Do you care if you listen?*

Submitted by Jen Glagov on Mon, 11/03/2008 - 3:11pm.

In the South Florida Classical Review, Lawrence Johnson recently shared composer Ned Rorem’s view on current programming among many music groups. According to Rorem (who just turned 85), "The general public couldn’t care at all about what you and I are interested in, in other words, serious contemporary music. …But of course 150 years ago the only music that was played was contemporary music." Rorem theorizes that newspapers and critics ultimately cultivated today’s general dislike of modern classical music. "The general public avoids contemporary music. But of course now most contemporary music is comparatively listenable. It’s a twentieth century thing."

While I may not seek out twentieth-century music, I find that venturing out of my musical comfort zone is intellectually stimulating, and makes me think about my favorite pieces in new ways. Audience reactions to Music of the Baroque’s occasional forays into modern territory (Stravinsky’s "Pulcinella" Suite or our recent performance of Benjamin Britten’s Nocturne, for example) suggest that others feel much more strongly—both negatively and positively.

Do you like listening to twentieth-century classical music? Why or why not?

[*title indebted to Milton Babbitt's 1958 article, "Who Cares if You Listen?"]

Posted in

Music of the Baroque

Yes, I like listening to twentieth century classical music and appreciate being exposed to unfamiliar music and composers. Why not discover something new in the hopes that I'll enjoy it just as much as I do a Bach or Handel favorite.

Yes! I absolutely like to listen to 20th-century music. In particular, I listen frequently to the brilliant music of Christopher Dylan Bailey, a fascinating and eclectic composer who is as comfortable writing for acoustic ensembles as he is fluent in electronic idioms.

Thanks for the comments! I'm not familiar with Bailey's work--are there recordings available of his music? One of my favorite 20th-century pieces is Benjamin Britten's Lachrymae, based on several lute songs by John Dowland. It's fun to hear how more recent composers are influenced and inspired by their predecessors.

When I was 12 or 13, I was drawn to twentieth-century music - at least the more "accessible" kind - to the exclusion of pretty much everything else. Seventh grade was my year for Shostakovich and Prokofiev, as well as Ravel, Vaughan Williams, Milhaud. In eighth grade, it was Bartok and Stravinsky. At that time, I remember, any classical music composed pre-1900 just sounded boring. Years later, I saw a quote from Frank Zappa: "I like food with a lot of cayenne in it, and I like music with a lot of dissonance in it." (My musical tastes broadened during high school and beyond.)

I wish I had known you when I was in middle school! I think Rorem's observation that "150 years ago the only music that was played was contemporary music" is striking. [Warning: gross generalizations follow!] At that time, there wasn't such a huge gulf between music in the concert halls and the music people were actively involved with at home. Popular music found its way into "art music" through numerous references; many people were musically literate and played music in their homes for entertainment's sake (and the music they played was often even arrangements of orchestral works, etc.).

Today, there seems to be a much greater divide between music that involves listeners in a palpably visceral way and music more frequently found in the concert hall. Popular music is "equal opportunity"--it's perceived as accessible to lots of different people; it's something that people literally connect with through downloading, sharing, dancing to it, talking about it; and, of course, it's a huge commodity. Art music in our modern era tends to be experienced more passively. And at least in some cases, it's more cerebral as well--I don't like to download classical music as much as popular music, for example, because I want the liner notes. Of course, that might just be me.

This is by no means a criticism--just an observation. Some of my most memorable and thought-provoking concert experiences in Chicago have involved modern art music (kudos to Fulcrum Point and CUBE!).

When Rorem, who like many others, states that in the past,all or most music was new, he fails to take certain facts into consideration.

In the time of Haydn,Mozart and Beethoven, the orchestra as we know it was a realtively new thing. They simply did not have the enormous accumulation of repertoire we have today. Also, there were only a tiny fraction of all the orchestras and opera companies etc, which exist today, and concerts were much,much scarcer than the present day.

And it's not that there's a lack of new music today ; in fact, an enormous number of new classical works have been premiered in our time, and there are many composers who can't complain that their music is being neglected.

There is an infinitely wider variety of classical music available to us now, live or recorded, than ever before, old or new, and the number of live performances has grown exponentionally from the past. Old and new music co-exist, as they should.

Excellent points, Robert. I wonder if Rorem also implicitly assumes that new music in the 19th century and before was less controversial than modern art music is today, which isn't necessarily the case. History is full of composers whose music wasn't well received initially. (Claudio Monteverdi certainly got a lot of grief for some of his music, for example.)

I used to abhor Modern music, but the modern music that being composed today is vastly different from the music that was being composed the previous decades. When the Boulezian terror reigned supreme, classical music seemed to lose its appeal to the masses, which is understandable considering the composers of this sect didnt care what the masses thought and openly bragged about it. Today, there are so many very good to great composers out there composing appealing music that is also intellectually stimulating that, if nothing else, it proves that the Boulez ideal was a total failure, and I believe that the fact that it is also entirely devoid of a stable following[it seems ever few years there is a transition from school to school- aleatoric, spectral, etc while none have a hold] For those who want to hear modern music that is marvelous and accessible I will leave a list below 1.Recent Magnus Lindberg-his violin concerto[Sony] is a modern masterpiece and his disc on Ondine that was jsut released is also fabulous. 2. Paul Moravec-his three naxos discs are the place to start[inexpensively] 3. Robin Holloway-his 2nd and 3rd Cto for Orch are stimulating and appealing. 4. Rautavaara-perhaps one of the most accessible on this list. His discs on Ondine and Bis are really all accessible, as are his recent works. 5. Jennifer Higdon-truly appealing music that is fun, witty, and memorable. 6. Saariaho-her recent disc on Ondine[ORION, Mirage, and Notes on LIght] is fabulous, along with her Opera L'Amour de Loin, though her previous music is way too out there for the masses. 7. Dutilleux-perfect example of a composer who was scorned by the BOulezian school because he adhered to the prefects of tradition[in a very small way] His music is fabulous 8. Tsontakis-recommend his Violin Concerto 2, Clair de Lune disc-fabulous performances of very appealing music[VC2 won the grawenmayer award] 9. John Adams-perhaps the best known name on the list[but for a good reason] he has been turning out good accessible music for years. Rec- Naive and Sentimental Music. Piano Concerto. Harmonliehre. 10. Esa-Pekka Salonen-fabulous conductor turned out to be an even better composer. Music is fun, loud, and accessible and must be a wonder[as with Magnus Lindberg] to see live.

Chicago Classical Music

An online community for classical music enthusiasts

Do you care if you listen?*

Comment viewing options

Comment viewing options

Participating Organizations