A Discussion of the Various Types of Music that could be referred to as Contemporary

I have noticed recently that there seem to be several different styles of composers in the 20th + 21st centuries that are all labeled "contemporary" or can be described as "contemporary" if you are using the actual definition of the word in it's adjective form. However, they all seem different. I was wondering what is considered to be the actual "contemporary" musical era. I was wondering when and where this "contemporary" era ended (if it has) and the "modern" era began. I was also wondering where the lines are drawn between composers and which era's they fit into. There are so many different sounds that all seem to be categorized as "contemporary". Are there subsets of contemporary music? Another interesting thing to talk about would be what the definition of the word contemporary is and how that relates to the styles of music.

For example, If the definition of the word contemporary is:

1: happening, existing, living, or coming into being during the same period of time2 a: simultaneous b: marked by characteristics of the present period : modern , current

Then any music at the present time or sounding current or hip could be referred to as "contemporary". When does this definition of "contemporary music" wear off and when is no longer consider "contemporary" because it is no longer "marked by the characteristic of the present period"?

Here are some of the composers from the 20th and 21st centuries and how I generally see them grouped and labeled:

There is the group consisting of Samuel Barber, Aaron Copland, John Adams, George Gershwin, and Leonard Bernstein who are certainly not identical, but, I think, can be categorized as the "contemporary" composers. Sometimes these are referred to as the American Contemporary or 20th Century Contemporary composers.

Then there are the, in my opinion, more modern composers such as Ligetti, Cage, Crumb, Sorabji, etc. that I have heard referred to as "contemporary". These composers certainly do not sound much like the first four at all and to me do not fit into the same kind of category that the first four do. The first five are more tonal and more lyrical in general. The last group is more atonal and more avante garde. These composers music is less structural and more free then before.

The you have people like Messiaen and Alban Berg who lived and composed around the same time frame as all of the rest of these composers yet is somewhere in between the style of the first and second groups of composers. Messiaen is definately more tonal and less avante garde then Crumb, Cage, and Legetti. However, he is not always as romantic as Barber, Gershwin, Copland, Adams, and Bernstein. Berg can be passionate in a dramatic romantic fashion (as in Wozzeck) more like Barber or Copland can, but still there are some aspects of his music like his harmonies that are more modern and less structured than Barber and the gang.

And then there are very recent composers like Steve Reich, Eric Whitacre, and Phillip Glass who have returned to more a more tonal more structured music, but have a distinctly "contemporary" feel to the music. This style of contemporary is certainly not the same as early contemporary in the early part of the 19th century. This music sometimes has a minimalist feel to it. It is really "hip" and very "current" sounding. I have also heard this referred to as contemporary.

So, what do you think?

It could be said that the same thing applies to some extent to other eras as well. Chopin is rather different from Brahms, or Mendelson. Same thing applies to Bach and Vivaldi... :-/

I do think that "classical", "romantic" and "contemporary" do define an era, rather than a style. In art you do get the cubists, the dadaists, etc, so in music it "should" be the same. Only it's not happened really, although there are the serialists, the dodecaphonists, the neoromantics and so on. The big big names you mention seem to create a school of their own, and a league which is unsurpassed (until the next great composer comes). These names have created their own techniques, their own school of thought and even rather big names of today, like Thomas Ades, are not capable (yet) to reach such "stardom".

Contemporary has to do with the era. IF you would like to connect it to the work itself, I'd say that it applies to the 'filters' that each composer uses. Give the same material and same range of techniques and you shall get vastly different results: aesthetics and personality come into play: contemporary thinking applies here as well.

Well, I would say that the word "contemporary", in music, at least, refers to when that composer is writing and not how their music sounds. In any case, though many of the composers you've listed (Gershwin, Sorabji, Bernstein, Copland, and even Berg) would usually not be contemporary by most standards.

Basically, there's no set definition. I personally use it to describe when the composer is composing, and not the characteristics of his music, but many people use it in varying ways.

If you want to take a dialectic approach, "Contemporary" -- I prefer "post-Modern," though not in the movement sense per se -- is music that is either a synthesis in any way of pre-Modern (Romantic and before) and Modern or an antithesis to the high abstractness of Modern music.

But I think it's silly to try and create a historical narrative for current composers, since we have no idea of their historical weight yet.

