Opinions on modern music
- Thread starter Althea
- Start date
hmm... jazz you say? hmm... that would have to be because of the instrumentation? or? - doesn't have an especially jazzy-feeling to me... maybe you can elaborate on your "jazz"
- how do you go about making the math-part of "music" such as this? do tell... I find it rather fascinating actually
I guess you've used Zell for this one too?
hitsware
Member
hmm... jazz you say? hmm... that would have to be because of the instrumentation? or? - doesn't have an especially jazzy-feeling to me... maybe you can elaborate on your "jazz"- how do you go about making the math-part of "music" such as this? do tell... I find it rather fascinating actuallyI guess you've used Zell for this one too?
You may be right
It's avante garde classical
Seems 'jazzy' to me because of the syncopated bass against the solid ride cymbal. And the atonality (though not all jazz is anything near atonal, much of the older be-bop type stuff gets pretty far out) The math part comes from my use of just intonation type composition. With midi it would have to be called 'quasi just' because I use the standard scale but derive the notes mathematically.
for C major: (numerical ratios)
6=c , 8=f , 9=g
3 , 4, 5 = major triad
so:
3x6=18=g.....3x8=24=c.......3x9=27=d
4x6=24=c.....4x8=32=f.......4x9=36=g
5x6=30=e.....5x8=40=a.......5x9=45=b
etc.........etc.......
madoherty
New member
I am working on a smaller stream of my works for you to stream, or down-load.
for now I have posted a 32Kb/s version of a clip from a work that has recently been completed called ARCHITECTURE.
www.michaeladoherty.com
click on the "Sound" link and then chose "32kbs" next to the title of the work.
I will be working on low bit resolutions of "Ten Words..." and the "Noise Pieces" in the coming days.
Take care all...
for now I have posted a 32Kb/s version of a clip from a work that has recently been completed called ARCHITECTURE.
www.michaeladoherty.com
click on the "Sound" link and then chose "32kbs" next to the title of the work.
I will be working on low bit resolutions of "Ten Words..." and the "Noise Pieces" in the coming days.
Take care all...
hitsware
Member
Way Cool ! You must be 1 mile high
You've Transcended Melody
Here's me from the other end:
Trying to develope melody from random numbers....
My best shot so far:
http://zelsoftware.com/Contrib/polyrhythm2.mid
You've Transcended Melody
Here's me from the other end:
Trying to develope melody from random numbers....
My best shot so far:
http://zelsoftware.com/Contrib/polyrhythm2.mid
McVities
New member
Yo! a newbie! I'm a (sort of) composer, and I was interested to read some of the earlier posts to this thread, I see there havn't been any posts recently anyway so perhaps this will revive the debate!
I was just wondering where people think that "serious" music (please don't start that argument again!) is going now. I personally find it very hard to be innovative in my compositions, I seem to have adopted a sort of Late Romantic style combine with features of modalism and Neo-classicism, so as you can see, nothing new, just a combo of the old. I started thinking, music gradually evolved over the centuries and rules were invented culminating in the Baroque period where ultimate order in terms of composition was achieved, and then these rule broke down until now, and we have ultimate chaos again. Taking into account the two other most popular periods of music, Classical and Romantic, you could say that the Baroque was the period of ultimate order, and the Romantic was the period of ultimate Expression. The classical period would then logically be the ultimate compromise between order and expression, form and elegance, or as Haydn himself said "A balance of the Emotions and the Intellect". This dissolved down to the approach now that not only are there any rules, that even expressionism and impressionism are becoming obsolete, to the extent that melody/harmony/rhythm are distorted beyond recognition of even the first period of musical chaos before the "rise". Now literally any combination of frequencies and wave-patterns is used (and I'm not only referring to electronic but acoustic music as well) even a designated period of silence and NO sound is "written" and then published, sold and "performed", one can't help but ask, where from here?
