Who's afraid of 20th century music?

[desordre]

 Dear Phil:
 Let me, please, comment your post:

(...)
I am not really 'afraid' of 20th century music, but rather choose not to listen to much of it, since it does not affect me. I do have a roughly informed opinion, having listened to Schoenberg, Berg, Messi(a)en, Gershwin, Webern, Sorabji, Barber, Cor(i)gliano, Varese, Babbit(t), Stockhausen, Reich, Kapustin, and I could go on a bit more but I won't since those are off the top of my head.
(...)

This is what all is about: listen and know twentieth century music. Enjoy it or not is up to you! I think that we must, as serious musicians, know as deep and thoroughly as possible the music of any given century. Play, and listen, and analyze, and do whatever. If, after the long process of knowing something you realize that you just don't like it, that's OK.

(...) I'm sorry, but it's hard to recognize the genius of a man who writes music for a select few people (there just aren't that many brillian enough to 'get' it.) (...)

The very first post of this thread is about this: a genius that wrote music to very few people (indeed, he wrote only for himself). This man is Herr Beethoven. Would you say that he is not a genius?

(...)Twelve-tone music is another branch that I just do not like. But, at least I can listen to it now- when I first heard it, it actually hurt my ears to hear something so unbelievably dissonant.
(...)

Getting acquainted with a different language is the first step to undertand and to enjoy it. Your case, for example: first, you thought serial music was rubbish; then, you can listen to it but you don't like it. I think, based on what you say, that you know a good amount of serial music, and although it's not chaotic, or (as people often say) "randomic" to your ears, you just don't like. Boy, I can't say anything against it. I don't like most Rachmaninoff, and really don't understand why people love the 3rd so much. Would you blame me for this?

(...)Barber's Op.26 Sonata.(...)

  Oh, yes: what a masterpiece! By the way, Barber's music in general is fascinating. Why people know it so little is a mistery to myself.
 Best wishes!

[desordre]

(...)
I hope that this clears the air and that you now understand that no aspersions were intended to be cast upon you in what I wrote.
Best,
Alistair

Dear Mr. Hinton:
 Sorry I did understand you the wrong way. And thanks for your words.
 Best wishes!

[pies]

Dear Pies:
 Achtung! The Klavierstucke opus 11 are not serial.

Ah, true. I forgot. But it's a great piece nonetheless.

[clef]

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.

and whats the problem with that?  If it sounds good, does it really matter how the composer came up with it?  Debussy used any trick he could think of to create the desired effect, he wasn't thinking about patterns and chord structures, of course more "logical" music may satisfy the "logical" needs of the "logical" part of your brain while you play it, but please don't judge any music before you hear it because it doesn't follow any sort of pattern.

 We define music with the terms that we created to define music with, however music cannot truly be represented in text, or in anything else apart for music.  Can you truly describe a tone to a deaf person who has been deaf all their life?  How would you start?  How would you explain colour to a blind person who has been blind all their life? You can't, the only way to describe a colour is to compare it to something you've seen before, like if you say its blue, then someone will think of the colour blue, which they have seen before, its the same as music... a deaf person will not understand music because they have never experianced it, so it is ridiculous to define music as logical by the chord progressions and patterns it uses, as those patterns aren't logical, they've just been used so much that people get used to them. 

ok my random rant is over...

[desordre]

(...)Debussy (...) wasn't thinking about patterns and chord structures, (...)

Dear Clef:
 Sorry, but I don't agree with you. Debussy was very aware of patterns and chord structures, he only used them in a most personal way. For example, in the famous Prelude X ("La Cathedral") he uses triads, which are a conventional chord structure. The distinct is the planning, i.e., the all-parallel voice-leading.
 Best wishes!

[gerryjay]

 i think people don't listen to some kinds of music very often (some 20th century languages included) thus is impossible to like it.
 i must say that i love some composers active in the last century: debussy, webern, reich. there are many, but there are some whose music i dislike to be honest. and it's difficult to talk about a whole century because of its variety of styles.
 anyway i think that is a problem when someone who doesn't know something say something about it. it may happen to a composer, a style, a performer.
 have someone pointed out the problem about early music? there are much people who dislike it and barely know it. 
 finally i just can't understand why people waste time writing/talking about music they don't like. why the need to criticize and to hate?
 peace! 

[pies]

20th century musik rules \m/

http://www.filefreak.com/pfiles/34030/Giacinto_Scelsi_-_Suite_10_Ka_-_4th_Mvt..mp3

[swim4ever_22]

I like 20th Cent. music... Rachmaninoff... Scriabin... Ravel... Debussy...

