Where is classical music headed?

[rojo]

You`re painting a rather bleak picture there, ON, and I certainly don`t disagree with you entirely. It`s difficult these days to be a composer, I think. One has to be good at self-promotion, according to many of the composers from the video I posted earlier. Like Beethoven, apparently.

There are people whom I`ve met through forums that love listening to the latest compositions, including avant-garde music. I don`t know what the numbers are, but if there are enough people who want new music, it will continue to exist. The comforting thing is that these days, the consumer is king, and there is a market for just about anything. Look at all the choices at the local supermarket. There never used to be so many options. I`m hoping this will be applied to music as well. And who knows what the internet will bring; probably even more choices.

Don`t despair, ON; there will always be people who are open-minded such as yourself (at least that`s the impression I get from reading your posts.) Like you, I am always willing to give music a listen, and a chance. I find it hard to believe that we are alone. Maybe people prefer to remain silent about their interests, I don`t know. That being said, I have had many conversations with people about ccm, everyone has an opinion, some more vociferous about it than others.

I don`t think we should worry too much about the numbers. We all know here that we are in a minority to begin with in our musical preferences. Yet we come here and revel in each other`s new musical discoveries. All we can do is put the information out there, for other people like ourselves to find and discover. That was my intention with this thread.

Sometimes I wonder myself if there can possibly be anything new created that I will like. Then I hear a new work, like it, and I am reassured. It happens regularly. And this from someone who knows full well that her favourites will always be works by Debussy and Ravel. I like so much music that it`s not funny. I don`t like everything either, but I hate no music. Not even André Rieu. Although there is an immense amount of music I would rather listen to than that...

Btw, aren`t we all elitist when it comes to our own opinions? Personally I do think 20th century music in general gets a bad deal, which is odd because there`s so much of it that is wonderful! However Messiaen gets discussed here, Shosty, Stravinsky, (as well as baroque composers; who doesn`t like at least something by Bach?) Now all this being said, I wouldn`t mind hearing your opinions on the works of John Cage...

 

[Ouled Nails]

<<We are living in a period in which many people have changed their mind about what the use of music is or could be for them. Something that doesn't speak or talk like a human being, that doesn't know its definition in the dictionary or its theory in the schools, that expresses itself simply by the fact of its vibrations. People paying attention to vibratory activity, not in reaction to a fixed ideal performance, but each time attentively to how it happens to be this time, not necessarily two times the same. A music that transports the listener to the moment where he is.>> (John Cage, Autobiographical notes, 1989).

John Cage was unwilling to view the purpose of music as a means of communication, a basic premise for virtually all classical music listeners in the Western World (music communicating emotions, such as romantic feelings or religious fervor; music communicating impressions, such as with Debussy and Ravel). But what is music if it's not for the purpose of communication?! He found the answer in India and in the work of Buddhist authors: "it is to sober and quiet the mind"; it is "to imitate nature in her manner of operation"; it is to ask questions instead of making choices so as to explore non-intentions.

Cage did compose some truly beautiful music, by anybody's standards. The piano piece "In a landscape" (1948) (which is playing as I write this post), sounds also very accessible to a student of the piano. Have you ever used it in your teaching, rojo? It has a "reverie" quality to it, which might suggest Cage composed it for contemplative use. I value many other pieces, even very percussive ones, for their "oriental" characteristics, "oriental" not because Cage endeavored to compose exotic music but because Buddhism, a major existential influence in much of his work, has it own aesthetic attributes, which are quite different from Judeo-Christian ones.

Cage has been singled out for embodying some kind of deplorable extremism in modern music. How many times have you heard people only refer to him in terms of his silent work for the piano, 4'33". That work was intended to show (or, rather, to bring the listener to the self-realization) that silence is "not the absence of sound but the unintended operation of my nervous system and the circulation of my blood." He is a sort of composer-zen buddhist master, if you will, providing useful music to the population, from his suite for toy piano to his prelude for meditation. He created other works for instrumentists, extremely complex and very long ("with too many notes"), mainly to have the players realize that "impossible is not impossible". He also created orchestral pieces with the intention of viewing an orchestra not simply as instruments but as human beings.

