# Why is contemporary classical music often so poorly received by today's audiences?



## janxharris

For example, Mark-Anthony Turnage's 'Frieze' has been performed only 9 times since 2013 and Harrison Birtwhistle's 'Panic' just 36 times since 1995.

If we look at YouTube, the story is the same:
Pierre Boulez - Structures I & II: 130k plays
Thomas Adès - Polaris: 52k plays

Of course there are exceptions, but these tend to be tonal pieces that hark back to a former age:

Karl Jenkins's 'Palladio' has been performed 250 times since 1997 and has 2 million+ plays on Youtube.

Steve Reich's 'Music for 18 Musicians ' has been performed 675 times since 1976 and has half a million plays on Youtube.


----------



## Chronochromie

janxharris said:


> For example, Mark-Anthony Turnage's 'Frieze' has been performed only 9 times since 2013 and Harrison Birtwhistle's 'Panic' just 36 times since 1995.
> 
> If we look at YouTube, the story is the same:
> Pierre Boulez - Structures I & II: 130k plays
> Thomas Adès - Polaris: 52k plays
> 
> Of course there are exceptions, but these tend to be tonal pieces that hark back to a former age:
> 
> Karl Jenkins's 'Palladio' has been performed 250 times since 1997 and has 2 million+ plays on Youtube.
> 
> Steve Reich's 'Music for 18 Musicians ' has been performed 675 times since 1976 and has half a million plays on Youtube.


I wonder which "former age" is the one that Music for 18 Musicians, a minimalist work from a movement once seen as avant-garde, harks backs to. The '60s?


----------



## KenOC

YouTube counts listens >20 seconds (I seem to remember) certainly not performances! I've read that 99% of the works premiered by orchestras each year never get a second performance.


----------



## Chronochromie

BTW if we're taking YouTube views as a meter now, you'll find pieces by Ligeti (not just those that appeared in Kubrick films either), Penderecki and Xenakis with a million views in there.


----------



## janxharris

Chronochromie said:


> I wonder which "former age" is the one that Music for 18 Musicians, a minimalist work from a movement once seen as avant-garde, harks backs to. The '60s?


I guess you have a point. The music does sound very melodic and tonal though, I'd say.


----------



## janxharris

KenOC said:


> YouTube counts listens >20 seconds (I seem to remember) certainly not performances! I've read that 99% of the works premiered by orchestras each year never get a second performance.


Wow - 99% - you don't happen to know the source?


----------



## KenOC

janxharris said:


> Wow - 99% - you don't happen to know the source?


Sorry, I don't have that. Just something I read.


----------



## janxharris

Chronochromie said:


> BTW if we're taking YouTube views as a meter now, you'll find pieces by Ligeti (not just those that appeared in Kubrick films either), Penderecki and Xenakis with a million views in there.


That is interesting.

Xenakis's Metastaseis has been performed 48 times since 1955.


----------



## Nereffid

The "exceptions" are really the rule. "Classical music" _as a whole_ isn't well received by today's audiences. The popular composers tend to be those born in the 19th century; outside that, _on either side_, it comes down to a relatively small number of individuals.

My own composer polls reveal that, of the 100 most popular composers, 61 were born in the 19th century. 22 were born before 1800, and 17 after 1899. Looking at the top 50, some 37 of them were born in the 19th century, 5 in the 18th century, 4 in the 17th century, and 4 in the 20th century. So perhaps we also need to ask "why is the music composed in the time of Bach and Mozart often so poorly received by today's audiences?" ?


----------



## hpowders

Go back to great music written in mid 20th century:

Why aren't Schuman's Symphonies 3,7,8,9 and 10 ever performed today. Great stuff!

What about Persichetti's 12 Piano Sonatas?

How about Mennin's 7th Symphony?

The reason is pure economics. Classical music concert goers as a group are dwindling, not expanding. If you were a member of an orchestra's board of directors, you need to collect money as in grants and ticket sales. Your subscription audience is predominantly conservative and you cannot afford to lose them. Soooo....schedule the Beethoven and Brahms Symphonies, season after season, ad nauseam and survive.

In a perfect world we would all be dancing to the latest atonal hit. But people lean conservatively tonal in their musical preferences. They prefer what they perceive as beautiful, easy to comprehend, tried and true patterns of sound. They will never be sold on atonalism.


----------



## Sloe

hpowders said:


> Go back to great music written in mid 20th century:
> 
> Why aren't Schuman's Symphonies 3,7,8,9 and 10 ever performed today. Great stuff!
> 
> What about Persichetti's 12 Piano Sonatas?
> 
> How about Mennin's 7th Symphony?
> 
> The reason is pure economics. Classical music concert goers as a group are dwindling, not expanding. If you were a member of an orchestra's board of directors, you need to collect money as in grants and ticket sales. Your subscription audience is predominantly conservative and you cannot afford to lose them. Soooo....schedule the Beethoven and Brahms Symphonies, season after season, ad nauseam and survive.


Classical music and especially contemporary classical music is music that get performed because people should be exposed to it not because they want to hear it and that is fine.


----------



## janxharris

Nereffid said:


> The "exceptions" are really the rule. "Classical music" _as a whole_ isn't well received by today's audiences. The popular composers tend to be those born in the 19th century; outside that, _on either side_, it comes down to a relatively small number of individuals.
> 
> My own composer polls reveal that, of the 100 most popular composers, 61 were born in the 19th century. 22 were born before 1800, and 17 after 1899. Looking at the top 50, some 37 of them were born in the 19th century, 5 in the 18th century, 4 in the 17th century, and 4 in the 20th century. So perhaps we also need to ask "why is the music composed in the time of Bach and Mozart often so poorly received by today's audiences?" ?


Interesting - thanks.


----------



## DavidA

I remember hearing a conductor saying once that there has never been a time when composers are so out of touch with their audiences. The reason modern music isn't performed is that for most people it is simply unpleasant to listen to. I do not like listening to unpleasant music. Heard some the other day and switched it off. I simply don't like it.
Why is John Rutter performed? Because people like his music


----------



## hpowders

Sloe said:


> Classical music and especially contemporary classical music is music that get performed because people should be exposed to it not because they want to hear it and that is fine.


Yes. But contemporary pieces are usually performed once and then forgotten.

I attended the NY Philharmonic for many years and they always performed some contemporary works. I don't recall any of them being repeated from one season to the next.

Being a classical composer these days "ain't what it used to be". Perhaps composers would have a greater chance at success if they composed within a framework that concert goers would understand-back to approachable tonal music. Even then there are no guarantees. William Schuman's terrific symphonies from the mid-20th century are neglected these days and he composed in an approachable tonal style.

Subscription concert goers are conservative by nature. They are not "into it" as we are here on Talk Classical. They are not interested in "expanding their musical horizons." They are perfectly happy with their Beethoven and Schubert. So they get the music they want to hear, otherwise why risk losing their financial support?

The last thing I would ever wish to be these days is a classical music composer. It is the quickest ticket to oblivion.


----------



## Sloe

janxharris said:


> For example, Mark-Anthony Turnage's 'Frieze' has been performed only 9 times since 2013 and Harrison Birtwhistle's 'Panic' just 36 times since 1995.
> 
> If we look at YouTube, the story is the same:
> Pierre Boulez - Structures I & II: 130k plays
> Thomas Adès - Polaris: 52k plays
> 
> Of course there are exceptions, but these tend to be tonal pieces that hark back to a former age:
> 
> Karl Jenkins's 'Palladio' has been performed 250 times since 1997 and has 2 million+ plays on Youtube.
> 
> Steve Reich's 'Music for 18 Musicians ' has been performed 675 times since 1976 and has half a million plays on Youtube.


There seem to be a lot of nasty comments on youtube:



> Pierre Boulez is like a woman with a boyfriend that keeps telling her she's smart, faithful, cooks well, yet never tells her she's beautiful. That woman is Boulez and her boyfriend is Boulez's fans. Has anyone here heard a fan of Boulez saying that he creates beautiful music? ﻿


----------



## starthrower

Schuman and Persichetti are hardly contemporary, and their music is fairly conventional. But like all relatively newer music, it has to compete with the warhorses that sell concert tickets.

But I believe it's a bit of a misconception to think most contemporary music is not welcome by audiences. Chamber music fares much better than the large orchestral works that require rehearsal time and larger budgets. And there are hundreds of recitals happening every week around the country.


----------



## Manxfeeder

I think if a contemporary piece is to survive there has to be something viscerally that connects with the audience. When Arvo Part started his "holy minimalism" phase, he connected in with the spirit of the times, of those looking to the coming millineum and being attracted to some form of spirituality, to the degree that he even had Michael Stipe from REM commenting on his music. The same with Philip Glass; his first minimalist concerts were "classical" but rooted enough in the language of popular music that they attracted people immediately, despite their length. 

If a composer of a new piece just puts things together just for music's sake, it will only be appreciated by connoisseurs. If he/she steps back and asks why would someone want to hear this, there might be a spark to put something in that draws people in. 

I remember St. Augustine's instruction to preachers, whose duties were not only probare, to instruct and prove, but also delectare, to rivet and delight, and flectere, to stir and move people to action. 

I think the problem with many contemporary composers is, they know the probare part but forget about the delectare and even the flectere.


----------



## Nereffid

DavidA said:


> I remember hearing a conductor saying once that there has never been a time when composers are so out of touch with their audiences. The reason modern music isn't performed is that for most people it is simply unpleasant to listen to. I do not like listening to unpleasant music. Heard some the other day and switched it off. I simply don't like it.
> Why is John Rutter performed? Because people like his music


Of course composers are in touch with their audiences! They may not be writing the sort of music that the _general_ classical audience wishes to hear, but they know their particular audience.
Given that the music most people seem to wish to hear is the sort that was composed _in the past_, but that _both_ the audiences and composers of today are living _in the present_, wouldn't it be more reasonable to say that the audience is out of touch with the composers?


----------



## DavidA

Nereffid said:


> *Of course composers are in touch with their audiences!* They may not be writing the sort of music that the _general_ classical audience wishes to hear, but they know their particular audience.
> Given that the music most people seem to wish to hear is the sort that was composed _in the past_, but that _both_ the audiences and composers of today are living _in the present_, wouldn't it be more reasonable to say that *the audience is out of touch with the composers?*




Not according to this conductor.

It is surely the job of composers to clime up with music that is enjoyable not that grates the nerves.


----------



## JAS

DavidA said:


> I remember hearing a conductor saying once that there has never been a time when composers are so out of touch with their audiences. The reason modern music isn't performed is that for most people it is simply unpleasant to listen to. I do not like listening to unpleasant music. Heard some the other day and switched it off. I simply don't like it.
> Why is John Rutter performed? Because people like his music


It also helps that Rutter's music is typically short pieces that are played in churches, which is a built in venue and audience. (I am not a huge Rutter fan, but admit to playing a particular CD of his music on the occasion of the passing of a close friend or especially admired public figure. In part, this is because an old friend had it played at her memorial service, so it has a personal connection as well as being nice musically.)


----------



## JAS

DavidA said:


> [/B]It is surely the job of composers to clime up with music that is enjoyable not that grates the nerves.


I think the bigger problem is that there is no longer any context in which people are generally exposed to great music at an early age, except perhaps a blurb in an advertisement or in a comical way. Even movie scores have moved on to very generic "soundscape" or pop music. (John Williams is pretty much the last practitioner of the old art, and he is at least 80 now. I had hoped that Shore's scores to The Lord of the Ring might help to inspire a new renaissance of score which could proudly assert melody, grand themes and a musically coherent presentation that was closely tied to the images, as Star Wars did for a previous generation, but alas.) I think for the foreseeable future, we are saddled with utterly disposable drivel, and the ranks of those who appreciate classical music are doomed to dwindle.


----------



## mmsbls

I would agree that much modern/contemporary music _is_ not enjoyable to the majority of orchestral listeners. But that's likely not innately true. Almost everyone I know who does enjoy modern/contemporary music spent a significant amount of time listening over and over to many works before they came to enjoy them. At first the musical "language" is enough different that listeners find it too unfamiliar to enjoy. After a suitable period (years for me), one becomes accustomed to the "language", and it becomes possible to like those works. Most people do not spend the time necessary to overcome the familiarity hurdle and continue to dislike the music.

To me the interesting question is why music of this past century seems to take listeners longer to appreciate than new music of past centuries did. We've had a number of threads where that question was discussed briefly. The answer that I favor was suggested by a young composer student friend. He said that while composers in past centuries wrote relatively similar music, modern/contemporary composers seem to almost be unique in their own styles. In the past listening to some works allowed one to appreciate many other works. In this century one must almost listen to each composer separately before coming to appreciate their music. That doesn't fully explain the phenomenon, but perhaps it sheds some light on the answer.


----------



## Nereffid

DavidA said:


> [/B]
> 
> Not according to this conductor.
> 
> It is surely the job of composers to clime up with music that is enjoyable not that grates the nerves.


You bolded my "Of course composers are in touch with their audiences!" but the significant sentence was the next one: "They may not be writing the sort of music that the general classical audience wishes to hear, but they know their particular audience."

If you mean that composers are out of touch with The Audience, you may have a point (though I think, as I said, the reverse is more correct). But there _is no_ "The Audience" (if there ever was?).

Are you saying that Boulez, Ligeti, Berio et al didn't have an audience that appreciated (and still do) their music? Or that Reich, Glass, Part et al don't have an audience that appreciates theirs? That's absurd!

As for a composer's "job" - if they want to have relative financial success, then I suppose yes, they should come up with music of the widest possible appeal. But for how many composers is this the main motivation for composing?


----------



## Strange Magic

My position is simplicity itself. I believe that, in an era of instantaneous communication and almost total freedom of access to music, every genre is getting exactly the audience, the exposure, the support it deserves. If you are not hearing enough of the music you want to hear, then you are not trying very hard. If you think that I am not hearing enough of the music you want me to listen to, that's another story.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Strange Magic said:


> My position is simplicity itself. I believe that, in an era of instantaneous communication and almost total freedom of access to music, every genre is getting exactly the audience, the exposure, the support it deserves.


To paraphrase Shaw, it would seem more to the point that every listener gets the music they deserve.


----------



## dzc4627

It is often bad and arbitrary and trivial music, from the concerts I have been to at least.


----------



## mmsbls

dzc4627 said:


> It is often bad an arbitrary and trivial music, from the concerts I have been to at least.


What is arbitrary music? In my experience contemporary works often get strong ovations and sometimes standing ovations. Of course, I assume our collective experiences are rather small.

It does depend a bit on what is considered contemporary. If it's music from the past few years, one would not expect the quality to be as good as music that has been selected as the best of whole centuries so the premieres one hears are likely to be average (i.e. not exceptional) works.


----------



## hpowders

Standing O's, perhaps because the audience is elated their ordeal is finally over and they can get back to their beloved Beethoven & Brahms.


----------



## janxharris

Perhaps someone can point to a modern, atonal work that has achieved popular appeal?


----------



## janxharris

That is regularly performed?


----------



## starthrower

Sloe said:


> There seem to be a lot of nasty comments on youtube:


There's a billion idiots on YouTube always making nasty comments about everything.


----------



## starthrower

janxharris said:


> Perhaps someone can point to a modern, atonal work that has achieved popular appeal?


Alban Berg, anyone? Lulu, Lyric Suite

But ultimately, popular appeal shouldn't be the end all for great works of art. Diffucult works will never be very popular because most people aren't willing to listen enough times to become familiar with a piece.


----------



## Simon Moon

Seems to me, that everytime a discussion about contemporary music comes up, it always gets saddled with the 'derogatory' (not to me) term "atonal".

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the majority of 20th century and contemporary music tonal?


----------



## chromatic owl

Regarding the music that can be labelled as "contemporary classical", it is mostly atonal indeed.


----------



## chromatic owl

What composers do you particularly refer to?


----------



## starthrower

Simon Moon said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the majority of 20th century and contemporary music tonal?


Yes! And people still complain about it.


----------



## JAS

Simon Moon said:


> Seems to me, that everytime a discussion about contemporary music comes up, it always gets saddled with the 'derogatory' (not to me) term "atonal".


I think we tend to say "atonal" when we really mean something more like lacking a clear, accessible (ideally appealing) central or connecting theme. This touches somewhat on the thread I attempted to start about describing the differences, but it failed to get much interest. And in the end I was just accused of wanting to make a negative statement about modern music. Apparently any attempt to describe modern music will necessarily be negative.


----------



## DaveM

JAS said:


> I think we tend to say "atonal" when we really mean something more like lacking a clear, accessible (ideally appealing) central or connecting theme. This touches somewhat on the thread I attempted to start about describing the differences, but it failed to get much interest. And in the end I was just accused of wanting to make a negative statement about modern music. Apparently any attempt to describe modern music will necessarily be negative.


I had much the same experience when I said that I didn't find 'accessible melody' in atonal works. That caused a few to react as if the subject was to be taken personally. Apparently, some people find distinct melody in the music. Good for them. I don't and I don't care to spend a lot of time learning to find melody in it; I'm getting too much enjoyment out of discovering all the 'forgotten' works from the core romantic era being recorded by companies such as Hyperion.


----------



## pokeefe0001

Simon Moon said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the majority of 20th century and contemporary music tonal?





chromatic owl said:


> Regarding the music that can be labelled as "contemporary classical", it is mostly atonal indeed.


I'd say the answer is "Yes". There are (at least) two very different definitions of "atonal": 

Having no apparent tonal center
Not using "common practice" harmonic progressions.
Music adhering to serialism, pitch class set theory, or other contemporary techniques fit both definitions, but there is a lot of music that fits the first definition but not the second. In fact, very little "classical music" from late romantic period on adheres to common practice harmonic theory so is not strictly "tonal".


----------



## hpowders

janxharris said:


> Perhaps someone can point to a modern, atonal work that has achieved popular appeal?


There are none. Those of us who like the Schoenberg Piano and Violin Concertos are not your typical listeners who frequent orchestra subscription concerts.


----------



## Strange Magic

Going back to the Babbitt v. Britney thread (and every other thread involving Milton Babbitt), the Princetonian was quoted complaining bitterly in an article in one of the Princeton local papers that nobody wanted to financially support concerts of his sort of music. He also complained that nobody showed up at free concerts of suchlike. It's clearly Just Not Fair!


----------



## JAS

starthrower said:


> But ultimately, popular appeal shouldn't be the end all for great works of art. Difficult works will never be very popular because most people aren't willing to listen enough times to become familiar with a piece.


While there is certainly some truth to your comment (repeated listening can reveal something missing in a single pass), it also raises an impossible question. Exactly what is the requisite number of times that someone must listen to a piece before he or she can say with confidence that said listener just doesn't appreciate it and is not going to appreciate it? And if you force yourself to listen to something you really don't like from the beginning, are you really going to find that you like it any more after 10 or 15 times?


----------



## Sloe

starthrower said:


> There's a billion idiots on YouTube always making nasty comments about everything.


It bothers me that people have to be so rude and even using offensive language. And I think the piece the op linked to by Boulez linked to is beautiful and other music by Boulez too. And it don't sound like someone is pressing the keys randomly on a piano. Maybe it sounded like that when Boulez pressed piano keys randomly but not if I do the same.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Sloe said:


> Maybe it sounded like that when Boulez pressed piano keys randomly but not if I do the same.


To paraphrase Dolly Parton, it takes a lot of planning to sound that random.


----------



## Sloe

DaveM said:


> I had much the same experience when I said that I didn't find 'accessible melody' in atonal works. That caused a few to react as if the subject was to be taken personally. Apparently, some people find distinct melody in the music. Good for them. I don't and I don't care to spend a lot of time learning to find melody in it; I'm getting too much enjoyment out of discovering all the 'forgotten' works from the core romantic era being recorded by companies such as Hyperion.


No need to find a distinct melody to enjoy a work. Sometimes it is fun to hear something that is different to what one usually hear.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Maybe because it died last year?


----------



## Tristan

Because it's degenerate art


----------



## Chronochromie

Tristan said:


> Because it's degenerate art


"Pure and simple."


----------



## isorhythm

That Ades piece is overtly tonal, and quite pretty - odd example for you to use there.


----------



## janxharris

isorhythm said:


> That Ades piece is overtly tonal, and quite pretty - odd example for you to use there.


You have a point there.


----------



## janxharris

Perhaps it is possible that lovers of modern classical (i.e. the type that isn't tonal and isn't popular) have had a particular life experience so that they can relate to such music?


----------



## Sloe

janxharris said:


> Perhaps it is possible that lovers of modern classical (i.e. the type that isn't tonal and isn't popular) have had a particular life experience so that they can relate to such music?


What life experience would that be?


----------



## violadude

janxharris said:


> Perhaps it is possible that lovers of modern classical (i.e. the type that isn't tonal and isn't popular) have had a particular life experience so that they can relate to such music?


Why yes. About 10 years ago, Satan himself came into my room and sucked my soul out of my body. Now I am but a cold lifeless being who can only think with my brain but not my heart. That's why I can now only enjoy atonal music.


----------



## janxharris

Sloe said:


> What life experience would that be?


Perhaps someone who appreciates such music might be able to relate such an experience? Maybe not.


----------



## isorhythm

janxharris said:


> Perhaps someone who appreciates such music might be able to relate such an experience? Maybe not.


Why do some people like free jazz, thrash metal, noise rock, New Age, klezmer, flamenco...?

People have different tastes.


----------



## mmsbls

janxharris said:


> Perhaps it is possible that lovers of modern classical (i.e. the type that isn't tonal and isn't popular) have had a particular life experience so that they can relate to such music?


I doubt those who love modern classical would say they have had a particular life experience enabling them to enjoy such music. Obviously there has been something different in their lives from yours that resulted in their enjoying the music while you do not (I assume). People come to enjoy modern music in different ways. Some pretty much liked it from the beginning while others took time to develop that enjoyment.

I will share my path because at one time I disliked pretty much all modern classical music. I even had trouble with Debussy, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, and Ravel. I thought Berg's Violin Concerto sounded random. I thought Boulez's works were barely music. I wondered why composers chose to write such works and how anyone could actually enjoy them.

I did know that many people (if a small percentage) loved modern works. I knew that modern classical had followed late Romantic in essentially the same way that Romantic had followed Classical, Classical had followed Baroque, and Baroque had followed Renaissance. Composers were doing the same thing they always had done - try to write interesting and compelling music. But the most important fact was that I adored classical music from early eras through the late Romantic. I loved hearing works for the first time and being stunned by the beauty, feeling compelled to listen, and afterward wanting to listen to those sounds again and again. The problem was that there was a whole century of classical music I could not enjoy, and that made me feel I was missing out on an enormous amount of music including music being created right now. I loved so much classical music and couldn't stand to suddenly have this barrier between me and a portion of what I loved.

So I listened to the new music over and over. I listened to every composer that seemed to be popular among modern music lovers. I listened to just about every work that people suggested. At first I disliked them. After that I also disliked them. But eventually I started to find some I liked. I found that works I could barely listen to seemed to sound different. Rather than strongly disliking them, I was merely indifferent. Sometimes I listened to one work repeatedly until I fell in love (e.g. Berg's Violin Concerto). Sometimes after listening many times to a composer and finding nothing to enjoy I suddenly came back to him or her and found I liked just about everything (e.g. Schnittke). The conversion seemed almost magical. How can you strongly dislike music one day and later love it?

I assume few people will like all modern music, but I think just about everyone could become more familiar with the sounds and find some either appealing or at least much less displeasing. Presumably most people could find works they like and even like a lot. But yes, it could take time and "effort". I think one needs to believe modern music can be as compelling as earlier music, and one needs to be willing to listen repeatedly not expecting to just hear the same sounds they have enjoyed in the past.


----------



## Simon Moon

violadude said:


> Why yes. About 10 years ago, Satan himself came into my room and sucked my soul out of my body. Now I am but a cold lifeless being who can only think with my brain but not my heart. That's why I can now only enjoy atonal music.


There are many different reasons I listen to music for. Sometimes those reasons coincide with my enjoyment of atonal music.

Sometimes I only want to listen with 'brain' (as you put it), other times I want to listen with my 'heart' (actually, all emotions occur in the brain, but I understand the metaphor).

Then, there is a very real feeling of catharsis that occurs after I listen to a difficult atonal piece, that is very emotional, despite the fact that _you_ may not label the piece as emotional.



> That's why I can now only enjoy atonal music.


I hope you are not implying that those of us that like atonal music, ONLY like atonal music. As I stated earlier in this thread, my classical music collection is almost entirely 20th century and contemporary, and despite my love for atonal music, the majority of my collection it tonal.

*Maybe your post was facetious? If it is, sorry. I can never remember who here hates all things contemporary.


----------



## Lucas A

The briefest answer I can think of is this: classical audiences today are primarily older, and their perception of 'contemporary music' has been thoroughly trashed due to the Darmstadt era. 

Meanwhile younger audiences are totally unaware that contemporary classical music exists, but would probably be pretty into most of the post-minimalist and neo-romantic schools. 

The sign of hope for me is that the more immediate 20th century composers are really being embraced recently - Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Janacek, and even Britten, Adams, and to some extent Ligeti. If you can get on board with those last three, you've pretty much got your bases covered for new music today.


----------



## violadude

Simon Moon said:


> There are many different reasons I listen to music for. Sometimes those reasons coincide with my enjoyment of atonal music.
> 
> Sometimes I only want to listen with 'brain' (as you put it), other times I want to listen with my 'heart' (actually, all emotions occur in the brain, but I understand the metaphor).
> 
> Then, there is a very real feeling of catharsis that occurs after I listen to a difficult atonal piece, that is very emotional, despite the fact that _you_ may not label the piece as emotional.
> 
> I hope you are not implying that those of us that like atonal music, ONLY like atonal music. As I stated earlier in this thread, my classical music collection is almost entirely 20th century and contemporary, and despite my love for atonal music, the majority of my collection it tonal.
> 
> *Maybe your post was facetious? If it is, sorry. I can never remember who here hates all things contemporary.


I was joking..............


----------



## hpowders

Sloe said:


> What life experience would that be?


Attempted suicide?


----------



## Vaneyes

I think it's received better than thirty or more years ago. The world's a more threatening place, and much of contemporary music accurately conveys this. Soundtracks are an important messenger in this regard, opening doors for more formal presentations. :tiphat:


----------



## DaveM

violadude said:


> I was joking..............


But it would have made a good movie...


----------



## Vaneyes

Tristan said:


> Because it's degenerate art


"Where did that come from?"


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

violadude said:


> Why yes. About 10 years ago, Satan himself came into my room and sucked my soul out of my body. Now I am but a cold lifeless being who can only think with my brain but not my heart. That's why I can now only enjoy atonal music.


Succubus. Didn't a certain mahlember had recurrent night terrors?


----------



## lextune

So it is safe to say we haven't reached the day Schoenberg dreamed of? School kids whistling tone rows...


----------



## starthrower

lextune said:


> So it is safe to say we haven't reached the day Schoenberg dreamed of? School kids whistling tone rows...


I bet there's loads of famous tonal music nobody can whistle, so what's your point? Can you whistle the prelude to Le Tombeau de Couperin?


----------



## Simon Moon

violadude said:


> I was joking..............


Maybe you should add some emoticons?

Without the, how I am I supposed to differentiate you from the other members here that _do_ think like your facetious post?

Have you ever heard of POE's law?

Poe's law is an Internet adage that states that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers or viewers as a sincere expression of the parodied views.


----------



## DaveM

Simon Moon said:


> Maybe you should add some emoticons?
> 
> Without the, how I am I supposed to differentiate you from the other members here that _do_ think like your facetious post?
> 
> Have you ever heard of POE's law?
> 
> Poe's law is an Internet adage that states that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers or viewers as a sincere expression of the parodied views.


So you needed an emoticon to determine whether Satan actually came into his room and sucked out his soul?


----------



## Simon Moon

DaveM said:


> So you needed an emoticon to determine whether Satan actually came into his room and sucked out his soul?


While I understand that it would _seem_ a giveaway, I am still not willing to make assumptions.

Conservative talk show host, Dennis Prager, has described classical music as "God's drug". And went one step further, in stating that (I'm paraphrasing) "contemporary classical music [which he hates] is a result of 'God' being removed from modern culture.".

Is that really that far from statements made on this forum?


----------



## starthrower

Thank "God" for Dennis Prager! I'm being facetious, of course. But one would have to go much farther back to witness the "move away from God." So much for talk radio.


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> I doubt those who love modern classical would say they have had a particular life experience enabling them to enjoy such music. Obviously there has been something different in their lives from yours that resulted in their enjoying the music while you do not (I assume). People come to enjoy modern music in different ways. Some pretty much liked it from the beginning while others took time to develop that enjoyment.
> 
> I will share my path because at one time I disliked pretty much all modern classical music. I even had trouble with Debussy, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, and Ravel. I thought Berg's Violin Concerto sounded random. I thought Boulez's works were barely music. I wondered why composers chose to write such works and how anyone could actually enjoy them.
> 
> I did know that many people (if a small percentage) loved modern works. I knew that modern classical had followed late Romantic in essentially the same way that Romantic had followed Classical, Classical had followed Baroque, and Baroque had followed Renaissance. Composers were doing the same thing they always had done - try to write interesting and compelling music. But the most important fact was that I adored classical music from early eras through the late Romantic. I loved hearing works for the first time and being stunned by the beauty, feeling compelled to listen, and afterward wanting to listen to those sounds again and again. The problem was that there was a whole century of classical music I could not enjoy, and that made me feel I was missing out on an enormous amount of music including music being created right now. I loved so much classical music and couldn't stand to suddenly have this barrier between me and a portion of what I loved.
> 
> So I listened to the new music over and over. I listened to every composer that seemed to be popular among modern music lovers. I listened to just about every work that people suggested. At first I disliked them. After that I also disliked them. But eventually I started to find some I liked. I found that works I could barely listen to seemed to sound different. Rather than strongly disliking them, I was merely indifferent. Sometimes I listened to one work repeatedly until I fell in love (e.g. Berg's Violin Concerto). Sometimes after listening many times to a composer and finding nothing to enjoy I suddenly came back to him or her and found I liked just about everything (e.g. Schnittke). The conversion seemed almost magical. How can you strongly dislike music one day and later love it?
> 
> I assume few people will like all modern music, but I think just about everyone could become more familiar with the sounds and find some either appealing or at least much less displeasing. Presumably most people could find works they like and even like a lot. But yes, it could take time and "effort". I think one needs to believe modern music can be as compelling as earlier music, and one needs to be willing to listen repeatedly not expecting to just hear the same sounds they have enjoyed in the past.


I am absolutely with you here. Just about every piece of music that I now love I disliked on first hearing.


----------



## janxharris

hpowders said:


> Attempted suicide?


Certainly, much modern dissonant music has a relentless nightmarish quality to it.


----------



## millionrainbows

"Classical" music and concerts are really a matter of tradition. Nobody expects it to be a level playing field with contemporary classical. 
The thread subject seems to suggest that contemporary classical has somehow "failed." 

This is like an employee being put on notice, being micro-managed, and made to feel different and somehow lacking. 
I think the employee should quit, or file a grievance with the workforce commission. 
As usual, it boils down to religious discrimination; old classical is Christian, new classical is atheist or Eastern.


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> I doubt those who love modern classical would say they have had a particular life experience enabling them to enjoy such music. Obviously there has been something different in their lives from yours that resulted in their enjoying the music while you do not (I assume). People come to enjoy modern music in different ways. Some pretty much liked it from the beginning while others took time to develop that enjoyment.
> 
> I will share my path because at one time I disliked pretty much all modern classical music. I even had trouble with Debussy, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, and Ravel. I thought Berg's Violin Concerto sounded random. I thought Boulez's works were barely music. I wondered why composers chose to write such works and how anyone could actually enjoy them.
> 
> I did know that many people (if a small percentage) loved modern works. I knew that modern classical had followed late Romantic in essentially the same way that Romantic had followed Classical, Classical had followed Baroque, and Baroque had followed Renaissance. Composers were doing the same thing they always had done - try to write interesting and compelling music. But the most important fact was that I adored classical music from early eras through the late Romantic. I loved hearing works for the first time and being stunned by the beauty, feeling compelled to listen, and afterward wanting to listen to those sounds again and again. The problem was that there was a whole century of classical music I could not enjoy, and that made me feel I was missing out on an enormous amount of music including music being created right now. I loved so much classical music and couldn't stand to suddenly have this barrier between me and a portion of what I loved.
> 
> So I listened to the new music over and over. I listened to every composer that seemed to be popular among modern music lovers. I listened to just about every work that people suggested. At first I disliked them. After that I also disliked them. But eventually I started to find some I liked. I found that works I could barely listen to seemed to sound different. Rather than strongly disliking them, I was merely indifferent. Sometimes I listened to one work repeatedly until I fell in love (e.g. Berg's Violin Concerto). Sometimes after listening many times to a composer and finding nothing to enjoy I suddenly came back to him or her and found I liked just about everything (e.g. Schnittke). The conversion seemed almost magical. How can you strongly dislike music one day and later love it?
> 
> I assume few people will like all modern music, but I think just about everyone could become more familiar with the sounds and find some either appealing or at least much less displeasing. Presumably most people could find works they like and even like a lot. But yes, it could take time and "effort". I think one needs to believe modern music can be as compelling as earlier music, and one needs to be willing to listen repeatedly not expecting to just hear the same sounds they have enjoyed in the past.


Could you suggest a (shortish) piece that I (and maybe others) could listen to repeatedly as an experiment? We could report back.......


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> "Classical" music and concerts are really a matter of tradition. Nobody expects it to be a level playing field with contemporary classical.
> The thread subject seems to suggest that contemporary classical has somehow "failed."
> 
> This is like an employee being put on notice, being micro-managed, and made to feel different and somehow lacking.
> I think the employee should quit, or file a grievance with the workforce commission.
> As usual, it boils down to religious discrimination; old classical is Christian, new classical is atheist or Eastern.


Contemporary classical music has failed to impress many people...so far....


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> I doubt those who love modern classical would say they have had a particular life experience enabling them to enjoy such music. Obviously there has been something different in their lives from yours that resulted in their enjoying the music while you do not (I assume). People come to enjoy modern music in different ways. Some pretty much liked it from the beginning while others took time to develop that enjoyment.
> 
> I will share my path because at one time I disliked pretty much all modern classical music. I even had trouble with Debussy, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, and Ravel. I thought Berg's Violin Concerto sounded random. I thought Boulez's works were barely music. I wondered why composers chose to write such works and how anyone could actually enjoy them.
> 
> I did know that many people (if a small percentage) loved modern works. I knew that modern classical had followed late Romantic in essentially the same way that Romantic had followed Classical, Classical had followed Baroque, and Baroque had followed Renaissance. Composers were doing the same thing they always had done - try to write interesting and compelling music. But the most important fact was that I adored classical music from early eras through the late Romantic. I loved hearing works for the first time and being stunned by the beauty, feeling compelled to listen, and afterward wanting to listen to those sounds again and again. The problem was that there was a whole century of classical music I could not enjoy, and that made me feel I was missing out on an enormous amount of music including music being created right now. I loved so much classical music and couldn't stand to suddenly have this barrier between me and a portion of what I loved.
> 
> So I listened to the new music over and over. I listened to every composer that seemed to be popular among modern music lovers. I listened to just about every work that people suggested. At first I disliked them. After that I also disliked them. But eventually I started to find some I liked. I found that works I could barely listen to seemed to sound different. Rather than strongly disliking them, I was merely indifferent. Sometimes I listened to one work repeatedly until I fell in love (e.g. Berg's Violin Concerto). Sometimes after listening many times to a composer and finding nothing to enjoy I suddenly came back to him or her and found I liked just about everything (e.g. Schnittke). The conversion seemed almost magical. How can you strongly dislike music one day and later love it?
> 
> I assume few people will like all modern music, but I think just about everyone could become more familiar with the sounds and find some either appealing or at least much less displeasing. Presumably most people could find works they like and even like a lot. But yes, it could take time and "effort". I think one needs to believe modern music can be as compelling as earlier music, and one needs to be willing to listen repeatedly not expecting to just hear the same sounds they have enjoyed in the past.


You mention Berg's violin concerto - I am going to try that...repeatedly.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

janxharris said:


> Perhaps it is possible that lovers of modern classical (i.e. the type that isn't tonal and isn't popular) have had a particular life experience so that they can relate to such music?


I am a psychiatrist by trade, and have an interest in whether or not people are willing and / or able to face and explore their own disturbing feelings in the course of thinking about their psychological difficulties. I see an obvious parallel between the capacity to (learn to) 'face things as they are in one's self' and life' in psychotherapy and the capacity to (learn to) enjoy the sort of art which tries to represent things that are disturbing, frightening etc.

By chance I read this in the newspaper today which I think is succinct:



> As with any other art, music is often also considered a form of entertainment: if something does not immediately gratify, if it surprises or shocks, or if it fails to entertain with acrobatics (...), we are upset. In a gallery, we can walk past a painting that we dislike or that we do not "understand", just as we can skip a portion of a book or close it altogether. But music puts us in a position of passivity, it owns and shapes our time. We may buy a ticket to a concert, but the music then buys our time and we have to listen. We are in the same passive situation even when listening to recordings: the music invades our hearing, that most vulnerable of senses, over which we have the least control. Anything disturbing or necessitating more effort or concentration invariably gets rejected.
> 
> Pina Napolitano, on Schoenberg, today in The Guardian.


You'll guess that I do like to be moved in disturbing ways by art - visual art, film and theatre, written art and music - because I then often feel that an artist has experienced and perhaps understood and interpreted a feeling that I have also struggled with. I think that the capacity to do so may involve a subtle interaction between what good and helpful, and what bad and disturbing experiences (and here I include relationships of all sorts), an individual or a group has enjoyed or faced in life.

My route to enjoying music of the sort being discussed here was just to listen to it - again and again since I first encountered it nearly 50 years ago. I must have found something in it to make me persist at the beginning - perhaps a love of the novel and unusual, the unconventional and the dissonant, was the 'spark' that lit things for me. And maybe that's in the genes or the early environment or more likely, I think, in a complex interaction of the two.

I can tell you that my son, now in his 20s, had no difficulty at all with very dissonant classical music. He says that he has always heard it as 'just music', like the experimental rock and jazz he quickly grew to like in his teens. I do see a lot of young people his age at the contemporary music concerts we sometimes go to together, and perhaps there is hope of a small but discerning audience for modern and contemporary classical music in the future.


----------



## Radames

Was contemporary classical music EVER well received by audiences? Probably not well outside a handful of composers.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Radames said:


> Was contemporary classical music EVER well received by audiences? Probably not well outside a handful of composers.


Interesting point. But I have a hard time seeing how some contemporary music - such as Boulez' Structures - would ever be well received by the public. Most of contemporary music will be forgotten, as history teaches us.

By the way, lots of what we now consider masterpieces have had very favorable receptions on their premier.


----------



## isorhythm

janxharris said:


> Could you suggest a (shortish) piece that I (and maybe others) could listen to repeatedly as an experiment? We could report back.......


Berg, Lulu suite: 




Ligeti, Lux aeterna:


----------



## David OByrne

Poorly received? it's the coolest thing I've heard.

As someone still new to classical, it seems to completely overshadow the older classical stuff. How could it be poorly received???? are they hearing the same music????


----------



## mmsbls

Radames said:


> Was contemporary classical music EVER well received by audiences? Probably not well outside a handful of composers.


If you mean classical music composed in the basic time period it is being heard, it used to be all that was ever played. My understanding is that orchestras only played contemporary works into the 19th century. At some point they started playing fewer and fewer contemporary works until they almost never played contemporary works, I'm still not sure exactly why the change occurred, but well before what we call modern music, orchestras were playing "old" music.

Today contemporary classical is very well received in small venues (where people come to hear exactly that).


----------



## tdc

David OByrne said:


> Poorly received? it's the coolest thing I've heard.
> 
> As someone still new to classical, it seems to completely overshadow the older classical stuff. How could it be poorly received???? are they hearing the same music????


I don't agree about over shadowing the older stuff, but I am glad that people like you exist because I know there is plenty of good new classical music out there and somebody has to listen to it.

It needs fans like you to thrive.

I find I haven't been in the mood for any recently, but when I do Berio, Schnittke and Takemitsu are some of the newish composers I like.


----------



## mmsbls

janxharris said:


> You mention Berg's violin concerto - I am going to try that...repeatedly.


I hope you come to enjoy it. I actually listened to an audio recording discussing the work in detail while playing parts of it (unfortunately it's no longer available). That helped me a lot. Now I can only hear beautiful music when I listen.

Suggesting works is always potentially problematic, but I'll give you several that aren't too long.

Penderecki String Quartet #3
Schnittke String Quartet #3

Messiaen wrote a long work called Vingt Regards sur l'Enfant-Jésus. It contains many relatively short piano pieces. The first I think would be enjoyable to many people. But you might try to the second or third.

Ligeti wrote many short piano etudes. Maybe try 9, 12, and 13.

Boulez wrote a set of very short works called Notations for orchestra (he also wrote a set for piano). The orchestral set contains 5 pieces (sometimes called Cinq Notations).

Hopefully at least some of those are interesting or even enjoyable.


----------



## Bruckner Anton

Because most of them are either not designed to amuse the audience, or not able to do so.


----------



## janxharris

TurnaboutVox said:


> I am a psychiatrist by trade, and have an interest in whether or not people are willing and / or able to face and explore their own disturbing feelings in the course of thinking about their psychological difficulties. I see an obvious parallel between the capacity to (learn to) 'face things as they are in one's self' and life' in psychotherapy and the capacity to (learn to) enjoy the sort of art which tries to represent things that are disturbing, frightening etc.
> 
> By chance I read this in the newspaper today which I think is succinct:
> 
> You'll guess that I do like to be moved in disturbing ways by art - visual art, film and theatre, written art and music - because I then often feel that an artist has experienced and perhaps understood and interpreted a feeling that I have also struggled with. I think that the capacity to do so may involve a subtle interaction between what good and helpful, and what bad and disturbing experiences (and here I include relationships of all sorts), an individual or a group has enjoyed or faced in life.
> 
> My route to enjoying music of the sort being discussed here was just to listen to it - again and again since I first encountered it nearly 50 years ago. I must have found something in it to make me persist at the beginning - perhaps a love of the novel and unusual, the unconventional and the dissonant, was the 'spark' that lit things for me. And maybe that's in the genes or the early environment or more likely, I think, in a complex interaction of the two.
> 
> I can tell you that my son, now in his 20s, had no difficulty at all with very dissonant classical music. He says that he has always heard it as 'just music', like the experimental rock and jazz he quickly grew to like in his teens. I do see a lot of young people his age at the contemporary music concerts we sometimes go to together, and perhaps there is hope of a small but discerning audience for modern and contemporary classical music in the future.


Interesting, thanks. Can such music ever express joy and peace or does it's use of dissonance limit it only to the disturbing? Must one, necessarily, revert back to tonality to express anything tranquil?


----------



## janxharris

isorhythm said:


> Berg, Lulu suite:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ligeti, Lux aeterna:


Thank you. Will give them a go. I have actually already come across both - I remember quite liking the Ligeti and I am sure there was a section of the Berg that I loved.


----------



## Sloe

mmsbls said:


> Today contemporary classical is very well received in small venues (where people come to hear exactly that).


It is also common to mix in something contemporary in concerts with older music. I know some users here have been furious over that practise but I think it can be good to hear something new of course it can be a hit or miss but it can be a nice surprise and people can discover something new.


----------



## janxharris

I'm curious - do all those posting here (whether fore or against such dissonant music as we have been discussing) enjoy listening to Stravinsky's Rite of Spring?

I do.


----------



## mmsbls

janxharris said:


> I'm curious - do all those posting here (whether fore or against such dissonant music as we have been discussing) enjoy listening to Stravinsky's Rite of Spring?
> 
> I do.


When I first heard it, I definitely did not enjoy it. Now I enjoy it quite a bit.


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> When I first heard it, I definitely did not enjoy it. Now I enjoy it quite a bit.


I'd put it my top 10.


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> I doubt those who love modern classical would say they have had a particular life experience enabling them to enjoy such music. Obviously there has been something different in their lives from yours that resulted in their enjoying the music while you do not (I assume). People come to enjoy modern music in different ways. Some pretty much liked it from the beginning while others took time to develop that enjoyment.
> 
> I will share my path because at one time I disliked pretty much all modern classical music. I even had trouble with Debussy, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, and Ravel. I thought Berg's Violin Concerto sounded random. I thought Boulez's works were barely music. I wondered why composers chose to write such works and how anyone could actually enjoy them.
> 
> I did know that many people (if a small percentage) loved modern works. I knew that modern classical had followed late Romantic in essentially the same way that Romantic had followed Classical, Classical had followed Baroque, and Baroque had followed Renaissance. Composers were doing the same thing they always had done - try to write interesting and compelling music. But the most important fact was that I adored classical music from early eras through the late Romantic. I loved hearing works for the first time and being stunned by the beauty, feeling compelled to listen, and afterward wanting to listen to those sounds again and again. The problem was that there was a whole century of classical music I could not enjoy, and that made me feel I was missing out on an enormous amount of music including music being created right now. I loved so much classical music and couldn't stand to suddenly have this barrier between me and a portion of what I loved.
> 
> So I listened to the new music over and over. I listened to every composer that seemed to be popular among modern music lovers. I listened to just about every work that people suggested. At first I disliked them. After that I also disliked them. But eventually I started to find some I liked. I found that works I could barely listen to seemed to sound different. Rather than strongly disliking them, I was merely indifferent. Sometimes I listened to one work repeatedly until I fell in love (e.g. Berg's Violin Concerto). Sometimes after listening many times to a composer and finding nothing to enjoy I suddenly came back to him or her and found I liked just about everything (e.g. Schnittke). The conversion seemed almost magical. How can you strongly dislike music one day and later love it?
> 
> I assume few people will like all modern music, but I think just about everyone could become more familiar with the sounds and find some either appealing or at least much less displeasing. Presumably most people could find works they like and even like a lot. But yes, it could take time and "effort". I think one needs to believe modern music can be as compelling as earlier music, and one needs to be willing to listen repeatedly not expecting to just hear the same sounds they have enjoyed in the past.


I don't get Berg's Violin Concerto - the unrelenting excruciating dissonance forces me to stop listening.

I have managed to get though it 3 times.


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> When I first heard it, I definitely did not enjoy it. Now I enjoy it quite a bit.


Have you heard Sibelius's disturbing Tone Poem 'Tapiola'?


----------



## Nereffid

janxharris said:


> I don't get Berg's Violin Concerto - the unrelenting excruciating dissonance forces me to stop listening.
> 
> I have managed to get though it 3 times.


I found a comment I made on a thread a couple of years ago about people not liking modern classical:
"Yesterday on random play I heard Berg's Three Pieces for Orchestra for the first time in ages; the very first time I heard it it was meaningless noise, but yesterday it was magnificent. I hadn't studied the piece, or anything like that: all I'd done in the intervening years was simply hear lots of different music."

It was the same with Berg's violin concerto - again, no particular effort on my part (unlike mmsbls's repeated listening), but it was first filled with the "excruciating dissonance" you mention, whereas I'm listening to it right now and, 6 minutes in, I'm still waiting to hear something unpleasant!

I think this is the big stumbling block for people who just generally-speaking don't like this kind of modern music - hearing a modern piece in isolation probably won't do any good, and gradual exposure over the long term may be necessary. Whereas other listeners just take to it like the proverbial duck to water.


----------



## isorhythm

janxharris said:


> Interesting, thanks. Can such music ever express joy and peace or does it's use of dissonance limit it only to the disturbing? Must one, necessarily, revert back to tonality to express anything tranquil?


That's an interesting question. I think music can express tranquility without using traditional tonality. For example Dutilleux's Correspondances, from 2003: 




But I think what you're referring to is more "hard core" atonality, where there's some kind of effort to use all twelve notes more or less equally, and triads and tonal relationships are consciously avoided. I'm not really sure if that kind of music can ever sound tranquil. The last movement of Schoenberg's second quartet comes to mind, but it also still sounds a little tonal-ish to me (I've never looked at the score, I don't know if that holds up). Maybe Schoenberg's 12-tone piano concerto, which is sort of cool and detached.

On the other hand there are more possibilities than just "disturbing" and "tranquil." One register this kind of music can do very well is sort of otherworldly, mysterious or ecstatic. That's what I get from something like Stockhausen's Gruppen: 




Or just luxuriating in sound, like later Boulez:


----------



## mmsbls

janxharris said:


> I don't get Berg's Violin Concerto - the unrelenting excruciating dissonance forces me to stop listening.
> 
> I have managed to get though it 3 times.


I'm not sure how many times I heard the concerto before I made a breakthrough. Some people on TC say they listen to works many times over a short period before appreciating them. I almost never do that. The Berg concerto was a sole exception, but even then I had listened maybe 6 or 7 times over a couple of years before hearing that audio recording. More often for me, I will jump from one composer to another essentially sampling new sounds and "musical language". I gradually become familiar with the languages so that I'm able to enjoy modern works either that I've heard before or that are completely new to me. I'm not sure the concerto's dissonances ever really bothered me, but studies have shown that people do become more familiar with dissonances such that they find them less disturbing over time.

As others have said, people are different, and some love modern music quickly and "easily". Others may take a long time, yet some may never really enjoy much of it.


----------



## JAS

Personally, I think I have already spent (wasted) far too much time listening to modern classical music, with too little reward to justify the effort or expense. I may still, on occasion, try something by a more-or-less modern composer of whom I had not heard (I recently picked up several CD of music by David Liliburn, with mixed results although almost none of it was terrible), but overall I think I will continue to focus on the 500+ years of music that does speak to me. Once I have finished with that, perhaps I will give Berg another try . . . (and yes, that is meant ironically)


----------



## Simon Moon

janxharris said:


> I'm curious - do all those posting here (whether fore or against such dissonant music as we have been discussing) enjoy listening to Stravinsky's Rite of Spring?
> 
> I do.


One of my top 10.

It was the first classical piece that clicked with me, after years of giving pre-20th century music many chances.

It was a revelation to me.


----------



## Art Rock

Stravinsky's Sacre opened the endless possibilities of 20th century classical music for me. Still a favourite.

Berg's Violin concerto was the other main gateway to this exciting world. Still a favourite.

That said, my favourite period overall remains romanticism, especially late romanticism.


----------



## isorhythm

Simon Moon said:


> One of my top 10.
> 
> It was the first classical piece that clicked with me, after years of giving *pre-20th century* music many chances.
> 
> It was a revelation to me.


Rite of Spring is from 1913!

But I know what you mean, I have a number of friends who got into old classical music via more modern stuff.

Edit: Never mind, I misread your comment as Chronochromie points out.


----------



## Chronochromie

isorhythm said:


> Rite of Spring is from 1913!
> 
> But I know what you mean, I have a number of friends who got into old classical music via more modern stuff.


I think he means that he tried to get into classical by listening to pre-20th century music but didn't really like a classical piece until he heard The Rite.


----------



## Lucas A

I've also found the 'come back to it later' approach really works, but I think you also really have to be open to the idea.

There are people on this forum that act as though the music written is intentionally tortuous. If you personify it as some sort of antagonist, you're never going to enjoy it. If you view it as a challenge, adventure, and at the very least an educational experience, I think it'll come to you - and I mean this for any contemporary genre - 12, open-atonal, minimalist, etc. My only recommendation is to avoid the early serialism of Boulez, unless your curious. I don't think there's anything to crack there, except being introduced to a concept.

If you want to tackle atonality but are having trouble, I'd suggest Schoenberg's _String Quartet #1_ and _Chamber Symphony_, just to get used to fast-moving chromaticism - these are highly enjoyable works to boot, and when I approached them I found I could 'conquer' them (so to speak) after a few days of listening. Harder stuff like _Pierrot Lunnaire_ or Carter String Quartets took multiple exposures over long periods of time. But once you get through Carter, I've found Schoenberg is enjoyable much in the same way that tonal composers are.

It's also important to remember that contemporary music is still being canonized, and much of what is written - like in any age - is pretty terrible. This is why only being exposed through concerts is risky, because you're probably being exposed to stuff that is not very good. Take recommendations from knowledgeable people - Alex Ross's _The Rest is Noise_ is a good for cursory and accessible advice.


----------



## Simon Moon

Chronochromie said:


> I think he means that he tried to get into classical by listening to pre-20th century music but didn't really like a classical piece until he heard The Rite.


Yep, that is what I meant.

My fault for phrasing it badly.


----------



## janxharris

Nereffid said:


> I found a comment I made on a thread a couple of years ago about people not liking modern classical:
> "Yesterday on random play I heard Berg's Three Pieces for Orchestra for the first time in ages; the very first time I heard it it was meaningless noise, but yesterday it was magnificent. I hadn't studied the piece, or anything like that: all I'd done in the intervening years was simply hear lots of different music."
> 
> It was the same with Berg's violin concerto - again, no particular effort on my part (unlike mmsbls's repeated listening), but it was first filled with the "excruciating dissonance" you mention, whereas I'm listening to it right now and, 6 minutes in, I'm still waiting to hear something unpleasant!
> 
> I think this is the big stumbling block for people who just generally-speaking don't like this kind of modern music - hearing a modern piece in isolation probably won't do any good, and gradual exposure over the long term may be necessary. Whereas other listeners just take to it like the proverbial duck to water.


Will bear this in mind Nereffid.


----------



## hpowders

In addition to the Berg Violin Concerto, Wozzeck, also by Berg, I would say is the finest atonal opera and deserves to be heard.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

There is no such thing as "contemporary classical".
Classic = something with historical value, masterpiece.
Dissonant, atonal, experimental music is associated with fear, shock, terror, mystery. Composers of such music will have more success in scoring videogames or film music. The last thing I want to hear in a concert hall is random noise or avantgarde pseudo-intellectual garbage.
There are probably many cllasics that never received recognition just because the composer wasn't in the right circles and are now forgotten.
To become a popular "contemporary classical composer", you have to be:
- as good as the old composers (pretty hard task - some of them were geniuses or extremely skilled in the art of composition);
- bringing something original.


----------



## isorhythm

BabyGiraffe said:


> There is no such thing as "contemporary classical".
> Classic = something with historical value, masterpiece.
> Dissonant, atonal, experimental music is associated with fear, shock, terror, mystery. Composers of such music will have more success in scoring videogames or film music. The last thing I want to hear in a concert hall is random noise or avantgarde pseudo-intellectual garbage.
> There are probably many cllasics that never received recognition just because the composer wasn't in the right circles and are now forgotten.
> To become a popular "contemporary classical composer", you have to be:
> - as good as the old composers (pretty hard task - some of them were geniuses or extremely skilled in the art of composition);
> - bringing something original.


What contemporary pieces have you heard, and what did you think of them?


----------



## RRod

Why cede "contemporary" to the atonal cause? There's plenty of good stuff coming out from the "indie" classical scene, and even the old minimalist warhorses like Adams and Glass are still putting out good stuff, even as their older works are becoming somewhat more standard in the repertoire. Not to mention the wealth of other composers who are relatively big name---Pärt, Gubaidulina, Rihm, etc---who are still getting regular play in big concert halls.

I would tend to agree with the notion that at this point we can all be somewhat happy sucking in whatever music we might like off the intrawebs. I honestly have no idea how a label like New Amsterdam stays afloat, but it seems to, which implies a critical mass of interest to keep it going. This may not translate well to the large concert stage, but it seems every big orchestra I can think of has some infrastructure for presenting new works. If they have to do an LvB cycle every year to make it happen, fine.


----------



## Lucas A

BabyGiraffe said:


> To become a popular "contemporary classical composer", you have to be:
> - as good as the old composers (pretty hard task - some of them were geniuses or extremely skilled in the art of composition);


Art doesn't live in a vacuum and requires context to appreciated - there is no such thing as being "as good as the old composers" because there is no objective measure for it. They wrote music that was symptomatic of their culture and history, the same way composers today do. "Contemporary classical" is a slight misnomer, but it is generally agreed upon as music that extends the traditions of Classical era. And yes, this includes someone like Boulez who extended serialism from Schoenberg, who took forms from Mozart.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Lucas A said:


> Art doesn't live in a vacuum and requires context to appreciated - there is no such thing as being "as good as the old composers" because there is no objective measure for it. They wrote music that was symptomatic of their culture and history, the same way composers today do. "Contemporary classical" is a slight misnomer, but it is generally agreed upon as music that extends the traditions of Classical era. And yes, this includes someone like Boulez who extended serialism from Schoenberg, who took forms from Mozart.


Did Mozart invented the classical forms or what? :lol: What a nonsense - and abstract expressionism "took forms" from neoclassicism, right...
I won't comment the "no objective measure of music". Anyone can play like a monkey on detuned piano and claim that he is "avantgarde experimental microtonal composer".


----------



## RRod

So what would Mozart and Beethoven be writing today? Mozart and Beethoven?


----------



## millionrainbows

If you want to get into 12-tone, get Schoenberg's Moses und Aaron, and realize that this 'disturbing' music is actually the expression of the fear and awe of God; the incomprehensible. You'd better be scared! This is a real good one, dirt cheap.


----------



## ArtMusic

janxharris said:


> For example, Mark-Anthony Turnage's 'Frieze' has been performed only 9 times since 2013 and Harrison Birtwhistle's 'Panic' just 36 times since 1995.
> 
> If we look at YouTube, the story is the same:
> Pierre Boulez - Structures I & II: 130k plays
> Thomas Adès - Polaris: 52k plays
> 
> Of course there are exceptions, but these tend to be tonal pieces that hark back to a former age:
> 
> Karl Jenkins's 'Palladio' has been performed 250 times since 1997 and has 2 million+ plays on Youtube.
> 
> Steve Reich's 'Music for 18 Musicians ' has been performed 675 times since 1976 and has half a million plays on Youtube.


Simply because it is not the natural way that music ought to sound - contemporary music has been forced or sculptured to sound as it is in studied ways that are remote to many.


----------



## Nereffid

ArtMusic said:


> Simply because it is not the natural way that music ought to sound - contemporary music has been forced or sculptured to sound as it is in studied ways that are remote to many.


But certain practitioners of the new school, who think only of the laws of measured time, are composing new melodies of their own creation, with a new system of note values, that they prefer to the ancient, traditional music. The melodies of the Church are now sung in semibreves and minims and with grace notes of repercussion. Some composers break up their melodies with hockets or rob them of their virility with discant, three-voice music, and motets, with a dangerous element produced by certain parts sung on text in the vernacular; all these abuses have brought into disrepute the basic melodies of the Antiphonal and Gradual. These composers, knowing nothing of the true foundation upon which they must build, are ignorant of the church modes, incapable of distinguishing between them, and cause great confusion. The great number of notes in their compositions conceals from us the plainchant melody, with its simple well-regulated rises and falls that indicate the character of the church mode. These musicians run without pausing. They intoxicate the ear without satisfying it; they dramatize the text with gestures; and, instead of promoting devotion, they prevent it by creating a sensuous and indecent atmosphere.

- Pope John XXII, _Docta Sanctorum Patrum_, *1324*.


----------



## Sloe

ArtMusic said:


> Simply because it is not the natural way that music ought to sound - contemporary music has been forced or sculptured to sound as it is in studied ways that are remote to many.


No music is natural that is the point of music.
Then what is the problem with Adés when you previously have praised Wozzeck and works by Ligeti?


----------



## Strange Magic

Sloe said:


> No music is natural that is the point of music.
> Then what is the problem with Adés when you previously have praised Wozzeck and works by Ligeti?


This is true, sort of; that no music is natural. But we could draw some conclusions, which could be later discussed, from listening to truly indigenous folk musics from around the world (as Bartok attempted) to see if there are shared qualities that would hint at some universal, innate predispositions. I'm not talking about things like Chinese opera or Indian raga or other such musics that became perhaps the province of specialist audiences or musicians, but rather of people gathered together or singly to sing or play as they worked, or on market days, etc. Perhaps this is all set down somewhere; I'll have to take a look.


----------



## JAS

Nereffid said:


> They intoxicate the ear without satisfying it; they dramatize the text with gestures; and, instead of promoting devotion, they prevent it by creating a sensuous and indecent atmosphere. - Pope John XXII, _Docta Sanctorum Patrum_, *1324*.


That is an interesting quote, but it certainly doesn't sound like the kind of accusations I hear against any modern classical music. Instead of "intoxicating the ear," I think they usually "assault the ear" and I certainly don't find the results "sensuous."


----------



## Nereffid

JAS said:


> That is an interesting quote, but it certainly doesn't sound like the kind of accusations I hear against any modern classical music. Instead of "intoxicating the ear," I think they usually "assault the ear" and I certainly don't find the results "sensuous."


The point was merely to note that "music is being done incorrectly" has been a silly complaint for a very long time.


----------



## JAS

Nereffid said:


> The point was merely to note that "music is being done incorrectly" has been a silly complaint for a very long time.


But I don't think that people who are rejecting modern classical music are really saying anything comparable to the quote, and thus the implication does not apply. I would say, rather bluntly, that modern classical music is often just barely music at all. And we are still left with the basic question, even if we break the rules entirely and say that everything involving sound is necessarily music. Why is it being so poorly received? (Obviously the fault of the audience, I suppose.)


----------



## RRod

JAS said:


> Why is it being so poorly received? (Obviously the fault of the audience, I suppose.)


Is it? What's our metric here? Sometimes it seems like we're comparing LvB's greatest hits versus any given new piece a modern composer may have written.


----------



## JAS

RRod said:


> Is it? What's our metric here? Sometimes it seems like we're comparing LvB's greatest hits versus any given new piece a modern composer may have written.


Are you suggesting that the thread subject is inherently mistaken, and modern classical isn't (often) poorly received? If that is the case, why is there lamenting by a few determined souls that it isn't getting sufficient play on concert programs or on radio? Surely, it has _some_ audience, and, quite frankly, _that_ is the mystery to me.


----------



## mmsbls

JAS said:


> Why is it being so poorly received? (Obviously the fault of the audience, I suppose.)


We've had discussions here about who's at fault for the low - modest interest in modern/contemporary classical music compared to earlier music. There are reasons for the less than overwhelming interest in such music, but I don't think it's anyone's fault. The composers are doing what they ought to be doing (creating music that's some subset of new, interesting, beautiful, moving, etc.). The audience is also dong what it ought (listening to music that they find moving, interesting, beautiful, etc.). The audience enjoys earlier music more, and that's fine.

I've suggested reasons for the lower interest in modern music. Everyone I know personally who does enjoy such music has spent significant time listening to the unfamiliar sounds and "learning" to appreciate them. Those of us who have made this transition are thrilled that we did. Some of course did not need a transition period while others never did "learn" to enjoy the music. For me the most interesting question is exactly why this latest period required such a long transition period for many. Earlier periods required a shorter transition period. I have suggested a possible reason why this period is different, but I suspect there are other, and possibly better, reasons as well.


----------



## RRod

JAS said:


> Are you suggesting that the thread subject is inherently mistaken, and modern classical isn't (often) poorly received? If that is the case, why is there lamenting by a few determined souls that it isn't getting sufficient play on concert programs or on radio? Surely, it has _some_ audience, and, quite frankly, _that_ is the mystery to me.


Well that's just it: are we talking reception or repetition. From what I hear / see / read about premiere's these days, reception is not an issue. I think many people are willing to give a new piece *one* go and be thankful for it. But having that same piece become a concert staple is another thing entirely, because let's face it, they can't all be zingers. How much of even Mozart's or Beethoven's oeuvre goes un-played each year? What % of their works became instant concert staples? And they had the benefit of 200 fewer years of repertoire with which to contend. I think for all they have to deal with, modern composers are doing just fine. As I pointed out in a previous post, some of the older guard of modernists ARE finally seeing some cementing in programming, now that time has been able to sort out the wheat from the chaff.


----------



## Nereffid

Let's have some fun with stats - in this case the popularity of composers in my series of polls.

Combine the composers born between the 1730s and 1770s, combine them with the composers born between the 1920s and 1960s, and it turns out - shock! - that Beethoven, Mozart and Haydn are by far the most popular.

But here's the next 30 most popular:
Ligeti, Boccherini, Schnittke, Rautavaara, Boulez, Pärt, JC Bach, Hummel, Takemitsu, Arnold, Penderecki, J Adams, Gorecki, Reich, Glass, Cherubini, Berio, Gubaidulina, Xenakis, Henze, Feldman, Stockhausen, Piazzolla, Kurtág, Zappa, Saariaho, Nørgård, Crumb, Clementi, JL Adams

So perhaps a more pressing question is, _Why is modern music more popular than Classical-era music?_


----------



## jailhouse

i mean its obvious...modern music doesn't have catchy melodies, it has weird and uncomfortable harmonies,cluster chords, crazy rhythms, incredibly wide dynamic range shifts with jumpscares, regular people aren't going to sit through that stuff. 

'easiness in listening' disparity from Mozart Piano Sonatas to Penderecki's Utrenja is about the same jump as Justin Bieber to Mozart.


----------



## Strange Magic

Nereffid said:


> Let's have some fun with stats - in this case the popularity of composers in my series of polls.
> 
> Combine the composers born between the 1730s and 1770s, combine them with the composers born between the 1920s and 1960s, and it turns out - shock! - that Beethoven, Mozart and Haydn are by far the most popular.
> 
> But here's the next 30 most popular:
> Ligeti, Boccherini, Schnittke, Rautavaara, Boulez, Pärt, JC Bach, Hummel, Takemitsu, Arnold, Penderecki, J Adams, Gorecki, Reich, Glass, Cherubini, Berio, Gubaidulina, Xenakis, Henze, Feldman, Stockhausen, Piazzolla, Kurtág, Zappa, Saariaho, Nørgård, Crumb, Clementi, JL Adams
> 
> So perhaps a more pressing question is, _Why is modern music more popular than Classical-era music?_


I must be missing something. How many composers are in your 1730s-1770s list, and who are they? Ditto for your successive 40-year blocks, if you can dig that out easily? Might be interesting.


----------



## Nereffid

Strange Magic said:


> I must be missing something. How many composers are in your 1730s-1770s list, and who are they? Ditto for your successive 40-year blocks, if you can dig that out easily? Might be interesting.


