Modern classical music: music or bunch of notes?

[gyzzzmo]

I've been a musician myself for quite some years, but i still cant stand 'modern music'.
To my opinion modern 'music' is just a remainder of the last century where people wanted to be
'anti-everything', combined with vegetarian composers who arent much good in anything.

I'm curious though what determines if a piece is 'modern music' or just a bunch of random notes. And if it IS actually 'music', how you know if its any good or not?

We could take that new Sorabji post in the audition forum, 'toccata'. The music isnt going anywhere, the whole piece is in the same 'mood' and suddenly it ends. Isnt Sorabji just a very crappy composer, but are we supposed to like and encourage it cause its 'modern'?

Gyzzzmo

[birba]

First of all, it's not that "modern".  It IS, though, a very unique and different language, which sets him off from everyone else.  Like Messiaen, or Carter, or Bussotti.  If we listen to "modern" music with "classical" idiom in our head, it certainly does seem to not go anywhere because we are expecting it "to go" where the "classical" goes.  You really have to listen to it more than once to sort of "get into" the language.  You're missing a lot if you don't try!!!   

[ahinton]

I've been a musician myself for quite some years, but i still cant stand 'modern music'.
To my opinion modern 'music' is just a remainder of the last century where people wanted to be
'anti-everything', combined with vegetarian composers who arent much good in anything.

I'm curious though what determines if a piece is 'modern music' or just a bunch of random notes. And if it IS actually 'music', how you know if its any good or not?

We could take that new Sorabji post in the audition forum, 'in the hothouse'. The music isnt going anywhere, the whole piece is in the same 'mood' and suddenly it ends. Isnt Sorabji just a very crappy composer, but are we supposed to like and encourage it cause its 'modern'?

Assuming that this post is not merely intended as a rather feeble attempt at a wind-up (and that may, of course, be a flase assumption), let's unpack and unpick it.

In noting the ' ' that you type around the words modern music, the first question that inevitably occurs to me to ask is "what do you mean by 'modern music'"?

The next is "what do you mean by 'a remainder of the last century'?" - as in when in the last century - and does 21st century music not count?

The third concerns your assertion about people wishing to act in anarchic ways; with what specific evidence do you justify this in general terms and in whose music do you perceived it as being reflected?

The fourth concerns the most bizarre statement of all; whom do you classify as "vegetarian composers", what is your evidence for doing so, how do you know that the composers concerned are/were vegetarian and what impact might such vegetarianism have or have had on their music?

The fifth relates to your reference to the piece posted this morning by ctrastevere, which is not In the Hothouse but the Toccata that was published along with it as Two Pieces - as you would have noted had you read and listened to it with any care at all; the principal issue here is that, whilst the term "modern" might reasonably be expected to connote something of recent origin, this toccata was written around 90 years ago.

The sixth is that, whilst you wisely prefaced your post with the words "to my opinion" (by which we take you to mean "in your opinion", the question that you ask about Sorabji being a "crappy composer" should have been phrased not as a question but as a statement of your personal opinion, for any answer to it might not only have disagreed with that opinion but asked you to cite the gtrounds upon which you hold it.

Lastly, neither you nor anyone else here or elsewhere is "supposed to like" the music of Sorabji or indeed any other particular composer; it's up to each individual to respond to any music as they choose. You are uinder no obligation to "encourage" it, either, whatever that may mean - and one particular reason why its meaning is far from clear is that you could not "encourage" any more of it, since Sorabji has been dead for almost 22 years.

What is clear from the self-delusion so amply illustrated by your ill-conceived remarks is that those things (if any) that pass for your personal definition of "modern" might include items that are a century and more old, which would effectively redefine the word "modern" for anyone daft enough to believe you!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

First of all, it's not that "modern".  It IS, though, a very unique and different language, which sets him off from everyone else.  Like Messiaen, or Carter, or Bussotti.  If we listen to "modern" music with "classical" idiom in our head, it certainly does seem to not go anywhere because we are expecting it "to go" where the "classical" goes.  You really have to listen to it more than once to sort of "get into" the language.  You're missing a lot if you don't try!!!   

You're absolutely right, of course - but then if one seeks for some reason to order one's ears to expect the kinds of harmonic and melodic language and structural procedures of Haydn and Mozart, those ears will be likewise disoriented by Berlioz, Liszt, Wagner et al. Similarly, as you imply, it is obviously pointless to listen to Carter with the expectation of something that Sorabji might have written!

Best,

Alistair

[gyzzzmo]

@ Ahinton's concerns:

1: You should definitely know, with your job, what people in general consider as 'modern classical music'. Ofcourse i'm referring to the last 100 years where people are experimenting more and more with chords and especially dissonants.

2: 'Remainder of last century'. With that i mean the cultural changes of the last century, involving freedom of speech, anti-religion, free information and the logical effect of quite some people becoming 'anti-everything'. In that same century for that reason, people started musical experimentation too wich is in a far more radical way than romantic composers like Chopin and Liszt did. They still composed in general ways (and musical lines) as baroque composers did and their music got generally accepted, unlike the modern classical music.

3: partially answered in '2'. For the rest its not topic-related.

4: 'vegetarian composers' is a personal visualisation of that big group of anti-everything-people that emerged last century, and i mentioned composers because that is what the topic is about.

5: My mistake, it was indeed toccata, but since i listened it multiple times while writing it and had to mention the name, i went to media player where the name 'Hothouse' appeared instead of 'toccata'. So your assumption of that i didnt listen with care is wrong.

6: The 'crappy composer' remark was a question and a statement, as can be clearly read.

7: 'Like' and 'encourage' refers to the tendency of last decades to like everything that it is new, just because its new. And ofcourse the many semi-intellectuals that praise this new music, rather to look more intellectual and refreshing, than that they actually like it. And ofcourse nobody is allowed to criticise it any way, since you're a cultural barbarian then. You yourself have already insinuated/confirmed that with your reply.


So basicly you only played with words in your reply (as you always do) instead of actually trying to give an answer to the main questions of the topic: What determines when the experimenting with notes leads to a musical composition (and is called music) or is just a bunch of notes', and if it is determined as music, how are you supposed to be able to say whether it is any good or not?
Could you try giving an answer that and maybe give me some insights that could make me enjoy this music?

