Classical music is de-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxq-RD6Odg0
>>88338076>musical equivalent of "hmph, well I didn't want you to listen to it anyway!"
>>88338752Out of all the modern classical music pieces you could make fun of, the one OP posted sounds extremely normal, sort of resembling ambient music. But it's okay buddy, it's not for your ears.
>>88338076>Classical music is de--lightfulhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nskEE09WWWM
>>88338076>waveform in the scoregheeeeeeygo to bed Brian. Classical music is most definitely not dead, but you aint contributing much to it.
>>88339274actually bretty good. Always nice to see an accordion in a contemporary ensemble.
>>88339333I saw this shit live and the soloist was a sweaty madman on that bass, was pretty neat.
>>88339361there's a lot of good contemporary classical shit out there, just gotta go to the right concerts.My contributions:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gG0j-35Mgk&list=PLACC6D9F54557E330https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHI2xyyH-CUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzSlmWQuHFwhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPYGRfzfBew
>>88339377Yeah once you get used to all the crazy shit people have been doing since 1900, there's a lot of interesting concerts and modern composers to listen to. I'd say personally for me the success rate (how much I enjoy it) of contemporary concerts is around 70% by now.Oh and posting stuff like Paert and Rautavaara is cheating, those two are just beautiful.
>>88338076Georg Friedrich Haas is one of the most interesting contemporary composers at the moment Imo.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoFfArXdgsc
>>88339691Haas is amazinghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmX-h7_us7A
>>88338076This is amazing.
>>88338076Who is Brian Petuch? I want to use this in my documentary, who do I turn to?
>Vivaldi rip-off sounds better than any chaotic diarrhea posted itthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz8sTAxxOFYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKCuIlSsNdY
>>88338076Scoring ambient for string instruments doesn’t make it not-ambient. Pick a better example next time.
is contemporary classical capable of eliciting any emotion besides 'vague discomfort'?
>>88340667yes >>88339274 is the satisfaction when you pass gas but without the smell
>>88340740that piece just makes me feel mildly annoyed.
real patrician musichttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXSnyY5JROg
>>88340655Who told you it's ambient music?>>88340667Yes, it is, but you have to have the brain capacity and attention span to listen to more than 30 seconds of it and some musical experiences apart from pure hedonism and listening to music for complete disconnection from the world and the arts i.e. brainless "listening". There might be a certain correlation between people who haven't listened to much (different) music and them being left frustrated because the music doesn't spell out what they're supposed to be thinking or feeling instantaneously. Alright, that was a pretentious ass answer, but my last point still stands; if you don't understand what's going on, then you obviously don't understand the language, much like an Englishman hearing Chinese for the first time, and if you want to get it, you'll have to learn it. If not, then you don't, but don't assume it's gibberish (unless it is actual gibberish, but most of the time it's really not) because you don't speak it. A lot of contemporary music doesn't do thematic development and stuff like that, there's been an emphasis on sonority for the past half decade, although we live in an age of pluralism so there's pretty much everything do be found. Nothing posted ITT is too challenging to digest with a little bit of background. >>88340740
>>88340762you're listening to it wrong. Because you imagine the piece is farting at you, you are annoyed as anyone would be. What you have to do is imagine you are the one making the fart. The scratch of the bows, the thud of the piano and drums represents your intestines rumbling. The screaming bass clarinet is the screeching you hear when you hold it in for too long. It all builds tension. Finally, all together they create a magnificent BRAP, a sweet release
>>88340859I don't think this is exactly how you should perceive the music.
>>88340858I listened to the entirety of >>88339691>>88339274>>88338076as well as countless other contemporary classical pieces. almost all music has some sort of immediately identifiable emotion behind it, but all i get with contemporary classical is the same dissonant anoying plunka plunka bullshit. don't fucking come out here acting like it takes an exceptionally high iq to understand contemp classical and that the nuances ill go over a typical listener's head when i can still say how a piece makes me feel, and no cc piece has ever made me feel joyful, or mourning, or angry, or anything but uncomfortable and annoyed. you can like it, but i get nothing from it and i'm entitled to that experience to the same level of legitimacy as you you pompous faggot. maybe if you listen to enough martin boykan music you'll be able to suck your own cock, until then leave me the fuck alone with your superiority complex bullshit. if you can pull your fingers out of your own asshole long enough to make an actual defense of the music beyond 'it's just too deep for you dude' i'd be happy to read it.
