Let's have another discussion about modernism!

[neardn]

hahaha

[ahinton]

I quoted the "definition" from Grove to entice more discussion, as it seems the discussion is directed towards defining the very ambiguous term.

I've made no attempt to claim beards and Modernism, nor Grove's dictionary, are correlated in any way. I replied "Yes" as a mere jest to further pies' post which seems only to be an arbitrary affectation associated with other threads on the forum.

You say you have little patience for the term, so do you have anything to say about the term or the quote itself?

All that I can say about the term is that, to me, it embraces very little if anything that is meaningful, let alone on any kind of permanent basis. To the extent that "modern" implies "new and/or "of recent origin", it seems somewhat pointless to turn it into an "ism", although shoving "ism" onto all manner of things with more or less equally little useful effect has long since become a pastime, especially among academic circles who like to pigeon-hole things for the purpose of bolstering some of their high-flow "explanations" (and please understand that this is not at all intended to be taken as a general pejorative directed towards academics as a profession). If, for example, we talk about "modernism" in music nowadays, are we merely trying to talk about it in a present-day context or are we also or instead considering it in the context of what might have been called examples of "modernism" in, say, 1850 or 1620 or 1490 had the term been in currency at any of those times? Of course we could be doing any of those things but, in order to identify which, the era being talked about has first to be mentioned, so what might be deemed by some to constutie examples of "modernism" now could not possibly be what might have done so in past eras. "Modernism" might also be seen to imply pioneering, courage, steeping forth into the unknown and previously unexplored, "hurling a lance into the future" (as was once said of that great modernist composer Liszt) - but who is to identify what factors constitute those parameters at any given time and how much agreement between different people can there ever be on this in any case? Should we regard "modernist" art of any kind as something that is somehow by definition a passing phase that clearly identifies its own time period or as something that by its nature will last into future generations or both or neither and for what reasons? - and who is to say so and how much agreement between people can there be on that in any case?

Perhaps the kinds of pleonastic absurdity to which terms such as "modernism" might risk leading us is exemplified is such categorisations as "post-modernism", which is surely even more meaningless and unhelpfully uninformative still; a classic illustration of this almost obsessively burgeoning terminological minefield is arguably the term "late capitalism" which seems to me to have more than a mere whiff of the surreal about it, however unwittingly, to the extent that those who use it appear to seek to persuade their readers that it is a current phenomenon through which we are living (I've never, for example, encounterd its use in the form of "the late xxx" as though referring to a past era on the assumption that capitalism is now dead) - one may speak of the "late Beethoven quartets", but would one have done so after he'd only composed the first of those five works?

So much for the term; now to the quotation from Grove. this is fine as far as it goes, but where indeed does it go? - as far as I can tell, the principal thing that it does in seeking to provide some kind of definition for that term is expose how utterly meaningless it is and yet at the same time hint as how it has been pressed into service by and for the benefit of some people in their efforts to persaude others of their above average knowledge and superior perceptivity.

I hope that this answers your question satisfactorily.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

hinton...'s the one that persuaded Sorabji to lift the ban on public performances of his works.  He also used to lift weights with him.

In the admitedly unlikely event that anyone might be persuaded to take that second bit seriously, I should, for the record, point out that it is as absurd as it is incorrect; I did lift a number of heavy weights at Sorabji's home in 1976, but the heavy objects concerned were such things as the full scores of the Jami Symphony and Symphonic High Mass ("high mass" indeed!), but the person with whom I lifted them was not the composer himself but Prof. Paul Rapoport on the occasion of our temporary removal of a number of these items from the composer's home for the purpose of microfilming them in London.

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

I quoted the "definition" from Grove to entice more discussion, as it seems the discussion is directed towards defining the very ambiguous term.

Hmmm, I think people would agree that "modernist" music is music
1) written after 1900
2) difficult to perform/understand
3) because of harmonic/rhythmic intricacies
4) at times accompanied by “artistic utterances” by either the composer or performer(s) or both
And hence is
5) Unpopular, and
6) Very unpopular with Thal.

But most people would simply equate “modernist” music with “difficult/complex” music. According to that, someone like Ockeghem is modernist, Philip Glass is not.

I think "Modernism" is a term on a par with "Formalism".

Keep your ears open, that's all!

Gep

[ahinton]

Hmmm, I think people would agree that "modernist" music is music
1) written after 1900
2) difficult to perform/understand
3) because of harmonic/rhythmic intricacies
4) at times accompanied by “artistic utterances” by either the composer or performer(s) or both
And hence is
5) Unpopular, and
6) Very unpopular with Thal.

The final observation in your list tempts me to wonder where that might leave Xenakis's Thallein, but never mind...

