Piano Society
Free Classical Keyboard Recordings
It is currently Thu Dec 18, 2014 12:06 am

All times are UTC - 1 hour




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: contemporary music
PostPosted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:47 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:38 pm
Posts: 8541
Call me old fashioned or maybe even foolish, but I just can't get into some of this contemporary music. I just listened to the file submited by Avguste Antonov, titled "Handgelobnis" and I don't get it. What is so great about this kind of music? Mr. Antonov, I mean no disrespect to you at all, as you are a fine player, but I never understood how people can like this music. You can't hum along to it, or tap your foot, let alone remember it. And nobody would know if you make a mistake. It seems like cheating to me.
I know, art is in the eye of the beholder, but I'm wondering how everybody else feels about this 'modern' music.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:54 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:45 am
Posts: 9637
Location: Netherlands
I used to feel like that too. Few people can just jump into contemporary and like it. It has to grow on you by gradually pushing the limits of what you listen to. I actually quite enjoyed that piece but would not have done so 10 years ago. Mind you this is pretty mild stuff, not really avant-garde or being modern for the sake of it. It's not such a far cry from, say, Messiaen. Glad to see that many of today's contemporary composers write tuneful music again instead of screeching scrunching noises (as was the vogue some decennia ago, and which estranged many people from the classical music scene).

_________________
Nothing is always absolutely so -- Sturgeon's law
Chris Breemer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 1:28 am 
I don't know much of contemporary music, but I am someone who very much enjoys atonal music such as that of Schoenberg, Bartok, Berg, Webern, and others. Even pieces that seem extremely short and undeveloped, like many of Schoenberg's pieces, are actually extremely complex and very well organized. Anyone who thinks that these composers just struck random notes and wrote them down is being a philistine.

Music need not always be melodic. In fact, some may not realize it at first but there is much tonal music that is technically amelodic. Many of Beethoven's works seem less concerned with created a tune that you'd be able to hum than they are with just creating a sound, or an effect, or a texture. A great deal of music in the 19th century is like this as well. So just because it lacks a tune we should dislike it? I hardly think so. Atonal music is almost exclusively concerned with these characteristics of colour, texture, and quality. Melodies are not required to arouse feelings in people; pure sound can do that just as easily. Most people seem to dislike it only because the sounds are so foreign to them. Its like listening to the traditional music of another culture. Some people just don't get it. That's why we should strive to educate ourselves. Once you actually study atonal music and appreciate just how well structured it is you begin to see where the beauty lies.

As for contemporary music though, again I really am completely oblivious as to what most modern composers are doing. Its something I really should strive to educate myself about. In any case, I think its important that we not limit ourselves to music written in a very limited 400 year time span, and especially that we strive to discover and support contemporary composers and that we support innovation and new ideas. Close-mindedness never does anyone any good.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:07 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:27 pm
Posts: 1842
Location: Sweden
Contemporary music does not necessary need to be atonal, have a complex structure or invent something new in style. I remember a discussion I had with a successful swedish composer (http://www.wiklander.se) several years ago and he believed that what happened in the classical area between about 1950-1970 was probably not good for classical music. Everyone tried to find different paths and invent new styles, to the extent that composers tended to forget the music itself and to whom we write music for. As he felt it, that did gradually changed until today and you are now "allowed" (to be professionally published) to compose in whatever style one feel necessary to realize your compositional idea.

Though, most contemporary music is complex to understand and is definitely NOT composed for the avarage listener. I thinks this is a pity and also one of the major reasons why classical music is not very popular today (thinking of the thread in the general forum).

But anyway, one should not avoid contemporary music when it is atonal or musically complex. But it takes a brave mind to really try to understand it. The human mind seeks for what it is most used to. In music, that is a clear melody or an obvious harmonic pattern. If we cannot find any of these ingredients, we feel that we do not understand it. But do one really have to understand it? Why not just listen to the sound and see how (and if) it moves you in different motional directions? But do not force it to your kids. That will for sure make them even more resistant.

