Thread: The dilemma in contemporary music?

Hi there,

I am a composer and recently had one of my performances recorded on disc. Family and friends want to hear it but even though my music is more 'accessible' than for example some new complexity stuff. Even though my titles are catchy and the level of extended technique is minimal and even though there is usually a discernible beat, I know that none of my family or non-composer friends would know what it was or like it. I can see them trying to smile and thinking - what is all this 'out-of-tune crap' I can't follow?

It seems an obvious and I have grappled with this for years.

My question is:

Do you give the public what you perceive they want or do you ignore them and just go your own way?

Is it OK to be in an ivory tower working away just to your own ideals or ideals of art?

When I listen back to my music, one half of me thinks ' lovely chord, that section comes out well, should have doubled the flute there etc etc '
Whereas another part of my thinks 'I wish this was more direct the way some pop music is, more tonal, more noticeably melodic and less 'contrived', easier to follow. But then I also need to be interested in what I do. Three chords isn't enough for me on the other end of the spectrum.


My principle thought is 'I wish more people understood me and the emotions I so much want to express!'


I went to a university that was fairly open to all kinds of new music but still there was the intellectual elite who were into their math formulae and their obsession with so-called originality and I felt like an outsider, an inferior composer. I don't feel that way now but I still know there is a certain amount of stylistic fascism and pseudo - intellectual snobbery in composing circles. Composers also being so defensive of their work and doing down the work of others. Tended to be my experience.
Is there a another way to look at this? I'd love to hear what music-lovers out there have to say to this current composer.

Jai

I think if a composer wants to get recognized for his/her gift, then they should be aware that there are going to be people that aren't going to like what you write regardless of how "accessible" or "tonal" it is. A composer needs to just keep doing what they love to do which is write music. Don't worry about being accepted by every one with ears. Some people couldn't tell you the different between Stravinsky and Bartok. Keep your head up and don't let it fall no matter how hurtful the criticism is to you.

The problem with people's attitude to new music is that they lack perception. They listen superficially not only to music by the composers of today, but also by those of the past. I don't think that a composer can really do anything about this, unfortunately. As Mirror Image suggests, you just have to keep plugging away & developing your own style. Like Varese, my favourite composer, never seemed to be overly concerned about what people thought of his music. I've posted a number of his quotes on the Varese page which attest to this.

As for the tension between writing music that is tonal or not, many composers were comfortable with pushing tonality to the limits & did so successfully. I can also think of three composers who wrote atonal music, but most of the time it sounds like it's tonal (Berg, Josef Tal & Frank Martin). So I think that the really good composers have been confronting this dilemma since the end of the C19th, unlike the less effective ones who just comfortably stayed in the fully tonal language of the past. So I suppose any composer worth their salt today will continue to explore the contradictions & challenges that were presented with the crisis of tonality which started in the late C19th...

I hate to sound like an intellectual here by quoting someone else but this quote from Shakespeare seems extremely appropriate:

"This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man"

Even though the majority of people will disdain atonality (and quite a lot of it I don't like either) yet you have found it is what best expresses what you want to say musically. If your relatives would like to have a copy of your CD I would sign a copy and give them one with no apologies. They will either like it or hate it but what is that to you? It's not likely to affect your relationships with them. At least they will have heard what you are up to and whether they understand your music or not is not your concern. If any request help understanding or take an interest in it further then that's an opportunity you should avail yourself of.

Kevin

I am a composer and recently had one of my performances recorded on disc. Family and friends want to hear it but even though my music is more 'accessible' than for example some new complexity stuff. Even though my titles are catchy and the level of extended technique is minimal and even though there is usually a discernible beat, I know that none of my family or non-composer friends would know what it was or like it. I can see them trying to smile and thinking - what is all this 'out-of-tune crap' I can't follow?

It seems an obvious and I have grappled with this for years.

My question is:

Do you give the public what you perceive they want or do you ignore them and just go your own way?

Is it OK to be in an ivory tower working away just to your own ideals or ideals of art?

When I listen back to my music, one half of me thinks ' lovely chord, that section comes out well, should have doubled the flute there etc etc '
Whereas another part of my thinks 'I wish this was more direct the way some pop music is, more tonal, more noticeably melodic and less 'contrived', easier to follow. But then I also need to be interested in what I do. Three chords isn't enough for me on the other end of the spectrum.

