The Unbearable Irrelevance of Contemporary Music - a response to Samuel Andreyev
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- This is a response to the video by Samuel Andreyev entitled "Is Contemporary Music 'culturally relevant'? "
• Q&A: Is Contemporary M...
I didn't agree with everything Andreyev said in that video, and it's such an important subject for composers that I thought I would post my own view on it.
Support the Channel on Patreon:
/ davidbruce
Follow me on Twitter:
/ davidbruce
Follow me on Instagram:
/ davidbrucecomposer
David Bruce Composer Spotify Playlist:
tinyurl.com/y7...
My 2nd UA-cam Channel:
/ @dbc2
Thanks for the shoutout!
Also, great video - I'm very excited about the success of Andreyev's channel, and excited about the future success of yours as well! There is an audience, for sure! People are hungry for knowledge, and hungry for connection to art.
Thanks a lot Adam, I appreciate it. Keep up the great work.
So, now that we are starting to get the music theory youtubers covered, are there any alternatives for modern/contemporary art? Haven't been able to find any so far.
haven't seen any, nor with contemporary poetry. I was trying to persuade my poet friend to start his own channel the other day! In fact I haven't even come across many people talking about classical music in general - plenty of players, but not much talking.
Not quite poetry per say, but on literature, you have "Thug Notes" from the chanel Wisecrack, where "Sparky Sweets, PhD" explores many important writen works in a lets call it Gangsta style presentation.
As a student composer, my "popular" sounding works (neoromantic tonal orchestral pieces) are often praised by my non-musical friends and family, while dismissed by my colleagues and mentors for being not intellectual enough. I agree that contemporary classical music should do more to engage casual listeners while also making important points about culture and society, rather than simply existing for an academic, intellectual audience.
I had much the same problem. The way I see it, write for the audience that you want to have and disengage entirely from the audience you don't want. Even if those who have been dismissive of your music begin praising it, you'll just assume that they are idiots who like it for all the wrong reasons anyway.
This is the reason why I left the Conservatory. Did you finish your career as a composer? I kept bumping into so many roadblocks I eventually gave up.
To me I engage more with the music of the academia, it might not be your cup of tea -and that's okay- but it is mine. If me and my colleagues try to focus on engaging people we would have to forfeit all the qualities of our music, forcing ourselves to do what we don't like. I think even though our music does not communicate with people on a broader scale, it still communicates to a few outside the academia and I think its still worth it.
Student composer here also; totally agree with you. At my conservatory, many performance students are vocal about their distaste for contemporary music primarily in that it has no relevance or 'voice' outside of academia, and I feel that the greatest composer is one who can reach both those worlds.
I have so many things I could write about on this subject but I will restrict myself to comenting on what I see to be the core of your video: from 3:46 to 4:43.
I am composer living in one of the few places where financing for contemporary music isn't doing that bad: Finland. However, whenever one is trying to get funding for a festival, a concert, or their own work, apply for a festival, or a call for scores, they keep facing the same challenge: "X society/festival wants new, bold initiatives". That forces everyone to try to present the art they are trying to create or organize as something never before seen, special and courageous, when in fact... you could be just trying to get funding for that nice piano trio that someone commissioned you. Instead you present the piano trio as inspired by a certain Sanskrit text, whit 11 movements of 22 seconds played on 33 different extended techniques, throw in something to do with prime numbers, all to impress the reviewer, even though you haven't even written the first bars yet. Or, you quit the piano trio idea altogether cause you're worried you're not gonna get funding, and instead apply for a clarinet piece with live electronics and installation that uses a new program that will create "a new world of sound". So I think it is very much the institutions and the need for some kind of criteria that resonates with the expectation that art presents (MODERN music, not just any music) which forces composers to always think and act outside the box.
And that becomes the box.
Thank you for this amazing video and channel!
@@licheong I am not so sure which would be the best way, but I think shouldn't only reward projects that sound good on paper from people with already long CVs, and I think there should be more funds with similar missions so you can apply for the same thing in various funds, not to pretend to re-brand your application to sound as if you're only applying in that one place. And yes, it does sound like planned economy. Problem is that music should be a living being evolving by itself, not something dependent on the "ideology" of what you called "planned economy".
Brilliantly put. Thinking outside the box becomes the box.
Hi David. I’m the first to argue for the need for composers and musical institutions to step outside of their bubble and learn how to interact with the public. I’ve repeated stated how urgent this is, and it’s what I am attempting to do, however tentatively and clumsily, through my channel and other endeavors. I don’t think it’s healthy that so many composers are ensconsed in academia or the machinery of public grants. My hope for the coming years and decades is that there will be a profound evolution in how such music is disseminated, which seems inevitable given the dramatic rise of the internet coupled with the collapse of public arts funding in many Western countries. It's either that, or an agonizing lurch into oblivion.
"I don’t think it’s healthy that so many composers are ensconsed in academia or the machinery of public grants".
When that doesn't happen, what we get is either starving musicians or sellouts. Unless, of course, it so happens that the language of your own earnest musical expression is already somewhat accessible, so you don't have to choose between starving or selling out. Academia provides an environment where musicians can ignore the trends and just honestly express themselves; this music may still be culturally irrelevant, but I don't see why that is bad.
Instead, what I think is dangerous for musicians is the ignorance of other styles of music. This limits their artistic palette and palate, so 'academic' music is indeed a problem, but not for the obvious reason that many have stated.
I'm a serious composer of many years living on the edge of oblivion and not at all ensconced in academia or living off of public grants, and this life, absent of all that's deemed socially good, is, I admit, an unhealthy lifestyle. And as far as I can tell, society has no platform for people like us to sound off from. I too would like to see a "profound evolution" but do not see it coming as long as popular culture is the dominant culture that seeks to control the social narrative, all in spite of the rise of the Internet. And contrary to members of the cultural elite, the collapse of public arts funding would have a liberating effect on the arts. What's needed are more private donors and impresarios and a gradual turn from mediocrity which is what pop culture is all about.
"[...] as long as popular culture is the dominant culture that seeks to control the social narrative [...]"
This is literally what "popular culture" is about; that's how it gets its name.
Classical music is dead, it's a relic, and there's no coming back, as much as people might try to change that. We don't live in the 19th century and the aristocracy is long gone, so Classical music will remain culturally irrelevant in the visible future.
Try to forget about composing for an audience and embrace the selfish approach of the Romantic composer who writes for no one but himself. Don't expect an applause, don't expect to make a living out of writing music. Also, find a day job! That's what I've done and so far I'm free from the anxiety of delivering on demand, and also free to express myself any way I want, without having to worry about obnoxious reviewers and conservative audiences.
There are many levels of subculture. Metal is a subculture, but has a huge following. Post rock is also a subculture, but there are more people listening to Mogwai and Sigur Ros than god knows who the trendy contemporary composers are (not me, unfortunately).
Out of all the subcultures, classical music is perhaps the least relevant, mainly because it derives from a dead culture (the culture of 17-19th century aristocracy).
"Relevancy" is of course a subjective and personal term, but if you wish to apply a totalitarian view of art and culture based on what's most popular, you don't understand the creative urge very well, or the forces that try to nurture it. Furthermore, you're leaving out the last 100 years: Stravinsky, Bartok, Sessions, Berio, Milhaud, Hindemith, Honegger, etc. And new music is being written, recorded and performed without any aristocracy. Where have you been?
Actually, a lot of people hate contemporary art. I have studied in elite art schools and been in the art world more or less my entire life, and most people only attend such gallery openings with a kind of "emperor's new clothing" awkward silence when in reality they all secretly feel alienated and not interested in all in the work. If the art world wasn't a playground for money laundering of the world's elite, it would also fall into obscurity, much like a lot of the 'true' artists today have, who create actual valuable works of originality and beauty.
But yeah, I totally agree that "everything is NOT fine" - not at all. Art, real art in most forms, is not valued at all in society. I could go into a list of reasons for why that is, but it really comes down to a lack of aesthetic education and lack of art appreciation. Instead "history" of art is taught, and this is a mistake. Knowing the history of works of art does not teach people to understand the structure or meaning of works of art, and that's really mostly the problem as to why most people feel art is irrelevant to them: art is taught as a historical object, trapped in a time and place, and not as a deep and important element of the human experience in the here and now, in our lives in this moment. Just my two cents.
I agree.
Yes. I got a degree from a fine art school my self and agree. Most contemporary art is totally irelevant. The Irony is that most of it is not even original or in any way oppositional towards the establishment or art institutions, but rather copies of, or at least made by the same rules and standards as what has been done in the last 50 or more years.
YES.
Modern art is a con. For the most part there is little effort and even less talent involved in its creation.
Thread Bomb
Your prejudice is immature for the lack of empathy with other areas of art that you personally don't admire.
Once you said "conversation between the artist and society", that's when I knew I'd agree with you. It might be more obvious in the music world, but in the world of visual arts too, you sometimes feel you are exposed to works of art that are self-serving and made completely without any understanding on the part of the artist that art is first and foremost a means of communication. Contrived and deliberate attempts to be niche, obscure, and original seldom communicate anything particularly well as these tend to be purely intellectual exercises in avoiding what's been done before, whereas a desire to communicate something from an emotional viewpoint - disregarding whether it is original - is what people tend to respond and relate to.
When it comes to music, a lot of contemporary concert music sometimes seems an exercise in making something as cacophonous, non-melodic and atonal as possible, rather than having an emotional agenda expressed through music's unique ability to play with our expectations, how it lets us believe we know what's coming next only to surprise us followed by a moment when we again know what's coming next, subliminally tapping into our human instincts for survival.
That might still include cacophony, non-melody and atonality, of course. When it is done because you feel you have to - partly out of the fear of not being original - rather than because that is how you genuinely wish to express something, then that is what is communicated through the work. And listeners can tell the difference.
When I approach art, I don't want it to shut me out, as it will if it is busy with its own self-obsessed internal monologue; I want it to invite me in, to make me feel something, to communicate something that will only exist in my meeting with it as its genuine emotion, beauty, interesting ugliness, or accidental originality makes me see it, hear it and feel it. And thus it also makes me see something of myself in it. It needs to be interesting, and it needs to unapologetically be itself - not because the artist feels it has to be, but because that is what organically happened as the art was created.
Running the risk of repeating myself one time too many, I think originality is one of the keys to this: if an artist forces a work of art into being different than everyone else's out of fear of not being original, that usually makes art that communicates nothing (and, ironically, often ends up being completely unoriginal too). If the artist uses the art to express something never even thinking whether a work is original or not, that often makes art that is interesting and approachable.
Thank you for this comment, I've been looking for the words to describe what I was thinking and this is exactly it. Contemporary classical music seems to have lost its original purpose and expression. I can go back 100 years or more and the music of those times would actually move me. Im sure you can see many examples of this if you just search somewhere online "(...) music changed my life". And older music had this power since it was used by composers to express genuine feelings that they had, and the audience would feel this. But contemporary music now seems to be completely lacking of emotion, since it has become so focused on making music that is only conceptually interesting. Why must I have to appreciate a piece of art's innovativeness for it to have any value? Why can't this music have value for me just through me listening to it for its emotion?
It seems like the classical music scene has become a show and tell for who can make the most outrageous music, not a world of composers sharing their emotions and experiences through music.
I went through music conservatory studying composing. I learned a lot about music, and I still write (albeit not expecting to make any money from it), but one idea I ran through with everything I wrote was to pass it by an ordinary non-musician to see if they understood it. They didn't have to enjoy it (although they sometimes did), but if their reaction was "I don't get it", then I considered the piece a bad piece and treated it accordingly.
This of course made some of my stuff off-limits to most of the conservatory new music faculty, who were trying to push the boundaries of what was possible, constantly pushing me to make my music more extreme, less normal, and less focused on singable melodies or sometimes-consonant harmonies. I'm much happier writing where I don't have to concern myself with what they think.
Good comment. The reason why you were not treated well was because of your teachers strict loyality to their modernist paradigm/ideology. There are many fallacies in this "ideology". Their (modernist) world-view and method will not succeed - and is doomed to failure. Wish you all the best - and continue your own path with your audience.
@@anders7741 Well, my audience hasn't been able to see me perform live for almost a year thanks to Covid, but yes, I'm happy with what I can do for them.
