# Thread for those who don't like modern classical music



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

This is a counter thread for COAGS new thread. This is not a insulting thread
This thread is dedicated for the people on TC who don't like modern classical music or don't like most of it.
In this thread you/we can discuss about the reasons why you think that you don´t enjoy modern classical music.


----------



## Carpenoctem (May 15, 2012)

Nice thread, but I already see that teenagers will come to this thread and start calling us dinosaurs because we like Schubert, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms etc.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Carpenoctem said:


> Nice thread, but I already see that teenagers will come to this thread and start calling us dinosaurs because we like Schubert, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms etc.


Actually I like all 4 of them :3 Beethoven is one of my favorites~ Though I guess I wasn't included in your post since I'm not a teenager


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

I'll admit that what I've sampled from the modern music recommendations here haven't filled me with a desire to explore further. However, I limit my criticism of it to a simple "not my thing."


----------



## Taneyev (Jan 19, 2009)

I want music with melodies I can remember and recognized. and have a beginning, a development, and an inner logic that goes to the end. Besides. I want to be moved some way by the music. Otherways, I'm not interested. And only things that moves me are melodies and tonal harmonies.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2012)

I used to be a huge modern fan--lived on a steady diet of Penderecki, Xenakis, et al, but as I get older, I need more melody and recognizable structure! I don't mind some dissonance, but I just don't like the seemingly random, pointillistic style of some modernists. I recently saw the term "sado-modernism"--that sums it up nicely! I still like a little Schoenberg or Schnittke now and again, but that's about as far as I can go these days. In general, I'm far happier with the "Three B's"--Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

EricABQ said:


> I'll admit that what I've sampled from the modern music recommendations here haven't filled me with a desire to explore further. However, I limit my criticism of it to a simple "not my thing."


A simple "not my thing" is fine.
I think that all that I look for in a piece of whatever era or style is something, anything that will draw me back to the piece. Something that 'lives' with me for a while, something I can take away with me (in a good way).

I'm afraid there is little modern classical music that (depending on the date you set for _modern_) that inspires me, excites me or engages me.
I speak not as a newbie but as a mature and experienced explorer of music and a professional composer/arranger of music of all styles.

I've given up trying to understand how other people respond to or hear music. I've analysed what it is I respond to, in the music itself. And I know why some music leaves me indifferent.

I find a lot of avant-garde (so called) is not very original and has little or no intellectual content. That wouldn't be so bad if it sounded good to my brain like jazz, pop, rock, and most popular music often does. And when I say intellectual content, I mean the music _itself_, not the idea, plan, concept, philosophy, method or system that the composer used to write the music.
These are two very different things.


----------



## Carpenoctem (May 15, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> Actually I like all 4 of them :3 Beethoven is one of my favorites~ Though I guess I wasn't included in your post since I'm not a teenager


I didn't want to insult anyone but I think some people here are way to much focused on what they don't like rather on what they like. It seems like it's a sport here to insult Mozart.

I also like Beethoven a lot, he was a genius, although I am an atheist I like the saying that is written on a German opera house (I forgot which one though):

* "Bach gave us God's word, Mozart God's laughter and Beethoven gave us God's fire."*


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

I love modernism. Watching YouTube videos of Webern pieces was one of the things that lured me into classical music, though I really still know very little about Webern. I also love the Classical and Baroque periods. I will therefore have to exclude myself from discussion in this thread.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

Carpenoctem said:


> * "Bach gave us God's word, Mozart God's laughter and Beethoven gave us God's fire."*


I like this quote:

God may listen to Bach, but the angels listen to Mozart when He isn't watching.

Can't remember who said that. Some famous pedagogue, I think.


----------



## Carpenoctem (May 15, 2012)

crmoorhead said:


> I like this quote:
> 
> God may listen to Bach, but the angels listen to Mozart when He isn't watching.
> 
> Can't remember who said that. Some famous pedagogue, I think.


Yeah, that's also a nice quote, here's the original:

"It may be that when the angels go about their task praising God, they play only Bach. I am sure, however, that when they are together en famille they play Mozart."

Apparently some guy called Karl Bath said it, never heard of him


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

"Bach gave us God’s word, Mozart God's laughter and Beethoven gave us God's fire."

That's a great quote!