It's a bit more effort than I care to put in right now to list them all. But there are 29 from the older group and 113 from the newer. A ratio of a bit less than 1:4. But in terms of, for example, composers who were liked by 20% or more of respondents, the ratio is more like 1:5. The general point being that current/recent composers are, on average, more popular than those of the Classical era, and the _more_ general point being that it's possible to produce all sorts of statistics to back up any arbitrary claim about the unpopularity of modern (or other) music.
I promise I'll soon start a thread containing an analysis of the poll results, from which anyone can derive their own irrefutable arguments about the correctness of their own musical tastes...!

(ETA: I've mentioned elsewhere the criteria I used for picking non-modern composers - numbers of recordings and length of Grove entry. For modern composers there was more guesswork as to whom it would be wrong to leave out, but the relatively high popularity of many of them indicates that I was right to be as inclusive as I was.)


----------



## Sloe

jailhouse said:


> 'easiness in listening' disparity from Mozart Piano Sonatas to Penderecki's Utrenja is about the same jump as Justin Bieber to Mozart.


Penderecki have made much other music and is one of the most accessible and popular living composers we have.


----------



## Strange Magic

Nereffid, my impression of the population density of CM composers (that anybody remembers or cares about) per unit of time is that it increases exponentially as we approach today, though there may be a significant trough mid-20th century as people like Bartok, Proko, Shosty, etc. die off. This secular increase in the numbers may account for much of the results shown. But thanks in advance for your diligence in compiling these statistics.


----------



## jailhouse

Sloe said:


> Penderecki have made much other music and is one of the most accessible and popular living composers we have.


Uh ok. Go tell your mom to listen to St. Luke's passion, and get back to me.

Would Xenakis' Tetras fit the bill better? I have no idea what you're saying. Penderecki's Utrenja is a perfect example of the type of music most people will never like.


----------



## mmsbls

jailhouse said:


> i mean its obvious...modern music doesn't have catchy melodies, it has weird and uncomfortable harmonies,cluster chords, crazy rhythms, incredibly wide dynamic range shifts with jumpscares, regular people aren't going to sit through that stuff.


I understand what you mean, but perhaps you could use the term "average classical music listener" rather than regular people. I assume many of the people on TC who like modern music, myself included, are regular people.



jailhouse said:


> Would Xenakis' Tetras fit the bill better? I have no idea what you're saying. Penderecki's Utrenja is a perfect example of the type of music most people will never like.


Certainly there's plenty of modern music that does not sound like Penderecki's Utrenja or most Xenakis works. I'm not sure if you are really targeting those types of works or just modern music in general. I think the vast majority of TC members could like many modern works once they became more familiar with the sounds. I think the vast majority of the TC recommended Post-1950 works would fall into the latter group. I believe that because I once held a similar view to yours.


----------



## Sloe

jailhouse said:


> Uh ok. Go tell your mom to listen to St. Luke's passion, and get back to me.
> 
> Would Xenakis' Tetras fit the bill better? I have no idea what you're saying. Penderecki's Utrenja is a perfect example of the type of music most people will never like.


There is no bill to fill I just say that there are many works by Penderecki I would recommend for those who don´t like Xenakis and think contemporary classical music is just ugly noises.


----------



## Nereffid

Strange Magic said:


> Nereffid, my impression of the population density of CM composers (that anybody remembers or cares about) per unit of time is that it increases exponentially as we approach today, though there may be a significant trough mid-20th century as people like Bartok, Proko, Shosty, etc. die off. This secular increase in the numbers may account for much of the results shown. But thanks in advance for your diligence in compiling these statistics.


You're absolutely right. But the point remains that many living or recently deceased composers are popular, which the OP seemed to deny.


----------



## janxharris

Nereffid said:


> It's a bit more effort than I care to put in right now to list them all. But there are 29 from the older group and 113 from the newer. A ratio of a bit less than 1:4. But in terms of, for example, composers who were liked by 20% or more of respondents, the ratio is more like 1:5. The general point being that current/recent composers are, on average, more popular than those of the Classical era, and the _more_ general point being that it's possible to produce all sorts of statistics to back up any arbitrary claim about the unpopularity of modern (or other) music.
> I promise I'll soon start a thread containing an analysis of the poll results, from which anyone can derive their own irrefutable arguments about the correctness of their own musical tastes...!
> 
> (ETA: I've mentioned elsewhere the criteria I used for picking non-modern composers - numbers of recordings and length of Grove entry. For modern composers there was more guesswork as to whom it would be wrong to leave out, but the relatively high popularity of many of them indicates that I was right to be as inclusive as I was.)


Do you think TC members are a good representation of music lovers in general?


----------



## janxharris

Is it the case that those who (mostly) dislike modern 'difficult' works are sceptical about the degree of craft and skill required to compose them? That, de facto, it wouldn't matter if several notes were altered because much of it sounds like a 'sound effect'? For example, the sound of a swarm of bees seems to be quite a come 'effect' - Ligeti's 'Requiem'...


----------



## janxharris

Another 'bee swarm':

Penderecki - Utrenja I: The Entombment of Christ:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNlI16lhYIA#t=11m50s


----------



## janxharris

Ligeti's 'Requiem':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wawSCvuGj4o#t=7m48s


----------



## DavidA

When I listen to music I want music that I can enjoy pure and simple. I'm afraid I do not enjoy much of the modern music with its discords and jangling much of it in tuneless fashion. So it might be my loss but I'm afraid I just haven't got any time to listen to it


----------



## janxharris

DavidA said:


> When I listen to music I want music that I can enjoy pure and simple. I'm afraid I do not enjoy much of the modern music with its discords and jangling much of it in tuneless fashion. So it might be my loss but I'm afraid I just haven't got any time to listen to it


Would you include Stravinsky's Rite of Spring in the category of 'discords and jangling much of it in tuneless fashion'? I'm curious.


----------



## janxharris

Similar swarm of bees effect - Ligeti's Lux Aeternum here (though a bit higher and then lower).


----------



## BabyGiraffe

I'm curious what would the Renaissaince and Baroque composers think of the contemporary "classical music".


----------



## Pugg

BabyGiraffe said:


> I'm curious what would the Renaissaince and Baroque composers think of the contemporary "classical music".


Thank goodness we will never know.


----------



## Martin D

Nereffid said:


> Let's have some fun with stats - in this case the popularity of composers in my series of polls.
> 
> Combine the composers born between the 1730s and 1770s, combine them with the composers born between the 1920s and 1960s, and it turns out - shock! - that Beethoven, Mozart and Haydn are by far the most popular.
> 
> But here's the next 30 most popular:
> Ligeti, Boccherini, Schnittke, Rautavaara, Boulez, Pärt, JC Bach, Hummel, Takemitsu, Arnold, Penderecki, J Adams, Gorecki, Reich, Glass, Cherubini, Berio, Gubaidulina, Xenakis, Henze, Feldman, Stockhausen, Piazzolla, Kurtág, Zappa, Saariaho, Nørgård, Crumb, Clementi, JL Adams
> 
> So perhaps a more pressing question is, _Why is modern music more popular than Classical-era music?_


Can you clarify what you mean by "the next 30 most popular". I'm not sure where the ones you list appear on your overall rankings. I haven't seen your overall rankings but I guess you must have worked one out.


----------



## Nereffid

janxharris said:


> Do you think TC members are a good representation of music lovers in general?


That's a good question. I haven't seen any evidence one way or the other, so I assume that they are. At the very least, if you ask a question about either the popularity or the value of modern classical music (or any other kind), you have to take into account the people who you're asking. And there are certainly enough people on TC who enjoy this supposedly unpleasant music as to cast doubt on how universal any individual's personal dislike of it may be.

Another intriguing question: how does one define a "music lover", anyway? (Not looking for an answer... but it's food for thought. Perhaps people who have broader tastes in music make better lovers? Uh, music lovers, I mean... :lol


----------



## Nereffid

Martin D said:


> Can you clarify what you mean by "the next 30 most popular". I'm not sure where the ones you list appear on your overall rankings. I haven't seen your overall rankings but I guess you must have worked one out.


See my signature below.


----------



## JAS

janxharris said:


> Do you think TC members are a good representation of music lovers in general?


Clearly, TC members are a cut above other music lovers . . . I repeat, clearly. :devil:


----------



## Martin D

Nereffid said:


> See my signature below.


Thanks. I have now glanced at the 43 polls and your results.

I noticed that the number of voters declined quite considerably over the course of the polls from around 100 initially to about 55-65 in the most recent ones. Why do you think that occurred?

In your results, you say that scores based on a smaller number of voters per poll tend to be "penalised", and that to correct for this you have applied a "weighting". Can please clarify why this penalty occurs, and how your weighting corrects for this. It seems to have had the effect of bumping up Mozart's position to the top tier.

Why do you think that Wagner and Handel and rated so low?


----------



## mmsbls

Martin D said:


> Thanks. I have now glanced at the 43 polls and your results.


Your questions are interesting, and I hope to see a significant discussion of many details of Nereffid's polls. My understanding is that Nereffid will soon begin a thread dedicated to discussing his results. I worry that beginning such a discussion here could possibly derail this thread a bit. I'd like to suggest that we use this thread to discuss issues related specifically to modern/contemporary music and defer other questions to the thread Nereffid will start.


----------



## mmsbls

janxharris said:


> Is it the case that those who (mostly) dislike modern 'difficult' works are sceptical about the degree of craft and skill required to compose them?


I think some who dislike modern works may be skeptical of the skill necessary to compose them. We have had some comments to that effect. I don't think that is a major reason contemporary music is poorly received by some audiences. I think people simply listen and decide if they enjoy the music.


----------



## JAS

mmsbls said:


> I think some who dislike modern works may be skeptical of the skill necessary to compose them. We have had some comments to that effect. I don't think that is a major reason contemporary music is poorly received by some audiences. I think people simply listen and decide if they enjoy the music.


I simply don't know whether or not it takes great skill, or any particular skill, to compose modern works. (Just writing musical notation is certainly some skill, although I suppose one could get a machine to crank that out for you.) I do sometimes wonder if we can really tell the difference between these works created with great skill and those which are not. (Even terrible movies generally require a lot of effort, and at least some measure of technical skill, just to work the equipment.)

When I was in college, I was not an Art major, but I could draw reasonably well and took a few art classes. I had a nasty run-in with one teacher, who objected to my preference for representational art. For the next class, I brought in pictures of four paintings, all very much "modern," and asked her to bring some light into my darkness by explaining what I was missing in these works. She recognized one as by Jackson Pollack, and began with that, saying all sorts of things that made a great show of terminology but was mostly incomprehensible babble. She proceeded with the other three paintings in similar fashion. When she was done, I identified the mysterious artist behind the other three paintings --- an elephant at a zoo, whose paintings were sold at an annual fundraiser. She never forgave me for that, but she stopped pushing so much.


----------



## Martin D

mmsbls said:


> Your questions are interesting, and I hope to see a significant discussion of many details of Nereffid's polls. My understanding is that Nereffid will soon begin a thread dedicated to discussing his results. I worry that beginning such a discussion here could possibly derail this thread a bit. I'd like to suggest that we use this thread to discuss issues related specifically to modern/contemporary music and defer other questions to the thread Nereffid will start.


That's what I did in my post # 143 asking for an explanation of the assertion in post # 124 that _"So perhaps a more pressing question is, Why is modern music more popular than Classical-era music?_ The answer I got was that it's set out in the results of the 43 polls. But I still can't fathom it. Can you?


----------



## Nereffid

Martin D said:


> That's what I did in my post # 143 asking for an explanation of the assertion in post # 124 that _"So perhaps a more pressing question is, Why is modern music more popular than Classical-era music?_ The answer I got was that it's set out in the results of the 43 polls. But I still can't fathom it. Can you?


M'learned friend mmsbls is right, this is something of a thread derailment. 
But I just want to dispute your use of the word "assertion". It was a rhetorically posed question. I probably should have made it clear that, though the data are real, the question arising from the list of composers wasn't intended to be taken seriously. (Or, it was intended to be taken as seriously as any other odd claims made during this thread. )


----------



## mmsbls

Martin D said:


> That's what I did in my post # 143 asking for an explanation of the assertion in post # 124 that _"So perhaps a more pressing question is, Why is modern music more popular than Classical-era music?_ The answer I got was that it's set out in the results of the 43 polls. But I still can't fathom it. Can you?


I understand your question better now. I was probably responding more to reading the last line (Wagner and Handel). I agree with Nereffid that results from his polls can be interesting, but we need to understand the uncertainties.

I would not have guessed that modern composers would do nearly as well as Classical era composers, and I think that does suggest that, at least among TC members, modern classical music is perhaps not received so poorly. Personally I think TC members are not a representative sample of the wider classical music listening community, but I certainly could be wrong.


----------



## janxharris

JAS said:


> I simply don't know whether or not it takes great skill, or any particular skill, to compose modern works. (Just writing musical notation is certainly some skill, although I suppose one could get a machine to crank that out for you.) I do sometimes wonder if we can really tell the difference between these works created with great skill and those which are not. (Even terrible movies generally require a lot of effort, and at least some measure of technical skill, just to work the equipment.)
> 
> When I was in college, I was not an Art major, but I could draw reasonably well and took a few art classes. I had a nasty run-in with one teacher, who objected to my preference for representational art. For the next class, I brought in pictures of four paintings, all very much "modern," and asked her to bring some light into my darkness by explaining what I was missing in these works. She recognized one as by Jackson Pollack, and began with that, saying all sorts of things that made a great show of terminology but was mostly incomprehensible babble. She proceeded with the other three paintings in similar fashion. When she was done, I identified the mysterious artist behind the other three paintings --- an elephant at a zoo, whose paintings were sold at an annual fundraiser. She never forgave me for that, but she stopped pushing so much.


Seriously?
.........................................


----------



## DavidA

janxharris said:


> Would you include Stravinsky's Rite of Spring in the category of 'discords and jangling much of it in tuneless fashion'? I'm curious.


Interestingly no but then it is so rhythmic and the discords have a pattern. Later Stravinsky leaves me cold though. I'm particularly talkng of the avant gard which I frankly can't understand at all how anyone could find pleasure in it


----------



## Chronochromie

DavidA said:


> Interestingly no but then it is so rhythmic and the discords have a pattern. Later Stravinsky leaves me cold though. I'm particularly talkng of the avant gard which I frankly can't understand at all how anyone could find pleasure in it


And presumably late Debussy too?...so apparently Schoenberg is not the problem.


----------



## Martin D

mmsbls said:


> I understand your question better now. I was probably responding more to reading the last line (Wagner and Handel). I agree with Nereffid that results from his polls can be interesting, but we need to understand the uncertainties.
> 
> *I would not have guessed that modern composers would do nearly as well as Classical era composers*, and I think that does suggest that, at least among TC members, modern classical music is perhaps not received so poorly. Personally I think TC members are not a representative sample of the wider classical music listening community, but I certainly could be wrong.


But I'm not sure he's not saying they do. I thought it was some kind of joke suggestion, as far as I can make out from his latest comment above yours. There is only a very small number of composers born after 1920 in the top 90 composers based on his reckoning of the way to measure this, and they're all way down the list.


----------



## Simon Moon

DavidA said:


> I'm particularly talkng of the avant gard which I frankly can't understand at all how anyone could find pleasure in it


I am one of those that 'enjoy' listening to the avant garde, among other types of 20th century and contemporary music. I put scare quotes around the word enjoy, because part of the enjoyment I get is from the feeling of catharsis I experience when listing to this type of music.

Great art does not always have to be obviously pleasant or beautiful.

Maybe not the best analogy, but Picasso's "Guernica" is considered a masterpiece by many art lovers, yet it is not exactly pleasant to view, with it's depiction of the carnage of war. Another possible analogy might be "Saving Private Ryan". A great movie , in my opinion, but quite hard to watch.

Anytime one of these threads about 20th century and contemporary music pops up on this forum, the naysayers always seem to blow off almost everything from these eras, by pointing to the most extreme examples, then painting the rest with the same broad brush.

My entire classical collection is made up of 20th century and contemporary music, but only a minority is made up of the more extreme examples that are often held up by naysayers. Most of it is, in my opinion, quite easily listenable.


----------



## mmsbls

Martin D said:


> But I'm not sure he's not saying they do. I thought it was some kind of joke suggestion, as far as I can make out from his latest comment above yours. There is only a very small number of composers born after 1920 in the top 90 composers based on his reckoning of the way to measure this, and they're all way down the list.


As you say, modern composers do not show up high on the list, but I think the point was that, aside from Mozart, Beethoven, and Haydn, neither do Classical Era composers. Further, when normalized for the number of composers in each era, Classical Era composers seem to do slightly worse than the modern composers. Nereffid and I would both agree that this conclusion is not statistically sound, but I think we can say that it's likely true that TC members don't clearly prefer Classical Era composers (aside from the top 3) to modern ones. That does surprise me somewhat.


----------



## mmsbls

DavidA said:


> Interestingly no but then it is so rhythmic and the discords have a pattern. Later Stravinsky leaves me cold though. I'm particularly talkng of the avant gard which I frankly can't understand at all how anyone could find pleasure in it


As Simon Moon says, modern music covers a very wide range of styles. I'm never sure what types of music fall under people's definition of avant-garde or extreme. Since you don't listen to much modern music, you may not be able to give examples, but do you know if any of the TC top Post-1950 works fall into your avant-garde category?


----------



## Lyricus

Simon Moon said:


> I am one of those that 'enjoy' listening to the avant garde, among other types of 20th century and contemporary music. I put scare quotes around the word enjoy, because part of the enjoyment I get is from the feeling of catharsis I experience when listing to this type of music.
> 
> Great art does not always have to be obviously pleasant or beautiful.
> 
> Maybe not the best analogy, but Picasso's "Guernica" is considered a masterpiece by many art lovers, yet it is not exactly pleasant to view, with it's depiction of the carnage of war. Another possible analogy might be "Saving Private Ryan". A great movie , in my opinion, but quite hard to watch.


The difference is black and white, no pun intended.


----------



## janxharris

DavidA said:


> Interestingly no but then it is so rhythmic and the discords have a pattern. Later Stravinsky leaves me cold though. I'm particularly talkng of the avant gard which I frankly can't understand at all how anyone could find pleasure in it


Very similar to my position. The Rite has melody and patterns and discernible reasoning whilst rightly considered to be breaking new ground.


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> As you say, modern composers do not show up high on the list, but I think the point was that, aside from Mozart, Beethoven, and Haydn, neither do Classical Era composers. Further, when normalized for the number of composers in each era, Classical Era composers seem to do slightly worse than the modern composers. Nereffid and I would both agree that this conclusion is not statistically sound, but I think we can say that it's likely true that TC members don't clearly prefer Classical Era composers (aside from the top 3) to modern ones. That does surprise me somewhat.


That seems a fair analysis. If we type 'Mozart' or 'Beethoven' into a youtube search we find many examples of videos with millions of views. This does not seem to be the case with modern 'difficult' works.

Also not the case with Haydn.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Simon Moon said:


> Great art does not always have to be obviously pleasant or beautiful.


Modern composers can still make "pleasant and beatiful" art music without being epigons.
There are (even in 12tet) many areas of the tonal and harmonic music that are still relatively unexplored in the western music - modal harmonies, melodies and counterpoint. Also all kind of asymmetrical rhythms (that are actually groovy).
If we start to dabble in 7 (Africa, Eastern Asia, India) and 11-limit (Middle East) harmony, the possibilities are endless.

The obsessions with clusters, jumpscares and similar avantgarde techniques is a joke.


----------



## janxharris

Ligeti (again) doing the swarm of bees sound effect:






(Atmospheres)


----------



## JAS

janxharris said:


> Seriously?
> .........................................


Absolutely seriously, on both counts.


----------



## Richard8655

Simon Moon said:


> I am one of those that 'enjoy' listening to the avant garde, among other types of 20th century and contemporary music. Great art does not always have to be obviously pleasant or beautiful.
> 
> Maybe not the best analogy, but Picasso's "Guernica" is considered a masterpiece by many art lovers, yet it is not exactly pleasant to view, with it's depiction of the carnage of war. Another possible analogy might be "Saving Private Ryan". A great movie , in my opinion, but quite hard to watch..


Interesting point about art appreciation. The question is why listen or watch something unpleasant? I'd only add an additional thought.

Unpleasant art is really art that shocks our sensibilities. It may seem unpleasant initially because it goes against everything we consider beautiful. But the point of this art is to touch us emotionally on a viscereal level, and ultimately give us an appreciation in terms of understanding something we would have otherwise not. To consume only sweetness is not living life to the fullest, nor understanding it (which is what's really beautiful).

So I'm in agreement with the point of avant guarde art, whether classical music, painting, film, documentary, etc.


----------



## starthrower

BabyGiraffe said:


> I'm curious what would the Renaissaince and Baroque composers think of the contemporary "classical music".


Pointless comment. I'm sure they all had their opinions on the contemporary music of their own time, which they were creating themselves.


----------



## Martin D

mmsbls said:


> As you say, modern composers do not show up high on the list, but I think the point was that, aside from Mozart, Beethoven, and Haydn, neither do Classical Era composers. Further, when normalized for the number of composers in each era, Classical Era composers seem to do slightly worse than the modern composers. Nereffid and I would both agree that this conclusion is not statistically sound, *but I think we can say that it's likely true that TC members don't clearly prefer Classical Era composers (aside from the top 3) to modern ones. That does surprise me somewhat.*


That depends on how you define "prefer". If you mean purely the number of composers in each era that people say they "like", there may be some substance in what you say. But if account is taken of their relative preferences in a ranked order, I doubt that modern composers get anywhere near as close in overall popularity as the sum of Beethoven, Mozart, and Haydn.

If you look at the conventional composer rating polls that have been conducted at this Forum over previous years, where members were asked to vote for their favourite composers, it would seem roughly that the top 50 composers account for about 80% of the overall total weighted votes across all composers. The sum total of Beethoven, Mozart, and Haydn alone account for around 15-20% of the total.

By contrast, composers born after 1919 are far and few between and usually occupy the ranks below no 40. Depending on the poll, it would seem that composers born after 1919 account only for only between 1-5% across the top 100 composers, in terms of the weighted vote totals. Where the lists extend beyond 100, there is a scattering of further post 1919 composers, but their combined total still has little effect on the general result, and they do not achieve anything like the combined percentage of Beethoven, Mozart, and Haydn.


----------



## JAS

Richard8655 said:


> Interesting point about art appreciation. The question is why listen or watch something unpleasant? I'd only add an additional thought.
> 
> Unpleasant art is really art that shocks our sensibilities. It may seem unpleasant initially because it goes against everything we consider beautiful. But the point of this art is to touch us emotionally on a viscereal level, and ultimately give us an appreciation in terms of understanding something we would have otherwise not. To consume only sweetness is not living life to the fullest, nor understanding it (which is what's really beautiful).
> 
> So I'm in agreement with the point of avant guarde art, whether classical music, painting, film, documentary, etc.


I don't entirely disagree with this position, but if _all_ the "art" does is disturb me, I don't see the point. Lots of things I find disturbing would hardly qualify as art.


----------



## Chronochromie

BabyGiraffe said:


> I'm curious what would the Renaissaince and Baroque composers think of the contemporary "classical music".


Considering the things Artusi said about Monteverdi, some of them hated the contemporary music of their time already.


----------



## mmsbls

Martin D said:


> That depends on how you define "prefer". If you mean purely the number of composers in each era that people say they "like", there may be some substance in what you say. But if account is taken of their relative preferences in a ranked order, I doubt that modern composers get anywhere near as close in overall popularity as the sum of Beethoven, Mozart, and Haydn.


Yes, I agree. I'm still surprised that modern composers do fairly well in likeability when compared to the other Classical Era composers (aside from those 3). But I guess when thinking further, there do seem to be more threads or posts focusing on modern era composers than the "lesser" Classical Era composers so maybe I shouldn't be surprised.


----------



## Nereffid

Martin D said:


> That depends on how you define "prefer". If you mean purely the number of composers in each era that people say they "like", there may be some substance in what you say. But if account is taken of their relative preferences in a ranked order, I doubt that modern composers get anywhere near as close in overall popularity as the sum of Beethoven, Mozart, and Haydn.
> 
> If you look at the conventional composer rating polls that have been conducted at this Forum over previous years, where members were asked to vote for their favourite composers, it would seem roughly that the top 50 composers account for about 80% of the overall total weighted votes across all composers. The sum total of Beethoven, Mozart, and Haydn alone account for around 15-20% of the total.
> 
> By contrast, composers born after 1919 are far and few between and usually occupy the ranks below no 40. Depending on the poll, it would seem that composers born after 1919 account only for only between 1-5% across the top 100 composers, in terms of the weighted vote totals. Where the lists extend beyond 100, there is a scattering of further post 1919 composers, but their combined total still has little effect on the general result, and they do not achieve anything like the combined percentage of Beethoven, Mozart, and Haydn.


But the point is that it's daft to compare modern composers, _or most composers in general_, to Beethoven and Mozart - no matter what walk of life you're talking about, anyone will do badly when compared with the epitome. For example, Beethoven and Mozart's contemporaries do badly when compared to Beethoven and Mozart.

Everyone knows Ligeti et al. aren't liked by as many people as are Beethoven or Mozart. The claims being made in this thread are that their music is _unlikable_ and that it's extremely unpopular compared with classical music in general. The former has been easily dismissed through anecdote alone. As for the second claim, my poll data suggest that the overall picture is more favourable to modern music than its opponents might like to think, with (for instance) Schoenberg about as popular as Puccini, or Ligeti about as popular as Verdi, or Boulez about as popular as Palestrina, or Adams about as popular as Offenbach. How popular does modern music need to be before it can justify its existence to its opponents?

I should also note that there aren't very many popular Medieval or Renaissance composers, and yet nobody starts threads pointing to this fact as evidence for Medieval and Renaissance music being rubbish. (Nor does anyone start threads saying they personally don't like Medieval and Renaissance music and therefore other people shouldn't either).


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Nereffid said:


> But the point is that it's daft to compare modern composers, _or most composers in general_, to Beethoven and Mozart - no matter what walk of life you're talking about, anyone will do badly when compared with the epitome. For example, Beethoven and Mozart's contemporaries do badly when compared to Beethoven and Mozart.


On the other hand, it doesn't seem daft to compare Stravinsky to Beethoven and Mozart. Everybody since, on the other hand... I mean, maybe it's just a matter of time, but how long before we admit we have a problem?


----------



## JAS

Nereffid said:


> Everyone knows Ligeti et al. aren't liked by as many people as are Beethoven or Mozart. The claims being made in this thread are that their music is _unlikable_ and that it's extremely unpopular compared with classical music in general. The former has been easily dismissed through anecdote alone. As for the second claim, my poll data suggest that the overall picture is more favourable to modern music than its opponents might like to think, with (for instance) Schoenberg about as popular as Puccini, or Ligeti about as popular as Verdi, or Boulez about as popular as Palestrina, or Adams about as popular as Offenbach. How popular does modern music need to be before it can justify its existence to its opponents?


Obviously, when someone says that a work is "unlikeable," the implication is (or should be) that the person making the statement finds it unlikeable, and perhaps cannot see why anyone else would like it, which is not the same as saying that no one does like it. (The preferred phrasing would be something like "I find that music unlikeable," which would make it clear to both parties that it is a personal opinion, given as such. On the other hand, it is not reasonable to expect every obvious opinion to begin with a clear label even when context should make it sufficiently clear, and if the response to the challenge "that is your opinion" is "yes it is.") It would be similarly wrong to say that a piece is likeable without interpreting it in the same context. As someone who does not like most modern music, it can never justify its existence to me . . . but it also doesn't need to (as long as those offering it understand that I will no do nothing to support it and, indeed, whatever I can to avoid it).


----------



## Chronochromie

JAS said:


> Obviously, when someone says that a work is "unlikeable," the implication is (or should be) that the person making the statement finds it unlikeable, and perhaps cannot see why anyone else would like it, which is not the same as saying that no one does like it. (The preferred phrasing would be something like "I find that music unlikeable," which would make it clear to both parties that it is a personal opinion, given as such. On the other hand, it is not reasonable to expect every obvious opinion to begin with a clear label even when context should make it sufficiently clear, and if the response to the challenge "that is your opinion" is "yes it is.") It would be similarly wrong to say that a piece is likeable without interpreting it in the same context. As someone who does not like most modern music, it can never justify its existence to me . . . but it also doesn't need to (as long as those offering it understand that I will no do nothing to support it and, indeed, whatever I can to avoid it).


Which modern/contemporary pieces/composers do you like?


----------



## JAS

What would be our parameters for "modern"? Chronological or stylistic? I can name some composers and pieces that are relatively recent. But if you mean stylistically, the only example that comes to mind is Michael Torke's Bright Blue music, which I like to hear from time to time. (But understand that I cannot take Shostakovich in his serious music, and I am even one of the rare birds who will admit to only barely being able to tolerate Rites of Spring, and even then I prefer it with the dinosaurs.)

I listen to a lot of film music, much of which has long stretches of dissonance. That has made me slightly more tolerant of what I consider musical noise, but I have never really come to like it, except in some very special circumstances. (The beginning of Jerry Goldsmith's Wind and the Lion has some very noisy moments, closely integrated with more appealing, to me, music, and I have come to accept the noise as part of the score.) Mostly, I think I have just learned to ignore the parts I don't like, as long as they are fairly short. If a score has a lot of it, I burn my own copy, omitting the cues that I find merely annoying.


----------



## Chronochromie

JAS said:


> What would be our parameters for "modern"? Chronological or stylistic?


I don't know, whichever you were thinking about when you wrote "As someone who does not like most modern music...".


----------



## JAS

Chronochromie said:


> I don't know, whichever you were thinking about when you wrote "As someone who does not like most modern music...".


My original phrasing was intentionally somewhat equivocal, avoiding the need to provide the definition since it was not essential to my overall point. Addressing your question more directly, in purely stylistic terms, I can think of virtually no music composed relying on modern techniques that appeals to me. I have certainly not made an attempt to listen to all of it, which would be an unreasonable demand. After a few tries, with a clear pattern, it can be difficult to justify additional experimentation. Most of the composers who have been listed as modern in this thread do not appeal to me. I have heard some Avo Part that isn't terrible, but doesn't really do anything for me, probably mostly in his more spiritual mode and not his earlier works. Again, the CDs I have of his music do not cause me to cringe when I see them on my shelves, but neither do they cry out very often to be played.


----------



## Chronochromie

JAS said:


> My original phrasing was intentionally somewhat equivocal, avoiding the need to provide the definition since it was not essential to my overall point. Addressing your question more directly, in purely stylistic terms, I can think of virtually no music composed relying on modern techniques that appeals to me. I have certainly not made an attempt to listen to all of it, which would be an unreasonable demand. After a few tries, with a clear pattern, it can be difficult to justify additional experimentation. Most of the composers who have been listed as modern in this thread do not appeal to me. I have heard some Avo Part that isn't terrible, but doesn't really do anything for me, probably mostly in his more spiritual mode and not his earlier works. Again, the CDs I have of his music do not cause me to cringe when I see them on my shelves, but neither do they cry out very often to be played.


I see. Do you like much music from the early Baroque (say pre-Vivaldi), Renaissance and Medieval eras? Just to satisfy my curiosity about something I've observed.


----------



## JAS

Chronochromie said:


> I see. Do you like much music from the early Baroque (say pre-Vivaldi), Renaissance and Medieval eras? Just to satisfy my curiosity about something I've observed.


I listen to music covering a period of roughly 1,000 years (technically perhaps longer if we include the periods where they first came into being and not merely when they were left to us in some more tangible form.) For example, I sometimes like Gregorian chant when I am in the mood. And while I find a sackbut a bit on the noisy side, I also like a good deal of medieval music. (I even find very interesting a CD I have of ancient Greek fragments, obviously a recreation that can only give some idea of what it might have sounded like, but that is more intellectual curiosity than deep appeal.) My favorite periods would certainly be what I might broadly term the classical/romantic/late-romantic eras.


----------



## Martin D

mmsbls said:


> Yes, I agree. I'm still surprised that modern composers do fairly well in likeability when compared to the other Classical Era composers (aside from those 3). But I guess when thinking further, there do seem to be more threads or posts focusing on modern era composers than the "lesser" Classical Era composers so maybe I shouldn't be surprised.


I don't think you should be that surprised. Saying that one "likes" a particular composer is a no-brainer compared with the task of listing all the composers one likes according to one's preferences. That's why I wouldn't be inclined to take much notice of polls based on "likes" compared with composer preference polls, to which I alluded previously.

Furthermore, depending on how broadly one is prepared to define classical-era composers, all of the following composers could be included if early classical, mid-classical, late classical, and classical-romantic/transition composers are included: Gluck, C P E Bach, Boccherini, J Haydn, W A Mozart, Hummel, Beethoven, Schubert, Weber, Rossini. [There are others but I've included only those listed among the top 100, see below.]

On a quick look at the latest 43 poll results, and focusing on the top 100 composers, the above 10 "classical" composers achieved a total of 542 votes. This compares with a total of 270 votes for all 8 of the "modern" composers, defined for present purposes as those born after 1919. In other words, among the top 100 composers based on the "likes" method, the "classical" era composers trounce the "modern" composers by a ratio of 2:1 in terms of votes cast. As noted previously, this ratio is very much higher if proper account is taken of preferences.


----------



## millionrainbows

I don't "like" music based on what time era it came from. I approach each work on its own, and judge it by how it sounds and what meaning it conveys to me.


----------



## Nereffid

Martin D said:


> I don't think you should be that surprised. Saying that one "likes" a particular composer is a no-brainer compared with the task of listing all the composers one likes according to one's preferences. That's why I wouldn't be inclined to take much notice of polls based on "likes" compared with composer preference polls, to which I alluded previously.
> 
> Furthermore, depending on how broadly one is prepared to define classical-era composers, all of the following composers could be included if early classical, mid-classical, late classical, and classical-romantic/transition composers are included: Gluck, C P E Bach, Boccherini, J Haydn, W A Mozart, Hummel, Beethoven, Schubert, Weber, Rossini. [There are others but I've included only those listed among the top 100, see below.]
> 
> On a quick look at the latest 43 poll results, and focusing on the top 100 composers, the above 10 "classical" composers achieved a total of 542 votes. This compares with a total of 270 votes for all 8 of the "modern" composers, defined for present purposes as those born after 1919. In other words, among the top 100 composers based on the "likes" method, the "classical" era composers trounce the "modern" composers by a ratio of 2:1 in terms of votes cast. As noted previously, this ratio is very much higher if proper account is taken of preferences.


Gluck (31), C P E Bach (32), Boccherini (37), J Haydn (64), W A Mozart (88), Hummel (25), Beethoven (94), Schubert (83), Weber (40), Rossini (34)

Ligeti (36), Schnittke (33), Rautavaara (33), Boulez (33), Arnold (26), Takemitsu (31), Pärt (38), Adams (29)

Not sure if those are the 8 modern composers you're talking about, but all these data really prove is that Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert are very popular compared with other composers, and that when you remove those outliers, the most popular modern composers are about as popular as the most popular Classical-era composers.

We shouldn't get hung up on the Classical era, though, because when you look at composers born in the 19th century it's obvious that they (en masse) are much more popular than modern composers (en masse).
In fact one way of looking at things (taking, arbitrarily, the 5th-most popular composer born per decade, again to remove the possibility of outliers) there's a bell-curve distribution of popularity that rises from the 1730s, peaks with composers born 1840s-1870s (but with a massive drop for the 1850s), then a gradual decline again. Is there any particular evidence to suggest that in 50 years time, that curve won't have (roughly speaking) shifted 5 decades to the right?

We can brandish statistics till the cows come home, of course...


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> I don't "like" music based on what time era it came from. I approach each work on its own, and judge it by how it sounds and what meaning it conveys to me.


I think pretty much anyone would make the same statement about his or her musical preferences. I certainly could. I do not dislike Christopher Rouse's Symphony No. 3 merely because it was written in 2011. That would be silly. I would dislike it just as much even if it had been written in 1820, however unlikely such an event might have been. It happens that the music I like tends to be in earlier styles-eras, and the music written in the more current styles-era is, generally speaking, music that I do not care for at all. It presumably isn't entirely coincidental, but the implication of your statement is that there is a cause and effect that does not exist, even if there might be some correlation.


----------



## Simon Moon

BabyGiraffe said:


> Modern composers can still make "pleasant and beatiful" art music without being epigons.


I agree, and have stated so. As I previously said, while my entire collection of classical music is made up of 20th century and contemporary composers, most of it is not of the extreme and avant garde types.

Now, as to what each of us consider "pleasant and beautiful" may be a bit different.



> The obsessions with clusters, jumpscares and similar avantgarde techniques is a joke.


What 'obsession' are you referring to? I really don't think your description fits most of modern and contemporary music.

And even the music you are applying these descriptors to, are not, in my opinion, "a joke".


----------



## janxharris

JAS said:


> Absolutely seriously, on both counts.


That is quite amazing.


----------



## JAS

janxharris said:


> That is quite amazing.


I got B in the art class, with the stern warning that I would get a C if I had her for a future class (even though I wasn't an art major). I assured her that there was no danger of such an event occurring, even without the warning.


----------



## Martin D

Nereffid said:


> Gluck (31), C P E Bach (32), Boccherini (37), J Haydn (64), W A Mozart (88), Hummel (25), Beethoven (94), Schubert (83), Weber (40), Rossini (34)
> 
> Ligeti (36), Schnittke (33), Rautavaara (33), Boulez (33), Arnold (26), Takemitsu (31), Pärt (38), Adams (29)
> 
> Not sure if those are the 8 modern composers you're talking about, but all these data really prove is that Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert are very popular compared with other composers, and that when you remove those outliers, the most popular modern composers are about as popular as the most popular Classical-era composers.
> 
> We shouldn't get hung up on the Classical era, though, because when you look at composers born in the 19th century it's obvious that they (en masse) are much more popular than modern composers (en masse).
> In fact one way of looking at things (taking, arbitrarily, the 5th-most popular composer born per decade, again to remove the possibility of outliers) there's a bell-curve distribution of popularity that rises from the 1730s, peaks with composers born 1840s-1870s (but with a massive drop for the 1850s), then a gradual decline again. Is there any particular evidence to suggest that in 50 years time, that curve won't have (roughly speaking) shifted 5 decades to the right?
> 
> We can brandish statistics till the cows come home, of course...


The "modern" composers I took are those in the top 100 who were born after 1919. I got them earlier today from the 43 polls. :

Ligeti	(	37	)
Adams	(	30	)
Boulez	(	34	)
Gorecki	(	33	)
Part	(	40	)
Rautavaara	(	33	)
Reich	(	30	)
Schnittke	(	33	)

The total of the above votes is 270, which as I noted previously is 50% of the figure for classical-era composers on a fairly wide definition.

On the basis of these figures, I don't accept your suggestion that the most popular modern composers are about as popular as the most popular Classical-era composers, leaving out Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert. This is because your data based on "likes" is intrinsically a very poor reflector of preferences. For example, someone may say that they "like" both Beethoven and Schnittke. Under your system each would score the same number of votes, but in the vast majority of cases the real situation is that they may prefer Beethoven many times over compared with Schnitke.

To measure voters' actual preferences, a far better procedure is to request people to list their most favoured composers, if possible in an ordered manner. I dare say that some people will list a few modern composers but when the results are counted across all voters in a decent-sized sample they will very likely show that modern composers, as a group, are very much a minority interest. This kind of thing has been done several times in the past on this Forum, and so far as I can tell they show consistently that anything between 1-5% of the total vote is about all the modern composers can expect to achieve in a weighted vote system.

I do not agree that this is matter of simply trading "statistics". Your system is decidedly very dodgy indeed as a device for measuring aggregate preferences among composers.


----------



## KenOC

Some time back I calculated the average age of the top 100 works as determined on another site, populated by pretty knowledgeable CM fans. It turned out to be 1807, right in the middle of Beethoven’s 2nd period and over 200 years ago.

To me, at least, it seems obvious that the age of “our” music has passed, and that it was determined a long time ago.


----------



## dzc4627

Because "it sounds cool" isn't what a lot of people what when they go to a classical music concert. They want to feel, and be redeemed in some way. They want catharsis and exaltation and the joy and value of mankind, not "Wow listen to how these timbres are bouncing off the nearly perfect acoustics of this concert hall. Check out how this violin screech sounds. Tonight, as we are well cultured, we will be using q-tips instead of bows. Enjoy the unique and diverse frequencies!"

But hey, who needs to pull in the audience members when you have subsidies from the NEA?


----------



## Chronochromie

KenOC said:


> Some time back I calculated the average age of the top 100 works as determined on another site, populated by pretty knowledgeable CM fans. It turned out to be 1807, right in the middle of Beethoven's 2nd period and over 200 years ago.
> 
> To me, at least, it seems obvious that the age of "our" music has passed, and that it was determined a long time ago.


Yes, just like Brahms said...wait, what year is it?


----------



## janxharris

Martin D said:


> The "modern" composers I took are those in the top 100 who were born after 1919. I got them earlier today from the 43 polls. :
> 
> Ligeti	(	37	)
> Adams	(	30	)
> Boulez	(	34	)
> Gorecki	(	33	)
> Part	(	40	)
> Rautavaara	(	33	)
> Reich	(	30	)
> Schnittke	(	33	)
> 
> The total of the above votes is 270, which as I noted previously is 50% of the figure for classical-era composers on a fairly wide definition.
> 
> On the basis of these figures, I don't accept your suggestion that the most popular modern composers are about as popular as the most popular Classical-era composers, leaving out Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert. This is because your data based on "likes" is intrinsically a very poor reflector of preferences. For example, someone may say that they "like" both Beethoven and Schnittke. Under your system each would score the same number of votes, but in the vast majority of cases the real situation is that they may prefer Beethoven many times over compared with Schnitke.
> 
> To measure voters' actual preferences, a far better procedure is to request people to list their most favoured composers, if possible in an ordered manner. I dare say that some people will list a few modern composers but when the results are counted across all voters in a decent-sized sample they will very likely show that modern composers, as a group, are very much a minority interest. This kind of thing has been done several times in the past on this Forum, and so far as I can tell they show consistently that anything between 1-5% of the total vote is about all the modern composers can expect to achieve in a weighted vote system.
> 
> I do not agree that this is matter of simply trading "statistics". Your system is decidedly very dodgy indeed as a device for measuring aggregate preferences among composers.


This is a very interesting observation.


----------



## janxharris

dzc4627 said:


> Because "it sounds cool" isn't what a lot of people what when they go to a classical music concert. They want to feel, and be redeemed in some way. They want catharsis and exaltation and the joy and value of mankind, not "Wow listen to how these timbres are bouncing off the nearly perfect acoustics of this concert hall. Check out how this violin screech sounds. Tonight, as we are well cultured, we will be using q-tips instead of bows. Enjoy the unique and diverse frequencies!"
> 
> But hey, who needs to pull in the audience members when you have subsidies from the NEA?


? Not clear as to your meaining...NEA?


----------



## janxharris

JAS said:


> I got B in the art class, with the stern warning that I would get a C if I had her for a future class (even though I wasn't an art major). I assured her that there was no danger of such an event occurring, even without the warning.


I wonder your art teacher didn't have a road to Damascus moment? Surely she should have reconsidered her view on art?


----------



## Nereffid

Martin D said:


> On the basis of these figures, I don't accept your suggestion that the most popular modern composers are about as popular as the most popular Classical-era composers, leaving out Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert. This is because your data based on "likes" is intrinsically a very poor reflector of preferences. For example, someone may say that they "like" both Beethoven and Schnittke. Under your system each would score the same number of votes, but in the vast majority of cases the real situation is that they may prefer Beethoven many times over compared with Schnitke.
> 
> To measure voters' actual preferences, a far better procedure is to request people to list their most favoured composers, if possible in an ordered manner. I dare say that some people will list a few modern composers but when the results are counted across all voters in a decent-sized sample they will very likely show that modern composers, as a group, are very much a minority interest. This kind of thing has been done several times in the past on this Forum, and so far as I can tell they show consistently that anything between 1-5% of the total vote is about all the modern composers can expect to achieve in a weighted vote system.
> 
> I do not agree that this is matter of simply trading "statistics". Your system is decidedly very dodgy indeed as a device for measuring aggregate preferences among composers.


I'll defer to your evidence that the most popular Classical-era composers (minus outliers) are much more popular than the most popular modern composers... when you provide some.

In this TC survey a few years ago
http://www.talkclassical.com/12162-top-25-composers-please-24.html#post222256
which asked people to name their top 25 composers, here are the modern and Classical-era results:
1. Beethoven
3. Mozart
4. Schubert
9. Haydn
39. Rossini
44. Ligeti
56. Paganini
57. Donizetti
62. Xenakis
63. Feldman
75. Boulez
83. Boccherini
86. Rautavaara
89. Pärt
94. Berio
96. Spohr
99. Stockhausen

Meanwhile, this one http://www.talkclassical.com/19687-tcs-50-greatest-composers-107.html#post333879
produced the following results:
2. Mozart
3. Beethoven
4. Schubert
7. Haydn
44. Rossini
50. Bach, JC
54. Ligeti
61. Weber
65. Adams
66. Glass
68. Donizetti
77. Hummel
78. Haydn, M
81. Reich
82. Pärt
93. Penderecki
95. Boccherini

Neither of them presents a very different picture from my own polls, especially allowing for the fact that none of these approaches is statistically sound.


----------



## janxharris

Nereffid said:


> I'll defer to your evidence that the most popular Classical-era composers (minus outliers) are much more popular than the most popular modern composers... when you provide some.


You don't consider the evidence from youtube plays significant?

The Best of Mozart 104,200,173 views.

Ligeti - Artikulation 744,762 views.


----------



## janxharris

Search 'Beethoven' on youtube with 'view count' as the filter and the first page amounts to 3/4 of a billion views.

Do the same with 'Xenakis': 2 1/3 million views.


----------



## Art Rock

janxharris said:


> Search 'Beethoven' on youtube with 'view count' as the filter and the first page amounts to 3/4 of a billion views.
> 
> Search 'Xenakis' on youtube with 'view count' as the filter and the first page amounts to 2 1/3 million views.


I don't think anyone here (or elsewhere) is saying that Beethoven is not far more popular than Xenakis.

That said, I found it funny that (given that you use view count as the marker) the most viewed Beethoven Beethoven video is "Justin Bieber vs Beethoven -Epic Rap Battles of History #6" with over 92 million views.


----------



## Sloe

Art Rock said:


> That said, I found it funny that (given that you use view count as the marker) the most viewed Beethoven Beethoven video is "Justin Bieber vs Beethoven -Epic Rap Battles of History #6" with over 92 million views.


And Beethoven wins that one.


----------



## janxharris

Art Rock said:


> I don't think anyone here (or elsewhere) is saying that Beethoven is not far more popular than Xenakis.
> 
> That said, I found it funny that (given that you use view count as the marker) the most viewed Beethoven Beethoven video is "Justin Bieber vs Beethoven -Epic Rap Battles of History #6" with over 92 million views.


I think Nereffid is:

_I'll defer to your evidence that the most popular Classical-era composers (minus outliers) are much more popular than the most popular modern composers... when you provide some._

Re Bieber...oops.


----------



## Art Rock

janxharris said:


> I think Nereffid is:
> 
> _I'll defer to your evidence that the most popular Classical-era composers (minus outliers) are much more popular than the most popular modern composers... when you provide some._


See post 184, in which he defines Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert as outliers to be removed from the comparison.


----------



## janxharris

Art Rock said:


> See post 184, in which he defines Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert as outliers to be removed from the comparison.


You are right.

My apologies.


----------



## janxharris

Apologies Nereffid................


----------



## Martin D

Nereffid said:


> I'll defer to your evidence that the most popular Classical-era composers (minus outliers) are much more popular than the most popular modern composers... when you provide some.
> 
> In this TC survey a few years ago
> http://www.talkclassical.com/12162-top-25-composers-please-24.html#post222256
> which asked people to name their top 25 composers, here are the modern and Classical-era results:
> 
> .....
> 
> Meanwhile, this one http://www.talkclassical.com/19687-tcs-50-greatest-composers-107.html#post333879
> produced the following results:
> 
> Neither of them presents a very different picture from my own polls, especially allowing for the fact that none of these approaches is statistically sound.


I am surprised that you draw comfort from these old polls, since:

- The first one was asking people to list their *top 25 composers*. Why therefore are you quoting results well beyond the No 25 position? I note that that Ligeti was the first "modern" composer to appear on this list but at position No 44, i.e. well outside the stated limits of the poll.

- The second poll you refer to was asking people to list their *top 50 composers*. Again, Ligeti was the first "modern" composer to appear on this list but this time lower down at No 54, i.e. outside the stated limits of the poll. [It also looks to be a very weird voting system, although I haven't delved into it in detail.]

Given these obvious limitations, perhaps that's why you said _"that none of these approaches is statistically sound this"_. I'm left wondering why you quoted them? As for your your own polls, they too are clearly not statistically valid since they make no attempt whatsoever to gauge the relative rankings of each composer, but merely record lists of voters who "liked" certain composers.

These various weird polls aside, I happen to believe that most people haven't much idea about their own composer rankings beyond about 20 at most. There might be the odd exception who can go a bit further. Nor would I be inclined to trust any aggregated results beyond about rank about 10, as there is generally too much uncertainty in the numbers. In view of all this, I do not see how you or anyone else can make any statements about the ranking of composers who are generally much further down the list, as far as 50, 60 and way beyond. The rankings at such low levels are virtually meaningless.


----------



## JAS

janxharris said:


> I wonder your art teacher didn't have a road to Damascus moment? Surely she should have reconsidered her view on art?


Just like people who insisted that President Obama wasn't born in the US should have reconsidered their views when his birth certificate was produced, or anti-vaccine people should reconsider their views when new studies completely invalidate their previous claims. Man is not the rational animal; man is the animal that rationalizes.

At some level, she knew and understood that she had been embarrassed, but for that she mostly blamed me. I believe the phrase that "it wasn't a fair test" was uttered, but that was more than 30 years ago, so I don't remember that level of detail with certainty. In addition to teaching, she was a professional artist, and her whole life was invested in the idea of modern art. She was never going to have an epiphany, other than I am sure that she refused any similar requests unless she knew who the artist was beforehand. (I should perhaps note that in all of the other art classes I took, including one after hers, I got As.)

For the one I took after hers, I made sure that the instructor did not have a problem with my preference for representational art, and it was a class on figure drawing anyway, which was less inclined toward abstraction. And it was the hardest art class I ever took. Drawing people is far more difficult than drawing objects, and although it was not originally supposed to include nudes, which was reserved for the more advanced version of the same class, he changed that near the end of the semester, apparently because we were doing so well (and that was a bit embarrassing.)


----------



## Strange Magic

janxharris said:


> ? Not clear as to your meaining...NEA?


National Endowment for the Arts


----------



## Art Rock

Martin D said:


> The first one was asking people to list their *top 25 composers*. Why therefore are you quoting results well beyond the No 25 position?


Can you explain your reasoning behind this, because I have no clue where this comes from (from a statistical point of view the statement does not make sense to me). It's a long standing practice to compile top 100, top 1000, even top 2000 lists from people's 10 favourites, provided that enough people participate of course. E.g., a Dutch radio station broadcasts a top2000 popular songs every year compiled from personal top10's sent in by hundreds of thousands of listeners.

That the exact ranking becomes virtually meaningless beyond the first few positions is a conclusion I agree with, but it is still indicative (i.e. #45 may or may not be overall more popular than #50, but you can be pretty sure that #21 is overall more popular than #97).


----------



## JAS

Strange Magic said:


> National Endowment for the Arts


I hope that anyone who was depending on the NEA has a second job, because it appears that they are about to be defunded.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

JAS said:


> At some level, she knew and understood that she had been embarrassed, but for that she mostly blamed me. I believe the phrase that "it wasn't a fair test" was uttered, but that was more than 30 years ago, so I don't remember that level of detail with certainty. In addition to teaching, she was a professional artist, and her whole life was invested in the idea of modern art. She was never going to have an epiphany, other than I am sure that she refused any similar requests unless she knew who the artist was beforehand. (I should perhaps note that in all of the other art classes I took, including one after hers, I got As.)


I'm reminded of somebody many years ago telling me that Mozart was a mediocre composer, that anybody who thinks he's great is fooling themselves, and that the proof of this is that people used to think the symphony in G major, No. "37," K. "444," was written by him, when we now know it was written by Michael Haydn.


----------



## starthrower

JAS said:


> I hope that anyone who was depending on the NEA has a second job, because it appears that they are about to be defunded.


This is such a crock, and why I hate republicans. Oh, I know, no politics! But politics affects our lives and the arts. And the Philistines are winning. That's all I'll say about it.


----------



## JAS

starthrower said:


> This is such a crock, and why I hate republicans. Oh, I know, no politics! But politics affects our lives and the arts. And the Philistines are winning. That's all I'll say about it.


We always have money for more bombs and destroyers.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

starthrower said:


> This is such a crock, and why I hate republicans. Oh, I know, no politics! But politics affects our lives and the arts. And the Philistines are winning. That's all I'll say about it.


Yes if only we could have more fine art such as that favored by the previous administration.

https://blogs.loc.gov/catbird/2013/01/richard-blancos-inaugural-poem-one-today/


----------



## Martin D

Art Rock said:


> Can you explain your reasoning behind this, because I have no clue where this comes from (from a statistical point of view the statement does not make sense to me). It's a long standing practice to compile top 100, top 1000, even top 2000 lists from people's 10 favourites, provided that enough people participate of course. E.g., a Dutch radio station broadcasts a top2000 popular songs every year compiled from personal top10's sent in by hundreds of thousands of listeners.
> 
> That the exact ranking becomes virtually meaningless beyond the first few positions is a conclusion I agree with, but it is still indicative (i.e. #45 may or may not be overall more popular than #50, but you can be pretty sure that #21 is overall more popular than #97).


If you care to check what I wrote, it was that Nereffid was "quoting results *well beyond* the No 25 position." I accept that in some cases it's probably OK to go slightly beyond the original limit set in each case, but the rankings resulting from T-C polls must surely become increasingly doubtful the higher ones goes beyond the requested number of composers (in this case 25).

This is for several reasons:

(i) Partly it's because of the low turnout for some of these polls which are nothing like the turnout in the Dutch music polls you refer to where presumably very large numbers of voters are involved. In those situations, yes of course a lot can be inferred about lesser ranked composers by asking for only, say, 10.

(ii) In addition, T-C polls appear to be different from being truly random polls due to the self-selection nature of the entire process. This has affected all the polls, but there is a strong likelihood that Nereffid's polls in particular have been beset by this problem to an greater extent. As the polls progressed 1 thru 43, the number of voters declined quite a lot in general terms. It looks like this was because the voters became less and less interested in the choices on offer (not surprising as the less popular ones were included later). But in these cases, rather than register a "none" vote, they declined to vote at all. If so, this provides an extra reason why his results are not based on random selection of participants, because some previous voters deliberately stayed away rather than enter a "none" vote.

(iii) Not only that but I would say that the membership of this Forum is not typical of the classical music public at large, so it would be difficult to make any confident predictions about anything, least of all the relative position of composers ranked way down in the 50s and beyond.

In any case, I have a question for you. If you consider that the polling methods we're talking above are basically satisfactory, and provide reasonably reliable results, why have you been suggesting recently doing a second set of polls asking voters to rank their choices based on allocating a fixed number of points among quite a short list of their favourite composers (10 was a number I believe you mentioned). From your comments on this matter, you appear to accept that the exact ranking of composers beyond the first few based on the aggregated results would be highly uncertain even on the more refined basis that you propose. Presumably therefore you reckon that the rankings based on the previous polls are even more suspect. If so, how can you lend an credence to rankings from those polls in the 40s and beyond. It doesn't make any sense to me.


----------



## Art Rock

Martin D said:


> If you care to check what I wrote, it was that Nereffid was "quoting results *well beyond* the No 25 position." I accept that in some cases it's probably OK to go slightly beyond the original limit set in each case, but the rankings resulting from T-C polls must surely become increasingly doubtful the higher ones goes beyond the requested number of composers (in this case 25).


I'm especially curious why you seem to make a connection between the number of names submitted by each participant (25) and the inability to go beyond that number when looking at the result. That statement does not make sense to me from a statistics point of view. Your further comments (number of participants, decreasing number with time) are imo valid, but do not address the issue above.



> In any case, I have a question for you. If you consider that the polling methods we're talking above are basically satisfactory, and provide reasonably reliable results, why have you been suggesting recently doing a second set of polls asking voters to rank their choices based on allocating a fixed number of points among quite a short list of their favourite composers (10 was a number I believe you mentioned). From your comments on this matter, you appear to accept that the exact ranking of composers beyond the first few based on the aggregated results would be highly uncertain even on the more refined basis that you propose. Presumably therefore you reckon that the rankings based on the previous polls are even more suspect. If so, how can you lend an credence to rankings from those polls in the 40s and beyond. It doesn't make any sense to me.


I think the polls so far suffer from two major shortcomings:

- in the older polls, points were awarded depending on the placement of composers in participants' list. I can't find exactly what was done in them, but a typical approach is for a top10 to award 10 points for #1 and then one less for each subsequent composer. This means effectively that a person's #1 choice is deemed to be ten times as good as a #10 choice, which I think in most cases is a vast exaggeration.

- in Nereffid's poll, no distinction is made in degree of liking as already mentioned before. As a result, composers who are broadly appreciated if not seen as among the best will do better, while more controversial figures with a strong fan base will do worse.

My proposal (which I'm sure is far from perfect either) was to give each participant 100 points to distribute among their favourite composers in a way they find most representative, but with a max of 20 points to keep "fanboys" under control. So anywhere between 5 and 100 composers per participant.

I'm convinced that whatever method is followed (and I'm sure others can come up with more refined ones), the resulting list is NEVER the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I also think no-one has claimed that.


----------



## Nereffid

janxharris said:


> Search 'Beethoven' on youtube with 'view count' as the filter and the first page amounts to 3/4 of a billion views.
> 
> Do the same with 'Xenakis': 2 1/3 million views.


Again with the Beethoven! 

Spohr: 500,000.

Sisyphus: > 8 million.


----------



## Nereffid

Art Rock said:


> I'm especially curious why you seem to make a connection between the number of names submitted by each participant (25) and the inability to go beyond that number when looking at the result. That statement does not make sense to me from a statistics point of view. Your further comments (number of participants, decreasing number with time) are imo valid, but do not address the issue above.


I'm pretty sure that there will always be a fundamental flaw in any method that doesn't happen to produce the required answer. Any method that produces the required answer is, by definition, flawless. 



Art Rock said:


> in Neferrid's poll, no distinction is made in degree of liking as already mentioned before. As a result, composers who are broadly appreciated if not seen as among the best will do better, while more controversial figures with a strong fan base will do worse.


I see this as a feature, rather than a bug. The simple question is "Which composers are liked by the most people?" It's not asking about, or seeking to produce a list of, favourite or greatest composers. The OP was simply asking about popularity, and I thought my polls can address that issue by simply noting that modern composers are perhaps more popular (on TC at least) than anti-modernists give them credit for. Bringing favourites in clouds the issue somewhat, I think.

Going broader, here's how I see the general state of popular/liked composers:
"Classical music" for many people in practice means a bunch of composers born in the 19th century, plus a handful born between the late 17th century and 1800, and a smaller handful born after 1900. And as it happens the 3 most popular composers of all were born before 1800. Such classical listeners have little interest in modern music of any stripe, or medieval or Renaissance music, _or the lesser-known Baroque, Classical, or Romantic composers._
Then there's another group who have broader horizons in as much as they do have interest in a wider range of Baroque, Classical, and/or Romantic composers outside of the core group of composers.
And then there's still other groups who have broader tastes again, or whose tastes tend toward one chronological end or the other.
What seems to be at issue here is how large the group that likes modern music is.
Having spent a few years on TC and conducted a bunch of polls, my basic conclusion is that *modern music is not as popular as its supporters would like, and not as unpopular as its opponents would like.* And I think this will remain the situation _no matter how popular or unpopular modern music is,_ regardless of polls or any other methodology any can think of.


----------



## starthrower

Magnum Miserium said:


> Yes if only we could have more fine art such as that favored by the previous administration


Entirely besides the point. We are either going to have a society that values free expression and support for the arts, or we're not. And right now things are headed in the wrong direction, which affects the level of appreciation in the long run. And this ties in directly with the subject of this thread. End of speech. Carry on...


----------



## JAS

Nereffid said:


> What seems to be at issue here is how *large the group that likes modern music is*.
> Having spent a few years on TC and conducted a bunch of polls, my basic conclusion is that *modern music is not as popular as its supporters would like, and not as unpopular as its opponents would like.* And I think this will remain the situation _no matter how popular or unpopular modern music is,_ regardless of polls or any other methodology any can think of.


The obvious qualifier is "among active members of TC." The bigger question, which I think was already raised, is how representative and therefore how useful this community might be in terms of evaluating those positions in the larger body of classical music listeners. As a related question, is answering the question of how popular or unpopular they might be among the active TC members, in just those narrow terms, a useful, meaningful, or even interesting statistic? Offhand, I don't know that I have a strong feeling for an answer to that question.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

starthrower said:


> We are either going to have a society that values free expression and support for the arts, or we're not.


I submit that a society that supports the arts but fails to distinguish between good and bad art is no more valuable than a society that doesn't support the arts at all.


----------



## starthrower

Magnum Miserium said:


> I submit that a society that supports the arts but fails to distinguish between good and bad art is no more valuable than a society that doesn't support the arts at all.


I don't see how society as a whole can distinguish between good and bad art? That's up to the individual. If you don't like the end result, you don't have to support it. But there's a better chance of good results with some investment and funding. And the same can be said for an educated audience that can distinguish and appreciate something of depth and beauty.


----------



## JAS

Magnum Miserium said:


> I submit that a society that supports the arts but fails to distinguish between good and bad art is no more valuable than a society that doesn't support the arts at all.


We cannot even get a real consensus here about what music is good or bad. (Perhaps that is also part of your point.)


----------



## starthrower

JAS said:


> We cannot even get a real consensus here about what music is good or bad. (Perhaps that is also part of your point.)


Why should there be a consensus? People don't have to agree.


----------



## JAS

starthrower said:


> Why should there be a consensus? People don't have to agree.


We would if we adopted Magnum Miserium's position.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

starthrower said:


> I don't see how society as a whole can distinguish between good and bad art? That's up to the individual. If you don't like the end result, you don't have to support it.


If it's publicly funded, then as an individual you absolutely do have to support it, with your taxes, whether you like it or not.



starthrower said:


> But there's a better chance of good results with some investment and funding.


We have more public investment in the arts now than in the 19th century, and the arts have gotten worse.



starthrower said:


> And the same can be said for an educated audience that can distinguish and appreciate something of depth and beauty.


Depends on the nature of the education. The proportion of college educated people is greater today than ever before, but most educated people today don't talk about contemporary high art - as educated people used to talk about Wagner or Picasso in their own time - instead they talk very seriously about "Star Wars."


----------



## starthrower

JAS said:


> We would if we adopted Magnum Miserium's position.


Which of course is what we don't want. Society, or committees, or the state saying this is bad or good. An educated public can decide for themselves.


----------



## Martin D

Art Rock said:


> I'm especially curious why you seem to make a connection between the number of names submitted by each participant (25) and the inability to go beyond that number when looking at the result. That statement does not make sense to me from a statistics point of view. Your further comments (number of participants, decreasing number with time) are imo valid, but do not address the issue above.
> 
> I think the polls so far suffer from two major shortcomings:
> 
> - in the older polls, points were awarded depending on the placement of composers in participants' list. I can't find exactly what was done in them, but a typical approach is for a top10 to award 10 points for #1 and then one less for each subsequent composer. This means effectively that a person's #1 choice is deemed to be ten times as good as a #10 choice, which I think in most cases is a vast exaggeration.
> 
> - in Nereffid's poll, no distinction is made in degree of liking as already mentioned before. As a result, composers who are broadly appreciated if not seen as among the best will do better, while more controversial figures with a strong fan base will do worse.
> 
> My proposal (which I'm sure is far from perfect either) was to give each participant 100 points to distribute among their favourite composers in a way they find most representative, but with a max of 20 points to keep "fanboys" under control. So anywhere between 5 and 100 composers per participant.
> 
> I'm convinced that whatever method is followed (and I'm sure others can come up with more refined ones), the resulting list is NEVER the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I also think no-one has claimed that.


Sorry if my basic point is not clear to you. I was saying that the extent to which one can stretch results by going beyond the number of composers requested initially, e.g. from 25 to 40, 50 etc, will surely depend on the quality of the sampling procedure, poll size and plausibility of the results. This is intuitively obvious and hardly requires a rigorous proof.

Thus, if the sampling procedure used meets all the usual criteria, and a high response rate is achieved, then I accept that it's possible to make guesses at the rankings outside that range. I thought that I made this point. However, if the sampling procedure is dodgy, and the response rate lowish, then clearly any inferences about rankings are subject to much higher risk, which must surely become progressively worse for estimates made beyond the original number of composers requested.

In the 25 composer poll, I understand that the points system was based on a declining rate of 1 from 30 downwards, so that the top composer was awarded 30 points, the next one 29 points, etc. That doesn't sound too implausible.

The 50 composer poll is still a mystery to me. There was some kind of iterative voting procedure. I'd be inclined to forget all that nonsense.

In another poll that I spotted, members were asked to list their 100 top composers (a very high number for most people to achieve, and they were evidently excluded if they didn't submit the full 100). The points were awarded from 100 downwards. Thus the top composer got 100 points and the one in 50th position (please don't laugh) got 50 points, i.e. was deemed to be half as much liked as the top man! This of course was a highly questionable weighting system, and illustrates the kind of polling stupidities that have been heaped on unsuspecting members here over the years.

Can things get even more dubious? Well, it seems they can. Nereffid's polls actually go a stage further than this and implicitly assume that a composer who is merely "liked" has the same score as one's favourite, and all others in between. I wonder whether the voters knew they were being lined to enable a guestimate of the top 600 composers at the end of the process.