Your teachers were disconnected from music, disconnected from audience and disconnected from the musicians. This is the norm - all over the world. The modernists (classical contemporary composers) cannot produce music that anybody would appreciate. Nobody. It is a dead end. But they have managed to monopolize music education - and act very totalitarian towards their students - that they have an intrinsict power on. This is very bad (immoral). Fortunately you were able to break free of their grip. Wish you all the best - continue on your own path - that is much much better
I feel the issue with modern academics in music is that institutions have become far too focused on experimenting or innovating in music, and this has resulted in them being more focused on creating music for the sake of being abstract, as opposed to making music for the sake of expressing yourself. Academic composition seems to me to be slowly becoming more about cool sounds then making legitimate music that moves people. You may as well just be a sound designer than a composer at this point.
I've listened to the "works" of these so-called "composers" in academia. Sounds worse than scratching nails on a blackboard. From the public's perspective, the best modern composers are mostly film composers. Despite extremely simple & repetitive harmony, even pop songs are more enjoyable to listen to. The so-called "professors of music composition" are utterly irrelevant to human civilization.
I diagnose the problem like this: too many composers are offering up "pale imitations" of superficial gimmickry a la Cage, meaningless collections of seemingly random notes a la Boulez, and form-less, pulse-less undulations of sound a la ... almost every academic composer in the 1960s. When composers learn their craft like David Bruce has, and stop relying on bad imitations of already failed ideas from the previous century, contemporary classical music will be appreciated again.
unrelated, but how about "Shostakovich most badass moments" or anything related to his symphonies? I went on the very first live concert in my life to listen to the 11th recently and I can't get the 2nd and 4th movements out of my head! In the following month I listened to it at least 30 times! It's ridiculous
I've definitely noticed a disparity in the quality of critique and analysis of music as compared to film.
Watch Andeyev's video on the Velvet Undergrounds "Story of a Murder" to see examples of what I mean. Lots of music critique devolves into a kind of meaningless purple prose.
Meanwhile, do a search for Stanley Kubrick or David Lynch on youtube and you'll find all kinds of thoughtful analysis, breakdowns of visual language, breakdowns of complex ideas and influences, and so on. Hell, the other day I watched an hour long analysis of "Don't Hug Me I'm Scared," and it was actually very brilliant and enlightening.
But when it comes to music analysis, the best you can hope for is that the critic paid attention to the lyrics, and if you're really lucky, they might have even understood most of them. Hell, you can almost sense the resentment from people when someone deigns to give music a higher standard of analysis to a piece of music.
12Tone did a great analysis of Pink Floyd's Comfortably Numb (and yes, all my examples are from Rock Music, that's just who I am) and a lot of the comments seemed almost *Resentful* of it, as if it's an insult to imply that musicians put thought into what they do.
Most people don't understand where music actually comes from. They have absolutely no insight into a composer's methods. You see it in the comments on a lot of classical music, people will give credit to anything but the composer. Usually it's God who is applauded.
That being said there are some good music analysts on UA-cam, the first one to spring to mind being Richard Atkinson, although his output is fairly slow.
You should also check Sideways channel if you haven't yet.
Well, their style is very different. Both Nerdwriter and Adam have a very "this is my opinion" kind of videos, which is fine of course. Whereas Samuel's videos are very much in the vein of "this is what's happening" and he highlights some truly amazing passages that could easily fly by without notice. To be honest, I never really paid much attention to Haydn before I saw his videos, he always seemed like a less interesting Mozart (or rather, Mozart was an extremely talented extension of Haydn), but now I like him more and more.
On a total sidenote, I actually sang Michael (Josef's brother) Haydn's Requiem in C minor a few years ago, and noticed some stonking similarities to Mozart's requiem. It's quite clear where Mozart got his inspiration.
I should have clarified. Samuel's analysis of Story of a Murder is totally on point, but in his video, he reads aloud some examples of *other* published critiques of the song, all of which were quite wordy and yet didn't really say anything.
It's a small part of the video, but it really stuck out to me, because I never really thought about how meatless and buzzword-laden a lot of my reading on music has actually been over the years.
I think I had a little stroke there for a second. I was actually talking about Richard Atkinson, but my brain tricked me into thinking he was called Samuel Atkinson. I haven't watched any of Samuel's videos, everything I said in the previous comment is entirely about Richard. Sorry about that.
Most people see "classical" as backgound music, or what you hear during a movie, rather than an art in of itself. It's a hard thing to grapple with but you can't sugar-coat it. Additionally, most composers choose to play what they resonate with, and increasingly, it is not classical.
I think that rhapsody in blue is another classical piece that was written in the last 100 years that has gained lots of popularity
Ya, along with literally thousands or at least hundreds of others that he somehow forgot about.
Yes that one hit me the first time I heard it and its with me always!
Gershwin knew how to write for his audience, even when he was venturing into new areas. Bear in mind that Rhapsody in Blue was commissioned by Paul Whiteman, the most popular band conductor of the day. We can only wonder where Gershwin's music would have gone had he been given a decent life span.
Also written since rite of spring:
The Planets - Gustav Holst
Peter and the Wolf - Prokofiev
Montagues and Capulets (from Romeo and Juliet) - Also Prokofiev
@@BenTajer89 Concierto de Aranjuez - Joaquin Rodrigo - one of the most performed concertos of the twentieth century.
There is a mountain of material popular with the public. None of it serialist.
I think another problem with this irrelevance is the shocking lack of musical education in today's schooling. Everyone learns a lot about art, English, and math, but having a music education is part of a full and complete education.
Exactly. "Music theory" doesn't get to "count" among the other subjects, and it's quite annoying.
Frankly, where I came from, the schools didn't teach anything of anything, so I'd demand the existence of an education far sooner than its completeness
The problem with contemporary music is that it has become much too insular and centered around universities. It also makes too many demands on the listener, something that has been there from the beginning, for instance, I had to take a music appreciation class in order to learn how to listen to "serious" music. And, though I found this to be a worth while endeavor I also understood the consternation of my fellow classmates who felt the entire concept of "learning" how to listen to music was ridiculous. I can think of analogues in the visual arts; the painter Mark Rothko painted pieces that were technically simple but Discursively complex and made extensive demands of the viewer. Rothko was challenging the viewer to make sense of his paintings through their (the observers) knowledge of the art form, and not showcasing his ability for the casual consumption of the observer. Contemporary classical music has become this type of art almost exclusively; the layman can like a contemporary piece, but only someone with an education in the art form can understand it. Its this latter expectation of getting the "point" of a contemporary piece that leads to the chasm between composers and their audiences now.
This video has truly inspired me. I am currently studying composition in Vienna at MDW and at least in my opinion the things you said are true. My Uni is a bubble, everyone wants to impress and be impressed by each other. No one thinks about the outside world. What I personally believe to be a huge problem is that everyone tries to get one's peers and teachers to appreciate and accept them, a strategy that the institution forces upon us students. You can't hold onto your tonal (often romanticism) mind (which almost every beginner has) and nourish the explosion of new ideas, worlds, inspirations into your own style. No. You have to abandon your "traditional" mindset and surrender to an in my opinion extremely strict music dogma. The problem I see with most of my peers in Vienna is, that they completely forget about their instinct, their sense of beauty and aesthetics, their inner voice and force themselves to write in the "uni-normative" way. Their hearts and brains go seperate ways... I truly think the problem is that we are not in the ivory tower anymore. We are deluded by an older generation that is stuck in the myth of the absolute and indisputably new music. But it's only a ruin that those who hold onto try to decorate with eccentric, arrogant lies to hide the truth that they themselves don't even realize: their own love for music has vanished a long time ago.
Oskar Gigele Alma Deutscher, composer, orchestrator, and performer of Operas, Piano and Violin Concertos (on a loaner Guarneri del Gesu) ... Music should be beautiful.
As two contemporary classical composers who have a broad knowledge of music and who have come to UA-cam to share that knowledge, it looks like there is a lot of potential for collaboration between you and Andreyev. I wonder if Andreyev would be interested in the 5 composers 1 theme series.
If you turn your back on your audience, don't be surprised when they turn their back on you in kind.
When I was 15, Yo-Yo Ma played a piece of mine called "Soliloquy." Second movement of a cello sonata I'd written at Juilliard pre-college.
It was loved by the hall and it catapulted me into a spotlight I could not keep up: my education, which was an ivy league, hypothetically best-you-can-get, told me that everything I had ever known about why I composed - which really came from my training as a classical pianist, starting at age 4 - and my identity was shattered.
@David Bruce Composer I suppose that alll I heard was: this music is not your voice. And essentially I was coached to add wrong notes into my music. There went my natural intensely personal world of music - my shattered identity has not yet recovered. No one, including any therapist I've been to, can account for my trauma, nor validate it.
I'm on my own here. I went to schools arguably the best in the States (and spent a year at King's College London). The irrelevance of classical music to the general student population there was evident. I joined a rugby team and all I wanted, all I desperately wanted, was to belong, was to be able to write without second guessing and invalidating myself.
Yes, I've gone though serious traumas, ones no humans can forgive, but I have had to release them in order to survive.
My parents are aging. They are not musicians. Because of the abilities I exhibited at the age of 2, whilst listening to Swan Lake, I was already labeled a child prodigy. I did excellently at the subjects to which I applied myself. It has been years since I gradated with a DMA in '17, but since then, the landscape had changed so much - normal people were interested in me, yes, but even those benign did not know how to deal with me - I was 'lab rat' material to be studied and would gladly offer myself up to see if there's a dictation in the world I can't take down at first sight, at least a single line at a time, perhaps two. I was the only other composer to be accepted into my doctoral program. Back during my masters' exams, the other composer happened to be sat next to me. I didn't notice him at the time. I was too busy writing every single note of a Bach sinfonia down. To my knowledge no one has ever completed that exam nor the theory exam from New England Conservatory, which was completed in 22 hours, which the Dean told me was, as quoted, the strongest the school had yet seen.
Yet here I am, lost between two worlds. My music is not for pop audiences nor is it for the contemporary classical music world of today.
But I'm sure that we've been missing something here: *the way music is taught at universities in the first place.* I teach. I never judge. But it's not just that - I have my own theory about what such an understanding of music is, as I showed at the age of 2, and it has just hit me. If you are interested in learning my answer, please answer this comment, or write adamopoulos1010@gmail.com. Implementing such a strategy is not only vital to the survival of the art at all, it is vital to the survival of humanity. We all know that at this rate we will be gone before we know it.
Can I listen to your composition on youtube?
@@machida5114 I, too, would love to listen to it as well. Keep strong! Yo'u're a hero to me! Best wishes from Córdoba, Argentina.
You sound insane and irrationally self-important
In another of your videos you say how you have composed a piece, which would be an interesting example for the video but you cannot share it on UA-cam. I understand the licensing issues but this is an example of how composers are limited by success. UA-cam is where I discover almost all of the music I listen to and I think it is best to have a body of work freely available.
completely agree. that's usually a problem especially for orchestral pieces where old licensing contracts exist with all the players so it's impossible to get round. It's changing in the UA-cam age, but very very slowly. Most composers I know are desperately frustrated that they have often their best pieces written for orchestra and can't share them.
I suspect composers overestimate how much the audience cares about the orchestra players' interpretation. MIDI captures everything that's actually written in the score. I grew up listening to MIDI and tracker music, and I don't see it as worse than live recordings. It might not have the nuance of a great violinist, but it has a clarity and precision that's enjoyable in its own right. A good composition will sound good without needing an orchestra.
"MIDI captures everything that's actually written in the score"
It really doesn't.
If you write weird instructions you should know what they sound like, and if you know what they sound like you can tweak the MIDI note by note until it matches the instruction.
Sorry, but that's simply not true; you can't tweak what doesn't exist. Unless you have an accurate sample of the sound you're trying to emulate, then the best you can hope for is a poor approximation. You could sequence the pitches of a series of multiphonics, say, but simply playing the resultant chords with the correct (untempered / microtonal) pitches is only a very small part of the effect produced by a human performer. There are simply too many variables, which vary - often unpredictably - over time. One of the most rewarding aspects of working on new pieces is the collaboration with the composers. "Can you do X?" "I don't know - let's have a go…" (I firmly believe that the term "extended techniques" should be expunged from all books on instrumentation and orchestration - why should we limit ourselves to a subset of the sonic possibilities of an instrument that was defined nearly two centuries ago?)
I am a classical composer.but l have given up on composing classic music.there is no audience no interest and no way to get my music performed.l now composer mainly rock music.classical contemporary composers by turning their back on emotion turned their backs on the audience .music is a emotional language.and contemporary classic is dominate by emotionless intellectual nurds.rip classical music.