_________________
Pianist profile of Robert


Last edited by robert on Sun Sep 24, 2006 9:58 am, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:29 pm
Posts: 170
Location: Ede, Netherlands
I used to and still dislike most contemporary music, although there are many good works too. If you count Bartok as a contemporary composer (I'd rather classify him as 20th century), then that's my favorite contemporary composer. The pieces I really can't get into are the atonal dodecocacolaphonical stuff or whatever it's called; Schönberg, (maybe Berg, but I haven't heard any pieces by him) and Webern. Schönberg's Pieces for piano I find rather annoying and detestable, but my list with worst piano compositions ever tops with Webern's Varations op. 27. Even Richter played them, but they are so awful to listen to!
Neither do I really like Barber, Cage, Copland and those American composers. Barber's Sonata is not very bad, but I still don't enjoy it as much as less abstract music.
I probably dislike Xenakis (and probably Stockhausen) even more. I find Xenakis' Eonta so annoying to listen to. The trumpet makes that annoying "noise" :? .
I prefer orchestral or chamber music in the contemporary repetoire. A piano concerto sounds much better than the pieces for piano solo written today. My favorite piano piece (solo) is probably "Shadows of Silence", by a Danish composer called Sorensen (o with / in it). I heard it played by Leif Ove Andsnes. Unlike Schönberg, who wrote either too "silent" pieces or too loud pieces, I think Sorensen did a great job here. Boulez' Second sonata is not bad too, but I prefer Sorensen.
For piano and orchestra the only piece I've ever heard is Dreams by Ian Munro, played as an obligated piece during the Queen Elizabeth Competition for piano 2003 (I was 10 by then :D). Sometimes an orchestra can be so important to the piece, especially in contemporary music.

_________________
Yiteng

"Without music, life would be a mistake."
Friedrich Nietzsche


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 7:40 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:45 am
Posts: 9637
Location: Netherlands
Quote:
The pieces I really can't get into are the atonal dodecocacolaphonical stuff or whatever it's called; Schönberg, (maybe Berg, but I haven't heard any pieces by him) and Webern. Schönberg's Pieces for piano I find rather annoying and detestable, but my list with worst piano compositions ever tops with Webern's Varations op. 27. Even Richter played them, but they are so awful to listen to!

dodecocacolaphonical :lol: Must remember that one.
Can I suggest dodecacophonical as an alternative ?

Yes I agree, that system, as a means in itself, has proven to be sort of a dead-end. However its influence on other composers has been lasting, and it was perhaps a necessary step in the evolution of music.

Quote:
Neither do I really like Barber, Cage, Copland and those American composers.

That's a bit of a sweeping statement. Many 'modern' American composers actually write very accessible and tuneful music. Barber can be a bit acidic, even atonal, but also gorgeously romantic (listen to his violin concerto, the symphonies, and the School for Scandal overture - not to mention that Adagio for Strings which is all but played into the ground). His piano concerto I find hard going though. The Sonata is a masterpiece of contemporary piano literature.
Copland can be really abstract and even atonal at times. But he has lots of immensely appealing works - Rodeo, El Salon Mexico, Danzon Cubano, the Third Symphony, Appalachian Spring - in short, his "Americana" works that everybody likes. Notsure about Cage - I think he's more of a prankster than a serious and lasting composer.

And among "those American composers" you find many similar names, composers who write gorgeous music in traditional mould, like Creston, Hanson, Diamond, Piston, and many more.

Quote:
I prefer orchestral or chamber music in the contemporary repetoire. A piano concerto sounds much better than the pieces for piano solo written today.

Not sure where you get that idea from. You could check Stephen Hough's album "New York Composes" with works by Copland, Ben Weber, Corigliano, and Tsontakis. Especially the latter two are very accessible and great to listen two. But the other two are worth the effort too.

