[perhapss]

I'll go away now. Sorry for crashing the party.

 
Please stick around!
Many good points IMO.

 

[mbhaub]

Here's something to keep in mind about serialism/dodecophany, and the derivatives: there is not a single work from that "school" that has been retained in the standard canon of the concert repertoire. Not one! Some come close. Some work of Berg and Webern show up from time to time. Wozzeck of course is a standard - but that's in the opera house. It doesn't take a lot of thought to realize why. Audiences hate it. Musicians generally find it unfulfilling to play. Composers from 1950 and on wrote music that is unintelligible to the human brain. They did more math than music. Most of their output will be consigned to the waste bins of history. Good. Not all modern composers went that way, and fortunately for them their music is widely supported and played: Prokofieff, Shostakovich, Copland, Rodrigo, and others. Sadly, the Elliot Carters of the world poisoned people's minds against modern music and made it tough for more genuine composers.

 

[perhapss]

  Here's something to keep in mind about serialism/dodecophany, and the derivatives: there is not a single work from that "school" that has been retained in the standard canon of the concert repertoire. Not one! Some come close. Some work of Berg and Webern show up from time to time. Wozzeck of course is a standard - but that's in the opera house. It doesn't take a lot of thought to realize why. Audiences hate it. Musicians generally find it unfulfilling to play. Composers from 1950 and on wrote music that is unintelligible to the human brain. They did more math than music. Most of their output will be consigned to the waste bins of history. Good. Not all modern composers went that way, and fortunately for them their music is widely supported and played: Prokofieff, Shostakovich, Copland, Rodrigo, and others. Sadly, the Elliot Carters of the world poisoned people's minds against modern music and made it tough for more genuine composers.

 
Any other old ladies like to chime in?

 
Believe it or not, MOST music before 1950 doesn't get played either.
Generally speaking, most AMERICAN orchestras don't even play adventurous repertoire of ANY period.
"Standard" repertoire, despite many obvious masterpieces, is standard due to overly safe programming by those involved financially.
 
As for Elliott Carter(notice correct spelling

), I personally sat in attendance of many concerts of his music in his later decades that were well attended (In the USA even) and left audiences spellbound.Obviously you were not at those concerts.
 
"Poisoned people's minds"??? LOL!!
If you've lived in European countries, as I have, you know you can find many well attended concerts of modern music by "Major" orchestras.Many having a much longer history than those in the USA.Clearly their minds have been poisoned beyond hope.In NY, as well as other American cities, I've also seen many concerts of modern music with FAR more enthusiastic  audiences than you will find at a typical subscription concert of a major orchestra playing Mozart(whose music I love by the way).Many typical audiences of "standard" repertoire (I've seen personally over several decades) consist of a good deal of people literally sleeping.
 
Incidentally, I'm not sure how these "genuine composers"(whatever that means) have it tough because as you've accurately stated, "their music is widely supported and played".
 
Also, your tired argument is nothing new.Read many of the reviews of Beethoven, Mahler or Tchaikovsky's (only 3 examples) music from their day and you'll find the same sort of blather.
 
To quote Varese: "The present day composer refuses to die".
Why some people get so upset about this puzzles me......

 

[eyeresist]

Also, your tired argument is nothing new.Read many of the reviews of Beethoven, Mahler or Tchaikovsky's (only 3 examples) music from their day and you'll find the same sort of blather.

I suspect you know this is a false argument! The above-named composers may have had their critics, but they were widely recognised as great even while they were still living....


I've recently been listening to a set of Vivaldi's complete cello concertos (Harnoy's - Wallfisch's style is far too rough). I'm up to CD 2. Unfortunately, most of the slow movements of these concertos are so similar as to be practically identical, but last night I discovered the fantastic largo from the concerto RV 414. It's over 7 minutes long, but unfortunately the only versions I found on youtube cut it to less than half that length by removing the substantial orchestral sequences that bracket the solo. Wallfisch only takes 3.5 minutes, so either he takes it very fast, or there are repeats that he omits.

 

[perhapss]

 

[perhapss]

While we're on the subject of polarizing music, I'm continue to be amazed how little "minimalism" is mentioned on this thread.
I'm not a huge minimalist guy but I think this disk should be mentioned:
 

 
I'm sure any respect I may have had will now be lost BUT this actually has been very influential music to many real classical musicians/composers and listeners alike.
Despite what anyone may say.

 

[Hutnicks]

  While we're on the subject of polarizing music, I'm continue to be amazed how little "minimalism" is mentioned on this thread.
I'm not a huge minimalist guy but I think this disk should be mentioned:
 

 
I'm sure any respect I may have had will now be lost BUT this actually has been very influential music to many real classical musicians/composers and listeners alike.
Despite what anyone may say.

Not at all Reich is modern classical done right.
Kuniko Plays Reich is an almost transcendental experience.

 

[bigshot]

  To quote Varese: "The present day composer refuses to die".

 
He didn't keep his word.

 

[Claritas]

The ancients vs moderns argument is completely unproductive. It's not even clear what the boundaries are: I don't listen to much after Brahms anymore so it's pretty easy to ridicule me as an old fogey, but I've met guys who consider Bach avant-garde. Just post about what you enjoy. If I like it, I'll keep listening.

 

[Quinto]

 
Can't wait for the cd release

This I really like

 

[extrabigmehdi]

Well, I like this "minimalist" work.

La Monte Young - The well tuned piano
 

 
 
The title might seem ironical, but it's actually tuned in a way that breaks any sense of conventional harmony.
 
