Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 127

Thread: Opinions on modern music

  1. #46
    Vice Admiral Virtuoso rojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    3,213
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks for that some guy.

    Great that Bjork promotes new music, not so great that all the other stuff aside from minimalism is left off the table. Would be neat if this was only the first of a series on new music, and that there would be more episodes featuring some of the many other composers and their styles. One does tend to get the impression watching the video that classical music is only going in one direction. Which we know is not even close to reality. Maybe we shouldn't ask for too much though; this is already much better than nothing.

    I do think Bjork mentions the 12 tone system...
    Last edited by rojo; Aug-24-2007 at 07:20.
    ''Music, I feel, should be emotional first and intellectual second.'' - Maurice Ravel
    ''The greatest education in the world is watching the masters at work.'' - Michael Jackson


  2. #47
    Vice Admiral Virtuoso methodistgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Madisonville,Ky.42431
    Posts
    4,411
    Post Thanks / Like

    contemprary music

    The only kind of contemperary music I like is the praise and worship like
    Intregrety Hosanna or Hill Songs like Don Moen because he wrote many of
    the Hosanna songs that I just love like God will make a way and Give thanks.
    Others can include Amy Grant, 4 him, Michael English, and more. This is
    the kind of contemp music I like.
    judy tooley

  3. #48
    Apprentice, Piano
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5
    Post Thanks / Like
    I understand many people don't understand or appreciate contemporary "classical" or modern "classical" music and even the classical music for the very reason that we are in the era where pop, rock, R&B, etc., or should we say "popular modern music" influence more people, and is much accepted, while classical music sounds weird and awful to some listeners (what more the contemporary music?).

    Contemporary music, is the classical music of the present time, and will be the music of the future musicians. I agree to that appreciating modern music is to know and appreciate also, the Classical and Baroque music. It's like, knowing the root to know the fruit. Music evolution will not stop until there are musicians and modern music is the product. In my opinion, modern music that we know today will produce another musical style/form, just like, baroque to classical, then romantic, etc. etc... (I'm not telling that we can forget or disregard those music). The term may not be known yet but in some times, furture musicians may find an appropriate term for it. Some of us may not appreciate modern music but, what about the future musicians? I think, it will be their music and the succesors of all musicians. What do you think guys?

  4. #49
    Vice Admiral Virtuoso rojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    3,213
    Post Thanks / Like
    I like that analogy; 'knowing the root to know the fruit.' And I think I agree that music evolution will not stop.
    ''Music, I feel, should be emotional first and intellectual second.'' - Maurice Ravel
    ''The greatest education in the world is watching the masters at work.'' - Michael Jackson


  5. #50
    Commander, Assistant Conductor zlya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    South Korea
    Posts
    153
    Post Thanks / Like
    What is the purpose of modern art music? Is it to uplift the spirit, to challenge the intellect, to express meaning?

    Until at least the 19th Century, the purpose of most "Classical" music was entertainment. I realize a large percentage was religious, but I would argue that even Church music was to a large extent entertainment, serving to break the monotony of life and interest the congregation in spiritual matters. Put another way, it was written to sound pleasing.

    This is not to say that no modern art music is pleasing, but that no longer seems to be the primary purpose, particularly with pieces that feature noise, electronic events, and gimmicks like Cage's infamous silence.

    I think the closest we have today to a genre approaching "Classical" music in intention and sound is modern movie soundtracks, some of which are influenced by the more radical art music movements. I think movie soundtracks are the future of music which is complex, challenging, artistic, aesthetically-pleasing, expressive, and entertaining: classical music.

  6. #51
    Captain of Water Music some guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    271
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by zlya View Post
    What is the purpose of modern art music? Is it to uplift the spirit, to challenge the intellect, to express meaning?

    Until at least the 19th Century, the purpose of most "Classical" music was entertainment. I realize a large percentage was religious, but I would argue that even Church music was to a large extent entertainment, serving to break the monotony of life and interest the congregation in spiritual matters. Put another way, it was written to sound pleasing.

    This is not to say that no modern art music is pleasing, but that no longer seems to be the primary purpose, particularly with pieces that feature noise, electronic events, and gimmicks like Cage's infamous silence.
    Knowing the purpose implies that you know what composers are thinking. Or were thinking. Knowing what people are thinking usually comes by means of what they say, which may be reliable, maybe not. Like anyone else, composers are capable of saying what they think you want to hear. Or knowledge of purpose could come from noticing what people do, and drawing conclusions. So if your spouse remembers an important get-together with friends from out of town every time it's meatloaf for dinner, you conclude that the meetings are fake, and that your spouse really hates your meatloaf (and doesn't want to say so).

