Avant-Garde Music - Is is really about understanding, or personal taste?

[JCarey]

"What an odd delusion, and how prevalent, that when some composition that one dislikes has been put on the dissecting table, one will dislike it less, or, in that singularly meaningless phrase, "understand it" better. The only result of this ghoulish process, pushed to the furthest lengths of boring absurdity in the analytical programme note, is to make one dislike it even more. It is like someone who, having introduced you to some antipatico person, shows you a radiograph of him, saying, "Oh you are ridiculously prejudiced against him! Just look at what a fine skeleton he has!"

- Kaikhosru Sorabji


I have never been a fan of avant-garde music, really, and have always thought that this was because of a "lack of understanding". Well, it was just a while ago that I discovered this quote by Sorabji, who despised avant-garde music terribly, and it made me think - does it really have to do with understanding, or is it merely a matter of personal taste?

Or, there's something else. Does anybody truly like it? Now keep in mind, I am not referring to all music that can be defined as "avant-garde", exactly, but rather music that serves no real purpose other than experimentation. Am I missing something here? Why would anyone want to be subjected to that? I am referring to composers such as... well, John Cage would be a major one. For the life of me, I could never understand why anyone could possibly enjoy listening to most of Cage's music.

It has always seemed to me, that music, like any art form, is about self-expression. Now, when a piece of "music" has nothing to express, is it really still music? And is liking or disliking avant-garde music really based on an individual's intelligence or understanding, personal taste, or is the liking for this type of music really non-existent?

[steinwayguy]

If you would classify Ligeti as avant-garde, like I would, then I like a good deal of avant-garde music but am totally turned off by a lot too. For example, the first piece in Ligeti's Musica Ricercata (sp?) is totally comprised of A's, a monotonic piece! until the end, and the last note is a D. Phenomenal. The second piece in the set makes a very long appearance in the movie "Eyes Wide Shut". This piece is comprised of three different pitches, e#, f# and g. Beautiful.


And if I'm really not right in what I consider avant-garde, forgive me and I will say it's a lack of understanding.

Oh, and I hate John Cage.

[JCarey]

If you would classify Ligeti as avant-garde, like I would, then I like a good deal of avant-garde music but am totally turned off by a lot too. For example, the first piece in Ligeti's Musica Ricercata (sp?) is totally comprised of A's, a monotonic piece! until the end, and the last note is a D. Phenomenal. The second piece in the set makes a very long appearance in the movie "Eyes Wide Shut". This piece is comprised of three different pitches, e#, f# and g. Beautiful.


And if I'm really not right in what I consider avant-garde, forgive me and I will say it's a lack of understanding.

Oh, and I hate John Cage.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. I think that Musica Ricercata is a colossal waste of time. I suppose if I felt like some emotion was being expressed in it, I might feel differently toward it, like I would toward a lot of other avant-garde music, but since it appears to me that this was not the composers' intention, I often question whether it could really be considered music or not.

I believe that certain people, if they are good with the English language, can make anything sound great, even if it's really trash. I can't help but laugh when I read essays about "the true meaning" of Cage's 4'33".

[JCarey]

Also, in case you didn't know, the sheetmusic for Music Ricercata is available for free download here - https://www.abrahamespinosa.com/partitures%20pdf/Ligeti,%20Gyorgy%20-%20Musica%20ricercata.pdf

I find his "time signatures" hilarious.

Another crazy one was Nancarrow. Here's some of his "Tango?".




So people were always talking about how difficult his music was. So I saw this and I thought, "Well that doesn't look that difficult!" Then I noticed the multiple time signatures, and thought it was impossible. When I finally aquired a recording, it amazed me that anyone would feel the need to waste their life to learn such a piece... it was perhaps one of the most irritating musical experiences I've ever had.

[steinwayguy]

U don't liek musica ricercata? liek omg!

[Skeptopotamus]

hehehehe...... John Cage isnt always good but i like alot of avante-garde like ligeti's symphony for 100 metronomes, xenakis's herma and nancarrow's tango?.

