They are out of touch, live in a cocoon.


In America there is a family called Carter and they helped create a genre of music called Country Music, maybe you heard of them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Family


----------



## paulbest

larold said:


> _Yes, look around at concerts, the crowds are 50- 90 years old. These folks have never heard Elliott's music, much less heard the name *Carter* in music. They are out of touch, live in a cocoon. _
> 
> I bet most 50-year-olds would be surprised to hear they are out of touch and live in cocoons because they don't like Elliott Carter's music.
> 
> Did you know Elliott Carter was composing music in the 1930s coincidental with Sibelius, Elgar, and Rachmaninoff?
> 
> Or that he was writing in the 1950s alongside Shostakovich, Prokofiev and Poulenc?
> 
> Or the 1970s same as Messiaen, William Barber, Dutilleux and Rautavaara?
> 
> Or during the 1990s coincidental with Kurtag, Lutoslawski, Ligeti and John Adams?
> 
> Finally the 21st century arrived and he became known as a great composer -- during a time when history's greatest composers were all dead, the greatest contemporary compositions were unknown, orchestras were having financial problems everywhere, and people wrote books about the death of classical music.
> 
> Guess people were equally out of touch and living in cocoons to favor those living composers over him all the years of his life.


No I had no idea Elliott Carter reaches back that far, though I should have figured that out as I knew he was composing into his late 90's. 
In credible he was contemporary with Shostakovich, 2 composers so so completely different.

Your argument is not completely convincing that Carter has , contrary to my assumptions, achieved some notoriety for his creative genius in music. I am out of touch , down here in the swamp lands of South Louisiana, where Carter never ever receives play time on the local classical station nor in concerts. Yet this assumption could also be given more solid eveidence as fact, if we all head over to the program schedules of all major US/Europe orchestras, see how often Carter is highlighted. 
Who knows the I could be wrong, perhaps the Vienna has carter on tonight, maybe a all 3 hour Carter concert.

I recall some YT comments, knocking Elliott around with snide and slurs. From their style of insults, , I gathered it was a upper state NY/New England group, who may be representative of the anti-Carter club. You may have run into a few over the years yourself. Not sure what their agenda is all about, but gets on my nerves. Look the Viennese have given kingship status to all their beloved greats, Think about how often Beethoven has been performed in Vienna, Berlin, London past 200 years  (one smiley in shock for each city)
UNREAL
Yet go look at all major USA orch's programs past say, 20 years.
How often will carter's music show up?
See what I'm getting at. 
Are the Europeans more awake than the classical community here in America? Consider how often Bruckner has been performed world wide past , 50 yrs, within Carter's creativity period?

I'd bet for every 10X 's Mahler/Bruckner on the schedule, you would see Elliott Carter's name ones.

Something is just not right about this imbalance. I think orchestra members here in the US should have some voice in who gets on the program , and how often. I am sure most, if not all, if given a power of choice, would delete most of the old standards play time, and bring in a lot more Carter and a few others I'm thinking of .

The ones I'm thinking of, are others not in your lists.

I don't care much for Lutoslawski, Ligeti, Langaarrd, Rautavaara, Hovhaness , some others I won't mention , as i'm already in trouble with the fans of these composers. don;'t want to irate the whole board.

Which US orchestra has taken the Carter banner and brought in Carter's music in every season, not 1 work, but several every season?

I mean Carter's music now has been around for quite some time, but what composer in more often representative in America? I'll tell you, Copland to start, then Ives. Carter has to struggle for a distant 3rd place. 
This is blatant bias and favoritism. 
This is what I am fighting against, the injustice of the whole shebang.

Someone please send my post to the heads of the New England school of music. And to the New Phil Orch office of programming. 
Time for things to change.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Well look who it is...
> 
> What am I doing? I'm looking for a sane answer to a question from someone who's been filling a number of threads with extravagant claims for four composers he appears to believe are the culmination and transformation of Western music, failure to appreciate whom with sufficient fervor is a symptom of sleepwalking or zombiehood (no, I'm not making that up).
> 
> So what are _you_ doing? Looking for trouble?


I think everyone should be entitled to their own opinion without having to suffer an inquisition. I think it's much better to pose counter-arguments, rather than "grill" people. The latter reeks of invalidation tactics, getting the 'victim' to focus on themselves, distracting from the topic. This technique is so transparent, but I'm sure it will continue. Just be aware that I see it, and am very familiar with it as a tactic.


----------



## paulbest

millionrainbows said:


> I think everyone should be entitled to their own opinion without having to suffer an inquisition. I think it's much better to pose counter-arguments, rather than "grill" people. The latter reeks of invalidation tactics, getting the 'victim' to focus on themselves, distracting from the topic. This technique is so transparent, but I'm sure it will continue. Just be aware that I see it, and am very familiar with it as a tactic.


Appreciate the having my back support, Woodduck has not offended me in the least, in fact the old saying *make friends close, enemies even closer*. 
Its good to have someone like Woodduck scoping all my weaknesses out, so I can gain a new perspective on how to look at the problem here. 
With Woodduck's suggestions that I take a broader, higher look at the issues facing us moderns, I decided to head over to carter's web site, see whats going on.
Seems Carter star is rising, as both in Europe and america Carter is now officially on the program. 
Like WOW, 2 or 3 of his gigantic masterpieces are on schedule.
The only objection I have in the American listing is the work will be performed in Minnesota with Osmo Vanska in Sept 2019.
The phenomenal 3 Occasions for orch on the program. The objection I have here, is I am not at all impressed with Vanska's Sibelius, in spite of the fact he won a grammy for that recording. Its terrible. I know Sibelius well, as I collected all recordings for years, even had Robert Kajanus, late 1920's records. 
Vanska's record with the Minnesota and the other Swedish orch, (cajn't recall the name), both are just aweful. The worst, go to YT and see what I mean.
Hey perhaps I am wrong, maybe he can pull off Carter,,,..I'm expecting a mess of things. 
Anyway, Carter is on the rise, as I surmised would happen this century. 
Good things always come to those who wait.

I can envision Carter becoming as great as the Beatles were back in the mid 1960's. It was like wildfire the Beatles thing. Like the late 1950's many households had at least 1 record of Beethoven's syms, many of us had the Krips box set, we bought for like $9.99, that was a ALOT of money back then. A few months after purchased they were so badly scratched up, its was all pops and crackles,,We listened anyway, No one had money to buy another set.

Elliott Carter playing in most homes, I can see it coming.

https://www.elliottcarter.com/events/


----------



## millionrainbows

larold said:


> _Yes, look around at concerts, the crowds are 50- 90 years old. These folks have never heard Elliott's music, much less heard the name *Carter* in music. They are out of touch, live in a cocoon. _
> 
> I bet most 50-year-olds would be surprised to hear they are out of touch and live in cocoons because they don't like Elliott Carter's music.
> 
> Did you know Elliott Carter was composing music in the 1930s coincidental with Sibelius, Elgar, and Rachmaninoff?
> 
> Or that he was writing in the 1950s alongside Shostakovich, Prokofiev and Poulenc?
> 
> Or the 1970s same as Messiaen, William Barber, Dutilleux and Rautavaara?
> 
> Or during the 1990s coincidental with Kurtag, Lutoslawski, Ligeti and John Adams?
> 
> *Finally the 21st century arrived and he became known as a great composer -- during a time when history's greatest composers were all dead, the greatest contemporary compositions were unknown, orchestras were having financial problems everywhere, and people wrote books about the death of classical music.*
> 
> Guess people were equally out of touch and living in cocoons to favor those living composers over him all the years of his life.


Or I guess this shows how postmodernism finally kicked in, after "history" died. Maybe it's just that Elliott Carter's train finally came in. You know, Charles Ives' train was also quite late in arriving as well.
I don't see Elliott Carter as 'history;" I see him as "now."


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> ...Maybe it's just that Elliott Carter's train finally came in.


It's not quite in the station yet! My US orchestral database for 2016-17 has over 4,000 pieces programmed by 40+ orchestras. Mr. Carter does not appear on it, even once.


----------



## paulbest

KenOC said:


> It's not quite in the station yet! My US orchestral database for 2016-17 has over 4,000 pieces programmed by 40+ orchestras. Mr. Carter does not appear on it, even once.


EXCELLENT RESEARCH!!!! 
Thank you very much. I have no idea how you arrived at this VITAL info, Further collaborating my opinion. Its hard to debate your research. 
I was not being serious in my post above, as I knew well, that list on the carter page is a mere drop in the classical; programming bucket world wide. 
take the upcoming concert in Minnesota next week. 
Look at what's on the schedule, Some of you ultra radical modernists might like the program, but I am only interested in the Carter. Why should I fork out $50 for 1/3 of the show??? Not.

That concert should have been a all Carter program. Then I would have very happily paid $150., and made every show.

Carter is worthy of repeats, as its hard to grasp in a few sessions. There is a million things going on, makes the senses swirl. 
Surprises in every passage.

America is consumerism, commercialism, football, BBQ's, hunting sports etc. 
Carter is just not going to become a smash hit like the Beatles did for us, back in the day. 
I just don't see it happening. 
WOW could you imagine, box office lines down the block for a all Carter show. WOW, like we did for Led Zeppelin, Yes, ELP, The Who tickets. Tickets sold out in a few hours!!!

https://www.minnesotaorchestra.org/.../season-opening-osmo-vaenskae-and-andre-watts

https://www.minnesotaorchestra.org/.../season-opening-osmo-vaenskae-and-andre-watts


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I think everyone should be entitled to their own opinion without having to suffer an inquisition. I think it's much better to pose counter-arguments, rather than "grill" people. The latter reeks of invalidation tactics, getting the 'victim' to focus on themselves, distracting from the topic. This technique is so transparent, but I'm sure it will continue. *Just be aware that I see it, and am very familiar with it as a tactic.*


I'm only too aware of what you "see."

Invalid things merit invalidation - or rather, inquiry, exposure, balance, and correction. It's called debate. The fainthearted need not apply.

When things concern you, your remarks may be of use. When they're between others, you can certainly find better uses for your time.

Go in peace.


----------



## flamencosketches

Not to derail the thread too much. @paulbest, who do you like in Sibelius? Vänskä was all I'd heard for some time. I've been enjoying Berglund lately. 

I think his austere conducting style combined with the clean sound of the Minnesota Orchestra could work in Carter. But then I'm no Carter fan.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> It's not quite in the station yet! My US orchestral database for 2016-17 has over 4,000 pieces programmed by 40+ orchestras. Mr. Carter does not appear on it, even once.


That's an impressive statistic. One could feel sorry for Mr. Carter. One might contend that he genuinely deserves to be programmed once in a while. But how many people, I wonder, listen to music because they think it deserves to be listened to?


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> Carter is worthy of repeats, as its hard to grasp in a few sessions. There is a million things going on, makes the senses swirl.
> Surprises in every passage.


That's a good argument for not including him on orchestral concert programs.



> America is consumerism, commercialism, football, BBQ's, hunting sports etc.
> Carter is just not going to become a smash hit like the Beatles did for us, back in the day.
> I just don't see it happening.


The football/BBQ/sport hunting crowd is certainly not the relevant group here. Carter will for the most part be enjoyed by a minority of a minority of a minority of music lovers. I don't partake of any of the above three activities, but if they were the only alternative to listening to this sort of stuff 



 I might at least try to develop a taste for charcoal.


----------



## paulbest

Woodduck said:


> That's a good argument for not including him on orchestral concert programs.
> 
> The football/BBQ/sport hunting crowd is certainly not the relevant group here. Carter will for the most part be enjoyed by a minority of a minority of a minority of music lovers. I don't partake of any of the above three activities, but if they were the only alternative to listening to this sort of stuff
> 
> 
> 
> I might at least try to develop a taste for charcoal.


ahhh not so fast there, if you think you can pull the wool over my eyes, think again. 
I knew from the getgo, as I clicked the YT link, I saw it was ,,,YOUTH Orchextra….I gave them a shot, but as expected, they may be good muiscians , but Carter requires virtuoso. In 5 yrs, I would love to hear this group make another performance in the work. Then you have a leg to stand on. Agree , the performance only gets my applause, because they are perforaming a masterpiece , a extremely challenging one at that. Hats off. But as to working up to the magnificence , the full potentioal of the work, leaves a bit to be desired. 
Like all records, we love best, the most successful performances.

Here, take a look at this
Skip over your posting (you just HAD TO pick the amateur listing, you JUST HAD to, makes Carter seems lousey, quirky = a total mess) and go to the 2nd vid /New Juilliard 3) Amasterdam group 4) Nonesuch and the 6th vid /New Philharmonia. 
Listen to any 1 or all, then you will behold the full spectrum of colors, fabrics, rextures of this magnificent masterpiece.

I noted what you were up to, you ain't getting over on me.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=carter+double+concerto+for+harpsichord+and+piano


----------



## paulbest

well in the above link, skip your YT vid, which is at #2. Go to 1, then 3, 4,6
To hear how Carter can bloom with fantastic shapes and images


----------



## janxharris

paulbest said:


> America is consumerism, commercialism, football, BBQ's, hunting sports etc.


Please forgive me...but any excuse to air this again. It must be post modern.


----------



## paulbest

flamencosketches said:


> Not to derail the thread too much. @paulbest, who do you like in Sibelius? Vänskä was all I'd heard for some time. I've been enjoying Berglund lately.
> 
> I think his austere conducting style combined with the clean sound of the Minnesota Orchestra could work in Carter. But then I'm no Carter fan.


 I always loved the Berglund/Helsinki. 
If you love the 1st sym a lot, you need to hear Stokowski/London 1976 for something that is as perfect, dynamic as any recording, of any composer , EVER. 
Its simply off the charts. 
I was not so impressed with either of the great Finnish conductor, Lief Segerstam, except his 4 Legends, and tone poems. His 1st set with the Danish is superior to his Helsinki set.

Honestly if I had to go with 1 set among others, it would be the Berglund/Helsinki, and have no second set. .
In the great Kullervo, there are quite a few great recordings. But not Vanska's which is terrible

Salonen'LA is excellent. that work requires multiples. But as I say, I've lost interest in Sibelius. Except for his masterpiece Kullervo /few other works.

I looked at Vanska/Minnesota on YT, ,,,no comment.


----------



## paulbest

janxharris said:


> Please forgive me...but any excuse to air this again. It must be post modern.


BINGO
You could not pick a better music song for how America has become *the whatever world*.

I mean think about it, look who is our prez… a whatever president for a whatever country. 
Kinda makes sense.

The Whatever song probably has more hits on YT than all/every of Carter added up. 
Go figure.

Just cked, the Whatever hit has 269K views,,,Most of Carter's vids average below 100 views to a few K's. 
,,,,,,,those numbers means something. Great art is just not being given proper appreciation in this generation.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

paulbest said:


> BINGO
> You could not pick a better music song for how America has become *the whatever world*.
> 
> I mean think about it, look who is our prez… a whatever president for a whatever country.
> Kinda makes sense.
> 
> The Whatever song probably has more hits on YT than all/every of Carter added up.
> Go figure.


So do you think that by insulting people that do not like the same music as you, that will just start to like it? Or maybe they will just ignore you.


----------



## janxharris

paulbest said:


> BINGO
> You could not pick a better music song for how America has become *the whatever world*.
> 
> I mean think about it, look who is our prez… a whatever president for a whatever country.
> Kinda makes sense.
> 
> The Whatever song probably has more hits on YT than all/every of Carter added up.
> Go figure.


Whatever.......


----------



## Phil loves classical

paulbest said:


> ahhh not so fast there, if you think you can pull the wool over my eyes, think again.
> I knew from the getgo, as I clicked the YT link, I saw it was ,,,YOUTH Orchextra….I gave them a shot, but as expected, they may be good muiscians , but Carter requires virtuoso. In 5 yrs, I would love to hear this group make another performance in the work. Then you have a leg to stand on. Agree , the performance only gets my applause, because they are perforaming a masterpiece , a extremely challenging one at that. Hats off. But as to working up to the magnificence , the full potentioal of the work, leaves a bit to be desired.
> Like all records, we love best, the most successful performances.
> 
> Here, take a look at this
> Skip over your posting (you just HAD TO pick the amateur listing, you JUST HAD to, makes Carter seems lousey, quirky = a total mess) and go to the 2nd vid /New Juilliard 3) Amasterdam group 4) Nonesuch and the 6th vid /New Philharmonia.
> Listen to any 1 or all, then you will behold the full spectrum of colors, fabrics, rextures of this magnificent masterpiece.
> 
> I noted what you were up to, you ain't getting over on me.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=carter+double+concerto+for+harpsichord+and+piano


I thought the youth orchestra did a great job. It was really only the recording quality lacking. I can recognize his tetrachords easily now in this work after experimenting with them from the other thread, and can follow the patterns. His music has an improvisational feel. Like the rhythm of a drunk person, sometimes slo-mo, sometimes agitated. I have to say I find it more relatable now than a lot of serial music, which isn't built from chords.


----------



## paulbest

Johnnie Burgess said:


> So do you think that by insulting people that do not like the same music as you, that will just start to like it? Or maybe they will just ignore you.


Yeah I do tend to get agitated and abit over aggressive. 
I am kind of Yellow Vester for my fav composers. Apologies if I offended any of the romantic trad groupies here


----------



## paulbest

Phil loves classical said:


> I thought the youth orchestra did a great job. It was really only the recording quality lacking. I can recognize his tetrachords easily now in this work after experimenting with them from the other thread, and can follow the patterns. His music has an improvisational feel. Like the rhythm of a drunk person, sometimes slo-mo, sometimes agitated. I have to say I find it more relatable now than a lot of serial music, which isn't built from chords.


Yes , the perf is not all that bad,, considering the dif of the score.

I tend to agree, Carter's music has some leeway on tempos, not as stringent as say a Mozart late sym. In Mozart the tempos have to be exact, even perfect. Walter and Bohm both understood this.

I was looking for more expertise among the performers, some cohesion was lost. But overall I'd say successful


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> ahhh not so fast there, if you think you can pull the wool over my eyes, think again.
> I knew from the getgo, as I clicked the YT link, I saw it was ,,,YOUTH Orchextra….I gave them a shot, but as expected, they may be good muiscians , but Carter requires virtuoso. In 5 yrs, I would love to hear this group make another performance in the work. Then you have a leg to stand on. Agree , the performance only gets my applause, because they are perforaming a masterpiece , a extremely challenging one at that. Hats off. But as to working up to the magnificence , the full potentioal of the work, leaves a bit to be desired.
> Like all records, we love best, the most successful performances.
> 
> Here, take a look at this
> Skip over your posting (you just HAD TO pick the amateur listing, you JUST HAD to, makes Carter seems lousey, quirky = a total mess) and go to the 2nd vid /New Juilliard 3) Amasterdam group 4) Nonesuch and the 6th vid /New Philharmonia.
> Listen to any 1 or all, then you will behold the full spectrum of colors, fabrics, rextures of this magnificent masterpiece.
> 
> I noted what you were up to, you ain't getting over on me.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=carter+double+concerto+for+harpsichord+and+piano


I wasn't "up to" anything.

OK, I've listened to a professional performance. It doesn't change my view of Carter as a composer of special interest. It's certainly music that can give the brain plenty to do, and apparently this particular work is considered among his best; it does get performed occasionally, and the large number of versions on YT would suggest that it gets the attention it deserves. But should anyone be surprised that this sort of music doesn't show up in the subscription concerts of symphony orchestras? Listening to it might be more akin to doing a jigsaw puzzle than to the usual experience of a concerto. Recordings seem to me the ideal medium for it, and the living room the ideal venue - unless of course we want to watch people hitting things on stage.


----------



## paulbest

Woodduck said:


> I wasn't "up to" anything.
> 
> OK, I've listened to a professional performance. It doesn't change my view of Carter as a composer of special interest. It's certainly music that can give the brain plenty to do, and apparently this particular work is considered among his best; it does get performed occasionally, and the large number of versions on YT would suggest that it gets the attention it deserves. But should anyone be surprised that this sort of music doesn't show up in the subscription concerts of symphony orchestras? Listening to it might be more akin to doing a jigsaw puzzle than to the usual experience of a concerto. Recordings seem to me the ideal medium for it, and the living room the ideal venue - unless of course we want to watch people hitting things on stage.


Great post, Yeah I have no issues listening to cds, as new Orleans Sym Orch, I believe does not exist, as having financial problems,,wait its now the Louisiana Phil. 
They would never program Carter, Which is why I invest heavily in cds, anda big French tube amp + tube CDP + tube pre + worlds best sounding speakers, SEAS THOR.
I'll have her up N running 1st time in 10 yrs,,,she's been in the closet all these yrs. Never had the $600 for the tubes. Next week I;'ll pick her up, being dusted right now. 
I will hear details which are lost on most other stereos. 
Here is a pic of the jadis Defy 7

Some pics have duel defy's side by side,,,, not sure why, , Its a single chassis amp. Weighs in at 80+ lbs, maybe 100 lbs. I bought 12 Russian KT90 tubes.
The heat it puts out, UNREAL. I will have to build a smoke stack to run the heat out, as I live in New Orleans where heat is a major factor.

Yes Carter's music is not your *average concerto*.

https://www.google.com/search?q=jad...hAhVMI6wKHQ08BN4QsAR6BAgHEAE&biw=1536&bih=770


----------



## Enthusiast

KenOC said:


> It's not quite in the station yet! My US orchestral database for 2016-17 has over 4,000 pieces programmed by 40+ orchestras. Mr. Carter does not appear on it, even once.


And ...? What does that tell us that we don't already know? I don't think anyone has claimed that Carter is popular, merely that he will come to be seen as a major composer of his time and that his music will live on. But that doesn't mean he will ever "compete" with Tchaikovsky's first piano concerto or Beethoven 5 or even the current popularity of Shostakovich. But he may one day be as popular and as easily understood/enjoyed as Bartok is today.

The nature of audiences - itself a product of various social developments - what they want in their music and how they access it, is likely to be the biggest determinant of Carter's popularity in the future. It is already the case that most classical music that is enjoyed by people who are actually serious classical music fans is not accessed through concerts, for example. Most of the music we talk about on these pages is not performed in public very often but most of it is subject to numerous recordings (OK - these still sell slowly). We know and acknowledge Carter's achievement and have done for decades (his Concerto for Orchestra has been recorded multiple times, including by Bernstein; his quartets are quite widely known and liked).


----------



## larold

_It's not quite in the station yet! My US orchestral database for 2016-17 has over 4,000 pieces programmed by 40+ orchestras. Mr. Carter does not appear on it, even once … EXCELLENT RESEARCH!!!! Thank you very much. I have no idea how you arrived at this VITAL info, Further collaborating my opinion. Its hard to debate your research. _

I agree in part; my difference would be the final assumption: I say it is impossible to debate the research. Carter is simply an unknown composer never played who somehow has achieved a reputation of greatness with a tiny clique within the classical music community.

I think if there is anyone in classical music that believes such a person has achieved greatness it unquestionably addresses the principal question of this link -- Why isn't modern classical music popular? The answer is obvious: it's the music and the composers.


----------



## paulbest

larold;1628637: I say it is impossible to debate the research. Carter is simply an unknown composer never played who somehow has achieved a reputation of greatness with a tiny clique within the classical music community.
.[/QUOTE said:


> Interesting insights, here, I have no contacts with the worlds great music schools, so I have no idea how often Carter's music is being performed, practiced, studied and discussed in the hall ways, and lunch rooms, and all over the campus.
> 
> Are you sure Carter has been neglected all these years, where only exists a small clique of Carterians…?
> 
> I find this difficult to believe, much less accept as status quo.
> 
> I would have suspected Carter was the main topic of discussion among the students , staff and all orchestras around the world.
> 
> How is it that I, w/o any musical training, knowledge, no expertise in this grand art called classical music, can become so overwhelmed by Carter's profound genius expressing depth, height, width, music that we used to say back in the day *blows the mind*. *unreal* *like far out*
> Yet those who possess all the qualifications which I completely lack,,,,are somehow ,,deaf to Carter.
> I just don't get it.
> I *get* Carter very well.
> I just don't *get* the powers that be.
> 
> Why is Carter not regularly performed by the New York Phil, a city that boasts being the hip cosmopolitan capital of the world.
> 
> You know you may be right, as I've never ever heard Elliott Carter's music come over the local FM classical station here in New orleans.
> So its down here too, neglect of America's greatest composer.
> Oh yeah, they play Copland, Hanson , Beech and every other American composer, Not hardly ever Carter, if ever.
> 
> You know whena rock band hada new album out, we all rushed off to get it same day, played it over and over.
> Yet Carter has been giving us smash hits now for decades.
> Something is a bit odd in all this.


----------



## Enthusiast

larold said:


> Carter is simply an unknown composer never played who somehow has achieved a reputation of greatness with a tiny clique within the classical music community.
> 
> I think if there is anyone in classical music that believes such a person has achieved greatness it unquestionably addresses the principal question of this link -- Why isn't modern classical music popular? The answer is obvious: it's the music and the composers.


I have respect for your views and many of your posts, larold, but it is time to give this knocking of Carter a rest. Unknown? Why so many records, then? And how do they stay available? And why do some of our most gifted musicians play him? By all means say you don't like him and put that in perspective by telling us what you do like. But you are resorting now to nonsense that just makes you seem silly!

You claim your view is based on "research" but your research is nothing apart from what gets played by US orchestras in concerts. What about chamber music? Anyway, let's look at this evidence. I think you will find that attenders of US orchestral concerts include a very small proportion of US classical music fans (with more than half the halls filled with people who like the occasional classical piece but are not hard core fans like most of us) and this despite (or because?) the programmes often being stuffed with warhorses. Nor can those who do attend concerts be taken to be a representative sample of those who passionately like classical music. Concerts are no longer our main way of listening to classical music.

The OP question tells us that modern classical music is no longer popular and it asks why. But who says it is not popular? I think I have demonstrated in this thread that its popularity is not so easy to gauge and that the function and uses of new classical music are very different to what they were in the 19th century. At the same time, the range of musics available is much wider so listeners can follow all sorts of different channels. Despite all this, this seems to be a time when modern classical music is very much in demand - even if not in US orchestral concert halls - and attracts far bigger audiences than Beethoven, Brahms or Schubert did in their days. The reason why it is so popular is with the music and the composers!


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Well, of course I'm familiar with John Carter, Warlord of Barsoom. But this Elliott person -- a nephew perhaps?


To quote Woodduck, what are you doing, KenOC? Trying to start trouble?


----------



## millionrainbows

Johnnie Burgess said:


> In America there is a family called Carter and they helped create a genre of music called Country Music, maybe you heard of them:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Family


Wow, that's illuminating!


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> It's not quite in the station yet! My US orchestral database for 2016-17 has over 4,000 pieces programmed by 40+ orchestras. Mr. Carter does not appear on it, even once.


Do you mean A.P. "Pa" Carter or Elliott? :lol:

So? It's a different era now. Things aren't ever going to be the way they were. The concert halls, and "classical music" in general is still suffering from the post-modernist time-lag and historical vortex syndrome. Maybe Boulez was right, to kill the virus we may have to burn it down.


----------



## millionrainbows

paulbest said:


> Yeah I do tend to get agitated and abit over aggressive.
> I am kind of Yellow Vester for my fav composers. Apologies if I offended any of the romantic trad groupies here


Oh, I thought she might have been a Trump supporter. It's possible, you know.


----------



## Guest

To answer the OP question "Why isn't modern classical music [contemporary art music] popular?", I have to say that in my entourage it is immensely popular. My entourage is more important (bigger) than yours.


----------



## paulbest

Enthusiast said:


> I have respect for your views and many of your posts, larold, but it is time to give this knocking of Carter a rest. Unknown? Why so many records, then? And how do they stay available? And why do some of our most gifted musicians play him? By all means say you don't like him and put that in perspective by telling us what you do like. But you are resorting now to nonsense that just makes you seem silly!
> 
> You claim your view is based on "research" but your research is nothing apart from what gets played by US orchestras in concerts. What about chamber music? Anyway, let's look at this evidence. I think you will find that attenders of US orchestral concerts include a very small proportion of US classical music fans (with more than half the halls filled with people who like the occasional classical piece but are not hard core fans like most of us) and this despite (or because?) the programmes often being stuffed with warhorses. Nor can those who do attend concerts be taken to be a representative sample of those who passionately like classical music. Concerts are no longer our main way of listening to classical music.
> 
> The OP question tells us that modern classical music is no longer popular and it asks why. But who says it is not popular? I think I have demonstrated in this thread that its popularity is not so easy to gauge and that the function and uses of new classical music are very different to what they were in the 19th century. At the same time, the range of musics available is much wider so listeners can follow all sorts of different channels. Despite all this, this seems to be a time when modern classical music is very much in demand - even if not in US orchestral concert halls - and attracts far bigger audiences than Beethoven, Brahms or Schubert did in their days. The reason why it is so popular is with the music and the composers!


Smackdown

Very well present, bullet proof and cordial , friendly, 
A kind, gentile smackdown:lol:

No but seriously, I think you are right, it is not possible to gauge a particular composers fan club, based on how often performed, nor or seats filled at the hall.

Many of us find that our complete Carter cd collections to offer outstanding performances and so why trifle over Carter not being often, if at all.

Look at the Carter web page, lists all the upcoming Carter performances WORLD wide. More performances in germany, then England, then asia, USA last place.

Yes the old war horses have stampeded all over composers who I would have loved to come to know much earlier on in my classical journey, but with all the dust left behind from the stampeding war horses, I could not hear clearly.

This is one of my main peeves. The amount of propagandizment surrounding the major war horse, making sure their horses win all the time.

As I walked into the tower LP store, signs, promos, bins full on all the composers I now see, I do not like, nor really ever care to hear again.

I can see Carter's music becoming more widely known 1st off, then later on a rise in acceptance resulting ina healthy curiosity and complete embrace.

That is to say, Carter will become more popular than Beethoven, which will remain, for the ages (the epoch, This Zeitgeist). 
Its only a matter of time for this revelatory process to complete. No one can stop a revelation, once it breaks out.


----------



## millionrainbows

Enthusiast said:


> I have respect for your views and many of your posts, larold, but it is time to give this knocking of Carter a rest. Unknown? Why so many records, then? And how do they stay available? And why do some of our most gifted musicians play him? By all means say you don't like him and put that in perspective by telling us what you do like. But you are resorting now to nonsense that just makes you seem silly!
> 
> You claim your view is based on "research" but your research is nothing apart from what gets played by US orchestras in concerts. What about chamber music? Anyway, let's look at this evidence. I think you will find that attenders of US orchestral concerts include a very small proportion of US classical music fans (with more than half the halls filled with people who like the occasional classical piece but are not hard core fans like most of us) and this despite (or because?) the programmes often being stuffed with warhorses. Nor can those who do attend concerts be taken to be a representative sample of those who passionately like classical music. Concerts are no longer our main way of listening to classical music.
> 
> The OP question tells us that modern classical music is no longer popular and it asks why. But who says it is not popular? I think I have demonstrated in this thread that its popularity is not so easy to gauge and that the function and uses of new classical music are very different to what they were in the 19th century. At the same time, the range of musics available is much wider so listeners can follow all sorts of different channels. Despite all this, this seems to be a time when modern classical music is very much in demand - even if not in US orchestral concert halls - and attracts far bigger audiences than Beethoven, Brahms or Schubert did in their days. The reason why it is so popular is with the music and the composers!


Yes, it's funny how when somebody "enthuses" about composers or music they like, somebody who doesn't like it feels compelled to rain all over it, as if this were going to somehow quell or subdue this like.

I see the real cause of this reactionary behavior as not merely psychological, but as a generation of enthusiasts who are caught in the post-modernist historical vortex. It reminds me of Edgar Allen Poe's "A Descent Into the Maelstrom," where the people going down the drain are stuck there, still aware, despairing...

On the other hand I attribute much of the enthusiam of modernism (like Elliott Carter) to people who are not entrenched, who may have been displaced, had to start over, and who are generally living "in the moment."


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> But you are resorting now to nonsense that just makes you seem silly!
> 
> ...Despite all this, this seems to be a time when modern classical music is very much in demand - even if not in US orchestral concert halls - and attracts far bigger audiences than Beethoven, Brahms or Schubert did in their days. The reason why it is so popular is with the music and the composers!


Speaking of silliness!
First, the population of the world is 7-8 times greater than the early 19th century. So, that plus recordings having spread interest around the world, the music of Beethoven, Brahms and Schubert attracts far bigger audiences than it did in their days and far bigger audiences -even in U.S. concert halls- than modern classical music.


----------



## Enthusiast

millionrainbows said:


> I see the real cause of this reactionary behavior as not merely psychological, but as a generation of enthusiasts who are caught in the post-modernist historical vortex. It reminds me of Edgar Allen Poe's "A Descent Into the Maelstrom," where the people going down the drain are stuck there, still aware, despairing...


Good to be reminded of that. I will hold that image in my mind the next time I see a post despairing of modern masters!


----------



## larold

_I have respect for your views and many of your posts, larold, but it is time to give this knocking of Carter a rest. Unknown?_

I'll take back the unknown reference for surely he is known … and in some circles admired. I consulted my musicological guides and learned he'd have scored 5 points in my survey which would have been good for a ranking in the middle 90s or about the same as the likes of Lutoslowski, Glass and Buxtehude.

A composer of that stature probably deserved some accolades at his death, especially having lived more than a century. I probably shortchanged that too.

None of that cancels the lack of performance of his music anywhere even though he wrote concertos and music than wasn't 12 tone.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, it's funny how when somebody "enthuses" about composers or music they like, somebody who doesn't like it feels compelled to rain all over it, as if this were going to somehow quell or subdue this like.


This happens with regard to other music as well, music which isn't even difficult or controversial. The most extraordinarily demeaning, and downright silly, things have been said on this forum about composers as long-established as Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin and Schubert. There are always people eager to debunk, to find feet of clay, to shoot sacred cows, etc. If their fire is directed more toward Schoenberg or Stockhausen, is anyone really surprised?



> I see the real cause of this reactionary behavior as not merely psychological, but as a generation of enthusiasts who are caught in the post-modernist historical vortex.


I see this as psychologizing, rationalizing, and insulting. It's modernist elitism in a fancy dress: "post-modernist historical vortex" is just cover for the fact that composers have been writing music that its advocates think ought to be performed and listened to by people who don't care for it. When reality doesn't live up to their wishes, these advocates try to explain it as a failure on the part of the lazy, ignorant, backward masses. People don't like being called lazy, ignorant and backward, especially when the big "issue" isn't global terrorism or climate change but music.



> It reminds me of Edgar Allen Poe's "A Descent Into the Maelstrom," where the people going down the drain are stuck there, still aware, despairing...


I don't think an inability to enjoy Xenakis has caused anyone to despair. Or maybe they're just too backward to notice how terrible they feel.



> On the other hand I attribute much of the enthusiasm of modernism (like Elliott Carter) to people who are not entrenched, who may have been displaced, had to start over, and who are generally living "in the moment."


"In the moment" is certainly one way to describe music which lacks tonal syntax, melodic shape, rhythmic regularity, or anything that sounds like a beginning, middle or end. Listening to unconnected sounds is fine if that's what you want. Just don't heap sophistical, condescending characterizations on people who find what's left when those aesthetic qualities are gone uninspiring and, under layers of fiendish Carterian cleverness, profoundly mediocre. The pleasure of being "in the moment" is what music, as music, affords all of us, whether that music sounds like a Beethoven symphony or a Balinese gamelan.


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> So? It's a different era now. Things aren't ever going to be the way they were. The concert halls, and "classical music" in general is still suffering from the post-modernist time-lag and historical vortex syndrome. Maybe Boulez was right, to kill the virus we may have to burn it down.


Might be better to burn the modernists. The air quality people would probably prefer that since we wouldn't have to burn their music as well, given that nobody much listens to it.


----------



## Sid James

millionrainbows said:


> So? It's a different era now. Things aren't ever going to be the way they were. The concert halls, and "classical music" in general is still suffering from the post-modernist time-lag and historical vortex syndrome. Maybe Boulez was right, to kill the virus we may have to burn it down.





KenOC said:


> Might be better to burn the modernists. The air quality people would probably prefer that since we wouldn't have to burn their music as well, given that nobody much listens to it.


Theresienstadt led to exactly that, some musicians like Karel Ancerl where lucky to survive. Then you get the reaction from young Boulez and others. I wonder though, do we need to play these ancient hatreds out here, now, well over half a century after the fact?


----------



## Phil loves classical

Came across this funny story taking place in a modern art gallery.

https://www.samaa.tv/uncategorized/...r-of-glasses-was-mistaken-for-postmodern-art/


----------



## paulbest

So with the above post, we can now clearly agree on the fact that not all composers in the late 20th C should be given the status of a *classical music composer*. Its a sub genre, which many of us moderns are not at all interested in. 
How I define modern,,well would be with Wagner's Parsifal, Debussy's Prelude and going all the way through Elliott Carter, perhaps there are some gems written today, but I am not aware of .


I pretty much consider Elliott Carter the close out composer in a very long tradition. There is plenty of music within those 300+ years to keep every one very happy for a very long time. Post modern may yet hold new styles, new inventions. And when that time comes, I will listen with a open mind. 

Like the countless composers from the past 300 years, many of which we have few/to none records on cd format, so too will the thousands of new modern composers be subjected to the popularity testing. 
If the music has true value, it will be given life. 
If not, it is off to the dungeons.


----------



## Woodduck

Sid James said:


> Theresienstadt led to exactly that, some musicians like Karel Ancerl where lucky to survive. Then you get the reaction from young Boulez and others. I wonder though, do we need to play these ancient hatreds out here, now, well over half a century after the fact?


I'm sure KenOC wasn't serious. I'm really not sure about millionrainbows. But nothing's going to get burned down. Theresienstadt??? That's serious indeed - but if Boulez thought total serialism was an answer to Nazi genocide he was making a rather large category error, or else suffering from megalomania.

The thing some of us are still playing out well over half a century later is the modernist anxiety over what
kind of music people are writing, playing and listening to. If postmodernism has a good side, it's to set us free from the assumptions that sustain these debates, especially the assumption that any sort of music is especially appropriate or inappropriate to the times. We're in a museum culture now, where everything old is new again and where the new sounds old a week, a day, or five minutes after it's produced.


----------



## paulbest

No I can't agree with those premises, the old is outdated, antiquated and should be moved aside so the new can be born. Lets Szymanowski go on the program and get rid of any number of the old war horses, Look at how often Brahms, Bruckner is on the schedule.
fact is all the war horses works are simple to perform the orchestra does not have to practice as they have been playing it from memory since youth. 
Give them a Schnittke, carter Szymanowski score, now they have to stay up late and get to practice. 
and the seats will not be any more/less full whoever they schedule on the program. Plus the old patrons who pay the bills, only want their little favs on the schedule. *for old times sake*, these elderly sponsors can never depart from their Brahms, Dvorak, and all other Vienna standards. 
The old will never become new, it will slowly, ever so slowly fade away, past my lifetime I am sure,. Good riddance.
The new may/may not arise high in the celestials, as man is now under pressure just to stay alive ,a s dark forces surround him on all sides. 
He is in no mood for high art, which he has little time for and can't understand the music anyway. 
Yet he has missed one of the only true values this life has to offer, High musical art. 
To miss this, is to miss out on life.
He is pooer for the loss, yet has no clue he just cheated himself.

What new will not be remembered just hours after hearing is this piece by Stockhausen, read the comments below in the YT upload, There is a argument taking place,, *does Stockhausen belong in the classical genre or not* I argued he does not.


----------



## DaveM

paulbest said:


> ..What new will not be remembered just hours after hearing is this piece by Stockhausen, read the comments below in the YT upload, There is a argument taking place,, *does Stockhausen belong in the classical genre or not* I argued he does not.


You've been reading my playbook.


----------



## Sid James

Woodduck said:


> I'm sure KenOC wasn't serious. I'm really not sure about millionrainbows. But nothing's going to get burned down. Theresienstadt??? That's serious indeed - but if Boulez thought total serialism was an answer to Nazi genocide he was making a rather large category error, or else suffering from megalomania.
> 
> The thing some of us are still playing out well over half a century later is the modernist anxiety over what
> kind of music people are writing, playing and listening to. If postmodernism has a good side, it's to set us free from the assumptions that sustain these debates, especially the assumption that any sort of music is especially appropriate or inappropriate to the times. We're in a museum culture now, where everything old is new again and where the new sounds old a week, a day, or five minutes after it's produced.


Serious or not, I was commenting on what I see as summarising opposing ends of this debate. Theresienstadt wasn't even the final word on this ideological war, look what's currently happening with ISIS. Music will always be in the firing line of ideology and in light of what happened during WWII, looking back in anger was a valid reaction. The Enlightenment pretty much died there and then. Postmodernism isn't perfect but its emergence has indeed meant that the culture wars are largely a thing of the past. Not so on TC, which is fine, however when I see aspects of it emerge here I can't help but think that its not only futile but redundant.


----------



## larold

_the old is outdated, antiquated and should be moved aside so the new can be born. Lets Szymanowski go on the program and get rid of any number of the old war horses, Look at how often Brahms, Bruckner is on the schedule. fact is all the war horses works are simple to perform the orchestra does not have to practice as they have been playing it from memory since youth. Give them a Schnittke, carter Szymanowski score, now they have to stay up late and get to practice. _

This sounds good until you try to get an audience to attend such concerts. If this is how the classical music world worked everyone's schedule would be full of these composers. I don't even hear them on the radio, much less at the concert hall.

While none of the composers cited here are "new" this once again argues for something that would likely appeal to younger listeners. As has been said around here hundreds of times younger listeners are not the ones paying to support the industry.

I think this philosophy fits popular music and the rapidity of its changes far better than classical music which is to its fans more a stream of consciousness stretching hundreds of years than a spectrum of starts and stops with popularity ebbing and flowing owing to what is current or popular.

The number of new pieces of classical music that become popular and have lasting value has always been low; it just seems like the oppositie because so much music hundreds of years old retains its place in regular playlists.


----------



## paulbest

Great observations offered. 
Yes completely agree on all your points of argument.

&New* means , composers who most classiaclphiles have not yet heard the name, and/or the music as yet. 
Szymanowski < I had heard of, from a old Oistrakh LP, with vaious VC's on the disc. 
I recall someone on that topic, say how puzzled he was that Szymanowski was not more well known = popular. 
Note the concert schedule on every orchestra, ,,,I just cked after some 10 yrs of having never seen a schedule,,Who did I see on the program in 2019!!!!!!!!
Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler, Bruckner, Dvorak, Strauss, and of course Mozart. 

Some things never ever change. 


Remember when the Beatles hit the charts, we were all enthralled, the new pop music made the rock stars into our gods. 
Beatlemania was real. 
Now we pass up Beatle cds at garage sales, even at 25 cents we have no interest. From gods to void of value. 
Whereas you point out, many composers have been around for centuries , for they offer true real value, Pop music in all its countless cults, will diminish , and new pop will take its place. 

I just do not see any youth generation stepping in and becoming classical music fans. Classical music is something of the elite, the higher consciousness, , the cultured ones. Pop culture clashes with the values offered in classical music. 

If we could ask the patrons who support the programs, which composers are your favorite. None of our fav moderns would make the top 100 list. 
Yet as you point out, they have the cash, and that's that. Programming will go along as always, no changes ahead. We just have to accept this evident fact.

And your last argument, that new classical *top 10 hits*, do not seem to go anywhere on programming, Neither radio, nor concer halls offer Szymanowski, This is why I consider him, New Modern Classical genre, although he wrote back nearly 100 years ago. He is modern, as his music is fresh, alive, nothing at all stale in his scores. 

Most of my favorites, in fact all, have a similar characteristic , that is all have some timeless, eternal semblance in their music. That is to say, in 1 T years from now , Ravel will sound just as fresh and beautiful as it does today. 

Whereas the god like Beatles, just hardly 1/2 a century has been reduced to zero status, all their music could just drop off, who really cares now. 

Pop fans need to know the piper they are following is just for the moment, all their godlike music, later on will become meaningless trash. 
Never so, with classical music, as it partakes of genius, which pop music only possesses miniscule amounts of. 
= its fake music, whereas classical is the real deal. 
Pop music can not give value to the soul, whereas the classical grants us entry into that Platonic archetypal realm of musical genius. .


----------



## Enthusiast

I certainly don't want to lose the great music of the past and I don't think it stands in the way of the new. Indeed, because it can be more accessible, I think it acts well as a gateway to newer music and provides us with some sort of measure for evaluating what we hear when we listen to newer and less familiar music. I also don't think loving and spending time with music that is more than 100 years old squeeze out my availability and interest in the new. It actually makes me a little angry when fans of modern music rail against the masterpieces of the past.


----------



## paulbest

I think I made some rock solid commentary on the demise of western culture, as far as music is concern. 
Woodduck will have a tough time piercing any cracks in my well armored body suit.


----------



## paulbest

Enthusiast said:


> I certainly don't want to lose the great music of the past and I don't think it stands in the way of the new. Indeed, because it can be more accessible, I think it acts well as a gateway to newer music and provides us with some sort of measure for evaluating what we hear when we listen to newer and less familiar music. I also don't think loving and spending time with music that is more than 100 years old squeeze out my availability and interest in the new. It actually makes me a little angry when fans of modern music rail against the masterpieces of the past.


I agree in part. 
A member here was curious about some late 20TH C composers, yet he still has to explore many 18th C composrs, I suggested he ork his way through the old classics, and later on progress up to other modern composers.

He will find out Verdi will sound antiquated next to Szymanowski's King Roger. Its better this way, as King Roger will shine more brightly for him. 
I too had to come up through the rank and file of the old war horses, only then could I make new discoveries , as to whats of value and what has no meaning.

Its good to have choices, What I am getting at is, we the supporters of the new classical, should offer suggestions to the newbies arriving in daily. So they do not have to go looking for a needle ina hay stack for new music. 
Sure now with YT, they can have music at their fingertips, Which many of us back in the day, only had 1 minute clips offered on amazon . 
I was the considered as the 1 minute clip cd critic. I got pretty good at it, only on music I knew well.

Recall, back at the old site, CMG, GMG, neither had a Pettersson page. TC has moved into the modern era. This is all I am saying, lets be a voice for those composers we know which have been neglected for multiple reasons.

Reasons such as elderly patrons only promoting their fav darlings on the program schedule.

WE need to offer the alternatives in classical, so youths have a new choice to decide for themselves in which direction they want to go.
We need to show some resistance against the powers that be, who wish to keep the status quo composers in the spot light. 
Why should modern masters , only get the crumbs which fall from the feasting table?


----------



## Enthusiast

^^^


> He will find out Verdi will sound antiquated next to Szymanowski's King Roger. Its better this way, as King Roger will shine more brightly for him.


Fair enough but that is not how it is for me. The word "antiquated" has negative connotations that don't chime with the way I experience music. I hear that Verdi wrote his operas in a different time but I don't hear them as not talking (singing?) to me now. And King Roger - not my favourite opera as it happens - certainly sounds different but this doesn't involve in it sounding more relevant to me.

As for campaigning for new music, well yes OK. I'm not sure it needs it. And I'm not sure knocking the warhorses is a good way to do it. This forum is not very friendly to new music on the whole - there are many who seem on a mission to prove to us that it is all a con or is, in some way, the cause of the demise of classical music - but there are enough of us to share recommendations and, occasionally, to "win" the odd convert.

You fall in the middle in a way because you knock a lot of the more avant garde music (including the genius, Stockhausen) while advocating passionately for a select group of composers. Its a legitimate position - it is your taste - but it is likely to remain a unique one. Maybe you yourself should be a little more open to music that is new to you.


----------



## paulbest

Enthusiast said:


> ^^^
> 
> Fair enough but that is not how it is for me. The word "antiquated" has negative connotations that don't chime with the way I experience music. I hear that Verdi wrote his operas in a different time but I don't hear them as not talking (singing?) to me now. And King Roger - not my favourite opera as it happens - certainly sounds different but this doesn't involve in it sounding more relevant to me.
> 
> As for campaigning for new music, well yes OK. I'm not sure it needs it. And I'm not sure knocking the warhorses is a good way to do it. This forum is not very friendly to new music on the whole - there are many who seem on a mission to prove to us that it is all a con or is, in some way, the cause of the demise of classical music - but there are enough of us to share recommendations and, occasionally, to "win" the odd convert.
> 
> You fall in the middle in a way because you knock a lot of the more avant garde music (including the genius, Stockhausen) while advocating passionately for a select group of composers. Its a legitimate position - it is your taste - but it is likely to remain a unique one. Maybe you yourself should be a little more open to music that is new to you.


Excellent views, fair and cordial. 
I can tend to be rancorous in promoting what I consider the be *the new music*. Which I feel begins with Debussy's Prelude, although it could be argued Wagner's Parsifal held the young Debussy and Ravel as spell bound, completely captivated. Yet I have to go with Debussy as the 1st modern, Others argue for Liszt , others Berlioz. 
Pre Wagner, I can count my favs on one hand from that entire era.
Yet which epoch is being promoted (propagandized) over and over TODAY in 2019...
Ridiculous. 
I forsee a major split between the 2 camps, classical music will be severed, splintered, never to be united again. 
I sure did not give Stockhausena fair listen, I was biased at the start. ,,So I will admit, the anti-Stockhausen comments on YT vid and here also, may stem from those who are from the old school ranks, the stogey romanticists. 
As I gave Stockhausen another listen, seems there were some Carterian elements in that 3 orch work. Yet I am not going out to purchase any of his music, nor countless other late 20Th C composers. 
Agree there may be more gems hidden, but I feel I've turned over every major stone and some, just put the stone back where it was, others I took with me. 
take Kalabis, I wrote him off as a thief of Sibelius or was it more RVW plagiarizing , can recall, eith or, or from both. I posted a sym here as proof, then discovered the work is a masterpiece and will order after I type this comment.

So yes, we can all harbor bias, even prejudice (judging before hearing it out), .
It is great we havea safe place to openly discuss these issues , w/o feeling we are stepping on toes or being seemingly offensive to others opinions. 
I am vociferous in my beliefs, as few others will take up the cause. 
The new music needs our support encouraging newbies to explore our fav modern composers. 
We shall be known as The Iconoclasts , and accept that slur , with pride and gusto. 
We shall prevail.


----------



## millionrainbows

Enthusiast said:


> ...You fall in the middle in a way because you knock a lot of the more avant garde music (including the genius, Stockhausen) while advocating passionately for a select group of composers. Its a legitimate position - it is your taste - but it is likely to remain a unique one. Maybe you yourself should be a little more open to music that is new to you.


I agree; but Paul Best's more conservative, yet "left of center" perspective is very valuable in balancing-out the dichotomy of "Classical vs. Modernism."

I think the post-modernist historical vortex dilemma has exerted its pull on Paul Best as well as many more conservative enthusiasts, for the simple reason of "art" and its influence on music. Specifically, conceptual "modern art" ideas which are derived from the visual art world, the world of New York, John Cage, and others.

Stockhausen might be seen as in this "art" category, but his work exemplifies a more basic, obvious(and justifiable) reason for being than simply "ideas about art" (with perhaps the exception of the "Helicopter Quartet," which originated in a dream he had).

The reason is: like a scientist, Stockhausen is interested in _sound itself, _a concern which Boulez and IRCAM also share (and, admittedly, so does John Cage, but with a less scientific approach).

I see Stockhausen as being particularly "Germanic" and almost obsessive in his approach, such as his microscopic investigation of sound, and impossibly precise rhythmic notation (which John Cage "commented" on with his Freeman Etudes).

Thus I see the post-modern essence of Stockhausen to be of a scientific nature, as Boulez. This needs to be recognized as a way of distinguishing his approach from, say, John Cage and others of a more "artistic" influence.


