Where should music go now - after modernism?

[Guido]

One of the ironies of classical music is that listeners and musicians will play and enjoy a centuries-old piece of music and treat it not as a quaint historical artifact but as a living, relevant, timeless entertainment. But then there's a critical perspective that treats music history as a succession of revolutions, with each new style or technique rendering the previous one moribund.

You may still listen to Brahms, but you may no longer compose like him?

The question is, does it still make sense to compose like Brahms. Is it even possible?

[Grazioso]

The question is, does it still make sense to compose like Brahms. Is it even possible?

Possible? Presumably. There's nothing logically preventing someone from emulating or drawing on his style--or any other "bygone" style--today. Desirable? Depends on your perspective: does music have to be strikingly new and different to be relevant or entertaining? 

Since the world of 2011 is very different from the world of Brahms' day, I doubt it.

And yet we still listen to it with few problems--and not as a museum artifact estranged from us by the passage of time, but as something ever-contemporary.

[not edward]

The question is, does it still make sense to compose like Brahms. Is it even possible?

To my mind, the problem tends to resolve itself into a practical one: Why would I want to hear a bad imitation of Brahms when I can listen to the real thing?

I can't help but believe that someone good enough to write Brahms at Brahms' level would probably want to write music in at least a subtly different style.

[DavidW]

The anxiety of influence at work? If that quote can be taken at face value, he was busy looking at the fingers pointing at the moon, instead of the moon itself, to borrow a Zen metaphor. He defines his perceived dilemma through exclusion and negation, through a false dichotomy.

I thought the point of the quote was that it is a false dichotomy and Ligeti chose a third way.  He didn't say/write that thinking there were only two ways.

[not edward]

The anxiety of influence at work? If that quote can be taken at face value, he was busy looking at the fingers pointing at the moon, instead of the moon itself, to borrow a Zen metaphor. He defines his perceived dilemma through exclusion and negation, through a false dichotomy.

I think that Ligeti was pointing up two directions he did not wish to follow; a retreat into shallow repeats of the past and a wholehearted embrace of the techniques of his Darmstadt colleagues (with whom he always had a somewhat uneasy relationship). Certainly, there's no way that he could have been said to have rejected the past--his micropolyphonic period is heavily indebted to Ockeghem and his contemporaries, and he was fairly open that the late works stemmed in part from his love of Stravinsky, Bartok and Janacek--but he still sounded most definitely new while accepting that influence.

There's probably a personal aspect at play as well, given Ligeti's well-known horror of dogma. Not that surprising that a socialist-leaning (but not communist) Jewish Hungarian kid who lost most of his family in the Holocaust, then watched the Russian backed communists crush the hope that he and his fellow countryman had after WW2. He didn't exactly compare some of the more egregious attacks of dogma from his Darmstadt colleagues to that, but made it clear that they made him feel extremely uneasy. And the guy who, as elected head of the student union, was approached by the secret police and asked to inform on his fellow students--and responded by resigning on the spot--certainly wasn't going to let his colleagues push him around. Instead of the false dichotomy, he found a different path, and a very individual one.

[Luke]

Good point, Edward (I'm replying to your next-to-last post, I haven't read the more recent ones yet). And Brahms is Brahms just as any composer x is themself. Any composer worth his or her salt will likely 'be themselves' not (necessarily) as part of some consciously-held aesthetic position concerning not copying others, but simply because if you are a dedicated composer, in the end your own whateverness will emerge.

Personally I feel that opposing modernism and anti-modernism (and indeed most musical isms) is a somewhat misleading stance. In reality, tonality and atonality (which is to a large extent what we mean by the modern/anti-modern pairing) are not a black and white pairing, there is plenty of grey in between (and such exciting greys, too!); IOW there is plenty of room for a composer to explore and discover just the right area for himself.

