|
|
CT Forums » The Recognition of the Composer Today - Part IX
|
|
|
|
|
The Recognition of the Composer Today - Stephen Beville
IX
As much as I am in favour of the ideal of equality and that all music is equal - equally valid in its potentially benign and constructive influence on the life of humanity - I do not believe this to be so. This is because all art entails the elements of possible education and enlightenment and their opposites. In our 'Post Modern' (anything goes?) age, is there any validity in comparing old and new traditions, or even one genre to another with regard to artistic and cultural importance? (Indeed, in our Post-Modern age, has not history itself become 'relative' or is not longer considered relevant?) Whilst I fully adhere to the 'golden rule' - that there is both worthwhile music as well as that of rather questionable merit to be found from ever musical idiom , style and genre - I still feel a few general truths should be ascertained.
Modern avant-garde classical music has generally been marked ever since the 19th century (at least until the 1960's and early 70s where there were some similarities in experimentation) by a withdrawal from popular musical styles of communication; an increased resistance to commercial exploitation and consummerism, as Theodore Adorno realised. This, together with the general decline in historical musical education (as cited previously) has led to its present 'obscure', somewhat iconoclastic state. I would argue that the global embrace and extreme commercialisation of the new idioms of pop-music (as from America) has indeed helped to undermine the recognisability of classical music development from the 19th century onwards (perhaps even earlier), especailly with regard to melodic and harmonic innovation.
For example, with regard to harmonic language, one might cite how most modern pop/rock music inhabits a pre Schoenbergian vacuum. This is not surprising when one considers that so much pop/rock music is created by musicians for whom Schoenberg never existed (i.e his innovations in musical language - in melody, harmony, and even rhythmic nuance). For how else are we to explain the often simple-minded, cliched melodies and harmonic progressions of pop-music, built on, and often consisting of the three standard diatonic chords; as for example in the songs of Elvis Presley - adulated as the 'King of Rock'n Roll'? Then again, Elvis himself, admitted he knew ''nothing about music''. We might therefore ask ourselves why the recent canonisation and acclaims of 'genius'? The harmonic structure of the 12-bar blues consists of the three most over-used chords in musical history; tonic, dominant and subdominant. Does not the overuse of these three chords represent a kind of regression in musical history? (Today there seems to be a general consensus that music which exceeds, say, three of four chords, is simply too demanding for a non-musically educated audience - and perhaps this is a valid assessment in the wake of the recent acclaim give to such composers as Phillip Glass and other minimalists? We should be warned, however, by Elliott Carter about the psychological and mind-numbing effects of such repetition; a kind of aural indoctrination, that Carter likens to fascism*).
Indeed, there seems to be widespread misapprehension amongst pop-critics today in relation to classical music; they cite the great melodies and harmonies of past composers (usually from the 19th century or before) as an intriguing parallel, failing to realise that such greatness was in part, due to the particular epoch in which they were written. In other words, in their time, such melodies and harmonies were truly innovative and revelatory. However, with regard to the early Romantic composers, for instance, we are discussing a period of musical history at the very least, over 150 years ago. Such innovations have now been superseded and the serious composer would fear to resort to them (unless for specific contextual effect) due to accusations of pastiche and kitsch. And that is one important difference in the critical reception in comparison with modern pop-music; the standards by which a contemporary classical composer is judged are often extreme, due to the weight of a long and illustrious musical history.
So why does so much pop-music (even at best) resort to outmoded harmonies and melodic styles? For in this respect, the music of Presley's 'Love me Tender' could almost have been written by Schubert! Why do so many pop-musicians today not bother to discover an original harmonic or melodic language, since through their 'successes' they certainly aquire enough money in a capitalist world for a musical education? But, that of course, would most likely lead to a marked change of style in their music, betraying some of the reasons why they became famous and succeeded in the first place - relying on the collective gullibility of the non-musically educated public. Thus, many popular music 'artistes' are framed for life, into an embarrassing crowd-pleasing role they continue to play.
Even the rough-hewn, non explicit melodic style of singing, often credited as a 'rock' innovation - as for example in the singing of Bob Dylan or 'Sir' Mick Jagger - has been prefigured throughout history, as in sprechsgesang (speech-song). Other innovations often accredited to rock music include the incorporation of the blues scale with its characteristic augmented fourth and flattened seventh. However, we should recall that even the blues were utilized earlier in the works of notable American and French composers. It could even be argued that Beethoven prefigured Jazz and Bebop by at least 100 years - as in the central 'oom-paa' of the Rondo from his Piano Concerto No 1, or (most especially) the syncopated swing and ecstatic boogie-woogie of the Arietta from the piano sonata, Op 111. (How on earth he composed such music, that sounds almost like Oscar Peterson, in the early 1800's remains a miraculous mystery). In addition, classical music's absorption of Eastern musics - such as Chinese and Indian modes and rhythms, the exotic soundworld of the Indonesian Gamelan - all seem to predate modern pop and rock experiments in the West; as in the French 'Impressionist' school, later culminating in the works of Messiaen and Boulez.
Even if Schoenberg's formal designs were sometimes not wholly suited to his musical expressionism, the potentials of his transformations of musical language have been incalcuble. We must banish the myth of 'atonal' music. Schoenberg, in fact, preferred the expression pantonal or 'supra-tonal ' music, and I see why; becuase of the natural harmonic overtones of any given pitch (of which the principal overtone is the dominant 5th) gives it a diatonic definition within the context and relationship of tonalities. Indeed, this approach might improve our listening and appreciation of modernist, so-called 'atonal' music - as a residue/reservoir of tonal associations. No composer understood this better than Luigi Nono, when he threaded notes, fragments and lines of melody between various voices and instruments (often in an extension of Schoenberg's klangfarbenmelodie technique). For pantonal music presupposes and cultivates a heightened consiousness and sensibility on the part of its listeners.
