Alberto Sordi - The contemporary music concert

It would not be up to me to comment on this pleasant post; talented and prepared composers frequent our forum, and it would be up to them to give an opinion regarding this very amusing "provocation"

I will try to express my free opinion.

To claim that 20th-century music is difficult to listen to... is a banal statement. The 1900s, the "short" century of confusion and negation, is well represented by Art. We do not want to accept this. We do not want to accept a different beauty and expression, and everything that deviates sharply from the "sweetness" of the "traditional beautiful," and compared to what we witnessed in the two previous centuries, we remain "shocked." The 20th century breaks traditional patterns and dethrones hierarchies. It often reaches extremes like this very composition by J. Cage, where the silence of the musicians reigns. Even "not doing," "theatrical absurdity," and the distortion of approximately 100 dance positions take on a true protagonism in everyone's bewilderment. It is certain that today, in 2018, the initial Tristan chord already seems more familiar to us and we are willing to listen to the small, synthetic pieces op. 19 by Schoenberg.......who knows in 100 years?

I agree with Pianoexpert, even though the Tristan chord "does not exist" since it is not an isolated object listenable separately from the rest.

There is a musical discourse that leads to that point.

... I am meditating on this sentence

"They cheated us when we were little when they taught us to color inside the lines"

I cited the Tristan chord because it is common opinion that it opens, so they say, the 20th century. An important moment for the history of Music. I like the phrase Frank! Undoubtedly we have been educated in rules and therefore, also for this reason, we struggle to recognize the negation of them as valid and interesting. I say this even though I am not a "20th-centuryist," but I try to understand.... sometimes I manage to grasp something... don't blame me, "contemporaries." It should also be added that the Media do not help to disseminate and spread 20th-century music. If we turn on the TV, we will never find a "contemporary" concert on the program. But perhaps it must be this way?

It is a theme already debated on other occasions, and in my opinion, it is impossible to give a single answer, also because the future is unimaginable.

Evidently, the situation represented in the film is deliberately "comical" in the literal sense of "from a comedy": the sense of bewilderment that a "normal" listener, perhaps not even particularly well-versed in musical structures, feels (today as then) when faced with a new, unconventional language. Now, Paolo rightly says that "the short century of confusion and negation is well represented by Art"; I would also add that in the 1900s, not only were the rules of harmony and form that seemed well-established denied (or if we want, "surpassed") (although, it must be said, Brahms' symphonies are very different from Haydn's), but many different styles were invented, only to be denied and surpassed by something else in a short time. Many pieces written in the 1900s appear strangely "old," so paradoxically the oldest works seem more current to us. Why does this happen? Is it simply a matter of habit? Do we feel more reassured listening to a language we already know? Or is there something else?

Again, Paolo: "Today [...] we are willing to listen to Schönberg's small, synthetic op. 19 pieces... who knows in 100 years?". This is one of the most frequent responses to objections raised against "modern" languages: even Beethoven was not fully understood in his time; some critics said they heard only a great din in his symphonies; the premiere of "The Rite of Spring" was a disaster, but today we consider that piece one of the cornerstones of 20th-century music, indeed one of the greatest works of all time; and examples could be multiplied. According to this idea, the acceptance of contemporary music by the public is only a matter of time: in 100 years, what seems incomprehensible to us today will be appreciated by everyone. Perhaps. We won't be here in 100 years, so we won't be able to know what listening to music will be like in that era (provided live music still exists). However, I have some doubts. It is true that today we listen calmly to Stravinsky, Bartók, Prokofiev, and it doesn't seem strange to us; therefore, compared to the listeners of the 1700s (the few who had the time and means to access music), we have a broader view. They listened only to the music contemporary to them, while we reason from a historical perspective. The tradition of recovering the past actually began at the end of the 1700s; after the mid-1800s, normal concert seasons began, and from that era, bit by bit, a largely forgotten heritage has been recovered (it is enough to say that for almost all of the 1800s, Mozart's piano concertos were never performed, with the sole exception of K. 466). Then, the spread of music on recorded media, which began with the record, continued with the CD, and now continues with digital audio, has made it possible for many to access an enormous amount of music that one would rarely have the chance to hear live. Therefore, today we have many more possibilities to listen to music, and we can also know and appreciate works by authors from long ago, who lived in very different periods. And yet, so-called "contemporary" music (which isn't actually that contemporary, if we consider that Cage died over 25 years ago) has never truly "won the hearts" of listeners. Give me an example of a piece written after 1950 (excluding soundtracks, which are something else) that conveys such a strong emotion, that it engages the listener to the point of making them want to listen to it again. Give me an example of a piece of "contemporary" music that is remembered and appreciated by the normal public that goes to concerts, beyond the customary applause. Of course, Paolo also notes that television does not help, because it is practically impossible for a piece of today's art music to be broadcast; but if that's the case, it is now very difficult even to come across a piece by Beethoven, because various networks have no interest in doing so (in the war for audience ratings, no one proposes something perceived as "niche," and indeed, not only symphonic music but even theater is almost never broadcast).

I, for my part, write what I please... I have also attempted some more "modern" experiments, i.e., some deliberately dissonant pieces, but I feel more at ease in a traditional harmonic system, although sometimes treated with a bit of freedom.

Ciao a tutti

Gino

I am having my satisfactions, Gino. And fortunately I am not the only one. If a composer falls victim to their system... they are finished. Expressiveness is not exclusive to pop, and I assure you it arrives regardless of the language. Let's say it is a path

gpr wrote:

And yet, so-called "contemporary" music (which isn't actually that contemporary, if we consider that Cage died over 25 years ago) has never truly "won the hearts" of listeners. Give me an example of a piece written after 1950 (excluding soundtracks, which are something else) that conveys such a strong emotion, that engages the listener, to the point of making them want to listen to it again. Give me an example of a piece of "contemporary" music that is remembered and appreciated by the normal audience that goes to concerts, beyond mere polite applause.

...and in fact perhaps it is time to start listening to contemporary music (and not Contemporary) i.e., that which was written in the 21st century. Furthermore, I don't understand why film music should be excluded...it's a bit like excluding theater music.

To respond a bit to gpr, frank and natan .... just take a look at the 21st century section

https://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/forum/133-ascolti-del-xxi-secolo/

to make a simple comparison, for example between two pieces for solo instrument (I'll take the last two proposed), although different but polyphonic and with an abundance of sound and percussion availability:

https://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/7287-francesco-trocchia-giocando-in-galleria-klavierstück-studi-da-concerto-2017/

https://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/7294-maurizio-azzan-—-geometrie-nelle-mani/

Frankly, I spent hours re-listening to the first proposal, downloaded and in a playlist (also enjoyed by friends and family, non-experts)... in the second case, 15'' was enough for me. In both, I don't find tonality, hyperchromatism, pantonality, dodecaphony, seriality, integral serialism, ...and yet.......

You have to learn to distinguish a bearded woman from a beautiful woman... in the end, the first might even be interesting, but everyone wants to go with the second

What is the substantial difference between the two pieces (and as luck would have it, both pieces are studies, oh really)? The second is just a demonstration of a series of compositional techniques; the first is a work of art (where it is taken for granted that there is compositional technical mastery, otherwise no way such wonder comes out)

Natan wrote:

...and indeed perhaps it is time to start listening to contemporary music (and not 'Contemporary') i.e., that which was written in the 21st century. Furthermore, I don't understand why film music should be excluded... it's a bit like excluding theater music.

Let's just say that a good deal of the blame lies with these reactionary (neo) artistic directors who always push the same "works" from the first... second twentieth century (1950-80) and imitators of the second..second twentieth century (1980-2000).

Thus, people think that contemporary music (but what does contemporary mean? All music lives in contemporaneity) is only that kind.

I would say that if you start following people like Pino Iodice, you will realize that everything is always sold out; how contemporary is Jazz? And how much Jazz is there in Egidio's piano pieces that you linked? (a sort of slow blues, often and gladly dissonant... almost free jazz... but all with a classical flavor).

What can I say, thanks to Alberto Sordi... great points for reflection

Enjoy (and not just Gino)

Open content (youtube)

Why don't we try to inform ourselves then (myself first!) ?

For example:

Open content (youtube)

And maybe then we discover that there is a lot of contemporary music, in reality, that is very enjoyable:

https://www.rockit.it/news/contemporanea-berio-maderna-scelsi-sciarrino-castiglioni

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGOqHQh9BH4

https://www.rockit.it/news/contemporanea-berio-maderna-scelsi-sciarrino-castiglioni

Open content (youtube)

There would be much to discuss and debate regarding what Valentina asserts about the fact that we are not biologically programmed for contemporary sounds. In reality, Beethoven's Opus 133 - in particular - and essentially almost all the music of the so-called Beethovenian "third style" is a unique case that could prove this thesis compared to his contemporaries; it is so true that some claim that Beethoven, in his final period, in a certain sense, represents the musical "first avant-garde" ante litteram. Then, for this problem to re-emerge, one had to wait for the early 20th-century avant-gardes which, gradually, dug an ever wider and substantially irreconcilable abyss relative to the audience that listens to art music.

Furthermore, I am not convinced by Battistelli's response: 20th-century avant-garde music and today's contemporary music are not something separate from our culture, but were born from and are intrinsic to our culture and, as such, are the result of an evolution - some would say an involution - that is entirely ours; therefore, if this were the reason that keeps most people who listen to art music away from it, his argument does not hold up. The reality, in my opinion, is different. Just as Beethoven - but only he - two centuries ago made music that was incomprehensible to his contemporaries because his path had gone far beyond their listening capacities, so it has happened from the 20th century onwards: that music which moved completely away from tonality went far beyond the listening capacity of its contemporaries, and this created that conspicuous abyss that exists between many of the art music composers of the last century and today and the consumers of that product, who prefer to continue listening to music of the past because it is consonant with their ears and reject atonal music because, for them, it remains absolutely difficult if not cacophonous.