Media and the "Roll Over Beethoven" phenomenon: if a journalist writes about a great singer, or guitarist or keyboardist, they generally refer only to the pop-rock world as the entire musical world. Is a deliberate exclusion of the classical, or is the classical failing to find an audience? Maybe its neither. It may be that the classical has a comparable audience to what it always has, and the new mass-media entertainment industry is just a separate thing entirely. e.g. in terms of audience, the most famous classical performers in the past may have had no greater audience than the most well classical performers today, but it may not seem that way due to the ridiculously large audience other things have
I believe that classical music in the 20th century was, for the most part, a huge and tragic waste of talent. The underlying idea seemed to be something like this: "Beethoven wrote difficult and challenging music that audiences at first rejected, but eventually he was acknowledged as a genius. I want to be like Beethoven, so I'll write difficult and challenging music too!" Leaving aside the question of whether Beethoven's audiences really ever rejected his music (I've read that this is a myth), I think this line of thinking has causality reversed. Beethoven wasn't deliberately trying to write difficult music; like other composers he was just trying to write the best music he could, and because he was in fact a genius much of it ended up highly original and "difficult." But if you aren't Beethoven to begin with, going out of your way to write complicated and difficult music isn't going to turn you into Beethoven! You just end up with complicated and difficult music that no one outside of a small cadre of dedicated enthusiasts will ever care about. I've read that Milton Babbitt was deeply bitter that the public never appreciated his music to the extent he thought it deserved. Well I once attended a premiere of one of Babbitt's works where he stood up and took a bow afterwards and got booed by a good chunk of the audience. It wasn't polite, but my opinion Babbitt got what he deserved.
A decent comment, but for the callous ending. Wouldn't you pity rather than shame someone for their mistakes? Having said that, I could be taking things out of context because I have no idea who that is.
20th century classical music is solely responsible for some of the most creative styles and genres in today’s music, it’s much more than Babbitt. On the contrary, I tend to think that the 19th century classical music is highly stagnant and dominant in music history narratives.
@@Bati_ "...solely responsible for some of the most creative *but* *least* *popular* styles and genres in today’s music...", There, fixed it for you.
I'm well aware that there is more to 20th century classical music than Babbitt, and in fact some of it I quite like. Nevertheless, David Bruce nails it in this video! Whatever abstract virtues you may think 20th century classical music might have, the fact remains that -- unlike earlier classical music -- the general public has very little interest in it, which strongly suggests that something went badly wrong at some point. I brought up Babbitt because in my opinion he epitomized the trends that did the most damage. I'm convinced that he had more musical talent in his little finger than I do in my entire body, and that he basically wasted it all.
@@hummingfrog Thanks for elaborating your stance! I appreciate reading it. However, I didn't mean "least popular" styles and genres. In other words, some of the most popular genres in today's music have substantial origins in 20th century music. For example, first activities of sampling sound (i.e. Stockhausen's work), experimentation in producing electronic sounds, Reich's and Glass's work which heavily influenced electronic music scene and film music and many more...
I love contemporary music, I'm a studing composition in Strasbourg and it's so sad realising I'm quite alone in the feeling. People don't listen anymore Xenakis, Grisey, Berio, Phillip Hurel, Mauro Lanza, Fausto Romitelli and plenty of others. But even today I hear music of living composers who are students as well such as Sergio Rodrigo, Matías Fernández Rosales, Demian Rudel Rey, who are really making strong contemporary music and it's thrilling to go to the concerts where our pieces are played. I think is sad people can't see us making strong genuine contemporary music from our hearts because they prefer to stay in confort zone, they are simply to blind to hear it. I don't believe that contemporary music has a specific course, that's the best part, each composer has a different history from the other, and come from different traditions as well.
“ people don’t listen to Xenakis etc anymore “ that’s simply not true.
Personally, when I go to a concert I'm always going for the older pieces of dead composers, never for new ones. I actually am weary of going to concerts that start with contemporary compositions because they end up being so unbearably hard to listen to. I think that says a lot about the state of classical music at the time and I'm a diehard classical fan who likes almost any new (non-contemporary) piece I hear. The music doesn't sound like music, it sounds like some strange experiment, and doesn't feel like anything.
As for me I only go to classical music concerts that primarily feature new music works. I have become bored of music from the common practice era. It may not sound like music to you but it is music to me.
@@almuel what do you especially like about contemporary classical music?
To me, it also sounds too experimental, or just random (if we talk about the same kind of modern classical music). Maybe I don’t understand it (which is quite possible), but to me it feels like the composer had no true inspiration and compulsively tries to generate a new sound that - at least to my ears - sounds new, of course, but very unpleasant. I can’t find beauty in that.
Are there any pieces you can recommend that may change my view?
i'm a contemporary composer, and i try to integrate contemporary ideas into my music while still making the music digestible and meaningful. there's contemporary music to be found that's not mindless noise. unfortunately it's pretty hard to find.
@@marcolengsdorflisten to david bruce's gumboots, it's a triumph
@@VepiumOfficial thanks for the tip!
so, my name is Christian, I'm from Berlin and I'm not professionally involved in contemporary music at all (to be honest, I can't even play an instrument). On the other hand, I have this and two other UA-cam channels dedicated to this kind of music because I genuinely fell in love with it. I'm also surprised that there aren't more people like me because I don't think that my "musical taste" developed in an unnatural way. The first kind of music I really liked was electronic music - which for example already features a lot microtonality and experimental ideas.
The problem with Contemporary Music is the same problem that happens in any mature field, whether art, science, engineering or whatever. It is now a specialist subject and it takes a lot of study to just to understand and appreciate the current state. This means the general public can no more understand good Contemporary Music than they can understand the top chess players or great computer coding. The difference is that in certain fields there are proxies that let the public know someone is actually any good - Magnus Carlson beats everyone at chess, Elon Musk gave us the synchronised automated landing of two rockets, the iphone exists. But for Contemporary Music there is no proxy and it sounds awful to anyone who hasn't had a liking for the naive aspects of music beaten out of them.
What absolute twaddle. "I don't see why the whole world should be taken up with art, DEMAND ITS CREDENTIALS, and on that subject give free rein to its own stupidity." - Picasso . No one. Not one person on earth needs anyone else to define their own aesthetics for them. Certainly not the morons writing "contemporary classical" - the moniker itself an oxymoron created by morons.
At no point was a liking for naive aspects of music beaten out of me. I was a child, I listened to music, these appetites emerged, naivete was no longer enough. I didn't have to be trained or learn to desire this, it just happened, and I'd probably be happier if I didn't.
What you're referring to is not actually a meritocracy/credentials, but rarefaction. The best in any line of art or science are driven on by the urge to impress each other/discover the new and their limits. They hope the bills will somehow get paid. It ultimately ends up producing something with no economic leg to stand on, it actually does in science, engineering, and enterprise too. So you're sort of half right.
I agree with you. It's become too complicated for the average person or even just non musician for the most part. I'm a musician and struggle with a lot of contemporary music though I'm too curious to stop exploring. Do you recommend any living (or underrated) contemporary composers to check out? any particular pieces?
@@brentmarquez4157 Gavin Bryars. He instantly connected with me even when I wasn't into contemporary music. The album with the "Double Bass concerto" is fantastic. The sinking of the titanic is a great piece of minimalistic work as well. Someone who also did was Iannis Xenakis, his orchestral works. Also, Unsuk Chin's Violin Concerto
@@finneganlindsay Thanks for the suggestions! I never could get into minimalism though - the repetition gets a little ... repetitive lol. I'm more into things like Boulez, Ives and to a lesser extent Elliot Carter, but am also not really attracted to music that is just cerebral without some kind of soul (serial music for example). Xenakis seems interesting - will check more of his music out. The Chin concerto was also interesting but started to feel like a bunch of effects after a while - probably need to listen to it more to see if it becomes more moving and stimulating in some way.
While there are countless contemporary composers unable to feed themselves by earning through composition, there are even more outside the classical music. The reason is the same: their music doesn't resonate with the mass. The world has changed long ago and is much more than just classical and folk music. People don't spend as much time listening to and learning classical music like 200 years ago. So they are naturally inclined to something they can enjoy instinctively. The lifestyles and thoughts have also changed. Attention span is shorter. People give up on a song if the first 10 seconds can't draw them in. This is the reality.
I used to play both pop and jazz gigs so I know quite well the audience's response to different genres of music. Like classical, jazz is considered dead by many but it sees a revival in recent years in the hands of eclectic cats like Robert Glasper, Cory Henry and perhaps Jacob Collier too. It's safe to say they are more than just jazz musicians. While jazz purists exist, many of the cats I know don't shy away from appealing to the mass. They incorporate elements that the mass would enjoy, or even re-arranging pop songs. By doing that, they connect with the audience. If they like it, they will come back for another performance.
If your patron (source of income) is academia, you do things appeal to the patron and they will be relevant to your patron. If you want to make the mass your patron, you do things appeal to them. Just that simple.
I would also argue instrumental music (which I believe constitute the majority of classical music) is more abstract than visual arts or films in general. Making it more intellectual and abstract won't make it more relatable to the general public, regardless of "the message" you want to convey, if there's any. This is why we have lyrics and songs. But that's not enough. Operas (or lied, etc) won't be nearly as popular as pop songs because operatic singing style is less relatable than pop singing style, which sounds close to how we speak. The biggest reason why operatic singing is so is because of the lack of electronic amplification back in the days. They developed the technique to project their voices. But pop singers don't need to do that anymore. They can sing very softly and amplify it.
I don't know why I am leaving a comment on an old video, but I do anyway.
Ultimately, music has to have some sort of reward for both the creator and the listener. The payoff for the composer may be in the process of composition or in performing or in the achievement. For the listener, the reward may be intellectual or emotional. It could be as simple as relaxation. But there has to be some level of appeal.
You don't delve deeply into this, but contemporary classical music has largely become unpalatable. Some of the composers you cite (Ligeti, Reich, etc.) still are palatable because the music, even if challenging, holds the interest or explores a wide range of feelings and sounds. Most modern classical music simply exudes angst in an abstract tonic landscape. It is unpleasant to the ear and has few other qualities. On an abstract level, there may be innovations (unusual time signatures or instrumentations), but who cares if the listener cannot enjoy it? I say this as someone who has composed music in the 21st century and as an avid appreciator of a wide range of classical composers.
To paraphrase Kyle Gann: it's a wonderful thing to stretch people's ears, to expand the field of things that can be heard and appreciated, but to stretch ears you first have to grab 'em. You can't just hold your hand up in the air, say "stretch out to here", and expect to get anywhere.
of course, this is true. However, what grabs your ears may not be the same as what grabs mine . The comments section on YT are evidence ( if it were needed!) of wildly differing tastes.
The reputation of historic composers, or the degree to which their music is still known or performed, may be down to the degree to which their scores are still in print, a bit like the way a famous novelist ceases to be famous when his works are no longer printed. If that happens, chances are he won't be republished in the future either. The relationship between the future of publishing and the future of classical music is...I don't know. But it could be that published scores remaining in print are of more consequence than the existence of recordings.
This is a true work of art; akin to a book that was a masterpiece in its exploration. "The Art of Meaningful Relationships in the 21st Century" by Leo Flint
Another puzzle: why is it that music has these rigid genres (or perhaps hierarchies) like "jazz", "film music", "pop music", "classical music", "contemporary classical music", and art has nothing of the sort. To me it always seems like there are implicit value judgments in this genre-focused classification, as if these forms of music cannot all be judged at the same level.
Well people like Rousseau and Lang Lang and all of the concert pianists are introducing people to classical music and Contemporary music will survive if people compose more of it.I compose Romantic pieces but I think some people can give it a shot.
There are some good things about modern contemporary music: we can avoid it - just not pay attention to it. This is unlike modern architecture - which enforce itself upon us everywhere in modern cities. The bad thing - is that the modernists have hijacked almost all teaching positions in composition world wide. So it is hard, or merely impossible to get a proper composition education with solid craftsmanship for young aspiring music talents. Its even worse, the sect/cult of modernists at these institution typically "police" what is good and what is bad (as seen from the strict modernist ideology). And very often these teachers lack the training and expertise themselves - in the work of the great masters of composition - which is a requirement - in order to produce work of high quality.
