Where is classical music headed?
- Thread starter rojo
- Start date
rojo
(Ret)
Heard another fine, recent work today; Andrey Rubtsov`s Three Moods for wind quintet. He`s a young Russian oboe player and composer. The work was written in 2002, and it had me charmed. The third and final 'Mood' of the work is called Frivolity, and I found it spunky and uplifting.
So, yet more evidence that ccm is alive and well!
So, yet more evidence that ccm is alive and well!
Miz_ai
New member
i'm very glad i read this thread, also i'm very glad that i'm one of the 2 percent of ppl listening to classical music
i may not know many of 20th century music, fuzzy diffrent with romantic... i'm an amateur in Classical, just started listing seriously for a year
but i do like listening to Stravinsky, Dvorak, Debussy, Ravel, scriabin, George Lygeti , they are 20th Century right?
I agree that it takes time to understand and digest the music, as a teenager, i'm really feel blessed that i can fell for classical although i'm not playing instrument(only singing)
since a year ago, i try to find and download classical music that i can find, listen seriously and accept them the way they are... just because i don't understand anything about the theory and stuff..
I don't really know about 20'th century composers, but i do think ppl of the future will listen to film score, John William, i do listen to his music, and they are good!!
Also music from Classical Musical, Fantasy music from animations are also easy to remember.
Because of your discussion here, i now may search for those composers and try to listen for their music, i hope i can see the beauty of their music ^^.Hope can learn more from all of you all.. ^^
i may not know many of 20th century music, fuzzy diffrent with romantic... i'm an amateur in Classical, just started listing seriously for a year
but i do like listening to Stravinsky, Dvorak, Debussy, Ravel, scriabin, George Lygeti , they are 20th Century right?
I agree that it takes time to understand and digest the music, as a teenager, i'm really feel blessed that i can fell for classical although i'm not playing instrument(only singing)
since a year ago, i try to find and download classical music that i can find, listen seriously and accept them the way they are... just because i don't understand anything about the theory and stuff..
I don't really know about 20'th century composers, but i do think ppl of the future will listen to film score, John William, i do listen to his music, and they are good!!
Also music from Classical Musical, Fantasy music from animations are also easy to remember.
Because of your discussion here, i now may search for those composers and try to listen for their music, i hope i can see the beauty of their music ^^.Hope can learn more from all of you all.. ^^
rojo
(Ret)
Glad you liked the thread, and classical music as well, Miz_ai. All the composers you listed can be considered 20th century except Dvorak, who belongs in the Romantic period.
Thanks for your input; nice to know classical music and ccm is still enjoyed by people of every age, even young people like yourself! I`m curious; what works do you like by Ligeti?
Thanks for your input; nice to know classical music and ccm is still enjoyed by people of every age, even young people like yourself! I`m curious; what works do you like by Ligeti?
Miz_ai
New member
I only listen to these compositions by Ligeti, from what i heard i think he's really one of 20th century composers that create new style of music.. phrases of music reminds me of scriabin's compositions..
-bagatelle(catchy, jumpy, really nice ^^)
-Fanfares Etude for piano(sound really weird, esp the repitition, when it's going up and down, remind me of scriabin..)
-concert romanesc(quite moving on some part, esp strings, quite interesting piece, i still digesting this... don't get the whole image.. sound like conversations and scenes from action-drama movie) somebody can help me with the background desc. of this piece?
-musica ricercata only the eleventh part ^^:; (not cleared since only a part, but i quite like it)
-bagatelle(catchy, jumpy, really nice ^^)
-Fanfares Etude for piano(sound really weird, esp the repitition, when it's going up and down, remind me of scriabin..)
-concert romanesc(quite moving on some part, esp strings, quite interesting piece, i still digesting this... don't get the whole image.. sound like conversations and scenes from action-drama movie) somebody can help me with the background desc. of this piece?
-musica ricercata only the eleventh part ^^:; (not cleared since only a part, but i quite like it)
rojo
(Ret)
I agree with what you said about Ligeti`s style.