Your proposed method of allocating a fixed number of points across a smallish number of composers sounds a lot better than all previous efforts. However, I would still be sceptical about your getting a decently random set of results from the polling system, given the inherent nature of forum polls where the people who vote are self-selected.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

starthrower said:


> Which of course is what we don't want. Society, or committees, or the state saying this is bad or good. An educated public can decide for themselves.


So the educated public doesn't have to think it's good, they just have to pay for it.


----------



## Nereffid

Martin D said:


> Can things get even more dubious? Well, it seems they can. Nereffid's polls actually go a stage further than this and implicitly assume that a composer who is merely "liked" has the same score as one's favourite, and all others in between. I wonder whether the voters knew they were being lined to enable a guestimate of the top 600 composers at the end of the process.


It's not an _implicit_ assumption. It's an _explicit_ one. The whole point is to find out which composers are liked by the most people. That's all. Why is "Do you like this composer or not?" such a difficult question to fathom?
And the "guestimate of the top 600 composers" is no such thing. It's a list of the composers in order of the percentage of voters who said they liked them. Nothing more. If you want to read something grander into it just so that you can dismiss it, that's your business, but don't pin it on me. 
I just find it bizarre that affirmative answers to the simple question "Do you like this composer?" are deemed wholly inadequate as a response to the plaintive cry of the anti-modernists: "Does anyone like this stuff?"


----------



## Martin D

I would just like to make it clear that, in making a few observations in this thread, I am aware that I have mainly concentrated on the mechanics of polling procedures that have been referred to in support of some arguments that have been put forward concerning the popularity of modern composers. Following the moderator's advice previously, I had intended to wait until the appropriate thread was opened to discuss these issues further, but it hasn't happened yet, and meanwhile I was asked to clarify some of my comments.

I'm definitely not pursuing any "cause", either in favour of or against any group of composers from any era. I stress that I do very much like the work of several of the "modern composers", and consider that folk who dislike it are missing a lot, which I generally put down to lack of experience, although in some cases it's a considered judgement after giving them a fair trial and they are obviously entitled to their views. In the lack of experience cases, I admit, to my shame now, that there was a time quite a few years ago when I had certain prejudices against some styles of classical music. One tends to grow out it as the years go by, and accept and enjoy wider styles of music.

Now, and for quite a few years, I genuinely happen to like most classical music, and have acquired tons of material of over 4000 hours of CDs, covering some 600 composers from all eras from the early Medieval stuff up to the present time. There is no era, or style, or nationality of composer that I dislike, although I like some more than others. My long-term favourites, if asked, are conventional, being much in line with the rankings of the composer results 1-20 that one tends to see from the various polls that have been posted around here I the past.


----------



## JAS

Nereffid said:


> I just find it bizarre that affirmative answers to the simple question "Do you like this composer?" are deemed wholly inadequate as a response to the plaintive cry of the anti-modernists: "Does anyone like this stuff?"


Is anyone literally saying that no one likes "this stuff." It just appears to be a relatively smaller corner of people than classical music fans in general, itself, sadly, a small and dwindling group. The question I more commonly hear is "why in the world would anyone like this stuff?"


----------



## RRod

JAS said:


> Is anyone literally saying that no one likes "this stuff." It just appears to be a relatively smaller corner of people than classical music fans in general, itself, sadly, a small and dwindling group. The question I more commonly hear is "why in the world would anyone like this stuff?"


Modern classical music is sufficiently varied that I don't see how that question makes sense.


----------



## starthrower

Magnum Miserium said:


> So the educated public doesn't have to think it's good, they just have to pay for it.


The NEA budget is miniscule. About 50 cents per person a year. You are complaining about this?


----------



## Martin D

Nereffid said:


> It's not an _implicit_ assumption. It's an _explicit_ one. The whole point is to find out which composers are liked by the most people. That's all. Why is "Do you like this composer or not?" such a difficult question to fathom?
> And the "guestimate of the top 600 composers" is no such thing. It's a list of the composers in order of the percentage of voters who said they liked them. Nothing more. If you want to read something grander into it just so that you can dismiss it, that's your business, but don't pin it on me.
> I just find it bizarre that affirmative answers to the simple question "Do you like this composer?" are deemed wholly inadequate as a response to the plaintive cry of the anti-modernists: "Does anyone like this stuff?"


My response would be that the question you have asked - "Do you like this composer?" - is too vague to elicit results of a quality and reliability that could be used as the basis for compiling an ordered ranking of composers as high as 100 and possibly beyond, in which one could have much if any confidence.

I understood that you asked this question about "likes" in order to avoid asking people to set out their preferences in a rank order, because you thought this might be too difficult for some to do, and that you hoped to achieve the same result by means of aggregating the "likes" across a range of composers, by relying on a large number of responses. I gather that this type of poll, based on "likes", is one of your trademark polling procedures. Basically I don't like it as it is too crude to be of much use, and very long-winded.

OK your results may replicate some of the underlying "correct" results for highly rated composers similar to those resulting from other more conventional polls, but the procedure is not robust enough to produce decent results on the whole. I note that you have already cottoned on to some of the problems in resorting to what appears to me to be some rather peculiar looking adjustments to the results in order to offset what you perceive to be bias due to low poll turnouts in some cases, but which looks more as if it could be partly designed to offset some odd-looking results (e.g. Mozart being below Strauss on the unadjusted figures). It looks to me as if that kind of adjustment may simply add an extra layer of confusion and potential bias.

All this could have been avoided if you had gone out originally and simply asked for peoples' preferences in a one hit operation rather than spread out over 43 polls. You might have been better off in achieving this by concentrating on improving the previous sampling procedures, e.g. along the lines that Art Rock has now proposed, which sounds to me a potentially more useful procedure than the profusion of polls that you have created over the past 6 months or so.


----------



## JAS

RRod said:


> Modern classical music is sufficiently varied that I don't see how that question makes sense.


And yet that variety generally produces mostly "music" that I would never want to hear a second time, and often not even a first time given the option. That variety seems to exclude the very qualities that I appreciate in music, and so the question is quite reasonable to me.


----------



## starthrower

Magnum Miserium said:


> If it's publicly funded, then as an individual you absolutely do have to support it, with your taxes, whether you like it or not.
> We have more public investment in the arts now than in the 19th century, and the arts have gotten worse.
> "


I pretty sure a lot of people would disagree with your assessment. Looking back to the 19th or any previous century, only what has survived is on anyone's radar. And of course the greatest composers are the ones we remember. But to say the arts have gotten worse is absurd. The 20th century produced many many great artists and composers.

If we go by your criteria, taxpayers should be able to get refunds for everything they don't like. My neighbor doesn't like trash p/u and prefers to burn his garbage in the backyard. My other neighbor hates sports and should get a refund on school taxes. I'm a peace advocate, so none of my tax dollars should go to the military. And so on...


----------



## Magnum Miserium

starthrower said:


> The NEA budget is miniscule. About 50 cents per person a year. You are complaining about this?


No, but I'm not defending it either, and I find the defenses offered unconvincing.


----------



## Nereffid

Martin D said:


> My response would be that the question you have asked - "Do you like this composer?" - is too vague to elicit results of a quality and reliability that could be used as the basis for compiling an ordered ranking of composers as high as 100 and possibly beyond, in which one could have much if any confidence.
> 
> I understood that you asked this question about "likes" in order to avoid asking people to set out their preferences in a rank order, because you thought this might be too difficult for some to do, and that you hoped to achieve the same result by means of aggregating the "likes" across a range of composers, by relying on a large number of responses. I gather that this type of poll, based on "likes", is one of your trademark polling procedures. Basically I don't like it as it is too crude to be of much use, and very long-winded.
> 
> OK your results may replicate some of the underlying "correct" results for highly rated composers similar to those resulting from other more conventional polls, but the procedure is not robust enough to produce decent results on the whole. I note that you have already cottoned on to some of the problems in resorting to what appears to me to be some rather peculiar looking adjustments to the results in order to offset what you perceive to be bias due to low poll turnouts in some cases, but which looks more as if it could be partly designed to offset some odd-looking results (e.g. Mozart being below Strauss on the unadjusted figures). It looks to me as if that kind of adjustment may simply add an extra layer of confusion and potential bias.
> 
> All this could have been avoided if you had gone out originally and simply asked for peoples' preferences in a one hit operation rather than spread out over 43 polls. You might have been better off in achieving this by concentrating on improving the previous sampling procedures, e.g. along the lines that Art Rock has now proposed, which sounds to me a potentially more useful procedure than the profusion of polls that you have created over the past 6 months or so.


Jeez, sorry to have wasted so much of your time. 

What if I told you that the polls were only intended as a harmless bit of fun from which interested parties could gain a few broad insights about the musical taste of their peers? That I never once for a second thought that the actual ranked order should be taken seriously? That I have always been aware of the problems of statistical significance? And that the problems never actually mattered because the polls were only intended as a harmless bit of fun that provides a few broad insights? That I believe that nobody - not me, not you, not ArtRock, not Stephen f***ing Hawking, can ever come anywhere close to producing a definitive list of favourite or most popular or most liked composers no matter what method they use or who they ask, because it's impossible to quantify something so utterly qualitative and arbitrary, and so the closest anyone can ever get is to pass their time with a harmless bit of fun that provides a few broad insights and hope to Christ that the people who look at the results have the ounce of wit necessary to recognise it as such?


----------



## Magnum Miserium

starthrower said:


> I pretty sure a lot of people would disagree with your assessment. Looking back to the 19th or any previous century, only what has survived is on anyone's radar. And of course the greatest composers are the ones we remember. But to say the arts have gotten worse is absurd. The 20th century produced many many great artists and composers.


Did it, though? (You can't exactly say the 20th century "produced" Stravinsky, who was 18 years old before it even began.)



starthrower said:


> If we go by your criteria, taxpayers should be able to get refunds for everything they don't like. My neighbor doesn't like trash p/u and prefers to burn his garbage in the backyard. My other neighbor hates sports and should get a refund on school taxes.


No, if we go by my criteria, taxes should be spent on things that are good, such as clean air. I believe you have already excluded the question of whether the art that gets funded is good or not.



starthrower said:


> I'm a peace advocate, so none of my tax dollars should go to the military.


You've got my vote.


----------



## starthrower

Magnum Miserium said:


> Did it, though? (You can't exactly say the 20th century "produced" Stravinsky, who was 18 years old before it even began.)


Stravinsky the artist is of the 20th century. And hundreds more.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

starthrower said:


> Stravinsky the artist is of the 20th century. And hundreds more.


Okay, let's say he is, but he still wrote his last major work more than 50 years ago.


----------



## mmsbls

Martin D said:


> My response would be that the question you have asked - "Do you like this composer?" - is too vague to elicit results of a quality and reliability that could be used as the basis for compiling an ordered ranking of composers as high as 100 and possibly beyond, in which one could have much if any confidence.


Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think anyone wishes to use Nereffid's polls to make such a ranking and certainly not to use it with confidence.



Martin D said:


> Basically I don't like it as it is too crude to be of much use, and very long-winded.


I think you are assuming Nereffid's polls must be used to establish some kind of ordered list of composers. That was not the intention.



Martin D said:


> All this could have been avoided if you had gone out originally and simply asked for peoples' preferences in a one hit operation rather than spread out over 43 polls. You might have been better off in achieving this by concentrating on improving the previous sampling procedures, e.g. along the lines that Art Rock has now proposed, which sounds to me a potentially more useful procedure than the profusion of polls that you have created over the past 6 months or so.


It's my understanding that Nereffid started these polls to extend something I explored in this poll. I was simply trying to get a rough estimate of the percentage of TC members who like a set of composers who are generally viewed as some of the best. You can read my post to get a bit more background on why I was interested. Obviously my question has little to do with rankings of any kind (other than I selected top ranked composers as the target set).

Nereffid further explored this idea by explicitly asking whether TC members like a set of ~600 composers selected to be of significant importance in classical music. The results are rather interesting to me. They do not allow one to rank composers because "like modestly" and "like enormously" are _intentionally_ considered identical.

There are many people who believe that modern music is liked by relatively few classical music listeners. I don't really know what that percentage is. The results from Nereffid's polls allow us to get a somewhat better estimate of percentages of TC members who like modern composers and any other category of composer. We don't know how much those composers are liked, but that's a different question. We know there are selection biases and obviously there are statistical uncertainties. When thinking about the results, we keep these in mind.

I think you are assuming a different purpose for those polls, and further, you criticize the poll methodology as though people are using the poll to make highly specific conclusions with high confidence. We're simply looking at the results and making what seem to be reasonable observations. For example, outside of Beethoven, Mozart, and Haydn (and excluding Schubert as Romantic), modern composer do not appear to be _clearly_ less liked (in the sense of the polls) than the remaining Classical Era composers.


----------



## mmsbls

JAS said:


> And yet that variety generally produces mostly "music" that I would never want to hear a second time, and often not even a first time given the option. That variety seems to exclude the very qualities that I appreciate in music, and so the question is quite reasonable to me.


The question has been asked in one form or another a number of times on TC. Those who like the music have responded with a variety of answers. Most of those answers seem similar to how I think people would respond if asked "Why would anyone like Classical Era music or Renaissance Era music?" Some answers are particular to modern music and probably would not be heard when responding to other eras.


----------



## dzc4627

janxharris said:


> ? Not clear as to your meaining...NEA?


National Endowment for the Arts


----------



## dzc4627

starthrower said:


> This is such a crock, and why I hate republicans. Oh, I know, no politics! But politics affects our lives and the arts. And the Philistines are winning. That's all I'll say about it.


Yes, because art we have to force people to pay for is totally worth funding. It makes perfect sense. Those dumb republicans.


----------



## DaveM

I try to stay away from this subject as much as possible, because inevitably I find it hard to adequately describe my concerns about much of what goes for contemporary classical music. Generally, I think there has been a loss of the ability to write and develop accessible melody (or a lack of interest in same). With the exceptions of composers such as Rachmaninoff, Richard Strauss, Barber and a few others, I find that my response to many contemporary works ranges from tolerance to disdain to outright nausea.

People have described music as a form of broadly understood language. IMO, classical music of the 20th and 21st century has in large part become a language understood by only a much narrower audience.

Here are three works by 19th century composers who are not necessarily in the top-tier, but listen to how engaging and instantly accessible the opening themes are. Then listen to the works by Schoenberg and Ligeti. Actually, I can tolerate the Schoenberg if forced to. On the other hand, the Ligeti is simply (IMO) bizarre. I have no idea who would be running out to buy this work or sit through it at a concert. I understand that there are contemporary works that are more 'accessible' than these, but I have a hard time finding any that resonate with me as much as the first 3 works below.

Raff Symphony #5, Larghetto:






Ries Piano Concerto #7, Larghetto:






Standford Piano Concerto #2, Adagio:






Schoenberg Piano Concerto, Adagio:






Ligeti Piano Concerto, 2nd Movt:


----------



## Chronochromie

DaveM said:


> I try to stay away from this subject as much as possible, because inevitably I find it hard to adequately describe my concerns about much of what goes for contemporary classical music. Generally, I think there has been a loss of the ability to write and develop accessible melody (or a lack of interest in same). With the exceptions of composers such as Rachmaninoff, Richard Strauss, Barber and a few others, I find that my response to many contemporary works ranges from tolerance to disdain to outright nausea.
> 
> People have described music as a form of broadly understood language. IMO, classical music of the 20th and 21st century has in large part become a language understood by only a much narrower audience.
> 
> Here are three works by 19th century composers who are not necessarily in the top-tier, but listen to how engaging and instantly accessible the opening themes are. Then listen to the works by Schoenberg and Ligeti. Actually, I can tolerate the Schoenberg if forced to. On the other hand, the Ligeti is simply (IMO) bizarre. I have no idea who would be running out to buy this work or sit through it at a concert. I understand that there are contemporary works that are more 'accessible' than these, but I have a hard time finding any that resonate with me as much as the first 3 works below.
> 
> Raff Symphony #5, Larghetto:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ries Piano Concerto #7, Larghetto:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standford Piano Concerto #2, Adagio:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schoenberg Piano Concerto, Adagio:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ligeti Piano Concerto, 2nd Movt:


Very interesting. In the Raff and Stanford (didn't listen to the other one) I hear blandly pleasant music that bores me with a lack of depth, while the Schoenberg and Ligeti, now that I've absorbed their musical language are clearly the works of masters. I (and this is a personal experience, apparently I have to clarify this lest someone think that I find your musical taste inferior or something...) used to listen to many minor Romantic composers like Raff and Medtner and the like but as I got more and deeper into music I lost interest.* This was around the same time that I began to realize what made Mozart and Haydn interesting and different from 2nd tier Classical era composers and began to get into Modern music (not just mid and late Schoenberg but also Neoclassical Stravinsky and late Debussy which were just as difficult to me).

*Now this doesn't mean that there aren't some gems. Berwald's 3rd symphony, for example.

And BTW if you want to give Ligeti a chance, you might want to listen to pieces like Musica Ricercata, the Cello and Viola sonatas, maybe even the Études (some of them are quite accessible I think). And of course there's always the charming super early Concert Romanesc but I don't think of that one as a masterpiece like the others I listed.


----------



## LesCyclopes

I managed 55 seconds of Berg's violin concerto. 

Ligeti concerto above was also excruciating. 

Without meaning to offend anyone, Boulez' Structures is not even music IMHO. 

I listen to and play a lot of Baroque music. Once the instinctive order of that kind of music takes hold of your brain, it is just not possible to see the pieces on this thread as anything but needless torture. 

I suspect that is the answer to OP's question on why this stuff is poorly received by audiences.


----------



## Chronochromie

LesCyclopes said:


> I managed 55 seconds of Berg's violin concerto.
> 
> Ligeti concerto above was also excruciating.
> 
> Without meaning to offend anyone, Boulez' Structures is not even music IMHO.
> 
> I listen to and play a lot of Baroque music. Once the instinctive order of that kind of music takes hold of your brain, it is just not possible to see the pieces on this thread as anything but needless torture.
> 
> I suspect that is the answer to OP's question on why this stuff is poorly received by audiences.


Apparently it's not, since so many other people here, myself included, have gotten into Modern and Contemporary Classical after listening to and liking Baroque/Classical/Romantic era music for years.

(And I don't think much of Boulez's Structures either, but the other works are great imo).


----------



## JAS

I think Dave M has put his finger squarely on the key. (It is very difficult to speak of these forms in the abstract collective sense, and so specific examples are very useful.) In particular, I think it is interesting that he has selected three traditional works that are by no means warhorses or probably even at the top of anyone's A list of well-known favorites. (I know two of the pieces, and will go out and look for the third.) And yet all three are perfectly pleasant, melodic, appealing music with recognizable technique and patterns that neither insult nor assault my senses. The two modern pieces, which I think are also well selected, are, to me, virtually unlistensible, although I made a point of playing them twice. They are more pleasant than listening to a dentist's drill, but that is probably pretty much it. In no way can I agree with Chronochromie's statement that they evince signs of mastery. I cannot imagine how anyone was convinced to actually play these works. I certainly could not write out the notation, and I am sure that I could not convince anyone to play what I might produce, but I really think that with a computer based synthesizer, I could produce something that at least didn't sound any worse. I don't mean any of this to be insulting, although there is probably no way for it not to sound at least somewhat insulting. More importantly, with his post and the reply given, I think Dave M has demonstrated admirably that the reason for the question is clear but the answer is probably not possible. There is some fundamental difference between advocates of these very different forms of music, perhaps indescribable and probably a gap that cannot be closed. (Most unfathomable to me is that there are, and I know there are, people who somehow manage to like both.)


----------



## jailhouse

picks an insanely sparse middle movement of ligeti's piano concerto to demonstrate his oeuvre is unlistenable, yawn.






(absolute genius)


----------



## Chronochromie

JAS said:


> In no way can I agree with Chronochromie's statement that they evince signs of mastery.


Well no, of course you can't, not with that attitude. :lol:


----------



## LesCyclopes

> I cannot imagine how anyone was convinced to actually play these works


Exactly what I thought while watching the videos above.

Also... If they missed a note or made a mistake, how would anyone know? (Only partly joking here)


----------



## JAS

jailhouse said:


> picks an insanely sparse middle movement of ligeti's piano concerto to demonstrate his oeuvre is unlistenable, yawn.
> 
> [video: The Devil's Staircase]
> 
> (absolute genius)


Is that supposed to be an argument in favor of Ligeti? (I do suspect that that piece is not nearly as easy to play as it might appear, and it does at least not sound purely random, as does the other piece. But I still find not one moment in it to recommend it.) I say very bluntly that I would not voluntarily attend a concert of music like this, or purchase a CD of it. If it came on the radio, I would change stations, or turn the radio off until it passed.


----------



## DaveM

jailhouse said:


> picks an insanely sparse middle movement of ligeti's piano concerto to demonstrate his oeuvre is unlistenable, yawn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (absolute genius)


I could have used this piece in place of the concerto movement. It would have just as easily made my point. This is 'absolute genius'? IMO, more like 'one man have fun, million suffer'.


----------



## LesCyclopes

> people here, myself included, have gotten into Modern and Contemporary Classical after listening to and liking Baroque/Classical/Romantic era music for years


I didn't talk about Classical & Romantic, just Baroque. With its well-defined, meticulously structured, and nearly geometric harmony, it is practically the anti-thesis of the examples given above.

I can sort of understand if you listened to Baroque music decades ago and then your taste in music slowly changed and now you listen to modern works like the ones posted above. However, I honestly find it hard to believe that anyone can truly enjoy *both* - as in, sit down and listen to Bach's St Matthew's Passion in the afternoon and then enjoy Boulez's Structures in the evening.


----------



## jailhouse

Sorry you don't have the capacity to understand ligeti's etude 13, but it is a masterpiece. The climax makes me tear up pretty much every time i hear it


----------



## Chronochromie

LesCyclopes said:


> I didn't talk about Classical & Romantic, just Baroque. With its well-defined, meticulously structured, and nearly geometric harmony, it is practically the anti-thesis of the examples given above.
> 
> I can sort of understand if you listened to Baroque music decades ago and then your taste in music slowly changed and now you listen to modern works like the ones posted above. However, I honestly find it hard to believe that anyone can truly enjoy *both* - as in, sit down and listen to Bach's St Matthew's Passion in the afternoon and then enjoy Boulez's Structures in the evening.


But some can! And stranger things have happened!


----------



## LesCyclopes

Masterpiece in what? Not harmony, counterpoint, melody, or anything else I can think of that I would admire in a masterpiece. 

Would you please explain? I would like to understand.


----------



## JAS

jailhouse said:


> Sorry you don't have the capacity to understand ligeti's etude 13, but it is a masterpiece. The climax makes me tear up pretty much every time i hear it


We are obviously wired very differently. Nothing in it says "masterpiece" to me. It just barely qualifies as music in my opinion. I particularly cannot conceive of any emotional response other than feeling somewhat disturbed. I don't think a mutual understanding is possible. In the future, I think that should just be my operating assumption.


----------



## jailhouse

LesCyclopes said:


> Masterpiece in what? Not harmony, counterpoint, melody, or anything else I can think of that I would admire in a masterpiece.
> 
> Would you please explain? I would like to understand.


It evokes incredible imagery and elicits a severe emotional response in me. No composer before or after has used the concept of the Shepard Tone to create something so moving

I don't have to break it down in music theory terms... if you cant hear why it's special after a few listens, you're probably never going to understand it.


----------



## DaveM

Chronochromie said:


> ...and began to get into Modern music (not just mid and late Schoenberg but also Neoclassical Stravinsky and late Debussy which *were just as difficult to me*).


I'm glad your effort proved worthwhile. Still, I don't understand why it takes effort to learn to like this music. A common refrain I hear (for instance, by mmsbis who is, by the way, very even-handed/understanding in his discussion of the subject) is that it takes time and work to accommodate oneself to much contemporary music. I have listened to classical music from a 250 year + period starting circa 1650 and have never had to work to enjoy it.

Btw: It occurs to me that audiences in the 19th century and before only had a few chances to appreciate given classical works since there were no recordings. My guess is that if it weren't for recordings there would be much less interest in contemporary music since one would have to go to several live performances to begin to understand the stuff.


----------



## Chronochromie

DaveM said:


> I could have used this piece in place of the concerto movement. It would have just as easily made my point. This is 'absolute genius'? IMO, more like 'one man have fun, million suffer'.


The concert I went to with Aimard playing the Ligeti Études and Musica Ricercata sold out, with hundreds of people enjoying them very much, mostly younger people too!



JAS said:


> Is that supposed to be an argument in favor of Ligeti? (I do suspect that that piece is not nearly as easy to play as it might appear, and it does at least not sound purely random, as does the other piece. But I still find not one moment in it to recommend it.) I say very bluntly that I would not voluntarily attend a concert of music like this, or purchase a CD of it. If it came on the radio, I would change stations, or turn the radio off until it passed.


The Ligeti Études are very varied, you should try these:


----------



## JAS

Chronochromie said:


> The Ligeti Études are very varied, you should try these:


Your reply is admirably pleasant, and, really, I don't mean any disrespect . . . and yet this is an absolutely unfathomable mystery to me. (I would have an easier time understanding why someone might want to eat a fried tarantula, although I admit to never having tried one, nor finding those I have seen on TV the least bit appealing.) I will save those links for another day. I think I have already strained my tolerance level for now.

Oh, and where was the concert held?


----------



## Chronochromie

DaveM said:


> I'm glad your effort proved worthwhile. Still, I don't understand why it takes effort to learn to like this music. A common refrain I hear (for instance, by mmsbis who is, by the way, very even-handed/understanding in his discussion of the subject) is that it takes time and work to accommodate oneself to much contemporary music. I have listened to classical music from a 250 year + period starting circa 1650 and have never had to work to enjoy it.
> 
> Btw: It occurs to me that audiences in the 19th century and before only had a few chances to appreciate given classical works since there were no recordings. My guess is that if it weren't for recordings there would be much less interest in contemporary music since one would have to go to several live performances to begin to understand the stuff.


Simple: I didn't have outright disdain for Schoenberg or Neoclassical Stravinsky or late Debussy (well, I did have it for Schoenberg, but before I actually listened to much of his music), but I found their music interesting and sort of attractive if unmoving and sterile. There was a sort of fascination that led me to listen to them and it did not take _that_ much. If I didn't like a work, I moved on to another and if that clicked easier, I went back to the other one and I usually found that I liked it better, etc.


----------



## DaveM

Chronochromie said:


> The concert I went to with Aimard playing the Ligeti Études and Musica Ricercata sold out, with hundreds of people enjoying them very much, mostly younger people too!


Aimard also plays Bach and Beethoven. I bet there was a pre-1900 work or two at that concert.


----------



## Chronochromie

JAS said:


> Your reply is admirably pleasant, and, really, I don't mean any disrespect . . . and yet this is an absolutely unfathomable mystery to me. (I would have an easier time understanding why someone might want to eat a fried tarantula, although I admit to never having tried one, nor finding those I have seen on TV the least bit appealing.) I will save those links for another day. I think I have already strained level for now.


I don't mind, to be honest you're almost as much of a mystery to me as I am to you! :lol: The only composer I remember actually feeling disgust at is Xenakis, now I like him but I haved to crack the Schoenberg-Debussy-Stravinsky-Bartók, etc. safe to get into his music. I think this is also true of Ligeti, Messiaen and others to an extent, but Xenakis I thought repugnant, of the others at least I was curious of.


----------



## JAS

Chronochromie said:


> I don't mind, to be honest you're almost as much of a mystery to me as I am to you! :lol:


And you don't know the half of it. The more you knew about me, I suspect the more of a mystery I would be.


----------



## Chronochromie

DaveM said:


> Aimard also plays Bach and Beethoven. I bet there was a pre-1900 work or two at that concert.


Nope, there wasn't, it was part of the Contemporary music cycle that runs every year. Here, take a look.


----------



## jailhouse

Chronochromie said:


> Nope, there wasn't, it was part of the Contemporary music cycle that runs every year. Here, take a look.


Lol I would pay like 100 dollars to see him play every etude + musica ricercata

he's definitely the best at Ligeti. Pretty unquestionably imo.


----------



## LesCyclopes

jailhouse said:


> It evokes incredible imagery


What does this mean? Do you see pictures in your head? Recall long-lost memories?

It's fascinating that we are all so different. I have never received "imagery" while listening to music, nor ever felt the need to. (Of course I can't help but hear the birds in Rameau's Le Rappel des Oiseaux but I doubt if that's what you mean)



> and elicits a severe emotional response in me


In me, too: Horror and loathing.



> I don't have to break it down in music theory terms.


Well you do, kind of. To explain what you believe is so masterful in a work of *music*, you have to use *music* terms. How else are we going to communicate?


----------



## mmsbls

Jas, DaveM, and LesCyclopes (and others with similar views): I understand what you are saying. I once had very similar views. There was nothing by Boulez, Ligeti, or many other modern composers that I liked. Further, I didn't just dislike them as I do much country music. I very strongly disliked the music. Early Schoenberg I liked, but anything atonal along with Berg's Violin Concerto sounded like random notes. In many cases I wondered why anyone would want to write such music. Could people truly enjoy listening to it? How was it possible that I adored so much music from early Renaissance through late Romantic but found modern music awful - truly awful?

And...I disliked The Rite of Spring, much of Debussy, Shostakovich, and Prokofiev. I also disliked Beethoven's Grosse Fuge. Those works were not as horrible as the other modern pieces, but I just didn't like them.

I came to TC specifically to learn to like a century's worth of music that I felt was a continuation of the music that I had come to love. I asked people how they learned to like it. I listened to just about everything people suggested. I listened again and again. Some things came somewhat easily - after some listening Debussy, Shostakovich, and Prokofiev became enjoyable. After more listening I liked some of Stravinsky. I found that the Grosse Fuge was not only enjoyable but eventually one of my favorite string quartets. Apparently I could learn to like music that I had disliked earlier.

After much more listening, other works started to sound better and even good. I realized that people can learn the musical "language" of modern composers and then appreciate the works. Some people don't need much listening to appreciate those works while others need much more. I took years to appreciate much of what I now like. The process is somewhat magical in that one day I found Berg's Violin Concerto unpleasant and the next I'm humming parts of it. I can't say how difficult it would be for any particular person to learn to like Boulez, Dutilleux, Lutoslawski, or atonal Schoenberg, but it is possible. Many here have done exactly what I have - gone from strongly disliking these works to loving some.

So, yes, you hate this stuff. Many do. And JAS, it _is_ an absolutely unfathomable mystery in some sense, and we are wired differently. More specifically, I am wired differently than I was several years ago. Learning is just that way. But I believe most can learn to enjoy many of these composers and works. You don't have to try, but for many of us, we're thrilled that we did. Incidentally I like Raff's 5th and many of Ries's Concertos, but I'm more likely to listen to Schoenberg's Piano Concerto, Lutoslawski's Piano Concerto, or Dutilleux's Cello Concertos. I just find them more interesting I guess.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> Btw: It occurs to me that audiences in the 19th century and before only had a few chances to appreciate given classical works since there were no recordings. My guess is that if it weren't for recordings there would be much less interest in contemporary music since one would have to go to several live performances to begin to understand the stuff.


I think that is a very interesting point. I have made a similar point on other threads. Starting in the 19th century, orchestras played fewer and fewer contemporary works until eventually it was rare to hear a contemporary work in concert. As best we know, classical music listeners did enjoy the music of composers writing a few decades earlier. So what is different about modern music such that many today hate some music of 100 years ago and much music of 70 years ago? People in 1900 certainly did not dislike Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Dvorak, Mendelssohn, or Chopin. Yet they could only hear several new works every month or so (if that). How did they learn to like the new music when people in 2000 seem unable to do so?

A few people have suggested to me that while Romantic music did evolve and not all composers sounded alike, Romantic works were vastly more similar to other such works than modern works are similar to each other. There is much more variety in the sounds and "language" of modern music than earlier. A young composer friend told me that one must almost listen to each modern composer to learn their particular "language". So it takes more listening - something many don't have time for or don't wish to do. There are probably other reasons for the difficulty in appreciating the music.


----------



## LesCyclopes

> After much more listening, other works started to sound better and even good. I realized that people can learn the musical "language" of modern composers and then appreciate the works.


Your perseverance is admirable and I don't doubt that the brain is plastic enough that it will learn to find pattern within & appreciate nearly anything over time. And yet... why?

I remember the first time I heard a Bach violin concerto. It took over my mind. I was mesmerised. Until that point, I would have said "I don't like classical music" (I was young  ) I didn't have to learn why people liked it or listen to it repeatedly until some sort of appreciation came. It was perfect that first time I heard it.

Such is the power of true masterpieces.


----------



## Chronochromie

LesCyclopes said:


> Your perseverance is admirable and I don't doubt that the brain is plastic enough that it will learn to find pattern within appreciate nearly anything over time. And yet... why?
> 
> I remember the first time I heard a Bach violin concerto. It took over my mind. I was mesmerised. Until that point, I would have said "I don't like classical music" (I was young  ) I didn't have to learn why people liked it or listen to it repeatedly until some sort of appreciation came. It was perfect that first time I heard it.
> 
> Such is the power of true masterpieces.


Some sort of appreciation was achieved to me on a first listen on most classical works that I like. If it wasn't, better luck next time, leave it alone for now. I didn't listen repeatedly to the _same piece_ over and over without pleasure. Of course I'm speaking for myself here.

It was also accumulative (?) to me, in the sense that once I liked Schoenberg, Debussy and Stravinsky, I quickly got Messiaen, Xenakis and Ligeti, who seemed totally impenetrable and borderline unlistenable (if somewhat intriguing) before.


----------



## jailhouse

ligeti is way easier to get into than middle-late schoenberg to me.

Ligeti is ****** catchy, especially works like the etudes..I can sing along to the fkin etudes. Couldn't sing a note of any Schoenberg piece (not saying i dont like him though)


----------



## mmsbls

Schoenberg was easier than Ligeti, and I still have trouble with many of Ligeti's works. I listened to Ligeti's etudes many times without success until I was listening to them while doing work. My attention was on my work when I realized that I was responding to the music. I focused back on the etudes and found that I enjoyed several. Awhile later I went back to listen to many more and found I enjoyed them all.


----------



## DaveM

Appreciate mmsbis's perspective. But I'm afraid my neurons are hard-wired...permanently.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

DaveM said:


> Here are three works by 19th century composers who are not necessarily in the top-tier, but listen to how engaging and instantly accessible the opening themes are. Then listen to the works by Schoenberg and Ligeti. Actually, I can tolerate the Schoenberg if forced to. On the other hand, the Ligeti is simply (IMO) bizarre.


Heck, the opening of Ligeti's violin concerto is so engaging and instantly accessible, it sounds like every hipster's favorite rock band:


----------



## Martin D

Nereffid said:


> Jeez, sorry to have wasted so much of your time.
> 
> What if I told you that the polls were only intended as a harmless bit of fun [blah blah]...


I'd have to think about that as it seemed to me that that you believed these polls would be capable of producing a more robust set of composer rankings than had been done previously using other methods.


----------



## Martin D

mmsbls said:


> It's my understanding that Nereffid started these polls to extend something I explored in this poll. I was simply trying to get a rough estimate of the percentage of TC members who like a set of composers who are generally viewed as some of the best. You can read my post to get a bit more background on why I was interested. Obviously my question has little to do with rankings of any kind (other than I selected top ranked composers as the target set).


Thanks for the reference to the previous thread. It puts matters in better context, and I can appreciate where you were coming from at the time. However, the follow-up seems to have spawned a bit of monster list of ensuing polls that have cluttered up a lot of board space over the past 6 months or so.

I still consider that the 43 polls look like a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Despite what you say, it was surely possible to have achieved the same broad aim but involving far fewer composers. Nor do I believe that the results tell us anything that couldn't be deduced from a combination of all the previous polls that were based more clearly on members' favourite composers. The latest ones simply identify a set of composers that people say they "like" and they rely on large numbers of respondents in each poll to provide the weighting to yield a (rough order of) ranking. Indeed, in order to provide a justification for his results Nereffid has compared the positions achieved by different eras of composers with the corresponding ranks achieved on various previous polls.

None of this recent discussion about modern composers being as popular as the classical era composers aside from Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn is new. I accept that the same is implied in the various older polls, in so far that those results can be trusted. I don't personally find this result to be surprising or all that significant. These 3 composers were so dominant that the remaining group from that era is almost bound to pale into insignificance by comparison.

In any case, I certainly wouldn't attempt to argue that this result shows that modern composers must somehow be good, since they are as much liked as the other classical era composers. It just seems like a naive comment to me. Who cares if some folk don't modern composers? It doesn't bother me. It's they who are missing out, and I doubt that any amount of statistical argument based on polls or whatever will persuade them to change their minds. Only experience in broadening their horizons will likely achieve that, and that takes a lot of time, but some will no doubt stay unconvinced.


----------



## mmsbls

Martin D said:


> However, the follow-up seems to have spawned a bit of monster list of ensuing polls that have cluttered up a lot of board space over the past 6 months or so.


Well, given that large numbers of forum members took part in the polls, I assume many members enjoyed the threads and didn't consider them cluttering the board.



Martin D said:


> I still consider that the 43 polls look like a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Despite what you say, it was surely possible to have achieved the same broad aim but involving far fewer composers. Nor do I believe that the results tell us anything that couldn't be deduced from a combination of all the previous polls that were based more clearly on members' favourite composers.


The polls did two things. First, they provided some entertainment (fun) for forum members. Second, they allow us to get an estimate of the percentage of members who like specific composers. Perhaps you don't find that very interesting, but some of us do. One could argue that we don't need to know that information about 600 composers, but maybe it's useful to be more inclusive.

When you talk about a nut to crack and "the same broad aim", I think you view that aim differently than Nereffid and I do. You've argued that these polls do not allow us to properly rank composers. I agree. But I also think "a combination of all the previous polls that were based more clearly on members' favourite composers" can not be used to determine the percentage of members who like specific composers. Those are different questions.


----------



## ArtMusic

mmsbls said:


> ...
> 
> The polls did two things. First, they provided some entertainment (fun) for forum members. Second, they allow us to get an estimate of the percentage of members who like specific composers. Perhaps you don't find that very interesting, but some of us do. ....


Agree entirely about the first point.


----------



## isorhythm

JAS said:


> Your reply is admirably pleasant, and, really, I don't mean any disrespect . . . and yet this is an absolutely unfathomable mystery to me. (I would have an easier time understanding why someone might want to eat a fried tarantula, although I admit to never having tried one, nor finding those I have seen on TV the least bit appealing.) I will save those links for another day. I think I have already strained my tolerance level for now.
> 
> Oh, and where was the concert held?


I suspect you'll like at least one of his links.


----------



## Chronochromie

JAS said:


> Oh, and where was the concert held?


Teatro Colón, Buenos Aires.


----------



## janxharris

Chronochromie said:


> ...while the Schoenberg and Ligeti, now that I've absorbed their musical language are clearly the works of masters...


Can you justify describing Schoenberg's work (ie this piano concerto) as a masterpiece? There probably aren't many folk that would object when it comes to Beethoven's 5th symphony (etc)...but this?


----------



## janxharris

LesCyclopes said:


> What does this mean? Do you see pictures in your head? Recall long-lost memories?
> 
> It's fascinating that we are all so different. I have never received "imagery" while listening to music, nor ever felt the need to.


Not even to Beethoven's pastoral symphony? This is interesting because I'd say that I only really begin to enjoy music IF I can visualise...something.

Else it just becomes sine waves.


----------



## Martin D

mmsbls said:


> When you talk about a nut to crack and "the same broad aim", I think you view that aim differently than Nereffid and I do. You've argued that these polls do not allow us to properly rank composers. I agree. But I also think "a combination of all the previous polls that were based more clearly on members' favourite composers" can not be used to determine the percentage of members who like specific composers. Those are different questions.


Thank you again for your comments. However, I'm afraid there may be a misunderstanding on both issues you raise above.

First, I don't doubt that a version of Nereffid type polls based simply on "likes" can, in principle, be used to rank composers. What I'm arguing is that I wouldn't be inclined to place much faith in Nereffid's particular results. This is partly because his definition of "like" is far too open-ended to be of much use. It is also partly due to large numbers of people evidently dropping out when confronted with lists of composers in the later polls whom they don't like, rather than saying so in the polls. All this makes for additional sources of bias, over and above the usual problems faced by forum-based polls where there is generally no control over who votes. The problem, I guess, is that in providing "fun" for some members, the whole thing has been compromised by including too many composers, spinning things out for too long, and thus almost inviting bias to creep in. If things had been kept simpler, with a fixed maximum of "likes" it would have been far better. But that seems to be go against the modus operandi of Nereffid's polls, where things are kept very widely open.

Secondly, and importantly, I have to disagree with you that conventional polls can't be used to determine the percentage of members who like specific composers. I wasn't saying that all previous polls can be used for this purpose. The relevant ones I had in mind are those where voters were asked to select a specified number of preferred composers. It would seem that there have been several of these. I'm not sure I've seen all of them but I have now identified polls going back as far as 2011 asking for people to list their favourite 10, 25, or 100 composers.

In all of those historic "favourite" type of composer polls, I note that some voters listed their favourites in rank order, whilst others didn't manage that but simply provided a list in no particular order. Obviously, in order to get the required information it's necessary to go back to the basic data as submitted by the voters, but in principle the process is very simple. One simply sets up a spreadsheet matrix containing each voter's name down one column and then populate the remaining columns for each composer with each voter's preferences. A suitable weighting system can be applied if appropriate, or simply use binary 1, 0 to indicate whether or not a particular composer was selected. At the end of the voting process, the contents of each column are added to give a total score for each composer, and the percentage of members who like specific composers can be easily derived from the same matrix. It's all simple and elementary stuff.

Therefore, I reiterate that Nereffid's "like" composer polls tell us nothing that can't be obtained from standard, conventional polls asking for lists of favourites. The latter would be much better if the number of composers selected by each voter is constrained in some way, and/or if the total votes cast by each voter can be fixed in a fair and sensible way. Art Rock has suggested a useful way forward here, to handle the "Beethoven fan-boy" types.


----------



## LesCyclopes

> Heck, the opening of Ligeti's violin concerto is so engaging and instantly accessible, it sounds like every hipster's favorite rock band:


You must be joking. It sounds like a 2-year-old running a bow on the violin. I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but IMHO that is about as "engaging" about fingernails on a blackboard.

Rock music sounds nothing like that, either.


----------



## WildThing

LesCyclopes said:


> You must be joking. It sounds like a 2-year-old running a bow on the violin. I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but IMHO that is about as "engaging" about fingernails on a blackboard.
> 
> Rock music sounds nothing like that, either.


Did you click the second link in his post? Are you denying there is a resemblance between that and The Velvet Underground song he posted, or are you saying The Velvet Underground doesn't qualify as "rock" music?


----------



## starthrower

Magnum Miserium said:


> Okay, let's say he is, but he still wrote his last major work more than 50 years ago.


You're the one that brought up his name.


----------



## starthrower

LesCyclopes said:


> I can sort of understand if you listened to Baroque music decades ago and then your taste in music slowly changed and now you listen to modern works like the ones posted above. However, I honestly find it hard to believe that anyone can truly enjoy *both* - as in, sit down and listen to Bach's St Matthew's Passion in the afternoon and then enjoy Boulez's Structures in the evening.


Now that's your problem, isn't it? Believe it or not, many people can appreciate and enjoy music from 300 years ago right up to the present.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

starthrower said:


> You're the one that brought up his name.


Okay, so who have we got after Stravinsky who's as good as... I won't say Beethoven, but heck, who have we got after Stravinsky who's even as good as Stravinsky?


----------



## starthrower

"As good as" is totally subjective. But there were so many fine composers all throughout the 20th century. I'm not going to make a list because we've had these discussions many times before. That's what the search engine is for.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

starthrower said:


> "As good as" is totally subjective. But there were so many fine composers all throughout the 20th century. I'm not going to make a list because we've had these discussions many times before. That's what the search engine is for.


This seems to imply that I don't know more recent composers. The posts I've already made here disprove that.


----------



## LesCyclopes

WildThing said:


> Are you denying there is a resemblance between that and The Velvet Underground song


My comment was a general one ("That doesn't sound like rock music") because the post I replied to was also general ("it sounds like every hipster's favorite rock band"). No, it doesn't.

To answer your question, though: There is only a very superficial "resemblance" between the opening of Ligeti's violin concerto and that Velvet Underground song. Contrary to L's piece, VU song has rhythm, pattern, and bass continuo that complement the voice-over. Yes, VU song has a bit of dissonance and a slight mistuning but it is unmistakably music (in the traditional sense of the word denoting harmony, not the modern one that is meant to include stuff like Ligeti's).


----------



## LesCyclopes

> Now that's your problem, isn't it? Believe it or not, many people can appreciate and enjoy music from 300 years ago right up to the present.


I don't think I have a problem but thank you for caring.

Sure, people say they appreciate and enjoy "all music" but I suspect that is a bit like a medical doctor also being a homeopath on the side. Yes, those people also exist. No, I don't understand how they can go to medical school, learn about chemistry and medication, and then believe that solutions get stronger the more they are diluted.


----------



## isorhythm

LesCyclopes said:


> You must be joking. It sounds like a 2-year-old running a bow on the violin. I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but IMHO that is about as "engaging" about fingernails on a blackboard.


No.

We're all entitled to our opinions, but not all opinions are equally valuable.


----------



## Chronochromie

LesCyclopes said:


> I don't think I have a problem but thank you for caring.
> 
> Sure, people say they appreciate and enjoy "all music" but I suspect that is a bit like a medical doctor also being a homeopath on the side. Yes, those people also exist. No, I don't understand how they can go to medical school, learn about chemistry and medication, and then believe that solutions get stronger the more they are diluted.


So now we're compared to frauds? Nice. :lol:


----------



## Chronochromie

janxharris said:


> Can you justify describing Schoenberg's work (ie this piano concerto) as a masterpiece? There probably aren't many folk that would object when it comes to Beethoven's 5th symphony (etc)...but this?


What do you mean by "justify"? I think it's hauntingly beautiful. I'm no good at describing music technically if that's what you want.


----------



## Bulldog

LesCyclopes said:


> I can sort of understand if you listened to Baroque music decades ago and then your taste in music slowly changed and now you listen to modern works like the ones posted above. However, I honestly find it hard to believe that anyone can truly enjoy *both* - as in, sit down and listen to Bach's St Matthew's Passion in the afternoon and then enjoy Boulez's Structures in the evening.


You don't need to understand why a person enjoys both; all you have to do is respect and accept it. Put another way, it's a bad idea to take your subjective preferences and apply them to others.


----------



## mmsbls

LesCyclopes said:


> Sure, people say they appreciate and enjoy "all music" but I suspect that is a bit like a medical doctor also being a homeopath on the side. Yes, those people also exist. No, I don't understand how they can go to medical school, learn about chemistry and medication, and then believe that solutions get stronger the more they are diluted.


Personally I view modern classical music as distinctly different from earlier classical and from popular music. From a theoretical perspective, I'm not sure how truly different they are, but they certainly sound enormously different to me. I also understand how someone who loves pre-modern classical could wonder how anyone could like modern music. But many on this forum speak casually of enjoying both. In many threads both pre-modern and modern music works are discussed with no special distinction between them.

Are you saying you find it amazing that there are people who do actually enjoy both genres, or are you saying you are skeptical that those people truly do enjoy both?


----------



## Nereffid

mmsbls said:


> The polls did two things. First, they provided some entertainment (fun) for forum members. Second, they allow us to get an estimate of the percentage of members who like specific composers. Perhaps you don't find that very interesting, but some of us do. One could argue that we don't need to know that information about 600 composers, but maybe it's useful to be more inclusive.





ArtMusic said:


> Agree entirely about the first point.


Oh, Art! 
As a fellow pollster, I'm hurt that you don't have my back on the second point too! :lol:


----------



## starthrower

LesCyclopes said:


> I don't think I have a problem but thank you for caring.
> 
> Sure, people say they appreciate and enjoy "all music" but I suspect that is a bit like a medical doctor also being a homeopath on the side. Yes, those people also exist. No, I don't understand how they can go to medical school, learn about chemistry and medication, and then believe that solutions get stronger the more they are diluted.


I don't see how this analogy has anything to do with listeners enjoying a broad range of music?


----------



## mmsbls

Martin D said:


> What I'm arguing is that I wouldn't be inclined to place much faith in Nereffid's particular results. This is partly because his definition of "like" is far too open-ended to be of much use.


I agree that "like" is not well defined, but I don't need it to be precisely defined. People know whether they generally enjoy a composer. It's that sense that I'm interested in rather than something more precise. I'm sure people sometimes had to think a bit about certain composers, but that uncertainty I believe is in the noise (i.e. I'm not interested in precise results here).



Martin D said:


> It is also partly due to large numbers of people evidently dropping out when confronted with lists of composers in the later polls whom they don't like, rather than saying so in the polls. All this makes for additional sources of bias, over and above the usual problems faced by forum-based polls where there is generally no control over who votes.


When people drop out, the statistical uncertainty rises. It's not clear that bias (systematic uncertainty) increases. It's possible that people who choose to vote in every poll have a significantly different set of likes than those who didn't vote, but it's not clear why that would be. If some people simple got a bit tired of the exercise, there likely would be no bias.



Martin D said:


> Secondly, and importantly, I have to disagree with you that conventional polls can't be used to determine the percentage of members who like specific composers. I wasn't saying that all previous polls can be used for this purpose. The relevant ones I had in mind are those where voters were asked to select a specified number of preferred composers. It would seem that there have been several of these. I'm not sure I've seen all of them but I have now identified polls going back as far as 2011 asking for people to list their favourite 10, 25, or 100 composers.


The problem with the polls you mention is precisely that they limit the number of composers one can select. If people select 25 composers, we don't know if they like 50 or 400 composers. How many people would put Raff in their top 25 compared to how many like Raff? If no one selected Raff in their top 25, should we assume that Raff is liked by 0%?

The big problem is that there is a huge difference between selecting composers based on how much one likes them and simply indicating one likes them. I like Vieuxtemps, but I doubt he would make my top 200. Nereffid's polls allow us to get a reasonable estimate on what percentage of TC members actually enjoy a particular composer and make very rough comparisons to how many enjoy other composers. I think that's interesting.


----------



## DaveM

LesCyclopes said:


> I don't think I have a problem but thank you for caring.
> 
> Sure, people say they appreciate and enjoy "all music" but I suspect that is a bit like a medical doctor also being a homeopath on the side. Yes, those people also exist. No, I don't understand how they can go to medical school, learn about chemistry and medication, and then believe that solutions get stronger the more they are diluted.


I understand it. It's not so much that they believe in the theory as much as they believe in income enhancement.


----------



## DaveM

Bulldog said:


> You don't need to understand why a person enjoys both; all you have to do is respect and accept it. Put another way, it's a bad idea to take your subjective preferences and apply them to others.


In other words, 'end of discussion'. All that is going on here is an attempt to process, not judge.


----------



## Art Rock

DaveM said:


> In other words, 'end of discussion'. All that is going on here is an attempt to process, not judge.


The posts by LesCyclopes are more about judgement than processing if you ask me.


----------



## Bulldog

DaveM said:


> In other words, 'end of discussion'. All that is going on here is an attempt to process, not judge.


No, I advocate an end to the disrespect of the musical preferences of others. That should take less than a minute to process.


----------



## KenOC

"Why is contemporary classical music often so poorly received by today's audiences?"

If true, it has to be because too many people don't like it much. QED and all that!


----------



## Chronochromie

Great contribution as usual there, Ken. Much like you unsourced claim in the first page.

I'm waiting patiently for JAS to see how he liked the Études I linked.


----------



## Strange Magic

mmsbls said:


> A few people have suggested to me that while Romantic music did evolve and not all composers sounded alike, Romantic works were vastly more similar to other such works than modern works are similar to each other. There is much more variety in the sounds and "language" of modern music than earlier. A young composer friend told me that one must almost listen to each modern composer to learn their particular "language". So it takes more listening - something many don't have time for or don't wish to do. There are probably other reasons for the difficulty in appreciating the music.


mmsbis, with his usual acumen, has put his finger on something which is at least a part of the reason why there is less enthusiasm for contemporary classical music than its advocates wish. Asking numbers of people to put in that time, effort, and energy to absorb all these particular "languages" is unrealistic. The TC audience, though, contains a goodly share of CM hobbyists--some to the point of obsession, with huge libraries of thousands(?!) of CDs--and many of these are great fans of contemporary CM. The advent of low-cost recordings and of YouTube performances/recordings offering almost an infinite number and variety of choices would be cause for astonishment for our grand or great-grandparents, who would hear CM rarely, perhaps on the radio or in the concert hall. So I think that the vastness and effort of the project to become familiar with and then to enjoy large quantities of contemporary classical music tends to put a limit on its popularity relative to that of earlier eras.


----------



## Nereffid

mmsbls said:


> When people drop out, the statistical uncertainty rises. It's not clear that bias (systematic uncertainty) increases. It's possible that people who choose to vote in every poll have a significantly different set of likes than those who didn't vote, but it's not clear why that would be. If some people simple got a bit tired of the exercise, there likely would be no bias.


I'm currently working my way systematically through every poll and logging every individual's votes because there's lots of potentially interesting information to be had (such as, _what proportion of people who like Boulez also like Glass?_) and because I want to see if (or to what extent) there's a difference between regular voters and sporadic voters. Though the number of participants has clearly dropped since the first few polls, I think a considerable amount of the decline is simply the novelty wearing off. Pretty much every poll has at least 1 or 2 people who've not voted in any others, and there were dozens of voters who only started participating _after_ the earlier polls. I'll allow that there is a little bit of a difference between regular and sporadic voters in terms of average number of composers they vote for per poll (3.1 vs 2.7), but is that significant enough to produce a very different outcome?

Anyway, this is enough off-topic comment from me for the moment.


----------



## DaveM

Bulldog said:


> No, I advocate an end to the disrespect of the musical preferences of others. That should take less than a minute to process.


The nice thing about the current discussion about this controversial subject is that no one is being disrespectful and almost no one is taking it personally.


----------



## mmsbls

Nereffid said:


> I'm currently working my way systematically through every poll and logging every individual's votes because there's lots of potentially interesting information to be had (such as, _what proportion of people who like Boulez also like Glass?_) and because I want to see if (or to what extent) there's a difference between regular voters and sporadic voters. Though the number of participants has clearly dropped since the first few polls, I think a considerable amount of the decline is simply the novelty wearing off. Pretty much every poll has at least 1 or 2 people who've not voted in any others, and there were dozens of voters who only started participating _after_ the earlier polls. I'll allow that there is a little bit of a difference between regular and sporadic voters in terms of average number of composers they vote for per poll (3.1 vs 2.7), but is that significant enough to produce a very different outcome?


I almost mentioned in one post that someone _could_ go through the polls to extract just that data, and knowing you, I wondered if you would do exactly that. It's a pain in the ***, but data are data. So....thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, and thank you. Needless to say, I'm eagerly looking forward to your results.

NOTE: We probably are derailing the thread too much, but I guess it's hard to put these issues on hold until you start your results thread. Maybe start one with a simple "results to come" just to move these issues there?


----------



## RRod

Strange Magic said:


> mmsbis, with his usual acumen, has put his finger on something which is at least a part of the reason why there is less enthusiasm for contemporary classical music than its advocates wish. Asking numbers of people to put in that time, effort, and energy to absorb all these particular "languages" is unrealistic. The TC audience, though, contains a goodly share of CM hobbyists--some to the point of obsession, with huge libraries of thousands(?!) of CDs--and many of these are great fans of contemporary CM. The advent of low-cost recordings and of YouTube performances/recordings offering almost an infinite number and variety of choices would be cause for astonishment for our grand or great-grandparents, who would hear CM rarely, perhaps on the radio or in the concert hall. So I think that the vastness and effort of the project to become familiar with and then to enjoy large quantities of contemporary classical music tends to put a limit on its popularity relative to that of earlier eras.


This is why I said earlier that a statement like "how could anyone like ANY of this stuff?" doesn't make much sense, because "this stuff" isn't a melting pot, it's a mixing bowl.


----------



## Martin D

mmsbls said:


> When people drop out, the statistical uncertainty rises. It's not clear that bias (systematic uncertainty) increases. It's possible that people who choose to vote in every poll have a significantly different set of likes than those who didn't vote, but it's not clear why that would be. If some people simple got a bit tired of the exercise, there likely would be no bias.


I agree there would no systematic bias in the case of people who drop because they have tired of the process of voting, or because they were not available for other reasons (e.g. have gone on vacation, are unwell, left the Forum, etc).

Distorting bias would be expected to arise in the case of those folk who could have voted but didn't do so because they didn't like any of the composers on offer but didn't register a "none" vote. This is because if they had registered a "none" vote, consistent with their true opinion, the total number of voters would be larger than shown in the tables, and the percentages for the "liked" composers thus reduced.

My suspicion is that the bias category is not insignificant. This is partly because the composers in the later polls are less popular than those in the earlier ones. There may have been an organisational failure here to provide a broad parity across all polls.

In order to probe this potential bias matter further, in the final results (assuming they get presented some time) it would be nice to see a matrix of all the voters who participated in all 43 polls cross tabulated against each of the top 100 composers or so, in order to examine who voted for which composers, and who didn't. I'm not sure this will necessarily reveal all that much but it might do.



mmsbls said:


> The problem with the polls you mention is precisely that they limit the number of composers one can select. If people select 25 composers, we don't know if they like 50 or 400 composers. How many people would put Raff in their top 25 compared to how many like Raff? If no one selected Raff in their top 25, should we assume that Raff is liked by 0%?


I agree with this up to a point. I think that 10 is probably too low for some people. Maybe 100 is too many for most. It's difficult to know where to pitch it ideally (the "Goldilocks" number) but I think that 25 is probably not an unreasonable figure for most voters. Possibly the best solution would be to allow each voter to decide between a minimum and maximum number of composers to put forward, within reasonable bounds, with a fixed points total so as not to penalise people who wish to nominate only a few composers.

In any case, as Art Rock pointed out, there is no harm in making estimates at the aggegate level for lower ranked composers beyond the requested figure from each voter. This might capture some of the lesser composers in one's own list of favourites who happen to fall outside the requested limit.

Obviously, there must be a limit to how far this extension can be done, since otherwise it could be argued that we only need to ask each voter which composer is their No 1 favourite, in the hope that sufficient people will name, say, Unsuk Chin or whoever in the expectation that enough voters will place her as their No 1 composer so as to be able to place her at an overall No 112, or whatever. I don't somehow think that would work too well as it would clearly be expecting far too much from the statistics.



mmsbls said:


> The big problem is that there is a huge difference between selecting composers based on how much one likes them and simply indicating one likes them. I like Vieuxtemps, but I doubt he would make my top 200. Nereffid's polls allow us to get a reasonable estimate on what percentage of TC members actually enjoy a particular composer and make very rough comparisons to how many enjoy other composers. I think that's interesting.


I agree that there is a big difference. However, I think that decisions which have zero cost penalties for making errors are of less value than ones which involve the exercise of choice based on rationally allocating a scarce resource (i.e. one's budget and/or listening time available) amongst alternative ends (i.e. finding enough time to listen to the works of the many composers who compete for our attention).

In summary, I maintain my opinion that "like" based polls do not tell us anything of much value that can't be gleaned in a more reliable manner from preference based polls. For example, knowing whether or not some people like certain composers in the sub-200 league is of no consequence to me.


----------



## janxharris

Chronochromie said:


> What do you mean by "justify"? I think it's hauntingly beautiful. I'm no good at describing music technically if that's what you want.


Perhaps I thought you were speaking objectively. No need to justify a subjective opinion.


----------



## JAS

Chronochromie said:


> Great contribution as usual there, Ken. Much like you unsourced claim in the first page.
> 
> I'm waiting patiently for JAS to see how he liked the Études I linked.


I had to dig back several pages to find the links. (My, the thread has been busy.) Nearly through my first pass of the set of links. (First, I attempted the violin concerto which was also linked. For the first few moments I was wondering how long the tuning up would last before the piece began, but soon enough, I was yearning for the tuning to return. I only managed 3 1/3 minutes. The Velvet Underground piece was nearly as horrible. Is that really popular music, even among "hipsters"?)


----------



## JAS

RRod said:


> This is why I said earlier that a statement like "how could anyone like ANY of this stuff?" doesn't make much sense, because "this stuff" isn't a melting pot, it's a mixing bowl.


No matter how many different bugs someone puts in my salad, I don't want to eat any of it. The implication of your statement is that modern music is so diverse that there is something for everyone, which is not necessarily a valid idea.


----------



## RRod

JAS said:


> No matter how many different bugs someone puts in my salad, I don't want to eat any of it. The implication of your statement is that modern music is so diverse that there is something for everyone, which is not necessarily a valid idea.


No the implication is that there are too many distinct styles that fall under "modern" that any broad generalization is pointless, as is any attempt to select an archetypical modern composer.


----------



## Chronochromie

JAS said:


> I had to dig back several pages to find the links. (My, the thread has been busy.) Nearly through my first pass of the set of links. (First, I attempted the violin concerto which was also linked. For the first few moments I was wondering how long the tuning up would last before the piece began, but soon enough, I was yearning for the tuning to return. I only managed 3 1/3 minutes. The Velvet Underground piece was nearly as horrible. Is that really popular music, even among "hipsters"?)


I think you'll like the Études I linked better than those other linked works.

And yes, Black Angel Death Song was it? It doesn't get mentioned as often as other songs from that album but I like it, and that album is very highly regarded, even by Rolling Stone mag, not exactly hipster territory, at least not anymore.


----------



## JAS

RRod said:


> No the implication is that there are too many distinct styles that fall under "modern" that any broad generalization is pointless, as is any attempt to select an archetypical modern composer.


So, in your view, we cannot say that we don't care for modern music, as a broad generalization. Instead, we have to list all of the specific composers or works that we don't like? That isn't going to work.


----------



## JAS

Chronochromie said:


> I think you'll like the Études I linked better than those other linked works.


I think it would be more accurate to say that they are less horrifying. I get absolutely nothing intelligible or emotional in response to any of these. (The Devil's Staircase at least had some sense of cohesion, perhaps mostly because it mostly maintained a consistent rhythm. And he really seems to like noodling around all of the keys in an area rather than just hitting a given note.) Cordes a vide was the least noisy, but it just sounded pointless. White on White began in a similar vein, but about 2 minutes in just sounded as if someone was hitting keys more or less at random. For Fanfares, there was a second recording by someone else (Hsiu-Ping Chang), and I wondered if it would be recognizable as the same piece. Aside from the fact that it has no memorable melody for me to remember, there seemed to be some similarity, although it seemed to me that she was playing it faster and somewhat jazzier. I may be mistaken, but I do think you could have a computer generate this sort of thing.

Another youtube piece that came up after one of the selections was something called Hungarian Rock. It was amusing to see comments that, seriously I think, were complaining that the rhythm was wrong. All I could think was, how can you tell?


----------



## Chronochromie

JAS said:


> I think it would be more accurate to say that they are less horrifying. I get absolutely nothing intelligible or emotional in response to any of these. (The Devil's Staircase at least had some sense of cohesion, perhaps mostly because it mostly maintained a consistent rhythm. And he really seems to like noodling around all of the keys in an area rather than just hitting a given note.) Cordes a vide was the least noisy, but it just sounded pointless. White on White began in a similar vein, but about 2 minutes in just sounded as if someone was hitting keys more or less at random. For Fanfares, there was a second recording by someone else (Hsiu-Ping Chang), and I wondered if it would be recognizable as the same piece. Aside from the fact that it has no memorable melody for me to remember, there seemed to be some similarity, although it seemed to me that she was playing it faster and somewhat jazzier. I may be mistaken, but I do think you could have a computer generate this sort of thing.
> 
> Another youtube piece that came up after one of the selections was something called Hungarian Rock. It was amusing to see comments that, seriously I think, were complaining that the rhythm was wrong. All I could think was, how can you tell?


Hmm...I hear melody in all of those...I would like to see a computer pump out a Ligeti piece, somehow I doubt that it would work though!

I'm afraid I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you just don't like these pieces but at least you tried to listen to them with (hopefully) an open mind. That's more than what can be said of others who trash Modern or Contemporary music.


----------



## JAS

Chronochromie said:


> Hmm...I hear melody in all of those...I would like to see a computer pump out a Ligeti piece, somehow I doubt that it would work though!
> 
> I'm afraid I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you just don't like these pieces but at least you tried to listen to them with (hopefully) an open mind. That's more than what can be said of others who trash Modern or Contemporary music.


It is not impossible that I could write a computer program that cranked out what sounded to me exactly like these pieces, and did not sound like them to you. (I don't actually have a computer that is hooked to a synthesizer, and I don't know that the exercise would be worth the effort, so I suppose the question will remain academic.)

I do appreciate your willingness to direct me to a few specific pieces, which is probably more meaningful than me just grabbing things at random. I feel somewhat better in thinking with greater confidence that there really just isn't anything for me in any of this, RRod's dictum against such phrasing notwithstanding.


----------



## JAS

. . . and now I am off to try to find youtube samples for Furtwangler's symphonies. I understand that they "were written as if late Stravinsky and Schoenberg never existed." It is always interesting to sample works written by someone who is much more famous for conducting the works of others, although usually the career choice seems a good move in hindsight.


----------



## JAS

And being pretty sure that I was not the first to think of a computer writing modern classical music, here is a link that might be interesting. (Of course, it would probably be more interesting to know what others thought of it without knowing beforehand that a computer was the composer.)

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5973551/this...ated-by-a-supercomputer-in-less-than-a-second


----------



## Chronochromie

JAS said:


> I do appreciate your willingness to direct me to a few specific pieces, which is probably more meaningful than me just grabbing things at random. I feel somewhat better in thinking with greater confidence that there really just isn't anything for me in any of this, RRod's dictum against such phrasing notwithstanding.


