I think Alex Ross's "The Rest is Noise" is a great book to read if one wants to get inside contemporary music. I read it and found some composers that really resonate with me.
A banjo player named Riley Baugus provided an interesting perspective on the necessity of music once. He was on stage with players of stringed instruments from around the world (oud, sarod, bouzouki, etc), and said (roughly), "My ancestors led really difficult lives, doing almost nothing but hard work in an effort to survive; and I know that's also true for some of the other folks on stage with me. What I find striking is that the human need for music is so great that in spite of their hard circumstances, they still spent the time and effort to figure all of this out." The assent that appeared on the faces of the other musicians created a moment of international "he ain't lyin'."
I found your channel thanks to a tweet by Jordan Peterson. I'm ashamed to admit I'm uneducated in music, and a lot of what you say in your analyses goes a bit over my head, but your passion and erudition make me believe it's worth the effort to learn. Thanks for making this channel - the internet at its best!
Paul Read Thank you so much! I've tried to strike a jocular and playful tone here -- a lot of contemporary music discussions are fatally serious. There is no shame in not being familiar with contemporary music. Stick with it, there are gems that can change your life. I truly appreciate the feedback.
I think you're striking just the right tone. I'm sure there are lots of people in my boat: intellectually curious about many things but with no tools to approach these genres of music, particularly from the last 100 years or so. It's not that we can't or won't: we just don't know how. Someone comes along and says "it's worth it, trust me. try listening for this in this piece, noticing that in another piece" and doesn't try to come across as haughty and annoyed with the proles, and suddenly I have the confidence and a few tools to experiment by myself. Now I just need to find someone similar to explain sculpture to me :)
this is not only an approach to contemporary music but to art of every kind. i came up with pretty similiar approaches regarding literature. you could also sum it up as: value art and put effort into it. and most of the time you will understand not only the subject matter better but also yourself. art can be a mirror for self reflection and a medium for projection, wether you are on the receiving end or on the production side. this pragmatic arguement, is in my eyes, the one, which can start excitment for contemporary art and the willingness to spend effort.
The bit about suspending judgment is so crucial. This example isn't "contemporary classical," but when I first heard the music of Paul Simon (his solo stuff circa Graceland, I had already heard a few Simon and Garfunkel songs and liked them well enough) I hated it. I truly despised it in a way I haven't hated a song in many years. I thought it was amateurish, especially his habit of cramming many words into a single line and distorting the melody in the process. In fact, the reason I listened to any of those songs again was because they ticked me off, they frustrated me because I liked the instrumental, but hated the song over it. Then on the 4th or 5th listen, it all began to click. Fast-forward some years, and now Paul Simon is bar none my favorite songwriter, and my favorite album of his is The Rhythm of the Saints (which has some of the exact songs that baffled me on it). This has happened enough times (for artists including The Beatles, David Bowie, Death's first album, the entire genre of Hip Hop) that I assume any work of music that I don't enjoy, but that has any sort of devoted following, must have merit that hasn't "hit me right," for one reason or another. This revelation came before going to college to get a music degree and being exposed for the first time to "modernist" music, which served me well in approaching Schoenberg, Ives, Boulez, etc.
great video. i have but 2 bones to pick: 1. as for your reason to why people are open to abstract art but not music (because of the length of the piece) - how does that apply to ballet? in ballet the modern style has successfully replaced the classical, meaning that the mainstream style is the modern and the classical being more of a niche'. in art music that has not happened. 19th century music still reigns supreme to this day. 2. i think (as a composer myself) there are inherent problems with the contemporary music world, the biggest one being it is so academic and entirely independent from the taste of the audience. There for composers make little to no effort trying to please the audience, and there for - the audience is mostly unpleased (surprisingly enough..).
Concerning your second point - there are several good reasons why people would prefer music, literature, art made 200 years ago: 1) The biggest one is that they stood the test of time and became classics. History has filtered the chaff and we're left with the best examples and masterpieces in these arts. 2) For ideological purposes. Art comes hand in hand with philosophy and is influenced by the era it's created in. It's easy to understand why some people feel disillusioned by the current state of affairs or of humanity as a whole and they turn back to the romanticised past. Also music and the arts had a much greater cultural impact back then (among aristocracy and bourgeois), while the mainstream media and pop culture reign supreme today. How is it a better time to be a composer today? Sure, you can influence a few people in your circle, but art isn't the page turner that it was before. It has been replaced by technology, consumerism and progressivism. 3) Aesthetics. This one is somehow linked with the previous point. There was a time when western art music was deemed "listenable" and beautiful by a broad audience for its more natural treatment of harmony while it still exhibited great artistic depth, complexity of form and compositional technique appreciated by the selected few. It's in human nature to be attracted to beauty and repulsed by ugliness and most people's aesthetics are pretty straightforward and unsubtle. There are more points to be made, but that's all I can think of right now.
A great remedy to your third point would be to read Slonimsky's Lexicon of Musical Invective. It is a compendium of awful critical reviews of (mostly) pre 20th-century music. For example, multiple critics wrote about Chopin's music that it was so chaotic that if you did not know the score already, you wouldn't be able to tell if the pianist played wrong notes. There have always been populists, and there have always been disruptors/innovators. Look back to the 14th and 15th century and you'll see Machaut and the Ars Nova/Ars Subtillor movements writing "music for musicians" as much appreciated for what can be seen on the page as what can be heard. And there are populists today. If you're looking for "accessible" and "intelligent" music from the 21st century, look at composers like Donnacha Dennehy, Ingram Marshall, etc. The second point is a human tendency that we need to be skeptical of. Sure, there are huge problems created by the influence of technology, etc., but let's not forget that you are also nostalgic for a time devoid of human rights for many groups of people. You said it well when you said "the romanticised past."
My mind has been opened, since Miles Davis & Stravinsky in the last century. A few more are: Carter, Stockhausen & Xenakis. I need to listen critically, and this music, whether it helps that or not, gives my brain a gourmet FEAST.
Thanks for your enthusiasm! I will follow your advice especially on the need to know the music of one's own time. You are right. I love Bach and Shostakovich and know hardly anything about the music of today. Your earlier videos on some 'modern' composers made me see their craftsmanship ( so, no morons there ..). Heard some of your own pieces, which were hard for me, but I will try to really listen to them better. Please keep up the good work.
Rene Broekhoven Thanks for your comments. Often, the reason contemporary music appears difficult is that it is so unfamiliar. It's amazing how much of a difference a second or third hearing can make. I always recommend listening to lots of different styles. Glad to be of service :)
i strongly agree about cultivating an interest in music of your time. there's a fascination among so many musicians in the old old stuff and while it's totally worth being reverent of, studying, building off of... it's a fundamental difference in mindset to me and i absolutely feel a duty toward the contemporary and have always felt pushback from my peers. great commentary, samuel!
Bill Brown sure -- Karlheinz Stockhausen, Gruppen; Morton Feldman, Piano and String Quartet (check out the Kronos Quartet recording); Charles Ives, 4th Symphony; Gérard Grisey, Les espaces acoustiques; György Ligeti, Piano etudes; Alban Berg, Violin Concerto.
Great video, as always. I have a somewhat unique entry into my love of classical music. I came to love classical music via my love for prog-rock. But not the usual bands that people think about when they think about prog (YES, King Crimson, ELP, Genesis, etc), who were all pretty much influenced by the early 20th century classical composers. My interest in classical music came from my love of a sub-genre of progressive music known loosely as "avant-prog". These are bands (Thinking Plague, Henry Cow, Aranis, Univers Zero, Art Zoyd, and many more) that are specifically influenced by the composers of the mid-20th century, and later. So, when I first started listening to: the 2nd Viennese School composers, Elliott Carter, Charles Wouorinen, Joan Tower, Berio, Harrison Birtwhistle, George Perle, Thea Musgrave, etc, etc, etc, my familiarity with: constantly changing time signatures, dissonance, poly-rhythms, lack of a tonal center, etc, etc, was not a complete shock to me, since I was already used to it from the above sub-genre of progressive music. I am not saying that I did not have any "learning curve", but I certainly did not have a knee jerk negative reaction, as those that only listen to "common practice". Since I came to classical music through: modern, avant-garde and contemporary composers, I find (to my ears) earlier era composers to be: predictable, cliche sounding, and to be honest, just plain boring. And it's not for lack of trying. I often listen to the major, pre-20th century composers, with an open mind, with the hopes that it will click with me. So far, no luck.
Mr Andreyev, I love your Boulezian fire and persuasion. I am sure you will not consider this a light-hearted comment. Today’s artists - I’m in the poetry section - need to fight laziness, stultification, drug haze and absence of ethics if they want to somehow preserve the fire of tradition, as Mahler used to say. I love the great music of the last 67 years (my life) and am planning to listen very attentively to La pendule de profil, and more than one time. While having to justify, more than once, the way you do for music, the sophistication of today’s and tomorrow’s poetry, I have been confronted many times with the following counter-argument: (for music:) “Yes you are right, we have to be interested first of all in today’s music, but today’s music is NOT the emotionally painful, intellectual, pretentious music you love, but Michael Douglas!” (for poetry:) “Yes you are... [etc.] but today’s poetry is NOT the emotionally painful, intellectual, pretentious palimpsest you love but RAP & HIP HOP & SLAM!”... and then, you see, I understand that the struggle for subtlety and complexity will have to include the political struggle that helps steering, again, society towards hard work, intelligence, sensitivity and ethics... and, the individual, towards psychoanalytical and -synthetical depth and what almost amounts to an experience of conversion. A good question that may start the experience of metanoïa in young people today is maybe: “When you admire, what do you admire?”
Michel Leclerc Thank you for writing. Although it has become fashionable to mock the idea, there is an element of responsibility in the arts. It's shared by the artist and those that would engage with their work. The artist's side of the bargain is not to make trivial or boring art (although, as has often been noted, in some ways it is just as hard to make bad art as it is to make first-rate art..). The public's rôle is to engage and remain critically alert, whilst not making wholesale condemnations of entire domains of aesthetic endeavor. Excelsior!
Well... yes, Mr Andreyev - but I’m talking about the onslaught of "low" art - and the concomitant “culture studies" everywhere in the world’s academia taking "low" art as seriously as "high" art - which harnesses on one hand the "taste" argument (de gustibus non disputandum) - whereas I am, as you are probably, of the opinion that this classical phrase actually means that taste cannot be argued against as there is only one scale of more or less sophistication of taste (see Sollers’s “La guerre du goût”) and that it is education which teaches us how to refine our taste - and on the other hand, the representativeness argument (which is less easy to counter) claiming that intellectuality, complexity, emotional depth are requirements of social classes on the verge of disappearing, whereas “the ordinary people” have concerns to which the pop singers and the slam poets of the day would respond more adequately. Changing the latter’s expectances is a political, or religious, endeavour. The audience for high art we crave and sculpt is not a given; Gesualdo lay dormant for three hundred years; this may happen again. What I would like to suggest is that besides the co-responsibility you quite deservedly emphasize, there is another responsibility vis-a-vis the non-concert-going audience, which I am not sure my strong belief in "high art" as the epitome of spiritual development and taste may be so effective in persuading.
Ce qui est certain, c’est que le public pour la musique « savante » (et l’art en général) ne doit pas être pris pour acquis mais doit être construit en permanence. C’est un peu ce que j’essaie de faire à mon niveau tout à fait modeste. Pour ce faire il faut s’aventurer au delà des initiés et des fréquenteurs de festivals etc. Chaque artiste a un certain pouvoir d’influence et il ne faut pas attendre que les politiques se réveillent avant d’agir. Je crois que le monde de la musique contemporaine française fait preuve d’une certaine paresse à ce niveau-là. Les artistes doivent apprendre à communiquer de façon saississante et à s’emparer des technologies (pas si) nouvelles car c’est là où tout se passe. Il ne faut pas oublier que le public est constitué d’individus qui ont besoin de l’art (qu’ils le sachent ou pas) ; la tâche de l’artiste et donc de forger une vraie connection et non de s'adresser aux gens d’en haut. Je suis évidemment gêné par l’idée postmoderne selon laquelle toutes les formes d’art seraient d’égale importance et d’un niveau à peu près pareil ! C’est une idéologie à la fois fausse et dangeureuse dont je me méfie énormément.
Vous écrivez “C’est un peu ce que j’essaie de faire à mon niveau tout à fait modeste”, Monsieur Andreyev - vous le faites admirablement. Bien évidemment, nous ne devons pas “attendre que les politiques se réveillent”. Il sont très bien éveillés, croyez-moi, en fait ils attendent que nous, les artistes, nous éveillions à la brutalisation générale qu’ils ont mise en place depuis un petit bout de temps, et cela avec la complicité sanguinaire et/ou stupéfiée des “masses”, sinon du “public constitué d’individus qui ont besoin d’art” que vous évoquez. Mais cete phrase qui est la vôtre - “qu’ils le sachent ou pas” - (je souligne: ou pas)) - je l’aime beaucoup, dans la mesure où elle me confirme qu’il dort en tout artiste une aspiration de convaincre le cerveau pliable et le cœur non encore “endurci” de la limpidité de l’idée, du Bon, du Vrai, du Beau. Je crains toutefois qu’en dehors de certaines zônes protégées du social, protégées en fait par une partie du “capital” qui a compris que la réservation du profit à l’investissement dans l‘humanité future, ne peut pas se passer de son investissement dans la préservation du Beau (, ..., ...) sous peine de ne plus pouvoir repérer la force de création nécessaire future là où elle se tapit, ou, en d’autres termes : protégées par le mécénat privé (le rôle de celui-ci dans la naissance du Domaine Musical est connu) ou personnel (Ives qui finance sa propre création, vous l’avez épinglé à juste titre) - la “politique”, ou plutôt la politique en chacun de nous, c’est-à-dire l’éthique, n’ait réussi son dessein d’auto-brutalisation. Pour citer une expression américaine bien consciente de son irrévocabilité : the dumbing down of the people... et j’enchaine : ...is a success! Craché haineusement pour s’être “retranché dans sa tour d’ivoire” (soi-disante), l’artiste se trouve plutôt contraint de se retirer au sommet de sa colonne, ou, pour le dire tel Mallarmé, le saint du Style à devenir Stylite. It’s a brutal world. Ce sont vos propres paroles, que je crois avoir entendues...
Such good advice. I borrowed a CD of Elliot Carter's Symphonia & Clarinet Concerto from the library & on first listen while driving I thought much of it sounded aimless yet bombastic, with some redeeming movements. An hour or so later in a better listening mood I started really liking the entire CD.
I have been listening to contemporary music for over 40 years. I started with a John Cage's piece for prepared piano. It was the second vinyl I bought after I was born. I think John Cage's pieces for prepared piano is suitable for beginners.
I just saw Andrew Norman's Play and Matthias Pintscher's Idyll live last night and tonight I'm headed to hear Ligeti's Violin Concerto... hearing a lot of contemporary music in succession is actually very fun and refreshing. I can't imagine how my life would be different if my city had a large, well-funded performing organism devoted to post-1950s classical music. One can dream! Did you see you got a shout-out on Alex Ross's blog in December? Congrats on your growing notoriety! Count me among your first 1000 subscribers - may you have many more.