Gyzzzmo

PS, fixed 'hothouse', thank you for mentioning.

[gep]

What determines when the experimenting with notes leads to a musical composition (and is called music) or is just a bunch of notes', and if it is determined as music

Nothing whatsoever. Each and every piece of music is "a bunch of notes", organised in this or that way. If a composer writes said "bunch of notes" organised in whatever way he/she chooses and declares it music there are no logical deterministic ways to say it is or it is not.

how are you supposed to be able to say whether it is any good or not?

You can't. After listening to it (and with listening I mean rather more than merely hearing it) you may find some piece of music "works" for you or does not so. Such is called "acquiring personal taste". Personal taste says nothing about the music, but merely something about your preferences. Equalling your personal taste with absolute values is nonsense, the kind of which one may all too frequent encounter in reviews, critiques and simillar.

i'm referring to the last 100 years where people are experimenting more and more with chords and especially dissonants.

Define "dissonant". And I do not mean something like "sounds I do not like". I would advice you to listen to some (late) Beethoven, as compared to what his middle of the road collegues wrote, who

still composed in general ways

. You may learn a few things there. And better stay away from people like Monteverdi (17th Century) or Gesualdo (16th Century), who were as modern in their time as, say, Boulez is in ours.

anti-everything-people

Such as shown your generalisation of "modern music" you mean?

And ofcourse the many semi-intellectuals that praise this new music, rather to look more intellectual and refreshing, than that they actually like it. And ofcourse nobody is allowed to criticise it any way,

Such there are, as sure as there are those who turn down "modern music" by default, and are just as stupid....
Of course one may criticise modern music, but please use sensible arguments rather than the "if I don't like it is isn't any good" stance you seem to take.

So basicly you only played with words in your reply (as you always do) instead of actually trying to give an answer to the main questions of the topic

You really are good in empty generalisations, aren't you. If an answer isn't to your liking, so be it, but please try to react a bit more mature...

The 'crappy composer' remark was a question and a statement, as can be clearly read.

No it is not a question, but merely a statement (and a silly one too) with a ? stuck at the end.

We could take that new Sorabji post in the audition forum, 'toccata'. The music isnt going anywhere, the whole piece is in the same 'mood' and suddenly it ends.

Again, personal taste does not equal absolute value. That it doesn't work for you given no information whatsoever about the "value" of a piece.

give me some insights that could make me enjoy this music?

Listen.

gep

[ahinton]

@ Ahinton's concerns:

1: You should definitely know, with your job, what people in general consider as 'modern classical music'. Ofcourse i'm referring to the last 100 years where people are experimenting more and more with chords and especially dissonants.

I do know that different people mean different things by it, just as I also know that a large proportion of "people in general" rarely if ever listen to the kind of Western music that we recognise and categorise as medieval, Renaissance, baroque, classical and Romantic either. But what do you mean by "people...experimenting more and more with chords and especially dissonants[sic]"? Might not medieval musicians have said much the same of Gesualdo? or Buxtehude of Bach's later work, or Haydn of Chopin?

2: 'Remainder of last century'. With that i mean the cultural changes of the last century, involving freedom of speech, anti-religion, free information and the logical effect of quite some people becoming 'anti-everything'. In that same century for that reason, people started musical experimentation too wich is in a far more radical way than romantic composers like Chopin and Liszt did. They still composed in general ways (and musical lines) as baroque composers did and their music got generally accepted, unlike the modern classical music.

Your initial premises are not without validity but the conclusions that you draw from them are deeply flawed. You appear to assume that those (and, by implication, other major) cultural changes were absent from history before the past century and, in so doing, you conveniently contrive to draw a veil over the Reformation, the industrial revolution, colonisations, American independence and heaven knows what else; likewse, you imply that composer such as Chopin and Liszt were not in any sense "radical", whereas a brief consideration of the grinding fortissimo dissonant harmonies close to the end of Chopin's B minor scherzo should alone dispel any such nonsense. These composers, along with their contemporary Alkan, pushed pianistic boundaries far beyond anything previously imagined and experimented in form (Chopin's four ballades are a prime example) in ways that would have been largely unrecognissable to Haydn. Chopin's harmonic developments began to weaken distonicism and influenced Wagner, an influence which in turn visited itself upon Schönberg. Alkan wrote what amount almost to tone clusters in the middle movement of his Grand Duo for violin and piano in the 1830s. At the same time, Berlioz experimented with orchestration in ways unimagined by his predecessors. There's nothing very "baroque" about much if this! In any case, the tradition of studying and performing the music of past generations only really began to take hold in the first part of the 19th century anyway, so why would anyone even expect the composers of that era merely to ape the forebears with whose work they were only just beginning to get to grips in any case?

4: 'vegetarian composers' is a personal visualisation of that big group of anti-everything-people that emerged last century, and i mentioned composers because that is what the topic is about.

OK, so to you the term "vegetarian" is somehow synonymous with "anarchic"; I've yet to encounter a dictionary that would endorse such a bizarre interpretation!

5: My mistake, it was indeed toccata, but since i listened it multiple times while writing it and had to mention the name, i went to media player where the name 'Hothouse' appeared instead of 'toccata'. So your assumption of that i didnt listen with care is wrong.

OK, so you made a mistake. No problem; we all do that. The extent to which you cared when listening, however, is amply evident from your comments on what you heard, which are bald and unadorned with reason.

6: The 'crappy composer' remark was a question and a statement, as can be clearly read.

Indeed it can but, in so doing, the question part reveals itself as wholly rhetorical and the statment part as uncorroborated by explanatory information, as though none is even necessary.

7: 'Like' and 'encourage' refers to the tendency of last decades to like everything that it is new, just because its new.

Whilst such a tendency is indeed not without precedent, it is by no means a purely 20th century phenomenon.

And ofcourse the many semi-intellectuals that praise this new music, rather to look more intellectual and refreshing, than that they actually like it.

In order to support this statement and many others that you make, you would need to provide specific evidence, otherwise all that you are writing is that you personally happen to believe this for reasons (if any) best known only to yourself.

And ofcourse nobody is allowed to criticise it any way, since you're a cultural barbarian then. You yourself have already insinuated/confirmed that with your reply.

