Thread: The dilemma in contemporary music?

Originally Posted by Mirror Image

If you've never been to Atlanta then you won't know what I'm talking about, but I think Atlanta is one of the most heavily congested cities in the United States and everyone who's been there can probably sympathize with my dilemma.

I have been to Atlanta but I don't recall the traffic being THAT bad in the evenings. I too live about 45 minutes from either concert hall I can attend. The Myerson in Dallas or the Bass in Ft. Worth but even though it is a drive and there is some traffic issues to deal with, but I feel it is well worth the investment of my time. There is nothing like a night at the symphony, in my opinion anyway. If traffic really is an issue why not do what my wife and I do...we leave a couple of hours before the concert so we can get parked and have a nice leisurly dinner before the concert begins. It makes for a wonderful evening.

Besides, if I lived in Atlanta there is no way I would miss James Ehnes performing the Korngold violin concerto. I just saw him last week perform Beethoven's and he was absolutely amazing! He also plays a lovely 1715 Stradivarious that has just the sweetest sound you could imagine.

Kevin

Originally Posted by Very Senior Member

Do you have any interests in promoting contemporary music....

Oh, I already very much do.

Originally Posted by Kevin Pearson

I have been to Atlanta but I don't recall the traffic being THAT bad in the evenings. I too live about 45 minutes from either concert hall I can attend. The Myerson in Dallas or the Bass in Ft. Worth but even though it is a drive and there is some traffic issues to deal with, but I feel it is well worth the investment of my time. There is nothing like a night at the symphony, in my opinion anyway. If traffic really is an issue why not do what my wife and I do...we leave a couple of hours before the concert so we can get parked and have a nice leisurly dinner before the concert begins. It makes for a wonderful evening.

Besides, if I lived in Atlanta there is no way I would miss James Ehnes performing the Korngold violin concerto. I just saw him last week perform Beethoven's and he was absolutely amazing! He also plays a lovely 1715 Stradivarious that has just the sweetest sound you could imagine.

Kevin

To each their own. I gave you my reasons for not going to see the symphony. I don't like traffic and Atlanta is one of the WORST cities to drive in. I try to avoid going down there at all costs. I just really don't have any desire to see an orchestra live unless there's a way to take out the stress and hassle involved with going down there.

How come that whenever the topic of contemporary music comes up, people (who do not like or understand it) have to be on the defensive? It's thanks to this attitude, as Some Guy suggests, we have very little of contemporary classical being performed in our concert halls. So now classical music is largely a dead medium, where composers of the past are celebrated & those of the present are ignored & rejected. This is all thanks to the negative & inflexible attitudes demonstrated above, not due to some hidden agenda in the academic world or something like that. It's just plain old conservatism...

Andre... what is the purpose of art? I would argue that perhaps the central purpose of art is to communicate. I agree that when art crosses a certain level of innovation it becomes difficult or challenging for the audience. You suggest classical music is a "dead medium". perhaps in many ways it is. But whose fault is that? You lay the whole blame upon the conservative audience. I don't buy that. There are many who are willing to meet the artist half way. Surely Beethoven's late quartets, Bach's passions, medieval chant, and even Stravinsky's Rite of Spring can seem initially demanding. But they never become so esoteric that they shut out the audience. There are strains among contemporary music and contemporary art which are so esoteric and make virtually no effort to engage the audience... even that audience which might be open to new music if it did offer them something to latch on to. As an artist I fully support the rite of the creator to follow his or her own vision without the least concern to the audience. It must be recognized, however, that when the audience doesn't come around and swoon over what these artists have done it is perhaps not entirely the fault of a conservative close-minded audience. I say this all without suggesting that I have a solution. I don't argue for an art that placates or satiates the latest whims of taste and fashion. I say this all with a real concern over the direction the fine arts have headed which makes them increasingly irrelevant to the larger culture... to many even who are seriously passionate about the arts... and as such makes them increasingly the legitimate target of those who question why we should support such through our tax dollars. Hermann Hesse wrestled with this quandary some 60 years in his last novel, The Glass Bead Game... and came to no conclusion... but a suggestion that the two camps (that of the elite art of the ivory tower and that of popular culture) need to meet each other part way... and talk.

