nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Modern music question

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Doshea3

Some people just don't "get" 20th-century music. I have a relative who is an avid opera and classical music fan and who took a degree late in life in opera studies. However, she has a complete phobia of any music after Mahler (and is one of these people who makes uncomfortable noises when you say the word "Schoenberg").

I recall my first experience of Schoenberg's atonal music, which was the Phantasie for Violin and Piano as performed by Glenn Gould and Yehudi Menuhin. I had to turn it off because I just couldn't stand listening to it. Though eventually, as I became more open-minded and interested, I began to appreciate it bit by bit.

I was always surprised about the violent reactions even music students had to hearing 20th century music played to them. One of our college lecturers (incidentally a Schoenberg fanatic) had an interesting theory about post-tonal music and its effect on people. She suggested that atonal music (in the definition of music with no sense of tonal centre or construction) is only offensive to the ears of those who have no experience of it—and that given time we can easily get used to it. She tried an experiment whereby for weeks and weeks she listened only to post-tonal music, and resolutely avoided anything tonal. After this, she came back to listen to Mahler and found it so revolting that it almost made her physically sick.

So I think this proves that people have to be open-minded enough to give modern music a chance before they can appreciate it. And perhaps that does require some explanation and even attempts at vindication to those less open-minded than ourselves.

The Mad Hatter

As an addendum to what Doshea3 has said, I'd add that it's a good idea to start easy. You'd have far more success introducing Bach through something like the Brandenburgs than the Well-Tempered Clavier (as wonderful as the latter work is), and equally, it'll always be easier for people to start off on modern music through relatively straightforward stuff. Try Ligeti's Sonata for Solo Cello, for instance, or Schoenberg's Verklarte Nacht. Prokofiev and Shostakovich are good places to go as well, and you could try one or both of Jonny Greenwood's film soundtracks.

Also, bear in mind that not all modern music is atonal.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Mad Hatter

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Haha! Nice work!

Definitely Stravinsky is a good place to start. Didn't actually know he wrote a violin concerto.

Sandwich

I tried but gave up. Life's too short.

Mahler? Classical music all went downhill after Brahms.

The Mad Hatter

Sandwich wrote: »

I tried but gave up. Life's too short.

Mahler? Classical music all went downhill after Brahms.

*It's ok. It's ok. S/he doesn't know. Calm down.*

*deep breaths*

Norrdeth

On the topic of modern music, anybody else go to the Johnston, Kanceli, Higdon and MacMillan concert on Friday? What'd you think of the pieces?
Personally I loved the Percussion concerto, twas amazing! Also the Johnston and Kanceli, the MacMillan was cool also.

funky penguin

Sandwich wrote: »

I tried but gave up. Life's too short.

Mahler? Classical music all went downhill after Brahms.

Seriously?

Sandwich

funky penguin wrote: »

Seriously?

Very seriously.

Which is not to say that there is not worthwhile music after JB, just a gradual decline in quality and development.

A fine effort, but unfortunatley the dying kick came from Stravinsky, before classical music had truly run its course and just went 'blue screen' with Stockhausen, Cage, Messiaen, Varese etc. as they struggled in desperation to find a way forward.

Jazz (tho Im no particular expert or fan) was the inspired musical development of the 20th century, whereas the classical strand had just run up a blind alley and still hasnt found a way out (if there is one).

Luckily the consequences are low for us - the classical heritage has left us with more than enough music to last the typical afficonado a lifetime.

Norrdeth

Pfffft if I had to listen to Common practice harmony my whole life i think i'd kill myself.

Debussy,
Dvorak,
Ravel,
Mahler,
Vaughan Williams.
all highly developed styles

funky penguin

Sandwich wrote: »

Very seriously.

Which is not to say that there is not worthwhile music after JB, just a gradual decline in quality and development.

A fine effort, but unfortunatley the dying kick came from Stravinsky, before classical music had truly run its course and just went 'blue screen' with Stockhausen, Cage, Messiaen, Varese etc. as they struggled in desperation to find a way forward.

Jazz (tho Im no particular expert or fan) was the inspired musical development of the 20th century, whereas the classical strand had just run up a blind alley and still hasnt found a way out (if there is one).

Luckily the consequences are low for us - the classical heritage has left us with more than enough music to last the typical afficonado a lifetime.

See, while you see that as a good thing, it is strangling contemporary music. Yes Bach was great and I love his music, but we seriously can't just listen to a select 300 years of music or so for the rest of our existence.

Okay. Over exaggeration.

Up until around Beethoven, the only music that was played (for the most part) was contemporary music by the then living composers. Personally I think we've been too heavily influenced by the Western school, and the canon. We are now too brainwashed to see the magnificent music that is being created today...

Such as the music that was held in the National Concert hall last Friday. Couldn't be there myself, but I heard a recording. Wow. I wish the NCH would do a completely contemporary programme more often....and more percussion!

