GMG Classical Music Forum

The Music Room => General Classical Music Discussion => Topic started by: James on April 28, 2012, 07:25:48 AM

Title: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: James on April 28, 2012, 07:25:48 AM
Contemporary classical music is devoid of melody and appeal,
all noise and no fun. At least, that's the cliche. But this is music
that is very much at the heart of our modern world.


Tom Service
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 26 April 2012 20.00 BST
Article history

(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2012/4/26/1335460078513/A-scene-from-Ligetis-Le-G-008.jpg)
A scene from English National Opera's 2009 production of György Ligeti's Le Grand Macabre.
Photograph: Tristram Kenton for the Guardian


1. It all sounds like a squeaky gate

There are two sides to this. First, there's the simple fact that much of the music being written now by composers for choirs, opera houses and orchestras has as many, and sometimes more, tunes than anything by Beethoven or Mozart. For sensuous, harmonious reverie, listen to recent music by John Tavener or Arvo Pärt; for sheer, abundant tune-smithery, look no further than those masters of choral, regal and festive vocality Paul Mealor, Eric Whitacre and John Rutter. But none of this is what the "squeaky gate" critics mean. They are thinking of the sort of music that the conductor Thomas Beecham once said he "trod in": the avant garde of Karlheinz Stockhausen, Pierre Boulez, Luigi Nono or Brian Ferneyhough. One of the best answers to this sort of attack comes from "unherd" on my classical music blog: "'Nasty squeaky gate' can actually be amazing to experience if you're not afraid of it." You're right, unherd. As ever, fear, or preconceptions, lead to the dark side. First, one of the signal, culture-changing achievements of contemporary music is that it opens your mind and ears to re-hear the world, to realise the beauty that's around us in sounds we would otherwise call noises. That's part of the genius of John Cage or Helmut Lachenmann, one way in which the world becomes a different place when you listen to their music. But there's something else: the visceral impact of music such as Iannis Xenakis's Jonchaies, Stockhausen's Gruppen for three orchestral groups or Luciano Berio's Coro is like nothing else music has done before. This music opens up huge reservoirs of feeling and physicality. Listen to any, and have your squeaky gates of perception opened up.

2. It's inaccessible

Balderdash. Rewind a few decades. Have a look again at the menagerie of cultural icons on the cover of the Beatles' Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Who's that cheeky chappie on the back row, whose big brown eyes and side-parting peer out between Lenny Bruce and WC Fields? Why, it's the furthest-out composer of any of the out-there 60s avant-garde, Stockhausen. A piece of coincidental Beatlemania? Not a bit of it. Without Stockhausen's electronic dreams and experiments the decade before, and his trailblazing example of how you could use the studio itself as a musical instrument, the Beatles would be mired in musical pre-history, and Lennon and McCartney's imaginations – and yours – would be infinitely the poorer. Spooling on through pop culture, in the 70s and 80s, bands "discovered" tape loops, phases and rhythmic complexity. But that's only because Steve Reich, Philip Glass and the minimalists had got there at least a decade before. Sampling? Again, it's the avant garde you've got to thank, everyone from the pioneers of tape-based musique concrète to Alvin Lucier and beyond. Coming bang(ish) up to date: who is Björk's favourite composer? Stockhausen again. Brian Eno would be nowhere without Erik Satie and Cornelius Cardew, Stephen Sondheim owes it all – well, some of it – to lessons with Princeton-based serialist Milton Babbitt, and don't get me started on Jonny Greenwood's love-affair with Krzysztof Penderecki. Without the "classical" avant garde, pop music just could not and would not be the same.

3. You need to have a beard and wear a black polo-neck jumper to appreciate it

This is one of the real things that puts many listeners off, the idea that to be able to understand Harrison Birtwistle or Judith Weir, Pauline Oliveros or Howard Skempton, you need to have a working knowledge, and preferably a PhD, in music history from plainchant to Prokofiev, and/or you need to be part of a club of contemporary music groupies. Neither, I promise you, is true. There's a story told by Gillian Moore, who runs classical music at London's Southbank Centre and who set up the pioneering education work of the London Sinfonietta in the early 80s. One of its first projects introduced a programme of Ravel and early 20th-century visionary and noise-fiend Edgard Varèse to groups of schoolchildren. For many, Ravel's music is sensual, beguiling, "easy", whereas Varèse's sirens, percussion and atavistic modernism make his music beyond the pale, dissonant, and "difficult". What happened was just the reverse: the kids loved Varèse and couldn't get on with Ravel. But that makes perfect sense. So much of the great, radical music of the past 100 years bypasses the world of convention and intellect to go straight to the guts of sonic power, and to shake up your solar plexus. There's a good argument that the less you know about Mozart or Schubert, the more directly you can understand the sounds composers create today.

4. It's irrelevant

A simple formulation that sums up an unfortunate commonplace: the sense that this music has nothing to say to today's world. As already said, many of the sounds that we think most define our world today in pop music have the avant garde in their DNA, but there's more. There is sometimes an impression that composers who write music that pushes musicians to their extremes are doing nothing more than fiddling around with meaningless notes in a solipsistic, self-indulgent reverie. Well, there's nothing wrong with beauty, and the extreme, hard-won beauty of hearing a group of great musicians or an orchestra at the limits of what they can do. But contemporary music has things to say, if we have ears to hear it. And thanks to generations of recent composers, contemporary music has tried to change the world. Haven't heard of Cornelius Cardew? Check him out. All his music was composed with social and political consciousness at its heart. And in different ways, that's still happening. John Adams can't resist today's big subjects – politics, terrorism and religious extremism. Younger composers are forming collectives that dissolve the pernicious boundaries between genres and institutions, creating work that speaks to new audiences directly, powerfully – and relevantly.

5. It's written for classical musicians so it must be 'old'

Ah, yes: here's the rub. For some, the very sight of, say, an orchestra, a string quartet or the idea of an opera house automatically gives an illusion of "heritage" rather than "contemporary culture". The implication is that those institutions or lineups can't have anything to contribute to musical thinking, that the musical ideas that composers in the past have dreamed of in their orchestral works, quartets and operas, have filled the repertoire, and our imaginations, to the brim. Try telling that to Jonathan Harvey, whose expansion of the orchestra into the realms of electronics makes music that is definitively contemporary and immeasurably timeless, or to Thomas Adès, whose writing creates visions of musical possibility that are new for today, or for any time. A piece that Adès composed in 1999, on the eve of the millennium, symbolises the new meanings that large-scale music can have. America: A Prophecy is a vision and a warning about the ends of empire. Adès's music could not speak more fervently or fearlessly about the essential truth of the way historical patterns repeat themselves, and how we ignore the warnings of ancient civilisations at our peril. Don't let the veneer of the opera house or the concert hall put you off. This music is speaking to us now: all you need is an open mind and open ears.

* What are the composers' favourites? Mark-Anthony Turnage, Anna
Meredith and more tell us the contemporary work they couldn't live
without.
 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/apr/26/what-are-composers-favourite-works)
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: snyprrr on April 28, 2012, 07:40:39 AM
People are just getting dumber and dumber. The time for civility is over. No one should criticize shit (anything) anymore; they can all go to where they're comfortable, and STFU, and listen to their Strauss, and leave others alone.

If anyone EVER,... if they happened to hear what's coming from the car audio,... if they ever even DARE to give me 'that' look,... wow, just try it buddy,... I have no patience for the 'why do you play something nice?', or the 'that sounds like shit',... you know, why don't you just turn yellow and die?? Trust me, it's 2012, the time for winking at idiots is over. Fuck 'em all,... dingy consumerists. >:D

May ALL have war enough to be able to appreciate the sounds of war in Xenakis, for instance.


'Drop the bomb. Exterminate them all' (Apocalypse Now)


ok, to all you people calm down snyprrr, calm down, it's only Saturday morning, it's only a Classical Music forum, it's only a movie, it's only a movie...


ahhhh,... I neeeed to stay away from the controversy,.... ahhh, soothing balm of Gilead,.... there, there....
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Mirror Image on April 28, 2012, 07:49:19 AM
Quote from: snyprrr on April 28, 2012, 07:40:39 AM
People are just getting dumber and dumber.