Yo don't need to listen to the whole thing , to get an idea of what's it's about:
 

 
 
There's also the "Works for prepared piano" by John Cage,  that  prepare the piano in an other wrong way.
I'm less familiar with it. La Monte Young work match more my taste for stuff that can be put in background.

 

[Quinto]

  Well, I like this "minimalist" work.

La Monte Young - The well tuned piano
 
 
The title might seem ironical, but it's actually tuned in a way that breaks any sense of conventional harmony.
 
Yo don't need to listen to the whole thing , to get an idea of what's it's about:
 

 
 
There's also the "Works for prepared piano" by John Cage,  that  prepare the piano in an other wrong way.
I'm less familiar with it. La Monte Young work match more my taste for stuff that can be put in background.

Thanks, I listened for 10 minutes to conclude this is most definitely not for me..Call me old fahioned but I need some sort of shape and structure

 

 

[brhfl]

[...] There's also the "Works for prepared piano" by John Cage,  that  prepare the piano in an other wrong way.
I'm less familiar with it. La Monte Young work match more my taste for stuff that can be put in background.

Cage did quite a few pieces for prepared piano, the famous set being the Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano. It's not the most cohesive set of work, but some of the pieces are quite fun. There are a lot of recordings out there, but very few of them really bring anything new to the table. I'd probably recommend Philipp Vandré's for being a humorous example of 'historically informed performance' of such a modern piece - Vandré opted to use the Steinway O baby grand that Cage originally wrote the piece for. Picking that one up knocks over two birds with one stone - then you have a recording of the Sonatas and Interludes, and a recording of a Steinway O. Hah!

 

[LugBug1]

  Here's something to keep in mind about serialism/dodecophany, and the derivatives: there is not a single work from that "school" that has been retained in the standard canon of the concert repertoire. Not one! Some come close. Some work of Berg and Webern show up from time to time. Wozzeck of course is a standard - but that's in the opera house. It doesn't take a lot of thought to realize why. Audiences hate it. Musicians generally find it unfulfilling to play. Composers from 1950 and on wrote music that is unintelligible to the human brain. They did more math than music. Most of their output will be consigned to the waste bins of history. Good. Not all modern composers went that way, and fortunately for them their music is widely supported and played: Prokofieff, Shostakovich, Copland, Rodrigo, and others. Sadly, the Elliot Carters of the world poisoned people's minds against modern music and made it tough for more genuine composers.

Well to be fair, the standard canon is always going to cater for the masses. That's why the X-Men film's fill the box office too. (did you go?) It was 70 years after JS Bach died that lots of people first started enjoying his music.... Another 50 before it got accepted into any standard repertoire. Though it is a fact that lots of people have been enjoying Schoenberg's music all his life/death and to the present day. But as has already been discussed; some high art takes a lot of effort on behalf of the listener/reader/watcher. And why should they put the effort in when they can relax and listen to another version of Beethoven's 5th or Mozart's Jupiter. Yes brilliant works, but also comfortably familiar to a lot of us...  All self choice of course, but the simple fact that some people enjoy Schoenberg's music cancels your argument. It isn't 'awful' - It's just that the majority don't understand it or are not willing to try to. And it's very human to not like something we don't understand. But it takes a little courage and tenacity to at least try to understand it and then decide if it is any good. But I guarantee you wouldn't have 90% of the greatest composers from the last half of the 20th century to the present day without his influence, so there must be something in it!  Music had to change. We'd had over 100 years of romantic music. Every melody, chord progression and harmony had been wrung out and stretched to the absolute limit. Something had to give! Blame Hitler if anyone! But Liszt was already frustrated with it in the middle of the 19th century!!
 
     
Oh, and Prokofiev and Shostakovich wouldn't have dared going atonal with Stalin looking over their shoulder... But if you listen to their earlier works before they got told to 'stop it' you will hear music that is not played in the standard canon as well. 'Stop it! Stalin said, 'we want traditional music for the masses'!   

 

[Hutnicks]

  Well to be fair, the standard canon is always going to cater for the masses. That's why the X-Men film's fill the box office too. (did you go?) It was 70 years after JS Bach died that lots of people first started enjoying his music.... Another 50 before it got accepted into any standard repertoire. Though it is a fact that lots of people have been enjoying Schoenberg's music all his life/death and to the present day. But as has already been discussed; some high art takes a lot of effort on behalf of the listener/reader/watcher. And why should they put the effort in when they can relax and listen to another version of Beethoven's 5th or Mozart's Jupiter. Yes brilliant works, but also comfortably familiar to a lot of us...  All self choice of course, but the simple fact that some people enjoy Schoenberg's music cancels your argument. It isn't 'awful' - It's just that the majority don't understand it or are not willing to try to. And it's very human to not like something we don't understand. But it takes a little courage and tenacity to at least try to understand it and then decide if it is any good. But I guarantee you wouldn't have 90% of the greatest composers from the last half of the 20th century to the present day without his influence, so there must be something in it!  Music had to change. We'd had over 100 years of romantic music. Every melody, chord progression and harmony had been wrung out and stretched to the absolute limit. Something had to give! Blame Hitler if anyone! But Liszt was already frustrated with it in the middle of the 19th century!!
 
     
Oh, and Prokofiev and Shostakovich wouldn't have dared going atonal with Stalin looking over their shoulder... But if you listen to their earlier works before they got told to 'stop it' you will hear music that is not played in the standard canon as well. 'Stop it! Stalin said, 'we want traditional music for the masses'!   

Which is in fact highly consistent with the history of "classical". The name of the game was to become the official composer for the "court". The political climate at any given time is intricately weaved into the fabric of the music.
 
Perhaps the state of modern composition in fact does reflect the strata of sprawling nameless governing bodies