Preface - pardon the typos in a rush. I am a composer in New York City but earn my living as a church organist/piano teacher/ writing and teaching composition. Part of what you say is true but then again, how many aspiring poets, writers and visual artists share their work at coffee shops and small venues where it is mainly friends and colleagues? There are many contemporary composers whicha re being hear by millions - but you have to expand the places they are being hear - in film audiences without realizing it are being exposed to far more contemporary music techniques than they realize. This brings me to a point which I would love to be a guest on your show and discuss - the rise of electronic music and its growing sophistication after 1945 (as well as the invention of the phonograph decades earlier) have had a profound effect upon music. You see electronic pioneers such as Ussachevsky, Babbit Chowning etc would have smiled at how the simple framework of so much pop is greatly enhanced by the studio engineer who is more and more eacting as an electronic composer. The art of "foley" stems from musique concrete and processing of sounds. The advent of electronic music invited a degree of complexity unheard of before except possibly in improvisation. Acoustic music's development into greater rhythmic complexity and going beyond the 12-ET scale is partly due to electronic music (as well as the growing exposure in the West to non-Western art tuning systems.
And as a postscript, when people think they going to something novel when attending a classical electro acoustic concert they really aren't - most pop is electroacoustic music hanging onto a 17th century (maybe 18th early 19th for some) harmonic/melodic frame.
The nuts and bolts of composition are the craft of music, like letters, words and paragraphs are the craft of writing. Nobody reads a book and says, "Oh this is no good, it uses the alphabet from the 17th century." The craft is important to the composer but it is the MEANING that is relevant to the audience. Composers who write meaning are remembered, those who write craft are forgotten.
Meaning is embedded in craft. And yes I think that electronic music IS today’s new musical creation.
I've been thinking along these lines lately and I'm busy writing across for a series of music theory videos that steps outside the lane of academia to reach everyone interested in music production ... all for free with community support. Just started the writing process. Wish me luck
I don't have a cozy bubble. I am doing the Charles Ives thing working a day job and composing at night, weekends and holidays. I have just begun to generate more commissions based on the work I have been doing lately and thankfully that mostly stems from posting them on YT which has generated some interest. But it's been 30 years and a grind to get here. I worked in commercial music for a while but found the landscape more and more uninteresting. I'm glad I have moved to concert works instead where I enjoy more creative freedom than scoring for media.
I'm sorry (not really!), but I feel the need to correct the idea that "you could probably count on one hand the number of classical works that have reached the same stature [as the Rite of Spring]" in the past hundred years. Well, unless you've got enough fingers on one hand to play every key on the piano in a single go, I think most of these have achieved, if not quite the exact same stature, a certain level of fame such that even casual classical music fans will know them, know of them, or know work that's been influenced by them.
1. Puccini: Gianni Schicchi (1918)
2. Elgar: Cello Concerto (1919)
3. Prokofiev: Piano Concerto No. 3 (1921)
4. Honegger: Pacific 231 (1923)
5. Janáček: The Cunning Little Vixen (1923)
6. Gershwin: Rhapsody in Blue (1924)
7. Puccini: Turandot (1924)
8. Respighi: Pines of Rome (1924)
9. Janáček: Sinfonietta (1926)
10. Sibelius: Symphony No. 7 (1924)
11. Ravel: Boléro (1928)
12. Gershwin: An American in Paris (1928)
13. Weill: Die Dreigroschenoper (1928)
14. Ravel: Piano Concerto in G (1929-31)
15. Stravinsky: Symphony of Psalms (1930)
16. Varèse: Ionisation (1931)
17. Kodály: Dances of Galánta (1933)
18. Hindemith: "Mathis der Maler" Symphony (1934)
19. Rachmaninoff: Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini (1934)
20. Prokofiev: Lieutenant Kijé Suite (1934)
21. Berg: Violin Concerto (1935)
22. Gershwin: Porgy and Bess (1935)
23. Orff: Carmina Burana (1935-6)
24. Prokofiev: Romeo and Juliet (1935)
25. Prokofiev: Violin Concerto No. 2 (1935)
26. Barber: Adagio for Strings (1936)
27. Bartók: Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta (1936)
28. Prokofiev: Peter and the Wolf (1936)
29. Shostakovich: Symphony No. 5 (1937)
30. Prokofiev: Alexander Nevsky (1939)
31. Rodrigo: Concierto de Aranjuez (1939)
32. Stravinsky: Symphony in C (1940)
33. Messiaen: Quatuor pour la fin du temps (1941)
34. Shostakovich: Symphony No. 7 "Leningrad" (1941)
35. Copland: Rodeo (1942)
36. Prokofiev: Piano Sonata No. 7 (1942)
37. Bartók: Concerto for Orchestra (1943)
38. Bernstein: On the Town (1944)
39. Villa-Lobos: Bachianas brasileiras No. 5 (1938/45)
40. Bartók: Piano Concerto No. 3 (1945)
41. Britten: Peter Grimes (1945)
42. Britten: Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra (1945)
43. Messiaen: Turangalîla-Symphonie (1946-8)
44. Cage: Sonatas and Interludes (1948)
45. Strauss: Four Last Songs (1948)
46. Shostakovich: Symphony No. 10 (1953)
47. Xenakis: Metastaseis (1954)
48. Boulez: Le marteau sans maître (1955)
49. Bernstein: Candide (1956/1971/1988-89)
50. Khachaturian: Spartacus (1956)
51. Bernstein: West Side Story (1957)
52. Shostakovich: Piano Concerto No. 2 (1957)
53. Stockhausen: Gruppen (1957)
54. Berio: Sequenzas (1958-2002)
55. Penderecki: Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima (1960)
56. Stockhausen: Kontakta (1960)
57. Ligeti: Atmosphères (1961)
58. Britten: War Requiem (1962)
59. Ligeti: Aventures & Nouvelles aventures (1962/1966)
60. Ligeti: Requiem (1965)
61. Ligeti: Lux aeterna (1966)
62. Reich: Piano Phase (1967)
63. Shchedrin: Carmen Suite (1967)
64. Berio: Sinfonia (1969)
65. Shostakovich: Symphony No. 14 (1969)
66. Crumb: Black Angels (1970)
67. Feldman: Rothko Chapel (1972)
68. Boulez: Rituel in memorium Bruno Maderna (1975)
69. Grisey: Partiels (1975)
70. Górecki: Symphony No. 3 "Symphony of Sorrowful Songs" (1976)
71. Reich: Music for 18 Musicians (1976)
72. Pärt: Fratres (1977)
73. Takemitsu: A Flock Descends into the Pentagonal Garden (1977)
74. Pärt: Spiegel im Spiegel (1978)
75. Tavener: The Lamb (1982)
76. Schnittke: Concerto for Mixed Chorus (1985-6)
77. Adams: The Chairman Dances (1985)
78. Adams: Harmonielehre (1985)
79. Ligeti: Etudes (1985-2004)
80. Birtwistle: Earth Dances (1986)
81. Glass: Violin Concerto (1987)
82. Adams: Nixon in China (1987)
83. Tavener: The Protecting Veil (1987)
84. Reich: Different Trains (1988)
85. MacMillan: Veni, veni, Emmanuel (1992)
86. Adès: Asyla (1997)
87. Corigliano: The Red Violin (1997)
88. Lieberson: Neruda Songs (2005)
Okay, I'll grant you the list thins out considerably as we get closer to the present day. But I suspect that's partly just the way these things work. I'll bet people in the 1930s would have been hard-pressed to think of 19 "classics" from the 1930s!
Hi Tristan - many thanks for that, I'm honoured to have you comment here. There are certainly a lot of great pieces in that list, although very few that have reached a status anything approaching Rite. I accept my 'one hand' claim may be slightly exaggerated, but I don't think there's any denying the central claim that new music's ability to connect with an audience has diminished drastically over the past 100+years.
I think it's interesting that two of the songs near the top of your list share something in common with Rite of Spring: Disney. Pines of Rome and Rhapsody in Blue were both in Fantasia 2000 (Rite of Spring being in the original). A lot of the other songs here are used in other mediums as well, in movies or for dance pieces. I wonder if composers were more willing to set their music outside of a concert hall combined with a more familiar medium, it could bridge the gap between the classical music enclave and the popular consciousness - the same way watching a trippy cartoon with an appearance by Mickey Mouse as a kid let me appreciate hearing Toccata and Fugue played on a building-sized pipe organ years later. The familiar visual style gives a type of context that makes unfamiliar styles of music easier to appreciate when it's heard again on its own. For example, Pines of Rome ended up in my music library in college, along with Roman Festivals and Fountains of Rome, and I probably wouldn't have even looked twice at the CD if it hadn't been for the "ambassadorship" of Fantasia a few years earlier.
"Casual classical music fans"? If you're talking about highly educated, classical-concert-going bourgeoise amateur musicians, maybe. For the rest of society this list should be shortened to maybe five to ten works.
I think for "the rest of society", many people will know music that is influenced by these pieces rather than the pieces themselves. Sure, I don't imagine the average music listener will know Gesang der Jünglinge, but anyone who has bought a copy of The Beatles' White Album will have heard John Lennon's attempt to ape it with Revolution No. 9. Similarly, anyone who's ever heard the infamous "braaam" in trailer music will have an 'a-ha' moment when they fire up Grisey's Partiels.
(Some) Musicians are aware of this music and incorporate some aspects - mostly effects - in works that get noticed, but that doesn't have any impact on the relevance of contemporary music. I know many people that know the Beatles' White Album but skip Revolution #9. I live in a small town with a music college where Grisey studied for a few semesters, but most students never even heard of him. Contemporary music is not even music for musicians: Most of the professional musicians I know ignore or even reject avantgarde music.
I want to say this not as a jab, but for perspective. Classical music has always struck me as an era more than a style. If it wasn't written in the 18th and 19th centuries, it's not classical. I didn't realize I thought this way until I watched this video. And I come from the Adam Neely and 12tone camp. Formal music education, 30 years old.
Thanks for talking about it.
The lack, in the last 60 years at least, of any new classical music comparable to the old masterpieces can only have one explanation: all the best possible melodic elements have been "exhausted," so that anything new of that quality would seem derivative of earlier works. The other explanations don't hold water. There must still be people today at least as talented as the old masters, people want to realize their talents even where it is not very profitable (just consider the masses of free software, which is often top-notch), and even without rich patrons, some of them would have the necessary free time to do so. Nothing, therefore, should prevent either the production of new masterpieces, nor their distribution, in the age of the Internet and not least UA-cam - where any such masterpiece would quickly find its deserved fame. After all, enough people still enjoy the old classics and would be only too happy to discover new ones of equivalent quality.
I remember fondly a BBC special with the violinist Isaac Stern, back in the black and white sixties. Asked if he played modern music, he replied, “I sometimes play modern music, so the composer can hear how awful it sounds” Little has changed in the intervening 60 years. When someone comes along who can write stuff as good as Bach, they’ll get my every attention. (I realise this view is cliched, but sadly it remains true for very many. Quite why new art and film are appreciated, as you point out, whereas new music isn’t, is something I’ll set my mind to.)
In the US most people think as the entire vast body of music in the world as the Billboard Magazine categories: Jazz, Classical, Rock, Folk, Country, R & B, Soul, Hiphop, New Age and 'World,' This is despite the fact that all these genres are Western and all use the same watered down version of the European music system of 1750 to 1900. That is with the occasional exception of jazz and various types of traditional musics from around the world. These categories were conceived of during the early years of the long playing vinyl record when the stores needed to have dividers to help people find the style they wanted. All these categories really described was commerically available recorded music. I've even met musicians who have claimed "I play it all...Jazz, rock, etc" It's no wonder that most music consumers have no concept of art music in the academe or any other function of music. When I play Indian classical music I often get ironical smirks from people who, I guess, are thinking that I'm doing some sort of 1960s thing . And I have had my share of comments like "George [Harrison}, "Do you know that John Lennon is into sitar? [wtf] or "Were you inspired by George? [Harrison]...give me a fucking break! ...and even "That's dead music now after the 60s and Beatles"
For me, the problem is that it's hard to sample "contemporary serious music", as we sometimes call it out here in California. I've enjoyed some of it very much (most notably Part's Salve Regina, Miserere, and Stabat Mater).
David Lang's "I Lie" is interesting. I've heard it many times.
I know there are more discoveries for me to make. But there's a small market for this "highbrow" music. And so it is not well served by main-stream media. Great new work is not only shocking and unfamiliar, it's invisible.
