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
Rob, that is the statement i was getting at....
But that could be a circular argument, and applied to many art forms. But I think its a bit of a musical isolationist point of view...
I think you can learn to appreciate the modern classical stuff without trying so hard.. Sometimes just occassional revisits thru some time does the trick...I started appreciating lots of it from buying LP's from a collector friend who has a classical radio show in Atlanta,,,as we listened to some of it, he gave me context for the music,,,although there is some music that even I cant get into (at least for now), especially some of the modern music put forth by the Nonesuch label.. |
I understand the arguments of the people who do not care for modern classicl music.One can never dictate a specific taste towards others.That being said,if you feel you can't warm up to modern stuff,you obviously won't try to give yourself any additional exposure to it.Human nature!Well,sadly for those who can't/won't delve further into the realm,you are really losing out on some fun,and wonderful stuff!Not all modern compositions fall into the "delerious" sounding category.Also,as much as I like Crumb(I also love all early classical forms,but NEED to keep moving on in my quest for new musical experiences),he is not the starting point for someone wanting to add some new exposure to their musical life(though there is nothing wrong with that).Why not begin with some,a bit more recognizable music,like Copland or Stravinsky.Even some Shostokovich.I,actually "think" I got the bug,after seeing the movie "Close Encounters of The Third Kind",and bought the soundtrack.Now,whenever I go to a movie,I make a conscious effort to listen to the soundtrack,though most really suck,and I'm not a soundtrack collector!It's a good way to get some exposure to certain new composers.Bernard Hermann was a fabulous,and accessable composer.Anyone liking the "Twilight Zone" tv series has heard his stuff before.Like I said,if you cut off your exposure based on some bad experiences,you will ultimately lose out!!Best of luck to all!
|
Lousyreeds1...Agreed that a piece which ends quietly, (which is not that common) might have applause delayed slightly, but not 3-5 seconds. Also, "modern" music often ends just as loud as any other kind.
"Random" probably was the wrong word. As one who has some familiarity with statistics, I ought to have said "pseudorandom". Pseudorandom is a sequence which appears to be random, but which actually is generated by an underlying algorithm.
Give me the title of one recommended book. |
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. |
Rob your point is easy to understand:
A classical music as well as modern classical music and also many sophisticated types of rock, jazz is harder to understand and digest than a simple mambo or Beatles or another words pop. Hence the popularity could be waged accordingly.
Centuries ago there also were ministrels and street musicians that had been fare less complicated than Pastoral symphony.
Take in consideration Strauss who's music was simple compared to the composers of his time...
Can you compare Strauss to Kronos Quartet?
If you start researching Russian post-classical composers you will definitely feel an evolution i.e. progressive development and even to say enterprenurial movements that hadn't been thought of in the era of the classical music... |
Good discussion by the way.
It's nice to see a thread about actual "music" and not equipment on Audiogon.
Rob |
Lousyreeds1..."Follow the music". What do I mean is a fair question.
At any point in the music, at the end of a phrase, there are a great number of "answering" phrases that will "sound right" according to classical rules of composition. The composer keeps my interest by weaving his way through all the possibilities in an innovative way, but never veering off into the weeds. I don't want one musical phrase to be followed by a random assortment of notes, having little or no relationship to what went before.
I am not "intrigued by modern music" but I am curious about it and why people like/dislike it. One professional violist I know plays it because it is a job, and nothing more. |
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! |
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 shouldnt have to take an appreciation course on modern classical music just to enjoy it.
Thats my uneducated theory on why modern classical music is so unpopular compared to the previous 300 years. Im not saying its 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 dont feel obligated to listen out of charity.
Rob
|
Modern classical music should be considered as a result of let's say derivative or even evolution of so known to us Mozart, Bethoven, Lizst, Chopin etc...
In many works of Pat Metheny very often you can hear instead of improvisation the strict musical order that is more belong to a classical music than jazz. Hence some of his pieces you can also relate to a modern classics. Check his "Secret Story" album where you won't ever miss Mozart...
You should also check the solo works of Roger Eno who I think took a lot from post-classical pianist Skryabin. |
Rob, your post makes no sense...are you saying that then all modern composers should just take another job? |
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 |
Eldatford,Great post!Though I,also like to dissect my numerous performances of similar music,I have foud that my approach to music is like my approach to food.I love the new experiences,awaiting me if I'm daring.Maybe that's why I have to watch my waistline!Best regards! |
sirspeedy70680@earthlink.net...With the kind of classical music that I like the ending is easy to recognize even it I am not familiar with the piece, because certain rules of composition are observed. Some might say this makes it boring. But it allows you to better "follow" the music throughout- not just at the end. As to multiple recordings of the same piece, I find this one of the most interesting things about classical music. Different conductors and soloists bring different interpretations, providing insight into the music. I will sometimes play, for example, one movement of a violin concerto played by several soloists, and it is surprising how different they can be. (Is this the dreaded A/B test method!!) Of course in popular music recording other people's stuff is SOP, called a "cover".
I have been trying to appreciate "modern" music for several decades, with little success. This is in contrast to "modern" art, where my initial disgust has been tempered over the years.
If you really like it, that's great. Enjoy. (And try to clap sooner :-) |
Hey,I can understand your point,but when you hear a new song,or melody for the first time,you have to wait a moment at end,to realize it's over.Quite normal IMO!The problem with "classic" classical music(which I love)is that everyone coming down the pike has to take a crack at it.Do I really need every "New" artist recording the same repertoire,over and over again.How many Beetoven Symphonies do I need,recorded by every orchestra in existence?Could you imagine ALL new rock artists starting out recording the Beatles,or Stones,over and over again.
