Exactly what kind of music are you talking about? Most modern pop uses the same chordal structure that the classical composers used, so I doubt they’d find the music itself cacophonous. I mean, thirds, fifths, sixths and octaves are still consonant, while seconds, fourths, and (non-dominant) sevenths are still dissonant.
The problem comes in with jazz, where sevenths are generally considered consonant, and everything else, while still dissonant, are often considered desirable. And, of course, there is pop music that borrows the jazz dissonance, so those probably wouldn’t be liked.
The main problem the oldies might not like is instrumentation. As already mentioned, the method of vocalization is considerably different. But there’s also electric guitars, and other usually distorted sounds, that sounded grating even to people just a few generations ago. And there’s no telling how many other instruments are played differently today.
Having said all of this, I’m not saying, even if they grokked the instrumentation, that they’d actually enjoy the music. Even classical artists today often claim that pop music is repetitive and boring, with its predictable drum beats, bass lines, and single melody lines (with only the most obvious harmonies). But, then again, Bach, for example, did almost the same thing with his precursors of chord charts.
The scenario of simply bringing classical composers to the year 2010 ("…In the year 2010, 2010") and see what they would have to think is pretty strange, because they would all be too much in shock to say anything. Imagine yourself being launched 300 years into the future and then be asked: “what do you think of this song?”, followed by random noise.
I can see it be done in two ways:
Let the composers acclimatize in some kind of musical institution where they could advance at their own pace and get to know modern music and instruments on their own conditions.
Have the composers be reborn in the 20th or 21th century with their personalities and musical genius intact.
In scenario one, I think Mozart would become schizophrenic until he mastered the electrical guitar in ways nobody thought possible.
In scenario two, Brahms would become the new NME indie darling.
Outside of the things made possible by 20th century technology, I think the classical composers would less surprised by modern music than many seem to believe because something similar to modern music was around in their time. Most modern pop music is the linear descendant of 19th century folk music. If you go listen to some of the earliest recordings of folk music by the Lomaxes, songs that had their origin back in the 1800’s, the music isn’t all that different than what we have now. (Take House of the Rising Sun, for example.) I think the great composers might be baffled that we make a big deal out of the unsophisticated crap that the peasants and working class listened to in the taverns and beer halls, but I don’t think it would be entirely foreign to their ears (again, excepting technological innovations like, say, a heavily distorted electric guitar).
Musicians tend to be pretty tolerant of other musical styles. I imagine they would be tickled pink by the possibility of sitting around and listening to the itunes/zune/whatever catalog. I also dismiss the idea that these people are the stuffed shirts revisionists make them out to be. Dont confuse the audience with the creators.
Music and human nature dont change that much over a period of a couple hundred years. Principles of harmony and whatever makes us think a song is catchy is most likely universal. For instance, I find World music to be sometimes as catchy as any Beatles song. The musician archetype is static. Mozart has more in common with John Lennon than Glenn Gould.
Not to mention, some of these characters where pretty progressive. They would experiment with different instruments, arrangements, new concepts, and new ways to present things on stage (assuming operas).
They would probably like prog rock and some of the more complicated metal; they’d also probably like a lot of the later Beatles catalog. They would appreciate music that was melodically complex and interesting; I doubt they would have much patience for rap, techno, or other music based upon beats and not melodies.
I agree with the posters that say that harmonically most recent pop music wouldn’t pose a challenge to the classical gang, but I think that’s the only thing they wouldn’t have a problem with. Pop is repetitive and lacks development and, again the sensibilities those guys had wasn’t one that valued what we like in pop music. They valued relatively complex structures (not anywhere near as complex as they later became in classical music, but still…), sophistication and restraint. Sure, they’d find lots of stuff to like and I’m sure both Mozart and Haydn would get a kick out of Cole Porter (Beethoven was too much of a prude), say, but on the whole I think they’d be either bored or horrified.
Weren’t Beethoven’s late string quartets considered cacophonous, even blasphemous?
I played some long Mike Oldfield stuff, which is much more structurally like classical music than the average song, to my 90 year old father-in-law, who was a music teacher and is still composing. He liked much of it, but as vdgg81 said criticized the lack of development of the themes. I don’t think they’d be scandalized at all, but would be disappointed that this wealth of instrumentation and technology was wasted on simple music. Beethoven violated convention far more than any five rock and rollers.
But I do think they would be blown away by people walking around listening to their music hundreds of years after they wrote it played by teeny little orchestras stuffed inside MP3 players.
Yeah, this.
I suspect that at least some of them (including deaf Beethoven) would want to study the scores of music being written today, and might be disappointed or dismissive of anything that wasn’t carefully planned out and written down before being performed.
They’d love all the great recordings available, but might well consider it a mixed blessing. “Don’t you ever get together with your friends to play through some string quartets any more?”
I think some people are trying to compare the classical composers to today’s pop music. It would be more fair to compare them to today’s “serious” composers. I don’t think they necessarily had a high opinion of popular music of their own time, except in the sense of borrowing some of its tunes.
I think they would not even recognize mordern music as even an attempt at music unless someone pointed out to them that that is the intent. It just sounds too different.
If they were able to get past all the odd sounds I think they would reject the song oriented nature of today’s music. They, for the most part I think, would think it isn’t serious unless it’s big. Hell, I see people now who grew up on rock music bemoaning the diminished stature of the album in the mp3 era and there are classical followers who look down their noses at Chopin because of his short little numbers.