Modern music?
Pierre MARZIN
as a part of a research project, I'm collecting answers to that
question: "What is modern music?". If you'd be kind enough to take
part in this "survey", please tell me what you consider the most
modern piece of music. Please include a link to this piece (so I can
get it on the web). If you want, I'd appreciate if you tell me your
age and musical activity (pro/am musician, composer, listener,
teacher, critic, ...) and motivate your choice.
Thanks a lot for your help!
Pierre.
mike
@posting.google.com>:
define the concept: "looking for what is modern music"? you know already
that you're really going to be collecting opinion, and that most of your
reporters won't be able to say either what "modern" means, or, even, what
"music" means, since the phrase has no meaning outside your research. in
fact, you just invented the term, and, even though it seems like something
we know, we can't think of which room we left it in.
Dan Seriff
"Modern" is a pigeonhole which, just like all the others, is empty. Music is
music is music.
--
Daniel Seriff
micro...@sericap.com
http://members.tripod.com/microtonal
La musique est un langage qui se signifie soi-même.
- Jean-Jacques Nattiez
Pierre MARZIN
> on 1/14/02 7:20 AM, Pierre MARZIN at mar...@free.fr wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > as a part of a research project, I'm collecting answers to that
> > question: "What is modern music?". If you'd be kind enough to take
> > part in this "survey", please tell me what you consider the most
> > modern piece of music. Please include a link to this piece (so I can
> > get it on the web). If you want, I'd appreciate if you tell me your
> > age and musical activity (pro/am musician, composer, listener,
> > teacher, critic, ...) and motivate your choice.
> >
> > Thanks a lot for your help!
>
> "Modern" is a pigeonhole which, just like all the others, is empty. Music is
> music is music.
I really didn't mean to offend anyone, so I do apologize.
It's true that the question might appear stupid to knowledged
musicians! As we know, the perception of modernity is highly
subjective, and I wasn't thinking of "Modern Music". So let's turn the
question this much more precise way: "In the last decade and from YOUR
point of view, what musical tendency or composer or piece or whatever
has really brought something new to music?" In these times where so
many people are trying so many things, what seems to you really
actual, new and important? Sorry, I'm french, so my english is
limited...
Pierre
Kenny Chaffin
mar...@free.fr says...
"Modern Music" is the same thing music has always been and always will
be, a creative artistic expression of the events of our lives, an
escape, a rememberance, the song of life itself.
KAC
--
Kenny A. Chaffin
KAC Website Design - http://www.kacweb.com
Custom/Contract Programming, Graphics, Design
Poetry Page: http://www.kacweb.com/poems/
Alain Naigeon
741107dd.02011...@posting.google.com...
> So let's turn the
> question this much more precise way: "In the last decade and from YOUR
> point of view, what musical tendency or composer or piece or whatever
> has really brought something new to music?" In these times where so
> many people are trying so many things, what seems to you really
> actual, new and important?
I've recently bought two books in which one can find
several pages on this subject :
La théorie de la musique - Claude Abromont et al. - éd. Fayard
Histoire de la musique - Marie-Claire Beltrando - éd. Larousse
You could perhaps get these books in a library (bibliothèque),
since you might not like to buy them just for a few pages...
--
Français *==> "Musique renaissance" <==* English
midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensuration
http://anaigeon.free.fr | http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
Alain Naigeon - anai...@free.fr - Strasbourg, France
Samuel Vriezen
I don't know. The most recent things that strike me as fundamentally
new and vital are often things that have been around for a decade or
two, but that were late to come to my attention. In fact, speaking of
the nineties, the thing that perhaps struck me as most 'new' were
perhaps the last works of John Cage, his time-bracket pieces - which
were at the same time a continuation of a by then very old aesthetic!
I can't right now think of a new cornerstone of music history that
would have taken place in the past decade, not if I take a large
perspective on the world of music and try to evaluate the whole thing.
It's easier for me to describe breakthroughs in my more limited
environment - ultimately, I can only speak of new directions in my own
work of the past year, and even here in a very limited way.
It sometimes simply takes a lot of time to realize that something
momentous has happened in this big world of music. For example, the
music of Vivier, who died in 1983, came to prominence only in the 90s
and was a very 'modern' thing then. And I discovered the importance
and 'modernity' of Sciarrino for myself only half a year ago or
something like that. Today, I might describe his '87 Piano Trio #2 as
the most 'modern' piece I know.
