# Reflections on composing Baroque, Classic or Romantic music in 21th



## thecritic (Jun 9, 2012)

I am a professional of music and am very dissapointed with the current status of the so called "Classic Contemporary Music" regarding its relationship with the public. Contemporary music is since the very beginning of the 20th, very far from the public.Many people liked Haendel, Beethoven, Liszt and Verdi in their days. Very few people like 20th classic music.

I have done some opinion polls among hundreds of persons, regarding his tastes in music: most 20th century classical compositions, including Stravinsky, Bartok etc, were considered " very ugly and unpleasable", being the Baroque, Classic, and early Romanticism the favourite classic music for these people(amonst which there were some music students and professionals).

Contemporary literature is alive, as it was in 19th, 18th, 17th centuries....but the so called contemporary music, and other 20th musical styles, already far from us like those of Bartok and Stravinsky are not enjoyed by people.

If you compare an adventures book from the 18th -its style, its contents, its language etc.- it differs very little with a contemporary literary publication, enjoyed by the public. Instead...a composition by C.P.E. Bach(although many common people like them) is very far from what an "ortodox" view of modern composition style, which has to be (as common people say) "ugly" , to be considered by the "elite" a decent and acceptable contemporary piece. 

Then: If contemporary literature(and cinema stories) is its main structures so similar to those of past ages, Why couldn´t a modern composer to create, let´s say, a concerto in the 18th or early 19th style? Why not? You are reading many stories and watching many films which could have beed conceived in 1850.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

O God...Seriously? This discussion again?


----------



## thecritic (Jun 9, 2012)

O, God´s Mother, Mary...!  Yes, why not? I have never begun, neither joined any discussion here on that subjet and what I have read here on this subject, doesn´t give me a deep understanding. Why not to speak on that? It is forbidden?


----------



## thecritic (Jun 9, 2012)

Indeed, the aspect, here displayed on my post, regarding why modern literature can succesfully repeat old schemes and can enjoy public´s favour, while contemporary classc music has to be "ugly", difficult, and far fromt eh public...I think that is an interesting question many readers would like to be answered.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

You might be interested in this discussion via this link.


----------



## thecritic (Jun 9, 2012)

Thank you very much.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

thecritic said:


> I have done some opinion polls among hundreds of persons, regarding his tastes in music


Can you show us the results?


----------



## thecritic (Jun 9, 2012)

Summarizing the results of 3 polls(never published, as they were a particular experiment) one carried out in 1999,other in 2003 and other in 2007, at the street, when a classic concerto or event ended and public went out, 600 persons were briefly asked about which style of music they preferred, and what was their opinion on contemporary music and classical composers from the 20th like Schoemberg, Bartok and Stravinsky, around 340 liked classic-romantic; around 230 baroque, and 20-30, expressed that their favourite styles were contemporary and/or 20th classic composers. Among hem there were around 60 professionals and music studens. You can do for yourself the polls and probably you will obtain similar results. And we are speaking of musically cultivated public: imagine the hundreds millions of Lady Gaga´s lovers.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

thecritic said:


> Summarizing the results of 3 polls(never published, as they were a particular experiment) one carried out in 1999,other in 2003 and other in 2007, at the street, when a classic concerto or event ended and public went out, 600 persons were briefly asked about which style of music they preferred, and what was their opinion on contemporary music and classical composers from the 20th like Schoemberg, Bartok and Stravinsky, around 340 liked classic-romantic; around 230 baroque, and 20-30, expressed that their favourite styles were contemporary and/or 20th classic composers. Among hem there were around 60 professionals and music studens. You can do for yourself the polls and probably you will obtain similar results. And we are speaking of musically cultivated public: imagine the hundreds millions of Lady Gaga´s lovers.


So according to your poll, up to 5% of classical music listeners choose 20th century music as their favourite period, but what were the results of the last part of your survey: "_and what was their opinion on contemporary music and classical composers from the 20th like Schoemberg, Bartok and Stravinsky_"?


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

- thecritic 
I like your attitude.

In Asia, the Chinese, Persian and other traditional music are composed in perfectionist way and like 10 centuries ago and still have large audiences and fans.

Why not composing like in mid/late 19 or 18 century music in perfectionism way? 
I've seen that 'Movie music' is also considered inferior to that 'certain' 20th century style.

I find an Elitism sense in 20th century, which doesn't look for older classic traditions and their fans but looking for critics approval.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Could it be that people actually like 20th/21st century music?....


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Also, could it be that people actually dislike past style imitations and would rather listen to the real thing...?

PS. From the various polls i've seen on this site, 20th century music always comes 2nd or 3rd.


----------



## thecritic (Jun 9, 2012)

Philip: "and 20-30, expressed that their favourite styles were contemporary and/or 20th classic composers" : Bartok and Stravinsky are included in the tiny percentage liking contemporary music.

Arsakes: Very interesting your message.

Violadude: People like 20/21th century, but, generally, not the type of "contemporary music" we are speaking about. People like Baroque and Classic as these styles resemble in many cases(much more than Wagner onwards)contemporary popular music.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

thecritic said:


> O, God´s Mother, Mary...!  Yes, why not? I have never begun, neither joined any discussion here on that subjet and what I have read here on this subject, doesn´t give me a deep understanding. Why not to speak on that? It is forbidden?


No, it is just a common whine from those who are 100 years behind their own time when it comes to art music, where they are nowhere near behind their time in the understanding and consumption of the other fine arts, the literary or the other plastic arts.

Sorry, professional or not, you are just completely behind your times as far as music goes, that is if you avoid music post 1900, and that amounts to being an escapist rather than a true enthusiast -- keen on touring and romanticizing all of the past, ignoring the present.

All the composers you mentioned had their fans -- they also had many detractors who would use similar terms to describe that modern music of yesteryear in the same terms you say people now react to Bartok, etc. The fans were a minority of the general audience of the time.