I think the present public are for the most part ignorant and indifferent...

And doesn't this exemplify the snobbish attitude that has led us to the current situation in which the fine arts are virtually a dead issue? Do we presume the right to mock the general public and dismiss them as "ignorant" while still expecting that they should continue to fund our esoteric experimentation in little sacred world of academia? Or might we not need to rethink the relationship between artist and audience as inherently adversarial?

Anyone who believes that twentieth-century composers, with their harsh chords and rhythms, betrayed some sacred contract with the public should spend a few moments absorbing Weber’s data. In fact, the composers were betrayed first.

At this point does it matter who betrayed whom first? The reality is that it has led to a spiral effect where contemporary fine art has become increasingly irrelevant to the larger public and as a result the artists have become more and more hermetic... making art that only speaks to a smaller and smaller clique which presumes itself (pretentiously) to be the saviors of "true art". The question is how to halt this trend... how to make classical music or the fine arts in general relevant. Again... in spite of the statistics... one might offer up alternative statistics such as the fact that Puccini remains one of the most performed opera composers... as does Richard Strauss. The Rite of Spring, Carmina Burana, Ralph Vaughan Williams, Shostakovitch, Prokofiev, Aaron Copland, etc... all remain frequently performed. Daniel Catan's recent opera, Florencia, was the most successful ever by a living composer at the Houston Opera which commissioned the work. Osvaldo Golijov has shown composed highly successful works that embrace a broad array of styles and traditions... to say nothing of William Bolcom. Contemporary art can continue to engage an audience... but there must be an effort to do so.

Originally Posted by Kevin Pearson

I have been to Atlanta but I don't recall the traffic being THAT bad in the evenings.

When was the last time you have been to Atlanta?

According to Forbes magazine, Atlanta is the 4th worst city to drive in:

1. Los Angeles, Long Beach, Santa Ana, Calif.
2. San Francisco, Oakland, Calif.
3. Washington, D.C.
4. Atlanta
5. Houston
6. Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Tex.
7. Chicago.
8. Detroit
9. Riverside, San Bernardino, Calif.
9. Orlando, Fla.
11. San Jose, Calif.
12. San Diego

Checkout this article sometime:

http://www.forbes.com/2006/02/06/wor...07traffic.html

The thing I hate is the hassle involved with going to Atlanta to see the ASO. If I could just say take a taxi and be there in 12 minutes, then I'd be going to see the symphony more often, but as it turns out I live about 45 minutes from Atlanta and the traffic to get there is hell to pay. I would be more stressed by the time I took my seat more than anything, so I couldn't possibly enjoy the concert. It's just a big ordeal for me to go. It's more a headache than anything. If you've never been to Atlanta then you won't know what I'm talking about, but I think Atlanta is one of the most heavily congested cities in the United States and everyone who's been there can probably sympathize with my dilemma.

Come on, MI. Attending a concert in person is a whole experience. For me it involves dressing up, having a great meal with the wife, then arriving at the hall early enough for a drink and to enjoy the marvelous decor of a great symphonic or operatic hall. While I was in art school we were given free tickets to the opera and the symphony as a means of building an audience base and we, as young, hip art students loved the entire pomp and grandeur or the experience. For this reason I don't buy the earlier posted notion that classical music is simply being strangled by older, fuddy-duddy audiences who create the wrong sort of atmosphere to engage a younger... or perhaps less affluent audience. I am no multi-millionaire but I attend the symphony and the opera at home on a frequent enough basis and I am willing to even travel for a truly special occasion. I actually plan on a trip to New York and the Met to see Der Rosenkavalier with Renee Fleming and Susan Graham among others... and I can assure you that Atlanta traffic has nothing on traffic in NYC.

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

I don't buy the earlier posted notion that classical music is simply being strangled by older, fuddy-duddy audiences who create the wrong sort of atmosphere to engage a younger... or perhaps less affluent audience.

