# Contemporary music is more expressive than older music because of timbre.



## Guest (Aug 17, 2018)

I've been thinking more and more about the expanded instrumental (and electronic I guess) sound world embraced by Lachenmann and a plethora of younger composers.

By opening up to a wider variety of sounds that can be made on instruments, I have always felt that there is a new kind of expressivity that evokes even wider range or more intricate emotive combinations when listening. Obviously, no music is inherently more expressive than any other, but I do feel like there's something even more attractive to me about expressing sound through a wider and more thoughtful embrace of instrumental colour than the more restraint approaches to orchestration and instrumentation from previous eras of music.

Without wanting to reduce the history of orchestration and instrumentation down to a _grand narrative_ (because that would not be able to substantiate any conclusion at which we may arrive) I do feel that with the expansion of the orchestra at the end of the 19th century provided some good foundations to explore orchestration and instrumental colour, more unusual combinations of instruments and an approach to new instrumental effects which were based more on expressivity than just sound effects.

I love the kind of expressivity through timbre that is so emphasised in Gielen's recording of Mahler (that 6th symphony has particularly good examples for me), and I love the kind of expressivity through timbre that we get even when we hear Mozart played on a fortepiano because of the intrinsic timbral qualities of each register of the instrument. But what I particularly love is the kind of expressivity through timbre, texture and pitch in music like this:






and this:






and I am wondering if there are many others who feel the same way about timbre and expressivity as I do.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

I feel the same way. I particularly like how it applies to chamber music, because you can hear more precisely how the timbre and expression of each instrument interacts with one another, that's why very small ensembles are my favorite. It's also why I enjoy slow and quiet music rather than fast and loud. Feldman was specifically trying to explore the concepts you're talking about. It's all about how the timbres mix together in a fairly static dynamic context, and even though some of his pieces start in pianissimo and never change, it's impossible for a musician or instrument to really play at the exact same volume or timbre twice. When the only dynamic marking says to play as quietly as possible, that means that the volume will change due to the properties of the instruments, the notes they play, and how they interact.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I like the Dynamics and boldness of modern music. For me it's more expressive than music of an earlier age such as the baroque period. Although there are exceptions. Try some of Adriana Holzsky's avant garde vocal works. It's incredibly bold and expressive music.


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2018)

starthrower said:


> I like the Dynamics and boldness of modern music. For me it's more expressive than music of an earlier age such as the baroque period. Although there are exceptions. Try some of Adriana Holzsky's avant garde vocal works. It's incredibly bold and expressive music.


Yes I am a big fan of Adriana Hölszky, I think she is one of the best composers of choral music of all time (well, to me anyway). I agree with you in terms of the dynamics and boldness, I guess they are closely linked to timbre as well, do you think?


----------



## Euler (Dec 3, 2017)

I'm a bit surprised you posted examples of traditional acoustic ensembles--I think electronic music, turntablism, circuit bending etc. better represent expanded soundworlds. These are wonderful things, but not necessarily more expressive than a solo violin singing a JS Bach partita. 

Why are symphonies, with their broad array of tone colours, not automatically more expressive than string quartets? Perhaps the hallowed position of the quartet derives in part from its restricted palette, forcing a focus on substance over colour and texture. For me timbre is surface, secondary to the melodic, harmonic and rhythmic core.


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2018)

Euler said:


> I'm a bit surprised you posted examples of traditional acoustic ensembles--I think electronic music, turntablism, circuit bending etc. better represent expanded soundworlds. These are wonderful things, but not necessarily more expressive than a solo violin singing a JS Bach partita.
> 
> Why are symphonies, with their broad array of tone colours, not automatically more expressive than string quartets? Perhaps the hallowed position of the quartet derives in part from its restricted palette, forcing a focus on substance over colour and texture. For me timbre is surface, secondary to the melodic, harmonic and rhythmic core.


In the OP I didn't say that an expanded instrumental or electronic soundworld is more expressive, than something like a solo violin singing a JS Bach partita. I believe the expanded soundworld opens up a different but still very evocative expressivity.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

I feel like large orchestras aren't the best for appreciating timbre (at least with a traditional type of piece where all the instruments are working together on a single melody or theme most of the time) because the sound of the instruments blend together and create a more average sound. I feel like orchestral pieces sound like like an orchestra while smaller ensembles sound like each instrument distinctly.

I love the possibilities of drone, noise, experimental electronic music in general, but I think it's harder to achieve precisely the sounds you want than with acoustic instruments.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I'm not sure if "expressive" is the right word. I find Romantic music more expressive. And traditional music is also aware of timbre at all times. But in a way I think it could be more "immediate" or possibly "down to earth" than traditional music, where you don't need to step back to admire it, like a lot of more traditional music. I'm starting to understand what you meant by atonality is "natural" in the sense it is not an idealized combination of notes of what sounds good to us, but more of what you might hear in the city or forest like that Lachenmann Mouvement.


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2018)

Fredx2098 said:


> I feel like large orchestras aren't the best for appreciating timbre (at least with a traditional type of piece where all the instruments are working together on a single melody or theme most of the time) because the sound of the instruments blend together and create a more average sound. I feel like orchestral pieces sound like like an orchestra while smaller ensembles sound like each instrument distinctly.
> 
> I love the possibilities of drone, noise, experimental electronic music in general, but I think it's harder to achieve precisely the sounds you want than with acoustic instruments.


I think it depends how the orchestra is being used.............it's a bit of a meme at the moment to write for orchestras in a kind of Debussy/Ravel/Lutosławski aesthetic, combining sounds to create a 'general' sound rather than exploring the orchestra as if it were a single instrument like a sysnthesiser where you can invent the sounds you want by playing around with the filters, mixers, oscillators, LFO etc.

I'm a big fan of how Ondrej Adamek writes for orchestra, just as an example.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

shirime said:


> I think it depends how the orchestra is being used.............it's a bit of a meme at the moment to write for orchestras in a kind of Debussy/Ravel/Lutosławski aesthetic, combining sounds to create a 'general' sound rather than exploring the orchestra as if it were a single instrument like a sysnthesiser where you can invent the sounds you want by playing around with the filters, mixers, oscillators, LFO etc.
> 
> I'm a big fan of how Ondrej Adamek writes for orchestra, just as an example.


Definitely! I've never thought of an orchestra like a synthesizer before, but it makes a lot of sense. I have a Moog Sub Phatty which is wonderful. Having multiple oscillators would be analogous to having multiple instruments. Using the fine tuning knob for one of the oscillators to create a slightly out of tune sound creates a wide range of new sounds with only one note that is perceived, which is similar to how composers like Ligeti and Scelsi write for orchestra. That's why I'm probably least interested in perfectly consonant orchestral pieces with a lot of unison playing, because there really isn't much to be interested in timbre-wise (not that I broadly don't enjoy that kind of music).

Do you have any recommendations of Adamek's pieces? I'm looking into composition and piano classes at a university near me and talking with/planning to talk with the composition professor. I've been checking out his music and I'm loving it. It's some very beautiful modernism that's definitely relevant to this thread, so I think I should get along with the guy. His name is Jorge Muniz.


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2018)

These are a couple of my favourite Adamek composition:


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

I'm listening to Polednice now and that is some crazy stuff! I'd call that some musique concrete instrumentale, or at least that's what it sounds like at times. I like it. Some parts remind me of :zoviet*france: tracks.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

I agree completely, but I don't understand why the use of these new techniques has to come at the expense of exploring more traditional emotions. I like the pieces in this thread for sounding as surreal and erratic and strange as they do, but why does almost all of it sound like that? I wouldn't want it to anymore that I would want it all to sound happy or sad. 

I feel similarly about electroacoustic music; I love a lot of it, but I think too much of it attempts to sustain itself on the fascinating timbres alone. I wonder sometimes if part of the problem is people actually believing that "tonality has been exhausted." Once I read that Stockhausen felt that Beethoven had already done all there was to do with the theme-development method, but how can this be true when the thematic material you'd be inspired to create with synthesizers/computesr/whatever-they-use would be so wildly different from a classical era composer's ideas? Why can't there be a joyful symphony in C major made using electroacoustic techniques, or some of the acoustic textures in this thread?

I'm not trained in music theory so maybe that's why I'm confused, but what's stopping a composer from exploring the same harmonies and emotions the previous generations did while infusing them with these new orchestral textures to create something that sounds more universally appealing while still being cutting edge? To what extent is the feeling of stop-and-start whimsical instability that always comes with this kind of music inextricably tied to the timbrel effects they're using? I feel like they're two different things and would like to see them part every now and then.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> I agree completely, but I don't understand why the use of these new techniques has to come at the expense of exploring more traditional emotions. I like the pieces in this thread for sounding as surreal and erratic and strange as they do, but why does almost all of it sound like that? I wouldn't want it to anymore that I would want it all to sound happy or sad.
> 
> I feel similarly about electroacoustic music; I love a lot of it, but I think too much of it attempts to sustain itself on the fascinating timbres alone. I wonder sometimes if part of the problem is people actually believing that "tonality has been exhausted." Once I read that Stockhausen felt that Beethoven had already done all there was to do with the theme-development method, but how can this be true when the thematic material you'd be inspired to create with synthesizers/computesr/whatever-they-use would be so wildly different from a classical era composer's ideas? Why can't there be a joyful symphony in C major made using electroacoustic techniques, or some of the acoustic textures in this thread?
> 
> I'm not trained in music theory so maybe that's why I'm confused, but what's stopping a composer from exploring the same harmonies and emotions the previous generations did while infusing them with these new orchestral textures to create something that sounds more universally appealing while still being cutting edge? To what extent is the feeling of stop-and-start whimsical instability that always comes with this kind of music inextricably tied to the timbrel effects they're using? I feel like they're two different things and would like to see them part every now and then.


