Another article on modern music.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/nov/28/alex-ross-modern-classical-music

So how's that?

What made the difference was Gilbert's gift for talking audiences through unfamiliar territory: in a mini-lecture, he mapped out the structure of the piece, demonstrated a few highlights, made jokes at his own expense, and generally gave people the idea that if they left early they'd be missing out.

Is key. This is what can make the difference to an audience. If you pitch it to them well enough, anyone will listen to anything and come out better for it. I've done it myself, and it just works.

Of course it's much easier for an audience to "get" music if it's explained in an entertaining way before a concert. Laughter, especially, creates an emotional link with an idea and makes the idea easier to remember and digest.

I like Alex Ross' ending comments:

What must fall away is the notion of classical music as a reliable conduit for consoling beauty – a kind of spa treatment for tired souls. Such an attitude undercuts not only 20th-century composers but also the classics it purports to cherish. Imagine Beethoven's rage if he had been told that one day his music would be piped into railway stations to calm commuters and drive away delinquents. Listeners who become accustomed to Berg and Ligeti will find new dimensions in Mozart and Beethoven. So, too, will performers. For too long, we have placed the classical masters in a gilded cage. It is time to let them out.

The beginning reminds me of a quote by Copland: "Most people use music as a couch; they want to be pillowed on it, relaxed and consoled for the stress of daily living. But serious music was never meant to be soporific." I go to concerts primarily to be entertained, but I don't necessarily go to relax; I go to experience, reflect, and learn.

We have to pitch our music like we're used car salesmen now? No thanks.

We have to pitch our music like we're used car salesmen now? No thanks.

Don't we do that already by talking about arcane, meaningless elements like how we composed something or the intended form or what we want people to think of by virtue of a title -- its just marketing. Considering a piece in a genre, or even owes to specific genres is just marketing.

[edit]Merry Christmas!

We have to pitch our music like we're used car salesmen now? No thanks.

Erm, everyone involved in every art does, and it's been that way for all time. Those who don't, end up failing. Because they don't talk with their audience.

I think

This is what can make the difference to an audience. If you pitch it to them well enough, anyone will listen to anything and come out better for it. I've done it myself, and it just works.

Well, all this seems to point to, for me, is that Western Classicism no longer has a "common-tongue" language, if you will. In past centuries, one could hear Debussy's Nocturnes - Clouds alongside something by Beethoven without struggling nearly as much to make sense of Debussy as one might have struggled to understand Penderecki or Crumb.

And if there was a grimace at the Debussy performance, it would easily pale in comparison to the grimacing faces of today, who may simply be exerting the effort to understand the work in our composer's hope that they appreciate it.

We no longer have a "common-tongue" language, so of course it becomes necessary to "pitch" a new work, especially if the syntax of the work is largely unknown to the majority of audience members. Even IF the syntax is widely known, how does the syntax of the modern composer's work relate to anything else? If it's modern, maybe it should not relate to anything else at all...

But therein lies the rub, because if every modern work needs a "pitch" for the audience to hopefully understand and appreciate it, how can we possibly expect the work to stand alone? How can we expect that without the pitch the work would have any substance to speak of? Simply put, the "pitch" is just a substitute for what we would otherwise rely upon - a common syntax.

Well, all this seems to point to, for me, is that Western Classicism no longer has a "common-tongue" language, if you will. In past centuries, one could hear Debussy's Nocturnes - Clouds alongside something by Beethoven without struggling nearly as much to make sense of Debussy as one might have struggled to understand Penderecki or Crumb.

Sorry long weird rant.

No art has ever had a "common tongue," in reality. It's just an illusion through tradition and reinforcement of culture. People were outraged at Stravinsky when his musical language was -EXTREMELY- conservative by our standards. I mean, people being outraged at something different is nothing new it happens everywhere.

The problem is I think that tons of people even if they enjoy modern music don't believe in it enough to stand behind it. It's always with some bullshit shield of it being "too complex for normal people," or "unreachable aesthetic for regular audiences" or what have you. Well this is bullshit.

I like modern music because I like how it sounds, it's really dumb like that.

And I got into it because someone pitched it to me so that I was curious and began to listen.

Why is this bad? It's like sharing someone's favourite dish, or movie. You pitch it somehow, always. Where's the problem?

If your best friend told you "Hey man listen to this" and you hated it, you'd still give it a lot more thought than if you heard it against your will as part of some stupid mix concert where you were going to see mozart, not whatever was new. In a sense, pitching the music to the audience is friendly and I think it's a nice thing to do for ANY kind of music. I would appreciate it even if it was a style copy.

But then again, I want to support my fellow composers above all else, I want to hear what they think. It interests me.

And honestly I used to think that music had to "stand on its own," and that much can be true for the final opinion you have on something. At the end of the day, I still go back and listen to some of my favourite stuff not because they were recommended (and many times nobody told me either,) but because I think they're great. That's, I think, art standing on its own. But I changed my mind about the concert situation, where I used to think that no explanation was necessary, that people should naturally hear music and judge it based on just hearing it...

But nothing can "stand on its own" if the only chance it has is trying to do some kind of magic trick where people magically fall in love with it with only hearing it ONCE. Specially using very different aesthetic, ideas, whatever. I realized this is impossible. The only way anyone (even me) would get to start listening and enjoying things is by diving into the aesthetic, the ideas, and so on. You can't pretend just by hearing a piece once you can do this, or even by hearing ten pieces, or whatever the number. If the person isn't curious, if it's not sparking interest, then it's just pointless. People also never just "listen" to music, they bring all sorts of scraggy into their perception. They make all sorts of judgments.

I'm guilty of that as everyone else, and to be honest I only got into modern music when a friend suggested I should look for something modern that I liked. And that little sentence turned my world upside down. Look for something I liked? What? But I can't POSSIBLY like all that noisy scraggy! But what if there IS something I like? Maybe I'm missing out? No that's weird. I told him I wasn't sure at the time, but the question tore me up inside since I honestly didn't know.

