# How I know that there's nothing wrong with modern music



## Guest (Jan 21, 2012)

But first, a caveat. There are pieces of music that I do not like, in all eras.

I don't particularly like anything by Telemann, but I don't on the strength of that ever say or even think that something is wrong with Baroque music.

I like only a few pieces by Mozart and almost no Beethoven until his middle period. But there's nothing wrong with Classical music.

I dislike most of Mendelssohn and Chopin and would never listen to any more Wagner if I could help it. There is nothing wrong with Romantic music.

And so forth.

With that said: I led a very sheltered life. The only music I knew at first was what my parents had, Ray Coniff, Percy Faith, Perry Como, et cetera. When I was around nine, I got a box of cast-off 78s from my dad's half-brother. These included Bing Crosby, Fats Waller, and some classical music.

Magic.

I didn't put it this way at the time, but looking back I realized that with classical music what I felt was that this was what music was really like. This was real music.

After eleven or twelve years of voracious devouring of everything I could find (including Wagner and Chopin and Mendelssohn, by the way), I bought an LP of Bartók's _Concerto for Orchestra._

More magic.

I realized later that I had heard and even enjoyed many twentieth century pieces. I had played in a piece in high school for brass and tape. But it was the Bartók that started me off on twentieth century music as such. That was in the spring of 1972. In the summer, I saw a performance of Stravinsky's _Les Noces._ Wow. In the fall, I was checking out records from the library of Elliott Carter. Not magical, this time, at first. But my initial bewilderment never turned into "something's wrong with modern music" or "modern music is incomprehensible crap" or even "Carter is crap."

I was well and truly hooked. And a hiccough or two (Berio's _Visage,_ Davidovsky, Scelsi) along the way was no thing.

At first, I didn't know that there was a whole anti-modern attitude out there. (Remember that sheltered life I mentioned.) I found out soon enough that friends and relatives abhorred all that noisy modern stuff, but since friends and relatives had all along abhorred the boring classical stuff, it took awhile to catch on that large numbers of people really disliked the stuff.

Why I did not know. I still do not know. It's lovely stuff, interesting, accessible, pleasant, exciting--electroacoustic, minimal, experimental, live electronic, serial, noise (the genre); it all has something interesting and musical and enjoyable about. Not every piece, of course, but then neither and so forth et cetera (see the caveat, above).

I didn't fall in love with this stuff because it was cool or because it was valid or because college professors said it was important or any of that tat. I fell in love with it for the same reason I had fallen in love with Rachmaninoff and Tchaikovsky and Beethoven and Bach, because it sounds good. It's beautiful and exhilarating.

That's I suppose my biggest handicap in discussions about contemporary music. I never went through any phase of struggling with it. And so I don't know how to comfort or advise people who do struggle. I never felt I had to listen to it. Except for a few isolated exceptions, I never had to get past any initial feeling that it was ugly or incomprehensible or decadent. If I didn't like something, I just moved on to the next thing. (I didn't find a Boulez piece that I liked until 2010.) And there were plenty of next things to enjoy. It's a big world, and it's full of good stuff.


----------



## Sofronitsky (Jun 12, 2011)

That was truly a wonderful story!

I still hate the majority of modern music :tiphat:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

A lot of people don't like modern music simply because they don't understand what it is about, why the composer did what they did. If you study pieces by Elliott Carter in detail you'll become familiar with them and understand them more. In studying contemporary composers you'll also get the bonus of having a greater knowledge of music history.

I had a very similar musical journey to yours though. I became hooked onto composers such as Stockhausen, Ligeti, Cage, Carter etc. because I found their music very enjoyable. Just in the same way I like listening to composers like Schubert or Tchaikovsky.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Are you going to talk about specific examples with youtube links?

You don't have to write a book of personal reminisces or make a laundry list of every piece you like. Just give me four or five pieces that show the diversity of styles and represent the best in your opinion. Then explain to me why you like those pieces. What makes them the best? Then I can get a feel for what we're talking about.


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

Sofronitsky said:


> That was truly a wonderful story!
> 
> I still hate the majority of modern music :tiphat:


Ditto. [ filler ]


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Excellent tale, chap. 

I bid thee good day.

