An observation about "Modern" classical music.


As I sat in my car, waiting for my wife as usual, I listened to a local classical music station which happened to be playing some "modern" music. I don't like it, being an old fart who likes Mozart and his ilk. But, as I had nothing else to do, I tried to appreciate what I heard. No luck, but I did notice something I have experienced before but never thought about. At the end, there was a dead silence of 3 to 5 seconds before audience applause. This never happens with, for example, Mozart where the final notes never get a chance to decay before the applause and Bravos. Obviously (IMHO) the music was so hard to "follow" that the audience were not sure it was over until nothing happened for a while.

I know that some guys like this music, but haven't you noticed this dead time? How do you explain it?
eldartford

Showing 15 responses by robm321

Good discussion by the way.

It's nice to see a thread about actual "music" and not equipment on Audiogon.

Rob
I think what modern classical music is missing is what Mozart did best. He composed the music which on the surface seems simple, but under the surface was complex. In other words, he met the listener where the listener was at (other composers did that as well, I'm just using Mozart as an example). Modern composers seem to expect that you meet them where they are at IMHO. Which explains why people are still listening to Mozart and Bethoveen 200 years later.

Why work hard understanding modern classical music when you could spend your whole life listening to baroque through to romantic (and some understandable modern music like Cage, etc.) and never run out of stuff to listen to?

Rob
jsujo,

I'm sorry you didn't understand my post; I thought it was pretty straight forward. I didn't see anything in my post suggesting any career changes. And frankly, that's up to them what they do.

Classical music from the past used typical form that everyone knew and the innovations and changes came on top of that. How do you listen to modern music and know what to expect? If you don't know what to expect then how can you be surprised? Even jazz has some basic structure to be improvised on. If there is structure there it should be understood just by listening to it; you shouldn’t have to take an appreciation course on modern classical music just to enjoy it.

That’s my uneducated theory on why modern classical music is so unpopular compared to the previous 300 years. I’m not saying it’s any individual composers fault.

They could always put a low steady beet under the music and play the twelve bar blues and sing about some lost love and they might end up with a hit, but I would suggest they do what they feel they need to artistically whether people are listening or not; and maybe start an eBay business on the side to supplement their income if need be. But I don’t feel obligated to listen out of charity.

Rob

As far as modern classical music, I am referring to the new stuff - not the early to mid 20th century stuff. I enjoy and can relate to Copland - I enjoy John William's compositions for different movies and other composers. I even like some of the new stuff that sounds like it came from outer space (unfortunately, I can't relate since I'm living here on earth), and therein lies the rub. I could / can relate to Beethoven's pain, darkness, and triumph.

I know there is value in modern music, and I have no doubt that they each have structure for their music. I might give it a better effort. I really have not given it a fair shot since I don't listen enough to really see if I can connect.

But am I the only one who feels that everything has been exhausted by the previous composers, and that's why the modern composers have to make weird patterns and harmonies and keys just to do something different? They can't just use the circle of 5th's and relative minor/major. They have to venture way out there to come up with something original, but do they go so far out that they lose their audience? What other choice do they have?

As a piano player once told me, we need a renaissance of the arts.

Rob
LOL Jsujo.

I guess it's worth venturing out of what is familiar. Classical music always takes an effort to listen to in order to appreciate. Active listening and understanding just makes the emotions stronger. So, because of this thread I'm going to make an effort. I feel with all of the posts, I realize that my approach towards the new stuff is what caused me to be critical. When I heard Beethoven's 9th Symphony for the first time, I remember thinking why if everyone so thrilled about this. It wasn't until several years later when I better understood what was going on that I realized what was great. And it has it's flaws no doubt.

Thanks All.

Rob

Rob
I think the atonal only stuff is not interesting to me. I don't mind if it's part of a song, but you need balance. And music should not be a test of your will. It should have pleasing qualities. Atonal works in songs that also have points of resolution throughout the song such as jazz and some modern music are enjoyable to me.

I enjoy modern classical music when done right. I guess it has just been a lack of effort on my part to seek it out. I would assume musical development will happen whether there is a big audience or not.
The problem is that as the composers use the 12 tone scale with no tonal center, the listeners fade completely. In other words, it seems that the composers have moved past what most listeners can follow which wasn't the case during classical and romantic periods. There is structure, but when listening to classical music it helps to anticipate. It's hard to anticipate if you can't follow the music, and the average listener isn't going to become a musicologist just to enjoy the music. Is that what you see?
well in that case I should call myself lousyreed2.

Great posts and thank you for the suggested listening. No matter how difficult modern classical music is to listen and understand, It would far more torture for me to hear country music or certain rap music.

I guess my argument about it being "too complex" for the listener isn't completely valid. It's probably just that there is no "hook" to grab your attention up front. So, I assume you have to have some dedication up front before you get the payoff.
I've read up on Serial/12 tone - they were in the same chapter - they aren't much different. I've also read up on minimalism - which seem to be some of the latest composition techniques. Is it me or are they just making stuff up out of thin air. I mean minimalism is the same droning motif’s over and over (I'm simplifying so what?). The tonal stuff comes from years and years of development. Modern classical music seems to be desperate for something new while just making up new rules. No one made the 5th of a scale have the tendency to lead to the 1st to resolve. It was innate- then developed over 100’s of years in different ways. The stuff made up now is just made up, not through development. Maybe that's why classical music these days has lost the listener.
"Atonal" has been used by Bach and all the rest. It's not a new discovery. In fact, jazz music can't live without it.

Check out some of Beethoven's late Quartets. They get very atonal to the point where he almost goes past any sense of tonality.

I have been playing devil's advocate to see if I could get some idea of what the appeal to modern classical music. Fortunately, there were answers to my post that gave me hope. Thanks to the posters!

I am like Eldarford in that I like a hybrid of both. I like comfort and discomfort (in music - in life it would be nice to just have comfort but oh well). I think some of the "Atonal" composers were experimenting and breaking new ground. But now I think we are past the "break every rule you can to the most extreme extent" and evolving into something that has freshness and something that we can relate to. I am giving it a listen, and so far I'm impressed.

That being said, I don't think we'll ever match the "golden age" of classical music. They used up most of the most innate motifs IMHO.
lol eldartford - how can I argue with that. The more he lost his hearing the more atonal his music became. Go figure.

I have to say that I just finished listening to Arvo Part - Fratres for violin and piano and it is a very moving peice of music - not objectionable sounding at all.
John,

I have listened to Speigal and agree with you. I think I like the minimalist movements the best. Thanks for the Vasks recommendation. I'll check it out.

I have to say though that I was unimpressed with Crumb - he might do well in a Hollywood sound effects studio, but I don't consider that music. Or course I've heard only one song of his (hummingbird or something).

Rob
I agree with eldartford. No offense to those that like that style, but like "modern art" it is lost on me and will stay lost. It's not music to me. I'm not into sound effects. - I've listed one of the works above - you know what music I mean. The other styles of modern classical music are enjoyable however. Minimalism, serialism (I think).

As far as how it makes me feel. It's disturbing sounding. If I wanted that effect I'd put on modern heavy metal.
Eldartford,

It's because you don't understand the peas ;)

Lousyreed1,

You’re right I was really referring to dissonance when talking about Beethoven and Bach since they both centered around a tonal home key. Don’t we all like to go home at the end of the day though? I like to resolve at the end of a movie or composition.

George Crumbe “Hummingbird something” - I’m not sure but it was screeching violins and random noises “seemingly not organized” although I’m sure it was.

Seurat,

I love Alfred Brendel too - never flashy, never overplays a piece.