An observation about "Modern" classical music.

Rob, your post makes no sense...are you saying that then all modern composers should just take another job?

Modern classical music should be considered as a result of let's say derivative or even evolution of so known to us Mozart, Bethoven, Lizst, Chopin etc...

In many works of Pat Metheny very often you can hear instead of improvisation the strict musical order that is more belong to a classical music than jazz. Hence some of his pieces you can also relate to a modern classics. Check his "Secret Story" album where you won't ever miss Mozart...

You should also check the solo works of Roger Eno who I think took a lot from post-classical pianist Skryabin.

jsujo,

I'm sorry you didn't understand my post; I thought it was pretty straight forward. I didn't see anything in my post suggesting any career changes. And frankly, that's up to them what they do.

Classical music from the past used typical form that everyone knew and the innovations and changes came on top of that. How do you listen to modern music and know what to expect? If you don't know what to expect then how can you be surprised? Even jazz has some basic structure to be improvised on. If there is structure there it should be understood just by listening to it; you shouldn’t have to take an appreciation course on modern classical music just to enjoy it.

That’s my uneducated theory on why modern classical music is so unpopular compared to the previous 300 years. I’m not saying it’s any individual composers fault.

They could always put a low steady beet under the music and play the twelve bar blues and sing about some lost love and they might end up with a hit, but I would suggest they do what they feel they need to artistically whether people are listening or not; and maybe start an eBay business on the side to supplement their income if need be. But I don’t feel obligated to listen out of charity.

Rob

Marakentz- There are some who say that music, as well as most art forms, has entered a period of post-modernism. That is to say, it is 'beyond history', not a step in some 'natural progression' from the 18th century to now and beyond. I think I agree with that interpretation, but I do acknowledge the fact that it's exceedingly difficult to define your own place in history while you're in the midst of a movement. It worries me a little sometimes. The avante-garde used to be a response to neo-classicism and 'normalcy', but now it's almost all there is...

Eldartford: Why do you value being able to 'follow' the music? Personally, I like a little surprise once in awhile. Sometimes I like my hand to be held by the music, and sometimes I don't. Concerning clapping: I think if you listen to any piece of music that ends softly, you will here delayed clapping. The idea is to let the last notes peter out into nothingness. What would you think if the audience started clapping in the middle of the last note of Barber's Adagio for Strings? And that's as tonal and mainstream as it gets.

You seem intrigued by modern music. There are some great books and essays out there you might enjoy, many of which would be available at a library. You might find the answers you're lookiong for in one of those!

Lousyreeds1..."Follow the music". What do I mean is a fair question.

At any point in the music, at the end of a phrase, there are a great number of "answering" phrases that will "sound right" according to classical rules of composition. The composer keeps my interest by weaving his way through all the possibilities in an innovative way, but never veering off into the weeds. I don't want one musical phrase to be followed by a random assortment of notes, having little or no relationship to what went before.

I am not "intrigued by modern music" but I am curious about it and why people like/dislike it. One professional violist I know plays it because it is a job, and nothing more.