[indutrial]

finally i just can't understand why people waste time writing/talking about music they don't like. why the need to criticize and to hate?
 peace! 

Is this really that mysterious? A lot of these people are narrow-minded shitheads who need teachers and old people to tell them how to think and get anxious whenever individual thoughts intrude upon their comfy little brains. To hell with their criticism and hatred. Any individual in the music world worth their salt doesn't give a rat's ass and stays away from such languid personalities.

[point of grace]

i also think that way...

[swim4ever_22]

For the most part, I do tend to be biased toward contemporary music. An example would be Muczynski's Preludes. I just don't like the way they sound, but others may love them. However, I do like the music written by Nubou Uematsu.

[pianowolfi]

20th century musik rules \m/

http://www.filefreak.com/pfiles/34030/Giacinto_Scelsi_-_Suite_10_Ka_-_4th_Mvt..mp3

I like 

[indutrial]

For the most part, I do tend to be biased toward contemporary music. An example would be Muczynski's Preludes. I just don't like the way they sound, but others may love them. However, I do like the music written by Nubou Uematsu.

Uematsu is certainly a remarkable composer, and moreso a remarkable arranger, since he could basically utilize any type of instruments he wished (combining synths and rock instruments with symphonic sounds liberally). While I like a lot of difficult 20th/21st century music, I certainly do not balk at a good video game melody or movie theme.

[point of grace]

trully... sometimes a bit...
well... it depends... i´m talking about the second half of the XX century...

[ryanyee]

for me i only like shostakovich's prelude in a major. no.7 of i dunno which opus number and scriabin's etude in d sharp minor or something like that.

[gyzzzmo]

I dont like 20th century music much no. But i think its caused by something wich has been occuring for any century: We hear too much rubbish. When time passes only the real quality music will sustain and becomes 'classic'.
Im sure there is great 20th century music 'somewhere', im just too lazy for discovering where the hell it is

[lorguemystique]

A somewhat strange question imo. Sorabji gave to the world a most fascinating corpus of oeuvre written in the 20th century as did Messiaen.  Had the world not such luminaries as the aforementioned composers we would all be so much poorer.

[indutrial]

Im sure there is great 20th century music 'somewhere', im just too lazy for discovering where the hell it is

Yes, laziness would certainly why you say what you do. The elusive 'great' music you speak has probably been sitting on your face for years but you refuse to admit it's there because your brain is preoccupied crying over previous centuries that will never come back.

[Etude]

I think it's stupid how we've got loads of people playing fantasie-impromptu for the umpteenth time ever, while a lot of obscure composers of now and recent go for the most part unacknowledged by the performing classical music world.  Playing the same old pieces time and time again adds nothing to the music world at all...  That's one thing I admire about non-classical music, usually there's a much greater emphasis on adding to music history rather than dwelling on it.

[rachfan]

Except for early 20th century music which I do play, I'm not afraid of "contemporary" or "post modern" music, but I in a practical sense, I'm very much put off by it.  Here's why:

1. There is such a glut of it, it's difficult, without the benefit of historical perspective, to tell what's great and what's pure trash. 

2. A lot of contemporary music uses new musical notation which I don't feel like learning, as I have a very long "to do" repertoire list and can use my time to better advantage playing notation that is familiar and comfortable.  Nor do I want to ruin my piano strings by strumming them or putting junk on them, nor do I like the sound of it.  Holding down tone clusters with lengths of wood on the keyboard and jumping off the bench to make a yell or shout would not make my day either. 

3. My personal affinity is for the Late Romantic period.  If a piece strikes me as being noise rather than being imbued with aesthetic beauty, I simply cannot be bothered with it, as it does not move me.  That is, to say, it doesn't excite or inspire me and provides no impetus or motivation to learn it.  Life is way too short to waste time learning uninspiring noise (or music as some would have it).

4. The rewards of playing post-modern music are few.  Because it often seems random in nature, it is very difficult to learn, does not bring pleasure to the pianist, and leaves an audience cold, i.e., polite applause if that.  After investing a lot into it, it pays little or no dividend.

Other than that, I have no problem with it.

I would be curious to come back 75 years from now to see which contemporary composers' works were ultimately cast into the dust bin, and which wrote master works that became staples of the standard repertoire (if such a thing still exists by then).

