Is contemporary classical music bad for you?

[mousekowski]

Plenty of Piano Streeters (and music lovers in general) agree that the majority of contemporary classical music written today is pretentious rubbish. Many professional pianists feel obliged to study scores that are 'difficult just for the sake of it' and sound horrible.

What affect does this study have on their musicianship? Is it beneficial, neutral or harmful? I think that contemporary classical music often blunts people's natural musical instincts.

[retrouvailles]

I'm sure people were asking this question 75-100 years ago with regards to composers like Stravinsky and Schoenberg. Now, we can say that it is more than worth your time to study these composers, and others from their time that are still much wrongly maligned today. There are many composers today that are still composing that are worth studying. Just as Mozart and Beethoven and Bach are studied religiously, the best of the composers today should be studied. Who knows, in 300 years, Elliott Carter might be mentioned in the same breath as Beethoven, and studied as much. How could the study of contemporary music be anything but beneficial?

[nanabush]

It's hard to compare contemporary music today to contemporary music back then.  When Bach, Beethoven and whoever else were 'contemporary', they didn't have the media like we do today.  90% of the music created today (90% representing a large amount, not an actual statistic) is 'trash' in the eyes of classically trained musicians.  Maybe 'contemporary classical' music today is actually getting weeded out, and Lady Gaga will be among the musicians studied in 300 years.  The Beatles are in my music history textbook for University (no sh*t talking please, they're a great band, and there is a section on rock music in the 20th century music chapter).  For the HUGE variety of music today, Elliott Carter (whose music I do enjoy) represents a tiny fraction of music available today.

I think it's a better idea to study all forms of music.  I'm not saying "spend 20 minutes a day practicing your Lady Gaga", but I mean being AWARE of other music than just Classical music would make a more well rounded musician.

That was a bit off topic, but I'm trying to say not to dismiss any type of music because one group considers is 'bad'.

[gerryjay]

Plenty of Piano Streeters (and music lovers in general) agree that the majority of contemporary classical music written today is pretentious rubbish. Many professional pianists feel obliged to study scores that are 'difficult just for the sake of it' and sound horrible.

Dear Mousekowski,
I'd like to say, respectfully, that I do not agree with your assumption. There is pretentious (and unpretensious) rubbish in all periods of music, and I don't know any composer but Webern that does not have plenty of useless pieces.

I admire composers that destroy early works, to prevent that someone in the future will "discover lost works by ..." and record a CD (even worst, write a paper about them).

About contemporary music - and assuming we use this term with precision, i.e., recent production and alive composers - I feel that never in history there were so many composers, composers to be, composers wannabes, and whatever else you name. The result is obvious: there are tons of bad works. Notwithstanding, it is a matter of looking in the right direction, as it happens with any period. I know many composers with production in the last 10 years or so that really worth listening. Or playing.

In the end, it is really a matter of opinion. History will be written many years from now, and it is a bit silly trying to do it now.

Best regards,
Jay.

[gerryjay]

What affect does this study have on their musicianship? Is it beneficial, neutral or harmful? I think that contemporary classical music often blunts people's natural musical instincts.

As for your question, I think that any study that goes against an artist will can not have purposeful results. Furthermore, the best way to injure yourself, or to have a crisis, or anything bad like that, is to play repertoire you don't like. Even better if it is directed to an occasion you don't want to engage. Of course, it can happen with Bach and a particular recital. Very often, with new works that you didn't have any time to prepare and must do whatever way to fit an obbligation, or earn some money.

Then, I'm sorry...but I must disagree again. There are no thing such as "natural musical instincts". We don't born with a musical program inside. Although there are determinants and constraints, musical taste - and musical instincts - are cultural. Major-minor tonality based on the equal temperament - the most common proof of a "natural music" - is one of the most artificial music creations of mankind. I mean, it was developed step by step in center Europe during almost two hundred years and, as far as mankind is considered, something fresh and new. Someone could even say that is only a transient trend.

In terms of experience, I can only speak for myself, and atonal music is as natural to me as tonal music. I knew and liked Schoenberg, for instance, when I was a child. Basically, at the same time I knew and liked Mozart. 

Best regards,
Jay.

[pies]

The only case I can think of when it could possibly be "bad" is when performing the truly impossible pieces (e.g. some New Complexity stuff and other crap), where the common practice is to just bang away in a manner that sort of resembles the general contours of what's on the score.