People make music like that because it's what they want to hear. It seems like the most well-known modern music is that which is weird and novel, so people hear that and hate it and assume all modern music is like that, but it isn't all like that. I wish I didn't have to mention Morton Feldman all the time, who I think is a perfect example of both modernism and beauty.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

Fredx2098 said:


> People make music like that because it's what they want to hear. It seems like the most well-known modern music is that which is weird and novel, so people hear that and hate it and assume all modern music is like that, but it isn't all like that. I wish I didn't have to mention Morton Feldman all the time, who I think is a perfect example of both modernism and beauty.


Eh. I've spent a lot of time listening to a lot of modern music - I'm not some newcomer having a knee jerk reaction of hatred; I even made sure to mention that I like a lot of it. It's great that Feldman sounds beautiful to you, but I don't think he sounds anything at all like what I was describing. He sounds "weird and novel" like all the rest, evoking for me things like stress, mysteriousness, strangeness, etc, the same things I get from most modern music.

I'm just saying I'd like to hear the next great composer of a thing that sounds as texturally inventive as these pieces but evokes a different list of adjectives, perhaps some from the same list evoked by composers of the past. Obviously I'm not telling anyone to write anything. I'm responding to the OP's questions (can the mods ban all smilies with bad attitudes and just keep the traditionally beautiful ones like this? )


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I do not think that expressiveness comes from timber. Timber by itself is static and separate from movement. Expressiveness comes from Melody and continuity of sound rather than intermittent fragmentary sound. Timber creates atmosphere and color, but it requires continuity, melody, and rhythm to go somewhere and be meaningful. Too many modern composers are afraid of Melody and do not know how to make individual musicians shine. Musicians are robbed of their individuality and fullness of expression – all of which the composer’s failed to learn from the great composers who came before them. The piece by Ligeti wouldn’t have been possible if Stravinsky hadn’t written his Firebird and Petrushka, his sparkling and colorful orchestration, because the orchestrations are similar. I’m not for pitting the past against the present or vice versa. The orchestrations of Stravinsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, and Respighi are still miraculous and have been far more influential than some of you can imagine. Too many modern composers, in my opinion, chop everything up like someone cutting your steak when you want to do it yourself or keep it more intact. Timber is important but one doesn’t just want to look at colors or hear them during an entire piece. It’s necessary to do something with them to make something truly expressive. This goes for the introduction of new instruments whether electronic or not.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

shirime said:


> In the OP I didn't say that an expanded instrumental or electronic soundworld is more expressive, than something like a solo violin singing a JS Bach partita. I believe the expanded soundworld opens up a different but still very evocative expressivity.


That is not what the title of your thread says. Your title:

*Contemporary music is more expressive than older music because of timbre. *

Assuming this title states the actual matter for discussion, I would say that in theory a greater range of timbre can make possible the expression of a wider range of feeling, but will certainly not guarantee it. Everything depends on how timbre is used.

Going back in time, there's no doubt that the orchestra as developed and exploited by composers such as Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Mahler and Debussy could express things that Mozart's or Schubert's orchestra could not. Before the 20th century, though, timbre was never employed for its own sake, but was always mated with melodic and harmonic ideas intended to exploit and enhance timbre's expressive effect and to be enhanced by it. For example, the dark, double-reed sound of the cor anglais (or its earlier cousins the oboe d'amore and oboe da caccia) has made it a distinctive solo instrument since the Baroque; Bach used the oboe d'amore to express sadness and allied feelings in his cantatas and passions. Similarly, Wagner recognized in the cor anglais exactly the right timbre for the shepherd's piping in Act 3 of _Tristan und isolde,_ where it evokes the sadness and solitude of Tristan and the bleakness of his ruined castle by the sea. But it's the slow, wandering, almost pulseless, unaccompanied melody of the shepherd's tune, with its strange modal melismas, that allows the expressive potential of the cor anglais to blossom so powerfully. Sibelius uses the same instrument with equal appreciation of its unique voice in his haunting, chillingly beautiful _Swan of Tuonela._

My point is that timbre is, in my view, most meaningful when it joins with the other elements of music in an inevitable-seeming unity to realize a precise expressive goal. Music which focuses primarily on timbre, or plays with timbre for its own sake, can be evocative and fascinating, but no matter how unusual the sounds it makes, it is by no means certain or likely to surpass or even equal older music in expressiveness. For my money, a great soprano singing Schubert has more to say than one making all the whoops, shrieks, moans and mouth noises a composer can think of. I know which of these sends a chill through me and transports me to a world of dreams:


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

shirime said:


> *Contemporary music is more expressive than older music because of timbre.*
> 
> By opening up to a wider variety of sounds that can be made on instruments, I have always felt that there is a new kind of expressivity that evokes even wider range or more intricate emotive combinations when listening.
> ...
> and I am wondering if there are many others who feel the same way about timbre and expressivity as I do.





Fredx2098 said:


> I feel like large orchestras aren't the best for appreciating timbre (at least with a traditional type of piece where all the instruments are working together on a single melody or theme most of the time) because the sound of the instruments blend together and create a more average sound. I feel like orchestral pieces sound like like an orchestra while smaller ensembles sound like each instrument distinctly.
> 
> I love the possibilities of drone, noise, experimental electronic music in general, but I think it's harder to achieve precisely the sounds you want than with acoustic instruments.


I have little to say in comment to this particular thread. Perhaps I haven't thought about the issue much. I enjoy a wide variety of music from a wide expanse of time periods and genres. And timbre is certainly a feature of interest. Still, perhaps the best way to appreciate the changing timbres of an instrument and that instrument's expressivity would be to listen to recordings of virtuosos taking their instruments through various "paces" in terms of range, dynamics, effects. And with the great number of instruments available I'm sure this project could occupy someone for some time … but I'm not certain I would find the experience very musical. Yet it seems a great way to appreciate timbre and instrumental expressivity!

I know I would much rather listen to a Gregorian Chant, a Bach solo violin sonata, Mozart's _Requiem_, a Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner or Mahler symphony, Ravel's String Quartet, Schoenberg's _Pierrot Lunaire_, Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_, a Boulez piano sonata, Penderecki's _Thren_, or a thousand other pieces of music than mull about timbre and expressivity. Which is probably why I have little to say in comment to this particular thread.


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> That is not what the title of your thread says. Your title:
> 
> *Contemporary music is more expressive than older music because of timbre. *
> 
> Assuming this title states the actual matter for discussion, I would say that in theory a greater range of timbre can make possible the expression of a wider range of feeling, but will certainly not guarantee it. Everything depends on how timbre is used.


Yep I completely agree with you here. Wider range of feeling is obviously more of a personal, subjective response to the music as well, but in combination with a very convincing, well considered and certainly a very _feeling_ approach to composition from the composer as well. At least that's what I think is what happens..........pretty sure someone like Lachenmann knows exactly what he's doing as a composer because I know I love it and finding more moving than anything Schubert ever wrote.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> Eh. I've spent a lot of time listening to a lot of modern music - I'm not some newcomer having a knee jerk reaction of hatred; I even made sure to mention that I like a lot of it. It's great that Feldman sounds beautiful to you, but I don't think he sounds anything at all like what I was describing. He sounds "weird and novel" like all the rest, evoking for me things like stress, mysteriousness, strangeness, etc, the same things I get from most modern music.
> 
> I'm just saying I'd like to hear the next great composer of a thing that sounds as texturally inventive as these pieces but evokes a different list of adjectives, perhaps some from the same list evoked by composers of the past. Obviously I'm not telling anyone to write anything. I'm responding to the OP's questions (can the mods ban all smilies with bad attitudes and just keep the traditionally beautiful ones like this? )


Do you really think all modern non-tonal music is like that in the same way? Feldman creating the same atmosphere as Ligeti and Lachenmann? It's a valid interpretation I suppose, but I definitely don't get the same feelings for each modern composer. I do usually find that they evoke some of feelings you listed though. Why listen to modern music if you don't like the emotions it elicits?

I'm not sure what you were trying to describe. If you think that no modern music can sound beautiful or joyful, then it sounds like you just want a classic traditional symphony played with synthesizers. I think that if you want a traditional symphony, there's a limit to how texturally inventive it can be.