I believe we're way past this now, snyprrr. :D Even my Dad likes Contemporary classical music! I introduced him to Takemitsu, Part, and Salonen (the composer, he already knew the conductor :)) and he's loving every minute of it! 8) An open-mind can go a long way. I mean it's one thing to simply say you don't like the music, but to insult the music and the composer is simply uncalled for. This is a lesson I had to learn for myself. Even as much as I dislike Messiaen, for example, I still enjoy a good many of his works. He's not a terrible composer at all. I think people are just looking for instant gratification these days and they're taking the easy way out by listening to what one would consider the classics. There's no exploratory attitude at all and I find this discouraging, but these are just my opinions.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Opus106 on April 28, 2012, 08:06:34 AM
This is a perfectly timed post, James, so thanks. :) Just this afternoon I was wondering about which contemporaries to listen to (explore, rather), given that I don't sport a (Henningesque ;)) beard and don't wear black polo-necked jumpers (and I won't in my right mind, given my location!). I'm going to try some of those composers listed in the first section; even though I'm familiar with their names, I have no idea about their music.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: TheGSMoeller on April 28, 2012, 08:21:52 AM
Most of the criticism concerning contemporary classical music I've come across, is from those who really haven't spent much time with this era. It's easy to decipher criticism from those who have precise critical analysis of a piece, and those who describe it with juvenile adjectives.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Sammy on April 28, 2012, 09:12:58 AM
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on April 28, 2012, 08:21:52 AM
Most of the criticism concerning contemporary classical music I've come across, is from those who really haven't spent much time with this era. It's easy to decipher criticism from those who have precise critical analysis of a piece, and those who describe it with juvenile adjectives.

So true.  Those who don't know what they are talking about should always shup up and listen.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Polednice on April 28, 2012, 12:36:19 PM
I would agree that there are many myths surrounding contemporary music, and much of the hatred stems from inexperience or prejudice, but Service's arguments are logically inconsistent - he tends to be a bad writer.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: DavidW on April 28, 2012, 06:03:22 PM
I find that if I'm listening to rock and pop for awhile, coming back to classical I find 20th century music to be more accessible and I have to work my way back in time.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: kishnevi on April 28, 2012, 06:43:41 PM
I think part of this is the fact that  modern classical music has evolved over the last three decades or so.  I don't listen to non-tonal music from the middle decades of the 20th century that often because I generally find it ugly: as if the composers involved were attempting to acoustically assault their audiences.  (And sometimes I literally get a headache from listening.)  A couple of days ago,  I gave a first run through of the Pollini 20th century music box DG recently issued;  among the recordings is a CD of works by Nono  (Como una ola de fuerza y luz,  sofferte onde serene) and Manzoni (Masse). Como una ola, for instance,  seemed to consist of sections in which one heard electronically taped sounds,  or in which a soprano sang semi-meaningless phrases,  mixed in with sections in which the piano banged away loudly and atonally,  or the orchestra played loudly and atonally,  but without seeming able to communicate any actual musical idea.  Whatever musical logic  Nono used for that piece remained totally undetected by my ears.

With more recent music, the situation is different.  There still are times when I don't particularly like what I hear,  but I usually can perceive some of the musical thinking involved.  I don't particularly care for Part and Tavener, for instance, but at least I can see what they intended, and I don't get a headache from them, and atonality when used seems to serve a purpose: it's not just there to uglify the music. 
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Scion7 on April 29, 2012, 06:01:39 AM
This is the part of Sprockets where we dance!

(http://www.movieactors.com/freeze-frames/myers-satnitelive/myers-satnite-sprockets-14.jpg)

Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: DavidW on April 29, 2012, 06:03:02 AM
Well said Jeffrey! :)
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: coffee on April 29, 2012, 06:47:57 AM
I guess anyone who's been around classical music discussions on the internet realizes that there's simply no arguing with taste. I'm sure a few people who say they don't like"modern" music won't like it no matter what, a few people might love it more if they gave it more time, and everything in between. But you are who you are, and we can all accept each other peacefully, I hope.

I happen to enjoy Nono and Stockhausen and Reich and Tavener and Tan Dun very much, and also the Strauss family waltzes, and Vivaldi, and medieval chant, even when it's accompanied by Jan Garbarek, which generally means that one way or the other I get into trouble in these discussions. But it's ok with me if you don't like some of that, as long as you'll not condescend to me for liking it (which is too rare), and we can discuss together the music that we share rather than the music that we don't share.

Edit: Also, I hope not to be condescended to for not yet knowing some work of music, whether it's Beethoven's 5th or Beetz' great classic "Assoziationen zu...?" I promise to return the respect -

If only, if only, and if only! such non-condescension with respect to taste and experience were something we could assume rather than had to plead for.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: TheGSMoeller on April 29, 2012, 07:04:53 AM
Quote from: coffee on April 29, 2012, 06:47:57 AM
I guess anyone who's been around classical music discussions on the internet realizes that there's simply no arguing with taste. I'm sure a few people who say they don't like"modern" music won't like it no matter what, a few people might love it more if they gave it more time, and everything in between. But you are who you are, and we can all accept each other peacefully, I hope.

I happen to enjoy Nono and Stockhausen and Reich and Tavener and Tan Dun very much, and also the Strauss family waltzes, and Vivaldi, and medieval chant, even when it's accompanied by Jan Garbarek, which generally means that one way or the other I get into trouble in these discussions. But it's ok with me if you don't like some of that, as long as you'll not condescend to me for liking it (which is too rare), and we can discuss together the music that we share rather than the music that we don't share.

Very true, Coffee. I was a horn player back in my school days and really only gave my attention to composers who would composed works featuring 8 horns playing at fortissimo. Nowadays I couldn't truly enjoy a day without hearing a good song or three by John Dowland. So yes, tastes and views change. And I'm with you, the range of my tastes cover pretty much all eras.

My beef is with how those who don't enjoy Contempoary music critique it. For example, the era I listen to the least is Romantic. It doesn't suit my preferred tastes, but I would never dismiss it as anything negative, I still have great admiration and respect for Romantic composers who I choose not to listen to, but it doesn't make that era in my mind dismissible. I feel that some critics of contemporary music are the opposite.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: starrynight on April 29, 2012, 08:19:46 AM
Why should I care about or be interested in what ignorant people think? 
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Polednice on April 29, 2012, 09:20:39 AM
Quote from: James on April 29, 2012, 07:02:46 AM
All music is tonal (using the 12 musical tones of the chromatic scale or series), it just has varying degrees of change in terms of polarity. In the case of music that is improperly referred to as "atonal" (no such thing) or in your case "non-tonal" (again, no such thing) it's tonality changes far more frequently, it's ALWAYS tonal but it changes at every moment, very quick changing tonality .. giving a new aspect of the chromatic Romantic period, from the same exact source (listening to the 12 notes, or tones) .. for novice listeners who haven't opened wide their "squeaky gates of perception" (yet) at first it may seem like disorder, confusing etc. .. but it's not; at it's best it's a very highly focused, disciplined & organized kind-of democratic approach (equality amoungst tones), that is more in tune with the times and is a far more accurate reflection of the highly complex world we live in; which itself is like an organized delirium that we're born into it. Experiencing this music can be like that at first, we drop into a sound-world that is in constant flux all around, but the more we traverse it (with our ears) the more we get to know how it goes, and it opens up these mental barriers and makes us grow. Getting to know this music so well (i.e. the 2nd Viennese School, Stravinsky, Varèse, Stockhausen & Boulez), for me, makes me feel so alive and refreshes & charges my mind like no other. The benefits are great.

This isn't entirely true. A piece for unpitched percussion would be non-tonal, and there is music that uses tones other than the 12 in the chromatic scale for which it is useful to have distinguishing terminology. Anyway, even if we quibble over the definition of these words, the music doesn't change, and nor does the listener's perception. Arguing as though their particular definition of tonality has affected their understanding and appreciation of the work is silly, and it's neither an insult nor a compliment to call a piece tonal or atonal - these are all irrelevant terminological technicalities (and distinguishing between a piece that has no tonality and one that has a tonality that changes with every note is surely dependent on how the listener hears it, so talking as though these are objective measures is disingenuous).
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Scion7 on April 29, 2012, 10:05:38 AM
But, one person's growth is another person's fungus.  "Atonal" is an accepted common term that describes what the 2nd Viennese school of music is about.  No biggie, I know what someone means when they use the term.
Title: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: TheGSMoeller on April 29, 2012, 10:26:33 AM
Quote from: James on April 29, 2012, 10:22:01 AM
It's never a fungus my friend .. it's empowering and only deepens one's appreciation & understanding of the art and what is possible. (widening ears, perception; a good thing) With regards to improper descriptions like "atonal" etc. .. you may know what it means; but the fact is most people don't .. it's lazy thinking & inaccurate and is 9 times out of 10 a reflection of inexperience. Schoenberg himself loathed the stupid term.

I was just about to offer the question of, "What did the those who's music was labeled as atonal think of the term?"
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: drogulus on April 29, 2012, 11:29:12 AM
Quote from: James on April 29, 2012, 10:22:01 AM
It's never a fungus my friend .. it's empowering and only deepens one's appreciation & understanding of the art and what is possible. (widening ears, perception; a good thing) With regards to improper descriptions like "atonal" etc. .. you may know what it means; but the fact is most people don't .. it's lazy thinking & inaccurate and is 9 times out of 10 a reflection of inexperience. Schoenberg himself loathed the stupid term.

