Classical Music Forum banner

Contemporary classical music

1 reading
21K views 101 replies 33 participants last post by  hpowders  
#1 ·
I have a lot of questions about contemporary classical music and find this topic extremely interesting, even though I am not very knowledgeable about it.

1. Does one have to be very familiar with music from all the previous periods in order to appreciate contemporary classical music?

2. Does it make any sense to dedicate one's time to contemporary classical music if you haven't listened to the most important works from the past centuries?

3. If you really have to be familiar with all the preceding classical music in order to understand contemporary, does it means that the public for contemporary classical music is EXTREMELY small. I mean, public for classical music in general is very small - but still FAR MORE people listen to Bach, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, Brahms, etc - than to contemporary composers.

4. Knowing all that we face another question - Is there any social or any other purpose of contemporary classical music outside academic circles?

5. Are contemporary composers "allowed" to compose in traditional styles such as styles of Baroque, Classicism and Romanticism OR this is a deadly sin which automatically gives them reputation of being backward, imitators and unoriginal?

6. A thought experiment. Let's say Beethoven NEVER composed the Third symphony - Eroica. He still composed all of the 8 other symphonies, but not the Third.
And, now, in 2010 - some contemporary composer composes Eroica. Exactly the same thing. Would Eroica, if composed in 2010 still be held in so high regard and would it still be considered a masterpiece OR would all the critics jump on the poor guy and say "this is so unoriginal" "this is backwards" - "too old fashioned", "it is good for what it is, but this is not art music" and similar comments.

7. Is there any way to make contemporary classical music more popular? Or it seems that the art music is dying and that all the things that had to be composed are already composed?

8. How many of you are familiar with the works of living composers, and what are the most important musical compositions of our time?

9. Do you actually LIKE contemporary classical music?
 
#2 ·
1. Does one have to be very familiar with music from all the previous periods in order to appreciate contemporary classical music?
No, though certainly it adds to one's appreciation of it. Do you have to listen to rock and roll from the 50s and 60s to appreciate rock music today?

2. Does it make any sense to dedicate one's time to contemporary classical music if you haven't listened to the most important works from the past centuries?
Again, would this apply to any other arts? Should I forgo reading Camus' The Plague because I have only read one Dicken's novel?

3. If you really have to be familiar with all the preceding classical music in order to understand contemporary, does it means that the public for contemporary classical music is EXTREMELY small. I mean, public for classical music in general is very small - but still FAR MORE people listen to Bach, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, Brahms, etc - than to contemporary composers.
I don't think familiarity with earlier classical music is *necessary* and besides, there is a relative number of young people who, since the early 70s who have become attracted to contemporary composers and even have festivals focused on them.

4. Knowing all that we face another question - Is there any social or any other purpose of contemporary classical music outside academic circles?
When you say "contemporary" do you mean more specifically atonal? There is much contemporary music that is not modelled on Schoenberg in this day and age, and there is quite a lot of diversity out there (Adams, Scelsi, Silvestrov, Part, Rautavaara, Gorecki)-- "contemporary" is not synonymous with "atonal."

5. Are contemporary composers "allowed" to compose in traditional styles such as styles of Baroque, Classicism and Romanticism OR this is a deadly sin which automatically gives them reputation of being backward, imitators and unoriginal?
I would say yes, unless you can put an interesting spin on things. It would be just as unoriginal as a band trying to sound just like the Beatles. Why, in the year 2010, would anyone want to sound like the Beatles?

6. A thought experiment. Let's say Beethoven NEVER composed the Third symphony - Eroica. He still composed all of the 8 other symphonies, but not the Third.
And, now, in 2010 - some contemporary composer composes Eroica. Exactly the same thing. Would Eroica, if composed in 2010 still be held in so high regard and would it still be considered a masterpiece OR would all the critics jump on the poor guy and say "this is so unoriginal" "this is backwards" - "too old fashioned", "it is good for what it is, but this is not art music" and similar comments.
Music doesn't exist in a vacuum, nor is it eternal. It arises out of a specific historical and cultural context. If the Beatles never recorded Revolver or Sgt. Pepper, but someone came along today, it wouldn't make sense.

7. Is there any way to make contemporary classical music more popular? Or it seems that the art music is dying and that all the things that had to be composed are already composed?
Thankfully there are still composers, performers, and record companies who are willing to put out new material. There will always be much greater competition from other avenues of the music *business* because they are out to make a quick buck. But I think this has largely always been the case.

8. How many of you are familiar with the works of living composers, and what are the most important musical compositions of our time?
I don't think I could say in any definitive sense what are the important musical compositions of the past 25 years. At best, all I can say is there are a good deal of contemporary pieces that I do enjoy and love.

9. Do you actually LIKE contemporary classical music?
What is there not to like? I think some people make appreciating modern and contemporary music a lot more difficult than it really is.
 
#3 ·
1. Certainly.
2. look number 1.
3. Silly question.
4. Welcome to TalkClassical!
5. Allowed? Why wouldn't they? But yes, composing Classical/Baroque music nowadays is nice but very pathetic.
6. I refuse to answer that specific question.
7. Why should it be more popular? One of the greatest qulaities of contemporary music is its unpopularity.
8. You might want to ask Andre.
9. I don't intend to generalize all modern music since I don't intend to/haven't researched all contemporary music, but speaking of one kind which I'm more familiar with, I cordially abhor Atonality in all its manifestations.
 
#52 ·
No, if one wants to incorporate aspects of other styles of music, great-- as long as they do it in an original way. Stravinsky, for example didn't merely imitate earlier models-- he re-fashioned it in his own unique way. There's a huge difference.

Here's another intriguing example:

Avner Dorman is a contemporary American composer:

http://www.classicstoday.com/review.asp?ReviewNum=12623
Obviously Dorman has borrowed some baroque mannerisms, but you couldn't mistake this for Telemann. So yes, anachronism is allowed, but not in the form of strict imitation, but in re-working the material in one's own original way.
 
#5 · (Edited)
I assume contemporary means music written from say, 1950 up to today.

1. Does one have to be very familiar with music from all the previous periods in order to appreciate contemporary classical music? Have to be very familiar? It can probably help a lot but I don't think it is a prerequisite. Much contemporary music can be rather difficult to appreciate, as I have found myself, despite having listened to a lot of late baroque, Classical and early Romantic in particular.

2. Does it make any sense to dedicate one's time to contemporary classical music if you haven't listened to the most important works from the past centuries? It depends on the individual. But if I went straight into contemporary, I doubt I would have more chance to appreciate it than coming from my comfort zones mentioned above. I stress this is an individual thing. Some would love contemporary and dislike music of old.

3. If you really have to be familiar with all the preceding classical music in order to understand contemporary, does it means that the public for contemporary classical music is EXTREMELY small. I mean, public for classical music in general is very small - but still FAR MORE people listen to Bach, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, Brahms, etc - than to contemporary composers.Difficult to generalise. Again, you can find folks here who like contemporary only. But why does it matter to you if the population is extremely small? So what if it is?

4. Knowing all that we face another question - Is there any social or any other purpose of contemporary classical music outside academic circles? If you appreciate it, then that music has found its entertainment purpose.

5. Are contemporary composers "allowed" to compose in traditional styles such as styles of Baroque, Classicism and Romanticism OR this is a deadly sin which automatically gives them reputation of being backward, imitators and unoriginal? Why not? They don't get arrested by the police, do they? But it would be artistically anachronistic, obviously. Not sure what the point of this question really is.