So, Mr. Bruce, who do you think is especially worthy of the attention of us listeners, aside from the familiars, Ligeti, Glass, Adams, Reich. A list of names would be helpful. I look forward to more of your commentary.
I’m not sure I’m adding anything to the conversation but: the ivory tower seems alive and self-fulfilling to the genre of contemporary classical music in all but a few places. When composers stay in school for degree after degree-never having to deal with sounding good to a general population but to their peers instead. Then after school is done-they become the teacher and the cycle starts again. However: there are more and more exceptions to that because some student composers actually want to reach outside their idioms. There are many Classical Revolution-type performances in clubs these days in many US cities; and there seems to be a pushback against the ivory tower attitude because of musicians like Radiohead, Jacob Collier, Adam Neely, Jules Buckley, etc. It’s such a welcome development since the days I was a student at a Conservatory having to attend “new music” concerts where I actually heard audience members ask each other “What did you think of that composition?” -only to hear the answer @I don’t know-I’ll have to look at the score!” I’m very much hoping that there will continue to be an evolution for all of music academia to embrace the element of musical communication with non-musicians as an audience because music is to be shared-not exist in a test tube.
As a composer not in academia its virtually impossible to get a commission let alone just a read-through. Sure there are competitions but spending money on those fees is a deep dark hole. The people who get chosen from those competitions are either already established composers or in academia. I have had a couple performances of my music from a community orchestra but they did such a horrible job it's disheartening. No one gives new music the time of day unless you pay to play or know someone. Contemporary music is definitely irrelevant to most people. I just keep composing for myself hoping someday someone will take notice. Thanks for the video.
All we can do is speak from our heart, and hope the person on the other side can understand it.
I think that the major factor since 1913 that has impacted art music is the recording industry and major music industry promotion. we've had nearly 100years of that and its filling up the spaces where many people would seek out new or art music. sure, there are composers in their ivory towers but for the ones having their works performed and recorded, how can they possibly promote and reach new listeners?
The irrelevance shut me down well over 30 years ago, and i haven't composed a note since. I spent about 10 years writing contemporary classical as a kid, and had a full ride scholarship for it in college. This was back in the early 80's. When my Theory teacher told me I couldn't make a living composing, and I'd end up teaching theory in some college somewhere, I just walked out on all of it. Foolish perhaps, now in hindsight. I went on to a semi successful career in folk music...I make my living on it...not performing but teaching and building instruments. But often I find folk music to be personally unsatisfying, even though I find "music for folks" to be more relevant and valuable to humanity than avante garde or experimental forms, I still love to listen to classical music, and sort of wish I'd made other choices. I don't think I can get back into composing, and I think it would very quickly drive me crazy how far I've marginalized myself from classical peers, and how marginalized contemporary music is from the rest of the musical world in general. So I don't really consider picking it up, even as a hobby, ever again to be an option. I'd be very unhappy with my lot in life if I did. I prefer to focus on giving "average Joe" a hand with understanding I IV and V and maybe a little bit on how to improvise. That's right. I ended up teaching theory, just like they said I would. It's a weird world.
I like your youtube offerings. Thanks a lot.
That said, there's loads of classical music post-Rite of Spring that draws huge audiences including Ravel, Strauss, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Vaughan Williams, Bartok, Messiaen, even Schoenberg. It's surely just the most contemporary avant-garde composers who have lost widespread popular appeal. And most of them seem to have forgotten what the point is.
Is this asking the right question? It seems to me we have pre-20th C music divided into popular, which we no longer listen to, and Classical which we revere. (More educated folk like yourself know about classical music that we no longer listen to, but bear with me.) Along with this we have this idea that Classical music was written by the Genius Parade: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven ... which sort of peters out with Schoenberg, Stravinsky ... and we are asking what has happened to Classical Music?
Firstly can anybody write Classical music or is it more often an appelation that is added well after the fact? I know it has been done, but watching Bach fall out of fashion then coming back - what does that tell us? One can write in the tradition of previous composers, but at what point do we elevate it to the canon? I guess this is your question.
What do we do about genres which are neither Classical nor popular, as they don't fit into those classes? Where we once had just two, now we have dozens. Jazz, for example, which as a class has complexity comparable to Classical music. And one only has to listen to (say) the Chicago Symphony Orchestra's version of Rhapsody in Blue, besides Gordon Goodwin's version to see that Jazz has something to say. And you, David did that brilliant analysis of the Cory Henry solo (which I have recommended to dozens of friends).
Some musicians in Sydney did a performance of 'Birth of the Cool' from the original charts, but with improvised solos. It was amazing, like tasting fresh fruit after eating canned. Where would we put an orchestra who attempted that with Ellington? I think it would be fantastic, might it join the canon?
Turning the question around and asking 'who in the 20thC should we add to the Genius parade?' for me is a much more useful question. Damn the tradition.
BTW, thanks to you, Adam and Rick for your always thoughtful clips. Always thought provoking.
Even less people follow contemporary poetry
That about sums it up. The only way to get an audience is to increase your cultural foot print. I am a composer by compulsion, (probably similar to many others out there) I have never made any money from it and have been actively discouraged by the British lack of a contemporary music scene outside of institutions. I had an education in Kingston Polytechnic in the 80's and have been teaching myself ever since. At a conference organised by the Musicians Union for composers in Glasgow a couple of years ago, there were around 50 composers. The conference was titled how to make money from composing. At it James MacMillan and two other notable composers started procedings by saying how lucky they were to go to college with conductors or organisers who have made it, and they have benefited hugely from this association (as well as having the talent in the first place). So it was all about who you knew. One of the composers asked the musical director of the Scottish Symphony Orchestra who was also there what he would do if he sent a piece in to him. He said that he would not look at it unless it was given to him by someone who he rated as a musician or composer, ie personally knew. He was being honest because due to very poor funding of orchestras they have to make each concert pay (as did composers of the past, which influenced there musical output hugely). So where is the money, as you say film, advertising etc but there is not a lot of money around. I see jobs asking composers to work for free on Student projects etc but the film industry etc need to be sure of their product so will not take the risk on new composers but will stick to tried and trusted. It is very depressing to work on an artform which nobody seems to want. My response so far is to try and gather an audience by being involved in local projects and putting all of my music in note and computer mp4s out there on my website, I am not holding my breath. I am enjoying your videos, one of the problems with our art form is the singular nature of everyones output which makes talking about it difficult as well. Cheers
I’m a heavy metal musician and songwriter. I recently had to sit through hours of contemporary experimental avant garde non-melodic non-harmonic music. My thought was: “Who on earth listens to this? You can’t sell it! You probably couldn’t even pay people to listen to it! What is it for, as art, if it doesn’t mean anything to anybody who isn’t involved with it?!”
It's very lucrative (money-wise) here in Finland. Personally, I prefer modernism over contemporary music.
As a 19 year old huge fan of western art music it makes me really sad to see the current state of Avant-garde/Contemporary Classical music. I hope that with internet access to it, it becomes easier to listen to and that it could gain at least a miniscule level of popularity. I think that making music that is truly innovative and unique is very important.
Sadly David bruce doesn't seem to think so
I think it is clear that most people think that music being innovative, and music being unique are abstract concepts that have to exist within certain confines. I would suggest that those confines might include repetition, memorable melody, harmonic resolution, sense of octave. One of those at least, sense of octave, seems to be physiologically hardwired into human brains, as pretty much all music wherever you go in the world has a sense of octave; absolutely the modes that divide the octave vary, but a tonal centre is always there. I think the irrelevance of 'contemporary' music under discussion began with the attitude of the 2nd Viennese school. Having taken great pains to create music that lacked repetition, lacked memorable melody, lacked harmonic resolution, and lacked tonal centre, they proclaimed "oh the music is just innovative and unique! Give it a hundred years and newspaper boys will be whistling this stuff on their rounds!" It hasn't happened. Beethoven was innovative and unique, but within confines that his audiences could recognise. For most people Pierrot Lunaire is creepy at first, and then just tedious; so much for extended emotional expression.
My very simplistic thought about Contemporary Music and the assumption that it is meant to be in some way challenging or different, is that it always sounds like an orchestra doing a single take in a room. If you whizz back to 1900, there has been more evolution of sounds and texture in pop music than Contemporary Music. This leads to situation where to those outside the clique, Contemporary Music doesn't sound contemporary at all, it sounds like awful classical music.
Great discussion. I think you hit it on the head by saying that classical music is enjoyed mostly by classical composers/musicians-- "a self-serving inward looking community." I'm a bassist that plays in abrasive prog/metal bands, with a background of classical piano and trombone. Most of my non-classical background friends can only tolerate classical because of their childhood exposure to show tunes, cinema, and Chuck Jones cartoons. Probably mostly Chuck Jones cartoons, tbh. Even my older non-classical background co-workers can't stand classical music. Due to their older age I'd wager it has little to do with the current cultural climates, but perhaps an inability for high-art to become accessible to laypersons as compared to , lets say, what is now called 'Classic Rock.' Culturally speaking, Classic Rock obliterated Classical, as Rap and Pop now obliterate modern Rock. There are layers of accessibility. Lets work backward: A pop star needs a mic and a good manager, pitch will be corrected later. A rapper needs a voice and a beat, even if its lifeless samples. Rock stars need all that and instruments and amps. And, finally, classical musicians need all the above plus the discipline and temperament and knowledge. So, in essence, the layperson is barred from entry on all sides. It's hiding in the shadow of dominate culture, it harder to learn (and possibly more expensive) than other genera, and it's written for the people who already love it.
Sounds enter my head and nerve cells react to them. They reacted with pleasure to the bassoon excerpt of the video. Elsewhere, the reaction was my hand reaching for the volume down button. I don't believe there's any utility to saying more; if you make it an intellectual thing you are lost.
There are two strands to the reason for the perceived irrelevance. Firstly, the mass media has almost entirely sidelined Art Music of any kind, and replaced it with even more emphasis on euro-pop, rock, trash talent shows and increasingly poor media and film music where "sound", "effects" and "production values" have eclipsed and replaced thoughtful composition containing any discernable skill or flare. The second reason is that the the adulation of child prodigy performers (fast, virtuosic, impressive and above all young players are the new gods) has pretty much placed compositional talents to the back of the queue. Music audiences restrict their admiration to the performer, not the composer. Yes, Liszt and Paganini were the show-off heros in their time, but they were equally admired as composers. Now we have hundreds of 15 year old prodigies playing 200 year old music to thrill-seeking listeners. There is no appetite for the new any longer, but for stuff MASQUERADING as "new", or wizz-kid virtuosi hacking their way through the same narrow 19th century concerti collection.
A third reason might just be that western contemporary composition in the 20th century backed itself into a cul de sac from which it is trapped and cannot escape after Stravinsky, Messiaen, Ligeti, Webern, Stockhausen, the serialists and others stretched harmony, form and polyphony to a point where there isn't really a way forward without destroying the whole structure of western music and starting again with a system not based on the "natural" harmonic series. The yearning (expressed by you yourself) for a "tonal centre" in creative music is therefore an understandable position, and there is nothing wrong with that. What people with discerning ears seek is competence and genuine flare, not just fashion, so there IS an audience for contemporary stuff. Of course "quality" is subjective, but there is a limit to how many emperor's new clothes people can stomach.
After listening to the "Rite" and "Petroushka" at the age of eleven for the first time (having had almost zero prior exposure to "art music"), over 50 years ago, I wasn't "shocked" at all. I was entranced and captivated by music that was viscerally full to the brim of flare, brilliance, innovation, musicality, skill, craft and total competence. There is nothing much actually "shocking" about these two pieces. They, and many other wonderful works by others, had easily recognisable qualities that are simply lacking in the vast majority of contemporary works. It is nothing to do with fashion. It is nothing to do with resistance to change. It is simply a hunger for quality that is absent.
This position is shared by many I know who are genuinely interested in contemporary music and want to support it. It is not that they are "out of touch" and have a sentimental attachment to music that is now approaching 60-100 years old (Stravinsky, Bartok, Messiaen, etc) They have abandoned 21st century contemporary art music not because it is new, but because most of it is of very poor quality and almost none of it is genuinely innovative. Even that would not matter if there was a tangible sign of something with flare, craft and creativity. "Ah", you might say, "but you have missed the innovations and the quality has passed you by". I don't think so.
I will not name names, but there are a few contemporary composers who seem to get endless commissions from those who know more about marketing than anything else. One particular composer I can think of is in my view and that of many other fellow musicians and composers a total fraud. His work is embarrassingly bad and seems to appeal to those who have been persuaded by the machinery of marketing but have not much exposure to any other contemporary music, yet imagine they are at the zenith of contemporary taste.