Such has been the dilemma facing artists of all genre since the shift in patronage from the aristocracy (religious or secular) to the masses. Hermann Hesse's Glass Bead Game and Thomas Mann's Doctor Faustus confront the dilemma in novel form. What... they and we... ask is the role of the artist? As a visual artist this question continually nags at me. I recently has the experience in which a studio mate suddenly blurted "will you turn that crap off" while I was playing some Eric Dolphy. Dolphy was a jazz musician that admittedly pushed jazz into something so free form that it approached Abstract Expressionism. Interestingly enough, my studio mate works within the tradition of Abstract Expressionism. He was uncertain how to respond when I pointed out that certainly his reaction to Dolphy was not unlike that which many of the public feel when looking upon his paintings. Even more recently, another studio mate announced that he found the music I was listening to (Tan Dun) to be "unlistenable". He further suggested that it was experimental merely for the sake of being experimental and that it would clearly be forgotten in 10 years. Again... I pointed out that his own work was no less "experimental" and "dissonant" to the average art viewer to which he responded, naturally, that "that's different".

In the past the relationship between the artist and the public was closer. But at the same time the audience was admittedly far smaller and limited to a social/political "elite". Certainly, the worshipful may happen upon the carvings and the stained glass in the cathedrals, the masses and cantatas being performed, etc... but the artists, in no way, needed to think about them as an audience... or worry about pleasing them. The real audience was that of the patrons which paid for and supported the art. This audience was often quite educated and cultured and there was often a personal relationship between the artist and the creator. The patron made clear his or her expectations and the artist had the chance to make his or her case for "pushing the envelope"... for his innovations.

As patronage in the arts moved away from a highly educated "elite" and toward the hands of the wealthy bourgeois... and later toward the "masses" there developed something of a real divide between the artists and the audience. This audience was often limited in its education within the arts... they were often quite conservative in their tastes... and they often had difficulty dealing with innovation and challenging new ideas. As they began to reject the new and the innovative (Impressionism, Stravinsky, James Joyce, Picasso, Bartok, etc...) the artists, unexpectedly, responded by ignoring this audience... by retreating to their ivory tower. As Hesse's Glass bead Game suggests this was an ever increasing circle: as public support for art waned artist became increasing antagonistic or disdainful of the audience until art reached a point at which one might seriously question what is its merit to the larger public and why should this public continue to support it?

We are confronted with that reality at present. "Serious" composers create music that no one but a small audience of "cognoscenti" wish to listen to... they far prefer pop music... and in a few exceptions, older "serious" music. Artists create paintings that have no relevance to an audience raised on comic books, TV, and Hollywood films (and I make no value judgments here as there have been great things done in any of those genre). Thus we are presented with that dilemma... do we attempt to meets the audience half way... or is that compromising our art? Or do we accept that the audience for what we do shall remain limited to but a small group... an "elite" by choice... by elective affinity? And with this do we accept that what we do will have no relevance to the vast population?

Michelangelo obviously didn't torment himself worrying about what the peasants thought. Dante would have given little thought to the illiterate masses. We, however, struggle with the issue due to the fact that we hold with with democratic and egalitarian ideals; we believe that art should be there for everyone regardless of education, social status, or wealth. The idea that "serious" music or "serious" art is reserved for a wealthy "elite" strikes a nerve with many of us. There is also the reality to consider that as art becomes less and less relevant to the masses there is less and less support for it... in education, through museums, orchestras, etc... We are already in a situation in the US where the "fine arts" lack any real connection with the larger audience that still exists in a great many European and Asian nations. The arts are continually a target of conservative politicians out to make budget cuts... starting with "decadent elitist art".

The answer, if there is one, must be on an individual basis. Shakespeare, Dickens, Bach, even films such as Casablanca, 2001, or Schindler's List surely prove that art can be incredibly rich, innovative, and still resonate with a larger audience. When one considers music scored for the ballet, the opera, and other incidental music one recognizes that there is nothing inherent in writing for film (for example) that is inherently a guarantee of mediocre art. Indeed... one might argue that great art is just as likely to rise from artists working in popular genre.... even in the field of popular music... as it is to arise from the realm of "serious" music... the product of the music academies. The theater in Shakespeare's day had all the level of respect afforded to television today. The novel at the time of Cervantes, Lawrence Sterne, and DeFoe was considered the lowliest of literary genre... suitable only for women. Is it not possible that Duke Ellington and Miles Davis may resonate over time far more than Philip Glass and Penderecki?