_________________
Nothing is always absolutely so -- Sturgeon's law
Chris Breemer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:51 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:38 pm
Posts: 8541
Quote:
Barber can be a bit acidic, even atonal, but also gorgeously romantic


I haven't listened to much of Barber but I do like his Nocturne op. 33 - homage to John Fields.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:55 am 
Barber's Sonata is awesome. The last movement is an atonal fugue!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2007 1:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:19 pm
Posts: 106
Location: Germany
Anyone who knows the Ligeti etudes ? I think they're quite accessible even for the listener who is unfamiliar with contemporary music. In their case categories like tonal or atonal don't really fit. Of course they're atonal (in the sense of being NOT tonal), but they're definitely not atonal in the Schönbergian sense.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: "Modern" music
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 8:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:26 pm
Posts: 829
Location: Miami, Florida, USA
I was brought up in the old school: Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Rachmaninoff, Brahms, etc... My piano teachers never even mentioned anything more modern than Debussy or Ravel. In spite of that, I enjoy a lot of twentieth century music by composers like Bartok, Piston, Copland, Barber, Prokofiev, some Shostakovich, some Villa-Lobos, and a few others. Unfortunately, I haven't played much musice by those composers. However, I haven't even heard of many of the composers mentioned above. I'll have to look into them. I don't like Cage, most Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern. My favorite twentieth century composition is Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Modern" music
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 8:25 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:45 am
Posts: 9637
Location: Netherlands
John Robson wrote:
I don't like Cage, most Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern.

Nobody does :P
Well no, not true. Early works by by Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern are gorgeous - but also not really representative of 'modern' music.

John Robson wrote:
My favorite twentieth century composition is Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra.

Yeah I'd go along with that. An absolute masterpiece.

_________________
Nothing is always absolutely so -- Sturgeon's law
Chris Breemer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Modern" music
PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 10:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:19 pm
Posts: 106
Location: Germany
techneut wrote:
Early works by by Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern are gorgeous - but also not really representative of 'modern' music.

There is actually no contemporary composer who is "representative" for the music of our time. It is a matter of fact that the means of contemporary music enable one to express musical thoughts that could not have been "thought" in the world of "classical" music. In German there is the term "Neue Musik" (=new music, I'm not sure whether this is a prevalent term in English), which indicates something specifically new -- and that is a problem for most people. And then people start saying "I don't understand this kind of music, I don't get it" , but what do they mean ? "Getting it" for many people only means that the piece is easy enough to listen to and sounds somewhat nice. Well, in that case they can listen dozens of time to a Schönberg piece -- they'll never get anything.
But to say something positive, I would give the following advice to someone interested in cont. music: Don't expect anything. Most people have some underlying expectations connected to the term "music" -- I'd advise you to let go of them. Later on, you might still say "I don't like it" (I also do that quite often), but then you know at least what you're talking about, instead of thinking "this is crap" the whole time listening to a piece.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 4:56 am 
If music doesn't "move" you then don't play it. I was forced to do this in college. When you sit down to play Schoenburg and your dog leaves the room that should tell you something.
My advice would be to stick with what you like. I am a contemporary composer but write mostly in a romantic classical and to an extent somewhat modern style. You would probably find it much more accesible.
mattgreenecomposer.com


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2007 12:23 pm 
Quote:
If music doesn't "move" you then don't play it. I was forced to do this in college. When you sit down to play Schoenburg and your dog leaves the room that should tell you something.


Matt, as a composer you wouldn't be happy if the audience judged your work by their dogs' response. :wink:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 6:17 am 
My way to modern music started with Dvorak and Smetana, the composers i heard in my youth. I couldn´t find the music of Mozart, Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Chopin, Brahms, Schumann, Schubert or the old ones like Monteverdi, Scarlatti, Gesualdo, Schütz and others interesting enough for my ear. So after all the Dvorak Symphonies and the Cello Concerto i searched for another composers like them and found some who make similar but also different music as Dvorak, a bit more modern and dissonant but after a while i liked them.