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Sorry my post bothered some.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I'm always interested in where these people draw the line. "Modern classical music" is a vague term, not meaning much; but "Schubert, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms" is more precise, placing them as what I would term "conservative" listeners who like the Romantic era the best. But I see all different eras of Western music as having their own "strangeness" and quirkiness.

I consider some of Bach to be radical in this regard; more harmonically adventurous than Schubert, and more chromatic than all of those mentioned. His "Chromatic Fantasy" is a strange monstrosity indeed. His Sinfonia No. 9 in F minor is odd, odd. And what of Beethoven's late quartets, and the Grosse Fugue? Strange stuff, indeed, presaging modernism.

Even more harmonically static music, like the chant music of Hildegard von Bingen is "radical" in its own way, droning on around a single center, evoking God, almost "psychedelic" in its centered pursuit of spirtuality; "God-music" is a radical idea, if you ask me. What kind of mushrooms had Hildegard been into?
--------------------------------------------------------------
So I see a definite dividing line in this regard, because I have studied music theory extensively, in order to try to answer the question "What is tonality, what is harmony?"

Stravinsky is "modern," but his music is still "harmonic," meaning that his music still preserves the harmonic "stacking" hierarchy, in which pitch-identity is preserved under inversion. If someone doesn't like Stravinsky, I call them a "conservative;" if they _do_ like Stravinsky, then they are not necessarily a "modernist," but someone with a good enough ear to be able to tell when music is "harmonic" or ear-based.

The true hard-core modernist is a different animal; they have an ability to approach music which is not harmonic, and not designed with consonance and sonority (in the same harmonic sense as "harmonic" and tonal music is) as its main area of focus; this is not "sensual" or visceral music in the same harmonic sense as "harmonic" and tonal music is. The serial world and its offspring are a totally different animal in this regard, and requires a major paradigm-shift in terms of what is happening harmonically.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> That's a great quote.


Why did hipster burn his tongue?
He drank coffee before it was cool.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> *The true hard-core modernist *is a different animal; *they have an ability* to approach music which is not harmonic, and not designed with consonance and sonority (in the same harmonic sense as "harmonic" and tonal music is) as its main area of focus; this is not "sensual" or visceral music in the same harmonic sense as "harmonic" and tonal music is. The serial world and its offspring are a totally different animal in this regard, and requires a major paradigm-shift in terms of what is happening harmonically.


The phrases in red I think require some justification.
Plenty of people have the _ability _to approach any music. They approach it, understand it and sometimes reject it because, to use Boulez's phrase again, "it is incompatible with [their] aesthetic"


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> The phrases in red I think require some justification.
> Plenty of people have the _ability _to approach any music. They approach it, understand it and sometimes reject it because, to use Boulez's phrase again, "it is incompatible with [their] aesthetic"


In saying "The true hard-core modernist is a different animal; they have an ability to approach music which is not harmonic, and not designed with consonance and sonority," this _*ability*_ does not exclude those who reject modern music, but for obvious reasons, I would not call them "hard-core modernists."

That could be true of any music: serialism, Wagner, _hard core _opera, or Lady Gaga.

If one "has the ability" to approach and engage with the music in a productive, meaningful way, then "ability" does not exclusively imply "skill" or innate understanding, but a _*willingness*_ to engage, sustained in the long-term by _*faith.*_ 
"Ability" is developed by _hard work_ in many cases, so I do not think it is always "innate" by any means. 
Moreover, I think of "ability" as an acquired wherewithal to engage in a "game" of art. You can't expect someone to "engage" unless they have put some effort in.

I don't see the point of "engaging" in something one dislikes. The portrait of the "sincere rejector of modernism" grows more tenuous and disingenuous in light of this. If somebody does not like dissonant modern music, then why not just come out and say it, rather than be concerned that their opinion is invalid (especially due to all the sincere effort they have expended), or that their ability or taste is being slighted?

"Ability" means "capacity, capability, potential, potentiality, power, faculty, aptness, facility; wherewithal, means," and all of those terms could apply to one's "will," the "power" to engage with music by choice.

I could just have easily said "The true hard-core modernist is a different animal; they have a _*willingness*_ to approach music which is not harmonic."

I am defining what "harmonic" and "non-harmonic" music is, and maintain that this is the true determining factor, generally speaking, which repels or appeals to listeners. At least the terms are specific. I point out that the determining factor, generally speaking, is the "dissonance factor," which I think goes a long way towards defining the forces at work here.

