What will the 21st century bring?
Luke Zautke
troubling me during my path of musical-maturation. I highly encourage
answers to any of the smaller questions peppered throughout and especially
alternative viewpoints to the ones purported below. Remember: the
friction of debate sparks the fire of illumination)
I am an undergraduate composition major at the Univ/Colo at Boulder,
and a fact that seems to weave itself through my head nearly every day is
that those of us composing today (especially those of us who will be for
some time in the future) are going to be those whom scholars will
categorize as the composers of (perhaps the first half of) the 21st
century.
The baffling question which follows is what expanses are left to
explore? What new doors are out there for the opening? In ninety or so
years we have gone from composing in a single harmonic scheme to
abolishing the commonality of such the scheme itself between composers;
harmonic origins now must be unique within one's own style of composition
to be valid. Any shared aspects of harmonic convention--with use of any
Common-Practice tonality topping the chart--is seen at worst plain
anachronistic and at best as uninventive and lacking in personal
originality. Where beyond this point of absolute individualism of style
it there to progress? Are we bound to experience a massive throw-back
movement in light of the wall in front of us?
The second question, on somewhat of different vein, concerns the
complete lack of public following contemporary classical music suffers
even compared to, say, the Gershwin-infused society of 50 years ago. It is
my personal opinion that Schoenberg and his "emancipation of dissonance"
seem to have set the stage for the emancipation of the audience (save a
few dabblers and 20 cent.-music educated folks) from the general scene.
None of my peers can name a single famous post-impressionist composer--and
these are not (generally) ignorant people. Our auditoriums are bare; I
usually see at least one unenthusiastic patron per performance out cold or
counting dots on the ceiling. Will we even have an audience in the 21st
century outside of those of us who can open their mind to the EXTREME
subjectivity needed to jump from composer to composer in a modern
program? Oneof my friends, after listening to a Peter Maxwell-Davies
organ piece commented to me, "I don't get it--ANY of it. Where's the
beauty in this?" Even though I liked the piece and admire
Maxwell-Davies's means of expression, I had no answer for my friend. I
couldn't explain why the piece had merit in the same vein that, say, the
6th Brandonberg did. My friend could not hear the crafting, could not
seperate formal sections, could not find a climax--COULD NOT IDENTIFY WITH
ANY ASPECT OF MUSIC AT ALL, and thus felt left out, not included. This
seems to par for the general public, sections of which can still revel in
the atonal-fencing-ridings of Wagner or Stravinsky because of other
elements of inclusiveness.
Enter "popular music" (even the nomenclature of which steams of
resentment, implying--somewhat correctly--that "art music" [I hate that
term] is no longer popular.): a phenomenon which has placed musical
understanding and inclusion back into the hands of the people (not just
the youth any more). I'm not talking about the corporate Top 40 crap
thrown together by record companies to make money by appealing to 9-14
year-olds, I'm talking about intelligent, affective, carefully crafted
expression--no different than the aims of the new music composer--that
includes the audience in the experience. A few examples [please forgive
my personal taint in selection]: Charlies Mingus, Ian Anderson (from
Jethro Tull), Keith Jarrett, Parliament/Funkadelic, The Allman Brothers,
The Moody Blues--just to name a few who feel the same aesthetic
aspirations and preservation of musical integrity and dignity as any
"educated musician." Their music is conveyed through festivals and fair,
in concert halls, and in pubs and bars. "Elevator music," found in the
background of numerous public facilities, is simply instrumental
arrangements of mostly popular tunes. New Music Concerts are bogged by
the politics of money and name recognition (due directly to the lack of
public support), can cost an outlandish amount of money (especially for
the non-student), have stiff social requirements in the areas of
appropriate dress and conduct, and fail in general to arouse any sense of
community or fellowship in the audience--and certainly not between the
audience and performer.
In a composition seminar earlier this year, we attempted to deal with
the problem of "pulling people in."-- of exposure. I suggested: "Why not
take your string quartet out onto the corner or into the park, place a
nice sign stating their name and the specific program and even (God
forbid) place a container nearby accepting donations. I might as well had
talking about prostitution or puppy-killing for all the completely
dumb-founded looks I got. WE ARE NO LONGER IN MOZART'S POSITION IN THE
COURT OF JOPESH II. THIS WORLD WE LIVE IN IS NO LONGER
ARISTOCRATICALLY-BASED, ALTHOUGH SOMETIMES YOU CAN'T TELL BY LOOKING
AROUND. THESE ASSORTED HIGH-BROW ANTICS NO LONGER ARE IN CONGRUENCE WITH
THE IDEAlS OF MUSICAL PROGRESS IN TODAY'S WORLD.
If we composers wish to see our efforts endure through the following
century are going to have to do something decisive to save it. Who is
going to spend the greater part of their life composing if it's a given
that NO ONE doing such will be able to financailly support themselves?
Why compose if your work is likely never to be played? How can you make a
name for yourself if you need a name to start out with? We're close to
that right now. We need fresh answers to some problems that are quickly
reaching critical mass. These problems inevitably lead back to the
performer/audience paradox--if no one wants to hear your music, then no
one will hear your music. And that's all fine and dandy except that
SELF-EXPRESSION IS WORTHLESS IN A VACUUM. I compose to have people hear
my music--not to judge it, or like it, or be moved by it--just to hear it,
and what happens after that--happens.
