Thread: Article: Crisis in Contemporary Music

http://www.classical-composers.org/p...emporary_music

Don't know if anyone here cross-references or reads other classical music articles. Here's one

Golightly (yes yes - he does cast heavy footsteps for a man going about classically) seems to locate contemporary music within arguments over the economics of its survival. In any case, I found some fascinating quotes and snippets which he refers to. I can't stop myself rambling now

1. Performers and audiences, I believe, should be rewarded by those emotional elements in music which make us all 'more than we are'.

2. There is a whole industry of academic pretentiousness that has been nurtured and cultivated by the contemporary music establishment which is, in my opinion, a million miles away from the motivation and philosophy of composers from past generations.

3. How can you align a contemporary piece of art music (that may repeat a similar phrase over and over again, or a vast ever changing sound world where dissonance is piled on dissonance with no perceptible, and I underline the word perceptible, logic to the gradient), with the dramatic vivid orchestral colours of a film score? True - to anticipate a reply - 'one is absolute music and the other is wallpaper' (pretty sophisticated wallpaper, too, I might add!). The tragedy is that, in today's climate, the essence of heart and soul, traditionally found in all music is now, in the wallpaper, not the absolute, and worse - the consumer knows it. I accept that a lot of good contemporary music has been written and published in the last few years.

Do these 3 quotes from Golightly lay a litmus test for contemporary music?

Should contemporary music reward us with an emotional experience which reveals to us, 'more than what we are?'

If so, much contemporary music would struggle to meet no.1, let alone no.2, or no.3. I'm sure there are much more richer and profound readings from Golightly's light article too.

This bit intrigues me:

It would be much more rewarding and aesthetically pleasing to listen to a complete string quartet, than just one movement. However we live in a consumer environment and to market a product, no matter what its artistic stature, you have to employ the elements that are psychologically common to that society.

I find, it would be much more rewarding and aesthetically pleasing, to listen to a complete string quartet cycle. However the very marketing forces which Golightly decries, close down marketing for complete string quartet cycles do they not? Who here, has ever heard all of Jindrich Feld's string quartets on CD? The leading exponent of contemporary Czech music, still hasn't had his complete string quartets recorded....!

The only crisis I can think of in contemporary classical is that (at least here in Australia) it is fast becoming a dead medium (dead white males, etc). It is rare to hear works like Carter's Concerto for Orchestra in our concert halls (probably hasn't been done for 20 years). & if that's the case, what hope is there for new works of much younger composers?

I think the problem is that many (older) classical fans are just plainly inflexible, they want their steady diet of Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 & Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto No. 1. This type of "safe" repertoire, with a few of the more established contemporary classical composers thrown in tokenistically, leads to this country becoming an artistic backwater (& orchestras & ensembles get no chance to develop more fully artistically).

Even our airwaves are dominated by the established repertoire. Contemporary classical has now become a token things. This is what I'm worried about. The problem is not in the supposed quality of the music being composed, which is as wide ranging today as it was 50-100 years back. There's a range of styles from everything conservative to avant-garde to in-between. The problem is that the attitudes of more conservative older classical fans are becoming mainstream, and influencing the opinions of younger listeners.

Maybe it's a case of supply & demand, like in any business (which our symphony orchestras and chamber ensembles are, no doubt). But it's also important for these organisations to lead the way, and expose us to things that are new and magical, perhaps not always look at the bottom line, and how to please the conservatives. I'm pretty sure that if we keep going the way we are there will be little classical music left as a live medium in the next 100 years, perhaps even much less. Art which fails to renew itself simply becomes a dead medium, a relic, which belongs in a museum or archive, not performed live in a concert hall. These are my thoughts to begin with, anyway...

Originally Posted by Head_case

Do these 3 quotes from Golightly lay a litmus test for contemporary music?

In a word, no.

Notice that with few exceptions Golightly doesn't mention any names or any pieces. He never defines any of his terms, including the main one. He only rarely, and then to no purpose, gets off the highest level of generality. If you like empty assertions, and judging from posts to online forums of all types, many people do, then you'll love Golightly's article. If you like some specifics, some definitions, some real argument with some thought and some logic, you'll be very aggravated by this long, unbearable screed.