I was just wondering where people think that "serious" music (please don't start that argument again!) is going now. I personally find it very hard to be innovative in my compositions, I seem to have adopted a sort of Late Romantic style combine with features of modalism and Neo-classicism, so as you can see, nothing new, just a combo of the old. I started thinking, music gradually evolved over the centuries and rules were invented culminating in the Baroque period where ultimate order in terms of composition was achieved, and then these rule broke down until now, and we have ultimate chaos again. Taking into account the two other most popular periods of music, Classical and Romantic, you could say that the Baroque was the period of ultimate order, and the Romantic was the period of ultimate Expression. The classical period would then logically be the ultimate compromise between order and expression, form and elegance, or as Haydn himself said "A balance of the Emotions and the Intellect". This dissolved down to the approach now that not only are there any rules, that even expressionism and impressionism are becoming obsolete, to the extent that melody/harmony/rhythm are distorted beyond recognition of even the first period of musical chaos before the "rise". Now literally any combination of frequencies and wave-patterns is used (and I'm not only referring to electronic but acoustic music as well) even a designated period of silence and NO sound is "written" and then published, sold and "performed", one can't help but ask, where from here?
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
one should begin from where one is. to look within and see what there is, to start from sctrach, in ones own way.
Anonymous - what pray tell do you mean by that in answering the post of McVities... subtlety is not bad but this just doesn't make sence for me... - anyone?
McVities - interesting post, I'll return with a (insightfull) respons
later...
McVities - interesting post, I'll return with a (insightfull) respons
McVities
New member
Yeah, um I respect other peoples beliefs and that, but I looked within, and it wasn't pleasant. I think I've got the beginnings of Cholestorol build up, not much inspiration really.
Hmm. I keep thinking of something Beethoven said when Eroica was being rehearsed. I think he said "The truth is I have taken a new direction with this composition, a new path through the woods" to which the reply was "What was wrong with the old path" well, the old path is worn, some people say completely worn out. But what new paths to take, when all the trees have been cut down?
Ooh, I think i'm getting a bit philosophical!
Hmm. I keep thinking of something Beethoven said when Eroica was being rehearsed. I think he said "The truth is I have taken a new direction with this composition, a new path through the woods" to which the reply was "What was wrong with the old path" well, the old path is worn, some people say completely worn out. But what new paths to take, when all the trees have been cut down?
Ooh, I think i'm getting a bit philosophical!
theMusicMan
New member
Some great replies here... good reading.
I suppose it all depends on what you define as Modern Music. In the literal sense, and applying this to a broad range of genres, moderm music does seem to have a greater use of dischordant and not-so-harmonic melody and support lines, as well as what some might call odd time signatures.
Here's an interesteing one - A few years ago I played in a brass ensemble (10 of us there) at a friends wedding, the piece the bride wanted to walk down the aisle to was not the usual Bridal March, but a piece called Serenade by a composer by the name of Derek Borgeouis. Nothing so strange about this I hear you say, but, the funny thing was, the time signature in that piece alternates from 7/8, 11/8, 13/8 etc... you try marching down the aisle to something like that. It certainly made all the guests at the wedding listen intently to what was being played.
The use of dischordant lines or odd time sigs is sometimes perceived as againts the grain by what some might call the traditionalist listeners. Personally, I love moern music. I thoroughly enjoyed playing a piece where each bar was a different time signature - made for a very enjoyable piece to play and listen to.
I love challenging the norm when it comes to music. Music is entirely subjective - what one person loves is another persons poison. A lot of modern music, especially when applied to the classical music genre, does just that - it challenges traditionalist thinking. More, more, more, I say...
I suppose it all depends on what you define as Modern Music. In the literal sense, and applying this to a broad range of genres, moderm music does seem to have a greater use of dischordant and not-so-harmonic melody and support lines, as well as what some might call odd time signatures.
Here's an interesteing one - A few years ago I played in a brass ensemble (10 of us there) at a friends wedding, the piece the bride wanted to walk down the aisle to was not the usual Bridal March, but a piece called Serenade by a composer by the name of Derek Borgeouis. Nothing so strange about this I hear you say, but, the funny thing was, the time signature in that piece alternates from 7/8, 11/8, 13/8 etc... you try marching down the aisle to something like that. It certainly made all the guests at the wedding listen intently to what was being played.