[retrouvailles]

I love that assertion that the concept of "major-minor tonality" or a "natural music sound" is a transient one. It is entirely arbitrary. Just look at other cultures that use completely different tuning systems that can sound grating, disconcerting, or otherwise dissonant to us. Just look at Indonesian gamelan (which actually sounds great) or Arabic maqam modes, which can use quarter tones to our Western ears. Music is like life. It evolves and moves forward and can have parallel paths. There is bad music everywhere, in all periods and cultures, but there are also bright spots everywhere also.

[djealnla]

Every now and then, a retarded post like this comes up. Anyway:

Plenty of Piano Streeters (and music lovers in general) agree that the majority of contemporary classical music written today is pretentious rubbish.

Oh, so it's bad because of the time era that it comes from? May I ask you, when exactly did most music start being "rubbish"?

Many professional pianists feel obliged to study scores

... as part of their general knowledge. They are not "forced" to practice the music of today any more than they are "forced" to play Bach's fugues or Beethoven's piano sonatas. All of this represents part of a musician's development.

that are 'difficult just for the sake of it' and sound horrible.

Really? What evidence do you have for this claim?

What affect does this study have on their musicianship?

It's "effect", not "affect".

Is it beneficial, neutral or harmful?

Beneficial. Are you aware of any common-practice-era composer who used polyrhythms as complex as those of Elliott Carter in his music? 20th and 21st century music develops new areas technique, just like 19th century virtuosic music did.

I think that contemporary classical music often blunts people's natural musical instincts.

Thankfully, you limited your statement to the space which your brain occupies in this universe.

[djealnla]

Maybe 'contemporary classical' music today is actually getting weeded out, and Lady Gaga will be among the musicians studied in 300 years.

I find it amazing that anybody with a reasonable knowledge of classical music would make such a claim. There is nothing to be studied in Lady Gaga. No contrast in melodic shapes, textures, rhythms, dynamic levels or harmony. What you are saying is total nonsense.

[thalbergmad]

May I ask you, when exactly did most music start being "rubbish"?

About 1906.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

The only case I can think of when it could possibly be "bad" is when performing the truly impossible pieces (e.g. some New Complexity stuff and other crap), where the common practice is to just bang away in a manner that sort of resembles the general contours of what's on the score.

Agreed. That type of shite gives music a bad name.

Thal

[bleicher]

One of the things I love about contemporary music is that there is so much variety. There's not one style that everyone's writing in, there are lots of different styles. This does mean that not everything is to everyone's taste, but equally it means that there is something that everyone should like.

Here's a rather randomly-chosen list of pieces I like by living composers which I think might appeal to people who aren't 'into' contemporary music:

Arvo Pärt - Te Deum and Spiegel im Spiegel
John Adams - The Chairman Dances
Henri Dutilleux - Piano sonata
John Tavener -The Protecting Veil
Julian Anderson - Eden
Louis Andriessen - Workers Union
Magnus Lindberg - Clarinet Concerto
Steve Reich - New York Counterpoint

Have a listen to these and THEN tell me you think all contemporary classical music is rubbish.

Would anyone else care to join me and suggest more pieces by living composers to tempt the self-confessed contemporary-haters?

[ahinton]

About 1906.

In whose opinion, based upon what evidence and, perhaps most importantly, why? - and what does this say to you about music written before and after this arbitrary and meaningless watershed? What in particuilar does it say to you about composers active both before and after it, such as Mahler, Debussy, Schönberg, Rakhmaninov, Skryabin, Busoni, Magnard, Granados, Ravel and many so many others? - did their music all just suddenly become rubbish because its dates were post-1906?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Agreed. That type of shite gives music a bad name.

No music can of and by itself give any other music a "bad name"; each work has to stand or fall by its own merits or lack thereof.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

One of the things I love about contemporary music is that there is so much variety. There's not one style that everyone's writing in, there are lots of different styles. This does mean that not everything is to everyone's taste, but equally it means that there is something that everyone should like.

Here's a rather randomly-chosen list of pieces I like by living composers which I think might appeal to people who aren't 'into' contemporary music:

Arvo Pärt - Te Deum and Spiegel im Spiegel
John Adams - The Chairman Dances
Henri Dutilleux - Piano sonata
John Tavener -The Protecting Veil
Julian Anderson - Eden
Louis Andriessen - Workers Union
Magnus Lindberg - Clarinet Concerto
Steve Reich - New York Counterpoint

Have a listen to these and THEN tell me you think all contemporary classical music is rubbish.