>>88340628Beauty is not the only characteristic of music you know. Beside that is music from another age that doesn't resemble anymore humanity. Industrial society leads to more noise-oriented and dissonant music naturally.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAFfC7EYxAg&t=415s
>>88341000Why would you expect us to offer defence of the music when all you can offer as a critique is that it is plunka plunka and doesn't give you 'feels'? You don't get it, that's fine and you know what, we don't care that you don't get it.
>>88341043>when all you can offer as a critique is that it is plunka plunka and doesn't give you 'feels'?i'm not pretending my opinion is based in anything but personal preference. you are.
>>88341000>almost all music has some sort of immediately identifiable emotion behind itUhh, no. That's quite an assumption. It's mostly a cultural/psychological thing, I doubt you'd identify the emotions behind a simple folk song written in a foreign musical idiom from a third world place you've never even heard of. Not to mention you have sacred/meditative/transcendental music, experimental pieces that explore other musical parameters that the majority of people probably don't even notice or pay attention to, art for the sake of art etc. But let me guess: that's all lesser in your eyes?I gave you a fully rational and encouraging answer, you sperged out like a complete retard. Maybe you're just projecting. I'll leave it at that I guess, you can believe what you want.
>>88341074I feel like you're pretending it's down to something that's inherent to the music itself and not just your upbringing, personal taste, musical experiences, knowledge and perception. If you think this stuff is inherently "ugly" and "random" or whatever negativity you can come up with (good luck trying to prove all that as well) and that it's not mostly down to you not understanding the musical language and idiom it's conceived in, then you're in denial.Like I've previously said; it's like hearing Chinese and not understanding a single fucking vowel coming out of their mouths and going: "yeah, nah, this is complete bullshit".
>>88341000You're too much of a brainlet. If you can't see there's as much beauty in Schoenberg as in Bach or in Pollock as in Michelangelo you're a fucking pleb. As >>88341123 says everything is relative.
>>88341076>I doubt you'd identify the emotions behind a simple folk song...but the people from that place could. and i could still interpret it through my own experience and feel an emotion through it.>Not to mention you have sacred/meditative/transcendental musicwhich expresses emotion>experimental pieces that explore other musical parameters that the majority of people probably don't even notice or pay attention tothat's what we're talking about yeah>art for the sake of artthe viewer can still interpret the art regardless of the creator's intention.> But let me guess: that's all lesser in your eyes?no. i don't think cc is lesser either.>I gave you a fully rational and encouraging answerno, you implied that anyone who doesn't appreciate it is lesser and isn't listening well enough and that they have a "low brain capacity">>88341123>I feel like you're pretending it's down to something that's inherent to the music itselfi'm not.If you think this stuff is inherently "ugly" and "random" or whatever negativity you can come up with (good luck trying to prove all that as well) and that it's not mostly down to you not understanding the musical language and idiom it's conceived in, then you're in denial.i don't think it's inherently ugly. i understand the musical idiom and learned about this stuff in school. i don't like it, and i took umbrage with the implication that if you don't like something it must only be because you don't understand it and you're dumb for disliking it. you can understand chinese (to use your shitty analogy) and still not like a book written in chinese.>it's like hearing Chinese and not understanding a single fucking vowel coming out of their mouths and going: "yeah, nah, this is complete bullshit".this analogy is extremely flawed.>>88341168>everything is relativeyou're making the claim that if something isn't good to me (by my own relative perception) i am a brainlet. so is everything relative or not?
