The Future of Music?

[Will Kirk]

Originally Posted by Ballaw de Quincewold

You know why you feel this way? Because you have failed to understand modern music! Sure there are a bunch of people who don't know what their doing, but ther are a bunch of truely great composers and craftsmen out there. Why do you not think that dissonant music can be real music. And what do you mean when you say "if harmony is allowed to rule." The term "harmony" doesn't just apply to tertian harmony you know.

I never said it only did. But even a bio on Ligeti will say that he abandons all form of harmony rythm and melody and concentrates solely on timbre in his piece Atmospheres. And I never said ALL modern music sucks, some of it is quite good, but the heavy dissonant stuff I could easily live without.

[Thorolf]

Originally Posted by Sor Is My Hero

I think that the so called "modern" composers hide behind the mask of atonality and dissonance. And the main excuse they have for their music is simply "You just don't understand it" IMO this is the worst excuse you can have for your music.

Originally Posted by Ballaw de Quincewold

You know why you feel this way? Because you have failed to understand modern music!

And it goes on and on…

Sor Is My Hero’s aggression here is just as silly as Composer’s repeated hammering on “popular music” and its inferiority. But SIMH has a point too: That one should never have to excuse music for what it is. So the intelligent question is of course “What is it?”

Regarding Ligeti’s “Atmospheres”, me too suggests that it doesn’t convey feelings that makes the listener cry. But the same thing is probably true about most of J. S, Bach’s 2 part inventions in major keys for piano.

What “Atmospheres” does, however, is something that none of J. S. Bach’s music ever could: Provide the eerie drama that makes “2001: A Space Oddysey” the deeply unsettling experience it is, see my post here: http://www.music-web.org/forum/showt...=2111#post2111 I, for one, is deeply grateful for Ligeti’s search into these dramatic textures, as it expands the human horizon of possible experience, and explores new aspects of good old-fashioned aestethics.

And that it can be no questions about the dramatic qualities of much of Ligeti’s music. “Lux Aeterna” is a gem in this respect. Listen and learn how drama can be presented in the absence of pulse and diatonic melody.

Regards

[martinzufall]

Music is music. Yes it can convey a story, a picture, a color, a feeling or an absence thereof, but in truth, it speaks to everyone a little differently. We must decided for ourselves what we determine music and what is just noise and be mindful that others may not share our opinion.

As for making judgements of the merit of the past 100 years of music I feel we are too close to it to make good judgements. Remember J.S. Bach couldn't get a job in his elder years because he was considered "old fashioned". It is natural to be reactionary to that which directly proceeds you.

So where do we go when there is, seemingly, no where to go? :-?

It is possible, but unlikely, that we could have a "clearing out" of what constitutes "appropriate" music. It has happened at least twice in the western past (The systemization of "Gregorian" chant in the sixth to eighth centuries and the Council of Trent in the sixteeneth).

Sometimes great leaps in the art have been initiated by the introduction of a new musical instrument (like what happened with the pianoforte, and the violin family). That is certainly probable.

I guess I don't really know where we are going. So I'll just enjoy the ride.

Oh...and I love listening to Ligeti's stuff. I also enjoy "Threnody" by Penderecki. It amazes me that someone could compose in such a way without much of a precedence to guide them. My wife thinks I am crazy.

[Will Kirk]

Originally Posted by lullabyandothermusic_cd

PICTURE OF DEATH?! the music... it is like a movie (film) soundtrack" The new contemporary classic music made in the world by brazilian composer. please, listen to my music to female voice, flute, oboe, viola, cello, piano.... named: 08. Pictures of Death?! ......a. Dead?! ......b. Gravitating ......c. Valley of the Souls ......d. Encounter with the Creator ......e. Return.
http://www.myspace.com/braziliancont...ryclassicmusic

Where did that come from? :? :? :? :? :?

[martinzufall]

I...don't...know...:???:

It looks like Music-Web has suffered a pseudo-spam attack as this same post is posted in several different areas (only one is in the right place) without adding any commentary.

The piece is interesting but it really only belongs in the showcase section. I'll play along...

Mr. Santos, why do you think this is the future of music? It seems more like current post-modernism to me.

Later

[MaestroX]

-Spam Deleted-

Why must modern music need to be understood? Anyone can listen to classical music and not need to understand the music to enjoy it. For some reason there are many "modern" composers out there that think their music is of higher interlect. I for one must fall into the category of not understanding modern music. I can enjoy some of it as I think every music has its merrits, but fail to be moved by it.

[martinzufall]

Go to Google and type (with quotation marks) "Who Cares If You Listen".
There you will find an essay written by Milton Babbitt (titled the same) in the late 50s addressing the death of the composer's relationship to the audience. Although the essay is almost fifty years old, it still generates as much hate today as it did then (many essays were written as a response).

The idea was that new music (at the time, serialism and aleatoric music) is too complex for an "uneducated" audience too appreciate. Thus any "serious" composer should only perform the music for other "serious" composers. Also, in order for new music to survive as a living art form, composers should be offered the same protections as theoretical scientists in the univeristy system (paid for doing their thing even though it may serve no use to the general public).

As far as appreciation, I think if it is well crafted then it will convey something to an audience without the audience's need to know if a tone row is "hexachord combinatorial" or whatever.

[Will Kirk]

Originally Posted by martinzufall

Go to Google and type (with quotation marks) "Who Cares If You Listen".
There you will find an essay written by Milton Babbitt (titled the same) in the late 50s addressing the death of the composer's relationship to the audience. Although the essay is almost fifty years old, it still generates as much hate today as it did then (many essays were written as a response).

The idea was that new music (at the time, serialism and aleatoric music) is too complex for an "uneducated" audience too appreciate. Thus any "serious" composer should only perform the music for other "serious" composers. Also, in order for new music to survive as a living art form, composers should be offered the same protections as theoretical scientists in the univeristy system (paid for doing their thing even though it may serve no use to the general public).

As far as appreciation, I think if it is well crafted then it will convey something to an audience without the audience's need to know if a tone row is "hexachord combinatorial" or whatever.

I think that's another excuse some modern composers have these days. If someone doesn't like it or doesn't think it's worth listening to, their automatic excuse is "You just don' understand it" I agree with Martin here on what he said about it being well crafted. But that's the thing, nearly all of the stuff (Dissonant modern music) that I've heard is not well crafted.

[Forte]

I agree with Sor is my Hero, to be honest I hate "modern/contemporary music. I find nothing in it to be enjoyed. I think that the style has a place in the world for such things as film and t.v. music but not concert music.

[Chris Burton]

I'm going to put in my two cents by saying that either 1. you havn't heard any good examples of contemporary music or 2. you really don't understand it (by which I mean that your ear is not atuned to it)

First off, I compose "contemporary" concert music. Primarily chamber music or solo pieces. And I take great pride in the amount of substance and material that I am able to work into a piece. I am extremely careful about the way that I "craft" my music and take great care that everything, every note has a point and a purpose, whether that purpose is a specific sound that I am looking for or whether i have actually buried some message within the music.

When you're making comments about contemporary music, please try not to make broad generalizations because, yes I will agree that there is a lot of crap out there. HOWEVER, there are also beautiful creations that composers such as myself have slaved over and put our blood, sweat, and tears into. In a way, it degrades what I am trying to do through my music.

Let me encourage you to have an open mind about new music and to listen to more stuff that you have not heard before. There will be stuff that you will not like, I'm not trying to tell you that you are supposed to like it all but as a composer, and even as a performer, it is in your best interest to be well-rounded and open-minded.

Best,

Chris