= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Luke_A_Somers comments on Firewalling the Optimal from the Rational - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (339)
It's not exactly the same thing, but I did once throw together a "sampler" list of works by currently living* composers. Not everything in there is a favorite, and there are many favorites not included (especially since the list was restricted to academic composers, thus leaving out a lot of Europeans such as Boulez), but it does give an idea of my "orientation". :-)
*At the time of writing -- Babbitt has since passed on.
"Contemporary art music." (Or "modern", but that might paradoxically suggest older, as in 1900-1950.)
"New music" is perfectly fine in a context where it's taken for granted that "music" refers to art music (as opposed to popular music). But "classical" is just as bad when referring to Tchaikovsky as when referring to Boulez; the issue is the terminological collision with the Classical period in music history.
My father, a music reviewer, coined 'learned music'. The crux is careful study of theory, and its full application. This is not restricted to the western tradition, so when relevant, it can be clarified to 'western learned music'.
To be sure, pop artists often know their music theory - but I think few would assert that they're applying it to the fullest extent. Some would, and those are cases that don't match 'classical' exactly, but have elements that a classical music fan might perk their ears at.