6. A thought experiment. Let's say Beethoven NEVER composed the Third symphony - Eroica. He still composed all of the 8 other symphonies, but not the Third.
And, now, in 2010 - some contemporary composer composes Eroica. Exactly the same thing. Would Eroica, if composed in 2010 still be held in so high regard and would it still be considered a masterpiece OR would all the critics jump on the poor guy and say "this is so unoriginal" "this is backwards" - "too old fashioned", "it is good for what it is, but this is not art music" and similar comments.Why don't you dress up in early 19th century clothing today, and go to your local shopping centre?

7. Is there any way to make contemporary classical music more popular? Or it seems that the art music is dying and that all the things that had to be composed are already composed? People will choose to listen to what they find accessible. Contemporary classical music is not as popular as old music, but I doubt it will die out. Some composers today will be composing something. Compulsory contemporary classical music education for all primary and secondary school children? That would be outrageous.

8. How many of you are familiar with the works of living composers, and what are the most important musical compositions of our time? Several members here, I think. Fellow Australian member Andre, for example.

9. Do you actually LIKE contemporary classical music? Yes or no answer? I would say no. Atonal music is not my cup of tea. You can put me through it, but at the end of the piece, it would probably do nothing/little at all relative to old music. Of course, atonal is not the only contemporary classical music. Just an example to answer this question.

I would like to ask you some questions, now that you have asked us so many.

(A) Why do you find these questions important to you?

(B) Are you considering whether to spend time getting into contemporary classcal music?

(C) Why don't you just listen to several pieces and not think so much about your familiarity with old music?

(D) Have you listened to any contemporary classical music? From your previous posts and threads, you have mentioned you are new even to old/regular classical music.
 
#7 ·
9. Do you actually LIKE contemporary classical music? Yes or no answer? I would say no. Atonal music is not my cup of tea. You can put me through it, but at the end of the piece, it would probably do nothing/little at all relative to old music. Of course, atonal is not the only contemporary classical music. Just an example to answer this question.
Very, very little contemporary classical musical is atonal, if only for the reason that that style is too difficult to write in. In the last thirty years or so, there has been an awful lot that is only too tonal: vacuous and simplistic.
 
#6 ·
I have a lot of questions about contemporary classical music and find this topic extremely interesting, even though I am not very knowledgeable about it.

1. Does one have to be very familiar with music from all the previous periods in order to appreciate contemporary classical music?
No.

2. Does it make any sense to dedicate one's time to contemporary classical music if you haven't listened to the most important works from the past centuries?
Yes.

3. If you really have to be familiar with all the preceding classical music in order to understand contemporary,
False premise

does it means that the public for contemporary classical music is EXTREMELY small.
It is small but not for that reason

4. Knowing all that we face another question - Is there any social or any other purpose of contemporary classical music outside academic circles?
The "purpose" of contemporary classical music is precisely the same as that of uncontemporary classical music

5. Are contemporary composers "allowed" to compose in traditional styles such as styles of Baroque, Classicism and Romanticism
It's got nothing to do with being "allowed" to do anything. Composers are free to write in which ever idiom they like.

OR this is a deadly sin which automatically gives them reputation of being backward, imitators and unoriginal?
There's no moral assessment needed here. However, writing in archaic styles is by definition imitation and lacking in originality.

6. A thought experiment. Let's say Beethoven NEVER composed the Third symphony - Eroica. He still composed all of the 8 other symphonies, but not the Third.
And, now, in 2010 - some contemporary composer composes Eroica. Exactly the same thing. Would Eroica, if composed in 2010 still be held in so high regard and would it still be considered a masterpiece OR would all the critics jump on the poor guy and say "this is so unoriginal" "this is backwards" - "too old fashioned", "it is good for what it is, but this is not art music" and similar comments.
Any piece of music has intrinsic merits in and of itself, and contextual merits derived from its position in the development of music. In the thought experiment the Eroica would be as much a masterpiece as it actually is on the former grounds, and not at all on the latter.

7. Is there any way to make contemporary classical music more popular?
Teach children to appreciate music, and to play or sing music.

Or it seems that the art music is dying
That's a perception - do you have evidence?

and that all the things that had to be composed are already composed?
As soon as anyone writes a piece of music of even just a little expertise and originality, that statement is disproved.

8. How many of you are familiar with the works of living composers
Don't know the answer to the question, but I am personally very familiar with a wide range of contemporary classical music. I review CDs of it for Fanfare.

and what are the most important musical compositions of our time?
If you mean by "of our time" "written in the past five years", it's too early to say. If you'll allow fifty years, I would include Gruppen and Pli selon pli, by bearing in mind your particular adjective "important".

9. Do you actually LIKE contemporary classical music?
Yes. All of it, in principle; some of it, in practice. Which is the same answer I'd give for most music genres.
 
#8 ·
Very, very little contemporary classical musical is atonal, if only for the reason that that style is too difficult to write in. In the last thirty years or so, there has been an awful lot that is only too tonal: vacuous and simplistic.
Indeed - it is quite uneducated to say that contemporary music is atonal. Schoenberg and his fellows died long time ago, and though they are considered modern we should distinguish modern in sense of after-romantic periods from contemporary in sense of being composed by living composers in last decade or two.
 
G
#10 ·
"Contemporary classical music" is no more a descriptive term than "classical music" is. It's a broad categorization of all sorts of things.

Fsharpmajor's list consists of people who are alive, for instance, but it's only one small slice of the total world covered by the term "contemporary classical," which, if we take as referring to music written after WW II, includes Eimert and Dhomont and Cage and Mumma and Oliveros and Radigue and Stockhausen and a host of others.

Here are a few representative names from some of the other slices:

Cage, Woolf, Haubenstock-Ramati
Niblock, Radigue, Oliveros
eRikm, Yoshihide, Tetreault
Nordheim, Ligeti, Maderna
Lachenmann, Moe (Ole-Henrik, not Eric), Estrada (Julio, not Erik!!)
Karkowski, Menche, Meirino
Bokanowski, Groult, Ferreyra
Truax, Lockwood, Machida
Mattin, Sachiko M, MĂĽller
Stucky, Romitelli, Zych
Kagel, Aperghis, Steen-Andersen
Kutavicius, Ten Holt, Mazulis

And when I say "few," I mean "a ridiculously small amount."

Looking at these lists, I'm appalled at who's been left off. And what. (These are by no means all the trends since 1945. A dozen only.)

And several of these people could be in several different lists.

But it's a start. Even if these thirty-six were the only ones you knew, you'd have a pretty decent sense of the past fifty or sixty years. (These thirty-six plus the ones from Fsharpmajor's list, which arguably divide into two slices.)
 
#11 ·
1. Does one have to be very familiar with music from all the previous periods in order to appreciate contemporary classical music?
Some sort of historical perspective can be useful but ultimately so much of what is called 'contemporary classical' bears little relation to the 'classical' cannon.

2. Does it make any sense to dedicate one's time to contemporary classical music if you haven't listened to the most important works from the past centuries?
It is possible to work your way backwards. Sometimes the sound world of contemporary music or at least more modern composers is more familiar to modern ears.
If you like Jazz for example, you would probably prefer Bartok and Stravinsky to Schubert. But if you make the effort (keep listening) you will begin to appreciate the music of all periods.

3. If you really have to be familiar with all the preceding classical music in order to understand contemporary, does it means that the public for contemporary classical music is EXTREMELY small. I mean, public for classical music in general is very small - but still FAR MORE people listen to Bach, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, Brahms, etc - than to contemporary composers.
Sadly, instrumental music in general, including Jazz, is a minority interest as far as the general public goes. I'm afraid most people don't understand classical music even if they like the sound it makes. The audience for contemporary classical music will always be tiny especially as even those who love and understand the masterpieces of the past find it hard stomach

4. Knowing all that we face another question - Is there any social or any other purpose of contemporary classical music outside academic circles?