I love your channel! I never have conversations with anyone about music variations in style and appreciation and that makes me sad. But your channel has given me hope for others that need this to open their minds and ears to the wonderful world around them. Thank you so much for this channel. I feel warm and fuzzy now!
people fathom that something can be new and new as with contemporary composers, people understand that something can be old and old as with conventional classical music performances and culture. But the fact that something can be old and new at same time somehow eludes people, despite that the mixture of the familiar and the novel is what attracts them.
Controversial opinion: is it just a bit crap? Or rather, have a few hundred years filtered out all the crap composed in the past so we're mostly just left with all the good stuff, while contemporary music hasn't been given the time to get rid of the dregs?
Alternatively, I can pay a little bit of money (or nothing at all) to visit a museum of modern art and see many pieces of art and go through it at my own pace. If it's crap, I've wasted little time and money. If it's good, great, and I've discovered a new artist or two to follow.
Attending classical concerts is extraordinarily expensive and there's no way in hell I'm going on a whim just to check out a composer I've not heard of until I have a decent sense of whether I'm going to enjoy it or not. How do I know if I'm going to enjoy it or not before I've heard the composer's music? It is hard to discover new contemporary classical music, and honestly I'm still discovering new pieces by composers from 500 years ago to listen to! My sister is an opera singer at Glyndebourne and I can't afford to see her in concert - I genuinely can't. It's just too much money (£70 plus for a ticket, and a bad seat at that), and they aren't giving any discounts out. I get why it's expensive, but you should also understand that this is a pursuit that really is only pursuable by relatively wealthy people.
I have, however, attended concerts of modern film music, including Interstellar, Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. I like the music and the concerts are pretty cheap, mostly because they have mass appeal and can operate on economies of scale. I'm greatly enjoying the Proms on the BBC at the moment (would love to actually attend someday!), yet even the Proms rarely showcase much in the way of contemporary classical.
Really, though, part of the issue I honestly think is that so much of contemporary classical is just too weird. I like some of it, such as John Adams (I came across John Adams via a computer game - Civilization IV - not through any traditional musical channels!) and Philip Glass (and I enjoy a lot of contemporary choral music), for example, but 99% of examples I hear just sound bad to me. Maybe it's because I'm not clever or sophisticated enough, but anything composed by Mozart sounds good generally, even if it's a little dull, whereas most of the examples you listed in your 'gateway drugs to contemporary classical' video were just too strange. Fine for an experiment or to sample and taste on UA-cam, but am I paying many pounds to watch several hours of it? Nope. I'd rather go and see someone play the Interstellar soundtrack on the organ.
I think you're close.
It's just very old fashioned.
People don't like watching silent black and white movies anymore either.
It's not that they aren't any good - we just have much more intense versions of them now.
The same thing has happened to poetry. Poets writing for poets then wondering why no one else cares.
I love this "classical music was always culturally relevant" meme. The entire history of recorded music up until 1800 was written for an exclusive audience of connoisseurs. Contemporary composers are just as happy with 20 peers enjoying their music as the composers of the Ars Subtilior were, composers like Caccini and Peri wrote exclusively for royal patrons, of which performances in palaces were not relevant to the public, and a wide variety of important French composers wrote music exclusively for the salon of the Princess of Polignac and her friends. Composers need to stop complaining that 200 years of "societally relevant" music is the rule and not the exception.
Maybe the knee-jerk reaction that accessible music is inferior has something to do with the speaker's intention to show off and put others in their place. If someone gets so obsessed with their passion that they forget to take care of their own social development, they're likely to cultivate some pretty basic human flaws, contempt and conceit in this case. Fame probably makes it worse because they'll always have an echo chamber to listen to if they want to. They'll never be forced to work on themselves unless they want to.
Listening to contemporary music for me is usually like watching a movie in another language, where all the characters use gestures that make no sense, and are set in a place that seems somewhat but not quite familiar. I don’t understand it and It’s not relatable. These two things make listening irritating and almost a chore!
Vitruvius said architecture must unite firmness, commodity, and delight. I am unsure these virtues continue in most modern music.
Contemporaty music has its own philosophy and techniques. Therefore if we understand contemporary music properly the first thing we have to do is to remove the stereotype about traditional music.
We need greater intersectionality between different types of music. We need Beyoncé to write a string quartet. And we need Joshua Redman to write the next pop hit. And we need more young people to be more curious about their tastes... this is a wicked problem.
This is completely stupid. Just because you're not extremely successful doesn't mean there aren't others who are. If you're comparing yourself or your peers to the master composers of history, that's completely ridiculous. Not only are we hundreds of years removed from them, but there are also many more composers nowadays. The fact that popular music is popular because it exists due to technology and is more easily accessible is simply a part of the normal evolution of music. Classical music is still important and has a role, but the explosion of popular music has overshadowed the classical sphere. Comparing modern classical composers (who are successful) to huge pop stars is like comparing Wagner to one of the thousands of completely irrelevant composers who were his contemporaries. And you completely contradicted your whole point, because there ARE some superstar contemporary composers.
Uh, you think you can count on one hand the piece that are renown/loved since the Rite of Spring? BS! That's absolutely incredible and crazy that you could pass off a claim like that, totally saying that all contemporary classical music from the last entire century is culturally irrelevant.
I live in LA and the LA Phil usually has one new composition per orchestra concert. They also have the Green Umbrella series, which is all contemporary, and mostly premieres. I have a masters in percussion performance and throughout all my performing in orchestras and other groups there is a large amount of new composers' works being played, and a massive amount of frequently performed works from the 20th century.
Your overall pessimism with regard to the modern treatment of all music is totally misplaced. Actually, a much greater proportion of people are listening to music now than ever before due to technological and culture evolution. We are in the middle of a renaissance of popular music, and an explosion of music listeners at many levels, including growing popularity for things like music festivals which feature a huge swath of new amazing music (along with crappy music that some people love- to each his own). The music industry might create a lot of what we see as 'problems' but it also perpetuates a very large and diverse number of music creators. There are also far more people listening to classical music now than there ever was in the 17th-19th centuries, because it was really only for the rich back then. And there is certainly more people hearing new contemporary classical music and attending their concerts than at any point in history. I'd wager that there are now more composers than there has ever been. To see if new classical music is really dead we'll have to wait 50-100 years anyhow. I think they'll look back and see a massive growth of all music during the 20th and early 21st centuries.
Thanks for your comment. I think I should have phrased my statement with regard to the Rite with more nuance. I think I was trying to describe the number of pieces from the modernist tradition in particular, and to address the imbalance between the number of them that are seen as masterpieces, versus the number of people who genuinely love them. There are very, very few even loosely modernist pieces after the Rite that regularly sell out huge halls all around the world.
As for LA Phil, that's a spectacularly successful institution and one of the most important for new classical music in the world. You are lucky to have them. In many ways I suspect they are the model the rest of the world should be aiming to follow.
Varese's Ameriques, Bartok Concerto for Orchestra or Music for Strings, Percussion, and Celesta, those minimalist superstars' pieces will sell out (especially Glass and John Adams's big pieces or operas). Of course if you're limiting your definition of contemporary music to atonal than you have to leave out most of the biggest 20th century composers (Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, Bernstein, Copland, Ravel, Gershwin, Vaughan Williams, Sibelius, Respighi, ok those are mostly all early 20th, but still), who are not completely modernist, but still most definitely continued the stream of classical composition. Maybe the fact that the harsher styles are not as popular just signifies that different styles of classical music other than strictly modernist are what the culture is trending towards, i.e. minimalism and neo romanticism. Actually, purely modernist composition largely fell out of fashion in the 60s/70s didn't it?
I'd say that the classics are classics for a reason, and with the way our culture and technology has changed, that probably won't be duplicated in a similar way ever again. We can't have another Rite of Spring, because no one will be shocked by atonality anymore, not because people aren't listening to music.
"Sacre du Printemps" is far from being "modernist". It's pretty tonal, actually.
And there are a ton of better known 20th century works than Sacre, and I mean known by the "general public".
by the way, it's not LI-guh-ti, it's Li-GEH-ti.
What instrument do you play?
Hello David. I have a lot to say about this subject as I am a composer employed in academe. However, for now I would just like to say that I really appreciate your thoughtful essay and discussion on this matter.
I once asked a classical musician: „I love Chopin, Schubert, Brahms. Why dont contemporary composers create in this style anymore?” Him: „because its all been done and its not how you compose today”. Me: „But why?” Him: „Because you dont compose in that style anymore”.
I wonder why composers avoid beauty in music. You could expand on what was created before, not reject it
So true what you said. When I first became acquainted with Schoenberg’s serial composition style it conjured up the milieu of a lifeless WWI battlefield replete with barbed wire and dank, fetid trenches where mustard gas wafted around dead and dying men - essentially an unspeakably depressing experience. I tried to be a little more mature and listen for a sequence of tones that would unfold in different guises of itself and think myself intellectually superior to normal people who lap up insipid sentimental diatonic melodies that a crass and cynical commercial music industry pours into their ears like Aunt Jemima syrup.
But who was I kidding? I was no intellectual. I had grown up steeped in the explosion of commercial music that was marketed to the youth culture of the 60’s and 70’s. Classical music played in the background of drab old movies. I couldn’t listen to a Brahms symphony without wondering how anyone would want to hear such lonely and depressing utterances from an ensemble of cheerless, pleasure-starved concentration camp victims. It was a fluke that I had been accepted to a prestigious University in the first place, and I had been trying too hard to engage culture my sensibilities rejected.
This angst would gradually subside, but it wasn’t until recently that out of a morbid curiosity I decided to read some writings of Schoenberg where he talked about what his aesthetic intentions were in pioneering a new language of music that eschewed harmonies from the diatonic scale. What struck me in particular was his wish that the audience simply listen to his compositions as music. He didn’t expect you to approach it like you would Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. This was the music he felt and heard, and it didn’t require any extra dimension of cognition.
My tastes in music already had become a complex compendium that I imagine confuses Spotify’s algorithms, and now I will ask Siri “to play some Schoenberg”, or “Hey, Siri - play 5 Pieces for Piano opus 23 by Arnold Schoenberg” while I’m fixing dinner or picking up around the house. Sometimes I grow tired of the music I really like, and Schoenberg has become a nice respite from myself. If you had told my 19 year old self that in a few decades he will enjoy Schoenberg’s music, he would have had to look no further for justification to avoid adulthood at all costs.
The modern classical music world is an echo chamber. At least at my uni, facilities for modern pop music are extremely limited and the focus is all on the contemporary classical side of things, so I see the effects of this first hand. Not only is the music department extremely cliquey, they manage to juggle the seemingly paradoxical task of being extremely open to all kinds of wild, out-there contemporary classical music and looking down their noses at the creativity going on in the pop music scene. A great piece of art does not have to break down the very fundamentals of the form in order to be provocative and moving. This seems to be the driving idea behind contemporary classical, at least as I interpret it through the eyes of my peers, attempting to escape any sort of derivativeness, being as wild, eccentric and unintelligible as possible to new audiences. It is not that this music is being written without thought to the audience - rather that the music is being written with only the cutting-edge, pretentious academics in mind, which is derivative in itself.
And reflecting your statement, performances of brand new pieces are attended only by faculty and department members, friends and family. I have never seen a performance actually attended by someone who is there purely out of their own interest. I should add that the majority of my music department is comprised of well-off, middle-class white people. As far as my experience goes, the whole scene appears to be one of self-indulgence, comprising a very small elitist group that live in a bubble and have their heads in the sand concerning the actual relevance of their art-form.
Are we pigeonholing "Contemporary Classical Music" as only orchestral music that happens in stuffy upscale concert hall environments, or as you say, the results/requirements of academia or grants ans sabbaticals?
I hold that some of the greatest and most compelling "contemporary classical music" has been happening in the progressive rock world, written and performed by musicians playing mostly electric or electrified instruments from the late 1960's through today. The contrapuntal classical influence is often there along with the technical skill. These groups have attracted loyal audiences that fill everything from small pop venues to large arenas and sometimes even stadiums. I'm just throwing the bands Yes and Gentle Giant out there, but I could go on. Usually classical training is a pre-requisite for some of the writers in these situations. I fail to see why Philip Glass, for example, would be considered in a much different category just because he studied with Boulanger.