In the end I am saying, generally speaking, that "modernism," meaning serialism and its related music, i.e. dissonance, can be viscerally appealing, but this is a different kind of appeal.

Tonal (or harmonic) music, by contrast, has a more immediate, sensual, visceral appeal, because of the way our ears are hard-wired and respond to consonance/dissonance.

This is like "sweet" tasting food being immediately liked, on a visceral level; whereas "liking" dissonance is like "liking" spicy or hot food, which might acquire something more than passive visceral response. 
This applies to "disliking" dissonance as well, but still, the immediate visceral response creates an innate bias, in my opinion.

BTW, I can see how both modernists and conservative listeners could disagree with my "visceral" argument. Still, the ear vibrates before the sound is processed by the brain. Dissonant sounds disturb the air more "violently" than the smooth ripples of consonance.

Since serial and serially-derived music treats pitch differently, as simply another aspect of its structural considerations, it is therefore more concerned with interval relations than with harmonic considerations. So in a sense, the serial approach can be seen as "discarding" harmony and its advocate, the ear, in favor of more abstract structural relations which are not "apparent" to the ear.

This difference puts music more in touch with its relation to the other members of the Greek "quadrivium," of which it is a member: arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music.

Bad news for "ear men;" good news for cerebral eschewers of the sensual. A bitter ale, indeed!


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Carpenoctem said:


> I didn't want to insult anyone but I think some people here are way to much focused on what they don't like rather on what they like. It seems like it's a sport here to insult Mozart.
> 
> I also like Beethoven a lot, he was a genius, although I am an atheist I like the saying that is written on a German opera house (I forgot which one though):
> 
> * "Bach gave us God's word, Mozart God's laughter and Beethoven gave us God's fire."*


Personally I'd replace Mozart with Haydn in that  His music really tickles me. In a good way.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

aleazk said:


> My God... Is this some kind of _motto_ between dinosaurs?


I demand some modernist quotations! Maybe:

Men are from Mars, Stockhausen is from Siris.

But seriously, some modernist soundbites would be good. Arnie probably has some good ones.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Bach gave us God’s word, Mozart God's laughter, Beethoven gave us God's fire and Schoenberg gave god back his depth?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

One of my favorite Schoenberg quotes is: "I write 12-tone _*music,*_ not _*12-tone*_ music!"

In case you missed it:
Since serial and serially-derived music treats pitch differently, as simply another aspect of its structural considerations, it is therefore more concerned with interval relations than with harmonic considerations. So in a sense, the serial approach can be seen as "discarding" harmony and its advocate, the ear, in favor of more abstract structural relations which are not "apparent" to the ear.

This difference puts music more in touch with its relation to the other members of the Greek "quadrivium," of which it is a member: arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music.

Bad news for "ear men;" good news for cerebral eschewers of the sensual. A bitter ale, indeed!


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

quack said:


> Bach gave us God's word, Mozart God's laughter, Beethoven gave us God's fire and Schoenberg gave god back his depth?


More something interesting he might have said relating to modernism in music. I had a look, but couldn't find much ofinterest. This did make me chuckle though:

When told that a soloist would need six fingers to perform his concerto, Arnold Schoenberg replied, "I can wait."

Also, this was interesting:

I owe very, very much to Mozart; and if one studies, for instance, the way in which I write for string quartet, then one cannot deny that I have learned this directly from Mozart. And I am proud of it!

-Arnold Schoenberg


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Let's make a thread for those who don't even like classical music


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

Philip said:


> Let's make a thread for those who don't even like classical music


Classical music sucks. I'm only here for the witty banter.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

I dislike pretentious modern crap like this piece, these are the extreme sound effect types. Really, not wonder such examples of extreme modern stuff tend to alienate.






I can tolerate some modern pieces like this.






I can enjoy pieces like this.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I dislike pretentious modern crap like this piece, these are the extreme sound effect types. Really, not wonder such examples of extreme modern stuff tend to alienate.


You know, I'm not crazy about that piece either, but do you really need to call it pretentious crap? You can call any work of art pretentious if you want to degrade it.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

I think Mycenae Alpha sounds pretty good for a 1970s computer piece. It's not fantastic, but it's good considering the primitive technology used.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> You know, I'm not crazy about that piece either, but do you really need to call it pretentious crap?


Yes, I do.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Yes, I do.


Thats not very nice.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

And Ligeti brought back God's creativity.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> Thats not very nice.


The piece of music I called pretentious crap is even worse.


