Sue

I just wondered if there IS such a thing. New meaning, composed THIS century. I hear very little about it. Well, more like hardly anything. I've heard a lot of classical masterpieces, but where do I find NEW ones? I'm only assuming it's not done as much as the latest rock or alternative band that's out there, but I'm really interested in hearing some new pieces if they exist.

__________________
Teg yw edrych tuag adref.

QuasiMondo

Stevie Wonder just wrote a classical piece that premiered last week titled, "Sketches of a Life." I've been trying to find it. I've heard clips of it but not the entire thing.

__________________
Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer.

-From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator

Craven Morehead

good question - looking forward to the ressponses

Baraka_Guru

Get thee to the orchestra!

You have to go out of your way. Is there an orchestra company that performs near you? They might play new pieces, plus they might have a store filled with CDs, some of which might be newly composed music. I'm not really the one to ask, as I haven't heard many 21st-century compositions, but the ones I have were live performances. There are a few here who would certainly know, so just wait for them to chime in.

I recently went to a Toronto Symphony Orchestra performance of this piece, composed in 2007 by John Corigliano, and performed by the great Evelyn Glennie, for whom it was composed:
Conjurer: Concerto for Percussionist and String Orchestra, John Corigliano


* * * * *

Good luck in your quest.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

A lot of composers that write in the classical style are doing movie soundtracks now. I know it might seem pedestrian compared to Mozart, but maybe the way to look at it is movies are the modern incarnation of opera. And there are some mighty fine soundtracks out there:
Best Soundtracks - ALL-TIME 100 movies - TIME

Still, the classical stage isn't empty yet. There are new classical pieces being written. I know he's very controversial, but Philip Glass is a particular favorite of mine (so long as I don't listen to it too often). I also really like Christopher Rouse. He actually has a myspace, believe it or not: Christopher Rouse on MySpace Music - Free Streaming MP3s, Pictures & Music Downloads

snowy

Love Philip Glass. I like to listen to his stuff while I'm out walking.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Sue

Huh. The combo of Stevie Wonder and classical music doesn't really appeal to me.... I mean, really? Stevie Wonder? I actually cringed at that thought.

---------- Post added at 09:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 PM ----------

I do have the Colorado Symphony Orchestra, but as I'm turning into a broke college student at the end of the month, I don't think I'll be able to afford tickets to their performances. Thank you for the suggestion though. I'll look up the composer you mentioned

---------- Post added at 09:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 PM ----------

I've actually never heard of Philip Glass. I'll look into him, but why is he controversial?

I'm listening to the mp3's on Christopher Rouse's Myspace as I type. I'm liking his music a lot. Thanks for that suggestion!!

__________________
Teg yw edrych tuag adref.

Cynosure

Yes! There has been LOTS of great classical music composed in the 20th Century. Some of my favorites CD's containing modern classical music...

HOVHANESS: Celestial Gate & Other Orchestral Works

Moods invoked by this music: celestial, noble, majestic, melancholy, mysterious.






GORECKI: Symphony #3 "Sorrowful Songs"

Moods: sacred, mourning, anguish, rapturous.






VASKS: Message

Moods: ethereal, other-wordly, yearning, soaring.






SHOSTAKOVICH: Symphony #8

Moods: dark, brooding, patriotic , frenetic, apocalyptic.






(BTW: The CD's listed here contain some of the absolute best performances/recordings of these symphonies. These are definitely CD's to play if you want to test and/or show off the high fidelity of your stereo system.)

MacGuyver

I would agree that most readily recognizable composers are doing movies, etc. ala John Williams. Any thing else in classical you're going to have to REALLY search for. One of my favorites is Steve Reich - "Music for 18 Musicians". Make sure you have a pillow handy for this album. I saw Stonybrook Percussion perform this and it was absolutely enthralling, in a hypnotism sort of way. It's mostly based off of manipulation of simple patterns (1,2,3 - 1,2 - 1 -1,2) in a repetitious and building way. Very cool. Most neo-classical stuff that isn't used for mainstream media like movies and such, will probably be pretty out there stuff (Philip Glass, Bela Bartok, Samuel Barber).

__________________
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit.
---Aristotle

Deeds, not words, shall speak [for] me.
---John Fletcher

PulpMind

Stevie Wonder is a musical genius. Sure he spent most of his years composing pop music, but as far as pop music goes, he was GOOD. Don't forget he's also an amazing pianist. No doubt that this kind of talent applied to classical composition would have great results.

