# Accessibility of Contemporary Works



## afonso (Apr 23, 2013)

Hello,

I am studying composition at a university and one of my optative subjects is "Musical Sociology". For that subject I am writing a short paper about the accessibility of contemporary music. More specifically, I am studying the hypothesis that two elements, form and musical discourse, are more important than the musical language used in a given work in determining it's accessibility.

For anyone interested in helping I have, at the moment, two questions. The first is: among contemporary works written using non tonal idioms, which would you consider to be more accessible, and why? I also ask the opposite question regarding works written in a more traditional tonal idiom, which works would you consider to be less accessible, and why?

Thanks for the help, and sorry for any mistakes.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I think this could be an interesting topic. This forum has had some heated discussion over the term "accessible". While most people may have a shared concept of the term, perhaps it would help if you could elaborate somewhat on exactly what you mean by that term. 

Also I'm not sure what is meant by "musical discourse". Could you explain that?


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

^^Also, You have to define "Contemporary", it is a concept that varies just as much as "Accessible"! 

/ptr


----------



## Silkenblack (Apr 12, 2013)

If I get the terms correctly, to have a discourse there has to be a language first. As a visual artist, I make sure that certain building tools are set, to prepare the viewer into the artistic ride, form and change.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I am arbitrarily taking contemporary to mean contemporary with me, within my lifespan.



afonso said:


> . The first is: among contemporary works written using non tonal idioms, which would you consider to be more accessible, and why?


While not entriely non-tonal, I consider Gyorgy Ligeti's works, especially _Requiem_, _Lux Aeterna_, and _Atmospheres_ to be accessible because of their use in the film "2001: a space odyssey" when I was an impressionable 11 year old. Their weird sonorities fit the context of the film perfectly and so I had no trouble understanding them. So I vote for context as boosting accessibility.



afonso said:


> I also ask the opposite question regarding works written in a more traditional tonal idiom, which works would you consider to be less accessible, and why?


You don't specify contemporary here, so I will suggest Richard Strauss -- especially the complete tone poem _Also Sprach Zarathustra_. His works are fairly tonal (you may get argument about the meaning of that word, but most sane people know what we mean by it), but the work seems broken into fragments juxtaposed in a crazy patchwork quilt, so that they don't seem to flow any kind of expected way. So in this instance I would claim the works inaccessible because there are too many surprises. The listener is expecting a balance of surprise versus expectation. Too many surprises and the work is inaccessible. Too few and it becomes dull.

I hope this helps, though you will probably find as many opinions as there are people with no general consensus on the matter.


----------



## Guest (Apr 24, 2013)

Yes, some definitions would be nice.

However, I think that even after the definitions, the answer will be the same, all contemporary works are accessible to someone.

As for large groups of someones, well, the newer a work (not chronologically but musically), the less familiar it will be and the less accessible. That's just simple logic. If one considers accessibility to be a good thing, one will automatically be rejecting the new. And if you reject the new, well, what are tomorrow's kids gonna have? The same thing you and yo daddy had? (Actually, that has already happened. What people get in concerts today, what they seem to know about from that and from magazines and from online forums, is quite old. What your mommy's mommy thought was new is what you (generic) still think of as new.)

The question should not be--the buried question in this post--how can we make contemporary music more accessible? The question should be how can we convince listeners to be more open to new and unfamiliar things?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ptr said:


> ^^Also, You have to define "Contemporary", it is a concept that varies just as much as "Accessible"!
> 
> /ptr


To find the meaning of _contemporary _a dictionary is your friend: to find the specifics about the musical genre named 'contemporary classical' (in which the usage of 'contemporary' fits the dictionary definition,) with the further qualification that 'contemporary' classical music dates from 1970 / 75 to the present, Wikipedia is your friend.

A paper or study as produced in an academic context excludes the meaning of 'contemporary' as being up for discussion.

Those 'what contemporary means to me,' or what the general populace may 'think of as contemporary,' or 'how they interpret the meaning of contemporary' is the stuff of casual discussion in Fora -- and I still find that pretty silly and a waste of time, people discussing, as it were, 'how they perceive of / or define' "the wheel."

The meaning of 'Accessible,' is more open, but face it, it is something which goes down / in pretty readily. I'm sure the OP is talking about the great spectrum of those who listen primarily to classical, but not much if any to the music written past 1900.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

some guy said:


> As for large groups of someones, well, the newer a work (not chronologically but musically), the less familiar it will be and the less accessible. That's just simple logic.


