Talk:Contemporary classical music

Discusssion in 2003

Any corrections or additions highly welcome.

Surely "contemporary music" is just any music being written at this moment in time - I don't think the phrase is used in a special, technical way to describe a particular style or whatever. Or am I wrong? --Camembert

Good question. But I guess we need some label for modern non-pop music. I am trying to think of some good examples, but I find the stuff so dreadful that for me it is a hopeless task. -- Viajero 06:53, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps just a description that "contemporary music" encompasses music that is generally outside the mainstream pop music or something like that will suffice? Dysprosia 06:58, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, OK, people tend not to call the latest Britney Spears offering "contemporary music", I'll grant you that, but can we really say anything on the subject beyond "it's modern concert music", or whatever? I mean, this stuff about it being "associated with individualism, globalization and modernity" is just nonsense, isn't it? Use of the term "comtemporary music" isn't, I think, limited to any particular style within what you might broadly call "classical". Arvo Pärt, Harrison Birtwistle and Philip Glass all write "comtemporary music", but they're very different. We already have modern classical music - maybe this should just be redirected there? --Camembert

I just took a look at modern classical music, a term I don't much like either (it seems like an oxymoron). (And ugh, another long, undifferentiated list... Who compiles these things?... and why?...) For better or worse, the term Contemporary music is an established expression, used in concert schedules, program books, and like, so I think it is worth sticking with. I merged the text from modern classical music with this one and spun off the list to List of contemporary music composers. Everyone satisfied? -- Viajero 12:22, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Not really. Whatever else "contemporary music" might be, surely at the very least it has to be contemporary! We've got Ravel - who died in the 1930s - on list of contemporary music composers, and we've got Schoenberg - who died in 1951 - on this one. I don't see how these composers are "contemporary". I really much prefer modern classical music or 20th century classical music, but if you don't like the idea of calling these guys "classical"... well, I don't know what we're to do. --Camembert

Well, I think a short discussion of a few notable "contemporary" composers here will be useful, to get an idea of what is meant by "contemporary music"...

What about "contemporary classical music", by the way? Dysprosia 12:57, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"Contemporary classical music" would still have to be "contemporary" - so I mean, no Ravel, no Schoenberg, not even Cage, really (he's been dead ten years, after all). I mean, all music was "contemporary" at some time or another, but if we're going to use the term in a meangingful way now, we have to use it to mean music by living composers, music contemporary with us - Birtwistle counts, Boulez just about counts, younger composers like Thomas Adès definitely count. Schoenberg doesn't count. 20th century, yes. Modern, I guess so. Contemporary, no. (Apologies if I'm preaching to the converted here, I just want it to be absolutely clear where I'm coming from.)

Here's what I'm going to do: move this to 20th century classical music (which is, after all, what the article's about) and expand it a bit; replace what's here now with a stubby thing on truly contemporary music; move list of contemporary music composers to list of 20th century classical composers. We'll see how it turns out. --Camembert

Sounds good to me :) Dysprosia 13:46, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Seems ok. I still think that list ungainly; what term can ever cover in a satisfactory way composers as diverse as Richard Strauss, Ralph Vaughan Williams, and Pierre Boulez? For me, modern classical music begins approx. with Schonberg; anything before him belongs in the 19th C figuratively speaking. Right, on another list ;-) -- Viajero 13:58, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Camembert, I just noticed there is a List_of_classical_music_composers broken down by era. There is a section called " Modern Classical era". Maybe list of 20th century classical composers can be merged there. -- Viajero 15:51, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I've thought about doing that before, but it seems like hard work! I'm sure I'll get around to it eventually, unless somebody else wants to do it, hint hint ;-) --Camembert

eclecticism

The "eclecticism" section seems to be completely redundant given the "polystylism" section. Should it be deleted?

huh?

I moved the following line here:

It has been considered categorized commonly for its notable conceptual content in opposition to the rest of genres derived from all experimental music.

If some more intellectually gifted can explain to me what this means and/or translate it into plain English, I would be most happy to see it re-included in the text. ;-) -- Viajero

hmm... it might be a code... see if the words translate into hexachords that are Z-related or merely combinatorial. ;-) Antandrus 18:14, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Translation "Most people who do this think that everything else is crap at a deep and meaningful level." Stirling Newberry 14:23, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Neo-romanticism?

I've moved the following text here:

The resurgence of the vocabulary of extended tonality which flourished in the first years of the 20th century continues in the contemporary period, though it is no longer considered shocking or controversial as such.

because this is the entirety of the section on neo-romanticism. It contains no mention of the term, what the term's relationship to the text in the article is, where the term came from, etc. Until it does contain these things (some of the other sections on contemporary music terms are missing similar information as well), it is just confusing. -Seth Mahoney 18:23, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Post Classic Tonality?

I've moved the following text here:

Other aspects of post-modernity can be seen in a "post-classic" tonality that has advocates such as Micheal Daugherty and Tan Dun.