Ah, but the point is they are affluent and already spend some of their disposable income on high culture:

A large group of young, educated, new-media savvy people - the product of the enlarged universities - live and work in London, have cash in their pockets, and want to spend some of it on art. They're not experts but want more, in cultural terms, than Harry Potter and a night in the pub.

You see them, in large numbers, in the London art galleries, particularly the cleverly branded Tate Modern. They join Facebook en masse and chatter about art on the internet. Many of my neighbours in the trendy district of London where I live (I went to live there before it became trendy) are very much part of this new, young, culturally-hungry, wealthy, liberal, (small L) middle class... Source

So this new, solvent, audience do expose themselves willingly to demanding paintings, sculptures, avant-garde installations etc. at Tate Modern and pay for the experience, but they won't be seen dead at a classical music concert. And they don't just hate atonal music. They hate the whole classical music culture or, worse still, are indifferent to it.

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

Come on, MI. Attending a concert in person is a whole experience. For me it involves dressing up, having a great meal with the wife, then arriving at the hall early enough for a drink and to enjoy the marvelous decor of a great symphonic or operatic hall. While I was in art school we were given free tickets to the opera and the symphony as a means of building an audience base and we, as young, hip art students loved the entire pomp and grandeur or the experience. For this reason I don't buy the earlier posted notion that classical music is simply being strangled by older, fuddy-duddy audiences who create the wrong sort of atmosphere to engage a younger... or perhaps less affluent audience. I am no multi-millionaire but I attend the symphony and the opera at home on a frequent enough basis and I am willing to even travel for a truly special occasion. I actually plan on a trip to New York and the Met to see Der Rosenkavalier with Renee Fleming and Susan Graham among others... and I can assure you that Atlanta traffic has nothing on traffic in NYC.

If you enjoy going to the symphony or opera that is your prerogative, but don't confuse what you enjoy with what I enjoy. We are two different people and as much as I would love to see the symphony the circumstances in which I must consider overwhelm any kind of desire I have to go. Like I said, to each their own.

Originally Posted by Mirror Image

When was the last time you have been to Atlanta?

According to Forbes magazine, Atlanta is the 4th worst city to drive in:

1. Los Angeles, Long Beach, Santa Ana, Calif.
2. San Francisco, Oakland, Calif.
3. Washington, D.C.
4. Atlanta
5. Houston
6. Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Tex.
7. Chicago.
8. Detroit
9. Riverside, San Bernardino, Calif.
9. Orlando, Fla.
11. San Jose, Calif.
12. San Diego, Calif.

Checkout this article sometime:

http://www.forbes.com/2006/02/06/wor...07traffic.html

Well, I live in California.

According to Forbes magazine, Atlanta is the 4th worst city to drive in:

1. Los Angeles, Long Beach, Santa Ana, Calif.
2. San Francisco, Oakland, Calif.
3. Washington, D.C.
4. Atlanta
5. Houston
6. Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Tex.
7. Chicago.
8. Detroit
9. Riverside, San Bernardino, Calif.
9. Orlando, Fla.
11. San Jose, Calif.
12. San Diego

I've driven to and into Washington DC any number of times and never found it the least comparison with New York sitting in line endlessly at the Holland Tunnel or spending an hour to just drive a few blocks once you get through the tunnel. Neither have I found Chicago as that difficult as New York... and yet New York doesn't even make the list while Detroit... a city with a minuscule population in comparison... not far less than that of my home town, Cleveland... and surely no less difficult to maneuver makes no. 8? Perhaps them Forbes folks just based rating upon how difficult it was to get a limo. Other ratings such as that undertaken by INRIX which based ratings upon speed through various routes according to feedback on GPS "probe vehicles" the worst cities to drive in are

1.Los Angeles
2. New York.
3. Chicago.
4. Washington.
5. Dallas-Fort Worth
6. Houston
7. San Francisco-Oakland
8. Boston.
9. Seattle-Tacoma.
10. Philadelphia.

Ah, but the point is they are affluent and already spend some of their disposable income on high culture:

Quote:
A large group of young, educated, new-media savvy people - the product of the enlarged universities - live and work in London, have cash in their pockets, and want to spend some of it on art. They're not experts but want more, in cultural terms, than Harry Potter and a night in the pub.