Thank you so much Samuel for the precious information you let us share with you. With or without the (electric) guitar, with or without jazz, everyday now I meditate on one definite subject : what could be (and how would sound) french modern music in the XXIth century if it came to existence for everyone to see ? The unique approach and love with which you presented John French and, following that, Zoot Horn, led me straight to subscribe to your channel. I feel I'm only at the begining though, and the 64-year-old that I am is going to learn a whole lot more with you ! A big thank you again for that. Peace - (greetings from Paris)
I loved contemporary classical music right off. No trouble there. Actually, some of the traditional classical I find much harder to like - melodramatic and too predictable. I'm disappointed. I was hoping you would show us how to approach it as a composer, not as a listener. Could I request a part two where you share your insights on how to compose in an environment where no traditional rule is mandatory?
You should be more well known Mr. Andreyev, your videos are amazing and you communicate your knowledge in a very eloquent way, you must be a teacher too!
Thank you for the video. It was a pleasure to watch, as always. As someone who studies contemporary poetry, I often run into the questions you address here. I must say, however, that I don't quite agree with your second point. I certainly feel that there's a pressing need to engage with and comprehend contemporary art--but I don't think it amounts to everyone's obligation, or that everyone ought to try and enjoy contemporary offerings. There are plenty of reasons why contemporary art is inherently more difficult. To begin with, it's _new_ (i.e. it hasn't yet been processed and incorporated into the existing cultural consciousness) and so is touched with the alien. Novelty is anxiety provoking. Your experience and training provide you with tools that lessen this anxiety, but a piece like Boulez's Sonatine is liable to appear, from the first listen, as a much more intimidating beast to a naive listener than it would to you or me. What's more, the category of "art from 200 years ago" has an unfair advantage: it's been pared down by history, and (for the most part) only the most valuable pieces have survived. If one wants to learn a thing or two about an art, it seems most efficient to start with the pieces of it that have already proven to be valuable. Why begin with the most difficult and intimidating category? Of course, some people are going to seek out contemporary art, whether or not they've first been versed in its predecessors. And good for them! But that doesn't seem to be who this video is addressed to. Rather, it seems (at least to me) to be addressed people asking "(why) should I bother with contemporary music?" Personally, if someone were to ask me if they should bother trying to "get" contemporary poetry, I would simply say "no--don't force yourself to do something you don't enjoy." If someone develops an interest in contemporary art (as I think inevitably happens for many people engaged with an art), and comes to me to ask for tools to help begin their journey, that's a different story--but I would never advise someone to "cultivate an interest in the music of their time" if they weren't so inclined. For someone who isn't devoting their life to an art, I don't think there's anything wrong with being satisfied with a few gems of old. Not everyone needs to dip their toes in these waters--and for those who do need to...I don't think they need the cajoling.
Thank you for these thoughtful and well-written comments. In my experience, many people don't think too hard about what they can and can't enjoy and their tastes are somewhat arbitrary, based on the small range of things many people typically hear. Of course, some individuals will never like contemporary music of any sort and that's fine, but there is another category that have the capacity to listen much more broadly, but need a little encouragement. Those are the sorts of people I'm trying to reach.
Thanks very much for your swift reply! I think it's incredible that you're able to read and respond to so many comments. One result is that your comment sections are among the few places on UA-cam I've found that truly complement the videos and provide a place to learn. You make a perfectly reasonable point, of course, and I shouldn't have discounted that category. It wasn't very long ago that I was uninterested in most contemporary work. It was only through chance--enrolling in the wrong class, which happened to have a very passionate instructor--that my orientation changed. I feel certain that I eventually would have come to contemporary art of my own accord, but perhaps you're right that I needed a "little encouragement" to make it happen sooner rather than later :)
Rediscover Ease movement education Thanks. I would state my case somewhat differently if I were making this video today. Of course there is a plurality of musical styles and each has its value. I was talking more about the highly conservative nature of classical music, and the fact that it is now widely seen as something oriented only to to the past, despite the many extraordinary composers active today.
A great deal of what you say presupposes a person wants to partake in music as a primary activity and devote effort to it. Most people "listen" to music while doing other things, or as a soundtrack to accompany something they consider more important. _I_ want to sit down and focus on music, but very few people do. Even other musicians. I generally refuse to use music as "sonic wallpaper", but this also means I spend far less time with music on in general because to me, it's either the point or it's a distraction. (Distractions are fine when doing the dishes or cleaning the house or whatever.) If I do need it as wallpaper, it's going to be familiar and well-understood because I won't have the mental capacity to properly devote to anything new.
In my opinion one of the most important things really is, relax, don't think too much, don't judge until you spent hours in contact with it and similar styles. Also, musical education in my experience really was important cause I learned to hear the notes and the structures and the orchestration. We'd be lying if we said that that kind of knowledge and experience doesn't help considerably
This general advice work not only in the realm of music, but in other fields as well. I see some Petersonians here in the comments. To all them: take this advice and apply it to philosophies and philosophers that you dislike, particularly in the fields of feminism, postmodernism, marxism and critical analysis.
This is brilliant and I think that the "prepare to be underwhelmed on the first listen" comment is SO IMPORTANT. Even when it comes to Beethoven or Mahler or Mozart I will always find the first listen to be extremely hollow.
To illustrate an example of my general sentiments and this will be overgeneralized but as an example: Webern's Op.27 vs Op.27 No.2....I appreciate and I am fascinated by the Webern piece. I appreciate, I'm fascinated about and I love and am grateful for Beethoven's piece. If Webern's opus 27 disappeared, I could go on with life without feeling deprived. If the Moonlight Sonata disappeared, I'd feel something essential was missing. Call me a simpleton, I guess.
Danny B. Not at all. If someone takes the time to engage with something and then decides it's not for them, that's fine. You can't like everything! Thanks for your thoughtful remarks.
A reason as to why someone might find something made in the distant past more interesting that something made today is that an individual might they might be aesthetically/subjectively drawn to a particular element of past music. I agree, people should have a degree of familiarity with the cultural artefacts of their time, but how individuals weigh their interests is a whole different animal. After all, music of the distant past has not been explored to its fullest potential and people might like that exploration, and if they thus dedicate their interests to that over contemporary music I don't see a problem.
Yes, it's a very rich and rewarding adventure, one that never ends, and the payoff is utterly sublime! I'm always wondering when I listen to a piece, how did the composer come up with these amazing ideas, and how did the performers come to be so skilled as to execute those ideas with such passion and precision? And they didn't even have the benefit of recorded performances!
Although I am just a fan of art music without any kind of musical knowledge, I get the impression that the vast majority of contemporary art music composers only know the musical procedures and composers of the 20th and 21st centuries and do not know or want to learn nothing of Bach, Mozart, Brahms or Renaissance polyphony (preferring even commercial music without artistic pretensions such as pop or rock), and in this way it is really difficult to write music of a quality comparable to that of geniuses from the past.
@@samuel_andreyev I have read many interviews with modern composers in magazines specialized in contemporary music or in videos (I have also seen many of your videos), which talk about their compositional methods, preferences... and few of these composers have expressed their admiration for the musicians of the past (from the Renaissance to Romanticism for example), Obviously as a musical illiterate I can not analyze the compositions or perceive influences and that is why I have indicated from the beginning that it was only my impression, so I could be wrong. I suppose that in conservatoires and academies the music of all periods is studied and then each composer has to choose his own path but I think that most composers prefer to follow the compositional models of the 20th century, perhaps because they understand that music from previous centuries has already exhausted all its expressive possibilities. I've always been tempted to study music but I've never done it and now that I'm forty years old I think I'm too old for it- Thank You for your videos.
"Oh yes, well, if you ever DO think of a tune, please don't forget to tell me will you old chap?" Ralph Vaughan Williams when he was handing back a score to a young composer which was completely devoid of melody.
Great Video! I guess You could make a series of videos, something like "13 steps to contemporary music" and show some aspects of traditional music being substituted. Like the relation of time and music in Debussy and Glass, the rhythmic innovations of Stravinsky etc.
You have a good argument. I found your video from Jonathan Blow's tweet and I was surprised that someone talks about this issue with contemporary classical music (or art music). I myself feel that contemporary classical music is terrible, but that's just my feelings about it. In many ways I just see that saying people should get used to it isn't really the idea of art in my opinion. I've listened many times the same contemporary pieces and they haven't really appealed to me even after second listening. Recently I have started to research the history of music an I see the contemporary music as the reason why classical music hasn't appealed to a larger audience. Maybe contemporary music should have much wider range and not stick with only one style as it has done before. There is so much more to the eras of classical music that have already been to discover. I don't mean that classical music should go entirely to 100% tonal and popularly appealing, but the range of contemporary music feels somewhat limited compared to the possible audiences . It's useless to start shouting in the internet, but I just want to give my opinion and also hear yours :)
Thanks for your comments. Perhaps the problem is that you continuously re-listen to pieces that you don't like. The problem with saying that 'contemporary classical music is terrible' is that it is a blanket generalization about a hugely diverse repertoire now spanning over 100 years. It's akin to saying 'there hasn't been a decent book written since Dickens'. The contention that the range of contemporary music is limited is also easily disproved. All you have to do is listen to composers as different as Arvo Pärt, György Ligeti, Steve Reich, Philip Glass, or Morton Feldman and if you have any musical sensibility, you will see in 5 seconds that they are all vastly different from one another. Best regards.
Yea. I was bit unclear what i really meant with contemporary music. I was mostly talking about atonality. I've been trying to look some atonal stuff that I would like, but always I always feel like crazy when I listen to it. Maybe the problem is what kind of enjoyment or pleasure I'm even looking for.
I'll give a reason why someone today would be more interested in music 200 years ago. It's the same reason why we read books written with languages that are more or less the same 200 years ago.
While I'm not opposed to it, I do think that modernism in music challenges people more than in other fields. William Thomson wrote a book called "Schoenberg's Error," in which he says, "Eliminating tonality from music was a more wrenching matter for musicians than eliminating linear perspective seems to have been for painters, or abandoning the concept of cosmic ether was for physicists." I think that straight music - not joined to poetry by setting words, not to be danced to, not as part of a film or play but just instrumental music by itself - is rather unpopular because it's so abstract, and that's true even of the most popular pieces of classical music like the Beethoven Fifth Symphony or the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto. Only about 3% of the population are much interested even in those pieces, so to further remove recognizable melody and familiar harmonic sounds achieves a degree of abstraction that almost no one is willing to bear. Schoenberg said that he thought his twelve-tone system would ensure to superiority of German music into future. Something like that. But instead what happened, just a generation later, was that much simpler forms of popular music came to predominate. Bob Dylan is to be taken seriously as a musical genius and not just a pop star. It seems that the average person is much more willing to entertain challenging modernist or otherwise experimental styles in film or literature than in music.
Minimal music is the only work that you can listen to once and see how good it is. In that respect, only works that you know are suitable for listening to concerts.
One has to respect creativity first as you say with the investment of every civilization into music .That alone hints at the depth of sound as meaning. It takes a lot to get "now" in terms of historyof economics,architecture,sociologyetc. so noone should expectthe music of NOW to instantly be admirable -if they are not already familiar with the trends and feelings of the present day I love Alex Ross reviews in the New York times . I loved his thick and eminently easily readable "The Rest is Noise " .I like Andreyev's commentary cuz it ain't elitist as I just read someone on here who seems to thnk Andreyev is makin "asserions "or is only talking about a small group of composers. No, he could be talking about CardiB or Vanessa Redgrave singing in her bathroom.Im dun wit dat .CaptainBeefheart is as beer on dee road as it gets ad stockhausen ain't bout no damn museum music. I also loved thomas Wolfe the Painted word but realize part of his thesis that you have to know some perceptions and theory about now and the last 150 years or the art of today is lost on you and you can't experience it or see it (mostly) but his big point was it was all conceptional and only existed on the page . I never liked this idea even if it was true and it is .Ives , Varese , even Messiaen and sensational eye and ear shocking -Boulez I didn't really get or even hear. I wasn't a goodlistener until my mid-30's (composers know how imortant this is ) and Wuorinen,Scelsi,Carteretc had no idea and these records sat in my home for at least a decade till I woke up after reading thousands of pages about many things and best of all- when I started to try to make these things myself . ,Ligeti was easy as was William Bolcolm ,Glass, Reich (minimalism is pretty easy even though the processes Adams and others use are dizzyingly thought out and sometimes complex . At first all the stuff I spent money on even Tarkovsky ,Nicolas roeg movies - Ipretended to need and like had no idea what Id just been given . didn't know how to approach these things Good and bad don't seem to me to have much distinction in contemporary architecture, music, painting , sculpture etc. you bring to it what you know .Anyway thankyou ! I type cuz I wanna talk about these things and this is oneof the forums where I can . I need to share my music on fbook groups maybe that would shut me up . ok let's go find out about actus Tragicus. Here I am 50 years old and finding out about stuffIve been reading about for 50 years ! Andreyev you and Ross and Michitako Kutami I cant remember her ame al critics and many reviewers like Andrew Sarris and Paula and a few others least of all pretentious Frenchies like Barthes mean the world to me . you helpe me see what United States educations woefully miss . Life is Art and its appreciation . tori amos know s this . If you create the notion will cum to ya some day . Let's hear it fo' using slang . I want to get rid of all the pretensious sheet. Problem is being cool and using slang and ghetto talk is ust another elitist box that excludes people . Self- Sacrifice not Self-gain is the only way we can survive-ghandi and many others see that . Matthias Pintscher was in miami 3 years ago and you didnt have to know anything to be thrilled . Andreyev I hope you come to Miamior florida one day . when I get my doctorate in music (one day ) I will write a piece thaning all the critics and reviewers and anlystes who gave my life purpose and color ! I'm not ashamed to say I enjoy the writing about Flaubert and Joyce more than the actual thing itself ! A few like Baldwin ,JohnBarth ,Calvino , Virginia Woolf,Williams,Beckett pleases me as much and grows inside of me . Enug .
