I know that kvr is obviously not the best place to post this, but then I have a theory that I'd like to check.

The theory is this: I think that if someone is NOT classically trained, he might be more inclined to like something "a little advanced" rather than someone who is classically trained and thus too used to the usual stuff.

So someone who enjoys the likes of Bach, Beethoven, Chopin or other might have issues with the next couple of videos, or even feel the music is disturbing (as I've been told), while someone who is not into classical music at all, might not find anything irritating to the videos and might enjoy them, outside any prejudice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FlkUvZcfG8

A work by Barnaby Hollington for String Quartet. Recorded live (and a great recording it is).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeTFz-6G-SY

A series of short works of mine for solo piano, recorded with the Garritan Steinway (*ahemsamples*)...

They are vastly different, in my opinion, but then again I'm quite biased!

In anyway: Enjoy...

Perhaps you may wish to amend your theory.

First, it's going to be trained classical musicians who play this type of music to begin with, so to start with the premise that classical musicians won't like it doesn't seem to make any sense. Perhaps if you stated that 1) someone who casually listens to classical music may not like it due to lack of experience with contemporary work; 2) people with a very strong sense of tradition may not like it, whether or not they are musicians themselves; 3) people with very mainstream tastes; 4) people who simply do not have much exposure to varying musical styles, exposed only to pre-20th and 21st century classical music in an insular way might not like it, then perhaps I'd agree with you.

Also, what type of non-classical people are we speaking of who may like this music? People who listen to dubstep? Death metal? Country? Reed music from the Philippines? Tibetan chant? Siberian throat-singing? There's such a wide variety of musical styles outside of classical music that any number of styles may or may not develop within a person that capacity to like or dislike this music. Also, how often do they hear it? Is it the first time? The hundredth?

First of all, something that eluded me in the first post and I should mention it, is that I'm publishing these works (the scores that is)... I wouldn't want to be accused of spamming the forums without you knowing... Sorry for not mentioning it in the first post!

Now to my "theory"

Most of the musicians (classically trained) that I put the videos on felt a bit nice by the second video (partly due to the illustrations and the little child-like nature of the tracks) and almost hostile to the first one (though I personally find it a masterpiece).

People who have no connection to music found both pieces interesting (the first one was instantly connected to horror film music and then to jazz somewhere in the middle).

How many times? 'any'. I mean I would imagine one (the first impact), but...

I'm just wondering if such a music could have a wide(r) appeal to other audiences as well. I mean is such music doomed to be enjoyed by a mere 0.5% of the people who listen to music and 5% of those who listen to classical music?

Ha, no worries; didn't think it was spam, and classical music spam certainly if nothing else be a nice little anomaly. Congrats on the publication.

As for the reactions you got, I can provide many examples of your exact experience, but also many that are exactly opposite. I myself am classically trained, and I actually finished a masters degree in music composition just short of two years ago. There were plenty of people who either loved/hated this sort of music. If you are familiar with the Grammy-winning Pacifica Quartet, they were the ensemble in residence at my school. They actively seek out the most difficult music of this style that they can (and they play Beethoven damned well, too, I might add).

But that said, I had a visiting professor whose honesty I appreciated quite a bit: he said "we need to realize that we're specialists, and that we are writing for other specialists." Yes, only a very small and very particular audience is likely to ever hear such work much less like it. The music is difficult to play, usually requires significant training to hear properly and understand, and is a very large departure from the musical experiences of the average person.

Classical music, by design at the turn of the 20th century, actively sought to eliminate "ruffians" and the "uncouth" from the audience: be tamed, or leave the hall. The audience became like it is today by design (this is actually a matter of historical fact): quiet, tame, clap-only between movements and revere the musicians on the raised dais who so kindly deemed you worthy to enter the gilded halls to have the honor to hear them play. In addition, classical music became absorbed by and is now almost limited to educational institutions and professional organizations. The 20th century approach to music, also by design in order to gain acceptance as a legitimate form of study at a university, became like a lab: music was no longer music, but a form of experiment: test tube melodies, centrifugal rhythm, chemical timbres; the composition itself ultimately became a form of dissertation/research paper--no longer judged on the emotions it evoked, but instead on the intellectual grounds that it attempted to establish within the work, the ear be damned. (Now before you begin to think I dislike this music, let me tell you now that's wrong--there's much beautiful contemporary music, and it's probably what I listen to most--just being objective).

It stands to reason that music written in an isolated environment, written by people who simply don't care whether or not you either listen to or like the music, and presented in a community that actively sought to eliminate undesirables from its clientele, would not be a form of music that many people would like, listen to, or seek out.