Would anyone else care to join me and suggest more pieces by living composers to tempt the self-confessed contemporary-haters?

Whilst Dutilleux's splendid piano sonata is by a living composer, it's hardly "contemporary", having been composed before most members of this board were even born! Elliott Carter's delightful setting of James Joyce, My love is in a light attire, is also by a living composer but as it was composed several years before the death of Max Bruch it can hardly be thought of as "contemporary" either!

Best,

Alistair

[bleicher]

Whilst Dutilleux's splendid piano sonata is by a living composer, it's hardly "contemporary", having been composed before most members of this board were even born! Elliott Carter's delightful setting of James Joyce, My love is in a light attire, is also by a living composer but as it was composed several years before the death of Max Bruch it can hardly be thought of as "contemporary" either!

Best,

Alistair

Quite agree, it was cheeky putting Dutilleux's piano sonata in there, even though he is still alive, because it was written 63 years ago. It was my consolation for not being able to include any Gorecki. A better list would be all pieces written within the last 15 years. However I've got piano practice to do so mustn't spend more time on this! Would you like to make some suggestions?

[ahinton]

Quite agree, it was cheeky putting Dutilleux's piano sonata in there, even though he is still alive, because it was written 63 years ago. It was my consolation for not being able to include any Gorecki. A better list would be all pieces written within the last 15 years. However I've got piano practice to do so mustn't spend more time on this! Would you like to make some suggestions?

Yes - in specific answer to the patently absurd nature of the question posed in the thread topic - NO!...

Best,

Alistair

[sordel]

Would anyone else care to join me and suggest more pieces by living composers to tempt the self-proclaimed contemporary-haters?

Fixed that for you.

The problem with the anti-contemporary argument on these forums (speaking as someone who is new here yet read the same debate over & over again already) is that those who write off a century of composition with a sentence or two are so inexplicably proud of doing so.

I'm not particularly pro-contemporary music - a lot of it is very weak - but I have a certain amount of humility when approaching it. If I sincerely believe, as I do, that Bernstein, Messiaen, Tippett and Shostakovich are all major composers, how could I have any confidence that music just stopped being good, arbitrarily, in the last 40-50 years. How is that even a tenable position?

If you get no pleasure from listening to contemporary classical music, how is that anyone's misfortune but your own? If someone boasts about listening to nothing but thrash metal I don't immediately worry that maybe he's onto something and I'm a fool to listen to anything else.

[thalbergmad]

In whose opinion

I am struggling with that one, let me think.

Might be me perhaps.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

No music can of and by itself give any other music a "bad name"; each work has to stand or fall by its own merits or lack thereof.

Best,

Alistair

If you say so Hinty.

[mousekowski]

Hi DJ. Thanks for your reply. I accept some of your criticisms, but I think you need to work on your barely-disguised-anger.

I honestly don't think it is just a case of fashion. Just because there were bad composers in Mozart's time, it doesn't necessarily follow that there must be a great composer alive now. Beethoven wrote music that elicited an emotional response in his audience. They recognised his worth as a composer and celebrated him during his lifetime. Eliott Carter doesn't elicit an emotional response from me, or from very many other people I suspect. Has Eliott Carter moved you to tears? Most people prefer to listen to Lady Gaga. I'm not saying that Lady Gaga is good, but at least she sings for the people and not for a pretentious clique.

Thanks for the help with affect/effect too. I've always struggled with that one.

[retrouvailles]

Listen to Elliott Carter's vocal works, such as the short opera What Next? or the song cycle What Are Years. Those can potentially move you to tears. Lady Gaga doesn't ellicit an emotional response like that, except one of anger, after you realize you have been listening to it for too long. And Lady Gaga is only well known because of marketing, like so many pop musicians. There are tons of musicians similar to Lady Gaga that will never see the light of day because of marketing, which can be pure luck. Elliott Carter does not have the advantage of marketing, and he has had to get by solely on his merits, and, with all that taken into account, it is just unfortunate that he isn't better respected among the general music population.

[nanabush]

I find it amazing that anybody with a reasonable knowledge of classical music would make such a claim. There is nothing to be studied in Lady Gaga. No contrast in melodic shapes, textures, rhythms, dynamic levels or harmony. What you are saying is total nonsense.

