An observation about "Modern" classical music.

Rob your point is easy to understand:

A classical music as well as modern classical music and also many sophisticated types of rock, jazz is harder to understand and digest than a simple mambo or Beatles or another words pop. Hence the popularity could be waged accordingly.

Centuries ago there also were ministrels and street musicians that had been fare less complicated than Pastoral symphony.
Take in consideration Strauss who's music was simple compared to the composers of his time...
Can you compare Strauss to Kronos Quartet?

If you start researching Russian post-classical composers you will definitely feel an evolution i.e. progressive development and even to say enterprenurial movements that hadn't been thought of in the era of the classical music...

Lousyreeds1...Agreed that a piece which ends quietly, (which is not that common) might have applause delayed slightly, but not 3-5 seconds. Also, "modern" music often ends just as loud as any other kind.

"Random" probably was the wrong word. As one who has some familiarity with statistics, I ought to have said "pseudorandom". Pseudorandom is a sequence which appears to be random, but which actually is generated by an underlying algorithm.

Give me the title of one recommended book.

I understand the arguments of the people who do not care for modern classicl music.One can never dictate a specific taste towards others.That being said,if you feel you can't warm up to modern stuff,you obviously won't try to give yourself any additional exposure to it.Human nature!Well,sadly for those who can't/won't delve further into the realm,you are really losing out on some fun,and wonderful stuff!Not all modern compositions fall into the "delerious" sounding category.Also,as much as I like Crumb(I also love all early classical forms,but NEED to keep moving on in my quest for new musical experiences),he is not the starting point for someone wanting to add some new exposure to their musical life(though there is nothing wrong with that).Why not begin with some,a bit more recognizable music,like Copland or Stravinsky.Even some Shostokovich.I,actually "think" I got the bug,after seeing the movie "Close Encounters of The Third Kind",and bought the soundtrack.Now,whenever I go to a movie,I make a conscious effort to listen to the soundtrack,though most really suck,and I'm not a soundtrack collector!It's a good way to get some exposure to certain new composers.Bernard Hermann was a fabulous,and accessable composer.Anyone liking the "Twilight Zone" tv series has heard his stuff before.Like I said,if you cut off your exposure based on some bad experiences,you will ultimately lose out!!Best of luck to all!

Why work hard understanding modern classical music when you could spend your whole life listening to baroque through to romantic (and some understandable modern music like Cage, etc.) and never run out of stuff to listen to?

Rob

Rob, that is the statement i was getting at....

But that could be a circular argument, and applied to many art forms. But I think its a bit of a musical isolationist point of view...

I think you can learn to appreciate the modern classical stuff without trying so hard.. Sometimes just occassional revisits thru some time does the trick...I started appreciating lots of it from buying LP's from a collector friend who has a classical radio show in Atlanta,,,as we listened to some of it, he gave me context for the music,,,although there is some music that even I cant get into (at least for now), especially some of the modern music put forth by the Nonesuch label..

As far as modern classical music, I am referring to the new stuff - not the early to mid 20th century stuff. I enjoy and can relate to Copland - I enjoy John William's compositions for different movies and other composers. I even like some of the new stuff that sounds like it came from outer space (unfortunately, I can't relate since I'm living here on earth), and therein lies the rub. I could / can relate to Beethoven's pain, darkness, and triumph.

I know there is value in modern music, and I have no doubt that they each have structure for their music. I might give it a better effort. I really have not given it a fair shot since I don't listen enough to really see if I can connect.

But am I the only one who feels that everything has been exhausted by the previous composers, and that's why the modern composers have to make weird patterns and harmonies and keys just to do something different? They can't just use the circle of 5th's and relative minor/major. They have to venture way out there to come up with something original, but do they go so far out that they lose their audience? What other choice do they have?

As a piano player once told me, we need a renaissance of the arts.

Rob