Again... one can only come to an answer as to what one should do as an artist on an individual basis. As stated above, "to thine own self be true" is great advice... even if it was the advice of Polonius. The paintings I make fall within an acceptable tradition in many ways. They are quite accessible. Yet I do not paint the way I do either because I know nothing of or dislike modern and contemporary art (quite the opposite)... nor do I work in this manner in order to appease an audience. I never even imagine any audience while working. No... I create the way I do because it is the manner through which I have found I can best give form to what I love in art and what I wish to convey.

I think that the really good composers have been confronting this dilemma since the end of the C19th, unlike the less effective ones who just comfortably stayed in the fully tonal language of the past. So I suppose any composer worth their salt today will continue to explore the contradictions & challenges that were presented with the crisis of tonality which started in the late C19th...

I must disagree with the suggestion that any composer who does not confront the issue of atonality and dissonance is inherently a less effective composer. This assumes that a single direction of music developed early last century is the sole path by which any achievement of merit can be attained. The issue of atonality has its counterpart in the visual arts in abstraction. Just as many academics took a holier-than-thou attitude (Boulez?) in defending atonality and dissonance and dismissing any composer that held firm to tonality, so in the visual arts there were those critics who argued the aesthetic... even the moral superiority of abstraction. Yet today... within the field of art there are those who understand... at times even admire the achievements of their predecessors in the field of abstraction... but who also reject abstraction in their own work in seeking to come to a new language suited to the time... just as the abstractionists initially rejected figuration. Is it not possible that the tonal music of composers such as Arvo Part or Osvaldo Golijov are just as effective as any current continuation in the traditions of atonality?

Great responses people. This has opened things up in a big way. I agree with Mirror Image, Kevin, Shakespeare... I guess the feeling is that when I go to compose it is impossible for me not to relate my work to the tradition of Western Classical Music in the 20th Century. I fear that I am a product of composition classes which began with us being taught serialism. Even in my Phd my first tutor said, let's just put what you showed me so far aside and work on something serial. I dropped that tutor and got an American one who was far more open-minded. I still fell between two stools as to approval for the Phd and being true to me. Maybe I still can't shake the limits I believe the classical tradition has put on me.

Interesting that someone mentioned atonality as something that needs to be addressed in their music. Maybe I should stop writing contemporary classical music and start to write just music. Maybe the labels and the history is messing me up as much as people not understanding. I believe you should go your own way, for sure. Maybe my voice is only now on the verge of coming out loud and clear.

Thanks for all the feedback. Seeings that classical music is my first love and I have so much time for music-lovers and long-term listeners, it seems like the right place to raise this issue.

Just read you post again StlukesguildOhio and a lot of it resonates with me - thanks for taking the time, fellow artist.

or non-composer friends would know what it was or like it.

That's what's troubling me in cont. music - it's written by composers for composers. I'm not against atonality, avant-garde (except when it involves helicopters), etc., but it makes me feel that the music is written for the sake of exploring the music theory, not for the music itself.

Originally Posted by nickgray

That's what's troubling me in cont. music - it's written by composers for composers. I'm not against atonality, avant-garde (except when it involves helicopters), etc., but it makes me feel that the music is written for the sake of exploring the music theory, not for the music itself.

Exactly nickgray. I couldn't have said it any better. Let me add that music doesn't have to be about pushing limits or experimenting, it should be about how you feel as a human being. If you're sole intent is to please other composers and to wow and dazzle them with music theory where it becomes more about the mind, instead of the heart, I believe you're composing music for the wrong reasons. If you compose music based solely on experimentation, then you're doing it for the wrong reasons. Something can be abstract, but it should never waver or stray far from what you feel inside of you at that given moment. Feeling pain is something we all feel and if this is what you feel, then pour that feeling out in your music. Don't compose music based on ridiculous noises...that's not music. Music is a reflection of who you are and where you're at in life. It should never be about experimentation for it's own sake.

It's a lot harder to tell people how you really feel, then to masque or cloak those feelings in some absurd notions that music must be atonal or contain the latest compositional techniques. Compose music that means something and that's an honest reflection of you.