You've made no claims or counterclaims, no normative assertions, etc. I'm not sure how I'm to respond. 

You love modern music, other people don't. 

Is there a moral to this tale?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> Excellent tale, chap.
> 
> I bid thee good day.
> 
> ...


Do _you_ like modern music, brianwalker?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

A lot of people don't like modern music simply because they don't understand what it is about, why the composer did what they did.

That's nonsense... and the usual assumption leveled at anyone who admits to not liking this or that Modern or Contemporary composer. I doubt that understanding the motives of a pedophile is going to lead me to an appreciation of his actions. I am certain that understanding just how good Lima Beans are for me is never going to lead to me enjoying them. I suspect that some guy understands Telemann perfectly well... and still isn't interested. I like some Modern and some Contemporary music and dislike some examples of either, but I doubt it has anything to do with my greater understanding of the works I enjoy.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Do _you_ like modern music, brianwalker?


Define modern music, define like.

What do you want, a list of all the post-1920 works that I have listened and rate them on a scale of 1-20?

I find that idea quite appealing, but I'm not sure how that would contribute apart from allowing others to service me, if they are willing, as a human version of Pandora.

I'm willing, wanting, waiting even, to undertake such a task, but I find that I'm quite narcissistic as it is.

If anyone is willing to take me up on the task, I'll do it. They just have to promise that they'll give me at least 30 recommendations and rank them in terms of compatibility from 60 to 100.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> A lot of people don't like modern music simply because they don't understand what it is about, why the composer did what they did. If you study pieces by Elliott Carter in detail you'll become familiar with them and understand them more.


I think under-familiarity is a problem, but over-familiarity can be an even bigger problem.

Here's a professor of music describing his own journey from Boulez-love to Boulez-indifference.

"Except for Le marteau, Boulez is a different story. In youth I attacked that piece with all the fanatacism of a new convert: read Musique aujourd-hui (of which Boulez eventually autographed my copy for me), did what analysis I could, and even did an independent tutorial learning to conduct the piece. But here again, I eventually came back to the piece in the late 1980s and realized that, after so many years of devotion, I couldn't meaningfully tell one movement from another, aside from the instrumentation. If someone had come out with a recording of Le marteau with half the pitches transposed by half-steps one way or the other, I wouldn't have been able to tell the difference. (I also analyzed every note of the Boulez Second Sonata before hearing it, and was so brainwashed that, when I finally heard it, I cried over its beauty. Today I wouldn't recognize that piece in a blindfold test.) Ultimately, I think Boulez was trying to be very avant-garde in Le marteau, but didn't really know what he was doing yet, and made lousy pitch choices. I've run into a surprising number of composers who have exactly the same opinion, and who were afraid to mention it for years."


If you're not familiar with the activity you might think this is a joke. It takes years of training for a debater to rise to this level, and even more years of experience for one to be a "competent judge". This is NOT GIBBERISH, even though it might appear to be. Every argument is well calculated and prepared for in advance. The strategies and techniques are all well known to insiders. Most of the time, the decision, made by the panel of judges, are unanimous.

As a debater who is on speaking terms of people who have attended the Tournament of Champions (HS division) I can honesty say that I find this stuff comprehensible. Within the peculiar rules and norms that govern debate this makes sense. I'm a bit rusty but back in the day I could write down (flow) all of these arguments and make a somewhat judicious decision as to who "won".

Looking back I find the activity ludicrous, even patently meretricious (yeah yeah the adverb doesn't agree with the adjective). Of course when I was in HS I cared too much about the prestige and winning so that I could gain entry into a better college that I didn't question the absurdity of what was going on.

If I had the power I would defund college and high school debate.

I'm not equating music with debate. This is just an analogy.

As in the compositional community, the debating community shuns outsiders, or "lay judges", who are deemed quite incompetent in judging a round. This is true. A lay judge who is not familiar with the rules of the game will be completely, utterly lost, as I'm sure ALL of you (ex-debaters excluded) will be.











See this guy? I knew him personally. I find this round completely comprehensible, and I understand the reasons and motives for the decisions made by the judges on an intricate level (I also know a few of the judges casually).


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I don't want a huge list. I just want four or five examples that I can sample and an explanation of each.

