# How do you listen to contemporary classical music?



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

Recently, - after a long time of dissenting contemporary/modernist classical music because I didn't have the open mind for it - I have dipped quite a bit into contemporary/modernist classical music with works by Penderecki, Rihm, Messiaen and a miscellaneous works by other composers. One thing that I wonder when listening to such works: Is there any preparation required for listening to them? Is it beneficial? Reading notes for works by these composers is always stifling. It is all very technical. It appears that the composers are writing "advanced" compositions. They deal with timbres, sonorities, colors and perception of sound. They have plans like:

"_Der Regen, das Glas, das Lachen" for 25 instrumentalists: this marks the juncture of a one tone piece and white noise. The constituent polymetric one tone piece takes 20 minutes to "glissando" once through the octave and in the process turns into an all tone piece, while the total sound passes in stages through 6 further layers of simultaneous sound until it arrives at a single level of white noise. The simultaneity of the graduation from coarsegraininess (tone) to fine-graininess (= more compactness, more noise) right down to the surface (white noise) is maintained - potentially - from start to finish. This means that what is played is extremely dense and a large part of the orientation is left to the listener. Over long periods she is left alone to listen in to the various levels of the piece, to find her way IN THE SOUND. _"

When you read such things you have to re-read and even then somethings remain unexplained. Similarly for Messiaen's La Ville d'En haut.

What I am trying to get at is that it all feels intended only for musically trained individuals. Is this so?

Or is that one can simply hear these works directly with no preparation?


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

This works with serial music, but not with anything else.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Same way I listen to non-contemporary classical music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Herrenvolk said:


> Recently, - after a long time of dissenting contemporary/modernist classical music because I didn't have the open mind for it - I have dipped quite a bit into contemporary/modernist classical music with works by Penderecki, Rihm, Messiaen and a miscellaneous works by other composers. One thing that I wonder when listening to such works: Is there any preparation required for listening to them? Is it beneficial? Reading notes for works by these composers is always stifling. It is all very technical. It appears that the composers are writing "advanced" compositions. They deal with timbres, sonorities, colors and perception of sound.
> What I am trying to get at is that it all feels intended only for musically trained individuals. Is this so?
> 
> Or is that one can simply hear these works directly with no preparation?


I think it depends on the music, and I have devised a way of deciphering what it is the composer is trying to accomplish, by listening and deciding one of two ways: horizontal, or vertical.

For example, I put on Charles Wuorinen's piano Sonata No. 3, and it became obvious that he was not interested in constructing music with melodies, themes, repeating rhythms, or apparently any of the ways music conveys its 'meaning' to most listeners. There was no comprehensible structure to it, on first listening. Was there something wrong with me? Was I dumb, or was there some super-intellectual sub-strata of musical meaning that I could not access?

No, there is nothing wrong with me. This was 'vertical' music, which was not narrative or horizontal. There is no repetition, no beat, no horizontal pitch or rhythmic structure to it; nothing unfolded, nothing progressed. It is simply sound; the sound of a piano. It is all precisely pre-determined and controlled, even though the impression is one of chaos and randomness.

Once I realized this, which I admit takes some 'license' on the listener's part, I was content to listen to it for what it was: sound, simply sound, and gestures which produce this sound, on a piano. Once I had forgotten about narrative meaning unfolding, I was forced to listen in the moment, event by event, 'vertically.' I got into the colors, the timbres, started noticing registral differences, nuances of gesture. The 'search for meaning' was a time waster. This way of vertical listening was much more rewarding, for this kind of music.


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> I think it depends on the music, and I have devised a way of deciphering what it is the composer is trying to accomplish, by listening and deciding one of two ways: horizontal, or vertical.
> 
> For example, I put on Charles Wuorinen's piano Sonata No. 3, and it became obvious that he was not interested in constructing music with melodies, themes, repeating rhythms, or apparently any of the ways music conveys its 'meaning' to most listeners. There was no comprehensible structure to it, on first listening. Was there something wrong with me? Was I dumb, or was there some super-intellectual sub-strata of musical meaning that I could not access?
> 
> ...


Thank you.

If the work is horizontal, should I try to decrypt those lengthy, musical musings?


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Contemporary as a genre is so frustrating, because a lot of times there is no frame of reference. I can understand a symphony or concerto, because at least I'll be aware of the form that the piece is being poured into. But contemporary music can be all over the place.

Sure, you can just hear it with no preparation. Something will probably grab you. Or if you've got good ears, you can identify the manipulation of tone clusters or whatever. 

Personally, I'm more like the Jethro Tull quote, "I am geared toward the average rather than the exceptional." I have to read liner notes or commentaries to at least understand the framework, or else I get lost in the fog. Sometimes YouTube channels have pieces playing with some form of running commentary. I wish there were more of them. At least give us little guys a fighting chance before you bombard us with your banging on a can.


----------



## Xenakiboy (May 8, 2016)

I was listening to Xenakis, Bartok, Stravinsky, Varese, Stockhausen and Schoenberg and loving it before I understood the technical details. I hate the misconception that people have to understand mathematics to appreciate Stockhausen or Babbitt, its not true. The reason a lot of CDs have these mini-analysis of these complex pieces I believe, are because composers like myself get enjoyment and creative stimulation from hearing interesting theories and procedures employed by these composers. But you most certainly *don't* need to be a scientist to appreciate its benefits! :tiphat:

If I may quote my hero Iannis Xenakis: "The listener must be gripped and whether he likes it or not, drawn into the flight path of the sounds without special training being necessary. The sensual shock must be just as forceful as when one hears a clap of thunder or looks into a bottomless abyss"


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2016)

Herrenvolk said:


> Recently, - after a long time of dissenting contemporary/modernist classical music because I didn't have the open mind for it - I have dipped quite a bit into contemporary/modernist classical music with works by Penderecki, Rihm, Messiaen and a miscellaneous works by other composers. One thing that I wonder when listening to such works: Is there any preparation required for listening to them? Is it beneficial? Reading notes for works by these composers is always stifling. It is all very technical. It appears that the composers are writing "advanced" compositions. They deal with timbres, sonorities, colors and perception of sound. They have plans like:
> 
> "_Der Regen, das Glas, das Lachen" for 25 instrumentalists: this marks the juncture of a one tone piece and white noise. The constituent polymetric one tone piece takes 20 minutes to "glissando" once through the octave and in the process turns into an all tone piece, while the total sound passes in stages through 6 further layers of simultaneous sound until it arrives at a single level of white noise. The simultaneity of the graduation from coarsegraininess (tone) to fine-graininess (= more compactness, more noise) right down to the surface (white noise) is maintained - potentially - from start to finish. This means that what is played is extremely dense and a large part of the orientation is left to the listener. Over long periods she is left alone to listen in to the various levels of the piece, to find her way IN THE SOUND. _"
> 
> ...


