Marakentz- There are some who say that music, as well as most art forms, has entered a period of post-modernism. That is to say, it is 'beyond history', not a step in some 'natural progression' from the 18th century to now and beyond. I think I agree with that interpretation, but I do acknowledge the fact that it's exceedingly difficult to define your own place in history while you're in the midst of a movement. It worries me a little sometimes. The avante-garde used to be a response to neo-classicism and 'normalcy', but now it's almost all there is...
Eldartford: Why do you value being able to 'follow' the music? Personally, I like a little surprise once in awhile. Sometimes I like my hand to be held by the music, and sometimes I don't. Concerning clapping: I think if you listen to any piece of music that ends softly, you will here delayed clapping. The idea is to let the last notes peter out into nothingness. What would you think if the audience started clapping in the middle of the last note of Barber's Adagio for Strings? And that's as tonal and mainstream as it gets.
You seem intrigued by modern music. There are some great books and essays out there you might enjoy, many of which would be available at a library. You might find the answers you're lookiong for in one of those! |
Eldartford: Even if you're not interested in the music itself, I think reading one of the great many books written on the subject might be useful if you're curious (intrigued, curious, whatever you want to call it).
You're talking about random assortments of notes. I think most composers would take exception to that. Most of the time, it's not random. Even in the occasions when the notes are random, there's almost always some organizational method to the music. Sometimes it can be fun to figure out what that is.
Also, what do you think of the applause thing? Does my explanation convince? There are all sorts of variables that can cause people to clap earlier/later: familiarity with the piece, dynamic level, etc. |
Eldartford: Check out "Twentieth Century Music" by Eric Salzman. Perhaps a good place to start... Tell us what you think, I'm very interested to know. It might bore you to tears, but give it a shot if you have some spare time.
It's true that dissonance used to be defined far more broadly. Back in the middle ages, a perfect 4th was considered really out there. It's standard now. Who knows what will happen in the future? |
Of course it'll be a financial disaster. We know it. They know it. But Levine realizes that he, as someone in a position of great power in the classical music world, has to be an advocate of new music. Orchestras need to make enough money to stay alive, but that's not their real purpose. They're civic organizations that are there for the public good, and their responsibilities include assisting the community of composers. The fact that it plays to empty seats doesn't mean it's not worthwile to perform.
Most orchestras mix the new in with the old in a single concert. Sometimes, people think the new piece sucks. Sometimes, the new piece gets a standing ovation and people go out and buy the CD. And for the most part, these are people who are not 'new music lovers'. They came for the Beethoven symphony or what have you, and left having had a completely new, exciting, unexpected experience. |
Indeed, the new piece always comes first, usually for exactly the reason you specify. The idea is that people generally aren't open to new things, and sometimes you have to give them a bit of incentive to stay. Sometimes the audience is glad they sat through it. Sometimes the discussions during intermission are full of eye rolls and sighs. It just depends.
Think of all the composers who refused to write in a manner that would be 'pleasing' to their intended audiences or patrons. Mozart, Beethoven, Debussy, Satie, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and there are many more. If they had always been forced to pander to someone else's expectations, we would be stuck with a bunch of Salieris and Atwoods. No fun at all.
"Music seems to be the only venture where the customer is not always right," you say.
Your treatment of music as a commodity to be purchased rather than as an art to be experienced scares me. Just give the new work a chance. Worst case, you left feeling nothing, but you've seen a little bit of someone else's creative soul. Go up and ask the composer what he was thinking when he wrote his piece, and why it was so weird. If it's new enough, he's probably sitting in the audience.
You're going to tell me that whether we like it or not, music as it is in the 21st century is a commodity, and it had better realize that or die. I think we had better realize that music is not a commodity. Otherwise, it will die whether or not it incorporates new music. Playing nothing but the classics won't save classical music. Incorporating them with the dynamism of new music and getting the audiences excited about it might help.
"To listen can be an effort, and just to hear is no merit. A duck hears also."-Igor Stravinsky. |
Let me be very clear that I agree with the sentiment that there's a whole lot of crap floating around out there that, as Newbee says, shouldn't have seen the light of day. But let's also keep in mind that every period of classical music, of any music for that matter, has produced its fair share of crap. The ratio of great composers to mediocre ones is no higher or lower now than it ever has been. History will eventually separate the wheat from the chaff. In the mean time, I enjoy hearing everything I can and making that decision for myself on my own terms. |
I'm listening to Penderecki's Auschwitz Oratorio as we speak. This is as moving and as viscerally captivating (not to mention disturbing) as anything I've ever heard. Give it a try if you're ready for a very intense musical experience.
