An observation about "Modern" classical music.

I just happened on this thread during a break from work. Earlier, I had been listening to what might be called modern classical music, staring with Gorecki's Third Symphony (London Sinfonietta). Also on the CDP was Tavener's The Protecting Veil; Arvo Part's Fratres, (Tabula Rasa, Spiegal im Spiegal,ect); Peteris Vasks' Distant Light; and Christo Hatis' Awakening. IMHO, all of these modern classical works are exceeding beautiful, emotional, and reflect the spiritual side of the human condition. They all are tonally complex and have patterns that are unique to modern music. However, I would not be able to "hum" a tune from any of the works mentioned. What I find important is that each piece involves some experimentation with tone and structure.

Other modern music, Schoenberg for example, is intellectually stimulating, but more emotionally upsetting, especially his later works. I can't work or socialize with this type of music in the background. IMHO, atonal modern music, in particular, creates an emotional dissonance in the listener that is often not very pleasant and can be anxiety producing, unlike some of the older works (e.g., Bach, Mozart) or the modern music mentioned in the above paragraph. This might be another explanation for the delay in applause. That is, atonal modern music does not make you feel good, rather it can have the opposite effect. This is understandable, as the impetus for some post-modern music is to express the alienation of modern humans. In this case, applause of an audience has to be forced rather than spontaneous.

I have three recommendations for modern classical music that I find more approachable:

1. Arvo Part's Cantus In Memoriam Benjamin Britten - Fratres - Tabula Rasa - Spiegel im Spiegel
2. Schoenberg's String Quartets 1 to 4 (Phillips Classics)
3. Messiaen's Preludes - Etudes - Canteyodjaya (Arte Nova Classics)

Please bear with my stumbling through this - I am a psychologist and not a musicologist and my comments come from past reading (which is distant) and recent listening.

Part is probably the most approachable as the works mentioned above and are based on his studies of Gregorian Chant and Renaissance music. Part's later music (mentioned above) is based on simple harmonies, single notes, and triad chords.

It has taken a little time to appreciate Schoenberg, but in retrospect, it was time well spent. Schoenberg's four String Quartets have both "atonal" and "tonal" features, depending on the quartet. The 12 tone technique, serialism and "atonality" are distinct in the 2nd and 3rd quartet. The third quartet, in particular, has series that cannot be followed (anticipated) and consists of rhythmic patterns that are not fixed. For me, it is the lack of predictability in music that ultimately holds together that is interesting. My wife listened to it tonight and commented that the music sounds like an orchestra tuning instruments before playing. However, to me, after listening to his music for a while, each piece does make sense, although I'm not able to explain how. All of the four quartets are fruitful and fulfilling, especially the 3rd. I also maintain that this music can produce an anxious state which is interesting in itself.

IMO, Messiaen's work is probably the hardest of the three that I suggested to appreciate. His music is rhythmically complex and is based on scales with steps that he developed. His music also has influences from the rhythms from ancient Greek and from Hindu sources. In Etudes, he takes Schoenberg's technique further by introducing serialism of timbres, intensities and durations. That is, these become recurring series of elements that are manipulated throughout the piece.

Eldarford

Your initial post didn't state the intent of asking why people like modern classical music. Rather your question had to do with the pause after the performance was done. It also seems that your question also pertains to "atonal" music and not other modern works.

I like "atonal" classical music because it is intellectually stimulating. Initially, there was something that pulled me into listening, and now I enjoy the surprises, emotionality, and patterns. Having said that, I only listen to this type of music on an occasional basis because I have to be in the mood for it. I agree that some "atonal" music is difficult, but that's part of allure for me.

IMHO, "atonal" music has been a sort of inspiration for newer works that are much more universally appealing. Please correct me if I'm wrong (I"m not a musicologist), some composers have reacted strongly to "atonal" music, and created gorgeous music that is not strictly "atonal." Arvo Part had a crisis, stopped composing for a while, and then took a much different track to his music, much of which is exceeding beautiful (see my post above). Gorecki also departed from strict atonal composition. His music, especially his Third Symphony, which is mentioned several times in this thread, had been a top seller in England (if my information is correct). Penderecki's Threnody for the Victims of Hirshima is very beautiful and usually brings goosebumps. BTW, this piece won an UNESCO prize.

I challenge you to pick up some of the music mentioned above, listen to it a few times, and then respond.

John

Eldartford,

Sorry if I assumed incorrectly, it wasn't obvious from your posts.

So, then am I to assume that you have listened to Gorecki's Third or Arvo Part's Cantus In Memoriam Benjamin Britten - Fratres - Tabula Rasa - Spiegel im Spiegel? If not, my challenge remains.

What other apsects of modern music do you object to?

John

Robm321

Also listen to Speigal im Speigal. One of the best versions is on Part's Alina CD. You might also consider Vasks "Distant Light", also very moving.

John