Classical Music Forum banner
1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,437 Posts
The concept of a CPT period defined as the period of final music including the Baroque, Classical and Romantic periods serves a useful purpose. Of course, the end of it is not exact depending on how strictly one wants to to define the endpoint. You will see 1910 as often mentioned, but I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that even the broadest view could not have the end beyond 1950. (Fwiw, Mayaskovsky’s 27th symphony and Strauss’s 4 Last Songs were composed just prior to 1950.} The fact that some composers continued to composed with CP tonality beyond 1950 is not relevant. Practically no works that remind of the 19th century were being composed after that time.

I mention all this because I believe that it is in the interest of those who love CPT period music and those who love modern, even avant-garde, works to recognize the relative devision between the CPT era and what occurred after. These are 2 distinct periods. Much of the music that is now being called classical music is very different, some of it unrecognizable as anything composed before 1900. As such, if one accepts the concept of distinctly different eras, there is no need for constant conflict between those who prefer one period over the other. I don’t like Avant-garde music and never will, but I no longer criticize it in the context of comparing it to CPT era music. It is from another period and those who love it are IMO, enjoying music from that different period and are having a different experience than listening to a Beethoven symphony. I can respect that.

So, (to bring this back to the OP), it occurs to me that contemporary composers will have to rise and fall based on however successful they can be with contemporary-music audiences. The challenges are different than the 19th century. The ways one might make a living from it are different. Many will have to be content with smaller venues, limited recording with perhaps the occasional performances by major orchestras where there is the money for commissions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,437 Posts
The thing is though that orchestras feel some kind of obligation to program this music alongside CP works -- well, usually either sandwiched between CP favorites or leading off -- and if audiences are averse to it then it's the audience's problem. There isn't a dividing line in practical terms. If you love Beethoven then you're narrow-minded if you don't also at least pay your respects to the avant garde. Part of the problem is the insistence that modern music is an organic continuation or development of CP instead of a break with it...
Just as I now believe that those of us who prefer CPT music shouldn't be critiquing Avant-garde or highly atonal music as awful in comparison (because it is a distinctly different musical design and is a format we either can't or prefer not to understand or appreciate) so to do I think those who prefer very contemporary/avant-garde music should stop trying to hang it on the coattails of CPT music as if it is a natural progression.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,437 Posts
...Where I part company with DaveM is that I think pre-20th century musical traditions still exert a strong influence on contemporary music. And I say this having myself worked with two organizations devoted to professional performance of, and in some cases, commissioning, contemporary music, and having attended performances by, and met with the organizers of, other such groups.

I listen to today's music with all of that in mind.
Not to belabor the point, but what contemporary works in the present day are strongly influenced by pre-20th century music? It's been my experience that those who are really into contemporary music have a much different idea of the characteristics of pre-20th century music than I do. I'm not making any value judgments here. On the contrary, the more there is an acceptance of how different the present era is, the more it can be accepted as an era with its own unique characteristics that have value for those who like it. But, IMO, the more there is an attempt to try to convince others that there is a relationship to, or remnants of the CPT era in modern/contemporary music, the more likely there are going to be negative comparisons made that lead to the arguments of the past.

One other point: The CPT period has been defined as the baroque, classical and romantic eras with some flexibility as to when it started and ended. As a period, it is not defined as tonality per se since it came to an end, by definition, whenever the romantic period is thought to have ended. Thus, just because a contemporary work has tonality doesn't mean that it reminds of the CPT period.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,437 Posts
This question is a crushing disappointment to me, because it suggests you have not clicked on each and every youtube link in my posts here over the past few months, and raises the distinct possibility you have clicked on none of them. :eek: I'm going to go get some ice cream now, and attempt to recover my self-esteem.
I did listen to a number of them and I liked some of them, but they didn't remind me of pre-20th century music and I'm not so sure the composers would say they were influenced by pre-20th century composers, but on that I could be wrong. In any event, for reasons I perfectly understand, contemporary composers creating tonal music are not trying to emulate 19th century music.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,437 Posts
When I have kids, I'm going to raise them on Webern, Boulez, and Cage as much if not more than Bach Beethoven and Mozart.
Good luck getting any of them to like classical music. I still don't know why at 8 years of age I happened upon some old dusty LPs of the Beethoven and Brahms violin concertos in the basement, listened to them over and over for weeks and never looked back, but my kids couldn't care less about CM even though I played it on 'the stereo' and on my piano as they grew up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,437 Posts
Just reminding people of the thread title. Part of that reality is that there is a large group of classical music listeners that rejects most contemporary classical music. As it obviously affects these composers, there is validity in stating this observation in this thread, even though I'm sure it is not news to the contemporary composers or to those listeners who are interested in their works.

The point has been made in this thread. Can we now continue the discussion without repeating it?
I'm not sure that anyone understands what the subject is supposed to be. I haven't read very much from anybody that suggests what the reality of life for contemporary composers is. Is this supposed to be about what a contemporary composer faces in making a living, finding an audience, getting a commission or deciding what kind of CM music to compose?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,437 Posts
So you want to claim that classical music is of more value than other genres but not be accused of elitism? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Classical music is more sophisticated and complex than most other genres. There's far more going on in a symphony or a concerto than in the works of most other genres. It may or may not be of more value depending on what one means by 'value'. IMO, the word 'elitism' only applies if one thinks that they are particularly 'special' because they listen to CM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,437 Posts
Classical music is more sophisticated and complex than most other genres...
There are many ways for music to be "sophisticated and complex," so I don't even think your first statement is true. As an example, if I were to claim that Stockhausen's music is more complex than Mozart's, members would rush to prove me wrong in a myriad different ways. But even if it were true, and we could somehow prove that classical music is more complex - let's leave "sophisticated" out of the mix - than most other genres, does that make classical music "better" or "more valuable"? I shouldn't think so.
I don't know what Mozart vs. Stockhausen has to do with anything since I specifically mentioned classical music vs. other genres. Unless, of course, you think of Stockhausen as representing another genre.