I have insinuated nothing of the kind, nor do I accept this to be the case, because it isn't. Anyone can criticise whatever they choose to criticse, but there is a vast difference between intelligent criticism which involves reasoned argument, illustrative examples, evidence and the rest on the one hand and mere "I don't like it" remarks on the other.

So basicly you only played with words in your reply (as you always do) instead of actually trying to give an answer to the main questions of the topic

The only words with which I might reasonably be said to have "played" are yours, as part of my direct response to you.

What determines when the experimenting with notes leads to a musical composition (and is called music) or is just a bunch of notes', and if it is determined as music, how are you supposed to be able to say whether it is any good or not?

Could you try giving an answer that and maybe give me some insights that could make me enjoy this music?

You must decide these things for yourself, because no one can have, or expect to have, your experiences for you; that fact does, however, confer upon you the need to put in the requisite effort and then figure out for yourself why you do or don't like certain music. You should also bear in mind that, just because you may not like certain music - even if you eventually discover why - does not mean that it's not worthy of the attention of others or that others may not like it.

I have neither the desire nor the ability to "make" you enjoy any music, but two things are certain - one is that music that cannot convey its message without being bolstered by the words of commentators may risk revealing itself as being of suspect value when left to stand on its own two feet and the other is that no two reactions to anything can necessarily expect to be identical.
[/quote]

[gyzzzmo]

So basicly you are saying that every group of notes is concidered music and there is no way of objectivly saying music is good or bad? And thus bad and good performances dont really exist either?

[gep]

So basicly you are saying that every group of notes is concidered music

No. Not "is', but certainly "can be". Try to imagine what, say, Ockeghem might have thought about the Verdi Requiem.

and there is no way of objectivly saying music is good or bad?

Entirely correct. If you disagree, please state how music may be, independendly and objectivly, be classified as good or bad.

And thus bad and good performances dont really exist either?

An utterly and fundamentally different matter altogether. I can not imagine how you could come to such a, rather idiotic, conclusion from what I wrote.

gep

[ahinton]

So basicly you are saying that every group of notes is concidered music and there is no way of objectivly saying music is good or bad? And thus bad and good performances dont really exist either?

No, I'm not saying anything of the kind; nor is gep, whose reply to your statement that I am indeed saying such a thing is pretty much as I would myself have written it.

Best,

Alistair

[gyzzzmo]

An utterly and fundamentally different matter altogether. I can not imagine how you could come to such a, rather idiotic, conclusion from what I wrote.
gep

I didnt realise that i conclude anything you wrote, unless your alter ego calls himself Alistair Hinton.
And about the matter, if a composition cant be called good or bad since that is considered purely subjective, the same could be said about any performance. It is all about personal interpretation, it does not seem to matter how many people like listening to it.

On what terms would you dare to define a 'good' performance?

[gep]

On what terms would you dare to define a 'good' performance?

Textual accuracy would be one. Adherence to the composer's intentions (insofar possible, i.e. known insofar as is not in the notes) is another. If a composer writes G-G-G in equal notes, and they get performed G-F#-G# in unequal ones, one might say that the performance of those notes isn't good. Scale up to whole piece.
Whether one likes a certain style of performance is indeed subjective.

Btw, would you say that G-G-G in equal notes would be music, or not be music? If so, why? Please enlighten us....

gep

[thalbergmad]

It took me a while to appreciate music from the latter half of the 20th Century. It was a journey with some pleasure, but not without pain.

Much of what i have heard is less instantly gratifying than the Classic/Romantic era, but if you stick with it and clear your mind of any pre conceived notions, you will be rewarded.

Thal

[ahinton]

I have found power in the mysteries of thought,
exaltation in the changing of the Muses;
I have been versed in the reasonings of men;...

...and now I've read the lucubrations of gyzzzmo on the subject of apparently woeful "modern classical music". Surely my life's ambitions must now be complete?

Oh, no - they're not, actually; I haven't met J S Bach...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

It took me a while to appreciate music from the latter half of the 20th Century. It was a journey with some pleasure, but not without pain.

Much of what i have heard is less instantly gratifying than the Classic/Romantic era, but if you stick with it and clear your mind of any pre conceived notions, you will be rewarded.

Well said, sir! - espacielly since what you have discovered that has led you to your current stance on such music is the result of the fact that you've put the effort into it that I mentioned to gyzzzmo previously. Mind you, you refer solely to music dating from the last 60 years, whereas our gyzzzmotic friend appears to wish to convince us that he considers "modern music" to date back as far as 1900!

As to your last statement here, its welcome truth could work both ways, to the extent that one would be as foolish to listen to Carter expecting the sounds of Mozart as one would be to listen to Schubert expecting the sounds of Varèse. On that front, I am also reminded of the English composer Robert Simpson's mildly admonitory remark about the rise of the HIP (Historically Informed Performance) movement years ago that it is quite simply not possible to listen and respond to the music of Bach as his contemporaries would have done, because our ears have become attuned to Xenakis (and, let it be said to anyone unfamiliar with Simpson's work that he was any kind of "modernist", the composers who arguably most influenced him were Nielsen, Sibelius, Bruckner and, above all, Beethoven, the monolithic, relentless, obsessive/propulsive second movement of Simpson's Symphony No. 9 being more like a Beethoven scherzo than a Beethoven scherzo!).

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

It took me a while to appreciate music from the latter half of the 20th Century. It was a journey with some pleasure, but not without pain.

Much of what i have heard is less instantly gratifying than the Classic/Romantic era, but if you stick with it and clear your mind of any pre conceived notions, you will be rewarded.

Thal

Eloquently put, and very true indeed!

I haven't met J S Bach...

I dare say you meet him on a daily basis, as do I, be it not in the flesh but in the spirit!

second movement of Simpson's Symphony No. 9

I think you mean second section, his 9th being in one movement (and one pulse!). How about the "Hammerklavierisch" of the 10th's Finale!

gep

[ahinton]

I dare say you meet him on a daily basis, as do I, be it not in the flesh but in the spirit!

Ah, yes, indeed I do!

I think you mean second section, his 9th being in one movement (and one pulse!).

I sit corrected and did indeed mean to type just that!

How about the "Hammerklavierisch" of the 10th's Finale!

How indeed! - and his "Rasumovsky" quartets, too...

