After you've read the lovely written in Feb 2010 by the Telegraph, let me tell you what kind of pisses me off about it.

(waits for you to read)


First off, it references only two composers. One is Anton Webern, died in 1945. The other is Arnold Schoenberg, who died in 1951. This article talks about 'modern classical' in a very blatant blanket statement kind of way, and yet the two composers it mentions have been dead for more than 50 years!

As far as the style of music they pioneered, serialism, (modernism to an extent too), while still practiced by some composers today, hasn't been the 'most popular' style since the early 70's. It also wasn't the most popular style for the first 50 years of the twentieth century either. It was only from the 50's and 60's that 'modernism or die' was the aesthetic that plagued most of the proponents of 'modern classical.'

I guess my major problem with this article is that it blatantly ignores a majority of the music written for the past 100 years when it states ... 'Audiences hate modern classical music because their brains cannot cope.' I mean, it's an English paper and they're completely ignoring Ralph Vaughan Williams, who wrote tons of beautiful music 'til his death in 1958.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FUyZkWCCdc&feature=related (Vaughan Williams 5th symphony, 1st movement (first 10 minutes of it anyway), finished in 1941)

Also it doesn't address anything about the two popular styles since the 70s, Minimalism and what is sometimes called 'neo-romanticism'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aLwfDoaCsw <--- Shaker Loops (1st part, Shaking and Trembling) by John Adams, written in 1978.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDooOkdU_q8&feature=related <--- Angel of Light, 3rd movement (come un sogno ... which I believe means like a dream), written by Einojuhani Rautavaara in 1994 I believe.

I mean, both pieces are very easy to listen to on a structural level, very easy to follow. One is exciting (it's great to watch Shaker Loops live, something so intimate about string players), the other is mind-numbingly beautiful.

The real questions this article should be asking is ... why the hell are we still complaining about the music of Schoenberg and the 2nd Viennese school when there's so much other great 20th century music we could be 'exposing' the audience to (not to mention the 21st century). Why doesn't anyone ask that question?

I'm not saying all serialism and modernism is bad, but those who like 'modern classical' and want to see it thrive need to un-stick themselves to the spectre modernism has thrown over it like a curse. Anyway. I have to go to work now ...