Balancing "Contemporary" and Older Eras

[monafam]

I have mostly stayed on the Composer Discussion side of things, but one of my exchanges led me to think about my growing interest in more "contemporary" (flawed term, but I hope you know what I mean) music.  While I struggle at appreciating it, there is a part of me that is starting to see it's beauty and passion.

I guess this thread is two-fold.

1)  How do I gain a better appreciation of more contemporary works (or perhaps it's all about "listen, listen, listen" as stated to me on the Composer Discussion side of things.

2) For those of you that truly appreciate all eras of this music, how do you balance the old with the new; the traditional with the modern; the apparent harmony of some with the surface dissonance of others?   

Thanks in advance, and hopefully this makes some sense! 

[DavidW]

Start at the beginning and work in chronological order.  Listen to the transition Schoenberg made from Romanticism to Modernism and it will help.  If you don't like a composer, it doesn't mean that you don't like modernism, just as a Bach fan is not apathetic to baroque if he doesn't care for Vivaldi.  If you like a composer, find out about composers similar in style.  You might find a little niche of composers that you like. 

[71 dB]

1)  How do I gain a better appreciation of more contemporary works (or perhaps it's all about "listen, listen, listen" as stated to me on the Composer Discussion side of things.

You don't have to gain a better appreciation of anything. Keep music fun and interesting for yourself. This is one damn forum that makes people feel inferior when we should just enjoy the music we like.

2) For those of you that truly appreciate all eras of this music, how do you balance the old with the new; the traditional with the modern; the apparent harmony of some with the surface dissonance of others?

Why should there be a certain balance? I buy and listen to the stuff I like/am interested of. I don't care if it makes things balanced or not.

[jochanaan]

Welcome!  It sounds like you're seriously interested in integrating "modern music" with the "established classics."  Well, there's a lot to integrate!

...1)  How do I gain a better appreciation of more contemporary works (or perhaps it's all about "listen, listen, listen" as stated to me on the Composer Discussion side of things.

First, find something you really like.  (What have you heard?)  Then go from there.  If you are in love with, say, The Rite of Spring, work back and forward with Stravinsky's music, then possibly try other ballet music.  If you like Hovhaness' blend of East and West, look for other composers such as Pärt that strive for a similar blend.  Or if you're getting fascinated with the Second Viennese School (Schoenberg, Berg and Webern), check out some more recent twelve-tone music and some that uses the serial method more extensively, perhaps Babbitt or Boulez.  And sometimes simply picking something up that looks interesting will be very rewarding.  It's mostly a matter of broadening your acquaintance.

2) For those of you that truly appreciate all eras of this music, how do you balance the old with the new; the traditional with the modern; the apparent harmony of some with the surface dissonance of others?   

What's to reconcile?  Bach was aiming for one thing with his music, Beethoven another, and Varèse yet another.  My love for the moderns, which as many GMG'ers know is long-standing and permanent, in no way cancels my love for the earlier masters.  But my definition of music is both simpler and broader than that of many here.  I define music simply as organized sound.  That covers the whole span, and it also means I have few preconceptions about "what's music" or "what's musical."

[karlhenning]

You don't have to gain a better appreciation of anything. Keep music fun and interesting for yourself.

Poju, you've gone of the rails with one of your false dichotomies again.  Gaining a better appreciation is one mode of keeping music fun and interesting for oneself.

[monafam]

Thanks for the replies and it certainly makes sense.  Maybe the issue is that I haven't delved into contemporary works a great deal.  

This will probably make sense, but there is a little concern that I may lose some of the interest in some of the music I like from older eras.  As I said...it probable doesn't make sense at all.  

Also, I sometimes have trouble knowing where to start.  I've added more (I like Hovhaness, Part, MacMillan, etc. etc.), but I might go with the standard rather than branching out in a new (potentially exciting) composer.  I also feel if I understand it a little better, I can appreciate it more. 

[71 dB]

Poju, you've gone of the rails with one of your false dichotomies again.  Gaining a better appreciation is one mode of keeping music fun and interesting for oneself.

This forum is awful! Whatever i say there someone replying with this "false dichotomies" -bullshit as if I was a complete idiot. I don't even like it that my real name is used. I prefer 71 dB.

Karl, go and see Tangerine Dream forum to see what a friendly forum is about.

[DavidW]

Thanks for the replies and it certainly makes sense.  Maybe the issue is that I haven't delved into contemporary works a great deal.  

This will probably make sense, but there is a little concern that I may lose some of the interest in some of the music I like from older eras.  As I said...it probable doesn't make sense at all.  

Also, I sometimes have trouble knowing where to start.  I've added more (I like Hovhaness, Part, MacMillan, etc. etc.), but I might go with the standard rather than branching out in a new (potentially exciting) composer.  I also feel if I understand it a little better, I can appreciate it more. 

That's fantastic!  The 2nd Viennese School is deeply romantic in spirit, and also it's fairly easy to track several different branches of the tree that start with them.  You'll have a better feeling for which branches you like and where it came from.

[karlhenning]

This forum is awful! Whatever i say there someone replying with this "false dichotomies" -bullshit as if I was a complete idiot.

What do you mean, as if you were? 

Karl, go and see Tangerine Dream forum to see what a friendly forum is about.