Best,

Alistair

[lontano]

Another Soviet avant-garde composer I really enjoy is Nikolai Obukhov (and various other transliterations). I have heard very little of his music (not much is recorded) but I was very impressed with what I have heard. I would recommend him to you or anyone else who likes this particular style.

Well, one reason you haven't heard much of Obukhov's music could be related to this sort of thing:
"Obukhov's output is dominated by vast works of which the most notorious � notwithstanding the gargantuan 'Troisi�me et dernier testament' and 'La toute puissance' � is the 'Kniga zhizni' ('The Book of Life') on which he worked from around the time he left Russia until at least the mid-1920s. Described by the composer as 'l'action sacr�e du pasteur tout-puissant regnant' it was intended to be performed (or 'accomplished') uninterruptedly every year on the night of the first and on the day of the second resurrection of Christ. Obukhov did not consider himself the composer of this work; instead, he saw himself as the person permitted, by divine forces, to 'show' it. Parts of the score, one version of which is nearly 2000 pages in length, are marked in the composer's blood. The music is preceded by a lengthy exposition in archaic Russian, while the work concludes with one section the score of which unfolds into the form of a cross and another, taking the shape of a circle, which is fixed onto a golden and silver box decorated with rubies and red silk. (Nicholas Slonimsky, in his memoir 'Perfect Pitch' relates that the composer's wife, driven to despair by Obukhov's obsessive behaviour regarding this piece, attempted to burn � or 'immolate', in the composer's terminology � the manuscript but was interrupted in her crime.) Much of the instrumental writing is characterized by the alternation of chorale-like material (often ornamented by filigree arppegiation) with tolling patterns, building to textures of considerable rhythmic and contrapuntal complexity. The vocal parts � as with his writing for the voice in most of his other works � have huge tessituras and are bespattered with glissandi and instructions for screaming or whispering. The style which is consistently applied in this magnum opus is prevalent in all of his mature works and has its roots in the songs and piano miniatures written in Russia."
Quoted from an article at the 120years.net site.

[retrouvailles]

Wow, sounds awesome. Now I definitely want to hear more of him.

[soitainly]

 Lets consider that maybe 3 percent of music listened to is classical. Let us consider that maybe 3 percent of that is what we are labeling as modern progressive music. Regardless of taste, this style of music being pushed on us by the teaching establishment will at best be a footnote in music history. What the scholars don't want to admit to themselves is that the real modern music, all of the really progressive, original music of the 20th century, is not in the classical genre.

 Blues, Jazz, Rock, Country, Rap. This is the modern music. Some of it is forgetable and some of it is just plain bad. But to try and ignore it as being below the standards of music scholorship is really short sighted.

 No matter how vocal and adament proponants of the atonal music that has infilterated the intitutions are, this music just doesn't cut it. I would say it will die a slow death, but I can't since it was never really alive.

 I've got my helmet on, so let the bricks start flying

[thalbergmad]

No matter how vocal and adament proponants of the atonal music that has infilterated the intitutions are, this music just doesn't cut it. I would say it will die a slow death, but I can't since it was never really alive.

It would be a shame as at least 20 people like atonal music, some of whom post regularly on here.

Thal

[retrouvailles]

No matter how vocal and adament proponants of the atonal music that has infilterated the intitutions are, this music just doesn't cut it. I would say it will die a slow death, but I can't since it was never really alive.

[...]

I've got my helmet on, so let the bricks start flying

Before one says that "atonal music" will die a slow death, one must define what said "atonal music" is. Much like the definition of "modernism", the definition of "atonal music" is one that has been argued for a long time. Some argue even that it has been around longer than one could think. For example, some have argued that pre-common practice composers such as Ockeghem, Gesualdo, etc. have written "atonal music" simply because they do not use the tonal procedures that are prevalent in common practice music, simply because it had not been invented yet. Also, others have called, say, much of the film music present today to be atonal, simply because it changes key signatures rapidly, or doesn't have one at all. This can also apply to a good bit of concert music that was written in the 20th century with no intention of ever being in a film, but I'm sure the film music has plenty more listeners, and that doesn't seem to be something that people are going to let die a slow death. The same goes with the myriad of pre-common practice composers that I alluded to. They will always be studied and listened to. Yes, I agree with you on some points though. There may be several composers in the 20th/21st century that sink into the annals of obscurity, such as the various serialists and avant-garde composers that ran rampant in the mid 20th century, but that is only a small fraction of the "atonal music" that has been written in the last 100 years. What about the highly performed works, such as Scriabin's late piano sonatas, which many people would label as "atonal"? Those and other similar works are not going anywhere. Popular music, which you say is the "modern music" of today, is certainly more popular than the "modern music" in the classical music genre, but that doesn't mean that the latter form is going anywhere. Take a moment to get some education in the subject (which is something that most people don't have [for reasons that indutrial has noted in a similar thread]) and you will figure out that you are wrong in your statements. Oh, and one more thing: you might want to get a smaller helmet, for it seems that your current one is too large for your small head.