When first i heard music of prokoviev i hated it, it was so atonal and not romantic. But after a while i loved it and so it was every time i found a new composer. My favorites now in music are: Bruckner, Mahler,Varese, Messiaen, Ives, Vaughan Williams, Schostakowitsch, Prokofieff, Allan Pettersson, Lutoslawski, Ligeti, Penderecki, Karl Amadeus Hartmann, Rachmaninoff, Janacek and much more of these composers with big orchestral symphonies. I don´t like Mozart or Haydn very much, this music (sorry for that but that are my feelings) is boring to me. Bach is one of the greatest composers i know and the late pieces of Gesualdo or many sonatas of Scarlatti are beautiful and deep (Gesualdo)

I like all the music of Anton Webern and Alban Berg but no music of Schönberg except some more tonal pieces. The opera "Moses and Aaron" by Schönberg i could never follow and had to stop it each time i looked at it.
Other favorites are John Adams, Steve Reich, Philip Glass, Aaron Copland, Bernstein, Arvo Pärt, Villa Lobos, some Xenakis pieces and many other composers of the 20th century.

For me music must tell a story to the feelings, i need no tapping or dancing to the music, i like the big and dramatic collisions. But this grew up in the last 30 years step by step. Mozart makes me aggressive, Pettersson calms me down for example.

Markus Brylka


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 4:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:19 pm
Posts: 106
Location: Germany
Quote:
When first i heard music of prokoviev i hated it, it was so atonal ...

Hm, if you're really into contemporary music, you will agree with me that Prokoviev was VERY much more a tonal than an atonal composer, in comparison with his contemporaries at least.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: dog
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:26 pm
Posts: 829
Location: Miami, Florida, USA
My dog, Paco, runs to the bedroom and under the bed whenever I sit down at the piano.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: dog
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:41 am 
John Robson wrote:
My dog, Paco, runs to the bedroom and under the bed whenever I sit down at the piano.


My bunnies love Beethoven.

They don't respond at all to anything else. I don't know what this means.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: dog
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:48 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:45 am
Posts: 9637
Location: Netherlands
krstone wrote:
My bunnies love Beethoven.

They don't respond at all to anything else. I don't know what this means.

It means they're choosy little bubbybobs. You should expose them to Bach and Brahms to expand their horizons :)

_________________
Nothing is always absolutely so -- Sturgeon's law
Chris Breemer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:53 am
Posts: 106
Location: New York, U.S.A
Yeah, I know what you mean. I am a composer and study at a conservatory and musch of the music created by my peers and professor are extremely avant garde. I am not totally conservative in my writing but I do think there has to be something memorable to a piece, something that holds it together.

I'll be honest, I can't get into the music of the second vieneese school--Schoenber, Webern, Berg--but I can appreaciate their ideas.

I have to agree with my friend, Claude Debussy, that music should be pleasurable, pleasing to the senses. Not all contemprorary music has to be avante guarde in my opinion. Yes, you should be different, but like I said, something has to hold it together.

Writing a piece of music is like preparing a dinner: You want your guests to leave feeling a little bit hungry. The worst, is whem you are listening to a new work and you are thinking "Is it over yet?" If I really don't care for a piece of new music, I will literarally get sick with a bad headache.

There are great conctempory pieces out there, you just have to keep your ears and eyes open.

_________________
Jennifer M. Castellano

"Use what talents you possess: the woods would be very silent if no birds sang there except those that sang best." --Henry Van Dyke


Last edited by Jennifer on Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:53 am
Posts: 106
Location: New York, U.S.A
P.S. my two parrots do like Weber's Op. 21 becuase of the tone colors.

They are big fans of Bach and any music from the Baroque and Classical eras

_________________
Jennifer M. Castellano

"Use what talents you possess: the woods would be very silent if no birds sang there except those that sang best." --Henry Van Dyke


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 12:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:43 pm
Posts: 281
When it comes to me and atonal music... at first I hated all of it.

My first composer I ever got into was Rachmaninoff... then I worked backwards all the way to Buxtehude...

But when I first heard a piece by Schoenberg, I hated it immediatly. I still try to listen to him today, but I really can't stand his music.

12 Tone Theory bothers me immensily, because it is litterally just trying to be as random as possible, by making sure that you never favor any one key more than another, so you must make random jumps, abandoning all classical harmonic developmental ideals...