You may like these:











But I wouldn't bet on it since they're very texturally inventive and modern. I find them extremely beautiful though.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> Eh. I've spent a lot of time listening to a lot of modern music - I'm not some newcomer having a knee jerk reaction of hatred; I even made sure to mention that I like a lot of it. It's great that Feldman sounds beautiful to you, but I don't think he sounds anything at all like what I was describing. He sounds "weird and novel" like all the rest, evoking for me things like stress, mysteriousness, strangeness, etc, the same things I get from most modern music.
> 
> I'm just saying I'd like to hear the next great composer of a thing that sounds as texturally inventive as these pieces but evokes a different list of adjectives, perhaps some from the same list evoked by composers of the past. Obviously I'm not telling anyone to write anything. I'm responding to the OP's questions (can the mods ban all smilies with bad attitudes and just keep the traditionally beautiful ones like this? )


It is inevitable that if your harmony is dissonant then, for most people, it's going to sound rather fraught.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

Fredx2098 said:


> Do you really think all modern non-tonal music is like that in the same way? Feldman creating the same atmosphere as Ligeti and Lachenmann? It's a valid interpretation I suppose, but I definitely don't get the same feelings for each modern composer. I do usually find that they evoke some of feelings you listed though. Why listen to modern music if you don't like the emotions it elicits?
> 
> I'm not sure what you were trying to describe. If you think that no modern music can sound beautiful or joyful, then it sounds like you just want a classic traditional symphony played with synthesizers. I think that if you want a traditional symphony, there's a limit to how texturally inventive it can be.
> 
> ...


I'm not criticizing them for exploring the particular circle of emotions they've chosen to. It's great that they did and most of what I dislike about modern music has more to do with "narrative," structural issues than the actual mood or emotion of it. I usually find the impression itself shocking and interesting, but the experience start to finish meandering, repetitive, or something like that.

Ultimately I think what I'm trying to describe doesn't really exist and, not being an artist, it's hard for me to really articulate what it would be because I don't have the imaginative powers. I know it's not a classical symphony played on synthesizers though, and also that there are obviously many other people who are waiting for it to be written, whatever it is.

There are numerous moments in Francois Bayle's electronic music that strike me as traditionally beautiful in a spiritual, impressionistic way, but they're never really developed or expanded to the extent that I'd like them to be because, as usual, the music is more focused on the timbrel experiment itself than the development of thematic material. I can conceive of something that sounds like the Ligeti piece in the OP while evoking the same passions that, as different as they are, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Stravinsky, and whoever else all did - as an idea I can imagine it, but I can't really "hear" it in my head or describe it to you because I'm not a composer.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

woops doublepost


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

To be honest I think contemporary classical of the sound effects/ timbre variety is pretty much a joke relative to classical music of the past. Its embarrassing and I feel bad for some people that seem to have been indoctrinated into liking this stuff.

Its like when someone gets a taste for junk food, they stop appreciating the real stuff as much maybe? I don't know. Some have used that analogy for pop music, but I think contemporary pop is often more expressive than contemporary sound effect/timbre "music". 

I certainly don't think all contemporary classical is bad, but a lot of it is. Much of this stuff I think is closer to psychological warfare than art.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

tdc said:


> Its like when someone gets a taste for junk food, they stop appreciating the real stuff as much maybe? I don't know. Some have used that analogy for pop music, but I think contemporary pop is often more expressive than contemporary sound effect/timbre "music".


Pretty much everyone I've met who likes this music also greatly enjoys a lot of the 'real stuff.' Also, I must admit I'm quite sick of the idea that no one _genuinely_ likes certain kinds of contemporary classical and needs to be 'indoctrinated into liking this stuff.' Also, sympathy isn't needed for our enjoyment, thanks.

I think that the thread title could be seen as unnecessarily provocative until you read his/others later posts in the thread (including the OP itself), and I'm aware it may have caused your response, but the actual posts have been nuanced and fair expressions of enthusiasm.


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2018)

tdc said:


> To be honest I think contemporary classical of the sound effects/ timbre variety is pretty much a joke relative to classical music of the past. Its embarrassing and I feel bad for some people that seem to have been indoctrinated into liking this stuff.
> 
> Its like when someone gets a taste for junk food, they stop appreciating the real stuff as much maybe? I don't know. Some have used that analogy for pop music, but I think contemporary pop is often more expressive than contemporary sound effect/timbre "music".
> 
> I certainly don't think all contemporary classical is bad, but a lot of it is. Much of this stuff I think is closer to psychological warfare than art.


Please don't feel bad for me, I'm perfectly happy enjoying whatever music I want to enjoy. thanks.

Also, do you honestly feel this way? Is there such thing as someone's taste being better than that of some other people?


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2018)

Lisztian said:


> Pretty much everyone I've met who likes this music also greatly enjoys a lot of the 'real stuff.' Also, I must admit I'm quite sick of the idea that no one _genuinely_ likes certain kinds of contemporary classical and needs to be 'indoctrinated into liking this stuff.' Also, sympathy isn't needed for our enjoyment, thanks.
> 
> I think that the thread title could be seen as unnecessarily provocative until you read his/others later posts in the thread (including the OP itself), and I'm aware it may have caused your response, but the actual posts have been nuanced and fair expressions of enthusiasm.


Yeah I made the thread title a bit provocative, but hopefully I explained what I meant clearly enough in the OP


----------



## Resurrexit (Apr 1, 2014)

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> I agree completely, but I don't understand why the use of these new techniques has to come at the expense of exploring more traditional emotions. I like the pieces in this thread for sounding as surreal and erratic and strange as they do, but why does almost all of it sound like that? I wouldn't want it to anymore that I would want it all to sound happy or sad.
> 
> I feel similarly about electroacoustic music; I love a lot of it, but I think too much of it attempts to sustain itself on the fascinating timbres alone. I wonder sometimes if part of the problem is people actually believing that "tonality has been exhausted." Once I read that Stockhausen felt that Beethoven had already done all there was to do with the theme-development method, but how can this be true when the thematic material you'd be inspired to create with synthesizers/computesr/whatever-they-use would be so wildly different from a classical era composer's ideas? Why can't there be a joyful symphony in C major made using electroacoustic techniques, or some of the acoustic textures in this thread?
> 
> I'm not trained in music theory so maybe that's why I'm confused, but what's stopping a composer from exploring the same harmonies and emotions the previous generations did while infusing them with these new orchestral textures to create something that sounds more universally appealing while still being cutting edge? To what extent is the feeling of stop-and-start whimsical instability that always comes with this kind of music inextricably tied to the timbrel effects they're using? I feel like they're two different things and would like to see them part every now and then.


I've read that when Stravinsky would attend modern concerts of this type of music, after intently listening for a bit he would begin to impatiently shift in his seat, turn to a neighbor and whisper "But who _needs _ it?" That's how I've always felt about much of it as well. I have never been trained musically or studied music theory but have always loved music, and I went to school at a University that specialized in modern music. So I was eager to see what it could offer and often attended free concerts by serial composers like Babbitt, aleatoric works by Cage and others, electroacoustic works like Kontakte by Stockhausen, what was often described as "sound art" like Albert Lucier's "I Am Sitting in a Room..." and musique concrète by Schaeffer and Xenakis. I would sit there, often fascinated by the strange, alien soundscapes, or bowled over by the sheer visceral impact of the barrage of sound and noise (I don't mean noise as a derogatory statement, but music that was touted as such). But as interesting an experience as it could often be, I never once left one of those concerts feeling uplifted, or moved, stirred to my inner being or believing that my spirit had been nourished like I have been after attending a performance of a symphony by Sibelius or seeing a Wagner opera. I never felt like I _needed_ it, that it enriched my life in any meaningful way. I think there was a thread recently where someone put it beautifully: music can transcend the notes and communicate something beyond what words can formulate. The greatest music, to my mind, is so much more than the creation organization of unique sounds.

Perhaps there is some irony in my beginning with an antecdote by Stravinsky, who was the one who once said "For I consider that music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all..." Ironic because not only is so much of his best music is powerfully expressive, but also because that idea seems to be behind so much of the modern music that made him squirm in his seat. I don't get the impression that this is music that is _trying_ to express anything. It is music that is wholly constituted by the construction and appreciation of sounds. Perhaps it is made and appreciated by individuals for whom music doesn't invoke any kind of emotional response at all, and simply enjoy listening to and appreciating sound for its own sake. Exploring pitch relationships, and timbres, and getting pleasure out of the theory behind it. I can only say that for myself this kind of approach has a limited appeal, and contrary to the OP find that leads to music that is severely limited in scope and expressiveness. To be fair, maybe it is expressing something deeper and more profound. But if so it's in a language that's so foreign to me that I have no reference point to turn to and hence no possible way of assimilating and understanding it.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Who needs it? I need it. I'm much more moved by modern performances. I almost always get bored during performances of more traditional works, not that I don't like them. It's not because I study music theory and composition either. I just have a deep appreciation for art, music, sound, a lot of kinds of expression in general. It's definitely a foreign language, and comparing it to common practice music as a gold standard isn't going to help anyone. I prefer to hear more free expression than the tangible formulas of common practice or other music with formulas, not that I don't like it.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

shirime said:


> Is there such thing as someone's taste being better than that of some other people?