If in doing so the composer finds the area on that infinite tonal-atonal spectrum that suits him best (and does the same on all the other spectra of musical parameters) he will almost as a byproduct create something entirely new. To use Janacek as an example - there is nothing atonal in his music, there are no sophisticated formal experiments or techniques...and yet his music was as radical and new and relevant in its own way when it was written as were the contemporary scores of Hindemith or the Second Viennese, because it was so utterly, purely Janacek that it could not avoid being unique and potent. If I were that way inclined I would say that if each of us has within us our own spark of the divine, isolating it and putting it to musical or other use will create something very powerful and unique; more prosaically I could just say that we are all individuals, and if one can find the way to represent our individuality musically, the results will be interesting to say the least. And even if they are repellent to others, at least they will be honest to the composer himself - that's importnt too, IMO 

So to me, it is this species of Newness, and not this construct called 'Modernism' about which I give little thought, that is interesting, important, indeed vital in music: the newness that comes from an individual expressing themselves in their own unique way. The Newness that comes from the synthetic invention of techniques etc can be incredibly valuable and productive, but it is the other sort which is a constant throughout musical history and which is shared by the great composers. IMO.

Waffle, as usual

[Mirror Image]

I think that Ligeti was pointing up two directions he did not wish to follow; a retreat into shallow repeats of the past and a wholehearted embrace of the techniques of his Darmstadt colleagues (with whom he always had a somewhat uneasy relationship). Certainly, there's no way that he could have been said to have rejected the past--his micropolyphonic period is heavily indebted to Ockeghem and his contemporaries, and he was fairly open that the late works stemmed in part from his love of Stravinsky, Bartok and Janacek--but he still sounded most definitely new while accepting that influence.

There's probably a personal aspect at play as well, given Ligeti's well-known horror of dogma. Not that surprising that a socialist-leaning (but not communist) Jewish Hungarian kid who lost most of his family in the Holocaust, then watched the Russian backed communists crush the hope that he and his fellow countryman had after WW2. He didn't exactly compare some of the more egregious attacks of dogma from his Darmstadt colleagues to that, but made it clear that they made him feel extremely uneasy. And the guy who, as elected head of the student union, was approached by the secret police and asked to inform on his fellow students--and responded by resigning on the spot--certainly wasn't going to let his colleagues push him around. Instead of the false dichotomy, he found a different path, and a very individual one.

Excellent post, Edward. Ligeti was a master and I find his music much more appealing than any member of the Darmstadt School. I love how he forged his own path. The thing that I respect about Ligeti is that he never purposely ran away from the past. He accepted it's influence, but he forged that influence with his own creative ways of thinking to form something completely individual. Ligeti also wanted his music to be accessible to people. What member of Darmstadt actually cared about what the general public thought? I admire Ligeti for being aware that the way to make meaningful music is for it to be understood by an audience.

[starrynight]

Brahms died in 1897.

Thing is, Brahms was influenced  by his world when wrote the music.  No cars, no jet planes, no computers, no Internet, etc.  - his world was a much slower and quieter place and his music reflects that reality.  His music was alive with his times when he wrote it.

While we can listen and enjoy it today, much like we can enjoy reading a period novel and taking an imagery time trip to the past (and appreciate whatever universal themes are represented), a composer working today cannot write that same music because of the very different reality he lives in.  One might attempt to recreate music in the style of Brahms, but it would be a fraud, IMO.

At least that's how I think of it.

But is the audience for music really just interested in escapism when listening to older styles?  Is there really that big a divergence between why an audience listens to music and why a composer composes music?

[Cato]

Good point, Edward (I'm replying to your next-to-last post, I haven't read the more recent ones yet). And Brahms is Brahms just as any composer x is themself. Any composer worth his or her salt will likely 'be themselves' not (necessarily) as part of some consciously-held aesthetic position concerning not copying others, but simply because if you are a dedicated composer, in the end your own whateverness will emerge.

...So to me, it is this species of Newness, and not this construct called 'Modernism' about which I give little thought, that is interesting, important, indeed vital in music: the newness that comes from an individual expressing themselves in their own unique way. The Newness that comes from the synthetic invention of techniques etc can be incredibly valuable and productive, but it is the other sort which is a constant throughout musical history and which is shared by the great composers. IMO.

Waffle, as usual

I am reminded of an essay on Schoenberg's Piano Concerto by Alfred Brendel, where he wrote that the composer's "mistakes" in the score gave him a headache!  Do you correct the mistake, to follow the strictures of the 12-tone method? 