So I researched, I studied, and I began listening. For months all I did was listen to all sorts of 20th century music, listening to everything I could get my hands on, if it was from the 20th century I would listen. I remember the first thing I did was go out and buy myself a Hindemith CD, because I remember having liked something from him but because it wasn't Bach I told myself it was garbage. I felt somehow that I was kind of "making up" for all my stupid prejudice. And I found his music so amazing, that it inspired me to keep looking and that my friend was right after all.

What was even more retarded about the Hindemith example is that my girl was at the time singing in a choir that did only modern repertoire, and she gave me a tape saying "here's a song I like, it's from a composer called hindemith" and I asked if it was modern music and she said yes. Just by her SAYING that I thought I was certain I wouldn't like it. Fortunately my ears are less of a dumbass than I was. I actually told her I didn't like it just kind of to keep up with my opinion that modern music was trash, even if deep down I was lying to myself but I wasn't sure. I also remember saying stuff I didn't like Stravinsky, when I hadn't even heard a thing he wrote at the time I said that!

Oh, yeah, and the friend I mentioned? He ended up being my first composition teacher in Germany.

But I digress, what I'm saying is, I like to say I don't give a scraggy about my audience when I write my music. This is true. But this doesn't mean that my audience is irrelevant, far from it. They're so relevant, in fact, that I'm willing to do anything outside of changing my musical vision to help them! If explaining the piece will do it, perfect. If they need me to play a couple of chords, crack some jokes, whatever, then fine too. Point is, leaving people in the rain pretending that they're supposed to be cognitive magicians is stupid and we should stop.

Sorry long weird rant.

...

But I digress, what I'm saying is, I like to say I don't give a scraggy about my audience when I write my music. This is true. But this doesn't mean that my audience is irrelevant, far from it. They're so relevant, in fact, that I'm willing to do anything outside of changing my musical vision to help them! If explaining the piece will do it, perfect. If they need me to play a couple of chords, crack some jokes, whatever, then fine too. Point is, leaving people in the rain pretending that they're supposed to be cognitive magicians is stupid and we should stop.

I have a long, weird rant of my own...

What you describe is the same story I have heard countless times. It's rather typical, in my opinion. The question of prejudice and "not liking it simply because it is modern" is, for the most part, valid. I happen to think, though, that it isn't the issue.

What I think we need to understand is that in the study of music, in the art form or the craft (however we want to think of it), it's simply not enough to experience this breakthrough you are describing. This, for better or worse, is an experience that a very, very small number of people, people who specialize in the art of music composition, are likely to have.

The vast majority of the experience of "hearing" a work is far removed from the kind of discussion we're having here. Here, we speak of the repertoire and pedagogy, of composers and works, based on a varied degree of specialized knowledge. For the individual audience member, the supportive family member or friend, the individual that spends the majority of their day processing paperwork, the stay-at-home mother (or father) who specializes in some area far-removed from our art-form, THAT person will probably not experience the kind of epiphany nor find the meaning significant to them as it is to you.

You, a composer, a specialist in an art form and of sound (generally), take the moment of inspiration in a new form of expression with a degree of significance to you (personally, professionally, w/e) that the individual described above probably will never experience... not in the way in which you do. This should be no surprise.

But this understanding should hold a higher degree of significance. Too often, I see the "prejudiced" and "misinformed" experience used as an explanation for why old works are preferred to "modern" works. I turn away from the, "they just don't get it, they're used to classical music..." fluff, because, the individual I described above doesn't get "old" music any more than they get "new" music. They don't really "get" any of it.

That's not to say there aren't the connoisseurs of music out there, those with opinions of acceptance and disapproval, who take some small morsel of what we know as composers and base some judgment of the work on that. This happens all too often. But, what we should consider, what we need to know as composers, is that if the majority of audience members don't get "old" music and they don't get "new" music, what is it that they "get" at all?

That is where I believe our focus should lie, because it's not about tonal or atonal systems, it's not about Berg or Hindemith, it's not about the past, present, or future, and it's certainly not about what the audience knows or what they grew up with... because none of that is concrete. All of this changes over time. It may take several experiences in a "new" music environment, but that is not the greatest divide, in my opinion.

In my view, there are elements of music that people connect with, regardless of their knowledge. One of the more ironic things I've found about modern music not seeing more performances has to do with the greatest marketing tool we have as composers, the human memory. Yet, I've seen more and more works that attempt to avoid this, to avoid sounding memorable - for variety, some kind of expression, whatever - and then I see explanations like, "They don't get it, they're stuck in the past," and I just put my face in my palms because it's simply not true. What the audience gets is something they cannot remember, thus, what do they have to hold onto following the performance?

And this is, truly, one element among a multitude of problems. It's a dissociation with what the audience takes from music, which has nothing to do with whether the work is stylistically "copied". We refer to this as a "challenge" for the audience, that if they just took a little more time, were a little more patient, or just more open-minded that they may find they like it. Before we can even say that the challenge exists, we have to know whether it's possible for the audience to remember segments of our work.

This "modern" approach to music has been a process now for nearly a century, and it has not gained the speed that was predicted in the 30's and 40's. There are so many reasons for it that have everything to do with social issues of prejudice and misinformation, with bias and angst, with a division between "old" and "new", and so many people trying to make a name for themselves by attempting to argue which is better. All of this has been going on, and while Academies and Universities have become so absorbed in this dichotomy, an entire commercial art-form has come to exist now as it has never been before.

It's interesting that a popular song we hear on the radio is not simply the result of a formula from some lab technician. Singer-songwriters have been developing a full-fledged art-form of their own making, independent from all of this academic nonsense (specifically, the bickering), an art-form that offers interesting musical elements, memorability, and simplicity. But what is most important to understand about this art-form is the efficiency regarding the delivery of these elements musically. It isn't new to us, it isn't old either, but we take it for granted. For the better half of the century that "new" music was to become what it was forecast to be, here we have something else far more prolific than contemporary classicism (generally) that millions of people are listening to regularly.

