Klarinet Archive - Posting 000564.txt from 2003/07

From: "Keith" <100012.1302@-----.com>
Subj: [kl] RE: kcontemporary music
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 10:41:57 -0400

It's always been the case that "90% of everything is crap" (Theodore
Sturgeon). Music of most of Beethoven's contemporaries has (rightly!) =
not
stood the test of time and is rarely played. Why should things be any
different now? We should expect that *most* music not yet filtered by =
time
is not very good. The crap ratio may even have increased with increasing
affluence and accessibility. And it has not led to the demise of music.

But the time filter requires that we try to play and listen to as much =
as
possible, with our best judgement faculties running, in order to begin =
the
process. We don't have to take composers at their word, but let the =
music
speak for itself. 90% will be crap, but if we make a blanket rejection =
of it
all we will miss the undoubted gems. I've always been interested in and
played contemporary music, and the stuff I played when I was young is =
now
pretty much classical!

There is a tough and high duty placed upon performers (amateur as well =
as
pro) as well as listeners. We have to prepare a piece so that the music =
is
communicated, even though much of what we play will no doubt vanish. For
example, I was very struck by Caroline Hartig at ClarinetFest 2000, who =
had
an extraordinary insight and ability to bring out musical lines in =
pieces
that in other hands would have sounded crap!=20

As for "academic" crap, as a former professor I do know the species, and
yes; academics do seize above all upon what they can analyse (and =
publish in
"respectable" journals), and serial music plays into their hands, so to
speak. Without doubt there are academic places where the analysis =
outweighs
the music, and is so encouraged. Now. much of Mozart's music has a =
strongly
mathematical basis, and he was certainly interested in and competent at
number theory. This is an interesting aspect that musicologists =
(including
Dan Leeson) have publicised and discussed. But nobody would claim that =
that
is what the music was *about*, or that if others followed the same
principles they would produce music that was as good. And nor does the
academic approach in any way invalidate good music.

So if you play or listen to the classical composers, you are likely
beforehand to be familiar with the genre, if not the music itself, the =
music
has been filtered by time, and you can have a high expectation of =
pleasure.
With contemporary music you can have no such expectation, indeed you can
expect not to like much of it, both because of the crap factor and =
because
you may not yet be attuned to the new idiom. But there are gems there
amongst the dross, and I believe that musicians must search these out, =
and
professional orchestras and soloists must put them on concert =
programmes.
Yes, we may have to put great effort into playing things that are really =
not
worth playing. But it was ever thus.=20

Keith Bowen

___________
There's good music and there's Sh*t that some composers try to pass off =
as
music. That to me is the demise of music. I too have heard =
"compositions" at
Clarfest that were the former *and* the later.

Academic crap is what I call it. There are many Contemporary =
Compositions I
like a lot so don't get me wrong but there are also the exercises in =
sound
that are to me trash.
___________

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is supported by Woodwind.Org, http://www.woodwind.org/