Before test-driving a car, would you want to read up on the engineering, physics, chemistry and mathematics of the vehicle design and underlying principles?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Same as any other music ever written all over the world throughout history, there shouldn't be an "entry requirement" - at most a recognition that this won't necessarily sound like the music you already know and may not offer the exact same musical awards.

That said, I'm curious why when people want to explore contemporary music for the first time, they go for people like Peter Ablinger as above rather than a more obviously "accessible" introduction such as, say, Julia Wolfe or Mason Bates.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> Same as any other music ever written all over the world throughout history, there shouldn't be an "entry requirement"...


"Why refuse to recognize the possibility that contemporary music has reached a stage long since attained by other forms of activity? The time has passed when the normally well-educated man without special preparation could understand the most advanced work in, for example, mathematics, philosophy, and physics. Advanced music, to the extent that it reflects the knowledge and originality of the informed composer, scarcely can be expected to appear more intelligible than these arts and sciences to the person whose musical education usually has been even less extensive than his background in other fields."

--Uncle Milty Babbitt, "Who Cares if You Listen?"


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> "Why refuse to recognize the possibility that contemporary music has reached a stage long since attained by other forms of activity? The time has passed when the normally well-educated man without special preparation could understand the most advanced work in, for example, mathematics, philosophy, and physics. Advanced music, to the extent that it reflects the knowledge and originality of the informed composer, scarcely can be expected to appear more intelligible than these arts and sciences to the person whose musical education usually has been even less extensive than his background in other fields."
> 
> --Uncle Milty Babbitt, "Who Cares if You Listen?"


I didn't know Babbitt had been elected official representative of the Contemporary Classical Music Composers Union...


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

KenOC said:


> "Why refuse to recognize the possibility that contemporary music has reached a stage long since attained by other forms of activity? The time has passed when the normally well-educated man without special preparation could understand the most advanced work in, for example, mathematics, philosophy, and physics. Advanced music, to the extent that it reflects the knowledge and originality of the informed composer, scarcely can be expected to appear more intelligible than these arts and sciences to the person whose musical education usually has been even less extensive than his background in other fields."
> 
> --Uncle Milty Babbitt, "Who Cares if You Listen?"


The lesser popularity of second Vienese, Darmstadt, serial, post-serial, electronic avant-garde etc. music is one thing. I can accept that a much smaller audience will listen to it and enjoy it.

However, there's a point you've never addressed. If with near zero knowledge of how Darmstadt i.e. Stockhausen, Xenakis, and Boulez music works (I still wouldn't be able to give a paragraph of how any of these three men wrote their music), I enjoyed it and followed a lot of its ebb and flow and drama and therefore understood it "in the heart", and _before_ I did some reading and learned anything technical about second Viennese music I enjoyed it and could follow a lot of its ebb and flow and drama and therefore understood it "in the heart", and this is the case for _all_ of the regular fans of contemporary avant-garde music on this site like SimonNZ, dogen, MillionRainbows, Dr Johnson, Xenakiboy (read what he just wrote), nathanb, Morimur, aleazk, tortkis, Mahlerian (even Mahlerian, the "intellectual" enjoyed the emotionality and musicality of Schoenberg before learning about how Schoenberg's music worked from reading music theory and history), PetrB, some guy (yes, the ultimate "modernists" PetrB and some guy were enjoying the listen far before they learned the theory), science, dgee, etc...

then how can you explain their experiences? Are they:

1. deluding themselves and "don't really" understand Stockhausen's, Babbitt's, Nono's, and Boulez's music at a gut level? I.e. they "do really" understand Mozart and Mahler at a gut level "for real" but are fooling themselves when they say they can follow the post-1950 avant garde at a gut level?

2. they actually secretly know the deep details behind serialism and post-serialism, they only enjoy the music because of that and wouldn't otherwise, and therefore are praising the music?

3. they actually don't like Stockhausen's, Babbitt's, Nono's, and Boulez's music at all, but they pretend to understand it at a gut level in order to appear discerning and open-minded and awesome on this internet site?

Given what I've read from your past posts, if you are so sure that [your reading of] Milton Babbitt is right, and that only a person knowledgeable of serialism, electronics, orchestration, etc. in exacting scientific detail could understand at a gut level (analogous to understanding at a gut level Mozart and Mahler without learning common practice harmony and counterpoint in order to understand them at an intellectually deep level) then how do you explain these people's experiences? I can accept that there are less people who listen to post-1950 avant-garde by numbers, but most of the sales of concerts and recordings, that are there, are not to people who can construct a serial piece or even know how the tone rows were really deployed.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> "Why refuse to recognize the possibility that contemporary music has reached a stage long since attained by other forms of activity? The time has passed when the normally well-educated man without special preparation could understand the most advanced work in, for example, mathematics, philosophy, and physics. Advanced music, to the extent that it reflects the knowledge and originality of the informed composer, scarcely can be expected to appear more intelligible than these arts and sciences to the person whose musical education usually has been even less extensive than his background in other fields."
> 
> --Uncle Milty Babbitt, "Who Cares if You Listen?"


The idea that art advances in the same way that science advances is nonsense.
Does one need "special preparation" to _understand_ certain kinds of music? Yes. But in terms of enjoyment or appreciation, absolutely not.

(Edited from original post, which was focused on the wrong thing)


----------



## dieter (Feb 26, 2016)

Preferably with earphones if you live in a shared house, or a house run by a wife and daughter, as I do.(Bless them!)


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I listened to the Peter Ablinger piece last night. It was new to me, and I enjoyed it. I'm tempted to say his program note adds nothing to the experience. At least, it didn't for me.

One answer to the question of how to listen to contemporary music is that you listen to it the same way as earlier music. I think that's a bad answer. Music of the common practice period relied on familiar forms for their intelligibility. In the 20th century that was no longer universally true.

There may be a subset of music that is indeed "intended only for musically trained individuals," as evidenced by the Babbitt quote above. But this subset is small. Most composers were trying, one way or another, to write music that would be intelligible to listeners.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> The idea that art advances in the same way that science advances is nonsense.


It may or may not be nonsense, but if it's correct, then since art by definition falls short of scientific rigor, "advanc[ing]" means we ultimately stop making or caring about art altogether (including, of course, Milton Babbitt's art).

I think that possibility is one of the two things about Babbitt's essay that really scares people. (The other is the idea that on one side you've got the "specialist" composer who just invents new ideas, and on the other side you've got the popular composer who just dilutes the specialist's ideas into something normal people actually want to hear - which of course, at least for the moment, is pretty much where we are.)


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Re : the OP - I kind of think the only thing in music that you maybe need a bit of "preparation" for is where to listen for repetition. So maybe you need a bit of preparation to get the most out of imitative polyphony, counterpoint, and sonata style; to a lesser extent, Wagnerian leitmotif (a transitional phase); and then most "contemporary" music (like, starting with Prelude To the Afternoon of a Faun) is like medieval music - just listen for the pretty colors!