Everyone's own personal taste is _better_ than the taste of other people. It is the human condition, even if we may not feel moved at every opportunity to say so.

Whenever we share our own personal tastes with others, there is a chance that we will find kindred spirits, and there is a chance that we will meet with derision. (Sharing, especially in a more or less public forum is inherently taking a risk, even if taking such a risk might be an admirably brave act.) Creating a thread that bears in its title an assertion that contemporary music is "more expressive" and then offering examples that I suspect 90% of people who listen to them (perhaps somewhat more favorable odds at TC) would never respond to with the thought "my, that is expressive" is an invitation for the latter.


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2018)

JAS said:


> Everyone's own personal taste is _better_ than the taste of other people. It is the human condition, even if we may not feel moved at every opportunity to say so.


Well, I guess that makes sense from the perspective that your own taste is better for you than my taste is for you..........but to me that just seems very obvious anyway. tdc gave me the impression that there is something more superior about some people's taste, something better in the sense that eating quality ingredients and a healthy diet is better than eating heaps of junk food.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

__
https://soundcloud.com/jorgemunizmusic%2Fsonata-for-viola-and-piano

I'm just loving this guy's music. This one is a bit like Ives!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I know the feeling that my taste is better (for me) than others' tastes and perhaps it is inevitable that we feel that way. But I can also remember countless experiences where someone else's taste has influenced me strongly. So, I do think it important to moderate my own certainty and to try to keep my ears open to other views. Perhaps this is almost a duty for people participating on this site? People who know what they like and are not interested in other views on the matter possibly end up getting little from a site like this and, perhaps also, tend not to contribute very much of value.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

shirime said:


> Yes I am a big fan of Adriana Hölszky, I think she is one of the best composers of choral music of all time (well, to me anyway). I agree with you in terms of the dynamics and boldness, I guess they are closely linked to timbre as well, do you think?


Timbre makes music colorful. But Dynamics are vitally important. But really it's our individual perceptions that determine our feelings towards a piece of music. Unless it's the purely technical aspects that are being studied. But I'm an amateur so I don't listen that way.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> I know the feeling that my taste is better (for me) than others' tastes and perhaps it is inevitable that we feel that way. But I can also remember countless experiences where someone else's taste has influenced me strongly. So, I do think it important to moderate my own certainty and to try to keep my ears open to other views. Perhaps this is almost a duty for people participating on this site? People who know what they like and are not interested in other views on the matter possibly end up getting little from a site like this and, perhaps also, tend not to contribute very much of value.


I find this statement exceedingly ironic. To my mind, it is those who seek only agreement who contribute nothing of value. (And to this I would add those who insist on "winning" every discussion.) I say that this is ironic because, reading actual posts, it seems that we are not in the categories you assign to us.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

JAS said:


> I find this statement exceedingly ironic. To my mind, it is those who seek only agreement who contribute nothing of value. (And to this I would add those who insist on "winning" every discussion.) I say that this is ironic because, reading actual posts, it seems that we are not in the categories you assign to us.


Personally, I have no problem with someone having different musical tastes than I do. What I do have a problem with is when someone says that the music that I or others like is _wrong_ to like and objectively lesser than the popular canon.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Fredx2098 said:


> Personally, I have no problem with someone having different musical tastes than I do. What I do have a problem with is when someone says that the music that I or others like is _wrong_ to like and objectively lesser than the popular canon.


And where has this been said? (There is very little that can be objectively said about any music, and that point has been made again and again in these forums when someone tries to make such a statement.) A very great deal of what people complain about in the posts of others are not actually in the posts, but in their interpretations of them. (Sometimes those interpretations are understandable due to careless phrasing, and sometimes the interpretation is actually what is really being said, so my statement is not applicable in every case.) In the question of what makes the best music, there is no universally right answer.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

JAS said:


> And where has this been said? (There is very little that can be objectively said about any music, and that point has been made again and again in these forums when someone tries to make such a statement.) A very great deal of what people complain about in the posts of others are not actually in the posts, but in their interpretations of them. (Sometimes those interpretations are understandable due to careless phrasing, and sometimes the interpretation is actually what is really being said, so my statement is not applicable in every case.) In the question of what makes the best music, there is no universally right answer.


I don't have the drive to find quotes, but it's been said time and time again that the "canon" and "standard repertoire" is the end-all be-all of what is objectively good music, and if a piece of music isn't part of it then it isn't worth listening to or being called classical music, so in there world there will never be any more worthwhile music. It's been disagreed with but continues to be said.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Lisztian said:


> Pretty much everyone I've met who likes this music also greatly enjoys a lot of the 'real stuff.' Also, I must admit I'm quite sick of the idea that no one _genuinely_ likes certain kinds of contemporary classical and needs to be 'indoctrinated into liking this stuff.' Also, sympathy isn't needed for our enjoyment, thanks.
> 
> I think that the thread title could be seen as unnecessarily provocative until you read his/others later posts in the thread (including the OP itself), and I'm aware it may have caused your response, but the actual posts have been nuanced and fair expressions of enthusiasm.


I have this picture in my head of a satellite rotating around the earth programmed to search out those evil-doers who dare to post anything perceived as negative about contemporary music. Step over the line and ZAP, the death-ray will get you. And that's pretty much all this satellite does.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Fredx2098 said:


> I don't have the drive to find quotes, but it's been said time and time again that the "canon" and "standard repertoire" is the end-all be-all of what is objectively good music, and if a piece of music isn't part of it then it isn't worth listening to or being called classical music, so in there world there will never be any more worthwhile music. It's been disagreed with but continues to be said.


I think I have seen such a statement made only by people insisting that such statements have been made. (Both sides do, from time to time, have people making statements in a form that suggests objectivity even if the claim itself cannot substantiate that designation.) I think people who make statements comparing the relative merits of modern versus more traditional classical music are generally far more nuanced that you are granting (no matter how strident you may perceive us as being). I listen to plenty of music that isn't "in the canon," most often in what might be called third or fourth tier composers (mostly based on overall career and recognition). I enjoy quite a few of these pieces a great deal, even as I may recognize why they aren't quite in the upper tiers.

I also would not say that modern classical music isn't "worthy" of being called classical music. It just seems misleading at best. And why would a form want to claim a title when it rejects the principles, and often brags precisely about that rejection? What is wrong with it just being its own thing? Why not call it modern orchestral music (which is reasonable enough, assuming that it uses an orchestra)? But I suppose for practical utility, we want an umbrella term that covers all of the various forms. At the moment, I am at a loss for a good suggestion, and I strongly suspect that anything I might suggest would be met with hostile derision (no matter how benign the term might actually be).


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

JAS said:


> I find this statement exceedingly ironic. To my mind, it is those who seek only agreement who contribute nothing of value. (And to this I would add those who insist on "winning" every discussion.) I say that this is ironic because, reading actual posts, it seems that we are not in the categories you assign to us.


I'm sorry, JAS, but I do not understand your post at all. I don't think I mentioned or advocated "only agreement". Have you read me in such a way that you think I do? As for reading actual posts ... are you saying that I am assigning some specific and identifiable people to a category? If so, you are wrong. Or are you politely saying that I don't post as I preach (i.e. that I am a hypocrite!)? If this latter, I remember a recent post where you may have felt I was stating an opinion as a fact. I do try to put in an IMO or something of the like but do often assume that we all know we are stating our own opinions. I think I read others in the same way and it is only when they add qualifiers such as "obvious" or claim that their view is in some way dominant. It would indeed be ironic if you were reading me as dogmatically claiming to have the truth because I do also find your own use of word to be more forthright than most! At the same time I do seem to misunderstand you a lot as you frequently come back to my replies saying that I am agreeing with your original point (when I had thought I was disagreeing).


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I think of my parents, who have, just recently, been married for 66 years. When they argue, as they do increasingly these days, it isn't so much an argument about the current issue, but in some way a rehash of every related (and often every only slightly related) argument that they have had over the years. Most of the discussions on these forums are made more complicated by differing combinations of participants, even if the actual statements tend to be similar to previous discussions. (As if the conversation was not already complicated by being an asynchronous discussion between multiple people. Imagine a chess game where the two sides have a rotation of different players, something that I think has actually been done, and probably more than once.) Internet communications are further complicated due to the limitations of purely text-based form, with an absence of tone, facial expressions and body language that may lend very different meanings. Long posts are often skimmed or ridiculed for being long. Short posts often either cannot say much, or become so condensed that nuance and subtlety get lost. I also think that quite a few people (I would prefer not to name names) are either not capable of reading an opposing view, or intentionally misread it simply because they don't want to acknowledge an alternate view, or think more deeply about their own. Thus, when they reply, they don't reply to what was said, but to what they wish had been said.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Modern vs. traditional - an argument that never seems to end. Aren't you folks tired of it all?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Needs to be settled once and for all with a knockout game.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Dueling pistols, at 50 paces. (Really, my better take on it is that the children wouldn't fight so much if they didn't have to share a bathroom.)