Well, even though I and many others consider Ligeti to be one of the best Contemporary composers, there _are_ many other important names who are very very different to him (and not necessarily more dissonant or weird or what have you), from the American Minimalists like Reich and Glass to the the Spectralists Grisey and Murail. I don't know what other music you've heard, and I won't recommend anything if you don't want to. If you consider that you don't like and probably won't like anything else, that's your own choice, but bear in mind that there is (at least I think) something for (almost) everyone.


----------



## Chronochromie

JAS said:


> And being pretty sure that I was not the first to think of a computer writing modern classical music, here is a link that might be interesting. (Of course, it would probably be more interesting to know what others thought of it without knowing beforehand that a computer was the composer.)
> 
> http://io9.gizmodo.com/5973551/this...ated-by-a-supercomputer-in-less-than-a-second


I do remember the computer who wrote Beatles songs that sounded like terrible parodies.


----------



## DaveM

RRod said:


> No the implication is that there are too many distinct styles that fall under "modern" that any broad generalization is pointless, as is any attempt to select an archetypical modern composer.


I believe a broad generalization is possible. It's interesting to me that there is a mixed message coming from the modern music supporters. Some, such as mmsbis acknowledge the distinct general difference most contemporary music and the music that preceded it. Others try to claim that there is nothing general about.

I am well aware that there are several sub-divisions of modern classical music and that the styles of the more recent composers varies widely. But one thing that _almost_ all of them have in common is that there is not the early presentation of an easily distinguishable melody and the development thereof. Virtually none of this music sounds anything like a Rachmaninoff or the very few 20th century composers whose music stayed somewhat within the realm of the romantic era.


----------



## Chronochromie

DaveM said:


> I believe a broad generalization is possible. I am well aware that there are several sub-divisions of modern classical music and that the styles of the more recent composers varies widely. But one thing that _almost_ all of them have in common is that there is not the early presentation of an easily distinguishable melody and the development thereof. Virtually none of this music sounds anything like a Rachmaninoff or the very few 20th century composers whose music stayed somewhat within the realm of the romantic era.


Would it be better automatically if it was? Would you want it to be more like Rachmaninov, and if so why exactly? Debussy, Schoenberg and Stravinsky already sound nothing like Rachmaninov. If Classical moved on from Romanticism then it would be because I find it hard to believe that most great creative artists would be ok with just rehashing music of the past.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

DaveM said:


> Virtually none of this music sounds anything like a Rachmaninoff or the very few 20th century composers whose music stayed somewhat within the realm of the romantic era.


Ravel is the opposite of Romantic and also like a million times better at melody than Rachmaninoff.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

If I rules that world I'd just cut to the chase and ban all music pre 1900 and make all radio stations play 50% of their playlist as contemporary classical music and I'd be listening (or have the secret service) make sure they did.............


----------



## DaveM

Chronochromie said:


> ... If you consider that you don't like and probably won't like anything else, that's your own choice, but bear in mind that there is (at least I think) something for (almost) everyone.


(I've appreciated your balanced approach on this subject so this is just for the sake of discussion.) I don't think there is something for people like myself and (I think) JAS. On the flip side, I am always amazed at the lukewarm response from some of the 'modernists' here that I get when I post actual examples of what I call music with accessible melody. That occurred with those I posted earlier in this thread.

As another example, the following is an end-title piece called Soul of the Age from the movie, Anonymous. It was composed only in the last 10 years and could have easily (with a few minor changes) served as the Adagio movement of a cello concerto from the 1800s. When I first posted it on this forum last year, one of the first responses from a big fan of contemporary music was that it was 'vapid'. I was dismayed because to me it is an exquisitely beautiful work. IMO, it is hard to come up with melodies like that and I have heard virtually nothing like it in the contemporary pieces that have been recommended in this thread or other threads like it.


----------



## Chronochromie

DaveM said:


> (I've appreciated your balanced approach on this subject so this is just for the sake of discussion.) I don't think there is something for people like myself and (I think) JAS. On the flip side, I am always amazed at the lukewarm response from some of the 'modernists' here that I get when I post actual examples of what I call music with accessible melody. That occurred with those I posted earlier in this thread.
> 
> As another example, the following is an end-title piece called Soul of the Age from the movie, Anonymous. It was composed only in the last 10 years and could have easily (with a few minor changes) served as the Adagio movement of a cello concerto from the 1800s. When I first posted it on this forum last year, one of the first responses from a big fan of contemporary music was that it was 'vapid'. I was dismayed because to me it is an exquisitely beautiful work. IMO, it is hard to come up with melodies like that and I have heard virtually nothing like that in the contemporary pieces that have been recommended in this thread or other threads like it.


"Accessible melody" is difficult to talk about when we can't agree on it. I shared with JAS a couple of Études with what I thought were accessible melodies but he didn't hear it as such. So while I think much contemporary music that I like has melody, you might not notice it or agree that it's "accessible".
The music you shared above is pleasant enough, but I don't find much to hold my interest (it's also film music, I get it, it's not supposed to stand on its own, and I don't think it does). It's also so short and without development that it couldn't as it is be a middle movement of a Romantic concerto.


----------



## JAS

So, I am curious as to what reactions those who like modern music have to the computer music for which I posted a link.

For convenience, here it is again: http://io9.gizmodo.com/5973551/this...ated-by-a-supercomputer-in-less-than-a-second


----------



## JAS

Magnum Miserium said:


> Ravel is the opposite of Romantic and also like a million times better at melody than Rachmaninoff.


I am not at all sure how one measures the level of skill "at melody," but for the sake of trying to understand your point, what is an example of what you think is a Ravel "melody" that far exceeds anything Rachmaninoff wrote? (Feel free to name more than one.)


----------



## DaveM

Chronochromie said:


> ...It's also so short and without development that it couldn't as it is be a middle movement of a Romantic concerto.


With the addition of even a short development it could be. IMO, coming up with an original and substantial melody is always the hard part.


----------



## DaveM

JAS said:


> I am not at all sure how one measures the level of skill "at melody," but for the sake of trying to understand your point, what is an example of what you think is a Ravel "melody" that far exceeds anything Rachmaninoff wrote? (Feel free to name more than one.)


More specifically, it must be a 'million times' better...


----------



## JAS

DaveM said:


> More specifically, it must be a 'million times' better...


Actually, 183,421 times (or more) will be quite sufficient. (We can leave the rest as hyperbole.)


----------



## Chronochromie

JAS said:


> So, I am curious as to what reactions those who like modern music have to the computer music for which I posted a link.
> 
> For convenience, here it is again: http://io9.gizmodo.com/5973551/this...ated-by-a-supercomputer-in-less-than-a-second


Okay, I gave it a listen.

I don't find it interesting, kind of aimless (in a bad way, not in the "oh, Debussy is aimless" way), with awkward pauses and the harpsichord not contributing in any way to what the violinist was doing and viceversa, which took out any interest I had in what one of them might have been doing. It doesn't sound much like any contemporary music I've heard, except maybe some student pieces on Soundcloud. I'm not opposed to listening to music made by computers if it's interesting, but this isn't it.


----------



## JAS

Chronochromie said:


> Okay, I gave it a listen.
> 
> I don't find it interesting, kind of aimless (in a bad way, not in the "oh, Debussy is aimless" way), with awkward pauses and the harpsichord not contributing in any way to what the violinist was doing and viceversa, which took out any interest I had in what one of them might have been doing. It doesn't sound much like any contemporary music I've heard, except maybe some student pieces on Soundcloud. I'm not opposed to listening to music made by computers if it's interesting, but this isn't it.


But that is pretty much what most "modern" music sounds like to me. I am sure that alterations to the program could be made to direct a broader use of patterns, although I suppose if a programmer made too much of the settings he might be accused of, in effect, composing the music and letting the computer orchestrate it. (I am a little surprised that they don't just have the computer play the music, which would eliminate any interpretive contribution the human players might make.)

For DaveM, if you could listen to the computer-written music in the link, does that sound like most "modern" music to you?

This fundamental impossibility of agreeing on words like melody, beautiful, etc. probably represents an absolute impasse, although I have found much of the discussion interesting.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

JAS said:


> I am not at all sure how one measures the level of skill "at melody," but for the sake of trying to understand your point, what is an example of what you think is a Ravel "melody" that far exceeds anything Rachmaninoff wrote? (Feel free to name more than one.)


Nah, I've already won this one. If you know Ravel's music you know I'm right, and if you don't then you can't say it's because Ravel is Inaccessible or whatever, because Ravel is downright popular. Classical radio plays way more Ravel than Rachmaninoff. Not that it could be any other way, since as far as popular reception goes Rachmaninoff is a two hit wonder.


----------



## Chronochromie

JAS said:


> But that is pretty much what most "modern" music sounds like to me.


Well, it's a shame, I don't know what to tell you anymore.



JAS said:


> (I am a little surprised that they don't just have the computer play the music, which would eliminate any interpretive contribution the human players might make.)


Actually I think it was a good idea that they had actual musicians play it (other computer compositions I've heard were all played by the computer) because if they let the computer do it then it would be more difficult to compare it to anything since we don't usually listen to music played by MIDI instruments (Boulez says hello!).


----------



## JAS

Chronochromie said:


> Actually I think it was a good idea that they had actual musicians play it (other computer compositions I've heard were all played by the computer) because if they let the computer do it then it would be more difficult to compare it to anything since we don't usually listen to music played by MIDI instruments (Boulez says hello!).


It isn't a terrible idea, but I think it does necessarily limit the scope of compositions (and perhaps harpsichord is a bad choice for a modern work to begin with). You would have to find musicians who were pretty willing to do almost anything to invest their time and efforts in playing music like this, although I would think that there would be a similar problem in getting musicians to play several of the pieces I heard which were actually composed by people, and yet there they are.


----------



## DaveM

Magnum Miserium said:


> Nah, I've already won this one.


In your own mind...as usual.



> Not that it could be any other way, since as far as popular reception goes Rachmaninoff is a two hit wonder.


Not knowing Rachmaninoff is a greater sin than not knowing Ravel. Trust me!


----------



## Magnum Miserium

DaveM said:


> In your own mind...as usual.


In the concert hall. On the radio. In record sales. In the conservatory. Everywhere.



DaveM said:


> Not knowing Rachmaninoff is a greater sin than not knowing Ravel. Trust me!


No it isn't, because Ravel is more popular and also much better.


----------



## DaveM

JAS said:


> ...For DaveM, if you could listen to the computer-written music in the link, does that sound like most "modern" music to you.


In a word, yup. And the musicians are playing it with the same inspired dedication which is a little creepy given the composer.


----------



## JAS

I should, perhaps, note that in the Philips Mozart edition, there is one disc that features "the dice game." Using a book printed about Mozart's time, with rules and bars of music, players select chunks of music from the tables by means of rolling dice. (I suppose it was fairly popular at a time when most reasonably well-off families had enough musical talent in the household to make their own entertainment.) On the CD, they make two short pieces, and then play them. They sound a bit mechanical, but passable as music of the era. (I think you would have a much harder time doing the equivalent for romantic era music.)


----------



## mmsbls

JAS said:


> So, I am curious as to what reactions those who like modern music have to the computer music for which I posted a link.
> 
> For convenience, here it is again: http://io9.gizmodo.com/5973551/this...ated-by-a-supercomputer-in-less-than-a-second


I listened as well. I thought it was fine but it didn't especially interest me _musically_. Of course I could say the same thing about many compositions by people. It did fascinate me from a scientific standpoint.

The computer starts with very simple musical ideas and uses a genetic algorithm to develop and evolve the music into a more complex composition. The most interesting aspect is that genetic algorithms must have fitness functions to select the "better" results. These results are then evolved again and further selected by the fitness functions. The process is iterated until a final product is created. The algorithm part is relatively easy, but the fitness functions are very hard because they involve subjective aesthetics. I'm not sure exactly how they implement such functions.

Anyway, I'm sure few are interested in these aspects of computer composition, but I think they are vastly more interesting than the resulting music _at present_.


----------



## DaveM

Magnum Miserium said:


> In the concert hall. On the radio. In record sales. In the conservatory. Everywhere.
> 
> No it isn't, because Ravel is more popular and also much better.


Which still raises the question why you couldn't come up with one example that is a million times better than SR. Talk is cheap.


----------



## Chronochromie

JAS said:


> (and perhaps harpsichord is a bad choice for a modern work to begin with).


It was as good a choice as any really, many Contemporary works use the harpsichord. I don't think the computer can really exploit the exploit the sound of a particular instrument though, and much Contemporary music gives importance to texture and timbre.


----------



## Chronochromie

DaveM said:


> Not knowing Rachmaninoff is a greater sin than not knowing Ravel. Trust me!


Why would that be?


----------



## JAS

mmsbls said:


> I listened as well. I thought it was fine but it didn't especially interest me _musically_. Of course I could say the same thing about many compositions by people. It did fascinate me from a scientific standpoint.
> 
> The computer starts with very simple musical ideas and uses a genetic algorithm to develop and evolve the music into a more complex composition. The most interesting aspect is that genetic algorithms must have fitness functions to select the "better" results. These results are then evolved again and further selected by the fitness functions. The process is iterated until a final product is created. The algorithm part is relatively easy, but the fitness functions are very hard because they involve subjective aesthetics. I'm not sure exactly how they implement such functions.
> 
> Anyway, I'm sure few are interested in these aspects of computer composition, but I think they are vastly more interesting than the resulting music _at present_.


Computer chess playing programs can be altered with setting that create various styles of play. There have been competitions designed to see if human players could detect whether they were playing against a human or computer, and with the better computers, they really could not. For the music, unless they are really just going for random, there is either some algorithm, as you suggest, for evaluating "better" (based on some definition) or the actual notes selected may be fed back into the processing to inform or limit subsequent choices. It would be fundamentally different than playing chess because in music there is really no predetermined outcome, or such a confining set of rules. Thus, the "moves" available in composing could, quite literally, be infinite. (I think they did say it was a supercomputer, but still . . .)


----------



## Magnum Miserium

DaveM said:


> Which still raises the question why you couldn't come up with one example that is a million times better than SR.


Can't and won't aren't the same thing. I have no reason to tell you what you either already know or will refuse to learn (like you always do).



DaveM said:


> Talk is cheap.


Specifying would also be talk.


----------



## RRod

JAS said:


> So, in your view, we cannot say that we don't care for modern music, as a broad generalization. Instead, we have to list all of the specific composers or works that we don't like? That isn't going to work.


You're substituting the converse for the contrapositive. There are certainly meaningful subdivisions of modern composers, some of which have already been mentioned. But when you lump ALL modern composers together, you are saying that you are willing to dismiss simultaneously:

.Ferneyhough and Daugherty (say what?)
.Nancarrow and Higdon (come again?)
.Feldman and Rouse (umm…)
.Boulez and Glass (now wait a minute!)

The combinations are legion.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

RRod said:


> .Feldman and Rouse (umm…)


Christopher or Mikel?


----------



## DaveM

Magnum Miserium said:


> Can't and won't aren't the same thing. I have no reason to tell you what you either already know or will refuse to learn (like you always do).
> 
> Specifying would also be talk.


 C'mon Harold. Just one tune. Just one Ravel tune that will blow us away and make us wonder why we ever bothered with SR.


----------



## JAS

RRod said:


> You're substituting the converse for the contrapositive. There are certainly meaningful subdivisions of modern composers, some of which have already been mentioned. But when you lump ALL modern composers together, you are saying that you are willing to dismiss simultaneously:
> 
> .Ferneyhough and Daugherty (say what?)
> .Nancarrow and Higdon (come again?)
> .Feldman and Rouse (umm…)
> .Boulez and Glass (now wait a minute!)
> 
> The combinations are legion.


I am happy to include all of them in my dismissal. The fact that they might not sound exactly like each other is not a significant detail. The only problem would be if, in dismissing modern classical music in general, I was necessarily including a notable body of composers/works that I would not wish to dismiss. Common usage accepts that generalities need not be perfectly and absolutely true to be essentially true and useful for the purposes of general conversation/discussion. (There is some admitted complication in the use of the term "modern" as meaning merely date of composition, relative to what date, and stylistic trends. I generally mean stylistic trends, which also has considerable correlation to chronology, not entirely by coincidence.)


----------



## Magnum Miserium

DaveM said:


> C'mon Harold. Just one tune. Just one Ravel tune that will blow us away and make us wonder why we ever bothered with SR.


So is this bluster, or do you genuinely not know that people like Ravel's melodies?


----------



## Chronochromie

JAS said:


> I am happy to include all of them in my dismissal. The fact that they might not sound exactly like each other is not a significant detail.


It's pretty funny to me because they sound absolutely nothing like each other.


----------



## JAS

Chronochromie said:


> It's pretty funny to me because they sound absolutely nothing like each other.


But all terrible to my ears.


----------



## Chronochromie

JAS said:


> But all terrible to my ears.


I for one think DaveM would enjoy Jennifer Higdon.


----------



## RRod

JAS said:


> I am happy to include all of them in my dismissal. The fact that they might not sound exactly like each other is not a significant detail. The only problem would be if, in dismissing modern classical music in general, I was necessarily including a notable body of composers/works that I would not wish to dismiss. Common usage accepts that generalities need not be perfectly and absolutely true to be essentially true and useful for the purposes of general conversation/discussion. (There is some admitted complication in the use of the term "modern" as meaning merely date of composition, relative to what date, and stylistic trends. I generally mean stylistic trends, which also has considerable correlation to chronology, not entirely by coincidence.)


Common usage requires that generalities actually be generalities… But if you want to substitute "not sound exactly like each other" for "sound completely different", then peace be with you.


----------



## JAS

Chronochromie said:


> I for one think DaveM would enjoy Jennifer Higdon.


Higdon's Blue Cathedral has some pleasant enough sections, but also lots of weird stuff. Apparently, without the weird stuff, one cannot be taken seriously as a composer today.


----------



## JAS

RRod said:


> Common usage requires that generalities actually be generalities… But if you want to substitute "not sound exactly like each other" for "sound completely different", then peace be with you.


The question isn't whether they sound alike, but whether they can be described as modern classical music. That classification does not require that they all use clarinets, or not use clarinets, or be 5 minutes long or be 3 hours long, or include barking dogs, or not include barking dogs. You are basically denying the ability to make a statement about the general trend of music in the modern era. You are effectively just saying that no one can talk about it because you don't like the words.


----------



## Chronochromie

JAS said:


> Higdon's Blue Cathedral has some pleasant enough sections, but also lots of weird stuff. Apparently, without the weird stuff, one cannot be taken seriously as a composer today.


The "weird stuff" is probably what distinguishes her from being a pastiche composer to a Contemporary one, so in a way that's true.


----------



## JAS

Chronochromie said:


> The "weird stuff" is probably what distinguishes her from being a pastiche composer to a Contemporary one, so in a way that's true.


My use of the highly technical term "weird stuff" being accepted as a subjective designation. (I wasn't sure what else to call it, and it has apparently conveyed my intended meaning. I probably should have used quotation marks myself.)


----------



## RRod

JAS said:


> That classification does not require that they all use clarinets, or not use clarinets, or be 5 minutes long or be 3 hours long, or include barking dogs, or not include barking dogs.


Actually if we're talking Feldman it could be much longer than 3 hours! I'm sticking to my assertion. If you want to lump, by all means lump.


----------



## Chronochromie

JAS said:


> The question isn't whether they sound alike, but whether they can be described as modern classical music. That classification does not require that they all use clarinets, or not use clarinets, or be 5 minutes long or be 3 hours long, or include barking dogs, or not include barking dogs. You are basically denying the ability to make a statement about the general trend of music in the modern era. You are effectively just saying that no one can talk about it because you don't like the words.


But it's true that it's difficult to talk about what you call a general trend in Contemporary music when the only trend that I can think of in your dislikes is "doesn't use traditional common practice tonality" and in DaveM "lacks accessible melody", whatever that is.


----------



## mmsbls

Isn't JAS simply saying that he has not heard any modern music that he enjoys and further that he has heard some modest number of works? It's possible that he could listen to 100 more works and suddenly find one he likes, but as long as he has tried a reasonable number, he can say that, in a general sense, he does not like modern music even though the genre is so diverse. I think that's a reasonable statement.


----------



## KenOC

Magnum Miserium said:


> No it isn't, because Ravel is more popular and also much better.


Actually, it's pretty much a toss-up, in the US anyway. In the last complete season, among the major American orchestras, Rachmaninoff was programmed 104 times for a total of 253 performances. Ravel barely edged him, programmed 111 times for a total of 258 performances.

Of the Ravel, of course, Bolero accounts for 12 of the times he was programmed and 28 of the times he was played.


----------



## Chronochromie

mmsbls said:


> Isn't JAS simply saying that he has not heard any modern music that he enjoys and further that he has heard some modest number of works? It's possible that he could listen to 100 more works and suddenly find one he likes, but as long as he has tried a reasonable number, he can say that, in a general sense, he does not like modern music even though the genre is so diverse. I think that's a reasonable statement.


As I had said previously, I don't know what he has heard, and I don't think he has to name names if he doesn't want to, but I assume he listened to all the composers listed above by RRod since he said he finds them all bad.


----------



## JAS

Chronochromie said:


> But it's true that it's difficult to talk about what you call a general trend in Contemporary music when the only trend that I can think of in your dislikes is "doesn't use traditional common practice tonality" and in DaveM "lacks accessible melody", whatever that is.


You make an interesting point, and without giving it a great deal more thought at the moment, I am inclined to think that my position (and perhaps that of DaveM, although I will not presume to speak for him directly) is at least as much the absence of something rather than the presence of all the other somethings that seems to have entered into the no holds barred world of modern music. It is another question entirely whether these things, or at least some of these things, can co-exist, in which case I might be back to arguing against the specific additions that I found not to my liking. I can think of many film scores which include cues I like along with cues I absolutely do not like, and there are certainly examples of cues that include something I would really like except for the presence of something else that I find off-putting. (I have been known to make my own edited form of a score precisely to get around this problem.)


----------



## Martin D

Nereffid said:


> I'm currently working my way systematically through every poll and logging every individual's votes because there's lots of potentially interesting information to be had (such as, _what proportion of people who like Boulez also like Glass?_) and because I want to see if (or to what extent) there's a difference between regular voters and sporadic voters. Though the number of participants has clearly dropped since the first few polls, I think a considerable amount of the decline is simply the novelty wearing off. Pretty much every poll has at least 1 or 2 people who've not voted in any others, and there were dozens of voters who only started participating _after_ the earlier polls. I'll allow that there is a little bit of a difference between regular and sporadic voters in terms of average number of composers they vote for per poll (3.1 vs 2.7), but is that significant enough to produce a very different outcome?


This is what I would expect a proper analysis to involve. I know it must be a pain of a job, but I reckon it will repay the effort.

Could you possibly put it all down in a spreadsheet, made generally available for anyone interested, showing the names of all the voters listed down one column, and indicating by a 1 or 0 whether or not they voted for each of the main composers, possibly the top 150, based on the number of votes each composer achieved. Any percentages can be worked out later. That kind of listing might help identify some oddities in the voting, etc.

I look forward to seeing your results.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

KenOC said:


> Actually, it's pretty much a toss-up, in the US anyway. In the last complete season, among the major American orchestras, Rachmaninoff was programmed 104 times for a total of 253 performances. Ravel barely edged him, programmed 111 times for a total of 258 performances.


Winning is winning, and also, how many _different_ pieces did they each have programmed? I can't be bothered to look up the answer, but I know Ravel had more.


----------



## DaveM

Magnum Miserium said:


> So is this bluster, or do you genuinely not know that people like Ravel's melodies?


Ravel is among the very great composers of the late 19th/early 20th century and I particularly like the Piano Concerto Adagio, but you're wimping out and evading again: Bluster is the 'million times' comparison with SR and still no tune to back it up.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

I noticed you said "us" in your last post, as if the community here were standing shoulder to shoulder with you. Well everybody knows how a test of THAT is going to turn out, but heck, let's test it anyway: http://www.talkclassical.com/47819-melody-versus-melody.html


----------



## DaveM

KenOC said:


> Actually, it's pretty much a toss-up, in the US anyway. In the last complete season, among the major American orchestras, Rachmaninoff was programmed 104 times for a total of 253 performances. Ravel barely edged him, programmed 111 times for a total of 258 performances.
> 
> Of the Ravel, of course, Bolero accounts for 12 of the times he was programmed and 28 of the times he was played.


The movie '10' may have been the worst thing that ever happened to Ravel. Orchestras started playing Bolero ad nauseum to the point that for awhile it took precedence over his other works.


----------



## DaveM

Magnum Miserium said:


> I noticed you said "us" in your last post, as if the community here were standing shoulder to shoulder with you. Well everybody knows how a test of THAT is going to turn out, but heck, let's test it anyway: http://www.talkclassical.com/47819-melody-versus-melody.html


Rachmaninoff's 'Paganini' is beating out Ravel's Le Tombeau so far.

Heck, I could trot out Rachmaninoff's Concerto #2, but that would be too easy. Where is there a Ravel melody that is a million times better than this:


----------



## Magnum Miserium

I picked the rhapsody on Paganini tune because I was trying to be generous. You think the piano concerto 2 tune - The Other Rachmaninov Tune - is better? Okay, fine, I don't mind winning twice. http://www.talkclassical.com/47820-another-melody-vs-another.html


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> Rachmaninoff's 'Paganini' is beating out Ravel's Le Tombeau so far.
> 
> Heck, I could trot out Rachmaninoff's Concerto #2, but that would be too easy. Where is there a Ravel melody that is a million times better than this:


Love this gorgeous movement, but the performance is a mite lugubrious. R knew how to keep a light touch in his own music. Not only pianists should listen to his recordings.

(That can't be Roger Federer, can it?)


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> Love this gorgeous movement, but the performance is a mite lugubrious. R knew how to keep a light touch in his own music. Not only pianists should listen to his recordings.
> 
> (That can't be Roger Federer, can it?)


Yes it is. And he's known to play tennis with an authentic Stradivarius racket.


----------



## janxharris

DaveM said:


> (I've appreciated your balanced approach on this subject so this is just for the sake of discussion.) I don't think there is something for people like myself and (I think) JAS. On the flip side, I am always amazed at the lukewarm response from some of the 'modernists' here that I get when I post actual examples of what I call music with accessible melody. That occurred with those I posted earlier in this thread.
> 
> As another example, the following is an end-title piece called Soul of the Age from the movie, Anonymous. It was composed only in the last 10 years and could have easily (with a few minor changes) served as the Adagio movement of a cello concerto from the 1800s. When I first posted it on this forum last year, one of the first responses from a big fan of contemporary music was that it was 'vapid'. I was dismayed because to me it is an exquisitely beautiful work. IMO, it is hard to come up with melodies like that and I have heard virtually nothing like it in the contemporary pieces that have been recommended in this thread or other threads like it.


For me, 'vapid' would be an appropriate description. It just sounds like the composer(s) have borrowed from already over used chord progressions.


----------



## janxharris

JAS said:


> So, I am curious as to what reactions those who like modern music have to the computer music for which I posted a link.
> 
> For convenience, here it is again: http://io9.gizmodo.com/5973551/this...ated-by-a-supercomputer-in-less-than-a-second


Sounds pretty rambling...like a lot of modern stuff - though not as angst.


----------



## janxharris

JAS said:


> I am happy to include all of them in my dismissal. The fact that they might not sound exactly like each other is not a significant detail. The only problem would be if, in dismissing modern classical music in general, I was necessarily including a notable body of composers/works that I would not wish to dismiss. Common usage accepts that generalities need not be perfectly and absolutely true to be essentially true and useful for the purposes of general conversation/discussion. (There is some admitted complication in the use of the term "modern" as meaning merely date of composition, relative to what date, and stylistic trends. I generally mean stylistic trends, which also has considerable correlation to chronology, not entirely by coincidence.)


JAS - would you take a listen to this piece without looking at the composer and it's title?


----------



## DaveM

janxharris said:


> For me, 'vapid' would be an appropriate description. It just sounds like the composer(s) have borrowed from already over used chord progressions.


Right, the producers hired a copy-cat composer for the soundtrack to their movie. You should be so lucky to come up with those chord progressions.


----------



## Nereffid

Martin D said:


> This is what I would expect a proper analysis to involve. I know it must be a pain of a job, but I reckon it will repay the effort.
> 
> Could you possibly put it all down in a spreadsheet, made generally available for anyone interested, showing the names of all the voters listed down one column, and indicating by a 1 or 0 whether or not they voted for each of the main composers, possibly the top 150, based on the number of votes each composer achieved. Any percentages can be worked out later. That kind of listing might help identify some oddities in the voting, etc.
> 
> I look forward to seeing your results.


At the risk of sounding churlish, you're also the person who spoke of my "monster list of ensuing polls that have cluttered up a lot of board space over the past 6 months or so" thus:



Martin D said:


> I gather that this type of poll, based on "likes", is one of your trademark polling procedures. Basically I don't like it as it is too crude to be of much use, and very long-winded.
> 
> OK your results may replicate some of the underlying "correct" results for highly rated composers similar to those resulting from other more conventional polls, but the procedure is not robust enough to produce decent results on the whole.
> 
> ...
> 
> All this could have been avoided if you had gone out originally and simply asked for peoples' preferences in a one hit operation rather than spread out over 43 polls. You might have been better off in achieving this by concentrating on improving the previous sampling procedures, e.g. along the lines that Art Rock has now proposed, which sounds to me a potentially more useful procedure than the profusion of polls that you have created over the past 6 months or so.


You reject my method and my results, think I wasted my time and cluttered up TC, and still want me to do some lengthy analysis for you without even saying _please_? :lol:


----------



## janxharris

DaveM said:


> Right, the producers hired a copy-cat composer for the soundtrack to their movie. You should be so lucky to come up with those chord progressions.


It's just my view. No offence intended. I feel the same, in general, with Mozart (copying himself).


----------



## Nereffid

To recap the overnight stuff I've just read:
[plays computer-composed music, which for the record I thought was listenable enough and not discernibly "artificial"]


JAS said:


> that is pretty much what most "modern" music sounds like to me.





RRod said:


> There are certainly meaningful subdivisions of modern composers, some of which have already been mentioned. But when you lump ALL modern composers together, you are saying that you are willing to dismiss simultaneously





JAS said:


> I am happy to include all of them in my dismissal. The fact that they might not sound exactly like each other is not a significant detail.





Chronochromie said:


> It's pretty funny to me because they sound absolutely nothing like each other.





Chronochromie said:


> it's difficult to talk about what you call a general trend in Contemporary music when the only trend that I can think of in your dislikes is "doesn't use traditional common practice tonality" and in DaveM "lacks accessible melody", whatever that is.


I think Chronochromie has it right. If I play you a Chopin nocturne and you dismiss it by saying "that's pretty much what most 19th-century music sounds like to me", surely it's reasonable for me to say "but what about Brahms's symphonies or Verdi's operas or...?" (I'm sure there's quite a few people who'd be horrified if someone suggested that Chopin's and Liszt's piano music sounds pretty much the same!) All a Chopin nocturne and a Verdi opera have in common is CPT and accessible melody (for a given value of...), whereas all that Boulez and Reich have in common is a _lack_ of same (for a given value of...), which seems to me as not a sensible way of lumping them together. ("What sports do I like? Basically any sort of team game with a round ball. So as far as I'm concerned, American football and the 100 m sprint are pretty much the same thing")


----------



## janxharris

Does anyone here consider a modern composer to have written works on a par with the most revered works of Beethoven (or Sibelius, say)?


----------



## Martin D

Nereffid said:


> At the risk of sounding churlish, you're also the person who spoke of my "monster list of ensuing polls that have cluttered up a lot of board space over the past 6 months or so" thus:
> 
> You reject my method and my results, think I wasted my time and cluttered up TC, and still want me to do some lengthy analysis for you without even saying _please_? :lol:


I thought you had already agreed to undertake the basic analysis of seeing which voters voted for each composer, so I wasn't asking for anything specifically for me.

The only thing I requested was that you might possibly make the results available in a spreadsheet for others who may be interested, like me, to see. If nothing else, it might help stimulate a more interesting discussion when you finally get round to presenting the results of your marathon polls.

In the hope that you would agree to do this, I did say _"I look forward to seeing your results". _


----------



## Nereffid

janxharris said:


> Does anyone here consider a modern composer to have written works on a par with the most revered works of Beethoven (or Sibelius, say)?


That's a rather loaded question, because to make such a claim we have to combine our personal opinion with the opinions of many others _and_ future posterity, which is pretty much impossible, and on top of that any claim is extremely easy to knock down (such as by appealing to popularity, insisting on some sort of "historical significance" criterion, invoking a spurious claim about objectively good music, or just by sheer incredulity - "you _seriously_ think that's on a par???").

But anyway, if we're just talking about the music _I_ love, then I'd say as my own opinion that Reich's _Music for 18 Musicians_ is unquestionably on a par with a work such as Beethoven's _Eroica_. I hate the word "revere" but for the purposes of this exercise I'll say I revere both. The Reich work can also be pointed to as being relatively popular and regarded as significant.
I share with mmsbls the belief that modern music is definitely different from what came before, so in musicological terms it's hard to compare like with like. The Beethoven work definitely "does things" for me that the Reich can't, and the Reich work definitely "does things" for me that the Beethoven can't. But again I invoke Chopin's nocturnes versus Verdi's operas.


----------



## Art Rock

janxharris said:


> Does anyone here consider a modern composer to have written works on a par with the most revered works of Beethoven (or Sibelius, say)?


I prefer Gorecki's 3d symphony over anything that Beethoven or Sibelius composed. YMMV (and probably will).


----------



## janxharris

Nereffid said:


> That's a rather loaded question, because to make such a claim we have to combine our personal opinion with the opinions of many others _and_ future posterity, which is pretty much impossible, and on top of that any claim is extremely easy to knock down (such as by appealing to popularity, insisting on some sort of "historical significance" criterion, invoking a spurious claim about objectively good music, or just by sheer incredulity - "you _seriously_ think that's on a par???").
> 
> But anyway, if we're just talking about the music _I_ love, then I'd say as my own opinion that Reich's _Music for 18 Musicians_ is unquestionably on a par with a work such as Beethoven's _Eroica_. I hate the word "revere" but for the purposes of this exercise I'll say I revere both. The Reich work can also be pointed to as being relatively popular and regarded as significant.
> I share with mmsbls the belief that modern music is definitely different from what came before, so in musicological terms it's hard to compare like with like. The Beethoven work definitely "does things" for me that the Reich can't, and the Reich work definitely "does things" for me that the Beethoven can't. But again I invoke Chopin's nocturnes versus Verdi's operas.


Yes, I was asking subjectively. I like the Reich piece too - though I haven't really gone deep with it yet.

I think you are right - each does something not achieved by the other.


----------



## janxharris

Art Rock said:


> I prefer Gorecki's 3d symphony over anything that Beethoven or Sibelius composed. YMMV (and probably will).


I like some of that piece too.


----------



## janxharris

Anyone suggest anything that doesn't follow cpt (common practice tonality).


----------



## Dedalus

I'd like to throw a stupid question in here. When does the modern period begin? Are we talking post 1945ish or post 1900ish? I know there can't be an exact date but I'm just wondering if ultra-late romantic stuff like verklart nacht is included or not.


----------



## janxharris

Dedalus said:


> I'd like to throw a stupid question in here. When does the modern period begin? Are we talking post 1945ish or post 1900ish? I know there can't be an exact date but I'm just wondering if ultra-late romantic stuff like verklart nacht is included or not.


It's difficult to pin down isn't it.


----------



## janxharris

Art Rock said:


> I prefer Gorecki's 3d symphony over anything that Beethoven or Sibelius composed. YMMV (and probably will).


It's interesting because I often find operatic singing difficult to listen to - but not this.


----------



## Nereffid

janxharris said:


> Anyone suggest anything that doesn't follow cpt (common practice tonality).


George Crumb: _Black Angels_
Stockhausen: _Stimmung_
Ligeti: Piano concerto
Schnittke: Cello sonata no.1
Solage: _Fumeux fume par fumée_*

TBH, I don't really pay much attention to whether something's strictly in CPT or not. Given that something as (to me) tonally innocuous as Ligeti's "Devil's Staircase" was described in this thread as "just barely qualifies as music" I'm not sure what the specific requirements are.

* Yes. I know.


----------



## janxharris

Nereffid said:


> George Crumb: _Black Angels_
> Stockhausen: _Stimmung_
> Ligeti: Piano concerto
> Schnittke: Cello sonata no.1
> Solage: _Fumeux fume par fumée_*
> 
> TBH, I don't really pay much attention to whether something's strictly in CPT or not. Given that something as (to me) tonally innocuous as Ligeti's "Devil's Staircase" was described in this thread as "just barely qualifies as music" I'm not sure what the specific requirements are.
> 
> * Yes. I know.


Thanks.

Compare and contrast Ligeti's Etude 13 and his piano concerto 1st mvt.


----------



## janxharris

Nereffid said:


> Stockhausen: _Stimmung_


I'm six minutes in and wondering what on earth I am listening to.


----------



## Pugg

janxharris said:


> I'm six minutes in and wondering what on earth I am listening to.


Must be post of the day.


----------



## Myriadi

I believe the question the OP asks has been answered in full in these passages from Christopher Small's wonderful book _Musicking_:



> It is curious that all of the musicians whose works are being played here tonight and indeed on most nights are dead, most of them long before anyone present was born. For most people here, a great composer is almost by definition a dead composer, and no musician who is alive today, or who even lived past the first two decades of the twentieth century, has the hold that dead composers have on the imagination of either listeners or performers in concert halls.
> 
> [...] For most concertgoers, in fact, The Great Composers fall into an even narrower chronological range, for which cynical managements use the shorthand term "Mozart-to-Mahler." Since Mozart was born in 1756 and Mahler died in 1911, that represents a period of little more than 150 years, scarcely long enough, one would think, to justify the epithet "immortal" that is often bestowed on the composers and on their works. It seems that, for the majority of those who regard themselves as lovers of classical music, the repertory virtually froze around the time of the First World War.
> 
> That an entire musical culture should be based on msuical works that have survived from the past is odd, to say the least [...], and so far as I know it is unique among human musical cultures. If we ask the average concertgoer why this should be so, why he or she prefers the work of long-dead musicians to that of live or even recently deceased ones, we will generally be told something to the effect that modern music is so dissonant, so tuneless, so difficult if not incomprehensible that it repels potential listeners.
> 
> There is a certain truth in this, of course, and many composers of the past seventy years or so have even taken a kind of wry pride in the fact [...] but there is on the other hand a repertory of concert works from the present century that are no more or less difficult for modern audiences to follow than those of previous centuries [...] Yet there is not a single piece from the twentieth-century concert repertory that comes near the regularity of performance that is attained by the symphonies and concertos of Beethoven, for example, or Brahms or Tchaikovsky. Whatever the contemporary concertgoer is in search of, it does not seem to be new musical experiences. There music be another reason.
> 
> The Great Composers who are summoned up by the conductor's gestures are not flesh-and-blood people, not the historical Beethoven or Brahms or Tchaikovsky who lived his life and died in his own time. They have gone forever, and no amount of carefully detailed biography will bring them back to life for even the duration of a performance. It is abstractions of these men who are present: mythological culture heroes who, like mythological heroes from Achilles to Abraham Lincoln, from Moses to Che Guevara, have been constructed to serve the needs of present-day people from shards and fragments of biography, and by a kind of backformation of a personality from the gestural language in which they encoded their vision of human relationships and social order.
> 
> These figures belong not to secular history at all, not to calendar time, but to myth, to that past that exists in our minds outside of historical time, which is populated by heroes and their adversaries (Mozart and his rival Salieri, Wagner and the critic Hanslick), divinely appointed tasks to be accomplished (Beethoven overcoming his deafness and writing symphonies to the magical number of nine), and destinies to be fulfilled (the intimations of death that many hear in the last works of the prematurely dying Mozart and Schubert). Like all myth, its function is to provide present-day people with models and paradigms for values and behavior - for relationships, in fact.
> 
> In that they handed down to us scores whose content is stable and unchanging, those mythological creatures themselves appear stable and unchanging. They cannot be alive in the present. They have to be dead in order to be immortal, and they have to be immortal to be mythic heroes.
> 
> [...] As I have already suggested, there is more than a hint of sacred space about [the concert hall], and those who come here are, I believe, looking for more than beautiful patterns of sounds to please their ears. It seems to me that they have come to take part in a ritual, and what that ritual enacts is, in a word, stability, certainty. The dead culture heroes are summoned up in order to give reassurance that the relationships they encoded in musical sounds are abiding and permanent, that things are as they have been and will not change.


----------



## mmsbls

I wouldn't compare anything modern (or otherwise) with Beethoven (or Mozart or Bach) since they are my three favorite composers. I do love Sibelius and I would put the following works in the same category as his:

Stockhausen: Gruppen
Dutilleux: Tout un monde lointain
Lutoslawski: Concerto for Orchestra
Boulez: Sur Incises

Obviously taste has an enormous effect on these choices. I couldn't say if musicologists find these works on a similar level to Sibelius.


----------



## JAS

Myriadi said:


> I believe the question the OP asks has been answered in full in these passages from Christopher Small's wonderful book _Musicking_:


It is an interesting read, and nicely written (minor typographical errors in the transcription notwithstanding), but much too facile to be meaningful. I certainly don't think of Mendelssohn or Delius in heroic terms. Mozart died young, but Brahms was 63 at the time of his death (not old by modern standards but by no means bad for his era), Haydn was 77, and Verdi 87! It is also true that Berg's music is unchanging, and has been for a very long time, and Ligeti's music has not been undergoing much change since his death in 2006. So, to use Mr. Small's own words "There must be another reason." And it is odd that he feels compelled to invent one (basically that we like our composers to be decomposing) when he has already given a perfectly useful one: "If we ask the average concertgoer why this should be so, why he or she prefers the work of long-dead musicians to that of live or even recently deceased ones, we will generally be told something to the effect that modern music is so dissonant, so tuneless, so difficult if not incomprehensible that it repels potential listeners."


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> I wouldn't compare anything modern (or otherwise) with Beethoven (or Mozart or Bach) since they are my three favorite composers. I do love Sibelius and I would put the following works in the same category as his:
> 
> Stockhausen: Gruppen
> Dutilleux: Tout un monde lointain
> Lutoslawski: Concerto for Orchestra
> Boulez: Sur Incises
> 
> Obviously taste has an enormous effect on these choices. I couldn't say if musicologists find these works on a similar level to Sibelius.


Thanks. The Stockhausen is interesting but I'm struggling to find a pattern or organic element. Will keep trying.

I would put Sibelius alongside Beethoven.


----------



## janxharris

JAS said:


> It is an interesting read, and nicely written (minor typographical errors in the transcription notwithstanding), but much too facile to be meaningful. I certainly don't think of Mendelssohn or Delius in heroic terms. Mozart died young, but Brahms was 63 at the time of his death (not old by modern standards but by no means bad for his era), Haydn was 77, and Verdi 87! It is also true that Berg's music is unchanging, and has been for a very long time, and Ligeti's music has not been undergoing much change since his death in 2006. So, to use Mr. Small's own words "There must be another reason." And it is odd that he feels compelled to invent one (basically that we like our composers to be decomposing) when he has already given a perfectly useful one: "If we ask the average concertgoer why this should be so, why he or she prefers the work of long-dead musicians to that of live or even recently deceased ones, we will generally be told something to the effect that modern music is so dissonant, so tuneless, so difficult if not incomprehensible that it repels potential listeners."


Did you see:

http://www.talkclassical.com/47627-why-contemporary-classical-music-26.html#post1200270

?


----------



## Nereffid

But the very next thing he says is: "There is a certain truth in this, of course, and many composers of the past seventy years or so have even taken a kind of wry pride in the fact [...] *but there is on the other hand a repertory of concert works from the present century that are no more or less difficult for modern audiences to follow than those of previous centuries*"

Think of the ways in which music has changed over the centuries - there's about 100 years between Josquin and Monteverdi, another 100 between Monteverdi and Purcell, another 100 between Purcell and Mozart, another 100 between Mozart and Mahler. Each added to, and to some degree displaced, the previous. Is the 100-year gap from Mahler to Saariaho or Lindberg or MacMillan or Wolfe or Daugherty or Higdon _really_ so huge it can't be surmounted by "the average concertgoer"?


----------



## Myriadi

Nereffid said:


> But the very next thing he says is: "There is a certain truth in this, of course, and many composers of the past seventy years or so have even taken a kind of wry pride in the fact [...] *but there is on the other hand a repertory of concert works from the present century that are no more or less difficult for modern audiences to follow than those of previous centuries*"
> 
> Think of the ways in which music has changed over the centuries - there's about 100 years between Josquin and Monteverdi, another 100 between Monteverdi and Purcell, another 100 between Purcell and Mozart, another 100 between Mozart and Mahler. Each added to, and to some degree displaced, the previous. Is the 100-year gap from Mahler to Saariaho or Lindberg or MacMillan or Wolfe or Daugherty or Higdon _really_ so huge it can't be surmounted by "the average concertgoer"?


You've put it better than I could. I'm not sure one needs to go as far as Saariaho or Lindberg, though. I'm thinking Hovhaness or late Cowell symphonies, or French repertoire from a bit earlier such as Françaix or Koechlin. Or those composers only known through one work, such as Barber or Orff, who have many wonderful pieces and still don't get played much compared to The Greats.


----------



## Fugue Meister

janxharris said:


> Thanks. The Stockhausen is interesting but I'm struggling to find a pattern or organic element. Will keep trying.
> 
> I would put Sibelius alongside Beethoven.


I've never understood what people see of value in Stockhausen's work, I think he is criminally overrated..


----------



## Fugue Meister

Fugue Meister said:


> I've never understood what people see of value in Stockhausen's work, I think he is criminally overrated..


I suppose (since this was my first entry on this thread) that some people may read into this as, I'm not a fan of 20th Century music but nothing could be further from the truth, I just don't find Stockhausen's contribution to the art worthy.


----------



## Myriadi

JAS said:


> It is an interesting read, and nicely written (minor typographical errors in the transcription notwithstanding), but much too facile to be meaningful. I certainly don't think of Mendelssohn or Delius in heroic terms. Mozart died young, but Brahms was 63 at the time of his death (not old by modern standards but by no means bad for his era), Haydn was 77, and Verdi 87!


I'm not sure why you're citing these figures. "Mythological heroes" aren't necessarily characters engaging in heroic deeds, or ones who die young, and Small is quite clear. With Haydn the myth is obviously that of "Papa Haydn", for instance. I can't count the times when I had to remind people of the existence of "The Seven Last Words" or the F minor quartet from Op. 20 to stop them from characterizing Haydn's entire oeuvre as the embodiment of humor and optimism in music.

The other part of your post has already been answered by Nereffid.


----------



## Nereffid

Myriadi said:


> You've put it better than I could. I'm not sure one needs to go as far as Saariaho or Lindberg, though. I'm thinking Hovhaness or late Cowell symphonies, or French repertoire from a bit earlier such as Françaix or Koechlin. Or those composers only known through one work, such as Barber or Orff, who have many wonderful pieces and still don't get played much compared to The Greats.


True. And it's also worth noting that this damnable 20th century music still seems in many minds to be represented by certain composers born in the 20s - Ligeti, Boulez, Xenakis, and Stockhausen - which blithely ignores more "accessible" contemporaries such as Rautavaara, Arnold, and Sculthorpe.


----------



## janxharris

Fugue Meister said:


> I suppose (since this was my first entry on this thread) that some people may read into this as, I'm not a fan of 20th Century music but nothing could be further from the truth, I just don't find Stockhausen's contribution to the art worthy.


I'm new to his work so it will take me some repeated listens to get a clear perspective.


----------



## Chronochromie

janxharris said:


> Does anyone here consider a modern composer to have written works on a par with the most revered works of Beethoven (or Sibelius, say)?


Yes.

Messiaen - Vingt regards, Catalogue d'oiseaux, Turangalila Symphonie, Des canyons aux etoiles..., Éclairs sur l'au-delà..., La Transfiguration, Oiseaux exotiques, Livre du Saint Sacrament, Saint François d'Assise,...

Ligeti - Concertos (Violin, Piano, Chamber, Double, Hamburg), Atmospheres, Lontano, Melodien, Lux aeterna, Requiem, Clocks and Clouds, String Quartet No. 2, Horn Trio, Viola Sonata, Musica Ricercata, Études,...

I'll come back and add something from other composers later.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Nereffid said:


> True. And it's also worth noting that this damnable 20th century music still seems in many minds to be represented by certain composers born in the 20s - Ligeti, Boulez, Xenakis, and Stockhausen - which blithely ignores more "accessible" contemporaries such as Rautavaara, Arnold, and Sculthorpe.


Well, yeah, for the same reason that people who hated Debussy couldn't really console themselves with Elgar - the moderates just aren't that good.


----------



## arpeggio

*Royalties*

This has been mentioned before (I do not think it has been mentioned yet in this thread. There is much going on here and I am having problems following the train of the discussion. I also have problems with discerning which remarks to take seriously. So far I have not seen anything new.).

The last time I had mentioned this point I was slapped down real hard so I am hesitant to mention it again.

We had an incident that just occurred with a group I perform with, the National Concert Band of America. We were wanting to program Morton Gould's _Holocaust: Suite_ for an upcoming concert this month. The _Holocaust_ was a television mini-series from 1978 that Gould composed the score for. He prepared a suite of the music for concert band. Link to nice performance :




The music is currently out of print and the only source was to rent the music from the publisher G. Schirmer. They wanted over $500 to rent the parts which is rather steep for a volunteer music group with a limited budget like ours. So the director decided not program it. Not because it was inferior to Beethoven. But because it was still covered by copyright and we could not afford it.

That vast majority of the music of the great masters are in the public domain. One can download all of the parts for a Mahler symphony from the internet for free and you are ready to go.

Having to pay royalties to composers and their estates does effect programming.


----------



## JAS

janxharris said:


> Did you see:
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/47627-why-contemporary-classical-music-26.html#post1200270
> 
> ?


Yes (Well, TC doesn't like a short answer, so make that "affirmative")


----------



## JAS

Myriadi said:


> I'm not sure why you're citing these figures. "Mythological heroes" aren't necessarily characters engaging in heroic deeds, or ones who die young, and Small is quite clear. With Haydn the myth is obviously that of "Papa Haydn", for instance. I can't count the times when I had to remind people of the existence of "The Seven Last Words" or the F minor quartet from Op. 20 to stop them from characterizing Haydn's entire oeuvre as the embodiment of humor and optimism in music. The other part of your post has already been answered by Nereffid.


I cited the figures because Small specifically noted Mozart and Schubert as dying young. I think he, and by extension you, have it exactly backwards. There may be some "mythic" aspects that rise up around these figures, but it is a sign of their enduring success and a not a cause of it.


----------



## Bettina

JAS said:


> I cited the figures because Small specifically noted Mozart and Schubert as dying young. I think he, and by extension you, have it exactly backwards. There may be some "mythic" aspects that rise up around these figures, but it is a sign of their enduring success and a not a cause of it.


Yes, I agree completely. As you point out, an early death does not necessarily endow a composer with mythological status. In fact, many fine composers who died young (for example, Lekeu) remain fairly obscure and have certainly never been "mythologized."


----------



## JAS

Nereffid said:


> But the very next thing he says is: "There is a certain truth in this, of course, and many composers of the past seventy years or so have even taken a kind of wry pride in the fact [...] *but there is on the other hand a repertory of concert works from the present century that are no more or less difficult for modern audiences to follow than those of previous centuries*"
> 
> Think of the ways in which music has changed over the centuries - there's about 100 years between Josquin and Monteverdi, another 100 between Monteverdi and Purcell, another 100 between Purcell and Mozart, another 100 between Mozart and Mahler. Each added to, and to some degree displaced, the previous. Is the 100-year gap from Mahler to Saariaho or Lindberg or MacMillan or Wolfe or Daugherty or Higdon _really_ so huge it can't be surmounted by "the average concertgoer"?


He does continue as you indicate, but I intentionally omitted that from my reply because it is more than a bit of a rhetorical cheat on his part. He conceded some degree of validity to the position that he is attempting to dispute (which grants him some credibility for being reasonable in acknowledging a point that he could hardly have pushed aside in its entirety anyway), and then immediately disputes it without giving so much as a single example that might be subject to evaluation. I think he does this because he knows that any examples he might provide are likely to undermine his argument, and so I will do it for him. In fact, I will give two examples: Malcolm Arnold's English Dances and Aaron Copland's Fanfare for the Common Man. The Copland fanfare is certainly very, very well known and popular, breaking out of the confines of the classical world in a way that must be recognized as an extraordinary phenomenon. (And I note that it achieved this even during the composer's lifetime.) Lots of people recognize it without even knowing when it was written or who wrote it, so here is a case of a work that is probably much more famous than its creator. Arnold's 4 sets of dances are by no means so well known, but I hear them often on our local classical radio station, and I have played my CDs of them for a number of people who have some interest in orchestral music, but a strong aversion to "modern stuff," and they have mostly liked them, with somewhat mixed reactions to specific pieces. (Is there anything particularly "modern" about these pieces other than the date of composition? Surely no one would say, "oh, you like Copland's fanfare, you would probably also like Ligeti.")

But let us look at what I think is an even more interesting example. John Williams has composed a large number of orchestral scores for films, selections of which have become hugely popular. He has also written a fair amount of more "serious" music for concert halls, which has barely made a blip on the public consciousness. (Indeed, I would assert that none of it was even likely to have been played at all except for his broader appeal as a film and tv composer.) Let us look more specifically at one score, which I think demonstrates my overall idea better than abstractions. His music for the first installment in the series (well, the original first, "A New Hope") is so popular that just my mentioning it probably has the main theme playing in your head, or struggling to be suppressed. Beyond the famous main theme, there is a surprising breadth of styles present, including some very avant-garde selections, such as the "music" for the sand-people. All of this music was composed (or some will say plagiarized) by the same composer and presented in the same film, so the general context is essentially identical. And yet there has clearly been a culling process that establishes an identifiable audience preference. It isn't the sand-people music that we usually hear in the concert hall or on the radio, and which has been recorded over and over again, but the heroic main theme, the romantic "love" theme for Luke and Leia, and Darth Vader's March (which even includes some fairly odd touches and embellishments).

In light of this additional detail, I would answer Mr. Small's question by asserting that what makes these "modern" works (in terms of date of composition) more or less well received by a broad audience is precisely the degree to which they eschew or adopt "modern" stylistic innovations. It isn't the period of time in the gap that is the problem, be it 100 years or even just 10 years, it is the extent to which "modern" music has apparently felt that it needed to distance itself from older forms, either to establish a unique personal voice or to achieve academic recognition (even at the cost of a more popular appeal).

And lest someone trot out the old truism that popularity is not necessarily a measure of value, let me respond that a lack of popularity is also not a measure of value. And that is all beside the point of the question at hand in any case, as it is the reception of this music that has been raised.

So here we confront again the terminological problem of the label "modern" music. Perhaps you would feel less uncomfortable if I said "modernist" music. I have sometimes called it "academic" music, because it seems to be written by academics for academics, but "modern" has continued to be the more usual form.


----------



## DaveM

JAS said:


> ...It isn't the period of time in the gap that is the problem, be it 100 years or even just 10 years, it is the extent to which "modern" music has apparently felt that it needed to distance itself from older forms, either to establish a unique personal voice *or to achieve academic recognition (at the cost of a more popular appeal.)
> *
> And lest someone trot out the old truism that popularity is not necessarily a measure of value, let me respond that a lack of popularity is also not a measure of value. And that is all beside the point of the question at hand in any case, as it is the reception of this music that has been raised.
> 
> So here we confront again the terminological problem of the label "modern" music. Perhaps you would feel less uncomfortable if I said "modernist" music.* I have sometimes called it "academic" music, because it seems to be written by academics for academics,* but "modern" has continued to be the more usual form.


I believe that there is a lot of truth to the academic influence. I attend frequent salon-type music programs where newly-graduated pianists play and they appear to really enjoy playing 'modern' works. When I ask them why, the answer seems to be that it is challenging, fun and something new compared to what they grew up playing.

I also believe that whereas in the past, in the early 1900s and earlier, the emphasis was on creating music that others would like, while from that time onward, the emphasis has been on composers creating what they want regardless of how it will be received.

The subject of popularity and how that is defined interests me. I hear on this forum how 'many people' like, say, Ligeti as if that confers a certain authenticity to his popularity, but when his following, such as it might be, is compared to the overall classical music listening public, my bet is that he is very much an outlier. The fact is that, from what I see on Youtube, there are always a few people that will like almost anything no matter how bizarre. You can create something with shrieks, scrapes and general dissonance and there will be some who think it's just great.


----------



## Chronochromie

JAS said:


> I have sometimes called it "academic" music, because it seems to be written by academics for academics


Oh, come on now! I don't think that was even true for Darmstadt (back in the '50s!).

(As an aside Ligeti is also in the mainstream thanks to Kubrick and other films)


----------



## Magnum Miserium

DaveM said:


> The subject of popularity and how that is defined interests me. I hear on this forum how 'many people' like, say, Ligeti as if that confers a certain authenticity to his popularity, but when his following, such as it might be, is compared to the overall classical music listening public, my bet is that he is very much an outlier.


Who cares? The "overall classical music listening public" is a drop in the ocean of the "overall *music* listening public" anyway.


----------



## DaveM

Magnum Miserium said:


> Who cares? The "overall classical music listening public" is a drop in the ocean of the "overall *music* listening public" anyway.


Have you forgotten what the topic of the OP is?


----------



## TurnaboutVox

DaveM said:


> [...]
> 
> I also believe that whereas in the past, in the early 1900s and earlier, the emphasis was on creating music that others would like, while from that time onward, the emphasis has been on composers creating what they want regardless of how it will be received.
> 
> [...]


I do not believe your first statement to be any more true of composers before 1900 than of those working after that, or your second to be that much more true for composers working after 1900. In all art forms, not just in music, there were always people who wanted to create something new and different.

I heard David Hockney recently (talking about visual art) saying that if he could persuade people to see something in a new way, then he thought that there would be a chance that people might feel in a different way about that subject, at least momentarily. This observation is, I think, an important one in thinking about why some composers might start to explore the creation of works with more dissonance.

There is no reason at all why all music should follow common practice tonality, popular though that is. It isn't a zero-sum game. The existence of highly chromatic, dissonant music (that I and other people here on TC enjoy) need have no impact at all on those people who prefer to confine their listening to the harmonically 'orthodox' [of the 18th - 20th century in the west].

I do perceive, though, that there are some who seem to find it difficult to tolerate that the former should exist and be enjoyed by others, particularly if others suggest that such music should be grouped with the objects of their own musical love and appreciation.


----------



## Nereffid

JAS said:


> Is there anything particularly "modern" about these pieces other than the date of composition? Surely no one would say, "oh, you like Copland's fanfare, you would probably also like Ligeti."


Perhaps not, but they might say "oh, you like Copland's fanfare, you might actually discover you're capable of liking Husa's _Music for Prague 1968_"
At some point the general audience's failure to embrace modern music - _any_ modern music - starts to look very like laziness.


----------



## Nereffid

TurnaboutVox said:


> I heard David Hockney recently (talking about visual art) saying that if he could persuade people to see something in a new way, then he thought that there would be a chance that people might feel in a different way about that subject, at least momentarily. This observation is, I think, an important one in thinking about why some composers might start to explore the creation of works with more dissonance.


And the wonderful thing is that sometimes when you hear something completely new, it immediately strikes you as wholly natural - "of course music can sound this way! why did nobody ever think of it before?"


----------



## Magnum Miserium

DaveM said:


> Have you forgotten what the topic of the OP is?


Well if we're supposed to stay on topic then maybe we should admit this topic is of trivial interest compared to the question of why Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, and so on are so poorly received by today's audience.


----------



## DaveM

TurnaboutVox said:


> I do not believe your first statement to be any more true of composers before 1900 than of those working after that, or your second to be that much more true for composers working after 1900. In all art forms, not just in music, there were always people who wanted to create something new and different.
> 
> I heard David Hockney recently (talking about visual art) saying that if he could persuade people to see something in a new way, then he thought that there would be a chance that people might feel in a different way about that subject, at least momentarily. This observation is, I think, an important one in thinking about why some composers might start to explore the creation of works with more dissonance.
> 
> There is no reason at all why all music should follow common practice tonality, popular though that is. It isn't a zero-sum game. The existence of highly chromatic, dissonant music (that I and other people here on TC enjoy) need have no impact at all on those people who prefer to confine their listening to the harmonically 'orthodox' [of the 18th - 20th century in the west].
> 
> I do perceive, though, that there are some who seem to find it difficult to tolerate that the former should exist and be enjoyed by others, particularly if others suggest that such music should be grouped with the objects of their own musical love and appreciation.


I understand what you're saying, but please don't read into what I am saying more than is there. I haven't suggested that people shouldn't be able to enjoy whatever classical music floats their boat. For the most part I am responding to the opening post.

IMO, most contemporary classical music is either atonal or in a category where melody is vague and/or not fleshed out. It's somewhat of a mystery why that is (i.e. that almost all of it is that way) when it is simply not resonating with the majority of the listening public. Present day orchestras can only survive if the works they play are 'traditionally melodic'. Why is that?

For those who will rale against that premise, show me a major orchestra where the concert schedule is regularly more contemporary music than not. Dudamel of the Los Angeles Symphony, now one of the the top tier orchestras, promotes contemporary music in general and the LSO commissions new works, but most concerts have enough earlier traditional works to make sure the seats are filled. They wouldn't be if contemporary works took precedence. Why is that after all these years?


----------



## JAS

Nereffid said:


> At some point the general audience's failure to embrace modern music - _any_ modern music - starts to look very like laziness.


That is an interesting statement, because from the other side of the argument, the repeated insistence that we should ignore the evidence of our own ears and brains, and accept the judgement of those with self-avowed greater, more learned and more refined consideration, and embrace modern music starts to look very like haughtiness and arrogance. And never the twain shall meet, I suppose.


----------



## KenOC

Nereffid said:


> At some point the general audience's failure to embrace modern music - _any_ modern music - starts to look very like laziness.


Bad audience. Bad _bad _audience! (reaches for rolled-up newspaper...)

Somehow previous generations of composers with something new to say were able to move those lazy audiences off their dimes. Either audiences are getting worse, or... No, I daren't even think that! :lol:


----------



## DaveM

Magnum Miserium said:


> Well if we're supposed to stay on topic then maybe we should admit this topic is of trivial interest compared to the question of why Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, and so on are so poorly received by today's audience.


Funny, since the major orchestras keep scheduling works by those composers.


----------



## RRod

KenOC said:


> Bad audience. Bad _bad _audience! (reaches for rolled-up newspaper...)
> 
> Somehow previous generations of composers with something new to say were able to move those lazy audiences off their dimes. Either audiences are getting worse, or... No, I daren't even think that! :lol:


Or we tend to compare the whole pool of Modern composers against the distilled essence of Romanticism. How much worse do Modern audiences react to a random modern composer compared to how Romantic audiences reacted to a random Romantic composer?


----------



## Strange Magic

Nereffid said:


> At some point the general audience's failure to embrace modern music - _any_ modern music - starts to look very like laziness.


This won't do. It is quite simply the job of any composer, of any sort of music, to create work that will please some audience, if only him or herself. But there is no obligation on the part of anyone to like anybody's music or to even put in the effort to like anybody's music. It's _de gustibus_ all around. I return again to Milton Babbitt complaining in a Princeton NJ local paper about people not only not shelling out money to support "modern" music, but not even coming to free concerts of same. This seemed to strike him as some sort of _lèse majesté_, as he had just been awarded a "special" Pulitzer for his services to modern music.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

DaveM said:


> Funny, since the major orchestras keep scheduling works by those composers.


Funny, since Rihanna makes more on ticket sales in a night than they make all year. Or ever, actually, because they're not profitable.


----------



## DaveM

Magnum Miserium said:


> Funny, since Rihanna makes more on ticket sales in a night than they make all year. Or ever, actually, because they're not profitable.


The disparity between what popular (in all its formats) music artists and classical music artists/orchestras get paid has been a fact of life for many decades. Given the OP, so what?


----------



## Nereffid

To expand on my "laziness" remark: for centuries the audience (wherever it may be - cathedrals, coffee houses, opera houses) has managed to more-or-less keep up with the novelties that composers have offered them. But this is no longer the case. As Small conceded in the quoted text, there have undoubtedly been composers who seemingly have had no interested in taking the audience (the general audience) along with them. And my impression is that there was sufficient hegemony in the mid-20th century to discourage the success of composers who might have brought the audience along. So yes, we can "blame the composers" to some extent. And so I'll allow that there were a few decades in which the new music that audiences were being presented with was, by and large, unappealing to a disapppointingly large degree.
But come on, it's now 2017, and whatever dominance serialism and the avant-garde may have had over the entire contemporary music scene has waned, and we have the Internet and a practically unlimited supply of previously neglected 20th and newly minted 21st century music just sitting around waiting for the audience to listen to it and think _hey, this is new but actually not that different from the older stuff I like_. But instead we hear the tired old complaints about it - _all of it_ - being unlistenable noise.
So yeah, I don't for a second begrudge any individual their right to ignore or hate whatever music they wish to ignore or hate, but _en masse_ it does kinda look like people aren't willing to make the little effort that audiences always made in the past.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> I also believe that whereas in the past, in the early 1900s and earlier, the emphasis was on creating music that others would like, while from that time onward, the emphasis has been on composers creating what they want regardless of how it will be received.


Personally I want composers to write what they want. If they only write for the larger audience, we won't get their best efforts. I started a thread, Mozart, the Classical Era Stockhausen?, where I talked a bit about some of Mozart's music being difficult for the normal audience of the time. The title is an exaggeration, of course, but the idea of writing what one wants held true of some of Mozart's best works.

He apparently kept some compositions from the public because he thought they would react negatively. One such composition was his great G minor quintet. Now maybe people will say that quintet is hardly Stockhausen's Stimmung or even Crumb's Black Angels, but I wonder how much harder that quintet was for its audience to enjoy than much modern music is for the present audience.