As a composer, I simply feel I don't have the right perspective to
historicize music, so to speak. I leave that to the critics.
One wonders - what is the speed of music history? It's far below the
speed of light, I think... or even sound...
--
Samuel
Curiously, there are many perfect short stories, but no perfect novels.
- J. G. Ballard
David Olen Baird
---
David Olen Baird, Composer
mailto:davb...@tfs.net
vist the Garden Suite page at:
http://www.tfs.net/~davbaird/tgs.htm
David Olen Baird
>Dan Seriff <micro...@sericap.com> wrote in message news:<B8688A8D.1F4FB%micro...@sericap.com>...
>> on 1/14/02 7:20 AM, Pierre MARZIN at mar...@free.fr wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > as a part of a research project, I'm collecting answers to that
>> > question: "What is modern music?". If you'd be kind enough to take
>> > part in this "survey", please tell me what you consider the most
>> > modern piece of music. Please include a link to this piece (so I can
>> > get it on the web). If you want, I'd appreciate if you tell me your
>> > age and musical activity (pro/am musician, composer, listener,
>> > teacher, critic, ...) and motivate your choice.
>> >
>> > Thanks a lot for your help!
>>
>> "Modern" is a pigeonhole which, just like all the others, is empty. Music is
>> music is music.
>
>I really didn't mean to offend anyone, so I do apologize.
> It's true that the question might appear stupid to knowledged
>musicians!
You asked a questions, seeking an opinion. Dan answered question by
giving you his opinion. He didn't attack you personally. He didn't
use offensive language. He didn't imply it was a stupid question. Why
in the world do you think you may have offended him?
>As we know, the perception of modernity is highly
>subjective, and I wasn't thinking of "Modern Music". So let's turn the
>question this much more precise way: "In the last decade and from YOUR
>point of view, what musical tendency or composer or piece or whatever
>has really brought something new to music?" In these times where so
>many people are trying so many things, what seems to you really
>actual, new and important? Sorry, I'm french, so my english is
>limited...
>
>Pierre
---
dana
dana
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 19:16:48 GMT, Dan Seriff <micro...@sericap.com>
wrote:
Samuel Vriezen
>>
>>"Modern" is a pigeonhole which, just like all the others, is empty. Music is
>>music is music.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Daniel Seriff
>Surely you don't consider a Bach Cantata to be "modern" music?
>
>
>dana
Seems to me he considers no music to be 'modern' music instead of all.
--
Samuel
"Now that things are so simple, there's so much to do."
- Morton Feldman, in: Cage, 'Silence'
Men doet wat men kan zelfs als men alles kan.
- Mark Boog
johan nota
The 10 most significant pieces for 20th century music
Newsgroup:
rec.music.classical.contemporary
Maybe this will give you some answers.
You will find it with google groups.
Johan Nota
cp: Scelsi - I Riti
Pierre MARZIN heeft geschreven in bericht
<741107dd.02011...@posting.google.com>...
Dan Seriff
>> "Modern" is a pigeonhole which, just like all the others, is empty. Music is
>> music is music.
>
> I really didn't mean to offend anyone, so I do apologize.
You certainly didn't offend me. If I gave you that impression, I apologize.
> It's true that the question might appear stupid to knowledged
> musicians!
It's not a stupid question at all! In fact, it's a fundamentally important
question to anyone who wishes to compose music. What I meant by my statement
was that "modern", when used to describe a *style* of music (rather than
just a designation of a time period), is an a posteriori term, and isn't
really useful for anything but categorization. That's all I mean by
"pigeonhole", in case you're not familiar with that English word.
> As we know, the perception of modernity is highly
> subjective, and I wasn't thinking of "Modern Music".
This is exactly the point I was trying to make. :)
> So let's turn the
> question this much more precise way: "In the last decade and from YOUR
> point of view, what musical tendency or composer or piece or whatever
> has really brought something new to music?" In these times where so
> many people are trying so many things, what seems to you really
> actual, new and important?
This is so difficult to tell. We can only really tell after the fact what is
revolutionary in art. I can tell you what was new and important from 30 or
40 years ago, but I don't think anyone will be able to make that
determination for only the last decade for another ten years at least.
> Sorry, I'm french, so my english is limited...
Your English is very good, so far as I can tell.
Pierre MARZIN
Dana, who are you asking this question about Bach? I'm pretty sure
that anyone here loves and respects Bach's work as something very
important and very "actual" in some ways. That just wasn't my purpose.