Of course, we can talk all day about the social influences at work here. We can talk about technology, about social reforms and movements, and we can take the "art" out of the art-form... because that's what we see the music institutions do in addressing this topic over and over again. We should know what these social forces are, surely, but we should ALSO know about the music that meets the expectations of those forces. We should know about the commercial art-form just as much as we should know about the contemporary world of music. We should be prepared to work within this environment.

Now, what we need to understand is that our freedom to express ends with the last person to hear our work. That is as far as our freedom extends. Beyond that, no one owes us an ear for the work we do. To expect otherwise is foolish, because our joy as artists can be entirely fulfilled if we're the last person, hell, if we're the ONLY person to hear our work. Charles Ives is a perfect example of this, a man who sold Life Insurance for a living and never seemed to want anyone to know he was a composer. His barber never knew he even wrote music or was a composer.

So, I think what I want to clarify here is what "standing alone" means, because I happen to think it has more to do with the content of the work within the social context... within the expectations or what happens to be significant now in the world. This can certainly be a work that doesn't use tertian harmony, that doesn't use traditional instruments, that doesn't even use the traditional tuning system of 12tET... but if it is worth expressing to anyone who will take the time to hear it, it's worth expressing well enough to be simple, efficient, and memorable.

I simply do not buy the matter of the audience "not getting" contemporary, "modern", "serious" music. There are a plethora of examples in the world right now, of music being written commercially that isn't tonal or traditional in any way, yet this music stands on its own. People listen to it, they relate to it, they consume it... and I have no reason to believe that the vast majority of people come to a concert with some theoretical pre-disposition for the familiar, the traditional, or what-have-you. They come for an experience they can remember (and hopefully want to remember), for better or worse, because absent a recording of the performance, that is all they can take with them when the concert is over, if anything at all.

In my view, there are elements of music that people connect with, regardless of their knowledge. One of the more ironic things I've found about modern music not seeing more performances has to do with the greatest marketing tool we have as composers, the human memory. Yet, I've seen more and more works that attempt to avoid this, to avoid sounding memorable - for variety, some kind of expression, whatever - and then I see explanations like, "They don't get it, they're stuck in the past," and I just put my face in my palms because it's simply not true. What the audience gets is something they cannot remember, thus, what do they have to hold onto following the performance?

And this is, truly, one element among a multitude of problems. It's a dissociation with what the audience takes from music, which has nothing to do with whether the work is stylistically "copied". We refer to this as a "challenge" for the audience, that if they just took a little more time, were a little more patient, or just more open-minded that they may find they like it. Before we can even say that the challenge exists, we have to know whether it's possible for the audience to remember segments of our work.

But I don't want to tell people (or be told) what to write.

And honestly, I'd much rather eliminate the "hear it once then bye" concert scenario than ask people to change their music. Or do something about the presentation, but the musical content must be sacred. It's the only thing a composer really has control over, we should never pretend it's something that can be wished away.

As for pop music and whatever, yeah you can use typical song forms and things that've been around forever as they deal with repetition, but this is all up to the composer. If he/she doesn't want it, then that's that. Maybe the piece is much cooler for avoiding it, maybe it isn't, but certainly it has to be what the composer wanted not what anyone else did.

Artistic freedom must trump all, always.

But I don't want to tell people (or be told) what to write.

No one is telling anyone "what" to write. Like I said, there are plenty of examples of "contemporary," "serious," "art music" sounding works being consumed by the public in the commercial realm. This doesn't say, "Write like this...", but rather, it says, "This is what the general public is listening to, so we should attempt to understand what it is that 'works' for this music."

And honestly, I'd much rather eliminate the "hear it once then bye" concert scenario than ask people to change their music. Or do something about the presentation, but the musical content must be sacred. It's the only thing a composer really has control over, we should never pretend it's something that can be wished away.

See, no, this isn't about sacrilege, it's not about twisting or confining, and it's not about taking power away from the composer. If anything, it's about empowering the composer with knowledge.

As for pop music and whatever, yeah you can use typical song forms and things that've been around forever as they deal with repetition, but this is all up to the composer. If he/she doesn't want it, then that's that. Maybe the piece is much cooler for avoiding it, maybe it isn't, but certainly it has to be what the composer wanted not what anyone else did.

The example of pop music points to "concepts," not merely elements of song form and pop music. These concepts include simplicity, efficiency, and memorability. That these concepts are consciously avoided draws concern, because these are elements that the public relies upon in consuming our artistic expression. If composers are consciously avoiding these concepts with no reason other than to avoid sacrilege (artistic freedom), then we should not be surprised to see that most serious art music isn't seeing a performance past a premier.

Artistic freedom must trump all, always.

Like I said, artistic freedom ends with the last person to listen to our work. After that, our artistic freedom is over because no one is listening to what our freedom expresses.

Personally, I think the whole "artistic freedom" thing is a bunch of baloney invented by composers to justify their music when its not received well by audiences. If you can't have the sense to make your music accessible to an audience, then why bother? Without them listening (as opposed to just hearing) and understanding the music, there whole performance is valueless.

The composer only has so much control over the music. It is not our job to shove our idea down the audiences throat, but rather to give them an avenue to experience something through music so that they can come up with their own ideas about it. This is the beauty of music, imo, because a work that is crafted well and sounds good can lead to multiple interpretations of its meaning. Despite the fact that, say, two audience members heard the work at the same concert or two conductors performed it slightly differently, the music will still be new and fresh and giving new meaning every time it is played. Those are the true masterworks. They may be intellectually over the head of the audience, which isn't necessarily a problem, but what is most important is that they identify with the aesthetic content to a point where they can latch onto it and say "Yes, this," whatever that this is, "is what I'm experencing now. But wait! There it is again slightly differently!" (As the development section starts, for example.)