----------



## Toddlertoddy (Sep 17, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> The piece of music I called pretentious crap is even worse.


#howtostartflamewars

Let's not turn into the topic that is being discussed in this topic: http://www.talkclassical.com/20772-xenakis-other-forum.html


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

I can't honestly say I don't like modern classical music because there are pieces I have found enjoyable. I also find much of it not to my liking. Also I have to be in the right frame of mind to enjoy modern music because it usually, but not always, demands a lot from you the listener. I can't come home from a stressful day at work and put on *Ligeti. It's just not gonna happen, but with the right amount of rest, and the right frame of mind I can listen to Ligeti and get some enjoyment in doing so. Do I find Ligeti as satsifying to me as Sibelius? Absolutely not, but that does not mean that I don't find anything of value. I also don't find hamburgers as satisfying as a good black angus ribeye steak but I'll still have a hamburger on occasion.

I guess most of all I want to try and not be close-minded about music. Far and away pre-modern music will always occupy the majority of my listening but I will always leave room to try more modern pieces. For me Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Sibelius and many others will always be superior to Ligeti. The reason for me will be because they are more "listenable" and "approachable" than Ligeti, and I could even add "tastier".

Kevin

_*Let me also add that my use of Ligeti is not in any way meant to offend anyone who enjoys him. I only use him as an example because he seems to be the musical idol of many who like modern music. Please feel free to insert your favorite modernist in place of Ligeti if you wish. The results will be the same! _


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

EricABC- I'll admit that what I've sampled from the modern music recommendations here haven't filled me with a desire to explore further. However, I limit my criticism of it to a simple "not my thing."

Odnoposoff- I want music with melodies I can remember and recognized. and have a beginning, a development, and an inner logic that goes to the end. Besides. I want to be moved some way by the music. Otherways, I'm not interested. And only things that moves me are melodies and tonal harmonies.

Petwhac- A simple "not my thing" is fine.
I think that all that I look for in a piece of whatever era or style is something, anything that will draw me back to the piece. Something that 'lives' with me for a while, something I can take away with me (in a good way).

To once again use Sid's phrase (most apt I think) I find the idea that one can only like the music of the "old masters" or that of "modernism" to be truly a "false dichotomy". At least this is true in my case. I like a great deal of Modern and Contemporary music... and I like a great deal of the older stuff. Personally, I have no problem with listeners who limit themselves to a given range of music... to a given extent we all do that. There's very little popular music since the 1980's that interests me; I have absolutely no use whatsoever for Hip Hop or Heavy Metal and what I have heard of Chinese opera makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up on end. With regard to "modern classical music"... and I'll use this term to specify music written since WWII... I have more than a fair share among my music collection and have listened to a great deal more... enough to have a reasonable idea with regard to which composers I like, and which I find little use for. Some of the contemporary music I like is more "Modernist" or experimental than others may enjoy. I will suggest, however, that there is a good deal of quality music by Modern/Contemporary composers that I imagine is immediately accessible to listeners who aren't on friendly terms with the more dissonant or experimental aspects. Among works I would suggest, I would include:

*Heitor Villa Lobos*- Forest of the Amazon (This was a real surprise... quite beautiful... and beautifully sung by Renee Fleming)
*Erich Korngold*- Violin Concerto (A marvelous late-Romantic violin concerto performed beautifully by any number of great soloist, including Itzhak Perlman, Anne-Sophie Mutter, and of course Jascha Heifitz)
*Maurice Duruflé*- Requiem (A beautiful Requiem... often coupled with Faure's)
*Herbert Howells*- Hymnus Paradisi & Missa Sabrinensis (Two marvelous and deeply felt choral masterworks)
*Alan Hovhaness*- Symphony no. 2 Mysterious Mountain & Symphony no. 50 Mount St. Helens (Hovhaness has a great wealth of interesting works... almost too much. He was a friend with and admired by John Cage in spite of his rejection of atonalism.)
*Benjamin Britten*- The Turn of the Screw, A Midsummer Night's Dream, War Requiem, Cello Suites (IMO one of the giants of the 20th century. A close friend of Rostropovitch, for whom the Cello Suites were written)
*Leonard Bernstein*- West Side Story 
*Mieczyslaw Weinberg*- Symphony No. 2 for string orchestra, Symphony no. 3, Symphony no. 4, Symphony no. 6, Symphony no. 7 (A Polish composer who was ranked among many Polish and Russian reviewers as standing along side Prokofiev and Shostakovitch. His music is clearly in the same tradition of Russian Post-Romanticism)
*Ned Rorem*- Songs (Ned Rorem is surely the great living American songwriter. Susan Graham's recording is lovely):