"maybe" probably should have been in quotes.  I was merely giving an example.  I'm not saying "I hope Lady Gaga will be studied".  I won't be surprised if artists like her do end up in some textbook or another, based on the amount of money put into a production.  Her songs are pretty damn simple, as in if my friend asks "can you play that song" I can pretty much make it up on the spot and have it about 99%.  But, her performances are so damn bizarre that it's introducing a whole different element than the typical black dress suit, dim lights, dead silence atmosphere of a typical recital.  I just think that artists like her will be noted for the theatrical/staging/lighting/costume type stuff rather than musical quality.  If you even take the Beatles, most of their songs I can play by ear, but they somehow crept their way into a textbook.

It's such a subjective statement saying you 'know' what will still be standing decades from now, especially with the huge cultural variety today.  Many people are finding different ways to become 'original', because there's already an overflow of virtuosos and elitists (again, this is a general comment, not my rebuttal).

What would Mozart think if he heard Carter's music?  If anyone can answer that, then they are full of sh*t.

[djealnla]

Hi DJ. Thanks for your reply. I accept some of your criticisms, but I think you need to work on your barely-disguised-anger.

"Anger" is hardly adequate here; "frustration" is a far more accurate expression.

I honestly don't think it is just a case of fashion.

Meaning?

Just because there were bad composers in Mozart's time, it doesn't necessarily follow that there must be a great composer alive now.

I didn't state such a thing.

Beethoven wrote music that elicited an emotional response in his audience.

So?

They recognised his worth as a composer and celebrated him during his lifetime.

You might care to read some biographies about Beethoven. You'll be surprised by what you'll find.

Eliott [sic] Carter doesn't elicit an emotional response from me, or from very many other people I suspect.

And your point is?

Has Eliott [sic] Carter moved you to tears?

I haven't heard much music by him, but no. Boulez, on the other hand, has. Also, I seriously doubt that you have heard enough music by Carter to be able to say that his music is bad. Are you aware of the fact that he had a neoclassical phase as a composer?

Most people prefer to listen to Lady Gaga.

And your point is?

I'm not saying that Lady Gaga is good,

Then why did you write that most people prefer to listen to her?

but at least she sings for the people and not for a pretentious clique.

Well, this is the big "problem" that people seem to have with modernism. There is no clique, at least not anymore than there are (as I'm sure you'll agree with me) tons of snobs (read: people from high society) who barely understand classical music but happen to have a lot of money. When you'll hear Bartók or Bruckner in a public concert, you'll notice them by their "When is this sh|t gonna end" acidic expressions. I know many people who like modern music, and there is nothing resembling a façade in their behavior.

[nanabush]

Him saying she isn't good is from his view... other people can still like her!  Me saying "Beethoven's Op 10 #1" doesn't make the statement "a lot of people listen to Beethoven's Op 10 #1" invalid...

(I like the Beethoven by the way)

[djealnla]

"maybe" probably should have been in quotes.  I was merely giving an example.  I'm not saying "I hope Lady Gaga will be studied".  I won't be surprised if artists like her do end up in some textbook or another, based on the amount of money put into a production.  Her songs are pretty damn simple, as in if my friend asks "can you play that song" I can pretty much make it up on the spot and have it about 99%.  But, her performances are so damn bizarre that it's introducing a whole different element than the typical black dress suit, dim lights, dead silence atmosphere of a typical recital.  I just think that artists like her will be noted for the theatrical/staging/lighting/costume type stuff rather than musical quality.  If you even take the Beatles, most of their songs I can play by ear, but they somehow crept their way into a textbook.

It's such a subjective statement saying you 'know' what will still be standing decades from now, especially with the huge cultural variety today.  Many people are finding different ways to become 'original', because there's already an overflow of virtuosos and elitists (again, this is a general comment, not my rebuttal).

I agree that many pop musicians became famous merely because of the societal function of their own music. Verdi will also be remembered (among other things) because of the "VERDI" slogan. Nowadays of course, the attention largely shifts from the music to the performer's shows/image, but I do not care for any of that, mainly because the lyrics are generally silly and the concerts frequently end up resembling public sex shows.

What would Mozart think if he heard Carter's music?  If anyone can answer that, then they are full of sh*t.

I don't think it would be that hard to answer it.

[djealnla]

Him saying she isn't good is from his view... other people can still like her!  Me saying "Beethoven's Op 10 #1" doesn't make the statement "a lot of people listen to Beethoven's Op 10 #1" invalid...