Hi Samuel. I've been playing around with sound for years on and off. Mostly electronic music composition. I started playing the cello 2 years ago and I've been studying music theory and composition. I've lost interest in making beat music. I listen to choral music as well as a lot of drone stuff like stars of the lid and Winged victory for the sullen and other artists like Arvo part and John Tavener who is my favorite composer. I also like Leyland Kirby or The Caretaker. I'm also a huge fan of Aphex Twin especially DrukQs which was the craziest music I heard at the time and that was a gateway into lots of other genres. I started writing music in the traditional way not so long ago and I'm learning a lot and I'm still composing through a computer with cello, harmonica, guitar and synths. I'm trying to blend my love for drone/atmospheric music with more classical vibes Since I'm kind of new to composing properly what advice can you give me? What do you think is the best way for me to learn? Should I go back and study the classical forms? I have a basic understanding of harmony and structure but I get annoyed with myself because I think there are things I should study first but I never know where to begin! Thanks Samuel and your compositions are great! Keep the faith! :-)
Though I respect your work, I want to make a critical comment here... For me there are some glaringly problematic presuppositions underlying the notion that people should "cultivate an interest in the music of your time". On the face of it this makes plenty of sense. Art is a living thing, and living artists should be supported by the broader culture. Artists have important things to say about our world, and as intangible as their message often is, people should engage with those artists actively. But there's a problematic assumption that the category of "music of your time" is a very clear one, and namely that it refers to a small subset of the musical culture known variously as "contemporary", "serious", or "new" music, among many other vague terms used to describe the modern manifestation of notation oriented western art music. Basically, your call for people to "cultivate an interest in the music of your time" is really a call to cultivate an interest in this tiny subculture of music-making that you deem to be legitimate and substantive art. Do you really intend to exclude all other music being made today from this category? I would think not, and yet that's precisely what you seem to be doing. This kind of elitism seems to be fairly common in the world of academic composition. People tend not to openly dismiss other forms of contemporary music, but the implicit dismissal is often palpable nonetheless. It's as if being shunned by the general public has led "modern composers" to foster an unconscious resentment and contempt for any kind of music other than their own. I recognize that there are many individuals that don't fall prey to this (I would guess that you are among them), but this worldview seems to be an undeniable part of the culture of new music. The assumption is, "our music is more important than all other kinds being made today". Whether it's due to the intellectual rigor, technical complexity, or historical pedigree of this culture, people within it have no problem harboring this often unconscious elitist attitude. This is sustained in part due to the fact that modern classical music is supported almost exclusively by institutions of higher education, and as such it is susceptible to the cultural bubble that universities tend to create. We live in a period of unprecedented artistic diversity and creativity. By an immense margin, there are more people making art today then at any other point in history. If you're going to make the claim that only one sub-culture of music making is capable of producing what you refer to as "the important cultural artifacts of the time", at least make it openly and be prepared to back it up with some rigorous aesthetic theories. As a composer myself, I would welcome such attempts. They would be a breath of fresh air compared to the relativism that typifies the intelligentsia today. Even if you don't try to make that extreme claim, it seems to me you have an obligation to defend the value of modern classical music as such, as opposed to simply falling in line with the doctrine of the day and avoiding that challenging task. Art needs intelligent and compelling apologists, especially when it is of a more difficult and less entertainment oriented variety. This is why on the whole, I enjoyed your video. But it seems like you skirted past some of the most critical issues by making this implicit assumption about the status of modern classical music. You seem to have eclectic tastes and interests, and your intelligence is clearly formidable, so I would really love to hear your thoughts on this. Thank you for your time.
Dear Kendall, one of the great things about UA-cam is that I receive thoughtful comments like yours that allow me to engage with a lot of different viewpoints. Thank you, truly, for taking the time to write. You seem to be basing your comments at least partially on ‘implied assumptions’ that I am not sure I have made. First of all, whatever ‘the world of academic composition’ might be, I’m not a part of it. I am emphatically not an academic. I’ve lived my entire adult life in Europe where composition is not taught in universities. I would add that I’ve made 9 albums as a singer-songwriter. You suggest that composers resent ‘being shunned by the general public’. The problem with that assertion is that ‘the general public’ does not exist. There are only individuals, and no two people have the same taste in music. Second, it what sense have I (or anyone else in my field) been ‘shunned’? Composers today have a far greater audience, more opportunities and higher performance standards than at any other time in history. If you could pick any time period in which to be a composer, you would pick today! There is more competition now, too - which is a good thing. I myself am fortunate to engage with a very wide range of listeners all around the world through my channel, my performances and my teaching. If anything, I am amazed by the amount of interest there is in seemingly ‘difficult’ music. Finally, I would never make the claim that my music (or that of any other contemporary composer) is more important than other forms, and as someone who knows hundreds of composers, I can tell you that composers are open to influences from a very broad range of music. Nevertheless, there are great works out there, truly astounding feats of imagination and expressive power, that I passionately feel should be heard by as many people as possible, and that are products of free thinking - rather than the transient demands of the marketplace. This sort of discussion is so valuable. Thank you again.
Thank you Samuel, for taking the time to read my comment and respond so thoroughly. I really appreciate that. I suppose I have a bit of a chip on my shoulder when it comes to my own experience of academic composition, as limited as that was (4 years at a university in the U.S.). So I apologize if I allowed my experience to unjustly color my understanding of your claim. I'm curious why you would consider yourself "emphatically not an academic". Emphatically implies a degree of opposition, so I'd be curious to hear where thats coming from. I find it fascinating that you are so optimistic as a composer, and I will take that to heart going forward. I suppose I'm just not familiar with this apparently rich and vibrant culture of modern composition that is occurring outside the auspices of academia. There are a few well known ensembles and composers I follow, but beyond that my awareness is limited. Do you see that as happening in a few specific cities, or as a more diffuse and decentralized phenomenon? I tend to associate New York as having a contemporary music scene that stands on it's own. I'm sure there are similar centers of activity in Europe, though I'm less aware of them. Those things aside, I feel as if my main argument still stands. Throughout the video, you make the assumption that contemporary music is an important cultural phenomenon, whereas I would like you the make an argument that it is. The later points you make in the video suggest that contemporary music has value if you're willing to make the effort: the composer is not a moron and has something to say, there is something to be gotten out of it, etc... But these claims are not made as arguments, but rather simply as things to be accepted. You do make something of an argument with your second point about "music of our time". Your argument seems to be: people should care about the important cultural artifacts of their time, therefore you should make the effort to become familiar with contemporary music. My point is that just because contemporary music is "of our time" does not on its own seem to make it an important cultural artifact because it is clearly not the only kind of music that falls into that category. In other words, it seems like you need to make an argument for why the contemporary music scene in particular is producing important cultural artifacts. Perhaps that it is "of our time" does have something to do with its relevance, but there are other components that remain murky here... perhaps it's the fact that it is the current manifestation of an extremely old tradition, and as such it has a degree of historical and cultural weight? The extreme diversity of contemporary music makes that difficult though, because it's hard to pin it down as belonging to any sort of tradition. The tradition of notation based performances seems to be something, but is it enough? In any case, I hope I'm making some kind of sense. I feel like you (Samuel Andreyev) could make some really compelling arguments for the value of contemporary music, so I'm selfishly pushing here just because I'd be interested in what you have to say. Also, I'd be interested in hearing your singer-songwriter albums... are they online anywhere? Thanks so much for engaging here, I really appreciate it.
Hi Kendall, Thanks for following up. You are making some important points here. I’ll do my best to address them. I imagine the scene here in Europe is somewhat different from in North America, although it’s hard for me to know since I haven’t been to the US in nearly 10 years. I am giving a lecture at UC Berkeley in April so that will allow me to have more of a sense of what things are like there. In France, Germany, Switzerland (my main centers of activity) there is certainly a vibrant and vital contemporary music scene. A convincing argument as to the value of contemporary music can only come from the works themselves - which is what I try to lay out in my other UA-cam videos, where I make as strong a case as I can for individual works that I think are important. I should have pointed this out in my video - because as you rightly point out, my arguments could otherwise appear to rest on assumptions. Finally, regarding my singer-songwriter albums, the most recent one is available as a physical CD from Torpor Vigil Records, or as a download here: samuelandreyev.bandcamp.com/album/the-tubular-west Regards, Samuel
Thank you again, for your reply Samuel. That is a good point about the value of the music being demonstrated by the works themselves. I would say you do a good job of illuminating that in your other videos. At least, I've enjoyed the one's I've watched so far. Thank you for all your hard work, and for taking the time to engage with me here. I will definitely check out that album. Thanks for the link! All the best, Kendall
@@kendallburks Dear Kendall, there are vibrant communities of composers outside of the academy across North, Central, and South America. Just saying! ;)
I don’t know if you still read new comments on your old videos. But I’ve been reading about this whole Metamodernism stuff (apparently it should proceed Postmodernism) Any ideas if this will ever (in retrospect) be applied to the contemporary classical music of our age? An example might be that Amy Deutscher will be considered one of the first Metamodernist Composers 😂
I guess that your point is contemporary music is hard to approach at first. But it seems to me that you give no compelling explanation in why anyone should endure it so that it become likable later. How should I approach contemporary music? If the answer is to suspend any negative or critical thought and blindly believe whatever is thrown at me, then it's just not my thing.
hsp Thanks for your thoughts. The term 'contemporary music' covers a huge range of styles, some very approachable and familiar, some less so. My experience is that the initial encounter with something unfamiliar can be disorienting, but it's worth giving it a fair shot. I certainly don't suggest you suspend your critical thinking about what you are hearing, just that it is best to delay judgement until you have had a chance to get a sense of what it is you are judging. Often, a single hearing is not enough for that, and there are amazing, life-changing pieces that you might gloss over otherwise. I can't go into much detail in a 10-minute video, but I do try to make a strong case for individual works in my other videos. Best regards.
A main factor in liking / 'comprehending' ''contemporary music'' is... familiarity. That is the first and hardest obstacle that new listeners encounter; it just is a whole new, different, weird universe where one cannot, at first, know what to do with all that information. It's like hearing a poem in japanese, but you don't know japanese so you can't make much out of it. Music (and art) is a form of language, and the more familiar you get with a new work, the more you can reach some meaning and coherence. (and at those first encounters, your 'critical' thought works in terms of what you already know; you don't have the vocabulary yet, the keys to piece it together; you can't analyse said japanese poem. Now evidently, you don't need to study music theory, the parallel would only be in the idea of getting familiarised with something. & Of course you may still not like that style even after a while, and that's fine - but you could still consider other aspects to tackle :) ).
4:16 How do you people fell about this? I'm not from the music field (I'm a film guy, or at least trying to be) so I have no idea, but don't think I would have the nerve to tell people they need to watch my 2 hour film 10 times in order to grasp all of the nuances they missed... Specially if they didn't like it in the first place... Like how do you know it is worth their time? I mean there is no rule that definitely says what art is good or bad, only what you like or dislike... So to say: "You need to engage with this artist or artistic movement until you find something you enjoy about it!" feels like taking the whole thing backwards... I mean sure, if you are an artist yourself it is absolutely essential to engage art formcritically as he posed later in 7:43, but can we really ask that from the public? That they spend an inordinate amount of time engaging with material that doesn't matter to them while setting aside material that does? Movies that might beincoherent andfull of plot cul-de-sacs
The modernist philosophy is that art has the obligation to do something new to the human mind, something that has never been done before, not just to incrementally make something old better. If a work of art is doing something completely new to people's brains, hardly anybody is going to like it at first. That's just how complete originality works, it takes a long time to get used to it. The artist already spent a long time getting used to it while making the thing. In movies, the same is true for great films, lots of people hate "Citizen Kane" the first time they see it. Also modernist masterpieces like the French New Wave of the 60s,"Bout de Souffle", "Bande à part". Or even more contemporary art films like "In The Mood For Love" or something. Yes, sometimes the art movies fail. But it's better to try to make something radical and fail than to make one more commercial rom-com.
I just came across your channel yesterday. Having watched the Webern video and now this one, I really appreciate your insightful and friendly approach to guiding viewers into a better understanding of things unfamiliar. Would you consider giving us your thoughts on Copland's book "What to Listen for in Music"? Is it a good primer?
How do you feel about the relationship between computers and ('popular') music? Access to sophisticated music tools (legally or otherwise) has changed the landscape quite dramatically - I think the next 5-10 years will reveal many an Amon Tobin in the woodworks. The palette for sample sources has also increased exponentially. Although, of course, there are a lot of mediocre things out there, they have a purpose in quickly consolidating cliche - perhaps decreasing the time it takes to go through those revolutionary processes you mentioned in your chat with Jordan. There is something really cool about the bedroom beatmaker! One of my favourite examples of which: ua-cam.com/video/fbELwm3SQmc/v-deo.html
I used to listen to various genres of music, including classical music, but now I only listen to contemporary music voluntarily. Music of other genres seems to get tired.
I personally think the reason people have issues listening to contemporary music is because it is different from just about every type of music from the past. Your music for example seems like a bunch of random sounds and musical effects played randomly without any meaning. I don't feel any emotion coming from the music, except for a mood that those sounds create (which would be fine for a movie score, but not as a stand alone work). The piece could be making a statement, but music is supposed to reward the listener for listening. I could drop a stick on a snare drum randomly, and throw a random percussion instrument in there too. But what are those sounds doing except... just being there?
Question, considering that music has been around since men had mouths to sing, and cultures have enjoyed their music, and their musical traditions, couldn't we then give more value to pop music because the web of mass media is a key to the zeitgeist? I think this is a great video, and I think it'd be great if contemporary classical music had more ears and had more financial support, but I'm still wondering your feelings on this question.
specifically cultivating an interest in music “of your time” because it’s “of your time” is as arbitrary as whenever you were born. taste should be independent of chronology.
I get your point, but don't you think it's nice to be able to relate to and understand the music of the society you're currently living in? Music is a living, warming, bonding thing
shestakovach But I consider that contemporary music has a problem: it doesn’t represent the modern society at all. I don’t know any person who particularly likes it except the ones who compose it...
Yeah that's like saying that if everyone starts making their homes out of human shit, your number 1 priority should be to make it out of human shit just because that's what people are doing during "my time"
I am not sure if my question is relevant here. But I would like to learn to appreciate/understand more about contemporary/modern orchestra music. I always find those pieces composed that have no melody, just random sounds and notes (I am sure there is intention in the notes but for me it is just random), even electronics (like Nymphea by Kaija Saariaho). My question is how do I start to come about to appreciate these pieces? Since they're so different from classical pieces or any music we know
@@samuel_andreyev The harp is my favourite instrument as well! I started on piano but never actually connect to it. Then I discovered the harp in 2021 and been learning playing it. It suddenly open up a whole new door for me, I suddenly was able to arrange music on it by ear but I don't understand why. Now I am learning a self taught course of proper music theory to be able to understand the structure and can write it down my arrangement
How long do i have to focus, and how hard, before I start to reckon I'm getting value from modern music ? How long until I'm getting enough value that I figure all the effort has been worthwhile? Are there any quantitative studies? My guess is the answer is different for different people. I'd bet some of it is genetic. How long should I wait for the light to come on before I go back to doing things I like?
Kirk Hansen Wow, great qusstion. It's not for everyone. If you give a good listen to a fairly diverse range of pieces and nothing does it for you, move on :)
I think it's a little funny when people say they listen to just about everything. But what they mean is American music. Hip hop, country, rock, pop, reggae, metal, edm and maybe a little jazz. But when I tell people I listen to just about everything I explain further, swing, progressive, eastern European gypsy, cultural music, Like Japanese, Chinese, Brazilian, middle eastern, African....etc etc Plus saying different time periods.... Then you can see it in their face, Oh shit, I hardly listen to any kind of music at all. There is so much music out there, American modern music is such a small piece. But it's also a culmination of all music just like the country itself. But it sucks it's been mixed together to create only what it has, those main genres I first listed. There are little gems randomly that use a bunch of advanced techniques, harmony or crazy prog ideas. But it's not what's popular.
