# Attacking contemporary music and the people who love it



## Guest

I wanted to do a riff on "Why do people hate classical these days?" but I'm not really concerned with why people hate contemporary classical. There's no mystery there.

No, what I'd like to know--if only on grounds of general curiosity--is why so many people feel the need to attack it all the time, and not only it but the people who love it. I.e., disliking it is apparently not enough. That dislike has to translate into attacking it and its proponents at every opportunity. And that sounds for all the world to me like fear.

Contemporary music is threatening and so must be attacked and destroyed.

I've spent more than half my life (practically two thirds, come to think of it) enjoying current classical music--so long that a lot of stuff I enjoyed when it was new is now quite old hat. Simply enjoying. Not struggling with it. Not forcing myself, for whatever reason, to like it. Just listening to it and enjoying it.

Not everything, of course. No one can like everything. But not worrying if individual pieces or even composers didn't float my boat. Never thinking "I didn't like that piece by Scelsi, therefore there's something wrong with all modern music," which is pretty close to what I hear people saying all the time. (To what I _think_ I'm hearing people say.)

Anyway, enough and more about me. Over to you. If you don't like contemporary classical, why does that dislike turn so readily into attacking the music? If you do like contemporary, do you have any theories as to why people who don't like it also feel compelled to attack it--and you?

NOTE: this is easily the kind of thread that can generate so much heat as to be locked almost immediately. I'd like to see if we can avoid the kinds of things that involve the moderators. That involve them AS moderators, that is. Moderators have ideas about music, too, and should be allowed to play as much as non-mods!


----------



## jhar26

Maybe because it's easier to blame the music than oneself for not liking it. It's not limited to contemporary music either. People who never listen to any classical music whatsoever also put the blame on the music. They are more likely to say, "classical music is boring" than "I'm not able to appreciate it." Some people who love classical music, but don't like certain composers are also 'guilty' of this. It's always Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner or Schoenberg that are 'crap' because if they are not, the person in question that doesn't like them would have to admit to a failing on his part. So part of it is an ego thing I think. The "I'm such a great judge of music that if I don't like it it can't possibly be any good" way of thinking.


----------



## Almaviva

some guy said:


> I wanted to do a riff on "Why do people hate classical these days?" but I'm not really concerned with why people hate contemporary classical. There's no mystery there.
> 
> No, what I'd like to know--if only on grounds of general curiosity--is why so many people feel the need to attack it all the time, and not only it but the people who love it. I.e., disliking it is apparently not enough. That dislike has to translate into attacking it and its proponents at every opportunity. And that sounds for all the world to me like fear.
> 
> Contemporary music is threatening and so must be attacked and destroyed.
> 
> I've spent more than half my life (practically two thirds, come to think of it) enjoying current classical music--so long that a lot of stuff I enjoyed when it was new is now quite old hat. Simply enjoying. Not struggling with it. Not forcing myself, for whatever reason, to like it. Just listening to it and enjoying it.
> 
> Not everything, of course. No one can like everything. But not worrying if individual pieces or even composers didn't float my boat. Never thinking "I didn't like that piece by Scelsi, therefore there's something wrong with all modern music," which is pretty close to what I hear people saying all the time. (To what I _think_ I'm hearing people say.)
> 
> Anyway, enough and more about me. Over to you. If you don't like contemporary classical, why does that dislike turn so readily into attacking the music? If you do like contemporary, do you have any theories as to why people who don't like it also feel compelled to attack it--and you?
> 
> NOTE: this is easily the kind of thread that can generate so much heat as to be locked almost immediately. I'd like to see if we can avoid the kinds of things that involve the moderators. That involve them AS moderators, that is. Moderators have ideas about music, too, and should be allowed to play as much as non-mods!


Actually this is a very interesting question, a very valid topic for discussion in my opinion, and yes, it's got the potential for a heated debate, but I'm confident that we'll be able to keep it civil.

Let me tell you my perspective. I'm almost exclusively an opera fan, I listen to and enjoy other genres of classical music, patronize my local orchestra, and attend a number of symphonic, chamber, and vocal concerts in different genres, but I just can't say I'm a "fan" because I reserve that term for my opera passion - the interest, the intensity, and the rewards for me are so much bigger that opera for me blows everything else out of the way. So I can't properly address with any reasonable knowledge other genres of contemporary classical music.

But I can tell you this: while baroque, classical, and romantic operas are much more familiar to me, I pretty much like almost everything that I explore in terms of modernist and contemporary opera. My knowledge of these is much inferior to my knowledge of other periods; it's a work in progress for me, but I've been liking - a lot - mostly everything that I've been encountering - even though sometimes the very first encounter with a vanguard work turns me off, but then relatively rapidly I turn things around and start appreciating it. For example, I was quite surprised with _Lulu_ at first and had the impression that I wouldn't be able to like it - but then in a matter of days it grew on me and today I greatly admire it.

So this long introduction is to say that I'm highly sympathetic to contemporary works, and I don't recall ever attacking them (I may have said that they haven't been through the test of time yet which is true and not an attack per se), and much less, attacking the people who like them.

This said, I do have a significant problem - a pet peeve if you will - with the reverse situation. It's not uncommon to encounter lovers of modernist/contemporary works who profoundly despise the older periods *and the people who love them.* In this very forum I've encountered people who seem to look down on anything that is not vanguard, and tend to consider people who love the more ancient periods as dumb listeners who "don't get it."

I think that those who have this kind of opinion forget that *at the time when those composers were alive* what *they* were doing was vanguard.

There is nothing wrong with a melodious, tuneful Belcanto opera. It had its place in music history, it was a new style when it started, and many of the works from that period are very beautiful. Liking them is no proof that someone is dumb or unprepared or unsophisticated.

Sometimes the "vanguard only" guys can be pretty arrogant and dismissive of others, calling the melodious ancient works "lame" or "crap" or "vomit-inducing sugary light stuff" etc, etc. I often feel tempted to react to this kind of thing by saying - "would you personally be able to do better than Bellini, Rossini, Donizetti, etc, and achieve the kind of immortality that they have achieved? The fact that their style is over and is part of the past doesn't mean that it wasn't good."

This kind of behavior - a certain arrogance of those who believe they "are in the know" and are superior to others who don't share the same tastes - is in my opinion similar to one of the annoying traits of certain vegans or certain pet lovers.

I love meat, and I'm not a pet person. I'm all for the humane treatment of animals and against any kind of animal cruelty, but I also happen to think that in the natural world there are predators and prey and eating other animals is natural behavior. I also have nothing against pets per se, just, I don't have the kind of personality that would want to get involved with the daily care of a pet and would want to put up with the many annoyances that come with it - like cleaning up the poop after your dog, dealing with smelly litters, not being able to sleep in because hungry pets are scratching at your bedroom door begging for food, etc. So, pets are not for me. This doesn't make of me a monster. I'm a rather charitable person, and incapable of any cruelty. It irks me when pet lovers look down on me like I'm some sort of inferior sadistic monster just because pets are not for me. Similarly, when a vegan calls me a murderer because I happen to like a good steak, I can't help but roll my eyes.

So, I have nothing against lovers of contemporary classical music. I do have something against people who believe that their tastes make them superior to others, and dismiss others as dumb or unsophisticated because others don't happen to share their tastes.


----------



## jhar26

Almaviva said:


> This said, I do have a significant problem - a pet peeve if you will - with the reverse situation. It's not uncommon to encounter lovers of modernist/contemporary works who profoundly despise the older periods *and the people who love them.* In this very forum I've encountered people who seem to look down on anything that is not vanguard, and tend to consider people who love the more ancient periods as dumb listeners who "don't get it."


I feel much the same way. I never take people seriously who like the obscure because it's obscure and hate the popular because it's popular. Chances are that if said obscure works ever became popular that they would drop them of their list of faves because they could courtesy of those works no longer pretend to know something more than the rest of us.

And to avoid any misunderstanding - I don't consider some_guy to be one of those people. Whether one shares his enthusiasm for the music he loves or not, there's no doubt that his passion for that music is genuine.


----------



## Almaviva

jhar26 said:


> I feel much the same way. I never take people seriously who like the obscure because it's obscure and hate the popular because it's popular. Chances are that if said obscure works ever became popular that they would drop them of their list of faves because they could courtesy of those works no longer pretend to know something more than the rest of us.
> 
> And to avoid any misunderstanding - I don't consider some_guy to be one of those people. Whether one shares his enthusiasm for the music he loves or not, there's no doubt that his passion for that music is genuine.


I agree with everything you said above including the statement about some_guy. He does seem to know his stuff and is an important asset to the board in terms of tipping us into worthy contemporary works.


----------



## Elgarian

some guy said:


> what I'd like to know--if only on grounds of general curiosity--is why so many people feel the need to attack it all the time, and not only it but the people who love it. I.e., disliking it is apparently not enough. That dislike has to translate into attacking it and its proponents at every opportunity. And that sounds for all the world to me like fear.


Music isn't alone in this. It happens in all the arts, and so presumably there's something about the arts that in itself evokes this sort of response.

One problem is that in order to engage properly with a work of art, we need to open ourselves to it. There are times when it's easy to do this: I doubt that many people have difficulty opening themselves to 'Nessun Dorma', so vast numbers of people can see for themselves how good it is. The problems arise when the art requires a shift of perception that isn't easy to achieve.

Trying to 'open' ourselves in this way involves a kind of surrender, because we have to be able to exchange our own way of looking at things for the artist's. 'Not my will, but thine', as it were. And that instantly puts us at risk. When we offer trust, we respond very badly if it's betrayed. And there are no guarantees in art. In fact it's very likely that on a large number of occasions, on approaching a new kind of art, the trust will be betrayed - or rather, more accurately, we'll _feel_ that it's been betrayed. So of course, if we don't stop to figure out what's going on, we get angry. We get angry with the art, with the artist, and with those who would persuade us to offer our trust to what we see as deceptive nonsense, and before too long a whole new phobia has developed in which abstract paintings, unusual art installations, odd-looking poems, and music that doesn't sound tuneful, are all bracketed together as potential betrayers of trust.

How do I know? Because I've learned the hard way. I've blustered my angry way with the worst of them, scoffing at abstract painting because 'anybody can do that' - until the day when an abstract painting blew my head off, and I realised that hardly anybody could do it; scoffing at contemporary poetry's apparent lack of intelligibility - until I suddenly understood how expressive words can be even if you don't rationally understand what's being said; scoffing at the insubstantial blandness of Mozart until I suddenly saw how bristling with life his music really is. And I could go on and on. The wonder is that it took me so long to realise that most of the problem was _mine_, and not the art's, the music's, or the poetry's.

I'm not saying there's no bad music, bad painting, and bad poetry. Of course there is. The world is full of it. But I think by far the greatest hurdle is our lack of self-knowledge: our lack of awareness of what causes our anger.

[I like to say from time to time that *some guy* is the most interesting poster I know on any internet forum, and I'll say it again clearly here now.]


----------



## hocket

I suspect that one of the reasons for the hostilty is the perception (and I think an accurate one) that modernist and contemporary music has led to the emptying of concert halls so that fans of older periods feel that the music they favour is not receivng the support that it potentially could. As such it's about legacy -the fear that this tradition is dying on the vine due to a hermetic an elitist mentality.


----------



## jhar26

hocket said:


> I suspect that one of the reasons for the hostilty is the perception (and I think an accurate one) that modernist and contemporary music has led to the emptying of concert halls so that fans of older periods feel that the music they favour is not receivng the support that it potentially could. As such it's about legacy -the fear that this tradition is dying on the vine due to a hermetic an elitist mentality.


But the biggest danger for classical music is the perception that it's an outdated art form that is ONLY about what was going on 200 years ago. In order for classical music to stay healthy there has to be both respect for the past AND curiosity about the new. That doesn't mean that we all should love all - or even a lot of contemporary music, but I think it's a myth that all contemporary music as a rule can only be enjoyed be an elite. There are living composers who write music that is just as accessible as the music that was composed 100 years or more ago.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

hocket said:


> As such it's about legacy -the fear that this tradition is dying on the vine due to a hermetic an elitist mentality.


Not quite true. Today, Baroque music and early music are performed and recorded more than ever: who could have imagined only a few decades ago that by the year 2010 all of Handel's operas and oratorios have been recorded and released on CD, along with numerous other composers' works that were never performed since their premieres centuries ago, and who have been entirely forgotten since their deaths? Baroue music for example, is enjoying a "second Renaissance" of its own. Thousands of CDs have been released (let alone staged for production and released on DVD/visual medium), musicology on the period has shed more interesting and fascinating insights than ever before. Handel's dramatic English oratorio, _Semele_, had its premiere in the People's Republic of China for the first time last month (also believed to be the first Baroque opera ever staged there).

The fact that there is a solid and growing demand for Baroque music, and the fact that audiences today in modern hight-tech 2010 have suddenly found these works to be as entertaining and relevant today (whether in a secular sense and or religious sense, as one of early music's chief function was indeed to glorify their religion/God), proves conclusively that such music have something it in that transcends both time and cultures.

I'm afraid the same cannot be said much of 20th century music. I don't mean the internet members who post here, but the fine music market by and large across the globe.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Almaviva said:


> Let me tell you my perspective. I'm almost exclusively an opera fan, I listen to and enjoy other genres of classical music, patronize my local orchestra, and attend a number of symphonic, chamber, and vocal concerts in different genres, but I just can't say I'm a "fan" because I reserve that term for my opera passion - the interest, the intensity, and the rewards for me are so much bigger that opera for me blows everything else out of the way. So I can't properly address with any reasonable knowledge other genres of contemporary classical music.


Remember the other day (or last week) you had a thread about why contemporary opera often lacked a fine aria that you could whistle to? I suggested to you that contemporary music is instrumental in idiom, not vocal in idiom, and that there tends to be a very clear preference of listeners of contemporary music to discuss only instrumental works 90% of the time.


----------



## Aramis

"I can't dig contemporary music so I'll bash it and call it worthless noise so I can feel better" attitude is probably most important reason of such attacks. 

I used to talk a lot of **** about contemporary music when I was newbie that listened only to Mozart and stuff and even Wagner and Mahler seemd too extreme, not to mention really contemporary music. I don't do it anymore. And it's not because I fell in love with everything that happens in music today. It's because I simply understood that crap punishes itself and it doesn't need to be attacked. 

Let's take this piece that HarpsichordConcerto links in every possible thread with nasty comments. This YT video he posts had 5209 views - in two (three?) years. That's not much, he? And let's not forget that something like half of those views was by people who, like HP, came to hear the piece just to think "lol wtf" and get back to Mozart. 

So it's lot of troube about nothing - there are more discussions and bashing of Helikopter-Streichquartett than people who really listen to it. And by bringing this up over and over again they reinforce the status quo - if not all those haters pieces like Helikopter-Streichquartett would be almost unknown. Just think how many times you saw someone mentioning this work; then think about how many times it was done in context like "I also love Helikopter-Streichquartett, marvelous piece, my favourite performances are...) and how many times it was something like "bla bla bla bla it sucks, just think about this crap called Helikopter-Streichquartett, what the hell it's supposed to be, it's just bla bla bla..." 

From these facts I assume that people who attack contemporary music as a whole constantly and with dedication are either unexperienced or simply dumb. 

And what really gets hurt in this mess is not crap but valueable contemporary music - one that is good and perhaps difficult to listen but not enough absurd and stupid to be discussed so often as Helikopter-Streichquartett or 4'33.


----------



## Ukko

There seems to be a lot of "failure to understand", and "it's my fault that I don't like contemporary music". Fault and failure don't enter into it. I dislike maybe 95% of contemporary music - of _every_ genre; it doesn't feel like a _failure_ to me. The music doesn't ring my chimes, but there's a vast amount of music out there from other times that I haven't heard yet (I've only been listening for 70 years or so). I don't consider contemporary to be 'junk (well, maybe rap is), I just ain't interested.


----------



## hocket

*jhar26 wrote:*



> But the biggest danger for classical music is the perception that it's an outdated art form that is ONLY about what was going on 200 years ago.


Is it? I think that is something of a straw man. Of course no art form should remain static and stuck in the mud. However, for argument's sake, you could just as easily take the stance that the 'Classical' tradition is primarily known nowadays for its music from 100-250 years ago because a wider public doesn't think anything since then is worth a damn.



> In order for classical music to stay healthy there has to be both respect for the past AND curiosity about the new.


I agree; the lack of curiosity about the new is exactly what I'm talking about. I did not make any value judgements, I merely observed that modernist/contemporary music is generallly viewed as difficult and as a result has a tendency to be off putting for casual listeners.



> I think it's a myth that all contemporary music as a rule can only be enjoyed be an elite. There are living composers who write music that is just as accessible as the music that was composed 100 years or more ago.


Of course its a myth, but it is that perception which is significant. There are composers who produce accessible music, but as a whole they're a minority. That's what empties our concert halls. I, and I'm sure many of us, have had experience of people in Classical circles (and even in pop circles actually) dismissing music for being 'too easy' as if being difficult or challenging were a merit in itself. That sort of attitude I do find reprehensible and damaging.

*HarpsichordConcerto wrote:*



> Today, Baroque music and early music are performed and recorded more than ever


True, but that is largely due to academic and performance developments. Earlier baroque and also, to an even greater extent, renaissance and medieval music weren't really understood or appreciated by our academies until relatively recently and as a result were little performed or recorded. Prior to the 1970's they didn't even really know how to perform renaissance music properly and an important an trailblazing group like Pro Cantione Antiqua now sound hopeless compared to the likes of The Hilliard Ensemble and those who've followed since. Purcell and Monteverdi have become relatively mainstream but other than that how many baroque or renaissance composers can really be said to sell on the scale that any of the big names post-Vivaldi do? It's still a niche market. That may change in time if audiences become less brainwashed by the pre-existing canon, but the fact remains that to a lot of Classical enthusiasts 'real' music doesn't start until Bach, or Haydn, or Beethoven or whoever.

I don't disagree that it's music that has staying power, but your argument is based on it coming from nothing which is deceptive. It's growth has been impressive, and will hopefully continue. A lot of 'Early Music' is accessible -often more so than much Romantic music once you're accustomed to the forms of the day.

You may or may not like modern music -that's irrelevant to my point. The majority of modern music is perceived by audiences to be difficult and inaccessible and that's what I'm arguing causes some hostility to it as it damages the image and appeal of Classical music as a whole to a wider public. Now, you can argue that it is inaccessible because it's crap if you like; fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't invalidate my argument.

I'm not sure that things actually would be better if it were more generally accessible as I suspect that it would be regarded as stagnant and boring, so in that sense jhar26 does have a good point, but that doesn't affect the possibility that difficulty may be damaging. That perception may be right or wrong, it might even be right whilst still being the best option in an awkward situation.


----------



## World Violist

I'm wondering if it isn't a comfort issue for a lot of people. I've been delving into some modern opera and have been listening to modern music overall for a few years now (I expect I'll be listening to a still larger variety of modern music as I've found a channel on Youtube: "NewMusicXX" which has some 600 uploads (and counting!) of modern/avant-garde music), and it was a very interesting experience to play Norgard's "Voyage into the Golden Screen" for a group of my friends; they were frankly annoyed by it, by the clashing of overtones, by the lack of obvious melody, by the quartertones... it seemed by the whole process of its existence. I was surprised by this, but now I'm not quite so surprised, because they had probably never so much as listened to _Verklarte Nacht._

I think Almaviva's comment about his experiences with _Lulu_ shed a lot of light into it, which is why I'm yet again waving the "comfort" comment about like I always seem to do when this question arises. Almaviva said it took him time to appreciate _Lulu_, and if there's anything I now about contemporary society, it's that they like instant gratification. It's why so many people go for Mozart or Beethoven. Either they know what to expect this way (Mozart) or it's so immediately intense and confrontational that they want that sort of thing all the time (Beethoven). Why else would Wagner and Bruckner be so endlessly vilified today and Mahler glorified beyond all expectations?