As usual, I strongly disagree. Familiar is related to single persons, and this idea means that from Perotinus one knows the entire history of music. Is the ancient Gagaku music more well known than that of many modern composers?



some guy said:


> If one considers accessibility to be a good thing, one will automatically be rejecting the new. And if you reject the new, well, what are tomorrow's kids gonna have?


Accessibility as yourself recognize is different for different persons with different experiences. To me Mozart is more inaccessible than Ligeti (and I agree with Weston on the music of Ligeti in 2001).


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

The most accessible I find is easily Arvo Part (say, Silouan's Song). After that I would say Ligeti (say Requiem or Atmospheres). Least is John Cage for me, although some of his music I find quite accessible too. People like Taverner have accessible sounds, but the forms etc. make it pretty hard for me to concentrate all the way through (too long lol). Perhaps relevant. I don't find Reich particularly accessible either. Actually, I would name "It's gonna Rain" as a work I find extremely inaccessible.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Art as Experience*

There have been many good responses so far. I do not know if this will help but the only thing I can tell you is anecdotal and from experience.

When I was in grad school in the early 70's (I am currently 66) I had several courses were we studied advance theory and aesthetics. Now that I look back the one school of aesthetics that had made the most sense to me is John Dewey's _Art as Experience_. Since it was written in the 1930's many of the concepts are a bit dated. In a nutshell the basis is that how we react to art is based on our experiences.

I am not an artist. My 4 year old granddaughter can draw stick figures better that I. If I was at a museum looking at a Van Gogh painting and next to me was a professional artist looking at the same painting, we would be looking at it with different eyes. My wife and I were at a Van Gogh exhibit and we notices something about his paintings we never noticed before. We have been going to museums for over forty years and we just noticed this now. Because of his brush strokes, his paintings actually have a three dimensional quality. A professional artist would have probably noticed this in five seconds. It took us forty years.

I have been to performances of modernistic music were the audience walk out and I have been to performances where the audience gave the performers a standing ovation. Why? Well this is a best guess.

Schoenberg stated that, " My music is not difficult, my music is played badly." In the performances where the audience reacted positively to the music it was extremely well performed.

I was recently at a performance of Karel Husa's _Prague 1968_ with the U. S. Army Band. Mark Davis Scatterday, the current director of the Eastman Wind Ensemble was the guest conductor. I have a friend who plays with the Band. The members were very concerned how the audience would react to it. The had the luxuary of spending a few weeks working on it, not just a few days. When they performed it they really understood the work. As a result, in spite of its atonal nature, the audience went wild and gave a standing ovation.

So it appears to the experiences of this old fart how an audience reacts to a contemporary work depends on their experiences and the quality of the performance. Even though there are many who would disagree with this I hope the above is helpful.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

some guy said:


> And if you reject the new, well, what are tomorrow's kids gonna have? The same thing you and yo daddy had?
> 
> The question should be how can we convince listeners to be more open to new and unfamiliar things?


Tomorrow's people will have the same choices that people have had in the past, or actually more choices incrementally. And individuals depending on what their interests and curiosity is will explore things according to what they want.

As for convincing, people have to convince themselves, I think it comes more from within than by just fashion, and it's better that way perhaps. Maybe classical could become more hip again and people will jump on a bandwagon, but the access to the music is very high with the internet now so those who wish to look further can. The time to worry is if that access is shut off and people can then no longer hear things so easily.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> And if you reject the new, well, what are tomorrow's kids gonna have? The same thing you and yo daddy had?


Now there's an original argument! I'm supposed to listen to music I don't like so that my kids can enjoy it. Hmmm... :lol:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

someguy- And if you reject the new, well, what are tomorrow's kids gonna have? The same thing you and yo daddy had? (Actually, that has already happened. What people get in concerts today, what they seem to know about from that and from magazines and from online forums, is quite old. What your mommy's mommy thought was new is what you (generic) still think of as new.)

KenOC- Now there's an original argument! I'm supposed to listen to music I don't like so that my kids can enjoy it.

And worded in the usual insulting hipper-than-thou manner that always manages to sneak by the censors while inferring just how un-hip the majority of us (generic) are comparatively.


----------



## Jimm (Jun 29, 2012)

afonso said:


> Hello,
> 
> I am studying composition at a university and one of my optative subjects is "Musical Sociology". For that subject I am writing a short paper about the accessibility of contemporary music. More specifically, I am studying the hypothesis that two elements, form and musical discourse, are more important than the musical language used in a given work in determining it's accessibility.
> 
> ...