Wow. I believe that's enough for now; I could keep going for days. I
am really interested in what in anyone (especially of my age) has to say
concerning anything discussed here. It all kinda floats around in my head
without direction or organization and I would like to pin some of it down.
Good day!
Luke W. Zautke, UCBoulder
zau...@ucsu.colorado.edu
KRSNA CONSCIOUSNESS NOW
zau...@ucsu.colorado.edu (Luke Zautke) writes:
> The baffling question which follows is what expanses are left to
>explore? What new doors are out there for the opening? In ninety or so
>years we have gone from composing in a single harmonic scheme to
>abolishing the commonality of such the scheme itself between composers;
>harmonic origins now must be unique within one's own style of composition
>to be valid.
This is an odd question from a self-identified composer. If you write
music that you're happy with, you're exactly where you should be.
I think too many people buy into the scientific-progress view of
musical history. "In Cro-Mag times, they had only crude tools with which to
make their music - rough rhythms, simple scales. With Culture came crafty
innovation and new machines: musical theories sprang up on top of musical
practice like mathematics on science, thereby building new and better
theoretical musical machines, and on we went until the modern day, where
it seems that there are no more theoretical machines to build."
Bah. There are billions and billions of amazing new melodies waiting to
emerge from the C major scale. You don't need a new formal structure, a new
theory of organization, to make something sound new - just your own ear and
your musical soul. Listen to Messaien (sp?). He does amazing things in 4/4
time with the same scales you learn in day 1 of Harmony 101.
>program? Oneof my friends, after listening to a Peter Maxwell-Davies
>organ piece commented to me, "I don't get it--ANY of it. Where's the
>beauty in this?" Even though I liked the piece and admire
>Maxwell-Davies's means of expression, I had no answer for my friend. I
>couldn't explain why the piece had merit in the same vein that, say, the
>6th Brandonberg did. My friend could not hear the crafting, could not
>seperate formal sections, could not find a climax--COULD NOT IDENTIFY WITH
>ANY ASPECT OF MUSIC AT ALL, and thus felt left out, not included. This
>seems to par for the general public, sections of which can still revel in
>the atonal-fencing-ridings of Wagner or Stravinsky because of other
>elements of inclusiveness.
Sure. Too many composers take Babbitt seriously and really don't care
what it sounds like. Moreover, the average Joe on the street listening to a
given scritch-scritch piece is being hit with a ton of new aesthetic ideas all
at once, any one of which takes some getting used to before true appreciation
can develop. The first time I heard heavy metal music I heard homogenous noise.
Only with time could I develop the feel for where the music lay, and
distinguish between good metal and bad metal.
I'm all for people composing whatever the hell they want. So in one
sense it's not so important that nobody likes a piece. But the scientific-
progress theory of music leads too many composers into what sounds to me like
garbage.
> Enter "popular music" (even the nomenclature of which steams of
>resentment, implying--somewhat correctly--that "art music" [I hate that
>term] is no longer popular.): a phenomenon which has placed musical
>understanding and inclusion back into the hands of the people (not just
>the youth any more). I'm not talking about the corporate Top 40 crap
I like to think of popular music as the folk music of our day. Purely
dynamic quality and music that's not afraid of anything.
> In a composition seminar earlier this year, we attempted to deal with
>the problem of "pulling people in."-- of exposure. I suggested: "Why not
>take your string quartet out onto the corner or into the park, place a
>nice sign stating their name and the specific program and even (God
>forbid) place a container nearby accepting donations. I might as well had
Music can be an intensely social (witness folk music) or intensely
antisocial (witness the ivory-tower maunderings of some of our worse
who-cares-what-it-sounds-like composers) thing. I prefer the first, but the
second gives us iconoclasts.
>talking about prostitution or puppy-killing for all the completely
>dumb-founded looks I got. WE ARE NO LONGER IN MOZART'S POSITION IN THE
>COURT OF JOPESH II. THIS WORLD WE LIVE IN IS NO LONGER
>ARISTOCRATICALLY-BASED, ALTHOUGH SOMETIMES YOU CAN'T TELL BY LOOKING
>AROUND. THESE ASSORTED HIGH-BROW ANTICS NO LONGER ARE IN CONGRUENCE WITH
>THE IDEAlS OF MUSICAL PROGRESS IN TODAY'S WORLD.
Eh, what do ideals have to do with music? ;) Music is amoral and
concerned only with itself. The economy is irrelevant to what sorts of music
should be written (though it has a massive impact on what sorts of music get
written and disseminated).
> If we composers wish to see our efforts endure through the following
>century are going to have to do something decisive to save it. Who is
>going to spend the greater part of their life composing if it's a given
>that NO ONE doing such will be able to financailly support themselves?
>Why compose if your work is likely never to be played? How can you make a
>name for yourself if you need a name to start out with? We're close to
>that right now. We need fresh answers to some problems that are quickly
>reaching critical mass. These problems inevitably lead back to the
>performer/audience paradox--if no one wants to hear your music, then no
>one will hear your music. And that's all fine and dandy except that
>SELF-EXPRESSION IS WORTHLESS IN A VACUUM. I compose to have people hear
>my music--not to judge it, or like it, or be moved by it--just to hear it,
>and what happens after that--happens.
>
Why does it matter that music endure? Why does one need to make a name?
Why does anyone need a reason to compose?
Self-expression can be wonderful in a vacuum. I sing and dance very
merrily in my room sometimes. But I am playing Devil's Advocate.
