[dngl]

Well, there's contention here and almost everywhere as to the virtues of contemporary music and whether it is comparable to classical music. Contained below is my own opinion.

Classical music is, on the whole, of higher quality than of contemporary music. This can be traced to one factor: enough time has passed to filter out most of the junk. When classical music was contemporary, it was surely of no better quality than today's music. The average court composer was not a Mozart; he merely produced music by the numbers for the masses. After one hundred or more years, only the strong composers have survived.

This trend continues to oldies and classic rock. New Kids On The Block is not heard on the radio anymore; they are forgotten. Depeche Mode, on the other hand, produces higher quality music and is remembered. Going further back, we remember the Ink Spots and have forgotten all the second-rate sould groups of the early 20th century.

There is quality contemporary music. I'm sure radiohead will be listened to 50 years from now. My kids will likely not listen to Disturbed... The passing of time will separate the chaff from the wheat.

 

[DanG]

Good points Jon, and I agree... for the most part. I think there's another factor, though.

The greats of classical music were generally not high-school dropouts or people who decided they just wanted to take their garage bands pro. Classical composers like Mozart, aside from being geniuses, were generally trained from a very early age to become performers of classical music. They were usually immersed in the music and received training from some of the best musicians of the time.

Nowadays, classical performers are still brought up from an early age. For example, my old piano teacher had started when she was four, went to a high school for musicians, then went to conservatory for college. She has always played piano and is now a professor of music and a solo performer as well as part of a performing trio.

I started playing the piano when I was five years old as well. My teacher wasn't so strict; but when I moved to my second teacher (a Russian, who else

), she told me I could go professional... if I started playing for 4-5 hours per day.

There are rock musicians through whom music flows/flowed. Jimi Hendrix was an example. While I don't think his music was genius, I think that he was one of those rock musicians who could have attained the stature of some of the classical greats... had he been subjected to the rigor that they had been.

But nowadays it's just not accepted that rock music can be a way of life from a young age. Too often it's associated with excess -- whether in the form of narcotics, alcohol, promiscuity, or just plain old cash. I can't help but feel that music nowadays has become more of a money-making tool of pop culture than a serious art. Rockers write the music they think the public wants to hear and that the producers tell them that they have time for. If you're signed up for a contract of 3 albums in two years, you have to produce. It's not exactly conducive to creativity the way that the classic patronage was, whether it had courtly or bourgeois origins.

And to tell you the truth, for what it's worth, my own opinion is that Radiohead is no better than the rest. They pump out music just like anyone else. One minute I was hearing about the amazing new "Kid-A," then before I know it, everyone's talking about their newest album. From what I've heard it sounds far more like a pretentious attempt at creating noises in which nobody can find meaning (thus elevating it to "art"). Maybe I haven't heard enough -- I'll have to do some more listening.

The modern musicians who I think really are creating great music, though, are the same ones who were doing it before -- the classical composers. Sure, the sound is different now, but the idea is the same. It's l'art pour l'art and while there's a lot of silly stuff out there (I've heard several "premiere performances" at Boston's Symphony Hall and at Tanglewood) which even includes audience-participation and page-flipping as an instrument, some of the stuff that's out there is quite good.

Plus I'm quite a big fan of some of the newer jazz musicians. It's no secret that I like Brad Mehldau. And guess what -- he was trained as a classical pianist from a very young age. There are some great jazz pianists and other performers in Europe as well that get little exposure here (like Bojan Zulfikarpasic).

Overall it's still a matter of opinion of who's great and who should vegetate. But my own thought is that juxtaposed with yesterday's greats, even the most famous groups who've endured a few decades now have to kneel in homage. And when I say "bow down before the king," I don't mean Elvis Presley.

 

[XXhalberstramXX]

agreed. to a certain point of course.

My brother, for example, is convinced that some Elecronic/Tekno/Trance producer named Oliver Leib is a musical genius on the stature of a Mozart or Beethoven. Furthermore, i have no reason to doubt him. Turntables and sound machines are musical instruments. With varying and interplaying layers of sounds (some never heard before) i'm sure as much subtlety can be created as out of a full-sized orchestra. As with any music, one has to be willing and able to hear and identify these subtleties.

Great music will always survive, because there will always be people who become obsessed with the music and the music alone, and not caring about the ******** fed to them on MTV, create beautiful and inspired works of music.