If you want to take a dialectic approach, "Contemporary" -- I prefer "post-Modern," though not in the movement sense per se -- is music that is either a synthesis in any way of pre-Modern (Romantic and before) and Modern or an antithesis to the high abstractness of Modern music.

But I think it's silly to try and create a historical narrative for current composers, since we have no idea of their historical weight yet.

is there still a place where postmodern is taken so literally out of context? sorry, ferk, what you said was of no way dialectical approach, but rather populist.

Well, to me "contemporary" is something of the time. It's something that wouldn't have existed if everything before it was not taken in account. Whether that is taken to be understood in historical, social or cultural means, or in terms of personal experiences but also in terms of social memory and experiences. If something is created that wouldn't have been created if everything that came before it hadn't come, it is contemporary of its time. That's why in my opinion, all Birtwistle, Ligeti, Laurence Crane, John White and Aphex Twin are contemporary composers (or sonic artists, in the case of Aphex Twin). And that's why I don't think that, for example, J. Lee's music is contemporary (no offense there - that is my personal opinion, and I am not saying J. Lee shouldn't write music like that if he so wishes, but it's just that I personally wouldn't consider it contemporary, and thus lose any interest in it) - because it could have easily existed 150 or 200 years ago, and it's a music that instead of existing where it should, is trying to bring something back that doesn't belong to our time anymore. As Alexander Goehr said, "as composers you should be interested in the past, but you should not be interested in going back."

And I also believe you're doing some overly generalised and biased categorisations by grouping 20th and 21st century composers as you have. For example, when you say "I think [they] can be categorized as the "contemporary" composers. Sometimes these are referred to as the American Contemporary or 20th Century Contemporary composers.", I'd like to say that I don't think these composers are representative of the 20th or 21st centuries in terms of music, and also that America is not The World. Furthermore, I wouldn't really say that Barber, Copland, Gershwin and Berg are really "contemporary" composers. I would say they are more like "modern composers", and this is why I'd like to draw a distinction between modern (or Modernist) and contemporary composers. I'd personally classify "modern" those composers who, at about the beginning of the 20th century and up to the middle of it (none of that is precise - society, and thus the arts, evolve(s) from one moment to the other, there's no precise block of time which contains a particular style), consciously started breaking away from the past and seeking new ways to write music. "Contemporary" is the music that belongs to the same time (and place, arguably) with me, because obviously "contemporary" to Elliot Carter means a lot of things, as at some point in his life even Debussy was his contemporary.

I agree with most folks - "contemporary" can designate anything happening now; or at least in my lifetime.

It can't be used to describe a style, simply because music today has become so fragmented and intertwined that there's no longer any way to categorize an era. Information is moving to quickly, and genres are so convoluted that it's kind of interesting to wonder what, in 100 years, historians will title the chapter for "our time"?!

:hmmm:

But wasn't music always a complex mix? Certainly you could pick out a dominant style right now, but I'd think it'd be safe to say that it's not in the classical/art world, and it's certainly not strictly western in origins.

I think there's a habit of thinking that past centuries only had one style; there have always been a plethora of styles, it's just that history and cultural recollection are narrative-based, so ignore many of the undercurrents going on.

And then there's the thought that a "period" composer could still not have written the way they do in the past, even if he's writing completely "perfectly."

Again, thinking in only genres squelches understanding.

But wasn't music always a complex mix? Certainly you could pick out a dominant style right now, but I'd think it'd be safe to say that it's not in the classical/art world, and it's certainly not strictly western in origins.

Absolutely...With hundreds of years dividing us, all we can see now are the BIG things. Also, information moves at a MUCH faster rate than back in 1642...everything has compressed to the point where a style that took decades to disseminate now takes days to circle the globe and take over the MTV (where the hell did CRUNK come from?) ... The "Baroque era" spanned many more years than did the "Jazz era", or perhaps the "Grunge era".

I think there's a habit of thinking that past centuries only had one style; there have always been a plethora of styles, it's just that history and cultural recollection are narrative-based, so ignore many of the undercurrents going on.

Ahhhh.

What will future musicologists do with current musical trends? Will hiphop be relegated to a mere footnote - in spite of it's MASSIVE popular appeal?

I smell a thesis!!

...thinking in only genres squelches understanding.

Good point!