There is no such thing as non tonal. So you may want to begin your paper on how that is a very inaccurate & misleading description. Perhaps explain how using the word 'pantonal' is better suited and explain why when it comes to music with this wider, thought out, democratic approach. And an artist who doesn't develop his own voice, musical language can't really begin to go too far. Otherwise it just ends up being derivative & cliche, which sort of goes against what creativity is all about at the highest level. Perhaps what you are wanting to write about is the level of periodicity (for instance) within the art of composition, the range from aperiodic to periodic and how levels of this can throw unadventurous or untrained listeners, audiences and even performers off at first .. but over time and with some effort things change and ears/minds are being expanded & stretched.


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Wikipedia is your friend.


Wikipedia is hilariously bad at genres, never trust what they say.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Personally, as an artist (albeit a visual artist), I have always been of the belief that the relationship between the artist and the audience is a two-way relationship. The artist makes a degree of effort to reach the audience, and in return, the audience puts forth a degree of effort in an attempt to appreciate what is being presented. At the same time, I have no illusions that all art is for everybody. As an artist I recognize that there is no monolithic "art world" but rather a series of smaller "art worlds" or audiences... each with their own desires, values, standards, ideals, etc... No artist can please all of these audiences. The best I can do is create that which I believe in and value and then seek out that audience which shares my values.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Now there's an original argument! I'm supposed to listen to music I don't like so that my kids can enjoy it. Hmmm... :lol:


Yeah, just like the 80% of all you learned was not anything you cared for, but was required to get your various school diplomas... and it was generally thought 'it was good for you, your personal 'enjoyment' not being part of that equation 

Yeah, like the racist parent who knows "it is just them," and does not infect their children's environment by voicing that prejudice.

Like a lot of things we may not like but believe are 'good for us."


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Back off*

Alfonso is a young music student who asked a legitimate question. Already this thread is degenerating into typical pro and anti modernist sniping. Even if the moderators do not close us down, we are making ourselves look like childish fools to Mr. Alfonso. I can imagine him going back to his class and telling the other students what TC is really like.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> My wife and I were at a Van Gogh exhibit and we notices something about his paintings we never noticed before. We have been going to museums for over forty years and we just noticed this now. Because of his brush strokes, his paintings actually have a three dimensional quality. A professional artist would have probably noticed this in five seconds. It took us forty years.


They aren't even brush-strokes. Van Gogh applied the paint by directly squeezing it out of the tube, with perhaps a bit of brush-work here and there. That gives the channel, the ridge, to each of those lines so applied.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

PetrB said:


> Yeah, just like the 80% of all you learned was not anything you cared for, but was required to get your various school diplomas... and it was generally thought 'it was good for you, your personal 'enjoyment' not being part of that equation
> 
> Yeah, like the racist parent who knows "it is just them," and does not infect their children's environment by voicing that prejudice.
> 
> Like a lot of things we may not like but believe are 'good for us."


Come on Peter! That is just the most ridiculous argument. Are you seriously equating our listening pleasure with being required to take math in school when we found it painful... or perhaps swallowing that medicine that tastes like crap warmed over because it will make us better? Xenakis as Chemotherapy? Really? We owe it to what purpose to force ourselves to listen to music we find painful or boring? Does this mean I should force myself to listen to Justin Bieber... or perhaps this only applies to music that you like and believe everyone else should like as well?

I guess I have it all wrong... I thought the whole point of art and music was that it brought a degree of pleasure. I guess I'm just a decadent hedonist.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

They aren't even brush-strokes. Van Gogh applied the paint by directly squeezing it out of the tube, with perhaps a bit of brush-work here and there. That gives the channel, the ridge, to each of those lines so applied.

Actually, Van Gogh made extensive use of both the brush and the palette knife. His brushwork was greatly informed by the calligraphic mark-making of Asian art which was making its way into Europe at the time and which he would have come upon in the collections of art dealers such as that which employed his brother, Theo, as well as that of Vollard.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> .....The question should be how can we convince listeners to be more open to new and unfamiliar things?


I think listeners are open to new and unfamiliar things. I am. Many here are. But I'm not convinced much of time the music itself is one the artistic level that leaves many wanting for more. That is different equation altogether.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

afonso said:


> ...I have, at the moment, two questions. The first is: among contemporary works written using non tonal idioms, which would you consider to be more accessible, and why?


Soundtrack music, like _Psycho_ or _Jaws_, is non-tonal, yet instantly recognizable. The reason is because the music is the mood-setter, subservient to the story line, so the music gets by our "critical awareness" because it is perfectly matched to the music.



afonso said:


> I also ask the opposite question regarding works written in a more traditional tonal idiom, which works would you consider to be less accessible, and why?


