info on Post-Modernism in music wanted
Luc Geukens
Hello,
I'm a music student and have to write a paper on post-modernism.
Can someone advise me any web-sites on this subject.
Thanks,
Marjon Kreike
Samuel Vriezen
"Luc Geukens" <glob...@club.innet.be>:
It's not clear whether it is a subject at all...
What would postmodernism in music be? Does it start with Cage, or with
Bang on a Can, Louis Andriessen or John Zorn? Or perhaps, is
Ferneyhough the postmodern composer, referring as he is always doing
to French postmodern metaphysics, etc? Or are we talking mixing high
and low art, which you can already find way before modernism became en
vogue?
Samuel
Luc Geukens
Samuel Vriezen wrote in message <3583a76d...@news.xs4all.nl>...
>"Luc Geukens" <glob...@club.innet.be>:
>
>>I'm a music student and have to write a paper on post-modernism.
>>Can someone advise me any web-sites on this subject.
>
>It's not clear whether it is a subject at all...
>What would postmodernism in music be? Does it start with Cage, or with
>Bang on a Can, Louis Andriessen or John Zorn? Or perhaps, is
>Ferneyhough the postmodern composer, referring as he is always doing
>to French postmodern metaphysics, etc? Or are we talking mixing high
>and low art, which you can already find way before modernism became en
>vogue?
>Samuel
You've got me there !!
I've been reading a few of the discussions going on on the 'postmodernism',
and it seems that it is not really having a stable definition.
The postmodernism i'm supposed to write about is handling the music from
about the 80's (reffering to Paul V. Hartman) to the present. This means the
period from WW II up to then being the modernism.
For there seems not to be a clear convention on what is called
postmodernism, I'm having trouble indeed to find "websites" on the subject.
On the other hand, the more I'm in it, the more interesting it gets. So I'll
continue looking....
If someone can tell me in what direction.
Marion
Zippy
Here are some references:
Kevin McNeilly
"Ugly Beauty: John Zorn and the Politics of Postmodern Music"
http://www.iath.virginia.edu/pmc/text-only/issue.195/mcneilly.195
-----
Jacques Attali
Noise: the political economy of music
-----
Theodore Adorno
On Popular Music (1941)
-----
Fredric Jameson
Postmodernism, or the cultural logic of late capitalism
This book has nothing to do with music, but is a great read if you want
to get it from the horse's mouth.
Samuel Vriezen
"Luc Geukens" <glob...@club.innet.be>:
>If someone can tell me in what direction.
That may very well be the essential impossibility in writing about
postmodernism. It has no direction. It even doesn't want a direction
because it doesn't want to be exclusive. Perhaps you could even think
of postmodernism as 'that which does not want a direction'.
Anyway, I have seen so many composers and extremely different and
mutually exclusive approaches being called postmodern. Especially when
it comes to music confusion reigns, perhaps because a philosophical
approach to postmodernism can be applied to the analysis and
description of any music whatsoever. This leads certain scholars to
argue Mozart's postmodernism etc. Clearly, by that time the word,
'postmodernism', has entirely lost its appeal and power. Indeed, I
would name 'postmodernism' as the absolute number one of notions that
have been confused so as to lose any form of applicability, (or
metaphysical higher level semi/pseudo/meta call it what you will
applicability), perhaps being even vaguer than 'modernism', or
'romanticism', 'late capitalism' or 'realism' (and decidedly vaguer
than 'serialism', 'new complexity', 'isorhythm', 'C sharp minor').
Sometimes, it seems the only meaning left to the word 'postmodernism'
is, 'I am a scholar'.
Still, it appears that some general ideas, concepts, words keep
surrounding postmodernism that make it feel like something real, and
related to our present time, to the words many of us choose to use. It
seems to have to do with lacking a central point of reference, or
perhaps with acknowledging the contingency of the points of reference
you have. This has been applied to matters of style as the internal
consistency of a work, but also to matters of perception itself, or to
history and tradition, or to the methodology of the composer. Thus you
get works that try not to have a style, or that try to avoid univocal
perception of themselves, or that try to ignore the boundaries imposed
on music history by other historians, or that try to be not decided
upon by a methodological composer. Etcetera. Everyone is free to make
up their own variation.
So, it could conceivably be applied to Zorn's music for his
willingness to mix styles (note, however, that by mixing different
styles you do acknowledge the ontological status of the styles you are
mixing), or to Ferneyhough's music for the ambiguities of perception
that follow from his use of exaggerated complexity, or to Cage's music
for his willingness to step back as a composer, or to some German
musics for their 'broken' stylistic identity (I am thinking of
Lachenmann's Clarinet Concerto 'Accanto' which is 'about' Mozart's),
or to Berio's 'Synfonia'; and in France, or so I understand,
'spectral' music could be associated with postmodernism. It's so
diverse, that perhaps the only way to write a paper on musical
modernism today is to pick a composer you like, no matter what it is
they do, and start explaining what's so postmodern about them.
Probably even Milton Babbitt can be turned into a postmodernist.
But if it is for some university or conservatory thing, best would
probably to find out first who your teacher thinks to be postmodern
composers, whether they think Boesmans or Pousseur or Brewaeys or
whoever are postmodern, and start writing about them.
