I have just bought some pieces off the lists for DipABRSM performance - and I thought I would be brave and have a look at some contemporary pieces - got the contemporary pieces for solo piano (ABRSM publication) and tried the piece Moonscape...the first chord made me feel uneasy and as I continued through I realised - I just don't get it. I had to play Mozart's Sonata in C I bought to remind myself why I loved music again...! (It's a bit like the dementors from Harry Potter - except it is modern music that sucks the happiness and life out of me...!)

Does anyone else have this problem with modern piano music - I would LOVE to 'get it' to be able to play it and enjoy it - but I can't - I feel like I'm completely ruling out a whole genre which some people must enjoy playing...any suggestions of good composers to ease me in? I am determined to play a piece in the diploma performance as a personal challenge!

I think you need to give it much more of a chance. It sounds like you were judging it far too soon. Try actually learning it & give yourself some time to let it grow on you. Think about the atmosphere of the piece & what it's trying to convey.

Listen to a lot more modern music to get more used to it & try to be open-minded about it. You might not like it all & this particular piece might not turn out to be right for you, but there's a great deal of variety in modern music & you can probably find something that suits you. I find modern pieces usually go down well in exams & it's good to be a bit different.

Perhaps your instincts are sound.

Some modern piano music is instantly appealing, and some grows on you, but a lot of this so-called "music" is pretentious tosh, waiting for someone to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

The huge repertoire of piano music that we have inherited contains more wonderful music than any of us will ever play well in this lifetime. You could devote a lifetime to any one of: Couperin, Bach, Scarlatti, Haydn, Mozart, or Beethoven, or any of several dozen more great composers of piano music, and never be bored. So why waste time on something that does nothing for you?

I find a lot of modern music quite inaccessible too, and tend to agree with MT's comments. However, I think you are right to persist. I recently spent quite a bit of time working through the Spectrum books in preparation for a Diploma Quick Study. If I'm honest, I only found a small handful of pieces that I actually liked, or felt I understood and would want to play again. However, I find that the more I understand about modern music, the more I can appreciate it. It is probably worth doing some more research to find out more about what the composer was aiming for. Good luck!

But to answer the second part of your question, Takemitsu's "Rain Tree Dance No. 2" makes sense, and is quite beautiful.

Whoops - sorry - Sketch (not Dance)

Personally, I adore Takemitsu. I learnt Rain Tree Sketch 2 last year & had a fantastic lesson on it with Noriko Ogawa at Chetham's Summer School. I'm now learning the 1st Rain Tree Sketch & may well play it to her when she comes to give us a masterclass in April. I've previously played quite a bit of Messiaen (who is the dedicatee of the 2nd Rain Tree Sketch) & I've started on Oliver Knussen's Prayer Bell Sketch (in memory of Takemitsu).

I love all of this music, but it is a personal thing & you have to feel in tune with it. I feel it's worth giving modern music a chance, even if it's not immediately accessible. My pupils have greatly enjoyed many of the Spectrum pieces & they also enjoy modern pieces in recitals. They don't have as many preconceived ideas as adults. I agree that there is an enormous repertoire of wonderful music for piano without going anywhere near contemporary music, but for me there would be something missing in my life if I didn't have these modern pieces. My other great loves are Rachmaninov & Mozart, although I do love many others, also.

I (still) don't 'get' Bach ......
It's just notes........

Mad Tom - you summed up what I was thinking about some of it being 'pretentious tosh'! but I wasn't brave enough to say it!

I think you're right though - if I don't enjoy playing it, maybe I should just not play it!! I think it's finding the right composers - and I will definitely be trying out Takemitsu!


SueHM - I have the Spectrum book - and I haven't managed to finish one piece yet...! And I've just realised that the quick study could be modern and that has made me feel panicky...ahh! that would be worse case scenario.

bevpiano - I think you're right that children don't have as many preconcieved ideas as adults. Although I let my pupils choose their exam pieces - I think when I play them all through to them I am probably subconsiously quite negative about any modern pieces which is something I think I need to change! (New Teaching Resolution for 2009)

My quick study was not a particularly modern piece at all - in fact it was a pretty straightforward dance, one or two changes of key and time, but nothing like as tricky as I had been expecting. D-o-n'-t P-a-n-i-c!