I'd say in tonal music, some element of _form_ must override the idiom. Opera may alienate many, or forms which do not appeal to certain age-groups; sing-along children's songs irritate me, but kids probably love them. Etcetera.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Opera may alienate many... sing-along children's songs irritate me...

Exactly. We all have music we don't like. So should we simply hunker down and listen to it because someone else has told us it's good for us? For the sake of tomorrow's kids? Because I'm clearly not hip because I like what others before me have also taken pleasure in... because I like the same thing you and yo daddy... and yo mommy's mommy... liked?

I don't think anyone has suggested that just because a work or body of art has a limited audience it is inherently inferior. I would assume none of us really buy into that, considering the limited audience (compared to popular music) that classical music as a whole can lay claim to. I personally love opera and Byzantine chants, and Renaissance madrigals, and lieder... and I suspect these have a far more limited audience than Romantic-era symphonies and concertos. Neither accessibility nor popularity can be seen as the ultimate measure of artistic worth. I suspect that there is an argument to be made for collective opinions over time. Works of art that survive and continue to resonate with the well-informed audience over the years probably have some real merit to them... yet Vivaldi's Four Seasons is likely more popular than Bach's _Well Tempered Clavier_ and Wagner's _Tristan und Isolde_... but is it really better?

Personally, I don't see the need for a dispute between the "pro-modernists" vs the "anti-modernists". Indeed, I find the term "anti-modernist" a bit exaggerated. I'm personally not "anti-modernist". There is a lot of music by modern, contemporary, and even living composers I quite like... but not all of it. Am I to assume that it is all brilliant? If I'm anti-anything, I'm anti- music I don't like... modern or otherwise.

I don't particularly like Schoenberg, Xenakis, or Stockhausen. As a result I don't listen to them. Problem solved. The fact that others so enjoy them doesn't effect me in the least. I only take some degree of offence when others infer that the music I don't like is somehow good for me... no matter how boring or even painful it may seem... and that when I grow up... when I mature... I will finally "get it" and appreciate all the brilliance that is currently beyond my grasp. I doubt this is any more likely to happen than it is likely that I will awake one day and discover I love Hip-Hop, liver, and lima beans.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Please stay on topic and stay within our Terms of Service:



> Be polite to your fellow members. If you disagree with them, please state your opinion in a »civil« and respectful manner. This applies to all communication taking place on talkclassical.com, whether by means of posts, private messages, visitor messages, blogs and social groups.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

... (thought better of that, but I REALLY wish I had posted it!)


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Hey, afonso! You there Bro? What's yo take on dis funky jive you generating?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

afonso said:


> ...
> 
> For anyone interested in helping I have, at the moment, two questions. The first is: among contemporary works written using non tonal idioms, which would you consider to be more accessible, and why?


I like to try many things, even things that I don't understand in my own way as much as I do other things. For example, regarding a major 'non tonal' as you call it composers, I especially like works that have ideas or 'themes' if you can call them that, fragmented though they are. But some are clearer to 'get' for me than others. With works like this, I can follow the theme coursing through the work and changing, somewhat like works of the earlier periods (eg. 19th century but even before, look at Bach's Goldberg Variations for example).

Examples of this type of thing are:

Berg String Quartet Op. 3, Violin Concerto, Wozzeck, Piano Sonata
Elliott Carter String Quartet No. 1
Dutilleux Cello Concerto
Ginastera Piano Concerto No. 1
Schoenberg Violin Concerto, Pierrot Lunaire

I also realise that some composers, esp. after 1945, ditched things like melody altogether and focussed on other things, eg. rhythm, colour, sonority, etc. I connect with them because of this visceral gut reaction, its an animalistic reaction, and it can also be about atmospheres or moods they create.

Some of these being:

Xenakis
Ligeti
Penderecki
Stockhausen
Varese
Boulez

Others things kind of lose me, I don't understand but I go along for the ride anyway, maybe due to the moods they bring to me, but these I find pretty hard in terms of me feeling largely lost in most of the stuff I heard by them (which isn't comprehensive).

Eg.
Takemitsu (his non tonal works, apart from his film music)
Webern (my least favourite of the big three Viennese School guys)

Some more still are 'tonal' but not in the traditional sense. Eg. those using the old modes, pentatonic scale/Asian, or music of other cultures, eg. Aboriginal Australian or native American or African, Middle Eastern, or ancient musics, etc. Some of these are Chavez, Sculthorpe, Harry Partch, Hovhaness. I quite like these for various reasons, but they are not 'atonal,' but non traditional Western tonal, they've gone outside the Western system for their own solutions. Of course Debussy did this big time earlier.



