Contemporary Music - How Much Work?

[stevel]

Reith, for fundrazor's request:

I was listening to Radio 3 last night (Hear and Now) finding I could assimilate most of the works. One contained live electronic manipulation so the performance can never be repeated exactly.

Is this good or bad? No work can practically be repeated exactly, and certainly some forms, like Jazz, or not necessarily intended to be. So it's really a matter of degree of repeatability. In fact, a lot of modern electronica is the most repeatable because it exists as a fixed media (recording).

The work that gave me real trouble was by Ligeti, no surprise.

No surprise? Have you heard Ligeti before, or were you walking into this with a bias against Ligeti?

Firstly my reaction was indifference - the works all sounded familiar not because I knew them but they brought nothing new to the scene - they sounded like much recent contemporary music almost like pop music does, so question 1) is this music ever intended to last or, like pop music, does quality and uniqueness of voice matter as long as the stuff keeps coming?

This is a statement that often goes along with a "classical music is better" argument (not that that's what you're trying to do necessarily). Let's talk about Clementi - sounds familiar even if you don't know it, and doesn't bring anything to the scene (now or then). Is music intended to last? I think it's presumptuous of a composer to think their music will last. Much music is written for other purposes - entertainment, religious services, background music, to make record companies money, etc. But, not "writing it to last" doesn't mean it will or won't. What's so special about the Four Seasons? They're not really any better than the other million or so concerti Vivaldi wrote. Why is Star Wars such a big deal?

A real composer writes music because they want to (or they have some burning need to express themselves in that way if we want to say it that way), and is unconcerned with whether it will be popular or not. Now, of course, there are certainly composers who write "to" their audience skilfully. There are also those who pander to their audience. While the latter is less meritorious in my opinion, it hasn't stopped anyone from selling a million albums. But I don't think Ligeti is concerned with those philosophical questions. He writes because that's what he does.

The alternative is that we should study it a little more to tease out the subtleties of style, developing the ability to distinguish one work/composer from another.

Is this a good or bad alternative? I found, when I started listening to classical music, I couldn't distinguish between Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. Now I'm to the point where I pretty reliably can - and talk about must that "all sounds the same".

2) Is this mere fodder to provide college courses (and thus) keep a few fashionable academics off the dole queue?

I think that there might be some composers out there who fancy themselves as textbook material and who write in such a way as to make their music marketable in those circles. But that's just a very few. Most do it because they love it.

3) Most of these works a) will never be recorded, b) some can never be performed in the same way again, so - COULD any "work" on behalf of the listener be expected? The answer to this one is therefore 'no'.

How many pop songs are never recorded? How much Salieri gets recorded? Record companies record what they can sell. As to b), no work can ever be performed the same way again, so using this criteria as some sort of guide is unfair.

But I don't get the remainder of your statement??? Work on behlaf of the listener? If you weren't familiar with Indian Classical music or Kabouki theater you would probably have to "work" at it to get it and enjoy it.

There are two approaches - one (which has been mine until lately) has been Cage-ian: "just listen" - which means I have to make like/dislike/indifferent judgements and leave it at that.

I think you can make other judgments though. You can consider whether the works is a rip-off of someone else, how it's structured. You can make assessments about what it's intention is and if it was successful at achieving that or not.

The second is espoused here and elsewhere - be prepared to do some work (as you might with Mahler, for instance). Well, you can't if recordings/performances aren't available. So should one work on what IS available - ANY recordings of these composers? (I interpret this as "listening practice" aimed at opening one's mind so that the Cage-ian approach can yield a richer, informed experience).

So it seems that this is your real beef - the fact that recordings are not available? Well, at least it was on the Radio!!!

What is a composer's instrument? Their mind. And while a Violinist may need to practice fingerings, a composer needs to practice cognition (wouldn't hurt a violinist though!). Yes we all should practice "listening" and comprehending.

Or 4) are we wasting our time listening to this music at all?

Well, I'll put it this way Reith - I used to listen to Rush when I was a kid, and I learned all the songs on guitar. Now, I play in bands. No one wants to hear Rush. They want to hear fodder. But I'll say two things: 1. If I only learned the fodder, I could never play Rush, but being able to play Rush makes the fodder quite easy to play (if barely bearable :-). 2. Did encountering all of those asymmetric meters and complex chord structures help me - yes, they got me interested in other forms of music that use similar things, and they enticed me to continue to explore music more fully.

I had an instructor who once said, that even if they didn't like a piece or found it totally boring (ancient, classical or modern) they would still look for (listen for) something in the music (or the performance) that they could take away as a learning experience. It could be as esoteric as something happening with the room acoustics, or it could be as specific as noting a particular orchestration. I think that's good advice and I took it. I may hate some Country songs, but I can appreciate the production techniques. I may hate Brahms, but I can appreciate a performer's interpretation. And you know, there's always pieces we don't like (either individually or collectively). I mean, look at the Beethoven Symphony poll - how many people vote for 1, 2, 4, and 8. Those seem to be the "least favorite" (collectively in this example). Not everything every composer writes is going to be a "hit".