----------



## haydnguy

paulbest said:


> Great observations offered.
> Yes completely agree on all your points of argument.
> 
> &New* means , composers who most classiaclphiles have not yet heard the name, and/or the music as yet.
> Szymanowski < I had heard of, from a old Oistrakh LP, with vaious VC's on the disc.
> I recall someone on that topic, say how puzzled he was that Szymanowski was not more well known = popular.
> Note the concert schedule on every orchestra, ,,,I just cked after some 10 yrs of having never seen a schedule,,Who did I see on the program in 2019!!!!!!!!
> Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler, Bruckner, Dvorak, Strauss, and of course Mozart.
> 
> Some things never ever change.
> 
> Remember when the Beatles hit the charts, we were all enthralled, the new pop music made the rock stars into our gods.
> Beatlemania was real.
> Now we pass up Beatle cds at garage sales, even at 25 cents we have no interest. From gods to void of value.
> Whereas you point out, many composers have been around for centuries , for they offer true real value, Pop music in all its countless cults, will diminish , and new pop will take its place.
> 
> I just do not see any youth generation stepping in and becoming classical music fans. Classical music is something of the elite, the higher consciousness, , the cultured ones. Pop culture clashes with the values offered in classical music.
> 
> If we could ask the patrons who support the programs, which composers are your favorite. None of our fav moderns would make the top 100 list.
> Yet as you point out, they have the cash, and that's that. Programming will go along as always, no changes ahead. We just have to accept this evident fact.
> 
> And your last argument, that new classical *top 10 hits*, do not seem to go anywhere on programming, Neither radio, nor concer halls offer Szymanowski, This is why I consider him, New Modern Classical genre, although he wrote back nearly 100 years ago. He is modern, as his music is fresh, alive, nothing at all stale in his scores.
> 
> Most of my favorites, in fact all, have a similar characteristic , that is all have some timeless, eternal semblance in their music. That is to say, in 1 T years from now , Ravel will sound just as fresh and beautiful as it does today.
> 
> Whereas the god like Beatles, just hardly 1/2 a century has been reduced to zero status, all their music could just drop off, who really cares now.
> 
> Pop fans need to know the piper they are following is just for the moment, all their godlike music, later on will become meaningless trash.
> Never so, with classical music, as it partakes of genius, which pop music only possesses miniscule amounts of.
> = its fake music, whereas classical is the real deal.
> Pop music can not give value to the soul, whereas the classical grants us entry into that Platonic archetypal realm of musical genius. .


I will tell you something that admittedly happened about 20 years ago. A friend of mine found an unopened (still in original packaging) of the Beatles White Album in his vinyl collection. Someone offered him $7,000 for it and my friend turned it down.

The fact is there has been a cataclysmic change since then in music distribution. Today almost anything (music) is a commodity.


----------



## Jacck

to answer the OP question: modern classical music does not uplift the spirit. It is bizarre, depressive, chaotic, dissonant, dark. It can be interesting, but it is not beautiful. And life and reality are depressive enough, no need to depress oneself further.


----------



## Enthusiast

^^^ Which reminds me of some posts ...

And, just because it has that effect on you that doesn't give you good reason to deny the taste of all those who get a lot from it. I do know that you are fully aware that many do get a lot from modern music but don't understand why you constantly seek to insult us all.


----------



## Jacck

Enthusiast said:


> ^^^ Which reminds me of some posts ...
> 
> And, just because it has that effect on you that doesn't give you good reason to deny the taste of all those who get a lot from it. I do know that you are fully aware that many do get a lot from modern music but don't understand why you constantly seek to insult us all.


I don't insult anyone, I just answered a question in an honest manner, ie I really do believe that to be the reason, why modern classical is not more popular. I enjoy modern classical too in reasonable amounts. I listened to a Carter SQ yesterday.


----------



## philoctetes

"but it is not beautiful" seems to be a rather broad brush that goes against the grain of my experience. If I couldn't find beauty in music I would not listen to it. But then, I don't listen to Carter much anymore. At the same time, I'm also taking a break from Mozart. Coincidence? Maybe not. Mozart was an idol of Carter's.

I find some of the old nationalistic patterns still hold in the modern era - German music is still too formal, French music too decorative, Italian too neurotic, American too brash, and Russian is too manic. Music is rarely perfect from start to finish and most has moments of both beauty and ugly. Shallow listeners hear the ugly, which could be no more than fanfare, and jump ship before the *good parts*... 

Tension in music is something that many listeners expect to happen in a certain way. When composers find new ways to create tension, the old music community gets very tense indeed.

All this reminds me of Berlioz, who seems to have defied all the above and still remains fresh and somewhat "modern" to my ears. Maybe I just haven't overheard him yet, but I don't think that's an easy task.


----------



## paulbest

philoctetes said:


> "but it is not beautiful" seems to be a rather broad brush that goes against the grain of my experience. If I couldn't find beauty in music I would not listen to it. But then, I don't listen to Carter much anymore. At the same time, I'm also taking a break from Mozart. Coincidence? Maybe not. Mozart was an idol of Carter's.
> 
> I find some of the old nationalistic patterns still hold in the modern era - German music is still too formal, French music too decorative, Italian too neurotic, American too brash, and Russian is too manic. Music is rarely perfect from start to finish and most has moments of both beauty and ugly. Shallow listeners hear the ugly, which could be no more than fanfare, and jump ship before the *good parts*...
> 
> Tension in music is something that many listeners expect to happen in a certain way. When composers find new ways to create tension, the old music community gets very tense indeed.
> 
> All this reminds me of Berlioz, who seems to have defied all the above and still remains fresh and somewhat "modern" to my ears. Maybe I just haven't overheard him yet, but I don't think that's an easy task.


 The posts on this thread , just keep getting more better and better, I'd say its the hottest topic on TC. Definitely the most enlightening. Appreciate those who can figure out where I am coming from and arguing towards. 
I had no idea I was *conservative, but left of center*, Yes indeed, that is me, You guys can read my posts and figure me out better than I know myself

Which is good, I like to know on what road I am on, helps me to orient myself better.
More on that later, WOW so many great comments, not sure where to begin.

I will hit on a few insights offered by top notch board members,who understand music in ways I can not fathom, nor put in words....
As you already know,

*but its not beautiful* I can most certainly not argue this point, yet seems Philoctetes, has done just that..Again, I have no expertise in music, so I was like, this guy has a valid point, that can not be argued against.

What comes to mind here, is Ravel's Daphne (BOTH parts PLEASE! ,,part 2 only,,good grief Martinon/Chicago, how could you slice the masterpiece in half,,,who wants to buy a pizza, and the thing comes half missing..)

So with Daphne in mind,,yes most modern masterpieces, Schnittke, (excluding his spiritual compositions, which are like no other in that genre, its beyond beautiful), Carter, Even most of Pettersson is not beautiful standing next to Ravel's masterpiece. We all agree. 
But as philocetes has enlightened us all here, beauty can be heard in different ways. Webern is elusive, mystical, not confined to space/time, so this experience I hear as *incredible* , translate *gorgeous*. Sure its not like a Chopin piano work, bhut in todays dark world, beauty has to find new forms, new experiences, Chopin although pure beauty, really bores me. 
I prefer modern piano solo, Carter, Schoenberg, Schnittke many others.

Someone mentioned this world is despressive enough as it is, do we need to be remind of its dark aspects via modern music's antics, haunting , thunders and crash bang style...yes, Many modern classical gives this life deep powerful experiences which I can not ever get from any church experience. 
Like the old UPC's who jump the benches, run amok in the aisles during the preachers best moments, I've been there, seen this back in 1981 at a Broad Street UPC church. ,,well I get like that when many of my favorite composers are on the cdp.

Look I always loved the finest guitar players, why should I now in classical , not seek out what moves me the most. 
I still love some old classics. take Rachmaninov, Prokofiev, even the Grieg 1st PC's. All 3 are spectacular in terms of melodic beauty, How could anyone say they do not like these 3 concertos? 
Ludicrous.

But it is time now to lay aside some old favs, and bring in the new forms of classical. 
I would much rather attenda all Stockhausen concert over a ,,,lets see which old war horse am I going to type in,,,Beethoven concert. (for those who know me from the old forums, yep, I am still at IT)

Berlioz,,,I'm going to give hima fair listen today..
btw I ordered the Suprahon 3 cd of KALABIS. 
Read the reviews on amazon. 
My latest major find..don't think there is any more out there, Szymanowski, Kalabis, Henze, 3 major gold mines past 2 months, 
Henze was The Mother Load, The whole mountain is gold, no river bed panning involved


----------



## millionrainbows

Jacck said:


> to answer the OP question: modern classical music does not uplift the spirit. It is bizarre, depressive, chaotic, dissonant, dark. It can be interesting, but it is not beautiful. And life and reality are depressive enough, no need to depress oneself further.


Nice generalization!


----------



## millionrainbows

philoctetes said:


> "but it is not beautiful" seems to be a rather broad brush that goes against the grain of my experience. If I couldn't find beauty in music I would not listen to it. But then, I don't listen to Carter much anymore.


I don't know about you all, but once I like a CD it's in my collection forever. The Arkiv recording of Carter's Concerto for Orchestra will always be in my collection of music I consider beautiful, and I will always return to it.


----------



## Simon Moon

Jacck said:


> to answer the OP question: modern classical music does not uplift the spirit. It is bizarre, depressive, chaotic, dissonant, dark. It can be interesting, but it is not beautiful. And life and reality are depressive enough, no need to depress oneself further.


And here is an example of what I see so often on TC. All modern classical being painted with the same broad brush. It's like one has heard some extreme examples of modern classical, and assume that it all sounds like those examples.

I find much beauty in modern classical. 'Bizarre, depressive, chaotic, dissonant, dark' does not necessarily equate to lack of beauty. Also, music that is not outwardly beautiful, can have other positive attributes. Like a feeling of catharsis.

Maybe it is time to start a thread for modern classical that is not ' bizarre, depressive, chaotic, dissonant, dark'. There is a plethora of composers who compose such music.


----------



## millionrainbows

Why isn't modern classical music popular?

Why doesn't my grandmother like John Cage's music?
Why doesn't my dad like Schnittke?
Why does my little sister waste her time listening to Eric Clapton, when she could be listening to Schoenberg?


----------



## Jacck

Simon Moon said:


> And here is an example of what I see so often on TC. All modern classical being painted with the same broad brush. It's like one has heard some extreme examples of modern classical, and assume that it all sounds like those examples. I find much beauty in modern classical. 'Bizarre, depressive, chaotic, dissonant, dark' does not necessarily equate to lack of beauty. Also, music that is not outwardly beautiful, can have other positive attributes. Like a feeling of catharsis.
> Maybe it is time to start a thread for modern classical that is not ' bizarre, depressive, chaotic, dissonant, dark'. There is a plethora of composers who compose such music.


I explored all the big modernist classical composers and the only ones I really dislike are the minimalists. I find the music insufferably boring. On the other hand I really do like Schoenberg, Messiaen, Carter, Baczewicz, Lutoslawski, Ives, Boulez, Penderecki, Henze, Xenakis or even some of the more modern stuff such as some of the spectralists, Lachenmann etc. I do not listen to this music constantly, but sometimes I am in the moon for something more chaotic or dissonant. 
Maybe we should not use the word beautiful, but the word uplifting that I used is better. There is a reason why the Lark Ascending is everlastingly popular, while the Schoenberg piano concerto (which I really like, by the way) is a niche interest. Statistically speaking, most peoples brains are wired to enjoy consonant music.


----------



## paulbest

Such a wealth of highly enlightening comments, an abundance of insights which will lead us all to ..,,,The Grand Ole opry 

No seriously I can see everyone is gathering ideas based on a lifetime of experiences drawn from multiple styles of music. We all passed through the rock and roll era, and now we have found,,,oyr true home,,that music which we really had been seeking, but the ,,,drugs got in our way.

Even today we all still like to revisit old favs we once cherished, ELP's From the Beginning, Moody Blues, Tuesday Afternoon, long version, perhaps you recall Nights in White satin, or Procol Harum's single hit, Whiter Shade of Pale, a song which the BBC banned from station play, so it went off shore to a boat radio broadcasting station.

We moved beyond that era, and now we find we have moved beyond our 1st loves in classical , onwards to music that challenges, captivates, enthralls us, even some that *blows our minds*

Back to where we started , *minds blown*. 

I think Simon Moon's suggestion we start a new topic, which modern works, , you feel can be described as beautiful in the classic sense of the word, say with Bach, Vivaldi, Mozart, passages in Tchaikovsky, even some Chopin, Schumann's piano works,,,,.. ,,note I did not bring up Debussy, Ravel, as these along with many passages throughout Wagners best operas, should be the discussion. 
Lets go pre Debussy composers best passages in beauty, and see if modern, say past 50 years composers can stand next to the past masters in terms of Beauty.

,,,I'm thinking, now,,,i just need some more time,,,,,


----------



## paulbest

You should hear the cd release, it blooms and sparkles with beauty.
This is a music academy performance, excellent for its efforts., Yet a few sour notes here and there, takes away the charms of the work


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Why isn't modern classical music popular?
> 
> Why doesn't my grandmother like John Cage's music?
> Why doesn't my dad like Schnittke?
> Why does my little sister waste her time listening to Eric Clapton, when she could be listening to Schoenberg?


Ha ha ha. Cute joke, but "Why Isn't Modern Classical Music Popular With Grandma, Dad and Little Sis?" is a different thread and a much easier question to answer. Chances are, Ockeghem, Hummel and Mussorgsky aren't popular with them either. Why don't I hear Berlioz at the supermarket?


----------



## arpeggio

*Carter Bashing*

I need to repeat what I have stated in other posts many times before.

I have been to several live performances of the music of Carter where his works received a standing ovation. I was at a performance of a work by Cage at the Stauton Music Festival that received a standing ovation.

Is Carter as good as Beethoven? Probably not. But there are many great composers out there who are not as good as Beethoven. So what?


----------



## paulbest

someone mention Berlioz as modern, and has beauty.
I just now revisited his work, after some 35 yrs, ,,now I know clearly why I avoided Berlioz,,,I figured after 35 yrs, perhaps I missed something.
Beethoven has so many sons and grand sons. 

That's old , outdated, antiquated, out of touch, out of style, 
Liszt might be the 1st moern , along with Wagner. Scriabin also perhaps, not sure, its been some decades since I last heard anything from Scriabin. I think Ravel and Debussy were influenced by those 3, along with the Russian Big 5. 
I consider Wagner(best operas, not his rather old style operas). the father of the modern era. 
So from then on, we enter the modern period

Next up, is Debussy's 1899!!!!!!!! Prelude, UNREAL, 1899. His Prelude would have stayed at top of the charts for 52 weeks straight for sure


So add in your picks post Prelude modern composers as offering beauty. 
My 1st choice would be Szymanowski, then Prokofiev. 

Remember beauty can not be defined based on pre 1900 masters, its a whole new world. Beauty now has lost its classical shapes and has become a woman of many shapes, visions, a new enchantress has entered the stage. 

The Sibelius VC has beauty but to me its dated, out worn, and I consider to be old classical era music, not modern at all. 
Shostakovich's VC1 is Beauty par excellent. far surpasses the mushy sentimental Tchaikovsky VC, which dates from a bygone era, a work I hope never to hear ever again. 
So modern is not at all simply to define in terms of a specific time span. 
I'd say we are in post mod era. Which I am very cautious to enter into. 
Might be some years before I decide to enter those gates of uncertainty.


----------



## Woodduck

Sid James said:


> Serious or not, I was commenting on what I see as summarising opposing ends of this debate. Theresienstadt wasn't even the final word on this ideological war, look what's currently happening with ISIS. Music will always be in the firing line of ideology and in light of what happened during WWII, looking back in anger was a valid reaction. The Enlightenment pretty much died there and then. Postmodernism isn't perfect but its emergence has indeed meant that the culture wars are largely a thing of the past. Not so on TC, which is fine, however when I see aspects of it emerge here I can't help but think that its not only futile but redundant.


ISIS? I really am not following you. What is "this ideological debate" of which WW II and classical music are both representative? It's certainly true that political regimes of a totalitarian sort see music and the other arts as potentially dangerous and try to use them as propaganda. But how is that relevant to what's happening on this forum? I see the arguments here as pretty trivial and benign, and certainly not politically motivated. Isn't the character of a large percentage of music from the last half-century or so sufficiently problematic purely in terms of the aesthetics of the Western musical tradition without attributing political meaning to it?


----------



## paulbest

arpeggio said:


> I need to repeat what I have stated in other posts many times before.
> 
> I have been to several live performances of the music of Carter where his works received a standing ovation. I was at a performance of a work by Cage at the Stauton Music Festival that received a standing ovation.
> 
> Is Carter as good as Beethoven? Probably not. But there are many great composers out there who are not as good as Beethoven. So what?


Thanks for reporting from the concert halls,. I've never been to a concert in decades, much less a Carter performance. It is great to hear folks are greatly appreciative of Carters masterpieces. 
I am quite sure wherever Carter is programed, a standing ovation will be given, as the music over powers the listener ina live setting, and the audience has been limited to the old war horses, and were dying of thirst for something different, the New, The exciting, to be fascinated.

*Is Carter,,,probably not*, You see this is what we have all been discussing over on this topic. There is no longer any standards. Its all meaningless now. 
Beethoven is Beethoven and Szymanowski is Szymanowski. 
I have all of Szymanowski high in my cd collection and nothing of Beethoven.

Great/good, better/best is all relative to the point it means nothing. 
Am I allowed to say this? 
Beethoven is not great. 
Ask Lenny Bernstein, who makes this statement ona YT vid, Also ask Ravel and Debussy the same Q. Both will tell you, yeah sure great in terms of compositional forms, but nothing in terms of ,,,can't recall what Ravel said,,,but he did hate Beethoven's music, Debussy told him to tone it down a bit, please.

Beethoven greater than Carter makes no sense. Beethoven does not exist for me. Its all relative.


----------



## Bluecrab

Simon Moon said:


> Maybe it is time to start a thread for modern classical that is not ' bizarre, depressive, chaotic, dissonant, dark'. There is a plethora of composers who compose such music.


You're right, of course. The naysayers need to do more research.

Here, for example, is a modern classical work that I consider quite beautiful, especially the first movement. Much of her chamber music is in a similar vein.


----------



## paulbest

And of course not, my opinions do not in any way invalidate the Beethoven -ites appreciation for THEIR beloveth master at structuring a composition.
No way. 
My point in all this is , the powers that be in all orchetras around the world, all sit around at the pre programming phase and ask *well now lets see, which works do you think we should schedule,,,,,why I think the 5th sym,,because we had his 3,7,9 last year, lets change it up, and have his 4, 6, 8,,and oh why not his 5th,,,,,votes in please,,,OK, 4 Beethoven syms it is, unanimous. *

They all sit around after this *major tough* decision and have petit fours and tea. 
And discuss who knows what, surely Carter is not among the topics of chat, that's for sure. None of the below NYPO patrons have even heard the name Elliott Carter.

This is exactly the way it goes down in every orchestra world wide.

Just pathetic.

https://nyphil.org/about-us/meet/philharmonic-board


----------



## Bluecrab

paulbest said:


> None of the below NYPO patrons have even heard the name Elliott Carter.


I'll put this as charitably as I can: that's a ridiculous assumption. Did you speak with everybody in that list to ask them if they'd ever heard of Elliott Carter? No, I didn't think so. It's highly likely that all of them know who Elliott Carter was; after all, he was from Manhattan. Whether they like his music is another matter entirely. And one that has little to nothing to do with what the NY Phil programs.


----------



## Sid James

Woodduck said:


> ISIS? I really am not following you. What is "this ideological debate" of which WW II and classical music are both representative? It's certainly true that political regimes of a totalitarian sort see music and the other arts as potentially dangerous and try to use them as propaganda. But how is that relevant to what's happening on this forum? I see the arguments here as pretty trivial and benign, and certainly not politically motivated. Isn't the character of a large percentage of music from the last half-century or so are sufficiently problematic purely in terms of the aesthetics of the Western musical tradition without attributing political meaning to it?


My main point was that ideals get distorted and become the basis of wars. In mentioning current events, I was trying to relate the past to the present, namely that wars over culture continue to have a very real impact for the world today.

In terms of this specific debate, I've already explained to you why I think it's kind of redundant. Valid points have been made by many contributors here but we shouldn't forget that this war has been fought before. As I said, I think that purely as a matter of the theory, it's been over for some time.

But to bring it all together, real and theoretical, I can do no better than to quote E.H. Newman: "men will die upon dogma but will not fall victim to a conclusion." In light of that, perhaps these wars continue at TC because there has been a permanent stalemate for some time now, no clear winner or loser.

This is an old thread, and it's resurrection was obviously an invitation to reignite the flames. I can only blame myself for lowering my standards and getting involved.


----------



## Guest

Simon Moon said:


> I find much beauty in modern classical. 'Bizarre, depressive, chaotic, dissonant, dark' does not necessarily equate to lack of beauty.


Agreed - but more than that, it can be beautiful. But as you go on to say, "beauty" is not the only valid and positive attribute to be found in music, modern or otherwise.


----------



## KenOC

Bluecrab said:


> ...Did you speak with everybody in that list to ask them if they'd ever heard of Elliott Carter? No, I didn't think so. It's highly likely that all of them know who Elliott Carter was; after all, he was from Manhattan. Whether they like his music is another matter entirely.


They may well know the music of Elliott Carter, but they're unlikely to talk about it much when they're trying to figure out how to put bums in seats. Mr. Carter, capital fellow though he may have been, has never demonstrated much strength in that direction.

I say this despite one member here who occasionally posts about sold-out Carter concerts where the audience shouts out hosannas with the voice of a thousand angels, throws aside its crutches, and dances with abandon in the aisles.


----------



## paulbest

Bluecrab said:


> I'll put this as charitably as I can: that's a ridiculous assumption. Did you speak with everybody in that list to ask them if they'd ever heard of Elliott Carter? No, I didn't think so. It's highly likely that all of them know who Elliott Carter was; after all, he was from Manhattan. Whether they like his music is another matter entirely. And one that has little to nothing to do with what the NY Phil programs.


 Obviously , they being from NYC, have heard the name. I should have been more explicit, they apparently might not know(hear-say) of his music, They may be oblivious to the fact that Elliott Carter is America's finest composer. 
They have no Elliott carter cd's in their collections. This is a possibility you know. 
From the look at the names on the list, I am only assuming. 
btw I have a strong intuition, not ESP, but only intuition, which I can put to use if needs arise.

If only we can get 1 member of the NYPO staff to ck in here, but alas, they have no time to discuss maters such as we are here. 
They are not open to discuss program schedules.

It has been cast in stone a century ago, Beethoven is America's composer. 
Europe is a bit more expansive.


----------



## paulbest

Furthermore the thought just now, occurred to me, the thought that Beethoven is America's chosen composer due to his appeal to the collective unconscious Americana. 
Of course the NYPO board has no idea what I am speaking of and would just laugh this idea off, as *nonsense*
Yet note past 60 yrs NYPO programs, #1 composer performed,,,Ludwig.
Try to dispute that possibility, likely that is, true.


----------



## Phil loves classical

paulbest said:


> Obviously , they being from NYC, have heard the name. I should have been more explicit, they apparently might not know(hear-say) of his music, They may be oblivious to the fact that Elliott Carter is America's finest composer.
> They have no Elliott carter cd's in their collections. This is a possibility you know.
> From the look at the names on the list, I am only assuming.
> btw I have a strong intuition, not ESP, but only intuition, which I can put to use if needs arise.
> 
> If only we can get 1 member of the NYPO staff to ck in here, but alas, they have no time to discuss maters such as we are here.
> They are not open to discuss program schedules.
> 
> It has been cast in stone a century ago, Beethoven is America's composer.
> Europe is a bit more expansive.





paulbest said:


> Furthermore the thought just now, occurred to me, the thought that Beethoven is America's chosen composer due to his appeal to the collective unconscious Americana.
> Of course the NYPO board has no idea what I am speaking of and would just laugh this idea off, as *nonsense*
> Yet note past 60 yrs NYPO programs, #1 composer performed,,,Ludwig.
> Try to dispute that possibility, likely that is, true.


The US had lots of great composers. I like Piston, Ives and Barber way more than Carter, but don't expect them to overtake the old warhorses in popularity. There are other countries that have their homegrown heroes overshadowed by foreign ones in popularity. I don't see Takemitsu or any Japanese composer in any concert programmes for the current and coming season by the Japan Philharmonic or Toyko Metro Orchestras. They even have Glinka among many other Russian composers. Maybe the patrons just didn't hear of Takemitsu?


----------



## paulbest

I need to go right now to YT for the music of Piston, hardlt recall hearing his name,.
How was this possible?

Ives , I know, but lost interest after some years,,,around the time I made the Carter discovery. 
I'll ck out barber as well, I think he is very famous for a Adagio or some 8 minute work, ,,had it on cd, but its long gone.
But sure, I'll ck out barber while I am exploring Piston. 

We mods must live up to our reputation, as The Explorers,,also known as The iconclasts ,a t least our hard right wingers members,,,like me.


----------



## paulbest

Samuel Barber really had a knack for harmonic progression in his Agnus Dei. Interesting composer for sure. 
Read the 7th comment in this Piston sym 6.
Gert states Copland, Ives both represent the finest in American classical, he says Piston remained in the old European classical forms of composing. This Piston 6th is good, but I much prefer Carters uniqueness which offers music full of surprises, suspense, energies, dynamics. Muisc you can hear daily, and still always as fresh as the 1st experience. 
This is what I love about Carter.
If we takea survey of all orchestral members in the USA, ask to list your top 5 American composers, and you can name your 1 fav, 5 X's. I am quite sure, 
1) Copland 
2) Ives
3) Hanson or Barber, or Piston as 3,, 4 and 5. Elliott Carter might make 4,5,6th place. Maybe.
A few would have Carter as all 5 places, still not enough to give him his rightful place ,as finest composer,
Not gonna happen.
Its still 50-100 yrs off before Carter takes his rightful place as America's finest. 
We are not there yet. But it is inevitable.





Piston's 6th


----------



## Woodduck

Sid James said:


> My main point was that ideals get distorted and become the basis of wars. In mentioning current events, I was trying to relate the past to the present, namely that wars over culture continue to have a very real impact for the world today.
> 
> In terms of this specific debate, I've already explained to you why I think it's kind of redundant. Valid points have been made by many contributors here but we shouldn't forget that this war has been fought before. As I said, I think that purely as a matter of the theory, it's been over for some time.
> 
> But to bring it all together, real and theoretical, I can do no better than to quote E.H. Newman: "men will die upon dogma but will not fall victim to a conclusion." In light of that, perhaps these wars continue at TC because there has been a permanent stalemate for some time now, no clear winner or loser.
> 
> This is an old thread, and it's resurrection was obviously an invitation to reignite the flames. I can only blame myself for lowering my standards and getting involved.


Remember that there are always new people entering the forum. Debates you and I may think are old and settled, or at least old and tired, are still fresh and meaningful to others. Contemporary classical music is a phenomenon that inspires disagreement and debate, and - let's be honest - a great deal of music that caused difficulty and outright aversion fifty or even eighty years ago still does so for many people. There are various reasons for this, and no ideological commitment is necessarily implied by it. Where art has been packaged with ideologies, as it was to an exhausting and even absurd degree in the modernist era, some individuals will always want to explore them; people will try to find some quasi-philosophical justification, or at least explanation, for their aesthetic preferences, and the 20th century was a gold mine - or a minefield - of such justification and explanation. Many serious students of classical music in the modern era will want to come to terms not only with the music but with the ideas which came with it, even if the discussion feels redundant and the ideas appear as useless baggage in the end. Life itself is dreadfully redundant, no? (Or am I just dreadfully old?)


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> Its still 50-100 yrs off before Carter takes his rightful place as America's finest.
> We are not there yet. But it is inevitable.


Since we're predicting the unpredictable, I'll predict that in 100 years Carter's reputation and position will be very slightly higher than what it is right now. In the year 2119 his music will have been heard by .009% of the classical concert-going public instead of .008%, assuming that there is still a classical concert-going public. But his bust will still not be on anyone's piano, assuming that anyone has a piano.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> Since we're predicting the unpredictable, I'll predict that in 100 years Carter's reputation and position will be very slightly higher than what it is right now. In the year 2119 his music will have been heard by .009% of the classical concert-going public instead of .008%, assuming that there is still a classical concert-going public. But his bust will still not be on anyone's piano, assuming that anyone has a piano.


A hundred years from now nobody will listen to Carter, ever. The only music we'll hear will be pumped into our minds directly by our overlords, and Carter won't be there because his music doesn't boost productivity. There certainly won't be time for idle posts on idlers' forums!

(Which is to say, do it all now because tomorrow may be quite different.)


----------



## paulbest

Woodduck said:


> Since we're predicting the unpredictable, I'll predict that in 100 years Carter's reputation and position will be very slightly higher than what it is right now. In the year 2119 his music will have been heard by .009% of the classical concert-going public instead of .008%, assuming that there is still a classical concert-going public. But his bust will still not be on anyone's piano, assuming that anyone has a piano.


btw the way I think your post above this one, is spot on, and hard to refute ,,the parts I can understand at least.;
*people will try to find quasi philosophical justification , or at least explanation for their aesthetic preferences*
YES 
Now this expression sums up a lot about me. You see , hwo can one be immersed, enthralled by a certain group of composers without having some essential personal meanings, deep ones , which draw one instinctively to a certain group of composers, What we are, is what we love.

The compoers I love greatly, are in some mysterious union with my being. 
And those composers , I disdain, I repulse with all my being. 
Such as we find this same scenario being played out in all areas of life. Note the great New French Revolution. It HAS to be as it is. 
I am a Yellow vester for what I feel has not been given its fair due, respectful place in the pantheon of great classical composers.

Or do you not feel some composers have been shoved down out throats, even propagandized to the point where we see a certain composers name, with disgust.

It is impossible to separate our fav composers from what we feel and believe about this earth, and the illuminati which runs the show. 
Now there, I said it.

Henze may have been a political ideologue at times, but it does not appear anywhere in his music. Just amazing, he resisted bringing in his personal beliefs into his music. What a powerful , focused will power. Even the great Nietzsche was not able to splinter off his more disruptive ideas, as he went to extremes at times, and this imbalance weakened his positions. But all in all, Nietzsche was a champion for truth and a exposer of all things Illuminati, the fake, the frauds, the lies.

Which brings us back to music, great music, which gives us all meaning and a purpose to continue on in this harsh world, which has a very dark history. 
Ravel makes me forget the ugly, Schnittke combats this evil via meaningful music. 
Ideology should not be a part of classical music, but in this combative world, we are forced to seek comfort and resolutions in their genius to create this life breathe for us.

Take away our beloved music, what is this life


----------



## paulbest

KenOC said:


> A hundred years from now nobody will listen to Carter, ever. The only music we'll hear will be pumped into our minds directly by our overlords, and Carter won't be there because his music doesn't boost productivity. There certainly won't be time for idle posts on idlers' forums!
> 
> (Which is to say, do it all now because tomorrow may be quite different.)


I see things differently, I forsee a undergroup group of classicaphiles who reject all standard , heavily propagandized composers past 100 yrs, and seek out only those who they know *deal the goods*, = hold meaningful values. 
No fluff, no gimmicks, no boring, *been there done That* music. 
I can whistle a famous composers sym in 5 minutes or less, more or less in proper keys!
Would you like me to record and post a sample of this feat?

I just think there will be a new consciousness arising, based on Nietzsche, Jung studies and out N out rejecting this illuminati operated world. 
A would where Carter is now known for who he truly is. 
I forsee a light shining in the dark masses, these folks of light will come to embrace Carter, a event this generation has failed to fulfill. .


----------



## paulbest

Note the number of viewers on the home page watching this topic, following the discussion with intense interest. I am telling you, this TC thread, is the # 1 place to discovery new music, new insights, new visions concerning all things classical. 
Perhaps we will soon attract hundreds, even thousands to witness this great discussion of what makes modern classical so vital, essential, and life-death importance. 
This thread might go viral , at least among all USA orchestra members. 
These who make supreme sacrifice in practicing very difficult music, in order that we may partake of the musical bounty. 

We are eternally thankful, in supreme debt to these great artists who deserve much greater financial rewards, but alas, America only honors highest the sports arena. 

Perhaps this discussion here, respectful, honorable, very enlightening, will be the promise of seeding the creative minds of those who now will seek out the great moderns which has given us meaning, in a meaningless world. 


Is this not one of the principle reasons of TC? To feed the souls of those who wish to discovery classical music, anew, without any outside yea's/nay/s. 

Something I never felt free of in the beginning of my journey. Carter had no LP bin, neither Schnittke, neither,,,neither,,,,,,,,,,,,


----------



## arpeggio

Simon Moon said:


> Maybe it is time to start a thread for modern classical that is not ' bizarre, depressive, chaotic, dissonant, dark'. There is a plethora of composers who compose such music.


It has been tried.

One I started fell apart because an anti-12 tone member messed it up.


----------



## paulbest

arpeggio said:


> It has been tried.
> 
> One I started fell apart because an anti-12 tone member messed it up.


lol
Too finny.
Love it.

I too was one of those,,,excuse me, but may I add about me at that time long ago,,one of the neurotic anti-atonal, anti-modernists-- who did his very best to bash that *most horrible music*. 
Look at where I am today.
Born again modern classicphile.
I saw the light


----------



## Euler

paulbest said:


> I see things differently, I forsee a undergroup group of classicaphiles who reject all standard , heavily propagandized composers past 100 yrs, and seek out only those who they know *deal the goods*, = hold meaningful values.
> No fluff, no gimmicks, no boring, *been there done That* music.
> I can whistle a famous composers sym in 5 minutes or less, more or less in proper keys!
> Would you like me to record and post a sample of this feat?
> 
> I just think there will be a new consciousness arising, based on Nietzsche, Jung studies and out N out rejecting this illuminati operated world.
> A would where Carter is now known for who he truly is.
> I forsee a light shining in the dark masses, these folks of light will come to embrace Carter, a event this generation has failed to fulfill. .


About 3 weeks ago I saw the JACK Quartet play all of Carter's quartets in a single day, at Wigmore Hall here in London. At lunchtime they played 5 and 1, in the evening 4, 2 and 3. Talk about a technical and emotional tour de force! I'm still replaying bits in my head. The lads got a rapturous reception, but I'm not denying that Carter's broadly unpopular. When I contemplate the dedication and love that some musicians invest in his music, it makes me cry that so few share and feed their passion. But them's the breaks, and I think using Carter as a stick to beat Bach or Beethoven is not a good way to make him (or us) more popular


----------



## paulbest

Euler said:


> About 3 weeks ago I saw the JACK Quartet play all of Carter's quartets in a single day, at Wigmore Hall here in London. At lunchtime they played 5 and 1, in the evening 4, 2 and 3. Talk about a technical and emotional tour de force! I'm still replaying bits in my head. The lads got a rapturous reception, but I'm not denying that Carter's broadly unpopular. When I contemplate the dedication and love that some musicians invest in his music, it makes me cry that so few share and feed their passion. But them's the breaks, and I think using Carter as a stick to beat Bach or Beethoven is not a good way to make him (or us) more popular


WOW unreal, w/o your sharing of this incredible concert, none of us here in the USA would not know anything of this magnificent event.

I will take heed , now that you have kindly advised me to lay off the bashings of the old war horses, as it will only create bad tempers among the other camp. 
Got ya on that.

btw, what price were the tickets? 
How long was the concert?
Packed house?

Is Carter notoriety growing there in London , post this great concert? 
Word spreading, fame growing?

London does have a rather large musical community, various major orchestras etc. 
Perhaps the capital of classical music experiences.


----------



## Euler

Prices varied, I paid £16 for the lunchtime concert and £25 for the evening. 'Twas about half full for both, so roughly 300 people there. A drop in the ocean really but it got reviewed in the national papers. Lunchtime lasted just over an hour, the last and first quartets with no interval. Evening was maybe 90 mins. Yeah I think Londoners are very lucky when it comes to classical music...Berlin is great too (and it's a much nicer place than London IMO!)


----------



## DaveM

Bluecrab said:


> You're right, of course. The naysayers need to do more research.
> 
> Here, for example, is a modern classical work that I consider quite beautiful, especially the first movement. Much of her chamber music is in a similar vein.


It is in the interest of the 3 or 4 posters who rant against those of us who have issues against a number of modern music composers and their works to infer that we are painting with a broad brush that includes all modern music. It is misleading, but it gives them an excuse to rant constantly on the subject.

The fact is that if more modern/contemporary works were like the one above, there would be far fewer complaints about it. Thanks for posting the work.


----------



## Sid James

Woodduck said:


> Remember that there are always new people entering the forum. Debates you and I may think are old and settled, or at least old and tired, are still fresh and meaningful to others. Contemporary classical music is a phenomenon that inspires disagreement and debate, and - let's be honest - a great deal of music that caused difficulty and outright aversion fifty or even eighty years ago still does so for many people. There are various reasons for this, and no ideological commitment is necessarily implied by it. Where art has been packaged with ideologies, as it was to an exhausting and even absurd degree in the modernist era, some individuals will always want to explore them; people will try to find some quasi-philosophical justification, or at least explanation, for their aesthetic preferences, and the 20th century was a gold mine - or a minefield - of such justification and explanation. Many serious students of classical music in the modern era will want to come to terms not only with the music but with the ideas which came with it, even if the discussion feels redundant and the ideas appear as useless baggage in the end. Life itself is dreadfully redundant, no? (Or am I just dreadfully old?)


Context, aesthetics, ideology and so on are always important but the way in which this modernist debate plays out here is often as if we where in the 1950's.

When we began to have a glut of these topics around 2012, I seriously thought that some of the participants where in their eighties. It was like a combination of a timewarp and Sisyphus.

Anyway I have little to add to it now, and it's better for me to avoid like I do when I step over **** on the street. It was hard for me to avoid commenting on burning people, but do forgive me. I don't intend to deny people their enjoyment of verbal sparring.


----------



## science

Sid James said:


> ... but the way in which this modernist debate plays out here is often as if we were in the 1950's.


That is the curious thing to me. It's a little as if we were arguing over whether rock and roll is Satanic, whether bebop is legitimate jazz, whether novels were a serious art form, whether the theater should be banned, whether we should paint fig leaves over Michelangelo's nudes, or whether statues or instrumental music is ok in church.

Even though we love the art of the past, at some point we probably have to be a part of our own time's intellectual and cultural world. I don't mean that we have to love our own time's "high art," which is beyond my own poor powers of legislation, but I have been dumbfounded to find the cultural clashes of the 1950s so ferociously fought in the 2010s.

OTOH, I know some people are still angry about the 4th Crusade. I guess some things have a way of living on.


----------



## Woodduck

Sid James said:


> Context, aesthetics, ideology and so on are always important but the way in which this modernist debate plays out here is often as if we where in the 1950's.
> 
> When we began to have a glut of these topics around 2012, I seriously thought that some of the participants where in their eighties. It was like a combination of a timewarp and Sisyphus.
> 
> Anyway I have little to add to it now, and it's better for me to avoid like I do when I step over **** on the street. It was hard for me to avoid commenting on burning people, but do forgive me. I don't intend to deny people their enjoyment of verbal sparring.


Such withering contempt for people less well-informed and up-to-date than yourself! The younger people here must find it terribly useful and pleasant to be told that their impressions and thoughts about music were already irrelevant before they were born, and that responding to them is like stepping in **** on the street.

By all means keep your shoes clean.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> That is the curious thing to me. It's a little as if we were arguing over whether rock and roll is Satanic, whether bebop is legitimate jazz, whether novels were a serious art form, whether the theater should be banned, whether we should paint fig leaves over Michelangelo's nudes, or whether statues or instrumental music is ok in church.
> 
> Even though we love the art of the past, at some point we probably have to be a part of our own time's intellectual and cultural world. I don't mean that we have to love our own time's "high art," which is beyond my own poor powers of legislation, but I have been dumbfounded to find the cultural clashes of the 1950s so ferociously fought in the 2010s.
> 
> OTOH, I know some people are still angry about the 4th Crusade. I guess some things have a way of living on.


It is perfectly possible, and perfectly rational, not to give flying fig what debates were supposedly settled in the 1950s. There are questions of philosophy which are never settled, and aesthetic questions which, probably, never should be. Who is the authority who decides what we should all think, feel, and enjoy once the 1950s are over?


----------



## paulbest

Here is a thought , about human nature in general. Though it might not apply in the case of classical music -fan-atics. 
but then again its just a thought, nothing more, Consider how crazy the Europeans are about their soccer teams,a s seen on TV today there in Madrid,,also note the US football teams fan-ATICs, college/pro, like down here in New Orleans and in bato Rouge LSU.
UNREAL, the passion, the devotion, the commitment. You just can't believe how crazy these fan-atics get over guys chasing a ball around a field. N
Now consider classical music , as high art, a human interactive event, making impressions , raising our levels of feelings, emotions , in ways far beyond that of a simple game of kicking ball around a field. 
Thus it will be acceptable, understandable for us humans to voice ideas, opinions, beliefs , energies which well up inside us, with results that our spirit melds with the composer, As composers were known to throw jabs at other equally creative, famous, contemporary greats, we too feel the urge to detest what does not appeal to us. Its a natural inborn craving to offer support to your beloved composer. And shun, detest those you feel have robbed attention away from the oppressed, the forgotten. 
That is to say, why attend a concert with nothing interesting on the program? And if they place Carter on the schedule, with a composer I have zero interest, whats that to me? I;'ll pass , no thanks. 

Sure as classical music fans , we should be inspired to rise above differences. But considering the odds favor the other side, no thanks, Concerts with the wrong compoers on the list, I ain;'t buying into, just to hear 1 work of carter. No don't savea seat for me., I ain't going.

Try another tactic. 


We should show restraint and control when discussing these critical issues of concert programing eligibility(whom qualifies to be represented, and who don't), but in the end, if our team always gets the loss, why should we participate in YOUR GAME> 
The odds always favor THEIR TEAM. 

I ain;t buying, The big concert halls are like the churches, same old preachers, same old sermon. 

Don't bother saving me a seat, as I am skipping the service. 
Hope others read my post and skip the rigged concert halls. 
The big one there in Vienna, not sure the name, that place stinks,
btw I am saying this kindly, can't say it any nicer.


----------



## paulbest

I now see my TC status has been updated to,,,Senior Member, ,,,wow, I made it,,,I hope,,,am I allowed to say these things, or ,,I will delete if asked. I do not wish to get the boot,,I hate when I get locked out of forums,,,i'm like *what did I do,,,what did I say,,,i'll do better next time,,,* but I always find the door slammed tight shut,,,not here, so far,,,seems TC honors the old American liberty, the constitutional freedom to speak,,,w/o flaming of course.

I think I am now out of fuel,,,I've had my say.
Its good to shake the rafters now and then,,,,,,brings us all to new heights , new understandings. 
Music can transform us, if only we will be open minded and allow that which has the power to transform into our lives.

Classical music has this inherent power, if only we will get off our high horse and listen to what is desperately crying to be heard.
Who here does not like exploring a jungle, or a nice rocky mountain trail, perhaps Mt Zion national park, ? 
Why should we fear the more fabulous , spectacular trails of classical music,,see where it leads us. 
Well worn city park trails are boring , dull, lack-luster. 
Go to where the mountains rise high, deep, wide. , The rivers, the wildlife, valleys and trees,. 
these are the places where we will embrace a new life in music. 
Don't hesitate , embark on a exploration journey starting today. 
You too can reach MT Everest. 
You will always remain at base camp, if you stay committed with ONLY your beginnings.


----------



## Flutter

KenOC said:


> A hundred years from now nobody will listen to Carter, ever.


Who's the one with the stopwatch?

If I can live to be around 140 years old, at least I'll be alive to prove you wrong!


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> It is perfectly possible, and perfectly rational, not to give flying fig what debates were supposedly settled in the 1950s. There are questions of philosophy which are never settled, and aesthetic questions which, probably, never should be. Who is the authority who decides what we should all think, feel, and enjoy once the 1950s are over?


Yes, I am an authoritarian tyrant. I'm sorry I hadn't made that clear before! I am the one who decides these questions.

But seriously, funny accusations aside, are such questions ever settled? What's interesting isn't that the questions have been answered and yet debate goes on - and it's clearly insulting for you to violently misconstrue what I wrote in order to pretend I'd said something so stupid.

Can you prove that statues are ok in church? I can't. I'm not even really interested in the question. But neither is anyone else I know, so I would be as surprised to find a forum where there is highly personalized and antagonistic debate over whether statues are ok in church as I am to find a forum where the cultural debates of the 1950s continue with unabated ferocity. I haven't heard people argue about this stuff in real life since the 1990s, and even then it was old-fashioned.

I look forward to finding out how this post will be turned into some kind of claim that I've declared myself emperor of taster, final arbiter of culture.


----------



## science

Or something equally insulting.


----------



## Larkenfield

This debate could be easily settled by listening to _Momma Mia_.


----------



## Ethereality

I think the short answer is, because people haven't leveled up high enough yet.


----------



## KenOC

"Why isn't modern classical music popular?"

The answer is merely a matter of definition. Because people don't like it much.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> Yes, I am an authoritarian tyrant. I'm sorry I hadn't made that clear before! I am the one who decides these questions.
> 
> But seriously, funny accusations aside, are such questions ever settled? What's interesting isn't that the questions have been answered and yet debate goes on - and it's clearly insulting for you to violently misconstrue what I wrote in order to pretend I'd said something so stupid.
> 
> Can you prove that statues are ok in church? I can't. I'm not even really interested in the question. But neither is anyone else I know, so I would be as surprised to find a forum where there is highly personalized and antagonistic debate over whether statues are ok in church as I am to find a forum where the cultural debates of the 1950s continue with unabated ferocity. I haven't heard people argue about this stuff in real life since the 1990s, and even then it was old-fashioned.
> 
> I look forward to finding out how this post will be turned into some kind of claim that I've declared myself emperor of taster, final arbiter of culture.


Well, if "the questions" haven't been answered and you aren't proposing that they have, what exactly is your problem with people discussing them? So you're tired of them. So you think they're...what? Unanswered, but not worth anyone's time? Obviously they aren't worth _your_ time, but if that's so, why bother entering the conversation? Is someone encroaching on your personal space? What are "the questions" anyway? Are there particular questions that particularly annoy you? Should they particularly annoy other people too? Annoy them so much that they find this thread offensive, as you (and some others) seem to?

You said: "Even though we love the art of the past, at some point we probably have to be a part of our own time's intellectual and cultural world." What exactly does that imply that we "probably have" to do? Not hold and express values contrary to those "the culture" - whoever or whatever that is - has told us we should? You said: "I don't mean that we have to love our own time's 'high art,' which is beyond my own poor powers of legislation, but I have been dumbfounded to find the cultural clashes of the 1950s so ferociously fought in the 2010s." What clashes? And why are you dumbfounded? Has it ever occurred to you that people who don't buy into the "authoritative" views of whatever the currently annointed cultural mavens are selling are also part of "our own time's intellectual and cultural world," and a perfectly legitimate part? It does seem possible, doesn't it, that certain approved assumptions, values and products of our own time's intellectual and cultural world are not all we're told they are - that, perhaps, there may be some valuable things in the long experience of mankind on earth that our own time's intellectual and cultural world has lost sight of, or not yet understood?

I have no more use for the arbiters of cultural correctness than for those of political correctness, so don't project authoritarian tendencies onto me and accuse me of "violently" misconstruing your attitude. I'd say that drawing an equivalence between people's reservations about contemporary music and arguments for banning the theater, or anger over the Crusades, conveys a pretty unmistakable attitude.

When you walk into a room where people are earnestly discussing something and remark with a shrug that you're "dumbfounded" that anyone would still be talking about that stuff because, after all, it's old hat and everyone should have been done with it half a century ago, the most polite response would be something like "Hey! What's it to you, bub?"


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> Well, if "the questions" haven't been answered and you aren't proposing that they have, what exactly is your problem with people discussing them? So you're tired of them. So you think they're...what? Unanswered, but not worth anyone's time? Obviously they aren't worth _your_ time, but if that's so, why bother entering the conversation? Is someone encroaching on your personal space? What are "the questions" anyway? Are there particular questions that particularly annoy you? Should they particularly annoy other people too? Annoy them so much that they find this thread offensive, as you (and some others) seem to?
> 
> You said: "Even though we love the art of the past, at some point we probably have to be a part of our own time's intellectual and cultural world." What exactly does that imply that we "probably have" to do? Not hold and express values contrary to those "the culture" - whoever or whatever that is - has told us we should? You said: "I don't mean that we have to love our own time's 'high art,' which is beyond my own poor powers of legislation, but I have been dumbfounded to find the cultural clashes of the 1950s so ferociously fought in the 2010s." What clashes? And why are you dumbfounded? Has it ever occurred to you that people who don't buy into the "authoritative" views of whatever the currently annointed cultural mavens are selling are also part of "our own time's intellectual and cultural world," and a perfectly legitimate part? It does seem possible, doesn't it, that certain approved assumptions, values and products of our own time's intellectual and cultural world are not all we're told they are - that, perhaps, there may be some valuable things in the long experience of mankind on earth that our own time's intellectual and cultural world has lost sight of, or not yet understood?
> 
> I have no more use for the arbiters of cultural correctness than for those of political correctness, so don't project authoritarian tendencies onto me and accuse me of "violently" misconstruing your attitude. I'd say that drawing an equivalence between people's reservations about contemporary music and arguments for banning the theater, or anger over the Crusades, conveys a pretty unmistakable attitude.
> 
> When you walk into a room where people are earnestly discussing something and remark with a shrug that you're "dumbfounded" that anyone would still be talking about that stuff because, after all, it's old hat and everyone should have been done with it half a century ago, the most polite response would be something like "Hey! What's it to you, bub?"


Well _of course_ these things haven't occurred to me before. For the moment I'm too busy legislating the _Wagner v. Brahms_ case. When I get up to _Prettiness v. Schoenberg, Cage, and Babbitt_, I'll let you know what I decide!


----------



## Woodduck

^^^ Right. Never admit to being a cultural snob. Just double down. 

"Wagner v. Brahms" is actually shorthand for some very interesting aesthetic questions. We don't have to choose between them, but we can still discuss profitably the meaning of that debate. Of course, if we don't want to discuss it we can always let other people do so and resist the temptation to mock them.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> ^^^ Right. Never admit to being a cultural snob. Just double down.
> 
> "Wagner v. Brahms" is actually shorthand for some very interesting aesthetic questions. We don't have to choose between them, but we can still discuss profitably the meaning of that debate. Of course, if we don't want to discuss it we can always let other people do so and resist the temptation to mock them.


Haven't I admitted to being a snob before? I can out-snob most anyone even with one taste tied behind my back.

I'm such a successful snob that when I'm wrong, I double _up_.

"Discuss profitably" is a little different than what usually goes down here when people whip out their atonals.

But whatever, man. It's an interesting corner of the internet at least. I'm sure someone somewhere is still arguing over whether women should wear skirts that show ankles, whether men should have long hair, or whether classical Latin has the best grammar. I suppose it's even good to know that people are keeping the past alive. I really appreciated the reenactors I met down at Chalmette on the 200th anniversary of the Battle of New Orleans. They have a devotion that is really admirable.


----------



## Jacck

science said:


> That is the curious thing to me. It's a little as if we were arguing over whether rock and roll is Satanic, whether bebop is legitimate jazz, whether novels were a serious art form, whether the theater should be banned, whether we should paint fig leaves over Michelangelo's nudes, or whether statues or instrumental music is ok in church.
> 
> Even though we love the art of the past, at some point we probably have to be a part of our own time's intellectual and cultural world. I don't mean that we have to love our own time's "high art," which is beyond my own poor powers of legislation, but I have been dumbfounded to find the cultural clashes of the 1950s so ferociously fought in the 2010s.
> 
> OTOH, I know some people are still angry about the 4th Crusade. I guess some things have a way of living on.


nice straw-man, drawing on false analogies. You can argue and rationalize however much you want, but modern classical will never be as popular as rock. The reasons are objectively grounded in the psychology and physiology of the human brain. You could make experiments with toddlers and even they would be able to instinctively differentiate between pleasing and unpleasing music.


----------



## science

Jacck said:


> nice straw-man, drawing on false analogies. You can argue and rationalize however much you want, but modern classical will never be as popular as rock. The reasons are objectively grounded in the psychology and physiology of the human brain. You could make experiments with toddlers and even they would be able to instinctively differentiate between pleasing and unpleasing music.


Holy non-sequitur, Batman!

If modern classical music got as popular as rock, many of its most passionate fans would probably choose to like something else. Human psychology and all that.

What would most interest me in this hypothetical is whether fundamentalist Christians would start arguing that musicians who perform Vasks are possessed by Satan. (I'm kidding. I would bet a lot of money that they wouldn't. But when I first tried to type that sentence, autocorrect turned my attempt to type "money" into "omen," so we do have to consider that.)


----------



## Jacck

even the brain researchers differentiate between plaeasing and unpleasing music by the amount of dissonance it contains
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10204547

some people are so brainwashed and deluded by the postmodernist propaganda, that they find it no more possible to call the beautiful beautiful and the stupid stupid. "Everyone has a right to have an opinion" and "all opinions are equal". And this leads to things such as the alternative math


----------



## science

Jacck said:


> even the brain researchers differentiate between plaeasing and unpleasing music by the amount of dissonance it contains
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10204547
> 
> some people are so brainwashed and deluded by the postmodernist propaganda, that they find it no more possible to call the beautiful beautiful and the stupid stupid. "Everyone has a right to have an opinion" and "all opinions are equal". And this leads to things such as the alternative math


You've got a lot going on.