*Einojuhani Rautavaara*- Cantus Articus, Symphony no. 7 Angel of Light, Choral Works (Another lovely Post-Romantic... in the tradition of Sibelius)
*Henryk Górecki*- Symphony no. 3 Symphony of Sorrowful Songs (One of the most moving works of the century)
*Valentin Silvestrov*- Silent Songs (profoundly touching)
*Daniel Catán*- Florencia en el Amazonas (A marvelously sensuous opera with elements of Puccini, Strauss, Villa-Lobos, Berg, and Latin-American rhythms)
*David Lang*- The Little Match Girl Passion (A touching, minimalist choral work)
*Peter Lieberson*- Neruda Songs- (IMO the most beautiful and moving song cycle since Strauss' Four Last Songs)
*Jake Heggie*- Passing By- The heir apparent to New Rorem for the title of "Great American Classical Song-Writer")


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Perhaps it would be of more worth to offer some actual examples of some of the 20th century music that I fully believe the lovers of older music can immediately appreciate:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)




----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2012)

Strictly in my humble opinion....

Some modern classical music is fine, some is pretentious crap, and some... who knows and who cares. I have found very little that I can say I truly love. Your mileage may vary.

What I don't understand about people who focus on modern classical music is - if you're gonna throw off the shackles of tradition why stay within the bounds of classical music? 

Most of the great innovations in music in the twentieth century lie elsewhere - blues, jazz, some pop/rock, and most recently world music. In my opinion, Glass and Ligeti and their ilk are very boring compared to say Miles Davis, Anouar Brahem or even Mark Knopfler. 

A lot of great music has been made in the last several decades. Only a small fraction of that great music falls within the bounds of modern classical music.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

Thanks StlukesguildOhio for your suggestions. I have always enjoyed Korngold's music and have never understood why he is not better known. His violin concerto is a masterpiece in my opinion. The Hovaness is also brilliant.

One of the huge differences for me with modern music is that just because I like such and such a piece by such and such composer does not equate to me liking most things by them. In fact it's just the opposite usually. But pre-modern composers I can honestly say that if I like a piece by a particular composer I am apt to like most if not all their repertoire. I have to spend a lot of time separating the wheat from the chaff in modern music and not so much in pre-modern. Does that make sense? 

Kevin


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

BPS said:


> Most of the great innovations in music in the twentieth century lie elsewhere - blues, jazz, some pop/rock, and most recently world music. In my opinion, Glass and Ligeti and their ilk are very boring compared to say Miles Davis, Anouar Brahem or even Mark Knopfler.
> 
> A lot of great music has been made in the last several decades. Only a small fraction of that great music falls within the bounds of modern classical music.


I like alot of music outside of the classical idiom, but would you care to say what those great innovations of jazz and the blues are? I mean, don't get me wrong, there's some supremely great music there, but in what ways is it truly innovative? Also, what do you mean "within the bounds of classical music"? Classical music is quite diverse and constantly expanding. Do you mean writing for orchestras and various acoustic ensembles? Why should somebody stop writing for those things just because they're working in new ways harmonically or rhythmically or texturally?

I will agree that plenty of great music has been made (as is pretty much constantly the case since there's been music), and I think its pretty stupid to discount great music just because its "pop" or "rock" or "jazz" or "folk" music, but there's plenty of great music coming from composers in the realm of classical music too. Do you even listen?


----------



## Toddlertoddy (Sep 17, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> I like alot of music outside of the classical idiom, but would you care to say what those great innovations of jazz and the blues are?


the jazz harmonies, the rhythms (swing esp.), the blues scale, to name a few


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Toddlertoddy said:


> the jazz harmonies, the rhythms (swing esp.), the blues scale, to name a few


You can hear harmonies like those you hear in jazz in the music of Debussy and Satie, even back in the 1800s, and swing and syncopated rhythms in the music of Beethoven (and probably even before him, I can't think of any before his work). I don't mean to diminish how great alot of that music can be, but I think it would be ignorant to call it greatly innovative.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> Classical music is quite diverse and constantly expanding.