Buddhism, of course, is a very private, transcendental "religion". Perhaps there lies Cage's incongruity as a composer of music which most view as having a public, not private, purpose. On the other hand, Cage was actually right in anticipating a time when music listening would become mainly a private activity, as it is for the vast majority who only rarely attend a live concert. In private, this morning, I listened to:
Second construction (1940)
Imaginary landscape no.2 (1942)
Amores (1943)
Double Music (1941)
Third Construction (1941)
She is Asleep (1943) Very nice solo voice...
First Construction in Metal (1939)
Music for Marcel Duchamp
Prelude for Meditation (1944)
In a landscape (1948)
Souvenir (1983) appropriately for the organ
A Valentine Out of Season
Suite for toy piano (1948) "oriental" sounds on a toy piano
Bacchanale (1938)
Dream (1948)

Thank you for your optimistic perspective and the interaction.

 

[rojo]

As usual, I find your post full of keen insight. Thanks a lot for it.

I was curious to get your input on the composer, assuming you would have a fair and balanced account of him. I was not mistaken. I have never used the piece you mention, in fact I don`t recall hearing it. Now I`m curious...

Tbh, I don`t know much about Cage`s works, but I know enough not to assume that every piece by a composer is of a similar nature, especially 20th century composers. Btw, was 4'33'' really for piano? I thought I saw a performance of it by orchestra. I guess the work could be played by any instrument(s.)

I don`t know that I share Cage`s philosophies; I personally listen to music for the emotional effect it has on me. I certainly don`t listen to music to 'sober my mind.' Otherwise, I would listen to things other than music. Of course, everyone has their own definition of what music is, which was the point of some of his music.

The only kind of music that I don`t enjoy is music that leaves me feeling, well, blah, or bored; I must be moved by it in some way to appreciate it. Cage`s 4'33'' makes me laugh. That may not have been the intention of the composer, to make people feel humour, or mirth, but to me it is an emotion, so it counts. It may not be my 'emotion of choice' either; when I listen to music, I guess it`s the 'big' emotions I like best. (I`m really just a big sap...) I don`t really feel a desire to revisit that work, although I can appreciate the point of it.

I`ve listened in the past to some of Cage`s Chance music; pieces for prepared piano etc., and I have nothing against new sonorities and so on, but what I`ve heard so far hasn`t 'moved' me. If I can, I will sample other works by Cage though. The problem for me is being able to purchase all this stuff! My salary simply doesn`t permit it. I`ve got to start using some of these music sites... youtube is just not enough; they don`t have enough symphonic works, and while there is some absolutely fantastic classical music there, it just isn`t enough.

In the next while, I would like to discuss Gyorgy Ligeti, conceptualism, and also the work I listened to by Kaija Saariaho today.

 

[rojo]

I neglected to make it clear that I am in no way mocking Cage`s contributions. Several of his works were, and still are, so very important in shaping what we think about music; what it is, how we define it, what it`s purpose is. It certainly raises a lot of questions, and that, imo, is good.

 

[LovesBachandGershwin]

Ouled and Rojo,

This is why I think there are so few supporters of the shostakovich, vaughan williams, stravinsky, and Prokofiev era composers and on...

First of all the statistics you gave about classical music... It's true there is a small percent of people that listen to classical music. We grow up listening to pop music and mainstream, especially todays youth (I would know), they hardly listen to any classical music at all, unless it is introduced to them or they play an instrument. Even those who do listen to some, don't listen with very much dedication. Young people like pop music because the sounds seem so stimulating to the brain. (note: I'm not trying to hate on pop music), They want a beat, like rap, or guitar, et cetera... Even those that do branch out from the mainstream don't enter the realm of classical music, just more far out pop like music or jazz perhaps. Classical music is an acquired taste! If you've been listening to pop music all your life then when you listen to a mozart symphony it seems like a bunch of boring Sh$$Te to you. You don't understand at all, you want something that is immediately stimulating and powerful. You don't have the patience to enjoy the subtleties and simplicity or beauty perhaps of mozart. You don't understand the classical form. So this weeds out a ton of people from the bulk of classical music. They never truly become immersed in at least the classical/baroque period. If you don't become immersed in at least one composer/selection of songs, you will never be able to advance in the world of classical music beyond a superficial level. Which is why there a relatively small percentage of people that are truly into at least some type of classical music. It takes lots of intake of classical music to begin to enjoy it.

Now I consider the order of most understandble classical music to be as follows. This is the stages I went through when learning to enjoy classical music.