What do brain researchers say about people who enjoy thirds and sixths?


----------



## Jacck

science said:


> Holy non-sequitur, Batman!
> If modern classical music got as popular as rock, many of its most passionate fans would probably choose to like something else. Human psychology and all that.


which only proves that it is mainly about snobbery and exclusivity, and not about the music. What you are saying is that the people who listen to this music listen to it mainly because noone else does, and that gives them opportunity to feel special, and that if the masses started listening to this music, they would move on to something else exclusive, which would make them feel special again. I am not sure if there are such people. Probably yes. They are called hipsters. Sheep with herd mentality who want to escape their herdness by dressing weird and developing weird tastess.

But I am not against modern classical music. But it is dissosant, it is not pleasing, it is chaotic, it is often dark, mad etc. and only a minority of people find aesthetic value in these things, which is the objective reason why it will never become more popular. But I myself do indeed enjoy it and I am not hypocritical in that sense, that I would pretend that I enjoy it to feel like a hipster.

but only someone with a loss of touch with reality would say that this music is consonant, pleasing, not chaotic, mad




it sounds like random noise at first, and requires some effort to develop a taste for it. (I do like it)


----------



## science

We've all been brainwashed by our experiences into liking music that would probably be liked by people we personally know and respect. It has nothing to do with objectivity, everything to do with identity and aspiration. Claiming people like the wrong music is equivalent to saying they like the wrong food, speak with the wrong accent, wear the wrong clothes, or experience the wrong gods - i.e., that they are the wrong kind of people. 

Disliking music is probably attributable to a lack of sufficient brainwashing, or exposure to the wrong people. 

Math is (rather obviously) something else.


----------



## Jacck

science said:


> We've all been brainwashed by our experiences into liking music that would probably be liked by people we personally know and respect. It has nothing to do with objectivity, everything to do with identity and aspiration.
> 
> Disliking music is probably attributable to a lack of sufficient brainwashing, or exposure to the wrong people.
> 
> But I am apparently disagreeing with someone whose tastes are as certain as mathematical theorems (traditionally understood), and he thinks I shouldn't enjoy Nono, so now I have to reject the Pythagorean theorem, which is really too bad because I'm counting on it in a lot of ways. For instance, I'm riding a bus right now.


which is again a straw-man and misrepresentation. What I am saying is that liking/disliking music is a complex phenomenon. There are social factors, ego factors (the need to feel exclusive and define yourself by your tastes etc), but there are also instinctive factors wired in the brain of most people. Some sounds/music are objectively unpleasant for the majority of people and this can be proven with toddlers who have not yet been brainwashed by culture. There were countless cultures on this planet and most of then never developed anything akin to modern classical music. Instead, they evolved music which is naturally pleasing to the human ear. Consonant music releases dopamine
https://psych-neuro.com/2016/04/12/music-isnt-natural-musicality-is/


----------



## science

Jacck said:


> which is again a straw-man and misrepresentation. What I am saying is that liking/disliking music is a complex phenomenon. There are social factors, ego factors (the need to feel exclusive and define yourself by your tastes etc), but there are also instinctive factors wired in the brain of most people. Some sounds/music are objectively unpleasant for the majority of people and this can be proven with toddlers who have not yet been brainwashed by culture. There were countless cultures on this planet and most of then never developed anything akin to modern classical music. Instead, they evolved music which is naturally pleasing to the human ear. Consonant music releases dopamine
> https://psych-neuro.com/2016/04/12/music-isnt-natural-musicality-is/


Most cultures never developed any music akin to any other particular musical tradition either, and they aren't available for brain scans. If you'd been raised in fourteenth-century China, you wouldn't have liked Haydn, nor recognized it as consonant.

But even if I do like some kind of music that I'm not supposed to like because it defies the probabilities, neurotransmitters, or natural selections, hey, I don't fall for the naturalistic fallacy (now apparently called "the appeal-to-nature" fallacy). So it's all good.

Maybe people who like that music don't actually have neurotransmitters. You'll have to study our brains. Maybe we're not fully human.


----------



## Jacck

science said:


> Most cultures never developed any music akin to any other particular musical tradition either, and they aren't available for brain scans. If you'd been raised in fourteenth-century China, you wouldn't have liked Haydn, nor recognized it as consonant. .


which probably explains why Haydn or western classical music is so popular in China (but modern classical isn't)


----------



## science

Jacck said:


> which probably explains why Haydn or western classical music is so popular in China (but modern classical isn't)


Maybe it's not the 14th century there anymore either.

They're also into blue jeans and techno music.

But even if I do like some kind of music that I'm not supposed to like because it defies the probabilities, neurotransmitters, or natural selections, hey, I don't fall for the naturalistic fallacy (now apparently called "the appeal-to-nature" fallacy). So it's all good.

Maybe people who like that music don't actually have neurotransmitters. You'll have to study our brains. Maybe we're not fully human.


----------



## Jacck

science said:


> Maybe it's not the 14th century there anymore either.
> 
> They're also into blue jeans and techno music.
> 
> But even if I do like some kind of music that I'm not supposed to like because it defies the probabilities, neurotransmitters, or natural selections, hey, I don't fall for the naturalistic fallacy. So it's all good.
> 
> Maybe people who like that music don't actually have neurotransmitters. You'll have to study our brains. Maybe we're not fully human.


you can call it fallacy and believe what you want, but you will not change the fact, that most people do not like listening to this music. If they did, the music would be more popular. You can find various reasons and speculate why it is so, but I offered you the most probably explanation grounded in science. The music is not natural.


----------



## science

Jacck said:


> you can call it fallacy and believe what you want, but you will not change the fact, that most people do not like listening to this music. If they did, the music would be more popular. You can find various reasons and speculate why it is so, but I offered you the most probably explanation grounded in science. The music is not natural.


_I don't care if it's natural_. I also don't care if it's popular.

What's more: you shouldn't either!

In fact, I'd be surprised if you actually do care about these things. If you cared, you'd try to find either the most popular music or music that can be made with stone-age, pre-agricultural technology (since no human behavior shaped by agricultural civilization can be truly "natural"), or maybe both, and you'd force yourself to like that. And you apparently don't do that.


----------



## Jacck

science said:


> _I don't care if it's natural_. I also don't care if it's popular.
> 
> What's more: you shouldn't either!
> 
> In fact, I'd be surprised if you actually do care about these things. If you cared, you'd try to find either the most popular music or music that can be made with stone-age, pre-agricultural technology (since no human behavior shaped by agricultural civilization can be truly "natural"), or maybe both, and you'd force yourself to like that. And you apparently don't do that.


I am just answering the question posed by the OP "Why isn't modern classical music popular?" and all I am saying is that it is not only about some social conditioning (as postmodernists, gender activists etc) would like to believe, but that it is objectively given by the nature of the music and properties of the human brain. The gender ideologues would also like to believe that "gender is a social constuct" and that there are no psychological differences grounded in brain biology etc.

I am not fighting the music, nor people who enjoy it. I said several times that I like it as well. I am just answering the OP question. It is simply the most likely explanation.


----------



## science

Jacck said:


> I am just answering the question posed by the OP "Why isn't modern classical music popular?" and all I am saying is that it is not only about some social conditioning (as postmodernists, gender activists etc) would like to believe, but that it is objectively given by the nature of the music and properties of the human brain. The gender ideologues would also like to believe that "gender is a social constuct" and that there are no psychological differences grounded in brain biology etc.
> 
> I am not fighting the music, nor people who enjoy it. I said several times that I like it as well. I am just answering the OP question. It is simply the most likely explanation.


I don't think you're portraying very many well-informed, thoughtful people's beliefs about the gender stuff accurately, but even if you are, it's weird to talk about in this context. It does not seem like an example meant to shed light on the musical question.

As for nature/music, I really don't think we can call any music "natural." Most people will dislike any music we can make. Probably the most popular music in the world right now is hip-hop, and still, most people in the cultures it comes from don't particularly like any particular instance of it, especially the first time they hear it. As for music that really could be called natural - the musics of foraging peoples - almost no one outside of the groups themselves are going to like it.

Saying that CPP classical music or rock and roll are "natural" is very nearly the same thing as saying Latin is the best language.


----------



## Jacck

science said:


> I don't think you're portraying very many well-informed, thoughtful people's beliefs about the gender stuff accurately, but even if you are, it's weird to talk about in this context. It does not seem like an example meant to shed light on the musical question. As for nature/music, I really don't think we can call any music "natural." Most people will dislike any music we can make. Probably the most popular music in the world right now is hip-hop, and still, most people in the cultures it comes from don't particularly like any particular instance of it, especially the first time they hear it. As for music that really could be called natural - the musics of foraging peoples - almost no one outside of the groups themselves are going to like it.


I can see an analogy between the "gender is a social construct" ideology and "musical taste is a social construct" ideology. The fact is that some of those things are rooted in brain biology and objective research proves it. But for some people, objective truth is not as important as their ideological beliefs. It is an experimental fact, that humans prefer consonant music over dissonant music and that the brain processes them differently
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4829599/
I am not saying that the music is worse or that the people who listen to it are inferior - that is your projection. Just like I am not saying that one gender is worse than the other. I just disagree with the lysenkoist belief that "gender is a social construct"
https://qz.com/1190996/scientific-research-shows-gender-is-not-just-a-social-construct/


----------



## Enthusiast

Jacck said:


> which is again a straw-man and misrepresentation. What I am saying is that liking/disliking music is a complex phenomenon. There are social factors, ego factors (the need to feel exclusive and define yourself by your tastes etc), but there are also instinctive factors wired in the brain of most people. Some sounds/music are objectively unpleasant for the majority of people and this can be proven with toddlers who have not yet been brainwashed by culture. There were countless cultures on this planet and most of then never developed anything akin to modern classical music. Instead, they evolved music which is naturally pleasing to the human ear. Consonant music releases dopamine
> https://psych-neuro.com/2016/04/12/music-isnt-natural-musicality-is/


I'm sorry, Jacck, but I don't think that argument - the effect of single sounds on brain chemistry - works for the complex successions of sound (over tens of minutes etc.) that you get with music. Consonance and dissonance are processed differently by the brain! The sort of reductionist argument that you are using might demonstrate some of the processing pathways that composers tinker with when they make music but it (your argument) is not about music. Composers have been playing with dissonance in their compositions for ever!

Your link, by the way, is to a brief paper that argues that the same brain chemistry that is involved in many of our emotional and social functions is also involved in our enjoyment of music: well, knock me down with a feather! To be sarcastic for a moment: that is most unexpected!


----------



## Enthusiast

Jacck said:


> I can see an analogy between the "gender is a social construct" ideology and "musical taste is a social construct" ideology. *The fact is that some of those things are rooted in brain biology and objective research proves it. *But for some people, objective truth is not as important as their ideological beliefs.


Rooted in (human) biology? How could it not be? Music is made by people for people. The people who make it may know nothing about neuroscience but they do know about what music can feel like to humans - and composers are still exploring all the possible iterations for this - and are able to manipulate the simple phenomena you describe along with far more complex ones that are not yet accessible to neuroscience. You equating of reductionism with "objectivity" is fallacious.


----------



## Jacck

Enthusiast said:


> I'm sorry, Jacck, but I don't think that argument - the effect of single sounds on brain chemistry - works for the complex successions of sound (over tens of minutes etc.) that you get with music. Consonance and dissonance are processed differently by the brain! The sort of reductionist argument that you are using might demonstrate some of the processing pathways that composers tinker with when they make music but it (your argument) is not about music. Composers have been playing with dissonance in their compositions for ever!
> 
> Your link, by the way, is to a brief paper that argues that the same brain chemistry that is involved in many of our emotional and social functions is also involved in our enjoyment of music: well, knock me down with a feather! To be sarcastic for a moment: that is most unexpected!


I am lazy to search for studies, but I read that the dopamine release is dependent of brain's ability to predict patterns in the music. And the more chaotic the music is, the more difficult is it for the brain to see the patterns. You can also interpret it, that more intelligence is needed to see the patterns, hence people who enjoy modern classical are more intellint/have better brains at seeing patterns in the chaos


----------



## Enthusiast

^^^ I'm sorry but "patterns" still doesn't get you there. All these "micro" phenomena will have been sensed by composers (and audiences) long before the actual neuro-chemical pathways had been dreamed of. They have been using them to create the powerful effects we get from music for centuries.


----------



## paulbest

Great sparring going on here, I'm stepping aside, don't wish to get sliced up, as I;m a amateur in these types of discussions. I think someone in this thread, brought up the Wagner vs Brahms conflict, which I know nothing about what went down. 
But I was just cking out how popular Brahms is in Vienna,. Seems popular enough to have a main concert hall dedicated in his name, Brahms Hall. and all the 2019, Brahms sym concerts are long ago sold out. 
So I went to a Brahms sym, the 4th, with Furtwangler , Listening to parts, I NOW clearly understand the power, the attraction , the spell binding elements in Brahms music , upon generations of Europeans. Got it. Its there, no doubt about it. 
But I could never become a fan of his music, I had to go the modern route, could have been no other way. 
As a rebel of sorts, a iconoclast as one GMGer tagged me, decades ago (never knew I was one at that time) it was inevitable I should meet up with Wagner's great opera, Parsifal. Now here is spell binding music with incredible beauty. I could never become a Brahmsian, not with some of Wagner's best passages to be heard. . 
Either /or? Yes, for me at least.

Now with the Viennese , there is no signs of change anytime soon. 
That's for sure.

You may not see Schnittke on the Vienna program anytime soon.






https://www.viennaconcerts.com/search?key=brahms&s=Search&c=0&from=&to=


----------



## millionrainbows

Jacck said:


> which is again a straw-man and misrepresentation. What I am saying is that liking/disliking music is a complex phenomenon. There are social factors, ego factors (the need to feel exclusive and define yourself by your tastes etc), but there are also instinctive factors wired in the brain of most people. Some sounds/music are objectively unpleasant for the majority of people and this can be proven with toddlers who have not yet been brainwashed by culture. There were countless cultures on this planet and most of then never developed anything akin to modern classical music. Instead, they evolved music which is naturally pleasing to the human ear. Consonant music releases dopamine
> https://psych-neuro.com/2016/04/12/music-isnt-natural-musicality-is/


This is incorrect.
I suggest you carefully watch this entire video:


----------



## Enthusiast

KenOC said:


> They may well know the music of Elliott Carter, but they're unlikely to talk about it much when they're trying to figure out how to put bums in seats. Mr. Carter, capital fellow though he may have been, has never demonstrated much strength in that direction.


I assume you are talking of orchestral concerts? Lots of composers remained unpopular for some time after their deaths and then went on to become very popular and regularly programmes by orchestras. Mahler comes to mind. Other composers were very popular in the lifetimes but are hardly known now. And then many composers and works from 150 years ago that we admire greatly are rarely played in concerts. The point is that concerts - and particularly orchestral concerts - are not a good measure of importance or popularity. A better measure might be recordings and how long they stay available. And the simple fact is that Carter has been much recorded and many of the records have stayed available for a good length of time. Not only is his name well known but his music is listened to quite a lot.

Nor is popularity - however measured - a good measure of music quality. Carter's music is not as popular as the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto or Beethoven 5 and other works that dominate our orchestral concert seasons. But they can't compete with Pink Floyd or Beyonce. As far as popularity goes, what matters is that a composer reaches a good part of his/her audience (the ones who are likely to be interested and open to it) and that is all that matters.


----------



## paulbest

millionrainbows said:


> This is incorrect.
> I suggest you carefully watch this entire video:


Many of the great composers, great virtuoso possessed these same qualities , levels of super high genius. Maurice Ravel and Alfred Schnittke come foremost to mind.


----------



## millionrainbows

paulbest said:


> Many of the great composers, great virtuoso possessed these same qualities , levels of super high genius. Maurice Ravel and Alfred Schnittke come foremost to mind.


The point being that we are not "brainwashed" or incapable of grasping complex, even atonal music. Look at the way he can identify tone-clusters.


----------



## paulbest

millionrainbows said:


> The point being that we are not "brainwashed" or incapable of grasping complex, even atonal music. Look at the way he can identify tone-clusters.


OK, got it, Excellent vid to highlight your points made.
I recall, a post made on YT I think , where he stated he had been into Schoenberg since age 12. 
Amazing!

I broke away from many of my old favorites due to new inner experiences. I would say some inner transformation has to precede the acceptance of appreciating many of the new modern composers.

As this USA economy falters, social issues intensify,, the churches seen for what they really are, its my belief and hope , that after this great fallout, collapse, perhaps classical music will be given a new birth.
Country, pop, jazz will be reduced in status, replaced by a realization ,a revelation in which classical music will be understood as the highest musical experience, one that is able to assist the soul in its journey of the dark night of the soul.

Its only a matter of time. 
Look, note the viewers on TC lately, its well over 1K at any given time. True only 100 are regular posters,
Still that's a big change since the older forums, which never had 1K viewers at any given time.

I say people are getting more curious about classical. They've had it with all the other fleeting, thin , flimsy forms of instant gratification style music.

Classical music is the highest aspirations of man's creativity in music. And in my humble opinion, the new composers, through their great sacrifice , dedication, struggles, sufferings, have reached the epiphany of this golden art form.

A life lived without exploring this highest of mankinds achievements , is a life given over to poverty of spirit.

Just 1 Pettersson sym holds a greater value than all of Rothchilds gold.

Yet who can know this?

Classical music is for the few chosen, not the many called. 
This is a reference to a NT saying, for those who do not know.

I think Jesus had spoken these words, which work perfectly in this case here. 
The new re-valuation of all values, may open the doors for new commers to classical. 
Now they have more choices than we ever did back in the day.

We were limited as to what we could purchase, listen to. 
Now with YT, amazon, TC forums, we have avenues to explore in any direction we wish. 
Its a whole new world, since the old Schwann's catalogue days. The newbies know nothing about Schwann catalogue.

Here now, we enter into possibilities, which were unimaginable only just decades ago.

No more 1 minute clips, we can now experience any form of classical we freely decide.

As the old(thick heavy 33's) had to give way to the new (CD format) so too the old war horses will be retired to *pasture grazing* , and the new music will blossom and shine in many more souls , not just the chosen few, but now the many called will as well enter into this highest of mankinds living values.


----------



## paulbest

Agamemnon said:


> Following a post by Phil loves classical with the link https://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/nov/28/alex-ross-modern-classical-music I think the question this article raises merits a new thread. There is a lot of talk on this forum about atonality and Cage but I think the question should be broader which broadening would illuminate far better what the problem really is: e.g. modern paintings are hugely popular yet almost nobody likes modern classical music. Why?
> 
> I think the answer is that somewhere in the 20th century all has gone wrong because of a totally false dichotomy which evolved in music: new generations got all excited by new popular music like jazz, rock and pop while other people - mostly the older people - were grossed out by this wild, loud and primitive monkey music and sought a safe heaven of civilization in older, more 'civilized' music like classical music. This opposition is also clear by the phrase one always hears about classical music: classical music is relaxing, soft-spoken (while pop is wild and loud). So art music became music for old people who were disgusted by the noisy modern music thus art music became equivalent to classical music (which this very website enforces because it is called 'talkclassical' instead of 'talkart', yet modern music like atonality and Cage are not excluded from conversation at all). And also for young people art music became equated with classical music = very old music = boring to death music = dead music for dead people.
> 
> So while there is no such dichotomy in visual arts, the rise of jazz and rock 'n' roll caused a strange and false dichotomy in music: art music became equated with very old music while entertainment music became equated with modern/contemporary music. And so there is no vast audience for 'modern classical' music because it doesn't appeal to the classical audience which generally hates modernity (which includes atonality and Cage) nor to the modern audience which doesn't know art music can be modern too! BTW, 'modern classical' is actually an oxymoron or even contradiction which sums up it's core problem right away...


Amazing,,,I just now am reading the OP. 
Amazing, I had not seen this excellent insightful post, which aligns with much I am expressing in my post above. UNREAL, , Jung called this synchronicity. 
I have much more to discuss based on Agamemnon 's highly informative comments. 
There is so much where his ideas and mine intersect, uncanny.

Someone yesterday griped, *why are we still arguing these same old beaten down topics of old vs the new,,don't we have other things better to do?*
No we don;'t other things more important than the subject at hand , for the new classical needs real human living souls to carry on its values, its sense of salvific importance for all mankind. 
The fact that man has not given his proper attention to this greatest of all human activity, modern musical art , clearly shows how lost he is in the universe, and has wandered down a path of meaning-less-ness. 
The new classical art forms, represents a primary way he can reconnect to his original state, his Adamic spirit.

More later, good nite...


----------



## DaveM

^^^Speaking of churches, it sounds like you’re starting one.


----------



## paulbest

DaveM said:


> ^^^Speaking of churches, it sounds like you're starting one.


Considering everything is now officially bankrupt/corrupt, what is the only thing in this life which has retained its true value?


----------



## Guest

paulbest said:


> Considering everything is now officially bankrupt/corrupt, what is the only thing in this life which has retained its true value?


Ooooh - 20 questions! I love that game!! I'll start...is it animal, vegetable, or mineral?


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm with Sid James and science on this tired-out old argument about modernism.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> Ooooh - 20 questions! I love that game!! I'll start...is it animal, vegetable, or mineral?


Ha ha, very funny. At least Paul Best is sincerely passionate about the music he likes.


----------



## millionrainbows

DaveM said:


> ^^^Speaking of churches, it sounds like you're starting one.


Why are you concerned about churches?


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> Why are you concerned about churches?


I'm not. If you read the posts above, paulbest brought the subject up.



paulbest said:


> ...the churches seen for what they really are, its my belief and hope , that after this great fallout, collapse, perhaps classical music will be given a new birth...I think Jesus had spoken these words, which work perfectly in this case here.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Well, if "the questions" haven't been answered and you aren't proposing that they have, what exactly is your problem with people discussing them? So you're tired of them. So you think they're...what? Unanswered, but not worth anyone's time? Obviously they aren't worth _your_ time, but if that's so, why bother entering the conversation? Is someone encroaching on your personal space? What are "the questions" anyway? Are there particular questions that particularly annoy you? Should they particularly annoy other people too? Annoy them so much that they find this thread offensive, as you (and some others) seem to?
> 
> You said: "Even though we love the art of the past, at some point we probably have to be a part of our own time's intellectual and cultural world." What exactly does that imply that we "probably have" to do? Not hold and express values contrary to those "the culture" - whoever or whatever that is - has told us we should? You said: "I don't mean that we have to love our own time's 'high art,' which is beyond my own poor powers of legislation, but I have been dumbfounded to find the cultural clashes of the 1950s so ferociously fought in the 2010s." What clashes? And why are you dumbfounded? Has it ever occurred to you that people who don't buy into the "authoritative" views of whatever the currently annointed cultural mavens are selling are also part of "our own time's intellectual and cultural world," and a perfectly legitimate part? It does seem possible, doesn't it, that certain approved assumptions, values and products of our own time's intellectual and cultural world are not all we're told they are - that, perhaps, there may be some valuable things in the long experience of mankind on earth that our own time's intellectual and cultural world has lost sight of, or not yet understood?
> 
> I have no more use for the arbiters of cultural correctness than for those of political correctness, so don't project authoritarian tendencies onto me and accuse me of "violently" misconstruing your attitude. I'd say that drawing an equivalence between people's reservations about contemporary music and arguments for banning the theater, or anger over the Crusades, conveys a pretty unmistakable attitude.
> 
> When you walk into a room where people are earnestly discussing something and remark with a shrug that you're "dumbfounded" that anyone would still be talking about that stuff because, after all, it's old hat and everyone should have been done with it half a century ago, the most polite response would be something like "Hey! What's it to you, bub?"


Well, on the other hand, I haven't noticed anyone barging in to any of _your_ pet obsessions. It seems that you equate modern music enthusiasts (who are defending merely themselves, perhaps by denigrating the intelligence of the haters) with some authority archetype that is trying to "squelch" your style; as if you were the only person who has the right to defend anything.

I think it's all wishful thinking in your imagination, and rather selfish, to the extent that not everyone is going to agree with what you like, and perhaps far from it; and if you engage in conflict on their turf, or no-man's land scenarios like this one which pretend to be 'neutral' (actually bait for conflict), even if you are stating your own well-deserved opinion, you should expect a backlash, especially if that opinion has the effect of getting to people at their very core.

After all, not everybody respects the same things as you, so why should you expect them to pay lip-service to you, especially when you confront them about it? At most, you can expect a detached, amused tolerance of your interests, that is, if you are detached and _in your own arena._ To each his own.

Who's "room" is this, anyway? It just seems like another one of those "no-man's-land" threads which invite conflict, with absolutely no respect or regard for anyone else's enthusiasm. What do you expect to result from such "hateful" threads as this, however subtly that hatred is couched? And further, I might ask: Do you really want to be an apologist for the attitude shown in the OP? Do you really want to be in the same room with such mindsets? Ask yourself these questions.



Agamemnon said:


> ...There is a lot of talk on this forum about atonality and Cage but I think the question should be broader which broadening would illuminate far better what the problem really is: e.g. modern paintings are hugely popular *yet almost nobody likes modern classical music. Why?*
> 
> I think the answer is that *somewhere in the 20th century all has gone wrong because of a totally false dichotomy which evolved* in music: new generations got all excited by new popular music like jazz, rock and pop while other people - mostly the older people - were grossed out by this wild, loud and primitive monkey music *(?!) *and sought a safe heaven of *civilization* in *older, more 'civilized' music like classical music.* This opposition is also clear by the phrase one always hears about classical music: classical music is relaxing, soft-spoken (while pop is *wild and loud*). So art music became music for *old people who were disgusted by the noisy modern music* thus *art music became equivalent to classical music (which this very website enforces because it is called 'talkclassical' instead of 'talkart', yet modern music like atonality and Cage are not excluded from conversation at all).* And also for young people art music became equated with classical music = very old music = boring to death music = dead music for dead people.
> 
> So while there is no such dichotomy in visual arts, the rise of jazz and rock 'n' roll caused a strange and false dichotomy in music: *art music became equated with very old music while entertainment music became equated with modern/contemporary music.* And so *there is no vast audience for 'modern classical' music because it doesn't appeal to the classical audience which generally hates modernity (which includes atonality and Cage) nor to the modern audience which doesn't know art music can be modern too! BTW, 'modern classical' is actually an oxymoron or even contradiction which sums up it's core problem right away...*


In my opinion, this is a poisonous argument of negativity couched very subtly. It's using trivial pop music (Splish splash I was takin' a bath) as a straw man for modern "art" music. It's condescending, and can barely conceal its disgust for John Cage and "art" music influenced by "art" ideas, which I will always maintain _properly belongs under the heading of classical music._


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Ha ha, very funny.


Thanks. 



millionrainbows said:


> At least Paul Best is sincerely passionate about the music he likes.


Whereas...?


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> The point being that we are not "brainwashed" or incapable of grasping complex, even atonal music. Look at the way he can identify tone-clusters.


No but some of us just like listening to music which is pleasant to the ears


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> No but some of us just like listening to music which is pleasant to the ears


Okay, but you can't use those old excuses anymore. It's a brain thing now.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> Okay, but you can't use those old excuses anymore. It's a brain thing now.


Why not? I listen to music because I enjoy it. If I want to torture myself I'll buy a bed of nails!


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Well, on the other hand, I haven't noticed anyone barging in to any of _your_ pet obsessions. *It seems that you equate modern music enthusiasts *(who are defending merely themselves, perhaps by denigrating the intelligence of the haters) *with some authority archetype that is trying to "squelch" your style*; as if you were the only person who has the right to defend anything.
> 
> I think it's all wishful thinking in your imagination, and rather selfish, to the extent that *not everyone is going to agree with what you like,* and perhaps far from it; and if you engage in conflict on their turf, or no-man's land scenarios like this one which pretend to be 'neutral' (actually bait for conflict), even if you are stating your own well-deserved opinion, *you should expect a backlash,* especially if that opinion has the effect of getting to people at their very core.
> 
> After all, *not everybody respects the same things as you**, so why should you expect them to pay lip-service to you, *especially when you confront them about it? At most, you can expect a detached, amused tolerance of your interests, that is, if you are detached and _in your own arena._ To each his own.
> 
> Who's "room" is this, anyway? It just seems like another one of those "no-man's-land" threads which invite conflict, with absolutely no respect or regard for anyone else's enthusiasm. What do you expect to result from such "hateful" threads as this, however subtly that hatred is couched? And further, I might ask: *Do you really want to be an apologist for the attitude shown in the OP?* *Do you really want to be in the same room with such mindsets?* Ask yourself these questions.


This is a lot of hogwash. I took two people to task for claiming that certain ideas about music have long been settled and that "we" needn't discuss them any more, and for mocking others, who they fancy less sophisticated than themselves, for discussing those ideas. That is all I did. It appears that you, talking dismissively about "such mindsets," want to be known as one of the sophisticated crowd who know which views are au courant and which are passe.

Surely there are more useful ways of saying that one no longer finds a subject interesting, ways that allow for the validity of others' interest in it. How about simply not discussing it, or starting a thread of one's own? And if one thinks the OP has offered his thoughts as "bait," there's always the option of not rising to it.

As for "modern music," it's a category so vague and general as to be meaningless, and therefore I have no view of "it" or of "its" enthusiasts, and so cannot "equate " them with anything, regardless of how it "seems" to you. I don't talk to or about "modern music enthusiasts" as a group or a class, and have no interest in their, or anyone's, "lip service."

You'd do well to quit psychoanalyzing people you disagree with.


----------



## Bulldog

Woodduck said:


> You'd do well to quit psychoanalyzing people you disagree with.


I'm not confident that millionrainbows will stop. After all, he's a self-appointed member of the intellectual elite. :lol:


----------



## Bulldog

millionrainbows said:


> Ha ha, very funny. At least Paul Best is sincerely passionate about the music he likes.


Passionate is not an adjective I would apply to his postings about the music he likes best.


----------



## paulbest

Bulldog said:


> Passionate is not an adjective I would apply to his postings about the music he likes best.


Look as I recall, just weeks before H Katrina struck, as I was typing away on GMG.... the electricity went off, I was typing ,,,*no guys, she ain't commin here, Katrina is headed to texas...lol Anyway just weeks pre Kartina, I recall I was tagged The Iconoclast ,,for my strong opinions on the current state of classical music hierarchy. 
I felt strongly somethings were out of wack , out of balance, out of touch with reality of the whole shebang.

It was time to take a stand ...I( had to look up the word iconoclast, and sure enough that was I.

Perhaps its my german blood , perhaps I was always the underdog in life, cheated often. Just accepting whatever.

I hate politics, sports, pop culture, consumerism , etc,,,propaganda. I always felt pushed to buy certain compoers LP's in the Tower Records and other classical LP shops back in the day.

I knew there were Pettersson, Schnittke, Henze and many others, Szymanowski has a very slim bin of LP's. But it was the BIG BIYs of old Europe that were shoved down our throats, via *popular demand*

I am now the Yellow Vest for modern classical composers. 
Time now to break down old idols and establish new opportunities for the new voices in classical. 
Henze on all concert programs might be a good start. He is not difficult to play, not radical at all, Nice wonderful music, trust me you guys will like Henze. 
This is all I am asking, a compromise, a concert featuring a sym of Pettersson, a Concerto Grosso 4 by Schnittke and a 3rd part with a Henze sym. Is this
too much to ask?
In 2019, nearly 30 years since those works were masterly set in ink. 
I mean just what is the wait for? 
Are you romanticists afraid of the new music? 
Just what is the hangup here?


----------



## philoctetes

I would love to hear Schnittke Concerto grosso live. I just heard Saariaho and Lindberg live a month ago. But it was chamber music.

The hangup is finding the people to play these pieces and other people who will listen to them. Both are rare. For orchestras, this is just one of many obstacles to operation and survival. For chamber music there are more opportunities and there are some excellent groups on tour. I've been saying this for years to deaf ears. I think that most living composers are aware of this and write for larger groups only when commissioned. So if you want to be the yellow vest then don't forget to attend your local chamber music concerts....


----------



## arpeggio

One of the aspects of this debate that bothers me is that the haters are actually very intelligent people.


----------



## paulbest

philoctetes said:


> I would love to hear Schnittke Concerto grosso live. I just heard Saariaho and Lindberg live a month ago. But it was chamber music.
> 
> The hangup is finding the people to play these pieces and other people who will listen to them. Both are rare. For orchestras, this is just one of many obstacles to operation and survival. For chamber music there are more opportunities and there are some excellent groups on tour. I've been saying this for years to deaf ears. I think that most living composers are aware of this and write for larger groups only when commissioned. So if you want to be the yellow vest then don't forget to attend your local chamber music concerts....


Yes , excellent viewpoint, Schnittke's large orch works, would require extensive practice, resources. Its just not in any orch's budget, to tackle such a project.

Chamber works would be great and yes if in my area, I would certainly attend a all modern chamber concert. Good attendances reinforce scheduling similar concert programs in the future.

Some member mention a SQ grouo performing the complete Carter SQ's there in London, it was a smash hit/standing ovation, was a split , all day concert. 
Tickets went at a fair price, like 15 Euros. 
Member said the show was a stunner, folks were blown away with Carter's music. 
Things are happening , but at a snail's pace.


----------



## paulbest

btw what was the Saariaho and Lindberg show all about, Not sure who Saariaho is. LIndberg is the conductor of the Pettersson Project. 
World wide concert schedule. 
Not sure if/when The project is coming to the USA...

Will the seats fill for Pettersson?


----------



## Bulldog

paulbest said:


> This is all I am asking, a compromise, a concert featuring a sym of Pettersson, a Concerto Grosso 4 by Schnittke and a 3rd part with a Henze sym. Is this too much to ask?


You can ask for anything you want - sometimes the answer is no.


----------



## KenOC

Careful, there are two Lindbergs...


----------



## philoctetes

Usually you can't personally pick and choose living composers and programs, the concert organizers do that instead. 'You can't always get what you want, etc..' Most of the composers you name are dead anyway. Time to catch up!


Magnus Lindberg and Kaija Saariaho are Finland two premier living composers. Lindberg is especially good IMO, one of the best.


----------



## philoctetes

KenOC said:


> Careful, there are two Lindbergs...


Three? 3333333333333333333333


----------



## KenOC

arpeggio said:


> One of the aspects of this debate that bothers me is that the haters are actually very intelligent people.


Speaking exactly, a "hater" is someone who doesn't like what I like. The barstids!!!


----------



## Flutter

Larkenfield said:


> This debate could be easily settled by listening to _Momma Mia_.


Here I go again!!


----------



## paulbest

Well things have certainly calmed down, Its Friday, Our French Yellow Vesters are out protesting now, but I'm taking a break .from the front battle lines, I'm in retreat.

So while we are in a peace truce , lets hear some common music. 
Here's a work which could be considered modern, at least for me it is, and has some chords, textures which overwhelm me everytime I hear it. 
. Not sure what it is about this Weill Sym 1, I have all 3 recordings, maybe a 4th.
Everyone here is familiar with Weill's syms,. , but I am sure you've not heard it in ages.

Others perhaps prefer the more developed 2nd sym. 
Both are great, the 1st though charms me in a way, which I can not explain.
This Weill 1st offers something boths side the isle can enjoy, and so music once again bonds us all as 1 family.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> This is a lot of hogwash. I took two people to task for claiming that certain ideas about music have long been settled and that "we" needn't discuss them any more, and for mocking others, who they fancy less sophisticated than themselves, for discussing those ideas. That is all I did.


We shouldn't even be discussing modern classical music or "art" music in this negative, condescending manner. Frankly, the OP idea...it's ignorant and embarassing.



> It appears that you, talking dismissively about "such mindsets," want to be known as one of the sophisticated crowd who know which views are au courant and which are passe.


I am what I am. Get over it.



> Surely there are more useful ways of saying that one no longer finds a subject interesting, ways that allow for the validity of others' interest in it. How about simply not discussing it, or starting a thread of one's own?


You mean, don't enter the discussion? I think it would be better if it were not discussed at all, if it's going to be negative or shows ignorance and insensitivity towards the music and its enthusiasts. We, as a group, and as individuals, have a right to defend ourselves and those like us.



> And if one thinks the OP has offered his thoughts as "bait," there's always the option of not rising to it.


Not an option! I'm going to complain about this anti-modernist, anti-art music talk, because it's getting very ugly. I want to see it stop.



> As for "modern music," it's a category so vague and general as to be meaningless, and therefore I have no view of "it" or of "its" enthusiasts, and so cannot "equate " them with anything, regardless of how it "seems" to you.


For your information, there are as many different kinds of modern music and art music enthusiasts as there are people in the world, and we're all unique. 
You are biased, but are denying this. You refuse to recognize and accept what you don't understand. You think your way is the only way.



> I don't talk to or about "modern music enthusiasts" as a group or a class, and have no interest in their, or anyone's, "lip service."


You just said "_It appears that you, talking dismissively about "such mindsets," want to be known as one of the sophisticated crowd who know which views are au courant and which are passe."_

Of course you don't talk to or about "modern music enthusiasts" as a group or a class; you don't even recognize them at all; but when you talk about the music, which represents their tastes, you are talking about them as a class or group, and depersonalizing them.



> You'd do well to quit psychoanalyzing people you disagree with.


I think you would do well to treat modern music enthusiasts with the same respect as you would like to be treated in regard to your tastes in things.

If not respect, then at least a detached tolerance and silence, including not making a big scene about it in public, expressing your "outrage" that people would "dare" to say they've had enough of this kind of hate-speech.


----------



## millionrainbows

Bulldog said:


> Passionate is not an adjective I would apply to his postings about the music he likes best.


Paul Best's post immediately following yours, #306, sounds passionate enough to me.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Speaking exactly, a "hater" is someone who doesn't like what I like. The barstids!!!


Yes, and part of that "hating" is a failure on your part to understand, because it is different from your tastes and ways of engaging with music.

But ultimately, hate is hate. You can make up names for them, too, like "barstids."


----------



## millionrainbows

Bulldog said:


> I'm not confident that millionrainbows will stop. After all, he's a self-appointed member of the intellectual elite. :lol:


I'll take the "intelligence" aspect of this as a compliment. Apparently, you see music as being equivalent to a hot bubble bath, where you just lay back and let it wash over you.


----------



## arpeggio

millionrainbows makes comments I do not have the guts to make.

For me I will make a provocative statement. The vast majority of the members here are very intelligent. It bothers me when I read observations by intelligent members who are very intolerant. 

It is frustrating that some members can unmercifully trash certain composers but we can not trash the thrashers without violating the TOS.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Frankly, the OP idea...it's ignorant and embarassing.


Is it? I didn't read it that way.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> We shouldn't even be discussing modern classical music or "art" music in this negative, condescending manner. Frankly, the OP idea...it's ignorant and embarassing.


People will express their thoughts and feelings about music in whatever way their level of understanding permits. They are right to do so, and no one is right to insult them for it.



> You mean, don't enter the discussion? I think it would be better if it were not discussed at all, if it's going to be negative or shows ignorance and insensitivity towards the music and its enthusiasts. We, as a group, and as individuals, have a right to defend ourselves and those like us.


How tribal.



> I'm going to complain about this anti-modernist, anti-art music talk, because it's getting very ugly. I want to see it stop.


And if it doesn't?



> For your information, there are as many different kinds of modern music and art music enthusiasts as there are people in the world, and we're all unique.


That's exactly what I implied in saying "As for 'modern music,' it's a category so vague and general as to be meaningless, and therefore I have no view of 'it' or of 'its' enthusiasts...I don't talk to or about 'modern music enthusiasts' as a group or a class..."



> You refuse to recognize and accept what you don't understand. You think your way is the only way.


You're projecting. I haven't argued for any "way" at all. What I've done here is the opposite of that.



> When you talk about their music, and their tastes, you are talking about them as a class or group, and depersonalizing them.


Coo blimey! I haven't talked about any music or anyone's tastes. You're mistaking me for one of those terrible anti-modern-music warriors.



> I think you would do well to treat modern music enthusiasts with the same respect as you would like to be treated in regard to your tastes in things.


Since you've clearly forgotten where this conversation began - though you probably didn't bother to check that out before you entered it - I'll remind you that it was provoked by two "modern music enthusiasts" who showed disrespect for people whose opinions they considered not worth expressing. The only thing I've disrespected is their disrespect.



> If not respect, then at least a detached tolerance and silence, including not making a big scene about it in public, expressing your "outrage" that people would "dare" to say they've had enough of this kind of hate-speech.


Hate speech... Weirder and weirder.


----------



## Bulldog

millionrainbows said:


> I'll take the "intelligence" aspect of this as a compliment.


There's nothing complimentary about boasting.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> Hate speech... Weirder and weirder.


You can see where we're going with this...thoughtcrime! Orwell would be proud.


----------



## Larkenfield

If one has enough curiosity, I believe there’s plenty in today’s music worth hearing because I’ve stumbled across some of it myself, including some of the works by Elliott Carter, and others, a rather quintessential American composer somewhat like Charles Ives, who said somewhere, “Take your dissonance like a man!”  But I would also quickly add that some of the contemporary or modern works, in general, are so awful, so squawkish & mawkish and offputting that when you come across one of those it can take weeks to recover from it and that can dampen the enthusiasm for the discovery of other works that might be worth hearing, including by Carter or other composers. Someone such as Birtwhistle has given a Proms concert where people have walked out and I don’t blame them because I’ve heard a recording of the concert. I fail to see how anyone can move forward without going work by work and composer by composer, rather than saying somebody like Elliott Carter is all bad or he’s all good or the same with Birtwhistle or anyone else. But a sorting process is involved and some want to be a part of it and others don’t. The challenge of new music is that it’s not all pre-digested and there’s always the risk of disappointment. But there’s also the risk of a pleasant surprise, such as the sacred works of Morten Lauridsen.


----------



## Guest

It should be noted that this thread lapsed in late 2017 and was resurrected 18 months later.

Those complaining that this is a stale argument, or never ending, or just another excuse to bash the modern might take time to reflect on the reason why stale threads get resurrected. It's usually because a regular hasn't particiapte before and has decided to join in, belatedly. Or a newbie discovers and wants to particpate in the discussion for the first time. The turnover of membership makes this inevitable. Add to that, the fact that the article in the OP is nearly 9 years old, and you have a recipe for deja vu all over again.

What's disappointing is not that the argument about the modern itself continues - for the reasons I've just given - but that some of the same combatants return to spar all over again. It's that which is repetitive and harmful, not the debate about the music.

This was a good discussion, prompted by an interesting article by a reputable music journalist. 

Can we either stick to discussing Alex Ross' observations or Agamemnon's thinking, or let the whole thing drop?


----------



## paulbest

arpeggio said:


> millionrainbows makes comments I do not have the guts to make.
> 
> For me I will make a provocative statement. The vast majority of the members here are very intelligent. It bothers me when I read observations by intelligent members who are very intolerant.
> 
> It is frustrating that some members can unmercifully trash certain composers but we can not trash the thrashers without violating the TOS.


I 'll openly admit, many of my rantings deserved, eraned me a good thrashing. 
No true Yellow Vester for his personal cause, never escapes scatheless, I can take the licks.

I set myself up, to take the hits, more often than not, as I lack many of the qualities exhibited in you guys modes of expression, the refined polished, the verve, the eloquence,, nothing spiteful nor demeaning,

I mean some of these might be hidden specks , here and there.

As I say, I would to whole heartedly, yet once again, (multiple times over at GMG had to renege, contract, delete , many of my outlandish , if not ludicrous personal opinions, if you can recall) I have to deflate my personal ,,,less often opinions, , more characterized as phantasies . as I am a bit possessed.

Can I blame part of this defiant obsessiveness , which demands *you listen up now..* enthused that a few certain composers *get their due respect*,,, this at times rancorous tones I use, is divisive and ,, confessedly admit, peevish and puerile. 
I know I escaped the fensing masters bayonet here, ,,I am still remembering my wounds from last thrashing over at GMG..I got what I deserved.

You guys have matured and advanced in showing restraint , tolerance , at my quirky way of expressing my far our ideas.

Honestly, its best to take me more for a good chuckle, that anything serious. 
I figured if I seek in some highly volatile views, under the guise of empty rhetoric, t may go unnoticed.

I am learning a lot from all the posts, things that may seem pithy to others, hold value for me.

Allowing me to alter my rankled views, wayward opinions, and to just let be, what is, and get back to my music,,,,and the world can just go to,,,,,,,play on, play on,,,(you thought I was going to say the other word didn;'t you ),,see i'm changing, not to hell, but just play on as Lao Tzu would advise with wisdom.

Continue your fencing matches as will,.... please ….rubber tips on the bayonets.

.


----------



## paulbest

Larkenfield said:


> If one has enough curiosity, I believe there's plenty in today's music worth hearing because I've stumbled across some of them myself, including some of the works by Elliot Carter, and others, A rather quintessential American composer somewhat like Charles Ives who said, "Take your dissonance like a man!"  But I would also quickly add that some of the contemporary or modern works, in general, are so awful, so squawkish & mawkish and offputting that when you come across one of those it can take weeks to recover from it and that can dampen the enthusiasm for the discovery of other works that might be worth hearing, including by Carter or other composers. Someone such as Birtwhistle has given Proms concerts where people have walked out and I don't blame them because I've heard a recording of the concert. I failed to see how anyone could proceed forward without going work by work and composure by the composer, rather than somebody like Elliot Carter is all bad or he's all good or the same with Birtwhistle or anyone else. But a sorting process is involved and some want to be a part of it and others don't. The challenge of new music is that it's not all pre-digested and there's always the risk of disappointment. But there's also the risk of a pleasant surprise, such as the sacred works of Morten Lauridsen.


Just~~ Golden~~~,,all of your perspective post. 
Can't be argued with, as it is fair, and precise.


----------



## paulbest

MacLeod said:


> It should be noted that this thread lapsed in late 2017 and was resurrected 18 months later.
> 
> Those complaining that this is a stale argument, or never ending, or just another excuse to bash the modern might take time to reflect on the reason why stale threads get resurrected. It's usually because a regular hasn't particiapte before and has decided to join in, belatedly. Or a newbie discovers and wants to particpate in the discussion for the first time. The turnover of membership makes this inevitable. Add to that, the fact that the article in the OP is nearly 10 years old, and you have a recipe for deja vu all over again.
> 
> What's disappointing is not that the argument about the modern itself continues - for the reasons I've just given - but that some of the same combatants return to spar all over again. It's that which is repetitive and harmful, not the debate about the music.
> 
> This was a good discussion, prompted by an interesting article by a reputable music journalist. Can we either stick to discussing Alex Ross observations or Agamemnon's thinking, or let the whole thing drop?


Excellent, ,,and just in the nick of time before this discussion gets out of hand..,,,
btw , I take it that to mean,,,,,flame-ers are not welcomed..>>

welp, that's me, I;'ll take a reprieve , a sabbatical, ,,I think my flame fuel can is emptied anyway,,,......and I was ready for the licks to come my way, ,,had some iron clad suit of armor on,,,something I missed wearing last time over at GMG...this time was not needed, ,,,kindness was shown towards me, and is welcomed appreciatively.


----------



## Guest

I missed where Ross took the cost of concert-going into account when comparing with what goes on at museums and galleries. If I go to a gallery in London, it's free. If I go to the RAH for a Prom and want a seat, I pay around £30.

Ross also compares the concerts with cinema - again, there is a significant cost differential, at least around here. My local 7 screen cinema offers seats for all movies at £4.99!

Finally, he asserts that the use of modern music in cinema (eg Ligeti in _2001: A Space Odyssey_) shows that audiences tied to their sets for at least 90 minutes can bear disssonance/modernity - so why not in the concert hall? Going to the cinema is a completely different experience than going to a concert, not least because the prime medium is the visual, not the aural. I dont think the comparison stands up.

Apologies if these points were already picked up earlier in the thread.


----------



## Sid James

This debacle has taught me a valuable lesson which is to finally bury the hatchet and avoid any participation in further modernist wars, rehashed or otherwise.


----------



## Enthusiast

Larkenfield said:


> If one has enough curiosity, I believe there's plenty in today's music worth hearing because I've stumbled across some of it myself, including some of the works by Elliott Carter, and others, a rather quintessential American composer somewhat like Charles Ives, who said somewhere, "Take your dissonance like a man!"  But I would also quickly add that some of the contemporary or modern works, in general, are so awful, so squawkish & mawkish and offputting that when you come across one of those it can take weeks to recover from it and that can dampen the enthusiasm for the discovery of other works that might be worth hearing, including by Carter or other composers. Someone such as Birtwhistle has given a Proms concert where people have walked out and I don't blame them because I've heard a recording of the concert. I fail to see how anyone could proceed forward without going work by work and composer by the composer, rather than saying somebody like Elliott Carter is all bad or he's all good or the same with Birtwhistle or anyone else. But a sorting process is involved and some want to be a part of it and others don't. The challenge of new music is that it's not all pre-digested and there's always the risk of disappointment. But there's also the risk of a pleasant surprise, such as the sacred works of Morten Lauridsen.


Reading through the more or less ugly spat that this thread has become I found the start of this post refreshing. And partly because you are discussing music! You have a go at Birtwistle. I can't imagine which work was so distressing for you as a lot of his music is fairly accessible, rich and conventional. But I still like that you are exploring the relatively new and discriminating between music you may enjoy and music that you don't. I don't know, but it seems to me (from my experience) that if we approach the modern with an open ear (as you are) we will quite often find our minds changing. It is hard to come to a stable opinion as we can with music from more familiar times. Only five years ago I was probably posting somewhere that I don't like Birtwistle at all. Now I do and cannot even hear how it was that he had not pleased me. Probably getting to like something else somehow provided a key to his music. I have really enjoyed finding a lot of really meaningful very modern music - music that moves me as much as many of the greats of the past (albeit in different ways) - and the journey has been rewarding, too. There is something magical about finding a new voice (and new ways of using music to stir people) suddenly opening up for me.


----------



## Enthusiast

MacLeod said:


> It should be noted that this thread lapsed in late 2017 and was resurrected 18 months later.
> 
> Those complaining that this is a stale argument, or never ending, or just another excuse to bash the modern might take time to reflect on the reason why stale threads get resurrected. It's usually because a regular hasn't particiapte before and has decided to join in, belatedly. Or a newbie discovers and wants to particpate in the discussion for the first time. The turnover of membership makes this inevitable. Add to that, the fact that the article in the OP is nearly 9 years old, and you have a recipe for deja vu all over again.
> 
> What's disappointing is not that the argument about the modern itself continues - for the reasons I've just given - but that some of the same combatants return to spar all over again. It's that which is repetitive and harmful, not the debate about the music.
> 
> This was a good discussion, prompted by an interesting article by a reputable music journalist.
> 
> Can we either stick to discussing Alex Ross' observations or Agamemnon's thinking, or let the whole thing drop?


I agree but I also feel that the discussion here has been fine and interesting - albeit with very few posts saying anything of substance in favour or against the modern - except for the posts which get personal and seem to involve several people all jumping onto one or two people more for their posting style as much as for the content of their posts. Fair enough but I wonder if it could not be done in more constructive ways. If someone says something that seems to be unsupportable it should be quite easy to address what they said simply and sharply. That way they can respond if they have a response. But it seems to get personal: it is all so discordant.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> You can see where we're going with this...thoughtcrime! Orwell would be proud.


More like hate-speech crime. You can think whatever you want, as long as you don't shout "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. Even free speech has its limits.


----------



## millionrainbows

Larkenfield said:


> If one has enough curiosity, I believe there's plenty in today's music worth hearing because I've stumbled across some of it myself, including some of the works by Elliott Carter, and others, a rather quintessential American composer somewhat like Charles Ives, who said somewhere, "Take your dissonance like a man!"


That's fine, that's positive.



> But I would also quickly add that some of the contemporary or modern works, in general, are so awful, so squawkish & mawkish and offputting that when you come across one of those it can take weeks to recover from it...


That's fine, too, as long asa you don't make a crusade about it, or spew your hatred in public forums. Just ignore the music you don't like, and don't listen to it.



> ...and that can dampen the enthusiasm for the discovery of other works that might be worth hearing, including by Carter or other composers. Someone such as Birtwhistle (sic) has given a Proms concert where people have walked out and I don't blame them because I've heard a recording of the concert. I fail to see how anyone can move forward without going work by work and composer by composer, rather than saying somebody like Elliott Carter is all bad or he's all good or the same with Birtwhistle (sic) or anyone else. But a sorting process is involved and some want to be a part of it and others don't. The challenge of new music is that it's not all pre-digested and there's always the risk of disappointment. But there's also the risk of a pleasant surprise, such as the sacred works of Morten Lauridsen.