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

If I like it, I listen to it more, if I don't, I stop listening to it and listen to something else. 

Some modern music has become like some modern visual art and some modern philosophy.

I don't need to be led by the hand by these things. I think a lot of modern visual art is an investment scam, pure and simple. Why wouldn't modern music also follow this reasoning? Of course, one can put the blame on academia, which incidentally often seemed to be against the great composers while they were alive. Modern Western philosophy I find often to be nihilistic and irrelevant to creating a positive reason for living, which older Western philosophy was careful to do with all the reasoning imaginable. 

There are 30 or more modern visual artists whose work could hardly be called beautiful but are making hundreds of thousands of dollars and more with their works and are hung with questionable taste in some museums. Not only the artist makes money but also the people who inflate the value of such worthless art. I can see why someone would think the con artist aesthetic theory works behind such artwork. Maybe it's that people are just sleeping, not so much evil to do such things.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

regenmusic said:


> I think a lot of modern visual art is an investment scam, pure and simple. Why wouldn't modern music also follow this reasoning?


'Cuz nobody wants to pay for it?



regenmusic said:


> Modern Western philosophy I find often to be nihilistic and irrelevant to creating a positive reason for living, which older Western philosophy was careful to do with all the reasoning imaginable.


Well, if you have to "create" a positive reason for living, that means there isn't one, in which case nihilism is just another word for honesty.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> It may or may not be nonsense, but if it's correct, then since art by definition falls short of scientific rigor, "advanc[ing]" means we ultimately stop making or caring about art altogether (including, of course, Milton Babbitt's art).
> 
> I think that possibility is one of the two things about Babbitt's essay that really scares people.


I don't think it scares anyone because I think its total wrongness is self-evident to most people.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> I don't think it scares anyone because I think its total wrongness is self-evident to most people.


Most people I've seen online didn't even understand it enough to realize that the title that had been appended to it has nothing to do with the article.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

isorhythm said:


> I don't think it scares anyone because I think its total wrongness is self-evident to most people.


If that were the case, people wouldn't resent it - as many so obviously do - they'd just ignore it and forget about it.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

I mean, it's not like Milt's alone here. By the time he wrote his piece, Hermann Hesse had already imagined a world where art is obsolete in Stockhausen's favorite book, The Glass Bead Game. Though maybe Hesse didn't go far enough - in his world, people at least MISS the good old artistically creative days.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> If that were the case, people wouldn't resent it - as many so obviously do - they'd just ignore it and forget about it.


The cause of this resentment is I think that some people have a need to feel that artists serve them. There is a lot of complicated class anxiety at work.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Herrenvolk said:


> Recently, - after a long time of dissenting contemporary/modernist classical music because I didn't have the open mind for it - I have dipped quite a bit into contemporary/modernist classical music with works by Penderecki, Rihm, Messiaen and a miscellaneous works by other composers. One thing that I wonder when listening to such works: Is there any preparation required for listening to them? Is it beneficial? Reading notes for works by these composers is always stifling. It is all very technical. It appears that the composers are writing "advanced" compositions. They deal with timbres, sonorities, colors and perception of sound. They have plans like:
> 
> "_Der Regen, das Glas, das Lachen" for 25 instrumentalists: this marks the juncture of a one tone piece and white noise. The constituent polymetric one tone piece takes 20 minutes to "glissando" once through the octave and in the process turns into an all tone piece, while the total sound passes in stages through 6 further layers of simultaneous sound until it arrives at a single level of white noise. The simultaneity of the graduation from coarsegraininess (tone) to fine-graininess (= more compactness, more noise) right down to the surface (white noise) is maintained - potentially - from start to finish. This means that what is played is extremely dense and a large part of the orientation is left to the listener. Over long periods she is left alone to listen in to the various levels of the piece, to find her way IN THE SOUND. _"
> 
> ...


I think the same way with you, and I just frankly expressed that there is NO such thing as "modern classical music"thingie dingie. Writing a piece of supposed music for a classical instrument and calling it a classical piece is nothing more than mere conceit. I have no appetit or patience for such a thingie dingie. However, I do like some modern music, like Elton John and some japanese pop:
[video]http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNTM0ODkzMDky.html?from=y1.7-1.2[/video]

The basic tonality must be maintained to make music, not noise.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

> "Der Regen, das Glas, das Lachen" for 25 instrumentalists: this marks the juncture of a one tone piece and white noise. The constituent polymetric one tone piece takes 20 minutes to "glissando" once through the octave and in the process turns into an all tone piece, while the total sound passes in stages through 6 further layers of simultaneous sound until it arrives at a single level of white noise. The simultaneity of the graduation from coarsegraininess (tone) to fine-graininess (= more compactness, more noise) right down to the surface (white noise) is maintained - potentially - from start to finish. This means that what is played is extremely dense and a large part of the orientation is left to the listener. Over long periods she is left alone to listen in to the various levels of the piece, to find her way IN THE SOUND. "


This is nothing more than psychedelic experiment disguised as music, there are too many kind of scams pretending to be groundbreaking, novel, innovative just like the rhetorics of Karl Marx, stealing others philosophical ideologies, and twisting them to make his own, Marx did nothing to advance philosophy but contaminate her with meritocracy disguised within the beguiling populist agendas. B e careful about so many new stuffs there, not all of them are up for goodness, like GMO, alien farcicals, atheist dictatorship, psychiatric drugs, so many people think it is cool to dope themselfs, just like listening to the "modern classical music".


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Ariasexta said:


> This is nothing more than psychedelic experiment disguised as music, there are too many kind of scams pretending to be groundbreaking, novel, innovative just like the rhetorics of Karl Marx, stealing others philosophical ideologies, and twisting them to make his own, Marx did nothing to advance philosophy but contaminate her with meritocracy disguised within the beguiling populist agendas. B e careful about so many new stuffs there, not all of them are up for goodness, like *GMO*, alien farcicals, *atheist dictatorship*, *psychiatric drugs*, so many people think it is cool to dope themselfs, just like listening to the "modern classical music".


Huh? What are you going on about? GMOs have been shown to be completely safe. Like modern classical music, there aren't any side effects. Just take in and enjoy.






Also, the example given in the OP was fake, a parody of program notes.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Another I do not know.

There have been times I have read about a piece of music and I thought this sounds like it might be great. Then I would actually listen to it and I would hate it.

Then there are times I would read about a work and thought this appears to be garbage. Then I would listen to it and think this really great.

So I really do not know what to say.

I like YouTube because I can try out new music before I buy it.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> Also, the example given in the OP was fake, a parody of program notes.


It was? Who wrote it? The piece is real....


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Huh? What are you going on about? GMOs have been shown to be completely safe. Like modern classical music, there aren't any side effects. Just take in and enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:lol:GMO is safe :lol:

Though I am not very scientific, but my scientific education is good for reading and commenting any statistical reports in English, Russian, even the scientists are trying their best propagandist skills and connections, even I may unknowingly swallow some GMO, my consciousness will always refuse GMO and all human pretension in playing gods.

