An observation about "Modern" classical music.


As I sat in my car, waiting for my wife as usual, I listened to a local classical music station which happened to be playing some "modern" music. I don't like it, being an old fart who likes Mozart and his ilk. But, as I had nothing else to do, I tried to appreciate what I heard. No luck, but I did notice something I have experienced before but never thought about. At the end, there was a dead silence of 3 to 5 seconds before audience applause. This never happens with, for example, Mozart where the final notes never get a chance to decay before the applause and Bravos. Obviously (IMHO) the music was so hard to "follow" that the audience were not sure it was over until nothing happened for a while.

I know that some guys like this music, but haven't you noticed this dead time? How do you explain it?
eldartford
Just a quick note of agreement on the Shostakovich quartets - not really as "modern" as what some are listening to here, but that's what makes them more "accessible". As Lousyreeds mentioned - the No.3 is a standout, IMO the Gabrieli Quartet on Decca or even London Treasury vinyl is spectacular both performance-wise and sonically.

Another recommendation in the modern, but not TOO modern, and still very tonal are Benjamin Britten's works, esp. Simple Symphony.
I've read up on Serial/12 tone - they were in the same chapter - they aren't much different. I've also read up on minimalism - which seem to be some of the latest composition techniques. Is it me or are they just making stuff up out of thin air. I mean minimalism is the same droning motif’s over and over (I'm simplifying so what?). The tonal stuff comes from years and years of development. Modern classical music seems to be desperate for something new while just making up new rules. No one made the 5th of a scale have the tendency to lead to the 1st to resolve. It was innate- then developed over 100’s of years in different ways. The stuff made up now is just made up, not through development. Maybe that's why classical music these days has lost the listener.
Robm, Robm, Robm!

I can't give you details on John Adams creative process, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't involve thin air. Interestingly, I got involved earlier today on another thread when a poster decided to dis Bach's "Opera." As you know, different music is centered in different things. Some music emphasizes lyric elements, some rhythmic, and some philosophical or theological. I suppose all music has a target audience, but the audience for a particular piece may not include me. That does not mean the music is of limited value in objective sense. It may just mean I'm not ready for that particular "hook." I didn't especially like Bruckner or Mahler at first. It took work to acquire the taste, but I grew to love them both.

Archivmusic.com has a pretty good deal on some Arte Nova CDS now. They are $6- $10, and there are some interesting 20th century works. Some of these offerings contain works mentioned in this thread, like the Gorecki 3rd and Copland Piano concerto.

At that price, I could't resist picking up some stuff that will be new to me, such as the Carter Piano concerto and the Furtwangler 2nd. I also got the Copland, which is coupled with concertos by Ravel, Honegger, and Antheil. Just thought I'd mention the sale in case anyone is interested.
I am really happy that some people do like "modern" music. To each his own. My intent was to explore why such music draws so few fans, and why, at a time when orchestras face fiscal hard times, they persist in playing it, often to empty halls

Here is an experiment that would be interesting. Make a recording of an orchestra tuning up. See if you can promote it as a new composition. I bet you could!