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. |
I've been reading this thread for some time without commenting, until I saw this by Shubertmaniac: My moniker says I love Schubert, and I do! But I would rank some of the moderns as my favorites too, but after Schubert, Beethoven and Brahms, I would go see a Schnitke, Gorecki, Bartok or Penderecki piece before I would see something like Mozart or Bruckner. These guys are inventive, imaginative and just plain aesthetically involving. This is the first time I have read comments at Audiogon about Gorecki being heralded as a favorite. I am pleased to see I am not the only one who loves this music. My absolute favorite is Symphony No.3 with Dawn Upshaw and the London Sinfonietta, have you heard this piece? |
Shubertmaniac..."Inventive" is great, but the real skill is to be inventive within the structure of some rule set...in the case of music, melody, harmony, and rhythm. A random collection of notes, or some obscure musical algorithm, just does not turn me on. Maybe it does you.
By the way I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that Mozart was not inventive. He is most famous for ability to weave a simple theme into a tapestry of variations and developments. |
Aaaah, it's refreshing to see a thread about the substance of our hobby as opposed to the hardware of our hobby. I've been an avid classical music listener for years and continue to believe that people enjoy music that follows a few basic rules:
1. Is it predictable?
2. Does it contain melodies the listener can remember?
3. Does it contain "comfortable" harmonic content?
4. Does it evoke positive emotion?
5. Do the musicians visibly enjoy what they are playing? Or, if a recording, is
joy audibly apparent?
6. Does the conductor like the music he's conducting?
With much modern classical, one or more (often all) of these rules simply don't apply. Yes, much modern music is still great music; it's simply not enjoyable music, and that's the rub. Further, I believe that the more listeners know about the technical aspects of classical music, the more they are able to understand and appreciate (not necessarily enjoy) modern music. This opens another can of worms:
1. Where do we draw the line between appreciating modern music and
enjoying it?
2. Why even listen to music that we don't enjoy?
3. Why should orchestras continue to learn and play music that their
audiences clearly don't enjoy?
Great thread. |
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. |
A reader doesnt like Dante "Divine Comedy" or doesnt understand Joyce "Ulisses". What's the problem? The book or the reader. There's no hard books, only lousy readers. And the same aplies to music.
Who said that music is made to be easy?
Music it's not made to be an enjoyable item. We are talking about culture. We must ear with the senses and feel with the intellect.
Do you understand Boulez "Sur incises", Carter Sympnony or Ligeti "Atmosphere"? No!
No news, you dont understand either Bach "Welltempered clavier" or Beethoven "Grosse fugue".
Who's fault? Bach, Beethoven, Boulez,Carter Ligeti, ......No way.
There must be an effort from the listener to fully appreciate the beauties of life.
Contemporay music as evolved from the melody, harmony, rhythm paradigm. If you want this there is the latest Robie Williams or Madona for you. (it's very easy on the ear :)
Should the composer (or any artist) be slave of the public? IMHO, NO.
Just some provocative thoughts. |
Lousyreeds1...I don't think that I ever said that my preferences are the only acceptable ones. I have merely commented on some objective evidence that most (yes most) people prefer music that has melody, harmony and rhythm, and that, IMHO, these elements being lacking in a lot of modern music explains why people don't like it. This thread is supposed to be thoughtful analysis, not criticism. If you like to listen to Taiko drumming that's fine with me.
But Gregorian chants...mainstream? Give me a break! |
"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. |
Sorry, but not EVERY DETAIL carries such weighty "meaning," nor should each one be imbued with same ... and so very often there is absolutely no merit in pondering the meaning of silence. However, feel free to guess away!!! |
Lousyreeds1...If you will check my original posting you will see that it was prompted by a conscious effort to listen and appreciate what I have termed "modern" music. As always, (for more than 50 years) this effort led to naught, and I began to think about why this is true.