> ... I also ask the opposite question regarding works written in a more traditional tonal idiom, which works would you consider to be less accessible, and why?....


Anything I find too complex and just don't like, don't enjoy. Hard to pin it on a reason, actually. Its contradictory. I tend not to like music on steroids as I call it, music that's bigger than Ben Hur. Wagner or R. Strauss for example, outside their smaller scale works generally. But then again, I am quite comfortable with Bruckner and Mahler. Its not even necessarily that, eg. complexity, it can just be things like the fact that my tastes revolve/focus on instrumental musics, so hard to say what is "inaccessible" to me. Hard to generalise.

The other thing is that Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler, R. Strauss in their own time and heyday where not considered 'traditional,' they where quite radical, very radical actually.

In terms of contrasting things in tonal music I like and don't, I tend to like Bach's instrumental stuff, esp. solo instrumental, but not his choral/vocal. Even hard to pin down that, sometimes I find his vocal stuff too complicated, other times just boring. By contrast I like Handel's choral music, again don't ask me why. Maybe it is more melodic? That strong Italian influence? His flamboyant/operatic style? Dunno.

But I think that I do have capacity, like any listener, to flex myself and access anything I want. It just takes time, patience, money, all that stuff. We build our own limits in some ways. We have our own unique tastes. I have a comfort zone for sure, even though I'm pretty wide ranging, but if I want to push and go outside my comfort zone, there is nothing stopping me. So ultimately I think its a combination of taste and what I want. I know I don't want certain things, teasing out the reason behind that, a more exact reason, I think is impossible.


----------



## Silkenblack (Apr 12, 2013)

As an analogy of personal interaction, there are people that by their personality are not well accessible, though at the same time charismatic. And vice versa.
There are cases that a piece of art is rejected first, and later found big time. That passage is a testament of artistic freedom.


----------



## afonso (Apr 23, 2013)

Ok, it seems I have a lot of questions to answer myself 

Accessibility is definitely subjective, but, very roughly, when I say "accessible works" I am refering to works which didn't take a lot of repeated listenings/effort in order for you to apreciate/admire them (I don't say "enjoy" them because there are works which most don't find pleasant to listen to, but are easily valued for their expressive power, like Pendrecki's Threnody).

I'm not sure how to define Musical Discourse, in Portuguese "discurso musical" (which I translated literaly) would be immediately understandable. Maybe, to define it as the flow of musical ideas/textures would be apropriate, but I am not sure.

By contemporary I am refering to works of living composers, or works written after 1975, but after seeing some answers I'd say that you shouldn't be very strict about this definition (I am thinking about Weston's example of Also Sprach Zarathrustra, which is definitely not a contemporary work, but it is a very good example of what I am trying to demonstrate).

Someguy - I don't agree with the idea that in order for something to be new, it can't be accessible. For example, I would say that, comparing some works by Pierre Boulez from the 50s/60s to others from the 80s/90s the latter would be more easy to grasp, but in my opinion they are as original (if not even more!) than those from the 50s/60s. 

arpeggio - Thank you for your answer, and worry not, for I will ignore those discussions and focus on the helpful answers


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2013)

afonso said:


> I don't agree with the idea that in order for something to be new, it can't be accessible.


Me too.

(I'm inferring you got the impression that I do agree with that idea. I don't. Like I said up front, all contemporary music is accessible, to somebody.

And there, just by the way, is where your study will break down. Accessibility is such an individual thing. It's not going to be useful for drawing any conclusions about anything general. Certainly not about music. (Accessible describes the listener's response, not the music she's responding to.))


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Sid James said:


> I also realise that some composers, esp. after 1945, ditched things like melody altogether and focussed on other things, eg. rhythm, colour, sonority, etc. I connect with them because of this visceral gut reaction, its an animalistic reaction, and it can also be about atmospheres or moods they create.
> 
> Some of these being:
> 
> ...


I can't always follow Boulez's early music (not without a number of listens and preferably a score), but Le marteau does have melodies that are used (fragmented, reconstructed, refracted) in the various movements under the same name.



afonso said:


> when I say "accessible works" I am referring to works which didn't take a lot of repeated listenings/effort in order for you to appreciate/admire them


By that last part, do you mean "fully appreciate" or "fully understand"? Because if you do, then I doubt most complex classical music, of any era, would fit the bill. If you mean "gained an interest in learning more about" or "appreciated at least some aspects of" a piece, then any number of contemporary works fall into that category for me.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

I think some guy make a important point here:



some guy said:


> Accessible describes the listener's response, not the music she's responding to.


