Who's afraid of 20th century music?

[desordre]

 Hi there!
 I feel that a lot of people in this forum don't like 20th century music, and I'm preety sure that it is due to unknowledge. So, for that matter, I'm proposing here a quiz: who is the composer and what is the piece refered to in this article?

"Another faction denies that the work has any artistic value and professes to see in it an untamed striving for singularity which has failed, however, to achieve in any of its parts beauty or true sublimity and power. (...) by combining the most heterogeneous elements (...) a certain undiserable originality may be achieved without much trouble; but genius proclaims itself not in the unusual and the fantastic, but in the beautiful and the sublime. (...) if [the composer] continues on this path both he and the public wil be the sufferers. His music could soon reach the point where one would derive no pleasure from it, unless well trained in the rules and difficulties of art, but rather will leave the concert hall, with an unpleasant feeling of fatigue from having been crushed by a mass of unconnected and overloaded ideas (...)."

 Any comments on both composer and piece are welcome!
 Best wishes!
 
 PS: all my respect to anyone who deeply and thoroughly knows the music of past century and, for whatever reason, dislike it.

[nicco]

Why use beethoven as example if you wanna promote 20th century music?

[gymnopedist]

It's the Eroica symphony, by Beethoven.

So your point is, Beethoven wasn't appreciated in his time, like some of the 20th century composers? But if you're concerned with the lack of knowledge about these composers, why start a quiz with a Beethoven symphony?

[franz_]

in the 22th century they will all find fantastic what composers compose nowdays, while we find it terrible. Maybe they will experimentate with electronic music, preperad piano's etc. I think it's pity to lose the essention of music. But I'm always sure it will happen like this, after a period they always search after something new.
Although I think they will always appreciate Bach and Chopin. I hope so...

[jre58591]

i think a lot of people here dont like 20th century music because they dont care to explore it. either that, or because some of it is an acquired taste (like xenakis, schönberg, and other atonal composers). there are others, like kapustin for example, that are very ear-friendly, and if people gave them a listen, they would fall right in love. also, some of you guys just dont care to break outside of your proverbial bubble of common and classical-romantic composers. just remember: there is a lot of undiscovered 20th century music out there, but admittedly, in the words of hamelin, "there is a lot of trash" also.

[desordre]

Mr(s). Nicco:
Your original anwser was "fur elise". Then, Mr. Gymnopedist wrote "It's the Eroica symphony, by Beethoven.". And so you modified your comment. Why did you do something like that? Do you want to seem clever than you actually are? No further comments...

[desordre]

Dear Mr. Gymnopedist:
Yes, it is indeed an extract from a review to a german journal of the first performance of Beethoven's 3rd, held in 7 april 1805.
My point is quite obvious: as people did listen to more Beethoven (and to other contemporary composers, such as Schubert or Weber) they started to understand what him was about, and then, started to love him. I think that every single person in this forum at least like his music; there are great fans here. I wonder, and this is the real purpose of this quote, what those same people would think of Beethoven if the première of his 3rd symphony was the last year, not two hundred years ago, taken for granted that his music would in this case sound like Boulez or Berio, for comparison (although is impossible to say who among the present composers will be considered the "Beethoven" of early 21st century). He was an avant-garde composer, a man really beyond his own time (and he actually did think that), and we all know what the narrow-minded think about avant-garde music.
Please, notice that I'm not here trying to say that everybody must love Boulez or Berio, but how much of the output of these two composers, for instance, do we properly know? Both composed in a lot of genres, and have more than one period, aesthetically speaking. In the most short list, I guess that to have a panoramic view one should know about twenty works by each one. Since performers act as co-composers, it's not a bad idea to listen to more than one performance of any piece. So, we're talking about more or less fifty recordings to listen, surely more than once each. Also, their musical languages sometimes requires a bit of theorethical knowledge to proper understanding, and here we point to Forte, to Adorno, to neo-schenkerian trends, to articles by the composers themselves. Who have done this "homework" is very able to comment this music in whatever way he wants, not without having in mind that one's opinion (like/dislike) doesn't affect the musical phenomenon, i.e., if I like some music it doesn't mean that it is good, nor if I dislike means it's crap.
Finally, although I think your question is already answered, I'm starting a quiz about 20th century music with Beethoven because he's one of the most played and loved composers of our times, and in his own  people did think that his music was a kind of freak stuff.
 Excuse me for the very controversial point of view.
 Best wishes.

[pianochild]

I like some of it, the early 20th century!

[counterpoint]

I'm not "afraid" of 20ieth century music, but I think, a great part of it is totally unlogical, and I hate unlogical music.