If someone asked me to do that with great moments in Wagner operas, bluegrass, trad jazz or big band swing, it would take a bit of thinking, but I could choose pieces that represented what I think is best and explain why I chose those. It is a better way of introducing people to new music than talking about you and your own particular relationship to music.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

bigshot said:


> I don't want a huge list. I just want four or five examples that I can sample and an explanation of each.


 What kind of "explanation" are you looking for? Does it have to be in technical terms?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

No. It doesn't have to be technical. It just has to point out aspects in the music that makes it so wonderful.

"Here is a really cool piece of music. It's great because... If you like this, you should check out this too..."

I don't know why this is so complicated for people to wrap their heads around. This isn't a test. I have lots of friends who are musicians and major league record collectors and published musicologists. If they mention a type of music that I don't know about that they think I should, they give me a few examples to listen to and tell me what to look for in them. It's a simple thing. It's how music lovers turn other music lovers on to new music. I don't know why it's such a foreign concept here. The reason I'm here is to get pointers to music I should be listening to but don't know about yet. Maybe other people are here for different reasons.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> A lot of people don't like modern music simply because they don't understand what it is about, why the composer did what they did.
> 
> That's nonsense... and the usual assumption leveled at anyone who admits to not liking this or that Modern or Contemporary composer. I doubt that understanding the motives of a pedophile is going to lead me to an appreciation of his actions. I am certain that understanding just how good Lima Beans are for me is never going to lead to me enjoying them. I suspect that some guy understands Telemann perfectly well... and still isn't interested. I like some Modern and some Contemporary music and dislike some examples of either, but I doubt it has anything to do with my greater understanding of the works I enjoy.


I agree with all of that - except that it did make a difference with Carter's music to find out who he was writing it for - and I don't object to the occasional Lima bean in vegetable soup.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Wait a second I lost track of who I was talking to. 

I'm not promoting modern music here, I want someone to promote it to me.

Off the top of my head. 

Berg - Violin Concerto. It's viscerally tragic and quite poignant, and I don't attribute this at all to the back story of Alma's dead daughter. 

Berg - Three Pieces for Orchestra. The Prelude has a spooky, "cool" atmosphere that is at the same time vital and thrilling. It's very Mahlerian, but stripped down. 

Ligeti - Etudes 4, 10. It's humorous and evokes the oddest atmosphere. 

John Cage - In a Landscape. Excellent mood music. 

Schoenberg - Verklarte Nacht. Very tender.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Join the club!

There's something about the internet that makes people just want to talk about themselves and how much they know. What a waste of a valuable resource! Search out what you don't know first, then pay back by sharing what you happen to know.


----------



## Guest (Jan 21, 2012)

Alex Ross's book "The Rest is Noise" is a frequently cited guide to 20th century music.

Would those gifted with a strong appreciation of modern music recommend this book, or something similar? Maybe that would be a good starting point for bigshot and brianwalker (and myself?).


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

BPS said:


> Alex Ross's book "The Rest is Noise" is a frequently cited guide to 20th century music.
> 
> Would those gifted with a strong appreciation of modern music recommend this book, or something similar? Maybe that would be a good starting point for bigshot and brianwalker (and myself?).


It's not really a guide, it's more of a literary-minded appreciation of music with a healthy heap of biography and a sizeable portion of musical analysis.


----------



## Guest (Jan 21, 2012)

Have you read it? Did you like it?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> It's not really a guide, it's more of a literary-minded appreciation of music


Ugh! Doesn't anyone love music enough to be an evangelist for it any more? I guess Bernstein's dead.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

BPS said:


> Have you read it? Did you like it?


I've read it. I liked it.

It didn't make me love modern music more though.

I haven't read "Listen To This", his new book, but that might be what you're looking for.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Ugh! Doesn't anyone love music enough to be an evangelist for it any more? I guess Bernstein's dead.


Yeah this is what I'm referring too. Alex Ross is not Bernstein, going step by step and explaining to you the greatness of the work.

His 10 minutes of lecture on the Eroica symphony changed how I listen to music. You're not going to find that in The Rest is Noise.