> Wow. I believe that's enough for now; I could keep going for days. I
>am really interested in what in anyone (especially of my age) has to say
>concerning anything discussed here.
I'm 22 if that means anything.
Peace and love,
James Wilson
Craig Weston
<yawn>
We all know the problems. What's that old cliche; "If you're not
part of the solution you're part of the problem."
Let's face it: all of us, myself included, are prone to whining about this.
Nobody likes whining. (I have a three-year-old; believe me, I know.)
How about we try something radical and talk about some solutions?
(I'll post some as soon as I come up with them :) )
__________________________________________________________________
|Craig Weston--Assistant Professor of Music Theory, Composition, |
| & Electronic/Computer Music, Iowa State University|
| |
|e-mail: cwe...@iastate.edu |
|WWW: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~cweston/homepage.html |
|________________________________________________________________|
Craig Weston
> Sure. Too many composers take Babbitt seriously and really don't care
>what it sounds like. Moreover, the average Joe on the street listening to a
>given scritch-scritch piece is being hit with a ton of new aesthetic ideas all
>at once, any one of which takes some getting used to before true appreciation
>can develop. The first time I heard heavy metal music I heard homogenous noise.
>Only with time could I develop the feel for where the music lay, and
>distinguish between good metal and bad metal.
So you're agruing in favor of scritch-scritch music, right? To paraphrase,
"The first time I heard scritch-scritch music I heard homogenous noise.
Only with time could I develop the feel for where the music lay, and
distinguish between good scritch-scritch and bad scritch-scritch."
> Music can be an intensely social (witness folk music) or intensely
>antisocial (witness the ivory-tower maunderings of some of our worse
>who-cares-what-it-sounds-like composers) thing. I prefer the first, but the
>second gives us iconoclasts.
>
I'm always intrigued by this argument. Can you list some composers who
are "some of our worse who-cares-what-it-sounds-like composers," and offer
some documentation that they actually don't care what it sounds like? Sure,
there are some composers whose music you, or I, or whoever, don't care for
as much as others, but do you really believe that here are composers who
don't care what their music sounds like?
FWIW, I think there are throughout western music history alternating
periods where the interest of composers shifts between focus on developing
new tool, and focus on clarifying what it is that we want to say with the
tools that we have. Clearly, we are in the latter phase at this point. And
it also seems to be the case that *most* of the revered composers of our
tradition come out of the latter phase. (Beethoven is a notable exception.)
But that in no way diminishes the importance of the "tool developing" stages
and the composers who develop those tools. No "era" can ever reach maturity
without a childhood and adolescence, after all.
Matthew H. Fields
Luke Zautke <zau...@ucsu.colorado.edu> wrote:
> (What follows is a somewhat rambling text of some things that have been
>troubling me during my path of musical-maturation. I highly encourage
Hmmm, I'd like to make a pitch for ignoring all these issues as long as
possible, and concentrating on making "beauty" without regards to "style",
"originality", "politics", or any other distraction. In so doing, you
will inevitably be making an original political statement about style....
> I am an undergraduate composition major at the Univ/Colo at Boulder,
>and a fact that seems to weave itself through my head nearly every day is
>that those of us composing today (especially those of us who will be for
>some time in the future) are going to be those whom scholars will
>categorize as the composers of (perhaps the first half of) the 21st
>century.
Hmmm, the century numbers have been brought home to us by musicologists,
but from a purely musical point of view, all there is is the joy of
music-making, an ever-changing game with neither end-goal nor scorekeeper,
certainly without any linear progress.
> The baffling question which follows is what expanses are left to
>explore? What new doors are out there for the opening? In ninety or so
The answer certainly is that we won't know until after the fact.
>years we have gone from composing in a single harmonic scheme to
>abolishing the commonality of such the scheme itself between composers;
Hmmm, 19th-century tonality wasn't the only show on the road in the 19th
century, and even within itself had room for a lot of variety.
Most composers today work within a genre (e.g. "jazz") with a strong
and continuing tradition.
>harmonic origins now must be unique within one's own style of composition
>to be valid.
Hmmm, from my point of view, if you use a system because it's
fashionable, not because you like it and/or can make beauty with it,
_that_ begs "validity". Most _listeners_ that I've met still mainly
consider various pop idioms their meter stick of "validity", and not
something primarily "original".
> Any shared aspects of harmonic convention--with use of any
>Common-Practice tonality topping the chart--is seen at worst plain
>anachronistic and at best as uninventive and lacking in personal
>originality. Where beyond this point of absolute individualism of style
Within the narrow confines of certain tiny, unrepresentative bastions of
academia, that is.
>it there to progress? Are we bound to experience a massive throw-back
>movement in light of the wall in front of us?
The throwback movement hit about 1979. Unfortunately, it, like all other
movements, was dominated by lazy composers in search of a quick-fix easy
way to make 'good' music. But composers have been struggling to make
works of great beauty all along and through all the "movements". In the
20th century, what was unique was the possibility of even considering a
"throwback" movement: for the first time, so much "old" music was preserved
through live performances.
> The second question, on somewhat of different vein, concerns the
>complete lack of public following contemporary classical music suffers
>even compared to, say, the Gershwin-infused society of 50 years ago. It is
>my personal opinion that Schoenberg and his "emancipation of dissonance"
>seem to have set the stage for the emancipation of the audience (save a
>few dabblers and 20 cent.-music educated folks) from the general scene.
