# What would composer from centuries ago think about modern music? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [August 16, 2016, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-composer-from-centuries-ago-think-about-modern-music/763005 "2016-08-16T18:16:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-composer-from-centuries-ago-think-about-modern-music/763005/41 "2016-08-17T16:24:43Z")
> [@Les\_Espaces\_Du\_Sommeil](#): > > This. > > Popular music existed in their days, yet they chose to write something different and, actually, much more complex. There’s absolutely no reason to think they’d be enthusiatic about rock or modern pop. Harmonically and melodically, these genres would have very little appeal to them: they’d just be way too simplistic. That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t use a modern pop melody (they did occasionally use popular melodies of their times) but I bet it would only be as a basis for much more ambitious and complex works. > > Now, they’d probably be fascinated by advances in technology (recording, electric instruments) and they’d probably incorporate them in their work. Composers are often interested in new sounds or combinations of sounds (reportedly, **Brahms** was delighted to hear a banjo towards the very end of his life), so they’d certainly give them a try. > > However, I’m really uneasy with the concept of “musical progress”. What does that mean exactly ? That today’s music is better / more complex / more advanced than what came before ? Put that way, I think it’s grossly wrong. > > In terms of technology, certainly. But technology =/= artistic quality. You can have amazing tools and still do a crap job. > > In terms of rythym, it’s debatable. Certainly, today’s music is a lot more heavily syncopated than classical music. Is that more advanced ? On the other end, you could argue that having drums everywhere is actually a regression: are 21th century people so musically-impaired that they need a bang on every single beat to feel the pulse of a musical piece ? > > Harmonically, well the less controversial thing I’ll say is that it’s _different_. Put **Pérotin** , **Beethoven** , **Ferneyhough** and, say, **Dylan** together and I don’t think they could meaningfully collaborate, at least before a _very_ long period of observation and tons of explanations. These musicians follow different rules (yes, even the most revolutionary rock / pop musicians follow rules and patterns, even if unconsciously) and, perhaps most importantly, have completely different goals. > > As for “fairly rigid rules and musical structures”, well I’m not sure that classical music is the most rigid of these genres. Take just about any work by **Bach** and see, for instances, how it often modulates, venturing not infrequently into some pretty remote territories. An awful lot of rock and pop songs stay boringly in the same key from start to finish. And when you find a modulation, it’s usually a rather “tame” and expected one. > > Or take musical forms. Yes, symphonies, sonatas and concertos have a given structure. But, lots of composers started experimenting with those structures pretty much right away, litterally exploding them within years of their invention - **Beethoven** being an obvious example. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of rock and pop song are also very rigidly structured: Verse 1 - Chorus - Verse 2 - Chorus - Bridge - Guitar solo / rap bit - Chorus. Of course, some rock and pop musicians have broken this canvas but I think people vastly underestimate the number of classical musicians who did the exact same thing, centuries before. They weren’t as constrained as implied here and, conversly, modern pop musicians aren’t as free and as revolutionary as they believe. The relationship between what you call “popular” music and classical music was different before mass media. There is no analog to it now. Those composers were just “musicians” then and not segregated. Musical “progress” is stretching what people can hear as music. It’s not a value judgement positive or negative. It happened a whole lot in the 20th century. There is a book called “The Rest is Noise” about this. ---
**Author:** ![Les\_Espaces\_Du\_Sommeil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/les_espaces_du_sommeil/32/308_2.png) [@Les\_Espaces\_Du\_Sommeil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Les_Espaces_Du_Sommeil)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-composer-from-centuries-ago-think-about-modern-music/763005/42 "2016-08-17T17:52:51Z")
> [@](#): > > Musical “progress” is stretching what people can hear as music. It’s not a value judgement positive or negative. It happened a whole lot in the 20th century. There is a book called “The Rest is Noise” about this. This, I can get behind. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-composer-from-centuries-ago-think-about-modern-music/763005/43 "2016-08-17T19:02:24Z")
> [@Les\_Espaces\_Du\_Sommeil](#): > > This, I can get behind. There has been a whole revolution in African music becoming part of “music” especially through african-americans, that has not been mentioned here yet, that they would not be prepared for at all. Musical progress occurs over time and because of innovators and geniuses operating over long periods of time. It may not be comprehensible to an individual time traveller, no matter his genius, in the way we do, because we have the advantage of living through it all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-composer-from-centuries-ago-think-about-modern-music/763005.md?page=2)