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

I wish there was not a modern vs. traditional debate. I like them both. Some people like one, some people like the other, some people like both, some people like neither. They're opinions. I don't see what there is to debate.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

JAS said:


> Dueling pistols, at 50 paces. (Really, my better take on it is that the children wouldn't fight so much if they didn't have to share a bathroom.)


I'm confused JAS. Do you think we are arguing? I hadn't realised. What about (if we are)? I haven't registered that we are even disagreeing on anything substantially. If this is about me I hope I have merely irritated you - and that I haven't offended you.

Long posts, short posts. Misunderstood posts? Are you talking to me? Please be clear.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> I'm confused JAS. Do you think we are arguing? I hadn't realised. What about (if we are)? I haven't registered that we are even disagreeing on anything substantially. If this is about me I hope I have merely irritated you - and that I haven't offended you.
> 
> Long posts, short posts. Misunderstood posts? Are you talking to me? Please be clear.


I am not arguing (except, perhaps, in a classical sense). And I am not offended, nor am I even irritated.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I find muic from the romantic era forward to satisfy my needs as far as expressivity is concerned. But Bach's organ music does it for me too. I'm talking a break from the avant garde at the moment.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

starthrower said:


> I find muic from the romantic era forward to satisfy my needs as far as expressivity is concerned. But Bach's organ music does it for me too. *I'm talking a break from the avant garde at the moment.*


I took a permanent sabbatical many years ago!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

JAS said:


> I am not arguing (except, perhaps, in a classical sense). And I am not offended, nor am I even irritated.


That's good. I'm afraid I don't really understand you last few posts!


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

So in this thread that's meant to be about appreciating a specific aspect of contemporary music, we are mocked for defending contemporary music?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

DavidA said:


> I took a permanent sabbatical many years ago!


To qualify as a sabbatical you need to have done more than five minutes of listening and also be returning to it.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Fredx2098 said:


> So in this thread that's meant to be about appreciating a specific aspect of contemporary music, we are mocked for defending contemporary music?


This thread is not a simple appreciation of one feature of contemporary music. It's about contemporary music being more expressive than traditional music because of that one feature. In that respect, it's set up for argument. Deal with it instead of feeling mocked.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> This thread is not a simple appreciation of one feature of contemporary music. It's about contemporary music being more expressive than traditional music because of that one feature. In that respect, it's set up for argument. Deal with it instead of feeling mocked.


There are specific posts meant to mock which don't add anything to the discussion. I can "deal with" a discussion, but it seems like others can't deal with there being two sides to the discussion. I don't understand your consistent anger towards me.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Fredx2098 said:


> There are specific posts meant to mock which don't add anything to the discussion. I can "deal with" a discussion, but it seems like others can't deal with there being two sides to the discussion. I don't understand your consistent anger towards me.


You're railing against the universe. Who are the others who can't deal with there being two sides to the discussion? Some of these discussions become debates. Everyone is being heard. And you just finished inferring that is thread is about something it is not. (Btw, There's no anger towards you by anyone.)


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

DaveM said:


> You're railing against the universe. Who are the others who can't deal with there being two sides to the discussion? Some of these discussions become debates. Everyone is being heard. And you just finished inferring that is thread is about something it is not. (Btw, There's no anger towards you by anyone.)


Your post #39 and posts #42 and 45 are mocking the discussion and not adding anything of value or even relevant to the topic, but I am supposed to deal with it.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Fredx2098 said:


> There are specific posts meant to mock which don't add anything to the discussion. I can "deal with" a discussion, but it seems like others can't deal with there being two sides to the discussion. I don't understand your consistent anger towards me.


Not angry. It's just that some of your postings are way off the mark and/or involve much exaggeration.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Fredx2098 said:


> Your post #39 and posts #42 and 45 are mocking the discussion and not adding anything of value or even relevant to the topic, but I am supposed to deal with it.


Well, yes, if you insist on translating them all as mocking rather than what they are: responses to previous posts in kind. Or you can add to posts 36, 46, 52 and keep complaining.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Timbre is one of the elements of music. What are the others?...pitch, rhythm, tempo, melody...I can't name them all. But I like the Lachenmann video posted in the OP. When other elements, such as pitched sounds and melody, are next-to-non-existent, then it allows an element such as timbre to come to the fore. It's a refreshing change. If someone "thinks timbre is best suited as an adjunct to bombast," then bully for them. I like timbre all by itself, "unencumbered by cummerbunds."

I am reminded of Milton Babbitt's Concerto for Orchestra. After hearing his work on the RCA-Princeton synthesizer, I can see how this concerto is using the orchestra as a giant "synthesizer," since there is no real "melody" to speak of.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Bulldog said:


> This thread is not a simple appreciation of one feature of contemporary music. It's about contemporary music being more expressive than traditional music because of that one feature. In that respect, it's set up for argument. Deal with it instead of feeling mocked.


I don't think this is what shirime intended by starting this thread.

shirime, in the opening post stated that "Obviously, no music is inherently more expressive than any other..." so the thread title is somewhat misleading. Too bad, because it will invite contention.

The OP goes on to say why he likes a modern approach better:"...I do feel like there's something even more attractive to me about expressing sound through *a wider and more thoughtful embrace of instrumental colour than the more restraint approaches to orchestration and instrumentation from previous eras of music."

*And so, we have it; shirime prefers the newer approach.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

DaveM said:


> I have this picture in my head of a satellite rotating around the earth programmed to search out those evil-doers who dare to post anything perceived as negative about contemporary music. Step over the line and ZAP, the death-ray will get you. And that's pretty much all this satellite does.


I mean, considering that around 90% of your recent posts are on this same topic (and often ad nauseam repeats of your views with different wordings)...what is your point? This is what is being discussed lately. I only reply like that to posts that are clearly problematic: why are you attacking me for my entirely reasonable post and not him?

When the tables are turned even for a second you do exactly the same thing (see post 66: A Question of Melodists: Is Schubert really a more talented melodist than Beethoven? in reply to a post that was far more reasonable...).


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> I agree completely, but I don't understand why the use of these new techniques has to come at the expense of exploring more traditional emotions. I like the pieces in this thread for sounding as surreal and erratic and strange as they do, but why does almost all of it sound like that? I wouldn't want it to anymore that I would want it all to sound happy or sad.
> 
> I feel similarly about electroacoustic music; I love a lot of it, but I think too much of it attempts to sustain itself on the fascinating timbres alone. I wonder sometimes if part of the problem is people actually believing that "tonality has been exhausted." Once I read that Stockhausen felt that Beethoven had already done all there was to do with the theme-development method, but how can this be true when the thematic material you'd be inspired to create with synthesizers/computesr/whatever-they-use would be so wildly different from a classical era composer's ideas? Why can't there be a joyful symphony in C major made using electroacoustic techniques, or some of the acoustic textures in this thread?
> 
> I'm not trained in music theory so maybe that's why I'm confused, but what's stopping a composer from exploring the same harmonies and emotions the previous generations did while infusing them with these new orchestral textures to create something that sounds more universally appealing while still being cutting edge? To what extent is the feeling of stop-and-start whimsical instability that always comes with this kind of music inextricably tied to the timbrel effects they're using? I feel like they're two different things and would like to see them part every now and then.


Ah well, just let everyone do and enjoy their thing.
If I want to enjoy the wonders of synthesizers and electronic music, "classical electronic music" is not the first thing on my mind. And this while electronic music is my favorite kind of music next to classical music. Huh?
The Berlin School of electronic music is always a good place to start if you want to hear nice music with synths that's a bit more "universally appealing". Tangerine Dream was actually pretty cutting edge back in the 70s.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Lisztian said:


> I mean, considering that around 90% of your recent posts are on this same topic (and often ad nauseam repeats of your views with different wordings)...what is your point? This is what is being discussed lately. I only reply like that to posts that are clearly problematic: why are you attacking me for my entirely reasonable post and not him?


You practically reply to only one kind of post and it will be the only post you make in the thread. As far as my posts go, virtually all of the ones that apparently upset you so much are in the latest controversial threads -such as the Deride thread- that are on the subject I'm posting about. Why don't you open a nice thread extolling the virtues of avant-garde music and you won't hear a peep from me.

EDiT


> When the tables are turned even for a second you do exactly the same thing (see post 66: A Question of Melodists: Is Schubert really a more talented melodist than Beethoven? in reply to a post that was far more reasonable...).


As far as that particular post goes: it was poorly done and I slapped myself for it later. I had just read Phil's post on Stockhausen, listened to the work, and temporarily lost my mind.


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think this is what shirime intended by starting this thread.
> 
> shirime, in the opening post stated that "Obviously, no music is inherently more expressive than any other..." so the thread title is somewhat misleading. Too bad, because it will invite contention.
> 
> ...


Yesyesyesyesyes, this is what I'm trying to say! Thanks for understanding, millionrainbows. 

Like many of my other recent threads, the title and the OP are about something more of a personal experience to me, sharing my perspective with others on the forum and asking for thoughts and opinions in return.