 

[PC Corp]

I think it's unfair to compare today's so called artists to the likes of Mozart or Beethoven. IMHO, good music, like good literature, is something that will touch people's heart. It has some meanings that reflect our society or human being. Some temporary singers/bands are good, but they are no Mozart. Time is the biggest test. Mozart has passed while a majority of today's artists will not. Like sports, everybody knows that it's all about money. I think Kurt Cobain was the best song writer the last decade. Too bad for him...

Yeah, I do agree with an article from The Rolling Stones that his best songs have not been written yet.

 

[stuartr]

I think everyone on this thread is really on the right track. I agree with almost everything that has been said. I will add one little observation. Classical composers, in their time, were popular composers. Even when they were well known, they were not often regarded as the be all and end all of artistic expression. For example, Bach was famous when he was alive (perhaps more as an organist), but he never traveled more than a couple hundred (if that) miles from his place of birth. He certainly was not hailed a super-genius. After that, his music was largely forgotten, except by certain composers and professional admirers. Enter the 20th century, and Bach is universily regarded as one of the greatest artists in any medium, in human history. Go figure. I am sure that will happen with people from our century as well.
As for contemporary music, the thing to remember is just listen to what you like. Music does not have to be a work of genius to be enjoyable. Sometimes that is nice, but sometimes it is just nice to sit back, and do whatever it is you do when you hear good music. Sing along, air guitar, dance---whatever. Contemporary music is of OUR generation, and so sometimes it can speak to us in ways that something that is 100 years old cannot. That is something that we should not ignore. Personally, I would say my collection is about 60/40 in favor of classical, but right now, my listening is probably 60/40 modern. Both float my boat.
Stu

 

[Pierre Lambion]

Classic composers were also probably more free in thei musical choices. Of course some of their works were done on order but I don't think it can be compared to the pressure of today producers and more generally speaking of the market.

Of course, this doesn't mean I disagree with all the above. I think it is just one more aspect.

P.

 

[DarkAngel]

Jon
I think the complexity/beauty of classical music to be fully understood requires perspective of life in the 1600-1900.
It is almost impossible for us to imagine:
- no TV, radio
- no stereo, records, CDs etc
- no telephone
- no electricity
- no cars etc
- no democracies

Music/Opera was much more important form of communication - entertainment back then, and was therfore more intellectual
and narrative dealing with more in depth concepts/subjects in a much longer format. Unfortunately only the rich could afford this
pleasure on a regular basis and became patrons of the artists,
average person had to play their own music or go to fairs, pubs, churches, occassional concerts/opera etc.

Ironic that the mass media and technology that made classical music affordable to the masses also eventually brought an end to the artists who created it.

Yes and time is a good filter to allow great works of art to surface & survive into the future.

 

[XXhalberstramXX]

darkangel,

also keep in mind composers like Shostakovich who wrote about topics pertinent to our lives (mechanized warfare, etc) in a reasonably classical form (tonal structures). so contemporary music does not have to be rock and roll.

that said, being able to listen to recordings greatly decreases our attention span. why should i pay attention to this when i could listen to it on my stereo at a time that is convenient to me, while i'm cooking or driving my car. it makes it easier to be less attentive and concentrated on the music. which rock (with 3-4 minute songs) is good for.

 

[JustinKantor]

Don't forget that the musical education of the listening audience in The classical era were very well educated aristocrats (that started to change with Beethoven and the French Revolution, but even after that, a large percentage of listening audience was well educated). This means that most the people in the audence were amatuer musicians themselfs with a general knowledge of theory and musical form. Today, with the musical education the way it is, It is not surpising that people are attracted to gimmicks more than the music itself. I think that composers of every era are trying in one way or another to gain popularity. This includes Beethoven, who was, quite jealous of Rossini, the most popular composer of the time.
As for talented artists, they appear in every genre. But ceartain genres have less capabilites, in terms of expression than others(theres a good debate!).