[soitainly]

 The kew word here to sum up my point is relevance. Case in point Scriabin. One in ten thousand people on the planet have probably ever heard of him, or actively listened to him. Maybe one percent or less of musicians have heard of him, but some have been indirectly infuenced by his music. I have to admit that I hadn't heard his music until a few months ago when I started studying piano.

 Insulting someone isn't really the best way to get them to see your point retrouvailles. Of course we all could use more education. But the whole premis of needing to learn more about an art form to have any basic appreciation wears thin after awhile. I have been an amatuer musician my whole life, I have studied music, and have actively spent considerable effort seeking out new music to listen to.

 This isn't addressing quality or skill as a composer. I just went and listened to a few Scriabin pieces here in the audition room. I didn't get exited about anything, but at least didn't find the music offensive. I wouldn't go out of my way to listen to it, but didn't feel like I would want to turn it off. I think it has the qualities of what most consider good music. Melodies, interesting harmonies, interesting rhythms, tonalities. I didn't regard this as atonal music. Much of the "avante garde" atonal music doesn't fit the basic needs to me as a listener. There is a reason why basic western diatonic harmony is so prevailant, you can introduce dissonance and atonalities, but to completely disregard basic human responses to music is going to have limited acceptance. In the overall musical world, most if not all of the atonal music just has no lasting value. It doesn't touch on the basic human emotions like universally great art does.

[n00bhippy]

Lets consider that maybe 3 percent of music listened to is classical. Let us consider that maybe 3 percent of that is what we are labeling as modern progressive music. Regardless of taste, this style of music being pushed on us by the teaching establishment will at best be a footnote in music history. What the scholars don't want to admit to themselves is that the real modern music, all of the really progressive, original music of the 20th century, is not in the classical genre.

 Blues, Jazz, Rock, Country, Rap. This is the modern music. Some of it is forgetable and some of it is just plain bad. But to try and ignore it as being below the standards of music scholorship is really short sighted.

 No matter how vocal and adament proponants of the atonal music that has infilterated the intitutions are, this music just doesn't cut it. I would say it will die a slow death, but I can't since it was never really alive.

 I've got my helmet on, so let the bricks start flying

you say that 3% of music listened to is classical, and that 3% of the classical listened to is atonal, and therefore, atonal music will die a slow death. (i understand that these percentages aren't based on any real numbers)

Do you believe that since classical music is simply 3% of the larger picture of music listened to, that it to is dying a slow death?

[soitainly]

 I don't think classical music in general is dying. In fact the overall numbers are probably up. As China and other countries join the rest of the affluent world, there are just a lot of people with time and money to get into music in general. It seems that some of the great music that a generation missed out on is making a big impact.

 I am using generalities and guesses for the percentages, but I seem to rememeber reading about the 3% number in classical music sales. I don't know if this takes China into account. As far as the "modern" classical, I think there is a very dedicated, fanatical base, but the numbers are very small. Record sales give somewhat of an indication, but its harder to judge now that so much music is distributed over the internet. I bet my numbers aren't very far off. Regardless, I think you need to have a minimum critical mass of cultural impact for art to become relevant. The critics and scholars would like to think that their pet composers are important, but really they have almost no influence. The impact of pop music is vast, it is a part of our lives. Whole generations are remembered and symbolized by their music.

[ahbach]

I think modern classical music (if it can even be called classical) is merely a joke that people like to talk about...So many composers have created shortcuts to writing their music...they have left out rules that would not have been neglected 150 years ago....they throw their notes on the paper and then bang it out on the piano...there are very few ppl that still take the time to do everything by the book, And it's important to do so. At least in my thoughts.

[ahinton]

I seem somehow to recall that this thread was about "modernism" at some point; irrespective of the extent to which I deprecate the term for reasons as provided previously, the digressions that I have noted of late seem to me to depart even farther from what might have been the intended motive of the instigator of this thread in terms of the kind of discussion for which that person probably hoped...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I think modern classical music (if it can even be called classical) is merely a joke that people like to talk about...So many composers have created shortcuts to writing their music...they have left out rules that would not have been neglected 150 years ago....they throw their notes on the paper and then bang it out on the piano...there are very few ppl that still take the time to do everything by the book, And it's important to do so. At least in my thoughts.