In a previous post you mentioned that you enjoyed the Lachenmann piece, and you also mentioned an importance of other elements of music as well. I think that's interesting and cool, because the Lachenmann piece also gives an interesting amount of importance to melody as well. I saw an analysis someone made on YouTube about the prolongation of pitch in that piece and I think pitch is always closely linked to timbre anyway, so I wouldn't be surprised if Lachenmann is extremely conscious about what he is doing with pitch in the piece as well.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

DaveM said:


> You practically reply to only one kind of post and it will be the only post you make in the thread. As far as my posts go, virtually all of the ones that apparently upset you so much are in the latest controversial threads -such as the Deride thread- that are on the subject I'm posting about. Why don't you open a nice thread extolling the virtues of avant-garde music and you won't hear a peep from me.


Um, so why exactly are you allowed to post in the Deride thread and not me? In the Deride thread I have made:

3 entirely reasonable replies to you (even though you were, again, the most vocal against the side I take. Where exactly did I show any signs of being upset/attack you in any, even slight, way?)
4 replies to others
And a post recommending Ligeti's organ works.

Then in the String Quartets thread I posted three times, and would have posted more if I was more of a Ferneyhough expert.

Then in THIS thread I made one post after a long day, went to bed, then a few hours later you took a shot at me (again), and now I'm responding to you.

Frankly I don't know why you're having a go at me.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

DaveM said:


> EDiT
> 
> As far as that particular post goes: it was poorly done and I slapped myself for it later. I had just read Phil's post on Stockhausen, listened to the work, and temporarily lost my mind.


Well I slap myself for posts occasionally too, but I do believe I've been very reasonable lately: which is why I'm a tad bemused.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Lisztian said:


> Um, so why exactly are you allowed to post in the Deride thread and not me? In the Deride thread I have made:
> 
> 3 entirely reasonable replies to you (even though you were, again, the most vocal against the side I take. Where exactly did I show any signs of being upset/attack you in any, even slight, way?)
> 4 replies to others
> ...


Okay, point taken. Maybe we can both do better.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

DaveM said:


> Okay, point taken. Maybe we can both do better.


I think we can.  I'll keep the impression I've made in mind.


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2018)

Lisztian, in a very different context, mentioned Ligeti's organ works. These are piece I find wonderful in the exploration of colour via pitch clusters and register in the organ. There are a number of composers since him whose works for organ I find very colourful as well: Jung-eun Park, Adriana Hölszky, Wolfgang Mitterer and a German guy I can't remember the name of but I'll find a link later....


I think it's pretty cool to hear the expressivity in the choices of timbre explored in these works. Does anyone else feel that?


----------



## San Antone (Feb 15, 2018)

Fredx2098 said:


> I wish there was not a modern vs. traditional debate. I like them both. Some people like one, some people like the other, some people like both, some people like neither. They're opinions. I don't see what there is to debate.


Yep. 

That was my thought but I was told: "The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 15 characters."


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

shirime said:


> ...By opening up to a wider variety of sounds that can be made on instruments, I have always felt that there is a new kind of expressivity that evokes even wider range or more intricate emotive combinations when listening. Obviously, no music is inherently more expressive than any other, but I do feel like there's something even more attractive to me about expressing sound through a wider and more thoughtful embrace of instrumental colour than the more restraint approaches to orchestration and instrumentation from previous eras of music.
> ...


Percy Grainger would agree with this. He forever decried the limitations of the western orchestra, and argued for integration of other instruments and traditions into it (eg. folk, jazz, gamelan, even early version of electronics). His The Warriors gives an idea of what can be done in this regard, a great piece but still seldom done live. Similar to music by Varese, the amount and types of instruments required which go beyond the modern orchestra makes it an unviable proposition to do.



> ...
> Without wanting to reduce the history of orchestration and instrumentation down to a _grand narrative_ (because that would not be able to substantiate any conclusion at which we may arrive) I do feel that with the expansion of the orchestra at the end of the 19th century provided some good foundations to explore orchestration and instrumental colour, more unusual combinations of instruments and an approach to new instrumental effects which were based more on expressivity than just sound effects.
> ...


Going off what was done in the 19th century, I think a number of 20th century composers already reached this, even if limited to the conventional orchestra set up. Primarily Debussy and Ravel, masters of timbre, drawing upon but by no means rehashing the 19th century. I think there's no shortage of others post-1945, and two pieces I would mention are Dutilleux's Cello Concerto and Sculthorpe's Sun Music pieces. In terms of the most contemporary trends I've more or less lost interest in it in recent years.



Woodduck said:


> ...Assuming this title states the actual matter for discussion, I would say that in theory a greater range of timbre can make possible the expression of a wider range of feeling, but will certainly not guarantee it. Everything depends on how timbre is used.


We can rationalise everything ad nauseam but yes ultimately its in the _how_ rather than in the _why_.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Lisztian said:


> Pretty much everyone I've met who likes this music also greatly enjoys a lot of the 'real stuff.' Also, I must admit I'm quite sick of the idea that no one _genuinely_ likes certain kinds of contemporary classical and needs to be 'indoctrinated into liking this stuff.' Also, sympathy isn't needed for our enjoyment, thanks.
> 
> I think that the thread title could be seen as unnecessarily provocative until you read his/others later posts in the thread (including the OP itself), and I'm aware it may have caused your response, but the actual posts have been nuanced and fair expressions of enthusiasm.





shirime said:


> Please don't feel bad for me, I'm perfectly happy enjoying whatever music I want to enjoy. thanks.
> 
> Also, do you honestly feel this way? Is there such thing as someone's taste being better than that of some other people?


Yes my post was a little combative, but I think that the thread title was inviting such responses. Isn't that then the cue for the OP to play the victim, with a mind open as the sky, and then stand by and watch others berate the offending poster for being so intolerant. 

We've been through all of this before. I don't have a problem with people enjoying whatever music they want, but I'm frankly tired of the tactics used by some in their proselytizing. I can tell the difference between appreciation, and the more political approach taken by some in their attempts to convert.

From my perspective shirime has crossed the line between simply discussing music he likes, and trying to ram his tastes down our throats at every opportunity, its especially offensive when he does it in a way that subtly puts down earlier music that has stood the test of time.

Oh yes I forgot, the test of time doesn't matter anymore to some, and according to these people there is no way to really measure value in music because it is completely subjective. Why do these kinds of arguments get so much sympathy? They are pathetic. Just widen the goal posts so any piece of garbage is exactly the same as everything else. Sorry, I'll pass on your philosophy.

I don't care about being politically correct anymore, I'm calling it like I see it. As long as shirime is taking the offensive in ramming this music down our throats I think I'll speak my mind if and when I feel like it.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

tdc said:


> Yes my post was a little combative, but I think that the thread title was inviting such responses. Isn't that then the cue for the OP to play the victim, with a mind open as the sky, and then stand by and watch others berate the offending poster for being so intolerant.
> 
> We've been through all of this before. I don't have a problem with people enjoying whatever music they want, but I'm frankly tired of the tactics used by some in their proselytizing. I can tell the difference between appreciation, and the more political approach taken by some in their attempts to convert.
> 
> ...


I don't think you're seeing it or calling it as it is. We're here describing why we enjoy contemporary music, and all you did was belabor an insult to the music and those who enjoy it. Maybe if you want to explain the insulting claims you made, but they really just seem like shallow insults not based on anything. I don't interpret any throat ramming going on, or any claim that all art is equal and none is bad. My interpretation was that this is meant to be a discussion of what people enjoy about contemporary music, not that people should convert from traditional music to modern music. I don't think anyone wants that. I think it's best to try to at least appreciate as many forms of art as possible. Of course not everyone does, so then comes the decision of how rudely and superficially to insult what you don't like.


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2018)

shirime said:


> Lisztian, in a very different context, mentioned Ligeti's organ works. These are piece I find wonderful in the exploration of colour via pitch clusters and register in the organ. There are a number of composers since him whose works for organ I find very colourful as well: Jung-eun Park, Adriana Hölszky, Wolfgang Mitterer and a German guy I can't remember the name of but I'll find a link later....
> 
> I think it's pretty cool to hear the expressivity in the choices of timbre explored in these works. Does anyone else feel that?


Ah the other composer I was thinking of was Martin Herchenröder. Here's a good example illustrating what I perceive as a very expressive use of timbre, but unfortunately I don't think the video is available for watching in all countries:






This one, by Jung-eun Park is probably an organ work that certainly exploits the timbral idioms of the instrument, and to me the composer seems to be able to really shape the listening experience through varying articulations and registers that have distinct and even highly contrasting timbral qualities. I think it makes for a very visceral listening experience:


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I might be a tad analytic but I regard timbre as the *least* important aspect of music. For me it is the pitch and interplay of melody and harmony. The score, not the sound, is the fundamental product. A masterpiece is a masterpiece even rendered in midi.


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2018)

Couchie said:


> I might be a tad analytic but I regard timbre as the *least* important aspect of music. For me it is the pitch and interplay of melody and harmony. The score, not the sound, is the fundamental product. A masterpiece is a masterpiece even rendered in midi.


This is a fine example.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

tdc said:


> From my perspective shirime has crossed the line between simply discussing music he likes, and trying to ram his tastes down our throats at every opportunity, its especially offensive when he does it in a way that subtly puts down earlier music that has stood the test of time.


