alocispepraluger102 Posted May 26, 2013 Report Posted May 26, 2013 (edited) for myself recordings(music) after 1975 are 'modern'. i rarely consider. films after 1960, i consider modern, and rarely consider. al bowlly is here to stay. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dhj867TUpZY Edited May 26, 2013 by alocispepraluger102 Quote
A Lark Ascending Posted May 26, 2013 Report Posted May 26, 2013 I thought Webern and Kandinsky were modern and we were Post-Modern (or maybe Post-Post-Modern now that irony is frowned on). Modern is a word like today. Quote
John Litweiler Posted May 26, 2013 Report Posted May 26, 2013 Since "avant garde" is almost always misused by now, the vague "modern" sometimes serves as a substitute, maybe. Actually "modern" seems to work best w/a modifier attached, for ex. "post-WW2 modern jazz," "Django's later, modern style." Still, I don't say "modern" very often any more. Quote
Tim McG Posted May 27, 2013 Report Posted May 27, 2013 Well...there was "Mod" back in the 60s. That's short for Modern, isn't it? Quote
Tim McG Posted May 27, 2013 Report Posted May 27, 2013 (edited) Post Bop/Hard Bop Texas Swing...well, maybe. Fusion Jazz Alternative Rock Living Art 3-D Chalk Street Art Edited May 27, 2013 by GoodSpeak Quote
Neal Pomea Posted May 27, 2013 Report Posted May 27, 2013 (edited) "Modern" began in the 1600s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_philosophy Edited May 27, 2013 by Neal Pomea Quote
danasgoodstuff Posted May 27, 2013 Report Posted May 27, 2013 'modern' is utterly meaningless to me, too vague... Quote
robertoart Posted May 27, 2013 Report Posted May 27, 2013 I guess there's Modern with a capital M - and then there's just plain old 'modern' - as in 'Thoroughly Modern Milly'. Oh wait...that's got a capital M too. Quote
Jazzmoose Posted May 27, 2013 Report Posted May 27, 2013 for myself recordings(music) after 1975 are 'modern'. i rarely consider. films after 1960, i consider modern, and rarely consider. al bowlly is here to stay. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dhj867TUpZY Well, the way you're using it, I would consider put my dividing line somewhere in the early nineties. Quote
David Ayers Posted May 27, 2013 Report Posted May 27, 2013 everything seems old-fashioned to me - seriously Quote
king ubu Posted May 27, 2013 Report Posted May 27, 2013 Modern? Amongst others and in no particular order: Walter Benjamin, Franz Kafka, John Dos Passos, Sidney Bechet, Igor Stravinsky, Anton Webern, Arnold Schönberg, Marcel Duchamp, Man Ray, Kurt Schwitters, Jean Arp, Constantin Brancusi, Pablo Picasso, Fernand Léger, André Breton, Arthur Honegger, Darius Milhaud, Le Corbusier, Alberto Giacometti, Karl Kraus, Lyonel Feiningen, Johannes Itten, Walter Gropius, Paul Klee, Wassily Kandinsky, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Peter Szondi, Brassaï, Robert Walser, Joseph Roth, Alfred Döblin. Not many women in this list, I'm afraid ... there must be some that deserve inclusion though, I'm sure. First to come to mind are Anna Achmatova, Rose Ausländer and Lou Andreas-Salomé Quote
alocispepraluger102 Posted May 27, 2013 Author Report Posted May 27, 2013 (edited) everything seems old-fashioned to me - seriously a successful friend judges music, and presumably art, like things in the refrigerator. if it's 2 weeks old, get rid of it. Edited May 27, 2013 by alocispepraluger102 Quote
A Lark Ascending Posted May 27, 2013 Report Posted May 27, 2013 (edited) When it comes to music most of what I listen to is from the past (though most of it would have been 'Modern' in its time). But I can't bring myself to live totally in the past - I'm always pulled by the thought of the new (though even there I tend to find things more rewarding with aural roots in the past). Quite different with reading - I did my period of reading (some of) 'the classics' a long time ago. Today I'm much more likely to read a recent piece of fiction than something from the past. And with history books I'll always reach for a newer account of an event or period over a 'classic' account from the past. I've never been drawn to an exclusive focus on either the modern or the (perceived) classical canon (bizarrely - or maybe not - Modernism is now part of the latter). Edited May 27, 2013 by A Lark Ascending Quote
robertoart Posted May 27, 2013 Report Posted May 27, 2013 Modern? Amongst others and in no particular order: Walter Benjamin, Franz Kafka, John Dos Passos, Sidney Bechet, Igor Stravinsky, Anton Webern, Arnold Schönberg, Marcel Duchamp, Man Ray, Kurt Schwitters, Jean Arp, Constantin Brancusi, Pablo Picasso, Fernand Léger, André Breton, Arthur Honegger, Darius Milhaud, Le Corbusier, Alberto Giacometti, Karl Kraus, Lyonel Feiningen, Johannes Itten, Walter Gropius, Paul Klee, Wassily Kandinsky, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Peter Szondi, Brassaï, Robert Walser, Joseph Roth, Alfred Döblin. Not many women in this list, I'm afraid ... there must be some that deserve inclusion though, I'm sure. First to come to mind are Anna Achmatova, Rose Ausländer and Lou Andreas-Salomé Yes. Certainly 'the big three' of 'Modernism' were Picasso, Stravinsky and Joyce. The period is often said to start as early as Courbet and the Impressionists and last in varying degrees until the Warhol and Pop Art era. Warhol being seen as the Father of Post-Modernism to a certain extant. I think Robert Hughes 'The Shock Of The New' really documents 'Modernism' well. But I love John Berger's Ways Of Seeing much more! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShV1h85dnkc Quote
ArtSalt Posted May 27, 2013 Report Posted May 27, 2013 Modern to me, and it is my personal preference, corresponds with the boom period of Ivy style and modern jazz: running from around 1955 to 1964, some would push it further to 1967 and earlier back to 1952. I wouldn't argue against that! Quote
JSngry Posted May 27, 2013 Report Posted May 27, 2013 Sometimes I think that the only true "modern" is that which is happening than nobody's figured out enough about to label "modern". That might be extreme, but maybe not...especially if capturing is necessary for labeling, and labeling is necessary for selling (If not the thing, then the discussion about the thing). Maybe that's it - modern is those "things" which have not yet been identified as things. Or not. There's a lot of ways to look at things. Such as this. Quote
robertoart Posted May 28, 2013 Report Posted May 28, 2013 I just say (if anybodies listening), 'contemporary'. As in 'contemporary Jazz' or 'contemporary Art'. I got no kick against 'modern Jazz', though Quote
BillF Posted May 28, 2013 Report Posted May 28, 2013 In my early years of jazz listening at the end of the fifties, the word "modern" featured as a jazz category and was used by record stores, etc., along with "traditional" and "mainstream", the latter denoting jazz by musicians of Buck Clayton's generation. Some record stores also had a "progressive" category, which seemed to consist of discs by Kenton and Shorty Rogers. All this, of course, was before the category "avant garde" emerged. Biggest sellers in the "modern jazz" category were Brubeck and the MJQ. In Britain these subdivisions were reinforced by a virtual war between "traddies" and "modernists". Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.