>>88341220>but the people from that place could. and i could still interpret it through my own experience and feel an emotion through it.I guess but that's not inherent to the music itself then. And you could interpret it wrongly, introspection might not be the best solution.>which expresses emotionNot necessarily. Some (sacred) music isn't meant to be listened to at all and it's completely disconnected to emotions.>no, you implied that anyone who doesn't appreciate it is lesser and isn't listening well enough and that they have a "low brain capacity"Yeah that was my pretentious ass answer, don't take it too seriously, it was an impulse; I continued on and told that my last point still sort of stands and explained it.>this analogy is extremely flawed.How so? A piece is written in a specific musical idiom i.e. language; if you don't understand it, then you don't understand the meaning behind the sounds being made; don't assume it's gibberish, because most of the it's not (much like a human language isn't gibberish most of the time). Tell me what specifically is flawed here?
>>88341268That piece is beautiful and I've heard some other nice pieces by him (along with some trite), I don't get the hate for Feldman apart from him making really long pieces.
>>88338076boring background music
progressive metal + post rock + kpop > classical
>>88341325>I guess but that's not inherent to the music itself then.never said it was>And you could interpret it wronglyyou can't interpret art incorrectly. even if you disagree with me on that, you can still interpret it in some way even if it's incorrect.>Not necessarily. Some (sacred) music isn't meant to be listened to at all and it's completely disconnected to emotions.>almost all>Yeah that was my pretentious ass answer, don't take it too seriously, it was an impulse; I continued on and told that my last point still sort of stands and explained it.i responded to your point>How so?because even if you understand a language, not everything created in that language is good. when i learned spanish, i didn't automatically love every spanish novel i read just because i could understand the words.>Tell me what specifically is flawed here?well, music is generally made with a certain, relatively narrow, group of timbres. yes, some cc composers have pushed for greater timbral diversity, but as seen in the posts itt, they're still making similar sounds to the ones made before them. lots of these pieces are still in an equal tempred system, with notated time signatures.>inb4 what about east asian or african music? that's in a whole different system!we're not talking about that right now. it's similar to the literary techniques of someone like joyce. it's a different set of ideas but it's still written in the same language as thackeray. maybe you would not have the same interpretation of the 'words' (or music) in joyce as you would in vanity fair, but you can still have an interpretation of it. also, once you'r familiar with modernist conventions and understand the context of joyce's work, you might still dislike ulysses.
>>88338076Sound like formalized Ben Frost
>>88340858>Who told you it's ambient music?The piece sounds like ambient music. The comments directly compare it to Tim Hecker. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, etc.
>>88341526It's actually drone, too dynamical, abrasive and climax reaching to be simply "ambient".
>>88341615If you think this is dynamic or abrasive by any standards god help you, you have a long road ahead of you in music.
>>88341035>Industrial society leads to more noise-oriented and dissonant music naturally.This is true because modern society's energy return on investment is high enough to allow for the complexity (dissonance) that is modern art. Urbanization means a disconnect from nature and centralization of human capital. Disconnect from nature means more ungrounded art and centralization mean only the largest places (ex. NY/LA) are sources. It's basically entropy. But when fossil fuels run out the energy return on investment will decrease so much that art will return, at best, to the quality of Baroque/Classical era.
>>88341640No, I don't think that piece represents those standard at all, but still is not definable as ambient music nonetheless.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ_vGr9U3QY
>>88341470>because even if you understand a language, not everything created in that language is good. when i learned spanish, i didn't automatically love every spanish novel i read just because i could understand the words.I'm not talking about subjective perceptions, I'm talking about sense. There's nothing inherently good or bad about music and you can't prove that it is (quick look at history: nobody did it convincingly).
>>88341803Now tell me how that changes my point remotely.
>>88341035This. It's completely natural that the technological advancements and (in music) the emancipation of 1. disonances, 2. noise and 3. every sound leads to some of the music that is being made today.
>There's nothing inherently good or bad about music and you can't prove that it isyou keep acting like i said there was, but i didn't.
>>88341851>not everything created in that language is goodThis is your comment trying to parallel music or not? Then what is your point then? Is it not that this music is bad or meaningless or not?
>>88341887>Is it not that this music is bad or meaningless or not?my point was just that i didn't like it. you implied that me di
>>88341898fuck i keep messing up my posts.>>88341887my point was just that i didn't like it. you implied i was stupid for disliking it and i had a problem with that implication.