I really think that recordings, with the consequent decline in home
chamber-music-making, together with radio and television, have done more
to create a gap between living composers of classical-tradition music than
anything the composers themselves did. It's a new world.
>None of my peers can name a single famous post-impressionist composer--and
>these are not (generally) ignorant people.
Hmm, about half the folks I've met know the names of Stravinsky and Bartok.
> Our auditoriums are bare; I
>usually see at least one unenthusiastic patron per performance out cold or
>counting dots on the ceiling. Will we even have an audience in the 21st
They're listening to the CD, in the mistaken belief that that's even _better_
than being there (well, it's a lot cheaper per listen...).
>century outside of those of us who can open their mind to the EXTREME
>subjectivity needed to jump from composer to composer in a modern
>program? Oneof my friends, after listening to a Peter Maxwell-Davies
>organ piece commented to me, "I don't get it--ANY of it. Where's the
>beauty in this?" Even though I liked the piece and admire
The interesting thing is that this may depend on where you live.
I suspect that most potential concertgoers in the world today would
_love_ to hear something new.
>Maxwell-Davies's means of expression, I had no answer for my friend. I
>couldn't explain why the piece had merit in the same vein that, say, the
>6th Brandonberg did. My friend could not hear the crafting, could not
Well, look, 2 things here: 1), not everybody likes every music (I've
met folks who hate Beethoven's 9th); and 2) some, though not all or
even a majority of folks, are so caught up in the need to "know
something about what they're hearing" that they don't hear it (how
many of us have heard, even from appreciative listeners, "well, I
don't know much about music but...", as if that mattered?). It
becomes an ego/defensiveness issue for those individuals to say that
this _stuff_ that they don't feel knowledgeable about must necessarily
be bad, whether it's Peter Maxwell Davies, George Crumb, Milton
Babbit, Ali Akhbar Khan, or Brian Eno. I wouldn't take such an individual's
opinions too strongly, nor waste too much energy trying to share with them
the beauty you could be sharing with so many others.
>seperate formal sections, could not find a climax--COULD NOT IDENTIFY WITH
>ANY ASPECT OF MUSIC AT ALL, and thus felt left out, not included. This
>seems to par for the general public, sections of which can still revel in
>the atonal-fencing-ridings of Wagner or Stravinsky because of other
>elements of inclusiveness.
From what I've heard of his works, I don't really think there's any intrinsic
lack of "inclusiveness" in PMD or automatic greater inclusiveness in Wagner
or Stravinsky (most of Wagner bores me to tears, btw).
> Enter "popular music" (even the nomenclature of which steams of
>resentment, implying--somewhat correctly--that "art music" [I hate that
>term] is no longer popular.): a phenomenon which has placed musical
>understanding and inclusion back into the hands of the people (not just
>the youth any more).
Again, there's always (in the last 500 years) been a folk-music
separate from "art music". Really, it's just been in this century that
most "folk music" has not been made by the "folk" but by a small number of
commercial musicians, with mass-distribution of a sort Guttenberg couldn't
have forseen!
> I'm not talking about the corporate Top 40 crap
>thrown together by record companies to make money by appealing to 9-14
>year-olds, I'm talking about intelligent, affective, carefully crafted
>expression--no different than the aims of the new music composer--that
>includes the audience in the experience. A few examples [please forgive
>my personal taint in selection]: Charlies Mingus, Ian Anderson (from
>Jethro Tull), Keith Jarrett, Parliament/Funkadelic, The Allman Brothers,
>The Moody Blues--just to name a few who feel the same aesthetic
>aspirations and preservation of musical integrity and dignity as any
>"educated musician." Their music is conveyed through festivals and fair,
The lines between classical-tradition music, Jazz, and Rock are all blurry.
The main distinction is in marketing, not in art.
>in concert halls, and in pubs and bars. "Elevator music," found in the
>background of numerous public facilities, is simply instrumental
>arrangements of mostly popular tunes. New Music Concerts are bogged by
>the politics of money and name recognition (due directly to the lack of
>public support), can cost an outlandish amount of money (especially for
>the non-student), have stiff social requirements in the areas of
>appropriate dress and conduct, and fail in general to arouse any sense of
>community or fellowship in the audience--and certainly not between the
>audience and performer.
Where this is the case, it's not because of the music, but because of
social conventions and marketing ploys that are more than a little bit
extraneous to the music itself.
> In a composition seminar earlier this year, we attempted to deal with
>the problem of "pulling people in."-- of exposure. I suggested: "Why not
>take your string quartet out onto the corner or into the park, place a
>nice sign stating their name and the specific program and even (God
>forbid) place a container nearby accepting donations. I might as well had
>talking about prostitution or puppy-killing for all the completely
>dumb-founded looks I got.
Funny, I know a few quartets that do just that.
> WE ARE NO LONGER IN MOZART'S POSITION IN THE
>COURT OF JOPESH II.
How glad I am of that.
Now, Haydn's position with the Esterhazies, I can appreciate that. Mozart's
position? Hardly. He hard-sold his music to the rich in a big way, usually
unsuccessfully---they'd like to hear his music, but pay him for his work?
Not on a regular basis. Unfortunately, he responded with despondence and
compulsive gambling.
