Why haven't modern classical music composers included more melody in
their works? So many of them are atonal or border on the atonal,
beginning with those of Bartok, Mahler, and Stravinsky, then more
recently with Hindemith, Ives, and Cage. Why is it that these modern
composers have eschewed the "pleasantness" of melody, striving instead
for what sounds like little more than discord? The result is music
that hardly seems muse-inspired, but is instead a challenge to one's
intellectual grasp without any regard to sheer emotional joy. (Modern
art strikes me the same way, but that's another question.)

In the sociology of fine art, innovation is valued.  Part of the game
is figuring out the rules so you can break them.  Writing music like
Beethoven and Mozart did is old hat, it's been done, and a composer
would get no credit for brilliant, ground-breaking innovation by
mining that old vein.  Losing the mass audience in the process is an
acceptable consequence, if not further proof of the work's advanced
quality.

Innovation for the sake of itself is admirable? I have the sense that
modern composers lack what it would take to "compete" successfully
with the likes of Chopin and Tchaikovsky, just as modern painters
would probably fall short if they tried to emulate Rembrandt, Renoir,
Leonardo, and Michelangelo. I would also take issue with the notion
that losing the mass audience is a good thing or that it implies
"advanced quality." Narrowing the audience to an elite sector of
afficianados would seem no accomplishment.

There are people who dearly love nonmelodious music. A former friend
of mine, who was very sophisticated musically, and was a
classically-trained pianist, went into raptures over the works of
Charles Ives. He also loved Mahler dearly. While I can appreciate some
of these composers' works, I reach the saturation point very quickly;
my friend could listen to this sort of thing all day, every day for
the rest of his life and be happy.

Different strokes for different folks, eh?

Or, in this case, different tunes for different loons.

Pink,

I've always had the sense that folks (or loons) who revel in atonal
music are proud of their capacity to appreciate its putative
complexity and for that reason alone find enjoyment in listening to
such crapola. It's the elitist posturing of self-annointed
sophisticates that says to the rest of us "There's no wonder you don't
enjoy it. How could you, when you don't understand it?"

I dunno. I tried to tell my friend that the Emperor had no clothes,
but then I realized that he was genuinely keen on naked Emperors.

I had an uncle who was principal trombonist in Toscanini's NBC
Symphony Orchestra. When I asked him what he thought of such modern
compositions, he replied "We played whatever the maestro told us to
play, but I can tell you it hurt my ears."

Well, your uncle was no doubt aware that being a professional
trombonist has its ins and outs. You just have to learn to let it
slide. :-D

"...let it slide." <GROAN> :)

When I saw this question, I couldn't resist passing it along to a
musician of my acquaintance. He's a composer of modern classical music
with lots of awards under his belt, as well as a professor of music at
a university in the southeastern US. His background includes advanced
degrees from upper crust and Ivy League schools, including Doctor of
Music (the music version of a Ph.D.) He's also just a very cool and
interesting guy, with experience in music stretching back to early
childhood. I thought his comments on this question were worth passing
along, so here they are (with permission):

"It's certainly a question I get asked pretty frequently! The short,
short, short answer is that so-called "modern" music is not *all*
"bereft of melody."  (Besides, most of the composers the questioner
names wrote music 60-100 years ago; not exactly current music.)

"Here's a question to consider:  "What would you say to a friend who
almost never watches anything other than silent film, and after seeing
a new film for the first time in many years says, 'Why are all modern
movies bereft of a clear narrative?'"  Would you agree and say "Yes,
all film in the past 80 years is elitist garbage?"

"It's an old axiom that people like what they know and know what they
like.  But in the "modern music" concert series I run, I present lots
of different kinds of new work, and I tell people it's perfectly ok if
they don't like everything on the program, any more than they'd have
to like every movie they ever see.