I have to say I disagree with Mad Tom's assertion that it is a waste of time to study music that does not instantly 'do something' for you. I think in order to really be educated about repertoire and the instrument it is important work at the many different areas that come under the banner of 'classical' music over your studies.

I really didn't feel an affinity to modern piano music so when I took the DipABRSM performance exam I made a point of choosing some more contemporary stuff in the shape of Scunthorpe's Night Pieces (ok, not exactly contemporary, but in the grander scheme of things...) It was hard work to really connect with these pieces, but I feel that when I got them I really benefited from the exploration of technique, performance technique and the sonority of the instrument that I got from them. I think combining this with working on some Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann, Debussy etc makes for a more rounded musician and this will inform you playing every time.

Don't give up on a style that doesn't instantly grab you, there is always something useful to be learned!

How easy it is to be misunderstood. What I said was:

"So why waste time on something that does nothing for you?"

Nowhere did I say "instantly".

But I did say "some of it grows on you"

I completely agree that you should give unfamiliar music a fair trial, and maybe return to it from time to time to see if your reactions and feelings about it have changed.

Without question this is so. However, some emperors (probably) look good in no clothes!


I have occasionally likened the learning of a new piece of music, particularly in an unfamiliar style, to walking in a strange city talking a foreign language, in the dark, in thick fog. Taking this analogy a bit further:

As you learn the piece and wander around the city it begins to become familiar. The fog clears a little, perhaps someone turns on the street lights, you find a tourist map. Perhaps you start to learn a bit of the language so that you can read the street signs; Finally the sun comes up and the fog clears, you find that you know your new city really well.

You don't have to get to the end of this process to work out whether you're in Milan or Milton Keynes, Rome or Rochdale, Paris or Peterborough but you do have to start it. (With apologies to those who may think Milton Keynes, Rochdale or Peterborough have redeeming features).

I would venture to suggest that if a piece of music is on the DipABRSM syllabus then someone, somewhere, at some time must have thought it worth while. Only you can decide whether to persevere and try to find out why.

I suppose the pretentious tosh comment is what gets me. A few times on these fora people have tried to discuss modern art/music etc only to be shouted down by the 'pretentious tosh' brigade. I agree that not all art appeals to all people but I think people can be too quick to label something as bad when it doesn't appeal to them and their sensibilities. While I'm not an expert on contemporary music by any stretch of the imagination, I find comments like that quite irritating.

Rather off topic, apologies.

Just as a lot of earlier music will never really have made the grade, and now be lost to us because it wasn't any good, so I'm sure there will be a lot of modern stuff which likewise won't survive - one of our problems is that whilst boundaries are being stretched, it can be difficult to judge what is good or not. Indeed it also took a long time (and clearly for some, is still taking a long time ) for Bach's genius to be recognised for what it is, and a lot of his music might still be obscure today had it not been rediscovered...

Not on the piano, but I've found relatively avant-garde recorder music an utter pain to learn, because nothing about it is familiar - the process of getting odd techniques under my fingers, and learning rafts of weird intervals is time-consuming and painstaking, and all for an end result which still irritates my ears - yet I still got a buzz from listening to a recording of a professional player doing the same piece and realising I could recognise the "music" and identify with what the professional was doing. More importantly, stretching my boundary in a way which I have no intention of expanding other than for exam purposes has actually improved my technique in other ways, for the music I care about and love and want to play.

Sooo - yep, contemporary music may not be your cup of tea; it isn't for everyone, but it can still bring benefits to your playing overall (and still be more fun than doing rafts of scales , just....). Good luck in the hunt for something which even gives you pleasure to play too - there are some pieces out there, I'm sure .

I really smiled at this.
I do know others who agree though - very highly qualifed people too! I wonder what would have happened if Telemann had got that organist's post instead of JS?

Just a thought!
I do like Bach myself.

As for the modern piano stuff, I tend to like things that use the percussive aspect of the instrument. I can't think of names of either pieces or composers at all at the moment, though!

There's a Messiean piece, Cantéyodjayâ, which is quite percussive. There is a piano concerto played entirely with the fists and arms - I can't recall who it's by, it could be Henry Cowell. I've got it on VHS somewhere I'll see if I can dig it up.

what? are you kidding me?

