21st century music

[keys]

Doesn’t it seem like “modern” music requires entirely too much explanation to enjoy? And not just to the uneducated, to musicians as well. The classical genre (or romantic, baroque etc.) is much easier to relate to with no explanation needed – instantly recognizable emotions. I’m beginning to think that this is a detriment to modern composers. Sort of how most great artists don’t have to label their drawings for people to tell what it is.  Modern artists can still express emotion using new techniques, shouldn’t modern composers be able to as well? You would think their works would be even easier to relate to, reflecting the modern world we’re all accustomed to.

Opinions?

[silva]

I would add blues/jazz to that category aswell

[Nightscape]

You shouldn't compare music to the visual arts, because beyond both being Fine Arts they have little in common (although they have influenced one another.)

You'll find that 21st century music is easier to relate to than the music of the latter half of the 20th century as well (A lot of contemporary composers write in a tonal language now).

But you can't seriously expect a modern composer to start writing baroque again.  A modern composer is perfectly capable of expressing a variety of colors and emotions with his current language.  But  Classical listeners are fixated on the music of the past and worship it and it's composers like a religion.  If there is no effort on the part of the listeners to accept new music, how can you expect new music to gain acceptance and appreciation?

The Greatest Artists never surrender thier talents to the whims of the audience.

[keys]

You shouldn't compare music to the visual arts, because beyond both being Fine Arts they have little in common (although they have influenced one another.)

I cited the visual arts reference because I feel that music has evolved in a similar way. I actually see many similarities, the need for creative inspiration, the rebelliousness in some artists along side the ones who stay with traditional style. I also think that the ability to hear a melody in your mind and transcribe it to paper has some parallels to being able to see an image in your mind and transcribe it to paper.

You'll find that 21st century music is easier to relate to than the music of the latter half of the 20th century as well (A lot of contemporary composer’s write in a tonal language now).
 

That is very true. I meant to include late 20th century composers in my definition of  "modern".

But you can't seriously expect a modern composer to start writing baroque again. A modern composer is perfectly capable of expressing a variety of colors and emotions with his current language.

My point is that they don't appear to be capable of expressing their emotions! I have never seen an audience moved by a modern piece. And I rarely see a performer thus moved - even if they read the program notes.

Classical listeners are fixated on the music of the past and worship it and it's composers like a religion. If there is no effort on the part of the listeners to accept new music, how can you expect new music to gain acceptance and appreciation?

The Greatest Artists never surrender thier talents to the whims of the audience.

I have observed that most people have made an effort and the collection of new classical works has been found wanting.

We always blame the audience! I'm simply suggesting, perhaps it's the composers who need to make a bit more effort.

[iumonito]

My point is that they don't appear to be capable of expressing their emotions! I have never seen an audience moved by a modern piece. And I rarely see a performer thus moved - even if they read the program notes.

Program notes aside (great music speaks for itself) I am very sorry to hear that you have not been moved by modern classical music and surprised that you perceive the audience's reaction to be just as apathetic.

I recommend you seek to hear more Ligeti and Phillip Glass, two very contrasting composers whose music is entirely emotional.  From the last century, I assume you are not considering the likes of the Rite of Spring, Bartok's concerto, Wozzek or the Turangalila symphony or (alas, back to the piano) the Prokofiev sonatas.  If these works do not reach you at an emotional level, I truly do not know what to tell you.  Some of the emotions are of utter despair, but that does not make them less expressive or even romantic.

[Daevren]

Why would composers todat limit themselved to the 'vocabolary' of 200 years ago?

[Nightscape]

Daevren, I know it must seem odd that composers today choose a form of tonal language, after all of the atonality of the previous century, but the simple fact is is that many composers feel that that style of language has already been explored to its fullest (after all, how can one get more atonal or strange than the likes of Boulez, Stockhausen, Cage, and Pendrecki?).  So today, composers generally fall into three categories.  There are of course of few composers who still write atonal, abstract works.  Then there are the minimalist or quasi-minimalist composers like Riech and Adams.  These composers often use very tonal (even banal) harmonies and melodies, but arrange the form of thier music in a similar way that a serialist like Webern would arrange his melodies and harmonies.  Also, these composers are free to use non-musical materials in thier works (like spoken voice segments, or street noise) in a rhythmic way.  Lastly, there are composers who have developed unique harmonic languages that are perceivedly tonal, yet original. (After all, you would never mistake Prokofiev for Debussy)  These composers (including all of the Commissioned works from the Cliburn competition) have the benefit of using tonality mostly, and also spicing up thier work with atonality here and there for extra flavor.  This fusion of different styles of the past allows today's composers to create an entirely different, original style.  Paired with minimalism, it is easy to see there are many talented, unique, and certainly moving composers alive today.

