Posted on 11/30/2010 1:33:53 PM PST by mojito
A full century after Arnold Schoenberg and his students Alban Berg and Anton Webern unleashed their harsh chords on the world, modern classical music remains an unattractive proposition for many concertgoers. Last season at the New York Philharmonic, several dozen people walked out of a performance of Berg's Three Pieces for Orchestra; about the same number exited Carnegie Hall before the Vienna Philharmonic struck up Schoenberg's Variations for Orchestra.
The mildest 20th-century fare can cause audible gnashing of teeth. Benjamin Britten's Serenade for Tenor, Horn and Strings is a more or less fully tonal score, yet in 2009 at Lincoln Centre, it failed to please a gentleman sitting behind me. When someone let out a "Bravo!" elsewhere in the hall, he growled: "I bet that was a plant." I resisted the temptation to swat him with my pocket score.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Schoenberg and other musical avant-gardistes wanted to destroy the beauty of music, which they considered "bourgeois," and hence "save" the music of the future from philistine notions such as beauty.
The bourgeois have had the good sense to avoid the cacaphony ever since. Nonetheless, while I prefer Don Giovanni, I can certainly enjoy a production of Lulu. Or a Bartok concerto. Or Peter Grimes. And even a bit of Ligeti, who's not half bad sometimes. It's just that I wouldn't want a steady diet of it, and it won't replace Bach and Haydn, which I suspect some of these 20th century fanatics, like Ross, would prefer.
I didn’t even know people still composed classical music today.
Ping.
When did you think they stopped?
Because it isn’t music in any traditional sense — it’s noise, and nobody had the guts to tell the composers that.
Don’t even get me started on 4’33”.
Schoenberg’s best music is beautiful. He was taking the next logical step from Wagner and Mahler.
Bad music is bad music regardless of style (except hip hop which is always bad).
Because it sounds like a gaggle of cats getting tossed into a wood chipper?
“Modern classical music” is an oxymoron. Classical music has withstood the test of time. The avant-garde crap being peddled today as “modern music” won’t last past next leap year.
“It’s not music. It’s frantic, frantic noise.”
If I was ever on American Idol, I'd do an acapella version of that bad boy.
Most likely because nobody would know what you're talking about.
This isn't a dinner-party, but Pollock is a crock.
To quote Mr Anonymous, “I’m no art critic, but I know what I like.”
I actually like a lot of the “classical” music written for movies. Silvestry, Williams, etc. I really enjoyed the theme from “The Last Starfighter”.
I used to play in the Boeing orchestra (OK guys, STOP laughing!) and my teacher really had no respect for Williams. She felt he went for the low hanging popular fruit of lots of triplets. It IS all over the place in the theme to Superman.
Many composers of old produced music for the opera and on consignment. Their modern equivalent would be producing music for movies and television.
GMTA & ditto ^^^^^^, especially the oxymoron label.
>>I didn’t even know people still composed classical music today.<<
;)
I like to use the term “symphonic”, for obvious reasons. :)
I just can't listen to Pierrot Lunaire very often.
I’m with you on that. However, I’m curious about how you feel about Philip Glass.
>>Because it sounds like a gaggle of cats getting tossed into a wood chipper?<<
You say that like it is a BAD thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.