Sadly ... he is not.

I think the technical term for bunches of notes hit with the fist is "neo-aleatoric tone clusters" - it might look good in a review, but it doesn't make them sound any better.

Very nicely put anacrusis! It might not be your cup of tea but it is hugely beneficial to stretch oneself in one's studies.

I did a Shostakovich prelude for my grade 7 when I was 16 and HATED it when I was learning it. However, it taught me a lot and I still enjoy bashing through it 14 years later.

Incidentally, it was also my best mark in the exam!

I too like lots of Shostakovich's music.

But does he count as "modern". He was born over 100 years ago and has been dead for over 30 years!

better than what? who cares what techniques you use if it sounds good? have you heard the piece? if so then fair play, but don't judge it if you haven't.

I presume you meant "Dynamic Motion"

I think it is awful, along with most of his other work, but I expect everyone else to make up their own minds about it.

I found the tape - it was the Cowell piano concerto, actually composed 14 years after Dynamic Motion. Fair enough MT if you don't like it - but he had matured a lot since his early days, perhaps worth a listen?

I just listened on youtube....mmm. I don't think it's my thing. Although I think one of the five year olds I teach played something quite similar in our last lesson. Maybe I should start writing their compositions down. (seriously - I am not being precocious...I think I could make some money out of them.)

Considering I was a teenager who was still in school it was the most "modern" thing I had ever learned at the time. Therefore it was a leap for me to work on it and was akin to my learning those Peter Sculthorpe Night Pieces a couple of years ago.

Don't a lot of people lump anything that is tonally challenging and written in or since the 20th century as modern? I think that is reasonably fair considering how much music is recorded the performed that is four or five hundred years old!

I think you're in the majority about Cowell judging from the number of people in the audience!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yAjnHUG1SRo&...feature=related
I still think its awesome.

the world would be a pretty boring place if we all liked the same thing! It's interesting to learn about composers that I have never heard of before - so thanks for introducing me to Henry Cowell - I can't believe I never knew that music was written for the arms and fists...!

Does anyone remember the late 60's early 70's prog-rock/avant-garde band Henry Cow (Fred Frith, Tim Hodgkinson, Chris Cutler and Lindsay Cooper). THey did some very good stuff (The Henry Cow Legend is their best album).

The band always denied taking their name from "Henry Cowell"... but I don't believe them.

p.s. Des - yes ... agreed ... anything that someone else enjoys is worth listening to several times. And it is not just mid to late 20th Century. Take Beethoven's Hammerklavier - only the 1st movement has instant appeal. The rest takes several listenings (and a lot of stamina) before you start to really enjoy it and begin to understand it. Ditto his great late string quartets - they define their own musical language. Late Skryabin is an acquired taste. The last Fugue in book 1 of Bach's WTC is almost Schoenbergian. Even some Couperin (e.g. Passacaille) has difficult and very modern-sounding harmonies and rhythms hiding behind its conventional Baroque ornamentation.

It reminds me of the film "Green Card" where Gerard Depardieu's character is a composer. In one scene he performs one of his own compositions. At the end, as everyone looks on in open-mouthed horror, he explains: "It's not Mozart!"

Can't find a clip though, except very briefly in the trailer (it lasts about 2 seconds, about 20 seconds in):
modern piano music a la Depardieu

I may be heretical, but I think the best of JSB is choral and choral-orchestral, especially the motets and the cantatas. My favourites are the motet "Jesu, meine Freude", the cantatas "Ich habe genug" and "Jauchzet Gott in allen Landen", and the B minor mass, but very few of the cantatas lack at least one gorgeous movement.

Not heretical at all: The keyboard works and the orchestral works are wonderful but you always feel that you should add "for the time", as both keyboard and orchestral technique developed enormously after his death. The choral works, especially (as you say) the B minor mass, remain as works at the pinnacle of their genre by any standards. Quite simply, nothing "better" has been written since (though I will concede a few are as good). Alas, not everyone will agree with us!

whilst i do enjoy contemporary tonally challenging pieces which experiment with sound and push boundaries, i find it incredibly grating that if you are a developing composer interested in experimenting with TONAL music you are seemingly written off by many in the musical world. I just don't get it.

