An observation about "Modern" classical music.

Lousyreeds1...Vocal cords are sometimes called "reeds", particularly in a derogatory sense. So I guess it must be the clarinet.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Can't sing?

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?

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?

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?

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!

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,

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...

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.

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.

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??

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!!!

"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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Robm321: hmmm....done right.....hmmm, what does that mean?An audience has nothing to do with it. Either music as art stands or falls on being autonomous. If it is a slave of fashion then it is not autonomous and therefore not art. In fact, there has been only one time in history that musical art and popularity coincided, the early 19th century. This also coincided with the rise of the middle class and its attitudes towards all art, the period of Beethoven(and only Beethoven)the first of the autonomous composers. And once the middle class made classical music...well... middle class, Classical music as art music had to become even more autonomous from the crudeness of the middle class. But it is more than alienation from the middle class, it had to do with what art itself sees, a metaphor for the human condition. If Beethoven was the voice of the rise of the middle class, then someone like Schnittke has to show the alienation of man in light of his conquering of nature itself through the processes developed in the Enlightenment. And boy can Schnittke show the aesthetics of alienation through his music.

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.

Sorry I did not see this post until now. Great modern music is still being made and much of it is ascetic and atonal. Much of it, and just like all music 90%, is not very good, but that 10%....!

Technically playing modern classical is extremely demanding on both the listener and the players. For most people these days classical music is an acquired taste and modern classical music is even more of an acquired taste for both the players and the listner. But in the end it is highly subjective whether the ends justifies the means. I happened to believe it is well worth the effort. And most players do too, at least the ones I have talked with. Because in these cases, the composer and the musicians can talk about the performance together, and actually change things around if need be. It was quite informative talking with Gidon Kremer after his performance of Schnitke's 2nd Violin Sonata, and how the two made a few changes that would enhance the performance and enhance the piece aestetically. He showed me his score, with all the changes marked that the two had made. You cannot say that about a Beethoven or Schubert piece at all. Beethoven who was a great pianist never played his sonatas the same way twice, he did not follow his own markings! OK so who is say which way is correct, good question.

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 aestetically involving.

BTW, what radio station plays Modern classical music, I would love to know that one!!!

You've got to try some of Webern's early works (his lieders for instance) and then move slowly up in time. 20th century music will probably never be your favorite but I can promise you'll do some wonderfull discoveries. When you're in that mood, nothing comes close to it.

Gabbro: Would The Minute Waltz be a proper encoure?

Imagine an encore for 4:33.
..........................................

Ooops...Stravinsky

Stravinski was right, being a duck is the norm. The new stuff doesn't come to you, you have to go to it. There's always something to learn in order to get it when an artform pushes into a new area. Varese probably won't be on anyone's top 40 after a first listen. A little humility and attentivness often pays off when you feel blindsided... Who was that dumb ass who gave Miles Davis/On The Corner, or Zappa's Bongo Fury 2.5 stars in Downbeat?

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.

Eldartford, I'm very sympathetic to your feelings about 'modern' music, which you may have gathered from my previous post. They was a lot of crap purveyed in the last 50 years that shouldn't have seen the light of day, and perhaps a better screening process should have been effected by the conductors. I would even suggest that the prolifferation of that stuff did more to empty concert calls than to fill them. HOWEVER, we do risk never hearing music that is new and worthwhile, as for example, The Rites of Spring, absolutely hated at its premier more because it was new, not understood, not traditional, not melodic, ad infinitum, but has now taken its place as one of our century's important works. Who is to judge?

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.

Lousyreeds1...I hate to sound so negative, but I do see the nature of "modern" and "new" music to be a problem. MOST modern music I should add. There is some new work that is OK. I agree that people like Levine should support current composers. My complaint is what the composers do with that support. Why can't they compose in an idiom that is more widely appreciated?

You mention that it is customary to mix old and new music in a program. Let me point out another fact for consideration...when some new composition appears along with the Beethoven symphony, which one goes first? The new piece, always. People will sit through it so as to hear Beethoven, but if Beethoven went first the hall would be half empty after intermission.

Music seems to be the only venture where the customer is not always right.

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.

Lousyreeds1...Thanks. I will look for that book.

Our local newspaper, The Berkshire Eagle, has a big story today about how James Levine, the new conductor of the Boston Symphony is planning to redirect the BSO, and the Tanglewood music festival program so as to put emphasis on "new music". I predict that this will be a financial mistake. Actual experience with years of Tanglewood attendance indicates that Mozart concerts are invariably very well attended, while "modern music" plays to empty seats. (James Taylor just was sold out completely for two consecutive nights - no space even on the grass - but that is another whole world).

When I first moved to this area, about 40 years ago, the BSO played a short series of "Bach/Mozart" concerts, using only about half the orchestra. These concerts were really beloved by the local people, and it was a sad day when the program was eliminated.

I like my odds better Jsujo LOL

Good deal Rob, and I will try to like Annie Hall...;-)

A basics of a music grammar for all music lovers could make a large improvement on understanding and appreciating classical music and modern classical music as well.

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

Rob,,,i actually felt the same way about Woody Allen movies...I felt they were too much intellect and not enough emotion or candor.

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, in his day Beethoven was considered dissonant and unlistenable. Maybe in a few hundred years I can learn to like modern music.

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