Talk:Contemporary classical music
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
Contents |
[edit] eclecticism
The "eclecticism" section seems to be completely redundant given the "polystylism" section. Should it be deleted?
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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) .
[edit] 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)
- 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)
[edit] 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).