At one point in time, 'dissonant' was anything beyond a unison.... some people have personal and / or arbitrary cut-off lines for what they consider 'dissonant.' Quoting a neophyte, "Ravel is weird, dissonant." or "Prokofiev is atonal" etc. etc.

For many a reader, the OP reads as more or less an announcement of your limitations as a listener vs. any truly valid 'worry' about the state of music since 1890. Classical music is still taking very good care of itself ~ as it has been for about one thousand years more or less ~ and will always, always, be a minority pursuit.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

PetrB said:


> No, it is just a common whine from those who are 100 years behind their own time when it comes to art music, where they are nowhere near behind their time in the understanding and consumption of the other fine arts, literary or the plastic arts.
> 
> Sorry, professional or not, you are just completely behind your times as far as music goes, that is if you avoid music post 1900, and that amounts to being an escapist rather than a true enthusiast -- keen on touring and romanticizing all of the past, ignoring the present.
> 
> ...


Pretty sure the "music of our time" is Justin Bieber, but I'm guessing you also don't listen to music you consider to be crap.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Arsakes said:


> - thecritic
> I like your attitude.
> 
> In Asia, the Chinese, Persian and other traditional music are composed in perfectionist way and like 10 centuries ago and still have large audiences and fans.
> ...


Eastern cultures are conservative: they wish to hold to one way, and do not look for or wish for change. This is true in their arts and crafts as well as the politics and social structures. This is not the place for innovation -- innovation is actually shunned.

Western culture values innovation: to write so similarly to the older styles as to be hard to distinguish from other music written in the past is neither desired or considered 'interesting' in the west. Someone has already done that, more than very well: that work was also often a matter of that composer having been, too, an innovator in his own time.

The basic polar opposite in what is most valued makes the proposition, in the west, entirely unappealing -- it is an opposed aesthetic to what western art(s) all of it, all of them, are basically about.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

thecritic said:


> Philip: "and 20-30, expressed that their favourite styles were contemporary and/or 20th classic composers" : Bartok and Stravinsky are included in the tiny percentage liking contemporary music.


Maybe i wasn't clear. You asked people what their favourite musical period was... how does that tell you: "_their opinion on contemporary music and classical composers from the 20th (century)_". For example, my favourite musical period is Baroque, but my opinion of contemporary music is very positive.

How do you deduce that most people's opinion of contemporary music is negative without asking them explicitly?


----------



## thecritic (Jun 9, 2012)

Philip said:


> Maybe i wasn't clear. You asked people what their favourite musical period was... how does that tell you: "_their opinion on contemporary music and classical composers from the 20th (century)_". For example, my favourite musical period is Baroque, but my opinion of contemporary music is very positive.
> 
> How do you deduce that most people's opinion of contemporary music is negative without asking them explicitly?


Because other question was that: "what do you think on one hand about 20th composers like Bartok, Schoember, and Stravinsky, and on the other hand, about classic contemporary composers?"


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

thecritic said:


> Because other question was that: "what do you think on one hand about 20th composers like Bartok, Schoember, and Stravinsky, and on the other hand, about classic contemporary composers?"





Philip said:


> So according to your poll, up to 5% of classical music listeners choose 20th century music as their favourite period, but *what were the results of the last part of your survey*: "_and what was their opinion on contemporary music and classical composers from the 20th like Schoemberg, Bartok and Stravinsky_"?


Please pay attention.


----------



## thecritic (Jun 9, 2012)

PetrB said:


> No, it is just a common whine from those who are 100 years behind their own time when it comes to art music, where they are nowhere near behind their time in the understanding and consumption of the other fine arts, the literary or the other plastic arts.
> 
> Sorry, professional or not, you are just completely behind your times as far as music goes, that is if you avoid music post 1900, and that amounts to being an escapist rather than a true enthusiast -- keen on touring and romanticizing all of the past, ignoring the present.


Sorry, but, I think that, definitely, you are the one behind your time: Contemporary composers can´t be compared in terms of fans with old composers: Haendel was a star, Haydn was a star, Bellini, Donizetti, Rossinni and Verdi were stars, Beethoven was a star. If you otherwise mean that ALL composers, singers, sportsmen etc have their fan, then, yes, of course. There exist public for ALL things. The matter is that contemporary music, unlike all those old composers, has VERY FEW fans, compared with any other kind of contemporary music.

You -neither anyone- can´t pretend that the music of the present is a style which supposes only a
very small percentage of ALL the music listened today everywhere. That is like to say that the main style of 16th was not the Renaissance(which was heard in all churches and nobility theatres and courts) but some experimental kind of composition cultivated for some minorities in small circles.

You have mentioned literature...

Remind this argument please (using it -together with the literary argument- I got to keep silence and without arguments to some lecturers ridiculizing the posibility of composing not in the style of a composer, but in the style of a period: baroque, classic, romantic): 1- If using a composition style used in the past doesn´t make any sense, please don´t read any more any horror, love, war stories, as it were already cultivated(in its main features as today) many centuries ago. Save your money instead. 2- Renaissance, Baroque(remember the Opera) and Classicism, were no more than periods were all artists tried to imitate the style of the past. However, as imitating 100% is a very difficult task, the Greek-Roman past, could´t be absolutely and exactly as it was in heir original times. Authors trying to imitate, always leave a track, a detail of them, so, Renaissance, Baroque and Classicism, are reputed are the highest splendour art periods, when their artists only tried to imitate. 3. Iy you -contemporary composer who try to create different, and original works, please, don´t compose any more, and enjoy life´s pleasures instead, as within 100/150 years, if most people think like you, you won´t be appreciated, as you will be an outdated composer.

I think that arts -contemporary atonal, imitating styles of the past, etc- should be always OUTSIDE any fashion viewpoint.


----------



## thecritic (Jun 9, 2012)

The literary argument is: Why writers -even good writers- could repeat 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries structures, and can enjoy the public´s favour while the contemplrary composers should be some kind of not well understood prophet, far for success?