You see them, in large numbers, in the London art galleries, particularly the cleverly branded Tate Modern. They join Facebook en masse and chatter about art on the internet. Many of my neighbours in the trendy district of London where I live (I went to live there before it became trendy) are very much part of this new, young, culturally-hungry, wealthy, liberal, (small L) middle class... Source
So this new, solvent, audience do expose themselves willingly to demanding paintings, sculptures, avant-garde installations etc. at Tate Modern and pay for the experience, but they won't be seen dead at a classical music concert. And they don't just hate atonal music. They hate the whole classical music culture or, worse still, are indifferent to it.

Obviously I can't speak to problems of the British musical scene, but after having read the article I get the distinct impression that the writer is a real twit. His solution is to create an atmosphere akin to that of the nightclub?... where the audience can come and go as it pleases, talk, drink, dine... and the music will become something of a mere background noise? And why... because this audience can't be expected to sit quietly and enjoy the performance for an hour or two? Yet they can do so in the movie theater and at the theater and other venues.

The Metropolitan Opera has begun to broadcast live performances into theaters across the US and students are often given free passes through school to attend these... thus exposing them to the world of Opera that is forbidding to many. My hometown orchestra, the Cleveland Orchestra, performs over the summer at an outdoor venue in which the stage sits amidst surrounding hills where the audience may sit on the grass or in lawn chairs, bring a picnic lunch, a bottle of wine, etc... The atmosphere is loose and relaxed and in its way it is a ideal means of introduction into the symphonic experience... perfect for people with younger children who they wish to expose to the music. The musical selections tend to be quite conservative... and populist (Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusic, Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture, Beethoven's 5th, etc...). This may be an ideal alternative... and it is but an alternative because when the Orchestra plays at Severance Hall there is all the formality that attends the usual concert... and yet there are more than a few younger people in attendance. In many case it is the younger fans that are the most passionate... bringing roses for favored performers, etc... Again... perhaps it is just the message that is conveyed by the British music institutions that puts off the audience.

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

[COLOR="DarkRed"]
Do Beethoven or Mozart survive based upon "significant philosophical backing"? The weaker... or the less accessible art has been the more voluminous its written defenses have become.

Because people like you keep attacking it. Ok, silly answer. The real answer is too involved for right now. But seriously, man, there is waaayyyy more written about Beethoven than Stockhausen, and most of it, except for the odd "post modern" critique, is bathing in praise of his genius.

So yes, to a degree, Moz. + Beeth and the boys survive due to a philosophy that believes they are great. Did I read that your art school sent you to classical concerts? Why?

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

Actually... the movement toward abstraction, Dada, Expressionism, and the other extremes of the avant garde began after the First World War... which in many ways was more shocking due to the fact that the horrors of modern, mechanized warfare were completely unexpected. Yet certainly I can understand the notion of artists responding to the horrors of the 2 world wars with something of a rejection of what went before...

Ok, better history than my short statement.

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

but we have now moved on 60+ years. Are we still to believe that a rejection of tonality has any claim to moral superiority to say nothing of the notion that it is the only means to artistic merit?

But through their music we can experience a human reaction to these tragedies. Works like hymnen, de soldaten, a survivor from warsaw and many others enriches our understanding of those times.

And for the music maker, they have created tools to explore new boundaries of expression, just as the traditional cannon has. And although they reject, by doing so they acknowledge. Through their art ones can gain greater understanding of the traditional repertoire. And this can be done just with ears, but also with eyes if one is so inclined.

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

"Some people" also talk of before and after Elvis... and one suspects he may just have wrought a greater impact upon music than Cage.

It would be ignorant to think there wasn't a before and after with Elvis! Man, that guy proved what has become the flagship commercial music - teenagers are the best audience ever to make lots and lots of money!

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

For the vast majority... even many who follow classical music... John Cage is nothing but a name. How often is his work performed by major symphonic orchestras? How often is it recorded? How often does it get played on the radio? If it fails to resonate with anyone outside a small clique of academics how much chance does it have of survival?