That's fine if you don't like certain works Birtwistle, but don't take that as license to go barging in to the Birtwistle thread and upset the apple cart. These considerations and explorations can be quite delicate...and get the spelling right.


----------



## millionrainbows

Sid James said:


> This debacle has taught me a valuable lesson which is to finally bury the hatchet and avoid any participation in further modernist wars, rehashed or otherwise.


That seems very noncommittal. There may come a time when you feel compelled to defend the music you like, and which others hate, if your love for that music is strong enough.

"Bury the hatchet" is exactly what needs to happen on the hater's side. I will continue to express my love for the music I like, and I won't attack anyone else's likes, fetishes, and loves, no matter how quirky, ridiculous, or even disgusting I take it to be...only their expression of hate.


----------



## millionrainbows

Enthusiast said:


> I agree but I also feel that the discussion here has been fine and interesting - albeit with very few posts saying anything of substance in favour or against the modern...


I can't condone discussions such as these, especially when they are based on questionable ideas like the OP. Apparently, you are missing the subtle way the hatred is being conveyed, as well as the condescension.



> - except for the posts which get personal and seem to involve several people all jumping onto one or two people more for their posting style as much as for the content of their posts. Fair enough but I wonder if it could not be done in more constructive ways. If someone says something that seems to be unsupportable it should be quite easy to address what they said simply and sharply. That way they can respond if they have a response. But it seems to get personal: it is all so discordant.


Well, why shouldn't modern and art music be taken personally, with respect to those who like it? We afford the same respect to opera buffs. What makes modern/art music an exception? You seem to think that modern/art music doesn't deserve the same respect! I disagree!


----------



## millionrainbows

Sid James said:


> Context, aesthetics, ideology and so on are always important but the way in which this modernist debate plays out here is often as if we where in the 1950's.
> 
> When we began to have a glut of these topics around 2012, I seriously thought that some of the participants where in their eighties. It was like a combination of a timewarp and Sisyphus.
> 
> Anyway I have little to add to it now, and it's better for me to avoid like I do when I step over **** on the street. It was hard for me to avoid commenting on burning people, but do forgive me. I don't intend to deny people their enjoyment of verbal sparring.


What happened to this earlier courageous stance of yours, Sid? I thought this was spot-on. The time has come for acceptance and tolerance. This is a new era. Things are what they are!

Avoiding conflict is one thing, but there comes a time when you must speak up for what you know is right!


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Might be better to burn the modernists. The air quality people would probably prefer that since we wouldn't have to burn their music as well, given that nobody much listens to it.


That sounds almost fascistic. I suppose you would have a big score-burning party at night.


----------



## DaveM

arpeggio said:


> ...It is frustrating that some members can unmercifully trash certain composers but we can not trash the thrashers without violating the TOS.


Which is worse? People who appear to 'hate' modern/contemporary music or people who appear to hate those people?


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> Which is worse? People who 'hate' modern/contemporary music or people who appear to hate those people?


Both equally bad perhaps? Though at least the latter have a fair measure of what they say they 'hate'.


----------



## DaveM

DaveM said:


> Which is worse? People who appear to 'hate' modern/contemporary music or people who appear to hate those people?





eugeneonagain said:


> Both equally bad perhaps? Though at least the latter have a fair measure of what they say they 'hate'.


Don't know about that, but I suspect that the former don't lose any sleep over what they (allegedly) hate while, considering the number of times they mention it, the latter do.

Hating people for their taste and expression of it tends to do more long term damage to the hater than the hatee.


----------



## philoctetes

It's all reduced to hating again. So predictable.


----------



## EdwardBast

philoctetes said:


> It's all reduced to hating again. So predictable.


Oh please.  Note that the person who has been talking most about hate (not you Phil) is both the person claiming the hate speech must stop and the one with the biggest interest in keeping it going because that means more riding on a big white hobby horse.


----------



## philoctetes

EdwardBast said:


> Oh please.  Note that the person who has been talking most about hate (not you Phil) is both the person claiming the hate speech must stop and the one with the biggest interest in keeping it going because that means more riding on a big white hobby horse.


Not my bone to pick.


----------



## KenOC

One of my favorite anti-modern reviews, although from long ago:

"Prokofiev wouldn't grant an encore. The Russian heart may be a dark place, but its capacity for mercy is infinite." -- James Huneker, NY Times, 1918


----------



## tdc

millionrainbows said:


> More like hate-speech crime. You can think whatever you want, as long as you don't shout "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. Even free speech has its limits.


I hope you don't really believe in that "hate speech" nonsense. People have a right to voice their opinion on matters such as these, it is nothing like shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. Preserving free speech is infinitely more important than hurting feelings or ruffling feathers. If someone says something you don't agree with, you have a right to express why, *that is how people learn*.

The whole "hate speech" concept that is currently being taught to people in many colleges is just an insidious attempt to prevent free speech as a way of silencing political dissent. It has nothing to do with actually caring about racism or anything else. For example, "I don't agree with this nation's war crimes". "Hate Speech!" "Racism!".

Don't fall for it.

I came across this quote the other day somewhere that seems apt. "Political correctness is fascism masquerading as manners."


----------



## paulbest

Heard Dukas, on the radio today, last part, some ballet work, 
Listening to that unusual work, written 1913 Le Peri,,,has me rethinking this idea of modern, not modern, ,and as someone pointed out, Woodduck I believe, the breaking down into eras, tagging styles to a particular time line, is no so simple nor the lines so clear.

I agree with Woodduck, we have to understand /define modern/not modern, and no one is able to do this.

But surely Wagner steps in the might as the 1st modern, Ravel and Debussy were blown away by Wagner's overtures. Neither slept the night they heard Wanger, Debussy's Prelude another major milestone, Someone mentioned Berloiz in this category as 1st modern, I can not accept this idea, Berlioz is steeped in that old romantic tradition. 

Brahms 4th sym, was heralding new ideas, but it was Wagner who broke all molds , and shaped, molded the new music. 

Liszt has some imput. 

OK, lets get Stravinsky some attention at this point. 
Good, done with,, 
Now we move to my interests as the 1st moderns.

Varese, Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Szymanowski, Zemlinsky, , of course Debussy, but much more is Maurice Ravel. It is Ravel who is the fruit and flower of the entire romantic tradition, His music closes out that era, with no others to follow.
Its done and over..

Now along comes the heirs,,,opps, forgot Mahler there,,,h how could I ?? 
Yes Mahler has a sense of imput into future changes. 


,,back to my thought,,,,,along comes the heirs to this modern new musical forms. 

Kalabis, Henze, Hartmann before Henze, RVW, with his 4th, 6th syms, , Shostakovich, Sibelius was very influential. his greatest and most memorable work, Kullervo, modern/romantic folkish....now we move to others, who bridge the early moderns to late moderns, Carter, Pettersson, Henze. 
No I did not at all forget Schnittke, but into which category will we place Schnittke

I have more to say,,many new posts I need to look at, my comp was down all day,,I'm back , just have to catch up...anyway these are ideas that stuck me as I heard the Dukas ballet piece.

What exactly is modern today?
I see Carter, Schnittke, Pettersson, and now my newest discovery, Hans Henze, these 4 as closing out the *classical modern tradition*,,all other composers after these 4, represent a new style, tagged post modern composers, Not sure how else to describe this late modern period. 



I do not wish to call this period today, late modern, as it is not, It is post modern,,but we need a better descript title.
Anyone?


----------



## KenOC

In defense of modernism: "A song that is well and artificially made cannot be well perceived nor understood at the first hearing, but the oftner you shall heare it, the better cause of liking you will discover." -- William Byrd


----------



## paulbest

KenOC said:


> In defense of modernism: "A song that is well and artificially made cannot be well perceived nor understood at the first hearing, but the oftner you shall heare it, the better cause of liking you will discover." -- William Byrd


UNREAL
Incredible find. 
Born 1538!!!

This is what I am referring to above, When the young Debussy and his friend Ravel both went over to germany to hear Wagner,,,neither slept that night, both were dumbfounded, and pondering what was it they heard.

We must remember these 2 graets , along with others who heard Dukas, ballet Le Peri, did not have access to LP's, CDs, , hardly a radio back in those late 18th C era. Those amenities were not around back in late 1800's/early 1900's. 
So when they heard something ata concert, it went deep, and memorized on the spot, It was locked in as if a CD recorder were in their brains.

This is what Byrd is referi9ng to.

The song has to be played over and over in ones creative mind, to know if one likes it, or disdains it.

Brahms 4th is one of those works which heralded the new voice,,,yet most of that sym is bound to the old classical/romantic format, Thus modern in bits , so does not qualify. Brahms is old school, period, 
Wagner is mostly old, but his few glimpses of modern art, it powerful, stunning and very memorable.

Debussy's Prelude at that time in 1899, was something from another realm, , old now has died, the new was being born. Ravel heard Prelude and this inspired his creative imaginations.

This is what I mean by early modern, mid modern, laste modern. 
Post modern, I am not really interested in. 
Rihm, Ligeti, Stockhausen , Berio I hear as post, not late modern classical tradition. 
As Is ay, late modern are Schnittke, Carter, Pettersson, Henze, also perhaps, Kalabis,,( I am waiting for the 3 cd set from Supraphon any day, will report back on Kalabis). 
These 4 close out the late modern classical epoch.

All others are post modernity , a field I am not at all interested.


----------



## paulbest

Post modern classical, 
Not interested, See this is exactly how I define post,,for those confused about my delineations, categorizations.

This example should make it clear.






.


----------



## paulbest

millionrainbows said:


> That's fine, that's positive.
> 
> That's fine, too, as long asa you don't make a crusade about it, or spew your hatred in public forums. Just ignore the music you don't like, and don't listen to it.
> 
> That's fine if you don't like certain works Birtwistle, but don't take that as license to go barging in to the Birtwistle thread and upset the apple cart. These considerations and explorations can be quite delicate...and get the spelling right.


Agree in this thread, ONLY, are we free to make our opinions known. 
It would be silly of me to go post on Ligeti's page, what I just opined above.

But here, we are free to express what we feel needs to be expressed in order to further the discussion in a educative way.

I know I've learned a lot here past few days, best thread on the TC site, BY FAR.

How else are we going to find new insights, new meanings, into just what defines the modern classical composers, and what is excluded from this pristine, exclusive epoch of music. 
A era, which represents the very pinnacle, the highest values within the 300 years of classical music genre.


----------



## paulbest

philoctetes said:


> It's all reduced to hating again. So predictable.


There have been a few minor snides, nothing much really, Its all calm on the fronts,

But did not Jesus refer to hate, at least on 2 occasions?

Considering music is a major part of our value system we are bound to run into some conflicts, controversies, sooner or later.

I think this thread has been beneficial for both sides the isle.

Jung's book Psychological Types illuminate this dual nature of man. 
Progressive modernists vs the traditionalists.

We will just have to agree to disagree, I guess. 
As neither side is willing to budge from their opinions.

how many traditionalists were once modernists, and then transgressed to romanticist/classicists?

None. How many modernists were once traditionalists and then embraked upona new journey into modern classical music?
All of us once were romanticists/classicists. 
Think about that , will you.


----------



## millionrainbows

DaveM said:


> Which is worse? People who appear to 'hate' modern/contemporary music or people who appear to hate those people?


To protest against people engaging in hate rhetoric is not "hate."

...and who threw the first blow? Certainly not people who are posting about music they like!
It's clear who the "haters" are here.



eugeneonagain said:


> Both equally bad perhaps? Though at least the latter have a fair measure of what they say they 'hate'.


Again, to protest against people engaging in hate rhetoric is not "hate."
People expressing hate should not be accommodated, at all. What a ridiculous question! You wouldn't tolerate it in other areas of the forum, or in public discourse in general.


----------



## AeolianStrains

millionrainbows said:


> ...and who threw the first blow? Certainly not people who are posting about music they like!
> 
> People expressing hate should not be accommodated, at all. What a ridiculous question! You wouldn't tolerate it in other areas of the forum, or in public discourse in general.


Perhaps the ones who derided their predecessors as quaint, old-fashioned, and out of touch.


----------



## millionrainbows

DaveM said:


> Don't know about that, but I suspect that the former don't lose any sleep over what they (allegedly) hate while, considering the number of times they mention it, the latter do.
> 
> Hating people for their taste and expression of it tends to do more long term damage to the hater than the hatee.


If you are trying to reverse the situation, that's wrong. It's not wrong to protest against people broadcasting their hatred and disrupting threads.

To protest against "hate" is not hatred.


----------



## paulbest

tdc said:


> I hope you don't really believe in that "hate speech" nonsense. People have a right to voice their opinion on matters such as these, it is nothing like shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. Preserving free speech is infinitely more important than hurting feelings or ruffling feathers. If someone says something you don't agree with, you have a right to express why, *that is how people learn*.
> 
> The whole "hate speech" concept that is currently being taught to people in many colleges is just an insidious attempt to prevent free speech as a way of silencing political dissent. It has nothing to do with actually caring about racism or anything else. For example, "I don't agree with this nation's war crimes". "Hate Speech!" "Racism!".
> 
> Don't fall for it.
> 
> I came across this quote the other day somewhere that seems apt. "Political correctness is fascism masquerading as manners."


Just wonder-full. Golden words here. . 
My post above , in referring to Jung;s masterpiece, Psychic Types, substantiates your outstanding, superior insight.
Congratulations , I mean standing ovation.


----------



## millionrainbows

philoctetes said:


> It's all reduced to hating again. So predictable.


That doesn't say much. And again, to protest against people engaging in hate rhetoric is not "hate."


----------



## millionrainbows

tdc said:


> I hope you don't really believe in that "hate speech" nonsense. People have a right to voice their opinion on matters such as these, it is nothing like shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. Preserving free speech is infinitely more important than hurting feelings or ruffling feathers. If someone says something you don't agree with, you have a right to express why, that is how people learn.


It's not a matter of disagreement, it's a matter of tolerance and mutual respect for other people and who they are musically, whether they be "forum majorities" like Wagnerites, opera buffs, and early music, or "forum minorities" like modernist/art music enthusiasts.



> The whole "hate speech" concept that is currently being taught to people in many colleges is just an insidious attempt to prevent free speech as a way of silencing political dissent. It has nothing to do with actually caring about racism or anything else. For example, "I don't agree with this nation's war crimes". "Hate Speech!" "Racism!" Don't fall for it.


I'm against racism, and hate-speech which promotes racist ideas.



> I came across this quote the other day somewhere that seems apt. "Political correctness is fascism masquerading as manners."


This post is politically incorrect, and borders on being fascistic as well:



KenOC said:


> Might be better to burn the modernists. The air quality people would probably prefer that since we wouldn't have to burn their music as well, given that nobody much listens to it.


----------



## paulbest

Well we should all be aware that the Viennese would never ever allow Pettersson in the magnificent Brahms Concert Hall.

Never. Now why is that?
I have no clue, 
maybe the same reason why the mainland European music critics AKA the knuckle heads, back when Sibelius struck his masterpiece Kullervo booed the work as worthless trash. 


When in fact the work would have shattered the bext music from Brahms , Dvorak, and countless other EU's little darlings , crushed it to pieces.
Kullervo would have outshined all Brahms long winded flabby scores. 
The Viennese would have no such event happen. 
This is why Pettersson would never be performed within the Austrian empire. 
For this reason, i'd never step foot in the land.. I'd suffocate in Vienna.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> Oh please.  Note that the person who has been talking most about hate (not you Phil) is both the person claiming the hate speech must stop and the one with the biggest interest in keeping it going because that means more riding on a big white hobby horse.





KenOC said:


> Might be better to burn the modernists. The air quality people would probably prefer that since we wouldn't have to burn their music as well, given that nobody much listens to it.


Talking about hate is better than spewing hate.


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> I hope you don't really believe in that "hate speech" nonsense. People have a right to voice their opinion on matters such as these, it is nothing like shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. Preserving free speech is infinitely more important than hurting feelings or ruffling feathers. If someone says something you don't agree with, you have a right to express why, *that is how people learn*.
> 
> The whole "hate speech" concept that is currently being taught to people in many colleges is just an insidious attempt to prevent free speech as a way of silencing political dissent. It has nothing to do with actually caring about racism or anything else. For example, "I don't agree with this nation's war crimes". "Hate Speech!" "Racism!".
> 
> Don't fall for it.
> 
> I came across this quote the other day somewhere that seems apt. "Political correctness is fascism masquerading as manners."


Good first paragraph - and then you ruin it by indulging in political partisanship, which can only exacerbate the tribal, "us versus them" mentality that creeps into discussions of controversial issues and wrecks them. "Political correctness" is not a "fascist" plot, but the term itself is exactly like "hate speech" in being a label too easily applied to others by people with an agenda. We're better off without all these labels.


----------



## paulbest

Woodduck said:


> Good first paragraph - and then you ruin it by indulging in political partisanship, which can only exacerbate the tribal, "us versus them" mentality that creeps into discussions of controversial issues and wrecks them. "Political correctness" is not a "fascist" plot, but the term itself is exactly like "hate speech" in being a label too easily applied to others by people with an agenda. We're better off without all these labels.


Open your eyes, read your history, It is there from the beginning. 
Or do you think the Yellow Vests have nothing better to do with their free time, and so chose to waste it on imaginary fantasies of how the powers that be are taking advantage of their labors.
There are the Brahmsians, and there are us the Carterists. 
Neither side is willing to budge, Call it hate, I consider this conflict, love for ones composers music. 
We hate Brahms, they hate Carter, Neither side can fault the other, Its reciprocal.


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> Heard Dukas, on the radio today, last part, some ballet work,
> Listening to that unusual work, written 1913 Le Peri,,,has me rethinking this idea of modern, not modern, ,and as someone pointed out, Woodduck I believe, the breaking down into eras, tagging styles to a particular time line, is no so simple nor the lines so clear.
> 
> I agree with Woodduck, we have to understand /define modern/not modern, and no one is able to do this.
> 
> But surely Wagner steps in the might as the 1st modern, Ravel and Debussy were blown away by Wagner's overtures. Neither slept the night they heard Wanger, Debussy's Prelude another major milestone, Someone mentioned Berloiz in this category as 1st modern, I can not accept this idea, Berlioz is steeped in that old romantic tradition.
> 
> Brahms 4th sym, was heralding new ideas, but it was Wagner who broke all molds , and shaped, molded the new music.
> 
> Liszt has some imput.
> 
> OK, lets get Stravinsky some attention at this point.
> Good, done with,,
> Now we move to my interests as the 1st moderns.
> 
> Varese, Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Szymanowski, Zemlinsky, , of course Debussy, but much more is Maurice Ravel. It is Ravel who is the fruit and flower of the entire romantic tradition, His music closes out that era, with no others to follow.
> Its done and over..
> 
> Now along comes the heirs,,,opps, forgot Mahler there,,,h how could I ??
> Yes Mahler has a sense of imput into future changes.
> 
> ,,back to my thought,,,,,along comes the heirs to this modern new musical forms.
> 
> Kalabis, Henze, Hartmann before Henze, RVW, with his 4th, 6th syms, , Shostakovich, Sibelius was very influential. his greatest and most memorable work, Kullervo, modern/romantic folkish....now we move to others, who bridge the early moderns to late moderns, Carter, Pettersson, Henze.
> No I did not at all forget Schnittke, but into which category will we place Schnittke
> 
> I have more to say,,many new posts I need to look at, my comp was down all day,,I'm back , just have to catch up...anyway these are ideas that stuck me as I heard the Dukas ballet piece.
> 
> What exactly is modern today?
> I see Carter, Schnittke, Pettersson, and now my newest discovery, Hans Henze, these 4 as closing out the *classical modern tradition*,,all other composers after these 4, represent a new style, tagged post modern composers, Not sure how else to describe this late modern period.
> 
> I do not wish to call this period today, late modern, as it is not, It is post modern,,but we need a better descript title.
> Anyone?


If you're going to talk at length about what music is "modern" and what isn't, you need to be specific about what characteristics of music merit that title. It appears that you want to distinguish "modern" from "romantic," another term you don't try to define. Elsewhere you speak of "the old classical/romantic format," and I have to say that that is not a category that means anything to me. There were a lot of musical "formats" in use in all periods, and many in use in 1880 that were not in use in 1780.

As you say, the "lines are not so clear," but if we're going to make distinctions we have to be able to say what elements lead us to posit them.


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> Open your eyes, read your history, It is there from the beginning.
> Or do you think the Yellow Vests have nothing better to do with their free time, and so chose to waste it on imaginary fantasies of how the powers that be are taking advantage of their labors.
> There are the Brahmsians, and there are us the Carterists.
> Neither side is willing to budge, Call it hate, I consider this conflict, love for ones composers music.
> We hate Brahms, they hate Carter, Neither side can fault the other, Its reciprocal.


Come again...? ............


----------



## paulbest

Woodduck said:


> If you're going to talk at length about what music is "modern" and what isn't, you need to be specific about what characteristics of music merit that title. It appears that you want to distinguish "modern" from "romantic," another term you don't try to define. Elsewhere you speak of "the old classical/romantic format," and I have to say that that is not a category that means anything to me. There were a lot of musical "formats" in use in all periods, and many in use in 1880 that were not in use in 1780.
> 
> As you say, the "lines are not so clear," but if we're going to make distinctions we have to be able to say what elements lead us to posit them.


Ok I will attempt, ,,but don't expect anything like a clear concise def,,as I have no musical training, and this lack, prevents my superior expression.

OK, here goes,,,Beethoven had lots of sons, and grandsons. 
Brahms, his eldest, Dvorak a another near twin to Brahms. , Now Bruckner another son, like 3 triplets.

These 4 are the foundations of The Classical Traditionalists Agenda, ,,which is why the Viennese are crazy over these 4,. Sure there have been a few Vienna Chamber groups which did make some 2nd Viennese music recordings, I'll grant that.

. But look at the concert schedules past 50 yrs in Vienna, then you will understand my POV.

How are any new comers to classical music, ever going to make new discoveries, if the old masters are 1st on the program. 
It is still happening in every major orchestra, Just google any orch in the world, you will quickly be awakened as to why I hold these peeves, disgruntlements. 
Change is happening, only due to a few committed to the modern cause. 
Most orchestra members just go with the flow, never making any gripes about its always the same old, same old
How often has Szymanowski made the Vienna, Berlin, London schedules past 50 yrs?

Strauss , Mahler, Bruckner come long ahead of Szymanowski. 
Its time for a change, that's all I griping about...


----------



## Larkenfield

Why isn’t modern classical music popular? Why isn’t traditional classical music popular except for the mighty 3%? This suggests that 97% of the population go through their entire lives without at least hearing Bach, Beethoven or Mozart, except by accident, and they’ve managed to survive. The world has bigger problems than this, but these creative giants are there for those who need them, and perhaps modern classical music fills a similar minority interest too.


----------



## paulbest

Woodduck said:


> Come again...? ............


Well I may not have clearly understood your post, I gather you are saying, lets not call others *political correct* as a insult. That labeling others may be myopic and tunnel visionary.

We modernists are not at all happy with the state of concert programming (= PRE-programmed = robotic), that it is lopsided and disregards musical genius equal, superior to the giants of the past. 
I can listen now , with a better trained ear, just listen once/twice to some composers from the long ago past era, and have a good idea how it will go on the 3rd listen. 
You don't find this style a bit of a bore at times?

I could hear Brahms 4th, once, twice, ,,,why a 3rd time? 
One should know it by heart by the 2nd listen. 
Can you see what I am getting at here?


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> Ok I will attempt, ,,but don't expect anything like a clear concise def,,as I have no musical training, and this lack, prevents my superior expression.
> 
> OK, here goes,,,Beethoven had lots of sons, and grandsons.
> Brahms, his eldest, Dvorak a another near twin to Brahms. , Now Bruckner another son, like 3 triplets.
> 
> These 4 are the foundations of The Classical Traditionalists Agenda.


So "modern" music is music that doesn't owe anything to Beethoven? Or doesn't owe some particular thing to Beethoven? Or to certain works of Beethoven? Why is Beethoven the point of reference? Why not Bach? Or Palestrina? Why do we need a single point of reference?


----------



## Phil loves classical

paulbest said:


> Well I may not have clearly understood your post, I gather you are saying, lets not call others *political correct* as a insult. That labeling others may be myopic and tunnel visionary.
> 
> We modernists are not at all happy with the state of concert programming (= PRE-programmed = robotic), that it is lopsided and disregards musical genius equal, superior to the giants of the past.
> I can listen now , with a better trained ear, just listen once/twice to some composers from the long ago past era, and have a good idea how it will go on the 3rd listen.
> You don't find this style a bit of a bore at times?
> 
> I could hear Brahms 4th, once, twice, ,,,why a 3rd time?
> One should know it by heart by the 2nd listen.
> Can you see what I am getting at here?


Why Brahms' 4th a 3rd time? Unless you are following the score closely, I think there is a lot more going on than a couple of casual listenings would reveal at least in the outer movements. With Carter it is different. It is much less tightly or elaborately structured. I think there is obviously considerably more design to produce the Brahms'. Each pitch has a more important function, coming and going.

I think an analogy would be the Brahms is like poetry compared to Carter's prose.


----------



## KenOC

paulbest said:


> We modernists are not at all happy with the state of concert programming (= PRE-programmed = robotic), that it is lopsided and disregards musical genius equal, superior to the giants of the past.


You have made your point time and again. Endlessly repeating it here serves no purpose. I suggest you complain to the people making concert programming decisions that affect you directly. I'm sure they'll be happy to hear from you.


----------



## Larkenfield

A


paulbest said:


> Well I may not have clearly understood your post, I gather you are saying, lets not call others *political correct* as a insult. That labeling others may be myopic and tunnel visionary.
> 
> We modernists are not at all happy with the state of concert programming (= PRE-programmed = robotic), that it is lopsided and disregards musical genius equal, superior to the giants of the past. O
> I can listen now , with a better trained ear, just listen once/twice to some composers from the long ago past era, and have a good idea how it will go on the 3rd listen.
> You don't find this style a bit of a bore at times?
> 
> I could hear Brahms 4th, once, twice, ,,,why a 3rd time?
> One should know it by heart by the 2nd listen.
> Can you see what I am getting at here?


Not every listener has your kind of ears. Just label yourself a modernist or traditionalist and you're already boxed in with prejudice. There are such individuals as mavericks who don't identify with any specific style; they are open to everything. But someone who labels himself as a modernist is hardly going to understand traditional classical music, I don't care how long they've listened to it. They may not have actually heard it because they've already judged that it's old. They may be familiar with the general overall style but not the specifics within it, not in detail, no, I don't believe it. I question whether anyone could sing the details of the Brahms 4th Symphony all the way through to the end and anticipate everything; with an ability like that they'd be a musician or a composer themself. Too many exaggerated claims are being made that have not been demonstrated. If one has to be anything, be a maverick who is loyal to no one and everyone equally, but it doesn't mean that one has no favorites.


----------



## tdc

Woodduck said:


> Good first paragraph - and then you ruin it by indulging in political partisanship, which can only exacerbate the tribal, "us versus them" mentality that creeps into discussions of controversial issues and wrecks them. "Political correctness" is not a "fascist" plot, but the term itself is exactly like "hate speech" in being a label too easily applied to others by people with an agenda. We're better off without all these labels.


If you agree with the first paragraph, that is what is most important. The rest is from my perspective only an 'us vs. them' in terms of the powers that be, and the rest of us. Left and Right are two wings of the same bird. I do not have a political affiliation, but sometimes my words come off as right leaning, because I am for *no* government. Zero.

Some of the things done under the guise of political correctness are good things - like not being racist. Unfortunately I think that concept is being used to manipulate people. I believe the government itself is the problem. There should be *no ruling class* because that kind of power inevitably corrupts human beings. The government is not some kind of God-like entity to itself. It is made up of flawed humans, just like you and I, only it attracts the most vicious and psychopathic, which we have placed in control of our lives. The belief in government (or any form of ruling class) to fix problems has never in the history of the world worked. It is a superstition and it is a religion, and an extremely dangerous one, but people have been conditioned to believe we need these maniacs there to "protect us".

In summary I am for non-aggression, tolerance, cooperation, education, understanding and compassion towards all human beings working together in truth and transparency. I simply believe there should be no ruling class.

This post may seem not related to music, but in fact I think it is. When humans are not held back, truly educated and free to reach their full potential I think we will see unprecedented progress in all areas, including the arts.


----------



## arpeggio

Three years after Mahlerian's classic post we are still arguing about this: https://www.talkclassical.com/43391-i-am-not-modernist.html#post1059431


----------



## Luchesi

tdc said:


> If you agree with the first paragraph, that is what is most important. The rest is from my perspective only an 'us vs. them' in terms of the powers that be, and the rest of us. Left and Right are two wings of the same bird. I do not have a political affiliation, but sometimes my words come off as right leaning, because I am for *no* government. Zero.
> 
> Some of the things done under the guise of political correctness are good things - like not being racist. Unfortunately I think that concept is being used to manipulate people. I believe the government itself is the problem. There should be *no ruling class* because that kind of power inevitably corrupts human beings. The government is not some kind of God-like entity to itself. It is made up of flawed humans, just like you and I, only it attracts the most vicious and psychopathic, which we have placed in control of our lives. The belief in government (or any form of ruling class) to fix problems has never in the history of the world worked. It is a superstition and it is a religion, and an extremely dangerous one, but people have been conditioned to believe we need these maniacs there to "protect us".
> 
> In summary I am for non-aggression, tolerance, cooperation, education, understanding and compassion towards all human beings working together in truth and transparency. I simply believe there should be no ruling class.
> 
> This post may seem not related to music, but in fact I think it is. When humans are not held back, truly educated and free to reach their full potential I think we will see unprecedented progress in all areas, including the arts.


There's no need for government?


----------



## Luchesi

arpeggio said:


> Three years after Mahlerian's classic post we are still arguing about this: https://www.talkclassical.com/43391-i-am-not-modernist.html#post1059431


Was he thin-skinned in here? He wasn't in Amazon discussions.


----------



## KenOC

tdc said:


> This post may seem not related to music, but in fact I think it is. When humans are not held back, truly educated and free to reach their full potential I think we will see unprecedented progress in all areas, including the arts.


Is somebody holding you back? In what way?

As for myself, I certainly feel that I can't expose some of my (non-musical) opinions freely. My house would be burned and my family slaughtered! But other than that, no problems.


----------



## paulbest

Woodduck said:


> So "modern" music is music that doesn't owe anything to Beethoven? Or doesn't owe some particular thing to Beethoven? Or to certain works of Beethoven? Why is Beethoven the point of reference? Why not Bach? Or Palestrina? Why do we need a single point of reference?


Beethoven is the grandfather of all things german/EU romanticism. 
This is why I am critical of that era. 
I follow Mozartian style of classical music, which is quite different from the Beethovenian model of composition. 
Beethoven is king for all the traditionalists. 
Go ask them which composer(s) is most represented in their cd collection,,they'll tell you.


----------



## paulbest

Phil loves classical said:


> Why Brahms' 4th a 3rd time? Unless you are following the score closely, I think there is a lot more going on than a couple of casual listenings would reveal at least in the outer movements. With Carter it is different. It is much less tightly or elaborately structured. I think there is obviously considerably more design to produce the Brahms'. Each pitch has a more important function, coming and going.
> 
> I think an analogy would be the Brahms is like poetry compared to Carter's prose.


 The other day I skipped through part of the Brahms' 4th/Furtwangler 49/live...amazing, clearly here was something that could have easily pulled me into its orb of attraction...But ala, I never heraed the 4th in my beginnings,,Only his 1st and some concertos..,,btw Oistrakh owns the VC, even Hahn can't make  it sing like Oistrakh. ...Immediaetly I understood why the Viennese honored Brahms with dedication of a concert hall in his name sake. 
Clearly Brahm's 4th, at that premier, shook Beethoven off his pedestal. Now Brahms took the mantle as master composer.

Great way of putting describing the 2 master composers, Carter is rarely poetic, it is a eloquent, crafty, prose, where one is not sure what to expect next corner.


----------



## science

The question is, when was the last time that new classical music was popular in its own time? 

However someone answers that, it is very likely that the audience for today's new classical music is actually much larger in absolute terms than it was then.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> I hope you don't really believe in that "hate speech" nonsense. People have a right to voice their opinion on matters such as these, it is nothing like shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. Preserving free speech is infinitely more important than hurting feelings or ruffling feathers. If someone says something you don't agree with, you have a right to express why, *that is how people learn*.
> 
> The whole "hate speech" concept that is currently being taught to people in many colleges is just an insidious attempt to prevent free speech as a way of silencing political dissent. It has nothing to do with actually caring about racism or anything else. For example, "I don't agree with this nation's war crimes". "Hate Speech!" "Racism!".
> 
> Don't fall for it.
> 
> I came across this quote the other day somewhere that seems apt. "Political correctness is fascism masquerading as manners."


I can say anything I like...as long as I don't use terms like 'hate speech' as it's used to silence dissent.

Unlike using 'political correctness' which isn't.


----------



## KenOC

science said:


> The question is, when was the last time that new classical music was popular in its own time?
> 
> However someone answers that, it is very likely that the audience for today's new classical music is actually much larger in absolute terms than it was then.


Do the numbers. Around the year 1800 Vienna had a population of about 200,000. That's half of the town where I live now, which rates three freeway off-ramps.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> Can we either stick to discussing Alex Ross' observations or Agamemnon's thinking, or let the whole thing drop?


Apparently not. Meta-arguing is so much more fun. :lol:


----------



## arpeggio

The bottom line is that the members who dislike modern music really do not believe it deserves to be a part of any classical music forum.

So what if modern classical music is not as good or as popular as Beethoven, the people who follow modern classical music should have every right to discuss it here.


----------



## Enthusiast

millionrainbows said:


> I can't condone discussions such as these, especially when they are based on questionable ideas like the OP. Apparently, you are missing the subtle way the hatred is being conveyed, as well as the condescension.


I'm not sure how you think I am missing that. All I am saying is that it is OK (it must be!) to post against music you don't like (or even hate) but when this is spiced with attacks on those who like that music that is not OK. The trouble is that this particular debate seems to have descended into a sort of mob phenomenon and the normal rules that we hold ourselves to when posting are thrown out of the window. It seems to me that the main offenders in this respect are those who dislike modern music but it may be that I just can't see the similar behaviour from modern music fans. Their dislike seems to go beyond the normal dislike that individuals might have for a particular composer. They seem to feel anger towards the whole phenomenon of modern music, to blame it for all sorts of woes and apparently even to despise those who would defend it.

We are talking about taste here and we all acknowledge that taste is an individual and subjective thing. The legitimate options for debating it are limited but there are such options. The trouble is that any attempt to have this debate in a rational way gets derailed by "audience participation".



millionrainbows said:


> Well, why shouldn't modern and art music be taken personally, with respect to those who like it? We afford the same respect to opera buffs. What makes modern/art music an exception? You seem to think that modern/art music doesn't deserve the same respect! I disagree!


So, yes, let's acknowledge that this taste issue is one that may of us take very personally. It is difficult for those who dislike the modern to get over the fact that many classical music fans love it. They may feel insecure (because they don't get this "advanced" music) or they may feel that the modern has pushed out and delegitimatised the contemporary film music and other neo-Romantic fare that they love or perhaps they really buy into the idea that the very existence of modern music is responsible for the apparent decline in the popularity of classical music generally ... or is it that they link their taste to a political agenda that they subscribe to? Perhaps it seems to them that the fans of modern music are equally intolerant of those who can't abide it? But I think what I see is that the modern music fans - the ones who are trying to "sell" something to everyone else - tend to favour rationality in the debate until they feel personally slighted. I am in the "modern camp" and it is quite feasible that I view the whole thing through my own team's/mob's eyes?


----------



## tdc

Luchesi said:


> There's no need for government?


I think there is need for organization, communication, cooperation, people filling specific roles. People taking responsibility for themselves is needed, sticking up for each other. But a ruling class that acts as parasites on everyone else? Nope, no need.


----------



## tdc

MacLeod said:


> I can say anything I like...as long as I don't use terms like 'hate speech' as it's used to silence dissent.
> 
> Unlike using 'political correctness' which isn't.


I'm sure you think you have an insightful point here but frankly I don't know what it is, and don't care.


----------



## tdc

KenOC said:


> Is somebody holding you back? In what way?
> 
> As for myself, I certainly feel that I can't expose some of my (non-musical) opinions freely. My house would be burned and my family slaughtered! But other than that, no problems.


I am being held back because I don't have free choice in how I want to live my life, or spend my time. It is near impossible to make a good paycheck today without doing something that is causing harm to the planet, or to other people, and compromising my morals in some way.

I am being held back by a number of other ways that go too far beyond what needs to be discussed and debated about in this thread. Essentially I think human consciousness is being suppressed.

Sure there is some affluence, people who can live comfortably by just looking after themselves, maybe their friends and family are important to them too, no need to worry about too much else right? If you are happy and comfortable with that, that is on you. I wouldn't feel so secure about my life from a karmic perspective personally.

Even though it seems like you are a person that doesn't care much about anything as long as you are happy and feeling that your needs are taken care of, I respect the fact you are at least not afraid to be yourself. I think it takes some courage to be oneself, and not care what others think of them. That is cool.


----------



## Enthusiast

tdc said:


> I think there is need for organization, communication, cooperation, people filling specific roles. People taking responsibility for themselves is needed, sticking up for each other. But a ruling class that acts as parasites on everyone else? Nope, no need.


No need but unavoidable, it seems.


----------



## Enthusiast

This thread is about "modern music" - an ambiguous term that is normally considered to include much (but not all) music written after 1910 or so until you reach the music of those who started composing in the mid-1940s. The main modernists were Debussy, Stravinsky, Bartok, Schoenberg, Berg, Prokofiev, Varese and a few others. Composers like Sibelius, Elgar, Rachmaninov and Strauss are generally not thought of as modernists. Modernism continued with Shostakovich and Britten. Perhaps Tippett and Messiaen are transitional figures, rooted in the modern. The terms and categories get more complicated as we move forward. "Avant garde" and "contemporary" worked at the time but can we really consider the music of Boulez, Carter, Nono, Stockhausen, Ligeti and others to still be contemporary and avant garde? Those terms belong now to some of the music that is being written now. And where do you place minimalists and those who followed them? And how do you categorise the generally romantic music of the populist composers, many of whom have emerged out of Hollywood. They are alive so are they contemporary? Do we need a term for "contemporary pastiche"?

I suspect that many of those attacking "the modern" here like or love quite a lot of the music defined as such above. Perhaps the appearance of two camps is an illusion and that - as you would expect in matters of taste - we don't fit easily into camps or mobs? I think the majority of TC posters enjoy most of the music I have described above as modern but that they pick and choose, rejecting much, from music that came after it. If we are more specific we might have a more productive debate but, even then, it could end up as a debate we have had many times before. But usually those earlier debates have been about a specific subject such as atonal vs. tonal; post-modernism ("not a helpful term for our purposes" is what I got out of _that _debate) and the joy or otherwise of discords.

What we have here is a thread that could develop a dialogue about nearly all music since 1910. That is such a huge and varied subject that there is just no place for a general approach like "I'm for" vs. "I'm against" modern music. We need to be more specific about our likings and dislikings. I suspect that there are as many positions in _that _discussion as there are members posting ... and so there would be no place for mobs.


----------



## millionrainbows

Larkenfield said:


> A
> 
> Not every listener has your kind of ears. Just label yourself a modernist or traditionalist and you're already boxed in with prejudice. There are such individuals as mavericks who don't identify with any specific style; they are open to everything. But someone who labels himself as a modernist is hardly going to understand traditional classical music, I don't care how long they've listened to it. They may not have actually heard it because they've already judged that it's old. They may be familiar with the general overall style but not the specifics within it, not in detail, no, I don't believe it. I question whether anyone could sing the details of the Brahms 4th Symphony all the way through to the end and anticipate everything; with an ability like that they'd be a musician or a composer themself. Too many exaggerated claims are being made that have not been demonstrated. If one has to be anything, be a maverick who is loyal to no one and everyone equally, but it doesn't mean that one has no favorites.


I think that Paul Best has every right to call himself a modernist especially in light of his love of Elliott Carter (not A.P. "Pa" Carter). There are many different varieties of modernists, just as there are many different kinds of modern music. I would suggest people stop trying to pigeonhole either one.


----------



## millionrainbows

Arpeggio mentioned former participant Mahlerian's post. While I am aware that no-one likes to be labelled or categorized, I think Mahlerian is simply his own unique variety of modernist, especially in light of his love of The Second Viennese School.
I think it's unnecessary for him to claim he is "not a modernist." He doesn't have a wide-enough definition of "modernist," because it includes a wide spectrum of listeners, who are at the table for varying reasons. Anyway, here is the post:
_







I am Not a Modernist -by Mahlerian

I have loved much of the time I have spent at Talk Classical these last several years. It has been a pleasure to share with and learn from the many posters here, and I have found that my experience of this wonderful tradition has been much enriched by the opportunities this forum affords.

In the best times, my tastes and ideas have been challenged and expanded as others encouraged me to discover and learn, to treat the understanding of classical music as a process, not a finish line to be passed. Even if I felt internal resistance to these challenges, it was broken down by the patient advocacy and boundless appreciation for art and for music shown daily by many here.

But my equally heartfelt convictions have in some cases been met with derision, ridicule, and dismissal of the worst kind. The frustration I have felt at seeing my arguments dismissed with the most blatant fallacies, all to the sound of cheers and encouragement, has been at times unbearable.

Since I began posting here, I have been compared to: Stalin, murderer George Zimmerman, a communist, a fascist, a racist, an academic, and Donald Trump. (Take your pick of any two completely contradictory figures from this list.)

I am in favor of civil debate. But civil debate cannot take place without a common acknowledgement of the rules of logic, the goal of understanding, and the respect for truth. I have seen all of these trampled in a firestorm of nonsense, often masquerading as common sense. Civil debate should not lead to insults, and it cannot trade in ridicule.

And all of this brings me to another thing I have been called which I am not: a modernist.

To be sure, there is much modern music that I like, and some that I love. I have composed music myself in a contemporary style. When I find that the music I care about dearly is the subject of misrepresentations, misconceptions, or outright falsehoods, whether intentional or otherwise, I have seen fit to correct them. This has merited me a reputation as a defender of modernism qua modernism, and while it is true that as I conceive the modern style, I think it was a great part of this magnificent tradition, I do not believe in defending modernism qua modernism any more than one would defend Baroque qua Baroque or Romantic qua Romantic, as if the music were superfluous and the style paramount.

I am not a defender of modernism, much less a modernist myself, as I see no merit in doing this. Modernism as an aesthetic and a style of music is no more intrinsically valuable than any other aesthetic or style. We do not listen to a Classical piano concerto, we listen to specific Piano Concertos by Mozart. We do not listen to a Romantic symphony, we listen to the Symphony No. 3 by Brahms. Both of these are appreciated not for their style or their time period, but rather for the qualities of the music itself. Likewise, if I will vouch for the merits of a piece of Modernist music, say the Lyric Suite by Berg, it will be only related to the merits of that specific work and not to those of, for an example, the Pieces for Orchestra of Theodor Adorno.

Some may insist, all the same, that because I, unlike many others, not only listen to modernist music such as that by Berg and Stravinsky and Ligeti, but do so with pleasure, then I am for that reason alone a modernist. In a weak, limited sense this may be true, but it is only in the sense that someone who enjoys Baroque music is a Baroquist and Classical music a Classicist, terms which are never used specifically because those periods have been assimilated into the general tradition with more fluency. Some even contend that, because this music has been more difficult (though far from impossible) to assimilate for that tradition, those who enjoy it consider themselves in some way superior by means of their distinctive tastes. But it does not follow that a minority taste arises from a minority outlook, much less an elitist one.

What do I love in music? Beauty of tone, depth of emotion, melody and harmony, rich polyphonic and contrapuntal fabric, and so forth. If I appreciate a work, it is because I have found something there to admire and to enjoy. These are not different from the criteria of those who profess to abhor much that I love. They are neither inherently elitist nor populist, and they may be equally employed to any end.

In fact, not only are the roots of my taste similar to everyone else's, but so are my formative experiences: Baroque records, the symphonies of Beethoven, and the ballet music of Tchaikovsky played a role in my early exposure to classical music, as they did for many others. I did not knowingly encounter any modernism outside of early Stravinsky until High School. When I finally did, my response was resistance. This resistance I encountered again and again for each new discovery, but a good faith in the efforts of composers led me to acceptance, not rejection.

But none of this makes me a modernist. I am in fact simply a music lover. As I said above, I love this tradition and consider it one of the achievements of human (no longer by any means simply Western!) culture. It is because I am a music lover that I find myself drawn to music, regardless of whether or not it is popular, simply for its own sake. The aesthetic and ideology of a time are immaterial to that appreciation, and they no more depend on it than the appreciation of a symphony by Brahms depends on the rejection of a symphony by Bruckner, for all that the opposition was felt to be real by critics and artists of the time.

We stand now at a remove of a century since the works of the early 20th century. The centenaries of both The Rite of Spring and Schoenberg's String Quartet No. 2 in F-sharp minor are past. The riots those works incited are remembered as a matter of history. No audience today would be able to feel the anger that was felt then. They have both passed into tradition and into established musical heritage.

If I appreciate both of them, therefore, I do so for their startling violence, their freshness of construction, and more than anything else for their ravishing beauty, which transcends labels and slogans. I do not appreciate them because I am a modernist, but because of my love for music._
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The lesson to be learned from this post is that each person wants to be seen individually, for their love of music, not for what label is placed upon them. "Modernist" includes a wide spectrum of listeners, who are at the table for varying reasons. They all have a common bond: a love for modern music. Thus, I would tell Mahlerian that in order to defend himself against uncomprehending and ignorant hate-attacks, he might do well to recognize that he, too, is under the large umbrella of being "modernist," although first and foremost, he is a "music lover."


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Is somebody holding you back? In what way?
> 
> As for myself, I certainly feel that I can't expose some of my (non-musical) opinions freely. My house would be burned and my family slaughtered! But other than that, no problems.


You probably can't expose some of your musical and non-musical opinions freely, without backlash, because they probably show disrespect for others.


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ Agree with Mr. MR in reference to Mahlerian. I don't think there is any need for him to dodge the label modernist. Modern composers didn't always accept each other. Stockhausen hated what he called postmodernists, but most classify him as a postmodernist (personally I don't). I always viewed modernism as an extension of common practice, and postmodernism as a break from both.


----------



## millionrainbows

Enthusiast said:


> I'm not sure how you think I am missing that. All I am saying is that it is OK (it must be!) to post against music you don't like (or even hate) but when this is spiced with attacks on those who like that music that is not OK.


I don't see how you can separate the two, since we are all "identities" on this forum, some using their real names.



> The trouble is that this particular debate seems to have descended into a sort of mob phenomenon and the normal rules that we hold ourselves to when posting are thrown out of the window. It seems to me that the main offenders in this respect are those who dislike modern music but it may be that I just can't see the similar behaviour from modern music fans. Their dislike seems to go beyond the normal dislike that individuals might have for a particular composer.


Then I don't think you've been on that end of the battle. I don't equate the behavior of the "defenders" with those who are posting the hate rhetoric, which is subtly aimed at invalidating the ones who love the music. Hatred is always destructive. If you don't like something, there is no need to go on a crusade about it, and post outrageous things like KenOC's suggestion that we "burn" the music and its creators.



> They seem to feel anger towards the whole phenomenon of modern music, to blame it for all sorts of woes and apparently even to despise those who would defend it.
> 
> We are talking about taste here and we all acknowledge that taste is an individual and subjective thing. The legitimate options for debating it are limited but there are such options. The trouble is that any attempt to have this debate in a rational way gets derailed by "audience participation".


No, this involves much more than "taste." This involves each listener's love of music, which taps-in to their Humanity. Who cares what the haters feel?



> So, yes, let's acknowledge that this taste issue is one that may of us take very personally. It is difficult for those who dislike the modern to get over the fact that many classical music fans love it. They may feel insecure (because they don't get this "advanced" music) or they may feel that the modern has pushed out and delegitimatised the contemporary film music and other neo-Romantic fare that they love or perhaps they really buy into the idea that the very existence of modern music is responsible for the apparent decline in the popularity of classical music generally ... or is it that they link their taste to a political agenda that they subscribe to?


Who cares for what reasons they spew hate? The fact is, we are all music-lovers, and modernists deserve the same respect that we give opera buffs, Wagnerites, and Beethoven lovers.



> Perhaps it seems to them that the fans of modern music are equally intolerant of those who can't abide it? But I think what I see is that the modern music fans - the ones who are trying to "sell" something to everyone else - tend to favour rationality in the debate until they feel personally slighted. I am in the "modern camp" and it is quite feasible that I view the whole thing through my own team's/mob's eyes?


I'm through with "selling" and justifying. I simply want to express my views without it being called "hogwash" and "codswallop,"
and seeing the constant pressure on others to "define" what it is they love.

As far as your characterization of defenders of modern music as being "equally intolerant," I think that is blatantly false; those who love modern music invariably have an interest, if not love, of classical music of earlier eras.


----------



## millionrainbows

Enthusiast said:


> This thread is about "modern music" - an ambiguous term that is normally considered to include much (but not all) music written after 1910 or so until you reach the music of those who started composing in the mid-1940s. The main modernists were Debussy, Stravinsky, Bartok, Schoenberg, Berg, Prokofiev, Varese and a few others. Composers like Sibelius, Elgar, Rachmaninov and Strauss are generally not thought of as modernists. Modernism continued with Shostakovich and Britten. Perhaps Tippett and Messiaen are transitional figures, rooted in the modern. The terms and categories get more complicated as we move forward. "Avant garde" and "contemporary" worked at the time but can we really consider the music of Boulez, Carter, Nono, Stockhausen, Ligeti and others to still be contemporary and avant garde? Those terms belong now to some of the music that is being written now. And where do you place minimalists and those who followed them? And how do you categorise the generally romantic music of the populist composers, many of whom have emerged out of Hollywood. They are alive so are they contemporary? Do we need a term for "contemporary pastiche"?


It's not necessary to narrowly define modernism, since it covers a wide spectrum. What we do need is some respect and restraint for those who do love modern music, whatever that turns out to be.



> I suspect that many of those attacking "the modern" here like or love quite a lot of the music defined as such above. Perhaps the appearance of two camps is an illusion and that - as you would expect in matters of taste - we don't fit easily into camps or mobs? I think the majority of TC posters enjoy most of the music I have described above as modern but that they pick and choose, rejecting much, from music that came after it. If we are more specific we might have a more productive debate but, even then, it could end up as a debate we have had many times before. But usually those earlier debates have been about a specific subject such as atonal vs. tonal; post-modernism ("not a helpful term for our purposes" is what I got out of _that _debate) and the joy or otherwise of discords.


All of that is irrelevant to the real issue on this forum: mutual respect!



> What we have here is a thread that could develop a dialogue about nearly all music since 1910. That is such a huge and varied subject that there is just no place for a general approach like "I'm for" vs. "I'm against" modern music.


Don't presume to equivocate those who love music, whatever it may be, with the "haters" who feel compelled to destroy the notion of modern music, and by proxy, its advocates, as being good music for those who love it.



> We need to be more specific about our likings and dislikings. I suspect that there are as many positions in _that _discussion as there are members posting ... and so there would be no place for mobs.


You seem to have forgotten that the "haters" of modern music are the ones who more frequently label and categorize music out of their hatred for it. These labels are meaningless, and very rarely are about anything specific...only their generalized hate and insensitivity.

There is no problem in saying that you prefer a certain performance over another, and things of that nature; but when whole threads are started, with negative or implied negative premises, with the intent of attracting conflict, then this should be moderated more strongly.

For example, this thread's title "Why Isn't Modern Classical Music Popular?" seems to imply that modern music is in some way deficient, and while not a crime in itself, it should be recognized that this premise will invite conflict and "hate answers" ("Because it sounds like crap"), as it has.


----------



## Enthusiast

millionrainbows said:


> I don't see how you can separate the two, since we are all "identities" on this forum, some using their real names.


We have to be able to discuss music and our preferences. We don't need to do so rudely or drag it down to the personal. That's all I mean. Of course, it would also be nice if all posts could be rational and open to rational critiques.



millionrainbows said:


> Then I don't think you've been on that end of the battle. I don't equate the behavior of the "defenders" with those who are posting the hate rhetoric, which is subtlety aimed at invalidating the ones who love the music. Hatred is always destructive. If you don't like something, there is no need to go on a crusade about it, and post outrageous things like KenOC's suggestion that we "burn" the music and its creators.