In fact, if you delve into Bernstein's 6 lectures at Harvard you'll find him insinuating why modern music is terrible and tonality is, and should remain, king.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The Alex Ross book is excellent! You don't have to be a huge fan of modern music to enjoy the book. If you like classical music and 20th century history, it's a good read.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

For those who need, there's a website-that's-been-around-forever called classical.net, that can be helpful 
with regard to the key works for just about any classical music composer. The site lists the important works as well as the "must hear" works which are noted with red stars. It's easy to navigate.

It's nice to communicate with each other and ask for examples, but sometimes you just hafta do it yourself...if you're interested enough. In the long run, this technique can be more rewarding, as well as a significant time-saver.

Example listings and links...

Basic Repertoire Intro
Medieval Repertoire
Renaissance Repertoire
Baroque Repertoire
Classical Repertoire
Romantic Repertoire
20th-Century Repertoire
Modern Repertoire

http://www.classical.net/music/composer/works.php

http://www.classical.net/music/rep/lists/20th.php

http://www.classical.net/music/rep/lists/mod.php


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> In fact, if you delve into Bernstein's 6 lectures at Harvard you'll find him insinuating why modern music is terrible and tonality is, and should remain, king.


I'm not ashamed to admit that the Harvard lectures left me a bit in te dust. But the Omnibus programs and the Young People's Concerts are pure gold. They get me excited about the possibilities in music. Bernstein is one of my heroes, but as an educator even more than as a musician. (Not to say he wasn't a top drawer conductor and composer...)

Thanks for the link, Van, but I've had much better luck following an individual's passion rather than accepted wisdom. There's no lack of music to explore. I can wait until the person with the expertise and excitement comes along. I'm busy with Mozart right now, and plotting my attack on Baroque. I'm currently working on 1920s dance bands and Cuban music from the 50s too. Bennie More... Wow!


----------



## Llyranor (Dec 20, 2010)

Examples? I'm not the biggest advocate for modern music (in fact, I've disliked more pieces that I've heard so far than the opposite), but there are two living art music composers I like. Both minimalists (or so they are labelled). Do I like minimalism? I haven't heard enough of it to make up my mind yet, but I like some of what I've heard from these two.

One is Arvo Part. When I listen to this piece, it almost feels like this is how a depressed person would lose their mind. Yet, when I focus on just the notes, I could perhaps think that it _sounds _a bit simple. I don't understand the discrepancy between the 'simple' notes on the page vs what the piece makes me feel when I actual listen to it, because I certainly _feel _something when I hear this. Less is more? Is this the basics of minimalism? (I don't know - I don't know enough about it) But it's certainly an interesting thought.





The other is Philip Glass. I've only heard his two violin concertos so far (some bits of other stuff, but nothing major), and I really really really enjoy them. Again, in ways, some of the composition can sound repetitive. Yet, somehow, it manages to maintain my absolute attention throughout, until I suddenly realize that the music has shifted into something completely different without my realizing it. There is no phenomenal counterpoint, or massive interactions between various orchestral sections, or anything widely complex (or is there?), yet the music enthralls me. For what reason? I'm still trying to find out. Repetition usually bores me, but this somehow works for me.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Yay!

OK. The Arvo Part piece is nice. It reminds me of movie soundtracks. I was watching the conductor, but I couldn't figure out what he was doing. Perhaps it was playing back out of sync. Structurally, there isn't anything to it. It seems that all of the variation is in time, like tape loops shifting in layers. It didn't overstay its welcome though. Is this a part of a larger piece?

The Glass piece is different. I remember when Koyanisquatsi came out, i was excited about the way his music worked with the sped up visuals. I went out and bought Einstein on the Beach and kept playing it trying to like it. Without the time lapse I just found Glass's music tedious and irritating. It was like waiting forever for the other shoe to drop. I thought it was just me because I had a friend who swore up and down that Einstein was pure genius from beginning to end. I took his word for it and figured I'd give Glass another go someday.

A bunch of years pass and I got the Dracula DVD after seeing reviews comparing Glass's score to Wagner. I've always thought someone should overlay a score on that movie... Wagner music would be perfect for it- passionate and over the top. But instead I found out Philip Glass's music didn't sound like Wagner. It sounded like Einstein on the Beach played at 16 RPM. Scenes that seemed to drag without music dragged even more with Glass's score. That's the way this piece sounds to me. Maybe if I want to be lulled to sleep, paying this at a low volume might do a good job. But this doesn't engage me as a listener. In fact, it shuts my brain down. That isn't what I'm looking for.

