Getting into Modern Music

[djealnla]

This is mostly for "retrouvailles" and other people well versed in modern and contemporary music, but I'll appreciate anyone's feedback.

One of the major complaints in topics concerning modernism that I have read here is that people jump into modern Classical Music the wrong way (i.e., they listen first to Xenakis and Berio instead of, say, Berg). I pretty much agree with this, but I think it's a shame that no one (apart from this guy: https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=19696.msg230740#msg230740) has created a list of 20th century music, which would allow someone who has a fairly conservative taste to gradually comprehend it. Even the aforementioned list has its flaws, and I would rearrange it quite a bit.

In any case, I want to raise these questions:

1) Is it possible to create a list of composers ranging from "most accessible" to "most inaccessible"? Wouldn't it be better to go by individual pieces, as many composers (like Stravinsky or Rzewski) have a fairly eclectic output?

2) If someone decides to review a composer's entire oeuvre, how should he do that? I'm not a great advocate of the "listen to the greatest hits" attitude, and I also think it may be useful to assist people a bit here. Whereas Scriabin is best understood by starting with his early, very Chopinesque works and ending with his quartal harmony and Prometheus chord, late Boulez is certainly more "ear-friendly" than early Boulez.

3) Is there any composer who represents a bridge between tonality and atonality for most people? Scriabin is one such candidate, perhaps Mahler is another, but I'd like to hear more suggestions.

4) How and how soon should people approach composers whose styles may not be "unpleasant" to most people, but who wrote music, which often "sits under the surface" (such as Haydn, Bruckner or Medtner)? Personally I think, but this is only my personal opinion, that these three composers can represent quite a challenge, even more than many contemporary composers. The same could be said of late Beethoven.

5) Are there any shortcuts for appreciating "new music"? I think Ligeti's Etudes or Rzewski's "Variations on El Pueblo Unido" are pieces of that kind, but I may be in a minority when thinking so.

6) Would you mind presenting any such list here?  

Ok, that's pretty much all I have to say right now. I'm looking forward to anyone's ideas on this issue. Thanks.

[retrouvailles]

Haven't been coming to this forum very often lately, but wow, finally a great topic I see fit to comment on. I have a few brief thoughts on this, and I might make more comments (more in-depth comments) later on. First of all, while "soliloquy" (known by perhaps a billion other names here) may have created a list that sort of ranks pieces in accessibility, I have a lot of problems with that list. It seems to rank just a lot of pieces that he likes in a seemingly arbitrary matter. Heck, for some of those lists, you could almost do the reverse of a given one and have an argument for it. In the end, when judging ANY kind of music, it all comes down to communicability, I believe. Whether or not something is "accessible" or not does not reflect anything on how much the piece will actually get to the listener. Of course, both things are very subjective, so even to create such a list would be stupid and senseless, for opinions differ and in the end, it all comes down to innate taste (not preconceived notions, which people seem to confuse for taste). For example, in soliloquy's list where he has the Berg Violin Concerto beginning the list and the Wuorinen Percussion Quartet ending it, I would say that the Wuorinen Percussion Quartet would be a better piece to start with for an uninitiated listener or modern music, simply because, musically speaking, the piece is far more direct in its presentation of musical material, even though what is going on beneath the surface of the piece is more complex than the Berg Violin Concerto (and yes, I realize that the Berg seems to have a reputation as a very accessible 20th century work). I also realize that my view on this asks a potential listener to have an open mind, free of preconceived notions that could potentially compromise a person's view on a work. This is just something to start off with. There is a ton more to say on this.

[djealnla]

Thanks for the reply, I'll try to do my best to answer it meaningfully.

In the end, when judging ANY kind of music, it all comes down to communicability, I believe. Whether or not something is "accessible" or not does not reflect anything on how much the piece will actually get to the listener. Of course, both things are very subjective, so even to create such a list would be stupid and senseless, for opinions differ and in the end, it all comes down to innate taste (not preconceived notions, which people seem to confuse for taste). For example, in soliloquy's list where he has the Berg Violin Concerto beginning the list and the Wuorinen Percussion Quartet ending it, I would say that the Wuorinen Percussion Quartet would be a better piece to start with for an uninitiated listener or modern music, simply because, musically speaking, the piece is far more direct in its presentation of musical material, even though what is going on beneath the surface of the piece is more complex than the Berg Violin Concerto (and yes, I realize that the Berg seems to have a reputation as a very accessible 20th century work). I also realize that my view on this asks a potential listener to have an open mind, free of preconceived notions that could potentially compromise a person's view on a work. This is just something to start off with. There is a ton more to say on this.