----------



## mmsbls

Nereffid said:


> But instead we hear the tired old complaints about it - _all of it_ - being unlistenable noise.
> So yeah, I don't for a second begrudge any individual their right to ignore or hate whatever music they wish to ignore or hate, but _en masse_ it does kinda look like people aren't willing to make the little effort that audiences always made in the past.


I realize that some amount of modern music will sound awful to many classical music listeners. They may indeed wonder why it was written and how anyone could enjoy it. But anyone who reads posts at TC of those who do enjoy the music should realize that the music is, in fact, not awful and quite listenable. It just takes getting used to the new sounds. And fine if someone does not want to put in the time and/or effort to do the proper listening.

Those who enjoy modern music almost always also enjoy older music. And those who enjoy modern music generally talk highly of some modern music compared to the older music. So the assumption should be that if one does "learn the language", one might indeed highly enjoy and highly appreciate modern music even compared to very good older music.

I don't know what percentage of people enjoy straight liquor. I hate it and jokingly ask how is it possible for any human to drink whiskey, tequila, or scotch straight and not briefly feel as though they would like to die. But I know people do enjoy it and assume that many could learn to like the taste. I prefer not to try, but I know many people would rate a good scotch well above the juice or soda I like.


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> I wouldn't compare anything modern (or otherwise) with Beethoven (or Mozart or Bach) since they are my three favorite composers. I do love Sibelius and I would put the following works in the same category as his:
> 
> Stockhausen: Gruppen
> Dutilleux: Tout un monde lointain
> Lutoslawski: Concerto for Orchestra
> Boulez: Sur Incises
> 
> Obviously taste has an enormous effect on these choices. I couldn't say if musicologists find these works on a similar level to Sibelius.


I'm still persisting with the Stockhausen. What would your response be to the charge that it sounds random? Would it matter if some, or a significant number of the notes were altered in pitch and duration?


----------



## janxharris

Magnum Miserium said:


> Funny, since Rihanna makes more on ticket sales in a night than they make all year. Or ever, actually, because they're not profitable.


Things might be different if we consider income over a hundred or so years.


----------



## Strange Magic

Pre-electronics (and pre-the Edison wax cylinder ), the audience was almost entirely in the concert hall, though some few were in the parlor playing the piano. The advent of electronics, records, CDs, YouTube, etc. over the last century has drawn out of the concert hall those more inclined to hear new music, while leaving the concert hall audience as the guardians of the "old" and familiar concert-hall music. The situation now is that we have people sitting home alone among and surrounded by their vast collections of all sorts of recorded music--thousands (literally) of works by certainly many, many hundreds of composers. Picture the scene--thousands seated alone, listening each to their particular hero: Stockhausen, Crumb, Xenakis, whomever, and all the while calling out that nobody else or not enough people are nearby, listening also to whomever. Meanwhile, back in the now a little emptier but still working concert hall, the old CM crowd are still together, listening to the old (and good) favorites together, and talking about their shared experience. This ubiquity of access to music explains several things: why concert halls now host smaller and more conservative audiences, why there is endless discussion of the lack of sufficient interest in modern music, and why, in reality, every sort of music now is getting the audience it deserves.


----------



## Martin D

Nereffid said:


> To expand on my "laziness" remark: for centuries the audience (wherever it may be - cathedrals, coffee houses, opera houses) has managed to more-or-less keep up with the novelties that composers have offered them. But this is no longer the case.
> 
> ...
> 
> I don't for a second begrudge any individual their right to ignore or hate whatever music they wish to ignore or hate, but _en masse_ it does kinda look like people aren't willing to make the little effort that audiences always made in the past.


These statements rather assume that composers of old were the main initiators of new styles/forms in music and the audiences of the time mere lapped it all up, with no questions asked.

I would agree that some composers made innovations independently of audience pressure, but not all were succcessful with those innvoations. On the whole it seems far more likely that the audiences themselves were the prime-movers for desired changes, and the more successful composers were those who succeeded in best meeting the challenges. In other words, you've probably got cause and effect mixed up.

I doubt that modern day classical music audiences are more conservative in their tastes than their counterparts in centuries past, as you allege. What's more likely is that, simply because it's newish, there is a large amount "modern" classical music material lurking about trying to find a home, and the bits that the public decide they do not like will eventually be discarded almost completely. In due course, the residue of "modern" music that remains will not seem as unusual as it does right now.


----------



## Strange Magic

These days nothing is ever totally discarded. Everything is retained, each with its special audience-some audiences larger than others.


----------



## Martin D

mmsbls said:


> Those who enjoy modern music almost always also enjoy older music. And those who enjoy modern music generally talk highly of some modern music compared to the older music. So the assumption should be that if one does "learn the language", one might indeed highly enjoy and highly appreciate modern music even compared to very good older music.


You're probably correct that those who enjoy modern music and those who enjoy older music are by no means disjoint sets. Common observation suggests that there is an overlap.

How big that overlap is must surely depend on what is meant by "enjoy". This is a very flexible word with a wide range of interpretations in the context of classical music appreciation. Some people have very sharply declining preferences (e.g. the beethoven "fan-boys", of which there are clearly a few here), whereas at the other extreme the "like" distribution seems to be very much more accommodating of virtually any composer provided, so it may appear, that the voter in question has heard at least one work of said composer that they like.

Whilst we await further enlightenment on this subject from the recently completed 43 "like" polls, I've been spending a little time delving into some of the previous T-C composers that requested members' favourites, by looking at some of the individual submissions. It's been a somewhat tedious and time-consuming process but I've come up with some results that I may discuss later if appropriate, when commenting on the 43 polls results.

Suffice to say now that "modern" composers such as Ligeti, Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Boulez, Berio, Scelsi, Penderecki, Rautavaara, (to name just a few) aren't all that popular either individually or as a group. Schoenberg is the most popular, but of course he also wrote a good deal of decent conventional music before going serial.

Of course, as per the previous discussions, I accept that "like" and preference are rather different things, but when asked to rank their preferences it would seem that a lot of these so-called "liked" composers lose quite a lot of their apparent shine when lined up against competition from other composers. So perhaps _"... liked, but not a lot"_ may be a more fitting descriptor for some of these more marginal composers.


----------



## Martin D

Strange Magic said:


> These days nothing is ever totally discarded. Everything is retained, each with its special audience-some audiences larger than others.


OK then, "placed on back burner" for any speciality tastes there might, rather than "discarded" - as if this makes much difference to what I wrote.


----------



## Nereffid

janxharris said:


> I'm still persisting with the Stockhausen. What would your response be to the charge that it sounds random? Would it matter if some, or a significant number of the notes were altered in pitch and duration?


That was long an issue I had with works such as _Gruppen_: I could acknowledge that though they weren't actually random, they did sound like they were, or at least more random than one might expect or want from a piece of music. Perhaps _Gruppen_ is indeed more susceptible to being messed around with without anyone noticing, in a way that a Mozart sonata isn't, but perhaps for the listener the emphasis doesn't need to be in those fine details in the way that it's necessary for the Mozart sonata. Or, more harshly, perhaps worrying about this apparent randomness is kind of missing the point. By way of analogy it's like comparing a Battenberg cake with a fruit cake: the former has to have those equally sized squares of a particular colour and the jam in certain places, and the icing just so, whereas with the fruit cake one can be less formal, and the various bits of fruit can be randomly distributed - once the overall proportions are right it makes little difference whether any particular cubic centimeter contains a raisin or a cherry.


----------



## Strange Magic

Martin D said:


> OK then, "placed on back burner" for any speciality tastes there might, rather than "discarded" - as if this makes much difference to what I wrote.


It's important IMO to grasp just how profound the change is in the world of music and the arts today. The ubiquity of almost literally "everything" today results in an increasing fragmentation and an increasing particularization of a larger and larger overall audience for any sort of art expression. This makes it more difficult to draw specific verifiable and relevant conclusions about trends in the arts and about what percentages of the general audience are into this or that. At the risk (I don't mind the risk) of a twice or thrice told tale, I note again that musicologist/theorist/composer Leonard Meyer discussed the New Stasis in music and the arts, likening it to Brownian motion--the random movement of molecules in a gas--in books such as _Music, The Arts, and Ideas_ back in the 1960s. The subsequent advent of the Internet, YouTube, etc. has only strengthened his argument.


----------



## JAS

Nereffid said:


> To expand on my "laziness" remark: for centuries the audience (wherever it may be - cathedrals, coffee houses, opera houses) has managed to more-or-less keep up with the novelties that composers have offered them. But this is no longer the case. As Small conceded in the quoted text, there have undoubtedly been composers who seemingly have had no interested in taking the audience (the general audience) along with them. And my impression is that there was sufficient hegemony in the mid-20th century to discourage the success of composers who might have brought the audience along. So yes, we can "blame the composers" to some extent. And so I'll allow that there were a few decades in which the new music that audiences were being presented with was, by and large, unappealing to a disapppointingly large degree.
> But come on, it's now 2017, and whatever dominance serialism and the avant-garde may have had over the entire contemporary music scene has waned, and we have the Internet and a practically unlimited supply of previously neglected 20th and newly minted 21st century music just sitting around waiting for the audience to listen to it and think _hey, this is new but actually not that different from the older stuff I like_. But instead we hear the tired old complaints about it - _all of it_ - being unlistenable noise.
> So yeah, I don't for a second begrudge any individual their right to ignore or hate whatever music they wish to ignore or hate, but _en masse_ it does kinda look like people aren't willing to make the little effort that audiences always made in the past.


First, let us admit that however small the _number_ of differences between "older stuff I like" and most if not necessarily "the entire contemporary music scene," the effect is _immensely_ different, and apparently for many, many, many people, simply too immense. Second, let us admit that you are being very disingenuous in claiming "the little effort" required to appreciate such music. Several participants even in this thread who clearly seem to appreciate this kind of music (I am intentionally trying to avoid the word "like" in this context) admit that it took quite a bit more than a "little effort." I, for example, feel that I have extended quite a bit of effort, intermittently over the course of more than 30 years, and all of that effort has produced virtually no change in my attitudes toward this "newer music" even as, during the same period, my opinions on various works, periods, styles and even certain instruments has changed considerably. (When I was young, I did not particularly like the prominent sound of a violin, which cut me off from a huge genre of works that I now enjoy a great deal.)

And this is the part that I think is most curious of all. You say the "complaints about it" are "tired" and "old," but we are talking about "complaints" that have persisted now for close to a century. No other changes in classical music have maintained so much opposition for so long. During this same period, we have embraced huge changes of all sorts. Look at our clothing and hair styles. We have moved from a largely rural population to mostly living in cities and urban contexts. We have embraced airplanes and automobiles, electricity, radio and television, LPs, CDs and now downloads, and computers. And this newer music has come of age during the time of recordings, which gives it many advantages that other forms never enjoyed. The ability to hear this music for free on youtube should give it every opportunity to thrive and to be embraced, and yet the same complaints continue. (Oddly, a number of older and basically forgotten composers have enjoyed a renewal of interest in their works, not displacing the established standards, but finding themselves going from no performances to several recordings with at least modest sales.) Yet we have not really embraced this "newer music." Perhaps what you disdain as "tired" and "old" is simply "consistent" and, effectively "true." At this point, if you are waiting for the broader audience to finally "get" it, I think you will wait in vain.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

JAS said:


> And this is the part that I think is most curious of all. You say the "complaints about it" are "tired" and "old," but we are talking about "complaints" that have persisted now for close to a century. No other changes in classical music have maintained so much opposition for so long. During this same period, we have embraced huge changes of all sorts. Look at our clothing and hair styles. We have moved from a largely rural population to mostly living in cities and urban contexts. We have embraced airplanes and automobiles, electricity, radio and television, LPs, CDs and now downloads, and computers. And this newer music has come of age during the time of recordings, which gives it many advantages that other forms never enjoyed. The ability to hear this music for free on youtube should give it every opportunity to thrive and to be embraced, and yet the same complaints continue.


Which is to say, the music is immortal (or at less fairly long lived), or you wouldn't still be complaining about it.


----------



## JAS

Magnum Miserium said:


> Which is to say, the music is immortal (or at less fairly long lived), or you wouldn't still be complaining about it.


The same could be said of Syphilis. (Maybe we should have a poll on favorite STD.)


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Yeah, it's alive whether you like it or not.


----------



## JAS

And I am glad I don't have it.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Well you've got minimalism, whether you like it or not (and maybe by extension you'll also got atonality, depending how much credit should be given to that for _provoking_ minimalism into existence). We've all got minimalism. It's the musical atmosphere we breath.


----------



## mmsbls

janxharris said:


> I'm still persisting with the Stockhausen. What would your response be to the charge that it sounds random? Would it matter if some, or a significant number of the notes were altered in pitch and duration?


I would not be at all surprised to hear that people feel it sounds random. Many 12 tone works sounded random to me years ago. I'm not sure if I listened to Gruppen during that time or after I had become somewhat familiar with the language.

I had to realize that listening to works such as Gruppen was very different then listening to pre-20th century works. There is no melody or familiar harmony. I listen for completely different things such as motifs that flirt about, sound clusters, and interesting timbres or textures. It's not that there is never melody or familiar harmonies, but if one is looking for what one expects from pre-20th century music, much modern music will make no sense and probably sound awful.

I think orchestras could easily change notes in Gruppen and many people would hear little to no difference; however, the work is very highly organized so it would matter a lot to the work itself. Gruppen is performed by 3 separate orchestras with 3 conductors carefully keeping them together. The orchestras surround the audience giving people the effect of having the sound emanating all about them (I've never heard it live). There is a section about 2/3 through where the brass flirts about from orchestra to orchestra. I find it wonderful.


----------



## mmsbls

Martin D said:


> Suffice to say now that "modern" composers such as Ligeti, Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Boulez, Berio, Scelsi, Penderecki, Rautavaara, (to name just a few) aren't all that popular either individually or as a group. Schoenberg is the most popular, but of course he also wrote a good deal of decent conventional music before going serial.
> 
> Of course, as per the previous discussions, I accept that "like" and preference are rather different things, but when asked to rank their preferences it would seem that a lot of these so-called "liked" composers lose quite a lot of their apparent shine when lined up against competition from other composers. So perhaps _"... liked, but not a lot"_ may be a more fitting descriptor for some of these more marginal composers.


There are four types of voters. One does not enjoy modern music. One does enjoy modern music but prefers older music somewhat. The third enjoys modern music as much or more than pre-modern. There is a very small (as far as I know) fourth group that doesn't like pre-modern music. The first group can significantly swing ratings even if they do not dominate listeners. Group two will also swing ratings towards pre-modern composers. The third and fourth groups could place modern composers very high in their rankings, but their votes aren't enough to place modern composers high in these polls.

I'm in group 2, but I still like many modern composers and works a lot.


----------



## schigolch

I'm in group 3. 

For sure, in this group (and in group 4, I know personally several people fitting the description), Schönberg is not even considered a "modern" composer, but another pre-modern/from the past composer. And traditional tonality ranks along with 12-tone as musical systems of yesteryear.


----------



## Nereffid

JAS said:


> First, let us admit that however small the _number_ of differences between "older stuff I like" and most if not necessarily "the entire contemporary music scene," the effect is _immensely_ different, and apparently for many, many, many people, simply too immense. Second, let us admit that you are being very disingenuous in claiming "the little effort" required to appreciate such music. Several participants even in this thread who clearly seem to appreciate this kind of music (I am intentionally trying to avoid the word "like" in this context) admit that it took quite a bit more than a "little effort." I, for example, feel that I have extended quite a bit of effort, intermittently over the course of more than 30 years, and all of that effort has produced virtually no change in my attitudes toward this "newer music" even as, during the same period, my opinions on various works, periods, styles and even certain instruments has changed considerably. (When I was young, I did not particularly like the prominent sound of a violin, which cut me off from a huge genre of works that I now enjoy a great deal.)
> 
> And this is the part that I think is most curious of all. You say the "complaints about it" are "tired" and "old," but we are talking about "complaints" that have persisted now for close to a century. No other changes in classical music have maintained so much opposition for so long. During this same period, we have embraced huge changes of all sorts. Look at our clothing and hair styles. We have moved from a largely rural population to mostly living in cities and urban contexts. We have embraced airplanes and automobiles, electricity, radio and television, LPs, CDs and now downloads, and computers. And this newer music has come of age during the time of recordings, which gives it many advantages that other forms never enjoyed. The ability to hear this music for free on youtube should give it every opportunity to thrive and to be embraced, and yet the same complaints continue. (Oddly, a number of older and basically forgotten composers have enjoyed a renewal of interest in their works, not displacing the established standards, but finding themselves going from no performances to several recordings with at least modest sales.) Yet we have not really embraced this "newer music." Perhaps what you disdain as "tired" and "old" is simply "consistent" and, effectively "true." At this point, if you are waiting for the broader audience to finally "get" it, I think you will wait in vain.


I'd not use the word "disdain" myself - I'm more tired of the complaints than anything else. The ironic thing is I don't care for the serialists and much of the avant-garde leaves me cold - but enough of it amazes and excites me. It's the old problem of not being quite able to understand: if I, someone who is not at all special, am able to love this music, then why is it so difficult for others, or why do they not _want_ to love it? My first exposure to Stockhausen was on a whim: the most radical music I'd heard up to the time was, I think, Wagner's Ring. I had a chance to listen to _Hymnen_ and was fascinated; though the next thing by Stockhausen that I heard (I can't remember what it was) was very off-putting. My first exposure to Ligeti was also on a whim; by now I'd expanded my musical horizons a bit more, and bought a CD out of curiosity (I was aware of his name and might have associated him with _2001_). And again, some of it was off-putting but some of it blew me away. The very same thing happened with Schnittke, and though my tastes gradually veered towards the minimalists, the knowledge that some avant-garde music was fantastic the first time I heard it has remained a useful tool when encountering it further.

But anyway, the point I was making above is that even if the general audience has no interest whatsoever in modernist music as represented by the likes of Stockhausen or Ligeti, there is still tons more music written at the same time, or later, that doesn't represent a radical break with the past - just the gradual moving on that has been taking place for century after century. As I say, maybe it's just my failure to understand other people, but I really have trouble believing that relatively recent works like (first examples that come to mind) Rautavaara's 7th symphony or MacMillan's _Confession of Isobel Gowdie_ are so vastly far away from Mahler's symphonies that the general classical audience can't handle them. Let alone the symphonies of people like Martinu or Schuman, which also apparently seem to be a bridge too far. I just can't hear in the music the supposed gulf that 20th- and 21st-century composers have created, nor can I see how the distance from Mahler to Schuman or to Rautavaara is so much further (and insurmountably so) than the distance from Haydn to Mahler. So if I seem disdainful of these broad complaints about how contemporary/recent music makes no effort to meet the audience's demands, that's why.


----------



## JAS

A somewhat related interview (technically two merged interviews) with John Corigliano that may be of interest if you have not already read it: http://www.bruceduffie.com/corigliano.html


----------



## Nereffid

mmsbls said:


> There are four types of voters. One does not enjoy modern music. One does enjoy modern music but prefers older music somewhat. The third enjoys modern music as much or more than pre-modern. There is a very small (as far as I know) fourth group that doesn't like pre-modern music. The first group can significantly swing ratings even if they do not dominate listeners. Group two will also swing ratings towards pre-modern composers. The third and fourth groups could place modern composers very high in their rankings, but their votes aren't enough to place modern composers high in these polls.


The information in my polls might give some pointers as to how broad the tastes of the various groups are. Obviously by definition groups 2 and 3 would be expected to have the broadest taste. But do people who enjoy only modern or only pre-modern music have broad tastes within those confines?
It's tricky to tease out, but I've come up with a system on my spreadsheet that allows me to compare the voters for any 2 given composers, so I can at least get some of the picture. For instance, comparing Telemann and Ligeti (who are comparable because 37 people voted for each), and looking specifically at the people who voted in both polls, I find that 54% of those who say they like Telemann also say they like Ligeti, while 41% of those who like Ligeti also say they like Telemann. That's an interesting disparity but it might not be wide enough to mean anything. Going further, and comparing each with Bach (who got more votes than either of them, of course), I discover that 46% of people who like Bach also like Telemann, and 57% of those who like Bach also like Ligeti. (All Telemann fans liked Bach; 94% of Ligeti fans liked Bach). Given that Bach and Telemann were contemporaries who worked in the same genres, it might be surprising that the Bach fans seem less interested in (or no more interested in) Telemann than they are in Ligeti. So perhaps the Bach fans who don't like Ligeti also don't like Telemann very much. Delving any further might require more effort than it's worth, though. But I'm curious if the notion holds on a broader scale - perhaps a relatively large proportion of people who don't like modern music have quite selective tastes generally, and in polls of favourites there's not much "vote splitting". This is just speculation based on a single piece of information though!


----------



## DaveM

For the first time, I am going to divulge to the world and TC a secret about myself: I am a 332 year old man. I was born in Germany in 1685, coincidentally, the same year as Johann Sebastian Bach. My exposure to classical music over all these years is a long, complicated story, but I'll give the short version.

For many years, the only music I knew was that of Bach. I was lucky enough to have been exposed to his music and to have appreciated it because, surprisingly, its greatness would not be fully recognized until over 100 years later. But it was wonderful: the melodies, the harmony and this new thing called counterpoint. It was so easy to listen to and appreciate.

Bach's death in 1750 devastated me. Was that the end of this new wonderful classical music? But, lo and behold, another giant soon arose, Joseph Haydn, who over the years introduced me to this new sonata form: melodies, always apparent and clearly stated, introduced, developed and replayed in different forms. Symphonies, concertos, sonatas!

And then came that astounding period at the end of the 18th century when I am now well over 100 years old. Yet another genius has taken over the scene, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. And another one, Ludwig Van Beethoven, also seems destined for greatness. There is now a new era and new music, but there is always wonderful melody, melody that can be appreciated by the aristocracy and the common folk. 

And then comes the 19th century, a treasure trove of new forms of this classical music. There are so many new masters, it is hard to keep track of all the different music: Schubert, Chopin, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Liszt, Brahms, Wagner. Where does it end? Different constructs, different perspectives, different interpretations, different formats and yet, always on a foundation of melody. Melody that resonates for virtually everybody.

And now the 20th century arrives and at well over 200 years old, I am ready for yet another century of wonderful music. But it is not to be. Yes, there are remnants here and there of the music that had moved me for so many years, but, sadly, it seems that melody has, more than not, become of less interest or even irrelevant. Perhaps, all the geniuses over all these years have spoiled me. But at least I have been blessed with the invention of recordings that allow me to experience some of the music I missed during those great times and that, for the moment, sustains me.

I still struggle with the fact that for over 250 years classical music had a relatively consistent structure based on melody that all could enjoy, but now it is, for the most part, only accessible to those who are prepared to do some work, sometimes apparently a lot of work, to understand and enjoy it.


----------



## Chronochromie

I see no lack of melody in the 20th century but what I do see is many new interests that Modern composers developed that had not been explored before. You might not find them interesting though.


----------



## Simon Moon

DaveM said:


> And now the 20th century arrives and at well over 200 years old, I am ready for yet another century of wonderful music. But it is not to be. Yes, there are remnants here and there of the music that had moved me for so many years, but, sadly, it seems that melody has, more than not, become of less interest or even irrelevant. Perhaps, all the geniuses over all these years have spoiled me. But at least I have been blessed with the invention of recordings that allow me to experience some of the music I missed during those great times and that, for the moment, sustains me.


As one who was born in the 1950's, I find plenty of music from my era with great melodies.

Yes, there is some forms of classical music with less than obvious melody that require some 'work', and that is also fine, when I am in the mood to listen to those types of music.



> I still struggle with the fact that for over 250 years classical music had a relatively consistent structure based on melody that all could enjoy, but now it is, for the most part, only accessible to those who are prepared to do some work, sometimes apparently a lot of work, to understand and enjoy it.


As I posted quite a bit earlier in this thread, some people seem to point at extreme examples of 20th century and contemporary music, then paint the entire era with the same broad brush.

It is too bad that some have prejudiced themselves to the entire era, by considering only the extreme examples, then continue to lament the loss of melody.

There is some great and beautiful contemporary music out there, that keep my in a constant state of joy at new discoveries.


----------



## DaveM

Simon Moon said:


> As one who was born in the 1950's, I find plenty of music from my era with great melodies.
> 
> Yes, there is some forms of classical music with less than obvious melody that require some 'work', and that is also fine, when I am in the mood to listen to those types of music.
> 
> As I posted quite a bit earlier in this thread, some people seem to point at extreme examples of 20th century and contemporary music, then paint the entire era with the same broad brush.
> 
> It is too bad that some have prejudiced themselves to the entire era, by considering only the extreme examples, then continue to lament the loss of melody.
> 
> There is some great and beautiful contemporary music out there, that keep my in a constant state of joy at new discoveries.


You and a few others keep saying that, but whenever some examples are provided, they are, for me, a total let-down. The melodies are, to my ear, vague and don't seem to be consistent. The music wanders here, there and everywhere.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

DaveM said:


> here, there and everywhere.


Speaking of great 20th century melodies


----------



## Martin D

mmsbls said:


> There are four types of voters. One does not enjoy modern music. One does enjoy modern music but prefers older music somewhat. The third enjoys modern music as much or more than pre-modern. There is a very small (as far as I know) fourth group that doesn't like pre-modern music. The first group can significantly swing ratings even if they do not dominate listeners. Group two will also swing ratings towards pre-modern composers. The third and fourth groups could place modern composers very high in their rankings, but their votes aren't enough to place modern composers high in these polls.
> 
> I'm in group 2, but I still like many modern composers and works a lot.


That's fine but I'm not clear what you mean by _"The first group can significantly swing ratings even if they do not dominate listeners. Group two will also swing ratings towards pre-modern composers "._

The fact is that these two groups (1 and 2) do dominate in terms of the number of listeners. This domination does impart any bias in the results of preference based composer polls, as you seem to imply. It's simply a reflection of the way typical patterns of voters respond in polls when they're asked to list their favourite composers.

It's a fact that the largest number of people do not place modern composers (I'm referring mainly to the atonal, serial, avante-garde variety) at the top end of their preferences, and hence the latter are placed much lower down the table in the aggregated lists. This result has been seen in all the composer polls based on preference, and it's the way things should be in any democratic vote count system where each voter's preferences are treated equally.


----------



## mmsbls

Martin D said:


> That's fine but I'm not clear what you mean by _"The first group can significantly swing ratings even if they do not dominate listeners. Group two will also swing ratings towards pre-modern composers "._
> 
> The fact is that these two groups (1 and 2) do dominate in terms of the number of listeners. This domination does impart any bias in the results of preference based composer polls, as you seem to imply. It's simply a reflection of the way typical patterns of voters respond in polls when they're asked to list their favourite composers.
> 
> It's a fact that the largest number of people do not place modern composers (I'm referring mainly to the atonal, serial, avante-garde variety) at the top end of their preferences, and hence the latter are placed much lower down the table in the aggregated lists. This result has been seen in all the composer polls based on preference, and it's the way things should be in any democratic vote count system where each voter's preferences are treated equally.


I think we both agree on this. My point in my post was that there are members who do place modern composers in their top group. Group 2 places modern composers higher than group 1 but maybe not into their top group of composers.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the majority of listeners place pre-modern composers at the top of their lists. There are a variety of reasons for that including unfamiliarity with the new music and a preference for music with melody and "standard" (CPT) harmonies. Some of us enjoy newer music and believe more people would enjoy it if they were exposed to that new music more often. How much more often? Who knows? Some may never like it.

Maybe the main point is that the new music is not innately inferior or unpleasant. Too many people have gone from strongly disliking it to enjoying it.


----------



## JAS

mmsbls said:


> Maybe the main point is that the new music is not innately inferior or unpleasant. Too many people have gone from strongly disliking it to enjoying it.


It is for the much larger group (I am not limiting this to TC members) that has heard it and still strongly dislikes it. "Inferior" may be too harsh a judgement, but "unpleasant" or, I would add, "unappealing" are valid subjective evaluations. There must be something (or perhaps many somethings) innately about the music (present in or absent from it) that results in this reaction. It is not the name, nationality, age at time of death, personality or personal life story of the composer. It is not the title of the composition, the length, or necessarily the year of composition (although there is at least some correlation in this last item). It is necessarily the music itself.

Now, the open question is perhaps still how much exposure this music has had. I suspect that most classical music fans have found themselves exposed to some of it, and some of it of various specific forms. After all this time, and with the wide availability of hearing such music if one wishes to do so, I think it highly unlikely that the status of this music will substantially improve.

(The TC system seems to be experiencing load problems.)


----------



## mmsbls

JAS said:


> It is for the much larger group (I am not limiting this to TC members) that has heard it and still strongly dislikes it. "Inferior" may be too harsh a judgement, but "unpleasant" or, I would add, "unappealing" are valid subjective evaluations. There must be something (or perhaps many somethings) innately about the music (present in or absent from it) that results in this reaction. It is not the name, nationality, age at time of death, personality or personal life story of the composer. It is not the title of the composition, the length, or necessarily the year of composition (although there is at least some correlation in this last item). It is necessarily the music itself.


Yes, the music is clearly very unpleasant to likely most listeners. I believe it is not innately so. Since so many (not in percentages but in absolute numbers) who previously did not enjoy the music have been able to enjoy the music with more exposure, the displeasure likely is not innate (i.e. it can be modified). When humans who have heard primarily popular or CPT classical music are exposed to modern classical music, many react with displeasure. The development of human brains coupled with the learning that occurs during exposure to popular or CPT classical music apparently often creates an environment not conducive to modern music. But learning can modify this response in a reasonable number of people who take the time to expose themselves sufficiently.

So people have a choice. Stop listening to modern music or continue with the objective of becoming more familiar with it. There's no right or wrong here. Because I choose to continue, I have opened up a whole century of wonderful (to me) music that previously was inaccessible. A hundred years and counting is a lot of music, and I, for one, am thrilled I made that choice.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

mmsbls said:


> Yes, the music is clearly very unpleasant to likely most listeners. I believe it is not innately so. Since so many (not in percentages but in absolute numbers) who previously did not enjoy the music have been able to enjoy the music with more exposure, the displeasure likely is not innate (i.e. it can be modified). When humans who have heard primarily popular or CPT classical music are exposed to modern classical music, many react with displeasure. The development of human brains coupled with the learning that occurs during exposure to popular or CPT classical music apparently often creates an environment not conducive to modern music. But learning can modify this response in a reasonable number of people who take the time to expose themselves sufficiently.
> 
> So people have a choice. Stop listening to modern music or continue with the objective of becoming more familiar with it. There's no right or wrong here. Because I choose to continue, I have opened up a whole century of wonderful (to me) music that previously was inaccessible. A hundred years and counting is a lot of music, and I, for one, am thrilled I made that choice.


With enough "training" -you can learn to enjoy any perversion of the flesh or mind...


----------



## mmsbls

BabyGiraffe said:


> With enough "training" -you can learn to enjoy any perversion of the flesh or mind...


Perhaps, but I prefer "training" that I enjoy.


----------



## Chronochromie

BabyGiraffe said:


> With enough "training" -you can learn to enjoy any perversion of the flesh or mind...


We were previously compared to homeopaths, and now to perverts, this is great stuff right here! :lol:


----------



## KenOC

Chronochromie said:


> We were previously compared to homeopaths, and now to perverts, this is great stuff right here! :lol:


Not by me! I always use the term "preverts" in remembrance of the great Kubrick movie. Anyway, you know what that modern stuff does to your precious bodily fluids.


----------



## Nereffid

BabyGiraffe said:


> With enough "training" -you can learn to enjoy any perversion of the flesh or mind...


I've made that point myself in the past - that some of the strongest advocates for modern music can occasionally come across like creepy guys telling their girlfriend "just try it a few more times - you'll eventually like it". But that wasn't what mmsbls was saying, he just meantioned "more exposure" and "people have a choice". And I noted in a post upthread that my first exposures to avant-garde music included some very significant successes on my first try.
And I and others keep trying to make the point that there's plenty of other 20th- and 21st-century music that really isn't so hard to appreciate (or, to use your wholly unwelcome term, is not perverted), but this seems to be ignored or dismissed.


----------



## janxharris

Nereffid said:


> That was long an issue I had with works such as _Gruppen_: I could acknowledge that though they weren't actually random, they did sound like they were, or at least more random than one might expect or want from a piece of music. Perhaps _Gruppen_ is indeed more susceptible to being messed around with without anyone noticing, in a way that a Mozart sonata isn't, but perhaps for the listener the emphasis doesn't need to be in those fine details in the way that it's necessary for the Mozart sonata. Or, more harshly, perhaps worrying about this apparent randomness is kind of missing the point. By way of analogy it's like comparing a Battenberg cake with a fruit cake: the former has to have those equally sized squares of a particular colour and the jam in certain places, and the icing just so, whereas with the fruit cake one can be less formal, and the various bits of fruit can be randomly distributed - once the overall proportions are right it makes little difference whether any particular cubic centimeter contains a raisin or a cherry.


I've listen several times more and remain unconvinced of any merit but I am willing to be disabused of my charge that the music is pretty much random (though, with some crafting as to general shaping).


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> I would not be at all surprised to hear that people feel it sounds random. Many 12 tone works sounded random to me years ago. I'm not sure if I listened to Gruppen during that time or after I had become somewhat familiar with the language.
> 
> I had to realize that listening to works such as Gruppen was very different then listening to pre-20th century works. There is no melody or familiar harmony. I listen for completely different things such as motifs that flirt about, sound clusters, and interesting timbres or textures. It's not that there is never melody or familiar harmonies, but if one is looking for what one expects from pre-20th century music, much modern music will make no sense and probably sound awful.
> 
> I think orchestras could easily change notes in Gruppen and many people would hear little to no difference; however, the work is very highly organized so it would matter a lot to the work itself. Gruppen is performed by 3 separate orchestras with 3 conductors carefully keeping them together. The orchestras surround the audience giving people the effect of having the sound emanating all about them (I've never heard it live). There is a section about 2/3 through where the brass flirts about from orchestra to orchestra. I find it wonderful.


'_however, the work is very highly organized_'

Could you elaborate please? I'm not hearing anything that remotely suggests the organic.


----------



## Myriadi

The thread has predictably veered toward discussion of post-war avantgarde, and listeners who like any of it were, also predictably, promptly compared to frauds and perverts. This takes me back to quite a few years ago when I told someone I loved Webern's piano variations the moment I heard them first (that is, with no knowledge of the 12-tone method, and very little exposure to 20th century CM), and that person told me I needed to see a psychiatrist about it, because no normal human being can have that reaction. Fun times.

So I wouldn't want to talk about my fascination with Stockhausen or Xenakis, and instead I'd like to ask the anti-contemporary crowd to listen to a few "traditional" works from the past few decades, and let me know why _these_ are poorly received, underperformed, and indeed barely known to the general public. For example, here's a guitar concerto from 1987 by Leo Brouwer (just the first part, rest are on Youtube as well):






A symphony from 1982 by Lou Harrison:






And here's a shorter piece, Howard Skempton's _Lento_ from 1990:






Hopefully these will qualify as music, although after seeing that Ligeti etude described as "barely qualifies as music", well, I have no clue. It's a perfectly straightforward piece of music to me. Oh well!


----------



## Myriadi

janxharris said:


> '_however, the work is very highly organized_'
> 
> Could you elaborate please? I'm not hearing anything that remotely suggests organic organisation.


If I may interject, and if you have some knowledge of theory, here's a page that describes the basics of the piece rather well:

http://stockhausenspace.blogspot.ru/2014/12/opus-6-gruppen.html


----------



## DavidA

If a movie or play is not well received it's usually judged to have been not up to standard. I know there are exceptions and some works are accepted after initial failure. I don't see why we should make any exception to music. If it isn't any good I can't see why the public should come and hear it


----------



## janxharris

Myriadi said:


> If I may interject, and if you have some knowledge of theory, here's a page that describes the basics of the piece rather well:
> 
> http://stockhausenspace.blogspot.ru/2014/12/opus-6-gruppen.html


Thanks. It seems only to confirm that the notes chosen are pretty much arbitrary:

_...The next step was to take this 12-note sequence and re-sequence it 11 times to come up with a total of 12 variations (including the original)....

...For tempo, Stockhausen devised a "chromatic tempo scale" going from 60 to 120 (divided into 12 tempos, 1 for each chromatic note). The tempo of each group was then chosen from the note matching the 12-step tempo-scale. Fundamental durations were found by assigning values according to the octave register of the note in the GRUPPEN tone row (lower registers would get longer values such as whole notes, higher registers would get shorter ones such as 8th notes)... _


----------



## janxharris

Chronochromie said:


> Yes.
> 
> Messiaen - Vingt regards, Catalogue d'oiseaux, Turangalila Symphonie, Des canyons aux etoiles..., Éclairs sur l'au-delà..., La Transfiguration, Oiseaux exotiques, Livre du Saint Sacrament, Saint François d'Assise,...
> 
> Ligeti - Concertos (Violin, Piano, Chamber, Double, Hamburg), Atmospheres, Lontano, Melodien, Lux aeterna, Requiem, Clocks and Clouds, String Quartet No. 2, Horn Trio, Viola Sonata, Musica Ricercata, Études,...
> 
> I'll come back and add something from other composers later.


Thanks.

I'm listening to Messiaen 'Vingt regards'...

There appears to be a more organic approach (compared with Stockhausen's Gruppen) but it just hits me as inexorably negative music. Don't get me wrong, much of the music I like would be described as rather melancholic - but this sound almost like a never ending nightmare...as if anything positive cannot even be hoped for.


----------



## schigolch




----------



## schigolch




----------



## janxharris

I'm reposting JAS's #150 post in case it becomes relevant:

_When I was in college, I was not an Art major, but I could draw reasonably well and took a few art classes. I had a nasty run-in with one teacher, who objected to my preference for representational art. For the next class, I brought in pictures of four paintings, all very much "modern," and asked her to bring some light into my darkness by explaining what I was missing in these works. She recognized one as by Jackson Pollack, and began with that, saying all sorts of things that made a great show of terminology but was mostly incomprehensible babble. She proceeded with the other three paintings in similar fashion. When she was done, I identified the mysterious artist behind the other three paintings --- an elephant at a zoo, whose paintings were sold at an annual fundraiser. She never forgave me for that, but she stopped pushing so much._


----------



## janxharris

schigolch said:


>


This sounds organic but not my type of music. I immediately thought of Bernstein.

Seems quite melodic.


----------



## JAS

Another potentially interesting story from my college days. In one of my film classes, a fellow student was inclined to drop the mention into a conversation that he was very much into “modern classical” music (as well as some other rather esoteric interests). After this had happened a couple of times, usually inserted with only the slightest connection to the topic at hand, I asked him to be more specific and give me some names of composers he liked. On the spot, he was only able to name Stravinsky and Berg, which was certainly not very impressive. But the next time this happened, I noticed that he suddenly peppered his comments liberally with names of several composers. (Clearly, he had gone off and done some homework.) I asked him for the names of titles to some of the pieces. Again, he was only able to name one or two pieces, both of which were at least things that even I had heard of, so not really indicative of someone having a deep understanding of the subject. And the next time he brought it into another conversation, he suddenly had several names of pieces. At this point, it was pretty obvious that whatever his actual level of interest might be, it was mostly a matter of show as he seemed to think it made him look intellectual and elite. For all his efforts, I very much doubt that it got him many dates.


----------



## JAS

mmsbls said:


> Yes, the music is clearly very unpleasant to likely most listeners. I believe it is not innately so.


I think we are still getting very hung up on terminology and the implication of certain words. (Maybe Wittgenstein was right and these kinds of discussions are little more than language games.) The unpleasantness is indeed "innately" in the music because it originates from the music itself. What I think you are arguing is that the response need not necessarily be unalterably aversion. This distinction may be true, but it probably doesn't mean very much because people can grow accustomed to all sorts of noises. The greater question is will they do so in more than trivial numbers for "modernistic" music? The answer to that question can only be speculative, but based on the past century or so, I think it is fairly safe to presume that it is highly unlikely, partly because it requires a notable amount of time and effort, and partly because there is no particularly great reward to encourage either.

I am reminded somewhat of the first time I tasted beer. (I should perhaps note that I am not a drinker of any alcoholic beverages, and never have been.) It was terrible, and I don't think I was able to swallow the full gulp without considerable effort. (I do not recall the brand, but I believe it was at least a decent variety, and not merely a cheap drink.) Everyone around me laughed and assured me that it was "an acquired taste," to which I replied, to their astonishment, "why would anyone bother to acquire it?" The reason, apparently, was chiefly the effect of the alcohol (and an associated plea to "being sociable"), the only possible justification for the success of many beers that even people who drink them admit are pretty bad. So, many people are drinking something that they know isn't very good (in terms of actual taste), and over time they probably grow accustomed to it, even if they may not exactly get to "like" it, but they are drinking it for the cheapest and quickest effect of alcohol they can get (as well as that elusive "being sociable" thing). For them, that payoff is worth at least the initial period of mere tolerance. There is really no equivalent for this reward in "modernist music," at least not beyond any other form of classical music, making it, I suppose, the equivalent of non-alcoholic beer. (It doesn't taste very good, isn't good for you in terms of health, and it doesn't even give you a buzz, plus the greater number of drinkers of "real" beer will mostly just make fun of you.)

Will larger numbers of people come to embrace "modernist music" given enough time and exposure (whatever "enough" actually turns out to be)? That has been the cry for a very long time, and I suspect it will remain the cry for any foreseeable future. (Sadly, I don't think there will be any widespread renaissance of interest in classical music in general either.)


----------



## Art Rock

JAS said:


> I am reminded somewhat of the first time I tasted beer. (I should perhaps note that I am not a drinker of any alcoholic beverages, and never have been.) It was terrible, and I don't think I was able to swallow the full gulp without considerable effort. (I do not recall the brand, but I believe it was at least a decent variety, and not merely a cheap drink.) Everyone around me laughed and assured me that it was "an acquired taste," to which I replied, to their astonishment, "why would anyone bother to acquire it?" The reason, apparently, was chiefly the effect of the alcohol (and an associated plea to "being sociable"), the only possible justification for the success of many beers that even people who drink them admit are pretty bad. So, many people are drinking something that they know isn't very good (in terms of actual taste), and over time they probably grow accustomed to it, even if they may not exactly get to "like" it, but they are drinking it for the cheapest and quickest effect of alcohol they can get (as well as that elusive "being sociable" thing). For them, that payoff is worth at least the initial period of mere tolerance. There is really no equivalent for this reward in "modernist music," at least not beyond any other form of classical music, making it, I suppose, the equivalent of non-alcoholic beer. (It doesn't taste very good, isn't good for you in terms of health, and it doesn't even give you a buzz, plus the greater number of drinkers of "real" beer will mostly just make fun of you.)


This is a perfect analogy for a lot of the posters in this thread. You do not drink alcohol, you tried it once, did not like it, decided you could do without. So far so good.

Then you go on and make assumptions about why people do drink alcohol, even though you have little knowledge of the matter as you state yourself. And you get it wrong. Many people do not drink alcoholic beverages to get a buzz or because of social pressure, but simply because they have learned to appreciate it. Same with modern classical music. Sure, it is not for everyone, but there are a lot of people who have learned to like it (like drinking alcohol).

It does not follow that therefore everyone could learn to really appreciate alcohol or modern classical music, but at least do understand that there are people who did and do. And they are not perverts or homeopaths.


----------



## JAS

Art Rock said:


> This is a perfect analogy for a lot of the posters in this thread. You do not drink alcohol, you tried it once, did not like it, decided you could do without. So far so good.
> 
> Then you go on and make assumptions about why people do drink alcohol, even though you have little knowledge of the matter as you state yourself. And you get it wrong. Many people do not drink alcoholic beverages to get a buzz or because of social pressure, but simply because they have learned to appreciate it. Same with modern classical music. Sure, it is not for everyone, but there are a lot of people who have learned to like it (like drinking alcohol).
> 
> It does not follow that therefore everyone could learn to really appreciate alcohol or modern classical music, but at least do understand that there are people who did and do. And they are not perverts or homeopaths.


You assume that my opinions can be informed only by my own direct experiences, which is grossly inaccurate. Most of the people I know who drink beer admit that they probably would not drink it other than for the reasons I stated. I don't know how universally such a statement may be applied, but it is such a common admission that I hardly think I need to defend it, or to start drinking more myself merely to support the contention.


----------



## Art Rock

So because you know only people who drink alcohol because of the reasons you stated, you cannot accept that this is NOT the common truth? There are plenty people, also here on TC, who do drink alcoholic beverages because they like it (see e.g. the whisky thread), but apparently that does not count for you. The metaphor with some opinions on modern classical music expressed in this thread only becomes stronger.


----------



## Strange Magic

A view from the sidelines: all the foregoing discussion again confirms the almost infinite variety of human taste in the arts, and that there really are no objective measures of the "quality", "greatness", etc. of works of art. It is the pinnacle (or nadir) of subjectivity--_de gustibus_ reigns. Some like to postulate that popularity is a measure (of something), whether being popular shows that a work is good, or the opposite--that unpopularity reveals the exquisite quality of the piece and the discrimination of its admirers. My own approach is to not publicly knock other people's enthusiasms and to affirm again that individual taste rules (though I am still free to wonder, in silence, as to what another sees/hears in the work of X or Y). Sampling modern trends in music and in all the arts today is like trying to drink from a fire hose--there is a constant onrushing stream of work instantly available via modern communication--so that many people seek refuge from the tumult by passing by whole areas or styles or sources of art, and concentrate on categories that consistently please them, and then to share with their peers their mutual or overlapping interests. But it is fun, I admit, to follow these discussions, and to see where they lead .


----------



## isorhythm

janxharris said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I'm listening to Messiaen 'Vingt regards'...
> 
> There appears to be a more organic approach (compared with Stockhausen's Gruppen) but it just hits me as inexorably negative music. Don't get me wrong, much of the music I like would be described as rather melancholic - but this sound almost like a never ending nightmare...as if anything positive cannot even be hoped for.


This is absolutely bizarre to me. I can't imagine what you're hearing.


----------



## janxharris

isorhythm said:


> This is absolutely bizarre to me. I can't imagine what you're hearing.


In the sense of my perception of it's nightmarish quality you mean?


----------



## JAS

Art Rock said:


> So because you know only people who drink alcohol because of the reasons you stated, you cannot accept that this is NOT the common truth? There are plenty people, also here on TC, who do drink alcoholic beverages because they like it (see e.g. the whisky thread), but apparently that does not count for you. The metaphor with some opinions on modern classical music expressed in this thread only becomes stronger.


Admitting that this is more than a bit nearing a topic derailment, let me note that I have not made some bizarre statement: http://alcohol.addictionblog.org/why-do-people-start-drinking-alcohol-top-10-reasons/ (Spoiler, none of the reasons include the taste.) Out of curiosity, I asked several people who happen to be around me, several of whom admit that although they have come to like the taste of beer, they probably would not drink it if it did not have the alcohol or social context. I even called a friend who brews beer professionally, and he says something very similar, although he also says that the alcohol is an intrinsic part of the "flavor profile" of a beer. No, it is not a universal statement, and neither was it made as one.

But it is funny to see that a colorful analogy often stirs up a hornet's nest of people who immediately attack everything in it that is not really relevant to the discussion. Let me be absolutely clear in saying that at no time am I stating, suggesting or meaning to imply that people listen to "modernist" music to get drunk, justify acting silly in public, or be popular at parties.


----------



## janxharris

isorhythm said:


> This is absolutely bizarre to me. I can't imagine what you're hearing.


What are you hearing isorhythm?


----------



## mmsbls

janxharris said:


> '_however, the work is very highly organized_'
> 
> Could you elaborate please? I'm not hearing anything that remotely suggests the organic.


Here's a link to a partial analysis of Gruppen. The page gives a sense of the organization of the pitches and tempos. I'm not sure how many people could hear that organization - I certainly don't, but it's there.

Edit: I just read Myriadi's post that link to the same page.


----------



## Art Rock

JAS said:


> Admitting that this is more than a bit nearing a topic derailment, let me note that I have not made some bizarre statement: http://alcohol.addictionblog.org/why-do-people-start-drinking-alcohol-top-10-reasons/ (Spoiler, none of the reasons include the taste.) Out of curiosity, I asked several people who happen to be around me, several of whom admit that although they have come to like the taste of beer, they probably would not drink it if it did not have the alcohol or social context. I even called a friend who brews beer professionally, and he says something very similar, although he also says that the alcohol is an intrinsic part of the "flavor profile" of a beer. No, it is not a universal statement, and neither was it made as one.


An alcohol addiction blog, what a wonderful source of unbiased information.



> But it is funny to see that a colorful analogy often stirs up a hornet's nest of people who immediately attack everything in it that is not really relevant to the discussion. Let me be absolutely clear in saying that at no time am I stating, suggesting or meaning to imply that people listen to "modernist" music to get drunk, justify acting silly in public, or be popular at parties.


And neither have I implied that. If you can't see the parallel between your beer story (which you brought into the thread) and the reactions to modern classical music, and specifically to people who like to listen to it, then I give up.


----------



## JAS

Art Rock said:


> And neither have I implied that. If you can't see the parallel between your beer story (which you brought into the thread) and the reactions to modern classical music, and specifically to people who like to listen to it, then I give up.


By all means, feel free to give up.


----------



## Art Rock

I will. Nietzsche was right.


----------



## mmsbls

JAS said:


> I think we are still getting very hung up on terminology and the implication of certain words. (Maybe Wittgenstein was right and these kinds of discussions are little more than language games.) The unpleasantness is indeed "innately" in the music because it originates from the music itself.


The music doesn't find itself unpleasant. Human brains find the music unpleasant. The innateness I think we're talking about is "existing in, belonging to, or determined by factors present in an individual from birth." So to determine that modern music is innately unpleasant one would have to show that all or a high percentage of people will find modern music unpleasant independent of environmental factors (i.e. upbringing). Given that people around the world find certain music enjoyable while others do not, I suspect that upbringing has an enormous amount to do with one's tastes. If everyone were exposed to modern classical music from birth, what percentage would enjoy it? I don't know, but if any significant number would, then that music is not innately unpleasant.

I do believe, as I've said, that long exposure to pre-20th century classical and/or popular music may likely make most people find modern classical unpleasant. Some TC members have said they loved progressive rock, and their entry into classical music was through modern music because they felt the two styles were related.


----------



## mmsbls

JAS said:


> Let me be absolutely clear in saying that at no time am I stating, suggesting or meaning to imply that people listen to "modernist" music to get drunk, justify acting silly in public, or be popular at parties.


Why do you think people listen to modern classical music?


----------



## DaveM

Just for the record: The word 'homeopath' has been used twice now as if it is some relative of sociopath whereas it is someone who practices homeopathic medicine.


----------



## JAS

mmsbls said:


> Why do you think people listen to modern classical music?


As I think I have said several times in this very thread, I have no idea. The assurance of beauty, melody and even tear evoking emotion makes it all even more unfathomable to me. I basically take people at their word that they "like" or at least appreciate it at some level that cannot be explained or transferred.

I can say, however, that having examples posted, and comments being made about them, particularly by those who are more open to such music, has taken the discussion in a more interesting direction. (But I cannot listen to links at work.)


----------



## DaveM

Myriadi said:


> The thread has predictably veered toward discussion of post-war avantgarde, and listeners who like any of it were, also predictably, promptly compared to frauds and perverts. This takes me back to quite a few years ago when I told someone I loved Webern's piano variations the moment I heard them first (that is, with no knowledge of the 12-tone method, and very little exposure to 20th century CM), and that person told me I needed to see a psychiatrist about it, because no normal human being can have that reaction. Fun times.
> 
> So I wouldn't want to talk about my fascination with Stockhausen or Xenakis, and instead I'd like to ask the anti-contemporary crowd to listen to a few "traditional" works from the past few decades, and let me know why _these_ are poorly received, underperformed, and indeed barely known to the general public.
> 
> Hopefully these will qualify as music, although after seeing that Ligeti etude described as "barely qualifies as music", well, I have no clue. It's a perfectly straightforward piece of music to me. Oh well!


The John Williams sounds like something that should be in a movie and the Harrison Symphony doesn't do much for me. However, I really like the Skempton Lento. Thanks.


----------



## Myriadi

mmsbls said:


> Given that people around the world find certain music enjoyable while others do not, I suspect that upbringing has an enormous amount to do with one's tastes.


You're quite right. Has this been posted here already? I can't remember and apologize if it has been.


----------



## DaveM

Art Rock said:


> I will. Nietzsche was right.


You mean: "Only sick music makes money today." - Friedrich Nietzsche?


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Myriadi said:


>


Beautiful! Thank you!


----------



## jailhouse

janxharris said:


> There appears to be a more organic approach (compared with Stockhausen's Gruppen) but it just hits me as inexorably negative music. Don't get me wrong, much of the music I like would be described as rather melancholic - but this sound almost like a never ending nightmare...as if anything positive cannot even be hoped for.


lol. You apparently didn't hear the 20th and final movement.

there's a movement called "regard to the spirit of joy" for gods sake






the vingt regards is extremely varied in tone.


----------



## jailhouse

DaveM said:


> Just for the record: The word 'homeopath' has been used twice now as if it is some relative of sociopath whereas it is someone who practices homeopathic medicine.


homeopathic medicine may as well be called sociopathic medicine. Actually it should just be called scameopathic medicine because thats literally all that is involved in its practice.


----------



## isorhythm

janxharris said:


> What are you hearing isorhythm?


It's a piece expressing ecstatic religious devotion.


----------



## Chronochromie

DaveM said:


> Just for the record: The word 'homeopath' has been used twice now as if it is some relative of sociopath whereas it is someone who practices homeopathic medicine.


If you mean me, no, I used it as if to say "fraud".


----------



## DaveM

Chronochromie said:


> If you mean me, no, I used it as if to say "fraud".


I won't bother going back and checking, but I believe you first mentioned it and with the correct meaning. It was then used twice incorrectly by others.


----------



## Chronochromie

Sorry, I misread..........


----------



## hurg

Hi all,

I'm new here, been looking around for discussions on contemporary music. I haven't read the entire 35 pages of this thread, just the first and most recent 8 or so and I thought I'd add my 2 cents.

1) Indeed, this conversation has turned into a talk of the post-war avant-garde. It's important to remember that every era of art necessarily reflects the age in which it's created. The post-war artists were looking for a way to express the magnitude of what had just happened, and they needed there to be a break with the previous culture. So, yes, it's dissonant, it's dissonant and unsettling on purpose. The Second Viennese School's music I see as a sort of premonition of the coming wars, and Messiaen called it "the darkest kind of expressionism." It's not going to be as light and pleasant as your Mozarts and Chopins.

2) But more importantly, if you ask me, the answer to the original question is that _it's all Shoenberg's fault!_ I say that somewhat ironically, but the fact is that he got a standing ovation at the premiere of Gurre-lieder, and he went on stage and turned his back to the audience. That symbolic act led to 50 or 60 years of modern composers mainly writing for other composers and disregarding the concerns of their audience. It was a modernist attitude and now the younger generation is struggling to reclaim an audience for their music. It's a shame to have the reputation of my own music, which is _actually contemporary,_ be lumped in with the composers who were in their prime in the 1950s. Everything changed in the late '60s anyways.

3) I'm a young composer who frankly doesn't care that much for the mid-20th-century music. Schoenberg was still the most influential composer of the century, drawing the tonal system to its logical conclusion, but many of the younger generation think that the invention of the tone-row was the worst thing that ever happened to atonality. Shoenberg's early atonal works in my mind are much more musical than the tone-row music, which to my ear is like eating a fish stew with bones sticking out everywhere. How ironic it is that he compared tonality to a staple piercing through the music, but then he went and invented his own equally rigid sort of structure. Those middle years of actually free music were the most influential. The structure he invented gave something for the next generation of composers to work over to its logical conclusion, and the result is a sort of music that many of us consider off-putting.

4) It may not be proof of laziness on the part of concert-goers, but to me at least it does seem like _stubbornness._ There's so so much beauty if you know where to look in the last 50 years of classical music, sure it's not the same sort of beauty as your Brahms or Mahler, but there's serenity and grace and majesty in the music. It's a matter of turning the judgmental mind off and just experiencing the music as it is. So let's get some actual contemporary music going in this thread:

Duet for electric cello and turntables. Partway through the DJ is playing a sample and switching between 33 and 45 rpm, while the cello plays a traditional-sounding accompaniment that shifts both in speed and relative pitch along with the record. I think it's great.





Salvatore Sciarrino hasn't come up in this tread, I don't think. He's written masterpieces:





One annoying thing that us younger composers do is to start our pieces with these ridiculous explosions of energy, only to hide the beauty later on. But there are really beautiful and simple new forms of expression still being created today. Listen to movement 6!





And my personal favourite, my idol, Vivier, born in myserious circumstances, adopted, lived a tragic idiosyncratic life, and then died young, also in mysterious circumstances. Listen from 14:50 to the end and tell me honestly that you don't think it's beautiful.


----------



## Nereffid

^^^^
That's an admirable first post! Welcome to TC.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Myriadi said:


> You're quite right. Has this been posted here already? I can't remember and apologize if it has been.





Magnum Miserium said:


> Beautiful! Thank you!


It's funny to give such example, because it is mostly about the extramusical associations with "bells" or "turks".
You can find some septimal, undecimal and septendecimal intervals in the Balkan music - coming from the Turkish inflluence, usually they are symbol for the invaders from East or "bell ringing". It's like showing off in polyphonic singing, not something that people enjoyed or was popular at all.
The Bulgarian choir CD compilations are far away from being authentic, the composers doing the arrangements were influenced by late Romanticism and early 20st Modernism, because harmonizing most of the traditional music doesn't really work with popular modes (usually eastern makams, but without the microtones and variations of all popular western modes without Lydian and Locrian variants).


----------



## Myriadi

BabyGiraffe said:


> It's funny to give such example, because it is mostly about the extramusical associations with "bells" or "turks".


B̶e̶l̶l̶s̶?̶ ̶T̶u̶r̶k̶s̶?̶ ̶W̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶t̶a̶l̶k̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶?̶ ̶I̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶n̶o̶ ̶e̶x̶t̶r̶a̶m̶u̶s̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶a̶s̶s̶o̶c̶i̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶m̶u̶s̶i̶c̶ ̶-̶ ̶I̶ ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶f̶i̶n̶d̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶b̶e̶a̶u̶t̶i̶f̶u̶l̶,̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶i̶t̶'̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶g̶o̶o̶d̶ ̶e̶x̶a̶m̶p̶l̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶h̶o̶w̶ ̶"̶d̶i̶s̶s̶o̶n̶a̶n̶c̶e̶"̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶p̶e̶r̶c̶e̶i̶v̶e̶d̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶a̶n̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶c̶u̶l̶t̶u̶r̶e̶.̶

Sorry, misunderstood your post due to fatigue.



BabyGiraffe said:


> The Bulgarian choir CD compilations are far away from being authentic, the composers doing the arrangements were influenced by late Romanticism and early 20st Modernism, because harmonizing most of the traditional music doesn't really work with popular modes (usually eastern makams, but without the microtones and variations of all popular western modes without Lydian and Locrian variants).


The professional arrangements you're talking about were recorded for the famous "Mystery of Bulgarian Voices" series. This recording isn't one of those. It's a field recording from 1965, in which no arrangers were involved. Read the description on Youtube for details.

Besides, it doesn't really matter - discard this example if you like, and I'll give you dozens of others. There are plenty of "dissonant" - to the Western ear - traditions such as the polyphonic singing from the island of Timor, most everything that goes with Japanese gagaku music, roughly half of what's played on mouth organs in SE Asia, and so on.


----------



## Vaneyes

isorhythm said:


> This is absolutely bizarre to me. I can't imagine what you're hearing.


Alternative facts give a wide berth.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Myriadi said:


> Besides, it doesn't really matter - discard this example if you like, and I'll give you dozens of others. There are plenty of "dissonant" - to the Western ear - traditions such as the polyphonic singing from the island of Timor, most everything that goes with Japanese gagaku music, roughly half of what's played on mouth organs in SE Asia, and so on.


You can also say that Classical music after certain period is also dissonant, because 12tet sounds like ****...
The non-western cultures used different tunings (you can derive the 12 keys with tuning in 4ths like the people from China/Japan and so on did, but it doesn't sound at all like western music) and I wouldn't say the microtonal intervals are dissonant. 
Playing stacked chords based on some kind of weird just intonation is not dissonance. Playing the same thing with tuning/temperament makes it off.
You can even make Messiaen's modes of limited transposition to sound decent to good with retuning - one of them was used in the persian music 1400 years before he "invented it" and with decent tuning it sounds beatiful.


----------



## Nereffid

janxharris said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I'm listening to Messiaen 'Vingt regards'...
> 
> There appears to be a more organic approach (compared with Stockhausen's Gruppen) but it just hits me as inexorably negative music. Don't get me wrong, much of the music I like would be described as rather melancholic - but this sound almost like a never ending nightmare...as if anything positive cannot even be hoped for.


I don't want to pile on, I mean if you don't like it, you don't like it, and it's not our place to criticise you for that. Nor do I believe in flogging a dead horse (which I think might be one of those perversions BabyGiraffe was referring to...) - _but_ let me use this as an example of the "little effort" I mentioned earlier.
It's a piece called _Vingt regards sur l'enfant-Jésus_, which translates as _Twenty Contemplations of the Infant Jesus_, and any bio of Messiaen will tell you he was a devout Catholic. So with _just_ that information in mind, you surely have to expect that this won't be negative music. A Catholic contemplating the infant Jesus is going to produce music that's meditative, profound, perhaps a little melancholic but ultimately a positive thing. So if you don't hear any of those things, you must ask first of all why you don't, and second what is in the music that might turn out to be those things?

A quick Google search finds this article: http://soundcircus.com/vingt-regards-sur-lenfant-jesus/
In her brief discussion of the first movement, Joanna MacGregor says "it's played at such a mesmerically slow pulse the effect is hypnotic and timeless" - so with this in mind, try to let it hypnotise you... Or further on in her notes you'll read ""The Kiss of the Child Jesus" is the best-known of Vingt Regards, and most often played as a substantial solo piece. It's stunningly beautiful and lyrical, treating the Theme of God as a slow-motion berceuse, adding birds, dances, tone clusters, and all the passion of a high romantic Ballade." - so it's the best-known, which might indicate it has the most popular appeal, so perhaps it's somehow more accessible; approach it now by _assuming_ it's stunningly beautiful and lyrical - my suggestion: pretend it's actually a piece by Liszt! - listen out for the birds and dances - and so on.

My basic point being that one needs to start from a position of trust. One has to trust that there's a valid reason why the music sounds the way it does.


----------



## Myriadi

BabyGiraffe said:


> You can also say that Classical music after certain period is also dissonant, because 12tet sounds like ****...
> The non-western cultures used different tunings (you can derive the 12 keys with tuning in 4ths like the people from China/Japan and so on did, but it doesn't sound at all like western music) and I wouldn't say the microtonal intervals are dissonant.
> Playing stacked chords based on some kind of weird just intonation is not dissonance. Playing the same thing with tuning/temperament makes it off.
> You can even make Messiaen's modes of limited transposition to sound decent to good with retuning - one of them was used in the persian music 1400 years before he "invented it" and with decent tuning it sounds beatiful.


I'm sorry, but I have no clue as to why you're saying the things you're saying. If you're trying to explain to me how ethnic music traditions work, I'm familiar with quite a few, so thanks but it's not necessary.

All I did was, when mmsbls suggested that one's perception of music may depend a lot on their upbringing, I posted that Youtube link. Because it's a good example of how people can naturally (for a lack of a better word) create traditions based on intervals the Western listener would find "dissonant". I obviously wasn't using the word "dissonance" in any scientfiic manner. (And as you probably know, it's not even possible - last time I checked the New Grove, they merely stated something about "two or more notes perceived as sounding rough" - there is no single accepted definition of the term.) Obviously if a person grows up hearing those kinds of choirs, or overtone flutes from a bit further north, etc., they're probably not going to react too strongly to Western academic music based on minor 2nds, or something.

Even if you don't find something like gagaku dissonant, surely you won't dispute that quite a few Western listeners find it tuneless, dissonant, and barely listenable? I know I did the first time I heard it.

Finally, I have no idea why you're saying those things about Messiaen. I like his modes just the way they are. I don't know how you can make them "sound decent" - what does that even mean? Are you implying there are musical phenomena which are objectively "indecent"? That would be rather bold and likely impossible to prove.


----------



## JAS

I trust you will let me know when Bulgarian Harvest songs catch on in a big way. I would much rather hear Tibetan throat singing.


----------



## Myriadi

Nereffid said:


> In her brief discussion of the first movement, Joanna MacGregor says "it's played at such a mesmerically slow pulse the effect is hypnotic and timeless" - so with this in mind, try to let it hypnotise you...


MacGregor's recording of that first movement is kind of a guilty pleasure for me, seeing how it's almost twice slower than what Messiaen probably intended - I don't have the score, but Loriod's ADES recording is twice as fast and I guess she knew what her husband wanted... That said, MacGregor's version is just so incredibly beautiful. Not just that movement, too.


----------



## LesCyclopes

BabyGiraffe said:


> It's funny to give such example, because it is mostly about the extramusical associations with "bells" or "turks".


Please elaborate. With its emphasis dissonance and polyphony, that Balkan song had nothing to do with Turkish classical or folk ("halk") music that I can see.


----------



## JAS

Myriadi said:


> Hopefully these will qualify as music, although after seeing that Ligeti etude described as "barely qualifies as music", well, I have no clue. It's a perfectly straightforward piece of music to me. Oh well!


All three of these selections are infinitely better than the Ligeti to my ears, and are clearly musical even if they might not be something I want to run out and buy on CD. (I did not get to listen to them all the way through at the moment, but sampled largish segments.) First impressions of the Brouwer piece is that it features substantial segments of inoffensive but rather meandering music that doesn't seem to go anywhere, with perhaps a few too many "weird" ornaments for my taste. The Harrison actually seems to have some interesting sections, and I will need to revisit later. (Is that the full symphony?) The final one is by no means an assault on the senses. It is pleasant and calm enough, but possibly 12 minutes of that is much too much. Again, to me, the degree to which these selections work is the degree to which they do not adopt obviously modernist innovations. I thank you for posting them.