If I was a violin player, I would feel cheated by that piece. I don't see any room for a personal expression in performance there. It's like a machine.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> Define modern music, define like.


I'll reword my question: Do you enjoy spending your time listening to atonal/experimental music?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

To those wishing to see links to modern works with some discussion there is a TC thread on exactly this topic here. Works vary from neo-romantic to atonal to avant-garde to minimalism (maybe other styles as well).

That thread is one of the few places on TC where there are essentially no negative comments on modern music. It may not be precisely what those interested in modern music are looking for, but I believe it's well worth a visit.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Llyranor said:


> Examples? I'm not the biggest advocate for modern music (in fact, I've disliked more pieces that I've heard so far than the opposite), but there are two living art music composers I like. Both minimalists (or so they are labelled). Do I like minimalism? I haven't heard enough of it to make up my mind yet, but I like some of what I've heard from these two.
> 
> One is Arvo Part. When I listen to this piece, it almost feels like this is how a depressed person would lose their mind. Yet, when I focus on just the notes, I could perhaps think that it _sounds _a bit simple. I don't understand the discrepancy between the 'simple' notes on the page vs what the piece makes me feel when I actual listen to it, because I certainly _feel _something when I hear this. Less is more? Is this the basics of minimalism? (I don't know - I don't know enough about it) But it's certainly an interesting thought.
> 
> ...


Glass's first violin concerto is a little less repetitive than some of his earlier works such as 600 Lines. That concerto there does still use a lot of his minimalist techniques but applies them to a less repetitive piece. His later works can come across as more neo-romantic than minimalistic though.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

That was indeed an interesting story. Although quite different from my own story, it had a similar thread of thought: the idea of not coming to a composer or piece of music with _baggage_.

It all goes to show that it is indeed possible to have no bias toward a kind of music. My lack of bias wasn't for Modern composers although there are many that I enjoy today, and will continue to add to my list of favorites. For me, it was small Russian composers that I lacked no bias for or against when I discovered them, and dived into them when I found them to my liking, only to find I ventured to dissect something not many do.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I'll reword my question: Do you enjoy spending your time listening to atonal/experimental music?


Yes. Not all of the time, not even a majority, but of course, yes.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

*Anthony Pateras* is one seriously good living composer:


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> That thread is one of the few places on TC where there are essentially no negative comments on modern music.


i'm not looking for cheerleaders. I'm looking for people who can boil it down to the good stuff. Negative comments are fine if they are supported.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> *Anthony Pateras* is one seriously good living composer


Good Lord.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

bigshot said:


> i'm not looking for cheerleaders. I'm looking for people who can boil it down to the good stuff. Negative comments are fine if they are supported.


No cheerleaders, no wisdom. Passion's good, with a boiling down. Anything else?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

One more thing... Conciseness.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)




----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Vaneyes said:


> No cheerleaders, no wisdom. Passion's good, with a boiling down. Anything else?


The reputation of any artist depends on the cheerleading of important, influential members of posterity.

Henry James survived only because of cheerleading by influential writers of later generations. The sales of his later novels during his lifetime was utterly pathetic. Now he's somewhat of a god among writers.

Wagner's reputation is partially cemented by cheerleading by the likes of Mahler, Hugo Wolf, George Bernard Shaw, etc.

Of course cheerleading is a crude term but on a fundamental level it's of central importance.

If not enough people care, if the people who care aren't influential and don't have a voice down the line, the artwork becomes forgotten.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Part of the joy of music for me was always expressing that joy to other people, having them understand my experience and inquire if they experienced something similar. I'm not naturally a very critical person to other people and things outside myself, but I am very critical of myself, so I think what deterred me from modern music, was that many people I was talking to, didn't get it, and therefore, I assumed that there was something wrong with me, and didn't want to devote myself to something that no one else could appreciate. I realize that this way of thinking has adversely affected my appreciation of a lot of music. Hearing one word of affirmation from another person about music that I'm fascinated with, will make me more interested in it. I push Medtner on people because I personally thought he was quite a find but I was not sure of my own judgement, and I hunger for second opinions, because it is in my nature to do so, but I've got to realize that this can be limiting. All the same, I like to find music that others have not heard and claim it as my thing. I haven't fully understood the matter, but I know for a fact that right now I am willfully stagnant in my musical appreciation, mostly because I have ambitions with learning piano pieces. It'll be nice to be exempt from doggedly parading the greatness of a few composers for a while, when I don't hunger for a second opinion and realize that I just enjoy these composers.