And today, having forgotten this history, classical music institutions wonder why no one listens to this music and why the societal values of that musical style are no longer found in the general public, a public who has moved past and forgotten this music. So they now attempt "educational outreach" (which actually is a euphemism for "missionary work") to reestablish its presence outside of academia and professional organizations, and wonder why people associate arrogance, elitism, and intellectual snobbery with that form of music making.

So, your question "is such music doomed to be enjoyed by a mere 0.5% of the people who listen to music and 5% of those who listen to classical music?" I answer, in my opinion: a resounding "yes".

Edit:

Also, think about how the average persons listens to music today: turn on the radio, flick through stations, change the iPod tune every 15 seconds; people are not conditioned for long, difficult music. The music most people listen to is short, simple, and immediately catchy: and it isn't music for music's sake. Music today is advertisement. Radios don't put music on for people to enjoy; they put it on because it sells ad space, which is their actual business: selling advertising space. Most music is now judged for its suitability for that purpose (and other such mediums).

Sorry for not getting back earlier. I was in the messe for the full day yesterday...

What you say is true and I largely agree with almost everything. I have mentioned again and again that the contemporary music scene is suffering from autism... But nobody is willing to listen. Because everyone thinks in the way your professor does: "We are specialists and write for other specialists".

This is my only gripe with what you said. I know that music making is being done in 'labs' in the unis, heck I know composers who do that. They are forced by academia and never come back to music making...

But I simply disagree with that. I think that the 'missionary work' is a correct work, but perhaps it could be done without the elitism and the snobbery?

Anyhow, thanks for your views and posts... I truly appreciate them.

Nikolas

PS. And, no, it never occurred that you would dislike all such music. After all you took the time to write some interesting things and not insult anyone or anything...

all seems a little odd you'd even consider it or be motivated to come up with such a theory.

i'm not going to claim i'm any representation of what might be average... i just hear significant dissonance in the first piece and it isn't one i like much at all. it doesn't seem to express that much or have much complexity to it. reminds me of having your face tangled up in cobwebs.

the piano melody just seems completely average, although it has some interesting aspects to it. not really something that sparks my interest much as a solo piece but as part of a more complex composition it could be something good.

i think to really look at a melody for exactly what it is alone as a melody and nothing else you need to record it in the form of pure tones without any additional expression other than exactly what is a part of the composition written by the author.

mr. negativity, signing off.

I'll start with that: LMAO!! haha!

Well imagine this scenario: It's 2004 and I'm working my *ahem* off to pull of this magnificent contemporary symphonic work. 70 pages later, some months later and a lot of studio time and I've got a recording that I'm very proud of. My teachers think that it's too weird and too dissonant and too uninteresting.

So a friend of my wife's (an architect) comes in our place and listens to the recording. And she simply goes "From which film is this"? I freaked out, cause at the time I really really really wanted to be a contemporary classical composer that nobody would understand really and I'd be proud of that. (Later on I came to my senses).

In the meantime I came to understand that too much understanding of classical theory/music clogs your mind (at least I think).

If I may ask. Did you hear the whole work of the first 40 secs or so? Cause I feel that there's even a jazzy part in there (3:46 onwards). And there's a melody between the strings going on earlier on, with that persistence on a particular note... I don't know... I really like it.

This is my work, so I may speak a bit more about that. It's aimed for younger pianists, as a semi-educational material. I tried hard to NOT develop the melodies a lot. I wanted them to be short and average, yet somewhat interesting for a young pianist, who is too bored to study his normal stuff...

At least that was the idea...

I'm not fully understanding part of this. The first part I can understand (and relate a little, tbh). A melody given with pure tones and nothing else, stripped of any expression. But if you add the expression the composer wants then immediately you have to dive into the instrument he wants (violin, etc), and the dynamics and the tempo differences... So it's certainly not expressionless... :-/ Unless I'm mixing something.

PS. You know what? This thread has sparked in me the most interest of any other thread I've started about this music... You guys talk a lot and provide a different perspective (and I like posting a lot myself...). Cheers for that!

glad you liked that, was the idea not to be all too serious it's all subjectivity in the end. the hardest thing for an artist is to face up to your own doubts and conflicts so i don't think hearing them come from others in too serious of a tone would help much.



well it's difficult if not simply impossible to do such a thing. the idea of a misunderstood artist or pretty much anything else you can easily think of has doubtless already formed it's own cliche.



well you become far more perceptive of detail. it's the same having skill in anything. with a little knowledge of wood working you'd find yourself bothered by the saw marks on the edge of a board, or the routed edge being on a slight angle otherwise indistinguishable to someone "ordinary".