I don't know shirime's intentions, but I'll assume they have been wholesome. However, he really needs to be more careful about his thread titles, because they have controversy and an us vs. them quality about them.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Bulldog said:


> I don't know shirime's intentions, but I'll assume they have been wholesome. However, he really needs to be more careful about his thread titles, because they have controversy and an us vs. them quality about them.


Well, he liked my post which disagrees with his main thesis. I think his intentions are fine.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Fredx2098 said:


> ...My interpretation was that this is meant to be a discussion of what people enjoy about contemporary music, not that people should convert from traditional music to modern music...


Really? In all fairness to tdc, if a thread was titled, Traditional Classical Music is more expressive than Contemporary Music because of Melody, would you interpret it as just a discussion of what people enjoy about traditional music? I don't think so. This thread could easily have been titled something commensurate with what you suggest it's about. It's fairly easy to be persuaded that there was some motivation to draw attention to the thread and watch the fur fly.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> I might be a tad analytic but I regard timbre as the *least* important aspect of music. For me it is the pitch and interplay of melody and harmony. The score, not the sound, is the fundamental product. A masterpiece is a masterpiece even rendered in midi.


I didn't know what midi was until now, and I'm not too sure about it even now. Listening to the example posted by shirime, I think I'll pass on hearing _Parsifal_ performed this way.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

shirime said:


> This is a fine example.


That is what I call a modern masterpiece. Such a beautiful and precise combination of consonance and dissonance. The All Star movement is moving me to tears.

There's a version on a real piano if you didn't notice!


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

DaveM said:


> Really? In all fairness to tdc, if a thread was titled, Traditional Classical Music is more expressive than Contemporary Music because of melody, would you interpret it as just a discussion of what people enjoy about traditional music? I don't think so. This thread could easily have been titled something commensurate with what you suggest it's about. It's fairly easy to be persuaded that there was some motivation to draw attention to the thread and watch the fur fly.


If the OP went into the same kind of detail as this one then yes, it would be fine, and I would discuss tonal music that I find to be very expressive. But since contemporary music doesn't have sets of rules assigned to it, I think it's accurate to say that contemporary music can be more expressive, since it can include tonal expression as well as other kinds.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Come on, people. Shirime's thread title was probably either careless phraseology or a Freudian slip. I don't suspect any nefarious motive. 

It might have helped to correct any false impression to add "...all other things being equal." Of course then we'd have to argue about whether all other things are equal.

Oh well. As you were saying...


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Come on, people. Shirime's thread title was probably either careless phraseology or a Freudian slip. I don't suspect any nefarious motive.
> 
> It might have helped to correct any false impression to add "...all other things being equal." Of course then we'd have to argue about whether all other things are equal.
> 
> Oh well. As you were saying...


Maybe it would have been better for me to say that I wrote the thread title the way I did as a springboard for myself to explain myself further in the OP: specifically why I disagree with the thread title but also examples where it might have some merit according to more specific parameters.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

shirime said:


> Maybe it would have been better for me to say that I wrote the thread title the way I did as a springboard for myself to explain myself further in the OP: specifically why I disagree with the thread title but also examples where it might have some merit according to more specific parameters.


My solution is simpler.


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> My solution is simpler.


Yeah but also the forum software has a character limit for thread titles so....


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2018)

Couchie said:


> Well, he liked my post which disagrees with his main thesis. I think his intentions are fine.


Actually I liked it because it reminded me of a meme. But your disagreement with my main thesis is fine, as (I hope) my intentions also are.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

I would like to disagree no less than I can imagine. Your post is still refreshing to me I like your comparable frankness to mine(in rhetorics) used against modern music. Therefore I am considering more serious rebutals. 

First problem spotted in the thread is the inclusion of electronic music as an example, calling it has timber variety, isn`t self defeating? Electronic music is made from signal simulation, I would not call that as timber in any musical sense. 

I do know that there is an unstoppable momentum in the developed countries toward the liberal ideals, which I admire mostly. Wherever such momentum is manifested, in music or in politics, must be respected. But modern music as a whole do not attain the worth in this momentum for it to be as much respected as in other practical fields. For example the modern literature, it is as much worthy as any oeuvre of early music. SO many secondary rate pieces of music are forgivable in sense of freedom of speech, like some occaisonal dissentment, their spontaneity is the point, not the content itself. However, these spontaneous voices can foster a greater voice in art, but we do not need to hear all these spontaneous voices one by one, even though they fulfill the justified ideal of freedom of speech. Modern music is just like that, too many trivialities, too many individual thoughts. Where they contend in theoretical innovation, there are better means for the theory. For me, the literature is everything that modernism can provide at best, if music, I choose classical. When everyones goes spontaneity, nobody really stands out, except to be measured by the sales. Hard truth without any quote.

When you say expressiveness, it is about what you want to hear or receive. I want something otherworldly than harsh and copper-crusted reality. I have more than enough of the industrial atonality everyday, so I seek for arcadian resort. I am grateful for all who created classical music and maintain them untill tdday.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I didn't know what midi was until now, and I'm not too sure about it even now. Listening to the example posted by shirime, I think I'll pass on hearing _Parsifal_ performed this way.


Are you sure you know what MIDI is? 
MIDI is a standard for electronic communication between electronic musical equipment and software. If you're going to use cheap samples like that piano sound, you're going to get cheap results.
Someone skilled at using music production software might actually get half decent results in recreating a Wagner piece with high quality orchestral samples. At its core will be the MIDI language to trigger playback and all sorts of control and manipulation of the samples.

Case in point:
https://www.vsl.co.at/en/Music
There are five Wagner pieces in the list below.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Timbre plus harmony is one of my favorite things, even if there's not much of the other aspects (rhythm, melody, etc.) I guess it goes back to Ligeti and Scelsi in the 60s, then Spectralism, then also touching electronic music and musique concrete, and then extended instrumental techniques, etc. I think timbre can have spectacular and really expressive effects (specially in combination with harmony) which are often not recognized as coming from timbre. One of my favorite examples is a moment from the final movement of Ligeti's Violin Concerto, I always replay that moment because I love the extremelly dramatic and rather dark image that the timbre gives to it. It's a climax after some build up, but the key to it are the (tubular) bells. Until the bells, the atmosphere is tense, but when it's their turn, it changes completely and becomes incredibly more dark, as a sudden and unexpected glimpse of hell: 



 (bell moment at 3:14). I don't think it's just a minor detail, but a strategic one, and that the whole effectivness of the build up and its climax is thanks to just that single note being played with the very peculiar timbre of a bell, thus showing the great expressive and dramatic effect of timbre alone. By timbre alone I don't mean isolated from other elements, but that it can indeed take the lead above the others. Of course, this is well known and even applicable to 19th century orchestration. But I simply find this example striking as it is just one single note played with a bell, that's all you need, timbre can be as powerfull as to produce a complete change by just a single sound.

I do have one issue with the Lachenmann, though. The whole idea is interesting as well as the sounds, but I don't think it is the most effective way to use it in the way he does. The acoustic instruments were not designed to produce most of those non-standard sounds; the violin, for example, is designed to amplify the sound of a bowed string, not of a knock on the wood. The result is that most of these new sounds tend to be very quiet and short lived, for example. I had to use my headphones at full volume to hear that piece; maybe the live experience is different. The result tends to be a colorful but very pale watercolor. I think one must intercalate more standard sounds with the non-standard ones to give the pieces a bit more of presence. Or maybe include electric amplification to each instrument by putting lots of mics around them.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

DeepR said:


> Are you sure you know what MIDI is?
> MIDI is a standard for electronic communication between electronic musical equipment and software. If you're going to use cheap samples like that piano sound, you're going to get cheap results.
> Someone skilled at using music production software might actually get half decent results in recreating a Wagner piece with high quality orchestral samples. At its core will be the MIDI language to trigger playback and all sorts of control and manipulation of the samples.
> 
> ...


I listened to 'The Rite' and Barber's 'Adagio' - they are pretty good - perhaps lacking in some dynamics and nuances.


----------



## tortkis (Jul 13, 2013)

I don't agree with the thread title, but modern/contemporary music expanded the pallet of timbre which enabled new kinds of expression in music. Electroacoustic, unusual combinations of instruments, Partch's original instruments, Lachenmann's musique concrète instrumentale, Cage's prepared piano, and so on. I don't think they are necessarily more expressive than Classical/Romantic music, but definitely they added different types of expressiveness.

Timbre is very important in traditional classical music, but it seems to me that there is consensus of an ideal timbre for each instrument, composers assume it, and every player tries to achieve the ideal. In modern music like jazz, unique and characteristic sound is part of musicians' identity and an important element of their expressiveness. It is said that Ellington composed with the sound of each band member in mind.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2018)

I'm really glad you brought up jazz, actually! There are many great examples where a musician is associated with their tone and their timbral expression in that way. I should think that it's the same with soloists who play classical instruments, right?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

tortkis said:


> Timbre is very important in traditional classical music, but it seems to me that there is consensus of an ideal timbre for each instrument, composers assume it, and every player tries to achieve the ideal.


