Impressions from contemporary classical music?

[aciddose]

in greece at some time in the past someone noticed that the only thing separating "melody" from "sounds" is that melody always contains the approximate value of specific fractions in the relative aspects of it's parts.

the understanding then was that it is fundamentally a geometrical thing.

experiments over many, many years have shown that not only do infants recognize these fractions, they apply just about everywhere.

it gets very complex when you try to understand exactly why specific cases are more or less attractive to humans. if you look at the broader picture though it's easy to see that we make a distinction between regular, fractal geometry and chaos.

on the more complex side of things, i'm sure there is a threshold where the complexity of a fractal structure is high enough to make it appear as if it is chaotic. there is also a threshold where the complexity is too low and so the structure doesn't appear as a fractal at all but more of just a scalar or set. i think it's all about finding the balance between where you can fit all the information you want into the structure without having it fall out the sides.

[kcisANDderit]

@aciddose

that's why it's called art and not science

[jancivil]

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

It doesn't work like that for me. I gained a lot of understanding and internalized things and work freely often enough.

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.

If you are allergic to dissonance, haven't encountered it, or whatever, this kind of thing is probably challenging to your ear.

The comments 'not much complexity', non-expressive are your issue, not the issue of the piece to everyone, so not the issue of the piece per se. I liked it a lot more than the second video. Clearly the composer liked the Bartok quartets, but I would say he made it his own. I think it's a very happening piece of music, and thanks for posting it.

But to the cognescenti, these are not terrifically dissonant or difficult events. There is going to be a bright division between people that have acquired an ear and people that have not, there is no getting around it.

Bartok Mikrokosmos has been around a long time and is I guess at least as 'challenging' as the music in the second video, which reminds me of it in terms of the effect and, now I see that's the intent, makes sense. I don't know why a teacher would say it's real off-putting music, I don't get what they are on about unless people are insisting on pablum these days. At a university level, they said that?

[aciddose]

@aciddose

that's why it's called art and not science

last time i checked science was the greatest art we know.

[jancivil]

checked where? that just sounds daft.

[aciddose]

The comments 'not much complexity', non-expressive are your issue, not the issue of the piece to everyone, so not the issue of the piece per se. I liked it a lot more than the second video. Clearly the ocmposer liked the Bartok quartets, but I would say he made it his own.

of course it's my subjective impression of the piece.

it wasn't that it was "too dissonant" or anything like that. i just felt it was a poor example of that structure and it really didn't seem interesting to me. i'm perfectly comfortable with dissonance when it is done well and it can be equally as beautiful as consonance. in fact what we define as "dissonance" is just "less consonant" but still consonant none-the-less. it seemed over-done. rather than applied in the most productive or expressive way, it seemed to be applied everywhere and simply too much.

[kcisANDderit]

in a silent world an audio sine wave is dissonant

[Nikolas]

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

It doesn't work like that for me. I gained a lot of understanding and internalized things and work freely often enough.

Oh... me too. Don't get me wrong. It's just that most other performers to seem quite timid to try new things...

Bartok Mikrokosmos has been around a long time and is I guess at least as 'challenging' as the music in the second video, which reminds me of it in terms of the effect and, now I see that's the intent, makes sense. I don't know why a teacher would say it's real off-putting music, I don't get what they are on about unless people are insisting on pablum these days. At a university level, they said that?

One particular teacher decided to give it a try to a student and she propsed the whole book (28 pages) as this: "This is some new, very scarey, music if you'd like to try it, but we can always play something else". Ok, obviously there's some idiocy hidden in here, but "Scarey music"?!?!?!?

aciddose: I honestly find great melody in the quartet! really! you should get away from the first minute (or less actually) and give it a relisten.

[aciddose]

i listened to the whole recording again. same result, only it was worse than i remembered it from the first time.

i keep looking for a short burst of something that sounds interesting, but it just keeps coming. it sounds like a drone, just on and on more picking and grabbing at notes. it's almost as if it was generated by a computer program or something.

[Nikolas]

Cool and no problem!

Since you listened to the whole thing I'm more than fine with your opinion (despite the fact that I disagree...).

[jancivil]

The comments 'not much complexity', non-expressive are your issue, not the issue of the piece to everyone, so not the issue of the piece per se. I liked it a lot more than the second video. Clearly the ocmposer liked the Bartok quartets, but I would say he made it his own.

of course it's my subjective impression of the piece.

it wasn't that it was "too dissonant" or anything like that. i just felt it was a poor example of that structure and it really didn't seem interesting to me. i'm perfectly comfortable with dissonance when it is done well and it can be equally as beautiful as consonance. in fact what we define as "dissonance" is just "less consonant" but still consonant none-the-less. it seemed over-done. rather than applied in the most productive or expressive way, it seemed to be applied everywhere and simply too much.

well, I think you aren't hearing it and aren't actually qualified to critique it.
poor example of 'that' structure? *what* structure. Where did you study musical form? Please describe it as per this piece and then hip us to your examplar of "that structure".

if anything, this kind of proves the contention that people that have experience with certain types of material can have an appreciation for (the content, the style, the form, etc), and people that lacked that - don't kid me - won't. They will rely on the subjective impression.

last you checked, science was the greatest art we know.. checked where? your book of mathematical facts that prove any subjective opinion as objective fact? you're taking the piss there? it's daft.

you have 'it's a subjective impression' then a swipe at 'structure'. I don't think you glean the structure of that by impression, not even after hearing it two whole times, and talking about structure is talking about an object. You're transparently trying to fake something, argumentum ad culum.