I think it applies to contemporary music also. People don't realize that it is _not,_ as is so often said, a different language, but that it's just a different way of expressing things.

I've got a real admiration for "NewMusicXX" for putting up all these short-ish new music pieces on Youtube (not many go beyond two videos' worth), because it will probably do far more to propagate a public toleration and later love for contemporary music than Boulez's rejection of older music. It's all just music, and it all needs to be appreciated, no matter what date it was written.


----------



## hocket

*World Violist wrote:*



> I'm wondering if it isn't a comfort issue for a lot of people.


Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding but isn't that a good reason for people not to like contemporary music rather than one for the specific distinction that the OP made of them being actively hostile towards it. I don't particularly like chlorinated water but I don't feel the need to go on and on about it as if the sky were falling on our heads (or the Commies were trying to rob us of our precious bodily fluids...). OTOH I do feel the need to rail against the conversion of local pubs into flats as I consider it damaging to both culture and community. I believe that the question is: why is contemporary classical music treated like the latter rather than the former by many of its naysayers?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

My challenge to all you here: _Is_ it wrong to hate a certain music, be it Contemporary, Baroque, etc? Is it that person's _fault _that when certain sound waves hit their ears and transfer to neurons in their brain, they have a shut-off reaction? Would you all here promote the idea of turning off your own conscience for the sake of tolerance?

I think there's a deeper level still.

The varying musical tastes I see in people, especially on forums like these where people from all around the world join, amazes me. I may have a certain taste, and that other person agrees, but yet another loves something completely different, and another something else. It really excites me, considering where I come from, because I rarely meet people like you all in person.

I don't think all music was meant to be loved by every single human being.

For me, I've reached that part of my life where I'm trying (semi) hard to understand modern/contemporary music, because it'll be forced on me in college, as I have been warned. I won't have a choice. But despite all that, am I going to be loud-mouthed and express all my opinions about how awful this music is, etc. ? No. It's my job to take it in, at least attempt to understand it, and perhaps appreciate it. But if I can't, is that a _crime_? If I can't like it, do I still have a right to explain myself why I don't? The issue that has arisen is that people don't even give each other the right to _hate _what they want freely, let alone love.

I think real tolerance is when you realize that people around you are simply _different_. It's no use trying to make everyone the same, or even force people to love certain things. Therefore, tolerance is not only an acceptance of varying music, but acceptance of other _people_ and their tastes. If it can be reciprocal, one person loving something the other hates, and yet both respect that, this will be the beginning of reconciliation.


----------



## jurianbai

(I've concept this before Huilun's post, his post is actually similar to my view)

for me, classical music as in Mozart is totally different to Xenakis. They may use the same music tradition but not the same in music style. So if I am fans of Mozart not automatically I will also fans of Xenakis, because it is different. This is the same as expecting jazz fans to have a smooth time enjoying disco. 

I think one problem need to avoid is, to think that contemporary music is an 'upgrade' / 'up to date' version to the prior classical music. that thinking will put contemporay music lover on asumption that : romantic music lover who not understand and criticized contemporary music is a not 'improved' classical music lover.


----------



## Boccherini

Platitudinous cliché; but well, pretty congruous to this forum.

The phenomenon of attacks from the "popular" to the "modern" - to borrow a few words from this thread, words that are pretty problematic per se - should be equally irritating and be considered as worthless, as wierd attitudes that aspire everybody to like, understand and even appreciate all genres, sometimes even preposterously blindly.

"Why do people feel the need to attack contemporary music?" -- No idea.
"Why do people feel the need to attach personal complexes to others?" -- No clue.

"Is the (second) phenomenon (I mentioned above) works bilaterally?" -- *ahem*, I would cough.


----------



## Boccherini

jurianbai said:


> I think one problem need to avoid is, to think that contemporary music is an 'upgrade' / 'up to date' version to the prior classical music. that thinking will put contemporay music lover on asumption that : romantic music lover who not understand and criticized contemporary music is a not 'improved' classical music lover.


A just perception, indeed.


----------



## Ukko

Huilunsoittaja said:


> f I can't like it, do I still have a right to explain myself why I don't? The issue that has arisen is that people don't even give each other the right to _hate _what they want freely, let alone love.
> 
> I think real tolerance is when you realize that people around you are simply _different_. It's no use trying to make everyone the same, or even force people to love certain things. Therefore, tolerance is not only an acceptance of varying music, but acceptance of other _people_ and their tastes. If it can be reciprocal, one person loving something the other hates, and yet both respect that, this will be the beginning of reconciliation.


Except for extremely extenuating circumstances, I don't understand the 'hate' thing. I admit, if I were forced to listen to the 'Hellikopter' thing (spelling intended) for hours on end I would be hating it - otherwise, it seems to me that indifference is the reasonable reaction. If your description of the college music scene is right, ignore the music when you can't wear earplugs. If music classes force 'new music' on you, maybe you are in the wrong classes.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

jurianbai said:


> I think one problem need to avoid is, to think that contemporary music is an 'upgrade' / 'up to date' version to the prior classical music. that thinking will put contemporay music lover on asumption that : romantic music lover who not understand and criticized contemporary music is a not 'improved' classical music lover.


Good point. Very interesting. "If it is modern and based on ideas preceeding it, then it must be better". But in the arts, people feel extremely uncomfortable (like many folks do here) when using the word "better" to assess one period of art versus another simply because it is the arts.


----------



## Almaviva

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Remember the other day (or last week) you had a thread about why contemporary opera often lacked a fine aria that you could whistle to? I suggested to you that contemporary music is instrumental in idiom, not vocal in idiom, and that there tends to be a very clear preference of listeners of contemporary music to discuss only instrumental works 90% of the time.


Yes, but the "aria" I was looking for doesn't need to be a traditionally tuneful one. Examples were shown of dissonant arias in contemporary opera (like the Dr. Atomic example) that are quite enticing and I'd be content with them. Like I said, their absence doesn't make me dismiss modernist and contemporary opera, I've been exploring them and liking most of what I see (still an embrionary project, I'm advancing little by little) - it's just that like even more those contemporary operas that do include some significant singing instead of just considering the voice as one additional instrument among the dozens and dozens of orchestral instruments. I still think that opera is primarily about the human voice, opera is vocal music (otherwise why not just compose an orchestral piece?) and I tend to like even more the modernist/contemporary operas that include a sizable portion of dominant singing, instead of relegating the human voice to an auxiliary role at best. But you know, my opinion may evolve as I get more familiar and more knowledgeable about recent works.


----------



## Almaviva

Almaviva said:


> This said, I do have a significant problem - a pet peeve if you will - with the reverse situation. It's not uncommon to encounter lovers of modernist/contemporary works who profoundly despise the older periods *and the people who love them.* In this very forum I've encountered people who seem to look down on anything that is not vanguard, and tend to consider people who love the more ancient periods as dumb listeners who "don't get it."


I'm quoting myself, although I don't know how kosher this is.

But it's just because I'm a bit curious about why nobody took into consideration the reverse situation that I mentioned, in this thread. I believe that things need to be considered from more than one standpoint, and while shifting to the reverse pre-conception seems off-topic, it's not off-topic because one hostile attitude feeds on the other and vice-versa.

So, yes, some traditionalists attack vanguardists, but *also* some vanguardists attack traditionalists. Why isn't anybody addressing this other side of the coin? Do we need a new thread to address the contemptuous "I'm in the know, he/she who doesn't dig my preferred music is dumb and doesn't get it" attitude that many vanguardists have against traditionalists?


----------



## World Violist

Almaviva said:


> I'm quoting myself, although I don't know how kosher this is.


I've quoted myself before, and God hasn't bothered smiting me yet.


----------



## hocket

Lovely weather we're having, isn't it?


----------



## Sid James

I agree with what many people have said above, but most of all I agree with Huilunsoittaja in that we can all be tolerant of eachother's different tastes. I've got a few colleagues and friends who who never listen to the same sort of stuff that I do, but funnily enough, we always find some common ground - we all love classical music to varying degrees. Whether it's Monteverdi's Vespers or Howard Shore's Lord of the Rings soundtrack or something by Xenakis it's basically all classical music, and that's what really matters. & I don't think that liking one cancels the others out. I like music from all eras and genres (except opera, but I don't mind an overture, chorus or aria now and then!). I think that it's perhaps easier to show enmity on the internet in places like this towards people you don't really know and will never meet. But in the "real world," I am fine with colleagues and friends who tell me the limits of their tastes in classical music. I don't reply to them something like it's their fault for not liking a certain piece or style. With these people, there are things we like in common, and things we don't (just as on these forums). I agree that tolerance is the key, and also finding a common ground. Intelligent people can do that when they communicate with eachother, whereas people who are unable to communicate, well - you know...


----------



## Enjoying Life

Almaviva said:


> I'm quoting myself, although I don't know how kosher this is.
> 
> But it's just because I'm a bit curious about why nobody took into consideration the reverse situation that I mentioned, in this thread. I believe that things need to be considered from more than one standpoint, and while shifting to the reverse pre-conception seems off-topic, it's not off-topic because one hostile attitude feeds on the other and vice-versa.
> 
> So, yes, some traditionalists attack vanguardists, but *also* some vanguardists attack traditionalists. Why isn't anybody addressing this other side of the coin? Do we need a new thread to address the contemptuous "I'm in the know, he/she who doesn't dig my preferred music is dumb and doesn't get it" attitude that many vanguardists have against traditionalists?


I agree with your point. I get tired of people suggesting that classical music is like grades in school - you start with easy Mozart and if you are smart enough or "in touch" or "open" then you move on to 20th Cent. music. You read about "failing to understand" or "not getting it" as if those who do not like more recent music some how tried and missed.

I just happen to like what I like. I come to classical music for specific reasons and like the music that satisifies what I am looking for. I am open to listening to other styles along the way and occassionally find something new that I like.

And no, I don't expect that I will "mature" in my tastes and graduate to 20th Cent music. It is not what I am looking for. I understand it, but have no desire to listen to it. My dislike for most of it is not a defect or a lack of experience on my part. It is just not what I like.

20th Cent music is not more intellectual or advanced. It is not more pure or sophisticated. And liking it or not liking it is not about "getting it" or "being open to it". It is not a plane of enlightenment to strive for and hope some day to achieve.

But, back to the original post I will respect those that do like it and refrain from looking down on them. I just ask for the same in return.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

There seems to be a lot of "failure to understand", and "it's my fault that I don't like contemporary music". Fault and failure don't enter into it. I dislike maybe 95% of contemporary music - of every genre; it doesn't feel like a failure to me. The music doesn't ring my chimes, but there's a vast amount of music out there from other times that I haven't heard yet (I've only been listening for 70 years or so). I don't consider contemporary to be 'junk (well, maybe rap is), I just ain't interested.

I quite agree with the suggestion that 95% of all music... all ART of any form... is mediocre or less. I might even suggest the percentage is higher... and that was the same in the past as it ever was. The advantage we have with the past is that the worst crap... the merely competent period pieces have been filtered out for us. We don't need to listen to hundreds of composers to discover Mozart and Haydn. When approaching Modern/Contemporary music we are presented with an overwhelming wealth of music. Only a small percentage of it will resonate with most of us. The percentage that will strike us as "brilliant"... a "masterpiece"... will surely be even smaller still.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

if I am fans of Mozart not automatically I will also fans of Xenakis, because it is different. This is the same as expecting jazz fans to have a smooth time enjoying disco. 

Hell, I wouldn't even assume that just because someone likes Ellington and Armstrong they will inherently love Ornette Coleman or Eric Dolphy.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Enjoying Life said:


> But, back to the original post I will respect those that do like it and refrain from looking down on them. I just ask for the same in return.


I really appreciate this sentiment. I'm not even sure that I would insist on respect as much as insist on being spared open disrespect, really.

To personalize these things, I always wind up relating this sort of thing back to my love of Wagner, because he's probably my favorite composer (if I were forced to name just one), AND he has (in political-speak) high negatives. [For instance, on another heavily-trafficked forum, they had a 20-composer countdown, and he was the second to get pitched, on account of those high negatives.]

Now, I'll happily advocate for Wagner's music- but if I claim that my advocacy is based on an elite level of aesthetic comprehension that those who fail to appreciate him have not achieved (and for the record, I make no such claim), then I'll have crossed a line by engaging in open disrespect of those whose conclusions differ from mine- and ought not be surprised by any _counter_-attack levelled against me based on my initial show of disrespect to someone's differing taste.


----------



## Aramis

> Now, I'll happily advocate for Wagner's music- but if I claim that my advocacy is based on an elite level of aesthetic comprehension that those who fail to appreciate him have not achieved (and for the record, I make no such claim), then I'll have crossed a line by engaging in open disrespect of those whose conclusions differ from mine- and ought not be surprised by any counter-attack levelled against me based on my initial show of disrespect to someone's differing taste.


At the other hand it's even more negative thing to fall into radical political correctness and artificial politeness. Sometimes it's obvious that other person simply knows and understands less, why pretend that it's diffrent in such situation? Is someone with years of experience and great knowledge obligated to talk to some arogant newbie with obvious lack of competence in lines like "I totally respect your views, perhaps I'm wrong about Wagner's music being deep, your statement that Wagner was Nazi dick makes me think about this music in new, diffrent way... I'm glad that we can learn from each other and confront our views on Wagner's music, I certainly appreciate your contribution and assure you that I don't consider myself superior listener"?


----------



## Rasa

I myself am quite annoyed by the presumption of contem composers and afficionados that the genre deserves respect. No art warrants respect. I'll make it my business to avoid occasions where I might be prompted for an opinion and my sarcastic bile concerning new music might spill over. That however is not respect for any form of art, but simply a respect for everyone's privacy. 

contemporary music lovers can listen to factory noises and inverted rain patterns in their homes. As long as they don't bother me with it.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Aramis said:


> Is someone with years of experience and great knowledge obligated to talk to some arrogant newbie with obvious lack of competence in lines like "I totally respect your views..."


Well, if an arrogant newbie arrives and demonstrates arrogance in a visible manner, then to try to disabuse him of his arrogance would be an understandable reaction (if not necessarily a commendable one) and fall in the realm of _reaction to_ rather than _initiation of_ hostilities.

However, perhaps the following proverb can be of further guidance...

He who knows not and knows he knows not--
This man is simple- teach him

He who knows and knows not that he knows-- 
This man is asleep- awaken him

*He who knows not and thinks that he knows--
This man is a fool- shun him* (emphasis mine)

He who knows and knows that he knows--
This man is wise- follow him.


----------



## Guest

Rasa said:


> I myself am quite annoyed by the presumption of contem composers and afficionados that the genre deserves respect. No art warrants respect. I'll make it my business to avoid occasions where I might be prompted for an opinion and my sarcastic bile concerning new music might spill over. That however is not respect for any form of art, but simply a respect for everyone's privacy.
> 
> contemporary music lovers can listen to factory noises and inverted rain patterns in their homes. As long as they don't bother me with it.


In general, this is my opinion as well, but for any kind of music or art. Nothing inherently deserves respect. Respect comes as the merits of the creation are recognized. The "A for Effort" philosophy is great for little kids, but in the real world, when we automatically assume that any and every creation - in this case music - deserves respect, it cheapens all music. In the case of music, it seems that the criticism falls more heavily on contemporary music, but I suspect that is due to the fact that it has not been vetted and evaluated as thoroughly as older creations, so it is bound to receive more criticism. The older works seem to receive less because time has whittled away most of the works that, in the past, were probably just as ridiculed as contemporary works now are. What we are left with is what has stood the test of time. New usually is criticized more than old. That doesn't mean old is always better than new. But there is definitely a draw for some to take pride in liking things that are generally disliked, rightly or wrongly crediting the dislike to a lack of sophistication or understanding from those who criticize.

But really, this is what all music has to endure. Do you think that Beethoven had all of his works immediately embraced and accepted as masterpieces, and nobody criticized them? And Wagner certainly was not universally loved. To this day, he is still very polarizing, and yet his Flight of the Valkyries is widely recognized.

So contemporary music has to face the critics, just as every other form has. It's worth has to be thoroughly evaluated and proven. Blind acceptance of any utterance of one who claims the profession of composer does the world of music no favors.

But certainly we can agree that attacking a person for finding something of worth in contemporary music is wrong, despite what we might think on the subject. Individual tastes vary. For even the most obscure composition, you will find some who will appreciate it, for whatever reason. That doesn't automatically grant it universal worth.


----------



## Almaviva

Enjoying Life said:


> 20th Cent music is not more intellectual or advanced. It is not more pure or sophisticated. And liking it or not liking it is not about "getting it" or "being open to it". It is not a plane of enlightenment to strive for and hope some day to achieve.
> 
> But, back to the original post I will respect those that do like it and refrain from looking down on them. I just ask for the same in return.


----------



## PianoCoach

*100 years?*

I offer a very simple observation.

I agree that Bach wasn't appreciated in his lifetime, but certainly within 50 years he was extremely popular.

I agree that both Beethoven and Mozart weren't appreciated in their lifetimes, but they reached "idol status" within 30 years of their death.

Similar observations can be made for Shubert, Tschaikovsky etc, etc.

Schoenberg's atonal music was written a century ago. Take a look at the number of people who attend an atonal music performance. I think it's very obvious. Atonal music is not very popular and it hasn't become popular at the rate that the "master's" found their popularity.

I believe that the master modern century composers, 200 years from now, will have been found in our current day opera. Broadway. Andrew Lloyd Weber, Gilbert and Sullivan, Rogers and Hammerstein.


----------



## Webernite

I don't think Bach was packing many concert halls in 1850, to be honest. Haydn certainly wasn't. Nor, on the other hand, is 20th-century music as unpopular as you seem to believe. Judging by the people on this forum, the number of reviews on Amazon, the number of comments on Youtube videos, etc. - Schoenberg doesn't seem any less popular than, say, Dvorak or Schumann. Elliott Carter and Xenakis may be less popular, but then they haven't been dead for a hundred years.


----------



## Weston

I have strong feelings about 20th / 21st century music. I've thought a lot about it, generally disliking it while at the same time wanting to enjoy it. 

I want to contribute to this interesting thread, however I am currently in pain (nothing serious fortunately) and on medication and can't focus. I'm not intentionally avoiding this thread. Hope you folks keep it afloat until I can come back to it.


----------



## Argus

PianoCoach said:


> I believe that the master modern century composers, 200 years from now, will have been found in our current day opera. Broadway. Andrew Lloyd Weber, Gilbert and Sullivan, Rogers and Hammerstein.


You're a funny guy. A really funny guy.

I believe 200 years from now, the guys who write songs for Rihanna and JLS will be regarded as equals of Beethoven, Mahler and Schoenberg. Maybe, will.i.am from the Black Eyed Peas as well.



Rasa said:


> contemporary music lovers can listen to factory noises and inverted rain patterns in their homes. As long as they don't bother me with it.