"Modern classical music" is a pure conceit, if not its self-promotion to be classical, I will not have a bit question with it. The conception is wrong enough to make a hell out of it, Marx killed 200 million people for nothing, and such modernist unethical values will surely destroy the true classical art.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> It was? Who wrote it? The piece is real....


Oops. It is real. Well, I stand corrected then. It is Ablinger's actual notes for his piece.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Ariasexta said:


> :lol:GMO is safe :lol:
> 
> Though I am not very scientific, but my scientific education is good for reading and commenting any statistical reports in English, Russian, even the scientists are trying their best propagandist skills and connections, even I may unknowingly swallow some GMO, my consciousness will always refuse GMO and all human pretension in playing gods.


Read this then:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonenti...-is-over-thanks-to-a-new-trillion-meal-study/



Ariasexta said:


> "Modern classical music" is a pure conceit, if not its self-promotion to be classical, I will not have a bit question with it. The conception is wrong enough to make a hell out of it, Marx killed 200 million people for nothing, and such modernist unethical values will surely destroy the true classical art.


Well, it hasn't so far. We've been given plenty of masterpieces, though.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> That said, I'm curious why when people want to explore contemporary music for the first time, they go for people like Peter Ablinger as above rather than a more obviously "accessible" introduction such as, say, Julia Wolfe or Mason Bates.


If you're wanting to explore Classical-era music, will you head over to listen to Dittersdorf and Stamitz or Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven? The latter are less accessible in a number of ways, but they are considered the best of their era.

Likewise, people will go for the things considered the best of an era, and take them, rightly or wrongly, as representative.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Huh? What are you going on about? GMOs have been shown to be completely safe. Like modern classical music, there aren't any side effects. Just take in and enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I cannot access to youtube, it is banned from connection from China.

I have enough amount of nice modern musical works to enjoy I surely will not be interested in MCM in any future. Anything that can be recommended about MCM can be found in all popular rock music, from craziness to vulgar or melodramatic sentimentalism. I cannot understand what is the point of abusing the classical instrument and church with playing noises. I have said this before but people just ignore it, to play bad music with ancient instruments is an insult to humanity.

I am very opened minded, I also have a collection of Zeppelin, Beatles, japanese music, I can be rock and roll, and be meditative with classical music, and I also read Virginia Woolf, Hemmingway, Shakespeare, japanese manga, writing my own metaphysical poems, I am encompassing.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> 'Cuz nobody wants to pay for it?
> 
> Well, if you have to "create" a positive reason for living, that means there isn't one, in which case nihilism is just another word for honesty.


True, my choice of wording was bad, using the idea that on a pragmatic level our worldviews are subjective and self-fulfilling. Older Western philosophy saw a duty to "deduce" or "posit" a positive reason for the creation of the world and hence this was the reason for living.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Ariasexta said:


> I am very opened minded, I also have a collection of Zeppelin, Beatles, japanese music, I can be rock and roll, and be meditative with classical music, and I also read Virginia Wolff, Hemmingway, Shakespeare, japanese manga, writing my own metaphysical poems, I am encompassing.


If you are open-minded, great.

It doesn't mean that anything you dislike is therefore awful.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Ariasexta said:


> The conception is wrong enough to make a hell out of it, Marx killed 200 million people for nothing, and such modernist unethical values will surely destroy the true classical art.


What you call "Marx" liked the softer side of Prokofiev and Shostakovich and banned atonality.

"Modernist unethical values" are purely a phenomenon of capitalist societies.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

regenmusic said:


> Older Western philosophy saw a duty to "deduce" or "posit" a positive reason for the creation of the world and hence this was the reason for living.


That's still the same problem: assumption, a priori, that there is a positive reason. And of course not ALL older western philosophy was like that. Epicureanism wasn't.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Ariasexta said:


> The basic tonality must be maintained to make music, not noise.


Then La Monte Young and Gérard Grisey should present no problems.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> If you're wanting to explore Classical-era music, will you head over to listen to Dittersdorf and Stamitz or Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven? The latter are less accessible in a number of ways, but they are considered the best of their era.
> 
> Likewise, people will go for the things considered the best of an era, and take them, rightly or wrongly, as representative.


Well, "considered the best" is arguable if we're talking about contemporary music. It depends whose opinions you listen to.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Read this then:
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonenti...-is-over-thanks-to-a-new-trillion-meal-study/
> 
> Well, it hasn't so far. We've been given plenty of masterpieces, though.


This is not scienceVS ignorant fear, but crimeVSjustice. No negotiation about the safety of GMO. Same strategy of Marxist propaganda using lofty terms and ideologies to fool the fools.

Maybe there are good modern pieces, but people should stop enshrine themself by worshipping contemporary works. To call which one as classical is the right of the future people in the next 200-500 years. Just call these modern works as avant-guard, abstract, or realist, impressionist schools (refering to the schools in paintings), if classical, they must be classical in all senses.


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

When it comes to contemporary classical music, I find self-flagellation usually gets me in the mood.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> If you are open-minded, great.
> 
> It doesn't mean that anything you dislike is therefore awful.


I accept modern arts, but no misconceptions that pass something off as they are not qualified to at least for the current era. 
Classical is a term given by the posterity to the hallmarking art pieces.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> Well, "considered the best" is arguable if we're talking about contemporary music. It depends whose opinions you listen to.


Yes, but do many people consider Bates or Wolfe the best of the current crop? Reich, Adams, Glass, Gorecki, Part, and so forth are more popular by far with the same group that enjoys them.

There are of course differences between opinions. You will find people on this site who dislike Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, and Bach and claim that they don't deserve their position at the top of the canon. I feel the same about that that I do those who ignore Stravinsky, Boulez, Schoenberg, and Ligeti in the 20th century; they're entitled to their own opinion and their own taste, but if they start making pronouncements that deal with objective facts, I will dispute them if they are wrong.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Ariasexta said:


> To call which one as classical is the right of the future people in the next 200-500 years.


So what was the first year when it was okay to call Die Walkure "classical"?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, but do many people consider Bates or Wolfe the best of the current crop? Reich, Adams, Glass, Gorecki, Part, and so forth are more popular by far with the same group that enjoys them.
> 
> There are of course differences between opinions. You will find people on this site who dislike Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, and Bach and claim that they don't deserve their position at the top of the canon. I feel the same about that that I do those who ignore Stravinsky, Boulez, Schoenberg, and Ligeti in the 20th century; they're entitled to their own opinion and their own taste, but if they start making pronouncements that deal with objective facts, I will dispute them if they are wrong.


Seeing as the OP mentioned Ablinger, I thought Wolfe, being the same age, was a reasonable comparison. I mentioned Bates as a younger composer who's been getting attention and whose work I've been listening to recently. I'm not claiming anyone's "the best", whatever that means.