You sidestepped the complexity issue. It's not as if it has to be proved as if it's a scientific theory. Can you can come up with a genre of music that has the complexity implicit in the composition of a symphony or concerto which requires the ability to understand and compose for 13-15 different instruments? And, no, let's not leave 'sophisticated' out of the mix given one of its definitions being 'of a system, or technique developed to a high degree of complexity'

I have no problem with people arguing that classical music is more complex or sophisticated than other music.
Apparently you did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,437 Posts
I'd argue the comparison is still relevant as it shows the divergence in notions of "complex" and "sophisticated" that can exist even within the same broad tradition. This is even more pronounced when comparing completely different genres.
You're free to make comparisons of the music of Stockhausen with Justin Bieber for all I care. That doesn't mean it is relevant to the point I was making.

Western classical music is the tradition I'm most familiar with, so I don't feel it's my place to compare the composition of a symphony with, say, the making of a hip-hop album because I do not know as much about hip-hop. Just because I can rattle off more factors contributing to implicit complexity in classical music doesn't mean that there aren't an equal amount of such factors in hip-hop. For my money, if you sat a classical composer and rapper/producer down and had them explain their music-making process in as much detail as possible, both would go on forever.
Many popular artists have had training in classical music. Hip hop artist Jay Z turned to people with classical music experience in orchestration to learn how to perform his works with an orchestral backing. It's pop artists that often benefit one way or another directly or indirectly from classical music. The process doesn't tend to work in reverse. I'm surprised you weren't aware of that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,437 Posts
And Bach based minuets on peasant dances, Haydn laced symphonies with contredanses, Chopin was highly influenced by the harvest field folksongs of his native country, Brahms made many popular music arrangements and took interest in Viennese minstrelsy, Grieg's love of Norwegian folk music practically oozed out of his compositions, Janáček evolved in his operas a personal musical speech based on Moravian peasant music, Bartók celebrated Gypsy music by fusing it with his modernist innovations, Reich's Radio Rewrite is a reworking of two Radiohead songs, and the indie classical generation has taken huge inspiration from the 1990s indie rock scene. Need I list more examples?
In response to my comment regarding the complexity of classical music vs. other genres, you introduced Stockhausen vs. Mozart and then jumped to hip hop music. Now you seem to think that the fact that the use of the melodies in old folk songs in CM is relevant. It isn't and nor is the fact that Reich reworked Radiohead songs. Geez.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,437 Posts
And I explained to you that the Stockhausen vs. Mozart comparison is relevant as it shows the divergence in notions of "complex" and "sophisticated" that can exist even within the same broad tradition. Then I "jumped" to hip-hop to explain why evaluating other genres as less complex or sophisticated than classical music is inherently biased if you don't know as much about those genres as you do classical (and your posts make it clear that you don't know much about hip-hop). Then, in response to the incredible historical blindness exhibited in your claim that pop artists are the only ones who "benefit one way or another directly or indirectly classical music" and that "[t]he process doesn't tend to work in reverse," I listed a few examples. All of what I said has been "relevant" - the fact that you're so quick to call everything irrelevant makes me question whether you even know what points you're trying to make.
I can tell by your posts that I've been listening to popular music far longer than you have. It's clear that you don't know much about hiphop either or how to stick to the subject.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,437 Posts
In an essay on the use of Critical Theory as applied to Musicial Education, Thomas Regelski states, ' However much the habit of critical consciousness may be seen as arrogance, as I have learned by personal experience..'

I can imagine how many music teachers nod their heads on reading the above. Like other treatises on the subject of Critical Theory, which can be absolutely mind-numbing in wordsmithing gone wild, it is, as it's name infers, theory. I have seen no evidence of a breakthrough in its application to music. I could be wrong, but...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,437 Posts
Classical music is more sophisticated and complex than most other music genres including hip hop. Chess is a more sophisticated and complex game than most other, if not all, games. That does not mean that classical music is of more value to any given individual than, say, hip hop and it doesn’t mean that chess is of more value to any given individual than, say, backgammon. Value is determined by what appeals to the individual.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,437 Posts
Complexity in music is a dead end, IMO. Chess may be more complex than Checkers but Chess doesn't appeal to everyone, whereas Checkers brings many people joy. The idea that complexity is always a positive and desirable value is a false premise.

Music also brings people joy, and it doesn't matter if the music is complex or not. Only certain people look for and value complexity in music whereas many more people look for other qualities.

Finally, there are different kinds of complexity, for lack of a better word. Jazz has a complexity not found in classical music; Blues has its kind of complexity which can't be notated, so does Flamenco, ditto Hip-hop, etc.

What I am saying is that the kind of complexity found in classical music is only one kind. I am also saying that even if music doesn't have any kind of complexity, it has other qualities which people value and bring them joy.
If you're referring to my post, which seems likely since I had just mentioned complexity, you might want to read it again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,437 Posts
I hope this video helps you gain an appreciation for the complexity of backgammon, and how it is at least comparable to if not far exceeding the level of complexity in chess:
So now it's gone from where I had tunnel vision and my perception of musical complexity is likely skewed to now you're backing off to: the complexity of backgammon 'is at least comparable'. The lack of any issue of luck in chess means that the game has more complexity in the demands on the player. It's well known that because of the luck factor in backgammon, a weaker player can beat an otherwise stronger player if the weaker player lucks out on the dice throws. Seems like you don't know what you're talking about and that applies to anything you may think about my perception of musical complexity.

Closing the thread seems like a good idea to me.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top