> THIS WORLD WE LIVE IN IS NO LONGER
>ARISTOCRATICALLY-BASED, ALTHOUGH SOMETIMES YOU CAN'T TELL BY LOOKING
>AROUND. THESE ASSORTED HIGH-BROW ANTICS NO LONGER ARE IN CONGRUENCE WITH
>THE IDEAlS OF MUSICAL PROGRESS IN TODAY'S WORLD.
Right, nowadays we have the democratic notion that Everyone Is A
Monarch of Themself, and Everyone Is Entitled To The Best Music Ever.
This notion is currently sustaining itself as a dogged underdog
against the more powerful notion that Almost Everyone Is A Drudge For
The Rich And Powerful Few, and Almost Everyone Deserves Only Music That
Can Be Created For A Dollar Per Unit.
> If we composers wish to see our efforts endure through the following
>century are going to have to do something decisive to save it. Who is
>going to spend the greater part of their life composing if it's a given
>that NO ONE doing such will be able to financailly support themselves?
Hmmm, as far as I know, Rossini and Wourinen are the only composers of
classical-tradition music in all of history to have supported
themselves substantially from their compositions.
>Why compose if your work is likely never to be played? How can you make a
ergo electronic music. But on the other hand, how can your music get played
if you never write it?
>name for yourself if you need a name to start out with? We're close to
>that right now. We need fresh answers to some problems that are quickly
>reaching critical mass. These problems inevitably lead back to the
>performer/audience paradox--if no one wants to hear your music, then no
>one will hear your music. And that's all fine and dandy except that
>SELF-EXPRESSION IS WORTHLESS IN A VACUUM. I compose to have people hear
>my music--not to judge it, or like it, or be moved by it--just to hear it,
>and what happens after that--happens.
Hmmm, I really think _marketing_ is the main key. And that's what's
going to save the life of the symphony orchestra, opera company, chamber
music ensemble, etc. over the next 25 years, too. I think ensembles
and composers will have a symbiotic life via marketing. Consider:
---the current fad for Gregorian chant;
---the sudden interest in Romanian unaccompanied women's choirs 8 years ago...
etc.
PS, I believe George Banks, cellist, and Carolyn Kuban, harpist, are still
in Denver/Boulder. Say hi for me if you run into them. Matt
Greg Dorter
> The baffling question which follows is what expanses are left to
>explore? What new doors are out there for the opening?
Why music for helicopters, of course. Stockhausen started it with string quartet
and helicopters, but he'll never get his piece programmed because there just isn't
enough written for helicopter these days to fill a whole concert. There's the
possibility of "Songs for high voice and helicopter," "Two pianos, ring modulation
and two helicopters," and, of course, "Etudes for Piano four hands and Helicopter
eight blades." So instead of composing for the Pierrot or Le Marteau ensemble,
write for helicopter ensemble, the gamelon of the 21st Century.
Greg Dorter University of Western Ontario
63 Dean Ave. gdo...@julian.uwo.ca
Guelph, ON N1G 1L3 519-836-2071
CANADA
joseph louis rizzo
[[[article editted to save space]]]
> The baffling question which follows is what expanses are left to
>explore?
A lot actually. The problem of classifying the quantity of the unknown
is that to do so, the unknown must be quantifiable, which means it must
be known. Nice paradox. I am sure that people during Palestrina's time
could not imagine what would come next, yet (as sure as we breathe),
music has evolved.
> What new doors are out there for the opening?
See previous point.
> In ninety or so
>years we have gone from composing in a single harmonic scheme to
>abolishing the commonality of such the scheme itself between composers;
Hardly. You should take a good History of Western Music course. You
will see that the trend from chant to atonality was quite a long and
steady progression. The point that we are at now has taken almost 2000
years to achieve.
>harmonic origins now must be unique within one's own style of composition
>to be valid. Any shared aspects of harmonic convention--with use of any
>Common-Practice tonality topping the chart--is seen at worst plain
>anachronistic and at best as uninventive and lacking in personal
>originality. Where beyond this point of absolute individualism of style
>it there to progress? Are we bound to experience a massive throw-back
>movement in light of the wall in front of us?
Possibly. There is a surge of interest in "antiquity" akin to the surge
of interest in "antiquity" during the Renaissance. Although, the
Renaissance was interested in the Greeks and Romans, modern times are
focusing on the works of the mideaval. Look at the popularity of
Gorecki, Durufle (especially his Requiem), Chant, Hildegaard von Biggen.
Another avenue a head of us is the establishment of new forms. The
development of the sonata form spun off years of great music (Haydn,
Mozart and Beethoven who established it -- Schubert and Brahms who played
with it -- Mahler and Bruckner who pushed it to its limits). Perhaps a
new composer(s) will create a form that will have the same influence Haydn,
Mozart and Beethoven had on the musical world.
Unfortunately, only time will tell...
> The second question, on somewhat of different vein, concerns the
>complete lack of public following contemporary classical music suffers
>even compared to, say, the Gershwin-infused society of 50 years ago. It is
>my personal opinion that Schoenberg and his "emancipation of dissonance"
>seem to have set the stage for the emancipation of the audience (save a
>few dabblers and 20 cent.-music educated folks) from the general scene.
I don't think it is fair to place Schoenberg as the center of the
problem. Both Bruckner and Mahler drove their contempory audience away.
Bruckner's "friends" perverted a lot of his material so that the audience
did not like it. Plus, it wasn't until years after Mahler's death that
his music was liked.