And actually the point still holds with the likes of Adams and Part - a tendency of people who apparently have trouble with all contemporary music attempting to engage unsuccessfully with the troublesome music while ignoring the perhaps far less troublesome alternatives.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> Seeing as the OP mentioned Ablinger, I thought Wolfe, being the same age, was a reasonable comparison. I mentioned Bates as a younger composer who's been getting attention and whose work I've been listening to recently. I'm not claiming anyone's "the best", whatever that means.


Point taken.



Nereffid said:


> And actually the point still holds with the likes of Adams and Part - a tendency of people who apparently have trouble with all contemporary music attempting to engage unsuccessfully with the troublesome music while ignoring the perhaps far less troublesome alternatives.


Well, you have asked before why I or others would recommend a piece by Boulez or Schoenberg over Glass or Shostakovich, and the reason in my case is simple. I think their music is better, and while I don't doubt that many find it difficult, I think it's horribly patronizing to say to someone "I don't think this is the best I can show you, but it's the best you can understand."


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Well, you have asked before why I or others would recommend a piece by Boulez or Schoenberg over Glass or Shostakovich, and the reason in my case is simple. I think their music is better, and while I don't doubt that many find it difficult, I think it's horribly patronizing to say to someone "I don't think this is the best I can show you, but it's the best you can understand."


I don't think either's better than the other, though I have a clear personal preference, and my comments are ultimately a lament for people who seem to find themselves in a situation that I fortunately have never been in - namely, faced with the possibility that all contemporary music is going to be horrible. Every day (not literally) I thank non-existent Jesus that the minimalists, Part et al were the large part of my introduction to contemporary music; if I'd thought it was going to be Babbitt and Boulez all the way I'd have given up almost immediately. I know my own tastes are in a tiny minority here, but it strikes me as quite sad that so many people seem to think that "that difficult music I can't get to like" is all there is in contemporary music.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> I don't think either's better than the other, though I have a clear personal preference, and my comments are ultimately a lament for people who seem to find themselves in a situation that I fortunately have never been in - namely, faced with the possibility that all contemporary music is going to be horrible. Every day (not literally) I thank non-existent Jesus that the minimalists, Part et al were the large part of my introduction to contemporary music; if I'd thought it was going to be Babbitt and Boulez all the way I'd have given up almost immediately. I know my own tastes are in a tiny minority here, but it strikes me as quite sad that so many people seem to think that "that difficult music I can't get to like" is all there is in contemporary music.


I didn't like Babbitt or Boulez (or Mahler) when I first heard their music, and still kept going. I don't think that people should give up because something is difficult, nor assume that they would not be able to get to like it.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> Every day (not literally) I thank non-existent Jesus that the minimalists, Part et al were the large part of my introduction to contemporary music; if I'd thought it was going to be Babbitt and Boulez all the way I'd have given up almost immediately. I know my own tastes are in a tiny minority here, but it strikes me as quite sad that so many people seem to think that "that difficult music I can't get to like" is all there is in contemporary music.


Fair enough, but the other side of the coin is that there are a lot of fairly serious music listeners who confidently believe that Arvo Pärt is the greatest working classical composer - not because they've listened to the harder stuff and founding it wanting; mostly they've never even HEARD _OF_ the harder stuff. They've heard Pärt, checked off the "classical music today" box on their personal cultural core curriculum, and they're done. (Sometimes - less frequently, in my experience - it's Philip Glass instead of Pärt. What passes for the advanced class knows Steve Reich.)


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> I didn't like Babbitt or Boulez (or Mahler) when I first heard their music, and still kept going. I don't think that people should give up because something is difficult, nor assume that they would not be able to get to like it.


Personally, I'm all for persistence but I also think people should give up whenever they want without thinking anyone's judging them for it. See my comments some time ago about creepy guys asking their girlfriends to do stuff. I don't know about your end game, but mine is simply to listen to music I enjoy. I've been fortunate enough, when it comes to contemporary music, to find a ton of music that I've enjoyed without ever finding it difficult*; I've also found music that I didn't enjoy but have come to enjoy; and also music I still don't enjoy and feel no desire to eventually enjoy. But my point in this thread is merely that the first of those three categories seems to be something some newcomers to contemporary music don't have, and one reason for this is that they don't appear to be aware of all the music that's out there.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> Well, you have asked before why I or others would recommend a piece by Boulez or Schoenberg over Glass or Shostakovich, and the reason in my case is simple. I think their music is better, and while I don't doubt that many find it difficult, I think it's horribly patronizing to say to someone "I don't think this is the best I can show you, but it's the best you can understand."


I don't think it makes sense to compare music with totally different aesthetic aims like this. I agree that Shostakovich isn't worth mentioning in this context, but Glass and Boulez were not up to the same thing at all. Different listeners may enjoy one or the other more. Shouldn't that be considered in making recommendations?



Mahlerian said:


> I didn't like Babbitt or Boulez (or Mahler) when I first heard their music, and still kept going. I don't think that people should give up because something is difficult, nor assume that they would not be able to get to like it.


Did you have a feeling you might enjoy it in the future? When I encounter music I don't immediately enjoy, but decide to "keep going" with it, it's always because I have that feeling. I think that's necessary for most people to invest the effort.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> I don't think it makes sense to compare music with totally different aesthetic aims like this. I agree that Shostakovich isn't worth mentioning in this context, but Glass and Boulez were not up to the same thing at all. Different listeners may enjoy one or the other more. Shouldn't that be considered in making recommendations?


Of course, I do prefer to try to find something that would be to someone else's tastes if I'm giving personal recommendations.



isorhythm said:


> Did you have a feeling you might enjoy it in the future? When I encounter music I don't immediately enjoy, but decide to "keep going" with it, it's always because I have that feeling. I think that's necessary for most people to invest the effort.


No; I remember thinking post-1950 serial music was beyond me and completely random-sounding. I had no impression that I enjoyed anything about it. It was interest in the tradition and the development of that tradition that led me back to the music that I had previously written off.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Alternate answer: Reclining in an Eero Aarnio ball chair.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> No; I remember thinking post-1950 serial music was beyond me and completely random-sounding. I had no impression that I enjoyed anything about it. It was interest in the tradition and the development of that tradition that led me back to the music that I had previously written off.


I was the same way. I really do not know why I changed my mind. When I first started to understand Schoenberg and Webern, some of the other serial composers started to make sense.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Alternate answer: Reclining in an Eero Aarnio ball chair.


You'll need to take the headphones in with you - those things are unnervingly like isolation chambers.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> No; I remember thinking post-1950 serial music was beyond me and completely random-sounding. I had no impression that I enjoyed anything about it. It was interest in the tradition and the development of that tradition that led me back to the music that I had previously written off.


Interesting. I suspect most people won't do this. There has to be some initial glimmer of interest.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

isorhythm said:


> Interesting. I suspect most people won't do this. There has to be some initial glimmer of interest.