(I like the Beethoven by the way)

You might care to read Adorno.

[redbaron]

Stop talking about Lady Gaga. It's bad for you.

[myr]

Oh, so it's bad because of the time era that it comes from? May I ask you, when exactly did most music start being "rubbish"?

Your question is asked in a sassy way because you think that a sincere answer would be ridiculous, but it’s only as ridiculous as any other discussion about “time eras” (bit of a redundant phrase, but whatever) would be. Labelling contemporary music as “pretentious rubbish” is like calling classical era music “precise” “calculated” or “not as emotive as Romantic”. The idea that music can be classified by dividing it between two years, like 1685-1750. It’s blunt, but it’s structural at least.

When you say “exactly”, that’s not realistic, because we’re talking about eras, which are not exact. As if I were to ask you, “tell me, when did music start being Baroque?” The person you quoted had an opinion that the majority of contemporary classical music is pretentious rubbish. It’s a personal opinion, like saying that the classical era isn’t as emotive as romantic. It’s a view that is widely made, but probably not universally agreed on. After all, the majority of people do believe that contemporary classical music is pretentious rubbish. Whether that’s true or not, scholarly or not is, probably unnecessarily, debatable. That’s all.

[nanabush]

You might care to read Adorno.

Haha, I did read up a bit on him.  This suddenly made me want to read Kant. 

In the end, what does it matter?  Does one group of people saying "this music is bad" affect anything?  Are we all musicologists?  Do all musicologists have perfect opinions?  Let Elliott Carter do his thing, let Justin Bieber do his thing (I changed artists, too much mention of she who must not be named), they will continue to make their music even if they have their groups of haters. 

[djealnla]

Your question is asked in a sassy way because you think that a sincere answer would be ridiculous, but it’s only as ridiculous as any other discussion about “time eras” (bit of a redundant phrase, but whatever) would be. Labelling contemporary music as “pretentious rubbish” is like calling classical era music “precise” “calculated” or “not as emotive as Romantic”. The idea that music can be classified by dividing it between two years, like 1685-1750. It’s blunt, but it’s structural at least.

I'm not the one who holds the view that musical eras can be clearly distinguished from one another, the one who came up with this stance is the originator of this thread.

The person you quoted had an opinion that the majority of contemporary classical music is pretentious rubbish. It’s a personal opinion, like saying that the classical era isn’t as emotive as romantic. It’s a view that is widely made, but probably not universally agreed on. After all, the majority of people do believe that contemporary classical music is pretentious rubbish. Whether that’s true or not, scholarly or not is, probably unnecessarily, debatable. That’s all.

And the point of this pretentious rubbish is?

[myr]

I'm not the one who holds the view that musical eras can be clearly distinguished from one another, the one who came up with this stance is the originator of this thread.

And the point of this pretentious rubbish is?

I know that you don't hold that view, and that hardly no one does. I don't think the op holds it, either. When they say "contemporary music" I think they're talking about it like one would talk about Romantic music, like, "I would prefer music mostly from the Romantic era and think that Baroque is pretentious rubbish". It's not like "I only prefer music that started to be composed at 20:48 pm on June 6th 1899".

I guess the point of it is the same as the point of all music. I know that contemporary composers probably don't set out to compose music that is mostly unappealing to most people and that, because of their tastes, they think that the music they make is substantial and imaginative. And like it was said earlier, maybe those composers' music will be looked on in a century or two as marvellous and the public then won't be able to believe that most of the populous in the 21st century thought it wasn't very interesting - like the public we have now contrasts the public which attended Prokofiev's concerts.

[ahinton]

Perhaps, to paraphrase the old cliché, "ask not whether contemporary music is bad for you, but whether you are bad for contemporary music"...

Best,

Alistair

[djealnla]

I know that you don't hold that view, and that hardly no one does. I don't think the op holds it, either. When they say "contemporary music" I think they're talking about it like one would talk about Romantic music, like, "I would prefer music mostly from the Romantic era and think that Baroque is pretentious rubbish". It's not like "I only prefer music that started to be composed at 20:48 pm on June 6th 1899".

Well, the problem is that the opening post stated "the majority of contemporary classical music written today is pretentious rubbish", and, considering contemporary classical music is extremely varied and impossible to pigeonhole, I can only assume that the author of this thread is analyzing music based on when it was composed. There is no single style that he could be targeting with his statements.