The composers who wrote the most logical music were J.S.Bach and Alexander Scriabin.
I could play their music day and night. (By the way: I love dissonances!)

[jre58591]

I'm not "afraid" of 20ieth century music, but I think, a great part of it is totally unlogical, and I hate unlogical music.

define "unlogical".

[nicco]

Mr(s). Nicco:
Your original anwser was "fur elise". Then, Mr. Gymnopedist wrote "It's the Eroica symphony, by Beethoven.". And so you modified your comment. Why did you do something like that? Do you want to seem clever than you actually are? No further comments...

fur elise is beethoven, i never said anything about the eroica symphony

[desordre]

Dear Mr. Franz:
Let me answer by parts:

in the 22th century they will all find fantastic what composers compose nowdays, while we find it terrible. (...)

Yes, I think that is the way it will happen. As an example, a more recent work (if a work that is almost in its 100th birthday can be labeled as that) that public really didn't like at first glance is Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps. Today, is part of the repertory of any orchestra, and is often played in great festivals and so. More important: people enjoy listen to it. In the première there was people fighting, almost burning down the theater. However, when you said "we" you speak for yourself.

(...)Maybe they will experimentate with electronic music, preperad piano's etc. (...)

Hmmm...that I don't understand: the experiments with electronics and prepared piano begun in the 1940's. It's older than rock'n'roll, for instance.

(...) I think it's pity to lose the essention of music. (...)

What do you mean by "essention of music"? Music is the sounds and silence in a given frame of time. I really don't see that at any time this "essention" has been lost.

(...)But I'm always sure it will happen like this, after a period they always search after something new. (...)

Yes, really indeed. It's natural to the human beeing and its brain. If there wasn't any new music composed after Mahler, this form of art would be already dead at our time.

(...)Although I think they will always appreciate Bach and Chopin. I hope so...(...)

Let me happily say that in this point we agree very much. I do hope so as well. And about the two mentioned Masters, I really hope that their music never dies.
Best wishes!

[desordre]

Dear Jre:

i think a lot of people here dont like 20th century music because they dont care to explore it. either that, or because some of it is an acquired taste (like xenakis, schіnberg, and other atonal composers). there are others, like kapustin for example, that are very ear-friendly, and if people gave them a listen, they would fall right in love. also, some of you guys just dont care to break outside of your proverbial bubble of common and classical-romantic composers. just remember: there is a lot of undiscovered 20th century music out there, but admittedly, in the words of hamelin, "there is a lot of trash" also.

Very true!

[counterpoint]

define "unlogical".

That's not easy to explain.
There is a feeling of what notes or chords or rhythms do match to another and others who don't match. It's not, that for example a chord sounded dissonant, but that the voices don't move in a logical sense. Okay, I can't explain it.  

[desordre]

Mr. Counterpoint:

I'm not "afraid" of 20ieth century music, but I think, a great part of it is totally unlogical, and I hate unlogical music.
The composers who wrote the most logical music were J.S.Bach and Alexander Scriabin.
I could play their music day and night. (By the way: I love dissonances!)

Unlogical in which way? What composers do you think are "unlogical" and why they have such a lack? And, most of all, do you think that logic and art were always so much linkened as you imply? Do you think that romantic composers thought that their music was purely "logical"?
Excuse me, but who said that the two forementioned composers were the most logical? Again, what are your arguments? I really think that they're really great masters, but what is your "measure of logic", if there is one extant?
Finally, I'm very glad you can play their music all day and night long, and that you love dissonances. We do agree in this particular point.

[jre58591]

That's not easy to explain.
There is a feeling of what notes or chords or rhythms do match to another and others who don't match. It's not, that for example a chord sounded dissonant, but that the voices don't move in a logical sense. Okay, I can't explain it. 

you cant explain it because there really is no such thing as "unlogical music". you may not understand what you are hearing, which makes it seem "unlogical" to you. once you understand it, if you ever do, it will seem logical and you will see the composer's reasoning behind it.

[desordre]

Mr. Counterpoint:

That's not easy to explain.
There is a feeling of what notes or chords or rhythms do match to another and others who don't match. It's not, that for example a chord sounded dissonant, but that the voices don't move in a logical sense. Okay, I can't explain it.  