What would you say to a young composer hoping to understand the 21st century thus far. I've been a massive enthusiast of the second Viennese school and most music in the 20th century for a while now and I feel that the music I write shadows that era far too much.
Nick Satie I would say that the many stylistic innovations of the postwar period are beginning to fuse together, to a certain extent. Timbre is now as important as pitch and rhythm, something the 2nd viennese school only hints at (esp. Webern in his early works). I offer Skype lessons if that's something you might be interested in. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Ugh, I disagree with some points in this but youtube isn't a forum where I could do that without sounding like I don't agree with the basic premise that people should take a sincere interest in being familiar contemporary music.
You strike me as a person who can put their thoughts into comprehensible words. If somebody is hell bent on taking it the wrong way, so be it, but the rest of us could possibly learn something from it or find them interesting, even if they wouldn't agree with them.
His arguments for taking an interest in contemporary music are that he can't understand why we wouldn't, that is incumbent on us to do so, and that he'll call us a rube if we don't. Maybe you could start by putting forth an argument that carries some weight?
The video has nothing to do with why you should take an interest in contemporary music, it's about how to approach it if you already have an interest or requirement.
Hi Samuel, Contemporary classical music has "something to be gotten out of it". First, I'd like to say that this means nothing, since it goes for virtually anything, but second, I'd really like you to give me three or more examples of w h a t you can get out of it. I personally am looking for - exusez le mot - beauty, and affection of my emotions (music that makes me happy, or sad), or music that makes me want to dance. I'm also looking for memorable melodies, harmonies and rhythms. I'm n o t looking for music that requires background information in order to understand what the composer is trying to do. I want the music to tell me that message directly (not necessarilly in an easy way, but still independently of other information sources. After all, why would you need music instead of a written article to be cognitively stimulated?). Anyway, please give me some examples of what you can get out of contemporary classical music. Another question (that may be the same one): does contemporary classical music ever make the hairs on your arms stand up? Does it ever move you to tears? Thank you, Micha
Hello Micha, I'm a composer as well and I would like to answer to this question with another set of questions: when you see a new painting, read a new book or watch a new movie, do you only look for that set of experiences as well (like being happy or sad)? Do you think a book that you can recite from memory is a better book? Have you never had the urge to understand more of a certain symbolism in a film or novel that you didn't catch the first time (like by reading about it in Wikipedia or wherever), or watch a movie again to better understand it? What you can get out of contemporary classical music is mostly the same you can get from other art forms as well (emotions other than happy and sad, intellectual gratification, etc.). To be honest, contemporary classical music hasn't made my hairs stand up nor has it moved me to tears, but I haven't felt that either with my favorite books or films. I watched the "Schindler's list" once, and I must say I was very moved, it brought me to tears, hairs stood up, etc. It's not my favorite movie and I really wouldn't watch it again. I don't feel there's any "substance" left in that movie for me to come back again at it. I don't think it would move me in the same primitive way (since "tolerance" develops quite quickly to those kind of reactions with repeated exposure). Without the sobbing, that movie is not a great piece of art. There's not much to discover there, I think, precisely because it's so direct. "Persona" by Ingmar Bergman on the other hand is an amazing piece of art. I've watched it a lot of times, and I would watch it again. Evry time I watch it, I discover something different and new, that I didn't notice before. What's your experience in this regard?
@@martinrinconbotero4198 Hi Martín, Thank you for your reply. But I'm really talking about music here, and not about other art forms. To me, they are not very comparable. They each posess unique qualities, and I don't want to discuss all of them here. I agree with your paragraph about Hollywood kitsch designed to work on people's emotions, but it's beside the point, since I'm talking about music. What I really like in your reply, is this confession of yours: "To be honest, contemporary classical music hasn't made my hairs stand up nor has it moved me to tears". That's just what I wanted to know. When it comes to good music, like Beatles songs, pieces by Bach and works by Shostakovich, they do the trick for me in every way, and I do keep discovering new things in it with repeated listening. I disagree with your suggestion that some emotive effects wear off quickly. On the contrary, I discover that some music that has an emotional value for me, gets to me sooner with every repeated listen. I think that I condition myself like a Pavlov dog, or maybe it's the knowledge of what's coming next in the piece that gets me quicker in that particular state (happy, sad, ...). In times of information overload to the point of unaffectedly turning the page or simply flipping the channel after reading or watching another bombing, tsunami or other disaster, the power of music to move people to tears becomes quite important, I think. By the way, I'd like to debounce your implied notion that works of art that move you are cheap and one-dimensional. Even though tears are tears (your tears are worth the same as those from someone who's moved by, say, Julio Iglesias), there's still a difference between great art and kitsch. And even though some pieces of music have become clichés, like Barber's Adagio for Strings, the inherent musical qualities of such pieces are unbroken. When those pieces were written, they were fresh and not associated with movies, funerals, et cetera. And if listeners put aside there present day social knowledge and prejudice against such pieces arising from this knowledge, they would still feel the purely musical power of those magic works of art. It's just, unfortunately, that some people look down on being touched by them, as if they should know better. While in fact that's a wonderful quality of music. PS. Do you know this piece called Brava Sal? I think it was influenced by the afore mentioned Shostakovitch!
michavandam thank you for your reply, and for listening to Brava Sal! I hear very little of Shostakovich, so the similarities were not intended. Some russian guy told me once he found some similarities between my music and Prokofiev. Those are composers I almost never listen to. But anyways 😉. What I wanted to emphasize is the fact that music can provoke more emotions than happy and sad. It can be rewarding in the form of other emotions. My favorite composers, and my favorite music has given me other emotions that for me are deeper than only two sporadic emotions like happiness and sadness. These works and composers provoke what I see as admiration, for the work and for him/her. Admiration is something you could feel for any writer and any painter (that's why I bring up other arts in the topic as well). That goes beyond short emotional moments and tends to be more permanent. It happens to me with writers (and books) and film makers (and films) as well. To receive admiration a work of art needs to move more than only two basic emotions (which are not cheap! They're just more primitive). Some popular music can indeed evoke more emotions than those two. Some popular music has intellectual depth as well. The same can be said of contemporary classical music. It's not a black or white thing, there are many grays in between. Cheers, Martín.
Music isn't about emotions, emotions are completely irrelevant from music and if you feel emotions from music you are the one causing the emotions, the music isn't
Nice presentation. I agree with many points, most importantly the repetition factor. When I first heard Webern, Schoenberg, et al, I was turned off, but upon repeated listening, understood what these composers were striving to do. For me, Webern is the master of the serial idiom. I don't particularly like the term atonal as it tends to sound too "anti-musical" when someone attempts to explain the term, and frequently causes division. There are many composers out there today, especially in academia, that are rarely heard, and this is a shame. On the other hand, we have equally brilliant composers of movies and the stage that are writing great scores that deserve to be recognized and showcased on the concert level as well. Perhaps the biggest issue is the listening public. How do we get our younger listeners into the concert halls ? Part of the issue is "instant gratification" with the 3 minute song. If the music doesn't hit the mark within that time frame then they don't value it. I suppose it will always be like this, however. Great art is often recognized after the composers and artists are not around to reap the deserved benefits of their works.
Thank you for this video, but putting everything aside and talking about what you said at the beginning of this video, I would like to hear what you think: I have been recently thinking, what if the world, the humanity, the history defines pop music (including rock/jazz/film-music...) as "the music of our time". What makes us (contemporary/modern "fine" musicians) represent 'our' time. I mean... honestly, the world nowadays revolves around commercial music and even the term 'contemporary/modern' music is being used to describe songs that recently published.
Seunghunn Yu Pop and commercial music burn brightly and quickly when first released, but much of it fades from view over time. Great works of musical art may not have a very big audience in the short term, but over time their influence can be profound. That's how I see it. Anyway, all forms of music that are currently being practiced are 'of our time' and represent different facets of it.
Yes I agree, but sometimes I think contemporary music has become extremely overly abstract, and its meaning heavily hid, (I don't think its that much in america, but at least in the European scene) I wonder if it can at-all, 'over time' influence anyone or anything. It will probably influence some composers but...
Seunghunn Yu You'll notice I said 'great works of musical art'. Most contemporary music does not belong in that category and indeed has no influence on anything.
I sometimes wish I could comprehend what thoughtful, intelligent people see in contemporary art music, such as the pieces and composers listed below. I sometimes go to channels like yours in the hope that someone can explain it, or that I will find something that I can like. Just now I set myself to listen to Ives' Fourth Symphony on your recommendation - and found I simply couldn't. Bewilderment is part of it, but so is revulsion. I know it sounds melodramatic, but 7 minutes into it rising physical nausea forced me to cut and run. I simply couldn't stand any more. The occasional moments of recognisable music were instantly drowned by something monstrous and hideous. It was like watching an almighty book-burning; like watching a wrecking ball smashing Chartres Cathedral. So I waited for the reaction to subside, waded in again, listened again, had it happen again, got out, went back, listened again. And again. I tried, I really tried. I told myself, this is simply music that uses a different vocabulary to the one I'm used to. I can get used to this, too. Only I can't.
Thanks for your candid thoughts. The detailed nature of your comment seems to indicate more than passing interest or dismissal; it indicates that this is a real concern for you, or has been. All I can say is, if you're still interested on some level, keep trying, and try a range of different types of pieces. If you're not interested any more, move on. Best regards.
I'd be very interested in your commentary on a piece by Scriabin. BTW, I hated Shakespeare's Richard II the first time I saw it; didn't get it at all. Now it's my favorite of all his plays.
@@samuel_andreyev okay, that was actually funny : ) please, let me try that again: how does one differentiate a work of art from a work of a scam artist? how do you know that you're listening to a music piece and not a random set of notes? i feel like nobody can tell apart a modern art piece from random scribbles, not in a double blind setting
I agree that this is a problem, particularly for those who are coming to recent music for the first time. I think there is no other solution than to listen carefully, try to remain open, and then.. make up your own mind.
@@samuel_andreyev so you're saying there is no structure or value in contemporary music, all the "value" is what you tell yourself is the value you are essentially telling people to brainwash themselves into enjoying something
Sam, if I'm constantly listening to new music - listening it to death for a day or two then moving on - am I playing a loser's game? Is novelty a poor substitute for depth of appreciation? P.S. This is one of my favourite pieces of music - maybe you'll enjoy it! grahamkartna.bandcamp.com/album/ideation-deluxe
Antonio Schacht Good question. Listening to a lot of different types of music, in my experience, helps one to develop a much sharper critical sense, so that you can instinctively sense what might be worth a second listen. When listeners don't have a very broad and deep musical culture, their judgements tend to be on the level of 'I like this / I don't like this', which says more about them than it does about the value of the work itself. Does that make any sense?
Have you ever had discussion about listening with serious/professional DJ ? They usually do what you describe here as their main activity. I'm interested in your opinion on the rabbit hole of self-reflection. Why this piece and not that one (considering we're talking all-stockhausen, or ligeti vs messian or whatever on THAT level ) ? Is it "the musical instinct" - irrational void? Is it pragmatic "what can I steal here" ? So listening is a tool and any musician should conciously use it. But for me, really deep listening is taking music apart, transcribing parts (I would never dare to do this with contemporary music, jazz solo is my highest achievment, partial too) , harmonies, rhythms. The question is: was it worth it ? There are ten more pieces equally great or even better. What's your thoughts of musical intuition, preferences for certain things (is it lazy to do same things over and over or is it a language?).
contemporary music - like anything - is MUCH HARDER than things which already have a very structured template (like any cliché - i.e. popular music etc)
after hearing this I feel like I don't know how to listen to music lol I've never really listened to anything other than metal rap pop all that stuff are you suggesting I might like music like is Bach or something could you tell me a piece to listen too please
Hi -- thanks for writing. If you love music, try listening to some things from way out of left field & see what you think. If you don't like it, you can always move on to something else. You could check out some of my recent UA-cam videos -- I do have one on Bach..
Do you think that the function of music has changed completely? I am giggling as I imagine the musicians of more ancient times ( thousands or just a few hundred years ago) first stand in front of their audience and try to convince them that they have to listen a few times befire they decide whether they like it or not or encourage their hapless human contemporaries that they must make an effort in their listening..... hmmmmm....maybe I am judt a stick-in-the-mud Bach fanatic!
No, but what has changed is that we are now confronted by a bewildering array of highly heterogenous styles all being practiced simultaneously, and played out on a global stage. This is a historically very recent situation. Thanks for the stimulating question.
I think Alex Ross's "The Rest is Noise" is a great book to read if one wants to get inside contemporary music. I read it and found some composers that really resonate with me.
Alex Ross is great!
Danny B. I read it, it's great
Yes, what a great book! It reads like a narrative, but it's also incredibly informative/educational.
Well said! ... As Pierre Boulez put it: "Just listen with the vastness of the world in mind. You can't fail to get the message."
A banjo player named Riley Baugus provided an interesting perspective on the necessity of music once. He was on stage with players of stringed instruments from around the world (oud, sarod, bouzouki, etc), and said (roughly), "My ancestors led really difficult lives, doing almost nothing but hard work in an effort to survive; and I know that's also true for some of the other folks on stage with me. What I find striking is that the human need for music is so great that in spite of their hard circumstances, they still spent the time and effort to figure all of this out." The assent that appeared on the faces of the other musicians created a moment of international "he ain't lyin'."
I found your channel thanks to a tweet by Jordan Peterson. I'm ashamed to admit I'm uneducated in music, and a lot of what you say in your analyses goes a bit over my head, but your passion and erudition make me believe it's worth the effort to learn. Thanks for making this channel - the internet at its best!
Paul Read Thank you so much! I've tried to strike a jocular and playful tone here -- a lot of contemporary music discussions are fatally serious. There is no shame in not being familiar with contemporary music. Stick with it, there are gems that can change your life. I truly appreciate the feedback.
I think you're striking just the right tone. I'm sure there are lots of people in my boat: intellectually curious about many things but with no tools to approach these genres of music, particularly from the last 100 years or so. It's not that we can't or won't: we just don't know how. Someone comes along and says "it's worth it, trust me. try listening for this in this piece, noticing that in another piece" and doesn't try to come across as haughty and annoyed with the proles, and suddenly I have the confidence and a few tools to experiment by myself.
Now I just need to find someone similar to explain sculpture to me :)
this is not only an approach to contemporary music but to art of every kind. i came up with pretty similiar approaches regarding literature. you could also sum it up as: value art and put effort into it. and most of the time you will understand not only the subject matter better but also yourself. art can be a mirror for self reflection and a medium for projection, wether you are on the receiving end or on the production side. this pragmatic arguement, is in my eyes, the one, which can start excitment for contemporary art and the willingness to spend effort.
this can be applied to any art form. Great advice, and thank you for your articulation.
dalhar20 Thanks for your kind words!