"But guess what happens in the concerts . . . people really like some
pieces that they've never heard before, they sign up for the mailing
list, they keep coming back to the concerts, and some even donate
money to the series.  I present the music without any elitist, snobby
trappings, and we now have over 300 loyal audience members for every
concert.  And many, many people of all age groups tell me, "Wow, I
never even knew this kind of music existed; it's really
cool!"

"Anyway, I'll just keep writing my own music the best that I can, and
hope that some folks like it.

Additional comment: 
"By the way, here's another thought to add:  What would that same
person who loves Beethoven and Bach say to a high school kid who
thinks ALL classical music is difficult, snobby, and/or devoid of a
good, catchy hook or decent lyric (not to mention that those damn
symphonies are sooooo long and boring!)?

"And as for me personally, I like lots of different kinds of food;
same for music.  Some days, I'll make chicken or bake some fish, some
days I'll want Indian or Thai takeout (my favs), and other days I just
gotta have a burger and beer.  I couldn't imagine a diet with just one
kind of food.  Not all music is for everyone, but I think people
should just try to keep an open mind and not lump *everything* into a
junk pile because they didn't enjoy their first exposure to something
(whose title they probably couldn't recall if asked).

"I love pretty much anything Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart ever wrote
(and I know A LOT of their music), but I also love (not in any
particular order) Hank Williams, John Coltrane, the Beatles, Charlie
Parker, Louis Armstrong, Stravinsky, Bill Evans, music from Bali,
Astor Piazzola's tangos, Ives, the Bartok string quartets, Steve
Reich's "Eighteen Musicians," Poul Ruders, John Cage's music for
"Prepared Piano," Harry Partch, Mahler, Berg, Josquin, north Indian
ragas, throat-singing from Tuuva, Sacred Harp singing, Ralph Stanley,
Johnny Cash, the Anthology of American Folk Music, Radiohead's "Ok
Computer," Stevie Ray Vaughn, Blind Lemon Jefferson, Schubert's "C
Major Quintet," Duke Ellington, and the list goes on and on and on and
on . . .

"My point is, I like lots of different kinds of music, all of which
has enriched my life by an incredible measure.  I just don't care
about labels like classical, world, blues, jazz, pop, country,
avant-garde, dissonant, consonant, etc.  It's all just good "music" to
me.  And some of it, I didn't like very much the first time I heard
it, but now I couldn't imagine a world without it. :-)

"Anyway, I wish the Google questioners lots of happy listening!!"

And I join him in wishing everyone the same! --Byrd-ga

Byrd,

I enjoyed, appreciated, and understood your friend's comments. That
said, I think that modern (and I include the last 100 years or so)
composers studiously avoid melody or repeating themes and for reasons
I don't pretend to understand. They seem to revel in cacophony, but
why? To shock? To challenge? BTSOM! :)

This perhaps also raises the question of how one defines melody. I
think there is a vastly subjective element there. For example, Pink
mentioned Mahler as being nonmelodious, but to me his work is full of
the most luscious melodies. While I'd probably agree in finding very
avant-garde composers difficult, I do think many modern composers come
up with glorious melodies, although perhaps the structure of these
melodies can be somewhat complex. Some relatively modern composers
(i.e. did not die before the 20th century), whom I find to be
melodious at least some of the time: Mahler, Sibelius, Bernstein (the
solo in the Chichester Psalms - melt!), Schoenberg (esp Verklaerte
Nacht and Gurrelieder), Tippett, Britten, Weil (as in the Brecht/Weil
songs), Holst, Ravel, Vaughan Williams, Villa Lobos.

Using tehuti-ga's definition of modern (which I think is a useful
one), I would add Debussy to his list.  His familiar Claire de Lune
has an undeniably beautiful melody.  One could also include the
familiar theme of Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun as a haunting
melody, although it portends the future with its lack of a tonal
center and its constantly shifting rhythm.   And Richard Strauss could
turn out beautiful melodies from time to time (Four Last Songs, e.g.).

markj-ga