AntiA is spot on when he talks about the human memory. Music that is not memorable will become irrelevant immediately after the applause is done. We need to strive as composers to make our music relevant to the audiences that listen, not just ourselves. If we only write what we want, then our music will fall into oblivion and the art form will truly die.

i wanted to go beserk on the last reply statements, for it is chauvinist and logically imbecile, but i won't. i will only say that ''Music that is not memorable will become irrelevant immediately after the applause is done.'' does not say anything about what and why is memorable and to whom. memorable tune? that you can remember and whistle? well, i hate that music, it, being SO memorable makes me despise it.memory. easy to talk, hard to define. whenever one says memorable you may just write ( ) instead of what is memorable. so, if this is what the post tries to say, well, then it says nothing and audiences have none to do with it. so, why do i like pieces that i can't hum, sing or repeat in the least in my mind? because i remeber the event of first hearing it, the energy it gave me, the divine confusion of the senses and 'memory'. what is immemorable that is what i came back to over and over. what i can memorise on the get go, i leave for the unconscious to distort and make something less so.

music ( ) be ( ).

no, it shouldn't.

That has to do with programming.

If an audience member has sat through an hour long concert, and can't remember one melody or specific moment from it, I think the conductor or composer or whoever was in charge of the concert experience has done the audience a huge disservice. People on the whole like popcorn and firework music as much as meat-and-potatoes music and lobster-and-caviar music.

Sure, I might walk out of a PIECE whose music I can't hum or anything, but that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it. But if I sat through an hour of music and none of it made an impression to the point where it made it to my memory, then apparently I wasn't that moved by it.

Pliorious:

So, I just have this much to say...

If your intent is to write music that is not to be "remembered", yet memorability appears to be a significant factor in the proliferation of a work to the masses... if you somehow aspire or find it acceptable that your music becomes popular, if it does (given the condition we observe now) then your music has somehow become memorable (which you don't aspire to make it so as an artist).

I don't state this as a cold hard truth but rather to convey the contradiction. If your aspiration or ideal is not to be prolific as a composer among the masses, not to have hundreds or maybe thousands of performances of your music over hundreds of years, or to see the pedagogy and repertoire of music continue to grow over the next 1500 years, then what exactly are you contributing to the discussion? From what I can tell... nothing.

Personally, I think the whole "artistic freedom" thing is a bunch of baloney invented by composers to justify their music when its not received well by audiences. If you can't have the sense to make your music accessible to an audience, then why bother? Without them listening (as opposed to just hearing) and understanding the music, there whole performance is valueless.

Define accessible? Do you mean easily digested? Easy to follow? Repetitive, like pop music? I think any form of music can be accessible if the listener opens his/her ears and gives it a chance. I can remember when I first heard 'grunge' music in 1991. I thought it was noise! Now, after listening to it and getting myself acquainted with it, I absolutely love it.

The composer only has so much control over the music. It is not our job to shove our idea down the audiences throat, but rather to give them an avenue to experience something through music so that they can come up with their own ideas about it. This is the beauty of music, imo, because a work that is crafted well and sounds good can lead to multiple interpretations of its meaning. Despite the fact that, say, two audience members heard the work at the same concert or two conductors performed it slightly differently, the music will still be new and fresh and giving new meaning every time it is played. Those are the true masterworks. They may be intellectually over the head of the audience, which isn't necessarily a problem, but what is most important is that they identify with the aesthetic content to a point where they can latch onto it and say "Yes, this," whatever that this is, "is what I'm experencing now. But wait! There it is again slightly differently!" (As the development section starts, for example.)

Ok, so a composer doesn't have full control over the music he/she writes? Where do you come up with this stuff??? And yes, it is OUR job to market are music to audience members. If no composer, in the history of music, ever took that sentence at face value... we'd never have music at all. It is the composers job to network with musicians, put him or herself in contact with performance groups, AND in many cases write the program notes the audience reads at concerts. If you remove all three of those things - then what is a composers job besides writing music that no one will ever hear or understand?

I'm really thinking, Justin, that your holding yourself in a box and that box is rapidly sinking in quick sand.

AntiA is spot on when he talks about the human memory. Music that is not memorable will become irrelevant immediately after the applause is done. We need to strive as composers to make our music relevant to the audiences that listen, not just ourselves. If we only write what we want, then our music will fall into oblivion and the art form will truly die.

Making something memorable doesn't necessarily mean it has to fit one aesthetic over the other. Things become memorable by repetition and the ability of the listener to perceive patterns, etc. You could have an alleatoric work be highly memorable - depends on how it is written.

Relevance, eh? What in your work is relevant? What does relevance mean to you? Did those composers who have proceeded us think about Relevance? And if so, what was it they did to make themselves relevant?

Making something memorable doesn't necessarily mean it has to fit one aesthetic over the other. Things become memorable by repetition and the ability of the listener to perceive patterns, etc. You could have an alleatoric work be highly memorable - depends on how it is written.

Relevance, eh? What in your work is relevant? What does relevance mean to you? Did those composers who have proceeded us think about Relevance? And if so, what was it they did to make themselves relevant?

I think it's important to make a distinction here. I absolutely agree with Jason's view that the "ability" of the listener to perceive patterns of sound can make the work highly memorable - to the listener, should the listener be interested in the idea. Additionally, the pattern need not sound "traditionally tonal" or what-have-you. It may be entirely practical to look at it from the standpoint of expectations at that point. If the listener expects the work to repeat less, to NOT use tonality, to not sound romantic, classic, et al, then this is also quite amenable in my view.

What I take issue with is poorly crafted work, work that does nothing to identify itself or bother to even attempt to connect with a listener. Then, I see this pretentious approach alongside some article discussing how the "art/serious/modern music community needs more support," (see Babbitt, et al) which then goes on to practically "blame" other genres of music for how desperate their plight is... and that, I must say, is offensive to me. It's even more offensive to see some pretentious composer out there take swings at the work of other artists like songwriters and film composers.

Quite frankly, if the masses are looking for music and finding something worth listening to in commercial tunes and soundtracks, then I don't see anything wrong with it. If you are composing to put your name into the history books (and this is entirely my opinion), you better be able to incorporate what it is that the masses are seeking. From an Anthropological view of it (and Jason, dispute this if you think it's entirely invalid), the music we study today was the music that, perhaps, "revealed" social trends of the past.