Here is some info about the piece in question from the Saint Louis Symphony Orchestra website; hope they won`t mind me quoting-
''His Concert Românesc, however, is an early work, written in 1951, while Ligeti was still living in Communist Hungary. (He fled his homeland for the West during the uprising of 1956.) Throughout the Stalinist Soviet bloc, concert music in a folkloric vein was encouraged by government officials. Ligeti ostensibly heeded that pressure in writing Concert Românesc. He was, in fact, genuinely interested in Rumanian folk music, which he had often heard during his youth and had studied at the Folklore Institute of Bucharest, in 1949. Some of the melodies he had learned during his research made their way into his Rumanian Concerto. But, as the composer observed of this piece, not everything in it is genuinely Rumanian, as I also invented elements in the spirit of the village bands. The original touches, especially some modernist harmonies in the final movement, led to the work being banned after a single rehearsal in Budapest. It did not receive a public performance until 1971.''
The work features a horn played at a distance. I don`t think I`ve heard this work. Yet. :grin:
Here is some info about the piece in question from the Saint Louis Symphony Orchestra website; hope they won`t mind me quoting-
''His Concert Românesc, however, is an early work, written in 1951, while Ligeti was still living in Communist Hungary. (He fled his homeland for the West during the uprising of 1956.) Throughout the Stalinist Soviet bloc, concert music in a folkloric vein was encouraged by government officials. Ligeti ostensibly heeded that pressure in writing Concert Românesc. He was, in fact, genuinely interested in Rumanian folk music, which he had often heard during his youth and had studied at the Folklore Institute of Bucharest, in 1949. Some of the melodies he had learned during his research made their way into his Rumanian Concerto. But, as the composer observed of this piece, not everything in it is genuinely Rumanian, as I also invented elements in the spirit of the village bands. The original touches, especially some modernist harmonies in the final movement, led to the work being banned after a single rehearsal in Budapest. It did not receive a public performance until 1971.''
The work features a horn played at a distance. I don`t think I`ve heard this work. Yet. :grin:
rojo
(Ret)
- Györgi Ligeti: Concert Romanesc
- 1. Andantino
- 2. Allegro vivace
- 3. Adagio ma non troppo
- 4. Molto vivace
Daan Admiraal, conductor
Erik-Jonas van de Griendt, violin soli
Live recording: 20/05/2000
Ouled Nails
New member
I haven't, rojo, but it's an opera about freedom. I have just read the synopsis here http://www.osvaldogolijov.com/wd7s.htm and I'm now interested in hearing all of its music.
Miz_ai
New member
btw, i've just watch 2001:the space odyssey, this famous movie has many ligeti right?! his pieces in this movie are really mind-blowing!!! the requem and the orchestral pieces, i can't belive what i heard!! somewhat really hypnotized me!
hey i know this osvaldo golijov, he also participate in mozart festival last year in vien, i've seen the review of this festival ^^
hey i know this osvaldo golijov, he also participate in mozart festival last year in vien, i've seen the review of this festival ^^
some guy
New member
Well, you kids have been having fun, and no mistake. And now I want to have some fun, too.
ON asked awhile back, "Honestly, how much music do you listen, on a yearly basis, originating from a composer beyond the Shostakovich or Vaughan William generation?" And no one answered that, so I will.
Most of the music I listen to is by people who are still alive. That's on a daily basis. And while I enjoy Poulenc and Sibelius and Prokofiev (three people I've had on the stereo recently), the bulk of my collection is by people who are still alive, or only recently deceased (like the very sweet and charming Luc Ferrari).
Since I spend as much time as possible hanging out with these folks, too, my sense of musical activity is much different from what I've seen so far on threads of this sort. That is, from where I'm standing, the music is very fine and strong and vital and entertaining, the composers are very sweet and charming and interesting, and the audiences are very enthusiastic and varied (more varied in Europe and Canada than in the U.S., to be sure, but still pretty varied).
But more to the point, rojo wanted to know where classical music is headed. The best response I've heard to that was at a lecture by John Cage. His answer? "Do something. That will be the next thing." But easier perhaps to get a grasp of what's going on right now, and I don't think that "the new simplicity" really accounts for very much. It probably accounts for what will be most visible as its what the big labels are most likely to promote, if they do anything past Debussy, but I wouldn't put it any higher than that.
Electroacoustic music, now sixty years old, seems to be growing and growing, with new studios opening all over the world and new practitioners joining the ranks every year. The increased capacity for memory in smaller and smaller compasses means that laptops are the tool of choice for more and more new music composers. What's sitting on my lap right now as I type this post can run circles around any of the electronic studios of the fifties, sixties, or seventies.