Your theory seems to be that I am too ignorant to enter your elite world. Sorry about that. |
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. |
One fench piano teacher said:
"Music should not come fgom fingers it should come fgom ze hart"
(This phrase is from the movie "The Man Who Wasn't There")
So what kind of structure we're talking about? |
Marakanetz...I don't claim extensive knowledge about musical structure, but I do know that rule sets provide a framework for composition. There are different rule sets...for example not all music uses an 8-note scale.
For most people, the most obvious rule relates to dissonance. Some combinations of notes are accepted as sounding pleasant, while others are dissonant. Of course, the definition of dissonance has changed over time, and the occasional introduction of a dissonant note adds spice to the music, but a piece composed entirely of dissonance is not pleasant. (I think that most people would agree with this, but a few may not).
Contrary to what Seurat states, I do think that music is intended to be enjoyment for the listener...not an exercise in sonic exploration for the composer and performers.
PS: I pulled out my "Chant" CD and started to play it, but the wife told me to can it and play some Christmas music. A lttle of that goes a long way too. |
The question of art is a valid one particularly in a post modern world where the aesthetics of art is blurred by the culture that surrounds us. That is culture and its definitions are no longer top-down arguments but bottom-up. We see now that quilting is art and not a cultural artifact even if it is pleasing or interesting. Art should never make us happy, in fact the opposite, it should be disquieting. Let's take Mozart, very inventive as far as his use of the materials at hand ( the diatonic scales, that is the forms at hand), but most of his works was and still is dinner music, pleasing to the ear and makes digestion of the food and wine very palpable for the royality he was serving. As court composer that was his job, no matter how creative he was and he was surely the best at it. However his operas and his very late string quartets and maybe his very last symphony were truly into the realm of high art. Here he truly expressed himself within the context of his millieu, the Spirit(Hegelian/Kant spirit) of the ages. He connected very well with the audience he intended, their situation in life, their concerns, using music to convey their Spirit.
Let me digress a little. The Enlightenment spawned a multitude of ideas, but principly two that were monumental: democracy and capitalism. The rise of both created the rise of the middle class, the age of Beethoven and beyond. But Capitalism has its price, it was and is still not a free ride. Capitalism in its attempt to conquer nature, which it has down quite successfully, has created a lifeless middle class, because man who is part of nature too has conquered itself. This conquered nature has created our alienation (I am just as guilty as the next) from the nature that we long for. We shallowly attempt to connect again within the confinds of what we have created, Capitalism. We have become the Great Consuming world, trying to come to grips of with our alienation. Since Schoenberg (at least musically) and maybe even Mahler, the great artists regard this alienation as what they are trying to express in their music. Not everybody and everything, but it surely is the underlying idea for many of them, and they surely get their point across. And not every musical piece should or can be as pleasing as a quilt. If not then what is the point of music in general?? |
WNYC-FM (93.9) plays modern classical music.
WKCR (89.9) Columbia University in NYC plays modern classical music though it is not a full-time classical outlet. |
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. |
Eldartford,
We're in the world of different events and subjects. We're in the world of a different languages.
Music is also a language or sonic form of such. Every tact is a word and every group of such may be a "phrase" or "sentence" not neccessarily sonic exploration or an exersise. There's not only the Blue Danube or Nutcracker, there's an industry, machines, trains etc...
I personally like when I can distinguish "phrases" or "sentences" there; reprising in musical compositions is a big +. For example Phillip Johnston's music to the movie "Unknown" falls onto that category. Despite its being played by 6-piece band I wouldn't categorize it to a jazz since there's too much order rather than an improvisation or blasting solos of every musician.
Start understanding Prokofiev and Shostakovitz first and than try Alf or Gorecki... |
Marakanetz... I like "Peter and the Wolf". Maybe that's a start :-) But that piece has lots of melodies that I can hum.