Do you notice that with the same argument we can criticize Bach? Johann Fux is a very near contemporary of him, and was the theorist that coined the most influential treatise of counterpoint of all times. In his book, you will find a very logical system of pitch relationship. It was published in 1725 (a few years later than Bach's summa, the WTC), and if you analyze the Preludes and Fugues at the light of the fuxian theory, you will discover that Bach wrote a very poor counterpoint. Is it that the true? No, a thousand times no! However, for his own time Bach was developing counterpoint technique and, for that matter, his influence over the generations is by far greater that the one by Fux, even knowing the fact that many composers had study the theories of the later.
About Skryabin, the label "logic" is a very dangerous one: he was a composer at the dawn of the tonal age, and a very experimental one (just remember "Le Poeme de l'Extase" or "Prometheus"). Most of his technique can be easily understand as "unlogical", especially by his own contemporaries.

[counterpoint]

The Ligeti Etudes - they are quite logical.

It's a very simple sort of logic, it keeps logical in an abstract, mathematical sense, but it doesn't transcend into music. Quite interesting to play, but not very interesting to hear.

[desordre]

you cant explain it because there really is no such thing as "unlogical music". you may not understand what you are hearing, which makes it seem "unlogical" to you. once you understand it, if you ever do, it will seem logical and you will see the composer's reasoning behind it. (...)

Very true, again.

(...)this piece, btw, is one of my favorite 20th century pieces.

[counterpoint]

Most of his  technique can be easily understand as "unlogical", especially by his own contemporaries.

If the people don't understand the music, you can't blame the composer!

[desordre]

If the people don't understand the music, you can't blame the composer!

I agree. However it wasn't me the one who did blame on most of 20th century music, and hence did blame the composers themselves.

[Nightscape]

Is counterpoint talking about voice leading?

If so, that would make sense.  I too like it when I can perceive relationships between tones.... in either tonal or atonal music.  Bach (obviously) and Scriabin were two good composers who took advantage of counterpoint in thier music.

[JCarey]

I think a lot of the hostility toward 20th century music comes from a lack of understanding on where to start. There used to be a time where the fugue from Beethoven's Op. 106 was too dissonant for my ears. Later, it was Liszt's B Minor Sonata. Then it was Prokofiev. Then it was Xenakis. Now, Berio's Coro, Xenakis' Evryali, and Finnissy's 4th Concerto are all among my favorite works, despite their brutal and often unrelenting dissonance.

I can relate to a lot of the people who express dislike for 20th century music. I didn't enjoy it when I first heard it. What bothers me is when hostile remarks are made through ignorance, like calling Schoenberg's or Sorabji's music "random", for instance. However, I believe it has to do largely with the fact that some people just don't know where to begin.

Also, many people don't understand that music is, first and foremost, for listening. I don't believe that it's wise to analyze a piece of music too deeply the first time you hear it, especially if it's a 20th century work. I think one must first listen to it from a listener's perspective, just to "feel" the music. Then one can analyze it. This may seem like a daunting task, when considering works of such length as the OC, in which case I suggest that the listener listens to it in sections instead.

Those who can enjoy 20th century music are lucky. They're able to access an entirely new world of music, which will give them a much greater listening experience throughout their lives. I don't think I know anybody who developed a taste for 20th century music that regretted it later. There's just so much more about music that one is able to love if they can just get past the initial "ugh, this is ugly" stage. If only more people were willing to try.

[mephisto]

Desordre I do really appreciate the fact that you like the music of the 20th century so much, because I do to. One composers who I don`t understand at all it Boulez. I have probably listened to his 2nd piano sonata 10 times, but it sounds like a 2 year old improvising on the piano. The only part I like like is the three first notes of the 4th mwt.
I have nothing against Boulez, I don`t think his music is bad, I just find it impossible to appreciate his music.

Messiaen`s Vingt Regards on the other hand is God-given(and all of his other music, spare two of the rythmic etudes).

[jakev2.0]

bleh...I can't stand Messiaen. I have a lot of respect for people who play it, (and play it really well, like Hotaik), but it sounds like crap.

[JCarey]

bleh...I can't stand Messiaen. I have a lot of respect for people who play it, (and play it really well, like Hotaik), but it sounds like crap.

1. What does crap sound like?
2. Why do you think that it sounds bad in general just because you don't like it?

Messiaen isn't one of my favorites, but I'd still find it hard to believe that you would be unable to enjoy a good amount of his music. Most of it that I am familiar with is quite tonal (key signatures and all), and not too hard on the ears like Boulez or early Penderecki.

[superstition2]

The opposite of logical is illogical, not "unlogical".

The 20th century can't be generalized to the degree people are doing here. Rachmaninov's very tonal music was written in the 20th century primarily. So was plenty of other accessible tonal music, like Barber's Adagio for Strings. Scriabin's concerto is another good example. So is Prokofiev's last sonata and his 5th, 6th, and 7th symphonies. Some composers, like Ornstein, composed tonal music in the 1970s and beyond, although many of them, like Ornstein, worked primarily with more recent systems.