Apart from the obvious fact that the term "classical" just doesn't do the job, you really have less than no idea what some of us composers go through, do you?!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

you really have less than no idea what some of us composers go through, do you?!

As a composer myself, I do have an idea.

I have just finished my latest composition, which is my 2nd in the "modernist" style. It is a Chorus for 40 people with Tourettes Syndrome.

I can't give away too much detail at the moment, but it is F*****G brilliant.

Some jerkov will probably think it is a work of genius.

Thal

[weissenberg2]

I think modern classical music (if it can even be called classical) is merely a joke that people like to talk about...So many composers have created shortcuts to writing their music...they have left out rules that would not have been neglected 150 years ago....they throw their notes on the paper and then bang it out on the piano...there are very few ppl that still take the time to do everything by the book, And it's important to do so. At least in my thoughts.

That has to be the least insightful comment I have ever seen on this forum. What shortcuts do they take and what book is there on composing properly?

[retrouvailles]

That has to be the least insightful comment I have ever seen on this forum.

Agreed. I'm done with imbeciles like ahbach in this thread. It is only to their disadvantage that they continue to have these thoughts.

As a composer myself, I do have an idea.

I have just finished my latest composition, which is my 2nd in the "modernist" style. It is a Chorus for 40 people with Tourettes Syndrome.

I can't give away too much detail at the moment, but it is F*****G brilliant.

Some jerkov will probably think it is a work of genius.

Thal

Some of your comments have added a lot of comic relief to this thread. However, it is comments like the latter that piss me off. Please, if you have nothing useful and/or funny to add, do not post in this thread. I and some of the other people here actually take it seriously.

[weissenberg2]

moving on, does anyone think Webern is overrated besides me? I think his teacher Schoenberg and his fellow pupil Berg are greater composers (and also some others like Apostel and Krein). I have heard a few Webern compositions and I was not at all impressed.

[iroveashe]

To my 'uneducated' point of view, the most 'popular' branch inside Classical Music (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, etc.) are like most of the other Arts surrounding that time, their aim is perfection, balance and harmony based not on rules or established concepts, but on mathematical principles and beauty, based on nature. So while I would compare a Delacroix painting with a Chopin nocturne, or a Goethe book with a Beethoven Symphony; I would compare modern atonal music with one of those modern sculptures that are a bunch of metal or regular objects put together. Those sculptures could be making a message against regular standards of beauty or whatever, but I won't believe anyone who says that looks good.

But this is just my opinion as to why it's so unpopular, and not in any way a statement on the quality of modern music (or sculpture).

[ahbach]

I feel I must appologize.....it was brought to my attention by a friend when they saw my post how I was wrong in my judgements of modern classical music....there are no specific rules or guidelines that one MUST follow when composing...as a matter of fact music is one thing that man has to express himself with....And I have listened to a few pieces on this site that have been composed by some of you...I am very sorry...and I assure you such a ridiculous statment will never be made on my part again...after all what is written now will be the famous classical pieces 150 years from now....or so I hope.

My deepest appologies
ahbach

[indutrial]

Leaving aside the idea that I commonly defend modern music, I have to point out that the above criticism is overgeneralized what could be seen as one aspect of modern music. There are Dadaists, nihilists, and deconstructivists within the artistic world who embrace ideas such as chaos and absurdity in an attempt to present a commentary of traditional formalism. This grossly overlooks the truth that far more than half of the composers working after 1900 DO NOT subscribe to any such aesthetic practices. In fact, a great deal of modern composers work with even more  formal standards than composers from preceding eras (though any notion of the existence of nature's this or that is, in essence, somewhat of a crock of sh*t) at play, whether it be the incorporation of mathematical concepts, elaborate tonal or polytonal hierarchies, rhythmic notions that attempt to emulate the realities of perceived time, etc. etc... While it is often impossible to truly understand a lot of these works, this forum is proving that there are loads of ways to them. What some folks need to learn is that their misunderstanding of a musical work doesn't come close to warranting any sort of value judgment, unless they can truly explain why such a work is, in essence, wrongful in some way. "Because it's not pretty" is not a convincing enough reason for someone to talk me out of paying attention to a composer who experiments with dissonance.

C'mon Thal, a sodding Tourette's syndrome joke   You might want to hang your caricature on the line and let the hyperbole drip out.

[iroveashe]

I'm not familiar with the type of music being discussed here, and this just turns into intellectual discussion mixed with disguised insults; but since I like to keep an open mind, could anyone give a clear and concrete example and explanation of why a (preferably short) piece is good?

[pies]

Best improv eva??

[pies]

a

[neardn]

could anyone give a clear and concrete example and explanation of why a (preferably short) piece is good?