I just started listening to Swans (To be Kind) and I have to agree - it's original not just to be different but instead because they wanted to convey something to the audience. The album has a lot of parallels to classical music imo, with long tracks that build and build into huge moments. Kinda wish new classical stuff could have a similar approachability while being original and interesting
Let's not overlook film scores. Think of the impact of the Star Wars score on the public consciousness. This is (often) orchestral music that employs massive technical ability but which cannot be detached from its audience--it absolutely has to communicate, and to my mind it is stronger for having that discipline imposed on it.
Well I have not listened to much, but when I stumbled across you channel and found your gateway drugs video I have learned to appreciate it a bit more. I feel like some music does need some explanation to fully appreciate without a formal musical education (which I lack), such as music working as spirals or palindromes or utilising micro rhythms. I also admit I had a generalisation that all modern music was harsh sounding and atonal, until I heard some that is aesthetically easy to like. Anyway channels like yours help me to enjoy it and spread the word!
Has classical music ever been relevant to the masses? I don't think so. classical concerts in 1900 century only had access to wealthy European audiences and it was only relevant to the elite society. now that classical music is accessible to everyone, just like jazz, people have the opportunity to say openly they don't care for contemporary music or classical music. People now have a voice and they prefer simpler musical structure that you can dance too. Why did bluegrass music arise in North America. its not like European immigrants listened to polka music in Poland. cultures change and everyone has an equal opportunity to adapt.
Since the 1400's Pop music has always been popular, thus the name. Ever seen lithographs of Beethoven's funeral? Yes classical music was very well known and very relevant to the masses up until circa 1900. I think radio, TV and movies have done a lot to shift attention elsewhere.
Stu Desnomie Yes, great points.
Fidel M Flores Pop music has never been nearly as listened to as it is now, due to technology.
I am not sure how much Mozart’s music was accessible to the masses but I am sure they could relate into it and enjoy it. So I don’t buy that “it was the music of the elite” argument.
DrFaustus how could they possibly relate to it and enjoy it if they couldn’t even get into the halls to ever hear he music? Piano sonatas and small chamber works maybe to a small extent, but even then only the nobility could afford their own instruments. The vast majority of the public probably never heard Mozart’s music until the radio became widespread.
It seems to me that the closest most people come to classical music is through film. There is no shortage of people wanting to learn how to write for cinema and be the next John Williams or Ennio Morricone and it's this music that seems to get played the most. Australia has maybe only 10 professional orchestras (6 major and a few minor) and the fight for ticket sales is intense, given our small population. Accordingly, the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra has made no secret of the fact that the vast majority of what it will play is works by famous composers - the Strausses, Dvorak, Mozart etc, because this is what gets bums on seats, but that it has little interest in current local composers, save but for a few establish people and it will outright reject unsolicited material from unknowns, regardless of how good it might be. The other issue here is that Australia, particularly Melbourne, is completely besotted by sport, which earns millions and millions, but complains bitterly if we spend any money on the arts. Some years ago, the Melbourne Arts Centre spent $140 million on refurbishment of our main concert hall and there was outrage in the papers, even though the Melbourne Cricket Ground had just spent over $300 million on refurbishment. I'm a nobody composer and have a friend who conducts 3 amateur orchestras here in Victoria and they like what I write, but it's all neo-romantic. If I get even a little ambitious, it gets shut down and I'm told "we don't want to hear that stuff". Fortunately, I enjoy writing neo-romantic, so I'm happy to stick with it. I earn an honorarium of, usually, $200 per performance and a little bit of recognition and, like so many composers, I will probably become slightly famous when I'm dead. 🙂
Actually, there is a contemporary orchestral music subgenre that is alive and well, and heard by millions of teenagers. It's called EPIC MUSIC, especially TWO STEPS FROM HELL. Most of academic music, on the other hand, is schizoid and necrotic.
most contemporary music is just bad. it's just that simple. there has always been bad music, regardless of era...but we have an ethos of the art vs society, rather than art as a part of society. that will never work.
@@ngyuhng8324 I have heard plenty...there are certainly some interesting things...the problem is when composers take themselves too seriously. Art for art's sake, and all. But, yeah, pop music is no bastion of "accomplishment."
@@ngyuhng8324 no harshness perceived....at all. :)
You might not have listened to enough contemporary. The main characteristic that defines our current era of music from the past eras is that dissonance doesn't have to be resolved. There have been (of course) countless works exploring dissonance and odd harmonies, but also countless works that are written "traditionally" (I guess that would be the correct way to word it) without unresolved dissonance.
I absolutely understand what you're saying and see where you're coming from. There's a lot of bad music out there, but also a lot of good music too.
@@PearceVaughnyup..that said, without something that resembles the "rules" that prevailed in the common practice period, or the extension of that, basically up until the Second Viennese School (Schönberg, et al), all bets are off and there it's a free for all that many composers are not able to navigate well. As a result, many are just throwing things "against the wall" to see what sticks. I mean, Benjamin Britten adapted the harmonic materials in a way that was quite convincing...simply, he wrote good music. George Crumb also comes to mind as someone who knows what he is doing. imho.
@@davidcottrell1308 Very well said.
I know I'm late to the party, but the video connected with me quite a lot. Essentially, I think we should be teaching the new composers in Academia that originality isn't everything, and also stop judging their submissions just through the lenses of how original they are, instead focusing on why they are deciding to do what they are doing, what they are trying to achieve, and judge them by how well they achieved it. In addition, we should also just straight up educate the masses on the topics of contemporary music (not just contemporary classical music, contemporary music in general). It saddens me that a big majority of people tend to appreciate, if not straight up like, modern visual arts, but also tend to view contemporary art music as "not really music, but organised noise". I have no problem with any popular style of contemporary music, but I also think we shouldn't dismiss contemporary art music just because it doesn't sound "nice" -music doesn't need to sound nice to be good, in my opinion at least.
dunno if I'm making sense, just the rumblings of a young contemporary composer who recently finalised their first big concert piece but not found their style/voice just yet
I do disagree with it doesn’t need to sound nice, I think music being the auditory art should appease your ears. Like “nice” is vague but I listen to Shostakovich quartet 8 and it’s very dark and unnerving but I still enjoy the sound. The rhythm and motifs and that all sound enjoyable - like I think music should to be “good”. Of course what’s good is subjective and I do agree with the rest of your comment.
I am trying to compose from classical to contemporary simply because I have had no formal musical training. I gather from both you and Samuel Andreyev that I need to network, but I haven't a clue as to how to go about it due to my slow learning curve.
I feel like we, as composers, need to do more collaborative work with other artists, where our pieces aren’t a backdrop to the other art, but where both artists split the credit and work 50/50. This way, people interested in other contemporary arts are exposed to contemporary music as well. We’ve seen some things pop up like this, with a completely mutual relationship between different arts, but it needs to become more widespread.
When modern culture repudiated tradition, it ended one the most crucial component of artistic development, which is dialogue with the past. Contemporary art has spent so long talking to itself that it has become to the vast majority of the people a foreign language: they can't understand it, and so they take no interest in it because they assume it has nothing to say to them.
Looking back on university study. My focus is the saxophone. Pretty much all my solo work was irrelevant In culture, which granted me freedom in creativity. However, my first composition out of school was surprisingly relevant. I'm pretty sure this was because I got myself out of the vacuum of school. At school, things are in a controlled setting. I consider it a clean room. These are my thoughts.
I think Meshuggah are one of the most contemporary artists out there. It took them over 20 years to get any recognition and I believe they are still ahead of their time. Despite being a metal band rather than a typical contemporary classical setup, the music they write is simply unlike anything out there, and other bands who've tried to copy them still don't come close. Thoughts?
1-What is in the present , still the most performed concerto in music halls all over the world, that was composed in the last 100 years? El Concierto de Aranjuez. Do we need to ask why? If anyone does, just listen to its Adagio, which by the way, IT IS THE MOST PERFORMED CLASSICAL MUSIC CONCERTO OF ALL CONCERTOS FROM ANY PERIOD, and it was written in the 20th Century, , in1939 if I am not mistaken, the very same year Hitler UNleashed his own version of hell on the world.
2-And in the beauty of that Concerto for Guitar and Orchestra , written by the blind Spanish master composer Rodrigo, called by many ''The Last of The Romantic Composers'', which makes the hearts of its listeners so happy , is a sure sign pointing the way to go to modern and future composers .
3-And although for sure, the recent and current elitists purveyors of culture , believers in their OWN hype do have an agenda against the beauty and deep SOLace found ONLY in The Light of The Truth , and thus they've been tearing at it for decades (in reality willfully taking part in their selves initiated spiritual battle against Jesus, God incarnate, and the inherent beauty of His love and commitment to mankind, for it reveals what evil many have burrowed deep within their hearts. Enough to look around to today's western societies to clearly SEE)modern composers who love the beauty in music (like Rachmaninoff did for example) shouldn't be discouraged by the mediocrity and coarseness of today's music scene. And even though Michael Tilson Thomas said once that in the 20th Century noise won over melody in classical music, Mahler , who made it to the early years of the 1900s , did say that composing wasn't about the notes ''but about the heart". And didn't he prove it amply with his 5th's Adagietto, probably his most famous piece?. Of course, he did.
4-So composers ought to do just and precisely what Mahler, who knew better said, and should never feel ashamed of SEEking after beauty nor in need to auto sabotage their art into ''UNbearable irrelevance'' (like Bruce so brilliantly described it) in downward conformity to the mediocrity so abounding in this modernist world , the realm of music included of course, with its ''new normal'' of what's Aelways been bad now being forced to be called ''good" . Especially since it has been physiological observed and proven that music that's perceived as bad and UNpleasant by a majority of a sample of listeners , in turn made said listeners' own arteries, veins and capillaries shrink, contract instead of widening and letting the blood flow with more ease , which is precisely what good and pleasing music to the ears and heart, does.
5- That is just the humble opinion , AeLso sounding the ALarm , rather than sounding ALarmist yet, no matter what can be inferred from the lyrics to this channel's video closing song, by a lover of classical music, and of all types of good music really , at it ever since his teens till now, a few months shy of 60, in these that are ''as the times of Jonah'', when the times are a changing regardless , indeed!. How can't they not?...Shema!!!.
This comment section blew my mind
It seems to me that it is the fixed nature of sound, harmonics and our system of hearing and perceiving which makes many of the modern departures from what was established methods 'tuned' or integrated with our nature the reason these modern efforts are failures. The academic circles have to work hard at a pretense that these modern efforts are advancements.
I love atonal music. On a purely subjective level, I find it relaxing, whereas, say, Smooth Mood Music, I find stressful, because it is so bland. So, I think it is inaccurate to say 'does anyone really love this stuff?', because I do. I doubt I am the only person in the world who feels this way.
I wish I could gab about music with people. I wish more that I could find anyone at all who plays a musical instrument, and who has not quit because of their job. I hope this is just Taiwan. I cannot talk about myself as a composer until I find people to play the stuff I've written down.
I think putting one's music online is the way of the future. If I wrote a piano piece, played it, and put in on UA-cam, then precisely infinite more people will hear it then now. I can't recommend moving to Taiwan if you are a musician of any kind. Modern art in other forms is rigorous and healthy here.
This so much.
Same. And there's a plethora of things to express with atonal music that you can't with tonality. And I don't mean ''feelings of horror and anxiety'' :) - which is what most of the 'newcomers' say, ''it sounds like film music'', ''it sounds like a horror movie''. I think the movie industry has a huge role to play in that, as it operates with few elements that are semantically (? does this word exist) POOR and one-dimensional, for efficiency reasons, of course: the music to a film has to be a simple language that everyone understands, ''this is a happy feeling'' ''this is sadness'' etc; whereas art thrives through ambiguity, richness of meaning and interpretation...
I think the answer is in more education; no, I don't think you need to know music theory to enjoy new / atonal music, not at all! But through ''education'' - and by that I mean informative discussion, we can propose different perspectives, attitudes, alternative ways of perceiving the world of sound and its meanings...
A format that works great (but it's difficult to do this) is with a small ensemble and 'interactive' concerts. Whatevs. Now we can achieve something similar with the internet :)
And I think Adam Neely (and Rick Beato imho) do that job well, of opening up the conversation
(sorry for the long-ass comment, I guess I got enthused by seeing a fellow composer! Also wanted to add to the tiny pile of people that can say ''I honestly love this music''. :)
You may not be right in the head/mind. It’s a possibility.
