An observation about "Modern" classical music.

That last post from Lousyreeds cuts to the heart of this issue very nicely, though might be a bit hard on Robm 321.

At the outset, let me say that I am not a musician and my last music class was in the 7th grade. My parents weren't interested in serious music, so I developed an interest almost by chance. My first purchases were a set of Beethoven symphonies, the Bach St. John Passion, and the Mahler 9th, (for a total of $20). Pretty quickly I discovered Stravinsky, which really primed the "modern" pump for me, but it took a long time before I could really enjoy Mahler. Sometime later I started attending live concerts. Over the last 35 years, I have developed a great love for a wide variety of music from Heinrich Schutz to John Adams. I spend as much time listening to Shostakovich as I do Bach, and love them both equally --- but--- I bet I've never listened to them both in the same sitting.

I heard the world premier of Lohrmann's Symphonisches Stuck this year. In the preconcert lecture, the interviewer asked Lohrmann what the audience should listen for. He answered, "Don't listen for anything, you either feel the music or you don't." I also heard Berg's Three Pieces for Orchestra this year. The conductor offered this advice to the audience. "I programmed this work because every musician should play this music once in his career. All of you should hear this music. This is difficult music. It is like Goethe's Faust. One does not really like Faust, but one should be aware of it."

These are two very different points of view. Most listeners tend to approach music from the former point of view. We are tired, stressed, harried, and harassed, more in need of a Haydn Missa Brevis than a difficult and disturbing mystery. In making this choice, we gain something, but also loose an opportunity. Much of the music of the last 100 years is worthwhile, important, and deserves to be played, heard, and recorded.

I find the body of serialism uniformly difficult. For me, these works require a live performance where there is more to the experience than following the tune in one's listening room. Even then, it takes wisdom in making programming choices, hard work from the musicians, and careful explanation in pre-concert lectures and program notes. With enough similar exposure, I might begin to understand this music, and be the better for the effort it takes. However, as I look around the concert hall, I notice that the response is tepid, at best. I also notice that most of the audience probably won't be around 20 years from now, and that worries me very much. Alas, free market forces are everywhere, even where they probably shouldn't be.

So, in answer to the call for accessible modern music, let me toss out a few suggestions. Shostakovich quartets, especially 6, 8, and 10. Prokofiev Symphony #5. Bartok, Divermento for String Orchestra. John Adams, almost anything. The Copland piano concerto--fun music!

Lousyreeds,

I moved from Ohio to Indianapolis about 15 years ago. As for the moniker, being a browns fan is a terminal disease, and results in a long, slow, painful death. One does not recover, even by moving to Indianapolis, where the local team is 12-0.

As for the Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra, I find its quality to exceed that of the local football team! Under Venzago, the orchestra is programming a generous helping of 20th and 21st century music. We also had the world premier of Brian Current's Symphonies in Slanted Time this year. Very interesting music, worth a second listen.

As for Uwe Lohrmann, I had not heard of him prior to the concert. Apparently he descends from Schoenberg and Berg through Wolfgang Fortman. I’ve attached a link to the excellent program notes, which also contains a brief explanation of the 12 tone method which some might find helpful.

http://www.indianapolissymphony.org/_uploaded/pdf/pressrelease/cc1_notes.pdf

Lohrmann is one of very few composers still writing 12 tone works. I found the piece to be difficult and dark by normal standards (what a surprise!) but worthwhile, and something I would like to hear again. Perhaps another listen would reveal the emotional element spoken of in the program notes. Certainly, I would say mathematical is more accurate than emotional.

Robm, Robm, Robm!

I can't give you details on John Adams creative process, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't involve thin air. Interestingly, I got involved earlier today on another thread when a poster decided to dis Bach's "Opera." As you know, different music is centered in different things. Some music emphasizes lyric elements, some rhythmic, and some philosophical or theological. I suppose all music has a target audience, but the audience for a particular piece may not include me. That does not mean the music is of limited value in objective sense. It may just mean I'm not ready for that particular "hook." I didn't especially like Bruckner or Mahler at first. It took work to acquire the taste, but I grew to love them both.

Archivmusic.com has a pretty good deal on some Arte Nova CDS now. They are $6- $10, and there are some interesting 20th century works. Some of these offerings contain works mentioned in this thread, like the Gorecki 3rd and Copland Piano concerto.

At that price, I could't resist picking up some stuff that will be new to me, such as the Carter Piano concerto and the Furtwangler 2nd. I also got the Copland, which is coupled with concertos by Ravel, Honegger, and Antheil. Just thought I'd mention the sale in case anyone is interested.

Eldartford,

"Don't we all narrow our musical choices to stuff we like?"

No sir, we don't. The list of music that I didn't especially like until after a considerable investment in multiple hearings, and in some cases, multiple performances, is quite long. Indeed, if I followed your rule, I might still be listening to "Old McDonald had a Farm." In my youth I found the tune quite likeable and humable.

There remain works of both the classical and modern eras that I just don't quite connect with, even after some effort. Beethoven's Missa Solemnis is such a work. So also are all of the works of Elliot Carter that I have heard. In both cases, I am confronted by a considerable number of advocates, so that it would seem that the deficiency lies with me, not with the composer. In the case of the Beethoven, I'm determined not to give up quite yet. However, it is unlikely that the Missa Solemnis will ever get the playing time of Prokofiev's piano sonatas in my home. I and many other people respectfully disagree with your outrageous assertion that Prokofiev should have stopped at Peter and the Wolf.

As has been stated previously in this thread, no one likes everything. Each listener will make his own choices, and I think we all welcome expression of an appropriately respectful negative opinion about a particular work. I urge caution about painting with too broad a brush, so that entire eras or genres are dismissed.