Where should music go now - after modernism?

[starrynight]

If someone just copies the Brahms style then it would likely be just a poor substitute.  But if they add something fresh and individual and develop it in some sense then it might still be worth hearing.  No one composer should have a monopoly on developing a style.  If that was the case nobody would listen to Mozart as people would say earlier composers like Haydn and JC Bach had done the style before.

[Grazioso]

(Italics mine.) No, I don't think that's the only quarrel.  I am on board with Edward's remark:

Ah, but that's assuming it would be a bad imitation. That would be like Brahms ultimately saying, "Screw it. Beethoven wrote the greatest symphonies. There's no way anyone can ever compete. I'm heading to the Red Hedgehog..." and never fighting to overcome his trepidation in the matter.

Can one write good music using existing forms and styles, or can it only be good if it's utterly different? You can find countless composers who call to mind some other composer's work, or who could be classified as Romantic or Impressionist or whatever. Is their work therefore bad or derivative? If you follow that logic to its conclusion, every composer would have to reinvent the entire musical wheel. Haydn and Mozart, for instance, would no longer be given credence because of their commonalities. I sure don't want to go down that path.

[starrynight]

Ah, but that's assuming it would be a bad imitation. That would be like Brahms ultimately saying, "Screw it. Beethoven wrote the greatest symphonies. There's no way anyone can ever compete. I'm heading to the Red Hedgehog..." and never fighting to overcome his trepidation in the matter.

That's what Wagner said I think, and he was wrong as quite a few good symphonies have been done after Beethoven.

[Luke]

I would have no problem if a contemporary composer wrote in a style that sounded exactly like the high Baroque, as long as the music were enjoyable. If anything, I'd give him or her extra credit for pulling off the clever stylistic coup of using old forms and instruments and methods to express something new and personal.

(my italics)

If someone just copies the Brahms style then it would likely be just a poor substitute.  But if they add something fresh and individual and develop it in some sense then it might still be worth hearing. 

Both of you add the proviso that 'something new and personal'/'something fresh and individual' be present, which makes me think positions are closer than maybe it seems.

[karlhenning]

Yes, those provisos vitiate the if only music were like it was in Brahms's day! vibe.

[starrynight]

Right now is potentially the best period for music there has ever been.

[DavidW]

Yes, those provisos vitiate the if only music were like it was in Brahms's day! vibe.

If only music were like it was in Brahms day, then it would be completely out of sync with current culture, history and art!

[Grazioso]

(my italics)

Both of you add the proviso that 'something new and personal'/'something fresh and individual' which makes me think positions are closer than maybe it seems.

Unless someone were plagiarizing, I don't know how he could possibly compose music without it being new and individual. The question is: to what, if any, extent do we hold him to a standard of ideological purity in which his work is rejected if it recalls existing styles? How "new" does it have to be? Why is stylistic novelty so important? A good melody is a good melody, regardless of the trappings. I don't hate Vivaldi, Bach, and Handel for all using a continuo. I don't think less of RVW for not having written "Aleatory Structures 3.14 for 12 Radios, Air-Raid Siren, and Horrified Mime."

Yes, those provisos vitiate the if only music were like it was in Brahms's day! vibe.

Heck, I rarely listen to Brahms  But his name was convenient... And the questions elicited are serious.

If only music were like it was in Brahms day, then it would be completely out of sync with current culture, history and art!

Is that inherently a problem? Are composers supposed to do their own thing or try to reflect their times?

You want music of today's culture, something with relevance? Here you go   

[DavidW]

Is that inherently a problem? Are composers supposed to do their own thing or try to reflect their times?

That is a false dichotomy.  By doing their own thing they will reflect our times.  This is pretty much what Leon said a few pages ago.  Composers do not create in a vacuum.

[Grazioso]

That is a false dichotomy.  By doing their own thing they will reflect our times.  This is pretty much what Leon said a few pages ago.  Composers do not create in a vacuum.

That doesn't necessarily follow. Music may reflect the times in terms of following or catering to prevailing aesthetic tastes, it may express a widespread religious sentiment, it may be a response to political pressures or historical events (e.g., Shostakovich). But, equally, it may have nothing to with current events, societal norms, etc. If anything, a composer might be more individual--detached from society and its expectations--if he put notes to paper without any such concerns.