My friends are all around here, Poju; and I have no interest in Tangerine Dream 

[Sid]

Well, I think that I am a fairly eclectic listener. The reason why I like to listen to a variety of music (& not only classical) is because there is so much difference & contrast between the different styles. But there are also many ways they overlap, for example how both earlier & modern composers incorporate counterpoint & fugues into their music. I'm also interested in non-Western currents in classical music, like Hovhaness mentioned above, but also composers from Japan, Australia, and South America. I think I love the diversity and contrasts, but also recognise the correspondances. Although I do prefer C20th music generally, I would hate to be always stuck in that era (even though I like it very much). Some of the earlier composers I like are Haydn, Berlioz, Bizet & Gounod. I think that there is such a rich variety available today that it would be a pity if I just got stuck listening to music from one era or only from Western Europe...

[Gurn Blanston]

Suggestions like Jo's are very useful. Another way to approach it is to find a genre you like (for me it was violin concertos and string quartets) and listen to those with no regard for when they were written. We all have big fun here pigeonholing Gurn into being strictly a Classicist, but many would be surprised by the amount of 'modern' music that I came to know and enjoy in just that way. You get a nice variety of musical ideas that way, too.



----------------
Listening to:
Berliner Philharmoniker / Karajan Janowitz / Schellow - Bia 518 Op 84 Incidental music to Goethe's "Egmont" pt 04 - Zwischenakt II: Larghetto

[DavidW]

Another way to approach it is to find a genre you like (for me it was violin concertos and string quartets) and listen to those with no regard for when they were written.

Like the Snipper!

[Gurn Blanston]

Like the Snipper!

Twit.



----------------
Listening to:
Berliner Philharmoniker / Karajan Janowitz / Schellow - Bia 518 Op 84 Incidental music to Goethe's "Egmont" pt 06 - Zwischenakt III: Allegro - Marcia: Vivace

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

2) For those of you that truly appreciate all eras of this music, how do you balance the old with the new; the traditional with the modern; the apparent harmony of some with the surface dissonance of others?   

I don't really see why one would have to "balance." We're not taking an academic course, are we? The only obligation is to find music we like, from whatever era 

I'd just encourage you to find stuff you like, and follow it up. The great thing about modern music is that there are so many different styles, from extremely radical to totally reactionary. There's something for everyone.

(Me, I'm a very eclectic listener, and this week listened to music by composers as diverse as Josquin, Brahms and Carter, as well as playing some Bach on the piano.)

This forum is awful!

Then why do you still hang out here? (Don't worry, I'm not trying to drive you away  )

[monafam]

Thanks for all of the thoughts/suggestions thusfar, I really appreciate them.  One thing that is pretty clear is that the "balancing" I may have been looking for really shouldn't be important, and, as I mentioned, I believe the idea of where to go next might be what was really more on my mind.

The idea of sticking with a specific genre is interesting.  I've been a symphony-guy, so I have naturally gravitated towards those types when I've purchased more contemporary works. 

I find that I have actually done some of the things suggested -- alternating between different eras.  Yesterday, I listened to symphonies by Raff, works by Penderecki, etc. etc. 

[karlhenning]

Thanks for all of the thoughts/suggestions thusfar, I really appreciate them.  One thing that is pretty clear is that the "balancing" I may have been looking for really shouldn't be important, and, as I mentioned, I believe the idea of where to go next might be what was really more on my mind.

The idea of sticking with a specific genre is interesting.  I've been a symphony-guy, so I have naturally gravitated towards those types when I've purchased more contemporary works. 

I find that I have actually done some of the things suggested -- alternating between different eras.  Yesterday, I listened to symphonies by Raff, works by Penderecki, etc. etc. 

Just a follow-up on one of your original concerns:  Although I do probably listen to more-recent music a greater part of my listening time, I still always 'do time' with "The Old Stuff" (listened to Tchaikovsky's Second Symphony just yesterday, e.g.) . . . sonic variety is for me an effortless win-win.

[71 dB]

Then why do you still hang out here? (Don't worry, I'm not trying to drive you away  )

That is actually a very good question! I have asked that myself many times. It would be nice to discuss about classical music but most people here are on complete different wavelength. Maybe the world of classical music really is this single-minded. If you dare to see things differently you are automatically wrong. If I think Beethoven's orchestration skills lacked compared to the music that is how I see it, no matter how many "experts" tell me otherwise. Classical music opinions are TOO MUCH cemented. People should keep questioning things and see how wrong general conceptions can be. I give credit to Rob Newman for questioning Mozart's status even if he is completely wrong.

[71 dB]

I have no interest in Tangerine Dream 

Your loss.

[karlhenning]

Correct.  And it's a loss I can live with.

[karlhenning]

That is actually a very good question! I have asked that myself many times. It would be nice to discuss about classical music but most people here are on complete different wavelength. Maybe the world of classical music really is this single-minded. If you dare to see things differently you are automatically wrong.

Not a bit of it, Poju.  Lots of us "dare to see things differently";  and there are three dozens thinkers on this forum who are freer free-thinkers than you, with your oft-touted Free-Thinkers Club Badge and Decoder Ring.

You aren't wrong because you "dare to see things differently";  you're wrong because your logic is a shambles.  That's not being on a "different wavelength";  that's sloppy thinking.