In fact, how many pieces by Haydn are well known (by the general public now)? Maybe, and I mean maybe, the Surprise symphony - and only the surprise part. Bach, the "Halloween Fugue". Vivaldi, Four Seasons. If you exclude Gershwin's songs form musicals, you've got Rhapsody in Blue and maybe, maybe American in Paris (but I would bet many people only know it from the movie, and even then they probably don't know it's not Rhapsody in Blue their listening too). So why would you listen to Haydn's London Trio, why would you listen to Bach's Art of the Fugue, why would you listen to Vivaldi's Mandolin Concerti, why would you listen to Gershwin's Concerto in F? Why would you listen to Fidelio?

None of those are "clunkers", but they're just not as well known, or well appreciated as other works. And that's what we're talking about here, appreciation. If you like it, screw everyone else. You get out of it what you put into it - as momma said - ain't no one gonna give you no handouts. Sure Beethoven has some "catchy tunes", and that's fine for those who are only willing or capable of appreciating it on that level. But there's more to it than that. The problem with Ligeti, or Machaut for that matter, is people go into it with their expectations of what "music" is, and think they're going to take away the same thing they take away from Mozart. That's like thinking because you like Stephen King books you're going to like a Theory Text, or Hemingway for that matter.

I think the Cage-ian philosophy you mention is not about observation, but about expectation - the point is, you go into with no expectations - no matter what the style (and there's something to be said for that because you could always be pleasantly surprised). People expect "music" to do X, Y, and Z. But they base their definitions of X, Y and Z on a perilously narrow set of experiences and learned prejudices.

How many times have I heard, "you can't hum the melody". Maybe that's not the point of the piece, only the few pieces that person has heard and defined for themselves as music.

Now, I will say though, I've heard "I'll give it a 10 but I can't dance to it". Well, on a dance music show, it's important that the song be danceable! So there it falls short of a specific expectation for a specific use.

So I guess if someone defines music as having a hummable tune, then if a piece doesn't meet that expectation they are wasting their time. I prefer instead to listen to everything, look for merits, and if I can't find any, I question first whether it's me that has mistaken expectations, and not the fault of the composer. If, after exhaustive consideration (and I have a fair amount of varied experience so I feel fairly confident about my conclusions) I can't find anything meritorious, then I figure, rather than having wasted the time, I've conducted both a listening practice and a cognitive practice.

Best,
Steve

[some guy]

Things were seeming a trifle on the private side, weren't they? So I feel better, now.

fundrazor, I felt the same way about Schoenberg for the longest time. Recently, I've gotten a couple of discs of his music performed by Mr. Boulez. Warm, witty, colorful--really lovely stuff. So there may be a treat for you there.

And speaking of meritorious, stevel's comment reminded me to share a recent adventure of mine with y'all. I've liked Nordheim's music for many years--thirty, I guess. Both the instrumental and the electroacoustic, with one exception, Colorazione. Maybe it was just the Hammond Organ sound, but I wrote that one off many years ago, twenty-nine, I guess. But the other day, I didn't get to my remote in time and so the cd went merrily on to Colorazione after finishing Polypoly. Imagine my embarrassment, but also my delight, in discovering that Colorazione is a perfectly fine piece, well-constructed (not that that's essential, mind you!), interesting sounds, just a treat for the ears. Hmmmph. So much for being a sophisticated listener with years of experience in electroacoustic music... (In 1977, that would only have been five years, but still.)

[reith]

Thank you all. These comments must have taken some time up and are much appreciated. The discussion wasn't meant to 'get private' but I suppose a topic like this won't attract many responses.

Don't get the idea that I don't like, or dismiss, contemporary music. Naturally I like some composers more than others but try not to get over-acquainted through recordings. I have enough on record to make that unlikely. I'm usually ready to give a composer another try... I did listen to the Ligeti in that concert...there's always a chance that something might click...alas, no. I'd still give him a chance though probably wouldn't attend a concert predominatly of Ligeti.

The other works in that concert were...ok, 'naive' is the only word I can think of...almost as if composed by students still intuitively tied to tonality but egged to do something more adventurous by a teacher. That's the only way to describe it. Hence my issue about teaching and academia...if this is the result then there's miles too much music already, let's stop churning composers out like this was some automatic sausage machine! I'm probably being unfair but if they're putting their work before the public then the spectrum of views will include a few like mine. I wondered if it was me simply not being in the scene, caught up in 'contemporary' from 30-10 years ago.

Point is, if I wanted to find out - in the absence of recordings - I couldn't so I had to dismiss them as 'nice try'. Maybe the next concert will engage me more.

Thanks again for the deliberations.

cheers,
reith

PS, there's the Boulez/Birtwistle prom tomorrow night. I approach with no prejudice.... (other than I like neither of them!)

[reith]

The Boulez and Birtwistle were okay. I don't mind listening to the (verbal) introductions though I won't read books by the composers about their technique/problems these days. These works were reachable, the Birtwistle surprisingly so - a pleasant surprise there. The Boulez was just a bit long.

Many modern composers, these included, haven't learned the value of momentary silence or thinning of texture. I got the impression of Boulez being an efficiency expert, recoiling with horror upon seeing a bar with rests, feeling obliged to give the player something to do. To be fair, he wrote contrasting sections. So I report a favourable reaction though I doubt I'll listen to the Boulez again.

cheers