Best,

Alistair

[gyzzzmo]

Textual accuracy would be one. Adherence to the composer's intentions (insofar possible, i.e. known insofar as is not in the notes) is another. If a composer writes G-G-G in equal notes, and they get performed G-F#-G# in unequal ones, one might say that the performance of those notes isn't good. Scale up to whole piece.
Whether one likes a certain style of performance is indeed subjective.

Btw, would you say that G-G-G in equal notes would be music, or not be music? If so, why? Please enlighten us....

gep

If you hear Rachmaninov's performances, it is often performed quite different than many professionals. Could you objectivly say that makes those performances 'less'? Or what about the performances of our big friend slow_concert_pianist?

Anyway, for me your g-g-g would not be music, as i have a certain criteria for saying certain music is 'technically' good or not. Like the (bigger) line/story, certain originality, use of instrument(s), suprise-factor, 'sense' of the music as a whole etcetera.
That is why i for example dont like the toccata since there is little line, no story and the 'originality' (and suprise-factor you could say) as a whole does not make sense.

Maybe i should, as suggested by Thalbergmad, keep struggling to somehow accept and later enjoy this new type of music.

By the way, i find it quite interesting why people like Ahinton and Gep who normally have relatively common-sense posts, suddenly find this topic so offensive and cant read it as a normal question/debate anymore. Is it not right to question music?

Gyzzzmo

[gep]

If you hear Rachmaninov's performances, it is often performed quite different than many professionals.

besides thinking Rachmaninov was a professional too, I believe that if he did perform his music (which I think you refer to) different than other pianists, I think he has every right to change things as he pleases, a freedom NOT granted to ther pianists. besides that I do indeed think it possible that rachmaninov was capable (but not willing) to play his music crappy. Which, btw, he did not.

Anyway, for me your g-g-g would not be music, as i have a certain criteria for saying certain music is 'technically' good or not.

It isn't my g-g-g. Have a look at Bassi, Bar 1. I'll leave it to you to (perhaps) re-think your remark...
.

Maybe i should, as suggested by Thalbergmad, keep struggling to somehow accept and later enjoy this new type of music.

Wise decision!

Is it not right to question music?

I did not question music, but rather your very subjective en generalising dismissing "modern music". And, btw, I do not find this topic offensive, but rather saddening.

gep

[go12_3]

Okay, "modern classical"  would equate that to comtemporary music?  Hum....
Music can indeed be a bunch of notes if we don't understand it.  Music can be noise
to some people, like whenever I turn the radio on, and listen to the music of today...(hard rock, rap, metal, Lady Gaga...)then it would be noise to me because of its unfamiliarity of the melodies or it just won't appeal to me.  It's a matter of taste and concept and what we are used to listening to daily in our lives.  I prefer music to be organized and melodic, beautiful and soothing...well, that leaves a wide range of music anyhow.  
It's just what we prefer to listen to, that's all.  

[ahinton]

Maybe i should, as suggested by Thalbergmad, keep struggling to somehow accept and later enjoy this new type of music.

In principle, you should indeed try to give serious thought to making the kinds of effort that Thal has himself made, for the more experience you derive from doing so, the better idea you will have of what you do and don't like and why - but what do you mean by "this new type of music"? You wrote of 20th century music, which is a massively broad church, taking in Debussy, Strauss, Skryabin, Mahler, Bartók, Sibelius, Pettersson...you get the point, I presume; the sheer variety of Western music composed between the beginning of the last century and the outbreak of WWI is itself mind-boggling. Since I have no idea which 20th century composers you have problems with and which not (and presuming that, despite your apparent catch-all expressions about "modern music", even you don't have problems with all of them!), I would not know where to start in suggesting any particular repertoire for you to make such an effort with in order for you to discover what you may or may not care for and why, so perhaps you can start by giving us some idea of which composers / which works you don't like, perhaps opening by citing one or two works from each decade from 1900-1910 up to 2000-2010.

By the way, i find it quite interesting why people like Ahinton and Gep who normally have relatively common-sense posts, suddenly find this topic so offensive and cant read it as a normal question/debate anymore. Is it not right to question music?

Taking your last point first, it is better to question yourself before you question music with which you are not yet familiar; you can go on to question the music - or at least your responses to it and the reasons for those responses - if so you choose, once you have become better acquainted with it.

I cannot speak for gep but I am not personally "offended" by what you wrote; I do not , however, have to feel "offended" per se in order to be motivated to challenge it if it needs challenging, which it does, although I suppose that I could be said nevertheless to have good reason to take such offence, since I am myself a composer of that "modern music" about which you sought to express such disdain!

As to a "debate", you appeared to be seeking endorsements of your dislike of what you call "modern music" in preference to actual engagement in "debate" as such.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Music can indeed be a bunch of notes if we don't understand it.

True up to a point, subject to what you or anyone might mean by "understand".

Music can be noise to some people

But it always is noise (except where there are silences)! Not only noise, of course, but if music didn't make a noise you wouldn't hear it!

like whenever I turn the radio on, and listen to the music of today...(hard rock, rap, metal, Lady Gaga...) then it would be noise to me

By which you mean that, to you, these things and others are only noise and nothing more and, accordingly, are not what you want from music; fair comment.

because of its unfamiliarity of the melodies or it just won't appeal to me.  It's a matter of taste and concept and what we are used to listening to daily in our lives.

Ah, now you've hit it on the head! Familiarity and unfamiliarity! A most important factor indeed. When first I heard a Mozart piano concerto after having listened to very little music of any kind other than the Webern, Boulez, Stockhausen, Nono etc. that almost exclusively constituted the musical diet on which I was initially raised, my reaction to it was broadly analogous to the "funny modern music" response that you get from some people when they hear something for the first time with which they are entirely unfamiliar - and for the same reasons!

I prefer music to be organized and melodic, beautiful and soothing...well, that leaves a wide range of music anyhow.  
It's just what we prefer to listen to, that's all.  

There's a whole lot more to human life, activity and thought than "soothing" and beauty is inevitably in the ear of the beholder; even if we accept the notion that music is capable of exprerssing but naming nothing, we will recognise that it is at the very least capable of paralleling, if not necessarily directly reflecting, the massive and ever-expanding range of human emotions, as well we might expect, given that it is composed by humans! Music may on occasion comfort - and there's nothing wrong with that, of course - but there is at the same time far more to great music than what might be thought to fit into comfort zones!

