An observation about "Modern" classical music.


As I sat in my car, waiting for my wife as usual, I listened to a local classical music station which happened to be playing some "modern" music. I don't like it, being an old fart who likes Mozart and his ilk. But, as I had nothing else to do, I tried to appreciate what I heard. No luck, but I did notice something I have experienced before but never thought about. At the end, there was a dead silence of 3 to 5 seconds before audience applause. This never happens with, for example, Mozart where the final notes never get a chance to decay before the applause and Bravos. Obviously (IMHO) the music was so hard to "follow" that the audience were not sure it was over until nothing happened for a while.

I know that some guys like this music, but haven't you noticed this dead time? How do you explain it?
eldartford
Robm321: hmmm....done right.....hmmm, what does that mean?An audience has nothing to do with it. Either music as art stands or falls on being autonomous. If it is a slave of fashion then it is not autonomous and therefore not art. In fact, there has been only one time in history that musical art and popularity coincided, the early 19th century. This also coincided with the rise of the middle class and its attitudes towards all art, the period of Beethoven(and only Beethoven)the first of the autonomous composers. And once the middle class made classical music...well... middle class, Classical music as art music had to become even more autonomous from the crudeness of the middle class. But it is more than alienation from the middle class, it had to do with what art itself sees, a metaphor for the human condition. If Beethoven was the voice of the rise of the middle class, then someone like Schnittke has to show the alienation of man in light of his conquering of nature itself through the processes developed in the Enlightenment. And boy can Schnittke show the aesthetics of alienation through his music.
I'm listening to Penderecki's Auschwitz Oratorio as we speak. This is as moving and as viscerally captivating (not to mention disturbing) as anything I've ever heard. Give it a try if you're ready for a very intense musical experience.

I'm not sure I agree with Schubertmaniac on the definition of art, but his assertion that modern music expresses as wide a range of emotion as any in history in right on. In fact, some would argue that with increasing harmonic complexity comes increasing ability to explore the nuances of the human condition. Sounds pretentious, but I think it's true in many cases.
I've been reading this thread for some time without commenting, until I saw this by Shubertmaniac:

My moniker says I love Schubert, and I do! But I would rank some of the moderns as my favorites too, but after Schubert, Beethoven and Brahms, I would go see a Schnitke, Gorecki, Bartok or Penderecki piece before I would see something like Mozart or Bruckner. These guys are inventive, imaginative and just plain aesthetically involving.

This is the first time I have read comments at Audiogon about Gorecki being heralded as a favorite. I am pleased to see I am not the only one who loves this music.

My absolute favorite is Symphony No.3 with Dawn Upshaw and the London Sinfonietta, have you heard this piece?
Shubertmaniac..."Inventive" is great, but the real skill is to be inventive within the structure of some rule set...in the case of music, melody, harmony, and rhythm. A random collection of notes, or some obscure musical algorithm, just does not turn me on. Maybe it does you.

By the way I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that Mozart was not inventive. He is most famous for ability to weave a simple theme into a tapestry of variations and developments.
Aaaah, it's refreshing to see a thread about the substance of our hobby as opposed to the hardware of our hobby. I've been an avid classical music listener for years and continue to believe that people enjoy music that follows a few basic rules:

1. Is it predictable?
2. Does it contain melodies the listener can remember?
3. Does it contain "comfortable" harmonic content?
4. Does it evoke positive emotion?
5. Do the musicians visibly enjoy what they are playing? Or, if a recording, is
joy audibly apparent?
6. Does the conductor like the music he's conducting?

With much modern classical, one or more (often all) of these rules simply don't apply. Yes, much modern music is still great music; it's simply not enjoyable music, and that's the rub. Further, I believe that the more listeners know about the technical aspects of classical music, the more they are able to understand and appreciate (not necessarily enjoy) modern music. This opens another can of worms:
1. Where do we draw the line between appreciating modern music and
enjoying it?
2. Why even listen to music that we don't enjoy?
3. Why should orchestras continue to learn and play music that their
audiences clearly don't enjoy?

Great thread.