Topic: Only the New (music)

[Philoctetes]

Something mellow: John Zorn

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/XKmwxeT1z60" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/XKmwxeT1z60</a>

[karlhenning]

Yuri Bashmet performs Schnittke's Viola Concerto first movement, one of my favs composed in the 80s I think:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/vK6uX1-Yb8o" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/vK6uX1-Yb8o</a>

Bashmet and Schnittke are a killer combination!

[karlhenning]

Something mellow: John Zorn

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/XKmwxeT1z60" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/XKmwxeT1z60</a>

Isn't that funny? Wuorinen has a piece Archaeopteryx, too.

[Grazioso]

I'm hoping that many will add to this thread. A thread solely focused on new classical compositions. But what does new mean? I'd save give it a healthy range, from the 1970s forward. Although, I'd hope for more pieces within the last decade, but I know how difficult it can be to find recordings of music that new, but I'll start us all off with Liza Lim.

A serious philosophical question: why include something from the 70's as "new"? That's over 30 years ago. That's ancient history where popular music is concerned. If we extend "newness" in classical music back that far, on the assumption that the artistic virtue of such pieces lends them current relevance, why not go back to the 60's or 50's and so on? I ask because in this thread and others recently there has been debate about the relative importance of treating rediscovered works by long-dead composers as new and important versus concentrating on active composers.

To me, one thing that sets classical music apart is its focus on a living continuum of art extending back centuries. Bach and Mozart aren't considered mere museum pieces by most classical music lovers, but rather "living" artists. Of course, how that historical consciousness and canon have been shaped (and politicized) is a whole other can o' worms.

Be all that as it may, here's more "new" music:

A contemporary master, Arvo Pärt, interviewed by Björk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pDjT1UNT3s

Michael Daugherty discussing his Metropolis Symphony http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh6SRDE85AA&feature=related

[karlhenning]

A serious philosophical question: why include something from the 70's as "new"? That's over 30 years ago.

Yes, it would be like someone in 1943 considering Le sacre "new."

[Guido]

There's this idea that "new" means anything since the terrifyingly abstract high modernism of the 60s... i.e. the return back to tonality and the breaking down of "schools" - i.e. the era of post modernism. It's more convenience than anything else - Less combines the composers of the last 40 years than at any previous point in history, except perhaps for the almost complete marginalisation of (most of all contemporary) classical music from society (even musical society).

[Guido]

Four of my favourite pieces of this or any time: Gruber's cello concerto (1987), Kurtag's Stele (1994), John William's cello concerto (1994) and Heartwood: Lyric sketches for cello and Orchestra (2002). Yes I really mean the last two. I'm also a big fan of Carter's Symphonia: sum fluxae pretium spei (1996) and the opera What Next? (1998).

[Philoctetes]

A serious philosophical question: why include something from the 70's as "new"? That's over 30 years ago. That's ancient history where popular music is concerned. If we extend "newness" in classical music back that far, on the assumption that the artistic virtue of such pieces lends them current relevance, why not go back to the 60's or 50's and so on? I ask because in this thread and others recently there has been debate about the relative importance of treating rediscovered works by long-dead composers as new and important versus concentrating on active composers.

Be all that as it may, here's more "new" music:

A contemporary master, Arvo Pärt, interviewed by Björk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pDjT1UNT3s

Michael Daugherty discussing his Metropolis Symphony http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh6SRDE85AA&feature=related

First, thanks for the links.

Second, in answer to your question, I was trying to be quite broad in using the term 'modern'. Guido sort of covers the reason why, but if you see the links that I am posting. I think one can gather what my idea of 'modern' is. I also picked the date, more of a guess though, to avoid composers like Boulez and Stockhausen.

[Philoctetes]

There's this idea that "new" means anything since the terrifyingly abstract high modernism of the 60s... i.e. the return back to tonality and the breaking down of "schools" - i.e. the era of post modernism. It's more convenience than anything else - Less combines the composers of the last 40 years than at any previous point in history, except perhaps for the almost complete marginalisation of (most of all contemporary) classical music from society (even musical society).

This captures the general gist of the date selection.

[Philoctetes]

Four of my favourite pieces of this or any time: Gruber's cello concerto (1987), Kurtag's Stele (1994), John William's cello concerto (1994) and Heartwood: Lyric sketches for cello and Orchestra (2002). Yes I really mean the last two. I'm also a big fan of Carter's Symphonia: sum fluxae pretium spei (1996) and the opera What Next? (1998).