[Derek]

My own opinion is that vital music can be written in any style whether it be baroque, classical, romantic, modern, jazz, boogie, rock, pop, country, metal, even (GASP) rap.

For me it boils down to some sort of coherency that indicates the presence of a human MIND behind the music, and variety. Though sometimes I crave restriction in certain dimensions: thats what makes so many styles of modern popular music fun: How much variety can you create even though your harmonic, rhythmic, or textural language is very limited?

I used to be virulently opposed to really modern music like late scriabin or schoenburg.  I still don't like schoenburg much but there's a great deal of modern music which is really well done and fascinating to listen to.

It takes getting used to---I listen to death metal. I didn't like the screaming/growling vocals initially, but now I crave them. (especially mike akerfeldt's death vocals from Opeth---very beautiful)

No matter what your harmonic language, it is possible to write vital music.   (mainly because, I think, that the number of ways music can be mapped out through time [i.e. rhythm] is nearly infinite, even in the context of simple classical rhythm)

I do, however, wholeheatedly agree that such things as "chance" music, prepared pianos, anything by John Cage (well except perhaps one or two mildly interesting things),  are the results of incredible, obnoxious pretense, and is an error of history that will eventually be forgotten. This isn't COMPOSITION, its nonsense, though it could be seen as creative sound-engineering/effects.


Oh and I'd like to add I think though its rare some people do like restricting themselves to old styles if only temporarily. Keith Jarrett's Paris concert starts out with some baroque styled improvisation. It probably breaks all kinds of baroque harmonic rules, but stylistically its very similar, and very beautiful. You wouldn't have known he was improvising it in fact!

[Tash]

in the end it all comes down to the fact that there almost aren't any rules any more and people can do what they want. so composers compose whatever type of music they want. there are no restrictions. and in relation to art, it is the same, except it's just gone way beyond the original concept of art and classify jumping out of a building as 'art'. the day that a composer grabs a bird, puts it on a stage in front of 500 people and goes 'this is my composition' is when music will parallel art. the concept of new techniques- many believe that there are no new techniques- artists go around quite literally throwing practically anything on their canvas to try being 'original', but in the end the chance that someone else has already done it is quite likely. and the chance of it lasting in 100 years time is even less likely because the stuff will probably eat the support away, or fall off. and they're so riddled with concept that you'd probably never fully understand what half these conceptual artists are on about anyway. i've never had an issue understanding contemporary composers' works, sure they might have some kind of underlying idea in it, but i don't believe it drowns the music in any way. better yet, can you give some examples of composers you're thinking about in your comment? because i love listening to current works by australian composers like ross edwards, carl vine, gordon kerry, etc and i can totally relate to. and philip glass, steve reich, who else is there, i don't listen to a whole lot of non-australian composers that are around now, i probably should.

[keys]

I recommend you seek to hear more Ligeti and Phillip Glass, two very contrasting composers whose music is entirely emotional. From the last century, I assume you are not considering the likes of the Rite of Spring, Bartok's concerto, Wozzek or the Turangalila symphony or (alas, back to the piano) the Prokofiev sonatas. If these works do not reach you at an emotional level, I truly do not know what to tell you.

That would be an accurate assumption, as neither Prokofieff, Berg nor Bartok are late 20th century or 21st century composers which is the topic of this thread. The Rite of Spring was finished in 1912. Thus, the Turangalila Symphony is the only relevant piece or composer, and I have to admit I don't know much about it At least messiaen is interesting.

I don't recall hearing any phillip Glass works (although I studied him briefly in music history), but I have heard some of legeti's etudes for piano.

Why would composers todat limit themselved to the 'vocabolary' of 200 years ago?

err.. I really couldn't tell you. I don't know of any that do. I would say most modern composers go a bit farther back then that, seeking inspiration from Gregorian chant etc.

better yet, can you give some examples of composers you're thinking about in your comment? because i love listening to current works by australian composers like ross edwards, carl vine, gordon kerry, etc and i can totally relate to. and philip glass, steve reich, who else is there, i don't listen to a whole lot of non-australian composers that are around now, i probably should.