you have to remember to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. alcohol and other drugs can help but really it's just something you have to live with - time only passes in a single direction from our perspective and can't be reversed.



there are variations, i skipped through most of it hoping to find some significant variation and found no matter where i landed it seemed to be the same dissonance. i just got the impression it tries too hard to be complex or unusual and the result is rather than achieving that goal it becomes a sort of perfect example of cliche.



ah, it worked out perfectly then. that's exactly what i was hearing. it wasn't extremely memorable and didn't have that much extreme unique in it, but it kept quite a bit of interest and gave the feeling it could go somewhere more if it wanted to.



a lot of the time i think we already know the answers to a lot of the questions we find ourselves asking and it just takes a little discussion and getting things off our chests to sort things and bring order to them in our minds.

Speaking from a musical background (I was a music major in college), it's been my experience the more complex or progressive music is, it's followers tend to be made up mostly of musicians. Of course there are exceptions to the rule. However, the more classically trained people can, at times, also be very "snobbish" to other types of music (just an observation).

Having said that, I enjoyed your pieces, especially the second piano piece. If these had been written at my college, they would have gone over very well.

As we know, music is an art, and not everyone likes all of it's forms. And us fellow musicians can be tough critics. You seem to know your stuff, evidenced by the first piece. Congrats on having it published, and keep on composing.

lots of people on kvr like classical music. anyway...

the string quartet was good, performance and all. it sounded like it was written by someone who just spent a season with bartok's quartets. not very original, but i enjoyed it never-the-less

of the piano pieces i liked the last. but i thought it needed a faster tempo and much more expression a la ginastera

a friend once came to visit me. i was listening to that very old recording of casals playing the bach cello suites. he said, "what is that?" (it sounded weird to him.) he was not an avid fan of classical music. so much for theories...

p.s. what the heck is advanced music?

Came across this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/mar/25/children-difficu lt-music

Includes this paragraph:
"The traditional objection to contemporary classical music is that it is austere, intellectual, unlistenable. Its practitioners become understandably defensive if you suggest theirs is a minority interest. "It's OK to have events and concerts where 30 people turn up," says composer and sound artist Claudia Molitor. She finds those traditional objections frustrating. "People think of it as a lofty, removed art, designed to alienate," says Meredith. "They think it's academic, hard work. I think their ideas are based on a period of music written in the 1960s, when there was a very atonal soundworld. There is some very challenging and almost impenetrable music - but there's also so much music now that's drawing on all sorts of other things. Even the stuff that is difficult you can view in the sense that a cacophony can be an amazing experience, rather than something you have to try and understand. It's all about the scrunch," she adds, cheerily. "If you let go and stop worrying about whether you know what's supposed to be happening, it's great."

You may find something of interest here. To what degree is age a factor?

good question. an 8 or 9 year old will listen to anything you put in front of them. i try to stay on that level. hey, picasso learned to "paint like a child" at a late age

maybe not the response you were expecting

edit: haha! i just looked at the article. seems they agree
Last edited by kcisANDderit on Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:20 am; edited 1 time in total

a lot of times, people think that the 'general public' don't like complex music because they have brainwashed by radio, etc. to like simplistic formats.

in my (somewhat limited) experience, it's quite the opposite... the average listener doesn't like complex music because they don't 'speak the language' and it's impenetrable to them... maybe they might like it 'by accident', but more often it's like hanging out with your friends, who are making lots of 'in jokes' that you don't get because you weren't there. are they funny jokes? sure, if you have the context; if not, it's just confusing - and not only do you not get what's so funny, everyone one looks strange for laughing at it.

@chroma

idk, that analogy doesn't seem a good one

i think kids will listen to anything just because they have no context in which to place a musical experience. only as they grow older and experience more music do they become rigid, i.e., they have a personal context. i do find that ironic

Thanks for the ongoing discussion guys! Most interesting stuff (and the article is a nice find!)

I actually have kids aged 6 and 8 and my 'experiments' with them (quite timid), are rather paying off I think. They have heard amongst other things NIN and KoRn and enjoy them, as well as Stravinsky, ligetti (all with the right visual though), and certainly my own stuff!

They have accepted everything I put in front of them, but little by little their influences are both shown and their taste, as broad as it may seem still takes its place. They did not like Boulez at all (le marteua sans maitre (heavy spelling issues here)... Not one bit! They just lost any grasp of melody, harmony, rhythm, and eventually coherence.

________________________

But if kids accept pretty much anything, exactly because they are not biased, doesn't this mean that there are no universal rules about 'nice', or 'consonant' or other? Samewise for music from other ethnic cultures, with different scales, different music systems as a whole, etc...