Is A New Musical Movement Needed?

[Cato]

Last week the Wall Street Journal had an article by Lee Siegel lamenting the lack of a new "ism" in art and literature.

An excerpt:

Amid all the cultural changes surrounding us every day, one of the most consequential has gone entirely unnoticed. We have not had a major artistic movement, in literature or art, for something like 30 years, not since the various offspring of postmodernism blew themselves out in the early 1980s.

Artistic movements were once engines that helped to power the culture and to shape the way that people looked at reality. In the present moment, when so much of our public life is simultaneously polarized and murky, it is striking to remember how an artistic movement could clarify the world around it, project the image of alternate possibilities and challenge artists and their audiences to apply their imaginations to grand new projects.

An artistic movement requires three conditions. One is a strong sense of contemporary context....The second condition that has to be fulfilled for an artistic movement to grow and take shape is a powerful sense of artistic history....Finally an artistic movement has to offer a clear and commanding aesthetic that also possesses elements of a philosophy of life....Of course, artistic movements didn't only embody and clarify social and political tendencies. They could also express spiritual longings that had no social or cultural outlet...

See:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/time-for-a-new-artistic-movement-1419451176?KEYWORDS=Art+Movement

Music was not mentioned in the article.  However, I suspect that one could also wonder about contemporary music in this same context.  Minimalism is going on 40 years of age, as is Neo-Romanticism and "Neo-Renaissance-ism."    Is anyone besides Paert following "Tintinnabulism" ?  And to paraphrase a famous Frenchman:Stockhausen est mort!  (Or seems to be!    0:)   )  Is anyone following his eclectic style these days? 

Having observed contemporary classical music for over 50 years, and having been a composer of sorts, I can say that the question of whether a "Neue Schule" is needed could also be asked.  Is there anything wrong about a culture's creativity if you have everyone following their own styles and paths?  Here at GMG we have Karl Henning and Luke Ottevanger whose compositions can show certain influences of course, but are difficult if not impossible to classify as a "type" of style.   The personality of the composer is the only thing, it seems, unifying their output, which I find quite acceptable!  Of course, possibly in 20 years, one might step back and see that their works were in fact part of a larger, currently unconscious, "movement."  But I am currently skeptical about that.  And one could predict that a future musicologist will define our era's main movement as Individualism!   0:)

I am a fan (and was a composer) of micro-tonality, and have watched with gratification the revival of e.g. the music and instruments of Harry Partch.  However, after so many years of NOT catching on, it seems that this path is doomed to be the Brazil of classical music.  Are there any other embryonic musical movements from the past which might finally develop in a larger way?  Composing with computer programs seems not to have gone anywhere: advances in electronics have affected mainly the creation of better synthesizers and allowing composers to create their scores more quickly.  It is not clear that technology has effected or affected an aesthetic.

[Gurn Blanston]

Are "ism's" not actually identified ex post facto? One doesn't actually consciously invent a new ism, it is only in looking back over a time where one can then gather a seed and its various sprouts and say 'this was X'ism'. Perhaps it has been a lifelong dream of the writer to be the one to name an ism and he hasn't had a good opportunity yet. Needs to pay attention, there is likely one being created right now!

[Cato]

Are "ism's" not actually identified ex post facto? One doesn't actually consciously invent a new ism, it is only in looking back over a time where one can then gather a seed and its various sprouts and say 'this was X'ism'. Perhaps it has been a lifelong dream of the writer to be the one to name an ism and he hasn't had a good opportunity yet. Needs to pay attention, there is likely one being created right now!

True: yet Andre Breton and his Surrealism Manifestos from the early 1920's come to mind, where he offers definitions of and guidelines for the movement, obviously not something ex post facto.

[Fagotterdämmerung]

   I find new music much more unified when I listen to it at new music concerts than it was, say, fifteen-odd years ago. The majority of new music I hear premiered:

   1. Is strongly tonal, though commonly modal and polytonal as well ( rarely atonal or using microtones ).
   2. Has minimalist influences, but isn't purely minimalist ( repetitive polyrhythmic passages, drawn out segments focusing on a single motif ).
   3. Heavily programmatic ( it's rare to just have a title like "Sonata": it's almost always about or depicting something ).
   4. Quiet to mezzo forte. I know how ridiculous this sounds, but the shattering climaxes of the 19th and 20th century seem a little out of vogue.

   Bear in mind, this is the type of new music I hear premiered locally, not necessarily what "big names" are producing now per se. It's also heavily influenced by local concerts' programming choices. None the less, new music is sounding much more homogenous and part of a group that might want an "ism" at some point.

[some guy]

There are a lot of musical trends that you have not mentioned, though. Quite a lot.

A couple of years ago, right around the time Luc Ferrari died, if I recall, the idea of a "great" composer came up, the influential, trend-setting kind of composer whom everyone knew and who set the tone for his (of course it has to be "his," doesn't it? ) followers.

One of the composers present said he didn't think there was anyone like that any more and that that was "just fine."