[sordel]

considering contemporary classical music is extremely varied and impossible to pigeonhole, I can only assume that the author of this thread is analyzing music based on when it was composed. There is no single style that he could be targeting with his statements.

I think that we know what he means though. While it is possible that "most" classical music written in any period is no great loss to history, we tend to think that poor Baroque music and poor Romantic music all still met the aethetic standards of its day to a greater or lesser degree. To the best of my knowledge there is no aleatory music from the Baroque period, yet aleatory is one of those schools that attracts the term "pretentious" and it is specifically contemporary. Minimalism is also specifically contemporary as is New Complexity etc.

People like o/p mean, I think, to attack all contemporary schools (and probably all twentieth century schools from serialism onwards), as having used theoretical arguments as a smokescreen to conceal the fact that the music is devoid of artistic value.

What o/p probably underestimates is the fact that while it is very easy to find contemporary music that attracts the terms pretentious and superficial, there is also a lot that satisfies the historical aesthetic values that o/p is professing to champion.

[richard black]

I feel there's a genuine and potentially interesting discussion to be had on whether the term 'pretentious rubbish' applies to more music of today than of, say, 100 or 200 years ago. Let's agree at the outset that bad music has always been around, but I do get the feeling that pretension to intellectual greatness among bad composers is a relatively recent phenomenon, or at least a more common phenomenon than it used to be.

[ahinton]

I feel there's a genuine and potentially interesting discussion to be had on whether the term 'pretentious rubbish' applies to more music of today than of, say, 100 or 200 years ago. Let's agree at the outset that bad music has always been around, but I do get the feeling that pretension to intellectual greatness among bad composers is a relatively recent phenomenon, or at least a more common phenomenon than it used to be.

I'm sure that there could - at least in theory - be such a discussion, although whether one such might arise here remains open to question. The principal problem in trying to arrive at a conclusion as to the proportion of music written in any era that might reasonably be deemed by the majority of informed commentators to be "pretentious rubbish" is that such commentators would have, as an essential prerequisite, to possess so deep a knowledge of all the music written in any era that very few could actually achieve this - and then the rest of us would have either to accept the view of that vanishingly tiny minority, disasgree with it on questionable grounds or ignore it altogether, which wouldn't get us very far, I fear. The matter would be further complicated by the fact that not all "pretentious" music is necessarily "rubbish", nor all "rubbishy" music necessarily "pretentious" - and the "pretension to intellectual greatness" that you mention is in any case perhaps only one such pretension.

In addition, it would first be necessary to agree upon a definition of "contemporary", which should, I submit, mean 21st century or late 20th century although not necessarily be influenced by whether or not the composer is still alive (i.e. the later work of, for example, Berio, Xenakis and Stockhausen would almost certainly qualify but the piano sonatas of Dutilleux and Carter would not).

Quite a minefield, n'est-ce pas?...

Best,

Alistair

[sordel]

I'm sure that there could - at least in theory - be such a discussion, although whether one such might arise here remains open to question.

"Anything worth doing is worth doing badly."

[ahinton]

"Anything worth doing is worth doing badly."

I am reminded that a composition teacher from whom I had just a few lessons many years ago once told me that Milhaud, with whom he had studied (equally briefly, I believe) once said to him that one important weapon in the armoury of any good composer is the ability to write bad music really well...

Best,

Alistair

[gilson.silveira]

This week I was listening to some contemporary classical music while I was working at the computer and that music started to get me tired (nervous ... stressed ... I don't know).

Then I searched about contemporary classical music and the atonal thing. I found that while there are some artists that can work with atonal music and create a melody out of it, there are others (most of recent atonal music I think) that create a music with no melody, no format.

According to a scientific article that I found, they said that we are a pattern recognizer, and we can't naturally appreciate atonal music because we try to recognize those patterns and we fail.

That being said, I have to tell you that most of the recent classical music doesn't bring any good feelings to me, it makes me feel desperate.

Probably there is a line between art and what men have been created recently, or perhaps my ears that are not prepared for the modern art.

[retrouvailles]

This week I was listening to some contemporary classical music while I was working at the computer and that music started to get me tired (nervous ... stressed ... I don't know).

Then I searched about contemporary classical music and the atonal thing. I found that while there are some artists that can work with atonal music and create a melody out of it, there are others (most of recent atonal music I think) that create a music with no melody, no format.

According to a scientific article that I found, they said that we are a pattern recognizer, and we can't naturally appreciate atonal music because we try to recognize those patterns and we fail.