Some of my favorite composers of the last half century are Eric Satie (french, mostly a pianist), the Kronos Quartet (soundtrack to Requiem For a Dream and The Fountain), and Max Richter (sounds like music for a diamond ring commercial, except it's actually good).

ratbastid

Lots of times students can volunteer with the Symphony (being an usher is a common position). You do a little work helping people find their seats, get a sort of back-stage look at a symphony orchestra, and attend the concerts for free. Works out well, if you're interested and broke.

There are often cheap last-minute "rush" tickets available too. Or tickets to final rehearsal the afternoon before each concert. Symphonies are VERY creative about reaching out beyond their standard (aging) demographic.

roachboy

there's lots of new classical music--new in the genre sense.
a huge amount.
my introduction came by way of anton webern's op. 30 for piano, olivier messiaen's quartet for the end of time and eliot carter's piano sonata from 1947 i think. it had a giant fugue in it. that sequence of 3 worked for me...but i'd add john cage's work--the sonatas and interludes for prepared piano are good places to start, but i'd recommend imaginary landscapes as well for starters---and stockhausen's klavierstucke 11. well, there's alot of stockhausen's work that's great too--zyklus, hymnen, kontakte....

i can post more when i get home--but i'll say that i don't think that orchestral music is where most interesting activity has been happening--more smaller ensembles and solo pieces.

o yeah--david tudor's rainforest.
that one i would say just go now and find it.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

I used to try and run in step with his beats, and I always ended up in a bit of a trance. Does that happen to you, too?
His music is a bit redundant. Sort of. It's hard to explain, so here:

I'm glad you like it!

Cynosure

Monotonous is the word I use to describe most of the music of Phillip Glass. (Same goes for the music of Michael Nyman; you know, the guy who did the score for the movie, The Piano.) However, I think the proper term is "minimalism".

Right. And by itself, the tune in that video sounds lovely and interesting. But imagine a whole, hour-long album containing that tune and a half dozen minor variations of that tune – that is a typical Phillip Glass album.

vanblah

Why?

Billy Joel made the jump from "pop" to classical ( ).

and

David Byrne has done it several times (DavidByrne.com - Music).

so has

Danny Elfman (BEFORE: Oingo Boingo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ... AFTER: just listen to about anything he's done for movie soundtracks).

and

Elvis Costello (The Juliet Letters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

I'm not saying that it's all GOOD just that being a pop artist doesn't preclude one from loftier ideas and potential.

Cynosure

You left out Paul McCartney. (Excuse me. Sir Paul McCartney.)









The classical music by McCartney is actually quite good. I have all of the above CD's.

QuasiMondo

__________________
Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer.

-From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator

vanblah

Of course! I'm sure I've left out a ton of pop musicians who've done classical.

roachboy

more interesting minimalism undermines the idea of repetition--steve reich's music up to "music for 18 musicians." glass i never found interesting, but he doesn't come out of nowhere.

i'm kinda surprised at the way this thread has gone--given the enormous amount of new music that's out there--and the problems much of it creates for the category of "classical" music--which is what exactly?---that folk are talking about billy fucking joel is kinda depressing.

one thing that is the case with newer music--stuff that comes out of 12-tone directly and (there's way more of this) indirectly is that it violates the main modes of patterning typical of 19th century euro-classical music--most pop does not. you have to train your hearing to get into it--but you also had to train your hearing to tolerate the continuous monotony of 19th century euro-classical music. you just forget that you had to do it.

there are alot of gateway drugs, i suppose--late debussy (the wonderful world of 4ths) or scriabin's later piano sonatas---but listening to schoenberg's piano music is better. the use of silence and/or placement is quite different from what preceded it. and it still sounds new-ish--which is remarkable, but mostly as an indication of the extent to which folk are submerged in 19th century ways of patterning, thinking and hearing.

hell, the early mixes by the bomb squad (public enemy before copyright lawsuits shut down the approach to sample use they pioneered) has alot more to do with contemporary classical music than does billy joel.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

vanblah

Screw that attitude. Why, oh why, do self-prescribed musical elitists have to rain on everyone's parade?

Give me a break.

Someone mentioned Stevie Wonder and the OP had a problem with that:

So I addressed it from the standpoint that pop musicians can do more than just simple pop. It may be the boring and trite pablum that you speak of but it's something more than pop.

