An observation about "Modern" classical 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.

Eldartford: I see a lot of hypocrisy in stating your musical preference and allowing for disagreement, but then defining "skill", a value judgement, in terms of your own musical tastes.

You claim that this "skill" is manifested in "inventiveness within the structure of some rule set." What makes one rule set better than another? I don't accept that the rule set of "melody, harmony, and rythm" is fundamental to enjoyment of music. That's way to broad. Listen to Gregorian chant, very mainstream. No harmony much of the time. How about Taiko drumming? No melody... Jazz improvisation: No steady rythm here. Why should classical music have to play by some preordained set of rules?

I think us fans of the avant-garde in music respect your tastes; no one is shoving this stuff down your throat. What I have a problem with is your continuing insistance on engaging the fundamental value of this music (please read your previous posts before denying this). There is an argument to be made here, but if you want to make it you're going to have to start working within a more complex musical vocabulary. I think the conversation would be far more meaningful if you would explore the genre more deeply.