Yes, that is true, but my so-far-non-existing list is intended for people who are stuck in the Beethoven and Chopin museum, not for people who enjoy Art Rock. Anyway, there are several questions that should be dealt with:

1) Why do people like some music?
2) What is the degree of balance we are looking for?

As for point 1: If people enjoy middle Beethoven merely because of his harmonic language but do not care much for his thematic development (Waldstein Sonata, 4th Piano Concerto, etc.), then they wouldn't have trouble with Schoenberg because of his tone rows, but rather because of the prominence of dissonances in his music, as well as the lack of resolutions of them in it.

As for point 2: This relates to point 1. If people care about tonality and nothing else, then would a person be more capable of enjoying a predominantly tonal piece which eschews the aesthetics of thematic development, or one which is atonal but employs the Sonata Form? There is, at any rate, a wide gap between grasping the architecture of a fugue by Bach and enjoying a piece because it has an easily recognizable and frequently repeated melody (such as the slow movement of Rachmaninoff's 2nd Piano Concerto).

Whatever one's stance may be, it is obvious that an atonal piece which does not utilize conventional musical thinking is more inaccessible than either of the two types of pieces I mentioned above. Therefore it is clear Ferneyhough and early Boulez are harder to like than pretty much all Minimalist music or Schnittke (or maybe not, but you get my point).

3) Instrumentation.

If a composer has a consistent style, it might be a good idea to avoid pieces for a certain instrument. This can of course vary from one composer to another, but most people will find a composer's pieces for Orchestra far more inviting than the same composer's String Quartets, simply because they can be much more colorful (if Ravel's Bolero had been originally written for the Piano, I doubt many people would care about that piece). The opening of Per Nørgård's 6th Symphony is a case in point here.

I'll post more when my brain gets working.  

Edit:

I saw this question and immediately stopped reading!

1) Is it possible to create a list of composers ranging from "most accessible" to "most inaccessible"?

Thank you for your jerky, pompous reply. Leave this thread if this is the kind of arrogant nonsense you apparently intend to pollute it with.

[aintgotnorhythm]

As someone who was never in the Chopin and Beethoven museum, though I confess to having been in the Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninov museum for some time, I thought I would mention a book called "The Rest is Noise" by Alex Ross - I found it really illuminating and with excellent suggestions on modern recordings for the uninitiated to try out.

I simply didn't "get" modern classical music for many years. There's no instant cure, I think it's a gradual process to acquire the taste, but at least I have now progressed to Shostakovich, whose music grabs me in the gut in a way not much else does.

[ted]

This topic is so broad and at the same time so personal that valid generalisation is next to impossible.

I acquired my taste for "modern" piano sounds through improvisation, a sort of "try it and see" process. After twenty years or more improvising and composing in "conventional" idioms I found the whole creative impulse was  getting too static, too predictable, even though I had become quite good at it. Therefore I found myself starting to play in rhythms and harmonies which simply do not occur in what is known as "common practice". I think rhythm, much more so than harmony, drove the change in my mind. I began to find notated rhythms, even jazz rhythms, too square-toed to fire me up during improvisation, and the clearly defined and time honoured phrase and answer, two of this, two of that, ABAC and so on, became deeply hackneyed for me.

I have reason to think that most people go the other way, becoming "modern" via intellectually plopping new harmony into more or less notated rhythms. Gradually I found that many of the sounds I was making had become departure points for a large number of well-known modern composers I had not paid any attention to. In other words, I had already and inadvertently, built a "modern" foundation within my aural response prior to the event of hearing any "modern" composers. When I did hear them it was usually a case of recognising things I had been fiddling with in my improvisation for some time.