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

I don't understand why we're even discussing the question when your survey holds no apparent validity.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

thecritic said:


> The literary argument is: Why writers -even good writers- could repeat 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries structures, and can enjoy the public´s favour while the contemplrary composers should be some kind of not well understood prophet, far for success?


Examples please? All the important and artistically significant writers I can think of have explored new and groundbreaking structures in a comparable way to music...

Or are you referring to Harry Potter? In that case, I will say that many of the songs on MTV are still composed in traditional ABABA structures


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

The fact is, the world of music composition works just like any other job market. There are quite a large number of composers composing in older styles but we don't know about them, why? Because in a competitive market people that aren't inventive and don't do anything that stands out doesn't come through to the mass public. Beethoven is more famous than the guy who copies Beethoven's style (more or less) for the same reason that Steve Jobs is more famous than the thousands of Chinese workers the imitate his products every day.


----------



## thecritic (Jun 9, 2012)

It seems that here, everyone is on its position and won´t move.

Philip: "Only 5% of people of my informal surveys like Bartok, Stravinsky, and contemporary music" For the majoruty, "all of them sound similarly unpleasable". That is my experience. Perhaps you can obtain other very different outcomes. But, you seem to need an official study from the European Union, to believe what is evident: Contemporary music is VERY minoritary. The main proof is evidence. 

emiellucifugue: I do not like Harry Potter, Nor The Lord of the Rings, but although nor you nor me like them, they will be considered in 100 years a classic. Are the Beattles considered a classic? YES. I don´t like them,but you can deny that they appear in all encyclopedias, at the same level(or much more high)than Bartok(I like Bartok). If you ask a very learned University Professor about some musicians from the 20th he likes, he probably will mention the Beattles, or Duke Ellington etc. You know that. 

However you ask me for proofs regarding literature: After Cervantes(as you may know), who uses very complex literary techniques which have been considered in many cases as "Magic Realism", contemporary literature, although innovative in many cases, that innovation have been made in terms of nuances, personal views of the author etc. and literature has remained(compared to music) very "traditional": the syntactical structures of Cervantes are -basically- similar those of modern writers. Larson´s or Vargas Llosa´s stories, are, for you, BASICALLY, very different of those of Cervantes or Alexandre Dumas? I don´t think so. 
Contemporary music is ONLY comparable avant-garde experiences: Dadaism, Surrealism,Futurism, etc. and as you know, these literary experiences, are only marginally used. I have been debating this issue of literature, largely, with University specialists, and mainly they agree: BASICALLY, in its main structures, literature has remained much more stable in the last 500 years, than music in the last 100. 

Do you like contemporary music? Well, I respect you, but remember: Haendel, Haydn and Rossini, and MANY others were stars. there are no stars amongst contemporary composers.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

thecritic said:


> I am a professional of music and am very dissapointed with the current status of the so called "Classic Contemporary Music" regarding its relationship with the public. Contemporary music is since the very beginning of the 20th, very far from the public.Many people liked Haendel, Beethoven, Liszt and Verdi in their days. Very few people like 20th classic music.


I think this is largely a myth peddled by people with an axe to grind. In their day, the vast majority of people in western Europe would never have heard a note of Handel, Beethoven, Liszt or Verdi. Given that there was, of course, no recorded music; given the capacity of concert halls and the cost of admission; and given that only a tiny fraction of the population would have been educated enough to read scores, or be able to perform songs and keyboard and chamber works in bourgeois soirées, it's fairly safe to say that the number of people who could claim, at any one time, to have heard (live) several dozen works by Beethoven would be pretty small (in the tens of thousands, I would guess).

Of course the societal climate changed in the 130 years or so between Handel and Verdi. In the baroque era, serious music was the preserve of the rich, the elite. Verdi was, perhaps, a poor example to cite since awareness of his music would have been restricted to those who could afford to attend performances of his operas. Whilst basic musical skills spread through the middle classes in the nineteenth century, what they heard and were able to perform was restricted to _Für Elise_, and simple pieces of Mozart and so on. People weren't performing Beethoven's _Pastoral _symphony - or the _Années de pèlerinage_ - in their living rooms.

In the last sixty years, say, access to twentieth century music has exploded. The LP and radio opened up the repertoire to every human being. Of course, that has had a beneficial (?) effect for pre-C20 music as well, but the assertion of the original post, as I understand it, is that far fewer people like C20 music now than liked baroque and classical music when that music was contemporary.

It is to be regretted that many people gain awareness of C20 music through its abuse in films and tv, but aware of it they are, and the sales of CDs of C20 music attest to the popularity of some, at least, of the repertoire. It would be interesting to know how many recordings of, say, Shostakovich 5 had been sold in the past ten years. On the assumption that most of the purchasers are still alive, that will give a low estimate of the number of people who like that work (they wouldn't buy it if they didn't like it). I suspect that that number is an order of magnitude greater than the number of people who, at any given moment, had heard any Handel, or Verdi, in their lifetimes (let alone liked it).

The basic position that more people liked the music of Handel et al when those composers were alive than liked C20 composers when they were alive is clearly wrong. The advent of mass media is, alone, a sufficient - and obvious - argument against. Societal structures in C18 and C19 are another powerful argument.

thecritic's position seems to be more akin to "I don't like C20 music, so let's pretend everybody else doesn't like it as well and then I must be right".


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

thecritic said:


> Do you like contemporary music? Well, I respect you, but remember: Haendel, Haydn and Rossini, and MANY others were stars. there are no stars amongst contemporary composers.


