I thought for sure some readers would respond to my blog entry about our brains not being able to handle contemporary music. But there was silence.
Maybe your brains couldn’t handle the blog entry?!
I thought for sure someone who loves contemporary classical music (please don’t lecture me about “classical” being a period; we use it generally and I’ve caved on that one since “art music” sounds hoity toity) would bash the news. But nope. Didn’t happen.
Sometimes I put things up without giving my opinion because I am hoping to strike up a conversation or I just want to get you all riled up. Didn’t work!
BUT … now I read this:
So the modern music they’re talking about was written by a composer who died in 1951 — 59 years ago. To put that into perspective, it’s like saying people today can’t handle hip-hop because Fats Domino is too outré. Or that Miles Davis’ “Kind of Blue” (1959) made jazz incomprehensible for 2010 audiences. Or people won’t go to movies because Fellini ruined everything.
A lot has happened in the past half century. But you wouldn’t know it by this article.
I read it here. Be sure to listen to the samples.
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’m a composer of “modern classical” music, and I have to agree: everything said about Schoenberg’s music in that first article you linked was true. He intentionally avoided the usual patterns, and even acknowledged that the music would require greater concentration and understanding to appreciate. While I disagree with some of the notions presented in that article (I believe the real reason audiences have a hard time with modern music is they rarely get a chance to HEAR it), they’re right on the money in describing Schoenberg and Webern as unpredictible.
As for this blog entry from CE Conversations, I’m finding much more to take issue with. First, I find it difficult to accept Michael Torke as a more “modern” composer than Webern. Sure, Torke’s music was written more recently, but it doesn’t sound any more adventurous than Debussy. There’s nothing wrong with Debussy, or Torke, but I reserve labels like “new music” and “modern music” for stuff that actually pushes into new territory. Second, they’re dismissive of the fact that many composers of the past 50 years, and even of today, continue in a modern vein. Eliott Carter is one such composer. But since his music isn’t as repetitive and pattern-based as Glass’, or as unashamedly tonal as Greenberg’s – in short, because it’s too modern – it doesn’t support Ken & Ralph’s argument.
Schoenberg is still considered a modern composer because he still challenges audiences. I think that’s as good a definition as any.
Care to share any of your music, Tim? Where can we hear it?
I seem to recall folks couldn’t wrap their brains around Beethoven’s music all the time. Might it be an evolution of the ear sort of thing? Do you think people will forever struggle with Schoenberg?
Well, Beethoven had the distinct advantage of actually having his music played regularly, even in his own lifetime. And his music continues to saturate the airwaves and resound in the concert halls. If orchestras were to divide their time more equally between the masters of the past and masters of the more recent past(including Schoenberg, Lutoslawsky, Boulez, etc.), I think the audience would eventually catch up. After all, people seem to dig Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring, and that was initailly a flop. Disney used it for Fantasia, everyone grew familiar with it, and now it’s a “classic.” Sadly, it seems like there’s never a good time to take a chance on the more cerebral music. With orchestras and opera houses on the verge of closing, the risk of scaring away the few patrons they have is too great.
As for me, I only have one piece posted online, and it’s much less “modern,” as I define these things, than my usual scribblings. In fact, it’s rather minimalist. One of these days, I’ll actually cobble together some recordings of my work…
Anyway, here’s a link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os13CyavSuU
Hmm, I have the bad habit of writing with a rather negative tone. I apologize for sounding so disparaging about Beethoven “saturating the airwaves.” I actually really like Beethoven, and wouldn’t turn down the opportunity to hear his stuff performed. It’s just that I’d like to hear some newer music in addition to it. Sorry if I come across as a Negative Neddy.
I used to be a music librarian, and learned about the expense of renting new music. Sometimes that’s a bit prohibitive. But then there’s also the risk of losing patrons with new music, which is, I’m sure, the bigger issue. The biggest givers are older, and they want what they are comfortable with.
For the 1975/76 season of the now defunct San Jose Symphony we did newer works on every concert, and brought in composers and conductors. (Boy did everyone boo during the John Cage work!) It lost gobs of money because it was so expensive to do and then we lost so many subscribers.
So I guess one question is “how can we get this music played without losing those wealthy patrons we so depend upon in this biz?”
I’m just tossing stuff out here … not trying to argue at all. I love good new music. (I love good old music too.) Mostly I just love good music! :-)
PS Seems like you had a blog maybe … if I’m remembering you correctly? Wanna direct me to it?
Naw, didn’t think you sounded down on Beethoven.
And, truly, I understand a composer’s plight. Composers struggle a lot to get their music heard. I do try to play new music when I do the few faculty recitals I do (I’m so busy with orchestra/ballet/opera that finding time for recitals isn’t easy). I also try to encourage my university students to play new music. (The oboe duo will be playing a fairly new work at their upcoming concert.)
The symphony I’m in does a bit of new music. We are small, and we don’t do a huge number of concerts, but we’ve done world premiers. Some work. Some flop. That’s the way it goes with new music. I have preferences about what I like in new music, but I’ll give anything a go ….
http://frozenvisages.wordpress.com
I hadn’t thought of the cost of renting the score and parts. That’s certainly another deterrent to new music.
One last thing that I think really hurts new music is that it needs to be heard again and again before it compete with the old standards. For instance, the local orchestra recently performed a bassoon concerto by up-and-comer Christopher Theofanidis. It was a gorgeous piece, and warmly received, but I honestly have a hard time remembering the themes. I would need to hear it a few more times to really get it into my ear. I suspect that the average concert goer, given the choice between a piece they vaguely remember liking and one they know by heart, will choose the latter.
Glad to hear you’re helping promote new music. I think the university is one venue that younger composers can count on.
Whenever I hear the “human mind can’t handle modern music” stuff I always think back to something that Allen Strange used to talk about. He categorized it as “information theory” related, but that might just have been Allen. But the point was – and is – a valid one, I think.
The basic idea is that there are different components to the experience of hearing music. One very strong one is redundancy – e.g. elements that we already know and understand quite well. We’ve heard all the harmonies and instrumentation and rhythms and what not of Mozart so many times that these fundamental building blocks are not “new” to us at all. The part that is “new” is actually quite small compared to the part that is familiar: something we hadn’t noticed the last time we heard the piece, a slightly different interpretation by this performer, recognition of a connection to another piece we just got to know. The new is very small… though still very important. So, there is a balance between “information” (the new stuff) and “redundancy” (the familiar stuff) that works for us.
Essentially by definition, things change with “new music.” There is much less that is familiar/redundant and much more that is new/information. The listener has fewer familiar guideposts to rely on, and at the same time has more new stuff to deal with and make sense.
This is not, by any means, an indictment of “new music” as being unlistenable or anything like that. Instead, it is just an explanation of why some very fine modern music just takes more time to understand. It isn’t necessarily that there is no order or beauty in it (though it isn’t certain that there is either!) but it is certain that finding the beauty and sense in it is going to take more exposure and time and a bit of sympathy.
Dan