Not at all. I can tell in ten seconds whether I'm listening to Thea King or Charles Neidich on clarinet, or Jascha Heifetz or Josef Szigeti on violin. Tone and technique vary considerably among classical players, but so do instruments themselves. It's true that things have become a bit more homogeneous as music making and music makers have become more internationalized; there used to be distinctive national "schools" of instrumental pedagogy, and it was easy to distinguish between French, German, Russian and American orchestras, especially their woodwinds and brass. Keyboards, of course, are enormously varied, and there's the human voice, both solo and in chorus. Composers have to assume that a piece they write will sound rather different in the hands of different artists playing different instruments in different venues. If it's a vocal piece it may seem almost a different work.


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

I'm late as usual to join the thread, but it's an interesting discussion and thought-provoking. It occurs to me, and perhaps someone has already mentioned it, that timbre in music could be analogous color in visual arts, so the expansion of timbre by the creation of new forms through electronics in contemporary music is sort of like the creation of new colors. But color, like timbre, being only one aspect of art, one 'ingredient', so to speak, doesn't necessarily translate into expanded expression - as the old saying goes, it's not how much you have, but what you do with it that matters. A painter can use color in interesting ways, but if the line, subject, balance, perspective, etc. don't compliment it - or more importantly, if there isn't a strong and meaningful idea behind it all, then you still don't necessarily have a good work. And the same would apply in music. 

That said, another interesting analogy (one that I use frequently in music discussions) is that of language. Similarly to the above, some languages provide a greater offering of vocabulary, with words that may offer subtle variations of meaning or different sounds to say in that language something that can only be said with a single word in a different language. An example frequently cited is the number of words for snow in the native languages of northern Canada, but there are many others. For example, in Chinese, there are (at least) two different words for each day of the week (as well as a much richer vocabulary for many other things than one finds in English), which have different sounds, histories, and connotations. It occurs to me that this would offer a Chinese poet a broader palette to draw from and could offer shades of meaning and opportunities for rhyme that aren't there when you're only choice is a single word. 

But as to how, and whether, that makes expression different in the poetry of one language versus another, or whether a larger palette of timbre can make music more expressive is a much more difficult question. The topic, in my opinion, is a very interesting one worth exploring as it sheds a lot of light on and teaches us a lot about these forms of expression, but if we try to reduce it to a question of which form is better or worse, more or less, then we lose a lot in the process.


----------



## tortkis (Jul 13, 2013)

shirime said:


> I'm really glad you brought up jazz, actually! There are many great examples where a musician is associated with their tone and their timbral expression in that way. I should think that it's the same with soloists who play classical instruments, right?


Professional classical instrument players are well trained and have great skills satisfying a certain level of high standard. Above that, each musician may have his/her own characteristic sounds, but the differences are subtle to me, and it seems that extremely individual timbre is usually not assumed/accepted in classical music performance. I wonder what a Baroque composer would have thought if the trumpet part of his work was played with Kenny Dorham's husky tone or Leo Smith's plosive attack.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> Not at all. I can tell in ten seconds whether I'm listening to Thea King or Charles Neidich on clarinet, or Jascha Heifetz or Josef Szigeti on violin. Tone and technique vary considerably among classical players, but so do instruments themselves. It's true that things have become a bit more homogeneous as music making and music makers have become more internationalized; there used to be distinctive national "schools" of instrumental pedagogy, and it was easy to distinguish between French, German, Russian and American orchestras, especially their woodwinds and brass. Keyboards, of course, are enormously varied, and there's the human voice, both solo and in chorus. Composers have to assume that a piece they write will sound rather different in the hands of different artists playing different instruments in different venues. If it's a vocal piece it may seem almost a different work.


Isn't this the reason we enjoy collecting various recordings of the same work? And attending different performances? This is what brings the printed score to life.


----------



## tortkis (Jul 13, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Not at all. I can tell in ten seconds whether I'm listening to Thea King or Charles Neidich on clarinet, or Jascha Heifetz or Josef Szigeti on violin. Tone and technique vary considerably among classical players, but so do instruments themselves. It's true that things have become a bit more homogeneous as music making and music makers have become more internationalized; there used to be distinctive national "schools" of instrumental pedagogy, and it was easy to distinguish between French, German, Russian and American orchestras, especially their woodwinds and brass. Keyboards, of course, are enormously varied, and there's the human voice, both solo and in chorus. Composers have to assume that a piece they write will sound rather different in the hands of different artists playing different instruments in different venues. If it's a vocal piece it may seem almost a different work.


Are you saying timbre is not important in traditional classical music at all, and/or there was no consensus about ideal timbre at all? Of course there are differences of timbre between performers, instruments makers and the locations of manufacturers, and composers knew about them.


----------



## tortkis (Jul 13, 2013)

I think timbre is part of harmony. Even if the same chord is played, depending on the timbre of the instruments with different overtones, the degree of consonance would be different. It is possible to make an instrument (maybe only electronically) whose overtones conflict with integral multiples of the base frequency so that even an octave sounds dissonant. Also, pitches that sounds dissonant when played using normal instrument could sound consonant if overtones of notes are designed specially. But these are artificial examples, and most of physical instruments with clear pitches have overtones at integral multiples of the fundamental tone. I think that is the premise of the harmony practice/theory in western classical music.

John Pierce created notes with particular overtones for 8ET with which only diminish chord (in 12ET) sounds consonant. 
Eight-Tone Canon (1966): 



This is rather primitive and probably only for demonstration, but I suppose timbre, tuning and other musical elements could be composed integrally for new expression. Are there such compositions?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

tortkis said:


> Are you saying timbre is not important in traditional classical music at all, and/or there was no consensus about ideal timbre at all? Of course there are differences of timbre between performers, instruments makers and the locations of manufacturers, and composers knew about them.


There is very little music in which timbre is actually unimportant, so how could I have been saying that? Your second option is close to what I'm saying: in classical music through the ages, there has been little desire for an "ideal" timbre. In fact, composers have not only expected individual players to have individual sounds, but they have been willing to accept transcriptions, and make their own transcriptions, of their music for different instruments (an example is the two Brahms clarinet sonatas, which Brahms issued in an alternative version for viola).

Your original statement, "...in traditional classical music...there is consensus of an ideal timbre for each instrument, composers assume it, and every player tries to achieve the ideal," is incorrect on all three counts: there is no consensus regarding the "ideal" timbre for any instrument; composers do not typically assume, expect, or desire such an ideal; and players may have a considerable range of personal timbres within the boundaries of the style of the music they play. Style is the limiting factor; certain styles are more adaptable to individuality of sound than others. A smooth, mellow clarinet sound may be favored, though not obligatory, for the music of Mozart and Weber, while a reedier sound may be suitable for Prokofiev or Mahler. Classical musicians don't have the option of imposing extreme or eccentric sounds inappropriate to the aesthetic of the music they're interpreting, whereas jazz players will adapt the music they play to their own styles of playing. But that difference shouldn't lead us to minimize the existence and desirability of individuality of timbre and articulation in classical music.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

tortkis said:


> I think timbre is part of harmony. Even if the same chord is played, depending on the timbre of the instruments with different overtones, the degree of consonance would be different. It is possible to make an instrument (maybe only electronically) whose overtones conflict with integral multiples of the base frequency so that even an octave sounds dissonant. Also, pitches that sounds dissonant when played using normal instrument could sound consonant if overtones of notes are designed specially. But these are artificial examples, and most of physical instruments with clear pitches have overtones at integral multiples of the fundamental tone. I think that is the premise of the harmony practice/theory in western classical music.
> 
> John Pierce created notes with particular overtones for 8ET with which only diminish chord (in 12ET) sounds consonant.
> Eight-Tone Canon (1966):
> ...


Spectralism, I guess. In this piece by G.F.Haas, the microtonally tuned pianos interact in a way that really distorts they timbre and makes them to sound, at moments, more like bells.


----------



## juliante (Jun 7, 2013)

shirime said:


> I've been thinking more and more about the expanded instrumental (and electronic I guess) sound world embraced by Lachenmann and a plethora of younger composers.
> 
> By opening up to a wider variety of sounds that can be made on instruments, I have always felt that there is a new kind of expressivity that evokes even wider range or more intricate emotive combinations when listening. Obviously, no music is inherently more expressive than any other, but I do feel like there's something even more attractive to me about expressing sound through a wider and more thoughtful embrace of instrumental colour than the more restraint approaches to orchestration and instrumentation from previous eras of music.
> 
> ...


I'd like to start by saying that I really value posts from people such as you who have a broad knowledge and appreciation of contemporary CM, it's great and I have benefited.

But this Lachenmann piece. It may have a broader timbre than older CM pieces. But at what cost? I shall offer an extreme and ill informed analogy: If produced a canvas with some paint splashes, some barbed wire and may be a few old dried sweetcorm husks, all spilling out of an ill defined frame - at a superficial level I could claim this has a broader range of expression than a Manet painting. But I am not sure that it would deserve a place in an art gallery. Which I suspect may all be a manifestation of me being a fairly conservative old f*rt


----------

