What does contemporary "music" convey to you? Direct emotions? Disconnected sounds that one must somehow try to associate and make sense of so as not to be repulsed?... Sometimes I can't help but think that there is a search for a way of composing that is absolutely incomprehensible or enigmatic, which therefore requires considerable effort on the part of the listener...
Perhaps people deviate so much from the greats of the past in an attempt to stand out.... otherwise!?...Or has the MUSIC that was meant to be written already been written, and sounds are being used to seek a new way of communicating? (in this case, however, let's not call it music, let's perhaps call it "contemporary acoustic impressionism")
It seems like too long and complex a discussion to be able to reduce it to certain premises. Starting from my personal taste (as you requested), I learned to enjoy contemporary music thanks to at least three keys of "understanding": the first is having some knowledge of the historical period and the context from which it arises (we say "contemporary," but it's not all the same; on the contrary, there is an infinite variety, as with contemporary art in general); the second is abandoning myself to the primitive function of its timbral effect. The third (if we are talking about contemporary music rather than modern music, instead) is thinking of it also in a multimedia way, as much of contemporary art is, where one mode of expression can be contiguous to or complementary to another.
Then I also have personal ideas on the subject: we listen to contemporary music even when we listen to the classics (or, rather, believe we are listening to them), because only our perception of them can be contemporary... But this, let's say, is another discussion.
everyone "discovers" the same questions at different times, it's true. The "FAQs" of contemporary music are always the same, and I would even say the answers to these FAQs...
but rather than repeating myself, I respond with a provocation: what is the difference between contemporary music and ancient music? And by ancient music I mean pre-Renaissance repertoire...
E
Eagle
Member
Reply 6 by Eagle
Posts
264
Curiosity Franco, what contemporary music have you listened to?...I ask because it is difficult to understand your "laconic" judgment.
I don't pose all these comprehension problems to myself; there are things that attract us even if we don't understand them, there is the beauty of the incomprehensible, etc.
In short, who and what are we talking about?
V
Vitrus
Member
Reply 7 by Vitrus
Posts
37
Interesting, I will try to follow the method to understand this
Since you are interested in understanding, what do you know about this work by Xenakis?
i don't know it; it is an example of contemporary music that I find difficult to hear..., but which I respect. Maybe you can explain to us what it represents so that perhaps it can be listened to with a different spirit.
I am sharing some suggestions that were passed on to me a while ago; as I was saying to someone, it is a journey of listening and it is right to be helped.
everyone "discovers" the same questions at different times, it's true. The "FAQs" of contemporary music are always the same, and I would even say the answers to these FAQs...
but rather than repeating myself, I respond with a provocation: what is the difference between contemporary music and ancient music? And by ancient music I mean pre-Renaissance repertoire...
Apropos of this, Maestro Battistelli threw in a few jabs towards the end of the conference. Unfortunately, the audio and video were not the best; I need to better regulate the bandwidths, they do not yet know the potential of that internet connection and I did not have sufficient time to perform satisfactory speed tests, not to mention the full HD webcam that I am still waiting for from London, which was supposed to arrive 3 or 4 days ago but is still stuck in Milan... The next conferences, starting from May 21, 2012, always at 6:30 PM, will certainly have better quality.
The comparison between ancient music and contemporary music is quite frequent nowadays. Almost nobody likes Ockeghem, and nobody understands him, but NOBODY would say that Ockeghem was a charlatan in the same way that almost nobody likes Boulez, nobody understands him, but many would say and do say that he is a charlatan... regardless of the causes of this situation, this fact should make us reflect on the fundamental error in the terms we use for the discussion. BEAUTY cannot be proven, but historical, technical, and aesthetic importance can. And if you really can't bring yourselves to like Boulez, at least make an effort to consider him IMPORTANT.
I say... we should be professionals in the field and yet we fail to understand that music is culture, not just entertainment!
What does contemporary "music" convey to you? Direct emotions? Sounds disconnected from which one tries to somehow associate and give meaning so as not to be disgusted?... Sometimes I can't help but think that people seek a way of composing that is absolutely incomprehensible or enigmatic, which therefore requires considerable effort on the part of the listener...
Perhaps one deviates so much from the greats of the past in order to stand out.... otherwise!?... Or has the MUSIC that was meant to be written already been written, and sounds are being used to seek a new way of communicating? (in this case, however, let's not call it music, let's perhaps call it "contemporary acoustic impressionism")
Franco
Distant arguments that might help to understand what and how people thought at the end of the '50s
e still.... but who cares if YOU don't listen, Trade1! And if you don't read... we have already talked about it "elsewhere" and Babbitt says sacrosanct things: if you are a musician, you must study, and you must also study contemporary music. If you don't study the music you listen to, then you probably won't like any complicated music, not even contemporary (or ancient, as I have already said...). But this IS NOT A PROBLEM OF THE COMPOSERS, who don't give a damn about those who listen to other repertoires. Simplifying or changing poetics is useless; if a composer manages to write it, then there must be listeners capable of "understanding". Just educate them.
and again.... but who cares if YOU don't listen, Trade1! And if you don't read... we have already spoken about it "elsewhere" and Babbitt says sacrosanct things: if you are a musician, you must study and you must also study contemporary music. If you don't study the music you listen to, then you probably won't like any complicated music, not even contemporary music (or ancient music, as I have already said...).
Aside from the "interesting" article by Babbitt that I had proposed ... I deduce that Chopin knew how to make easy music, too bad it doesn't seem so to me.
If that is the case, then not even any serious opera by Mozart seems easy to me... and yet ...