>None of my peers can name a single famous post-impressionist composer--and
>these are not (generally) ignorant people. Our auditoriums are bare; I
>usually see at least one unenthusiastic patron per performance out cold or
>counting dots on the ceiling. Will we even have an audience in the 21st
>century outside of those of us who can open their mind to the EXTREME
>subjectivity needed to jump from composer to composer in a modern
>program? Oneof my friends, after listening to a Peter Maxwell-Davies
>organ piece commented to me, "I don't get it--ANY of it. Where's the
>beauty in this?" Even though I liked the piece and admire
>Maxwell-Davies's means of expression, I had no answer for my friend. I
>couldn't explain why the piece had merit in the same vein that, say, the
>6th Brandonberg did. My friend could not hear the crafting, could not
>seperate formal sections, could not find a climax--COULD NOT IDENTIFY WITH
>ANY ASPECT OF MUSIC AT ALL, and thus felt left out, not included. This
>seems to par for the general public, sections of which can still revel in
>the atonal-fencing-ridings of Wagner or Stravinsky because of other
>elements of inclusiveness.
Once again. Perhaps the problem is the lack of a universal form,
something that will help the audience follow the guidelines of the
performance. Most of the really popular "modern" music had a structure
which the audience could follow the music with. (Thus, the reason why
Stravinsky's ballets, Berg's operas, ... are popular).
> Enter "popular music" (even the nomenclature of which steams of
>resentment, implying--somewhat correctly--that "art music" [I hate that
>term] is no longer popular.): a phenomenon which has placed musical
>understanding and inclusion back into the hands of the people (not just
>the youth any more). I'm not talking about the corporate Top 40 crap
>thrown together by record companies to make money by appealing to 9-14
>year-olds, I'm talking about intelligent, affective, carefully crafted
>expression--no different than the aims of the new music composer--that
>includes the audience in the experience. A few examples [please forgive
>my personal taint in selection]: Charlies Mingus, Ian Anderson (from
>Jethro Tull), Keith Jarrett, Parliament/Funkadelic, The Allman Brothers,
>The Moody Blues--just to name a few who feel the same aesthetic
>aspirations and preservation of musical integrity and dignity as any
>"educated musician." Their music is conveyed through festivals and fair,
>in concert halls, and in pubs and bars. "Elevator music," found in the
>background of numerous public facilities, is simply instrumental
>arrangements of mostly popular tunes. New Music Concerts are bogged by
>the politics of money and name recognition (due directly to the lack of
>public support), can cost an outlandish amount of money (especially for
>the non-student), have stiff social requirements in the areas of
>appropriate dress and conduct, and fail in general to arouse any sense of
>community or fellowship in the audience--and certainly not between the
>audience and performer.
Look no farther than your home for an answer to this problem. 90% of
todays youth have no music introduction other than the radio = popular
music. Wynton Marsalis in his music series described classical music
akin to reading a good novel (and we all know about the statistics on
reading). The source of the problem is that our society is not art
oriented. We are out for instant gratification. If it takes an iota of
thought, it cannot be worth while. That is why Piers Anthony, Stephen
King, Bon Jovi, Poison, et al are popular. Their "art" is up front and
predigested.
> In a composition seminar earlier this year, we attempted to deal with
>the problem of "pulling people in."-- of exposure. I suggested: "Why not
>take your string quartet out onto the corner or into the park, place a
>nice sign stating their name and the specific program and even (God
>forbid) place a container nearby accepting donations. I might as well had
>talking about prostitution or puppy-killing for all the completely
>dumb-founded looks I got. WE ARE NO LONGER IN MOZART'S POSITION IN THE
>COURT OF JOPESH II. THIS WORLD WE LIVE IN IS NO LONGER
>ARISTOCRATICALLY-BASED, ALTHOUGH SOMETIMES YOU CAN'T TELL BY LOOKING
>AROUND. THESE ASSORTED HIGH-BROW ANTICS NO LONGER ARE IN CONGRUENCE WITH
>THE IDEAlS OF MUSICAL PROGRESS IN TODAY'S WORLD.
Not a bad idea about having string quartets play in parks. (Another good
idea is have them give a concert at a local grade school. THESE people
are the most important (and completely neglected) elements of our
society.) But you are right. IF you want the society to be interested
in your work, THAN you cannot stay in your ivory tower and wait for the
unwashed masses to come to you for guidance. Kronos Quartet has helped
get modern music to the "people". They play not only in concert halls,
but at coffee shops et al.
> If we composers wish to see our efforts endure through the following
>century are going to have to do something decisive to save it. Who is
>going to spend the greater part of their life composing if it's a given
>that NO ONE doing such will be able to financailly support themselves?
There are alternate routes. Look at Ives.
>Why compose if your work is likely never to be played? How can you make a
>name for yourself if you need a name to start out with? We're close to
>that right now. We need fresh answers to some problems that are quickly
>reaching critical mass. These problems inevitably lead back to the
>performer/audience paradox--if no one wants to hear your music, then no
>one will hear your music. And that's all fine and dandy except that
>SELF-EXPRESSION IS WORTHLESS IN A VACUUM. I compose to have people hear
>my music--not to judge it, or like it, or be moved by it--just to hear it,
>and what happens after that--happens.
Perhaps we need to organize music circles in the cities. Composers/
performers/ philanthropists/ enthusiasts to unite and to get together and
listen to the music going on now. I am sure you are not alone in your
thinking. Perhaps you need to be the one to get the ball going.