I'd love to say more, but until Golightly deigns to tell us what he means by "contemporary music," there's really nothing to talk about!! (Well, OK, one thing. He keeps mentioning the last forty years, but the generalities (glittering, of course!!) could easily and equally refer to trends in 1810 or 1848 or 1870 or... or, in other words, years, decades before oh, say, Schoenberg for example. And his naive assertion that listeners just instinctively know what's good. Wow.)

Oh, almost forgot. Andre, music is doing pretty well in Australia, at least judging from the CDs I have of Ross Bolleter, Oren Ambarchi, Martin Ng, Philip Samartzis. (I might have more, but I don't really listen by country. Sorry!) And folks nearby* in New Zealand are no slouches, either. And if it's more "traditional" instrumental contemporary music you want, then there's the ISCM World Music Days coming to Australia this spring. (The current head of ISCM is based in Australia.) I know, one swallow does not a summer make, nor one festival a thriving new music scene. The guys I mentioned above, though, who live and work in Australia all year long, might make the place seem summery. (You can't go just by the mainstream venues. The concert halls and opera houses. Music's left those; and to hear new, thriving music, you have to go to the bars and coffee shops and abandoned factories where it's being played.) Happy listening!!

*Just my little joke.

Thanks for the thoughts guys.

Andre - sounds pretty much on ball - over here we too have a generation of classical music listeners who are passing away. Does classical music feature in t.v. adverts still? I remember music from childhood - things like 'the Hamlet cigar' advert and the classical music that accompanied that. These days, I guess the theme tune to the original Star Wars films probably classify as classical music for teenagers.

A while back, orchestras had it really tough, flying from concert to concert. They were banned from carrying their instruments as hand luggage and risked being damaged in the cargo hold. I guess a pop quartet also hasn't got as many people and equipment to bring to a huge concert venue (amazing what amplification does), compared to a large travelling orchestra.

Some_guy - 'Mr Golightly' is exactly as his name describes! I don't think he's intending to be taking seriously! He offers interesting tidbits for reflection, that's all. It's probably safe to assume he doesn't mean Mozart

Originally Posted by some guy

The guys I mentioned above, though, who live and work in Australia all year long, might make the place seem summery. (You can't go just by the mainstream venues. The concert halls and opera houses. Music's left those; and to hear new, thriving music, you have to go to the bars and coffee shops and abandoned factories where it's being played.) Happy listening!!

This is true, there are some regional festivals & the like of experimental music, in less mainstream venues here in Australia. There are also some smaller ensembles which do quite varied programs, not always contemporary, but less mainstream anyway.

I'm just worried that performing some of the less-travelled repertoire, whether it be new or old, is in danger of becoming a fringe thing because of older classical fan's conservative attitudes. I mean, how many times do they want to listen to Beethoven's 5th? Isn't there more to classical music than that? Apparently not if you look at the big symphony orchestras, I mean I was looking at the current season of the Sydney Symphony Orchestra, and contemporary music (by this I mean post WWII) had been sidelined to tokenistic 5-10 minute pieces in SOME concerts. How sad this is, they should be more at the cutting edge & pushing boundaries. But it's a good thing how chief conductor Vladimir Ashkenazy has made a commitment to performing the Mahler cycle in the next few years. Even things like this are a good thing, but we should definitely have more recent music performed more wholistically also. What about a complete cycle of Henze or Penderecki symphonies? It's interesting to imagine what the greys would make of this...

Good one, Andre!

I can tell you what this grey would say to that: "Too old timey! Where's your turntablists and your noise bands and your soundscape artists?"

(It's true, though. A lotta greys are giving the rest of us a bad name. I listen largely to music written in the past 15 or twenty years. (I'm 58; I'm not old!))

Yes, with people like you in mind Some Guy, maybe I should stop using the term "greys" as IT IS AGEIST!!! I know. Maybe I should simply use the term "conservatives" because it is a state of mind, not really age-related.

Question: is it actually a crime to..... *gasp* hate modern classical music? Must everyone feel that Henze or Penderecki are geniuses on the same level as Beethoven?