Stockhausen, Ligeti, Penderecki and the like are all stars among the contemporary classical scene.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

thecritic said:


> However you ask me for proofs regarding literature: After Cervantes(as you may know), who uses very complex literary techniques which have been considered in many cases as "Magic Realism", contemporary literature, although innovative in many cases, that innovation have been made in terms of nuances, personal views of the author etc. and literature has remained(compared to music) very "traditional": the syntactical structures of Cervantes are -basically- similar those of modern writers. Larson´s or Vargas Llosa´s stories, are, for you, BASICALLY, very different of those of Cervantes or Alexandre Dumas? I don´t think so.
> Contemporary music is ONLY comparable avant-garde experiences: Dadaism, Surrealism,Futurism, etc. and as you know, these literary experiences, are only marginally used. I have been debating this issue of literature, largely, with University specialists, and mainly they agree: BASICALLY, in its main structures, literature has remained much more stable in the last 500 years, than music in the last 100.


You have only mentioned one school of literature. There are many other writers who have toyed with the building blocks of language and syntax, and who are considered 'difficult' in comparison to people like Garcia Marquez, and moreso JK Rowling.

In music we have the same. Some artists have experimented with the basic building blocks of music, such as tonality... but others havent and you can still find important composers writing tonal works in a minimalist, neo-romantic or other style.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

thecritic said:


> I have done some opinion polls among hundreds of persons, regarding his tastes in music: most 20th century classical compositions, including Stravinsky, Bartok etc, were considered " very ugly and unpleasable", being the Baroque, Classic, and early Romanticism the favourite classic music for these people(amonst which there were some music students and professionals).


Let's see the results. I assume that the polling was carried out by a reputable organisation with professional interviewers based on a statistically significant sample of respondents. Please state the methodology used when supplying the poll results, including time and location of polling and the questions that were asked.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

violadude said:


> Stockhausen, Ligeti, Penderecki and the like are all stars among the contemporary classical scene.


Well, maybe not Penderecki - he's rather copped out, hasn't he? But Stockhausen, Ligeti - absolutely. let's add Boulez and Carter, too.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Jeremy Marchant said:


> Well, maybe not Penderecki - he's rather copped out, hasn't he? But Stockhausen, Ligeti - absolutely. let's add Boulez and Carter, too.


Well, 50s and 60s Penderecki. I was just throwing some names out there.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

thecritic said:


> Contemporary literature is alive, as it was in 19th, 18th, 17th centuries....but the so called contemporary music, and other 20th musical styles, already far from us like those of Bartok and Stravinsky are not enjoyed by people.
> 
> If you compare an adventures book from the 18th -its style, its contents, its language etc.- it differs very little with a contemporary literary publication, enjoyed by the public...


Are you seriously suggesting that the "common people" are avidly reading Cervantes, Trollope, Tolstoy, Zola, Samuel Richardson, Dickens (even), Swift, Proust, and the rest? That they're turning off their local tv soap operas because they want to read what happens next to Mme Verdurin? Do _you _know what that last reference is to?


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

thecritic said:


> ...Then: If contemporary literature(and cinema stories) is its main structures so similar to those of past ages, Why couldn´t a modern composer to create, let´s say, a concerto in the 18th or early 19th style? Why not? You are reading many stories and watching many films which could have beed conceived in 1850.


Do you really want to watch the next film with the production values of a Charlie Chaplin silent movie? Things move on.

Working in the genres of the past is at best pastiche, at worst plagiarism. You choose where you want to be.

As it happens there are composers, particularly in the US, who espouse a compositional style which I call New Simplism (as opposed to Simplicity). In other words, producing music which is so jaw-droppingly simplistic and banal that any self-respecting child of four would demand _The Simpsons_ instead. I know that's not quite what you mean. Perhaps Michael Nyman's early film music would appeal to you (based on Purcell, Mozart et al).

There are plenty of rather better composers who are still scared of reality whom you should like - I'm thinking particularly of Michael Torke here but, in truth, Arvo Pärt and John Tavener also qualify. Then there is a huge swathe of composers, like Morten Lauridsen, whose works are, shall we say, composed to appeal. It's actually possible to produce something with a contemporary veneer witout resorting to pastiche.

Of course, if you want a twentieth century take on the baroque, you should listen to _Dumbarton Oaks_ but, oh dear, you've decided you don't like Stravinsky.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

thecritic said:


> Summarizing the results of 3 polls(*never published*, as they were a *particular* [?] experiment) one carried out in 1999,other in 2003 and other in 2007, at the street, when a classic concerto or event ended and public went out, 600 persons were briefly asked about which style of music they preferred, and what was their opinion on contemporary music and classical composers from the 20th like Schoemberg, Bartok and Stravinsky, around 340 liked classic-romantic; around 230 baroque, and 20-30, expressed that their favourite styles were contemporary and/or 20th classic composers. Among hem there were around 60 professionals and music studens.


This does not constitute a professional report of your findings. You say you are a professional musician, please report your findings to the same level of professionalism as your music.



> You can do for yourself the polls and probably you will obtain similar results. And we are speaking of musically cultivated public: imagine the hundreds millions of Lady Gaga´s lovers.


Sorry, I don't understand this point.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

thecritic said:


> Sorry, but, I think that, definitely, you are the one behind your time: Contemporary composers can´t be compared in terms of fans with old composers: Haendel was a star, Haydn was a star, Bellini, Donizetti, Rossinni and Verdi were stars, Beethoven was a star.


They were stars in an elitist group which made up a tiny, tiny percentage of the population.



> ... The matter is that contemporary music, unlike all those old composers, has VERY FEW fans, compared with any other kind of contemporary music.


I appreciate that English isn't your first language and I don't want to be harsh, but this simply doesn't make sense.



> You -neither anyone- can´t pretend that the music of the present is a style which supposes only a
> very small percentage of ALL the music listened today everywhere. That is like to say that the main style of 16th was not the Renaissance(which was heard in all churches and nobility theatres and courts) but some experimental kind of composition cultivated for some minorities in small circles.


"Nobility theatres and courts": a vanishingly small audience

"All churches": the fact the "common people" were exposed to the music doesn't mean they liked it!



> I think that arts -contemporary atonal, imitating styles of the past, etc- should be always OUTSIDE any fashion viewpoint.