That's part of the problem. Anything can be "classical" music to complete trash it. We had John Cage for example with his weird conceptual pieces that just because a "classical" composer says it is music, then it is music. I call that foul and a moraless corrupt view .


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> I like alot of music outside of the classical idiom, but would you care to say what those great innovations of jazz and the blues are? I mean, don't get me wrong, there's some supremely great music there, but in what ways is it truly innovative?


Jazz's importance goes beyond just musical technique. It was a cultural revolution. It was a serious form of art music that wasn't just for the upper classes. It was the creative outpouring of average Americans. It represented America to the world, and then became the world's music too.

Jazz was everywhere- it wasn't just relagated to concert halls. It was in every movie, on the radio and on street corners. It was the music of society in the 30s through the 50s. It reflected all aspects of who the people of the jazz age were better than the modern classical composers did.

Stravinsky promised a music to reflect the modern age, but in the end, he didn't really deliver. Jazz did.

Eventually, jazz began to move beyond representing society to trying to create "serious music" for critics and intellectuals. It swiftly became irrelevant, and rock stepped into the breech. Rock music didn't have anywhere near the depth and eloquence of jazz, but it did reflect the culture. Rock permeated jazz fusion and like an invading plant choking off the roots of the plant that preceded it, rock plowed jazz under and marginalized it.

It could be argued that after Gershwin, classical music suffered the same fate from jazz. By the time conceptualism reared its ugly head in classical music, it was no longer relevant to anyone outside of a select few.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Sorry if my post earlier was insulting. I won't use that word again around here.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

bigshot said:


> By the time conceptualism reared its ugly head in classical music, it was no longer relevant to anyone outside of a select few.


Exactly. Conceptualism, experimentalism were the death of higher art music.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

We need a new Modern Classical. The old Modern Classical is old-school.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Carpenoctem said:


> I didn't want to insult anyone but I think some people here are way to much focused on what they don't like rather on what they like. It seems like it's a sport here to insult Mozart.
> 
> I also like Beethoven a lot, he was a genius, although I am an atheist I like the saying that is written on a German opera house (I forgot which one though):
> 
> * "Bach gave us God's word, Mozart God's laughter and Beethoven gave us God's fire."*


You don't need to worry much because the dinosaurs will always defeat the Phillistines.
Most people want tuneful music be it classical, jazz or pop.
The problem, to me, is that most modern music sounds almost the same.
But it is interesting to note that most of the dinosaurs say nothing purposefully nasty about the moden stuff, I do not because maybe some of its supporters feel deeply about it.
I have the suspicion that many of them fly the modernist flag because they think it's the thing to do, but I'm sure not all of them.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> Sorry my post bothered some.


Which one among the many ?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

moody said:


> The problem, to me, is that most modern music sounds almost the same.
> .


Not really, for there are some fine examples by Xenakis that sound literally a chainsaw, others that sound like electronic farts, and yet others that sound like an egg-beater.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

ST.LUKESGUILD.

Thank God for your list, I know most of them and did not even consider them as "modern"--so obviously I'm not a dinosaur after all.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Philip said:


> Let's make a thread for those who don't even like classical music


We used to have one, but it was closed.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> Sorry if my post earlier was insulting. I won't use that word again around here.


The word "dinosaur" should be banned on TC. Use the term "Neanderthal" instead, or in extreme cases "Philistine."


----------



## Carpenoctem (May 15, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> The word "dinosaur" should be banned on TC. Use the term "Neanderthal" instead, or in extreme cases "Philistine."


Or maybe don't insult other members at all?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Carpenoctem said:


> Or maybe don't insult other members at all?


I was joking. Of course it's best not to discriminate and insult inferior  members because of their taste. It has gone waaay to far and I think it's really the modernist anti-Mozart party that are keeping it going.


----------



## Taneyev (Jan 19, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Perhaps it would be of more worth to offer some actual examples of some of the 20th century music that I fully believe the lovers of older music can immediately appreciate:


I've that Heifetz's photo signed by him in Buenos Aires in the 40s.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Well the more modern classical music you listen to and dislike - the more it re-inforces your opinion. Most of what I have heard have been contemporary pieces at concerts of mainstream repertoire. If I heard something as incredible as Beethoven's eroica symphony and it was a new work - i would dash out to buy the CD - but I have seen composers selling their CDS at those concerts and I never felt like buying. I just checked out CofAGs hero - Ligeti - on youtube I listened to these:
Andaloro - György Ligeti: Étude Nr. 1 "Désordre" 
György Sándor Ligeti etude for piano 15 -White on white(1995)
violin concerto
György Ligeti ~ Chromatische Phantasie -
György Ligeti - Musica Ricercata [1/11] -
Gyorgy Ligeti String Quartet No. 1