Usually music is considered "good" when the listener thinks it sounds "good".

It is extremely difficult to listen to any "atonal" or "modern" music and honestly say it sounds good. Usually people say they like composers like Ligeti and Stockhausen and Schoenberg because they want to fit into a clique. Others, because they like studying complex music, and solving the "puzzles". But I doubt any of those people take any interest in listening to it for enjoyment either.

[retrouvailles]

Usually music is considered "good" when the listener thinks it sounds "good".

It is extremely difficult to listen to any "atonal" or "modern" music and honestly say it sounds good. Usually people say they like composers like Ligeti and Stockhausen and Schoenberg because they want to fit into a clique. Others, because they like studying complex music, and solving the "puzzles". But I doubt any of those people take any interest in listening to it for enjoyment either.

I completely disagree. There is a lot of atonal music, or "atonal music", which I find very enjoyable and even is rather melodious. For example, there are a few symphonists from the 20th century who wrote in a rather neo-romantic Mahlerian vein who are atonal, yet are melodious and pleasant on the ear. I am thinking of composers like Allan Pettersson, Fartein Valen, and Christopher Rouse, but there are MANY others similar to them who write very pleasant, emotional, and memorable atonal music. I just named those three because they were fresh in my mind. Ligeti, Stockhausen, and Schoenberg are just the scapegoats of modern music that people like to bash all the time and blame modern classical music's problems on, which is completely wrong. These people are very uneducated, though, especially if they think that all modern composers sound like them. Do some investigation and research and you'll find that you're completely wrong.

[n00bhippy]

It is extremely difficult to listen to any "atonal" or "modern" music and honestly say it sounds good. Usually people say they like composers like Ligeti and Stockhausen and Schoenberg because they want to fit into a clique.

These are very wide generalizations you are making about listeners of said music. I for one enjoy quite a few of ligeti's works (was just listening to music ricercata!), and i dont think this really fits me into any clique (most people i associate with do not even know who Ligeti is!) That being said, just because you have a hard time enjoying certain types of sounds, or even feel the some sort of majority won't enjoy them, it doesn't make them unenjoyable, and certainly doesn't mean that people who say they do are doing so just to fit it.

Side Note to people who think ligeti only wrote nasty music, i would suggest that perhaps yo listen to etude en suspens? very beautiful piece. I saw his violin concerto performed a couple of years back, and that to had some heartbreakingly beautiful sections in it.

[retrouvailles]

Side Note to people who think ligeti only wrote nasty music, i would suggest that perhaps yo listen to etude en suspens? very beautiful piece. I saw his violin concerto performed a couple of years back, and that to had some heartbreakingly beautiful sections in it.

I would also suggest the 6 bagatelles for wind quintet (which are arranged extracts from Musica Ricercata). Those pieces are very fun and pleasing to listen to. Oh, and I love the violin concerto, too, but that piece isn't for everyone, in my opinion.

[n00bhippy]

haha. yes. the concerto certainly isn't for everyone the beautiful melodic part certainly stood out from most of the other sounds presented in that work. perhaps if i could just isolate that one section people would enjoy it more. ...

[pies]

a

[n00bhippy]

george crumb?

[retrouvailles]

Please tell me about any modern piano music that I probably haven't heard.  Post a recording either on here or GFF if necessary.  I'm too lazy to look for anything.

Why not just look for some yourself? I don't ask for suggestions on forums about piano music (other than my toccata thread) and I have a huge knowledge of modern piano music. Do your own research so you can come up with something that you know you will like, like how I did.

The Crumb Makrokosmos series are awesome, but I think pies has heard those already.

[n00bhippy]

i was going to ask him what he already knew, but feared he may be too lazy to type it.

[gep]

Regardless, I think you need to have a minimum critical mass of cultural impact for art to become relevant. The critics and scholars would like to think that their pet composers are important, but really they have almost no influence.

And how big would that critical mass be, and who will decide if it's big anough? How many people have heard the Missa Prolationem by Ockeghem, and would that number be enough to make it a relevant piece? Critics and scholars may have they pet composers, but so does every listener.

The impact of pop music is vast, it is a part of our lives. Whole generations are remembered and symbolized by their music.

A generalisation. It may be a part of life for quite a number of people, but most certainly not all.

It is extremely difficult to listen to any "atonal" or "modern" music and honestly say it sounds good.

Nonsense, it only takes a willing ear to really listen to it and see if you like it or not, just as with any sort of music. There is extremely "modern" and "atonal" music that I enjoy hearing, and there is also extremely "tonal" music I detest. Besides, there is no sharp demarcation line between tonal/atonal or modern/non-modern. Or even a defenition for any of those terms.

