For one, you are doing nothing wrong. You have an interest, a knowledge, and you lack some of the pre-conceived notions of what 'serious' music should be - you are the ideal listener.
IMHO:
This music has always been difficult. It had a difficult birth in the ruins of Europe after WWII. It was difficult to compose, to perform, to listen to, and to pass on. It is coming into a period of re-evaluation that it really has never had before. (It has already been through its period of reaction which of course was minimalism.) The cloud of its intellectual and authoritative aura is beginning to fade. Winners and losers are starting to emerge. Ligeti, who back in the day, was often relegated to an 'also-ran', for me has become the most interesting of the group. Instrumentalists are no longer so intimidated - many more of them now have the necessary chops.
For many young composers, there aren't so many issues. They choose from both of these worlds - the maximalists and the minimalists - in addition to technology, rock, and several generations of electronic music to create new hybrids of style. In Europe, the heritage of this music is more elevated. A composer I have started to enjoy, Michael Jarrell, writes in this maximalist, serialist style - but his pieces breathe much easier. They're not such edifices.
There have been a few periods in music history like this. The period of the late middle ages was one. The isorhythmic motet was the serialist technique of a previous age. It was a bumpy time musically. Then all of a sudden, the early Renaissance composers (Ockeghem, Obrecht, Josquin, etc.) pulled it all together in a music that was suddenly cohesive and powerful. And also music that had digested some of the experimentation.
How to listen? That is also hard to answer. I think for one, this music is easier to appreciate up close and in person. I made a trip several years ago to hear Le marteau in L.A., and was able to hear it in two different concerts. It made a big difference. It was easier to sense the overall structure. It was also important to see the musicians at work. Some of these pieces are extraordinarily hard. When you're sitting a few feet from the musicians - it's easier to appreciate the technique of the performer and the composer. It's also easier to sense some of the aura that the music has. (It's a little like me and punk - going to the clubs themselves made me see the whole subculture - which was hard for me to get from just the recordings - and it made me appreciate the music more.)
Again - you're doing absolutely nothing wrong. I'm surprised you're not getting a rebate check for your efforts!
--- Oh - I forgot Varese. Yes - most of his few pieces are amazing. Boulez et. al had to write (or felt they had to write) music that followed from Varese, Webern, Schoenberg, Ives, etc. It was quite a challenge - kind of like trying to write novels that picked up where Joyce left off.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-08-27 03:48 am (UTC)For one, you are doing nothing wrong. You have an interest, a knowledge, and you lack some of the pre-conceived notions of what 'serious' music should be - you are the ideal listener.
IMHO:
This music has always been difficult. It had a difficult birth in the ruins of Europe after WWII. It was difficult to compose, to perform, to listen to, and to pass on. It is coming into a period of re-evaluation that it really has never had before. (It has already been through its period of reaction which of course was minimalism.) The cloud of its intellectual and authoritative aura is beginning to fade. Winners and losers are starting to emerge. Ligeti, who back in the day, was often relegated to an 'also-ran', for me has become the most interesting of the group. Instrumentalists are no longer so intimidated - many more of them now have the necessary chops.
For many young composers, there aren't so many issues. They choose from both of these worlds - the maximalists and the minimalists - in addition to technology, rock, and several generations of electronic music to create new hybrids of style. In Europe, the heritage of this music is more elevated. A composer I have started to enjoy, Michael Jarrell, writes in this maximalist, serialist style - but his pieces breathe much easier. They're not such edifices.
There have been a few periods in music history like this. The period of the late middle ages was one. The isorhythmic motet was the serialist technique of a previous age. It was a bumpy time musically. Then all of a sudden, the early Renaissance composers (Ockeghem, Obrecht, Josquin, etc.) pulled it all together in a music that was suddenly cohesive and powerful. And also music that had digested some of the experimentation.
How to listen? That is also hard to answer. I think for one, this music is easier to appreciate up close and in person. I made a trip several years ago to hear Le marteau in L.A., and was able to hear it in two different concerts. It made a big difference. It was easier to sense the overall structure. It was also important to see the musicians at work. Some of these pieces are extraordinarily hard. When you're sitting a few feet from the musicians - it's easier to appreciate the technique of the performer and the composer. It's also easier to sense some of the aura that the music has. (It's a little like me and punk - going to the clubs themselves made me see the whole subculture - which was hard for me to get from just the recordings - and it made me appreciate the music more.)
Again - you're doing absolutely nothing wrong. I'm surprised you're not getting a rebate check for your efforts!
---
Oh - I forgot Varese. Yes - most of his few pieces are amazing. Boulez et. al had to write (or felt they had to write) music that followed from Varese, Webern, Schoenberg, Ives, etc. It was quite a challenge - kind of like trying to write novels that picked up where Joyce left off.