People write stuff and other people listen. If it enriches someones life, thats purpose enough.
5 Are contemporary composers "allowed" to compose in traditional styles such as styles of Baroque, Classicism and Romanticism OR this is a deadly sin which automatically gives them reputation of being backward, imitators and unoriginal?
They won't be taken seriously as artists by their peers, critics and educated audiences even though many people may enjoy it.

6. A thought experiment. Let's say Beethoven NEVER composed the Third symphony - Eroica. He still composed all of the 8 other symphonies, but not the Third.
And, now, in 2010 - some contemporary composer composes Eroica. Exactly the same thing. Would Eroica, if composed in 2010 still be held in so high regard and would it still be considered a masterpiece OR would all the critics jump on the poor guy and say "this is so unoriginal" "this is backwards" - "too old fashioned", "it is good for what it is, but this is not art music" and similar comments.

It would sound like Beethoven, a pastiche. The unmistakable stamp of the Master runs through every page.
There is a painter called Keating, I think, who can paint in the style of the great masters so well that art experts, dealers and critics have all been fooled. The paintings may be beautiful but Keating would not be taken seriously as an artist. (although his fakes can fetch a tidy sum)
If a playwright wrote today in the style of Shakespeare people would think it silly.

7. Is there any way to make contemporary classical music more popular? Or it seems that the art music is dying and that all the things that had to be composed are already composed?
No. I'm afraid that we have reached the cut-off point somewhere in the 20th century.
We live in a fragmented and niche driven culture now ( art wise). There will never be a general consensus among a large section of music lovers as there is for the great works from Bach to Shostakovich.

8. How many of you are familiar with the works of living composers, and what are the most important musical compositions of our time?

Ask me again in 100 years.
9. Do you actually LIKE contemporary classical music?
I've yet to hear very much that I would rush to hear again. This will annoy some members and 'some-guy' if you are reading this post I am working my way through some of the composers on your list. By and large most of what I've heard is not impressive though some people just love the stuff. Some people love techno-trance and bagpipes.
 
#13 ·
1. Does one have to be very familiar with music from all the previous periods in order to appreciate contemporary classical music?
It helps to know where music has come from and where it is going. If all you listened to was Mozart and you then moved on to Stockhausen you're in for a shock!

2. Does it make any sense to dedicate one's time to contemporary classical music if you haven't listened to the most important works from the past centuries?
It's good to hear the important works of the past centuries. However, the important works of our own times are being written today. I think that's exiting which is why I dedicate a significant portion of my time to contemporary music.

3. If you really have to be familiar with all the preceding classical music in order to understand contemporary, does it means that the public for contemporary classical music is EXTREMELY small. I mean, public for classical music in general is very small - but still FAR MORE people listen to Bach, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, Brahms, etc - than to contemporary composers.
That's because classical composers have become the popular culture of people who don't like pop or rock. Today's contemporary scene is a resistance to consumer values. I don't think audience size equates to good music. Most people don't like music on its fundamental level.

4. Knowing all that we face another question - Is there any social or any other purpose of contemporary classical music outside academic circles?
Human expression and social commentary. These have been, and will be the goals of art music. Academia is a resistance to anti-intellectualism that has flourished in recent decades.

5. Are contemporary composers "allowed" to compose in traditional styles such as styles of Baroque, Classicism and Romanticism OR this is a deadly sin which automatically gives them reputation of being backward, imitators and unoriginal?
Composers can do what the hell they want. Whether they are listened to or not depends on whether they have anything new or meaningful to say.

6. A thought experiment. Let's say Beethoven NEVER composed the Third symphony - Eroica. He still composed all of the 8 other symphonies, but not the Third.
And, now, in 2010 - some contemporary composer composes Eroica. Exactly the same thing. Would Eroica, if composed in 2010 still be held in so high regard and would it still be considered a masterpiece OR would all the critics jump on the poor guy and say "this is so unoriginal" "this is backwards" - "too old fashioned", "it is good for what it is, but this is not art music" and similar comments.
An Eroica written today would simply be a very clever copy. An imitation of what is the unique voice of Beethoven. Beethoven strived towards originality in his life time and he would do the same had he been born today.

7. Is there any way to make contemporary classical music more popular? Or it seems that the art music is dying and that all the things that had to be composed are already composed?
If you have 12 notes and infinite rhythmical possibilities, there will always be new ideas. A way to make contemporary music more popular would be for the "Pussycat Dolls" to dance while the music is being played. IMO Popularity = Shallowness

8. How many of you are familiar with the works of living composers, and what are the most important musical compositions of our time?
Harrison Birtwistle's operas

Salvatore Sciarrino's solo pieces

Jonathan Harvey's string quartets

9. Do you actually LIKE contemporary classical music?
Some yes. Some no.
 
G
#15 ·
It's probably too much to ask for, but I'd like to see the word "atonal" disappear from conversations about music, if only because it's been used over the years to mean so many different things. I think it was on another Talk Classical thread that I laid out six different meanings that I'd seen on various online boards, from the very vague "whatever it is that I don't like" to "whatever doesn't have a tonal center."

And it wasn't even "and everything in between," because there was no sort of continuum. One meaning was just "ugly," another was "serial," and yet another was "music with lots of dissonance." (A customer came into the store where I work part-time and asked for some twentieth century music, but not atonal. "I don't want any like Ravel or Bartok music with atonal parts.")

Even with all the different meanings taken together, there's a lot of music that doesn't fit any of the categories. (That is, any of the real categories--"ugly" and "whatever it is that I don't like" aren't really categories. More like grunts or perhaps moans.) Electroacoustic music. Soundscape. Any kind of minimal that I've ever heard. (That is, even the consonant stuff doesn't do development or modulation like you'd do with keys.) Laptop improv. Turntable. Experimental (the older meaning--works which consist of results out of the composer's direct control). And, even though one of the usages I've seen is just this, serial.

Tonality rather faded out in the twentieth century, for several compelling reasons, to be replaced generally (except for maybe serialism) by a serious (and various) preoccupation with sound for its own sake. For better or for worse, that's just simply what happened.

Also for better or for worse, many people in the twentieth century continued to use tonality to create their pieces. (The current crop of neo-tonalists have nothing neo about them. They have rediscovered what dozens, hundreds, of composers have rediscovered over the past hundred years, that in spite of all the other things that have happened in that century, tonality still has an allure for many listeners.)
 
#16 ·
Also for better or for worse, many people in the twentieth century continued to use tonality to create their pieces. (The current crop of neo-tonalists have nothing neo about them. They have rediscovered what dozens, hundreds, of composers have rediscovered over the past hundred years, that in spite of all the other things that have happened in that century, tonality still has an allure for many listeners.)
As Schoenberg himself said, there's plenty more music to be written in the key of C (and in fact, he did!-- some works for strings written in the 1930s)

There's a lot more diversity in modern & contemporary music than some listeners allow, but it often all gets lumped into one big "atonal" bin (meaning: not a lot of nice stable triads), as if everyone from 1910 onward were all serial composers. I have to agree with Some Guy that the word atonal is bandied about all too often and easily.
 
#17 ·
1. Does one have to be very familiar with music from all the previous periods in order to appreciate contemporary classical music?
No. I certainly wasn't. I was interested in 20th Century music well before I got into 19th Century stuff. But, being raised in Western society, one can't help but have some exposure to older music, I suppose.