Yes, but what you think and what is the case are probably two different things. Best to work on the old precept "Deal with the world as it is, not how you would like to be".


----------



## thecritic (Jun 9, 2012)

Mr. Marchant. Sorry but definitely you -and some others- have not understood most of the issue: Shakespeare´s works(and the works of many 17th authors)were performed at popular theatres, not only in England. A great part of the public was common people. The most important contemporary literature is BASICALLY(in structure and plots)much more similar to Cervantes, that Berio to Vivaldi. That´s the reason that there are so many bookstores selling contemporary good literature, and very few records and concerts of contemporary music. Bellini, and Donizetti´s melodies were palyed, in many cases, even by popular musicians at the streets! The same occured with Verdi: Most people knew and adored him. That´s the reason he became a myth. Of course many people didn´t heard of Shakespeare nor Bellini, neither Verdi, but proportionally, the figure of the "classic composer" was much more important and admired by common people in 18th and 19th centuries than today.
do you want -really- official, surveys in order to prove that most classic music lovers don´t like contemporary music, existing on the other hand so many important problems in the world? Go yourself and ask people.
I would lide to quote it but I am unable to find it now: I have read about some psychological study, showing(I am quoting from memory)that our system of perception can´t perceive clearly the forms of contemporary music, being then this the cause so few people don´t like it.

By the way: I am not willing anymore reading the same arguments of contemporary music lovers, and me, giving me own arguments on the other side, but I want to remind you a thing: I suppose you are aware that Renaissance, and Classicism artists , considered some of the most important periods of Art, only tried to IMITATE ancient Greek and Roman culture. Of course, as imitating 100% a style is not so easy, and Greek nor roman music was not known exactly, they, while tried to imitate and re-construct that culture, built the Renaissance, the opera(in early Baroque), and the Classicism. So,,,,looking for an imitation is not so vulgar as you consider. I think I am going to finish my discussion here. But remember this: the Beattles will remain in the history(and I don´t like them, I repeat)in a much higher place than Berio, and Stockhausen. Do you want an official study for proving that, too?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

thecritic said:


> Mr. Marchant. Sorry but definitely you -and some others- have not understood most of the issue: Shakespeare´s works(and the works of many 17th authors)were performed at popular theatres, not only in England. A great part of the public was common people. The most important contemporary literature is BASICALLY(in structure and plots)much more similar to Cervantes, that Berio to Vivaldi. That´s the reason that there are so many bookstores selling contemporary good literature, and very few records and concerts of contemporary music. Bellini, and Donizetti´s melodies were palyed, in many cases, even by popular musicians at the streets! The same occured with Verdi: Most people knew and adored him. That´s the reason he became a myth. Of course many people didn´t heard of Shakespeare nor Bellini, neither Verdi, but proportionally, the figure of the "classic composer" was much more important and admired by common people in 18th and 19th centuries than today.
> do you want -really- official, surveys in order to prove that most classic music lovers don´t like contemporary music, existing on the other hand so many important problems in the world? Go yourself and ask people.
> I would lide to quote it but I am unable to find it now: I have read about some psychological study, showing(I am quoting from memory)that our system of perception can´t perceive clearly the forms of contemporary music, being then this the cause so few people don´t like it.
> 
> By the way: I am not willing anymore reading the same arguments of contemporary music lovers, and me, giving me own arguments on the other side, but I want to remind you a thing: I suppose you are aware that Renaissance, and Classicism artists , considered some of the most important periods of Art, only tried to IMITATE ancient Greek and Roman culture. Of course, as imitating 100% a style is not so easy, and Greek nor roman music was not known exactly, they, while tried to imitate and re-construct that culture, built the Renaissance, the opera(in early Baroque), and the Classicism. So,,,,looking for an imitation is not so vulgar as you consider. I think I am going to finish my discussion here. But remember this: *the Beattles will remain in the history(and I don´t like them, I repeat)in a much higher place than Berio, and Stockhausen. Do you want an official study for proving that, too?*


Are we talking about popular music or classical music? The Beatles are not only more popular than Berio and Stockhausen, but ALL classical composers.

Speaking of the Beatles, they didn't think so lowly of Stockhausen as you do. They even included him on their album cover.


----------



## thecritic (Jun 9, 2012)

violadude said:


> Are we talking about popular music or classical music? The Beatles are not only more popular than Berio and Stockhausen, but ALL classical composers.
> 
> Speaking of the Beatles, they didn't think so lowly of Stockhausen as you do. They even included him on their album cover.


I am speaking, in general terms, of popular and popularized music. In this time, both have become the same and have the hegemony. The hegemony that in the past had the "classic" composers. There was no "popular artist" so famous and admired -although in this case we´re not speaking properly of a composer- in 18th than Farinelli, who sang music by Haendel and Porpora, among others.

I hate pop and rock music and almost all modern commercial genres -with the exception of a few songs-, and I think that contemporary composers have a great responsibility in the power pop music have today, as "classic" composers have gone away very far from the public.

For we, people learned in music, it is clear that contemporary music have reached many very interesting ways and aspects of expression, technique, forms, timbric findings etc. But have gone away from the public, and public, since the times of Greek Art(or even earlier)always was the main object for the artist.

Regarding The Beattles knowing and admiring Berio...it could be, but I seriously doubt it. I far better think on any of the agents(managers, producers...) surrounding the group who chose and designed the cover. But even so, even if the Beattles had liked Berio.


----------



## thecritic (Jun 9, 2012)

Even if the Beattles had liked Berio, this composer´s records will keep being very rare and scarce of finding. The cause of this is that he is not commercial. And commercial were the great majority of composers of the past because the lived of their music, Music, have been always commercial, with the exception of cases like, for example, Wagner, for other reasons...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

So, contemporary classical music is not for the mainstream public....so what?