[JCarey]

hehehehe...... John Cage isnt always good but i like alot of avante-garde like ligeti's symphony for 100 metronomes, xenakis's herma and nancarrow's tango?.

I have yet to hear Herma. I've heard a sample on amazon.com, and I didn't like it, but I suppose it isn't fair to judge a piece without hearing the whole thing.

Now, just so we all understand each other, I do not necessarily consider all avant-garde music to be atonal, nor do I consider all atonal music to be avant-garde. There is plenty of atonal music that I find incredibly beautiful, yet I would rarely say that about most avant-garde music.

Oh, and Rzewski's Variations on "The People United Will Never Be Defeated" is one of my favorite pieces.

[steinwayguy]

And Ligeti is amongst one of my favorite composers.

[Skeptopotamus]

rzewki's variations is on the whole not "avante-garde".  variation no. 10 is, and the movements with theatrics like whistling i suppose are but it isnt really avante-garde. more 20/21st century.

[JCarey]

And Ligeti is amongst one of my favorite composers.

I do enjoy some of Ligeti's etudes a lot, but then there are quite a few that I have listened to once, and might never bother to listen to again. "Coloana fara safarsit", for example.

[JCarey]

rzewki's variations is on the whole not "avante-garde".  variation no. 10 is, and the movements with theatrics like whistling i suppose are but it isnt really avante-garde. more 20/21st century.

Exactly, that is why I enjoy that piece much more than the music of John Cage, Charles Ives, or Xenakis.

[pita bread]

So where do you draw the line between 20/21st century music and Avant-garde? What do you consider to be in each of those camps?

[Skeptopotamus]

avante-garde means different.  serialistic compositions are often referred to as avante-garde; like boulez, messiaen, stockhausen.  Things composed using formulas, formalated music, is avante-garde; xenakis, penderecki.  A piece that is composed for non-conventional instruments; prepared piano, electronic music, typewriters, silence (arg).  things that are completely unique; opus clavicembalisticum and other pieces of that tpye of difficulty/time would be considered avante-garde, as would cage's "slow as possible".

[wintervind]

To me, Avant Guard music is alot like going to see a modern art exibit.

You know that you probably wont understand exactly what is going on and it requires much effort on the part of the audience in order to make it enjoyable. Sometimes, I should say often, it is impossible to distinguish what is the piece of "art" and what is just what you could encounter in everyday life. Then, anything could be art, and you start noticing things. A pair of dirty socks, some lampshade laying on the sidewalk, the buzzing of your dishwasher running.

After the experiece, I look at the world differently even if it is by laughing my brains out about how ridiculous it was

[stormx]

John Cage?

Is there any MUSIC composer with this name?
I only know a clown named that way 

PD: just a little joke...i personnaly HATE that kind of experimental music(¿?¿?)

[luc]

After listinening to some of Ligeti's pieces I can't understand why this is considered to be 'music'.

[dlu]

After listinening to some of Ligeti's pieces I can't understand why this is considered to be 'music'.

What pieces did you listen to? And please define "music."

DLu

[Skeptopotamus]

wow..... if you think Ligeti Etudes are out there then I don't want to know what you would say if you heard Boulez or Stockhausen or Penderecki XD


P.S. Trashing Ligeti is a bad idea on here; just about everyone worships him, including me =)

[steinwayguy]

Ligeti is as bomb ass as contemporary music gets, period. Mmmm. Desordre. Mmmmm.

[Skeptopotamus]

I know it.  That Piano Concerto gives me chills.  I have Pierre Boulez himself conducting it.  And Automne a Varsovie..... masterpiece.

[ckprbnh]

Some popular arguments used by avant-garde composers:

"This world is so bad, so music that describes it has to sound dissonant."
If this world is already so bad, is there any reason to make it even worse by such "music"?

"Tonality is nothing natural, it has been defined arbitrarily and is obsolete today."
Tonal music will never be obsolete - as long as people listen to it, no matter if it's classical, jazz, pop, rock etc., children will get used to it from the beginning and regard it as something natural.