I don't often get singled out for personal attack as you often seem to be (for reasons I confess to not understanding except that you engage with it). If I am attacked I tend to respond angrily but if it goes on I drop it. There is one member here who I consider to be trolling me quite often. He is the only person I have ever used the ignore button for and I never read his posts any more. If the post is not personal but has an authoritarian or even fascistic argument against something that I value I do tend to call it out but only in a rational way. I think such posts are outrageous but experience tells me there is nothing you can say to change that kind of mindset.



millionrainbows said:


> No, this involves much more than "taste." This involves each listener's love of music, which taps-in to their Humanity. Who cares what the haters feel?


I can't really see it like that. Of course our taste in great art should be and often is noble and of course some people seem to drag it into the gutter but I am not going to lose any sleep over the gainsayers of their views. Nor do I have much respect for their taste. But we are here to enjoy ourselves, not to rid the world of philistines.



millionrainbows said:


> Who cares for what reasons they spew hate? The fact is, we are all music-lovers, and modernists deserve the same respect that we give opera buffs, Wagnerites, and Beethoven lovers.
> 
> I'm through with "selling" and justifying. I simply want to express my views without it being called "hogwash" and "codswallop,"
> and seeing the constant pressure on others to "define" what it is they love.


I don't see that the disrespect you refer to is uniquely about modern music. I have seen the same approach used against Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert and many others. It is not a style of posting that I respect but I am not the king of the forum and would prefer to get on with people if at all possible and perhaps even to learn a thing or two from them.



millionrainbows said:


> As far as your characterization of defenders of modern music as being "equally intolerant," I think that is blatantly false; those who love modern music invariably have an interest, if not love, of classical music of earlier eras.


No. I didn't say that. I speculated that the anti-modernists _*might see *_the modernist camp as intolerant. I seem to have irritated you - why else misrepresent what I say and then call it "blatantly false" - which I have not intended to do. Taking things the way I hear you as taking them might not work for discussing stuff on a fan's forum.


----------



## Enthusiast

millionrainbows said:


> It's not necessary to narrowly define modernism, since it covers a wide spectrum. What we do need is some respect and restraint for those who do love modern music, whatever that turns out to be.
> 
> ..................
> 
> You seem to have forgotten that the "haters" of modern music are the ones who more frequently label and categorize music out of their hatred for it. These labels are meaningless, and very rarely are about anything specific...only their generalized hate and insensitivity.


To some extent we need categories to discuss things. My account is not my creation but is merely an account of the relevant and generally agreed categories for the subject at hand. I can't understand pages and pages of this thread because people are using the same very general term to mean different things. Communication between us is not served by that.

I don't see categorisation as something that only haters do. Nor do I see hatred as the only possible motive for being interested in categorisation. Collectors of stamps or butterflies - people who greatly love the things they collect - categorise. Everyone does. Generalisation (the avoidance of specifics even categories), however, often is associated with hate. It is at the root of racism, for example.


----------



## millionrainbows

Enthusiast said:


> We have to be able to discuss music and our preferences. We don't need to do so rudely or drag it down to the personal. That's all I mean. Of course, it would also be nice if all posts could be rational and open to rational critiques.


You need to recognize that "being able to discuss music and our preferences" is a positive thing, not a negative expression of disgust and hate for music which the posters usually have no real interest or investment in. Being "rude" doesn't always mean "personal." When hatred is expressed over wider-ranging areas of music, it becomes ugly and generalized into a form of bigotry.
When what is expressed is intolerant prejudice, opinionatedness, or fanaticism, it is inviting discord.



> I don't often get singled out for personal attack as you often seem to be (for reasons I confess to not understanding except that you engage with it). If I am attacked I tend to respond angrily but if it goes on I drop it. There is one member here who I consider to be trolling me quite often. He is the only person I have ever used the ignore button for and I never read his posts any more. If the post is not personal but has an authoritarian or even fascistic argument against something that I value I do tend to call it out but only in a rational way. I think such posts are outrageous but experience tells me there is nothing you can say to change that kind of mindset.


But the moderators can.

MR: "..._this involves much more than "taste." This involves each listener's love of music, which taps-in to their Humanity. __Who cares what the haters feel?"_



> I can't really see it like that. Of course our taste in great art should be and often is noble and of course some people seem to drag it into the gutter but I am not going to lose any sleep over the gainsayers of their views. Nor do I have much respect for their taste. But we are here to enjoy ourselves, not to rid the world of philistines.


...and not to crash into opera threads if we don't like opera.



> I don't see that the disrespect you refer to is uniquely about modern music. I have seen the same approach used against Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert and many others. It is not a style of posting that I respect but I am not the king of the forum and would prefer to get on with people if at all possible and perhaps even to learn a thing or two from them.


Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert are "majority" factions compared to modernists. This is like advocating equal rights for white males in a discussion about racism.

MR: _As far as your characterization of defenders of modern music as being "equally intolerant," I think that is blatantly false; those who love modern music invariably have an interest, if not love, of classical music of earlier eras._



> No. I didn't say that. I speculated that the anti-modernists _*might see *_the modernist camp as intolerant. I seem to have irritated you - why else misrepresent what I say and then call it "blatantly false" - which I have not intended to do. Taking things the way I hear you as taking them might not work for discussing stuff on a fan's forum.


You sound like you are speaking more out of your irritation about me, rather than the larger, more important issue, and it's turning into an attack.


----------



## millionrainbows

Enthusiast said:


> To some extent we need categories to discuss things. My account is not my creation but is merely an account of the relevant and generally agreed categories for the subject at hand. I can't understand pages and pages of this thread because people are using the same very general term to mean different things. Communication between us is not served by that.


Again, I see no need to have to narrowly define modernism, or those who like it. The haters are certainly not defining it when they spew their generalized venom. That's the nature of hatred, bigotry, and racism: it generalizes people. To defend against this, it is only necessary to recognized that my love of music is under attack. I have absolutely no obligation to define what music I love in narrow terms. That's not the nature of positivity.



> I don't see categorisation as something that only haters do. Nor do I see hatred as the only possible motive for being interested in categorisation. Collectors of stamps or butterflies - people who greatly love the things they collect - categorise. Everyone does. Generalisation (the avoidance of specifics even categories), however, often is associated with hate. It is at the root of racism, for example.


Labels are used as convenience. When used as a tool of hatred, labels de-humanize people, as a way of not recognizing that we are all human, and share many essential qualities. In the same way, labeling and lumping all modern music as being "ugly" is a way of ignoring the fact that we are all music-lovers.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I agree with most of what you say there. I'm not at all irritated by your posts and am not in the slightest interested in attacking you. I was interested in what it was you were objecting to in my posts and still feel that there is not very much that we disagree on here. Let's drop this discussion. It isn't going anywhere and, as I say, I don't think there is even much of a disagreement to iron out.


----------



## Luchesi

tdc said:


> I think there is need for organization, communication, cooperation, people filling specific roles. People taking responsibility for themselves is needed, sticking up for each other. But a ruling class that acts as parasites on everyone else? Nope, no need.


People have apparently forgotten that voters need to keep in mind the concept of a ruling class, or else they'll vote in some jerk.


----------



## Woodduck

Of all the terms we use to designate different periods and styles of music, "modern" is the worst. When people say that they like Baroque music, we have some sense of what they're referring to. But "modern music"? What is that? Debussy? Sibelius? Stravinsky? Webern? Stockhausen? Cage? Copland? Rachmaninoff (no, the _Symphonic Dances_ could not have been written in the Romantic era)?

A major reason discussions become unpleasant is that people can't or won't say exactly what it is they're talking about. A general dismissal of "modern music" - or Mozart or Schubert, for that matter - is meaningless and isn't worth responding to, except with the question, "exactly what do you dislike, and how will it help us to know about it?" Asking for specificity could put the brakes on a lot of potential quarrels, but of course it won't stop determined "iconoclasts" who need to "prove" that something other people enjoy isn't worth enjoying, and it won't stop self-styled victims and martyrs from imagining attacks everywhere.

Of course there aren't any of those around here...


----------



## paulbest

Phil loves classical said:


> ^ Agree with Mr. MR in reference to Mahlerian. I don't think there is any need for him to dodge the label modernist. Modern composers didn't always accept each other. Stockhausen hated what he called postmodernists, but most classify him as a postmodernist (personally I don't). I always viewed modernism as an extension of common practice, and postmodernism as a break from both.


Stockhausen is post modern. Pist modern to my sensibilities is a sub genre of the classical tradition = outside that tradition = a genre I am not at all interested.,,Yet I must accept that others consider Stockhausen acceptable subject on classical music chat forums. 
To each his own is my protective cry here, lest I get pounced on.


----------



## paulbest

arpeggio said:


> The bottom line is that the members who dislike modern music really do not believe it deserves to be a part of any classical music forum.
> 
> So what if modern classical music is not as good or as popular as Beethoven, the people who follow modern classical music should have every right to discuss it here.


Exactly.

Post modernism, has no right to be included in the true real modern classical music established by supreme masters of the art.
Post is just that, = that which comes after the classical music tradition has FINISHED ITS COURSE,,,Beginning with Corelli, Vivaldi, Bach, ending with the 4 or 5 I have mentioned over and over and will not repeat, its over, The End, Finished.

Now as to pre modern = before Wagner's chromatic textures, that era is stale, and stiff, There is nothing new to discovery in the once great classicists/romanticists. 
Mozart stands alone, musicologists have repeatable stated this anomaly.

In opera, we should not forget some of Puccini's most glorious moments, Verdi can be laid to rest.

The old should be respected and held in honor,,,
As the foundations of the modern era, The pinnacle, the glory of that tradition are the new modern composers, starting with Debussy.

Debussy forward is the fruit and flower of the classical musical art form. And is completed with the great 4 modern composers , which close out that tradition.

The classical music tradition, beginning with Bach, Vivaldi, Corelli, is now come to a completion. 
But oh , what a glorious art form that will give those who are willing to enter in, give them rewards , fulfillments, satisfaction,,which this world can not offer in any other way.
Yet humanity in general has no clue what this great art is all about. They are lost souls.


----------



## Luchesi

paulbest said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Post modernism, has no right to be included in the true real modern classical music established by supreme masters of the art.
> Post is just that, = that which comes after the classical music tradition has FINISHED ITS COURSE,,,Beginning with Corelli, Vivaldi, Bach, ending with the 4 or 5 I have mentioned over and over and will not repeat, its over, The End, Finished.
> 
> Now as to pre modern = before Wagner's chromatic textures, that era is stale, and stiff, There is nothing new to discovery in the once great classicists/romanticists.
> Mozart stands alone, musicologists have repeatable stated this anomaly.
> 
> In opera, we should not forget some of Puccini's most glorious moments, Verdi can be laid to rest.
> 
> The old should be respected and held in honor,,,
> As the foundations of the modern era, The pinnacle, the glory of that tradition are the new modern composers, starting with Debussy.
> 
> Debussy forward is the fruit and flower of the classical musical art form. And is completed with the great 4 modern composers , which close out that tradition.
> 
> The classical music tradition, beginning with Bach, Vivaldi, Corelli, is now come to a completion.
> But oh , what a glorious art form that will give those who are willing to enter in, give them rewards , fulfillments, satisfaction,,which this world can not offer in any other way.
> Yet humanity in general has no clue what this great art is all about. They are lost souls.


Thanks for that post. I definitely want to hear peoples' overviews of the development of music down through the many many years. Where else can we get these heartfelt opinions?


----------



## millionrainbows

paulbest said:


> Post modernism, has no right to be included in the true real modern classical music established by supreme masters of the art.
> Post is just that, = that which comes after the classical music tradition has FINISHED ITS COURSE,,,Beginning with Corelli, Vivaldi, Bach, ending with the 4 or 5 I have mentioned over and over and will not repeat, its over, The End, Finished.


Postmodernism is not anything "real" in the classical sense; it survives in the vacuum of the "now."


----------



## paulbest

millionrainbows said:


> Postmodernism is not anything "real" in the classical sense; it survives in the vacuum of the "now."


Unreal,
Excellent, 
Glad to know others see as clear as I. 
If people think the classical tradition is still alive, tell me of one major composer born, post Carter/Henze/Pettersson/Schnittke?
I am open to suggestions, but then I am also openly free to critique composer suggested as qualifiying.

Tier, its all about tier of genius.

As I see things, the 400 yrs of classical masterpieces are given us, few devotees, welth, riches which men of the past, could never even dream of. Look at medieval folk music, ,,they were happy, content what was offered. They had no complaints, as it was folkish, and made for great jovial entertaining or at funerals, and wedding parties. 
Kings loved their folk bands.

Now we the few committed to this great art, are privileged and blessed to enter into these gates of supreme genius, Art which did not come easy, nor without making tremendous sacrifice, dedication, learning
But most important we honor these greats in classical music traditions, for the profound sufferings, , tormenst which we will never quite grasp, as they rarely discussed these pains, woes, sorrows. 
It is this last quality, fired in the flames of evil which mankind threw their way.

This is why I am a modernist,a s their music was produced through horrific circumstances which most of the previous era, knew nothing about.

This is why modern classical is superior in every way to the greats of the past. Because the music was tested by the fires of hell and the result was astonishing masterpieces, which has now come to a completion. 
400 years of a rich art form, now has made its last appearance, manifested in a few worthy to carry that tradition. 
We should not be sad as we were left with a crown jewel of music these past 50 or so years. Why the romanticists refuse to acknowledge the glory and resplendent power of this final epoch, is a mystery to all of us moderns.

Take just one example of comparison,,,no,,,I'm going to retire, nuf said for one day. ..I may wake up at 3AM as usual,witha new revelation on my mind and post it,,,,...be back at 3am....