4. Knowing all that we face another question - Is there any social or any other purpose of contemporary classical music outside academic circles?
I'm not an academic, and I seem to like listening to the stuff. That's enough of a purpose for me.

5. Are contemporary composers "allowed" to compose in traditional styles such as styles of Baroque, Classicism and Romanticism OR this is a deadly sin which automatically gives them reputation of being backward, imitators and unoriginal?
They can (and do) do whatever they want. Most composers are well aware of the fact that nothing they write is going to please everybody.

7. Is there any way to make contemporary classical music more popular? Or it seems that the art music is dying and that all the things that had to be composed are already composed?
I hear incredible, exciting, new things all the time. There's no limit to human creativity, but it seems there are limits to the development of people's tastes. Most people reach a point in their lives when they stop being interested in seeking out new works, or new styles of work. Hence, you have people listening forever to whatever sort of music they liked in high school, and nothing else, and, to them, it may seem as though nothing more needs to be composed. But, there are plenty of people who don't suffer from this affliction, and so, music is doing fine in that respect. I feel like we have a quorum for keeping things going.

8. How many of you are familiar with the works of living composers, and what are the most important musical compositions of our time?
I'm very familiar with a lot of living composers, but importance is a difficult thing to judge here if the eventual influence of a piece is to be given consideration. I can only say that I like certain pieces.

9. Do you actually LIKE contemporary classical music?
Yes.
 
#18 ·
I have a lot of questions about contemporary classical music and find this topic extremely interesting, even though I am not very knowledgeable about it.

1. Does one have to be very familiar with music from all the previous periods in order to appreciate contemporary classical music?

Well... it lends a greater degree of understanding if one has a firm foundation in the history of any art form... but in no way is it a necessity any more than its a necessity to have a grasp of medieval music before one can appreciate Bach or Vivaldi.

2. Does it make any sense to dedicate one's time to contemporary classical music if you haven't listened to the most important works from the past centuries?

What makes sense is to simply listen to what interests you... what you like. I like to listen to music across the spectrum. Others like to specialize with one era or one genre. Personally, I think its important to have some idea of what is happening in music today... even if you don't like everything you hear.

3. If you really have to be familiar with all the preceding classical music in order to understand contemporary, does it means that the public for contemporary classical music is EXTREMELY small. I mean, public for classical music in general is very small - but still FAR MORE people listen to Bach, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, Brahms, etc - than to contemporary composers.

I think there are multiple reasons that contemporary music has a smaller audience than Beethoven or Mozart, for example. You might do well to note that Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill, and Yves Bonnefoy all have a smaller audience than Wordsworth, Keats, and Blake and Anselm Kiefer, Sean Scully and Lee Bontecou all have a smaller following than Monet, Degas, or Matisse. Yet at the same time I suspect that Heinrich Biber, Josquin Desprez, and Jan Dismas Zelenka have an audience no greater than that for Arvo Part, Steve Reich, and Krzysztof Penderecki. Most of the classical composers whose names are well-known are certainly deserving of the recognition... but at the same time we must acknowledge a sort of bias in support of the music of Romanticism through early Modernism where many worthy composers of the "Classical era" (how few composers of this era beyond Mozart, Haydn, and early Beethoven can you name?), the Baroque, the Renaissance, Medieval music, and late Modern/Contemporary music garners far less recognition than they deserve.

4. Knowing all that we face another question - Is there any social or any other purpose of contemporary classical music outside academic circles?

I would assume that the "purposes" of contemporary music are as far-ranging as they were at any time. There is opera, music for the theater, music for the church, music with a pedagogical aim, music as an expression of joy... or of pain, etc... etc...

5. Are contemporary composers "allowed" to compose in traditional styles such as styles of Baroque, Classicism and Romanticism OR this is a deadly sin which automatically gives them reputation of being backward, imitators and unoriginal?


I think contemporary composers have the freedom to draw upon elements from any era or genre in the history of music. Of course a imitation of the music of a bygone era which brings nothing unique to bear would seem to have little merit.

6. A thought experiment. Let's say Beethoven NEVER composed the Third symphony - Eroica. He still composed all of the 8 other symphonies, but not the Third. And, now, in 2010 - some contemporary composer composes Eroica. Exactly the same thing. Would Eroica, if composed in 2010 still be held in so high regard and would it still be considered a masterpiece OR would all the critics jump on the poor guy and say "this is so unoriginal" "this is backwards" - "too old fashioned", "it is good for what it is, but this is not art music" and similar comments.

The question is difficult. As a visual artist, I can think of equivalents. The Victorian era was particularly fond of building cathedrals, palaces, and other structures in the manner of Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance (etc...) buildings. Nearly every major city in the West has such "Revival Style" pseudo-Gothic cathedrals. Certainly these bildings pale before the true Gothic cathedrals of Chartres, Rheims, Amiens, etc... yet they are not without aesthetic merit. I suspect the same would be true if someone were to compose a symphony today in the manner of Beethoven. It might be admired to a certain extent... but never to the level of the work of Beethoven which had the added merit of originality... not to be confused with mere "novelty."

7. Is there any way to make contemporary classical music more popular? Or it seems that the art music is dying and that all the things that had to be composed are already composed?

Is it dying? Perhaps certain approaches to music have a far smaller audience than others... but this has always been true. But then again... contemporary art always faces the challenge of impressing an audience who may not be ready for a work of art that does not fit within the accepted standards of what one knows from the music of the past, that has already been absorbed into the larger culture... and in which history... and subsequent musicians and music lovers have led to the survival and continued performance of only the strongest works... while the rest has fallen away. We lack such advantages with contemporary music... but again, I believe we owe it to ourselves to explore what is happening in music here and now.

8. How many of you are familiar with the works of living composers, and what are the most important musical compositions of our time?

I listen to a great many late Modern and Contemporary composers. Among some of those I have found the most pleasure in I would include Henryck Gorecki, Krzysztof Penderecki, György Ligeti, Osvaldo Golijov, David Lang, Tristan Murail, Kaija Saariaho, Gérard Grisey, Daniel Catan, Philip Glass, Steve Reich, John Harbisos, Peter Lieberson, John Tavener, Michael Nyman, Julian Anderson, Jonathan Harvey, Pascal Dusapin, William Bolcom, John Corigliano, David Diamond, Ned Rorem, Morten Lauridsen, Joseph Schwantner, James MacMillan, Tarik O'Regan, Sofia Gubaidulina, Giacinto Scelsi, Akira Ifukube, Gyorgy Kurtag, Toru Takemitsu, Per Nørgård, Erkki-Sven Tuur, Einojuhani Rautavaara, Peteris Vasks, George Crumb, Iannis Xenakis, Elliot Carter, Terry Riley, John Cage, Alfred Schnittke, Kalevi Aho, Hans Werner Henze, etc...

9. Do you actually LIKE contemporary classical music?

I like a lot of it. Some of it I don't like... pretty much the same with any era.
 
#19 ·
The disconnect between the majority of the music loving public and a lot (not all) late modern, post modern, avant garde music is simply explained.

Until, the early 20th century, 'classical' or 'art' music used the same vocabulary as popular and folk music.

It was written in the common tongue.

The marching band, the folk song, the parlour song, the hymn, the carol, though not as complex or or on such a scale as say music by Wagner or Ravel or Bach, still shared a common element - tonality.
That is all the music was based around the scales and arpeggios of 12 keys.

When composers broke that bond they left the public behind.

That public will listen to pop, jazz, folk, rock, film music, music from earlier periods etc, because it is in a language they understand.


