Opinions on modern music

[some guy]

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.

Tom, I cannot begin to tell you how heartening it is to hear someone besides myself and a few close friends say these things. Since much of the music I listen to, and find beautiful, consists largely of complex sounds, often quite loud sounds--and is even called "noise music"--I would never use "just" to modify "noise." But that's as may be!

And your goal is to seduce people into listening to contemporary music. I applaud your tact and your choice of Schnittke, who is ideally placed for that purpose as much of his music is beautiful in the sense of familiar and comfortable but noisy enough to be beautiful in the sense of harsh and uncompromising, too. From Schnittke I would guess (hope) that it would be natural to go on to Gubaidulina and Ustvolskaja--and to Carter and Lachenmann and eventually all the glories of the electroacoustic world if not to the noise artists themselves.

 

[rojo]

I found these videos on youtube recently; found them fun. From BBC, 1997.

Modern Minimalists with Bjork, Part 1 and Part 2. (And Arvo Part. :grin: pronunciation aside...)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MixrSzIa264[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QTxvmlA95Q[/youtube]

 

[some guy]

Always interesting results when emotions and intellect are separated and dealt with separately. And when simplicity and complexity are aligned with them, the results can be absurd. (Like Vaino talking about preferring simplicity and then playing for us some very complex sounds. Or even Malloy's very simple glass harmonica, which he tunes with the latest, state of the art, digital tuner.)

I hate to quibble about these things, particularly when someone I like, Bjork, is promoting new music, which I like. But why must she promote mimimalism at the expense of other new musics? And why must she falsify history to do it? (Even that I wouldn't worry about too much, were it not that I've heard variants of her version many times, from many sources. When that happens, one fears that the distortion is well on its way to becoming the accepted truth.)

 

[rojo]

I assume Bjork promotes what Bjork likes. Which I guess would be minimalism.

I also assume that by simplicity Vaino is referring to the construction of his works in general, and not necessarily the sounds themselves.

But you know what they say; you should never assume...

Care to set the record straight on any falsities from the videos, some guy? I'd like to know what distortions you're referring to. Although I think I already know a couple...

 

[some guy]

I was thinking particularly of the simplification/distortion that the simplicities of minimalism replaced the complexities of serialism. That music got more and more complex and more and more "intellectual" until it was too much and composers started over from the beginning, as it were, with the new simplicity.

This was true for some composers. Some composers did react to complexity with simplicity, to serialism with the "new" tonality, to development with stasis. But only some. Not enough to make it so cut or so dried.

And the choice facing composers was never so simple as between only two things. The only "between two things" choice that I can see is between two very big (much bigger than serial/minimal) things: choice and not choice (or intention and nonintention). Even that choice wasn't clear cut (or clear dried, for that matter), as many people figured out ways of having both in the same composition.

One note for those who listen to these videos: I don't think Bjork ever uses the word "serial." That's my shorthand conclusion of her reference to music becoming increasingly complex and intellectual in the first half of the twentieth century. That, too, is only partly true. And if anyone still thinks the system of serialism is intellectual because it's so complicated, well, what about traditional tonality--which is a terrifically complicated system!

Even "minimal" covers a variety of practices, some simple, some quite complex.

 

[rojo]

Thanks for that some guy.

Great that Bjork promotes new music, not so great that all the other stuff aside from minimalism is left off the table. Would be neat if this was only the first of a series on new music, and that there would be more episodes featuring some of the many other composers and their styles. One does tend to get the impression watching the video that classical music is only going in one direction. Which we know is not even close to reality. Maybe we shouldn't ask for too much though; this is already much better than nothing.

I do think Bjork mentions the 12 tone system...

 

[methodistgirl]

contemprary music

The only kind of contemperary music I like is the praise and worship like
Intregrety Hosanna or Hill Songs like Don Moen because he wrote many of
the Hosanna songs that I just love like God will make a way and Give thanks.
Others can include Amy Grant, 4 him, Michael English, and more. This is
the kind of contemp music I like.
judy tooley

 

[Music8]

I understand many people don't understand or appreciate contemporary "classical" or modern "classical" music and even the classical music for the very reason that we are in the era where pop, rock, R&B, etc., or should we say "popular modern music" influence more people, and is much accepted, while classical music sounds weird and awful to some listeners (what more the contemporary music?).

Contemporary music, is the classical music of the present time, and will be the music of the future musicians. I agree to that appreciating modern music is to know and appreciate also, the Classical and Baroque music. It's like, knowing the root to know the fruit. Music evolution will not stop until there are musicians and modern music is the product. In my opinion, modern music that we know today will produce another musical style/form, just like, baroque to classical, then romantic, etc. etc... (I'm not telling that we can forget or disregard those music). The term may not be known yet but in some times, furture musicians may find an appropriate term for it. Some of us may not appreciate modern music but, what about the future musicians? I think, it will be their music and the succesors of all musicians. What do you think guys?

 

[rojo]

I like that analogy; 'knowing the root to know the fruit.' And I think I agree that music evolution will not stop.