In other words, Beethoven wouldn't have been Beethoven if he completely ignored the expectations of the audience. Neither would Mozart. It just so happened that they not only knew what those expectations were, they quite competently manipulated their music to delay resolution of those expectations, using them in a way that almost created its own consonant/dissonant relationship. Here we have these kinds of precedents up until around 1920, but composition studios at the academic level have seen to it that these precedents are avoided at all costs for the sake of staying on the "one and true" path of artistic exploration... teaching many of us to ignore everything else, tunnel our vision, and find our own, unique voice/syntax of music.

Sorry, I can't see how we can derive inspiration from a vacuum... we simply MUST be willing to be part of the world if we hope to one day represent something of it in our work, something that connects what we do with our culture, our society, and our perceptions of human civilization at this moment in history collectively (as much as it can be, anyway). We can't do that by ignoring all that precedes us, and we certainly can't expect anyone to listen if we're not doing our part to connect with the world.

What I take issue with is poorly crafted work, work that does nothing to identify itself or bother to even attempt to connect with a listener. Then, I see this pretentious approach alongside some article discussing how the "art/serious/modern music community needs more support," (see Babbitt, et al) which then goes on to practically "blame" other genres of music for how desperate their plight is... and that, I must say, is offensive to me. It's even more offensive to see some pretentious composer out there take swings at the work of other artists like songwriters and film composers.

Well you take swings, they take swings, everyone bashes eachother and pretends to know what they "should" be writing instead.

That's what is truly rather annoying.

What I take issue with is poorly crafted work, work that does nothing to identify itself or bother to even attempt to connect with a listener. Then, I see this pretentious approach alongside some article discussing how the "art/serious/modern music community needs more support," (see Babbitt, et al) which then goes on to practically "blame" other genres of music for how desperate their plight is...

I think it's important to make the distinction that modern music =/= 'poorly crafted work'. All to often, on this forum, I see people make this claim continuously. Not you, Shaun - but others. Any aesthetic of music contains work(s) that often isn't crafted well at all.

Quite frankly, if the masses are looking for music and finding something worth listening to in commercial tunes and soundtracks, then I don't see anything wrong with it. If you are composing to put your name into the history books (and this is entirely my opinion), you better be able to incorporate what it is that the masses are seeking. From an Anthropological view of it (and Jason, dispute this if you think it's entirely invalid), the music we study today was the music that, perhaps, "revealed" social trends of the past.

Yes, and no. We have to remember that we really don't have any of the music of the historic 'peasantry'. We have some surviving folk songs (many of which are quite far removed from classical music.) I think it's important for modern composers of classical music to realize - and really, we must come to terms with this - with the exception of perhaps the past 100 years, our 'art' was consumed largely by the aristocracy. The peasants in Germany, Austria, England, and other European countries very rarely attended classical concerts. Those who were lucky to listen were few and far between and often did so while working for their masters/lords/bishops/etc. That said, the popular 'folk' music from the same period as Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, and yes... even Wagner -while influencing to some extent composers - largely has disappeared in time. Musicologists, such as Bartok, spent great amounts of time trying to categorize what little remained of folk music.

All that said, one must ask themselves when delving into these debates of 'artistic musical supremacy' whether or not the 'commoner' who comprised 99% of the population of Baroque/Classical/Romantic Europe considered Beethoven (who's music was far removed from the more popular and easily accessible 'folk' music) to be worth listening to? Same thing one must asked when faced with the widely popular troubadours during the time of Machaut? Same thing one must ask when faced with the widely popular 'minstrel' shows during the type of late period Beethoven? Or the Vaudeville wildly popular during the time of Mahler? There has always been a sharp dichotomy between the popular and the artistic... the problem with music today, however, is that with modern technology.. this dichotomy is made even more distinctly noticeable.

In other words, Beethoven wouldn't have been Beethoven if he completely ignored the expectations of the audience. Neither would Mozart. It just so happened that they not only knew what those expectations were, they quite competently manipulated their music to delay resolution of those expectations, using them in a way that almost created its own consonant/dissonant relationship. Here we have these kinds of precedents up until around 1920, but composition studios at the academic level have seen to it that these precedents are avoided at all costs for the sake of staying on the "one and true" path of artistic exploration... teaching many of us to ignore everything else, tunnel our vision, and find our own, unique voice/syntax of music.

Well, Beethoven most certainly didn't 'cater' to the interests of those around him - especially during the onset of his full deafness. Mozart, also, was known for not catering to the audiences. Ditto, with Chopin. The difference, however, is that these composers used a framework that was regular and allowed for deviation from standard norms. The problem with this framework, however, is that after some 250 years of deviation... there really wasn't anymore to deviate. Look at the work of the late romantics, including Mahler, and there is a clear over abundance of deviation. To the point where the concept of 'tonality' itself became redundant. That in mind, however, I think the real crux of your argument in this paragraph is what I made bold.

The idea of 'finding a unique voice' isn't something new. It's an old idea that goes all the way back to the Baroque period. The problem is, however, is that today (going with your argument here) schools of music tend to highly influence the development of that voice by forcing musical aesthetics on the composer instead of letting him/her find the styles and aesthetics that appeal to each individual artist.

Sorry, I can't see how we can derive inspiration from a vacuum... we simply MUST be willing to be part of the world if we hope to one day represent something of it in our work, something that connects what we do with our culture, our society, and our perceptions of human civilization at this moment in history collectively (as much as it can be, anyway). We can't do that by ignoring all that precedes us, and we certainly can't expect anyone to listen if we're not doing our part to connect with the world.

I think this last argument really your 'own' view on this. I think a composer can, potentially, become inspired from his/her own vacuum - and certainly at least one of the great composers is known for living life in a vacuum that he had no means of escape from (Beethoven!). A composer can derive inspiration from any little facet of life - either in contact with the outside world or not. But again, this last part is mainly opinion - and despite any differences I might have with it, I can't really disagree with your own opinion.

edit

Pliorious:

So, I just have this much to say...

If your intent is to write music that is not to be "remembered", yet memorability appears to be a significant factor in the proliferation of a work to the masses... if you somehow aspire or find it acceptable that your music becomes popular, if it does (given the condition we observe now) then your music has somehow become memorable (which you don't aspire to make it so as an artist).