The use of dischordant lines or odd time sigs is sometimes perceived as againts the grain by what some might call the traditionalist listeners. Personally, I love moern music. I thoroughly enjoyed playing a piece where each bar was a different time signature - made for a very enjoyable piece to play and listen to.
I love challenging the norm when it comes to music. Music is entirely subjective - what one person loves is another persons poison. A lot of modern music, especially when applied to the classical music genre, does just that - it challenges traditionalist thinking. More, more, more, I say...
McVities
New member
We've had regular time signatures, then irregular and astheMusicMan astutely pointed out, changing time signatures. What happens when this is considered "traditionalist thinking"? No time signature? we've had that. I cannot see any ways to be innovative anymore, interesting and imaginative yes, enjoyable indeed, but truly innovative?
Apparently, I'm a baby violin
I play Cello!
Apparently, I'm a baby violin
Last edited by a moderator:
Flute Divo
New member
if I would think of reasons to include modern music on public concerts, one of the most apparent reasons would be to continue the tradition of the arts going hand in hand with the changes of advancing modern societies. Music itself and composers in particular have always provided a mirror of human creativity, social change, the polictical landscape (stability or lack of it) reflective of the lives lived by people in any age.. A sort of time chronicle. Think even of how since 1600's the march of harmonic freedom and tolerance in music reflects a level of human tolerance over time and place and in all musical forms.
In regard to contemporay classical music composed in the last 30 years , concert goers have been literally left out of the creative process of the composer and the performers. Classical music concerts are notorious for keeping the audience uninvolved by throwing them handouts and program notes. We need to start talking to audience from our hearts about this music what it means, how it was created, the passion behind it and whats in it for the listener.
Poeple gravitate to pop artists for the simple fact they feel included in the process and that the music and the concert has been prepared for them. People want to have a good time in listening and even music the might not understand can provoke their engaged response (positive or negative) if you make them feel a part of what's going on.
Conductors,composers,orchestra moderators and performance artists need to open their mouths and lead people into our passion for what we do. If not ,we can never hope to attract new audience to art form. In a rock concert 30,000 people can be engaged for hours, yet in a concert hall 0f 2,000 half the audience walks out when the contemporary piece is played or many never came at all because of the comtemporary piece was on the program . The wake up call to speak about modern music has never been louder.
In regard to contemporay classical music composed in the last 30 years , concert goers have been literally left out of the creative process of the composer and the performers. Classical music concerts are notorious for keeping the audience uninvolved by throwing them handouts and program notes. We need to start talking to audience from our hearts about this music what it means, how it was created, the passion behind it and whats in it for the listener.
Poeple gravitate to pop artists for the simple fact they feel included in the process and that the music and the concert has been prepared for them. People want to have a good time in listening and even music the might not understand can provoke their engaged response (positive or negative) if you make them feel a part of what's going on.
Conductors,composers,orchestra moderators and performance artists need to open their mouths and lead people into our passion for what we do. If not ,we can never hope to attract new audience to art form. In a rock concert 30,000 people can be engaged for hours, yet in a concert hall 0f 2,000 half the audience walks out when the contemporary piece is played or many never came at all because of the comtemporary piece was on the program . The wake up call to speak about modern music has never been louder.
James McFadyen
New member
Perhaps we should look at something more fundemental - being innovative through our compositional voice.
Just because a piece uses obscure and so-called innovative technique doesn't make it good music.
Just because John Cage believed silence was an intergral part of music and his all too familiar 4'33 was born does not nessesarily make it good music.
Sometimes we need to limit ourselves a bit, and yea, we are in a bit of state at the moment, but who's doing is that? Why is it considered lightweight if you use traditional methods, besides everything boils down to traditional desent, modern methods of composition are just an adaption or an upgrade to traditional techniques.
Even serialism was brought about to bring order out of what was apparently chaos - but with it brought more chaos and debate.
I believe some academics need to branch out a little, a lot are still stuck in this atonal/serialism malarky and anything that has a key centre is completely lightweight to them. Are they jealous coz they can't write a bloody good tune or coz they can't write beautiful harmonies using more traditional methods.
No one is saying we should go back to the Strict Counterpoint days, but I feel all we have done is gone in a 360 degree. Instead of rules about staying in key and strict voice-leading structures, we now have strict rules about staying out of key, well at least for the most part anyway.