Best,

Alistair

[gyzzzmo]

I cannot speak for gep but I am not personally "offended" by what you wrote; I do not , however, have to feel "offended" per se in order to be motivated to challenge it if it needs challenging, which it does, although I suppose that I could be said nevertheless to have good reason to take such offence, since I am myself a composer of that "modern music" about which you sought to express such disdain!

As to a "debate", you appeared to be seeking endorsements of your dislike of what you call "modern music" in preference to actual engagement in "debate" as such.

Best,

Alistair

I rather think you never have given it a serious thought (maybe until now) that my initial post was actually a sincere question. Still you think that i'm only 'seeking to express disdain' and 'endorsement'.

You know yourself quite well what people consider as to be this 'modern classical music', and i took the Sorabji Toccata as an example. Also Thal didnt seem to have any problems with what i and most people consider as 'modern classical music'. And Debussy and Strauss for example are more romantic composers, it is the style, not the era. But this experimental style appeared much more in the last decades.
Also you know that not everybody is a good composer. Wich means there must be at least some criteria, its not purely subjective. But with so little reference with what are supposed to be 'good compositions' and so many of those 'semi-intellectuals' i talked about, it is rather tricky to rate a piece.
So it is not really That strange that somebody raises a question about how to judge this new music style.

Anyway, your last reply showed much more relevant content, for wich i thank you.

Time for me to study,

Gyzzzmo

[ahinton]

I rather think you never have given it a serious thought (maybe until now) that my initial post was actually a sincere question. Still you think that i'm only 'seeking to express disdain' and 'endorsement'.

...whereas I suspect that you have yourself refrained (maybe until now) from giving serious thought to the possibility that the nature of the reactions that you have received to your initial post may have arisen largely as a consequence of the manner in which you expressed yourself therein.

You know yourself quite well what people consider as to be this 'modern classical music'

No, I'm afraid that I didn't and still don't in the terms in which you mean it (as far as I understand them); you nevertheless seem determined to convince me that I do! That, again, comes across as inflexibility and narrow-minded dogmatism rather than an willingness to pose intelligent and meaningful questions and seek to engage in preper debate. "People", as I have already stated, will not all view "modern music" in an identical light any more than they will view anything else in such a light; each person has different tastes, experiences, levels of expertise and the rest. I do not wish to appear dogmatic myself but I must nevertheless insist that you try to understand the obvious fact that not all "people" think the same way about any music, "modern" or otherwise. When I took you to task by asking what you meant by "modern music", you settled on music since 1900 which, as I observed, covers a vast range of expression.

Also Thal didnt seem to have any problems with what i and most people consider as 'modern classical music'.

Ah - we're slowly getting somewhere! "People" - i.e. everyone - has now been compromised to "most people". But in any case, Thal was referring only to music from 1950 onwards and he was not in any case seeking to persuade us that what he regarded as "modern music" is the same as everyone else does (which is just as well if you regard it as music since 1900!).

And Debussy and Strauss for example are more romantic composers, it is the style, not the era.

But they each wrote music in the 20th century, just as did Varèse, Shostakovich, Xenakis, Rubbra, Ferneyhough and Adams! "It is the style", you now opine; OK, but which style or how many styles are we talking about? And what of the development of individual composers' styles over their respective careers? Compare, for example, the lean asceticism of Debussy's piano études and violin sonata with the richesses of La Mer and Pélleas et Mélisande, or Strauss's Oboe concerto with Salome.

But this experimental style appeared much more in the last decades.

What experimental style? You make it sound as though there was only ever one, that it belonged to the latter part of the last century even though you've said that works written after 1900 are what you regard as "modern music" and that it somehow supplanted other styles, none of which is correct! It also ignores - not for the first time - my questions to you about the extent to which aspects of the music of Chopin, Liszt, Alkan, Berlioz, Wagner et al can likewise be considered "experimental" or at least would have seemed such to their older contemporaries.

Also you know that not everybody is a good composer.

Ah, yes, indeed - they're not all as good as me by any means! That's a joke, by the way (and I rather think that one is needed here at this point).

its not purely subjective. But with so little reference with what are supposed to be 'good compositions' and so many of those 'semi-intellectuals' i talked about, it is rather tricky to rate a piece.

But you have not identified, nor have I noticed, any such intellectuals participating in this thread, so why are you bothered about them when discussing the subject here - and why would their presence and ideas make it more "tricky" for you to form your personal opinions about any kinds of music?

So it is not really That strange that somebody raises a question about how to judge this new music style.

We've already been there so, merely to recap, there's no such thing as a single new music style and never was, for that matter. Are you nevertheless seeking to refer to one particular style and, if so, what is it?

Time for me to study,

Enjoy! There's vastly more out there for you to get to know than you'll ever have time to acqaint yourself with, but the journey should at least be an exciting one!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Maybe i should, as suggested by Thalbergmad, keep struggling to somehow accept and later enjoy this new type of music.

Good idea, but you still need to ease yourself in gradually or you could be put off. I took the British route of Bax, Bainton, Reizenstein, Berkelely, Wordsworth, Britten, Vaughan Williams, Chisholm, Arnold, Walton and gawd knows what else, but even now I don't think I am up to the 1980's.

I still cannot cope with music where the page turner has to work harder than the pianist

Thal

[birba]

This has to be the longest post ever written in one day.  We're all so erudite.

[thalbergmad]

I think we need littletune in this one.

Thal

[littletune]

Oh, me?  so what should I say? you know I don't really understand everything you guys are talking about  I was thinking about something I could say before, but I already forgot! 

[lostinidlewonder]

Clash between Elitism and Populism always causes squabbles. 96 views 28 replies, must be a record!

[pies]

a

[ramseytheii]

Funny how these discussions pop up, so often, like weeds.  I think they are absolutely useless, usually because those with a large body of esoteric knowledge have little sympathy for the thoughts of those without it, and those without it often don't want it to begin with, but also get little substantial response from those with it.

