# For anyone that wants to like 20th century music but has trouble



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I recommended a part of this documentary to Conor earlier today because a section of it was relevant to the discussion, but I think this documentary would be greatly helpful to anyone that wants a better appreciation of 20th century classical music. It was certainly very helpful to me in my appreciation of it.

The documentary is called "Leaving Home: Orchestral Music of the 20th Century" and is hosted by the famous British conductor and percussionist Sir Simon Rattle. The documentary is in 7 episodes, or parts.

Part One: Dancing on a Volcano- Discusses the transition from the Romantic Era attitude of music to the more 20th century attitude, mostly from a German point of view. The main focus is on Mahler, Strauss and the 2nd Viennese School.






Part Two: Rhythm- Discusses composers of the 20th Century's newly found interest in exploring the rhythmic possibilities of music. Perhaps obviously, starting with "The Rite of Spring" and exploring works all the way up to Steve Reich's "Music for Wood Blocks."






Part Three: Color- Much like part two, part three discusses composers of the 20th century's newly found interest in orchestral color as a strong and independent aspect of music. Again, this part begins with an obvious starting point in the music of Debussy, using "Prelude to an afternoon of a Faun" as an example. It then explores many works all the way up to Takemitusu's "Dream/Window"






Part Four: Three Journeys Through Dark Landscapes- In this one, Simon Rattle uses three composers, Bartok, Shostakovich, and Lutoslawski to talk about 20th century classical music's special relationship with the shifting political landscapes of the time.






Part Five: The American Way- Discusses the development of classical music in America, focusing on America's mix of cultures lending itself to music that contains a conglomeration of many different influences from popular music (Gershwin) to very independent and experimental music (Cage).






Part Six: After the Wake- Discusses the composer's desire to reinvent the language of music after the devastating effects of WWII in order to reflect what they felt was a radical change in the very world they lived in. This music focuses on some of the radically Avant-Garde composers of the latter half of the 20th century (Boulez,Stockhausen), as well as older composers that felt the need to change their own personal style after WWII as well (Schoenberg, Stravinsky).






Part Seven: Threads- Discusses a new generation of composers that are now free from a lot the dogma that permeated previous musical eras and can allow themselves to be influenced by a wide variety of the music produced in the 20th century. This part features composers such as Gyorgy Kurtag, Sophia Gubaidulina and Harrison Birtwistle. I believe the generation of composers talked about in this part were the very newest generation of composers when the documentary was made, however, with the emergence of many newer composers within the last couple decades this is no longer the case.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Thanks for posting. This seems fantastic!


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

@ Violadude, Let me join CNote in thanking you for posting and sharing this invaluable resource. I'll be sure to avail myself of it shortly, and quite often at that!


----------



## sheffmark (Apr 9, 2012)

Thank-you for posting!! Excellent!!
:tiphat:


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Very useful thanks, always meant to watch it better get to it before the take-down notices.



violadude said:


> British conductor and percussionist Sir Simon Rattle.


This made me laugh, didn't know Mr Rattle started off in percussion.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

I watched part 6, I can't say I found it very good. A lot of music, little in the way of facts or insight. He didn't sound entirely convinced by Gruppen either, which is the 'discussion' I was most looking forward to (though maybe I'm completely wrong and he loves it).


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

quack said:


> Very useful thanks, always meant to watch it better get to it before the take-down notices.
> 
> This made me laugh, didn't know Mr Rattle started off in percussion.


If nothing else, though, it's sure a good match for his name. :lol:


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I watched the part 6 due to violadude's post in the other thread. I do wish there were more discussion of the music, but I still thought it was interesting and useful. 

I'm not sure what to think of Rattle's comment on Gruppen that he wasn't sure he understood it. He said earlier that modern music has become more complex with much more to listen to. I've wondered in other threads if modern music was getting too complex for the average listener. Could it be getting too complex for the average performer?


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

samurai said:


> If nothing else, though, it's sure a good match for his name. :lol:


There are actual studies out there about the attraction to professions that align with the concept or sound of your first or last name.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> I've wondered in other threads if modern music was getting too complex for the average listener. Could it be getting too complex for the average performer?