As for where music will go now, it's awfully hard to say, all I can say as a composer is I think it's time for academics to get their head out of the clouds - music is no longer about pleaseing ones own ego, however big it may be, music is language of communication. Pop, dance, Hip-Hop etc manage to communicate to a huge audience......BUT......Classical composers I believe are more productive, consistant and skillfull at the craft - why the hell are we not dominating the world with the classical music like it once did.
Perhaps we need to claim back what is rightfully ours, to have all the working class teenagers go to our performances. In reality this would probably never happen.....yet......but I think we can all agree, somewhere down the line, Classical music slipped from the forefront. Blame it on rock and roll, blame it on technology, blame whatever you like. lol.
Let's just get rid of the ego of trying to always please ourselves, and think about where our music fits in society - music isn't really music if no one listens to it.
Just ma wee 2pence worth
music9
New member
I think, one way of appreciating modern music is to listen thoroughly classical and baroque music, (as well as romantic and impressionistic) before moving to 20th century music. I think contemporary music is a heavy thing to listen to, especially for those who have just started being a musician. So maybe, a proper approach and gradual adjustment could help people appreciate the modern music.
But anyway, since we are now on the 21st century, who knows, there might be another drastic change in the style of music. Maybe 15-30 years from now, we might hear music which could be more shocking, more bizarre, and perhaps we could say "more avant-garde than avant-garde". Techniques might be more different from what we've been used to. Different singing techniques, different interpretation and even altering the conventional way of playing an instrument, via extended technique. Although it has been done during the middle and late 20th century, some additional sounds were now experimented and produced. Ever heard of the "Vienna Vegetable Orchestra"? Instead of common orchestration, this orchestra plays Cuke-o-phones, radish-marimbas, carrot flutes, pumpkin basses, leek violins, and other freshly made instruments.(See oddmusic.com ~ audio samples downloadable)
But anyway, since we are now on the 21st century, who knows, there might be another drastic change in the style of music. Maybe 15-30 years from now, we might hear music which could be more shocking, more bizarre, and perhaps we could say "more avant-garde than avant-garde". Techniques might be more different from what we've been used to. Different singing techniques, different interpretation and even altering the conventional way of playing an instrument, via extended technique. Although it has been done during the middle and late 20th century, some additional sounds were now experimented and produced. Ever heard of the "Vienna Vegetable Orchestra"? Instead of common orchestration, this orchestra plays Cuke-o-phones, radish-marimbas, carrot flutes, pumpkin basses, leek violins, and other freshly made instruments.(See oddmusic.com ~ audio samples downloadable)
Fretless
Member
I love modern music. I've been a musician for 27 years and only recently have really started to embrace contemporary classical music, but at the same time I have grown a fondness for genres like Noise and Technical Death Metal.
I grew up with Baroque and Renaissance, and grew to love Romantic symphonic music without much exposure to 20th Century stuff aside from a little Stravinsky. In college we had to take a year of 20th Century music theory, which didn't do much for an appreciation of music of our time. In the symphonies in which I play, lots of the musicians are stuck in melodies and tonality and still poo-poo modern music. To me, much of the problem is that people don't listen to it on their own, and don't read about it, and it rarely gets played live, or performed well in local orchestras. They have a really difficult time letting go of listening to their music using their conservatory trained ears that depend on theme and development of melodic material to help them judge the quality of a piece.
I don't think Classical music will ever be at the "forefront" and only was there when that was the only thing available. People will listen to the music that speaks to them, and unfortunately in our day and age people are so incredibly sapped by their daily lives that the only music they have the energy to listen to at the end of the day is that which is digested easily and "entertains", instead of music that requires thought and mental participation.
It's frustrating that classical music of our era is not embraced more fully.
I grew up with Baroque and Renaissance, and grew to love Romantic symphonic music without much exposure to 20th Century stuff aside from a little Stravinsky. In college we had to take a year of 20th Century music theory, which didn't do much for an appreciation of music of our time. In the symphonies in which I play, lots of the musicians are stuck in melodies and tonality and still poo-poo modern music. To me, much of the problem is that people don't listen to it on their own, and don't read about it, and it rarely gets played live, or performed well in local orchestras. They have a really difficult time letting go of listening to their music using their conservatory trained ears that depend on theme and development of melodic material to help them judge the quality of a piece.
