Monday, November 9, 2009

New Music is Not A Style

A sentiment I run across from musicians and more musically savvy non-musicians (usually soon after I let them in on the fact that I'm a composer), is that they like minimalism (and yes... it is always minimalism), but are not a fan of most "New Music" or "Contemporary Music." While I'm usually too sleepy or disinterested to beat them until they realize how absurd their statement is, sometimes I will put down my drink and pull out my graduation cap, chalkboard, and ghetto blaster to go over this idea with them.

So first, I generally try and see how much they've actually thought this through, rather than going with their gut reaction after they were forced to listen to Pierrot Lunaire (1912) and thought it was weird. I try and see what they consider to be contemporary. Oftentimes, I am amazed to see how far they go back in this timeline, apparently unware of the definition of the word contemporary. Phrases like "Well, I like early contemporary music, like the Firebird" get bandied about. PRO TIP: If you wouldn't consider the Model T a contemporary automobile, then don't consider a piece of music that was premiered during its production life so either. But being pedantic doesn't tend to win people over so let's move on.

Usually around this time, you can figure out whether this person has really listened to much "new" music or was just scared off by early serialism and never looked back (side note for another blog: I think the reason people find this early atonality and serialism hard to appreciate has more to do with a lack of passion in the music than the notes themselves; a lot of these pieces tend to be very spacious, academic, and intropective, without a lot of stable ground for listeners.) It isn't exactly hard to completely avoid significant exposure to new music nowadays, even if you are a rabid consumer of classical tradition music. Much like the spread of the internet has caused people to pick the news outlets that most fit in to their point of view to continue to solidify their position without opposition, the availability of cheap recordings has allowed people to build up a sizeable amount of art music exposure without ever having to leave the safety of the 1800's.

(I may go in to a rant about classical recordings another day... seriously, I know another set of Brahms or Beethoven Symphonies will probably sell, but you can't milk that forver. I recently looked for a recording of Shebalin Symphony No. 5, after reading that Shostakovich considered it one of the most important pieces of Russian symphonic music... one out of print recording. gah.)

At this point, pump up the jams. Start with big names or important pieces, throw in some more listener friendly stuff, but by no means do I think we should sugarcoat contemporary music for people and pretend it is all Michael Torke and Eric Ewazen out there. You may be shocked to find what speaks to certain people; I've had just as many people resond to pieces like Black Angels, De Stijl, or Winds of Nagual as have responded well to more neo-romantic and neo-tonal music. You may even try some later serialists like Karel Husa or Gunther Schuller to show them that even the most dreaded of musical styles developed in to something with more soul to it.

Play them as wide a range of music as you have time for. What you want to impress upon them, is that now, more than ever, new and contemporary doesn't refer to anything meaningful. There are very few composers, even academics, who follow a strict school of composition anymore. Figure out where their musical interests lie and focus on that, but also play music outside of their preferred idiom. In my opinion, this is also a great time to introduce them to instruments and ensembles that they may not be acquainted with as the 20th century really saw an expansion of music written for non-traditional ensembles. If anyone is interested in pieces I would suggest playing, I'll be more than happy to do so, but I assume most people who will be reading this already have an arsenal of pieces to play.

Something I find fun to illustrate the fracturous nature of new music is to play pieces by Milton Babbitt, Corigliano, Ewazen, and Whitacre to someone. Then explain to them that all of them were either teachers or students at Juilliard towards the end of the 20th century or 21st century.

Overall the goal is to educate them on the variety of new music out there. If they seriously claim to hate everything you play them, assuming you played a wide enough variety of styles, then they are just being stubborn and there ain't no educating stubborn. It is also important to realize that not every style is going to reach every person. Hell, I love new music, but for the most part I can't stand electronic art music. The goal here is to find a niche that speaks to them, so that you can infiltrate their listening practices with music from composers who are still alive to appreciate the support, and in turn hopefully they will support the performance of new music. You want to shock the person in to realizing what they've been missing by making a blanket dismissal of all "new" music.

Anyways, let's wrap this up for today, kiddos. Feel free to post any thoughts or suggestions on what I should write about next in the comments. And by "feel free" I obviously mean "I demand you." Seriously, I do better with input.

No comments:

Post a Comment