Don't get me wrong ... I love dissonance and enharmonic tones. But I also really, really appreciate music for the sake of itself. The one thing I can't stand? When "musicians" try to impress each other with how different they can be.

---------- Post added at 02:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:25 PM ----------

Screw that attitude. Why, oh why, do self-prescribed musical elitists have to rain on everyone's parade?

Give me a break.

Someone mentioned Stevie Wonder and the OP had a problem with that:

So I addressed it from the standpoint that pop musicians can do more than just simple pop. It may be the boring and trite pablum that you speak of but it's something more than pop.

Don't get me wrong ... I love dissonance and enharmonic tones. But I also really, really appreciate music for the sake of itself. If someone has put their heart and soul into a song then I'm all for it.

The one thing I can't stand? When "musicians" try to impress each other with how different they can be by throwing in all kinds of sounds and non-harmonic tones just for the sake of doing it.

If you find a cool rhythm or a nifty melodic structure in dissonance that's one thing ... but if it's just noise (to the point that it's almost white noise) then I have no desire for it. Most people really don't want to have to LISTEN to music ... there's nothing wrong with that. There's no need to shit on them for being human.

roachboy

vanblah---you cannot possibly be serious.

there's a thread about new music.
no-one talks about that stuff here.
it's hardly elitist to know about it and to enjoy it and to find that maybe it'd be nice for once to have a conversation about contemporary composition in the space that was, once upon a time when cultural monopolies were differently controlled, classical music.

and there's a ton of newer classical/experimental music. lots and lots and lots of it. and unless you seek it out, you won't know about much of it.
it doesn't get the kind of exposure that 19th century forms get.
people like to like what they're told they like to like in the way they are told they like it. it's just how it is. we're free like that.

i know i know: pop musicians can have greater aspirations and if it wasn't for this conspiracy of other people they'd be able to fulfil those aspirations. and anyone who questions those greater aspirations obviously has a problem. so yes billy joel is making classical music these days and because it is off limits to question the grand aspirations of pop musicians, it is not possible to talk about the lots and lots of contemporary classical and related forms of composition. and it is bad form to see in a discussion of those grand aspirations of billy joel, which obviously stand in for those of each and every musician, a derailing of a thread about new music.

besides, i don't personally question the aspirations of billy joel or anyone else.
but i also see in this nonsense an attempt to substitute a frame of reference you and others know about for the possibility of finding out about stuff you don't know about.
but whatever.
i'm apparently an elitist like that.
go figure.

for the record, there's lots of people making lots of music all the time and it's entirely ok for people to like as much or as little of that music as they care to take in. some of it does require some work to get used to, a bit of ear training--but so what? if there wasn't pleasure in it, no-one would do it. so you either find something interesting and take the trouble to figure out how to hear it or you don't.

what i find strange are your remarks about what you regard as "noise."
that seems terribly rigid of you.
isn't rigidity of preference a subtext in your use of that nice and welcoming category
"elitist"?
or is that fine category something that pertains to folk who listen to or make kinds of music you don't enjoy or understand?

more broadly, how did you get appointed adjudicator of this sort of question, what is and is not "noise"?
was there an election and i missed it?
why doesn't anyone tell me about these election things?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

vanblah

roachboy:

Don't make yourself out to be a victim here.

I wasn't referring to the context of what you said ... I was referring to your choice of words: "that folk are talking about billy fucking joel is kinda depressing" and "you have to train your hearing to get into it--but you also had to train your hearing to tolerate the continuous monotony of 19th century euro-classical music" are both elitist statements ... the second one being particularly trite.

It's simply not true. What you call 19th century forms (what I would consider the Romantic era; and possibly the later capital "C" Classical era) are just simply EASY to listen to for Westerners. Period. It has nothing to do with training your ear. They don't contain many surprises and they don't contain much in the way of dissonance. We don't attach the same fervor to music in the way that Eastern and African musicians do--despite what you see with the fainting girls at Beatles concerts. Most Westerners don't like surprises or jarring atonal melodies.

With regard to your oblique reference to me being "elitist." Perhaps I am with regard to some things, however, we don't need to get into a pedantic and academic argument over what constitutes "noise." I know what I like ... I have spent many, many years listening to all sorts of music. I even made a reference to it in my previous post. (RE: white noise).

