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
I have three recommendations for modern classical music that I find more approachable:

1. Arvo Part's Cantus In Memoriam Benjamin Britten - Fratres - Tabula Rasa - Spiegel im Spiegel
2. Schoenberg's String Quartets 1 to 4 (Phillips Classics)
3. Messiaen's Preludes - Etudes - Canteyodjaya (Arte Nova Classics)

Please bear with my stumbling through this - I am a psychologist and not a musicologist and my comments come from past reading (which is distant) and recent listening.

Part is probably the most approachable as the works mentioned above and are based on his studies of Gregorian Chant and Renaissance music. Part's later music (mentioned above) is based on simple harmonies, single notes, and triad chords.

It has taken a little time to appreciate Schoenberg, but in retrospect, it was time well spent. Schoenberg's four String Quartets have both "atonal" and "tonal" features, depending on the quartet. The 12 tone technique, serialism and "atonality" are distinct in the 2nd and 3rd quartet. The third quartet, in particular, has series that cannot be followed (anticipated) and consists of rhythmic patterns that are not fixed. For me, it is the lack of predictability in music that ultimately holds together that is interesting. My wife listened to it tonight and commented that the music sounds like an orchestra tuning instruments before playing. However, to me, after listening to his music for a while, each piece does make sense, although I'm not able to explain how. All of the four quartets are fruitful and fulfilling, especially the 3rd. I also maintain that this music can produce an anxious state which is interesting in itself.

IMO, Messiaen's work is probably the hardest of the three that I suggested to appreciate. His music is rhythmically complex and is based on scales with steps that he developed. His music also has influences from the rhythms from ancient Greek and from Hindu sources. In Etudes, he takes Schoenberg's technique further by introducing serialism of timbres, intensities and durations. That is, these become recurring series of elements that are manipulated throughout the piece.
Lousyreeds,

I moved from Ohio to Indianapolis about 15 years ago. As for the moniker, being a browns fan is a terminal disease, and results in a long, slow, painful death. One does not recover, even by moving to Indianapolis, where the local team is 12-0.

As for the Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra, I find its quality to exceed that of the local football team! Under Venzago, the orchestra is programming a generous helping of 20th and 21st century music. We also had the world premier of Brian Current's Symphonies in Slanted Time this year. Very interesting music, worth a second listen.

As for Uwe Lohrmann, I had not heard of him prior to the concert. Apparently he descends from Schoenberg and Berg through Wolfgang Fortman. I’ve attached a link to the excellent program notes, which also contains a brief explanation of the 12 tone method which some might find helpful.

http://www.indianapolissymphony.org/_uploaded/pdf/pressrelease/cc1_notes.pdf

Lohrmann is one of very few composers still writing 12 tone works. I found the piece to be difficult and dark by normal standards (what a surprise!) but worthwhile, and something I would like to hear again. Perhaps another listen would reveal the emotional element spoken of in the program notes. Certainly, I would say mathematical is more accurate than emotional.
Lousyreeds1...Vocal cords are sometimes called "reeds", particularly in a derogatory sense. So I guess it must be the clarinet.
well in that case I should call myself lousyreed2.

Great posts and thank you for the suggested listening. No matter how difficult modern classical music is to listen and understand, It would far more torture for me to hear country music or certain rap music.

I guess my argument about it being "too complex" for the listener isn't completely valid. It's probably just that there is no "hook" to grab your attention up front. So, I assume you have to have some dedication up front before you get the payoff.
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.