     Well, you can shift the debate to terms but the point remains that the fashion for certain types of noisemusic or musicnoise has come and gone without IMO proving very much other than that fashion and art combine in odd ways, and people get very cultish about it. There no real need to invent justifications for sorely unmissed music. If you like it, that ought to be enough.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Polednice on April 29, 2012, 12:33:06 PM
Quote from: James on April 29, 2012, 09:59:07 AM
We can't be all encompassing in our replies .. but yes, I am fully aware music is much wider in terms of frequencies relative-to etc. For me, when I see folks throwing around words like atonal etc. in an almost irrational way (prejudice) it often reflects that they really haven't looked into things much (inexperience) to get clarity on these myths & misunderstandings. And there is definitely room for perception to grow immensely, one of the key pts. in Service's article .. something I've experienced first-hand myself.

You're certainly right that people use the word "atonal" much too broadly, encompassing not only strict dodecaphonic serialism, but also many other styles - maybe even just anything that they dislike or can't comprehend. The antidote to these misinformed generalisations, however, is probably not an opposite but similarly generalised definition. ;)
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Scion7 on April 29, 2012, 12:39:53 PM
Quote from: James on April 29, 2012, 10:22:01 AM
It's never a fungus my friend ..

That's a viewpoint totally determined by taste.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: albedo on April 29, 2012, 04:09:35 PM
would it be a fair critique that modern composers usually don't give brass and woodwinds much work to do?


Or that modern cinema doesn't like music that competes with the screen and $million dollar voices or faces, and has squeezed the epic out of composers? does anyone still say '100 voice choir because...I said so'?


http://www.nats.org/home/38-general/400-journal-of-singing-feature-article-economy-of-choir-size.html


i am not very knowledgable in modern orchestral composition so I cannot really levy any critique at all. I do hope we aren't talking about soundtracks however.



















Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: eyeresist on April 29, 2012, 08:32:05 PM
Funny how Schoenberg is still "contemporary".

There is some good new stuff amongst the academic dreck, but the time and money you need to spend to find it isn't worth it, from my point of view. Especially as there's so much "old" music I haven't heard yet.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: DavidW on April 29, 2012, 08:42:18 PM
Quote from: albedo on April 29, 2012, 04:09:35 PM
would it be a fair critique that modern composers usually don't give brass and woodwinds much work to do?

No because it's untrue.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Sequentia on April 30, 2012, 07:12:36 AM
Quote from: James on April 28, 2012, 07:25:48 AM
Contemporary classical music is devoid of melody and appeal,
all noise and no fun. At least, that's the cliche. But this is music
that is very much at the heart of our modern world.


Tom Service
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 26 April 2012 20.00 BST
Article history

(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2012/4/26/1335460078513/A-scene-from-Ligetis-Le-G-008.jpg)
A scene from English National Opera's 2009 production of György Ligeti's Le Grand Macabre.
Photograph: Tristram Kenton for the Guardian


1. It all sounds like a squeaky gate

[removed]

2. It's inaccessible

[removed]

3. You need to have a beard and wear a black polo-neck jumper to appreciate it

[removed]

4. It's irrelevant

[removed]

5. It's written for classical musicians so it must be 'old'

[removed]

* What are the composers' favourites? Mark-Anthony Turnage, Anna
Meredith and more tell us the contemporary work they couldn't live
without.
 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/apr/26/what-are-composers-favourite-works)


Sounds like the average criticism of "Mousard".
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Sequentia on April 30, 2012, 07:14:55 AM
Quote from: snyprrr on April 28, 2012, 07:40:39 AM
People are just getting dumber and dumber. The time for civility is over. No one should criticize shit (anything) anymore; they can all go to where they're comfortable, and STFU, and listen to their Strauss, and leave others alone.

If anyone EVER,... if they happened to hear what's coming from the car audio,... if they ever even DARE to give me 'that' look,... wow, just try it buddy,... I have no patience for the 'why do you play something nice?', or the 'that sounds like shit',... you know, why don't you just turn yellow and die?? Trust me, it's 2012, the time for winking at idiots is over. Fuck 'em all,... dingy consumerists. >:D

May ALL have war enough to be able to appreciate the sounds of war in Xenakis, for instance.


'Drop the bomb. Exterminate them all' (Apocalypse Now)


ok, to all you people calm down snyprrr, calm down, it's only Saturday morning, it's only a Classical Music forum, it's only a movie, it's only a movie...


ahhhh,... I neeeed to stay away from the controversy,.... ahhh, soothing balm of Gilead,.... there, there....

I agree. Let's celebrate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoRgo5_kzgA
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Sequentia on April 30, 2012, 07:16:22 AM
Quote from: Mirror Image on April 28, 2012, 07:49:19 AM
I believe we're way past this now, snyprrr. :D Even my Dad likes Contemporary classical music! I introduced him to Takemitsu, Part, and Salonen (the composer, he already knew the conductor :)) and he's loving every minute of it! 8)

Is that really contemporary classical music?
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Sequentia on April 30, 2012, 07:20:45 AM
Quote from: eyeresist on April 29, 2012, 08:32:05 PM
Funny how Schoenberg is still "contemporary".

Not "funny", but certainly "irritating", and ultimately "disappointing". In 2548, people will say, "this is the most recent classical music," and proceed to play Mahler's 9th.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Leon on April 30, 2012, 07:32:07 AM
Quote from: James on April 29, 2012, 12:46:40 PM
I honestly don't think aquiring more knowledge, being open to challenges, while widening perception and stretching one's ears along the way in this passionate pursuit has anything to do with just "taste", my friend.

Nor does it follow that possessing those qualities will guarantee that someone will like how contemporary music sounds. 

I've spent a majority of my life listening to and studying new music and while there are some composers (Carter, Boulez are two) whose music I can admit an appreciation for, I do not enjoy listening to it anywhere as much as any work by Haydn, and countless other "old" music composers.  And there are many more new music composers whose music is of absolutely no interest to me whatsoever.

I fail to see why the issue of whether more people enjoy it or not is the subject of debate.  People gravitate to the music they like more than other music.  Many people like Mahler, I don't.  Many people like Wagner, I don't.  I love Haydn and Mozart, many people find them boring.  The same is true for 20th and now 21st century music.

Perfectly natural state of affairs, IMO.

:)
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Mirror Image on April 30, 2012, 07:34:56 AM
Quote from: Arnold on April 30, 2012, 07:32:07 AM
Nor does it follow that possessing those qualities will guarantee that someone will like how contemporary music sounds. 

I've spent a majority of my life listening to and studying new music and while there are some composers (Carter, Boulez are two) whose music I can admit an appreciation for, I do not enjoy listening to it anywhere as much as any work by Haydn, and countless other "old" music composers.  And there are many more new music composers whose music is of absolutely no interest to me whatsoever.

I fail to see why the issue of whether more people enjoy it or not is the subject of debate.  People gravitate to the music they like more than other music.  Many people like Mahler, I don't.  Many people like Wagner, I don't.  I love Haydn and Mozart, many people find them boring.  The same is true for 20th and now 21st century music.

Perfectly natural state of affairs, IMO.

:)

Well said, Arnold. :) My sentiments exactly. People like what they like. That's all there is to it.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Philoctetes on April 30, 2012, 07:41:35 AM
Quote from: Sequentia on April 30, 2012, 07:16:22 AM
Is that really contemporary classical music?

What is this supposed to mean? They're all alive. Composing classical music. Therefore etc.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: PaulSC on April 30, 2012, 08:02:00 AM
Quote from: Philoctetes on April 30, 2012, 07:41:35 AM
What is this supposed to mean? They're all alive. Composing classical music. Therefore etc.

Well, Takemitsu is no longer alive (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-toru-takemitsu-1320308.html), but he was until fairly recently. It's totally uncontroversial to call the music of all three "contemporary classical music."
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Philoctetes on April 30, 2012, 08:04:11 AM
Quote from: PaulSC on April 30, 2012, 08:02:00 AM
Well, Takemitsu is no longer alive (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-toru-takemitsu-1320308.html), but he was until fairly recently. It's totally uncontroversial to call the music of all three "contemporary classical music."

Okay, I didn't know that. Thanks for the correction, but they've all been alive recently, and at least two of them are still alive composing. That would make them contemporary in my estimation.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Sequentia on April 30, 2012, 08:12:00 AM
Quote from: Arnold on April 30, 2012, 07:32:07 AM
Nor does it follow that possessing those qualities will guarantee that someone will like how contemporary music sounds. 