The bit about suspending judgment is so crucial. This example isn't "contemporary classical," but when I first heard the music of Paul Simon (his solo stuff circa Graceland, I had already heard a few Simon and Garfunkel songs and liked them well enough) I hated it. I truly despised it in a way I haven't hated a song in many years. I thought it was amateurish, especially his habit of cramming many words into a single line and distorting the melody in the process. In fact, the reason I listened to any of those songs again was because they ticked me off, they frustrated me because I liked the instrumental, but hated the song over it. Then on the 4th or 5th listen, it all began to click. Fast-forward some years, and now Paul Simon is bar none my favorite songwriter, and my favorite album of his is The Rhythm of the Saints (which has some of the exact songs that baffled me on it).
This has happened enough times (for artists including The Beatles, David Bowie, Death's first album, the entire genre of Hip Hop) that I assume any work of music that I don't enjoy, but that has any sort of devoted following, must have merit that hasn't "hit me right," for one reason or another. This revelation came before going to college to get a music degree and being exposed for the first time to "modernist" music, which served me well in approaching Schoenberg, Ives, Boulez, etc.
I could hear you talk for hours, thank you for explaining all of these ways to approach music Samuel ✨✨
Small puppy It's my pleasure -- and an honour. Thank you for watching & writing.
great video. i have but 2 bones to pick:
1. as for your reason to why people are open to abstract art but not music (because of the length of the piece) - how does that apply to ballet? in ballet the modern style has successfully replaced the classical, meaning that the mainstream style is the modern and the classical being more of a niche'. in art music that has not happened. 19th century music still reigns supreme to this day.
2. i think (as a composer myself) there are inherent problems with the contemporary music world, the biggest one being it is so academic and entirely independent from the taste of the audience. There for composers make little to no effort trying to please the audience, and there for - the audience is mostly unpleased (surprisingly enough..).
Good points -- thanks for your reflections on this topic. I am all for the de-academicization of contemporary music.
Concerning your second point - there are several good reasons why people would prefer music, literature, art made 200 years ago:
1) The biggest one is that they stood the test of time and became classics. History has filtered the chaff and we're left with the best examples and masterpieces in these arts.
2) For ideological purposes. Art comes hand in hand with philosophy and is influenced by the era it's created in. It's easy to understand why some people feel disillusioned by the current state of affairs or of humanity as a whole and they turn back to the romanticised past. Also music and the arts had a much greater cultural impact back then (among aristocracy and bourgeois), while the mainstream media and pop culture reign supreme today. How is it a better time to be a composer today? Sure, you can influence a few people in your circle, but art isn't the page turner that it was before. It has been replaced by technology, consumerism and progressivism.
3) Aesthetics. This one is somehow linked with the previous point. There was a time when western art music was deemed "listenable" and beautiful by a broad audience for its more natural treatment of harmony while it still exhibited great artistic depth, complexity of form and compositional technique appreciated by the selected few. It's in human nature to be attracted to beauty and repulsed by ugliness and most people's aesthetics are pretty straightforward and unsubtle.
There are more points to be made, but that's all I can think of right now.
A great remedy to your third point would be to read Slonimsky's Lexicon of Musical Invective. It is a compendium of awful critical reviews of (mostly) pre 20th-century music. For example, multiple critics wrote about Chopin's music that it was so chaotic that if you did not know the score already, you wouldn't be able to tell if the pianist played wrong notes. There have always been populists, and there have always been disruptors/innovators. Look back to the 14th and 15th century and you'll see Machaut and the Ars Nova/Ars Subtillor movements writing "music for musicians" as much appreciated for what can be seen on the page as what can be heard. And there are populists today. If you're looking for "accessible" and "intelligent" music from the 21st century, look at composers like Donnacha Dennehy, Ingram Marshall, etc.
The second point is a human tendency that we need to be skeptical of. Sure, there are huge problems created by the influence of technology, etc., but let's not forget that you are also nostalgic for a time devoid of human rights for many groups of people. You said it well when you said "the romanticised past."
"more natural treatment of harmony "
I would doubt this actually exists.
All one has to do is listen to Indian ragas, and such, as examples.
Love it! Inspires me to keep expanding my exposure to new music.
My mind has been opened, since Miles Davis & Stravinsky in the last century. A few more are: Carter, Stockhausen & Xenakis. I need to listen critically, and this music, whether it helps that or not, gives my brain a gourmet FEAST.
Thanks for your enthusiasm! I will follow your advice especially on the need to know the music of one's own time. You are right. I love Bach and Shostakovich and know hardly anything about the music of today. Your earlier videos on some 'modern' composers made me see their craftsmanship ( so, no morons there ..). Heard some of your own pieces, which were hard for me, but I will try to really listen to them better. Please keep up the good work.
Rene Broekhoven Thanks for your comments. Often, the reason contemporary music appears difficult is that it is so unfamiliar. It's amazing how much of a difference a second or third hearing can make. I always recommend listening to lots of different styles. Glad to be of service :)
i strongly agree about cultivating an interest in music of your time. there's a fascination among so many musicians in the old old stuff and while it's totally worth being reverent of, studying, building off of... it's a fundamental difference in mindset to me and i absolutely feel a duty toward the contemporary and have always felt pushback from my peers. great commentary, samuel!
Great talk! You did articulate what I'm trying to say for years! Sharing it with my students!
Great. I'd love to know their reaction. Thanks for writing.
@@samuel_andreyev will reply with some reacionts! :-)
How about a suggested listening list?
That's a great idea. I'll try to put one up soon -- maybe 10 works that I think are worth a listen. Thanks for writing.
I've got a long drive coming up, can you give me a short list?
Bill Brown sure -- Karlheinz Stockhausen, Gruppen; Morton Feldman, Piano and String Quartet (check out the Kronos Quartet recording); Charles Ives, 4th Symphony; Gérard Grisey, Les espaces acoustiques; György Ligeti, Piano etudes; Alban Berg, Violin Concerto.
On second thought, probably best not to listen to Ives while driving.
I don’t know. What about Putnam’s Camp from Three Places in New England on an American Interstate, right after sunrise?
Great video, as always.
I have a somewhat unique entry into my love of classical music.
I came to love classical music via my love for prog-rock. But not the usual bands that people think about when they think about prog (YES, King Crimson, ELP, Genesis, etc), who were all pretty much influenced by the early 20th century classical composers.
My interest in classical music came from my love of a sub-genre of progressive music known loosely as "avant-prog". These are bands (Thinking Plague, Henry Cow, Aranis, Univers Zero, Art Zoyd, and many more) that are specifically influenced by the composers of the mid-20th century, and later. So, when I first started listening to: the 2nd Viennese School composers, Elliott Carter, Charles Wouorinen, Joan Tower, Berio, Harrison Birtwhistle, George Perle, Thea Musgrave, etc, etc, etc, my familiarity with: constantly changing time signatures, dissonance, poly-rhythms, lack of a tonal center, etc, etc, was not a complete shock to me, since I was already used to it from the above sub-genre of progressive music.
I am not saying that I did not have any "learning curve", but I certainly did not have a knee jerk negative reaction, as those that only listen to "common practice".
Since I came to classical music through: modern, avant-garde and contemporary composers, I find (to my ears) earlier era composers to be: predictable, cliche sounding, and to be honest, just plain boring. And it's not for lack of trying. I often listen to the major, pre-20th century composers, with an open mind, with the hopes that it will click with me. So far, no luck.
Mr Andreyev, I love your Boulezian fire and persuasion. I am sure you will not consider this a light-hearted comment. Today’s artists - I’m in the poetry section - need to fight laziness, stultification, drug haze and absence of ethics if they want to somehow preserve the fire of tradition, as Mahler used to say. I love the great music of the last 67 years (my life) and am planning to listen very attentively to La pendule de profil, and more than one time. While having to justify, more than once, the way you do for music, the sophistication of today’s and tomorrow’s poetry, I have been confronted many times with the following counter-argument: (for music:) “Yes you are right, we have to be interested first of all in today’s music, but today’s music is NOT the emotionally painful, intellectual, pretentious music you love, but Michael Douglas!” (for poetry:) “Yes you are... [etc.] but today’s poetry is NOT the emotionally painful, intellectual, pretentious palimpsest you love but RAP & HIP HOP & SLAM!”... and then, you see, I understand that the struggle for subtlety and complexity will have to include the political struggle that helps steering, again, society towards hard work, intelligence, sensitivity and ethics... and, the individual, towards psychoanalytical and -synthetical depth and what almost amounts to an experience of conversion. A good question that may start the experience of metanoïa in young people today is maybe: “When you admire, what do you admire?”
Michel Leclerc Thank you for writing. Although it has become fashionable to mock the idea, there is an element of responsibility in the arts. It's shared by the artist and those that would engage with their work. The artist's side of the bargain is not to make trivial or boring art (although, as has often been noted, in some ways it is just as hard to make bad art as it is to make first-rate art..). The public's rôle is to engage and remain critically alert, whilst not making wholesale condemnations of entire domains of aesthetic endeavor. Excelsior!
Well... yes, Mr Andreyev - but I’m talking about the onslaught of "low" art - and the concomitant “culture studies" everywhere in the world’s academia taking "low" art as seriously as "high" art - which harnesses on one hand the "taste" argument (de gustibus non disputandum) - whereas I am, as you are probably, of the opinion that this classical phrase actually means that taste cannot be argued against as there is only one scale of more or less sophistication of taste (see Sollers’s “La guerre du goût”) and that it is education which teaches us how to refine our taste - and on the other hand, the representativeness argument (which is less easy to counter) claiming that intellectuality, complexity, emotional depth are requirements of social classes on the verge of disappearing, whereas “the ordinary people” have concerns to which the pop singers and the slam poets of the day would respond more adequately. Changing the latter’s expectances is a political, or religious, endeavour. The audience for high art we crave and sculpt is not a given; Gesualdo lay dormant for three hundred years; this may happen again. What I would like to suggest is that besides the co-responsibility you quite deservedly emphasize, there is another responsibility vis-a-vis the non-concert-going audience, which I am not sure my strong belief in "high art" as the epitome of spiritual development and taste may be so effective in persuading.
Ce qui est certain, c’est que le public pour la musique « savante » (et l’art en général) ne doit pas être pris pour acquis mais doit être construit en permanence. C’est un peu ce que j’essaie de faire à mon niveau tout à fait modeste. Pour ce faire il faut s’aventurer au delà des initiés et des fréquenteurs de festivals etc. Chaque artiste a un certain pouvoir d’influence et il ne faut pas attendre que les politiques se réveillent avant d’agir. Je crois que le monde de la musique contemporaine française fait preuve d’une certaine paresse à ce niveau-là. Les artistes doivent apprendre à communiquer de façon saississante et à s’emparer des technologies (pas si) nouvelles car c’est là où tout se passe. Il ne faut pas oublier que le public est constitué d’individus qui ont besoin de l’art (qu’ils le sachent ou pas) ; la tâche de l’artiste et donc de forger une vraie connection et non de s'adresser aux gens d’en haut.
Je suis évidemment gêné par l’idée postmoderne selon laquelle toutes les formes d’art seraient d’égale importance et d’un niveau à peu près pareil ! C’est une idéologie à la fois fausse et dangeureuse dont je me méfie énormément.
Vous écrivez “C’est un peu ce que j’essaie de faire à mon niveau tout à fait modeste”, Monsieur Andreyev - vous le faites admirablement.
Bien évidemment, nous ne devons pas “attendre que les politiques se réveillent”. Il sont très bien éveillés, croyez-moi, en fait ils attendent que nous, les artistes, nous éveillions à la brutalisation générale qu’ils ont mise en place depuis un petit bout de temps, et cela avec la complicité sanguinaire et/ou stupéfiée des “masses”, sinon du “public constitué d’individus qui ont besoin d’art” que vous évoquez.
Mais cete phrase qui est la vôtre - “qu’ils le sachent ou pas” - (je souligne: ou pas)) - je l’aime beaucoup, dans la mesure où elle me confirme qu’il dort en tout artiste une aspiration de convaincre le cerveau pliable et le cœur non encore “endurci” de la limpidité de l’idée, du Bon, du Vrai, du Beau.
Je crains toutefois qu’en dehors de certaines zônes protégées du social, protégées en fait par une partie du “capital” qui a compris que la réservation du profit à l’investissement dans l‘humanité future, ne peut pas se passer de son investissement dans la préservation du Beau (, ..., ...) sous peine de ne plus pouvoir repérer la force de création nécessaire future là où elle se tapit, ou, en d’autres termes : protégées par le mécénat privé (le rôle de celui-ci dans la naissance du Domaine Musical est connu) ou personnel (Ives qui finance sa propre création, vous l’avez épinglé à juste titre) - la “politique”, ou plutôt la politique en chacun de nous, c’est-à-dire l’éthique, n’ait réussi son dessein d’auto-brutalisation. Pour citer une expression américaine bien consciente de son irrévocabilité : the dumbing down of the people... et j’enchaine : ...is a success!
Craché haineusement pour s’être “retranché dans sa tour d’ivoire” (soi-disante), l’artiste se trouve plutôt contraint de se retirer au sommet de sa colonne, ou, pour le dire tel Mallarmé, le saint du Style à devenir Stylite.
It’s a brutal world. Ce sont vos propres paroles, que je crois avoir entendues...
aesop rock is a fine poet
Such good advice. I borrowed a CD of Elliot Carter's Symphonia & Clarinet Concerto from the library & on first listen while driving I thought much of it sounded aimless yet bombastic, with some redeeming movements. An hour or so later in a better listening mood I started really liking the entire CD.
Thank u. Pretty simple ideas but me never noticed and thought about deeply before ❣️
I have been listening to contemporary music for over 40 years. I started with a John Cage's piece for prepared piano. It was the second vinyl I bought after I was born. I think John Cage's pieces for prepared piano is suitable for beginners.
I just saw Andrew Norman's Play and Matthias Pintscher's Idyll live last night and tonight I'm headed to hear Ligeti's Violin Concerto... hearing a lot of contemporary music in succession is actually very fun and refreshing. I can't imagine how my life would be different if my city had a large, well-funded performing organism devoted to post-1950s classical music. One can dream!
Did you see you got a shout-out on Alex Ross's blog in December? Congrats on your growing notoriety! Count me among your first 1000 subscribers - may you have many more.
In short: Be humble.
:)
I guess Kendrick Lamar did deserve that Pulitzer ;)
I guess Lamar is pretty okay in the rap genre...
I was into Punk and the Punk ethos is that the music of the moment is most importance.
This is an awesome channel. Thanks and keep the good work!
Gianfranco Carrera Izquierdo Thank you so much!
Thank you so much Samuel for the precious information you let us share with you. With or without the (electric) guitar, with or without jazz, everyday now I meditate on one definite subject : what could be (and how would sound) french modern music in the XXIth century if it came to existence for everyone to see ? The unique approach and love with which you presented John French and, following that, Zoot Horn, led me straight to subscribe to your channel. I feel I'm only at the begining though, and the 64-year-old that I am is going to learn a whole lot more with you ! A big thank you again for that. Peace - (greetings from Paris)
I loved contemporary classical music right off. No trouble there. Actually, some of the traditional classical I find much harder to like - melodramatic and too predictable.
I'm disappointed. I was hoping you would show us how to approach it as a composer, not as a listener.
Could I request a part two where you share your insights on how to compose in an environment where no traditional rule is mandatory?