Mahlerian's experience sounds like mine. Maybe there does have to be an initial glimmer of interest, but that can be interest in RELATED music. Like, if you dig Gershwin's Porgy and Bess, then eventually you've got to deal with the fact that some of what you like comes out of Berg's Wozzeck (okay, not too dangerous yet, everybody knows that Berg is the "Romantic" atonal composer, after all), and then with the fact that Berg, in turn, comes out of Schoenberg (disaster!).


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Or, if you like Morton Feldman, eventually you've got to ask why Crippled Symmetry is divided into "regions," and why the late Stravinsky piece that Kyle Gann thinks sounds like late Feldman - the interlude from the Requiem Canticles - happens to also be the piece that Robin Maconie thinks sounds like early Stockhausen.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Herrenvolk said:


> Thank you.
> 
> If the work is horizontal, should I try to decrypt those lengthy, musical musings?


I think 'horizontal' linear listening is appropriate for a work like Beethoven's Sixth (Pastoral), and he seems to 'reward' such listening by the way certain themes have certain rhythms attached to them, and how these themes recur in later movements, sometimes as pitch identities, sometimes as rhythms which reappear and are recognizable. I find myself listening more and more like this.

Myself, I consider 'horizontal' listening to be harder to do, and it requires a longer attention span. It's a more narrative, 'literate' way of listening, which requires more memory of events. Maybe this is just me.

I think a lot of listeners are in 'vertical' mode naturally, and tend to be omnivores in their tastes, liking traditional as well as radical modern music. That's what I observed in this forum over the years.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Mahlerian's experience sounds like mine. Maybe there does have to be an initial glimmer of interest, but that can be interest in RELATED music. Like, if you dig Gershwin's Porgy and Bess, then eventually you've got to deal with the fact that some of what you like comes out of Berg's Wozzeck (okay, not too dangerous yet, everybody knows that Berg is the "Romantic" atonal composer, after all), and then with the fact that Berg, in turn, comes out of Schoenberg (disaster!).


Yes, I agree with this.


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

I've really been enjoying the Q2 Music internet livestream from WQXR lately. They play a variety of music by living composers in many different styles. Most of what I hear I'm hearing for the first time. I don't like everything but I like most of it.

I tuned in for just a little while this afternoon and discovered these pieces, all new to me. Two of the composers were not new to me (you can probably guess which two), but the pieces were. I liked all of them and really liked the Epstein a lot.
She Fell Into a Well of Sorrows by Marti Epstein
The Rose of the Winds by Stephen Hartke
Red Arc/Blue Veil by John Luther Adams
As the Earth Turns by Moondog (Louis Hardin)
Oniricum by Antonio Macaretti
Another Secret eQuation by Terry Riley


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I think the best way to approach avant-garde music is to approach it with a completely open mind (or ears). Don't necessarily think it is a symphony in a traditional sense even though it may have been composed in 2012 but labeled as a "symphony" (as an example). In other words, approach it as if you are listening to (say), Japanese traditional music, African traditional music, dubstep, Korean pop song, metal or just any sound. This way there would be no prejudice. Whether you enjoy it or not, is a different matter; my post here is about the approach.


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

*Replies!*



dogen said:


> Before test-driving a car, would you want to read up on the engineering, physics, chemistry and mathematics of the vehicle design and underlying principles?


I'm not old enough to drive. When I am, I'll let you know. :lol:



Nereffid said:


> Same as any other music ever written all over the world throughout history, there shouldn't be an "entry requirement" - at most a recognition that this won't necessarily sound like the music you already know and may not offer the exact same musical awards.
> 
> That said, I'm curious why when people want to explore contemporary music for the first time, they go for people like Peter Ablinger as above rather than a more obviously "accessible" introduction such as, say, Julia Wolfe or Mason Bates.


Well, my method of approaching works isn't "traditional". Usually, it's because of a conductor, musician I like, or a label. 
In Ablinger case, I was searching for Cambreling albums (because he was the chief conductor of SWR Sinfonieorchester - a fascination because of their strong support of contemporary composers.) and of the multitudes of albums that came up during an Apple Music search, I chose this one. 
In other cases, I have a composer I select (like Penderecki or Rihm whom I like because of their cacophonous music and {for Rihm} Tutuguri.) and then randomly select works. Or, as it happens, I come across a composer (e.g. Lindberg) one day and decided to hear him (Feria). And then I am struck by it and explore him further.

Nothing structured.



Mahlerian said:


> Oops. It is real. Well, I stand corrected then. It is Ablinger's actual notes for his piece.


You know me well enough to know that I am not smart enough to write that. ;-)



Mahlerian said:


> If you're wanting to explore Classical-era music, will you head over to listen to Dittersdorf and Stamitz or Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven? The latter are less accessible in a number of ways, but they are considered the best of their era.
> 
> Likewise, people will go for the things considered the best of an era, and take them, rightly or wrongly, as representative.


That's hardly applicable for contemporary/20th Century Music - it's simply *TOO BIG*! Too wide stylistically.



Mahlerian said:


> I didn't like Babbitt or Boulez (or Mahler) when I first heard their music, and still kept going. I don't think that people should give up because something is difficult, nor assume that they would not be able to get to like it.


Very true. I don't like most works on my first try. Sometimes (or often) I find it repulsively confusing. But I don't quit because if I did, I would've never ventured deeply into classical music which has now become my life's greatest passion. I have had long struggles with many composers - Mozart and Bruckner for example - but now they are some of my favorites!



Nereffid said:


> Personally, I'm all for persistence but I also think people should give up whenever they want without thinking anyone's judging them for it. See my comments some time ago about creepy guys asking their girlfriends to do stuff. I don't know about your end game, but mine is simply to listen to music I enjoy. I've been fortunate enough, when it comes to contemporary music, to find a ton of music that I've enjoyed without ever finding it difficult*; I've also found music that I didn't enjoy but have come to enjoy; and also music I still don't enjoy and feel no desire to eventually enjoy. But my point in this thread is merely that the first of those three categories seems to be something some newcomers to contemporary music don't have, and one reason for this is that they don't appear to be aware of all the music that's out there.


Actually, I have experience with contemporary/20th Century music. Not "intermediate" level but certainly not beginner low. Some Penderecki, some Rihm, some Messiaen, some Turnage and others. Even if these works don't stick to me in the way Mozart's symphonies might, they leave a sort of experience that makes me want to jump into these composer even further. A different, strange, unique sound world. I don't always succeed. I encounter works that even now baffle me (irritate me because how utterly incomprehensible they are) completely but that's _my shortcoming_. I need to listen to it more - more attentively.

Mahlerian here knows how I detested anything post-Mahler/Bruckner or in similar stylistic vein (i.e. "experimental" I guess?). It's a different scenario now. Perseverance. 
______________

The thing that troubles me for most classical music people listeners is the sheer arrogance. It's deplorable. When you fail to understand a certain style of music, why not simply say that you don't get it?