However, when I first an atonal work by Scriabin (the 9th sonata), I hated it. However, as I continued to listen to it, I began to love it. Now, I really enjoy Scriabin's late works, and think them to be just as wonderful to listen to as any other piece of music.

I still can't stand schoenberg, webern, etc.

I always liked Prokofiev, because my first two pieces I ever heard were his Suggestion Diabolique, op. 4, no. 4, and his Toccata in D Minor, op. 11(?). They were able to lead me in gently to his world... and I always loved it.

I would consider myself to be mildly modernist. I do love Scriabin's later works, and have ever written 2 atonal preludes in a style that I feel is similar to his, but still kinda my own thing.

However, I am truely a romantic at heart. I love Scriabin's early works the best, just like I love Rachmaninoff, Chopin, etc.

But I don't like Liszt.
He's far too flashy for my tastes.

--- My rant for the day.

_________________
"This is death! This is death as this emanation of the female which leads to unification ... death and love ... this is the abyss." This is not music", said [Sabaneev] to him, "this is something else..." - "This is the Mysterium," he said softly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:07 am
Posts: 135
Prokofiev's Toccata was easy for you to listen to? :shock: He said himself about it that it was supposed to sound like "carrying 100 china plates and then dropping them all"!

Anyway... I love most atonal stuff, as long as it's written well. For example, George Crumb's "A Little Suite For Christmas" or Corigliano's Etude-Fantasy among others...

It's impossible to have a favourite composer in my opinion... but Prokofiev is as close as it comes for me. What really gets me about his music is that in some places it's so romantic, and then it just morphs into this cataclysmic mess, but you can never quite tell when it happened. The famous 2nd piano concerto is a perfect example of this (especially the 1st movement... the opening is so beautiful, and the end of the cadenza is so huge, monstrous, and ominous). I WILL learn that one day if I die trying hahaha

Anyway what bugs me is when a composer DOES write completely random noise that's not sophisticated at any level, and doesn't have any structure or purpose of any sort, and tries to convince people that it's music... (like when it's written in the score to play the same note over and over for 30 seconds... or to choose 3 random notes and play them in quick succession 5 times or something stupid) That's not music. It's just dumb...

_________________
The sentence below this is false.
The sentence above this is true.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:43 pm
Posts: 281
Hmmm... The toccata in d minor was actually one of the first pieces piano pieces I ever heard.

Actually... it was the third keyboard piece I've ever heard... 2nd piano piece.

I had just "discovered" that my favorite halloween music has a name: "Bach's" toccata and fugue in d minor (I don't think Bach wrote it... but that's for another thread...), and I was searching for Toccata in d minor... and I happened to find a recording of Agerich playing Prokofiev's toccata...

At first, I was mildly confused. By my second time listening to it, I loved it.

It builds up very nicely.
And I like the whole "crashing plates" thing... I don't know why.

I like heavy music in general...

Btw... the first piece, prior to the two toccatas... was Rachmaninoff's prelude in C# Minor.
It was also the first piece I ever learned how to play... And when my great-grandmother passed away, my parents suggested that my brother and I leave something in the casket to remind her of us... I chose the sheet music to that piece. That way, when ever I play it, she can remember me.

Sooo... that piece is kinda special to me... although for some reason my skills with it have atrophied after not playing it for a few months...

But I like Prokofiev.

--- RANT #2!!!

_________________
"This is death! This is death as this emanation of the female which leads to unification ... death and love ... this is the abyss." This is not music", said [Sabaneev] to him, "this is something else..." - "This is the Mysterium," he said softly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:53 am
Posts: 106
Location: New York, U.S.A
Quote:
demonic_advent"] But I don't like Liszt.
He's far too flashy for my tastes

:lol: I know what you mean.