"Almost everything new in music was first rejected by the audience."
OK, but after some years (or sometimes decades, maybe) people got used to everything - as long as the music was still tonal. Today most people still haven't got used to atonal music although it has been existing for about 100 years.

It's hard to believe that there are still composers who think they can create something really new.
Over 30 years ago, Penderecki already realized that this had become impossible and returned to tonal music.
I'm quite sure that there is no future in experiments like Cage's - actually this kind of "music" has become obsolete. Composers will have to realize that music must be understandable just by hearing it if they want to be respected by more than just a few freaks.

[dlu]

Some popular arguments used by avant-garde composers:

"This world is so bad, so music that describes it has to sound dissonant."
If this world is already so bad, is there any reason to make it even worse by such "music"?

"Tonality is nothing natural, it has been defined arbitrarily and is obsolete today."
Tonal music will never be obsolete - as long as people listen to it, no matter if it's classical, jazz, pop, rock etc., children will get used to it from the beginning and regard it as something natural.

"Almost everything new in music was first rejected by the audience."
OK, but after some years (or sometimes decades, maybe) people got used to everything - as long as the music was still tonal. Today most people still haven't got used to atonal music although it has been existing for about 100 years.

It's hard to believe that there are still composers who think they can create something really new.
Over 30 years ago, Penderecki already realized that this had become impossible and returned to tonal music.
I'm quite sure that there is no future in experiments like Cage's - actually this kind of "music" has become obsolete. Composers will have to realize that music must be understandable just by hearing it if they want to be respected by more than just a few freaks.

I find some "avant-garde" composer like Lutoslawski and Ligeti very "understandable."

It is a matter of personal taste though, I agree.

There really is no point in arguing this topic though...(even though that is what I'm doing right now). 

You could even call Sorabji (the author of that quote) "avant-garde"...who as I remember frequently imitated Schoenberg. What composers specifially do you think Sorabji was refering to with that quote?

DLu

[ckprbnh]

I find some "avant-garde" composer like Lutoslawski and Ligeti very "understandable."

It is a matter of personal taste though, I agree.

There really is no point in arguing this topic though...(even though that is what I'm doing right now). 

You could even call Sorabji (the author of that quote) "avant-garde"...who as I remember frequently imitated Schoenberg. What composers specifially do you think Sorabji was refering to with that quote?

DLu

It seems like my statement was a bit too radical… I just had to blow off some steam after I’ve been rejected by the conservatories where I wanted to study composition because my works were too traditional. So I’ll try to explain what I wanted to say.
I wasn’t talking about Lutoslawski, Ligeti or Sorabji – they all knew that there are different ways of writing music, that it can be, for example, tonal or atonal, harmonic or dissonant; they did not exclude any of these components of music. Also, I really admire composers like Ives or Messiaen who had the courage to overstep the borders and pushed the development of music forward, and I’m sure that if Schönberg or Cage had not brought in their new ideas, someone else would have done it. It was a natural and necessary development, I don’t want to argue that; but today the limit is reached. Trying to create a really “new” music is like searching for a place on earth that is not on any map yet. The challenge for a contemporary composer should be to create his individual style by combining the existing possibilities – as Alfred Schnittke did, for example – instead of trying to write something even more shrill and extravagant.

I don’t know which composers Sorabji was referring to, but I was thinking of those who exclude everything that sounds beautiful or that reminds the listener in any way of any kind of traditional music – such as the composition teachers at the conservatories where I’ve applied (not all of them, but the majority). They demand of you to know everything about harmony and counterpoint, but you are not allowed to use your knowledge because it’s not up-to-date. They don’t care about the fact that the musicians who play their music get sick of it – it is proven that too much dissonance impairs your health, and this is not a question of personal taste. It is true that it was necessary that someone brought the musical development to its limit; but this has been done, so now it’s time to rethink about it.


Possibly my opinion about composition teachers is a little bit exaggerated… so I’m expecting your protest posts 

[musicsdarkangel]

contemporary music makes me laugh.