[retrouvailles]

rachfan, you seem to be offput by only the more avant-garde repertoire of the last 50 years or so. I assure you, this is NOT (I repeat, NOT) the bulk of the repertoire from the past 50 or so years and you must not carry this misguided preconceived notion with you when you try to form an opinion regarding this frequently and unjustly maligned group of music. Sure, there are a lot of John Cages and Pierre Boulez's out there (those who you might be thinking of), but what about the Arvo Pärts and Witold Lutosławskis and such out there? There is a lot of beautiful music from the past 50 years that doesn't require either a PhD, a superhuman intellect, or the tolerance of a pacifist to listen to and enjoy. Late 20th century/21st century music has suffered a lot of unjust criticism, which only leads to malformed opinions, such as your own, and that is not what this music needs. I urge you to do a little research into this music, for a little research will lead to a lot of rewards in the end. I once was in your position and didn't want to explore this music because of these wrongly formed notions. But you know what I did? I stepped out of my late romantic comfort zone, did a little research into this music, and stubled upon a treasure trove of great music. I have never looked back since.

[pies]

1. There is such a glut of it, it's difficult, without the benefit of historical perspective, to tell what's great and what's pure trash. 

How would a historical perspective benefit be beneficial?  I don't see how it can help you determine which works you like or dislike.

[indutrial]

How would a historical perspective benefit be beneficial?  I don't see how it can help you determine which works you like or dislike.

Historical perspective helps one to rise above their own ego-driven opinion and to contextual things in terms of a more objective framework of reality (i.e. one that doesn't piss on other people's interests). Of course, such a thing is in truth not totally possible, but the point of attempting that is to shed our current generation's addiction to spoiled-brat horse manure like "I know what I like" and "this is what I hate." I can only imagine how shittified the world of serious musicians would become if those notions completely dictated their actions. Thankfully, most of the guilty ones seem to be spending their time annoying people on web forums and not doing anything that truly affects the progressive parts of the music world.

[cygnusdei]

Freedom of expression is a two-way street.
Ideas survive by attrition.

[dnephi]

I recommend Carl Vine for a good introduction to 21st centry composition.

[indutrial]

I recommend Carl Vine for a good introduction to 21st centry composition.

It's a little early to start calling composers "21st century composers," no? Most people are having enough trouble dealing with the previous century's! I like to view the development of music from the late 1800s forward as an exponential diversification of musical styles that really loses all sense of bearing a proper definition. While some argument can be made for specific phases of that development (neoclassical, serial, Complex, expressionist, etc...) I think that it is pointless and retroactive to take those terms seriously and even more so to bunch them together into categories like "20th Century Music." The sooner that term disappears from music history courses, the better. It's a nonsense blanket term that does too much harm and causes too much stupidity. "21st century music" makes even less sense since most of today's active composers don't even engage in the asinine debates about this or that style or methodology. Most of them just COMPOSE and leave all the bally-hoo to CD reviewers, fans, and irrelevant grumpy musicians. I've read enough interviews with composers I like from recent years to know that almost all of the best of them are staying relevant because they are intellectual islands in the scene - doing their own things for their own purposes. Good musicians respect them for this individuality and not because they are sating some "20th century" genre fetish.

That rant aside, Carl Vine is a good introduction to just plain EXCELLENT composition that amalgamates a whole assload of different things, complex and strong rhythms, entrancing harmonies, great melodies, the whole nine. He represents probably the best type of thing to come out of the twentieth century - a composer who is hard to subject to simple genre-this/genre-that and this-period/that-period analyses - simply a composer who has a lot going on that represents everything that is good about all the good music from the past combined with the best of what's to come. The end outcome of all the overturning and conflict during the twentieth century was the liberation of the composer to pretty much follow his/her muse with the least amount of annoying resistance from the sh*t-eating musical establishment, be that an aristocratic musical elite, favoritist critics, or the idiotic mob who would riot and jeer the second they heard a minor 2nd harmony. So, in that respect (coming back around to the subject title), no one should be afraid of twentieth century music since it probably features the most humanly-involved and emotionally-invested music that exists in any period, not to mention it encourages people to be themselves and express their intentions with the utmost artistic honesty.

[dnephi]

I, instead, argue that he is a 21st century composer.

Discuss.

[retrouvailles]

I, instead, argue that he is a 21st century composer.

Discuss.

No, that is not the subject of this thread.