Ultimately these discussions are based in very esoteric areas, and I suspect that part of the reason they keep coming up is an obsession with qualifying works of art, by which I mean, is it better/more modern/more difficult/more advanced/more ingenious/more new/more innovative than whatever else precedes it?

Those who think that way, always fear that some new thing is going to supplant what they love, and that opens the door to these kind of discussions.  

Why not take a rational view?  All of those categories are subjective pretending to be objective.  I can think of few categories in music which are not subjective, and since that's the case, console yourself by taking the subjective view: whatever it is you are listening to is not music, and if the world disagrees, damn them straight to hell.

It may sound flippant, but I used to comment over at the Sequenza21 modern music blog, where they had all kinds of ridiculous discussions about what made music; somebody apparently published a "score" which only had the direction for the performer to dig out his eyes with a spoon, and the resulting sounds were the music.

Well, I may not know what music is objectively, but I sure as hell know what it isn't.  And if the rest of the blog disagreed with me, I realized I was more than ok with that.  Screw them!

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

So basicly you are saying that every group of notes is concidered music and there is no way of objectivly saying music is good or bad? And thus bad and good performances dont really exist either?

I actually responded to this post by only reading a couple of replies, and skimming back, I see how right I was!  It is an obsession with objective definition and the need to put things into a values hierarchy which really generates these discussions.

On another note, relating to the definition of music and its quality, I think composers are to be considered rather like the religious.  They insist their output is music; there may be those analogous to atheists who don't believe them; but the onus is on the composer to prove that it is, just as the onus is on the religious to prove that there is a God, not on the atheists to prove that there isn't.

Walter Ramsey

[littletune]

Oh, me?  so what should I say? you know I don't really understand everything you guys are talking about  I was thinking about something I could say before, but I already forgot! 

Well I remembered now what I wanted to say...  I'm sure it's stupid but well...  it was something that I asked someone and it wasn't about composing but about improvisations... and I asked what was improvisation and what was not. because a lot of times I just play something on piano and I'm imagining different things and I'm just trying what something sounds like. But I don't know anything at all about improvisation (not even about music very much  ). And I asked how do you know if something is improvisation or not. And he said that everything can be improvisation even if you would only like press two keys in one hour, but it's just that that would be improvisation more just for yourself, because others wouldn't understand it. And if you can make it so that others can understand it too then it's for more people. So I thought that maybe it could be like that with composing too. If you would compose something with just two notes (or something with too many notes maybe) it would be kinda hard for others to understand so it would be more just for yourself. and if more people would understand it it would be for more people and if a lot of people would understand it then it was for a lot of people    but I guess it would still all be music  just for yourself or for some people or for a lot of people. well maybe only if not even you would understand or like what you were doing then maybe it wouldn't be a real music anymore  I don't know...  I was just thinking about that    but maybe noone will understand what I was trying to say so I wrote it more like just for myself       

[gep]

Littletune, rather than saying that you

don't know anything at all about improvisation (not even about music very much   ).

I would say that you reveal a deep understanding about the matter, since what you say is very true indeed! If something is music to you alone in all the world it still is music, and as such not different in nature than something the whole wide world hears as music!
You seem someone with open ears and an open mind, keep it up!

gep

[ahinton]

Funny how these discussions pop up, so often, like weeds.

Where's the weed-killer?

I think they are absolutely useless, usually because those with a large body of esoteric knowledge have little sympathy for the thoughts of those without it, and those without it often don't want it to begin with, but also get little substantial response from those with it.

They are not of necessity "useless"; much depends upon how (and indeed if!) they develop and the extent or otherwise of dogmatic posturing that they embrace.

Ultimately these discussions are based in very esoteric areas, and I suspect that part of the reason they keep coming up is an obsession with qualifying works of art, by which I mean, is it better/more modern/more difficult/more advanced/more ingenious/more new/more innovative than whatever else precedes it?

In some cases, perhaps it is, but in the present case where the problem at the outset is that of what the initiator means by his use of the term "modern music", we would not at all appear to be in the realms of the esoteric at all but in the very simple ones of how to define "modern music" and whether it is even possible to do so in any meaningful way that is likely to convey the same ideas to most people to encounter it.

Those who think that way, always fear that some new thing is going to supplant what they love, and that opens the door to these kind of discussions.  

Those who stick their heads in the sand may indeed fall prey to such fears, which i s why it is important to expose those fears and their origins for what they are in order to try to avoid confusion about what is being discussed and why.

Why not take a rational view?  All of those categories are subjective pretending to be objective.

True, but in the present case I think that it appears simpler than that; what we are being urged to discuss here is not merely a subjectivity/objectivity conflict but the more fundamental question of what it is that is supposedly the topic of discussion; whilst it is indeed true that personal likes and dislikes need to be distinguished at all times from value judgements (especially those that their makers wish to foist upon others), it has become clear from a few exchanges in this thread that there is no clarity as to what music is being discussed in the first place - in other words, I remain none the wiser either as to what gyzzzmo means by "modern music" or what it is about it (presumably all of it, since he has yet to state otherwise) that he so vehemently dislikes and why.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

On another note, relating to the definition of music and its quality, I think composers are to be considered rather like the religious.  They insist their output is music; there may be those analogous to atheists who don't believe them; but the onus is on the composer to prove that it is, just as the onus is on the religious to prove that there is a God, not on the atheists to prove that there isn't.

I do not personally "insist" that what I write is anything at all other than "there" and it is accordingly up to those who play it, study it or listen to it to decide for themselves what it is and how they feel about it - anything more than that risks arrogance, I suspect; I am not therefore in the business of - or under any obligation to - "prove" that any of my music is anything other than what the scores suggest that it is.

Best,

Alistair

[richard black]

Yawwwwwn. This discussion has been fought back and forth over the same two inches of territory since.... well, since the dawn of recorded musical history, really. Full of sound and fury....

[littletune]

Littletune, rather than saying that you
don't know anything at all about improvisation (not even about music very much   ).
I would say that you reveal a deep understanding about the matter, since what you say is very true indeed! If something is music to you alone in all the world it still is music, and as such not different in nature than something the whole wide world hears as music!
You seem someone with open ears and an open mind, keep it up!

gep

Thank you!!    I really like getting to know all sorts of music  I will keep it up   

[gyzzzmo]

Yawwwwwn. This discussion has been fought back and forth over the same two inches of territory since.... well, since the dawn of recorded musical history, really. Full of sound and fury....