_________________
Jennifer M. Castellano

"Use what talents you possess: the woods would be very silent if no birds sang there except those that sang best." --Henry Van Dyke


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:04 pm
Posts: 725
Location: Louisiana, USA
:evil: Liszt haters! :evil:

_________________
the one, the only ... Nathan Coleman
"You see, my piano is for me what his ship is to a sailor; more indeed: it is my very self, my mother tongue, my life." - Franz Liszt


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:07 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:45 am
Posts: 9637
Location: Netherlands
diminished2nd wrote:
Anyway... I love most atonal stuff, as long as it's written well. For example, George Crumb's "A Little Suite For Christmas" or Corigliano's Etude-Fantasy among others...

Huh... Corigliano's Etude-Fantasy atonal ??? I find that an eminently melodious work that does not even seem particularly 'contemporary' compared to some things written hald a century earlier.

_________________
Nothing is always absolutely so -- Sturgeon's law
Chris Breemer


Last edited by techneut on Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:46 pm
Posts: 19
Location: Caen, France
Ok, I understand pianolady but why the contempory music must atonal and only atonal.
Do you Steve Reich or Gavin Bryars ?
I remember the piece of Bryars 'New York', a very good composition and magnifical harmonies and sound. I will like to listen again !

Chris

_________________
Jouer du piano, oui, mais en chantant !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:43 pm
Posts: 281
Hmmmm... I guess you're right! Not all contemporary music is atonal... ex. Shostakovich.

I really like Shostakovich!

But... unfortunately, our world has been flooded by the "music" of Brittney Spears and the like...
Sadly... that could also be considered "Contemporary music"

I suppose that there are always different methods of expression in different times, but there generally tends to be one view that tends to dominate that time, perhaps stereotypically.

_________________
"This is death! This is death as this emanation of the female which leads to unification ... death and love ... this is the abyss." This is not music", said [Sabaneev] to him, "this is something else..." - "This is the Mysterium," he said softly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 5:14 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:45 am
Posts: 9637
Location: Netherlands
demonic_advent wrote:
But... unfortunately, our world has been flooded by the "music" of Brittney Spears and the like...
Sadly... that could also be considered "Contemporary music"

Who, I disagree with that. It's not music... this stuff files under "shit noise", or to coin my favourite phrase once more, poppy drivel. I don't want to go as far as to say that ALl popular music is bad, but the stuff you hear on MTV and TMF is low-life trash.

_________________
Nothing is always absolutely so -- Sturgeon's law
Chris Breemer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 2:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:43 pm
Posts: 281
And that's why I used quotations :D

I agree completely that most of it is "Shit noise."

However.... I also use that term for a lot of Schoenberg's works as well...

I also use it for a lot of Mahler's works too... :shock:

I'm now expecting at least a few people to jump down my throat...

_________________
"This is death! This is death as this emanation of the female which leads to unification ... death and love ... this is the abyss." This is not music", said [Sabaneev] to him, "this is something else..." - "This is the Mysterium," he said softly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: contemporary music
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:41 am
Posts: 283
Location: Texas,USA
Pianolady wrote:

Quote:
Call me old fashioned or maybe even foolish, but I just can't get into some of this contemporary music. I just listened to the file submited by Avguste Antonov, titled "Handgelobnis" and I don't get it. What is so great about this kind of music? Mr. Antonov, I mean no disrespect to you at all, as you are a fine player, but I never understood how people can like this music. You can't hum along to it, or tap your foot, let alone remember it. And nobody would know if you make a mistake. It seems like cheating to me.
I know, art is in the eye of the beholder, but I'm wondering how everybody else feels about this 'modern' music.


Well,back in France, I was required to play each year two modern pieces. The "Handgelobnis" was one of them and it was actually the last modern piece I played before moving to the USA.
To be honest,I,myself didn't quite like modern music.
But then in 2001,when I joined the student body at the University of Kansas, I began to look for a repertoire not often played that would get me noticed. And I also became member of the University of Kansas Wind Symphony. Being a member of the Wind Symphony made me discover great composers such as Maslanka,Mackey,Colgrass,Pann and others.
And when I met Carter Pann in 2001/2002, that turned things for me and I really began enjoying his music and decided to give priority to modern music.
The above is quite simplistic,but I think explains enough,lol
Now,this said,I refuse to play Boulez,Stockhausen or any of the serial/atonal guys .I like melodies,I like clear writing.
All the modern composers I play have that in their music.
For an example of modern repertoire recital,check the program for my upcoming recital at http://pianosociety.com/new/phpBB2/view ... 8012#18012

_________________
Avguste Antonov
Concert Pianist
http://www.avgusteantonov.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: contemporary music
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:42 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:38 pm
Posts: 8541
avguste wrote:
Now,this said,I refuse to play Boulez,Stockhausen or any of the serial/atonal guys .I like melodies,I like clear writing.