----------



## paulbest

well, one last thought, 
I was scanning YT, and this vid popped up .
I took a look and skip around for a few minutes, This is what I am trying to get across, ,,with a lil practice even I could do what Carlos Kleiber is doing here,,,I know the 4th like the back of my hand.
Now with Carter, only a rare few conductors iiving in the world has the qualities to make a success. 
This is what I am getting at in my past long winded potings. 
~~~~~. Modern classical tradition~~~~ is the fruit and flower~~~~ of all that has gone before,

past 400 years

.


----------



## Sid James

Woodduck said:


> Such withering contempt for people less well-informed and up-to-date than yourself! The younger people here must find it terribly useful and pleasant to be told that their impressions and thoughts about music were already irrelevant before they were born, and that responding to them is like stepping in **** on the street.
> 
> By all means keep your shoes clean.


I regret the comment about stepping in ****, even though it accurately represents my feelings about these sorts of threads. In any case, my original post was merely an observation about what millionrainbows and KenOC where saying:

https://www.talkclassical.com/52345-why-isnt-modern-classical-13.html#post1628886

It's more a plea for peace rather than a call to arms of any sort. I don't have any bone to pick with you or anybody here. I can only say that if you enjoy these debates, then nobody is stopping you from engaging in them. I simply don't, and from now on I won't.


----------



## Sid James

millionrainbows said:


> That seems very noncommittal. There may come a time when you feel compelled to defend the music you like, and which others hate, if your love for that music is strong enough.
> 
> "Bury the hatchet" is exactly what needs to happen on the hater's side. I will continue to express my love for the music I like, and I won't attack anyone else's likes, fetishes, and loves, no matter how quirky, ridiculous, or even disgusting I take it to be...only their expression of hate.





millionrainbows said:


> What happened to this earlier courageous stance of yours, Sid? I thought this was spot-on. The time has come for acceptance and tolerance. This is a new era. Things are what they are!
> 
> Avoiding conflict is one thing, but there comes a time when you must speak up for what you know is right!


Thank you and the gist of what I said in my first post here (link in my reply to Woodduck above) is to desist from conflict. My position hasn't changed, never will. I am by nature not a confrontational person and I think that these battles are on the whole unnecessary anyway. You might have other opinions, but what you do here is entirely up to you. Same with everyone else here.


----------



## Larkenfield

paulbest said:


> well, one last thought,
> I was scanning YT, and this vid popped up .
> I took a look and skip around for a few minutes, This is what I am trying to get across, ,,with a lil practice even I could do what Carlos Kleiber is doing here,,,I know the 4th like the back of my hand.
> Now with Carter, only a rare few conductors iiving in the world has the qualities to make a success.
> This is what I am getting at in my past long winded potings.
> ~~~~~. Modern classical tradition~~~~ is the fruit and flower~~~~ of all that has gone before,
> 
> past 400 years.


The new music will make headway when the public accepts the force of dissonance behind it… and let me tell you, it has a ways to go. I do not dislike everything that Carter wrote, but I could no more take a steady diet of a work like this than the force of bamboo shoots under the fingernails. Imagine coming home from a hard day at the office and wanting to put on something like the discordant Concerto for Orchestra by Carter rather than something that makes a person actually feel whole again and emotionally restored-where's the new music for that?-or perhaps even something like Beethoven's Fourth and Seventh Symphony might do in a pinch... The value of the new music is that it may help people to adjust to the emotional frequencies of contemporary life and the social environment as it exists now because the vibrational frequency of life change during different eras-to get people stepped up to those new frequencies and vibrations. Other than that, its dissonance and complexity may have no more value than anything Beethoven did. There has to be something that's consistently more in the new... The public must actually like the sound of the new music as more than just the force of dissonance, and I question whether a harrowing work such as this qualifies:






There are many sides of Carter. If someone is going to mention him please mention a specific work so people know what side of him is being talked about.


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> *Post modernism, has no right to be included in the true real modern classical music established by supreme masters of the art.
> Post is just that, = that which comes after the classical music tradition has FINISHED ITS COURSE,,,Beginning with Corelli, Vivaldi, Bach, ending with the 4 or 5 I have mentioned over and over and will not repeat, its over, The End, Finished.*
> 
> Verdi can be laid to rest.
> 
> The old should be respected and held in honor,,,
> As the foundations of the modern era, The pinnacle, the glory of that tradition are the new modern composers, starting with Debussy.
> 
> *Debussy forward is the fruit and flower of the classical musical art form. And is completed with the great 4 modern composers , which close out that tradition. *
> 
> *The classical music tradition, beginning with Bach, Vivaldi, Corelli, is now come to a completion.*


Your arguments are fundamentally incoherent and contradictory, and your numerous lengthy posts appear to be little more than special pleading for the composers you've tried - without success - to lump together as "modern" and thus worthy of special regard.

If "the classical music tradition, beginning with Bach, Vivaldi, Corelli, is now come to a completion" in the "new modern composers" (Henze, Carter, Pettersson and whoever else you've been praising in post after post), then these "new modern composers" - who are in fact no longer new and do not represent the present - can be "laid to rest" along with Verdi, who merely represents a different stage in the tradition. We're in a postmodern world now, and if Verdi is old-fashioned so is Pettersson, who is basically a disillusioned 20th-century post-Romantic whose symphonies are sprawling, self-reflective statements about "the meaning of life" in the line of Mahler and Shostakovich, but less well-constructed than theirs.

I must say that after a long enough wallow in Pettersson's desperate, dreary and amorphous angst, a return to Verdi's Italianate clarity and fluency is a breath of fresh air. Fresh air will not go out of style in the postmodern era, the positive side of which is that all artistic styles can be embraced without the sort of special pleading you indulge in.

"Modernism," in any case, is no longer modern; it's just another historical phenomenon, and one can take it or leave it. It has no special claim on us.


----------



## millionrainbows

> ...But most important we honor these greats in classical music traditions, for the profound sufferings, torments which we will never quite grasp, as they rarely discussed these pains, woes, sorrows.





> It is this last quality, fired in the flames of evil which mankind threw their way.







> "Modernism," in any case, is no longer modern; it's just another historical phenomenon, and one can take it or leave it. It has no special claim on us.




I think it does have a unique claim on us.


----------



## paulbest

millionrainbows said:


> I think it does have a unique claim on us.


Yes I can now clearly understand, I do lack coherency in what I am trying to get acoss. 
I see things differently, For me post mod classical , is not a part of the true classical tradition, its a sub genre of classical. 
Its obvious that Stockhausen, Ligeti have some complex works, but both and Berio as well, are so unusual, , so quirky, knoty, burley, these 3 along with many others ultra mod composers, more repulse than attract. Why? These 3 and others, like Rihm, have steped so far out of the boundaries established by modern classical, their muisc now is in another solar system. 
I am not setting my opinions up as a sort of mod policing censure-ship, I am trying my best to be object here, to be fair. My ideas are based upon over 30 years of familiarity with all eras of classical music, the entire spectrum.

After pondering excellent posts both of Woodduck and Larkenfield , I can see now this modern classical last phase, is underground music, and remain for the few, never the many.

I thought it may perhaps be possible to shake things up a bit , ~~~shake the romanticist~~~ out of his stupor~~~~ this was wishful thinking, a fantasy on my part...

If some of you do not think there exists bias, prejudice in the broad spectrum of the classical music arena, think again.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Great Dukas piece. His music certainly bridges old and new.


----------



## paulbest

eugeneonagain said:


> Great Dukas piece. His music certainly bridges old and new.


Ahhh I just deleted it, and now I see your comment. I heard the Dukas Le Peri on the radio,,and I thought *wow what is this* caught the ending. I listened just now, and thought perhaps it was not so novel, , still harbors back to old style,,,Then I see your comment and feel I should repost the YT vid.
That was my impression as well, expresses sounds never heard before.
And it was 1912, the old romantics were still rulers of the land, strong, powerful, dominating. 
This is what I am fighting against in all my posts, This was one of my main objectives in joining TC. 
To learn new things about a art form which I have minimal insights into how it all works. 
To carry the banner for The New Modern Classical,,, and as I lead others in this new path, if in the night, my torch haps to burn , scorch other eras, so be it. 
As I am a Yellow Vest for the New Modern Classical Epoch. Honestly I am one of the Black Dress ones, these are the radical violent sect of that movement, it is they who burn and destroy there in Paris.


----------



## Phil loves classical

paulbest said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Post modernism, has no right to be included in the true real modern classical music established by supreme masters of the art.
> Post is just that, = that which comes after the classical music tradition has FINISHED ITS COURSE,,,Beginning with Corelli, Vivaldi, Bach, ending with the 4 or 5 I have mentioned over and over and will not repeat, its over, The End, Finished.
> 
> Now as to pre modern = before Wagner's chromatic textures, that era is stale, and stiff, There is nothing new to discovery in the once great classicists/romanticists.
> Mozart stands alone, musicologists have repeatable stated this anomaly.
> 
> In opera, we should not forget some of Puccini's most glorious moments, Verdi can be laid to rest.
> 
> The old should be respected and held in honor,,,
> As the foundations of the modern era, The pinnacle, the glory of that tradition are the new modern composers, starting with Debussy.
> 
> Debussy forward is the fruit and flower of the classical musical art form. And is completed with the great 4 modern composers , which close out that tradition.
> 
> The classical music tradition, beginning with Bach, Vivaldi, Corelli, is now come to a completion.
> But oh , what a glorious art form that will give those who are willing to enter in, give them rewards , fulfillments, satisfaction,,which this world can not offer in any other way.
> Yet humanity in general has no clue what this great art is all about. They are lost souls.


Except for Carter's earliest works, his link to any music of the past is non-existent except in the most basic gestures, which even the most contemporary artists still share. It sounds fanciful to me, that he was the culmination of music handed down from Bach. Schnittke and Henze I can agree had a lot more in common with the past, Henze's music sounds positively traditional even with his works in this century. But their music has already morphed from the techniques of the 1700's, and can't really be the culmination. Pettersson is obviously stuck in the past, and I don't think he offers much of his voice, none of the bite of Shostakovich (who is very probably one of the last of the traditional greats). I also see Malcolm Arnold, who lived longer and composed into the 1980's in the more traditional idiom, vastly superior to him.



paulbest said:


> Yes I can now clearly understand, I do lack coherency in what I am trying to get acoss.
> I see things differently, For me post mod classical , is not a part of the true classical tradition, its a sub genre of classical.
> Its obvious that Stockhausen, Ligeti have some complex works, but both and Berio as well, are so unusual, , so quirky, knoty, burley, these 3 along with many others ultra mod composers, more repulse than attract. Why? These 3 and others, like Rihm, have steped so far out of the boundaries established by modern classical, their muisc now is in another solar system.
> I am not setting my opinions up as a sort of mod policing censure-ship, I am trying my best to be object here, to be fair. *My ideas are based upon over 30 years of familiarity with all eras of classical music, the entire spectrum. *
> 
> After pondering excellent posts both of Woodduck and Larkenfield , I can see now this modern classical last phase, is underground music, and remain for the few, never the many.
> 
> I thought it may perhaps be possible to shake things up a bit , ~~~shake the romanticist~~~ out of his stupor~~~~ this was wishful thinking, a fantasy on my part...
> 
> If some of you do not think there exists bias, prejudice in the broad spectrum of the classical music arena, think again.


Your selection of greats seems very biased itself, and it seems to me you haven't heard that much to make those claims. I agree there is a lot of prejudice in the current music scene and it's against more traditional music. They give out Pulitzer Prizes to music that is viewed cutting-edge but will be quickly forgotten, with no lasting impact. Hardly anything since the 1940's is ever heard even on CD anymore.


----------



## paulbest

As we know music in past times has always signified man's deepest aspirations to reach into the realm of archetypal beauty.
Some composers reach this pinnacle of the spirit in these archetypal days in which we find ourselves.
Today is a completely, totally dif world from the one of Mahler, Bruckner, Beethoven (Oh how I love to pick on these 3)..
So dif times requires,,no make that demands , music for this epoch, age, era, Zeitgeist. 


This is the center point of all my arguments here. 


Yes I have left many comments on Pettersson's music over at amazon and some on YT.
Every year or 2, I take a look at some of those comments, to see if they need editing, deleting, adjustments, Mostly I leave them as they are. Which surprises me, as every year my taste, tier rating has changed over the decades,,Now its all pretty much formalized and established til my end..,,

Honestly7 I much prefer that others speak their minds, just as they have given me that same freedoms. 
Some of my thoughts, are discombobulated (glad we have spell correct here on TC,,nice,,I was close, so spell ck kicked in and saved me)
nd with this confused expressiveness, its easy to discount my ideas as nonsense or whatever.

But yes, anything snideishly cast my way, is OK with me,,,but honestly so far I've not seen any comments which were unfair, or unjustified , as I do tend to get on the romanticists nerves with my constant barrage of my redundant steadfast opinions. 


I note many new posts this morning I will have to take a look at.
Honestly I think we are making progress in this discussion as to why the strong disdain from the romanticists , for the modern musical era.
This is a peculiarity that has always puzzled me. 
I am so glad to hear from others on this issue as the now I am seeing things from a new perspective, and thus making strides in a higher , superior understanding of all new modern forms of music. 
The old school of composing, , I am not so much interested in.


----------



## paulbest

Phil loves classical said:


> Except for Carter's earliest works, his link to any music of the past is non-existent except in the most basic gestures, which even the most contemporary artists still share. It sounds fanciful to me, that he was the culmination of music handed down from Bach. Schnittke and Henze I can agree had a lot more in common with the past, Henze's music sounds positively traditional even with his works in this century. But their music has already morphed from the techniques of the 1700's, and can't really be the culmination. Pettersson is obviously stuck in the past, and I don't think he offers much of his voice, none of the bite of Shostakovich (who is very probably one of the last of the traditional greats). I also see Malcolm Arnold, who lived longer and composed into the 1980's in the more traditional idiom, vastly superior to him.
> 
> Your selection of greats seems very biased itself, and it seems to me you haven't heard that much to make those claims. I agree there is a lot of prejudice in the current music scene and it's against more traditional music. They give out Pulitzer Prizes to music that is viewed cutting-edge but will be quickly forgotten, with no lasting impact. Hardly anything since the 1940's is ever heard even on CD anymore.


Now here is a comment, worth its weight in gold.
Bravo.
I will need more time to come back with a response,,,I agree in part, other parts have to make some clarifications. 
But all in all, excellent post. 
Just wish to leave with this 
Though it will be dif to connect Carter's mid/late works with Bach, Vivaldi, Handle,,, (only his earlier works as you point out),,,I am only going back to Varese . Yet even Varese has little in common with Bach, Vivaldi. 
Which means this, the New Modern Classical is a break away from older forms, though some 20th C compoers, such as Henze, do work in ideas from the past era of composing.

Carter still represents a connection, as employing ideas from Varese yet making many new inventive compositions. 
Thus Carter is in the classical tradition.
Stockhausen has gone all alone on his own unique path, and has dump every other composer from the past.
I can just as easily block N knock, old stale forms of classical, as I can some of these new weird forms of classical.
The Ligetists hate me for such opinions.


----------



## caters

I myself don't care for modern classical music outside of a few composers like Gustav Holst. Most modern classical composers that I know of were all for weird time signatures and/or a complete lack of key. That just isn't my thing(though I am more accepting of the weird time signatures than I am of atonality). I think of atonality as like reckless chromaticism. Chromaticism to the point where the dissonant becomes the typical. It is sort of like using the Locrian mode in that it is extremely dissonant. But there is no clear major or minor key. I'm fine with polytonality, especially with relative major and minor. But no key at all I just don't accept outside of Mars by Gustav Holst. Mainly because Gustav Holst controls his dissonance whereas most well known modern classical composers use dissonant intervals like how Mozart uses the major scale in his fast runs, that is, very frequently.

I may use repeated dissonances like how Beethoven does, but I always resolve them eventually because I feel that it has to. This is also why I never even think of using the Locrian mode. I feel that it is impossible to tonicize a diminished triad. It isn't like the dominant triad in anything but function. And diminished chords, either triads or 7ths, always have dominant function, regardless of key because they can be used as a pivot chord to again, any key.


----------



## millionrainbows

paulbest said:


> I much prefer that others speak their minds, just as they have given me that same freedoms.
> Some of my thoughts, are discombobulated (glad we have spell correct here on TC,,nice,,I was close, so spell ck kicked in and saved me) and with this confused expressiveness, its easy to discount my ideas as nonsense or whatever. But yes, anything snideishly cast my way, is OK with me,,,but honestly so far I've not seen any comments which were unfair, or unjustified , as I do tend to get on the romanticists nerves with my constant barrage of my redundant steadfast opinions. Honestly I think we are making progress in this discussion as to why the strong disdain from the romanticists , for the modern musical era.
> This is a peculiarity that has always puzzled me.


Paul Best, a humble man, and in a way fatally innocent...you humbly try to make us think this was about "Romanticism vs. Modernism?" as if this were a civil discussion? I suggest that critics out there re-read Mahlerian's and Sid James' posts.



> from Mahlerian: _What do I love in music? Beauty of tone, depth of emotion, melody and harmony, rich polyphonic and contrapuntal fabric, and so forth. If I appreciate a work, it is because I have found something there to admire and to enjoy. These are not different from the criteria of those who profess to abhor much that I love. They are neither inherently elitist nor populist, and they may be equally employed to any end.
> 
> In fact, not only are the roots of my taste similar to everyone else's, but so are my formative experiences: Baroque records, the symphonies of Beethoven, and the ballet music of Tchaikovsky played a role in my early exposure to classical music, as they did for many others. I did not knowingly encounter any modernism outside of early Stravinsky until High School. When I finally did, my response was resistance. This resistance I encountered again and again for each new discovery, but a good faith in the efforts of composers led me to acceptance, not rejection.
> 
> But none of this makes me a modernist. I am in fact simply a music lover. As I said above, I love this tradition and consider it one of the achievements of human (no longer by any means simply Western!) culture. It is because I am a music lover that I find myself drawn to music, regardless of whether or not it is popular, simply for its own sake. _


Paul Best: You were told you are incoherent, your thoughts "lumped together" and that the music you love is "sprawling" and inferior to that of other composers. The net result is that of a vicious snob telling you that you, and your tastes, are to be dismissed as of inferior intelligence and inferior artistic sensibility.

Is that an ad-hominem to point this out? :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Phil loves classical said:


> Except for Carter's earliest works, his link to any music of the past is non-existent except in the most basic gestures, which even the most contemporary artists still share. It sounds fanciful to me, that he was the culmination of music handed down from Bach. Schnittke and Henze I can agree had a lot more in common with the past, Henze's music sounds positively traditional even with his works in this century. But their music has already morphed from the techniques of the 1700's, and can't really be the culmination. Pettersson is obviously stuck in the past, and I don't think he offers much of his voice, none of the bite of Shostakovich (who is very probably one of the last of the traditional greats). I also see Malcolm Arnold, who lived longer and composed into the 1980's in the more traditional idiom, vastly superior to him.
> Your selection of greats seems very biased itself, and it seems to me you haven't heard that much to make those claims. I agree there is a lot of prejudice in the current music scene and it's against more traditional music. They give out Pulitzer Prizes to music that is viewed cutting-edge but will be quickly forgotten, with no lasting impact. Hardly anything since the 1940's is ever heard even on CD anymore.


Dogpile on the rabbit, dogpile on the rabbit.

Oh, BTW, you forgot to talk much about Malcolm Arnold and Shostakovich, music that you think is better. Or were we supposed to already know all the reasons behind that?


----------



## paulbest

millionrainbows said:


> Paul Best, a humble man, and in a way fatally innocent...you humbly try to make us think this was about "Romanticism vs. Modernism?" as if this were a civil discussion? I suggest that critics out there re-read Mahlerian's and Sid James' posts.
> 
> You were told you are incoherent, your thoughts "lumped together" and that the music you love is "sprawling" and inferior to that of other composers. The net result is that of a vicious snob telling you that you, and your tastes, are to be dismissed as of inferior intelligence and inferior artistic sensibility.
> 
> Is that an ad-hominem to point this out? :lol:


Yeah I know how to maintain some humble posture, , sometimes its best to take the cowards way and to hide behind a rock, than it is to be some sort of hero and get sliced to pieces at the front lines. 

For if you read caters post above, he could very easily pounce on every word I said in this thread as habberdash-trash. Mym opinions could easily be challenged by all the musically educated here.


----------



## millionrainbows

Sid James said:


> Thank you and the gist of what I said in my first post here (link in my reply to Woodduck above) is to desist from conflict. My position hasn't changed, never will. I am by nature not a confrontational person and I think that these battles are on the whole unnecessary anyway. You might have other opinions, but what you do here is entirely up to you. Same with everyone else here.


Hmm, what you seem to be saying is that your love of music is a self-sustaining thing that should have nothing to do with conflict; it is yours, and serves your purposes, and shouldn't be attacked or mercilessly criticized if this forum is to remain civil.

And that's the sort of thing that can't be "enforced" or "moderated-in;" rather, it is a reflection of the participants' characters and civility.

And that's why you don't want to participate in conflict; not because of any "issues" or debates, but because it puts you in proximity of those who do engage.

That's understandable; I wonder how many other members feel that way, and are remaining silent?


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> Paul Best, a humble man, and in a way fatally innocent...you humbly try to make us think this was about "Romanticism vs. Modernism?" as if this were a civil discussion? I suggest that critics out there re-read Mahlerian's and Sid James' posts.
> 
> Paul Best: You were told you are incoherent, your thoughts "lumped together" and that the music you love is "sprawling" and inferior to that of other composers. The net result is that of a vicious snob telling you that you, and your tastes, are to be dismissed as of inferior intelligence and inferior artistic sensibility.
> 
> Is that an ad-hominem to point this out? :lol:


Perhaps PB is not taking these discussions as personally as you're making them out to be. On the other you and your Enthusiastic buddy have taken to perseverating on 'the haters', an awful, divisive term. Is it not a form of trolling to come into a thread that is questioning why is modern music not popular and call those who respond in ways you don't like as 'haters'? It appears to me that there is an attempt to shut down any criticism about modern/contemporary music even in threads where the title infers that criticism is likely or to have any criticism fit under your criteria.

Presently, there are at least 3 other threads about Modern/Contemporary repertoire etc. and no one is criticizing the music there.


----------



## millionrainbows

paulbest said:


> Yeah I know how to maintain some humble posture, , sometimes its best to take the cowards way and to hide behind a rock, than it is to be some sort of hero and get sliced to pieces at the front lines.
> 
> For if you read caters post above, he could very easily pounce on every word I said in this thread as habberdash-trash. My opinions could easily be challenged by all the musically educated here.


That seems to be what the educated do.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I think [modernism] does have a unique claim on us.


You don't speak for "us." Matter of fact, you don't speak for anyone but yourself, although you continuously try to speak both for and about everyone.

Objectively, modernism is a historical phenomenon which has shot its wad. A chrome and leather apartment with Pollacks and Rothkos on the walls and Babbitt coming out of the stereo is as much a period piece as the parlor at Monticello. It's just a different period.


----------



## millionrainbows

DaveM said:


> Perhaps PB is not taking these discussions as personally as you're making them out to be.


It's probably not in his best interests to do so, since he seems to enjoy the debate aspect of this.



> On the other you and your Enthusiastic buddy have taken to perseverating on 'the haters', an awful, divisive term. Is it not a form of trolling to come into a thread that is questioning why is modern music not popular and call those who respond in ways you don't like as 'haters'?


As I've said earlier, the OP premise questioning why is modern music not popular, is a subtle implication that it is somehow deficient. And the OP makes further dubious claims as to why this is, citing that the general public's perception has been skewed away from "the new" by wild, animalistic 'monkey music.' (?!!)

I would certainly offer this statement as an example of unnecessarily hateful posts, and no, I don't like them:



KenOC said:


> Might be better to burn the modernists. The air quality people would probably prefer that since we wouldn't have to burn their music as well, given that nobody much listens to it.





> It appears to me that there is an attempt to shut down any criticism about modern/contemporary music even in threads where the title infers that criticism is likely or to have any criticism fit under your criteria.


It's a non-issue, designed to lure in defenders, so there can be conflict. I'm talking about the vicious nature of these posts, from a "human civility and respect" perspective.



> Presently, there are at least 3 other threads about Modern/Contemporary repertoire etc. and no one is criticizing the music there.


Unlike those threads, this thread isn't about Modern/Contemporary repertoire, but is questioning its supposed "unpopularity," so it doesn't apply.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> You don't speak for "us." Matter of fact, you don't speak for anyone but yourself, although you continuously try to speak both for and about everyone.


No, that's me speaking about history, when I say modernism has a unique claim on us, meaning our era. Not you personally.

On the other hand, you tend to like to barge in to the personal arena, attacking specifically what others like, with statements like:

_"Your arguments are fundamentally incoherent and contradictory, and your numerous lengthy posts appear to be little more than special pleading..."

"Pettersson, who is basically a disillusioned 20th-century post-Romantic whose symphonies are sprawling, self-reflective statements about "the meaning of life" in the line of Mahler and Shostakovich, but less well-constructed than theirs."
_
That sounds vicious. Above all, be respectful to your fellow forum members as they have a right to their own opinions too!



> Objectively, modernism is a historical phenomenon which has shot its wad. A chrome and leather apartment with Pollacks and Rothkos on the walls and Babbitt coming out of the stereo is as much a period piece as the parlor at Monticello. It's just a different period.


I'll take the one with indoor plumbing. :lol:

So, if both are historical phenomena, what's the problem? Which slice of history do you like better?


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> As I've said earlier, the OP premise questioning why is modern music not popular, is a subtle implication that it is somehow deficient. And the OP makes further dubious claims as to why this is, citing that the general public's perception has been skewed away from "the new" by wild, animalistic 'monkey music.' (?!!)


It's an opinion about a thing, modern music. It's not personal as you seem to make it. People have a right to start threads like this. Why not stay out of them if they distress you so much?



> I would certainly offer this statement as an example of unnecessarily hateful posts, and no, I don't like them:


That KenOC quote was pure sarcasm. You didn't really take it seriously did you?



> Unlike those threads, this thread isn't about Modern/Contemporary repertoire, but is questioning its supposed "unpopularity," so it doesn't apply.


You're missing the point which is that those who don't like some or a good part of modern/contemporary music are not intruding in all threads devoted to the modern/contemporary music. The criticism you are so sensitive to is only occurring in threads where the Title/OP suggests that criticism will occur. Yet you enter those threads to call posters 'haters'.

You have to know that much of modern/contemporary music is so much different than what came before that some extreme opinions are inevitable. It's only fair that there be some threads where people can let off steam about the fact that classical music didn't go in a direction they would have preferred. Or even raise the question as to whether some of this music should be in a different category.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> No, that's me speaking about history, when I say modernism has a unique claim on us, meaning our era. Not you personally.


I didn't take it personally. I merely question your right to speak for "history." How can modernism have a claim on an "era"? What does that mean? And who defines "our era"? Maybe you're defining it as the era on which modernism has a claim? And round and round we go...



> On the other hand, you tend to like to barge in to the personal arena, attacking specifically what others like,


How is offering a characterization of Pettersson's symphonies "barging into the personal arena"? PaulBest has been pouring out lengthy essays characterizing Pettersson as a "modernist." I countered this by describing him as a disillusioned 20th-century post-Romantic whose symphonies are sprawling, self-reflective statements about "the meaning of life" in the line of Mahler and Shostakovich, but less well-constructed than theirs. Some one had to say it, but no one else stepped up. Sorry if you think it's "hate speech." But Paul's a big boy. He can tolerate disagreement. You, on the other hand...


----------



## Larkenfield

If the OP is why modern music is not more popular, then those who are for it need to start owning what the music may be saying according to individual works as a musical language, such as Carter's Concerto for Orchestra, and other examples. But since hardly any examples are ever posted in a thread like this, and it's mostly abstract conversation about terms such as postmodernism that no one can agree on, what's the point? It always comes down to the sound of the music because listeners are going to react off it and it's not going to become popular unless the reaction is favorable. You have to give people musical examples to talk about or the conversation is meaningless. I happen to always be interested in examples because I do not identify with being either a traditionalist or a modernist and have spoken out on both.






If somebody is going to promote the new music then they have to take responsibility for what something like this is saying, and it's not exactly saying something that's filled with light, is it? It's anxiety ridden. Why would a work that's filled with excessive anxiety become popular with the general public who's probably already anxiety ridden with the stresses and strains of daily life? If it increases anxiety in the listener, then it's not exactly cathartic (to mitigate anxiety), is it? If you're going to speak for the music then it's necessary to speak for music like this that is not all sweetness and light, and there's a lot that's been written along these lines over the past decades, and maybe some listeners are sick of it because their daily existence is not anxiety ridden.


----------



## paulbest

millionrainbows said:


> It's probably not in his best interests to do so, since he seems to enjoy the debate aspect of this.
> 
> .


Yes, this is correct. This is quite enjoyable. But I can see now , no one really cares if I openly confess my strong disdain for most of (like 99%) of the romantic/classical era composers.
That's a huge chuck of great composers to dismiss with out feeling any loss at all.

For me, there is no going back to that era. each and every one of my new discoveries past 15 years has provided me with so many jewels and treasures , I hope I have years enough to explore this Mt Everest of musical art. 
I see my collection of modern classical masters (((can I note here and now my newest 2 discoveries past few months,,,Szymanowski, possibly Kalabis ~ Supraphon 3 cd set arrived Monday~~))), as a gigantic step forward,,I now consider my tastes as progessive, and not as before regressive.

Take that to mean whatever you wish. I think it is self explanatory.

Szymanowski is a greater composer than Beethoven.


----------



## paulbest

Glad you mentioned that particular work, Carter's CfO. Outstanding far superior to Bartok's , now ageing masterpiece.

This is what I am referring to. Who here would say Carter's CfO is superior to Bartok's? No one.

Bartok's sounds a bit dated, has some interesting sections for sure. I once greatly loved the work, But along comes Elliott Carter's CfO.

I can just hear Ravel now *Yep no doubt about it ~~go with Carter *


----------



## Bluecrab

Larkenfield said:


> If somebody is going to promote the new music then they have to take responsibility for what something like this is saying, and it's not exactly saying something that's filled with light, is it? It's anxiety ridden. Why would a work that's filled with excessive anxiety become popular with the general public who's probably already anxiety ridden with the stresses and strains of daily life?


You hear it as anxiety-ridden. I hear a wealth of textures and timbres, almost wave-like. I hear no anxiety in the work at all, nor does it make me anxious. During my working life, I could easily have listened to this at the end of a long day.

Not filled with light to you. Probably filled with light to others.


----------



## DaveM

paulbest said:


> Glad you mentioned that particular work, Carter's CfO. Outstanding far superior to Bartok's , now ageing masterpiece.
> This is what I am referring to. Who here would say Carter's CfO is superior to Bartok's? No one.
> Bartok's sounds a bit dated, has some interesting sections for sure. I once greatly loved the work, But along comes Elliott Carter's CfO.
> 
> I can just hear Ravel now *Yep no doubt about it ~~go with Carter *


I'll take the Bartok, hands down.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Don;t forget Eddie "The stratospheric Colossus of Sound"


----------



## Larkenfield

paulbest said:


> Glad you mentioned that particular work, Carter's CfO. Outstanding far superior to Bartok's , now ageing masterpiece.
> 
> This is what I am referring to. Who here would say Carter's CfO is superior to Bartok's? No one.
> 
> Bartok's sounds a bit dated, has some interesting sections for sure. I once greatly loved the work, But along comes Elliott Carter's CfO.
> 
> I can just hear Ravel now *Yep no doubt about it ~~go with Carter *


You did not speak on behalf of Carter's Concerto for Orchestra. You compared it to Bartok and said it was superior without saying anything about what Carter's Concerto was expressing. That's what some people are looking for - that you know what you're hearing and have some interpretive insight into the music - any music - and this comparison is no example because no reaction is given about the Carter other than you consider it superior... The Bartok has far more mystery, suspense, magic, and may be more familiar, but that doesn't demonstrate that the Carter is superior when nothing is said about it and it's a work filled with anxiety.


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield wrote:

"If the OP is why modern music is not more popular, then those who are for it need to start owning what the music may be saying according to individual works as a musical language, such as Carter's Concerto for Orchestra, and other examples... If somebody is going to promote the new music then they have to take responsibility for what something like this is saying, and *it's not exactly saying something that's filled with light, is it? It's anxiety ridden.* Why would a work that's filled with excessive anxiety become popular with the general public who's probably already anxiety ridden with the stresses and strains of daily life?"



Bluecrab said:


> *You hear it as anxiety-ridden. I hear a wealth of textures and timbres, almost wave-like.* I hear no anxiety in the work at all, nor does it make me anxious. During my working life, I could easily have listened to this at the end of a long day.
> 
> Not filled with light to you. Probably filled with light to others.


I've often noted this sort of exchange in discussions of modern or contemporary music. Person A will point out that a piece of music seems to express certain feelings, and Person B will disagree, not by suggesting an alternative view of the work's expressive qualities, but by pointing out certain technical or formal qualities of it.

Such conversations, in which people are talking past each other, seem to exemplify a common difference between Modernist and pre-Modernist aesthetics. Pre-Modernist art criticism focused largely on a work's subject matter or perceived expressive qualities, referring to formal and technical elements mainly insofar as they were used to put the subject's meaning across. Modernist art criticism focused more on a work's materials, techniques, and structure, often conceiving of a work's meaning - if the term was thought applicable at all - as inherent in and proceeding from the nature of those elements themselves.

Most people, I think, subscribe to a pre-Modernist aesthetic. Modernism and Postmodernism have shown the problems and pitfalls inherent in trying to assign expressive meaning to art, but in their skepticism and fear of "sentimentality" they've sometimes slighted or denied an essential aspect of art and the experience of it.


----------



## paulbest

Larkenfield said:


> You did not speak on behalf of Carter's Concerto for Orchestra. You compared it to Bartok and said it was superior without saying anything about what Carter's Concerto was expressing. That's what some people are looking for - that you know what you're hearing and have some interpretive insight into the music - any music - and this comparison is no example because no reaction is given about the Carter other than you consider it superior... The Bartok has far more mystery, suspense, magic, and may be more familiar, but that doesn't demonstrate that the Carter is superior when nothing is said about it and it's a work filled with anxiety.


Yes you are correct, I just listened to Bartok's CfO, my bad, not superior,,,not sure why I posted that fluke.
Completely dif styles.

I should mention, I was a rock fan who loved the finest guitarists,. I loved complex fast ripping guitarists, Perhaps that's why I tend to be drawn to composers who offer music with plenty of changes, and music which takes many listens to grasp the fullness.
In the beginning Bartok held my attention strongly.
I have about 4-6 recordings of Bartok CfO, and remains a strong favorite.
I should retract my about wacky post on Bartok.

Both offer high levels of creative masterpieces. Dif styles, both offering fantastic music.

You mention anxiety, yes all my life, Maybe that's why carter ranks high on my list


----------



## mmsbls

paulbest said:


> ...
> I could hear Brahms 4th, once, twice, ,,,why a 3rd time?
> One should know it by heart by the 2nd listen.
> Can you see what I am getting at here?


I've actually seen others post that they enjoy modern/contemporary music precisely because they can't easily predict what comes next. With Mozart one can often complete the phrase, but with Boulez, it's impossible (or vastly less likely). I actually love anticipating parts of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. I love hearing the music play through the gorgeous parts I know so well. Some enjoy that anticipation while others prefer the unexpected.


----------



## mmsbls

Larkenfield said:


> If the OP is why modern music is not more popular, then those who are for it need to start owning what the music may be saying according to individual works as a musical language, such as Carter's Concerto for Orchestra, and other examples. ...
> 
> If somebody is going to promote the new music then they have to take responsibility for what something like this is saying, and it's not exactly saying something that's filled with light, is it? It's anxiety ridden. ...





Bluecrab said:


> You hear it as anxiety-ridden. I hear a wealth of textures and timbres, almost wave-like. I hear no anxiety in the work at all, nor does it make me anxious. During my working life, I could easily have listened to this at the end of a long day.
> 
> Not filled with light to you. Probably filled with light to others.


I agree with Bluecrab. I quite enjoy Carter's Concerto for Orchestra although I may prefer some of his other works. I don't hear it as anxiety ridden, but I can see how some might. Bluecrab's "wealth of textures and timbres" is a good description for me.

You say, "those who are for it need to start owning what the music may be saying." Can we simply state that we enjoy the music? I rarely view music as saying anything whether it's Bach, Mozart, Dvorak, or Ligeti. To me it may sound beautiful, interesting, fun, quirky, strange, or sublime, but those are just how I hear the sounds. If someone else agrees, great. If not, that's OK also.


----------



## mmsbls

I read the OP and all of Agamemnon's posts through the first part of the thread. He seems interested in understanding why modern classical music is less popular than earlier styles, but I don't see any hate involved. In fact, based on his posts, I can't tell to what extent Agamemnon enjoys modern music or not. 

From the first time I was exposed to modern classical music through the present, I've felt it's a fascinating question. I believe I have a reasonable sense of why many dislike modern music although there are still some questions - what exact role do conditioning and genetics play? I've never quite understood why the simple question is objectionable. There's obviously a reason, and no matter what the answer, modern music can be and is enjoyed by large numbers of listeners. More could enjoy the music if they chose to listen extensively to the new sounds, but of course, there's absolutely no obligation to do so. 

Personally, when someone on TC says, "Boulez sounds like garbage", "Ferneyhough sounds worse than a cat on a piano", or "Mozart sounds like soggy a*se cheeks slapping together", I simply interpret those as, "I do not like Boulez, Ferneyhough, or Mozart." (Incidentally, the latter part of the Mozart quote can easily be found on TC). The "hater" term seems a bit strong to me.


----------



## millionrainbows

mmsbls said:


> I read the OP and all of Agamemnon's posts through the first part of the thread. He seems interested in understanding why modern classical music is less popular than earlier styles, but I don't see any hate involved. In fact, based on his posts, I can't tell to what extent Agamemnon enjoys modern music or not.


If he does like it, he's going along with the implication that "it is not popular," which is negative and means nothing.
To add to that, it is really a rhetorical question the OP is posing, because he's giving us his answer, which is that "the new" became associated in the public mind with "wild, loud and primitive monkey music." (??!!) I think the racist implications of this should have been acknowledged by the mods or someone. At least I have pointed it out.



> From the first time I was exposed to modern classical music through the present, I've felt it's a fascinating question. I believe I have a reasonable sense of why many dislike modern music although there are still some questions - what exact role do conditioning and genetics play? I've never quite understood why the simple question is objectionable. There's obviously a reason, and no matter what the answer, modern music can be and is enjoyed by large numbers of listeners. More could enjoy the music if they chose to listen extensively to the new sounds, but of course, there's absolutely no obligation to do so.


_(with droll humor)_ Maybe they were born that way.



> Personally, when someone on TC says, "Boulez sounds like garbage", "Ferneyhough sounds worse than a cat on a piano", or "Mozart sounds like soggy a*se cheeks slapping together", I simply interpret those as, "I do not like Boulez, Ferneyhough, or Mozart." (Incidentally, the latter part of the Mozart quote can easily be found on TC). The "hater" term seems a bit strong to me.


Those characterizations you give are not in the context of a thread, where perhaps the discussion is being disrupted. Also, they each refer to specific composers, when in reality the statements are more like this:



KenOC said:


> Might be better to burn the modernists. The air quality people would probably prefer that since we wouldn't have to burn their music as well, given that nobody much listens to it.


Regardless, I don't think such characterizations belong in a civil discussion, a view shared by Mahlerian:

_But my equally heartfelt convictions have in some cases been met with derision, ridicule, and dismissal of the worst kind. The frustration I have felt at seeing my arguments dismissed with the most blatant fallacies, all to the sound of cheers and encouragement, has been at times unbearable.

Since I began posting here, I have been compared to: Stalin, murderer George Zimmerman, a communist, a fascist, a racist, an academic, and Donald Trump. (Take your pick of any two completely contradictory figures from this list.)

I am in favor of civil debate. But civil debate cannot take place without a common acknowledgement of the rules of logic, the goal of understanding, and the respect for truth. I have seen all of these trampled in a firestorm of nonsense, often masquerading as common sense. Civil debate should not lead to insults, and it cannot trade in ridicule.
_


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> I read the OP and all of Agamemnon's posts through the first part of the thread. He seems interested in understanding why modern classical music is less popular than earlier styles, but I don't see any hate involved.


Exactly so.



millionrainbows said:


> [quoting the OP] "the new" became associated in the public mind with "wild, loud and primitive monkey music." (??!!) I think the racist implications of this should have been acknowledged by the mods or someone. At least I have pointed it out


I took this as Agamemnon's characterisation of how the prejudiced viewed the music.



millionrainbows said:


> [quoting KenOC]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *KenOC*
> Might be better to burn the modernists. The air quality people would probably prefer that since we wouldn't have to burn their music as well, given that nobody much listens to it.
> 
> I don't think such characterizations belong in a civil discussion


Ken likes hyperbole for humorous intent. I don't think he is being uncivil.


----------



## Sid James

millionrainbows said:


> Hmm, what you seem to be saying is that your love of music is a self-sustaining thing that should have nothing to do with conflict; it is yours, and serves your purposes, and shouldn't be attacked or mercilessly criticized if this forum is to remain civil.
> 
> And that's the sort of thing that can't be "enforced" or "moderated-in;" rather, it is a reflection of the participants' characters and civility.
> 
> And that's why you don't want to participate in conflict; not because of any "issues" or debates, but because it puts you in proximity of those who do engage.


I don't want to go into meta-discussion about this, but you are more or less correct.



> That's understandable; I wonder how many other members feel that way, and are remaining silent?


Probably very few, judging from conversations gleaned here and there on the forum.


----------



## mmsbls

millionrainbows said:


> If he does like it, he's going along with the implication that "it is not popular," which is negative and means nothing.


I took it to be less a negative and more a comparison (i.e. modern classical music is less popular than earlier music). In other words fewer listeners liked or listened to modern music. That seems to mean something to me. As far as I know, it's true.



millionrainbows said:


> To add to that, it is really a rhetorical question the OP is posing, because he's giving us his answer, which is that "the new" became associated in the public mind with "wild, loud and primitive monkey music." (??!!) I think the racist implications of this should have been acknowledged by the mods or someone. At least I have pointed it out.


I thought he was using the term "wild, loud and primitive monkey music" to refer to popular music including rock, pop, soul, country, metal, etc.. Since there's no clear association between all those genres and specific races, I didn't view it as racist.



millionrainbows said:


> _(with droll humor)_ Maybe they were born that way.


It's not that _they were_ born that way but rather that _all humans are_ born that way. I believe that the conditioning aspect plays a more dominant role.



millionrainbows said:


> Those characterizations you give are not in the context of a thread, where perhaps the discussion is being disrupted.


If the thread topic is the glory of Mozart, then "Mozart sounds like soggy a*se cheeks slapping together" could be viewed as trolling and disruptive. If the thread asks whether one likes Mozart, then one's view is expected. It's true that some statements are more provocative than others, and perhaps a different way of expressing one's views would be better.


----------



## Enthusiast

Larkenfield said:


> If the OP is why modern music is not more popular, then those who are for it need to start owning what the music may be saying according to individual works as a musical language, such as Carter's Concerto for Orchestra, and other examples. But since hardly any examples are ever posted in a thread like this, and it's mostly abstract conversation about terms such as postmodernism that no one can agree on, what's the point? It always comes down to the sound of the music because listeners are going to react off it and it's not going to become popular unless the reaction is favorable. You have to give people musical examples to talk about or the conversation is meaningless. I happen to always be interested in examples because I do not identify with being either a traditionalist or a modernist and have spoken out on both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If somebody is going to promote the new music then they have to take responsibility for what something like this is saying, and it's not exactly saying something that's filled with light, is it? It's anxiety ridden. Why would a work that's filled with excessive anxiety become popular with the general public who's probably already anxiety ridden with the stresses and strains of daily life? If it increases anxiety in the listener, then it's not exactly cathartic (to mitigate anxiety), is it? If you're going to speak for the music then it's necessary to speak for music like this that is not all sweetness and light, and there's a lot that's been written along these lines over the past decades, and maybe some listeners are sick of it because their daily existence is not anxiety ridden.


I appreciate your attempt to get this discussion into a more specific and concrete area but wonder why you feel that those who advocate for "new" music (this one is 50 years old) "have to take responsibility" for describing what it "is saying"? Firstly (and crucially), are you sure it is "saying" anything? And, even if it might be, why should ordinary listeners be expected to come up with anything more general and shared than what it says to them personally?

To choose a much easier example, what is the Brahms Violin Concerto saying? We might all have different impressions and associations to record - for some of us this may even be partly fed by synaesthesia - and those of us with knowledge of the work's history and of how the critical tradition receives and perceives it _might _be able to hazard an informed account of its "message" that _might _be widely recognised. But ultimately even such Romantic music is not figurative but abstract. How much more so, then, for modern music?

You have told us the impressions the Carter brings to your mind's eye (or mind's ear?) and, based on previous discussions of new music here, I'm sure there are many who have similar impressions. I believe the feeling you report finding in the work does reflect what you feel when listening to it. And it may be true that many others here will have a similar impression of it. But what does this tell us?

There will also be others who, like me, do not hear a work that is about excessive anxiety and I'm sure Carter would not have recognised your account as a true reflection of what he was attempting. It is likely that those of us who are in this group have spent more time with the work and pieces like it so our guesses may be more valid? Like many works of its time, it can seem almost perverse in its refusal to invoke any sort of atmosphere or narrative that we can recognise from our knowledge of Classical or Romantic concertos. Although it is relatively popular within Carter's oeuvre, it is not an easy work. But it is intriguing and poetic. I personally do feel different having listened to it. Right now, without it being a work I know very well, I feel more calm after hearing it and as if I had consumed something with a taste that is complex and intriguing but rather refined. It is very compact and dense (it lasts only a little more than 20 minutes but does appear to be a major statement) and seems more obviously abstract than the music of 100 years before. But these words "figurative" and "abstract" can only be used metaphorically and may in themselves be misleading when applied to music.

For all of us, describing what it is like to listen to a piece of music is about describing impressions that are probably partly personal but may also be partly shared within the community of music lovers. With newer music there may be less agreement on the community-shared impressions so it might be merely personal impressions that we can record. In numerous threads some of us have attempted to record these impressions but they do not (and probably cannot) meet with recognition from those for whom the music seems only strange.


----------



## Agamemnon

I am quite flabbergasted how this thread of mine has flared up (in ways I can even hardly follow or understand, partly due to my limited understanding of the English language). But I agree with MacLeod and mmbls about my intentions : I have never intended to criticize or to comment negatively about modern music. In my acquaintance with classical music I even started to listen to and enjoy modern music (Messiaen, Stravinsky, Stockhausen, Berio) as I felt older music, e.g. Mozart's music, is outdated and dull. For me older music is more of an acquired taste in contrast to modern music to which I can immediately relate (even though modern music is more a challenge in a strictly musical sense, e.g. if it is atonal). And therefore I simply wondered why a lot of people do like to have modern paintings on their wall but don't like to listen to modern (art) music.

Perhaps my English is not good enough to be lucid in my posts for which I apologize.


----------



## millionrainbows

mmsbls said:


> I took it to be less a negative and more a comparison (i.e. modern classical music is less popular than earlier music). In other words fewer listeners liked or listened to modern music. That seems to mean something to me. As far as I know, it's true.


Modern is a niche interest, we all know that.



> I thought he was using the term "wild, loud and primitive monkey music" to refer to popular music including rock, pop, soul, country, metal, etc.. *Since there's no clear association between all those genres and specific races,* I didn't view it as racist.


Jazz and soul music do, especially since jazz was _created_ by displaced African-Americans. And the OP probably got this idea from *Adorno,* whose views on popular music, jazz in particular, bordered on racist.



> It's not that _they were_ born that way but rather that _all humans are_ born that way. I believe that the conditioning aspect plays a more dominant role.


Don't tell that to any other minorities or people who identify with certain ways of being. Do you get my drift?



> If the thread topic is the glory of Mozart, then "Mozart sounds like soggy a*se cheeks slapping together" could be viewed as trolling and disruptive. If the thread asks whether one likes Mozart, then one's view is expected. It's true that some statements are more provocative than others, and perhaps a different way of expressing one's views would be better.


Perhaps so. Civility is big in my book.


----------



## musicgique

A lot of modern composers are underrated, even though a classical music can be really cool!
Nowadays they need to go out of the shadow and make some crazy stuff to be noticed!
Like this Ukrainian guy who is gonna mix classical piece with a clown theme video. I think this approach could be effective


----------



## millionrainbows

musicgique said:


> A lot of modern composers are underrated, even though a classical music can be really cool!
> Nowadays they need to go out of the shadow and make some crazy stuff to be noticed!
> Like this Ukrainian guy who is gonna mix classical piece with a clown theme video. I think this approach could be effective


I'll go see it!


----------



## Sid James

Agamemnon said:


> I am quite flabbergasted how this thread of mine has flared up (in ways I can even hardly follow or understand, partly due to my limited understanding of the English language). But I agree with MacLeod and mmbls about my intentions : I have never intended to criticize or to comment negatively about modern music.


Don't worry about it, it's more an issue with forum culture. In many cases, if the title of a debate includes the word modern it's like a red rag to a bull. You might not have intended a bullfight, it's just the way things are around here.


----------



## paulbest

Agamemnon said:


> I am quite flabbergasted how this thread of mine has flared up (in ways I can even hardly follow or understand, partly due to my limited understanding of the English language). But I agree with MacLeod and mmbls about my intentions : I have never intended to criticize or to comment negatively about modern music. In my acquaintance with classical music I even started to listen to and enjoy modern music (Messiaen, Stravinsky, Stockhausen, Berio) as I felt older music, e.g. Mozart's music, is outdated and dull. For me older music is more of an acquired taste in contrast to modern music to which I can immediately relate (even though modern music is more a challenge in a strictly musical sense, e.g. if it is atonal). And therefore I simply wondered why a lot of people do like to have modern paintings on their wall but don't like to listen to modern (art) music.
> 
> Perhaps my English is not good enough to be lucid in my posts for which I apologize.


For Schoenberg, Schnittke, Carter, Henze,,,,,Mozart has no expiration date. 
They all gave the highest praise and accolades for Mozart's late works,,maybe even his early works they found charming. 
For me, Mozart begins in his great operas , late PC's, late syms, ,,I always found his VC's boring and dull. His paino music is highly recommended for pregnant mothers and new borns.
I also like some of the solo piano, its soothing, relaxing, cheery.

On mod music, we have different preference. Which is usual, as there are hundreds more mod composers to choose from, whereas in the romantic/pre mod era, there were only a handful of top hits.


----------



## millionrainbows

Agreed, the piano sonatas and fantasias are good; but what more of a classical music cliche is there than *Eine kleine Nachtmusik? *It sounds like it would be perfect for an early 1970 TV commercial for "Two Hundred Years of Classical Masterpieces" on 5 long-playing records.


----------



## paulbest

millionrainbows said:


> Agreed, the piano sonatas and fantasias are good; but what more of a classical music cliche is there than *Eine kleine Nachtmusik? *It sounds like it would be perfect for an early 1970 TV commercial for "Two Hundred Years of Classical Masterpieces" on 5 long-playing records.


 No doubt about it, it is THE most perfect sound image for all classical. It is so catchy ..but alas, its the one work of Mozart which I no interest to hear.


----------



## millionrainbows

paulbest said:


> No doubt about it, it is THE most perfect sound image for all classical. It is so catchy ..but alas, its the one work of Mozart which I no interest to hear.


 Me, either; 434 times is enough. I guess I should have prefaced my post "with droll humor."


----------



## Larkenfield

I must confess that I still enjoy Mozart's Eine kleine Nachtmusik _on occasion_ because it's social and quintessential Mozart (with my favorite recording by Bruno Walter and the CSO)... It's uplifting in spirit, cheerful, it bubbles and sparkles with an effervescent joy. Or are such emotions unfashionable in "postmodern" society that no one can clearly define and agree on? Have such uplifting qualities gone out of style? Was it in 1952 or 1953, or maybe in the turbulent 60s? I only consider it a cliché if it's overplayed, but maybe it's Mozart's fault because he wrote something so popular... _ Contemporary music_ could use a counterpoint to that in a modern style, but that would mean the modern composer having the experience of joy instead of the sometimes all consuming angst and anxiety that's all too common in some of the music, but not in all of it. There are joyous modern works too. They're just never mentioned unless one would care to post an example of clear, uncomplicated and uncompromising joy in today's musical language. Or maybe people just don't feel joy anymore and they need to be constantly reminded of how miserable they are.
.


----------



## millionrainbows

Well, I like Pizza Hut pizza for the same reasons.


----------



## paulbest

Yes OK, but next to Mozart's 25th PC? 
How then, does it sound to you?
Yes agree, post mod has nothing to offer me when I can easily go listen to Mzoart's late PCs late 6 syms. 
I mean if post mod wants my attention, make something at least close to Mozarts last PC's/Syms. 
Not that it has to equal Mozart's finales , just something vaguely reminiscent of , in terms of genius/quality.
Is this asking too much?


----------



## millionrainbows

I get a lift out of Philip Glass. And Steve Reich's Vermont Counterpoint. I always get it out during Springtime.


----------



## Woodduck

Agamemnon said:


> I am quite flabbergasted how this thread of mine has flared up (in ways I can even hardly follow or understand, partly due to my limited understanding of the English language). But I agree with MacLeod and mmbls about my intentions : I have never intended to criticize or to comment negatively about modern music. In my acquaintance with classical music I even started to listen to and enjoy modern music (Messiaen, Stravinsky, Stockhausen, Berio) as I felt older music, e.g. Mozart's music, is outdated and dull. For me older music is more of an acquired taste in contrast to modern music to which I can immediately relate (even though modern music is more a challenge in a strictly musical sense, e.g. if it is atonal). And therefore I simply wondered why a lot of people do like to have modern paintings on their wall but don't like to listen to modern (art) music.
> 
> Perhaps my English is not good enough to be lucid in my posts for which I apologize.


Your original post was perfectly lucid and raised an interesting question. It's just that mentioning "modern music" here has the effect of riding in on horseback shouting "The British are coming!"


----------



## DaveM

Sid James said:


> Don't worry about it, it's more an issue with forum culture. In many cases, if the title of a debate includes the word modern it's like a red rag to a bull.


Any rag will do. Bulls can't see red.


----------



## science

The fact that some people choose, for whatever reason, to be so hostile to contemporary art music shouldn't cause us to overlook the fact that it actually _is_ popular, not by comparison to K-pop, of course, but it has a much bigger audience than it ever did before, say, WWI.

The fact that the two sides - fans of contemporary art music, and people who really hate it - are so violently condescending to each other is really the only problem. If everyone would just calm down and have the confidence that they can like what they like regardless of what anyone else thinks, nothing in the real world would change but we'd all be much happier and kinder to each other.


----------



## KenOC

science said:


> The fact that some people choose, for whatever reason, to be so hostile to contemporary art music shouldn't cause us to overlook the fact that it actually _is_ popular, not by comparison to K-pop, of course, but it has a much bigger audience than it ever did before, say, WWI.


Are you saying the "contemporary art music" existed more than a century ago? Certainly not what we consider contemporary today!


----------



## science

KenOC said:


> Are you saying the "contemporary art music" existed more than a century ago? Certainly not what we consider contemporary today!


Oh, jeez, you got me. I thought that the "contemporary" music of 1919 was exactly the same as that of 2019. I'm such an ignorant, Maoist fool. I'll never be on your level.

But seriously, you and everyone else who reads that knows exactly what I meant. You're not even pointing out an actual error in the way I expressed the idea.

There's no need for this. You're better than this.


----------



## KenOC

No, I did not know what you meant. I still don't.


----------



## mmsbls

KenOC said:


> No, I did not know what you meant. I still don't.


Contemporary art music has existed for many hundreds of years. The composers and listeners just thought they were composing or listening to music. Presumably contemporary art music will be composed and heard for centuries to come.


----------



## science

KenOC said:


> No, I did not know what you meant. I still don't.


Well, sorry! I hope mmsbls's explanation helped.


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> Contemporary art music has existed for many hundreds of years. The composers and listeners just thought they were composing or listening to music. Presumably contemporary art music will be composed and heard for centuries to come.


Hopefully that's right! But what was "contemporary art music" before WWI? Schoenberg? Mahler? Saint-Saens? Stravinsky? Debussy? The question is almost meaningless.


----------



## Guest

Should someone state the obvious? Presumably the "confusion" arises from the use of the word "modern" as a synonym for "contemporary" instead of referring to the specific "modern" of the 20th C.

Every era has its "contemporary" music - that which is new and unfamiliar for the time - but not all eras had the "modern" music which was such a remarkable departure from the familiar in the 20th C.

Additionally, since the word "contemporary" merely means "at the same time", all music written at the time Mozart composed was "contemporary" and as Ken suggests, it therefore means nothing of any use to us.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> The fact that some people choose, for whatever reason, to be so hostile to contemporary art music shouldn't cause us to overlook the fact that it actually _is_ popular, not by comparison to K-pop, of course, but it has a much bigger audience than it ever did before, say, WWI.


Are there numbers to back this up? Who was art music popular with before WWI, and who is it popular with now? Are the audiences similar, or even substantially comparable? And are numbers the chief determinant of popularity? Don't you think that changes in the way music is consumed make such a comparison difficult? In 1900, classical music was generally unavailable to you if you couldn't go to concerts, although a considerable amount of it was arranged for piano to be purchased and played at home. Since then it's been available through an ever-increasing variety of media (sometimes for free). It stands to reason that a great many more people can, and probably do, hear the work of contemporary composers today than a century ago, but is that what's meant by popularity? Or does popularity imply a certain level of interest or liking? I listen to, and have in my CD collection, a huge amount of music I have only a mild interest in, and I suspect that's the case with a high percentage of classical music lovers today. In "olden times," when culture didn't come cheap, I might have heard far less music, but would have placed a much higher value on what I did manage to hear. For a piece of contemporary music to have a sizable audience in 1900 would therefore seem to be more significant than for the same to be true in 2000, even if, in terms of sheer numbers of listeners, the music of 2000 might be more "popular."


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> In 1900, classical music was generally unavailable to you if you couldn't go to concerts, although a considerable amount of it was arranged for piano to be purchased and played at home. Since then it's been available through an ever-increasing variety of media (sometimes for free). It stands to reason that a great many more people can, and probably do, hear the work of contemporary composers today than a century ago...


Sounds like we're in agreement!


----------



## science

MacLeod said:


> Should someone state the obvious? Presumably the "confusion" arises from the use of the word "modern" as a synonym for "contemporary" instead of referring to the specific "modern" of the 20th C.
> 
> Every era has its "contemporary" music - that which is new and unfamiliar for the time - but not all eras had the "modern" music which was such a remarkable departure from the familiar in the 20th C.
> 
> Additionally, since the word "contemporary" merely means "at the same time", all music written at the time Mozart composed was "contemporary" and as Ken suggests, it therefore means nothing of any use to us.


What is the point of all this obfuscation?

Everyone reading this thread with a fair mind understands that the art music of 2019 has more listeners in 2019 than the art music of 1719 did in 1719.

You'll have to find a different way to disparage the art music of our own time. Perhaps you can go with the "only the rich people count" argument.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> For a piece of contemporary music to have a sizable audience in 1900 would therefore seem to be more significant than for the same to be true in 2000, even if, in terms of sheer numbers of listeners, the music of 2000 might be more "popular."


On the contrary, since there are so many more options today.

But in any case, I'm unwilling to concede the idea that a person who listens to music today counts less than a person who listened to music in the past.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> Sounds like we're in agreement!


So - if I may translate - you define the popularity of a piece purely as the number of people who hear it?


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> On the contrary, since there are so many more options today.


How do options translate into realities?


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> So - if I may translate - you define the popularity of a piece purely as the number of people who hear it?


"Enjoy it" would be better.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> How do options translate into realities?


Do "options" ever "translate" into "realities?"

On the one side we're pretending not to understand what "contemporary" would mean if applied to anything other than right exactly now, and on the other we're exploring cryptic abstractions worthy of Derrida.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> Do "options" ever "translate" into "realities?"
> 
> On the one side we're pretending not to understand what "contemporary" would mean if applied to anything other than right exactly now, and on the other we're exploring cryptic abstractions worthy of Derrida.


What do you mean "we"? What "side"? I offered some thoughts - my thoughts, not "ours"- on the question of how "popularity" is defined and guaged. There's nothing cryptic about those thoughts; anyone should be able to understand them. If you don't want to take them seriously, just say nothing. Don't be a smartypants and make cute wordplay. I get enough of that crap from millionrainbows.


----------



## science

It probably doesn't even matter whether we stick to real numbers or try to estimate what percentage of the world's population has enjoyed the art music of their time. As Woodduck helpfully points out, until at least 100 years ago, western art music was just inaccessible to almost everyone on Earth except relatively wealthy people in the west. 

The real difference between then and now is that back then, the people who didn't enjoy art music (because they couldn't even access it) recognized those who did as their betters, but now we live in relatively democratic societies without that kind of deference.

But the world of classical music is inherently nostalgic for the old regimes. We don't regard today's art music as popular because we regard today's society, and its listeners, as inherently less worthy than the old empires and monarchies and their listeners.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> What do you mean "we"? What "side"? I offered some thoughts - my thoughts, not "ours"- on the question of how "popularity" is defined and guaged. There's nothing cryptic about those thoughts; anyone should be able to understand them. If you don't want to take them seriously, just say nothing. Don't be a smartypants and make cute wordplay. I get enough of that crap from millionrainbows.


You're one of the best writers on here. If you want to make yourself understood, you will. You chose not to. Don't blame me.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> You're one of the best writers on here. If you want to make yourself understood, you will. You chose not to. Don't blame me.


You know that I did choose to make myself understood, and I know that you understood what I said, but chose not to take it seriously. Your first response to my post was to quote an incomplete sentence out of context and respond flippantly. Don't play games with me.

I do blame you - for deviousness and disrespect.


----------



## science

Woodduck said:


> I do blame you - for deviousness and disrespect.


Well, I can't argue with that!

It's not how I see myself, but I know better than to try to change your mind on a point like that.



Woodduck said:


> Your first response to my post was to quote an incomplete sentence out of context and respond flippantly.


Do you mean this post?



science said:


> Sounds like we're in agreement!


That's not flippant at all. What you'd written in the part of your post that I quoted is exactly the same thing I meant, although you'd definitely explained it in more detail. So you weren't in disagreement with the point I was making.

There was no wordplay or games or deception or deviousness, at least in that post.

But maybe you had a different post in mind.


----------



## millionrainbows

Agamemnon said:


> I am quite flabbergasted how this thread of mine has flared up (in ways I can even hardly follow or understand, partly due to my limited understanding of the English language). But I agree with MacLeod and mmbls about my intentions : I have never intended to criticize or to comment negatively about modern music. In my acquaintance with classical music I even started to listen to and enjoy modern music (Messiaen, Stravinsky, Stockhausen, Berio) as I felt older music, e.g. Mozart's music, is outdated and dull. For me older music is more of an acquired taste in contrast to modern music to which I can immediately relate (even though modern music is more a challenge in a strictly musical sense, e.g. if it is atonal). And therefore I simply wondered why a lot of people do like to have modern paintings on their wall but don't like to listen to modern (art) music.
> 
> Perhaps my English is not good enough to be lucid in my posts for which I apologize.


I would suggest not quoting or using the term 'monkey music' in the future when referring to jazz and soul music.


----------



## Luchesi

I think about what would have been the level of musical understanding of the interested public 80 or 200 years ago verses today. Because I think that the appreciation of modern music is dependent upon an adequate understanding of the art more than ever!


----------



## Larkenfield

Perhaps a more intriguing question is: Why isn't modern classical music _less_ popular?

On YouTube the views for the most challenging of modern music are consistently high and favorable with thumbs up rather than down, sometimes with thousands of views. The TC forum may not be representative of the entire world and there are plenty of examples where thousands of people are enjoying the challenge and interest of modern classical music, even if they happen to come across it by accident. I recently saw 1300 views for Allan Pettersson's Symphony No. 6 and that's not an insignificant number. I do not see modern music suffering in obscurity, not with today's global accessibility, and what's presented in the concert halls is not the entire picture. Much of it is being heard and appreciated..






Over 4300 views with 100 up-votes and 2 down-votes:






It's hard to imagine that a modern but not contemporary work such as this was written over 80 years ago and yet still sounds fresh and challenging today. After counting 50 Schnittke videos, I gave up because there were so many more. This indicates an obvious interest in the man and an abundance of opportunities to hear him by interested listeners. Among all the videos, he has thousands of views and favorable up-votes.


----------



## mmsbls

Luchesi said:


> I think about what would have been the level of musical understanding of the interested public 80 or 200 years ago verses today. Because I think that the appreciation of modern music is dependent upon an adequate understanding of the art more than ever!


People have suggested that "appreciation of modern music is dependent upon an adequate understanding" in various threads before. Many TC members have stated that they have no special understanding of music; nevertheless, they appreciate and enjoy modern music. Personally, I have a rather modest understanding of music theory and little knowledge of other aspects of modern music, but I enjoy a large number of composers and works. Understanding music likely gives one an increased appreciation of any music (Romantic, rap, folk, Baroque, etc.). Possibly that understanding could allow one to more readily enjoy modern music, but such knowledge is certainly not necessary.


----------



## mmsbls

science said:


> Everyone reading this thread with a fair mind understands that the art music of 2019 has more listeners in 2019 than the art music of 1719 did in 1719.


I be rather surprised if this were not true whether you say "listeners" or "listeners who enjoy it." I'm assuming a greater percentage of Europeans listened to and enjoyed the contemporary classical music of the 1700s than do so today, but the number of people capable of listening to classical music could be ~100 times greater today (population is 10 times greater than 1750, and access is available to a high percentage of the world population unlike 1750).


----------



## EdwardBast

Larkenfield said:


> Perhaps a more intriguing question is: Why isn't modern classical music _less_ popular?
> 
> On YouTube the views for the most challenging of modern music are consistently high and favorable with thumbs up rather than down, sometimes with thousands of views. The TC forum may not be representative of the entire world and there are plenty of examples where thousands of people are enjoying the challenge and interest of modern classical music, even if they happen to come across it by accident. *I recently saw 1300 views for Allan Pettersson's Symphony No. 6 and that's not an insignificant number.* I do not see modern music suffering in obscurity, not with today's global accessibility, and what's presented in the concert halls is not the entire picture. Much of it is being heard and appreciated..