I've spent a majority of my life listening to and studying new music and while there are some composers (Carter, Boulez are two) whose music I can admit an appreciation for, I do not enjoy listening to it anywhere as much as any work by Haydn, and countless other "old" music composers.  And there are many more new music composers whose music is of absolutely no interest to me whatsoever.

I fail to see why the issue of whether more people enjoy it or not is the subject of debate.  People gravitate to the music they like more than other music.  Many people like Mahler, I don't.  Many people like Wagner, I don't.  I love Haydn and Mozart, many people find them boring.  The same is true for 20th and now 21st century music.

Perfectly natural state of affairs, IMO.

:)

This discussion deals with stereotypes, not preferences.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Sequentia on April 30, 2012, 08:15:41 AM
Quote from: Philoctetes on April 30, 2012, 07:41:35 AM
What is this supposed to mean? They're all alive. Composing classical music. Therefore etc.

They are not contemporary because their works are fairly conservative, when compared to compositions such as Boulez's 2nd Piano Sonata or Stockhausen's 10th Piano Piece - works that are several decades old. I was making reference to musical progress, not chronology.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Philoctetes on April 30, 2012, 08:17:15 AM
Quote from: Sequentia on April 30, 2012, 08:15:41 AM
They are not contemporary because their works are fairly conservative, when compared to compositions such as Boulez's 2nd Piano Sonata or Stockhausen's 10th Piano Piece - works that are several decades old. I was making reference to musical progress, not chronology.

LOL! Ho, is this supremely ironic given your previous post.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Sequentia on April 30, 2012, 08:18:35 AM
Quote from: Philoctetes on April 30, 2012, 08:17:15 AM
LOL! Ho, is this supremely ironic given your previous post.

The one about stereotypes? Please explain.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Philoctetes on April 30, 2012, 08:23:04 AM
Quote from: Sequentia on April 30, 2012, 08:18:35 AM
The one about stereotypes? Please explain.

You have a stereotype in your mind about what contemporary classical music should sound like, which I would also wager is a preference.

Outside of the fact that you're simply wrong about what contemporary classical music means. You can't simply fix a definition to suit your prejudicial needs. While language can be used in such a fashion, it shouldn't be.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Sequentia on April 30, 2012, 08:34:01 AM
Quote from: Philoctetes on April 30, 2012, 08:23:04 AM
You have a stereotype in your mind about what contemporary classical music should sound like, which I would also wager is a preference.

Outside of the fact that you're simply wrong about what contemporary classical music means. You can't simply fix a definition to suit your prejudicial needs. While language can be used in such a fashion, it shouldn't be.

So if I were to sit down and compose a "Missa Papae Marcelli", it would be contemporary, simply because it was composed in 2012?
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Philoctetes on April 30, 2012, 08:37:05 AM
Quote from: Sequentia on April 30, 2012, 08:34:01 AM
So if I were to sit down and compose a "Missa Papae Marcelli", it would be contemporary, simply because it was composed in 2012?

Yes, the context is part and parcel with the phrase. Simply because an older form was utilized, does not negate the time frame from which it was composed. I would view it under the auspice of appropriation, which is easily a modern, if not postmodern idea. Sherrie Levine demonstrated this in the realm of photography.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Sequentia on April 30, 2012, 08:40:11 AM
Quote from: Philoctetes on April 30, 2012, 08:37:05 AM
Yes, the context is part and parcel with the phrase. Simply because an older form was utilized, does not negate the time frame from which it was composed. I would view it under the auspice of appropriation, which is easily a modern, if not postmodern idea. Sherrie Levine demonstrated this in the realm of photography.

Music is organisation of sound; commercial goals or lack thereof and "context" have nothing to do with that. In what ways has Pärt gone beyond Darmstadt?
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Philoctetes on April 30, 2012, 08:44:52 AM
Quote from: Sequentia on April 30, 2012, 08:40:11 AM
Music is organisation of sound; commercial goals or lack thereof and "context" have nothing to do with that. In what ways has Pärt gone beyond Darmstadt?

Well I don't know where the commercial part comes in, but I would strongly disagree with you that context doesn't matter, as I pointed out with Levine.

Beyond? I don't even know what that phrase is supposed to mean here.

Part is simply composing in his vein, how he interprets the contemporary scene. I'd wager that all composers see their times differently than other composers who also might be composing in their era.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Sequentia on April 30, 2012, 08:54:20 AM
Quote from: Philoctetes on April 30, 2012, 08:44:52 AM
Well I don't know where the commercial part comes in, but I would strongly disagree with you that context doesn't matter, as I pointed out with Levine.

Beyond? I don't even know what that phrase is supposed to mean here.

Part is simply composing in his vein, how he interprets the contemporary scene. I'd wager that all composers see their times differently than other composers who also might be composing in their era.

It seems to me that we are having a misunderstanding. I'm using "contemporary" to mean "modernist", not "done recently". Modernism would be a rejection of the past - the syntax of various works by Cage or Stockhausen would fall into that realm, while Pärt would not. How about that?
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Philoctetes on April 30, 2012, 08:58:49 AM
Quote from: Sequentia on April 30, 2012, 08:54:20 AM
It seems to me that we are having a misunderstanding. I'm using "contemporary" to mean "modernist", not "done recently". Modernism would be a rejection of the past - the syntax of various works by Cage or Stockhausen would fall into that realm, while Pärt would not. How about that?

You're completely free to constrict definitions so that they suit you. I think I mentioned that in a previous post, but I don't even think you could support the definition that you've offered yourself, especially with the claims of beyond and progress, which I think are simply bollocks.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Sequentia on April 30, 2012, 09:26:10 AM
Quote from: Philoctetes on April 30, 2012, 08:58:49 AMYou're completely free to constrict definitions so that they suit you.

"Suit"? In what way? Am I becoming famous? Winning the lottery?

Quote from: Philoctetes on April 30, 2012, 08:58:49 AMI think I mentioned that in a previous post

Mentioned what?

Quote from: Philoctetes on April 30, 2012, 08:58:49 AMI think are simply bollocks.

Your problem.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Sammy on April 30, 2012, 09:41:04 AM
Quote from: Sequentia on April 30, 2012, 08:54:20 AM
It seems to me that we are having a misunderstanding. I'm using "contemporary" to mean "modernist", not "done recently".

Then you should dump "contemporary" and use "modernist". 
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: albedo on April 30, 2012, 12:03:37 PM
Quote from: DavidW on April 29, 2012, 08:42:18 PM (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=20431.msg625023#msg625023)
No because it's untrue.


Would you have nice examples? I was generalizing, so simply one composer once (glass)...more looking for bodies of work across multiple composers.

Could part of the modernist issue be similar to watching  a five minute clip of a live Phish or Greatful Dead concert?  That unless audience is 'there' from ground zero, the impact is a little lost? That unless we know, and have watched, a composer grow, all we hear are door squeaks, violins tuning, windows slamming, having missed the process that brought us to that point?



contemporary to me is kinda zzz
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: The Six on April 30, 2012, 04:23:05 PM
I think the "inaccessible" thing about new music doesn't just refer to the music itself. Audiences have no context to put it in, which is the same problem contemporary music has always had. Even if you're not a Berlioz aficionado, you know what you're getting into if you're going to a performance of his music. Who knows where Joe Microtones is coming from when listening to his Meditation on the Colour Purple? Most people don't want to have to read a novella of program notes just to get grounded in a piece. Call it laziness, stubbornness, or whatever, but it's a preemptive roadblock that inhibits acceptance of new music.

Concerts of modern music are full of unrecognizable names and pieces with complex titles. Simply titling a piece by its medium ("String Quartet") is not fashionable. And if the program has works from five composers, it's likely you'll get five completely different-sounding pieces.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: jlaurson on April 30, 2012, 04:29:10 PM
Quote from: eyeresist on April 29, 2012, 08:32:05 PM
Funny how Schoenberg is still "contemporary".

There is some good new stuff amongst the academic dreck, but the time and money you need to spend to find it isn't worth it, from my point of view. Especially as there's so much "old" music I haven't heard yet.

I had a wonderful conversation with a 90 (!) year old woman after a performance of the Berlin Philharmonic (Webern-Berg-Schoenberg) in Salzburg. http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2010/09/notes-from-salzburg-festival-15th-and.html (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2010/09/notes-from-salzburg-festival-15th-and.html)
QuoteOutside the Festspielhaus an old but sharp lady approached me, shaking her head about that 'modern, newfangled music', and how she could not be expected to like it, or applaud after it. Since I wasn't going to pretend to agree, I tried to make the Second Viennese School slightly more palatable to her in the gentlest terms possible, suggesting that if she—by her own admission—could find it impressive or even rousing, just not beautiful, she was already three quarters of the way down the road to appreciating it. 'Beauty', in the conventional sense, isn't the point of these works, but then that isn't the point of something like Le Sacre (which she likes), either. And I couldn't help point out that, and I went about this tactfully, the music she just heard and found so awfully 'new' was older even than she. There we are: A century later, Schoenberg, Webern, and Berg are still poster boys for "New" music.