For myself, I can't really think of a classical work that I've found completely inaccessible, and that has nothing to do with liking or not liking the music. It is easy to find works from any era that will take more effort to reveal it self and its inner workings!

/ptr


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> The question should not be--the buried question in this post--how can we make contemporary music more accessible? The question should be how can we convince listeners to be more open to new and unfamiliar things?





some guy said:


> And there, just by the way, is where your study will break down. Accessibility is such an individual thing. It's not going to be useful for drawing any conclusions about anything general. Certainly not about music. (*Accessible describes the listener's response, not the music she's responding to.*))


Usually when people talk about 'accessible' music, they mean that it is found more accessible by more people.

That some music is found more accessible to more people than other music is an obvious fact and is in no way a value judgement on the music involved. The questions why this are are more tangled, and it is this that the OP is researching into.

Music can be made more accessible by use of certain techniques. On an obvious level, repeating a tune straight away (supposing the music has a tune - which it doesn't have to) makes the ideas stick in the mind more, making it easier to grasp. Some music will keep it plain, others mask this repetition for the sake of variety, whereas other music might dispense with it altogether. Tunes can be (and is) constructed and analysed in these terms. This is merely changing one parameter to produce a different result, and is again not necessarily a judgement value.

It is therefore an interesting question on the relation of musical techniques and the human mind which the OP wishes to study, given that he/she will probably go into it in somewhat more depth than the example I just gave. There is nothing wrong with this, I assume, so your reaction seems somewhat confusing.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

Ramako said:


> Music can be made more accessible by use of certain techniques. On an obvious level, repeating a tune straight away (supposing the music has a tune - which it doesn't have to) makes the ideas stick in the mind more, making it easier to grasp. Some music will keep it plain, others mask this repetition for the sake of variety, whereas other music might dispense with it altogether. Tunes can be (and is) constructed and analysed in these terms. This is merely changing one parameter to produce a different result, and is again not necessarily a judgement value.


On a more general level, if you already heard 500 rock songs listening to the nº 501 rock song is easier because there is a repetition of ideas and vocabulary. I think the same applies to listening any genre, once you grasp the musical language listening to new pieces becomes easier.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

niv said:


> On a more general level, if you already heard 500 rock songs listening to the nº 501 rock song is easier because there is a repetition of ideas and vocabulary. I think the same applies to listening any genre, once you grasp the musical language listening to new pieces becomes easier.


Very much so. In fact the 6th rock song might do it . I was just pointing out that repetition is one example of something that makes music intrinsically more memorable and easier to grasp. In fact, the large amount of repetition in many rock songs is one of the main reasons they are so accessible.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Ramako said:


> Very much so. In fact the 6th rock song might do it . I was just pointing out that repetition is one example of something that makes music intrinsically more memorable and easier to grasp. In fact, the large amount of repetition in many rock songs is one of the main reasons they are so accessible.


Let us tread lightly: being *musically* accessible, as if this were a criteria of rock which makes it more simplistic (and therefore vaguely inferior) to classical, misses the point.

As in rock, blues, folk, and many other "musically simplistic" and easily accessible forms, the point is not to achieve musical complexity, but to use the music and form as the *"medium"* for transmitting *other artistic meanings *within the form. This is what Bill Monroe said when speaking of crude, technically un-proficient fiddlers he encountered in the back-woods of Appalachia; "In bluegrass, you're listening to _the man_ as much as the music."

In this sense, these "musically simplistic forms" of music reveal themselves to be profoundly and complexly Human, and as such, are conveyors of the highest form of art: what it is to be Human, and to have existed on this Earth.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Let us tread lightly: being *musically* accessible, as if this were a criteria of rock which makes it more simplistic (and therefore vaguely inferior) to classical, misses the point.


I don't disagree with you. In fact, on a personal level I find some of the simplest music (from some points of view) the most profound of all. I don't mean any kind of value judgement when I say more accessible. It's merely a feature of the music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

afonso said:


> "Musical Sociology"... and the accessibility of contemporary music. More specifically, I am studying the hypothesis that two elements, form and musical discourse, are more important than the musical language used in a given work in determining it's accessibility.


If this is a sociology course, then a large emphasis must be placed on music as a "medium" or conveyor of Human values, and not on the significance of "musical discourse" as a prescribed way of conveying strictly musical ideas. _This should be about people more than music._



afonso said:


> I have two questions. The first is: among contemporary works written using non tonal idioms, which would you consider to be more accessible, and why?