This morning I was listening to Jacques Hetu's (a French-Canadian composer) piano concerto no.2.  It is nothing ground breaking. The CD included the composer's notes on the piece, and I was struck by how dry they were. A methodical break down of the theory of the piece. i.e. " As a general rule, lyric and expressive passages contrast with more rhythmic and energetic sections." Thank you Jacques, how inspired. I would've never figured that out on my own. *I make reference to the notes because I expect many of you will be unfamiliar with the piece)

I wonder if part of the problem is that there is too much training? It seems like almost all great composers had very little instruction in theory so their original sound remained unadulterated.  So much of what I hear from modern composers sounds like a conscious rebellion from what they learned in class. Look at the 12-tone system, they broke all the old rules and replaced them with.... Even more, stricter rules!

I'm sick of having to sit through insincere, detached, sterile monuments to the ego of the composer. They have sought out spectacle before soul.

[Nightscape]

They have sought out spectacle before soul.

How long have you been waiting to crack that one out!?

Sorry, that was mean.

[BoliverAllmon]

That would be an accurate assumption, as neither Prokofieff, Berg nor Bartok are late 20th century or 21st century composers which is the topic of this thread. The Rite of Spring was finished in 1912. Thus, the Turangalila Symphony is the only relevant piece or composer, and I have to admit I don't know much about it At least messiaen is interesting.

I don't recall hearing any phillip Glass works (although I studied him briefly in music history), but I have heard some of legeti's etudes for piano.
 err.. I really couldn't tell you. I don't know of any that do. I would say most modern composers go a bit farther back then that, seeking inspiration from Gregorian chant etc.

This morning I was listening to Jacques Hetu's (a French-Canadian composer) piano concerto no.2.  It is nothing ground breaking. The CD included the composer's notes on the piece, and I was struck by how dry they were. A methodical break down of the theory of the piece. i.e. " As a general rule, lyric and expressive passages contrast with more rhythmic and energetic sections." Thank you Jacques, how inspired. I would've never figured that out on my own. *I make reference to the notes because I expect many of you will be unfamiliar with the piece)

I wonder if part of the problem is that there is too much training? It seems like almost all great composers had very little instruction in theory so their original sound remained unadulterated.  So much of what I hear from modern composers sounds like a conscious rebellion from what they learned in class. Look at the 12-tone system, they broke all the old rules and replaced them with.... Even more, stricter rules!

I'm sick of having to sit through insincere, detached, sterile monuments to the ego of the composer. They have sought out spectacle before soul.

The problem with composers is that they don't get any training anymore. Every great composer did get training. Moart, Beethoven, Bach, all of them. Nowadays a composition class goes somethingl like this. (private lessons primarily)

Teacher: ok, so to start off your piece what do you have?

Student: well, I am going to do......(proceeds to explain)

Teacher: (thinking to oneself that is a load of crap and not worth the paper it is written on) why have you decided to do this?

Student: Because of.....(proceeds to explain)

Teacher: (not wanting to dull the fire of creativity or mold that student into someone else's idea of music says) That is good. Please continue.


In alot of ways it is just like how tash explained what goes on in art class. Pathetic waste of time.

boliver

[Daevren]

Daevren, I know it must seem odd that composers today choose a form of tonal language, after all of the atonality of the previous century,

I don't think its odd. Art has lots of reationist movement. Composing had them too. I don't like these unsensical extreme shifts in style.

My point was not to write atonal music only. My point was to write modern tonal music.

Almost all jazz music is heavily tonal (or modal). Yes, dissonant harmonies and fast modulation but still the tonal language. Modern music doesn't mean atonal. Plus you could do both in one piece.

[Derek]

What exactly is tonality? Is it:

1) The classical practice of having a home key which you can leave, but only to related keys, and then return to the home key at the end of the piece

2) Music that makes sense to the ear (includes dissonant music like late scriabin as well as bach fugues)

If it is the latter, then what exactly is "atonality?"  Probably serialist music?

[keys]

How long have you been waiting to crack that one out!?

Sorry, that was mean.

oh come on, surely the spectacle of modern music is undisputed. Plucking the strings? Sitting silently at the piano? Prepared piano??? It's a big jump from 18th and 19th century music where too many fast passages are considered on the edge of vulgarity.  At least fast passages are audible music, unlike sitting quietly and plucking strings.

On a side note: My piano roots are in jazz, I still play a bit although I've largely converted to classical, more because of the time issue then personal taste. Also, 20th and 21st century music is far from my least favorite genre. For piano music the impressionistic style really doesn't agree with me, although I see it's artistic and emotional merits. I'm also definitely not saying that what makes music great is popularity. I'm from Western Canada and even I don't think country western music is genius

I've had years of training in counterpoint, harmony, music history, theory, analysis etc. and modern music is by the book, classical piano for dummies. As a pianist, it can be a refreshing change to study a modern piece after hours of Bach, but I doubt that modern music will have any lasting impact after the novelty has worn off. But who knows! Maybe some kid out there possesses the genius to make it great.