The number is not insignificant, but it doesn't necessarily mean anyone actually listened to the symphony. A YouTube view means anyone intentionally clicking who lets the video run at least 30 seconds. All one can be sure of is that 1300 people, well 1301 now I guess , listened to 30 seconds of meandering string introduction before taking mercy on themselves.


----------



## science

mmsbls said:


> I be rather surprised if this were not true whether you say "listeners" or "listeners who enjoy it." I'm assuming a greater percentage of Europeans listened to and enjoyed the contemporary classical music of the 1700s than do so today, but the number of people capable of listening to classical music could be ~100 times greater today (population is 10 times greater than 1750, and access is available to a high percentage of the world population unlike 1750).


That's the kind of thing I'm thinking of. The total amount of money (even adjusted for inflation) spent on new music probably exceeds what could have been spent back then.

I know you already know all this, and so does almost everyone here, but maybe someone doesn't, so I'll type it out.

Even until now, most histories of culture are histories of aristocratic and bourgeois culture, so the majority of people are (almost intentionally) ignored, but in 1750, the vast majority of the European population were peasants or serfs, who with perhaps a few exceptions simply had no chance to participate in high culture. Even most city dwellers would've been far too poor to participate. (The word "high" meant they were _intentionally_ excluded.) They had their own folk culture of course, the "popular culture" of most of history. So it was only a fairly small proportion of the population that could enjoy the art music of that time.

(Incidentally, the notion that "high art" needed to evince "superior taste" to the art of ordinary people is mostly a product of the Enlightenment. In earlier periods, the ruling class claimed superiority primarily with religion, and art was secondary. But the sixteenth and seventeenth century wars of religion, the Scientific Revolution, and the rise of a capitalist bourgeois class with wealth comparable to the aristocracy all combined to bring about "the Enlightenment," and basing legitimacy on religion would no longer work. Superiority had to be demonstrated empirically, so taste, fashion, and manners became important. It was a short term solution, as we'll see, since taste, fashion, and manners can be copied.)

The percentage of people with access to art music went up in the nineteenth century, as the numbers of the bourgeois grew, and of course they continued to ape the aristocracy. It still would not have been accessible to the working class until radio. (In fact, the folk culture was usually not very accessible to the bourgeois, so artists had to "venture" out into the countryside to discover it so that they could incorporate some of its elements into their nationalistic art.)

But as the "masses" got access to high culture thanks to radio, museums, paperback novels and so on (and also thanks to their incomes going up), high culture responded by becoming more elusive. The process began in the nineteenth century: at first it was aristocrats trying to exclude the bourgeois, and then, especially after 1848, the aristocrats gradually accepted more and more of the bourgeois, and together they tried to exclude the working class. That whole time, the upwardly mobile generally tried to ape their superiors. So participation in high art (per capita in the west) probably peaked in the early 20th century, maybe between the wars.

But then the masses declared independence in the mid-20th century, especially after WWII. People no longer acknowledged "their betters." They embraced popular culture with a sometimes explicit rebelliousness ("Roll Over Beethoven").

After that, high culture began to relax a little, and "accessible" gradually stopped being a slur. By the late 1960s, the cultural conflict over high modernism was winding down. High culture and popular culture began to explore each other, the dichotomy disappeared, and as it did, the only question remaining has been how "good" a particular work of art is in various people's opinion. The old dichotomy is actually completely gone now: the only people I know who still cling to its dogmas (all TV sucks, genre fiction is always bad, Hollywood movies are always bad, all rock and roll has been bad) are people who haven't changed their attitudes since the 1950s, the last time those ideas were ascendant.

Putting all that together, the peak "participation rate" in art music within western cultures (including Latin America) was around the 1930s, with a large decline in the 1950s. Since then, it's probably been inching its way back up based less on class than on increasing access to higher education. But at the same time, the population has gone up a lot since the 1930s, and western culture, including art music, has been embraced by much larger populations in Asia. That population growth must have far, far offset the decline in "per capita" participation, and the economic growth must have made even more money available to new productions as well.

So new works of art, even orchestral music, can be debuted in places like Minnesota. _Minnesota_. I mean, come on.

The narrative of high art persecuted and neglected lives on at places like talkclassical, but the reality is that as I type and as you read this, in this moment, more people around the world are viewing exhibits of new art or listening to new music than would have been doing so forty, sixty, a hundred, two hundred, four hundred years ago. (China by itself is probably taking care of that.)

I'll predict that it'll go on increasing as long as the global GDP continues to rise. More money will be available for "art and entertainment," and more people will have time to participate in it. Some of them - maybe five percent - will choose to expend a lot of energy and thought on it, creating and appreciating really intelligent, sensitive, creative, virtuosic works.

There'll probably always be cliquishness, with some members among that 5% looking down on the 95% who are satisfied with mass-produced stuff that is not very intelligent or skillful, and some small portion of the 5% will probably always try to create and appreciate "even better" stuff and look down on most of the 5%, who'll be angry because they're not getting respected. There'll be recursion, with an even smaller number of that elite-elite looking down on most of the merely elite-elite. But wherever we find ourselves within those cliques, the people who really feel that kind of high-modernist scorn, or who react strongly against it, will probably never be a majority again. We should all relax and focus our energy on what we like and why we like it.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> The number is not insignificant, but it doesn't necessarily mean anyone actually listened to the symphony. A YouTube view means anyone intentionally clicking who lets the video run at least 30 seconds. All one can be sure of is that 1300 people, well 1301 now I guess , listened to 30 seconds of meandering string introduction before taking mercy on themselves.


I got to nearly 15 minutes with Pettersson's 6th on YouTube before mercy arrived.


----------



## millionrainbows

I'll bet Larkenfield thinks twice before using YouTube as a measure of popularity. 
Pettersson's work is the sort of thing you need to settle down into for longer than a few minutes.
In this sense, it is Brucknerian, sprawling, and demands our time.
"The music forming my work is my own life, its blessings, and its cursings .... a way to attain purification and liberation".
To those who are "sitting pretty" the music has no resonance, because it is of the darkness.
I am reminded of the black woman who said of Bob Dylan's "Blowing In the Wind," that he was "singing the truth."
I am here to remind listeners that Pettersson is no walk in the park; it's dark, it's heavy, it's unsettling at times, but well worth devoting a little of your time.
Compare Pettersson's 6th to Beethoven's optimistic Ninth. Who is more grounded in reality?
Now, the rest of you ladies can get back to your tea.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> People have suggested that "appreciation of modern music is dependent upon an adequate understanding" in various threads before. Many TC members have stated that they have no special understanding of music; nevertheless, they appreciate and enjoy modern music. Personally, I have a rather modest understanding of music theory and little knowledge of other aspects of modern music, but I enjoy a large number of composers and works. Understanding music likely gives one an increased appreciation of any music (Romantic, rap, folk, Baroque, etc.). Possibly that understanding could allow one to more readily enjoy modern music, but such knowledge is certainly not necessary.


What do you enjoy about a difficult piece? You should tell other people like you what you enjoy. Don't keep it to yourself.

IOW, you probably know what a musician or a musicologist 'enjoys' about a difficult modern piece. It's an accomplishment, it's a challenge, it's a new exploration, ALL this, into what they've studied for years.


----------



## Haydn70

millionrainbows said:


> I'll bet Larkenfield thinks twice before using YouTube as a measure of popularity.
> Pettersson's work is the sort of thing you need to settle down into for longer than a few minutes.
> In this sense, it is Brucknerian, sprawling, and demands our time.
> "The music forming my work is my own life, its blessings, and its cursings .... a way to attain purification and liberation".
> To those who are "sitting pretty" the music has no resonance, because it is of the darkness.
> I am reminded of the black woman who said of Bob Dylan's "Blowing In the Wind," that he was "singing the truth."
> I am here to remind listeners that Pettersson is no walk in the park; it's dark, it's heavy, it's unsettling at times, but well worth devoting a little of your time.
> Compare Pettersson's 6th to Beethoven's optimistic Ninth. Who is more grounded in reality?
> *Now, the rest of you ladies can get back to your tea.*


That is EXACTLY the kind of statement Ives would make! Just sayin'...


----------



## Larkenfield

millionrainbows said:


> I'll bet Larkenfield thinks twice before using YouTube as a measure of popularity.
> Pettersson's work is the sort of thing you need to settle down into for longer than a few minutes.
> In this sense, it is Brucknerian, sprawling, and demands our time.
> "The music forming my work is my own life, its blessings, and its cursings .... a way to attain purification and liberation".
> To those who are "sitting pretty" the music has no resonance, because it is of the darkness.
> I am reminded of the black woman who said of Bob Dylan's "Blowing In the Wind," that he was "singing the truth."
> I am here to remind listeners that Pettersson is no walk in the park; it's dark, it's heavy, it's unsettling at times, but well worth devoting a little of your time.
> Compare Pettersson's 6th to Beethoven's optimistic Ninth. Who is more grounded in reality?
> Now, the rest of you ladies can get back to your tea.


Millions, really. If I can devote time to watching a full Pettersson or Schnittke upload, then others probably can too. Some people have a habit of listening to full-length concerts and certainly have the attention span to listen to a 45 minute symphony by Pettersson and perhaps record a few remarks in a review somewhere. The music is getting exposure and I do not believe that the votes and views are not representative of something constructive. It's worth researching certain composers and seeing what response they're getting. It's mostly favorable. There's certainly more listening exposure on YouTube then within this current thread where the subject often becomes a contentious battleground with abstract conjecture, not enough posted examples that people can hear for themselves, the lack of one's own personal initiative and research, the clairvoyant assumptions that others make where they think they know what people are doing without giving them the benefit of the doubt, and how they're listening. When people hear the modern music elsewhere, there's not the same kind of contention going on like in a thread like this, though sometimes there are negative remarks on YT. I suggest that it's worth reading some of the reviews that people leave. The music is still new to others, there's no doubt about that, but there's worldwide exposure and interest In modern classic music with a chance to hear it without interference. Maybe you didn't catch this, but I meantioned that there are over 50 Schnittke uploads that I counted, plus many more that I didn't, and someone posted them and presumably has heard the music in full and given a chance for others to do the same. 50! People can't be force-fed art, especially new art or new music because they have to discover it for themselves by being exposed to it. What I'm primarily suggesting or pointing out is that the opportunity for exposure to the new music has never been greater in the world and to perhaps be grateful for it. Happy listening to everybody. -Lark.


----------



## KenOC

Larkenfield said:


> Millions, really. If I can devote time to watching a full Pettersson or Schnittke upload, then others probably can too, even if most of them leave...


Speaking for myself only, it's hard to get through a Pettersson upload because I find what I've heard to be musically uninteresting. Life is too short!

Schnittke, bless his soul, is always interesting even if not always amenable to my ears. He has something to say!


----------



## Guest

science said:


> What is the point of all this obfuscation?
> 
> Everyone reading this thread with a fair mind understands that the art music of 2019 has more listeners in 2019 than the art music of 1719 did in 1719.
> 
> You'll have to find a different way to disparage the art music of our own time. Perhaps you can go with the "only the rich people count" argument.


What obfuscation?

I haven't the faintest idea how you have concluded that I'm trying to disparage anything.

Obviously, I made a mistake in my interpretation, but let's not leap to disparaging conclusions. Thanks.


----------



## science

MacLeod said:


> What obfuscation?
> 
> I haven't the faintest idea how you have concluded that I'm trying to disparage anything.
> 
> Obviously, I made a mistake in my interpretation, but let's not leap to disparaging conclusions. Thanks.


I apologize for misunderstanding your post or your intent. I did feel rather defensive at that moment, and it wasn't your fault at all!


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> Speaking for myself only, it's hard to get through a Pettersson upload because I find what I've heard to be musically uninteresting. Life is too short!
> 
> Schnittke, bless his soul, is always interesting even if not always amenable to my ears. He has something to say!


As the consumer I listen to music I like. I certainly don't feel obliged to listen to stuff I don't like.


----------



## Enthusiast

Luchesi said:


> What do you enjoy about a difficult piece? You should tell other people like you what you enjoy. Don't keep it to yourself.
> 
> IOW, you probably know what a musician or a musicologist 'enjoys' about a difficult modern piece. It's an accomplishment, it's a challenge, it's a new exploration, ALL this, into what they've studied for years.


I have often tried to post what I like about this or that contemporary piece and none of it comes from (technical) musical knowledge. I suppose it is related to my more general (listeners') knowledge of the repertoire.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> As the consumer I listen to music I like. I certainly don't feel obliged to listen to stuff I don't like.


Of course, when it's new (new, modern, not just new to the listener - to me, all Palestrina would be 'new') you have to listen to it at least once to know whether you like it or not.

So, as a consumer, I listen to music.


----------



## mmsbls

Enthusiast said:


> I have often tried to post what I like about this or that contemporary piece and none of it comes from (technical) musical knowledge. I suppose it is related to my more general (listeners') knowledge of the repertoire.


I have a similar view. I generally find it rather difficult to express exactly why I enjoy a given work. That's true for Bach, Mozart, or Boulez.

With modern/contemporary works, they often started as works I disliked. We sometimes refer to such works as "difficult" although they really are mostly unfamiliar. After some amount of listening, they can become more familiar, and I may then find I like them.


----------



## EdwardBast

KenOC said:


> Speaking for myself only, it's hard to get through a Pettersson upload because I find what I've heard to be musically uninteresting. Life is too short!
> 
> Schnittke, bless his soul, is always interesting even if not always amenable to my ears. He has something to say!


Yes. I actually listened to about 20 minutes of the Pettersson 6th but also found it uninteresting. Too predictable, especially those repetitive rising sequences by step. Not a single idea I found engaging.


----------



## Bulldog

MacLeod said:


> Of course, when it's new (new, modern, not just new to the listener - to me, all Palestrina would be 'new') you have to listen to it at least once to know whether you like it or not.


My experience has been that listening to a new piece just once is not sufficient; many listenings are ideal.


----------



## paulbest

millionrainbows said:


> I'll bet Larkenfield thinks twice before using YouTube as a measure of popularity.
> Pettersson's work is the sort of thing you need to settle down into for longer than a few minutes.
> In this sense, it is Brucknerian, sprawling, and demands our time.
> "The music forming my work is my own life, its blessings, and its cursings .... a way to attain purification and liberation".
> To those who are "sitting pretty" the music has no resonance, because it is of the darkness.
> I am reminded of the black woman who said of Bob Dylan's "Blowing In the Wind," that he was "singing the truth."
> I am here to remind listeners that Pettersson is no walk in the park; it's dark, it's heavy, it's unsettling at times, but well worth devoting a little of your time.
> Compare Pettersson's 6th to Beethoven's optimistic Ninth. Who is more grounded in reality?
> Now, the rest of you ladies can get back to your tea.


 WOW I overlooked your outstanding , perspicuous way of expressing such thoughts.
UNREAL

You indeed are a Petterssonian.

What I have noted for years now, is the style in expression made by YTers who are just now waking up to Petterson. 
Every post is full of exuberance , personal testimony of their relation/feelings that Petttersson's music strikes in their souls.

You will not find the same evocations concerning any other composer,
Pettersson affects like no other.
*grounded in reality*. 
This is what Pettersson's music is expressing.
How was he able to put into music , all the hidden, unknown feelings, thoughts, beliefs that laid dormant, yet volcanic within all my life? 
How did Pettersson capture in music exactly who I was/am / forever will be?
UNREAL

now how can I tie what I just wrote back into the OP;'s Q?
hummm, lets see,,,,perhaps Carl Jung was right in his final book, The Undiscovered Self, very few ever make the discovery, even fewer in the near future will make this encounter,,as Jung believed and has come to pass (as Jung was a prophet), He said *mankind is about to enter upon his darkest night, his tiny lamp of consciousness will lose its lamp oil*


----------



## millionrainbows

The reason some find Pettersson uninteresting has everything to do with the listener's criteria and worldview, not the music.

Art is a two-way communication which is a "template" of the artist's experience with ours.

It exists objectively, as an object of our contemplation.

It also requires that we engage with it.

Engaging with art requires that we approach it openly. This is the purpose of consuming art and music; we do it for the experience of engagement with it in a meaningful way.

We must remember that a subjective response which shows no engagement is "dysfunctional" to the purpose of engaging & consuming art; a failure.

The failure to engage is an incomplete and _irrelevant _way of accessing the value or quality of a work.

The failure of engagement must rightly fall back to the listener, and those particulars, rather than the art, since the art often exists objectively for specific purposes, and is not tied to any one set of subjective criteria.

The work functions in specific ways, for specific relevant purposes. Subjective criteria do not determine it; it determines what purposes it is designed for, and this has already been designed-in as a "template" for engagement, not failure of engagement or non-engagement.

The failure to engage is an incomplete and an _irrelevant _way of accessing the value or quality of a work.

Why discuss irrelevancies, if they are essentially failed engagements or a refusal to engage, and result in a disconnect with the work?

We know what _our_ responses are, and in many cases they are irrelevant to the purposes and intended functions of the art, and ultimately should be irrelevant to others, who have their own responses.

So in the end, in discussing responses which are the result of a disconnect or failure to engage, we learn nothing about the value or relevance of a work. We _do_ learn about the consumer, and this is a narcissistic exercise that most find indulgent and repellent.


----------



## JeffD

millionrainbows said:


> I am here to remind listeners that Pettersson is no walk in the park; it's dark, it's heavy, it's unsettling at times, but well worth devoting a little of your time.
> Compare Pettersson's 6th to Beethoven's optimistic Ninth. Who is more grounded in reality?


Is that the criteria, or even a criteria? Being grounded in reality?

One distinction between all entertainment and reality is that we chose to experience the entertainment, and we are forced to experience the reality.

One might ask why in the world we would chose music grounded in reality, out of many options, when we struggle with and climb over and through reality, in perfect clear three dimensional stereo, to make time to listen to the music.

Perhaps if more music expressed hope that things could be better, (even unrealistically) it would be more popular.

Just musing.


----------



## millionrainbows

JeffD said:


> Is that the criteria, or even a criteria? Being grounded in reality?
> 
> One distinction between all entertainment and reality is that we chose to experience the entertainment, and we are forced to experience the reality.
> 
> One might ask why in the world we would chose music grounded in reality, out of many options, when we struggle with and climb over and through reality, in perfect clear three dimensional stereo, to make time to listen to the music.
> 
> Perhaps if more music expressed hope that things could be better, (even unrealistically) it would be more popular.
> 
> Just musing.


Then consider this:


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Of course, when it's new (new, modern, not just new to the listener - to me, all Palestrina would be 'new') you have to listen to it at least once to know whether you like it or not.
> 
> So, as a consumer, I listen to music.


Usually for me the first five minutes is sufficient. My wife and I were in the car journey and we were listening to a concert in which there was the first performance of some pretty awful work by a modern composer. As we were on a car journey and haven't got anything else to do we kept the radio on but both agreed at the end that if we never heard that music again it would be one time too many.


----------



## millionrainbows

That's the same thing I was thinking in an elevator back in the late 1960s! That just goes to show you how things can change.

How do you feel about "death metal" music?


----------



## DaveM

I can tell almost immediately that a work new to me is something I am or may become very interested in with further listening. Most of the time, not only it will take several listenings to get the most out of the work, but also, it is those works that will have the most lasting value.

But, the initial attraction is critical. There has to be something there to inspire me to listen to the work more frequently in the future. A more recent example is the later Bruckner symphonies. IMO, the real meat in the movements, particularly the Adagios, is later on in the development where Bruckner does some wonderful things but that may mean that the early part of the movement is not initially as interesting to me. With repeated listenings those early parts become more relevant and attractive.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> Yes. I actually listened to about 20 minutes of the Pettersson 6th but also found it uninteresting. Too predictable, especially those repetitive rising sequences by step. Not a single idea I found engaging.


I'm also new to *Allan Pettersson* and I thought I'd give it a go (the *6th Symphony*), given PaulBest's enthusiasm. 
I have to say "kudos" to PaulBest for using the forum to promote one of his favoured composers; this is one good aspect of the TC forum, where one can get a "heads-up" on stuff one would never have thought of.
That said, I gave the Pettersson an entire listen and I regret to say I came away disappointed and completely underwhelmed.
Curiously enough, when I heard the opening sequence I immediately thought of *Gorecki's 3rd Symphony*, though the comparison ends there.
I'm afraid to say that I found the Pettersson to be hackneyed and somewhat amateur.


----------



## paulbest

DaveM said:


> I can tell almost immediately that a work new to me is something I am or may become very interested in with further listening. Most of the time, not only it will take several listenings to get the most out of the work, but also, it is those works that will have the most lasting value.
> 
> But, the initial attraction is critical. There has to be something there to inspire me to listen to the work more frequently in the future. A more recent example is the later Bruckner symphonies. IMO, the real meat in the movements, particularly the Adagios, is later on in the development where Bruckner does some wonderful things but that may mean that the early part of the movement is not initially as interesting to me. With repeated listenings those early parts become more relevant and attractive.


Agree with this up to a point,. take Ravel's Daphne,,how often to w see *Daphne part 2 only*, (shame on Martinon for allowing the Chicago recording studio to talk him into only recording part 2 ONLY!!???!!!)

The 1st part *might seem* all not that important,,,hyperbole,,,in order to get to the unreal, super unreal 2nd part. 
But why?
All music is a ORGANIC whole,
hwo often do I see on Bruckner and Mahler threads, *what is your favorite SINGLE movement,,,,,* I am like whaaa,,,then often some say I love the adagio, BUT/HOWEVER,.....so and so movements,,,...* ,,I mean how can anyone pick out a part of any work, separate? 
Pettersson syms are mostly one movement.

Which is unlike any other composer in history, except for Schnittke. 
No, if parts are soso, the other sections can be heavenly, I ain't buying.


----------



## paulbest

millionrainbows said:


> That's the same thing I was thinking in an elevator back in the late 1960s! That just goes to show you how things can change.
> 
> How do you feel about "death metal" music?


actually death metal has some place,,as I was driving through New orleans post Katrina, the Tulane Univ radio dg, has death metal on, powerful stuff, I called in and told him,, the music strikes a chord for the New Orleans East landscape,,,he told me,w hen his friends come in from out of town , he drives through new orleans east at night with death metal on the player.
That music works for that post catastrophic event


----------



## paulbest

DavidA said:


> Usually for me the first five minutes is sufficient. My wife and I were in the car journey and we were listening to a concert in which there was the first performance of some pretty awful work by a modern composer. As we were on a car journey and haven't got anything else to do we kept the radio on but both agreed at the end that if we never heard that music again it would be one time too many.


Agree, there is some music, you really wonder, why is it recorded?

The postman just now delivered the 3 cd Kalabis set.
I heard parts on YT, so order the 3 cd set. With Kalabis, you need to expand your limitations. He is never so straight, he weaves and curves all over. Some sections are stunning, others he leaves me questioning. 
I definitely prefer Kalabis over both Copland and Ives.

as well over Beethoven;s music.


----------



## paulbest

scratch that last presupposing, overly brash comment about *questioning parts of * Kalabis. I think,,,I ,,do believe,,,we have ~ a winner ~ here folks,,,I really do, Could be a mother load gold vein,,,,hard to say, gotta dig some more....I am listening to what some say is his best work, the 2nd sym. 
Kalabis may be like Carl Ruggles,a 1,2 hit wonder


----------



## paulbest

millionrainbows said:


> The reason some find Pettersson uninteresting has everything to do with the listener's criteria and worldview, not the music.
> 
> Art is a two-way communication which is a "template" of the artist's experience with ours.
> 
> It exists objectively, as an object of our contemplation.
> 
> It also requires that we engage with it.
> 
> Engaging with art requires that we approach it openly. This is the purpose of consuming art and music; we do it for the experience of engagement with it in a meaningful way.
> 
> We must remember that a subjective response which shows no engagement is "dysfunctional" to the purpose of engaging & consuming art; a failure.
> 
> The failure to engage is an incomplete and _irrelevant _way of accessing the value or quality of a work.
> 
> The failure of engagement must rightly fall back to the listener, and those particulars, rather than the art, since the art often exists objectively for specific purposes, and is not tied to any one set of subjective criteria.
> 
> The work functions in specific ways, for specific relevant purposes. Subjective criteria do not determine it; it determines what purposes it is designed for, and this has already been designed-in as a "template" for engagement, not failure of engagement or non-engagement.
> 
> The failure to engage is an incomplete and an _irrelevant _way of accessing the value or quality of a work.
> 
> Why discuss irrelevancies, if they are essentially failed engagements or a refusal to engage, and result in a disconnect with the work?
> 
> We know what _our_ responses are, and in many cases they are irrelevant to the purposes and intended functions of the art, and ultimately should be irrelevant to others, who have their own responses.
> 
> So in the end, in discussing responses which are the result of a disconnect or failure to engage, we learn nothing about the value or relevance of a work. We _do_ learn about the consumer, and this is a narcissistic exercise that most find indulgent and repellent.


I need all day to ponder over all your ideas and directions for thought.
You certainly have challenged us all here, so do not think you will not face a dual, ,,prepare for action …
I just posted something on Pettersson's page,,which may allow something to add.
not sure..

post 110
Allan Pettersson


----------



## Woodduck

JeffD said:


> Is that the criteria, or even a criteria? Being grounded in reality?
> 
> One distinction between all entertainment and reality is that we chose to experience the entertainment, and we are forced to experience the reality.
> 
> One might ask why in the world we would chose music grounded in reality, out of many options, when we struggle with and climb over and through reality, in perfect clear three dimensional stereo, to make time to listen to the music.


Indeed. The idea that art expressing pain, chaos, ugliness and depravity is "grounded in reality," but that art expressing love, hope, delight and beauty is "superficial"or "escapist," is just a tired 20th-century trope that tells us more about those who propagate it than about either art OR reality. It occurs to me that such a view is the opposite of Christian Science, which teaches that pain and sickness are illusory and that what's "real" is health and happiness.


----------



## DavidA

paulbest said:


> Agree, there is some music, you really wonder, why is it recorded?
> 
> The postman just now delivered the 3 cd Kalabis set.
> I heard parts on YT, so order the 3 cd set. With Kalabis, you need to expand your limitations. He is never so straight, he weaves and curves all over. Some sections are stunning, others he leaves me questioning.
> I definitely prefer Kalabis over both Copland and Ives.
> 
> *as well over Beethoven;s music.[/QUOTE*]
> 
> There really is no accounting for taste!


----------



## paulbest

*there is no accounting for taste*, agree completely,
But why is it the French refuse to record/perform Beethoven. It is indeed a peculiarity I;'ve noted over the years,,,,while the Germans, Austrians, British can not get enough of Beethoven,, also Beethoven has been extremely popular here in the USA. 

btw this Kalabis is interesting music,,I;'d say a discovery as great,,no just,,,well as great a find as Szymanowski. 
Kalabis does not havea extensive output, however all is ,,may I use the outwaorn accolade,,,but really its the one best to express,
Wonder-Full.
Just a great experience listening toa composer I wrote off many years ago. 
And now look at me, a Kalabisian.


Not many Kalabis-ians around, we are a rare breed.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Indeed. The idea that art expressing pain, chaos, ugliness and depravity is "grounded in reality," but that art expressing love, hope, delight and beauty is "superficial" or "escapist," is just a tired 20th-century trope that tells us more about those who propagate it than about either art OR reality. It occurs to me that such a view is the opposite of Christian Science, which teaches that pain and sickness are illusory and that what's "real" is health and happiness.


In comparing Pettersson's "grim reality" with Beethoven's optimistic Ninth ("all men are brothers"), the fatalistic view of Man cannot be simply written off as a 20th century era trope. It's a spiritual, or at least philosophical view, involving the idea of free will.
I have said elsewhere: _When Man lets his mind take over, that's when the trouble starts. But I think at the core of his being, connected to the universe, Man is good. The problem is, most people are in a state of unconsciousness that borders on insanity.

_Pettersson's work reflects, at least In some small measure, a sense of hope for Man, as well as plenty of angst and despair. 
You haven't really said what it is you think, concerning Man's nature. You've merely compared 20th-century tropes with Christian Science.



JeffD said:


> Is that the criteria, or even a criteria? Being grounded in reality? One distinction between all entertainment and reality is that we chose to experience the entertainment, and we are forced to experience the reality. One might ask why in the world we would chose music grounded in reality, out of many options, when we struggle with and climb over and through reality, in perfect clear three dimensional stereo, to make time to listen to the music. Perhaps if more music expressed hope that things could be better, (even unrealistically) it would be more popular. Just musing.


That suggests that the high arts and music are supposed to be light and, especially, to be "entertaining" in order to be popular, and anything which dares to do otherwise is "20th century."

That has been proven not to be the case with many artists throughout history; Goya's "Horrors of War," Bosch, Bruegel the elder, and others.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> I have said elsewhere: _When Man lets his mind take over, that's when the trouble starts. But I think at the core of his being, connected to the universe, Man is good. The problem is, most people are in a state of unconsciousness that borders on insanity._


What does that mean? That people must listen in a mindless way? How does one even do that when 'listening' requires the mind to process what you've heard?

How does being unconscious interfere with being 'good'? And how does unconsciousness ever reach insanity? Why would it?

It feels like many words/ideas with absolutely no relationship to one another.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> You haven't really said what it is you think, concerning Man's nature. You've merely compared 20th-century tropes with Christian Science.


No, that was just an afterthought. You can see that, right?

What I said - admittedly without making it entirely explicit - concerning man's nature is that Pettersson's endless wallows in existential angst are not more expressive of the "reality" (your word) of man's nature and existence than is Beethoven's 9th, or any number of other musical works presenting a more positive outlook. If you think they are, I have no objection. I'm just pointing out that the pet tenet of Modernist aesthetic naturalism which says that artists deserve special credit for "honesty" because they say life is crap is, itself, crap.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Woodduck said:


> Indeed. The idea that art expressing pain, chaos, ugliness and depravity is "grounded in reality," but that art expressing love, hope, delight and beauty is "superficial"or "escapist," is just a tired 20th-century trope that tells us more about those who propagate it than about either art OR reality. It occurs to me that such a view is the opposite of Christian Science, which teaches that pain and sickness are illusory and that what's "real" is health and happiness.


I don't think that Christian science (two words that are a contradiction already) teaches us that pain and sickness are illusory, quite the opposite. Religions generally offer hope that all will be good in the end (or after the end) for those who follow.

In this modern music thread, I would like to compare a few 'symphonic' composers: Messiaen, Shostakovich, Henze, Pettersson. Messiaen of course has no large symphonic oeuvre, but enough large scale orchestral works to compare. And I need Messiaen as he is the only Christian composer of these 4. When talking about sources of inspiration, Messiaen is clearly ignited by Religious Hope and Love. Pettersson and DSCH are inspired by sad, harsh realism, mainly coming from WWII (if you read the words from their choral symphonies) and Henze is somewhere in between, with a lot of WWII in his work but also parts titled 'Dream'or 'Dance'. I must say that all these pieces communicate the message loud and clear.

Personally, I do in the end prefer messages of hope (even if these are religiously inspired). But my point is that all of this music is modern music. So, I can't support the generic statement in this thread that modern music would automatically be hopeless or realistic. It just isn't. But without a (naive) religious conscience, it sure seems very difficult to write uplifting music. I say naive because we continue to experience that religion inspires unprecedented horrible realities every day.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> What does that mean? That people must listen in a mindless way? How does one even do that when 'listening' requires the mind to process what you've heard?
> 
> How does being unconscious interfere with being 'good'? And how does unconsciousness ever reach insanity? Why would it?
> 
> It feels like many words/ideas with absolutely no relationship to one another.


I don't think we have any common ground for civil discussion, eugene.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> No, that was just an afterthought. You can see that, right?


Yes, I saw that.



> What I said - admittedly without making it entirely explicit - concerning man's nature is that Pettersson's endless wallows in existential angst are not more expressive of the "reality" (your word) of man's nature and existence than is Beethoven's 9th, or any number of other musical works presenting a more positive outlook. If you think they are, I have no objection.


Thank you.


> I'm just pointing out that the pet tenet of Modernist aesthetic naturalism which says that artists deserve special credit for "honesty" because they say life is crap is, itself, crap.


I think that characterization, "life is crap," is an exagerration, and puts a bad spin on 20th century aesthetics; and it doesn't hold up historically in light of the examples I cited: Goya, Bosch, Bruegel.

The focus of Pettersson has more to do with the nature of Man and injustice than it does with an off-the-wall rejection of life as "crap." Do I have to explain _everything_ to you?


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I think that characterization, "life is crap," is an exagerration, and puts a bad spin on 20th century aesthetics; and it doesn't hold up historically in light of the examples I cited: Goya, Bosch, Bruegel.
> 
> The focus of Pettersson has more to do with the nature of Man and injustice than it does with an off-the-wall rejection of life as "crap."
> 
> The focus of Pettersson has more to do with the nature of Man and injustice than it does with an off-the-wall rejection of life as "crap." Do I have to explain everything to you?


Not an exaggeration? i guess that depends on what art we're talking about. I wasn't trying to sum up 20th-century aesthetics. As to Pettersson's music, which often seems pretty exaggerated to me, each listener must decide. I've heard a number of his symphonies, I know about his personal sufferings, physical and otherwise, I can sympathize as a person, but that's irrelevant to me as a music lover. His reality is _his_ reality; it isn't more "real" than mine or anyone else's, and his music is no more "in touch with reality" _as such _ than Beethoven's. All assertions implying that it is are, I repeat, crap.

What does Bosch have to do with this? He had his own reality too, surreal as it appears to have been.

And no, please, _please_ don't explain everything to me.


----------



## millionrainbows

NLAdriaan said:


> Messiaen is clearly ignited by Religious Hope and Love. Pettersson and DSCH are inspired by sad, harsh realism, mainly coming from WWII (if you read the words from their choral symphonies) and Henze is somewhere in between, with a lot of WWII in his work but also parts titled 'Dream'or 'Dance'. I must say that all these pieces communicate the message loud and clear.


That may be partially true of Messiaen, but not entirely. His "Et Expecto" does not exactly fit your description, and for me, has always evoked a bizarre scenario, regardless of the religious meaning of the subject (it's OK, they're going to heaven), and for me, the music itself is rather creepy, though some will disagree. 
Religious art can focus on different things, too. All the crucifixion scenes in painting are in some cases rather grim (regardless of the real symbolic meaning, etc.).



> Personally, I do in the end prefer messages of hope (even if these are religiously inspired). But my point is that all of this music is modern music. So, I can't support the generic statement in this thread that modern music would automatically be hopeless or realistic. It just isn't. But without a (naive) religious conscience, it sure seems very difficult to write uplifting music. I say naive because we continue to experience that religion inspires unprecedented horrible realities every day.


I agree, but wish to point out that "harsh realism" involves looking at Man's nature realistically. This is just "good psychology" as any psychotherapist will tell you. Isn't the popular "Dr. Phil" philosophy one of "tough love" and looking at oneself realistically?

"Life is crap" is really the current attitude of most people, though they won't admit it. "Life is crap" is "entertaining" as a titillating distraction. Celebrities exposed as dark characters, reality TV, etc. "Light" is boring, isn't it? Life is just one big soap opera, isn't it?


----------



## JeffD

> Then consider this:


Yes exactly. Exactly.

In the video Leonard Bernstein characterizes Beethoven's music as expressing a struggle for peace, serenity, and triumphant joy. My point being that the struggle expressed in Beethoven is a much more engaging experience than the reality that man's bloody inhumanity to his fellow man is a permanent feature of the life of man, and that we cannot even find serenity and triumphant joy in our selves, much less in the world. I don't need music to tell me how crappy things can be, I just look out the window.

I believe that music and art that expresses the struggle for peace, serenity, and triumphant joy is popular because we want to believe in it, even though in reality we can't.

I think of John Gardner's ideas about moral (and immoral) fiction.

Tell me something positive, hopeful, even if its a lie.

You pretend to like me, and I'll pretend to believe it.


----------



## Woodduck

NLAdriaan said:


> I don't think that Christian science (two words that are a contradiction already) teaches us that pain and sickness are illusory, quite the opposite.


Actually, Christian Science does teach exactly that. I served as organist at a Christian Science church and read the works of Mary Baker Eddy in order to understand the folks I was working for. I also had many conversations with them, and of course sat and listened during the readings (except when I sneaked out to have a walk outdoors before I had to play the final hymn and postlude. Please don't tell on me.)


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Not an exaggeration? i guess that depends on what art we're talking about. I wasn't trying to sum up 20th-century aesthetics. As to Pettersson's music, which often seems pretty exaggerated to me, each listener must decide. I've heard a number of his symphonies, I know about his personal sufferings, physical and otherwise, I can sympathize as a person, but that's irrelevant to me as a music lover. His reality is _his_ reality; it isn't more "real" than mine or anyone else's, and his music is no more "in touch with reality" _as such _ than Beethoven's. All assertions implying that it is are, I repeat, crap.
> 
> What does Bosch have to do with this? He had his own reality too, surreal as it appears to have been.
> 
> And no, please, _please_ don't explain everything to me.


Please remember that when i used the term "reality," it means a "realistic" view of Man. I simply said that Pettersson is more interested in the true and complete nature of Man. In this sense, his reality is everyone's reality, in the sense that we are all human, including the dark side of that. But again, there are traces of hope in his music. It ebbs and flows.

To deny that one has a dark side is unrealistic; it's the first thing a psychotherapist will try to penetrate, if there is to be any real insight.


----------



## millionrainbows

JeffD said:


> Yes exactly. Exactly.
> 
> In the video Leonard Bernstein characterizes Beethoven's music as expressing a struggle for peace, serenity, and triumphant joy. My point being that the struggle expressed in Beethoven is a much more engaging experience than the reality that man's bloody inhumanity to his fellow man is a permanent feature of the life of man, and that we cannot even find serenity and triumphant joy in our selves, much less in the world. I don't need music to tell me how crappy things can be, I just look out the window.
> 
> I believe that music and art that expresses the struggle for peace, serenity, and triumphant joy is popular because we want to *believe in it*, even though in reality we can't.
> 
> I think of John Gardner's ideas about moral (and immoral) fiction.
> 
> Tell me something positive, hopeful, even if its a lie.
> 
> You pretend to like me, and I'll pretend to believe it.


So music, for you, sounds like an act of faith, like a religion. BTW, the atheists are with you on this, because they have developed a philosophical "workaround" which involves free will.

It's beginning to emerge that the real underlying narrative here is that 20th century music is pessimistic because it embodies a turning-away from God, or non-believers can substitute "Man as free agent."


----------



## Woodduck

JeffD said:


> Yes exactly. Exactly.
> 
> Leonard Bernstein characterizes Beethoven's music as expressing a struggle for peace, serenity, and triumphant joy. My point being that *the struggle expressed in Beethoven is a much more engaging experience than the reality that man's bloody inhumanity to his fellow man is a permanent feature of the life of man, and that we cannot even find serenity and triumphant joy in our selves, much less in the world.* I don't need music to tell me how crappy things can be, I just look out the window.
> 
> I believe that *music and art that expresses the struggle for peace, serenity, and triumphant joy is popular because we want to believe in it, even though in reality we can't.
> *
> I think of John Gardner's ideas about moral (and immoral) fiction.


Yes. Although optimism may often be sustained by illusions, which are generated by hope, which springs eternal, optimism is necessary to life and is thus very real indeed. Beethoven's optimism was not a glib fantasy but was fought for, and we hear the fight in the enormous tension of his music, which makes his moments of relaxation and play all the more endearing. His music only writes large the daily struggle of life to sustain itself, and the fact that we are here discussing it testifies to life's success, whatever our personal trials and the sufferings of the world.


----------



## JeffD

millionrainbows said:


> That suggests that the high arts and music are supposed to be light and, especially, to be "entertaining" in order to be popular, and anything which dares to do otherwise is "20th century.".


There is no "supposed to be". I am not proposing how things should be. I am just stating what seems straight forward as to what makes a piece of art or music more popular than not. That a suggested partial answer to the question posted for this thread, namely


> Why isn't modern classical music popular?


 relates to expressions of hopefulness in the music.

One cannot tell people who eschew music that doesn't entertain them that it is not the purpose of music to entertain them. Music, like so much else, has to compete for public attention. And whatever the actual purpose of your composition, if it is not entertaining, I can't see how you can reasonably expect that it will be popular.

It is hard to make that sound crazy.


----------



## JeffD

Woodduck said:


> His music only writes large the daily struggle of life to sustain itself, and the fact that we are here discussing it testifies to life's success, whatever our personal trials and the sufferings of the world.


More to the point, our discussing it testifies to his music's success.


----------



## millionrainbows

JeffD said:


> One cannot tell people who eschew music that doesn't entertain them that it is not the purpose of music to entertain them. Music, like so much else, has to compete for public attention. And whatever the actual purpose of your composition, if it is not entertaining, I can't see how you can reasonably expect that it will be popular. It is hard to make that sound crazy.


The disconnect, then, is that I consider the thread premise and question to be completely irrelevant. It is not the primary purpose of high-art music to entertain; that should be an after-effect, that comes after it has served its primary purpose.


----------



## Phil loves classical

millionrainbows said:


> In comparing Pettersson's "grim reality" with Beethoven's optimistic Ninth ("all men are brothers"), the fatalistic view of Man cannot be simply written off as a 20th century era trope. It's a spiritual, or at least philosophical view, involving the idea of free will.
> I have said elsewhere: _When Man lets his mind take over, that's when the trouble starts. But I think at the core of his being, connected to the universe, Man is good. The problem is, most people are in a state of unconsciousness that borders on insanity.
> 
> _Pettersson's work reflects, at least In some small measure, a sense of hope for Man, as well as plenty of angst and despair.
> You haven't really said what it is you think, concerning Man's nature. You've merely compared 20th-century tropes with Christian Science.
> 
> That suggests that the high arts and music are supposed to be light and, especially, to be "entertaining" in order to be popular, and anything which dares to do otherwise is "20th century."
> 
> That has been proven not to be the case with many artists throughout history; Goya's "Horrors of War," Bosch, Bruegel the elder, and others.


I think the Beethoven's 9th has a lot of the "grim reality" especially the first two movements. It's way beyond just the "Ode to Joy", which makes that message more fulfilling in the end, after some of the harshness before.

I also found the Pettersson 6th disappointing. His 14th Symphony is way, way more focussed and much better done. He obviously grown as a composer.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Yes. Although optimism may often be sustained by illusions, which are generated by hope, which springs eternal, optimism is necessary to life and is thus very real indeed. Beethoven's optimism was not a glib fantasy but was fought for, and we hear the fight in the enormous tension of his music, which makes his moments of relaxation and play all the more endearing. His music only writes large the daily struggle of life to sustain itself, and the fact that we are here discussing it testifies to life's success, whatever our personal trials and the sufferings of the world.


So be more explicit, Woodduck, about what your philosophy is. If it's not religious, it skirts awfully close to that territory. Plus, you play organ in churches. There must be some mitigating circumstance, or are you just a "good citizen?'


----------



## millionrainbows

Phil loves classical said:


> I think the Beethoven's 9th has a lot of the "grim reality" especially the first two movements. It's way beyond just the "Ode to Joy", which makes that message more fulfilling in the end, after some of the harshness before.
> 
> I also found the Pettersson 6th disappointing. His 14th Symphony is way, way more focussed and much better done. He obviously grown as a composer.


That's good, then, that you can hear the "harshness" and take it as some sort of darkness. All lightness is boring.

As to your failure to engage with Pettersson's 6th, my condolences. Please be aware that this does not add to anyone's knowledge or understanding of the work, its qualities, or its intent. I suggest that everyone listen to it, and read the comments on YouTube.

Pettersson, Pettersson, rah rah rah!


----------



## paulbest

Woodduck said:


> No, that was just an afterthought. You can see that, right?
> 
> What I said - admittedly without making it entirely explicit - concerning man's nature is that Pettersson's endless wallows in existential angst are not more expressive of the "reality" (your word) of man's nature and existence than is Beethoven's 9th, or any number of other musical works presenting a more positive outlook. If you think they are, I have no objection. I'm just pointing out that the pet tenet of Modernist aesthetic naturalism which says that artists deserve special credit for "honesty" because they say life is crap is, itself, crap.


Beethoev's 9th was written over 200 yrs ago, how is that with what has happened in the world since?

No Beethoven's 9th, is far far from even the slightest reflection of the evils since his time...
Pettersson music echos that pain, suffering etc etc...etcetera.
How often do we need to repeat this statement? 
We said it enough, Either get it or don't.
I know you are going to argue that subject opinion of mine, for another 2 or 3 posts, like *can you actually point to literate which proves Pettersson is closer to reality than Beethoven*, No I can not, I use assumptions , based on a few readings from Plato, Jung, history.

I mean how would you agree that Pettersson reflects man's state than Beethoven, since you have no interest whatsoever in Pettersson's music *I tried it I hate it*. 
So how can you form any opinion at all on Pettersson;'s inner music by standing on the sidelines?
This is what I'd like to know. How did you become so expert in Pettersson, with 1 or 2 listens of perhaps 1 or 2 of his symphonies?


----------



## paulbest

millionrainbows said:


> So be more explicit, Woodduck, about what your philosophy is. If it's not religious, it skirts awfully close to that territory. Plus, you play organ in churches. There must be some mitigating circumstance, or are you just a "good citizen?'


Churches? 
Pettersson is so far far away from *the churches* Completely totally poles apart. 
This here may be the issue. 
Pettersson's music stands against *the church*.


----------



## paulbest

Phil loves classical said:


> I think the Beethoven's 9th has a lot of the "grim reality" especially the first two movements. It's way beyond just the "Ode to Joy", which makes that message more fulfilling in the end, after some of the harshness before.
> 
> I also found the Pettersson 6th disappointing. His 14th Symphony is way, way more focussed and much better done. He obviously grown as a composer.


Perhaps, But as I've stated a decade or more ago, the Pettersson cycle is organic, all connected .Perhaps you hear failure in his 6th. But there are quite a few others who feel , he has no failures, read the comments on amazon, YT. Its all there.

Perhaps you are not listening with ,,,impatience or whatever., 
Pettersson is the same throughout all his syms. He speaks of soul. Soul is unified, not a fragmentation of pieces.


----------



## paulbest

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, I saw that.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> I think that characterization, "life is crap," is an exagerration, and puts a bad spin on 20th century aesthetics; and it doesn't hold up historically in light of the examples I cited: Goya, Bosch, Bruegel.
> 
> The focus of Pettersson has more to do with the nature of Man and injustice than it does with an off-the-wall rejection of life as "crap." Do I have to explain _everything_ to you?


Exactly, Pettersson is speaking things of a deep, profound philosophy, ideas which only a few are privy to grasp. 
If more possessed this higher consciousness among the classical community, Pettersson would be more well known, and loved. 
Most (80%+) of the classical community has yet to hear the name Pettersson. 
How is this a high culture?


----------



## paulbest

You asked for it, and there I gave it, I still have not even touched on the deepest thoughts I have to say about Pettersson's music. 
Which I can not.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> So be more explicit, Woodduck, about what your philosophy is. If it's not religious, it skirts awfully close to that territory. Plus, you play organ in churches. There must be some mitigating circumstance, or are you just a "good citizen?'


Heh heh. I confess to a perverse, if slight, pleasure in being inscrutable. But really, a better word is simply "private." I try to make my thinking clear on matters discussed here. You've already stated many times on the forum that I'm an atheist, a humanist, and a rationalist. It's all right with me if that's what you prefer to think, though it isn't all right for you or others to label me publicly.

Odd to be asked, but I do try to be a good citizen, and don't think of that as a "mitigating circumstance." What is there to mitigate?


----------



## Bulldog

paulbest said:


> I mean how would you agree that Pettersson reflects man's state than Beethoven,


Pettersson's music does not reflect man's state; it reflects Pettersson's state.


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> *Beethoev's 9th was written over 200 yrs ago, how is that with what has happened in the world since?*
> 
> *No Beethoven's 9th, is far far from even the slightest reflection of the evils since his time...
> Pettersson music echos that pain, suffering etc etc...etcetera.
> How often do we need to repeat this statement?
> We said it enough, Either get it or don't.*
> I know you are going to argue that subject opinion of mine, for another 2 or 3 posts, like *can you actually point to literate which proves Pettersson is closer to reality than Beethoven*, No I can not, I use assumptions , based on a few readings from Plato, Jung, history.
> 
> *I mean how would you agree that Pettersson reflects man's state than Beethoven, since you have no interest whatsoever in Pettersson's music *I tried it I hate it*.
> So how can you form any opinion at all on Pettersson;'s inner music by standing on the sidelines?*
> This is what I'd like to know. How did you become so expert in Pettersson, with 1 or 2 listens of perhaps 1 or 2 of his symphonies?


So many fallacies here. One is the assumption that music is about "what has happened in the world." It isn't. At most, It's about what has happened in the composer in reaction to what has happened in the world. Another is the Modernist canard that the horrors of the 20th century were more traumatic to people than the horrors of past eras, and that an "honest" art must somehow reflect that. "My horrors are worse than your horrors, so my art is more honest than yours, blah blah blah..." It's a biased, ignorant and arrogant view.

A third fallacy is that people who don't care for a piece of music can't understand it well enough to say anything pertinent about it and are just "standing on the sidelines." I haven't tried to say much about Pettersson's music, and have no interest in taking on the assignment of saying much about it. But I will point out that people who like it and talk about it are not necessarily saying anything objectively true, much less useful to another listener.


----------



## paulbest

Socrates, Heraclitus before him, both hated the sophists,


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> Socrates, Heraclitus before him, both hated the sophists,


Is that code for "I hate it when I lose an argument"?


----------



## Sid James

science said:


> ...By the late 1960s, the cultural conflict over high modernism was winding down. High culture and popular culture began to explore each other, the dichotomy disappeared, and as it did, the only question remaining has been how "good" a particular work of art is in various people's opinion. The old dichotomy is actually completely gone now: the only people I know who still cling to its dogmas (all TV sucks, genre fiction is always bad, Hollywood movies are always bad, all rock and roll has been bad) are people who haven't changed their attitudes since the 1950s, the last time those ideas were ascendant.


Your thoughts on snobbism reflect mine and I think you've done a good potted history of it too.

To slightly digress, it brings to mind an anecdote from Gandhi's autobiography. He was a person of high status in terms of the caste system, his father was a politician and he became a lawyer. I cannot remember who exactly, but it was either a worker or peasant who came to his office for legal advice. This person took off his cap - which was what lower class people did in those days as a sign of deference to those above them - but Gandhi immediately told him to put it back on. He could not understand the logic behind people elevating themselves above others - and for those others to lower themselves - since we are all human.

Having now been labelled everything from an ignorant pleb to a snob - and I must admit that in previous years I've insinuated the same of others - I can honestly say I've had a gutful of it. We compare composers, performers, eras, and finally eachother as listeners. I mean forget classes of people, but do we have to be graded like cattle? I found a great quote recently in a book on psychology, by Theodore Roosevelt: "comparison is the thief of joy." Its got its limitations, but as regards social media, it's spot on. Had I not joined a forum like this, I would have just remained a listener regarding music. A bit of a dreamer too, and also a bookworm. But involvement online means I have to be labelled, and label others. I argue that game is over. Forget modernism or postmodernism, snobbism is so 19th century.


----------



## KenOC

(Deleted in the interest of public tranquility)


----------



## KenOC

But I _will _say, without being specific: This thread has an incredibly high BS quotient, one of the highest I've seen here. And I've been around here for quite a while!

Our long-time BS champion may now be outshone by a new rival.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> But I _will _say, without being specific: This thread has an incredibly high BS quotient, one of the highest I've seen here. And I've been around here for quite a while!
> 
> Our long-time BS champion may now be outshone by a new rival.


How uncharacteristically intemperate of you, KenOC. You are certainly right in principle, but we must be careful to distinguish between BS and HP (horse pucky), lest anyone be cowed for merely horsing around.


----------



## Phil loves classical

paulbest said:


> Perhaps, But as I've stated a decade or more ago, the Pettersson cycle is organic, all connected .Perhaps you hear failure in his 6th. But there are quite a few others who feel , he has no failures, read the comments on amazon, YT. Its all there.
> 
> Perhaps you are not listening with ,,,impatience or whatever.,
> Pettersson is the same throughout all his syms. He speaks of soul. Soul is unified, not a fragmentation of pieces.


I agree he was the same in style, but his music especially his orchestration and development was much better later, as in the 14th. His ideas were too diffuse in the 6th, and I feel there were a lot of awkward moments where the lines don't quite gel.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> But I _will _say, without being specific: This thread has an incredibly high BS quotient, one of the highest I've seen here. And I've been around here for quite a while!
> 
> Our long-time BS champion may now be outshone by a new rival.


If you cover yourself in BS, then the long-time predators won't eat you. They are instinctively repelled by the smell of BS. I can attest to this, it works, and has for a long time!


----------



## millionrainbows

Phil loves classical said:


> I agree he was the same in style, but his music especially his orchestration and development was much better later, as in the 14th. His ideas were too diffuse in the 6th, and I feel there were a lot of awkward moments where the lines don't quite gel.


Have I ever showed anyone my "Diametric Accolades" method? Here's how it works:

"too diffuse" - "refreshingly non-specific"
"lines don't quite gel" - "lines have a defiant autonomy"

...and so on. Try doing it!


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> But I _will _say, without being specific: This thread has an incredibly high BS quotient, one of the highest I've seen here. And I've been around here for quite a while!
> 
> Our long-time BS champion may now be outshone by a new rival.


Ken, there's no need to be non-specific like this. You can go ahead and say it, I won't report you: it's me!

And Paul Best is the new rival, right? Or am I just being vain?


----------



## Phil loves classical

millionrainbows said:


> Have I ever showed anyone my "Diametric Accolades" method? Here's how it works:
> 
> "too diffuse" - "refreshingly non-specific"
> "lines don't quite gel" - "lines have a defiant autonomy"
> 
> ...and so on. Try doing it!


"too diffuse" - "refreshingly non-specific" -

I find the ideas quite specific, but belaboured.

"lines don't quite gel" - "lines have a defiant autonomy" -

I feel some lines are more slapped together in 6th, the ones in the 14th are more defiant and dramatic in contrast.


----------



## Larkenfield

"Beethoven's 9th was written over 200 yrs ago, how is that with what has happened in the world since."
--
Sometimes it's helpful to look around to see what's meaningful in people's lives and what they feel is worth preserving and hold dear. If the 9th wasn't still meaningful it wouldn't be performed today. Why? Because there's hope and inspiration in it as a cherished ideal that brings people together even if humanity has not been able to live up to Beethoven and Schiller. Or have those attributes and ideals gone out of style in the 21st-century too and we should be looking to Carter, Schnittke and Pettersson for inspiration? Where's their 20th-century counterpart to the Ode to Joy? Perhaps it's because there's a difference between cultural events and values. and some values endure and they're so universal that they transcend the age in which they were written. When everything else has failed, there's nothing wrong with hope as the last resort because it keeps the door open for a miraculous humanitarian change or awakening, no matter how remote the possibility might seem.











What one of you would take a torch to the score of Beethoven's 9th in order to make room for Elliott Carter, or anyone else, when such destruction might not even be necessary? Such shortsighted foolishness about Beethoven as a creative giant. No Beethoven 9th… no Ode to Joy, whether one personally cares for it or not or considers it relevant to today.


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> Have I ever showed anyone my "Diametric Accolades" method? Here's how it works:
> 
> "too diffuse" - "refreshingly non-specific"
> "lines don't quite gel" - "lines have a defiant autonomy"
> 
> ...and so on. Try doing it!


Now this, I like! :clap:


----------



## Flutter

Larkenfield said:


> "Beethoven's 9th was written over 200 yrs ago, how is that with what has happened in the world since."
> --
> Sometimes it's helpful to look around to see what's meaningful in people's lives and what they feel is worth preserving and hold dear. If the 9th wasn't still meaningful it wouldn't be performed today. Why? Because there's hope and inspiration in it as a cherished ideal that brings people together even if humanity has not been able to live up to Beethoven and Schiller. Or have those attributes and ideals gone out of style in the 21st-century too and we should be looking to Carter, Schnittke and Pettersson for inspiration? Where's their 20th-century counterpart to the Ode to Joy? Perhaps it's because there's a difference between cultural events and values. and some values endure and they're so universal that they transcend the age in which they were written. When everything else has failed, there's nothing wrong with hope as the last resort because it keeps the door open for a miraculous humanitarian change or awakening, no matter how remote the possibility might seem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What one of you would take a torch to the score of Beethoven's 9th in order to make room for Elliott Carter, or anyone else, when such destruction might not even be necessary? Such shortsightedness. No Beethoven 9th… no Ode to Joy.


Beethoven will always have his demographic, well until people stop listening to him completely.

(as for his 9th, I only care about the opening movement. You could destroy the remaining movements and I wouldn't care whatsoever).


----------



## science

Phil loves classical said:


> "too diffuse" - "refreshingly non-specific" -
> 
> I find the ideas quite specific, but belaboured.
> 
> "lines don't quite gel" - "lines have a defiant autonomy" -
> 
> I feel some lines are more slapped together in 6th, the ones in the 14th are more defiant and dramatic in contrast.


The point was...

belabored = fully explored

slapped together = constructed with surprising freedom


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> So many fallacies here...Another is the Modernist canard that the horrors of the 20th century were more traumatic to people than the horrors of past eras, and that an "honest" art must somehow reflect that. "My horrors are worse than your horrors, so my art is more honest than yours, blah blah blah..." It's a biased, ignorant and arrogant view.


Yeah, or like "My hydrogen bomb is bigger than your hydrogen bomb."



> A third fallacy is that people who don't care for a piece of music can't understand it well enough to say anything pertinent about it and are just "standing on the sidelines." I haven't tried to say much about Pettersson's music, and have no interest in taking on the assignment of saying much about it.


That's good. We should see all members as "music lovers."


----------



## Phil loves classical

science said:


> The point was...
> 
> belabored = fully explored
> 
> slapped together = constructed with surprising freedom


I still say belaboured as in too few ideas stretched thin over too long. The lines slapping together sounds less competant to me, or else I would give it the benefit of the doubt. There is a certain drag in the counterpoint. Why else would he avoid these "flaws" later on?


----------



## starthrower

Ten thousand Germans singing in Japanese. Now that'll be something!


----------



## millionrainbows

*Diametric Accolades*

"too few ideas stretched thin over too long" 
_"uncluttered, milking the ideas for every drop, covering monumental spans..."
_
"...lines slapping together sounds less competant to me, or else I would give it the benefit of the doubt..."
_"...lines slapping together, wave upon glorious wave, sounding loose and relaxed, I must concede to it..."
_
"There is a certain drag in the counterpoint." 
_"There is an undeniable slow monumentality in the counterpoint..." _

"Why else would he avoid these 'flaws' later on?"
_"Later on, he was never to write using these idiosyncrasies again..."
_


----------



## science

I think he sees the point and is determined not to acknowledge it.


----------



## millionrainbows

"I think he sees the point and is determined not to acknowledge it."
_" He's refreshingly oblivious to being restricted to one area of thought."
_


----------



## millionrainbows

"Why isn't modern classical music popular?"

_"Why isn't modern classical music ubiquitously present all around us, like Muzak?"_


----------



## Luchesi

millionrainbows said:


> "Why isn't modern classical music popular?"
> 
> _"Why isn't modern classical music ubiquitously present all around us, like Muzak?"_


Imagine a time when Beethoven lived. A unique childhood and happenstances to create a large ego (and an uncongenial outlook), which doesn't diminish what he developed later as the intensity which became his life's work. While today, composers have so much to learn and study and assimilate. It's no longer a matter of showing off.


----------



## KenOC

Why isn't modern classical music popular?

"Of cord and cassia-wood is the lute compounded;
Within it lie ancient melodies.
Ancient melodies weak and savourless,
Not appealing to present men’s tastes.
Light and colour are faded from the jade stops;
Dust has covered the rose-red strings.
Decay and ruin came to it long ago,
But the sound that is left is still cold and clear.
I do not refuse to play it, if you want me to;
But even if I play people will not listen.
How did it come to be neglected so?
Because of the Ch’iang flute and the zithern of Ch’in!"

--Bai Juyi (772 - 846), translated by Arthur Waley


----------



## Larkenfield

millionrainbows said:


> "Why isn't modern classical music popular?"
> 
> _"Why isn't modern classical music ubiquitously present all around us, like Muzak?"_


The Bolsheviks were wrong: It's Muzak that's the opium of the masses, especially on weekends and pagan holidays. It's even played at Stonehedge during the vernal equinox to keep the chakras pacified.


----------



## Phil loves classical

millionrainbows said:


> "I think he sees the point and is determined not to acknowledge it."
> _" He's refreshingly oblivious to being restricted to one area of thought."
> _


Actually, no to the first point. Just as Petterson's 7th is obviously superior to the 6th to me, the 14th is clearly superior to both. He seemed to be stalling a lot in the 6th: 16:20 to 18:00 is a typical example. The repeated motif from 17:30 to 17:50 sounds really mundane and cliche, and glaringly shows his limits as a composer.

Compare that to 2:30 to 3:30 section here:






He accomplished a lot more in a much shorter time. Plus it is more gripping and polyphonic which is what that sort of music needs.


----------



## Durendal

What's the consensus on Pettersson's 1st? That's the only one I've heard so far, and it didn't wow me.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Durendal said:


> What's the consensus on Pettersson's 1st? That's the only one I've heard so far, and it didn't wow me.


I thought it was quite well done. But that is the performing version by Lindberg. Here is a review. Note Hurwitz says "Most discussions of Allan Pettersson's music maintain that he only reaches the apogee of musical darkness and misery in his later symphonies". I didn't read that before I compared the 14th and the 6th, but seems to be in line.

https://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-16212/


----------



## Larkenfield

Durendal said:


> What's the consensus on Pettersson's 1st? That's the only one I've heard so far, and it didn't wow me.


 Good question! I started listening to it tonight and hope to say something about it at another time. He starts off very tense and wound up and it's a matter of whether he carries that through the entire symphony or there's any kind of psychic relief. I consider him an outstanding orchestrator. It's just a question of what he's orchestrating as his reality, and he tends to be very serious about whatever he happens to be experiencing. But there's more to him than that. I am a big fan of some of the Scandinavian composers and I feel it's worth finding out more about him, especially his symphonies. I've heard his 7th so far and made a few comments in the Pettersson thread.


----------



## Luchesi

Larkenfield said:


> Good question! I started listening to it tonight and hope to say something about it at another time. He starts off very tense and wound up and it's a matter of whether he carries that through the entire symphony or there's any kind of psychic relief. I consider him an outstanding orchestrator. It's just a question of what he's orchestrating as his reality, and he tends to be very serious about whatever he happens to be experiencing. But there's more to him than that. I am a big fan of some of the Scandinavian composers and I feel it's worth finding out more about him, especially his symphonies. I've heard his 7th so far and made a few comments in the Pettersson thread.


Many decades ago I would think that most artists had not come across information about seasonal affective disorder. Sensitive, artistic people with childhood trauma, bad childhoods with later episodes of stress, are especially vulnerable.

Our line came out of the subtropics, it wasn't a problem.


----------



## musicgique

millionrainbows said:


> I'll go see it!


by the way, this young composer I was talking about just dropped a new video! it's awesome, check it out!


----------



## Larkenfield

KenOC said:


> Speaking for myself only, it's hard to get through a Pettersson upload because I find what I've heard to be musically uninteresting. Life is too short!
> 
> Schnittke, bless his soul, is always interesting even if not always amenable to my ears. He has something to say!


I tend to agree with you. Life on earth is not infinite to enjoy the arts and sometimes it's better to resort to the relief of the cutoff line and unceremoniously 86 them for outstaying their welcome.


----------



## haydnguy

I can only speak for the U.S. 

I think the reason modern classical music isn't popular is for the same reason classical music in general isn't popular. People are not exposed to it. They can't like something they don't know.

At a very young age babies begin learning not only what they are verbally taught but by observation. Much of what they learn is from their parents and brothers/sisters. If they were exposed to classical music in the home from an early age many of them would like it.

That is one part of it. But what was said earlier, there needs to be local events like chamber orchestras, etc., where people can go to hear.

In my previous hometown, they have an annual Music Festival that lasts two weeks. People can go to the rehearsals for free. The performers are interns. The charge for the full two weeks is roughly $150 dollars that gets you into all events. You can also buy a daily ticket. 

The program features a few of the well knowns (Beethoven, Bach, etc.) but a surprising amount is music that is not well known. They always have a Mahler. But they have had John Cage and others that are modern.

What's interesting is people will go to these because they are community events. Many have no idea what they are listening to. They wouldn't know Beethoven from Elliot Carter. So they clap for everything and enjoy most things because it's all new to them.

I don't think it will improve at the Chicago Symphony Orchestra (or the big orchestras). I think it starts at a lower level where people can be exposed to it. If that happened then children would start to see their parents playing this type of music and many of those children would grow to like it.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think the reason modern classical music isn't popular is that subjective human values have become intrinsically obsolete, and only valuable insofar as they represent some share of the consumer market.


----------



## infracave

I don't think classical music ever was popular.
A 17th century average guy would hear great music on occasion (mainly at Church), but I'm quite sure he would have prefered to go dancing at the town square where the fiddler plays that to go listen to Gesualdo's Responsories or whatever else.

If you really wanted to make modern classical (or just classical) music popular, you would have to teach all children in school to read music properly.
Not just 1h/week lessons on how to play the recorder.


----------



## Agamemnon

haydnguy said:


> I can only speak for the U.S.
> 
> I think the reason modern classical music isn't popular is for the same reason classical music in general isn't popular. People are not exposed to it. They can't like something they don't know.
> 
> At a very young age babies begin learning not only what they are verbally taught but by observation. Much of what they learn is from their parents and brothers/sisters. If they were exposed to classical music in the home from an early age many of them would like it.
> 
> That is one part of it. But what was said earlier, there needs to be local events like chamber orchestras, etc., where people can go to hear.
> 
> In my previous hometown, they have an annual Music Festival that lasts two weeks. People can go to the rehearsals for free. The performers are interns. The charge for the full two weeks is roughly $150 dollars that gets you into all events. You can also buy a daily ticket.
> 
> The program features a few of the well knowns (Beethoven, Bach, etc.) but a surprising amount is music that is not well known. They always have a Mahler. But they have had John Cage and others that are modern.
> 
> What's interesting is people will go to these because they are community events. Many have no idea what they are listening to. They wouldn't know Beethoven from Elliot Carter. So they clap for everything and enjoy most things because it's all new to them.
> 
> I don't think it will improve at the Chicago Symphony Orchestra (or the big orchestras). I think it starts at a lower level where people can be exposed to it. If that happened then children would start to see their parents playing this type of music and many of those children would grow to like it.


Actually, in the Netherlands (my country) there are a lot of free concerts; please read about this phenomenon here: Free concerts (this is my last attempt to get some response there about the intriguing issue of free concerts and the exploitation of musicians ). Usually students of music perform for free but since also big podiums offer the stage to these students these free concerts attract a lot of attendees. Some say this is exploitation of musicians but the music halls argue that free concerts are a good thing because poor people can attend too and great classical music gets a much larger audience this way. The popularity of these free classical concerts prove them right.

Of course, even the biggest podiums have a limited number of seats (about 500 to 1500 seats) so the access to classical music it provides for a large audience remains limited.


