# Recommends for "friendly" sounding modern compositions?



## Major Minor (May 30, 2010)

...OK, I know that's a strange question... but let me explain. I was just listening to Mario Castelnuovo Tedescos Guitar concerto and it occurred to me how it sounded both modern and ... well, friendly. 

A lot of modern Classical has a reputation for being cold and distant (IMO that's a fair assessment of most serial or atonal and many minimalist compositions which only seem to engage the head.) that I began wondering what other pieces would fall under this category?

Any suggestions? 

I posed this question to a friend who began saying "Debussy, Ravel...." and I stopped him because I mean more... well, let's just say 1930's and beyond...


----------



## maestro267 (Jul 25, 2009)

One of the most accessible modern pieces imo is the _Missa Latina (Pro Pace)_ by the Puerto Rican composer Roberto Sierra. It was composed in 2004-06 and it is a 70-minute setting of the Latin Mass text, for soprano and baritone soloists, chorus and orchestra. He uses Latin rhythms (eg. the cha-cha-cha in the Gloria) and Latin percussion instruments (eg bongos, claves etc.) and it is quite a friendly piece to listen to.

There is a recording available on Naxos (8.559624) if you're interested.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

The Castelnuovo-Tedesco guitar concerto really doesn't sound that modern to my ears.



> A lot of modern Classical has a reputation for being cold and distant (IMO that's a fair assessment of most serial or atonal and many *minimalist* compositions which only seem to engage the head.) that I began wondering what other pieces would fall under this category?


I can see where you are coming from about the serial composers but I think most of the minimalist movement is quite ear friendly and generally consonant.

I don't know your degree of knowledge in classical music so you might already be familiar with what I suggest.

Anyway, I'll recommend Alfred Schnittke (Sonata for Cello and Piano) and Toru Takemitsu (Black Rain) for being modern yet friendly and still building on tradition rather than trying to destroy it.

A favourite of mine is Glenn Branca but there's not that much good stuff of his on Youtube.
Try this:




I will add that generally if I want to listen to modern classical I lean towards Stockhausen, Cage and Xenakis over the composers who write stuff that more readily resembles what music was.


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

Major Minor said:


> .A lot of modern Classical has a reputation for being cold and distant (IMO that's a fair assessment of most serial or atonal and many minimalist compositions which only seem to engage the head.) that I began wondering what other pieces would fall under this category?


Actually there's plenty of modern stuff that doesn't fall under serial/atonal or minimalist after 1930...

First, as far as minimalist music goes:John Adams' Harmonielehre[/] is a lovely piece (especally the finale), and his Two Fanfares are fun (especially the trippy "Short Ride in a Fast Machine"). Some Copland sounding stuff is in a lot of his music.

Other stuff off the top of my head:

Copland's, Thrd Symphony, plenty of his stuff (though some of it is a considerbly more dissonant

Much of Takemitsu's music is, to my ear, very warm and accessible, though some people may disagree.

The music of Valentin Silvestrov (partcularly his string 4tets)

There' s quitre a few good English composers post 1930 that are good (Finzi, Tippett_)

Much of shostakovich

oh another Japanese composer is Somei Satoh-- of the orchestral works i"ve heard he's treadig similar ground to takemistsu but a bit more tonal

there's plenty more but i can't think of them all right now.

p.s. no I'm not drunk LOL my back has gone out on me again and im just saying to hell with typos! off to bed!!


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

We live in a cold, distant, harsh, depressing, violent, disturbing, criminal, urban, filthy, polluting, obscene, disgusting and unnatural society and era.

What do you expect?


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> We live in a cold, distant, harsh, depressing, violent, disturbing, criminal, urban, filthy, polluting, obscene, disgusting and unnatural society and era.
> 
> What do you expect?


For music to be an escape from all that. Is it too much to ask?


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Maybe not,
but were no longer in the romantic period, i know that!


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> We live in a cold, distant, harsh, depressing, violent, disturbing, criminal, urban, filthy, polluting, obscene, disgusting and unnatural society and era.
> 
> What do you expect?


Yeah, but at least you've got your mooie windmolens


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2010)

Hmmmm.

Some people here who seem to have no idea about 19th century history.*

And some very strange ideas about music, too, but that's nothing new!

Heigh ho.

*Indeed, what era _ever_ has been free of coldness and depression and violence and filth and crime and so forth? And in what era ever has there been _no_ warmth or beauty or joy or happiness? (And whenever has there been this simple one to one relationship between social "reality" and musical practice?)

And how easy is it** to look back in time and find dozens, hundreds, of pieces who started out sounding harsh and unfriendly to their first listeners only to turn out sounding sweet and friendly to subsequent listeners? There are more people nowadays who prolong the "first listener" experience into the third and fourth generations, but that's hardly the music's fault! All you have to do is find some listeners who DON'T react that way--and that's pretty easy to do, too--to see that there's nothing wrong with the music, necessarily.

**Really, really easy.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Major Minor said:


> I was just listening to Mario Castelnuovo Tedescos Guitar concerto and it occurred to me how it sounded both modern and ... well, friendly





Major Minor said:


> Any suggestions?


I suppose the obvious suggestion would be Rodrigo's music, but whether it sounds modern is debatable.


----------



## Il Seraglio (Sep 14, 2009)

Going on personal experience Reich, Gorecki, Part, Rautavaara, Shostakovich and Prokofiev are pretty good for the uninitiated or those that don't gravitate heavily towards C20th music.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Lets not make assumptions as to my 'ideas' about 19th C or 20th C music.

The post was originally intended to be less serious then it sounded. Unfortunate.

In any case, yes I do believe that music has taken on a much harsher and uglier face since the 2nd World War. An event which shattered many lives and ravaged this entire continent. It still looms over the lives of most of the people still living here. Of course the three of you are not from the continent so it may be entirely different for you 

And conversely I do believe that the romantic era, lived up to its name and was an era where man dreamed of other worlds and other lives. And I do believe that such an era is over. At least it seems that way from the music I am aware of.


----------



## Major Minor (May 30, 2010)

Well, thanks for those that took the time to make recommendations. 

I love quite a bit of Minimalism, to set the record straight Especially Reich's non vocal oriented pieces. "Octet", for example never fails to put me in a blissful state. (but it seems to exist mostly in the head... not so much the body.) And I'm not unaware of how subjective most of these statements are... just hoping for a few recommends is all. Minimalism, as much as I love it doesn't have the same "warmth" or "Friendly" tone as the Castelnuovo Tedesco piece... 

And before we get into too much semantic quibbling I don't mean that in a "one is good the other is bad" judgemental sense, just that the C.T. guitar concerto REALLY hit the spot for me lately and was wondering what else there might be to stroll down that path for a while.

The English composers suggestion was good, I love a lot of Walton's work.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I think Shostakovich's Jazz suites (particularly no. 2) and Ballet Suites are very friendly.

Kabalevsky too! It was his luck that his job as a servant of the USSR was to make children's music, which is did very well. Take the Comedian's Suite.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Friendly? Rodrigo for certain. I'll think of more by the time I get home.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I'm not sure if Prokofiev and Shostakovich are really "modern" any more,since their music has 
already been performed and recorded for such a long time. Prokofiev lived from 1891 to 1953,and Shostakovich from 1906 to 1975. 
They're both truly great composers,and not all of their music is easy listening by any means.
They wrote their share of pretty dissonant music,too. 
Prokofiev's symphony no. 1, the so-called "classical" is a very pleasant and tuneful work, but his ferociously dissonant 2nd symphony is a tough nut to crack,for example.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

Khachaturian.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Well this is a good opportunity to once again champion my favorite local composer, Conni Ellisor.

http://www.ellisormusic.com/

Try out the samples of her _Conversations in Silence_ on her compositions link. (I think it requires Flash or some such.) I find her compositions down home friendly yet sometimes with a very modern feel. They often make me smile.


----------



## Major Minor (May 30, 2010)

Wow... how strange. My last name is Ellis and I just put up one of my tracks called "Silent Conversations"
in the "Todays Composers" section... what are the chances?


----------



## Major Minor (May 30, 2010)

I enjoyed her piece, by the way...


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

Most 'friendly' modern compositions maybe gone post Stravinsky era. From my limited listening most modern composer tends to use bizzare melody (atonality), atmospheric effects (a sudden timpany or xylophone playing) or experimental song structure. I am going to say they lack the creativity to stick in straightforward melody orientated piece as in Eine Kleine. 

however, non western composer like Akira Ifukube still got that friendly, sweet and beautiful piece. But this is more because they also go into new age philosophy and result in their piece have some new age sounding.


----------



## Guest (Jun 8, 2010)

Try Alan Hovhaness, especially Mysterious Mountain.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I'd add American composer *George Antheil *(1900-59). He was kind of an enfant terrible at first, but mellowed considerably later on. The Naxos cd I have not only has his dissonant Bartokian _Ballet Mecanique_, but three other works in a kind of modern neo-classical vein, _Serenade for String Orchestra No. 1, Symphony for 5 instruments_ and the _Concerto for Chamber Orchestra._ All of these works all revolve around single themes and are quite holistic and integrated (so, easy to understand, I guess). For example, in the _Serenade_, the theme is given a Copland-like hoedown treatment in the first movement, then in the second slow movement he makes it sound like Vaughan Williams, then in the finale it has the bouyancy and bounciness of Prokofiev. Quite accessible, but modern at the same time, I think.

Similarly, Antheil's compatriot and contemporary *Henry Cowell* (1897-1965) also composed many works in a neo-baroque/classical style. Just check out the two Naxos cd's, with solo piano, chamber and vocal works performed by the New York based contemporary ensemble, Continuum. They are excellent and quite accessible.

It's a pity that both of the above composers are hardly known, because I think their music is very interesting, a fusion of old and new.

I would also recommend many of the works of_ *Les Six*_, especially Honegger, Milhaud and Poulenc...


----------



## Major Minor (May 30, 2010)

Thanks everyone for the great recommends... and YES! on the Hovhaness I really fell deep into his music recently... just gorgeous (And a fellow Washington State resident to boot! )


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

When it comes to modern and friendly, I'm rather taken by Guibaidulina's 'In Croce'; Gorecki's string quartet no. III (although others will prefer his parallel epic - the Symphony No.3 with Dawn Upshaw, soprano); Szymanowski's 'Stabat Mater', Messiaen's 'Vingt Regards' for organ, or Kodaly's solo Cello Sonata or Te Deum/Missa Brevis; Poulenc's harpsichord concerto; George Enescu's Vox Maris or 'Villageoise Symphony'; Myaskovsky's two cello sonatas; complete piano sonatas and string quartets minus quartets no. I & IV. 