There's a difference between complex and complicated. I know a professional trumpeter who worked with Harrison Birtwistle, the composer was unable to decipher his own notation that he might explain it to the trumpeter who was struggling with the rhythm. There is absolutely no need to have unreadable over complicated rhythms that require a masters degree in advanced mathematics to work out.
There is plenty of complex music that can also be eloquent and yet also simple that somehow says more than a zillion triplet 32nd notes in the time of 17.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> I watched the part 6 due to violadude's post in the other thread. I do wish there were more discussion of the music, but I still thought it was interesting and useful.
> 
> I'm not sure what to think of Rattle's comment on Gruppen that he wasn't sure he understood it. He said earlier that modern music has become more complex with much more to listen to. I've wondered in other threads if modern music was getting too complex for the average listener. Could it be getting too complex for the average performer?


Well, he said "I can't say that I understand all of Gruppen" which could mean that he hasn't accounted for every little thing in it but he still has a pretty good general idea about it.

Besides, he said he doesn't understand it, but just likes the way it sounds. Isn't that the kind of attitude that people generally promote around here?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

violadude said:


> Well, he said "I can't say that I understand all of Gruppen" which could mean that he hasn't accounted for every little thing in it but he still has a pretty good general idea about it.
> 
> Besides, he said he doesn't understand it, but just likes the way it sounds. Isn't that the kind of attitude that people generally promote around here?


Yes, true.

Certainly, for me, I understand very little of the music I hear. I either like the way it sounds or I don't. So, yes, for the listener it doesn't really matter if one understands the music. I'm still wondering to what extent understanding something of a work could help me enjoy it more. I know that there is an intellectual enjoyment that some get when analyzing music or even when hearing details that would be over my head. I have tried to read about various modern works that I have not enjoyed hoping that some understanding will help. So far it does not seem to help, but perhaps it's helping a bit and more will come with time.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Thanks for posting this. I saw this series on TV about 20 years ago. I have in the last year watched some eps on youtube, but not all of it. Good for you to remind me. These are also good to send to people you know outside of this forum who are possibly interested in modern music, or just classical in general. They are put together well and he gives examples of what he's talking about.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

jalex said:


> I watched part 6, I can't say I found it very good. A lot of music, little in the way of facts or insight. He didn't sound entirely convinced by Gruppen either, which is the 'discussion' I was most looking forward to (though maybe I'm completely wrong and he loves it).


That's too bad. It's possible that, since he sort of made this to be for beginners to 20th century music, that you are past the point of getting much out of it.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

It's a little tangential, but Robert Hughes did a fantastic documentary on Contemporary Fine Art that pretty much sums up my curmudgeonly thoughts on all of the contemporary arts. It's well worth watching for the bit with the Warhol collector alone...

http://animationresources.org/?p=980


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

bigshot said:


> It's a little tangential, but Robert Hughes did a fantastic documentary on Contemporary Fine Art that pretty much sums up my curmudgeonly thoughts on all of the contemporary arts. It's well worth watching for the bit with the Warhol collector alone...
> 
> http://animationresources.org/?p=980


Well I guess some people enjoy putting down the arts rather than trying to help people come to an understanding of them. I'm thankful that great "bridge building" people like Sir Simon Rattle exist.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Well I guess some people enjoy putting down the arts rather than trying to help people come to an understanding of them.

I would hope that you are not presuming (in a knee-jerk manner) that Robert Hughes is nothing more than a naysayer. His _Shock of the New_ is one of the essential books exploring art of the 20th century. Other books such as _American Visions, Goya_, _Nothing if not Critical_, and _Rome_ show a clear love of art and profound grasp of art history. The film, _The Mona Lisa Curse_ is not so much about contemporary art as it is an exploration of the corruption, fraud, nepotism, conflict of interest, price-fixing etc... which has infiltrated nearly every walk of the art market and distorted how art is seen and valued.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

violadude said:


> Well I guess some people enjoy putting down the arts rather than trying to help people come to an understanding of them. I'm thankful that great "bridge building" people like Sir Simon Rattle exist.


Ha! Robert Hughes is one of the leading figures in art journalism. He was the art critic for Time magazine for many years and his books on modern art and Goya are classics. Simon Rattle's program is a musical knock off of Shock of the New. That's why I linked this.