Funny you say that. I saw Pollini play something by Boulez recently and I didn't like it, either. It dragged on for about twenty minutes - I couldn't wait for it to be over. I suppose if I could find a melody in some 'modern' music, I could maybe get into it. Hasn't happened yet, though. However, I just listened to Schoenberg for the first time yesterday and liked some of one of the movements. That's big for me. :lol:

_________________
"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

my videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/monicapiano
my personal website: http://www.monicaalianello.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:14 am
Posts: 28
Location: Kansas City, MO
Oh good grief.

I love how 'contemporary' music is considered. That term is so outdated it's ridiculous.

How many of these 'contemporary' composers mentioned are even alive today? How many were born in the 19th Century? I noticed that some people mentioned Reich, Glass, and Adams. Not bad, we're starting to get somewhere.

Now, I am of course biased as I'm working on a dissertation that concerns post-minimalist music, basically nothing written before 1980, but this term 'contemporary' really gets on my nerves.

It isn't exactly our fault either. I'm in a theory class that is actually called 'contemporary' music, but it only covers Schoenberg and Stravinsky. Huh. That's weird... If you want to see what's going on in music now, you've really got to do a lot of leg work yourself, which is really a tragedy.

Thoughts?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:35 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:38 pm
Posts: 8541
What would you call it, then? Some fancy post-this, post-that, or neo-something? It's no secret here that I don't like whatever-you-call-it music, but the word 'contemporary' at least tells me that it is not baroque, classical, or romantic.

And by the way, you should introduce yourself to us before you post a bunch or recordings. There is not even a simple 'hi' on your posts. A bit rude, really, and scores no points with me.

_________________
"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

my videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/monicapiano
my personal website: http://www.monicaalianello.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:14 am
Posts: 28
Location: Kansas City, MO
Apologies for the lack of introduction. I posted some about myself in the Audition Forum.

All I was saying is that the term contemporary is a misnomer since a lot of the music being discussed was written many decades ago. Labeling music since the turn of the 20th Century, is rather difficult since composers really began to branch out in a lot of different directions simultaneously. In teaching this music, classes I've seen typically label it all as 20th Century music, and divide as pre- and post-WWII. I just wanted to get people thinking about the term and its connotations.

My other point was how hard it is to get a hold of or learn about really recent art music. I had to go to the composers themselves in most cases for my research, as many of these pieces would be held by only one library (university or otherwise) in the US. I think that says a lot about how we as performers view music vs. those around 1900.

Personally, I get excited thinking that I could (in a very small way) help shape what music enters the standard repertoire in the coming years. By performing and teaching new music, I see myself as part of a larger dialogue, and I personally think that's pretty cool.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:28 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:38 pm
Posts: 8541
I forgive you. :lol:

I think it's great to be excited about a certain kind of music. When I discover music (that I like) by a composer I didn't really know much about, I like to learn about the person and play as much of their music that I can get my hands on. So good luck in your endeavor.

I'll listen to some of your recordings soon.

_________________
"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

my videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/monicapiano
my personal website: http://www.monicaalianello.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:35 am
Posts: 1418
Location: Gulfport, MS, USA
I think it's all still called "contemporary" because it hasn't really caught on yet. :lol:

_________________
"Z Czernym poznałem się na panie brat—na dwa fortepiana często z nim u niego grywałem. Dobry człowiek, ale nic więcej..." - Fryderyk Chopin


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:43 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:38 pm
Posts: 8541
You know, Terez. In a way, you are right. I wonder what people called music back in the ealier eras.