_Why do you even enter such discussions?! _

It's almost pathetic. 
What's more is that they seemingly close their ears and just say, *"WAH-WAH-LA-LA-LA-I-DON'T-CARE"* to any reasonable argument. It's infuriating.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I listen to contemporary music one piece at a time, same as with any other music (unless I happen to be listening to Schnittke).


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

Blancrocher said:


> I listen to contemporary music one piece at a time, same as with any other music (unless I happen to be listening to Schnittke).


Schnittke special for you? Can't get 'nuff of him?


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Herrenvolk said:


> That's hardly applicable for contemporary/20th Century Music - it's simply *TOO BIG*! Too wide stylistically.


I'd say it's as applicable to 20th century music as to 18th. A wide variety of important composers - Corelli, A. Scarlatti, Vivaldi, F. Couperin, Rameau, D. Scarlatti, Pergolesi, C.P.E. Bach, Gluck, Gossec, Paisiello, Clementi, Dussek, early Beethoven - but if you zoom out far enough, Handel and Bach stand out on one end and Haydn and Mozart stand out on the other. The only 20th century composers I'm ready to bet on having that level of immortality are Debussy and Stravinsky. And maybe the Beatles.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> I'd say it's as applicable to 20th century music as to 18th. A wide variety of important composers - Corelli, A. Scarlatti, Vivaldi, F. Couperin, Rameau, D. Scarlatti, Pergolesi, C.P.E. Bach, Gluck, Gossec, Paisiello, Clementi, Dussek, early Beethoven - but if you zoom out far enough, Handel and Bach stand out on one end and Haydn and Mozart stand out on the other. The only 20th century composers I'm ready to bet on having that level of immortality are Debussy and Stravinsky. And maybe the Beatles.


Not quite comparable. The music of the 18th century was relatively homogeneous in tone and style. If you only took Handel, Bach, Haydn, Mozart and perhaps a couple of Bach's sons you would get the basic gist of the century. If you only took Debussy and Stravinsky from the 20th century you would miss swaths of completely different music.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

violadude said:


> Not quite comparable. The music of the 18th century was relatively homogeneous in tone and style.


If Vivaldi, Rameau, and Bach sound homogenous to us - and I don't think they do much - that's because of distance. In another 300 years, Ravel and Mahler will sound homogenous. Actually, to people who don't pay much attention to classical music, they already do! In his review of Stephen Sondheim's super-obviously-Ravel-imitating A Little Night Music, Clive Barnes wrote that it sounded like Mahler.



violadude said:


> If you only took Handel, Bach, Haydn, Mozart and perhaps a couple of Bach's sons you would get the basic gist of the century. If you only took Debussy and Stravinsky from the 20th century you would miss swaths of completely different music.


Both those statements are true, but you imply they're contradictory, and they're not. If you only take Handel, Bach, Haydn, and Mozart, you DO get the GIST of the 18th century - AND you miss swaths of completely different music. If you only take Debussy and Stravinsky from the 20th century, you DO miss swaths of completely different music - AND you get the gist of the century.


----------



## dieter (Feb 26, 2016)

Just posted on another thread: Presto Classics is having a 20th Century Composer sale.


----------



## stevederekson (Jan 5, 2014)

Very simple,

You don't.


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2016)

dieter said:


> Just posted on another thread: Presto Classics is having a 20th Century Composer sale.


Thanks for the alert! I'll have a rummage.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> If Vivaldi, Rameau, and Bach sound homogenous to us - and I don't think they do much - that's because of distance. In another 300 years, Ravel and Mahler will sound homogenous. Actually, to people who don't pay much attention to classical music, they already do! In his review of Stephen Sondheim's super-obviously-Ravel-imitating A Little Night Music, Clive Barnes wrote that it sounded like Mahler.
> 
> Both those statements are true, but you imply they're contradictory, and they're not. If you only take Handel, Bach, Haydn, and Mozart, you DO get the GIST of the 18th century - AND you miss swaths of completely different music. If you only take Debussy and Stravinsky from the 20th century, you DO miss swaths of completely different music - AND you get the gist of the century.


I don't think it's the same at all. I didn't mean to say that 18th century composers were completely homogeneous, but they obviously had a common dialect that ALL of them shared, which just wasn't the case in the 20th century.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

violadude said:


> I don't think it's the same at all. I didn't mean to say that 18th century composers were completely homogeneous, but they obviously had a common dialect that ALL of them shared, which just wasn't the case in the 20th century.


If it was the case in the 18th century, then it was the case in the 20th. 18th century didn't know they had a "common dialect." They knew there was Italian music, French music, and German music, but they didn't know there was a "Baroque" or "Classical" style. They one and only thing they knew they ALL had in common was that they were all "modern." The "common dialect" of a time just means whatever EVERYBODY has in common then, which almost by definition has to be unconscious, and we're maybe still too close to the 20th century to have a clear picture, though at least some things are perceptible: the end of "tonality" in the narrow meaning of the word, the suppression of portamento, the ideal of "objectivity" until Post-modernism happened, and then the new ideal of DISAVOWING objectivity (which we still have).


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think contemporary music can be criticized on the grounds that it lacks rhythmic and melodic continuity, by comparison. This is not true of Glass and minimalism, of course, which brought back the pulse of continuity. 
Take Norgard's string quartets, any of them, and compare them to Schubert's "Death and the Maiden." With Shubert, we are immersed in the play of rhythms, and their changing meanings. For this to be possible, there has to be a backdrop of continuity in some form, either rhythmic or thematic. With Norgard, we get none of this; our train of concentration is constantly being challenged and interrupted. 
That's why I think Minimalism came along at the right time, to take us back into "the pulse" of being. It's soothing, and we can escape into it.
With Norgard and much other contemporary music of the avant garde, we are in a more frantic state, more agitated, like a less centered state of being; which is a state that most working listeners seek to escape, and go to music for solace after the frantic workday is over. In this regard, Philip Glass' Symphony No. 2 is a much more pragmatic, utilitarian music which can focus us and center us.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I think contemporary music can be criticized on the grounds that it lacks rhythmic and melodic continuity, by comparison. This is not true of Glass and minimalism, of course, which brought back the pulse of continuity.
> Take Norgard's string quartets, any of them, and compare them to Schubert's "Death and the Maiden." With Shubert, we are immersed in the play of rhythms, and their changing meanings. For this to be possible, there has to be a backdrop of continuity in some form, either rhythmic or thematic. With Norgard, we get none of this; our train of concentration is constantly being challenged and interrupted.
> That's why I think Minimalism came along at the right time, to take us back into "the pulse" of being. It's soothing, and we can escape into it.
> With Norgard and much other contemporary music of the avant garde, we are in a more frantic state, more agitated, like a less centered state of being; which is a state that most working listeners seek to escape, and go to music for solace after the frantic workday is over. In this regard, Philip Glass' Symphony No. 2 is a much more pragmatic, utilitarian music which can focus us and center us.