----------



## LesCyclopes

mmsbls said:


> long exposure to pre-20th century classical and/or popular music may likely make most people find modern classical unpleasant.


I agree. The brain expects a certain order and harmony in music and recoils from sounds where no such harmony can be found.



> Some TC members have said they loved progressive rock, and their entry into classical music was through modern music because they felt the two styles were related


Quite the opposite! Progressive rock musicians were often classically trained, and their music tended to follow Western classical music forms and influences. I have come to classical music through progressive rock and feel most at home with Baroque music.

Case in point: I give you April by Deep Purple (1969), especially from about 04:30.


----------



## janxharris

Nereffid said:


> ... Or further on in her notes you'll read ""The Kiss of the Child Jesus" is the best-known of Vingt Regards, and most often played as a substantial solo piece. It's stunningly beautiful and lyrical, treating the Theme of God as a slow-motion berceuse, adding birds, dances, tone clusters, and all the passion of a high romantic Ballade." - so it's the best-known, which might indicate it has the most popular appeal, so perhaps it's somehow more accessible; approach it now by _assuming_ it's stunningly beautiful and lyrical - my suggestion: pretend it's actually a piece by Liszt! - listen out for the birds and dances - and so on.


Excruciating. MacGregor describes it as stunning beautiful - really?

A can't pretend it's Liszt.


----------



## Chronochromie

LesCyclopes said:


> Quite the opposite! Progressive rock musicians were often classically trained, and their music tended to follow Western classical music forms and influences. I have come to classical music through progressive rock and feel most at home with Baroque music.
> 
> Case in point: I give you April by Deep Purple (1969), especially from about 04:30.


And many others like King Crimson, Gentle Giant, Zappa and the Mothers of Invention, Captain Beefheart, Henry Cow, The Mars Volta, etc. not to mention Krautrock bands (Can, NEU!, Kraftwerk, Amon Düül II, Faust, etc.) were influenced by Modern Classical music.


----------



## JAS

janxharris said:


> Excruciating. MacGregor describes it as stunning beautiful - really?
> 
> A can't pretend it's Liszt.


Imagine that it is Liszt having a seizure, because that it the only way I can describe what is going on about half way through.


----------



## janxharris

jailhouse said:


> lol. You apparently didn't hear the 20th and final movement.
> 
> there's a movement called "regard to the spirit of joy" for gods sake
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the vingt regards is extremely varied in tone.


I think you meant "The child Jesus' kiss". I find this music quite unbearable but thanks for suggesting it.


----------



## Chronochromie

JAS said:


> Imagine that it is Liszt having a seizure, because that it the only way I can describe what is going on about half way through.


Now, now, talking about the music this way we're not getting anywhere. Which I'm not sure anymore, it might be what you hope, it's certainly what you think will happen.


----------



## janxharris




----------



## LesCyclopes

Chronochromie said:


> King Crimson, Gentle Giant, Zappa and the Mothers of Invention, Captain Beefheart, Henry Cow, The Mars Volta, etc. not to mention Krautrock bands (Can, NEU!, Kraftwerk, Amon Düül II, Faust, etc.) were influenced by Modern Classical music.


I can't say I know all of their songs, but the ones I know are certainly not devoid of conventional melody and harmony like many of the modern works posted on this thread.


----------



## janxharris

Stunning.......


----------



## Chronochromie

LesCyclopes said:


> I can't say I know all of their songs, but the ones I know are certainly not devoid of conventional melody and harmony like many of the modern works posted on this thread.


And many of the works posted do have melody, so, what can I say? :tiphat:


----------



## Bulldog

janxharris said:


> I think you meant "The child Jesus' kiss". I find this music quite unbearable but thanks for suggesting it.


Unbearable? That's hard for me to understand. The piece is loaded with lyricism and comforting tones. Yes, there is some mild dissonance toward the middle of the piece, but it's good to have some contrast.


----------



## janxharris

Bulldog said:


> Unbearable? That's hard for me to understand. The piece is loaded with lyricism and comforting tones. Yes, there is some mild dissonance toward the middle of the piece, but it's good to have some contrast.


I respect your opinion Bulldog.


----------



## Simon Moon

LesCyclopes said:


> Quite the opposite! Progressive rock musicians were often classically trained, and their music tended to follow Western classical music forms and influences. I have come to classical music through progressive rock and feel most at home with Baroque music.
> 
> Case in point: I give you April by Deep Purple (1969), especially from about 04:30.


I am one that came to classical via listening to prog.

But the type of prog that brought me to classical was mostly the avant-prog bands, that were heavily influenced by late 20th century and contemporary classical.

It was bands like: Henry Cow, Thinking Plague, Aranis, Magma, Univers Zero, Art Zoyd, etc. It wasn't the usual: Yes, Genesis, PFM, ELP, etc that brought me to classical.

It was easier for me to relate to late 20th century and contemporary music, due to my love of avant-prog.


----------



## Sloe

I can say there is one type of contemporary classical music I don't like and that is music were the instruments are played in a way that it sounds really ugly especially string instruments. I can't comprehend why anyone would make music like that.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

JAS said:


> [...]
> 
> The unpleasantness is indeed "innately" in the music because it originates from the music itself. What I think you are arguing is that the response need not necessarily be unalterably aversion. This distinction may be true, but it probably doesn't mean very much because people can grow accustomed to all sorts of noises.
> 
> [...]
> 
> I am reminded somewhat of the first time I tasted beer. (I should perhaps note that I am not a drinker of any alcoholic beverages, and never have been.) It was terrible, and I don't think I was able to swallow the full gulp without considerable effort. (I do not recall the brand, but I believe it was at least a decent variety, and not merely a cheap drink.) Everyone around me laughed and assured me that it was "an acquired taste," to which I replied, to their astonishment, "why would anyone bother to acquire it?"
> 
> The reason, apparently, was chiefly the effect of the alcohol (and an associated plea to "being sociable"), the only possible justification for the success of many beers that even people who drink them admit are pretty bad. So, many people are drinking something that they know isn't very good (in terms of actual taste), and over time they probably grow accustomed to it, even if they may not exactly get to "like" it, but they are drinking it for the cheapest and quickest effect of alcohol they can get (as well as that elusive "being sociable" thing). For them, that payoff is worth at least the initial period of mere tolerance.
> 
> There is really no equivalent for this reward in "modernist music," at least not beyond any other form of classical music, making it, I suppose, the equivalent of non-alcoholic beer. (It doesn't taste very good, isn't good for you in terms of health, and it doesn't even give you a buzz, plus the greater number of drinkers of "real" beer will mostly just make fun of you.)
> 
> [...]


I think your beer anology illustrates very well the problem that we are having in understanding each other's position. You appear to be arguing that the reason that people drink beer is for the effect of the alcohol, and they put up with the objectively unpleasant taste. Some people may drink beer despite disliking the taste, but it's not the prime motivation of many others.

I drink beer because I prefer the taste of a well made beer to almost anything else. I drink it, in small quantities nowadays, at times despite the alcohol. I recall not liking the taste of beer when I was around 14 years old - it is as you say an acquired taste, generally because it has a lot of bitter and sometimes sour flavours. These combine rather nicely with the malted barley and the other floral, coffee, chocolate, fruit etc. traces. I drink beer and wine (for very similar reasons) almost exclusively. I have no interest in alcohol mixed with, e.g. sweet mixers - I find the taste cloying, boring, monochromatic - call it what you will. I have no wish to drink alcohol for the effect only (though that wouldn't have been true when I was 18).

My interest in modern and contemporary classical music is rather similar. I am interested in the effects of dissonance and consonance. Although I might find an effect beautiful, other feelings such as sadness or an uncanny sense, or ecstasy, or terror or despondency may be induced in me temporarily by music, in a tolerable dose, and in a way which may allow me to reflect on something inducing a similar feeling in my own life. I can have a similar experience from reading a Virginia Woolf novel, or viewing an abstract expressionist art exhibition.

The point I am making is that you are in danger of mistaking your own - perfectly valid - subjective experience for an objective fact about works of art, something which would be agreed on by 'right thinking people'.

It isn't an objective fact.

You aren't having the same experience with the pieces of art that other people are having. This is because you have different genes from theirs, and your genes and theirs have interacted with a different nurturing environment and different people with different qualities since before you were born. Your emotional defences are configured differently. You haven't (yet) learned to appreciate some musical works, and perhaps you never will. There are many things I don't appreciate that many other people do. One has to learn to live with diversity of taste and opinion.


----------



## jailhouse

janxharris said:


> I think you meant "The child Jesus' kiss". I find this music quite unbearable but thanks for suggesting it.


...no. "regard to the spirit of joy" is the tenth movement, this is the fifteenth. And thats too bad, definitely one of the great works for solo instrument in the 20th century.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Myriadi said:


> Finally, I have no idea why you're saying those things about Messiaen. I like his modes just the way they are. I don't know how you can make them "sound decent" - what does that even mean? Are you implying there are musical phenomena which are objectively "indecent"? That would be rather bold and likely impossible to prove.


Because they sound off. 
It's like trying to play bVII-I-ii-bVI. It will work on a modern keyboard, it would sound horribly out of tune on a Renaissance harpsichord. 
There is a reason why Western music was based on I-V-I-IV - the other chords were sounding horrible with Pythagorean or meantone systems.
You can't just take exotic scale and make it work in 12tet without messing with the tuning. It sounds like a parody (western composers "being inspired by world music" sound just as amateurish as the eastern pop acts that were trying to play pop, rock, disco last century without actually understanding the western system. Nowadays K-, J-, C- and so on pop music is based on western tuning, they gave up on making half-baked music).


----------



## jailhouse

So your argument is that Messiaen's scales sound bad because of 12tet and you would like them if they were played in equal temperament?

I highly, highly doubt any correction to the tuning of his harmonies will influence how much you like them if you don't already like them.


----------



## janxharris

hurg said:


> And my personal favourite, my idol, Vivier, born in myserious circumstances, adopted, lived a tragic idiosyncratic life, and then died young, also in mysterious circumstances. Listen from 14:50 to the end and tell me honestly that you don't think it's beautiful.


I didn't get it hurg - but thanks for posting.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

jailhouse said:


> So your argument is that Messiaen's scales sound bad because of 12tet and you would like them if they were played in equal temperament?
> 
> I highly, highly doubt any correction to the tuning of his harmonies will influence how much you like them if you don't already like them.


Tuning is one of the biggest factors for something to sound pleasant.
Why don't you try playing some stuff that doesn't work with historical tuning? Scala is free and as long as you have a midi keyboard, you can retune the notes. Try something from Holst, Ravel, Debussy, Wagner with Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, early Classical tuning... Even ii-V-I (the biggest cliche in jazz and pop) doesn't exist in some tuning schemes. 
There is a reason why most of the classical music is in C, D, F, G, A, Bb - I-IV-V is possible in them (1/4 meantone temperament).
Messiaen's scales clearly don't work with 12tet (unless you are after the shocking/horror sound, they are used often by Hollywood composer just for these effects).


----------



## janxharris

BabyGiraffe said:


> Messiaen's scales clearly don't work with 12tet (unless you are after the shocking/horror sound, they are used often by Hollywood composer just for these effects).


How can you say that? - some here have expressed their enjoyment of the Messiaen.


----------



## Nereffid

janxharris said:


> Excruciating. MacGregor describes it as stunning beautiful - really?
> 
> A can't pretend it's Liszt.


I was only using the Messiaen as an example to illustrate my point, rather than asking for comment on the work itself. Ok, you think it's excruciating, but you haven't engaged with my actual broader point, which was to do with approaching the music - _any_ music - from a position other than total negativity.

Yes, MacGregor really does describe it as stunningly beautiful. Those are her actual words on an actual web site. Do you simply not accept the basic idea that Messiaen composed the music to be stunningly beautiful, using methods that he knew would produce stunning beauty not only as he heard it but as others could hear it too, and that others do in fact hear that stunning beauty? Is it _literally_ impossible for you to imagine that someone might find the music stunningly beautiful?

If you can't like this music, fine. But the way in which you (and others) respond to some posts suggests that the deeper issue is that for whatever reason you _don't want to_ like the music, in which case everyone's wasting their time.


----------



## janxharris

Nereffid said:


> I was only using the Messiaen as an example to illustrate my point, rather than asking for comment on the work itself. Ok, you think it's excruciating, but you haven't engaged with my actual broader point, which was to do with approaching the music - _any_ music - from a position other than total negativity.


I don't approach new pieces with the assumption that I am going to dislike them.



> Yes, MacGregor really does describe it as stunningly beautiful. Those are her actual words on an actual web site. Do you simply not accept the basic idea that Messiaen composed the music to be stunningly beautiful, using methods that he knew would produce stunning beauty not only as he heard it but as others could hear it too, and that others do in fact hear that stunning beauty? Is it _literally_ impossible for you to imagine that someone might find the music stunningly beautiful?


I accept that you and others find the music beautiful; I have no problem with that.



> If you can't like this music, fine. But the way in which you (and others) respond to some posts suggests that the deeper issue is that for whatever reason you _don't want to_ like the music, in which case everyone's wasting their time.


I do want to like what you and others have suggested.


----------



## mmsbls

janxharris said:


> I do want to like what you and others have suggested.


I very much wanted to like all the modern music I listened to years ago. It did not happen. There was a very slow learning process for me that took quite some time before I enjoyed certain composers and works. I was happy to continue the process because I truly wanted to learn the unfamiliar languages and enjoy a century of wonderful music.

Commenting negatively on each work you listen to is probably psychologically not the best way to proceed. If you want to like the works, keep listening. Listen several times to one work, and then put it aside. Or listen to one work, then another, then a completely different one. Read TC threads about modern or contemporary music and make a list of works that you wish to hear. Keep listening. After awhile you will find that they do not sound as bad as before. Eventually you may like them. If so, great. If you don't make the progress you were hoping for, then decide if you want to like the works enough to continue.


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> I very much wanted to like all the modern music I listened to years ago. It did not happen. There was a very slow learning process for me that took quite some time before I enjoyed certain composers and works. I was happy to continue the process because I truly wanted to learn the unfamiliar languages and enjoy a century of wonderful music.
> 
> Commenting negatively on each work you listen to is probably psychologically not the best way to proceed. If you want to like the works, keep listening. Listen several times to one work, and then put it aside. Or listen to one work, then another, then a completely different one. Read TC threads about modern or contemporary music and make a list of works that you wish to hear. Keep listening. After awhile you will find that they do not sound as bad as before. Eventually you may like them. If so, great. If you don't make the progress you were hoping for, then decide if you want to like the works enough to continue.


Pretty much what I am/have been doing. I remember listening to Messiaen's 'Quartet for the end of time' many many years back and have been listening again...but I still can't stand it.

No worries.


----------



## mmsbls

janxharris said:


> Pretty much what I am/have been doing. I remember listening to Messiaen's 'Quartet for the end of time' many many years back and have been listening again...but I still can't stand it.
> 
> No worries.


Sure, no worries. There may, however, be a slight difference between saying (and thinking) I still can't stand Messiaen's Quartet for the End of Time and saying I haven't yet learned to like Messiaen's Quartet for the End of Time.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

janxharris said:


> How can you say that? - some here have expressed their enjoyment of the Messiaen.


"As Messiaen once put it: "*My music is not 'nice*,' it is certain. I am convinced that joy exists, convinced that the invisible exists more than the visible, joy is beyond sorrow, beauty is beyond horror".
http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/677/article/maestro-joy
I can appreciate the ideas of some modern composers, but the end result is more important than trying to be original.
Someone conditioned himself to like contemporary "classical"... Big deal, it doesn't make it any better for the rest of the humanity.


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> Sure, no worries. There may, however, be a slight difference between saying (and thinking) I still can't stand Messiaen's Quartet for the End of Time and saying I haven't yet learned to like Messiaen's Quartet for the End of Time.


In the same fashion, one might argue that there is a slight difference between saying one enjoys a piece and saying one hasn't realized that there might be nothing worthwhile in it.


----------



## janxharris

BabyGiraffe said:


> "As Messiaen once put it: "*My music is not 'nice*,' it is certain. I am convinced that joy exists, convinced that the invisible exists more than the visible, joy is beyond sorrow, beauty is beyond horror".
> http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/677/article/maestro-joy
> I can appreciate the ideas of some modern composers, but the end result is more important than trying to be original.
> Someone conditioned himself to like contemporary "classical"... Big deal, it doesn't make it any better for the rest of the humanity.


Messiaen's admission does not necessarily make his music objectively without merit. Certainly though, it is possible that some may value some pieces that were written without any true crafting on the composers part (as per JAS's #150 post).


----------



## mmsbls

janxharris said:


> In the same fashion, one might argue that there is a slight difference between saying one enjoys a piece and saying one hasn't realized that there might be nothing worthwhile in it.


How could there be nothing worthwhile if you enjoy the work? Every work I enjoy has something worthwhile in it.


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> How could there be nothing worthwhile if you enjoy the work? Every work I enjoy has something worthwhile in it.


Are you quite sure that you could *never* enjoy a work where a significant number of the pitches, note lengths and chords were selected at random?


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> How could there be nothing worthwhile if you enjoy the work? Every work I enjoy has something worthwhile in it.


One could equally say: How could there be anything worthwhile if you don't enjoy the work? Every work I dislike has something without worth in it.

I'm not asserting this - but presumably one could.


----------



## mmsbls

janxharris said:


> Are you quite sure that you could *never* enjoy a work where a significant number of the pitches, note lengths and chords were selected at random?


Of course I could enjoy such a work. In fact I could obviously enjoy an enormous number of such works. I assume the likelihood of enjoying one such work selected at random is small. I'm missing the point of how this pertains to wanting to enjoy modern music.


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> Of course I could enjoy such a work. In fact I could obviously enjoy an enormous number of such works.


But that means you are giving credit to works that don't deserve it - right? Shouldn't there be a distinction between aleatory music and crafted music?



> I'm missing the point of how this pertains to wanting to enjoy modern music.


Some suspect that many (not all) modern works are pretty random.


----------



## mmsbls

janxharris said:


> But that means you are giving credit to works that don't deserve it - right? Shouldn't there be a distinction between aleatory music and crafted music?


The reason I said I could enjoy a randomly created work is that an algorithm for generating works at random could with low probability produce works very similar to (or identical to) Mozart's 41st symphony and other wonderful works. The issue of randomly created music is really outside this thread's topic.



janxharris said:


> Some suspect that many (not all) modern works are pretty random.


And some suspect we never landed on the moon, the world is flat, or perpetual motion machines exist. Those of us who enjoy modern music have been talking about music created with purpose.

Honestly, this discussion seems to be focused on reasons why it's OK for you to dislike modern music. It's absolutely OK. But if you want to eventually enjoy it, I would suggest a different approach.


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> The issue of randomly created music is really outside this thread's topic.


Really? This regarding Gruppen:

_Fundamental durations were found by assigning values according to the octave register of the note in the GRUPPEN tone row (lower registers would get longer values such as whole notes, higher registers would get shorter ones such as 8th notes)._

Such selection, though not completely random is arbitrary.



> And some suspect we never landed on the moon, the world is flat, or perpetual motion machines exist. Those of us who enjoy modern music have been talking about music created with purpose.


Sorry you don't think it's okay for me and others to be suspicious regarding the crafting of such works. I'm not talking about the complete randomisation of composing - but the hunch that there is a degree of such.



> Honestly, this discussion seems to be focused on reasons why it's OK for you to dislike modern music. It's absolutely OK. But if you want to eventually enjoy it, I would suggest a different approach.


?


----------



## EdwardBast

janxharris said:


> One could equally say: How could there be anything worthwhile if you don't enjoy the work? Every work I dislike has something without worth in it.
> 
> I'm not asserting this - but presumably one could.


Yes, one could assert this position - if one were insane and unaware that other people exist. I don't ever enjoy sitting through a Bruckner symphony. I cannot comprehend how anyone does. But I assume these symphonies have qualities that are worthwhile for other people, even if I don't appreciate them or understand them.


----------



## janxharris

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, one could assert this position - if one were insane and unaware that other people exist. I don't ever enjoy sitting through a Bruckner symphony. I cannot comprehend how anyone does. But I assume these symphonies have qualities that are worthwhile for other people, even if I don't appreciate them or understand them.


Indeed - I was merely putting forward a response to a statement that may be inferred as speaking objectively.


----------



## ahinton

Lucas A said:


> There are people on this forum that act as though the music written is intentionally tortuous. If you personify it as some sort of antagonist, you're never going to enjoy it. If you view it as a challenge, adventure, and at the very least an educational experience, I think it'll come to you - and I mean this for any contemporary genre - 12, open-atonal, minimalist, etc. My only recommendation is to avoid the early serialism of Boulez, unless your curious. I don't think there's anything to crack there, except being introduced to a concept.
> 
> If you want to tackle atonality but are having trouble, I'd suggest Schoenberg's _String Quartet #1_ and _Chamber Symphony_, just to get used to fast-moving chromaticism - these are highly enjoyable works to boot, and when I approached them I found I could 'conquer' them (so to speak) after a few days of listening.


But these two immensely great works are overtly tonal pretty much throughout; indeed, their treatment of tonality is as rich as one could possibly hope for. In the latter there's no obvious clear tonal centre, partly due to the predominantly quartal rather than triadic harmonic basis of its opening phrases, but E major asserts itself very soon; the former, on the other hand, opens with a clear assertion of D minor and closes serenely in D major. That said, these works are in some ways among Schönberg's most complex of all (perhaps along with _Erwartung_) but they repay as many listenings as anyone can give them. For the quartet, I recommend Quatuor Diotima's recent recording on a 5-CD set of the complete completed string quartet works of Schönberg, Webern and Berg and the ensemble's performances of all the works are utterly peerless.

I've only just noticed this thread, by the way and, since I'm one of those living composers who seemingly attract the ire, dismay and other negative responses such as some tht I have read here, I'd better make a swift departure...


----------



## Nereffid

janxharris said:


> I don't approach new pieces with the assumption that I am going to dislike them.
> 
> I accept that you and others find the music beautiful; I have no problem with that.
> 
> I do want to like what you and others have suggested.


TBH I may be attributing attitudes to you that aren't yours. The thread's 2 weeks old now, and there are 3 contributors with nicknames beginning with J. 

I know (now that I've gone and checked!) that you rate Stravinsky's _Rite_ highly, so I guess one question to ask is what post-1913 works do you like? How do you feel about later neoclassical Stravinsky, or Shostakovich, or Martinu, or Britten? If you're so resistant to works like Messiaen's _Quartet_ and _Vingt Regards_, then perhaps your issue doesn't lie specifically with the serialists or the post-war avant-garde. In which case I remain absolutely adamant that the step from early Stravinsky to Messiaen is minuscule compared with the step from, say, Mozart to early Stravinsky and in theory shouldn't be too hard to (eventually) take.


----------



## hurg

mmsbls said:


> Of course I could enjoy such a work. In fact I could obviously enjoy an enormous number of such works. I assume the likelihood of enjoying one such work selected at random is small. I'm missing the point of how this pertains to wanting to enjoy modern music.


So my post on page 35 was somewhat overlooked, so be it, the conversation is moving quite quickly. Go back and check it out if you like. But the emphasis on randomness is definitely part and parcel to the enjoyment of modern music, although randomness is something of a misnomer. What many would call "randomness" I prefer to call "expressive form without representative structure." Jackson Pollack's paintings are significant because they don't represent anything concrete but they contain patterns in them that are also contained in nature, that are well-suited to our perceptual systems. Google "Pollack Power Law Fractal Geometry." There are patterns in his paintings that aren't found in the works of imitators - although I wouldn't be surprised to find them in a painting by an elephant, believe it or not.

So there are similar phenomena in modern music (and "modern" music isn't contemporary any more, we're talking about artists from 60 years ago) where one composer will make an innovation and make their art with a spiritual intuition behind it, and others will take that too literally and ruin it by being overly structural. Boulez's total serialism was made in order to give himself as much freedom as possible, despite what was claimed about it. (Structures is a thought experiment, it's supposed to be off-putting, but other pieces of his are much more pleasant.)






Stop thinking so much and just hear how the proportions are very similar to what you might hear in a wilderness scene or see in a rock-face or the relative sizes of branches of trees. It's about the relative densities of sounds from one place to the next.

And, I'll post it again because some composers just threw out all of that noise and went fully intuitive. Vivier's works are of sublime beauty, despite being microtonal! (The opening melody is sort of a tone-row, it uses all 12 pitches, but it's not permutated like the 12-tone style, and it's pleasant to listen to)


----------



## Strange Magic

Nereffid said:


> I know (now that I've gone and checked!) that you rate Stravinsky's _Rite_ highly, so I guess one question to ask is what post-1913 works do you like? How do you feel about later neoclassical Stravinsky, or Shostakovich, or Martinu, or Britten? If you're so resistant to works like Messiaen's _Quartet_ and _Vingt Regards_, then perhaps your issue doesn't lie specifically with the serialists or the post-war avant-garde. In which case I remain absolutely adamant that the step from early Stravinsky to Messiaen is minuscule compared with the step from, say, Mozart to early Stravinsky and in theory shouldn't be too hard to (eventually) take.


I don't know that the leap from Mozart to _Le sacré_ is all that great compared to what you call the minuscule leap thence to Messiaen. The Rite has always struck me as a cornucopia of whistleable, hummable, singable melodies almost unprecedented in music. Sure, a bit of dissonance; some jerky rhythms, but the dinosaurs parade across the screen. My own guess is that Mozart might eventually learn to love early Stravinsky. But Messiaen? Not so much. Just a guess.


----------



## Chronochromie

Strange Magic said:


> I don't know that the leap from Mozart to _Le sacré_ is all that great compared to what you call the minuscule leap thence to Messiaen. The Rite has always struck me as a cornucopia of whistleable, hummable, singable melodies almost unprecedented in music. Sure, a bit of dissonance; some jerky rhythms, but the dinosaurs parade across the screen. My own guess is that Mozart might eventually learn to love early Stravinsky. But Messiaen? Not so much. Just a guess.


My guess is that Mozart would faint if he ever heard Wagner, let alone Stravinsky.

(Messiaen's Quatuor is full of melodies BTW. And seems to be one of the most popular post-1940 pieces, even loved by those who don't like Messiaen's later work).


----------



## DaveM

When I read various attempts to describe various atonal, contemporary, modern works, what is supposed to be going on in them and the sometimes double-speak that is an attempt to describe atonal works as being tonal, I ask myself why I would want to expend the effort to enjoy these works. It does not take a rocket scientist to describe Romantic Era music, but it appears that it does for much of the 'music' that followed.

And I resent someone inferring that I have not learned to appreciate some musical works as if it is a deficiency yet to be rectified. (Yes, I know it was said in answer to another poster, but statements like that cause collateral damage.) Also, I don't need to be schooled on learning to live with diversity of taste and opinion. Nobody here has been telling people what they should like or not although there are those whose sensitivities often interpret it that way.

I have appreciated all the various forms of classical music going back over 250 years. None of the changes that occurred from Baroque to Classical to Romantic were right turns. The change that occurred in much, if not most, of classical music in the last 110 years is a right turn. Practically none of what goes for contemporary classical music resonates with me and never will. And news flash, I'm not in the minority.



ahinton said:


> But these two immensely great works *are overtly tonal pretty much throughout*; indeed, their treatment of tonality is as rich as one could possibly hope for. *In the latter there's no obvious clear tonal centre,* partly due to the predominantly quartal rather than triadic harmonic basis of its opening phrases...





hurg said:


> ..*But the emphasis on randomness is definitely part and parcel to the enjoyment of modern music, although randomness is something of a misnomer. What many would call "randomness" I prefer to call "expressive form without representative structure."*
> 
> So there are similar phenomena in modern music (and "modern" music isn't contemporary any more, we're talking about artists from 60 years ago)* where one composer will make an innovation and make their art with a spiritual intuition behind it, and others will take that too literally and ruin it by being overly structural.*





TurnaboutVox said:


> You aren't having the same experience with the pieces of art that other people are having. This is because you have duifferent genes from theirs, and your genes and theirs have interacted with a different nurturing environment and different people with different qualities since before you were born. Your emotional defences are configured differently. *You haven't (yet) learned to appreciate some musical works, and perhaps you never will. There are many things I don't appreciate that many other people do. One has to learn to live with diversity of taste and opinion*.


----------



## hurg

DaveM said:


> I have appreciated all the various forms of classical music going back over 250 years. None of the changes that occurred from Baroque to Classical to Romantic were right turns. The change that occurred in much, if not most, of classical music in the last 110 years is a right turn. Practically none of what goes for contemporary classical music resonates with me and never will. And news flash, I'm not in the minority.


I personally don't see it as a deficiency to not enjoy contemporary classical music, nor that it's a matter of needing to "learn" something as if there's some sort of rational understanding that's required to appreciate the music. It's more of a matter of feeling to me, a matter of how it resonates with our experience and our lives in a subconscious way. If it doesn't share the necessary features with your reality, there's no reason I would hold it against anyone not to enjoy the music.

I don't care much for very dark metal music but people who are into that sure do. And likewise, I've personally never cared much for romantic music but anyone else has every right to. But, as you say, that's pre-supposed and you don't need to be schooled about diversity. So that's fine.

Personally, what I'm trying to do, is answer the title question, and perhaps I might call certain attitudes "stubborn" but it's just because that's a reflection of what I see.

But I'm also trying to explain what it is I hear in the music and why one _might_ appreciate it. And my bit is that the change happened in the entire culture, and it's a change of the frame of reference rather than an incremental bit that can be understood by adding a bit more knowledge to the old framework. It was a revolution, so following after Kuhn the old language is no longer relevant for interacting with the new perspective.

As for right turns, I think essentially the problem is that the music _did_ take a right turn in the early 1900s, as Virginia Woolfe put it:



Virginia Woolfe said:


> On or about December 1910, human character changed. I am not saying that one went out, as one might into a garden, and there saw that a rose had flowered, or that a hen had laid an egg. The change was not sudden and definite like that. But a change there was, nevertheless; and, since one must be arbitrary, let us date it about the year 1910.


Personally I think the magnitude of the change is most akin to the change that happened in the Renaissance. Gluck's and Monteverdi's operas I'd say are of a similar magnitude of change to the most prevalent forms of music at the time.

Maybe? It's a tenuous comparison. But change isn't always incremental and you're right to say that there was a bigger shift that happened at that time. That being said, what came after definitely does follow after what came before, I can see the link and I can see the logical progression, _it exists,_ but personally what came after I feel better represents my life which is why I enjoy it!

As it's related to the first question, I think the fact that some of the population hasn't been as affected by that cultural shift as other parts, it's understandably baffling to certain culturally-inherited frames of view.

I hope that makes sense, there's a lot of jargon in here


----------



## DaveM

hurg said:


> I hope that makes sense, there's a lot of jargon in here


Actually, it's a great post and very much appreciated.


----------



## hurg

Thanks!

And do listen to Lonely Child, that Vivier piece I've posted a couple of times. It represents one of the new voices that came out of what we learned in that big mix-up in the first half of the century. Repetitive minimalism and the music of John Cage, for instance, are two more.


----------



## janxharris

Strange Magic said:


> I don't know that the leap from Mozart to _Le sacré_ is all that great compared to what you call the minuscule leap thence to Messiaen. The Rite has always struck me as a cornucopia of whistleable, hummable, singable melodies almost unprecedented in music. Sure, a bit of dissonance; some jerky rhythms, but the dinosaurs parade across the screen. My own guess is that Mozart might eventually learn to love early Stravinsky. But Messiaen? Not so much. Just a guess.


I'm with you here.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

DaveM said:


> [...]
> 
> And I resent someone inferring that I have not learned to appreciate some musical works as if it is a deficiency yet to be rectified. (Yes, I know it was said in answer to another poster, but statements like that cause collateral damage.) Also, I don't need to be schooled on learning to live with diversity of taste and opinion.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Practically none of what goes for contemporary classical music resonates with me and never will. And news flash, I'm not in the minority.


No deficiency on behalf of the listener (moral or otherwise) was implied in my post. I meant simply to say that one way of looking at the enjoyment of anything, for instance an artistic work (for all of us, myself included), is to think of them as things we have learnt and not yet learnt to appreciate. Of course it is also possible to decide that something is not deserving of appreciation. I do not mean that one should or shouldn't learn to enjoy something, only that one has or hasn't (yet).

When I posted "One has to learn to live with diversity of taste and opinion." I was thinking primarily of myself and my own experience. Whether this applies to anyone else, each person will have to decide for themselves.

What you have inferred from my post is not what I intended to convey - a very good example of the intersubjectivist problem that I am interested in.


----------



## jailhouse

i dont know whats with you people saying messiaen has no melody

i can literally sing along with probably like 60 percent of the quartet from memory. Granted i've heard it 100 times


----------



## janxharris

Nereffid said:


> TBH I may be attributing attitudes to you that aren't yours. The thread's 2 weeks old now, and there are 3 contributors with nicknames beginning with J.


No problem.



> I know (now that I've gone and checked!) that you rate Stravinsky's _Rite_ highly, so I guess one question to ask is what post-1913 works do you like? How do you feel about later neoclassical Stravinsky, or Shostakovich, or Martinu, or Britten? If you're so resistant to works like Messiaen's _Quartet_ and _Vingt Regards_, then perhaps your issue doesn't lie specifically with the serialists or the post-war avant-garde. In which case I remain absolutely adamant that the step from early Stravinsky to Messiaen is minuscule compared with the step from, say, Mozart to early Stravinsky and in theory shouldn't be too hard to (eventually) take.


Sibelius's Tapiola, Stravinsky's Petruska and Shostakovich's 5th symphony. I have always been put off by Britten. Don't know Martinu.

I disagree that the step from Stravinsky (from the Rite) to Messiaen is small.


----------



## janxharris

jailhouse said:


> i dont know whats with you people saying messiaen has no melody
> 
> i can literally sing along with probably like 60 percent of the quartet from memory. Granted i've heard it 100 times


For me, it's the nightmarish quality that is so off-putting...as if one were experiencing enforced sectioning in a psychiatric unit.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

DaveM said:


> I have appreciated all the various forms of classical music going back over 250 years. None of the changes that occurred from Baroque to Classical to Romantic were right turns. The change that occurred in much, if not most, of classical music in the last 110 years is a right turn. Practically none of what goes for contemporary classical music resonates with me and never will. And news flash, I'm not in the minority.


You really are, though. "Much, if not most, of classical music" 1907-1957 means Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Bartók, Respighi, de Falla, Rodrigo, Milhaud, Poulenc, Orff, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Vaughan Williams, Copland, Britten, Villa-Lobos - ALL popular now. It's like Picasso - some people still think it all went wrong with the Impressionists, but, like, Picasso is popular. Sorry, you can have your opinion,* but you can't claim to speak for the masses and against the elite, because you're not. *The masses are with the Modernists. ("Masses" here meaning of the fringe that cares about high art at all.) (Excepting, in music, a few strains like the German Expressionists and later 12 tone composers, and the American ultra-moderns - strains that were considered fringe phenomena in their own time, though of course Adorno and Boulez tried to rewrite history to put Schoenberg and Webern at the center.)

The jury's still out on the last 50 years, but I won't be surprised if we eventually hear Messiaen and Ligeti on American public radio (assuming there still is a public radio). And of course, going even further forward, Steve Reich and Arvo Pärt are already way more popular than 3rd-tier Romantics like Joachim Raff and Anton Rubinstein.


----------



## janxharris

I believe I can finally hear the organic element in Stockhausen's Gruppen - a repeated series of specific note intervals. I guess it must be the tone row. It certainly makes the music sound less disorganised...but I still feel that much of it is aleatory.


----------



## Nereffid

janxharris said:


> Sibelius's Tapiola, Stravinsky's Petruska and Shostakovich's 5th symphony. I have always been put off by Britten. Don't know Martinu.
> 
> I disagree that the step from Stravinsky (from the Rite) to Messiaen is small.


Well, OK, implicit in my claim that the step is small is the assumption that the music of the 1910s is quite similar to that of the 1900s, that 1920s are quite similar to the 1910s, the 1930s quite similar to the 1920s, and finally the 1940s quite similar to the 1930s. But if you're not especially familiar with, or sympathetic to, the intervening decades, then I can see how you could disagree.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Strange Magic said:


> I don't know that the leap from Mozart to _Le sacré_ is all that great compared to what you call the minuscule leap thence to Messiaen. The Rite has always struck me as a cornucopia of whistleable, hummable, singable melodies almost unprecedented in music.


There's a reason for that: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/25/arts/bartok-and-stravinsky-odd-couple-reunited.html

Anyway, I dare you to listen to the 2nd of Messiaen's 3 petite liturgies and NOT whistle it:


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> I have appreciated all the various forms of classical music going back over 250 years. None of the changes that occurred from Baroque to Classical to Romantic were right turns. The change that occurred in much, if not most, of classical music in the last 110 years is a right turn. Practically none of what goes for contemporary classical music resonates with me and never will. And news flash, I'm not in the minority.


I understand your feeling about the changes in music from Romantic to Modern. I'm not sure where I stand relative to the "distance" from Mozart to Rite of Spring compared with Rite to Messiaen. I did not like the Rite when I first heard it, but I think it took less listening to enjoy the Rite than anything from Messiaen.

I do think many who enjoy modern music may not realize or remember how bizarre the sounds of modern music are to listeners who do not enjoy it. My tastes have changed enormously, and sometimes I wonder if downplay the "difficulty" of some music because it sounds so familiar or natural to me now. Would you mind listening to the beginning of these 2 contemporary works and tell me if they resonate at all with you or if they are distinctly unpleasant?

Ewazen Concerto for Violin and Strings
Liebermann Piano Quintet


----------



## DavidA

janxharris said:


> *I believe I can finally hear the organic element in Stockhausen's Gruppen *- a repeated series of specific note intervals. I guess it must be the tone row. It certainly makes the music sound less disorganised...but I still feel that much of it is aleatory.


You sure you're not hearing things? :lol:


----------



## PeterFromLA

mmsbls said:


> I understand your feeling about the changes in music from Romantic to Modern. I'm not sure where I stand relative to the "distance" from Mozart to Rite of Spring compared with Rite to Messiaen. I did not like the Rite when I first heard it, but I think it took less listening to enjoy the Rite than anything from Messiaen.
> 
> I do think many who enjoy modern music may not realize or remember how bizarre the sounds of modern music are to listeners who do not enjoy it. My tastes have changed enormously, and sometimes I wonder if downplay the "difficulty" of some music because it sounds so familiar or natural to me now. Would you mind listening to the beginning of these 2 contemporary works and tell me if they resonate at all with you or if they are distinctly unpleasant?
> 
> Ewazen Concerto for Violin and Strings
> Liebermann Piano Quintet


I appreciate what you're saying, but then I recall taking my mother -- who knows nothing about contemporary classical music -- to a performance of Kurtag's Kafka Fragments, for violin and soprano -- an hour long work, and probably not most people's idea of a friendly introduction to new music. She absolutely loved it, finding it fascinating and beautiful. Sometimes people can take to contemporary music without any preparation whatsoever.


----------



## Strange Magic

Magnum Miserium said:


> There's a reason for that: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/25/arts/bartok-and-stravinsky-odd-couple-reunited.html
> 
> Anyway, I dare you to listen to the 2nd of Messiaen's 3 petite liturgies and NOT whistle it:


Excellent article on Stravinsky and Bartok! And your Messiaen example works here. I appreciate your post.


----------



## JAS

PeterFromLA said:


> I appreciate what you're saying, but then I recall taking my mother -- who knows nothing about contemporary classical music -- to a performance of Kurtag's Kafka Fragments, for violin and soprano -- an hour long work, and probably not most people's idea of a friendly introduction to new music. She absolutely loved it, finding it fascinating and beautiful. Sometimes people can take to contemporary music without any preparation whatsoever.


On the other hand, my parents attended a concert just in the last week, which I did not attend. (They subscribe to two series, and go much more frequently than I do, but their exposure to and views of classical music are pretty moderate and mostly traditional. They often ask me about works they have not heard of, but this time they did not because neither the names of the composers or the pieces stood out for them.) On the program were John Adam's Shaker Loops, one of the Strauss Horn Concertos and a Mozart Symphony. The Adams piece was first, of course, and they absolutely hated it in spite of knowing really nothing about it before hand or having any expectations beyond the title. "There was nothing 'Shaker' about it," my Mother said to me the next day. It is not a piece that I have any affection for, but it is hardly the auditory assault of many modern pieces, and yet my father was so irritated by it that he turned off his hearing aid until it was over. There was considerable applause when it was over, in which my parents did not participate, somewhat beyond what might merely be called polite applause, which my parents thought was rather odd until it stopped and the person next to them, who had been clapping as enthusiastically as anyone else, said "I'm glad that's over."

But by all means, keep hoping.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

JAS said:


> ...and the person next to them, who had been clapping as enthusiastically as anyone else, said "I'm glad that's over."
> 
> But by all means, keep hoping.


Well, people usually want melodies, clear structures

"The neglect that Schubert suffered for most of the nineteenth century now seems incredible. None of his symphonies was
performed during his lifetime and not one was published until some fifty years after his death. Ironically, however, his unfettered talent for melody and his attachment to Classical forms also contributed significantly towards his neglect. In the high Romantic period, when complexity and ambiguity were the order of the day, Schubert's lucid and tuneful music was often dismissed as
the product of a naive mind."

It's always possible some of the contemporary composers to become famous in the future... But I'm pretty sure that the Schoenberg's clones will remain forgotten.


----------



## janxharris

BabyGiraffe said:


> Well, people usually want melodies, clear structures
> 
> "The neglect that Schubert suffered for most of the nineteenth century now seems incredible. None of his symphonies was
> performed during his lifetime and not one was published until some fifty years after his death. Ironically, however, his unfettered talent for melody and his attachment to Classical forms also contributed significantly towards his neglect. In the high Romantic period, when complexity and ambiguity were the order of the day, Schubert's lucid and tuneful music was often dismissed as
> the product of a naive mind."
> 
> It's always possible some of the contemporary composers to become famous in the future... But I'm pretty sure that the Schoenberg's clones will remain forgotten.


Wow...fascinating...never new that about Schubert. I know that Elgar's Cello Concert was never successful in his lifetime (first performance was a debacle duo to it being under rehearsed). Wasn't until the 1960s and du Pre that it was a hit.


----------



## Chronochromie

JAS said:


> On the other hand, my parents attended a concert just in the last week, which I did not attend. (They subscribe to two series, and go much more frequently than I do, but their exposure to and views of classical music are pretty moderate and mostly traditional. They often ask me about works they have not heard of, but this time they did not because neither the names of the composers or the pieces stood out for them.) On the program were John Adam's Shaker Loops, one of the Strauss Horn Concertos and a Mozart Symphony. The Adams piece was first, of course, and they absolutely hated it in spite of knowing really nothing about it before hand or having any expectations beyond the title. "There was nothing 'Shaker' about it," my Mother said to me the next day. It is not a piece that I have any affection for, but it is hardly the auditory assault of many modern pieces, and yet my father was so irritated by it that he turned off his hearing aid until it was over. There was considerable applause when it was over, in which my parents did not participate, somewhat beyond what might merely be called polite applause, which my parents thought was rather odd until it stopped and the person next to them, who had been clapping as enthusiastically as anyone else, said "I'm glad that's over."
> 
> But by all means, keep hoping.


The funniest part is that you seem to assume that everybody in the audience clapped because of the reason given by that one person.


----------



## JAS

Chronochromie said:


> The funniest part is that you seem to assume that everybody in the audience clapped because of the reason given by that one person.


No. The point is that at least one person who clapped apparently did so out of appreciation for the performance, and not necessarily for the music. There is no way to know how that might extrapolate across the full audience, although it is interesting that it just happened to be someone in earshot.

The part that is perhaps significant is that one piece on the program was "modernist" and the other two were traditional works. If "modernist" music was more popular, it would be the other way around.


----------



## JAS

Although I think that my interest in this topic, for the moment at least, is mostly exhausted, one question does present itself to me. There have been a couple of comments in this thread that lamented evaluations of "modernist" music based on post-war avant garde, or other "extreme" examples. I wonder if fans of "modernist" music feel that these examples form some kind of baggage that weights down other forms, or acts as too great a roadblock for many listeners.


----------



## Chronochromie

JAS said:


> No. The point is that at least one person who clapped apparently did so out of appreciation for the performance, and not necessarily for the music. There is no way to know how that might extrapolate across the full audience, although it is interesting that it just happened to be someone in earshot.
> 
> The part that is perhaps significant is that one piece on the program was "modernist" and the other two were traditional works. If "modernist" music was more popular, it would be the other way around.


That's not how it came across to me, but I'll take your word for it.

I feel if we pursue this argument of programming older and newer pieces we'll go the way of a previous thread where someone wanted concerts of Modern and pre-Modern music to be separate so that mixed programs didn't happen because they wanted to stay away from Modern music in a safe space. It didn't go well and wasn't particularly enlightening.


----------



## DaveM

Magnum Miserium said:


> You really are, though. "Much, if not most, of classical music" 1907-1957 means Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Bartók, Respighi, de Falla, Rodrigo, Milhaud, Poulenc, Orff, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Vaughan Williams, Copland, Britten, Villa-Lobos - ALL popular now....


The '_much, if not most_' was put in there for a purpose so as to not include a number (if not all) of the composers you included, but nice try.


----------



## JAS

Chronochromie said:


> That's not how it came across to me, but I'll take your word for it.


No need to take my word. My parents thought, for a moment, that they were the only ones who did not particularly like the piece, because so many people were applauding, but hearing the person's comment was clear evidence that they were not alone in that opinion. (How many others present held that same opinion is not knowable.)


----------



## JAS

DaveM said:


> The '_much, if not most_' was put in there for a purpose so as to not include a number (if not all) of the composers you included, but nice try.


I think we have reached the point in the discussion where some people are determined to misread.


----------



## Chronochromie

JAS said:


> No need to take my word. My parents thought, for a moment, that they were the only ones who did not particularly like the piece, because so many people were applauding, but hearing the person's comment was clear evidence that they were not alone in that opinion. (How many others present held that same opinion is not knowable.)


Okay, that clears it up.


----------



## DaveM

JAS said:


> I think we have reached the point in the discussion where some people are determined to misread.


I think the Magnum man is still devastated by Rachmaninoff trouncing Ravel.


----------



## JAS

DaveM said:


> I think the Magnum man is still devastated by Rachmaninoff trouncing Ravel.


I think we are still a good 999,000+ votes from having that definitive answer to the question of "a million times better."


----------



## Nereffid

JAS said:


> Although I think that my interest in this topic, for the moment at least, is mostly exhausted, one question does present itself to me. There have been a couple of comments in this thread that lamented evaluations of "modernist" music based on post-war avant garde, or other "extreme" examples. I wonder if fans of "modernist" music feel that these examples form some kind of baggage that weights down other forms, or acts as too great a roadblock for many listeners.


I think the serialists and post-war avant-garde loom large enough that the music is fair game for comment, but I'd like it if nobody fought the fight like it was still the 1960s (or the 1910s, for that matter). We now have two things that weren't available back then: the Internet, and hindsight. We can look back over the entire 20th century and surely realise that although the likes of Stockhausen were big names of their times, they don't represent the entirety of those times. 
I also wish I knew, when people say "I don't like modern music" or "music went wrong in the 20th century", roughly what sort of modern/20thC music they've actually heard and what pleases them. Because it may well be that their issue isn't so much with Stockhausen and Ligeti as with the likes of Scriabin, Ives and Satie. I just don't know. Anyway, modern_ist_ music (as opposed to "modern", a rather unhelpful term that could mean anything) is just a sub-genre of classical for me, much like bel canto opera or harpsichord music or Renaissance polyphony - no harm in disliking it, but don't confuse it with something larger (who would dislike a Donizetti opera and thus conclude that Wagner must be rubbish?).


----------



## Magnum Miserium

DaveM said:


> The '_much, if not most_' was put in there for a purpose so as to not include a number (if not all) of the composers you included, but nice try.


Oh so this is one of those times when "much, if not most" means "I want it to be most, but I know it isn't, but I'm going to say something that makes it sound like it is and hope people believe me, while still covering my butt."

By the way, let's note why people do what you're doing here: If Romanticism is popular and Modernism is unpopular, then the fact that you don't like great atonal music doesn't simply mean it's too difficult for you. Oh no, not that! Instead it means you're just too gosh darn much of a feeling warm blooded human all too human being. Of course the fact that, like, EVERY major early modernist, minus three, has popular appeal totally ruins this, hence rhetorical disappearing acts like the one above.



DaveM said:


> I think the Magnum man is still devastated by Rachmaninoff trouncing Ravel.


Yeah, I gambled and lost, but I gambled for a good cause, and I was nice enough to let it end there, whereas you're now gambling just for petty spite, and I'm not nice enough to let it end there, so now, unless I totally misjudge the community here, you're gonna lose: http://www.talkclassical.com/47886-rachmaninov-vs-ravel.html


----------



## DaveM

Magnum Miserium said:


> Instead it means you're just too gosh darn much of a feeling warm blooded human all too human being.


Aw shucks. How nice of you.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

DaveM said:


> Aw shucks. How nice of you.


For pegging you? Well sure if that's what you're into.


----------



## JAS

Myriadi said:


> A symphony from 1982 by Lou Harrison:


So, the Harrison video now says "private" and won't play. My recollection is that it was his Third Symphony? What was the orchestra and conductor?


----------



## Strange Magic

:devil:"In a thread, "Russian Composers and Music", TC member JosefinaHW mentioned a recent (2014) doctoral thesis by one Herbert Pauls. It is titled Two Centuries in One: Musical Romanticism and the Twentieth Century and is available here:
http://www.musicweb-international.co...ies_in_one.pdf

It is a long (400 pages plus), thorough, but well-written and easily absorbed treatise that both JosefinaHW and I can recommend as very valuable background information for any discussion of the topics of "modernism", "tonal" v. "atonal", "Romanticism", "Neo-Romanticism" etc. that have so troubled the Forum recently. Pauls' argument in a nutshell, which he supports with some very interesting lists and tables, is that musical Romanticism/Neo-Romanticism overwhelmingly dominates the Twentieth Century, for which thesis he offers many arguments and much data. A corollary of this is that it would be very difficult to realize this if one relied primarily (until recently) on the major music history texts, which offer a significantly different view of the past hundred years. Pauls' Table 2 on pp. 51-52 is particularly enlightening. Of course, the thesis has nothing to do with whether any particular person should or should not like or listen to any particular kind or piece of music."

I am resurrecting this reference to the Herbert Pauls thesis. What a thread the discussion of Pauls' idea generated!


----------



## Chronochromie

Strange Magic said:


> :devil:"In a thread, "Russian Composers and Music", TC member JosefinaHW mentioned a recent (2014) doctoral thesis by one Herbert Pauls. It is titled Two Centuries in One: Musical Romanticism and the Twentieth Century and is available here:
> http://www.musicweb-international.co...ies_in_one.pdf
> 
> It is a long (400 pages plus), thorough, but well-written and easily absorbed treatise that both JosefinaHW and I can recommend as very valuable background information for any discussion of the topics of "modernism", "tonal" v. "atonal", "Romanticism", "Neo-Romanticism" etc. that have so troubled the Forum recently. Pauls' argument in a nutshell, which he supports with some very interesting lists and tables, is that musical Romanticism/Neo-Romanticism overwhelmingly dominates the Twentieth Century, for which thesis he offers many arguments and much data. A corollary of this is that it would be very difficult to realize this if one relied primarily (until recently) on the major music history texts, which offer a significantly different view of the past hundred years. Pauls' Table 2 on pp. 51-52 is particularly enlightening. Of course, the thesis has nothing to do with whether any particular person should or should not like or listen to any particular kind or piece of music."
> 
> I am resurrecting this reference to the Herbert Pauls thesis. What a thread the discussion of Pauls' idea generated!


"What a thread" is right...let's not do it again.


----------



## Woodduck

Chronochromie said:


> "What a thread" is right...let's not do it again.


Ah, but who are the "us" in "let's"? Have you noticed the turnover in this far-from-exclusive club?

It's still a provocative thesis with, I think, some merit. Music histories, like most histories, are written by the winners, and the winners are often those who define themselves as such. In a culture deeply enamored of "progress," those who fail to "progress" are often defined right out of the race and out of the story.


----------



## Chronochromie

Woodduck said:


> Ah, but who are the "us" in "let's"? Have you noticed the turnover in this far-from-exclusive club?
> 
> It's still a provocative thesis with, I think, some merit. Music histories, like most histories, are written by the winners, and the winners are often those who define themselves as such. In a culture deeply enamored of "progress," those who fail to "progress" are often defined right out of the race and out of the story.


From what I remember it just relabelled some Modern composers as Romantic. But what I do remember well is that the discussion generated wasn't very enlightening and got nowhere. I haven't heard of any academic after the 50s accusing a composer of not being sufficiently Modern and wanting to erase them from history because of it, but maybe it happened.


----------



## Woodduck

Chronochromie said:


> From what I remember it just relabelled some Modern composers as Romantic. But what I do remember well is that the discussion generated wasn't very enlightening and got nowhere. I haven't heard of any academic after the 50s accusing a composer of not being sufficiently Modern and wanting to erase them from history because of it, but maybe it happened.


If I recall, Pauls raises questions of what 20th-century music is representative of its time and "important" (important to whom?), of what are the criteria for deciding that, and of how classifications and definitions are imposed on things to frame cultural history in certain ways. Where were you hoping that discussion would go? If it didn't go where you seem to think it should have, it's not surprising you didn't find it worthwhile. A discussion doesn't have to meet our expectations or prove anything to us to provoke thoughts which may take people to unexpected places.

If "we" have the discussion "again" - which for many would be their first time, so there would be no "again" - no one has to participate.


----------



## Chronochromie

Woodduck said:


> If it didn't go where you seem to think it should have, it's not surprising you didn't find it worthwhile. A discussion doesn't have to meet our expectations or prove anything to us to provoke thoughts which may take people to unexpected places.


I've skimmed over the old thread to recall a few things. I didn't find it worthwhile because _to me_ the argument as I understood it was unconvincing and nobody really expanded on the points and it became (as usual) another boring forum battle with the thread creator projecting some problematic ideas (about melody and its importance for Romanticism, for example), then refusing to keep talking to anyone who had not read the whole text even if the objections were valid. Everyone ended up building trenches and talking over each other.If you found it worthwhile, that's great! Mahlerian and some of our other learned members (and those who had bothered to read the whole paper) are no longer around, so I guess if this was brought up it will be more calm, but also more one-sided.


----------



## arpeggio

I had the great pleasure of meeting Someguy. Last night we met and he crashed a rehearsal of the City of Fairfax Band.

Today we had a wonderful time at my home listening to everything from Mozart to Mahler to Anders Hillborg. I have always idealized that this is the way classical music forums should be like.

After today I realized that participating in discussions like this are a complete waste of time.


----------



## Woodduck

Chronochromie said:


> I've skimmed over the old thread to recall a few things. I didn't find it worthwhile because _to me_ the argument as I understood it was unconvincing and nobody really expanded on the points and it became (as usual) another boring forum battle with the thread creator projecting some problematic ideas (about melody and its importance for Romanticism, for example), then refusing to keep talking to anyone who had not read the whole text even if the objections were valid. Everyone ended up building trenches and talking over each other.If you found it worthwhile, that's great! Mahlerian and some of our other learned members (and those who had bothered to read the whole paper) are no longer around, so I guess if this was brought up it will be more calm, but also more one-sided.


Your last observation may well be correct. There are pluses and minuses to changes in personnel. Of course if no one's interested, we'll never find out.

_"Que sera sera"_ - Doris Day, a unique representative of 20th-century music


----------



## janxharris

Strange Magic said:


> :devil:"In a thread, "Russian Composers and Music", TC member JosefinaHW mentioned a recent (2014) doctoral thesis by one Herbert Pauls. It is titled Two Centuries in One: Musical Romanticism and the Twentieth Century and is available here:
> http://www.musicweb-international.co...ies_in_one.pdf
> 
> It is a long (400 pages plus), thorough, but well-written and easily absorbed treatise that both JosefinaHW and I can recommend as very valuable background information for any discussion of the topics of "modernism", "tonal" v. "atonal", "Romanticism", "Neo-Romanticism" etc. that have so troubled the Forum recently. Pauls' argument in a nutshell, which he supports with some very interesting lists and tables, is that musical Romanticism/Neo-Romanticism overwhelmingly dominates the Twentieth Century, for which thesis he offers many arguments and much data. A corollary of this is that it would be very difficult to realize this if one relied primarily (until recently) on the major music history texts, which offer a significantly different view of the past hundred years. Pauls' Table 2 on pp. 51-52 is particularly enlightening. Of course, the thesis has nothing to do with whether any particular person should or should not like or listen to any particular kind or piece of music."
> 
> I am resurrecting this reference to the Herbert Pauls thesis. What a thread the discussion of Pauls' idea generated!


_'Romanticism/Neo-Romanticism overwhelmingly dominates the Twentieth Century'_

You mean as opposed to atonal music? Dominates in what respect?


----------



## KenOC

Of interest, perhaps. The top ten works, by decade. See especially the 20th century. These were determined by voting games on another site. A pretty sophisticated group there, but appreciation of atonal works seems limited.

https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/ama/best-works-by-decade


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Strange Magic said:


> :devil:"In a thread, "Russian Composers and Music", TC member JosefinaHW mentioned a recent (2014) doctoral thesis by one Herbert Pauls. It is titled Two Centuries in One: Musical Romanticism and the Twentieth Century and is available here:
> http://www.musicweb-international.co...ies_in_one.pdf
> 
> It is a long (400 pages plus), thorough, but well-written and easily absorbed treatise that both JosefinaHW and I can recommend as very valuable background information for any discussion of the topics of "modernism", "tonal" v. "atonal", "Romanticism", "Neo-Romanticism" etc. that have so troubled the Forum recently. Pauls' argument in a nutshell, which he supports with some very interesting lists and tables, is that musical Romanticism/Neo-Romanticism overwhelmingly dominates the Twentieth Century, for which thesis he offers many arguments and much data. A corollary of this is that it would be very difficult to realize this if one relied primarily (until recently) on the major music history texts, which offer a significantly different view of the past hundred years. Pauls' Table 2 on pp. 51-52 is particularly enlightening. Of course, the thesis has nothing to do with whether any particular person should or should not like or listen to any particular kind or piece of music."


Your link doesn't work. Here it is: http://www.musicweb-international.com/books/Pauls_two_centuries_in_one.pdf

It's such b***s***. Debussy, Ravel, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, and Britten are *anti*-Romantic - as Schoenberg, Webern, and Berg are *not*. That's exactly 1/2 of the top 10, including Debussy at #1. Proceed to Vaughan Williams, Bartók, Falla, Poulenc, and Villa Lobos and it's exactly 1/2 of the top 20. Proceed to Copland and it's 52% of the top 21. Proceed to Hindemith and it's 52% of the top 23.

It's the same old lie. The common thread among the more popular composers is they're *easier*, and people who want music to be easy but don't want to admit it try to dignify their position by lying and saying they like "Romantic" music. If they were Romantic, they'd like Schoenberg better than Prokofiev.

And of course talking about "popularity" here elides the fact that *pop music* dominated the 20th century. Because if you're honest and say "popular with old white people who have money" then suddenly your tribune-of-the-people act looks a lot more like plain old harrumphing conservatism.


----------



## janxharris

Really hard to follow what is being said here.


----------



## janxharris

Magnum Miserium said:


> It's the same old lie. The common thread among the more popular composers is they're *easier*, and people who want music to be easy but don't want to admit it try to dignify their position by lying and saying they like "Romantic" music. If they were Romantic, they'd like Schoenberg better than Prokofiev.


Would you explain what this means please MM?


----------



## Magnum Miserium

janxharris said:


> Really hard to follow what is being said here.


Herbert Pauls is lying, confused, or both. That simple enough?


----------



## janxharris

Magnum Miserium said:


> Herbert Pauls is lying, confused, or both. That simple enough?


I guess I am struggling with word definitions.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

janxharris said:


> Would you explain what this means please MM?


Pauls says his list proves "Neo-Romanticism overwhelmingly dominates the Twentieth Century," but half the people at the top of his list aren't Romantic (Neo- or otherwise) at all, and in fact have LESS in common with Romanticism than eternal boogeyman Schoenberg does.

What his list actually proves is that relatively* easy* music dominates the 20th century - easy in the sense that Rossini and Rodgers & Hammerstein are easier on the listener than Beethoven - but he doesn't say that because "I like easy music" sounds bad.


----------



## janxharris

Magnum Miserium said:


> Pauls says his list proves "Neo-Romanticism overwhelmingly dominates the Twentieth Century," but half the people at the top of his list aren't Romantic (Neo- or otherwise) at all, and in fact have LESS in common with Romanticism than eternal boogeyman Schoenberg does.
> 
> What his list actually proves is that relatively* easy* music dominates the 20th century - easy in the sense that Rossini and Rodgers & Hammerstein are easier on the listener than Beethoven - but he doesn't say that because "I like easy music" sounds bad.


Thank you.......................


----------



## janxharris

Magnum Miserium said:


> Pauls says his list proves "Neo-Romanticism overwhelmingly dominates the Twentieth Century," but half the people at the top of his list aren't Romantic (Neo- or otherwise) at all, and in fact have LESS in common with Romanticism than eternal boogeyman Schoenberg does.
> 
> What his list actually proves is that relatively* easy* music dominates the 20th century - easy in the sense that Rossini and Rodgers & Hammerstein are easier on the listener than Beethoven - but he doesn't say that because "I like easy music" sounds bad.


Perhaps defining such nebulous terms is difficult and therefore we need not get too polemical about it.


----------



## Strange Magic

Magnum Miserium said:


> Your link doesn't work. Here it is: http://www.musicweb-international.com/books/Pauls_two_centuries_in_one.pdf
> 
> It's such b***s***. Debussy, Ravel, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, and Britten are *anti*-Romantic - as Schoenberg, Webern, and Berg are *not*. That's exactly 1/2 of the top 10, including Debussy at #1. Proceed to Vaughan Williams, Bartók, Falla, Poulenc, and Villa Lobos and it's exactly 1/2 of the top 20. Proceed to Copland and it's 52% of the top 21. Proceed to Hindemith and it's 52% of the top 23.
> 
> It's the same old lie. The common thread among the more popular composers is they're *easier*, and people who want music to be easy but don't want to admit it try to dignify their position by lying and saying they like "Romantic" music. If they were Romantic, they'd like Schoenberg better than Prokofiev.
> 
> And of course talking about "popularity" here elides the fact that *pop music* dominated the 20th century. Because if you're honest and say "popular with old white men who have money" then suddenly your tribune-of-the-people act looks a lot more like plain old harrumphing conservatism.


Thanks for relocating the proper link ! (Creeps silently away)


----------



## JAS

janxharris said:


> I guess I am struggling with word definitions.


I think a discussion (for the moment using the nice word here) of this sort necessarily revolves around definitions. We like our boxes neat and tidy, but I am not sure that really works in a case like this, especially if we insist on filing our folders by composer. If we are looking for the presence or absence of specific criteria, then it might even be problematic to cleanly file our folders by composition.

I saved a copy of Herbert Paul's PDF, and only had enough of a chance to skim it quickly, just to get a sense of what it is proposing. To meaningfully participate in this discussion, I can see that I would not only need to take the considerable amount of time to read a very long and at least moderately technical paper but also go off and do my own research on the side since I am not inherently familiar with everything he presents. (I know virtually nothing about Hans Pfitnzer, for example, who seems to have wanted to call himself something of a Romanticist although the few things I have heard by him don't quite seem to fit my expectations in that regard.)

Is the underlying question whether or not Romanticism (in some form) has been entirely or essentially supplanted by "modernist" music?


----------



## JAS

Magnum Miserium said:


> What his list actually proves is that relatively* easy* music dominates the 20th century - easy in the sense that Rossini and Rodgers & Hammerstein are easier on the listener than Beethoven - but he doesn't say that because "I like easy music" sounds bad.


Is Beethoven's music "harder" to listen to than that of Rossini? More importantly, when do we make the jump from "easier" and "harder" to "easy music"? And when did difficulty in listening to music become an inherent virtue?


----------



## EdwardBast

Magnum Miserium said:


> Your link doesn't work. Here it is: http://www.musicweb-international.com/books/Pauls_two_centuries_in_one.pdf
> 
> It's such b***s***. Debussy, Ravel, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, and Britten are *anti*-Romantic - as Schoenberg, Webern, and Berg are *not*. That's exactly 1/2 of the top 10, including Debussy at #1. Proceed to Vaughan Williams, Bartók, Falla, Poulenc, and Villa Lobos and it's exactly 1/2 of the top 20. Proceed to Copland and it's 52% of the top 21. Proceed to Hindemith and it's 52% of the top 23.
> 
> It's the same old lie. The common thread among the more popular composers is they're *easier*, and people who want music to be easy but don't want to admit it try to dignify their position by lying and saying they like "Romantic" music. If they were Romantic, they'd like Schoenberg better than Prokofiev.
> 
> And of course talking about "popularity" here elides the fact that *pop music* dominated the 20th century. Because if you're honest and say "popular with old white people who have money" then suddenly your tribune-of-the-people act looks a lot more like plain old harrumphing conservatism.


While I'm in sympathy with your general point, stuffing the composers you cite into two boxes results in multiple amputations and leaves a bloody mess. At the very least you must unhand Prokofiev, who would become a limbless and headless torso. How are his Fifth and Sixth Symphonies, Second Violin Concerto, Second Piano Concerto, First Violin Sonata, and Eight Piano Sonata, to cite a few examples, less Romantic than Schoenberg? Is Schoenberg's Piano Concerto more Romantic than Prokofiev's Second? Which of Schoenberg's quartets are more Romantic than Prokofiev's First? Our views on the essential features of Romanticism must be different. But I'm with you on most of the other composers you cite. The Romantic dodge doesn't really work, does it? I'd be curious to see how those you are addressing define Romanticism.


