What is Modern Music?

[Beef Oven!]

Over the years, in my own mind I've ended up with something of a dual response to this question of modern music. A straightforward answer is 'music written in my lifetime' (as I think was mentioned in one of the early replies). The second response - works which move the musical landscape - is a bit more difficult as it's not only dependent on musical knowledge(which I don't have) to make that judgement, but is also more subjective. Arguably it also requires hindsight to assess what has moved music forward or made significant changes. Whatever the definition, it is certainly no indication of whether I am likely to enjoy what I hear, so if I don't recognise a composer I try to listen first and judge after. Seems to produce more hits than misses, but that may be because I've already filtered out forms of music making I'm not keen on, such as opera.

That's quite close to my take on it - Encyclopaedia Britannica definition, plus a time cut off (1890, for me).

[oddoneout]

And paw taste, for others.

Absolutely.This is no place to be feline groovy.

[Serial_Apologist]

Absolutely.This is no place to be feline groovy.

That would indeed be catastrophic.

[Beef Oven!]

That would indeed be catastrophic.

No, tabby or not tabby, that is the question.

[Nick Armstrong]

No, tabby or not tabby, that is the question.

I fur I am to blame for all this

Can I purrsuade everyone to get back to the topic?

[Beef Oven!]

I fur I am to blame for all this

Can I purrsuade everyone to get back to the topic?

Trying to whiskas back on topic?

[Nick Armstrong]

Trying to whiskas back on topic?

If I Can

[Beef Oven!]

If I Can

You can only tray

[ahinton]

Trying to whiskas back on topic?

Been there, done that (see #88), but your others are good!

[Beef Oven!]

Been there, done that (see #88), but your others are good!

They're all good, don't be Choosy!

[Beef Oven!]

Back on topic, can music be relatively modern? My take is it can.

I'm put in mind of last year's thread on D. Matthews Symphony #8, which divided opinion. I like D. Matthews' music (but I think I may prefer Colin's), but agree with the arguments that viewed it as backward looking. For me that compromised it's modern 'status'. In a way that for example, H. Seattle's symphonies aren't compromised (even though he uses a traditional symphony format). But, I think D. Matthews' music is fairly modern. Not sure how much sense I'm making.

[ardcarp]

Look Pal, this thread is more fun when it's littered with cat jokes....but serialously, in interviews on Record Review today Roger Wright stressed several times that Boulez was a composer first and conductor second...obviously very sensitive to the fact that many music lovers would rather listen to him conduct, say, The Rite or La Mer than to hear his music, Posterity will no doubt be the judge. In AMcG's recorded interview with PB himself (10 years ago), Boulez referred to Stravinsky as an intuitive composer not an intellectual. He said intuition was fine for the big Russian ballet scores but no good for Strvainsky's neoclassical works which he hated. I find that an extraordinarily arrogant stance. I suppose it is a very French thing to value the 'intellectual', but I'm not sure what intellectualism (as opposed to intelligence, which can take many forms) has to do with inspiration and intuition which, in my book, is what makes a composer. BTW what a fantastic performance of Les Noces ended the programme with the RIAS chamber choir sounding so right for the piece.

[ahinton]

Back on topic, can music be relatively modern? My take is it can.

I'm put in mind of last year's thread on D. Matthews Symphony #8, which divided opinion. I like D. Matthews' music (but I think I may prefer Colin's), but agree with the arguments that viewed it as backward looking. For me that compromised it's modern 'status'. In a way that for example, H. Seattle's symphonies aren't compromised (even though he uses a traditional symphony format). But, I think D. Matthews' music is fairly modern. Not sure how much sense I'm making.

By H. Seattle I presume you to mean Humphrey Searle, whose symphonies are largely dodecaphonic which David Matthews' aren't but, given how long serialism's been around, I'm not sure what that might say about the "modern-ness" or otherwise of either composer. Also, I don't see Matthews' as backward looking or indeed Searle's as forward looking in any definable sense.

[Beef Oven!]

By H. Seattle I presume you to mean Humphrey Searle, whose symphonies are largely dodecaphonic which David Matthews' aren't but, given how long serialism's been around, I'm not sure what that might say about the "modern-ness" or otherwise of either composer. Also, I don't see Matthews' as backward looking or indeed Searle's as forward looking in any definable sense.

Yes, Searle. My spell check is more aggressive than it used to be. Maybe they update them when you update your OS, from time to time. It certainly kicks in much more often than it used to.

Yes, serialism has been around for a very long time, and that fact does undermine my view that it can be considered modern. But I do! And 2VS is modern music, IMV. I detect a fundamental break from the late romantic period (to the 1890s). I don't see Stockhausen, Lachenmann, Barrett, Boulez et al as a fundamental change from turn of that century modern music, in the sense of a radical break. (of course I might be wrong!).

I see DM as backward looking in terms of tonal harmony and form (traditional Beethoven symphonic lay-out). Whereas while Searle uses the symphony format, his music is dodecaphonic. Regarding your last comment concerning Searle, I don't think about music as being forward looking - for me there's just the past and the present.

[doversoul1]

Back on topic, can music be relatively modern? My take is it can.

I'm put in mind of last year's thread on D. Matthews Symphony #8, which divided opinion. I like D. Matthews' music (but I think I may prefer Colin's), but agree with the arguments that viewed it as backward looking. For me that compromised it's modern 'status'. In a way that for example, H. Seattle's symphonies aren't compromised (even though he uses a traditional symphony format). But, I think D. Matthews' music is fairly modern. Not sure how much sense I'm making.

I suppose, unlike nouns, adjectives are by nature, relative. We know a pipe if we see one even when someone tells us it isn’t a pipe, whereas something being modern depends entirely on by what or whose standard/ definition we are judging, unless the word is used to mean something like ‘the latest’ or ‘most up-to-date’.