Seriously.


Whoever thought that we'd be this desperate?  To try and make the ugliest sounds we can?

It's hilarious seeing professional musicians make horrible random melodies and nasty noises.  It's like a 3 year old kid screwing around, but somehow very good at screwing around. 

Anyway, I saw one contemporary work performed for quartet, and it was really cool, because it was textural.

The notes didn't matter, but man, there were some crazy sounds and ambiences that came out of those instruments.

THAT was neat.


Other then that, and some Schoenberg, contemp. music SUCKS

[dlu]

It seems like my statement was a bit too radical… I just had to blow off some steam after I’ve been rejected by the conservatories where I wanted to study composition because my works were too traditional. So I’ll try to explain what I wanted to say.
I wasn’t talking about Lutoslawski, Ligeti or Sorabji – they all knew that there are different ways of writing music, that it can be, for example, tonal or atonal, harmonic or dissonant; they did not exclude any of these components of music. Also, I really admire composers like Ives or Messiaen who had the courage to overstep the borders and pushed the development of music forward, and I’m sure that if Schönberg or Cage had not brought in their new ideas, someone else would have done it. It was a natural and necessary development, I don’t want to argue that; but today the limit is reached. Trying to create a really “new” music is like searching for a place on earth that is not on any map yet. The challenge for a contemporary composer should be to create his individual style by combining the existing possibilities – as Alfred Schnittke did, for example – instead of trying to write something even more shrill and extravagant.

I don’t know which composers Sorabji was referring to, but I was thinking of those who exclude everything that sounds beautiful or that reminds the listener in any way of any kind of traditional music – such as the composition teachers at the conservatories where I’ve applied (not all of them, but the majority). They demand of you to know everything about harmony and counterpoint, but you are not allowed to use your knowledge because it’s not up-to-date. They don’t care about the fact that the musicians who play their music get sick of it – it is proven that too much dissonance impairs your health, and this is not a question of personal taste. It is true that it was necessary that someone brought the musical development to its limit; but this has been done, so now it’s time to rethink about it.


Possibly my opinion about composition teachers is a little bit exaggerated… so I’m expecting your protest posts 

Truly, I don't know which great contemporary composers you are talking about, that make use of nothing but atonality and dissonance in their composition. The most likeable "avant-garde's" are the ones who experiment with all aspects (even new, original ideas) in their music.

Many composers have phases. Like Copland (who experimented with atonality). Well, basically all great composers have a development. Like Schoenberg, Penderecki, etc to end up at their final compositional style...well...maybe not. Perhaps the great composers never stop developing and toying with new ideas (including making use of old ones). Do you see a great deal of development in these composition teacher's compositions??

Just some thoughts.

DLu

[Floristan]

I've always liked Ligeti, ever since we sang "Lux Aeterna" in my college concert choir.  I like Charles Ives and George Crumb and Alban Berg and some Schoenberg.  Are they all considered avant garde? 

I'm not crazy about Philip Glass.  He writes what I call trance music.  Just not to my liking.  Glass's music worked well with the film "Koyaanisqatsi," however.

[BoliverAllmon]

I like some advant-garde music, but I don't like other composers. I think the problem with this music is that people think you have to either like all of it or none of it. no is held up to the same expectations when it comes to any other genre of classical music.

boliver

[anda]

you can't just say "oh, it's one of those contemporary works - not worth my time!" - some are really worth listening/playing. but truth is that, the more music composed, the less chances of being completely original (and not having to hear "oh, you're writing in the style of X") and therefore more and more composers seem proned to sacrifice everything for the sake of originality. and an original *** is still a ***.

(imho)
(oh, and sorry about my english, hope it made some sense)

[BoliverAllmon]

made sense to me. I don't understand why people don't want to compose in the style of someone else. If I compose something and a respected musician tells me that it sounds like Beethoven or some other great composer, I think I would appreciate that remark.

[Dazzer]

well... its kind of like science.

why do we still have scientists going through their research? they don't want someone to tell them "i loved your research, its exactly what Einstein came up with". They want their name to be associated with an important surge in the innovation of their field.