_Those queers can do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes, as long as they don't flaunt it in my face.

Those foreigners can practice whatever religion or culture they want in the privacy of their homes, as long as they assimilate to our culture in public.

Get off my lawn and get a hair cut, punk._

I tried to avoid this thread because it's mainly some_guy's personal grievance, but at least it lets other know who are the snobs and elitists.



hocket said:


> Lovely weather we're having, isn't it?


-10 in November. Beautiful.


----------



## Aramis

> will.i.am


I think you show great misunderstanding of contemporary music by considering will.i.am to be "from Black Eyes Peas". His solo works are much more mature and show in which direction future music will go, just hear this milestone:








> who are the snobs and elitists.


Don't put those two terms together like they would mean the same. Snobs are snobs, but elitism is something more than just being pretentious bitch predenting to know everything.


----------



## Argus

Aramis said:


> I think you show great misunderstanding of contemporary music by considering will.i.am to be "from Black Eyes Peas". His solo works are much more mature and show in which direction future music will go, just hear this milestone:


I'll concede that that was a masterpiece. I still remain adamant that his best work was with the BEPs but in the future I will not neglect his solo oeuvre. Apparently, he has collabarated with Rihanna as well so I inadvertedly recommended him twice.

Some more masterworks:


















> Don't put those two terms together like they would mean the same. Snobs are snobs, but elitism is something more than just being pretentious bitch predenting to know everything.


Well, this is a classical music forum, the majority will be snobs (if not all to some degree) whereas a smaller percentage will be full blown elitists. It takes years of hard work and dedication to make the transition, but you will be guaranteed the ability to start internet arguments at will.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Argus said:


> I'll concede that that was a masterpiece. I still remain adamant that his best work was with the BEPs but in the future I will not neglect his solo oeuvre. Apparently, he has collabarated with Rihanna as well so I inadvertedly recommended him twice.
> 
> Some more masterworks:


Dear Fellow Member Argus,

May I humbly seek your permission for me to declare (perhaps with effrontery), that the music you kindly posted above is none other than pure crap? You see, I have been trying hard to establish a progressively positive listening relationship between the music by your esteemed artists and me, but alas, to no avail.

Yours respectfully,
HarpsichordConcerto


----------



## Weston

Aramis said:


> I think you show great misunderstanding of contemporary music by considering will.i.am to be "from Black Eyes Peas". His solo works are much more mature and show in which direction future music will go, just hear this milestone:


It wouldn't play right for me. I think the record was skipping or something.


----------



## jhar26

PianoCoach said:


> I believe that the master modern century composers, 200 years from now, will have been found in our current day opera. Broadway. Andrew Lloyd Weber, Gilbert and Sullivan, Rogers and Hammerstein.


Well, the music of Rodgers and Hammerstein will probably be listened to for as long as we're not all up to our necks in water. Among more recent Broadway composers Sondheim's works have a better chance of surviving than those of Lloyd Weber in my opinion.


----------



## Argus

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Dear Fellow Member Argus,
> 
> May I humbly seek your permission for me to declare (perhaps with effrontery), that the music you kindly posted above is none other than pure crap? You see, I have been trying hard to establish a progressively positive listening relationship between the music by your esteemed artists and me, but alas, to no avail.
> 
> Yours respectfully,
> HarpsichordConcerto


No worries, mate. That kind of music I posted above is highly inacessible to the inexperienced listener. With time and patience your listening abilities will mature and sophisticate, and you will be able to fully understand and appreciate these masterpieces. My advice would be to start with a simpler piece with a more stripped down arrangement; something similar to the fluff you're used to. Maybe Katy Perry or N-Dubz, working your way through the catalogues of Tinchy Stryder, Dizzee Rascal, Snow Patrol and Keane.

Saying that, I think happy hardcore and acid house might be more up your alley.






Regards,
Argus


----------



## Guest

Interesting thread so far. Much more interesting and much less acrimonious than I expected it to be. Great job!! (Tim and Eric reference and NOT me being patronizing. I deny that.)

Rasa's point needs some more thought, though, if only because it comes up so often in these situations. "contemporary music lovers can listen to factory noises and inverted rain patterns in their homes. As long as they don't bother me with it." I submit that this is a null set. No one has ever forced Rasa to listen to contemporary music. No one. I'm dead sure about this. And since no one has ever forced Rasa, or anyone else, to listen to contemporary music, this point must be considered null and void.

What about orchestra programming or radio? Well, one, orchestras and radio stations play practically no contemporary music, principally because they're scared out of their gourds that Rasa and his friends won't give them huge wads of cash any more if they do. For two, no one has to go to orchestra concerts. No one has to listen to the radio. I myself pretty much stopped going to orchestra concerts some time in the 1980s because there wasn't enough contemporary music. I was being forced, gasp!, to listen to Tchaikovsky and Dvorak. Three, a concert is a social event. Lots of people with lots of different tastes attend. Everyone knows that there will be pieces they don't particularly care for. Funny that no one who dislikes, oh, say Grieg, ever talks of being forced to listen to Grieg all the time. But practically everyone who dislikes, oh, say Boulez, will threaten to cancel their subscription if their local band programs any of that awful noise.

What about Huilunsoittaja's point, then, about being forced to listen to contemporary music in university? Well, yeah. I suppose you could call it "forced." But that's only to say that it's school. Practically everything that happens in school is by compulsion. You have to take math and history and science and so forth or you don't pass. But you only have to attend by law until you're 16 most places. College is past 16. No one is compelled by law to go to college. All of college is voluntary.

But to graduate, you have to take certain classes. Everything that's a requirement is something you are forced to take in order to get through. That's because it's school. School is the place where you learn things. You learn about all sorts of things, even things you're not necessarily interested in. That's just how school works. You know that going into it, too. So there are no surprises, eh? You're in school to learn. Here's what the powers that be think you need to learn to earn your degree. There's nothing particularly noteworthy about any of that, is there? Indeed, if you were to go to a music school in 2011 or 12 and NOT get any information about or exposure to any music past 1911 or 12, that would be cause for concern. You're paying these people to educate you. To, in effect, force you to learn about things.

What if you got into physics class and never heard about Einstein or Bohr or Hawkings. What if you never learned about string theory? Wouldn't you feel you weren't getting your money's worth? Why then is being introduced to current trends in music in your music classes seen as such a threatening thing?

Otherwise, I don't think this is really a challenge: "Is it wrong to hate a certain music...?" No, of course it's not. And no one's ever said it is. What's "wrong" is bashing what you hate at every opportunity.

Well, that's enough from me. I want to go back to reading. It's been fun so far. I want to keep doing it. (Because I'm selfish.)


----------



## Ukko

*Aha!*



some guy said:


> What if you got into physics class and never heard about Einstein or Bohr or Hawkings. What if you never learned about string theory? Wouldn't you feel you weren't getting your money's worth? Why then is being introduced to current trends in music in your music classes seen as such a threatening thing?


So you see an equivalency there. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution.


----------



## Webernite

I think all that some guy is saying is that teaching contemporary music is just as important as teaching Baroque music or Romantic music.


----------



## Xaltotun

I am averse to contemporary classical music and especially its advocates for the following reasons:

A) C.C. fans seem to think that their favourite brand of classical music is indeed more advanced (musically, artistically, intellectually) than the brands of classical music that preceded it.

B) C.C. fans seem to think that it's awfully strange and uneducated that fans of earlier classical music don't gorge themselves on C.C. music.

C) C.C. fans seem to think that C.C. music should be loved by all fans of classical music.

D) C.C. fans often seem to focus on these percieved deficiencies of fans of earlier classical music, instead of giving recommendations of the best pieces or their favourite genre.

Actually I've got nothing against C.C. music itself, but these kinds of attitudes by C.C. fans are really making it hard to take the first steps in liking the genre. So, my beef is with C.C. fans, not their music really.


----------



## Rasa

> Rasa's point needs some more thought, though, if only because it comes up so often in these situations. "contemporary music lovers can listen to factory noises and inverted rain patterns in their homes. As long as they don't bother me with it." I submit that this is a null set. No one has ever forced Rasa to listen to contemporary music. No one. I'm dead sure about this. And since no one has ever forced Rasa, or anyone else, to listen to contemporary music, this point must be considered null and void.


The point being that since I find most contemp music to be absolute garbage, those that want to can listen to it without my presence, at the same time I don't need to be hypocritical about what i think about the work being presented.

The point I'm trying to make is that no art "deserves" respect, and I'm not going to be around to be criticized for not giving it.


----------



## emiellucifuge

A) C.C. fans seem to think that their favourite brand of classical music is indeed more advanced (musically, artistically, intellectually) than the brands of classical music that preceded it.

Well actually the word 'Advanced' is defined as (Oxford): 
1 having the most modern and recently developed ideas, methods, etc

So technically Contemporary music is the most advanced, as it represents the most current thinking in music. Older music is by definition less advanced than contemporary merely due to its chronology. This bears no reflection on its quality. 

B) C.C. fans seem to think that it's awfully strange and uneducated that fans of earlier classical music don't gorge themselves on C.C. music.

When I look at history and see how often those we now consider genius were scorned by their contemporaries, I find the current attitude hardly surprising. 'Artists's arent ahead of their time, the public is behind the time' someone once said:- I am confident that one day contemporary music will enjoy the same appreciation that the Classical composers do now.

C) C.C. fans seem to think that C.C. music should be loved by all fans of classical music.

The above still applies. Though sadly many people dislike contemporary music through ignorance and lack of exposure. Of course this doesnt apply to everyone, but I believe contemporary music has the potential at least to be liked by all fans.


----------



## hocket

I really don't have any interest in the question of whether or not it is okay or not to dislike modern music -quite frankly it seems too stupid for words. I do think the OP's initial question of why it is such an issue in a way that people's dislike of other periods does not appear to be is of more interest. The OP was clearly be dismissive of those fears. I'm not so sure. Perhaps there is something more subtantial to those fears than mere unfamiliarity. I can't help but feel that most people have ignored the actual question posed in this thread and just brought their baggage from previous theads in order to hold round 10,000 of the same old pointless debate.

However:

*emiellucifuge wrote:*



> Well actually the word 'Advanced' is defined as (Oxford):
> 1 having the most modern and recently developed ideas, methods, etc


Really? Because that's not what my copy of the Concise OED says and quite frankly I'd have thought that the definition you quoted would obviously be woefully inadequate to any English speaker. Sadly it seems even the OED gets it wrong sometimes (though I'd be interested to know what edition you're using). Amongst the numerous definitions that appear under advance and advanced in my copy it includes 'ahead of the times' and 'progress' (which is distinguished from 'far on in progress' and 'make progress' which are separate definitons).

There most certainly is a strong implication of improvement and being 'better' inherent in the word advanced. This should be obvious. When you refer to an advanced level examination you don't mean that it employs the latest educational techniques but rather that it is harder and thus someone passing it is supposed to be better at the given subject because they are at an advanced level. It is a higher standard and that is what advanced implies. Having an advanced driving license doesn't mean that you're an expert in the newest automotive technologies -it is supposed to suggest that you are a better driver than someone with only an ordinary license.


----------



## Guest

History gives us some idea of what has happened in the past, but never quite the whole picture, rather the picture of whoever was doing the recording. We know that there have been debates and arguments and vicious bile spilt in the past over issues of musical styles - the one that comes immediately to mind being the Brahms/Wagner debate. Brahms was viewed as too conservative, looking back, while Wagner was the advanced/progressive/ahead of his time player. And now we call them both geniuses and have no problem with it. They aren't mutually exclusive. 

What causes the current war over contemporary music? Probably many reasons - and I don't claim to know all, or even most. Are people put off by a perceived arrogance on the part of contemporary music proponents? Well, whether rightly or wrongly, yes, some people are. Wagner's arrogance, no doubt, made it hard for some to embrace what he was trying to do. As they say, you'll lure more flies with sugar than vinegar. Are some people hostile to anything new? Absolutely. That is almost a given. It happens. Is it a majority? No telling.

Contemporary music includes new ideas - whether they are better or worse, that is open to debate - and in many cases new ideas that seem completely at odds with the older ideas that appeal to people. As with most any other area, there is not as large of a population that is going to appreciate both ends of the spectrum in any field. When transitions were made before, such as baroque to classical, or classical to romantic, there were large changes, but what was consistent throughout was at least that continuity of tonality. Someone with no comprehension of how music is constructed could still listen to Bach, Haydn, and Tchaikovsky and have the melodies appeal to them. With contemporary composers, and particularly those who abandoned tonality for atonality, or incorporated sounds that were in such stark contrast to what had come before, it is a much harder hurdle to clear.

My own personal opinion is that the battle is fought at the fringes. Most people could care less whether other people like atonal or contemporary music, andy more than they could care whether other people like any other kind of music they don't like. That there are people who enjoy listening to Justin Bieber, rap music, or most versions of heavy metal and its darker derivatives doesn't bother me at all. 

The fights erupt, usually, between those contemporary music fans who make incendiary comments about anybody who dares not at least acknowledge the brilliance of contemporary artists, and those who lash out at anything they don't like. In general, though, there is no war raging between contemporary music fans and non-fans.

That being said, this forum here is going to have a concentration of those who like to speak their mind. People who don't typically don't frequent these forums. They listen to their music and go on their merry way, not caring what the prevailing opinions are. So you are going to get a higher frequency of people on here who will say what they think. Also, when threads are started that invite comments on different topics, these people will probably also speak out, where they wouldn't normally. And then everybody wants their voice heard. So if you ask what people think of composer X, be prepared to hear what people think of composer X. My opinions of composer X may be quite strong, but I wouldn't normally volunteer the information. But since you are asking . . . . Then there will be those who feel the need to either further defend or degrade composer X.


----------



## emiellucifuge

hocket said:


> Really? Because that's not what my copy of the Concise OED says and quite frankly I'd have thought that the definition you quoted would obviously be woefully inadequate to any English speaker. Sadly it seems even the OED gets it wrong sometimes (though I'd be interested to know what edition you're using). Amongst the numerous definitions that appear under advance and advanced in my copy it includes 'ahead of the times' and 'progress' (which is distinguished from 'far on in progress' and 'make progress' which are separate definitons).
> 
> There most certainly is a strong implication of improvement and being 'better' inherent in the word advanced. This should be obvious. When you refer to an advanced level examination you don't mean that it employs the latest educational techniques but rather that it is harder and thus someone passing it is supposed to be better at the given subject because they are at an advanced level. It is a higher standard and that is what advanced implies. Having an advanced driving license doesn't mean that you're an expert in the newest automotive technologies -it is supposed to suggest that you are a better driver than someone with only an ordinary license.


Well its the online Oxford Advanced Learners dictionary. Surely there can be no untruths on there.

Otherwise you are right. There are other implications in the word. The techniques used in contemporary music are more advanced - not only chronologically but also in terms of difficulty. Contemporary music can be far more complex, without a fixed coherent system such as tonality composers have had to invent their own and these are often harder to deduce or appreciate. For the performer contemporary music is also advanced due to the use of 'advanced' instrumental techniques, different notations, irregular rhythms. For a singer it is much harder to find their note. 
All of the above suggest contemporary music is advance in difficulty and complexity, perhaps offering another reason for its impopularity. However, one thing I cannot agree with you on is that 'Advanced' also has implications on the quality of something.

1.
placed ahead or forward: with one foot advanced.
2.
ahead or far or further along in progress, complexity, knowledge, skill, etc.: an advanced class in spanish; to take a course in advanced mathematics; Our plans are too advanced to make the change now.
3.
pertaining to or embodying ideas, practices, attitudes, etc., taken as being more enlightened or liberal than the standardized, established, or traditional: advanced theories of child care; the more advanced members of the artistic community.
4.
far along in time: the advanced age of most senators.


----------



## Rasa

The dictionary. I'm glad we can finally discuss music on the internet...


----------



## Guest

I like emiellucifuge's take on Xaltotun's post, so much so that I hestitate to add anything to it. But "hesitate" is not the same as "won't." And there are things about Xaltotun's position, as there were about Rasa's that usually pass unnoticed.

Contradiction:


Xaltotun said:


> I am averse to contemporary classical music





Xaltotun said:


> I've got nothing against C.C. music itself


Generalization:


Xaltotun said:


> C.C. fans seem to think/C.C. fans often seem to focus


False attributions (arising out of the generalizations):


Xaltotun said:


> their favourite brand of classical music is indeed more advanced
> 
> it's awfully strange and uneducated that fans of earlier classical music don't gorge themselves on C.C. music.
> 
> C.C. music should be loved by all fans of classical music.
> 
> percieved deficiencies of fans of earlier classical music


It may indeed be true that Xaltotun knows people who think like this. But not all people who listen to contemporary music do. I would go so far as to say that these views are equally spurious as Rasa's point about being forced to listen to contemporary music. Fans of contemporary classical are as diverse as fans of any other type of music. You should check out some of the squabbles between myself, StlukesguildOhio, and JMJ to see how dissimilar fans of contemporary music can be.

Fans of contemporary classical also enjoy other types of music. I have a collection of music that has Monteverdi, Bach, Vivaldi, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Berlioz, Schumann, Saint-Saens, Brahms, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Debussy, and Ravel, among others (many many others). And I keep adding music of those people to my collection. I listen largely to music of the past 20 years. Largely, but by no means exclusively.

If I can quote DrMike in illustration, this is the kind of exclusivity that bedevils discussions of this sort: "The fights erupt, usually, between those contemporary music fans who make incendiary comments about anybody who dares not at least acknowledge the brilliance of contemporary artists."

Practically the only fights I've seen that even included the idea that people have to acknowledge the brilliance of contemporary artists are ones that JMJ has partaken of. That's only one fan. All the other fights I've seen have erupted between the people who enter every discussion of contemporary music simply in order to slam it and the people who resent those attacks. Some of the latter are indeed arrogant and aggressive in their defense of contemporary music. Mostly they are not, although they are quite often _perceived_ as so being. (One way to deflect attention away from your own arrogance is to accuse others of being arrogant. Well, the idea is that it's deflecting. Careful readers of course see that right away as the trick it is.)

One desire I have is that people who don't like contemporary classical acknowledge that their dislike says absolutely nothing about the music itself but simply identifies their current tastes.

Actually, no expression of dislike goes any further than this. Lots of people don't like Wagner, either. And nothing about that dislike says anything about the actual music. (And I say this as someone who dislikes Wagner's music. Which is why this is the first time anyone has heard about that particular dislike of mine. Because I'd rather talk about music than about myself. Music is much much more interesting.)


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> If I can quote DrMike in illustration, this is the kind of exclusivity that bedevils discussions of this sort: "The fights erupt, usually, between those contemporary music fans who make incendiary comments about anybody who dares not at least acknowledge the brilliance of contemporary artists."


But then you have chopped my statement in half, as I fault both extremes, including those who lash out at anything they don't like. My point was to put into perspective that most people could care less about this issue, and that the attacking usually occurs on the fringes, by the few on either side of the issue who do care. Where is the war, really? Among actual current composers, and the institutions that are currently training future musicians, I suspect that contemporary music is doing quite well. In terms of concert performances and recordings, I suspect that it is much as it ever has been - whatever draws the most interest and money will win out. But I suspect that heated debates on the merits of contemporary music on these music forums holds little, if any, sway on any of these situations.

But I think there are two issues in the initial question that aren't necessarily related, and should be separated. I heartily agree that to attack another for their tastes is inappropriate. But I don't think there is anything wrong with criticizing, or attacking, any particular piece of music. I think it is wrong to attack a person for their interest in something, but at the same time a person should not take it as a personal attack when something they like is attacked.

