 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: weberfan
Date: 2010-12-29 14:44
Allan Kozinn, a music critic for The New York Times, shared some thoughts this morning on how musicians approach "new music." Given previous threads on the fate of symphony orchestras, etc., I thought this topic might be food for more thought.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/arts/music/29repertory.html?_r=1&ref=music
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: PrincessJ
Date: 2010-12-29 16:03
The link does not take me to the article; I see a "please log in" message.
Darn, sounds like a good article. :^|
-Jenn
Circa 1940s Zebra Pan Am
1972 Noblet Paris 27
Leblanc Bliss 210
1928 Selmer Full Boehm in A
Amateur tech, amateur clarinetist, looking to learn!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: weberfan
Date: 2010-12-29 16:32
Apologies. For the moment, I can't seem to get the link to work.
If you can, log on to nytimes.com. then look on the left hand margin for ARTS and then music. Click on Music. The first story should be about "Keepers," the news music that musicians feel they ought to continue to play.
Will try to get a better link.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: weberfan
Date: 2010-12-29 18:59
Thanks, grifffinity.
The link I attached apparently was incomplete.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-12-29 19:17
Cool article. I do see composers who aren't concerned with their music's longevity, but I think they're in the minority. Many claim to have that philosophy but, when pushed further, admit otherwise.
I think part of the weirdness comes from the label itself of "new music." I don't play "new music" or "old music." I play "music." Saying you play new music automatically assigns an attribute of "this is different from the stuff that belongs" in many circumstances, ESPECIALLY the museum-like concert hall world.
Do people who make rock, pop, metal, reggae, hip hop, rap, dubstep, etc. call their music "new music?" MAYBE if the album just released, if ever. The fact that we still regularly call stuff from the 70s "new music" or "contemporary" shows how queer a view of time we have.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2010-12-29 20:02
Alex wrote,
>>I think part of the weirdness comes from the label itself of "new music." I don't play "new music" or "old music." I play "music.">>
Yes. And what you wrote reminds me of an anecdote about Louis Armstrong. Someone introduced him as a jazz musician to some people at a social event. One of these people, who'd apparently learned some vocabulary but clearly knew bupkes about jazz if he didn't recognize the name of Louis Armstrong (!), asked eagerly, "Well, what kind of jazz do you play? Bebop? Hard bop? Free jazz? ... "
Armstrong interrupted what threatened to become a long list by sighing loudly and rolling his eyes. Then he said, in that inimitable gravelly growl, "I play jazz, jazz, jazz."
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony M
Date: 2010-12-29 21:31
Interesting article. Thanks for the link.
In a podcast interview with Norman Lebrecht at the BBC, Stephen Kovacevich spoke of a problem that came after Stravinsky. He thought that people didn't 'get' Stravinsky at the time and now they are willing to accept anything in case they are wrong again. Yes, they are different people then and now but traits do get carried over in cultures.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarin-ed
Date: 2010-12-29 22:03
Hi everyone. I'm new to posting but have been a "lurker" for at least four years.
I agree with much of what Kozinn says regarding musicians' views on performing contemporary pieces. Like Kozinn wrote, I think that when we play something out of the standard repertoire, such as Mozart or Nielsen, we already know the significance of that piece, so we are less inclined to make judgements on how good the piece is. New pieces don't have a "shining aura" surrounding them (unless the composer is highly regarded), so performers will be skeptical, possibly resulting in weaker performances.
In addition, to add onto what Kozinn says about repetition of standard literature, I feel as though performers should be doing more in the way of composition themselves. When they play their own works, they already have an idea on how the pieces should sound, which can definitely enhance performances.
As great as the standard repertoire of any instrument is, sometimes it is appropriate to expand outwards; In reality, only die-hard fans would desire to hear 3 or 4 different recordings of the Mozart (if they're all reputable).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-12-29 23:47
"He thought that people didn't 'get' Stravinsky at the time and now they are willing to accept anything in case they are wrong again."
"I feel as though performers should be doing more in the way of composition themselves"
Amen, and amen!
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: PrincessJ
Date: 2010-12-30 00:40
Great article, you know, to stay on topic, I get a downright chuckle at the explosion of "pop" music-like sounds over the past decade or so, Some folks just find the texture of it "interesting" and/or "entertaining" regardless of the little effort required to slop it all together.
In true music, there is soul and passion, there is meaning, there is depth. The performers become the music, and connect with each other. When real meaning is lacking, music becomes arranged noise.