Which reminded me of Cage's comment about "mainstream" as a metaphor--that we are now in the delta and maybe even already in the ocean.

Still, plenty of musical activity going on. Plenty that has nothing at all to do with tonality in any regard (i.e., CPT or serialism or neo-tonalism). Plenty that has to do with noise and improvisation and live electronics and even still some fixed media stuff and just exploring sound generally wherever it is, however produced. Musique concrète started in 1947 by using a reproducing machine to produce music. Turntables had been similarly used for about 17 years before that. And became significant instruments for many different composer/performers by the early '80s. And every other sound producing device, speakers, CD players, cassette players, radios, and so forth, have been used as instruments to produce music. Indeterminacy is still a powerful idea, probably more powerful than tonality was. Hard to say. We'll see. Or our greatgrandchildren's children will see. Point being that many new -isms will doubtless take place somewhere inside indeterminacy just as many new -isms in the past took place somewhere inside tonality.

Otherwise, as someone who has been involved in new music since 1972, I have no confidence in Siegel's conclusions at all. No surprise there.

[Karl Henning]

Which reminded me of Cage's comment about "mainstream" as a metaphor--that we are now in the delta and maybe even already in the ocean.

Nice!

[Cato]

Many thanks for the comments!

I find the statement that "indeterminacy" is "probably more powerful than tonality was" to be questionable.  I saw too many crappy, experimental "cut-along-this-line" scores in the 1960's and '70's to believe it has seriously challenged tonality as a compositional technique.  Is it one of many possibilities?  Sure, but is it really dominant over tonality?

However, that we are "in the ocean" for contemporary music seems on target!  And if so, then we should have the riches of an ocean for our musico-spiritual edification, rather than a few streams of -isms.  The question raised via the article, is whether the musical ocean is in fact better than the streams: oceans dilute and can bring monotony, as opposed to the twists and turns and rapids and falls found in a stream.

   I find new music much more unified when I listen to it at new music concerts than it was, say, fifteen-odd years ago. The majority of new music I hear premiered:

   1. Is strongly tonal, though commonly modal and polytonal as well ( rarely atonal or using microtones ).
   2. Has minimalist influences, but isn't purely minimalist ( repetitive polyrhythmic passages, drawn out segments focusing on a single motif ).
   3. Heavily programmatic ( it's rare to just have a title like "Sonata": it's almost always about or depicting something ).
  4. Quiet to mezzo forte. I know how ridiculous this sounds, but the shattering climaxes of the 19th and 20th century seem a little out of vogue.

Interesting: perhaps this "quiet" nature is attached to the "new-age music" for meditation trend that started about 20 years ago or so?

[torut]

   I find new music much more unified when I listen to it at new music concerts than it was, say, fifteen-odd years ago. The majority of new music I hear premiered:

   1. Is strongly tonal, though commonly modal and polytonal as well ( rarely atonal or using microtones ).
   2. Has minimalist influences, but isn't purely minimalist ( repetitive polyrhythmic passages, drawn out segments focusing on a single motif ).
   3. Heavily programmatic ( it's rare to just have a title like "Sonata": it's almost always about or depicting something ).
   4. Quiet to mezzo forte. I know how ridiculous this sounds, but the shattering climaxes of the 19th and 20th century seem a little out of vogue.

I think these 4 points well describes general tendencies of (certain types of) new music.

It seems young composers are usually not too dogmatic, they don't think that atonality is the only right direction of music or that music must be always melodic/tonal. They are familiar with different styles, and mix lyrical melodies/harmonies with atonal/abstract elements, for example. (Non-strict) 12-tone and minimalism or intuitive improvisations could join together. These kinds of music are often very attractive to me when it is done well.

I sometimes hear the influences of minimalism even in works of various composers who are not considered as minimalists. I believe minimalism is going to spread and permeate into wide range of new compositions, even if it ceases being a distinct style. "Quiet and mezzo forte" may come from minimalism, which usually do not have dramatic climaxes, and/or it may be the spirit of the current age.

   Bear in mind, this is the type of new music I hear premiered locally, not necessarily what "big names" are producing now per se. It's also heavily influenced by local concerts' programming choices. None the less, new music is sounding much more homogenous and part of a group that might want an "ism" at some point.

I guess a clever person will find an appropriate name. (Post-something or new-something?) It is difficult to grasp something when it does not have a name yet. But in any case I think it will not become a dogmatic ism (like serialism), rather it will be just naming a trend after observations.

[Phrygian]

There are a lot of musical trends that you have not mentioned, though. Quite a lot.

A couple of years ago, right around the time Luc Ferrari died, if I recall, the idea of a "great" composer came up, the influential, trend-setting kind of composer whom everyone knew and who set the tone for his (of course it has to be "his," doesn't it? ) followers.

One of the composers present said he didn't think there was anyone like that any more and that that was "just fine."

Which reminded me of Cage's comment about "mainstream" as a metaphor--that we are now in the delta and maybe even already in the ocean.