Now, a lot of it has to do with context. Were a person to post, for example, in the Current Listening thread, that they are currently listening to, say, Boulez, and someone were to jump in and talk about how horrible they find Boulez, then that is in poor taste. But if that person were to make the same comment in a thread discussing opinions of Boulez, then it is entirely appropriate, so long as the criticism is restricted to the work/composer in question, and not to those of opposing opinions.


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> I don't think there is anything wrong with criticizing, or attacking, any particular piece of music.


Here's what I think about that. Negative remarks are less useful than positive remarks. Mathematically speaking, "I hate Wagner" and "I love Wagner" are equivalent. But language is not math. And the tendency of negative comments is to shut things down, while that of positive comments is to open things up.

That is, the only thing you can do with "Wagner is crap" is counter with "No, he's not." And how easy is it to get into an endless loop from that point? Whereas the number of things one can talk about positively about Wagner are legion. (Remember, I'm one of those people who hates Wagner!) Even countering "Wagner is crap" with positive comments about his virtues is more difficult and less successful than just explaining and elaborating the postive comments.

Besides, any piece that can be criticized or attacked is going to be a piece that somebody likes. What use is the attack? Is it to make the liker stop liking it? What would be the point of that? Is it to discourage neutrals to stay away from it? But what would be the point of that, either? Is listening to "bad" music at all like getting a viral infection? Besides, doesn't the division of music into "good" and "bad" land us into the situation emiellucifuge has already commented on: "it's not a contest, it's an exploration."

I think there are a lot of pieces that are terrible, that are damaging to music and to listeners. But I rarely talk about those things. Better to counter what one thinks is crap by simply talking up the things you think are good. Then everything is positive, i.e., open. And you leave people free to like whatever they want. Which is what everyone's gonna do anyway.


----------



## Almaviva

I know we're discussing CC and not modernist, but I've just listened for the first time in my life to the first act of Moses und Aron (I'm giving myself a break for a snack) and I confess that in spite of my rather traditional tastes (although I've been liking mostly every 20th century opera that I explore) I am completely fascinated. This work is spectacular. I have just listened to Enesco's Oedipe, and loved it too. I think I'm growing more and more an appreciation of 20th century music, therefore contemporary may follow soon (L'Amour de Loin is contemporary and I loved it as well).


----------



## Almaviva

some guy said:


> think there are a lot of pieces that are terrible, that are damaging to music and to listeners. But I rarely talk about those things. Better to counter what one thinks is crap by simply talking up the things you think are good. Then everything is positive, i.e., open. And you leave people free to like whatever they want. Which is what everyone's gonna do anyway.


I just wish you had this balanced attitude when you jumped on me like a rabid dog when I said that _Porgy and Bess_ is important.


----------



## Guest

Hahaha, me too!!

(It's why I said "rarely" and not "never.")

((Ruff!!))


----------



## Ravellian

Aren't we being extremely over-broad here? Certainly certain types of contemporary music are liked more than others. And by 'contemporary' do we include most composers from the 20th century or do we just mean compositions from the last 50 or so years? There are many 'contemporary' composers that became quite popular, like Shostakovich, Copland, Barber, Poulenc, and Bernstein partly because they composed music that is relatively pleasing to the ear.

Or are we referring to the more controversial composers such as Honegger, Cage, Britten, Webern, Boulez, Schoenberg, etc? Well, if so, these composers tended to produce music that is not very pleasing on the surface, so one can only expect that they will reach a smaller audience. People listen to music because they want to hear something that sounds good without having to think too hard... and hence why the composers listed above are not as popular. They had interesting ideas, yes, but were not very successful with people because the majority of their music does not sound pleasant. Hence, why I don't listen to these composers and why most people don't. I don't tend to make fun of the people who do, except when they like to snobbishly uphold the idea that because these compositions are 'sophisticated' they are 'superior' to mainstream classical works.. 'sophistication' does not make good music.

It's a very simple issue, really, and I've talked about this in previous topics. Now I know some guy will go into some irrelevant comeback to this, but.. nevertheless, these facts stand.


----------



## Ukko

Ravellian said:


> ... People listen to music because they want to hear something that sounds good without having to think too hard... and hence why the composers listed above are not as popular. They had interesting ideas, yes, but were not very successful with people because the majority of their music does not sound pleasant. Hence, why I don't listen to these composers and why most people don't.
> 
> It's a very simple issue, really, and I've talked about this in previous topics. Now I know some guy will go into some irrelevant comeback to this, but.. nevertheless, these facts stand.


You are wrong, and then you are right. The people I know who enjoy contemporary music - as music - don't have to 'think too hard'. Thinking is ratiocination; a language is required to do it. Instrumental music works below and beyond language, not with it. These people enjoy (some, not all) contemporary music as music. Hard to believe, I know, because 'sounding pleasant' isn't usually involved. One of my friends finds Boulez's sonatas very beautiful, but he doesn't say pleasant.

If you are taking the 'thinking hard' approach to contemporary music, you are taking the musicologist path. But when musicologists listen to music as music, they aren't analyzing it - they are listening to music.

And the 'you are right'? That's your last paragraph. Well, except for the 'these facts stand' part.


----------



## Chris

Ravellian said:


> There are many 'contemporary' composers that became quite popular, like Shostakovich, Copland, Barber, Poulenc, and Bernstein partly because they composed music that is relatively pleasing to the ear.
> 
> Or are we referring to the more controversial composers such as *Honegger*, Cage, *Britten*, Webern, Boulez, Schoenberg, etc?


Surely Honegger and Britten don't belong to the second group


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> Here's what I think about that. Negative remarks are less useful than positive remarks. Mathematically speaking, "I hate Wagner" and "I love Wagner" are equivalent. But language is not math. And the tendency of negative comments is to shut things down, while that of positive comments is to open things up.


On the contrary, I think negative comments can be just as useful as positive remarks. Actually, I am suspect of anything that receives only positive remarks. If something is truly worth attention, then it should be able to withstand criticism. To this day there continue to be people who make disparaging comments regarding works that many find to be superb - Beethoven's 9th does not hold universal love and acceptance among classical music fans. And yet it does just fine, and has no shortage of people listening to it.

Criticism can help to refine things. The composer who never receives any kind of criticism will not have the drive to try harder. Or if they can't stand the criticism in the first place, that may also say something of their work.

Negative criticism generates curiosity as well. Yes, I have listened to a great deal of new works and composers based on glowing reviews, but I have also sampled not a few out of curiosity over the heaps of bad criticism. And in some I have found I quite enjoyed them.

It isn't only contemporary music that has fiery critics. There are numerous areas in this field that draw criticism. Is there a place for HIP performances? And where do you draw the line? Is Bach okay for HIP, but Brahms cutting it too close? Who recorded the best Beethoven 9th? The worst? Which symphonies deserve to be in the top 10 recommended? Should Wagner be shunned for his anti-semitic writings? These are all arguments I have witnessed on this board, and they have gotten quite heated. And I suspect the works discussed have suffered not in the least for any of the negative comments.

A negative comment might also draw out a more detailed rebuttal, which may just provide someone with enough interest to go and sample the work that seems to be generating such extreme opinions. For me, the work that cannot stand up to criticism is not anything I am interested in. In my line of work (science), my work is always put up to criticism. To get a paper published, or a grant funded, they first have to be scrutinized and criticized by others, and often revised, before they can be accepted. It is a refining process. Nobody really considers that to be detrimental to science - on the contrary, it tends to increase the quality of the end product.


----------



## Argus

Chris said:


> Surely Honegger and Britten don't belong to the second group


It's either a subtle hint that he has no clue about classical music produced in the last 100 years or possibly proof that the statement 'pleasing to the ear' is clearly entirely subjective.



Ravellian said:


> There are many 'contemporary' composers that became quite popular, like Shostakovich, Copland, Barber, Poulenc, and Bernstein partly because they composed music that is relatively pleasing to the ear.





> Honegger, Cage, Britten, Webern, Boulez, Schoenberg


Dead people aren't contemporary and Boulez isn't exactly fresh on the scene. Contemporaries of each other, yes, but not contemporary in the sense of this discussion. It's a temporal description; all composers were contemporary at some point.

This place reminds me of the music of The Theatre of Eternal Music. There is no beginning or end to the music, you just perceive the music at a particular moment of its continuity. Except for in the case of TC, replace the word 'music' with 'debate'.


----------



## Sid James

Ravellian is talking in absolutes. I don't find it constructive to think that way. What is accessible or not depends upon the individual listener. For me, someone like Berg or sometimes even Carter or Xenakis can be more accessible than J.S. Bach. It's got nothing to do with the merits of the music, but one's individual perception and taste. It's better not to see everything as black and white, imo. Everything is in differing shades of grey from where I'm looking at...


----------



## Ravellian

Whoops, meant to say Babbitt, not Britten.  I mix them up sometimes. Perhaps Honnegger is stretching it.. I'm performing a trumpet sonata by him and it's actually not bad.

And there are some experimental 20th century composers that I do like.. George Crumb, for example, creates some very interesting new sonic textures, as does Varese and Harry Partch. The main musics I consider not to be 'pleasing to the ear' at all are 12-tone compositions (constant ugly sounds) and minimalism (boring as hell). I well know that there are people that actually like this music. However, it's a fact that _most people_ don't like to listen to this type of music, because it's not as approachable or aurally attractive on the surface, and is very much an acquired taste.


----------



## Kbmanonymous

It's also different cultures in a way. Wether your talking about pop music and classical or contemporary and classical. For example, in the middle east, depending on a families religion, women are not seen equal to men. In the west that is seen as wrong because both regions developed differently. I know i first heard twelve tone five years ago when i was fifteen. It was Scheonberg's Violin Concerto and i was like WTF? Now i enjoy twelve tone once and a while and really enjoy atonal music. 
Its funny, there is some really scary music out there, for example Penderecki's Threnody to Victims of Hiroshima, and my friends, non of which even play instruments, will always say "why do you listen to such depressing/ scary music?" when im listening to things like Prokofiev or the one time i was listening to the second movement of Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto and he was like i imagine someone slitting there wrists to this, i was like what???


----------



## Enjoying Life

Andre said:


> What is accessible or not depends upon the individual listener. For me, someone like Berg or sometimes even Carter or Xenakis can be more accessible than J.S. Bach. It's got nothing to do with the merits of the music, but one's individual perception and taste. QUOTE]
> 
> For some reason your the first person I have heard say that Berg was more accessable than Bach for them. That is hard for me to wrap my mind around but it does help me understand things.
> 
> I think I get stuck into looking for a linear path through time with music and assume that if you like something recent then you like everything that came before it.
> 
> Thanks for your comment.


----------



## Enjoying Life

DrMike said:


> Criticism can help to refine things. The composer who never receives any kind of criticism will not have the drive to try harder. Or if they can't stand the criticism in the first place, that may also say something of their work.


Reminds me of work. I was told that by the VP that the company likes the hear criticism as long as it is not critical.

Have not figured that one out yet.

I agree with your comment that criticism is important - as long as it is done with the goal of understanding and developing. What I don't like is when it is simply done to make oneself look better.


----------



## Sid James

Enjoying Life said:


> For some reason your the first person I have heard say that Berg was more accessable than Bach for them. That is hard for me to wrap my mind around but it does help me understand things.
> 
> I think I get stuck into looking for a linear path through time with music and assume that if you like something recent then you like everything that came before it.
> 
> Thanks for your comment.


Well I should have perhaps said that some of Berg's works (like _Wozzeck_ especially) I immediately connected with after one or two listens, unlike J. S. Bach, who I feel distanced from. By the same token, some of Berg's works (like the _Lyric Suite_ for string quartet) still baffle me after 15 years. But I enjoy the ride, the journey, which is the main thing for me. Same thing with Carter and Xenakis, the point for me is not necessarily "get" everything they're doing in a piece, but just to enjoy the highways and byways that their music takes me to. If this enjoyment of the ride translates into me making more sense of their music in my own individual way, then all the better for that...


----------



## Air

Enjoying Life said:


> For some reason your the first person I have heard say that Berg was more accessable than Bach for them. That is hard for me to wrap my mind around but it does help me understand things.
> 
> I think I get stuck into looking for a linear path through time with music and assume that if you like something recent then you like everything that came before it.


It's not common, but not all that rare either. I once knew someone who came into classical music from Luc Ferrari and the electroacoustic composers, and worked their way backwards to Debussy and beyond from there.


----------



## Elgarian

DrMike said:


> For me, the work that cannot stand up to criticism is not anything I am interested in. In my line of work (science), my work is always put up to criticism. To get a paper published, or a grant funded, they first have to be scrutinized and criticized by others, and often revised, before they can be accepted. It is a refining process. Nobody really considers that to be detrimental to science - on the contrary, it tends to increase the quality of the end product.


I'm a scientist too. But the situations are not even slightly comparable. In science there is a continual testing of hypothesis against reality - that's how science works; that's it's strength. There really _are_ good and bad hypotheses that can be tested objectively: a good hypothesis accurately predicts behaviour, a bad hypothesis doesn't. Criticism is built into the system at the deepest level.

Music isn't like that at all. There is no reality against which the music can be tested. There's only the music, the listener, and the relationship that exists between them. There are no right answers. One only has to look at the history of art criticism to see how full of holes it is: a set of rules established for one kind of art is worse than useless when applied to another.

This doesn't mean that criticism is worthless: on the contrary, we pass critical information between us on this forum that is really useful. But _positive_ criticism is overwhelmingly more helpful, in the arts. If Jack tells me he thinks _Tristan & Isolde_ is a fine opera and he's loved it for years, then at least I do know that it must have some merit for him to have established such a good relationship with it. But if Jill tells me Beethoven's fifth symphony is rubbish, she tells me nothing worth knowing, except that she's failed to establish a relationship with it - and there could be all sorts of reasons for that, regardless of the merits of the music.


----------



## Almaviva

Sorry for bringing up opera again, it's all I know so no wonder I keep coming back to it. Modernist and contemporary music did well in opera. I have liked practically all 20th century operas that I have explored so far - then I was thinking, am I becoming a fan of modernist and contemporary music? Maybe not so fast. Psychological drama is a frequent topic for 20th century opera, with harsh, raw, violent stories. Maybe the fractured, raw, not-pleasant-to-the-ear music fits well this kind of opera. But then I wonder, without the support of the plot and the stage, is this music style as interesting? When you listen to fractured music illustrating a fractured story, it fits, but if you listen to a one-hour fractured symphony, then, erm... you feel kind of... fractured.


----------



## Webernite

Elgarian said:


> I'm a scientist too. But the situations are not even slightly comparable. In science there is a continual testing of hypothesis against reality - that's how science works; that's it's strength. There really _are_ good and bad hypotheses that can be tested objectively: a good hypothesis accurately predicts behaviour, a bad hypothesis doesn't. Criticism is built into the system at the deepest level.
> 
> Music isn't like that at all. There is no reality against which the music can be tested. There's only the music, the listener, and the relationship that exists between them. There are no right answers. One only has to look at the history of art criticism to see how full of holes it is: a set of rules established for one kind of art is worse than useless when applied to another.
> 
> This doesn't mean that criticism is worthless: on the contrary, we pass critical information between us on this forum that is really useful. But _positive_ criticism is overwhelmingly more helpful, in the arts. If Jack tells me he thinks _Tristan & Isolde_ is a fine opera and he's loved it for years, then at least I do know that it must have some merit for him to have established such a good relationship with it. But if Jill tells me Beethoven's fifth symphony is rubbish, she tells me nothing worth knowing, except that she's failed to establish a relationship with it - and there could be all sorts of reasons for that, regardless of the merits of the music.


I don't know about that. Negative criticism is more practical in music than in most other arts, precisely because there _are_ some objective or semi-objective things to be said about it. One can say that Vivaldi is harmonically simpler than Rameau; or that Brahms's melodies are less memorable than Tschaikovsky's; or that the voice leading in Beethoven's fugues is less skilled than the voice leading in Handel's fugues; or that the Rite of Spring was one of the most rhythmically complex works ever written. I don't judge a musical work simply according to whether I have established "a relationship with it."


----------



## emiellucifuge

Almaviva said:


> Sorry for bringing up opera again, it's all I know so no wonder I keep coming back to it. Modernist and contemporary music did well in opera. I have liked practically all 20th century operas that I have explored so far - then I was thinking, am I becoming a fan of modernist and contemporary music? Maybe not so fast. Psychological drama is a frequent topic for 20th century opera, with harsh, raw, violent stories. Maybe the fractured, raw, not-pleasant-to-the-ear music fits well this kind of opera. But then I wonder, without the support of the plot and the stage, is this music style as interesting? When you listen to fractured music illustrating a fractured story, it fits, but if you listen to a one-hour fractured symphony, then, erm... you feel kind of... fractured.


So you admit the music invokes a sense of 'fractured' inside you? Then perhaps if that was the intention, the composer has succeeded skillfully.


----------



## Ukko

emiellucifuge said:


> So you admit the music invokes a sense of 'fractured' inside you? Then perhaps if that was the intention, the composer has succeeded skillfully.


If that was his intention, then maybe when I meet him I will stick a finger in his eye.

:scold:


----------



## emiellucifuge

Hilltroll72 said:


> If that was his intention, then maybe when I meet him I will stick a finger in his eye.
> 
> :scold:


Or you could do that.

If i met Mozart, I would do the same. His Requiem makes me sad, me no like being sad


----------



## Almaviva

emiellucifuge said:


> So you admit the music invokes a sense of 'fractured' inside you? Then perhaps if that was the intention, the composer has succeeded skillfully.


No, I don't admit to it. It was more like a lame attempt at humor. What I really meant is that without the support of the story, the constantly fractured, jumpy, disconnected music with very little in terms of harmony and melody may soon become boring and feel pointless. It may be a powerful tool to convey these raw emotions of modern/contemporary opera, but just as music and for a long time, it may sound a lot less appealing. I was showing part of _Moses und Aron_ to a friend yesterday, it was a YouTube clip. It happened to be one of the orchestral parts with no singing. Her reaction: "It doesn't develop. It doesn't go anywhere. It just jumps around. It is curious, but I'm not sure I'd want to listen to this for a long time."

12-tone serialism hasn't exactly succeeded in becoming a dominant stream, like I'm sure Schoenberg had intended or hoped for. Instead of being the music of the future, at one point I think people may very well look back and consider it a historical curiosity, nothing more.


----------



## chromatic

Elgarian said:


> This doesn't mean that criticism is worthless: on the contrary, we pass critical information between us on this forum that is really useful. But positive criticism is overwhelmingly more helpful, in the arts. If Jack tells me he thinks Tristan & Isolde is a fine opera and he's loved it for years, then at least I do know that it must have some merit for him to have established such a good relationship with it. But if Jill tells me Beethoven's fifth symphony is rubbish, she tells me nothing worth knowing, except that she's failed to establish a relationship with it - and there could be all sorts of reasons for that, regardless of the merits of the music.


I don't understand why you have created an asymmetry there.

If Jack tells me he thinks Tristan is a fine opera and that he loves it, he tells me nothing worth knowing, except that he has established a relationship with it -- and there could be all sorts of reasons for that, regardless of the merits of the music.

