Modern classical music: music or bunch of notes?

[gyzzzmo]

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

That is indeed true, especially things like metaphors, sarcasm and examples are taken way too literally these days and can't be seen in perspective anymore. Maybe we should go back to first-grade language so we might not accidently misinform anybody

Gyzzz

[ahinton]

That is indeed true, especially things like metaphors, sarcasm and examples are taken way too literally these days and can't be seen in perspective anymore. Maybe we should go back to first-grade language so we might not accidently misinform anybody

Whatever language you or anyone else may go back to (or preferably forward to in your case here), some very basic questions have been asked of you in this thread which you have yet to answer, so, as I observed previously, the ball's now in your court; taking literally or otherwise such answers as you may accordingly choose to provide hardly becomes any kind of issue until such time as you actually provide those answers. I humbly submit that it's not so much "language" per se (first-grade or otherwise) that is the problem here as the lack of it from you, irrespective of its "grading".

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

Whether or not it applies to Gyzzzmi I do not know (so please do answer!), but I've got this idea, based on experience over several years, that 'modern' music to a lot of people is music that is
1) Not hugely well known
2) Written after 1900
3) Has a distinctive voice all its own and
4) Actually requires active listening.

Put up you are going to play Pettersson 13nd Symphony and loads of people, up untill then totally oblivious to the composers existence, will check, read he lived 1911-1980 and then decide not to go because it is 'modern', which they don't like.
The same people will happily go and listen to that "gorgeous" Farewell Symphony by J. Haydn, and not give one thought about how exceedingly experimental that piece was for its time, actually requiring special adaptors being made to the horns in Haydn's orchestra to be able to play it. But if John cage requires adaptations being made to a piano in order to be able to play his msuic, he's a idiotic 'modern' composer deserving nothing but scorn.

Many, if not most, 'music lovers' think music is some sort of entertainment, which should be tailord to their wishes, tastes and whatnot and everything that doesn't fit their taste is 'nonsense'. Personally, I like quite a lot of the classics, but enjoy finding out new things, new ways, new sounds and the like. Surely, not all is to my taste, but I think that my taste says someting about my taste, and not about the quality of the music, let alone its right to exist.

gep

[gyzzzmo]

Whether or not it applies to Gyzzzmi I do not know (so please do answer!), but I've got this idea, based on experience over several years, that 'modern' music to a lot of people is music that is
1) Not hugely well known
2) Written after 1900
3) Has a distinctive voice all its own and
4) Actually requires active listening.

Put up you are going to play Pettersson 13nd Symphony and loads of people, up untill then totally oblivious to the composers existence, will check, read he lived 1911-1980 and then decide not to go because it is 'modern', which they don't like.
The same people will happily go and listen to that "gorgeous" Farewell Symphony by J. Haydn, and not give one thought about how exceedingly experimental that piece was for its time, actually requiring special adaptors being made to the horns in Haydn's orchestra to be able to play it. But if John cage requires adaptations being made to a piano in order to be able to play his msuic, he's a idiotic 'modern' composer deserving nothing but scorn.

Many, if not most, 'music lovers' think music is some sort of entertainment, which should be tailord to their wishes, tastes and whatnot and everything that doesn't fit their taste is 'nonsense'. Personally, I like quite a lot of the classics, but enjoy finding out new things, new ways, new sounds and the like. Surely, not all is to my taste, but I think that my taste says someting about my taste, and not about the quality of the music, let alone its right to exist.

gep

Hi Gep, thanks for your reply.
Those points in general do indeed apply to me.
And as a musician myself, ofcourse i am in some way a 'music lover'. But i actually dont have to like the music to be able to appriciate it. Quite often some piece has technical qualities or some genious harmonies i can enjoy without the desire to hear the piece again. Also i like new things, if i can recognize the qualities in it without it being anywhere near for example baroque or romantic-ish styles.

But the problem i have with alot of those 'modern classical music'-compositions that i cannot recognize any of those qualities because there are no real musical standards to refer with. And yes, i do listen to quite some of this style.
Wich for me leads to the question if a piece is just 'a bunch of notes' from some madman (or whatever) or that it is somehow good.

And naturally people can say that jazz, Haydn's Farewell Symphony and even Liszt/Chopin were experimental, however they do all contain those musical basics that can even be find in baroque. Wich gives the listener something to refer with and some ways to judge it. Unlike many of those highly experimental pieces this era produced.

Gyzzzmo