Classical period first (8 years-10 years old)
add baroque (10-14)
add romantic (14-16)
pre-baroque (15-16)
add Neoclassical/20th century Shostakovich era (16 to present)

Now this doesn't include all the music but just a general understanding of the form and chords of the period and that I actually begin to like some pieces of the period. I know there is still tons and tons of music that I have to listen to in all the periods but I have at least a general understanding of the periods and have learned to like many specific pieces. However you see that my liking and understanding of pre-baroque and Neoclassical/20th century pieces has come at the very last, and I still have so much to explore in those eras. Classical music listening is a learning process. I understand this and it has aided me greatly:

Whereas one person might listen to a shostakovich symphony in b minor once or twice, and give up on it saying that didn't like it, or a scriabin symphony no1, I know that I won't always like a piece at first. That I have to listen again, and again, and again, and again, and however many times necessary to understand the piece and then I will understand it, I will enjoy it.

Now the shostakovich/vaughan williams e.c. era is the furthest advancement in complexity of classical music. If it took me five years to begin to like composers from the latter half of the romantic era, then think how much listening it must take to begin to fully grasp the pieces of this era. It takes a lot of time, at least for me, to begin to grasp a piece that to me at first seems like chaos. For instance, I listened to the last movement of the prokofiev piano concerto in d for the left hand 6 times in a row. At first it sounded like complete randomness, no melody no repeats or anything. It was only on the 7th listen, that I actually began hearing the genius of the chord progression in the middle of it. The beauty of it.

So my point is, that classical music takes time, and the shostakovich era takes the most time, and dedication to listening. To expand ones taste, to let something grow on you. It isn't the most listenable of music to the untrained ear. How many of you would recommend shostakovich or vaughan williams or that era composers to the first time classical music listener... They wouldn't be able to comprehend it all. Their brain doesn't have the patterns implanted. It doesn't have the necessary tools yet to understand it. It takes a long long time to build up those tools so that one can enjoy shostakovich, you may even have to build up those tools on one specific piece at a time. Thats what I tend to do. And then you can relate that piece to another.

But there are so many options as music has advanced. In classical and baroque music, you can almost predict whats coming in the next measure on the first listening of a piece because you recognize all the patterns, the piece makes sense to you. But it takes time to understand more complex pieces, and even more time to understand the entire realm and form of complex pieces.

Sorry if this was kinda long.!!

By the way, has anyone heard the Vaughan Williams oboe concerto, it's amazingggg

 

[Ouled Nails]

Thank you VERY MUCH, LoveBachGershwin. It's really comforting to hear such interest in LISTENING from the youth of this world. I think you're absolutely right. The issue is really about accessibility. Some music is immediately accessible and, thus, self-gratifying. But it does not necessarily have much "lasting" power and it's soon forgotten or completely neglected. It's the wonderful thing about classical music that something composed one, two, three hundred years ago still generates appreciation on musical forums. I'm really glad that you've been listening to Shostakovich and Vaughan Williams because you'll want to find more about them and those they respected as sound composers, and those they taught or influenced, etc.

When I got hooked on Shostakovich, I branched out to his teachers, his fellow composers, his closest friends, his students. I'm still discovering them! Thanks for that testimony.

 

[Ouled Nails]

Dear rojo,
I have not the slightest doubt that you love to discover just as much as I do. All of your posts testify not only to your love of musical creativity but also to your "mosaic" approach to classical music in the Canadian cultural sense of the word. And I honestly share your view of Cage's music: it's not a composer I would listen to with the same frequency I listen to numerous others. Concerning the money factor, which is a very concrete reality in my world, I have used every legal means to overcome its cold boundaries. As indicated before, I have recorded radio performances, including world premieres, for personal use only. I believe that's legal :grin: Something which you may no longer be entitled to or perhaps you still are: I work for an institution of "higher education" and have been a regular customer of the audio-visual resource center in the library, from ancien LP's to recent CDs and DVDs. For example, some of the Saariaho music I have was recorded from the radio and some of it was "burned" from the library. Doing what I can to access as much as I can.

 

[rojo]

First, just to mention, my pc is behaving more and more strangely lately. So if I`m suddenly not posting for a while, that will be the reason why. Fingers crossed it doesn`t cease functioning entirely.

Just time for some quick comments-

LBaG, you`re absolutely right. It`s hard for a person to appreciate something they don`t understand. And the path you took makes good sense to me.

I`m pretty sure I would know the VW oboe concerto upon hearing it, hell, I may even have played it at some point. But it`s been so long, I`ve forgotten how it goes.

ON- I think that`s the problem; there`s too much great music out there that I want to hear! :grin:

 

[rojo]

Kaija Saariaho - 1984-85 Jardin Secret I. [SIZE=-1]Tape. (10').

As it turns out, I didn`t get the whole piece, only a bit more than half of it. I found it at youtube, it was all they had.