Usually people say they like composers like Ligeti and Stockhausen and Schoenberg because they want to fit into a clique.

Nonsense once more (barring a few exceptions perhaps). Personally, I listen to a lot of music from all styles and periods (barring pop and jazz) to find out what's out there, and what I like or dislike. What anyone else thinks of my likes and dislikes i do not give a damn about. I think everybody else should do quite the same too.
I do believe there are quite a greater number of people acting as if they like sports and beer and whatnot because they want to fit a clique!

All best,
gep

[Petter]

[soitainly]

 Your right gep, who can really judge what the critical mass is. But I think you can get my point, that enough people have to hear and like the music to have an impact beyond small academic circles. I don't really want to say any music is bad, if only the composer himself likes the piece, then it has served its purpose. However, there are some composers who are writing just for the sake of an exercize on what can be written, they have no emotional attachment to the piece. I can't judge what's in each composers heart, but the listening experience is essential to music.

 Back to the subject of modern music. I am personally a fan of Pat Metheny/Lyle Mays music. I think as composers they are carrying on the tradition of what classical era composers did. They write for modern instruments, both acoustic and electric. They write challenging music, yet much of it is very accessable to the average listener. Just like Mozart was fascinated with the clarinet, or Beethoven with the limits of piano technology at the time, its nice to hear a creative musician embrace the idea that any instrument can make serious music. They draw influences from many different music genres, just like many classical composers did.

 This leads me back to my point that the path to modern music doesn't have to be limited to the university and obsurity. There are probably more creative musician about than at any time in history. The modern world allows for more musicians to both be able to have the resources to compose and to gain exposure for their music. The vast majority of these talented individuals are not going into classical music, but the music of their times. The great lasting art of this generation will most likely not be bred in our conservatories if the teachers don't embrace all the music the world has to offer, and continue to focus on a dead end path of difficult, sometimes downright ugly music that very few want to hear.

[birba]

CUTE smiley, petter!!  So to the point.  LIke sitting back and enjoying the thread!

[indutrial]

Back to the subject of modern music. I am personally a fan of Pat Metheny/Lyle Mays music. I think as composers they are carrying on the tradition of what classical era composers did. They write for modern instruments, both acoustic and electric. They write challenging music, yet much of it is very accessable to the average listener. Just like Mozart was fascinated with the clarinet, or Beethoven with the limits of piano technology at the time, its nice to hear a creative musician embrace the idea that any instrument can make serious music. They draw influences from many different music genres, just like many classical composers did.

Metheny and Mays are jazz musicians, and whilst the former has written a lot of excellent melody tunes, the music is by and large buttressed by historically-popular musical elements (pentatonic scales, diatonic scales, blues, modal-jazz, etc..). Having listened to many Pat Metheny records, I respect him greatly as a technician and soloist on the guitar (and all of those other things like the synth-guitar and the 41-string picasso guitar, etc...). His compositions, however, are far more inside the realm of playing-it-safe, which is certainly a conscious decision on his part. Metheny's figure-eight revolution around jazz on one hand and folk/world music on the other hand is what keeps his career afloat. There are plenty of jazz guitarists who ignore these publicly-popular elements at the expense of a bit more obscurity. The upside to this to discerning listeners is that these guitarists often bring more honesty and originality to the table. Metheny's always been one of those musicians who I've wanted to see more from, similar to other technically-brilliant fusion-ey guitarists like Allan Holdsworth. He plays amazingly, but after a while I can't help but think that he's got nothing new to bring to the table. I saw both of these guys in concert in the past 3 years and the music may as well have been the same thing that they were doing in the early 1990s...total stylistic holding patterns...the biggest shame is that their rapid fans don't seem to care.

Case in point, here you can watch Metheny in 2008, playing the same boring sh*t he's been playing since the 1990s, alongside the equally boring and predictable Gary Burton:

While them writing for modern instruments is something that could be a parallel to Beethoven writing for pianos and stringed instruments, guys like Metheny do not compose pieces that anybody outside of the jazz scene cares about. Besides, 90% of their acts are improvised masturbathons.

This leads me back to my point that the path to modern music doesn't have to be limited to the university and obsurity. There are probably more creative musician about than at any time in history. The modern world allows for more musicians to both be able to have the resources to compose and to gain exposure for their music. The vast majority of these talented individuals are not going into classical music, but the music of their times. The great lasting art of this generation will most likely not be bred in our conservatories if the teachers don't embrace all the music the world has to offer, and continue to focus on a dead end path of difficult, sometimes downright ugly music that very few want to hear.