I like dissonance and enharmonic tones. I am astute enough to tell the difference between good "cacophonous" music and when a person is banging out bullshit just to be different. There is a fine line and I've been known to make a mistake or two with regard to those particular judgments--but most of the time I'm right.

I am with you 100% about new music and musical forms and how out-of-touch most Western ears have become. But the way you chose to phrase it was elitist. Despite being with 100% in academic terms most of what I write these days is pop-form--although I sneak a little dissonance in by way of my trusty OB12.

You know what? After 30 years of playing violin and piano I'm fine with that. I enjoy the love I get from the people listening. I also enjoy the CONSTRUCTIVE criticism I get from my more "elitist" friends.

Sue

So ANYWAYS....

__________________
Teg yw edrych tuag adref.

vanblah

My apologies. I actually do enjoy these kinds of arguments that rb and I are having ... they can only help you grow as a musician. But it's probably better saved for another thread.

roachboy

now i'm in a quandry.
what happens next?

um...

well, one thing that's obvious is that the argument side of the exchange above would have dissipated in a few seconds in 3-d because it seems mostly rooted in messageboard tone problems.

second thing is that, in general terms, i have some trouble with 19th century classical music--i listen to alot of music from beethoven and before, and then fade back in with folk like schoenberg/stravinsky. i think this might follow from something schoenberg said about palestrina--that the compositions are about line. and much newer music is about line as well. there are exceptions in my skipping of most of the 19th century--like satie..
anyway, i am not as taken with euroclassical that's dominated by shorter phrases that do not particularly develop over bigger harmonies. and i don't think that many 19th century composers knew how to deal with horn sections. and 19th century music in the main never shuts up. satie is of course an exception. actually, now that i think of it, there's alot of exceptions in smaller ensemble and solo stuff. (if you play a bach piece and an early schoenberg piano piece (say) one after the other, you'll hear what i'm talking about. different ways of thinking about space. that's all.)

back to the pre-parenthesis....so its the move toward bigger and bigger orchestras that particularly bugs me. it all seems to me to lead somehow or another to wagner, whose music makes me think of driving nails into my forehead.

what i meant about training one's ears into 19th century forms and ways of dealing with the relation of harmony to line was basically that we're saturated with it. it's everywhere all the time. this doesn't particularly bother me as such--but i've found that it creates trouble for folk who are trying to work their way into, say, 12-tone music (or into ornette coleman's stuff for that matter). because folk tend to forget that their default assumptions also come from training themselves, they think that other modes of organizing sound are "off" especially at first.

this last thing is germaine here, i think, in particular.

but i just got back from the beach and am still thinking about it, so i'll stop at this for now.

have you gone out to get david tudor's rainforest yet? what are you waiting for?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

I like Billy Joel.

vanblah

Sue,

You never did say why exactly the thought of Stevie Wonder creating classical music put you off.

What are you looking for? It's difficult to to tell someone what to look for unless there is a starting point. What classical pieces do you like? What pop/rock/modern pieces do you like? Do you know what you don't like? If so, can you say why.

ring

Roach, I heard some college persons tribute to it on you tube,
and a bit of John cage perfoming his work. I want/need/must have, more!

Where in two-d land could I/we find it?
I have no savvy yet with finding on-line music, other than Pandora.

Sue

Maybe it's just that I see him more as a pop icon other than a classical composer, so I was biased in thinking that he would be capable of composing classical music.

I'm thinking along the lines of the classics, like Beethoven, Mozart, Pachebel, etc.. My absolute favorite is Beethoven. I don't know if I can describe exactly what I'm looking for. Maybe just something not too modern, with an old-world sound to it, if that makes sense.

I'm still checking out the suggestions in this thread though.

__________________
Teg yw edrych tuag adref.

Jetée

Since both you and Will brought up one of favorite composers ever, I submit his Violin Concerto, 1st movement as a good mention of his works (and, if I personally had a say in the production of the Third Batman revived by Nolan, I'd insist on this being the opening theme to the brooding next installment).




Also, as a consequence and discovery, Pandora.com or any similar input-based online radio station can be of much use to finding the specific sound of the New Classics and Contemporary Stylings genre best suited to your ear. Ah, it seems ring beat me to that reference.

Stating that, I'd recommend giving Arvo Pärt a listen.

__________________
As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world (that is the myth of the Atomic Age) as in being able to remake ourselves.

—Mohandas K. Gandhi

Willravel

More Philip Glass!