It doesn't mean I liked everything modern, of course, any more than I like standard classical repertoire. In fact I don't like many standard masterpieces, which still seem to go in one ear and out the other despite my trying for years to see why they are "great". So it's nothing to do with personal bias toward either old-fashioned or modern. As near as I can explain it, I think I opened myself to "modern" music once I acquired the capacity to enjoy abstract beauty without concomitant emotional, historical and remembered associations. It's a good way to listen to all music because it can explode biases against areas of conventional sound too. A curious and enjoyable by-product of my listening and playing in more eclectic ways was that I suddenly started to like Bach, whose music I had not cared for in earlier years.

So it isn't a matter of "either/or" but rather an inclusive expansion of one's capacity for musical enjoyment. That's how I see it anyway, but I was never a conventional musician at the best of times.

[farg]

There is, at any rate, a wide gap between grasping the architecture of a fugue by Bach and enjoying a piece because it has an easily recognizable and frequently repeated melody (such as the slow movement of Rachmaninoff's 2nd Piano Concerto).

I agree. So much.

When I was 10 years old I don't think I recognized large-scale structure very well (I mean, my teachers always harped at me about what sonata form was, but really all I knew was that sonata form was when something was repeated in a key that was a betch to memorize). Not to compare normal people to ten-year-olds, but I don't think most normal people identify structure. They probably have the ability to, but why would they bother in the first place? People are too busy to pay close attention to music like that.

Progressive music is never popularly accepted unless it is pretty and repetitive and singable (at least, it seems that way). There must be a reason people recognize Philip Glass' name and not Milton Babbitt's, even if they've never actually heard a composition by either. I guess that's a little depressing...?

[ahinton]

This is supposed to be a thread about modern music, yet Berg and Shostakovich, both tonal composers, have been mentioned as examples, despite the former having been dead for three quarters of a century and the latter for 35 years.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

How does one get out of Modern Music??

Thal

[ahinton]

How does one get out of Modern Music??

The question should surely be what does one get out of it rather than how - but never mind that for a moment; first let's have "modern music" (whatever that my be) defined - and it surely doesn't include the works of composers who have been dead for may years.

Best,

Alistair

[john11inc]

The question should surely be what does one get out of it rather than how - but never mind that for a moment; first let's have "modern music" (whatever that my be) defined - and it surely doesn't include the works of composers who have been dead for may years.

Best,

Alistair

I'm afraid that "Modern" music would definitely be comprised of dead composers, even primarily, if we are assuming the average life span is approximately 70 years (Berg would certainly be a "Modern" composer, although Shostakovich would obviously not).  "Contemporary" music, however, wouldn't have such a problem.

Considering how incredibly broad this question is, and considering its terms are not well-defined, I don't really think it's worth answering, given how much information is required to address all of the possible questions that we can derive from a question I have to assume has a more specific meaning.  Maybe the topic starter would oblige us with a direction to take, so we could be more helpful?  For instance, are you looking for philosophical answers to the bulletted questions, or on a broader basis?

[ahinton]

I'm afraid that "Modern" music would definitely be comprised of dead composers, even primarily, if we are assuming the average life span is approximately 70 years (Berg would certainly be a "Modern" composer, although Shostakovich would obviously not).  "Contemporary" music, however, wouldn't have such a problem.

I don't understand that. The problem here (as i was trying to illustrate) is that there's less than no point in trying to say or even ask anyting about "modern music" unless there is some kind of prior understanding and broad agreement as to what this is.

Considering how incredibly broad this question is, and considering its terms are not well-defined, I don't really think it's worth answering, given how much information is required to address all of the possible questions that we can derive from a question I have to assume has a more specific meaning.  Maybe the topic starter would oblige us with a direction to take, so we could be more helpful?  For instance, are you looking for philosophical answers to the bulletted questions, or on a broader basis?

Agreed here on all counts. Definitions first. General agreement (if possible - which it probably won't be!) as to the validity and appropriateness of those definitions next. Then some more information as to the need to ask what "getting into modern music" might mean, even if only (to begin with) to the poster who initiated this thread.

Best,

Alistair

[john11inc]

I don't understand that. The problem here (as i was trying to illustrate) is that there's less than no point in trying to say or even ask anyting about "modern music" unless there is some kind of prior understanding and broad agreement as to what this is.