I don't state this as a cold hard truth but rather to convey the contradiction. If your aspiration or ideal is not to be prolific as a composer among the masses, not to have hundreds or maybe thousands of performances of your music over hundreds of years, or to see the pedagogy and repertoire of music continue to grow over the next 1500 years, then what exactly are you contributing to the discussion? From what I can tell... nothing.

there's no contradiction. there's little gem of you making maps of things that don't map - my aspiration is to write music, period. my music being memorable or not is entirely different thing. the individual is a border of communal (the impossibility of private language, yet the possibility of language without meaning, that is, art) , and as such it is not constructed of the same logical apparatus as the former. hence, what you deduce to be memorable by any standard is not neccesarily memorable as a case. and the case is that you don't have to write 'memorable' music to be remembered. just do it good. the definition of which is beyond scope of cut out memorabilia tables.

antia, you seem to be missing on one thing over and over with your obsession with things social. there exists things beyond social. and that is infinity. ask cantor. even if most of our daily scrafty life is engrossed in communal (and individual, for that matter, is still communal, so there's no contradiction you want us to believe to exist), there are points and driving points for any artist beyond his/her historicosocialconceptualism. and i insist on existence and importance of these points, because they are rare, far in between and difficult.

for you to be good social fighter there's no need to sacrifice your specific intelligence of an artist - creation of new forms of sensibility. why you keep on mixing them is beyond my grasp. what is the name of this pervert desire?

Yes, and no. We have to remember that we really don't have any of the music of the historic 'peasantry'. We have some surviving folk songs (many of which are quite far removed from classical music.) I think it's important for modern composers of classical music to realize - and really, we must come to terms with this - with the exception of perhaps the past 100 years, our 'art' was consumed largely by the aristocracy. The peasants in Germany, Austria, England, and other European countries very rarely attended classical concerts. Those who were lucky to listen were few and far between and often did so while working for their masters/lords/bishops/etc. That said, the popular 'folk' music from the same period as Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, and yes... even Wagner -while influencing to some extent composers - largely has disappeared in time. Musicologists, such as Bartok, spent great amounts of time trying to categorize what little remained of folk music.

All that said, one must ask themselves when delving into these debates of 'artistic musical supremacy' whether or not the 'commoner' who comprised 99% of the population of Baroque/Classical/Romantic Europe considered Beethoven (who's music was far removed from the more popular and easily accessible 'folk' music) to be worth listening to? Same thing one must asked when faced with the widely popular troubadours during the time of Machaut? Same thing one must ask when faced with the widely popular 'minstrel' shows during the type of late period Beethoven? Or the Vaudeville wildly popular during the time of Mahler? There has always been a sharp dichotomy between the popular and the artistic... the problem with music today, however, is that with modern technology.. this dichotomy is made even more distinctly noticeable.

Uhhh, YEAH we do, otherwise we wouldn't have any knowledge that this dichotomy existed. There are plenty of examples of old "peasantry" music which come from our dear anthropological friends. One thing I think we're also not considering is the middle class, who were educated enough to go to concerts but sometimes didn't. Where to we place them? History is FAR more complex than you're making it out to be.

Well, Beethoven most certainly didn't 'cater' to the interests of those around him - especially during the onset of his full deafness. Mozart, also, was known for not catering to the audiences. Ditto, with Chopin. The difference, however, is that these composers used a framework that was regular and allowed for deviation from standard norms. The problem with this framework, however, is that after some 250 years of deviation... there really wasn't anymore to deviate. Look at the work of the late romantics, including Mahler, and there is a clear over abundance of deviation. To the point where the concept of 'tonality' itself became redundant. That in mind, however, I think the real crux of your argument in this paragraph is what I made bold.

I think it goes to the second thing you were saying below rather than "running out of ideas" syndrome...

The idea of 'finding a unique voice' isn't something new. It's an old idea that goes all the way back to the Baroque period. The problem is, however, is that today (going with your argument here) schools of music tend to highly influence the development of that voice by forcing musical aesthetics on the composer instead of letting him/her find the styles and aesthetics that appeal to each individual artist.

The modernist period was a high time for groups of composers getting together into "schools of thought" over how to compose things. The Mighty Handful, Le Six, the Second Viennese School, Americana are all examples. Rather than focusing on individual superiority (like Beethoven and Wagner did), they banded together to (supposedly) save their art forms. Whether it helped is up for debate. But it is clear that people began to be grouped together in the modern period before someone decided to make a neat and clean hierarchy of history from Renaissance to Present day.

People grouped themselves into a style and stuck with it. They lost focus of the development of new ideas so much as the development of a very focused idea (such as 12-tone, or impressionism, or Russian Nationalism) rather than all of music. There are exceptions, of course, but the general trend was this.

I think this last argument really your 'own' view on this. I think a composer can, potentially, become inspired from his/her own vacuum - and certainly at least one of the great composers is known for living life in a vacuum that he had no means of escape from (Beethoven!). A composer can derive inspiration from any little facet of life - either in contact with the outside world or not. But again, this last part is mainly opinion - and despite any differences I might have with it, I can't really disagree with your own opinion.

Beethoven was never in a vacuum. How do you think he learned music in the first place. There is no possible way of producing music in a vacuum because there's nothing there. Music comes from experiences, emotions, passions etc. It comes from something else, it doesn't just appear. You should know that as a composer.

Uhhh, YEAH we do, otherwise we wouldn't have any knowledge that this dichotomy existed. There are plenty of examples of old "peasantry" music which come from our dear anthropological friends. One thing I think we're also not considering is the middle class, who were educated enough to go to concerts but sometimes didn't. Where to we place them? History is FAR more complex than you're making it out to be.