There are some absolutely great(and total fun)new music experiences(some call it Avante Garde).Try the "Bang on A Can" series cd's.Try some of the newer John Zorn stuff(particularly his film series.Rouse/Bazelon/Lou Harrison/George Crumb/Jenny Scheinman/Elliot Carter/Ernst Toch(very approachable)/even some of the later Frank Zappa(Yellow Shark is a good starting point.There is SO much great and fun(demo quality sound,as well)new "classical" music out there,many new artists are incorporating newer types of instruments(electronic and unusual),that what I love to do,and it is FREE,is to go to a Barnes and Noble,source one of the newer Fanfare or American Record guides(even one of the British music mags,like Grammaphone)and go to the "computerized"listening stations.Dial up the desired music,and you can spend hours,having a ball,discovering the wealth of stuff available to us all!!
Best of luck! |
I agree with previous posts that modern classical music needs deeper understanding and "gettin' used to".
For those who wants to get a starting point of modern classics I'd recommend Michael Nyman. |
Not to trying to be a know it all, but the John Cage piece discussed is actually 4:33 and I find it quite lovely
....And what a difference those eleven extra seconds must make! Ever since I thought to mention that tune this morning I can't get it out of my head...it just keeps repeating itself over and over. I can't stop it! Doesn't it just drive you nuts when that happens. I can't recall how those last 11 seconds go though! Marco |
Jax2...No I haven't heard that one, but I guess noone else has either. And, believe it or not I do know who Philip Glass is, and his tonal wanderings are quite nice. Now, if he could just think of a melody, and get some rhythm we might have something!
Pragmatist...Of course the applause is deserved by the musicians. I note only the hesitation, and guess that it is because they don't know if it's over or not.
Hodie...An appreciative or stunned silence is another possibility. But superb performances of older pieces don't exhibit the hesitant applause, so I doubt that explanation. |
Ejlif, I not only agree with you I would suggest that it may be his best composition. :-) |
Not to trying to be a know it all, but the John Cage piece discussed is actually 4:33 and I find it quite lovely |
I've noticed that audiences in different countries have different customs when it comes to applause. In some places it seems to be customary to allow a few seconds' respectful silence before beginning to applaud. I even remember one concert in Berlin where members of the audience who applauded prematurely were shamed into silence. And it wasn't that the rest of the audience didn't like the performance -- in fact, when the silence finally broke it was followed by a prolonged standing ovation.
It's possible that the difference you noticed has more to do with the habits of a particular audience than with their feelings about the music itself.
|
Another possibility is that the audience does not like it,but once several start to applaud,others do,to compliment the players.
I like 20th century harmony(Bartok,Stavinsky,Hindemith,etc) but atonality is beyond me. I'm a creature of tonic,dominant,tonic harmonic structures. |
Good one, Aceto.
I wonder, Eldartford, whether that was an appreciative silence, or a stunned, Is that it? silence. Isn't it funny that much music composed seventy, eighty ago is still called modern. I love the idea of an orchestral piece causing a riot among listeners in the hall. Now, there you have citizens who know what it's important to fight about. At about 4:23 I'd probably be laying about with my bumbershoot as well. |
KNOCKKNOCKWHO´STHEREPHILLIPGLASSKNOCKKNOCKWHO´STHEREPHILLIPGLASSKNOCKKNOCK |
I had a hard time with modern classical, but without even trying, I started feeling the music of Bartok and company....
Its all due to familiarity and patience,,,you cant sit and try to get it...slowly, even heard as background music is more helpful... |
At the end, there was a dead silence of 3 to 5 seconds before audience applause. 3-5 seconds?! You call that a "pause"?! Check out the seldom performed (especially on the radio) piece by John Cage titled 4:22. In it an entire orchestra takes the stage and for 4 minutes and 22 seconds does not make a sound, then they leave the stage. I'd bet the applause on that one can be delayed too. Never had the pleasure of attending a performance though. Actually there are some modern composers I really do like. Arvo Part comes to mind. Some pieces by Phillip Glass are quite lovely. Gavin Bryars stuff is out there and yet somehow moves me. The Rachel's are another group who use their backgrounds in classical music to compose and perform music that defies conventional classification. I do like Motzart too! Beethoven, even! Do you recall what it was you were listening to on the radio Eldartford? Marco |
All this silence signifies to me is a possible choice made by the recording engineer. Frankly I can't even think of a good reason for including audience applause on recordings. I'm certainly not impressed by the applause and bravos at live performances except in noting how indiscriminate it is.
I'm not sure what you are referring to as 'modern classical'. I could probably share with you your lack of appreciation for a lot of stuff composed between the 30's and the 80's which is atonal and achedemic, but if your appreciation actually does stop with 'Mozart and his ilk' because of a lack of thorough exploration of music composed between Mozarts times and, lets say Stravinski's, your missing some of classical music's greatest offerings. There are also some neo-romantics who composed after the 30's who recieved no recognition until recent years whose music is very assessible and tonal.
But, since you're an admitted old fart you probably already know that...I'm just offering this to others who might assume too much from your implied judgment of modern classical music. :-) |
Much modern classicial doesn't resort to the standard and obvious endings of the older classics. So what? Besides which, people are less familiar with it. |