On the other hand, you could also choose to write about post-1980
music. Then the field would still be far to large but at least you
have some real boundaries set.
You can also check out the composer that is being called 'postmodern'
most often. Who would that be? John Zorn?
Samuel
Luc Geukens
Samuel Vriezen wrote in message <358503c0...@news.xs4all.nl>...
>"Luc Geukens" <glob...@club.innet.be>:
>You can also check out the composer that is being called 'postmodern'
>most often. Who would that be? John Zorn?
>Samuel
I think you set me of on a foot at least. I think I can indeed limit the
period like that, and indeed I will state the argument that it is impossible
to give a definition on postmodernism for there seems not to exist one;
stronger, people concerned with the postmodern art don't want it to be
precisely defined.
Personaly, I couldn't agree more.
mille fois merci !!
Luc
Keep on writing to the group, I'll keep on reading !
Luc Geukens
Zippy wrote in message <358439A0...@yahoo.com>...
Zippy,
Thanks for your strait way to information. I can use this one. I will need
lots of examples, that's for sure.
Regards,
Luc
Zippy
You're definitely right on art journalism overdosing on the postmodern
as a particular genre. The confusion lies in identifying postmodernity
strictly as a historical period that demarcates year xx to year yy.
Postmodernity is a cultural condition, it is a representation of the
relations between the smallest unit of the society (no longer the
"citizen", but rather the "consumer") and the society itself (no longer
the church, rather a mishmash of media images, pop icons, scandals,
trends and fads). The challenges the postmodern artist faces is not in
tweaking aesthetic expression until a certain "truth" is reached (which
was the Modernist creed). It has to do with embracing the 500-channel
universe, the news media's manic obsession with the scandal of the year
(OJ Simpson, Diana, Lewinsky, etc.), or trying to write a composition
while flipping through the FM band (Zorn's 80s style). In other words,
pop sensibility is something you embrace but only to subvert. This is
clearly different from the Modernist strategy of maintaining a critical
distance, to subvert from *outside* the mass culture.
I'd say the simplest, no-nonsense definition of postmodern art is
(High)-Modernism minus the dead-seriousness (the dead-white male
condition) plus a whole lot of blank irony and parody of the pop
culture. McNeilly argues in the Zorn essay that Cage was a high
modernist because he was totally serious about the Buddhist stuff, that
emptiness and negativity are THE artistic mindset to pursue. I'd say
he's dead on. A postmodernist would never be able to make such
commitment. A postmodernist Cage would probably embrace meditation
because it happens to be the fad of the time, but only to turn around
and mock it.
Arsou
Everyone has answered well but,
Why not add another post?
Postmodernism is the opposite of Kitsch.
As in Kitsch it's "all the rules plus some other", postmodernism is "no
rules or if you want to, I don't care".
(Read "The unsustainable lightness of being" from Kundera)
Arsou
(Oh, btw, postmodernism is not a trend, it's a way of life)
jeroen
Hi,
I'm new on this group but I'm very glad I finally found it, because it deals with issues
I'm interested in the most: classical contemporay music and at the moment Zorn in particular.
Zippy writes that postmodern music (and I think art in particular) lacks
a so-called dead seriousness. Zorn approach to Jewish culture however
IS very serious. He doesn't even allow non-jewish musicians to play on his
New Radical Jewish Culture releases (Tzadik records). In the case of Zorn
this postmodern approach has to be redefined.
Some very good articles about Zorn's music were written in the Netherlands.
They aren't translated into English so here's something for the fellow Dutch and
Belgian newsgroup-members:
Gert en Bart Keunen, "Stadsnomaden in downtown New York". In: Rene Boomkens
en Rene Gabriels, Een alledaagse passie: 20 essays over popmuziek. Amsterdam 1996
"Dionysos Danst Weer" (I haven't the detailed info here, but the article in
this book deals with Zorn approach compared to Luciano Berio's one. Very interesting.)
Zorn's dealing with postmodernism, when seen in his Jewish music view is rather
dualistic. He once stated that: "Someone who only likes country music and doesn't
like blues or only likes classical and doesn't listen to rock, to me,
that's racism", but how have we to react to his dealing with non-jewish
musicians in jewish music then? Of course this is only one of the many genres
Zorn masters, but I think it's interesting to discuss the issue.
Jeroen de Boer
Zippy <zi...@myna.com> writes: > You're definitely right on art journalism overdosing on the postmodern
Jeroen de Boer
Hi,
actually there is an article that deals with both Zorn and Berio. It's
in Dutch, so most people can't read it, but it's about a comparison
between Berio's "Rendering" and Zorn's dealing with Morricone's music.
The article is in a book called "Dionysos Danst Weer" by Marcel Cobussen
and Ruud Welten, Kampen 1996.
Jeroen
> >>You can also check out the composer that is being called 'postmodern'
> >>most often. Who would that be? John Zorn?
> >>Samuel
> >
> Perhaps one could trace why it is people call some composer
> postmodern, and try a couple of extremely different composers. 'John
> Zorn and Luciano Berio', 'John Adams and Brian Ferneyhough', 'Pascal
> Dusapin and Helmut Lachenmann', 'Guillaume de Machaut and Louis
> Andriessen' etc.
>
> Samuel