Pianostreet would become a rather boring forum if we wouldnt discuss subjects multiple times, especially the majority is about the more famous classical music. Anyway, in the rather long time i've been on this forum i havent seen or attended any threads about modern classical music, except for some funny remarks about posted sheetmusic.
So time for me to start a topic about it. Pity though that i maybe gave my own opinion away abit too much and might have given the idea that i wasnt truelly interested

Gyzzzmo

[ahinton]

Yawwwwwn. This discussion has been fought back and forth over the same two inches of territory since.... well, since the dawn of recorded musical history, really. Full of sound and fury....

With all due respect, nonsense, dear boy! That kind of thing's been going on since long before there was ever any such thing as even the beginnings of a recorded musical history! All that I ask is that people stop and think about what they're pronouncing upon before wading in, uninvited, with bald, unfounded and meaningless statements that incline some of us to - well, as you so rightly and eloquently put it - "yawwwwwn"...

Not only that, it does strike me (incidentally) as somewhat strange that anyone professing such profoundly held reservations about whatever he may consider "modern music" to be nevertheless styles himself "gyzzzmo", given that I'd always understood the term gizmo(sp.) to represent some kind of new technological device; ah, well - what do I know!

Best,

Alistair

[gyzzzmo]

With all due respect, nonsense, dear boy! That kind of thing's been going on since long before there was ever any such thing as even the beginnings of a recorded musical history! All that I ask is that people stop and think about what they're pronouncing upon before wading in, uninvited, with bald, unfounded and meaningless statements that incline some of us to - well, as you so rightly and eloquently put it - "yawwwwwn"...

Not only that, it does strike me (incidentally) as somewhat strange that anyone professing such profoundly held reservations about whatever he may consider "modern music" to be nevertheless styles himself "gyzzzmo", given that I'd always understood the term gizmo(sp.) to represent some kind of new technological device; ah, well - what do I know!

Best,

Alistair

As is strikes me that somebody who creates sentences like that (and plays with words), isnt able to properly read and reply a post. Those 'bald, unfounded and meaningless statements' represent my view of a certain style of music and are naturally an opinion. I somehow always thought that opinions had to be that meaningful and founded, especially if its about music. Plus, insinuating that somebody makes statements of that kind, is itself not really rich, meaningfull and founded either, isnt it? Especially not after my explanations in the replies later on.

And may i explain you, that the word 'though' in the second part of my initial post, implies that i am nevertheless interested in that type of music and want to gain some knowledge about it wich might lead to more understanding from my side. I must admit the 3rd part might look rather blunt and should have added the words 'to my opinion' again, although it might have already been quite obvious that it was.

As for 'Gyzzzmo', it might also refer to some hairy critter in an old movie.

Gyzzzmo

[thalbergmad]

I must admit the 3rd part might look rather blunt and should have added the words 'to my opinion' again, although it might have already been quite obvious that it was.

It is strange, but I have had difficulty in the past in getting some members to realise that when i was posting, i was offering my own opinion and not that of any other individual or half the population of the World.

Thal

[ahinton]

As is strikes me that somebody who creates sentences like that (and plays with words), isnt able to properly read and reply a post. Those 'bald, unfounded and meaningless statements' represent my view of a certain style of music and are naturally an opinion. I somehow always thought that opinions had to be that meaningful and founded, especially if its about music. Plus, insinuating that somebody makes statements of that kind, is itself not really rich, meaningfull and founded either, isnt it? Especially not after my explanations in the replies later on.

To remind you - I have never had any doubt that what you wrote is your opinion rather than a reflection of any kind of generally accepted judgement, but it is a most forthright opinion (which is fine as it is honest) but - let me remind you of your words:

"i still cant stand 'modern music'...modern...'music' is just a remainder of the last century where people wanted to be 'anti-everything', combined with vegetarian composers who arent much good in anything...that new Sorabji post in the audition forum, 'toccata'...isnt going anywhere, the whole piece is in the same 'mood' and suddenly it ends. Isnt Sorabji just a very crappy composer, but are we supposed to like and encourage it cause its 'modern'?"

No one has said that you have to like or encourage anything, whether it be "modern" (which in the Sorabji case it isn't anyway) or otherwise.

You've given no reasoning to support your personal question about Sorabji being a "very crappy composer" and I suspect that you have heard little music by him besides that one short early not particularly representative piece.

What in any case is wrong with a short piece maintaining the "same 'mood'" throughout? - many short character pieces by Schumann, for example, do the same (sorry, Thal!).

The suggestion that "modern" composers are largely of anarchic disposition and may be vegetarian to boot simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny, even if it is only your opinion.

Most important of all, however, is that all that you have offered to us when questioned what you mean by "modern music" is to lump together almost everything written since 1900; it quite simply cannot be meaningfully lumped together even to form a personal blanket opinion of it, for the music of the past 110 years is just far too richly diverse for that.

So - we still don't really know what exactly you mean by "modern music" as such and it is therefore impossible to understand with any degree of precision to what your personal opinion relates, let alone on what basis you hold it.

You still write of "a certain style of music" but you don't tell us which of the many so many such styles that have been explored since 1900 that you are referring to; you make it sound as though the past century had only one style!

I'm sure that you can understand that, as a composer myself, I have something of a vested interest in discovering what you mean!

Best,

Alistair

[gyzzzmo]

My topic says 'modern classical music', and i took toccata of Sorabji as an example wich (to my opinion) should be clear enough of wich type of music i am talking. Also, other people didnt seem to have the issues with this classification as you.
And 'crappy composer' remark was just an extra statement of something i earlier said in the initial post: How to recognize 'good modern classical music' if it is sometimes even questionable if a piece is truelly music, or just 'a bunch of notes'. The 'composer' Xenakis could be a popular example of someone who is so experimental that it could even be called questionable. Off the record, i dont know if he was a vegetarian.

But if you still have a problem with my terminology, this was the first google hit when i entered 'modern classical music': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th-century_classical_music Maybe that enlightness you abit, and explains why i mentioned 'dissonants' and the 20th century.