I'm not a good judge of what constitutes 'friendly' modern music though. If it's anything from the official Composer's Union in the Soviet written in the key of C major, I'd skip it.


----------



## JAKE WYB (May 28, 2009)

*Martinu * does very friendly in his more bright and breezy works - symphonies 1,2,4 are exceptionally welcoming to listen to because they are both very modern and yet have a wonderful sense of familiarity and comfortingness


----------



## Il Seraglio (Sep 14, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> We live in a cold, distant, harsh, depressing, violent, disturbing, criminal, urban, filthy, polluting, obscene, disgusting and unnatural society and era.
> 
> What do you expect?


You say that as if previous centuries were any different.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Il Seraglio said:


> You say that as if previous centuries were any different.


If you would please look at my previous post you would see my explanation.

And yes i do not believe previous centuries were entirely similar. 
Commercial coal mining began in 1730, the Industrial Revolution also began around this time. Before this we did not pollute, we did not use concrete, we did not have machinery.
Socially we did not live in the dense urban complexes we now inhabit.

And please, I no longer wish to derail this thread.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

Listen to Edmund Rubbra. He fits your time range (born in 1901, died 1986) and is definitely friendly; he remained tonal or modal throughout his career, yet still maintained a distinctly "modern" style. Listen to his viola concerto first; it's really one of his big masterpieces, and my favorite viola concerto, if not my favorite concerto of any instrument.


----------



## TWhite (Feb 23, 2010)

I'd definitely include Hovanness as 'friendly' to the ears. I've heard quite a bit of his music and I like it a lot--"Mysterious Mountain" has become a kinda/sorta 'introduction' to his particular style. For me, it's very easy on the ears, and has a very hypnotic aura to it. 

I wouldn't bypass Lowell Liebermann, either. I just recently heard his Second Piano Concerto, and it's a very contemporary 'throwback' to the 19th Century virtuoso style while sounding extremelly 1980's. A very interesting work. What I've heard of Liebermann I like quite a bit. 

Of course there's Copland, especially his more 'accessable' music--"El Salon Mexico" which is a real orchestral treat, and the ballet scores "Appalachian Spring", "Billy The Kid" and especially "Rodeo". And I certainly wouldn't discount his Third Symphony, a marvelously "American" work. 

Samuel Barber for me is very easy on the ears--both his Violin and Piano Concertos, but especially his songs--they are some of the best Art Songs written in the 20th Century. And if you want to hear a piano work that will knock you back against the wall (but in a fascinating way), try his Piano Sonata. It manages to be both incredibly modern and psuedo-romantic at the same time. 

And you can't go wrong with the Korngold Violin Concerto--it was written in the 1950's but manages to sound both modern and ultra-Viennese Romantic at the same time. It's a real treat, IMO.

Some other 'friendly' 20th Century composers for me: 
Prokofiev (often, but not always)
Shostakovitch
Khatchaturian 
Roy Harris
Manuel deFalla (though he's more of a contemporary of Debussy and Ravel)
Rodrigo (Spanish music by its very nature seems to be always 'contemporary')
Alberto Ginastera (take a listen to his absolutely thrilling "Estancia" ballet suite)
Heitor Villa-Lobos



Tom


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I'd like to add Australian composer Elena Kats-Chernin. Some of her works sound quite contemporary but still accessible. Take her _Piano Concerto No. 2,_ which has a mixture of Chopin, blues, cabaret and minimalism. & a minimalist feel is what is quite dominant in her _Wild Swans _concert suite (from the ballet) for soprano and orchestra. The music of this piece was based on Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale.

Funnily enough, I have just been listening to the Barber_ Piano Sonata_, mentioned above. I'd say that if you think that's "accessible," then so is Berg. There's not a whole world of difference between their two piano sonatas, even though they were written about 40 years apart. I think that Barber is a kind of "one-stop shop" of C20th music, because he experimented with so many approaches to music. There's Romanticism, Impressionism, Modernism, atonality, jazz/blues in his music, depending on which piece you listen to. So I think he's a good composer to begin with if you want to get into C20th music, and American music in particular...


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Poulenc, Britten ?


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

The piano studies by Ligeti too.


----------



## Guest (Jun 9, 2010)

Well, at least one person should reject the OP's premise, don't you think? All this guessing about friendliness--and remarkably consistent, too--is starting to give me hives. Or muscle spasms.

Or both.

But what's friendly to one isn't necessarily friendly to another. Most of the pieces so far proposed would just make me vomit. Well, gag anyway. At least I'd have to clear my throat once or twice.

But enough of the hyperbole (comment inserted for the exaggerationally-challenged). On to a list of pieces that at least one listener has found to be friendly. (This is a short list.)

*Robert Ashley, In Sara, Mencken, Christ and Beethoven there were men and women.* Almost preternaturally seductive piece. When I was getting rid of my LPs after lugging them around for several decades, I burned my favorites onto CDs. This was one of the LPs I had never listened to, so I put it on the machine to see if it were something I wanted a copy of. Oh yes. It was!

*Alvin Lucier, I am sitting in a room.* When the CD of this came out, I had to buy it, since I'd for some strange reason never had this classic on LP. I had it in the CD player of my car once when my youngest son borrowed the car for a longish trip. Next day he comes up to me, eyes huge, to ask about that piece, which he literally could not take out of the player. He must have played this piece three or four times in a row. I told him a little about it, and that was fine, but he also mentioned it to his music teacher the next day, who said, "Oh, yeah. That was the defining piece for a whole generation!"

*Alice Shields, Coyote.* This is one of those instantly appealing pieces, and one that stays appealiing after any number of listens. It's the section from her electronic opera _Shaman_ where the shaman turns into a coyote and back into a shaman. The whole opera, sadly, has never been recorded. This piece was my middle son's favorite piece growing up.

*Edgard Varèse, Poème électronique.* And speaking of favorites, this was for a long time my favorite electroacoustic piece, the standard by which I measured all others, unfortunately. (It took me many years to get to where I could recognize Xenakis' _Bohor_ as the brilliant piece it is.) Many years later, when my first son was 17, he called from his mom's house to ask if I knew any good composition schools. After I stopped hyperventilating, I was able to suggest two or three. (He eventually graduated from University of California, Santa Cruz, with a degree in computer music composition.) Long story short, the Varèse was what had started him off, too.

Well, I could go on. But I think the good folk at TalkClassical might like to have another list, possibly more important than any other that's been proposed so far, and that is a list of pieces that were unfriendly at first but turned out to be favorites after awhile. (But first, a mention of *Christian Marclay.* I found everything by him to be instantly appealing. Still do.)

*Xenakis, Bohor.[/I*_] Like I said. This was too spare. Too "monochromatic." Not various or dramatic enough. Pffft. Listener defect. The piece is fine. I had to learn to be a better listener.

*Phill Niblock.* Same here. Too spare. Too long and all the same. Hah. Wrong again!!

*Gordon Mumma, Hornpipe. * I got an LP of the Sonic Arts Union back in the early seventies, when I was first starting to explore 20th century music. It was too much for me, at first, though Mumma's piece was the easiest for me to "appreciate."

*Luciano Berio, Visages.* Too much. Way too much, even for a hardened veteran of two or three years, like myself. (Meaning I first ran into this about three years after I first heard Bartók's Concerto for Orchestra, which is what started everything for me.) Of course, it is now perfectly nice and pleasant. Some things take a little time.

Indeed, the message here is simply "give it time." Don't go looking for "friendly" pieces. Don't be too quick to reject pieces that don't sound "friendly" to you immediately. There's a great big world of music out there. Why approach it with limits? Why confine yourself to finding things that are "friendly" to you today. What's today? It's only where you are in your journey. (Are you even still journeying?)

I never liked Sibelius, at first, nor Prokofiev. They both became two of my favorites. Same with Scelsi and Niblock. And Niblock didn't "break through" for me until I was fifty-seven. It's never too late, eh?_


----------



## Major Minor (May 30, 2010)

some guy said:


> Well, at least one person should reject the OP's premise, don't you think?


Yes, thank you so much for restoring balance to the universe.


----------



## Guest (Jun 9, 2010)

Hahaha, yes.

At least _my_ dizzy spell has passed!!


----------



## Major Minor (May 30, 2010)

Now THIS is my idea of warm friendly sound... I just got this and while I love Naxos for making many Hovhaness pieces available for listening I have to say the recorded sound of this is so thick, full and lush... well I just wish they could all sound this good.... Actually all the pieces on here fit my criteria perfectly.


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2010)

Major Minor said:


> Now THIS is my idea of warm friendly sound... I just got this and while I love Naxos for making many Hovhaness pieces available for listening I have to say the recorded sound of this is so thick, full and lush... well I just wish they could all sound this good.... Actually all the pieces on here fit my criteria perfectly.


I just bought that too and I totally agree. Great piece, great performance and very nice sound.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

some guy said:


> *Robert Ashley, In Sara, Mencken, Christ and Beethoven there were men and women.*


I tried listening to this but some rude idiot was talking through the recording and ruined it.



some guy said:


> *Alvin Lucier, I am sitting in a room.*


The same thing happened here! 

Okay, I give up.


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2010)

Just so long as you don't give up your day job to go into comedy.

That would be disastrous!!


----------



## Major Minor (May 30, 2010)

From "Some guy"
"Don't go looking for "friendly" pieces. Don't be too quick to reject pieces that don't sound "friendly" to you immediately. There's a great big world of music out there. Why approach it with limits? Why confine yourself to finding things that are "friendly" to you today. What's today? It's only where you are in your journey. (Are you even still journeying?)"


Actually "Some guy" you missed the point completely. I went out of my way to point out that I'm not saying one way of composing is better than another I said very clearly this was just a stream I was interested in exploring a little further >right now<. I am not an inexperienced listener, I know what you are saying that some modern pieces take time, but that is neither here nor there. I am looking for a certain sound that appeals to me at the moment, that's all. 

My view is that the full range of human experience is and should be expressed in music -ALL OF IT-.

I just had a taste right now at the moment for that "friendly" sound I heard in the Castel Nueovo piece.

