Interesting quote

Any trained musician knows very well that today's music cannot compare to the music of the 18th and 19th centuries.

does this statement truly reflect the opinion of the majority of forum participants on YC?

I'd be curious to know how one defines "trained musician" if this is true.

unless... am I to presume that by "today's music" the reference is to people the likes of Brittney Speares, American Idol, et al?

Who said that? And where?

I wouldn't say it represents the opinion of the majority of participants here if taken at face value.

Honestly, though, there truly is no comparison between today's music and the music of the 18th and 19th Centuries, so in a round-about way, what the quote says is true. That's not a qualitative judgment. It's the old "apples and oranges" comparison.

Who said that? And where?

I wouldn't say it represents the opinion of the majority of participants here if taken at face value.

Honestly, though, there truly is no comparison between today's music and the music of the 18th and 19th Centuries, so in a round-about way, what the quote says is true. That's not a qualitative judgment. It's the old "apples and oranges" comparison.

"Who is Young Composers

Young Composers focuses purely on the arts such as Classicalism, Romantisicm, Impressionism, Contemporary, and much much more. This site is growing by the day, and the main goal of the site is to promote music that had once flourished back in the days. Any trained musician knows very well that today's music cannot compare to the music of the 18th and 19th centuries. Also, don't be fooled by the term "Young". In this case, Young means quality music that has yet to be discovered. "

found in the following section of the website:

record hall

I don't know, I found it mildly... disconcerting.

I have stopped going to concerts where music of primarily dead composers is performed. The modern symphony concert is an insult to the world. More music is composed today for these ensembles than was ever composed in the past - more quality music. But we don't get to hear it. Why? Because the academics have declared that the vast majority of music composed today is unfit for the concert hall. In what other art form is this obsession with the past so great? Our university instructors tell us it is our job as "true musicians" to educate the public about "proper" music (meaning music that was written a minimum of 100 years ago).

Ridiculous. They're a group of people that wants to assign their own purpose for music to all music so that they can judge all music and feel good about their intellect as they do so. Music doesn't need to be held accountable to their standards, but rather only to the purposes for which the composers themselves wrote their music.

The public would love to hear music by people who write in a way that they can relate to TODAY. The public would love to have local heroes - an actual face they can see and person they can get to know (we see this with performers). But the academics who "know better" deny them this, attempt to cram intellectualism down their throats, and slam the doors on thousands of legitimate composers. We have 6 billion people on this planet now - how many were here in the 19th century? Are we to honestly believe there's just no good music being written today, despite the fact that there are many times as many people composing? The modern symphony is all living conductors, all living performers, and almost entirely dead composers.

We're trained in school to believe that 19th century composers were superior, and as a result the situation continues. To answer this snobby behavior, fewer people come to the concert halls and composers turn to technology to replace performers.

The newer music only seems inferior because we haven't yet had time to forget the crap. There are probably thousands of 18th and 19th century composers that we haven't heard of for very good reason.

The newer music only seems inferior because we haven't yet had time to forget the crap. There are probably thousands of 18th and 19th century composers that we haven't heard of for very good reason.

that's actually an easy exercise:

name 20 composers from the first 40 years of the 19th century (without resorting to any history books).

now repeat this exercise for the 20th century.

did you really have to wrack your brains for the 19th century sample?

how about for the 20th century list?

now, how many of those 19th century composers are really a regular part and parcel of the average concert-goer's experience? and the 20th century ones?

I think the end result of this examination is pretty obvious.

I believe that a fairly large sample of early 20th century composers are surviving time's ravages quite well.

Come to think of it, a fairly large sample of mid to late 20th century composers are also doing quite well.

I think we may be misunderstanding what Chopin meant in the blurb describing YC. I'll give him an opportunity to clarify if he chooses.

Because the academics have declared that the vast majority of music composed today is unfit for the concert hall. In what other art form is this obsession with the past so great? Our university instructors tell us it is our job as "true musicians" to educate the public about "proper" music (meaning music that was written a minimum of 100 years ago).

That's interesting. When I was a composition major in the 1980s, academics were telling me just the opposite. Their stance of modernism for its own sake and to the exclusion of all else put me off so much that I abandoned all hope and desire of getting a composition degree.

Are you talking about composition teachers, or music history teachers?

I think we may be misunderstanding what Chopin meant in the blurb describing YC. I'll give him an opportunity to clarify if he chooses.

I think it would be important, if this site is to truly live up to its moniker of "Possibly the best music website on the web" that it show inclusion and a certain degree of both fairness and impartiality.

If YC is to attract more people who are willing and able to participate in discussions and share knowledge and experience, then it might not be a good idea to chase them away with sweeping generalizations about aesthetics based on nothing more than personal preference. The best way to make this site the reference is to make sure that people are welcomed here, regardless of their experience... and by this I ALSO mean that those who have more experience not be driven away with acusations of "academicism".

Music is an extremely subjective art, and probably the means of expression that is the most inate to man. There has to be room for all approaches, and learning is a process that requires open-mindedness. Don't forget that at any time there may be people here who actually make a living from music. Beginners can certainly learn from other beginners, but at a certain point it becomes crucial that people with experience and advanced training be present as well to give advice.

Consider that the music of the 19th century has been thouroughly culled thru, and the true gems have been extracted. It's kind of like the way the Catholic church grants Sainthood. It's not enough to be great in one's own time. Music must stand the test of time. Many masterpieces were barely recognized as such in their own time precisly because they are a product of the time - and many were composed by musicians who were ahead of their time. The Rite of Spring caused riots. J.S. Bach's music was considered staid when compared to the much more flamboyant music of C.P.E. Bach- who was much more popular in his time. Music affectionandos of the Roccoco period considered Bach an old fuddy-duddy composer, and his music was mostly lost to the world for more than a hundred years. Ives practically had to pay people to listen to his music. I'm not saying that the works of these composers weren't appreciated by some (or even many) in their time, but the impact of their work on future great composers is a finer litmus test. To speculate who the great composers of the early 21st Century are right now is folly.

Most orchestras have a mission to play great music. Now given what I just wrote, if you were programming an evening of greatness for your orchestra, you have choices, and some are clearly much safer than others. Ultimately, the repertiore that a working symphony orchestra chooses to play has a financial bottom line. The works of contemporary composers by and large need to be subsidized somehow as thier names are not part of the pantheon of greatness. And don't forget, some of them are ahead of their time, and bound to be misunderstood, and thier works will certainly not be given to popular acclaim. It's not unlikely that the greatest of these composers sees thier work passed over on a regular basis.

Are you talking about composition teachers, or music history teachers?

I'm talking about the people who decide what should be played - essentially concert programmers, conductors, and our educators. At most universities I see a great push to keep individuals and ensembles playing and studying almost exclusively works by dead composers. At the symphony performances I used to attend, I was much more likely to see a concert full of Beethoven or Mozart than I was a concert with modern, living composers.

I'm not talking about 20th century techniques like atonality or minimalism. Those are the types of compositions that were accepted by the "intellectually informed" and that were described to us in school as being acceptable. Most 20th century composers didn't bother with that stuff. Most wrote in a decidedly more romantic style - even movie-like.

If you want to get people coming to the concert hall, you don't force something down their throats that they can't relate to. I could convince 10 times the people to come to a concert that promised to be emotionally stirring or powerful than I could convince to come to hear a piece of music with motivic use that was intellectually stimulating. The vast majority of people have the idea that music should first be an emotionally enjoyable experience for them - not intellectuallly enjoyable. If you set your concert program to be an evening of Beethoven and I set mine to be an evening of Braveheart, I'm going to bring in the sales. Braveheart was composed to evoke emotions and be something people can relate to - that's what music is about for the average person.

I'm not suggesting that we should move to playing movie music in the concert halls (though from time to time it WOULD be a great way to provoke interest). I'm suggesting that the modern composer who best understands the emotions that people today relate to is essentially told that this type of writing is unacceptable for the concert hall. Generally the modern composer is given no chance.

Look at theater. Look at the movie industry. Look at popular music. The creators of the art in these areas - including the types that are promoted by the academics, are encouraged and promoted much more than modern composers are in the academic music society.

I recently suggested to a wind ensemble leader that he might look to play a piece by a living composer. His reply was short. "Today's composers don't compose well enough to warrant performing their works." This mindset is more prevalent than you might think.

It is silly to look at music which is written by modern composers for the purpose of being emotionally entertaining to a modern audience as being somehow less worthy of symphony performance than a piece which was written 150 years ago with the same intentions but for a different type of audience.

Mozart is dead. He had his time. Most people don't want to hear him regularly. Give people what they want and stop spitting on the people who can give it to them. If the Boston Pops and the LSO can perform Super Mario Brothers and sell more tickets than another orchestra performing Mozart's 40th, it should be a wake up call. It's expecting too much to ask people to relate to a guy who has been dead for 200 years, and it's expecting too much of composers to ask them to remain loyal to performers who won't play their works when technology is looming to replace them. Don't believe it can happen? Compare a MIDI file from 1990 to the best mockups created today.

It was your mention of "academics" that I was referring to when I asked my question. Academics aren't the ones who do the programming for symphony orchestras.

I do understand what you're saying. But who are these "most people" you're talking about, as in: "Most people don't want to hear [Mozart] regularly."? Mozart still sells lots of tickets and records. You may be right, but if there were really a buck to be made by playing more contemporary music, orchestras would be doing it more. The kind of music you're talking about gets played a lot at places like the Hollywood Bowl, where it's expected that there will be a mix.

One thing that comes to mind may be yet another economic concern: the Hollywood Bowl is one of the few places within 100 miles of where I live (Los Angeles) where the average person can still afford a ticket, and this is possible because it seats nearly 15,000 people. Disney Hall and the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion (where most of the LA Philharmonic, LA Master Chorale and LA Opera performances happen) seat 2,265 and 3,250 respectively, so in order to generate the necessary return, the prices need to be higher. Generally, only a more "cultured" clientele can afford these tickets, and these people tend to want to hear the "biggies." If orchestras are going to pay the bills, they have to know their audience and give them what they want to hear. This doesn't stop Esa-Pekka Salonen - himself a fine composer - from insinuating as much contemporary music into the schedule as possible, but I'd be willing to bet that he doesn't get to do half as much as he'd like because it isn't economically viable.