I was just trying to find out which musical currents (I'm not sure
it's the right word in english!) really proposed something new,
according to actual musicians like you. I personnally have no precise
idea as an enthousiastic listener and sometimes amateur performer of
very various music (jazz,hungarian gypsy music, chinese, african,
classical, network impros, modular synthesis, etc...,etc...)
Thanks for your answers, I still have to follow some links some of you
pointed, and I'm discovering new tracks...
I'm going to start a new discussion, narrowing(or widening) the
question.
Paul Holbach
Dear Pierre,
With history being a dynamic continuum, one must be wary about
attaching overall labels to it so as not to cut up the flow of time
haphazardly into discrete stretches of standing water. The trickiness
of historical classification notwithstanding, there sure is a general
agreement among historians about decisive turning points. Unless these
are considered to be "absolute events", but merely theoretic foci
facilitating an analytical arrangement of the many intertwined threads
of historical development, there is no reason for objecting to marking
particularly relevant and representative works of art.
Unfortunately, the meaning of "the most modern piece of music" is very
vague, since, for instance, the modernity of neoclassicism is
characterized by its critical historical awareness of pre-modern
epochs. The postmodernism after 1970 could even be labelled
"transcendental historicism", regarding the entire history of musical
styles and genres as inexhaustible archives inspiring contemporary
composition. Generally, the 20th-century is divided into two
conflicting meta-aesthetic "blocs" that have eventually been broken up
by the complementary polystylism of postmodernism: radical,
anti-traditional modernism (Schoenberg - who, nevertheless, was far
from having no sense of history - & Vienna School II, Boulez &
serialism, Cage & aleatorics, Penderecki & postserialism) versus
trans-traditional neoclassicism (eg Stravinsky, Hindemith). Parallel,
the mature style of late romanticism (eg Strauss) stayed alive and
pervaded the entire 20th-century, virtually ignoring New Music.
Since I惴 convinced that Arnold Schoenberg is the most important
20th-century composer, I扉e chosen the following work as a perfect
example of modern music at its best (of course knowing that there is
no such thing as "the most modern piece of music"!):
CONCERTO FOR PIANO AND ORCHESTRA op.42
(I recommend the interpretation by Mitsuko Uchida, Pierre Boulez & the
Cleveland Orchestra, 2001 Philips.)
with kind regards
PH
panNO...@musician.org
>Hi,
>
>as a part of a research project, I'm collecting answers to that
>question: "What is modern music?".
[snip]
Probably music written since 1900 would be a good definition.
Michael
To reply by email, please take out the TRASH (so to speak). Personal messages only, please!
dana
wrote:
>In article <3c44765c...@news.easynews.com>, em...@user.com (dana) wrote:
>
>> Surely you don't consider a Bach Cantata to be "modern" music?
>
>It was in 1723.
I wasn't referring to the 18th century. But your feigned ignorance
aside, you already know this.
dana
>>
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 19:16:48 GMT, Dan Seriff <micro...@sericap.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >"Modern" is a pigeonhole which, just like all the others, is empty. Music is
>> >music is music.
>
>--
>Jeffrey Quick: www.en.com/users/jaquick
Samuel Vriezen
<jn...@soz-pinkroccade-home.nl> wrote:
>Subject:
> The 10 most significant pieces for 20th century music
>Newsgroup:
> rec.music.classical.contemporary
>
>Maybe this will give you some answers.
>You will find it with google groups.
>
>Johan Nota
>
>cp: Scelsi - I Riti
IIRC, that thread tended towards general lessons in music history. I
think it's more interesting to list 'Ten pieces the implications of
which I have yet to come to terms with'
Daniel Seriff
OK, I think I've got the order correct. Dana top-posted and threw everything
else off kilter. Shame on you, Dana!
>>>>> "Modern" is a pigeonhole which, just like all the others, is empty. Music
>>>>> is music is music.
>>>>
>>>> Surely you don't consider a Bach Cantata to be "modern" music?
>>>
>>> It was in 1723.
>>
>> I wasn't referring to the 18th century. But your feigned ignorance
>> aside, you already know this.
>
> Yeah. The real critique of Dan's position
Do you actually mean "critique *of* my position" or do you mean "critique
that my position is making"? I'm not sure, because what follows *is* my
position, essentially:
> is that the pigeonhole in
> contextual, that "modern" refers not to something inherent in the music,
> but in the accident of when it was written.
This is because "modern" is just an adjective, with a meaning of its own
which can and does cause a great deal of confusion.
When one says "romantic", we know it's referring to stylistic
characteristics and not a period of time, absolute or relative. "Modern" on
the other hand, is frequently used to describe a *style* of music that is no
longer "modern" in the temporal sense. I would very much like to get away
from the use of "modern" as a description of style. *All* music was modern
at some point or another.
I dislike the use of "contemporary" as a stylistic description for the same
reasons. *All* music is contemporary, meaining "of its own time".
> That being said, why does Varese sound so much more "modern" than many
> later composers? Or for that matter Beethoven?
Because we've been raised in a period of time in which "modern" is a word
used to describe the music of Varése instead of Beethoven, for better or for
worse. In the early 19th century, people called Beethoven "modern", and in
another hundred years, we *won't* call Varése "modern".
> Monday I had a babbling undergraduate tell me that Ligeti had "gone
> beyond" and "superceded" Bach. "Funny," says I, "Bach's sons felt the same
> way."
Sounds like someone is far too familiar with Bach for their own good. :)
Daniel Seriff
>> That being said, why does Varese sound so much more "modern" than many
>> later composers? Or for that matter Beethoven?
>
> Because we've been raised in a period of time in which "modern" is a word
> used to describe the music of Varése instead of Beethoven, for better or for
> worse. In the early 19th century, people called Beethoven "modern", and in
> another hundred years, we *won't* call Varése "modern".
Or shouldn't, at any rate.
Charles-Emmanuel
wrote:
>> > Monday I had a babbling undergraduate tell me that Ligeti had "gone
>> > beyond" and "superceded" Bach. "Funny," says I, "Bach's sons felt the same
>> > way."
>>
>> Sounds like someone is far too familiar with Bach for their own good. :)
>
>Or in this case, I suspect, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Well it's never too late for coming back...
Daniel Seriff
>>> Yeah. The real critique of Dan's position
>>
>> Do you actually mean "critique *of* my position" or do you mean "critique
>> that my position is making"? I'm not sure, because what follows *is* my
>> position, essentially:
>
> Well, your position as initially expressed was elliptical to the the point
> of incoherence. Much clearer now, thank you.
I was trying to be cryptic and enigmatic, but I forgot that the original
poster was not a native English speaker, so it ended up being quite a bit
less clever than I had intended. :)
>>> is that the pigeonhole in
>>> contextual, that "modern" refers not to something inherent in the music,
>>> but in the accident of when it was written.
>>
>> This is because "modern" is just an adjective, with a meaning of its own
>> which can and does cause a great deal of confusion.
>>
>> When one says "romantic", we know it's referring to stylistic
>> characteristics and not a period of time, absolute or relative. "Modern" on
>> the other hand, is frequently used to describe a *style* of music that is no
>> longer "modern" in the temporal sense. I would very much like to get away
>> from the use of "modern" as a description of style. *All* music was modern
>> at some point or another.
>
> I've seen piano albums filled with the works of the "best modern
> composers"- like Scharwenka.
And you see mid-19th century billets, reviews, and programs referring to
Schumann and Mendelssohn as "modern".
>> I dislike the use of "contemporary" as a stylistic description for the same
>> reasons. *All* music is contemporary, meaining "of its own time".
>>
>>> That being said, why does Varese sound so much more "modern" than many
>>> later composers? Or for that matter Beethoven?
>>
>> Because we've been raised in a period of time in which "modern" is a word
>> used to describe the music of Varése instead of Beethoven, for better or for
>> worse. In the early 19th century, people called Beethoven "modern", and in
>> another hundred years, we *won't* call Varése "modern".
>
> Well, yes...but why is Varese fresher, more original and adventuresome,
> than almost anyone writing now?
It's a matter of opinion. I find other composers, like Scriabin or Messiaen,
to be more original and andventuresome than Varése.
>>> Monday I had a babbling undergraduate tell me that Ligeti had "gone
>>> beyond" and "superceded" Bach. "Funny," says I, "Bach's sons felt the same
>>> way."
>>
>> Sounds like someone is far too familiar with Bach for their own good. :)
>
> Or in this case, I suspect, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
LOL! :)
dana
It's funny how at one time Sir Edward Elgar was considered a composer
of "modern" music. I read a quote once where Hans von Bulow (if I
recall correctly) called Sir Edward the greatest modern composer (at
the time).
dana