The five myths about contemporary classical music

[Karl Henning]

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.

[Scion7]

You mean, along with Bach, probably the greatest composer of all time?

I doubt it.

[Scion7]

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.

[kishnevi]

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.

[kishnevi]

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!

[CRCulver]

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.

[not edward]

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).

[mszczuj]

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.

[jlaurson]

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

Silvestrov 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.

[some guy]

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

Six myths.

[San Antone]

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.

[Karl Henning]

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