For instance, Chopin and his contemporaries (LOL) - they didn't say that they were composing in the "Romantic" era did they? Did they know what era they were in? Or Beethoven - did he know that he was composing music that is categorized as "Classical" era? I really have no idea about this, but if this is so, then they might have called themselves "Contemporary" composers too. And the general public considered their music as being contemporary. The only difference to me is that I love most of their music and not today's contemporary music.

I get what I'm saying but probably not explaining it well. Any of that make sense?

_________________
"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

my videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/monicapiano
my personal website: http://www.monicaalianello.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:35 am
Posts: 1418
Location: Gulfport, MS, USA
I think the term "Romantic" was already in use by Chopin's time, though he didn't think it applied to him. He saw himself as being separate from the "romantic" style of composing, and in many ways, he was. The term "classical" wasn't used in reference to that era until the 19th century, though, and the term "baroque", being a fairly derogatory term, was definitely not used until the classical style was gaining ground. Monteverdi (early baroque) called his style "seconda prattica" as opposed to the "prima prattica" of Palestrina et al., but other than that I don't know much.

_________________
"Z Czernym poznałem się na panie brat—na dwa fortepiana często z nim u niego grywałem. Dobry człowiek, ale nic więcej..." - Fryderyk Chopin


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:41 am
Posts: 283
Location: Texas,USA
I don't think it is that hard at all to get hold of new music scores.Just need to know people,have contacts.

By the way,how is Weirich doing?I studied with him for one year.

Quote:
Apologies for the lack of introduction. I posted some about myself in the Audition Forum.

All I was saying is that the term contemporary is a misnomer since a lot of the music being discussed was written many decades ago. Labeling music since the turn of the 20th Century, is rather difficult since composers really began to branch out in a lot of different directions simultaneously. In teaching this music, classes I've seen typically label it all as 20th Century music, and divide as pre- and post-WWII. I just wanted to get people thinking about the term and its connotations.

My other point was how hard it is to get a hold of or learn about really recent art music. I had to go to the composers themselves in most cases for my research, as many of these pieces would be held by only one library (university or otherwise) in the US. I think that says a lot about how we as performers view music vs. those around 1900.

Personally, I get excited thinking that I could (in a very small way) help shape what music enters the standard repertoire in the coming years. By performing and teaching new music, I see myself as part of a larger dialogue, and I personally think that's pretty cool.

_________________
Avguste Antonov
Concert Pianist
http://www.avgusteantonov.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:41 am
Posts: 283
Location: Texas,USA
All the composers I refer to are alive and still composing.
Mackey is based in New York(last I checked),Bolcom and Daugherty are faculty at U. Michigan,Pann is faculty at U. of Colorado-Boulder, Meyn is faculty at Texas Christian, Murnak(who is writing a piece for me) is faculty at U. Florida

Quote:
Oh good grief.

I love how 'contemporary' music is considered. That term is so outdated it's ridiculous.

How many of these 'contemporary' composers mentioned are even alive today? How many were born in the 19th Century? I noticed that some people mentioned Reich, Glass, and Adams. Not bad, we're starting to get somewhere.

Now, I am of course biased as I'm working on a dissertation that concerns post-minimalist music, basically nothing written before 1980, but this term 'contemporary' really gets on my nerves.

It isn't exactly our fault either. I'm in a theory class that is actually called 'contemporary' music, but it only covers Schoenberg and Stravinsky. Huh. That's weird... If you want to see what's going on in music now, you've really got to do a lot of leg work yourself, which is really a tragedy.

Thoughts?

_________________
Avguste Antonov
Concert Pianist
http://www.avgusteantonov.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:06 pm
Posts: 88
Location: CZ
Hi! Do anybody have some piano sheets of pieces by Mauricio Kagel or Dieter Schnebel. It would be very appreciated :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 9:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:06 pm
Posts: 88
Location: CZ
or pieces including piano by alfred schnittke...please :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group