----------



## karenpat (Jan 16, 2009)

*puts on art historian hat* To raise questions about what makes great art great, or what art may have been neglected at the cost of the better known masterpieces, or ask whether the best known paintings through history are worth their masterpiece status (I'm just naming arguments that otherwise could be seen as "putting down art" when simplified, I haven't watched the Hughes documentary yet) isn't meant to put down the arts as such. It would be tempting to let the years go by and just accept that this and that painting is great and another isn't, but to challenge the dominant view on such matters can be exciting and I also believe it is important. Leading art historians early in the 20th century expressed what was long thought to be "the definite" view of art in terms of what was great and what wasn't, however when others dared to critique them it was more obvious that their view was not definite but rather male, white, western etc. As a result of that we can now talk about queer/gay art, women/feminist art, black art etc that has achieved a new status.

I know, it's a digression from the original discussion (I'm downloading the Simon Rattle docu as I type!) but in matters of (visual) art I just can't keep my mouth shut....*takes art historian hat off*


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Ha! Robert Hughes is one of the leading figures in art journalism. He was the art critic for Time magazine for many years and his books on modern art and Goya are classics. Simon Rattle's program is a musical knock off of Shock of the New. That's why I linked this.


All I am doing is giving people a link for a documentary that might help them with music they are struggling with. I have no clue why the **** you feel the need to **** all over it but it makes me pretty angry.


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2012)

Robert Hughes is a highly respected art historian, highly respected by people who are deeply and profoundly uneasy with the arts of their own times.

Very much along the lines of Alex Ross being a highly respected musicologist.

I don't think very much of Rattle's series, myself. The missed opportunities, the absence of Leonard Bernstein's personality, the tendency to slip into gossip that one sees in both Hughes and Ross, too.

But, for its purpose, it has proven invaluable. It is more positive and thus more helpful than Hughes' curmudgeonly approach to things.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Would anyone like to suggest good books on modern music? I have read Ross' The Rest Is Noise and I have Griffiths' Modern Music and After which I have not yet started.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> Would anyone like to suggest good books on modern music? I have read Ross' The Rest Is Noise and I have Griffiths' Modern Music and After which I have not yet started.


You could try _The new music: the avant garde since 1945_ by Reginald Smith-Brindle (Oxford). I have the second edition (1987) and I can't find a more recent update, so it isn't up to date, but it is as good as far as it goes.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> Would anyone like to suggest good books on modern music? I have read Ross' The Rest Is Noise and I have Griffiths' Modern Music and After which I have not yet started.





















David Toop has produced some good music too.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Shostakovich is the gateway for me. Can anyone name more names similar to him? I know Schnittke, Ligeti, and Messiaen already. I guess I basically know all the names but maybe specific works would be better. I also like Tchaikovsky and Dvorak though they are late 19th century.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

quack said:


> Very useful thanks, always meant to watch it better get to it before the take-down notices.
> 
> This made me laugh, didn't know Mr Rattle started off in percussion.


That's Sir Rattle to you, fowl.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

@Jeremy, Argus: Thanks. I just picked up copies of The new music: the avant garde since 194 and Toop's Ocean of Sound from the library. I'm sure I'll learn something.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Robert Hughes is a highly respected art historian, highly respected by people who are deeply and profoundly uneasy with the arts of their own times.

Now someguy is also an expert on contemporary art:lol:! Undoubtedly he has years of studying cutting edge paintings and installations employing pig intestines, used condoms, and coffee grinds and such ephemera in coffee shops all over the NorthWest where we all know the "REAL" art of today is being exhibited... as opposed to commercial galleries or museums.

As for Hughes "curmudgeonly approach"... perhaps you should stay within a discipline that you actually know a little something about. Hughes' negativity with regard to the video in question is directed at the art market and and various abuses including conflict of interest involving members on the board of trustees at major museums pressuring the museums to exhibit and purchase artists in their own personal collections, price fixing by the major auction houses that continues due to a lack of any government regulation, conflict of interest between critics and gallery owners who essentially pay their salaries through advertising paid to the periodicals that they work for, etc... It is not directed at the artists... outside of a few over-hyped hacks.