Thanks for this list. I'll definitely put them on my list. 

[Philoctetes]

Yes, it would be like someone in 1943 considering Le sacre "new."

I was striving to be generous, in hopes of drawing out some links that might now have come out if I had given my desired time frame, which was solely 21st century.

[DavidW]

That's over 30 years ago. That's ancient history where popular music is concerned.

I strongly disagree.  Do you know people that listen to pop music?  My students are teenagers and they know classic rock as well as current pop if not better!  Songs from the 60s and 70s are immersed in our culture.  Turn on the radio and you'll find a good fraction of the stations playing those songs. 

[karlhenning]

I was striving to be generous, in hopes of drawing out some links that might now have come out if I had given my desired time frame, which was solely 21st century.

Nothing wrong with a little generosity.

[some guy]

anything since the terrifyingly abstract high modernism of the 60s...

like Boulez or Birtwistle or Ferneyhough or Lachenmann or Czernowin or Furrer or?

the return back to tonality

Ah. Like electroacoustics and turntablism and music theatre like Heiner Goebbels and Miguel Azguime and The Spy Collective and Kagel and Diamanda Galas. Like Simon Steen-Andersen and laptop music and noise music and....

The world of music is much richer and more various than "terrifyingly abstract (?) modernism of the 60s" and "the (?) return back to tonality." In the sixties, for instance, there was tape music and experimental* music and Fluxus (and other happenings) and minimalism (of all varieties) and live electronics (like from the Sonic Arts Union and from John Cage). Concept music, danger music, mixed media and multi-media.

In short, the sixties alone were more rich and more various than "terrifyingly abstract modernism." (I can't help asking, terrifying to whom? Always in these discussions, the reaction of some person or persons unknown is privileged over all other persons, creating a fake monolith of hideous music over here and another equally fake monolith of horrified listeners over there, locked in a life or death struggle! And that grotesquely over-simplified and inaccurate picture of reality is then substituted for what actually happened. And while all history is over-simplified and inaccurate, there are degrees! And recollecting the very recent past should really be easier to do more accurately and completely, hein? Why, some of us can recollect the sixties our own selves, man.)

*which word meant something quite different in the sixties and seventies than it has come to mean today.

[Philoctetes]

For the afternoon: Sarah Horick

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/mN9UV7sG76g" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/mN9UV7sG76g</a>

[Philoctetes]

Nightime approaches: Matthew Dewey

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/M329okRZf3o" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/M329okRZf3o</a>

[Philoctetes]

For Illinois: John Orfe

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/CXgjVZeZFRY" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/CXgjVZeZFRY</a>

[DavidW]

I listened to the following radio broadcast today:

From a Dark Millennium: Joseph Schwantner

      North Texas Wind Symphony, Eugene Migliaro Corporon

Wudeliguhi (The Darkening Land): Richard Prior
      Oklahoma State University Wind Symphony, Joseph Missal

on wind and rhythm:
http://www.windandrhythm.com/windandrhythm/The_Top.html

And I really enjoyed each piece, great stuff give it a try.

[Sid]

There are a lot of nice Australian and New Zealand composers. Martin Ng. Ross Bolleter. Lissa Meridan, Oren Ambarchi.

This is Ambarchi and Keith Rowe last year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPAYyDvtdBc&feature=related

Stockhausen was doing this kind of thing in the '60's. I'm not sure how these electronic composers can be more valid or original than the more mainstream Australian ones like Brett Dean, Elena Kats-Chernin or Barry Conyngham. But I also think that equally interesting things are going on in the non-classical realm in Australia, we've got some very fine bands here doing great stuff...

[Philoctetes]

I listened to the following radio broadcast today:

From a Dark Millennium: Joseph Schwantner

      North Texas Wind Symphony, Eugene Migliaro Corporon

Wudeliguhi (The Darkening Land): Richard Prior
      Oklahoma State University Wind Symphony, Joseph Missal

on wind and rhythm:
http://www.windandrhythm.com/windandrhythm/The_Top.html

And I really enjoyed each piece, great stuff give it a try.

Thanks for that link. I'll try and give that a listen this weekend.