    Your use of "pleasing" and "entertaining" makes me think you're using method number two. But there's a problem, a word like "pleasing" doesn't describe the music itself, but only roughly indicates a response to it. So my friend Laura, for instance, finds Beethoven heavy and dense, too complex to enjoy. And I find Beethoven to be all sorts of things, including heavy and dense, too, sometimes--but not nearly as dense as some other things I also enjoy, and the complexities (even though much diminished by time and familiarity) are part of what I find enjoyable. Same music. Two very different responses.

    So where does that leave us? That you don't find modern art music pleasing. And you don't like noise or "electronic events." OK. But you seem to be saying that if modern art music doesn't please you then it's not pleasing, that its purpose is not to please. And that's not OK, not because it's not OK to dislike modern art music, but because your conclusion rests on too flimsy a premise.

    Why, you might as well say that life before 1800 was boring!

  7. #52
    Commander, Assistant Conductor zlya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    South Korea
    Posts
    153
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by some guy View Post
    So where does that leave us? That you don't find modern art music pleasing. And you don't like noise or "electronic events." OK. But you seem to be saying that if modern art music doesn't please you then it's not pleasing, that its purpose is not to please. And that's not OK, not because it's not OK to dislike modern art music, but because your conclusion rests on too flimsy a premise.
    This is not to say that no modern art music is pleasing, but that no longer seems to be the primary purpose, particularly with pieces that feature noise, electronic events, and gimmicks like Cage's infamous silence.
    Trouble with the double negative? I meant that modern art music may be pleasing, but it seems to me that pleasing the ear is not the primary purpose.

    That's like saying that maybe the primary purpose of Sam Beckett's plays is not to entertain the audience, and maybe the primary purpose of James Joyce's books is not fun escapism. Beckett and Joyce were greats, and I love their works. I even find them fun and entertaining, but I can't help feeling that there is another purpose there. Maybe I'm wrong.

    So again, I ask, what do you think the purpose of modern art music is?

  8. #53
    Captain of Water Music Ouled Nails's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    447
    Post Thanks / Like
    So again, I ask, what do you think the purpose of modern art music is?

    It is the intent of the artist.


  9. #54
    Captain of Water Music some guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    271
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by zlya View Post
    Trouble with the double negative?
    No, no, no!!! I do not have no trouble with the double negative, no...

    ...well, maybe a little. (I blame Chaucer, who used double and even triple negatives.)

    Quote Originally Posted by zlya View Post
    ...modern art music may be pleasing, but it seems to me that pleasing the ear is not the primary purpose.

    That's like saying that maybe the primary purpose of Sam Beckett's plays is not to entertain the audience, and maybe the primary purpose of James Joyce's books is not fun escapism. Beckett and Joyce were greats, and I love their works. I even find them fun and entertaining, but I can't help feeling that there is another purpose there. Maybe I'm wrong.

    So again, I ask, what do you think the purpose of modern art music is?
    Barney Childs used to say that the purpose of composing was to make good sounds. I don't think the purpose of classic/serious/art music was ever simply to entertain. But to please the ear? Of course! That's what everyone has always written music to do. Different things will please different people was my point. And I don't think you can conclude that modern art music isn't meant to please because some people (even if "some" is "most") don't find it pleasing. In the twentieth century, composers and then listeners discovered that all sorts of things that had never before been deemed pleasant were actually very pleasing, including loud, abrasive, relentless, electronic noise.

    Yeah. Whatever else is going on, in any music, pleasing the ear is the fundamental purpose.

  10. #55
    Apprentice, Piano
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think that it's not only "pleasing the ear" which is the purpose of music. "Pleasing the ear" for me, means that we make music for the listeners and they will be the one to tell whether your music is good because it's pleasing or they may say that the music is just a whole bunch of noise.

    Why do we still have "unpleasing music?" (for some) and why do composers of this "unpleasing music" write this kind of music though some people may not find it pleasing? Could it be the composer’s purpose? Well, only the composer would know. The composer’s purpose may be personal and I guess, that is what he wants for his music to sounds like. "Modern art music" music as art, from the word "art" means self explanatory (through music, fine arts, etc.), I think that the composer just expressed himself according to what he feels. I think that it would be unfair for the composer if his work is criticized just because it's unpleasing to some, for his work reflects himself.

    We have modern music because of musicians with their own style and art in music. It's our duty to make music grow and live. The purpose of music for me is for "art" personal, and a way of living.