Why the restriction to the "form" or genre of contemporary music? Of all possible musical forms, contemporary music seems to exhibit the most concern with musical syntax and purely musical considerations, and the least concern with "extra-musical human factors;" but this is its purpose and nature. To make such a choice for comparison reveals to me a possible bias on the part of the writer.



afonso said:


> I also ask the opposite question regarding works written in a more traditional tonal idiom, which works would you consider to be less accessible, and why?


This whole hypothesis seems at odds with itself; the question of "music as a passive conveyor of extra-musical human meaning" must be looked at, and the you must consider: "Could musical sociology exist without people?"


----------



## IBMchicago (May 16, 2012)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I think listeners are open to new and unfamiliar things. I am. Many here are. But I'm not convinced much of time the music itself is one the artistic level that leaves many wanting for more. That is different equation altogether.


I agree. It reminds me of when Alex Ross once bemoaned that many of his colleagues and associates from his alma mater (Harvard) all seemed to know their contemporary artists, architects, writers, poets and philosophers; and yet nobody seemed to know their contemporary composers outside of the Oscar-winning crew. In other words, even the most open-minded and/or learned of us are most resistant to new ideas in music than any other art form. I myself am guilty of this more conservative mindset.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Originally Posted by *HarpsichordConcerto* 
I think listeners are open to new and unfamiliar things. I am. Many here are. But I'm not convinced much of time the music itself is one the artistic level that leaves many wanting for more. That is different equation altogether.



IBMchicago said:


> I agree. It reminds me of when Alex Ross once bemoaned that many of his colleagues and associates from his alma mater (Harvard) all seemed to know their contemporary artists, architects, writers, poets and philosophers; and yet nobody seemed to know their contemporary composers outside of the Oscar-winning crew. In other words, even the most open-minded and/or learned of us are most resistant to new ideas in music than any other art form. I myself am guilty of this more conservative mindset.


There seems to be an unfortunate correspondence with "the new and unfamiliar" as referring to contemporary music, along with a poke at the "artistic level" of new music.

"New and unfamiliar" can be 500 year-old music. And just because something is "new" doesn't mean it's going to be any good, or bad.

What kind of a criterion is this? A very vague one. This is just "chatter," with not much thought behind it. I just listened to, and rejected, a contemporary work by Canadian composer Christos Hatzis (1953-), his String Quartet No. 1 (the awakening) because it is unadventurous, gimmicky (recordings of trains going through the piece), and covers absolutely no new harmonic ground.

It's not because I am a radical or conservative; it's because I _listen _to music, and I have certain criteria it must meet, plain and simple. There's no need to "politicize" the issue into different camps, or "old vs. new." If something is good, it's good.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

There's no need to "politicize" the issue into different camps, or "old vs. new." If something is good, it's good.

But isn't that exactly where the discussion becomes politicized? I like something which you despise or vis-versa leads to the underlying belief that our own taste is superior than that other fool who can't discern "good" from "bad."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> There's no need to "politicize" the issue into different camps, or "old vs. new." If something is good, it's good.
> 
> But isn't that exactly where the discussion becomes politicized? I like something which you despise or vis-versa leads to the underlying belief that our own taste is superior than that other fool who can't discern "good" from "bad."


Yes, but "like" and "dislike" should refer to individual, specific encounters with art. For example, I am not overly enamored with Brahms, but I recognize the quality of his music, and I realize that my taste can only be taken so far. I don't presume to stereotype or generalize "Brahmsian" music as being deficient, or attack Brahm's supporters as being deficient.

To generalize music as "new" or "old" should only be a convenience; otherwise, it becomes a politically-charged act, which alienates those of us with objective tolerance and respect for the entire spectrum of music.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Yes, but "like" and "dislike" should refer to individual, specific encounters with art. For example, I am not overly enamored with Brahms, but I recognize the quality of his music, and I realize that my taste can only be taken so far. I don't presume to stereotype or generalize "Brahmsian" music as being deficient, or attack Brahm's supporters as being deficient.

I think we can come to recognize that our taste and what is "good" or "bad" are not one and the same when we are looking to older works of art. The is a greater collective agreement as to the merits of a figure such as Brahms. When we approach more contemporary works of art we find this is not necessarily true. There are often major disputes between individuals of equal experience or expertise. Within my own field of the visual arts, for example, there are probably as many... if not more... who feel Tracy Emin, Jeff Koons, and Damien Hirst are talent-less hacks... if not frauds as there are those who deem them innovative geniuses. Under such circumstances we can only trust our own judgment.