Re: Tom Service:

It's really a rather sloppy article... especially points 2 & 4. 

The accessibility of the Beatle's deliberately primitive pop is hardly a great argument for how accessible Stockhausen is, however much he influenced certain aspects of their (or others') music. And it doesn't make Ferneyhough easy listening, either.

Much the same goes for simply claiming contemporary music is not irrelevant and then citing non-classical music as the reason behind it. In fact, it weakens the argument.

Point 5 finally is a classic straw-man. Come up with an absurd question, then debunk it. Hooray! Victory.

"All his music was composed with social and political consciousness at its heart." Oh Gawd... that's usually the worst music. Just think Henze. Whenever he becomes political, the music turns shite. Ditto Eisler. Hanns Eisler–Music as a Weapon (http://www.weta.org/oldfmblog/?p=536) Or Dessau. http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2010/05/reviewed-not-necessarily-recommended_15.html (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2010/05/reviewed-not-necessarily-recommended_15.html)

It takes more effort, and a bit of intelligence, and acknowledgement of the first half of your second point ("There is some good new stuff amongst the academic dreck, but the time and money you need to spend to find it isn't worth it, from my point of view. Especially as there's so much "old" music I haven't heard yet.") to make the case for contemporary music.

I agree with you that it takes time and money to wade through the stuff, but I disagree with you about whether it's worth it -- if you meant that as a general, rather than personal, statement. It's hugely important not to let classical music become a taxidermist's effigy... and contemporary music (and challenging the ears) is part of that. If that's true for any type of music, it's also true for classical. And frankly, there's so much bona-fide excellent contemporary classical music out there (especially now, that the ideological trench-warfare of the avant-gardists has become a thing of the albeit recent past) that it doesn't take that much time and effort.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: DavidW on April 30, 2012, 05:01:19 PM
That was a great post Jens.  Especially since you trashed the thing with the Beatles, I also thought that was just absurd.  There are compelling arguments to get people into contemporary classical, that article just didn't present any of them. >:D
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: The Six on April 30, 2012, 05:54:54 PM
Quote from: James on April 30, 2012, 04:53:35 PM
Fresh blood, fresh voices, creative titles, musical variety, new experiences; ..

...can all be intimidating to people.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: eyeresist on April 30, 2012, 06:08:23 PM
Quote from: James on April 30, 2012, 08:09:44 AMNo one here really said Schoenberg was contemporary .. he was only used to clear up a common misconception that extends to contemporary music in general; eyeresist didn't follow .. spitting out a common cliche too .. that it's mainly all "academic dreck" ..and also stating that spending time learning about the music of recent history is a "waste of time" .. 

This is what you inferred, not what I actually said.


Quote from: Sequentia on April 30, 2012, 08:15:41 AMThey are not contemporary because their works are fairly conservative, when compared to compositions such as Boulez's 2nd Piano Sonata or Stockhausen's 10th Piano Piece - works that are several decades old. I was making reference to musical progress, not chronology.

So Bach and Brahms were never contemporary?

Musical progress = BS. It's not science or medicine. The new discoveries do not invalidate the old ways, they only expand the possibilities.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: eyeresist on April 30, 2012, 06:29:35 PM
Quote from: James on April 30, 2012, 06:20:27 PMNice try .. but it was the gist of what you did say and meant.

Wow, so you can figure what I meant to say better than I can? I'm betting you are a big conspiracy theorist too.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Scion7 on April 30, 2012, 06:42:35 PM
Quote from: James on April 30, 2012, 06:38:47 PM
... more than ever before.

Easy, easy - I know you love the noise experiment stuff but that's just a viewpoint.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: eyeresist on April 30, 2012, 06:48:24 PM
Quote from: James on April 30, 2012, 06:38:47 PMI agree with your 2nd pt. in that much still can be learned from history; but the expansion of a musical vocabulary is a form of progress (in the sense that it's not static), all you have to do is look back to the earliest notated gregorian chant all the way through to today's modern electroacoustics etc.; we've come along way and there has been an enormous widening of the territory & field of music in all aspects & parameters .. and there are many, many mathematical and scientific aspects to sound & music as well; which really began to take off in the 2nd half of the 20th century which helped open up new doors to whole new areas to be explored by composers in greater depth, more than ever before.

Good Lord, a point of agreement. The world's gone mad!

I wonder if you know the music of Avet Terterian at all? His later symphonies use recordings, multiple phonographs, etc. He's a modernist I can get behind.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: kishnevi on April 30, 2012, 07:04:41 PM
Quote from: Sequentia on April 30, 2012, 08:34:01 AM
So if I were to sit down and compose a "Missa Papae Marcelli", it would be contemporary, simply because it was composed in 2012?

Actually, there are living composers who do compose Latin Church music intended for liturgical use.  Here's one, who writes a capella but is not afraid of modern harmonic (non-harmonic) language: besides motets, a Mass for St. Maximilian Kolbe.  (For the non liturgically inclined, there's also a bunch of secular instrumental and vocal pieces).

http://blog.case.edu/jeffrey.quick/podcasts/index

(Just to be aboveboard: he's a cyberfriend of mine, which is why I'm familiar with his work in particular.  But he's not the only composer alive doing work like this.)
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: kishnevi on April 30, 2012, 07:11:22 PM
Quote from: James on April 30, 2012, 06:38:47 PM
I agree with your 2nd pt. in that much still can be learned from history; but the expansion of a musical vocabulary is a form of progress (in the sense that it's not static), all you have to do is look back to the earliest notated gregorian chant all the way through to today's modern electroacoustics etc.; we've come along way and there has been an enormous widening of the territory & field of music in all aspects & parameters .. and there are many, many mathematical and scientific aspects to sound & music as well; which really began to take off in the 2nd half of the 20th century which helped open up new doors to whole new areas to be explored by composers in greater depth, more than ever before.

But perhaps there's a point at which music stops being music and becomes simply (I'm calling it this simply because I can't think of a better term, so feel free to supply an alternate) organized noise.

And, since we have no idea of what the music of the later 21st century will sound like,  we have to bear in mind that much of 20th century music may turn out, in the long term, to be a detour or even backwater, and that much of what people might now declare to be progress will be fundamentally irrelevant to the course of classical music in the future. 
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Philoctetes on April 30, 2012, 07:14:09 PM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on April 30, 2012, 07:11:22 PM
And, since we have no idea of what the music of the later 21st century will sound like,  we have to bear in mind that much of 20th century music may turn out, in the long term, to be a detour or even backwater, and that much of what people might now declare to be progress will be fundamentally irrelevant to the course of classical music in the future.

But does this really matter? Perhaps I don't care enough about the craft, but for me, as long as it is bringing enjoyment to a class of people. That makes it worthwhile. I mean most classical music is forgotten.

Edit: These are the kind of things in which I love the insights of Karl, Luke, etc.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: kishnevi on April 30, 2012, 07:39:59 PM
Quote from: Philoctetes on April 30, 2012, 07:14:09 PM
But does this really matter? Perhaps I don't care enough about the craft, but for me, as long as it is bringing enjoyment to a class of people. That makes it worthwhile. I mean most classical music is forgotten.

Edit: These are the kind of things in which I love the insights of Karl, Luke, etc.

It matters only in the sense that people shouldn't automatically slap the label of "progress" or "music of the future" on it.  James might say that Stockhausen represents the way that music will grow through the 21st century,  I think that Stockhausen will end up being as well remembered as John Blitheman or Lambert Chaumont.  (Who are they?  I have no idea, other than one piece by each appears in the Gustav Leonhardt organ budget box of which I finished the first run through tonight--the former being 16th century (English, I assume) and the latter 17th/very early 18th century (French or Low Countries, apparently)--and that obscurity is why I chose them for the comparison.)  Which one of us is right? If we're alive in a century or so,  maybe we'll know.  Until then,  the portion of your post which I bolded definitely applies.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Philoctetes on April 30, 2012, 07:44:25 PM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on April 30, 2012, 07:39:59 PM
It matters only in the sense that people shouldn't automatically slap the label of "progress" or "music of the future" on it.  James might say that Stockhausen represents the way that music will grow through the 21st century,  I think that Stockhausen will end up being as well remembered as John Blitheman or Lambert Chaumont.  (Who are they?  I have no idea, other than one piece by each appears in the Gustav Leonhardt organ budget box of which I finished the first run through tonight--the former being 16th century (English, I assume) and the latter 17th/very early 18th century (French or Low Countries, apparently)--and that obscurity is why I chose them for the comparison.)  Which one of us is right? If we're alive in a century or so,  maybe we'll know.  Until then,  the portion of your post which I bolded definitely applies.