That is the fact of it. It is neither a good thing nor a bad thing. It just is.
Phillip Glass and James MacMillan are no more 'important' than Elton John or Pat Metheny.

What troubles me is, as in conceptual art, how do you know when you are being sold a piece of shallow tat- pile of bricks, unmade bed.
 
G
#24 ·
The disconnect between the majority of the music loving public and a lot (not all) late modern, post modern, avant garde music is simply explained.

Until, the early 20th century, 'classical' or 'art' music used the same vocabulary as popular and folk music.

It was written in the common tongue.

The marching band, the folk song, the parlour song, the hymn, the carol, though not as complex or or on such a scale as say music by Wagner or Ravel or Bach, still shared a common element - tonality.
That is all the music was based around the scales and arpeggios of 12 keys.

When composers broke that bond they left the public behind.
(Emphasis mine.)

This sounds logical, but the historical record simply does not bear it out. There was a disconnect between audience and composers, but it happened around 1810, not 1910. You can read about it in detail in William Weber's The Great Transformation of Musical Taste: Concert Programming from Haydn to Brahms.* Around 1810 (which was also the year the term "classical music" first started to be used), the ratio of dead composers to living composers was changing from around 1 to 10 (in the late 18th century) to around 10 to zero by the 1870s. The biggest difference between audiences then and now was that in the 19th century, audiences were suspicious of all new music, rejecting even those few composers who tried to write in older styles to woo them. Now composers who do that get big recording contracts and even win Pulitzer prizes!

That public will listen to pop, jazz, folk, rock, film music, music from earlier periods etc, because it is in a language they understand.
That is not, I think you'll find, how actual people perceive things when they listen to music. If you read about music, you can find out how some people have heard only lasciviousness in jazz or noise in rock or just random squeeks and grunts in classical music (any of it, from any era). If you talk to people about music, you can find out the same things.

What troubles me is, as in conceptual art, how do you know when you are being sold a piece of shallow tat- pile of bricks, unmade bed.
I'm going to guess that this doesn't really bother you at all. When was the last time you actually purchased a piece of conceptual art, for instance! [Don't explain the figurative meaning of "sold" that you were using.]

*Alex Ross reviewed this book when it came out. Here's a little snippet from his review: "Matters progressed to the point where a Viennese critic complained that 'the public has got to stay in touch with the music of its time . . . for otherwise people will gradually come to mistrust music claimed to be the best,' and organizers of a Paris series observed that some of their subscribers 'get upset when they see the name of a single contemporary composer on the programs.' These quotations come from 1843 and 1864. Anyone who believes that twentieth-century composers, with their harsh chords and rhythms, betrayed some sacred contract with the public should spend a few moments absorbing Weber's data. In fact, the composers were betrayed first."
(Emphasis mine.)
 
#20 ·
I think it rather sad that today, composers aren't really allowed to sound like anything other than modern. What if someone is into neo-classicism or neo-romanticism? Will people tell them "We already had that era!" ? I would support a revival to go back a little to the past, personally...

How will our era be defined by people in the future? That will be interesting to see...
 
#21 ·
I think it rather sad that today, composers aren't really allowed to sound like anything other than modern.

A composer is free to build upon any element of past music... but it would seem a bit absurd to simply mimic a past style. The composes of the Classical Era don't sound like Baroque composers and somehow I doubt they wish they could write Baroque music. Again... this does not mean that only the most cutting edge or avant garde innovations are valid. Samuel Barber, Aaron Copland, Alan Hovhaness, etc... all composed music that was clearly rooted in Romanticism... and yet it was also of its time... it did not sound like a mere pastiche of Mahler or Bruckner.

Composers aren't allowed to sound like anything but "modern"? Define "modern?" I can think of any number of composers of real merit who write anything but the extremely esoteric experimental work that I assume you are referring to. And then I can think of a goodly amount of esoteric, experimental music I quite like. The contemporary music scene is so broad that sweeping statements from any direction fail to hit the mark.
 
#22 ·
The disconnect between the majority of the music loving public and a lot (not all) late modern, post modern, avant garde music is simply explained.

So are you assuming there was a great connection in the past between composers and the masses? Were the masses listening to Beethoven's late quartets, Bach's Well Tempered Clavier, or even Wagner's operas? It would seem that what we call classical music has always had a limited audience... some times more limited than others. I imagine that Mozart's Magic Flute and Offenbach's operettas were far more popular in their appeal than Guillaume Dufay's isorhythmic motets... which may have been no less esoteric than anything by Ligeti.
 
#23 ·
The masses may not have had the opportunity to hear Beethoven et al, but if they had, they would have recognized the language he was speaking.
There was a common musical vocabulary. The music may have been complex or complicated to their ears but a the 'Ode to Joy' or the 'Liebestod' or Petrushka or the Magnificat or The Sea Symphony or Palestrina..... they would all be recognizable as speaking the same language more or less.

Your comparison is a false one I believe.
 
#25 ·
Anyone who believes that twentieth-century composers, with their harsh chords and rhythms, betrayed some sacred contract with the public should spend a few moments absorbing Weber's data. In fact, the composers were betrayed first.
That's a rather nice quote.

Even if he doesn't really mean 'sacred' contract, we know what he means.

Anyway, bricks and unmade beds are a form of minimalism - minimal conceptual thinking. Or just minimal thinking going into it :)
 
#26 · (Edited)
Originally Posted by Petwhac
That public will listen to pop, jazz, folk, rock, film music, music from earlier periods etc, because it is in a language they understand.

You said "That is not, I think you'll find, how actual people perceive things when they listen to music. If you read about music, you can find out how some people have heard only lasciviousness in jazz or noise in rock or just random squeeks and grunts in classical music (any of it, from any era). If you talk to people about music, you can find out the same things."

And I say...

Being an actual person myself who not only reads about music but reads music, composes, arranges and performs music, I can tell you that people may and do come round to Jazz, Rock or contemporary 'classical' styles that shares the common musical vocabulary at least to a fair extent.

I'm afraid squeeks and grunts will remain just that for (I believe) the vast majority of music lovers.

I am making the point that whatever happened pre Schoenberg (for example) as far as the public's acceptance of new music is concerned, has no relevance to a discussion of the so called avant garde today. There is a fundamental difference .

That quote from Weber may show when in history the concert goer started to want to hear pieces of previous generations. That is why the 'classical' period is so called.

If, from that you think that in 50 or 100 years the public will want to listen to Berio, Babbit, Birtwhistle in any greater numbers than they do now, I'm afraid you'll be in for a shock.

In 1990 the BBC used Nesun Dorma as a theme for the World Cup coverage. The beer swilling, tattooed
football fan who you would have had to drag kicking and screaming to the Opera, who thought Puccini was a type of pasta- well they love it now. It says something to them and not just by association.
They recognise that although it is different from Michael Jackson it is more like MJ than it is like squeeks and grunts.
Now substitute Nessun Dorma for Gruppen or anything by Boulez or Oliver Knussen or Arne Nordheim......it'll never happen.
 
G
#27 ·
I'm afraid squeeks and grunts will remain just that for (I believe) the vast majority of music lovers.
And my point was that people can describe any old thing that they don't like, regardless of its being in what you term "a language that they understand," as "squeeks and grunts." (Squeeks and grunts in my post being a value judgment, not a description.) And I was just trying to point out that for people I've had conversations with, online and live, the common "language" is not understandable or at least not recognized as common. Or perhaps the people I hang out with are just more stubborn than your crowd.