Wishing that classical music would run a closer tangent to popular tastes is fruitless. The explosive growth of all the other genres like jazz, rock, etc... was always guaranteed to divide up the careers of talented musicians worldwide. As well, those genres' largely tonal and functional underpinning guaranteed that they would also run off with 99.9% of the world's musical attention. I'm all for this development, since greater distillation usually results in greater refinement. If you take 100 violinists of varying backgrounds, I welcome the possibility that genres like country, film music, and bands like Yellow Card will whittle off the most tasteless 80-90 of the lot, leaving classical music with the best and strongest. It's nice to know that a half-assed pianist could very likely end up playing the lounge on a Carnival ship instead of being expected to fail at a half-hearted career in concert performances. Any attempts to repopularize classical music to the Joe F**kheads of the world are, in my opinion, totally base efforts that may as well be nothing more than cheap cash stabs. It should be plainly obvious that, these days, any crossover between classical music and popular interest are largely contrived, paper-thin affairs like John Williams' pithy film composition playing at the Obama inauguration, or on the other hand, horrific Orwellian events like that Chinese recital of the Yellow River Concerto. Your discussion on great, lasting art in popular terms requires a great amount of compromise with individual taste, since as we all should know by know, popular tastes are subject to just as much whimsy and short-sightedness as any other popular behavior. If artistically-inclined individuals left musical programming to the masses, it would be Soulja Boy and Lady Gaga until our f**king ears bleed.

All of the endless prattle about modern music being a product of lock-in university musicians should make sense when one realizes that THIS IS THE ONLY REMAINING OUTLETS for a reasonably strong semblance of musical individualism! Every other genre's structural demands require a composer to counterbalance their compositional/performing desires with the whimsy and stupidity of popular demand. Since the academic environment offers them time, freedom, money, respect, and a next generation of students to interact with, this is the most fruitful atmosphere for creation. What self-respecting composer wouldn't try to base their existence there. Is it better to starve or quit? For the same reasons, I don't question my cat when he curls up in the one part of my living room where the sun beams in. In the simplest terms, composing is exactly where it belongs at this point in time because popular interests have pretty much told it to "f**k off."

[soitainly]

 Is the Pat Metheny group really jazz music? Record companies and magazines like these labels. They were brought up in a jazz environment and there are certainly strong jazz influences in their music. But I consider their music as a blend of many things, strong composed heads, strong arrangements and structures, yet still room for improvised sections.

 The comment about bringing nothing new to the table is true of almost any composer/musician. Metheny works within a set of parameters and has a basic language that works, he does step out of that box and plays some pretty out there stuff as well. To say he hasn't grown isn't true, I see a much more refined craft between his early work and what he does today. He does add elements over time to keep the work interesting. There is always a balancing act between playing it safe and creating new ideas.

 Many of the same criticisms could be stuck on Bach or Mozart, even more so. They worked within a very narrow framework that didn't change much over the course of their carreers. Beethoven evolved somewhat but still there is a basic musical language he used.

 To say that the top musicians and composers are going into classical is just not true. The young creative talented people are much more likely to go into pop music than classical. The initial spark that makes people like music will usually draw them to the music that they liked first to begin with.
Classical musicians today are technically gifted, but generally not very creative.

 You are so right in saying that most attmpts to blend classical and pop music are a joke, it's usually the worst of both worlds. It's tough as a composer to produce honest work though, following your own muse without thinking that you have to please people. In the end you just have to create what you like. But if you are going to be remembered and make a living as a composer, you have to find some middle ground as to what you like and the public will accept.

[indutrial]

Is the Pat Metheny group really jazz music? Record companies and magazines like these labels. They were brought up in a jazz environment and there are certainly strong jazz influences in their music. But I consider their music as a blend of many things, strong composed heads, strong arrangements and structures, yet still room for improvised sections.

 The comment about bringing nothing new to the table is true of almost any composer/musician. Metheny works within a set of parameters and has a basic language that works, he does step out of that box and plays some pretty out there stuff as well. To say he hasn't grown isn't true, I see a much more refined craft between his early work and what he does today. He does add elements over time to keep the work interesting. There is always a balancing act between playing it safe and creating new ideas.

To be sure, I have heard some newer Metheny stuff here and there over the years that does amount to a step forward for his personal aesthetic, but I feel that the overall structure of music that he works within (the jazz/fusion/world crossover scene of well-regarded and talented players who make up that 'classic-rock-of-jazz' crew like Chick Corea, John McLaughlin, et. al.) has little to offer because the musicians are unwilling to take any stylistic risks that might alienate them within their own music scene. This is obviously intentional, since Metheny is largely interested in writing works that are delightful to perform, not to mention that his fanbase/record-label expects a certain sound from his output. To me, the whole vibe of such 'knighted' jazz/fusion music (and, yes, he IS undoubtedly a figure in the established side of the JAZZ scene, per his marketing, compositional choices, and heavy inclusion of structured improvisation) drips a little too much of fan-supported self-satisfaction while the harmonic (reminds me of impressionistic composers) and rhythmic language (sometimes Coltrane, other times Steve Reich) hasn't stepped an inch outside of it's own various boxes. At the least, I'll commend him not even close to being as stuck up his own arse as someone like Keith Jarrett or Victor Wooten, musicians who subvert their own exquisite talents by refusing to resist their own hyped press.