Although the one thing that is the most important to remember: NOTHING
GETS DONE UNLESS SOMEONE DOES IT. So, go out and DO something. Don't
just complain.
> Wow. I believe that's enough for now; I could keep going for days. I
>am really interested in what in anyone (especially of my age) has to say
>concerning anything discussed here. It all kinda floats around in my head
>without direction or organization and I would like to pin some of it down.
>
> Good day!
>
>Luke W. Zautke, UCBoulder
>zau...@ucsu.colorado.edu
--
J.L.Rizzo II
Between the retina and the higher centers of the cortex the innocence of
vision is irretrievably lost-it has succumbed to the suggestion of a
whole series of hidden persuaders. -Arthur Koestler
joseph louis rizzo
Craig Weston <cwe...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>
>How about we try something radical and talk about some solutions?
>
>(I'll post some as soon as I come up with them :) )
The biggest problem that I see now is that art (in all its forms) has
been classified as "non-essential" to learning. When a school gets into
financial problems, the first thing to go is art. Consequently, we are
raising a group of children whose only exposure to art is Pop 40 and
billboards.
What do we do?
1. Get active in your community. Express how you feel about this. TALK
to the people who live around you. If you must, volunteer your time to
expose the children to art.
2. Express your feelings to the Television stations. It shames me to
think that at one time NBS actually broadcasted Beethoven's 9th
symphony, whereas now- all they have are "Friends" and "Seinfeld"
clones. PBS did a 4 part educational series with Wynton Marsalis. Write
to them and try to get him to do more.
3. Support your local art oriented organizations. Donate to the local
PBS station. Go to the local orchestras.
Any more ideas?
>
>__________________________________________________________________
>|Craig Weston--Assistant Professor of Music Theory, Composition, |
>| & Electronic/Computer Music, Iowa State University|
>| |
>|e-mail: cwe...@iastate.edu |
>|WWW: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~cweston/homepage.html |
>|________________________________________________________________|
>
>
Rick
>Oh well...I probably sound nuts. But you'll see!......you'll see......HA HA >HA HA HA HA!
Like Liberace...who laughed all the way to the bank
Knock 'em dead, Damon!
Rick
dd...@delphi.com
concert on tv, like the Art channel on cband, which even has works by Bach and
Mozart with videos, just like a rock channel, grin, seems kind of neat and
strange.
And the Art channel is carried by quite a few cable companys, so there is some
kind of a market out there for clasical music.
I think your complaints are pretty much the type given by those that do not
keep pace with the times, and do not have a good sense
sense of what brings people in, or develope new methods to bring the crowds.
But I have heard the same gripes you gave from those that play Jazz.
These types just try the same old thing, and do not take a serious look at the
methods other types of music groups use to bring in the crowds.
What are your plans to have fireworks and lazers accompany your concert this f
forth of July? Have you ever considered new lighting, maybe a pantamine act,
and even circus type acts.
Have you ever talked to your radio or tv station about doing an hour program,
or a series of concerts?
Have you ever talked to your college drama dept., on maybe having them perform
something to music?
How about doing some boston pops stuff too.
I think they should have all composers take a course in marketing, and
showmanship. You can't just post a simple ad in the local shopper and expect
to get the results you used to.
You have to compete, and the competition has gotten better than what you have
been used to in the past.
Luke Zautke
<dickd...@delphi.com> wrote:
> KRSNA CONSCIOUSNESS NOW <jwi...@center.colgate.edu> writes:
>
> > Bah. There are billions and billions of amazing new melodies
waiting to
> >emerge from the C major scale. You don't need a new formal structure, a new
> >theory of organization, to make something sound new - just your own ear and
> >your musical soul. Listen to Messaien (sp?). He does amazing things in 4/4
> >time with the same scales you learn in day 1 of Harmony 101.
>
> Absolutely!
> I view much of 20th century composing to have been a long series of
experiments
> - in the spirit of "pure" mathematics. Doesn't necessarily rsult in any new
> products or applications - just pure exploration.
> I feel lucky to be starting my composing career just past the end* of these
> experiments. The tests are done - the "results" are in. NOW, we get to be real
> men (:-]) and teach all that stuff to dance! To advance the "romantic" aspects
> of music by stirring i
> n big dollops of all this 20th century dirt and uranium and watching the
fusion
> reactions.
> To really express, describe and emote,again!
> As to getting an audience, I'm about to release a CD of descriptive, yet
modern
> challenging, yet melodic music for general consumption. Not a single piece is
> longer than 5:50. That right there skirts a MAJOR problem with the modern
> listener: attention-defi
> cit disorder!
> And it's fun* to try and pack a programmatic (thanks to Matt Fields for this
> wd) experience into 3:30!
> Oh well...I probably sound nuts. But you'll see!......you'll see......HA HA HA
> HA HA HA!
That sounds fantastic! Please tell me where I can purchase a copy when
it is released. It seems, my friend, you have broken through the
proverbial "bovine pies" and produced, literally your own voice. I would
be interested as to the process you underwent to realize such a project.
Are you publishing it yourself?
Keep on!
‹ Luke :)
zau...@ucsu.colorado.edu
KRSNA CONSCIOUSNESS NOW
>So you're agruing in favor of scritch-scritch music, right?
Yes. :)
Peace and love
Craig Weston
> * Write for people who are still alive, and write music that
> leaves them asking for more. Write for an audience, not for
> your teacher.
Sure, or better yet, write what please you (and find an audience
that it pleases, too.)