Now, if I happen to know that Jack is a very sophisticated listener with discerning tastes and that he doesn't announce that a piece of music is great unless it has a great deal of merit (whatever that means), then his judgment does tell me something. On the other hand, if I happen to know that Jill is a very sophisticated listener and doesn't announce that a piece of music is rubbish unless it has absolutely no merit (whatever that means), then her judgment tells me something too.

So I don't see why there is an asymmetry between positive and negative criticism.


----------



## Guest

Positive and negative differ philosophically. Positive opens things up, leaves room for expansion. Negative shuts everything down, stops everything.

That's generally true.

Otherwise, sure, the more detailed a criticism, the better you know the critic, the more useful the information will be. But, you see, "more detailed" and "better you know" are both positive things.

But it still remains, I think, that "I like it" is more useful than "I dislike it." Rebellious people like myself and DrMike will turn the latter around and use it as a spur to further exploration, but that's not its intended purpose. The intended purpose of a negative is to shut things down.* All DrMike or I do is transform in our own little minds the negative into a positive. 

*How often do you see people who say "X is crap" also try their damnedness to make sure they discourage everyone else from ever listening to X or attack the people who insist on liking X as stupid or weird or marginal in some way? This might be a little clue about the query in the original post. The extent to which people identify the music they like or dislike with their sense of themselves, people will be personally affronted by attacks on what they like OR on support for what they dislike. And the latter seems to be the more powerful, at least on classical music boards. If I dislike something, any liking of it is perceived as an attack on me, calls my judgment and my experience into question. To defend myself, I must make sure to attack people who like what I dislike at every opportunity.


----------



## Enjoying Life

some guy said:


> Positive and negative differ philosophically. Positive opens things up, leaves room for expansion. Negative shuts everything down, stops everything.


Positive continues the status quo. Negative refines and limits options allowing you to find the best. Positive often tells you nothing new. Negative forces change and improvement.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Negative doesnt change, it refines and leaves only good: Occams Razor?


----------



## Rasa

Attacking contemp is mostly just fun, because it's defendes get all huffy about it.


----------



## Elgarian

Webernite said:


> there _are_ some objective or semi-objective things to be said about it [i.e. music]. One can say that Vivaldi is harmonically simpler than Rameau; or that Brahms's melodies are less memorable than Tschaikovsky's; or that the voice leading in Beethoven's fugues is less skilled than the voice leading in Handel's fugues; or that the Rite of Spring was one of the most rhythmically complex works ever written. I don't judge a musical work simply according to whether I have established "a relationship with it."


I've no quarrel with most of what you say here. To say that 'Vivaldi is harmonically simpler than Rameau' or that 'the Rite of Spring was one of the most rhythmically complex works ever written' is to make accurate statements about the music. The problem only arises when we try to attach 'good' and 'bad' labels on the basis of these statements. If we set up a rule to say that harmonic simplicity is bad (relatively speaking) we immediately hit problems of the sort I'm describing when we find people (careful listeners, let's say) responding joyfully to things that are harmonically simple. At that stage, if we're wise, we lay the rule aside.

I'm more familiar with the details of the history of visual art than the history of music, but the principle is surely the same; and there the story, time and again, is one of revelation of the inadequacy of previous rules. And the struggle is invariably one of establishing a foothold against the negative criticism that the old rules invoke. This comes close to the heart of what I'm saying, and brings me to your last sentence: until you _do_ establish a relationship with a work of art, all you have is the rulebook. And the rulebook, used negatively, has a powerful tendency to try to stop things dead (as *some guy* says).


----------



## jhar26

Elgarian said:


> I've no quarrel with most of what you say here. To say that 'Vivaldi is harmonically simpler than Rameau' or that 'the Rite of Spring was one of the most rhythmically complex works ever written' is to make accurate statements about the music. The problem only arises when we try to attach 'good' and 'bad' labels on the basis of these statements. If we set up a rule to say that harmonic simplicity is bad (relatively speaking) we immediately hit problems of the sort I'm describing when we find people (careful listeners, let's say) responding joyfully to things that are harmonically simple. At that stage, if we're wise, we lay the rule aside.
> 
> I'm more familiar with the details of the history of visual art than the history of music, but the principle is surely the same; and there the story, time and again, is one of revelation of the inadequacy of previous rules. And the struggle is invariably one of establishing a foothold against the negative criticism that the old rules invoke. This comes close to the heart of what I'm saying, and brings me to your last sentence: until you _do_ establish a relationship with a work of art, all you have is the rulebook. And the rulebook, used negatively, has a powerful tendency to try to stop things dead (as *some guy* says).


I'm amazed by how often classical music fans find a work great because it sounds complicated. Personally I want to be moved by a piece of music. There must be some kind of an emotional response. If it takes a complicated structure to achieve that goal I love it, but if the music doesn't communicate something to me I merely will shrug my shoulders. "Complicated" for it's own sake doesn't impress me in the least. Learned and inspired are not the same thing, although they aren't mutually exclusive either.


----------



## Elgarian

chromatic said:


> I don't understand why you have created an asymmetry there.
> 
> If Jack tells me he thinks Tristan is a fine opera and that he loves it, he tells me nothing worth knowing, except that he has established a relationship with it -- and there could be all sorts of reasons for that, regardless of the merits of the music.
> 
> Now, if I happen to know that Jack is a very sophisticated listener with discerning tastes and that he doesn't announce that a piece of music is great unless it has a great deal of merit (whatever that means), then his judgment does tell me something. On the other hand, if I happen to know that Jill is a very sophisticated listener and doesn't announce that a piece of music is rubbish unless it has absolutely no merit (whatever that means), then her judgment tells me something too.
> 
> So I don't see why there is an asymmetry between positive and negative criticism.


I don't know if your own experience parallels mine, but I find my personal musical journey to be one of continuous expansion. My 'likes' grow ever more numerous as time goes on and rarely change into dislikes; my 'dislikes', on the other hand, have a long history of transforming (often unexpectedly) into 'likes'. That alone tells me that my 'likes' are more soundly based than my 'dislikes' - and hence the assymetry.

Here's another somewhat related observation about inherent assymetry in these things: no matter what work of art we may be discussing, it's _always_ possible to argue an _apparently_ reasonable case for its being bad. But it's far more difficult to produce, against the tide, a convincing reason why a given work is good. When the prevailing aesthetic was that all paintings should be brown, like old masters (as in Britain in the early C19th), it was _easy_ to dismiss Constable's landscapes for being green, and much more difficult for Constable devotees to argue that his landscapes are good; they are, after all, undeniably _not brown_.


----------



## Eusebius12

Beautifully put. Although I still feel there is room for criticism on all sides, in an honest but not personal-attack style, or shall I say differences of opinion. I for one, find much Bellini and Donizetti unspeakably dull as music, and find much modern music excruciating cacophony, even if I recognize that Bartok, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Webern, Berg and Xenakis (and the early Meale) were not idiots and were conveying something they meant, even if the result induces varying degrees of sympathy in me. Actually the textures of some Varese and Xenakis are far more interesting than much contemporary 'tonal' music, which is often Vaughan Williams or Elgar and water, or the tedious repetitions of Reich, the gaucheries of Glass, or the excruciating detestable parody of music that generally goes under the name of 'modern popular music'


----------



## Eusebius12

I don't think that there need be an either/or dichotomy here, of those who like contemporary and those who like 'traditional'. Gorecki was a great composer (lately lamented). I find Bartok logical, in any case I sense more aural logic to his musical structures and themes than I can generally perceive with Schoenberg and some of the more 'pure' serialists, but much of his music is brutal enough surely for the most avid lover of fingernails down the blackboard. I have enjoyed shocking heavy metal fans with the 'Miraculous Mandarin' and even some of the quartets. The Rite of Spring and Petrushka are pretty mainstream works these days. Late Debussy and Scriabin experiment fascinatingly with tonality. Perhaps I am a little reactionary in my tastes, but there are few composers (except bland ones) of whom I cannot or have not found something considerable to enjoy. E.g. I have been captivated on several occasions by Messiaen's Quatour Pour le Fin de Temps (but find his Turangalila a little ridiculous and his Vingts Regards sur l'Enfant Jesus pretty dull and ugly)


----------



## Eusebius12

Elgarian said:


> I don't know if your own experience parallels mine, but I find my personal musical journey to be one of continuous expansion. My 'likes' grow ever more numerous as time goes on and rarely change into dislikes; my 'dislikes', on the other hand, have a long history of transforming (often unexpectedly) into 'likes'. That alone tells me that my 'likes' are more soundly based than my 'dislikes' - and hence the assymetry.
> 
> Here's another somewhat related observation about inherent assymetry in these things: no matter what work of art we may be discussing, it's _always_ possible to argue an _apparently_ reasonable case for its being bad. But it's far more difficult to produce, against the tide, a convincing reason why a given work is good. When the prevailing aesthetic was that all paintings should be brown, like old masters (as in Britain in the early C19th), it was _easy_ to dismiss Constable's landscapes for being green, and much more difficult for Constable devotees to argue that his landscapes are good; they are, after all, undeniably _not brown_.


Not all music, and not all art, is good, let alone great. If you are arguing that 'there is always something good to find in a piece of music', then that is quite possible, in a sense. Even the most bland, tedious and meretricious piece may have *something* positive in its favour. OTOH, if we level the playing field, just as often happens in the world of ideas, where 'all ideas', no matter how absurd, are meant to be inherently equal, then there are no reference points, everything becomes a kind of blancmange, eclecticism replaces any kind of personality and taste. I would rather people express their individuality freely, than be forced, or force themselves, to absorb things which are inherently antipathetic to them. Of course, exposure is necessary to determine what things are sympathetic or antipathetic to one, but force-feeding and arguments from (intellectual) 'authority' are beyond the pale as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Eusebius12

As an addendum to the above, I would say that most music of all periods has been decidedly mediocre. Otherwise why wouldn't Luchesi be equal to Beethoven, or Reissiger to Weber, or Mackenzie to Brahms? No doubt there are many neglected masterworks, and other neglected works that are of real merit (how much Vincent d'Indy or Alberic Magnard have you heard this week) but a lot of stuff is neglected because it ranges from the indifferent to the awful to the dire.


----------



## Guest

It is locating the qualities (good, great, meretricious, bland) solely in the object that I find questionable. This comment "Not all music... is good, let alone great" sounds reasonable, at first. But do words like "good" and "great" describe any _pieces_? Don't words like that point to an experience? A person, with ears and a mind, listens to a piece with sounds put together in various ways. In a sense, the piece really only exists when it has set some eardrums vibrating. And the different minds attached to each set of ears will have different experiences with each piece.

Sure, pieces that a lot of people have heard over a number of years will have acquired a certain status. But so what? When I first heard Bartok's _Concerto for Orchestra_ in 1972, I was overwhelmed. (And that was my entry into twentieth century music, even though I'd heard a few other pieces from the 1900s before the Bartok.) I had no idea what it's "status" was. Did I think, "I wonder if this is a great piece?" or "What do other piece think about it?" Well, maybe afterwards, when I'd played it for a few friends who hated it. But none of that affected my own individual experience with those sounds. And if I had never found anyone else who also liked it and esteemed it highly, I doubt I would have esteemed it any less.

All music is sounds, more or less organized, more or less designed. That's about as far as I'd go. Anything beyond that and individual ears attached to individual minds are irrevocably and irretrievably implicated in the situation. Any ranking that ignores what happens when a particular person listens to a particular piece is questionable. And since all ranking (terrible, bad, bland, meretricious, OK, good, great) pretends that those qualities are qualities of the piece and not of the experience of listening to the piece, all rankings are suspect. Far from containing the intellectual and aesthetic rigor that's usually assumed for it, it's really a duplicitous way to transfer our own responses onto the pieces and pretend that they are facts about the pieces themselves. They're not.

And that's not to say that they're not important. They are. But they are what they are and not something else, that's all. It's when they masquerade as something other than what they are that the trouble begins. Finding other people that also think a particular piece is "great" may be comforting to people who are insecure. Ranking pieces may make people feel they are somehow recognizing and acknowledging difference, but at the end of the day, what else matters than each individual's individual experience of a particular piece? If you have to have an idea of "greatness" to feel comfortable and secure, then the pieces that please as much or more the tenth time as the first, the hundreth time as much or more as the tenth are the great ones. That certain pieces please lots and lots of other people over and over again is maybe interesting and curious, but not terribly important.

Well, that was a longish post. And if it was half as fun for you to read as it was for me to write it, then I had twice as much fun as you.


----------



## Elgarian

Eusebius12 said:


> Not all music, and not all art, is good, let alone great. If you are arguing that 'there is always something good to find in a piece of music', then that is quite possible, in a sense.


No, I'm not saying that at all, and actually feel somewhat defeated at being so completely misunderstood, because I don't know how to say it more clearly. (Perhaps part of the problem is because in an internet forum we tend just to read one or two posts, rather than following the whole discussion through many.)

I am talking about _how we talk about music._ And I am saying that we can be more certain about the accuracy of our positive responses (we know the music has merit because we can see it for ourselves) than our negative responses (because the merits of the music may be hidden from us for some reason). If I want to know if there's a spider in the room, I need only to see _one_ spider to know that there is. If I want to be sure that there is _no_ spider in the room - well, that's much more difficult to determine. Indeed, the room may be teeming with spiders but I may merely be looking in all the wrong places.


----------



## Edward Elgar

People want to attack contemporary music because they see it as a personal attack on their own artistic sensibilities. That fact of the matter is that music has changed and so must our tastes if we are to enjoy it. If people viewed music in a purely objective light as they would maths or science, there would be a lot less aggression towards new ideas. You don't see a scientist saying "I hate Einstein's theories, they are so contemporary and hard to understand! I prefer the theories of Newton, they are much more beautiful to observe."


----------



## emiellucifuge

Edward Elgar said:


> You don't see a scientist saying "I hate Einstein's theories, they are so contemporary and hard to understand! I prefer the theories of Newton, they are much more beautiful to observe."


LOL!
But really what makes Einsteins theories beautiful IS their complexity!


----------



## Rasa

Furthermore, classical music from the masters is both beautiful and complex.


----------



## Elgarian

emiellucifuge said:


> LOL!
> But really what makes Einsteins theories beautiful IS their complexity!


We mustn't derail this thread by talking about Einstein, but Information Theory would declare this statement to be wrong. The strength and beauty of a scientific theory lies in its ability to describe the greatest amount of information with the most economic means. It's true that Einstein is more complex than Newton (say), but he describes far more, far more precisely. It's the simplest way we have of saying so much, and therein lies its elegance. (And therein lies the elegance of Newtonian physics also, within its own limits.)

But that said, I think the whole complexity issue is a giant red herring in the context of this thread.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Oooh, a philosophical tangent on musical aesthetics! Can I play!?


Edward Elgar said:


> People want to attack contemporary music because they see it as a personal attack on their own artistic sensibilities.


Can't buy into this. Perhaps it would be more prudent to say that *some* people want to attack contemporary music on those grounds. On the basis of my own readings, I think the bulk of the membership here is comfortable enough in their artistic sensibilities to NOT attack music from other periods because of some discomfiture concerning their own limitations.


Edward Elgar said:


> That fact of the matter is that music has changed and so must our tastes if we are to enjoy it.


Of course, (as those who know Haydn's 64th can attest), the contrarian response to this is Owen's proverbial:

_"Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis."
Quomodo? Fit semper tempore peior homo._

"Times change, and we change with them."
How? As they get worse, so do we.


Edward Elgar said:


> If people viewed music in a purely objective light as they would maths or science, there would be a lot less aggression towards new ideas.


Hmmm- I don't think music, or for that matter, ANY other artistic activity, can be adequately viewed in a purely objective light. Talk of this nature always reminds me of the infamous 'Pritchett essay" scene in the movie _Dead Poets' Society_, wherein a would-be analyst purported to be able to assess poetic merit numerically, on a two-dimensional graph!


----------



## Almaviva

After the enormous philosophical depth and learned musicology expressed in this thread, I'd like to add a much simpler view.

For me, the value of music is related to the amount of pleasure it delivers to me. Period. Some we'll say that this is subjective and is related to my _rapport_ with the piece, my ability to understand certain complexities or lack thereof, etc. No, I'd say. It is quite objective. It can be measured (internally, I'll grant you, therefore you'd say it's subjective after all). Let's then say it as an oxymoron: it's subjectively objective.

I can listen to a piece of music and internally measure it to say that it doesn't give me pleasure at all. It can actually cause displeasure. This may result from a number of reasons - it's a cacophony, it's too loud, it's shrill, it's formulaic and repetitive, it's too simple, it's too complex, it's too sugary, it's too dry. Whatever the reason, be it valid or not for a musicologist, the bottom line is that it's unpleasant to me, and I can say it with certainty, and it is an ABSOLUTE TRUTH that it is unpleasant to me. Subjective or not, one can't deny that I find it unpleasant. I'll say that I "dislike" it.

Then I can listen to another piece, and experience some pleasure. Again, for whatever reason. Say, small pleasure, of the gender that keeps my attention for a moment but I don't feel particularly compelled to return to it. I'll find the piece acceptable. I'll say that I neither "dislike" it, nor "like" it.

Another one can cause moderate pleasure. I'll say that I "like" it.

Then still another one can cause extreme pleasure, can provoke ecstasy, bliss. This, again, is internally measurable. I can feel the physical aspects of it - stunned silence, teary eyes, goosebumps, the silly tendency to stay for several minutes just repeating to myself "wow... wow..." I'll say that I "love" it.

From this point on, it really matters little if learned scholars find some of the pieces that I "dislike" to be extremely clever in their musical structure. It really also matters even less if truly learned scholars, or self-appointed authorities, or snobs, or those who get a kick of being "in the know" find that the music I "like" is too simple for their tastes and lacks value.

I'm a grown man, and in decades of life experience, I have learned that what others think of my tastes has minimum impact on my sense of self-value or on my patterns of likes/dislikes. I sincerely couldn't care less.

Maybe it is too much to say that I couldn't care less. I do care a little, because I'm generally a good person. The way I care, is to feel sorry for the person. For example, I love opera. I really love it with a passion, and it is one of my two biggest hobbies/pleasurable interests in life (not considering other even more essential matters such as my love for my wife, my children, my relatives, my friends, my work, my country, etc).

One of these days in one of the threads someone said that he/she had concluded with no possible doubt and after giving it an extended try, that opera is rubbish. See, I didn't engage in any shouting match with the person, trying to prove to him/her that his/her opinion was wrong and opera is actually a superior art form.

What I said (and I meant it, I wasn't being sarcastic) was that I felt sorry for him/her, because this conclusion would prevent the person from obtaining and enjoying a lifetime of pleasure from this art form, which I'm fortunate to experience.

So, a few posts above someone said that Bellini and Donizetti are "unspeakably dull" as music. Oh well, they happen to deliver to me some moments of ecstasy and bliss. I love their music. So I can only feel sorry for the person who thinks they're dull.

Because of my attitude, I can't say for sure, like many here do, that I'm a fan of some era or some composer, or a hater of some other era, style, composer, etc. I react a lot more in terms of my internal pleasure-meter. This makes me like and/or dislike works by the same composer or the same era, so that I can't globally say in a sweeping statement, for example, that I love baroque music and dislike modernist music.

I love some baroque pieces and dislike others, and I love some modernist pieces and dislike others.