When I improvise n any instrument, every note is a word, every phrase is a story, and it all comes together as a part of myself. In my eyes, that is the meaning of music. Regardless of it's age.
-Jenn
Circa 1940s Zebra Pan Am
1972 Noblet Paris 27
Leblanc Bliss 210
1928 Selmer Full Boehm in A
Amateur tech, amateur clarinetist, looking to learn!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony M
Date: 2010-12-30 03:44
""He thought that people didn't 'get' Stravinsky at the time and now they are willing to accept anything in case they are wrong again."
"I feel as though performers should be doing more in the way of composition themselves"
Amen, and amen!
-Alex"
I'd like to add an amen to that.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2010-12-30 06:04
One of the real problems with "new music" is that composers are writing more and more mathematically, and the music itself becomes more and more difficult to learn- often for works that are short in their actual performance time. So the incentive for performers is very low because they know that they need to practice twice as long for a shorter program.
Additionally, many composers (especially in the second half of the 20thC) made music that used more difficult musical languages than before. The end result is that only people with extensive music training would be able to understand what was going on and appreciate it on a theoretical level, but perhaps not on a musical one.
The lay person would go to a concert and only hear "noise" because they had not gone through years of musical training.
Adding insult to injury, when musicians and composers where told of the honest (negative) feelings listeners had about the music in question, the response from the top of a very high horse was, basically, "You're dumb."
[runs behind shield!]
Take "music" out of the picture. That kind of response is the same as running a restaurant that makes new recipes that the patrons don't like, and then telling them they they don't have a good enough palate to understand the cuisine.
Then we wonder why they don't come back.
Finally, we are coming away from the very, very extreme of music and getting to things that real listeners can enjoy- not just other people that we went to grad school with. If this trend continues, wee might have bigger audiences in the future.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2010-12-30 13:18
Skygardener, I agree with you. You said, "Adding insult to injury, when musicians and composers where told of the honest (negative) feelings listeners had about the music in question, the response from the top of a very high horse was, basically, "You're dumb."
When I was in college in the 70s, this seemed to be the attitude in our music department. As music majors, we were expected to embrace the "new music," no matter how much we despised much of it (here and there one could find something good). I was a bit surprised, though, that a few professors chose to differ in public. Our ear training prof, an older man, came right out one day and told us that there was only one good twelve-tone piece that had ever been written, the Berg violin concerto.
It was an interesting article, and it will be interesting to see which of today's new pieces are remembered in the future. When you look back over the music of the 20th century, Roy Harris was once considered to be one of the greatest composers. Today, with the exception of the third symphony, his music is largely ignored. Arnold Schoenberg's twelve-tone works were once thought to represent the future of music, but today twelve-tone music (Webern, late Stravinsky, late Copland) is considered to be a relic of the past. I probably won't be alive to see it, but I often wonder if any of the music being written currently will be heard fifty years from now.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarin-ed
Date: 2010-12-30 16:07
Going off of what skygardener said, if the entire audience has a problem understanding and "getting into" your program, you're probably doing something wrong. It's a very bad idea to blame the audience for a lack of understanding of what you are playing.
I know some performers these days are going beyond playing straight classical programs. But once again, I feel as though more could be done–more use of varied instrumentation, more use of electronics (in an appropriate fashion, mind you), and more incorporation of different genres. To me, a recital with just clarinet and piano for over an hour makes for a rather boring recital. And it would probably be more boring for people with little musical background information. Creativity is key.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-12-30 18:45
Creativity is key indeed!
For composers, much of the focus often seems to be shifted elsewhere. People will write music not because they have a cool idea, but because they want to be remembered or they want to be important or they want to seem smart or even just because they absolutely love writing music. But it becomes mechanical, an exercise in moving notes around rather than out of a genuine burst of ideas.
For performers, it's even worse. Individuals and ensembles become "checklist performers." Very rarely do you see someone take up the clarinet and say "ok, there's tons of awesome stuff I can do with this instrument! Let's figure out what I want to play and how to do it!" Instead, they look at a long list of pieces, solo and orchestral, and say "have I played it yet?"
Not "Do I want to play this" or "Is there some angle I want to take on this piece" or "Out of all the music I can make, what do I want to do?" The question is never "Do I want to play Brahms?" Rather, you get one of two: for people that like Brahms, it's "Am I ready to tackle Brahms?" and for those that don't, it's "I should play the Brahms when I'm ready for it." Almost never does anyone ask, "Why would I want to play Brahms?" and even more rarely does anyone answer "I don't want to play it, and I'm not going to" without feeling like a complete ass.