I'm not sure I agree with Schubertmaniac on the definition of art, but his assertion that modern music expresses as wide a range of emotion as any in history in right on. In fact, some would argue that with increasing harmonic complexity comes increasing ability to explore the nuances of the human condition. Sounds pretentious, but I think it's true in many cases. |
"If I can't hum it, I don't like it." All I can say is that I'm incredibly grateful that this is not the case for me.
|
Eldartford: I see a lot of hypocrisy in stating your musical preference and allowing for disagreement, but then defining "skill", a value judgement, in terms of your own musical tastes.
You claim that this "skill" is manifested in "inventiveness within the structure of some rule set." What makes one rule set better than another? I don't accept that the rule set of "melody, harmony, and rythm" is fundamental to enjoyment of music. That's way to broad. Listen to Gregorian chant, very mainstream. No harmony much of the time. How about Taiko drumming? No melody... Jazz improvisation: No steady rythm here. Why should classical music have to play by some preordained set of rules?
I think us fans of the avant-garde in music respect your tastes; no one is shoving this stuff down your throat. What I have a problem with is your continuing insistance on engaging the fundamental value of this music (please read your previous posts before denying this). There is an argument to be made here, but if you want to make it you're going to have to start working within a more complex musical vocabulary. I think the conversation would be far more meaningful if you would explore the genre more deeply. |
"This thread is supposed to be about thoughtful analysis." Exactly. This is why I've suggested that you listen to and read about a broader spectrum of modern music before continuing to throw out simplistic generalizations that belie the complexity and nuance of the subject. |
On the contrary, I'm doing everything I can to suggest ways to improve your perception of "this elite world". I wish you would listen to the pieces I've recommended. I think their appeal is universal. If you're not willing to, that's your loss. |
Shubertmaniac: no, serialism is by definition atonal. It has no tonic. Sometimes a perception of tonality can appear temporarily between related tone rows, but it is never permanent. And I'm afraid it's not correct that serialism uses "all twelve notes equally". Also, chromaticism has been around since Mozart's time, and became prevalent far before the time of Wagner or Mahler.
Robm321: The 12 tone scale was popular for about 30 years in the middle of the 20th century. It's used rarely nowadays. For Pete's sake people, "modern classical music" is not all the same. There are so many styles out there nowadays, you just have to try things out for yourself. Music is diverse enough to the point where generalizations like these become meaningless.
I worry that all of this persistent misinformation will convince someone inexperienced to avoid the world of new music. Maybe some of the experienced new music people could start a list of pieces they think are moving and relatively approachable? |
|
Hi Brownsfan, fantastic post! I've never heard of Lohrmann, can you tell me a bit about him? Always looking for something new... Are you in Cleveland (I ask because of the moniker)? The Cleveland orch's relationship with Boulez has spawned a lot of great performances of new music.
Shosty quartet #3 is also wonderful. |
Ever listened to the "Hoe Down" from Copland's "Rodeo", Eldartford? The first ten bars or so are inspired by the tuning of an orchestra. |
Says a lot more about you as a listener than about "'that' music", as you so degradingly call it... |
Please, Eldartford. You're quite proud of the fact that you can't understand most modern music, and have made it quite clear that you consider yourself an expert in the sociology of musical appreciation.
As I've asked so many times, to which pieces are you refering? Be specific for once. Convince those of us who are interested in modern music that your assertions are based in some sort of knowledge and experience, rather than unsubstantiated drivel. We've gone round and round in this thread, yet you keep coming back to your vague anecdotes. What gives? |
If you're going to post snyde comments about what you call 'that' music, you should at least be able to tell us what music you're refering to. That's not so much to ask.
To do otherwise is irresponsible. It could encourage in others the close-mindedness that you've embraced.
No one likes all of the music that's been written since Rite of Spring. I certainly don't. But many people will find something intriguing if they keep an open mind. Your consistent generalizations about how 'modern music' sounds and how it makes people feel (again, without being able to reference your attacks with a salient example) are a disservice to this community, which I believe should be a mechanism for encouraging people to try new things (equipment, music, whatever).
I hope people who have read this thread have come away with an impression that the world of 'modern music' is as diverse as any other, and that generalizations about the genre as a whole are meaningless.
Check out some of the pieces that folks have recommended. Most of it's probably downloadable, so you can try it for free. It would be fantastic to get a discussion going about some of them. |
Eldartford, the ingenious subtlety of your prose was lost on me. My apologies. I hope I was the only one.
Your "delayed audience response" theory was explained away by a number of posters.
Those who would claim that rap is not music without citing an example and providing a thorough explanation should not be trusted.
Robm: it's fine to dislike the use of atonality, but you should understand what that means. Neither Bach nor Beethoven ever wrote atonally. There's a difference between atonality and plain old dissonance, and I think you're confusing them. Serialism, which you say you enjoy, is by definition atonal. Which piece did you listen to that was mentioned above?
I hope I haven't given the impression that I think any of this is "stupid". That was not my intention, and I apologize if that's how it came across. However, there has been a lot of false information passed around (atonality, etc). That's ignorant. Not stupid, not indicative of a lack of knowledge. |