Over the years, Hughes has been ecstatically positive concerning the art he believes in... including a great majority of the art of the 20th century as illustrated in _The Shock of the New_ and _American Visions_. On the other hand, he has never pulled punches when he thought something was over-hyped crap... and writing from a position free of influence from the advertising dollars of the few major galleries and the few major collectors that dominate much of the art world dialog as seen in the major New York art periodicals, he has been free to call 'em like he sees 'em. Looking at the artists from the 1980's that he felt were over-hyped, it is interesting to find that a great majority of these artists have largely been forgotten by the rest of the art world as well. On the other hand, of the artists of the period that he most admired, Anselm Kiefer and Lucian Freud continue to be recognized as major figures with a profound influence on the artists of the next generation. Of course no critic is always right, and Hughes admits that his doubts concerning Philip Guston's switch to cartoon-based, Neo-Expressionist figurative painting were misguided.

Nor would anyone suggest that Hughes is the last word in Modern and Contemporary art. There's Clement Greenberg, Harold Rosenberg, David Sylvester, Peter Schjeldahl, Donald Kuspit, John Ashbery, as well as any number of artists who themselves were quite good writing about art including Paul Klee, Wassily Kandinsky, Max Beckmann, Robert Motherwell, R.B. Kitaj, Sean Scully, Frank Stella,


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Shostakovich is the gateway for me. Can anyone name more names similar to him? I know Schnittke, Ligeti, and Messiaen already. I guess I basically know all the names but maybe specific works would be better. I also like Tchaikovsky and Dvorak though they are late 19th century.

Bartok, Prokofiev, Richard Strauss, Alban Berg, Debussy, Takemitsu...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

All I am doing is giving people a link for a documentary that might help them with music they are struggling with. I have no clue why the **** you feel the need to **** all over it but it makes me pretty angry.

You presented Rattle's documentaries... which I will admit to having enjoyed regardless of whether I was already familiar with the composers. Another member presented a documentary on the visual arts in a similar vein... and you responded by essentially pissing all over it... assuming that the critic in question offered nothing but negativity. Others responded to you in a like manner. Honestly, I don't think Hughes' _Mona Lisa Curse_ is a good introduction into Modern or Contemporary art. Rather, it is something of an angry expose of the abuses, corruption, hype, etc... or the art market. For a great introduction to 20th century art I would look at Hughes' _Shock of the New_ and _American Visions_, Matthew Colling's books including _Blimey!, It Hurts,_ and _This is Modern Art_; Hans Werner Holzwarth's _Modern Art_, Francesco Poli's _Post-Modern Art_, Phaidon's The 20th Century Art Book, etc... Collings _This is Modern Art_ exists as a video documentary as well... and while this might whet someone's appetite, I think in all actuality the subject is too big for such short clips and need to be explored via books.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> All I am doing is giving people a link for a documentary that might help them with music they are struggling with. I have no clue why the **** you feel the need to **** all over it but it makes me pretty angry.
> 
> You presented Rattle's documentaries... which I will admit to having enjoyed regardless of whether I was already familiar with the composers. Another member presented a documentary on the visual arts in a similar vein... and you responded by essentially pissing all over it... assuming that the critic in question offered nothing but negativity. Others responded to you in a like manner. Honestly, I don't think Hughes' _Mona Lisa Curse_ is a good introduction into Modern or Contemporary art. Rather, it is something of an angry expose of the abuses, corruption, hype, etc... or the art market. For a great introduction to 20th century art I would look at Hughes' _Shock of the New_ and _American Visions_, Matthew Colling's books including _Blimey!, It Hurts,_ and _This is Modern Art_; Hans Werner Holzwarth's _Modern Art_, Francesco Poli's _Post-Modern Art_, Phaidon's The 20th Century Art Book, etc... Collings _This is Modern Art_ exists as a video documentary as well... and while this might whet someone's appetite, I think in all actuality the subject is too big for such short clips and need to be explored via books.


My reference to him "pissing all over" the documentaries I presented was not his original post, but this one.

"Ha! Robert Hughes is one of the leading figures in art journalism. He was the art critic for Time magazine for many years and his books on modern art and Goya are classics. Simon Rattle's program is a musical knock off of Shock of the New. That's why I linked this."