----------



## EdwardBast

Agamemnon said:


> Actually, in the Netherlands (my country) there are a lot of free concerts; please read about this phenomenon here: Free concerts (this is my last attempt to get some response there about the intriguing issue of free concerts and the exploitation of musicians ). Usually students of music perform for free but since also big podiums offer the stage to these students these free concerts attract a lot of attendees. Some say this is exploitation of musicians but the music halls argue that free concerts are a good thing because poor people can attend too and great classical music gets a much larger audience this way. The popularity of these free classical concerts prove them right.
> 
> Of course, even the biggest podiums have a limited number of seats (about 500 to 1500 seats) so the access to classical music it provides for a large audience remains limited.


A number of major orchestras in the US give free public concerts in parks and other venues in the summer months. The players get paid, however, and there is often a substantial number of replacement players.


----------



## infracave

Agamemnon said:


> Actually, in the Netherlands (my country) there are a lot of free concerts; please read about this phenomenon here: Free concerts (this is my last attempt to get some response there about the intriguing issue of free concerts and the exploitation of musicians ).


Now I'm imagining the Dutch govt sending swat teams to music schools and conservatoires, rounding up terrified music students, forcing them to play... or else ! :lol:



> the music halls argue that free concerts are a good thing because poor people can attend too and great classical music gets a much larger audience this way.


I don't think that's true anymore. Even poor people have an internet connection and can listen to whatever music they want to.


----------



## Luchesi

infracave said:


> I don't think classical music ever was popular.
> A 17th century average guy would hear great music on occasion (mainly at Church), but I'm quite sure he would have prefered to go dancing at the town square where the fiddler plays that to go listen to Gesualdo's Responsories or whatever else.
> 
> If you really wanted to make modern classical (or just classical) music popular, you would have to teach all children in school to read music properly.
> Not just 1h/week lessons on how to play the recorder.


That's such an important assertion. I ask myself if I would have stuck with CM and crazy modern music if while young I hadn't learned to sightread effortlessly. Probably not. I would have been distracted and become disillusioned. Because it's one large package. I'm surprised at serious music lovers who have done it differently.

There's a big disconnect, because they haven't experienced playing - and I haven't walked in their shoes to know what they're getting from serious music.

Glenn Gould said that he himself couldn't imagine sitting through a piano recital, and he didn't know how all those people could do it. That's an extreme statement for me, but I get the gist of it, and he was being unemotional from his own life with music.


----------



## Haydn70

infracave said:


> *I don't think classical music ever was popular.*
> A 17th century average guy would hear great music on occasion (mainly at Church), but I'm quite sure he would have prefered to go dancing at the town square where the fiddler plays that to go listen to Gesualdo's Responsories or whatever else.
> 
> If you really wanted to make modern classical (or just classical) music popular, you would have to teach all children in school to read music properly.
> Not just 1h/week lessons on how to play the recorder.


Classical music was, indeed, never popular...not even close. It amazes me that some folks around here think it was. Classical music has always appealed to an *EXTREMELY *small portion of civilization.


----------



## Luchesi

Haydn70 said:


> Classical music was, indeed, never popular...not even close. It amazes me that some folks around here think it was. Classical music has always appealed to an *EXTREMELY *small portion of civilization.


I ask serious music lovers all the time who have done it without playing and analyzing, what makes them tick. It has to be the right setting and mood, and I have to be diplomatic.


----------



## Woodduck

Haydn70 said:


> Classical music was, indeed, never popular...not even close. It amazes me that some folks around here think it was. Classical music has always appealed to an *EXTREMELY *small portion of civilization.


Yes, but the category "classical music" didn't exist before the 19th century, and our present classifications don't necessarily apply to all historical periods. Opera, for example, which we classify as classical music, was a popular form of musical theater from the 18th to the early 20th century, and opera composers with full "classical" credentials sought and achieved success with a wide public. There was plenty of music that straddled the high/low cultural divide; Johann Strauss presided in dance halls and concert halls, conducting not only his own music but that of "classical" composers, and singers and instrumentalists regularly toured in outlying areas and small towns, even in the American wild west.

Classical and popular music had much more in common then than now. Middle-class 19th-century people quite commonly had pianos and played and sang at home the works of composers who are now called "classical." This remained true well into the 20th century. There was neither wealth nor higher education in my family, but my father grew up in a home where there were opera records and a violin which his father played, my maternal grandmother played the piano at a modest level, my mother and her sister did as well, and there was both classical and popular music in the piano bench. Enjoyment of classical music, at least of the "lighter" sort, was not uncommon in other working-class families we knew. I also had a music teacher in elementary school in the '50s who introduced us to classical music.


----------



## Strange Magic

Early exposure in the home is doubtless the strongest predictor of later interest in classical music. The key is getting it into the family "bloodstream" in the first place. This is why I always stick up for popularizers like the loathed Andre Rieu , or even Liberace in his earlier years; Victor Borge, Danny Kaye (his famous conducting of Ravel's _Boléro_ was priceless) were staples of my younger years. A little sugar helps the at first unknown pill go down. The best we can hope for today is exposure in school, very likely. I think I remember that music was at least a one-semester course in my high or junior high school curriculum (but it has been a while).


----------



## paulbest

Strange Magic said:


> Early exposure in the home is doubtless the strongest predictor of later interest in classical music. The key is getting it into the family "bloodstream" in the first place. This is why I always stick up for popularizers like the loathed Andre Rieu , or even Liberace in his earlier years; Victor Borge, Danny Kaye (his famous conducting of Ravel's _Boléro_ was priceless) were staples of my younger years. A little sugar helps the at first unknown pill go down. The best we can hope for today is exposure in school, very likely. I think I remember that music was at least a one-semester course in my high or junior high school curriculum (but it has been a while).


YES correct, The best way to have youngsters to get involved in classical music is to have the pregnant wife start listening to Mozart,,,and have classical art a high priority in the home.

The parents should let the child know, pop music is ok, but only as a passing fling. After age of 18, pop should play a minor role in the teens musical journey. By age 21, pop should be history, puff, gone.

The rock era , led many of us down a road of destruction. Rock was mostly fake, w/o the drugs, and high electronics, the talents were all pumped, deceiving. 
Classical would have helped many who I know now went the way of acid rock.


----------



## starthrower

paulbest said:


> YES correct, The best way to have youngsters to get involved in classical music is to have the pregnant wife start listening to Mozart,,,and have classical art a high priority in the home.
> 
> The parents should let the child know, pop music is ok, but only as a passing fling. After age of 18, pop should play a minor role in the teens musical journey. By age 21, pop should be history, puff, gone.
> 
> The rock era , led many of us down a road of destruction. Rock was mostly fake, w/o the drugs, and high electronics, the talents were all pumped, deceiving.
> Classical would have helped many who I know now went the way of acid rock.


That's a rather dogmatic viewpoint, unless you're being facetious.


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^It is actually possible--I am living proof--that one can love classical music and several (many!) other sorts of music also. And simultaneously.


----------



## Strange Magic

starthrower said:


> That's a rather dogmatic viewpoint, unless you're being facetious.


Hard to tell, I often find.


----------



## paulbest

starthrower said:


> That's a rather dogmatic viewpoint, unless you're being facetious.


Not sure why you wrote this.
Are you not aware the music we listen to affects our thought patterns, behaviors . 
Mozart is more healthy than Jimi Hendrix ever could be.


----------



## Tristan

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^It is actually possible--I am living proof--that one can love classical music and several (many!) other sorts of music also. And simultaneously.


Yeah. I just listened to Mendelssohn's Symphony No. 3 followed by the soundcloud rap song "Ring Ring" by Juice Wrld.

I just like music. But I am fortunate that I was exposed to classical first. I love other genres, but classical was the original for me.


----------



## Larkenfield

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


----------



## haydnguy

Strange Magic said:


> Early exposure in the home is doubtless the strongest predictor of later interest in classical music. The key is getting it into the family "bloodstream" in the first place. This is why I always stick up for popularizers like the loathed Andre Rieu , or even Liberace in his earlier years; Victor Borge, Danny Kaye (his famous conducting of Ravel's _Boléro_ was priceless) were staples of my younger years. A little sugar helps the at first unknown pill go down. The best we can hope for today is exposure in school, very likely. I think I remember that music was at least a one-semester course in my high or junior high school curriculum (but it has been a while).


That's the key. Early exposure.


----------



## 1996D

Because contemporary composers forgot that art must be beautiful.


----------



## paulbest

1996D said:


> Because contemporary composers forgot that art must be beautiful.


Did Ravel intimidate their efforts to create beauty?
I am glad you made that statement, as it is something on my mind after hearing a few sections of post mod music. 
It is so opposed to Ravel's music.

No , I can't make that jump from Ravel into post mod classical genre. From ~~~Beauty~~~ to ?weirdness?. No I just can't.


----------



## Flutter

1996D said:


> Because contemporary composers forgot that art must be beautiful.


----------



## Phil loves classical

1996D said:


> Because contemporary composers forgot that art must be beautiful.


I can agree it isn't popular because it typically isn't beautiful, but Art doesn't need to be either.


----------



## infracave

Strange Magic said:


> Early exposure in the home is doubtless the strongest predictor of later interest in classical music. The key is getting it into the family "bloodstream" in the first place. This is why I always stick up for popularizers like the loathed Andre Rieu , or even Liberace in his earlier years; Victor Borge, Danny Kaye (his famous conducting of Ravel's _Boléro_ was priceless) were staples of my younger years. A little sugar helps the at first unknown pill go down. The best we can hope for today is exposure in school, very likely. I think I remember that music was at least a one-semester course in my high or junior high school curriculum (but it has been a while).


Mmmmh... not sure about André Rieu tbh.
Most of the classical converts I know transitioned to classical through prog/experimental rock rather than Rieu's simplistic settings fo well known classical melodies.


----------



## infracave

Woodduck said:


> Yes, but the category "classical music" didn't exist before the 19th century, and our present classifications don't necessarily apply to all historical periods. Opera, for example, which we classify as classical music, was a popular form of musical theater from the 18th to the early 20th century, and opera composers with full "classical" credentials sought and achieved success with a wide public. There was plenty of music that straddled the high/low cultural divide; Johann Strauss presided in dance halls and concert halls, conducting not only his own music but that of "classical" composers, and singers and instrumentalists regularly toured in outlying areas and small towns, even in the American wild west.
> 
> Classical and popular music had much more in common then than now. Middle-class 19th-century people quite commonly had pianos and played and sang at home the works of composers who are now called "classical." This remained true well into the 20th century. There was neither wealth nor higher education in my family, but my father grew up in a home where there were opera records and a violin which his father played, my maternal grandmother played the piano at a modest level, my mother and her sister did as well, and there was both classical and popular music in the piano bench. Enjoyment of classical music, at least of the "lighter" sort, was not uncommon in other working-class families we knew. I also had a music teacher in elementary school in the '50s who introduced us to classical music.


Yes well, my grandfather was a tenor singer in a choir, and also a passable organist.
He would sing some Bach chorales, or other Church music (for weddings, funerals, etc) and lighter popular repertoire pieces as well.
Yet, he never shared my enthusiasm for more "serious" music. He never cared when I played a Frescobaldi fugue for him, yet he would sing along when I would play a popular tune.

BUt I guess, the main problem here is what we mean by classical. Because a lot of people can get into the "light" classical repertoire and never have the urge to dig deeper.


----------



## Strange Magic

It would be interesting to be able to quantify how many people are drawn to classical music (and to its genres and degrees of "seriousness") via different pathways. In-the-family-home-when-young path, prog/experimental rock path, taken by friend to concert path, etc. It seems to me that any path is the correct one; any destination within CM the correct one. And if it means stopping at light classical, or having the dreaded, spectral figure of André Rieu guide one to the destination, why that's OK too. Is the perfect to be always the enemy of the good? Brahms loved J. Strauss' music; perhaps the New Brahms will have heard it at an André Rieu concert (or in a brothel) and begun an illustrious career.


----------



## Enthusiast

1996D said:


> Because contemporary composers forgot that art must be beautiful.


How bizarre when beauty seems more of a preoccupation of many composers now than ever before.


----------



## Enthusiast

paulbest said:


> Are you not aware the music we listen to affects our thought patterns, behaviors .
> Mozart is more healthy than Jimi Hendrix ever could be.


I remember a thread a while back about whether classical music is good for us and I don't think we could find much evidence that it can be. So, please, can you post your reference for music affecting our thought patterns and classical music doing so in a more benign or beneficial way. As for Hendrix - he never did me any harm. Have you been harmed by any music? Is Pettersson good for our thought patterns?


----------



## paulbest

Enthusiast said:


> I remember a thread a while back about whether classical music is good for us and I don't think we could find much evidence that it can be. So, please, can you post your reference for music affecting our thought patterns and classical music doing so in a more benign or beneficial way. As for Hendrix - he never did me any harm. Have you been harmed by any music? Is Pettersson good for our thought patterns?


You need to spend some time at Tulane's music library and read all the journal's there, many articles discussing these same Q's you ask here.

These studies are now decades old, and am sure many new ones have been added. 
You would be amazed. 
Note how folk/tribal music plays a key role in all their life's activities.

Death metal is so called, because it deals out death waves.

Ravel breathes life.


----------



## Hermastersvoice

Many contributors suggest that some classical music is popular, just not more recent stuff. This is a fallacy. Classical music is just not popular, not by comparison to modern music, not Beethoven, not Mozart, not by any stretch of the imagination. People still prefer old paintings, they attend theatre performances of plays written a long time ago, they just don’t listen to serious music.


----------



## infracave

paulbest said:


> You need to spend some time at Tulane's music library and read all the journal's there, many articles discussing these same Q's you ask here.
> 
> These studies are now decades old, and am sure many new ones have been added.
> You would be amazed.
> Note how folk/tribal music plays a key role in all their life's activities.
> 
> Death metal is so called, because it deals out death waves.
> 
> Ravel breathes life.


Not sure that Ravel breathes life. He literally wrote a piano piece (Le Gibet) based on a poem about a hangman :
_C'est la cloche qui tinte aux murs d'une ville, sous l'horizon, et la carcasse d'un pendu que rougit le soleil couchant.
It is the bell that chimes at the town walls, under the horizon, and the hangman's carcass reddened by the setting sun._

Also, I think Death metal is called so because it is made by/for edgy teenagers that think skulls look cool. I thought so too when I was 16.

Anyways, I'd be interested to read threads/studies suggesting that classical music is beneficial.


----------



## Enthusiast

paulbest said:


> You need to spend some time at Tulane's music library and read all the journal's there, many articles discussing these same Q's you ask here.
> 
> These studies are now decades old, and am sure many new ones have been added.
> You would be amazed.
> Note how folk/tribal music plays a key role in all their life's activities.
> 
> Death metal is so called, because it deals out death waves.
> 
> Ravel breathes life.


That is a big resource. Can you link the the part (or documents) that you are referring to.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think classical music is more popular than stuff like Cage, Varese, Boulez, etc. because people fall in love with music which is part of life, part of history and culture, part of the past which is still alive. 

When listening, they feel every moment there to be a link of the historical chain: it is all multi-dimensional; the past represents a world of ever-present ghosts, and they are no longer lost, without any connections. It gives them a certain spiritual experience and discipline for future activities.

EDIT: Not really!!


----------



## infracave

Strange Magic said:


> It would be interesting to be able to quantify how many people are drawn to classical music (and to its genres and degrees of "seriousness") via different pathways. In-the-family-home-when-young path, prog/experimental rock path, taken by friend to concert path, etc. It seems to me that any path is the correct one; any destination within CM the correct one. And if it means stopping at light classical, or having the dreaded, spectral figure of André Rieu guide one to the destination, why that's OK too. Is the perfect to be always the enemy of the good? Brahms loved J. Strauss' music; perhaps the New Brahms will have heard it at an André Rieu concert (or in a brothel) and begun an illustrious career.


Hahaha ! You're more likely to see André Rieu on TV at your grandparents' place than hear his music in a brothel (i know it's a Brahms reference). Although, i must give him credit : while most classical musicians are struggling, he's rich, probably sipping expensive liquor in his jacuzzi, knowing he's the sexual fantasy of millions of lovely old ladies around the globe. Not bad, André, not bad at all...

You're right, a survey on one's journey to classical music could interesting.

I think Brahms could genuinely love Strauss because they never were in the same league and thus could never be rivals.
And yes, I have zero evidence to back that up.


----------



## millionrainbows

For brothels, read "Strip Clubs."


----------



## Strange Magic

Question: is André Rieu the cause of the struggle that classical musicians are enduring? Norman Lebrecht said it was Herbert Von Karajan and Luciano Pavarotti (and their agents) who pushed classical musicians into penury. I want to know who I can blame.


----------



## millionrainbows

What about The Boston Pops?


----------



## apricissimus

millionrainbows said:


> What about The Boston Pops?


Trotted out on the 4th of July, and completely forgotten about by the general public the other 364 days of the year.


----------



## Enthusiast

I have somewhere a CD on which Rieu is playing. It is a perfectly straight recording of some baroque music.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^It is actually possible--I am living proof--that one can love classical music and several (many!) other sorts of music also. And simultaneously.


So, I'll ask you, diplomatically, what do you get out of difficult music?

I might've asked you this before.. We only have one life to live and it's difficult to see into other lives and what they're appreciating.


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> So, I'll ask you, diplomatically, what do you get out of difficult music?
> 
> I might've asked you this before.. We only have one life to live and it's difficult to see into other lives and what they're appreciating.


My lack of musical instruction bars me from understanding what is meant by difficult music. I know what music I like and want to hear (and do hear) again, and what music does not interest me.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

It's very important to be popular.


----------



## Haydn70

1996D said:


> Because contemporary composers forgot that art must be beautiful.


Excellent...spot on!


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Damn...beautiful? You're all beautiful!


----------



## JeffD

millionrainbows said:


> The disconnect, then, is that I consider the thread premise and question to be completely irrelevant. It is not the primary purpose of high-art music to entertain; that should be an after-effect, that comes after it has served its primary purpose.


That can be a problem, providing a relevant answer to a question you consider irrelevant. He did not ask what is the primary purpose of high-art music. We don't even know from his question if he cares about the purpose of high-art music.


----------



## JeffD

millionrainbows said:


> What about The Boston Pops?


That is a very good question. I believe The Boston Pops are taking from the entire "classical music" repertory items they judge to be entertaining. Why? So people will listen to it. Duh...

You are certainly free to tell them the the more modern classical is good for them. Lets see, ice cream, vegetables, ice cream, vegetables. And then you come over and say the purpose of eating nutrition. All he wants to know is why so many pass on the lima beans.


----------



## Haydn70

Hermastersvoice said:


> Many contributors suggest that some classical music is popular, just not more recent stuff. This is a fallacy. Classical music is just not popular, not by comparison to modern music, not Beethoven, not Mozart, not by any stretch of the imagination. People still prefer old paintings, they attend theatre performances of plays written a long time ago, they just don't listen to serious music.


Exactly. American composer Ned Rorem has made the same point. He has written that he has numerous friends who are serious artists in other fields: writers of serious prose and/or poetry, painters, etc. who have no interest in serious music.


----------



## Guest

Haydn70 said:


> Excellent...spot on!


Er, no, it doesn't have to be beautiful. You might prefer that it is so, but that's a different matter.


----------



## Haydn70

MacLeod said:


> Er, no, it doesn't have to be beautiful. You might prefer that it is so, but that's a different matter.


Yes, for me it does have to be beautiful. I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks or prefers. You like ugly, OK for you.


----------



## Guest

Haydn70 said:


> Yes, for me it does have to be beautiful. I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks or prefers. You like ugly, OK for you.


Thank you. At least you've acknowledged that it's a matter of taste, not absolutes.


----------



## Haydn70

MacLeod said:


> Thank you. At least you've acknowledged that it's a matter of taste, not absolutes.


Well, I would never suggest otherwise to you Mac, as you are one of the shining lights of the TC relativists.


----------



## Guest

Haydn70 said:


> Well, I would never suggest otherwise to you Mac, as you are one of the shining lights of the TC relativists.


Thanks. Relativist, and proud of it.


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> Thanks. Relativist, and proud of it.


One of the problems with relativism in music (just like in every other art) is that it wastes so much time.

So much music and so little time!


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> My lack of musical instruction bars me from understanding what is meant by difficult music. I know what music I like and want to hear (and do hear) again, and what music does not interest me.


You're an intelligent, aware, and well-spoken person saying, "My lack of musical instruction bars me from understanding what is meant by difficult music."

CM is doomed..


----------



## apricissimus

Luchesi said:


> You're an intelligent, aware, and well-spoken person saying, "My lack of musical instruction bars me from understanding what is meant by difficult music."
> 
> CM is doomed..


I think maybe he's saying that a lack of instruction helps him approach "difficult" music with a sense of openness and a lack of awareness that it's supposed to be "difficult." I think that makes some amount of sense.


----------



## Luchesi

apricissimus said:


> I think maybe he's saying that a lack of instruction helps him approach "difficult" music with a sense of openness and a lack of awareness that it's supposed to be "difficult." I think that makes some amount of sense.


I know how intelligent and well-read he is, so it puzzles me.


----------



## philoctetes

If relativism is the opposite of binarism, then I'm proud to be a relativist too.



Luchesi said:


> One of the problems with relativism in music (just like in every other art) is that it wastes so much time.
> 
> So much music and so little time!


indeed, dt^2>dx^2+dy^2+dz^2 doesn't sound so good on a piano...


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> One of the problems with relativism in music (just like in every other art) is that it wastes so much time.
> 
> So much music and so little time!


Actually it saves time. Rather than struggling over some music that one has been instructed to listen to until one "likes" it or "understands" it, one moves smoothly onto the next music guided infallibly by one's ears, experience, and self knowledge.


----------



## Phil loves classical

MacLeod said:


> Er, no, it doesn't have to be beautiful. You might prefer that it is so, but that's a different matter.


Spot on this one. Sometimes I prefer beautiful music, sometimes ugly. Too much of one gets boring. I wouldn't whine too much about why certain music gets performed more than others, just thankful there is so much variety, at least recorded. Most concerts aren't very memorable to me anyway.


----------



## arpeggio

1996D said:


> Because contemporary composers forgot that art must be beautiful.


I am sure that we can all think of many works composed before 1900 that are not beautiful, _i. e._ the final two movements of the _Symphonie Fantastique_.

And one of the bands that I play with just performed the following by a living composer who is on the faculty of USC:






No matter how many examples of music by living composers we provide that compose beautiful music, whatever that means, there are some sourpusses around here who think all modern music is ugly. Give me a break


----------



## Thomyum2

Something that always comes to mind in these types of threads, and I thought I'd put it out there for discussion: Does anyone else find it a little bit of a puzzle that many people are turned off by 'ugliness' in certain kinds of music, or are only interested in listening to 'beautiful' music, whereas is other forms of art (e.g. literature, art, theater or film), there doesn't seem to be a similar problem? It considered perfectly acceptable in most circles to have a liking for horror movies, or movies about war or other forms of violence, or tragedies that deal with sorrow and loss. Other forms of art can deal with difficult or unpleasant subject matters and we call it a 'genre' and find it perfectly understandable that it attracts a following. But composers who express violence, dissonance, or negativity in the works of classical music that they write incur outright hostility from some listeners. Why is there such a visceral reaction to something that sounds 'ugly' in the world of music?


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^It may be that audiences (most) expect a morality play to emerge from depictions of loss, sorrow, violence; that, if not a happy ending with Good rewarded and Evil punished, then at least our common bond through empathy with those sharing our values will be the point--clear or only hinted at--of the artwork. Picasso's _Guernica_ will attract more favorable responses than will Goya's "Black" paintings. We are to be somehow instructed by the former, and are made merely uneasy by the latter. Or perhaps it has something to do with Edmund Burke's notion of the power of the Sublime to thrill and chill us by showing us raw Power as against our own puniness. Either way, though, if there is a difference between the musical audience and that for the other arts, it may be that we do not turn to music for such instruction with anywhere near the expectation that we have for the other arts; we more often seek solace, respite, pleasure, the experience of beauty, even sometimes exultation, from music.

Just some random thoughts......


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> Early exposure in the home is doubtless the strongest predictor of later interest in classical music. The key is getting it into the family "bloodstream" in the first place. This is why I always stick up for popularizers like the loathed Andre Rieu , or even Liberace in his earlier years; Victor Borge, Danny Kaye (his famous conducting of Ravel's _Boléro_ was priceless) were staples of my younger years. A little sugar helps the at first unknown pill go down. The best we can hope for today is exposure in school, very likely. I think I remember that music was at least a one-semester course in my high or junior high school curriculum (but it has been a while).


All very much true. I'm dating myself, but my very first classical music concert featured Peter Schickele in his very first public performance as PDQ Bach. While conducting the Concerto for Horn and Hardart, he took a quarter from his pocket, bought a sandwich from the Hardart, and ate it, without missing a beat. How could I not love classical music after that?


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> Actually it saves time. Rather than struggling over some music that one has been instructed to listen to until one "likes" it or "understands" it, one moves smoothly onto the next music guided infallibly by one's ears, experience, and self knowledge.


Critics will be sometimes wrong for you personally, but not very often. And when you think they're wrong, you learn about their knowledge of music.


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> Critics will be sometimes wrong for you personally, but not very often. And when you think they're wrong, you learn about their knowledge of music.


I do enjoy occasionally reading music history, composers' biographies, and criticism, especially a classic example of often delightfully acerbic prose such as Brockway and Weinstock's _Men of Music_, an Oldie but Goodie.


----------



## Agamemnon

Because of the European Song Festival I (re-)read the intruing article "Notes on Camp" by Susan Sontag:
http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Sontag-NotesOnCamp-1964.html

A relevant sentence for this topic of ours seems to be this:

"The discovery of the good taste of bad taste can be very liberating. The man who insists on high and serious pleasures is depriving himself of pleasure; he continually restricts what he can enjoy; in the constant exercise of his good taste he will eventually price himself out of the market, so to speak. Here Camp taste supervenes upon good taste as a daring and witty hedonism. It makes the man of good taste cheerful, where before he ran the risk of being chronically frustrated. It is good for the digestion."


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> I do enjoy occasionally reading music history, composers' biographies, and criticism, especially a classic example of often delightfully acerbic prose such as Brockway and Weinstock's _Men of Music_, an Oldie but Goodie.


That's what begins to kill it for many people, and it's not their fault. It's the misguided teachers who should know better, because they know that they only have a passing interest in "Music Appreciation" overviews. They run with the simple course for 'teaching', because it would be so difficult to explain their fascination with music theory. That conceptual fascination is mysterious even to them. Because, like geology with its fundamental principles, music theory is a complete package (reliable, deep, self-consistent, always more to discover). How would you teach an appreciation for the geological worldview?


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> One of the problems with relativism in music (just like in every other art) is that it wastes so much time.


Does it? Can you explain? I have a feeling that your "problem" is based on a misguided assumption about the implications of a relativist view.


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> Does it? Can you explain? I have a feeling that your "problem" is based on a misguided assumption about the implications of a relativist view.


What do you mean by relativism?

There's the idea that the receiver is the sole arbiter of any enduring value for themselves individually. Sacrosanct.

There's the idea that works of music, or any of the arts, can't be ranked reliably. No one has enough aesthetic knowledge?


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> What do you mean by relativism?


Well, the definition that pops up on Google will do for me.



> the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute


https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/relativism

What do you mean by it...or, more importantly, what did you take it that I meant by it?


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> Well, the definition that pops up on Google will do for me.
> 
> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/relativism
> 
> What do you mean by it...or, more importantly, what did you take it that I meant by it?


Okay, you're looking at a much wider view.

For me, all morality is situational.

For me, there's only Western Music that I know enough about.

So, for me, I'm only concerned with one culture and one history.


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> Okay, you're looking at a much wider view.
> 
> For me, all morality is situational.
> 
> For me, there's only Western Music that I know enough about.
> 
> So, for me, I'm only concerned with one culture and one history.


Well, let's stick with one culture and one music. What does relativism mean then?


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> Well, let's stick with one culture and one music. What does relativism mean then?


What has relativism meant to the people I've known a long time and the new people I've talked to? We have a talkback after our weekly recital. As you expect from the numbers, most of these people are new to CM.

One young lady said that from what she had heard of Beethoven she didn't like his 'forceful' style. She much preferred Vivaldi. I asked whether Vivaldi was a better composer than Beethoven? She said she didn't know, but for her, she would avoid Beethoven. So, instead of accepting the ranking of Beethoven over Vivaldi she's now going to waste a lot of time.

There's nothing wrong with preferring the music of Vivaldi over Beethoven as long as you're not a victim of relativism.


----------



## Blancrocher

I don't think there's a universal meaning of "relativism," but rather that it differs in accordance with the circumstances of its utterance.


----------



## Guest

Luchesi, you ask what I mean by relativism, but still cling to a preconceived notion...why else would you write about "victim"? You need to explain it.


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> Luchesi, you ask what I mean by relativism, but still cling to a preconceived notion...why else would you write about "victim"? You need to explain it.


They're victims because they're detoured by the pervasive relativism which is now supported and promoted by teachers and authority figures. These are neophytes who want to learn about CM and they end up wasting so much time.


----------



## Luchesi

Blancrocher said:


> I don't think there's a universal meaning of "relativism," but rather that it differs in accordance with the circumstances of its utterance.


For me, these 'circumstances' are in part determining the future of CM, and how young people especially are missing out.


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> They're victims because they're detoured by the pervasive relativism which is now supported and promoted by teachers and authority figures.


So you keep saying - but you don't say _why _(your version of) relativism (you didn't like mine) wastes people's time.


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> So you keep saying - but you don't say _why _(your version of) relativism (you didn;t like mine) wastes people's time.


Relativism wastes peoples time as a result of its subtle, faulty premise, which becomes ingrained overtime, that everything's relative, there's no objective approach which is worth the time and effort, because it won't change the premise.


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> Relativism waste peoples time as a result of its subtle, faulty premise, which becomes ingrained overtime, that everything's relative, there's no objective approach which is worth the time and effort, because it won't change the premise.


I sense I'm going to make no progress here.

If I say that I don't believe in the "absolute" that says Beethoven (or whoever) is the best, it doesn't also necessitate my believing that all composers are of equal worth. I look at the rankings and make use of them.


----------



## mmsbls

Luchesi said:


> Relativism waste peoples time as a result of its subtle, faulty premise, which becomes ingrained overtime, that everything's relative, there's no objective approach which is worth the time and effort, because it won't change the premise.


I think I understand roughly what you may mean by relativism, but can you give a couple of specific examples where a classic music listener's time is wasted because of relativism? What might they believe because of relativism and how does that belief cause them to waste their time?

I'm sure most of us could come up with some cases of relativism that has cause a person to waste time. What would be most interesting are examples that apply to many (or most) people.


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> I sense I'm going to make no progress here.
> 
> If I say that I don't believe in the "absolute" that says Beethoven (or whoever) is the best, it doesn't also necessitate my believing that all composers are of equal worth. I look at the rankings and make use of them.


You're making progress with your questions.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> I think I understand roughly what you may mean by relativism, but can you give a couple of specific examples where a classic music listener's time is wasted because of relativism? What might they believe because of relativism and how does that belief case them to waste their time?
> 
> I'm sure most of us could come up with some cases of relativism that has cause a person to waste time. What would be most interesting are examples that apply to many (or most) people.


I ask everyone how they came to enjoy CM for the long haul. How long did it take you? How did you do it? 'Mainly lucky exposures?

I remember that it only took six months for me to be hooked. I read a few books after I learned that there was such a thing as serious music. I read about the rankings and I went about trying to evaluate them or debate against them, whatever. There was no subtle current of relativism to the distract or poison me.

My friends at the time were not so lucky.


----------



## Larkenfield

Luchesi said:


> What has relativism meant to the people I've known a long time and the new people I've talked to? We have a talkback after our weekly recital. As you expect from the numbers, most of these people are new to CM.
> 
> One young lady said that from what she had heard of Beethoven she didn't like his 'forceful' style. She much preferred Vivaldi. I asked whether Vivaldi was a better composer than Beethoven? She said she didn't know, but for her, she would avoid Beethoven. So, instead of accepting the ranking of Beethoven over Vivaldi she's now going to waste a lot of time.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with preferring the music of Vivaldi over Beethoven as long as you're not a victim of relativism.


So it was you who created the problem with this person. Why ask her if Beethoven was a better composer than Vivaldi when she already liked Vivaldi and was not required to like Beethoven? It didn't matter at that point in her development who was considered a better composer according to the experts, the historians, the musicologists, or you, as "a waste of time," or known herself. I would have walked out on you for causing this unnecessary mess at this stage in her exposure to CM. You could have let her enjoy Vivaldi without interference and comparison and later come around to Beethoven if she was going to. But instead it sounds like you placed a value judgment on Vivaldi. Of all the questions to ask at that point that she has no way of answering, and you label the problem as "relativism" when what you did was confuse her with such a question. It sounds like questionable teaching from an authority figure to ask a question of someone new to the music who couldn't possibly have an answer and yet you blame the victim and drive the idea of relativism into the ground. Other than leaving a very bad taste in the mouth, not wanting to hear Vivaldi or Beethoven after that, I have no problem with how you handled the situation with regard to how you rank composers.


----------



## Luchesi

Larkenfield said:


> So it was you who created the problem with this person. Why ask her if Beethoven was a better composer than Vivaldi when she already liked Vivaldi and was not required to like Beethoven? It didn't matter at that point in her development who was considered a better composer according to the experts, the historians, the musicologists, or you, as "a waste of time," or known herself. I would have walked out on you for causing this unnecessary mess at this stage in her development. You could have let her enjoy Vivaldi without interference and later come around to Beethoven if she was going to. But instead it sounds like you placed a value judgment on Vivaldi. Of all the questions to ask at that point that she has no way of answering, and you label the problem as "relativism" when what you did was confuse her. Bad teacher asking questions of others who couldn't possibly have the answers.


Asking her that question created a problem for this person? Or would it be helpful for her sometime in the future? I think that any discussion like this helps the early adopters. Spreading the feeling that everything's relative helps no one.


----------



## KenOC

Totally agree that greatness is not relative, but absolute. And if you ever have any doubts on a composer's status, just ask me and I'll be happy to share the objective truth. PayPal accepted. :tiphat:


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> You're making progress with your questions.


I am? It doesn't feel like it. All you say, with slight variation, is that relativism is bad because it wastes time.

What's the hurry?


----------



## mmsbls

Luchesi said:


> I ask everyone how they came to enjoy CM for the long haul. How long did it take you? How did you do it? 'Mainly lucky exposures?
> 
> I remember that it only took six months for me to be hooked. I read a few books after I learned that there was such a thing as serious music. I read about the rankings and I went about trying to evaluate them or debate against them, whatever. There was no subtle current of relativism to the distract or poison me.
> 
> My friends at the time were not so lucky.


I'm not sure I understand your specific example. What was the subtle current of relativism as it relates to classical music, and how did it negatively affect listeners?

If by relativism you mean that all composers and works are equally interesting/beautiful/enjoyable, I'm not sure anyone believes that. If you mean that different works can appeal differently to different people, then I'm pretty sure everyone believes that. I'm guessing (since you have not said) that you may mean that relativism could suggest that Vivaldi is as good as Beethoven. I'm not sure how that could cause people to waste time.

Maybe a specific example would help?


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure I understand your specific example. What was the subtle current of relativism as it relates to classical music, and how did it negatively affect listeners?
> 
> If by relativism you mean that all composers and works are equally interesting/beautiful/enjoyable, I'm not sure anyone believes that. If you mean that different works can appeal differently to different people, then I'm pretty sure everyone believes that. I'm guessing (since you have not said) that you may mean that relativism could suggest that Vivaldi is as good as Beethoven. I'm not sure how that could cause people to waste time.
> 
> Maybe a specific example would help?


People today would be somewhat aghast if they heard a teacher of children say that Beethoven was absolutely the greatest composer! It seems so dictatorial and authoritarian, overbearing. After all, children should find out for themselves and then they should decide for their own lives whether Beethoven was the greatest among them all.

I think that's a clear example.


----------



## Larkenfield

Luchesi said:


> People today would be somewhat aghast if they heard a teacher of children say that Beethoven was absolutely the greatest composer! It seems so dictatorial and authoritarian, overbearing. After all, children should find out for themselves and then they should decide for their own lives whether Beethoven was the greatest among them all.
> 
> I think that's a clear example.


It's amazing that leaving out the word "relativism" clears up so many things, and that's often the problem with labels. Just say no and deal with situations directly and relate to the relative needs of each person as they discover the beauty and scope of the music. Otherwise, I believe their initial enjoyment can be spoiled with unnecessary complications. Look at the problem even trying to define a word such as "relativism" and yet sometimes it's used as a given. Asking someone new to the music whether a composer (Beethoven) they dislike is a better composer than one they do like (Vivaldi), seems to me to be an unnecessary and confusing complication.


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> People today would be somewhat aghast if they heard a teacher of children say that Beethoven was absolutely the greatest composer! It seems so dictatorial and authoritarian, overbearing. After all, children should find out for themselves and then they should decide for their own lives whether Beethoven was the greatest among them all.
> 
> I think that's a clear example.


People? Which people?


----------



## mmsbls

Luchesi said:


> People today would be somewhat aghast if they heard a teacher of children say that Beethoven was absolutely the greatest composer! It seems so dictatorial and authoritarian, overbearing. After all, children should find out for themselves and then they should decide for their own lives whether Beethoven was the greatest among them all.
> 
> I think that's a clear example.


I don't see the problem. So the children will grow up and discover that their teacher was wrong and that Mozart was the greatest. How did anyone waste their time?

If you find it more fun to be cryptic than discuss this issue, that's fine.


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> People? Which people?


People who have grown up with relativism.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> People? Which people?


Those two standing over there.


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> People who have grown up with relativism.


Random families? Entire nations? The world? A particular strata of CM subculture?

I sense a generalised flailing but unsubstantiated discontent about a poorly described evil "-ism". The relativism against which you rail is not my relativism.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> I don't see the problem. So the children will grow up and discover that their teacher was wrong and that Mozart was the greatest. How did anyone waste their time?
> 
> If you find it more fun to be cryptic than discuss this issue, that's fine.


The issue is should we lay down authoritatively to new listeners what they should spend time on, so that they can save time learning and deciding whether the consensus opinion is valid? We know that all that depends upon their experience level and their experience level by definition is very low.

How do we teach things in science to save time? Rigid categories and an epistemology offered up to be evaluated and/or falsified.


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> Random families? Entire nations? The world? A particular strata of CM subculture?
> 
> I sense a generalised flailing but unsubstantiated discontent about a poorly described evil "-ism". The relativism against which you rail is not my relativism.


Ok, what's yours?


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> Ok, what's yours?


Well, I thought I'd already explained it. I gave a dictionary definition, and then illustrated how the application of relativism might work.

How it _doesn't_ work - as far as I'm concerned - is by reducing all to the same value. In my version of relativism, it's still ok to have lists of "the great composers", and to recommend that if a listener wants to know which of them should be prioritised, they might start with Mozart's operas or Beethoven's symphonies.

But it isn't ok to insist that the reason those two giants are top is because of some inherent, absolute value in their works that makes them not only top of a list of recommended listening, but also top of the whole world of music since the dawn of time.

For example, the dictionary definition referred to context. This could be taken to mean, for example, that a set of values for CM only applies in a CM context. It would be silly to suggest that _Don Giovanni _is absolutely the best music when what you're looking for is music for a disco. There have been plenty of threads that have attempted to say that this or that CM composition is far superior to this or that pop song, but such value comparisons are meaningless. If I want to get hot and sweaty on the dancefloor, then top of my list is Bryan Ferry's _Let's Stick Together_. It far surpasses anything written by the Big Three combined - context is all.


----------



## infracave

Luchesi said:


> The issue is should we lay down authoritatively to new listeners what they should spend time on, so that they can save time learning and deciding whether the consensus opinion is valid? We know that all that depends upon their experience level and their experience level by definition is very low.
> 
> How do we teach things in science to save time? Rigid categories and an epistemology offered up to be evaluated and/or falsified.


What's most important is to teach people how to read music, not really which music they should listen to.
Doing that, one can use accepted composers of the standard repertoire. But once someone can read/understand music, they can go on and listen/compose whatever they want.

What we're doing, when recommending composers to people who can't read music, is like recommending Shakespeare tragedies to someone who don't understand english. Sure, they may like the show, vaguely understand the plot based on what they see on stage but they will always be missing some things.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

^So one should be able to read Binary before they use a computer?
I think not and why don't we enforce Latin as the only language to converse music theory


----------



## infracave

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> ^So one should be able to read Binary before they use a computer?
> I think not and why don't we enforce Latin as the only language to converse music theory


No but you should be well-versed in algorithmics if you wanted to know who are the most brilliant computer programmers.
And yes, you need to be aware of technical restrictions to correctly perceive the genius of computer guys, be it Babbage, Turing or Carmack.
Same things with cars : you don't need to know much to drive one, but can you be called a car-enthusiast if you don't know how an engine works ?

I don't understand your point about latin. I don't think it needs to be enforced. English is now the universal language de facto.


----------



## Enthusiast

infracave said:


> What's most important is to teach people how to read music, not really which music they should listen to.
> Doing that, one can use accepted composers of the standard repertoire. But once someone can read/understand music, they can go on and listen/compose whatever they want.
> 
> *What we're doing, when recommending composers to people who can't read music, is like recommending Shakespeare tragedies to someone who don't understand english. *Sure, they may like the show, vaguely understand the plot based on what they see on stage but they will always be missing some things.


This is utter rubbish. Music is performed and what we hear is what it is. A composer who wrote music that could not reward listeners (and only rewards readers) would not be remembered. Even those who could read the music would get little from it. It doesn't matter what the inner workings of a masterpiece are, not unless you are a musician learning to compose or wanting to play the piece. And why should reading music be necessary to explore the repertoire? Just so long as the music is played you can hear it and make up your mind about it. I know many musicians who know and understand less about the experience of hearing music than I do. The Shakespeare comparison also is totally wrong: yes, you need to know English to understand his plays in their original language but this is analogous to just as you need to be an experienced _listener _to understand music. Not knowing English is not analogous to not knowing how to _read _music. The comparison should have been about being able to read and you don't need to know how to read English to get to know Shakespeare's plays intimately.


----------



## infracave

Enthusiast said:


> This is utter rubbish. Music is performed and what we hear is what it is. A composer who wrote music that could not reward listeners (and only rewards readers) would not be remembered. Even those who could read the music would get little from it. It doesn't matter what the inner workings of a masterpiece are, not unless you are a musician learning to compose or wanting to play the piece. And why should reading music be necessary to explore the repertoire? Just so long as the music is played you can hear it and make up your mind about it. I know many musicians who know and understand less about the experience of hearing music than I do. The Shakespeare comparison also is totally wrong: yes, you need to know English to understand his plays in their original language but this is analogous to just as you need to be an experienced _listener _to understand music. Not knowing English is not analogous to not knowing how to _read _music. The comparison should have been about being able to read and you don't need to know how to read English to get to know Shakespeare's plays intimately.


OK, not trying to be hurtful or elitist here as I wasn't formally trained in music myself. Just saying that learning to read scores on my own has helped me tremendously understanding pieces.

You say that a composer who cannot reward the listener would not be remembered. What about the 2nd Viennese School then ?
They're composing in a totally artificial idiom that does not make use of a root pitch. Basically, all music throughout the world is based on (at least) the pentatonic scale and the idea of the root pitch that one must return to. Personally, I don't enjoy listening to their music, but I can appreciate it by reading the score and understanding what they were going for.
Also, rewarding an audience wasn't a prerequisite for most of the history of music.

"I know many musicians who know and understand less about the experience of hearing music than I do."
What is the experience of listening to music ? How do you experience it more than someone ? I'd say on the contrary that someone who can read a score experience it more than you do.

But I don't think we're ever going to agree because I think the inner workings of a masterpiece absolutely matter. "Sonata" music (as opposed to "cantata music" which is sung) is one the most abstract form of art produced by humans and I think that what can be seen as sterile technical debates are in fact important building blocks of a piece.
And let's be real, there's no way one can pick up all the intricacies of the art of the fugue just by listening to it.


----------



## Enthusiast

infracave said:


> You say that a composer who cannot reward the listener would not be remembered. What about the 2nd Viennese School then ?


Umm. I greatly enjoy their music. There are members here who are relatively new to classical music who also greatly enjoy their music.



infracave said:


> They're composing in a totally artificial idiom that does not make use of a root pitch. Basically, all music throughout the world is based on (at least) the pentatonic scale and the idea of the root pitch that one must return to. Personally, I don't enjoy listening to their music, but I can appreciate it by reading the score and understanding what they were going for.


This reads to me like your ability to read the music and consciously understand the technicalities of what they are doing, is interfering with the process of the music "talking to you".



infracave said:


> Also, rewarding an audience wasn't a prerequisite for most of the history of music.


You may need to say more about this. It is probably true that in the absence of recording techniques audiences were likely to be musically literate and would seek piano reductions and the like so they could play music that they liked at home or with their friends. At least, I think this was the case during much of the 19th century. But, are you really saying that it wasn't necessary for audiences to like the music for it to be a success?



infracave said:


> "I know many musicians who know and understand less about the experience of hearing music than I do."
> What is the experience of listening to music ? How do you experience it more than someone ? I'd say on the contrary that someone who can read a score experience it more than you do.


Fair enough. It is not quantifiable. But music is a much bigger part of my life that it is for them (and I know a lot more music than they do) and this is despite their greater facility with the technicalities. Of course, I also know examples of musicians who live for music as much or more than I do.



infracave said:


> But I don't think we're ever going to agree because I think the inner workings of a masterpiece absolutely matter. "Sonata" music (as opposed to "cantata music" which is sung) is one the most abstract form of art produced by humans and I think that what can be seen as sterile technical debates are in fact important building blocks of a piece.
> And let's be real, there's no way one can pick up all the intricacies of the art of the fugue just by listening to it.


As you say, we are not going to agree and we cannot know what listening to music is like for each other. But sonata form and fugues are heard. They are not mathematical equations. The effects they have on the listener are palpable. Reading the music is irrelevant and might even get in the way - being delighted by a technicality rather than its effect (or lack of it) on the listener - of deeply understanding the music.


----------



## infracave

@Enthusiast

Regarding my statement "rewarding an audience wasn't a prerequisite for most of the history of music":
During the middle ages and the renaissance, while a composer writing a secular piece would seek the public approval, composers writing sacred music were not doing so to please the devotees, the singers or even the Church personnel. They were setting sacred texts to music and trying to express the truth contained in them.
This is, I think, why we can find odd pieces like Ockeghem's missa prolationum that are full of technical processes that were included not to make the piece sound better, but to express the coherence of the divine.

But you're right, secular music always was interested in pleasing a crowd (some more educated than others).
And actually, the shift of principal music patronage from the catholic church towards private patrons at the end of the renaissance is also what triggered a lot of creativity in music.

But to sum up, we basically agree to disagree.
You're right, I don't let music "speak to me". I just listen to it, and either I get it or don't. if I don't, I'll go look at the score to understand it and give it another go. If I still don't get it, I'll listen to another composer.


----------



## mmsbls

Luchesi said:


> The issue is should we lay down authoritatively to new listeners what they should spend time on, so that they can save time learning and deciding whether the consensus opinion is valid? We know that all that depends upon their experience level and their experience level by definition is very low.
> 
> How do we teach things in science to save time? Rigid categories and an epistemology offered up to be evaluated and/or falsified.


I definitely believe that some people (educators, list makers, etc.) should make suggestions for listening based on some criteria that separates certain composers and works from others. I'm not sure I would use the term authoritatively although I do believe that many who make such lists are authorities.

Mostly I think such lists do exist. Every music course I have ever taken or heard about discusses the "top" composers and some of their "top" works. The TC lists and all other lists I've seen do the same. I guess I'm not sure that I've ever seen what I imagine would be a relativist list aimed at newcomers.

Do you think that relativism is an actual problem or a theoretical problem?


----------



## Art Rock

mmsbls said:


> I definitely believe that some people (educators, list makers, etc.) should make suggestions for listening based on some criteria that separates certain composers and works from others. I'm not sure I would use the term authoritatively although I do believe that many who make such lists are authorities.
> 
> Mostly I think such lists do exist. Every music course I have ever taken or heard about discusses the "top" composers and some of their "top" works. The TC lists and all other lists I've seen do the same. I guess I'm not sure that I've ever seen what I imagine would be a relativist list aimed at newcomers.


When I started to listen to CM in the mid 80s, I was using only a general book on CM to guide me (no internet then). It was definitely helpful for a novice, even though I had frustrating moments ("why is this particular composer or this particular piece so highly thought of - can't hear it myself"). Beats buying CDs blindly without a clue what the works sound like. So yes, good for the first year or so, but accept that you do NOT have to love everything generally considered great, and then try to explore further.


----------



## paulbest

infracave said:


> What's most important is to teach people how to read music, not really which music they should listen to.
> Doing that, one can use accepted composers of the standard repertoire. But once someone can read/understand music, they can go on and listen/compose whatever they want.
> 
> What we're doing, when recommending composers to people who can't read music, is like recommending Shakespeare tragedies to someone who don't understand english. Sure, they may like the show, vaguely understand the plot based on what they see on stage but they will always be missing some things.


oh , you should NOT have gone there,,and I already see folks waiting in line to attack your premises.
It all sounds good, on paper, in the class rooms, but in reality its not good.

I have zero musical training,,,My brother did, and was always a bit jealousy of his violin/piano skills.,,if not envious. ..he is the one that got me out of heavy rock and into the classical realms of art.

Now lately' I;'ve broken away from many of my 1st loves, into deep waters, Schnittke, and others, ,,,take Henze,.,,while I do not understand his music in any tech aspect, his sound world captivates me. Yet others with high musical training, hardly give him a fair shake.
I find that odd. 
I am drawn most to complex/mod composers, music that far surpasses my ability to grasp in any tech descript.

Music which grips to the core and gives, lends essence and beauty to a otherwise meaningless, ugly existence. 
Sorry if I blew apart your thesis, But I will argue, it would be nice to have HS students take at least 1 elective in CM , pre grad.


----------



## paulbest

infracave said:


> OK, not trying to be hurtful or elitist here as I wasn't formally trained in music myself. Just saying that learning to read scores on my own has helped me tremendously understanding pieces.
> 
> You say that a composer who cannot reward the listener would not be remembered. What about the 2nd Viennese School then ?
> They're composing in a totally artificial idiom that does not make use of a root pitch. Basically, all music throughout the world is based on (at least) the pentatonic scale and the idea of the root pitch that one must return to. Personally, I don't enjoy listening to their music, but I can appreciate it by reading the score and understanding what they were going for.
> Also, rewarding an audience wasn't a prerequisite for most of the history of music.
> 
> "I know many musicians who know and understand less about the experience of hearing music than I do."
> What is the experience of listening to music ? How do you experience it more than someone ? I'd say on the contrary that someone who can read a score experience it more than you do.
> 
> But I don't think we're ever going to agree because I think the inner workings of a masterpiece absolutely matter. "Sonata" music (as opposed to "cantata music" which is sung) is one the most abstract form of art produced by humans and I think that what can be seen as sterile technical debates are in fact important building blocks of a piece.
> And let's be real, there's no way one can pick up all the intricacies of the art of the fugue just by listening to it.


No , there you go again. No everyone here knows I am a idiot as far as musical tech understanding, Its a language that escapes my mind to grasp, Its like math,,I failed math terrible,,but I have some bits of artistry. + I like philosophy/psyche studies. 
Everyone here knows I have a strong passion for CM, which matches the level of the most gifted in CM language here on TC. 
No one here knocks me for my gauky.cluttered, petulant , puerile expressiveness, as they know its all about the passionate dedication shown for our music, less so concerning highly formalized tech chat. But sure I would love to understand the tech side of this great art,,and really enjoy reading other posts which exemplify this ability to express things that can not be heard with the untrained ear.
But knowing the tech descript,,does this add to my emotional experience? 
Honestly, no, it does not, As I say, I can not grasp these lofty ideas,.
You know ,,, *it is rocket science*….whereas I am just a,,,,astronaut


----------



## infracave

paulbest said:


> oh , you should NOT have gone there,,and I already see folks waiting in line to attack your premises.
> It all sounds good, on paper, in the class rooms, but in reality its not good.
> 
> I have zero musical training,,,My brother did, and was always a bit jealousy of his violin/piano skills.,,if not envious. ..he is the one that got me out of heavy rock and into the classical realms of art.
> [...]
> Sorry if I blew apart your thesis, But I will argue, it would be nice to have HS students take at least 1 elective in CM , pre grad.


It actually reinforces my thesis : your brother was the one with the music reading skills, and he's the one that got you into classical music.



> I am a idiot as far as musical tech understanding, Its a language that escapes my mind to grasp, Its like math,,I failed math terrible,,but I have some bits of artistry. + I like philosophy/psyche studies.
> Everyone here knows I have a strong passion for CM, which matches the level of the most gifted in CM language here on TC.


Don't misunderstand me. I'm saying that making people musically literate would make classical music more widely popular.
I am NOT saying that it would make you a more passionate your listener.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

infracave said:


> It actually reinforces my thesis : your brother was the one with the music reading skills, and he's the one that got you into classical music.
> 
> Don't misunderstand me. I'm saying that making people musically literate would make classical music more widely popular.
> I am NOT saying that it would make you a more passionate your listener.


What not Latin unless you say it is unnecessary a bit like reading music - getting unnecessary information out of the way mmm think I've heard that one before..........


----------



## Phil loves classical

infracave said:


> OK, not trying to be hurtful or elitist here as I wasn't formally trained in music myself. Just saying that learning to read scores on my own has helped me tremendously understanding pieces.
> 
> You say that a composer who cannot reward the listener would not be remembered. What about the 2nd Viennese School then ?
> They're composing in a totally artificial idiom that does not make use of a root pitch. Basically, all music throughout the world is based on (at least) the pentatonic scale and the idea of the root pitch that one must return to. Personally, I don't enjoy listening to their music, but I can appreciate it by reading the score and understanding what they were going for.
> Also, rewarding an audience wasn't a prerequisite for most of the history of music.
> 
> "I know many musicians who know and understand less about the experience of hearing music than I do."
> What is the experience of listening to music ? How do you experience it more than someone ? I'd say on the contrary that someone who can read a score experience it more than you do.
> 
> But I don't think we're ever going to agree because I think the inner workings of a masterpiece absolutely matter. "Sonata" music (as opposed to "cantata music" which is sung) is one the most abstract form of art produced by humans and I think that what can be seen as sterile technical debates are in fact important building blocks of a piece.
> *And let's be real, there's no way one can pick up all the intricacies of the art of the fugue just by listening to it.*


Don't know about that. I can read musical scores, and sight-read somewhat at the piano. But I think my reading skills are still way below my listening skill. I think the most important is to be able to analyse what you're exposed to, whether by hearing, or reading. I have a better idea of the music, especially how the harmony fits together by listening. But for more dense atonal music, at least for me, I do agree that it is helpful to also look at the score. It is probably because my ear isn't trained in that idiom.


----------



## Phil loves classical

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> What not Latin unless you say it is unnecessary a bit like reading music - getting unnecessary information out of the way mmm think I've heard that one before..........


Nice name, but the music is kind of corny, not what I would expect from you. :devil:


----------



## paulbest

infracave said:


> It actually reinforces my thesis : your brother was the one with the music reading skills, and he's the one that got you into classical music.
> 
> Don't misunderstand me. I'm saying that making people musically literate would make classical music more widely popular.
> I am NOT saying that it would make you a more passionate your listener.


I recall we had a CM elective course at my catholic high, back in 1974, ,, the teacher allowed us to work in rock groups as our class project,,,DOWN RIGHT cheatin , now that I think back. I mean sure Yes and the Moody Blues, ELP, has some tiny of a fraction of CM semblance , it was awefully kind of the prof to allow rock into the room as final exam paper analysis, He was just trying to be hip. 
dang sellout , as I can now see.

CM has to be a REQUIRED elective at all/every high, at least 6 months or 1 year.

I mean come on, CM is a foundation art structure to any great culture = lack of art appreciation, -= cultural suicide.

Yes in fact you are correct, w/o my brother ears, I may never have come as far as I have in CM, , w/o his fine tase for the EXTRAORDINARY , I would never ever have made my most significant mod composer discoveries. 
I'd be stuck in the Sibelius/Rachmaninov world, where only Mozart, Wagner operas (a few select please) would have been my majors,,along with Prokofiev and Shostakovich. These 4 will remain til my end. Rach/Sibelius, lights have dimmed, their cds are thick with dust now. 
It was his keener musical taste, shaped by his musical training, which gave me the light to appreciate composers *outside the box*.

Now I have no interest for *box like* composers.

btw I think someone on the Beethoven classical/yet romantic topic, has suggested that *containers, boxes, categories are near useless to apply to composers, I tend to agree. 
each and every composer is different, This term *classical* is dinosaur , that term needs to be laid to rest.

I would prefer the idea of tagging composers, as high art. Music of the high arts. 
Schnittke of the high arts. Yes that will work. 
As opposed to *Schnittke the classical composer*
No that's not a reflection of his music.


----------



## infracave

Phil loves classical said:


> Don't know about that. I can read musical scores, and sight-read somewhat at the piano. But I think my reading skills are still way below my listening skill. I think the most important is to be able to analyse what you're exposed to, whether by hearing, or reading. I have a better idea of the music, especially how the harmony fits together by listening. But for more dense atonal music, at least for me, I do agree that it is helpful to also look at the score. It is probably because my ear isn't trained in that idiom.


Well, I think that seeing that the composer used a augmented version of the inverted subject at measure XXX is actually easier to spot on a score that by hearing the piece. Maybe I just have bad hearing skills.
Also, don't get me wrong. I can't figure what a piece sounds like from score alone, especially if complex harmonies and counterpoint are involved. But I keep working at it and I'm overjoyed when I can just hear a simple piece in my head just by reading the score.


----------



## infracave

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> What not Latin unless you say it is unnecessary a bit like reading music - getting unnecessary information out of the way mmm think I've heard that one before..........


Sorry, still not getting your point about latin.
I love Latin. I took up latin classes in middle school, we went on a school trip to Italy, got drunk for the first time on limoncello.
Well worth learning a few declinations.

I'm saying that having serious music classes is pointless from the point of view of the state because it does not contribute in the making of functional and productive citizens. Unlike english/maths.
Although there are mandatory music, art and history classes in France, which are useful to give children a shared cultural background.


----------



## Enthusiast

infracave said:


> I'm saying that having serious music classes is pointless from the point of view of the state because it does not contribute in the making of functional and productive citizens. Unlike english/maths.
> Although there are mandatory music, art and history classes in France, which are useful to give children a shared cultural background.


The idea that cultural education is a poor investment for a government must surely be false? Firstly, governments are not merely responsible for the economy. Their job is to build, support and ensure a happy and vibrant society. And, secondly, I believe (I don't have/know the evidence but I'll bet it can be found) such a society tends to be more productive economically. Some people are not naturally inclined towards maths and languages but have a real feel for painting or music or drama. Such people can be encouraged and their skills and talents fostered or they can be relegated to never realising their potential. Of course, the more wealthy families can foster their children's talents but do we really want a society where our artists all come from more wealthy backgrounds?


----------



## Minor Sixthist

If you’re truly deficient in English or math, no amount of secondary or post-secondary schooling is likely to make you more of a “functional and productive citizen” in those areas, past a certain benchmark. If someone is good in neither but innately an incredible bass trombonist, pursuing an English degree will result in far less economic stimulation and contribution to society than if they go to Juilliard and end up on the Met.


----------



## philoctetes

I question the premise that government should oversee training in the arts. Government is not some god-like benevolent creature that always does the best for people, nor does it spend money efficiently for creative, nebulous objectives. I see no evidence that government support produces better art than private institutions and foundations.

Government, first of all, is about essentials as everyone seems to agree. When the gov tells us what to like and how to think is when it creates problems - it's supposed to work the other way around where we tell them what to do.. So if we want our music to be more than functional, and politically independent...


----------



## Enthusiast

^ It's called education! Or perhaps "a rounded education". It is not (or should not be) about telling people (kids) what to like.

I also disagree that governments have to be inefficient in spending - that is a myth with very little evidence - but this is probably not the place to go into that can of worms, especially as people's views tend to be conditioned by their political beliefs rather than the evidence.


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> Well, I thought I'd already explained it. I gave a dictionary definition, and then illustrated how the application of relativism might work.
> 
> How it _doesn't_ work - as far as I'm concerned - is by reducing all to the same value. In my version of relativism, it's still ok to have lists of "the great composers", and to recommend that if a listener wants to know which of them should be prioritised, they might start with Mozart's operas or Beethoven's symphonies.
> 
> But it isn't ok to insist that the reason those two giants are top is because of some inherent, absolute value in their works that makes them not only top of a list of recommended listening, but also top of the whole world of music since the dawn of time.
> 
> For example, the dictionary definition referred to context. This could be taken to mean, for example, that a set of values for CM only applies in a CM context. It would be silly to suggest that _Don Giovanni _is absolutely the best music when what you're looking for is music for a disco. There have been plenty of threads that have attempted to say that this or that CM composition is far superior to this or that pop song, but such value comparisons are meaningless. If I want to get hot and sweaty on the dancefloor, then top of my list is Bryan Ferry's _Let's Stick Together_. It far surpasses anything written by the Big Three combined - context is all.


"But it isn't ok to insist that the reason those two giants are top is because of some inherent, absolute value in their works that makes them not only top of a list of recommended listening, but also top of the whole world of music since the dawn of time."

I'm talking about young music students who want to save time learning about CM. They need to list the pros and cons about Mozart and Beethoven etc. in your example. That way they learn. It doesn't matter what they conclude when they're young, because that will probably change through the decades.

Hopefully they won't be turned off by some music appreciation do-gooders. They get the feeling that they're being talked down to and it's very offputting.


----------



## Luchesi

infracave said:


> What's most important is to teach people how to read music, not really which music they should listen to.
> Doing that, one can use accepted composers of the standard repertoire. But once someone can read/understand music, they can go on and listen/compose whatever they want.
> 
> What we're doing, when recommending composers to people who can't read music, is like recommending Shakespeare tragedies to someone who don't understand english. Sure, they may like the show, vaguely understand the plot based on what they see on stage but they will always be missing some things.


My students already know how to read music. What they need is guidance and the consensus overview. They can accept it or reject it. That's irrelevant. The last thing they need to hear again is that it's all relative.


----------



## mmsbls

Luchesi said:


> My students already know how to read music. What they need is guidance and the consensus overview. They can accept it or reject it. That's irrelevant. The last thing they need to hear again is that it's all relative.


Are there students who hear that all music appreciation is relative? As I said, I think pretty much all music courses and introductory books that I know about do not teach that relative nature of listening. They teach something akin to the canon (or a subset of the canon). Where would you find a relativist course or beginning book?


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> Are there students who hear that all music appreciation is relative? As I said, I think pretty much all music courses and introductory books that I know about do not teach that relative nature of listening. They teach something akin to the canon (or a subset of the canon). Where would you find a relativist course or beginning book?


You won't find a course or a book like that. Once the assertion is made from relativism what more is left to say?


----------