>
> * Write for the biggest venue you can find. Orchestras don't fit
> into this category. Nor does any other group of live musicians
> not recording for a major label. According to the Labor
> department, employment opportunities for live musicians are
> shrinking. According to Forbes magazine, orchestras cost
> too much, and are in serious danger of being underfunded into
> extinction. If your mentors are lazy fish swimming in small ponds
> then you are listening to the wrong people.
>
> Composing for orchestra is like making new parts for
> Steam Locomotives. Composing for live groups is like scheduling
> rail-fan tours.
Sorry, bad advice. If we all followed this, we'd all be writing for
Michael Jackson. If you have something to say through an orchestra,
do it. If you have something to say through Michael Jackson, fine.
>
>Here's what I'm doing:
>
> * I have *one* person for whom I will write live music (the conductor
> of a good sized mid-western orchestra), because that is
> the only person who has consistantly supported my efforts in
> live music. I do maybe one piece every 1-3 years. It gets
> maybe 2 performances. It's never been worth the effort, but
> I still do it out of friendship. I expect nothing to come of it
> because nothing ever has.
If it's not worth the effort, then you're a fool for doing it. (And
I'm not blind to the notion that doing something for a friend might be
enough in and of itself to make it worth the effort, but you yourself
said it wasn't.)
> * All my other compositions *are* for the biggest venue on the
> face of the earth at this time -- MIDI compositions confined to
> the General MIDI format, published on the internet. This venue
> has brought me exposure and dialogs with collegues that provide
> positive comments and feedback, not just pecksnifing from the
> jealous. I just got a good vibe from Germany, and at least something
> positive at least once a week. I never get rude or snide
> remarks, only positive remarks.
>
> There is just no other venue that gets you exposed so fast to
> so many potential listeners. Within 5 days of posting a
> composition and advertising it on the Ragtimers page, my counter
> (when it worked) jumped by 120 people - complete strangers whom
> I have never met. By some informal surveys, it is a "hot" item,
> on the ragtimers page.
That's all dandy, as long as you can say what you want to say through
General MIDI. Many composers have found that they can't.
> I tried the other way first, finding performers, finding
> publishers, and ran up against an incredible amount of
> snobbery and NIH, so said screw it. That's when I made
> the web page and posted the files. There just is no
> other way to get this much exposure in so short a time.
Sure there is--blow up a federal building, murder your ex-wife,
get elected to congress and behave like a toddler, and so on.
(i.e. exposure may not be the actual goal here, after all.)
Look, I'm really glad that this works for you. But that doesn't
mean it's good advice for everyone. I personally rate the musical
capabilities of general MIDI right up there with the singing ability
of Bob Dylan. But to each their own, right?
Michael Gogins
bring?>, 'fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matthew H. Fields)' wrote:
And he did this in response to a prodigious complaint from a student
composer:
>I really think that recordings, with the consequent decline in home
>chamber-music-making, together with radio and television, have done more
>to create a gap between living composers of classical-tradition music than
>anything the composers themselves did. It's a new world.
I think this is a very interesting and suggestive discussion.
But there seem to be several hypotheses tangled up in each other here:
Recordings have opened a gap between composers and audience.
The decline of home music making has opened a gap.
Radio and television have opened a gap.
These points do share a commonality in that they each indicate
profound changes in how people use music.
I think people use a lot more music than they did in the past.
The stuff is plain hard to get away from. It's coming out of the radio
in my office right now! At the same time,
it's not usually the center of attention. It frequently accompanies
something else, like a moving picture, that is the center of attention.
I think this constant, background use contributes to the gap,
by making music seem less autonomous, and thus less worthy
of real attention, but I don't think it's the main cause.
As for people not playing or singing any more, people don't make
movies or even videos, really, but complaints about a gap between
audiences and directors or screenwriters are rare.
I personally think the main cause of the gap is the sheer
historical sophistication of music. Music has become, in some
cases, an extremely elaborate art that cannot be understood without
considerable education and experience. Poetry is another such art.
So is fine art painting. Popular music and movies are not in this
situation.
Some popular music and some movies are great art, too.
I think that recordings have substantially fostered
this sophistication of music. There's more music, more styles,
more history, and we remember it better. Even jazz, even rock,
have developed arty, sophisticated genres that just never have
attracted a large audience.Look how genres of rock have proliferated
like... like... well, they have proliferated.
And I think recordings have other consequences for composers...
it's one thing when the competition, the standard, are the
orchestra in the next town, or the choir in the next church, on
the one hand, and when the competition and the standard are
Bach and Schoenberg and Coltrane and Eno and the best from every culture
for centuries and centuries...
My belief is that the web will even further contribute to the
elaboration and sophistication of culture, including music. The
consequences will be interesting.
Michael Gogins
gog...@nyc.pipeline.com
gog...@woof.music.columbia.edu
Days (212) 941-0210
Evenings (718) 522-0081
Matthew H. Fields
>these are not (generally) ignorant people. Our auditoriums are bare; I
Hmm, Luke, suddenly there's a lot of interest in Aaron Copeland. Maybe
it's because of Apple Corp's marketing scheme?
Jeffrey Jullich
> Like Liberace...who laughed all the way to the bank
What Liberace ~actually~ said was:
"I laugh all the way home ~from~ the bank"
not ~to~ the bank.
Rick
Yeah, carrying money like that I can't see anyone laughing, not until
it was safely squirreled away!
R