Inside the works of the same composer, I have found, for instance, that I love Schoenberg's _Moses und Aron_, but feel a lot less positive about some of his purely instrumental music. I guess the raw, hard-on-the-ear serialism fits well the telling of the bumpy Moses und Aron story, but is to me sort of pointless when not coupled with a vocal text. I love some of the most inventive Rossini operas, but some others feel to me more formulaic, less passionate, more repetitive as he was churning out opera after opera to make money and was reusing his own material, and they fail to impress me as favorably.

On the other hand, there are composers that uniformly please me. I'm still to find a work by Wagner that I don't love (I'm running out of opportunities to find one, since I've seen 10 of his operas and there are only 3 more to go). It doesn't mean that some parts of his works can't bore me (e.g., the first two acts of Siegried), but overall I love all 10 of his operas that I've seen. Mozart is second in this regard, I love most of them, but feel less positive about a few. I love most Verdi operas but not all, and Puccini is very uneven to me. I love some operas of Handel but not all, since some of them seem to me well rounded and sharp, while others seem to be a boring and overlong repetition of da capo arias.

Inside the same period, I like the operas of Berg and Bartok, but can't say the same for Dukas. I like Rameau a lot more than Lully. And so many other examples.

And so on and so forth. Think of me whatever you want because of my tastes, I don't really care.

So, a bunch of people are yelling insults at each other because this group loves romantic works and that other group loves contemporary works? What a waste of time! Let's all listen to the music that pleases us, and leave the other guy's tastes alone. And even more important, let's not feel superior or inferior to someone else simply because of our likes and dislikes. After all, as music lovers, we're all on the same boat: that of obtaining pleasure from music.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I summarise your post thus:
Art should give pleasure, pleasure is good, therefore art that gives pleasure is good.

Wrong!

Take for example the widely popular symphonies of Gustav Mahler. When his music fills your soul with angst, is that pleasurable? I do not experience angst as a pleasant emotion.
What about your beloved tragic operas? Do you look on with pleasure when Dido kills herself? How about when a character loses hope, woe meets him at every turn?

No, the purpose of art has not been defined objectively, but it is certainly not to provide pleasure. For this reason, no matter how 'objectively subjective' you can measure the pleasure gained - it cannot serve as a measure of a work's quality.

I agree with you, Schoenberg's music doesnt provide me with pleasure. But should it? Is there anything pleasurable about the confusion that atonality sows? Perhaps we should take a look at other measures. Does his music achieve the desired effect? We probably wont know this unless we ask him, but through analysis or historical context we can come close. Take for example works such as Pierrot Lunaire or other songs with text. Reading the texts I find that the music free from tonality provides a separate palette of atmospheres and feelings, not achievable before, and that Schoenberg has selected his notes and their relations carefully enough to convey the mood of the poem.
Then, no matter how horrible it may sound, we may agree that this music was 'good'.


----------



## Edward Elgar

It is possible to get pleasure out of dissonance and complexity.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Yes it is...


----------



## Almaviva

emiellucifuge said:


> I summarise your post thus:
> Art should give pleasure, pleasure is good, therefore art that gives pleasure is good.
> 
> Wrong!
> 
> Take for example the widely popular symphonies of Gustav Mahler. When his music fills your soul with angst, is that pleasurable? I do not experience angst as a pleasant emotion.
> What about your beloved tragic operas? Do you look on with pleasure when Dido kills herself? How about when a character loses hope, woe meets him at every turn?
> 
> No, the purpose of art has not been defined objectively, but it is certainly not to provide pleasure. For this reason, no matter how 'objectively subjective' you can measure the pleasure gained - it cannot serve as a measure of a work's quality.
> 
> I agree with you, Schoenberg's music doesnt provide me with pleasure. But should it? Is there anything pleasurable about the confusion that atonality sows? Perhaps we should take a look at other measures. Does his music achieve the desired effect? We probably wont know this unless we ask him, but through analysis or historical context we can come close. Take for example works such as Pierrot Lunaire or other songs with text. Reading the texts I find that the music free from tonality provides a separate palette of atmospheres and feelings, not achievable before, and that Schoenberg has selected his notes and their relations carefully enough to convey the mood of the poem.
> Then, no matter how horrible it may sound, we may agree that this music was 'good'.


I disagree. I experience pleasure with having witnessed something grand, with having been moved by even the most tragic experience. Of course I wouldn't feel the same way if such tragedies were happening to me or to someone I love or even to a real human being and not a character, but in the fictional universe of an opera (even when based on a true story), I believe that the ability of an artist to convey these tragic human experiences to me, the listener, is spectacular enough to give me pleasure for having had the opportunity to be the recipient of such exquisite art. In other words, I have pleasure in witnessing artistically tragic works because I admire the artist's skill.
This is why I experience pleasure watching Lars von Trier's movies. Call me a masochist if you want, but I do.
My definition of artistic value may not be academic or valid. But like I said, I don't care. It works *for me.*

About Schoenberg we're exactly on the same page. That's exactly what I meant about liking Moses und Aron and not liking his purely instrumental works (generally speaking).


----------



## Guest

Edward Elgar said:


> People want to attack contemporary music because they see it as a personal attack on their own artistic sensibilities. That fact of the matter is that music has changed and so must our tastes if we are to enjoy it. If people viewed music in a purely objective light as they would maths or science, there would be a lot less aggression towards new ideas. You don't see a scientist saying "I hate Einstein's theories, they are so contemporary and hard to understand! I prefer the theories of Newton, they are much more beautiful to observe."


Einstein's theories were originally met with criticism and skepticism, as are pretty much any new theories that drastically change the existing paradigm. But over time, as more evidence accumulates to support them, they become accepted. People thought that bacterial growth could arise from spontaneous generation until Pasteur proved this wrong. Not wanting to continue this digression, but the point I want to make is that all new things are typically met with skepticism. Those of value stand the test of time and outlast the criticism. The skepticism and criticism are healthy in our journey as a civilization to discern what is of worth and what isn't. The sheer volume of humanity, and the potential collective creation that it is capable of, make it impossible to maintain everything. As with individuals, so it is with civilization - we evaluate things that we encounter and determine whether it is worth retaining or discarding.

Now, it is always disconcerting when something you like ends up drawing the short straw, but simply because one person finds something they like in another's creation does not somehow imbue it with value equal to more successful creations.

But really, I think this whole discussion is more about whether there can be objective gradings of good and bad in art and music, or whether the value is purely subjective, depending on the person experiencing the work.

Personally, and this may be because my background is in the sciences, not the arts, but the relativistic theory seems rather self-serving to the artists who don't seem capable of producing works that appeal to a very large audience. It is easier to say, "well, they just don't get it," rather than try to change what you are doing. That isn't to say that popularity is synonymous with quality, and often we do need to give some time for some new thing to make its case. But there must be some limit.


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> But really, I think this whole discussion is more about whether there can be objective gradings of good and bad in art and music, or whether the value is purely subjective, depending on the person experiencing the work.


Well, that's not what I've been saying, anyway. Though I agree, that is what most posters seem to be arguing about.

What I'm saying is that gradings miss the point. That value, such as it is, is something that's created _by_ the experience, not a quality that exists prior to the experience. Once a piece has been experienced by many people over many years, it may _appear_ that the value is intrinsic or at least something separate from any individual experience. I think it's only an appearance, though.

So, for me at least, it's not about objective and subjective. Or at least not about some battle between them. Some antagonism. In any experience, there are objects (pieces) and there are subjects (listeners). Either one alone and there's no experience.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Einstein's theories were originally met with criticism and skepticism, as are pretty much any new theories that drastically change the existing paradigm. But over time, as more evidence accumulates to support them, they become accepted. People thought that bacterial growth could arise from spontaneous generation until Pasteur proved this wrong. Not wanting to continue this digression, but the point I want to make is that all new things are typically met with skepticism. Those of value stand the test of time and outlast the criticism. The skepticism and criticism are healthy in our journey as a civilization to discern what is of worth and what isn't. The sheer volume of humanity, and the potential collective creation that it is capable of, make it impossible to maintain everything. As with individuals, so it is with civilization - we evaluate things that we encounter and determine whether it is worth retaining or discarding.
> 
> Now, it is always disconcerting when something you like ends up drawing the short straw, but simply because one person finds something they like in another's creation does not somehow imbue it with value equal to more successful creations.
> 
> But really, I think this whole discussion is more about whether there can be objective gradings of good and bad in art and music, or whether the value is purely subjective, depending on the person experiencing the work.
> 
> Personally, and this may be because my background is in the sciences, not the arts, but the relativistic theory seems rather self-serving to the artists who don't seem capable of producing works that appeal to a very large audience. It is easier to say, "well, they just don't get it," rather than try to change what you are doing. That isn't to say that popularity is synonymous with quality, and often we do need to give some time for some new thing to make its case. But there must be some limit.


Maybe all art works are valuable for those who enjoy them, but when they appeal to a small number of people over a short time span, they tend to disappear; that's just the way it is, due to the sheer size of human culture, like you said. While popularity is no proof of quality (McDonalds fast food is popular, Britney Spears is popular), there's something to be said about enduring popularity over a century and more - artwork that achieves this kind of enduring fame must have done something right. This much seems so obvious that I wonder why we're still debating it.

Like I said in another post, if 200 years from now it happens that people look back and consider Schoenberg's serialism a microscopic and unimportant footnote in music history that nobody followed any longer and nobody listens to, so much for all the mathematic precision and the cleverness of what he did. I'm sure that there have been many musicians in history that at some point were considered to be innovative and achieved some respect, but nowadays are completely forgotten. Examples? Well, if they're forgotten, I can't give you examples.

So, is serialism (or any other tendency of modernist or contemporary music) valuable? I guess so, for those who like it. Will it stay and be fruitful 200 years from now? It remains to be seen but I kind of doubt it (even now, much less removed from it, we don't see it being widely followed and/or appreciated). This simple truth is even more valid for contemporary works. People may claim superiority and feel proud that they are "in the know" and "get it" as much as they want, but if 200 years from now nobody remembers or listens to these composers, so much for all this alleged superiority.

The other side of this equation is of course valid too: there may be contemporary musicians who *will* make it through the passage of time and *will* endure, but we're just not removed enough from them to see it, and they may be underapreciated at this time because of the unfamiliarity we have with their innovations.

But let's say that I'll believe it when I see it, supposing that I find some formula to survive for 200 years.


----------



## Almaviva

some guy said:


> Well, that's not what I've been saying, anyway. Though I agree, that is what most posters seem to be arguing about.
> 
> What I'm saying is that gradings miss the point. That value, such as it is, is something that's created _by_ the experience, not a quality that exists prior to the experience. Once a piece has been experienced by many people over many years, it may _appear_ that the value is intrinsic or at least something separate from any individual experience. I think it's only an appearance, though.
> 
> So, for me at least, it's not about objective and subjective. Or at least not about some battle between them. Some antagonism. In any experience, there are objects (pieces) and there are subjects (listeners). Either one alone and there's no experience.


While I tend to agree with you (after all, I've been arguing from the standpoint of my own subjective pleasure to gauge the value of music *for me* - which translates into the experience you're talking about), I'd say that there is some separate quality (maybe not a value, but a quality in the chemical sense of properties of an element) of something that leads to it being pleasurably experienced *by many people over many years.* One would be able to objectively say (as is, in statistical terms - an approach I know you don't like) that this or that work has the property of pleasing a statistically large number of people over a long span of time. So, it may mean that the work objectively possesses some sort of characteristic or quality or property that is *likely* to please human beings.

Think of tunefulness, for example. It is relatively hard to deny that most humans - who can be observed as beings that come equipped with an auditory apparatus and seem to like some combinations of sounds - are pleased with tunefulness. Not all, of course, but statistically speaking, many, or even most. So, it may be quite objective to say that music that is tuneful has a statistically better chance of pleasing a larger number of humans for a long time than music that is not tuneful.

Mind you, I'm not talking about value. I'm talking about a property that makes a certain effect to be statistically more likely to happen. Cancer is statistically likely to kill lots of people because it has this property of growing out of control and invading vital organs, but there is little value to be found in cancer for the individual who is sick with a cancer. But it is undeniable that cancer does have this statistical property, even if it is not of value to a given individual.

Similarly, you as an individual may find that tunefulness is silly, primitive, sugary, and not your cup of tea in terms of how you value your music. But it is undeniable that most human beings react positively to tunefulness.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Allow me to propose a wonderful solution that I am pretty confident will end all/much of the bickering from people who attack contemporary music: instead of calling it contemporary music, call it _*munoise*_; pronounced as _"myoo-noise"_. "I listen and love _munoise_". Fine. It's a special category, which the academics and musicians can give themselves a task of defining.

So, Stockhausen's _Helicopter String Quartet_ is _munoise_, and it's great _munoise_. I have absolutely no probelm with that.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Will it stay and be fruitful 200 years from now?


Does it matter? None of us will be around 200 years from now. Is it here and is it fruitful now, that's the only useful question. Here's a pertinent quote from Robert Frost. It's about poetry, but the principle is the same: "It is absurd to think that the only way to tell if a poem is lasting is to wait and see if it lasts. The right reader of a good poem can tell the moment it strikes him that he has taken an immortal wound, that he will never get over it. That is to say, permanence in poetry as in love is perceived instantly. It has not to wait the test of time. The proof of a poem is not that we have never forgotten it, but that we knew at sight that we never could forget it. There was a barb to it and a toxin that we owned to at once."

As for this straw man, "People may claim superiority and feel proud that they are "in the know" and "get it" as much as they want," here's what I have to say: People may claim that other people are claiming superiority, feeling proud that they are "in the know," but that doesn't mean that it is so. Better to stick with ideas, with the actual words, the actual claims, and leave the ad hominems and the ad populums to the side. It's tiring to have knowledge portrayed as somehow a handicap.


----------



## Almaviva

some guy said:


> Does it matter? None of us will be around 200 years from now. Is it here and is it fruitful now, that's the only useful question. Here's a pertinent quote from Robert Frost. It's about poetry, but the principle is the same: "It is absurd to think that the only way to tell if a poem is lasting is to wait and see if it lasts. The right reader of a good poem can tell the moment it strikes him that he has taken an immortal wound, that he will never get over it. That is to say, permanence in poetry as in love is perceived instantly. It has not to wait the test of time. The proof of a poem is not that we have never forgotten it, but that we knew at sight that we never could forget it. There was a barb to it and a toxin that we owned to at once."
> 
> As for this straw man, "People may claim superiority and feel proud that they are "in the know" and "get it" as much as they want," here's what I have to say: People may claim that other people are claiming superiority, feeling proud that they are "in the know," but that doesn't mean that it is so. Better to stick with ideas, with the actual words, the actual claims, and leave the ad hominems and the ad populums to the side. It's tiring to have knowledge portrayed as somehow a handicap.


If it matters? It does as a measure of statistical enduring power, that's all - which I didn't even equal to value, like I made clear with my cancer analogy. In other words, it matters as a way to see objectively whether something possesses the kind of quality/property/characteristic that makes it endure. In my other positions on this thread I made it clear that I value much more the kind of experience the music can make me feel, which is more in tune with what Robert Frost said. Still, when something strikes someone in this manner, it has enduring power for that individual, but it doesn't mean that it also has it for a population, overtime. And do notice that I made fun of the concept myself, when I said that I'd like to find a way to survive 200 years.

What ad hominems? I'm not saying that anybody here in this discussion is like this. But will you deny that there *are* people like this, who *claim* to like something (or convince themselves that they like it) just because it's new enough or obscure enough that it appears "chic" to like it? Unfortunately these individuals do exist. Ad populums, maybe, but you were the one who asked the question - "why do people attack the lovers of contemporary music?" I gave you one of the possible aspects of an answer - as solicited by yourself - that sometimes people feel tired of this kind of attitude that I have described, which *is* something that exists, and that's one possible reason why people sometimes attack those folks. You don't like the answer? Then don't ask the question.

And when you reply, you may want to not quote selectively. You seem to have overlooked certain parts of my post:

This:

"So, is serialism (or any other tendency of modernist or contemporary music) valuable? *I guess so*, for those who like it." [remember, in another post I did say that I like some of these works]

And this:

*"The other side of this equation is of course valid too: there may be contemporary musicians who *will* make it through the passage of time and *will* endure, but we're just not removed enough from them to see it, and they may be underapreciated at this time because of the unfamiliarity we have with their innovations."*

Does the above really seem to you as an ad hominem or ad populum attack on the lovers of contemporary music?

And do pay attention to what you just did: when you say "it's tiresome to have knowledge portrayed as somehow a handicap," one might (emphasis on *might*, I can't be sure that you're doing it) construct that you're then portraying it as an advantage, and suggesting that you have it, therefore claiming superiority (or suggesting that others have it, therefore are justified to claim superiority). You may even be right that it *is* superiority (not in all situations, though - I can think of examples in which knowledge *is* a handicap, but let's not digress), but do consider that in life in general, *people who claim superiority are not always received with sympathy*, even when they are right about being superior. There you go, you may now understand certain aspects that can clarify your initial question. Beware of not delivering a "case in point" of the very attitude you're claiming that nobody here has, among lovers of contemporary music, to the point that the simple mention that some people are just like this (present company excluded, LOL), seems to offend you. Don't wear the hat of the very attitude you're saying you don't have otherwise it becomes hard to believe you.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

some guy said:


> That certain pieces please lots and lots of other people over and over again is maybe interesting and curious, but not terribly important.


Really? I think it *is* terribly important for the music itself, if it is not to be totally forgotten. Handel's _The Messiah_ is popular this time of the year and has lasted over two and a half centuries, though I'm not sure if Zeena Parking's string quartet might do the same.


----------



## Sid James

Yeah, but _The Messiah _was also highly controversial in it's own time, the way I understand it. The fact that Handel was employing opera singers to perform a religious work ruffled the feathers of some in the religious establishments of the day. Yes, they took to it like a duck to water in Dublin were it was premiered, but it took the English a bit longer to appreciate it. Am I right? So maybe in it's own day, _The Messiah _was classified by some as (almost?) just as beyond the pail as the _Helicopter Quartet _which you have mentioned many times amidst these types of arguments. I'd say Stockhausen composed far more interesting music than that. Have you heard his _Tierkreis_ (each movement depicting a sign of the zodiac)? A delightful work, imo, which I was fortunate to see live this year here in Sydney, and I also have the recording of a version of it. Go and check that out. You might actually like it & find it just as delightful as I do...


----------



## Almaviva

@ Some_guy:

I have just thought of a way to sort out the little argument about ad hominem attacks above (which I don't think I was ever guilty of).

Let me ask you a simple, straightforward, direct question, and please be honest.

Just think hard about it, and give me your best "yes or no" answer.

Question: do you feel superior to other users here, based on the fact that you have knowledge of, understanding of, and appreciation for contemporary music?

Yes, or no?

No beating around the bush, please. Just tell me, yes or no?

In a previous interaction with you - the Porgy and Bess fiasco - I confess that I thought you'd be more likely to reply "yes" to this question, but I'm sincerely giving you the benefit of the doubt, given the balanced view you've displayed earlier in this thread - but then you came up with the "knowledge is not a handicap" concept.

So, which one is it?

Yes, you feel superior, or no, you don't?

I'm curious.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, believe me, I'm not.

If you say "yes" then I'll tell you: "that's one of the reasons why people attack lovers of contemporary music (among whom I partially list myself), to reply to the question you asked in your original post: as a human reflex, people rarely like those who claim superiority, even when they are indeed superior- it's actually hard to know what is worse - those who are superior and claim to be, or those who aren't but still claim to be - both are pretty poorly seen, socially."