You should be more well known Mr. Andreyev, your videos are amazing and you communicate your knowledge in a very eloquent way, you must be a teacher too!
Thank you! I am in fact also a professor..
Thank you for the video. It was a pleasure to watch, as always. As someone who studies contemporary poetry, I often run into the questions you address here. I must say, however, that I don't quite agree with your second point. I certainly feel that there's a pressing need to engage with and comprehend contemporary art--but I don't think it amounts to everyone's obligation, or that everyone ought to try and enjoy contemporary offerings.
There are plenty of reasons why contemporary art is inherently more difficult. To begin with, it's _new_ (i.e. it hasn't yet been processed and incorporated into the existing cultural consciousness) and so is touched with the alien. Novelty is anxiety provoking. Your experience and training provide you with tools that lessen this anxiety, but a piece like Boulez's Sonatine is liable to appear, from the first listen, as a much more intimidating beast to a naive listener than it would to you or me. What's more, the category of "art from 200 years ago" has an unfair advantage: it's been pared down by history, and (for the most part) only the most valuable pieces have survived. If one wants to learn a thing or two about an art, it seems most efficient to start with the pieces of it that have already proven to be valuable. Why begin with the most difficult and intimidating category?
Of course, some people are going to seek out contemporary art, whether or not they've first been versed in its predecessors. And good for them! But that doesn't seem to be who this video is addressed to. Rather, it seems (at least to me) to be addressed people asking "(why) should I bother with contemporary music?" Personally, if someone were to ask me if they should bother trying to "get" contemporary poetry, I would simply say "no--don't force yourself to do something you don't enjoy." If someone develops an interest in contemporary art (as I think inevitably happens for many people engaged with an art), and comes to me to ask for tools to help begin their journey, that's a different story--but I would never advise someone to "cultivate an interest in the music of their time" if they weren't so inclined. For someone who isn't devoting their life to an art, I don't think there's anything wrong with being satisfied with a few gems of old. Not everyone needs to dip their toes in these waters--and for those who do need to...I don't think they need the cajoling.
Thank you for these thoughtful and well-written comments. In my experience, many people don't think too hard about what they can and can't enjoy and their tastes are somewhat arbitrary, based on the small range of things many people typically hear. Of course, some individuals will never like contemporary music of any sort and that's fine, but there is another category that have the capacity to listen much more broadly, but need a little encouragement. Those are the sorts of people I'm trying to reach.
Thanks very much for your swift reply! I think it's incredible that you're able to read and respond to so many comments. One result is that your comment sections are among the few places on UA-cam I've found that truly complement the videos and provide a place to learn.
You make a perfectly reasonable point, of course, and I shouldn't have discounted that category. It wasn't very long ago that I was uninterested in most contemporary work. It was only through chance--enrolling in the wrong class, which happened to have a very passionate instructor--that my orientation changed. I feel certain that I eventually would have come to contemporary art of my own accord, but perhaps you're right that I needed a "little encouragement" to make it happen sooner rather than later :)
Thank you for this videos and your channel. My view is that Rap music is just as important as Ellington as Schoenberg, as Reich or today's music.
Rediscover Ease movement education Thanks. I would state my case somewhat differently if I were making this video today. Of course there is a plurality of musical styles and each has its value. I was talking more about the highly conservative nature of classical music, and the fact that it is now widely seen as something oriented only to to the past, despite the many extraordinary composers active today.
Got here from your conversation with Prof J.P. Really neat stuff.
CJ 42 thanks for your kind words and welcome to the channel.
A great deal of what you say presupposes a person wants to partake in music as a primary activity and devote effort to it. Most people "listen" to music while doing other things, or as a soundtrack to accompany something they consider more important.
_I_ want to sit down and focus on music, but very few people do. Even other musicians. I generally refuse to use music as "sonic wallpaper", but this also means I spend far less time with music on in general because to me, it's either the point or it's a distraction. (Distractions are fine when doing the dishes or cleaning the house or whatever.) If I do need it as wallpaper, it's going to be familiar and well-understood because I won't have the mental capacity to properly devote to anything new.
In my opinion one of the most important things really is, relax, don't think too much, don't judge until you spent hours in contact with it and similar styles. Also, musical education in my experience really was important cause I learned to hear the notes and the structures and the orchestration. We'd be lying if we said that that kind of knowledge and experience doesn't help considerably
This general advice work not only in the realm of music, but in other fields as well. I see some Petersonians here in the comments. To all them: take this advice and apply it to philosophies and philosophers that you dislike, particularly in the fields of feminism, postmodernism, marxism and critical analysis.
Wonderful suggestions. Thank you!
In essence : Pay attention to details ! value and meaning will reveal themselves.
Sloomoon Yes. Be patient with unfamiliar and strange things, and they will reveal themselves to you. You will be richer for it.
This is brilliant and I think that the "prepare to be underwhelmed on the first listen" comment is SO IMPORTANT. Even when it comes to Beethoven or Mahler or Mozart I will always find the first listen to be extremely hollow.
I'm glad you enjoyed the video, please stay tuned.
To illustrate an example of my general sentiments and this will be overgeneralized but as an example: Webern's Op.27 vs Op.27 No.2....I appreciate and I am fascinated by the Webern piece. I appreciate, I'm fascinated about and I love and am grateful for Beethoven's piece. If Webern's opus 27 disappeared, I could go on with life without feeling deprived. If the Moonlight Sonata disappeared, I'd feel something essential was missing. Call me a simpleton, I guess.
Danny B. Not at all. If someone takes the time to engage with something and then decides it's not for them, that's fine. You can't like everything! Thanks for your thoughtful remarks.
A reason as to why someone might find something made in the distant past more interesting that something made today is that an individual might they might be aesthetically/subjectively drawn to a particular element of past music. I agree, people should have a degree of familiarity with the cultural artefacts of their time, but how individuals weigh their interests is a whole different animal. After all, music of the distant past has not been explored to its fullest potential and people might like that exploration, and if they thus dedicate their interests to that over contemporary music I don't see a problem.
Just discovered your videos. They're great. Looking forward to watching all of them.
Thanks John, good to hear from you. More are on the way!
...or listen to "Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima". Instantly compelling. A great introduction to non-traditional Western music.
Yes, it's a very rich and rewarding adventure, one that never ends, and the payoff is utterly sublime! I'm always wondering when I listen to a piece, how did the composer come up with these amazing ideas, and how did the performers come to be so skilled as to execute those ideas with such passion and precision? And they didn't even have the benefit of recorded performances!
Although I am just a fan of art music without any kind of musical knowledge, I get the impression that the vast majority of contemporary art music composers only know the musical procedures and composers of the 20th and 21st centuries and do not know or want to learn nothing of Bach, Mozart, Brahms or Renaissance polyphony (preferring even commercial music without artistic pretensions such as pop or rock), and in this way it is really difficult to write music of a quality comparable to that of geniuses from the past.
ok. where do you get that impression? I personally spent half my life studying the music of the past.
@@samuel_andreyev I have read many interviews with modern composers in magazines specialized in contemporary music or in videos (I have also seen many of your videos), which talk about their compositional methods, preferences... and few of these composers have expressed their admiration for the musicians of the past (from the Renaissance to Romanticism for example), Obviously as a musical illiterate I can not analyze the compositions or perceive influences and that is why I have indicated from the beginning that it was only my impression, so I could be wrong. I suppose that in conservatoires and academies the music of all periods is studied and then each composer has to choose his own path but I think that most composers prefer to follow the compositional models of the 20th century, perhaps because they understand that music from previous centuries has already exhausted all its expressive possibilities. I've always been tempted to study music but I've never done it and now that I'm forty years old I think I'm too old for it- Thank You for your videos.
"Oh yes, well, if you ever DO think of a tune, please don't forget to tell me will you old chap?" Ralph Vaughan Williams when he was handing back a score to a young composer which was completely devoid of melody.
Great Video! I guess You could make a series of videos, something like "13 steps to contemporary music" and show some aspects of traditional music being substituted. Like the relation of time and music in Debussy and Glass, the rhythmic innovations of Stravinsky etc.
You have a good argument. I found your video from Jonathan Blow's tweet and I was surprised that someone talks about this issue with contemporary classical music (or art music). I myself feel that contemporary classical music is terrible, but that's just my feelings about it. In many ways I just see that saying people should get used to it isn't really the idea of art in my opinion. I've listened many times the same contemporary pieces and they haven't really appealed to me even after second listening.
Recently I have started to research the history of music an I see the contemporary music as the reason why classical music hasn't appealed to a larger audience. Maybe contemporary music should have much wider range and not stick with only one style as it has done before. There is so much more to the eras of classical music that have already been to discover. I don't mean that classical music should go entirely to 100% tonal and popularly appealing, but the range of contemporary music feels somewhat limited compared to the possible audiences
. It's useless to start shouting in the internet, but I just want to give my opinion and also hear yours :)
Thanks for your comments. Perhaps the problem is that you continuously re-listen to pieces that you don't like. The problem with saying that 'contemporary classical music is terrible' is that it is a blanket generalization about a hugely diverse repertoire now spanning over 100 years. It's akin to saying 'there hasn't been a decent book written since Dickens'. The contention that the range of contemporary music is limited is also easily disproved. All you have to do is listen to composers as different as Arvo Pärt, György Ligeti, Steve Reich, Philip Glass, or Morton Feldman and if you have any musical sensibility, you will see in 5 seconds that they are all vastly different from one another. Best regards.
Yea. I was bit unclear what i really meant with contemporary music. I was mostly talking about atonality. I've been trying to look some atonal stuff that I would like, but always I always feel like crazy when I listen to it. Maybe the problem is what kind of enjoyment or pleasure I'm even looking for.
TheMikkis100 possibly! there's plenty of contemporary music that isn't atonal, by the way. Have fun exploring!
I'll give a reason why someone today would be more interested in music 200 years ago. It's the same reason why we read books written with languages that are more or less the same 200 years ago.
While I'm not opposed to it, I do think that modernism in music challenges people more than in other fields. William Thomson wrote a book called "Schoenberg's Error," in which he says, "Eliminating tonality from music was a more wrenching matter for musicians than eliminating linear perspective seems to have been for painters, or abandoning the concept of cosmic ether was for physicists." I think that straight music - not joined to poetry by setting words, not to be danced to, not as part of a film or play but just instrumental music by itself - is rather unpopular because it's so abstract, and that's true even of the most popular pieces of classical music like the Beethoven Fifth Symphony or the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto. Only about 3% of the population are much interested even in those pieces, so to further remove recognizable melody and familiar harmonic sounds achieves a degree of abstraction that almost no one is willing to bear. Schoenberg said that he thought his twelve-tone system would ensure to superiority of German music into future. Something like that. But instead what happened, just a generation later, was that much simpler forms of popular music came to predominate. Bob Dylan is to be taken seriously as a musical genius and not just a pop star. It seems that the average person is much more willing to entertain challenging modernist or otherwise experimental styles in film or literature than in music.
You should do a video on how to approach contemporary music performance for the first time
Minimal music is the only work that you can listen to once and see how good it is. In that respect, only works that you know are suitable for listening to concerts.
Man, you are golden. Thank you for all the efforts!!
"She dances in the wind " "Chasing the dope Dragon "
by Tony villodas composer
One has to respect creativity first as you say with the investment of every civilization into music .That alone hints at the depth of sound as meaning. It takes a lot to get "now" in terms of historyof economics,architecture,sociologyetc. so noone should expectthe music of NOW to instantly be admirable -if they are not already familiar with the trends and feelings of the present day I love Alex Ross reviews in the New York times . I loved his thick and eminently easily readable "The Rest is Noise " .I like Andreyev's commentary cuz it ain't elitist as I just read someone on here who seems to thnk Andreyev is makin "asserions "or is only talking about a small group of composers. No, he could be talking about CardiB or Vanessa Redgrave singing in her bathroom.Im dun wit dat .CaptainBeefheart is as beer on dee road as it gets ad stockhausen ain't bout no damn museum music. I also loved thomas Wolfe the Painted word but realize part of his thesis that you have to know some perceptions and theory about now and the last 150 years or the art of today is lost on you and you can't experience it or see it (mostly) but his big point was it was all conceptional and only existed on the page . I never liked this idea even if it was true and it is .Ives , Varese , even Messiaen and sensational eye and ear shocking -Boulez I didn't really get or even hear. I wasn't a goodlistener until my mid-30's (composers know how imortant this is ) and Wuorinen,Scelsi,Carteretc had no idea and these records sat in my home for at least a decade till I woke up after reading thousands of pages about many things and best of all- when I started to try to make these things myself . ,Ligeti was easy as was William Bolcolm ,Glass, Reich (minimalism is pretty easy even though the processes Adams and others use are dizzyingly thought out and sometimes complex . At first all the stuff I spent money on even Tarkovsky ,Nicolas roeg movies - Ipretended to need and like had no idea what Id just been given . didn't know how to approach these things Good and bad don't seem to me to have much distinction in contemporary architecture, music, painting , sculpture etc. you bring to it what you know .Anyway thankyou ! I type cuz I wanna talk about these things and this is oneof the forums where I can . I need to share my music on fbook groups maybe that would shut me up . ok let's go find out about actus Tragicus. Here I am 50 years old and finding out about stuffIve been reading about for 50 years ! Andreyev you and Ross and Michitako Kutami I cant remember her ame al critics and many reviewers like Andrew Sarris and Paula and a few others least of all pretentious Frenchies like Barthes mean the world to me . you helpe me see what United States educations woefully miss . Life is Art and its appreciation . tori amos know s this . If you create the notion will cum to ya some day . Let's hear it fo' using slang . I want to get rid of all the pretensious sheet. Problem is being cool and using slang and ghetto talk is ust another elitist box that excludes people . Self- Sacrifice not Self-gain is the only way we can survive-ghandi and many others see that . Matthias Pintscher was in miami 3 years ago and you didnt have to know anything to be thrilled . Andreyev I hope you come to Miamior florida one day . when I get my doctorate in music (one day ) I will write a piece thaning all the critics and reviewers and anlystes who gave my life purpose and color ! I'm not ashamed to say I enjoy the writing about Flaubert and Joyce more than the actual thing itself ! A few like Baldwin ,JohnBarth ,Calvino , Virginia Woolf,Williams,Beckett pleases me as much and grows inside of me . Enug .
Hi Samuel. I've been playing around with sound for years on and off. Mostly electronic music composition. I started playing the cello 2 years ago and I've been studying music theory and composition. I've lost interest in making beat music.
I listen to choral music as well as a lot of drone stuff like stars of the lid and Winged victory for the sullen and other artists like Arvo part and John Tavener who is my favorite composer. I also like Leyland Kirby or The Caretaker.
I'm also a huge fan of Aphex Twin especially DrukQs which was the craziest music I heard at the time and that was a gateway into lots of other genres.
I started writing music in the traditional way not so long ago and I'm learning a lot and I'm still composing through a computer with cello, harmonica, guitar and synths. I'm trying to blend my love for drone/atmospheric music with more classical vibes Since I'm kind of new to composing properly what advice can you give me?