Interesting tape sounds interspersed with bird chirps, which seemed incongruous on first listening, but made sense considering the title of the work. I enjoyed it; not a bad work, but it`s not something that I feel the need to hear again.

This is the first and only work I have heard by her. I understand she has composed many works for standard instruments as well; I would like to hear some of those, or any of her other works, actually.
[/SIZE]

 

[rojo]

Now I`m wondering if the bird chirps were part of the video, and not part of the work in question. If anyone has heard the work from another source, I`d appreciate knowing.

 

[Ouled Nails]

I guess you've listened to her music for the birds, rojo . I don't know that particular piece but it looks like an early work for her; she's in her forties now, I guess. I tried to download an audio-visual excerpt from her official webpage but it didn't pan out . But I didn't intend any prior posts to suggest that people here should know her work. Anyway, here's another interesting factual reality about contemporary music sales that I've picked up on the French forums of abeille.info. Of the 50,000 classical music cds a retailing agency called fnac sells every month, roughly 300 (.006%) of them are contemporary music recordings. Of these 300 cds, two-thirds of the sales consist of Gorecki and Part works, leaving .002% of monthly sales for all other contemporary music composers. I don't think the proportions I estimated above are that far off the mark. It's really a lonely commercial world for today's composing geniuses.

 

[rojo]

Well, tbh ON, the numbers don`t really shock me, but I`m glad to know, even though they are rather bleak. You were pretty much on the money with your figures- kudos. Is fnac a chain in France only or something? I wonder if ccm fares any better somewhere, or anywhere else, relatively speaking... Who are the most avid appreciators of ccm?

I think the thing is that classical music usually needs to stand some sort of time test before it can be 'accepted' as being 'great.' Many people don`t want to take the risk of listening to something new; what if one was not to like it, heaven forbid! Much safer to stick to the tried and true. Who can blame them, really; at least they would be guaranteed it would be good; there are already so few guarantees in life. In which case, we`ll have to wait a few decades (possibly longer) before knowing if today`s works are 'worthy'... :grin:

I`ve been thinking about the 'innovation' factor you mentioned earlier. I have no doubt that fine works are being composed as we speak, works that are worth many listens. But how much can indeed be innovative at this point? What is left? What has not already been done? And especially, what of an innovative nature that has the added depth as a work that can be relistened to with pleasure many times over, like the 'great ones'? Hmm...

So I ask the question, how important in the scheme of things is innovation? I mean, of course it`s important, if there was no innovation in music, none of the great works would exist, and we would still be listening to some pre-medieval who knows what. But surely other factors are of importance as well... Hmm...

Another point- I`m pretty sure that music by new composers get at least some exposure in their respective countries; the cbc here does play some works by new, local composers. Now there`s something of importance; the cultural factor. I`ll take that. :grin:

Any other important factors in new music?...

 

[Ouled Nails]

Fnac is the big classical music chain store agency in France and beyond. There's a Wikipedia article on it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FNAC
I understand your question about innovation and I imagine that every time we find the prefix "neo" in classical music it indicates a desire on the part of the composer of innovating but in a well-known style from the past: neo-baroque, neo-classical, neo-romantic.(I have never heard of neo-impressionist, though). And, then, there are composers, like Henri Sauguet, who were motivated by the goal of beauty by way of simplicity. Is not Arvo Part a good example of someone who composes interesting "old" music, if that makes sense. I don't think it's necessary, even desirable, to compose for the sole purpose of innovation but originality, a recognizable individual language, in short, an attractive personality in one's music should be discernable. It makes little sense, in my mind, to try to imitate an older composer as closely as possible. Just more rambling here.

 

[rojo]

It does seem that minimalism, post-minimalism and simplicity in general is the most prevalent kind of ccm these days. I can readily understand why. It`s more easily accessible and easier on the ears than some other kinds of ccm. I did however read an article today about how Levine and the Boston S. O. is championing (serialist, I think) works by C. Wuorinen, providing premieres of his new works. What do you know, serialism is not finished yet.

neo-impressionist; interesting... Would our own Rune Vejby qualify?

 

[Ouled Nails]

Sorry It's a topic I like to talk about. (No need for a reply ) I see some kind of parallel between the effects of contemporary music and that of a lecture, a popular story teller, an entertaining performer, like a stand up comic, and so forth. A public lecture is not intended to be a source of entertainment. But, to those who take the time to listen, it can contribute much to the quality of one's life. The fact that not a whole lot of people like to listen to a serious speaker for some 40 minutes merely implies that the audience is not going to be very big: 20-60 people. But they're all listening closely, sharing in a sort of intellectual communion, the speaker's mental/intellectual journey. Of course, the speaker needs to be a good communicator to keep their attention, all their cognitive windows, wide open. Story telling and funny sketches by entertaining people undoubtedly draw much larger crowds. They're the 99% of the people who don't venture into ccm. Yet, all of these "speakers" have their role to play, their "function" in society. Do you think that's an elitist way to view ccm?