 

[zlya]

What is the purpose of modern art music? Is it to uplift the spirit, to challenge the intellect, to express meaning?

Until at least the 19th Century, the purpose of most "Classical" music was entertainment. I realize a large percentage was religious, but I would argue that even Church music was to a large extent entertainment, serving to break the monotony of life and interest the congregation in spiritual matters. Put another way, it was written to sound pleasing.

This is not to say that no modern art music is pleasing, but that no longer seems to be the primary purpose, particularly with pieces that feature noise, electronic events, and gimmicks like Cage's infamous silence.

I think the closest we have today to a genre approaching "Classical" music in intention and sound is modern movie soundtracks, some of which are influenced by the more radical art music movements. I think movie soundtracks are the future of music which is complex, challenging, artistic, aesthetically-pleasing, expressive, and entertaining: classical music.

 

[some guy]

What is the purpose of modern art music? Is it to uplift the spirit, to challenge the intellect, to express meaning?

Until at least the 19th Century, the purpose of most "Classical" music was entertainment. I realize a large percentage was religious, but I would argue that even Church music was to a large extent entertainment, serving to break the monotony of life and interest the congregation in spiritual matters. Put another way, it was written to sound pleasing.

This is not to say that no modern art music is pleasing, but that no longer seems to be the primary purpose, particularly with pieces that feature noise, electronic events, and gimmicks like Cage's infamous silence.

Knowing the purpose implies that you know what composers are thinking. Or were thinking. Knowing what people are thinking usually comes by means of what they say, which may be reliable, maybe not. Like anyone else, composers are capable of saying what they think you want to hear. Or knowledge of purpose could come from noticing what people do, and drawing conclusions. So if your spouse remembers an important get-together with friends from out of town every time it's meatloaf for dinner, you conclude that the meetings are fake, and that your spouse really hates your meatloaf (and doesn't want to say so).

Your use of "pleasing" and "entertaining" makes me think you're using method number two. But there's a problem, a word like "pleasing" doesn't describe the music itself, but only roughly indicates a response to it. So my friend Laura, for instance, finds Beethoven heavy and dense, too complex to enjoy. And I find Beethoven to be all sorts of things, including heavy and dense, too, sometimes--but not nearly as dense as some other things I also enjoy, and the complexities (even though much diminished by time and familiarity) are part of what I find enjoyable. Same music. Two very different responses.

So where does that leave us? That you don't find modern art music pleasing. And you don't like noise or "electronic events." OK. But you seem to be saying that if modern art music doesn't please you then it's not pleasing, that its purpose is not to please. And that's not OK, not because it's not OK to dislike modern art music, but because your conclusion rests on too flimsy a premise.

Why, you might as well say that life before 1800 was boring!

 

[zlya]

So where does that leave us? That you don't find modern art music pleasing. And you don't like noise or "electronic events." OK. But you seem to be saying that if modern art music doesn't please you then it's not pleasing, that its purpose is not to please. And that's not OK, not because it's not OK to dislike modern art music, but because your conclusion rests on too flimsy a premise.

This is not to say that no modern art music is pleasing, but that no longer seems to be the primary purpose, particularly with pieces that feature noise, electronic events, and gimmicks like Cage's infamous silence.

Trouble with the double negative? I meant that modern art music may be pleasing, but it seems to me that pleasing the ear is not the primary purpose.

That's like saying that maybe the primary purpose of Sam Beckett's plays is not to entertain the audience, and maybe the primary purpose of James Joyce's books is not fun escapism. Beckett and Joyce were greats, and I love their works. I even find them fun and entertaining, but I can't help feeling that there is another purpose there. Maybe I'm wrong.

So again, I ask, what do you think the purpose of modern art music is?

 

[Ouled Nails]

So again, I ask, what do you think the purpose of modern art music is?

It is the intent of the artist.

 

[some guy]

Trouble with the double negative?

No, no, no!!! I do not have no trouble with the double negative, no...

...well, maybe a little. (I blame Chaucer, who used double and even triple negatives.)

...modern art music may be pleasing, but it seems to me that pleasing the ear is not the primary purpose.

That's like saying that maybe the primary purpose of Sam Beckett's plays is not to entertain the audience, and maybe the primary purpose of James Joyce's books is not fun escapism. Beckett and Joyce were greats, and I love their works. I even find them fun and entertaining, but I can't help feeling that there is another purpose there. Maybe I'm wrong.

So again, I ask, what do you think the purpose of modern art music is?

Barney Childs used to say that the purpose of composing was to make good sounds. I don't think the purpose of classic/serious/art music was ever simply to entertain. But to please the ear? Of course! That's what everyone has always written music to do. Different things will please different people was my point. And I don't think you can conclude that modern art music isn't meant to please because some people (even if "some" is "most") don't find it pleasing. In the twentieth century, composers and then listeners discovered that all sorts of things that had never before been deemed pleasant were actually very pleasing, including loud, abrasive, relentless, electronic noise.