I think it's because it is extremely difficult to something "new" with tonality - people still do it, look at bits of the ligeti violin concerto for example. However many composers of tonal music, many film composers included, while writing perfectly good music don't bring anything new to the table. Its just recycled idioms of a past age.

I agree that this seems to be the popular opinion but I still can't help feeling it's a flawed statement. I'm certainly not having a pop at you des but this has been winding me up for a while!.......

To use a popular music analogy, all the great 60s bands (beatles/beach boys etc) and many many more since have all effectively "recycling idioms of a past age" but combined them with all manner of sounds and textures that were being heard at that time and adding their own material to create something truly new.

The vast majority of "classical" composers have done exactly the same thing over the years changing their particular branch of music little by little putting their own stamp on.

I get the feeling sometimes that perhaps we're expecting too much of a leap at any one time.

Accepting contemporary music as the done thing and tonal as not is particularly irritating given that the vast majority of new contemporary composers are also "recycling idioms of a past age" just a more recent one!

One seems to get the impression that to compose new tonal music (even if you also compose polytonal/atonal etc etc) makes you somewhat less of a person and that you are misguided or not a "serious" composer who should be banished to the realms of light or film music.

I would be staggered if the general consensus among musicians and listeners were that they no longer wanted any new tonal music.

Perhaps we have lost our way somewhere along the line and the music community in general shouldn't be afraid of promoting the idea of new tonal music for fear of rattling the psuedo-intellegensia, (an interesting point above refers to some new atonal music as "the emperor's new clothes").

We should be embracing and encouraging all new music regardless of form and genre. Surely that way we will truly be progressing forwards.

Sorry rant over! I'll get off my soap-box.....

One of the most empowering steps you can take as a composer is to consider the possibility that you are not going to be the next Beethoven, Debussy or Boulez, and just get on with writing what you would like to hear. Then find out if anyone else likes it enough to play it. If the answer is yes, carry on in the same direction.

Absolutely spot on ken, I totally agree.

I agree.

Somebody once said, "90% of everything is rubbish", and to identify what will survive among new music is a very clever trick that has escaped the majority of critics through the ages.

I listen to quite a lot of new music, and dislike most of it. Occasionally, something strikes me as worth further investigation, and I will try to hear anything by its composer until I decide that my interest is unwarranted. This is unlikely to be because I know s/he won't stand the test of time; it is more likely that I have decided that my life expectancy is less than the time I would need to get the point of the music. You can see in my sig the recent and current composers who are still on the list - rather few still alive, but Elliott Carter has been more productive in his 100th decade than in any previous one and is still going strong.

My view too. Exactly

.. and setting records for longevity.

I've always considered pop music to be in a different category altogether for the most part - the bands you mention and other influential artists from that era may use conventional harmonic structures (though they often don't - look at "I am the Walrus") but their music is innovative in other ways, including the purely sonic, I think a lot contemporary music's emancipated sound can be attributed to pop music.



Composing tonal music does not make one less of a musician, but unless a composer really is truly excellent I wouldn't bother listening to new tonal music UNLESS it is innovative in some other way. To use a line stolen from Mad Tom there is such a wealth of incredible music from the "tonal" eras that I would probably be better off listening to rather than something that hasn't stood the test of time. Modern tonal composers are in direct competition with Beethoven and Bach, and unless they bring something else to the table, in terms of musical innovation, Beethoven is likely to win. Sorry I know this sounds a bit hostile, I'm not having a dig at any tonal composers, this is just my reaction as a listener.

I thought of this this afternoon when I was pumping iron at the gym, accompanied by the ubiquitous pop video. Not only were idioms being rewritten, but whole songs. There were a couple of numbers which had been considerably revamped - one was 'If I were a rich man' (modified to 'If I were a rich girl') and the other I've temporarily forgotten. And I must say that I rather preferred these new rewritings to the originals.

In answer to the OP: If you don't enjoy it, don't play it. Simple. Life's too short....

I went to a concert which had some Boulez and as far as I could tell it might as well have been a toddler bashing randomly at the keyboard, as opposed to a university music professor.