However, I would agree with indutrial that Carl Vine is not only a great introduction to later 20th century music, but a really great composer as well. Because he started out as a dance composer, he has a factor in his music which immediately connects with the audience, no matter what kind of piece he is writing. I have also spoken with him through email and can say that he is a really great guy who is very approachable and appreciates his audience. rachfan, take note of his name and investigate him. He, and a large percentage of Australian composers in general, are some of the most approachable, yet great, composers of today.

[rachfan]

retrouvailles:  I agree that I was focusing more on avant garde than perhaps "mainstream".  But, let me add this.  As far as researching, I've been doing that off and on, desperate to find modern music that I would truly love to play.  (You know how much Bortkiewicz I'm doing, so when I get excited by a composer, I'm more gung-ho than anyone!)  Anyway, I spent a significant amount of time looking up American composers in particular, as we all like to play the music of our countrymen if possible.  In particular, I narrowed my search to Neo-Romantics (that fits me, right?), of which there were many (here in the U.S., we have four composers on every street corner), which raised my hopes for finding something lush and melodic.  But as I read the repertoire descriptions in Hinson's guide, which were quite specific concerning the nature of the pieces and composing techniques employed, I found most were total turn-offs.  Most of these "Neo-Romantics" are using 12-tone rows, atonality, polytonality, huge doses of dissonance, etc. 

Nevertheless, I slogged through and after all the sifting and re-sifting came up with Danielpour, Del Tredici, and Corigliano as seemingly promising leads.  Next, I went onto Amazon to see if there were any CDs with piano music of these composers.  I found Corigliano's "Adagio" from the "Gazebo Dances", so listened to the sample.  The title is promising, yes?  It was GOD AWFUL!  DREADFUL!  This so-called "neo-romantic" writes atonally, and the adagio was a stuttering staccato!  He's got to be kidding.  I'm still looking to hear Del Tredici's "Fantasie Pieces" and "Soliloquy".  Maybe they'll capture my interest, maybe not.  I hate to just buy the sheet music and find that it's a bomb.  Same with CDs.

So, I'm not just damning mid-20th Century music out of hand.  I have, in fact, been looking into it.  Maybe not as intensively and enthusiastically as I should be, but trying to be dutiful about it.  As I said in my original post, these composers are a vast legion.  And being in the moment without that historical perspective on quality, it's like looking for needles in haystacks.  It might be that the American neo-romantics are not the best, and perhaps I should be shifting my focus to Europe.  Any suggestions?

indutrial on historical perspective:  Very well put!   

Regarding Carl Vine: I did listen to Vine's "Sonata".  (Someone in the forum posted it a few months ago.)  The playing was very good, but I found the piece very dry and academic.  I've since read that Vine specifies that "Romantic interpretation of melodies, phrases and gestures should be avoided whenever possible."  That is exactly the kind of composition that I would avoid at all costs!  It would rub against my grain.  It's late-20th Century music without heart.  What a turn-off!  What are better examples of his output that I should be hearing?

Some of you will think I'm hopeless when it comes to modern music, and I certainly understand your reaction.  But in fairness, I do make some efforts to connect with it, although I usually come away disappointed and feeling frustrated.  Here's the challenge: In the 21st Century, I'm The Last Romantic.  So where to turn to find music that The Last Romantic would take joy in playing?  While you mull on that, I'll zone out to Philip Glass' endless and repetitious ostinatos that are considered so intriguing and revolutionary in the new music.  Skxxxzzzzzz, snorrrrre.

[retrouvailles]

I do not think you are trying hard enough. It is not good to dismiss a composer after you hear one piece of theirs, or a small sample of a piece of theirs. With 20th century music, there is a greater amount of effort required from the listener, if you know what I mean, but the rewards are just as great, if not greater, as finding someone like Bortkiewicz. And before you ask "Why is listening to 20th century music necessary?", I will say that in this kind of music, you find emotions and feelings that are not explored in great depth, if at all, in other periods. Even in the most impassioned piece by Bortkiewicz, you cannot find a more pure expression of human struggle as in many 20th century pieces. And you cannot rely on Maurice Hinson for everything. And btw, the Gazebo Dances by Corigliano are dreadful, but not because of the dissonances within them, but because of their failure to say anything meaningful to the listener, in my opinion. If you want a REALLY good piece for piano solo by him, look up his Etude Fantasy, which is a classic among pianists already, and it was written only a little over 30 years ago! And please do not say it is atonal when you hear it, because it isn't! A little dissonances here and there only heighten the experience. And what do you have against tone rows, atonality, polytonality, "huge doses of dissonance", and the like? They aren't there solely for the purpose of pissing of th