The thing is I knew full well that when I started this thread it would only be a matter of time before I was lectured on how wanting to hear a "friendly" sound was wrong.

What I'd propose for you as a question is why "friendly" is so often rejected as a valid form of artistic expression? It's a human emotion and a perfectly valid one, but here in our airless, cheerless post modern "utopia" it is always looked down upon as some inferior means of expression. 

Well, at least you offered suggestions unlike the utterly unhelpful lectures of "emiellucifuge" ;-)


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

I happened to hear La Vega (The Plain) by Isaac Albeniz in this arrangement: http://www.wqxr.org/recordings/1881/ on the radio today. Thought it sounded friendly and modern. Had a guitar in it too.


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2010)

Maj, I haven't lectured you on how wanting to hear a "friendly" sound was wrong.

Who has looked down on "friendly" as an inferior means of expression? (Or even as any sort of expression?) Means of expression was certainly never part of my point. My point was simply that since "friendly" will vary from person to person (although, as I noted, the responses had been alarmingly consistent!), you will not get a list of "friendly" pieces. You will get lists of pieces that people have found to be "friendly," as in my list, and you will get lists of pieces that people _guess_ that you will find to be friendly. If you had looked carefully at my lists, both of them, you would have found that they both contained pieces that some listeners would find off-putting, viz. Weston's post. But I distinguished between those "modern pieces" by identifying some as immediately appealing to me and some as not. Didn't you notice that? Or the comment about Sibelius and Prokofiev (both of whom have been characterized here as "friendly"--both of whom seemed "unfriendly" to me, _at first_).

Your earlier comment about "balance" was much more to the point, I think.

P.S., Where is this "airless, cheerless post modern 'utopia'" you mention?

P.S.S., "always"?????


----------



## Major Minor (May 30, 2010)

Some guy:
I still think you missed my point, which was that I am looking for a sort of "If you like "A" you might like "B" reaction and I had to use some terms I found the Castel Nuovo piece to be ... I chose "Friendly" and yes I'm not unaware of the semantics of it might mean something entirely different to someone else... but then again it still is the best way to find other pieces that are what I'm looking for... as a matter of fact there have been some great suggestions and many of them have really hit the spot for me.. And yeah that second to last paragraph does in fact sound a bit lecturing... however:

Going beyond that I wouldn't take what I wrote too much to heart as directed to you personally.

as for: "Where is this "airless, cheerless post modern 'utopia'" you mention? "
That would be almost every music forum I go to where any mention of positive qualities in music are inevitably pounced on and corrected for being not valid expressions. I see / hear these reactions everywhere, actually. I don't understand it and I do see it as a post modern knee-jerk reaction.
Again I think every human experience should be expressed musically and a quick review of my CD library would prove that I listen to all kinds... but I do regularly see this reaction against joy, happiness, friendliness etc. etc. causing people to say things like " Most of the pieces so far proposed would just make me vomit"......

I didn't specifically mean here in this forum, most people in this thread have been helpful


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I know what you are talking about, Some Guy. Many pieces I have listened to recently only become "friendly" after about 5 listens, or so. Not everything grabs me immediately, and often I only come to understand the piece after many months of not listening to it, going away and thinking about it, reading about the composer's life & historical context, or even going to a concert where the piece is played live. Many composers were innovative in their own time, but now their music may not sound that way. Pieces like Milhaud's _Creation of the Earth_, which is full of polyrhythms and jazzy inflections, were definitely very groundbreaking back in the 1920's, but today, they sound a bit like maybe a less "Romanticised" take on classical jazz (eg. Gershwin's _Rhapsody in Blue_, composed about only one year later, but totally different in many ways).

I also think it's worth exploring a composer beyond his/her most popular works, because there is sure to be SOMETHING that grabs you out of their often diverse and varied output. Like I'm not a huge fan of Copland's "Americana" works, but I really dig some of his lesser-known works like the _Piano Concerto_ or _Piano Sonata_ (& I haven't gotten around to hearing some of his post-1945 serial works yet). There is a whole world of music out there, all you have to do is "pluck it from the air" so to speak (to quote Edward Elgar!). I even think that some of the reputedly more "challenging" stuff, like by the Second Viennese School, is quite accessible after a few listens. I strongly disagree with critics who say their music has no melody (& I recently read a reviewer on the internet who was saying it is unmelodious - which is clearly wrong). You have to listen on a deeper level to find out what is going on beneath the surface...


----------



## JAKE WYB (May 28, 2009)

Schnittke - Not a Midsummer nights Dream( has creepy undertones but also a curiously beckoning listen ..)


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2010)

Major Minor said:


> as for: "Where is this "airless, cheerless post modern 'utopia'" you mention? "
> That would be almost every music forum I go to where any mention of positive qualities in music are inevitably pounced on and corrected for being not valid expressions.


I couldn't agree more. Every time any interesting composer from say Schoenberg on is mentioned on a forum, someone pounces. As Andre just pointed out, Schoenberg's dodecaphony is described as nonmelodic. As well, Cage's experimental pieces aren't really music, Xenakis is just noise, Stockhausen doesn't make any sense, and on and on it goes. It's as if "sweet" were the only valid taste for food. Sour, bitter, harsh aren't valid* tastes.

It's as if the war cry of classical listeners is BLAND RULES!!!

Doesn't seem like a very exciting cry on the face of it, but it has united thousands of online posters.

*or pleasant


----------



## Major Minor (May 30, 2010)

some guy said:


> I couldn't agree more.


Seems to me more like you could, but prefer to be clever.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I am dissapointed that people have taken my original post so seriously, as explained in a later post I primarily meant it as a light-hearted comment. In any case I never wished to hijack the thread, nor write "lectures" or be negative.

As for recommendations; I do not believe many of the pieces mentioned are 'modern' !


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2010)

Major Minor said:


> Seems to me more like you could, but prefer to be clever.


Well, yes, that would certainly let you off the hook, anyway.

Were it true.

Anyway, way to engage with the ideas, Maj!


----------



## Major Minor (May 30, 2010)

What are you talking about? What "Hook"? 
That Classical fans tend to like things you don't?
That "difficult, sour, bitter, and harsh" somehow by not being what you consider "bland"
is automatically deeper?

If you'd read what I wrote you'd notice I mention my library does in fact includes these, I suppose "negative" sounds and that they were just as valid and that this "friendly" sound I was looking for was just a path I wanted to check out further, -not- that it was somehow better.

You seem bent on playing this "king of the difficult music" hill where you want to win a contest you make the rules up to. I'm tired of repeating myself to those who refuse to listen.

Thanks to everyone else who made great suggestions.


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2010)

Hahaha, good one, Maj.

But not good enough.

I'm not playing king of anything, nor am I making or changing any rules.

I don't find the music you've called "difficult" to be at all difficult, for starters.

I don't find the values you call "negative" to be negative.

Nothing else that you've made up about what I think is close to true, either. You have no idea what I like. I never claimed, nor even implied that "difficult [your addition], sour, bitter, or harsh" meant "deeper."

I question the cliches about modern or contemporary music that this thread and threads like it raise. Yes.

About what you want to listen to at any particular time, about its importance in the eternal scheme of things, I have and have had nothing to say. (It seems like that's your real gripe. Why don't I talk about what you want me to talk about?)


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

.....is it just me, or is there some kind of forum 'irony', whereby, threads with the words:

*
'friendly' * - yield unfriendly discourse 
*'charitable'* - yields equally uncharitable exchanges 

Hmmm. Must be just me. I'd better leave the room


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

I blame Schoenberg for starting it all.
Don't get me wrong, he was a truly great composer and one of the great musical minds of the 20th century but, _his_ solution to _his_ compositional problem ( how to give form and coherence to a work when the basic concept of 'key' had been eroded by the increasing chromaticism post Wagner) was taken up and expanded to silliness by subsequent generations. Boulez, Stockhausen, Babbit Maxwell Davies...and on. The method became the thing....why would you want to serialise pitch, rhythm, dynamics etc...I'll tell you why, cos it's easier than writing a tune.
The same goes for more contemporary music. Listen or read a review and all the reviewer can say is things about, colour and texture and atmospheric this and clusters of that as if that was what music is.
There are exceptions but if you think the public ( the serious music loving public) are ever going to get excited by the prospect of hearing George Benjamin's or Harrison Birtwistle's latest or a recently discovered Henze .....think again.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Petwhac said:


> I blame Schoenberg for starting it all.
> Don't get me wrong, he was a truly great composer and one of the great musical minds of the 20th century but, _his_ solution to _his_ compositional problem ( how to give form and coherence to a work when the basic concept of 'key' had been eroded by the increasing chromaticism post Wagner) was taken up and expanded to silliness by subsequent generations. Boulez, Stockhausen, Babbit Maxwell Davies...and on. The method became the thing....why would you want to serialise pitch, rhythm, dynamics etc...I'll tell you why, cos it's easier than writing a tune.
> The same goes for more contemporary music. Listen or read a review and all the reviewer can say is things about, colour and texture and atmospheric this and clusters of that as if that was what music is.
> There are exceptions but if you think the public ( the serious music loving public) are ever going to get excited by the prospect of hearing George Benjamin's or Harrison Birtwistle's latest or a recently discovered Henze .....think again.


Why blame Schoenberg. Why not blame the first dude who decided to add a fifth to his plainchant. Single melodic lines sung in unison - now that's what I call music.

I've done a little bit of composing using the twelve tone method and can say I find it a lot harder to write something I like in that style than I can using other methods. The restrictions of the 12 note tone row as opposed to the freedom of being able to use any sonic frequency one desires ramp up the difficulty of composing something I find satisfactory drastically. Whereas anyone can write a nice little ditty using the major scale.

But I disagree with you for another reason. I don't see there being any kind of over-arching system that unites all contemporary music. The monophony, polyphony, counterpoint, homophony, atonal, twelve tone descriptors may be useful for describing periods of the past but know each composer is free to use whatever technique and tools they want to get the effect they want.

I think you make the mistake of combining the serious music loving public with the general public. The general public doesn't like anything thats not on commercial radio. The serious music loving public like and get excited by every kind of music you can imagine.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I wish more composers would explore microtonal compositions. That would give them the opportunity to be quite modern (although I understand Rameau experimented with 24 tones) while still being somewhat accessible with clearly hummable melodies. Very very few people would hum Schoenberg in the shower though I suppose it could be done.