On the other hand, it could be argued that after Schoenberg and after micro-tonality, harmony ceased to be the progressive force it once was. Rather, it was rhythmic complexity and (especially) new instrumentation (as in electronica and volume!) that assumed priority. These specific criteria have often been used in attempting to justify and excuse the musical validity of so much pop and rock music. The first assertion (rhythm), however, is to ignore the degree of rhythmic complexity attained by Stravinsky's ballet scores in the earliest decades of the 20th century. As Boulez recently remarked in his interview with The Guardian (26/04/2008), even rhythms used in 1913 (The Rite of Spring) are of greater interest than those of The Rolling Stones. And such polyrhythmic complexity has developed considerably and has become integral to the musical languages of Elliott Carter and Brian Ferneyhough, not to mention Boulez himself. Add to that, the enrichment afforded by absorption of Asian and African musics (as in Indian and African drumming) in the works of Steve Reich and others; the rhythmic complexity sometimes considered a unique hallmark of Rock seems to me far fetched. As for pop-music, much like Minimalism, it is often characterised by a routine monotony of pulse.
With regard to the second assertion (modern instrumentation), we are speaking primarily of electronic instruments (although the criterion of the new could equally apply to an eccentric American maverick like Harry Partch - who had the audacity to invent and build his own acoustic instruments for performances of his music). Contrary to popular belief, it was composers such as Verese, Eimert, Koenig, Babbitt and Stockhausen who are formally credited to have created the first electronic music (during the late 1940s/early 50s); a practise later pursued with increasing subtlety and sophistication by such pioneers as Nono and Xenakis. To this day, there is a comparatively neglected tradition that has continued, developing the latest computer-programming in the electro-acoustic field, as in the French 'spectral' school of composers - often ignored by the wider public. Nonetheless, as the music of Wolfgang Rihm and others proves; advancements in technology constitute no ground to dismiss what originality has been and is still to be achieved with conventional instruments (and of course their potential possibilities resulting from further interaction with electronic instruments and technologies).
I would hope any contemporary music displays some awareness of Schoenberg, as well as the innovations of the past 60 years (as for example, in the music from the 'Darmstadt' school). However, that informs us of the inherent paradox of pop-music in our time; that it strives to be serious art, but is limited by an immediate commercial necessity - the yardstick by which pop-music is measured and considered 'successful' popular music. And if pop-music as 'art' is measured by immediate, monetary (commercial) success, what are the meaining of words like musical innovation and historical influence, or even musical development?
When the musical artist begins to compose for a specific public in mind (as indeed, most pop-music is conceived), the prospects of originality seem to regress. It was Schoenberg who once declared "my works are played everywhere and acclaimed in such a manner that I started to doubt the value of my music". He thereafter, reassured himself of his mission in 'developing his ideas for the sake of progress in music', however immediately unpopular the results might be. The immediate necessity to be popular is not a requirement of serious art, and explains the often belated recognition of truly pioneering composers. It is an argument further elucidated by Hegel in his Philosophy of the Right .
| 'Thus to be independent of all public opinion is the first fromal condition of achieving anything great or rational whether in life or in science. Great achievement is assured, however, of subsequent recognition and grateful acceptance by public opinion, which in due course will make it one of its own prejudices.' |
|
The fact that this statement comes from a German thinker in not co-incidental, and such mentality may partly explain why throughout history, Austro-Germany have produced the greatest composers (and philosophers) while Britain has lagged behind. This is not surprising considering in Germany, a great distinction is made between 'Ernst-musik' (serious music) and 'Unterhaltung-musik' (popular music). And while innovation and originality themselves do not necessarily make great composers, they are undeniably important factors. However, as I have mentioned, channels of mass-communication in the UK have long been hijacked by power-hungry 'philistines' with no inclination towards 'kultur' and education (Bildung) whatsoever. Indeed, it is telling how many of Britain's most important contemporary composers (such as Ferneyhough and James Dillon) have had to find performances and audiences abroad, simply because there is not the infrastructure nor sufficient artistic and public interest in the UK necessary to promote them. And it should be noted that Hegel's argument is only valid within and intellectually progressive world, where there is interest and regard for past achievements.
Unlike Germany, we neither seem to elevate serious composers nor philosophers. Even if the UK produced individuals comparable to say, Gadamer or Habermas (and for all we know, it might have done!) - they would largely go unnoticed by the wider public. It may be that composers such as Helmut Lachenmann or even Wolfgang Rihm would not be able survive in a British 'culture' or rather, lack of it. Modern Germany undoubtedly has its problems (how could it not?), but regard, esteem and funding of its own artists, composers and intellectuals is not one of them. German composers generally come with a lot of backpacking; philosopical theorizing about music, art, aesthetics..... which lends them a prominent social, cultural standing (in German magazines, newspapers, even television). Hence, such figures become culturally influential. One could hardly say the same about serious British composers, since public interest in such culture and aesthetics is so low, the relationship between the arts in this country so oblique. Thus we do not elevate our important cultural figures, our real champions in the field of music. As a result, we do not champion our champions, since by and large, we do not have the education and culture to recognise our champions, instead opting to exult the mediocre and commonplace. We could say that the situation for the contemporary composer in Britain is perhaps the 'worst of all possible worlds' (to reverse Benthams's famous dictum).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
apatrick
Bevillia