"Modern" was a specific era of music.  "Contemporary" means, well, obviously. . .

[ahinton]

"Modern" was a specific era of music.  "Contemporary" means, well, obviously. . .

But was it? And what specific era does it define or denote (in terms of approximate beginning and end years)? The problem with the term "modern" is that it broadly suggests a synonymity with "contemporary". From, say, the middle of our present century onwards, continued use of the term "modern" to classify most music written between, say, the death of Brahms and that of Schönberg will surely seem increasingly odd, won't it?

For some, even today, the term "modern music" is generally resorted to as a pejorative within which principally to categorise much of the post-1908 (or thereabouts) music of Stravinsky, Schönberg and certain of their contemporaries active mainly during the first half of the last century; this use of it is a typically bizarre one when the music concerned is all at lest 60 years old.

We then encounter from time to time the frequent tit-for-tattish "debate" about one particular work with which "modern music" supposedly "began". Le Sacre du printemps has been famously cited, as has the somewhat earlier Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune; Schönberg's Second String Quartet and First Chamber Symphony have been described as works within the course of each of which the break between "Romanticism" and "Modernity" is evident, Mahler's Ninth Symphony has been (perhaps even more absurdly) suggested, another potential candidate is Strauss's Salome and a handful of people have also put forward Busoni's Sonatina Seconda. Of course one can no more hope sensibly and convincingly to pin down any one work to fit this category than one can cite any particular year. But what about Liszt's Via Crucis, which predates all of these? Or what about the central movement of Alkan's Grande Duo for violin and piano from the 1830s or indeed the Grosse Fuge from the previous decade?

And the thought that a "modern" period in music actually ended, to be supplanted by a "contemporary" one, is not only even more greatly flawed, but might also bee taken to imply the unwelcome possibility of future categorisational laziness, to the extent that, since what is of recent origin is always "contemporary", we no longer need any more "period" definitions!

I suspect that many might perhaps fall prey to defining (at least for themselves) "modern music" in accordance with its perceived levels of dissonance, but then new music has continued for many decades - nay, centuries - to change our view of dissonance, sometimes subtly, sometimes less so; as the English composer Robert Simpson pointed out (albeit in the different context of considering the then early days of the burgeoning performance tradition that has since come to be known as HIP - i.e. Historically Informed Performance), we cannot listen to Bach today as his contemporaries did, because our ears have become accustomed to Xenakis. In my experience, it has all too often proved to be about as hard to argue with that statement as it is to convince some people who say "I don't like modern music" of its relevance, validity and importance!

What I think is actually at the heart of the thread title (at least for most people) is in reality more a matter of getting into unfamiliar music than getting ito "Modern Music"; is there not, for example, an effective parallel between the consequences of playing Jonchaies or Arcana to someone who's never previously heard anything more recent than a late Mozart symphony and that which results from getting someone who's never lived or travelled outside central Africa to move to Sakha?

Best,

Alistair

[minor9th]

A list that ranks least to most difficult to listen to is entirely too subjective. I would prefer to listen to Xenakis or Stockhausen than Satie...others may disagree...

[ahinton]

A list that ranks least to most difficult to listen to is entirely too subjective. I would prefer to listen to Xenakis or Stockhausen than Satie...others may disagree...

But that is not what the thread is about, is it?! No one is being expected to try to "rank" anything, for the topic is supposedly about "getting into modern music", whatever " modern music" and/or "getting into" it may or may not be, rather than attempting to evaluate this or that example of it, whatever it may be, least of all by seeking to create any kind of "list" thereof...

Best,

Alistair

[minor9th]

But that is not what the thread is about, is it?! No one is being expected to try to "rank" anything, for the topic is supposedly about "getting into modern music", whatever " modern music" and/or "getting into" it may or may not be, rather than attempting to evaluate this or that example of it, whatever it may be, least of all by seeking to create any kind of "list" thereof...

Best,

Alistair

I saw this question and immediately stopped reading!

1) Is it possible to create a list of composers ranging from "most accessible" to "most inaccessible"?

[ahinton]

I saw this question and immediately stopped reading!