I agree with all of this. I mean I would assume, safely I think, that Stockhausen will be recalled a century from now, but, of course, we can't know it. I find arguments that revolve around ideas of progress, of going beyond, of transcendence, to be quite weak, and almost always lacking a sound foundation.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: kishnevi on April 30, 2012, 08:15:29 PM
Quote from: James on April 30, 2012, 07:59:57 PM
Well we don't have to label anything, but the fact of the matter is things did expand and widen. We do live in an Electronic Age and which direction does that seem to be leading in the last 40 years?. Less or more? And by reading your comments, I don't think you have much experience with music of the 2nd half of the 20th century ..

The music of the Electronic Age does not necessarily have to be Electronic Music.

As for your last statement,  I'll answer this way.  AND PLEASE BEAR IN MIND THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION AND NOTHING MORE.
I've had enough experience to conclude that:
1)That much of the music of the period 1930-1980 is ugly,  will not survive the test of time, and much of it is based intellectual pretension.  At best, it explored new ways of making music which might or might not be fruitful for later generations, but which I think will ultimately be judged a barren era in musical creativity.
2) There has been a general improvement in the last three decades,  because contemporary composers have winnowed out much of the changes which were not worth keeping, and dropped much of the intellectual pretension. 

I have yet to find a composer of the serialism/Darmstadt mold (I'm using those terms in a very broad sense) whom I find worth listening to--the only real exception to that is Ligeti's piano and chamber music.
But I've found a good deal of music produced in the last three decades to be well worth listening to, and usually when I don't like it, it's because  I find it too accessible and too much like pop.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: albedo on April 30, 2012, 08:31:12 PM


Quote from: James on Today at 07:59:57 PM (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=20431.msg625373#msg625373)>Well we don't have to label anything, but the fact of the matter is things did expand and widen. We do live in an Electronic Age and which direction does that seem to be leading in the last 40 years?. Less or more?


i agree completely!  truly contemporary composition will be unlike any composition of the past 600 years in that there need be no players nor conductor just an audience....not there yet of course and this does not diminish the concert experience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivxt2Pt4AI8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivxt2Pt4AI8)

Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: albedo on May 01, 2012, 02:00:03 AM


Quote from: James on April 30, 2012, 08:57:40 PM (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?topic=20431.msg625385#msg625385)>
where have you been? this has been happening for awhile now with electronic music .. an elaborate sound system installation for the ultimate surround sound experience. turn off the lights, sit back, listen. 1 man required at the controls though.


8)
lol...i am more familiar with em then i am with classical! em is still in its infancy; the unrealized potential is enormous and untapped imo.

i say this as there has been no bach, no beethoven, no mozart, no accessible, brilliant compositional force that shines so brightly that all others must squint to see, and that may be because the technology is still coming along.  The communities are still developing, the rules still forming. Part of it could be the difficulty is quite high and usually, not shared among many.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: jlaurson on May 01, 2012, 02:36:41 AM
Quote from: James on April 30, 2012, 05:24:37 PM
I interpreted his pt. another way, besides the influence KS had (studio as instrument etc.) ..  the young lads simply "got it" .. and heard things in Stockhausen that they liked, as do so many (myself included). It's really not inaccessible.. total myth. It's inspirational. He's also tying things back to the source(s) throughout which is nice. I thought Service was direct, passionate, genuine & spot-on .. summing things up broadly quite well.

Well, the argument is still crap. "The Beatles heard something in  Stockhausen. The Beatles are accessible. Therefore Stockhausen is accessible."

Now even if we could agree on what a concept like "accessible" means (frankly, accessible is in the ear of the beholder - for better or worse), that's still not the argument as to whether (or why) Stockhausen is accessible. That's just the "Stockhausen is hugely influential" argument, which no one can deny. Stockhausen is accessible for his own merits (to the extent he is).  It's only a side-show argument why, if he was so influential on others (Zappa is a much better example in any case, because Zappa's music is closer in spirit, playfulness, and occasionally complexity to KS than what my admittedly Beatles-ignorant ears hear in the Liverpudlians), we ought also invest some effort and await the eventual, possible surprise.

And then there's the thing where in your spirited defense of all things modern you begin to generalize and refuse to make concessions. I'm not sure if it helps your argument in practical terms if you seemingly insist that "all" avant-garde music has merit. Or even that all Stockhausen is similarly accessible (or good, which is an even trickier concept). Something truly mesmerizing like Gesang der Jünglinge (even Stimmung or Tierkreis) or Mantra which -- with the right setup live or even canned -- I could maybe get a dozen non-KS-predisposed classical music listeners out of a hundred to appreciate and enjoy) simply cannot be compared to the Wednesday Helicopter Quartet (which I couldn't get a dozen out of a thousand to enjoy in any meaningful sense  -- that is: excluding enjoyment-as-conceit). 

I think the argument should be re-framed as: Contemporary music is worth listening to (especially for the 3rd and 4th time; a one-time listen often doesn't do anything. That it's worth exploring, and that it is worth at least some effort. Really the same arguments why we should listen to 'modern classics' like Schoenberg, Webern, Bartok, Weinberg, Birtwistle, Ives -- which are just as much a closed book to the vast majority of casual classical music listeners.

At the same time there's no point in not admitting that some of it will never yield, no matter the effort... that not all of it is for everyone. That much isn't worth the effort. But we can't know that until afterwards... a few exceptions apart. (If we knew how some works got composed, we could predict failure occasionally.)

Most, if not all the criticism voiced here, has some merit and deserves being addressed, rather than flat-out denied. None of the criticism, as far as I am concerned, is sufficient to suggest that we ought not try to appreciate contemporary classical music. Especially since there are fewer and fewer excuses to do so, with the styles of contemporary music having unprecedented breadth... from the Zamfir-goes-Kenny-G style of Ola Gjeilo to complexity-for-its-own-sake Brian Ferneyhough.

A Salonen Piano Concerto, Jefferson Friedman Quartets (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2011/12/best-recordings-of-2011-7.html), the workd of the NOW Ensemble (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2011/05/dip-your-ears-no-109.html), the super-gorgeous modern romanticism of Fabio Maffei (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2010/12/best-recordings-of-2010-4.html), Udo Zimmermann's Cello Concerto (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2010/12/best-recordings-of-2010-6.html) (a conversion to consonance), much of Thomas Adès' (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0032HKEMM/goodmusicguide-20) work, Avner Dorman Percussion Concerto (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2008/02/ionarts-at-large-martin-grubinger-beats.html), Philippe Manoury (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2007/12/ionarts-at-large-nagano-manoury.html) ("Abgrund"), Daniel Brewbaker's Violin Concerto (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2005/06/repin-in-brewbaker-world-premiere.html), most anything by Kaija Saariaho (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2006/09/plesure-nise-kaija-saariahos-cello.html) (Not everything perhaps ("Katja Saariaho's Spins and Spells for cello ... sounded like creaking pipes in an old apartment building during winter. Or, as the modern music maven in me would want to exclaim: it explored in fascinating intricacy the resonant and textural properties of the cello (scordatura – custom tuned – no less!) while spreading a holistic sound-cloth, tightly woven of metal strands over the audiences' audile receptors. Take your pick." ... but L'amour de loin especially). Peter Lieberson's Neruda Songs (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2006/03/will-real-bso-please-stand-up.html)... Paul Moravec (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2006/09/moravec-and-more-at-contemporary-music.html) is another of my favorites... ditto B.C.S.Boyle (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/search/label/Benjamin%20C.S.%20Boyle) and I love what Michael Nyman does with his de- and re-constructions of Mozart (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0013JZ5TI/goodmusicguide-20).

All of these composers are alive, a lot of them are not scary at all... none are flawless (if Beethoven wasn't, why should they?), a few others are ostensibly 'difficult' and need a different approach (just like Bartok needs a different approach than Mozart, if one is to get anything from his music). I could, with some time and effort, and given willing ears, make a good case for all of them (not that they need me to do that) and they make a great case for the wonderful diversity there is. Point is: Much of this repays the investment of effort manifold... just like other music, too. And half of it doesn't take as much effort as Wagner does.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: DavidW on May 01, 2012, 04:28:45 AM
The only influence I've heard from the avant garde is revolution 9, which is the song that most people skip so I don't know.  The Beatles were also very adventurous in their instrumentation, but the same is also true for The Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin.  It was just a good time to be making music.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Karl Henning on May 01, 2012, 05:02:30 AM
Quote from: jlaurson on April 30, 2012, 04:29:10 PM
I had a wonderful conversation with a 90 (!) year old woman after a performance of the Berlin Philharmonic (Webern-Berg-Schoenberg) in Salzburg. http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2010/09/notes-from-salzburg-festival-15th-and.html (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2010/09/notes-from-salzburg-festival-15th-and.html)
Re: Tom Service:

It's really a rather sloppy article... especially points 2 & 4. 