Still, plenty of musical activity going on. Plenty that has nothing at all to do with tonality in any regard (i.e., CPT or serialism or neo-tonalism). Plenty that has to do with noise and improvisation and live electronics and even still some fixed media stuff and just exploring sound generally wherever it is, however produced. Musique concrète started in 1947 by using a reproducing machine to produce music. Turntables had been similarly used for about 17 years before that. And became significant instruments for many different composer/performers by the early '80s. And every other sound producing device, speakers, CD players, cassette players, radios, and so forth, have been used as instruments to produce music. Indeterminacy is still a powerful idea, probably more powerful than tonality was. Hard to say. We'll see. Or our greatgrandchildren's children will see. Point being that many new -isms will doubtless take place somewhere inside indeterminacy just as many new -isms in the past took place somewhere inside tonality.

Otherwise, as someone who has been involved in new music since 1972, I have no confidence in Siegel's conclusions at all. No surprise there.

Experimentalism.

[ibanezmonster]

In short: yes. I think it would liven things up a bit.

[Mirror Image]

Personally, I don't think a new musical movement is needed. There are so many contemporary composers' styles that are 'all over the map' anyway that trying to define a new style amongst all of these strands would next to impossible. Just when you think you have a composer pinned down, they do a complete 360, so it's hard to determine where music is heading but one word springs to mind and that's eclecticism.

[Gurn Blanston]

Personally, I don't think a new musical movement is needed. There are so many contemporary composers' styles that are 'all over the map' anyway that trying to define a new style amongst all of these strands would next to impossible. Just when you think you have a composer pinned down, they do a complete 360, so it's hard to determine where music is heading but one word springs to mind and that's eclecticism.

If the do a 360°, aren't they still going in the same direction Just askin'...

[Mirror Image]

If the do a 360°, aren't they still going in the same direction Just askin'...

Ah, yes, but they feel different when they come full circle.

[Cato]

. Of course, the work itself also has much to teach, but one has to be careful not to bind themselves too closely to it, for they could lose themselves.

True, although I am reminded of a story (from Alma Mahler) about Mahler talking to (I think: my book is packed away) Karl Goldmark who said he feared becoming too much like Wagnerand so had stopped listening to him.

Mahler, however, replied that Goldmark "eats beef without becoming an ox."   0:)   If Mahler said this, he obviously had no such  fears about losing himself in Wagner's influence.

Today I see no such problem, since no composer in recent memory has had as much influence on composers.  We have no "Wagner-question," nor Schoenberg-vs.-Stravinsky type of debates.
 

[jochanaan]

Well .. Stockhausen essentially put electronic music on the map...

Maybe, but he stood on the shoulders of Varese and Messiaen and others.

[jochanaan]

The most interesting musicians I know of that are working today seem to have multiple influences and try to find new syntheses of various styles--not really conducive to building a "new movement."  And I too like the delta analogy.

Of course, there's the old question: "What do you do for a revolution when the last revolution eliminated all the rules?"  The answer, as it seems to have appeared in recent years, is to go "forward to the past."  There's good precedent for this: Johannes Brahms and Anton Bruckner are fine historical examples of musicians who looked ahead by looking back.  (And anyone who says anything about Bruckner being a mere Wagnerite obviously does not know his scores, which draw greatly on medieval and Renaissance church music for some of their most impressive moments.)  Ravel, Vaughan Williams and Bartok are others who looked to various old traditions to create new music.

[bigshot]

There won't be any more movements in classical music. Classical music is defined by the concert hall, and in the age of media, the movements have moved into a different place... jazz, rock, popular music, etc. Eventually, those genres will sound old and will be called "classical", but the thread between concert hall music and media music will always be a dividing line.

[jochanaan]

There won't be any more movements in classical music. Classical music is defined by the concert hall, and in the age of media, the movements have moved into a different place... jazz, rock, popular music, etc. Eventually, those genres will sound old and will be called "classical", but the thread between concert hall music and media music will always be a dividing line.

Music history doesn't validate that assertion, bigshot.  First, the concert hall is a very new thing in music, only developing into its present form in the last 100 years or so.  Until about 1800, music of the sort we now call "classical" happened mostly in homes (including royal and noble palaces), theaters, and churches.

Second, there have always been "crossover" composers who took much inspiration from "popular" sources.  Haydn, Beethoven, Mahler, Bartok, Vaughan Williams and Gershwin are among those who have borrowed heavily from folk or popular music.  And Alan Hovhaness, Toru Takemitsu and Tan Dun are fine examples of composers who fused East and West in their music.

Finally, film is a bridge between popular and classical-style music.  Film composers have always been an eclectic lot, and many, such as Erich Wolfgang Korngold, Bernard Herrmann, and John Corigliano, have also written concert music, while many if not a majority of films incorporate both "soundtrack" music and popular-style songs into their scores.

[jochanaan]

I think you ment bigshot as you're quoting him.

Oops! My bad. Fixed.

[ibanezmonster]

What are the newest trends going on in non-classical music, btw?

I only know of dubstep (techno/electronic) and djent (metal), which have become well-known in the last five or so years.