1) Is it possible to create a list of composers ranging from "most accessible" to "most inaccessible"?

I saw this question and was tempted to stop reading immediately but thought better of doing so and decided instead to answer that most things are possible, including making such a list, but that the value of that list would inevitably be severely compromised by the fact that what might be "accessible" or otherwise to one listener will not necessarily be so to others, so all that it will achieve is the expression of a mere personal opinion.

Best,

Alistair

[ramseytheii]

Frankly speaking, it is not in every composer's goal to be "accessible" to those who are not familiar with the nooks and crannies of music.

It is the choice of composers.

Walter Ramsey

[ahinton]

Frankly speaking, it is not in every composer's goal to be "accessible" to those who are not familiar with the nooks and crannies of music.

It is the choice of composers.

This is indeed correct, to the extent that few if any composers sit down to write a work and think first and foremost - or indeed at all - about matters of "accessibility" which are in any case as impossible as they are unnecessary to try to determine in arrears, let alone in advance.

Best,

Alistair

[gyzzzmo]

What also shouldnt be forgotten, is that most music we know is a product of the filtration of time; the 'bad' compositions/composers have mostly disappeared. Who knows which are left of the music we tend to call 'modern music' over hundred years?

[scottmcc]

1) Is it possible to create a list of composers ranging from "most accessible" to "most inaccessible"?

Aaron Copland thought it was, and has exactly such a list in his book, "What to Listen for in Music."  https://www.amazon.com/What-Listen-Music-Aaron-Copland/dp/0451531760/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1295350816&sr=1-1

Of course, as it was published in the 50s, one could argue about how "modern" its sentiments are, but he does mention the works of a number of the composers cited above.

[ramseytheii]

This is indeed correct, to the extent that few if any composers sit down to write a work and think first and foremost - or indeed at all - about matters of "accessibility" which are in any case as impossible as they are unnecessary to try to determine in arrears, let alone in advance.

Best,

Alistair

Accessibility most certainly can be determined by looking at what sells!

Walter Ramsey

[ahinton]

Accessibility most certainly can be determined by looking at what sells!

That might to some extent be dependent upon how one defines accessibility in the present context; if a marketing exercise results in widespread sales, then the product will of course have been made accessible to all those who accordingly acquire it, but that's not quite the same thing as trying to assess accessibility or otherwise on the basis of a judgement of content.

Best,

Alistair

[musissacrum]

It is remarkable that all great composers wrote for amateurs, even for beginners. It shows that they could somehow connect with the basic musicality in everybody. Composers who THINK they are great, like Messiaen and Ligeti, never did that. Messiaen said: I only compose for myself. That is why their music sounds dated the first time you hear it. In 50 years their music will be forgotten.

[pianowolfi]

It is remarkable that all great composers wrote for amateurs, even for beginners. It shows that they could somehow connect with the basic musicality in everybody. Composers who THINK they are great, like Messiaen and Ligeti, never did that. Messiaen said: I only compose for myself. That is why their music sounds dated the first time you hear it. In 50 years their music will be forgotten.

Sorry to say but this is a very stupid remark. I think it's rather a sign for the quality of a composer if he knows about his strengths and limitations. If it isn't somebody's deal to compose music for beginners he does right to stay away from it. If somebody doesn't feel like composing operas, it's better for him to stay away from it. Like for instance Chopin. Everybody in Poland expected from him "Thee Polish National Mindblowing Opera" and he just didn't do it.
Fortunately.

[ramseytheii]

Sorry to say but this is a very stupid remark. I think it's rather a sign for the quality of a composer if he knows about his strengths and limitations. If it isn't somebody's deal to compose music for beginners he does right to stay away from it. If somebody doesn't feel like composing operas, it's better for him to stay away from it. Like for instance Chopin. Everybody in Poland expected from him "Thee Polish National Mindblowing Opera" and he just didn't do it.
Fortunately.

That's a good point, when we think about the composers in the canon we rarely think about what they didn't compose, even though all of them have some omission in their work that was mastered by another composer.

Walter Ramsey

[ahinton]

That's a good point, when we think about the composers in the canon we rarely think about what they didn't compose, even though all of them have some omission in their work that was mastered by another composer.