Then again I don't exactly go around humming _The Art of the Fugue _in the shower either.

Anyway - microtonal is cool.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Argus said:


> Why blame Schoenberg. Why not blame the first dude who decided to add a fifth to his plainchant. Single melodic lines sung in unison - now that's what I call music.
> 
> I've done a little bit of composing using the twelve tone method and can say I find it a lot harder to write something I like in that style than I can using other methods. The restrictions of the 12 note tone row as opposed to the freedom of being able to use any sonic frequency one desires ramp up the difficulty of composing something I find satisfactory drastically. Whereas anyone can write a nice little ditty using the major scale.
> 
> ...


To address your points in reverse order. I have studied music to degree level and I know countless professional musicians who play in orchestras and ensembles. By day they often have to play or record a lot of contemporary pieces and in the evening the go home and for pleasure they'll listen to Schubert or Stravinsky or Janacek or John Adams. Why is this? Something went wrong somewhere because if professional musicians struggle with atonality, what chance the rest.
I agree about the general public, in fact, I'll go further and say 90% of people don't give two hoots about music that doesn't have vocals. Including Jazz!
Music is a very special art form and completely abstract. It is about patterns, and the glory of 'Western Art Music' is that in the hands of a great composer, these patterns can send shivers down the spine, a lump in the throat, tears in the eyes and the pulse racing..all in one piece. I truly believe that only HARMONY can achieve this..

It is indeed difficult to write good 12 tone music but it is harder to write good tonal (not only diatonic) music because there is nowhere to hide. Anyone can write a nice little ditty in the major scale but only a great composer can write something in the major scale that is worth hearing twice!
Beethoven's 6th Symphony has long passages that use only chords I, IV and V but from them he can fashion every nuance of human emotion.
Listen to most contemporary classical music and the overriding feeling is bleak, desolate, angsty or dreamy, floaty and still. Yes, there are exceptions but they are rare.


----------



## Major Minor (May 30, 2010)

some guy said:


> Hahaha, good one, Maj.
> 
> But not good enough.


Typical troll... you haven't answered my question of what "Hook" you're talking about but keep demanding I answer your questions to your arbitrary satisfaction as if this was a game you get to make up the rules to.... That's why after this I'm done talking to you... I'm tired of chasing the ADHD qualities of your posts.


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2010)

Petwhac said:


> [The] glory of 'Western Art Music' is that in the hands of a great composer, [it] can send shivers down the spine, a lump in the throat, tears in the eyes and the pulse racing..all in one piece. I truly believe that only HARMONY can achieve this.


Perhaps for you, at where you are in your journey, this is true. But for others, at different places in different journeys, this is simply not true. There are all sorts of things that can affect us this way, and for all sorts of reasons. I just got a lump in my throat listening to Nielsen's _Aladdin._ The last time that happened happened to be with an anthology of music from the fifties and sixties by Cage and Stockhausen and Kagel. The time before was at a turntable concert. The time before that was at the Chatelet production of Berlioz' _Les Troyens._ (There may have been some other times in between 2003 and 2009!)



Petwhac said:


> Listen to most contemporary classical music and the overriding feeling is bleak, desolate, angsty or dreamy, floaty and still. Yes, there are exceptions but they are rare.


I do listen to most contemporary classical music. There is no one overriding feeling. Or even two. The exceptions, as you call them, are legion.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Petwhac said:


> Music is a very special art form and completely abstract. It is about patterns, and the glory of 'Western Art Music' is that in the hands of a great composer, these patterns can send shivers down the spine, a lump in the throat, tears in the eyes and the pulse racing..all in one piece. I truly believe that only HARMONY can achieve this.


Anytime time two voices are sounded simultaneously there is harmony or when sounded in succession there is implied harmony. Whether these follow any kind of rigid structure or are completely random, the harmonic effects are still perceptible. Therefore, I don't understand what your last sentence means. The only time I can think of when harmony is not a consideration is when the music consists of a single fundamental pitch repeated throughout.



> It is indeed difficult to write good 12 tone music but it is harder to write good tonal (not only diatonic) music because there is nowhere to hide. Anyone can write a nice little ditty in the major scale but only a great composer can write something in the major scale that is worth hearing twice!
> Beethoven's 6th Symphony has long passages that use only chords I, IV and V but from them he can fashion every nuance of human emotion.
> Listen to most contemporary classical music and the overriding feeling is bleak, desolate, angsty or dreamy, floaty and still. Yes, there are exceptions but they are rare.


I'm not knocking any of the past masters who used the frameworks of diatonicism or modality to great effect but I am saying it's time has passed as the rule in the world of classical music. Composers are of course free to use tonal methods, but they are not restricted to them either.

As for your last paragraph, you have to ask why do they sound that way to you. For me something like Holst's _Jupiter_ from _The Planets _or Neil Young's _Old Man _ are filled with emotion for me but I can't explain why they make me feel the way I do when listening to them. Whereas something like Terry Riley's _A Rainbow in Curved Air _ I love also, yet I feel no overriding emotion when listening to it, I just enjoy the sounds. It's all just organised sounds in the same way Cage or Feldman or Stockhausen arranged sounds in their music. The questions are where do these emotions come from and why are they only applicable to certain combinations of sounds? Is it a natural phenomena or a learned behaviour acquired from our culture and experience throughout our life?

It's like ice cream. Just because I don't like mint or coffee flavoured ice cream doesn't mean I don't wish those flavours existed. I can still get a strawberry or chocolate ice cream if I fancy it. I'd rather there was people making all kinds of music even if I don't like most of it than only have available a few kinds/styles.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Argus said:


> As for your last paragraph, you have to ask why do they sound that way to you. For me something like Holst's _Jupiter_ from _The Planets _or Neil Young's _Old Man _ are filled with emotion for me but I can't explain why they make me feel the way I do when listening to them. Whereas something like Terry Riley's _A Rainbow in Curved Air _ I love also, yet I feel no overriding emotion when listening to it, I just enjoy the sounds. It's all just organised sounds in the same way Cage or Feldman or Stockhausen arranged sounds in their music. The questions are where do these emotions come from and why are they only applicable to certain combinations of sounds? Is it a natural phenomena or a learned behaviour acquired from our culture and experience throughout our life?


I believe this effect is similar to what I experience (to a far lesser degree) with poetry, for instance. I may be able to understand poetry written in a language other than English, but may never truly feel it on the level of someone for whom it is their primary language. I may understand Goethe on an intellectual level, but will never quite get the same level of emotion as I get from Robert Frost or Dylan Thomas.

The common practice musical language is what most of us in the western world would consider native to us. I think this is partly due to the mathematical relationship between the pitches, but even more it is the ability to use the musical language to set up expectations. It is very satisfying to be set up for an expectation of a phrase resolving toward the tonic, for instance, but then have it do something completely differrent. When _every_ note is unexpected, then none of them are.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Weston said:


> I believe this effect is similar to what I experience (to a far lesser degree) with poetry, for instance. I may be able to understand poetry written in a language other than English, but may never truly feel it on the level of someone for whom it is their primary language. I may understand Goethe on an intellectual level, but will never quite get the same level of emotion as I get from Robert Frost or Dylan Thomas.
> 
> The common practice musical language is what most of us in the western world would consider native to us. I think this is partly due to the mathematical relationship between the pitches, but even more it is the ability to use the musical language to set up expectations. It is very satisfying to be set up for an expectation of a phrase resolving toward the tonic, for instance, but then have it do something completely differrent. When _every_ note is unexpected, then none of them are.


Yes indeed. I agree with Weston.

This is fun and I love to debate these issues that I have been wrestling with for decades.

I know I have been oversimplifying and of course diversity is a good thing.
There are no rules in art and everyone is free to listen to or write whatever 'does it' for them.

This is a given.

However, and apologies to those who don't have any technical knowledge, but it is not possible to discuss music without a minimum of 'jargon'

Go to the piano and play a C major triad followed by a C minor triad. What is happening here. The second chord is a 'darkening' a 'saddening' of the first.
The history of western music shows that from plainchant through organum through baroque, classical, romantic etc. composers have been exploring and using the concept of consonance and dissonance, harmonic tension and release, harmonic progression as the primary structural and motive force in composition.

The minor triad is dissonant relative to the major. In renaissance music anything but a unison or octave or 5th was considered a dissonance.

Music composed with 12 tones, magic squares, serialism and non western systems cannot do what 'tonal' music can. And by tonal I mean any music with some kind of chordal 'pull' or sense of progression.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Weston said:


> I believe this effect is similar to what I experience (to a far lesser degree) with poetry, for instance. I may be able to understand poetry written in a language other than English, but may never truly feel it on the level of someone for whom it is their primary language. I may understand Goethe on an intellectual level, but will never quite get the same level of emotion as I get from Robert Frost or Dylan Thomas.
> 
> The common practice musical language is what most of us in the western world would consider native to us. I think this is partly due to the mathematical relationship between the pitches, but even more it is the ability to use the musical language to set up expectations. It is very satisfying to be set up for an expectation of a phrase resolving toward the tonic, for instance, but then have it do something completely differrent. When _every_ note is unexpected, then none of them are.


That analogy to language makes sense to a point so I'll continue it a little further.

Languages evolve. People don't speak Old English or Middle English anymore and these forms of the language have become obsolete. The English language continues to evolve today. Some words become less frequent and virtually unused and new words are invented all the time. Then there is a purely invented language like Esperanto which is designed to be a lingua franca.

To relate this back to music most people can see a clear evolution from plainsong through to chromatic diatonicism of late 19th/early 20th century. Now why don't many people accept that atonality and twelve tone along with many other sound arrangement methods are directly descended from the Western music tradition. They aren't that different from the preceding generation of music. Much uses the same twelve notes, the same instruments, similar rhythms etc. Schoenberg wanted to invent his own musical version of Esperanto as he felt that diatonic harmony had reached it's limits and that continuing to compose in that style would be both stale, static and detrimental to the art in general.

But the area where the language analogy fails is that language is designed to describe specific things. Words without meaning are nothing but sounds or symbols. But sounds without meaning are still sounds. Music doesn't have to communicate anything to me for me to be able to enjoy it.