The music academics that I have met for the most part, have little interest Cage. His legacy thrives in other domains - improvised music, sound art, dance, and the world of performance art has in part, something to do with Cage.

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

Hans Makart was once spoken of in every circle of the art world. His studio was once one of the centers of Viennese culture... visited by the rich and powerful, the aristocracy, and even the likes of Richard Wagner. His place is the history of art was surely assured for eternity... or so it was thought in 1880. Today he would have been completely forgotten had it not been for the fact that he was actually the teacher of an artist who has survived: Gustav Klimt.

Klimt and Wagner eh? So, you are saying that unless someone is a household name, they are not worth knowing about? Sounds like he posed some very important positions on art, and is a major part of the art legacy, whether I've heard of him or not.

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

The fact that the names of Cage, Stockhausen, and Glass get tossed about in academic circles is meaningless.

No, it isn't meaningless. New generations of musicians ARE engaging with these artists! They HAVE had an influence that is undeniable - things have changed. You like to say Academia is **. That's many smart individuals you are wrapping into one big homogeneous ball. I have had some amazing teachers, who have devoted their time to sharing their passion, and passing on information.

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

From my experience anything John Cage has written (in word or music) is largely a waste of my time.

Real subtle dig there, Mr. smarty pants.

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

were creative... but to what end? The "artist" Piero Manzoni put crap in a can and entitled it Merda d'artista. Very innovative! No one had done it before. Does it make it good art? Do you actually want to look at it? Does the fact that it challenges my notion of what great art is make it good? Or is that nothing more than art about art and mental ************?

I am a little offended that you would compare a jar of **** to the works of Stockhausen. I don't think you understand what it takes to become a respected composer, even of atonal music.

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

If the only audience for a form of music is some small clique of academia why should the general public be expected to continue to support an art that has no value to them? Conceivably there is a specialist in academia somewhere that champions 1970s porno films as art (I have actually seen legitimate college courses to that effect). Are we to then believe such has real merit and is deserving of recognition and financial support?

Now you compare these musicians, respected round the world by many, to porn films!

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

The same argument gets thrown my direction as a visual artist... but the reality is that visual art is largely self-sustaining. It is supported by wealthy collectors who believe it has worth. And shouldn't all art be self-sustaining? But we are to believe that an endeavor of interest to only a minute fragment of society is deserving of support?

Well, music and visual art have some very distinct differences in terms of financial viability, especially in the digital world. Too much to get into.

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

I would argue that children should be introduced to a broad spectrum of possibilities as to what music is. In most cases they are already bombarded by the latest popular music. Education can introduce them to a world beyond this...

It is nice to hear you say something positive about an educational environment.

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

and no, I would not limit this to the classical Western tradition. I would also include medieval music, Middle-Eastern, Asian, Celtic, South American and other traditions, jazz, folk, blues, etc... Yes... Mozart and Bach should be taught (and Stravinsky and Prokofiev, etc...).

Sounds like the earlier education I got.

But then what?...

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

These have a clear value within their given tradition and still resonate to a sizable audience.

...back to basing education on what is popular, not what is interesting and educational.

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

I would probably even introduce something like Penderecki, Phillip Glass, Takemitsu, or Tan Dun to older students.

But again, what is next after an introduction? How would you train a composer? How would you get them from curious kid, to proficient orchestral scoring, solid understanding of counterpoint and able to compose a fugue, proficient in functional tonality, and understanding in one of the most rooted tenants of classical music, variation?

What about all of the inventiveness in the 20th century?

What exactly does Schoenberg pose with his concept of "Composing with 12 notes"? What has intrigued me the most is that it creates a thematic device that connects harmony and melody - it is both a theme of horizontal and vertical dimensions simultaneously. Each functions with each other, in unending variation. If some of the more "atonal" structures, such as octave avoidance or merely the 12 part (why not a tone row of 26 notes? or 7?) are either ignored or used sparingly, it opens up all kinds of new avenues for ways that melody and harmony can coexist between pieces, but have an individuality that connects the work together, making it whole.