  11. #56
    Midshipman, Forte
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    41
    Post Thanks / Like
    Like Hitsware said, there has always been resistance to what was regarded as "modern music" at the time.
    The audience at the Bach Saint Matthew Passion premiere was appalled at what they considered a "blasphemous musical comedy."
    The audience at the Franck Symphony in d minor premiere was appalled because it contained an English horn solo. (Never mind the fact that one of the Haydn symphonies contained an English horn duet. Music criticism isn't supposed to make sense.)
    So now we laugh at those who were shocked by what was at the time "modern music."
    We are afraid that future generations will laugh at us.

    But will they?
    Probably not. All we have is inductive reasoning, and we cannot get conclusive evidence from inductive reasoning.

    Schonberg was optimistic about how quickly twelve-tone music would take hold. When he was conducting a rehearsal of one of his own compositions, a sneaky clarinet player played his part on the wrong size clarinet, just to see if Schonberg would know the difference. He didn't. When the clarinet player revealed his trick, Schonberg said, "No, but my grandchildren will be able to tell the difference."

    Schonberg was born in 1874. I am about the right age to be Schonberg's great great grandson. My sister has grandchildren. Yet the world's population is still just as tonal as it ever was.

    Contrast this to the Eighteenth Century, when there was a difference of only two generations between the Baroque Era and the Classical Era. Bach and Vivaldi were considered passe in only 2 generations, and now Schonberg is still new and shocking after 6 generations!

    Modern composers are making the mistake of overlooking a very powerful enemy--Nature. As Hindemith pointed out in "The Craft of Music Composition," microtonality, polytonality, and atonality cannot be found in the folk music of any culture in the world, so we can infer that they are contrary to our natural instincts.

    I wish the best of luck to both modern composers and women's libbers, but I suggest that they get to know their enemy a little better.
    Last edited by tomato; Sep-22-2007 at 12:24.

  12. #57
    Captain of Water Music some guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    271
    Post Thanks / Like
    Careful when you grind that "nature" axe, tomato. The blade is sharp--both edges. What's "natural" to humans is that we make things. There are no cars in nature. No skyscrapers, no freeways. No museums full of paintings. No glazed windows. No refrigerators. Just for a couple of off-the-cuff examples. Or ARE there? If humans are part of nature, then everything humans do is natural. Making stuff up is natural. So in a sense, all that concrete and all that steel and plastic is natural. Unless you want to argue that bird's nests and spider webs and beaver dams are less natural than seeds and flowers and clouds.... And what would it prove if no folk music anywhere had microtonality, atonality, or polytonality? In the strictest sense, it might be said that these terms apply to western classical music, and in the same way no folk music has sonata-allegro or piano concerti or symphony orchestras. So what? And loosely speaking, lots of folk music has all three of those things (though polyrhythm is possibly more prevalent than those three). Maybe Hindemith didn't know this (though I can hardly believe it), but certainly you should know that many twentieth century trends came out of the researches of composers in non-Western cultures around the world. But again, so what? Folk music, by the way, is one of those things made by humans. You know, like plastic and poison gas and mathematics. So if you were thinking of arguing that concrete and atonality are "unnatural," then I'm afraid you'll have to agree that folk music is "unnatural," too, eh?

  13. #58
    Vice Admiral Virtuoso rojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    3,213
    Post Thanks / Like
    I wonder, what am I missing about the reference to women's libbers?
    ''Music, I feel, should be emotional first and intellectual second.'' - Maurice Ravel
    ''The greatest education in the world is watching the masters at work.'' - Michael Jackson


  14. #59
    Captain of Water Music some guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    271
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ha ha. Probably nothing! (I took it to mean that tomato thinks men are naturally superior to women. Best to just back away slowly, not making any eye contact, if I'm right!) ((If I'm wrong, I will have to get the old sackcloth out and perhaps cook up some fresh ashes.))

  15. #60
    Midshipman, Forte
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    41
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by rojo View Post
    I wonder, what am I missing about the reference to women's libbers?
    Sorry I didn't make that easier to understand.
    Women's libbers promote unisex, whereas humans do not carry unisex genes.
    Consequently, men keep right on patronizing strip clubs, girlie magazines, and houses of ill repute as they did before.

    By the same token, modern composers promote atonality, polytonality, and microtonality, whereas humans do not carry atonal, polytonal, or microtonal genes.
    Consequently, concert-goers keep right on patronizing Beethoven and Tschaikovsky as they did before.

    Some Guy, I realize I didn't make that very clear.
    You don't have to don a sackcloth and ashes.

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •