I'm curious of what you ladies and gentlemen think overall of today's music: things you hear on TV, radio, ect.

What I think is..well here's a little about myself first so you know who this is coming from. I'm a 16 year old African-American male raised in an average middle-class California city.

I think the music of this generation has really been watered down a bit compared to previous ones. When I browse youtube and hear people's so called 'Original Compositions', they sound anything but original and are usually just repeated one-octave arpeggios with the RH with linear LH patterns and simple progressions commonly heard in media. I think when we're young and hear the same progressions over and over and the 'stuff on TV', we associate it with a certain emotion and it ends up being all that we know. I admit, I'm not fully into Chopin.. yet (actually I was obsessed over one of his mazurkas for a while), but I was mainly pulled into Debussy and Lizst's works (Yeah, I know, another I'm another Clair De Noob/Leibstrum noob). But the way they presented the harmony and melody through wide LH arpeggios and modulations opened my ears to both a new method of expression and perspective of the timbre (if that's the right word) of the piano. It's not just about banging chords and octaves but can also present a sort of organic atmosphere too. I could ramble on all day but ultimately I think that music is slowly developing boundaries to where it's alright to call something completely unoriginal 'Original' because of the majorty's lack of musical exposure.

I don't think there is much "music" to modern music, especially rap (which seems to be everyone's favorite thing). With all the sampling going on, usually just a little 2-bar squiggly electronic melody that's repeated ad nauseum, I want to ride around with my speakers blasting Coltrane and a sign on my car saying, "if you're gonna sample something, sample THIS". But modern "rock" isn't much better. It seems every band uses the same chord progressions over and over again and sing in the same whiny voice.

I admit I haven't bothered checking out "original compositions" on YouTube. Problem is, the masses are under-exposed as you said, and the "legit" musicians are composing music that is intended only for the "elite" few (no one else can stand it).

Plus, classical music tends to grow on people after a couple decades or even a century, so ask us again in a hundred years, ok? and we'll tell you what we like today.

And btw - Liszt is really great!

You know, i hear they are going to mix country and rap, they plan to call it crap.
After we hit the late 40's, a sad period of general Dematerialization of star trek proportions began. What an average bloke would call talent nowadays is an insulting small amount of individualism and discipline. If pop culture were a person(and i'm not the violent type) i would put on ice skates and do a figure eight over his/her throat. Afterwards i would dispense alcohol everywhere, apply a dress, cover the individual in chocolate syrup, marshmallows, Schwastikas done poorly with permanent Sharpies, and vulgar drawings on the person's forehead. Chances are, they would gladly blame it on a frat party, and go on to finally decide it isn't beneficial to turn a well tempered art form into a garbage disposal full of lemons, onions, garlic breath and freshly changed diapers.

That just might suffice....

OMG! I have surgery and monica converts!!!! *making room on the darkside bench*

You can thank my piano teacher!

p.s. Hi Nathan.

I think there is music for all situation ; I like dancing to some Electro stuff, passing out to some other Post-rock stuff... And I like to listen to some piano stuff. If what you're saying is, "popular music nowadays are crappy compositions", then I mostly agree. What do you expect when it's 12 years old "improvising" it on his guitar with no thoughts given to anything other than "sounding cool" ? Regardless, popular music can be fun, it just is completly different in its purpose than classical music. As a litterature major, I pretty much think the same about nowadays books ; most of today's book are hollow rehashed crap, read by pregnant women inbetween strawberries and chocolate. That doesn't make it "bad", it just limits its "artistic value" (if such thing exists) ; I like reading sci-fi books in my offtime, and some of those could have been written by dumb monkeys and selected by some popular press group.

i think modern (contemporary) piano music is trash. Sure there are a few good compositions, but for the most part composers like Sylvano Bussotti produce absolute garbage and should not be mentioned as music.

(case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7obhECqP8o4 )

why? because if someone can pound away at the keys and be called a composer, then that opens up the door for anyone to be called a musician. And that, my friends, undermines the beauty and value of greats like Bach, Liszt, Chopin, Rachmaninov, etc.

That is a bit of a sweeping statement to put it mildly.
While I don't like Stockhausen and Bussotti any more than you do, I would hesitate to dub them as nothing more than trash. Rather you should keep your options open.

I well remember, in a previous life I found Prokofiev and Bartok impossibly modern and impatalable. But contemporary music needs to grow on you - a long time. I can now appreciate (and sometimes even enjoy) the likes of Sorabji and Xenakis. Whether the random pointillistic devices of a Bussotti can ever be enjoyed, I am not sure though.

That link Juufa gave just leaves me puzzled. Is there any way this is something else than random notes on a sheet of music ?

"Once upon a time, a fly, after too much mexican food, decided to stop by a music sheet ; the result might not smell good but still - some call it music."

EDIT : let alone call it a "monolith of the piano repertoire", unless by using the greek "monolith" you mean the english "tombstone".

mmmmm ... mexican food!

there's a lot of modern classical that's not insipid ... have you guys listened to lieberman's gargoyles?? Alex has a great recording of it on youtube. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn79Zi5yJKE ) I remember when I was 13-14 and had just discovered the 3rd rach concerto ... i was listening and playing it obsessively. And I remember my dad asked me, why don't you try playing to something less modern! hahaha ... i remember thinking, "if you only knew..." . But that kind of illustrates Chris' point ( and you know how much I hate to agree with Chris! ), some contemporary music has to fall on educated ears.

Well the Gargoyles you linked I can appreciate ; there's a semblance of rythm, melodic lines, dynamics. I'm a big Scriabin fan, so I'm not completly lost to "atonality" or more modern sounds I guess. Though the title is in a way programatic, it also has, independantly from the "gargoyle" idea, a musical narrative, like a Bach fugue, a Chopin Etude or a Scriabin sonata would.

The other youtube's link from Juufa on the other hand, I'd love to have an "expert" talk about it, what enjoyement can be found, etc.
For what I understand about serialism, it's more of a creative process, so I guess I could enjoy the thought and the sheet analysis of the work - like one could be amazed by the sheer brillance of some mathematic or physic demonstration. But sadly, my ears are those of a mere mortal, hardly a musician, and they don't decrypt the numbers, functions, operations that are rumored to hide behind all this. Even if I could, I don't quite see the point (I'd rather have fun with numbers or whatever particules physics can come up with).

I've tried reading some comments on youtube (my bad) and some articles on more modern atonal music, and it only struck me as being extremely snobbish. The only things I could find was derogatory comments on how "tonal music is so last century". Like I was saying early, to me it goes beyond tonality : I could use the same scale those composers do (I could say, every single note on my piano), the same harmonies (or dissonance), and still I'd try to give it a sense of rythm, a sense of melody (not necessarily "melodious", but more in the idea of "coordinated").
That's what I like about Scriabin, there rarely is atonality for the sake of it, there are harmonies backing it up, phrases, and it is used to created contrast. Indeed, certain sounds create, in our mind, a certain effect, and only using one of those sound means that in the end you'll only be using one effect. That's why, I guess, composers changed modes, changed scales, changed harmonies, all the while transforming their melodies, their musical "ideas", always adapting them. Different harmonies and scales create different effects ; there is the well known closing effect of some cadences, the suspensive ones, there is the mazurka rythm, the waltz rythm, and you can have a Chopin waltz or Liszt forgotten waltz. To me, Juufa's link has a sound, it is one of headache ; it could be fine used sparingly, but left alone and rampant...
I don't even feel it is that big of an invention ; some so called poets use algorythms to order words from the dictionary too, regardless of the meaning it may have, and some did so long before modern atonality.

I was kind of long winded... I may be completly mistaken, but that's my take on atonality, and I'd love more experienced musicians to correct / enlighten me.

Personally I am not much either into atonal music,however I do love performing modern music(20th century and 21st century).
Composers such as Stockhausen and Xenakis,I will pass.
And when I talk modern composers,I am talking about tonal composers such as Carter Pann,Till Meyn,John Mackey, William Bolcom, Federico Garcia and others
If you listen to them you will hear much tonality and plenty of innovations

If we are talking about "High Art Music" then I don't really care for much of it. I studied composition in grad school and most of the the stuff I heard gave me a headache (I am not joking). It sounds so spotty and random most of the time. There are very few 20th/21st composers that I care for.

As for popular music, I still love the 80's and anything before that LOL. I think today's music is not that great but there are a few good songs out there.

That's my two cents!

Did someone mention Sorabji? I love, love him!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwIB6p5c ... annel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20G_RPQ8 ... annel_page

Now that is art. Seeing as you guys put your pitch in on atonal music, i thought i may as well too(i know, shoot me).

Atonal music has a heavy base in symbolism, and mysticism. You have to study the methods very carefully, for example: In Sorabji's Transcedental etude no 18 there is strong contrast between the left and right hand. You have exalting chords that point towards the piece developing a central key to no avail, whilst the right hand explores strictly chromatically or within the confines of 2 or 3 different intervals, bouncing about in a carefree manner. Very often to move from textural feel to feel he uses the main modal bridge at the beginning in a kind of manner that inexplicably puts the picture of a kind of unconditional love(not the romantic variety) that people really should extend to everyone regardless of circumstance. In the Quasi Habanera he bases it on ingenious rhythmic device and rubato, with wonderful use of whole tones in conjunction with tonal chords. A very different kind of piece, as you can easily observe. But i agree that there are several sections in things like his Opus Clavicembalisticum that are just plain unkempt and bereft of interesting symbolism. I believe that music period must strike a balance between individualism and sentimentality.