[skipscada]

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

I regularly attend concerts by semi-professional friends who often play a mixture of music from the last 4 centuries. The audience is usually made up of many older people (including groups of relatives) and much fewer younger ones (mostly non-musician friends etc of the musicians ) Talking to members of the audience afterwards, the opinions follow a clear pattern where those from 60 upwards preferred the older pieces, and younger members of the audience preferred contemporary pieces. There is surely some socio-cultural thing going on as well. The older members of the audience at these concerts tend to be well off and conservative (hence preferring non-intrusive, "pleasant" music?), while the younger tend to be if not exactly radicals, then certainly generally more attracted to counterculture.

Part of the explanation may be that young people are more attuned to rhythm than older generations, and contemporary music seems to be more willing to explore changing rhythmic patterns than earlier music.

Just a few impressions/ideas. By the way, I thought the quartet was impressive, both in composition and performance. I also find your (Nikolas) pieces interesting and well-done. I think I will pass them on to a piano teacher I know.

[Nikolas]

Again thanks for the posts and the thoughts guys!

skipscada: If you would pass the word to the piano teacher you know, that would be great! The feedback I'm getting from other piano teachers is brilliant! And thanks for enjoying both works...

___________________

One thing I do remember clearly from the contemporary classical music scene in London can be captivated with this little story:

Went to a concert (arrived late), at 'The warehouse' (if I remember correctly. It was in 2004... and I had just arrived in London). Only contemporary music from living composers. Some great stuff going on. And then I looked around and saw that the vast majority of the audience were... students... and actually composition or music students.

My impression was confirmed when the BMIC (British Music Information Centre) handed out some double sided leaflet/poll about the audience. One of the questions (If I remember it correctly, again) was something like this:

What do you do at the moment? (what job, what are you wasting your time with anynow):
a. Music student
b. Music professional
c. Composer
d. Performer
e. Media professional (I think there was the media option)

I think that I remember that there was NO other option. The BMIC itself had decided that there was no chance that someone from the media department, or someone from the streets would be drawn inside to listen. I'm pretty sure that the 'Other' option was not available!

[Harry_HH]

Without commenting any theory or discussion in this thread,
Nikolas, I just want to say I ejoyed especially your piano
piece. About 50 % the music I listen is classical (or "art-")
music, although I don't catogorize music. Concerning the so called
modern classical music, my favorites are Schoenberg, Webern, Dutilleux,
Lindberg, Rautavaara, among others, but e.g. composers such as
Debussy, Strawinski or even Sibelius (listen e.g. the 4th or 7th symphony)
can be classified also as "modern" (and are better).
But I have to say, a big share of modern/contemporary classical music
is boring and I get listening fatigue very soon (sorry but although your string
piece started well but aftern one minute I lost the interest) - I believe
this is ofte'n the pitfall of "less tonal" music, not to mention dodecaphony/serialism. Therefore I prefer those composers which roots
are deep in the older classical traditions, also what comes to the form of the music. But of course these things are subjective preferencies.
Very often more interesing modern music is manifested in the other genres
such as jazz, boss nova, flamenco, rock, folk or pop music and in the hybrids of different genres than in the classical music. That's why I listen very much different kind of music.
BTW, your Piano Sketch kept the tension well and is well structured - and
very well played, I think. Harry

[t00nz]

I really enjoyed the first piece.. I'm think I'm pretty polar with this kind of more stuff.. in that it either sounds to me random sounding or very depressing (I imagine the composers as having no love of what they write), or it is very pretty and interesting..

The first piece is definitely the latter, and to my ears sounds like someone very much in control and exploring with lots of ideas and 'taste'. There is a lot of structure in there, and I think possibly that for me that gives a foothold that makes the more unusual stuff just interesting rather than disorientating (hard to put into words huh). There are many repeated motifs and the textures are nice, it doesn't sound at all like someone trying to break down walls (musically speaking) which is all I often get from music that I might describe as similar sounding..

I don't know if there is anything really original here in the sense of a style, but I have a lot of time for people who try to do something interesting/enjoyable/well made in an existing style. This at least does that, it is very well executed and performed to my (untrained) ears.

I liked the piano pieces too, especially the second.. although they are obviously very much simpler I enjoyed them.


Thanks for posting


Off topic: I've heard a couple of pieces like this in the past that got my attention but didn't really chase it up.. If this was a sampler, who would I go seek out now.. Bartok? Although I quite often prefer piano, I think in this case the Quartet may be a better instrument.