In response to your last sentence, I say why should they be expected or unexpected. The expectations soon become cliches and so common that their effect diminishes each time we hear them.(ahem, Tristan Prelude) But even by trying to avoid cliches, yet more cliches appear. Instead of cliches in respect to things like cadences and harmonic progressions they are replaced by cliches in cluster chords and tone rows. This cycle continues forcing new generations of musicians to both learn these cliches and if they can find a way around them.


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2010)

Weston said:


> I believe this effect is similar to what I experience (to a far lesser degree) with poetry, for instance.


Weston, I think Argus was making a similar point to mine, which is, some things affect us and some don't, and we don't know why. I'm not affected in the same way as he by _Jupiter_ nor by _Old Man._ So we may safely conclude that whatever we're talking about is not in the music itself but in ourselves.

Same with the poetry example. Not every English speaker gets the same level of emotion as you from Frost or Thomas, either. (Not every German gets the same level of emotion from Goethe.) It's not about a common language or what's native to us, it's about how individuals react to individual works. Even if you posited a world in which every language was native to everyone, you would still find people who get nothing from Goethe, just as you get some people who get nothing from Bach and other people who get nothing from Xenakis.

You find the business of setting up expectations to be satisfying. So do I. I also find the business of every note being unexpected to be satisfying. And, even more importantly, I try to have as few expectations myself going into the listening experience, especially for new music. I have found that if I'm expecting a lot of variety, for instance, and what I get are simple drones, then I'm unsatisfied with the drones. But I like drones! And variety. And repetition. And acoustic sounds. And electronic sounds. And Vivaldi. And Yoshihide. Each composer, each improviser, each piece brings something different. To be prepared to enjoy whichever of those I get, I have to be prepared for whatever each of those has to offer.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Petwhac said:


> Go to the piano and play a C major triad followed by a C minor triad. What is happening here. The second chord is a 'darkening' a 'saddening' of the first.
> .


But what are the fundamental differences between a C major and a C minor triad? An E or an Eb. WHat is the difference between these? Frequency. Yes the Eb is to be found higher in the overtone series and is therefore considered more dissonant than an E natural when played with a C and G. But why does any of that make it any 'darker' or 'sadder'. These adjectives are subjective terms that listeners have been taught to apply to certain harmonies over the centuries. Major = Happy. Minor = Sad. Dim7 = mysterious. Tritone = ominous. And so on. But these are man made ties of sound to emotion. You could play these chords to an isolated tribe in the Amazon and they would feel different emotions if any.

All it takes is for the listener to disregard these traditional standards of certain sound relationships and apply their own emotions to each sound, and people will be able to enjoy much more music. The hard thing is once these standard definitions of sound have been learned it's nearly impossible to forget them and just listen to the sounds without 'bias'.

Every term that is used to describe music, that is not scientific or mathematical, is going to be subjective. So no method is better than any other, only different.

Sorry to single out that one aspect of your post.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Argus said:


> But what are the fundamental differences between a C major and a C minor triad? An E or an Eb. WHat is the difference between these? Frequency. Yes the Eb is to be found higher in the overtone series and is therefore considered more dissonant than an E natural when played with a C and G. But why does any of that make it any 'darker' or 'sadder'. These adjectives are subjective terms that listeners have been taught to apply to certain harmonies over the centuries. Major = Happy. Minor = Sad. Dim7 = mysterious. Tritone = ominous. And so on. But these are man made ties of sound to emotion. You could play these chords to an isolated tribe in the Amazon and they would feel different emotions if any.
> 
> All it takes is for the listener to disregard these traditional standards of certain sound relationships and apply their own emotions to each sound, and people will be able to enjoy much more music. The hard thing is once these standard definitions of sound have been learned it's nearly impossible to forget them and just listen to the sounds without 'bias'.
> 
> ...


If you read Keats or Dickens to an isolated tribe in the amazon they would also feel no emotion. Or possibly the emotion of incomprehension. This tells you nothing about the nature of Keats or Dickens. 
Not all things are equal. That is not a chauvinistic statement. The Romans were not very good mathematicians because they did not use the decimal system.
Tonality is a system that allows you to do things that no other system can. It has been developing for hundreds of years.

Merely conditioning? Maybe, but so what. If we were counting in Roman numerals I doubt if we would have made CD players or laptops.

An isolated tribe in the Amazon has music but it will be akin to music that may have been found in hunter-gatherer Europe.

Do you believe that if you took a new born baby and let her/him hear nothing but Stockhausen, Birtwhistle, Turnage then the conditioning in to those composers 'languages' would cause the child at age 10 or 20 to scratch their head or screw up their face at the sound of Mozart or any popular tune? I just can't see it and fortunately it is unlikely to ever be tried.

I know that if Bach heard Wagner or Miles Davies it would sound alien and incomprehensible to him but with enough time and effort he would get it. I believe he would find common ground.
Even perhaps with Schoenberg as the latter worked in musical lines and phrasing and counterpoint although the vertical element (harmony) would seem like gibberish.

I don't believe that that is the same as 'getting' the kind of music you will often hear at concerts of New Music.

I don't subscribe to the view that all musical utterances are equal. 
A I said before, people are free to get enjoyment from any music they want that's fine but Berio won't fill the concert halls in 200 years. Beethoven will.

Why won't you buy a CD of my cat repeatedly walking across my piano. Or rather, you just might if the result of the feline excursions sounded like the Hammerklavier Sonata.

Unfortunately a lot of contemporary music is indistinguishable from the cat walk.
And believe me I've tried.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh (Oct 24, 2009)

Obviously what comes across as friendly to someone depends largely on their musical background and personal aesthetic tastes. I know that for the majority of my friends and many people I've talked to or come across that primarily listen to "popular" music genres -- rock, pop, jazz, electronic, etc. -- the "classical" they tend to respond to most often is from modern and contemporary composers. They largely consider music by Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and the like to be boring; for them it all blends together and is basically a purely intellectual excercise that lacks emotion. They can't see why anyone besides musical scholars would be interested in it. But many of them really enjoy Stockhausen, Reich, Ligeti, Xenakis, Stravinsky. Opposed to what they see as the blandness of Beethoven, this stuff has _personality_, and they react well to the thematic goals of these composers.

So composers like Cage, Boulez, Babbit do have an audience. People like myself are genuinely excited by it. I've been to concert halls that are new, state of the art facilities and primarily cater to these composers and others like them. And yeah, the seating was full. There may not be as much interest in their music as in Beethoven's, but I'm not sure there's as much interest in either as in the latest pop phenomenon. Great art doesn't have to be universal, and I don't particularly care about what sells more tickets than what or whose music endures the longest. No need to turn music into a competition.


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

It all really depends on exposure to different music. I've shown people pieces of music that I consider quite "easy listening" that ended up being considered "too modern" or dissonant (_Appalachian Spring_, if you can believe it!). I don't even consider Copland's _Piano Variations _difficult listening or terribly dissonant (it full of plenty of hummable melodies)-- but when I first heard it as a teenager in 1988, I thought it was just a jumble of noise. Ligeti _used _to be difficult listening for me, but nowadays I find nothing "difficult" about his music and I enjoy it. It really is all relative to one's exposure to different music, and one's willingness to explore.

That doesn't mean that every modern composition is great-- some are better than others-- but lumping all modern music as rubbish is no better than someone who listens to Kanye West saying that Beethoven, Mozart and all those dead white guys all sound alike and its all stupid crap.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Petwhac said:


> Not all things are equal.
> 
> I don't subscribe to the view that all musical utterances are equal


I do believe that in regards to art, all pieces are equal. No painting, no novel, no piece of music is inherently better than any other. There are just works of art *I* like better.

Columbo/

Just one more thing Mr. Petwhac. Why do you believe tonality to be the better method of composition. After all, it is itself just one of many systems and has it's flaws like others. The most obvious is that 12 TET is a compromise to allow free movement between keys at the expense of natural intervals. Forgetting that for the minute though, why is the octave even divided into twelve. There are further harmonics in the series which provide us with different intervals. Why are systems built from intervals higher in the harmonic series any worse systems than any other system? Maybe it's more to do with the fact that a certain system was used for centuries and became ingrained in the culture rather than innate superiority in the system itself.

/Columbo

Oh, and I would buy a CD of your cat if it managed to play something I liked but I'd prefer it on electric guitar or synthesizer. I do believe that a child raised only listening to Stockhausen et al would be more inclined to prefer that kind of music but not necessarily turned off by Mozart et al but would find it more foreign and harder to get into.

If you don't like modern non-tonal music then fair enough, but _why_ do you believe it to be inferior to tonal music? Why do you claim tonality can do what other systems can't?

Surely you'd prefer more variety over less.


----------



## 151 (Jun 14, 2010)

Petwhac said:


> Unfortunately a lot of contemporary music is indistinguishable from the cat walk.
> And believe me I've tried.


That is because contemporary music is becoming more intertwined with a growing, modern world.

The world around you cannot be explained through any system, no matter how conditioned you are to believe so. What about nihilism, visceral pain and so on; there are some people who are born frightened of any sound, that state can be suspended, the mind can become naive. Just think of the way that loud music can damage your ears.

There are a lot of dissonant things in the world, as was mentioned in the earlier pages. Those who feel most associated and comfortable in numbness, anxiety, distortion and disrupt may find just as strong an attraction as what you consider to be a sweet and strange fruit, not possible to cause any harm.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

I never did or ever would call one type of music inferior to another. I would only moan about music which shows no imagination or invention or is poorly written.

You are misunderstanding what I am getting at.

A lot of what listeners take from from instrumental music is unfortunately conditioned by decades of 'applied' music. That is film, television, background music.
We all fall into the habit of sticking on a CD or the radio and listening with one ear while thinking about other things, talking, reading, washing the dishes, whatever.

Those friends of Poppin' Fresh ( see above post) who find Beethoven's and others' music just 'blends together' and 'lacking in emotion', are listening at a very superficial level.
A symphony or sonata, tone poem or concerto is like a novel, a poem , a play. It requires close concentration to hear and remember themes and motives which are developed and varied in the course of the work. Tonal centres which are set up against each other. There is a drama being played out using pitch and rhythm.

That is why it often takes several close listenings to a work before it's inner beauty and form are revealed. This goes for Haydn as it does for Messiaen or Ligeti (some)

Poetry is similar. To be read and re-read and re- read until it sinks in.

Would you put on an audio CD of a performance of Hamlet and let your concentration dip in and out, make a coffee, answer the phone? If you did, would you expect to follow what is going on? Would you expect to catch all the subtle nuances of the words? I think not.