Gyzzzmo

[gyzzzmo]

Oh, and since you value certain words so much more than the total picture/message of a post, i will try to explain my 'vegetarian-composer' remark again:

I already explained you the 'anti-everything' culture of the last century wich produced so many 'Alternatives' (and/or vegetarians).
Since this modern classical music style can be so extreme, it could be questional for quite some people if a piece is made by a serious composer, or just by one of those vegetarians with a couple of joints too many who claims his weird music is so deep and rich, but actually just is a bunch of random notes.

[ahinton]

My topic says 'modern classical music', and i took toccata of Sorabji as an example wich (to my opinion) should be clear enough of wich type of music i am talking. Also, other people didnt seem to have the issues with this classification as you.

Which other people? And even if what you were seeking to illustrate could claim Sorabji's immature Toccata as a prime example of "modern music", where do we go from there in trying to lump together other examples from contemporary composers as different from one another as Stravinsky, Schönberg, Strauss, Ravel, Vermeulen, Bax, Schre(c)ker), Krenek, Milhaud and so on and so forth?...

And 'crappy composer' remark was just an extra statement of something i earlier said in the initial post: How to recognize 'good modern classical music' if it is sometimes even questionable if a piece is truelly music, or just 'a bunch of notes'. The 'composer' Xenakis could be a popular example of someone who is so experimental that it could even be called questionable. Off the record, i dont know if he was a vegetarian.

OK, well let's for the time being leave aside both Xenakis (although your citing of him with ' ' around his name is duly noted) and compositorial vegetarianism, since we are talking here about a piece of music (Sorabji's Toccata) that was composed by a non-vegetarian just before Xenakis was born. Are you a florist by profession? - I ask this only because of your repeated remarks about notes by the "bunch". I still don't get your pejoratively oriented drift about composers "experimenting", probably in large part because you have consistently ignored my questions about Chopin, Liszt, Alkan and others' experimentations as though any sense of "experimentation" is a phenomenon entirely unknown and unrecognised before the 20th century and somehow to be deprecated.

But if you still have a problem with my terminology, this was the first google hit when i entered 'modern classical music': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th-century_classical_music Maybe that enlightness you abit, and explains why i mentioned 'dissonants' and the 20th century.

It enlightens nothing whatsoever for me, but that is not necessarily the fault of Google; all I humbly ask is that you tell us what your views about dissonance might be, including its rôle in composition and, of course, some kind of definition as to what, to you, actually constitutes "dissonance"; you've not told us about this yet, so we cannot get to grips with your thoughts on this or your other bald statements about the music of the past century until and unless you do so.

Best,

Alistair

[gyzzzmo]

You appear to have no idea what people mean with 'modern classical music', musical experimentation, dissonants or whatever more you've been asking about, although you claim to be a composer yourself.
Actually, you seem to prefer to just keep on silly playing with words and repeating the obvious, instead of just answering a question. So i'm going to stop putting my time with you into this since this is going nowhere.

Best, Gyzzzmo

[ahinton]

You appear to have no idea what people mean with 'modern classical music', musical experimentation, dissonants or whatever more you've been asking about

No, I don't; I have "been asking" what you mean by it and I've pointed out that there is no such thing as "what people mean" by "modern classical music" because not everyone has the same view of it or what it is.

although you claim to be a composer yourself

Why do you use the word "claim"?

Actually, you seem to prefer to just keep on silly playing with words and repeating the obvious, instead of just answering a question

What question?

this is going nowhere.

Through no fault of mine, however.

Best,

Alistair

[gyzzzmo]

No, I don't; I have "been asking" what you mean by it and I've pointed out that there is no such thing as "what people mean" by "modern classical music" because not everyone has the same view of it or what it is.
Why do you use the word "claim"?
What question?
Through no fault of mine, however.

Best,

Alistair

Again, you are doing what you've been doing all time: Asking silly questions and playing with words. There is no point in explaning you things, because you are only going to ask more and show no interest at all in answering the primary question of this thread, wich you indeed already have 'forgotten' about and magically do not seem to understand.
Maybe you find it funny to toy around or you might impress some easy people around you with your behaviour, here it is just silly. Maybe you should indeed just stick to the superficial threads on pianostreet and post some of your 'semi-intellectual' phrases there.

As far of the topic of this thread, maybe leave some room for other people who actually ARE interested.

Best,
Gyzzzmo

[ahinton]

Again, you are doing what you've been doing all time: Asking silly questions and playing with words.

What exactly do you perceive as "silly" in the two questions that I have just asked?

As I have stated previously, the only words that I might be seen to "play with" are yours, in that I have sought to respond to them directly.

There is no point in explaning you things, because you are only going to ask more and show no interest at all in answering the primary question of this thread, wich you indeed already have 'forgotten' about and magically do not seem to understand.

I have forgotten nothing bout this; to demonstrate that fact, allow me to quote, in extenso, the post with which you initiated this thread:
I've been a musician myself for quite some years, but i still cant stand 'modern music'.
To my opinion modern 'music' is just a remainder of the last century where people wanted to be
'anti-everything', combined with vegetarian composers who arent much good in anything.

I'm curious though what determines if a piece is 'modern music' or just a bunch of random notes. And if it IS actually 'music', how you know if its any good or not?

We could take that new Sorabji post in the audition forum, 'toccata'. The music isnt going anywhere, the whole piece is in the same 'mood' and suddenly it ends. Isnt Sorabji just a very crappy composer, but are we supposed to like and encourage it cause its 'modern'?

Now, the only questions that I can see here are
1. "if 'modern music' [which you have not defined] IS actually 'music' [whatever that may mean], how [do] you know if it[']s any good or not" - and
2. "Isn[']t Sorabji just a very crappy composer, but are we supposed to like and encourage it cause it[']s 'modern'?"
Whilst I have no evidence that I and others here have not fully addressed these questions, I also have none that suggests that you have given answers to why you believe (as you claim) that everyone takes the same view about "modern music", "dissonance", "experimentation" and the rest and based upon some strange notion that dissonance and experimentation are specifically 20th century phenomena rather than aspects of musical creation that have been with us all since time immemorial.

I do therefore believe that it's up to you to do some work now in explaining yourself, if you wish to establish credibility here. There is, of course, absolutely no obligation upon you to do so, but the ball's in your court nevertheless.

Best,

Alistair