Despite that, the whole scene of which guys like Metheny (and people like pianist Brad Mehldau even) is a part reeks of a new sort of decadence. Unlike Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart, I seriously doubt people who aren't jazz guitarists will be hearing much of Metheny's compositional glory in the decades following his career. I can listen to a dozen of his recordings and the only things that will impress me are his solos and his playing technique. His bands are universally tight and pocket, but after a few years of hearing that stuff, I find myself wanting something beyond what's simply more of the same tight and pocket performances with summarily-increased production costs. Just like progressive rock music, mainstream jazz musicians have sort of settled down with their supportive audience and the music has stagnated into a big, stinking pond of egomania. At least most classical composers in our current generation exhibit humility and seem interested in where music is going as opposed to where it stands.

[thalbergmad]

I would compare modern atonal music with one of those modern sculptures that are a bunch of metal or regular objects put together.

Perhaps art and music are moving in the same direction.

There are some people that think a sheep in formaldehyde or a sculpture carved out of human crap is art. I even remember one man who thought pushing a peanut up a motorway with his nose was art.

I wonder if the same people think Ferneyhough is music.

Thal

[indutrial]

Perhaps art and music are moving in the same direction.

There are some people that think a sheep in formaldehyde or a sculpture carved out of human crap is art. I even remember one man who thought pushing a peanut up a motorway with his nose was art.

Fortunately, the bad eggs in modernist music/art/literature do nothing to subvert the quality of the good works, unless you introduce intolerance and exaggerated criticism into the equation. Do you ever get tired of setting up this strawman and knocking it down   

[thalbergmad]

Fortunately, the bad eggs in modernist music/art/literature do nothing to subvert the quality of the good works

Yes, this is very true.

Before you say it.

PISS OFF THAL

Thal

[pies]

a

[n00bhippy]

What do y'all think of the people/scene/ideas behind modern musics?

they like drinking expensive beer. PBR 4 Lyfe.

[indutrial]

What do y'all think of the people/scene/ideas behind modern musics?

The scene is mostly filled by pretty normal, well-balanced individuals...people who read, enjoy the outdoors, don't care much for consumer culture, blog on the internet, shop at organic food stores. Not many of them are really wealthy, but they usually manage to get by fairly comfortably. The players are often very talented musicians in the age range of 30-70, many of whom work as teachers and instrumental instructors at different conservatories. The only sects that I'm not really a fan of are the occasion pockets of charlatan 20-somethings who band together at universities and try to play at being dadaist or ultra-avant-garde in some overinflated way. There were two concerts near my area recently that illustrate this juxtaposition fairly well. At one conservatory, I attended the wind department's annual faculty concert and they did a very good job performing works by Bozza, Fleisher, and Elliott Carter, in addition to premiering some really excellent new works. The entire repertoire of the night was post-1900, but the event was unassuming and betrayed a certain humility and normalcy. On another night, I caught some student group called the League of Such-and-Such Composers and I couldn't have found a worse way to spend my night. Every work was bogged down to the ground with bizarre performance instructions, aleatoric sections, and very lousy attempts at electroacoustic "experimentation." The only people performing the works were the composers themselves and occasionally one another helping with the other composers' works. The amount of actual music (and I mean music that indicates even a small amount of understanding towards the history of music) was completely negligible. It disheartened me that a lot of these students were probably riding on scholarships from the composition department yet there was no proof that any of them could actually use harmony, counterpoint, or anything remotely conventional. Compared to the 'student works' of almost ANY composer who I respect, past or present, there is definitely something wrong with this picture.

Aside from that dimension of quackish decadence, which I find depressing, most modern-music folks in the adult age range are good people who I hope to emulate when I'm their age. Keep in mind, I'm from the suburbs bordering on somewhat rural areas, so I'm not talking about urban modern musicians, many more of whom are subject to the same smug douchebag behaviors as the bullsh*tters I described above. Cities always bring out far more of that crapola.

[pies]

a

[n00bhippy]

Live Finnissy recordings from a couple of months ago:
https://ensemblekore.ca/Finnissy/concert.html

 

love the title 'that ain't sh*t'