Why should music be different from literature or theatre? 
All you modernists when you pick up a book expect to be able to latch on to some thread, some idea, some concept of narrative. It's not just a question of words on a page making a nice visual pattern. You want to get the meaning.

In for example, the Eroica symphony's 1st movement when the main theme returns after all the turmoil of the development section where the themes had been thrown about between different keys and built up into a climax (emotional and structural).
When the opening theme returns it takes a new turn, a new a new direction, the listener is carried to a new place by the changing of one chord from what was heard (twice) before. This is a moment of great significance similar to a sentence that reveals some new twist in a novel.

This is classical music. This is what Bach, through Brahms, Mahler, Stravinsky, Bartok, Sibelius, have been doing. 

None of the above composers sound anything like each other but they are all using tonality in their own way, they are all playing out their own dramas in sound.

Now, Schoenberg devised the 12 tone system to replace tonality so he could play out his dramas. Maxwell Davies plays out his. 
Maybe Kagal and Xenakis and James Macmillan are playing out theirs but unfortunately only they and a very select few are able to hear it.
The rest of us can just ' get off ' on the superficial 'sound' the textures the colours.
Or worse, the idea behind the piece. As if a great piece of music needs an idea behind it. 

Non tonal, non western, music is not inferior and I never called it so.

It's not that I haven't explored or don't have an open mind. I've sat through many hours of contemporary/modern music, I've poured over scores by Luigi Nono, or John Woolrich.

99.9% of recent Proms commissions will be never be performed again.

It is not a case of ' ah well, there were riots at the premiere of 'The Rite of Spring' and now it's standard repertoire so eventually it will be the same with new music today'

Oh no it won't. The Rite was premiered in 1910! When hearing the sound of a large orchestra was a very rare thing for most people. Before Hollywood soundtracks, before wall to wall TV music, sound design etc. Before in short we were conditioned in to hearing only the superficial 'effect' of the 'music'

I'm afraid people who think all artistic efforts are equally good would not say the same about a book which was badly written, incoherent, lazy or self indulgent.
I am not saying that new music is any of those things ( although I have heard plenty that is.)
What I am saying is that most of us would never be able to tell.

Just because it's on Radio 3 doesn't mean it's good. Just as a meal isn't good just because it was served to you in a restaurant.

It's not enough to say 'I like it' but I've no idea what's going on in it.
The art of musical composition as practiced for 600 years is a closed book to modern society as whole. A society that plays film music alongside symphonic music and doesn't know the difference. 
(btw I love a lot of film music too.)

For the last time, I'm not saying tonal music is superior but please find me an example in non tonal music that equates to my example from the Eroica ( and thousands of other pieces over the centuries)
Please find me a novel or play where the words are not structured in sentences and phrases but jumbled up for effect or at least organised along such obtuse lines that only the writer and his inner circle know what's going on. (don't say James Joyce)

I know for a fact that Harrison Birtwhistle couldn't explain a passage to a trumpeter friend of mine because it was so complex that the composer himself couldn't remember or work out how to tap out the rhythm for him.
Imagine! How are we supposed to hear things that the composer can't.

We are living in the era of the Emperors New Clothes. Saatchi buys an unmade bed and it is art.

I don't care if music is tonal or not (although all popular forms of music will always be)
I just don't want to be sold cheap shallow music that someone says is good.
But more than that I want to be able to tell and I want others to be able to tell.

John Cage was a great musical thinker I've no doubt, and the Prepared piano was a brilliant idea, shame none of the pieces he wrote for it were much cop. Imagine what Chick Corea could do with it.....shame sampling has made that particular invention a musical museum piece.
Finally, if we were visited by aliens who asked to hear the very greatest work of musical art that mankind has produced ( in your opinion) And if it failed to impress, they would destroy the earth, I suppose you are going to tell me you're going to play them Stockhausen or Thomas Ades. I think a safer bet might be the 9th? The B minor Mass? The Ring? The Rite? .......risky!!!


----------



## 151 (Jun 14, 2010)

Sound existed before classical music, you know. 

Why is it there is no tonal system for films?

why should the experience of music be similar to theatre but asimilar to a film or a cooked meal, a child's drawing. Don't you think that without the "badly written, incoherent, lazy or self indulgent" stage of music there never would have been a start?

Beethoven's music is boring to me, say what you want.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

I think you misunderstood my point about all art being equal. I firmly believe that any piece of music is as good as any other piece of music. (Whether or not it's been on Radio 3). A Beethoven Sonata is no better than a Lil Wayne song or some Tuvan throat singing or a Schaeffer soundscape. And I would say the same about a badly written book in comparison with anything by, say, Dostoeyevsky. The terms good and bad when applied to music, don't actually apply to the sounds themselves but to the listener (oneself).

Music has nothing in common with literature or poetry. Music doesn't express anything but sounds. If you read Great Expectations and someone asked you what it was about and you said a futuristic cyborg travelling back in time to kill the mother of a then unborn rebel leader, people would assume you either didn't read the book or are confused. You could give the same description about any piece of music and it would make about as much sense as attaching any non-objective descriptions to it. There is no meaning to music other than what we, the listeners, apply to it.

Name any composer you want and all they are doing is organising sounds. Nothing more than that but sometimes arguably less (see 4'33'').Whether it's done by a machine using random chance methods or a human using diatonic method, my enjoyment of it is still a case by case matter.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

151 said:


> Sound existed before classical music, you know.
> 
> Why is it there is no tonal system for films?
> 
> ...


Sorry but I have no idea what you mean 'why is there no tonal system for films'

There was no badly written, incoherent, etc.... _stage_in music.

As for Beethoven, fair enough. If you've listened to a lot of his music such as the piano sonatas and string quartets as well as the symphonies and find nothing there to excite you then so it goes.


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2010)

Petwhac,

Your long post contains a lot of stuff, and to address all its bits would take way too much time, and end up with an even longer post that even I wouldn't have the patience to read (much less write).

So I'll just point out that Stravinsky's Le Sacre did not premiere in 1910. It wasn't even written yet in 1910. Try May 29, 1913. (And audiences not used to large orchestras in 1910? Mahler? Bruckner? Wagner? Verdi? Liszt? Schumann? Berlioz?)

And I'll just say for the rest that your experience of modern and contemporary music is very different from mine. When I first realized there was twentieth century classical, and that that was different in many ways from 19th and 18th century classical, I was hooked. And while certain pieces (and a few composers) weren't congenial to me, at first, for the most part, the most advanced of the avant gardes gave nothing but great pleasure to me.

Nice try to make your own personal attempts to "like" or "understand" contemporary music normative, but it really only takes one person's other experience to knock your effort into a cocked hat.

If you've sat through many hours of contemporary music (and why have you done that if it was so painful to you?) without finding anything there to excite you, then so it goes. I listen to many hours of it _per day,_ and find quite a lot there to excite me!


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

some guy said:


> So I'll just point out that Stravinsky's Le Sacre did not premiere in 1910. It wasn't even written yet in 1910. Try May 29, 1913. (And audiences not used to large orchestras in 1910? Mahler? Bruckner? Wagner? Verdi? Liszt? Schumann? Berlioz?)...............
> 
> If you've sat through many hours of contemporary music (and why have you done that if it was so painful to you?) without finding anything there to excite you, then so it goes. I listen to many hours of it _per day,_ and find quite a lot there to excite me!


Ok sorry about the 3 year error...wow!

I did not say _audiences_ I said _most people_ and I was making the point that recording has turned music into wallpaper for a lot of people, including me sometimes.
How many people 'listen' to music with the concentration they would read a book.

The very fact that you listen to 'many hours per day' means that either you are a person with a lot of free time or you are doing something else while you are listening. Or maybe you are a conductor or scholar of music and it is your job.

All I am asking is that you give me an insight into what you get out of new music ( not all, but you know what I mean) as I have tried to do for music with harmonic progression.
From Machaut to Mahler, from Byrd to The Beatles tonality binds them all. Makes me cry makes me joyful, gives me hope, takes me on an intense emotional journey.
90% of new (classical) music leaves me cold.

I need help! Help me.

List some pieces that have affected you deeply and which every time you hear you have to choke back the tears, that you want to blast out to the world and say listen to this!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Argus said:


> I think you misunderstood my point about all art being equal. I firmly believe that any piece of music is as good as any other piece of music. (Whether or not it's been on Radio 3). A Beethoven Sonata is no better than a Lil Wayne song or some Tuvan throat singing or a Schaeffer soundscape. And I would say the same about a badly written book in comparison with anything by, say, Dostoeyevsky. The terms good and bad when applied to music, don't actually apply to the sounds themselves but to the listener (oneself).


Here we go again. "All music is good, none are bad" belief. Argus, you wrote all music "is as good as any other piece of music". Are you telling me Beethoven's _Eroica_ is as good as this piece of crap music below (or "electicism", as you described it in the "rate the piece above you" thread)?

I'm not going to get into a semnatics argument again over what is the meaning of "good music" versus "bad music". Posterity will decide whether something truely has good lasting value versus those that happen to be posted for the amusement of a few moments.



Argus said:


>


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

To Agus,

Without wanting to upset a fellow forum member would you please visit this link and tell me if you think the piano piece there is as good as... um, The Moonlight Sonata? Ravel's 'Gaspard' ? Any of the 48 Preludes and Fugues of Bach?

http://www.talkclassical.com/9417-please-check-out-my.html#post101285

If you think it's equally good you are just plain wrong.

Again, no offense to the composer but keep at it.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Here we go again. "All music is good, none are bad" belief. Argus, you wrote all music "is as good as any other piece of music". Are you telling me Beethoven's _Eroica_ is as good as this piece of crap music below (or "electicism", as you described it in the "rate the piece above you" thread)?
> 
> I'm not going to get into a semnatics argument again over what is the meaning of "good music" versus "bad music". Posterity will decide whether something truely has good lasting value versus those that happen to be posted for the amusement of a few moments.


Thanks for further proving my point by referring to the Faust piece as crap.



> To Agus,
> 
> Without wanting to upset a fellow forum member would you please visit this link and tell me if you think the piano piece there is as good as... um, The Moonlight Sonata? Ravel's 'Gaspard' ? Any of the 48 Preludes and Fugues of Bach?
> 
> ...


I guess I am plain wrong.