There's not some council in the afterlife that looks at a list of what pieces you've played (at least not that I'm aware of... maybe there is), but that's the way most of us treat things. HOW MANY important pieces have I played?
WHO FRICKIN CARES???
If your entire purpose as an instrumentalist is to play as many different pieces as possible, you're pretty likely to have an incredibly dull run. Creativity is absent.
Orchestras do the same thing. Every time I see some mom&pop regional symphony put out a ho-hum recording of Beethoven 3, I scream in disgust. WHY???
I'm not saying to go for a bunch of kitschy bells and whistles, but look at what you're doing and ask yourself if you have a reason to do it, or if you're just going through the motions.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rgames
Date: 2010-12-30 18:51
New music - a contentious topic, to be sure...
There is, in fact, a lot *more* new music now than ever before. I'd be willing to bet that half of the music on iTunes was created after 1960. So the discussion is not really about *new* music, it's about *new concert* music.
The trouble in the concert music world is that composers have been struggling to find the next great movement. We're in a period of concert music doldrums, so to speak: the concert music ship is drifting in a sea of attempts but nothing in the last 30 - 40 years has really filled the sails and pushed it in a new direction (i.e. one that audiences embrace).
The problem is not for lack of trying (there are also more composers now than ever before). However, audiences have not found anything that excites them about concert music. As stated above, much new concert music is extremely academic, so it doesn't resonate with audiences.
In my opinion, it is precisely that academic focus that is driving concertgoers away from the concert halls. Music isn't about the brain; it's about the heart. True masterpieces touch both, but it needs to start with emotion. Concertgoers don't listen while thinking about harmony and counterpoint - they think about the overall impact. And if the overall impact is non-existent or negative, well, they won't think about it for very long.
Over the last 50 years, concert halls have emptied while music shool halls have filled. Coincidence? Unless composers and musicians once again begin to embrace emotion as the basis of music, my belief is that the decline will continue.
Music will never go away. However, maybe concert music is a style that peaked and is now in decline. Perhaps we can never do better than the pinnacle we reached in the first half of the 20th century. I hope not, but it is a possibility.
One thing that the concert music audiences need to do is accept the role of technology in music. I have often encountered "classical music lovers" who dismiss anything with elements of modern music production (e.g. electronic instruments). Brass instruments now have valves. Woodwind instruments now have additional keys. Both of those changes were due to technological advances and most composers embraced them (Brahms is a notable exception, but how many current horn players pull out the natural horn to play his symphonies?).
Technology has always worked its way into music. It should be embraced as a new means for artistic expression.
rgames
____________________________
Richard G. Ames
Composer - Arranger - Producer
www.rgamesmusic.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-12-30 19:13
"Over the last 50 years, concert halls have emptied while music shool halls have filled."
Perhaps this is just a change of venue that we've refused to acknowledge...
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2010-12-30 19:54
There's nothing new here , Henry Pleasants told us all about the problem in his book "The Agony of Modern Music' way back in 1955.
Skyfacer
Post Edited (2010-12-30 19:56)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2010-12-31 01:38
"There's nothing new here , Henry Pleasants told us all about the problem in his book "The Agony of Modern Music' way back in 1955."
Why did no one listen?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-12-31 01:50
"Why did no one listen?"
These are the same people who we complain have no creativity in their programming. Surely you don't expect them to have any more creativity in their solutions to a lack of creativity.
Just as they've been playing concerts the same way for the past 50 years, they've also been lamenting its demise the same way for the past 50 years, and failing to take meaningful action the same way for the past 50 years.
It's comfortable, and it's familiar. Which is what classical music is good at.
An institution built on preserving the ways of the past hardly has innovation in its blood.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2010-12-31 02:23
Just a passing thought...
Why has there been so much pulling away from "new classical" music in the last hundred years?
When did classical music become more about ancient compositions and not new music?
Did it all start when Mendelssohn performed Bach?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: PrincessJ
Date: 2010-12-31 02:28
Barry Vincent wrote: "There's nothing new here , Henry Pleasants told us all about the problem in his book "The Agony of Modern Music' way back in 1955."
Things change -
Think about when you weigh yourself, and you've gained a pound. Okay, it's just one pound, no big deal, right?