WHY DID YOU LEAVE OUT THE OBVIOUS FACT THAT IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY AND YOU KNOW HOW TO ORCHESTRATE MELODIES, YOU WRITE FOR THE CINEMA.
All those left behind obviously can't. They go where there's no test for success: academia.
not totally true. I don't write for film or theatre because I found I didn't enjoy the process of being 'under orders' from the director. I prefer to take my music in my own direction
May I have permission to show this to my new .england conservatory class on primacy of ear,third steam ?
Bela Bartok did something interesting with his music to reach a wider audience. Though his music is highly polytonal and makes use of split chords and axis theory, he injected it almost effortlessly with Magyar folk music- which to his Hungarian audience would have been highly uplifting, but for audiences outside Hungary did not quite work. I guess in this case what worked for one audience did not work for another. To be honest, I think his music is incredible. Not my favourite, but it is certainly incredibly written. It is clear he made an effort to engage a wider audience, and I think that the way he did this is pure genius.
Great video!
J P, Bartok took me out of classic music education. I was six years old and supposed to play his music at the Vienna local Musikschule in order to access the Konservatorium later on. I wasn’t able to feel anything in this music, it sounded just horrible and didn’t fit my breath. I left the classical piano when I was 10, did some guitar, drums, still jamming around with ppl like me in the 50s on Saturday, when we have a little break from our enterprises and families. Bartok still sounds horrible to me. Instead I love Ligeti. A love I discovered recently, being invited to assist fantastic performances of his Le Grand Macabre. This opera made me laugh, cry, forget everything, it burns, it is crazy, it’s wonderful music.
@@gregonline6506 Never really listened to Ligeti at any kind of length. Personally, I'm passionate about opera. The music that, as you say 'took me out of classical music' , or nearly did, was actually Mozart. I never got the hype- his music is boring, childish, and doesn't really seem to say anything and doesn't evolve from the start of his career, from when he was literally a child, to the last piece he wrote. Yet people adore him. His operas are needlessly hard to sing, and they don't say anything really. What got me back in, though, was Gluck. Iphigenie en Tauride moved me to tears even while conducting it.
What a great video. Your thinking is crystal clear and sound. Your head is screwed on right. Your brain is beautiful.
The intellectually interested well-educated culturally curious audience - invest their time in Jazz. Jazz is beautiful, emotional, sentimental, advanced, challenging, mind-expanding. Jazz pays off for the curious listener! Contemporary classical music is absolutely irrelevant. Contemporary classical music will never get an audience - it does not deserve an audience. As some writers formulate it: "We should not bother about the audience". Yes - one can take that approach. You can of course continue to compose. And the result will be some paper in your bookcase. Or some files on your hard-drive. Nobody should deny you the right to do exactly that. But the result will not be more than that either - paper in your bookcase and files on your hard-drive.
6 years later lol... I think music is always a relationship. When I look at neo-complexity scores for instance (and in this category, I'd include this whole generation of Lachenmann knock-offs posting tons of score-follower videos recently), I see a relationship that could perhaps be salvaged by understanding it as a composer providing puzzles for the performers and audience to solve (which is a human need, fair 'nuff) but which often comes across as abusive: performers are asked to struggle to interpret the markings on the page, and listeners are subjected to what Kyle Gann once called out as "seemingly unmotivated angst." Like, we live in this world, with so many astonishing conveniences, and modern composers' music is so angry??? Why? I think part of the answer is for composers to get over themselves and recast the composer-performer-listener relationship as a mutually supportive one. I listen to music for many reasons, but very low on that list is "to kowtow to M/Mme Composer's superior intellect" *boring* Now let me go listen to the Copland Piano Sonata again, there's a piece that respects the listener
1-For a while there has been a concerted effort by many in politics, media and academia [who thought beauty, common sense and love(specially Godly and family love)were signs of a bourgeois West that gave the world 2 world wars, the extermination of millions of people and greedy exploitation of the underdogs] to scrub off those good attributes from the USA and Europe.
2-So they took it upon themselves to prevent all that mayhem from happening again by destroying the certitude most people had about those Eternal Truths, and threw the baby out with the water , in that they willfully started calling pretty what every one saw as ugly , and ''good'' what everyone knew was bad (and still do to this day), pushing on people their so wrong and mostly improvised agenda with the help of foolishly deceived intellectuals and also of some very cynical, for manipulative players.
3-AND ALL THAT MISCHIEF AND THEIR DELETERIOUS MISDEEDS EXTENDED AND EXPANDED ONTO ALL TYPES OF ART , LIVING , AND HUMAN ENDEAVORS , AND CERTAINLY IT REACHED THE WORLD OF CLASSICAL MUSIC.
4-But the fact that Spain's Joaquin Rodrigo's, WITH GLORIA BY HIS SIDE, wrote the "Concierto de Aranjuez for Guitar and Orchestra" (in 1939)with all its beautiful melodies and lyricism became the most played classical work in the world's concert halls of today, shows that people know that they know in their knower of knowest , like old timers used to say, that most of today's modern classical music is BUT NONSENSICAL, LOUD, STRIDENT NOISY B'S, OF THE FAKE AND OVER INTELLECTUALIZED CROWD, WRITTEN BY TALENT LESS HACKS POSING AS ENLIGHTENED ''KNOW BEST''SUPERIOR BEINGS, ONLY IN THEIR MINDS THOUGH , WHICH PROVES ''THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES ON'' (and this equally applies in the fields of Physics, Biology, Psychology, to movie making , fakenews, and so on...).
5- Proverbially speaking , some of the same UNrighteous blowhards went beyond what was called for and needed in that they "Tried pulling the wool over people's eyes" just to keep mostly themselves safe from the wolf , that we must in all prudence fear and be ALert against ALright , and actively and decisively fight off but not just, and UNjustly, like that.
6-In the process they became themselves " the last days' wolves which are not necessarily black nor white but grey in their deceit.". And the damage they caused has been immense. Just look at today's sociology stats and data, specially among those 18-45 in the Anglo world, offing themselves through overdosing and suicide in increasingly worrisome ways.
7-It is rightout there for all honest men of good will to SEE. How can they not?...Shema!!!.
Lmao he’s really comparing There Will Be Blood and Interstellar with avant-garde art
This is euro-centrically biased! .... Or I might say that your argument lacks a crucial point: cultural relevance comes from cultural coherence; this is something I as an Iranian composer with persian musical background have dealt with on daily basis and it took me 15 years to reach a somewhat balanced innovative language that is derived from my cultural roots. I do not care about the number of receptions, because as you justly mentioned, it depends on a lot of elements. But I dare say that my music is trying to stay coherent to my musical identity, in this case straightforward persian music, plus a lot of fascination with western history of art and culture. I have tried to remain true to my origins, and deduce a system of fundamentals of persian music to reach a means of expression that is contemporary to the state of the "art" technique and research as far as the musical world is concerened.
I am sure there are so many other brilliant minds from non western cultures who are struggling to achieve the same result and this is what your "contemporary "classical"" world is lacking! A true musical identity crisis, in which every note, every cent of intonation, every instance of timbre, gosh even the very definition of musical expression has to be rethought, radicalised, compared and made sense of in its original roots in different civilisations so far away as that of euro-centric and perso-islamic.
There are roots in common, and I claim to have found traces of them. Don't beat around the bush, dig in for the inconvenient roots from the backyard of your inconvenient neighbours!
The only reason most people who recognize the name Arnold Schoenberg know anything about him, is because he is put in a textbook and forced on music appreciation students. People listen to Handel, Bach, Beethoven and Verdi because their music connects. Contemporary composers who make musical innovation an end, rather than a means, fail to connect to their audiences. Music is art, not science. The current genre of music that both connects with an audience AND displays amazing innovation is jazz. Until jazz, composers featured the triad as the meat of a piece of music and 7th chords as embellishments. Jazz uses the 7th chord as the meat and 9ths, 11ths and 13ths as embellishing chords. Like 20th century avant-garde music, Jazz is innovative; but, unlike avant-garde we still listen to jazz 100 years later. Also, unlike avant-garde; new innovation in jazz is still occurring. A capella jazz has exploded in the last 3-4 decades with harmonies that are still developing.
You're putting 20th century avant-garde music into way too small of a box. It's not all Schoenberg.
Schoenberg is tame and relatively listenable compared most of what's out there. The composers writing music that actually connects with anyone besides themselves are actually famous right now (and almost entirely ignored by academia).
But people listen to Schœnberg too.
Yuriy Lehki Actually, in the modern day, the composers writing music that actually connects with people are the artists making popular music (i.e. non-classical). There has been a massive burst of creativity throughout the various genres of popular music in the last 50 years or so. It has solidly manifested itself to be a hugely significant part of our culture, in a way that is unparalleled for any other music (classical, jazz, other historical folk music).
Louis Guillot Butt people listen to Schoenberg too
If I may: I believe: 1) Music has always developed and tried to go unexplored ways, since there must always be new creation and not imitation. 2) There has of course always been and will be good stuff and nonsense, but it is very hard to make a distinction since there is no objective truth or measure for quality but only subjective appreciation in the frame of the products made by immensely talented, ingenious and well-trained experts. 3) Everybody (listener, art-lover) has his limits and is allowed to have it. I recently read a nice book saying "If you love art, you are allowed to hate art. Be critical!" 4) Many of the examples of "modern contemporary music" which are cited to show that audience can listen and appreciate modern art are too harmless examples and no challenge (e.g., Pärt, Reich...) and therefore no helpful examples for the discussion about this very interesting and profound topic. 5) I consider myself one of those who do love lots of quite complex pieces of the 20th century, often beyond the usual paths. (Berg, Webern, some Boulez, Messiaen, Takemitsu, Dutilleux, Hartmann, Dusapin, Nono...) 6) Art is an effort, an exercise, an intellectual challenge and not necessarily meant to please for entertainment (although nice things are allowed for relaxation too; art is not a one-way road). Therefore, everybody should do the effort and try to grasp some more complex art, music etc. - but everybody is allowed to assume his/her limits as well: I found mine after a long and slow "quest" of 30/40 years (which has not yet ended) at the level of works like Stockhausen's Helicopter Quartet, where I can't make a difference anymore between music and noise and where I do not feel any emotion either. For me, art comes from the heart or the stomach; the brain part is more a means than the goal itself. I agree with you when you talk about the "conversation between the composer and the audience". 7) Therefore, I am glad that, as of the 80ies of last century, this fierce progress if modern art with its dictatorial aspects (if you did not write in a progressive way, you were banned from participating in concerts by fundamentalist composers) was abandoned, and the range of modern contemporary music opened up to a free and liberal way of thinking and creating: Anyway, all musical progress had by then come to a dead end/ a terminus: more noise than music. Btw, I am not a composer (although doing a bit composing for myself in a half tonal way, comparable to Rautavaara's direction or so) but just a dilettante lover of classical music (everything that can touch me somewhere between Josquin Deprez and today) and a hobby volinist. Thanks for listening.
I think a big part of the problem can be attributed to the ever-shortening attention spans of people. We live in an age where listening one piece to the end is uncommon, and I'm not even speaking of a 20-minute atonal piece here. The structure and content of contemporary art music is at odds with how the contemporary human consumes music. We've been conditioned to effortless consumption of easily digestible music. Baroque, classical, romantic, etc eras still enjoy some popularity because they are much easier to digest than contemporary classical.
But there's also the aspect that contemporary art music is often permeated by dissonance. Do we have an innate aversion to such unrestrained-and even gratuitous at times-use of dissonance? Perhaps this music is simply unenjoyable for the vast majority of the population and will remain an art form only for the music academics, who can appreciate all its complexities. Human infants have been proven to prefer consonance to dissonance as have apes, birds sing mainly in consonances, etc. Perhaps this contemporary art music goes against the very nature and psychology of humans and therefore is not in a position to ever gain much popularity. Maybe an intellectual interest is required to truly appreciate and enjoy this music, not simply listening and enjoying it sensuously like one would any other kind of music.
If it is going to find an audience, music needs to be comprehensible, meaningful, and beautiful. Modern classical music is (by and large) none of these, and by design. Since most composers exist in academia, they get paid regardless. They can indulge the fantasy that their compositions are significant simply because they (by virtue of being the authorities of academia) say so. You could not more effectively create a chasm between composer and audience if you tried. "We hate your work" meets "You are too ignorant to matter."
This only works for the composer because of that academic paycheck. To the extent that sinecure fails, so will contemporary classical music.