----------



## Strange Magic

Magnum Miserium said:


> It's the same old lie. The common thread among the more popular composers is they're *easier*, and people who want music to be easy but don't want to admit it try to dignify their position by lying and saying they like "Romantic" music. If they were Romantic, they'd like Schoenberg better than Prokofiev.


I don't mind at all if my music is easy (to like). It's a source of recreation, solace, emotional release, elevation. A lot of people , correctly or incorrectly--often I suspect very incorrectly from an historical, musicological point of view--associate these attributes with the term Romanticism. Since I know nothing about musicology, I am not able to comment on the accuracy of Pauls' definitions in his thesis. But I like the listed composers of "easy" music. A lot.


----------



## mmsbls

Magnum Miserium said:


> Herbert Pauls is lying, confused, or both. That simple enough?


I didn't read the work and just now skimmed several sections. I tend to assume that PhD theses are not written to lie and that the vast majority of authors are not confused. Pauls certainly could be wrong in some sense. There is a long chapter called Some Problems of Definition. Pauls discusses Debussy in depth there giving many quotes from others who might side with his definition.

I'm guessing (because I didn't read enough) that Pauls wanted to separate 20th century music into roughly two camps - more dissonant, avant-garde and less dissonant less avant-garde. And maybe he uses the term Romantic to refer to the less dissonant less avant-garde. I think many would say the music is too varied to lump things into two camps.

Suppose he didn't use the term Romantic but rather defined a term meaning something along the lines of less dissonant less avant-garde and then said the 20th century was dominated by that type of music. And he could even add that such music tends to be easier for listeners to enjoy. Would you be happier with his assessment?


----------



## hpowders

People want to listen to classical music that is accessible, moving and beautiful; everything contemporary classical music is not.

People shun contemporary classical music because it is the human thing to do.


----------



## Chronochromie

hpowders said:


> People want to listen to classical music that is accessible, moving and beautiful; everything contemporary classical music is not.
> 
> People shun contemporary classical music because it is the human thing to do.


We've been getting a lot of previously unknown truths around here lately! Tell us more!


----------



## Strange Magic

Back in the day, I read the entire thesis, and I suspect that it is best to do so, in order to be able to accurately concur or refute Pauls' notions. I know people think they can glean all they need from scattershot browsing, and sometimes they can, but we've probably all been in situations where someone already knows all about something (often a rather nuanced something) just because they do. But don't ask me what I make in detail of Pauls' ideas--I'm a terrible source for expert commentary.


----------



## RRod

Magnum Miserium said:


> Your link doesn't work. Here it is: http://www.musicweb-international.com/books/Pauls_two_centuries_in_one.pdf
> 
> It's such b***s***. Debussy, Ravel, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, and Britten are *anti*-Romantic - as Schoenberg, Webern, and Berg are *not*. That's exactly 1/2 of the top 10, including Debussy at #1. Proceed to Vaughan Williams, Bartók, Falla, Poulenc, and Villa Lobos and it's exactly 1/2 of the top 20. Proceed to Copland and it's 52% of the top 21. Proceed to Hindemith and it's 52% of the top 23.
> 
> It's the same old lie. The common thread among the more popular composers is they're *easier*, and people who want music to be easy but don't want to admit it try to dignify their position by lying and saying they like "Romantic" music. If they were Romantic, they'd like Schoenberg better than Prokofiev.


So much this. It took me quite a while to learn how to listen to serialists/12-toners, but once I did I realized how heart-on-sleeve someone like Webern actually is.


----------



## DaveM

Magnum Miserium said:


> And of course talking about "popularity" here elides the fact that *pop music* dominated the 20th century. Because if you're honest and say "popular with old white people who have money" then suddenly your tribune-of-the-people act looks a lot more like plain old harrumphing conservatism.


Flight of Ideas: Subject of popularity in the 20th century->must include pop music->popularity with old white people with money->harrumphing conservatism.


----------



## JAS

Strange Magic said:


> Back in the day, I read the entire thesis, and I suspect that it is best to do so, in order to be able to accurately concur or refute Pauls' notions. I know people think they can glean all they need from scattershot browsing, and sometimes they can, but we've probably all been in situations where someone already knows all about something (often a rather nuanced something) just because they do. But don't ask me what I make in detail of Pauls' ideas--I'm a terrible source for expert commentary.


I think I will have to do it in small doses, small _thoughtful_ doses.


----------



## JAS

DaveM said:


> Flight of Ideas: Subject of popularity in the 20th century->must include pop music->popularity with old white people with money->harrumphing conservatism.


I am also baffled by this odd notion that _easier to listen to_ is presumed as _easier to write_, and somehow less worthy. Comedy is _much_ harder than tragedy.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

JAS said:


> I am also baffled by this odd notion that _easier to listen to_ is presumed as _easier to write_, and somehow less worthy. Comedy is _much_ harder than tragedy.


Many of the old composers are harder to perform than the modernists work (unless there are some extreme ranges involved). 
It's not like the listener will recognize that you have intonation problems or you are playing the wrong notes during a cacophonic passage.
Good luck playing sloppy the older classics that requires perfect harmony.


----------



## RRod

BabyGiraffe said:


> Many of the old composers are harder to perform than the modernists work (unless there are some extreme ranges involved).
> It's not like the listener will recognize that you have intonation problems or you are playing the wrong notes during a cacophonic passage.
> Good luck playing sloppy the older classics that requires perfect harmony.


By this metric, we've only been getting easier since unison chanting...


----------



## Magnum Miserium

JAS said:


> Is Beethoven's music "harder" to listen to than that of Rossini?


Obviously yes.



JAS said:


> More importantly, when do we make the jump from "easier" and "harder" to "easy music"?


When we invented the word "relatively."



JAS said:


> And when did difficulty in listening to music become an inherent virtue?


I don't know, ask somebody who thinks it is - such as, for example, the people who are ashamed to admit they prefer easy music (and cover up by saying they prefer "romantic" music).


----------



## isorhythm

BabyGiraffe said:


> Many of the old composers are harder to perform than the modernists work (unless there are some extreme ranges involved).


This is obviously wrong...I'd say one of the obstacles to a lot of newer music getting performed is that it's too technically difficult for most groups.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

isorhythm said:


> This is obviously wrong...I'd say one of the obstacles to a lot of newer music getting performed is that it's too technically difficult for most groups.


You mean it's so bad that noone even wants to try and learn to play it...
There is no way someone is going to risk their health and career to play something that is badly scored - disregarding not only the listeners, but also the players is not a recipe for success.


----------



## DaveM

Magnum Miserium said:


> *It's the same old lie.* The common thread among the more popular composers is they're easier, and people who want music to be easy but don't want to admit it *try to dignify their position by lying *and saying they like "Romantic" music. If they were Romantic, they'd like Schoenberg better than Prokofiev.





Magnum Miserium said:


> ...ask somebody who thinks it is - such as, for example, the people who are ashamed to admit they prefer easy music (and *cover up* by saying they prefer "romantic" music).


My gawd, it's Musicgate!


----------



## isorhythm

BabyGiraffe said:


> You mean it's so bad that noone even wants to try and learn to play it...
> There is no way someone is going to risk their health and career to play something that is badly scored - disregarding not only the listeners, but also the players is not a recipe for success.


No - many people, especially musicians, are able to understand and enjoy a much wider range of music than you are. I'm sorry for your loss in this regard.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

isorhythm said:


> No - many people, especially musicians, are able to understand and enjoy a much wider range of music than you are. I'm sorry for your loss in this regard.


I guess you haven't read "The Emperor's New Clothes" when you were younger...


----------



## Magnum Miserium

EdwardBast said:


> At the very least you must unhand Prokofiev, who would become a limbless and headless torso. How are his Fifth and Sixth Symphonies, Second Violin Concerto, Second Piano Concerto, First Violin Sonata, and Eight Piano Sonata, to cite a few examples, less Romantic than Schoenberg? Is Schoenberg's Piano Concerto more Romantic than Prokofiev's Second? Which of Schoenberg's quartets are more Romantic than Prokofiev's First? Our views on the essential features of Romanticism must be different.


I would say that an essential feature of Romanticism is subjectivity and that Prokofiev is as objective as Ravel and Stravinsky.


----------



## isorhythm

Magnum Miserium said:


> I would say that an essential feature of Romanticism is subjectivity and that Prokofiev is as objective as Ravel and Stravinsky.


I'd say Prokofiev wrote both Romantic and anti-Romantic music at different times, no? Schoenberg too.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

JAS said:


> I am also baffled by this odd notion that _easier to listen to_ is presumed as _easier to write_ [...]


Nobody said that.



JAS said:


> [...] and somehow less worthy.


Nobody said that either. On the contrary, I'm probably already on record somewhere on this forum saying that Stravinsky, who is easier than Schoenberg, is (as he of course is) the greatest 20th century composer.



JAS said:


> Comedy is _much_ harder than tragedy.


No it isn't, that's just something we say to make comedians and philistines feel better about the fact that we all know "Oedipus tyrannos" is slightly greater than "The Birds" and "Hamlet" is slightly greater than "The Misanthrope."


----------



## Magnum Miserium

DaveM said:


> Flight of Ideas: Subject of popularity in the 20th century->must include pop music->popularity with old white people with money->harrumphing conservatism.


Hey Dave, tell us again how the "vast majority" likes pre-modern classical music.



DaveM said:


> My gawd, it's Musicgate!


So covering up your preference for easy music is a high crime or misdemeanor? Well, your words.


----------



## DavidA

isorhythm said:


> No - many people, especially musicians, are able to understand and enjoy a much wider range of music than you are. I'm sorry for your loss in this regard.


That might be true for trained musicians but most of us are laymen in this regard who look on music for enjoyment. Why on earth should I try to understand music I don't enjoy when there is so much available that I do enjoy. I am not in the hair shirt business!


----------



## RRod

DavidA said:


> That might be true for trained musicians but most of us are laymen in this regard who look on music for enjoyment. Why on earth should I try to understand music I don't enjoy when there is so much available that I do enjoy. I am not in the hair shirt business!


When I was young I didn't like Bach or slow movements. Should I just never have given them the attention I finally did as I got older?


----------



## DaveM

Magnum Miserium said:


> Hey Dave, tell us again how the "vast majority" likes pre-modern classical music.


I think the majority, probably the vast majority, on TC likes pre-modern music. Never seemed to be any question about that. Don't you?



> So *covering up* your preference for easy music is a high crime or misdemeanor? Well, your words.


Excuse me for the moment, I'm on the phone with Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Well at least we've (probably very fleetingly) advanced from you pretending to be a Romantic to you pretending you didn't pretend.


----------



## DaveM

Magnum Miserium said:


> Well at least we've (probably very fleetingly) advanced from you pretending to be a Romantic to you pretending you didn't pretend.


So you don't like pre-modern music?


----------



## Magnum Miserium

DaveM said:


> So you don't like pre-modern music?


I like Schoenberg, which by the unbelievably cheap trick you're trying to pull here proves everybody does.


----------



## science

I will venture to utter my unpopular opinions again.... In my opinion: 

There are in fact more composers active right now, composing music in a larger variety of styles, than at any other time in the history of "classical music," in both absolute and per capita terms. 

That is because the audience for almost all styles of composed music, including the most "difficult" or "atonal" or "avant-garde" or whatever you want to call it, is larger in absolute terms than it has ever been before. This is not necessarily true for some specific tradition within some specific and limited geographic area, but the forces of globalization and economic development are still enabling an increasing number of people around the world to spend an increasing amount of time enjoying whatever sort of music they want. 

In other words, largely for economic, technological, and demographic reasons, in the past decade or so, more people around the world have listened to the music of almost any composer that you've heard of who died before the year 2000 than ever listened to that composer's music during his or her lifetime. 

If, for sheer ornery arbitrariness we choose to disregard recorded music and limit our consideration to live music, then the time scale merely requires an additional generation: largely for economic, technological, and demographic reasons, in the past half-century or so, more people more people around the world have listened to live performances of the music of almost any composer that you've heard of who died before the year 1950 than ever listened to that composer's music during his or her lifetime.

We all know this. It's obvious. It's undeniable. If you say you disagree, I don't believe you and I don't believe you believe yourself. 

And yet we usually pretend not to know it. We usually affect to "know" the opposite of this plain reality. Why? 

One answer is that the classical tradition is associated in many of our minds with some sort of people whose political and social influence has declined. The narrative of decadence and decline gained currency because of the rise of mass politics and mass culture. 

That dynamic is over a hundred years old, and the political and social situations that produced it have changed almost beyond recognition, but it persists almost unchanged in some circles; more importantly, in a very modified form it still operates on a now global scale. 

That is, a significant part of the audience for classical music in general celebrates the fact that few people enjoy their music, relishing their sense of cultural superiority; affecting or even succeeding at feeling persecution and neglect is just a part of the social game they play. If we dare to be frank, we're snobs. The larger population, of course, plays along with an inverse snobbery of its own. That inverse snobbery has become very powerful in the post-WWII era, when the working classes of western countries finally did feel really free to disregard the cultural dictates of their "betters." Another example for illustration: we now live in a world where many young, relatively poor African-Americans genuinely don't care how old, relatively rich white people think they should live or what music they should listen to. And so on, and increasingly so, from the favelas of Rio to the McMansions of Staten Island.

That dynamic is recursive within the classical music community. In other words, a significant part of the audience for "difficult" music (again, whatever you want to label it) has exactly the same relationship with the audience for classical music in general that that audience has with the larger population. And then, a significant part of the audience for "really really difficult" music (or whatever) has exactly the same relationship with the audience for "difficult" classical music that that audience has with the audience for classical music in general. And so on. 

This dynamic isn't unique to classical music. It exists in the audiences for jazz and rock, movies, television shows; or, in the lifestyles and markets for outdoor adventure, travel, home architecture, fashion, liberal consumer patterns, conservative consumer patterns, evangelical Christianity, skateboarding, whatever. 

No matter what you are or want to be, there is someone who wants to be even more that than you are. And if they have any money to spend, there is someone willing to help them achieve it and to help you compete with them. You will eventually, in your own view, achieve a very special status in a world of ignorance and philistinism. 

So it's a large scale cultural pattern in a world of many various and almost arbitrary lifestyle alternatives, fluid and complex personal and social identities, and ubiquitous marketing. 

For simplicity, though, let's return specifically to classical music, to the relationship between classical music listeners and the larger world, and to the relationship between listeners of "difficult" classical music and "ordinary" listeners of classical music. 

In both cases, the snobs and inverse snobs have a symbiotic relationship with each other: for their own reasons, they both drive the narrative of embattled classical music or "difficult" music in spite of the fact that the audience for either is larger than it has ever been. Marketers profit from this enormously: informing us that a certain recording or work or composer or style is "neglected" will sell things to some of us. We don't want to be among the neglectful. That's not the way we want to see ourselves or the way we want others to see us. But of course, most people out there are! That's how we want to see them. 

And so, although we in our heart of hearts know that classical music is flourishing as never before, that any style of classical music that we love is flourishing as never before, almost all of us either affect to believe or actually convince ourselves that the opposite is true because that narrative affirms our identity.


----------



## Daniel Atkinson

BabyGiraffe said:


> I guess you haven't read "The Emperor's New Clothes" when you were younger...


What's with this "Emperor's new clothes" meme children are spreading around the internet these days? I don't get the humor in it, if there is any


----------



## Magnum Miserium

science said:


> That is because the audience for almost all styles of composed music, including the most "difficult" or "atonal" or "avant-garde" or whatever you want to call it, is larger in absolute terms than it has ever been before.


Yeah, but where there are more people, the same absolute number doesn't matter as much any more.


----------



## science

Magnum Miserium said:


> Yeah, but where there are more people, the same absolute number doesn't matter as much any more.


Ok. People mattered more in the past.

I love the internet.


----------



## KenOC

science said:


> In other words, largely for economic, technological, and demographic reasons, in the past decade or so, more people around the world have listened to the music of almost any composer that you've heard of who died before the year 2000 than ever listened to that composer's music during his or her lifetime.


I think there's a lot to this, and to the rest of the post as well. Consider: In Beethoven's day, Vienna had about 250,000 people. And how many of them ever heard the Eroica? In fact, the first performance of the Eroica in Italy was more than a half-century after its premiere, in 1860!

It could be that more people will listen to the Eroica this week than heard it in the entire 19th century. Even less popular "modernist" works are probably piling up some pretty respectable numbers compared with the sizes of historical classical music audiences.

Perhaps (dare I even say it?) Joachim Raff is more popular now than when he was alive.


----------



## JAS

Magnum Miserium said:


> Obviously yes.
> 
> When we invented the word "relatively."
> 
> I don't know, ask somebody who thinks it is - such as, for example, the people who are ashamed to admit they prefer easy music (and cover up by saying they prefer "romantic" music).


Yours is such a tragically absurd response that it would probably be best to ignore it entirely, but one useful point may be worth making. The problem with "easy music" is that it can mean easy to listen to, easy to write, or easy to perform (or some combination of these). The only reason to use it as you do is to imply a derogatory sneer, dismissing it in general as "easy" (and yes, that sneer was detectable even without the ridiculous charge of anyone feeling "ashamed.") The term usually applied is accessible, which avoids such a problem. (The one problem with that term is that flipping it to describe alternate forms of music might imply inaccessible, which is not entirely fair.)


----------



## JAS

Magnum Miserium said:


> No it isn't, that's just something we say to make comedians and philistines feel better about the fact that we all know "Oedipus tyrannos" is slightly greater than "The Birds" and "Hamlet" is slightly greater than "The Misanthrope."


Actually, it is. It really, really is. Ask someone who has had to do both. Perhaps if you had more of a sense of humor you might see it.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

science said:


> Ok. People mattered more in the past.
> 
> I love the internet.


Not always. Like, in Europe they mattered a lot more after the plague than before.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

KenOC said:


> Perhaps (dare I even say it?) Joachim Raff is more popular now than when he was alive.


On the other hand, more people don't like him than ever before.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

JAS said:


> Actually, it is. It really, really is. Ask someone who has had to do both.


Notice you don't say whether they did either of them *well*.


----------



## RRod

Magnum Miserium said:


> On the other hand, more people don't like him than ever before.


Perfect post #666, would read again. And it raises the actual question again: does new music get *proportionately* more "blechs" from audiences than when "Eroica" was new? I'm still sticking with "probably not."


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Sublunary said:


> Contemporary music is not well received by contemporary audiences.


I'm somewhat puzzled by your post. At concerts of contemporary music I have attended - quite a few now - the works performed have been enthusiastically received by the audience, even when some of those works have seemed to me less obviously praiseworthy from the point of view of the listener.

Perhaps you mean they are not well received by people who would never normally try to hear contemporary works, or do not in fact listen to them? That would be more in line with my expectations.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

JAS said:


> The problem with "easy music" is that it can mean easy to listen to, easy to write, or easy to perform (or some combination of these).


No, the problem with "easy music" is it sounds bad (which actually isn't a problem at all).


----------



## Magnum Miserium

RRod said:


> Perfect post #666, would read again. And it raises the actual question again: does new music get *proportionately* more "blechs" from audiences than when "Eroica" was new? I'm still sticking with "probably not."


You're probably right. But to be clear, I'm not just talking about "blechs," I'm also talking about total indifference.


----------



## JAS

BabyGiraffe said:


> You mean it's so bad that noone even wants to try and learn to play it...
> There is no way someone is going to risk their health and career to play something that is badly scored - disregarding not only the listeners, but also the players is not a recipe for success.


After a concert not very long ago, Jonathan Leshnoff answered some questions, including one about what considerations he makes in regard to performance. He admitted that when he first began as a composer, he basically gave little or no thought to how difficult it might be to play something, but over time, as a matter of practicality, he had come to accept that some concessions might need to be made, and these were usually worked out in rehearsals. (I suspect that this is true of much music going as far back as we like, but such issues were worked out long ago.) He said that he was still primarily driven by achieving his musical vision, but there was no point in writing something that could not be played or that no one wanted to play. (He followed this with the admission that it was bad enough that most works would get a couple of performances, no commercial recording, and simply vanish over time.)

So, outside of a pure stunt of some kind, I think it is reasonable to assume that a composer wants to write music that will be performed. As the composer is, in most cases, still living, it is possible to make such changes as they may be required. (I cannot speak to the question as to why anyone is willing to play some of what they clearly are, since they do invest the time and effort in doing so, and often do so in public.)


----------



## JAS

Magnum Miserium said:


> No, the problem with "easy music" is it sounds bad (which actually isn't a problem at all).


Do you mean the phrase itself sounds bad? If so, then why use it when "accessible" works better and without the baggage? (Unless, of course, the intention is precisely to "sound bad.")


----------



## science

Magnum Miserium said:


> Not always. Like, in Europe [people] mattered a lot more after the plague than before.





Magnum Miserium said:


> On the other hand, more people don't like [Raff] than ever before.





Magnum Miserium said:


> I'm not just talking about "blechs," though, I'm also talking about total indifference.


Poor us. The ignorant masses are so _indifferent_ to our superiority. They don't even have the sensitivity to be resentful anymore.

Would've been so much better right after the Black Death.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

JAS said:


> Do you mean the phrase itself sounds bad? If so, then why use it when "accessible" works better and without the baggage?


Retaliation for people saying "I like Romantic music" when they mean "I like easy music" because the former sounds good, despite the fact that in this context it's a lie.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

science said:


> Poor us. The ignorant masses are so _indifferent_ to our superiority.


What do you mean "our"? We're part of the population today, ergo we don't matter any more than anybody else.



science said:


> Would've been so much better right after the Black Death.


People were better off after the Black Death. Labor scarcity meant workers got more rights.


----------



## JAS

Magnum Miserium said:


> Retaliation for people saying "I like Romantic music" when they mean "I like easy music" because the former sounds good, despite the fact that in this context it's a lie.


So you admit to doing so for purely childish reasons. Language is often imprecise, and common usage often relies on built in assumptions of mutual understanding. As long as these hold true, more or less, all is well. When they are not true, then problems in communication arise. It isn't necessarily a "lie" if it at least approximates their actual interests. Almost anyone hearing or reading such a comment would know what they meant, so they have successfully communicated a piece of information that is probably mostly true. You seem to want to force a personal judgement value, which is bound to produce either complete dismissal or equal resentment.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

JAS said:


> So you admit to doing so for purely childish reasons.


You're participating in an argument on the internet.


----------



## JAS

Magnum Miserium said:


> You're participating in an argument on the internet.


I was seeing it as a discussion, but if either of us wishes it to be an argument, then an argument it is, and my part in it is done (at least for now).


----------



## David OByrne

This thread is a primary example of what I hate about classical music listeners and part of what put me off classical music for so many years: they not only can't accept that they don't like something but they turn it into a moral debate of religious proportions. Why do I even bother with this shallow genre, the listeners aren't very nice people. So judgmental, so enforcing, so nihilistic, I hate this


----------



## Magnum Miserium

David OByrne said:


> This thread is a primary example of what I hate about classical music listeners and part of what put me off classical music for so many years: they not only can't accept that they don't like something but they turn it into a moral debate of religious proportions.


The word "classical" is redundant here.


----------



## mmsbls

Many recent posts are focused on members rather than music or ideas relevant to the thread. Please refrain from comments about other members. I haven't even finished reading the past page or so. We may remove some posts.


----------



## janxharris

I don't understand why this has become so polemical.


----------



## science

Magnum Miserium said:


> What do you mean "our"? We're part of the population today, ergo we don't matter any more than anybody else.
> 
> People were better off after the Black Death. Labor scarcity meant workers got more rights.


I'm sorry, man. Whatever your point is, I'm just not even beginning to see it. Could you be less cryptic?


----------



## Daniel Atkinson

Magnum Miserium said:


> The word "classical" is redundant here.


The need to even point that out is also redundant :lol:


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Daniel Atkinson said:


> The need to even point that out is also redundant :lol:


Touché. ..


----------



## JAS

janxharris said:


> I don't understand why this has become so polemical.


Sadly, these discussions always seem to become polemical. I can only suppose that there is a lot of pent up frustration at abstract concerns, and these forums grant an opportunity to express those feelings at a concrete target, although perhaps to little actual purpose. Nothing said in any of these forums is likely to really change the world of classical music in any meaningful way.

It is also complicated by the fact that we cannot really discuss it without saying what we like and what we don't like, and it is very difficult for the latter not to be taken personally.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

JAS said:


> Sadly, these discussions always seem to become polemical.





JAS said:


> Unfortunately, I don't think that is very likely to happen, in part because there is a strong reluctance on the part of the classical music industry to grant any respect to more modern music that continues to encourage more traditional forms. It is sneered at precisely because it has melody, and sweep, and recognizable form, all of which makes it work so well in accompanying a film. (And I don't mean to include only Rosza, although composers like Rosza, Korngold, and Herrmann have one foot in the classical world and may be seen as more acceptable.)


...............


----------



## Strange Magic

Welcome to the New Stasis! Every kind of music and art is getting just the audience it deserves. First, Ortega y Gasset, _The Revolt of the Masses_, then Meyer, _Music, the Arts, and Ideas_. Excellent summary, Science-you are The Man.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Strange Magic said:


> Welcome to the New Stasis!


Death, the word you're looking for is death.



Strange Magic said:


> Every kind of music and art is getting just the audience it deserves.


Every audience is getting just the kind of music and art it deserves.


----------



## Woodduck

Magnum Miserium said:


> Well at least we've (probably very fleetingly) advanced from you pretending to be a Romantic to you pretending you didn't pretend.


Accusing those with whom you disagree of pretending is unjustifiable. And what does "pretending to be a Romantic" even mean, when the very meaning of Romanticism is (as always) being debated?

You said a few posts back that Prokofiev is as "objective" as Ravel and Stravinsky. Given the considerable aesthetic dissimilarities between these composers, it's clear that you define such terms in ways that others do not - others who may legitimately hear these composers differently than you do. So do be careful talking about who is "pretending" to what.


----------



## JAS

Magnum Miserium said:


> ...............


And, apparently, no comment can be made without stepping on someone's toes. (There is, for example, nothing particularly contradictory or argumentative in the selections made above. With very little alteration these reflect the words I have heard directly from professional musicians, several of whom resented being forced to play the music at "pops" concerts, and by David Zinman himself when I took the opportunity to suggest that he might consider slipping in a little of this music, and not just John Williams.)

As my grandmother often said, those who seek to be offended will find reasons to be offended everywhere.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

JAS said:


> As my grandmother often said, those who seek to be offended will find reasons to be offended everywhere.


Like you're offended by the "classical music industry" that exists in your head?


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Did Einstein say "everything is relative" or someting like that? Since I'm me, I never think contemporary music is badly received by the audience. I LOVE IT! I even laughed my head off at a Vinko Globokar concert


----------



## JAS

Magnum Miserium said:


> Like you're offended by the "classical music industry" that exists in your head?


There is no classical music industry? Major institutions are vanishing into ether at your very words.


----------



## Strange Magic

JAS said:


> It is also complicated by the fact that we cannot really discuss it without saying what we like and what we don't like, and it is very difficult for the latter not to be taken personally.


This is exactly why I do not post--or try very hard not to post--about not liking (people go beyond this and say "I hate X, Y, and Z") certain musics. I'll tell you what I like; you can tell me, and we'll share our enthusiasm. It is, really folks, all a matter of taste.


----------



## science

Strange Magic said:


> Welcome to the New Stasis! Every kind of music and art is getting just the audience it deserves. First, Ortega y Gasset, _The Revolt of the Masses_, then Meyer, _Music, the Arts, and Ideas_. Excellent summary, Science-you are The Man.


I Am The Man.

Someday I'll have to read that Meyer book if you keep referring to it.


----------



## science

David OByrne said:


> This thread is a primary example of what I hate about classical music listeners and part of what put me off classical music for so many years: they not only can't accept that they don't like something but they turn it into a moral debate of religious proportions. Why do I even bother with this shallow genre, the listeners aren't very nice people. So judgmental, so enforcing, so nihilistic, I hate this


I'm with you, brother, but the music is so damn good, I'm hooked.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Wowie! Who is the audience here?


----------



## JAS

Strange Magic said:


> This is exactly why I do not post--or try very hard not to post--about not liking (people go beyond this and say "I hate X, Y, and Z") certain musics. I'll tell you what I like; you can tell me, and we'll share our enthusiasm. It is, really folks, all a matter of taste.


That makes for a rather limited discussion, but perhaps that is really all that is possible, people being people. (And yet most of the participants in this very thread, perhaps until fairly recently, have been able to more or less go along with a little give and take. My views have not materially changed, but I have found some of it very interesting. And I have been exposed to some things I might not have otherwise, even if my response has not been to want to rush out and buy it for myself.)


----------



## Strange Magic

Magnum Miserium said:


> Death, the word you're looking for is death.


Morimur, is that you? Are you back? But thank you: I didn't know I was looking for a word.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic: _Every kind of music and art is getting just the audience it deserves._

Magnum Miserium: _Every audience is getting just the kind of music and art it deserves. _

God's in his heaven. All's right with the world. So why can't I remember that when the neighbor opens his windows in summer and I'm forced to hear something I've worked all my life not to deserve?


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Woodduck said:


> Accusing those with whom you disagree of pretending is unjustifiable. And what does "pretending to be a Romantic" even mean, when the very meaning of Romanticism is (as always) being debated?


Ask these guys:



DaveM said:


> When I read various attempts to describe various atonal, contemporary, modern works, what is supposed to be going on in them and the sometimes double-speak that is an attempt to describe atonal works as being tonal, I ask myself why I would want to expend the effort to enjoy these works. It does not take a rocket scientist to describe Romantic Era music, but it appears that it does for much of the 'music' that followed.





Herbert Pauls as paraphrased by Strange Magic said:


> [...]musical Romanticism/Neo-Romanticism overwhelmingly dominates the Twentieth Century[...]


----------



## Strange Magic

No one has asked me lately about my favorite color. But it's better than your favorite color.


----------



## JAS

Strange Magic said:


> No one has asked me lately about my favorite color. But it's better than your favorite color.


What is your favorite color, or should we not go there?


----------



## Magnum Miserium

JAS said:


> There is no classical music industry?


There is nobody that does this:


JAS said:


> Unfortunately, I don't think that is very likely to happen, in part because there is a strong reluctance on the part of the classical music industry to grant any respect to more modern music that continues to encourage more traditional forms. It is sneered at precisely because it has melody, and sweep, and recognizable form, all of which makes it work so well in accompanying a film. (And I don't mean to include only Rosza, although composers like Rosza, Korngold, and Herrmann have one foot in the classical world and may be seen as more acceptable.)


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Strange Magic said:


> Morimur, is that you? Are you back?


Don't know who that is, so probably not.


----------



## JAS

Magnum Miserium said:


> There is nobody that does this:


Good to know that there is no one who works as a professional musician in an orchestra, or a conductor, who is sneering at film music. Your personal assurance of this fact is worth everything to me. They must have been talking about something else, or sneezing.


----------



## David OByrne

science said:


> I'm with you, brother, but the music is so damn good, I'm hooked.


I agree, composers like Edgard Varese and Boulez have got me completed hooked on classical music, and recently the "spectral" composers have given me a revelation again.

While the music moves and inspires me, I don't see many redeeming qualities in a large majority of the people that listen to it


----------



## David OByrne

The people that tend to listen to romantic or classical era music, which I have both met in person and online seem to be the most bitter people I've ever met. Why is this?


----------



## Magnum Miserium

JAS said:


> Good to know that there is no one who works *a *professional musician in *an *orchestra, or *a *conductor, who is sneering at film music.


That "industry" you were talking about sure just shrunk fast!


----------



## Magnum Miserium

David OByrne said:


> The people that tend to listen to romantic or classical era music, which I have both met in person and online seem to be the most bitter people I've ever met. Why is this?


Well all their friends have been dead for a hundred years.


----------



## JAS

David OByrne said:


> The people that tend to listen to romantic or classical era music, which I have both met in person and online seem to be the most bitter people I've ever met. Why is this?


Clearly, you haven't been reading this thread. (That is meant all in good humor by the way, since tone so often translates poorly in print.)


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Please don't say that! I'm here, and I like it all  I got a masters degree and like disco & black metal. Other people are strange!


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Personally I like black disco and disco metal.


----------



## JAS

Magnum Miserium said:


> That "industry" you were talking about sure just shrunk fast!


That probably seemed as if it meant something when you were typing it.


----------



## science

David OByrne said:


> I agree, composers like Edgard Varese and Boulez have got me completed hooked on classical music, and recently the "spectral" composers have given me a revelation again.
> 
> While the music moves and inspires me, I don't see many redeeming qualities in a large majority of the people that listen to it


I don't see those "redeeming qualities" in any other group of people either. It's all just humanity, and humanity is all just nature red in tooth and claw, albeit with a _little_ more intelligence, a _little_ more compassion, and _much_ greater art! Hopefully the kind of institutions that have enabled us to make, in spite of ourselves, life so much better for some of us will continue to do so and do it more effectively in the future.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

JAS said:


> That probably seemed as if it meant something when you were typing it.


Same thing it meant when you read it.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

You guys are too fast for me!


----------



## Magnum Miserium

science said:


> I don't see those "redeeming qualities" in any other group of people either. It's all just humanity, and humanity is all just nature red in tooth and claw, albeit with a _little_ more intelligence, a _little_ more compassion, and _much_ greater art!


Whale song is the true Romanticism.


----------



## JAS

Magnum Miserium said:


> Same thing it meant when you read it.


Gibberish? Really, at this point, that is what this particular interaction has been reduced to, and you may find it entertaining, but, ironically, I have a fire to start and I would much rather burn wood than waste more time in this particular and rather purposeless exchange.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

JAS said:


> Gibberish?


No, it meant that "industry" you were talking about sure just shrunk fast.


----------



## Strange Magic

Magnum Miserium said:


> Don't know who that is, so probably not.


You would love Morimur. He and I formed a near-perfect symbiotic relationship, as we were infallible guides for one another for great music. If either of us liked something, the other was sure to hate it (there's that word); also the reverse. We rarely failed one another.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Strange Magic said:


> You would love Morimur. He and I formed a near-perfect symbiotic relationship, as we were infallible guides for one another for great music. If either of us liked something, the other was sure to hate it (there's that word); also the reverse. We rarely failed one another.


I have political relationships like that.


----------



## Chronochromie

Strange Magic said:


> You would love Morimur. He and I formed a near-perfect symbiotic relationship, as we were infallible guides for one another for great music. If either of us liked something, the other was sure to hate it (there's that word); also the reverse. We rarely failed one another.


I don't remember him disliking Prokofiev.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

So, I guess this wasn't the worst way to commit suicide.


----------



## Strange Magic

Chronochromie said:


> I don't remember him disliking Prokofiev.


I said our relationship was near-perfect. Everybody likes Prokofiev, or ought to.


----------



## EdwardBast

Magnum Miserium said:


> I would say that an essential feature of Romanticism is subjectivity and that Prokofiev is as objective as Ravel and Stravinsky.


You might not understand Prokofiev. The structures of nearly every Prokofiev piece I cited above depend on organizing thematic processes as coherent subjective experience, as narratives driven by expressive logic. Why is the strange incantation at 4:25 in this sonata the guiding thought of the work's inter-movement relationships?






You won't find an explanation in objective formal design. The world of this piece is utterly interior, about as far from any objective reality as one can get. The same is true of most of the works I mentioned.

And as for Prokofiev being easier and that being the explanation for why he is more popular than Schoenberg: You should consider the possibility that those who enjoy his music more than Schoenberg do so because they simply think he is better. In what might Prokofiev's superiority lie? Let's start with basic technical matters, like knowing that those who don't play the piano terribly well are at a severe disadvantage in composing piano concertos. Likewise, song cycles over a half hour in length require considerable skill and imagination in their piano writing to be successful. And perhaps in recognizing what every undergraduate composition student should know: Writing a 45 minute wind quintet is never a good idea.  Prokofiev was also smart enough to know that uninteresting melodic fragments don't suddenly get more interesting if one layers them in thick stretti, a rookie mistake Schoenberg never grew out of. And can you really fault those lovers of "easy music" for thinking Prokofiev was a better melodist? Or for thinking that his large scale works almost always have an inexorable expressive logic that one can feel even before one has sorted out their internal relations?

More generally, what if the issue isn't ease versus difficulty? What if some people just find aesthetic value in simple eloquence?


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> More generally, what if the issue isn't ease versus difficulty? What if some people just find aesthetic value in simple eloquence?


Hey, I like that.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Man they're taking their time. Okay, since the party still hasn't been shut down:



EdwardBast said:


> You might not understand Prokofiev. The structures of nearly every Prokofiev piece I cited above depend on organizing thematic processes as coherent subjective experience, as narratives driven by expressive logic. Why is the strange incantation at 4:25 in this sonata the guiding thought of the work's inter-movement relationships?


It's not self-evident that it is. In any case, this confuses esotericism with interiority - which for example would make Debussy a Romantic.



EdwardBast said:


> And as for Prokofiev being easier and that being the explanation for why he is more popular than Schoenberg: You should consider the possibility that those who enjoy his music more than Schoenberg do so because they simply think he is better. [...]
> 
> More generally, what if the issue isn't ease versus difficulty? What if some people just find aesthetic value in simple eloquence?


But that's not what they said.



DaveM said:


> When I read various attempts to describe various atonal, contemporary, modern works, what is supposed to be going on in them and the sometimes double-speak that is an attempt to describe atonal works as being tonal, I ask myself why I would want to expend the effort to enjoy these works. It does not take a rocket scientist to describe Romantic Era music, but it appears that it does for much of the 'music' that followed.





Herbert Pauls as paraphrased by Strange Magic said:


> [...]musical Romanticism/Neo-Romanticism overwhelmingly dominates the Twentieth Century[...]


----------



## EdwardBast

Magnum Miserium said:


> Man they're taking their time. Okay, since the party still hasn't been shut down:
> 
> It's not self-evident that it is. In any case, this confuses esotericism with interiority - which for example would make Debussy a Romantic.


Well, it's not all that strange to connect Debussy with romanticism - obliquely at least. He wrote programmatic, pictorial orchestral works, a lot of programmatic piano miniatures, both central genres for Romantic composers. And Romantic composers often imbued such nature portraits with subjective feeling. I think Debussy did as well. One might say that Debussy wasn't so much anti-Romantic as anti-Teutonic. Of course, I wouldn't push the comparison nor would I classify him as a Romantic. The point, the main one I wanted to make (before I started ranting), is that neat little categories like Romantic and anti-Romantic are just ways of brutalizing reality, a crime of which Pauls is guilty.


----------



## JAS

Clair de Lune certainly isn't La chute de la maison Usher


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Wanna know a secret? Debussy's "Clair de lune" is Schumann's "Mondnacht" (compare measure 5 and measure 2 plus the last beat of measure 1, respectively).

By the way, Debussy's "Clair de lune" should always be specified as *Debussy's* "Clair de lune," because Fauré's "Clair de lune" is best "Clair de lune."


----------



## pcnog11

I think you have to musically educated to appreciate contemporary classical music, many of us are not. Many of those melodies are not pleasing to the ears either. For today audiences, they are many other sources of music that are pleasing to the ears, classical or not, to listen to. As the media of communication changes, the role of music also changes. In other words, music needs to evolve in a way to find it ways to gain popularity. Movie music is an excellent example that branches off the main classical genres but widely accepted.


----------



## Nereffid

pcnog11 said:


> I think you have to musically educated to appreciate contemporary classical music, many of us are not.


I'm not musically educated. My appreciation of contemporary classical comes from the same place as my appreciation of any other music: do I like how it sounds?


----------



## Strange Magic

pcnog11 said:


> I think you have to musically educated to appreciate contemporary classical music, many of us are not. Many of those melodies are not pleasing to the ears either. For today audiences, they are many other sources of music that are pleasing to the ears, classical or not, to listen to. As the media of communication changes, the role of music also changes. In other words, music needs to evolve in a way to find it ways to gain popularity. Movie music is an excellent example that branches off the main classical genres but widely accepted.


I have not been following the film music thread at all, but it seems to me that movie music can accomplish certain things--marrying obvious and easily-assimilated melody with more outré effects--and sneaking the package through, because the audience is focused on the action on the screen. Indirection. Or maybe deliberate misdirection. Anyway, it's the big, easily-assimilated melodies that mostly stick with us, long after the film is over, though the other material may stick if linked tightly to the visuals (the shower scene in _Psycho_).


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Strange Magic said:


> I have not been following the film music thread at all, but it seems to me that movie music can accomplish certain things--marrying obvious and easily-assimilated melody with more outré effects--and sneaking the package through, because the audience is focused on the action on the screen. Indirection. Or maybe deliberate misdirection. Anyway, it's the big, easily-assimilated melodies that mostly stick with us, long after the film is over, though the other material may stick if linked tightly to the visuals (the shower scene in _Psycho_).


"Outré" music in the soundtracks is intentionally there to provoke some kind of emotional response - mystery, horror or fear. 
It's not there, because they are "sneaking" anything.
Contemporary composers can also use traditional tonal melodies in their compositions, but guess what's harder to write - atonal texture or decent melody?


----------



## Strange Magic

BabyGiraffe said:


> "Outré" music in the soundtracks is intentionally there to provoke some kind of emotional response - mystery, horror or fear.
> It's not there, because they are "sneaking" anything.
> Contemporary composers can also use traditional tonal melodies in their compositions, but guess what's harder to write - atonal texture or decent melody?


I was being somewhat ironic. I agree entirely that the outré effects are there for the purposes you stated.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

pcnog11 said:


> I think you have to musically educated to appreciate contemporary classical music [...]


Nope. It doesn't even make you more likely to enjoy it. The idea that people who like Boulez are just such hot shot music students that they're registering every permutation of the tone row as it goes by is a lie maintained by modernists who want their music to seem smarter than it is and conservatives who want an excuse not to listen.



> In other words, music needs to evolve in a way to find it ways to gain popularity. Movie music is an excellent example that branches off the main classical genres but widely accepted.


No it just needs to wait until everybody gets bored with the competition's thin ideas and turns to the substantial stuff in desperation. (Listened to many Sigmund Romberg standards lately?)


----------



## Magnum Miserium

BabyGiraffe said:


> "Outré" music in the soundtracks is intentionally there to provoke some kind of emotional response - mystery, horror or fear.
> It's not there, because they are "sneaking" anything.
> Contemporary composers can also use traditional tonal melodies in their compositions, but guess what's harder to write - atonal texture or decent melody?


Decent melody is really, really easy. Great melody is insanely hard, but then, so is great texture.


----------



## Art Rock

I have zero theoretical knowledge, but there is plenty of 20th and 21st century music that I like to listen to. Not all, but that holds for previous centuries as well.


----------



## Strange Magic

Magnum Miserium said:


> Decent melody is really, really easy. Great melody is insanely hard, but then, so is great texture.


It would be a great help to me if you would provide five examples each of decent melodies and of great melodies, from works and composers easily accessed/recognized by a large majority of TC posters.


----------



## JAS

Strange Magic, since you have already achieved the task, and I am considering it, do you think that it would be useful to first skim over Herbert Paul's thesis, perhaps focusing on a few specific bits here and there, before going through it in the usual order? A book is normally constructed to be read from page 1 through to page 400 (or whatever the end might be), but I sometimes find for denser material that it can help to see where the discussion is going and to get a general sense of the matters being covered as a kind of introduction.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> It would be a great help to me if you would provide five examples each of decent melodies and of great melodies, from works and composers easily accessed/recognized by a large majority of TC posters.


Throwing in an indecent melody or two would be nice too.


----------



## JAS

DaveM said:


> Throwing in an indecent melody or two would be nice too.


Perhaps something from Salome?


----------



## Strange Magic

JAS said:


> Strange Magic, since you have already achieved the task, and I am considering it, do you think that it would be useful to first skim over Herbert Paul's thesis, perhaps focusing on a few specific bits here and there, before going through it in the usual order? A book is normally constructed to be read from page 1 through to page 400 (or whatever the end might be), but I sometimes find for denser material that it can help to see where the discussion is going and to get a general sense of the matters being covered as a kind of introduction.


While I would love to be able to say that I had read Pauls' treatise with laserlike attention and retained it within my memory in perfect fidelity, I cannot do so. My poor summary, posted earlier, must suffice to either satisfy the merely curious or to entice further the scholar to more deeply explore the argument. I am no musicologist, and it may be that much hinges on Pauls' definitions of Romanticism and Neo-Romanticism, but his lists and tables do tell a tale of specialist enthusiasm v. "popularity" as measured by CD sales and other measures of hours spent or units moved.


----------



## JAS

So, by an odd coincidence, I just happened to get back from a concert. (My father was unable to attend, and my mother had a spare ticket. My price was that I drove.) This was a concert by only two performers, one on piano and one on clarinet. It is a relatively small venue and a casual atmosphere. The performers often talk about pieces before they are played, as they did today. The first half of the concert was very traditional (three pieces, one by Clara Schumann, one by Robert Schumann, and one by Brahms) the second half was two more modern pieces (one by Salvatore Broton and one by Poulec, indeed one of his very last pieces). After the intermission, the clarinetist, who did most of the speaking, commented that he was glad to see that everyone had apparently come back for the more contemporary part of the program, and that he hoped not too many would be "scared off" by the use of the word. "Usually," he said, "you always have to be afraid that you only have to say 'contemporary' and most of the audience will leave." That was spoken by someone who has actual concert experience, and, I think, does reveal a genuine impression of the relative acceptance of these distinctions. (He did not feel any need to make even token apologies for the first half.)


----------



## Chronochromie

JAS said:


> So, by an odd coincidence, I just happened to get back from a concert. (My father was unable to attend, and my mother had a spare ticket. My price was that I drove.) This was a concert by only two performers, one on piano and one on clarinet. It is a relatively small venue and a casual atmosphere. The performers often talk about pieces before they are played, as they did today. The first half of the concert was very traditional (three pieces, one by Clara Schumann, one by Robert Schumann, and one by Brahms) the second half was two more modern pieces (one by Salvatore Broton and one by Poulec, indeed one of his very last pieces). After the intermission, the clarinetist, who did most of the speaking, commented that he was glad to see that everyone had apparently come back for the more contemporary part of the program, and that he hoped not too many would be "scared off" by the use of the word. "Usually," he said, "you always have to be afraid that you only have to say 'contemporary' and most of the audience will leave." That was spoken by someone who has actual concert experience, and, I think, does reveal a genuine impression of the relative acceptance of these distinctions. (He did not feel any need to make even token apologies for the first half.)


I don't know Broton, but there's hardly anything scary about Poulenc's music, unless you are Saint-Saëns or something.


----------



## JAS

Chronochromie said:


> I don't know Broton, but there's hardly anything scary about Poulenc's music, unless you are Saint-Saëns or something.


No, neither of the actual pieces would be defined by me as "scary," although that detail was not the point of the anecdote, which was just meant to show that there really is an impression, presumably backed up by experience, on the part of the musicians that "contemporary music" (using his term) to a large part of the audience means, in some way, "bad."

Now, as it turns out, while I would not particularly agree with his use of the term "accessible" to these pieces, except perhaps relatively speaking, the best I can say is that neither was terrible and that, for the most part, both of them sounded as if the musicians were playing the same piece, which is by no means true of many other works we might lump under the term "modernist." The "best" part of the Poulenc was the second movement, interestingly described as "Romanza."

I very much enjoyed the first three pieces, and I am by no mean unhappy to have heard the last two. (But I will also not be unhappy if I never hear the Broton or Poulenc pieces again.) And the encore was another Robert Schumann selection. (Both musicians seemed to be very good, and comfortable with all of the pieces.)


----------



## Chronochromie

JAS said:


> No, neither of the actual pieces would be defined by me as "scary," although that detail was not the point of the anecdote, which was just meant to show that there really is an impression, presumably backed up by experience, on the part of the musicians that "contemporary music" (using his term) to a large part of the audience means, in some way, "bad."
> 
> Now, as it turns out, while I would not particularly agree with his use of the term "accessible" to these pieces, except perhaps relatively speaking, the best I can say is that neither was terrible and that, for the most part, both of them sounded as if the musicians were playing the same piece, which is by no means true of many other works we might lump under the term "modernist." The "best" part of the Poulenc was the second movement, interestingly described as "Romanza."
> 
> I very much enjoyed the first three pieces, and I am by no mean unhappy to have heard the last two. (But I will also not be unhappy if I never hear the Broton or Poulenc pieces again.) And the encore was another Robert Schumann selection. (Both musicians seemed to be very good, and comfortable with all of the pieces.)


I don't know, maybe in my country contemporary music is more accepted, never seen something like that. BTW which Poulenc piece was that as to give you such a bad impression?


----------



## JAS

Chronochromie said:


> I don't know, maybe in my country contemporary music is more accepted, never seen something like that. BTW which Poulenc piece was that as to give you such a bad impression?


I think you are overstating my position to say "such a bad impression." The lack of a more positive impression is not necessarily "such a bad impression." A truly "bad impression" would have been that they were not playing the same piece.

Of course, I cannot find the program at the moment to provide the detail. It was a sonata for clarinet and piano, written originally for Benny Goodman. Based on the comments used in introduction, it was one of two works left in the form of sketches at the time of Poulenc's death (the other being a sonata for oboe and piano?) If it is really important, and that description is not sufficient, I can try to find the information.

Edit -- Here is a fuller detail:

CLARA SCHUMANN: Three Romances

ROBERT SCHUMANN: Intermezzo, from the FAE Sonata

BRAHMS: Sonata in E-Flat Major for Clarinet and Piano Op. 120, No. 2

--intermission--

BROTONS: Sonata for Clarinet and Piano, Op. 46

POULENC: Sonata for Clarinet and Piano


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Strange Magic said:


> It would be a great help to me if you would provide five examples each of decent melodies and of great melodies, from works and composers easily accessed/recognized by a large majority of TC posters.


Great: Tchaikovsky, "Nutcracker" act 2 pas de deux

Decent: "For the First Time in Forever" from Disney's "Frozen"

You want 4 more, do something for me.


----------



## janxharris

Magnum Miserium said:


> Great: Tchaikovsky, "Nutcracker" act 2 pas de deux


Seriously?.................................


----------



## janxharris

Magnum Miserium said:


> Great: Tchaikovsky, "Nutcracker" act 2 pas de deux


The origin of all the songs using I, VI, IV, V?


----------



## Strange Magic

Magnum Miserium said:


> Great: Tchaikovsky, "Nutcracker" act 2 pas de deux
> 
> Decent: "For the First Time in Forever" from Disney's "Frozen"
> 
> You want 4 more, do something for me.


What if I took you seriously: would that count?


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Strange Magic said:


> What if I took you seriously: would that count?


You obviously take me seriously, but okay, let's pretend you don't, then I guess you must have been lying here: 


Strange Magic said:


> *It would be a great help to me if you would provide* five examples each of decent melodies and of great melodies, from works and composers easily accessed/recognized by a large majority of TC posters.


----------



## Nereffid

JAS said:


> No, neither of the actual pieces would be defined by me as "scary," although that detail was not the point of the anecdote, which was just meant to show that there really is an impression, presumably backed up by experience, on the part of the musicians that "contemporary music" (using his term) to a large part of the audience means, in some way, "bad."
> 
> Now, as it turns out, while I would not particularly agree with his use of the term "accessible" to these pieces, except perhaps relatively speaking, the best I can say is that neither was terrible and that, for the most part, both of them sounded as if the musicians were playing the same piece, which is by no means true of many other works we might lump under the term "modernist." The "best" part of the Poulenc was the second movement, interestingly described as "Romanza."
> 
> I very much enjoyed the first three pieces, and I am by no mean unhappy to have heard the last two. (But I will also not be unhappy if I never hear the Broton or Poulenc pieces again.) And the encore was another Robert Schumann selection. (Both musicians seemed to be very good, and comfortable with all of the pieces.)


I'm listening to Brotons's clarinet sonata via YT right now, and I just honestly can't hear how it could be a difficult listen for anyone who is comfortable with Brahms and Schumann, or how it could possibly be bracketed with works like _Gruppen_. I don't deny for a second that there's an aversion to anything modern among audiences, but your anecdote is surely evidence that this aversion is a knee-jerk paranoia about anything with a remotely modern-looking date attached to it, and an unwillingness to experience new (or new-seeming) music of any sort.


----------



## Chronochromie

JAS said:


> POULENC: Sonata for Clarinet and Piano


I'm speechless that anyone here would refer to this sonata as you did. I'm not saying you called it trash or anything, but the reaction is very strange to me.


----------



## JAS

Chronochromie said:


> I'm speechless that anyone here would refer to this sonata as you did. I'm not saying you called it trash or anything, but the reaction is very strange to me.


And I am just as astounded to find that there are people who think these works so meaningfully similar as to be negligible in terms of response. My mother's comment was basically "I didn't get the first piece at all [the Broton] and at least the other wasn't horrible, particularly the middle section." And I just got an e-mail from someone I know who was also there: "Did your ears survive the last part of the concert today? Neither my husband nor I much liked it as much as the first part. All the notes were fine; we just didn't care for how they were arranged!" There were many similar comments during the wine and cheese reception after the concert, so I have the confidence of not only my own feelings but objective validation that others had a very similar response. Again, it seems that we are just wired differently.


----------



## JAS

Nereffid said:


> I'm listening to Brotons's clarinet sonata via YT right now, and I just honestly can't hear how it could be a difficult listen for anyone who is comfortable with Brahms and Schumann, or how it could possibly be bracketed with works like _Gruppen_. I don't deny for a second that there's an aversion to anything modern among audiences, but your anecdote is surely evidence that this aversion is a knee-jerk paranoia about anything with a remotely modern-looking date attached to it, and an unwillingness to experience new (or new-seeming) music of any sort.


Who said anything about Gruppen? There is a much wider range of things I would not like to hear than things I would. (In fact, the former is probably pretty close to infinite, which makes the latter all the more precious.)

And the anecdote merely shows that the aversion is real, although there does seem to have been some attempt in this thread to suggest otherwise. Whether or not that aversion is well founded is an entirely separate question. (I happen to think that it is.) Everyone in that concert was willing, to some degree, to experience new music. Even knowing the basic date of composition, which was listed in the program, and with the opportunity of simply leaving during the intermission, it appeared that everyone returned. How "open" we might have been is not possible to determine, and although it is clear that a fair number did not respond favorably, I cannot speak to the response of the entire audience (probably around 60 people).


----------



## Strange Magic

Magnum Miserium said:


> You obviously take me seriously, but okay, let's pretend you don't, then I guess you must have been lying here:


I assumed, perhaps erroneously, that you would/could comply with my request with genuine enthusiasm, rather than with stinting and wary guile. Forget the request.


----------



## isorhythm

Say what you will about New York, the classical music audiences are better than this. Even the old people who are supposed to be reactionary. They may not go for Stockhausen but I can't imagine any of them having a problem with _Poulenc_. My god.


----------



## JAS

isorhythm said:


> Say what you will about New York, the classical music audiences *are better* than this.


Thank you for the helpful value judgment.


----------



## isorhythm

JAS said:


> Thank you for the helpful value judgment.


You've been making nothing but value judgments since the beginning of the thread.

There are in fact better and worse music listeners. This is certainly not a _moral_ judgment. Most of the people scared of Poulenc are no doubt good people.


----------



## Nereffid

JAS said:


> Who said anything about Gruppen? There is a much wider range of things I would not like to hear than things I would. (In fact, the former is probably pretty close to infinite, which makes the latter all the more precious.)
> 
> And the anecdote merely shows that the aversion is real, although there does seem to have been some attempt in this thread to suggest otherwise. Whether or not that aversion is well founded is an entirely separate question. (I happen to think that it is.) Everyone in that concert was willing, to some degree, to experience new music. Even knowing the basic date of composition, which was listed in the program, and with the opportunity of simply leaving during the intermission, it appeared that everyone returned. How "open" we might have been is not possible to determine, and although it is clear that a fair number did not respond favorably, I cannot speak to the response of the entire audience (probably around 60 people).


I mentioned _Gruppen_ just because it was used earlier on as an example of "difficult modern music". But it seems to be that "difficult modern music" includes charming and pleasant works like the clarinet sonatas of Brotons and Poulenc.


----------



## JAS

isorhythm said:


> You've been making nothing but value judgments since the beginning of the thread.


I have been very clear in stating _my opinion_ and _my personal reaction_ to the music, obviously stated as such, (and in some cases including the related opinions of others). I have said nothing about the people who like the music I do not like beyond the fact that I don't understand them.


----------



## isorhythm

JAS said:


> I have been very clear in stating _my opinion_ and _my personal reaction_ to the music, obviously stated as such, (and in some cases including the related opinions of others). I have said nothing about the people who like the music I do not like beyond the fact that I don't understand them.


You've made clear you don't believe there's anything worthwhile in the music you don't like - i.e., that people who do like it are deluding themselves or pretending.


----------



## JAS

isorhythm said:


> You've made clear you don't believe there's anything worthwhile in the music you don't like - i.e., that people who do like it are deluding themselves or pretending.


It is true that I find nothing worthwhile in the music, and that you are free to enjoy it in spite of my opinions, just as I am free to avoid it in spite of yours. As for Deluding themselves or pretending, there are specific examples where that is clearly true, and it might even be true more broadly, but those examples really don't necessarily apply beyond the cases noted. I have said repeated, and very clearly, that I have no idea why people like "modernist" music. I have _not_ said the equivalent of better audiences know better than to dabble in it.


----------



## mmsbls

I listened to the Brotons Sonata, and it does seem rather mild to me. Having said that, I spend much of my time listening to works that likely would shock most classical listeners. I do remember when I had difficulty with Prokofiev, Shostakovich, and Debussy. I didn't think their works sounded awful, but I didn't like most of them. 

JAS, you may have already posted this, but do you think many of the people you are talking about who dislike modern music have problems with Prokofiev, Shostakovich, and Debussy?


----------



## JAS

mmsbls said:


> JAS, you may have already posted this, but do you think many of the people you are talking about who dislike modern music have problems with Prokofiev, Shostakovich, and Debussy?


I cannot really speak beyond what I know, and it would be wrong for me to project too much based on slight evidence. I suspect it might boil down to specific pieces.

It is interesting that, again purely anecdotally, I know quite a few people who went out after seeing 2001 and bought Also Sprach Zarathustra. (In at least a few cases I know that it was the first, and perhaps the only classical recording they owned.) I don't know anyone who went out to buy Ligeti, used in the same film. (Quite possibly some people did.)

There is something real going on here, and I suspect, based in part on this thread, that we will never know what it is.


----------



## Sloe

mmsbls said:


> JAS, you may have already posted this, but do you think many of the people you are talking about who dislike modern music have problems with Prokofiev, Shostakovich, and Debussy?


One time when I heard Prokofiev´s third symphony on radio the commentator called it very modern music. I was actually a bit shocked over that I guess people have different preferences. The Broton sonata was really nice.


----------



## DaveM

There are several smaller orchestras in the Los Angeles/Orange County area (Pasadena, San Bernadino etc.) in addition to the flagship Los Angeles Symphony. The LSO often puts contemporary works in its programs. It can afford to because the LSO and Dudamel are so popular and the room will be full whatever. And it's true that in this large population there are enough contemporary music supporters for one large orchestra.

But the smaller orchestras relatively rarely program modern, contemporary works or if they do, it will not be the featured work. Why would that be?


----------



## isorhythm

JAS said:


> It is true that I find nothing worthwhile in the music, and that you are free to enjoy it in spite of my opinions, just as I am free to avoid it in spite of yours. As for Deluding themselves or pretending, there are specific examples where that is clearly true, and it might even be true more broadly, but those examples really don't necessarily apply beyond the cases noted. I have said repeated, and very clearly, that I have no idea why people like "modernist" music. I have _not_ said the equivalent of better audiences know better than to dabble in it.


So why spend so much time weighing in on something you admit you don't understand? What's the point?


----------



## JAS

isorhythm said:


> So why spend so much time weighing in on something you admit you don't understand? What's the point?


The possibility of understanding (often little more than a will o the wisp). Besides, the question raised by the thread cannot be answered by the side that likes "modernist" music.


----------



## isorhythm

JAS said:


> The possibility of understanding (often little more than a will o the wisp). Besides, the question raised by the thread cannot be answered by the side that likes "modernist" music.


Of course it can.

If you were interested in understanding you would make a good faith attempt to ask where people who like, for example, Messiaen's _Vingt regards_ are coming from, what we like about it, instead of dismissing it.

If you really are interested in good faith, you might like a couple essays by Kyle Gann, whose views on modern/contemprary music are very nuanced:

http://www.kylegann.com/PC080723-Complexity.html
http://www.kylegann.com/PC030903-Word-Count.html

They're not long.


----------



## DaveM

isorhythm said:


> So why spend so much time weighing in on something you admit you don't understand? What's the point?


It was my impression that the purpose of this thread was to help find understanding


----------



## JAS

You apparently missed many such inquiries. The unexpected difficulty is that what they have described in these cases bore no relation to what I was hearing (filtered through my own senses and perceptions). There should be no presumption that listening to this music will necessarily reach agreement, and not liking it, even after listening to it, should not be presumed as an act of "bad" faith. It mostly reinforces the idea that even though we are hearing the same work, we aren't hearing it as the same work. I am not sure how to break that down any more specifically.


----------



## JAS

. . . and while there have, perhaps, been some answers suggested by the side that likes "modernist" music, they have been mostly defensive rather than showing any real understanding. You cannot speak for the other side, just as I cannot really speak for your side. I don't know why you like "modernist" music, and clearly, based on this thread, you don't know why we don't.

My idea wasn't necessarily to convince anyone, or to be convinced, and it _has_ been interesting to see a little of this music, particularly with specific examples, from the side of people who do genuinely seem to like it.


----------



## DaveM

isorhythm said:


> Of course it can.
> 
> If you were interested in understanding you would make a good faith attempt to ask where people who like, for example, Messiaen's _Vingt regards_ are coming from, what we like about it, instead of dismissing it.
> 
> If you really are interested in good faith, you might like a couple essays by Kyle Gann, whose views on modern/contemprary music are very nuanced:
> 
> http://www.kylegann.com/PC080723-Complexity.html
> http://www.kylegann.com/PC030903-Word-Count.html
> 
> They're not long.


If you had good faith in adding something positive to the discussion, you would present the examples without requiring someone else to do so as some sort of requirement to meet some arbitrary standard you've set up.


----------



## mmsbls

JAS said:


> The possibility of understanding (often little more than a will o the wisp). Besides, the question raised by the thread cannot be answered by the side that likes "modernist" music.


I highly doubt that's true (second comment). Those who dislike modern music have answered the question saying that modern music is unpleasant or worse. And, yes, that is one answer, but in some sense that's like saying people don't appreciate modern music because they dislike it. I think it's more interesting to try to understand why people might not like music that is an extension of the music they adore.

The best second order answer I know is that people must become familiar with types of music before they can like those types. Most classical music listeners are not familiar with modern music at least to the point where they can listen as they would to a Romantic Era work they don't especially like. We've talked about brain rewiring after becoming familiar with new music. Another important part of the answer is that many (most?) people do not wish to listen long enough to music they are unfamiliar with such that those works will always seem strange and unpleasant.

Perhaps the most interesting answer would explain how long one must listen or in what way to become "properly" familiar with new music, and further, why people do not like works they are already familiar with. Unfortunately, I think those answers won't be found in my lifetime. Another fascinating topic beyond our present understanding is whether some music could be innately more difficult for humans to process or become familiar with, and therefore, more difficult to enjoy.


----------



## isorhythm

DaveM said:


> If you had good faith in adding something positive to the discussion, you would present the examples without requiring someone else to do so as some sort of requirement to meet some arbitrary standard you've set up.


I did post some examples of modernist music I thought were relatively accessible early in the thread. Many others did the same.


----------



## mmsbls

JAS said:


> It mostly reinforces the idea that even though we are hearing the same work, we aren't hearing it as the same work. I am not sure how to break that down any more specifically.


I believe this is correct. Until one's brain is "rewired" one does not hear the music as others who enjoy it so. And that's a very important point about learning to hear the music in a manner that allows one to enjoy it.



JAS said:


> . . . and while there have, perhaps, been some answers suggested by the side that likes "modernist" music, they have been mostly defensive rather than showing any real understanding. You cannot speak for the other side, just as I cannot really speak for your side.


I think it's true that you cannot speak for "our" side, but most of us were once in your position. I have posted in detail about having very similar responses to modern music as you do. I remember those days well although it's hard to "hear" what I heard before since my brain has been "rewired."


----------



## JAS

The demand of "rewiring" seems a bridge too far for me. I find my brain quite functional for my needs as it is, thank you very much. Again, I was seeking to at least glimpse some understanding, not necessarily to be converted (nor to convert). I think I will remain satisfied with the vast array of music that does not require such "rewriting." (And no, I really don't think your side can speak for the other side. The reasons offered in this thread are all, at best, very defensive and self-serving . . . ie, they only like "easy music"). To a great extent, there seems to be widespread denial on "your" side that there even is a problem in regard to acceptance. (In at least one case, there was such a concern about the very existence of the thread that there was an overt attempt to have it deleted.)


----------



## Woodduck

isorhythm said:


> Of course it can.
> 
> If you were interested in understanding you would make a good faith attempt to ask where people who like, for example, Messiaen's _Vingt regards_ are coming from, what we like about it, instead of dismissing it.
> 
> If you really are interested in good faith, you might like a couple essays by *Kyle Gann, whose views on modern/contemprary music are very nuanced:*
> 
> http://www.kylegann.com/PC080723-Complexity.html
> http://www.kylegann.com/PC030903-Word-Count.html
> 
> They're not long.


Thanks for the links to Gann's essays, isorhythm. He writes very straightforwardly about some basic musical values - simplicity/complexity and memorability - and how he sees them applying to prominent modern composers and works. His professional status, his sense of fairness, and his lucidity all make his thoughts worthy of attention.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

JAS said:


> [...]
> 
> Now, as it turns out, [...] the best I can say is that neither was terrible and that, for the most part, both of them sounded as if the musicians were playing the same piece, which is by no means true of many other works we might lump under the term "modernist." The "best" part of the Poulenc was the second movement, interestingly described as "Romanza."
> 
> I very much enjoyed the first three pieces, and I am by no mean unhappy to have heard the last two. (But I will also not be unhappy if I never hear the Broton or Poulenc pieces again.) [...]