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I think there are similar abuses in the contemporary classical music field that deserve an expose... In a lot of our creative culture currently for that matter. Too much politics, money and rigging of the critical press to favor a select few vacuuous "artists", effectively halting the growth and development of the artform.

It's probably too late to fix any of it. The only hope I suppose is a completely new artform with no tethers to the past or the establishment.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

bigshot said:


> I think there are similar abuses in the contemporary classical music field that deserve an expose... In a lot of our creative culture currently for that matter. Too much politics, money and rigging of the critical press to favor a select few vacuuous "artists", effectively halting the growth and development of the artform.


Can you be more specific? Examples?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Advertorial in music criticism magazines, programming of concerts by established names at the expense of more worthy unknowns (Lang Lang, et al), record labels choosing repetoire based on sales figures rather than whether a recording is needed, pandering to upper class audiences instead of creative types, crossovers with rock and jazz to appeal to more commercial audiences, encouraging "conceptual" composers who give contemporary music a bad name...

But as I said, it's probably too late for classical music. All the Beethovens and Mozarts of today are scoring movies or playing the guitar, not composing for the concert hall.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Advertorial in music criticism magazines, programming of concerts by established names at the expense of more worthy unknowns (Lang Lang, et al), record labels choosing repetoire based on sales figures rather than whether a recording is needed, pandering to upper class audiences instead of creative types, crossovers with rock and jazz to appeal to more commercial audiences, encouraging "conceptual" composers who give contemporary music a bad name...
> 
> But as I said, it's probably too late for classical music. All the Beethovens and Mozarts of today are scoring movies or playing the guitar, not composing for the concert hall.


Well, I dont want to argue with you, that wasn't the point of this thread.


----------



## Guest (Apr 21, 2012)

Off-hand, it seems to me that the situation in contemporary art and contemporary classical music are quite different - the former is arguably bloated with too much money while the latter is somewhat deprived of resources. 

A comparison between contemporary art and contemporary pop/rock might be a bit more appropriate - at least as far as the effects of money on artists and the industry.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

bigshot said:


> Advertorial in music criticism magazines, programming of concerts by established names at the expense of more worthy unknowns (Lang Lang, et al), record labels choosing repetoire based on sales figures rather than whether a recording is needed, pandering to upper class audiences instead of creative types, crossovers with rock and jazz to appeal to more commercial audiences, encouraging "conceptual" composers who give contemporary music a bad name...
> 
> But as I said, it's probably too late for classical music. All the Beethovens and Mozarts of today are scoring movies or playing the guitar, not composing for the concert hall.


Record labels are hardly going to spend money recording stuff that no one will buy.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I haven't watched the Simon Rattle video yet, but I will. In my opinion, doing homework on 20th Century Music might help you to understand/appreciate certain aspects of musical pieces on an intellectual level, but I don't think it will help someone enjoy a piece. You just have to dive in and listen. And you have to try different interpretations of a work. Speaking of Simon Rattle, his interpretation of many works hits the spot for me. I like his recordings of Schoenberg on EMI. Consequently, I didn't care much for some of Boulez's recordings of the same pieces on Sony. And with all that aside, after you've given a piece of music a fair amount of time, why keep second guessing? Move on!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

starthrower said:


> I haven't watched the Simon Rattle video yet, but I will. In my opinion, doing homework on 20th Century Music might help you to understand/appreciate certain aspects of musical pieces on an intellectual level, but I don't think it will help someone enjoy a piece. You just have to dive in and listen. And you have to try different interpretations of a work. Speaking of Simon Rattle, his interpretation of many works hits the spot for me. I like his recordings of Schoenberg on EMI. Consequently, I didn't care much for some of Boulez's recordings of the same pieces on Sony. And with all that aside, after you've given a piece of music a fair amount of time, why keep second guessing? Move on!


Well, the thing I think is helpful about the Rattle doc. is that there isnt too much technicality involved. He explains a lot of piees is a very poetic way with some historical context. I think that is more helpful to a lot of people in appreciating this kind of music.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

That sounds like a sensible approach for us lay people. And that's the aspect of the music I want the conductor to translate to the listeners. That transcendental quality that moves and excites me as a listener.


----------