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

I've never heard of the Beattles.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I am a professional of music and am very dissapointed with the current status of the so called "Classic Contemporary Music" regarding its relationship with the public. Contemporary music is since the very beginning of the 20th, very far from the public.Many people liked Haendel, Beethoven, Liszt and Verdi in their days. Very few people like 20th classic music.

I have done some opinion polls among hundreds of persons, regarding his tastes in music: most 20th century classical compositions, including Stravinsky, Bartok etc, were considered " very ugly and unpleasable", being the Baroque, Classic, and early Romanticism the favourite classic music for these people(amonst which there were some music students and professionals).

Contemporary literature is alive, as it was in 19th, 18th, 17th centuries....but the so called contemporary music, and other 20th musical styles, already far from us like those of Bartok and Stravinsky are not enjoyed by people.

If you compare an adventures book from the 18th -its style, its contents, its language etc.- it differs very little with a contemporary literary publication, enjoyed by the public. Instead...a composition by C.P.E. Bach(although many common people like them) is very far from what an "ortodox" view of modern composition style, which has to be (as common people say) "ugly" , to be considered by the "elite" a decent and acceptable contemporary piece.

Then: If contemporary literature(and cinema stories) is its main structures so similar to those of past ages, Why couldn´t a modern composer to create, let´s say, a concerto in the 18th or early 19th style? Why not? You are reading many stories and watching many films which could have beed conceived in 1850.

While I may agree that "some" of the music of today is "unpleasant" (to me), I most certainly do not share the notion that all or even a majority of the music of the last 100+ years is "unpleasant"... "inaccessible"... or even "unpopular" with a majority of the classical audience. A great many would hold that Mahler ranks among the greatest symphonists of all time, Richard Strauss and Puccini (and quite likely Benjamin Britten) among the greatest operatic composers, and Debussy, Stravinsky, Bartok, Prokofiev, and numerous others equally stand among the finest composers of all time. Even if you dislike the least bit of expressive "dissonance" (and this would likely lead you to dislike a great many masterpieces of Mozart, Beethoven, etc...) there are plenty of composers who wrote and continue to write the most "beautiful" music.

Having said this... I will admit that an artist always has the freedom to reject the art of his or her predecessors. Contrary to the sworn "Modernists" who believe that the only art of merit is that which builds upon its immediate predecessors, the history of the arts is laden with examples of artists who reject their immediate predecessors for whatever reason, and turn to other (often older) examples for inspiration. Still, the end result can never be mere pastiche. In some way all art must be of its time. The role of the artist is not that of the copyist or the conservator.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

In Asia, the Chinese, Persian and other traditional music are composed in perfectionist way and like 10 centuries ago and still have large audiences and fans.

Why not composing like in mid/late 19 or 18 century music in perfectionism way? 
I've seen that 'Movie music' is also considered inferior to that 'certain' 20th century style.

Hmmm... that is quite interesting... considering that visual arts of Asia slipped into a period of stagnation and decadence when they no longer evolved or spoke to the present, but became little more than a pastiche of some past era that was imagined to have been an "ideal" of perfection. There is no "ideal" of perfection for the simple reason that art must evolve to respond to the realities of the present. Does that mean I love all the art of today? Of course not. I'll be the first to acknowledge that much of it is crap... but then again... the majority of all art was always mediocre at best. When looking toward modern and contemporary art we are faced with having to do the hard work ourselves of differentiating the real gems from the piles of crap. The past always looks far more rosy for the simple reason that much of this heavy lifting has been done for us. Having said this... I have no problem with the individual who has no interest in modern or contemporary music... any more than I would fault the individual who has no interest in Renaissance of Medieval music (or Chinese or Persian music, for that matter). But don't assume that what you personally like represents the ideal or standard by which all art/music must be measured.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

I have a sarcastic style of writing sometimes, and I don't use annoying words and lines mostly.
I'm somewhat speechless, but I cannot deny the existence or accept the über-elitism among the modern elites.

And I find that it's too hard to absorb the Renaissance ~ Late Romantic fans by modern classic composers, which have alienated one long era and the modern era, and therefore it concluded to less fans from the older period for the modern music... Well thanks to Schoenberg and Boulez.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Sorry, but, I think that, definitely, you are the one behind your time: Contemporary composers can´t be compared in terms of fans with old composers: Haendel was a star, Haydn was a star, Bellini, Donizetti, Rossinni and Verdi were stars, Beethoven was a star.

This suggests you have a rather misinformed grasp of music history. Haydn was a "star"? The vast majority of his works were composed for the Esterhazy court and rarely heard beyond. Bach composed for an even smaller audience. Handel, Haydn (late in his career), Beethoven, Rossini, Verdi, and Beethoven became "stars" by the standards of classical music... but their audience was largely limited to the wealthy, literate "elite". The masses of farmers and laborers weren't attending the opera or performances of chamber music.

If you otherwise mean that ALL composers, singers, sportsmen etc have their fan, then, yes, of course. There exist public for ALL things. The matter is that contemporary music, unlike all those old composers, has VERY FEW fans, compared with any other kind of contemporary music.

Again... the audience for "classical" music in 1400, 1600, 1800, or 1900 was always far smaller than the audience for the popular music of the time: ballads and dances played in taverns and inns and at carnivals... in other words, the "folk music" of the time. There is an illusion that classical music was the central music of the past for the simple reason that the only music that survived... up until the invention of sound recording... was that which was written down by educated composers employed by the rich and powerful. This is true of all the arts. The literature that has survived... and the paintings and visual arts that have survived are primarily those produced for the "elite"... but one would have to be naive or rather clueless to imagine that there were no folk ballads and poems, folk tales and other narratives, no folk art.

You... can´t pretend that the music of the present is a style which supposes only a very small percentage of ALL the music listened today everywhere.

Why not? You can't imagine that the greatest music or literature of 1400 was something embraced by the masses. The peasants were most definitely not reading Dante and Petrarch and listening to Josquin des Prez.

That is like to say that the main style of 16th was not the Renaissance... which was heard in all churches and nobility theatres and courts... but some experimental kind of composition cultivated for some minorities in small circles.