Or was Schoenberg following his ear, his inspiration, his personality, whatever you want to call it, at that point, and simply saying: "I like this sound, even if it violates my own rules"

As a very young man, I had a discussion about Schoenberg with Alexander Tcherepnin, some of whose later works dabble with the 12-tone method (e.g. the Fifth Piano Concerto), and I remember giving my opinion that the "atonal" works like Jakobsleiter and the Five Pieces for Orchestra seemed more interesting than the "method" works (e.g. Third String Quartet).  I held that freezing the earlier atonal style into the "composing with 12 tones" method was perhaps a mistake.

Tcherepnin remained non-committal and said I needed to hold that thought while listening to more and different composers.  Perhaps I would change my mind.

Well, only partially: certainly the Piano Concerto and the Violin Concerto are great works.  But the atonal ones still hit me harder.

Of course, "free atonality" can also be seen as a method!  To agree with what Luke has written above: what makes the music of Schoenberg so impressive is that expression of the self.

Minor composers, for whatever reason, remain minor because something prevents them from reaching the heights of the great composers.

So, contemporary inspiration might need to be deeper and more convoluted and even thermonuclear    0:)   to compete with the past and to create an individual sound.

[Grazioso]

But is the audience for music really just interested in escapism when listening to older styles?  Is there really that big a divergence between why an audience listens to music and why a composer composes music?

And that's what I'm getting at. We (supposedly) don't listen to it merely for escapism, but because it's such good art that it is very much relevant to us--or expressed another way, it's universal and not time bound. And if that's case, why is his style no longer relevant or acceptable to a living composer? Is Brahms's--or any composer's--style or methods even separable from the music's content or message?

Thing is, Brahms was influenced  by his world when wrote the music.  No cars, no jet planes, no computers, no Internet, etc.  - his world was a much slower and quieter place and his music reflects that reality.  His music was alive with his times when he wrote it.

While we can listen and enjoy it today, much like we can enjoy reading a period novel and taking an imagery time trip to the past (and appreciate whatever universal themes are represented), a composer working today cannot write that same music because of the very different reality he lives in.  One might attempt to recreate music in the style of Brahms, but it would be a fraud, IMO.

I of course take your point, but then you have to ask: in what way can/should music represent the Zeitgeist of its creator? We live in a very fast-paced, secular society, and we end up with the slow, meditative liturgical of music Arvo Pärt

I should add--and I hoped this would be taken as given--that I don't desire or expect a contemporary composer to literally emulate Brahms as some sort of pastiche. But it raises an interesting question, I think, that we can simultaneously treat older musical idioms as timeless and time-bound, relevant and outdated.

[Cato]

I of course take your point, but then you have to ask: in what way can/should music represent the Zeitgeist of its creator? We live in a very fast-paced, secular society, and we end up with the slow, meditative liturgical of music Arvo Pärt

One thinks of Monet and his water-lily paintings created during and in contrast to the raging madness of World War I.  Artists can react against their surroundings, of course, as well as symbolizing it directly.

[not edward]

What member of Darmstadt actually cared about what the general public thought?

I think the Darmstadt group varied quite widely in terms of the accessibility question. For many, at least when they were younger, I think it mattered less as they felt they were following a necessary path, and were writing music which fell into this one true path (though such composers often mellowed as they grew older). Others, perhaps most obviously Berio and Nono, were deeply concerned with the ability of their music to communicate: when Stockhausen praised Il Canto sospeso for allegedly obfuscating the meaning of the texts, Nono was so angry that he barely spoke to Stockhausen again.

[jochanaan]

The new composers that interest me most aim for a synthesis of styles.  Hovhaness (deceased within the last decade) synthesized EuroAmerican classicism with various Asian musics; Gorecki did the same with modernism and ancient Polish modes; Tan Dun does it with traditional Chinese musics and other modern techniques.  As long as such musicians avoid doing mere pastiches, such syntheses intrigue me.

Other intriguing musicians may reach to an ideal that stands against cultural trends, such as Morton Feldman's extraordinarily contemplative music.

