|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.126.5.126
Sorry - it's mainly a cut and paste (link below), but I was amused by it:
MAKING CLASSICAL MUSIC RELEVANT
perhaps there is nothing more ephemeral
than being relevant. Let's look at
some past trends in which stodgy old
classical music failed to fully
interact with the youth demographic:
in 1967, classical woefully failed
to issue more psychedelic performances
of it's Beethoven Fifths, thus
distancing itself from the young, who
are the future of music.
in 1972, classical's outdated idiom
failed to "funkify" it's productions,
again loosing the opportunity for
growth with the times.
in 1976, classical music actually had
performances without disco in it, so
how the hell could this appeal to
the young, slick and fasionable?
In 1980, Pac-man failed to show up
as a continuo to our Mozart symphonies,
laughably showing our distance from the
common man, losing the youth market.
in 1989, gangsta rap was despised by
conductors and orchestra management,
but what else could orchestras have done
do keep up with the times but harmonize
with the music of real people, and not
the pretend world of the classics?
in 1992, the grunge movement was again
turned down by classical's aging listeners,
denying the opportunity for mutual
celebration of art forms with the kids.
in 1999, sadly the Britney symphony was
turned down, even before production, going
against the marketers suggestions to
give classical music more appeal to tweens.
If we only listened to these experts, we
could have saved Classical Music from
becoming irrelavnt; but is there any last
ditch effort we could do to save it, and get
with the times?
Follow Ups:
It seems to me that the crux of the problem is a philosophical and, dare I say, spiritual one. I think that it stems from the fact that our country is only a few hundred years old-- a blip in time. We have a culture that worships the new and the current in just about every facet. It sells. And yes, in times past this was also true; before Liszt, musicians performed their own works, by and large.
And still, books, music, ideas, and most experiences are new when we have them initially, regardless of when, say, a composition is or was written. If I haven't heard a particular Bach Cantata before, it is new for me. Yes, the cultural context changes as does the form. But do the sentiments or emotions that are aroused change with the passing of time? I wonder... Trying to make music more "relevant" by repackaging seems to miss the mark entirely, to me, and suggests that the wrong questions are being asked by promoters, the record industry and the music business at large. Not that the answers are clear or that I have any, Lord knows:)
The last time classical music composers listened to "experts" and followed new trends in music, we ended up with modernism, which (despite the prediction of Schoenberg) still hasn't caught on with the public after more than a century.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
Maybe this wasn't our composers intentions, but various "modern classical" styles endear themselves extremely well to the dramatic cuts and splices that compose cinematic production, and cinema has proven to be the major art form of the 20th century to present.The ears can endure (and even enjoy) more during a succession of brief listening splices and snippets, especially when the sound is in the service of a dramatic plot and visual stimuli. During longer, more immersive, more studied listening sessions pre-modern musical styles simply work better though.
IMO, cinema - that hybrid thing combining aspects of stage drama, pure visual art, art speech, and musical performance - proved to be the realization of a centuries long yearning in humanity for a more comprehensive art form. Classical opera in the 18th and 19th centuries was one of the instigators of this push toward the more comprehensive artform, which inevitably led to the development and refinement of Romantic classicism and the "pictorial" music of the mid/late 19th century.
Modern musical styles, however, seemed custom made to fit the timely needs of cinematic production. In this sense modernist music has been a big hit with modern peoples in all walks of life.
Edits: 03/03/15 03/03/15
The modernists had a huge impact on American popular culture in the mid-20th century, for example with Disney's memorable 1940 animated feature Fantasia, which prominently featured Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. John Williams famously used elements from the Sacrificial Dance of the Rite of Spring in the main theme in his score for the 1975 movie Jaws. America's leading modernist Aaron Copland also had a major impact. And modernism may have had an even greater overall impact in Europe.
But modernism is old news at this point. It was overtaken long ago by minimalism, which itself has had a major impact on popular culture, including in movies, television shows and even commercials.
Of course, these aesthetic movements encompassed much more than music.
I agree with rbolaw here. Modernism had a HUGE influence on pop culture, especially in the film industry. Many film audiences love the music they here in films today, much of which is a full orchestra, playing very modern music. They will love it if there is a picture with it; whereas if they heard it in the concert hall without the film, they may not like it. It is an interesting phenomenon....
I suppose it depends on what you call modernist vs late-Romantic.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
The terminology is pretty well established in the academic sense. Debussy, Ravel and Stravinksy established modernism in music. Prokofiev, Bartok, Janacek, Shostakovich, Satie, Poulenc, Hindemith, Britten, Copland and most other students of Nadia Boulanger as well as the second Viennese school are generally considered modernists.
Most would say the post-modern era starts with the likes of Boulez, Stockhausen and Cage, and encompasses the minimalists, Glass, Riley, Reich, Part, et al. But we're well into the post-minimalist era now.
For me, "late romantic" means Mahler and Richard Strauss, perhaps Sibelius and Scriabin too.
It's all just arbitrary terminology, of course.
You pretty much made my point for me. What music sells? What composers are played most in concert? Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler, Bruckner, Rachmaninoff, Tchaikovsky -- you know the list. Yes, some modernists do get played or purchased, but not nearly as often.
Academic may not coincide with public opinion. If you ask the average listener who they consider modernist composers, they'll mention maybe Schoenberg, Berg, Cage(and if they even know the names)Varese, Messiaen, Gubaidulina -- composers of that ilk. Based on the music they hear in concert and on the radio, I don't think most listeners would consider Debussy, Ravel, Satie, Poulenc as modernists -- or even Prokofiev, Bartok or Shostakovich, because the most abrasive music by these composers is rarely played in concert or on the radio.
I looked at the list of Modernist Composers on Wikipedia and was laughing. Bach, Haydn, Gershwin, Reger. Uh, no.
Of course, I don't move in the academic music circles, so my opinion could be way off track.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
Your post reminds me of the time in the 1980's, I was teaching these two girls (sisters - one high school, one college age), and I assigned Ravel's Valses nobles et sentimentales to one of them. They were amazed that I would do this, and told me me that in Taiwan (where they were from), Ravel was still considered a MODERN composer - in the 1980's!
Taiwanese children get a good music education. Americans sure don't. :(
Well, yes, but the concert hall has long since become a museum. Like most museums, it is largely conservative in approach, and devoted mostly to the distant past.
Outside the museum, modernism had soundly defeated late romanticism by the 1960s and 70s. Youngsters learned and loved Peter and the Wolf (modernist story as well as modernist music by Prokofiev) and the theme from Jaws. Full Moon And Empty Arms was long gone from the charts, and even in the concert hall, Leonard Bernstein had to work hard to resurrect Mahler.
I freely admit the modernists have now mostly passed away and their peak era is over. (I would define it very roughly as 1910-1980, though by 1950 their successors were emerging). They now have to compete for space on the museum walls with Bach, Beethoven and Brahms.
Just heard a Chinese conductor being interviewed on NPR saying over 40 million children there studying classical music.
Southeast China. Japan too.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: