"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
Topic: Getting into Modern Music