Thank you some guy for your story. It made me think.


----------



## Guest (Jan 21, 2012)

clavichorder said:


> Thank you some guy for your story. It made me think.


You're welcome!

I'd like to hear more of this Patelas character. I liked the energy of the first half. And I liked the calmness of the second. It's nice to be able to hear cool sounds without the composer intruding too much, and that's what Patelas gives you in that part. Somewhat isolated noises. Longish silences.

Takes more confidence, more maturity, I think, to let the sounds be than to marshal them in line and make 'em march about hup two three four hup two three four. Still, the energy of the first half is pretty um energetic I mean attractive. If you like being grabbed by the throat and slammed against the wall, and who doesn't now and again?, then this does the trick. Best of both worlds.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> I like only a few pieces by Mozart ...


Interesting. Which few ones?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

some guy said:


> You're welcome!
> 
> I'd like to hear more of this Patelas character. I liked the energy of the first half. And I liked the calmness of the second. It's nice to be able to hear cool sounds without the composer intruding too much, and that's what Patelas gives you in that part. Somewhat isolated noises. Longish silences.
> 
> Takes more confidence, more maturity, I think, to let the sounds be than to marshal them in line and make 'em march about hup two three four hup two three four. Still, the energy of the first half is pretty um energetic I mean attractive. If you like being grabbed by the throat and slammed against the wall, and who doesn't now and again?, then this does the trick. Best of both worlds.


You can go to his website and listen to some excerpts of his compositions. He's not a very well known composer and I think he needs to get some more recognition around the world.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

some guy said:


> You're welcome!
> 
> I'd like to hear more of this Patelas character. I liked the energy of the first half. And I liked the calmness of the second. It's nice to be able to hear cool sounds without the composer intruding too much, and that's what Patelas gives you in that part. Somewhat isolated noises. Longish silences.
> 
> Takes more confidence, more maturity, I think, to let the sounds be than to marshal them in line and make 'em march about hup two three four hup two three four. Still, the energy of the first half is pretty um energetic I mean attractive. If you like being grabbed by the throat and slammed against the wall, and who doesn't now and again?, then this does the trick. Best of both worlds.


You can go to his website and listen to some excerpts of his compositions. He's not a very well known composer and I think he needs to get some more recognition around the world.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Whoa what happened there? Must be some kind of computer bug.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Interesting. Which few ones?


Yes this is what I'm interested in.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

some guy said:


> If you like being grabbed by the throat and slammed against the wall, and who doesn't now and again?, then this does the trick.


Uhhh... Some of us don't.


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2012)

For HC and brianwalker,

Requiem
Mass in c "Great"
Symphonies 27, 39, and 40
Piano concertos 21 and 24
Serenade no. 10


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

some guy said:


> For HC and brianwalker,
> 
> Requiem
> Mass in c "Great"
> ...


Which one is his serenade no. 10?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

> ...
> 
> To this list of current styles/approaches -
> 
> ...


I also left out things still going on now. There's so many different things.

To these "lists" of styles or techniques, I would add *contemporay classical music incorporating folk music from various parts of the world.* It's still going on, this enquiry, it didn't stop with Bartok, etc. Eg. the Chinese composer Tan Dun is one example doing this kind of thing today. Also Qigang Chen. Cellist Yo Yo Ma's silkroad ensemble disc and it's various spin-offs had some of this kind of music.

The other thing I'd add is *light classical music,* and there is new things being composed in that as well now, not only old things get played in that genre.

*& classical music that engages with popular culture *- everything from pop, to techno, to country, jazz (which has been done for ages since Gershwin, etc.). These kinds of things are interesting for me too.