I'd agree with this, and generalize further: often one may be put off either by a work's sound or structure. If anyone dislikes Debussy on first hearing, I suspect it's probably as a result of its apparent lack of design rather than inherently displeasing sonorities; the same may be true of many later works falling under labels like "neoromantic" or "spectral." On the other hand, sometimes it's more a matter of the sounds themselves: clusters of notes that are heard as dissonant or harsh-sounding, or unconventional instruments and instrumental combinations. I've encountered people both on the forum and IRL that admire the structure of Abrahamsen's Schnee but can't stand the "squeaks."

Serialism can sound harsh (early Boulez) or mellifluous (late Boulez). So can minimalism. Not that I could explain it as well as millionrainbows, but minimalism seems to be a living influence in many works and composers that are superficially completely different in character. For example, the piano concertos of both Beat Furrer and Esa Pekka Salonen seem profoundly influenced by minimalist techniques, though the former sounds crunchy and the latter more like Dutilleux.

I've generally preferred works--early and late--with a high degree of conspicuous (to me) repetition, irrespective of whether it uses traditional instrumental and vocal sounds or the musicians kick the piano or blow in the wrong end of the flute. However, I can't always easily explain why I do or don't like something.

Learning about the history of music (after my fashion) has also made me less judgmental: it's fun to notice patterns both within and between works, to the extent that even works that I despised after a few initial hearings have taken on an interest as I see the influence they've come to exert.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Blancrocher said:


> I'd agree with this, and generalize further: often one may be put off either by a work's sound or structure. If anyone dislikes Debussy on first hearing, I suspect it's probably as a result of its apparent lack of design rather than inherently displeasing sonorities


Early critics of Debussy often emphasized how horribly dissonant the music was in its abuse of seventh, ninth, and eleventh chords without resolution. I remember thinking his Images for Orchestra sounded extremely harsh the first time I encountered it (of course, I had grown up with the Rite of Spring through Fantasia LPs, and was fine with that; our reactions don't necessarily make sense).


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> If it was the case in the 18th century, then it was the case in the 20th.


What makes that necessarily so? Can you point to me how classical Era Composers were as disparate in their language and style as, say, Varese and Berg?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Early critics of Debussy often emphasized how horribly dissonant the music was in its abuse of seventh, ninth, and eleventh chords without resolution. I remember thinking his Images for Orchestra sounded extremely harsh the first time I encountered it (of course, I had grown up with the Rite of Spring through Fantasia LPs, and was fine with that; our reactions don't necessarily make sense).


I _still_ hear parts of Debussy as dissonant, if it comes down to it (at least in some performances :lol. Though these things are often hard to untangle, since "dissonance" can be more of a structural or acoustic term depending on who uses it. I've seen "chaotic" in some of those early reviews, too.

Still, I take your point--my distinction is fuzzy, as all general distinctions probably are, and our tastes can't always be explained.


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

Blancrocher said:


> I _still_ hear parts of Debussy as dissonant, if it comes down to it (at least in some performances :lol. Though these things are often hard to untangle, since "dissonance" can be more of a structural or acoustic term depending on who uses it. I've seen "chaotic" in some of those early reviews, too.
> 
> Still, I take your point--my distinction is fuzzy, as all general distinctions probably are, and our tastes can't always be explained.


If you find Debussy dissonant, what view do you hold of Penderecki? ;-)


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Herrenvolk said:


> If you find Debussy dissonant, what view do you hold of Penderecki? ;-)


More dissonant, I suppose.


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

Blancrocher said:


> More dissonant, I suppose.


Indeed. A rhetoric question though. Do you love Penderecki's works? Or Schnittke?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Herrenvolk said:


> Indeed. A rhetoric question though. Do you love Penderecki's works? Or Schnittke?


Yes--they're two of my favorite composers. How 'bout yourself?


----------



## sloth (Jul 12, 2013)

my first "classical music" recording was a tape with pierrot lunaire and gaspard de la nuit. I was about 13 and didn't know anything about music. In particular the pierrot freaked me out. I used to listen to it in bed with my headphones and that sounded like mysterious secret music...


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

Blancrocher said:


> Yes--they're two of my favorite composers. How 'bout yourself?


My views regarding Schnittke are undecided. I love Penderecki mostly. He may be the second contemporary classical music composer I fell in love with. I realized that it may be inaccessible for a lot of people, but I love the dark, constricted, cacophonous sound world. You understand that!


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

violadude said:


> What makes that necessarily so? Can you point to me how classical Era Composers were as disparate in their language and style as, say, Varese and Berg?


To some extent, they were even different in the same way. In Rameau as in Varese, the interest is primarily in the "verticle" aspect (the quality of a given chord, figuration, instrumentation, etc. and juxtapositions thereof) and in Bach as in Berg the interest is primarily in the "horizontal" aspect (harmonic progression).


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> To some extent, they were even different in the same way. In Rameau as in Varese, the interest is primarily in the "verticle" aspect (the quality of a given chord, figuration, instrumentation, etc. and juxtapositions thereof) and in Bach as in Berg the interest is primarily in the "horizontal" aspect (harmonic progression).


In a vertical sense Bach was the most interesting and advanced composer of the Baroque era.

*edit* - Replace Bach's name with Handel in your post and I could agree - at least in terms of your Baroque comparison. I'm less knowledgeable about the relative strengths in terms of Berg and Varese. Berg seems fairly vertical. Webern strikes me as more horizontal than Berg.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

tdc said:


> In a vertical sense Bach was the most interesting and advanced composer of the Baroque era.


Eh. If he was, that wouldn't preclude him being still being more interesting "horizontally." Anyway: e.g. You could maybe make a case that Bach's ornamentation is equal to Couperin's for keyboard or Rameau's for orchestra, though it's Bach who's the "maybe" in that comparison, not the French. But comparing Bach's use of orchestral timbres to Rameau, or for that matter Handel - no way.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Eh. If he was, that wouldn't preclude him being still being more interesting "horizontally." Anyway: e.g. You could maybe make a case that Bach's ornamentation is equal to Couperin's for keyboard or Rameau's for orchestra, though it's Bach who's the "maybe" in that comparison, not the French. But comparing Bach's use of orchestral timbres to Rameau, or for that matter Handel - no way.


I don't think he was more interesting horizontally. He is a composer that was interesting in both ways, but in my opinion was slightly weaker in the horizontal sense (occasional over reliance of the circle of 5ths progression).

Bach didn't need to concern himself with orchestral timbres as much because his use of harmony and counterpoint already provided him with maximum color in his orchestral works.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Bach's idiom was less about choice of instrumental color - for Bach, a line is a line subject to fugal development, instruments were more about pragmatic solution to musician availability. Bringing this back to modern avant-garde music however, this would not work because modern music do rely a lot, if not entirely, on instrumental color to paint the sounds that the notes need.


----------

