An observation about "Modern" classical music.

Marakanetz...I don't claim extensive knowledge about musical structure, but I do know that rule sets provide a framework for composition. There are different rule sets...for example not all music uses an 8-note scale.

For most people, the most obvious rule relates to dissonance. Some combinations of notes are accepted as sounding pleasant, while others are dissonant. Of course, the definition of dissonance has changed over time, and the occasional introduction of a dissonant note adds spice to the music, but a piece composed entirely of dissonance is not pleasant. (I think that most people would agree with this, but a few may not).

Contrary to what Seurat states, I do think that music is intended to be enjoyment for the listener...not an exercise in sonic exploration for the composer and performers.

PS: I pulled out my "Chant" CD and started to play it, but the wife told me to can it and play some Christmas music. A lttle of that goes a long way too.

The question of art is a valid one particularly in a post modern world where the aesthetics of art is blurred by the culture that surrounds us. That is culture and its definitions are no longer top-down arguments but bottom-up. We see now that quilting is art and not a cultural artifact even if it is pleasing or interesting. Art should never make us happy, in fact the opposite, it should be disquieting. Let's take Mozart, very inventive as far as his use of the materials at hand ( the diatonic scales, that is the forms at hand), but most of his works was and still is dinner music, pleasing to the ear and makes digestion of the food and wine very palpable for the royality he was serving. As court composer that was his job, no matter how creative he was and he was surely the best at it. However his operas and his very late string quartets and maybe his very last symphony were truly into the realm of high art. Here he truly expressed himself within the context of his millieu, the Spirit(Hegelian/Kant spirit) of the ages. He connected very well with the audience he intended, their situation in life, their concerns, using music to convey their Spirit.

Let me digress a little. The Enlightenment spawned a multitude of ideas, but principly two that were monumental: democracy and capitalism. The rise of both created the rise of the middle class, the age of Beethoven and beyond. But Capitalism has its price, it was and is still not a free ride. Capitalism in its attempt to conquer nature, which it has down quite successfully, has created a lifeless middle class, because man who is part of nature too has conquered itself. This conquered nature has created our alienation (I am just as guilty as the next) from the nature that we long for. We shallowly attempt to connect again within the confinds of what we have created, Capitalism. We have become the Great Consuming world, trying to come to grips of with our alienation. Since Schoenberg (at least musically) and maybe even Mahler, the great artists regard this alienation as what they are trying to express in their music. Not everybody and everything, but it surely is the underlying idea for many of them, and they surely get their point across. And not every musical piece should or can be as pleasing as a quilt. If not then what is the point of music in general??

WNYC-FM (93.9) plays modern classical music.

WKCR (89.9) Columbia University in NYC plays modern classical music though it is not a full-time classical outlet.

I just happened on this thread during a break from work. Earlier, I had been listening to what might be called modern classical music, staring with Gorecki's Third Symphony (London Sinfonietta). Also on the CDP was Tavener's The Protecting Veil; Arvo Part's Fratres, (Tabula Rasa, Spiegal im Spiegal,ect); Peteris Vasks' Distant Light; and Christo Hatis' Awakening. IMHO, all of these modern classical works are exceeding beautiful, emotional, and reflect the spiritual side of the human condition. They all are tonally complex and have patterns that are unique to modern music. However, I would not be able to "hum" a tune from any of the works mentioned. What I find important is that each piece involves some experimentation with tone and structure.

Other modern music, Schoenberg for example, is intellectually stimulating, but more emotionally upsetting, especially his later works. I can't work or socialize with this type of music in the background. IMHO, atonal modern music, in particular, creates an emotional dissonance in the listener that is often not very pleasant and can be anxiety producing, unlike some of the older works (e.g., Bach, Mozart) or the modern music mentioned in the above paragraph. This might be another explanation for the delay in applause. That is, atonal modern music does not make you feel good, rather it can have the opposite effect. This is understandable, as the impetus for some post-modern music is to express the alienation of modern humans. In this case, applause of an audience has to be forced rather than spontaneous.

Eldartford,

We're in the world of different events and subjects. We're in the world of a different languages.

Music is also a language or sonic form of such. Every tact is a word and every group of such may be a "phrase" or "sentence" not neccessarily sonic exploration or an exersise. There's not only the Blue Danube or Nutcracker, there's an industry, machines, trains etc...

I personally like when I can distinguish "phrases" or "sentences" there; reprising in musical compositions is a big +. For example Phillip Johnston's music to the movie "Unknown" falls onto that category. Despite its being played by 6-piece band I wouldn't categorize it to a jazz since there's too much order rather than an improvisation or blasting solos of every musician.

Start understanding Prokofiev and Shostakovitz first and than try Alf or Gorecki...