The great ecclesiastical music of the Renaissance might have been heard in the major churches in the major cities of Europe. The fact that the parishioners were exposed to such music has absolutely nothing to do with their tastes or opinions. The music was composed for the elite. Even this would be limited in the sense that in the majority of parishes the music heard would have been quite outdated. Beyond the music specifically composed for the church, compositions were quite certainly composed for the listening pleasure of a cultural elite. I quite assure you that the masses were in no way the intended audience for the motets of Carlo Gesualdo or Claudio Monteverdi.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I do not like Harry Potter, Nor The Lord of the Rings, but although nor you nor me like them, they will be considered in 100 years a classic. Are the Beattles considered a classic? YES. I don´t like them,but you can deny that they appear in all encyclopedias, at the same level(or much more high)than Bartok(I like Bartok). If you ask a very learned University Professor about some musicians from the 20th he likes, he probably will mention the Beattles, or Duke Ellington etc. You know that.

Mass production and the mass media has changed everything. The folk musician of 1400 could only hope to be known among the audience in his home village... and perhaps a few surrounding villages. His music could not be recorded and preserved for posterity because unlike the educated composer for the "elite", he could not read or write music.

The advent of recording technology, broadcasting, and mass production changed everything. The "folk" or "popular" musician of the 20th century, be it Muddy Waters, Duke Ellington, or the Beatles, could record and preserve their music for posterity. Combined with broadcasting and mass production their music could reach an immense audience... to the extent that for the first time in history it is the masses and not the wealthy "elite" that are able to dictate fame and fortune. Intriguingly, the traditional visual arts: painting, sculpture, etc... remains firmly in the employ of the "elite" for the simple reason that the painting or sculpture remains a unique "luxury" item that cannot be mass produced.

I fully accept the notion that 100 years from now the finest music of the Beatles, Ellington, or Muddy Waters may be recognized as a "classic" no less than the works of Richard Strauss or Bartok. "Classical Music" is often looked at as a style... but in reality it is made up of a multitude of genres and styles. The term, like that of "classic literature" or "classic/great art" is simply a value judgment... and just as "classic literature" eventually absorbed and embraced such populist forms as the play and the novel... and is currently absorbing the comic book... so I suspect that the boundaries between "popular" and "classical" music will continue to erode until we simply speak of "great music" and can freely accept Philip Glass, the Beatles, Miles Davis, Frank Sinatra, etc...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Well, maybe not Penderecki - he's rather copped out, hasn't he? But Stockhausen, Ligeti - absolutely. let's add Boulez and Carter, too.

Now this is why we get these anti-modernist tirades. Because we have fans of modernism who are just as tied to their close-minded brand of dogma as those who would have nothing to do with anything from Wagner onward.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

And hold the copping. Penderecki's fine.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

I suppose we should use the mainstream meanings (in dictionaries, that are inaccurate historically) for music.
Ancient: dead
Classic: historic but still alive
Modern: belongs to present time/age

Someday they shall call Beatles classic just like Mozart 

About the 'Stars', it is very complex to explain...


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I predict a renaissance of tonal classical music. That, or its death. The 2nd half of the 20th century will be the equivalent of the brutalist period in architecture. With bemusement we will look back and wonder, "what the **** were they thinking?"


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Despite being a contemporary classical enthusiast, I have decided not to take part in this discussion.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Mr. Marchant. Sorry but definitely you -and some others- have not understood most of the issue: Shakespeare´s works (and the works of many 17th authors)were performed at popular theatres, not only in England. A great part of the public was common people.

Shakespeare... and the theater in general... was an exception. You need to recognize that the theater at the time of Shakespeare wasn't even considered "literature". It was an equivalent of being a script-writer for television in the 1950s. Shakespeare, Marlowe, and other playwrights never even bothered to publish their plays (while Shakespeare did publish his poetry). It was Ben Jonson who first had the audacity to publish his own plays... and was instrumental in publishing Shakespeare's as well. Most of the literature of the era... the poems of Edmund Spenser, Sir Walter Raleigh, John Donne, Robert Herrick, etc... were written for and passed around in manuscript form for a small "elite" audience. Cervantes, like Shakespeare, was a leader in an innovation in literature. He was one of the first novelists (along with Rabelais)... one of the first writers to take advantage of the possibilities of modern printing and publication in producing a long, extended narrative. The novels of Cervantes, Rousseau, Choderlos de Laclos, Richardson, Fielding, DeFoe, Sterne, etc... were popular with a larger literate audience... but even as late as the 18th century, writers such as Pope, Swift, and Samuel Johnson dismissed them as populist trash. The vast majority of literature across the whole of history was intended for an "elite" audience. This remains true today. The poetry of Anne Carson, Yves Bonnefoy, and Geoffrey Hill is not something likely to be read by the masses... nor are the novels of Jose Saramago, Thomas Pynchon, Italo Calvino, or Umberto Eco.

The most important contemporary literature is BASICALLY (in structure and plots)much more similar to Cervantes, that Berio to Vivaldi.

Who deems what is the "most important contemporary literature"? Of course I will admit that some of what you say rings true... if only for the reason that early novels such as _Don Quixote, Tristram Shandy_, and _Gulliver's Travels_ employed many techniques also embraced by the modernists and post-modernists. In many ways J.L. Borges and Italo Calvino share more in common with Lawrence Sterne, Cervantes... and even the _Arabian Nights_, than they do with Tolstoy or Dickens or the typical 19th century "realist" novel... which is far more the model for most contemporary literature than Cervantes.

Bellini, and Donizetti´s melodies were palyed, in many cases, even by popular musicians at the streets! The same occured with Verdi: Most people knew and adored him.

The popular musicians have long appropriated tunes from "classical" composers... and classical composers have in turn "borrowed" tunes, rhythms, and other elements from folk music. This in no way comes anywhere near proving that "most people" knew or loved Verdi... or any other composer of the past.