I still don't think you quite got my point. I don't even need to listen to the piece and I can safely say that it is as good as all those other pieces you mentioned. In fact I did listen to the first piece out of respect and I can say I didn't like it and would have rather listened to any of those other pieces you listed by far. All that proves is my preferrance for one thing over another.


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2010)

Petwhac said:


> The very fact that you listen to 'many hours per day' means that either you are a person with a lot of free time or you are doing something else while you are listening. Or maybe you are a conductor or scholar of music and it is your job.


You left out the "or" that applies to me, which is that I enjoy listening to music. I _do_ have a job now that requires that I listen to a lot of music, but I created that job for myself because I enjoy the music. I don't listen to the music because that's my job.



Petwhac said:


> All I am asking is that you give me an insight into what you get out of new music ( not all, but you know what I mean) as I have tried to do for music with harmonic progression. From Machaut to Mahler, from Byrd to The Beatles tonality binds them all. Makes me cry makes me joyful, gives me hope, takes me on an intense emotional journey. 90% of new (classical) music leaves me cold.


Without knowing how much new music you have heard, I cannot evaluate your "90%." This sounds like you've heard it all, and I rather doubt that. I love the stuff, and I haven't heard even close to all of it.

Otherwise, I can list some pieces that have pleased me particularly, but I don't know about emotional stuff you mention. One, what makes me happy won't necessarily make you happy. What I find intense might be part of that 90% that leaves you cold. Two, your emphasis on intense emotions makes me think we listen very differently. One of the things that makes me think we listen very differently. And while we are both human, and thus both have emotions, I don't listen to music to get emotional. (I'm already emotional, by virtue of being a human.) I listen to music to hear good sounds.

Otherotherwise, do you realize you have never given us any particular pieces? Without that, we none of us know anything specific. We don't know what you've heard. So maybe I will offer a little list for you. Things that I have found particularly fine. If you've heard any of the pieces on this little list, then you know that at least one person has not been left cold as you have been. If you've heard none of them, then you'll know that your conclusions have been drawn ahead of some of the evidence.

Robert Ashley, _In Sara, Mencken, Christ and Beethoven there were men and women_
Michèle Bokanowski, _L'Étoile Absinthe_
John Cage, _Cartridge Music_
Tod Dockstader, _Omniphony_
eRikm, _Trace Cuts_
Luc Ferrari, _Société II: Et si le piano était un corps de femme_
Heiner Goebbels, _Ou bien le débarquement désastreux_
Tim Hodgkinson, _Black Death and Errors in Construction_
Charles Ives, _Symphony n. 4_ (not particularly new, but particularly good)
Philip Jeck, _Songs for Europe_
Bronius Kutavičius, _Lokys_
Helmut Lachenmann, _Gran Torso_
Gordon Mumma, _Hornpipe_
Arne Nordheim, _Poly Poly_
Bob Ostertag, _Getting a Head_
Parallel Lives,* _Beethoven Hammerklavier conducted by Parallel Lives_
Horatio Radulescu, _Clepsydra_
Karlheinz Stockhausen, _Hymnen_
Doug Theriault, _Orange_
Giovanni Verrando, _Polyptych_
Iannis Xenakis, _Persepolis_
Otomo Yoshihide, _GRRR_
Christian Zanési, _Arkheion_

Now, you, Petwhac, will doubtless like none of these, at first. And none of them will affect you like Beethoven's 3rd. But then, neither does anything else affect you like Beethoven's 3rd. For what Beethoven's 3rd has to offer, only Beethoven's 3rd will do!

You may never get to the point where any of these will thrill you. But that's really nothing to do with these pieces. They all thrill me. That's my only point.

*Parallel Lives is Michael Gardiner and John Latartara


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

I've not been quite as exposed to as much modern music as Some Guy, but I'll add my (somewhat more relatively mainstream) list of modern pieces that I find particularly emotionally stirring-- this is strictly off the top of my head:

_Palestine: Strumming Music
Palestine: Schlingen-Blangen
Penderecki - Stabat Mater 
Cage: Four (for string quartet)
Cage: Seventy-Four (for orchestra)
Crumb: Black Angels
Boulez: Messagesquisse (for seven cellos)
Feldman: String Quartet No. 2
Feldman: Palais de Mari
Partch: The Dreamer That Remains
_
There are many more (Takemitsu, Ligeti) but these piece are particularly dissonant (the Palestine isn't dissonant, but certainly unconventional and makes the minimalism of Reich and Glass quite tame in comparison). But I find these pieces are very stirring. The reason why is I was willing to explore this stuff (and yet when I first heard Harry Partch as a teenager I could do nothing but make derisive jokes about it).


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

some guy said:


> I listen to music to hear good sounds.


I have no idea what hearing 'good sounds' is supposed to mean.
How do you distinguish between good and bad sounds?

I presume the sound of the sea is a good sound as is the sound of a baby gently breathing while asleep but I wouldn't want to sit in a concert hall and listen to 1/2 an hour of either of them. Unless I had the score!

But thank you for the list and I am going to seek out and listen to as many of the ones I don't know (most of them) as I can. And when I have, perhaps we can discuss some of their finer points.

I should have said 90% of new music that I've heard but I guess you know that is what I meant.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Earthling said:


> I've not been quite as exposed to as much modern music as Some Guy, but I'll add my (somewhat more relatively mainstream) list of modern pieces that I find particularly emotionally stirring-- this is strictly off the top of my head:
> 
> _Palestine: Strumming Music
> Palestine: Schlingen-Blangen
> ...


Yes, I know some of these, well at least I mean I have heard some of them.
Thank you for the list.
I too was willing to explore this stuff, when I was studying for my music degree but found the experience mostly quite irritating.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Argus said:


> I still don't think you quite got my point. I don't even need to listen to the piece and I can safely say that it is as good as all those other pieces you mentioned. In fact I did listen to the first piece out of respect and I can say I didn't like it and would have rather listened to any of those other pieces you listed by far. *All that proves is my preferrance for one thing over another*.


I see now. Argus, I think you are a polite gentleman (no scarcasm/negative connotations intended). 

Though I'm afraid, I'm not so polite.


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2010)

Earthling, I just got those two Palestine CDs a couple of days ago. I've listened to _Strumming Music,_ which I quite liked. I've not gotten to the other one, yet. Nice to have a thumbs up on that ahead of time, though!

Petwhac, I don't really distinguish between good and bad sounds. Mostly all sounds are fine. The way they're treated can make things better or worse. I was mostly saying by that that my interest in music is in the sounds themselves and not in my emotions. I don't start from my emotions and then pick music by whether it does the right thing to my emotions or not. I start from the sounds and pretty much stay with the sounds throughout.

And that makes me happy. (Happiness being a emotion!)


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

some guy said:


> Earthling, I just got those two Palestine CDs a couple of days ago. I've listened to _Strumming Music,_ which I quite liked. I've not gotten to the other one, yet. Nice to have a thumbs up on that ahead of time, though!


Oh, your in for a treat, then, *Some Guy*  Do make sure to listen to _Schlingen-Blangen_ quite loudly. I swear, sitting in different places in the room as you listen also highlights certain frequencies in the pipe organ. I can almost swear I hear tenors singing long drones in the background. Two-thirds through the piece (when the pedals really kick in) it can be quite an emotional overload-- pure bliss! Who would've thought that one chord sustained for over an hour could sound so beautiful?

Ligeti wrote two studies (?) for the pipe organ, the first of which reminds me somewhat of this piece, and at times doesn't even sound like a pipe organ with the strange tonal clusters.


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

Earthling said:


> Two-thirds through the piece (when the pedals really kick in) it can be quite an emotional overload-- pure bliss!


To be more specific: almost halfway through, at the 31:55 mark... wow.


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2010)

Earthling, _Schlingen-Blangen_ was not the other Palestine I got. It was the one I'd seen online before I went to the corner record store and found the two I just bought, _Strumming Music_ and _a sweet quasimodo between black vampire butterflies._

_Now_ I'll go buy _Schlingen-Blangen._


----------



## 151 (Jun 14, 2010)

Petwhac said:


> Sorry but I have no idea what you mean 'why is there no tonal system for films'
> 
> There was no badly written, incoherent, etc.... _stage_in music.


Well, I'm sorry you can't quite grasp that.

Its easy to look back on some tonal system in awe, but much harder to imagine a hugely more complex system to use with films.

And yes, there was a badly written, incoherent, etc.... _stage_ in music.

You obviously know nothing about sound.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

151 said:


> Well, I'm sorry you can't quite grasp that.
> 
> Its easy to look back on some tonal system in awe, but much harder to imagine a hugely more complex system to use with films.
> 
> ...


You are talking gibberish my friend.
I know about sound because my ears work. You obviously know nothing about _music_!

Please tell me about the badly written, incoherent stage in music.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I agree with Some Guy, what is "friendly" sounding to a person tells us more about that individual person's unique tastes, interests, perceptions, etc. than about any qualities intrinsic to the music itself. I didn't like Varese much when I first heard his music, but 6 years later, my life had changed in many ways (good and bad), and so after that his music sounded quite natural to me. My reaction had virtually nothing to do with the actual music, and everything to do with how I saw the world at a particular stage in my life. I think this applies to much art that is new to us. The simplicity or complexity of a certain piece of art may not grab us at first, it's only when we go away and think about it that it really makes an impact...


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Yeah, I'm sure a lot of people would think Prokofiev is just a creep instead of friendly.  Some of his music isn't very friendly at all sometimes.

However, I think Kabalevsky meets pretty much all standards.


----------



## jimread (Jun 20, 2010)

I've only just joined the forum and find this thread fascinating, my thanks to those who pointed to composers and recordings they like, I have made a list and will look on feebay for some CD's.

Personally after 1930 I turn to jazz and nothing else until Hendrix etc and now Norah Jones.

It will be interesting to try something completely new, to me that is.

Thanks

Jim


----------



## 151 (Jun 14, 2010)

Petwhac said:


> You are talking gibberish my friend.


Sorry, did I miss something? do I need to explain a system for film?



Petwhac said:


> I know about sound because my ears work. You obviously know nothing about _music_!


Yeah, that's great.



Petwhac said:


> Please tell me about the badly written, incoherent stage in music.


You are clueless.

here are some links to generic articles which may help you

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

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

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

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


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

151 said:


> Sorry, did I miss something? do I need to explain a system for film?
> 
> Yeah, that's great.
> 
> ...