Multimedia works are still very popular (and very good). I just saw the Demons in New York and Miguel Azguime's "Itinerario do Sal" in Bourges. Two very different but vastly entertaining multimedia events. And live electronics are very popular, too. The whole noise scene is basically live electronics, as is most of the recent improv scene. (Jacek Kochan & Kazuhisa Uchihashi played at the recent Musica electronica nova festival in Wroclaw. Wildly good.)
And there's all the acoustic stuff still going on, too. A lot of incredibly talented instrumentalists in Romania, for instance. I recall (on this thread?) someone saying that the quality of performers was declining. Not from what I've been hearing. Composer/performers are everywhere and they're quite talented in both regards. Not maybe as accessible in the larger outlets, but you can still find plenty of Tim Hodgkinson and Chris Cutler and Edition Modern offerings on Amazon. (Correction. Three Edition Modern offerings on Amazon. Type in "Dumitrescu." Now I'm starting to agree with ON. Things are getting worse...)
ON asked awhile back, "Honestly, how much music do you listen, on a yearly basis, originating from a composer beyond the Shostakovich or Vaughan William generation?" And no one answered that, so I will.
Most of the music I listen to is by people who are still alive. That's on a daily basis. And while I enjoy Poulenc and Sibelius and Prokofiev (three people I've had on the stereo recently), the bulk of my collection is by people who are still alive, or only recently deceased (like the very sweet and charming Luc Ferrari).
Since I spend as much time as possible hanging out with these folks, too, my sense of musical activity is much different from what I've seen so far on threads of this sort. That is, from where I'm standing, the music is very fine and strong and vital and entertaining, the composers are very sweet and charming and interesting, and the audiences are very enthusiastic and varied (more varied in Europe and Canada than in the U.S., to be sure, but still pretty varied).
But more to the point, rojo wanted to know where classical music is headed. The best response I've heard to that was at a lecture by John Cage. His answer? "Do something. That will be the next thing." But easier perhaps to get a grasp of what's going on right now, and I don't think that "the new simplicity" really accounts for very much. It probably accounts for what will be most visible as its what the big labels are most likely to promote, if they do anything past Debussy, but I wouldn't put it any higher than that.
Electroacoustic music, now sixty years old, seems to be growing and growing, with new studios opening all over the world and new practitioners joining the ranks every year. The increased capacity for memory in smaller and smaller compasses means that laptops are the tool of choice for more and more new music composers. What's sitting on my lap right now as I type this post can run circles around any of the electronic studios of the fifties, sixties, or seventies.
Multimedia works are still very popular (and very good). I just saw the Demons in New York and Miguel Azguime's "Itinerario do Sal" in Bourges. Two very different but vastly entertaining multimedia events. And live electronics are very popular, too. The whole noise scene is basically live electronics, as is most of the recent improv scene. (Jacek Kochan & Kazuhisa Uchihashi played at the recent Musica electronica nova festival in Wroclaw. Wildly good.)
And there's all the acoustic stuff still going on, too. A lot of incredibly talented instrumentalists in Romania, for instance. I recall (on this thread?) someone saying that the quality of performers was declining. Not from what I've been hearing. Composer/performers are everywhere and they're quite talented in both regards. Not maybe as accessible in the larger outlets, but you can still find plenty of Tim Hodgkinson and Chris Cutler and Edition Modern offerings on Amazon. (Correction. Three Edition Modern offerings on Amazon. Type in "Dumitrescu." Now I'm starting to agree with ON. Things are getting worse...)
Conservationist
New member
That sounds like a nice way of saying "disorganized."
The postmodern era has produced a good option every week, and no greats. I wonder why.
some guy
New member
Depends entirely on what you're willing to call "great." If you define "great" as to exclude modern practice, then no wonder there are no greats in the "postmodern" era! But that would be cheating, eh? (And be a dear and give us some dates. I don't keep up with such terms--sorry!--and don't know when "postmodern" started.)
OK, back to you.
OK, back to you.
John Curtin
New member
Well, postmodernism is a fuzzy concept, and the distinction between modernism and postmodernism is rather blurry; many people consider postmodernism to be an extension of modernism, some refuse to admit it exists (which is pretty postmodern in itself really).