The explosion of the middle class isn't really something that occurs in history until at earliest the 1850s - and even at that early date it was rather small compared to the burgeoning middle class of today. A good 'middle' date for the appearance of a substantial market would be the 1910s - ironically, this was the same time that saw the rise of 'modernist' thought in music. There are lots of examples today, yes.. but that's largely due to many of the pioneers of musicology from the 1890 - 1940s. Many of these tunes aren't even used today - and most of these, while perhaps influential to composers, ARE far removed from the art music of their epochs. To say they are identical in scope is tantamount to saying an orange is the same as a strawberry. As for stating that I'm over simplifying history. I think your mistaken. I'm showcasing something extremely important that you, and many others, fail to understand or comprehend. The art music of history, pre 1900, was music written for, consumed by, and protected by wealthy patrons who made up roughly 1% of the population. The remaining 99% of the population seldom participated in concerts. That's not an oversimplification by any stretch of the imagination. That's just the cold, hard truth. The rise of the middle class is a well documented rise and was largely made possible by rapid industrialization that occurred from 1850 - 1940 (and, mind you, is still occurring today in developing nations).

The modernist period was a high time for groups of composers getting together into "schools of thought" over how to compose things. The Mighty Handful, Le Six, the Second Viennese School, Americana are all examples. Rather than focusing on individual superiority (like Beethoven and Wagner did), they banded together to (supposedly) save their art forms. Whether it helped is up for debate. But it is clear that people began to be grouped together in the modern period before someone decided to make a neat and clean hierarchy of history from Renaissance to Present day.

Individual Superiority? Where do you get this stuff at? The history of classical music has always been characterized by 'schools of music'. One only has to just skim the surface to see this. I think the question is less on whether schools of thought existed and more on the prevailing artistic ideology of the day. There's little debate on the art of the past - since we have a lot of documentation to showcase it's trends, etc. The grouping of musical history, in your above statement, is flawed. There never was a 'neat and clean' hierarchy. As SSC, Gardener, and others have multiple times tried to shown.. there have been many, MANY composers who have stepped outside the 'traditional' box since the time of Leonin!

People grouped themselves into a style and stuck with it. They lost focus of the development of new ideas so much as the development of a very focused idea (such as 12-tone, or impressionism, or Russian Nationalism) rather than all of music. There are exceptions, of course, but the general trend was this.

At the onset, yes. I'll give you this. But.. and this is a big but... even then composers who 'subscribed' to a school began to venture outside that school. Look at Berg and Webern, for example, both took the teachings of serialism to extremely opposite ends. I think your over generalizing this.

Beethoven was never in a vacuum. How do you think he learned music in the first place. There is no possible way of producing music in a vacuum because there's nothing there. Music comes from experiences, emotions, passions etc. It comes from something else, it doesn't just appear. You should know that as a composer.

Beethoven was very much in a box after about age 30. His early life was punctuated by MUCH education in music. As an adult, he spent his time dealing with his deafness, his nephew, and of course... many other things. Many of these things, as his writings and the writings of those around him, drew him inward into seclusion! Yes, these experiences manifested themselves in his music but they placed him in a vacuum that he NEVER escaped. To say that Beethoven was never inwardly secluded at ALL in his life (as the term 'living in a vacuum' implies) showcases a lack of knowledge of the man's life and his experiences.

antia, you seem to be missing on one thing over and over with your obsession with things social...

...for you to be good social fighter there's no need to sacrifice your specific intelligence of an artist - creation of new forms of sensibility. why you keep on mixing them is beyond my grasp. what is the name of this pervert desire?

Heh, call it my take on reality. I've said it before, I'll say it again. Our artistic freedom extends to the last listener. So, if you're composing with only yourself in mind, obviously your artistic freedom is whatever you make of it. When we then bring the issue of "who is listening" to modern music, I stand by my assessment... our artistic freedom extends to the last person who listens. If the issue is whether or not anyone is listening to modern works, clearly there are people listening. If the issue is why more people are not listening, this is my opinion on the matter.

That's all I have to say about it.

Beethoven was very much in a box after about age 30. His early life was punctuated by MUCH education in music. As an adult, he spent his time dealing with his deafness, his nephew, and of course... many other things. Many of these things, as his writings and the writings of those around him, drew him inward into seclusion! Yes, these experiences manifested themselves in his music but they placed him in a vacuum that he NEVER escaped. To say that Beethoven was never inwardly secluded at ALL in his life (as the term 'living in a vacuum' implies) showcases a lack of knowledge of the man's life and his experiences.

Are we taking our cues on the life of Beethoven from Immortal Beloved? Here's a tip. Don't.

From what we understand about Beethoven, this period of "seclusion" in his life lasted up to about his Third Symphony! Beyond that, while there were emotional trials to face in life, I believe it is you that is over-generalizing the details to make a point that Beethoven was composing in a vacuum. Quite the opposite, actually. He was actually quite passionate and outspoken on matters, he was social in many respects, and he was not living a life of perpetual isolation as it was dramatized in the movie at some points of his life. While the issues with his nephew's suicide attempt weighed on his mind, he was quite literally engaged with the world around him... which happened to be one of his great fears when he wrote his letter to his brother before writing the Eroica, that he would be unable to be engaged with the world because of his condition.

To say otherwise is to mitigate the circumstances that he lived with and overcame. To say Beethoven composed in a vacuum is, quite possibly, the most ridiculous thing I've read in this thread.

As to your other points, Jason, I have to say that taking the aristocracy into account, there was a far greater consumption of music in that social class than among the peasantry as well. What I mean by this is that "minstrel" music was a far cry from what a "Rock Concert" is today. People arrive in the hundreds of thousands to see a Rock Star perform live, and if you're Michael Jackson, multiply that number by a hundred. Still, with communication being what it was in the 18th Century, there was a far greater demand by paying attendees for the art, and there were plenty among the commoners that would, if they could, attend a symphony orchestra concert.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Today, the level of complexity and artistry in these "common", "middle-class" events where music is performed is just as viable as the complexity of a "modern music concert." There is no distinction to make now between "art" and "popular" the way the distinction could be made in the 18th Century (atrociously, of course, because the distinction is unnecessary anyway beyond the trivial discussion we're having here). Quite frankly, I'm blown away that this is being glossed over as though it's broadly the same now as it was then - another generalization that appears to ignore a great deal of differences in the WORK PRODUCT (not just the emergence of a middle class) and the consumption of it - it's not even close, not even in the ball park. Sadly, I think some of the academics out there approach it with this same, grossly over-generalized misconception.

