The lack of "Common practice"

1 hour ago, ferdi9749 said:

Whenever someone argues with me, stating that classical music is boring, I often make him notice that is not the music to be boring, but its setting...and in the end  always show them I am right.

The problem is that there is SO MUCH music that can be called "classical music" that you'll always find something that you like if you look. The problem like you said it's all the associations the name has.

1 hour ago, ferdi9749 said:

Why people should go to concerts if they can listen to first class performers directly at home?

This is my main argument when talking about modern and experimental music. That stuff only really works if you're right there to experience it live, specially if it's stuff that has different sounds or other effects that you can't really get from a recording. Best example is Ligeti's Atmospheres. Anyone who hasn't heard that live cannot really get very far with just a recording, no matter how good. There's stuff that just happens when you hear it live that you can't record, the acoustic effects and just the sheer mass of sound, it's awe inspiring.

This is the same problem Organ music has, specially stuff from Vierne or Messiaen. It's stuff that just can't really be recorded, the sound is much more complex than any reduction would allow. When people experience stuff like that it reaches them in a way a recording never could and that's why I try to go to as many concerts where I know there's no proper recording possible. This specially is true of stuff like Bach's organ music, much of which I think is pretty amazing live, but in recordings it's quite hard to hear.

I imagine 18th and 19th century audiences were more unruly. And that's just from their clothing and general discomfort! Since live music was the only music they knew, they must have developed a certain Blase attitude, maybe even boredom due to familiarity, at least for the aristocracy.  Today going to a concert is such a treat that it seems fitting that we put it on a pedestal and recognize it for the gift that it is.

Please accept  this bit of humor and levity. It's on topic!

I'd buy that for a dollar.

On 2/3/2019 at 5:02 PM, ferdi9749 said:

Nothing can be born from itself, as a logical fact. So, no way we can give up tradition...even the most "modernist" are tied to tradition in one way or another...Stating that one comes from no tradition is like stating he has no mother...nonsense.

You touched an interesting point...and I agree with you. In a super fast world, based on impressions and easy things, people are more fascinated by the "immediately reacheable", and music is no exception, from both listeners and players sides.

What can we do? We should learn from history I think. Which was the most flourish age for music composers? It was the romanticism. Why? Because music was played A LOT and by lots of people ( just think to the upright piano invention ). Tutuapp, Appvalley, 3uTools And for sure I am not just referring to Chopin, Schumann and the big ones who composed for pros...I am specially referring to those who composed for amateurs , since music playing was finally out from "aristocracy supremacy " . Regarding this, nowadays things are not that different...there is a big amount of musicians.

"Classical music" composed today is embarassingly difficult to play, and to understand...to quote your point of view, why should one prefer something even more difficult to play and to understand, than Beethoven?

So if this "revolution" has to be, I think it must come from down. To put it easy, I think that composing for amateurs can be a good starting point for this try to revive music...a very strong will to compose lots of music, and also an help for composers to make a living. Imagine having commissions from 4-5 amateur pianists and maybe some small chamber group...All people playing for the sake of playing. I would be extremely excited by the idea.

I am pretty sure that once a similar trend is established, things would be much more easier for us composers to "take back the concert halls".

 

I agree with you...

 

Charles Wourinen is imo one of the best exemplars of modern music. In this piece you can hear many influences as well as an established vernacular. To his credit he uses every means available to make the music interesting in spite of a clearly ultra modern tonality and form. Yet the problem remains, as in great works like Berg's Lulu, that they don't entice repeated listenings. At least in the same way that Beethoven provides. I listened to the 9th today for the hundredth time and the difference is stark.   See what you think.

6 hours ago, Ken320 said:

they don't entice repeated listenings

To me that's exactly the opposite that happens, since the music is much more complex to listen to, I enjoy hearing it multiple times and hearing out new aspects of it each every time. There's a lot there you are never going to even hear the first time through.

Well, maybe we should make a difference between the works we come back because of their beauty, and those we go back just for their "intellectual value, and keep in mind that common listeners only go back to pieces because of the first one.

I find Beethoven's music endlessly deep and intellectual. The Wourinen, while fascinating in its own right, would pretty much give me little or no surprises on repeated hearings. Though it would be nice to study the score for the orchestration.