By the way, have you ever listened to Debussy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3ch1GfmLkw

Rachmaninov?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxFI2cphuN0

Scriabin?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1dKhwrEK7o

Vaughn Williams?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c3XvNZ3ns4

Kodaly?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MEUIGjfHNw

Medtner?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnzh7jzlyQw

....Cage?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYsx5Di3bso

Ah, I could go on. Film music....minimalism....late 20th century choral...But it's sounding like a rant/lecture, so I apologise! It could be that you just don't like these kinds of music!

By the way, Norrdeth is sitting right beside me, stealing my suggestions... :P

The Mad Hatter

Sandwich wrote: »

Arse arse arse.

Wagner, Mahler, Sibelius, Janacek, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Britten, Reich, Ligeti, Lutoslawski, Messiaen, Skryabin...

I don't want to think what musical life would be like (at least for me) removing even one of them.

The markets for serious jazz and for contemporary classical are about the same size - but for some reason you seem to have decided that one of those is more musically important (whatever that means) than the other.

Sandwich

Have tried Rachmaninov, Vaughn Williams, Kodaly, Copland, Prokofiev, Satie, Gershwin, Kabalevsky, Britten and more.
Again, not suggesting there isnt fine and enjoyable music to be found over the last century, but the 1700 to 1900 boys just seem to have an overwhelming popular and critical approval that later composers dont seem to be able to touch.

Maybe it is that it just doesnt do it for me, and I'm missing out. Sticks on some Vivaldi and .....:)

BTW The Mad Hatter : Forged quotations are a bit under hand.

And Wagner predated Brahms.

funky penguin

Sandwich wrote: »

Have tried Rachmaninov, Vaughn Williams, Kodaly, Copland, Prokofiev, Satie, Gershwin, Kabalevsky, Britten and more.
Again, not suggesting there isnt fine and enjoyable music to be found over the last century, but the 1700 to 1900 boys just seem to have an overwhelming popular and critical approval that later composers dont seem to be able to touch.

Yes, they are overwhelmingly popular, but this is because of canonisation, the bane of contemporary music.

We really really need to start performing more contemporary music. It is a downright sin the amount of excellent music in the 20th the century (and this one!) that doesn't get performed.

I could go further! There are plenty of composers from the golden centuries of 1700-1900 that NEVER get performed.

I said it previously, and maybe it sounds a little extreme, but we are seriously brainwashed when it comes to "classical" music.

The Mad Hatter

Sandwich wrote: »

Have tried Rachmaninov, Vaughn Williams, Kodaly, Copland, Prokofiev, Satie, Gershwin, Kabalevsky, Britten and more.
Again, not suggesting there isnt fine and enjoyable music to be found over the last century, but the 1700 to 1900 boys just seem to have an overwhelming popular and critical approval that later composers dont seem to be able to touch.

Maybe it is that it just doesnt do it for me, and I'm missing out. Sticks on some Vivaldi and .....:)

BTW The Mad Hatter : Forged quotations are a bit under hand.

Sorry, I was messing a bit, but also somewhat frustrated as you're dismissing most of my favourite music.

Also, I honestly have never been able to understand the appeal of Vivaldi. I can't think of a more boring composer. If you're able to write a symphony quicker than the copyists can copy out the parts, then you're doing something wrong.

Try some more contemporary music. It will grow on you. (I used to be of a similar opinion to yours, when I was in college - and yes, you are missing out.) As to 'popular and critical approval', they generally seem to come over time as well. Beethoven's third and ninth symphonies, for instance, did not meet with critical approval at their premieres, despite how important they are seen as now.

And Wagner predated Brahms.

Right you are, sorry. I thought Brahms was earlier than that. *shrugs* Too long since I've done music history, I guess.

Sandwich

funky penguin wrote: »

we are seriously brainwashed when it comes to "classical" music.

But happily so!

Sticks on some Dall'Abaco and.......:)

funky penguin

You may be happy, but I'm not...

Norrdeth

funky penguin wrote: »

Such as the music that was held in the National Concert hall last Friday. Couldn't be there myself, but I heard a recording. Wow. I wish the NCH would do a completely contemporary programme more often....and more percussion

Yeah more NSO commissions!! *shakes fist*

ana ng

Ehm, some of the music here is not very modern really!

Debussy (1917) - 'Modern'

Harold Lloyd (1917) - Modern?

Context is everything I suppose though...

funky penguin

True really. We are getting so pre-occupied with classifications that we're now in, what? - the post-post-post modern era of music?

It made the 20th music module last semester very confusing!

Contemporary is a preferred word I'd say.

Also, I'm just looking at my rant on how we should perform for contemp. music then I look at my thread on what I'm currently studying - three romantic style piano pieces!

/me goes looking for Medtner.

Heggy

Just an opinion from an outsider here.