Your comparison of music to language does not advance your point of view. Languages are very structured, with a few irregular verbs, and the like. Speech that lacks structure is not a language. It's called "gibberish". |
Eldartford: Not all but 99% of modern classical music is structured. The notes are the same notes as Beethoven, that is C is still C (middle C is 256 hz). The stops are still the same. They use the same time signatures. It is just that they no longer use the diatonic scale strictly. Serialism of Berg and Webern though it sounds atonal is not per se. It uses all twelve notes equally, atonal works do not. Mahler and to some extent Wagner were chromatic, that is they went outside the diatonic system (major and minor scales) quite frequently. Liszt would sometimes use 11 different notes in the first 12 notes of one of his pieces, that surely is very chromatic and not very diatonic. One very interesting piece is Schnittke's Violin Sonata No.2, extremely atonal and extremely dissonant, but unbelievably emotional ( saw Gidon Kremer perform it in Philly two years ago), about 2/3rd's of the way through, the piano accompaniment loudly played the C chord from the C major scale.... it was so indescribly out of place...it seemed atonal! |
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? |
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? |
Lousyreeds1...On a different subject..I am curious, about your user name. Does it mean you can't sing, or do you have problems with your clarinet? |
|
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! |
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. |
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. |
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. Ive 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.pdfLohrmann 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. |
Lousyreeds1...Vocal cords are sometimes called "reeds", particularly in a derogatory sense. So I guess it must be the clarinet. |
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. |
Just a quick note of agreement on the Shostakovich quartets - not really as "modern" as what some are listening to here, but that's what makes them more "accessible". As Lousyreeds mentioned - the No.3 is a standout, IMO the Gabrieli Quartet on Decca or even London Treasury vinyl is spectacular both performance-wise and sonically.
Another recommendation in the modern, but not TOO modern, and still very tonal are Benjamin Britten's works, esp. Simple Symphony. |
For Shostakovich Quartets try the Borodin Q version on Melodiya. |
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 motifs 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 100s 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. |
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.
|
I am really happy that some people do like "modern" music. To each his own. My intent was to explore why such music draws so few fans, and why, at a time when orchestras face fiscal hard times, they persist in playing it, often to empty halls
Here is an experiment that would be interesting. Make a recording of an orchestra tuning up. See if you can promote it as a new composition. I bet you could! |
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. |
Lousyreeds1...Yes I have heard Copland"s "Rodeo", one of his more popular works, but I didn't know about his inspiration from tuning up. Of course, inspiration is not quite the same as the actual sound, which I still think could be passed off as a composition. |
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 |
John...I don't know why you and other modernists assume that I have not listened to modern music, and seriously tried to grasp it. I think I pointed out that, like many, I initially disliked modern art, but over time came to appreciate some aspects of it. Just not so with music. (I have been at it (serious music appreciation) for almost sixty years).
Atonal is just one aspect of the music that I find objectionable. |
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 |
John...My initial posting describes how it evolved from a listening session. Without going into all the details..."If I can't hum it I don't like it". This phrase may sound simplistic, but it concisely states the opinion of most (not all) people. |
"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.
|
"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. |
Robm321...You are absolutely correct about Beethoven's late chamber music. At the time he was deaf. |
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. |
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 |
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 |
A funny thing happened yesterday. A radio station that I often listen to was playing some of "that" music. I was in my car, and parked it to go into a store. When I came back the radio program really grabbed my attention. It was just an awful noise, sounding much like a CD that is skipping, combined with a radio being quickly tuned from one station to another. "AH", I thought..."This is really over the top. I will stay tuned, and find out what the name of this piece is so I can tell you guys about it".
After about a minute an announcer came on and apologized for the network technical problems. For what? It sounded like new music. You could have fooled me.
True story.
. |
Says a lot more about you as a listener than about "'that' music", as you so degradingly call it... |
Lousyreeds1...I can agree with that. It says that I am not too proud to admit that I can't appreciate most modern music. I could pretend, as many seeking acceptance do, but that would not be me.
By the way, the sounds resulting from the "technical difficulties" really were not far from some compositions that I have heard. I am not the only one who could be fooled. |
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? |