What do you think is the best way for me to learn? Should I go back and study the classical forms? I have a basic understanding of harmony and structure but I get annoyed with myself because I think there are things I should study first but I never know where to begin! Thanks Samuel and your compositions are great! Keep the faith! :-)
Hi, nice to hear from you. Why don't you send me an email -- we could arrange for skype lessons if you're interested. samuel.andreyev@gmail.com
Very interesting, thanks!
Though I respect your work, I want to make a critical comment here... For me there are some glaringly problematic presuppositions underlying the notion that people should "cultivate an interest in the music of your time". On the face of it this makes plenty of sense. Art is a living thing, and living artists should be supported by the broader culture. Artists have important things to say about our world, and as intangible as their message often is, people should engage with those artists actively. But there's a problematic assumption that the category of "music of your time" is a very clear one, and namely that it refers to a small subset of the musical culture known variously as "contemporary", "serious", or "new" music, among many other vague terms used to describe the modern manifestation of notation oriented western art music. Basically, your call for people to "cultivate an interest in the music of your time" is really a call to cultivate an interest in this tiny subculture of music-making that you deem to be legitimate and substantive art. Do you really intend to exclude all other music being made today from this category? I would think not, and yet that's precisely what you seem to be doing.
This kind of elitism seems to be fairly common in the world of academic composition. People tend not to openly dismiss other forms of contemporary music, but the implicit dismissal is often palpable nonetheless. It's as if being shunned by the general public has led "modern composers" to foster an unconscious resentment and contempt for any kind of music other than their own. I recognize that there are many individuals that don't fall prey to this (I would guess that you are among them), but this worldview seems to be an undeniable part of the culture of new music. The assumption is, "our music is more important than all other kinds being made today". Whether it's due to the intellectual rigor, technical complexity, or historical pedigree of this culture, people within it have no problem harboring this often unconscious elitist attitude. This is sustained in part due to the fact that modern classical music is supported almost exclusively by institutions of higher education, and as such it is susceptible to the cultural bubble that universities tend to create.
We live in a period of unprecedented artistic diversity and creativity. By an immense margin, there are more people making art today then at any other point in history. If you're going to make the claim that only one sub-culture of music making is capable of producing what you refer to as "the important cultural artifacts of the time", at least make it openly and be prepared to back it up with some rigorous aesthetic theories. As a composer myself, I would welcome such attempts. They would be a breath of fresh air compared to the relativism that typifies the intelligentsia today. Even if you don't try to make that extreme claim, it seems to me you have an obligation to defend the value of modern classical music as such, as opposed to simply falling in line with the doctrine of the day and avoiding that challenging task.
Art needs intelligent and compelling apologists, especially when it is of a more difficult and less entertainment oriented variety. This is why on the whole, I enjoyed your video. But it seems like you skirted past some of the most critical issues by making this implicit assumption about the status of modern classical music. You seem to have eclectic tastes and interests, and your intelligence is clearly formidable, so I would really love to hear your thoughts on this. Thank you for your time.
Dear Kendall, one of the great things about UA-cam is that I receive thoughtful comments like yours that allow me to engage with a lot of different viewpoints. Thank you, truly, for taking the time to write.
You seem to be basing your comments at least partially on ‘implied assumptions’ that I am not sure I have made.
First of all, whatever ‘the world of academic composition’ might be, I’m not a part of it. I am emphatically not an academic. I’ve lived my entire adult life in Europe where composition is not taught in universities. I would add that I’ve made 9 albums as a singer-songwriter.
You suggest that composers resent ‘being shunned by the general public’. The problem with that assertion is that ‘the general public’ does not exist. There are only individuals, and no two people have the same taste in music. Second, it what sense have I (or anyone else in my field) been ‘shunned’? Composers today have a far greater audience, more opportunities and higher performance standards than at any other time in history. If you could pick any time period in which to be a composer, you would pick today! There is more competition now, too - which is a good thing. I myself am fortunate to engage with a very wide range of listeners all around the world through my channel, my performances and my teaching. If anything, I am amazed by the amount of interest there is in seemingly ‘difficult’ music.
Finally, I would never make the claim that my music (or that of any other contemporary composer) is more important than other forms, and as someone who knows hundreds of composers, I can tell you that composers are open to influences from a very broad range of music. Nevertheless, there are great works out there, truly astounding feats of imagination and expressive power, that I passionately feel should be heard by as many people as possible, and that are products of free thinking - rather than the transient demands of the marketplace.
This sort of discussion is so valuable. Thank you again.
Thank you Samuel, for taking the time to read my comment and respond so thoroughly. I really appreciate that. I suppose I have a bit of a chip on my shoulder when it comes to my own experience of academic composition, as limited as that was (4 years at a university in the U.S.). So I apologize if I allowed my experience to unjustly color my understanding of your claim. I'm curious why you would consider yourself "emphatically not an academic". Emphatically implies a degree of opposition, so I'd be curious to hear where thats coming from.
I find it fascinating that you are so optimistic as a composer, and I will take that to heart going forward. I suppose I'm just not familiar with this apparently rich and vibrant culture of modern composition that is occurring outside the auspices of academia. There are a few well known ensembles and composers I follow, but beyond that my awareness is limited. Do you see that as happening in a few specific cities, or as a more diffuse and decentralized phenomenon? I tend to associate New York as having a contemporary music scene that stands on it's own. I'm sure there are similar centers of activity in Europe, though I'm less aware of them.
Those things aside, I feel as if my main argument still stands. Throughout the video, you make the assumption that contemporary music is an important cultural phenomenon, whereas I would like you the make an argument that it is. The later points you make in the video suggest that contemporary music has value if you're willing to make the effort: the composer is not a moron and has something to say, there is something to be gotten out of it, etc... But these claims are not made as arguments, but rather simply as things to be accepted.
You do make something of an argument with your second point about "music of our time". Your argument seems to be: people should care about the important cultural artifacts of their time, therefore you should make the effort to become familiar with contemporary music.
My point is that just because contemporary music is "of our time" does not on its own seem to make it an important cultural artifact because it is clearly not the only kind of music that falls into that category. In other words, it seems like you need to make an argument for why the contemporary music scene in particular is producing important cultural artifacts.
Perhaps that it is "of our time" does have something to do with its relevance, but there are other components that remain murky here... perhaps it's the fact that it is the current manifestation of an extremely old tradition, and as such it has a degree of historical and cultural weight? The extreme diversity of contemporary music makes that difficult though, because it's hard to pin it down as belonging to any sort of tradition. The tradition of notation based performances seems to be something, but is it enough?
In any case, I hope I'm making some kind of sense. I feel like you (Samuel Andreyev) could make some really compelling arguments for the value of contemporary music, so I'm selfishly pushing here just because I'd be interested in what you have to say.
Also, I'd be interested in hearing your singer-songwriter albums... are they online anywhere?
Thanks so much for engaging here, I really appreciate it.
Hi Kendall, Thanks for following up. You are making some important points here. I’ll do my best to address them.
I imagine the scene here in Europe is somewhat different from in North America, although it’s hard for me to know since I haven’t been to the US in nearly 10 years. I am giving a lecture at UC Berkeley in April so that will allow me to have more of a sense of what things are like there. In France, Germany, Switzerland (my main centers of activity) there is certainly a vibrant and vital contemporary music scene.
A convincing argument as to the value of contemporary music can only come from the works themselves - which is what I try to lay out in my other UA-cam videos, where I make as strong a case as I can for individual works that I think are important. I should have pointed this out in my video - because as you rightly point out, my arguments could otherwise appear to rest on assumptions.
Finally, regarding my singer-songwriter albums, the most recent one is available as a physical CD from Torpor Vigil Records, or as a download here:
samuelandreyev.bandcamp.com/album/the-tubular-west
Regards,
Samuel
Thank you again, for your reply Samuel. That is a good point about the value of the music being demonstrated by the works themselves. I would say you do a good job of illuminating that in your other videos. At least, I've enjoyed the one's I've watched so far. Thank you for all your hard work, and for taking the time to engage with me here.
I will definitely check out that album. Thanks for the link!
All the best,
Kendall
@@kendallburks Dear Kendall, there are vibrant communities of composers outside of the academy across North, Central, and South America. Just saying! ;)
Thank you!
I like how you don't look at the camera. Looking at the camera creeps me out too.
Thoughtful.
I don’t know if you still read new comments on your old videos.
But I’ve been reading about this whole Metamodernism stuff (apparently it should proceed Postmodernism)
Any ideas if this will ever (in retrospect) be applied to the contemporary classical music of our age?
An example might be that Amy Deutscher will be considered one of the first Metamodernist Composers 😂
I guess that your point is contemporary music is hard to approach at first. But it seems to me that you give no compelling explanation in why anyone should endure it so that it become likable later. How should I approach contemporary music? If the answer is to suspend any negative or critical thought and blindly believe whatever is thrown at me, then it's just not my thing.
hsp Thanks for your thoughts. The term 'contemporary music' covers a huge range of styles, some very approachable and familiar, some less so. My experience is that the initial encounter with something unfamiliar can be disorienting, but it's worth giving it a fair shot. I certainly don't suggest you suspend your critical thinking about what you are hearing, just that it is best to delay judgement until you have had a chance to get a sense of what it is you are judging. Often, a single hearing is not enough for that, and there are amazing, life-changing pieces that you might gloss over otherwise. I can't go into much detail in a 10-minute video, but I do try to make a strong case for individual works in my other videos. Best regards.
A main factor in liking / 'comprehending' ''contemporary music'' is... familiarity. That is the first and hardest obstacle that new listeners encounter; it just is a whole new, different, weird universe where one cannot, at first, know what to do with all that information. It's like hearing a poem in japanese, but you don't know japanese so you can't make much out of it. Music (and art) is a form of language, and the more familiar you get with a new work, the more you can reach some meaning and coherence.
(and at those first encounters, your 'critical' thought works in terms of what you already know; you don't have the vocabulary yet, the keys to piece it together; you can't analyse said japanese poem. Now evidently, you don't need to study music theory, the parallel would only be in the idea of getting familiarised with something.
& Of course you may still not like that style even after a while, and that's fine - but you could still consider other aspects to tackle :) ).
Great content!
4:16 How do you people fell about this? I'm not from the music field (I'm a film guy, or at least trying to be) so I have no idea, but don't think I would have the nerve to tell people they need to watch my 2 hour film 10 times in order to grasp all of the nuances they missed... Specially if they didn't like it in the first place... Like how do you know it is worth their time? I mean there is no rule that definitely says what art is good or bad, only what you like or dislike... So to say: "You need to engage with this artist or artistic movement until you find something you enjoy about it!" feels like taking the whole thing backwards...
I mean sure, if you are an artist yourself it is absolutely essential to engage art formcritically as he posed later in 7:43, but can we really ask that from the public? That they spend an inordinate amount of time engaging with material that doesn't matter to them while setting aside material that does? Movies that might beincoherent andfull of plot cul-de-sacs
The modernist philosophy is that art has the obligation to do something new to the human mind, something that has never been done before, not just to incrementally make something old better. If a work of art is doing something completely new to people's brains, hardly anybody is going to like it at first. That's just how complete originality works, it takes a long time to get used to it. The artist already spent a long time getting used to it while making the thing.
In movies, the same is true for great films, lots of people hate "Citizen Kane" the first time they see it. Also modernist masterpieces like the French New Wave of the 60s,"Bout de Souffle", "Bande à part". Or even more contemporary art films like "In The Mood For Love" or something.
Yes, sometimes the art movies fail. But it's better to try to make something radical and fail than to make one more commercial rom-com.
I just came across your channel yesterday. Having watched the Webern video and now this one, I really appreciate your insightful and friendly approach to guiding viewers into a better understanding of things unfamiliar.
Would you consider giving us your thoughts on Copland's book "What to Listen for in Music"? Is it a good primer?
Mosaic Classics Thanks -- I'm not familiar with the Copland book. A personal favorite is Stravinsky's 'Poetics of Music'..
I've ordered the Copland book. Thanks for the suggestion.
How do you feel about the relationship between computers and ('popular') music? Access to sophisticated music tools (legally or otherwise) has changed the landscape quite dramatically - I think the next 5-10 years will reveal many an Amon Tobin in the woodworks. The palette for sample sources has also increased exponentially. Although, of course, there are a lot of mediocre things out there, they have a purpose in quickly consolidating cliche - perhaps decreasing the time it takes to go through those revolutionary processes you mentioned in your chat with Jordan. There is something really cool about the bedroom beatmaker! One of my favourite examples of which: ua-cam.com/video/fbELwm3SQmc/v-deo.html
I used to listen to various genres of music, including classical music, but now I only listen to contemporary music voluntarily. Music of other genres seems to get tired.
Some good Points! You will find some similar ideas at my Composer vlog. Feel free to check it out.
i would love to hear you discuss merzbow's materpiece "pulse demon " one of my favorite works of the entire genre of japanese noise music.
Great!!!
great video's man, are you planning on making something about messiaen?
super !
Fanny Vicens merci !
Hi Samuel can you suggest college or any universities for music composition?
I personally think the reason people have issues listening to contemporary music is because it is different from just about every type of music from the past. Your music for example seems like a bunch of random sounds and musical effects played randomly without any meaning. I don't feel any emotion coming from the music, except for a mood that those sounds create (which would be fine for a movie score, but not as a stand alone work). The piece could be making a statement, but music is supposed to reward the listener for listening. I could drop a stick on a snare drum randomly, and throw a random percussion instrument in there too. But what are those sounds doing except... just being there?
great
Question, considering that music has been around since men had mouths to sing, and cultures have enjoyed their music, and their musical traditions, couldn't we then give more value to pop music because the web of mass media is a key to the zeitgeist? I think this is a great video, and I think it'd be great if contemporary classical music had more ears and had more financial support, but I'm still wondering your feelings on this question.
specifically cultivating an interest in music “of your time” because it’s “of your time” is as arbitrary as whenever you were born. taste should be independent of chronology.
I get your point, but don't you think it's nice to be able to relate to and understand the music of the society you're currently living in? Music is a living, warming, bonding thing
shestakovach But I consider that contemporary music has a problem: it doesn’t represent the modern society at all.
I don’t know any person who particularly likes it except the ones who compose it...
Jorge Iglesias haha yeah that’s a very good point
Yeah that's like saying that if everyone starts making their homes out of human shit, your number 1 priority should be to make it out of human shit just because that's what people are doing during "my time"
I am not sure if my question is relevant here. But I would like to learn to appreciate/understand more about contemporary/modern orchestra music. I always find those pieces composed that have no melody, just random sounds and notes (I am sure there is intention in the notes but for me it is just random), even electronics (like Nymphea by Kaija Saariaho). My question is how do I start to come about to appreciate these pieces? Since they're so different from classical pieces or any music we know
Thanks for the question! This is exactly why I started my channel, so hopefully you may find some of my videos helpful.
@@samuel_andreyev thank you! I'm learning to compose and arranging some music for the harp. Hopefully I can learn more on your channel!
the harp is one of my favourite instruments! welcome.