>>88341898Okay okay I get it now. We aren't even in disagreement about anything. You probably started replying to me because of my initial elitist/pretentious answer which wasn't very productive.
>>88341925yeah, we're on the same page now.
>>88341845Are you implying Stockhausen is not abrasive and has no dynamic?
>>88341967I wasn’t commenting on Stockhausen at all. Try again.
>>88341936My problem is replying like an elitist cunt to genuine (although sometimes obtuse) questions. I need to work on that.
>>88341000https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZcVN09o0ikTry this one. It's a tone poem, as well as a percussion concerto.
>>88342165rude orchestra playing over this based percussionist's solo
>>88342165i like it so far. i'll let you know what i think when i finish.
>>88342227I had the pleasure of seeing it live, the percussion solos are breathtaking and the expanded percussion section really adds to the entire thing.
>>88342165This is has more modern flavour than typical contemporary composition though.
>>88341862>emancipationWhat a load of kikeryGas yourself
>>88342165overall i liked it and will return to this piece in the future. thanks for showing me it.
Examples of relatively contemporary stuff that isn't ALL as atonal as it getsWitold Roman Lutosławski's Symphony 3 has some bits that will sound odd. But he's more interested in creating his own chords/harmonic progression than inherently sounding atonal. Even his aleatoric sections are more focused on having parts of the orchestra split apart rather than the randomness associates with aleatoric/chance music.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0aJHZ7LBMcJohn Luther Adams' Become series, starting with Become Ocean, is probably some of the smoothest minimalism structured stuff out there because of how clever he is with both placement of instruments and the dynamics at play. Very ethereal sounding though, best for when you're tired, and just relaxing. May find it boring otherwise. Not atonal at all.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGva1NVWRXkAndrew Norman's Play, is inspired by video games and has its structures split by Levels. Even though it's not atonal, it's still a tough listen. To best explain it I would call it the musical equivalent of a bullet hell shooter video game because of just how much the work throws at the listener. Requires many listens to get a good grasp of everything.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc9rYygfwNI
this is a nice thread
>>88343006>wahh wahh words hurt mebased schizo retard
>>88344253why did they include the tune-up in the recording? and does it really take 20 minutes to tune?
Lmao these two niggas fighting over contemporary classical.Idk much about it, I tried getting into it a few times but the bar is set too high still for me (although I have no problem with anything up to late Stravinsky and Shostakovich, period-wise) and I've listened to classical music and opera exclusively for a number of years in unhealthy amounts. This makes me wonder if it's me or the for that's at fault. And this is the position of the first anon. On the other hand, the other anon is right in the sense that there is more to the music than immediately apparent, and the only thing I am really curious about is whether one can get to a point where this contemporary music is going to get my dick up as much as all the common practice and standard repertoire stuff. It happened with literature for me where reading a lot allowed me to penetrate pomo and whatnot, so I'm inclined to supposed that the same can happen with music, but I don't and never will have a fraction of musical understanding that contemporary composers possess. As such, I and the first anon, and probably the absolute majority of listeners of classical music, none of us will ever be able to appreciate this music as much as we do with gone-by composers. It's gonna be too hermetic, and one could complain about it all they want, but the fact is you can't continue writing madrigals or toccatas or syphonies forever as much as you shouldn't try to outwrite Yeats in his poetic idiom. We need new stuff, and hopefully some new stuff emerges that is both deep, complex and inventive, but at the same time has some attack surface, a backdoor, a way to hook the listener up beyond the generic comment I hear after contemporary concerts, that is 'it was quite interesting', which means 'I didn't like it, because I didin't get it or because it was simply bad, but I can't really say which it was'.
>centuries of discovering which harmonies ellicit which emotions>XX century: lol just play whatever, its still musics ;)yeah, nice """"diversity""" there, all chords mean the same, noise and proper instruments have the same value, nice one guys.
>>88346860Horrible post, try again.
>>88346877>clarinet screeching in the background>soprano wailing nonsense>marimbas going all cartoon music>all at onceyeah, great music, chap.
>>88346909You didn't do any better this time, sorry. Come back in a few years maybe.