Same goes for music. Unfortunately, music has been around alot longer than science... I guess the most "crazy" innovation for music would be an effective application of quartertones (that is, without it sounding like sh*t hahaha)

[anda]

made sense to me. I don't understand why people don't want to compose in the style of someone else. If I compose something and a respected musician tells me that it sounds like Beethoven or some other great composer, I think I would appreciate that remark.

that goes to show you don't have an empire state building -sized ego. if you had, and someone told you your works sound like beethoven, you'd snap "incult! this is way better stuff - more complex, more intricate! shut up if you don't know what you're talking about"

[musicsdarkangel]

Oh, George Crumb is cool if anyone hasn't heard him.

[BoliverAllmon]

that goes to show you don't have an empire state building -sized ego. if you had, and someone told you your works sound like beethoven, you'd snap "incult! this is way better stuff - more complex, more intricate! shut up if you don't know what you're talking about"

i think that would be a good thing.

[jeremyjchilds]

I like Avant garde music because it makes me think.

But it certainly isn't fun to listen to

[thierry13]

Also, in case you didn't know, the sheetmusic for Music Ricercata is available for free download here - https://www.abrahamespinosa.com/partitures%20pdf/Ligeti,%20Gyorgy%20-%20Musica%20ricercata.pdf

I find his "key signatures" hilarious.

Another crazy one was Nancarrow. Here's some of his "Tango?".




So people were always talking about how difficult his music was. So I saw this and I thought, "Well that doesn't look that difficult!" Then I noticed the multiple time signatures, and thought it was impossible. When I finally aquired a recording, it amazed me that anyone would feel the need to waste their life to learn such a piece... it was perhaps one of the most irritating musical experiences I've ever had.

It's nasty, but not THAT bad. If you look at it, it's 4/8, 5/8, and 6/8 at the same time. 4/8 against 6/8 are rythmical problems we often see. 5/8 are a bit rarer, but we see them also. The three combined make them again harder. But still. If you analyse it, seperate voices, it is possible. Mei-ting and Koji played it.

[thierry13]

Does anyone could send me the complete thing? Maybe it would make me change my mind on it's difficulty. Plus i would give it a shot, maybe it's harder than it looks.

[Nightscape]

Couldn't you input that "Tango?" into Finale or something, and convert all of the staves to a common time signature?   I would think it would make it a little easier to comprehend the music, although the coordination would still be very difficult.

[Etude]

You could just write tuplets in with the top numbers of the time signatures.  They would have to be in the same beat.  3/4 would have to become 6/8.  So on the first stave, write a tuplet bracket over the whole bar with 6 as the tuplet.  The second stave would
not need a tuplet.  and the bars of the third stave should each have a quintuplet bracket over the entire bar.  Disregard the time signatures.  It doesn't really help much.

[pianonut]

another thing, besides time signatures, is learning that accidentals which are not on the same line (but within the same measure) can be both flatted or sharped and natural.  what i mean is, one note may have an accidental, and the other one without.  this was new to me.

samuel barber, certainly not avante-garde, but interesting in his conceptions is the most 'romantic' of the contemporary composers, imo.  he sticks to old fashioned forms, yet dramatically changes them.  am working on his nocturne and it is becoming more ok, listening-wise, because #1  i'm hearing it over and over and getting a chance to 'understand it.'  #2 am analyzing it a bit and #3 learning to sight read much better and hear the beauty in intervals that are not used as commonly.

poulenc has got to be my FAVORITe.  his 'modern harmony' is much different than tone rows and mathematic formulas.  he must have used his ear and said to himself, 'that sounds interesting or pleasing.'  i don't find his music irritating or nerve wracking.

[thierry13]

To the original question if it is understanding or personal taste. I would say : You can not judge something you don't understand. Understand it first, and THEN see if you like it or not. So it is both. First there is a comprehension problem. Understand it. If you trully understand it, and still like it, then it's your personal taste.