I often have a difficult time sharing my compositions with people, which is strange because in class I'll always be sketching away at some abstract drawing or another and show people my work once it's completed, and I'll often recieve praise from my peers and they'll even sometimes sit there and analyze my work, which makes me feel very proud about my drawings. It's strange, because alot of what I do with my visual art is very similar to what I do with my compositions: my works flow together in a very expressive, stream of consciousness sort of fashion. Kind of a coherent incoherence, if you will.

I guess it's because people tend to be less accepting of abstract music than abstract visuals. I've noticed that many people will say Picasso's a great painter, but when they hear Stravinsky they get an earache. What's with that?

Originally Posted by Zeniyama

when they hear Stravinsky they get an earache. What's with that?

The sad thing is Stravinsky isn't that radical of a composer anymore compared to the composers that would come later. "The Rite of Spring" actually sounds quite good compared to something by John Cage or Ligeti, but this is just my opinion.

Originally Posted by nickgray

That's what's troubling me in cont. music - it's written by composers for composers. I'm not against atonality, avant-garde (except when it involves helicopters), etc., but it makes me feel that the music is written for the sake of exploring the music theory, not for the music itself.

And this is what troubles me about many posts to contemporary music threads, they are written by people who simply do not understand contemporary music. Contemporary music, first of all, is not written by composers for composers. Where and how did this idea start, I wonder? Perhaps it was someone who, not understanding what he heard at first, simply concluded that the music must have been written for someone else, namely the composers' colleagues. Yeah. It's like a little exclusive club, and the guy that's being excluded is ME!!

But my own experience is sufficient to give the lie to that notion. I dinked around a bit in high school with composing, but never very seriously. But when I came to discover twentieth century music, in 1972, it was love at first hearing. And from Bela Bartok to Diamanda Galas took only ten years. Why? Because I loved the music so much. Not the theory (which I'm quite weak on, actually), but the sheer, lovely, glorious sound of the music. Schoenberg, Webern, Carter, Varese, Ligeti, Lachenmann, Cage, Stockhausen, Boulez, Karkowski, Yoshihide, Marclay, Bolleter, Tone, Oliveros, Goeringer, Bokanowski, Radigue, Groult.... You get the idea.

Whatever the music is written for, and we don't always know, do we, so it's just a guess, eh?, what is the music like to listen to? For people whose ears are stuck in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries--which is most people, I'd guess--the music is painful to listen to. That means that most listeners are jumping to the conclusion that the music itself is painful.

Wrong. It's your ears dears!! My ears have never had any trouble with the most acerbic, harsh, uncompromising sounds, nor have they had much trouble (and only at the beginning) with the most isolated, unnarrative, random sounds, either. Really folks, the music is fine. Get over the idea that there's something wrong with it just because you don't get it somehow. Really. (Your ears will thank you, eventually, if you do!!)

I agree that writing for other composers is a bit silly. Art is communication, right? It doesn't have to be beautiful or experimental or derivative, it just has to be communicating something. I think a lot of music around these days, from my experience, is communicating only one thing ' Look at me making use of unused technique and structure, am I not wonderful? ' I think the problem is the obsession with so-called originality as I said. This is a misconception, all art is original since conceiving something that is not total plagiarism is original work. that is the meaning of that word. The word we should be using to describe something new to the ears or on paper, is 'innovative' And it is fair to say that most music ever composed was not innovative, it was derivative with strokes of genius here and there (or not at all!).
People are not so offended by visual art that's true but make them listen to discordant music and they often get very upset. I think they want music to be entertaining. I think many people want music to be comforting too. They make such an association with music.
Maybe music is working on a level that makes excessive dissonance (higher up the series, effect the brain or unconcious negatively). I don't know.
Experiment fine but have something you actually want to say.
I don't want to experiment. I used to but not anymore. I will listen to any music once but I have a lot of music on itunes that I never feel like listening to! All of it is music composed in the last 50 years. If I do listen to it, it is like a test. I get to analyse it maybe and yes afterwards I might feel it was a worthwhile experience but still, I won't be rushing to put myself through it again.

I think it is key to write music that you would 'enjoy' listening to if you were at the concert. It may involve erasing your mind of all the knowledge regarding history, fashion and technique in favour of something intuitive, from the heart, real to you.