That being said, I have to tell you that most of the recent classical music doesn't bring any good feelings to me, it makes me feel desperate.

Probably there is a line between art and what men have been created recently, or perhaps my ears that are not prepared for the modern art.

Have you even bothered to read any of the previous posts here? Contemporary music is just like any other genre. It's incredibly varied, cannot be pigeon holed by hearing ONE piece, and there is good and bad music in it. Do your research.

[gerryjay]

Dear Gilson,
welcome! Your post make me think about some issues regarding the repertoire of the 20th century.

Then I searched about contemporary classical music and the atonal thing. I found that while there are some artists that can work with atonal music and create a melody out of it, there are others (most of recent atonal music I think) that create a music with no melody, no format.

First and foremost, form is the impression left by music while it travels in time. So, by definition, any sounding piece of art have a format. Even Cage's 4'33 have a form (and I don't mean only the three movements separation).

About melody, why all music must have a melody? Many traditional repertoires are made of non melodic music, and we find music without a melody everywhere. Or do you recognize a melody in Bach's Prelude in C major from WTC I?

That said, I agree with the part where you say that there are composers who use the non tonal techniques to bring out melodies. Interesting enough, these melodies can be as lyrical as tonal ones (Webern occurs to me), or anything you name, even sweet (Takemitsu).

According to a scientific article that I found, they said that we are a pattern recognizer, and we can't naturally appreciate atonal music because we try to recognize those patterns and we fail.

This is an actual premise leading to a false reasoning. Yes, we are pattern recognizers (Leonard Meyer developed a whole analytical philosophy from that) but this have nothing to do with natural appreciation, because there is no such a thing as natural appreciation: music is cultural. Notwithstanding, the expectation/satisfaction/frustration/etc relationships is the central motor of art according to Meyer. Which leads me to the next point:

That being said, I have to tell you that most of the recent classical music doesn't bring any good feelings to me, it makes me feel desperate.

Much of the recent classical music does not want to communicate good feelings. Many years ago, I was present during an interview with the Italian composer Federico Ermirio. It was kind of a strange situation, because it was a TV show that normally displayed some light music as part of it. And his music is anything but light...after the music was played, the host asked him (quite astonished): Don't you have anything beautiful to show us? He answered: The 20th century is a century of war, death and destruction. Do you see anything beautiful about it?

I mean, music is communication. And we can and must communicate a variety of feelings in a variety of ways. The point is: these ways change. For instance, I can't think of a better description of the horror of the second world war than Penderecki's Threnody. It must be ugly, and annoying, and if it makes you feel desperate...well, that is the intention!

Of course, no one must be forced to listen to music that arises emotions s/he does not want to. As much as movies: there is Aronofsky's Requiem for a dream, and there is Allen's Manhattan. Two outstanding movies, but the first requires to me a very precise state of mind, otherwise, it is painful.

Probably there is a line between art and what men have been created recently, or perhaps my ears that are not prepared for the modern art.

Here I must only disagree, because art is expression. Any and every. The lines are drawn by critics and analysts, sometimes with remarkable disregard to anything else but the critic's or analyst's taste.

But about your last comment, I think your ears are prepared indeed. I don't know what was the piece that arose your post, but feeling desperate is a good start. If you felt nothing, well, that would be a problem.

Best regards,
Jay.

[sordel]

Contemporary music is just like any other genre.

Contemporary music is not a genre.

[thalbergmad]

I would have to agree with that. One would not be able to categorise it based purely on musical sounds, since in 100 years time contemporary music might well be considerably different from that which is being composed at present.

Thal

[gerryjay]

The problem with the 'contemporary' label is simple: it is merely chronological. It have nothing to do with aesthetics, genre, technique, or whatsoever.

The problem spreads because the first book on music history any pianist wiil read is surely not a state-of-the-art research published in the last four or five years. It will be probably something from the 60's or the 70's, when the term contemporary was used almost as a synonimous of the avant-garde trends of the same period.

Furthermore, when someone wants to dig in the music of the 20th century, what will be the most likely sources? Griffiths, Antokoletz, Simms? Great books, provided you take care of looking the date of the first edition.

Finally, the year is 2011, the internet is not new anymore, and many composers of the once called contemporary music are now dead. How could they be contemporary and dead at the same time is something that intrigues me.

Best regards,
Jay.

[retrouvailles]

Contemporary music is not a genre.

Get out.