How does any of this relate to a discussion of contemporary classical music?

Do you actually have anything rational to say?

I believe you are very confused.

Good luck to you and enjoy wikipedia


----------



## 151 (Jun 14, 2010)

yada yada...

What's the point.


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2010)

Earthling,

Thanks for the mention of Schlingen-Blängen. I have that now, and am very happy with it.

Yow!!

Some Guy


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

some guy said:


> Earthling,
> 
> Thanks for the mention of Schlingen-Blängen. I have that now, and am very happy with it.
> 
> ...


I'm glad you like it-- what a glorious sound!


----------



## triangle solo (Jun 25, 2010)

> Earthling,
> 
> Thanks for the mention of Schlingen-Blängen. I have that now, and am very happy with it.
> 
> ...


A _live_ performance of this is not to be missed. One of the most amazing things I've ever heard. I sort of felt as though I'd been holding my breath for the whole hour+.


----------



## Earthling (May 21, 2010)

triangle solo said:


> A _live_ performance of this is not to be missed. One of the most amazing things I've ever heard. I sort of felt as though I'd been holding my breath for the whole hour+.


I'm jealous! (and I love your screen name too BTW LOL)


----------



## Ian Elliott (Nov 15, 2010)

Martinu, Villa-Lobos, Kodaly, Vaughan Williams. Not everything by them, but a lot of their stuff could be considered 'friendly'. William Walton. John Alden Carpenter. Lukas Foss. Aaron Copland.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

Try Sensemaya by Silvestre Revueltas...It's fascinating!

Martin


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Petwhac said:


> All I am asking is that you give me an insight into what you get out of new music ( not all, but you know what I mean) as I have tried to do for music with harmonic progression.
> From Machaut to Mahler, from Byrd to The Beatles tonality binds them all. Makes me cry makes me joyful, gives me hope, takes me on an intense emotional journey.
> 90% of new (classical) music leaves me cold.
> 
> ...


Hi Petwhac, i would just like to offer my slightly belated opinion.

Yes, tonality binds them all and has been a powerful emotional force. It appeals directly to the human brain and seems to achieve the same results for everyone. But honestly, tonality has been around for hundreds of years, composers such as Mahler, and perhaps earlier Schoenberg, pushed the system to its limits. They had broken so many rules, they were using so much dissonance, the system of tonality could no longer contain any more expression. It is my belief that you cant push tonality any further than Mahler did without breaking it completely.

At a similar time, Stravinsky had already abandoned tonality in some ways. He had resorted to using folk modes to bind his music together. The Rite of Spring for example contains few Major or Minor chords (in the tonal sense), how often do you hear a chord that sounds happy or sad? No, in the Rite of Spring, Stravinsky was already trying to express different feelings. Feelings which a purely major/minor system such as tonality has difficulty creating and which he found within folk tones.

It seems only natural to me then, that a wise man such as Arnold Schoenberg would finally dare take the leap. What more can be done with tonality? Perhaps it was time to look at the other dimensions of music and see what can be achieved with them.

Since then composers have not based their structures on a tonal system, rather they use gestures, dynamic, pitch, series, timbre, texture, meter, tempo, etc... There are many many different answers that composers have presented as 'the next step' from tonality. In some ways, they are seeking to redefine music, and using all the newly available technology and freedom that exists.

Just had to get that off my chest


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*Sensemaya by Silvestre Revueltas*

It has the rythm of the rite of spring but it is shorter. A nice piece.

Martin Pitchon


----------



## teccomin (Mar 21, 2008)

Phillip Glass.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

Philip Glass...is fragile like glass...and very very very repetitive...May be he did not understand...LOL


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> But honestly, tonality has been around for hundreds of years, composers such as Mahler, and perhaps earlier Schoenberg, pushed the system to its limits. They had broken so many rules, they were using so much dissonance, the system of tonality could no longer contain any more expression. It is my belief that you cant push tonality any further than Mahler did without breaking it completely.


With respect, that statement sounds like received music history textbook opinion.
Firstly, there are and never have been any rules, only common practice and convention.
Secondly, dissonance is a relative term. It depends on context.
Thirdly, there are many many pieces written since Mahler which have not abandoned tonality, Bartok, Britten, Stravinsky, Sibelius, the Minimalists, Strauss, Poulenc, Shostakovich etc.



emiellucifuge said:


> At a similar time, Stravinsky had already abandoned tonality in some ways.


Hardly ever until his later serial works.

When I use the term tonality I don't mean classical diatonicism but rather the use of _harmonic progression_ to propel a piece forward, either over the short term, phrase by phrase or over the longer term architecture. The Rite is full of tonal push and pull.



emiellucifuge said:


> It seems only natural to me then, that a wise man such as Arnold Schoenberg would finally dare take the leap. What more can be done with tonality?


A very wise man and a very great composer but his ideas were taken to ludicrous extremes by Boulez and others who decided that it was a good idea to serialise pitch, rhythm, duration and dynamics and thus created music that was as incomprehensible as that of a drunken monkey. They got carried away with following doctrine for it's own sake, something that their great predecessors would never have done.


----------



## JMJ (Jul 9, 2010)

Off the top of my head, a few fantastic pieces that shouldn't pose much of a threat at all ..
(links to choice recordings incl.)

Jonathan Harvey, _Mortuos Plango, Vivos Voco_ (1980)
Karlheinz Stockhausen, _Oktophonie_ (1990/91)
Alejandro Viñao, _Son Entero_ (1985/88)
György Ligeti, _Piano Études_ (1985-2001)
Olivier Messiaen, _Éclairs sur l'au-delà…_ (1987-91)
Henri Dutilleux, _Sur le même accord_ (2002)


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2010)

It's true.

And now that I think about it, I can only think of one piece that could be considered threatening, Phil Corner's _One antipersonnel-type CBU bomb will be thrown into the audience._ But that piece was never performed, and not for the reason you may think. Here's Corner: "I tried to push the concert situation to a point where those present would have to feel the immediacy of the situation--their situation, since this had to be something in which those present shared a complicity. Failure! Could I have been that naive? *For the audience reaction is not predictable.*" (in David Cope, _New Directions in Music,_ 7th ed., Waveland Press, Long Grove, Illinois, 2001, p. 105. (Emphasis mine.))

Note how neatly the bolded words fit into the conversation we have been having.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Petwhac said:


> With respect, that statement sounds like received music history textbook opinion.
> Firstly, there are and never have been any rules, only common practice and convention.
> Secondly, dissonance is a relative term. It depends on context.
> Thirdly, there are many many pieces written since Mahler which have not abandoned tonality, Bartok, Britten, Stravinsky, Sibelius, the Minimalists, Strauss, Poulenc, Shostakovich etc.


This is not textbook opinion, these are conclusions that i have to come to independently but of course with reference.
Sure, replace my use of the word rule with conventiona dn the message is the same.
Third, yes that is true but while they come after Mahler chronologically, their use of tonality is not necessarily an advancement from Mahler's. Rather they have loosened the grip of convention in other areas of music such as structure, instrumentation etc.. Strauss i would include with Mahler as working at the limit of tonal expression. Often these other composers you mention purposefully weaken the tonal grip so considerably as to become near atonal - developments which you can thank Schoenberg for perhaps(?)


> Hardly ever until his later serial works.
> 
> When I use the term tonality I don't mean classical diatonicism but rather the use of _harmonic progression_ to propel a piece forward, either over the short term, phrase by phrase or over the longer term architecture. The Rite is full of tonal push and pull.


I was in fact referring to his use of modes, but indeed this is a fault on my part, not differentiating between tonality and diatonicism. Modes inherently weaken tonal structure in any way, compared to diatonic scales.


> A very wise man and a very great composer but his ideas were taken to ludicrous extremes by Boulez and others who decided that it was a good idea to serialise pitch, rhythm, duration and dynamics and thus created music that was as incomprehensible as that of a drunken monkey. They got carried away with following doctrine for it's own sake, something that their great predecessors would never have done.


Perhaps i can agree with you there. The path of total serialism has now been trodden and explored. But that should bear no consequence on the quality of other 'modern' music. Like i said before, the 20th century is a chaos of different style vying for supremacy if you will. Serialism is definitely a fundamentall important one, but it is still only one of many alternatives.


----------



## LindenLea (Feb 4, 2007)

This is as 'friendly' and as beautiful a piece of 'modern' music as I have come across, you might easily become addicted to it and have trouble getting it out of your head, especially if you are fond of the sort of mournful Barber/Mahler adagio/adagietto type of works for strings...it's by Howard Skempton and is called 'Lento' _(not 'Lenton' as described on the YouTube video!)_


----------



## Hector (Dec 23, 2011)

Without wanting to intrude, a couple of works that may not be hard on the ear.

*Christopher Rouse*' Symphony No. 3

*John Adams*' Short Ride on a Fast Machine

*Michael Torke*'s Javelin

*Bramwell Tovey*'s Urban Runway

*John Williams*' Tuba Concerto

*Arturo Marquez*'s Danzon No. 2


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)




----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Since I'm spending my Christmas morning in solitude, I decided to read through this thread. Right behind religion and politics, music seems to elicit the most passionate opinions, arguments, and emotional responses from people.

There is something about sounds that are perceived to be unpleasant that goes right to the core of our animal/reptilian brain center and makes us feel uneasy.

I'll offer up this Henze CD as my recommendation. I don't know if this one will make some guy hurl, but it most likely won't scare anyone off. I find it highly enjoyable.
http://www.amazon.com/Henze-Symphon...=sr_1_2?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1324832901&sr=1-2


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Michael Nyman's "MGV (Musique à grande vitesse)," Ligeti's "Bagatelles for Wind Quintet," Elena Kats-Chernin's "Wild Swans" and of course Penderecki's "Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima" are my top picks.


----------



## Manok (Aug 29, 2011)

Isn't exactly "modern" but he did live to the mid 1950s, check out some of Villa-Lobos' work. They're reasonably accepting of someone who isn't into the modern forms of classical music. I'd recommend Symphony No. 10.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

^^^^^^^^^^^
I recently ordered the Villa-Lobos box set of complete Choros & Bachianas Brasileiras on BIS. I'm really looking forward to this music!

This set is a bit pricey, but there's also some more affordable sets on EMI, and Naxos.


----------



## Manok (Aug 29, 2011)

You'll enjoy those, those are probably his most well known works at the moment.


----------