I'd like to reverse your question: is it actually a crime to love modern/contemporary classical music (and want to see it performed live instead of endless repeats of Beethoven et al for the conservatives). Just food for thought...

Scythe, your first question assumes a context that doesn't exist. No one, at least on this thread, has come even close to suggesting that there's something wrong about hating "modern/contemporary classical music."

It might be considered rather odd to dislike the musics of one's own time. To be unable to keep up, as a listener, to what composers of today are doing. That would be something like not liking Beethoven in 1810. Wondering if it's a crime to hate Beethoven. But there could be all sorts of reasons for disliking anything, Tallis or Tone.

I think that while not literally criminal (and I apologize for trampling all over your hyperbole), it can certainly be considered bad form to turn one's personal dislike of contemporary music into a criticism of the music itself. You can test the validity of this conclusion with a simple equation.

Person A listens to a contemporary piece and thinks it's ugly.
Person B listens to the same piece and thinks it's beautiful.

In both cases, the notes are exactly the same. The only difference is in the listeners.

If you can find a number of listeners with the same level of experience listening to recent musics who all find a piece to be ugly, then there might be some justification in concluding that something is wrong with that piece. But only "might be."

As for your second question, that too is contextless. And not only that, it attempts a comparison between unlikes. Both Henze and Penderecki (neither of them particularly cutting edge, though they are both alive and composing in 2010) are setting out to accomplish different things than Beethoven set out to accomplish. They both live in a very different time than Beethoven did, with different assumptions and different backgrounds and different histories. Both Henze and Penderecki have, for instance, Beethoven as part of their cultural heritage. Beethoven did not.

It's 2010. If there's any genuine crisis, it's in the situation of there being large numbers of classical listeners who are not only out of touch with what's happening today, but out of touch with what's been happening for an entire century or more. Who have little or no experience to justify their dislike of that century's worth of music-making. Who have no trouble dismissing, sound unheard, the musics their contemporaries are making. (Or who, if they have heard some contemporary music, without understanding or enjoying it, have no trouble identifying their dislike as a quality of the music. See equation, above!)

As that situation has been going on for TWO hundred years now, and composers continue to compose, I suppose that "crisis" is perhaps the wrong word!

Originally Posted by scytheavatar

Question: is it actually a crime to..... *gasp* hate modern classical music? Must everyone feel that Henze or Penderecki are geniuses on the same level as Beethoven?

The percentage of people who haven't even heard of, let alone the music of Henze or Penderecki and would still class Beethoven as greater composer must be pretty high. The ratio of people who refer to modern classical music as 'noise' or 'ugly' to those who dislike the past masters like Beethoven must be an astronomical figure:1.
Although saying that, I bet most people would prefer Coldplay or U2 to any piece of classical music, past or present.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, modern classical/avant-garde music has no reason to be popular or try to appeal to anyone. Pop, rock, dance, R&B and such, now fill that role. If you look at music as a whole and not one particular segment of it, you'll see it still fulfills what it did in the past, plus lots of other uses. Not to say classical composers shouldn't be allowed to try and get popular, make loads of money, and spend it on blow and giant bass clef shaped swimming pools.(The two dots would be jacuzzi's, if you were wondering).

Andre, one thing at least is sure: no one will ever accuse me of being conservative!!

When my hair was brown (and was only on the top of my head), I liked Rachmaninoff, Haydn, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Grieg, and so forth.

When I had hair in other places besides the top of my head, I added Bartok, Varese, Mumma, Cage, Carter, and so forth to the first list.

As my hair has greyed (though so far only that that's being cultivated on my face), I have spent more and more time with more and more recent (and perhaps more and more extreme) musics. Niblock, eRikm, Goeringer, Parlane, and so forth.

This, I think, is a good trend. There may be other trends, but this is the one that keeps one current, if nothing else. "Current" may not necessarily translate into "better" or even into "good." But I think knowing something about the creative work going on all around you, now, is a healthy thing. If nothing else, it means you can take part in the conversation.

That's the only (tiny) quibble I would have with Argus' cool response to Scythe--the modern/avant-garde classical (non-pop) music of today certainly appeals to me! It may have no reason to appeal to anyone, but it certainly does appeal to many anyones.

