Klarinet Archive - Posting 000874.txt from 1998/01

From: Janet McNaught <mcnaught@-----.com>
Subj: Re: Music: Modern vs. 'Old'
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 08:11:55 -0500

This discussion of "modern" and "contemporary" music is a little muddy.

As an amateur musician, I am just starting to learn the language to describe
musical forms. To the general public, "classical" means music that we go
the concert halls to hear, and to many people it means boring. We need to be
more specific.

As a professional art dealer, I find a few inaccurate generalizations in the
examples that people have been throwing in for comparison. (And I will not
defend Jackson Pollock). There many parallels in music and art.

"Modern" is a period closely following the impressionists. It refers to a
specific time, and a specific understanding of the way that painting could
be done. At the time, it was not popular - received bad reviews and had
trouble finding an audience. Now the earliest "Modernist" painters are
highly sought - the Museum of Modern Art seems to be doing rather well.

Similarly "Contemporary" refers to a period, style and approach to art that
followed Modern. We also use the term loosely to refer to current artists
(as in contemporary realists, contemporary artists etc.). We need to be
very careful that we do not use "Contemporary" to mean contemporary.

The latest trends in fine art are experimental - performance, post modern,
etc. And many of the current trends are not understood by the "average joe".

Now I know that there are parallels in music. What we must do is ensure
that the terminology is not used carelessly. If I say that I don't like
modern music, I will be misunderstood unless I use the term correctly and
specifically.

So my question for the musicologists is: Where is this stuff defined? Short
of taking a music degree, is there somewhere that we amateurs can look for
clarification and definition.

Janet.