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
Eldarford

Your initial post didn't state the intent of asking why people like modern classical music. Rather your question had to do with the pause after the performance was done. It also seems that your question also pertains to "atonal" music and not other modern works.

I like "atonal" classical music because it is intellectually stimulating. Initially, there was something that pulled me into listening, and now I enjoy the surprises, emotionality, and patterns. Having said that, I only listen to this type of music on an occasional basis because I have to be in the mood for it. I agree that some "atonal" music is difficult, but that's part of allure for me.

IMHO, "atonal" music has been a sort of inspiration for newer works that are much more universally appealing. Please correct me if I'm wrong (I"m not a musicologist), some composers have reacted strongly to "atonal" music, and created gorgeous music that is not strictly "atonal." Arvo Part had a crisis, stopped composing for a while, and then took a much different track to his music, much of which is exceeding beautiful (see my post above). Gorecki also departed from strict atonal composition. His music, especially his Third Symphony, which is mentioned several times in this thread, had been a top seller in England (if my information is correct). Penderecki's Threnody for the Victims of Hirshima is very beautiful and usually brings goosebumps. BTW, this piece won an UNESCO prize.

I challenge you to pick up some of the music mentioned above, listen to it a few times, and then respond.

John
John...I don't know why you and other modernists assume that I have not listened to modern music, and seriously tried to grasp it. I think I pointed out that, like many, I initially disliked modern art, but over time came to appreciate some aspects of it. Just not so with music. (I have been at it (serious music appreciation) for almost sixty years).

Atonal is just one aspect of the music that I find objectionable.
Eldartford,

Sorry if I assumed incorrectly, it wasn't obvious from your posts.

So, then am I to assume that you have listened to Gorecki's Third or Arvo Part's Cantus In Memoriam Benjamin Britten - Fratres - Tabula Rasa - Spiegel im Spiegel? If not, my challenge remains.

What other apsects of modern music do you object to?

John
John...My initial posting describes how it evolved from a listening session. Without going into all the details..."If I can't hum it I don't like it". This phrase may sound simplistic, but it concisely states the opinion of most (not all) people.
"If I can't hum it, I don't like it." All I can say is that I'm incredibly grateful that this is not the case for me.