 

[Ouled Nails]

Now that I read what I have written above, I can see how it could be construed as belittling the "intellectual" dimensions of classical music before ccm. That, clearly, is not what I meant to say. A Mahler is very intellectual in his display of thematic orchestal agility, originality, complexity. Nevertheless, I do believe that ccm composers, like those who ventured in atonal music, were not attempting so much to please aesthetically as they were offering to join in their musical journey, just like a lecturer. I hope you follow me...

 

[rojo]

I think I`m following, ON. But are you saying that ccm is basically to stimulate one`s intellect, and not one`s sense of aesthetic and/or emotions? Perhaps a significant portion of it is. Certainly much more of it is 'intellectual only' than previous classical music. And there is nothing wrong with that. But I find that if intellectualism is the only factor involved, I can appreciate it, and the ideas involved, but I won`t have the desire to revisit it. Maybe I`m of the 99% that would rather be entertained (I like a good funny sketch) than intellectually stimulated.

I think when one truly loves music, one wants to understand all aspects of it though. Because it`s not static; it`s in constant evolution, always affecting itself in new ways, through composers` works. That`s why I try to have an all-encompassing, global view of it. Of course, I believe most musicians feel this way, some perhaps more than others.

That being said, there is also classical music (and ccm) which combines various levels of intellectualism, aesthetics, and emotionalism...

 

[rojo]

At the moment, I`m sampling a work by serialist Charles Wuorinen; his Third Piano Sonata, (Feinberg/Koch.) It`s very well played. I don`t dislike the work; indeed, there are some really neat things in here. Actually, I think atonal music is growing on me, to a certain extent. I do however still find myself listening for something I can latch on to in absence of tonality and so on, and end up enjoying bits and pieces only, instead of the work as a whole. That being said, there are tonal works that I enjoy only specific parts of, and there are some tonal works in which I have specific favourite parts. I still wouldn`t put this music among my favourites though.

I think serialism still has an important place in ccm, although it`s probably not nearly as prevalent now as it was in it`s peak. Which was in the 30`s and 40`s. Post WW2 anyway.

 

[rojo]

[SIZE=-1]György[/SIZE] Ligeti wrote some amazing etudes for piano-

• Études pour piano, Book 1, six etudes (1985)
• Études pour piano, Book 2, eight etudes (1988-94)
• Études pour piano, Book 3, four etudes (1995-2001)

My favourite etude is No.13, L`Escalier du Diable,' or Devil`s Staircase. Climbing, climbing, ever higher, only to start over again. It`s dizzying! Wonderful work.

I think I hear some Debussy Etudes influences in these works; the fluidity, and the use of wholetone patterns are remindful... no wonder I like them.

Ligeti`s Poème Symphonique Pour 100 Metronomes has a similar effect on me to that of Cage`s 4'33''. I`m amused, but don`t feel a desire to revisit the work.

His work for orchestra, Atmosphères, is very effective with it`s eerie qualities, and a much more interesting work than the Poème Symphonique. I enjoyed listening to it recently, but I probably won`t revisit it either.

I find it reassuring that these piano etudes were written so recently; such fine works to add to the repertoire of classical music.

 

[Ouled Nails]

I have to confess that I feel guilty when I play contemporary classical music at home . It's a curious feeling, like I'm disturbing everyone in the house because the music is so not like "music" most people would consider a normal activity to listen to. After reading your last post, rojo, I put on some of Ligeti's music. An intriguing "Continuum, for harpsichord," very brief and where this ancestor of the piano does not sound anything like an old instrument. I bet his "Ten pieces for wind quintet" are fun to play if you belong in the quintet. But they're not, as you say, the kind of pieces I would be eager to play on a regular basis. They remind me of some of the modern music I heard in a couple of pavillions at Montreal's World Expo in 1967 (in fact, Ligeti published these pieces in 1968). Imagine how people in Quebec reacted to contemporary music then, many of whom had little if any knowledge of classical music to begin with ! What to think of all of this? I'm not sure. Perhaps modern composers in the 1960's lived in a world completely separate and purposely disconnected from the cultural consumers of their time.