I think that if you find Poulenc's music difficult to listen to then it really is not surprising that you are not able to appreciate much of the music of the 20th century.

I'm sure you are right that something real is going on. I would guess that that 'something' lies in the qualities and capacities of those parts of your mind / brain which hears and interprets music. This is likely to have a lot to do with its innate qualities and its assimilated experiences over the course of your life, how it represents those internally, what needs and what tolerance it has for seeking new musical experiences or not, etc.

Temperamentally I am a magpie, always searching for new experiences of all sorts in the world. I know that not all people are like that. I enjoy unusual food, music, journeys, ideas and so on. I know other people who like to stick to the familiar in some areas of life, many or all, and people who are somewhere in between on the spectrum. I also know people who seek much more radically 'different' experiences in life than I do.

This is not a criticism. People are different and have different tastes as a result. Ideally we can discuss these things without getting too irritated with one another's differences!


----------



## RRod

JAS said:


> The demand of "rewiring" seems a bridge too far for me. I find my brain quite functional for my needs as it is, thank you very much. Again, I was seeking to at least glimpse some understanding, not necessarily to be converted (nor to convert). I think I will remain satisfied with the vast array of music that does not require such "rewriting."


My young, Mozart-loving classical brain needed major re-wiring to appreciate how to listen to Baroque polyphony. Should I have said instead that Bach lovers are in "denial"? The issue is that what I learned for Bach certainly helped me with Handel, but what I learned for Messiaen doesn't quite help me for Carter.


----------



## mmsbls

JAS said:


> The demand of "rewiring" seems a bridge too far for me. I find my brain quite functional for my needs as it is, thank you very much.


Sure.



JAS said:


> Again, I was seeking to at least glimpse some understanding, not necessarily to be converted (nor to convert).


Understanding of why contemporary music is often so poorly received by today's audiences or understanding of how one can enjoy modern music? I think there have been reasonable answers to the first question. The second is much more difficult.

I'm not sure what types of music you enjoy, but I dislike heavy metal (I guess any type of metal music). How easy do you think it would be for someone to allow me to understand why or how people actually enjoy heavy metal? (I'm not actually serious in the following, but I might have been many years ago). Heavy metal is simply loud noise coming from guitars - the louder the better. It has no relationship to normal popular music with nice melodies with lyrics one can hear. How does anyone enjoy that?



JAS said:


> I really don't think your side can speak for the other side.


I assume you mean that "my side" often does a poor job of publicly understanding "your side" rather than that "my side" cannot speak for your side. Do you think I did a poor job of speaking for "your side"?



JAS said:


> To a great extent, there seems to be widespread denial on "your" side that there even is a problem in regard to acceptance.


Based on my years here I would say the vast majority of those who like modern music realize that many (most?) listeners dislike modern music. I don't think they are in denial. They tend to lash out (to some extent - it was much worse earlier) at people who seem intent on showing just how awful modern music is or at people who question how anyone could possibly enjoy the music (or that those who say they like it are confused/pretending). Imagine if non-classical listeners repeatedly dissed classical music here and made similar comments about classical music. Those who enjoy modern music are tired of those who "attack" it (and they do honestly feel attacked).

The general issue of Modern versus "anti-modern" TC members has been a problem here for years. Personally, I find it easy to understand why both sides post as they do even if I wish both sides would often post differently. People in general often do a poor job of trying to understand others whose views differ.


----------



## Bettina

RRod said:


> My young, Mozart-loving classical brain needed major re-wiring to appreciate how to listen to Baroque polyphony. Should I have said instead that Bach lovers are in "denial"? The issue is that what I learned for Bach certainly helped me with Handel, but what I learned for Messiaen doesn't quite help me for Carter.


Good point. There does seem to be much more diversity in contemporary music than in any other period. Contemporary composers don't seem to follow a shared set of conventions (as far as I can tell--but I could be wrong).


----------



## mmsbls

RRod said:


> My young, Mozart-loving classical brain needed major re-wiring to appreciate how to listen to Baroque polyphony. Should I have said instead that Bach lovers are in "denial"? The issue is that what I learned for Bach certainly helped me with Handel, but what I learned for Messiaen doesn't quite help me for Carter.


Yes, modern music seems vastly more diversified. When we "rewire" to learn Baroque, we help ourselves appreciate many Baroque composers. When we "rewire" to appreciate Boulez, when must then "rewire" to appreciate Messiaen, and then "rewire" to appreciate Schnittke, and on and on. If one doesn't in some sense enjoy the process of "rewiring", the learning may be tedious, require too much time, and ultimately be considered a waste of time.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> I believe this is correct. Until one's brain is "rewired" one does not hear the music as others who enjoy it so. And that's a very important point about learning to hear the music in a manner that allows one to enjoy it.


This is a fascinating premise and you've done a good job describing your own experience. Your credibility derives from the fact that you once couldn't imagine listening to modern/contemporary works. Is this a process of having accessed a part of your brain that was always there or is it actual rewiring? I don't know. It would be interesting to see a PET Scan of one's brain before interest in newer music vs. after.



> I think it's true that you cannot speak for "our" side, but most of us were once in your position.


I'm not sure of this. Do most people have to do the work to appreciate newer music or do more and more younger people come by it naturally? I don't know whether I could ever 'reprogram' my brain to enjoy these works. It's pretty much moot because I'm at a point where I'm looking for music that soothes the savage beast and I hear little in so many contemporary works that are suggested that does so. So I just don't have the incentive.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> I'm not sure of this. Do most people have to do the work to appreciate newer music or do more and more younger people come by it naturally? I don't know whether I could ever 'reprogram' my brain to enjoy these works. It's pretty much moot because I'm at a point where I'm looking for music that soothes the savage beast and I hear little in so many contemporary works that are suggested that does so. So I just don't have the incentive.


I don't know the answer. I can say that everyone I know personally who enjoys modern music did not always enjoy it. They had to "learn" to enjoy it, and that includes young people some of whom are composers now. One question would be how long it took for different people to learn to like it. I assume the learning for some was quicker and possibly much quicker than others. I did my learning at a relatively late age so perhaps that's why it took me awhile. Further I know that many here on TC had to go through that learning process based on their posts.


----------



## schigolch

Well, I know quite a few people that like modern music (well, at least part of modern music. Who can really like "all" modern music anyhow?), from the very beginning. In fact, I'm one of them. 

There are no magic bands here. Some people will enjoy the music (any music) right from the first time they hear it, some people will need a process, like the one you are describing, and some people will never warm towards that bloody noise. 

That's life.


----------



## Strange Magic

Not to belabor my enthusiasm for the writings of Leonard Meyer, but Meyer did point out many decades ago that, in his understanding, much of the pleasure derived from music lay in the tension set up by the interplay of satisfied and thwarted expectations as the music unfolded. Much of "non-modernist" music relied and relies heavily upon that interplay, with expected progressions of notes supplied from within the music itself. With a certain percentage of "modernist" musics, especially those following purely mathematical or aleatoric methods of generating trains of notes, there is little chance for the brain to engage in forecasting how a note progression unfolds, and so the satisfaction of expectations must await repeated hearings of the same piece. Thus there is the need for often many repeated hearings of many modernist works so that pure memory itself must and then can supply the necessary satisfaction of expectation, rather than having it be an integral part of the music itself. This means quite a bit of 'extra" mental work for people who just "want to listen to some music" and who have never been previously exposed to the demands--and they are demands--that modernist music imposes. It follows, therefore, I believe with what John Locke called "resistless logic", that much modernist music will always have a much smaller--yet passionately devoted--audience than does the standard repertoire. For those wishing to pursue these issues, I again recommend Meyer's several books. Not easy reading; he would have benefitted greatly from a good editor or from a gifted popularizer of his works, but Meyer--composer, philosopher, avid scholar, and head of the Music Department at the University of Chicago (among other appointments) is The Man.


----------



## Lucas A

BabyGiraffe said:


> Did Mozart invented the classical forms or what? :lol: What a nonsense - and abstract expressionism "took forms" from neoclassicism, right...
> I won't comment the "no objective measure of music". Anyone can play like a monkey on detuned piano and claim that he is "avantgarde experimental microtonal composer".


Sorry I dropped out of this forum for a bit. To answer your question, no Mozart did not invent classical forms - you would have to back to the music of Sammartini, Stamitz, CPE Bach etc - but Mozart did canonize those forms. Much of Schoenberg's instrumental music - especially the later stuff - is in sonata form, rondo, theme & variations etc. albeit he's carrying on the more ambitious aspects of it carried down through Beethoven and Brahms. I'm a little confused at your condescending tone, as frankly, you don't really seem to know what you're talking about.


----------



## Lucas A

RRod said:


> So what would Mozart and Beethoven be writing today? Mozart and Beethoven?


I'm digging this up from a month ago (your response to 'composers write music symptomatic of their culture and can't be taken out of context').

This is a kind of interesting question, only if you think about it in the right way. Of course if Mozart and Beethoven were born today their environmental upbringing would have been entirely different and they might not even have gone into music. But if we were to compare the temperament and ideals of each composer to composers today, that's a bit easier to think about.

Mozart was a wizard craftsman, who made rich, complex, and entertaining music not under the guise of innovation, but intellectual sophistication. A Mozart of today might be someone like Thomas Ades. Beethoven wrote with the intention to transcend his bodily self - music that was deeply personal, but displaying a 'better self.' He pretty much instigated the whole 'suffer for your art', 'art is all important' mantra, which I think is pretty distasteful in today's society, but comparable to someone like Stockhausen.


----------



## JAS

mmsbls said:


> Understanding of why contemporary music is often so poorly received by today's audiences or understanding of how one can enjoy modern music? I think there have been reasonable answers to the first question. The second is much more difficult.


Except that only the first question was actually asked. The second question might also be interesting, but it presupposes whether there is really any reason to make such an attempt.



mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure what types of music you enjoy, but I dislike heavy metal (I guess any type of metal music). How easy do you think it would be for someone to allow me to understand why or how people actually enjoy heavy metal? (I'm not actually serious in the following, but I might have been many years ago). Heavy metal is simply loud noise coming from guitars - the louder the better. It has no relationship to normal popular music with nice melodies with lyrics one can hear. How does anyone enjoy that?


I have no love for Heavy Metal, but I am less interested in that discussion mostly because those I know who do love Heavy Metal don't seem to be especially literate or to interested in discussing their music. (The closest I ever got to an answer there was that they actually liked it as noise, and the volume being at levels that you can feel it assaulting your ears seems to be a desirable feature.) There also isn't much of a common base, which at least seems present for the discussion of "modernist" music.



mmsbls said:


> Based on my years here I would say the vast majority of those who like modern music realize that many (most?) listeners dislike modern music. I don't think they are in denial. They tend to lash out (to some extent - it was much worse earlier) at people who seem intent on showing just how awful modern music is or at people who question how anyone could possibly enjoy the music (or that those who say they like it are confused/pretending). Imagine if non-classical listeners repeatedly dissed classical music here and made similar comments about classical music. Those who enjoy modern music are tired of those who "attack" it (and they do honestly feel attacked).


Then I might suggest they should stay out of a thread that is specifically called "Why is contemporary classical music often so poorly received by today's audiences?"


----------



## JAS

So, without simply rehashing the entire thread, let us answer the question posed. Given some of the digressions present in the thread, it might be useful to break it down a bit.

- Is there a general, "umbrella" term that can be used to refer, in a collective way, to the various forms or music that came out of the period following romanticism, late-romanticism and possibly even neo-romanticism? The original question used "contemporary," which doesn't seem inclusive enough. "Modern" was also criticized as being too chronologically suggestive. "Modernist" seems not to have gotten as much objection. Somewhere, perhaps not in this forum, someone suggested the term "Anti-Romantic," but that might be seen as making these forms entirely subjective to Romanticism. For the moment, I will use the made up term x-music (x being a common variable for an unknown value). 

- Assuming that we can accept such a term, is it true that x-music is often poorly received by today's audiences?

- Assuming that to at least essentially be true, is there a reason beyond that we don't like much or all of what we have heard or that we haven't tried hard enough? (Perhaps there isn't a more direct answer that is true in a broad sense.)


----------



## RRod

Lucas A said:


> I'm digging this up from a month ago (your response to 'composers write music symptomatic of their culture and can't be taken out of context').
> 
> This is a kind of interesting question, only if you think about it in the right way. Of course if Mozart and Beethoven were born today their environmental upbringing would have been entirely different and they might not even have gone into music. But if we were to compare the temperament and ideals of each composer to composers today, that's a bit easier to think about.
> 
> Mozart was a wizard craftsman, who made rich, complex, and entertaining music not under the guise of innovation, but intellectual sophistication. A Mozart of today might be someone like Thomas Ades. Beethoven wrote with the intention to transcend his bodily self - music that was deeply personal, but displaying a 'better self.' He pretty much instigated the whole 'suffer for your art', 'art is all important' mantra, which I think is pretty distasteful in today's society, but comparable to someone like Stockhausen.


I could get behind that. I liked a blurb on the Beef that Bukowski wrote:
"tooling along in his red sports
car
roof down
he'd pickup all those mad
hard cases on the boulevards
we'd get music like we
never heard before..."

The question is how would this "music like we never heard" be accepted? There are several members on this thread who probably wouldn't give your Ludwig van Stockhausen the time of day. Others of us already like Wolfgang Adès. This makes me think of turning the question on its head:
"If all of us got transported back to 1805, who among us would be the ones giving Beethoven's Eroica a real chance?"


----------



## Lucas A

JAS said:


> Then I might suggest they should stay out of a thread that is specifically called "Why is contemporary classical music often so poorly received by today's audiences?"


But they're the voices we need the most! Honestly, this thread has been worked through so much, but I think we all know the answer. If you approach music with a definitive view of how music should affect and 'serve' you, you're probably not going to like contemporary music. If you approach music as a way to engage with artists and their reflection of the culture they live in, you'll probably find stuff you like.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

JAS said:


> Except that only the first question was actually asked. The second question might also be interesting, but it presupposes whether there is really any reason to make such an attempt.


You have been given some evidence that other people think there is...



JAS said:


> Then I might suggest they should stay out of a thread that is specifically called "Why is contemporary classical music often so poorly received by today's audiences?"


I can't see any reason why they should stay out of the thread. Surely you are interested in considering and discussing the responses the OP's question stimulated?



mmsbls said:


> I can say that everyone I know personally who enjoys modern music did not always enjoy it. They had to "learn" to enjoy it, and that includes young people some of whom are composers now. [...] Further I know that many here on TC had to go through that learning process based on their posts.


Yes - I did also, as I have posted previously elsewhere. I got as far as Sibelius and Mahler as a child, got a bit stuck at Britten and Schoenberg as a young man, but came back to them, and came to Boulez, Birtwhistle and Murail in middle age, having learned to be open to all sorts of experiences that I resisted when I was younger. As Strange Magic says, this is hard work, but it also has to promise some benefit if the work is to be worth an individual's time. It has been for me, but clearly that isn't going to hold good for other people whose brains are wired / mind is organised in a different way.


----------



## mmsbls

JAS said:


> Except that only the first question was actually asked. The second question might also be interesting, but it presupposes whether there is really any reason to make such an attempt.


I think there's some confusion here. I asked, were you seeking "nderstanding of why contemporary music is often so poorly received by today's audiences or understanding of how one can enjoy modern music?" because I didn't know which question you meant when you said:



JAS said:


> Again, I was seeking to at least glimpse some understanding, not necessarily to be converted (nor to convert).





JAS said:


> Then I might suggest they should stay out of a thread that is specifically called "Why is contemporary classical music often so poorly received by today's audiences?"


In general we always wish everyone to feel they are free to contribute to all threads. We don't want to exclude anyone. The question seems as likely to be answered appropriately by modern music lovers as those who dislike modern music. In all honesty I have rarely heard an interesting answer to this question or similar questions by those who dislike the music. The answers I have found most interesting and useful have almost always come from those who like modern music.

Do you think the thread was useful in answering the OP?


----------



## LesCyclopes

> The demand of "rewiring" seems a bridge too far for me.


Agreed. I have zero interest in rewiring my brain so that it will accept random noise as music.


----------



## isorhythm

JAS said:


> Is there a general, "umbrella" term that can be used to refer, in a collective way, to the various forms or music that came out of the period following romanticism, late-romanticism and possibly even neo-romanticism?


Sure, I think "modern" or "post-Romantic" or anything like that is fine; it doesn't matter too much what you call it. I think what's important to keep in mind is that the term will necessarily be covering many different styles, so it's a historical grouping rather than a stylistic description.



JAS said:


> Assuming that we can accept such a term, is it true that x-music is often poorly received by today's audiences?


Sure is.



JAS said:


> Assuming that to at least essentially be true, is there a reason beyond that we don't like much or all of what we have heard? (Perhaps there isn't a more direct answer that is true in a broad sense.)


That's a complicated question, but I'd say the short answer is that when classical music lost its central place in bourgeois culture, classical composers stopped writing for a broad bourgeois audience. That's not a judgment of value either way.


----------



## JAS

mmsbls said:


> I think there's some confusion here. I asked, were you seeking "nderstanding of why contemporary music is often so poorly received by today's audiences or understanding of how one can enjoy modern music?" because I didn't know which question you meant when you said . . .




I am not sure where the confusion comes in, I was reverting back to the original question of the thread, since there seemed to be a presumption that it had been answered, although having followed the thread I didn't really see such an answer. I originally expected that the discussion would necessarily include some discussion of why people liked said music.



mmsbls said:


> In general we always wish everyone to feel they are free to contribute to all threads. We don't want to exclude anyone. The question seems as likely to be answered appropriately by modern music lovers as those who dislike modern music. In all honesty I have rarely heard an interesting answer to this question or similar questions by those who dislike the music. The answers I have found most interesting and useful have almost always come from those who like modern music.


That is fine, but if one is going to participate in such a thread, then one must accept that there is highly likely to be quite a bit of negative impressions of modern music offered, and one cannot be so easily offended (and probably should leave baggage from previous encounters at the door).



mmsbls said:


> Do you think the thread was useful in answering the OP?


I think most of the thread has dodged or even just tried to deny the premise of the question. At the moment, unless I can clarify something, I would like to give some time to see what others have to say.


----------



## LesCyclopes

mmsbls said:


> I dislike heavy metal (I guess any type of metal music). How easy do you think it would be for someone to allow me to understand why or how people actually enjoy heavy metal?... Heavy metal is simply loud noise coming from guitars - the louder the better. It has no relationship to normal popular music with nice melodies with lyrics one can hear. How does anyone enjoy that?


You see, I loved heavy metal in my teens and I didn't have to "rewire" my brain for it, either. It just felt fantastic.

Not just a feeling, actually. It had (what I now know to call) counterpoint and a continuous bass, polyphony and edgy lyrics that just weren't to be found in pop music.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

LesCyclopes said:


> Agreed. I have zero interest in rewiring my brain so that it will accept random noise as music.


"Contemporary music" brain slugs work really well. They come with some side effects, though, such as tricking your brain into thinking the sound of bacon frying is music.


----------



## janxharris

chuckle.......................


----------



## Lucas A

LesCyclopes said:


> Agreed. I have zero interest in rewiring my brain so that it will accept random noise as music.


Ironically, your attitude credits contemporary music as relevant and a reflection of today's society. I mean, take your position and substitute any political/social stance with "random noise as music", and you've got a pretty good idea of Western culture right now.

I don't mean to assume your politics or anything, but it's clear that you have a strongly held preconceived notion that will first discredit a contrasting view ("random noise") before engaging with it. Pretty cool how art works!


----------



## janxharris

Lucas A said:


> Ironically, your attitude credits contemporary music as relevant and a reflection of today's society. I mean, take your position and substitute any political/social stance with "random noise as music", and you've got a pretty good idea of Western culture right now.
> 
> I don't mean to assume your politics or anything, but it's clear that you have a strongly held preconceived notion that will first discredit a contrasting view ("random noise") before engaging with it. Pretty cool how art works!


Contemporary music reflects the random nature of modern culture?


----------



## Lucas A

RRod said:


> The question is how would this "music like we never heard" be accepted? There are several members on this thread who probably wouldn't give your Ludwig van Stockhausen the time of day. Others of us already like Wolfgang Adès. This makes me think of turning the question on its head:
> "If all of us got transported back to 1805, who among us would be the ones giving Beethoven's Eroica a real chance?"


I don't consider myself well versed enough in 21st century yet to come up with anything better than Stockhausen.

Again though, those listeners were also a product of the times. First we would have had to be rich - Beethoven's _Eroica_ was written for private nobility - and probably well educated in music, preferably familiar with Handel.

Remember Beethoven was coming off of the end of the Classical era, where music was not about personal expression, but clarity and beauty, so you would need older composers like Handel and Schutz to get where Beethoven was coming from. At that time, music wasn't really canonized yet (revival performances of Bach and others largely took place in 1830s and 40s, Brahms took part in one of the first musicological society's), so there wasn't this sense that music had to evolve and innovate, or that it was going somewhere - and compare that to the rest of the world - how could people have foreseen industrialization?

In short, I'm sure very very few people were fully able to grapple with Beethoven, but the ones who had the time to learn and play his music surely understood his value and how novel it was. Even still, the late quartets didn't receive critical re-evaluation until the turn of the century!


----------



## LesCyclopes

Lucas A said:


> Ironically, your attitude credits contemporary music as relevant and a reflection of today's society


No, it doesn't.



> I mean, take your position and substitute any political/social stance with "random noise as music", and you've got a pretty good idea of Western culture right now.


You seem to think that makes sense, so I will answer it.

I am perfectly happy to live and let live *and* try to understand different viewpoints. However, it is not a political stance (not sure what "social stance" is supposed to mean) when I say "random noise" - that is just what some of "contemporary classical music" (a contradiction in terms, if you think about it) actually sounds like, since it lacks all natural harmony. If it has no harmony and is not pleasing to the ear, it *is* noise. Whether you manage to enjoy that noise is a different matter.


----------



## Lucas A

janxharris said:


> Contemporary music reflects the random nature of modern culture?


Er, maybe I wasn't clear so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. What I mean is that people's attitudes towards contemporary music reflect people's attitudes towards current social and political problems.


----------



## janxharris

Lucas A said:


> Er, maybe I wasn't clear so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. What I mean is that people's attitudes towards contemporary music reflect people's attitudes towards current social and political problems.


?.....................................


----------



## Lucas A

LesCyclopes said:


> I am perfectly happy to live and let live *and* try to understand different viewpoints. However, it is not a political stance (not sure what "social stance" is supposed to mean) when I say "random noise" - that is just what some of "contemporary classical music" (a contradiction in terms, if you think about it) actually sounds like, since it lacks all natural harmony. If it has no harmony and is not pleasing to the ear, it *is* noise. Whether you manage to enjoy that noise is a different matter.


As I clarified in the above comment, I am not saying that your position is a political stance, I'm saying your attitude towards contemporary music reflects the attitudes that people have in politics today.

The words you use - like "natural harmony" - suggest that you have your own personal definitions and preconceptions as to what music is, and that you prefer to fit music into your own narrative/worldview than expand that worldview.


----------



## LesCyclopes

Lucas A said:


> people's attitudes towards contemporary music reflect people's attitudes towards current social and political problems.


Or, rather, if something doesn't sound interesting, stimulating, and pleasing to the ear... it just doesn't. And that is all there is to it.


----------



## Nereffid

JAS said:


> So, without simply rehashing the entire thread, let us answer the question posed. Given some of the digressions present in the thread, it might be useful to break it down a bit.
> 
> - Is there a general, "umbrella" term that can be used to refer, in a collective way, to the various forms or music that came out of the period following romanticism, late-romanticism and possibly even neo-romanticism? The original question used "contemporary," which doesn't seem inclusive enough. "Modern" was also criticized as being too chronologically suggestive. "Modernist" seems not to have gotten as much objection. Somewhere, perhaps not in this forum, someone suggested the term "Anti-Romantic," but that might be seen as making these forms entirely subjective to Romanticism. For the moment, I will use the made up term x-music (x being a common variable for an unknown value).


I'm going to suggest the umbrella term "post-19th-century music". Because when even poor old Poulenc's clarinet sonata is considered a tough sell, it seems to me the reason for its rejection can only be that it's just not 19th-century enough.



JAS said:


> - Assuming that we can accept such a term, is it true that x-music is often poorly received by today's audiences?


Yes. For given values of "poorly" and "audiences". This isn't just trying to duck the question. Post-19th-century music is well to very well received by the TC audience, if my composer polls are even a vague guide. Anyone who goes to concerts that focus on new or recent music will tell you that there's a sizeable and enthusiastic audience. So the claim can only hold up if we consider the entire classical music listening population as a single audience. As for "poorly received", again how do we define "poorly"? What's the benchmark? How well must a type of music be received to be regarded as "well received"? And as a side issue, what about other musics such as Renaissance polyphony or mid-17th-century chamber music? Are _they_ poorly received, and are we obliged to consider the implications of _that_?



JAS said:


> - Assuming that to at least essentially be true, is there a reason beyond that we don't like much or all of what we have heard or that we haven't tried hard enough? (Perhaps there isn't a more direct answer that is true in a broad sense.)


Well, _some_ of the music is very different from 19th-century music and doesn't offer, or intend to offer, similar musical experiences. That in itself can be sufficient reason for some people to reject it, but the discussion so far has made it clear that it's also a reason for others to _embrace_ it. So that just comes down to personal taste, perhaps partly informed by a rudimentary understanding of why composers intend to write such music. As for the rest of the music, it's simply been a gradual progression from 19th-century music (cf. Poulenc above) and I really can't see why it would be rejected unless "the audience" is (for whatever reason) more inherently conservative than audiences of the past.


----------



## LesCyclopes

Lucas A said:


> The words you use - like "natural harmony" - suggest that you have your own personal definitions and preconceptions as to what music is


Not personal at all. Read Rameau's (rather influential) book Treatise On Harmony ("Traité de l'harmonie réduite à ses principes naturels"), and you will see what I am talking about.


----------



## Lucas A

LesCyclopes said:


> Or, rather, if something doesn't sound interesting, stimulating, and pleasing to the ear... it just doesn't. And that is all there is to it.


Ha - well I was going more off of your "I have zero interest in rewiring my brain [so that I can understand such and such]" which struck me as particularly reminiscent of our political climate.


----------



## Lucas A

LesCyclopes said:


> Not personal at all. Read Rameau's (rather influential) book Treatise On Harmony ("Traité de l'harmonie réduite à ses principes naturels"), and you will see what I am talking about.


Well, personal in today's context. The Rameau comparison - that's a bit like taking a horse-riding class to learn how to fly a plane.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

LesCyclopes said:


> [...] when I say "random noise" - that is just what some of "contemporary classical music" [...] actually sounds like, since it lacks all natural harmony. If it has no harmony and is not pleasing to the ear, it *is* noise. Whether you manage to enjoy that noise is a different matter.


If I may be so bold as to rewrite what you've written above like this:


> [...] when I say "random noise" - that is just what some of "contemporary classical music" [...] actually sounds like to me, since to me it seems that it lacks all natural harmony. If I perceive that it has no harmony and is not pleasing to my ear, it *is* noise to me. Whether you manage to enjoy what I experience as noise is a different matter.


then that's how I might express my subjective view of a piece of music I couldn't _personally_ experience as music.


----------



## LesCyclopes

Lucas A said:


> "I have zero interest in rewiring my brain [so that I can understand such and such]" which struck me as particularly reminiscent of our political climate.


People's understandable reluctance to rewire their brains just so they can like something that is so clearly unlikeable has nothing to do with your country's political troubles. I would think it is a rather normal attitude to suggestions that one should mess with their brain to like something they just don't.


----------



## Lucas A

LesCyclopes said:


> Not personal at all. Read Rameau's (rather influential) book Treatise On Harmony ("Traité de l'harmonie réduite à ses principes naturels"), and you will see what I am talking about.


Scratch my last comment, the more interesting observation comes from how your digging yourself deeper into my analogy - taking a centuries old document and treating it as incontrovertible law, without regard for subsequent innovations and changing attitudes. Sound familiar?


----------



## LesCyclopes

Lucas A said:


> Well, personal in today's context. The Rameau comparison - that's a bit like taking a horse-riding class to learn how to fly a plane.


You just have no idea, do you. It is not a "comparison". The concept of natural harmony which you thought I made up, is explored in Rameau's book. You need to read it to know what I was talking about. I didn't invent it and it certainly isn't personal.

That book is about harmony in music, and we are talking about harmony in music. It is perfectly relevant to the discussion, not at all comparable to your horse riding class to fly a plane (whatever that meant).


----------



## Lucas A

LesCyclopes said:


> People's understandable reluctance to rewire their brains just so they can like something that is so clearly unlikeable has nothing to do with your country's political troubles. I would think it is a rather normal attitude to suggestions that one should mess with their brain to like something they just don't.


Au contraire. I would replace "rewire" with "engage", but our last presidential election was largely decided over someone's unlikability. Anyone who engaged their brain and sifted through what each candidate was trying to say, and not how superficial impulses made them feel, might have held a different position.

Let's not go into the political minutia though - I was trying to avoid a specific example for that exact reason - if you disagree, I think we can at least agree that my position is a commonly held one.


----------



## mmsbls

LesCyclopes said:


> People's understandable reluctance to rewire their brains just so they can like something that is so clearly unlikeable has nothing to do with your country's political troubles. I would think it is a rather normal attitude to suggestions that one should mess with their brain to like something they just don't.


Do you honestly believe modern classical music is _clearly unlikable_? When people who love the same music you like (Baroque through Romantic music) say they also love modern music, why would you assume modern music is unlikable? It might take time or effort or even the right mentality, but it would seem to clearly be likable.


----------



## DaveM

TurnaboutVox said:


> As Strange Magic says, *this is hard work*, but it also has to promise some benefit if the work is to be worth an individual's time. It has been for me, but clearly that isn't going to hold good for other people whose brains are wired / mind is organised in a different way.


Returning to the answer to the OP, this may be the most important reason that contemporary classical music is poorly received by today's audiences. Yourself, Strange Magic, mmsbls and I believe a few others have expressed the same thing in so many words. What this means is that the listener, new to this music, is unlikely to hear something on first (or even second) listening that will inspire one to search out the work again.

I'm not so sure that one has to have a certain type of wiring that determines whether one will eventually enjoy the music if he/she sticks with a major effort to learn to like it, although perhaps there is a wiring factor that makes one decide to embark on that journey in the first place.

While attempting to answer the OP question, here's another factor: The categories of 'modern/contemporary' music seem to be endless. If a new work is scheduled to be performed by an orchestra (such as what the Los Angeles Orchestra routinely commissions), one has no way of telling whether it is going to be some distant relative of Romanticism, something in the category of a Shostakovich and Shoenberg (yes, I know they are quite different) or something that sounds absolutely bizarre with clinks, clanks, rattles, dings and bangs. This wasn't true in the 19th century. In retrospect, the music of composers such as Brahms, Wagner and even Mahler were not as different as the output of various modern/contemporary composers.


----------



## Lucas A

LesCyclopes said:


> You just have no idea, do you. It is not a "comparison". The concept of natural harmony which you thought I made up, is explored in Rameau's book.


Yes, I'm familiar with naturally occurring overtones and harmonic series. Do I think that has helped shape the principles and conception of music? Certainly. Should we use a centuries old document that doesn't account for subsequent philosophies and innovations as the unequivocal barometer for evaluating all music? Certainly not. In today's day and age, holding your opinion is a personal one.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> Based on my years here I would say the vast majority of those who like modern music realize that many (most?) listeners dislike modern music. I don't think they are in denial. They tend to lash out (to some extent - it was much worse earlier) at people who seem intent on showing just how awful modern music is or at people who question how anyone could possibly enjoy the music (or that those who say they like it are confused/pretending). Imagine if non-classical listeners repeatedly dissed classical music here and made similar comments about classical music. Those who enjoy modern music are tired of those who "attack" it (and they do honestly feel attacked).
> 
> The general issue of Modern versus "anti-modern" TC members has been a problem here for years. Personally, I find it easy to understand why both sides post as they do even if I wish both sides would often post differently. People in general often do a poor job of trying to understand others whose views differ.


This is a subject that is hard to address so I'm glad you did. If there is fault on the part of those who do not appreciate much of what goes for modern/contemporary music it is that we/they do not use IMO enough. Making absolute statements (as if they are fact) that the music sucks )) is bound to be offensive and cause a major negative reaction.

On the other hand, in my experience here, some of those who resonate with this music are quick to take offense and become unnecessarily defensive. To me defensiveness gives the impression that one is not secure in the value of their preferences while the opposite, more positive approach makes someone, like myself, think that maybe this person has a point and maybe I should give this music more of a chance.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

DaveM said:


> Returning to the answer to the OP, this may be the most important reason that contemporary classical music is poorly received by today's audiences. Yourself, Strange Magic, mmsbls and I believe a few others have expressed the same thing in so many words. What this means is that the listener, new to this music, is unlikely to hear something on first (or even second) listening that will inspire one to search out the work again.


I agree, although as I have posted elsewhere, I heard a really avant-garde orchestral work 'by accident' at a concert at the age of 8 or so, which was great fun (lots of bangs and crashes) and clearly awoke a sense in me of there being 'something different' out there. My second 'gateway' experience was 'Industrial Noise' rock music as an older teen. It's not too big a step from Cabaret Voltaire and Gilbert and Lewis to some avant-garde 'classical' music.



DaveM said:


> I'm not so sure that one has to have a certain type of wiring that determines whether one will eventually enjoy the music if he/she sticks with a major effort to learn to like it, although perhaps there is a wiring factor that makes one decide to embark on that journey in the first place.


We know now that every nuance of a person's experience (especially early experience) and their genetic endowment build symbiotically into a complex personality structure that encompasses such things as valency for new experience-seeking, toleration of stress and discomfort in the face of new experience, etc. At the level of the biological organism this is represented in our 'brain wiring'.



DaveM said:


> While attempting to answer the OP question, here's another factor: The categories of 'modern/contemporary' music seem to be endless. If a new work is scheduled to be performed by an orchestra (such as what the Los Angeles Orchestra routinely commissions), one has no way of telling whether it is going to be some distant relative of Romanticism, something in the category of a Shostakovich and Shoenberg (yes, I know they are quite different) or something the sounds absolutely bizarre with clinks, clanks, rattles, dings and bangs. This wasn't true in the 19th century. In retrospect, the music of composers such as Brahms, Wagner and even Mahler were not as different as the output of various modern/contemporary composers.


I agree with your observations here.


----------



## Strange Magic

TurnaboutVox said:


> We know now that every nuance of a person's experience (especially early experience) and their genetic endowment build symbiotically into a complex personality structure that encompasses such things as valency for new experience-seeking, toleration of stress and discomfort in the face of new experience, etc. At the level of the biological organism this is represented in our 'brain wiring'.


The above _gestalt_ that determines how people react to new experiences will also include a usually rational decision about how important one's time and attention are, and how these valuable commodities are to be deployed. My own CM spectrum, as I have posted many times, includes the musical space bounded by Bach and Bartok, very generally speaking. Having ventured outside of those bounds on sufficient occasions to explore more esoteric (to me) modern musics, I find my interests best served by instead exploring music composed by those more generally thought to lie within the B-to-B spectrum--it is a more rewarding use of my time. But that's just me.


----------



## Phil loves classical

mmsbls said:


> Yes, modern music seems vastly more diversified. When we "rewire" to learn Baroque, we help ourselves appreciate many Baroque composers. When we "rewire" to appreciate Boulez, when must then "rewire" to appreciate Messiaen, and then "rewire" to appreciate Schnittke, and on and on. If one doesn't in some sense enjoy the process of "rewiring", the learning may be tedious, require too much time, and ultimately be considered a waste of time.


Rewiring part is not fun. I found you cannot actively try to rewire. From my experience, at the beginning I found modern music difficult or impossible to understand from being used to harmony. I doubted there was actually anything in there really. But after a time when I returned to it, everything made sense. I heard from my science teacher your subconsious is still working on something even when you consciously don't think about it, and I believe it's true in this case. Modern music is about sonority, is more percussive, and does not build themes. I find it speaks more directly now in many ways than the old masters, and I only had to be rewired once. Varese, schnittke, lutoslawski, penderecki, stockhausen all work on the same level. Bartok for me is the earliest and greatest modern composer, and he was the door to all the others.


----------



## Phil loves classical

LesCyclopes said:


> Agreed. I have zero interest in rewiring my brain so that it will accept random noise as music.


What you refer to as random noise IS music whether we choose to rewire our brains or not.


----------



## Razumovskymas

Considering the competition of 500 years of top quality music being available by just a few mouseclicks for virtually everyone I think contemporary music isn't doing that bad. I'm even surprised people even bother.

In past times the earlier music wasn't readily available like now so the competition in these times wasn't that big.


----------



## janxharris

Phil loves classical said:


> What you refer to as random noise IS music whether we choose to rewire our brains or not.


What piece, or what section of a piece, would you cite as an example of such random music?


----------



## KenOC

In the past, classical music arose from a fairly common cultural background and was written in a pretty much accepted musical language. That's no longer the case. "Great" music, accepted as such, is hardly possible any more. I can think of very few major works in the last half century that have entered the performing repertoire, though some trifles are available to programmers who need "modern" works that concert-goers won't find too objectionable.


----------



## Phil loves classical

janxharris said:


> What piece, or what section of a piece, would you cite as an example of such random music?


There is actually no piece I know of that is really random except that John Cage statement of just sitting at the piano. They are in fact very well organised even if they sound might sound random to some.


----------



## LesCyclopes

Lucas A said:


> In today's day and age, holding your opinion is a personal one.


All opinion is personal. That is not what you were talking about before, though.

What I took issue with was you saying "The words you use - like "natural harmony" - suggest that you have your own personal definitions and preconceptions as to what music is". Now you seem to have understood that the concept of natural harmony is not my "personal definition and preconception" but an actual thing in music. Well done.


----------



## ArtMusic

DaveM said:


> ....To me defensiveness gives the impression that one is not secure in the value of their preferences while the opposite, more positive approach makes someone, like myself, think that maybe this person has a point and maybe I should give this music more of a chance.


Agree entirely.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

KenOC said:


> In the past, classical music arose from a fairly common cultural background and was written in a pretty much accepted musical language. That's no longer the case.


This is simply wrong. It might've been right in, like, 1960 (or not), but it's simply wrong today. (Post-)minimalism _is_ the "common cultural background"/"pretty much accepted musical language." Post-minimalist (and/or "totalist") classical music, contemporary pop music, and contemporary film music come from the same place - the 1962-3 "Theater of Eternal Music" of La Monte Young et al., by way of Terry Riley, Steve Reich, and Philip Glass; the Velvet Underground, Can, and Neu; and Terry Riley by way of Mike Oldfied and Éliane Radigue by way of Peter Gabriel, respectively - and they blend into each other easily.


__
https://soundcloud.com/kanyewest%2Fsay-you-will





I mean, I've said this all before, but I'm going to keep saying it until you all face the facts. (Or until everybody nursing the old grudges dies of old age - i.e. the way political change usually happens.) You can keep complaining about contemporary classical music, but you can't keep claiming it's estranged from The People, because it's not 1960 any more. You're fighting the last war.


----------



## EdwardBast

DaveM said:


> On the other hand, in my experience here, some of those who resonate with this music are quick to take offense and become unnecessarily defensive. To me defensiveness gives the impression that one is not secure in the value of their preferences while the opposite, more positive approach makes someone, like myself, think that maybe this person has a point and maybe I should give this music more of a chance.


I think you have it exactly backwards - and mind you this is coming from someone who is as neutral on this question as one can be. It is the incessant need to start threads whose inevitable consequence, if not intended aim, is to denigrate the music many people enjoy that is an expression of weakness and defensiveness, not the natural desire to defend it. What you have written is like ascribing a propensity for violence to the person who disarms a mugger. What is really going on here (I don't mean this specific thread, but the ongoing series of such threads and the broader tendency on a societal scale) is that people who do not trust their own aesthetic judgment are trying to suppress a gnawing fear that they might be missing something, that they harbor some secret defect or inadequacy that makes them unable to understand or appreciate the art of their day - and that they will be seen to join those hordes of hidebound ignoramuses at whom we now snigger, those who once thought The Rite of Spring or Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun or Beethoven's late quartets or Schoenberg's expressionist works - whatever - were a sign of the coming apocalypse. After the umpteenth thread motivated by these secret fears, you can imagine those who like contemporary music are apt to get a little testy, wishing their opponents would get therapy or another hobby rather than taking it all out on them - yet again.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

DaveM said:


> * In retrospect*, the music of composers such as Brahms, Wagner and even Mahler were not as different as the output of various modern/contemporary composers.


One might think people would draw from this the obvious conclusion about today's genre disputes. (I mean, if one didn't know people, one might think that.)


----------



## Magnum Miserium

EdwardBast said:


> I think you have it exactly backwards - and mind you this is coming from someone who is as neutral on this question as one can be. It is the incessant need to start threads whose inevitable consequence, if not intended aim, is to denigrate the music many people enjoy that is an expression of weakness and defensiveness, not the natural desire to defend it. What you have written is like ascribing a propensity for violence to the person who disarms a mugger. What is really going on here is that people who do not trust their own aesthetic judgment are trying to suppress a gnawing fear that they might be missing something, that they harbor some secret defect or inadequacy that makes them unable to understand or appreciate the art of their day - and that they will join those hordes of hidebound ignoramuses at which we now snigger, those who once thought The Rite of Spring or Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun or Beethoven's late quartets or Schoenberg's expressionist works - whatever - were a sign of the coming apocalypse. After the umpteenth thread motivated by these secret fears, you can imagine those who like contemporary music are apt to get a little testy, wishing their opponents would get therapy or another hobby rather than taking it all out on them - yet again.


As the kids are saying these days, _this, so much._


----------



## Simon Moon

EdwardBast said:


> I think you have it exactly backwards - and mind you this is coming from someone who is as neutral on this question as one can be. It is the incessant need to start threads whose inevitable consequence, if not intended aim, is to denigrate the music many people enjoy that is an expression of weakness and defensiveness, not the natural desire to defend it. What you have written is like ascribing a propensity for violence to the person who disarms a mugger. What is really going on here (I don't mean this specific thread, but the ongoing series of such threads and the broader tendency on a societal scale) is that people who do not trust their own aesthetic judgment are trying to suppress a gnawing fear that they might be missing something, that they harbor some secret defect or inadequacy that makes them unable to understand or appreciate the art of their day - and that they will be seen to join those hordes of hidebound ignoramuses at whom we now snigger, those who once thought The Rite of Spring or Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun or Beethoven's late quartets or Schoenberg's expressionist works - whatever - were a sign of the coming apocalypse. After the umpteenth thread motivated by these secret fears, you can imagine those who like contemporary music are apt to get a little testy, wishing their opponents would get therapy or another hobby rather than taking it all out on them - yet again.


There seems to be more than a bit of truth here.

How many threads are started here, by those of us that love contemporary classical, aimed at those that only like music from earlier eras?


----------



## Strange Magic

I think that there are two assertions or concepts or views that can be true simultaneously--EdwardBast's excellent summary of why some continue to wonder that others can like contemporary classical music; and at the same time the observation that the audience for such music will very likely be smaller than the audience for more traditional fare. My approach has been to not knock the other person's enthusiasms, but instead to seek those held in common or to observe a discreet silence. I think there's a Latin phrase.......


----------



## DaveM

EdwardBast said:


> I think you have it exactly backwards - and mind you this is coming from someone who is as neutral on this question as one can be.


Well, apparently not so much. The mugger metaphor is unfortunate.



> It is the incessant need to start threads whose inevitable consequence, if not intended aim, is to denigrate the music many people enjoy that is an expression of weakness and defensiveness, not the natural desire to defend it. What you have written is like ascribing a propensity for violence to the person who disarms a mugger. What is really going on here (I don't mean this specific thread, but the ongoing series of such threads and the broader tendency on a societal scale) is that people who do not trust their own aesthetic judgment are trying to suppress a gnawing fear that they might be missing something, that they harbor some secret defect or inadequacy that makes them unable to understand or appreciate the art of their day - and that they will be seen to join those hordes of hidebound ignoramuses at whom we now snigger, those who once thought The Rite of Spring or Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun or Beethoven's late quartets or Schoenberg's expressionist works - whatever - were a sign of the coming apocalypse. After the umpteenth thread motivated by these secret fears, you can imagine those who like contemporary music are apt to get a little testy, wishing their opponents would get therapy or another hobby rather than taking it all out on them - yet again.


Seems that you just had your own therapy session after getting all that off your chest. I hope you feel better. While I would be willing to admit that there may be elements of truth to what you're saying, I'm not buying the one-sided picture of the poor down-trodden modern music masses set upon by frightened traditionalists afraid of a coming apocalypse. In my post I tried to equalize the responsibility for bad behavior. You choose to place it on only one side. Hmm.


----------



## Lucas A

LesCyclopes said:


> Now you seem to have understood that the concept of natural harmony is not my "personal definition and preconception" but an actual thing in music. Well done.


True, I didn't presume you were referring to Rameau in your initial post, my apologies. I think my overall analogy still stands, which was not meant to incite a visceral and argumentative reaction, just to make people think about how they react to contemporary music.


----------



## Lucas A

Razumovskymas said:


> Considering the competition of 500 years of top quality music being available by just a few mouseclicks for virtually everyone I think contemporary music isn't doing that bad. I'm even surprised people even bother.


When you think about other art forms though, it should be the opposite. In literature, film, and non-classical music, people are more engaged in the newer stuff than the older - there's an urgency to keep abreast of it. Here, there's just a total lack of awareness and curiosity.


----------



## isorhythm

DaveM said:


> Well, apparently not so much. The mugger metaphor is unfortunate.
> 
> Seems that you just had your own therapy session after getting all that off your chest. I hope you feel better. While I would be willing to admit that there may be elements of truth to what you're saying, I'm not buying the one-sided picture of the poor down-trodden modern music masses set upon by frightened traditionalists afraid of a coming apocalypse. In my post I tried to equalize the responsibility for bad behavior. You choose to place it on only one side. Hmm.


You need to deal with the fact that the rest of us never start threads about music we don't like. Only modern music haters do that.


----------



## Art Rock

After 57 pages of discussing modern classical music, we will now spend the next 57 pages discussing the way we discuss modern classical music.


----------



## Strange Magic

Lucas A said:


> When you think about other art forms though, it should be the opposite. In literature, film, and non-classical music, people are more engaged in the newer stuff than the older - there's an urgency to keep abreast of it. Here, there's just a total lack of awareness and curiosity.


Apples and oranges. Literature and film still communicate for the most part in traditional ways using traditional techniques--they want to tell stories or convey experiences that many people will understand. The efforts that don't successfully communicate die quickly of neglect. Non-classical music as a term covers so much territory that one cannot offer any useful generalizations about it at all.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Lucas A said:


> When you think about other art forms though, it should be the opposite. In literature, film, and non-classical music, people are more engaged in the newer stuff than the older - there's an urgency to keep abreast of it.


Is there, though? I mean, okay, I guess somewhat more people pay attention to Karl Ove Knausgård than to John Luther Adams, but then, somewhat more people likewise paid attention to George Eliot than to Brahms. A lot of people pay attention to _popular_ novels, of course, but the equivalent there is of course not classical music but popular music.


----------



## JAS

Strange Magic said:


> Apples and oranges. Literature and film still communicate for the most part in traditional ways using traditional techniques--they want to tell stories or convey experiences that many people will understand. The efforts that don't successfully communicate die quickly of neglect. Non-classical music as a term covers so much territory that one cannot offer any useful generalizations about it at all.


Coincidentally, I am currently listening to Leonard Bernstein make very much the opposite argument (in his 1973 lecture series at Harvard). That does not mean that he is right, of course.


----------



## JAS

isorhythm said:


> You need to deal with the fact that the rest of us never start threads about music we don't like. Only modern music haters do that.


There seems to be a rather odd assumption that the only reason for creating these threads is for some malicious purpose, whatever that might be. Maybe at least some of us are actually _curious_. I don't go in to pop rock forums and ask them anything because I could not possibly be less interested. For "modernist" classical music, I have often been confronted by it, particularly at concerts that also feature more traditional classical music, all played by the same musicians. There is an implication here of relationship that is not present for pop rock or heavy metal and classical (although there may be some examples of that as well, fortunately just ones I have been spared).

The real problem seems to be that too many participants appear to view these threads as some kind of episode of survivor, where the last person standing wins. My view is that there is no "right" answer in these subjects, and no "winning." There is, or should be, only explanation and exploration. That appears to be too much to ask.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

JAS said:


> [...]
> 
> My view is that there is no "right" answer in these subjects, and no "winning." There is, or should be, only explanation and exploration. That appears to be too much to ask.


Actually I was thinking that there had been a shift in the direction of that in recent pages. So, let's explain and listen and explore some more.


----------



## janxharris

isorhythm said:


> You need to deal with the fact that the rest of us never start threads about music we don't like. Only modern music haters do that.


...but I don't hate all modern music and I started the thread.


----------



## JAS

One thing that I am finding very interesting in reading through the various threads is that for those of us who feel very much "cut off" from this "modernist music," we may draw a kind of line, but that line varies considerably for different people. And in most cases, it does not even seem to be a straight line, instead winding in and among various time frames, slicing through the work of a given composer and perhaps even through a given work. 

This is really what I had hoped to get at with my failed thread on describing the differences. There is some element, or set of elements, present or lacking that seem to form these barriers, but I don't have the technical expertise to necessarily identify or explain them, only to recognize them in my own reaction. And it may be that there is some relevant combination of elements, such that we don't particularly like A, but do not mind it in the presence of B and C, or B and E, but not if only A and B alone. Or, we might very much like A, but not mourn its absence if B and C, which we also like are present. (I also admit that here I am using the word "like" quite a bit, which may not be the preferred reaction to music that everyone else has.)

Some of this discussion, if it proceeds, will necessarily have to tolerate negative reactions and questioning of statements made that do not seem to quite work for us. Likewise, even if we are questioning, we have to accept statements being made as genuine even if their inner "truth" is evasive to us. This sort of thing is the necessary meat of a discussion between sides that are not in agreement to begin with. (I have, on occasion, been able to have discussions of this kind on religious topics, but it requires very understanding participants on both sides. I have never been able to do the same on political subjects, with perhaps a few brief moments, possibly because the implications are more direct and tangible. Nothing said in these forums could ever have such momentous implications, I think. The French were very serious about their ballet music in operas, as Verdi and Wagner both discovered, but I don't think anyone ever literally went to war over a symphony.)

But for now, I have more snow to move. (It isn't very deep, but it is unusually heavy, and likely to freeze overnight.)


----------



## Sloe

Nereffid said:


> I'm going to suggest the umbrella term "post-19th-century music". Because when even poor old Poulenc's clarinet sonata is considered a tough sell, it seems to me the reason for its rejection can only be that it's just not 19th-century enough.


This forum really have changed when I joined here I was afraid of being called an imbecile who don´t understand music for not liking two men attaching electronic wires to a tree music now Poulenc is too disturbing.


----------



## Strange Magic

JAS, I suggest you get your hands on a copy of--wait for it--Leonard Meyer's _Music, the Arts, and Ideas_. If you read pp. 5-53, which comprise the three brief chapters Meaning in Music and Information Theory, Value and Greatness in Music, and On Rehearing Music, you will find much to chew upon (my page references are to the 1967 paperback edition). I have parroted Meyer in my own feeble way in several posts in this thread, but I am a poor substitute for the original.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Lucas A said:


> When you think about other art forms though, it should be the opposite. In literature, film, and non-classical music, people are more engaged in the newer stuff than the older - there's an urgency to keep abreast of it. Here, there's just a total lack of awareness and curiosity.


People would be more interested in the newer stuff, if the sound wasn't (most of the time) based on the aesthetics evoking disgust, anger or horror/fear.
If you want music you can listen to varied selection of folk, classical, pop for FREE (youtube).
If you want a freakshow, you can go to the circus or listen to "avantgarde" orchestral. (Like I said before: this music is not classical, being art and orchestral doesn't make it "classical".)
The music of the old masters evokes compassion, love, valour, marvel and (sometimes) humor. 
Guess what prefer most people?


----------



## Chronochromie

BabyGiraffe said:


> People would be more interested in the newer stuff, if the sound wasn't (most of the time) based on the aesthetics evoking disgust, anger or horror/fear.


I haven't got that impression at all. But then your "freakshow" comment later on points out that this may not be a conversation worth having.


----------



## Razumovskymas

EdwardBast said:


> and that they will be seen to join those hordes of hidebound ignoramuses at whom we now snigger, those who once thought The Rite of Spring or Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun or Beethoven's late quartets or Schoenberg's expressionist works - whatever - *were a sign of the coming apocalypse.* After the umpteenth thread motivated by these secret fears, you can imagine those who like contemporary music are apt to get a little testy, wishing their opponents would get therapy or another hobby rather than taking it all out on them - yet again.


Now *that* is the problem with contemporary music. There just isn't anybody that says that it's a sign of the coming apocalypse. If there would be strong reactions like there were on the revolutionary works you mentioned maybe, just maybe people would start to take more interest. And taking it a step further, maybe if critics were a little less polite these days and just saying what they feel like in the past (Brahms vs Liszt for example or the pope vs some dissonants) there would be more polemic discussion that heats up the necessary fire. So maybe the "politeness" you promote is maybe a bad thing for contemporary music?


----------



## Magnum Miserium

JAS said:


> The French were very serious about their ballet music in operas, as Verdi and Wagner both discovered, but I don't think anyone ever literally went to war over a symphony.


Well England once went to war over an ear...



> But for now, I have more snow to move. (It isn't very deep, but it is unusually heavy, and likely to freeze overnight.)


Ok, that's great, but why are we suddenly talking about Bruckner?


----------



## LesCyclopes

Lucas A said:


> When you think about other art forms though, it should be the opposite. In literature, film, and non-classical music, people are more engaged in the newer stuff than the older - there's an urgency to keep abreast of it.


Not really. I remember when I first saw Tracy Emin's "art" installation called 'My Bed' back in 1990s. It did not occur to me that I should "rewire" my brain so that I would appreciate an unmade bed sprinkled with empty bottles, soiled sheets & underwear as "art". I did not feel this "urgency" you speak of.


----------



## janxharris

LesCyclopes said:


> Not really. I remember when I first saw Tracy Emin's "art" installation called 'My Bed' back in 1990s. It did not occur to me that I should "rewire" my brain so that I would appreciate an unmade bed sprinkled with empty bottles, soiled sheets & underwear as "art". I did not feel this "urgency" you speak of.


Wikipedia:

The idea for My Bed was inspired by a sexual yet depressive phase in the artist's life when she had remained in bed for several days without eating or drinking anything but alcohol. When she looked at the vile, repulsive mess that had accumulated in her room, she suddenly realised what she had created. Emin ardently defended My Bed against critics who treated it as a farce and claimed that anyone could exhibit an unmade bed. To these claims the artist retorted, "Well, they didn't, did they? No one had ever done that before."


----------



## Magnum Miserium

janxharris said:


> Emin ardently defended My Bed against critics who treated it as a farce and claimed that anyone could exhibit an unmade bed. To these claims the artist retorted, "Well, they didn't, did they? No one had ever done that before."


Well, she's right.


----------



## janxharris

Magnum Miserium said:


> Well, she's right.


Because..............?


----------



## JAS

Strange Magic said:


> JAS, I suggest you get your hands on a copy of--wait for it--Leonard Meyer's _Music, the Arts, and Ideas_. If you read pp. 5-53, which comprise the three brief chapters Meaning in Music and Information Theory, Value and Greatness in Music, and On Rehearing Music, you will find much to chew upon (my page references are to the 1967 paperback edition). I have parroted Meyer in my own feeble way in several posts in this thread, but I am a poor substitute for the original.


Ordered, Thanks. (There are lots of copies in a dizzying array of prices. Unless it was just a mistake, one person wants over $2,000 for a copy. Maybe that is a special association copy . . . a _very_ special association copy . . . and one that I will not be buying.)


----------



## LesCyclopes

The point is not that nobody had stuck an unmade bed on a podium as "art" before Emin.

The point is that if you think it's art, you are free to enjoy it. Just don't expect everyone to "rewire" their brains to accept it as "art". 

No doubt you see where I'm going with this.


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> ...much of the pleasure derived from music lay in the tension set up by the interplay of satisfied and thwarted expectations as the music unfolded. Much of "non-modernist" music relied and relies heavily upon that interplay, with expected progressions of notes supplied from within the music itself. With a certain percentage of "modernist" musics, especially those following purely mathematical or aleatoric methods of generating trains of notes, there is little chance for the brain to engage in forecasting how a note progression unfolds, and so the satisfaction of expectations must await repeated hearings of the same piece. Thus there is the need for often many repeated hearings of many modernist works so that pure memory itself must and then can supply the necessary satisfaction of expectation, rather than having it be an integral part of the music itself. This means quite a bit of 'extra" mental work for people who just "want to listen to some music" and who have never been previously exposed to the demands--and they are demands--that modernist music imposes.


I believe this view misses the point of much modernism: that it is not narrative, does not depend on long lines of development, and requires no more memory, perhaps less, than older music. It asks only that we "be in the moment."

The 'satisfaction' of fulfilled expectations via root movement and key area is a particular pleasure which tonality creates, but it is by no means the only form that musical pleasure can take. There are other forms of "expectation" as well.


----------



## janxharris

LesCyclopes said:


> The point is not that nobody had stuck an unmade bed on a podium as "art" before Emin.
> 
> The point is that if you think it's art, you are free to enjoy it. Just don't expect everyone to "rewire" their brains to accept it as "art".
> 
> No doubt you see where I'm going with this.


That some modern music works have as much craft as this piece by Emin.


----------



## LesCyclopes

millionrainbows said:


> The 'satisfaction' of fulfilled expectations via root movement and key area is a particular pleasure which tonality creates, but it is by no means the only form that musical pleasure can take. There are other forms of "expectation" as well.


I would be interested to hear more about this. Would you elaborate, with examples?


----------



## LesCyclopes

janxharris said:


> That some modern music works have as much craft as this piece by Emin.


No. I wasn't commenting on "craft" or its lack thereof.

Were the few sentences of mine that you quoted in your post not clear enough?


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> I believe this view misses the point of much modernism: that it is not narrative, does not depend on long lines of development, and requires no more memory, perhaps less, than older music. It asks only that we "be in the moment."
> 
> The 'satisfaction' of fulfilled expectations via root movement and key area is a particular pleasure which tonality creates, but it is by no means the only form that musical pleasure can take. There are other forms of "expectation" as well.


Granted. But the question then is: how rewarding, how fulfilling, therefore how widely accepted or (horrid concept) "popular" will such musics be, compared to narrative musics? Not so much, I'll wager.


----------



## janxharris

LesCyclopes said:


> No. I wasn't commenting on "craft" or its lack thereof.
> 
> Was the few sentences of mine that you quoted in your post not clear enough?


Since any new music work must be judged purely on its sonic merit or otherwise then, no, I'm not really clear as to your point.


----------



## Strange Magic

JAS said:


> Ordered, Thanks. (There are lots of copies in a dizzying array of prices. Unless it was just a mistake, one person wants over $2,000 for a copy. Maybe that is a special association copy . . . a _very_ special association copy . . . and one that I will not be buying.)


Congratulations! You get both Meyer on meaning in music, but also Meyer on the New Stasis in the Arts. Two for the price of one!


----------



## LesCyclopes

janxharris said:


> Since any new music work must be judged purely on its sonic merit or otherwise then, no, I'm not really clear as to your point.


Have you tried rereading my post?

In particular, I recommend the sentence that starts with "The point is...".


----------



## janxharris

LesCyclopes said:


> Have you tried rereading my post?
> 
> In particular, I recommend the sentence that starts with "The point is...".


Read it a few times....I remain nonplussed.

No worries.


----------



## JAS

LesCyclopes said:


> Not really. I remember when I first saw Tracy Emin's "art" installation called 'My Bed' back in 1990s. It did not occur to me that I should "rewire" my brain so that I would appreciate an unmade bed sprinkled with empty bottles, soiled sheets & underwear as "art". I did not feel this "urgency" you speak of.


I have been working on my own 30+ year version of this. I have the unmade bed part pretty much established as a work of art, but will still need to work up to the bottles, soiled sheets and underwear parts. My cat, however, has been helping me with the soiled sheets. (I sometimes think that she comes up on the bed just to show me how lovely is the hairball that she is about to reveal to me.)


----------



## janxharris

Anyone recommend a Francis Poulenc piece please? I don't know his music.


----------



## Strange Magic

janxharris said:


> Anyone recommend a Francis Poulenc piece please? I don't know his music.


You are in for a treat. Try his piano concerto; his concerto for two pianos; his concerto for organ, strings, and timpani for starters.


----------



## Francis Poulenc

janxharris said:


> Anyone recommend a Francis Poulenc piece please? I don't know his music.


Go for Les Mamelles de Tiresias, start with the first act at 6:24:






Also his beautiful piano concerto, of which all three movements are just as brilliant as one another:


----------



## LesCyclopes

Is that soft & fluffy Poulenc stuff what people call "feminine music", then? 

How odd that masculine, oh-so-intellectual men should love it while it sounds like elevator music to me. (Or could it be that we are all individuals, and sex has nothing to do with who likes what.)


----------



## isorhythm

LesCyclopes said:


> Is that soft & fluffy Poulenc stuff what people call "feminine music", then?
> 
> How odd that masculine, oh-so-intellectual men should love it while it sounds like elevator music to me. (Or could it be that we are all individuals, and sex has nothing to do with who likes what.)


I like Poulenc but he's a little fluffy for sure. You might also check out his sacred music, has a little more bite. That was my way in.


----------



## Strange Magic

isorhythm said:


> I like Poulenc but he's a little fluffy for sure.


Fluffy: I looked it up in a textbook on music but couldn't find anything.


----------



## jailhouse

used to watch this video of poulenc playing the two piano concerto himself, such a great piece.





He plays pretty badly though :lol:


----------



## Chronochromie

Strange Magic said:


> Fluffy: I looked it up in a textbook on music but couldn't find anything.


Kinda like "muddy".


----------



## LesCyclopes

isorhythm said:


> I like Poulenc but he's a little fluffy for sure. You might also check out his sacred music, has a little more bite.


Yes, that piece is slightly more interesting than the two posted above it, but not by much IMHO. Personally, I found especially the forced drama of sudden drums etc quite irritating.

I would prefer (by far) Rameau's Laboravi, Kyrie Eleison from Bach's Mass B Minor, and Wir setzen uns mit Tränen nieder from St Matthew's Passion, for example.


----------



## isorhythm

Strange Magic said:


> Fluffy: I looked it up in a textbook on music but couldn't find anything.


Language is a wonderful, endlessly malleable thing!


----------



## isorhythm

LesCyclopes said:


> Yes, that piece is slightly more interesting than the two posted above it, but not by much IMHO. Personally, I found especially the forced drama of sudden drums etc quite irritating.
> 
> I would prefer (by far) Rameau's Laboravi, Kyrie Eleison from Bach's Mass B Minor, and Wir setzen uns mit Tränen nieder from St Matthew's Passion, for example.


Well, no one's gonna argue that Poulenc is Bach. I like him anyway.


----------



## Guest

YT is great in that it allows works to be heard and watched by people who would never have had the opportunity otherwise. It is therefore good for contemporary composers to get their music heard.


----------



## Phil loves classical

LesCyclopes said:


> Is that soft & fluffy Poulenc stuff what people call "feminine music", then?
> 
> How odd that masculine, oh-so-intellectual men should love it while it sounds like elevator music to me. (Or could it be that we are all individuals, and sex has nothing to do with who likes what.)


I think it's the former.


----------



## neofite

DaveM said:


> I believe a broad generalization is possible. It's interesting to me that there is a mixed message coming from the modern music supporters. Some, such as mmsbis acknowledge the distinct general difference most contemporary music and the music that preceded it. Others try to claim that there is nothing general about.
> 
> I am well aware that there are several sub-divisions of modern classical music and that the styles of the more recent composers varies widely. But one thing that _almost_ all of them have in common is that there is not the early presentation of an easily distinguishable melody and the development thereof. Virtually none of this music sounds anything like a Rachmaninoff or the very few 20th century composers whose music stayed somewhat within the realm of the romantic era.


Rachmaninoff was one of the few composers of what I consider "modern" classical/romantic music. He was the culmination of the romantic tradition. After him there was very little, and most of the subsequent music should be placed in a completely different category with a completely different and much more descriptive name, such as "orchestral popular music," (although most of it is certainly not very popular).


----------



## neofite

Magnum Miserium said:


> Ravel is the opposite of Romantic and also like a million times better at melody than Rachmaninoff.


Perhaps. But even if so, he is one of the very few exceptions, exceptions which became increasingly rare as the 20th century "progressed."


----------



## janxharris

I'm currently listening to Stockhausen's 'Gruppen' and Boulez's 'Le Marteau Sans Maitre'....

...simultaneously...


----------



## janxharris

It's interesting.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

neofite said:


> Perhaps. But even if so, he is one of the very few exceptions, exceptions which became increasingly rare as the 20th century "progressed."


There's nothing exceptional about Ravel's melodicism (except that he did it even better than his best contemporaries). Prokofiev, Poulenc, de Falla, Respighi, Rodrigo, Vaughan Williams - like, sorry (not sorry), but early Modernist classical just plain isn't short on melody. (Plus composers like Debussy, the Stravinsky of "Petrushka," and Copland, who aren't exactly melodic but are really popular anyway.)

Later on, sure, the melodists wandered off and wrote "The Wizard of Oz" and "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band." But then pop music seems to be pretty much out of ideas and many classical composers have long since learned to stop worrying and love the triad again, so maybe it'll all turn around again.


----------