@@samuel_andreyev The harp is my favourite instrument as well! I started on piano but never actually connect to it. Then I discovered the harp in 2021 and been learning playing it. It suddenly open up a whole new door for me, I suddenly was able to arrange music on it by ear but I don't understand why. Now I am learning a self taught course of proper music theory to be able to understand the structure and can write it down my arrangement
How long do i have to focus, and how hard, before I start to reckon I'm getting value from modern music ? How long until I'm getting enough value that I figure all the effort has been worthwhile? Are there any quantitative studies?
My guess is the answer is different for different people. I'd bet some of it is genetic.
How long should I wait for the light to come on before I go back to doing things I like?
Kirk Hansen Wow, great qusstion. It's not for everyone. If you give a good listen to a fairly diverse range of pieces and nothing does it for you, move on :)
There's also a chance he is completely insane and delisional and you will never enjoy it because you're not that
I think it's a little funny when people say they listen to just about everything.
But what they mean is American music.
Hip hop, country, rock, pop, reggae, metal, edm and maybe a little jazz.
But when I tell people I listen to just about everything I explain further, swing, progressive, eastern European gypsy, cultural music, Like Japanese, Chinese, Brazilian, middle eastern, African....etc etc
Plus saying different time periods....
Then you can see it in their face,
Oh shit, I hardly listen to any kind of music at all.
There is so much music out there, American modern music is such a small piece. But it's also a culmination of all music just like the country itself.
But it sucks it's been mixed together to create only what it has, those main genres I first listed.
There are little gems randomly that use a bunch of advanced techniques, harmony or crazy prog ideas.
But it's not what's popular.
What would you say to a young composer hoping to understand the 21st century thus far. I've been a massive enthusiast of the second Viennese school and most music in the 20th century for a while now and I feel that the music I write shadows that era far too much.
Nick Satie I would say that the many stylistic innovations of the postwar period are beginning to fuse together, to a certain extent. Timbre is now as important as pitch and rhythm, something the 2nd viennese school only hints at (esp. Webern in his early works). I offer Skype lessons if that's something you might be interested in. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
I did like. Although it fails a bit in Sagan's 3rd rule of the kit.
Ugh, I disagree with some points in this but youtube isn't a forum where I could do that without sounding like I don't agree with the basic premise that people should take a sincere interest in being familiar contemporary music.
You strike me as a person who can put their thoughts into comprehensible words. If somebody is hell bent on taking it the wrong way, so be it, but the rest of us could possibly learn something from it or find them interesting, even if they wouldn't agree with them.
His arguments for taking an interest in contemporary music are that he can't understand why we wouldn't, that is incumbent on us to do so, and that he'll call us a rube if we don't.
Maybe you could start by putting forth an argument that carries some weight?
The video has nothing to do with why you should take an interest in contemporary music, it's about how to approach it if you already have an interest or requirement.
How to approach it is easy, just take a seat, there are plenty of empty seats at a contemporary music concert, you pretty much have your pick.
Hi Samuel,
Contemporary classical music has "something to be gotten out of it". First, I'd like to say that this means nothing, since it goes for virtually anything, but second, I'd really like you to give me three or more examples of w h a t you can get out of it. I personally am looking for - exusez le mot - beauty, and affection of my emotions (music that makes me happy, or sad), or music that makes me want to dance. I'm also looking for memorable melodies, harmonies and rhythms. I'm n o t looking for music that requires background information in order to understand what the composer is trying to do. I want the music to tell me that message directly (not necessarilly in an easy way, but still independently of other information sources. After all, why would you need music instead of a written article to be cognitively stimulated?).
Anyway, please give me some examples of what you can get out of contemporary classical music.
Another question (that may be the same one): does contemporary classical music ever make the hairs on your arms stand up? Does it ever move you to tears?
Thank you,
Micha
Hello Micha,
I'm a composer as well and I would like to answer to this question with another set of questions: when you see a new painting, read a new book or watch a new movie, do you only look for that set of experiences as well (like being happy or sad)? Do you think a book that you can recite from memory is a better book? Have you never had the urge to understand more of a certain symbolism in a film or novel that you didn't catch the first time (like by reading about it in Wikipedia or wherever), or watch a movie again to better understand it?
What you can get out of contemporary classical music is mostly the same you can get from other art forms as well (emotions other than happy and sad, intellectual gratification, etc.).
To be honest, contemporary classical music hasn't made my hairs stand up nor has it moved me to tears, but I haven't felt that either with my favorite books or films. I watched the "Schindler's list" once, and I must say I was very moved, it brought me to tears, hairs stood up, etc. It's not my favorite movie and I really wouldn't watch it again. I don't feel there's any "substance" left in that movie for me to come back again at it. I don't think it would move me in the same primitive way (since "tolerance" develops quite quickly to those kind of reactions with repeated exposure). Without the sobbing, that movie is not a great piece of art. There's not much to discover there, I think, precisely because it's so direct. "Persona" by Ingmar Bergman on the other hand is an amazing piece of art. I've watched it a lot of times, and I would watch it again. Evry time I watch it, I discover something different and new, that I didn't notice before.
What's your experience in this regard?
@@martinrinconbotero4198
Hi Martín,
Thank you for your reply. But I'm really talking about music here, and not about other art forms. To me, they are not very comparable. They each posess unique qualities, and I don't want to discuss all of them here. I agree with your paragraph about Hollywood kitsch designed to work on people's emotions, but it's beside the point, since I'm talking about music.
What I really like in your reply, is this confession of yours: "To be honest, contemporary classical music hasn't made my hairs stand up nor has it moved me to tears". That's just what I wanted to know.
When it comes to good music, like Beatles songs, pieces by Bach and works by Shostakovich, they do the trick for me in every way, and I do keep discovering new things in it with repeated listening.
I disagree with your suggestion that some emotive effects wear off quickly. On the contrary, I discover that some music that has an emotional value for me, gets to me sooner with every repeated listen. I think that I condition myself like a Pavlov dog, or maybe it's the knowledge of what's coming next in the piece that gets me quicker in that particular state (happy, sad, ...).
In times of information overload to the point of unaffectedly turning the page or simply flipping the channel after reading or watching another bombing, tsunami or other disaster, the power of music to move people to tears becomes quite important, I think.
By the way, I'd like to debounce your implied notion that works of art that move you are cheap and one-dimensional. Even though tears are tears (your tears are worth the same as those from someone who's moved by, say, Julio Iglesias), there's still a difference between great art and kitsch. And even though some pieces of music have become clichés, like Barber's Adagio for Strings, the inherent musical qualities of such pieces are unbroken. When those pieces were written, they were fresh and not associated with movies, funerals, et cetera. And if listeners put aside there present day social knowledge and prejudice against such pieces arising from this knowledge, they would still feel the purely musical power of those magic works of art. It's just, unfortunately, that some people look down on being touched by them, as if they should know better. While in fact that's a wonderful quality of music.
PS.
Do you know this piece called Brava Sal? I think it was influenced by the afore mentioned Shostakovitch!
michavandam thank you for your reply, and for listening to Brava Sal! I hear very little of Shostakovich, so the similarities were not intended. Some russian guy told me once he found some similarities between my music and Prokofiev. Those are composers I almost never listen to. But anyways 😉.
What I wanted to emphasize is the fact that music can provoke more emotions than happy and sad. It can be rewarding in the form of other emotions. My favorite composers, and my favorite music has given me other emotions that for me are deeper than only two sporadic emotions like happiness and sadness. These works and composers provoke what I see as admiration, for the work and for him/her. Admiration is something you could feel for any writer and any painter (that's why I bring up other arts in the topic as well). That goes beyond short emotional moments and tends to be more permanent. It happens to me with writers (and books) and film makers (and films) as well. To receive admiration a work of art needs to move more than only two basic emotions (which are not cheap! They're just more primitive). Some popular music can indeed evoke more emotions than those two. Some popular music has intellectual depth as well. The same can be said of contemporary classical music. It's not a black or white thing, there are many grays in between.
Cheers,
Martín.
Music isn't about emotions, emotions are completely irrelevant from music and if you feel emotions from music you are the one causing the emotions, the music isn't
Nice presentation. I agree with many points, most importantly the repetition factor. When I first heard Webern, Schoenberg, et al, I was turned off, but upon repeated listening, understood what these composers were striving to do. For me, Webern is the master of the serial idiom. I don't particularly like the term atonal as it tends to sound too "anti-musical" when someone attempts to explain the term, and frequently causes division. There are many composers out there today, especially in academia, that are rarely heard, and this is a shame. On the other hand, we have equally brilliant composers of movies and the stage that are writing great scores that deserve to be recognized and showcased on the concert level as well. Perhaps the biggest issue is the listening public. How do we get our younger listeners into the concert halls ? Part of the issue is "instant gratification" with the 3 minute song. If the music doesn't hit the mark within that time frame then they don't value it. I suppose it will always be like this, however. Great art is often recognized after the composers and artists are not around to reap the deserved benefits of their works.
As a composer I hate to say it but most of my idols are dead white male composers: Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Schnittke, JS Bach.
Thank you for this video, but putting everything aside and talking about what you said at the beginning of this video, I would like to hear what you think: I have been recently thinking, what if the world, the humanity, the history defines pop music (including rock/jazz/film-music...) as "the music of our time". What makes us (contemporary/modern "fine" musicians) represent 'our' time. I mean... honestly, the world nowadays revolves around commercial music and even the term 'contemporary/modern' music is being used to describe songs that recently published.
Seunghunn Yu Pop and commercial music burn brightly and quickly when first released, but much of it fades from view over time. Great works of musical art may not have a very big audience in the short term, but over time their influence can be profound. That's how I see it. Anyway, all forms of music that are currently being practiced are 'of our time' and represent different facets of it.
Yes I agree, but sometimes I think contemporary music has become extremely overly abstract, and its meaning heavily hid, (I don't think its that much in america, but at least in the European scene) I wonder if it can at-all, 'over time' influence anyone or anything. It will probably influence some composers but...
Seunghunn Yu You'll notice I said 'great works of musical art'. Most contemporary music does not belong in that category and indeed has no influence on anything.
You're just asking for it now :)
I sometimes wish I could comprehend what thoughtful, intelligent people see in contemporary art music, such as the pieces and composers listed below. I sometimes go to channels like yours in the hope that someone can explain it, or that I will find something that I can like.
Just now I set myself to listen to Ives' Fourth Symphony on your recommendation - and found I simply couldn't. Bewilderment is part of it, but so is revulsion. I know it sounds melodramatic, but 7 minutes into it rising physical nausea forced me to cut and run. I simply couldn't stand any more. The occasional moments of recognisable music were instantly drowned by something monstrous and hideous. It was like watching an almighty book-burning; like watching a wrecking ball smashing Chartres Cathedral.
So I waited for the reaction to subside, waded in again, listened again, had it happen again, got out, went back, listened again. And again. I tried, I really tried. I told myself, this is simply music that uses a different vocabulary to the one I'm used to. I can get used to this, too.
Only I can't.
Thanks for your candid thoughts. The detailed nature of your comment seems to indicate more than passing interest or dismissal; it indicates that this is a real concern for you, or has been. All I can say is, if you're still interested on some level, keep trying, and try a range of different types of pieces. If you're not interested any more, move on. Best regards.
hey I heard you on Jordan Petersons podcast, besides yourself what other composers would you recommend for me? Thanks God bless.
Which Peterson's podcast are you reffering to?
@@neil7137 it's been over 3 years i don't remember!!
I'd be very interested in your commentary on a piece by Scriabin. BTW, I hated Shakespeare's Richard II the first time I saw it; didn't get it at all. Now it's my favorite of all his plays.
Thank you. Scriabin is on my list -- hopefully I'll get to it sooner rather than later!
With covid, write that orchestra ensemble pieces.
"Threnody for Frank Zappa " I wrote this
uncommissioned work cuz that's what composers do.
One must go to it, and not expect it to come to you.
what's the difference between art and scam?
Scams are not art and vice versa
@@samuel_andreyev okay, that was actually funny : ) please, let me try that again: how does one differentiate a work of art from a work of a scam artist? how do you know that you're listening to a music piece and not a random set of notes? i feel like nobody can tell apart a modern art piece from random scribbles, not in a double blind setting
I agree that this is a problem, particularly for those who are coming to recent music for the first time. I think there is no other solution than to listen carefully, try to remain open, and then.. make up your own mind.
@@samuel_andreyev wow, okay, thank you for the answers. so the first one wasn't a joke, huh : )
@@samuel_andreyev so you're saying there is no structure or value in contemporary music, all the "value" is what you tell yourself is the value you are essentially telling people to brainwash themselves into enjoying something
Sam, if I'm constantly listening to new music - listening it to death for a day or two then moving on - am I playing a loser's game? Is novelty a poor substitute for depth of appreciation?
P.S. This is one of my favourite pieces of music - maybe you'll enjoy it! grahamkartna.bandcamp.com/album/ideation-deluxe
Antonio Schacht Good question. Listening to a lot of different types of music, in my experience, helps one to develop a much sharper critical sense, so that you can instinctively sense what might be worth a second listen. When listeners don't have a very broad and deep musical culture, their judgements tend to be on the level of 'I like this / I don't like this', which says more about them than it does about the value of the work itself. Does that make any sense?
Have you ever had discussion about listening with serious/professional DJ ? They usually do what you describe here as their main activity.
I'm interested in your opinion on the rabbit hole of self-reflection. Why this piece and not that one (considering we're talking all-stockhausen, or ligeti vs messian or whatever on THAT level ) ? Is it "the musical instinct" - irrational void? Is it pragmatic "what can I steal here" ?
So listening is a tool and any musician should conciously use it. But for me, really deep listening is taking music apart, transcribing parts (I would never dare to do this with contemporary music, jazz solo is my highest achievment, partial too) , harmonies, rhythms. The question is: was it worth it ? There are ten more pieces equally great or even better. What's your thoughts of musical intuition, preferences for certain things (is it lazy to do same things over and over or is it a language?).
chiaroscuro applies at scale to all things
contemporary music - like anything - is MUCH HARDER than things which already have a very structured template (like any cliché - i.e. popular music etc)
after hearing this I feel like I don't know how to listen to music lol I've never really listened to anything other than metal rap pop all that stuff are you suggesting I might like music like is Bach or something could you tell me a piece to listen too please
Hi -- thanks for writing. If you love music, try listening to some things from way out of left field & see what you think. If you don't like it, you can always move on to something else. You could check out some of my recent UA-cam videos -- I do have one on Bach..
Wow. The guy Blow linked to talks a lot like Blow.
Do you think that the function of music has changed completely? I am giggling as I imagine the musicians of more ancient times ( thousands or just a few hundred years ago) first stand in front of their audience and try to convince them that they have to listen a few times befire they decide whether they like it or not or encourage their hapless human contemporaries that they must make an effort in their listening..... hmmmmm....maybe I am judt a stick-in-the-mud Bach fanatic!
No, but what has changed is that we are now confronted by a bewildering array of highly heterogenous styles all being practiced simultaneously, and played out on a global stage. This is a historically very recent situation. Thanks for the stimulating question.
PS: I too am a Bach fanatic.