This is, of course, quite vague. But it has to be - the kind of detail I would need to explain it fully goes beyond the scope of this internet forum. + I don't want to waste your time with academic babbling. However, if you wish to hear what I am talking about (and now the selfish plug, heh heh), here are 5 small examples from my repertoire (about 1min each):
1. The Kiss
2. Shock Therapy Variations
3. Between the Rooms - Concerto for Trumpet
4. Cry
5. Babbitt
They are posted on my myspace page. http://www.myspace.com/scottgoodcomposer

Each are inspired by Schoenberg's methods, and also as importantly, his ancestors (Webern, Berg, Boulez, Stockhausen, Zimmerman, Cage, Lachenmann, Nono, Ligeti etc etc). There is so much to gain from studying this music. His sense of orchestral colour alone is breathtaking, and worthy of a year long course in Academia. I would argue, at least as much as 70's porn! Maybe we could have some kind of post modern way-on-the-cutting-edge course combining the two. It could be called "how big they were they really? a study of dividing rows and other perversions"

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

As an artist and an art lover I am unashamedly "elitist" in my belief that some art is better than others. On the other hand... I recognize that when we get into a discussion of contemporary art we are rarely in agreement. To most who are educated or knowledgeable in the arts Mozart, Shakespeare, Michelangelo are unquestionably major figures in the Western tradition. John Cage and most contemporary art is still doubtful at best.

(chews gum)...You say so....(chews gum)

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

Schoenberg is certainly a major figure. I never denied he was. Almost certainly bigger than Hovhaness. But I might "honestly" argue he is dwarfed by Richard Strauss or Shostakovitch... I might also argue that as innovative as his later works are they strike me (and many others who are well versed in music) as having gone off in the wrong direction... toward a dead end. But academia should be the last word, eh?

Nope. You got free speech. Say whatever you want.

Please do - argue that Shostakovitch dwarf's Schoenberg. I adore Shostakovitch - in many ways my first love! I can play both sides - It'll be fun. Bring on the "honesty".

And do tell me, how is what Schoenberg did a dead end? In and of it's self, perhaps. Much like Mozart or Bach. Once they did their thing, something had to change.

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

Of course the great academic Adorno as well as Schoenberg himself later dismissed Stravinsky as lightweight. It seems even academia cannot agree.

But, see, this is good. Academia would become moot were it uniform. It needs to breath all the time, bringing in and expelling. It may breath in and out the same thing many times.

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

The reality is that 50 or even 100 years is not enough to assure an artist's place in history.

Your right. It has to be at least 3476 years.

Originally Posted by StlukesguildOhio

And eventually the work needs to be absorbed and appreciated by a larger art loving public. Matisse and Picasso were once thought of as shocking... difficult... "dissonant"... but now they are beloved by a sizable audience that purchases prints and attends exhibitions. Duchamp and Joseph Kosuth and Manzoni? Their names are only kept alive in certain academic circles.

Ya, I learned about Duchamp in school (and Matisse and Picasso...). All that useless garbage they shoved down my throat. I should have been reading stock reports to know what I should be paying attention to.

Like I said, contemporary classical music isn't popular, because there's not many contemporary classical composers that are writing music that means anything. It's just some kind of sound experimentation or some way for the composer to indulge themselves. There's no melody, no harmony, no rhythm, nothing of any deep felt emotion to be found in today's classical music. There's a reason why Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Sibelius, Mahler continue to get played, because these composers wrote music that meant something and that relates to the human condition. Love lost, death, heartbreak, triumph, depression, happiness, etc., these are the things that make music special. When you start dealing with the mind only and not deal with matters of the heart, then you start loosing listeners. These emotions are what compels people. If you create something that is so abstract that not even a long time classical fan can follow or enjoy, then you're writing for yourself or for your own amusement. In order for art to be appreciated, it must relate to the feelings of people or else it's just a waste of space, time, effort, etc. There's only a small group of people who are into today's classical scene anyway and that's because nobody is composing anything that hasn't either already been done or they're composing music that's so far out on left-field that it can only be appreciated by a small group of people. I say drop the intellectual mumbo jumbo and start composing music that means something.