Yeah. Whatever else is going on, in any music, pleasing the ear is the fundamental purpose.

 

[Music8]

I think that it's not only "pleasing the ear" which is the purpose of music. "Pleasing the ear" for me, means that we make music for the listeners and they will be the one to tell whether your music is good because it's pleasing or they may say that the music is just a whole bunch of noise.

Why do we still have "unpleasing music?" (for some) and why do composers of this "unpleasing music" write this kind of music though some people may not find it pleasing? Could it be the composer’s purpose? Well, only the composer would know. The composer’s purpose may be personal and I guess, that is what he wants for his music to sounds like. "Modern art music" music as art, from the word "art" means self explanatory (through music, fine arts, etc.), I think that the composer just expressed himself according to what he feels. I think that it would be unfair for the composer if his work is criticized just because it's unpleasing to some, for his work reflects himself.

We have modern music because of musicians with their own style and art in music. It's our duty to make music grow and live. The purpose of music for me is for "art" personal, and a way of living.

 

[tomato]

Like Hitsware said, there has always been resistance to what was regarded as "modern music" at the time.
The audience at the Bach Saint Matthew Passion premiere was appalled at what they considered a "blasphemous musical comedy."
The audience at the Franck Symphony in d minor premiere was appalled because it contained an English horn solo. (Never mind the fact that one of the Haydn symphonies contained an English horn duet. Music criticism isn't supposed to make sense.)
So now we laugh at those who were shocked by what was at the time "modern music."
We are afraid that future generations will laugh at us.

But will they?
Probably not. All we have is inductive reasoning, and we cannot get conclusive evidence from inductive reasoning.

Schonberg was optimistic about how quickly twelve-tone music would take hold. When he was conducting a rehearsal of one of his own compositions, a sneaky clarinet player played his part on the wrong size clarinet, just to see if Schonberg would know the difference. He didn't. When the clarinet player revealed his trick, Schonberg said, "No, but my grandchildren will be able to tell the difference."

Schonberg was born in 1874. I am about the right age to be Schonberg's great great grandson. My sister has grandchildren. Yet the world's population is still just as tonal as it ever was.

Contrast this to the Eighteenth Century, when there was a difference of only two generations between the Baroque Era and the Classical Era. Bach and Vivaldi were considered passe in only 2 generations, and now Schonberg is still new and shocking after 6 generations!

Modern composers are making the mistake of overlooking a very powerful enemy--Nature. As Hindemith pointed out in "The Craft of Music Composition," microtonality, polytonality, and atonality cannot be found in the folk music of any culture in the world, so we can infer that they are contrary to our natural instincts.

I wish the best of luck to both modern composers and women's libbers, but I suggest that they get to know their enemy a little better.

 

[some guy]

Careful when you grind that "nature" axe, tomato. The blade is sharp--both edges. What's "natural" to humans is that we make things. There are no cars in nature. No skyscrapers, no freeways. No museums full of paintings. No glazed windows. No refrigerators. Just for a couple of off-the-cuff examples. Or ARE there? If humans are part of nature, then everything humans do is natural. Making stuff up is natural. So in a sense, all that concrete and all that steel and plastic is natural. Unless you want to argue that bird's nests and spider webs and beaver dams are less natural than seeds and flowers and clouds.... And what would it prove if no folk music anywhere had microtonality, atonality, or polytonality? In the strictest sense, it might be said that these terms apply to western classical music, and in the same way no folk music has sonata-allegro or piano concerti or symphony orchestras. So what? And loosely speaking, lots of folk music has all three of those things (though polyrhythm is possibly more prevalent than those three). Maybe Hindemith didn't know this (though I can hardly believe it), but certainly you should know that many twentieth century trends came out of the researches of composers in non-Western cultures around the world. But again, so what? Folk music, by the way, is one of those things made by humans. You know, like plastic and poison gas and mathematics. So if you were thinking of arguing that concrete and atonality are "unnatural," then I'm afraid you'll have to agree that folk music is "unnatural," too, eh?

 

[rojo]

I wonder, what am I missing about the reference to women's libbers?

 

[some guy]

Ha ha. Probably nothing! (I took it to mean that tomato thinks men are naturally superior to women. Best to just back away slowly, not making any eye contact, if I'm right!) ((If I'm wrong, I will have to get the old sackcloth out and perhaps cook up some fresh ashes.))

 

[tomato]

I wonder, what am I missing about the reference to women's libbers?

Sorry I didn't make that easier to understand.
Women's libbers promote unisex, whereas humans do not carry unisex genes.
Consequently, men keep right on patronizing strip clubs, girlie magazines, and houses of ill repute as they did before.

By the same token, modern composers promote atonality, polytonality, and microtonality, whereas humans do not carry atonal, polytonal, or microtonal genes.
Consequently, concert-goers keep right on patronizing Beethoven and Tschaikovsky as they did before.

Some Guy, I realize I didn't make that very clear.
You don't have to don a sackcloth and ashes.