With no mention of what "post-classic tonality" is, this section is basically meaningless. -Seth Mahoney 18:25, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

New sections

I have moved the content related to festivals and films to their own new sections. Hopefully these will become new pages in Wikipedia, so they could simply be related to this one through links (and focus more on general introduction and styles within this article)

experimental

I don't think George Crumb qualifies as experimental. I would rather put names like Cage, Feldman, Alvin Lucier, La Monte Young etc.

He's cited as "experimental". This isn't about what we think, it is about what we can document. If you don't think he is, write an article, and if it gets enough play we can cite it. But until then, stick to the sources. Stirling Newberry 17:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too much emphasis on American music?

I find the text rather centered around composers from the usa and perspectives of that continent. It briefly mentions European composers who are considered figureheads of certain movements f.ex. Helmut Lachenmann. I feel that the article mostly talks about different branches of minimalism and lighter types of contemporary music. Also it doesn't talk enough about composers from Asian countries who compose in European forms, because that is a very big part of the landscape of contemporary music nowadays. I also think the article doesn't talk enough about more recent movements such as new simplicity and such. Just wanted too get it out there.

--Gudmundursteinn 08:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objection

I object to the postmodern cliché that "All history is provisional, and contemporary history even more so, because of the well known problems of dissemination and social power". This is not the place for such kind of proselitism. Personally I find it appalling that some people try to convince us that all that exists is a power struggle, and that truth, honesty or reason are just tactics in such struggle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.120.151.11 (talk • contribs) .

Yanni?

I notice the recent addition of Yanni to the list of rock-influenced composers. I've never thought of him as a "contemporary classical" composer myself. What do others think? Jerome Kohl 21:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, his article says that his works "defy categorisation" yet every record store I've ever seen defiantly categorises him as "New Age". That article also puts him in that category. He can't read music, and makes no claim to being "classical" (although if a cite can be found where he states that, I'm happy to reconsider). So ... no. I'm taking him out. Any other thoughts? Antandrus (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity Page suspicion

Half of the paragraph on Spectralism is taken up by a supposedly important Romanian Spectralist movement, with a list of composers of whom only one has a Wikipedia entry. Could he be the person who added this paragraph, I wonder? ;-) Is there anyone who can confirm this movement's importance? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.118.61.140 (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Dead? Nirvana?

OK - Im as far from a purist as can possibly be, but whoever allowed Nirvana and the Dead to be classified as examples of 20th century music has to get off the pipe. Any atonal or melodically progressive things they did were the result of accident, not as a result of thoughtful and deliberate circumvention of commonly accepted rules of music theory. If anything, it should be cited as a lousy stab at improvisational music though IMHO , it barely meets qualitative standards. I dont mean to incite a riot, but stoned modal meandering should not be accepted as an example of a disciplined art form.

Odd article title?

The title of this article (Contemporary classical music) is strange. Why not call it 'Contemporary music' (now used as a redirect) ? -- Kleinzach 08:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction still seems necessary to me. Contemporary music in general includes any music of the present time, including commercial, pop, movie music, rock, jazz. The function of this article is not to give an account of what is going on currently with these styles of music. You do have a point, however. There may be a need for a "contemporary music," or "music today" page, that tries to make a summary of the different schools that are out there. Actually, the page already exists: music genre.

"Major works"

According to who? The referencing, if there is any, is not explicit. A neutral point of view is required. Moreschi ^Talk 12:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. And why are British composers so prominent? --Kleinzach 14:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British composers are now so prominent because the revision I made recently happened to add quite a few of them. (I also added a fair number of examples from other countries, mainly European ones, which is where my expertise lies.) The previous complaint was that the list was divided into "American" and "Other nationalities". Please feel free to add examples of "major works" from composers of other nationalities.--Jerome Kohl 16:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand these concerns. Because the material is at times so recent, we must accept the idea that the "canon" is in the making. This doesn't mean that we must shy away from making a list.
I believe this section is necessary because it transcends the categories that make up the article. Thus a major work that doesn't fit as a perfect example of any category will still have its place in the article.
What does "major" mean? First, the word "major" has the virtue of NOT meaning "good." Thus a work that I do not like may still have its place in this list.
The inclusion of a piece in this list is not really a matter of taste, but a matter of sociological polling, as it were (!). My sense is that a piece that conforms to one of more of the following parameters should be considered for inclusion in this list:
1) outstanding originality (such that the piece in question essentially creates a new "style" or sub-style, that one needs to be aware of),
2) major influence on other composers (who may seek to imitate some aspect of this work in their own work),
3) major critical success (in reviews by critics, major prizes such as Grawemeyer, Pulitzer prizes),
4) major success (the audience at large attends performances, and/or buys the recordings).
A major work becomes certifiably "inescapable" once many different people of different generations, "schools," and tastes end up recommending "exposure" to the same exact piece.
Agreed, this is seldom clear at first. Agreed, this is fundamentally random and potentially unfair. At the same time, this selection process is extraneous to Wikipedia, and it would be foolish to refuse to acknowledge the existence of such pieces. Whether or not these works are ultimately "worthy" (by whatever scale one chooses), or will eventually be kept in the "canon," there is something valuable in getting a snapshot of what the contributors understand as the current canon. This list is likely to remain in flux, as composers move in and out of favor over time. As anyone who uses one should understand, a dictionary (or an encyclopedia) collects not truths, but facts that, as a society, we more or less agree upon. Facts (such as populations sizes, who is the president of what nation, and, more relevantly, whether such a person is a hero or a villain) remain endlessly in flux, as new information is gathered (or created), as old information is disproved, discredited or lost, and as our culture changes. We do not seek to transcend history with this list. Since it will be years before scholars synthesize a canon for the present, can't we, in the meantime, start today a portrait of what music is (and has been) in the period in question?