If you say "no" then I'll tell you: "in this case, don't worry about people who attack you and other lovers of contemporary music, just enjoy your music, and I wish you a good time."

So, which one is it?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Andre said:


> Yeah, but _The Messiah _was also highly controversial in it's own time, the way I understand it. The fact that Handel was employing opera singers to perform a religious work ruffled the feathers of some in the religious establishments of the day. Yes, they took to it like a duck to water in Dublin were it was premiered, but it took the English a bit longer to appreciate it. Am I right? So maybe in it's own day, _The Messiah _was classified by some as (almost?) just as beyond the pail as the _Helicopter Quartet _which you have mentioned many times amidst these types of arguments. I'd say Stockhausen composed far more interesting music than that. Have you heard his _Tierkreis_ (each movement depicting a sign of the zodiac)? A delightful work, imo, which I was fortunate to see live this year here in Sydney, and I also have the recording of a version of it. Go and check that out. You might actually like it & find it just as delightful as I do...


_The Messiah_ was not that highly controversial. It premiered in Dublin (1742) for a number of reasons, partly due to our hero wanting a different audience, so to speak, away from London, which was giving him a hard time amongst some aristocratic music listeners (for political reasons) and business competition. It was well received in Dublin but coolly received in London when it had its London premiere. Despite this, it quickly became a favourite within several years of its premiere, eventually settling down to its "final" version as bequeathed by our hero to the Foundling Hospital in 1754 (a charity/home for neglected children). Ever since then, the work has always been performed year after year in whatever era and country till this day. Even Mozart made an arrangement of it in German (to "modernise" it for his Classical Viennese taste in 1789), as Mozart did with a couple of other of Handel's works.

I don't mind listening to Stockhausen's pieces usually as one-off's. The difference is there is seldom much incentive to want to repeatedly listen to the same piece again later.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> You don't like the answer? Then don't ask the question.


Well, we do seem to have different ideas about what questions are for and about what a conversation is. Before I ask a question, I don't first ask myself, "Will I dislike some of the answers to this?" and then, if I think I will, I don't then refrain from asking it. After I ask a question, I don't then just leave the conversation. If I have something to say about the answers, I will say it. That's how conversations work, back and forth responses, some positive, some negative.



Almaviva said:


> And when you reply, you may want to not quote selectively. You seem to have overlooked certain parts of my post....


I know of no conversational rule that states that the interlocutors must respond to every point made. That would soon be very burdensome for all, I'm sure you'll agree. If the selectivity seems to be in the service of distortion, then that's probably a legitimate gripe. Otherwise....

As for superiority, I'd venture to guess that with few exceptions, everyone who contributes to a conversation does so because they think they have something important to say, because their knowledge or insight or experience is better than the preceding poster(s). One exception would be to contribute in order to score points. That probably comes from a feeling of _in_feriority. Another exception would be to simply agree. And that probably comes from feeling equal. Otherwise, it's superiority all the way, baby!!

Otherwise, back on track, all I can say about posterity is the same thing I have to say about consensus--my enjoyment of any particular piece does not depend at all upon whether people whom I mostly don't even know, some of them long dead, some of them yet to be born, also like/have liked/will possibly like the piece. I do agree with Harpsichord Concerto, however, about forgetting the music, which is a part of my incentive for pointing out the virtues of contemporary music from time to time. And something which has given me a great deal of pleasure is something I'd like to see other people be able to enjoy. I think that has something to do with being a social creature.

Stockhausen's _Hymnen,_ for one example, may not be something that everyone will enjoy. But neither is Bax's _Tintagel._ It makes sense to me to praise _Hymnen,_ because I enjoy it. It does not make sense to me, however, to slam _Tintagel_ because I don't enjoy it. It will not hurt other people to listen to that piece. It will not hurt me if other people do like it.


----------



## Almaviva

Well, I presented a valid and balanced view with two sides, you highlighted just one side, overlooked the other, and called it an _ad hominem_ attack, so, I believe there is a point to be made for distortion. Sure, nobody needs to address all points made, but when a point of view is followed by another paragraph that *clearly* states "on the other hand the opposite is also valid blah blah blah" and you choose to forget about that, then I believe I have a legitimate claim of distortion.

So, you say: "As for superiority, I'd venture to guess that with few exceptions, everyone who contributes to a conversation does so because they think they have something important to say, because their knowledge or insight or experience *is better than the preceding poster*(s)."

Nope. Like you may remember from my very first interaction with you, it all started with my self-deprecating statement. Not everybody here posts in order to feel superior or to score points. I for one post to enjoy myself, exchange views about the music I like with other like-minded folks, and generally have fun. I care little for scoring points or feeling superior to anybody. You may be judging others by your own standards. Not everybody is like you.

You know what, some_guy, let's call things what they are. I'm fully aware that by doing so, I'm not in the politically correct mode, and someone may fault me for the famous _ad hominem_ attacks which are against this forum's policies. But what I'll say now is just the simple naked truth, and I don't care if the truth is not politically correct and someone will fault me for saying it.

Me, I'd rather get this from other areas of my life - for instance, my expertise in my work, the way I can put it to the service of helping others and getting significant results that make a difference in the community where I live.

Over here I don't need a sense of self value coming from my musical tastes or musical knowledge. They are what they are, and if people think lowly of them, so be it. Like I said, I couldn't care less. Music is only a hobby of mine. My true expertise lies elsewhere. Over here, I am just having fun.

I sincerely think you have a lot of growing up to do. Not in years, since you claim that you've spent twenty years of your life listening to contemporary classical music so I assume you're grown enough. But maybe some growing up nevertheless, some training in peoples skills, in not jumping to conclusions, in not considering people you don't really know as some sort of inferior beings.

OK, so it is superiority after all. Cool. Refer to the reply I had entered earlier. It's all I still have to say about the matter.

My point about "you don't like the answer, don't ask the question" was of course rhetorical, and meant to indicate that people need to grow a tough skin; after all, this is the Internet, baby, it's an international forum, it's a tough place, and if you start to interpret as _ad hominem_ attack what basically amounts to legitimate replies to your own question, then there's a problem.

Anyway, enough of this. I don't want to make of this a flame war.

I was just making the point that again, in interactions with me, you came out of a position of claimed superiority, and like I said, don't expect sympathy from the world if this is how you relate to it.

Cool, like I said. I just wanted to make it clear.

Take care.:tiphat:


----------



## Elgarian

some guy said:


> Here's a pertinent quote from Robert Frost. It's about poetry, but the principle is the same: "It is absurd to think that the only way to tell if a poem is lasting is to wait and see if it lasts. The right reader of a good poem can tell the moment it strikes him that he has taken an immortal wound, that he will never get over it. That is to say, permanence in poetry as in love is perceived instantly. It has not to wait the test of time. The proof of a poem is not that we have never forgotten it, but that we knew at sight that we never could forget it. There was a barb to it and a toxin that we owned to at once."


I have a suggestion. Let's read again this wonderful and piercing quote from Robert Frost, and try to draw something helpful from it.

Speaking purely personally, as someone who delights in *Almaviva*'s companionship and insight on this forum, and also as someone who frequently salutes *some guy* as one of the most thoughtful and perceptive contributors I've ever encountered, I find it horrible to see them both at loggerheads like this. There is a huge misunderstanding going on here, and I dearly wish a line could be drawn under it all, and a fresh start made. Please.


----------



## jhar26

My suggestion would be to stop replying to posts from people you don't get along with. It's better to keep quiet and walk away from a conversation than to stay in it for no other reason than to throw mudpies at each other which is against the rules of the forum, as I'm sure you all know.


----------



## Almaviva

Elgarian said:


> Speaking purely personally, as someone who delights in *Almaviva*'s companionship and insight on this forum, and also as someone who frequently salutes *some guy* as one of the most thoughtful and perceptive contributors I've ever encountered, I find it horrible to see them both at loggerheads like this. There is a huge misunderstanding going on here, and I dearly wish a line could be drawn under it all, and a fresh start made. Please.


Alan, thanks for the compliment, and I remind you that this is *exactly* what I did, putting an end to the first unpleasant interaction (which I didn't start, he did) by saying in a post "we're both music lovers, sorry for having reacted harshly, let's drop the personal stuff and start anew," etc. But the guy won't quit, and again, addresses me from the top of his big ego from where he looks down on us, common mortals. Like you said I'm a rather friendly guy but I'm no push over. When and if some_guy drops his inflated sense of superiority I'm ready to start again.

P.S. - In second thought, no, I'm not ready to start again, and never will be. Like Gaston said, it's not the best way to deal with this. From now on, this user is on my ignore list and I won't have to subject you guys to the unpleasantness any longer. Sorry for what's been done so far but it won't happen again.


----------



## Almaviva

jhar26 said:


> My suggestion would be to stop replying to posts from people you don't get along with. It's better to keep quiet and walk away from a conversation than to stay in it for no other reason than to throw mudpies at each other which is against the rules of the forum, as I'm sure you all know.


Good idea. There's a ignore function, right? I'll use it, and it's the end of the story.

P.S. - Done. Sorry for the inconvenience.


----------



## Argus

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Really? I think it *is* terribly important for the music itself, if it is not to be totally forgotten. Handel's _The Messiah_ is popular this time of the year and has lasted over two and a half centuries, though I'm not sure if Zeena Parking's string quartet might do the same.


After listening to more of Zeena Parkins' music, I think that string quartet you posted is not one of her strongest. Everything else I heard by her I liked.














I even heard an improvisation (I'd guess) of hers on BBC Radio 3 the other day.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00w6bh4

It wasn't mindblowing but was decent.

I haven't read much of this thread and it's ominous blocks of text, but I just wanted to make a comment about some music.:tiphat:

*some_guy* - do you not get tired of making the same points over and over in different threads. I found threads like this interesting to start with but they always seem to gravitate towards the same debates, same discussion points and inevitably the same outcome, i.e. everyone thinking the same way they did before the discussion started.


----------



## Elgarian

Argus said:


> inevitably the same outcome, i.e. *everyone* thinking the same way they did before the discussion started.


Not everyone. My views have been modified significantly over time by reading (and contributing to) the discussions in this kind of thread. I do agree, however, that the same wheels have been reinvented quite a few times, even though sometimes they often provide a very bumpy ride, and have a tendency to fall off.


----------



## Ravellian

I agree with Almaviva - he pretty much repeated what I said earlier about music being for the pleasure of the listener, and how successful a piece is depends to a large extent on how pleasant it is to hear or how gripping the experience is. 

Let's face it - the majority of people don't care as much about music as we do - most of them just want to listen to music that is pleasing to the ear and immediately engaging or interesting to listen to. And since that is the majority of people that make up an audience, shouldn't composers respect that? (in fact, most of them did). People normally don't listen to music for the purpose of having a painful or unpleasant experience. They want to be entertained or emotionally moved. 

Being a music major, I love to study music to determine all the wonderful miracles of orchestration and form that composers use to create pleasing sounds.. but the end effect must be pleasing to hear, otherwise what would the point be?


----------



## Almaviva

jhar26 said:


> My suggestion would be to stop replying to posts from people you don't get along with. It's better to keep quiet and walk away from a conversation than to stay in it for no other reason than to throw mudpies at each other which is against the rules of the forum, as I'm sure you all know.


About the editing of my post above: cool. I would have done the same, if I could. As a matter of fact, I came here earlier today to see if I still had a window of opportunity to do the editing since this capacity expires for non-moderators after a while, and I was sad to see that it was too late, but then I realized that you had done it, so, good.

It's the famous _24 hours later effect_ - when things cool off in your head you often think better.

Which doesn't mean I'll stop ignoring that user, it's for the best so that he doesn't push my buttons again and the situation doesn't repeat.

Thanks for editing out the inappropriate parts.:tiphat:


----------



## Almaviva

Ravellian said:


> I agree with Almaviva - he pretty much repeated what I said earlier about music being for the pleasure of the listener, and how successful a piece is depends to a large extent on how pleasant it is to hear or how gripping the experience is.
> 
> Let's face it - the majority of people don't care as much about music as we do - most of them just want to listen to music that is pleasing to the ear and immediately engaging or interesting to listen to. And since that is the majority of people that make up an audience, shouldn't composers respect that? (in fact, most of them did). People normally don't listen to music for the purpose of having a painful or unpleasant experience. They want to be entertained or emotionally moved.
> 
> Being a music major, I love to study music to determine all the wonderful miracles of orchestration and form that composers use to create pleasing sounds.. but the end effect must be pleasing to hear, otherwise what would the point be?


Just for clarification - for me, it's not that music has to be pleasant to the ears to give me pleasure. Like I said, I do like *some* modernist and contemporary works. Atonal, serialist, contemporary musics *can* deliver pleasure to me even when they aren't exactly "pleasant to the ear."

And you're right, getting to know the ins and outs of the crafting and structure of a work often enhances the pleasure. I remember a detailed analysis I've read of Schubert's song cycles and it did increase my pleasure (I liked them already, then I liked them even more when I learned about their musical structure).

But not necessarily. Sometimes, getting too technical can actually be detrimental to the overall impact of a work and the awe it causes.

A simple analogy: there are those who complain of the Met in HD broadcasts for showing too much of the backstage activity. The same applies to some "making of" bonus features in opera DVDs. Sometimes you don't want the knowledge of how it's done to get in the way of the suspension of disbelief and total immersion experience.


----------



## Elgarian

Ravellian said:


> the end effect must be pleasing to hear, otherwise what would the point be?


But isn't this a learned thing? The history of art is full of situations where something that was considered ugly (because new and not understood) crosses over into an accepted form of 'beauty' once the new way of looking/listening has been absorbed.

And don't we also do this as individuals? A great deal of the music that I love today I would have found seriously horrible 30 years ago. What I'm saying is that this word 'pleasure' is a very variable and unreliable indicator of value _in the work_, which brings us back to the point that *some guy* makes about the importance of the _relationship_ between the work and the listener who is attempting to engage with it.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Argus said:


> After listening to more of Zeena Parkins' music, I think that string quartet you posted is not one of her strongest. Everything else I heard by her I liked.
> 
> I haven't read much of this thread and it's ominous blocks of text, but I just wanted to make a comment about some music.:tiphat:


Thank you Argus for the three clips (post #122 above). Good for you that you managed to make some sense out of those weird sounding pieces. Sadly though, for an uncouth cur such as me, I still regret to say I think those three pieces of Zenna Parkin's are crap.


----------



## Eusebius12

I think there are some 'more or less' objective measures of greatness. One is the canon. Of course this is a very imperfect measure, but I would argue not a pointless one. We do get a feeling of quality, matched with depth of feeling, a sense of spirituality, in a Beethoven Symphony, Michelangelo's Pieta, and Goethe's Faust. We don't decode these from Ketelbey, Andy Warhol, or Slipknot (I menetioned Slipknot on a classical music forum!). So there must be some basis for 'greatness', even if its an elusive term. And its not an 'exclusive term, at least in terms of being exclusive of the 20th century, by any means. At least I would place quite a few names on the list from the C20th (the 21st century on the other hand..)
Also greatness is not the same as value. I value the musicals of Richard Rodgers, the operettas of Lehar, even Beatles songs (even some Abba songs and various other pop and jazz stuff). Would I consider them great? Perhaps not, perhaps in their own way, but that is not the only measure of 'worth'.


----------



## Eusebius12

Elgarian said:


> No, I'm not saying that at all, and actually feel somewhat defeated at being so completely misunderstood, because I don't know how to say it more clearly. (Perhaps part of the problem is because in an internet forum we tend just to read one or two posts, rather than following the whole discussion through many.)
> 
> I am talking about _how we talk about music._ And I am saying that we can be more certain about the accuracy of our positive responses (we know the music has merit because we can see it for ourselves) than our negative responses (because the merits of the music may be hidden from us for some reason). If I want to know if there's a spider in the room, I need only to see _one_ spider to know that there is. If I want to be sure that there is _no_ spider in the room - well, that's much more difficult to determine. Indeed, the room may be teeming with spiders but I may merely be looking in all the wrong places.


I see. That's an interesting point, and certainly true to some extent. It has taken me years to appreciate certain works (the operas of Mussorgsky, for instance) and certainly with exposure, many things seem more valid/meritorious. But duds are duds 
Florence Foster Jenkins hasn't improved in my estimation of her, even though I have heard her on several occasions  (nor has much of Bellini and Donizetti, although I have been listening to the odd Verdi opera lately and not been moved to do injury to any music playback device)


----------



## Eusebius12

If everything before Pierrot Lunaire is discounted, I find Schoenberg one of the least beautiful and lyrical of composers. Berg and Webern outstrip him fairly comfortably here, I feel, as does the Bartok of the Viola Concerto and the Solo Violin Sonata. Lutoslawski, Hindemith, early Meale, Messiaen, Xenakis, Takemitsu, Boulez all interest me more than the mature Schoenberg. Elliot Carter, Cage, Tippett, Blomdahl bore me equally as much 
Of course, Walton, Kalomiris, Barber, Ginastera, Schulhoff, Poulenc, Theodorakis, Schoeck, Adams, Prokofiev, Khachaturian, Kancheli, Part, Tavener, and late Meale haven't found tonality and 'beauty' dirty words (my music, such as it is, is tonal with hints of polytonality and very unstable tonality, maybe like late Faure or Scriabin). Of course, Glass writes resolutely tonal music and is resolutely dull and tedious (IMO)


----------



## emiellucifuge

Eusebius12 said:


> If everything before Pierrot Lunaire is discounted, I find Schoenberg one of the least beautiful and lyrical of composers. Berg and Webern outstrip him fairly comfortably here, I feel, as does the Bartok of the Viola Concerto and the Solo Violin Sonata. Lutoslawski, Hindemith, early Meale, Messiaen, Xenakis, Takemitsu, Boulez all interest me more than the mature Schoenberg. Elliot Carter, Cage, Tippett, Blomdahl bore me equally as much
> Of course, Walton, Kalomiris, Barber, Ginastera, Schulhoff, Poulenc, Theodorakis, Schoeck, Adams, Prokofiev, Khachaturian, Kancheli, Part, Tavener, and late Meale haven't found tonality and 'beauty' dirty words (my music, such as it is, is tonal with hints of polytonality and very unstable tonality, maybe like late Faure or Scriabin). Of course, Glass writes resolutely tonal music and is resolutely dull and tedious (IMO)


Well im glad to see youve taken the time to explore further than Schoenberg, and that you have come to these conclusions entirely your self after a good exposure.


----------



## Webernite

I think a good tip for enjoying Schoenberg's music is to come to terms with things like the Art of Fugue (and also the Prussian Fugue) beforehand; and I mean played not by an ensemble, but on a solo piano or harpsichord. 

Why do you think Glenn Gould was attracted to Schoenberg? It's not just because he always seemed to like music that had been attacked when it was first written. It's because Schoenberg, like Strauss (one of Gould's other favorite composers), was one of the great masters of counterpoint of all time. (I certainly think he surpasses Berg and Bartok in that respect.) My opinion is that you can not fully appreciate Schoenberg until you have learnt how to listen to counterpoint, and how to enjoy it for its own sake.


----------



## Almaviva

Elgarian said:


> Indeed, the room may be teeming with spiders but I may merely be looking in all the wrong places.