I don't think Classical music will ever be at the "forefront" and only was there when that was the only thing available. People will listen to the music that speaks to them, and unfortunately in our day and age people are so incredibly sapped by their daily lives that the only music they have the energy to listen to at the end of the day is that which is digested easily and "entertains", instead of music that requires thought and mental participation.
It's frustrating that classical music of our era is not embraced more fully.
John Curtin
New member
It seems to me that most people who dismiss contemporary music don't seem to have actually listened to any classical music written after about 1960. There seems to be a conception that music written today is still dominated by serialism; the problem is compounded by an apprehension that serialism is incapable of beauty. Essentially the most common belief is that contemporary music can't be beautiful and is essentially just noise.
The gap in the logical argument here is that a lot of modern music is immensely beautiful. There are very few people who have listened to the music of Alfred Schnittke (at my insistence!) who don't find it moving and wrenching. They aren't surprised that he only died in the last ten years, since it undeniably has a 'modern' sound to it. However, they are almost always amazed that it is so beautiful. It's as though they haven't been exposed to more than three or four pieces of music written in the last 80 years, and have dismissed an entire century's worth of art on that basis.
It's terribly frustrating and the only thing I can do is try to get the people around me to think again about modern music. Interestingly, the perceptions don't seem to be very different among musicians and non-musicians. At high school, our exposure to 20th century music was almost based upon the assumption that it doesn't sound nice and we should only listen to it out of some kind of academic interest. I remember a lesson where we listened to extracts from Wozzeck, and the discussion, as led by the teacher, was essentially, 'this sounds horrible. Why would people want to listen to this?' without any interest in identifying any beauty in it. It's as though we were approaching it with some kind of Romantic prejudice; a belief that music, to be beautiful, must adhere to a set of rules, and there's no other way to get at it.
It's difficult to say the least. All you can really do is to expose the people around you to it, and try to get them to open their ears. It's not really all that hard to hear the beauty once you remember that there isn't a single art form that still adheres to 19th century ideas. It is truly curious that modern music has enjoyed far narrower popularity than, say, modern visual art, or (especially!) modern literature. I find it difficult that somebody who enjoys postmodernism in books or films will refuse to even try to listen to modern art music beyond minimalism, or whatever form of 'post-rock' is most fashionable at the moment.
The gap in the logical argument here is that a lot of modern music is immensely beautiful. There are very few people who have listened to the music of Alfred Schnittke (at my insistence!) who don't find it moving and wrenching. They aren't surprised that he only died in the last ten years, since it undeniably has a 'modern' sound to it. However, they are almost always amazed that it is so beautiful. It's as though they haven't been exposed to more than three or four pieces of music written in the last 80 years, and have dismissed an entire century's worth of art on that basis.
It's terribly frustrating and the only thing I can do is try to get the people around me to think again about modern music. Interestingly, the perceptions don't seem to be very different among musicians and non-musicians. At high school, our exposure to 20th century music was almost based upon the assumption that it doesn't sound nice and we should only listen to it out of some kind of academic interest. I remember a lesson where we listened to extracts from Wozzeck, and the discussion, as led by the teacher, was essentially, 'this sounds horrible. Why would people want to listen to this?' without any interest in identifying any beauty in it. It's as though we were approaching it with some kind of Romantic prejudice; a belief that music, to be beautiful, must adhere to a set of rules, and there's no other way to get at it.
It's difficult to say the least. All you can really do is to expose the people around you to it, and try to get them to open their ears. It's not really all that hard to hear the beauty once you remember that there isn't a single art form that still adheres to 19th century ideas. It is truly curious that modern music has enjoyed far narrower popularity than, say, modern visual art, or (especially!) modern literature. I find it difficult that somebody who enjoys postmodernism in books or films will refuse to even try to listen to modern art music beyond minimalism, or whatever form of 'post-rock' is most fashionable at the moment.