And then one more next week, and then one more, etc... and eventually you weigh 310 lbs and wonder what happened.
That is the illusion we're dealing with in this situation.
-Jenn
Circa 1940s Zebra Pan Am
1972 Noblet Paris 27
Leblanc Bliss 210
1928 Selmer Full Boehm in A
Amateur tech, amateur clarinetist, looking to learn!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-12-31 03:39
skygardener: my take on the situation:
It started when composers got too conceptual and academic about their music, too quickly. Under other circumstances, the audience might have met halfway, but a convergence of two circumstances destroyed that possibility:
High modernism, and its complete shunning of the romantic traditions that it philosophically declared responsible for the ills of society, including WWI and WWII
AND
The explosion of popular music - jazz, rock, and all that followed
In essence, the classical compositional world declared "music should be conceptually pure with little regard to listenability" at the precise time in history when listenable popular music, aided by radio and recordings, flourished. Anyone wanting to listen to new music that didn't demand a graduate degree was granted an occasional Copland or Bernstein piece, or could look elsewhere for TONS of new, original, experimental, listenable awesomeness at every turn.
The classical world, having lost its momentum of cultural relevance, has never recovered, and transformed from "music from now and from the past" to "music of the past." As far removed as it has become from culture, the best it does to try to relate is to copy popular styles of years or decades past. Scott McAllister's X Concerto and other pieces, for example, while cool to play and fun to listen to, are based on songs and styles already 15+ years old.
I don't know if it's even possible for the classical world to make a resurgence that picks up from its current traditions. It's like expecting ragtime to come back. You might see elements of it elsewhere, but it's been culturally dormant for some time, and if you were to try to make it come back through a steady lineage, it would be unrecognizable. Which is the problem with the symphony orchestra... the instrumentation, the culture, the paradigm are so thoroughly established that the music will always be stuck in that world. Anything new you DO see that might be both innovative and directly descended from the classical lineage would be so unrecognizable that you wouldn't call it classical music, and you almost certainly wouldn't play it with an orchestra, except maybe covers at a "pops" concert.
I might suggest that this has *almost* already happened in a handful of genres of electronic music and of avant-garde and experimental metal. The complete departure from classical instruments just makes music with striking structural, formal, and influential similarities pass completely under the radar of classical music. Essentially, the innovation is happening, but because it's not happening in the concert hall on classical instruments, it's effectively NOT happening, as far as the classical world is concerned.
Like it or not, classical music has an established sound. Classical will always be classical, just like jazz will always be jazz, and disco will always be disco. You don't go to a contemporary jazz show to see 40's swing, nor do you go to a 40's swing show to see contemporary jazz. Anything new and significantly different that comes out of classical and takes a foothold will be a different genre, related to classical, but different. Heck, our classical orchestral concerts are pretty thoroughly segregated from "early music" concerts, so we should be familiar with the concept. A renaissance band looks quite different from the classical orchestra, but the idea that the successor to the orchestra might look quite different (and perhaps have cookie-monster vocals, double kick drum, and 3 guitars) seems like heresy to the classical aficionado.
If classically-informed people were to spend half as much time getting out there and listening to new, innovative musical groups as they do lamenting the demise of classical music, we may well have found a successor already!
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-12-31 04:06
Heck, if you look at things, what genres/subgenres/styles have been spawned since the '40s?
(to name a few)
rock & roll, surf, punk, heavy metal, grunge, glam, progressive, goth, psychedelic, krautrock, alternative, indie, nu metal, death metal, doom metal, thrash, tech metal, symphonic metal, black metal, mathcore, reggae, ska, hip hop, rap, glitch, house, trance, new age, nu metal, ambient, metalcore, industrial, dark ambient, techno, noise, collage, minimalism, modernism, postmodernism
Each of these has a distinctive sound, many of which you can pin down to a decade or even a few years. Not saying they're all glowing examples of spectacular music, but they're each a unique direction. Many of them are influenced to some degree by classical, but it will admit a hand in very few of them and allow even fewer into its hallowed cathedrals.
200 years ago, a random group of "musicians" was probably made up of a bunch of classical instrumentalists. Perhaps, 200 years from now, (as suggested by numerous sci-fi works) drums, guitars, keys, and vocals will be a "classical" ensemble, and you'll see a concert of Pink Floyd, Meshuggah, and Beatles tunes at Disney Hall.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