 

[Azumandus]

You have to consider who listen to most of these classical recordings...aristocrats....most classical composer like handel wrote pieces because in essense it was he job to right new material for his sponser. Also we as a society are comfortable with the so called classics. I hear many people say they hate contemporary music because it just sounds like ****. To me it's just a different sound that you need to get used to. All composers suffered critizism...for instance Tschovisky's Rite of Spring debudt he had to escape the the concert hall because people hated it so much..they felt it was crap and wasn't liked..now it's considered to be one of the greatest compositions. IMO musicians back then had alot more knowledge than we had...for instance composer then didn't have cd's or score they could buy to analyse the music...Bach,beethoven, mozart, etc..if they pretty much listened to music once or twice and were able to write it down note for note...
Music now is more of a coporal...and I also think that music now is just fixed to much in the studios...
here's something everything at one time or another was new and comtemporary. Now their classics.

 

[setmenu]

Justin
"But ceartain genres have less capabilites, in terms of expression than others(theres a good debate!)". [/B][/QUOTE]
You are right that certainly would be a good debate!
But as those different genres attract different personalities[artist/listeners] to them surely the choice made by these different
individuals is the one they conciously/unconciously feel gives maximium expressive range to their Ideas/feelings.
And to some extent this is a cultural thing as well,there being a vast range of different personalities on this planet.

I would describe genres as for example:Head,Heart,gut and various mixtures inbetween.

 

[dngl]

I disagree that genres have different capabilities. Different genres have different musical complexities, but the minimalist Eels can affect me just as much as a grand Sibelius symphony. I don't believe that genres can be better than one another; the musical types are separated because they cannot be directly compared.

I do think that turntablism is less comples than classical music, though I appreciate both. Turntablism is hearing two or more sounds that would mesh well, mixing them, and then performing scratching tricks. Classical composition (in those days) required careful balance of several different sections of several instruments each.

 

[JustinKantor]

First of all,
Setmenu I believe that most genres are capable of being both of "head" and "heart" and "inbetween". For example, punk rock, here we have music that comes from the gut, but the political and social impact can not be ignored and I think many punk rock fans really enjoy this side of the music. When I was saying that some genres have more capabilites for expression than others I did not mean that they could not be as effective, just that the vocabulary is more limited. this does not mean much in terms of listening enjoyment, actually the more capabilites that music has the less accessable it becomes. This is because of the added complexity. If the general public were well educated muscally (I don't only mean knowing the classics like bach, mozart ect., but also understand medival and renassaince counterpoint, as well as world folk and all genres of contemporary.......hell it seems impossible, but it doesn't take as much as people think!) I think our "popular music" would be much more capable than it is today.
what is the point of the complexity if music becomes less accessable? It is needed for the sake of variety, if there is no variety things get boring and one song sounds like another and we get Brittany Spears! Also, I don't want to give the impression that classical music is the only form of music that has an extensive vocabulary. There are many genres which I feel are very complex and rich, check out the Indain ragas!

Do you think a genera of music can survive without evolving? or do you think it can live for ever as long as we have talented tunesmiths?

 

[setmenu]

Hi Justin
Not too sure about the limited vocabulary bit that depends on
perspective after all you can get very wordy literature or that
minimalist japanese poetry[can't think of what its called for now]
ie "leaves fall".
Language after all is a dialogue bettween speaker and listener
even if the listener says nothing.
Just think of the unacomanied singer pouring their heart out over
a simple but personal composition.
But just as in mathematics what can seem a simple equation can
take a world of knowledge and lifetime of experience to understand, the same can be said of the musical "language"
of classical styles, afterall many compositions are speaking from
a different time and culture as you say.
I suppose I do aggree with you in a personal sense because when I listen to the right peice of "classical" it can blast me through a very broard emotional repertoire.[not just western classical]
But with commercial forces intent on trying to ensure everybody
consumes an identical [if differently packaged] product,I do worry
ocasionally but not too much as it may be easier than ever for creativity to slip through,[in low cost genres anyway] with all
the different ways of transmiting those compositions to peoples
ears available now.
Lastly as long as there are talented "tunesmiths"music will allways evolve

 

[Audio-Me]

Classical masterpieces took education and perfection of skill over long periods of time. In contemporary entertainment (I mean music), you see kids coming out of the ghetto with jack crap, but become millionaires because of modern societys passive nature (they absorb what ever is being thrown at them by the media)
There are few great contemporary artist, but the number is much too small. I think in most albums by great modern artists, there are no more than 2 good songs, the rest are just fillers. It's not that these artist want to create ******** music, it's that they have no choice if they want to continue with their career. And that one or two superb song most definately isn't the hit single from the album if you catch my drift...