Anyway, 'modernism' in music probably started at the end of the 19th century. It was essentially a rejection of Romanticism and what it represented: fiery, unbridled emotion, hedonism, nationalism, worship of the hero concept, etc. At the time many felt that these ideals could only lead to disaster, and the fears really materialised in the first world war. In the early 20th century, modernism crystalised into several different forms: compare Debussy with Mahler with Schoenberg with Hindemith. The essential features of modernist thought are objectivity, rejection of past formalisms (especially those associated with Romanticism), and an interest in the possibilities provided by the promises of science and technology.
Postmodernism developed towards the middle of the 20th century as, if not an outright rejection of modernism, a modification of modernist thought. Some major features of postmodernism are: a rejection of the idea of artistic 'progress' (which is a kind of argument against the existence of this thread but I'll get to that in a bit), an embracing of moral and cultural relativism (i.e. that there is no difference between 'high' and 'low' art, all art is 'created equal', and anything can be art), and also a rejection of the possibility of objectivity, and the emphasis on science.
The second feature I mentioned, relativism, did apply in some way to modernism as well, as that movement favoured experimentation and adoption of non-western traditions into western music.
However, the other two features are the key differences from modernism. Firstly, Schoenberg developed the 'pantonal' aesthetic (or whatever you want to call it) as a way of taking the progress of modernism to its 'logical conclusion'. This was based on the assumption, of course, that music was heading in one 'direction', towards some kind of goal. He noticed that the rules of tonality were being bent further and further, and decided that the inevitable aim of western music was to do away with tonality altogether.
Postmodernist thought rejects this idea outright: art has not 'aim' or purpose: it's not 'progressing' towards some goal. It simply changes, and there is no reason to believe that 'new' is better than 'old' (there's the relativism coming into it), or that 'future' is better than 'present'.
That's what I meant when I said it was an argument against the thread itself. Music has no 'future', it's not 'headed' in some kind of direction. It will simply continue to evolve and people will continue to contribute their own different ideas to the cultural gene pool. Some ideas will take off, some will die; chances are none of them will ever come close to dominate in the way that the Classical or Romantic or even some of the early Modernist aesthetics did in the past. And that's really probably a healthy thing (although admittedly that's my opinion and I would class myself as some kind of postmodernist myself - there's the old rejection of objectivity for you)
Therefore the artist can essentially do whatever s/he wants. For this reason John Cage is often cited as one of the earliest postmodern composers.
Of course, not all artists/philosophers/members of the general public accept postmodernism. It has essentially found no favour in Germany as far as I am aware, but is more popular in other parts of Europe and in North America. But the world of 'western classical music' (whatever that means) is one area of the arts where it seems to be strong.
So essentially I would answer the question of 'where is classical music headed?' by saying that it is headed everywhere and nowhere, and wherever you want to go.
(Also, obbligato: hi I am new; my name is Tom. I think I like this forum quite a bit. Apologies for the lengthy post but I find it a fascinating subject.)
Anyway, 'modernism' in music probably started at the end of the 19th century. It was essentially a rejection of Romanticism and what it represented: fiery, unbridled emotion, hedonism, nationalism, worship of the hero concept, etc. At the time many felt that these ideals could only lead to disaster, and the fears really materialised in the first world war. In the early 20th century, modernism crystalised into several different forms: compare Debussy with Mahler with Schoenberg with Hindemith. The essential features of modernist thought are objectivity, rejection of past formalisms (especially those associated with Romanticism), and an interest in the possibilities provided by the promises of science and technology.
Postmodernism developed towards the middle of the 20th century as, if not an outright rejection of modernism, a modification of modernist thought. Some major features of postmodernism are: a rejection of the idea of artistic 'progress' (which is a kind of argument against the existence of this thread but I'll get to that in a bit), an embracing of moral and cultural relativism (i.e. that there is no difference between 'high' and 'low' art, all art is 'created equal', and anything can be art), and also a rejection of the possibility of objectivity, and the emphasis on science.
The second feature I mentioned, relativism, did apply in some way to modernism as well, as that movement favoured experimentation and adoption of non-western traditions into western music.
However, the other two features are the key differences from modernism. Firstly, Schoenberg developed the 'pantonal' aesthetic (or whatever you want to call it) as a way of taking the progress of modernism to its 'logical conclusion'. This was based on the assumption, of course, that music was heading in one 'direction', towards some kind of goal. He noticed that the rules of tonality were being bent further and further, and decided that the inevitable aim of western music was to do away with tonality altogether.