I am making the point that whatever happened pre Schoenberg (for example) as far as the public's acceptance of new music is concerned, has no relevance to a discussion of the so called avant garde today. There is a fundamental difference.
If you're going to claim that composers broke some bond in the early twentieth century, and the historical record shows that whatever bond was broken was broken in the early nineteenth century, and broken by the audience, not the composers, then I'd say it has a clear relevance to your claim. And its relevance is that your claim is not supported by the facts. Now that may be displeasing to you. You may not want to give up your beliefs just on my say so (even if supported by Weber's meticulous research). But your not wanting to accept evidence is different from whether the evidence is relevant or not. Distasteful, sure. Unwelcome, obviously. But not relevant? No. It's relevant.

If...you think that in 50 or 100 years the public will want to listen to Berio, Babbit, Birtwhistle in any greater numbers than they do now, I'm afraid you'll be in for a shock.
Um, I'm not planning to be around in 50 or 100 years from now, so I won't be in for anything, shocking or not. But even if I were, I wouldn't be shocked. I don't enjoy music or value it according to how many other people want to listen to it. I don't enjoy or value it according to whether beer swilling, tattooed football fans can enjoy it. I certainly don't enjoy it for how many people might be listening to it long after I'm dead. I'm alive now. I listen to music now. I enjoy Berio, Babbitt, and Birtwistle now.

Why, I enjoy beer and football,* too, come to think of it, though I don't have any tattooes. Not sure about that there "swilling" part, neither. But then the beer I drink costs between eight and ten dollars a six pack, so you'll have to forgive me for protecting my investment by eschewing swillery.

*Not the U.S. kind, though.
 
#28 ·
The masses may not have had the opportunity to hear Beethoven et al, but if they had, they would have recognized the language he was speaking.

Are you certain of that? Somehow I doubt that the majority of the working classes would have the least concept of the classical forms that Beethoven was working in... expanding... and shattering. I somewhat imagine that his late quartets would have completely baffled them... as they baffled many who had a background in classical music.

There was a common musical vocabulary.

Really? That seems as much of a stretch as to suggest that there was a common vocabulary shared by such poets as John Donne and John Milton and the largely illiterate masses who probably knew a few bawdy songs and ballads.

The music may have been complex or complicated to their ears but a the 'Ode to Joy' or the 'Liebestod' or Petrushka or the Magnificat or The Sea Symphony or Palestrina..... they would all be recognizable as speaking the same language more or less.

Your comparison is a false one I believe.


You are suggesting that my comparisons are false based upon mere assumptions that there has always been a shared vocabulary between "high art" and the masses... and this is quite untrue. Perhaps you might wish to look into the complexity of Guillaume Dufay's isorhythmic motets to see just how complex they are... how they employ a specialized language that few would have understood. If we consider that Dufay's music... and much of classical music... would baffle a good portion of the masses today (think of how popular opera is with the masses:rolleyes:) how can you assume that an audience with even less exposure to music (no radio, TV, CDs, i-pods, etc...) would recognize a common language in a musical form quite foreign to them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: FleshRobot
#29 ·
I don't fully buy into some guy's theory (which undoubtedly won't surprise him). I think the growing distance between certain approaches to contemporary music, and the audience has been a two sided "dispute". There is enough blame to throw around at either side. The same thing happened in the visual arts. Some artists produced increasingly challenging works... the audience turned their back upon these artists... these artists then turned their back even more upon the audience producing even more esoteric work. Personally I have mixed feelings about who to blame... and whether anyone is at fault. Are we to assume that all art is for everyone?... That it should seek out the largest possible audience? Hell, John Cage and Ligeti probably have a larger audience thanks to recordings than Mozart ever knew in his lifetime.


This brings me to another thought: is it not probable that the recording industry has had a major impact upon current listening habits? I have the ability today to plop down on my couch after work and listen to the Berlin Philharmonic perform Wagner... or the Tallis Scholars sing William Byrd. Surely, this is an access to the whole of the history of music unlike that which any other era enjoyed. Is it then at all surprising that a good portion of the audience decides that they would rather listen to Mozart or Bach than contemporary music...? Especially so much contemporary music strikes many listeners initially as "difficult"... if not painful? Especially when no one is really certain as to what contemporary music is really of the greatest merit and will survive? Especially when there is always some guy willing to suggest that the Modern or Contemporary music that we like is kitsch while the stuff he or she likes is the real ****.

Having said that much, I still personally think there is real value in exploring the music of one's time... some of which you will love... and some of which you may hate. I probably listen as much of more to the music of the last 100 years than I do to any other era. Again, I don't believe sweeping statements about "Modern or Contemporary music achieve much of anything... the field is so broad and there is much good and much bad. Perhaps it might be better to discuss specific composers or works.:confused:
 
G
#31 · (Edited)
I don't fully buy into some guy's theory (which undoubtedly won't surprise him).
It also does not surprise me that you called my reference to historical records a theory.;)

Of course a lot of things have happened and continue to happen, with misunderstandings and disdain from both creators and audience. I'm not as interested in assigning blame as I am in trying to promote understanding and eliminating disdain. And in that regard, I'd like to interject a trifling bit of logic: doesn't it seem likelier that a creator, who is someone who is in the business of making things for the enjoyment of others, is less likely to be the one breaking any bonds than an auditor, who is often someone (who has become someone) who wants only what's familiar and safe? (Of course, it is equally likely that a composer can react to those members of the audience who reject his or her music. And once that happens, the vicious cycle can start viciously rotating. But there will always be members of the audience who enjoy the music, so I vote for ignoring the viciousness and concentrate on the enjoying.

...is it not probable that the recording industry has had a major impact upon current listening habits?
Almost certainly true. Indeed, this was my theory (this time we really ARE talking about a theory) for how we'd gotten to where we are today until I read Weber's book. Certainly recording technology has encouraged the trend of increasing conservatism. Fortunately, it has also served the adventurous well. I'm conflicted, but I've decided not to complain!

...no one is really certain as to what contemporary music is really of the greatest merit and will survive?
This insecurity is something I'd like to see disappear. I think new music would fare better and listeners too, if we could stop worrying about what other people are thinking ("greatest merit") or what people not yet born will be thinking long after we're dead ("will survive"). I hate to keep playing the same little tune at this point in these conversations, but I'm alive now. I enjoy things. If others enjoy the same things, fine. We can hang out, maybe, and enjoy them together. If not, though, it's probably still fine. We can hang out, maybe, and do something else. Have a beer, watch some basketball, argue about politics, ride bikes around the park. Plenty of other stuff to do.

Especially when there is always some guy willing to suggest that the Modern or Contemporary music that we like is kitsch while the stuff he or she likes is the real ****.
I'm sure you'll never get tired of knocking down this straw man. I'm going to go on record as being officially tired of pointing out that this is all you. I'm starting to get the idea that you yourself maybe suspect that the contemporary music you prefer is inferior. Maybe? Anyway, maybe some other guy in your past has wounded your ego with pronouncements about your tastes. I've not.

I've asked you before to supply a wee quote, maybe, to back up this empty assertion of yours. But no. Much easier, and apparently endlessly amusing, to make straw men and knock those suckers down! "DIE YOU UGLY STRAWMAN!! DIE!! Hahahahaha!!!"

Um, OK, then. Have at it.

Having said that much, I still personally think there is real value in exploring the music of one's time... some of which you will love... and some of which you may hate. I probably listen as much of more to the music of the last 100 years than I do to any other era. Again, I don't believe sweeping statements about "Modern or Contemporary music achieve much of anything... the field is so broad and there is much good and much bad. Perhaps it might be better to discuss specific composers or works.:confused:
Ah, amity. Sweet sweet amity at last. St and I are in perfect accord on this point.
 
#30 ·
In 1990 the BBC used Nesun Dorma as a theme for the World Cup coverage. The beer swilling, tattooed
football fan who you would have had to drag kicking and screaming to the Opera, who thought Puccini was a type of pasta- well they love it now. It says something to them and not just by association.
They recognise that although it is different from Michael Jackson it is more like MJ than it is like squeeks and grunts.
Now substitute Nessun Dorma for Gruppen or anything by Boulez or Oliver Knussen or Arne Nordheim......it'll never happen.

And yet Ligeti can hold an equally large audience enthralled when employed by Stanley Kubrick in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
 
#32 ·
I'd like to interject a trifling bit of logic: doesn't it seem likelier that a creator, who is someone who is in the business of making things for the enjoyment of others, is less likely to be the one breaking any bonds than an auditor, who is often someone (who has become someone) who wants only what's familiar and safe? (Of course, it is equally likely that a composer can react to those members of the audience who reject his or her music. And once that happens, the vicious cycle can start viciously rotating. But there will always be members of the audience who enjoy the music, so I vote for ignoring the viciousness and concentrate on the enjoying.

In theory this would seem to be true. One would think that the artist in any genre (unless we are speaking of some outsider artist obsessively creating for his or her own reasons) would be aware that there is a two-way relationship between the artist and audience. And of course so every artist has the same audience in mind. On the other hand, I have known a few too many latent Romantics in the arts who hold on to the tired notion that the audience or public are all a bunch or morons and whose attitude is perhaps best expressed by "F*** the audience. I'll do what I want... and anyone who has gained a degree of audience recognition is clearly a 'sell out' ".

SLG-...no one is really certain as to what contemporary music is really of the greatest merit and will survive?

SG- This insecurity is something I'd like to see disappear. I think new music would fare better and listeners too, if we could stop worrying about what other people are thinking ("greatest merit") or what people not yet born will be thinking long after we're dead ("will survive").

Certainly we love what we love... but then again... that ugly argument always rears its head as to which music of here and now is really of merit. While you may call it a "strawman" there are always those proclamations about the superiority of one direction in music over another... coming, it must be admitted... from every side of the dispute. Many composers themselves have revealed their personal experiences having needed to struggle against the dominant trend and prejudices of professors, mentors, critics, etc... (how many times have I read here suggestions that Penderecki "sold out" because his later works were not as abrasive?) Many of the same composers are good at dishing out the prejudice with a self-certain air of superiority (Boulez is a fine example). I've always admired the fact that John Cage could appreciate (and be friends with) Alan Hovhaness... in spite of the world of difference between their musical paths. It suggested a possibility that something of great merit might be found both in the most experimental approaches to music... and in the more traditional... and that perhaps the former is not just noise (or some grandiose joke), but perhaps the former is not always some step back or some cowardly act of pandering to the audience.
 
#33 ·
On the other hand, I have known a few too many latent Romantics in the arts who hold on to the tired notion that the audience or public are all a bunch or morons and whose attitude is perhaps best expressed by "F*** the audience. I'll do what I want...


Actually, if one were going to point fingers at the source of this "original sin," then the first culprit was Beethoven.
 
#34 ·
Dear StlukesguildOhio and some_guy,
There are so many points to address in your posts that I hardly know where to begin. So in no particular order……

Let me make one thing clear. It is not not not the responsibility of the artist to tailor his/her work to the public taste. Artists must be true to themselves, if what they make is appreciated by many then they are fortunate. I wouldn't presume to dictate how a composer should write, each must find their own voice. All that I ask is that what they make is sincere, considered, coherent and well executed.

Anyway…
Stluke - "And yet Ligeti can hold an equally large audience enthralled when employed by Stanley Kubrick in 2001: A Space Odyssey."

O dear, this is the big problem. The fact you can say that means you are confusing film 'soundtrack' with 'concert' 'art' or 'classical' music.
Also Sprach Zarathustra and the Blue Danube are used to equally enthralling effect in the movie. Barber's Adagio in Platoon, Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries in Apocalypse Now. This means nothing. Take the music out of the movie and into the concert hall or opera house for which it was intended before making any judgement about the music.

Stluke - Somehow I doubt that the majority of the working classes would have the least concept of the classical forms that Beethoven was working in... expanding... and shattering. I somewhat imagine that his late quartets would have completely baffled them... as they baffled many who had a background in classical music.

Yes, late Beethoven was, and for many, still is, quite baffling. However, it is not the 'language' which baffles but the 'style' 'form' 'expression' the use of the language. The A minor Quartet Op 132 is still in the same A minor that Bach, Mozart, Cherubini used. There is not one chord in that quartet that is not a major or minor triad ( perhaps 'coloured' with a 7th or a suspension or an appoggiatura)

Milton and Donne wrote in English, the same English that an episode of 'Friends' uses ( more or less) The same 26 letters and many of the same words.
An illiterate 17th century peasant or farmworker may have struggled with Paradise Lost's 'Of Mans First Disobedience, and the Fruit 
Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal tast 
Brought Death into the World, and all our woe, ….'

That may be a bit florid or highfaultin but I think you'll agree it is coherent and comprehensible to an English speaker.

Now perhaps, because I'm an avant-garde / post modern poet I'll apply a serial technique to the use of letters or perhaps I'll just explore the vowel sounds and shapes and come up with
'nof sma Dis Dis Dis Fruuuiit fo of fo of moortall ,,,,,

mmm, I wonder why the public don't really 'get' my poetry, I'm sure if they have an open mind and make an effort they'll understand. Or maybe they'll just get off on the sound it makes.

Again, don't misunderstand me. There's nothing wrong with producing scratchy noises on open strings of a violin and sliding around on harmonics col legno ( that's a reference to Radulescu- Lux Animae Op.97) And there's nothing wrong with enjoying it, each to their own.

I said originally that composers left the public behind when they abandoned too large a part of the vocabulary of tonality, harmonic progression, melody, pulse

I revise that statement. They didn't leave the public behind, they just went off on a tangent that the vast majority don't and never will follow.

some_guy said, "If you're going to claim that composers broke some bond in the early twentieth century, and the historical record shows that whatever bond was broken was broken in the early nineteenth century, and broken by the audience, not the composers, then I'd say it has a clear relevance to your claim. And its relevance is that your claim is not supported by the facts. Now that may be displeasing to you. You may not want to give up your beliefs just on my say so (even if supported by Weber's meticulous research). But your not wanting to accept evidence is different from whether the evidence is relevant or not. Distasteful, sure. Unwelcome, obviously. But not relevant? No. It's relevant."

I say, I don't need historical evidence. I have my ears. Bach through
Sibelius, Duke Ellington, Lady Ga Ga, Radio Head, they are part of a system of tonality that can accommodate all their styles. They are not to be compared with each other as far as the aims of their music but they are distant cousins where as Berio, Babbit, etc are a different species.

That's all I'm saying.

It's good to have variety in the world.

The public will definitely not 'come round' eventually as they did with late Beethoven, Debussy, The Rite of Spring, Jazz, Rock and Roll.

And by the way the recording industry has a lot to answer for but that's another discussion.
 
#35 ·
Stluke - "And yet Ligeti can hold an equally large audience enthralled when employed by Stanley Kubrick in 2001: A Space Odyssey."

"O dear, this is the big problem. The fact you can say that means you are confusing film 'soundtrack' with 'concert' 'art' or 'classical' music.
Also Sprach Zarathustra and the Blue Danube are used to equally enthralling effect in the movie. Barber's Adagio in Platoon, Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries in Apocalypse Now. This means nothing. Take the music out of the movie and into the concert hall or opera house for which it was intended before making any judgement about the music.

And how is that different from your beer swilling footballers embracing Nesun Dorma? Or perhaps they are now likely to run off a purchase a subscription to the opera where the audience who hears Barber's Adagio or Ligeti's Lux Æterna is only being seduced by the context? And yet the reality is that a great many classical music lovers first came across classical music thanks to Disney's Fantasia or Loony Tunes.

Stluke - Somehow I doubt that the majority of the working classes would have the least concept of the classical forms that Beethoven was working in... expanding... and shattering. I somewhat imagine that his late quartets would have completely baffled them... as they baffled many who had a background in classical music.

Yes, late Beethoven was, and for many, still is, quite baffling. However, it is not the 'language' which baffles but the 'style' 'form' 'expression' the use of the language. The A minor Quartet Op 132 is still in the same A minor that Bach, Mozart, Cherubini used. There is not one chord in that quartet that is not a major or minor triad ( perhaps 'coloured' with a 7th or a suspension or an appoggiatura)

The point remains that Beethoven's quartets would be no more baffling than Cherubini, Mozart, or Bach... none of whom would have been any more familiar to the masses of their day than Philip Glass or Arvo Part are to the masses today.

Milton and Donne wrote in English, the same English that an episode of 'Friends' uses ( more or less) The same 26 letters and many of the same words.
An illiterate 17th century peasant or farmworker may have struggled with Paradise Lost's 'Of Mans First Disobedience, and the Fruit 
Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal tast 
Brought Death into the World, and all our woe, ….'

That may be a bit florid or highfaultin but I think you'll agree it is coherent and comprehensible to an English speaker.

And yet how comprehensible would the whole be to the illiterate or barely literate audience of the time? Hell, Milton and even Shakespeare leave the majority of today's audience as baffled, bored, or disinterested as anything by Anne Carson or John Barth. By the same token, a great deal of classical music... beyond those "greatest hits"... the tunes familiar from film and TV... leaves the majority of today's audiences equally baffled, bored, and disinterested.

Now perhaps, because I'm an avant-garde / post modern poet I'll apply a serial technique to the use of letters or perhaps I'll just explore the vowel sounds and shapes and come up with
'nof sma Dis Dis Dis Fruuuiit fo of fo of moortall ,,,,,

mmm, I wonder why the public don't really 'get' my poetry, I'm sure if they have an open mind and make an effort they'll understand. Or maybe they'll just get off on the sound it makes.

And is this really what any of the really strong among the latest contemporary poets do? Have you actually read Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill, Seamus Heaney, Charles Wright, Yves Bonnefoy? Again you are making blanket statements and avoiding the specifics. Who are the poets who have so shattered language as to be indecipherable? Who are the composers who have so shattered music as to make it unlistenable even for the majority of those with experience in classical music? Certainly, there me be examples... but there is still more than a little music today that is capable of resonating with and moving an audience.

Again, don't misunderstand me. There's nothing wrong with producing scratchy noises on open strings of a violin and sliding around on harmonics col legno ( that's a reference to Radulescu- Lux Animae Op.97) And there's nothing wrong with enjoying it, each to their own.

I said originally that composers left the public behind when they abandoned too large a part of the vocabulary of tonality, harmonic progression, melody, pulse

I revise that statement. They didn't leave the public behind, they just went off on a tangent that the vast majority don't and never will follow.

And did the majority follow Bach or Beethoven or Wagner on their "tangents"? Is the majority even relevant? Is the size of the audience somehow meant revealing of the merits of the music?

The public will definitely not 'come round' eventually as they did with late Beethoven, Debussy, The Rite of Spring, Jazz, Rock and Roll.

But has the public "come around" to late Beethoven or Schubert's lieder, or Bach's cantatas, etc...? I don't hear Beethoven's late quartets... or his early ones... or even Haydn's or Mozart's played out of booming car stereos, in films, on TV, etc... The greatest new recordings of the most iconic works of classical music sell but a fraction of what the least pop hit sells. A good deal of the best to be found in fine art, literature, and music has always had a limited audience. In Bach's time this was owed to the lack of access and to the division of classes. In our time it is owed more to other diversions that strike the individual as preferable. Art is still "elitist"... but its an "elitism" of choice... an elective affinity. Some individual decide that classical music is worth the effort... others decide that it is not.
 
#49 ·
And how is that different from your beer swilling footballers embracing Nesun Dorma? Or perhaps they are now likely to run off a purchase a subscription to the opera where the audience who hears Barber's Adagio or Ligeti's Lux Æterna is only being seduced by the context? And yet the reality is that a great many classical music lovers first came across classical music thanks to Disney's Fantasia or Loony Tunes.
Can't argue about that! But I'll say this. They will fork out ÂŁ100 plus to go and hear Pavarotti sing it in the park ( sadly no more). Where as the Ligeti and Penderecki in 2001 was chosen by Kubrick precisely because it is an unnerving 'psychedelic' noise. Any bunch of sustained note clusters and glissandi would do the job.

The point remains that Beethoven's quartets would be no more baffling than Cherubini, Mozart, or Bach... none of whom would have been any more familiar to the masses of their day than Philip Glass or Arvo Part are to the masses today.
Yes they would. They would have spent their lives listening to and singing folk tunes etc. Late Beethoven is a unique case but still full of simple chords and melodies. The Arietta from the last Sonata and the Diabelli Variations being, in my opinion, two of the profoundest musical utterances I know and they are built largely on chords I IV and V.

I notice that the two composers you mention also have not entirely abandoned tonality.

And is this really what any of the really strong among the latest contemporary poets do? Have you actually read Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill, Seamus Heaney, Charles Wright, Yves Bonnefoy? Again you are making blanket statements and avoiding the specifics. Who are the poets who have so shattered language as to be indecipherable? Who are the composers who have so shattered music as to make it unlistenable even for the majority of those with experience in classical music? Certainly, there me be examples... but there is still more than a little music today that is capable of resonating with and moving an audience.
You have just made my point for me. My knowledge of poetry is limited but it is precisely because the poets you mention don't do that, that people read/listen to them
If they serialised letters or words, made retrograde inversions etc etc. If they abandoned any audible link to the everyday experience of language how could people 'understand'.
Also, could you please explain what you mean by ' really strong' among contemporary poets. And to which contemporary classical composers you would apply that description?

But has the public "come around" to late Beethoven or Schubert's lieder, or Bach's cantatas, etc...? I don't hear Beethoven's late quartets... or his early ones... or even Haydn's or Mozart's played out of booming car stereos, in films, on TV, etc... The greatest new recordings of the most iconic works of classical music sell but a fraction of what the least pop hit sells. A good deal of the best to be found in fine art, literature, and music has always had a limited audience. In Bach's time this was owed to the lack of access and to the division of classes. In our time it is owed more to other diversions that strike the individual as preferable. Art is still "elitist"... but its an "elitism" of choice... an elective affinity. Some individual decide that classical music is worth the effort... others decide that it is not.
I agree with most of that. Indeed the 'masses' have no time for fine art.We should leave them out of it.

But how about the conservatoire trained, highly skilled, educated, professional orchestral player who thinks that Birtwhistle and Berio are absolute crap? Can you say they are wrong?

My point remains. That is, a very large proportion of the contemporary classical I've heard ( and I've made a point of trying to listen to more) by the nature of it's non-use of any recognisable musical sign-posts ( eg, harmonic progression, pulse, melody ) is incapable of the same range of expression that music from Machaut to Gershwin or Prokofiev is.

These are generalisations but I've yet to be persuaded either by example or argument that it is not the case.