The accessibility of the Beatle's deliberately primitive pop is hardly a great argument for how accessible Stockhausen is, however much he influenced certain aspects of their (or others') music. And it doesn't make Ferneyhough easy listening, either.

Much the same goes for simply claiming contemporary music is not irrelevant and then citing non-classical music as the reason behind it. In fact, it weakens the argument.

Point 5 finally is a classic straw-man. Come up with an absurd question, then debunk it. Hooray! Victory.

"All his music was composed with social and political consciousness at its heart." Oh Gawd... that's usually the worst music. Just think Henze. Whenever he becomes political, the music turns shite. Ditto Eisler. Hanns Eisler–Music as a Weapon (http://www.weta.org/oldfmblog/?p=536) Or Dessau. http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2010/05/reviewed-not-necessarily-recommended_15.html (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2010/05/reviewed-not-necessarily-recommended_15.html)

It takes more effort, and a bit of intelligence, and acknowledgement of the first half of your second point ("There is some good new stuff amongst the academic dreck, but the time and money you need to spend to find it isn't worth it, from my point of view. Especially as there's so much "old" music I haven't heard yet.") to make the case for contemporary music.

I agree with you that it takes time and money to wade through the stuff, but I disagree with you about whether it's worth it -- if you meant that as a general, rather than personal, statement. It's hugely important not to let classical music become a taxidermist's effigy... and contemporary music (and challenging the ears) is part of that. If that's true for any type of music, it's also true for classical. And frankly, there's so much bona-fide excellent contemporary classical music out there (especially now, that the ideological trench-warfare of the avant-gardists has become a thing of the albeit recent past) that it doesn't take that much time and effort.

As Davey said, well done, Jens!

Quote from: eyeresist on April 30, 2012, 06:08:23 PM
Musical progress = BS. It's not science or medicine. The new discoveries do not invalidate the old ways, they only expand the possibilities.

Another excellent point.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Karl Henning on May 01, 2012, 05:05:50 AM
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on April 30, 2012, 08:15:29 PM
1)That much of the music of the period 1930-1980 is ugly,  will not survive the test of time, and much of it is based intellectual pretension.  At best, it explored new ways of making music which might or might not be fruitful for later generations, but which I think will ultimately be judged a barren era in musical creativity.

I should draw the distinction (and I think, Jeffrey, you would be apt to agree . . . I think it's an accident of phrasing here) that the judgement of barren may fall upon a branch of music from that era, but that there is music from that time which will endure.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Karl Henning on May 01, 2012, 05:08:46 AM
Quote from: DavidW on May 01, 2012, 04:28:45 AM
The only influence I've heard from the avant garde is revolution 9, which is the song that most people skip so I don't know.

Mine is certainly a minority opinion, but I actually think "Revolution 9" better than the consensus treats it.

Not that I think it one of the greatest pieces of music written that year, necessarily . . . .
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Scion7 on May 01, 2012, 05:17:03 AM
Quote from: karlhenning on May 01, 2012, 05:08:46 AM
Mine is certainly a minority opinion, but I actually think "Revolution 9" better than the consensus treats it.

Not that I think it one of the greatest pieces of music written that year, necessarily . . . .


Yeah but it got a lot of attention when the THE BEATLES came out - I remember it coming on while I was going over the poster that came inside and immediately thinking John's been into the acid again.  :-)  And at school everyone was talking about it, and of course, many of the other songs. 

I'm glad you made the point of separating the noise/tape loop experiments from the rest of the 20th century music, Karl.  Before M.I. came in and went postal about Shostakovich or others.  :P

Varese will survive.  Stockhausen was an influence on early Tangerine Dream and Can and others, but I don't see the record companies moving many units of his works!  And John Cage's stuff should be burned, the ashes stirred, and burned again - just to be safe!
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Karl Henning on May 01, 2012, 05:22:06 AM
Quote from: Scion7 on May 01, 2012, 05:17:03 AM
Yeah but it got a lot of attention when the THE BEATLES came out - I remember it coming on while I was going over the poster that came inside and immediately thinking John's been into the acid again.  :-)  And at school everyone was talking about it, and of course, many of the other songs.

There was a time when I thought that the problem with the track was, that it interrupted the flow of the album, that it brusquely subverted expectations.

Now, I am inclined to think that a signal virtue.  And of course, the transition from "Revolution 9" to "Good Night" is one of the (many) iconic Beatles touches.  For those of us who still remember things like the flow of an album
; )
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: jlaurson on May 01, 2012, 05:25:04 AM
Quote from: Scion7 on May 01, 2012, 05:17:03 AM

Varese will survive.  Stockhausen was an influence on early Tangerine Dream and Can and others, but I don't see the record companies moving many units of his works!  And John Cage's stuff should be burned, the ashes stirred, and burned again - just to be safe!

Agreed on Varese, who is awesome. Cage? a.) Nothing should be burned... that's the great beauty of choice. It can just be ignored. And should be, by anyone not liking it or thinking it absurd and silly. (Much of which I'd never argue with.) But then there are works like String Quartet for Four Parts ... and voila... that can be exciting music under the right circumstances.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Mirror Image on May 01, 2012, 07:41:46 AM
Quote from: Scion7 on May 01, 2012, 05:17:03 AM
Before M.I. came in and went postal about Shostakovich or others.  :P

Does...not...compute...

Do you know the meaning of "going postal"? It's an angry rant sometimes even leading to violence. I've never ranted against Shostakovich. I only praise him and continue to do so because he's my favorite composer.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: albedo on May 01, 2012, 07:45:28 AM
the effect of listening is a great reason why no composition should be destroyed or ignored


if only to say "this is poop, this is not", every piece written, ever, from forgotten chants from 15,000 years ago--and lets face it, chants from the time of spoken language would be equivalent to literacy of today--to abstract electronic pieces, each helps push and build the total sum of human output, where the whole truly is bigger then the sum of the parts.


equally, contemporary composers, in the sense of composers being alive at the same time, can serve to push a output  forward to greatness as I imagine Beethoven would have thought of Mozart "i would like to be as good as he" or inspire a composer to produce in the first place "I can do better then *that*".


And if it takes a 100 years of poop to get the utterly sublime...I will take that trade over stagnation and nothingness.


We can still gripe about the poop however!

note -- I am not trying to imply that there is relative value between works, however from a composer's perspective surely they see music w/many different qualities, of more then good or bad, even if the only really redeeming quality left is the bravery of someone sharing. Might each positive creative quality change the mind, like medicine, and thus change the future of composition?










Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Philoctetes on May 01, 2012, 07:56:02 AM
Quote from: DavidW on May 01, 2012, 04:28:45 AM
The only influence I've heard from the avant garde is revolution 9, which is the song that most people skip so I don't know.  The Beatles were also very adventurous in their instrumentation, but the same is also true for The Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin.  It was just a good time to be making music.

I think the influence shows more clearly in their solo careers, especially that of Lennon (hints of LaMonte Young etc. )
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: starrynight on May 01, 2012, 08:17:48 AM
I'm still trying to work out why it is I should care less about what stereotypes some people have.  Those who wish to make the effort will find things they like, those who don't won't.  It comes from within not outside.  This kind of music isn't mainstream and it's unlikely ever to be so.  Indeed some art music is likely to be extreme enough in it's trying of new directions that it will necessarily be derisive, it's then up to people in the future to decide if those directions can be worth further exploration or not.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: starrynight on May 01, 2012, 11:03:50 AM
Why does it have to be a bad thing not having dominant figures?
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Karl Henning on May 01, 2012, 11:48:45 AM
Quote from: starrynight on May 01, 2012, 11:03:50 AM
Why does it have to be a bad thing not having dominant figures?

I'm not sure that's how you meant to express it.  Certainly there were (as there have always been) dominant musical figures in the 20th century. Claiming that there were not, would be blinkered. : )
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: The Six on May 01, 2012, 11:59:48 AM
Quote from: James on April 30, 2012, 06:20:27 PM
Quote from: The Six on April 30, 2012, 05:54:54 PM
...can all be intimidating to people.
Which people? You?