...but proportionally, the figure of the "classic composer" was much more important and admired by common people in 18th and 19th centuries than today.

Actually you would have a hard time proving that. And certainly even the less "popular" among contemporary composers today (shall we say Ligeti, Penderecki... or even John Cage) almost certainly have reached more people in their life-time through broadcast and recordings than Beethoven or Mozart combined could have boasted of during their lives.


----------



## thecritic (Jun 9, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I am a professional of music and am very dissapointed with the current status of the so called "Classic Contemporary Music" regarding its relationship with the public. Contemporary music is since the very beginning of the 20th, very far from the public.Many people liked Haendel, Beethoven, Liszt and Verdi in their days. Very few people like 20th classic music.
> 
> I have done some opinion polls among hundreds of persons, regarding his tastes in music: most 20th century classical compositions, including Stravinsky, Bartok etc, were considered " very ugly and unpleasable", being the Baroque, Classic, and early Romanticism the favourite classic music for these people(amonst which there were some music students and professionals).
> 
> ...


I agree with you in the most part of your speech. Of course not all 20th century is antipopular: all the artists you´ve mentioned are very appreciated by many listeners. 
Regarding the aspect of copying, as I always repeat, the voice of each artist, regardless his style. Is not the style which determines the originality, but the individual voice: Renaissance and Classic artists tried to copy Green and Roman Art, but as it is impossible to imitate exactly all nuances and aspects of an era, while they tried to imitate, they created original styles, although in them we can appreciate many copied elements... Or not?


----------



## thecritic (Jun 9, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Mr. Marchant. Sorry but definitely you -and some others- have not understood most of the issue: Shakespeare´s works (and the works of many 17th authors)were performed at popular theatres, not only in England. A great part of the public was common people.
> 
> Shakespeare... and the theater in general... was an exception. You need to recognize that the theater at the time of Shakespeare wasn't even considered "literature". It was an equivalent of being a script-writer for television in the 1950s. Shakespeare, Marlowe, and other playwrights never even bothered to publish their plays (while Shakespeare did publish his poetry). It was Ben Jonson who first had the audacity to publish his own plays... and was instrumental in publishing Shakespeare's as well. Most of the literature of the era... the poems of Edmund Spenser, Sir Walter Raleigh, John Donne, Robert Herrick, etc... were written for and passed around in manuscript form for a small "elite" audience. Cervantes, like Shakespeare, was a leader in an innovation in literature. He was one of the first novelists (along with Rabelais)... one of the first writers to take advantage of the possibilities of modern printing and publication in producing a long, extended narrative. The novels of Cervantes, Rousseau, Choderlos de Laclos, Richardson, Fielding, DeFoe, Sterne, etc... were popular with a larger literate audience... but even as late as the 18th century, writers such as Pope, Swift, and Samuel Johnson dismissed them as populist trash. The vast majority of literature across the whole of history was intended for an "elite" audience. This remains true today. The poetry of Anne Carson, Yves Bonnefoy, and Geoffrey Hill is not something likely to be read by the masses... nor are the novels of Jose Saramago, Thomas Pynchon, Italo Calvino, or Umberto Eco.
> 
> ...


ANSWER: I don´t agree. Let´s, first speak not of individual names -Mozart, Beethoven- but of the abstract figure of "the classic composer. It is evident that in Mozart´s times, Haydn was much more famous and many people didn´t know of his existence. But if we think about the former abstract figure, we have to admit that common people were hearing the music composed by them at rhe churches, at the theatres etc. Most today people are not in touch with Ligeti´s works.
However if we turn to individual figures,´for example Beethoven: His funerals were a mass event. This doesn´t happen with contemporary composers.


----------



## thecritic (Jun 9, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Sorry, but, I think that, definitely, you are the one behind your time: Contemporary composers can´t be compared in terms of fans with old composers: Haendel was a star, Haydn was a star, Bellini, Donizetti, Rossinni and Verdi were stars, Beethoven was a star.
> 
> This suggests you have a rather misinformed grasp of music history. Haydn was a "star"? The vast majority of his works were composed for the Esterhazy court and rarely heard beyond. Bach composed for an even smaller audience. Handel, Haydn (late in his career), Beethoven, Rossini, Verdi, and Beethoven became "stars" by the standards of classical music... but their audience was largely limited to the wealthy, literate "elite". The masses of farmers and laborers weren't attending the opera or performances of chamber music.
> 
> ...


First of all, lets concentrate not in remote eras, when most people were totally illiterate, but on 17th and 18th onwards when the middle classes begin gradually. Even today, folk people in small villages, nor people from African tribes don´t know nor who Vivaldi neither Berio are. If not, our comparations can be erroneous. I think that before 18th, the Theatre is the main example we have of Great Art created for common people.

I don´t have a small grasp of music history...please, regarding Haydn´s popularity abroad(even when he was many years working as "servant")was most and most important, gradually. Many works were entrusted to him from many foreign countries. This aspect is well known. Even appears on a basic tool as Wikipedia.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Couchie said:


> Pretty sure the "music of our time" is Justin Bieber, but I'm guessing you also don't listen to music you consider to be crap.


How utterly sophomoric and coy of you to present the most wildly remote possibility that either the OP or any other of the respondents had for a nano second misunderstood the OP as including pop music.

Tut Tut.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I think that the OP has some interesting points. Quite many people read books these days - they certainly outnumber those who listen to classical music. And what do they read? Stuff that relates stylistically much more to Flaubert, Tolstoy, and yes, Cervantes, than it does to Joyce, Proust and Kafka. Those who write books today are not ashamed of sticking to old styles and forms like realism or satire. Why should, then, those who write music, be ashamed of composing in the old styles?

There's nothing wrong in breaking new ground but it seems to be an iron-clad norm in the world of classical music, one that you cannot easily break out of.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

This is the biggest crapstorm these forums have seen since the birth of Monteverdi!


----------