Tastes will progress, as you get tired of the music you currently listen, as was said before, you can't just listen to the same thing forever, though it is often interesting to return once you've found yourself listening to different music for a while.
I know my taste seemed to just progress through time in stages.
-I liked Bach and Mozart, hadn't had much of Beethoven, Chopin sounded like a mess.
-Bored of most of Bach and Mozart(still love Requiem Dies Irae), absolutely love Beethoven (especially sonatas) Chopin, Liszt (not fond of the Transcental etudes yet though), Rachmaninoff and Shostakovich seemed a bit irritating, Debussy questionable.
-Still like what I liked then, but Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich, and Debussy all became more appealing. Only a half an hour ago did I hear some Stravinsky and find it quite interesting. And since 20th century seemed to be mentioned so much, what about ragtime.

It's all about progression of tastes, mine aren't particulary modern by any stretch but the progression is there. My idea of modern is firmly ground in things like that Sea Changes piece on the Leaving Cert music course (I don't do it but have heard it) It's pieces like that which can throw some people's perspective on modern music, because it seems so far detached from anything nice, but that's only my current opinion. My two cents.

The Raven.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Donegalfella, that is quite a task, and depends on how much time you wish to devote to it. It might take a while, depending on the listener.

Firstly, for the sake of clarity, I would avoid using the term ‘classical’ to describe what musicians, musicologists and historians refer to as ‘Western Art Music’. The classical period extended only from c. 1730/50 to 1820/25. While the term ‘classical music’ has gained currency to describe music from the Renaissance to the present, it is nevertheless confusing in serious musical discussion.

It would be difficult to ‘explain’ contemporary art music without engaging in a discussion of musical styles and a host of various other elements of musical composition. Like all periods in art history, it emerged as a reaction against the previous era. It subsequently evolved to such an extent that it often involves appreciation on an entirely different level.

I don’t really feel that we were brainwashed by the earlier musical styles. I find that children as young as four years old, when given the choice, are magnetically drawn to works by these composers, especially Mozart and Beethoven. They will also enjoy playing atonal music, although sometimes with a sense of humour.

I find it strange that Gubaidulina’s In tempus praesens is played after the Bach concertos on the recording, as the Bach effect on the ear makes it difficult to appreciate a sudden jump to that particular work.

Finally, as an introduction to modern art music, I would begin more gently with perhaps easier (less atonal) listening, such as the minimalist music of composers like Philip Glass, Terry Riley, Arvo Pärt or Steve Reich.

Philip Glass: Violin Concerto No.1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB0wHIC0NS0

G Song - Terry Riley and Kronos Quartet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc3Z83whwus&feature=related

Arvo Part: Fratres (1/2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj9TmlpSxx0&feature=related

Neoquartet, Different trains - Steve Reich, Gdańsk Łaźnia 01
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epBtGy9BVSA

I have suggested these works merely as an introduction. I am not a minimalist composer as such, but I wouldn’t rule it out. I like to work in a wide variety of genres.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cornbb

Wow, I wish I'd found this thread ages ago

20th century music is a very mixed bag compared to what became before it - for centuries before everything evolved in a linear and fairly predictable manner and then around a hundred years ago there was sort of an explosion and a massive divergence of styles and radical new ideas. Much of this new music is alien and very demanding, and what one person finds fascinating and exciting might be jarring and unlistenable to the next person. I reject the notion that something was somehow "lost" during this divergence of styles - there is surely something for everyone in 20th century music. I think the impact of minimalism in particular will be felt for centuries to come - it's already had an immeasurable impact on electronic and popular music. Atonality has led us down a few blind alleys but that's not to say there wasn't some cool stuff there too.

I'd support the suggestion here that minimalism is by far the most accessible style of new music (I'll give suggestions of good works for each composer) - Steve Reich (Music for 18 Musicians or Electric Counterpoint), Philip Glass (Metamorphosis), Arvo Part (Tabula Rasa) and John Adams are among my favourites there. I'd strongly suggest listening to some Reich, its very accessible and (almost) everyone loves it from the word go! Going back a bit earlier, I enjoy many works by Satie (Gymnopedies), Debussy (La Mer), Stravinsky (Rite of Spring), Vaughn Williams (Sinfonia Antartica) and Mahler (2nd Symphony). I would consider all of these to be quite accessible, although of course some people would like some pieces more than others.

If you are feeling a little more adventurous you could check out the likes of Morton Feldman (Coptic Light), Shostakovich (String Quartet no. 12) or Lygeti (Clockwork Orange OST).

And if you are feeling even more adventurous you could check out some serialism/serious atonal stuff like Schoenberg, Berg or Webern. Later in the century, more avant-garde stuff would consist of the likes of John Cage (Imaginary Landscapes), Iannis Xenakis or Stockhausen (Stockhausen is supposedly a big deal but I'm not a fan at all tbh).

Feel free to visit the Experimental Music forum to chat about some of these.. we've had threads on several of the pieces I've mentioned. For some examples see #1, 2, 3 and 6 here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055375729

Happy listening!