In the case of Chopin, it is surely obvious at the outset the he "omitted" to do various things as a composer that other composers did; the sheer power of the best of what he did do does not blind us to that fact so much as render it irrelevant.

One could say the same of Godowsky - and to a lesser extent Skryabin and Medtner - and there have been several composers who have done many and varied things but eschewed composition for the stage, not least Brahms. Surely we should (and for the most part actually do) take each composer on his/her merits rather than consider what they chose not to do, of passing interest though that might be?

Best,

Alistair

[gsmonks]

I grew up listening to Hindemith, who was still very much alive, as were Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Khatchaturian, Messien, Ives, and a host of the usual 20th century suspects.

I have to say that some modern classical music, from the 1950's (and perhaps earlier) to the present day, is sterile, self-involved, academic junk that's not worth listening to and not worthy of consideration.

I do not say this lightly- the wheels fell off the classical pony cart in the early 1960's and Humpty Dumpty was never the same again, in terms of classical music also being popular music. Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms' debut performance was a televised event, for example. Ligeti, too, enjoyed popular success with Lux Aeterna and Requiem. Both composers exerted a social force that was felt throughout Western culture and society. Both were participants in the social event that was the 20th century. My point being that, in choosing musical examples, there is the matter of social relevence that goes beyond the music itself.

[ramseytheii]

In the case of Chopin, it is surely obvaious at the outset the he "omitted" to do various things as a composer that other composers did; the sheer power of the best of what he did do does not blind us to that fact so much as render it irrelevant.

One could say the same of Godowsky - and to a lesser extent Skryabin and Medtner - and there have been several composers who have done many and varied things but eschewed composition for the stage, not least Brahms. Surely we should (and for the most part actually do) take each composer on his/her merits rather than consider what they chose not to do, of passing interest though that might be?

Best,

Alistair

Yes, that's exactly my point, and I think piano Wolfis' as well.  He was responding to criticism that no composer who neglected to write for amateurs can be considered great... but I wonder if that person ever ruminated on all the things his or her favorite composer neglected to do, and if those decreased that composer's greatness?  I doubt it.  We don't think about what the great composers didn't do, and we don't need to.  The same point, I think, would apply to those who don't compose for amateurs.

Walter Ramsey

[mephisto]

I grew up listening to Hindemith, who was still very much alive, as were Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Khatchaturian, Messien, Ives, and a host of the usual 20th century suspects.

I have to say that some modern classical music, from the 1950's (and perhaps earlier) to the present day, is sterile, self-involved, academic junk that's not worth listening to and not worthy of consideration.

I do not say this lightly- the wheels fell off the classical pony cart in the early 1960's and Humpty Dumpty was never the same again, in terms of classical music also being popular music. Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms' debut performance was a televised event, for example. Ligeti, too, enjoyed popular success with Lux Aeterna and Requiem. Both composers exerted a social force that was felt throughout Western culture and society. Both were participants in the social event that was the 20th century. My point being that, in choosing musical examples, there is the matter of social relevence that goes beyond the music itself.

I do somehow agree with you.

But certainly there are composer today who do more than compose acedemic junk. For instance Lutoslawski and Penderecki.

[gsmonks]

They are two fine examples of relevent composers. I'm referring to composers who pursue musical and social dead-ends from the get-go, purely out of academic interest.

Here's a parallel example in the jazz world- Cecil Taylor (and/or Ornette Coleman). His music has deep social relevence and is very much a product of the times. Much as many people absolutely hate his music, he is to jazz what Jackson Pollock is to modern art (Pollock likewise has his vociferous detractors). Which is a far cry from some guy bashing and thrashing around on musical constructs that have absolutely no social context, of which there have been many.

When a musician is able to articulate a deep social connexion to relevent social matters, musicians and laymen alike will take that musician to their hearts. That's why the Rocky and Bullwinkle theme, a serial composition, was so popular with high school bands, students and children alike back in the 1960's and 1970's. For every detractor of serial music who claims it's unmusical, socially irrelevent and can't be whistled and sung, there are millions of people who can whistle or sing the Rocky and Bullwinkle theme.