There are lots of ways to go--and STILL lots of good music to be written in C major!  And in 12-tone!

[Mirror Image]

I think the Darmstadt group varied quite widely in terms of the accessibility question. For many, at least when they were younger, I think it mattered less as they felt they were following a necessary path, and were writing music which fell into this one true path (though such composers often mellowed as they grew older). Others, perhaps most obviously Berio and Nono, were deeply concerned with the ability of their music to communicate: when Stockhausen praised Il Canto sospeso for allegedly obfuscating the meaning of the texts, Nono was so angry that he barely spoke to Stockhausen again.

I still need to hear some of Berio's music. Any suggestions? Sinfonia?

[starrynight]

I think the most important thing about a composer of today, is that he has heard not only all of Brahms' music but of every important composer since Brahms.  Just as importantly as the changes in our world, having experienced the music since Brahms, e.g. Schoenberg, Stockhausen, The Beatles, will force a composer to approach music-making differently than Brahms.

One simply cannot act as though nothing has happened since 1897 and remain a credible voice of new music.

And who or what decides whether someone's style is credible or not?  Music is likely to ignore certain developments as well, composers can't very easily take into account every musical development in the 20th century within a piece, it would probably just sound a mess if they did.  A composer will pick and choose from the past several hundred years what appeals to them, and the same for the audience.  And although you can look at more modern music as developing away from older styles the other way of looking at it is that they have grown from those older styles.

[not edward]

I still need to hear some of Berio's music. Any suggestions? Sinfonia?

This disc:

[asin]B00000E45Y[/asin]

Folk Songs -- Berio at his most audience-friendly, and a whole lot of fun.
Sinfonia -- Berio at his most experimental.
Formazioni -- the 'late Berio' style; almost a kinder, gentler Darmstadt.

The availability of it can be somewhat erratic, but it usually shows up after a while.

[Grazioso]

I think the most important thing about a composer of today, is that he has heard not only all of Brahms' music but of every important composer since Brahms.  Just as importantly as the changes in our world, having experienced the music since Brahms, e.g. Schoenberg, Stockhausen, The Beatles, will force a composer to approach music-making differently than Brahms.

One simply cannot act as though nothing has happened since 1897 and remain a credible voice of new music.

But ask yourself this: What if you were to do a blindfold listening test and heard a great Classical Era symphony that blew your socks of. "Not Mozart, not Haydn, who could it be? I don't know, but this is great stuff!" And it turns out to have been written last week. Would you like it less? One wonders how much intellectual baggage we all bring to our listening experiences; how much of it adds to our enjoyment, but equally, how much of it hurts?

One thinks of Monet and his water-lily paintings created during and in contrast to the raging madness of World War I.  Artists can react against their surroundings, of course, as well as symbolizing it directly.

Sure. And some may not (consciously) react at all. But should they if their art is to be deemed relevant? Does an artist have to engage with his times to be credible? Certainly that raises an awkward situation in instrumental music: how can notes portray politics, economics, social issues....? Maybe a rapidly descending bass line to represent the tanking economy 

[Mirror Image]

This disc:

[asin]B00000E45Y[/asin]

Folk Songs -- Berio at his most audience-friendly, and a whole lot of fun.
Sinfonia -- Berio at his most experimental.
Formazioni -- the 'late Berio' style; almost a kinder, gentler Darmstadt.

The availability of it can be somewhat erratic, but it usually shows up after a while.

Thanks Edward. I've actually been looking at this recording for awhile, but the price has never been right.

[not edward]

Yes, it's a true rarity to find a disc that's cheaper on amazon.ca than it is on amazon.com!

Unfortunately the other Sinfonias I've heard just can't match Chailly, so with that in mind and the excellent coupling for Chailly's disc, I'd hold out for a better price.

[Mirror Image]

Yes, it's a true rarity to find a disc that's cheaper on amazon.ca than it is on amazon.com!

Unfortunately the other Sinfonias I've heard just can't match Chailly, so with that in mind and the excellent coupling for Chailly's disc, I'd hold out for a better price.

Will do, Edward.