Some of the pieces I found unpleasant - now I don't like Bruckner as a composer - and I don't like his symphonies - but I don't find it unpleasant to hear them. However - the Ligeti pieces - the violin concerto and the chromatic fantasy I found quite reasonable to listen to - the chromatic fantasy seemed to me the best of of that bunch - interesting and tonally acceptable to my ears - (I think it's when the keyboard bashing begins I get into trouble). Study no 1 I found unbearable as much as the quartet though the quartet does seem to have direction which some of the other pieces lack. I would not say I feel like listening to any more Ligeti. Maybe I should sample some Stockhausen. I listened to Shostakovich violin sonata in the car yesterday and thought it was marvellous - so I am not a total dinosaur. I also heard a CD of some tonal contemporary music last week - a cello sonata and a piano suite - the suite was quite interesting - but not enough to make me want to listen to again! The cello sonata was less good. Well I keep trying.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

stomanek said:


> Well I keep trying.


That's all any of us can do, man, and if you don't like Ligeti or Stockhausen, that's ok too.

I find they grow on me.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

*Ligeti* isn't to everyone's taste, but he certainly is to mine.

@stomanek, check out Musica Ricercata or the better shorter version, Six Bagatelles for Wind Quintet.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> *Ligeti* isn't to everyone's taste, but he certainly is to mine.
> 
> @stomanek, check out Musica Ricercata or the better shorter version, Six Bagatelles for Wind Quintet.


OK - I just heard the first and third and thought them quite reasonable.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

stomanek said:


> OK - I just heard the first and third and thought them quite reasonable.


The second movement of Concert Romanesc is fun.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

A little off topic, but this is funny as hell!!!!


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

I made this thread as a counter thread for COAG thread, i have a some interest towards modern classical music and i actually enjoy about atonality on small doses. I just wanted to point that out.
But greats like Beethoven, Bach,Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Mendelssohn and Sibelius are better IMO.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

stomanek said:


> Well the more modern classical music you listen to and dislike - the more it re-inforces your opinion. Most of what I have heard have been contemporary pieces at concerts of mainstream repertoire. If I heard something as incredible as Beethoven's eroica symphony and it was a new work - i would dash out to buy the CD - but I have seen composers selling their CDS at those concerts and I never felt like buying. I just checked out CofAGs hero - Ligeti - on youtube I listened to these:
> Andaloro - György Ligeti: Étude Nr. 1 "Désordre"
> György Sándor Ligeti etude for piano 15 -White on white(1995)
> violin concerto
> ...


The Andaloro version is not good, try Aimard. I recommend you his most known pieces: Atmospheres, Requiem, Clocks and Clouds, nonsense madrigals maybe.


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

FWIW, I have copies of Varese and others, but at the moment I can't say I love or hate it. Rather, I've not yet found time to study it carefully.


----------



## Carpenoctem (May 15, 2012)

jani said:


> But greats like Beethoven, Bach,Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Mendelssohn and Sibelius are better IMO.


Yeah, we share the same opinion.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Here's my clarification.

*"Modern music"* is always bandied about casually as a general catch-all stereotypical reference, used for convenience.

That's understandable, since a truly _credible_ assessment would involve the expense to procure specific CDs, and the effort to criticize specific works of modernism.

Nobody wants to invest money and effort into music they don't like. For most critics of modernism, their opinions are already formed, and it's not worth their money and effort to "prove" their opinion is valid, especially to a modernist advocate who probably disagrees with them.

So, these generalized, off-the-wall, non-specific criticisms of "modern" music (usually referring to serial and serial-derived music) are really _*generalized statements of philosophy.*_ These are statements of one's *"belief system"* in music. They are statements of how far one is willing to stretch their ideas of what music is, or can be.

Here are some generalized categories of modernism. Which ones you accept or reject will determine how far you are willing to go in your acceptance or rejection of what music "is."

Of course, there will always be exceptions. This is a generalized statement, for convenience.

*Type A: "Everything is music." John Cage* would be the prime example of the extreme, in which _*anything,*_ even sounds around us, can be considered "music." This philosophy is outright rejected by 99% of conservative CM listeners, as we all have seen.