Changes to the introduction

Deleted text and explanation for deletion:

There is debate over whether the term should be used to apply to music in any style, or only to composers writing avant-garde music, or only to "modernist" music.

Perhaps there is debate about this regarding the term "contemporary music," but this article is specifically about contemporary classical music.

There is some use of "Contemporary" as a synonym for "Modern", particularly in academic settings.

Academics prefer not to use the word modern to mean "present-day" because the word evokes "modernism," which is a specific 20th century musical school.

A more restrictive use applies the term only to living composers and their works (perhaps only their recent works).

No doubt we will eventually have to draw a line in the sand at some point and claim that a new period has started. For the moment, the post-1975 slice of time seems convenient enough. There appears to be no advantage in using a narrower definition, which starts more recently.

Since "contemporary" is a word that describes a time frame, rather than a style or a unifying idea, there are no universally agreed criteria for making these distinctions.

That is why the article goes on to describe the different approaches of the composers active in the chosen time-frame. "Contemporary" refers only to the time frame, and not anything else. In the future, historians will find a term (e.g. "Totalist", "Ecclectic") to designate the current period. For the moment, we can only refer to it as the present period, the contemporary period. The word "modern" is now firmly anchored to music of the 1950s and 60s (Babbitt, Boulez, etc.), which is why we need to use "contemporary" to mean "present day." It would be regrettable to also lose the term "contemporary" by binding it specifically to the 1975-2010 period! Incidentally, the Grove Dictionary does not have an entry for "contemporary," which indicates that, thankfully, the term has, as of yet, not been co-opted.

I apologize for having presumptously reverted what I saw as an oversimplification. Thank you for the reasonable explanation. I reverted my revert back to your version and hope more resourced editors than myself will pitch in. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to New Grove not having an entry for "contemporary", it is also true that the only entries for "modern" are for the (jazz) record company of that name, Modern Jazz, the Modern Jazz Quartet, and two different Modern Jazz Sextets, from which one might fairly deduce that the term "modern" applies only to jazz! As long as we are on the subject of New Grove, it should also be pointed out that the section on "origins" in their article on "Modernism" begins "Modernism first took shape as a historical phenomenon between 1883 and 1914", and the term itself is defined as "A term used in music to denote a multi-faceted but distinct and continuous tradition within 20th-century composition", so that to say it is "a specific 20th century music school" is not strictly in agreement with New Grove on two counts: (1) it apples to the late 19th century as well, and (2) there is no "specific school" but rather a "multi-faceted phenomenon".--Jerome Kohl 17:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. It remains that, given the closeness between the words "modern" and "modernism," the use of the term "contemporary" avoids potential confusion, which explains why academics prefer to use it.

INFLUENCE IN POPULAR MUSIC

I think that the article needs a section about the influence of “contemporary/cultural” music in the “popular” music scene. Of course, you had “peasant” tunes in Mozart and “pop” gigues in Scotland in S.XVIII. But pop music of our days is a very big part of everyday life. I think important for occasional readers to have a glimpse of the roll “classical” music a an experimentation field (not it’ only importance, of course). And the impossibility of the existence of Radiohead, or even Sgt. Pepper’s -and, of course, free jazz and Astor Piazzolla- without previous classical composers. May be it adds nothing to the concept, but it will add to the social meaning of the subject.

Wrong redirect

The redirect of Contemporary music to Contemporary classical music is wrong. Popmusic is also Contemporary as well. There should be two topics.

1.Contemporary music = Modern Classical music (after ±1900) AND Popmusic (AND Jazz if that's a special genre and not pop)
2.Contemporary classical music = The current article, which is allready good.

Without the 2nd topic it's impossible to add info about subcultural non-commercial artmusic, which isn't classical as well as pop, because sometimes it's very unpopular music because of it's avant gardistic shape. (like for instance Throbbing Gristle, which is more art instead of popular) Houtlijm 13:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The central problem of modern serious music

How about adressing the central problem of modern serious music, which is, of course, the fact that 99.999% of the population hates this stuff. It is a sterile artistic movement, propped up by the music departments of tax funded universities. If you go to a symphony concert, where people buy their own tickets, or a classiical station with more than a few hundred listeners, you will hear baroque, classiical and romantic music, or highly tonal 20th century music by composers to "pedestrian" to be included in this article, such as Bernstein, Copeland, Gershwin, etc.

The music is "innovative" and "cutting edge" but has failed to connect with audiences.