[keys]

What exactly is tonality? Is it:

1) The classical practice of having a home key which you can leave, but only to related keys, and then return to the home key at the end of the piece

2) Music that makes sense to the ear (includes dissonant music like late scriabin as well as bach fugues)

If it is the latter, then what exactly is "atonality?" Probably serialist music?

Text book definitioni of atonality:

Atonality describes music which departs from the system of tonal hierarchies that characterizes the sound of classical European music between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries. Atonality usually describes compositions written from about 1900 to the present day, where the hierarchy of tonal centers is not used as the primary way to organize a work. Tonal centers gradually replaced modal organization starting in the 1500s and culminated with the establishment of the Major-Minor key system in the late 1600s and early 1700s.

[Nightscape]

oh come on, surely the spectacle of modern music is undisputed. Plucking the strings? Sitting silently at the piano? Prepared piano??? It's a big jump from 18th and 19th century music where too many fast passages are considered on the edge of vulgarity.  At least fast passages are audible music, unlike sitting quietly and plucking strings.

On a side note: My piano roots are in jazz, I still play a bit although I've largely converted to classical, more because of the time issue then personal taste. Also, 20th and 21st century music is far from my least favorite genre. For piano music the impressionistic style really doesn't agree with me, although I see it's artistic and emotional merits. I'm also definitely not saying that what makes music great is popularity. I'm from Western Canada and even I don't think country western music is genius

I've had years of training in counterpoint, harmony, music history, theory, analysis etc. and modern music is by the book, classical piano for dummies. As a pianist, it can be a refreshing change to study a modern piece after hours of Bach, but I doubt that modern music will have any lasting impact after the novelty has worn off. But who knows! Maybe some kid out there possesses the genius to make it great.

Plucking strings?  Do you mean pizzicato?  That's been around for some time and is a really cool effect.

If you're talking about the strings of the piano though, I'm guessing you've never actually heard it (as is sadly the case of so many arguments).  Cowell's "The Banshee" is an excellent example of playing the inside strings of a piano.  The music is downright spine-tingling.  All of these devices (prepared piano, silence, playing strings) have been used to great effect in a variety of situations and have been approved by the general public.  This is because all of these effects, including the most dissonant and atonal music, have been used successfully in film scores.  Would the Excorcist be such a creepy film, if you removed the atmospheric music of Pendrecki and Webern (thier music is featured in the film soundtrack)!?

[Nightscape]

I don't think its odd. Art has lots of reationist movement. Composing had them too. I don't like these unsensical extreme shifts in style.

My point was not to write atonal music only. My point was to write modern tonal music.

Almost all jazz music is heavily tonal (or modal). Yes, dissonant harmonies and fast modulation but still the tonal language. Modern music doesn't mean atonal. Plus you could do both in one piece.

I think you misunderstood me.  If you read further in my post, you'll see that's excactly what I say (that a lot of modern composers use a "modern" tonal language that incorporates both atonality and tonality).

[keys]

Plucking strings? Do you mean pizzicato? That's been around for some time and is a really cool effect.

If you're talking about the strings of the piano though, I'm guessing you've never actually heard it (as is sadly the case of so many arguments). Cowell's "The Banshee" is an excellent example of playing the inside strings of a piano. The music is downright spine-tingling. All of these devices (prepared piano, silence, playing strings) have been used to great effect in a variety of situations and have been approved by the general public. This is because all of these effects, including the most dissonant and atonal music, have been used successfully in film scores. Would the Excorcist be such a creepy film, if you removed the atmospheric music of Pendrecki and Webern (thier music is featured in the film soundtrack)!?

!!?? OF COURSE I MEAN THE PIANO STRINGS!! geepers, you think I'm jusy going to change instruments on you? And I've heard musicians play the strings of the piano many a time thank you, or else I would not have brought it up. It's hardly audible in a room of bigger then a closet. It's also hard to practice on an upright

I have never seen the exorcist so I really can't answer your last question. Although from what I've heard, the puking is what made that movie memorable for most people-not the music.

[Daevren]

I'm sick of having to sit through insincere, detached, sterile monuments to the ego of the composer. They have sought out spectacle before soul.

Maybe that is what art is.


Sure it would be great if modern composers focussed a little more on music. But I don't see whats wrong with Ligeti or Penderecki? Art is not pleasing the audience.

Nightscape128, I did read your post. I just wanted to post about how I feel about it.

I also don't see modern tonal music as partly atonal or something. Dissonance =/= atonality.