So the variety of new music can indeed be daunting, but as one gets into it more and more, you search around and find things that appeal to you most. As I said, there is something there for everyone, just as with the older musics...


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Which one is his serenade no. 10?


This one is..


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

graaf said:


> This one is..


Oh yes of course. The Gran Partita for thirteen wind instruments!


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

some guy, why do you not like Wagner?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Couchie said:


> some guy, why do you not like Wagner?


 Who doesn't like Wagner???


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2012)

Couchie,

Dunno. Character flaw, I suppose.

I have never liked Wagner. Little bits now and again. Hung out for awhile with a huge Wagner nut. Went to many operas.

I guess I can tolerate _Parsifal_ all right. I haven't listened to that in many years, though.

Seeing _Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg_ in Nürnberg was pretty cool, I recall, though that was in 1971 or 2 and I haven't felt the need to listen to it since.

Some things just strike us the wrong way, I guess.

--some guy


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Don't tell me you can't stand _this:_


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I love Wagner, but I don't care for that particular performance of the Rienzi overture. It's pretty lead footed.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> A lot of people don't like modern music simply because they don't understand what it is about, why the composer did what they did. If you study pieces by Elliott Carter in detail you'll become familiar with them and understand them more. In studying contemporary composers you'll also get the bonus of having a greater knowledge of music history.
> 
> I had a very similar musical journey to yours though. I became hooked onto composers such as Stockhausen, Ligeti, Cage, Carter etc. because I found their music very enjoyable. Just in the same way I like listening to composers like Schubert or Tchaikovsky.


I've found it beneficial reading the literature from modern composers. Casella, for example, seems a lot different once you've heard most of his works and get his obsession with the Baroque. He liked to recreate and reshape a lot of things he found throughout music history, even creating excellent parodies. It seems to me that oftentimes people listen to modern music and they can't tell what is or is parody, especially when it comes to music like Xenakis' compositions.

Really, music has continued maturing in modern art circles, and I for one would like to support it. I invite mathematics, architecture, literature, visual arts, various studies in aesthetics, etc. to come into play.


----------



## Rmac58 (Apr 16, 2008)

bigshot said:


> Good Lord.


Agreed, must be modern, he's trying to destroy that piano. Reminds me of Ligeti.

Having said that, I enjoy some modern stuff. Such as Rautavaara, even tho he has too many vowels in his name.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Rmac58 said:


> Agreed, must be modern, he's trying to destroy that piano. Reminds me of Ligeti.
> 
> Having said that, I enjoy some modern stuff. Such as Rautavaara, even tho he has too many vowels in his name.


Anthony Pateras is a genius.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Rmac58 said:


> Agreed, must be modern, he's trying to destroy that piano. Reminds me of Ligeti.
> 
> Having said that, I enjoy some modern stuff. Such as Rautavaara, even tho he has too many vowels in his name.


Rautavaara comes across to me as pure rehash. He's been doing virtually the same thing for like 30 years or more. Maybe 40 years.

Ligeti may well be more challenging, esp. in his works from about 1960's to 1970's, but he was not rehash, at least. He always kept changing and adapting to new trends. He had unique vision. He was engaging, and the soundtrack without his choral musics of _2001: A Space Odyessy_ would simply not have been the same. His etudes for piano are some of his finest works from his late period & he even dedicated a _Horn Trio _to Brahms (a kind of homage). The man was nothing but unique and a quite approachable contemporary composer, I'd say...


----------



## Rmac58 (Apr 16, 2008)

We all have different tastes, thank goodness.


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2012)

Rmac58 said:


> Agreed, must be modern, he's trying to destroy that piano.


Modern like Bartok? Modern like Prokofiev? Modern like Liszt?

Music is always changing. Only the criticisms of it (when it's new) remain the same.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

some guy said:


> Music is always changing. Only the criticisms of it (when it's new) remain the same.


Pretty much. For a hilarious compilation of this stuff, pick up a copy of Slonimsky's


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

.....................................................


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

^Bring back your rant! I want to read it!


----------



## opus55 (Nov 9, 2010)

I like reading other people's life story of musical journey.

I still live on standard repertoire of baroque, classical, romantic period music but most modern music I've been exposed to, I can enjoy as well. It's just that modern musidc is not my main staple _yet_.


----------