[Luke]

Unless someone were plagiarizing, I don't know how he could possibly compose music without it being new and individual.

I think it's perfectly possible. I could compose a piece that used only stlystic features of, say, Mozart - even if it would be bereft of his genius. But it would have no real value.

The question is: to what, if any, extent do we hold him to a standard of ideological purity in which his work is rejected if it recalls existing styles? How "new" does it have to be? Why is stylistic novelty so important? A good melody is a good melody, regardless of the trappings. I don't hate Vivaldi, Bach, and Handel for all using a continuo. I don't think less of RVW for not having written "Aleatory Structures 3.14 for 12 Radios, Air-Raid Siren, and Horrified Mime."

I think this is a strawman, because I don't see anyone arguing the opposite. No one is talking about a 'standard of ideological purity,' 'rejecting works which recall existing styles', or proclaiming that 'stylistic novelty' is all. The important question, IMO, isn't 'how new does it have to be', it is 'how individual does it have to be?'

And that's what I tried to say before - that it is the individuality of the music that is important, that gives it communicative power. By default music that is individual will also be original, new, novel, but of itself that isn't the point. For example, Ravel is more or less as novel and new and original as Debussy; his value lies much less in what new things he brought to the table but in his individual style.

[Brahmsian]

The answer:



Just kidding folks.  Carry on.   

[not edward]

At a practical level I think there's a simpler practical matter involved: someone good enough to write Brahms at Brahms' level would probably have enough of his/her own personality to want to write music in his/her own style rather than Brahms'. Outright stylistic imitation doesn't tend to go hand in hand with superb creativity (even though there's nothing saying that it can't).

[starrynight]

That doesn't necessarily follow. Music may reflect the times in terms of following or catering to prevailing aesthetic tastes, it may express a widespread religious sentiment, it may be a response to political pressures or historical events (e.g., Shostakovich). But, equally, it may have nothing to with current events, societal norms, etc. If anything, a composer might be more individual--detached from society and its expectations--if he put notes to paper without any such concerns.

And classical music is now less central to present day culture than popular music, so you could argue that gives classical music more freedom from what is expected than in some previous periods.

[Grazioso]

I think this is a strawman, because I don't see anyone arguing the opposite. No one is talking about a 'standard of ideological purity,' 'rejecting works which recall existing styles', or proclaiming that 'stylistic novelty' is all. The important question, IMO, isn't 'how new does it have to be', it is 'how individual does it have to be?'

On the contrary, we do have posters advocating a music "of today," taken in either sense: as something literally of our time, or something reflecting our time, with the corollary implication that styles of yesterday no longer have or should have currency because they supposedly reflect bygone eras.

But I think you and I fundamentally agree nonetheless: as I said, I don't much care about the externals in terms of whether music calls to mind other composers, employs existing ideas, breaks radical new ground, etc. I care about whether it captures my attention and moves me. Bantock, for a random example, may not rock the musical world with bold new techniques but I can still enjoy his work. He may call to mind other composers, but he's nevertheless his own man.

And yet, does it not become hard to divorce the idea of expression from style? "Le style c'est l'homme même." Is not individuality in music measured at least in part by how a composer employs, tweaks, re-invents, obviates, or discards existing stylistic devices and ideals?

[DavidW]

If anything, a composer might be more individual--detached from society and its expectations--if he put notes to paper without any such concerns.

But introversion is still a reflection of the world we live in!  And with each composer that you can name that fits that description, their music is still influenced by their fellow contemporary composers.  You keep constructing an idealized composer in a vacuum that simply does not exist and will never exist.

[DavidW]

And classical music is now less central to present day culture than popular music, so you could argue that gives classical music more freedom from what is expected than in some previous periods.

I think you're confused.  Grazioso was talking about the influence of culture on the composer, you're talking about the influence of the composer on culture.

[starrynight]

No, what is expected of a composer from their culture is the influence of the culture on the composer.

[Mn Dave]

Time to hang it up.

What comes after music...?

[starrynight]

Silence. or the end of life even.