Not to say classical composers shouldn't be allowed to try and get popular

Why shouldn't they get popular?

Classical music is too much in underground. That's the problem.

There is no such person, but if there would appear a composer that would compose rich and sophiscitated music but not avant-garde he would be considered as pop-classical composer by lot of classical people. I mean more literal music.

If Beethoven would not compose, say, 7th symphony and it would be composed today, people that now consider it great would call it rubbish work of a populist.

But it is a good shrubbery.

We need a guy that will have reputation of Mick Jagger, sleep with Megan Fox and Angelina Jolie, live in Beverly Hills 90210 and compose great music which will not be popular among common people, but it will make classical music live again with new, refreshed life out of academic mustiness. What I wrote seems extreme, but how diffrent is this portrait from what we know about Liszt for example?

Aramis, what you wrote does not seem extreme, just extremely chimerical.

One, Liszt was wildly popular as a performer, not as a composer. As a composer, he was considered one of the avant garde, a proponent of New Music, and thus viewed with suspicion by an increasingly backwards looking concert world. That is what we know (what we should know) about Mr. Liszt.

Two, sophisticated and popular are going to be uneasy bedfellows at best. And mutually exclusive categories at worst. Beethoven's symphony no. 7 is not by any means popular, except to a very small, sophisticated (!) group of people who listen to classical music. Classical music generally is not very popular.

Three, Beethoven's symphony no. 7 could only have been written when it was written and by whom it was written. It is odd how pervasive (and how universal) ahistorical notions have become. It is true that a composer today could write a pastiche of practically any earlier composer, but that piece could never hope to be anything more than that, a pastiche. You can't ignore--well, you can, but not without consequences!--the time you live in. The assumptions, the visions, the revisions, the shared ideas of this time. It is out of those that the individual named Beethoven created the distinctive piece called symphony no. 7.

It would not have been possible to have written that much before the time it was actually written. And while it would have been "possible" to write something like it later, what would have been the point? If someone today were to write a symphony that sounded as if Beethoven could have written it, then everyone's response would be that it sounds like a Beethoven rip-off. Not "populist," not "rubbish," but certainly a rip-off. That's because, as I pointed out before, we have Beethoven in our past. Beethoven did not. He did have Mozart in his past, though, and you can see how his art developed from things that sounded like Mozart to things that sounded like no one else but Beethoven. What if he had continued to write pieces that sounded like Mozart? Do you think anyone would still be listening to his music today? Do you think he would have achieved the stature he has today if he had done so?

Originally Posted by some guy

One, Liszt was wildly popular as a performer, not as a composer. As a composer, he was considered one of the avant garde, a proponent of New Music, and thus viewed with suspicion by an increasingly backwards looking concert world. That is what we know (what we should know) about Mr. Liszt.

Yes, but that was not the same avant-garde as we have today. It was the romantic revolution, inspired and thrilling fight for musical ideals an goals that was lead by young, energic people. Not the same thing as two old gaffers talking at live show watched by ten people around the world and saying: "Mr. X your new symphony for ten sopranos and half of orchestra is very interesting, very interesting, yes, very instense, very hrrrrrrrrrrr <sleeps>"

Classical music generally is not very popular.

Some works are. You can find many metalheads or "sensitive girls" listening to more tuneful things and claiming to be fascinated.

Three, Beethoven's symphony no. 7 could only have been written when it was written and by whom it was written. It is odd how pervasive (and how universal) ahistorical notions have become. It is true that a composer today could write a pastiche of practically any earlier composer, but that piece could never hope to be anything more than that, a pastiche. You can't ignore--well, you can, but not without consequences!--the time you live in. The assumptions, the visions, the revisions, the shared ideas of this time. It is out of those that the individual named Beethoven created the distinctive piece called symphony no. 7.(...)

I'm talking more about idea, not the style. Literal, that's what I've said before. Literal music is something that has clearly visible points, it's tonal and even if you don't understand you see that here is some sad tune on string, here is majestic fanfare etc. And this is what today's composers are afraid of I think. Beethoven's 7th is all the way melodic and literal and for this reason it would be thrown away like trash (if composed today).