*Type B: Serialism and its offshoots.* Musics which treat pitch and harmony differently than tonal music, taking it more in the direction of mathematics & the _*quadrivium*_. This philosophy seems to be the next in frequency to be rejected by BBB (Bach-Beethoven-Brahms) lovers of tonality. In this belief system, "Art" cannot resemble mathematics (apologies to Donald Judd). Usually always rejected by traditionalists, except in the cases of Schoenberg-Berg-etc., who seem to be the most favored in this category.

*Type C: Aleatoric, experimental, non-scored, and "sound" music.* This would be music which might use traditional "classical" instruments (violins, woodwinds, etc.), may or may not be scored, or use non-traditional notation, may or may not be totally random, is composed freely, and is not categorized as being completely in the "serial" school. This would include some of Varèse, John Cage, Ligeti, Ferneyhough, Rhim, Feldman, etc. This type of modernism is also frequently rejected by traditional listeners, or listeners who do not like modern music.

*Type D:* *Advanced "harmonic" music.* Music such as Debussy, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, and similar music based on harmonic principles, and using tools & vestiges of traditional (18th century) tonality, but which is _*not tonal in the traditional sense,*_ using free root movement and non-traditional harmony. Debussy and Ravel are most likely to be cited as exceptions by modern-haters.

*Type E: Tone-centric music.* This includes most Minimalism, Lamont Young, Terry Riley, Indian raga, and many forms of "folk" and ethnic musics; but mainly Minimalism, since it is a Western "art" music. These musics are not "tonal" in that they do not usually involve root movement or chord function. It could include Western pre-tonal chant.

*Type F: Pre-Renaissance music.* Music created before "proper" tonality had been established. This includes Gregorian chant and medieval music. This category is for hard-core modernist-haters only, who wish to even obliterate the beginnings of tonality in order to avoid any semblance of tone-centricity.

So, if you are an anti-modernist, which type are you? How far are you willing to go in saying something is really worthy of being called "music" or art?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Rapide said:


> That's part of the problem. Anything can be "classical" music to complete trash it. We had John Cage for example with his weird conceptual pieces that just because a "classical" composer says it is music, then it is music. I call that foul and a moraless corrupt view .


Why? "Classical" isn't some sacred term.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

moody said:


> but it is interesting to note that most of the dinosaurs say nothing purposefully nasty about the moden stuff


buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuullllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllloni


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Here's my clarification.
> 
> *"Modern music"* is always bandied about casually as a general catch-all stereotypical reference, used for convenience.
> 
> ...


Interesting, good analysis. I agree with your general premise that the main reason in the dismissing of modernism seems to be related with harmony. The first critique is always 'it's too dissonant'. I think I'm a modernist (i.e., I like the music in these types) of type B, C and D. With regard to the type B, '"Art" cannot resemble mathematics', art _can_ resemble mathematics, what art can't do is _being_ mathematics. But we have already had this discussion.

(I understood that these different types are the different types of modernism, if you are a fan of modernism, choose your favorite, if you are not a fan of modernism, choose the type you don't like, saying that you don't like)


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm not sure I understand MillionRainbow's categories, but it was a good post for thought. 

Perhaps it doesn't belong among them, but maybe there should be an anti-minimalist category. Seems to me there are a lot of people who can accept Shostakovich and Schoenberg but don't like Reich and Glass.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Shostakovich is not too modern imo. Schnittke and Ligeti are better examples. And I do prefer them over Reich and Glass.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> *Ligeti* isn't to everyone's taste, but he certainly is to mine.


I do like his Piano Etudes quite a bit...Atmospheres and the Piano, Violin, and Cello Concerti are pretty good, too.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> The word "dinosaur" should be banned on TC. Use the term "Neanderthal" instead, or in extreme cases "Philistine."


It was you who brought it in, wasn't it?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

science said:


> I'm not sure I understand MillionRainbow's categories, but it was a good post for thought.
> 
> Perhaps it doesn't belong among them, but maybe there should be an anti-minimalist category. Seems to me there are a lot of people who can accept Shostakovich and Schoenberg but don't like Reich and Glass.


Good idea, science. Note my new edit with a "tone-centric" category.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

moody said:


> It was you who brought it in, wasn't it?


No it wasn't actually. A short staying member called GyorgyLigeti coined the term in his "Are You a Dinosaur?" poll.


----------