Any trained musician knows very well that today's music cannot compare to the music of the 18th and 19th centuries.

I agree no one will ever compare to J.S. Bach.

Any trained musician knows very well that today's music cannot compare to the music of the 18th and 19th centuries.

I agree no one will ever compare to J.S. Bach.

and this, just like the above quote, remains nothing more than a personal opinion.

the "any trained musician knows" part is the problematic part.

I happen to think there are a number of more contemporary composers who are equally deserving of respect, if not more so, than Bach. Which of course changes nothing to the "fact" that these are simply opinions, personal taste, personal preference.

I do understand what you're saying. But who are these "most people" you're talking about, as in: "Most people don't want to hear [Mozart] regularly."?

I'm talking about the general public. People still go to hear Mozart, but that doesn't mean it would be their first choice or that more people wouldn't go to hear music they can better relate to. Some would prefer Mozart, but the majority? When I go to see a symphony performing Mozart, I don't see a huge emotional reaction from the audience (except for applause at the end). When I look on Amazon at the best-selling orchestral recordings, movie soundtracks typically sell much better than recordings of classical composers.

Programmers may be generally afraid to schedule music by more modern composers, but this doesn't mean they've tried it and found it to be unsuccessful. As I mentioned in my last post, there are orchestras that do this routinely and bring in far larger audiences. It's partly about marketing.

And it certainly can happen more at the university level than it currently does. Teachers should encourage their students to find new music that hasn't been performed widely. Instead many of the teachers I've met will do the opposite and actually prevent students from playing new music by lesser or unknown composers.

i want to murder the person who you are quoting

Well, now that you've raised this conversation from the dead...

Teachers should encourage their students to find new music that hasn't been performed widely. Instead many of the teachers I've met will do the opposite and actually prevent students from playing new music by lesser or unknown composers.

Needless to say, not once did I *ever* entertain the notion of performing a well-known clarinet piece for my juries. My professor was sympathetic and together we found a lot of mostly unknown but very interesting solo repertoire.

I think the whole thing has to do with familiarity, and even a little bit of 'fashion'. If one were to take a somewhat obscure, yet wonderful piece from Beethoven, and perform it for an audience that wasn't informed of who the composer was (Beethoven), they would have a higher chance of disliking the piece, I think.

In other words, I believe many people blindly look at the name of a composer without really taking the music by itself. I know I can do it sometimes.

Is it the composer's existence that makes the music wonderful, or the music itself?

Insanity! That quote is absolute bull.

Tbh, I really do think the quote refers to the popular form of music. In the 18th and 19th classical was king..today, its 'popular' music.

Tbh, I really do think the quote refers to the popular form of music. In the 18th and 19th classical was king..today, its 'popular' music.

I agree. It could be taken as "Any [classically] trained musician knows that today's [popular] music cannot compare to the music of the 18th and 19th centuries."

I agree. It could be taken as "Any [classically] trained musician knows that today's [popular] music cannot compare to the music of the 18th and 19th centuries."

Except that's still not true.

How do you kill zombie threads again?

"Quote" is a verb... "quotation" is a noun.

Just my two cents

and a few cents worth more...

quote

   /kwoʊt/

verb' date=' quot⋅ed, quot⋅ing, noun

–verb (used with object)

1. to repeat (a passage, phrase, etc.) from a book, speech, or the like, as by way of authority, illustration, etc.

2. to repeat words from (a book, author, etc.).

3. to use a brief excerpt from: The composer quotes Beethoven's Fifth in his latest work.

4. to cite, offer, or bring forward as evidence or support.

5. to enclose (words) within quotation marks.

6. Commerce.

a. to state (a price).

b. to state the current price of.

–verb (used without object)

7. to make a quotation or quotations, as from a book or author.

8. (used by a speaker to indicate the beginning of a quotation.)

[b']–noun

9. a quotation.

10. quotation mark.[/b]

—Idiom

11. quote unquote, so called; so to speak; as it were: If you're a liberal, quote unquote, they're suspicious of you.

Origin:

1350–1400; 1880–85 for def. 9; ME coten, quoten (< OF coter) < ML quotāre to divide into chapters and verses, deriv. of L quot how many

I'm sorry, but Bolanos is right. I would expect that a dictionary would say that, but only because it has become a common mistake. In any case, it's not worth complaining over, so I'll shut up.

Except that's still not true.

How do you kill zombie threads again?

Yeah, I'm not saying that it's right, but it sounds like that's what's being referred to.

No, boleros is wrong on this. The word can be used as either a verb or noun.

Examples:

Quote - verb (I'll quote you a price of $500 for that stale piece of bread!)

Quote - noun (The man viewed the quote with mild surprise.)