No. I was trying to explain why I think audiences are turned off by contemporary concerts. I ain't talkin' 'bout me.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: starrynight on May 01, 2012, 12:37:57 PM
Quote from: karlhenning on May 01, 2012, 11:48:45 AM
I'm not sure that's how you meant to express it.  Certainly there were (as there have always been) dominant musical figures in the 20th century. Claiming that there were not, would be blinkered. : )

Probably less in the second half of the 20th century, which is what we are talking about here I guess.  Nobody probably as dominant as say Beethoven was in his time.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: jlaurson on May 01, 2012, 12:46:52 PM
Quote from: starrynight on May 01, 2012, 12:37:57 PM... Nobody probably as dominant as say Beethoven was in his time.

you mean: Beethoven was in our time.  ;)
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Philoctetes on May 01, 2012, 12:51:24 PM
Quote from: jlaurson on May 01, 2012, 12:46:52 PM
you mean: Beethoven was in our time.  ;)

I was about to point this out. Some historical revisionism going on in this topic.
Title: Re: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Karl Henning on May 01, 2012, 12:55:44 PM
Quote from: starrynight on May 01, 2012, 12:37:57 PM
Probably less in the second half of the 20th century, which is what we are talking about here I guess.  Nobody probably as dominant as say Beethoven was in his time.

Of course, there are still dominant figures in music; but, as you suggest, there has probably not been a single dominant figure in music since, oh let us say, Wagner.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Scion7 on May 01, 2012, 02:00:35 PM
You mean, along with Bach, probably the greatest composer of all time?

I doubt it.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Scion7 on May 01, 2012, 03:37:22 PM
Quote from: Philoctetes on May 01, 2012, 12:51:24 PM
I was about to point this out. Some historical revisionism going on in this topic.

Well, in Vienna, his reputation was pretty much set at the time of the Ninth - but I would say from at least Schumann's time (and his writings in his musical newspaper), Beethoven was more or less regarded the same as now.  Look at how he was worshipped by both the sides of the Romantic composers.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: kishnevi on May 01, 2012, 05:19:27 PM
Quote from: James on May 01, 2012, 01:12:35 PM
I think there are 20th century composers (1st-half & 2nd) who will be remembered as Beethoven is remembered.

Inevitably so, if you mean that they represent major influences and what might be called flex points in the development of musical style,  as Beethoven was in the era which started as Classical and ended up Romantic.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: kishnevi on May 01, 2012, 05:35:38 PM
Quote from: karlhenning on May 01, 2012, 05:05:50 AM
I should draw the distinction (and I think, Jeffrey, you would be apt to agree . . . I think it's an accident of phrasing here) that the judgement of barren may fall upon a branch of music from that era, but that there is music from that time which will endure.

Well, I did say "much", and in another post I tried to be clear that my not-liking is focused on the sort of compositions associated with serialism, Darmstadt, and that sort of approach to music (in a general way) --and even then, there are pockets I actually like (Ligeti's chamber music and solo piano works,  Carter's string quartets.  But Shostakovich, after all, deserves the appellation of modern/contemporary as much as Stockhausen.  His last works, like SQ 15, were written less than forty years ago; he died the year I graduated high school.

And I picked on the date 1980 because I think in the last few decades there's been a positive development,  in that what is good in serialism/Darmstadt/etc.  has been taken up and worked sort of in tandem with more tonal oriented  methods--the excesses tamed and the sometimes cultish approach (in which some composers thought that the public liking their work was a bad thing) tossed aside.  I gave (not quite random, but chosen because it's a recent listening experience) Corigliano's Symphony No. 1 a first listen the other day, and found it to be an outstanding work--but it couldn't really have been written without the lessons learned from Boulez and company.

Which is of course a long winded way of saying,  you're right!
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: CRCulver on May 02, 2012, 08:40:51 AM
Quote from: Sequentia on April 30, 2012, 08:40:11 AM
In what ways has Pärt gone beyond Darmstadt?

Pärt's Passio manages to sound like ancient music, but it is one of the most strictly serialized pieces I've ever heard (and I listen to a lot of Darmstadt). It's a work of synthesis that combines earlier styles to make something new. I think it's fair to consider it progress from some perspective.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: not edward on May 02, 2012, 09:29:44 AM
Quote from: CRCulver on May 02, 2012, 08:40:51 AM
Pärt's Passio manages to sound like ancient music, but it is one of the most strictly serialized pieces I've ever heard (and I listen to a lot of Darmstadt). It's a work of synthesis that combines earlier styles to make something new. I think it's fair to consider it progress from some perspective.
This is probably more an extension of procedures learnt through thorough study of early music, though (something that could be said of some of the Darmstadt composers--Ligeti perhaps being the most glaring example, but others as well).
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: mszczuj on May 03, 2012, 02:42:16 AM
Quote from: TheGSMoeller on April 28, 2012, 08:21:52 AM
Most of the criticism concerning contemporary classical music I've come across, is from those who really haven't spent much time with this era.

As my experience shows most of the criticism concerning any classical music I've come across, is from those who really haven't spent much time with this very music. Well, in fact I suppose that just all the criticism.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: jlaurson on May 03, 2012, 03:20:40 AM
Quote from: CRCulver on May 02, 2012, 08:40:51 AM
Pärt's Passio manages to sound like ancient music, but it is one of the most strictly serialized pieces I've ever heard (and I listen to a lot of Darmstadt). It's a work of synthesis that combines earlier styles to make something new. I think it's fair to consider it progress from some perspective.

That's decidedly not how Pärt's development was considered by the 'Darmstadt-ians. Interpret into it what you will, and add the fact that the lessons Pärt learned were obviously not 'unlearned', but his is a key-moment in the development away from 'Darmstadt' -- one of the first prominent cases of turning their back on the avant-garde aesthetic that ruled at the time. There's a clear trend that can be traced, and re-occurring themes are religiosity (!), minority status within one's culture, and not-being-French-or-German.

http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2011/08/1930s-club-of-defiance-soviet-harmonies.html (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2011/08/1930s-club-of-defiance-soviet-harmonies.html)
QuoteSilvestrov was considered a leading representative of the ,,Kiev avant-garde," completely at odds with the prevalent Soviet musical aesthetic and therefore the officials. Successful performances in the West – and honorable mention in Ulrich Dibelius' German standard on modern music "Moderne Musik Nach 1945"– didn't help to endear the young composer to the apparatchiks.

When Silvestrov gradually yet radically switched styles—from conventional dodecaphony via avant-gardism to his 'metaphorical style' with a strong mystic bent, also dubbed "new traditionalism" or "neo-romantic"—that too didn't sit well with the official guardians of musical style. Said Dibelius, in a later revision of his book, slagged Silvestrov off as a "regressive 'mystical' poet" when only a few years earlier he had still been a promising "serial-progressive". (It is not known, but reasonable to assume, that Dibelius got ekzema at the mere thought of C Major or B Minor.) In the Western musicological world his turn from avant-gardism was considered a turn from art to tosh.

Silvestrov started composing in a style saturated with musical reminiscence. One of his foremost tools is simplicity but not (though the accusation has been made,) banality. The style certainly resonated with audiences. Sofia Gubaidulina wrote about Silvestrov: "People will say his musical language is too simple. But this simplicity is deceiving. It contains a wonderful depth. And this simplicity is truly new – it is a new musical language." The record company ECM (again) thought so too, and recordings of Silvestrov's music have done the label well and spread Silvestrov's music near and far... perhaps nearly as much as did Gidon Kremer. Also not a Russian but a Latvian and also forced to seek exile in Germany (like Pärt, Schnittke, Gubaidulina)—his importance for all these composers cannot be overstated. Many of Silvestrov's works are dedicated to Kremer and/or were premiered, recorded, and continuously championed by him.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: some guy on May 03, 2012, 03:47:04 AM
Quote from: jlaurson on May 03, 2012, 03:20:40 AMone of the first prominent cases of turning their back on the avant-garde aesthetic that ruled at the time. There's a clear trend that can be traced
Six myths.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: San Antone on February 18, 2014, 05:00:59 AM
Bump.

Good thread, but I cannot help but feel that Tom Service adds nothing to the discussion and while alluding to it, does not confront the 800 pound gorilla in the room that makes his article and ones like it irrelevant:  there is no one kind of contemporary music.  Contemporary music cannot be defined as one thing, the spectrum is too wide, the differences too great.  The only thing, I think, one can say is that during the 20th, and now the 21st century, stylistic freedom is common practice.  And I would go on to say that there is something for everyone.
Title: Re: The five myths about contemporary classical music
Post by: Karl Henning on February 18, 2014, 06:04:52 AM
Quote from: sanantonio on February 18, 2014, 05:00:59 AM
Bump.

Good thread, but I cannot help but feel that Tom Service adds nothing to the discussion and while alluding to it, does not confront the 800 pound gorilla in the room that makes his article and ones like it irrelevant:  there is no one kind of contemporary music.  Contemporary music cannot be defined as one thing, the spectrum is too wide, the differences too great.  The only thing, I think, one can say is that during the 20th, and now the 21st century, stylistic freedom is common practice.  And I would go on to say that there is something for everyone.

+ 1