In what kind of dump do you live, Alan?:devil:


----------



## Elgarian

Almaviva said:


> In what kind of dump do you live, Alan?:devil:


I was speaking of the *Giant Spider Room* of my imagination, Alma. I do all my best 8-legged thinking there. And the flies _had better watch out!_


----------



## Elgarian

Eusebius12 said:


> But duds are duds


Well, duds are duds unless we discover that they aren't, as we sometimes, perhaps even often, do. My trail of once-apparent duds that eventually turned into treasure is embarrassingly long, but I console myself that I'm merely mimicking the history of art in general. That's why it's sensible to be careful about our declarations of dudness.


----------



## Eusebius12

I tell you truthfully, Badarszewska's Maiden's Prayer is a dud. So is Wagner's Die Feen. 
I think a lot of 're-evaluation' occurs, at least from an individual's POV, from the quality of performance one is exposed to. For example, most of Shostakovich leaves me very cold, but I recently heard Gustavo Dudamel and his Venezuelan orchestra playing the scherzo from S10, and I was almost convinced by it. It sounded like something, whereas most conductors I have heard in this made it sound incredibly pedestrian. (I have been more or less convinced by S11 since I first heard it, but then most conductors have seemed far more at home in the prevailingly slow than in the violently fast for some reason- the trend is changing). My tastes incidentally have changed very little over the past decade, although I admit new members to my little pantheon, few names/works have changed their relative status much over that time.

Although nobody has dibs on being the ultimate oracle for CM, still I welcome ideas and views being expressed. These views are meningful, especially if they are based on much listening and thinking about the subject. Then these views can in their turn, be debated (even subjected to critical examination)


----------



## Eusebius12

Elgarian said:


> But isn't this a learned thing? The history of art is full of situations where something that was considered ugly (because new and not understood) crosses over into an accepted form of 'beauty' once the new way of looking/listening has been absorbed.
> 
> And don't we also do this as individuals? A great deal of the music that I love today I would have found seriously horrible 30 years ago. What I'm saying is that this word 'pleasure' is a very variable and unreliable indicator of value _in the work_, which brings us back to the point that *some guy* makes about the importance of the _relationship_ between the work and the listener who is attempting to engage with it.


I don't believe that beauty is entirely subjective. Although it is 'in the eye of the beholder', certain women will score 90%+ in any poll for beauty. Sunsets are beautiful. There maybe mathematical ratios involved. Pythagoras would tell us that the basic major and minor chords are beautiful, because of mathematical ratios. That doesn't mean that beautiful music should contain as many 'root position chords' as possible, but it does indicate that ideas of 'euphony' are not entirely arbitrary.
Personal growth is a factor in our appreciation of beauty or what is 'good', I certainly believe this. OTOH, I don't believe that anything can or will be beautiful. I don't believe, e.g., that any but a very small subset will consider Crumb or Birtwistle or Blomdahl to be even tolerable, let alone beautiful.


----------



## Guest

Eusebius12 said:


> I don't believe, e.g., that any but a very small subset will consider Crumb or Birtwistle or Blomdahl to be even tolerable, let alone beautiful.


But surely those are three people who are generally considered quite accessible.

The sizes of any set or subset will wax and wane over time, according to many variables, and classical music overall (a vast amount of various musics from several hundreds of years ago to the present) has a very tiny share of the total music market. To the people who love it, however many or few, it's essential.


----------



## Elgarian

Eusebius12 said:


> I don't believe that beauty is entirely subjective. Although it is 'in the eye of the beholder', certain women will score 90%+ in any poll for beauty. Sunsets are beautiful. There maybe mathematical ratios involved. Pythagoras would tell us that the basic major and minor chords are beautiful, because of mathematical ratios. That doesn't mean that beautiful music should contain as many 'root position chords' as possible, but it does indicate that ideas of 'euphony' are not entirely arbitrary.
> Personal growth is a factor in our appreciation of beauty or what is 'good', I certainly believe this. OTOH, I don't believe that anything can or will be beautiful. I don't believe, e.g., that any but a very small subset will consider Crumb or Birtwistle or Blomdahl to be even tolerable, let alone beautiful.


I don't think you're really having this discussion with _me_, though. It's not a matter of what you or I do or don't 'believe'. I'm not even arguing a point: I'm just making an observation that's undeniably true, that over time, conceptions of beauty, conceptions of value in relation to art, do change, and change enormously - again and again. The rules in the rulebook are continually being rewritten as the boundary of artistic expression and discovery moves outwards.

I wish I could make it clear that I'm _not _saying that all things are beautiful if only we looked at them in the right way. I'm _not_ saying that all things have merit somewhere if only we could find it. I'm saying that our track record of perceiving value in art is very patchy; many of us are slow on the uptake. Many of us need time and sometimes help in seeing what an artist may be trying to show us, and today's dud may and sometimes does become tomorrow's treasure. We can be sure of the value we _do_ perceive, in a way that we can't be when we think we perceive a lack of it. That alone should cause us to be careful what we say about the duds we think we encounter.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Elgarian said:


> I wish I could make it clear that I'm _not _saying that all things are beautiful if only we looked at them in the right way. I'm _not_ saying that all things have merit somewhere if only we could find it. I'm saying that our track record of perceiving value in art is very patchy; many of us are slow on the uptake. Many of us need time and sometimes help in seeing what an artist may be trying to show us, and today's dud may and sometimes does become tomorrow's treasure. We can be sure of the value we _do_ perceive, in a way that we can't be when we think we perceive a lack of it. That alone should cause us to be careful what we say about the duds we think we encounter.


Yes, you have laboured this point often enough. But there are limits where what you are saying won't apply. There was once a photography exhibition in our local art gallery where a Christian crucifix was urinated upon. I thought that was utter crap, which would have next to zero chance of me (and numerous other folks, Christians or not) ever changing our minds to consider it good art, let alone "art" in the first place. That was an extreme example of pieces of art where the works were just so painfully obvious to the viewers/listeners that the works' authors were really just giving a cheap shot at something, under the esteemed title of "artist" or indeed, "composer".


----------



## Elgarian

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Yes, you have laboured this point often enough.


So one would think, but I'm still being credited, it seems, with supporting an 'anything goes' philosophy which is not at all what I'm talking about.



> But there are limits where what you are saying won't apply. There was once a photography exhibition in our local art gallery where a Christian crucifix was urinated upon. I thought that was utter crap, which would have next to zero chance of me (and numerous other folks, Christians or not) ever changing our minds to consider it good art, let alone "art" in the first place. That was an extreme example of pieces of art where the works were just so painfully obvious to the viewers/listeners that the works' authors were really just giving a cheap shot at something, under the esteemed title of "artist" or indeed, "composer".


But that really _is_ an extreme example, isn't it? I'm not concerned about establishing some kind of universal rule, but merely advocating a generally sensible, flexible approach that recognises that our adverse judgements are significantly less reliable than our positive ones (as explained in my 'spiders in the room' analogy above). And extending that a little: since I'm sceptical even of my _own_ negative judgements, I'm going to mistrust the negative judgements of others even more.

I can't see why this should be a very contentious viewpoint, really. It's no more controversial than saying we ought to be careful before we cross the road.


----------



## Almaviva

Elgarian said:


> It's no more controversial than saying we ought to be careful before we cross the road.


Who says this statement is not highly controversial? It is! Should we really be careful before we cross the road, or are we settling for just about anything the Department of Transportation throws at us? After all, dangerous and stressful road crossing is detrimental to our health in multiple ways. Maybe instead of being careful before we cross the road, we should all get organized and put pressure on the Department of Transportation to build a pedestrian overpass over the road, so that we *don't* need to be careful before we cross the road!:scold:


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Elgarian said:


> ... *(as explained in my 'spiders in the room' analogy above)*. And extending that a little: since I'm sceptical even of my _own_ negative judgements, I'm going to mistrust the negative judgements of others even more.


Yuck. I hate spiders. You should visit Australia (if you haven't already done so) and see the size of some spiders we have down here!  You can safely be assured in this example that I do generally dislike these creatures!


----------



## Elgarian

Well that all seems clear now.

So, gentlemen, I think the feeling of the meeting is that before crossing the road, we should make a brief estimate of the spider population in the immediate vicinity, and then proceed with caution unless we encounter any dud works of art on the way - in which case we blast the bejasus out of 'em.

Next, please.


----------



## Enjoying Life

Back to the original post...

I think there are several different people/approaches to 20th Cent Music:

1) Those who get it and like it - These are people who tuely like the music and connect with something in the music itself. They would listen to it if they were stuck on an island by themselves and had a wide choice of music to listen to.

2) Those who are starting to get it and want to learn more. They may not really like it, but are learning and are open.

3) Those who listen to it because they feel they must - they feel guilty that they do not understand or like it and feel they must somehow get past that and like it.

4) Those who say they like it to impress others

5) Those who get it and yet do not like it. They understand what it is doing and yet feel that other music is more interesting or enjoyable for what ever reason

6) Those who started to understand it and decided that they did not want to put more time into it because it never grabbed them. They don't really understand it all but have made the choice to put their time into other forms of music

7) Those who feel they must dislike it for some reason. They feel that there is something fundamentally "wrong" with the music - usually feeling that listening to it will warp a person or the universe itself.

8) Those who like a certain type of music so much that they feel they must put down other forms of music in order to gain praise or followers for their music.

9) Those who don't get it and so it just seems strange and awkward to them. They tend to laugh at what they do not know.

Out of this list of people, I think that #4, 7, 8 and 9 are the ones who attach eachother the most. If you get a certain type of music then there is no need to put another type down. You like what you like and that is fine. I think you one put another person down when you are not secure in what you believe and feel the need to defend it by attacking.

For me I have gone through several of these stages with music - especially 20th cent music and all forms of opera (so you can imagine what a 20th cent opera did to me). I used to really make fun of opera because I did not understand it. I probably also thought it was "wrong". Then I felt I had to understand it and like it. Now, I get it to some degree but don't really connect with it and put my time into other things.

As I read posts here I tend to try to figure out where people are in terms of these types. That helps me to understand where they are coming from and why they say what they do. I find there are some that seem to go around on the same topics and gain great enjoyment from pushing each others buttons.

I think with the topic of 20th century music, it has often become locked into a struggle between group #4 and #7/8 - those who seek to impress and those who seek to protect the universe from evil. And I think both groups need eachother to survive. Without each other to argue with they would not have anything to make them feel special.

I do enjoy the posts of people like Andre who seems to really like music that I do not and is very honest and comfortable with what he likes or dislikes. He has thought it through and has no desire to correct the flaws in other people's tastes or score points.

If we could have more of that this might not be as humorous but it would be a whole lot more interesting and profitable.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I think that one of the problems that occurs frequently is the assumption by some of those who "get it and like it" is that everyone who does not like it simply doesn't "get it"... and this comes off as patronizing. As you suggest, some may "get it" and not like it... or get it and simply feel that other directions in music have more to offer them personally. Admittedly, there are equally those who assume that those who get and like modern and contemporary music don't also get and like Bach, Beethoven and Mozart... or worse yet, that most of those who claim to get it and like it (Modern and Contemporary music) simply say they like it to impress others (the Emperor's New Clothes). It would seem that there is enough misunderstanding and assumption to go around for everybody.:tiphat:


----------



## Guest

We are all at different places in our journeys. Nothing particularly noteworthy about that. Only if all of us were at exactly the same place would there be anything to remark. 

Wisdom is to keep moving along our paths. To refrain from identifying our current location with virtue; to refrain from identifying our companions' locations as somehow lacking in virtue.

We do all have one thing in common, though, I'd guess. We love to listen to music, and (being social creatures) we enjoy talking about it with other people.

Inevitably, some of those other people will already love what we love. Inevitably, some of those people will hate what we love. Inevitably, some people will construe our love, or at least our talking, as something other than it is.

Given that we continue to be social creatures, even in the presence of antagonisms, we will probably all continue to talk about the musics we love. We will probably all continue to defend the musics we love from their detractors. We will probably all continue to recommend the musics we love to the people who don't know them yet.

There. Pretty much I'm the master of the obvious, eh?


----------



## Enjoying Life

As someone who has tried very hard to listen to and enjoy 20th Cent music, I have a request. Could a few of you who enjoy and understand it please pick a piece you like and explain or describe it for me. Maybe pick a piece on YouTube so I can listen to it and we can refer to the same recording. Tell me what you like or see in the music or how it effects you. Highlight parts that are special or important (refering to the time on the YouTube performance so I can find it).

That might help me better understand the music and those who like it. If i knew why you liked a certain piece that might help me to like it also.

Thanks


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

As someone who has tried very hard to listen to and enjoy 20th Cent music, I have a request. Could a few of you who enjoy and understand it please pick a piece you like and explain or describe it for me. Maybe pick a piece on YouTube so I can listen to it and we can refer to the same recording. Tell me what you like or see in the music or how it effects you. Highlight parts that are special or important (refering to the time on the YouTube performance so I can find it).

That might help me better understand the music and those who like it. If i knew why you liked a certain piece that might help me to like it also.

This is a great idea... so perhaps a new thread:

http://www.talkclassical.com/11807-exploring-modern-contemporary-music.html#post132499


----------



## Guest

I have a question, first. Why have you tried very hard to listen to and enjoy twentieth century music? The answer will help me know how to respond.

In the meantime, as someone who enjoys and understands the music of the past hundred years, I can safely say that twentieth century music is not an it but a they. Many theys. One thing that happened in that century was that music went in several different directions, at once. And as the century progressed, that trend continued. I heard a lecture back in the 80s by, if I recall correctly, Ned Rorem. Not sure about who, but one thing he said stuck with me, and that was that in the centuries leading up to the twentieth century, one could hear a progression from one thing to the next, all progressions clearly within the same tradition. And to illustrate that, he played us a Renaissance choral piece which he had spliced onto a piece by Verdi. No one could tell where the splice was. He asserted, further, that Bartok, for example, was more different from Stravinsky, say, than Verdi was from the Renaissance composer.

The extent to which that is so, is the extent to which any description or appreciation of any single piece written between 1910 and 2010 will clue you in to that piece (or perhaps that composer) only. It won't help with anyone or anything else.

And even were none of that the case, there's still the phenomenon that you will get more information about the person doing the describing than you will about the thing being described. So I don't hold much hope for your particular request actually netting you the result you want.

There is one thing, though, that I can assure you about--there's very little wrong with twentieth century musics. Perhaps the so-called neo-romantics and the so-called neo-tonalists can be seen as a bit futile, producing more or less skilled pastiches of an earlier time at worst and more or less new ways to use older systems at best. Otherwise, polytonality, dodecaphony, exoticism, rhythmic experimentation, extended techniques, serialism, indeterminacy, minimalism (of all types), electroacoustics (of even more types), theatre, concept music, microintervals, just intonation, and all the rest of the various things people have been doing for the past hundred years or so are all fine. Very different, but all fine. Complexity, simplicity, total control, giving up of control, acoustic, electronic--there are good things in all these various and contradictory movements.

If you've been trying to like things from the past hundred years because it intrigues you, then don't worry--listen to and enjoy what you already like. Be assured that what intrigues you without fulfilling you like the familiar does is also fulfilling in its own way. Letting that way just be its way, without expecting it or requiring that it fulfil in the same way as what you already know, is the best way in.

Good luck!

(Yes, as you see, I did NOT wait for your answer to my question. Oh well!!)


----------



## Enjoying Life

some guy said:


> I have a question, first. Why have you tried very hard to listen to and enjoy twentieth century music? The answer will help me know how to respond.


If nothing else, because it stands in line with the music I do enjoy from earlier periods and I want to understand it. I know that often I do not start liking a type of music and then as I work on it, I change and enjoy it.

A good example is music from the middle ages. I did not like chants, masses and madrigals until I worked hard at learning about them and listening to them over and over. Now they may not be central to my listening, but I really enjoy them at times and would not want to have given up and missed out on adding them to my world of music. I do not like all of that time period, but there are some I really enjoy and I find that my enjoyment of music from other time periods has been increased as well.

Right now, 20th Cent music is hard for me to listen to and I do not enjoy it. I may be wrong, but I wonder if I keep working on it, I will some day enjoy it and be glad I kept trying.


----------



## Guest

Enjoying Life said:


> I may be wrong, but I wonder if I keep working on it, I will some day enjoy it and be glad I kept trying.


I think you are right.


----------



## starry

some guy said:


> Perhaps the so-called neo-romantics and the so-called neo-tonalists can be seen as a bit futile, producing more or less skilled pastiches of an earlier time at worst and more or less new ways to use older systems at best.


That's harsh. There can be good music in that area. All styles eventually pass a pioneering phase (that includes the kind of music you mention below).



some guy said:


> Otherwise, polytonality, dodecaphony, exoticism, rhythmic experimentation, extended techniques, serialism, indeterminacy, minimalism (of all types), electroacoustics (of even more types), theatre, concept music, microintervals, just intonation, and all the rest of the various things people have been doing for the past hundred years or so are all fine. Very different, but all fine. Complexity, simplicity, total control, giving up of control, acoustic, electronic--there are good things in all these various and contradictory movements.


Because that is what your taste is. Of course there can be good things in all those areas, there can in any style. But there can be bad things too.


----------



## Enjoying Life

Some Guy - I would still like to hear from you about a piece that you like and a description of what you like about it and what it means to you. I think that would help me understand what you have been saying and possibly understand your music choices better.

Thanks


----------



## graaf

I was lucky enough to recognize that I was going that way (dislike for contemporary music) as soon as it happened, so I didn't have time to come in conflict with anybody over that. I guess it is natural (albeit negative) attitude towards something new and non-comprehensible (like the first time I was exposed to classical music at all). As natural as it might be, it remains negative and gives no excuse for persisting at it.

I understand that there are people who, given their profession, musical education or at least hobbies, had more than enough of non-contemporary music (shall we say usual classics) and need something new for their ears. I don't. Musicians from Bach and Vivaldi, up to Mahler and Shostakovich gave more than enough material for me. But I did give it a shot and I'm glad that I stumbled upon Arvo Part and his Tabula Rasa. Great piece, somehow troubling and hard to listen to - in sense that it gives me some dark and heavy feelings.

After all as Debussy said it: _There is no theory. You have only to listen. Pleasure is the law. _ And if one finds pleasure in least-approachable of Ligeti's work - one can knock himself out (I was discouraged with anything I tried after his Lux aeterna).


----------



## Ralfy

Maybe a book like Alex Ross' _The Rest is Noise_ might help.


----------



## tdc

I think a lot of composers like to write music that is very 'new' sounding and takes people out of their comfort zones. That uncomfortable zone is generally where people grow spiritually. Often times I am more interested in seeking out pieces that get a rise out of people than ones that become instantly loved and adored (the lattter in most cases usually turns out to be not as great). At one time J.S. Bach's compositions weren't overly well recieved nor were Franz Schuberts, this is what I like to remind people of that hate on contemporary art music.


----------



## LordBlackudder

If they attack the music it will always stay unknown. Than you will only have popular stuff like music from adverts. That will give them even more fuel to attack the modern stuff.

If you appreciate it than maybe we can see some truly talented composers take the stage. If you bash it you will only see commercial music surface.

The snobs and elitists are their own worst enemy in a way; killing off what they enjoy.

I think they are the minority though. But they are often in positions of power. Like radio producers, tv producers, critics, writers. So you get the feeling everyone hates contemporary classical. But when someone tries something new like a musical, film score, game music there is a positive response.

So i think they hate the music because it isn't of their taste. When you consider these people also hate every other kind of music, I'am even less sure they are the consensus of opinion.


----------