Moving away from conventional tonality, music can become too cryptic for many listeners. Some composers, like Schoenberg, bore me, but others, like Roslavets, thrill me. I love the first movement of Tcherepnin's 5th concerto, and have even come to tolerate Rautavaara's 2nd. One problem many mid-late 20th century composers have, at least in the eyes of many listeners, is that their music is too bombastic. Stravinsky's Le Sacre is tonal enough and varied enough, although it's brutal to listen to. Later music, such as Rautavaara's concertos and Tveitt's later concertos, offer a "wall of sound" with a flurry of notes and noise blasts from the orchestra. This sort of music doesn't appeal to everyone. But, the tonal composers who can be tepid, like Handel, don't appeal to everyone, either. Handel, as with most other composers, wrote pieces that I enjoy and pieces I can live without. With "modern" composers, the difference between their best work and their lesser work is often quite a bit larger, I think, because of greater creative freedom as well as technology advances. Glass' Music in Twelve Parts is abhorrent to me, but I enjoy his Hours soundtrack.

Composers shouldn't hide behind flash or technique. They couldn't in the 19th century and they can't today. There may be a lot of less-than-ideal music in the 20th century, but if one listens to some of the "Romantic Piano Concerto" discs from Hyperion or Vox, one sees that there was a lot of mediocre music by forgotten composers written prior to the 20th.

As for Messiaen, his Turangalia symphony is good (there are two versions; the later version is heavily cut), but I think his Quartet for the End of Time is rubbish.

[steve_m]

That's not easy to explain.
There is a feeling of what notes or chords or rhythms do match to another and others who don't match. It's not, that for example a chord sounded dissonant, but that the voices don't move in a logical sense. Okay, I can't explain it. 

I think I know what you mean by calling it illogical. Like when the melody doesn't seem to make any sense, rhythmically. It sounds like there is no time signature. Notes keep coming one after another, but you can't seem to attach a beat to it, and it becomes unsettling.  Is that what you're talking about?

[counterpoint]

Like when the melody doesn't seem to make any sense, rhythmically. It sounds like there is no time signature.

It's true, that you can pretend a musical relation of a bunch of notes, if they are played in a snappy rhythm. But that's not, what I'm talking about.

I talk about the ingredients of the chords and how the chords are linked together. Too often in "modern" music, there is no voicing at all. It's like a weird puzzle, which is made out of separated pieces from 7000 different puzzles plus some nails, hairclips, some strawberry ice cream and a motive from Lohengrin.

[steve_m]

It's true, that you can pretend a musical relation of a bunch of notes, if they are played in a snappy rhythm. But that's not, what I'm talking about.

I talk about the ingredients of the chords and how the chords are linked together. Too often in "modern" music, there is no voicing at all. It's like a weird puzzle, which is made out of separated pieces from 7000 different puzzles plus some nails, hairclips, some strawberry ice cream and a motive from Lohengrin.

What would you give as an example of illogical music?

[blu217]

It's not 20th century music I don't enjoy. There are many beautiful pieces from the period.

It's atonal, experimental or exceptionally dissonant pieces I don't care for.  I don't enjoy  those kinds of compositions in any musical genre, not just classical. Melody and harmony are such gorgeous companions and I prefer them happily married and making babies, not at odds, fighting it out and demanding that I acquire an understanding for the challenging nature of their harsh, cacophonous squabbling. 

[thalbergmad]

I am afraid of 20th Century music.

My musical tastes are very simple. If a piece has a nice melody, a nice fast and slow bit and ends with a bang, i am happy.

Much of the 20th century music i have listened to is too complex for my ear. I feel i need a music degree to listen to it.

My roots are in the Romantics and that is where i will remain.

Thal

[counterpoint]

What would you give as an example of illogical music?

Oh, I don't know, where to begin...

Let's take the Debussy Etudes as a casual example:

II. Pour les Tierces

Debussy writes 5 flats as key marking, which could be Eb minor

first notes of the left hand are:  A (natural!) Gb G Bb

A Gb is an augmented second, very weird notation

The A is part of an augmented triad, followed by a diminished triad, then augmented triad again, some other dimished chord and so on

This music is out of tune. Why Debussy writes 5 flats at the beginning, when he wants to write an atonal piece? It doesn't sound very dissonant, but it doesn't sound, as if there were any rules, whether to use this note or another note at a special place. It looks for me, as he thought: let's write some notes, doesn't matter which, in tierces that go up and down and do some bass notes that don't really fit. It sound so undecided to my ears. Compare this to Debussy's wonderful Preludes. It's like night and day.