Postmodernist thought rejects this idea outright: art has not 'aim' or purpose: it's not 'progressing' towards some goal. It simply changes, and there is no reason to believe that 'new' is better than 'old' (there's the relativism coming into it), or that 'future' is better than 'present'.
That's what I meant when I said it was an argument against the thread itself. Music has no 'future', it's not 'headed' in some kind of direction. It will simply continue to evolve and people will continue to contribute their own different ideas to the cultural gene pool. Some ideas will take off, some will die; chances are none of them will ever come close to dominate in the way that the Classical or Romantic or even some of the early Modernist aesthetics did in the past. And that's really probably a healthy thing (although admittedly that's my opinion and I would class myself as some kind of postmodernist myself - there's the old rejection of objectivity for you)
Therefore the artist can essentially do whatever s/he wants. For this reason John Cage is often cited as one of the earliest postmodern composers.
Of course, not all artists/philosophers/members of the general public accept postmodernism. It has essentially found no favour in Germany as far as I am aware, but is more popular in other parts of Europe and in North America. But the world of 'western classical music' (whatever that means) is one area of the arts where it seems to be strong.
So essentially I would answer the question of 'where is classical music headed?' by saying that it is headed everywhere and nowhere, and wherever you want to go.
(Also, obbligato: hi I am new; my name is Tom. I think I like this forum quite a bit. Apologies for the lengthy post but I find it a fascinating subject.)
some guy
New member
And how odd that this should be so, as Cage's practice was all about discipline, not license. Sure, he wanted to free people from restrictive ideas, ideas that kept them from experiencing things. ("If you develop an ear for sounds that are musical, it is like developing an ego. You begin to refuse sounds that are not musical and that way cut yourself off from a good deal of experience.") But freeing is not quite the same as setting loose!
Cage wanted to be inclusive, hence encouraged people to open themselves up to new things, to discovering the value of things they'd never considered valuable. I'd sum it up like this: Wanting whatever you do is not the same as doing whatever you want. The latter is, ironically, restrictive; the former is not. The former is what Cage practiced.
John Curtin
New member
I didn't mean to imply that Cage was undisciplined; that was perhaps sloppy writing on my part (I do that from time to time). By saying "do whatever s/he wants" I was trying to say something like "approach art/music in different ways and find new styles/types/methods of creating music".
I do like your way of phrasing it: "Wanting whatever you do is not the same as doing whatever you want". You have a way with words, sir.
I do like your way of phrasing it: "Wanting whatever you do is not the same as doing whatever you want". You have a way with words, sir.
rojo
(Ret)
I was hoping you`d find this thread, some guy. 
By all means; let the ccm party continue!
I can certainly see electroacoustic music being a popular choice for today`s composers. The accessibility and lower costs are surely significant for a budding composer.
I`m wondering; what kind of differentiation is there between ccm and electronica? Is there a lot of overlap of the two genres? Does the noise scene fit into electronica, or ccm, or both?
I`m inclined to believe that I`m a postmodernist as well, as I enjoy music from all eras and genres (with favs in the Debussy-Ravel era,) and have always said that music evolves and therefore the music of all eras is all related to each other.
Doesn`t the fact that music evolves mean that classical music is headed somewhere, albeit now in many different directions instead of mainly one? Or are the options now of going backwards, sideways... even then, it`s still going somewhere; it`s not stagnant...
Why are there so many thought-provoking posts in this thread? :grin:
By all means; let the ccm party continue!I can certainly see electroacoustic music being a popular choice for today`s composers. The accessibility and lower costs are surely significant for a budding composer.
I`m wondering; what kind of differentiation is there between ccm and electronica? Is there a lot of overlap of the two genres? Does the noise scene fit into electronica, or ccm, or both?
I`m inclined to believe that I`m a postmodernist as well, as I enjoy music from all eras and genres (with favs in the Debussy-Ravel era,) and have always said that music evolves and therefore the music of all eras is all related to each other.
Doesn`t the fact that music evolves mean that classical music is headed somewhere, albeit now in many different directions instead of mainly one? Or are the options now of going backwards, sideways... even then, it`s still going somewhere; it`s not stagnant...
Why are there so many thought-provoking posts in this thread? :grin:
janny108
New member
What made Furtwangler and Toscanini great conductors? Don't you think there are any great ones today? Any Russians? Gergiev has made a lot of media. Do you think he's real or hype?
Jan