By the application of your criteria... your values and standards... you found Christos Hatzis' String Quartet no. 1 to be something of a failure. I am not questioning your opinion, one way or the other. I am wholly unfamiliar with Hatzis' work... yet obviously, from just a quick perusal of his entry on Wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christos_Hatzis

... there are others equally well-informed in listening to music who are of another opinion.

So again, what can we trust beyond our own opinion?


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I don't think that "accessibility" is an objective quality in music, as I infer the OP is thinking, since he's trying to establish that the degree of accessibility of a piece is related to intrinsic properties of the piece in question, like form, language, etc. Why is this?, because, as mentioned in this thread, accessibility depends on various things that are related only with the listener and the context, and not with the piece per se.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Mahlerian said:


> I can't always follow Boulez's early music (not without a number of listens and preferably a score), but Le marteau does have melodies that are used (fragmented, reconstructed, refracted) in the various movements under the same name.....


Its been a while since I've heard that (but I do have Le marteau in my collection). I do remember though that the way he illustrates the poetry in that piece is enough in itself to guide me through the work (eg. the use of onomatopeia).

But with Boulez, I like his piano sonatas because of the moods they bring, and that visceral/gut effect. But a work like Sur Incises strikes me as too complex, but maybe that's the point, Boulez said its meant to be something like a labyrinth. But I am happy enough to enjoy what I have with him, I'm okay with what I got out of it, I'm okay with these limitations. Maybe its like Bach, I've gone as far as I can with him (instrumental yes, choral no), and that's okay. I just flex as far as I can, that's it. & musicians are the same, even great musicians.

You know the story of how Yvonne Loriod saw the score to the second sonata, and she literally cried (she was thinking 'I have to play that?'). But she did play it. Same with Copland who looked at a Boulez score and said it was a fine score, but pitched more at fellow musicians than the layman non musician, even the most intelligent of those might have issues with accessing the piece, or whatever.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Well in light of this:



afonso said:


> ...
> I'm not sure how to define Musical Discourse, in Portuguese "discurso musical" (which I translated literaly) would be immediately understandable. Maybe, to define it as the flow of musical ideas/textures would be apropriate, but I am not sure....


I read your original post again, and this leapt out at me (maybe it should have before?) :



afonso said:


> ... specifically, I am studying the hypothesis that two elements, form and musical discourse, are more important than the musical language used in a given work in determining it's accessibility.
> ...


& speaking for myself, yes that flow of musical ideas (musical discourse) and its structure/form can make it more easy for me to access. More than the musical language (tonal versus atonal, or bitonal/polytonal, progressive tonal, non-Western modes/scales and so on). It's what I discussed before, that thematic unity. & also the issue of structure - eg. number of movements, how they interrelate, etc. - that tends to be important to me too. I tend to look for these 'signposts' to guide me through the work. But as I said, if they're not there, if the composer doesn't work with these types of things in mind, I can access the work in other ways (eg. less with this type of intellectual/analytical approach, more with purely emotional responses). But the two are strongly interrelated, hard to separate, as is the issue of accessiblity and personal taste. Its like climbing a mountain, you got to put effort in the climb, and plan it, otherwise you get nowhere. & most importantly, you have to want to do it in the first place.


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Personally, as an artist (albeit a visual artist), I have always been of the belief that the relationship between the artist and the audience is a two-way relationship. The artist makes a degree of effort to reach the audience, and in return, the audience puts forth a degree of effort in an attempt to appreciate what is being presented.


I think it can be one-way or two-way. I myself rarely think about my audience, and leave much of my music unreleased. Many people make art (musical or visual) for their own enjoyment, and often never release it.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2013)

And I don't think the street metaphor is a particularly felicitous one. Or even just descriptive.

In the first place, "the audience" is a chimera. Every actual audience, in a concert hall or in a museum, is made up of individuals, each with unique backgrounds, experiences, ideas, opinions. Can any artist, no matter how perceptive, actually meet the needs of all or even any of those individuals in any piece?

The answer to that can be "yes," but only, I am convinced, if "audience" is taken to be "the aggragate human as revealed by marketing research" and "artist" is taken to be "corporate shill." Or, in simple terms, if we're talking about commercial music/art.

In the second place, the street metaphor puts the artist and the listener/observer in the same situation as roughly equal. But is that true? The artist has a job to do, either arranging elements into new patterns or setting up situations in which elements will exist and perhaps make patterns. The listener/observer has a job to do, too. Paying attention to what the artist has done. Not liking or disliking, though those things will probably always be present, but paying attention.

These jobs have many things in common, but they are different jobs that take place, often, at different times. And they do not take place on a (metaphorical) street.


----------

