Well, you may have studied it for 2 years, but to that I say that you should study it more. How long have you studied common practice music? Your whole life probably. You haven't given more recent music a good enough chance. Just the fact that you thouhgt Verklärte Nacht was a serial 12 tone piece was enough to inform me of your naïveté. Hit the books, buddy. There's some good music there. And it doesn't end with Bartók, Schoenberg, and Adams, either.
And, for the record, I'm no modernist either, Thal. And Berio was a genius, but a lot of his music is incredibly difficult to listen to, even for me. Pick someone that's easier to listen to if you want to listen to something thats good and modern. Listen to MacMillan.
To me, the opinion of anyone who talks in terms of "I studied this at university, here's my opinion, f**k you" means next to nothing. Sitting through the required lectures for Music History I & II doesn't make a non-adherent expert on anything, be it early, romantic, modern, or post-modern music. I know tons of music students (especially performance majors) who tote around the same been-there-heard-that jaded bulls**t approach to virtually everything they hear and it's the furthest thing from convincing. The way most conservatories condition students as music historians is putrid. I live near some of the best conservatories on the East Coast, and I barely ever go to recitals because it's always the same tired-ass standards (Brahms and Schubert anyone, how about another version of Mozart's Requiem).
Moreover, the problem with students and modern music comes mostly from situations where, instead of easing into unfamiliar territory, listeners have a complete bomb dropped on them, whether it's in the form of some bizarre John Cage spectacle or premature exposure to some stratospheric dissonance from a New Complexity composer. The kiddies on this forum learn to piss and moan about Sorabji, Carter, Finnissy and Boulez before they can make a balanced assessment of Szymanowski, Scriabin, Ives, Schoenberg, or any of the neoclassical composers (who often get ignored by association). Then, of course, plenty of them embrace the ever-f**king minimalists as the only non-alienating bastion of modern composers and classical music inches a bit closer to the abyss.
To answer Retro's question about Kancheli et al., I've long sinced approached most of the ECM-label composers with caution, since 90% of the time, I gotten caught off guard with more Part-like beauty-thons and drones. What disturbs me the most are the composers whose early career shows a creative open-endedness settling into a mid-to-late career which has them churning the lyricism pot until none of the dissonant chunks remain. This is a problem I have with Gorecki's latter-day work, as well as Part's and Vasks'. Their work sounds good, but I don't see how it really puts them on a different plane then tons of electronica composers and soundtrack composers who employ similar tonal methods (albeit not tapping into as much religion and stock 20th-century despair). To be honest, I like some works by all of these composers, and often the performers bring the work to an excellent place, but most often I'm left feeling cold, bored, and taken-for-granted. An added anti-bonus is the sappy fanbase who can't seem to appreciate a modern work unless it makes them shed tears.
Topic: Kill one Composer