I might vomit if I continue hearing it construed in this manner.

Are we taking our cues on the life of Beethoven from Immortal Beloved? Here's a tip. Don't.

From what we understand about Beethoven, this period of "seclusion" in his life lasted up to about his Third Symphony! Beyond that, while there were emotional trials to face in life, I believe it is you that is over-generalizing the details to make a point that Beethoven was composing in a vacuum. Quite the opposite, actually. He was actually quite passionate and outspoken on matters, he was social in many respects, and he was not living a life of perpetual isolation as it was dramatized in the movie at some points of his life. While the issues with his nephew's suicide attempt weighed on his mind, he was quite literally engaged with the world around him... which happened to be one of his great fears when he wrote his letter to his brother before writing the Eroica, that he would be unable to be engaged with the world because of his condition.

Geez, Shaun - you should know me better than this. Taking my cues from a movie that I've never seen!? I nearly LOL'd. I took my cues from reading his notebooks, reading the conversation books, and from written records from people around him. A person can be engaged in his/her surroundings while at the same time living in a vacuum - and Beethoven, as well documented, was one individual that provides a very clear and concise case on the matter.

As to your other points, Jason, I have to say that taking the aristocracy into account, there was a far greater consumption of music in that social class than among the peasantry as well. What I mean by this is that "minstrel" music was a far cry from what a "Rock Concert" is today. People arrive in the hundreds of thousands to see a Rock Star perform live, and if you're Michael Jackson, multiply that number by a hundred. Still, with communication being what it was in the 18th Century, there was a far greater demand by paying attendees for the art, and there were plenty among the commoners that would, if they could, attend a symphony orchestra concert.

Yes, there was a far greater consumption of music in the upper class in those days. And I never said that a 'minstrel' show was anywhere near a 'modern' rock show. The fact of the matter isn't whether the folk music of the period was anything related to modern day pop or rock - though certainly one could, and probably has, made connections to that regard - the matter is whether a commoner attended a symphony orchestra concert.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Today, the level of complexity and artistry in these "common", "middle-class" events where music is performed is just as viable as the complexity of a "modern music concert." There is no distinction to make now between "art" and "popular" the way the distinction could be made in the 18th Century (atrociously, of course, because the distinction is unnecessary anyway beyond the trivial discussion we're having here). Quite frankly, I'm blown away that this is being glossed over as though it's broadly the same now as it was then - another generalization that appears to ignore a great deal of differences in the WORK PRODUCT (not just the emergence of a middle class) and the consumption of it - it's not even close, not even in the ball park. Sadly, I think some of the academics out there approach it with this same, grossly over-generalized misconception.

I'm afraid I'm not following your train of thought in this paragraph. You go from talking about how no distinction can be made between art and popular music as one could in the 18th century and then your accusing me of glossing over as 'though it's broadly the same now as it was then'? Well, I strongly disagree - and this is more my historical side then my musical side. I think, sadly, your missing my point here - and literally, you seem to be going well over the ball park in trying to actually quantify what I said.

First, we have to remove the idea that music today = music of yesterday. The truth of the matter is that music today =/= the music of yesterday. Just the same way as current social roles and expectations =/= the social roles and expectations of the past. Yes, one could get on that age old argument that a composer builds on work laid by a predecessor (yada yada) but that isn't even part of the conversation here. That said, assuming that I'm equating the musical experience today to that of yesterday is really something I'm shocked at. Especially considering that there are more avenues of expression available and the fact that we have far more means to create music then existed some 100 years ago. Anyways, I digress. The point I was making was that to say that Beethoven and Mozart were the most successful musicians of their times is logically false. As I made in my original point on this: there music was consumed largely by the upper 1% of society at the time. Does that mean that peasantry also appreciated there music? That's hard to say - but, I think given the fact that most - if not all - could barely afford food, I highly doubt they could afford to sit in on a concert. And that brings me to some proof on the matter: Mozart's public concerts. Mozart, as history shows, did give public subscription concerts of his work in Vienna. These were widely popular AND most likely did draw in commoners. How many attended? Who knows - all we know is that special areas were zoned for the Emperor, princes, nobles, bishops, etc. Mozart also, as history shows, did have few performances in more 'homely' establishments (casinos, etc.). It's far more complex really BUT I feel pretty confident to say that Lil' Mahalia Doe who lived in a rural village with 4 kids and an annual household income of a meager $20 probably didn't get much time to go to the local city to listen to Mozart. And, I think it's fair to say, given the fact that Lil' Mahalia was a fair representation of at minimum 80% of the population at that time... most people didn't. So, the question is...

1. What music did she listen to?

2. What were her thoughts on musical expression, if any?

3. What exposure to music did she have?

Just taking an educated guess on these three important questions... I'd have to say that she probably listened largely to music that was being made everyday around her: folk music. I think it's virtually impossible to gauge her thoughts on musical expression. Exposure wise, I think that she had a limited exposure to music that was limited by the sharp class hierarchy and societal norms that were largely widespread in Europe from 800 AD to around 1910 AD (perhaps as early as 1880.)

Sorry that I had to use an example. I thought it was important though to really bring a more colorful approach to this. Now, to risk you saying I'm over generalizing......

By 1910, the middle class was large enough to be a larger consumer market for art and media. One good example of this is the rise of the piano. The piano by 1910 was in virtually every middle class home. As sheet music from this time showcases (and from the 1880s and 1890s), middle class families demanded music regularly. This created a HUGE market for piano music - and the result, of course, is that many works were being transcribed for piano AND new works were being created. Many modern publishing houses have their roots in this time period - and for precisely this very reason.

So, did the piano market and the middle class just 'magically' appear fully developed by 1910? Absolutely not. The roots of the burgeoning middle class today go back no early than at least 1790 - and to some degree perhaps as soon as 1780. Pretty much they go back to the start of industrialization. From the start of the process until roughly 1910, there was a steady growth - that has been WELL documented.

I hope that adds more light on the matter. I was nearly on the floor when I saw you misconstrue what I said. :blink: